D&D 5E Fighter Weapon Choice

[justinj3x3]

I base any choices on the character. If the character is the type to use a certain weapon they will use it no matter the game mechanics.

 

[GMforPowergamers]

Characters know way more about how their world works than the players do. In-game, characters know about the real world details which are merely modeled by the stats we see in the book. It is a truth of their world that the rapier is more likely to cause a lethal injury than a shortsword, though it is much easier to dual wield shortswords rather than rapiers. It is a truth of their world that, given the choice between the two, the fighter who chooses a single shortsword over a single rapier is less likely to disable an opponent in the first strike, and more likely to die.

so 3 PCs walk into your game with shortswords and armor... the other PCs out of game don't know what class they have just a martial bent and short sword... and they make fun of them all equally?

or

as I suspect they wait until it turns out one is a rogue with sneak attack and his choice is fine, and only make fun when the mechanics are an issue?

 

[GMforPowergamers]

in my games it is always form over function... but for years it was one and the same... 90% of my players go longsword/shield or shortsword/shortsword or big axe... only about 10% (maybe less) see a weapon difference...

 

[justinj3x3]

Characters know way more about how their world works than the players do. In-game, characters know about the real world details which are merely modeled by the stats we see in the book. It is a truth of their world that the rapier is more likely to cause a lethal injury than a shortsword, though it is much easier to dual wield shortswords rather than rapiers. It is a truth of their world that, given the choice between the two, the fighter who chooses a single shortsword over a single rapier is less likely to disable an opponent in the first strike, and more likely to die.

Eh, If I was to choose a blade to wield in real life I would be thinking about how well I myself could wield it rather than it's damage output. You are right to an extent, but there are other factors than damage output when choosing a weapon IRL.

 

[Bacon Bits]

My weapon selection is based on what I like to envision and how dice feel. Personally, I hate rolling d12s. They never stop rolling, you never feel satisfied with anything less than a 10, and rolling a 1 or a 2 just feels stupid. That's really my only rule for weapon selection that I am loathe to break. I tend to prefer long swords, short swords, maces, and hammers, and tend to avoid axes, spears, rapiers, or polearms. I do tend to prefer what's mechanically better, but I still tend to work within the frame of the imagery and play feel that I like. I prefer one-handed & shield, then two-handed weapons, then bows, then two weapons.

Overall I like simple and iconic characters. I like the discrete flavors a class system provides, and tend to embrace the class with my designs rather than try to combine classes for an eclectic mix of unrelated or dissimilar abilities.

 

[The Crimson Binome]

Even when figuring out the math, the difference between shortsword and rapier should only be 1 hp per attack (if my math is right). Combined with various stat bonuses that really seems like a small difference to make anyone actually shun the character.

It's enough that people in-game would notice. I mean, leather armor might only give a +1 bonus to AC, but characters will still choose to wear it rather than nothing. It might save your life. A direct stab from either a shortsword or a rapier is probably going to kill a person either way, but sometimes the rapier will kill in a situation where the shortsword won't, and there's nothing that the shortsword has going for it.

People in real life will sometimes choose a pistol based on its stopping power. Sure, a smaller gun will probably end the fight just as quickly, but the difference might matter. When you're in a life-or-death situation, there's some reason to use the bigger gun, and no reason to use the smaller one. (Or there are reasons, like concealability or availability, which actually matter. Aesthetic is not a good reason.)

But this is actually why I posted the question. It is interesting to get both perspectives and neither view is wrong, but seems to be very different from table to table. I would assume that when you have this view on damage potential, it is rather important to you, that the various feat options (like TWF, GWF, etc.) are somewhat equal in power?

Not so much. In a direct comparison, there can be right choices and wrong choices, but all of the different options are different enough that there's some reason to choose one over the other. Even if GWF might out-shine TWF in a single-target damage comparison, the guy with two swords still has the option to attack two different targets.

The important thing is, when your new character is applying to the team, that she can answer the question when it is asked. If the team leader looks at her, and actually asks why she made the choice she did, does she have an answer? Why did she choose that shortsword instead of a rapier. If your character answers that it's an heirloom and the only weapon she can afford, or that she doesn't know how to use a rapier, then those are good answers. They demonstrates the ability to make a good decision based on the facts at hand. If she says anything along the lines of aesthetic value, or tradition, or anything that doesn't matter in the heat of a life-or-death battle, then she is demonstrating foolishness and will be ridiculed for it.

 

[Sunseeker]

Characters know way more about how their world works than the players do. In-game, characters know about the real world details which are merely modeled by the stats we see in the book. It is a truth of their world that the rapier is more likely to cause a lethal injury than a shortsword, though it is much easier to dual wield shortswords rather than rapiers. It is a truth of their world that, given the choice between the two, the fighter who chooses a single shortsword over a single rapier is less likely to disable an opponent in the first strike, and more likely to die.

But characters don't know anything about what class features they will get, what class features other people have, or heck even what other people's classes ARE unless there is some dead giveaway. (Shapeshifting is probably a good sign you're a druid). Some classes even have valid, in-game reasons to NOT let other people know what class they are, such as the Warlock, Rogue and Anti-Paladin.

Ostensibly in-game you're not really going to be able to tell if a swashbucker is a rogue or a fighter, if the lightly-armored holy-guy is a paladin or a cleric unless you ASK them. Even then they're under no obligation to tell you.

That aside: ridicule is absolutely unacceptable at my table, ESPECIALLY when it over playing what you enjoy. If YOU can't have fun because Bob wants to play a mechanically sub-optimal character, then that is YOUR problem and I will quite swiftly step in on such matters.

 

[The Crimson Binome]

So 3 PCs walk into your game with shortswords and armor... the other PCs out of game don't know what class they have just a martial bent and short sword... and they make fun of them all equally?

There is no in-game distinction between PCs and NPCs. If my character is approached by three other characters who are wielding shortswords, she will assume that they are either incompetent or poor or don't know how to use rapiers. If they're going to be working together, and she wants to figure out which category they belong to, she'll ask.

Note that a rogue using a shortsword instead of a rapier falls into the "incompetent" category, unless it's dual-wielding.

 

[The Crimson Binome]

That aside: ridicule is absolutely unacceptable at my table, ESPECIALLY when it over playing what you enjoy. If YOU can't have fun because Bob wants to play a mechanically sub-optimal character, then that is YOUR problem and I will quite swiftly step in on such matters.

I don't mean between players, obviously. I'm not going to make fun of someone just because they don't know the system as well as I do, just as I would hope nobody makes fun of me for making my own honest mistakes. There's a learning curve with any game.

Character-wise, though, most players like to play competent characters, and there's no reason why everyone else should be forced into playing incompetent characters in order to accommodate one person who insists on playing the village idiot. The professional soldier wouldn't work with the bumbling liability who is going to get everyone killed. If my options are to play an incompetent character, or find another table, then I'll find another table.

 

[Shiroiken]

I wish they had better balance amongst the weapons. While everyone has an idea of what would be cool, if there is a superior weapon, meta-game thinking usually takes precedence. What I don't understand is: they had fairly decent balance in part of the playtest, and then threw it out the window.

For myself, I design the concept in my mind first, which usually doesn't include weapons, armor, or other gear. I then build that character as close to my concept as possible, while also trying to have the best mechanical benefit. It keeps me from making super-tool characters, but it also keeps me from making a scrub. In 5E, however, the difference between the two is so minimal that most non-math wonks would miss it.