D&D 5E Fighter Weapon Choice

[Mercule]

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.

This is my thought, too. I've seen one hit point make the difference, but no where near as often as damage is "wasted". I have no interest in tracking that level of minutia in my game, so I couldn't give you hard numbers.

If wielding a long sword makes someone feel better, good on them. If they think my character is less "optimized", I can live with that; I can even play in the same group. If, however, one wants to ridicule and shame (a.k.a. bully) me over it... well, they're probably compensating for something.

 

[Shiroiken]

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.

Dude. If you feel that missing out on +1 damage (on average) is a village idiot/bumbling liability/incompetent character, you have serious issues.

 

[Sunseeker]

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.

It's the same difference.

If a player is performing poorly in game you have no way, in character, of knowing if that is because he is poorly optimized or rolling poorly or just having a really bad day because he just go word his mother died. You're mixing up in-game knowledge with out-of-game knowledge, even on the simplest level.

The d20 roll doesn't exist in game. All your character sees is another guy swing their sword and miss. Or hit and do some damage. The damage numbers don't really exist either beyond a numerical representation of how good of a hit it was. What you see in character is a guy swing his sword and inflict some small cuts. If this happens often, your character may come under the impression that Bob is a really bad fighter. The reality of the situation is that even though Bob has a +5 str, he's been rolling really poorly for a while. In game, there's no difference between a hit on a 13AC with a roll of 12+1 or a roll of 8+5.

More than likely, liabilities get themselves killed.

Making a TWF who uses scimitars over rapiers with the feat makes so little mechnical difference that it's unlikely your character would ever notice it.

Not making the most optimal choice is not the same as making the least optimal choice.

 

[S_Dalsgaard]

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.)

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.

Thanks for the clarification.

 

[The Crimson Binome]

Dude. If you feel that missing out on +1 damage (on average) is a village idiot/bumbling liability/incompetent character, you have serious issues.

I don't feel that way. Personally, I think one or two points of damage is small enough to be lost in the noise. I also don't really care if there's a TPK and my character's story is cut short. I mean, it's just a game.

My character is probably going to care, though. To my character, that extra few inches of blade digging into the giant's hide might be the difference between life and death. For the sake of doing my best in role-playing the character honestly, she is going to care about the choices your character makes. I feel like we all owe that to the other players at the table.

 

[Zaruthustran]

Y'all might want to go with 13th Age's conception of weapons, which is 100% class-based. Fighters do d8 damage with one-handed martial weapons. Period. Doesn't matter if that's a battle axe, a long sword, a rapier, a scimitar, a spear--whatever. Player gets to pick whatever they think fits best, and not worry about mechanical differences.

5E's nod to this notion is the difference between a glaive and a halberd (none). I honestly think that's an in-joke for those of us who played AD&D 2nd Ed.

To the OP: these days I'm most interested in mechanical interplay of this (relatively new) system's rules. So when I build a fighter, I build them as test-cases for interesting layers of mechanics. Here's a build that plays with Polearm Master. Here's a build that plays with Shield Master. Here's one for Great Weapons. Here's one for thrown weapons. Each of those is a combo of race features, carefully chosen class features, and feats, and each relies on a certain weapon or equipment package.

Once those mechanical choices are made, I flavor it all so it's cool, unique, and fun to roleplay--for me, and for others at the table to interact with. That's a critical step, but it's definitely Step 2.

Later, after I feel like I've explore all of this edition's mechanical interplays (including oddball multiclass and spell interactions), I might come up with a RP concept first, mechanics second. But that'll be a long, long time coming.

 

[S_Dalsgaard]

Thanks for all the answers guys. I find it quite interesting to hear the different views and it keeps surprising me how many different ways there are to play the game. In my games characters would probably be ridiculed more for using a flimsy-looking weapon like a rapier, than they would be lauded for choosing it for its martial potential, but either way certainly has their virtues and flaws.

 

[S_Dalsgaard]

Y'all might want to go with 13th Age's conception of weapons, which is 100% class-based. Fighters do d8 damage with one-handed martial weapons. Period. Doesn't matter if that's a battle axe, a long sword, a rapier, a scimitar, a spear--whatever. Player gets to pick whatever they think fits best, and not worry about mechanical differences.

5E's nod to this notion is the difference between a glaive and a halberd (none). I honestly think that's an in-joke for those of us who played AD&D 2nd Ed.

To the OP: these days I'm most interested in mechanical interplay of this (relatively new) system's rules. So when I build a fighter, I build them as test-cases for interesting layers of mechanics. Here's a build that plays with Polearm Master. Here's a build that plays with Shield Master. Here's one for Great Weapons. Here's one for thrown weapons. Each of those is a combo of race features, carefully chosen class features, and feats, and each relies on a certain weapon or equipment package.

Once those mechanical choices are made, I flavor it all so it's cool, unique, and fun to roleplay--for me, and for others at the table to interact with. That's a critical step, but it's definitely Step 2.

Later, after I feel like I've explore all of this edition's mechanical interplays (including oddball multiclass and spell interactions), I might come up with a RP concept first, mechanics second. But that'll be a long, long time coming.

I thought of doing weapons that way, but I am a bit of a grognard when it comes to some of the sacred cows of D&D, so I like the way weapon damage functions now. However, if my players started to always choose their weapons based on damage potential, I might change it to retain some variety in weapon choisce.

I agree that there are plenty of interesting character concepts to try out in 5e and we haven't even scratched the surface yet in our group.

 

[Grakarg]

As a DM, I like to include custom magic items in the monsters loot. Sometimes, the treasure is geared to the general party, rather then specific characters. For example, I included a +1 spear 'of cold' that does an extra 1d6 cold damage per hit. It is a simple weapon, so literally every character could use it... and I had no idea who would. The paladin quickly snagged it, but anyone could have made good use of it.

When raiding old tombs, the players are much more likely to find a magic short sword (i.e. roman gladius) instead of a fashionable rapier. Rapiers are more of a current fad with the renaissance nobility, and aren't typically found in old musty tombs (being a relatively new 'technology' for swordcraft).

You never know if that weapon your opponent is using has something special about it.

I think that most of the math-based discussion tends to overlook the impact magic items add to the mix, and that includes the thread discussions around GWF and TWF, as it is very difficult to factor in. Instead, just play what you think is cool, and trust the DM to help make it fun.

Don't discount that unarmored duelist with two shortswords (or daggers, or whatever). He might be an incompetent boob, or maybe he is an experienced monk and those swords are smeared with purple worm poison.

 

[GMforPowergamers]

I don't feel that way. Personally, I think one or two points of damage is small enough to be lost in the noise. I also don't really care if there's a TPK and my character's story is cut short. I mean, it's just a game.

My character is probably going to care, though. To my character, that extra few inches of blade digging into the giant's hide might be the difference between life and death. For the sake of doing my best in role-playing the character honestly, she is going to care about the choices your character makes. I feel like we all owe that to the other players at the table.

so if in game a character explained "I trained years with my father's shortsword, I know it backwards and forward, and every style of use, I am not a 10th as good with an arming or borad sword, and the rapier is far too thin for my use" then what... I mean in game that ends it right... better to have the weapon they trained with for years