D&D 5E Fighter Weapon Choice

[bedir than]

Back in 1st edition I built a knife fighter just to piss off the rest of the party. They were so concerned with max damage that I wanted to show alternate methods of play. He did OK. It was odd walking around in chain mail flinging daggers all over the place, but it worked, well.

Now, when creating a character I'll just take the weapons I want and then figure out a path that makes that as good as it can be. Losing 10% or less of potential max damage isn't going to be a big deal.

 

[mlund]

13th Age made the correct approach to weapons an armor. None of them function in a vacuum. Instead the AC and Damage payloads are based on the class's relationship to weapon categories (simply v. martial, ranged v. melee, light/medium/heavy). For example, Rogues deal the same damage with their one-handed weapon of choice whether it's a vicious-looking dagger, a shiny new rapier, or a longsword. Paladins get more AC out of a suit of Heavy Armor than a Cleric does out of the same set, period. It also eliminates all the stupid picking of nits regarding the already-unrealistic capabilities of cutlasses vs. rapiers vs. crossbows vs. purely fictional Banded Mail and Splint Mail.

It also scales the game nicely as you move time periods. Yes, Roman Lorica Segmentata isn't the same as Gothic Plate - but its the "Heavy Armor" of the era you're playing in so that doesn't matter. Yes, bronze long-spears wouldn't use the same profile as a Renaissance pikes, but we're playing in the Bronze Age so there are no Renaissance pikes. Etc.

Frankly, as long as you aren't adding or taking away from the weapon's features (damage dice, traits) I'm happy to let you substitute another weapon for the same profile if it conveys no mechanical advantages outside of perhaps changing the damage among slashing/piercing/bludgeoning. You want light, finesse, bludgeoning nunchaku? We can do that. Use the Short Sword profile and it won't compromise the game in any way.

 

[justinj3x3]

Edit: I'm posting to the wrong thread. Nevermind.....

 

[jgsugden]

The game would be improved if there were reasons for PCs to use each of the weapons from a mechanical standpoint. In other words, the game would be better if there were a reason for a fighter to choose to use shortswords.

In the 90s I played in a D&D game that used 'segmented initiative' instead of rounds. You rolled a d10, added your action modifier (weapon speed, casting time, etc...) and waited that many segments to act. As soon as you acted, you rolled again to see how many segments would pass before your next attack or spell could be unleashed. This added more nuance to weapons - daggers, shortswords, etc... allowed for more attacks while bigger weapons allowed for more powerful attacks that came less often. I've hoped that D&D would evolve to evoke similar concepts, but they have not moved in that direction...

 

[Shiroiken]

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.

Your character isn't going to know the optimal method; that's meta-game thinking. In real life, there were many different types of swords, designed for many different situations. Each had there advantages and disadvantages, and if you discount the opinion of katana fanboys, none of them were truly superior in all situations. Additionally, there were many cultural and personal reasons to use the blade you did, regardless of what might be "better."

Picking on a player IC for not being optimized is still being a jerk. Justify it to yourself however you want, but I would boot you from my game (or leave a game you're in) very quickly.

 

[Blue]

I go somewhat sideways to your question. I often reskin equipment and spells in order to fit the character. A recent character used a massive triple-headed flail that instead of balls has iron cubes with raised runes of the faces that blaze in different combinations as he casts his spells and wore armor made of lacquered wooden scales that clack softly every time he moves but provide a surprising freedom of movement. Neither of those are in the equipment list, so I'll find equipment that provides the same mechanical effects and that is what I buy.

That said, I will give thoughts to where I want to take a character. For a fighter if I pick the Duelist fighting style I'll pick gear that can use it. For an upcoming game I am going to be playing a paladin with a group of squishies which made me chose Polearm Master (we're starting at 5th) so my weapon choices are fairly constrained if I want to use my feat.

 

[krunchyfrogg]

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.

Most 5e weapons are pretty balanced. I like that a lot. Want to use a warhammer? It does the same damage as a longsword that does the same damage as a battle axe.

Your character isn't going to know the optimal method; that's meta-game thinking. In real life, there were many different types of swords, designed for many different situations. Each had there advantages and disadvantages, and if you discount the opinion of katana fanboys, none of them were truly superior in all situations. Additionally, there were many cultural and personal reasons to use the blade you did, regardless of what might be "better."

Picking on a player IC for not being optimized is still being a jerk. Justify it to yourself however you want, but I would boot you from my game (or leave a game you're in) very quickly.

I just had to quote you here on the katana comment.

When we played 2e, the katana came out and was by far the most powerful one-handed weapon. I think it did 1d10 damage and had a very good speed factor.

Everybody wanted to use them.

What was funny was, when I was DM'ing, I let people start with them if they really wanted to. But I wasn't playing in a setting where katana would be commonplace. They were very rare.

There were no magical katana to be found, and with the way weapon proficiencies worked, a could of players weren't too happy.

I remember handing out a katana +1 at almost the same time a +3 longsword was found.

 

[Shiroiken]

Most 5e weapons are pretty balanced. I like that a lot. Want to use a warhammer? It does the same damage as a longsword that does the same damage as a battle axe.

But the Flail, Morningstar, and War Pick are just worse, as they lack the Versatile property (and are otherwise equal). And the Light Hammer (which is really what the War Hammer was IRL) is weaker than the Hand Axe. The Mace is pointless when you can use a staff with one hand. Don't get me started on the Trident/Spear situation either...

Most of the weapons they did a good job with, but there were a few things I really wanted to see fixed.

 

[The Crimson Binome]

Your character isn't going to know the optimal method; that's meta-game thinking. In real life, there were many different types of swords, designed for many different situations. Each had there advantages and disadvantages, and if you discount the opinion of katana fanboys, none of them were truly superior in all situations. Additionally, there were many cultural and personal reasons to use the blade you did, regardless of what might be "better."

The reality of the game world is not the reality of our world. In the game world, some swords are just better in some situations. Unless you're dual-wielding, a rapier is just better than a short sword. Whatever real-world factor might support the choice for a short sword over a rapier is not a factor within the reality of the game world.

Assuming that the characters are blind to this is meta-game thinking. It's trying to impose a reality on their world based on information that the characters don't have - namely, how these weapons perform in the real world.

 

[The Grassy Gnoll]

Personally I like maces and scimitar but that's down to watching Robin of Sherwood (scimitar) and the original Monk illustration by Gary Chalk in Talisman. Ah. Youth.