D&D 5E Fighter Weapon Choice

[Leatherhead]

So, how do you chose which weapon(s) to use when you make a fighter character?

Making a character is quite different than being in the middle of a campaign and making due. One of the people I play with made a traditional Sword&Board Fighter and then picked up a magic Flail. Thanks to the smoothed over class features and feats, such an organic switch is easy and practical. And quite frankly, DPR isn't the only measure of combat effectiveness, especially when you allow feats, it just happens to be the lowest common denominator. The battlefield control of Sentinel gives monsters far more trouble than either of the -5/+10 feats. Right now we are in a really good spot where you can pick a weapon type or fighting style and make something that has noticeable combat impact (as a Fighter should have). Those other threads are mostly talking about how the 2WF is in a weird spot for basically every class that is supposed to be able to use it due to unintended consequences of action economy.

That being said, some weapons are designed for a Fighter as opposed to other classes.

For starters, any Simple weapon with a Martial equivalent (except the Trident, wtf is up with that weapon). You basically payed to use them by selecting the class, might as well reap the benefits of them.

Sometimes similar grouped weapons have a bend one way or the other. The Greatsword is a Fighter weapon and the Greataxe is a Barbarian weapon. They benefit from most of the same mechanics, save for two class mechanics that are based on the weapon damage die size. The difference between these two weapon types is small enough that I would probably use a magic "non-fighter" weapon if I managed to get one.

An extreme example is the Bow VS Crossbow. Without feats, using a Crossbow would be totally impractical for a Fighter. With feats, the Crossbow becomes better, but that is expected with an expenditure of resources. And giving a (reasonable) magic alternative wouldn't be attractive enough to convince me to switch over in either case.

Now, once you account for the weapons that are designed for a Fighter, we can come to the weapons which are basically outclassed by other similar weapons. That Flail, for example, is just flat out inferior to a Warhammer. Granted, in most situations that Versatile option isn't going to come up. But when making a character, unless you are being narratively limited by God or Country, it is realistic to go with the weapon that gives more options. In these cases, I would pick up a magical "inferior" weapon, unless I was specifically using the weapon for the option. Such as using Versatile weapons for a two-handed small race weapon.

Finally, after everything else is considered, there are some cases where weapons are used explicitly for a "build", like the Quarterstaff. You can make an amazing Quarterstaff Fighter, but it isn't something you would naturally think of unless you have a high degree of rules mastery.

 

[thalmin]

A short sword is superior to a rapier in close quarters. A short sword is sturdier than a rapier. The short sword will get hung up in the brush less frequently than a longer weapon. Either short sword or rapier might fit better in a particular person's hand, or feel better balanced in that hand. The short sword would be better trying to hack through a bone or splitting would (though of course an axe would be even better). It would be easier to find someone who could make, therefore sell, a decent short sword than a decent rapier. All of these should be in-game considerations for weapon choice, even if the rules don't make most of these distinguishable.

When I am roleplaying, either DMing or playing, the stories (and I mean each character's story as well as the adventure plot) is far more important than the mechanical rules of the game.

 

[FormerlyHemlock]

In-game, characters would be utterly unaware of the mechanical probabilities of weapons and their interaction with class features. Anyone who took this attitude at my table would promptly get the boot, literally.

That said, I compromise: I tend to pick the mathematically superior weapon that fits my character.

Real-world gun nuts argue with each other over the effectiveness of various weapons and ammunition types. They may not use words like "1d8" vs "2d4" to describe it, but they're very aware of relative effectiveness. It's not unreasonable to imagine that D&D characters are similarly aware that greataxes and halforc barbarians go well together.

In answer to OP's question, I tend to select weapons from a small set based on obvious criteria: longsword (good Str damage), rapier (good Dex damage), longbow (best range), sling (cheapest ammunition), crossbow (easiest missile weapon to use), shortbow (most effecti--wait a second[1]), halberd (polearm master compatible), quarterstaff (polearm master compatible and one-handed), greatsword (heavy weapon, usable with GWM), dagger (versatile backup weapon that you can also use for eating). I don't tend to use whips or tridents or anything weird because weapons just don't interest me very much, so I'm not really interested in differentiating myself through weapon choice. If I had a GWM fighter who lost his greatsword but found a halberd he would pick it up and use it without a moment's hesitation. He'd get a new greatsword when he got around to it but in the meantime it wouldn't be a big deal.

