D&D 5E Fighter Weapon Choice

[FormerlyHemlock]

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.

I don't think it's a matter of real people not doing min-maxing. People still optimize. But as you note, they optimize for different things, and that happens in D&D too. (E.g. I have no issue with flails not being Versatile, as mentioned above. I gravitate to longswords by default habit[1] but if I had a flail I wouldn't throw it away.) Some people are also better at optimizing, or better at empirical methods. (That happens in D&D too actually. Just look at people who think Savage Attacks is an awesome feat.)

The contention I was responding to is that D&D PCs can only optimize by metagaming, and I believe real-life data is consistent with that viewpoint. Small fingers/left eye dominant seems like a halberd : glaive level difference (i.e. none in 5E), not a shortbow : longbow or shortsword : rapier difference of the sort which is claimed to be metagamey. d6 vs d8 is empirically noticeable within the gameworld.

The whole point of my "dwarven anti-rapier clan" joke earlier was that not everybody in the real world does unbiased empirical testing. The shortsword : rapier difference is small enough that if you wanted to deny it, you could, and it would be somewhat difficult to someone to disprove your opinion empirically. (You could stab the same orc into unconsciousness with each weapon every day for a week, or even several times in a day with magical healing, and then run ANOVA on the results. But that would be unethical. )

Edited to add: So anyway, I don't think we disagree about anything important here--I think you were just sharing some knowledge about real-world optimization, for which I thank you. Let me know if there's anything still for us to debate on this issue.

[1] The habit is pointless in 5E, but it comes from AD&D, wherein the longsword does 1d8 vs. medium creatures and 1d12 vs. larger creatures. In AD&D longswords were optimal for shield users, and in 5E they're adequate for Str fighters, so I haven't had a reason to change my habits because I just don't care much about differentiating myself through choice of weaponry.

 

[FormerlyHemlock]

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.

Another little bit of flavor I've considered throwing out there is for shortswords to be easier to use in cramped quarters than rapiers. By RAW, a fighter in a 3' corridor would be at disadvantage to attacks/advantage to be attacked because the corridor is smaller than the 5' square he controls (even though real world hallways are usually 3'). Maybe I'd say you can attack with a dagger or shortsword without disadvantage in a 3' hallway, but a rapier would still be at disadvantage. (More likely though, I would decide that rapiers and shortswords are both thrusting weapons, and would treat them the same way unless you were locked inside of a phone booth, in which case the shortsword really is easier.)

 

[77IM]

I pick high-level attributes based on role-playing (e.g. stealthy Dex dude vs. brawny Str dude) and then I optimize the details (e.g. rapier instead of short sword, if that's my primary weapon).

Occasionally I'll chose something slightly suboptimal if it fits my concept and I can mechanically compensate in other ways. For example, a dagger-wielding rogue is just fine at higher levels since Sneak Attack damage starts to totally overshadow weapon damage.

 

[n00b f00]

To me a smallish difference isn't a big deal. One that we can see with charts, but that I don't think your average professional soldier would be absolutely certain with math in the setting. Like, they would for sure see the difference with a d12 versus a d4. But a d6 versus a d8? I think the average one point of damage that they'd see, if they saw a ton of fighting with those weapons, would be something they likely chalked up to small sample size, or they would confirmation basis. Or at least many would. I've seen people argue about guns, and calibers, and ranges forever. They've linked charts, dummy tests, stories, reports from battlefield medics. And they still don't agree. They can oftentimes not agree on which one is meaningfully more damaging to the health of a human body at all, or if being that much more damaging actually is meaningful in a fight.

To me that just makes it more obvious that that PCs couldn't honestly prove that one was worse than other when it was a minor discrepancy. Because in real life, with all the information we have. You still have gun nuts argue til they're purple in the face that no, their chosen gun is the d8 and the other one is the d6. I don't see why it'd be any different in DnD unless you wanted to metagame which is just fine. Or they did do the orc stabby test a few thousand times and found that yes, this weapon is marginally better.

