weapon choice and fighting styles in D&D

[OgreBattle]

FIGHTING STYLES
- a weapon in both hands, one weapon in two hands, a small weapon in one hand with an empty hand, that sort of thing.

WEAPON VARIETY
-reach weapons, axes vs rapiers, that sort of thing.


How much should it matter, and how to go about doing it so there's "variety" but also "balance"? Is there a particular game that does it 'right'? Because right now in D&D you can just quickly math out whatever is most optimized for your character.

On one extreme I can see it as "you have X attack power and decide what weapon it is by flavor", on the other extreme it's Riddle of Steel.

[K]

Forcing or allowing people to specialize in a weapon leads to so many conceptual and mechanical problems, it feels like an iconic 1970s RPG mechanic.

It's like forcing different sexes use different stat lines. It may be flavorful, but its a really primitive and lame idea that is not worth the cost of the flavor.

[zugschef]

Forcing or allowing people to specialize in a weapon leads to so many conceptual and mechanical problems, it feels like an iconic 1970s RPG mechanic.

It's like forcing different sexes use different stat lines. It may be flavorful, but its a really primitive and lame idea that is not worth the cost of the flavor.

What about weapon styles? And where do you draw the line? If there's no difference in wielding a longspear and a dagger then things become boring. Also, where does specializing begin and where does it end: does it only include specific stuff like Weapon Focus and Specialization or is it considered specializing when you go for flask rogue or a stormtrooping, leap attacking barbarian?

[fectin]

FantasyCraft did this fairly well. You start with 2-4 proficiencies, and gain another every other level. Proficiencies are fairly broad ("bows" "pole arms" "siege" etc.) and there are only 8 (iirc).

It does fairly well at focusing you early on, without staying an actual limit for very long.

[Ancient History]

I've probably been listening too much to lindybeige lately, and maybe reading a bit too much on fighting, and I think current models for fantasy combat are fairly silly, particularly two-weapon fighting for anything outside of some duelling.

[ishy]

One of the worst offenders in D&D is cleric with the war domain.
One martial weapon only, fuck everything else.

Shit like that, which forces you into a single weapon really has to go.

I myself prefer either, you can switch up the weapons you use whenever you want but doing that has quite a big impact.
Far more than a silly +1 dmg vs +1 crit threat range.
But more something like rocket launcher vs machine gun or smt.

Or you don't care about what weapon you use at all. But you care about other things in your rpg system, like combat stances, manoeuvres, tactics or whatever.

And you might want some 'weapons' that have unique functions. Like nets, or smoke bombs etc.

[Drachasor]

Forcing or allowing people to specialize in a weapon leads to so many conceptual and mechanical problems, it feels like an iconic 1970s RPG mechanic.

It's like forcing different sexes use different stat lines. It may be flavorful, but its a really primitive and lame idea that is not worth the cost of the flavor.

What about weapon styles? And where do you draw the line? If there's no difference in wielding a longspear and a dagger then things become boring. Also, where does specializing begin and where does it end: does it only include specific stuff like Weapon Focus and Specialization or is it considered specializing when you go for flask rogue or a stormtrooping, leap attacking barbarian?

Weapons themselves should have a mechanic or two. Then you carry around 4-5 weapons and use the best tool for the job. Each weapon would have its own playstyle because of that mechanic and how it would be best used.

This way if you find a new weapon type, you don't have to sell it because you invested 10 ranks in "Long Swords", spent 5 feats, or whatever.

Weapons should be kind of like spell Schools in D&D. At most you can invest a little into a weapon, but the benefits should be limited in such a way that other weapons can still offer a lot of use. Warriors already lack variety compared to magic almost inherently, and there's no reason to compound that further.

[Ancient History]

Weapon proficiencies basically need to go. Everybody should be able to pick up and use a sword without penalty; people should receive bonuses for training and experience with said weapons. In melee, reach is a thing that is important; having an extra spike on your axe is generally not.

[vagrant]

But what if the spike looks cool and shoots lazers?

[shadzar]

i like and dislike PBS weapon types. on one hand the ability to distinguish to allow some enemies to be hurt more based on one type and practically immune to another, makes a player have to think outside of the number. in the case when used S type weapons offered the most damage, and some monsters being immune to them meant they couldn't just go for max damage. also with class archetypes it distinguishes the classes more.

on the other hand, in order to do such it caused one weapon to be grated than another unless you rank the weapons to have degrees of power where one of each did X max damage meaning a flavor for a weapon could be a lesser choice.

a sword is a sword, and doesn't need that much detail but if using PBS system, AND a sword is a sword, then all S weapons would have the same max damage, so to be "fair" all Pand B types would need to do the same damage as all swords, so one class wasn't trampled by choice of weapon. then you really have the problem of weapon just being a number save for the PBS type.

as for styles... they don't belong in D&D. they only really serve a purpose in an all fighter game, and where a wizard uses less melee, then how would you balance a style difference against his magic output?

