I think it would be really helpful for many lesser used (even all) weapons to get a "property" re-evaluated or second look. Adding the "Light" and/or "Finesse" weapon property to the descriptions to better reflect classes and the real world properties that these items would most likely have and could better suit the D&D classes wielding them.
I'd like there to be a genuine discussion, not a argument. The 5e system is Amazing and applaud those that put some much hard work into. with all the Customization corrections, I think a few Weapon tweaks are just as in order.
I'll start with an example: The Sling has zero weight but does not have "Light" weapon Property?... yet a 3 pound Scimitar does. One could even make the argument about a Sling needing the "Finesse" weapon property also, as it would take a fair amount of skill to wield it effectively. And lets be honest, what STR using is going to pick a 1d4 Sling over a 1d8 Light Crossbow for anything but flavor. It's not that great of a weapon, so why not let a thematic DEX based character us it also?
One of My propose would be: Make any weapon under 3 lbs "light", maybe even "Finesse " as well. This would allow very rarely used (1d4) Whip to be a "light" weapon. The Designers could Rising of weight to the Flails, War pick and Warhammer by 2 pound if they thought a "Light" designation was out of place.... that said not Classes benefiting from "Light" don't tend to use STR and have the Martial weapon Proficiency to wield the weapon. If they do, they have jump through some hoops to do some and should be able to use them.
Some other Proposed changes would be: Give the Whip the "Light" weapon property and/or make it a Simple melee weapon. A Martial weapon proficiency is need to wield this weapon. Yes, the whip is "One-handed", "reach" & "Finesse"... yet it still see so very little play for such an interesting and thematic weapon. It does less than 1/2 half the possible damage of other "reach" weapons. And again any DEX based Class will mostly not have the Weapon proficiency to Duel wielding and receiving the proficiency bonus. A DEX based fighter is the only class with a hope of doing all this, which would be niche' and unused except to the Thematic player... who still only get a 1d4 on attack.
The Morningstar is 13 pounds heavier version of the War Pick, doing the same damage and Damage type... How an about, 1d4 Bludgeoning & 1d4 Piercing, maybe even "finesse" as you have to be skilled enough to not be hit by the returning star after a strike, this would be Amazingly flavorful a player could utilizes the bonus from the Great Weapon Fighter" fighting style. The easier fix would be to give the 2 lbs War Pick the "light" & Finesse" ... lots of option that could be played with to differentiate these two seemingly Identical weapons. The Glaive and Halbert have the same problem but they are exactly the same....weight in all. Make one Finesse *shrug*
Has anyone else notice the weapon inconsistencies, is there a change you feel to be addressed?
Sling doesn't need finesse because it is a ranged weapon which automatically uses DEX. Darts say 'finesse' because thrown weapons otherwise use STR.
I agree that whip should be light, but disagree it should be simple. Simple weapons are something anyone can use while whips probably require more training than most martial weapons to use properly. I kind of wish whip + some others were locked behind an exotic keyword that made proficiency more difficult to acquire but justified weapons that were a little stronger.
If you look at the way they value reach, whip makes sense. Polearms are dropped 2 'steps' from the top heavy weapon standard to compensate for reach. 2d6 > 1d12 > 1d10. Likewise, whips are dropped down 2 steps as well from the one handed standard 1d8 > 1d6 > 1d4. It makes sense, but that doesn't make it any less disappointing - even if it's not a huge mathematical difference, rolling a d4 just sucks. Previous editions gave daggers extra bonuses for this reason (at least for rogues), but in 5e there is no reason outside of roleplay to ever not use a rapier or shortsword. It's not a very interesting system.
As for the light keyword in general, I don't think sense has anything to do with it. I think it is just the keyword for weapons that the devs wanted to be dual-wieldable out of the box. It is a game tag more than a description.
