D&D General Weapons should break left and right

[Not a Decepticon]

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

Yes, especially that part when the guy swings at the air and these morons fall on their asses out of sheer terror.

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.

No, it just makes the overwhelming number of mooks look INCOMPETENT. there is literally a trope about this - conservation of ninjutsu. In ALL OF FICTION I can only name you 4 (four) examples of scene where hero defeats horde of enemies that actually make the hero look good, not a single one releis on weapons breaking.

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

Ah, that explains it.

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.

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.

I disagree, as I do not find any of these things to be anywhere near as complex as running say, a Druid, argurably most compelx class in the game. I think an average person can handle it easily and withotu much problem.

 

[Micah Sweet]

It's not a strawman, it's perfectly valid. Breathing, walking, cooking, fetching water, eating, pooping, laundry, hunting, cleaning your sword, patching your armour, fixing holes in your underwear - these are all routine tasks that people carry out automatically. A fighter shouldn't be penalised because their player forgot to say "I clean my sword" because the character will do that automatically - they are competent in a way the player may not be.

Some of those things are IMO worth modeling. But they are not the same kind of activity as breathing and walking, which are the examples you used. If you're now changing your story, fine. If you think they are the same kind of activity, agree to disagree.

 

[Micah Sweet]

This is the 5e forum. Older editions forum is this way: D&D Older Editions, OSR, & D&D Variants

Why is there a D&D general and a D&D 5e and a D&D 2024 tag when they all mean 5.5?

 

[Not a Decepticon]

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.

But you realize this works in reverse too, right? That if Fighter had BM maneuvers by default, people could jsut tell you that if you don't like it, you should play something else?

hen 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.

And how do you know the people you talked with aren't the minority? I know that the complaints about Fighter being too simplistic are so big the issue is basically a meme at this point, and a basic of both multiple homebrew fixes and large chunk of how Pathfinder 2e does things.

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

The line abotu Knight was replying to a person you have blocked.

 

[AlViking]

Stormbringer:

View attachment 418305

Excalibur:

View attachment 418306

Andúril:

View attachment 418351

Specific blades done at specific moments for dramatic effect under very unusual circumstances. I don't know the story behind the first, but Excalibur broke because it was symbolically representing the fracture of Arthur's ideals of chivalry, loyalty, and the destruction of his kingdom. Excalibur wasn't just a sword.

Excalibur broke during Arthur's fight with Lancelot due to the intense emotional and physical turmoil of their battle, which symbolized the fracture in Arthur's ideals of chivalry and loyalty. The sword, often seen as a symbol of divine right and unity, shattered as a reflection of Arthur's internal conflict and the disintegration of his kingdom. This moment highlights the tragic consequences of betrayal and the inevitable decline of Arthur's rule. Anduril's breaking was also symbolic, it broke when Elendil falls on it because Sauron was on the verge of defeating the Last Alliance. Once again, it's symbolic because even though Sauron suffers a setback he's not defeated and won't be until the sword is reforged.

The sword in these scenarios are plot devices depicting far more than a weapon breaking.

 

[AlViking]

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.

Then it's a good thing you have options.

 

[AlViking]

But you realize this works in reverse too, right? That if Fighter had BM maneuvers by default, people could jsut tell you that if you don't like it, you should play something else?

If you get rid of every simple option you end up with no alternatives.

And how do you know the people you talked with aren't the minority? I know that the complaints about Fighter being too simplistic are so big the issue is basically a meme at this point, and a basic of both multiple homebrew fixes and large chunk of how Pathfinder 2e does things.

I know that the single most popular class is fighter. Why would so many people play a class they don't like?

The line abotu Knight was replying to a person you have blocked.

I am allowed to respond to parts of a post not directed at me, Maxperson doesn't have me blocked.

 

[loverdrive]

No. It means that they understand that there is a not insignificant number of people out there who play the game to relax and not have to worry about managing a bunch of resources.

You can't unring the bell. If the core fighter were more complex, those players would be screwed. If you make a simple fighter and have a more complex subclass addon, both those who want a simple fighter and those who want a more complex fighter can be happy.

I think there are "genres" to complexity.

The kind of complexity that we often imagine when talking about, well, complexity is the book-keepy annoying kind of one. Many people don't like it — I'm among them.

If anything, my proposal can be a simplification — now, "I don't want to read the rules, give me a simple class" kind of people can skip on reading or thinking about different weapon types. "Uhhhh is a longsword better than a shortsword? What should I pick? What? Feats? Girlie I'm just here to smack people with a stick, give me something simple!" (pretty much a verbatim thing I've said myself) is excised entirely: you only read one weapon at a time. You don't have a million options, you only have one, maybe two.

You inflict a critical hit so strong your sword itself snaps from the impact! You grab another weapon and it's.... [roll on a weapon table] a spear! GM hands you a piece of paper that says:

Spear
Damage: 1d6 Piercing

Immediately after you take the Attack action and attack with this weapon, you can use a Bonus Action to make a melee attack with the opposite end of the weapon. The weapon deals Bludgeoning damage, and the weapon's damage die for this attack is a d4.

And stay back!: While you're holding a spear, you can take a Reaction to make one melee attack against a creature that enters the reach you have with that weapon.

And you get to do something new without being overloaded with complexity. You get to protect people for a while, then deliver another crit (and break your spear), roll, say, a pile of daggers (and, idk, get to do a lot of attacks? one attack, one attack from Nick property, bonus action attack for two-weapon fighting? Something like that?)

So a "smack people with a stick" player gets to play around with different (yet still simple) playstyles without delving deep into the rules and reading different feats and whatnot.

 

[CreamCloud0]

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.

yes this does look comedic to me

but what i also see is that there are only two actual weapons in the scene, the knife(which spends the best part of that video in the guy's back) and the hammer, neither of which break or look close to breaking, everyone else seems to be using wood batons, not even clubs or bats, baton, they'd be better off with tree branches probably.

 

[CreamCloud0]

I know that the single most popular class is fighter. Why would so many people play a class they don't like?

1) because every new player is directed to the fighter to start with because it is stereotyped as the 'simple class.'
2) because it represents a thematic concept they want to play, even if they find the mechanics lacking.