Would you wield a magical weapon that clashes with your Fighting Style?

[Boci]

So this topic has come up before, but I'm curious how people would handle the choice in specific scenarios. Assume that no one else in the party is interested in the weapon (or shield), and that in this game there is a limited magicmart at best. You can trade or sell stuff, but finding a specific magical item, or a specific kind, like an enchanted greatsword, is never guaranteed and it will be at least a few sessions before you get the chance. So:

Scenario 1: You have a non-magical longsword and fight sword and board with the duelling style. You find:

The Tiger's Fangs - Alone either one of these weapons is a shortsword is simple magical with no other effect, but when wielded together and attuned (using a single attunement slot, not two) they become +1 short swords. If a single creature if but at least one attack from each in a single round, the wielder may deal and extra 1d6 + strength/dexterity modifier slashing damage as a non-action. Additional when wielded they grant a tiger's Keen Smell ability.

Do you switch to dual wielding, or keep your non-magical sword and board?


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Scenario 2: You have a moon-touched bow and the archery fighting style. You find:

Fencer's Jest - This silvery shortsword has a wavy blade that tappers to a smooth point. When wielded, some swear they hear mocking laughter. Fencer's Jest has 3 charges, and as a bonus action an attuned wielder may expend them all. When they do so, until the start of their turn they can ignore difficult terrain and can even pass through solid obstacles and creature, as if they were incorporeal, and benefit from an Invisibility spell. If they break the latter benefit with an attack that hits, the creature must make a wisdom save or be effected by Tasha's Hideous Laughter. Whenever a creature within 30ft of the wielder fails a save against Tasha's Hideous Laughter, from the blade or otherwise, Fencer's Jest gains 1 charge. It also regains 1d3 charge at dawn.

Do you stay ranged, switch to melee, try alternating between the two?


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Scenario 3: You have the Great Weapon Fighting style and have Cutdown, a +1 greatsword that deals an extra 1d6 damage and halves the target's speed whenever you hit on an attack with advantage. You find:

Void - This ancient shield of some unknown black metal, deeper and harder than adamantium. When worn and attuned, this shield provides a +1 bonus to AC (on top of what a shield already provides), gives you immunity to cold and blindisght out to 20ft. Each day you may nominate up to 3 individuals to be Children of the Void for the next 24 hours. Children of the Void have resistance to cold and blindsight out to 10ft. As a bonus action on your turn you may decide to Push or Pull. This affects all creatures within 30ft of you, who must make a strength saving through. If you selected Push, those who fail their save are shoved 10ft away from you and fall prone. If you selected Pull, those who fail their save are instead shoved 10ft towards you, then have their speed reduced to 5ft until the start of your next turn. Children of the Void automatically pass this save.

Do you wear Void if it means switching to a non-magical one handed weapon?


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Bonus round: Okay so this one isn't strictly about a weapon that doesn't fit your style, but is on topic of compromising with magical loot you find. You are level 8 martial character, wielding a non-magical rapier with the duelling style. You find a magical rapier. YAY! It's cursed. Oh no! Its not cursed to the point of being unusable. Yay?

Heart Piercer - Constructed of adamantine, this masterful blade is narrow, elegant and deadly. However this +1 rapier carries a curse for anyone who would dare use it without the suitable skill. Whenever the wielder rolls a 1 on attack, they take 3d8 point of damage as a puncture wounds opens in their chest, an inch off from their heart.

If the wielder is attuned, whenever the wielder score a critical hit with Heart Piercer they deal an additional 6d8 points of damage. Furthermore if they use Hearth Piercer to kill a living creature whose CR is at least equal to their proficiency bonus, they may suppress the weapon’s curse until midnight. They need not be duelling this creature alone, but must land the killing blow.

Do you wield it?

[Amnestic]

1 - Depends mostly on if my bonus action is already spoken for or not tbh. If it's not, then yes. If it is, then probably not.
2 - The BA cost means you can weapon-juggle pretty easily, so again assuming it's not already spoken for (by Steady Aim or similar) then yeah, I'd use it, but not to actually hit people with.
3 - Probably not. No one else wanting a shield seems pretty unlikely, so there's a solid chance someone else in the party will want it but even if not worst comes to worst, I'll stow it until I find a decent 1h weapon.

Bonus - Yes.

