D&D General Weapons should break left and right

[loverdrive]

You are describing a D&D monk, not a D&D fighter.

...why? I don't see anything monk-y about it?

 

[AnotherGuy]

Training with one type of weapon tends to bleed into others. Anatomy remains mostly constant, and there's a limited amount of ways a body can move, and even less ways for it to move in a structurally sound way. There are very few historical martial art treatises focused on one specific weapons, they all cover a variety of them.

This also can be sort of witnessed in a simulacra of an action, Seki Sensei, a kenjutsu master with no exposure to european martial arts, "figured out" longsword and halberd instantly and displayed techniques straight from the manuals.

That's what, I think, a fighter should be: someone who has breadth and depth of knowledge about martial arts and can apply and modify techniques on the fly to suit the specifics of their weapon.

Not sure if someone has mentioned this upthread but 2e has weapon familiarity for weapons a fighter was not proficient in.
That edition also has tight and broad weapon groups.
Some all of those concepts can be tacked onto 5e.

For instance 1/2 proficiency bonus for weapons one would be considered familiar with but not proficient.
Proficiency in a Tight or Broad weapons group could do a number of the following
Increase initiative, +1/2 proficiency bonus against disarm, +1 damage or use of a combat maneuver etc.

 

[Paul Farquhar]

...why? I don't see anything monk-y about it?

You are going on about Eastern martial arts philosophy, then can’t see why that’s the monk? You really need to read up on monks.

At its core the D&D fighter is based on a European knight. He knows how to use a longsword because he has been drilling with longswords every day since he was 8. Not because he has a deep knowledge of human anatomy and martial philosophies.

 

[loverdrive]

You are going on about Eastern martial arts philosophy, then can’t see why that’s the monk? You really need to read up on monks.

At its core the D&D fighter is based on a European knight. He knows how to use a longsword because he has been drilling with longswords every day since he was 8. Not because he has a deep knowledge of human anatomy and martial philosophies.

I'm not??? Joachim Meyer, a very much european, describes two-handed sword, polearm and unarmed techniques. His compatriot (and contemporary), Paulus Hector Mair, too describes variety of weapons and unarmed fighting techniques. Hell, there are some downright goofy chapters like fighting with scythes (as in, an agricultural tool) and caveman ungabunga sticks.

There is a reason very similar techniques keep popping up, be it in Europe or Asia or Africa -- there are things that just work because they are supported by human anatomy.

 

[GrimCo]

European knight

Man at arms to be more precise (all knights were man at arms, not all man at arms were knights). In essence, highly trained and well equipped professional soldiers, used in specialized role of shock troops, mostly as heavy cavalry, but sometimes on foot (like Agincourt). Lance as primary, sword/mace as secondary weapon on horseback, poleaxe or halberd as primary with sword/mace as secondary while on foot. They would train from young age and specialize in few weapons, mostly lance, sword and polearm/mace for armored combat on foot. It's not like they didn't know how to use other sharp/blunt instruments of warfare. It's just that they didn't spend that much time training with them.

To put it into modern context. Number of years ago, our police force transitioned from old school handguns with manual safety to modern guns without it. Pistol is pistol right? No so much. There was number of incidents of policeman shooting themselves with their own guns.

Same problem was in military. We switched from yugo style Ak to modern bulpup VHS. Old timers needed to retrain muscle memory, different recoil and ballistics, even iron sights are different. It's not like they forgot how to shoot, they just weren't that good with them until they spent time training.

 

[Paul Farquhar]

I'm not??? Joachim Meyer, a very much european, describes two-handed sword, polearm and unarmed techniques. His compatriot (and contemporary), Paulus Hector Mair, too describes variety of weapons and unarmed fighting techniques. Hell, there are some downright goofy chapters like fighting with scythes (as in, an agricultural tool) and caveman ungabunga sticks.

There is a reason very similar techniques keep popping up, be it in Europe or Asia or Africa -- there are things that just work because they are supported by human anatomy.

These guys were academics, not the people who did the actual fighting. The people who did most of the fighting learned by repetition, repetition and repetition. Same is true now, same was true in the East. That’s why the fighter class only cares about strength and dexterity, they don’t need to be intelligent or wise. The monk, your academic fighter, needs to be wise.

