I agree. My comment was merely addressing the image of Spidey hiding on the ceiling, nothing more.
D&D General Weapons should break left and right
- Thread starter loverdrive
- Start date
I agree. My comment was merely addressing the image of Spidey hiding on the ceiling, nothing more.
Couple of videos on making and repairing arrows in the middle ages (along with some modern ways).
Couple of videos on logistics during the middle ages and supplying arrows while on campaign.
The channel thehistorysquad has a lot of videos that concern different aspects of the middle ages that may be of interest also.
Couple of videos on logistics during the middle ages and supplying arrows while on campaign.
The channel thehistorysquad has a lot of videos that concern different aspects of the middle ages that may be of interest also.
My point is that the DM is the one who makes the final call on what type of weapon is in the treasure. That's all.
I am making no comment one way or the other on the overrepresentation of swords as weapons in popular culture. D&D 1e did have representations of many different types of polearms, along with stat for using each of them. I can't really comment on randomly generated treasure because it's been too long and I always just used them as inspiration or modules because I never used those.
On the other hand many people are also making assumptions on what weapons D&D characters "should" carry based on what weapons real world armies carried. The Roman's did rely on the gladius for their close quarters combat but many armies used what was cheapest to manufacture while countering the tactics of the enemies they were engaging with. But there wasn't just one weapon being used, most armies had a wide variety based on what individuals had access to. There is still ample evidence that swords of all types were widely used until guns dominated war https://www.thearma.org/essays/The_Sword_in_War.html.
Meanwhile what works well in a fighting formation doesn't necessarily work best for small unit combat. An Awl Pike (which Gygax put at 18 feet) may work great while setting up a defense against cavalry, it's not such a great all-around weapon. I'm not saying the sword is either, I have no clue because I've never used a sword in a fight with a small group. But a sword was never just a show piece for the wealthy, it was also an effective weapon of war, especially for trained warriors, and wouldn't have been used as such if it were not.
Hussar
Legend
Well, that and the fact that by the rules, even by 2014, all the best magic weapons were still swords. You, by RAW, could not have a Dragon Slaying spear. It had to be a sword. That was right in the rules. Same with Defending, flaming, and a bunch of other effects. Now, you're absolutely right, DM's should change the rules to suit. But, again, my point has always been that swords get pretty much all the love and other weapons are an afterthought.
And it's not like player's didn't know this. Players gravitated towards swords too because they knew that they were guaranteed to get a magic sword, whereas the odds of a magical Lucerne Hammer was virtually nil.
Hussar
Legend
It was almost always the weapon of last resort. You pulled out a sword after you had exhausted every other option. Never minding that NO ONE EVER hunted with a sword. Sure, swords might be great against other humanoids, but against the very large number of creatures that a PC would face? Swords are not great. If you are close enough to a large animal to hit it with a sword, you are already in a world of hurt.
But, again, because D&D combat doesn't take any factors like that into account, swords rule and everything else drools.
Did you even browse the article I linked to? Based on the evidence we have swords were widely used right alongside other weapons. Different people used different weapons during different periods for different reasons but most armies did not use just one weapon. Many armies just had people bring what they had, weapons loosely based on farm implements were also used for infantry as they were cheap and people were familiar with similar implements.
In 21st century D&D there are plenty of reasons to choose a weapon other than a sword. I do not care what weapons were used as part of an military unit (and as I said above even then you're wrong) because D&D is not about mass combat as part of an army.
One last quote from the article
"Many Renaissance martial arts treatises describe the value of swordsmanship as the foundational training not just for all manners of single combat and self defense situations, but for the battlefield. This did not change as firearms became the dominant military technology. Even into the early 20th century, the sword continued to be the weapon of choice to accompany the pistol or rifle for light cavalry. In fact, because of its utility and lore, as well as its symbolism and connection to dueling culture, in being carried to war the sword far outlasted all pole-arms."
You can keep insisting that you are correct with no supporting documentation if you want. Meanwhile swords may be overrepresented in popular culture but according to resources that are actually experts on the topic they were also a weapon of war. Often the primary weapon.
Maxperson
Morkus from Orkus
I'd have gone with, "If the DM changes it into a hammer, then there is no point." Of course, I'm a huge smartass, so...
It's not Oberoni since there is no problem here. You can like or dislike the sword bias, but as it's not inherently problematic, it's not Oberoni to suggest that you change it if you don't like it."Well, yes, that's true. But, if swords weren't the default then the DM wouldn't need to change it, right?"
"No, you just don't understand. The DM can change anything."
:wow:
I must admit though, I don't think I've ever seen such a perfect illustration of the Oberoni Fallacy.
Oberoni would apply to say 4e's broken math, which was a problem that led to WotC's feat taxes. Suggesting that broken math wasn't a problem because the DM could fix it would be an example of the Oberoni Fallacy.
Maxperson
Morkus from Orkus
They are given the prime seat, but that eighty page spread isn't quite as lopsided as the page count suggests. Swords were also lopsided with long written histories which use up a very large amount of space for individual swords. The histories of other weapon types are typically much shorter.
I am by no means asking you to do this, but I am personally curious as to how lopsided the counts are if you count the numbers of each type of weapon.
Edit: I just went through the sword section and I counted 353 swords. I did not count swords that were named and just said something like, "This is a sword of sharpness," since that wasn't a different sword. I also note that there is a LOT of duplication from different sources. 4 or 5 flaming swords, 3 Excaliburs, 4 versions of Frey's sword, etc. And of course a lot of them were deity weapons from the various deity books. Even so, there are a lot more swords than spears.
There are 25 spears, and most of those are also deity weapons.
Last edited:
Not a Decepticon
Hero
I always see people trying to make claim that D&D is not a collaborative storytelling game, and that people should stick to what it does best...followed by example of something the game is absolutely terrible at and argurably always was, like combat or dungeon crawling.
Very capitalist thinking, which would not really translate to supposedly medeival, and thus pre-capitalist, society. Artificer or Wizard would NOT sit in a shop selling wares or taking commissions, but would probably have a patron or protector who monopolizes their services. And that is assuming they NEED money or protection to begin with. You would not spend 4000 gp on Endless Quiver because it would not be on sale, assuming it was made at all.
99% of people in real world would be using commonner statblock, imo
As if the games don't have many spelsl that let you circumvent need for money just the same, liek create food or water or fabricate. Realistically speaking wizards would be self-sufficient and need no money or no people whatsoever. We just don't do that because this way leads to Tippyverse.
Assuming they even need money to begin with.
Maxperson
Morkus from Orkus
The bolded two things are the same. The core books are D&D. What is dominant in a DM's personal setting is whatever the DM happens to like.
The issue is that a lot of DMs pretty much just go with the official books, which means their games will be very sword heavy. Some DMs will create a lot of items and also use the official books for a lot of items. Since they generally also create swords, their games will still be sword biased, even if not by as much as just going with official books. DM's who create all or nearly all of their own items can get rid of that bias, but in my experience they don't, because they have been biased by the official books(like the players also are) and create more swords than anything else.
It's very rare for a D&D game to not be biased towards swords. I know that I have never seen one, and I'm including myself here. I fall into that second category of use official(and 3rd party) sources, and create a lot of my own, but I still make more swords than other types of weapons.
Thinking about it, though, the last really major artifact weapon I made for one of my campaigns was a spear. Go me!
