Weapon Styles, Basket Weaving, and Concept Obsolesence

[CatharzGodfoot]

D&D makes the problem a whole lot worse by having a huge hard-on for nearly identical weapons using different proficiencies, and therefore being mutually exclusive if you want to be a weaponmaster.

Cutting proficiencies down to swords, axes, clubs, polearms, chains, and bows at least removes the problem of getting a bastard sword when you're a katana guy.

[Surgo]

Just wanted to say that I've found this thread very enlightening. Thanks, Frank and Lago: I had never before considered how, say, a list of desired treasure would subtly change the nature of how the game is played.

[Fuchs]

If the group doesn't want to go on side quests then I can easily make the katanas stolen part of the main quests by making the thieves involved with the BBEG.

So after the players decide to not go quest for a treasure, as the DM you decide that you'll give it to them anyway?

Congratulations: you just managed to find a way to make the katana character even more poisonous to the group dynamic. His very presence apparently makes all decisions made by the collective of players completely meaningless.

-Username17

If the collective decisions of the players are "FUCK YOU, Player A", then something is wrong anyway. If the group doesn't want to make sure everyone has fun - and letting people play what they want, and use what weapon they want is a big part of having fun - then the group's not worth much to begin with.

However, if teh group consensus is: No side quests, then all the character-centric stuff happens in the main quest, easy.

[shadzar]

Torn on the issue. Clarifying questions on peoples opinions.

I find the sword of omens. I'm an axe dude. Can I...

Sell the Sword at the next town and buy an axe?
Barter the sword for an axe?
Give the sword to a dwarven lord to increase favor?

1. if you can find someone to buy it, and if you are wiling to part with it for what they are willing to pay.
1a. if there are any for sell, or if you commission the blacksmith and wait for it to be made.

2. if you can find someone to trade with

3. if you can find a dwarf that wants a sword, that sword.

once yours you can give the sword to anyone that will accept it.

[shadzar]

If the collective decisions of the players are "FUCK YOU, Player A", then something is wrong anyway. If the group doesn't want to make sure everyone has fun - and letting people play what they want, and use what weapon they want is a big part of having fun - then the group's not worth much to begin with.

or Player A isnt worth much to the group. the inflexible need for a certain weapon continuously pisses them off, where they would rather quest for other things, rather than babysit a child.

Player A is in the game jsut for themselves, since they cannot let go of anything for the rest of the group, and force this NEED for a specific weapon onto everyone else, while everyone else uses the weapons they find.

maybe the group just happens to be telling Player A: "You are the weakest link, GOODBYE!"

[tzor]

This is why girls don't play D&D. I'm not talking female humans. I mean girls. You know... The people who you would think should be great at fantasy roleplay because they've been pretending to be princesses for years.

Actually there are a lot of reasons and if they do ever play a RPG they gravitate towards other systems that are not so strongly combat oriented. (I don't mean those that don't include combat but where magic really exists for the purpose of assisting combat. Most of the non combat related magic items were stripped from D&D as the editions progressed.)

Oh and let's not get into pants. I don't care if you don't wear them, you have the option to wear them. Honestly, the number of people I've seen wearing a "utili-kilt" outside Gen Con (and at Gen Con the number was like 2 ... and that was over several years) is ZERO. It's enough to make a Scotsman cry.

[RadiantPhoenix]

Honestly, the number of people I've seen wearing a "utili-kilt" outside Gen Con (and at Gen Con the number was like 2 ... and that was over several years) is ZERO. It's enough to make a Scotsman cry.

I know my dad wears kilts... I don't know anyone else who does while not playing bagpipes.

[Red_Rob]

AD&D actually had both the scenarios under discussion here in one game. You were allowed (encouraged?) to specialise in a single weapon if you were a Fighter, with up to 5 levels(!) of specialisation available, and yet treasure was supposedly generated randomly and there was explicitly no magic item trading allowed.

It worked out because 70% of the magic weapons were long swords, so pretty much everyone specialised in Long Sword, and because bonuses weren't as required to fight at high levels because the numbers were much smaller. A/C only going to -10 (unless you were fighting certain bullshit dragon types) helped, along with the fact characters took about 3 years real time to level up after level 9.

Am I understanding everyone here that this is a problem specific to D&D? So a weapon specialist would work fine in a game where constant weapon upgrades weren't required?

