D&D General Weapons should break left and right

[Clint_L]

Good fight choreography. I don't have Max (or whatever they're calling it now) so I've never watched GoT. But yeah, when your enemy is down and it's a fight to the death skip the monologue.

My understanding is that swords were almost never a weapon of first resort. Most soldiers carried one, or a long knife, but ranged weapons and some variation of the spear were typically kings of the battlefield, no? Swords are the sexy weapon of fantasy fiction and historical romance, though, for sure. I've always felt that D&D kind of does spears dirty.

 

[LordBP]

One thing on making arrows from green wood, they will warp and will not fly true due to the drying of the wood after it's been cut unless you use them immediately.

 

[Paul Farquhar]

And by the way, I can think of plenty of situations in active play where materials and/or time might not be adequate for making new ammo

During a battle, yes. And the 20 arrow standard quiver is rather large. But I wouldn’t do that for the simple reason than no one would play an archer if running out of arrows was likely, they would get magic initiate and shoot infinite cantrips instead.

Outside of battle, it’s where the idea of being competent comes in. During the Hundred Years’ War the English archers would carry bags of spare arrowheads, and collect feathers and shafts whist marching. Replacing arrows as necessary whenever they made camp. Note that you might need to replace unused arrows if they were warped or damp. What they didn’t do is go into a shop and buy arrows.

 

[James Gasik]

Sorry, but, who didn't lug spears around most of the time? Nearly anyone who was headed out into the wilderness took a spear, starting all the way back in paleolithic times all the way up to Roman era and, depending on the part of the world, right up to the advent of gun powder weapons. Carrying a spear was FAAAAR more common than carrying a sword. Swords are absolutely crap weapons against anything that isn't a human. Who would you put money on against a charging boar - man with sword or man with spear?

I'm going to point out that the specifics of your particular game are not terribly relevant here. Frankly, I don't really care what you are doing at your table, any more than you care about what I'm doing at mine.

Fighters almost always carry shields, even if they have swords, so, that's moot. And, there are 6 foot swords in D&D. Which is the same length as your spear. I can't imagine that it's all that much different trying to crawl around with a four foot sword on my hip or a six foot spear strapped to my back. They are likely both going to be rather difficult for crawling around in.

Just because a weapon might be inconvenient in one fairly specific location doesn't really matter all that much. Overall? Spears should be used FAR more in the game than they are. But, since spears suck and virtually none of the cool weapons are spears plus the fandom love swords FARRRR too much to ever give them up, that means that spears will virtually never be used by PC's.

I mean, good grief in forty years of gaming I cannot recall a single fighter type that focused on spears. Not one. That's how crap spears are in D&D.

In 2e, the Great Spear in the Complete Fighter's Handbook was one of the better weapons around, and I made a Fighter who used one when I still had delusions that 2e was a game where you could create whatever character you desired and that there weren't strictly superior options.

My new character then found themselves in the same party as a Sylvan Elf Fighter with 19 Str who dual wielded longswords (thanks to the Two-Weapon Style Specialization), and that's when the truth started to sink it.

What sealed the deal was when, during the adventure, he quickly found two magic swords, and there were no magic spears to be found, rendering me completely useless when we later encountered a gargoyle during The Sentinel (where I found myself in the same situation as the NPC Monk). In fairness, the DM did eventually let me acquire a magic greatspear, but he had to go out of his way to make that happen. It wasn't until later, when I, taking my own turn as the DM, realized that the DMG limited most non-swords to no better than +3, with only swords being allowed to climb higher.

People like to talk about how optimization wasn't a thing back then, or go on about 3e's "ivory tower design", but it was all there right along. Some decisions would be rewarded by the system, and others would be punished. And over the years, I've heard many DM's claim that it isn't their business to make the game suit the player, or to alter the game world for their benefit, as if it's somehow teaching players a lesson to not specialize in glaive-guisarmes or play Fighters with higher Intelligence than Strength. Many of those same DM's then turn around and decry people who make "optimized" characters, without seeing the irony.

Now I'm not saying that all choices need be equal- that would take a great deal of effort, and a game where a dagger Rogue performs just as well as one with a rapier doesn't seem very logical. But at the same time, one has to wonder why have inferior options in the first place, and why some people scoff or deride people who then try to make better choices. I've often heard DM's wax poetic about how characters built in a sub-standard way are somehow superior, as if the essence of roleplaying is to carry around a whip because your character was once an animal trainer for their entire career, or your wise, humble, peasant Fighter should continue to cling to his trusty pitchfork, while at the same time shrug and say "hey, just because your character uses a pike doesn't mean magical pikes are going to appear as treasure. I'm not changing my carefully constructed campaign world for your benefit. Better start using that +1 battle axe you found" with the same level of scorn as a 12 year old brat in League of Legends to tell you to "git gud".

 

[Paul Farquhar]

My understanding is that swords were almost never a weapon of first resort. Most soldiers carried one, or a long knife, but ranged weapons and some variation of the spear were typically kings of the battlefield, no? Swords are the sexy weapon of fantasy fiction and historical romance, though, for sure. I've always felt that D&D kind of does spears dirty.