[Mastikator]

1) keep non-magical sword and board until enemies start having non-magical BPS resistance/immunity.
If possible: sell Tiger's fangs and buy a magic longsword

2) alternate, and probably use it mostly as a utility item.

3) I'd likely be going for GWM for this build, so no thanks for that shield.

bonus round: yes, and I'd try to get lucky feat or 2 levels of barbarian for reckless attack. There are ways to mitigate the risk of rolling a natural 1.

[clash]

So this topic has come up before, but I'm curious how people would handle the choice in specific scenarios. Assume that no one else in the party is interested in the weapon (or shield), and that in this game there is a limited magicmart at best. You can trade or sell stuff, but finding a specific magical item, or a specific kind, like an enchanted greatsword, is never guaranteed and it will be at least a few sessions before you get the chance. So:

Scenario 1: You have a non-magical longsword and fight sword and board with the duelling style. You find:

The Tiger's Fangs - Alone either one of these weapons is a shortsword is simple magical with no other effect, but when wielded together and attuned (using a single attunement slot, not two) they become +1 short swords. If a single creature if but at least one attack from each in a single round, the wielder may deal and extra 1d6 + strength/dexterity modifier slashing damage as a non-action. Additional when wielded they grant a tiger's Keen Smell ability.

Do you switch to dual wielding, or keep your non-magical sword and board?


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Scenario 2: You have a moon-touched bow and the archery fighting style. You find:

Fencer's Jest - This silvery shortsword has a wavy blade that tappers to a smooth point. When wielded, some swear they hear mocking laughter. Fencer's Jest has 3 charges, and as a bonus action an attuned wielder may expend them all. When they do so, until the start of their turn they can ignore difficult terrain and can even pass through solid obstacles and creature, as if they were incorporeal, and benefit from an Invisibility spell. If they break the latter benefit with an attack that hits, the creature must make a wisdom save or be effected by Tasha's Hideous Laughter. Whenever a creature within 30ft of the wielder fails a save against Tasha's Hideous Laughter, from the blade or otherwise, Fencer's Jest gains 1 charge. It also regains 1d3 charge at dawn.

Do you stay ranged, switch to melee, try alternating between the two?


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Scenario 3: You have the Great Weapon Fighting style and have Cutdown, a +1 greatsword that deals an extra 1d6 damage and halves the target's speed whenever you hit on an attack with advantage. You find:

Void - This ancient shield of some unknown black metal, deeper and harder than adamantium. When worn and attuned, this shield provides a +1 bonus to AC (on top of what a shield already provides), gives you immunity to cold and blindisght out to 20ft. Each day you may nominate up to 3 individuals to be Children of the Void for the next 24 hours. Children of the Void have resistance to cold and blindsight out to 10ft. As a bonus action on your turn you may decide to Push or Pull. This affects all creatures within 30ft of you, who must make a strength saving through. If you selected Push, those who fail their save are shoved 10ft away from you and fall prone. If you selected Pull, those who fail their save are instead shoved 10ft towards you, then have their speed reduced to 5ft until the start of your next turn. Children of the Void automatically pass this save.

Do you wear Void if it means switching to a non-magical one handed weapon?


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Bonus round: Okay so this one isn't strictly about a weapon that doesn't fit your style, but is on topic of compromising with magical loot you find. You are level 8 martial character, wielding a non-magical rapier with the duelling style. You find a magical rapier. YAY! It's cursed. Oh no! Its not cursed to the point of being unusable. Yay?

Heart Piercer - Constructed of adamantine, this masterful blade is narrow, elegant and deadly. However this +1 rapier carries a curse for anyone who would dare use it without the suitable skill. Whenever the wielder rolls a 1 on attack, they take 3d8 point of damage as a puncture wounds opens in their chest, an inch off from their heart.

If the wielder is attuned, whenever the wielder score a critical hit with Heart Piercer they deal an additional 6d8 points of damage. Furthermore if they use Hearth Piercer to kill a living creature whose CR is at least equal to their proficiency bonus, they may suppress the weapon’s curse until midnight. They need not be duelling this creature alone, but must land the killing blow.

Do you wield it?

1) definitely not.
2) yes but just for the special ability, not for actually attacking
3) again no

Bonus: probably yes

It comes down to I've built a character with a specific image in mind and would rather maintain the image than gain a bit of power. It goes beyond fighting styles. If for example my idea is a swordmaster and I'm using a nonmagical greatsword, if I find magical greataxe no one wants I'm not going to take it cause it doesn't suit my theme.

