D&D 5E Mearls on other settings

[Ilbranteloth]

Let's turn that around. If a metal sword is as good as a +1, what's important about having +1 metal swords?

Seriously, though, weapons can differ in ways beyond bonuses or penalties. A simple and easy to use weapon breakage rule, for example, is quite genre-appropriate.

Likewise, changing the damage die would be a quick way to differentiate them.

Weapon damage rules were part of both the original and 4e Dark Sun settings if I recall.

 

[Zardnaar]

Using one die type lower for damage is another approach.

You could also give medium and heavy armor resistance against non-steel weapons. That would better reflect that the weapons are less effective against armor, rather than making them less effective against unarmored opponents as well.

Yeah I am starting to lean towards that, 2d6 becomes 1d10.

 

[Obryn]

How about a +3 steel sword then that becomes +4?

5E only goes to +3 remember,

Oh come on. That's a corner case of corner cases, and a simply ridiculous hill to die on. That's an artifact. An artifact somewhere in your setting is not a good reason to muck around and apply new modifiers to almost all the other weapons in the game.

Using one die type lower for damage is another approach.

You could also give medium and heavy armor resistance against non-steel weapons. That would better reflect that the weapons are less effective against armor, rather than making them less effective against unarmored opponents as well.

I mentioned changing damage dice, upthread. It is more workable than bonuses or penalties. I would still urge modifying the 10% instead of the 90%.

Weapon damage rules were part of both the original and 4e Dark Sun settings if I recall.

Nope; the 4e rules used a weapon breakage subsystem.

 

[MechaPilot]

How about a +3 steel sword then that becomes +4?

5E only goes to +3 remember,

5e only goes to +3 in magic item bonuses, that doesn't mean all bonuses cap at +3.

 

[Zardnaar]

5e only goes to +3 in magic item bonuses, that doesn't mean all bonuses cap at +3.

So now you want to break bounded accuracy?

+3 does not automatically mean an artifact, plenty of +3 weapons in the DMG.

How about reduced damage dice and on a 1 the weapon breaks?

 

[Obryn]

So now you want to break bounded accuracy?

+3 does not automatically mean an artifact, plenty of +3 weapons in the DMG.

How about reduced damage dice and on a 1 the weapon breaks?

Dude. For real. It's the height of wackiness to rest your argument on +3 metal weapons, or getting angsty about +3 metal weapons somehow breaking bounded accuracy. It's missing the forest for a tiny, tiny sapling.

Re: Reduced damage die, see all of my previous posts. It's better than a +/- penalty, because you can at least put together a table that says "Obsidian Sword 1d6" or whatever. But it's still silly to adjust 90% instead of 10%.

Re: Breakage, it can work but it depends on how it's implemented. The caution is making sure you don't further disrupt martial/caster balance by hosing over anyone who dares multiattack. You don't want to punish good warriors for being good warriors. Possible workarounds: (1) it only affects the first attack per round. (2) it becomes a 'devil's bargain' where you get a benefit along with the break. (3) primary warriors have ways to freely swap to new weapons in between atttacks. (4) fighters have ways to avoid breakage. Really, any of those can work.

Combining the two as-is is just unrealistically punitive.

 

[Staffan]

If you're doing weapon breakage, I would:

1. Only have the weapon have a chance of breaking on the first attack each round. Otherwise you run into the weird problem that skilled warriors (= multiple attacks) break their weapons more often.

2. Connect breakage to the attack roll rather than the damage roll, because if you do it the 2e way of having it potentially break on a max-damage roll, you get the weird effect of a greatsword only breaking once in a blue moon, while shortswords are fragile as heck (while realistically, it ought to be the opposite - the longer weapon should be more likely to break). A suggestion is to have it potentially break on a crit - not on every crit, but a crit would trigger a roll for breakage.

 

[MechaPilot]

So now you want to break bounded accuracy?

+3 does not automatically mean an artifact, plenty of +3 weapons in the DMG.

How about reduced damage dice and on a 1 the weapon breaks?

Look, I don't "want" anything here except to illustrate that having a penalty on inferior weapons and no penalty on the metal weapons is mechanically the same as no penalty on the inferior weapons and a bonus on the metal weapons.

I already use the "no penalty to wood, bone, & stone weapons and a bonus to metal weapons" method in my Wildwood setting. It works great. If you want to use a different method, then by all means do. You are, as always, free to handle things however you wish at your table.

+3 does not automatically mean an artifact, plenty of +3 weapons in the DMG.

I never said +3 = artifact.

How about reduced damage dice and on a 1 the weapon breaks?

Reduced damage dice works as well. A reduced damage die doesn't mechanically equate to the same level of reduced damage as a -1 to hit and damage would, but I think the risk of such a weapon breaking on a natural 1 helps compensate for that.

 

[MoonSong]

An actual penalty makes sense. The Aztecs for example had trouble vs Spanish steel. Another way of doing it I suppose would be to have inferior Athasian weapons that are simple weapons or a 1d10 greatsword like the Aztec obsidian sword. If you want a 2d6 one go find a metal one.

Parenthesis, this "obsidian-sword" -the Mahcuahuitl - wasn't just a 'primitive' version of a metal weapon, but a unique kind of weapon on it's own right. More so it was fairly superior to the European gear of the time, being way more deadly. It is the closest you can get to an actual vorpal sword. The only difference was durability.

Mesoamerican -and more specifically Nahuatl- armies had a very ritualized approach to war with clear rules of engagement that the Spanish refused to follow. Early on the Aztecs were involved on diplomacy and caution. By the time they decided to stop fooling around, they decimated the Spanish. Cortés only managed to win by having thousands of allies with the same equipment as the Aztec, and even then he had to literally flood an already under siege Tenochtitlan that was suffering from an epidemic. Equipment was not a factor.

 

[Zardnaar]

Parenthesis, this "obsidian-sword" -the Mahcuahuitl - wasn't just a 'primitive' version of a metal weapon, but a unique kind of weapon on it's own right. More so it was fairly superior to the European gear of the time, being way more deadly. It is the closest you can get to an actual vorpal sword. The only difference was durability.

Mesoamerican -and more specifically Nahuatl- armies had a very ritualized approach to war with clear rules of engagement that the Spanish refused to follow. Early on the Aztecs were involved on diplomacy and caution. By the time they decided to stop fooling around, they decimated the Spanish. Cortés only managed to win by having thousands of allies with the same equipment as the Aztec, and even then he had to literally flood an already under siege Tenochtitlan that was suffering from an epidemic. Equipment was not a factor.

It was not superior, maybe sharper but that doesn't mean better. Real swords are more like a meat clever than razor. The Mahuahuitl was fairly useless against steel.