[shadzar]

This is why girls don't play D&D. I'm not talking female humans. I mean girls. You know... The people who you would think should be great at fantasy roleplay because they've been pretending to be princesses for years.

Actually there are a lot of reasons and if they do ever play a RPG they gravitate towards other systems that are not so strongly combat oriented.

Be careful, you almost told Maj she was lying because you almost mentioned the 11 year old that played in Gygax games that had several of her spells she made become a part of the game and carry her own name Tasha.

and of course someone wouldnt want to hear about a girl playing in a combat heavy game such as those ran by Gygax....it would destroy Maj's whole belief system.

[Orion]

Weapon specialization tends to be a bad mechanic in general. In almost all games you want people who lose their actual weapons to be able to defend themselves with chairs, bottles, and kitchen knives. Those weapons suck inherently and don't have the properties of the weapon you presumably picked for its properties, and that should be enough punishment. If you let people stack on more bonuses to a "specialized" weapon, specialization becomes the assumed balance standard and ANYTHING that calls for flexibility (disarms and sunders, imprisonment, ranged encounters for melee specialists, foot encounters for lance specialists, skeleton encounters for spear specialists) becomes a punch in the dick.

A mid level weapon specialist in D&D who loses his magic sword and picks up a chair takes a -4 for improvised weapons, -2/3 for losing his magic weapon, and another -2 or so for losing weapon specialist benefits. That's a ridiculous minus nine to hit on a d20. That shit has to stop and the easiest way is to axe the specialization bonuses.

[shadzar]

Weapon specialization tends to be a bad mechanic in general. In almost all games you want people who lose their actual weapons to be able to defend themselves with chairs, bottles, and kitchen knives.

proficiencies: weapon, armor, skills; are ALL bad mechanics.

weapon proficiencies did work however if using then in 2nd (dont recall using them in 1st). it took about 4 slots to specialize in a single weapon at 1st level and that is what you got.

then the non minmaxxers would get a new WP at level 4 and start chosing other weapons.

Min/Maxing

Sometimes players resort to "min/maxing" when selecting weapon proficiencies. Min/maxing occurs when a player calculates all the odds and numerical advantages and disadvantages of a particular weapon. The player's decision isn't based on his imagination, the campaign, role-playing, or character development. It is based on game mechanics--what will give the player the biggest modifier and cause the most damage in any situation.
A certain amount of min/maxing is unavoidable, and even good (it shows that the player is interested in the game), but an excessive min/maxer is missing the point. Reducing a character to a list of combat modifiers and dice rolls is not role-playing.

Fortunately, this type of player is easy to deal with. Just create a situation in which his carefully chosen weapon, the one intended to give him an edge over everyone else, is either useless or puts him at a disadvantage. He will suddenly discover the drawback of min/maxing. It is impossible to create a combination of factors that is superior in every situation, because situations can vary so much.


Copyright 1999 TSR Inc.

A mid level weapon specialist in D&D who loses his magic sword and picks up a chair takes a -4 for improvised weapons, -2/3 for losing his magic weapon, and another -2 or so for losing weapon specialist benefits. That's a ridiculous minus nine to hit on a d20. That shit has to stop and the easiest way is to axe the specialization bonuses.

since the entire proficiency bit was optional prior to 3rd, "improvised" weapons like tables, or chairs were just treated like clubs. proficiency didnt offer anything really, so we disregarded the penalty for using something you are NOT proficient with. specialization was the only reason to have WPs, and only the fighter got that.

ANYONE should be able to swing a chair if they have STR to pick it up.

monsters never had specialization, so this removed strange penalties for non-fighters, and let the fighter have access to a little bit more power (have nice things)...IF we used proficiencies.

3rd should have not gone ahead with the entire proficiency/skills range because they both DO cause problems such as this one.

[echoVanguard]

Weapon specialization tends to be a bad mechanic in general. In almost all games you want people who lose their actual weapons to be able to defend themselves with chairs, bottles, and kitchen knives. Those weapons suck inherently and don't have the properties of the weapon you presumably picked for its properties, and that should be enough punishment. If you let people stack on more bonuses to a "specialized" weapon, specialization becomes the assumed balance standard and ANYTHING that calls for flexibility (disarms and sunders, imprisonment, ranged encounters for melee specialists, foot encounters for lance specialists, skeleton encounters for spear specialists) becomes a punch in the dick.

