Crafting, Durability, and Repair Kits

[DMThac0]

I'm working on making a crafting system, something simple that will only require a few rolls, and I've got a rough draft made up. I'm going to be testing it with one of my groups to see what bugs are present. I'd like to hear some feedback from you all as well, anything that you like or see as an issue.

*edited optional rule to reflect a mechanic already in place

Weapons and armor are integral to a successful adventurer. These will wear down as extreme situations happen around them, reducing the durability of those items.

Armor/Weapons have a durability of 5
Caster items have a durability of 3
Ammunition has a durability of 0

Whenever a Natural 1 or 20 is rolled by an adventurer, the weapon/ caster item receives a cumulative -1 penalty to damage.
Whenever a Natural 20 is rolled by an enemy the armor receives a cumulative -1 penalty to AC.
When the penalty reaches -5 the item is destroyed.
Magical items have double the Durability but cannot gain more than a -5 to AC or Damage.
(This is the same penalty as the Rust Monster or Grey Ooze)

Repair Kit 5gp
A Repair Kit may be used to repair items, dismantle items, and acquire Smithing Materials. It includes grinding stones, oils, small hammers, pliers, glue, chisels, and other small tools.
A repair can be made with a successful DC 10 Strength or Dexterity check and 1 Smithing Material.
Ranged ammunition, such as arrows, bolts, shurikens, and darts, cannot be repaired this way.

**If no crafting/gathering is being used, a Repair kit has 10 uses.

Crafting is something that I felt needed to be made simple, a couple rolls, an easy to read table so it can be used in treasure tables, and a simple method to craft with.

Crafting Table and Info (https://drive.google.com/open?id=1dqMf7klsPpN9wLr0XLehzdOCkRHrf4CR)

[NaughtyTiger]

that is a lot to track for each weapon or armor. for not a lot of benefit.

no one tracks healing kit usage, cuz spare the dying or medicine checks.
no one would track repair kit usage, cuz mending or metalworking checks.


you could simplify it as:

Whenever a Natural 1 or 20 is rolled by an adventurer, the damage of the weapon is reduced by 1.
Whenever a Natural 20 is rolled by an enemy the AC of the armor is reduced by 1.


what about mages: do spell pouch/foci take damage? don't punish the martials and forget the mages.

[Zhorn]

I'd suggest looking at rust monsters and oozes for the numbers to use in a damage system. Saves you having to convert them into a different system to make everything match, or having two different damage systems existing at the same time.

[DMThac0]

that is a lot to track for each weapon or armor. for not a lot of benefit.

no one tracks healing kit usage, cuz spare the dying or medicine checks.
no one would track repair kit usage, cuz mending or metalworking checks.


you could simplify it as:

Whenever a Natural 1 or 20 is rolled by an adventurer, the damage of the weapon is reduced by 1.
Whenever a Natural 20 is rolled by an enemy the AC of the armor is reduced by 1.


I thought about doing a -1 per Nat 1/20 but felt it might be too lenient toward 2-handed weapons. A Short Sword would dull/break significantly faster than a Great Sword. In terms of damage you're talking a significant discrepancy.

That is not to say that I don't see validity in the idea, it does emphasize the need for repairs. As well, the simplified language is easier to memorize.



what about mages: do spell pouch/foci take damage? don't punish the martials and forget the mages.

I've been mulling that over for the past day or so. I've considered giving foci/pouches, wands, and other Caster focused items a flat Durability of 15 (in the case of using the simplified version it would be a durability of 5).

[JNAProductions]

Remember-Martials make 2+ attacks a round, at levels 5+.

Casters make one spell usually. Account for that.

[DMThac0]

I'd suggest looking at rust monsters and oozes for the numbers to use in a damage system. Saves you having to convert them into a different system to make everything match, or having two different damage systems existing at the same time.

That would make sense and be too easy, that would never work.


Remember-Martials make 2+ attacks a round, at levels 5+.

Casters make one spell usually. Account for that.

