D&D General Weapons should break left and right

You really are missing the point, aren’t you. The reason there are a lot of magic swords in the DMG is that most of them are ripped off from literature.
Well, that and the game has always wanted to emulate either sword-and-sandal or knight in shining armour conceits, both of which have swords as their primary weapon.
But the only reason there are a lot of magic swords in your home game is that your DM has no creativity.
Ultimately true but not all DMs are willing to make that degree of change to the items list, even in spite of...
The DMG does not only allow DMs to create their own magic items, it actively encourages them to do so.
...this.
If you write an adventure yourself, you tailor it to suit the party. If you write an adventure for publication you tailor it to a generic party, with the expectation that the DM will adjust it to suit.
If I write an adventure myself I still tailor it to a generic party, and let the party that actually goes through it sort things out for themselves. And yes that means they might find a suit of +3 plate that only fits a Gnome regardless of whether they've any Gnomes in the party that can use such.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

Important to remember that "your group" includes the GM. They have to have fun too.
3/5 of us rotate as DM. Things like that are decided unanimously at group level. If DM wants to do inventory resource management and players don't, then it's bad fit and difference in playstyle and game expectations.
I've played paintball a few times, and when I did, I paid FAR more attention to my environment in all direction than I normally do. When in "danger" humans are just plain more alert, and dungeons are a lot of danger from all directions.

And that's just paintball. I did tour in sandpit. Nothing fancy, regular infantry. But boy, any time we left base, everyone was hyper alert and scanning around. Even on base, alertness was way higher than back home. When you are in hostile environment, you tend to pay attention to things that could potentialy end you.

When it comes to swords, they are dominant cause they are perceived as heroes weapon. Also, might have to do with phallic shape, better ask old dr.Sigmund about that part. It's symbol of nobility and knighthood. Same thing with samurai and katanas. For both european knight and japanese samurai, sword was mark of status and backup weapon, but trough art, it became their trademark.
 

Wizard money making scheme #1

Step 1: be 7th level.

Step 2: acquire the spell fabricate.

Step 3: acquire (or conjure!) a large amount of raw materials.*

Step 4: cast fabricate to convert materials into saleable goods.**

Step 5: Profit!

*this was easier when you had access to wall of iron, but wall of stone can create stone from nowhere, so there are still possibilities.

**in 5e, you do need proficiency in the proper tools to do this. But you can gain this proficiency with downtime, so...

Most DM's will crack down on this trick- Pathfinder 1e infamously made wall of iron somehow worthless for anything other than being said wall, lol. But you could still easily turn raw ore or gems into valuable items with fabricate.
 

Well, that and the game has always wanted to emulate either sword-and-sandal or knight in shining armour conceits, both of which have swords as their primary weapon.

Ultimately true but not all DMs are willing to make that degree of change to the items list, even in spite of...

...this.

If I write an adventure myself I still tailor it to a generic party, and let the party that actually goes through it sort things out for themselves. And yes that means they might find a suit of +3 plate that only fits a Gnome regardless of whether they've any Gnomes in the party that can use such.
I know right? It's almost like randomly generated treasure doesn't exist in the game...

"Swords are very dominant in D&D."

"Nuh uh. A DM can change any sword to any other weapon."

"But, that's the point. The initial default is going to be a sword very, very often."

"Doesn't matter. The DM can change it."

"Well, yes, that's true. But, if swords weren't the default then the DM wouldn't need to change it, right?"

"No, you just don't understand. The DM can change anything."

:wow: :erm: :uhoh:

I must admit though, I don't think I've ever seen such a perfect illustration of the Oberoni Fallacy.
 

Just to give a little perspective here.

I dug out my Encylopedia Magica books - I have all 4. These are the pretty thorough listings of all magic items published up to 1994 (well, probably 1993). They're wonderful books and I love them to pieces.

Polearms - as a section- include AFAIK, every single polearm, trident, bident, whatnot, published for D&D to that date. 7 pages. 840-847 (and that includes one full page art spread). Spears cover a whopping 4 pages (pages 1128-1132) Swords start on page 1335 and run to page 1415. Eighty PAGES of nothing but magic swords.

IOW, there's probably more published magic swords in the Encyclopedia Magica than all other weapons combined.

Tell me again how swords aren't given the prime seat at the table.
 

"Well, yes, that's true. But, if swords weren't the default then the DM wouldn't need to change it, right?"
You think that if Lucerne hammers were the default the DM wouldn't have to change it!?

You have to have a default in order to write adventures for an unknown band of adventurers. Sword is as good as anything else, since whatever it is, the DM will change it.

"Swords are very dominant in D&D."
"Nuh uh. A DM can change any sword to any other weapon."

Yeah, you are still missing the point here. Swords were dominant in the DMG because Gygax copy-pastaed the magic items list from fiction and mythology, not because he wanted them to be compulsory. But what what is dominant in D&D is whatever the DM happens to like. If the DM is lazy then it will be the placeholder default.
 