A mid level weapon specialist in D&D who loses his magic sword and picks up a chair takes a -4 for improvised weapons, -2/3 for losing his magic weapon, and another -2 or so for losing weapon specialist benefits. That's a ridiculous minus nine to hit on a d20. That shit has to stop and the easiest way is to axe the specialization bonuses.

I would argue that the problem here is not that the specialization bonuses exist, but that they're much too large. In our system, a character has two bonus types in this category - Proficiency Bonuses and General Combat Bonuses.

Essentially, martial characters gain the trait "Combat Training (melee)" or "Combat Training (ranged)" which gives them a +1 Combat Bonus to most rolls in that type of combat. This can be upgraded into "Combat Reflexes (melee)" or "Combat Reflexes (ranged)" which increases the bonus in question to +3. They can also acquire "Weapon Proficiency (melee)" and/or "Weapon Proficiency (ranged)" which gives them a +1 Proficiency bonus to the same rolls, and that can be upgraded into Weapon Mastery (Specific Weapon) which increases the Proficiency bonus to +2.

There's also the fact that weapon math in our game works significantly differently - weapons with flat bonuses to combat rolls are not magical and the bonuses are to specific areas of weapon function, instead of just "+1 to everything". Magic weapons do exist, but they don't gain flat bonuses.

echo

[Lago PARANOIA]

Let's go in another direction with this discussion for the moment.

Personally I think that the idea that a character's aesthetic should be immutable except by the grace of the character no matter what happens in the campaign setting to be weird as fuck.

Sources in which aesthetics for the characters don't change are limited to series where the characters don't undergo much in the way of a power upgrade and even then the limits are usually by budget/game engine rather than a deliberate design choice. Anakin Skywalker changes his outfit a bunch of times even before he becomes Vader. The various keyblade-masters in the KH series go through a ton of outfits. Vegeta and Gohan changed their clothes a few times. People thought that Wonder Woman's various equipping of pants / sword / cape (not all at the same time, sadly) were cool as hell.

And in a game where you can become literally a different kind of character through certain magical items and you go through them like candy, the idea that someone can wear a certain kind of outfit or wear a certain kind of hat or use a certain kind of weapon from now until the end of time is just downright baffling to me. I'm not saying that it's wrong (just from this line of argument, I'm against it for other reasons) but the downright white-knuckled fear of a character not looking exactly how you want them to is just odd to me.

That said:

Now, you can say "I want that," at which point we have to say "fuck you, goodbye" to weapon-specific concepts (mechanical or fluff-wise). But just slowing down the magic item acquisition rate or even making magic items completely horizontal power makes the concept of 'swordmaster' a lot more robust to the random loot tables.

I'm overall ambivalent (leaning towards nay, because of weapons) on total player aesthetic control on things like outfits or contacts since the cool factor of things like Boba Fett's armor or a Red Mage Feather Hat is overall harmless, but I'm vehemently against it for weapons.

Vader would still be Vader if he used a glaive, though he wouldn't be nearly as entrenched in pop cultural memory if Lucas went with his original idea for his outfit to just be a once-scene spacesuit rather than 24-hour armor. But the thing that makes me want to ban weapon-specific concepts is that it goes past 'cool' straight towards 'fetish' and like a lot of fetishes it becomes really boring even among fans if it's pushed too much; and since a lot of players would rather have their characters run around in a clown suit than give up a light saber which to me is a reason why weapon-specific concepts need to go.

Now once that is established and people get weaned off of the idea of having weapon-specific concepts, I'm perfectly willing to entertain the thoughts of someone running around in a fairy-tale wedding dress with Iron Man's powers (hey, worked for Devilot) or if someone should be darting across the place like a super-ninja while wearing a full suit of armor (hey, worked for Death's Hand).

[shadzar]

I'm overall ambivalent (leaning towards nay, because of weapons) on total player aesthetic control on things like outfits or contacts since the cool factor of things like Boba Fett's armor or a Red Mage Feather Hat is overall harmless, but I'm vehemently against it for weapons.

this is where armor came into play in reality, and the game added it in supplements. Piecemeal armo where you could mix and match parts in a manner that gave aesthetic, if not actual protection.

but them you have to ask if you REALLY want aesthetics to trump common sense, do you accept the chainmail bikini as offering REAL protection at all?

