D&D 5E Fighter Weapon Choice

[The Human Target]

The majority of role players don't get into the details of the math and play what superficially seems fun. The majority of them do not post on message boards. The majority of D&D message board posters are math-centric players.

There is a broad spectrum of choices for weapons for fighters that exceeds an efficient threshold. Outside of choosing a clearly inferior weapon, you're good to go - even if your choice does not rise up to great.

I actually think the opposite of this is true.

Most players who don't get too deep or understand the math are going to pick the biggest dice weapon they can and move on.

 

[spinozajack]

1) Daggers are easily concealed. So there's the roleplaying element of the character with a dozen knives hidden over their body.
2) Daggers can be thrown. And there's *always* those times when you're just 5 or 10 feet out of range.

Good point, you can also dual wield throwing daggers RAW. Our rogue does that when an ally is standing at the front ranks and needs some help.

 

[spinozajack]

I actually think the opposite of this is true.

Most players who don't get too deep or understand the math are going to pick the biggest dice weapon they can and move on.

Yes, exactly. Which is why greataxes are dumb. Anyone with any inkling of math would know that 2d6 is better on average and less chance of low rolls (which cost you kills more often than the loss of high rolls) than 1d12. And way more likely to trigger any kind of benefit from the great weapon fighting style they took. People can compare 1 die versus 2 die without having a degree in DPR analysis and figure out that you're more likely to roll at least one, 1 or 2, on two d6 rolls, than a single d12 roll.

 

[The Crimson Binome]

Because, of course, the difference of 1 point of damage per round is all that is needed to change a character from competent to a suicidal liability.

The magnitude of the effect is not nearly as important as the logic which goes into making the decision. Given two choices that are otherwise equal in every conceivable way, except that one has a very slight advantage in one important aspect, there is no justification for choosing the inferior option.

Now, that's not exactly the situation we're dealing with here. There are a number of differences between a short sword and a rapier, aside from just the damage. There are some good reasons for using a short sword in place of a rapier. Aesthetic is not one of them.

 

[The Crimson Binome]

Yes, exactly. Which is why greataxes are dumb. Anyone with any inkling of math would know that 2d6 is better on average and less chance of low rolls (which cost you kills more often than the loss of high rolls) than 1d12.

The 1d12 is also more likely to come up 11 or 12, though. There are definite situations where you might want the greataxe instead of the greatsword, even if you ignore specific racial and class features. From what I recall, skeletons have exactly 13 hit points, so you're much more likely to drop one with a single attack if you're using the greataxe. (Granted, this is one of the few situations where a greatclub is the right tool for the job, but that's tangential to the point at hand.)

 

[AmerginLiath]

And are quite unweildy in evening wear.

Swords I've worn with modern evening wear:
1h, 2edge, 32" long blade, 6" quarter-basket. (Navy dress sword)
1h, 1.5 edge, 30" long blade, 6"x4" crossbar hilt (KofC 4th degree sword)
1h, 2 edge, 42" long blade rapier with pappenheimer hilt. (8x12x6")
1h, 2 edge, 14" long blade (dirk) (5" hilt)
2h, 2 edge, 44" long blade (scots claidhmor) worn on baldric. (20" hilt).

Of them, the only one that's not a problem in evening wear is the dirk. Provided, of course, one isn't sitting in a chair with arm rests upon it, and either has the dirk on a belt over the jacket or has a jacket cut to allow for it (essentially, a tailcoat).
The claidhmor is less of an issue than the others, but still an issue. Especially if one is going to be sitting.

An over-the-shoulder-draw baldric is a pain to draw from, but the least obnoxious to ones' fellows method for carrying any long blade. And a rapier is typically 6-8" of hilt, plus 40-60" of blade.

I can vouch for the Knights of Columbus sword worn with formal wear. It's also a valuable lesson that drawing and sheathing a sword from a baldric-hung scabbard can be tricky when wearing a cape – bank vaults aren't the only problem that cape-wearers need worry about!

 

[Jester David]

The magnitude of the effect is not nearly as important as the logic which goes into making the decision. Given two choices that are otherwise equal in every conceivable way, except that one has a very slight advantage in one important aspect, there is no justification for choosing the inferior option.

Now, that's not exactly the situation we're dealing with here. There are a number of differences between a short sword and a rapier, aside from just the damage. There are some good reasons for using a short sword in place of a rapier. Aesthetic is not one of them.

While I accept the Stormwind fallacy that there is no correlation between roleplaying and optimization, that does not mean I believe the only way to play is mechanical optimization and that inoptimal choices are somehow wrong. Yes, losing a fight negatively impacts the fun of some players, but so does not being able to play a character you want or make the choices you want.
Plus, winning at combat is not the entirety of the game. There's other aspects to play to consider.

Weapon choice can play a role in combat. But so can round-to-round tactics. Positioning and being in the right place to target the right enemies, and knowing which enemy to target with what type of attack. A poor tactical decision can have far, far more impact on the game than going with a dagger over a rapier. All the optimization in the world does nothing if you make poor choices in combat.

 

[FormerlyHemlock]

While I accept the Stormwind fallacy that there is no correlation between roleplaying and optimization, that does not mean I believe the only way to play is mechanical optimization and that inoptimal choices are somehow wrong. Yes, losing a fight negatively impacts the fun of some players, but so does not being able to play a character you want or make the choices you want.
Plus, winning at combat is not the entirety of the game. There's other aspects to play to consider.

Weapon choice can play a role in combat. But so can round-to-round tactics. Positioning and being in the right place to target the right enemies, and knowing which enemy to target with what type of attack. A poor tactical decision can have far, far more impact on the game than going with a dagger over a rapier. All the optimization in the world does nothing if you make poor choices in combat.

I agree with your point, but I believe it is orthogonal to what I perceive Saelorn to be saying.

I believe Saelorn's point has to do with assessing another character's ability to optimize tactically based on social cues. If you walk into a gunfighter bar and everyone's packing six-shooters except for one guy who has nothing but a pocket knife, that one guy is either very bad or very, very good. Unless you've seen the guy in combat and know him to be so good that he doesn't need a real weapon, it's natural to assume that he is in fact very bad, so bad that he doesn't realize what a bad weapon he's carrying.

 

[The Crimson Binome]

While I accept the Stormwind fallacy that there is no correlation between roleplaying and optimization, that does not mean I believe the only way to play is mechanical optimization and that inoptimal choices are somehow wrong. Yes, losing a fight negatively impacts the fun of some players, but so does not being able to play a character you want or make the choices you want.
Plus, winning at combat is not the entirety of the game. There's other aspects to play to consider.

There is a strong correlation between roleplaying and optimization if you want to play a character who isn't suicidally incompetent. Winning and losing the game, or however the player feels about that, is irrelevant to roleplaying. The player doesn't exist within the game world.

It's the character who cares about winning the fight. The character is the one whose life is on the line. If you're roleplaying a character who is sane - a character who wants to live - then that character will choose the weapon which gives the best chance of staying alive.

You can go ahead and play a character who chooses a short sword over a rapier, purely for the aesthetic, but my character is going to assume your character is an imbecile unless your character gives my character some good reason to believe otherwise.

 

[bedir than]

It's the character who cares about winning the fight. The character is the one whose life is on the line. If you're roleplaying a character who is sane - a character who wants to live - then that character will choose the weapon which gives the best chance of staying alive.

You just considered about two-thirds of the heroes in heroic fiction insane and/or idiots.