Post/Author/DateTime	Post
Koga:The ninja trick 10-07-05, 06:47 PM	The Koga wondered if this idea would make players more grateful to own any weapon at all over some +4 vorpal sword.. Though clearly differant weapons will have a differant amount of percentage chance. Every weapon has anywhere from 5-95% chance of "breaking". You could make a craft check to "fix" it. But how do you think this would overall effect the game? Some weapons just go un-used because something always seems better. So now those "useless" weapons will be appreciated for not breaking so easily. Once more, players won't be so quick to look for some magical greatsword as it's probably not very durable, and they're lucky thier mudane weapons havn't broken yet!
Fargren 10-07-05, 06:55 PM	If you do this, you will have to diminish the cost of weapons, even magic ones. But it could work.
Raelifin 10-07-05, 07:19 PM	I have wanted a mechanic like this for some time but there is one big factor that always stopped me: :eek: SIMPLICITY! :eek: If you can find a way to make a simple system for weapon durability then you will have my praise.
Aurotuli 10-07-05, 09:26 PM	Hmm, I'm not sure how this could be made simple. How about the following: Upon a Critical Fumble (ie: a natural 1) the player re-rolls the attack. If the re-roll rolls ______ then the weapon takes ______ permanent damage to its hardness. This can be restored through re-forging / tempering (same DC as to originally forge it, usually DC 15 for most martial weapons as I recall). Once the hardness is entirely gone the weapon breaks. I honestly do not know about the reroll. I'm inclined to state that if the re-roll would hit the opponent then the weapon takes damage - since it actually hit something. On the otherhand, I can see the weapon incuring damage if the re-roll is also very low (say, 1 + Str or less). I'm inclines to make the damage equal to the base weapon damage. A longsword, therefore, would inflict 1d8 damage upon itself. To make weapons last longer, just lessen this (1dX becomes 1, 2dX becomes 2, etc). To make weapons last shorter, add in the Str mod and perhaps specialization or any benefit from Power Attack - but not Flaming, magical +1 enhancement, etc. So this basically gives us four systems to consider: 1) rolled 1, rerolled very low (1 + Str or less), does minimum damage to hardness, eventually breaks weapon if it is not tempered to remove penalty to hardness. 2) rolled 1, rerolled very low (1 + Str or less), does weapon base damage (perhaps +Str, etc) to hardness, eventually breaks weapon if it is not tempered to remove penalty to hardness. 3) rolled 1, rerolled high enough to hit target, does minimum damage to hardness, eventually breaks weapon if it is not tempered to remove penalty to hardness. 4) rolled 1, rerolled high enough to hit target, does weapon base damage (perhaps +Str, etc) to hardness, eventually breaks weapon if it is not tempered to remove penalty to hardness. Which works best? Or do any of them work? The best aspect of this system is that it is unlikely in a single encounter to roll a one more than once - and one might get through a whole adventure without rolling a one (or at least not often enough to break the weapon before it can be tempered to remove the penalty). But it adds a little realism, and by lowering the hardness (even if slowly) it makes it more easy to sunder - if an enemy should so choose. I'd probably allow a foe a Spot check (DC 20, perhaps) to notice. Most warrior types do not have high ranks in Spot, after all.
FlameLover 10-07-05, 09:35 PM	What about every time you hit someone you put a little tick or something. Then you'd every now and then roll a d20 adding the number of ticks to the roll. If you roll under a certain number (Determined by weapon and material) then the weapon is fine. If you roll OVER though then the weapon would get a -1 on attack and damage rolls (sorta like an inverse-enhancement). You'd keep doing this with the penalties accruing until once you got a -5 pentaly then the weapon completley breaks and becomes useless. EDIt: Making it decrease hardness is a good idea. So i'd change the system to something like the above. Whenever you roll a 1 subtract 1 from the weapon's hardness. Once hardness reaches 0... good bye. Alot simpler than my system i can tell yah :)
Koga:The ninja trick 10-07-05, 11:35 PM	Actually The Koga thought he'd just make everyone roll a d20 whenever they use thier weapon. Depending on the roll (1=5%) it either breaks, or doesn't..
Raelifin 10-08-05, 12:58 AM	You could make a natural 1 result in damage (I'd say 1d6-1 penalty to hardness and attacks, -5 total penalty breaks the weapon) but there are two problems: 1. Weapons can't break with a hit and weapons don't break often. 2. People who are experts in combat have more of a chance (more attacks) of hurting their weapon than a peasant with a rusty greataxe in an adamantine dungeon.
TLomon 10-08-05, 01:00 AM	I would really hope the sword I have would last more then 2-3 minutes use. What your system is proposing is a bit... crazy.
