Preemptive note: every time I try to get caught up on this thread, more posts arrive than I can get through before being called away. I'm going to address the OP and comment on some posts I've seen. It may all well be wildly out of date to the primary discussion at this point.
I'm also going to treat the proposal as a suggestion for an opt-in alternative version of D&D (mostly focusing on a mod to 5e, but discussing other editions as seems like fruitful discussion) they would either publish or use as house rules, with achieving stated goals and likely player buy-in as success criteria.
Firstly, I think the initial setup is accurate -- players often grab a weapon-specific feat and use said weapon whenever possible as anything else would be (at that point) sub-optimal. There are switch-hitter builds (perhaps you choose Mage Slayer or Sentinel as their first feat), but there is a trend.
Secondly, a ruleset that made weapon breakage a constant norm would make such weapon-specific feats less optimal choices.
Not stated in OP but conveyed consistently thereon out is a postulation that we should thus implement such a rule with the goal of increasing variety in martial combat actions. I'm going to actually leave out discussion of whether the goal is both desired and necessary -- some people want fighting as a fighter to have more complexity, others do not, I'm just going to explore the proposal as it benefits those that do want such things. With that in mind, I think what needs to be answered is (at least):
- Does the proposal achieve such a goal?
- Are there any complications, downsides, opportunity costs, or excessive effort required to implement the proposal, such that no or an alternative solution might be better?
- Does either the proposal or goal already have existing support in the game, such that adding this rule set cause contradiction or confusion?
- Are there other ways to accomplish the same (and is the proposed solution appreciably better)?
Regarding the first (1) question, I think it is very much dependent on a number of factors.
- Will weapon breakage mean the PC will have to seek out weapons with a non-curated selection (such that they will have to adapt to the new weapon's qualities)? This is going to vary significantly based on how easy it is to have backups. In standard D&D gold-acquired quickly dwarfs weapon costs (and even if you change this, they still pale in comparison to armor costs). Likewise armor and gear weights quickly outpace most weapon weights. Second point for weight, there are any number of ways (hirelings, horses, bags of holding) to increase your carry capacity.
- Will the character whose weapon breaks find an alternate (non-curated selection) weapon to use? If half your fights are against bears, dragons, or dire flumphs, all you are doing is preparing your fighters to fight without a weapon at all.
- Will the fighter just become not a fighter (or not a weapon-using one, at least)? Between monks, creatures with natural weapons, classes that can create/summon weapons, and just casters with cantrips; there is a real risk that making fighting with weapons hard to sustain simply an exercise in incentivizing not fighting with weapons instead of making people struggle to sustain the action.
Regarding the second (2) question, there certainly are complications. The above-mentioned situations where it doesn't work also qualify here. But also:
- Magic weapons are an iconic part of D&D. While losing magic items is part of the expected game play loop, having magic items be lost at the rate sufficient to encourage grabbing that weapon over there probably disrupts the feeling of accomplishment of acquiring a magic weapon in the loot pile. Likewise, for many editions, having a magic weapon is necessary to deal with a large range of enemies (or again incentivizes playing as not-a-fighter instead).
- The proposed chance-per-use means that classes/builds/concepts focusing on number of attack will be disproportionately affected compared to those that focus on singular high-damage attacks. I don't know how people feel about fighters vs. rogues (/martial clerics vs. barbarians/paladins/valor bards) in terms of effectiveness but addressing whatever it is with a negative effect that significantly over-penalizes fighters seems like an unintended consequence.
- Using dis-opportunity mechanics ('you won't have one when you want it') to encourage mixing up tactical style means you cannot rely on planned actions. That's of course part of the reason for it in the first place, but it gets applied universally, even when maybe you wouldn't want it. The strategic plan to address the final showdown with snipers who snuck into place before a meeting won't be made if the chance that the archers still have their bows is highly uncertain (and if they can just have backups, then again how do backups not disrupt this rule from having the overall intended effect?). It pushes the optimal long term plan to be 'don't plan, just be good at leveraging what you find.' Which is a thing, maybe even a cool thing. But in the end it is just selecting one plan/playstyle/build (opportunistic generalist) as the optimal one, which I think is part of the thing we were trying to avoid in the first place.
Regarding the third (3) question, somewhat. Rust monsters and oozes that degrade weapons that strike them exist in most editions. 3e also had sunder rules, so certain specialist enemies could take out weapons with ease (PCs too, but destroying your potential loot has always been hard to incentivize). I'm not seeing a lot of places where this would cause confusion. If oozes do one type of weapon damage and regular use caused another, that might be an issue.
