What is the Best Weapon?

[Edena_of_Neith]

Ok, let me try it from this angle:

In another thread, someone asked what the difference was between a long sword and a broad sword. The answer seemed to be that the primary difference was in nomenclature. I remember someone saying the long sword was really the bastard sword, and the broad sword was really the long sword.
It always seemed to me that there was no specialness, no uniqueness, in the generic weapons of D&D, and reading that article made me think on that once more. A long sword is a long sword. A broad sword is a broad sword. What of it? Just different makes of the same killing tool, using different alloys of metal.
Nothing special there.

I'm saying there could be.
There are long swords, and then there are long swords.
There are broad swords, and then there are broad swords.

Or ...

There is the generic 'long sword', and then there is the long sword of Barsoom (from the Tales of John Carter)
There is the generic 'broadsword', and then there is the broadsword of Hyboria (from Conan)
There is the generic 'dagger', and then there is the Fremen crysblade (from Dune) or Sting (from LOTR.)
There is the generic 'gun', and then there is the Barsoomian revolver (from the Tales of John Carter.)

There is the generic 'open hand attack' and then there is the open hand attack from a Haruchai (from the Chronicles of Thomas Covenant.)
There is the generic 'garrote' and then there is the Ramen garotte (from the Chronicles of Thomas Covenant.)
There is the generic lowly 'rock' and then there is the rock thrown by Bilbo (from the Hobbit.)

There is the 'flamethrower' and there is the Pernese flamethrower (from Pern) or Baba Fetts' flamethrower (from Star Wars.)

What brought Boromir down in the LOTR film? The long bow.
Why did the long bow bring Boromir down? He was without his shield.

There is the 'net' and then there is the net used in Spartacus.
There is the 'two handed sword' and then there is the claymore used in Braveheart.
There is the 'lance' and then there is the lance used in LeMorte De'Arthur.

Weapons need not be generic. Weapons can be part of the symbol of a setting. Whether cultural or merely efficient, weapons can be individualistic, special things. They need not be magical to be special.

So, what makes a longsword an 'elven longsword'?
What makes a battleaxe a 'dwarven battleaxe'?
What makes a weapon a 'Cormyrian weapon' or an 'Evereskan weapon' or a 'Thayan weapon'?
We know of the dragonlance. Why should the ordinary lance of the Knight of Solamnia, though, be 'merely ordinary'?
We know of the hoopak. Why won't other races use it, aside from the fact it's kender created?
The peoples of the Dark Sun Setting use weapons made out of bone. A humble material? Mundane? Ur-viles use weapons made out of bone, and they will destroy your steel weapons and armor alike.

Since this game is heavily based on combat, weapons are important. Why must your weapons be mundane? Why must one have a + 1 weapon or masterwork weapon before it attains any individuality or specialness?
Considering most characters are going to see a lot of battle, and their lives depend heavily on their weapons, they would want to think of their weapons as something special. After all, they only rely on them to stay alive! And they only spend endless years training with them, devoting their lives to the use of those weapons when they could be doing all manner of other things.
If I were playing such a character, he would want to identify his weapon as being very special indeed. His whole life is wrapped up in it, so he would think in that way.

Or am I lost in my thinking here? Because I saw a lot of players have their characters discard their mundane weapons like unwanted lice when they got their hands on those precious magical weapons, and never give the matter a second thought.

EDIT: Even in high tech settings, this is true. There is the generic 'giant robot machine' and then there is the Mech (and it's Mechwarrior.) There is the generic 'energy sword' and then there is the lightsabre. There is the generic 'energy gun' and then there is Han Solos' blaster. There is the generic 'space warship' and then there is the Millennium Falcon.

 

[Kuld]

I love all me swords. Every one


I agree with you wholeheartedly. I am too a novice collector and avid reader of medieval arms and armour. Currently, I am reading "The Sword in the Age of Chivalry" by Ewart Oakeshott. Coincidence?

I use a bard/archeologist NPC in my game just to get the same feel you gave in your two posts. It doesn't seem to work though

I guess My PCs just don't share the same interests. They are more of a power hungry lot; not quite all hack 'n slash, but they do get a little impatient if I delve too deep into details. Well, It's their game...

