D&D General Weapons should break left and right

[Hussar]

The problem is, what do you do with magic weapons? After all, a major element of a martial character is the magical lumpy metal thing he's picked up. If that Holy Avenger is going to break after a dozen attacks or so, then, well, I'm thinking that the players might be a tad pissed off.

 

[DrJawaPhD]

But what if players were forced to constantly use whatever they have lying around? Taking weapons from the enemy? What if their weapons broke a couple times per encounter?

Spellcasters are always more powerful than martials in DnD, but this idea would really drive home the idea and make sure people only play Spellcasters. Not really a goal I'd aim for but it's one that could be done I suppose

 

[bloodtide]

But what if players were forced to constantly use whatever they have lying around? Taking weapons from the enemy? What if their weapons broke a couple times per encounter? Now, GWM becomes a much more situational perk: yeah, it's busted strong when you wrench a greatsword from draugr's hands! (and also not waste it on bad targets). Not super useful otherwise.

It's also really cool and cinematic and whatnot.

This is common in Old School games, OSR games and older editions of D&D. The idea of nearly constantly loosing weapons , armor and equipment....and consonantly having to find weapons, armor and equipment was very common.

3E D&D really cemented the idea of "perfect characters" that are at 100% nearly all the time. Even more so with the "Christmas Tree" load of magic items.

 

[Amphytrion]

I say turn it from a punishment into a reward.

When a character rolls a 1 on a Weapon Attack or Spell Attack, they can choose to break their weapon or spell focus and reroll. If they hit, it counts as a critical hit.

I really like this idea. I think I might do guaranteed regular hit instead of a reroll+critical, but the idea is great.

 

[TheAlkaizer]

It guarantees you can never enjoy a favorite weapon, because using it destroys it.

By a favorite people, do you mean whatever weapon players pick at character creation and then proceed to never stop using until they find a magic weapon? Because I never had a game where that weapon was interesting or "favorite" in any way.

Narratively, it works against any story based around a weapon that has any kind of significance, from legendary weapons to family heirlooms, and everything in between.

Legendary weapons and magic weapons can have the perk of not breaking. Heirlooms can be repaired before breaking. Actually, it can make being able to maintain or repair weapon an interesting and useful skill.

And weapon specialization of any kind is nerfed, as the fighter is now punished any time he fights enemies who don't drop his preferred weapon when killed.

That's a feature, not a nerf. Weapon specialization might be the most uninteresting feature ever. You chose sword, you get bonus, hence you'll never stop using that sword you picked. And then the DM gives you a magic axe and you're pissed. Having sudden moments where you have to reach for a weapon lying on the ground is an awesome narrative moment.

I do agree that I prefer systems that avoid some of the bookkeeping.

 

[Ulorian - Agent of Chaos]

Are you a card carrying member of the Spellcasters Supremacy Society? There is already a wide enough gap between casters and martials without reducing their one glimmer of hope.

This doesn't mean that this is a bad idea. It's just a bad idea when implemented in a system where spellcasters have an existing advantage.

Not sure I love this concept, but it is something to contemplate in a greenfields game system.

 

[Deset Gled]

By a favorite people, do you mean whatever weapon players pick at character creation and then proceed to never stop using until they find a magic weapon? Because I never had a game where that weapon was interesting or "favorite" in any way.
..
That's a feature, not a nerf. Weapon specialization might be the most uninteresting feature ever. You chose sword, you get bonus, hence you'll never stop using that sword you picked. And then the DM gives you a magic axe and you're pissed. Having sudden moments where you have to reach for a weapon lying on the ground is an awesome narrative moment.

The problem is, though, that switching up weapons or doing things like reaching for a dropped weapon at a narrative moment is still just as viable in a system without constant weapon breaking. But a weapon breaking system either prevents or punishes a character for having their own preferences. In this way, a weapon breakage system is actively limiting character choices and preventing certain playstyles. Even if they happen to be choices you don't personally prefer, the net effect is removing options and versatility from the game, not adding to it.

Legendary weapons and magic weapons can have the perk of not breaking. Heirlooms can be repaired before breaking. Actually, it can make being able to maintain or repair weapon an interesting and useful skill.

This effectively guarantees that a warrior will never use another weapon once he finds one that doesn't break. The net effect is the exact opposite of your anti-specialization stance above. And, again, is limiting player options.

