Weapon Styles, Basket Weaving, and Concept Obsolesence

[Lago PARANOIA]

Split off from this thread here to avoid a derail.

And despite this Vader never picks up a different weapon. Why? Does the fact that he doesn't use a different weapon make him a bad character? No.

Because Darth Vader isn't an adventurer and his total amount of screentime throughout all of the trilogies is about an hour. Duh. The real point is that Darth Vader and Thor wouldn't stop feeling (at least in combat) like Darth Vader and Thor if they picked up weapons that had similar superpowers to their old weapons but were of different shapes. Their battles would still go pretty much the same. There'd be some minutae like Darth Vader having to twirl his glaive a bit more rather than lightly waving his wrist to deflect blaster bolts, but those are just minor choreography issues.

The Phantom would stop feeling like The Phantom in battle if he switched to a taser and kukri. He couldn't take on hordes of armed criminals action-hero style, there'd be a huge uptick in stealth and Steven Seagal-like 'enemy gets conveniently close enough to snap their arms' antics. Green Arrow would stop feeling like Green Arrow if he switched to a blowgun and bolas that duplicated the functions of his arrows. Because he wouldn't be able to shoot people from one office building to another or engage in epic sniper duels in Central Park.

Except Paladin horses ARE still viable.

Similarly, the Wizard CAN still fight competently with his staff.

The paladin didn't need a special kind of horse to be viable in mounted combat at low level. They could just pick up something from the nearest stable and be good to go. Similarly the Wizard didn't need buffs at 1st level to be a threat (minor as it was) in melee combat. It's a viable concept. Even if you say that he should accept the paradigm of needing buffs that just proves my point: while the broad concept of 'wizard that fights in melee' may have some traction left in it, the sub-concepts of 'wizard that fights in melee without buffs' or 'normal-ass horse that isn't different from any other top thoroughbred' do not. Certain concepts just die out once you get past a certain point in the game and you shouldn't throw them a pity party out of misplaced nostalgia to keep them going for a few more levels. If you can retire them in place, great. If you can't then it's best not to put them in the game in the first place.

And that's the essence behind basket weaving. If your adventuring group consists of Little Red Riding Hood, Snow White, Hansel and Gretel, and those kids from Jumanji then Red Riding Hood's ability to weave a basket could very well be the thing that saves the say. But when they gain enough levels and go from Black Forest tier to Adventuring Tier the DM has to contrive more and more situations in which her Craft: Baskets skill comes in handy and at a certain point you reach the 4E D&D problem where including certain character concepts retards the thematic growth of everyone else. So even though you have really good memories of Red Riding Hood being able to stave off starvation by carrying a picnic basket full of goodies or using it to ferry a family of frogs who fell down the well to safety or carrying enough rocks so that Hansel and Gretal could find their way from one town to the next you have to let it go. Otherwise you'll have Snow White wondering why she can't use the spellbook she got from her mother to create containers (because that'd piss on Red Riding Hood's concept) and if you can't have that minimum level of coolness then you'll have a schizophrenic game or you'll be stuck at that level forever.

The comparison to signature weapon styles should be obvious. A person who insists they can't play their character at all points in the game unless they get nothing but longswords or nothing but hammers is no different than someone saying that their character won't feel right if a game that starts OUT at Fantasy Action Hero doesn't have a specific skill for basket weaving or the DM never includes a basket weaving tournament. It's a more viable concept for longer than basket weaving but definitely not something that can or should go on forever. Human beings are nostalgic, risk adverse, and lazy so even if theoretically you could increase net happiness by getting them to accept obsolescence and loss that's probably not ever going to happen.

[Shadow Balls]

I... don't think that is what basket weaving means.

[Username17]

Darth Vader is a particularly shitty example. He is in a universe that basically has 4 weapons in it: Lightsabers, Blasters, Turbolasers, and Bow Casters. Of those, he personally finds and uses Lightsabers, Blasters, and Turbolasers. Bowcasters are incredibly rare, being used almost exclusively by Wookies, but if Anakin happened to pick one up, he'd probably fucking use it.

-Username17

[Seerow]

To Lago basketweaving is anything he doesn't like.