Very good thread.

Kuld

 

[Angel Tarragon]

edit: but obviously the best weapon is a sharp mind.

Yeah, if you are a Psion....

 

[diaglo]

Yeah, if you are a Psion....

well with Psion, whenever i see something by him i think of the old saying.

a mind is a terrible thing to waste.

 

[Umbran]

I'm saying there could be.
There are long swords, and then there are long swords.
There are broad swords, and then there are broad swords.

Or ...

There is the generic 'long sword', and then there is the long sword of Barsoom (from the Tales of John Carter)
There is the generic 'broadsword', and then there is the broadsword of Hyboria (from Conan)

...snip...
Weapons need not be generic.
...snip...

Or am I lost in my thinking here? Because I saw a lot of players have their characters discard their mundane weapons like unwanted lice when they got their hands on those precious magical weapons, and never give the matter a second thought.

Lost? No. But perhaps you're understating some of the facts about the game we play.

First, and perhaps foremost, it is a game. And if you're playing a game, the players will take the game rules into account. In a sense, all weapons are generic, because in play they have to be reduced to stats. Stats are generic.

Second, is that this is not unreasonable in character. Adventurers live a rough and dangerous life. Few are going to stick to culture when presented with something more effective. I won't care so much about my sword being Hyborean if the other sword cleaves giant snakes better. Staying alive generally takes precedence.

If you want something else from your players, you need to give them some reason to stick with flavor. If you use weapons that improve with the character, for example, rather than standard magical fare, then you won't see this problem much, because the system would frequently favor sticking with what you have over the new thing.

 

[Rystil Arden]

To present an extreme example of Umbran's point (albeit not exactly in the same context), many years ago I was playing an old Might and Magic CRPG. One of my characters was a warrior who loved beating things down with two-handed swords. Heck, I tracked down the grandmaster of two-handed swords and trained under him, gaining huge benefits with two-handed swords. I liked two-handed swords and I fully expected to continue using two-handed swords, but then, near the end, the game dumped laser rifles onto my medieval characters, and the bad guys became nigh invincible to anything but the stupid guns (which were ridiculously powerful). So I was forced by necessity to adapt to the situation and use the guns, against my judgment and good taste.

The same often holds true in D&D. A player would be suicidal to continue using their daddy's non-masterwork longsword through level 20, when presented with various alternative magic weapons. Now, if the player is somehow min/maxed enough or the challenges are lax enough to survive, this probably won't be an issue. But if there is a TPK or other terrible defeat and the fighter with the underpowered weapon was clearly not holding his weight, the other players are certainly going to express their displeasure.

 

[diaglo]

But if there is a TPK or other terrible defeat and the fighter with the underpowered weapon was clearly not holding his weight, the other players are certainly going to express their displeasure.

Angelsboi built an undead hunter in the story hour in my sig. his weapon of choice.

the whip.

this is the 3.11ed for Workgroups version of whip.

the munchkin, powergamer, min/maxer, off put gamer in the group railed against him at every turn about what a poor choice of PC Ryan had chosen ... and when Ryan didn't show up for one session... the other guy even roleplayed the undead hunter for the session. but refused to roleplay the PC as Ryan would have. he broke out the PC's other weapon.. a bastard sword...

anyway, the point is... the rest of us were fine with Ryan's choice. it was his to make. and we compensated for it as Ryan had to compensate for the choices we all made.

 

[Eosin the Red]

well with Psion, whenever i see something by him i think of the old saying.

a mind is a terrible thing to waste.

Funny, I think "The mind is a terrible thing to TASTE."

 

[Edena_of_Neith]

I think the burden (if there is a burden, per se) falls on the DM, not the players.
The DM must create the scenario where cultures favor certain weapons, for reasons aesthetic and expedient. The settings I described were all created by authors or filmmakers. A DM must create his own setting.
Of course the players will employ whatever weapons are most functional (and then, try to get away with what is functional but not practical, like a halfling wielding a bastard sword.) It is really up to the DM to make weapons into something special.
It's nice where the WOTC Campaign Setting has flavor (or what they call fluff nowadays) concerning the weapons used by the various nations and cultures therein. Or, at least, I think so. It helps the beleagered DM out a lot.