Break my game: Indestructible sword at level 1

[Relique du Madde]

Indestructable sword + foot powered mobile spindle (on a push cart) = instant drill of death or npc mincer!

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

Yep- the advantage of flexibility vs the hidden flaw of brittleness.

 

[Votan]

I've seen people bend swords or break bats over their thighs, rendering them useless...but I've never seen a MMA fighter even come close to doing that to a human.

I have no doubt. But the idea that the weapon is the easy target seems to be belied by the logistics of medieval warfare and the normal result of duels. There were well understood exceptions (the vikings and shields, for example) but the classic duelist did not break weapons. Just powering through an opponent's katana (but leaving them fundamentally unharmed) seems like a rare event.

Or is there a resource on dueling that I am overlooking?

In terms of MMA, people would be much more badly injured if real (sharp, metal and properly smithed) swords were allowed in the octagon.

Conversely, disarming seems to be a common outcome of duels (and taking full control of the weapon might allow breakage). So it was always odd to me that sundering might end up more common than a simple disarm attempt.

 

[Relique du Madde]

Outside of movies, I don't think sundering weapons was a viable military tactic (beyond an attempt to destroy a polearm). Now, I could see the occasional weapon being sundered as a result of someone trying to parry an attack and having their weapon snap, but outside of that, I doubt it often happened intentionally.

 

[Aberzanzorax]

I dunno....

There are real life weapons called "sword breakers". I suspect those broke their fair share of weapons in the day.


In what context, and how successfully, I don't know.

 

[MarkB]

The campaign is going to be against people who'll be destroying whatever they can get their hands on. The sword belonged to them. Something they can't destroy in the hands of their opponents is an ideological threat to them.

Can't they just grab the sword, tuck it away where it can't be found, and claim they've destroyed it?

Or is the sword a symbol to others, not just to them - a rallying point for those opposed to this faction?

And, given that there's a powerful group dedicated to destroying weapons, how hard is it going to be for the rest of the party to obtain and keep weapons?

 

[jonesy]

Can't they just grab the sword, tuck it away where it can't be found, and claim they've destroyed it?

They who? The bad guys? No, because that wouldn't accomplish anything. They are the ones who care whether others are armed. They are the ones who care that someone else has taken the sword. They intend to use it themselves, as they think they are destined to.

Or is the sword a symbol to others, not just to them - a rallying point for those opposed to this faction?

It might become something like that.

And, given that there's a powerful group dedicated to destroying weapons, how hard is it going to be for the rest of the party to obtain and keep weapons?

Not destroying. Controlling. But what they feel they can't control they'll destroy.

And how that affects the party depends largely on what the party will be composed of. They are undecided as of yet.

 

[WHW4]

Except that possession of the sword in that case will make the wizard a primary target of this campaign main bad guys. He might refuse to buy it, and just set them after the PC's.

Well, someone will buy it. A simple demonstration should be enough for some noble somewhere to be willing to throw down gold for it. And note I said benevolent wizard; I wouldn't be trying to peddle this thing to some self-serving miser in a lonely tower of power. Without knowing all the niggling details of your campaign world that's as much as I could say on that.

If the party hasn't decided what they're going to be, then I guess alignments are open? Maybe one of the bad guys will buy it?

I'm just trying to convey the fact that as a player, I've never had a love for MaGuffins that make me a target. If all else failed I'd chuck the thing into the ocean. I don't know what type of players you have, but I'd prepare myself for that course of action.

 

[jonesy]

If the party hasn't decided what they're going to be, then I guess alignments are open? Maybe one of the bad guys will buy it?

That's an angle I actually hadn't considered. Yes, I suppose they might.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

I have no doubt. But the idea that the weapon is the easy target seems to be belied by the logistics of medieval warfare and the normal result of duels. There were well understood exceptions (the vikings and shields, for example) but the classic duelist did not break weapons. Just powering through an opponent's katana (but leaving them fundamentally unharmed) seems like a rare event.

It is a rare event, at least in part because so few people would be trained in doing so quickly and efficiently. Easier to kill or disarm.

But if you know what you're doing...

D&D streamlines this- like all other aspects of combat- and makes this into a 2 Feat technique. This makes it more viable...and potentially more common.

As to the ease of sundering- presumably in reference to items' paucity of HP as compared to living things- I look at it this way: a sword has a LOT less mass and volume compared to even a small person, so it takes proportionately less damage to reduce it to uselessness. Sure, it may take about as much force to break my arm as it does to break a sword, but I have another arm, 2 legs and my mind...