D&D General Weapons should break left and right

[Micah Sweet]

No, most people aren’t aware that archers make their own arrows as needed. They instead think they have to go into an arrow shop and stock up.

Not in my experience. And even if they do, I guess that means if they run out in the field, the GM should make the suggestion to the player. Unless the GM also has no reason to imagine such a thing. In which case, perhaps an addition to the text is in order.

 

[Maxperson]

No, most people aren’t aware that archers make their own arrows as needed. They instead think they have to go into an arrow shop and stock up.

D&D is to blame for that. AD&D didn't have fletching rules that I can remember, though now that I think about it, Bowyer/Fletcher might have been a background profession if you were lucky enough to roll it. AD&D trained people to go to shops to make arrows. 3e and 5e also didn't do much to change that perception. 4e I don't know about.

I'm more aware of it through a homebrew game system a friend created where archers did keep supplies and make arrows during their down time.

 

[Not a Decepticon]

First of all, what rational argument could there possibly be? "I ran out of arrows and want that not to be true?"

"My character, who is a Ranger and spent whole life hunting witha bow, would be competent enought to ensure they have enough arrows even if I, regular modern person playing them, did not think of specifying it."

And dismissing this argument either means players are told they cannot play a character smarter than them or start annoyingly specify minutia like declaring they check for traps every step they take.

 

[Not a Decepticon]

Sure. If you have a house rule(from any source) that prevents what I said, then what I said doesn't work. If you are playing 5e as written, though, it works just fine.

Actually, base rules for adventuring day in 5e 2014 say you cannot take a long rest until either ypu defeated daily xp of encounters or 24 hours have passed since you took the last one

 

[Maxperson]

Actually, base rules for adventuring day in 5e 2014 say you cannot take a long rest until either ypu defeated daily xp of encounters or 24 hours have passed since you took the last one

Right, so what I'm saying works just fine. I've rarely been in a game where you fight more than 2 encounters before the next long rest happens. Occasionally 3. It's exceeding rare to go to 5 encounters, and 20 arrows gets you there. Usually, you hit that 24 hour mark before you are anywhere near out of arrows.

 

[Micah Sweet]

"My character, who is a Ranger and spent whole life hunting witha bow, would be competent enought to ensure they have enough arrows even if I, regular modern person playing them, did not think of specifying it."

And dismissing this argument either means players are told they cannot play a character smarter than them or start annoyingly specify minutia like declaring they check for traps every step they take.

How are they ensuring that without any regard for the environment and other circumstances? Why should we just accept it always works?

 

[loverdrive]

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.

Upon further thinking, I imagine this would be best implemented as a fighter or monk subclass, and make it an opt-in mechanic.

I don't really want to expand the list of available actions at once, but have distinct "modes" with different strengths and weaknesses the character can be in -- to avoid decision paralysis. If you only have 3 options at a time, but can switch between such sets it's easier to keep everything in mind.

It can be flavored as weapons breaking, or the weapon magically transforming, or character switching stances.

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.

I'm not super interested in discussing them problems of philosophy, like "what does it really mean" to play a game, but from purely practical perspective: it's possible for someone to employ or hone just wrong skill because they are playing some self-imposed imaginary version of the game that doesn't actually exist.

Spoiler: Rant

It can be acutely observed in fighting games: novices tend to be obsessed with executing combos, and special moves, and look! I landed a shoryuken! It's very hard to execute! (in SSF2T, at least)

Sometimes such players play in a group only with each other, honing their long combos. Some of them might be considered a really good player in their circle! But then such player goes to a tournament and inevitably gets destroyed by someone who can't do all those flashy moves.

It's inevitable because his group wasn't playing Street Fighter, they were playing "who can execute the biggest flashiest combo", and those are two different things -- you can be as skillful as you want at maintaining combos, it doesn't matter if you can't land the first hit.

Some such players have a wake up call and realize he wasn't playing the game as it exists, learn the fundamentals and get good at the game. Others start complaining that it's unfair, and that his opponent is playing cheap. "Yeah she won, but I'm still the better player, because she was just spamming the same move! That takes no skill!"

If you are bad at the game, you should lose -- because otherwise there's no difference between being good and being bad, and where's the fun in that?

But this all is navel-gazing anyways: I'm not calling the shots at Wizards. They might need to onboard players and not scare them off, I don't, I already have players that I can count on to grit their teeth through growing pains and learn how to play.

 

[Paul Farquhar]

How are they ensuring that without any regard for the environment and other circumstances? Why should we just accept it always works?

As @Maxperson says, there may be special circumstances where scarcity is a plot point, but unless the ranger is stripped of all supplies and tools and locked in a bare cell it’s hard to think of a situation where a competent ranger wouldn’t be able to make arrows.

 

[loverdrive]

Sure, but I think it is realistic to expect players to state their PCs are going through these efforts, so the GM can adjudicate any possible obstacles to such. I strongly dislike just handwaving it and assume a full compliment of ammunition at the beginning of every "encounter". To me that is too artificial for my tastes.

At the very least, there's enjoynment to be found in rituals.

Yeah, sure, all the mundanities of maintaining equipment and building campfires and whatnot can be glossed over, but there's nice texture to them.

 

[Paul Farquhar]

At the very least, there's enjoynment to be found in rituals.

Yeah, sure, all the mundanities of maintaining equipment and building campfires and whatnot can be glossed over, but there's nice texture to them.

You don’t need to do any resource tracking to narrate campfire rituals.

But if the PCs have a month-long journey it will get quickly boring unless something unusual happens.