Encouraging Looting - or, how I learned to stop worrying and break PC gear [Archive]

Nifft

2017-08-31, 01:02 AM

I want to destroy PC gear, so the players have more incentive to (a) keep a back-up weapon; (b) use different weapons; and (c) engage with the environment by looting from fallen foes.

However, I don't want the destruction of gear to be involuntary -- in essence, I want a way to encourage PCs to make a decision which breaks their gear.

Here's what I've come up with (but not actually tried):

Steel isn't strong, Flesh is stronger: When you make the last attack of your action, or when use your Reaction to make an attack, if you roll a natural 1 you can treat your attack as a critical hit, but doing so destroys your weapon.

Anger and Armor, all the way down: When an enemy scores a critical hit against you, you can use your armor or shield to take the brunt of the damage, turning the critical hit into a miss -- but causing damage to your armor or shield.
- A shield is destroyed.
- Light armor is destroyed.
- Medium or Heavy armor can be used twice; the second time, it is destroyed.

These two rules would only apply to PCs. Thus, a score of dead NPCs would tend to leave a score of weapons, armor, and shields which could be plundered by PCs.

Monster fights would tend to cost more resources than NPC fights, unless the monster's lair contained replacement weapons.

Anyway, thoughts? Would these rules tempt you as a player? Would you destroy your gear for glory, and plunder the fallen for arms?

Safety Sword

2017-08-31, 01:10 AM

I want to destroy PC gear, so the players have more incentive to (a) keep a back-up weapon; (b) use different weapons; and (c) engage with the environment by looting from fallen foes.

However, I don't want the destruction of gear to be involuntary -- in essence, I want a way to encourage PCs to make a decision which breaks their gear.

Here's what I've come up with (but not actually tried):

Steel isn't strong, Flesh is stronger: When you make the last attack of your action, or when use your Reaction to make an attack, if you roll a natural 1 you can treat your attack as a critical hit, but doing so destroys your weapon.

Anger and Armor, all the way down: When an enemy scores a critical hit against you, you can use your armor or shield to take the brunt of the damage, turning the critical hit into a miss -- but causing damage to your armor or shield.
- A shield is destroyed.
- Light armor is destroyed.
- Medium or Heavy armor can be used twice; the second time, it is destroyed.

These two rules would only apply to PCs. Thus, a score of dead NPCs would tend to leave a score of weapons, armor, and shields which could be plundered by PCs.

Monster fights would tend to cost more resources than NPC fights, unless the monster's lair contained replacement weapons.

Anyway, thoughts? Would these rules tempt you as a player? Would you destroy your gear for glory, and plunder the fallen for arms?

I... why?
I mean... why?

Arcangel4774

2017-08-31, 01:13 AM

Scathain

2017-08-31, 01:23 AM

I for one love it. I would also like to know your take on magic items, but this idea is perfect for my low level game. More fun than a fumble table, makes you rethink the battlefield without completely changing the game. Good work.

Nifft

2017-08-31, 01:36 AM

The weapon component very much feels like breath of the wild to me.

Have you considered the effect on magical weapons or armor. Are they unbreakable? Can they use the abilities more often than normal gear? And how would you go about replacing them if they are consumed; would higher level enemies have magical gear of use?
Magic weapons would break just as easily -- but any weapon breakage is at the player's choice, and I'd expect players to NOT break their magic weapons (unless it was a super-critical end-of-the-campaign fight, at which time it might be dramatically appropriate).

I for one love it. I would also like to know your take on magic items, but this idea is perfect for my low level game. More fun than a fumble table, makes you rethink the battlefield without completely changing the game. Good work. I'd expect a magic weapon user to not choose to break the weapon.

Thus, having a magic weapon could make the user more cautious -- that's an easily foreseeable role-play consequence, and I think it would feel pretty natural in play.

(I'd probably make an exception for cursed weapons -- they would never allow you to break them, since they're cursed and they like themselves more than they like you.)

imanidiot

2017-08-31, 02:02 AM

I can't as a player see any situation where I would choose to break even mundane equipment. A broken weapon is a far worse detriment than a simple extra crit is a benefit. With heavy armor I may use the ability once but never again after that.

Kane0

2017-08-31, 02:42 AM

I like it. Break your weapon to turn a hit into a crit, break your shield/armor to turn a crit into a hit. Simple and fun.

I forsee lots of weapons and shields breaking, not so much armor.

Saiga

2017-08-31, 03:25 AM

Maybe the armour could get a -1 AC modifier, until it reaches zero benefit and breaks?

JellyPooga

2017-08-31, 03:30 AM

Saiga

2017-08-31, 03:33 AM

Bad houserule for one reason. Rogues and their Daggers. Daggers are cheap, plentiful, lightweight and qualify for Sneak Attack. It basically gives every Rogue the Champions Improved Critical ability with the added bonus that they can't critically miss...and Rogues really like to critically hit.

Very good point.

I wasn't big on that rule, but I like the idea of a shield/armour "taking" a critical hit.

smcmike

2017-08-31, 08:39 AM

Bad houserule for one reason. Rogues and their Daggers. Daggers are cheap, plentiful, lightweight and qualify for Sneak Attack. It basically gives every Rogue the Champions Improved Critical ability with the added bonus that they can't critically miss...and Rogues really like to critically hit.

I like the idea, but this is a good point.

I think I have a solution, though. In fiction, you don't usually see people breaking their weapons by attacking with them. They break their weapons on defense. So, why not apply the defensive destruction rule to both weapons and armor?

Sigreid

2017-08-31, 09:01 AM

The idea that the party doesn't take everything anyway is alien to me.

Tiwanoz

2017-08-31, 09:47 AM

So more nerfing for Martials, but none such measures for casters? If you use this you may as well let a Caster roll in order for their spellcasting focus not to break.

denthor

2017-08-31, 09:54 AM

What abut the spells
mending make whole?

How about instead they find broken equipment and take it to the local blacksmith?

Or I am able to retreat to the local blacksmith. Not a bad concept just these are my ways around the problem.

Down time evil gets stronger.

smcmike

2017-08-31, 09:59 AM

So more nerfing for Martials, but none such measures for casters? If you use this you may as well let a Caster roll in order for their spellcasting focus not to break.

This is a boost for martials.

No brains

2017-08-31, 10:03 AM

This should make Bladelocks happy. In fact, you might want to add a feat or AFC that takes the synergy further: making pact weapons break off in creatures and poison them or something. It adds flavor and it tastes like burning!

How would this work with ranged weapons? I assume a bow would break using this rule because arrows already break. Some historical javelins were meant to break when thrown. Pilums bent and some javelins detached their heads. Presumably those weapons could be reassembled, just not in the middle of a battle.

I know the rule is called 'flesh is stronger', but how does it interact with natural weapons and unarmed strikes? Could someone break their fist or claw if they really wanted to? What would you need to fix it? Could druids abuse this by really going berserk when in bear form?

Also allowing focuses to similarly break would make sense. Maybe you can 'overload' your focus when you roll 1 on an attack cantrip or the target rolls 20 on its save.

Dhuraal

2017-08-31, 10:03 AM

So more nerfing for Martials, but none such measures for casters? If you use this you may as well let a Caster roll in order for their spellcasting focus not to break.

How on earth is this a nerf? If you never choose to use these options the game functions just as it always has. If you do choose to use them you gain more options. You may not think they are "good" options, but it is in no way a "nerf".

That said, if you do feel the need to give a caster some options, you could allow them to burn a spell slot for the same effects. I.e. exerting raw magical energy to block or enhance their attack. Spell slot level having no effect. A level 1 slot would be just as good as a level 9 slot. Though that gives them a lot more options, than a martial would have. Could be a random slot, if you wanted. IDK, I'm just spit balling randomly.

Mjolnirbear

2017-08-31, 10:15 AM

I don't know about martial in general, but it's not just the rogue who will love this. The paladin. Sweet Christmas the paladin.

Crits on demand? Load that attack up baby. Wrathful smite, regular smite, dead Boss after ten minutes of rolling damage dice.

I do like the *idea* of it, but cheap and plentiful weapons would litter every battlefield, and this would benefit every class that get many damage dice on their attack rolls. Your boss would last one round. Who needs a glaive or greatsword when you can get all those dice just as easily on a cheap dagger or quarterstaff?

Proposed less exciting alternative: turn a miss into a hit? Much less exciting. Much less worth it. But the original rule works well for armor.

Edit: I reread it. It's not on demand, and only the last attack, and you have to roll a one to trigger it. I'm now very ok with this.

Nifft

2017-08-31, 01:32 PM

Thanks for all the feedback!

Bad houserule for one reason. Rogues and their Daggers. Daggers are cheap, plentiful, lightweight and qualify for Sneak Attack. It basically gives every Rogue the Champions Improved Critical ability with the added bonus that they can't critically miss...and Rogues really like to critically hit.
It's true that Rogues benefit from this. (And so do Paladins, and so do Barbarians...)

