D&D General Weapons should break left and right

Paul Farquhar · 2025-10-03T16:36:49+0100

Hussar said:
I've been saying all the way along that the sword has been given the prime real estate in the game.

In the DMG. Because Gygax was inspired by the literature, and the literature is full of magic swords (the vorpal sword is a sword because it's lifted directly from a poem. Lucerne Hammers don't go snicker-snack). But there was never any requirement to play that way. Gygax wrote the DMG as ideas and guidelines, not as rules that must be obeyed. Look at those early adventures. Oh look, a super-powerful trident (AKA a fishing implement). Look at the ones Gygax wrote himself. Oh look, a disintegrator rifle.

AlViking · 2025-10-03T16:38:34+0100

Hussar said:
Kinda missing the point though.

I've been saying all the way along that the sword has been given the prime real estate in the game. All the best magic weapons are swords and always have been. From the Holy Avenger and the Vorpal Sword to Dragonslayers and a rather lengthy number of artifacts.

I mean, good grief, last month was Swordtember where various creators did nothing but bang out magic swords for a month. :wow:

Can I have other weapons? Of course. But, it's pretty clear that the game is leaning REALLY heavily on swords being the best weapon in the game.

Umm, did you miss where 2014 was exactly the same? It hasn't been until 2024 that you could, by the book, in randomly generated loot, actually get a flaming weapon that wasn't a sword, as just a single example.

My point isn't that you can't have other weapons. My point is that the game designers have been pushing swords first and foremost since day 1 in the game. Swords did the best damage in the game and are still pretty much top even now. You're putting the popularity of swords on the DM. That's ignoring the fact that the rules in the books list ten magic swords for every one of another magic weapon. (I exaggerate, I don't know the exact number, but, I imagine it's not far off.)

My point is that it is and always has been up to the DM to decide what loot is handed out. I've had holy hammers, dwarven throwing axes, any number of other things because I can and always have been able to create custom magic items. I don't care what the devs "push" or whether they are just responding to demand.

Micah Sweet · 2025-10-03T16:38:58+0100

Mort said:
The players may not know that trees are a requirement for their ammunition. They might think they could use something else. Or, depending on the situation, they might not be thinking of it at all.

If the DM wants to limit access to resources,
or otherwise thinks resources should be limited, The DM absolutely must be clear with the players, not make vague references and hints and expect the players to catch on.

The DM should absolutely not expect that when they tell the group "there are no trees anywhere around..." That archers understand this to mean their ammo is limited. The DM SHOULD just directly state the in game effect. And state it BEFORE it becomes a point of contention.

How do you know the players are going to want to make their own ammo, or know how? Am I supposed to anticipate every possible action the PCs might take, on the risk of being labeled a douche for not specifically bring it up every time the PCs go to a new place by internet hecklers? I don't see how anything beyond good description and discussion at the beginning of the campaign about play expectations is needed, and I'm a little irritated at the obviously judgmental attitude being shown against the GM (and specifically me) here.

AlViking · 2025-10-03T16:40:02+0100

Micah Sweet said:
In all fairness, your list shows that you actually do know where to start. You just don't want to. And that's fine.

Do I though? Once again - it's just as much where to stop. My quick list sounds reasonable but it is by no means comprehensive. Of course it's all just personal preference I was just explaining why I chose to go the route that I do.

Micah Sweet · 2025-10-03T16:42:23+0100

Not a Decepticon said:
I do not recall whenever they stick around for combat or ran away and hide to let cultists ambush us, but weapons were allowed at the table as long as they could be tucked away and I don't think most Goblins were wearing armor to begin with.

You certainly come off as trying to railroad them, or get a "gotcha" over them. Which each can easily make you look douche-y to your players. Witholding crucial information from players when you are their only source of it is a douchy thing to do.

So we've moved directly to insults then? My players ask questions if they have specific concerns that aren't addressed in my description, and I answer to the best of my ability to do so and their PCs ability to perceive their surroundings. I trust them to be smart, and they haven't let me down yet.

Micah Sweet · 2025-10-03T16:43:23+0100

Paul Farquhar said:
They aren't. Plenty of archers in the Underdark but very few trees. Clearly they use other materials.

Awesome! Like what, do you think?

Mort · 2025-10-03T16:47:10+0100

Micah Sweet said:
How do you know the players are going to want to make their own ammo, or know how?

That's not what I'm talking about, I'm talking about avoiding gotchas - such as expecting players to somehow know that replenishing arrows will be limited because trees aren't available. This has nothing to do with characters making their own arrows

Micah Sweet said:
Am I supposed to anticipate every possible action the PCs might take, on the risk of being labeled a douche for not specifically bring it up every time the PCs go to a new place by internet hecklers? I don't see how anything beyond good description and discussion at the beginning of the campaign about play expectations is needed, and I'm a little irritated at the obviously judgmental attitude being shown against the GM (and specifically me) here.

No you're not supposed to anticipate every possible action. But you brought up a situation where players should "know" ammunition replacement would be limited. I was pointing out they really shouldn't.

In fact, the whole point is NOT anticipating, it being explicit with what your assumptions are.

AlViking · 2025-10-03T17:13:48+0100

Micah Sweet said:
Awesome! Like what, do you think?

My version of the underdark is a bit different from most, but I've done a couple different things. Mushrooms have been bred to have a reedy stalk for one. The drow have special concoctions they use to soften bone so their shafts are made from victims and slaves that have outlived their usefulness is another favorite. Giant spider silk can be hardened is another.

Micah Sweet · 2025-10-03T17:19:35+0100

AlViking said:
My version of the underdark is a bit different from most, but I've done a couple different things. Mushrooms have been bred to have a reedy stalk for one. The drow have special concoctions they use to soften bone so their shafts are made from victims and slaves that have outlived their usefulness is another favorite. Giant spider silk can be hardened is another.

Cool. I usually assume crossbows underground, since they have a flatter trajectory, but you'd have the same issues to overcome regarding bolts.

Lanefan · 2025-10-03T20:35:07+0100

Not a Decepticon said:
If your game could be unraveled by players not having to track their ammo, that sounds like a very fragile and poorly-planned game.

The player whose PC just spent 4000 g.p. to pick up an Endless Quiver would have a pretty good case for feeling resentful if another player's PC just always had endless ammo anyway because of being too lazy to track it and-or the DM not enforcing ammo limits.

Not a Decepticon said:
Even D&D left the term referee behind and for a good reason. Referee is necessary when there are two or more sides competeing, collaborative storytelling games require different roles to be taken.

I don't look at D&D as a collaborative storytelling game and never have. Leave that side of things to the indie games, thanks. To me it's first and foremost a battle for survival (that not every character will win), with any resulting story emerging as a sometimes-pleasant side effect.

Not a Decepticon said:
I think saying "my character looks for traps all the way in" once is enough, if I'd have to listen to player interrupting the flow to check for traps in every single room, I would go insane.

Stating it as SOP is good enough for me, unless the character you're playing has the attention span of a fruit fly (I've seen many such!) and is thus liable to forget.

Keep in mind also that not all characters behave and function like highly-trained Navy SEALs; if they did, IMO the game would be far less fun and entertaining.

D&D General Weapons should break left and right

Paul Farquhar

Legend

AlViking

Legend

Micah Sweet

Level Up & OSR Enthusiast

AlViking

Legend

Micah Sweet

Level Up & OSR Enthusiast

Micah Sweet

Level Up & OSR Enthusiast

Mort

Legend

AlViking

Legend

Micah Sweet

Level Up & OSR Enthusiast

Lanefan

Victoria Rules

Similar Threads