D&D 5E Magic Items: DMs Thoughts.

[Raith5]

Isnt the real problem here with either weapons or magical weapons, simply a matter of legacy. In D&D longswords always do 1d8, daggers do 1d4, etc. If they didnt a large group of gamers would not like it.

I really like the idea of different weapons keying off different stats or having appropriate effects but has any edition of D&D really done anything dramatic here? The best that I can recall (aside from speed factors in AD&D as mentioned in the OP) are expanded crit ranges for longswords in 3rd edition and some martial powers required certain weapons in 4e.

 

[Flexor the Mighty!]

D&D is a pretty bad at modeling medieval combat and weapons, but some weapons are better than others. Sure in fantasy and film, where its cheaper and easier to show off the actor if he is wearing almost no armor, you have warriors wearing almost nothing and using weapons that were abandoned due to being ineffective. As long as the game is internally consistent, well somewhat, its easy to go along with. "yeah the guy with a puffy shirt and two daggers is going to be effective against the guy in full plate with a poleaxe..." Gary's to hit vs AC rules and speed factors in 1e tried to deal with some of this, but would adapting that system on 5e make the game more fun? Not sure for our beer and pretzels dungeon bashing it would.

 

[Sword of Spirit]

How is medium armor a trap? A creature either has 17 AC with light, 17 AC with medium, or 18 AC with heavy. The creature with the medium armor also maxes their AC faster because they only need a 14 Dex and half the gold. Not everyone gets to wear heavy armor or max their Dexterity. For the few class options that fall into this area, it is perfect.

Yes, you are correct. However, a fighter can effectively choose to go with either heavy armor or light armor--but medium armor generally sucks for a fighter. That's the problem. It means that medium armor is inferior if you have a broad choice of armor, and that's where comparisons of relative effectiveness of armor lie.

You have to take one step back from specific context in order to really compare options. After all, a mace is a fantastic weapon if the alternative is a club.

 

[The Human Target]

Truthfully flavor doesn't have to come at the cost of effectiveness, but part of the weapons flavor is it's mechanical difference.

The bolded part is the crux of the issue to me. It's a player issue and not a character issue. For a character the longsword may be the most effective, but mechanically a greatsword is better. Or perhaps they're from a culture that uses scimitars primarily, why would they be running around with a longsword? Perhaps they're from a more hunter based society where spears were very common. Why would that character be running around with a longsword? What if their background is peasant so mace is thematically correct? If a player insists on always having their character be mechanically at the tip of the spear then, as far as I'm concerned, they don't have a leg to stand on that there aren't enough options for them.

Weapons don't have to be mechanically similar. In many ways that takes away from the game for me, so I like having various mechanical options to reflect the choices I make. It goes along with having multiple class options.

Where do we draw the line? If every weapon should be mechanically indistinguishable from the others then why should every subclass be indistinguishable from another? Why do we need multiple fighter/paladin/etc subclasses when you can just use flavor? In my opinion it's because mechanics add flavor for the player and I'm ok with some being slightly more powerful than others because I like having options.

That to me is senseless.

In the end the game is providing some options that are clearly mechanically better (but of course not being 100% above board with that fact.)

The game is also presented as a game, with challenges to be overcome. Effectiveness is important. As is keeping up your end of the teamwork.

The game is also an RPG, which encourages customizing of characters and getting into your character. Which is great!

And yet, a Fighter who chooses a short sword over a longsword for reasons of flavor is doing so in bold faced opposition to the "overcoming challenges" aspect of the game.

He is making himself worse to be more interesting.

That's very bad game design.

 

[Ahrimon]

And yet, a Fighter who chooses a short sword over a longsword for reasons of flavor is doing so in bold faced opposition to the "overcoming challenges" aspect of the game.

He is making himself worse to be more interesting.

That's very bad game design.

He's making himself worse by an average of 1pt of damage per attack. 2pts max and what, 4pts max on a crit. Is that really so horrible that it's a "trap" or so behind the cutting edge that he'd be a fool to do it?

I don't think so.