However, it's not true that Rogues can carry an infinite number of daggers. Each dagger weighs 1 pound, and if you're using Encumbrance, then a Rogue's carrying capacity can be rather limited.

10 Str => 50 lbs capacity
-13 studded leather
-2 shortbow
-3 arrows x60
-1 quiver
-5 waterskin
-2 rations (only 1 day)
-3 healing potions x3
-7 bedroll
-2 lantern
-1 flask of oil
-5 backpack
-----
-45 lbs of basic equipment (1 day's rations, 1 flask of oil)

You have up to 5 daggers. Make them count.

What abut the spells
mending make whole? Say that the shattered weapon is broken in multiple places, or the pieces are bent in someway, and thus the cantrip doesn't work.

How about instead they find broken equipment and take it to the local blacksmith? If you make it to a blacksmith, you can presumably just buy new gear. That's normal and expected.

Down time evil gets stronger. What do you mean?

This is a boost for martials. Indeed.

This should make Bladelocks happy. In fact, you might want to add a feat or AFC that takes the synergy further: making pact weapons break off in creatures and poison them or something. It adds flavor and it tastes like burning! This is a cool idea.

How would this work with ranged weapons? These aren't meant to apply to ranged attacks, just melee.

I'd need to think about ranged for a while.

I know the rule is called 'flesh is stronger', but how does it interact with natural weapons and unarmed strikes? Could someone break their fist or claw if they really wanted to? What would you need to fix it? Could druids abuse this by really going berserk when in bear form? I'd say no.

Also allowing focuses to similarly break would make sense. Maybe you can 'overload' your focus when you roll 1 on an attack cantrip or the target rolls 20 on its save. Mmm, I feel like spellcasters are already pretty great, and don't need such a boost.

Edit: I reread it. It's not on demand, and only the last attack, and you have to roll a one to trigger it. I'm now very ok with this.
I'm curious why you left the rest of your post. It's kinda misleading.

FreddyNoNose

2017-08-31, 02:17 PM

I want to destroy PC gear, so the players have more incentive to (a) keep a back-up weapon; (b) use different weapons; and (c) engage with the environment by looting from fallen foes.

However, I don't want the destruction of gear to be involuntary -- in essence, I want a way to encourage PCs to make a decision which breaks their gear.

Here's what I've come up with (but not actually tried):

Steel isn't strong, Flesh is stronger: When you make the last attack of your action, or when use your Reaction to make an attack, if you roll a natural 1 you can treat your attack as a critical hit, but doing so destroys your weapon.

Anger and Armor, all the way down: When an enemy scores a critical hit against you, you can use your armor or shield to take the brunt of the damage, turning the critical hit into a miss -- but causing damage to your armor or shield.
- A shield is destroyed.
- Light armor is destroyed.
- Medium or Heavy armor can be used twice; the second time, it is destroyed.

These two rules would only apply to PCs. Thus, a score of dead NPCs would tend to leave a score of weapons, armor, and shields which could be plundered by PCs.

Monster fights would tend to cost more resources than NPC fights, unless the monster's lair contained replacement weapons.

Anyway, thoughts? Would these rules tempt you as a player? Would you destroy your gear for glory, and plunder the fallen for arms?

The late great Craig Rickman had a system like that. Small shield would take 1 blow, a large up to 3. Magic weapons and shields would lose a +1 every time you used it. So a +2 sword ->+1 sword->normal sword-> broken and useless sword. There was the occasional magic item of shielding that would take 3 hits to reduce each +1 so that was nice. I had a +3 sword of shielding.

IIRC, it didn't cover armor but that is a addition change. Also, it think it was used only on critical hits before knowing the critical results and for a potential killing blow (when your characters HP were under 10 or 15...I can't remember). But using it whenever was great. Then again, if your character went down, you could roll vs con to get a dying blow in return....

Don't know what rules you are using, but in 1st edition if a character fails a ST vs say fireballs or lightning breath, for example, then your items have to make savings throws or they are destroyed as well....

FreddyNoNose

2017-08-31, 02:20 PM

Thanks for all the feedback!

It's true that Rogues benefit from this. (And so do Paladins, and so do Barbarians...)

However, it's not true that Rogues can carry an infinite number of daggers. Each dagger weighs 1 pound, and if you're using Encumbrance, then a Rogue's carrying capacity can be rather limited.

10 Str => 50 lbs capacity
-13 studded leather
-2 shortbow
-3 arrows x60
-1 quiver
-5 waterskin
-2 rations (only 1 day)
-3 healing potions x3
-7 bedroll
-2 lantern
-1 flask of oil
-5 backpack
-----
-45 lbs of basic equipment (1 day's rations, 1 flask of oil)

You have up to 5 daggers. Make them count.

Say that the shattered weapon is broken in multiple places, or the pieces are bent in someway, and thus the cantrip doesn't work.

If you make it to a blacksmith, you can presumably just buy new gear. That's normal and expected.

What do you mean?

Indeed.

This is a cool idea.

These aren't meant to apply to ranged attacks, just melee.

I'd need to think about ranged for a while.

I'd say no.

Mmm, I feel like spellcasters are already pretty great, and don't need such a boost.

I'm curious why you left the rest of your post. It's kinda misleading.
Stick to your guns. You game sounds like fun!

Aett_Thorn

2017-08-31, 02:25 PM

Wouldn't a single wizard in the group with the Mending cantrip just kind of ruin the effect of this? "Oh, you broke your expensive armor? Let me spend a minute and fix that back up for you."

FreddyNoNose

2017-08-31, 02:32 PM

Wouldn't a single wizard in the group with the Mending cantrip just kind of ruin the effect of this? "Oh, you broke your expensive armor? Let me spend a minute and fix that back up for you."

Get rid of the mending. Too much weak a__ players these days who can't stand to lose an item.

Nifft

2017-08-31, 02:41 PM

Stick to your guns. You game sounds like fun! Heh, thanks.

But I do want feedback, both positive and negative. Finding problems allows me to improve the idea.

So far I've got:
- Don't give free daggers at every encounter
- Use the Encumbrance variant to ensure weapons are a limited resource
- Do something about the Mending cantrip

Wouldn't a single wizard in the group with the Mending cantrip just kind of ruin the effect of this? "Oh, you broke your expensive armor? Let me spend a minute and fix that back up for you."
Yeah it's been mentioned before.

Get rid of the mending. Too much weak a__ players these days who can't stand to lose an item.
Hmm, maybe something like:

- There is no Mending cantrip.
- Instead, any of Druidcraft, Prestidigitation, or Thaumaturgy can be used to repair cloth items or small tools. These spells cannot repair ammunition, armor, shields, or weapons.

Knaight

2017-08-31, 02:43 PM

The concept is pretty fun, and I've used similar things (although the game I used them in had a very curated weapon list, made mostly of wooden weapons that totally deserved to break routinely). With that said, the implementation is iffy - it's an option that only comes up ocassionally, starting at 1/20 of attack rolls and gradually dropping, with a high level fighter operating somewhere close to 1/80 (depending on how many reactions they get). It also seems a little odd that weapon breakability maps so nicely to price. I'd be more inclined to have an implementation involving having a break number (representing how hard a weapon/piece of armor is to break, based on material, weapon/armor size, and magic), and a stress number (representing damage to the weapon/armor). Then, I'd add in somewhat smaller bonuses as an option, where after you roll or an opponent rolls you can overexert to add/subtract a number up to your proficiency, while also adding that much stress to the equipment.

Then you just need to have a system that forces stress checks every so often. Rolling a 1 or 20 would do it: then roll a number of d6 equal to the stress dice, with the equipment breaking in some fashion if that exceeds the break number (weapons and shields just break, armor I'd probably reduce AC by 1 permanently and impose a disadvantage to movement related checks until field repairs happen). It's a fair bit crunchier, but it has advantages. It leaves in the choice without putting everything in total player control, it creates a situation where there's a safe level of overexertion that won't break a weapon on you instantly but that still incentivizes getting a new weapon, and if repairs are an option it adds a money sink to the game, particularly in the case of magic weapons where you're less likely to push into the area where the weapon has enough stress to be likely to break. It also gives you a new tool to play with in general - maybe attacking a fire elemental adds stress to your weapon regardless, maybe a long fall also stresses armor, etc.

Get rid of the mending. Too much weak a__ players these days who can't stand to lose an item.
I'd leave in the mending spell, and just not make it work for these particular breaks. It's not "a single break or tear" (which is what the spell fixes), it's a pattern of superficial damage that eventually added up. Alternately, if you use the stress system mending could fix the break but not actually resolve any stress, which means that there's a fixed weapon that can clearly still break on you easily.

Nifft

2017-08-31, 02:52 PM

Aett_Thorn

2017-08-31, 03:01 PM

You're over-thinking the math and coming to a wrong conclusion.

There's exactly one "last attack" per round that you take the Attack action.

There's a 1-in-20 chance to roll a 1 on that attack.

There's always a 1-in-20 chance per round (that you take the Attack action) that you will roll a 1 on your last attack.

It's a consistent chance per round across all classes, across all levels.

