D&D General Weapons should break left and right

[Micah Sweet]

So I'm just going to put this down simply


Sounds miserable and makes the fighter out to be weak and bad at their class. Also ruining people's whole reason for the build of "I want to be good at my One Thing", instead you're denying them the change to have their one thing they're good at and just making them mediocre at everything.

Are you going to make it so the wizard's spellbook explodes if they roll a one on damage? Huh, weird how its only the fighters getting screwed over, huh? Plus, well, a heart surgeon who fails 1/20 surgeries isn't one we think is good at their job


What old editions are you playing? Weapon durability isn't a thing in any of editions I know of, and while I don't follow the OSR that closely I'm not aware of it being in most of the mainstream ones there either. You'd lose weapons due to stuff like rust monsters or the rare creatures with weapon destruction effects, but that was very specific to those limited creatures and not a widespread thing


No, its a nerf. Its not an interesting feature but when you're up against the swiss army knife spellcasters who can shut down multiple opponents at once. Your magical axe argument happens exactly the same in this world except now its 'oh great my one axe broke and we're down fighting the Kurokama Clan who only use katanas, I am useless for this entire series of encounters until we get enemies that drop something I can use competently, I may as well just afk on my phone for the next 3 hours because I cannot contribute meaningfully to the game'

A far easier way to get people to reach for other weapons is giving weapons individual features and not just the same nigh-identical stat sticks. If a trident handles stuff in water better but a guisarme can use its hook to have an increased chance of tripping, you've got reasons to switch up what you're using right there rather than sticking to just the one weapon

Why wouldn't you be able to use katanas competently? Unless by that you mean with extra bonuses from feats and class features over other weapons?

 

[AlViking]

Not sure what you're getting work up about. Take a deep breath, take a walk outside, let your toes touch the grass. No one is attacking you or anything you believe in. Relax.

Is it really helpful to accuse people of "getting worked up" when they have an opinion you disagree with? This is a rule I've experienced in person and yes, it did feel like the DM going out of their way to abuse martials. It's something I really don't understand but something I've seen time and again. Weapons breaking or fumbles, heavy armor coming with extra penalties, regularly setting up situations where armor and weapons are forbidden but spell components and holy symbols are not.

It's a pretty common theme for DM to want to nerf fighters in ways they never do for casters. I'm not upset about it, I'm not getting worked up about it. I'm just pointing out that I've seen clear bias from some DMs over the years and it is annoying when similar penalties are never ever applied to casters. Or am I not allowed to admit annoyance?

 

[AlViking]

I think weapon breakage works in a resource management survival game where weapon renewal is a constant, and the players are aware of the mechanic as part of the entire system. If the game is about finding and crafting weapons, hunting food, and scavenging while fighting off monsters, then I can see this being a fun part of the game. However, I think a lot of modern D&D games don’t really allow for this and it would at best feel like it was bolted on as a punishment for martial players rather than something that worked thematically within the rules.

Do you also have casters constantly scrounging for spell components? Make that monk risk bruising their knuckles or that cleric's god demanding proper sacrifices or obeisance in order to receive spells? Not a game I would be interested in but the issue is only one type of character having to pay extra to do what their character is supposed to do.

 

[Ulorian - Agent of Chaos]

Is it really helpful to accuse people of "getting worked up" when they have an opinion you disagree with? This is a rule I've experienced in person and yes, it did feel like the DM going out of their way to abuse martials. It's something I really don't understand but something I've seen time and again. Weapons breaking or fumbles, heavy armor coming with extra penalties, regularly setting up situations where armor and weapons are forbidden but spell components and holy symbols are not.

It's a pretty common theme for DM to want to nerf fighters in ways they never do for casters. I'm not upset about it, I'm not getting worked up about it. I'm just pointing out that I've seen clear bias from some DMs over the years and it is annoying when similar penalties are never ever applied to casters. Or am I not allowed to admit annoyance?

Err... I would prefer that someone disagree with me. You can do that in a respectful way though! When you don't, I'll let you know. That's all that's happened here, nothing more.

