D&D General Weapons should break left and right

[Basic Expert]

I had a 3E DM that created a campaign where equipment scarcity and attrition was to be a core theme.

He was quickly flustered by the caster and monk-centric party he ended up with.

I don't think weapon breakage adds anything to the game. If you want to 'force' the GWM fighter to use a different weapon, put them in some tiny kobold holes or force them to fight on the side of a cliff or in the middle of a crowded street. Maybe they carry the Fabled Jewel of Xanto in one hand to light their way through the Maze of Madness.

Obviously, players will choose their best weapon whenever you can IF you ignore the context of the situation or have every fight take place in a featureless room.

I'm also pretty liberal with weapon damage resistances and vulnerabilities, especially with larger monsters. I also include ranged attacks and spell damage as options to give mix it up. These are discernible with lore checks, which make players feel smart and proactive, which is always a win.

In my mind, that's where verisimilitude makes for a better game. Sure, the greatsword is fantastic for cutting the heads off a hyrdra, but it's not going crack the shell of an ankheg. Your spear might be the best bet to pierce the dragon's heart.

If you give the player's that information--or at least provide an avenue for them to discover it--you have dynamic play. The players can make their own decision: do I keep using my 'best' weapon or do I switch to something else for this situation? If you force a breakage, the player has no real decision point. It's just arbitrary and punishing. The player either stocks up on their favorite weapon, does everything they can to get an unbreakable magic weapon, or more probably, avoids the sub-system altogether by playing a different class.

 

[Micah Sweet]

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.

Fair enough. I don't mind the bookkeeping in most cases in the service of verisimilitude.

 

[Micah Sweet]

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.

I have no issues with the ideas you're suggesting, it's just a matter of balancing my desire for verisimilitude with the practicality of play. High quality weapons are definitely less likely to take damage and/or break in my game, but it can still happen.

And I don't penalize heavy armor wearers. I like damage reduction.

 

[Micah Sweet]

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.

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.
View attachment 418179

I guess you could do that, but proficiency is proficiency. Maybe fighters have a class feature that reduces the DC when you have to roll for weapon damage.

 

[Micah Sweet]

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.

I've never cared for public games. IME they lack nuance in play, though there are stand-outs from time to time.

 

[Micah Sweet]

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.

A lot of players are resistant to anything that hinders their PCs IME.

 

[Micah Sweet]

I had a 3E DM that created a campaign where equipment scarcity and attrition was to be a core theme.

He was quickly flustered by the caster and monk-centric party he ended up with.

I don't think weapon breakage adds anything to the game. If you want to 'force' the GWM fighter to use a different weapon, put them in some tiny kobold holes or force them to fight on the side of a cliff or in the middle of a crowded street. Maybe they carry the Fabled Jewel of Xanto in one hand to light their way through the Maze of Madness.

Obviously, players will choose their best weapon whenever you can IF you ignore the context of the situation or have every fight take place in a featureless room.

I'm also pretty liberal with weapon damage resistances and vulnerabilities, especially with larger monsters. I also include ranged attacks and spell damage as options to give mix it up. These are discernible with lore checks, which make players feel smart and proactive, which is always a win.

In my mind, that's where verisimilitude makes for a better game. Sure, the greatsword is fantastic for cutting the heads off a hyrdra, but it's not going crack the shell of an ankheg. Your spear might be the best bet to pierce the dragon's heart.

If you give the player's that information--or at least provide an avenue for them to discover it--you have dynamic play. The players can make their own decision: do I keep using my 'best' weapon or do I switch to something else for this situation? If you force a breakage, the player has no real decision point. It's just arbitrary and punishing. The player either stocks up on their favorite weapon, does everything they can to get an unbreakable magic weapon, or more probably, avoids the sub-system altogether by playing a different class.

I think both concepts should be in play: weapon breakage and situation weapon advantage and disadvantage. I use weapon qualities for this.

 

[AlViking]

I've never cared for public games. IME they lack nuance in play, though there are stand-outs from time to time.

I've had a lot of good experiences with public play and a handful of bad ones. I like seeing how other people approach the game and even a mediocre DM can give me insight into what doesn't work well. It was especially nice to go play when I was stuck being a forever DM. I like DMing but I enjoy playing at least now and then as well.

I don't do public games much any more, I prefer home games but my circumstances have changed.

 

[Ulorian - Agent of Chaos]

What? No. I'm not particularly concerned with realism. Or at all, frankly.

(It's also not realistic by any stretch — while weapons are more fragile than fantasy literature would made one believe, and a heirloom sword that was forged a hundred years ago is mostly a pipedrea — they certainly don't break several times per a single fight)

I'm concerned with forcing players into using all the options in the game, and considering counterplay against bad options that one would be unlikely to encounter if everyone is always using their best.

Gotcha. Sorry for putting words in your mouth! I wandered across this thread and noticed a few folks badmouthing your idea before even thinking about what it was they were badmouthing. Honestly, I was not 100% on board with your idea either but I dislike the sort of reactionary 'thoughts' that were getting tossed your way. If you don't like something, great. Maybe take a minute to collect your thoughts so you can treat the person presenting those ideas you don't agree with like a human being though. That kind of behaviour gets up my nose. My bad for doing so by assuming I knew where your ideas were coming from.

 

[AlViking]

A lot of players are resistant to anything that hinders their PCs IME.

There are some players that will be unhappy if they aren't always getting what they want but in my experience it's primarily an issue when it's an issue for some but not others.