1) All weapon under 2 lbs are Considered "Light" (Dart, Sling, Hand Ax, Light Hammer, Javelin, Club) / Give the Sling "Light & Finesse" Finesse doesn't matter for ranged weapons and light isn't really about weight. I could see a few non-light weapons get that tag, but it's shouldn't be via a blanket rule based on weight. Also see 6.
2) Give the sickle "Finesse" / Give the Whip "Light" property Sure. No need to change the weight of the whip though.
3) And/or : Give the Whip the "Simple melee weapon" Property No. Using a whip as an effective combat weapon is very difficult. If anything its stats are too good as is, but it gets a pass based on the rule of cool.
4) All Martial Weapons should do at least a 1d6 weapon damage No. Example: blowpipe
5) Give Morningstar, 1d4 Bludgeoning & 1d4 Piercing instead of 1d8 Piercing. Unnecessary, but I wouldn't hate it.
6) Give the 2 pound War Pick "Light" / Give War Pick "Light & Finesse" No. Just my opinion, but I don't think impact-based weapons should ever get Finesse. Light is a bit more debatable, but I wouldn't go for it either in the case of the war pick.
7) The Glaive and Halbert shouldn't be Clones of the same weapon / The War Pick and Morningstar shouldn't be clones of the same weapon Having the same stats doesn't make them identical clones. A glaive is more of a sword on a long stick, a halberd is more of an axe on a long stick. I suppose you could look for a way to add a mechanical difference if you want, but the stats they have aren't wrong for either.
8) Weapons in General need to be Re-evaluated They could be, but they hardly need to be. Lots of other stuff I'd re-evaluate first, weapons are functional enough.
edit: note to self, copying a poll copies a bunch of formatting you don't want
The Sickle should not be given the finesse property unless you want to nerf the damage. Otherwise it's a scimitar.
The sickle is already a 1d4 weapon, vs the scimitar's 1d6. Difference in curvature aside, I don't see any problem with the sickle being a simple mini scimitar
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Want to start playing but don't have anyone to play with? You can try these options: [link].
Whip... I agree that it should be made Simple, despite the fact that you really do need training with it, for a very simple reason. Fantasy tropes. Bards had access to whips in previous editions. Thanks to Indiana Jones and Castlevania, its a staple of Treasure Hunter (rogues) and Monster Slayers (rangers; well, they already get it). Chain whip is a classic martial arts weapon, and thus monk-ish.
This isn't really a question if its realistic or not. Its a question of granting access to classic archetypes without putting it behind a feat tax.
As for the rest... sling, darts, morning star, pick... some of them are just easier to make, and are meant more for "primitive" types like the lizardfolk. Others are meant to be stat blocks for an improvised mining pick. They're designed with specific types of people in mind, me thinks. Or specific access to materials in specific settings. I've actually been in two separate games where my character lost all their equipment - lost a war, had to run away without gear, and just trapped on a murder island - and had to make weapons as low level characters.
The equipment has a place in the game, and its really not designed to be on parity to a classic well-equipped, adventurer party, but a variety of less-than-ideal situations.
I totally blanked on Ranged weapons being DEX based, you are correct, The Sling doesn't need to be "finesses" but i still fell they should be "light" as well as other items needing a tweak for there own personality and not just being a carbon copy.
The comment on the whip are to make it a more usable item. Lowering the weight of the Whip had more to do with the option of making all items under 2 lbs "light"... The whip has many beneficial "properties", it's a shame it does so little damage and than only benefits from a few of the Better Feats. I've only ever seen it used in very early games & only thematically. The player that I was played with who was using it, gave up after a time. I just feel at least a 1d6 is needed or better yet 2d4. Yes at 2d4 I think it would be one of the best weapons available... but whips seem cool as hell.
The Sickle should not be given the finesse property unless you want to nerf the damage. Otherwise it's a scimitar.
The sickle is already a 1d4 weapon, vs the scimitar's 1d6. Difference in curvature aside, I don't see any problem with the sickle being a simple mini scimitar
Ah, for some reason I was thinking it was still a 1d6 weapon like a handaxe. At 1d4 it should definitely have finesse.
