D&D 5E A matter of weapons

[MechaPilot]

Agreed. And admittedly, it's one of the things I really liked about 2e's Skills And Powers. One of my favorite PCs was a paladin who couldn't wear armor (he was a Paladin of Ilmatr (sp) and believed the more physical punishment he took, the more enlightened he was) but used a d12 for hit points and could cast spells at an earlier level.

Interesting. And, I'm assuming (because I'm not familiar with Ilmatr other than hearing the name in the Baldur's Gate Xbox game) it fits with the chosen deity to reinforce the character fluff. In 3e I played a cleric who had her armor reflavored as protection granted by divine grace. As long as she spent an appropriate period of time in prayer (the same period of time required to don armor) and was wearing the holy symbol of her deity she was effectively wearing armor. It really gave her more of a priestess or prophet kind of vibe than the traditional D&D cleric has, and that's what I really wanted for her.

I also played a 3e druid character who was a nudist. Her armor was basically traded for an unarmored defense ability, though we didn't really call it that. We just assumed her lack of reliance on armor forced her to learn to fight more defensively. As long as she was armed, she was effectively wearing armor.

 

[Sacrosanct]

Longswords are harder to make than shortswords. Once the Romans figured out how to make them they switched over to longswords. And curved weapons are better from horseback so arabs used them more as they came from a nomadic background. Axes are also more easy to create than swords and require less metal but also are less versatile. So you use them when you can't make good swords in masses. But as all this does not factor into D&D combat highest DPR it is. The principle behind it is the same.

....

Do you know anything about weapons at all? Because it doesn't look like it. In real life armies constantly switched weapons based on the enemy. When heavy armor became more common armies switched to hammers and bodkin arrows etc.
That is realism instead of choosing a weapon because it looks nice.

These are all reasons not related to DPR. Congratulations on disproving your own argument, and that people historically did in fact chose weapons not based on DPR at all, which is what I've been arguing.

 

[Derren]

These are all reasons not related to DPR. Congratulations on disproving your own argument, and that people did in fact chose weapons not based on DPR at all, which is what I've been arguing.

Congratulations for not reading.
As I wrote, those are all reasons which do not matter in D&D because of its simplistic combat mechanics. So in the confines of D&D everyone would chose the best DPR weapon.

 

[Sacrosanct]

Congratulations for not reading.
As I wrote, those are all reasons which do not matter in D&D because of its simplistic combat mechanics. So in the confines of D&D everyone would chose the best DPR weapon.

OK, look. Some advice. Don't accuse others of not knowing anything about weapons in the same post as making a claim that axes were made over swords because they took less metal. That's not true at all, and shows you've probably never held an axe and sword before, nor know anything about blacksmithing. In fact, "lower DPR" weapons like the mace and war hammer used a lot more metal because later versions had the hafts made from metal as well.

Secondly, there's nothing wrong with my reading, but there sure seems to be with yours. This entire time, I have argued that choosing the highest DPR weapon is metagaming and not historically accurate because in real life, people did not choose the highest DPR weapon. You spent several posts arguing that they did, and then just now argued the complete opposite, that in fact in real life they didn't choose the highest DPR based on that list of reasons. Additionally, when plate armor was worn (only by the rich), weapons chosen were intentionally not the highest DPR, because they wanted to ransom the knight off, not kill him.

And thirdly, with this post I just quoted, you are illustrating exactly what my problem is that I have been arguing against this whole time: people metagaming to always choose the highest DPR even when historical accuracy is the opposite---all factors which explain why it takes away from verisimilitude at my table. I.e., removing realism in favor of metagaming.

 

[Cap'n Kobold]

Also, I don't think you really know how melee combat does work in real life. My argument is to base the damage off of PC skill. And I'm here to tell you, a skilled person with a knife would wipe the floor against a lesser skilled guy with a sword because we can see it happen over and over in demonstrations. Same with unarmored against armored.

But you need a very large difference in skill to make up for the less effective weapon. For people who are almost or actually as good as you, using a knife against a sword is a desperation move or for when you're already in close.

Here is what I'm talking about. In D&D land, no one chooses a dagger for their primary weapon because it does a d4 damage. Heck, no one chooses a short sword either if they are proficient in bigger weapons (despite the Romans using a short sword). Gamers are using metagame factors to choose their weapons, which is resulting in too many cookie cutter PCs that don't reflect historical accuracy.

If weapon damage was universal, or very generic (like d8 for 1 hand weapons, d12 for 2-handed), I think we'd see a lot more variation that also reflects historical accuracy better. And to illustrate how I believe weapon damage should be based more on skill than weapon (a dagger will kill you just as dead as a sword. Once you're dead, you can't get MORE dead, so that extra 1/2" deep cut doesn't matter at all):

[video=youtube;CFqXkYdAFXs]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CFqXkYdAFXs[/video]

Unless you're actually wrestling with them, its easier to kill someone with a sword than a dagger. You can see it in the video: the person with the daggers pretty much always has to survive the initial attack of the longsword before they can even attempt to start attacking. And real daggers are not good at defending against real longswords, particularly if you only have one.

