D&D General Weapons should break left and right

[Hussar]

Sometimes swords were primary, sometimes they were secondary. In addition fighting as part of an army is typically different than conflicts with small groups. I'm done arguing about this.

So, great. You agree with me. Swords were not dominant in the past. Some people used them and some people used something else. D&D, OTOH, has made swords the dominant weapon for years. The best magic weapons, the most commonly awarded magic weapon, the most commonly pictured in art.

At no point was I arguing that swords were never used. That wasn't what I said. I said that D&D makes the sword so much better than pretty much any other weapon that it has become the default. Mostly because of how fantasy as a genre venerates the sword. Katana fanbois gushing about how a katana can cut through a tank, meanwhile ignoring the fact that samurai were primarily horse archers. That sort of thing.

 

[Maxperson]

Yea, 2/3ed low level wizards sucked. 2ed wizard had 1/2/3/5/7 slots per day. In 3.5 you got cantrips, so your progression with them was 4/6/7/9/10. Sure, you get slot or two for high intelligence. Wohoo. In effect, your slots dictated number of turns in combat you in which you can actually be spellcaster ( and if you used slot for casting something utility wise outside of combat, that number drops). Without spells, you had low hp, low ac, low to hit in melee with slightly better one in range (dex was solid secondary/tertiary stat for wizard). In combat heavy session, low level wizard player would fire off their few spells and then sit rest of the time, maybe trying to hit something with light crossbow. SO much fun. With unlimited cantrinps, you actually feel like you are wizard. You have some magic at your disposal always.

I didn't feel like a wizard because of cantrips. I played a 5e wizard and cantrips made me feel like I had failed as a wizard and was reduced to using the magic "crossbow."

 

[Maxperson]

What is this, Mork Borg?

 

[Maxperson]

Yes and no though. Let's not forget that a lot of spells last more than one round. If you cast a summoning, you got critters for the entire combat (or until they died). And, pre-5e, there was no such thing as concentration (for the most part), meaning that you could have two or three different spells going on for a while.

Sure, you might only cast one spell per combat (or maybe two) but, if it's the right spell, it lasted most of the duration of the combat (even fireball, which only lasted an instant, tended to end a combat pretty quickly).

Now, it's pew pew pew all day long.

Yeah. Spamming the same minor magic over and over and over and over is boring as hell, not inspiring. A wizard should be awe inspiring when he uses his magic, but not be able to go all day long and twice on Friday like martials can. It should balance over the long run.

 

[Paul Farquhar]

I grew up on Lord of the Rings and Dragonlance. Continuous flashy magic is not what I associate with wizards.

Hobbit and Disney Sword in the Stone for me. Which inclines me to think wizards use either a big sword or pull a rocket launcher out of their beard.

 

[AlViking]

So, great. You agree with me. Swords were not dominant in the past. Some people used them and some people used something else. D&D, OTOH, has made swords the dominant weapon for years. The best magic weapons, the most commonly awarded magic weapon, the most commonly pictured in art.

At no point was I arguing that swords were never used. That wasn't what I said. I said that D&D makes the sword so much better than pretty much any other weapon that it has become the default. Mostly because of how fantasy as a genre venerates the sword. Katana fanbois gushing about how a katana can cut through a tank, meanwhile ignoring the fact that samurai were primarily horse archers. That sort of thing.

Sometimes swords were primary sometimes they weren't. D&D has always had a list with a wide variety of weapons, many at least situationally better than swords and equal as far as damage. It's always been up to the DM what treasure to actually give out to the party.

 

[Not a Decepticon]

Changes for balance reasons are never forced IMO, but they might be desired by individual persons or gaming groups.

That sounds like you want the game to be badly designed and just offload the task of fixing it to homebrewers.

More seriously, you get those spells back daily and merely have to be judicious about how-when you use them. When (or if) they run out, you're on to plan B - at low levels you're still a halfway useful combatant, if unarmoured, and can still contribute in other ways beyond just fighting: lookout, puzzle-solver, mapper, etc.

There is a difference between being on plan B and being forced to stop playing the wizard you came to play and instead become something you never agreed or wanted to play. I suck at puzzle solving and mapping and would never want to be forced to do either of those because game mechanics told me I am no longer allowed to play wizard I came to the table to play, on my limited leisure time.

If you want to play an always-on damage-dealing type, play a Fighter.

That really feels like forcing caster to stop playing their character the moment they run out of arbitrary number, instead of making Fighter actually a good class that can do stuff other than swing sword.

More important yet, on the design-theory level: 1st-level characters IMO should be at most one step removed from being "useless randos", with their uselessness decreasing as they level up from there. If you're already a hero when you start out, where do you go from there on your zero-to-hero journey?

This is a mindset that is not fit to a collaborative storytelling an rpg is, but to a wargame. If your character is literally useless rando and you can throw them away once it breaks with no emotional attachment and they have no story you want to tell with them...then what's the point of playing an rpg? If I wanted to play a wargame, where I control pawns and pieces, I'd play a wargame.

 

[James Gasik]

Hobbit and Disney Sword in the Stone for me. Which inclines me to think wizards use either a big sword or pull a rocket launcher out of their beard.

Or just a gun, like Avatar in "Wizards".

 

[Not a Decepticon]

I grew up on Lord of the Rings and Dragonlance. Continuous flashy magic is not what I associate with wizards.

So why should your very limited preference be the deciding factor in how the game is played or designed? I grew up with Slayers and Baldur's Gate 2, other people playing this game could grew up with Malazan Book of the Fallen or Avatar or with Doctor Strange comics or Harry Dresden books. Why is your nostalgia supposed to get preferential treatment?

 

[Paul Farquhar]

Or just a gun, like Avatar in "Wizards".

I don’t even understand the reference.