[Witty Username]

1) eh, it depends on how much I need to overcome DR.
2) I think that is great to have on a ranged build
3) that shield sounds like someone other than me can use it
4) reminds me of backbiter, I would use it

[JonBeowulf]

Is there a reason you can't keep the clashing magic items and just use them as necessary? Stay true to your concept but do what you gotta do in specific encounters. I mean, your character is doing dangerous stuff... why not do whatever you need to do to ensure victory? I don't see a problem at all.

[Rukelnikov]

1- No, If I'm SnB I'm likely the frontliner, my survivability is more important than my damage dealing capabilities, I may switch to the daggers for some specific encounter if necessary.

2- Definitely not, but again, in a fight where my bow is useless, like if the enemy is effectively immune or nigh immune I may switch, resistance alone wouldn't make me switch from back row to front row.

3- Most definitely not, would only switch if the immunity to Cold or Blindsight were key points in a battle.

4- Likely yes, but would probably choose which rapier to use depending on the encounter. A minor bump in the road? Use the regular rapier, a tough fight, use the cursed one.

I remember once in 3e, I was a 13-15 lvl ranger don't remember exactly the level, we were in a maze like dungeon that took us like 6 to 8 sessions to navigate, and at some point we were fighting an golem whom by bow basically couldn't damage, but we had found an adamantine plate, so I took the gauntlets from the armor, put on the gauntlets alone, and proceeded to box the golem since adamantine bypassed its damage reduction.

Another time in 5e, the party got the lawful good Sword of Answering, and it didn't mesh with anyone's style, so the monk ended up keeping it till they were able to trade it, thought he didn't much like the imagery of not going unarmed.

[Chaos Jackal]

1.Probably not, unless I'm expecting physical resistance in the near future. An alternative would be to just use one of the shortswords over a 1d8 1h, since even on their own, they count as magical. Will also depend on the availability of my bonus action.

2.Makes for a good sidearm, sure. Would keep it, could possibly even use it for the invisibility and ignoring difficult terrain, without necessarily attacking with it. Though, if I was starved for attunement, I wouldn't be giving up my range.

3.Clear no here. I have a good magical weapon that matches my style, the shield's not enough to make me reconsider that style.

For all of the above, feats drop everything down a notch - if I had Shield Master or something, I wouldn't touch those two swords, Sharpshooter would make giving up the range advantage even more unlikely and if that greatsword was to be accompanied by GWM, I wouldn't trade it for a shield no matter what. Fighting styles, following TCE, can be switched, but retraining feats, while also an option, is probably gonna be a harder sell.

As a matter of fact, two sessions ago my PAM paladin wielding a flame tongue halberd switched to a maul that also dealt an extra 2d6 (force) damage on hit, was +2 instead of the halberd's +1 and had some other nifty and flavorful effects (gives 1d10 to add to a roll after you use it for crafting, adds minor magical properties to crafted items and deals double damage to objects). And I only picked it up because the DM ruled that the thing was so big I could still use PAM's benefits with it, albeit without proficiency on the haft attack. And still, half the reason was that I really liked the flavor of the hammer.

As for the bonus rapier question, definite yes.

[J-H]

It depends on the amount of the clash. I had a GWM Barbarian go "I want that" with an artifact short sword, and use it quite well.

#1 Sword and board -> TWF Tiger Fangs
Substantial damage boost. Depends on the character and the class (Ranger or other BA-heavy class, not as good of a fit). If on a barbarian, or someone else with a high AC to tank, yes. If everyone else in the party has an AC of 16 or lower, possibly not. It also depends on if we're fighting enemies who have a higher to-hit or if it's a bunch of weaker enemies.

#2 Fencer's Jest
Alternating. Use it to hit critical foes, then retreat and do archery. Would take unless attunement slots are full.

#3 GWF->S&B
Lose: +1 to hit, +1d6+1 damage;
Gain: +3 AC, telekinesis, blindsight, resistances.
I'd probably try to give it to the party cleric instead. Clerics don't have many good uses for BA aside from Spiritual Weapon.
Otherwise... attune to it, strap it to the side of the pack, and pull it out only if we hit darkness and cold stuff. Note also that the enemies likely to cause darkness and cold are possibly going to be resistant to non-magic damage.

