D&D General Weapons should break left and right

[CleverNickName]

Easily reflected by the creature taking damage when "weapon breaks" would otherwise be the case.

If the game had specific-location damage rules then that damage would go to the paw or mouth etc. as appropriate; but those rules don't exist and so generic damage is all we're left with.

One time during a particularly nasty battle, when half the party was unconscious and the battle could swing either way, I rolled a critical hit against the party's paladin. And worse still, I rolled almost maximum damage for the crit! The paladin only had a handful of hit points left, so this would drop him...and with only one member of the party left standing, the party was about to end up captured or worse.

So I offered the player a choice: the paladin could take the extra crit damage per the rules, and hope that the rogue could pull out a victory alone...or he could sacrifice an attuned magic item of his choice, take regular damage instead, and live to fight one more round. The player chose to sacrifice his Sentinel Shield.

He managed to stay standing for two more rounds, thanks to some lucky rolls and the Dodge action. This bought the party enough time for the rogue to feed a potion to the downed cleric, who would then cast Mass Cure Wounds and turn the tide of battle. The shattered shield ended up on the wall of their favorite tavern, still splattered with blood.

I don't do this for every battle or every critical hit, and never so frequently that the players learn to count on it. It's just something I do every now and then for the sake of drama. When used sparingly, it can make for a really cool story.

 

[Staffan]

I think you have to retreat from "the melee," Which would be both creatures. You aren't specifically retreating from a creature

So this is perfectly reasonable?

What seems more reasonable is that once you're close enough to fight, you're locked in "the melee" with that creature, and for an outside observer it basically looks like this:

If you want to leave that melee, your only options are Retreat or Withdraw. You can't just move away into a different melee. So this would not be valid, because once you're in contact with the goblin you're in melee with them and can't move away without Retreating or Withdrawing:

If the wizard is hit at ANY point prior to his initiative number, he loses the spell as his concentration is broken. The initiative modifier for spell level is not the time period where the spell is being cast, like some seem to think.

Yes, that is how the 2e rules work. But it's doubtful that that's how the 1e rules worked, if they worked at all. And it's definitely not how the gold box games worked, and there's a fair chance that some people got their rules interpretations from there.

 

[Not a Decepticon]

I have a question for people who argue against complexity for a Fighter class.

Here are two most common complaints I have seen from people who play martial characters in D&D. Not just Fighters but also Monks, Barbarians, Rogues and other nonmagical classes.

1. "On my turn all I do is the same boring swinging weapons"
2. "At higher levels casters can bend reality and slaughter whole armies, bring dragons to their knees, command forces of nature and imprison gods...while I still jsut swing my boring weapon like I do on lower levels, except number went up"

Those are complaints that adding more complexity like maneuvers is supposed to solve or at least mitigate. How do you solve them without increasing class complexity?

And btw, no, giving them followers and land does not count, I noticed overlap of people who make this complaint and those who despise all stuff that comes in owning land and having followers in say, BECMI, on the ground it a) interrupts the game loop with mechanics completely unrelated to what the class was doing and b) always forces the PC to obey their liege or get invaded, as no edition of D&D ever had such mechancis and did not punish anyone trying to be "Conan at the court".

 

[Maxperson]

So this is perfectly reasonable?
View attachment 418434

Now that I'm home and looking at the rule, you can flee in almost any direction you want, the enemy(s) just get attacks on you. It just says you turn your back on the enemy and run, so it would have t be away from the big guy somehow. Otherwise your back isn't turned when you start moving away.

Withdrawal also says away.

So while it would be a poor choice, by the rules the above route would work. I'd go diagonally down and left, though, heading away from both.

What seems more reasonable is that once you're close enough to fight, you're locked in "the melee" with that creature, and for an outside observer it basically looks like this:
View attachment 418435

If you want to leave that melee, your only options are Retreat or Withdraw. You can't just move away into a different melee. So this would not be valid, because once you're in contact with the goblin you're in melee with them and can't move away without Retreating or Withdrawing:

That's not what the rules say, though. If you retreat, it MUST be away from the guy in your are fighting, where if I move to the wizard, I can go forward past the guy I'm fighting.

As a DM I'd probably house rule in an attack against you as you leave to go to the wizard, but that's not the written rule.

View attachment 418436

Yes, that is how the 2e rules work. But it's doubtful that that's how the 1e rules worked, if they worked at all. And it's definitely not how the gold box games worked, and there's a fair chance that some people got their rules interpretations from there.

The claim that I am arguing against was specifically about 2e. I played 2e for a lot longer than I played 1e, so I remember it quite well and spell disruption happened a lot if you played by the rules. As a magic user, you had to carefully consider which spell level you were going to cast based on where you were in the combat, what weapons the enemy had to use against you, and if there were spellcasters who could also hit you early at range. It took a lot more skill to be a spellcaster in 2e than in 3e-5e.

1e spellcasting worked the same way. Here is the rule.

"Spell-casters will always insist that they are able to use their powers during combat melee. The DM must adjudicate the success of such use. Consider this: The somatic (movement) portions of a spell must be begun and completed without interruption in a clean, smooth motion. The spell as a whole must be continuous and uninterrupted from beginning to end. Once interrupted, for any reason whatsoever, the spell is spoiled and lost (lust as if used). Spells cannot be cast while violently moving - such as running,
dodging a blow, or even walking normally. They are interrupted by a successful hit - be it blow, missile, or appropriate spell (not saved against or saveable against)."

And...