[Archmage]

Yes. It's a fantasy game, emulating fantasy source material in which people wear chainmail bikinis and good guys don't wear face concealing helmets. Realism slash "common sense" has to take a back seat to aesthetics and genre tropes.

[Maj]

Sources in which aesthetics for the characters don't change are limited to series where the characters don't undergo much in the way of a power upgrade and even then the limits are usually by budget/game engine rather than a deliberate design choice. Anakin Skywalker changes his outfit a bunch of times even before he becomes Vader. The various keyblade-masters in the KH series go through a ton of outfits. Vegeta and Gohan changed their clothes a few times. People thought that Wonder Woman's various equipping of pants / sword / cape (not all at the same time, sadly) were cool as hell.

And in a game where you can become literally a different kind of character through certain magical items and you go through them like candy, the idea that someone can wear a certain kind of outfit or wear a certain kind of hat or use a certain kind of weapon from now until the end of time is just downright baffling to me. I'm not saying that it's wrong (just from this line of argument, I'm against it for other reasons) but the downright white-knuckled fear of a character not looking exactly how you want them to is just odd to me.

Lago... Do you even understand the concept of a personal aesthetic? You seem to be taking the idea of having your own style and extrapolating it to an extreme on par with "doesn't change underwear."

I already gave the personal example of not wearing pants, but that doesn't mean all the dresses in my closet look the same. Some are straight, some are full; some are skirts, some are dresses; some are ankle-length, some are knee-length.

Take a look at your Wonder Woman example... With a few exceptions, her aesthetics reference birds/wings, stars, tiaras, red, blue, rope, and bracers. Looking over her costume through the years, if she came across fullplate armor, she'd turn it down (she's worn a breastplate a few times, and chainmail once). She also appears to wield primarily swords, spears, the occasional double-headed battleaxe, and a sickle (once).

I'm overall ambivalent (leaning towards nay, because of weapons) on total player aesthetic control on things like outfits or contacts since the cool factor of things like Boba Fett's armor or a Red Mage Feather Hat is overall harmless, but I'm vehemently against it for weapons.

Rapiers are part of an aesthetic. They are part of a highly intricate fighting style that's better in a one-on-less-than-many combat scenario. They are flourishy, graceful, and they usually are found on someone who uses speed as their main defense. As such, the aesthetic of a character who uses a rapier will generally include lighter armor, clothing that ensures mobility, and probably - though not necessarily - something flashy to wave around to help distract or trick the other awesome fighters they will encounter in their time as an adventurer. Yet, you're arguing that should that character come across a bastard sword with better magic, they should give up their entire aesthetic because weapons are important, but shoes are not.

That's stupid. Weapons are the flavor text for the mechanic of "do damage to bad guys." When DMs say that their bad guys wouldn't be caught dead using a rapier, it's the same goddamned thing as saying that your character would prefer to not wield a long spear. It's the flavor text of the NPC bound to an aesthetic because in the DM's head, there's a clear picture of big, scary, orcish warrior that doesn't include wielding a toothpick.

[hyzmarca]

Vader would still be Vader if he used a glaive, though he wouldn't be nearly as entrenched in pop cultural memory if Lucas went with his original idea for his outfit to just be a once-scene spacesuit rather than 24-hour armor.

The the thing about Vaders Suit and Boba Fett's armor is that they aren't pieces of equipment found in random dungeons. In Boba Fett's case it was an heirloom from his father and in Vader's it was specifically made for him. There is a substantial difference between the magic undigestable hat that you fished out of a pile of dragon poop during your adventure and the helmet that's been passed down in your family for a thousand generations. Likewise, there is a difference between the sword forged by the Great Smiths of Ellillo for your own hand and no other and the sword you find in a random cave.

Characters should be able to get custom equipment and they should be able to favor it if they want. There is nothing wrong with leaving your poop-stained hat of undigestability in your haversack until you've been swallowed whole by the Tarrasque and have to fight your way out.

Superman once had a lead-lined suit that made him immune to kryptonite radiation, but he didn't wear it all the time.

Ideally, backstory-relevant equipment and random stuff you found in a cave should both be viable, with the former being general purpose and the latter being the stuff you use on special occasions as necessary.

