The Tyranny of the Sword

[hemera]

I am a big Tome of Battle fan myself, so I'm definitely a type 2. I have no problem with fighters eventually doing crazy weapon techniques they learned over time. If the wizard or cleric can just snap their fingers and wish/miracle for whatever she wants, I don't think it's unreasonable for the fighter to do a cool acrobatic maneuver as he slices up an opponent.

Just my thoughts though.

 

[Hussar]

Just a point about swords in general, and a bit off topic:

Swords were most certainly not the "uber" weapon on the battlefield. They were most often the weapon of last resort or for finishing off an opponent. There's a reason that the typical soldier carried a long pointy thing in hand and had his sword in a sheath for engaging the enemy.

I'd be REALLY happy if swords were massively downplayed in 5e and polearms and spears of various types got put into a place of prominence. Good grief, who would ever hunt with a sword? Yet, we fight monsters with a sword instead of something like a boar spear. Blargh.

Sorry, this was off topic, but, I just had to get it out.

Hus "I've been playing polearm characters for years" sar

 

[Derren]

The reason that swords are the best weapon up close is because for most of the past 4000 years, the swords were the best tool for killing other people up close. A bow isn't that accurate. Axes are heavy and unbalanced. A mace is good if you need to pop some knight's helm off. Spears come pretty close, but those are only effective in tight formations.

The sword is the most technologically advanced item a Medieval person would ever see.

Not completely true.
Swords were so widespread because they are always useful. No matter how armored the enemy is you can do something with a sword. They were also versatile as you could slash and stab with (most) swords and not many weapons can do both.
But that made swords more like secondary weapons. Primary weapons were always specialized ones like spears, javelins (in the case of Romans), hammers, etc.

 

[Dausuul]

But they're also the up-close and personal fighters as well - and that's the focus of the OP, games promoting melee combat when the progress of warfare and technology (including magic if we look at it that way) is away from melee.

Okay, I just don't get this. Where is this idea coming from that "warfare and technology" militate against the use of swords? If that were the case, swords would never have existed! They were damned expensive and difficult to make. Just about any ranged weapon you care to name--bow, sling, javelin--was cheaper to produce, usually by an order of magnitude or more. But the sword, in one form or another, was a staple of military technology throughout history.

If you look at the history of warfare, it's dominated by three weapons: The spear*, the sword, and the bow. That trio shows up over and over, from Africa to East Asia, from antiquity to the Renaissance. Everything else was optional, but if you wanted to wage war any time before the spread of handheld firearms, you brought those three weapons or you went home and cried. (After that point, the spear and sword stayed but bows were gradually supplanted by guns. The spear was next to get phased out, and the sword went last.)

[SIZE=-2]*Used in melee. Some armies did make use of throwing spears, most notably the Roman legions, but in general the spear was a melee weapon used in formation.
[/SIZE]

 

[Andor]

Just a point about swords in general, and a bit off topic:

Swords were most certainly not the "uber" weapon on the battlefield. They were most often the weapon of last resort or for finishing off an opponent. There's a reason that the typical soldier carried a long pointy thing in hand and had his sword in a sheath for engaging the enemy.

I'd be REALLY happy if swords were massively downplayed in 5e and polearms and spears of various types got put into a place of prominence. Good grief, who would ever hunt with a sword? Yet, we fight monsters with a sword instead of something like a boar spear. Blargh.

Sorry, this was off topic, but, I just had to get it out.

Hus "I've been playing polearm characters for years" sar

Apparently there are people who hunt wild boar with knives, but I think that's more of an exception proving a rule.

But yes, spot on. The sword has never (or almost never) been the dominant military weapon. Spears are the reigning historical champions.

Swords are (and almost always were) the most prestigious weapon on the field. They are expensive, moderately fragile, and require far more training to achieve true proficiency than more basic weapons. In short, they are the weapons of the elite.

The bulk of armies in Japan were ashigaru spearmen with yaris, but we remember Samurai with Katanas. The bulk of weapons used in the civil war were muskets but collectors lust for the cavalry sabers. The romans depended on the pilum but on these boards you'll see endless debates about the gladius.