All weapons ought to appear equally breakable when using this rule -- what do you mean?

== == ==

Anyway, regarding Rogues... maybe this rule should only apply to Str-based attacks?

Oh, as if Dex needed more help. :wink:

I think that my biggest complaint is that while this does encourage some looting, you're also penalizing some player choices to do so. Got a Paladin who always wants to look his best in his gleaming Plate Mail? He'll never use this. Meanwhile, the scrub fighter that doesn't care what he's wearing could make use of this whenever he wants to, and just pick up whatever's around.

I just see this as an awkward system that most of the players that I play with would never use. But if your players might like it, go for it.

Nifft

2017-08-31, 03:07 PM

Oh, as if Dex needed more help. :wink: Indeed. It sounds like Str-only may be a better fit.

I think that my biggest complaint is that while this does encourage some looting, you're also penalizing some player choices to do so. Got a Paladin who always wants to look his best in his gleaming Plate Mail? He'll never use this. Meanwhile, the scrub fighter that doesn't care what he's wearing could make use of this whenever he wants to, and just pick up whatever's around.

I just see this as an awkward system that most of the players that I play with would never use. But if your players might like it, go for it.

The way I'd handle that is:

- Give the player who cares about the PC's gear magical gear.

- Give the player who lives fast & loose with gear more gear to break (via looting).

Idkwhatmyscreen

2017-08-31, 03:08 PM

I would probably put this in as a feat

Lombra

2017-08-31, 03:09 PM

I would leave mending in. It would finally gets some use. Maybe only several applications of mending once/long rest will bring the equipment back together. The first application would result in a -X version of the broken weapon, and subsequent applicationd for X long rests will bring the weapon back to +0, but can never restore magic bonuses. The X should be adjusted depending on how bad you want the impact to be. I can see a character choosing to keep a mended -2 silvered greatsword over a normal greatsword found among monsters because he knows that he will need that silver to bypass later monsters' resistancies.

X3r4ph

2017-08-31, 03:13 PM

I have made a system for this. It revolves around the reaction action.

You can use a reaction to Block, Evade or Parry.

Block is something you do with Shields and Armor. It eats away at your items hp.

Parry is the same, but with weapons. Parry only eats hp if you Parry a critical hit... side note: i have reimplemented improved crit range as a masterwork quality on weapons and a lot of the monsters has it as well.

Evade is you last chance. It is more difficult and bleeds your proficiency bonus until the end of your next turn.

I haven't tried the system yet but I am looking forward to testing it soon. This is just some of the many changes I have made. It needs a lot of playtesting before it will work I am sure. But it is gonna be nice to try something different.

Nifft

2017-08-31, 03:28 PM

I would probably put this in as a feat As a Feat, it would need to perform better. Something like...

Feat: Steel is Weak, Flesh is Stronger

Whenever you roll a 1 on a Strength-based melee attack, you may optionally damage your melee weapon to consider the 1 a 20. If you use this feature one or more times, then your weapon becomes useless at the start of your next turn.

I would leave mending in. It would finally gets some use. Maybe only several applications of mending once/long rest will bring the equipment back together. It's a cantrip that takes 1 minute to cast. That's 60 applications per short rest.

If mending cost a spell slot, then (depending on the specifics) I might be more agreeable.

Lombra

2017-08-31, 03:35 PM

As a Feat, it would need to perform better. Something like...

Feat: Steel is Weak, Flesh is Stronger

Whenever you roll a 1 on a Strength-based melee attack, you may optionally damage your melee weapon to consider the 1 a 20. If you use this feature one or more times, then your weapon becomes useless at the start of your next turn.

It's a cantrip that takes 1 minute to cast. That's 60 applications per short rest.

If mending cost a spell slot, then (depending on the specifics) I might be more agreeable.

I knew that I would be misunderstood: the effect of mending only restores 1 point and can do so only once a long rest per piece of equipment, so you would need at least 3 days to repair a -3 shield with mending.

Edit: to further clarify: as an houserule, since you are houseruling, that would be an houserule that I propose to keep mending relevant.

Nifft

2017-08-31, 03:39 PM

I knew that I would be misunderstood: the effect of mending only restores 1 point and can do so only once a long rest per piece of equipment, so you would need at least 3 days to repair a -3 shield with mending.

Edit: to further clarify: as an houserule, since you are houseruling, that would be an houserule that I propose to keep mending relevant.

Ah, gotcha.

Yeah I did misunderstand.

You're right, it would be possible to change how Mending works and thereby make it both worth taking (strategically) and also not broken.

Contrast

2017-08-31, 04:39 PM

So far I've got:
- Don't give free daggers at every encounter
- Use the Encumbrance variant to ensure weapons are a limited resource

I'm not sure you've really 'solved' the problem here. Ignoring strength rogues being a thing, lets assume you have 5 daggers. Your dagger is effectively a magic dagger with +1 to hit, double crit range and 4 charges with a half chance of expending on crit. You're going to have to be very creative in explaining why no enemies seem to carry knives around on them. At that point I'd be asking my other party members who had spare carrying capacity to carry spare daggers for me. Hell after the first couple of levels they could just hire a guy to walk around behind them carrying a backpack full of swords and axes and daggers - you can't even complain its against the heroic fantasy vibe for the heroes to have a squire :smalltongue:

It also means you'd have to make any magic weapon comparatively better otherwise they'd pass on them and just carry on spamming their way through.

I appreciate the intent you've put behind it in terms of putting the decision in the players hands. That said, it feels wrong to me that in this system players might often be hoping to roll a 1 rather than just a normal hit. If you're dead set on the idea I would consider making it just a regular hit or even a reduced damage hit rather than a crit - it reduces the temptation to try and game the system while still offering your players a potential upside in a dire situation.

I don't think the issue is so severe with armour as carrying around several suits of armour is more cost and space prohibitive as well as rendering them vulnerable for the rest of the combat they're fighting in and you have much more justification for declaring an enemies armour unusable, what with the players just having killed them through it (though they could just pay their squire to drive a cart around behind them...).

FreddyNoNose

2017-08-31, 05:00 PM

Heh, thanks.

But I do want feedback, both positive and negative. Finding problems allows me to improve the idea.

So far I've got:
- Don't give free daggers at every encounter
- Use the Encumbrance variant to ensure weapons are a limited resource
- Do something about the Mending cantrip

Yeah it's been mentioned before.

Hmm, maybe something like:

- There is no Mending cantrip.
- Instead, any of Druidcraft, Prestidigitation, or Thaumaturgy can be used to repair cloth items or small tools. These spells cannot repair ammunition, armor, shields, or weapons.

Certainly not repairing magical items to their former glory. You also have to watch out for someone who might sacrifice his shield (or other item) and mend and repeat and discounting a lot of damage over time. Perhaps these items are "beyond mending". Not allowing for it as you mentioned above is solid.

Don't forget item savings throws when players fail saves! Also, back in the day, willy nilly casting of dispell magic (an aoe spell) destroys potions.

Also, allow people to make scrolls/potions as your game allows is nice.

FreddyNoNose

2017-08-31, 05:01 PM

Nifft

2017-08-31, 05:29 PM

I'm not sure you've really 'solved' the problem here. Ignoring strength rogues being a thing, Why ignore them? I'm explicitly proposing a reward for that very unusual archetype.

lets assume you have 5 daggers. Your dagger is effectively a magic dagger with +1 to hit, double crit range and 4 charges with a half chance of expending on crit. You're going to have to be very creative in explaining why no enemies seem to carry knives around on them. At that point I'd be asking my other party members who had spare carrying capacity to carry spare daggers for me. Hell after the first couple of levels they could just hire a guy to walk around behind them carrying a backpack full of swords and axes and daggers - you can't even complain its against the heroic fantasy vibe for the heroes to have a squire :smalltongue:

It also means you'd have to make any magic weapon comparatively better otherwise they'd pass on them and just carry on spamming their way through. Mmm, not quite.

A magic weapon bonus affects all attacks, including bonus action or haste attacks. This rule only applies to one attack per turn.

After level 5, there are a lot of extra attack options available.

For example, a Barbarian would have a choice between:
+1 base damage, and then +5% expected damage overall; or
+1 to hit, and 2x crit chance (at a cost) 1/turn.

For a Fighter 11 who gets 3 attacks, the benefit is slanted even more heavily towards using a non-disposable magic weapon.

I appreciate the intent you've put behind it in terms of putting the decision in the players hands. That said, it feels wrong to me that in this system players might often be hoping to roll a 1 rather than just a normal hit. I think they would always prefer a 20.

If you're dead set on the idea I would consider making it just a regular hit or even a reduced damage hit rather than a crit - it reduces the temptation to try and game the system How do you think this system could be gamed?

I'm very interested!

Certainly not repairing magical items to their former glory. You also have to watch out for someone who might sacrifice his shield (or other item) and mend and repeat and discounting a lot of damage over time. Perhaps these items are "beyond mending". Not allowing for it as you mentioned above is solid.