Heart Piercer
Probably. Equal chances of take 3d8 or deal 6d8 damage.
It's better on anyone who has a reliable way to generate advantage (shove prone, careful aim, monk stun, Wolf barbarian, etc.)
Absolutely yes if the wielder is a halfling, or if there's a halfling in the party who picked up the Bountiful Luck feat.

[JellyPooga]

In all cases, yes...situationally.

I think it's a grave mistake that a lot of players make to over focus their playstyle because of their theoretical build, only having or using certain equipment or doing certain things because they have X feature or Y ability.

You can still use a bow without Archery FS or the Sharpshooter feat. You can still use a shield when you want more defence, even if you normally use a greatsword with GWM. A Fighter that owns amd normally wears Full-plate can still change into lighter armour if stealth or weight is going to be a concern in an upcoming endeavour. The point is not to limit yourself because of some daft notion of "optimal play" or "character build". Yes, do what's best because of the options you have chosen, but don't blind yourself to the possibilities outside of them.

[JonBeowulf]

IRL, I have a shotgun, a rifle, and two pistols. I'm really good with the rifle but I'll use the shotgun or pistols if the situation calls for it. Having options for Plan B, C, D, and E is a good thing. Take all the things! It's better to have it and not need it than to need it and not have it.

[InvisibleBison]

Scenario 1 - I wouldn't switch. If I'm using sword-and-board, either I'm not focusing on doing damage, or I've found some non-weapon based method of doing damage. In either case, the temptation of an extra 1d6+mod once per round isn't enough to give up my shield, especially since it uses my bonus action as well.

Scenario 2 - I wouldn't switch. A once-per-two-or-three-days buffed attack with a save-or-suck rider isn't good enough to give up the benefits of ranged combat.

Scenario 3 - I might switch. If we were going into a situation where cold and/or darkness was going to be a significant threat, and the loss of my considerable damage is affordable, then I'd use Void. Otherwise, no.

Scenario 4 - I'd sometimes use the sword. In low-risk fights, or desperate situations where we need magic and/or adamantine weapons, it would be worth the risk. But in dangerous fights, the prospect of an unexpected 3d8 is too high a price to pay for an occasional damage boost.

[Potato_Priest]

Scenario 1, I'd switch to using one of the short swords with my shield and give the other one to another party member. Two party members who can bypass damage immunity is better than one.

Scenario 2, I would keep it on me in case I get into melee combat, but the bow would stay my primary.

Scenario 3, It would depend on party composition. If there's a lot of ranged people (who suffer when enemies are knocked prone constantly) I would keep it only for rare utility cases. If my party is melee heavy I would probably use it most of the time for the prone advantage. (Though in a melee heavy party it's surprising no one else can use it better).

Scenario 4, would use it, especially if I have some sort of reliable source of advantage. Would not use it at level 1, where a nat 1 would probably knock me unconscious.

[Theodoxus]

I can only go off what I've actually encountered in game. I played a Paladin with the dueling fighting style and the crusher feat. I started the game with a warhammer and shield. The first magic weapon we found was a pretty powerful longsword that was essentially an artifact of one of the gods of the campaign world.

I waffled back and forth for two sessions over whether to use the sword that didn't really compliment my feat choice, but had some interesting offsets, or stick with the non-magical warhammer that at least I'd built around (and was constantly looking for another bludgeoning magic weapon to replace it).

In the end, I fell for the sword, wholly embracing it's power and became a Hexblade rather than going the Cleric route (not particularly surprising all told that he didn't have the Wis to MC into Cleric).

It wasn't long after the first level of Warlock that the game collapsed... so I wasn't super torn on the wasted feat, as I'm sure I would have had it continued.

So, I guess to answer the meta question, I'm not sure I would wield a magic weapon that clashed with my fighting style... but I know I'm ok with one that clashed with a feat. Is that weird?

[Rynjin]

Depends entirely on how cool the ability is.

Scenario 1: Small damage boost? Yawn.

Scenario 2: Pretty neat weapon. Hard "maybe". Makes a great backup weapon for my archer in any case, but will be used entirely for the utility, pretty much.

Scenario 3: Badass. Absolutely. THIS is actually a build-defining piece of equipment I would be asking to respec to use more properly, and become a signature piece of gear for my character going forward. I did something similar in a (Pathfinder) Adventure Path (War for the Crown; everyone is a noble) once with a relic longsword, respeccing from being a bar brawler/drunken fist user to cleaning up my act, sobering up, and returning to the character's former (in backstory) dueling style. Similar stories could come from this thing.