[1] This thread just made me realize that I should equip my skeletons with crossbows instead of shortbows. Same range, same price, same ammunition cost, better damage.

 

[FormerlyHemlock]

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.

You know, that gives me an interesting idea: have a clan of dwarves who are all weapon nuts, and very opinionated in ways that the players know is absolutely tendentious (bogus) but the characters can't. Maybe have them tell anecdotes about how, "I once saw a guy try to kill an orc with a rapier. Stabbity stab stab, the thing just wouldn't die. Finally someone else pulls out a greataxe and lops his head off with one blow, har har har! Rapiers stinks."

Sort of like real-life Ford vs. Dodge debates.

 

[FormerlyHemlock]

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.

You could borrow a Shadowrun concept (also used in the Stormlight archives) and give different weapons different legality classes. Maybe swords are only allowed for lighteyes (nobility) and darkeyes have to use spears. Maybe shortswords are a proud part of our Roman heritage and you're allowed to wear them anywhere, but carrying a greatsword is a declaration that you intend to use it on someone.

 

[FormerlyHemlock]

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.

Some people don't care about the Versatile property. I wouldn't have a problem using a Flail instead of a Warhammer or Longsword if I were a Str-based fighter. There's a miniscule chance I might lose my shield and regret not being able to wield my flail two-handed, but meh, if that happens I'll just use my free hand to grapple/prone the enemy instead.

 

[aramis erak]

My Rogue uses short sword and dagger or two short swords depending on whether or not he needs to throw something.

My Bard wears a rapier which she has never drawn. But rapiers look better with evening wear.

And are quite unweildy in evening wear.

Swords I've worn with modern evening wear:
1h, 2edge, 32" long blade, 6" quarter-basket. (Navy dress sword)
1h, 1.5 edge, 30" long blade, 6"x4" crossbar hilt (KofC 4th degree sword)
1h, 2 edge, 42" long blade rapier with pappenheimer hilt. (8x12x6")
1h, 2 edge, 14" long blade (dirk) (5" hilt)
2h, 2 edge, 44" long blade (scots claidhmor) worn on baldric. (20" hilt).

Of them, the only one that's not a problem in evening wear is the dirk. Provided, of course, one isn't sitting in a chair with arm rests upon it, and either has the dirk on a belt over the jacket or has a jacket cut to allow for it (essentially, a tailcoat).
The claidhmor is less of an issue than the others, but still an issue. Especially if one is going to be sitting.

An over-the-shoulder-draw baldric is a pain to draw from, but the least obnoxious to ones' fellows method for carrying any long blade. And a rapier is typically 6-8" of hilt, plus 40-60" of blade.

 

[bedir than]

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...

Play with speed factor initiative and you get a bit of that within 5th. An industrious GM may even find monsters or special armors that resist piercing but are vulnerable to slashing, or whatever. There's freedom for what you want.

 

[Henry]

One thing to note about rapiers: the earlier ones (pre 17th and 18th centuries) were not as flimsy as popular perception thinks.

http://www.thearma.org/Youth/rapieroutline.htm#.VWkYrfCCOK0

I've seen better articles, but this one does point out that 15th century rapiers were more "all business" than the foils we think of stereotypically.

 

[bedir than]

Real-world gun nuts argue with each other over the effectiveness of various weapons and ammunition types. They may not use words like "1d8" vs "2d4" to describe it, but they're very aware of relative effectiveness. It's not unreasonable to imagine that D&D characters are similarly aware that greataxes and halforc barbarians go well together.

This is true and yet still at the range you'll find a wide variety of weapons being used. The reason for that is not just because people are idiots. It's because not everyone (and this was true when I was in the Army) is focused on X. Maybe they are left eye dominant, maybe they have small fingers, maybe can carry more, maybe they're the sorry rookie that has to lug the underslung grenade launcher because they're the rookie.

Real people don't do min/maxing.