Another weapon that I think should have finesse is the flail. With a flail it's not about strength, it's about moving your wrist to generate centripetal force while not hitting yourself with it.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Find your own truth, choose your enemies carefully, and never deal with a dragon.
"Canon" is what's factual to D&D lore. "Cannon" is what you're going to be shot with if you keep getting the word wrong.
The Sickle should not be given the finesse property unless you want to nerf the damage. Otherwise it's a scimitar.
The sickle is already a 1d4 weapon, vs the scimitar's 1d6. Difference in curvature aside, I don't see any problem with the sickle being a simple mini scimitar
Ah, for some reason I was thinking it was still a 1d6 weapon like a handaxe. At 1d4 it should definitely have finesse.
Another weapon that I think should have finesse is the flail. With a flail it's not about strength, it's about moving your wrist to generate centripetal force while not hitting yourself with it.
It's still hitting someone hard with a heavy (usually spiked) ball. Damage is about impact more than precision. I don't think finesse should apply.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Want to start playing but don't have anyone to play with? You can try these options: [link].
The flail head itself supplies most of the force, though. The wielder provides surprisingly little strength in the attack compared to a mace. Unless they're using a stupidly huge flail like the Witch King's in Peter Jackson's Lord of the Rings. Or a two-handed flail (which doesn't have a long chain like a one-handed flail), but that's not a weapon in the game.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Find your own truth, choose your enemies carefully, and never deal with a dragon.
"Canon" is what's factual to D&D lore. "Cannon" is what you're going to be shot with if you keep getting the word wrong.
The flail head itself supplies most of the force, though. The wielder provides surprisingly little strength in the attack compared to a mace. Unless they're using a stupidly huge flail like the Witch King's in Peter Jackson's Lord of the Rings. Or a two-handed flail (which doesn't have a long chain like a one-handed flail), but that's not a weapon in the game.
True, but finesse doesn't play much part in how much damage a hit does. I guess it hits the middle ground where half of what finesse does is pertinent to the use of a flail but the other half isn't.
There's a lot of interesting things they could do here, but your operating on a lot of false premises.
First and foremost, it's a game and a lot of things are simplified to make playing easier instead of having fully realized weapon immersion. Weapon immersion isn't the point of the game, and if your proposals slow down gameplay, it's a bad idea.
Second closely following the first subject, if weapon immersion or realism is your goal, weapon balance goes out the door. There are several weapons that are flatly inferior, and most weapons exist as part of an arsenal, not direct competition, a greater reach weapon is generally superior to a small weapon, with no direct trade offs, if your well armored, any two handed reach weapon is superior, and if your poorly armored, a shield and a one handed weapon are superior. Damage actually has little to do with it, the primary function of a weapon isn't actually damage, it's defense, or safety. The tactical advantage of being able to threaten a foe outside of their reach means you'll survive more easily. Six inches of dagger does the same amount of damage as six inches of rapier, one has greater reach and hand protection, the other is better when wrestling, the amount of damage they do is actually a moot point.
If we armed players rationally, every player would have a dagger and a better side arm, and those weapons would always be inferior except in the rare circumstance where they are best applied. In this case, their best application is that they are always available to anyone, like an unarmed strike, but the guy with the great sword is going to have advantage over a dagger or longsword user, maybe even a competent dual weilder.
As for light and finesse, weapons are more complicated than their weight. Balance determines finesse, a rapier is longer than a long sword, and heavier, but has more finesse. This is because the weight is centered near the handle and the blade is easy to pivot. The opposite is true for any impact weapon. Even a small hammer or axe has poor finesse, because the weapon functions by having mass at the end of the weapon where it's least weildy.
Then there's weapon superiority. A lot of weapons are in the game because of representation, but they come from different eras for different kinds of warfare. In full plate armor battlefield combat, you might as well discard your swords, dagger are better and swords only remain as easy side arms. Your better off with war hammers, Daggers and halberds, because plate armor is functionally slash proof.
