D&D General Weapons should break left and right

[Micah Sweet]

Yes, but do we have definitive evidence of of how often medieval (or other premodern cultures) bow strings snapped? If we don't, any attempt to model breakage is base entirely on vibes.

I expect there's some kind of record out there, but all we can do is make the best guess based on whatever evidence is available. Tossing everything to the wind because we can't be sure doesn't work for me.

 

[Staffan]

Yes, but do we have definitive evidence of of how often medieval (or other premodern cultures) bow strings snapped? If we don't, any attempt to model breakage is base entirely on vibes.

The most likely source would be records of battles as well as what loadouts archers had in battle (if a standard loadout includes one extra string, that's a "sometimes bleep happens" insurance, but if it includes three that indicates that strings breaking is expected). As for how many would snap during civilian use, that's probably a lot harder to find out.

 

[Maxperson]

Haven't you hit 20th level in modern D&D after weeks of game time in the wild? Certainly after months.

No. That would only happen with 5-7 encounters per day.

 

[Lanefan]

Look different groups have different tastes when it comes to gaming. It just so happens that there are more people who want to play Risk than The Campaign for North Africa. That's not an indictment or even saying one approach is "superior". If games streamline concepts like carrying capacity, rations, torches, equipment breakage, or ammunition, it's because the developers believe the people who play those games will enjoy the experience more. If that's not true, they're perfectly welcome to switch to a game that has these features or houserule them in.

Not for the first time, I have to note that it's light-years easier to houserule things out than to houserule them in.

Take 1e. It had rules for weapon-vs-armour-type. Many tables houseruled those out; it was an easy change to make. Had those rules not been in the book, however, nobody would have ever thought to invent them and houserule them in.

In my Tales of the Valiant game, I have a Mechanist (a Martial Artificer, basically) who uses a pistol. He took the Augment that allows him, just like a 5e Artificer, to fire magic bullets and never have to reload or worry about ammunition.

That Augment (and its 5e equivalent) is something I just wouldn't allow as a basic character ability. Way too generous, even more so if it allows limitless magic ammo which costs money per shot for anyone else to buy.

 

[Lanefan]

I always see people trying to make claim that D&D is not a collaborative storytelling game, and that people should stick to what it does best...followed by example of something the game is absolutely terrible at and argurably always was, like combat or dungeon crawling.

Saying D&D has arguably always been bad at dungeon crawling is, one has to think, a rather hot take.

Very capitalist thinking,

Oh, yes, and intentionally so.

which would not really translate to supposedly medeival, and thus pre-capitalist, society.

That pre-capitalist society was only seen at the low end. Those with wealth? Little change from then to now, if any.

And old-school D&D with its emphasis on treasure-gathering almost can't help but be or become greedy.

Artificer or Wizard would NOT sit in a shop selling wares or taking commissions, but would probably have a patron or protector who monopolizes their services. And that is assuming they NEED money or protection to begin with. You would not spend 4000 gp on Endless Quiver because it would not be on sale, assuming it was made at all.

Sure, it's unlikely you'll find such an item on a store shelf but you certainly might spend 4000 g.p. to have one commissioned.

99% of people in real world would be using commonner statblock, imo

And when it comes to wealth, after their first adventure or two all adventurers are well within that other 1%, meaning that's the economy we have to deal with.

As if the games don't have many spelsl that let you circumvent need for money just the same, liek create food or water or fabricate. Realistically speaking wizards would be self-sufficient and need no money or no people whatsoever. We just don't do that because this way leads to Tippyverse.

Assuming they even need money to begin with.

Need? Maybe not. Want? Certainly.

Sadly, greed is universal.

 

[Edgar Ironpelt]

I'm not talking about a bow hunt. I'm talking about weeks to months out in the wild, wild outdoors, with no waxing of the strings. Did you never wax your bow strings? I also think that your materials are a bit better than the adventurers, but that's not really what I'm even talking about.

You wax bow strings ever few weeks to keep them from going bad. You don't keep a bow strung 24/7, 365 days a year. I'm not arguing that they would snap twice a week and every third Tuesday, but lack of care would take its toll and cause the eventual failure of bow strings.

Why do you insist on assuming that bow-using adventurers are incompetent bumblers who don't routinely keep their bowstrings waxed?

 

[TiQuinn]

Here's the thing I've never understood about weapon upkeep in TTRPGs:

You've got a long sword. The long sword must be kept sharp. You have a whetstone. You must sharpen the sword with the whetstone.

So what exactly is the act of sharpening the weapon supposed to be in the game? Are you the player supposed to say "I sharpen my sword?" How often are you supposed to say this? Is the DM supposed to check every game session? Every other session?
How long does it take for a sword's sharpness to wear off? Every battle? Every fifth battle? What happens if the player says "Hey DM, assume I sharpen my sword after every battle so I don't have to intone the precise words?"