You're right, there are more options than just allow vs. don't allow.

Cheers!

Tetrasodium

2017-08-31, 07:20 PM

I want to destroy PC gear, so the players have more incentive to (a) keep a back-up weapon; (b) use different weapons; and (c) engage with the environment by looting from fallen foes.

Anyway, thoughts? Would these rules tempt you as a player? Would you destroy your gear for glory, and plunder the fallen for arms?

all of my players carry multiple weapons, almost always a main weapon, a crappy backup weapon like a dagger/shortsword/etc, & sometimes a magic weapon

Byeshk Weapons: A Byeshk weapon is able
to overcome the chaotic influences Xoriat has
left on the Daelkyr & their servants. When
combined with warcaster or a class feature that allows a
character to channel a spell through a weapon (or similar) this
will allow the spell to overcome that same resistance, but not
any special resistances like fire or poison immunity. A
weapon made from Byeshk weighs twice the normal
weight. A bludgeoning weapon made from byeshk deals an
additional +2 on damage rolls; but the +2 does not stack
with Magical enhancements.
 Simple & Light weapons, +100gp
 Ammunition +100gp/5 arows/darts/etc
 Heavy Weapons +350gp
 All other Martial Weapons +250gp
o Byeshk Holy Symbol or Focus Item: +350gp Like Byeshk
weapons, these are required for spells to overcome Xoriat's
chaotic influence on the daelkyr & their servants.

Flame Touched Iron: Mined only in Thrane.
flame touched iron is rare and considered sacred by the
Church of the Silver Flame. When mined. this iron variety
has a speckled dark red color. resembling rust. but when it is
reﬁned. it takes on a shimmering. silvery hue. Adherents
ofthe Church ofthe Silver Flame believe that flame touched
iron carries the particular blessing of their deity. and they use
it to make holy symbols. weapons. and armor.
o Flame touched Iron Weapons: Weapons made from this
metal deal damage normally, but against Fiends, Undead, &
creatures specifically vulnerable to it they deal radiant
damage. Like Byeshk weapons, when combined with
warcaster or similar class features allowing a spell to be
channeled through a weapon this will overcome the special
resistance of suitable creatures
 Simple & Light weapons, +100gp

 Ammunition +100gp/5 arows/darts/etc
 Heavy Weapons +350gp
 All other Martial Weapons +250gp
o Flame Touched Iron Holy Symbol or casting
Focus: +350gp Like Flame touched Iron weapons, these are
required for spells to overcome the corrupted protections
granted to undead, fiends & creatures explicitly vulnerable
to radiant damage. Casting a spell with these will not change
the damage type or overcome specific resistance/immunities
(ie fireball vrs fire resistant/immune)

Armors made from those materials grant advantage to saves against their relevant critters & cost as follows:
 Studded Leather with plates & studs made from
byeshk/flametouched iron costs an extra 250gp
 Medium & heavy armor up to 14 ac (chain shirt,
scale mail, chain shirt, ring mail)
 All others, +750gp

Masterwork weapons& armor (+1 fdamage or +1 dex cap raise the total cost by 10x so a masterwork suit of plate would be 27,500) to make any armor made from one either less than optimal or have a stratospheric price
undead, many fiends/outsiders, daelkyr & their servants, etc all have a resistance to damage in my eberron game. in order to damage them at full you need to use either a weapon/focus item made from the proper metal or a damage type that would cancel the resist due to a vulnerability. using a weapon/focus of the right metal -and- an element they are weak to will grant the usual double damage. a magic weapon does not bypass this by virtue of being magic, likewise with spells not cast with a focus item of the proper substance.

It works exceedingly well in tier1/good bit of tier2 play because even a handful of zombies are going to be able to put up a good fight without having a chance to accidentally trigger a death spiral & tpk with a lucky crit or two & finding/buying one of those valuable weapons makes a player feel like a total badass without actually disrupting anything. Silver is likely pointless since I think flametouched iron hits everything that would otherwise need silver. Adamantine is still generally useful since it's mostly golems, constructs, etc that are protected by virtue of just being made of rock/iron/etc.

Edit: I didn't set out to make them carry multiple weapons, it was just an interesting byproduct the Op made me really notice

FreddyNoNose

2017-08-31, 11:40 PM

all of my players carry multiple weapons, almost always a main weapon, a crappy backup weapon like a dagger/shortsword/etc, & sometimes a magic weapon

Byeshk Weapons: A Byeshk weapon is able
to overcome the chaotic influences Xoriat has
left on the Daelkyr & their servants. When
combined with warcaster or a class feature that allows a
character to channel a spell through a weapon (or similar) this
will allow the spell to overcome that same resistance, but not
any special resistances like fire or poison immunity. A
weapon made from Byeshk weighs twice the normal
weight. A bludgeoning weapon made from byeshk deals an
additional +2 on damage rolls; but the +2 does not stack
with Magical enhancements.
 Simple & Light weapons, +100gp
 Ammunition +100gp/5 arows/darts/etc
 Heavy Weapons +350gp
 All other Martial Weapons +250gp
o Byeshk Holy Symbol or Focus Item: +350gp Like Byeshk
weapons, these are required for spells to overcome Xoriat's
chaotic influence on the daelkyr & their servants.

Flame Touched Iron: Mined only in Thrane.
flame touched iron is rare and considered sacred by the
Church of the Silver Flame. When mined. this iron variety
has a speckled dark red color. resembling rust. but when it is
reﬁned. it takes on a shimmering. silvery hue. Adherents
ofthe Church ofthe Silver Flame believe that flame touched
iron carries the particular blessing of their deity. and they use
it to make holy symbols. weapons. and armor.
o Flame touched Iron Weapons: Weapons made from this
metal deal damage normally, but against Fiends, Undead, &
creatures specifically vulnerable to it they deal radiant
damage. Like Byeshk weapons, when combined with
warcaster or similar class features allowing a spell to be
channeled through a weapon this will overcome the special
resistance of suitable creatures
 Simple & Light weapons, +100gp

 Ammunition +100gp/5 arows/darts/etc
 Heavy Weapons +350gp
 All other Martial Weapons +250gp
o Flame Touched Iron Holy Symbol or casting
Focus: +350gp Like Flame touched Iron weapons, these are
required for spells to overcome the corrupted protections
granted to undead, fiends & creatures explicitly vulnerable
to radiant damage. Casting a spell with these will not change
the damage type or overcome specific resistance/immunities
(ie fireball vrs fire resistant/immune)

Armors made from those materials grant advantage to saves against their relevant critters & cost as follows:
 Studded Leather with plates & studs made from
byeshk/flametouched iron costs an extra 250gp
 Medium & heavy armor up to 14 ac (chain shirt,
scale mail, chain shirt, ring mail)
 All others, +750gp

Masterwork weapons& armor (+1 fdamage or +1 dex cap raise the total cost by 10x so a masterwork suit of plate would be 27,500) to make any armor made from one either less than optimal or have a stratospheric price
undead, many fiends/outsiders, daelkyr & their servants, etc all have a resistance to damage in my eberron game. in order to damage them at full you need to use either a weapon/focus item made from the proper metal or a damage type that would cancel the resist due to a vulnerability. using a weapon/focus of the right metal -and- an element they are weak to will grant the usual double damage. a magic weapon does not bypass this by virtue of being magic, likewise with spells not cast with a focus item of the proper substance.

It works exceedingly well in tier1/good bit of tier2 play because even a handful of zombies are going to be able to put up a good fight without having a chance to accidentally trigger a death spiral & tpk with a lucky crit or two & finding/buying one of those valuable weapons makes a player feel like a total badass without actually disrupting anything. Silver is likely pointless since I think flametouched iron hits everything that would otherwise need silver. Adamantine is still generally useful since it's mostly golems, constructs, etc that are protected by virtue of just being made of rock/iron/etc.

Edit: I didn't set out to make them carry multiple weapons, it was just an interesting byproduct the Op made me really notice

We used to carry flint & steel & oil to deal with trolls.

Contrast

2017-09-01, 03:12 AM

Why ignore them? I'm explicitly proposing a reward for that very unusual archetype.

You seemed to agree infinite daggers was an issue as you said you wouldn't be handing out daggers after every combat. Do you not?

A magic weapon bonus affects all attacks, including bonus action or haste attacks. This rule only applies to one attack per turn.

We were talking about rogues in particular who benefit massively from crits and only have one attack per round as a base. Paladins also benefit comparatively more from crits and only get 2 attacks base. Barbarians also benefit from crits and only get two attacks but they have potential for perma advantage which reduces chance of ones and carrying around 10 great axes is more problematic than 10 daggers.

In practice most people will likely never use your rule (carrying around multiple great axes and the like is inconvenient and the benefits sufficiently minor that a magic weapon will probably be considered better). Rogues however will likely continue to buy poor quality daggers and break them for the majority of their adventuring career.

I think they would always prefer a 20.

Sure? My point was that in many cases (any time you have a spare weapon and wouldn't be single hitting the enemy anyway) rolling a 1 is going to be the second best outcome after a 20. If you don't agree that the system shouldn't encourage wanting to roll 1s over 19s then I'll guess we'll just have to disagree.