# of attacks is the right way for every class. if one player wants to use two weapons, then they can change weapon type during combat. another using a weapon and shield gets the AC offered from the shield but only one weapon type until it is changed. one weapon in two hands... i don't think it should do much extra in the way it has. maybe being better control over the weapon to make a hit better, but the weapon, as above, would not get extra damage. i think such should be to allow player to "flavor" their character and attack method, but not have to much more than listed for mechanics.

D&D shouldn't be a precise combat simulator and all those extra bits such as "weapon speed factor" only slow the combat portion of the game down, and there will be plenty of it.

in the past one thing i did was just makes things player flavored where all swords are swords and did d10 and were type S. type B did d8, type P did d6.

this allowed people to get the damage type needed/wanted and use whatever "name" for the weapon they wanted. still not sure it works that well. it just wasnt that nit-picky and fiddly

[Whatever]

Weapon proficiencies basically need to go. Everybody should be able to pick up and use a sword without penalty; people should receive bonuses for training and experience with said weapons.

So in the former case, I'm up by +4 to hit with my sword over any random weapon we find, and in the latter case, I'm...also up +4 to hit with my sword over any random weapon we find?

[Ancient History]

Put it this way you're a professional soldier (Fighter 1) with training and practice at wielding a sword (+3), and you're fairly strong (+1). You are facing an opponent who is not particularly trained with a sword, but he is a butcher that knows his way around a cleaver and his basic job every day is cutting large chunks of beef apart (+1) and he's bigger and stronger than you are (+2).

You're up +4, but your opponent is not penalized just because he's never held a sword in his life, and in fact is probably a legitimate threat depending on the weapon. If you have a short sword (reach: 0.5) and he has a long sword (reach: 1), he has a better reach than you and gets a +1 circumstance bonus because of that.

Roll d20, high roll wins, loser takes damage - and if you take damage, you subtract whatever protection your armor gives you from the total. That makes for a more interesting (and realistic) fight without getting too complicated, I think.

[zugschef]

[...](and realistic)[...]

[Seerow]

Personally I like weapon style differentiation. Individual weapon specialization is something I see no need to keep around (at best it should be broad categories of weapons. ie specialization in one handed weapons), but differentiating different styles of combat is integral to making those different. There should be a difference in how your character plays depending on whether you have a single one handed weapon, a two handed weapon, two one handers, or a reach weapon. There are systems that abstract that all out to effectively the same thing, and they function, but I do feel those systems tend to feel like they're missing something when playing as a melee character.

[crasskris]

Fighting Styles can be useful and interesting if they add to existing tactics; but that requires said tactics to exist in your game at the first place.

For example, if you have Bullrush and forming a defensive line as meaningful maneuvers in your system, using a weapon-shield combo may add something meaningful to both, i.e. adding an AC bonus against AoO and spreading your shield bonus to your comrades left and right.
Using polearms in an defensive line, on the other hand, might give the wielder an AoO bonus against advancing enemies.

Tripping in 3e is a good existing example - polearms and chain weapons, in that case. Or the lance in a mounted charge.

[Voss]

Forcing or allowing people to specialize in a weapon leads to so many conceptual and mechanical problems, it feels like an iconic 1970s RPG mechanic.

Nitpick: That is a rather weird assertion, since specialization didn't hit D&D until 85 in Unearthed Arcana.




On a weirder note, it is amazing how many people in this thread sound like supporters of D&DNext mechanics, with a couple minor variations.

[K]

Forcing or allowing people to specialize in a weapon leads to so many conceptual and mechanical problems, it feels like an iconic 1970s RPG mechanic.

Nitpick: That is a rather weird assertion, since specialization didn't hit D&D until 85 in Unearthed Arcana.

I said it feels like a 1970s mechanic. I didn't say that it was.

Oldschool mechanics are easy to design, overly simulationist, reflective of unexamined and ugly assumptions like stereotypes, and full of hidden problems and complications.

That being said, I lump the 1970s and 1980s together as the Oldschool school of design.