Bonus round: I'm a sucker for big upsides married to moderate downsides. Sure.

[Skrum]

1) no, probably not
2) no
3) that shield is super cool, but no
Bonus) Yes. Drawback is worth the penalty

Thing is, I anticipate that I've devoted more than just a fighting style to the weapon type. I'm not giving up GWM to use a shield. If I took slasher (and likely using a shield), or need to use my bonus action, I'm not switching to duel shorties.

For most of my character concepts, the weapon choice might start out mechanical, but it quickly becomes part of their identity. I'm not inclined to switch unless the benefit is quite high.

Edit: if character respecs are on the table, that changes things. A very cool item comes along that I think will be a "best in slot" type item for awhile, yeah, I strongly consider shifting things around for it

[Leon]

If it was use to do so until you could get something that better suited your chosen way to fight ~ trade it in, sell it etc

[Quietus]

In all cases, depends entirely on factors not touched on in your OP.

How firm is my idea for this character?
- If I'm picturing an obscenely muscled hulk of a character hurtling through the air with a greatsword, I am not likely to change to using a shield. I MIGHT consider the shortswords though. Other characters I've played are more flexible and would shift to whatever is most reasonable..

Have I spent a feat on this fighting style?
- If I have picked up Sharpshooter, or GWM, or PAM, I'm unlikely to change my style at that point. If not, well, fighting styles from class can be retrained. I'd consider whether this is a character who is utilitarian enough to make that switch.

[Catullus64]

Scenarios 2 and 3 seem viable for the new weapon. Every ranged fighter needs to be prepared to get stuck in melee upon short notice, and even a GW fighter should carry a shield and one-handed weapon for emergency tanking. Especially since the 2nd scenario item doesn't seem to require attunement.

[sithlordnergal]

I don't think I've ever swapped out my weapons if it majorly clashed with my fighting style. Case in point, my DM gave us a +3 Shotgun that deals bonus damage to Fiends, and even has a spread shot mode that creates an AoE instead of a normal attack roll.

None of the party members have ever used it, and we ended up selling it because it clashed with our fighting styles. Even though it meant we used relatively weaker weapons.

[Leon]

I don't think I've ever swapped out my weapons if it majorly clashed with my fighting style. Case in point, my DM gave us a +3 Shotgun that deals bonus damage to Fiends, and even has a spread shot mode that creates an AoE instead of a normal attack roll.

None of the party members have ever used it, and we ended up selling it because it clashed with our fighting styles. Even though it meant we used relatively weaker weapons.

We got a Iron Longsword in Dark sun, no-one used swords, no-one could afford to pay us what it was worth to sell so I ended up turning it into the blade for my glaive with some effort

[Rynjin]

I don't think I've ever swapped out my weapons if it majorly clashed with my fighting style. Case in point, my DM gave us a +3 Shotgun that deals bonus damage to Fiends, and even has a spread shot mode that creates an AoE instead of a normal attack roll.

None of the party members have ever used it, and we ended up selling it because it clashed with our fighting styles. Even though it meant we used relatively weaker weapons.

This is a pretty weird mindset to me, especially for something like a high-powered ranged weapon that can be used as, if nothing else, a backup. Unless just nobody was even proficient with it?

Half the fun of looting stuff is seeing cool unique items, I imagine it gets kind of boring waiting/hoping for things that fit your exact fighting style to fall from the sky every campaign.

Disregard if the GM is a stickler who doesn't allow respecs for stuff though. They kinda reap what they sow if they spend time making cool gear the PCs cannot use and won't let them choose to use it.

[sithlordnergal]

This is a pretty weird mindset to me, especially for something like a high-powered ranged weapon that can be used as, if nothing else, a backup. Unless just nobody was even proficient with it?

Half the fun of looting stuff is seeing cool unique items, I imagine it gets kind of boring waiting/hoping for things that fit your exact fighting style to fall from the sky every campaign.

Disregard if the GM is a stickler who doesn't allow respecs for stuff though. They kinda reap what they sow if they spend time making cool gear the PCs cannot use and won't let them choose to use it.