 

[Tormyr]

Yes, you are correct. However, a fighter can effectively choose to go with either heavy armor or light armor--but medium armor generally sucks for a fighter. That's the problem. It means that medium armor is inferior if you have a broad choice of armor, and that's where comparisons of relative effectiveness of armor lie.

You have to take one step back from specific context in order to really compare options. After all, a mace is a fantastic weapon if the alternative is a club.

If we have to step back from a specific context, then looking at the fighter as the end all and be all of armor appropriateness does not work. Having a broad choice of armor is a specific situation. I do not know about previous editions, but 5e does not seem to have all equipment (including the armor) optimized for fighters, and that seems like a feature to me. The medium armor can be a good choice for a Charisma Paladin, an Eldritch Knight, a mountain dwarf wizard, some barbarians, bards, and other configurations I have not thought of. For them, the medium armor is the correct choice.

Compared to the mace, a club is a fantastic weapon when the creature has shillelagh. A dagger is great for a smiting paladin in a creature's stomach. A quarterstaff is great for a new monk.

Each piece of equipment has its place. They are not all there for a specific brand of fighter, and no option is best for everybody.

EDIT: Going back to the OP, we have a decent array of weapons in our group. Shortswords, quarterstaff, longsword, cestus, mace, club, scimitar, rapier. The great thing is that the real damage from a weapon attack comes from the class features or feats. The difference between a 2.5 (1d4) or 7 (2d6) is relatively small compared to the hp of monsters and the damage done by extra attacks, smites, sneak attack, divine favor, weapon master, shillelagh, rage, and many others.

 

[The Human Target]

He's making himself worse by an average of 1pt of damage per attack. 2pts max and what, 4pts max on a crit. Is that really so horrible that it's a "trap" or so behind the cutting edge that he'd be a fool to do it?

I don't think so.

And yet, most people have always chosen those better weapons weapons if able.

Given the option between a max 6 value and a max 8 value in any given situation people are going to overwhelming go for the higher number.

And if the difference is so minimal in you eyes between a d6 and a d8, why even have there be a difference in die size anyway?

And D&D itself reinforces the idea that bigger damage dice are better, over and over again.

And that's just in the case of short sword vs longsword, two weapons generally treated as similar.

As a side question- how much time do peoples characters spend swallowed by creatures? Is that really the selling feature of the dagger?

 

[Ahrimon]

And yet, most people have always chosen those better weapons weapons if able.

And if the difference is so minimal in you eyes between a d6 and a d8, why even have there be a difference in die size anyway?

Because a longsword hits harder than a shortsword in DnD physics. But the difference isn't enough to make one choice non viable.

Perhaps at your table they always take the most mechanically effective option that doesn't equate to most people. It says more about the folks you play with over the population at large, and there's nothing wrong with always choosing the mechanically optimum choice. It's there to be a choice. But another player can choose the less optimum choice and that character can still hold his own with almost no perceptible difference in effectiveness.

 

[The Human Target]

Because a longsword hits harder than a shortsword in DnD physics. But the difference isn't enough to make one choice non viable.

Perhaps at your table they always take the most mechanically effective option that doesn't equate to most people. It says more about the folks you play with over the population at large, and there's nothing wrong with always choosing the mechanically optimum choice. It's there to be a choice. But another player can choose the less optimum choice and that character can still hold his own with almost no perceptible difference in effectiveness.

I'm just talking from a theoretical standpoint. The short sword is unarguably worse. It is a trap option. Choosing it is a flavor choice that is punished by the mechanics of the game.

Now I agree that isn't a super big deal. In 5e, at least at low levels.

And yet, there is no doubt in my mind most people are going to choose the technically better weapon.

The game encourages that decision, and people are built to be inclined towards the better option.

 

[The Human Target]

I don't know how we got on short sword vs longsword or any other similar weapons. I blame myself.

A Fighter wielding a club one handed and nothing in the other hand is significantly worse than one that weilds a longsword and shield.

The club is a trap option for fighters.

Its not some sort of "those darn power gamer kids" issue.