‘So there you are, all armed and suitably protected, bristled to the bone with every manner of weapon conceivable. The sheer weight of your weapons is enough to bring down a lesser man, but not you, as you heroically trudge on. Your full plate mail armour glistens proudly as the clanks and chinks of your armour echo down the road.’
So how much is too much weapons? And does weight really add to the realism of things, or merely function as yet another box on your character sheet? Does weight trump logic when it comes to D&D, barring the obvious fantasy settings of the game? When it comes to weapons and armour, characters (especially fighters) are notorious hoarders. Every killing gadget is stored ’somewhere’ on the body, and always seems readily available for use in a split second. One of my travelling companions once had four swords (two of which were bastard swords), a battle axe, a spear, a pole arm, and a lance, just to be on the safe side. Any DM worth her salt would say no, this is not practical, which our DM did. To his credit, my companion was Zen personified as he coolly pointed to his character sheet and indicated that he could still afford to carry more.
Lesson of the story? Yes, D&D is fantasy based, but many phenomena are governed by rules and logic, just like in the real world. Dragons can fly, but they can’t soar, flip through a spellbook, release a spell or two, and finish off their opponent with their breath weapon. In the same vein, a fighter can’t be a one-man walking arsenal, with hilts protruding from every angle of his body. So what is the feasible number of weapons that can be carried by any given character, based on realism and logic?
Well, in my campaign, I limit weapons carried to four or five items, depending on type. Greatswords are always carried strapped to the back (assuming the character is on foot). The greataxe is also carried the same way. Other than short swords and scimitars, all other bladed weapons on the waist are limited to one item only. This includes broadswords and longswords. This allows for another hand held weapon to be carried using the sword belt, including a mace, warhammer or flail. Note that characters using two short swords or scimitars are not permitted to carry another hand held weapon.
Now let’s say we want to suit up a highly experienced warrior. Well, his greatsword +4 goes onto his back, strapped on securely. Next up, he sheathes his longsword, and slip a mace into his sword belt. He attaches a dagger sheath to his belt; before tying a dagger to each leg respectively. Feeling he’d need to hunt for food, he brings along a short bow (slung over his shoulder) and a quiver of 20 arrows, slung by his side. With his chain mail suit already on, this valiant warrior dons his helm and starts on his quest to rescue the Baron’s daughter.
As you can see, arming one’s self to the brim with weapons can be quite a challenge, especially if almost all the available weapons are of masterwork quality or magical. The key is to take what is necessary, not what you think might be necessary. A longbow is not much help at all in an aquatic environment. Neither is a greatsword in a cramped up passageway where the only way through is by crawling. No player should be allowed to carry a spear, a trident, a glaive, a heavy crossbow and a tower shield while clad in plate mail armour. Even if the character has a Str of 19 and is heavy set. It defies fantasy logic, and D&D is definitely logical in a fantasy sense.
[Image from www.wizards.com]
Yep! Weapon selection is always a hassle. That’s why monks are a cool class since you don’t need armor and you can only a chosen weapon based on your diety. Quarterstaff rocks!!
But there is nothing in the world like a sharp, SHARP dagger protruding from your enemy’s back from a rogue’s deadly sneak attack.
Bows are handy, but too technical to use and not a favoured general weapon. I guess you can only do major damage with a bow when you’ve got all the feats and skills to help with the usage.
Yes, monks are quite powerful when it comes to unarmed combat, especially their ki and flurry of blows combo. Though the lack of adequate armour usually means they can’t sustain heavy and prolonged combat. On saying that, a high Dexterity attribute coupled with several defensive magic items should do the trick.
A rogue’s sneak attack, when executed successfully, can really cause heavy damage (four times the normal amount, i think).
A rogue with a good bow can do even more damage without having to actually enter the fray. Relevant skills include Hide, Move Silently, Weapon Focus and such. Synergise these skills acutely, and you’ll be one heck of a damage-inflicting rogue.
Weapons are for the weak. Never trust a man who hides behind a sword. Trust instead, the one who uses his (or her) mind to fight.
A spellbook is the only weapon worth carrying around. If the spells don’t work, it’s still heavy enough to bludgeon a kobold effectively.
Thus the wizard speaks.
Though I’m sure swords will come in handy when a wizardess is stripped of her powers or in a dead magic zone.
And long gone are the days of bullying kobolds, goblins and orcs. Well, perhaps not for the paladin.
Pah! Yes, the wizard has spoken.
Come on, I’m sure Iliath would still have to carry at least one weapon. A dagger perhaps?
Even Raistlin had one!!!
Hey, is Iliath still robed in that Magical Star Robe thing-o?
Yes, she’s beginning to realise the importance of weapons when magic fails.
I’ll let Iliath explain her robe issue and corresponding dilemma herself. But let’s just say the song ‘Paint It Black’ comes to mind.