[RadiantPhoenix]

if she came across fullplate armor, she'd turn it down

That looks close enough as makes no real aesthetic difference to full plate.

EDIT:
Oh hey look:

[CapnTthePirateG]

On the whole outfit note, what would happen if we got rid of "heavy armor", "medium armor", "light armor", etc and armor bonuses to defense and just gave everyone some kind of level bonus (i.e. the lightly armored guy is fast enough to dodge, the heavy armor guy is just that tough he could shrug it off anyway, the mage has a force field, etc). This could allow people to wear the clown suit/pimp hat combo they want to wear, so you could wear a chainmail bikini or wander around in a loincloth and be tough like a boss.

[shadzar]

Rapiers are part of an aesthetic. They are part of a highly intricate fighting style that's better in a one-on-less-than-many combat scenario.

and therein lies where the shallowness of being wanton to use one lies.

unless you are in a solo adventure made for just ONE PC/player, then the problem is this rapier user is of NO USE to the rest of the group since the number of times the ability to go one-on-one appears is so small.

likewise only a fool NPC, unless some highly specialized duelist, would want a weapon so limited in scope to defend themselves with. therefore an NPC wouldnt have something so useless to "drop" as treasure.

except for being heavier, slower, and give a +1 to hit and damage, a rapier mechanically is a short sword that costs 5GP more, and cannot slash, but only pierce. a foolish weapon used against ANYONE in armor.

probably why it doesnt appear in the game except for in supplements for over 20 years. it is a poor choice of a weapon.

its really a joke aesthetic, when the reality of rapier use comes into play. unless you are in a game heavily using rapiers, it is pretty much a crap weapon. pirates even used the superior cutlass, which D&D equated to a short sword save for price and weight/speed.

how many orcs are going to agree to an honorable 1-on-1 duel with a PC to make the rapier effective?

[tzor]

I know my dad wears kilts... I don't know anyone else who does while not playing bagpipes.

Point of fact. Bagpipe details have drummers and band leaders (the guy with the huge stick). Other than those (clearly deranged) Irishmen with a Scottish fettish, I can't think of anyone else who normally wears kilts. (OK, one exception; true Scots on formal occasions.)

[shadzar]

Rowdy Roddy Piper

[RadiantPhoenix]

Something that doesn't quite relate to the discussion, but I learned about it from Maj's link:

Wonder man

and his manazons

[Aryxbez]

So...if we made it where individual weapons like an axe,sword, and even its specific types like battleaxe vs. Scimitar, the same group of "one-handed" weapon. Categorizing them more by groups like: Polearms, one-handed,two-handed, double weapon, etc. Furthermore already has its function in the game and setting, but in the end an aesthetic and low level concern, then why do we care if the PC's weapon is a specific weapon?!

If it's such a lowly concern, then nobody should give a crap honestly, being a swordsman is just flavor, last I recall, no group/DM is going to be out to hurt that. Especially since the player was able to start play with such a PC, don't see why the other players would decide to boot out the player, if they hadn't turned down the character for the group before. Hell, I'm sure that swordsman will even wield something else, should they be put in a situation where didn't have their sword, or want to take someone via non-lethal means. Utilizing improvised weapons, unarmed combat, or even firing a siege weapon real quick.

I do find some value in that a PC's look should change over time to a degree yes, show a form of progression, of trials overcome, mighty lessons learned, and tragedies befallen them. However, even some of our more well known superheroes in the end turn to their default look in the end, like Superman.

Sounds like in the whole "random drop" bit, the item itself actually had not real history, the DM just said there was one on the spot, just despite the player. Being more attached to the look of a random item from a table, than the more long-term PC itself? Odd.

Besides, in the end, I'm sure some of the stuff that Frank/Lago have argued for, are things they've hardly done at all in any games they've ran.

[shadzar]

So...if we made it where individual weapons

the thing is, not everyone wants what someone else "makes it like". the idea for some people is they chose what they like and it already exists.

flaming +1 spear drops, and that is what you get.

that is how some people want to play it, and want others they game with to be of the same mind.

likewise they want people to play with that agree with how they think of a character to be; wherein the character is am entry point into the game world, not a device to claim rights within the game itself.

since something like a rapier IS in a group with other weapons, then why can the rapier wielder jsut not accept a blade within the same group rather than having to have a rapier? why must they force this need for the rapier on everyone else playing?