Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.
Rocket your D&D 5E and Level Up: Advanced 5E games into space! Alpha Star Magazine Is Launching... Right Now!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Henry" data-source="post: 5254262" data-attributes="member: 158">Quite frankly, I like it, for a number of reasons:1) It encourages players to carry at least two non-metal weapons if they are nonmagical - who WOULDN't want a free attack re-roll for the cost of a couple pounds of carry capacity and a few measly ceramic coins? In fact, some people might forego magic weapon acquisition entirely just to have a half-dozen weapons on his person Mad-Max-Style instead.2) In the case of magical weaponry, it keeps you from losing that +1 bone battle axe carved from a rare fire-breathing mekillot you just quested for three sessions to get, because you rolled crappy on your dice. You just pay for it by not getting the re-roll.3) In the old rules, you were going to see a weapon break on average every 120 to 200 ATTACKS or so, given the math. (roll max on damage, then 1 on a d20?) You might not see one break for five or six sessions or more. On the other hand, if it can break on every 20th attack roll someone makes, and it's in the hands of the roller, then you're actually more likely, not less, to see one break. I just think it underestimates the value of rerolling to think a player wouldn't ever choose it.4) The presumption is going to be that magic weapons are going to be kind of rare. Your first "magic" weapon  is probably going to be a metal weapon instead of the stone or bone ones you've been carrying around until then. That metal weapon will even have a chance to NOT break even if you take the re-roll (1 in 4 chance, if I recally from DDXP rumors?)In summary, I think it's a good thing to leave an effect that tempting in the hands of the players, because they are more likely to take you up on it than just assigning some rate of random failure.</blockquote>

Verification