D&D General Weapons should break left and right

[Maxperson]

First of all, I know it is not your preference, that part was replying to another user, so I don't get why you took it personally.

That user must have me blocked, so it looked like another response to me.

Second, Rogue is very simple. And so is Barbarian. And Monk. And Warlock. Paladin too. I think fans of simple classes will do with Fighter actually being good.

The rogue is not simple. You have to arrange advantage to be decent in combat. Choose expertise multiple times. Add in a subclass that makes it even more complex. Tracking things like bonus action hiding or dashes, initiative timing for assassinations, etc.

The fighter just sits there and you take champion and get a bunch of passive abilities.

Third, and this will be controversial...maneuvers are simple and Fighter could use them in base class and stil lbe simple.

They are not simple. They may not be terribly complex, but you can't argue that they are simple in the way the base fighter and champion subclass are. For folks like you and I, maneuvers are pretty simple compared to druids and other spellcasters. Especially since we like things to be more complex. But simple for us =/= simple.

Maneuvers require more work than a lot of folks enjoy.

 

[Not a Decepticon]

I'm pretty sure that was a Jackie Chan routine.

Which was entierly based on being a comedy.

 

[loverdrive]

Sorry but if, durign the final battle agaisnt an epic enemy, the hero breaks more than one of their legendary weapons, or if they're breakign weapons every fight, I am expecting a laugh track and the hero in question to be played by Leslie Nielsen.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OU8949uj5YI


Does this look comedic to you? Multiple characters, including the protagonist, break and drop their weapons, get disarmed, and then get into fistfighting.

This is not realistic (realistically, there'd be no fight at all, being outnumbered with a shorter weapon is a death sentence), this is heroic. The protagonist is so strong and awesome and epic he can fight through broken weapons and broken bones.

 

[AlViking]

...

Barbarian uses Rage, a resource they have limited number of uses. Rogue can only use sneak attack once a turn. Wizard cannot spam the same spell over and over and the spells are arbitrary divided in levels. Monk has limtied number of focus points, Sorcerer has literal metacurrency. Why other breaks from reality are acceptable but fighter is singled out for the sake of making the class, let's be honest, suck?

That is flavor, and flavor is both free and disposable.

So you just talked about how the discussion was had and the people's voices were heard in design and now you're telling me that a class and build I like to play sucks? You don't see the irony there? If you think the base fighter sucks, there are plenty of other classes and subclasses to choose from. Like BM maneuvers? Play a BM or take the feat that gives you maneuvers.

They're not happy. Pretty much everyone I ever talked about who wants more compelx fighter absolutely despises that the only way to get it is to sacrifice the subclass and never feeling like they're playing a full class.

Then you aren't talking to the people I've talked to and played with. Which, if you go "Fighters suck, man" and then ask people their opinion you've biased the answer. Those who disagree will likely just shrug which you may well take as agreement when it's just that they don't feel like arguing about it. If fighters were that terrible people wouldn't play them yet based on surveys, feedback and stats from DndBeyond they're the most popular class.

We don't need two classes that fill a niche of being simple and dumb. You can reflavor barbarian for free, say they aren't Raging but enter "the zone" and focus on combat and you're good. Fighter can be something interesting now.

Because your preferences block one of classes from actually being fun and interesting for the sake of something another class does better.

If we deleted Fighter and replaced it with antoher name, say, a Knight, would you still be makign that demands?

You want to delete an entire class I like to play when you already have multiple options to choose from? Really?

 

[Sepulchrave II]

The problem is, what do you do with magic weapons? After all, a major element of a martial character is the magical lumpy metal thing he's picked up. If that Holy Avenger is going to break after a dozen attacks or so, then, well, I'm thinking that the players might be a tad pissed off.

Stormbringer:

Excalibur:

Andúril:

 

[Staffan]

It makes you consider when to spend (or not to spend) resources. Making mistakes will lead to bad outcomes. Nothing fundamentally bad or broken about that. That's how games work -- they give you opportunities to screw up and then the whole process of play is avoiding screwing up.

I've often expressed a desire for martials to have more resource management. But to me, having a weapon break and then switching to another one is bad resource management. It doesn't really add any interesting decision points. It's just a thing that happens, and then you switch from "I hit it with my sword" to "I hit it with my hammer." There might be a sliver of an interesting tradeoff if your choice is between e.g. a weapon that does 2d6 with a 2% chance of of breaking compared to one that deals 3d6 with a 5% chance, but that sounds like unnecessary rolling and math to me. What's more interesting is something like "once per encounter, you can move twice your speed and make an attack against each opponent you move adjacent to at any point during your move" or "once per encounter, strike an opponent and push them 30 ft away. If they hit a wall during this movement, they fall prone and take an additional 2d6 damage. If they hit another opponent, both fall prone and take the damage."

Even better if the two (or more) abilities use the same resource, so you'll have to choose which one to use.

 

[Micah Sweet]

I've seen this attempted numerous times over the decades, including by myself a few times during 1e. In all that time and in all those attempts, only 0 were effective at implementing it in a way that made the game more fun, or even the same amount of fun.

Perhaps you and/or your groups didn't find modeling lasting injur and recovery fun? I obviously do.

 

[Jefe Bergenstein]

I have a feeling that variety you crave by enforcing weapon swaps is going to be played out by the third battle and you'll just be seeking something new and different by the fourth and will need a new monkey wrench.

My advice is stop trying to enforce your particular vision on everyone at the table. Make a feat/class ability/fighting style that incentivizes weapon break/swap for those that want to.

 

[AlViking]

View attachment 418349

Does this look comedic to you? Multiple characters, including the protagonist, break and drop their weapons, get disarmed, and then get into fistfighting.

This is not realistic (realistically, there'd be no fight at all, being outnumbered with a shorter weapon is a death sentence), this is heroic. The protagonist is so strong and awesome and epic he can fight through broken weapons and broken bones.

First, that's a monk. Second, why did he drop his perfectly good knife? If a player wants to do this? Play a monk. Perhaps take the tavern brawler feat where you have proficiency with all improvised weapons and don't mess with weapons.

I remember watching the old McGyver TV show. McGyver is going into a dangerous situation where he knows there's going to be some specific environmental threats like poisonous gas. He has the option of taking the necessary equipment with him and just says "Nah, I'll just figure something out." I thought it was dumb then, I would still.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Sometimes I want to play a barbarian sometimes I want to play a champion fighter. I gave my reasons. Why do you want to limit people's options to your preferred build?

People can play what they want, but I prefer a more complex and IMO richer game and don't use vanilla 5e classes at my table.