Regarding the fourth (4) question, well there certainly are other options.
- The weapon mastery system 5e('24) introduced is clearly an option.
- So is the 3e feat trees (in a system where you get massively multiple feats) giving similar options like trip, disarm, and such.
- Speaking of disarm, having more robust disarming rules would be a good alternate way of making fighters have to sometimes dash over to a fallen foe and take their weapon instead of always using theirs (same issues about backups).
- Rules like 3.5 B/P/S-specific DR or TSR 'bludgeoning for full damage vs. skeleton'-style rules (also in 5e, but less so) would encourage switching up weapon types.
- More broadly, if the goal is to increase combat action variety rather than specifically changing weapon used, simply having a wider breadth of 'attack actions' would accomplish the same goal. Trip, disarm, and grapple being obvious, but looking at Book of 9 Swords or games like Daggerheart (or even Gloomhaven) might accomplish it as easily as addressing weapon chosen.
- Taking the OP at first glance, while it is challenging (if not impossible) not to have some weapon+feat combos come out on top and others on bottom, it is absolutely plausible that another theoretical version of the game could reduce the span to less than the overall span of character effectiveness (or just have 3-4 options be at top, depending on the rest of your character choices).
In conclusion, while I 1) understand and can appreciate the goal of this proposal, and 2) think it would be
a way of addressing it, I don't think it would be the way I would recommend
for D&D. Predominantly because there are too many very-D&D things that would have to be completely re-worked to give it teeth (keeping magic weapons be a big score, figuring out how to make people pick up random weapons instead of pull out a backup same type of weapon, having people switch to monks and casters). Likewise, because I think other options (expanding 3e feat system or 5e24 weapon masteries to give positive incentives to switch weapons, adding back more creatures that take little-to-no damage from certain weapon types, other non-weapon ways of expanding fighter-action variety) would accomplish the same goal with fewer complications.
Instead, I think I would recommend this for another game, built from the ground up with these expectations in mind. It would:
- have fewer ways to carry 3 extra copies of your main weapon with you
- fewer ways to defeat monsters without a 'tough guy with weapons' out in front
- would not have finding very special magic weapons as loot be an iconic form of success in the game
- have much more consistency in what encounters you run into and how frequently those would be weapon-bearing humanoids
Perhaps most importantly, it would be a new system, one where there are no pre-conceived expectations, and you aren't taking anything away (from a game that previously doesn't exist) to achieve your goal. I would still look into whether an alternative method (varied attack-type actions) might achieve the larger goal of varied character action better than enforced variation of weapon type, if for no other reason than 'character with an iconic weapon' isn't specifically something I think shouldn't happen in a game or genre.
So, and I just want this clear: You are reading the OP (where it is not explicitly stated what the proposal is) and assuming in good faith that it is a proposal for those who want to opt in (not a suggestion for how the game should be for everyone), and that positions taken are personal opinions rather than stated as objective truths?
This is very much what we all like to see, and I hope it is a norm we will continue to see (applied equally and universally). I think many of us will note this and remember it.
I don't think I can get on board with this framing. It's juxtaposing people who know the game well vs. those who don't as good vs. bad instead of skilled/experienced vs. not skilled/experienced (maybe 'good at' vs. 'bad at') Beyond that, I'm not going to call someone bad (or even making mistakes) for doing what looks reasonable with the information they have available. Experience teaches them otherwise, until they learn otherwise, it isn't a bad or a mistake, merely unoptimized, inexperienced play. And how quickly the figure this out depends on their own acuity, but also how well the game facilitates and communicates the lessons. In my mind, a game that hasn't well set up its game play loop such that people who play want to do what it expects them to do or rapidly learn to do what it expects them to do is exhibiting a gap or opportunity for a tutorial mechanic.
Novice/inexperienced play is playing the game. It is a necessary phase everyone goes through to experienced play that needs to be accounted for in the game development. Figuring out how to get people from 0 to 100 (% understanding and investment), learning the right lessons to get there (without going down unnecessary dead ends that risk making them lose interest before they get there) is a major part of the process, similar in importance to making a game that is enjoyable to play once you get there.
Sarcasm noted. oD&D/AD&D weapon vs. armor tables similarly. Buy-in is certainly worth considering. If a proposed change would address a perceived problem, but people are unlikely to latch on to the change, well then it certainly won't address the problem for them.