 

[Mecheon]

So I'm just going to put this down simply

But what if players were forced to constantly use whatever they have lying around? Taking weapons from the enemy? What if their weapons broke a couple times per encounter? Now, GWM becomes a much more situational perk: yeah, it's busted strong when you wrench a greatsword from draugr's hands! (and also not waste it on bad targets). Not super useful otherwise.

Sounds miserable and makes the fighter out to be weak and bad at their class. Also ruining people's whole reason for the build of "I want to be good at my One Thing", instead you're denying them the change to have their one thing they're good at and just making them mediocre at everything.

Are you going to make it so the wizard's spellbook explodes if they roll a one on damage? Huh, weird how its only the fighters getting screwed over, huh? Plus, well, a heart surgeon who fails 1/20 surgeries isn't one we think is good at their job

This is common in Old School games, OSR games and older editions of D&D. The idea of nearly constantly loosing weapons , armor and equipment....and consonantly having to find weapons, armor and equipment was very common.

3E D&D really cemented the idea of "perfect characters" that are at 100% nearly all the time. Even more so with the "Christmas Tree" load of magic items.

What old editions are you playing? Weapon durability isn't a thing in any of editions I know of, and while I don't follow the OSR that closely I'm not aware of it being in most of the mainstream ones there either. You'd lose weapons due to stuff like rust monsters or the rare creatures with weapon destruction effects, but that was very specific to those limited creatures and not a widespread thing

That's a feature, not a nerf. Weapon specialization might be the most uninteresting feature ever. You chose sword, you get bonus, hence you'll never stop using that sword you picked. And then the DM gives you a magic axe and you're pissed. Having sudden moments where you have to reach for a weapon lying on the ground is an awesome narrative moment.

I do agree that I prefer systems that avoid some of the bookkeeping.

No, its a nerf. Its not an interesting feature but when you're up against the swiss army knife spellcasters who can shut down multiple opponents at once. Your magical axe argument happens exactly the same in this world except now its 'oh great my one axe broke and we're down fighting the Kurokama Clan who only use katanas, I am useless for this entire series of encounters until we get enemies that drop something I can use competently, I may as well just afk on my phone for the next 3 hours because I cannot contribute meaningfully to the game'

A far easier way to get people to reach for other weapons is giving weapons individual features and not just the same nigh-identical stat sticks. If a trident handles stuff in water better but a guisarme can use its hook to have an increased chance of tripping, you've got reasons to switch up what you're using right there rather than sticking to just the one weapon

 

[GreyLord]

Look Ma!

I just got that +4 Legendary Sword I've heard about in Legends. I bear the fabled Brecker Sword itself! Wielded by the fabled Grimwulf, handed down to his son the fabled Garnswammer who slew the two headed Demi Deity in his epic battle against the Hordes of Darkness. Retrieved from his body by Dwimmerdorn who used it to slay the Gargantuan Dragon Wintersmite as it bore great vengeance on the land. Now...it is mine. What legends shall I do with this weapon of legend!

Look, some foolish Orcs have come to try to stop us from leaving this warren.

And...ah...what a terrible...wha...wha...wait. The Brecker Sword is no more...it just shattered on my first attack! This sword that has lasted for centuries in legend is gone within seconds of my first use....

How can this be???!!

 

[EzekielRaiden]

But what if players were forced to constantly use whatever they have lying around? Taking weapons from the enemy? What if their weapons broke a couple times per encounter? Now, GWM becomes a much more situational perk: yeah, it's busted strong when you wrench a greatsword from draugr's hands! (and also not waste it on bad targets). Not super useful otherwise.

It's also really cool and cinematic and whatnot.

Really cool and cinematic...for some people.

For me, I very much prefer signature weapons that the user develops a bond with, and then grow its abilities through effort, or magic, or augmentation, or training, or exposure to dangerous things, or...etc.

Having my weapon break all the time gets extremely tedious. It's the game telling me "no, your fun is bad and wrong and stupid, you don't get to have that fun anymore, you have to find other fun, which you probably won't find for several weeks at best". It's one of the reasons why, despite video game designers constantly trying to shoehorn in "durability" mechanics, video game players almost always remove that s#!t whenever they can. Because it's tedious and annoying, for a lot of people.

It is--trivially obviously--not tedious and annoying for a different set of people. That might make it worthwhile to explore as an opt-in mechanic for gamers looking for that kind of experience. If it were done so, it should get just as much playtesting as any other major mechanic, so that it should reliably work well in the majority of situations that groups come across.

But making it something everyone has to deal with, all the time? Yeah, that's what leads to what @GreyLord just said.