D&D General Weapons should break left and right

[Not a Decepticon]

Okay, but the breakage that the OP brought up has nothing to do with any of those things.

But it is because a well-maintained weapon will last much longer, and in this case enforcing weapons breaking left and right just makes the PC look incompetent.

 

[Maxperson]

They're not happy. Pretty much everyone I ever talked about who wants more compelx fighter absolutely despises that the only way to get it is to sacrifice the subclass and never feeling like they're playing a full class.

Then pick a different class. They aren't entitled to have every single class be complex so that they get what they want no matter what class they choose.

We don't need two classes that fill a niche of being simple and dumb. You can reflavor barbarian for free, say they aren't Raging but enter "the zone" and focus on combat and you're good. Fighter can be something interesting now.

Reflavoring isn't the answer. They aren't entitled to have every single class fit their wants and desires. Those who want simple are entitled a class or two.

Because your preferences block one of classes from actually being fun and interesting for the sake of something another class does better.

First, it's not my preference. I've simply played with a lot of people who have it. Second, yes their preferences do get to block one of the classes like that. Or put another way, your preferences don't get to block twelve classes from being fun for those who want simple.

Edit: Missed this.

If we deleted Fighter and replaced it with antoher name, say, a Knight, would you still be makign that demands?

All this accomplishes is creating threads where people want the Knight to be complex.

In the end, you just have to suck it up and let the folks who want simple have a class or two.

 

[Not a Decepticon]

Sure, because breaking multiple weapons in a single fight and going into battle with a broom, breaking it in half over orc's head and jamming the pointy end into another's chest is sooo realistic. Indeed. It's absolutely historical, I've seen multiple treatises on that.

But do you realize your own hypotethical makes the game look like a comedy of errors and festival of incompetence, more in place in a parody of fantasy than a D&D game?

 

[loverdrive]

But it is because a well-maintained weapon will last much longer, and in this case enforcing weapons breaking left and right just makes the PC look incompetent.

Or epic, mythical and heroic enough that no implement of war forged by a mortal hand can withstand the intensity of the fighting.

 

[Maxperson]

I don't know...talk on this thread seems to indicate otherwise.

This thread doesn't indicate anything. We here on EN aren't representative.

 

[Maxperson]

But it is because a well-maintained weapon will last much longer, and in this case enforcing weapons breaking left and right just makes the PC look incompetent.

It's not, because realism isn't a part of it. What you say is true, if this is about realism. The OP's suggestion is explicitly not about that. Any attempt to make it about realism is a Strawman of the OPs argument.

 

[Not a Decepticon]

Then pick a different class. They aren't entitled to have every single class be complex so that they get what they want no matter what class they choose.

Reflavoring isn't the answer. They aren't entitled to have every single class fit their wants and desires. Those who want simple are entitled a class or two.

First, it's not my preference. I've simply played with a lot of people who have it. Second, yes their preferences do get to block one of the classes like that. Or put another way, your preferences don't get to block twelve classes from being fun for those who want simple.

Edit: Missed this.



All this accomplishes is creating threads where people want the Knight to be complex.

First of all, I know it is not your preference, that part was replying to another user, so I don't get why you took it personally.

Second, Rogue is very simple. And so is Barbarian. And Monk. And Warlock. Paladin too. I think fans of simple classes will do with Fighter actually being good.

Third, and this will be controversial...maneuvers are simple and Fighter could use them in base class and stil lbe simple.

Or epic, mythical and heroic enough that no implement of war forged by a mortal hand can withstand the intensity of the fighting.

Sorry but if, durign the final battle agaisnt an epic enemy, the hero breaks more than one of their legendary weapons, or if they're breakign weapons every fight, I am expecting a laugh track and the hero in question to be played by Leslie Nielsen.

It's not, because realism isn't a part of it. What you say is true, if this is about realism. The OP's suggestion is explicitly not about that. Any attempt to make it about realism is a Strawman of the OPs argument.

There is no point to breakign weapons other than realism. It's not epic if it happens constantly and not as an exception, it makes game worse, less fun and more boring bookkeeping. If this isn't about realism then there is literally ZERO reason to have this.

 

[Remathilis]

But do you realize your own hypotethical makes the game look like a comedy of errors and festival of incompetence, more in place in a parody of fantasy than a D&D game?

I'm pretty sure that was a Jackie Chan routine.

 

[Jefe Bergenstein]

A greatsword would be considered a bulky item in some systems so, yeah, encumbrance absolutely could come into play. And if you add the spell focus thing or the possibility of spell failure that might be considered more fair, right?

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.

If a master swordsman breaks their blade 3 times as often as a novice, that ain't V-tude.

 

[Paul Farquhar]

Isn’t this a matter of materials technology? An obsidian toothed sword does vicious cuts on unarmored and lightly armored targets. The teeth shatter when a “hard” armor is struck.

If you don’t have the technology to make a durable sword, then you don’t make swords.

Obsidian swords are perfectly durable in a society without metal armour.

You could do stuff with different technology levels trumping each other.