beating on walls

[ConcreteBuddha]

Okay, I'm going to have to go with kreynolds on this one. I, on the other hand, will attempt to shed some light on my position.

1) I have never had a weapon (or any other equipment) break in DnD under "normal" use. Ever.

2) I believe in "heroic fantasy" campaigning. All examples that use the real world are bogus (IMHO).

3) The DM should always be fair and consistent.

If I use these assumptions, the hammer should not break. Why?

Because the DM is being neither consistent nor fair, which is what I think what kreynolds was getting at (correct me if I'm wrong).

If the DM rules that the hammer would break, then the DM should come up with or find a consistent system of item breakage that "simulates" reality, and apply this to ALL situations.

For example, the hammer should take damage whenever it is used. So should long swords and cloaks and armor and etc...

If you wanted this level of realism, then a weapon should take damage whenever it damages ANYTHING weaker than it.

These rules, as kreynolds pointed out, are not in DnD. Why?

Because it is an increase in the rules for minimal benefit.

Would it be more "realistic" if items always took gradual damage from use? Yes.

Does the above level of realism add to the fun of the game? No.

So if you play the game like it is, you get "non-realistic fantasy"...

Isn't that what DnD is about?



P.S. I say the DM is just pulling things out of his butt because he doesn't like the ingenuity of the players.

In a 2ed Dark Sun campaign, I had a DM who was pissed that I Dimensional Doored past all of her dungeon. The next dungeon was an ANTI-TRANSMUTATION DUNGEON. So was the next one. And the next...

(This was the same DM who pitted the party against THIRTY TROLLS at LEVEL ONE!

When questioned on it, she said, "Oh, I thought trolls were GOBLINS...."

That was her first, and last, campaign.)

 

[kreynolds]

Because the DM is being neither consistent nor fair, which is what I think what kreynolds was getting at (correct me if I'm wrong).

Hell no, you're not wrong. Nice translation.

 

[Roland Delacroix]

Even though I don't totally agree, heres the obligatory "your DM is always right, blah blah blah..."

Aside from that, i would side with him on this simply because a warhammer is very different from a wall-destroying sledge. the head of a sledge is bigger than a brick while a warhammers head can be as small as a fifty-cent piece.

and skr, you were a little rude. Lets not get this thread shut down.

 

[ConcreteBuddha]

'Even though I don't totally agree, heres the obligatory "your DM is always right, blah blah blah..."'

Here is the obligatory:

"Your DM is human,
human's aren't always right,
therefore DMs aren't always right."

"Aside from that, i would side with him on this simply because a warhammer is very different from a wall-destroying sledge. the head of a sledge is bigger than a brick while a warhammers head can be as small as a fifty-cent piece."

Um...In the real world this may be true. However, I have a problem with the a "warhammer is not a sledge, therefore warhammers can't destroy walls" argument.

What is a sledge?
"A two-handed iron headed hammer" PHB 109
Weighs ten pounds.

What is a warhammer?
"A one handed sledge or maul with a large heavy head." PHB 104
Weighs eight pounds.

What is the difference? One is two handed, the other isn't. Besides, you can use the Warhammer two handed...

Should you give the sledge a bonus to smashing things?

I have a better idea:
A "Sledge" is a Large Warhammer.

It does more damage (2d6) because it is larger, therefore more effective than a Medium size Warhammer.

 

[James McMurray]

The reason weapons don't fall apart over normal use is because they don't generally hit things harder than themselves. A weapon will not take damage when hitting flesh any more than it will take damage when hitting paper mache. What damage does result in day-to-day use can be considered fixable while traveling, such as with awhetstone, minor handle realignment, etc.

When you start going past the realm of 4 fights a day (average) against fleshy creatures and into 500 swings at a stone barrier, that's when I have to say (at least in my campaign) that reality does have a place in a game world. If most things in a campaign do not follow standard "real world" cauailities, then ou end up with a campaign that lacks precisely what you are arguing for: consistency.