That's true, maybe:

Armor/Weapons have a durability of 5
Caster items have a durability of 3
Ammunition has a durability of 0

This is using the Rust Monster concept of -5 penalty destroys the item, where a Nat 1/20 gives a -1 penalty.

[JackPhoenix]

I thought about doing a -1 per Nat 1/20 but felt it might be too lenient toward 2-handed weapons. A Short Sword would dull/break significantly faster than a Great Sword. In terms of damage you're talking a significant discrepancy.

What makes you think so? If anything, shortsword would propably last longer than greatsword, due to differences in use... stabbing dulls the weapon less than slashing, especially against armored target, and the forces involved are lesser. And that's ignoring structural stresses coming from longer blade. And that's not going into things like equipment made from different material (spear and shortsword may both do 1d6 damage, yet the former is more likely to break in battle) or being resilient to different things (you may stab at plate armor with a rapier all day, but you'll lose your weapon before you do more than scratches. One good swing with a warhammer, though....).

Anyway, durability is annoying mechanic in videogames where any math happens in background without player's involvement. In a tabletop game where the players have to do everything, it's much worse, for little gain.

[DMThac0]

Anyway, durability is annoying mechanic in videogames where any math happens in background without player's involvement. In a tabletop game where the players have to do everything, it's much worse, for little gain.

I respect that view, which is why I don't expect a lot of people to be interested in the idea of Durability.

As to the rest of your post: I didn't want to get into all of that nuanced minutiae, so I was looking to create it in a way that it could be close to "universally fair".

As an aside, one of my close friends is a blacksmith who crafts weapons, and fellow DM. I've avoided him like the plague with this project because I know he'd talk my ear off about the quality of metal, craftsmanship, weapon variances, etc.

[JackPhoenix]

I respect that view, which is why I don't expect a lot of people to be interested in the idea of Durability.

As to the rest of your post: I didn't want to get into all of that nuanced minutiae, so I was looking to create it in a way that it could be close to "universally fair".

As an aside, one of my close friends is a blacksmith who crafts weapons, and fellow DM. I've avoided him like the plague with this project because I know he'd talk my ear off about the quality of metal, craftsmanship, weapon variances, etc.

How about checking the object rules from DMG? AC of various materials would be good base for the durability, I think. IMO, it would be somewhat more realistic than the suggestion based on AC or max damage from the OP, and just as simple (or even simpler) to use. You could even incorporate things like vulnerability or resistance to certain kind of damage.... clothes being easier to destroy with fire, metal armor being harder to destroy by piercing attacks....

[DMThac0]

How about checking the object rules from DMG? AC of various materials would be good base for the durability, I think. IMO, it would be somewhat more realistic than the suggestion based on AC or max damage from the OP, and just as simple (or even simpler) to use. You could even incorporate things like vulnerability or resistance to certain kind of damage.... clothes being easier to destroy with fire, metal armor being harder to destroy by piercing attacks....

That may be the approach I take if this idea doesn't pan out.

I'm only in the draft stage of this project, I plan on testing it for a short while and adjusting based on feedback. I know that durability/crafting is a table by table concept, fortunately I have a mixed bunch who will and won't be excited about the idea. With that, I hope to get some strong critique back from them.

[BloodSnake'sCha]

I feel the pain of the crit fisher.
The joy of the halfling that never roll 1.

I think this need to be based on environment and use time.

[Zhorn]

A little project I was working on last year for equipment damage
http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?576358-Making-equipment-damage-more-common

Most of it is based on using pre-existing rules and values out of the core books, so if there's anything you like; feel free to take and make into your own.

It's a big post but boils down into a TL;DR version
Roll a 1 or a 20? DM declares what item is being effected.
What is it made of? DMG p246 has a table for that
Is it magical? Add +1 for each tier of item rarity
d20 + Ability Score Modifier vs Object Durability
Item either received -1 penalty or didn't.
Shields break at AC 0, Armor breaks at AC 10, everything else breaks when the penalty is -5

[DMThac0]

I feel the pain of the crit fisher.
The joy of the halfling that never roll 1.

I think this need to be based on environment and use time.

