D&D General Weapons should break left and right

[Maxperson]

My real-world experience with bowstrings I made myself is that a string-snaps failure is less frequent than one per 10,000 arrows loosed. They do occur; they have happened to me a few times - but not at all often.

By comparison, rolling three ones in a row on a d20 has a relatively high 1 in 8000 chance.

Out of curiosity, how many of those strings were left strung the entire time, taken out into harsh weather environments with no tending, and/or dragged into water, through swamps, etc.?

I think your strings are probably much better off than a typical adventurer's.

 

[Paul Farquhar]

The bolded two things are the same

No, they are not. The 1st edition DMG was presented as a book of suggestions, not a book of rules. It was not “the game”.

 

[Maxperson]

I think this comes down to, if you make rules to have something randomly occur, you don't want them to be either so rare as to be never seen nor so minor that it seems like a waste of time.

I once made fumble rules that had fairly minor effects, for example, and pretty quickly I realized the juice wasn't worth the squeeze when they came up and I ditched them completely.

Yep. And on the flip side, I abandoned charts because they were usually so severe that there was too much juice for the squeeze. I didn't have the time or energy to try and figure out the perfect middle ground, so no fumble charts for me.

 

[Maxperson]

No, they are not. The 1st edition DMG was presented as a book of suggestions, not a book of rules. It was not “the game”.

It was both rules and suggestions. They were rules, that Gygax both told you to follow and never deviate from, and also to make your own and change. They were rules, though, and so were what was in the PHB.

 

[jasper]

weapons, spell components, and spell focus should all break. IF you are playing an accountant base game or maybe a computer game. Other wise is just ammo tracking by a different name.

 

[Micah Sweet]

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.

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

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

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.

I don't recall saying anything about "people should stick to what the game does best". Maybe try to make sure your comments apply to the person to whom you're responding?

 

[Maxperson]

Well, that and the fact that by the rules, even by 2014, all the best magic weapons were still swords. You, by RAW, could not have a Dragon Slaying spear. It had to be a sword. That was right in the rules. Same with Defending, flaming, and a bunch of other effects. Now, you're absolutely right, DM's should change the rules to suit. But, again, my point has always been that swords get pretty much all the love and other weapons are an afterthought.

And it's not like player's didn't know this. Players gravitated towards swords too because they knew that they were guaranteed to get a magic sword, whereas the odds of a magical Lucerne Hammer was virtually nil.

I think most players gravitate towards swords because they tend to get the best damage, and also because Highlander, King Arthur, etc. Swords dominate pretty much all of fiction, so of course players are going to prefer those.

The magic items fitting that mold is also because of pretty much all of fiction being dominated by swords, so the DMG random tables, DM creations, etc. just reinforce what the players are already predisposed towards.

It takes a lot of effort to break that mold, and you really need players who are on board and want the mold to be broken.

 

[Maxperson]

It was almost always the weapon of last resort. You pulled out a sword after you had exhausted every other option.

Fragarach?

 

[Micah Sweet]

No, they are not. The 1st edition DMG was presented as a book of suggestions, not a book of rules. It was not “the game”.

And yet it included many rules, even if you weren't required to follow them.

 

[Micah Sweet]

weapons, spell components, and spell focus should all break. IF you are playing an accountant base game or maybe a computer game. Other wise is just ammo tracking by a different name.

I find referring to a game that allows for item damage as "accountant base" is insulting, and I suspect intended as such. Some people like things you don't, and that IMO ought to be respected.