Because Darth Vader isn't an adventurer and his total amount of screentime throughout all of the trilogies is about an hour. Duh. The real point is that Darth Vader and Thor wouldn't stop feeling (at least in combat) like Darth Vader and Thor if they picked up weapons that had similar superpowers to their old weapons but were of different shapes. Their battles would still go pretty much the same. There'd be some minutae like Darth Vader having to twirl his glaive a bit more rather than lightly waving his wrist to deflect blaster bolts, but those are just minor choreography issues.

Maybe you personally wouldn't bat an eye, there are millions of star wars fans who would be in an uproar if Vader suddenly started using a Glaive or a Light-Axe. Because for thematic reasons, Jedi us fucking lightsabers, not other shit. Sure, they have the power of the force to augment themselves, and do other shit, but they still universally rely on one or two swords. Not other weapons.

Once again you not liking something does not make it bad. People like certain weapons for thematic reasons, and saying them wanting to continue using those weapons is bad and shouldn't be supported is being stupid.

The paladin didn't need a special kind of horse to be viable in mounted combat at low level. They could just pick up something from the nearest stable and be good to go.

And at low level the Paladin could have any Longsword he wanted, at high levels he needs to use his special magic sword. Just like at low level the Paladin has any horse, at high level he has his special magical horse. The point is he can still use a horse and not be forced to ride a griffin or pegasus or something, and still be able to compete. Once again, this is a thematic character element that is supported in the game.

Similarly the Wizard didn't need buffs at 1st level to be a threat (minor as it was) in melee combat. It's a viable concept. Even if you say that he should accept the paradigm of needing buffs that just proves my point: while the broad concept of 'wizard that fights in melee' may have some traction left in it, the sub-concepts of 'wizard that fights in melee without buffs' or 'normal-ass horse that isn't different from any other top thoroughbred' do not. Certain concepts just die out once you get past a certain point in the game and you shouldn't throw them a pity party out of misplaced nostalgia to keep them going for a few more levels. If you can retire them in place, great. If you can't then it's best not to put them in the game in the first place.

But NONE of those elements are "Warrior uses this type of sword". The Wizard can still actively choose to use his quarterstaff. Hell, the Wizard has a one up since he can pick up any non-magic quarterstaff and make it magical himself. If Warriors could do that the issue of magic items dropping wouldn't be an issue at all.

But nothing you've said actually proves that to be a high level concept a character needs to be as willing to use an axe as a sword. If what type of weapon you have only actually matters at low level, who the fuck are you to say that a character can't choose one over the other? If it's literally nothing but flavor, why is it so bad for the character to stick with the weapon he actually likes?

Seriously, you have people saying "I want to be able to use a Long Sword as my primary weapon" and you are equating that with "I want to use a completely mundane object at high level" while ignoring the point of contention is that we WANT that Long Sword to be magical. So yes, the equivalent concept is the Paladin's Magic Horse or the Wizard's Magic Quarterstaff. If you accept either of these is a valid choice then so should be deciding to use one specific weapon over another.

At this point you're just being stupidly stubborn and refusing to admit there might be a possibility you might just be wrong.

The comparison to signature weapon styles should be obvious. A person who insists they can't play their character at all points in the game unless they get nothing but longswords or nothing but hammers is no different than someone saying that their character won't feel right if a game that starts OUT at Fantasy Action Hero doesn't have a specific skill for basket weaving or the DM never includes a basket weaving tournament.

Wow look another false analogy. First who said that EVERYTHING needs to be a longsword or whatever? Nobody. Shit even the most extremist person has said they want to see a Longsword drop every once in a while. I personally don't care if a longsword randomly drops ever, but want the option to go questing for one if I want it, or to be able to craft one, or fuck be able to pick up any old longsword and use it like a badass even if it's not magical (either because magical weapons are rare/weaker/nonexistant/whatever, or because me holding a weapon instantly makes it effectively a +5 Holy Burst Keen Weapon, so I can get any weapon I like and use it well).

[Shadow Balls]

To Lago basketweaving is anything he doesn't like.

No wonder he's having to constantly kidnap chicks to get laid.

But seriously. Basket weavers in this context do not literally create baskets.

[ishy]

Now I really don't know much about star wars, haven't even seen all movies etc.

But I thought glaives were not used anymore because they are outdated. That only light sabers are able to reflect laser blasts. So if darth vader picked up a glaive he wouldn't be able to deflect any.