To me as a player, I wouldn't really sweat it. Unless it was either a very large mechanical difference. Like a str barbarian using a single dagger, which would come across as inane in and out of universe, or we were just playing a campaign based around winning a series of narrative free combat encounters in a void. Which isn't an insult, it's a totally chill way to play the game, and the only one I'd feel raw over. Though honestly, if I felt like I really wanted my roman legionnaire to use a shortsword for flavor, I'd ask my GM if I could just reskin a rapier as a shortsword. That way we all win, and I can't make a reasonable argument for why a GM might turn down that request.

 

[Mirtek]

And are quite unweildy in evening wear.
[...]
Of them, the only one that's not a problem in evening wear is the dirk

Comfort/practicality is the last things on the list (if on the list at all) a fashionista uses to determine his evening wear

 

[spinozajack]

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.

The last line you wrote there is literally why they made the great weapon fighting style. Re-rolling 1s and 2s are overkill for greatsword's 2d6, and mechanically superior too. I wish they had kept the weapons the same damage die instead of make greatswords superior. Essentially greatswords have built-in protection from rolling a 1 on damage, and a 2 (snake eyes) is exceedingly rare compared to a greataxe.

This is why when I DM, all great weapons do 1d12, and the greatweapon style re-rolls 1s, 2s, AND 3s. I want great weapons to be the best at dealing damage, period. The duelist style brings a longsword from 4.5 to 6.5 average damage per hit, which is comparatively much better a boost than greatweapons get which is just odd. Re-rolling anything less than 3s (as many times as they come up, not just once), makes all greatweapons have 8 DPR. Going up from 6.5 to 8 is STILL less of both an absolute and a relative performance boost, therefore it's warranted and still balanced. GWM is underpowered. If you are wielding a two-handed weapon and are a min maxer or powergamer, you pick the AC boost instead, every time. It will protect your character far more than the puny damage increase will (in the sense of killing enemies sooner and in doing so, prevent incoming damage from their next action).

Trust me, in my game, you wouldn't mind having a d12 weapon.

 

[spinozajack]

I think people should pick the best weapon they can afford and have proficiency in in the PHB, and use that, barring some overwhelming roleplay reason. For example, there is no point for a rogue who prefers melee combat to pick two daggers, or even one, over a pair of short swords. Even in the story, the characters would be aware that short swords are more damaging than a dagger, for the same reason they know a long sword is more damaging than a short sword, or a greatsword more damaging than a longsword. Their relative damage differences are definitely known in-character, otherwise you would have everyone picking the cheapest weapons from the weapon table instead of spending more on the best (and keeping the rest of the gold for armor or money to bribe the guards or whatever).

The claim that characters don't know weapons deal different damage is pure nonsense.

I would pick the best weapon that my character likes, if it's within one step from the best. For example, I like greataxes, but they are in fact mechanically inferior to greatswords. Especially with great weapon style tacked on. It bothers me, but not enough to play my dwarf paladin with anything but his grandfather's prized heirloom axe. Which I'm going to re-forge into a halberd at level 4 Because nothing will ever convince me, in the context of character ability, that polearms aren't simply above and beyond THE weapon to wield for melee str characters in 5th edition. Even if we found a +1 greataxe, I would still do way more damage and be more effective in combat wielding a polearm. It is the low hanging fruit of 5th edition, and silly not to reach for it. Ok bad pun

This is in a game where I'm a player.

When I DM, I have these houserules to re-balance the combat system in 5th edition:
1) All great weapons do 1d12 damage.

2) GWM style as I wrote before re-rolls 1s, 2s, 3s, as many times as they come up (but only for the weapon part of the damage, including crits, but not for smites or other riders). I'm considering making it damage advantage instead but need to double check the math first. So you always re-roll once and pick the higher number.

3) Duelist style gives +1 to damage when you go versatile so at least you don't deal less damage when you attack with both hands and go 1d10. 5.5 + 1 = 6.5, same as one-handed but with slightly better crits. Yes, this means you can combine the two fighting styles to get 8 DPR with a longsword used two-handed, same as a greatsword or greataxe. Not sure why you would do that, except if you're a paladin / fighter with a holy avenger. Holy avengers in my games are longswords only.

4) Polearm master doesn't add the extra attack and you can't use the -5 / +10 benefit of great weapon master on a reach weapon. Just doesn't fit thematically and is completely broken mechanically. These two fixes make polearms still very powerful, dual wielding the best to get multiple attacks, and great weapons deal the most damage in close range combat. There are also no magical polearms in my game, except if you enchant one yourself. Which is hard.