As for damage types, many weapons have some amount of every damage type. Bladed weapons can slash, thrust and pommel strike to deal slash pierce and bludgeoning damage all on one weapon. All polearms have access to blunt attacks with the back end, allowing them to hit about as hard as a quarter staff. This is where game design really kicks in, having two or three damage types and numbers for each weapon just bloats data. In a video game all the damage factors for each weapon used in each fashion can be auto applied, so the complexity is trivial, but in D&D, both the players and the DM have to be aware of each weapons function. Doubling, or more, the amount of damage types on weapons is an exercise. And while I'm not totally against it, due to the complexity of spells and the simplicity of melee attacks, melee damage type and armored vulnerabilities rarely play a part. And what's the point? It's still fantasy. Whatever fantasy logic that allows magic swords to go through dragon hide, or magic fencing technique that allows you to stab a knight through the visor is still going to subvert the realism. So why bother.
I too would like there to be more robust melee combat and damage depth. But half of these poll options are written with a fundamental misunderstanding of the rules, and the half that appeals to realism, which is really only relevant to immersion, fails to account for actual realism. If it was realistic, scythes would count as improvised weapons, like a rake or shovel, because they are nothing more than a poor man's halberd.
And if you want to improve melee combat, I would look for one or two universal features that would improve actual gameplay rather than improve weapon representation, because actual realism would make even more weapons obsolete, and have virtually everyone using the same optimal equipment.
I still want a proper spear to be added. Irl it was one of the most effective and versatile melee weapons to ever exist. Meanwhile in popular culture it's a bad peasants weapon which is completely ineffective and clumsy next to something like a sword. That's if it's even represented at all. In dnd it's related to a simple weapon needing feats to make it useful.
A 'martial spear' would be really nice to have. Requires martial prof. Versatile d6/d8. Reach.
I think it would be really helpful for many lesser used (even all) weapons to get a "property" re-evaluated or second look. Adding the "Light" and/or "Finesse" weapon property to the descriptions to better reflect classes and the real world properties that these items would most likely have and could better suit the D&D classes wielding them.
I'd like there to be a genuine discussion, not a argument. The 5e system is Amazing and applaud those that put some much hard work into. with all the Customization corrections, I think a few Weapon tweaks are just as in order.
I'll start with an example: The Sling has zero weight but does not have "Light" weapon Property?... yet a 3 pound Scimitar does. One could even make the argument about a Sling needing the "Finesse" weapon property also, as it would take a fair amount of skill to wield it effectively. And lets be honest, what STR using is going to pick a 1d4 Sling over a 1d8 Light Crossbow for anything but flavor. It's not that great of a weapon, so why not let a thematic DEX based character us it also?
One of My propose would be: Make any weapon under 3 lbs "light", maybe even "Finesse " as well. This would allow very rarely used (1d4) Whip to be a "light" weapon. The Designers could Rising of weight to the Flails, War pick and Warhammer by 2 pound if they thought a "Light" designation was out of place.... that said not Classes benefiting from "Light" don't tend to use STR and have the Martial weapon Proficiency to wield the weapon. If they do, they have jump through some hoops to do some and should be able to use them.
Some other Proposed changes would be: Give the Whip the "Light" weapon property and/or make it a Simple melee weapon. A Martial weapon proficiency is need to wield this weapon. Yes, the whip is "One-handed", "reach" & "Finesse"... yet it still see so very little play for such an interesting and thematic weapon. It does less than 1/2 half the possible damage of other "reach" weapons. And again any DEX based Class will mostly not have the Weapon proficiency to Duel wielding and receiving the proficiency bonus. A DEX based fighter is the only class with a hope of doing all this, which would be niche' and unused except to the Thematic player... who still only get a 1d4 on attack.