So that in my mind just means that you want people to upgrade from swords to magic swords (light saber)

[Username17]

Maybe you personally wouldn't bat an eye, there are millions of star wars fans who would be in an uproar if Vader suddenly started using a Glaive or a Light-Axe. Because for thematic reasons, Jedi us fucking lightsabers, not other shit. Sure, they have the power of the force to augment themselves, and do other shit, but they still universally rely on one or two swords. Not other weapons.

Shut up. Just shut the fuck up.




You know what that is? That is Darth Vader using every fucking weapon in that setting that isn't Wookie specific. For fuck's sake. Can you find any real example, or is this going to be another one of these shitty Robin Hood/Conan examples where you fucking weapon specialization fetishists repeatedly use examples of characters who do in fact use multiple weapons as if they only ever used one?

Darth Vader uses laser turrets and hand blasters. Also he uses a lightsaber, and sometimes he has fought with two lightsabers and he fights with found lightsabers. For fuck's sake, he is a fucking terrible example because he is one of the few characters in the entire series who shows up in enough combats to be depicted using clearly different weaponry and he fucking uses clearly different weaponry you fucking twat!

-Username17

[RadiantPhoenix]

The prequels aren't really Star Wars. Trufax. I heard it from a fan.

[Seerow]

You know what that is? That is Darth Vader using every fucking weapon in that setting that isn't Wookie specific. For fuck's sake. Can you find any real example, or is this going to be another one of these shitty Robin Hood/Conan examples where you fucking weapon specialization fetishists repeatedly use examples of characters who do in fact use multiple weapons as if they only ever used one?

Darth Vader uses laser turrets and hand blasters. Also he uses a lightsaber, and sometimes he has fought with two lightsabers and he fights with found lightsabers. For fuck's sake, he is a fucking terrible example because he is one of the few characters in the entire series who shows up in enough combats to be depicted using clearly different weaponry and he fucking uses clearly different weaponry you fucking twat!

Congratulations, you got Anakin using a blaster. A fucking ranged weapon.

Yes, you're right we don't see other weapons in the universe. That doesn't mean they don't exist. Show me one case of Anakin using a different melee weapon.

The swordmaster picking up a bow, or using siege weaponry, when the situation warrants it, is fine. The swordmaster picking up an axe because it has an extra +1 over his sword is fucking stupid. There is a difference between these two things, even if you refuse to admit it.

[Doom]

I coulda swore those space orcs (Gomorrans) used glaives....or at least held them threateningly before being smacked down.

[RadiantPhoenix]

If you have a +5 Adamantine Longsword of Wraith Striking, just about any sort of nonmagical melee weapon is going to come up short.

EDIT: We're not asking people to give up better weapons for weaker ones, we're saying they should stop complaining when they get better weapons.

[Username17]

Congratulations, you got Anakin using a blaster. A fucking ranged weapon.

Yes, you're right we don't see other weapons in the universe. That doesn't mean they don't exist. Show me one case of Anakin using a different melee weapon.

OK. Anakin Skywalker comes with his own Gaffii Stick. There are only four melee weapons listed in the wikipedia. Lightsabers, Gaffii Sticks, Vibro Blades, and Electro Staves. Three of those are incredibly obscure, and nonetheless, finding Anakin with a Gaffii Stick took like 30 seconds. Shut the fuck up. Darth Vader is a classic example of a fighter who uses whatever fucking weapons happen to be nearby.

The prequels aren't really Star Wars. Trufax. I heard it from a fan.

Uh... OK. Of course, then a bunch of those melee weapons don't exist and Vader shows up in even less fights. Which is not to say that he doesn't fly around in a Fighter shooting turbo lasers at things at the end of New Hope or that he doesn't beat people with plain old metal boxes and force strength in Empire.

Darth Vader is right alongside Conan and Robin Hood as a character that canonically uses whatever fucking weapons happen to be convenient. He is a counter example to people who say that characters should use only one kind of weapon, because he factually does not do that.

-Username17

[Seerow]

OK. Anakin Skywalker comes with his own Gaffii Stick. There are only four melee weapons listed in the wikipedia. Lightsabers, Gaffii Sticks, Vibro Blades, and Electro Staves. Three of those are incredibly obscure, and nonetheless, finding Anakin with a Gaffii Stick took like 30 seconds. Shut the fuck up. Darth Vader is a classic example of a fighter who uses whatever fucking weapons happen to be nearby.