Now if you're going down into a dungeon and trying to fight squeaky little bastards in tight, dark corridors then maybe the sword starts looking a bit better than a spear, but A) D&D doesn't really model close-quarters fighting and ) if that's the scenario then the short sword or long knife should be a better weapon than a long sword or bastard sword. Or another short weapon like a mace or hand axe.

But open field? Bows and spears rule, swords are shiny things for officers to wave.

 

[Tovec]

Going by what I've seen on ENWorld, more people seem to want mundane fighters than want powerful wizards. If that's true, Type 1 is the better approach. However ENWorld posts have a pro-DM bias and DMs often prefer weaker PCs, for a number of reasons.

I am a DM and I do appreciate when I see a rule that makes PCs not insane but I don't think that has anything to do with the relationship in this game.

I am a "type 1" for what it matters not because I like to see weak PCs but because as a PC I like my character to make sense.

When I play a fighter I do so because I want him to be a highly trained guy who kicks butt. NOT to be a jedi who kicks butt.

I think you're hitting onto a certain tangent of the main thrust of the topic. Yes, Jedi have wizardly abilities and various editions of Star Wars games have worked to control that. But they're also the up-close and personal fighters as well - and that's the focus of the OP, games promoting melee combat when the progress of warfare and technology (including magic if we look at it that way) is away from melee.

Frankly, if a stormtrooper or soldier of any stripe in Star Wars focuses on melee combat, he's looking for pain. They usually better off with a blaster, blaster rifle, or grenades, putting them more in the archer or blasting wizard category than meleeing fighter.

The point I was trying to make is that his type 1 and type 2 are flawed (or at least type 2 is).

Type 1 talks about the dune universe where personal shields make melee more attractive because they can bypass the shield.
Type 2 talks about the star wars universe where jedi can reflect blaster bolts and throw lightsabers as well as engage in melee.

Well, as I posted before - that is only one type of example. Yes he is asking if they should be more attractive or make other things more suck BUT he shouldn't be talking about jedi (and sith) in type 2 as they aren't the main people with the average weapon - the people with blasters are.

I think he is starting from a flawed example and asking for our opinions.

Just a point about swords in general, and a bit off topic:

Swords were most certainly not the "uber" weapon on the battlefield. They were most often the weapon of last resort or for finishing off an opponent. There's a reason that the typical soldier carried a long pointy thing in hand and had his sword in a sheath for engaging the enemy.

I'd be REALLY happy if swords were massively downplayed in 5e and polearms and spears of various types got put into a place of prominence. Good grief, who would ever hunt with a sword? Yet, we fight monsters with a sword instead of something like a boar spear. Blargh.

Sorry, this was off topic, but, I just had to get it out.

Hus "I've been playing polearm characters for years" sar

I think the problem with this has very little to do with mechanics but has more to do with how things like polearms are used in games. If you think about it honestly, a sword and a spear are going to do the same basic amount of damage. They are pointy weapons modified by strength and if you are trained you are going to get the same basic bonus.

The difference is that the animal you are hunting with a sword is going to RUN as soon as it detects you. That is how it stays alive. That is the opposite of how almost any enemy in DnD works however.

Compound this with the effect that spears or polearms in DnD have a minimum range increment means that it is unlikely to use them in a straight melee battle.

 

[Crazy Jerome]

Any weapon that can be sheathed, and relatively unobtrusively, is going to some real-world advantages that D&D typically doesn't model. If you want swords to be more popular, modeling those advantages in the system would be one way to do it, aside from any Type 1 or Type 2 considerations.

The historical soldier going to war is often going for something like the bow, spear, blade trilogy. There's something to use at range, something for the heavy formation, serious fighting, and then something for when the formations break down or that spear or polearm breaks. Not to mention, you can walk around with that blade sheathed in the more dangerous parts of town without too much trouble, and might even be permitted to carry it into social settings. (Things like great swords or battle axes sheathed over the back will have some limitations compared to smaller blades, but not as great as polearms.) Now you can let polearms and bows hurt like they ought to.

