A GMing telling the players about the gameworld is not like real life

[Maxperson]

Right, and I think a rule that incentivizes a style of play that looks like a corner case is undesirable for obvious reasons.

It doesn't look like a corner case. Dragging around carts full of weapons IS a corner case. I've played in games where you had to keep up weapons and that wasn't even on the radar.

That isn't including the mechanic though. In fact, that's explicitly excluding it.

You said, unless I completely misunderstood you, that including a weapon degradation system would limit playstyles. So yes, I took 2.5 seconds to exclude it with a simple sentence to prove that statement wrong. If all it takes is 1 sentence and 2.5 seconds to eliminate the system and use your playstyle, then you are not being limited by it.

You acknowledge that the passage I quoted is inconsistent with your position that weapon degradation isn't an element of D&D 5E, yet you persist in saying it's "a fact" that "5e includes no weapon degradation".

I never said that quote there. Hell, you even quoted what I said in the block you just responded to and got it very wrong. Here's the actual quote, "This is the inconsistency that I'm talking about. It's a fact that PC weapons do not degrade."

The passage shows that weapons do indeed degrade in 5E and that there's a mechanical effect, namely that they lose their re-sale value. The fact that your unmaintained weapon retains as much of its value as my more rigorously cared for weapon doesn't mean that some degradation isn't taking place. It's just not enough to de-value it.

That's not a mechanical effect of the weapon. Don't pretend that you didn't understand though context, repeated over and over again, that I was talking about combat mechanics. Further, it has no bearing on PC swords that aren't maintained. Those won't ever be unsellable, unless you the DM add that into the game.

 

[Maxperson]

Oh please. You've probably done it enough times, you could publish reliable survey results.

And he probably loaded the battleship with paladins and gnomes before it went down.

 

[Hriston]

It doesn't look like a corner case. Dragging around carts full of weapons IS a corner case. I've played in games where you had to keep up weapons and that wasn't even on the radar.

Were you always able to maintain your weapons in those games, or did you incur penalties because you were somehow prevented? If you could always care for your weapons, then that doesn't fit the scenario we were discussing. If you couldn't, then why didn't you bring extras, unless it was a gotcha for which you were unprepared?

You said, unless I completely misunderstood you, that including a weapon degradation system would limit playstyles. So yes, I took 2.5 seconds to exclude it with a simple sentence to prove that statement wrong. If all it takes is 1 sentence and 2.5 seconds to eliminate the system and use your playstyle, then you are not being limited by it.

But you also aren't including it, which is the precondition for it having any effect on someone's game. Also, I don't think the goal of WotC's game design is to publish subsystems as part of the base game that are going to be removed or ignored by a majority of tables. That's what I mean by a waste of space.

I never said that quote there. Hell, you even quoted what I said in the block you just responded to and got it very wrong. Here's the actual quote, "This is the inconsistency that I'm talking about. It's a fact that PC weapons do not degrade."

I pulled those quotes directly from the part of your post that I quoted. Is it not your position that there's absolutely no weapon degradation in 5E? The inconsistency of that position with the rule stating that monsters' weapons generally have no re-sale value because of their poor condition should at least tell you that your position isn't uncontroversial, if not that it's directly contradicted by the rules themselves.

That's not a mechanical effect of the weapon. Don't pretend that you didn't understand though context, repeated over and over again, that I was talking about combat mechanics. Further, it has no bearing on PC swords that aren't maintained. Those won't ever be unsellable, unless you the DM add that into the game.

Your conditions for acknowledging the existence of weapon degradation in the game keep getting higher and higher. First you needed a listed element. When that was provided, you wanted to see an actual rule with a mechanical effect. Now that that has been provided, you want the mechanical effect to manifest in combat.

The truth is that none of that needs to be part of the game for weapon degradation to occur in the fiction, and the fact that there is no rule for the degradation of weapons belonging to PCs is not an indication that PC weapons can't degrade, but rather that there is an assumption that PCs aren't allowing their weapons to degrade. If a player introduces into the fiction that s/he is allowing his/her character's weapon to degrade, then it's up to the DM to adjudicate.

 

[pemerton]

the fact that there is no rule for the degradation of weapons belonging to PCs is not an indication that PC weapons can't degrade, but rather that there is an assumption that PCs aren't allowing their weapons to degrade. If a player introduces into the fiction that s/he is allowing his/her character's weapon to degrade, then it's up to the DM to adjudicate.

There's a parallel here to saving throws.