 

[Micah Sweet]

So if a character breaks sword #1, what stops them from pulling sword #2? The encumbrance rules certainly aren't going to matter much, even a greatsword only weighs 6 lbs. At 11th level fighters have 3 attacks per round and action surge which means up to 6 for some fights. On average they'll roll a 1 ever other combat or even more ... how is that fun? How on earth does that not feel like they're being punished for choosing not to be a spellcaster?

I had a DM that added this to their game long ago, it was one of the reasons I left the game.

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.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Look Ma!

I just got that +4 Legendary Sword I've heard about in Legends. I bear the fabled Brecker Sword itself! Wielded by the fabled Grimwulf, handed down to his son the fabled Garnswammer who slew the two headed Demi Deity in his epic battle against the Hordes of Darkness. Retrieved from his body by Dwimmerdorn who used it to slay the Gargantuan Dragon Wintersmite as it bore great vengeance on the land. Now...it is mine. What legends shall I do with this weapon of legend!

Look, some foolish Orcs have come to try to stop us from leaving this warren.

And...ah...what a terrible...wha...wha...wait. The Brecker Sword is no more...it just shattered on my first attack! This sword that has lasted for centuries in legend is gone within seconds of my first use....

How can this be???!!

I would imagine magical weapons would be at least tougher to break. This isn't a serious examination of the question.

 

[AlViking]

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.

I assume we're talking D&D on a D&D forum and the game has no encumbrance rules. I care about verisimilitude to a certain degree but not when it is only ever applied to martial characters.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Really cool and cinematic...for some people.

For me, I very much prefer signature weapons that the user develops a bond with, and then grow its abilities through effort, or magic, or augmentation, or training, or exposure to dangerous things, or...etc.

Having my weapon break all the time gets extremely tedious. It's the game telling me "no, your fun is bad and wrong and stupid, you don't get to have that fun anymore, you have to find other fun, which you probably won't find for several weeks at best". It's one of the reasons why, despite video game designers constantly trying to shoehorn in "durability" mechanics, video game players almost always remove that s#!t whenever they can. Because it's tedious and annoying, for a lot of people.

It is--trivially obviously--not tedious and annoying for a different set of people. That might make it worthwhile to explore as an opt-in mechanic for gamers looking for that kind of experience. If it were done so, it should get just as much playtesting as any other major mechanic, so that it should reliably work well in the majority of situations that groups come across.

But making it something everyone has to deal with, all the time? Yeah, that's what leads to what @GreyLord just said.

Why are you assuming the OP wants to force this idea on everyone? How could they even do that? It's either a rule you're using in your game at your table, or it isn't. Just like all the other rules.

 

[AlViking]

Sorry you don't like a counter opinion. Let's be honest, whenever these restrictive mechanics are proposed they are always aimed at martials. When do see spell failure, or casting rolls or divine refusal aimed at casters?

Imagine making it difficult to find spell components or spell components getting ruined if the character fails a save or gets wet. Clerics needing to make regular sacrifices or somehow push the agenda of their god at a cost of not receiving spells if they don't make their religion checks. Monks pull a muscle on a 1.

I've never seen anyone seriously propose anything like those. At most you get a jailbreak scene where everyone in the party is nerfed.

 

[Ulorian - Agent of Chaos]

Is it really helpful to accuse people of "getting worked up" when they have an opinion you disagree with? This is a rule I've experienced in person and yes, it did feel like the DM going out of their way to abuse martials. It's something I really don't understand but something I've seen time and again. Weapons breaking or fumbles, heavy armor coming with extra penalties, regularly setting up situations where armor and weapons are forbidden but spell components and holy symbols are not.

It's a pretty common theme for DM to want to nerf fighters in ways they never do for casters. I'm not upset about it, I'm not getting worked up about it. I'm just pointing out that I've seen clear bias from some DMs over the years and it is annoying when similar penalties are never ever applied to casters. Or am I not allowed to admit annoyance?

I assume that you missed this response of mine before you made this statement?

I do like a counter opinion. What you were doing was just thread crapping. You're being a lot more communicative now. Progress!

I am not the OP. I don't even love the OP's idea, partially for the reasons you presented (which you did in a pretty juvenile way, hence my response). I actually somewhat agree with you, just not the way you made your opinion known.

I see what the OP is going for: realism. Is the proposed implementation the best way to go about this? I don't think so. And I agree with you that this can't come at the cost of increasing the divide between casters and martials in 5E.