A 1/2" deeper cut matters as that can be the difference between hitting a vital organ and a flesh wound. Yes, Romans used short swords in the beginning but later switched to long swords as metallurgy improved and that was way before the tech level used by D&D. So another prove that in history people used the more effective weapon.
So if you want to have it realistic then everyone would chose the highest DPR weapon. If you want a different result that you have to expand the combat system so that other factors besides DPR matter.

Romans used short swords well after they were in use by other cultures. They were quite able to make them: they armed their cavalry with longer swords. Their infantry used shortswords because they were a more effective weapon when combined with the other Roman equipment and tactics: large shields and close formations.

As you mention, D&D doesn't get granular enough to take the actual mechanics of dagger vs longsword, or Roman vs barbarian combat.

 

[Derren]

intentionally[/i] not the highest DPR, because they wanted to ransom the knight off, not kill him.

And the entire time you do not comprehend that in history "highest DPR" also was used in real life. Only that there are a lot more factors which determines the effectiveness of a weapon in real life, thus the decision making process was different. If all that factors go away, for example like in D&D, highest DPR is left. The logic behind it is exactly the same.

And thirdly, with this post I just quoted, you are illustrating exactly what my problem is that I have been arguing against this whole time: people metagaming to always choose the highest DPR even when historical accuracy is the opposite---all factors which explain why it takes away from verisimilitude at my table. I.e., removing realism in favor of metagaming.

The only one who metagames here is you who wants to take weapons because of coolness or personal preference. How it worked in real life was that people took the best weapon available. And in the context of D&D that means the one with the highest DPR as factory like armor penetration do not exists and DMs usually also don't decrease availability.

 

[Sacrosanct]

But you need a very large difference in skill to make up for the less effective weapon. For people who are almost or actually as good as you, using a knife against a sword is a desperation move or for when you're already in close.

Not necessarily. In that video, both are skilled. I'm assuming any way since both are students in fighting. Is the dagger guy more skilled? Maybe. But the point is, is that in D&D now, no one chooses the dagger, regardless of how skilled they are, because the base damage is so low. And that's just not realistic IMO.

Unless you're actually wrestling with them, its easier to kill someone with a sword than a dagger. You can see it in the video: the person with the daggers pretty much always has to survive the initial attack of the longsword before they can even attempt to start attacking.

The longsword guy couldn't even get a hit in. That's not just surviving against a longsword. That's dominating. And unlike a glancing blow to an extremity what the longsword is most likely to do, the dagger strikes were always to a vital area.

But that scenario in the video? You won't see in a D&D game from people who metagame. And IMO, that's a shame.

And the entire time you do not comprehend that in history "highest DPR" also was used in real life. Only that there are a lot more factors which determines the effectiveness of a weapon in real life, thus the decision making process was different. If all that factors go away, for example like in D&D, highest DPR is left. The logic behind it is exactly the same.

No. This simply isn't true, and even by your own admission it's not true when you posted reasons why those other weapons were chosen. And by "removing all those factors in real life", you are doing the very definition of metagaming. But I'm suspecting you don't know what that definition is, because...

The only one who metagames here is you who wants to take weapons because of coolness or personal preference.

THAT IS NOT METAGAMING. Having a PC choose a weapon based on whatever reason (is it cool to them, does it fit the theme, does it have special attachment, etc) regardless of DPR is literally the opposite of metagaming. It's making your choices as if you were that PC in a game world that feels real to that PC.

 

[Eubani]

I think that in a rush to be right everyone in this discussion seems to not notice that everyone has valid points. Weapon choice in real life was not just a matter of what did more damage or what weapon the person thought was cool. It was far more complicated then that hell even politics got involved at times. Factors such as material availability, quality of materials, culture, weapon history of location, environment, other equipment utilized, armour, shields, tactics, fight ing styles, social station, enemy tactics, enemy weapons, enemy armour, political views on weapons, social views on weapons, political status of weaponmakers, social status of weapon makers, religion view on weapons, religion view on weapon makers. I can go on if people wish but ultimately there are items on the list touching on all sides as to weapon choice. You are all right have ribbon.

 

[Derren]

Factors such as material availability, quality of materials, culture, weapon history of location, environment, other equipment utilized, armour, shields, tactics, fight ing styles, social station, enemy tactics, enemy weapons, enemy armour, political views on weapons, social views on weapons, political status of weaponmakers, social status of weapon makers, religion view on weapons, religion view on weapon makers.

And how many of those factors apply in D&D? Not many so using them still for weapon choice is the real metagaming.

 

[Eubani]

And how many of those factors apply in D&D? Not many so using them still for weapon choice is the real metagaming.

A lot of these things are in the DM's purview but should be touched a lot more on by designers in supplements about warriors/weapons and DM material such as the DMG. To be honest when it comes to world building there are a lot of areas that don't get touched upon that would lead to very different games.