From the fact that, in mechanical terms, getting a save against a fireball is automatic, it doesn't follow that PCs don't have to try to save themselves. Rather, the mechanics take for granted that this is what PCs do. If a player describes his/her PC as standing unperturbed in the fireball making no effort to avoid or mitigate its effects, then presumably the GM is entitled to adjudicate as appropriate (eg deny the save, or impose disadvantage, or whatver else seems appropriate and consistent with established ficiton and table expectations).

 

[Hriston]

There's a parallel here to saving throws.

From the fact that, in mechanical terms, getting a save against a fireball is automatic, it doesn't follow that PCs don't have to try to save themselves. Rather, the mechanics take for granted that this is what PCs do. If a player describes his/her PC as standing unperturbed in the fireball making no effort to avoid or mitigate its effects, then presumably the GM is entitled to adjudicate as appropriate (eg deny the save, or impose disadvantage, or whatver else seems appropriate and consistent with established ficiton and table expectations).

I think the same is true of the attack roll against AC. It assumes active resistance to being struck on the part of the defender. Willingly receiving a hit without active resistance not only circumvents AC, IMO, but may also circumvent hit points, or at least auto-crit.

To me, this seems fundamental to understanding how the mechanics relate to the fiction.

 

[Maxperson]

Were you always able to maintain your weapons in those games, or did you incur penalties because you were somehow prevented? If you could always care for your weapons, then that doesn't fit the scenario we were discussing. If you couldn't, then why didn't you bring extras, unless it was a gotcha for which you were unprepared?

I usually carried one extra weapon on me just in case.

I pulled those quotes directly from the part of your post that I quoted. Is it not your position that there's absolutely no weapon degradation in 5E? The inconsistency of that position with the rule stating that monsters' weapons generally have no re-sale value because of their poor condition should at least tell you that your position isn't uncontroversial, if not that it's directly contradicted by the rules themselves.

It kinda does and doesn't. Monsters have poor quality gear sometimes, but it just kinda poofs in at that quality and hasn't degraded to that point over time. However, the monster equipment is sometimes poor quality, implying that the monsters have rules that the players don't and sometimes have stuff degrade.

PC equipment never degrades unless the DM adds that system into the game. That's an easily provable fact, which I have proven multiple times in this thread.

Your conditions for acknowledging the existence of weapon degradation in the game keep getting higher and higher. First you needed a listed element. When that was provided, you wanted to see an actual rule with a mechanical effect. Now that that has been provided, you want the mechanical effect to manifest in combat.

My conditions have never changed. I've been referring to PC equipment from the beginning, and talking about combat mechanics for degradation.

I did initially say that degradation was nowhere in 5e, but backed off that since your post showing that monsters only have something that's kinda, sorta, almost degradation.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

I think the same is true of the attack roll against AC. It assumes active resistance to being struck on the part of the defender. Willingly receiving a hit without active resistance not only circumvents AC, IMO, but may also circumvent hit points, or at least auto-crit.

To me, this seems fundamental to understanding how the mechanics relate to the fiction.

While 'classic' D&D never really spelled this out in plain words, it was also the normal expectation there. If an enemy was helpless (note this works in 4e as well) then they wouldn't get a defense, and in 4e and in many GM's determination in earlier editions they would be CDGed.

Rationalization for the 1e assassination table was similar, the assassin was basically getting a chance at a completely undefended blow, which would instantly kill the target.

I would expect most 'old school' DMs would follow some version of this procedure. It really is never explicitly spelled out though in classic D&D. There are probably a few comments in text that would lead one to expect it, and likely some modules or something where a situation is spelled out as allowing for this in some situation, etc. Still, it was never a hard and fast RULE in AD&D or OD&D. It was always just assumed that anyone would defend themselves. I often wondered why there was not at least a "you don't have a weapon, take a penalty to your defense" or something like that. I guess in 2e there were some optional rules for making 'all out attacks' which could produce basically the same result (IE take a -2 to AC to get a +2 attack bonus, if the enemy is not armed the penalty is a freebie).

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

PC equipment never degrades unless the DM adds that system into the game. That's an easily provable fact, which I have proven multiple times in this thread.

While this is technically true in a very narrow sense, it isn't really a very honest reading of the rules of an RPG. All RPGs are open-ended affairs. They need not spell out how air or gravity or even money work by default. Likewise D&D need not spell out how weapon degradation works. In 4e and 5e monster equipment is deemed basically worthless, which can be fictionalized to 'it is degraded'. In 4e at least, PC equipment never fetches better than 40% of its purchase value, and the GM is free to go from there. So if the GM in a 4e/5e game says to you "you've never even sharpened your sword, it is now worthless" responding that this "isn't a rule" would, in most places, get you booted from the table unless you're joking.