We were proficient with it, its just none of us use ranged weapons for combat. I will admit, the party that sold that particular weapon was a bit different. Only 3 people going into encounters meant for 5 players, and we have a Paladin, Fighter/Monk, and me, a Creaction Bard/Hexblabe. The Paladin and Monk basically lose class features by fighting with Ranged weapons, specifically Smite and Stunning Strike, while I am a full caster who's spells are far, far more effective than a shotgun. I'm willing to bet if we had someone who used ranged weapons, it'd have been kept.

That said, I tend to stick with weapons that work with my build, even when I'm in a larger party. Mostly because I do pretty optimized builds, and they lose a lot of power if I go for weapons outside of what I build for. For example, I had a Goblin Paladin that dual wielded lances. I rode on a War Dog that allowed me to remain mounted at all times. I chose not to use magical weapons we found outside of magical lances simply because they didn't work with the build.

I do agree half the fun of looting is finding cool and unique items, but I've never been bored or disappointed by not finding stuff that works with my build. You just have to accept that things won't work your build, and you have to choose to stick to your build, or give up the items.

[Rynjin]

We were proficient with it, its just none of us use ranged weapons for combat.

I'll be honest, this is probably the disconnect. I've rarely had the luxury of it being a CHOICE. Some enemies simply...need to be shot. Because they fly, or are too far away, or you can't move, etc.

[sithlordnergal]

I'll be honest, this is probably the disconnect. I've rarely had the luxury of it being a CHOICE. Some enemies simply...need to be shot. Because they fly, or are too far away, or you can't move, etc.

There's a reason all of our melee people specifically hunted down items that give a fly speed. XD And when I say "we hunted", I don't mean "we asked around". I mean we spent a good 5 to 6 sessions just researching and hunting for those items via spells, libraries, talking to people. We literally put the entire campaign on hold to find them. XD

[Chaos Jackal]

This is a pretty weird mindset to me, especially for something like a high-powered ranged weapon that can be used as, if nothing else, a backup. Unless just nobody was even proficient with it?

Half the fun of looting stuff is seeing cool unique items, I imagine it gets kind of boring waiting/hoping for things that fit your exact fighting style to fall from the sky every campaign.

Disregard if the GM is a stickler who doesn't allow respecs for stuff though. They kinda reap what they sow if they spend time making cool gear the PCs cannot use and won't let them choose to use it.

To be fair, there are more than a few DMs who won't allow big changes like retraining feats.

Though backup ranged weapons are always nice.

[DammitVictor]

... I have never actually played a non-Soulknife in any D&D game where Soulknife was an option. And in PF1, I've always taken the armor and shield options for my Soulknife as early as possible. So... y'know... no.

[Pex]

If I'm facing a non-magic weapon resistant creature, yes. If I'm always facing a non-magic weapon resistant creature for the rest of the campaign, see "However".

If the weapon is personally subjective awesome enough to always want to use it, then yes. I may ask the DM for permission to change fighting style to match, accepting at level-up. I am very unlikely to switch between melee focus and range focus as my character was built with that focus in mind, i.e. my ST 18 DX 10 plate armor warrior will not be wielding the Bow Of Awesomeness You Practically Win D&D With It unless part of that Awesomeness is I can use my ST instead of DX for attack and damage and if a paladin can smite with it, multiclass barbarian works with rage, or other specific abilities normally dependent on using a melee weapon.

However, if magic weapons happen along during the campaign and not one of them ever suits my fighting style and especially not suitable for my build via class features and feats I will mention my discomfort to the DM. If the DM accommodates via retconning the latest magic weapon found or the next magic weapon acquired is suitable, then all is ok hunkydory. If the DM refuses, tells me to "grow up" or otherwise dismisses me and my concerns I'm leaving the game not because I didn't get a magic weapon but because the DM is not caring about me.

[Slipjig]

This kind of inflexibility is one reason I really like the Iron Heroes, "[Fighters] can swap out some of their feats every day" feature. If makes sense that a militia member may only know one way to fight (e.g. stand in line with his shield and spear), but a professional warrior (let alone an adventurer whose whole schtick is fighting) should be adaptable to a variety of tactical situations.

I understand a specialist wanting to be at their preferred range, but the idea that an archer wouldn't have a melee weapon or a barbarian isn't going to have a couple of throwing axes just doesn't make sense. IRL snipers expect to be a half mile from their target, but they still carry a pistol and a knife.