It occurs to me this is technically a slight nerf to halflings which may be why I'm against it as they're my favourite race :smallbiggrin:

How do you think this system could be gamed?

As above, with carrying around 20 of the cheapest daggers you can find being more optimal than investing in some decent ones. I don't think anyone in history has ever thought 'man I wish I'd been using a worse weapon in that fight so it would have broken' and that seems a weird thing to try and emulate in the game and actively encourage players towards to me.

Kane0

2017-09-01, 05:06 AM

Contrast

2017-09-01, 05:45 AM

Well in theory this seems to be intended for thematic effect.
If it stops being fun and thematic because heroes are deliberately breaking cheap weapons all the time the DM can just stop giving the bonus for it.
The great DM giveth and the great DM taketh away.

Which reminds me, gotta add a couple rust monsters and slimes to some of my adventures...

I don't really like that because then a player might justifiably think they could do it, only to be slapped down by the DM. If a houserule is balanced by the DM telling the players not to use the houserule, that seems reasonable justification to reassess the houserule :smalltongue:

If you want to put a limit on it, my suggestion would be that the player could use inspiration (DM version, not bardic) to turn a 1 into a crit but break their weapon. Puts an intrinsic limit on it and puts it in DM purview to control if necessary without snatching things away from players at the last second.

spinningdice

2017-09-01, 06:14 AM

I don't see most of the issues as issues.

Weapons: It's not going to come up all that often, 1/attack per round has a 1 in 20 chance, and even then it's optional. I'd even be inclined to let it be any attack, rather than limiting to the last attack (maybe less likely to be used as then you'd have to draw another weapon).
Regarding daggers, isn't carrying/looting part of the stated reason to make this change? It also gives daggers the advantage of being lighter, more accurate, but flimsier, which is pretty thematic in my book.

Armour:I'd be inclined to have each time it's used reduce AC by 2, which amounts to nearly the same, but gives some more latitude. Maybe even let it drop you below 10 to represent shattered armour hanging off you impeding your efforts to dodge, until you can spend a moment to cut it free.

I would also likely institute a flat 10% chance that any piece of npc gear is broken for looting (gear they were using at least), stop the players asking too many questions about why gear is flimsier in their hands than anyone elses.

Cybren

2017-09-01, 07:22 AM

How on earth is this a nerf? If you never choose to use these options the game functions just as it always has. If you do choose to use them you gain more options. You may not think they are "good" options, but it is in no way a "nerf".

That said, if you do feel the need to give a caster some options, you could allow them to burn a spell slot for the same effects. I.e. exerting raw magical energy to block or enhance their attack. Spell slot level having no effect. A level 1 slot would be just as good as a level 9 slot. Though that gives them a lot more options, than a martial would have. Could be a random slot, if you wanted. IDK, I'm just spit balling randomly.

in magic the gathering the developers identified a problem where players would perceive a creature with a useless or bad ability like "Tap: lose the game" as being worse than identical creatures without the ability.

Dhuraal

2017-09-01, 11:26 AM

I talked with players in my group, and by and large they all like the idea as well. A thought we had, that admittedly doesn't encourage looting, is that instead of having your equipment be damaged or destroyed, you could choose to take a 1 level of exhaustion instead. Or just make it an exhaustion thing in general without any equipment breakage. Just a thought I wanted to share.

X3r4ph

2017-09-01, 12:48 PM

He wasn't talking about eating away but destroying the item upon use. You way is very computer gamey.
Figures. I work in the game industry for a living :)

Knaight

2017-09-01, 12:55 PM

He wasn't talking about eating away but destroying the item upon use. You way is very computer gamey.

Yes, because wear and tear is a totally fictitious concept made up by the gaming industry. The only way anything ever breaks is in a single catastrophic failure, and concepts like "erosion", "scratches", and "metal fatigue" are attempts to back port a fictional HP system to real life.

X3r4ph

2017-09-01, 01:00 PM

Yes, because wear and tear is a totally fictitious concept made up by the gaming industry. The only way anything ever breaks is in a single catastrophic failure, and concepts like "erosion", "scratches", and "metal fatigue" are attempts to back port a fictional HP system to real life.
:)

Plus. If you wanna just break the weapon that would work too. You turn the opponents critical hit into a miss but your armor/weapon breaks. This makes for an interesting choice. And a good game is all bout meaningfull choices that can overcome interesting obstacles.

FreddyNoNose

2017-09-01, 01:33 PM

Nifft

2017-09-01, 01:41 PM

You seemed to agree infinite daggers was an issue as you said you wouldn't be handing out daggers after every combat. Do you not?
Not currently, no.

I thought you had a point, but it seems to have been a misunderstanding.

At low levels, the damage sacrificed by using a dagger instead of a rapier is significant and overshadows the damage gain from an extra chance to crit.

Let's say a dagger user has advantage for every attack, and makes 400 attacks. 19 of those result in a crit-on-20; one of them is a natural 1. If you always attack with advantage, this rule only gives you a 1-in-400 improvement in critical hits. Rogues want advantage for sneak attack, so this rule is arguably least applicable to a Rogue.

Rapier deals +2 expected damage over dagger. If you always attack with advantage, that means your 1-in-400 extra crit would need to compensate you for the -2 damage to every other hit. If you hit on a 10, you'd hit 300 / 400 times. Your one extra crit-on-1 would need to deliver 2 x 300 damage to make your tactic viable.

If you want to have a valid point, you'll want to work out the proportion of attacks that are sneak attack, but are NOT with advantage. If the proportion is very high, that might validate your argument -- but it might not.

At high levels, you'll need to compensate for the large number of extra hits that you get when you combine Advantage with magical bonuses, and the advantage of better weapons is multiplied by extra attacks.

From the analysis I've done, your point does not hold up. Daggers are great, but they don't break this mechanic. If there's something that I've missed, please do point it out -- but I'll need to see the math behind it, and it'll have to include Advantage and (at level 5+) extra attacks.

In practice most people will likely never use your rule (carrying around multiple great axes and the like is inconvenient and the benefits sufficiently minor that a magic weapon will probably be considered better). I guess you missed my first post in the thread?

People will use the rule when they can expect to pick up the weapons of their fallen enemies. It's the first few lines of the first post, please do give it a look when you have a chance.

Rogues however will likely continue to buy poor quality daggers and break them for the majority of their adventuring career. What are these "poor-quality" and/or "cheapest" daggers that you keep talking about? A dagger is a dagger.

As above, with carrying around 20 of the cheapest daggers you can find being more optimal than investing in some decent ones. I don't think anyone in history has ever thought 'man I wish I'd been using a worse weapon in that fight so it would have broken' and that seems a weird thing to try and emulate in the game and actively encourage players towards to me. Again, all weapons can be broken on a 1. All of them. Every single one, every single 1. There's no difference between them based on price -- all are equal before Nerull. If you want your +5 Hackmaster to break, it breaks.

Nobody will ever wish they were using a "worse" weapon because all weapons are equally fragile. You keep repeating that plea to illogic, but it's a non sequitur.

I wonder if you're arguing against a different rule, which you've encountered in the past?

I don't see most of the issues as issues.

Weapons: It's not going to come up all that often, 1/attack per round has a 1 in 20 chance, and even then it's optional. I'd even be inclined to let it be any attack, rather than limiting to the last attack (maybe less likely to be used as then you'd have to draw another weapon).
Regarding daggers, isn't carrying/looting part of the stated reason to make this change? It also gives daggers the advantage of being lighter, more accurate, but flimsier, which is pretty thematic in my book. The issue with "any attack" is that if you break your weapon on your first attack, what are you supposed to do for the others?

I guess a Battle Master could use Disarm to take an enemy's weapon and then stab the enemy with it... Okay, that's awesome. Maybe it should be more than just 1/round, but then I worry about balance.

I dunno. I gotta go math harder.

Armour:I'd be inclined to have each time it's used reduce AC by 2, which amounts to nearly the same, but gives some more latitude. Maybe even let it drop you below 10 to represent shattered armour hanging off you impeding your efforts to dodge, until you can spend a moment to cut it free.

I would also likely institute a flat 10% chance that any piece of npc gear is broken for looting (gear they were using at least), stop the players asking too many questions about why gear is flimsier in their hands than anyone elses.
My initial thoughts were to just break half of all NPC gear -- just randomly sort the list of gear, and the PCs can use the top half.

Tracking individual breaks could be more effort, but the result could be more verisimilitude and that's cool, too. Maybe break NPC gear on a 1 (without giving them a crit).

I don't really like that because then a player might justifiably think they could do it, only to be slapped down by the DM. If a houserule is balanced by the DM telling the players not to use the houserule, that seems reasonable justification to reassess the houserule :smalltongue:

If you want to put a limit on it, my suggestion would be that the player could use inspiration (DM version, not bardic) to turn a 1 into a crit but break their weapon. Puts an intrinsic limit on it and puts it in DM purview to control if necessary without snatching things away from players at the last second.
Inspiration is a great idea.