Likewise if a GM stated at some point that you have no whetstone and made no provision to maintain your weapons, so from now on you may be subject to a penalty, objecting wouldn't really be a viable choice, unless the penalties seemed ridiculous and contrived.

Frankly, the reason none of this was done in OD&D, and therefore later on or even in AD&D, was simply that tracking this garbage is tedious at best, its trivial for a fighter to simply loot a new weapon now and then, and it can be assumed that, other things being equal, oiling and sharpening a blade in an environment where stone is everywhere and most PCs carry gallons of oil is to something to bother fussing about. I mean, you do know that you can sharpen a sword on ANY RANDOM ROCK, right? I've sharpened any number of axes on 'some old rock' in the field, it works perfectly well (maybe a real whetstone is a bit faster and more convenient to use). Gygax just thought the whole idea was basically silly. No doubt he included a whetstone in the PHB out of a typical sense of completeness (this is the guy who included tables of 20 different pole weapons remember).

 

[Maxperson]

While this is technically true in a very narrow sense, it isn't really a very honest reading of the rules of an RPG. All RPGs are open-ended affairs. They need not spell out how air or gravity or even money work by default. Likewise D&D need not spell out how weapon degradation works. In 4e and 5e monster equipment is deemed basically worthless, which can be fictionalized to 'it is degraded'.

I've already talked about how it kinds sorta exists for NPCs/monsters.

In 4e at least, PC equipment never fetches better than 40% of its purchase value, and the GM is free to go from there.

I can take a mint baseball card into a store and have the same thing happen to me. Getting more than 40-50% of the value when you sell to a store is business.

So if the GM in a 4e/5e game says to you "you've never even sharpened your sword, it is now worthless" responding that this "isn't a rule" would, in most places, get you booted from the table unless you're joking.

If said sword is worthless, then it would have been worthless in a fight BEFORE going to sell it. If it has 100% usefulness in a fight, then a store has no business saying it's worthless, because by the very fact that it is 100% useful in combat, it has full or nearly full value.

Likewise if a GM stated at some point that you have no whetstone and made no provision to maintain your weapons, so from now on you may be subject to a penalty, objecting wouldn't really be a viable choice, unless the penalties seemed ridiculous and contrived.

Yep! I've already talked about the DM adding degradation for PC weapons into the game. It's not there, though, unless the DM adds it in like this.

Frankly, the reason none of this was done in OD&D, and therefore later on or even in AD&D, was simply that tracking this garbage is tedious at best, its trivial for a fighter to simply loot a new weapon now and then, and it can be assumed that, other things being equal, oiling and sharpening a blade in an environment where stone is everywhere and most PCs carry gallons of oil is to something to bother fussing about. I mean, you do know that you can sharpen a sword on ANY RANDOM ROCK, right? I've sharpened any number of axes on 'some old rock' in the field, it works perfectly well (maybe a real whetstone is a bit faster and more convenient to use). Gygax just thought the whole idea was basically silly. No doubt he included a whetstone in the PHB out of a typical sense of completeness (this is the guy who included tables of 20 different pole weapons remember).

Right. This isn't an argument on how I think the game should be played. I've already said that I wouldn't use a degradation system in my game. Whetstones made it into 2e and beyond.

 

[Hriston]

I usually carried one extra weapon on me just in case.

Well, that seems pretty much normal for any game in which I've ever played, and yet we never bothered with weapon maintenance.

It kinda does and doesn't. Monsters have poor quality gear sometimes, but it just kinda poofs in at that quality and hasn't degraded to that point over time. However, the monster equipment is sometimes poor quality, implying that the monsters have rules that the players don't and sometimes have stuff degrade.

PC equipment never degrades unless the DM adds that system into the game. That's an easily provable fact, which I have proven multiple times in this thread.

This all seems to confuse fictional processes with the way fiction is established at the table, which seems to be a recurring theme in this thread.

My conditions have never changed. I've been referring to PC equipment from the beginning, and talking about combat mechanics for degradation.

I did initially say that degradation was nowhere in 5e, but backed off that since your post showing that monsters only have something that's kinda, sorta, almost degradation.

I think I may have missed some of your earlier posts on this, but in the one to which I first replied you seemed to want a listed game element, which is what I've offered.