[K]

Forcing or allowing people to specialize in a weapon leads to so many conceptual and mechanical problems, it feels like an iconic 1970s RPG mechanic.

It's like forcing different sexes use different stat lines. It may be flavorful, but its a really primitive and lame idea that is not worth the cost of the flavor.

What about weapon styles? And where do you draw the line? If there's no difference in wielding a longspear and a dagger then things become boring. Also, where does specializing begin and where does it end: does it only include specific stuff like Weapon Focus and Specialization or is it considered specializing when you go for flask rogue or a stormtrooping, leap attacking barbarian?

The instant that you start to fetishize certain weapons, the stupid happens.

Players will pick the obviously good choice regardless of how stupid it is. Adding splashing mechanics that interact with sneak attacks means that 3.X created a new archetype of the flask rogue, but that's only because players will gravitate to the best mechanics regardless of how silly they are.

If phoenix feathers were weapons that used the touch attack mechanic, were cheap, and allowed sneak attacks, then "feather rogues" would be a thing instead.

Allowing any kind of weapon or style specialization means that players feel picked on the instant the DM puts them in a situation that is not catered to that weapon. The sword and board fighter is annoyed at the DM when fighting the flying manticore who shoots spines at range and feels personally slighted when magic bows show up in the treasure.

Even tactical specialization works that way. The trip-tastic tripper feels like the DM is going out his way to make the game less fun whenever legless monsters make an appearance.

Both of these things happen because specialization means that you don't have generalization. If you only have one good attack because that's the one that uses your +4 sword, the game stops working for you when you don't get to attack with that sword.

Generalization has to be the way. Players need multiple tactics both for their own variety, but so the DM can throw variety at them in a fair way. The 3.X Rogue is a lot more fun to play when he has a way to meaningfully fight undead and constructs because undead and constructs are awesome. He's even more fun to play when he doesn't have to be a flask rogue in order to meaningfully contribute in combat.

It's fine to have weapons that have minor bonuses and penalties, but those have to be trade-offs. A swordbreaker can just be a better weapon for disarming people, but it needs to be worse at something else so that the obvious choice is not to always take the swordbreaker and force the Swordbreaker archtype into the game.

DnD has sold a lot of books by catering to the Build Culture where people are constantly scouring sources for an extra +1 or feat to make some tactic better, but no one has noticed that it tends to make less fun games for everyone because it leads to people using the same tactic for every problem and being useless and unhappy in every other problem.

[Username17]

Also, the Weapon Specialization rules in Unearthed Arcana are a reprint of a Gary Gygax article in Dragon Magazine #66, meaning that they were designed in 1979 or before. So they are literally 1970s design, in addition to merely feeling like 1970s design.

-Username17

[shadzar]

no it is worse.. specialization offers only more nonsense bonuses to dice rolls. there doesn't need to be a fancy gimmick to give the fighter better ability at fighting, just build it into the class itself, then any weapon, which a fighter should be able to use outside of stupid rapier only wielding swashbuckler idiots or pure simulation which the game fails at, is a weapon that a fighter can pick up and use, since they likely trained at some point with various types in the first place.

[Sashi]

It's fine to have weapons that have minor bonuses and penalties, but those have to be trade-offs. A swordbreaker can just be a better weapon for disarming people, but it needs to be worse at something else so that the obvious choice is not to always take the swordbreaker and force the Swordbreaker archtype into the game.

But then the guy with a Swordbreaker feels like a chump every round he's not Swordbreaking, which actually encourages specialization and move spamming.

The alternatives are also terrible: either people figure out how to hot-swap fast enough that they can always have the proper weapon for the current tactic (Swordbreaker to disarm, then Greatsword slice 'em up) and now every weapon in your golf-bag may as well be a swordbreaker, or the Swordbreaker is a trap option that may as well not exist.

I think it's OK to have "vanilla" weapon and then have the Swordbreaker be vanilla plus special toppings. Even if the Swordbreaker is objectively "better" than a vanilla longsword a lot of people will still use swords and then maybe pick up a swordbreaker for that one fight where you know you're going to have to disarm the prince of his evil mindwarping sword.

[infected slut princess]

I agree with K about weapons themselves. Variety there should be very limited. You should try to have all the weapons in just a few categories.

For fighting styles, I think I disagree. Is there a reason why fighting styles can't be represented as different abilities as long as they don't limit the character to an unreasonable degree?

Like if the Fighting Styles were analogous to spells or something like that. The guy who wants to be a "two-weapon warrior guy" could just take some TWF spells fighting styles to go with his other style abilities and general abilities. Then it wouldn't really be anymore limiting than anything else, UNLIKE the D&D specialization way.