I like it because it balances well across two different play-styles:
- Risk-hungry player spends Inspiration to gain Advantage on-demand, gaining a significantly better chance at a critical hit (but not a sure thing).
- "Hoarder" player spends Inspiration on a natural 1, which has a worse overall payout than Advantage, but which is a sure thing.

That's really nice for a player type who isn't otherwise well-represented.

in magic the gathering the developers identified a problem where players would perceive a creature with a useless or bad ability like "Tap: lose the game" as being worse than identical creatures without the ability.
Nice insight. I didn't know about that.

It certainly explains some otherwise mysterious posts in this thread.

I talked with players in my group, and by and large they all like the idea as well. A thought we had, that admittedly doesn't encourage looting, is that instead of having your equipment be damaged or destroyed, you could choose to take a 1 level of exhaustion instead. Or just make it an exhaustion thing in general without any equipment breakage. Just a thought I wanted to share. Personally, I'm not a fan of Exhaustion levels as a resource, but if it works for you then I'm glad to have helped inspire.

Thanks for all the feedback, everyone!

Pelle

2017-09-02, 04:31 AM

Yes, because wear and tear is a totally fictitious concept made up by the gaming industry. The only way anything ever breaks is in a single catastrophic failure, and concepts like "erosion", "scratches", and "metal fatigue" are attempts to back port a fictional HP system to real life.

I think it's more that bookkeeping is inherently better suited to computer games than table top gaming. Keeping track of equipment hp is not really belonging in a streamlined system.

I really like the suggested rule, especially coupled to inspiration, but still I think it is one rule too many for me to implement at my table currently.

Beelzebubba

2017-09-02, 05:01 AM

At low levels, the damage sacrificed by using a dagger instead of a rapier is significant and overshadows the damage gain from an extra chance to crit.
--
At high levels, you'll need to compensate for the large number of extra hits that you get when you combine Advantage with magical bonuses, and the advantage of better weapons is multiplied by extra attacks.

Apologies for any retread, I'm thinking it through myself.

This whole thing seems to balance by levels for Rogues, in a way. Since they'll get Advantage so often, they have lower odds of getting a 1 in the first place. So the 'disposable dagger' issue will be low the whole time - at low levels they stay away until they have Advantage (because they're fragile), at high levels they'll be using their Bonus Actions for Cunning Actions, etc.

Like others said, it's Fighters that seem to have the most chances for the breakage, especially Battlemasters with all their extra Superiority Dice actions and extra attacks. And, then it's only a Two Weapon Fighter who will be willing to sacrifice that secondary weapon for the occasional crit at low level. At high level it probably won't be worth it to attack with a non-magical weapon, the lower chance to hit will offset the extra potential critical damage.

I think some math savant will find a way to exploit it, but I'm not seeing it as game-breaking, except perhaps from Level 1-5. And if/when someone starts exploiting it in an obviously 'gamist' way at a RP-heavy table, it's easy enough to just say 'cut it out, you're ruining it for everyone'.

--

I can see this really resulting as a very flavorful Inspiration mechanic - like in Conan the Barbarian (the original movie) when he used his broken sword to kill Thulsa Doom, the BBEG. Having that as a Fighter in that kind of situation would be rad!

It also sounds exactly like the type of game play in Dungeon World, where you have a 'fail forward' mechanic that allows you to make a sacrifice to succeed when you otherwise fail. 'Unlock that door, but break a tool and suffer a penalty until they're fixed.' or 'Make that jump across the chasm, but one of your belt pouches falls off'.

Chugger

2017-09-02, 05:42 AM

I want to destroy PC gear, so the players have more incentive to (a) keep a back-up weapon; (b) use different weapons; and (c) engage with the environment by looting from fallen foes.

However, I don't want the destruction of gear to be involuntary -- in essence, I want a way to encourage PCs to make a decision which breaks their gear.

Here's what I've come up with (but not actually tried):

Steel isn't strong, Flesh is stronger: When you make the last attack of your action, or when use your Reaction to make an attack, if you roll a natural 1 you can treat your attack as a critical hit, but doing so destroys your weapon.

Anger and Armor, all the way down: When an enemy scores a critical hit against you, you can use your armor or shield to take the brunt of the damage, turning the critical hit into a miss -- but causing damage to your armor or shield.
- A shield is destroyed.
- Light armor is destroyed.
- Medium or Heavy armor can be used twice; the second time, it is destroyed.

These two rules would only apply to PCs. Thus, a score of dead NPCs would tend to leave a score of weapons, armor, and shields which could be plundered by PCs.

Monster fights would tend to cost more resources than NPC fights, unless the monster's lair contained replacement weapons.

Anyway, thoughts? Would these rules tempt you as a player? Would you destroy your gear for glory, and plunder the fallen for arms?

I'd find another table to play at. Sorry. Just being honest.

Pelle

2017-09-02, 06:53 AM

I'd find another table to play at. Sorry. Just being honest.

Just curious: Why so, because you don't like playing with house rules/adding more options, or

in magic the gathering the developers identified a problem where players would perceive a creature with a useless or bad ability like "Tap: lose the game" as being worse than identical creatures without the ability.
?

Cybren

2017-09-02, 07:14 AM

People tend to look at only the worst case scenario of things they perceive of as downside. ("Pay 8 to give a creature +1/+1 until end of turn? This card is trash!!!!" But if you showed them the identical card without that ability they might say "a 3/4 for 4? Fine limited card, you'll probably play any if your sealed deck is in that color!"). The most extreme hypothetical is a card that says "pay 10: lose the game" identical to another card that is otherwise identical to one people say is one of the best card in the set. It's the same card, since you never have to pay 10 to lose the game. But they perceive a downside so that's makes them evaluate the entire card as worse. (I swear to glob if someone comes in here like "what about a mind slaver effect" I will glare at my screen until one of us is dead)

Contrast

2017-09-02, 01:11 PM

Let's say a dagger user has advantage for every attack, and makes 400 attacks. 19 of those result in a crit-on-20; one of them is a natural 1. If you always attack with advantage, this rule only gives you a 1-in-400 improvement in critical hits. Rogues want advantage for sneak attack, so this rule is arguably least applicable to a Rogue.

Rapier deals +2 expected damage over dagger. If you always attack with advantage, that means your 1-in-400 extra crit would need to compensate you for the -2 damage to every other hit. If you hit on a 10, you'd hit 300 / 400 times. Your one extra crit-on-1 would need to deliver 2 x 300 damage to make your tactic viable.

If you want to have a valid point, you'll want to work out the proportion of attacks that are sneak attack, but are NOT with advantage. If the proportion is very high, that might validate your argument -- but it might not.

At high levels, you'll need to compensate for the large number of extra hits that you get when you combine Advantage with magical bonuses, and the advantage of better weapons is multiplied by extra attacks.

From the analysis I've done, your point does not hold up. Daggers are great, but they don't break this mechanic. If there's something that I've missed, please do point it out -- but I'll need to see the math behind it, and it'll have to include Advantage and (at level 5+) extra attacks.

Edit - It occurs to me I'm assuming you're not using the flanking variant rule here. If you are, obviously my assumptions are going to be off.

Firstly, a rogue using a rapier or dagger is likely a rogue who likes to mix it up in melee. It is much less likely that such a rogue is getting perma-advantage from hiding as they are likely simply relying on standing next to an ally to trigger sneak attack. Unless you are in a party with a wolf barbarian or following around someone with shield master, you are probably not striking with advantage.

Without advantage we've boosted our crit chance from 1/20 to 1/10. If you're that worried about the damage difference between a rapier and a dagger, just carry around 2 rapiers and a couple of daggers as backup.

How useful this improved crit chance will be depends heavily on what type of encounters you fight. Single or a couple of large enemies? Really good. Hordes of mooks? You'll just end up overkilling everyone. What I'm really trying to point out is that this is much more of a buff to rogues (and somewhat paladins) than it is to other classes and that is an issue you should be aware of.

I guess you missed my first post in the thread?

People will use the rule when they can expect to pick up the weapons of their fallen enemies. It's the first few lines of the first post, please do give it a look when you have a chance.

You mean the one in which you ask for peoples thoughts? :smalltongue: I'm not sure if you're reading hostility into my replies that isn't there. You do what you wanna do and works for you at your table. I'm just trying to help with the pre-troubleshooting phase :smalltongue:

If I'm a two handed fighter or polearm fighter and I've invested feats in that regard and none of the enemies seem to be using the right type of weapon, will I bust up my weapon? Probably not. The reason I've mentioned daggers a lot is that basically all enemies will have a dagger so that is where this rule is likely to see the most use because no-one cares if they bust up their dagger.

What are these "poor-quality" and/or "cheapest" daggers that you keep talking about? A dagger is a dagger.

