I'm just looking for input on something I've often wondered about. Why are some weapons loved while others of equal damage are adored and constantly recommended?
It seems like common thinking is that daggers, a 1d4 weapon, aren't looked at as really viable, but the same players wouldn't blink an eye at speccing a war hammer. Flails are considered amazing but shortswords are an almost completely asset upon option. I know in both of those examples there is a +1 on the blunts, but that's pretty statistically insignificant, it would seem.
Many seemingly equal weapons like spears get the same thinking.
Not baiting or looking to cause flames, I really don't understand the thinking.
Edit: is it simply end-game potential?
It seems like common thinking is that daggers, a 1d4 weapon, aren't looked at as really viable, but the same players wouldn't blink an eye at speccing a war hammer. Flails are considered amazing but shortswords are an almost completely asset upon option. I know in both of those examples there is a +1 on the blunts, but that's pretty statistically insignificant, it would seem.
Many seemingly equal weapons like spears get the same thinking.
Not baiting or looking to cause flames, I really don't understand the thinking.
Edit: is it simply end-game potential?