 

[Remathilis]

You have a tool you rely on to influence the game state. It has limited amount of impact it can inflict, afterwards you have to switch to something else.

Conceptually, running out of ammo and having our sword broken (or wrenched from your arms, or whatever) are the exact same thing.

Conceptually, they are not the same for a couple of important reasons. First, ranged combat is significantly more advantageous than melee due to cover, distance, etc. it's balanced by limited uses. Melee is more dangerous (being up close with foe) but had "unlimited" uses of your sword. A system where your sword loses it's unlimited use status makes ranged clearly superior. Second, ammo is a reliable number. If I have 40 stores arrows, I have 40 attacks before I am out. Weapon breakage is random. It could happen on my first, tenth, or hundredth attack. Further, when I'm out of arrows, I don't have to get whole new bow. My +1 longbow of seeking works just as good with any arrows on buy, make or steal.

The better way to make that analogy work would be to track damage on an individual weapon (aka giving it HP) and once the weapon is at 0 hp, it breaks or has a chance to break. That way, I know my longsword has 20 good strikes in it and when it's getting low, I can get it repaired or replaced. But that is a LOT of extra paperwork for a PNP RPG...

 

[loverdrive]

These guys were academics, not the people who did the actual fighting. The people who did most of the fighting learned by repetition, repetition and repetition. Same is true now, same was true in the East. That’s why the fighter class only cares about strength and dexterity, they don’t need to be intelligent or wise. The monk, your academic fighter, needs to be wise.

Wait, you are totally right. I like this!

I grappled with the idea of monk class in a less kitchen-sink setting a lot, it always felt weird to me. Monk as a monastic warrior-scholar makes sense! So we have three nice class identities: Warrior-scholar — monk; Warrior-brute — barbarian; Warrior-professional — fighter.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Conceptually, they are not the same for a couple of important reasons. First, ranged combat is significantly more advantageous than melee due to cover, distance, etc. it's balanced by limited uses. Melee is more dangerous (being up close with foe) but had "unlimited" uses of your sword. A system where your sword loses it's unlimited use status makes ranged clearly superior. Second, ammo is a reliable number. If I have 40 stores arrows, I have 40 attacks before I am out. Weapon breakage is random. It could happen on my first, tenth, or hundredth attack. Further, when I'm out of arrows, I don't have to get whole new bow. My +1 longbow of seeking works just as good with any arrows on buy, make or steal.

The better way to make that analogy work would be to track damage on an individual weapon (aka giving it HP) and once the weapon is at 0 hp, it breaks or has a chance to break. That way, I know my longsword has 20 good strikes in it and when it's getting low, I can get it repaired or replaced. But that is a LOT of extra paperwork for a PNP RPG...

Doesn't it make sense for ranged combat to be superior most of the time? That's pretty much how it works in real life.

 

[GreyLord]

The most successful D&D video game ever - does not even bother to track ammo.

As for Doom, that has the ridiculous magic pockets trope, where the protagonist lugs around about 8 huge weapons, without being burdened by them. Sorry, that breaks my suspension of disbelief more than infinite ammo does. Then you have Halo, where practically everything you fight drops a weapon you can use - even if it was anatomically very different or you blew it to pieces. Owlbears dropping usable weapons is also too ridiculous for me. Real world soldiers try to keep what they have to carry to a minimum, because one thing that will get you killed is being over-encumbered. Wagons, horses, hirelings aren't going to be willing are able to crawl through caves, and will die in the first monster encounter anyway.

Reasonably, characters should carry two to four weapons, no more than that. Fighters should be distinguished by being able to use those weapons better than the other classes. Not by crawling through a dungeon with a dozen different types of polearm strapped to their back.

That actually reminds me of a great point though.

If the OP or others want a game version which forces people to use different weapons (rather than just relying on one favored weapon or so), play 3.5 edition.

Different monsters had different immunities and so you'd have to carry different weapons to deal with those.

The fighter would end up carrying half a dozen different weapons at times simply so they could be prepared for all the different immunities they might have to deal with!

It's like Doom in that Doom Man carries a whole sack of weapons (somewhere, who knows where), but your Warrior type in 3.5 has to figure out the space and weight for them!