"It can thus be understood that spell casting during a melee can be a tricky business, for a mere shove at any time can spoil the dweomer! Any spell can be attempted, but success is likely to be uncertain. Use the following procedure for spells cast during melee:

1. Spell casters must note what spell they intend to cast at the beginning of each round prior to any knowledge of which side has initiative.

2. Attacks directed at spell casters will come on that segment of the round shown on the opponent's or on their own side's initiative die, whichever is applicable. (If the spell caster's side won the initiative with a roll of 5, the attack must come then, not on the opponent's losing roll of 4 or less.) Thus, all such attacks will occur on the 1st-6th segments of the round.

3. Intelligent monsters able to recognize the danger of spells will direct attacks against spell casters if not engaged by other opponents so as to be prevented from so doing.

4. The spell caster cannot use his or her dexterity bonus to avoid being hit during spell casting; doing so interrupts the spell.

5. Any successful attack, or non-saved-against attack upon the spell caster interrupts the spell."

So spellcasting began at the beginning of the round if the spellcaster failed a save or was hit for damage the spell fizzled. The caster couldn't even move or use his dex to avoid being hit, so his AC is worse in any round he casts a spell.

 

[DrJawaPhD]

Those are complaints that adding more complexity like maneuvers is supposed to solve or at least mitigate. How do you solve them without increasing class complexity?

You cannot solve the "problems" you describe without increasing class complexity. It is fundamentally not possible (which you imply in your post), but it also not the same crowd of people complaining about Martials being boring as the crowd of people wanting Martials to remain simple to play.

Balancing both viewpoints and finding a happy medium is technically possible, although challenging. WotC attempted to address this with Weapon Mastery, with debatable level of success. That design philosophy of rewarding Martials for utilizing different strategies is a FAR better approach though than making weapons break to force Martials to play suboptimally "for fun".

 

[Maxperson]

I have a question for people who argue against complexity for a Fighter class.

Here are two most common complaints I have seen from people who play martial characters in D&D. Not just Fighters but also Monks, Barbarians, Rogues and other nonmagical classes.

1. "On my turn all I do is the same boring swinging weapons"
2. "At higher levels casters can bend reality and slaughter whole armies, bring dragons to their knees, command forces of nature and imprison gods...while I still jsut swing my boring weapon like I do on lower levels, except number went up"

Those are complaints that adding more complexity like maneuvers is supposed to solve or at least mitigate. How do you solve them without increasing class complexity?

And btw, no, giving them followers and land does not count, I noticed overlap of people who make this complaint and those who despise all stuff that comes in owning land and having followers in say, BECMI, on the ground it a) interrupts the game loop with mechanics completely unrelated to what the class was doing and b) always forces the PC to obey their liege or get invaded, as no edition of D&D ever had such mechancis and did not punish anyone trying to be "Conan at the court".

As far as I'm concerned, those complaints fall on deaf ears. They are all from those folks who like complexity and have eleven other classes to pick from. If someone chooses the one simple class to play and then complains about it not being complex enough, that's on them. It would be like choosing to wear a T-shirt and shorts into a snowstorm and then complaining about being too cold.

If you want to play a more complex fighting type class that swings a weapon, pick Barbarian, Ranger or Paladin. Or heck, make a Bladesinger. And if it has to be a Fighter, pick Battle Master, Eldritch Knight or another subclass that adds complexity.

 

[Lanefan]

If they use the core mechanics of D&D 5e, they are supplements. If they are their own standalone games they are not D&D.

Meh, it's all D&D; much like all tissues are kleenex even if the box they came in says something different on it.

 

[Lanefan]

Let's look at this from the other side of the game.

Imagine if as a spellcaster, you get to pick your cantrips, but every leveled spell you get is randomly determined per day. Not in the old "magic user randomly generated their spellbook" style, but more a "here is a deck with all the first level spells in the game. Draw four. Those are the spells you have until you finish a long rest." Maybe you get grease, burning hands, cure wounds and shield today and tomorrow you are stuck with detect magic, longstrider, animal friendship, and heroism. Make it work.

Now that's a true Wild Mage. Love it!

I might have to find a way to swipe this and incorporate it into my game somehow.

 

[Maxperson]

Now that's a true Wild Mage. Love it!

I might have to find a way to swipe this and incorporate it into my game somehow.

Yeah. That sounds like fun. I wonder what other subclass abilities it would have.

 

[Lanefan]

Yeah. That sounds like fun. I wonder what other subclass abilities it would have.

In my system, on first thought I'd probably do it something like:

--- what would normally be your daily slots per level become the number of daily random spells per level, thus if your slots would normally be 4 1st, 2 2nd and 1 3rd you'd instead draw four random 1st-level spells, two random 2nd-level spells, and 1 random 3rd-level spell each morning
--- the spells you draw each morning are the only spells you can hard-cast that day and no effect in the game can change this
--- you are unlimited in how often you can cast those spells during the day you have them, other than limits imposed by availability of significant material components (e.g. if you draw Identify today you're only limited by how many 100 gp pearls you can access)
--- non-significant material components are ignored; you don't need to keep trivial components on hand for every spell in the game just in case you draw it today
--- spells that are not on today's castable list can be cast from scrolls but at a high to very high chance of failure and-or wild magic surge
--- regardless of your actual rest cycle the "day" resets at sunrise (or equivalent, if off-plane) at which point spells must be redrawn
--- a few game-breaking spells such as Wish, Alter Reality, and similar cannot be drawn this way (in other words, those spells don't have cards in the deck you draw from) and can only be accessed through scrolls, use of which does not suffer the same high risk of failure unless the spell is above the level you can normally cast.