D&D General Weapons should break left and right

[AlViking]

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.

All I can say is that I enjoy playing fighters now and then, so have several of my players. Those that don't ever play fighters are probably going to play yet another wizard or whatever their favorite class is. If fighter were that lacking I suspect there would have been bigger changes in the 2024 rules than there were.

 

[loverdrive]

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.

Fine, whatever. You are being hung up on the breaking part. I don't care if weapons snap in half, I care that player has to often change them.

Whether it's by weapons breaking, flying off from your hand or being thrown into enemies is a whatever part, that's not super important.

 

[loverdrive]

yes this does look comedic to me

Clearly, the East and the West have very different definitions of comedy.

 

[Jefe Bergenstein]

Fine, whatever. You are being hung up on the breaking part. I don't care if weapons snap in half, I care that player has to often change them.

Whether it's by weapons breaking, flying off from your hand or being thrown into enemies is a whatever part, that's not super important.

I suspect you're going to be bored with this in about two fights, once they have the order of operations down. If you don't like 5E combat as is, forced weapon swaps arent going to add much spice.

 

[Mort]

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.

I haven't seen this mentioned in the thread yet (apologies if it was - longish thread) but:

I always chafe a bit at calling the fighter "simple" vs the caster "complicated."

In reality, especially in the beginning generation stage, the fighter's player is faced with much more complex and difficult choices than the caster's player - and they have much broader ramifications going forward.

Let's start with stat generation:

The wizard puts his highest stat in INT (unless there's a roleplaying reason he doesn't want to, but that's outside this scope) - boom done - the rest is preference and window dressing. INT will allow the wizard to be the best wizard he can be.

The fighter has to FIRST decide: Best stat in STR or DEX - this will have ramifications for the rest of the build.

If DEX then do you dump STR? you can, but Athletics is the fighters most obvious way to interact with many exploration challenges, so that's tricky. If STR, dumping DEX has serious consequences too (you can't supplement weaknesses with spells like the wizard can). And unlike the wizard, you have to concern yourself dumping WIS and CHA too because stats are the easiest way you get bonuses in a pillar other than combat. And god forbid you don't prioritize CON, low CON for a martial is dangerous (more so than for a caster, even with concentration).

Then the fighter has to make the choice of melee or ranged. Very difficult to be fully competent at both, even with a DEX build. Again choices matter here and will have ramifications for the long haul. The wizard doesn't really have to worry about this choice.

Then skills. The fighter has to pick carefully as they can't supplement without help. Pick a "fun" skill - it's at the expense of something else. Sure the wizard has this problem, but they can supplement with magic (need to descend a cliff and are lousy at athletics - you probably have room for feather fall on your list).

And it goes on. and that's just to 1st level!

Further if the fighter picks poorly, he's stuck unless the DM is kind and lets him redo (there are now SOME options to swap out styles and maneuvers, but it's still a wait). The mage may be stuck with some subpar spells, but they can fix at every level and I've never been in a campaign where the DM has been all that stingy with spell acquisition (I'm sure they exist, but I haven't see it!)

So I'd say, in many of the ways that matter, the "simple" fighter is actually more complex than the wizard.

And the OP wants to add easy weapon breakage to force the fighter to have even more difficult choices?

 

[CreamCloud0]

what if at 2nd level the base fighter just got to pick between
a) +fighting style, +1 crit range, +1 HP/Level.
vs
b) +3 manoeuvres, +(2+PB) superiority die.

then the players can just pick between simple and complex without being a ball and chain on the design of the rest of the fighter, then they can stack that on any other subclass they so choose.

 

[loverdrive]

I suspect you're going to be bored with this in about two fights, once they have the order of operations down. If you don't like 5E combat as is, forced weapon swaps arent going to add much spice.

To avoid repeating myself: see message #308

 

[Not a Decepticon]

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

That people want to play guy with a sword because msot popular heroes in fantasy are guy with a sword, and when asked which class is guy with a sword class, they're directed to fighter. If Fighter was more complex, nothing would change.

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

Barbarian. Rogue. Monk. Paladin. Warlock. So many simple options.

And I think giving Fighter maneuvers would still be simple.

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

But you took a part of my post replying to different person and acted as if it was a part of my argument directed at you, completely changing it in the process.

 

[loverdrive]

I urge everyone navel gazing about semantics to read the updated OP.

 

[AlViking]

That people want to play guy with a sword because msot popular heroes in fantasy are guy with a sword, and when asked which class is guy with a sword class, they're directed to fighter. If Fighter was more complex, nothing would change.

Barbarian. Rogue. Monk. Paladin. Warlock. So many simple options.

And I think giving Fighter maneuvers would still be simple.

But you took a part of my post replying to different person and acted as if it was a part of my argument directed at you, completely changing it in the process.

According to WotC, people are pretty happy with the fighter. I'm happy with the fighter, people I play with are happy with them. I'm not going to argue about this any more.