Those are valid points.
First, the crit fisher is a design to get more chances for a crit with higher return on a crit. This style of build, generally, seeks more attacks per round which means more wear and tear on the weapon. It is not a stretch to consider their weapons would deteriorate quicker due to the stress their weapons would be under.
Halfling Luck, or Lucky Feat, are designed to avoid those negative effects. It is quite acceptable, to me, to see it as them being able to avoid smashing their weapon against something that would cause it more damage than the soft flesh of their opponent or the weak point of their armor. It's also a limited resource, as such the Nat 1 could still affect the weapon/armor they are using.


A little project I was working on last year for equipment damage
http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?576358-Making-equipment-damage-more-common

Most of it is based on using pre-existing rules and values out of the core books, so if there's anything you like; feel free to take and make into your own.

It's a big post but boils down into a TL;DR version
Roll a 1 or a 20? DM declares what item is being effected.
What is it made of? DMG p246 has a table for that
Is it magical? Add +1 for each tier of item rarity
d20 + Ability Score Modifier vs Object Durability
Item either received -1 penalty or didn't.
Shields break at AC 0, Armor breaks at AC 10, everything else breaks when the penalty is -5


I appreciate your work, it does seem to fall in line with the ideas running around in my head. As I play test the concept I've got I'll keep your points in mind and see if they should/could be implemented. The biggest thing I'm working toward is quick reference, something that a player can do with little effort and thought.

[NNescio]

Those are valid points.
First, the crit fisher is a design to get more chances for a crit with higher return on a crit. This style of build, generally, seeks more attacks per round which means more wear and tear on the weapon. It is not a stretch to consider their weapons would deteriorate quicker due to the stress their weapons would be under.
Halfling Luck, or Lucky Feat, are designed to avoid those negative effects. It is quite acceptable, to me, to see it as them being able to avoid smashing their weapon against something that would cause it more damage than the soft flesh of their opponent or the weak point of their armor. It's also a limited resource, as such the Nat 1 could still affect the weapon/armor they are using.

The Halfing's Lucky trait has no use limit.

[DMThac0]

The Halfing's Lucky trait has no use limit.

Yes, but Lucky does. I don't think it's that big of a problem, one race gets to avoid the Nat 1, cool. You also have Divination Wizards who can use Portent to avoid a Nat 1. The beauty of having a perk like that; it helps in many places in the game.

I didn't go about this as a means to punish players. The idea was to create a tiny money sink (5gp for a Repair Kit is almost nothing), a resource sink (Smithing materials acquired and used for repairs), and a way to use pointless loot (ie a goblin's scimitar being dismantled for materials). It's just a way to try to add a little something that ties in the Crafting system and gives players something they can use arbitrary kits for. It's also a problem for the players that they can solve efficiently, with little effort. It's no big deal that there are some features and feats that can circumvent a part of it.

[RickAllison]

I just really, really don’t get why rolling a natural 20, a rare opportunity that gives you a potent strike, damages the weapon. It makes no sense. It is more about getting that opening through armor (since it ignores AC) and getting a more solid strike on the vulnerable parts of a person. Why is that more damaging to a weapon than clanging against their armor, shield, or being parried by a weapon?

Get rid of it. It’s a bad decision that penalizes certain builds, adds nothing to the game, and breaks verisimilitude.

[Bjarkmundur]

I like it. It's simple and easy. It is very much in line with existing mechanics and cost. If this adds tension to your games, good on ya!
I'm not sure about the triggers. I think you could just as well get away with creating specific mechanics for your adventures, instead of having a general rule that includes this.

I'd rather use this as a tool to create interesting acid traps, add more theme to acid spells and on enemy crits. I don't think they should be tied to the player's rolls. A player should not be discouraged from rolling dice with a 15% chance to break his weapon each turn.