Tenzhi 10-08-05, 01:09 AM	Just make the breakage range on the d20 equal to the difference between the weapon's threat range and its (crit multiplier - 1) plus one. For example, a weapon that has a threat range of 17-20 (17, 18, 19, and 20 - so a threat range of 4) and a crit multiplier of x2 would have a breakage roll of 1-4 on a d20. The most basic 20/x2 weapons would only break on a roll of 1. Rather than automatic breakage, each time the character rolled the breakage number on an attack, I'd have them subtract one from the weapon's crit multiplier until it reached x0 (thus making a crit do no damage). If I wanted to make it worse, once the multiplier reached zero, further breakage rolls would increase the threat range by one (thus increasing the chance that a weapon will do 0 damage); or if I wanted to make it simpler another breakage roll after that would make the weapon entirely useless.
Tenzhi 10-08-05, 01:11 AM	2. People who are experts in combat have more of a chance (more attacks) of hurting their weapon than a peasant with a rusty greataxe in an adamantine dungeon. Of course they do. It's just common sense that the more you use something the more likely it is that it will break. Gives them another reason not to constantly do full attacks. You could also make a feat that lowers the chance of breaking a weapon (or just add such things to Weapon Focus feats).
FlameLover 10-08-05, 01:34 AM	What about when you roll a natural 1 on ALL of your attacks then your weapon loses one hardness point. This means the more attacks you have the less chance there is of your weapon breaking but at low-levels isn't too crazy (especially if you use bell-curved rolls). This system does mean that a Fighter's weapon would effectivley NEVER vreak though since rolling four 1s in a row has got to be so statistically improbable typing it out would stretch the forums!
Raelifin 10-08-05, 01:44 AM	Since this is on the topic of realism, it would be nice to get someone who has first hand experience on the subject of weapon durability.
FlameLover 10-08-05, 01:53 AM	I do in a way (just not a way you'd hope/expect). Like most kids i used to play fight with things like bamboo sticks, metal poles, etc. and i can tell you know that if you hit somehting hard (like armor) then there is a good chance the object would warp and finally break. In D&D the simplest way to simulate that is to decrease hardness and give an attack penalty which at -5 would then render the weapon useless. Ok that's not really any experience at all but i don't think this situation calls for history buff #209 or anything. It's part of many games because not only does it simulate part of real life it adds to the logistics of economy. If you wear a sword down to say -4 and try to sell it then you might get only a couple of GP since all it could be used for is some scrap metal. And i also like the idea of an unskilled craftsman making a -1 sword or whatever. It'd be maybe only a DC13 check to make but would decrease value accordingly. I just like the idea that a weapon WILL break, and not just from sundering. It adds a little extra bookkeping but i think would be worth it. Plus a +5 Flaming Longsword would have about 20 hardness or whatever. That'd last you AGES and it's be simple to repair too (not really that cheap though...)
Tenzhi 10-08-05, 02:36 AM	Swords (good ones) don't generally break in combat - but their edges may chip, and it's likely they'll bend. Indeed, I believe there are viking lays that tell of prolonged combats where the fighters would occasionally pause to straighten out their sword. In any case, it's more realistic IMO to decrease the effectiveness of a weapon than it is to just have it break.
ssvegeta555 10-08-05, 02:40 AM	I dont think the weapon should break when all it's hardness is gone. It does have hit points after all. So after the hardness is gone it will start to take HP damage, and once the the HP hits zero it's broken. :twocents:
Cynlas 10-08-05, 02:43 AM	Well, how about this 'simple' solution: If the player rolls a natural "1", immediately make them re-roll their attack, and they must use all feats and tricks they originally declaired for the attack (like sunder, power attack, psionic weapon, whatever). If they hit their target, then apply damage both to the target, and the weapon itself. Even if the weapon doesn't break this time, the damage will remain until either fixed, or another fumble ruins the weapon (ie breaks it). This little system has the side bonus of recognizing that using a weapon hard, such as from Power Attack, will increase the likelyhood of breakage. Or, just make the character do a break DC Strength check, plus any additional mods for things like power attack. Dm can roll so the player doesn't try to use less than full "strength" on the blow, if your players are like that... It would be nice to see a system recognizing the actual strengths of various weapons in this regard, but I also feel that simplicity largely kills such a system outright. Consider also, that if you are gonna start breaking weapons, you also really need to consider something for armor damage, as that is more frequent, especially if your gonna go for the "realism" thing...
spectralphoenix 10-10-05, 03:22 AM	If you are going to allow for weapon breakage, I'd say to keep it on the light side. A normal weapon might take 1 point of damage (not including hardness) on a natural 1. A sword might break if you fought many times without touching it up, but I don't think a steel weapon would break in a single fight or two unless the opponent was specifically trying (sundering) to break it. Magic weapons do not break with normal use. In addition to the balance problems associated with a fighter breaking his 200,000 gp weapon, said weapon is supposed to be of awe-inspiring power. How awe-inspiring would it be if it broke after twenty attacks? This would make magic arrows a better deal than "permanent" magic weapons. Lastly, keep in mind that this will hurt fighters, rogues, and other weapon-dependant PC's relative to wizards and monks and such.