We wouldn't want magic to be just completely abstracted and generalized, like if instead of attacks spells, you just had Attack Spell. I think people want their epic fantasy weapon fighting to be diverse as well. But the way to do that is with abilities rather than with the weapons.

[Ice9]

I think "fighting styles as spell schools" is pretty viable. I mean, a Sorcerer might mostly use Conjuration spells, he might even have some feats or items that boost Conjuration, but that doesn't mean he won't use spells from other schools when they're more suitable. The difference between schools trumps any bonus applying to a specific one.

This approach does encourage/require the "golf bag of weapons" approach, however. If the styles you can use with a greataxe, pair of daggers, bow, and hammer+shield are all significantly different and important for various situations, then you're going to want to have all of those, and be switching them as appropriate. Personally, that's not a problem.

If, on the other hand, you want something like "Bob uses a spear for several adventures, then he switches to a pair of daggers for a few months, then a hammer," then I don't think any system short of "weapon choice is just cosmetic" is going to work for that. If a weapon is good enough to use by itself for several adventures, it's good enough to use forever.

[K]

It's fine to have weapons that have minor bonuses and penalties, but those have to be trade-offs. A swordbreaker can just be a better weapon for disarming people, but it needs to be worse at something else so that the obvious choice is not to always take the swordbreaker and force the Swordbreaker archtype into the game.

But then the guy with a Swordbreaker feels like a chump every round he's not Swordbreaking, which actually encourages specialization and move spamming.

The alternatives are also terrible: either people figure out how to hot-swap fast enough that they can always have the proper weapon for the current tactic (Swordbreaker to disarm, then Greatsword slice 'em up) and now every weapon in your golf-bag may as well be a swordbreaker, or the Swordbreaker is a trap option that may as well not exist.

I think it's OK to have "vanilla" weapon and then have the Swordbreaker be vanilla plus special toppings. Even if the Swordbreaker is objectively "better" than a vanilla longsword a lot of people will still use swords and then maybe pick up a swordbreaker for that one fight where you know you're going to have to disarm the prince of his evil mindwarping sword.

You can't "encourage specializing" if specializing is not an option. This is why people should not be allowed to specialize.

Giving weapons slightly different traits does make people want to have the right weapon for the job, but that's a feature and not a bug. It's not actually a problem if someone pulls out a swordbreaker when they want to disarm people, but it is a problem if no one buys a longsword because swordbreakers are better versions of longswords.

Carrying multiple weapons is not a problem for anyone except the weapon fetishists who feel less special if the rules don't favor their fetish. Luckily for game-designers, there is no reason to respect those people because their desires are stupid and make bad games.

Movespamming is a separate issue. It's just something you try to discourage by offering people lots of viable options and not letting people specialize in a few options, but it's not something that can be removed from the game. Some people are bad tacticians and sometime the best choice is the same move over and over, and these are not situations that the rules can address easily.

[Seerow]

I think "fighting styles as spell schools" is pretty viable. I mean, a Sorcerer might mostly use Conjuration spells, he might even have some feats or items that boost Conjuration, but that doesn't mean he won't use spells from other schools when they're more suitable. The difference between schools trumps any bonus applying to a specific one.

This approach does encourage/require the "golf bag of weapons" approach, however. If the styles you can use with a greataxe, pair of daggers, bow, and hammer+shield are all significantly different and important for various situations, then you're going to want to have all of those, and be switching them as appropriate. Personally, that's not a problem.

If, on the other hand, you want something like "Bob uses a spear for several adventures, then he switches to a pair of daggers for a few months, then a hammer," then I don't think any system short of "weapon choice is just cosmetic" is going to work for that. If a weapon is good enough to use by itself for several adventures, it's good enough to use forever.

I want to agree with the idea of weapon styles as spell schools, but it does make you wonder: How would people feel about Wizards that required investment in multiple magic items and had to take an action to switch between spell schools?

I mean imagine if an item that boosted Conjuration was different from the one that boosted Transmutation, and a Wizard that wanted to use both had to have both magic items, and also had to spend an action to switch between which types of spells he's using. Would this be considered acceptable?

Then you consider Transmutation and Conjuration provide far more versatility in effect than any two weapon styles are likely to provide. If you want to make the styles equivalent to spell schools, they have to be in a fundamental way that isn't just different ways of attacking, but serious differences in what they are capable of. And frankly, that level of variety from weapon styles aren't likely to make sense.