I'm also very much against failed crafting; you take the time and spend the gold - you either craft or you don't. I'm simply wondering how much crafting is done when there's an inherent chance of failure. Do your players use the crafting a lot, or just one player that really likes potions?
I recently ran into a similar scenario with my group. We had just gotten a nice sum for a quest reward and my Barbarian player was eager to get his hands on some magic items. I explained to him the Buy a Magic Item downtime. He thought it was completely ridiculous to spend his downtime to pay extra money to get a chance to buy a handful or random magic items. I understand him completely, since there was maybe only a 40% chance of him finding an item he would actually gain any benefit from. He said his character might look into a more consistent way of gaining a specific Magic Weapon, maybe even through The Black Network.

Consistency in player ability, especially things players are supposed to be good at, is a really big deal. Just look at all the monsters with 11 AC, or ability checks with a DC 12.

[DMThac0]

I just really, really don’t get why rolling a natural 20, a rare opportunity that gives you a potent strike, damages the weapon. It makes no sense. It is more about getting that opening through armor (since it ignores AC) and getting a more solid strike on the vulnerable parts of a person. Why is that more damaging to a weapon than clanging against their armor, shield, or being parried by a weapon?

Get rid of it. It’s a bad decision that penalizes certain builds, adds nothing to the game, and breaks verisimilitude.

I understand where you're coming from, it does sound like you're being punished for doing something extraordinary. If you're not a fan of it, then don't apply it :)

However, the thought behind it is that both a 1 and 20 are extreme situations. A 1 is a failure and intrinsically feels like it's right that the weapon is damaged. However, a 20 is not quite finding a special/vulnerable place to hit, that's more in line with sneak attack. A critical hit does massive damage with only the weapon, no special abilities, no features, nothing like that. So the weapon takes the brunt of the impact. To this end the weapon is stressed and starts to wear down.

The normal wear and tear of combat can be cleaned up with a whetstone or a bit of hammering, the little chinks, dents, and what not being easily fixed, the extreme situations need more care placed on the item.


I like it. It's simple and easy. It is very much in line with existing mechanics and cost. If this adds tension to your games, good on ya!
I'm not sure about the triggers. I think you could just as well get away with creating specific mechanics for your adventures, instead of having a general rule that includes this.


This is just a rough draft, and it's not fully play-tested yet. Good news is one of my players is not a fan of Durability so I'll be getting some good feed back on both sides of the fence. The triggers were meant to be easily understood and remembered, if they're too much then it can be adjusted.



I'd rather use this as a tool to create interesting acid traps, add more theme to acid spells and on enemy crits. I don't think they should be tied to the player's rolls. A player should not be discouraged from rolling dice with a 15% chance to break his weapon each turn.

The chance of breaking a weapon in one combat is unlikely, being able to repair an item with a kit would also makes it so you can avoid that issue after any particularly rough encounter. Though the idea of acid related incidents is a good idea.



I'm also very much against failed crafting; you take the time and spend the gold - you either craft or you don't. I'm simply wondering how much crafting is done when there's an inherent chance of failure. Do your players use the crafting a lot, or just one player that really likes potions?
I recently ran into a similar scenario with my group. We had just gotten a nice sum for a quest reward and my Barbarian player was eager to get his hands on some magic items. I explained to him the Buy a Magic Item downtime. He thought it was completely ridiculous to spend his downtime to pay extra money to get a chance to buy a handful or random magic items. I understand him completely, since there was maybe only a 40% chance of him finding an item he would actually gain any benefit from. He said his character might look into a more consistent way of gaining a specific Magic Weapon, maybe even through The Black Network.

Consistency in player ability, especially things players are supposed to be good at, is a really big deal. Just look at all the monsters with 11 AC, or ability checks with a DC 12.

Failure on crafting is important however, if there's no risk then there is no reward. Do you feel particularly amazing when you roll a 16 vs an AC 14? No, you feel amazing when you roll that Nat 20. Does the rogue complain that he needs to roll a stealth check? No, because there's a chance of failure. All of the skill checks have a chance of failure, otherwise there would be no need for passives. Crafting is also a skill check, so there is a need for failure.

There is a very good chance I'll have to adjust the Crafting DCs to make sure there's a fair chance of failure vs success.

---

Thank you all for your insights, it's been very helpful so far.