The Morningstar is 13 pounds heavier version of the War Pick, doing the same damage and Damage type... How an about, 1d4 Bludgeoning & 1d4 Piercing, maybe even "finesse" as you have to be skilled enough to not be hit by the returning star after a strike, this would be Amazingly flavorful a player could utilizes the bonus from the Great Weapon Fighter" fighting style. The easier fix would be to give the 2 lbs War Pick the "light" & Finesse" ... lots of option that could be played with to differentiate these two seemingly Identical weapons. The Glaive and Halbert have the same problem but they are exactly the same....weight in all. Make one Finesse *shrug*
Has anyone else notice the weapon inconsistencies, is there a change you feel to be addressed?
Sling doesn't need finesse because it is a ranged weapon which automatically uses DEX. Darts say 'finesse' because thrown weapons otherwise use STR.
I agree that whip should be light, but disagree it should be simple. Simple weapons are something anyone can use while whips probably require more training than most martial weapons to use properly. I kind of wish whip + some others were locked behind an exotic keyword that made proficiency more difficult to acquire but justified weapons that were a little stronger.
If you look at the way they value reach, whip makes sense. Polearms are dropped 2 'steps' from the top heavy weapon standard to compensate for reach. 2d6 > 1d12 > 1d10. Likewise, whips are dropped down 2 steps as well from the one handed standard 1d8 > 1d6 > 1d4. It makes sense, but that doesn't make it any less disappointing - even if it's not a huge mathematical difference, rolling a d4 just sucks. Previous editions gave daggers extra bonuses for this reason (at least for rogues), but in 5e there is no reason outside of roleplay to ever not use a rapier or shortsword. It's not a very interesting system.
As for the light keyword in general, I don't think sense has anything to do with it. I think it is just the keyword for weapons that the devs wanted to be dual-wieldable out of the box. It is a game tag more than a description.
My homebrew subclasses (full list here)
(Artificer) Swordmage | Glasswright | (Barbarian) Path of the Savage Embrace
(Bard) College of Dance | (Fighter) Warlord | Cannoneer
(Monk) Way of the Elements | (Ranger) Blade Dancer
(Rogue) DaggerMaster | Inquisitor | (Sorcerer) Riftwalker | Spellfist
(Warlock) The Swarm
So much to unpack, voting doesn't really cut it.
1) All weapon under 2 lbs are Considered "Light" (Dart, Sling, Hand Ax, Light Hammer, Javelin, Club) / Give the Sling "Light & Finesse"
Finesse doesn't matter for ranged weapons and light isn't really about weight. I could see a few non-light weapons get that tag, but it's shouldn't be via a blanket rule based on weight. Also see 6.
2) Give the sickle "Finesse" / Give the Whip "Light" property
Sure. No need to change the weight of the whip though.
3) And/or : Give the Whip the "Simple melee weapon" Property
No. Using a whip as an effective combat weapon is very difficult. If anything its stats are too good as is, but it gets a pass based on the rule of cool.
4) All Martial Weapons should do at least a 1d6 weapon damage
No. Example: blowpipe
5) Give Morningstar, 1d4 Bludgeoning & 1d4 Piercing instead of 1d8 Piercing.
Unnecessary, but I wouldn't hate it.
6) Give the 2 pound War Pick "Light" / Give War Pick "Light & Finesse"
No. Just my opinion, but I don't think impact-based weapons should ever get Finesse. Light is a bit more debatable, but I wouldn't go for it either in the case of the war pick.
7) The Glaive and Halbert shouldn't be Clones of the same weapon / The War Pick and Morningstar shouldn't be clones of the same weapon
Having the same stats doesn't make them identical clones. A glaive is more of a sword on a long stick, a halberd is more of an axe on a long stick. I suppose you could look for a way to add a mechanical difference if you want, but the stats they have aren't wrong for either.
8) Weapons in General need to be Re-evaluated
They could be, but they hardly need to be. Lots of other stuff I'd re-evaluate first, weapons are functional enough.
edit: note to self, copying a poll copies a bunch of formatting you don't want
Want to start playing but don't have anyone to play with? You can try these options: [link].