Per my comment about needing to consider how good you make magic weapons. Lets say your rogue finds a +1 dagger. If he's going up against something really tough the player might consciously choose to use their worse daggers so they can break them to turn a miss into a crit. If I was going to introduce weapon breakage rules I'd want them to encourage players to husband their good equipment for the hard fights, not get out their secondary gear for the hard fight so they can break it at opportune moments.

Nobody will ever wish they were using a "worse" weapon because all weapons are equally fragile. You keep repeating that plea to illogic, but it's a non sequitur.

Hopefully clarified above?

The issue with "any attack" is that if you break your weapon on your first attack, what are you supposed to do for the others?

For reference you can draw one weapon as part of an attack action. If you were minded to allow it on any attack and already had a weapon drawn you could attack, roll a one and break your weapon and then draw a weapon to make another attack. Someone with the dual wielder feat could hypothetically attack, break, attack, break, draw two weapons, attack, break, attack, break and then next turn draw another two weapons as part of their attack action that turn. Given that ones aren't that common I don't see it being too much of an issue. Sometimes at the start of combat someone will roll a 1 the turn they drew a weapon and be stuffed but at the same time, they rolled a 1 so they should be stuffed and they can always choose not to break the weapon in that case.

Obviously its more of a buff overall if its not just one attack per turn so keep an eye on that :smallbiggrin:

X3r4ph

2017-09-03, 02:33 AM

I think it's more that bookkeeping is inherently better suited to computer games than table top gaming. Keeping track of equipment hp is not really belonging in a streamlined system.

I really like the suggested rule, especially coupled to inspiration, but still I think it is one rule too many for me to implement at my table currently.
You could easily skip the HP and instead use "broken". When you parry or block a critical hit your weapon or shield breaks and you lose your proficiency until it is repaired.

Parrying or blocking a critical hit with a broken item destroys it.

mgshamster

2017-09-03, 09:56 AM

I've been thinking of a system for equipment breakage for a few weeks now.

Started with me saying, "The DM determines if weapons or armor breaks at thematically appropriate times." One of my players loved this idea, one of the players absolutely hated it.

So I revised it to "Hits can also deal damage to equipment through regular use." Same player still hated it, other player thought it was ok as long as it didn't increase what we had to track in game.

Went through a few more revisions, to no satisfaction of all Then I saw what was proposed here, and I thought it would be fantastic! The perfect solution: the player decides if they want to be apart of the system or not.

So I brought it up to the group. A different player absolutely hates this idea. He feels like it shouldn't be player choice at all, it should just happen to you. He says, "I don't get to decide how many customers show up at the shop, I just have to deal with what life brings me. Giving me a choice takes away the fun of the game."

Well, damn. I just can't make everyone happy. :(

X3r4ph

2017-09-03, 12:32 PM

Giving me a choice destroys my fun? Wtf? Choice is whole part of leveling, combat strategy, how to interact with npcs... everything!?! Lol. Weirdo. Poor DM.

mgshamster

2017-09-03, 01:18 PM

Giving me a choice destroys my fun? Wtf? Choice is whole part of leveling, combat strategy, how to interact with npcs... everything!?! Lol. Weirdo. Poor DM.

Yeah, but those are all character choices. He believes his only choices should be how he builds his character and how is character interacts with the world.

Choices outside of the character shouldn't be in the hands of the Player. Such as when a weapon breaks, which NPCs show up to talk, etc.. That's his argument. So he doesn't like the system because he feels that equipment should break outside of the opinion of the PC. After all, you don't decide when you get a flat tire. It just happens to you. What you do after that is your where your choices lie.

On a similar note, I've had a previous player who didn't even like having a real choice of where to go in an adventure. He hated sandbox games. He felt he should be given the illusion of choice, so that whether he picks to go left or right, the story wouldn't change. The DM would just place the obstacles in which ever path the players decided.

X3r4ph

2017-09-03, 02:27 PM

Nifft

2017-09-03, 10:16 PM

Yeah, but those are all character choices. He believes his only choices should be how he builds his character and how is character interacts with the world.

Choices outside of the character shouldn't be in the hands of the Player. Such as when a weapon breaks, which NPCs show up to talk, etc.. That's his argument. So he doesn't like the system because he feels that equipment should break outside of the opinion of the PC. After all, you don't decide when you get a flat tire. It just happens to you. What you do after that is your where your choices lie.

On a similar note, I've had a previous player who didn't even like having a real choice of where to go in an adventure. He hated sandbox games. He felt he should be given the illusion of choice, so that whether he picks to go left or right, the story wouldn't change. The DM would just place the obstacles in which ever path the players decided.

The weapon breaking would be a direct result of the player interacting with the world. ("Interacting" in a violent and stabby sort of way, of course.)

Try framing it like this:

Double-Edged Opportunity: Sometimes the world swings both in your favor, and against. These fulcrums of fate arise from the natural back-and-forth flow of battle. You have no control of when this circumstance will arise, but when it does, you are faced with a dilemma: go for it and damage both your weapon and your foe, or do you pull back to safety?
- Go For It: Your weapon breaks, but as it breaks, it also deals damage to your foe. Roll critical hit damage.
- Pull Back: Your weapon does not break. Treat this as a miss.
When you take the Attack action, a double-edged opportunity arises when you roll a natural 1 on your last attack.

Don't tell him that it's exactly the same. This is purely an exercise in framing.

spinningdice

2017-09-04, 08:31 AM

The issue with "any attack" is that if you break your weapon on your first attack, what are you supposed to do for the others?

I guess a Battle Master could use Disarm to take an enemy's weapon and then stab the enemy with it... Okay, that's awesome. Maybe it should be more than just 1/round, but then I worry about balance.

Or make it 1/round. I was kind of thinking that you'd forgo any further attacks (unless you're dual wielding or just want to punch them), and that the option wouldn't be taken often, but sometimes that option of 'you've already hit, and can do twice as much damage, so it's better than rolling another attack' would make it worth it.

My initial thoughts were to just break half of all NPC gear -- just randomly sort the list of gear, and the PCs can use the top half.

Tracking individual breaks could be more effort, but the result could be more verisimilitude and that's cool, too. Maybe break NPC gear on a 1 (without giving them a crit).

Only bother rolling if the players are interested in taking it...

Laurefindel

2017-09-04, 10:17 AM

I like the houserule. Some thoughts...

I think limiting it to STR-based attacks is a good idea. If STR-based rogues are a problem, you could go further and deny this rule to finesse weapons, period. Or daggers. Not sure if it's necessary.

Some tables/players roll all their attacks simultaneously and resolve those that hit; some code should be agreed on for the attack that triggers the houserule.

Not sure if its a bug or a feature, but attacking with disadvantage would increase your chances of critical hit (at a cost).

Unsure how this would mesh with Lucky (feat). Also, is Lucky (halfling feature) optional or mandatory? (AFB at the moment). Not hard to houserule it as optional though.

Champion fighter has now 3 ways to crit at level 3.

Something indeed has to be done about the mending spell. Saying it doesn't work on weapons is game-y but it works.

While cool, this rule encourages being well-prepared more so than looting. I don't know your game style, but it could see it as a reason to take a pause, go back to your horse/wagon, take your back-up shield or chainmail, restock 5 more daggers, equip a new longsword etc. In other words, almost a short rest reset ability. While I see that as normal, some tables could see that as disruptive.

Contrast

2017-09-04, 10:24 AM

Unsure how this would mesh with Lucky (feat). Also, is Lucky (halfling feature) optional or mandatory? (AFB at the moment). Not hard to houserule it as optional though.

Lucky feat is buffed as you get to choose which dice roll and this offers another option to crit.

Halfling is optional (if you re-roll you must use the new roll).

Asmotherion

2017-09-04, 10:44 AM

I want to destroy PC gear, so the players have more incentive to (a) keep a back-up weapon; (b) use different weapons; and (c) engage with the environment by looting from fallen foes.

However, I don't want the destruction of gear to be involuntary -- in essence, I want a way to encourage PCs to make a decision which breaks their gear.

Here's what I've come up with (but not actually tried):

Steel isn't strong, Flesh is stronger: When you make the last attack of your action, or when use your Reaction to make an attack, if you roll a natural 1 you can treat your attack as a critical hit, but doing so destroys your weapon.

Anger and Armor, all the way down: When an enemy scores a critical hit against you, you can use your armor or shield to take the brunt of the damage, turning the critical hit into a miss -- but causing damage to your armor or shield.
- A shield is destroyed.
- Light armor is destroyed.
- Medium or Heavy armor can be used twice; the second time, it is destroyed.

These two rules would only apply to PCs. Thus, a score of dead NPCs would tend to leave a score of weapons, armor, and shields which could be plundered by PCs.

Monster fights would tend to cost more resources than NPC fights, unless the monster's lair contained replacement weapons.

Anyway, thoughts? Would these rules tempt you as a player? Would you destroy your gear for glory, and plunder the fallen for arms?

Interesting, but dependent to playstyle. I would include more options for a player who wants to instead develop a bond with a particular weapon or set of armor instead of trash it out like it's a single-serving friend. Perhaps name one the "survivalist" and the other the "bonding" playstyle... or whatever, I'm bad at thinking up names on the spot anyway XD.