A toy, not something that ever actually happened even in the dubiously canonical TV show.

Fact of the matter is Anakin, and Jedi/Sith in general, are iconically associated with the Lightsaber. This isn't because the Lightsaber is the best most powerful weapon ever built (though it is a good weapon, and very versatile), but because that's what jedi fucking use. I mean, in the EU if I remember right there was a guy who made a fucking lightsaber longspear, but that never caught on as particularly popular. I'm sure it would be possible for someone to make a Lightsaber equivalent of a battleaxe, but nobody does, because Jedi fucking use lightsabers.

In the event their lightsaber isn't there, was destroyed, or what the fuck ever, sure they'll pick up something else and use it as a stopgap. But you can bet the second they're able to they get their goddamn lightsaber back, not suddenly realize "You know, that Gaffi Stick actually was kind of nice, I think I'd rather use that from now on and just keep my lightsaber around as a canopener when needed".

[Seerow]

Or for a different example, let's look at Perrin, from Wheel of Time. This guy actually DOES change his weapon twice throughout the series. Him choosing to do so is actually a rather big plot point, representative of his mindset at the time he changes weapons. While the weapons he uses are all similarly effective at killing people in the face, the weapon he uses matters thematically. When he decides to bury the axe in a tree and pick up a hammer, that is a milestone for his character. When he decides he's done being a pussy bitch about being a leader and forges himself a real weapon to suit his station, it's a milestone. The weapon he chooses to use is a reflection upon himself.

So changing up weapons to suit a situation, or story, is fine. What I don't agree with is this idea that because we're killing a bunch of Salamanders, I should start using spears because I picked up a bunch of spears from those Salamanders. Changing weapon to whatever the fotm leads to a pretty bland character, which is incidentally the same thing that people who choose a weapon and stick with it are accused of.

If a player WANTS a character who picks up and switches weapons every other day, that should be possible. I don't care if it is. But by the same note, if Perrin decides he doesn't want an axe anymore, and wants to stick with his hammer, he should not be punished for choosing to keep using the hammer while the DM drops axes and swords around him like candy. He should either have the option to make his hammer work, or to be able to switch enchantments from other weapons into his hammer. Asking to be able to do this literally costs nothing for the GM, but makes a lot of people happy with their characters, so why the fuck would you go out of your way to make sure it isn't possible just because YOU don't like the concept?

[RadiantPhoenix]

He should either have the option to make his hammer work

And if constantly upgrading to the latest and greatest magic weapon isn't 'expected', then he totally can just keep using that hammer.

[Seerow]

He should either have the option to make his hammer work

And if constantly upgrading to the latest and greatest magic weapon isn't 'expected', then he totally can just keep using that hammer.

Agreed, and not needing to constantly upgrade his magic weapon, or just not needing a magic weapon at all, is one of the options I'd put forth at some point or another. But if the game DOES assume that you are constantly upgrading your weapon, there should be a mechanic in place to transfer enchantments, or upgrade/enchant your own weapon.

I don't particularly care WHICH solution is used. I really don't give two shits which one. As long as one of them is. Because telling your players "A character who prefers to use a single type of weapon is a bad concept, so it isn't supported" is like telling them "Your fun is wrong", which is a fucking pigheaded view for anyone who wants to call themselves a game designer to take.

[Fuchs]

Because telling your players "A character who prefers to use a single type of weapon is a bad concept, so it isn't supported" is like telling them "Your fun is wrong", which is a fucking pigheaded view for anyone who wants to call themselves a game designer to take.

+1.

[echoVanguard]

I'm in agreement with Seerow on this one, as well.

echo

[Lago PARANOIA]

Because telling your players "A character who prefers to use a single type of weapon is a bad concept, so it isn't supported" is like telling them "Your fun is wrong", which is a fucking pigheaded view for anyone who wants to call themselves a game designer to take.

No, it's not pigheaded. 'Uses one kind of weapon' is an actively poisonous character design blueprint that hurts your game in the same way that having level 20 adepts or experts being as viable as level 20 rogues does.

Seriously, just take a look at 4th Edition D&D. There's a defender class in that that uses only one broad kind of weapon group, that of swords. Even controlling for the fact that: A) it's a defender class so its power payout will be slanted and B) it's a 4th Edition class so the special effects are limited on first principles C) it's not a VAH class so it's allowed some real special effects it's still significantly the least interesting of the defender classes from a special effects standpoint except for the Fighter. Who is actually a VAH.