The Sickle should not be given the finesse property unless you want to nerf the damage. Otherwise it's a scimitar.
Find your own truth, choose your enemies carefully, and never deal with a dragon.
"Canon" is what's factual to D&D lore. "Cannon" is what you're going to be shot with if you keep getting the word wrong.
The sickle is already a 1d4 weapon, vs the scimitar's 1d6. Difference in curvature aside, I don't see any problem with the sickle being a simple mini scimitar
Want to start playing but don't have anyone to play with? You can try these options: [link].
Whip... I agree that it should be made Simple, despite the fact that you really do need training with it, for a very simple reason. Fantasy tropes. Bards had access to whips in previous editions. Thanks to Indiana Jones and Castlevania, its a staple of Treasure Hunter (rogues) and Monster Slayers (rangers; well, they already get it). Chain whip is a classic martial arts weapon, and thus monk-ish.
This isn't really a question if its realistic or not. Its a question of granting access to classic archetypes without putting it behind a feat tax.
As for the rest... sling, darts, morning star, pick... some of them are just easier to make, and are meant more for "primitive" types like the lizardfolk. Others are meant to be stat blocks for an improvised mining pick. They're designed with specific types of people in mind, me thinks. Or specific access to materials in specific settings. I've actually been in two separate games where my character lost all their equipment - lost a war, had to run away without gear, and just trapped on a murder island - and had to make weapons as low level characters.
The equipment has a place in the game, and its really not designed to be on parity to a classic well-equipped, adventurer party, but a variety of less-than-ideal situations.
I totally blanked on Ranged weapons being DEX based, you are correct, The Sling doesn't need to be "finesses" but i still fell they should be "light" as well as other items needing a tweak for there own personality and not just being a carbon copy.
The comment on the whip are to make it a more usable item. Lowering the weight of the Whip had more to do with the option of making all items under 2 lbs "light"... The whip has many beneficial "properties", it's a shame it does so little damage and than only benefits from a few of the Better Feats. I've only ever seen it used in very early games & only thematically. The player that I was played with who was using it, gave up after a time. I just feel at least a 1d6 is needed or better yet 2d4. Yes at 2d4 I think it would be one of the best weapons available... but whips seem cool as hell.
Ah, for some reason I was thinking it was still a 1d6 weapon like a handaxe. At 1d4 it should definitely have finesse.
Another weapon that I think should have finesse is the flail. With a flail it's not about strength, it's about moving your wrist to generate centripetal force while not hitting yourself with it.
Find your own truth, choose your enemies carefully, and never deal with a dragon.
"Canon" is what's factual to D&D lore. "Cannon" is what you're going to be shot with if you keep getting the word wrong.
It's still hitting someone hard with a heavy (usually spiked) ball. Damage is about impact more than precision. I don't think finesse should apply.
Want to start playing but don't have anyone to play with? You can try these options: [link].
The flail head itself supplies most of the force, though. The wielder provides surprisingly little strength in the attack compared to a mace. Unless they're using a stupidly huge flail like the Witch King's in Peter Jackson's Lord of the Rings. Or a two-handed flail (which doesn't have a long chain like a one-handed flail), but that's not a weapon in the game.
Find your own truth, choose your enemies carefully, and never deal with a dragon.
"Canon" is what's factual to D&D lore. "Cannon" is what you're going to be shot with if you keep getting the word wrong.
True, but finesse doesn't play much part in how much damage a hit does. I guess it hits the middle ground where half of what finesse does is pertinent to the use of a flail but the other half isn't.
Want to start playing but don't have anyone to play with? You can try these options: [link].
There's a lot of interesting things they could do here, but your operating on a lot of false premises.
First and foremost, it's a game and a lot of things are simplified to make playing easier instead of having fully realized weapon immersion. Weapon immersion isn't the point of the game, and if your proposals slow down gameplay, it's a bad idea.
