D&D General Weapons should break left and right

[Remathilis]

Completely random gear works great in video games because of a technique we call farming. As in "keep fighting the same mobs or bosses until they drop what your looking for." Now how many DMs are going to let PCs wander in a small area farming respawning orcs/trolls/whatever to keep getting shots at the random item table to get a magic weapon they can use? Anyone?

 

[Gimby]

If that was true, I'd likely not have any real problems. But, the second I allow magic items to be bought, interesting goes straight out the window in favor of practicality. In all the years since 3e when you could build or buy magic items, on forward, not one single time have I seen a player buy magic items that weren't primarily just practical and almost always just flat pluses - either to hit, damage, AC, saves or stats. 99% of the magic items in the DMG might as well not even exist as far as any player I've ever seen is concerned.

I wonder a bit if there's also an aesthetic component to this - basic stat boosting items will fit with basically every player's vision of their character but something like the headless helmet might not fit with some player's vision of their character. Even something as fairly simple as a Broom of Flying might not fit the image a player has of their character (consider a typical heavily armoured paladin - such a character balanced on a broom might well be a comedic scene in genre fiction.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Completely random gear works great in video games because of a technique we call farming. As in "keep fighting the same mobs or bosses until they drop what your looking for." Now how many DMs are going to let PCs wander in a small area farming respawning orcs/trolls/whatever to keep getting shots at the random item table to get a magic weapon they can use? Anyone?

"Works" in what sense? Obviously it depends on your goals. If your goal to allow for anyone that could be available, weighted by in-setting rarity, random generation works just fine.

 

[Staffan]

Ultima Online had something similar, but when you repaired an item the max durability decreased and at some point, the item would break and couldn't be fixed.

I have a vague recollection of a similar mechanic being present in original Diablo. Something along the lines of being able to mend items yourself in a dungeon at a cost of permanent durability, or having the blacksmith do it in town at the cost of money.

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

If you want players to switch weapons more, it might be a good idea to give weapons benefits against particular type of enemies. Some inspirasation:

In D&D 3E, weapons dealt slashing, piercing or bludgeoning damage. This was mostly irrelevant except against a few enemies, but you could easily expand this.

In Witcher, Silver swords are more effective against monsters (I don't think they are less effective against humans, but some monsters have a weakness to silver, and a silvered weapon is more likely to break, so carrying a steel sword is useful.) This of course is only two damage types.

Ghost of Yotei (?) has a mechanic about using "matching" weapons - that doesn't mean using the same weapon as the enemy, but depending on the weapon the enemy uses, you should choose its match.
Katana : Good vs Sword/Katana users
Dual Katans: Good vs Polearms and Spears
Yari: Good vs Sickles (Kusarigama, Dual Kama)
Kusarigama: Shielded Enemies
Odachi: Brutes (heavily armored enemies)
In D&D terms, this might be something like advantage or maybe just a +1 bonus to attack rolls


The German RPG Hexxen has some weapons more effective at parrying than others, and you're actually expected to switch your weapons during combat (it can be done without costing actions. Axes and Polearms tend to deal more damage, but Fencing weapons can get special abilities that make them good against minions (basically an auto-kill if you hit), and IIRC can attack more often. Guns can be used to, but they can't be fired into melee (or while in melee?).

 

[LordBP]

I have a vague recollection of a similar mechanic being present in original Diablo. Something along the lines of being able to mend items yourself in a dungeon at a cost of permanent durability, or having the blacksmith do it in town at the cost of money.

Yep, if you repaired yourself, then the max durability went down, but the smith would keep it at max durability while repairing it.

I think UO, it was anything that was repaired had a decrease in the max durability of the item.

 

[W'rkncacnter]

what?

he said a swear and it didn't get censored. a mod might've censored it manually by now though.

 

[W'rkncacnter]

But, it's all part of the Harry Potterification of D&D. More magic all the time. Never ending deluge of incredibly boring stuff that doesn't make any difference. That's the point. If the party ups their damage output, the DM will just adjust encounters to suit. Woohoo, bigger numbers. Do not care in the slightest.

I mean, I gave a helmet to the party that lets you pull off your own head and fly around, headless horseman style while breathing burning hands spells. To me? That's a MAGIC item. A magic sword that just does more damage? I'd rather just write +5 damage on your character sheet and not have to worry about it. You want to do more damage? Great. Ok. Here's +5 damage on your attacks. Anything else you would like?

yeah personally i think basic buffs like that should just be part of character progression (like pf2e's automatic bonus progression rule) so that actual magic items can do interesting stuff. if you want you could still give magic items +1 bonuses and such on top of that which can be used in case of that progression bonus if you want the possibility of lower level parties getting those bonuses earlier, but it being the main draw is pretty boring, especially in a game where players are expected to get them (e.g. 3.x, 4e, pathfinder)

 

[James Gasik]

yeah personally i think basic buffs like that should just be part of character progression (like pf2e's automatic bonus progression rule) so that actual magic items can do interesting stuff. if you want you could still give magic items +1 bonuses and such on top of that which can be used in case of that progression bonus if you want the possibility of lower level parties getting those bonuses earlier, but it being the main draw is pretty boring, especially in a game where players are expected to get them (e.g. 3.x, 4e, pathfinder)

This. I mean, if you, as a designer, decide "character of level X needs Y attack bonus"* then just give that to them. Don't introduce the possibility that someone could end up struggling because they didn't get the +2 weapon at whatever level. Magic items are one of the coolest things about D&D, but ever since the very beginning, a powerful item or lack of one at a given level of play has always been problematic.

3rd level character with +3 plate? Problem. 17th level character whose most powerful item is a Bag of Tricks? Potential problem.

So many cool magic items get dumped by the wayside because either A) players won't go out of their way to buy them or B) they literally cannot do so (this includes not just opportunity, but things like attunement slots, which make total sense for things that boost combat effectiveness or turn a pillar of play inside out, but a lot less so for a vehicle that moves slower than walking speed).**

*I realize that there are some things that a designer can't account for, like a player deciding "a 12 Strength gives me a bonus, that should be good enough for me to swing a sword" (let alone ruthless optimizers), but it's a lot of work to put on the DM to figure out when/why/how players get magic items without imbalancing their game.

**there's also C), something I ran into recently. The Fighter in my game has a +2 magic weapon, which isn't really an issue because he so rarely misses it's really just a couple extra points of damage. But when they found a powerful magic weapon, the Mindsword, that granted resistance to psychic, could be summoned to hand like an Eldritch Knight's bonded weapon and inflicted 7 additional psychic damage on a hit (14 on a crit), the Fighter decided it wasn't worth it because "it doesn't have a bonus to hit"! (?!)

 

[GrimCo]

the Mindsword, that granted resistance to psychic, could be summoned to hand like an Eldritch Knight's bonded weapon and inflicted 7 additional psychic damage on a hit (14 on a crit), the Fighter decided it wasn't worth it because "it doesn't have a bonus to hit"! (?!)

While item is cool, from practical side, it does 5 more damage. Bonus to hit is better in long run since +2 gives you 10% more chance. It's trade off, but some people value more smaller damage that's more reliable than higher damage with less chance to land. Resistance to psychic sounds cool, but in reality, it's among rarest types of damage in the game. Now, if it gave resistance to all physical damage (BPS) or if you are in campaign fighting mindflayers, that would be another story.