D&D General Weapons should break left and right

[Maxperson]

i saw my chance to make a DM of the Rings reference and i am taking it
View attachment 418995

Riverdale? RIVERDALE!? It always gets me when memes and people get Rivendell wrong.

 

[Hussar]

Characters can go from fighting humans to wyverns to oozes to rat swarms. The game doesn't get into the level of detail to give people a reason to equip their characters with weapons to have specific weapons for each.



Thanks for proof positive that you obviously ignored the article I linked to because apparently you've already decided and no evidence or expert opinion is going to change your mind. The article was from the ARMA site. https://www.thearma.org/essays/The_Sword_in_War.html

Talk about not reading your own articles:

So, while on the battlefields of history simple shafted weapons were more common and arrows accounted for more death, no one went to war without some sort of personal side arm for close-in defense. More often than not, it was a sword. There was a simple enough matter at work in all this: if your spear was thrown or your halberd shaft broke, you had better draw that blade on your hip and start using it with some skill. Whether long or short, straight or curved, wide or tapered, the sword was indispensable in war.

Note, he states it right there. Your sword was your weapon of last resort. Of course it's indispensable, because you do throw your spear and your halberd does break. But, you use all those other weapons first, and THEN, if you still need to, you use your sword. Which is exactly what I said all the way along.



And, just to add, @AlViking, read more than one article on that site. It's absolutely fascinating. It has been a hot minute or two since I dived in there, but, there's just so much stuff. The article on Venetian Bridge Wars https://www.thearma.org/essays/BridgeWars.htm has featured in my Waterdeep and honestly most of any city campaigns that I've run over the years.

 

[loverdrive]

Re: cantrips

I don't like them too. I think rarity of magic makes it, well, more magical.

Wizards should spend most of the fights smacking people with a staff and occasionally unleash potent spells that completely change the situation, as opposed to casting weaksauce cantrips

 

[Hussar]

Re: cantrips

I don't like them too. I think rarity of magic makes it, well, more magical.

Wizards should spend most of the fights smacking people with a staff and occasionally unleash potent spells that completely change the situation, as opposed to casting weaksauce cantrips

I get that. I mean, to a large extent I actually agree, despite being all in in playing 5e. I miss the days when you would see maybe, maybe one spell cast in a combat. Now, it's mostly two or three spells every single round. But, by the same token, I also realize that that ship has sailed a LOOOOOONG time ago.

 

[Maxperson]

Re: cantrips

I don't like them too. I think rarity of magic makes it, well, more magical.

Wizards should spend most of the fights smacking people with a staff and occasionally unleash potent spells that completely change the situation, as opposed to casting weaksauce cantrips

I don't know what planet I'm on anymore. I'm not sure we have agreed on anything in the past, but suddenly in the past few weeks we are agreeing all over the place.

 

[loverdrive]

I don't know what planet I'm on anymore. I'm not sure we have agreed on anything in the past, but suddenly in the past few weeks we are agreeing all over the place.

Well, I spent a couple years doing other stuff, trying other things and most importantly tempering the authoritative way I talk.

Turns out being in a position of unquestionable authority for a decade messes with one's ability to communicate in other contexts, who would've thought

 

[M_Natas]

To me that just sounds like a poor encumbrance system.

That's the 5e system (and I think 5e2024 is the same) and that why I proposed ways to fix it.

 

[Staffan]

Re: cantrips

I don't like them too. I think rarity of magic makes it, well, more magical.

Wizards should spend most of the fights smacking people with a staff and occasionally unleash potent spells that completely change the situation, as opposed to casting weaksauce cantrips

I don't know about y'all, but if I'm playing a wizard it's because I want to cast spells.

Also, if you want to go OG, staffs are for amateurs. Daggers are where it's at: can be used both in melee and at (admittedly short) range, and when thrown you can make two attacks per round.

 

[loverdrive]

I don't know about y'all, but if I'm playing a wizard it's because I want to cast spells.

Also, if you want to go OG, staffs are for amateurs. Daggers are where it's at: can be used both in melee and at (admittedly short) range, and when thrown you can make two attacks per round.

I too want to cast spells. Big, flashy, reality bending spells that have a capacity to turn the tides and completely reshape the dire situation.

Not to sling a lot of weak spells all day long.

 

[Staffan]

I too want to cast spells. Big, flashy, reality bending spells that have a capacity to turn the tides and completely reshape the dire situation.

Not to sling a lot of weak spells all day long.