Experimenting with breaking equipment - not what you think

[hymer]

Nobody wants the bother of equipment breaking left and right, or keeping track of how much damage a piece of armour sustains every time it saves you from damage. Well, nobody at my table, at least. As a result, equipment pretty much doesn't wear down or break for mechanical reasons. Which is perfectly acceptable.

How about, then, if you allow PCs and major NPCs to let their equipment be broken? Say, if you are taking damage that would render you unconscious, you can instead lose your shield, perhaps as a reaction. Or perhaps lose your shield and be reduced to 1 hp. A magical shield could lose +1 instead. And as long as it isn't cleft in twain, it can be repaired back to full enchantment. Nonmagical shields, I guess, should just break and be firewood, I think. Armour (magical or otherwise) could have something similar. Weapons might have an options of taking damage when rolling a crit - say if you roll poorly on your damage with the crit, you can choose to damage your weapon an deal average damage for a crit instead.

So, with that notion brought up, what do you think? What do you think the consequences would be? Any suggestions, thoughts and comments are welcome.

[Callak_Remier]

Equipment repair is factored into living allowance

[kamap]

Could be a nice addition but the ones that can't wear armor or use a shield are at a disadvantage then.
Those characters are also mostly the ones not having a great AC furthering the gap even more.
So you'll need to look for something to balance that.

The upkeep of weapons and armor is done while having a break in between adventures and is indeed included in the living cost while in downtime.
It happens mostly offscreen anytime they are in a town, they'll look for a smith, tanner , ... shop to get their gear repaired.

Just as an aside: Shields can also be made out of metal and can't be reduced to firewood.

[BloodSnake'sCha]

I think equipment shuld only be brok obly for plot or for times thevPC got someting to strong.

I like rust monsters and the sundering rulles from 3.5e so I adapt them if I want to do it.

[hymer]

Thanks for the thoughts so far, guys!

I don't really see what maintenance costs has to do with what I'm playing around with. Anyone care to enlighten me?

[MoiMagnus]

Thanks for the thoughts so far, guys!

I don't really see what maintenance costs has to do with what I'm playing around with. Anyone care to enlighten me?

Saying "Equipment repair is factored into living allowance" is saying "Equippement do break frequently, armors have to be repaired frequently, we just chose to put them at the same level as clothing/food/... and have no in-game consequences".

In 5e, temporary bonuses/maluses are almost absent. What you are trying to do add back some of them (malus to AC is your shield is partially broken, ...), but it is quite arbitrary to says that the state of your armor/shield/weapon have an influence on your accuracy while a lot of other stuff do not (including for example the direction you are facing, your number of remaining HP, ...).

And if you chose to make them have an effect. Giving advantage/disadvantage to attack/defense is more in the spirit in 5e than giving some +/-1.
(But since an advantage/disadvantage is huge, don't give it for minor things).

[DarkKnightJin]

Or, and hear me out on this crazy thought..

Play an edition where there's already systems in place for stuff like this, instead of adding in mechanics that were never neant to be used in this system.

3.5/PF is perfectly functional. It didn't stop working just because 5th edition was released.

[hymer]

Saying "Equipment repair is factored into living allowance" is saying "Equippement do break frequently, armors have to be repaired frequently, we just chose to put them at the same level as clothing/food/... and have no in-game consequences".
That's what I thought too, it's just that it has nothing to do with the mechanics I'm trying to get into a conversation about.
Thanks for the thoughts on the mechanics! :smallsmile:


3.5/PF is perfectly functional. It didn't stop working just because 5th edition was released.
Do those games have mechanics that lets PCs damage their own equipment to avoid taking the hit themselves? I've only played 3.5, and only for half a dozen years or so, so I may be unaware of something.


Why do I get the feeling some people aren't reading the whole OP? :smallconfused:

[BloodSnake'sCha]

That's what I thought too, it's just that it has nothing to do with the mechanics I'm trying to get into a conversation about.
Thanks for the thoughts on the mechanics! :smallsmile:


Do those games have mechanics that lets PCs damage their own equipment to avoid taking the hit themselves? I've only played 3.5, and only for half a dozen years or so, so I may be unaware of something.


Why do I get the feeling some people aren't reading the whole OP? :smallconfused:
3.5e do have a veriant rule for it.
If I will remember I will edit it later.

[Slipperychicken]

Or, and hear me out on this crazy thought..

Play an edition where there's already systems in place for stuff like this, instead of adding in mechanics that were never neant to be used in this system.

3.5/PF is perfectly functional. It didn't stop working just because 5th edition was released.

Did 3.x/PF have rules for this? Yes. Did it have rules that were good enough to use? No. My understanding is that 5e ended up without robust equipment-damage rules because the previous ones didn't work out so well.

Every 3.x/PF group I played with wound up with a soft-ban/gentleman's agreement against sundering, equipment saving throws, and equipment damage in general (RAW your entire inventory needed to make individual saving throws any time you were in an AoE). It just didn't work with the game's equipment and wealth paradigms, so no-one used it unless they either didn't know any better or were being deliberately vindictive. Even the most stringent of RAW-adherents tended to either ignore it or soft-ban it because it interfered strongly with wealth-by-level. Sundering wasn't even very helpful for finishing fights faster or more efficiently - it mostly just destroyed potentially-advancement-critical treasure without dealing damage.

For a better example of a game that includes rules for equipment damage, I'd nominate Mythras. Particularly successful attacks and parries there can select weapon damage (or armor damage with a 2h weapon) as a "special effect", which sometimes makes sense because of how crucial weapon-choice is in that game. Wearing down a hit-location's armor would also be a good idea for tankier foes because sufficiently good armor reduces a lot of damage and drag out a fight. And since advancement doesn't require unique/magical gear or much treasure, it ends up not impacting the players too badly. I will make the disclaimer that I haven't tried those rules out yet in play, however.

[Tanarii]

I think it would make the Mending spell powerful / useful.
(Depending on how useful you already regarded it.)

It'd basically be a spell that lets you avoid a hit once a combat. Twice if you have a shield and armor.

[EggKookoo]

I just posted something recently about this. (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?570924-Weapon-Durability-in-Dying-World-Setting)

[Foxhound438]

mending (a cantrip) gets turned into death ward (a 4th level spell). Probably not super balanced.

[Kane0]

If you’re going to do this i advise keeping it simple like other mechanics in 5e. Say you can intentionally break your weapon to turn a hit into a crit or your shield or armor to turn a crit into a hit.
Then decide if and how you want them to be repairable, eg mending, tool proficiency during a rest, a higher level spell, etc.

[TheMoxiousOne]

I think it would be an interesting thing for a party who wants more story and character growth than a challenge, but leaves plenty of room to break in another sense. Imagine, under these rules, a party of druids dual-wielding clubs, all of whom prepare Mending. This would be insanity, especially since they could ritual cast and never truly die in combat, then ritual cast and be right back at it after combat. Combined with good berry-making potential, I feel like they would be a story-based group who would be immortal. Thematically, your idea makes sense, but were you to want to implement it into your game, I would put heavy restrictions on it, like, say, once per long rest, and the item cannot be repaired. And maybe not let the item destroy be repairable, even by magical means. There could be a plethora of in-game reasons why, but I don't feel like that option should be made available to magic items, unless they are destructible in your setting overall. Just my humble opinions and thoughts!