D&D General Weapons should break left and right

[CreamCloud0]

Given that a whole bunch of other classes also have that, not really.

sure, but, for me at least, that feels more like a result of lazy design than actually being deserving of full martial weapons, like, i do not think the barbarian deserves full martial, i think they should have battleaxe, greataxe, greatsword, longsword, maul and warhammer, thereabouts, i think they just have full martial because it's easier than specifying those particular weapons.

 

[Staffan]

The thing I have noticed about fighter players, at least as far back as 2nd edition, is that they like to play as a specialist in a particular weapon. The more they can specialise the better.

Hitting things with whatever is at hand is more the sort of thing barbarian players enjoy.

I don't know if that's "a thing fighter players like" or just a consequence of specialization being how a fighter makes number go up. At low levels in 2e (and presumably 1e), weapon specialization basically doubles the fighter's damage output (I haven't done the math at higher levels, but presumably the advantage levels off somewhat simply because it's a bigger jump going from 1 to 1.5 attacks than from 1.5 to 2 or 2 to 2.5, and the numerical bonuses get less noticeable when you have good magic weapons and possibly magically roided Strength). Combat & Tactics added Mastery and Grand Mastery on top of that. 3e offered fighters a lot of customization, but that was mostly a breadth thing – fighters got a lot more feats than other classes, but the only feats that were exclusive were Weapon Specialization and, in 3.5e, Greater Weapon Focus and Greater Weapon Specialization. PF1 continued the tradition and gave fighters a scaling attack/damage buff to a chosen category of weapons.

4e stepped back somewhat from the weapon specialist idea for fighters. Instead, you had to choose between a +1 bonus to one- or to two-handed weapons. But what it did was to provide extra benefits with various powers to use particular weapons. For example, the 3rd level exploit Armor-Piercing Thrust gave a damage bonus equal to your Dex bonus if you used a light blade or a spear, and Dance of Steel would slow the target for a turn if you used a polearm or heavy blade. This is, I think, a more interesting way of handling fighters with different weapons. Of course, in 4e you were utterly dependent on having a weapon magiced out to the max, so it's not like you'd use different weapons in different situations.

And finally 5e steps away entirely from fighters focusing on specific weapons, and instead offers fighting styles: great weapon, archery, duelist, and so on. I believe this was part of early 5e's "Back to basics" approach and removing (at least as a default) the ability to buy magic weapons. Instead you'd use whatever you found in The Dungeon with the biggest plus and coolest ability. I kind of like this, myself – as a DM it hurts inside when PCs find a cool magic weapon like a dwarven thrower and go "Nah, I'm specced into longsword so I don't care."

 

[Horwath]

I kind of like this, myself – as a DM it hurts inside when PCs find a cool magic weapon like a dwarven thrower and go "Nah, I'm specced into longsword so I don't care."

heh,
we had similar experience with out DM in one campaign where he designed 4 custom magic items, that were cool but essentially not that useful for our party composition, so just when we returned to Waterdeep we vendor-trashed them at the mage guild and bought bunch of +1 stock items.

but it was kind of his fault in a way.
If you want to design custom magic items, you need to take your PCs character sheets and see what would work with those character.
otherwise, you are just wasting your time and opening yourself to frustration as your hard work is worth noting more than a substitute for a gold bar.

 

[Paul Farquhar]

sure, but, for me at least, that feels more like a result of lazy design than actually being deserving of full martial weapons, like, i do not think the barbarian deserves full martial, i think they should have battleaxe, greataxe, greatsword, longsword, maul and warhammer, thereabouts, i think they just have full martial because it's easier than specifying those particular weapons.

I’m pretty sure Conan could use any weapon he could lay his hands on.

It’s the restrictions that are a bit silly and old fashioned.

 

[Retros_x]

That actually sounds like a lot of fun. Loot may be a little light in modern D&D anyway IMO, so it would be an interesting experience to play with more that may break.

This all sounds just fine to me. Where do I sign up

I agree with you! It sounds very fun, but also completely different than current contemporary D&D, that was my point. So if anybody homebrew such a system they should be aware of the implications on game feel and vibe and what they as DM need to change so the system works (loot!).

 

[EzekielRaiden]

I’m pretty sure Conan could use any weapon he could lay his hands on.

It’s the restrictions that are a bit silly and old fashioned.

Sure, but how much of the D&D Barbarian is actually Conan?

Conan's "rage" is almost nothing like how D&D rage is portrayed. It's basically just him being high on battle-induced hormones. Further, Conan wasn't illiterate, even if he wasn't educated in the usual sense (having been enslaved as a child). D&D has done what it likes with the Barbarian class, without feeling beholden to Conan even as it draws inspiration from him.