Waterdeep Merch

2017-09-04, 02:14 PM

I really like OP's idea. It's a great fit for a game with limited or no magic items.

I'm thinking of using your system, with a few tweaks-

* On a natural 1, you get a normal hit, not a critical
* I'd like to add non-magical +1-3 on weapons and armor to represent superior smithing. Each critical failure while a + remains removes one of those rather than outright breaking the item
* Armor and shields breaks when they are subjected to a critical hit by turning said critical hit into a normal hit, but in half steps (unless it has +'s, see above bullet point). Meaning, the first time you'd take a critical hit, it halves the AC bonus of the armor/shield (rounded up). The second time, it's broken. Shields are always broken before armor
* Some level of care can restore functionality to worn or broken weapons and armor. Use of the appropriate tools and a good enough check can make broken weapons or armor usable again, or restore some of the wear and tear on superior gear. Most NPC smiths can fix basic weapons and armor, but the really good (+2 and +3) stuff might be beyond their ability. Players can do it themselves, but again, they'll need tools they probably can't bring along with them (forge, anvil, quenching barrel, etc)

Because I really do like the idea of carrying spare weapons and sidearms. Even not drawing your best weapons out of fear of nicking them. It adds a cool survival mechanic.

Nifft

2017-09-04, 07:12 PM

Edit - It occurs to me I'm assuming you're not using the flanking variant rule here. If you are, obviously my assumptions are going to be off. That's a good comparison. For a Str-Rogue in a game without the Flanking rule, this rule is similar to how Flanking would work (except not as strong as Flanking).

So if you think Flanking is extremely overpowered, this rule may not be for you.

If you think Flanking is only a little bit too strong, this rule may be perfect.

You mean the one in which you ask for peoples thoughts? :smalltongue: I honestly can't tell if you're trolling me.

Even if you're not, you're offering a bit too much frustration per unit of insight.

Like the thread title says, and like the first post says, part of the motivation for this rule is to encourage looting -- to give PCs a reason to take weapons from the fallen, because their store-bought weapons can be broken. That's what I'm asking you to understand before we progress with the assorted "problems" of PCs buying backups for gear that can break. It's not a problem. They currently leave excess gear lying on the blood-soaked ground.

The problem is not that I want to take away their axes. Nobody wants to take away your axes. Buying two axes is not an invalidation of the proposed rule.

Anyway. Moving on...

You could easily skip the HP and instead use "broken". When you parry or block a critical hit your weapon or shield breaks and you lose your proficiency until it is repaired.

Parrying or blocking a critical hit with a broken item destroys it. I could do a whole article on translating pool-ablation mechanics into stochastic-ablation mechanics...

Not sure if its a bug or a feature, but attacking with disadvantage would increase your chances of critical hit (at a cost). Definitely a bug! Disadvantage is supposed to be categorically worse, with no particular upsides. Thanks for spotting this.

While cool, this rule encourages being well-prepared more so than looting. I don't know your game style, but it could see it as a reason to take a pause, go back to your horse/wagon, take your back-up shield or chainmail, restock 5 more daggers, equip a new longsword etc. In other words, almost a short rest reset ability. While I see that as normal, some tables could see that as disruptive. I'm fine with that.

The way Conan fights in the movie, where he prepares several weapons within easy reach to take down the horse-men, is definitely a trope that I think could be better represented in the game.

If exploration is a pillar you want to challenge your players, then resource attrition -- including weapon attrition -- is a boon.

Interesting, but dependent to playstyle. I would include more options for a player who wants to instead develop a bond with a particular weapon or set of armor instead of trash it out like it's a single-serving friend. Perhaps name one the "survivalist" and the other the "bonding" playstyle... or whatever, I'm bad at thinking up names on the spot anyway XD. Absolutely yes.

I think the "careful swordsman" archetype is pretty well represented. If you're a Paladin with a Holy Avenger, for example, you probably don't want to break that -- and you're already well-rewarded for using it.

But what if you want to play Madmartigan (http://www.imdb.com/character/ch0011994/) instead?

This rule is for that player.

I really like OP's idea. It's a great fit for a game with limited or no magic items.

I'm thinking of using your system, with a few tweaks-

* On a natural 1, you get a normal hit, not a critical
* I'd like to add non-magical +1-3 on weapons and armor to represent superior smithing. Each critical failure while a + remains removes one of those rather than outright breaking the item
* Armor and shields breaks when they are subjected to a critical hit by turning said critical hit into a normal hit, but in half steps (unless it has +'s, see above bullet point). Meaning, the first time you'd take a critical hit, it halves the AC bonus of the armor/shield (rounded up). The second time, it's broken. Shields are always broken before armor
* Some level of care can restore functionality to worn or broken weapons and armor. Use of the appropriate tools and a good enough check can make broken weapons or armor usable again, or restore some of the wear and tear on superior gear. Most NPC smiths can fix basic weapons and armor, but the really good (+2 and +3) stuff might be beyond their ability. Players can do it themselves, but again, they'll need tools they probably can't bring along with them (forge, anvil, quenching barrel, etc)

Because I really do like the idea of carrying spare weapons and sidearms. Even not drawing your best weapons out of fear of nicking them. It adds a cool survival mechanic. Glad you like! Hope this adds some fun to your game.

However, I would caution against giving a lot of +3 equipment in 5e. That type of bonus can throw Bounded Accuracy out of whack.

Instead, perhaps just list levels of wear:
- Pristine
- Used
- Worn
- Damaged
- Broken

Most of the gear they find might be Worn, so they get two critical fails before it's useless.

If they find Pristine gear, that's four critical fails -- clearly worth more, at least for a while.

Thanks everyone!

Contrast

2017-09-05, 04:11 AM

I honestly can't tell if you're trolling me.

Even if you're not, you're offering a bit too much frustration per unit of insight.

Like the thread title says, and like the first post says, part of the motivation for this rule is to encourage looting -- to give PCs a reason to take weapons from the fallen, because their store-bought weapons can be broken. That's what I'm asking you to understand before we progress with the assorted "problems" of PCs buying backups for gear that can break. It's not a problem. They currently leave excess gear lying on the blood-soaked ground.

The problem is not that I want to take away their axes. Nobody wants to take away your axes. Buying two axes is not an invalidation of the proposed rule.

Apologies. If you're not finding my comments helpful I'll step out here.

As I see it, your proposed rule is likely going to encourage almost no looting so I was mainly looking at it from a mechanical combat standpoint. In the case of a specific weapon user (i.e. they've picked up shield master or GWM or whatever) they will likely consider the cost too high almost no matter what the situation unless you specifically already mentioned that someone in the combat was using the appropriate type of weapon for them. If the weapon is small enough, they'll carry multiple spares and continue not looting. If one of the specific weapon users does want to buy into the rule, as I mentioned they will simply hire someone to follow them around carrying a spare and will continue to leave weapons strewn around after battle.

The simplest solution to make people less invested in using a specific weapon type would be to ban weapon specific feats but I wouldn't encourage that. Maybe consider a feat of some sort which encourages a more generalist 'use it and lose it' approach to weapon usage so people don't feel channeled into a single style. I'm not really sure how you would do this without it feeling gimmicky though. I was thinking something along the lines of a bonus to hit with a specific weapon but you must change it to a new weapon type every short or long rest but that feels too gamey to me and no particularly compelling fluff comes to mind.

If your goal was to push some additional thought/paperwork during downtime spending then no worries but that seems a different issue to actually encouraging looting to me (if I'm carrying 10 daggers, I probably don't need to loot another one; if I wanted another greataxe, I would have just bought a spare one in town). From the above you don't seem to think that's the case so clearly we have been talking at cross purposes. If you actually want to encourage looting you're going to need to have some other event in place to restrict access to weapons in your world (iron shortage or whatever which limits supply so they can't simply restock in town for a couple of gold and boosts the resale value of weapons and armour). Just be careful to avoid the whole 'adventurers steal the adamantium door as thats worth more than the treasure it guards' trope. I didn't suggest this earlier as it will likely discourage your players from breaking their equipment - if you want them to do that more frequently then you need to make weapons and armour abundant.

Normally scarcity and erosion of resources go hand in hand to create a more survivalist style of gameplay. Scarcity without erosion (as the players can choose for their weapon to never break) likely won't have the same impact and nor will erosion without scarcity (as the players can simply stock up to their gills when needed).

My secondary point wasn't so much the power level (flanking is a much more significant buff all round) but that the rule as it stands works unevenly. Don't be surprised when your rogue uses it and your fighter doesn't.

As a separate issue I would still encourage you to decouple it from rolling a 1 if you want weapon breakage to be associated with good stuff happening. You seemed to like the inspiration idea so maybe if you miss an opponent by 1 you can turn it into a hit using inspiration or if you miss a crit by one and you spend it to turn it into a crit, at the cost of weapon breakage. You could have a separate rule so when they roll a 1 they can choose to gain inspiration by breaking their weapon.