Just to give a little perspective here.

I dug out my Encylopedia Magica books - I have all 4. These are the pretty thorough listings of all magic items published up to 1994 (well, probably 1993). They're wonderful books and I love them to pieces.

Polearms - as a section- include AFAIK, every single polearm, trident, bident, whatnot, published for D&D to that date. 7 pages. 840-847 (and that includes one full page art spread). Spears cover a whopping 4 pages (pages 1128-1132) Swords start on page 1335 and run to page 1415. Eighty PAGES of nothing but magic swords.

IOW, there's probably more published magic swords in the Encyclopedia Magica than all other weapons combined.

Tell me again how swords aren't given the prime seat at the table.
Of course most of those were never on the DMG treasure table, and you'd need the entire EM to even think about using it to randomly generate treasure.

Like, don't get me wrong, I know full well that you shouldn't really randomly roll treasure- the DM should always be ready to chuck or alter the results if it would lead to something problematic for the game. But the treasure tables in the DMG were weighted to give some things (like swords) preference over other things, and some people took that as an insinuation for what the game should be like.

But then you have published adventures. These clearly did not follow the DMG guidelines, given the sheer amount of rings of protection and swords +1 that littered them, but again, it was rare to encounter a +1 pike or jo stick in such. And not every DM had the wherewithal to change the treasure in adventures, because they were never told to do so outright.

What, exactly, the intended distribution of magic weapons were is basically unknown. The DMG tables were apparently weighted to provide loot that would favor some classes over others, and you could infer some things from that. Or not. The fact that certain weapon types were more prominent in published adventures could simply be a self-fulfilling prophecy- many people chose to use swords, so writers made sure to place more swords than other, less common weapons, which wouldn't be used as much.

White Plume Mountain was an adventure written with the idea that the players return the lost weapons to their owners, and so one could assume the weapon types were chosen because bastard swords and tridents were less commonly used weapons. Whelm is an interesting case, as warhammers blatantly sucked in AD&D, but I've seen people use them, plus, as Snarf would tell you, the most powerful (potentially) weapon in the game was a warhammer (the hammer of thunderbolts) so make of that what you will (though there are additional factors, like Wave requiring you to worship Poseidon and Whelm wanting you to be a Dwarf).

I have, however, heard several DM's online who will happily say that if you choose an unusual weapon, good luck finding a magic one, because they won't change their world to have you find one. What the intended game loop was and what it ended up being is difficult to talk about, since every game is different.

We can point to published materials and say there was a bias, but whether or not that really mattered had more to do with the individual DM's than anything else. I will reiterate though, that the game doesn't ever explicitly tell a new DM to make sure players have a +1 weapon by level 3 or anything along those lines (and, in fact, whenever D&D has come out and said things like that, it got a lot of pushback from DM's who didn't like the idea of players being "entitled" to treasure*), so what actually happened in the wild is pretty much unknown.

*After all, if players were "meant" to have the ability to fight monsters immune to normal weapons or have a given AC by a certain level, the designers should probably just hard code these things into the classes, rather than expect the DM to tailor treasure parcels to patch their game for them, lol. Then again, some people would never be happy. If 6e comes out and says "4th level Fighters treat all their weapons as if magical", I'm sure there'd be complaints about Fighters becoming "magical"...).
 

A common-ish fumble result when using bow is that the string snaps; if you don't have spares in your gear list you'll need to jury-rig something or go bow-less for a while.
My real-world experience with bowstrings I made myself is that a string-snaps failure is less frequent than one per 10,000 arrows loosed. They do occur; they have happened to me a few times - but not at all often.

By comparison, rolling three ones in a row on a d20 has a relatively high 1 in 8000 chance.

My personal preference is to round fumble result probabilities down to zero, except in cases where conditions are especially fumblegenic (using cheap & shoddy weapons, character is under a curse, etc.) There is a powerful tendency for fumble-rule creators to have fumbles occur one, two, or even three orders of magnitude more frequently than I believe to be realistic.
 


My real-world experience with bowstrings I made myself is that a string-snaps failure is less frequent than one per 10,000 arrows loosed. They do occur; they have happened to me a few times - but not at all often.

By comparison, rolling three ones in a row on a d20 has a relatively high 1 in 8000 chance.

My personal preference is to round fumble result probabilities down to zero, except in cases where conditions are especially fumblegenic (using cheap & shoddy weapons, character is under a curse, etc.) There is a powerful tendency for fumble-rule creators to have fumbles occur one, two, or even three orders of magnitude more frequently than I believe to be realistic.
I think this comes down to, if you make rules to have something randomly occur, you don't want them to be either so rare as to be never seen nor so minor that it seems like a waste of time.

I once made fumble rules that had fairly minor effects, for example, and pretty quickly I realized the juice wasn't worth the squeeze when they came up and I ditched them completely.
 

Remove ads

Top