D&D General Weapons should break left and right

[AlViking]

Barbarian. It's called Barbarian. You want to play Barbarian.
...

Sometimes I want to play a barbarian sometimes I want to play a champion fighter. I gave my reasons. Why do you want to limit people's options to your preferred build?

 

[Remathilis]

Then they will die. Hoarding resources instead of using them is bad resource management.

The only reason it happens in single-player videogames is because you can bash your head against the brick wall until it breaks. In all other types of games you just lose the game with a lot of resources.

It happens when the player does not assume they will have a steady stream of replacements. If you have a steady source of income, you are willing to spend money on things. If you don't, you hoard your money and only spend on absolute necessity. The same is true in game of magic. If magic (spells, potions and weapons) are both rare and consumable, people will wait until the last second to use them. If they know they can easily get replacements they will use them frequently. Which is why breakage and potion chugging are acceptable in something like Diablo where legendary items can fall out of broken barrels but potion hoarding is common in Souls games.

Taking it back to RPGs, players who know that they can recover a resource (buy more potions or have a steady stream of magic items to acquire) will be more apt to use them. If my +3 holy weapon breaks, I know I'm one boss fight away from getting another weapon of similar power. If that magic weapon is both rare and easily breakable, it's only coming out for life-or-death situations.

 

[Stormonu]

If a simple class is what is required why not Mage that fires energy bolt that fires more often as you level up and gets a bit stronger. Instead of "I attack", you "I blast". That Fighter does not have to always suffer for the um....simple, lazy and new players.

Sooo, a Warlock with Eldritch Blast?

 

[Remathilis]

Then again, I find the micromanaging of resources boring in a TTRPG. Tracking rations, arrows, or potions is the most boring part of RPGs and something video games are far better at than human DMs. That's a me thing though.

 

[TiQuinn]

It happens when the player does not assume they will have a steady stream of replacements. If you have a steady source of income, you are willing to spend money on things. If you don't, you hoard your money and only spend on absolute necessity. The same is true in game of magic. If magic (spells, potions and weapons) are both rare and consumable, people will wait until the last second to use them. If they know they can easily get replacements they will use them frequently. Which is why breakage and potion chugging are acceptable in something like Diablo where legendary items can fall out of broken barrels but potion hoarding is common in Souls games.

Taking it back to RPGs, players who know that they can recover a resource (buy more potions or have a steady stream of magic items to acquire) will be more apt to use them. If my +3 holy weapon breaks, I know I'm one boss fight away from getting another weapon of similar power. If that magic weapon is both rare and easily breakable, it's only coming out for life-or-death situations.

Another reason why I felt the Monty Haul campaign problem was such a logical fallacy. If the game has item breakage and classes who benefit from being able to use a wider variety of weapons than others, you give out magic items. It is the means by which characters differentiate themselves in early D&D, as well as stay viable.

 

[FarBeyondC]

Is there any evidence that reasonably maintained real world weapons broke or wore away to uselessness quickly enough that implementing time/usage based weapon breaking rules even makes sense?

Because initial searches are coming up with weapon 'lifespans' of a couple of years or more, which doesn't sound like they should be breaking left and right to me.

A weapon breaking due to user incompetence/misfortune can be handled via fumble rules or similar mechanics.

A weapon breaking due to enemy action is partly resolved with basic combat mechanics and can be fully resolved by adding to said mechanics.

 

[TiQuinn]

Is there any evidence that reasonably maintained real world weapons broke or wore away to uselessness quickly enough that implementing time/usage based weapon breaking rules even makes sense?

Because initial searches are coming up with weapon 'lifespans' of a couple of years or more, which doesn't sound like they should be breaking left and right to me.

A weapon breaking due to user incompetence/misfortune can be handled via fumble rules or similar mechanics.

A weapon breaking due to enemy action is partly resolved with basic combat mechanics and can be fully resolved by adding to said mechanics.

I would think in the real world, the issue wouldn’t be a sword breaking entirely, but it chipping and getting dull.

 

[Maxperson]

even if BM manoeuvre were incorporated into base fighter, there would still be ways to play a big dumb fighter wouldn't there? nothing stops you from functionally just taking precision attack and using nothing but that one manoeuvre when you miss a big hit.

Simply having to go through all of the maneuvers to pick the one I want to spam is more choice than a lot of people want to make. Just let the base fighter be simple and pick BM if you want yours to be more complex.

 

[Cordwainer Fish]

I would think in the real world, the issue wouldn’t be a sword breaking entirely, but it chipping and getting dull.

"May thy knife chip and shatter!"

 

[Maxperson]

As I've said many times, lasting injury should IMO be a thing in D&D-like games. However, I feel it works best as a possible consequence of falling to zero hp.

I've seen this attempted numerous times over the decades, including by myself a few times during 1e. In all that time and in all those attempts, only 0 were effective at implementing it in a way that made the game more fun, or even the same amount of fun.