Why is that? Well, around 3/4ths of the powers are built around the assumption that you're using a friggin' bladed weapon of some sort and they suck anus. They're in a huge part variations of some sort of bullshit 'you hit an enemy with your sword and your sword catches on element that may or may not have some additional effect' because the special effects reliant on including a sword are limited. This is incredibly limiting; there's no clear distinction between lower level powers and higher level powers. Seriously, if you filed off the level numbers and jiggered the damage expressions, you would not be able to tell at ALL which were 19th level powers and 16th level utilities and which were 1st level and 2nd level utilities powers just from seeing the swordmage use them, which is a standard that even paladins and battleminds and wardens can meet.

If the swordmage retroactively had its flavor changed to 'use any weapon' that may have not been enough to make its flavor level-appropriate. Sorcerer has no such limitation and it sucks in special effects, too. But it certainly couldn't have HURT.

[Seerow]

Lago, you're confusing mechanical effects that say you must use this weapon, with a character concept that says I would prefer to use that weapon.

As long as you are going to mix these two up, we have literally nothing to discuss. Nevermind the fact that using 4e powers as a argument for that is fucking stupid, because you could say the same damn thing about Wizard spells in 4e (do some damage, add a rider effect. Good luck figuring out which effect is high and which is low level without seeing the damage value attached).

Seriously point me to any post where I've said a player's powers should rely on a specific weapon, or even their feats should augment a specific weapon. In fact, I explicitly said the opposite in the other topic we were discussing this. You are taking one issue and trying to turn it into a completely different unrelated issue. We are talking about an issue of character theme, not power. The only real mechanical difference would be the weapons innate properties, which at high level aren't all that important. The main sticking point is the theme of the character, which is something you want to ignore entirely.

[Dean]

I think for far too long rpg design has supported the concept of "The One Weapon Master" to its own detriment. Characters in any canon I can think of use many weapons perfectly adeptly and if they don't I believe that is by choice and not mechanical necessity. In any movie even the most hardcore dedicated sniper will still beat the shit out of someone in hand to hand because that is how movies and fantasies work. So I think when designing RPG's it should be a goal to eliminate vertical specialization. One attack score, no proficiency's, no "Weapon Specialization". Because the moment you allow even a measly +1 to be tacked onto someone's longsword attack then longsword is now officially the thing they are swinging forever after.

[echoVanguard]

I think for far too long rpg design has supported the concept of "The One Weapon Master" to its own detriment. Characters in any canon I can think of use many weapons perfectly adeptly and if they don't I believe that is by choice and not mechanical necessity. In any movie even the most hardcore dedicated sniper will still beat the shit out of someone in hand to hand because that is how movies and fantasies work. So I think when designing RPG's it should be a goal to eliminate vertical specialization. One attack score, no proficiency's, no "Weapon Specialization". Because the moment you allow even a measly +1 to be tacked onto someone's longsword attack then longsword is now officially the thing they are swinging forever after.

This is a very poor argument, because it could logically be applied to any action a protagonist character takes. A better assumption is that the character is very good with a sniper rifle, but good enough with hand to hand combat to complete the encounter.

echo

[Fuchs]

The point is that only using one weapon whenever possible should be a choice supported by a game.

[shadzar]

ewoks use spears and slings....

[Winnah]

I have seen quite a few movies where the protagonist loses their weapon and goes on to make improvised attacks with whatever is at hand.

Such as a fencer using a branding iron or broomstick, or some random kung fu guy beating the crap out of people with random objects. I'm pretty sure I saw a Jackie Chan movie where he effectively uses a moterbike, pinball machine, a hovercraft, an anti-cavalry sword from an antique shop plus handfuls of PoS crap at a bodega.

The issue of weapon focus in RPG's is an issue that has built up over time. It was probably instituted to reflect the specialised training that some weapons require, but it has evolved out of control over various editions. The fan wankery is matched only by rennaisance or martial arts LARPers.

In an game with supernatural monsters and where spells are real, I would expect 'Master Swordsman' to be a totally valid lifestyle choice. Even if they have to use weaboo shit like Cutting Air and Chi Disruption to remain competitive.