D&D General Weapons should break left and right

[CreamCloud0]

No, I meant the OP's suggestion.

i don't think the tortoise would want their weapons to break either.

 

[Maxperson]

i don't think the tortoise would want their weapons to break either.

Better the weapons than the armor!

 

[Lanefan]

Simple enough in D&D, just have weapons always break on a fumble/crit fail. Like, every, single, time. Fumble? Weapon breaks. Also house rule in some armor damage rules so armor is also something that needs to be replaced on the regular.

One of the more common results on our fumble tables is "weapon breaks". If it's a magic weapon, it gets a save to not break. If the weapon is part of the wielder e.g. a creature's claws or a Monk's fist then it just hurts itself.

Good point about armour damage, though. Use in combat should have a very small but not zero chance to damage armour; maybe I should incorporate that into the fumble tables somehow (though how to account for unarmoured creatures or combatants could be a headache as the nice simple fallback "it hurts itself" doesn't really apply).

 

[Staffan]

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 big difference is that shield damage in Pathfinder 2 is opt-in. You can go your whole adventuring career with the same heavy wooden shield you started the game with if you like, and unless someone specifically targets it it'll never take a single hp of damage unless you decide it does.

In PF2, there are two relevant mechanics for shields. One is the Raise Shield action. This takes one of your three actions for the round and gives you the shield's bonus (usually +2) to AC, and anyone can do this. The other is the Shield Block reaction. This is usually only available to martial character types, but you can get it with a level 3 general feat. This lets you, if you have a raised shield, block an attack that hits you. This reduces the damage by the shield's Hardness: 3 for a mundane wooden shield, 5 for a mundane metal shield, and potentially more if you have a shield made from special materials or enchanted to be sturdy. But if you do, the remaining damage after Hardness is taken both by you personally and by your shield. So it's generally something you want to use on weaker attacks that won't turn your shield to kindling.

 

[Maxperson]

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

I see people asking to bring back things like segments and spell loss if interrupted while casting.

 

[Maxperson]

And of course there's verisimilitude to consider. Things get damaged and break sometimes (especially if they're not maintained properly), and they can be repaired. Why shouldn't that happen in the game? And who says that wouldn't be fun to experience? For me stuff like increases my immersion and as a martial lets me show off my versatility.

The main problem I see isn't breakage itself. It's that the OP thinks it should happen a couple of time per encounter. That's way too often in my opinion.

 

[Maxperson]

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.

I think it's probably better to have weapon vs. armor type differences or just give weapons different bonuses/penalties in different situations to encourage switching, than to have weapons forged by the Three Stooges. Weapons just don't break that often.

 

[Flying Toaster]

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.

Some DMs have their own spell fumble systems, but it is hard to generalize about those since they are home brew.

Some OSR games feature elaborate and crippling spell fumble systems as an actual selling point. IIRC every spell cast in Shadowdark is a gamble, so casters can temporarily lose access to a spell on a bad roll, but at least they also have a chance to win the gamble and get free casting for a while. It sounds like this makes spellcasting very swingy and unreliable, just like the OP’s constant weapon breakage for warriors.

From what I have read DCC has such a punishing spell fumble system that every wizard eventually ends up as some kind of cursed mutant, which seems to be part and parcel of DCC’s whole vibe of gonzo horror and general misery. Not my idea of fun, but that is why we don’t all play the same games.

 

[Not a Decepticon]

I think everyone who played any vudeo game with breakable weapons disagrees. There is nothing about dnd and fantasy that is evoked by image of heroes dragging chart of weapons behind or keeping best weapons for "special occasion" that never comes

 

[Jacob Lewis]

I'm just waiting for the flood of players to rush in here with a deep sigh of relief, finally able to say how much they've wished that their weapons and armor would break every session.