00_Whupass 10-10-05, 03:20 PM	First of all there is already a rules mechanic for weapon breakage, sundering, and as has been pointed out a weapon designed for combat use (In other words not the display swords you can see sold late night on home shopping channels) will not break with normal usage. The caveat here is that I said weapons designed for combat applications. In my campaign when you strike with an impovised weapon it takes an amount of damage equal to what you inflict, then resolve damage to the object normally acounting for hardness and hitpoints based on material and thickness of the improvised weapon. Using this rule it becomes dificult to beat someone to death with a table leg, chair, shard of glass, or anything else which might become a weapon of nessecity in a situations both dire and exigent without it breaking.
Cynlas 10-11-05, 03:40 PM	Even the over-vaunted Katana of history was know to break on the battlefeild. Try researching a few sites that tell you how to evaluate a hisortical "real" combat blade for stress fractures and bending marks created when the sword got bent, and was later "fixed". It was also the breakage that casued the Japanese to try so hard to create unbreakable weapons. But, back to game mechanics, the whole point of natural "20" and "1" are that they are not "normal" battlefeild conditions, but unusual circumstances; as are the entire Feat thing. Further, the Sunder mechanics do not really "accurately" reflect the actual physical differences in breakage likelyhood between the different weapons. At any rate, it is a neat idea for a "grittier" style of play, though somewhat unbalanced if you do not also work on Armour breakage or damage. Since there is no standard defence roll, perhaps just use the attack roll: if a natural "1" results in damage to the weapon, make a natural "20" do the same damage it does to the target also to the target's armor, though even this makes armour tougher than it should be. Or perhaps have the armour make a reflex save like it would on a failed save against a magic attack. And while its something noone has mentioned, but what about natural attacks? I know no one wants to consider weapon breakage when dealing with Monks or Dragons, but really, it should be considered out of consistancy, as they are "weapons", and are just as susceptible to breakage, in real combat, as any other weapon you are gonna want to consider, especially if you are simply evaluating it from a "critical fumble" perspective. Yes, a RL martial artist can break a brick with a punch; but that is if they perform their "attack" exactly, if they fail to perform it properly, the brick instead breaks their hand... Otherwise, there no reason to be anything other than a monk or creature with natural attacks in a violent campaign where weapons are unreliable. But if a monk can break his foot on a flubbed flying kick, then they will be more likely to risk a 15gp weapon than a body part, thereby restoring the "natural" balance of D&D weaponeers and unarmed combatants.
Cynlas 10-11-05, 03:49 PM	Also, I'd like to say I agree that Magic weapons (which are immune to Sunders from non macical attempts) should not be prone to breakage, except in the rarest of cases. I suppose you could argue that if an attack against a magically protected target fumbles, that the magic of the target's defences (more particularly armour) cause the damage to the otherwise 'invincible' sword, but I think that could get overused quickly. Better to just save that sort of scenario for once a campaign type of thing. Or, add a new "weapon breaker" ability to the armor list, that causes any attack against it to immeadiately cause a sunder effect against the weapon that struck it, using the total damage delt by the attack against the weapon... hmm..evil... :D
Koga:The ninja trick 10-11-05, 05:03 PM	How about whenever you peform an unarmed strike you must make a concentration check of 12+The AC bonus of whatever you're hitting. If you fail, you suffer 1d10 damage. Sounds strange just plain-out damage, but at lower levels obviously bodily harm is going to be alot worse then at later levels..
Encard 10-11-05, 05:19 PM	How about whenever you peform an unarmed strike you must make a concentration check of 12+The AC bonus of whatever you're hitting. If you fail, you suffer 1d10 damage. Sounds strange just plain-out damage, but at lower levels obviously bodily harm is going to be alot worse then at later levels.. I don't see how that makes sense or will improve the game. For one thing, you can't concentrate your way out of getting hurt. This will also makes monks totally unplayable at lower levels - they're more likely to kill themselves than whoever it is they're punching, which is distinctly not fun and makes no sense. I'd second the previous idea of going with a critical fumble mechanic - if you roll a natural 1 you immediately roll again, and if this attack (at the same bonuses) also misses then you/your weapon takes damage. Simple, quick, and consistent with existing rules.