5) Rogues can deal sneak attacks only when not dual wielding, but get a +1 bonus to hit with daggers. This will make dual wielding short swords moot and a thing of the past. A rapier does 1d8 damage which is balanced I think against a +1 to hit, or vaguely so. I'm considering making their sneak attack damage the same as their weapon. So increasing from dagger to short sword to rapier makes sense as you gain more sneak attack dice. Will have to revisit this one with some solid math charts to see if the dagger's to-hit bonus needs to scale too, maybe from +1 to +3. Also, rapiers are expensive. Like, really expensive.

6) The weapon and armor costs will be completely changed to make the game more CRPG-like and give people a reason to save up their gold beyond just getting plate armor made. Great weapons are expensive, and if you want a long sword at level 1 legally, you are going to spend nearly all your starting gold on it. Name one instance of a PC in D&D ever picking up a non-magical weapon from the ground. You can afford everything you need with the default costs, life should never be so easy. Good quality steel weapons cost a lot. Maybe I'll make a table column for the iron prices (haha). At level 1, you pay the iron price because it's all you can afford. Iron weapons break on natural 1s. Good idea to keep a backup weapon.

7) Dual wielding is pretty dumb the way they did it. You should deal no ability modifier to damage on either hand, similar to Twin Strike in 4th edition. The twf style increases that to 1/2, and the feat makes it full. (including non light weapons and the +1 to AC and quick draw, as usual)

8) There are racial weapons that only those proficient in their use can benefit from. A Dwarven War Axe is just a Battle Axe with the Heavy property. Dwarves only teach other dwarves how to use them, after they have received some repute. The elven light blade is a greatword with finesse that can benefit from great weapon style. You need to spend time and do favors to get these proficiencies. It is rare that they teach these to outsiders or members of other races.

 

[Crothian]

We just have characters use what they want. Someone could use a shrimp fork for all I care as long as the players are having fun.

 

[Jester David]

If a character uses a weapon which is mechanically inferior - like a short sword instead of a rapier, when the character isn't trying to dual wield or anything - then that character is suicidally incompetent and a liability to the team. Other, competent characters will ridicule this character in-game, and refuse to work with such a moron.

Because, of course, the difference of 1 point of damage per round is all that is needed to change a character from competent to a suicidal liability.
That's maybe 2-4 points of damage per fight, and 24 damage over an entire level.
Of course, since we're talking about <100 different attacks, statistical variability will be in play rather than averages so the damage of the character will depend on what they rolled to hit and a couple lucky criticals would offset their lesser damage or a couple misses negate any advantage having a better weapon would have granted.

 

[Jester David]

I think people should pick the best weapon they can afford and have proficiency in in the PHB, and use that, barring some overwhelming roleplay reason. For example, there is no point for a rogue who prefers melee combat to pick two daggers, or even one, over a pair of short swords. Even in the story, the characters would be aware that short swords are more damaging than a dagger, for the same reason they know a long sword is more damaging than a short sword, or a greatsword more damaging than a longsword. Their relative damage differences are definitely known in-character, otherwise you would have everyone picking the cheapest weapons from the weapon table instead of spending more on the best (and keeping the rest of the gold for armor or money to bribe the guards or whatever).

The claim that characters don't know weapons deal different damage is pure nonsense.

I would pick the best weapon that my character likes, if it's within one step from the best. For example, I like greataxes, but they are in fact mechanically inferior to greatswords. Especially with great weapon style tacked on. It bothers me, but not enough to play my dwarf paladin with anything but his grandfather's prized heirloom axe. Which I'm going to re-forge into a halberd at level 4 Because nothing will ever convince me, in the context of character ability, that polearms aren't simply above and beyond THE weapon to wield for melee str characters in 5th edition. Even if we found a +1 greataxe, I would still do way more damage and be more effective in combat wielding a polearm. It is the low hanging fruit of 5th edition, and silly not to reach for it. Ok bad pun

1) Daggers are easily concealed. So there's the roleplaying element of the character with a dozen knives hidden over their body.
2) Daggers can be thrown. And there's *always* those times when you're just 5 or 10 feet out of range.