D&D General Weapons should break left and right

[Micah Sweet]

Ok? I know you love Level Up, but I'm not even playing that. Or are you suggesting that the problem wouldn't exist if I switched systems? I technically did, since I'm playing ToV right now, but if it actually bothered me, I'd have house ruled against it, but I didn't see the point. We'd been tracking rations for months, then a black dragon spoiled their food with a lair action, they solved the problem with magic and took precautions so that would never happen again. It just didn't feel like the juice was worth the squeeze at that point, and it's less bookkeeping on my part.

Ok. I guess I'm saying I'd rather do a little more bookkeeping than just use an easy magic fix to avoid stuff like this, and I'm glad A5e doesn't allow this particular thing.

 

[Edgar Ironpelt]

Cool. What if it happened in stages? Like, the item becomes damaged (with a small penalty), then broken if damaged again before repairs are made?

I find tracking damage taken by weapons (or other pieces of equipment) to be a huge pain in the ass. So I normally handwave any partial damage away; weapons are either whole or broken, with breaking a weapon normally requiring a deliberate effort.

 

[AlViking]

Again, the realism applies to the caster and how they generate the spell effects, not to the fact that magic exists. And even that can be verisimilitudinous in the setting, because verisimilitude just means consistency within the setting.

If the high quality weapons characters are assumed to have never break that is also consistent within the setting.

If you want to add this kind of penalty, that's fine. I just think if we're talking about penalties, there should be ideas for similar penalties for all builds because far too often all the penalties pile on the heavy armor melee fighter and never affect anyone else. Characters using a bow? Roll a one and you automatically hit that melee fighter by mistake. Going to a ball hosted by the noble you suspect of being a vampire? Spellcasters and monks aren't affected at all. Meanwhile the fighter has a 9 AC and resorting to punching people for 5 points of damage. The clerics may have a bad AC but they still have all their spells and abilities. On a ship? Fighter is practically guaranteed to go overboard at some point and sink like a rock*. Good luck trying to cut off and losing that armor before you drown! Meanwhile the caster that's carrying 95% of their capacity swims just fine on the rare occasion they end up in the water at all.

I wouldn't point all of this out except I've seen it time and again over the years.

*I've seen the fighter or paladin end up in the water more than once. For some odd reason the cleric with similarly heavy armor never goes overboard.

 

[Edgar Ironpelt]

I wouldn't point all of this out except I've seen it time and again over the years.

*I've seen the fighter or paladin end up in the water more than once. For some odd reason the cleric with similarly heavy armor never goes overboard.

I guess mileage varies. I've seen enough examples of elaborate and crippling spell-fumble systems over the years to disabuse me of the notion that DMs as a group are particularly inclined to screw over martials while giving other character types a pass.

Not that I'm at all fond of any rule that turns any given character type into a cosmic chew-toy.

 

[aco175]

I

Ah verisimilitude, when you get tired beating martials with realism use verisimilitude as the excuse. Its funny how casters always avoid these beatings.

Maybe casters should lose spells if they fail at casting them. Roll a 1 when attacking with fire bolt- gone until you relearn it. While we are at it, fail a save by 5 or more against fireball- all your gear and hair burns off leaving you in a loincloth. Fail a second time then lower your Charisma by one each time as you hear the terrible screams of children mocking you whenever you walk through town. A duel 'to the pain' if you like.

Where has anybody in this thread posited that this concept should only apply to martials?

Casters should have their weapons break at a higher rate then martials. This might show they are poor fighters and should stick with spells. Heck, even if they attack with a staff of lightning it might blow up killing them.

Double the double for characters who multiclass or take a caster subclass as a martial. That's cheating anyways.

 

[AlViking]

I guess mileage varies. I've seen enough examples of elaborate and crippling spell-fumble systems over the years to disabuse me of the notion that DMs as a group are particularly inclined to screw over martials while giving other character types a pass.

Not that I'm at all fond of any rule that turns any given character type into a cosmic chew-toy.

I guess that's simply something (rules penalties for casters) I've never seen. Then again a lot, but not all, of what I've seen has been with public games where the DMs are supposed to follow official rules. They can still add "flavor" and some people seem to really hate characters in heavy armor for reasons I simply don't understand.

 

[loverdrive]

Yeah, let's take a brake on casters.

I'm going to presume that if one would adopt such approach, casters would get something similarly limiting -- and you are welcome with good faith ideas.

I'm also similarly going to presume that weapons are actually notably different from each other, and aren't just different damage, be it because of further homebrew or some new rules (I've heard there are more properties on weapons? Like blunt weapons stun people, axes pull shields and whatnot?)

 

[cranberry]

There are rules in PF for shield damage which is used quite often. Damage to weapons and armor is only supposed to occur if they are specifically targeted.

I asked my group if they wanted me to integrate that rule, and only 1 person out of 5 was ok with it.

While it may be realistic, it's just not a popular rule.

As always, your mileage may vary.

 

[loverdrive]

There are rules in PF for shield damage which is used quite often. Damage to weapons and armor is only supposed to occur if they are specifically targeted.

I asked my group if they wanted me to integrate that rule, and only 1 person out of 5 was ok with it.

While it may be realistic, it's just not a popular rule.

Some things that sound bad are actually good. Game design is very hard to evaluate theoretically.

And, again, it's not a question of realism, it's a question of diversity. "Each combat encounter is different and must be approached differently because weapon availability constantly changes" is, in itself, a good outcome.

 

[TiQuinn]

Some things that sound bad are actually good.

If people don’t want to play it, .

I think it’s great that @cranberry posed it to their group as an idea though.