That address "melee versus ranged". Now, if you want to work the fantasy angle into that reasoning, make the means to deliver powerful spells require similar troubles. That big mages staff you need to shoot the heavy mojo is like a polearm, in taking up both hands and its socially inappropriate in many settings. For the little stuff, you use a small wand (dagger equivalent)--or even better, an enchanted, specially prepared blade.

Perhaps going more afield, mages that don't use such an encumbering means of their power have obvious transformations--not so bad for dungeons or dark alleys, but even worse for social situations. This is to socially acceptable magic as "sharp claws" are to socially acceptable weapons.

There is no free lunch. Apply the same logic to magic (even if using different flavor), and swords start looking pretty darn spiffy.

 

[Ulorian - Agent of Chaos]

One thing to keep in mind is that the style of warfare that armies practice doesn't bear much resemblance to the squad and solo combat in which D&D adventurers engage. For example, spears and polearms are more useful when fighting in formation to defend against a charge or to attack over the line of fighters in front of you. That's not to say that spears and polearms can't be effective in D&D-style single or squad combat, but it requires a lot more skill and training. The same thing can be said about shields. Shields and polearms have great utility in large scale warfare and this utility can be achieved without your combatants needing a high degree of training.

If you are a historian of warfare (which I am not), please don't bury me under a load of pedantry about the correct usage of the aforementioned weaponry! I'm sure I've gotten some of the details wrong. My point is that some of the arguments being put forward aren't necessarily taking into account the differences between large and small scale combat.

 

[Crazy Jerome]

One thing to keep in mind is that the style of warfare that armies practice doesn't bear much resemblance to the squad and solo combat in which D&D adventurers engage. For example, spears and polearms are more useful when fighting in formation to defend against a charge or to attack over the line of fighters in front of you. That's not to say that spears and polearms can't be effective in D&D-style single or squad combat, but it requires a lot more skill and training. The same thing can be said about shields. Shields and polearms have great utility in large scale warfare and this utility can be achieved without your combatants needing a high degree of training.

If you are a historian of warfare (which I am not), please don't bury me under a load of pedantry about the correct usage of the aforementioned weaponry! I'm sure I've gotten some of the details wrong. My point is that some of the arguments being put forward aren't necessarily taking into account the differences between large and small scale combat.

I hope it isn't being too pedantic to note that what you are saying is somewhat true of specialized weapons, such as pikes, certain polearms, picks, etc. but not all variants. The basic "short" or "medium" spear, in reasonably skilled hands, is a very dangerous weapon in one-on-one combat versus something like a sword, axe, or mace. This is also true of most polearms of moderate length.

Big, specialized weapons are often limited (being specialized for warfare or something else). More reasonably sized weapons of all types, not so much. I'm sure the historians and re-enactors will be after me on some detail of that, now.

 

[satori01]

The main issue that arises for warriors is usually getting access to flying/underwater monsters. If people do not want wuxia like leaping on their warriors, then they are going to have to accept that classes that do cast spells ,.will help them.

Of course it seems like those same players then complain about the 'quadratic wizard' because he can cast Fly on him, once.

In 1E, a Ranger or Fighter with Double Weapon Specialization on the bow, just won, and even regular specialization was strong due to xtra Attacks. Cavaliers were nigh unstopable, if they could get close, and just forget about it when attacking from horseback.


Also in 3E, the Fighter with a two handed weapon and power attack and very basic feat optimization did loads and loads of damage, and unlike spells attacks have no saves for half dmg.

The same (with more restrictions) applied to the Rogue with Two Weapon Fighting. What is scarier a 12 level Sorcerer casting a fireball, for 10d6 and a DC of 18, or that same Sorcerer casting Improved Invisibility on the 12th level Rogue?

In 3e swords not spells ruled the Epic levels, your spell caster was there to buff, de-buff, and provide transportation, and cast if possible a no save, no SR spells, which do significantly less dmg, than a Fighter hitting on 3/5 hits.