As for my argument having no basis in logic, I'd look to your own. Your argument, summarized from your first, post is that the game isn't real life, so even if a hammer would break in real life, it won't in the game because there are no rules to address that situation. Where's the logic in that? Seems to me that logic would dictate one try to find a rule to mirror the reality, rather than suggesting that the DM in question is a "frickin' moronic buffoon."

And no, I'm not going to cry now. You would certainly know if I was going to cry.

 

[Roland Delacroix]

Buy your own and compare!

http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=855235864

http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=2013782324

They look quite different to me, and in fact handle differentlly too.

 

[Crothian]

Buy your own and compare!

They look quite different to me, and in fact handle differentlly too.

Well, on'e modern and one's ancient in design. I'm not sure that's a fair comparison, but it's insightful none the less.

I'm starting to think the thread needs to be retitled. Switch out "Dead Horses" for "walls".

 

[Wulf Ratbane]

Re: John Henry

Somehow I bet if these guys found a warhammer they wanted to destroy, the DM wouldn't let them smash it with a big rock over and over until the warhammer was broken.

 

[hong]

Well, on'e modern and one's ancient in design. I'm not sure that's a fair comparison, but it's insightful none the less.

I am "beating my wall" RIGHT NOW, if you know what I mean, and I think you do.

I'm starting to think the thread needs to be retitled. Switch out "Dead Horses" for "walls".

Er, OK. I am "beating my dead horse" RIGHT NOW, if you know what I mean, and I think you do.

 

[ConcreteBuddha]

"The reason weapons don't fall apart over normal use is because they don't generally hit things harder than themselves."

Disagree entirely. During battle, swords clang, axes hit shields, warhammers break umber hulk bones...

"A weapon will not take damage when hitting flesh any more than it will take damage when hitting paper mache."

Translation: All combats involve fleshy blobs hitting each other without parrying, or natural armor or normal armor.

"What damage does result in day-to-day use can be considered fixable while traveling, such as with awhetstone, minor handle realignment, etc. "

I'd really like to see the above happen in the "real world."

"When you start going past the realm of 4 fights a day (average) against fleshy creatures and into 500 swings at a stone barrier, that's when I have to say (at least in my campaign) that reality does have a place in a game world."

How many times in an adventure does an average character swing their sword?

How many times does that sword
A) hit a creature?
B) miss because of armor?
C) hit another creature's weapon?
D) hit the ground or some other part of the environment?
E) miss because of natural armor?
F) get used in training?

I'd say it's probably greater than the amount of times this particular Warhammer will be used against the rock.

Besides, do YOU want to be the one to track how may times each weapon has been used and in each specific way?

"If most things in a campaign do not follow standard "real world" cauailities, then ou end up with a campaign that lacks precisely what you are arguing for: consistency."

I'm arguing for consistency in the DM, not the game world. In a game where magic, gods and dragons exist, "standard real world causalities" do not exist.

For the DM to say, "Well, Barbarian Bob, you can't smash the wall because--Oops! Your hammer broke!", is not consistent, because in all other instances where that warhammer "should have taken damage", the DM didn't have that warhammer take damage.

"Your argument, summarized from your first, post is that the game isn't real life, so even if a hammer would break in real life, it won't in the game because there are no rules to address that situation."

Um...it's more like this:

1) The game isn't real life
2) a hammer would break in real life
3) in real life, a hammer should take damage in all instances where it would take damage
4) this causes the hammer to break
5) The game does not have a viable way of determining when a weapon takes damage
6) Therefore:

a. the DM should make a consistent system to handle ALL weapon breakages or
b. use the DnD rules as presented (Where weapons don't break unless attacked)

I never said the hammer wouldn't break. In fact, I think it would (in the real world).

However, I'm not about to create an entire system of Weapon Hit Points that can be used to adjucate every instance of wear-and-tear on an item.

"Seems to me that logic would dictate one try to find a rule to mirror the reality,"

Give me one instance in DnD where a rule "mirror's reality."

"rather than suggesting that the DM in question is a "frickin' moronic buffoon."

I think kreynolds was using that as an endearing term for "DM who is a Judge, not a Referee."