Darastin 10-12-05, 09:51 AM	Three thougts on this: 1. Once upon a time, there was an optional rule in some AD&D supplement (Complete Fighter's Handbook?) for armor damage/durability. I dismissed it for two reasons: The amount of additional bookkeeping it requires and that a simple mending spell makes it all null and void. Hmmmm... last time I checked, mending was still in the 3.5 PHB. So why even keep track of equipment damage when a simple cantrip can fix it? 2. This greatly hurts martial characters such as fighters or barbarians, but barely touches spellcasters who already often dominate the game at higher levels. 3. Magical weapons (and armor, if using similar rules for them) will greatly decrease in value - if it lasts for only a month of regular use, then I'm not going to invest 50k gp in that sword. If found, magical weapons will be sold and the money invested in something more reliable - that is, if someone actually buys magical weapons. Just my two €-cents; Darastin
Verelor 10-13-05, 03:05 PM	One very simple solution is that you could have all the combat adversaries of the Player Characters use sunder a lot more often. Just not so much that it gets repetitive.
Millennium 10-14-05, 10:50 AM	I work this into the critical-fumble system, by basically causing the weapon to sunder itself on a natural 1. The sunder automatically hits and threatens a critical; roll to confirm the critical hit against AC 10 + the weapon's size modifier. Apply damage to the weapon normally, taking into account all feats and damage modifiers from the original attack except for the weapon's own enhancement bonus (the weapon's enchantment does not turn against itself). Most weapons will not immediately break under this system, but they will almost certainly be damaged. Strong characters and characters who use feats like Power Attack risk doing more damage to their weapons on a critical fumble. Weapons do not break under normal usage, but critical fumbles represent serious screw-ups on the part of the wielder.
Thelon Fairblade 10-17-05, 09:49 AM	Just to add another wrinkle to the discussion (without a useful suggestion, sorry): There is a reason why rapiers aren't used to parry greatswords and giant clubs. GURPS tried to address this by matching weapon weights and quality when you used the "Parry" option to defend yourself. Reading some of the D&D fiction novels (The Lone Drow right now, by RA Salvatore), a skilled swordsman Moonelf was nonetheless forced to dodge and duck and weave when faced with a massive opponent with an oversized greatsword -- his slender elven blade would have snapped in two if he tried to parry the opponent's weapon! (And that wouldn't be a "Sunder" action on the attacker's part, but rather a choice - Combat Expertise? Fight Defensively? - on the defender's part.) Seems like bad or mismatched parries would also be a prime source of weapon breakage. How is that represented in any system you develop here? For my own campaign, I decided that weapon breakage was a "realism" that did not add to the game except in dramatically appropriate (i.e. decided by DM, not dice) situations. I played in a game several years back where weapons broke on fumbles with high frequency. My ranger carried 3 back up rapiers, a dozen extra bowstrings, and a backup bowstave (unstrung bow). I still tended to run out of weapons by the end of an adventure... It was very irritating, and not "fun". (We never got magic weapons, so that didn't come up.)
Judging Eagle 10-17-05, 12:32 PM	Weapons have hardness and HP, just have (like someone else already said) the PCs enemies sunder weapons. Having to keep track of ... weapon hardness and HP is a waste of time b/c it adds a lot of bookeeping. Hell, in the campaign I run.... people forget to add new skill ranks b/c we have so many players, I'd hate to have to add even more bookeeping to any campaign.
Voran 10-17-05, 08:32 PM	My opinion, the idea of weapons breaking works best in a low magic campaign where even the best weapons are 'only' masterwork. Some may not be familiar, or like the example, but when I think of weapons breaking from use I think of Berserk the anime. The main character initially carried a weapon that was a huge greatsword and could cut people in full armor in half with it. Eventually even his weapon broke at a pivotal time in a fight and he had to replace it. Forged a new one that was probably twice as durable, and even that one broke during a fight with demons. But he still had managed to chew loads of stuff up between then. I still think its worthwhile to keep the +plus related stuff from the original sunder rules, where unless you had a certain plus weapon you wouldn't be able to sunder a certain plus object. Maybe its just my game style, but my character usually carry as much of their old weapons as they can, sometimes an encounter looks fishy and you don't want to accidentally lose your Holy Sword into something that turns out to be something like a sphere of annihilation. But a servicable +2 sword you had for 7 levels would work. I also try to manage my pack loads and avoid extradimensional holders at all costs, but that's just me :p