Second closely following the first subject, if weapon immersion or realism is your goal, weapon balance goes out the door. There are several weapons that are flatly inferior, and most weapons exist as part of an arsenal, not direct competition, a greater reach weapon is generally superior to a small weapon, with no direct trade offs, if your well armored, any two handed reach weapon is superior, and if your poorly armored, a shield and a one handed weapon are superior. Damage actually has little to do with it, the primary function of a weapon isn't actually damage, it's defense, or safety. The tactical advantage of being able to threaten a foe outside of their reach means you'll survive more easily. Six inches of dagger does the same amount of damage as six inches of rapier, one has greater reach and hand protection, the other is better when wrestling, the amount of damage they do is actually a moot point.
If we armed players rationally, every player would have a dagger and a better side arm, and those weapons would always be inferior except in the rare circumstance where they are best applied. In this case, their best application is that they are always available to anyone, like an unarmed strike, but the guy with the great sword is going to have advantage over a dagger or longsword user, maybe even a competent dual weilder.
As for light and finesse, weapons are more complicated than their weight. Balance determines finesse, a rapier is longer than a long sword, and heavier, but has more finesse. This is because the weight is centered near the handle and the blade is easy to pivot. The opposite is true for any impact weapon. Even a small hammer or axe has poor finesse, because the weapon functions by having mass at the end of the weapon where it's least weildy.
Then there's weapon superiority. A lot of weapons are in the game because of representation, but they come from different eras for different kinds of warfare. In full plate armor battlefield combat, you might as well discard your swords, dagger are better and swords only remain as easy side arms. Your better off with war hammers, Daggers and halberds, because plate armor is functionally slash proof.
As for damage types, many weapons have some amount of every damage type. Bladed weapons can slash, thrust and pommel strike to deal slash pierce and bludgeoning damage all on one weapon. All polearms have access to blunt attacks with the back end, allowing them to hit about as hard as a quarter staff. This is where game design really kicks in, having two or three damage types and numbers for each weapon just bloats data. In a video game all the damage factors for each weapon used in each fashion can be auto applied, so the complexity is trivial, but in D&D, both the players and the DM have to be aware of each weapons function. Doubling, or more, the amount of damage types on weapons is an exercise. And while I'm not totally against it, due to the complexity of spells and the simplicity of melee attacks, melee damage type and armored vulnerabilities rarely play a part. And what's the point? It's still fantasy. Whatever fantasy logic that allows magic swords to go through dragon hide, or magic fencing technique that allows you to stab a knight through the visor is still going to subvert the realism. So why bother.
I too would like there to be more robust melee combat and damage depth. But half of these poll options are written with a fundamental misunderstanding of the rules, and the half that appeals to realism, which is really only relevant to immersion, fails to account for actual realism. If it was realistic, scythes would count as improvised weapons, like a rake or shovel, because they are nothing more than a poor man's halberd.
If you want a firmer grasp on historical weapon function, you should subscribe to https://youtube.com/c/scholagladiatoria
And if you want to improve melee combat, I would look for one or two universal features that would improve actual gameplay rather than improve weapon representation, because actual realism would make even more weapons obsolete, and have virtually everyone using the same optimal equipment.
I still want a proper spear to be added. Irl it was one of the most effective and versatile melee weapons to ever exist. Meanwhile in popular culture it's a bad peasants weapon which is completely ineffective and clumsy next to something like a sword. That's if it's even represented at all. In dnd it's related to a simple weapon needing feats to make it useful.
A 'martial spear' would be really nice to have. Requires martial prof. Versatile d6/d8. Reach.
Yeah, spears and pole arms in general have been underrated in D&D for a long time.
Find your own truth, choose your enemies carefully, and never deal with a dragon.
"Canon" is what's factual to D&D lore. "Cannon" is what you're going to be shot with if you keep getting the word wrong.