Personally, I think we need to bring back Exotic weapons (the way 4e defined them), and do something like...

• Fighters are genuinely all masters of weapons, but Battle Master Fighters are especially so; if it's a physical weapon, a Fighter can wield it properly, and a Battle Master can wield it well
• Barbarians, Paladins, Rangers, and Warlords specialize in specific branches, but subclasses can tweak this as needed (e.g. a "Whirling Barbarian" might get access to Scimitars)
• Rogues, Assassins (if a separate class), and similar "martial but tricksy" classes get specialized weapon sets, e.g. a Ninja subclass of Assassin gets kusarigama
• Everyone else can truly only dabble in martial combat unless they multiclass or spend two feats (one for proficiency, one for mastery), e.g. Bladesinger Wizard gets only rapier and longsword proficiency, no specialization, nothing exotic, no mastery

That helps to reinforce weapon use as the distinctive thing of primary-martial classes, and puts significant barriers in the way of a spellcaster trying to be as good in melee-related fields as an actual martial. E.g. it shouldn't be the case that a Bladesinger Wizard is a better "tank" than a defense-specialized Fighter.

From there, each martial class can be differentiated more by what they do with their weapons. Maybe Barbarians mark their weapons with runes using an enemy's blood, or their own blood if they don't have any enemies on hand--magic effects which provide a passive benefit until the Barbarian crits, consuming the rune and adding a powerful extra. Maybe Paladins leave a searing brand on their foes, which others can trigger, but the Paladin cannot--emphasizing their "inspiring others" element. Fighters know how to squeeze the most out of any weapon--perhaps they get two mastery properties for any weapon they wield: the baseline one, and then a second from a Fighter-specific list, with each level letting them pick another "perfect mastery". Etc.

You get players to do things by giving them reasons to do it--by making the results rewarding, and making the process engaging. Seems to me that doing that with the Barbarian's weapons, rather than writing a bland blank-check for "wield whatever you want", is much more likely to make martial characters feel good to play and make weapon choices feel interesting and rewarding.

 

[AnderNGmx]

While logical, one could say and players would also argue that tooth/fang and claws and other such weaponized body parts should be breaking sometimes as well.

 

[Hussar]

Bows. Thrown daggers. Thrown axes. Spells. A favorite is to prep magic missile to disrupt the PC with an auto hit against low hit points. Odds are a shield spell hasn't been cast yet and Brooches of Shielding aren't exactly common. Melee from a direction that isn't blocked by an PC. A weapon with reach.

Also, there are no attacks of opportunity for moving past an enemy. If you fled and showed your back as you ran away, the enemy got an attack. If you withdraw, there is no attack, but the attacker can follow. If you move forward to attack the wizard, you are neither withdrawing nor retreating.

Ahh, there's the trick. See, by the rules, if you leave melee for any reason, you are subject to attacks from everyone you left melee with. There's no such thing as "moving forward".

And every other thing you list has an intiative bonus so much higher than a spell that it's not even funny. And, frankly, how many enemy MU's were you using that they "prepare" to cast magic missile? A rule that isn't actually in 2e D&D BTW. Even if you have magic missile, you still have to beat my initiative. There's no rules for "holding a spell" like there is in 3e+

 

[Paul Farquhar]

While logical, one could say and players would also argue that tooth/fang and claws and other such weaponized body parts should be breaking sometimes as well.

Sure, predators lose teeth frequently. Sharks aren’t bothered as they continually replace them, but it’s a real mystery how smilodon hunted without breaking its fangs.

 

[Remathilis]

Or just have it that if you're carrying all those magical backups they too are at risk every time you fail a save vs AoE damage. IME that tends to be something of an equalizer over time, if somewhat random.

Also, part of the reason for having more than one magic weapon - assuming you can find them - is that some of them might be for specific foes only. A fully kitted-out high-level warrior type might for example have a good basic high-plus weapon for most situations, a Giant-slayer for Giants, a Dragon-slayer for Dragons, a Mace of Disruption for undead, and so on.

The problem is these two elements cancel each other out. I have my golf bag full with my dragon slaying sword, giant slaying axe, and undead slaying mace that I save ONLY for those types of fights due to the chance of breakage. Then I get fireballed by a wizard, roll poorly and lose them all anyway.

Id rather have only one of those weapons and barring extraordinary circumstances keep them forever than have a bunch that snap; or explode every time I roll a 1.

As both player and DM the bolded would make me a very sad bunny.

Me too.