Axes (which looked nothing like a fantasy axe) were also quite widely used.

I think they went out as mounted cavalry became more common.

 

[môrgondír]

I've played a special version of chess where every couple of turns there would be a random roll to see if the bishop's weapon broke - if the weapon broke, then there was an additional random check to see how the bishop would now move (attack) as a consequence of using a different weapon (weapons are presumed to be laying all over the chessboard that any piece may pick up & legally use).

Luckily, the addition of this rule doesn't detract in any way from how I role-play my bishops during a game.

P.S. I'd usually grab a spear, if one was available

 

[Paul Farquhar]

In 2e, the Great Spear in the Complete Fighter's Handbook was one of the better weapons around, and I made a Fighter who used one when I still had delusions that 2e was a game where you could create whatever character you desired and that there weren't strictly superior options.
View attachment 418590
My new character then found themselves in the same party as a Sylvan Elf Fighter with 19 Str who dual wielded longswords (thanks to the Two-Weapon Style Specialization), and that's when the truth started to sink it.

What sealed the deal was when, during the adventure, he quickly found two magic swords, and there were no magic spears to be found, rendering me completely useless when we later encountered a gargoyle during The Sentinel (where I found myself in the same situation as the NPC Monk). In fairness, the DM did eventually let me acquire a magic greatspear, but he had to go out of his way to make that happen. It wasn't until later, when I, taking my own turn as the DM, realized that the DMG limited most non-swords to no better than +3, with only swords being allowed to climb higher.
View attachment 418591

People like to talk about how optimization wasn't a thing back then, or go on about 3e's "ivory tower design", but it was all there right along. Some decisions would be rewarded by the system, and others would be punished. And over the years, I've heard many DM's claim that it isn't their business to make the game suit the player, or to alter the game world for their benefit, as if it's somehow teaching players a lesson to not specialize in glaive-guisarmes or play Fighters with higher Intelligence than Strength. Many of those same DM's then turn around and decry people who make "optimized" characters, without seeing the irony.

Now I'm not saying that all choices need be equal- that would take a great deal of effort, and a game where a dagger Rogue performs just as well as one with a rapier doesn't seem very logical. But at the same time, one has to wonder why have inferior options in the first place, and why some people scoff or deride people who then try to make better choices. I've often heard DM's wax poetic about how characters built in a sub-standard way are somehow superior, as if the essence of roleplaying is to carry around a whip because your character was once an animal trainer for their entire career, or your wise, humble, peasant Fighter should continue to cling to his trusty pitchfork, while at the same time shrug and say "hey, just because your character uses a pike doesn't mean magical pikes are going to appear as treasure. I'm not changing my carefully constructed campaign world for your benefit. Better start using that +1 battle axe you found" with the same level of scorn as a 12 year old brat in League of Legends to tell you to "git gud".

That’s why they invented the quantum magic weapon.

 

[Maxperson]

Honestly @loverdrive and @Paul Farquhar I think you both make some good points and I agree with you both to a degree.

I see where Loverdrive is coming from with regard to weapon techniques bleeding over into other weapons. I agree with her that a Fighter picking up a weapon he has never seen before would be able to use it competently to very well just based on all the other weapons that he has mastered. I also agree that what she described seems more like a Fighter than a Monk.

Where I disagree with her is that a Fighter should be able to pick up anything to improvise as a weapon and be deadly with it in the same way that he is with formal weapons. He would be competently dangerous, but wouldn't be fencing with a table leg.

Where I agree with Paul Farquhar is that the improvised weapon mastery seems more like a Barbarian skill. He's going to pick up that chair and break it and you in half with it. He's going to throw that longsword and somehow cut you in two from head to waist. He's going to be the unorthodox fighting wizard, no sorcerer since it's more of an inborn ability. Whether that's using something that is not normally a weapon as a weapon, or using a weapon in a weird and unorthodox way.

 

[Micah Sweet]

During a battle, yes. And the 20 arrow standard quiver is rather large. But I wouldn’t do that for the simple reason than no one would play an archer if running out of arrows was likely, they would get magic initiate and shoot infinite cantrips instead.

Outside of battle, it’s where the idea of being competent comes in. During the Hundred Years’ War the English archers would carry bags of spare arrowheads, and collect feathers and shafts whist marching. Replacing arrows as necessary whenever they made camp. Note that you might need to replace unused arrows if they were warped or damp. What they didn’t do is go into a shop and buy arrows.

I was quite clear that I have no problem with archers making their own arrows. I am saying I prefer the details of that activity be paid more attention than you prefer. Bring extra materials. Take the time. Accept that you've chosen a combat option with limitations that should be addressed, or find some supernatural way to get around them. If your players don't want to deal with the real consequences of their choice, I guess they can in your game. But that sort of thing is important to me both as a GM and a player. It certainly wouldn't stop me from playing an archer if that's the fantasy I want to indulge in.

 

[Micah Sweet]

That’s why they invented the quantum magic weapon.

What's that?