I understand that the rules give the choice to the player when a natural 1 is rolled, but I've yet to figure out why on earth anyone would ever opt to use the option. There is always the next round, and the character is at least somewhat screwed the next round if the weapon is gone.
Thoughts?
If one is utilizing the low-magic, Inherent Bonuses option for their game, Weapon Breakage can be an annoyance, but will hardly be the death of a character, using either option. Fumbling Breakage is a bit harsher, without inherent bonuses, but Reckless Breakage still isn't too bad, since the player will be able to choose if his weapon breaks.
I don't have the books yet, but I've been pondering the implications of a weapons breakage system. My main problem with it is that the concept punishes the classes that are completely weapon dependent, and others get to ignore it completely.
I understand that the rules give the choice to the player when a natural 1 is rolled, but I've yet to figure out why on earth anyone would ever opt to use the option. There is always the next round, and the character is at least somewhat screwed the next round if the weapon is gone.
Thoughts?
1. Rolling a 1 breaks the weapon. Period.
2. Rolling a 1 is a miss like before, but the player has the choice of rerolling the attack. If the player doesn't reroll and accepts the miss then his weapon is fine. If the player does reroll then the weapon breaks no matter what the player rolls on the reroll.
Rule 2 is simply a bonus for players - it gives them an extra option.
If you're worried about imbalance between weapon users versus implement users though then there's no reason you can't use the same rule for implements; channeling power through shoddy implements can cause them to break too.
You are right there is the next round to wait it out, but for some PCs they have the lovely 18-20 crit range which can equal tide turning damage or the fatal blow, so it's worth the risk. Some people (myself) like the story element of the weapon breaking and delivering a powerful hit (say using a daily or the possiblity of a crit).
As a DM I do try to put in a "replacement" weapon for them to pick up or plunder to be on the safe side, b/c you are right they are screwed if it breaks and the fight goes on. When I say replacement I mean same weapon they use, but they get the flat bonus reccomended, not the same magic weapon in the encounter
The book has two suggested rules:
1. Rolling a 1 breaks the weapon. Period.
2. Rolling a 1 is a miss like before, but the player has the choice of rerolling the attack. If the player doesn't reroll and accepts the miss then his weapon is fine. If the player does reroll then the weapon breaks no matter what the player rolls on the reroll.
Rule 2 is simply a bonus for players - it gives them an extra option.
If you're worried about imbalance between weapon users versus implement users though then there's no reason you can't use the same rule for implements; channeling power through shoddy implements can cause them to break too.
Dude, that is a really good suggestion...and I am stealing it
I like the concept as a story element, but my players immediately pointed out that fumbled breakage penalizes only weapon dependent characters. The suggestion to apply it to implements helps a lot, but what about monks? Do psionicists use implements/foci?
Reckless breakage I don't like too much, because like it was said, it's just a bonus option and not a hindrance.
One idea I had was to apply a cumulative -1 to damage for each fumble, all of which could be removed with a off-combat repair check.
Monks break their Knuckles on a roll of 1
....No, for monks, lose of Ki Focus or their Implement. Or, muscle strain, give them a flat -2/3 to attack rolls and 1/2 damage? Seems steep though, but we could work on it.
Keep in mind that a broken weapon is still an improvised weapon, so... Well, it's still bad, but at least they're not completely helpless.
If you use the weapon breakage rules, players should respond by buying and keeping spare weapons. Since they can't buy magical weapons, and can function perfectly well with nonmagical ones because of their built-in enhancement bonus, this is no big deal.
I like the idea of weapon breaking since it gives you really good reason to use the monk which i imagine with weapons being so unreliable that plenty of people on athas would be monks.
If you use the weapon breakage rules, players should respond by buying and keeping spare weapons. Since they can't buy magical weapons, and can function perfectly well with nonmagical ones because of their built-in enhancement bonus, this is no big deal.
I'm not a big fan of the "bag of swords" effect, but I am a big fan of Dark Sun characters being armed with a plethora of different weapons, as the pregens are, for instance. Since we already know that several can be worn without being held, there's a lot of options here.
The reason I used Nature is that most of the guys I know of who can knap arrow-heads out of flint and make bows and stuff like that are usually survival and oudoor experts, so Nature seemed to fit those kinds of skills best for me.
So I guess what I am saying is different strokes for different folks! To me if it is a disadvantage its only to those who cannot use it to reroll a 1 for any of their powers.
One thing to consider, also, is the Boon system. It's entirely DM fiat, so you'd have to discuss it with them first, but if there's a weapon property you'd really like to have you can potentially get it with anything you use. Which to me is all kinds of awesome. I much prefer, flavorwise, the idea that it's the character themselves that are badass, not their gear.
what about metal gear?
If I remember correctly, Metal Weapons only break on a roll of 1 to 5, and this might also be mitigated by any magical enchantment on the item. I don't ahve books, but couldn't resist the joke.
If someone decides to roll up a defiler I'll probably tweak that system as well.
What I also like about breakage in general is that smaller and ligher back-up weapons see some use. There is very little reason to carry a shortsword as a back-up weapon in vanilla 4e, but I like the idea - especially since the inherit bonus system does not penalize for mundane weapons at high level.
Finally those daggers in the boot or shortswords on the belt do have a use. Especially when you already have a bloodied opponent and you roll "1". Just let the axe break and get the hit in there. Finish him off with a dagger.
Obviously, the rule is really best for rogues since they could just carry tons of daggers, which are the best weapon for them anyway. Still I don't think it is too biased.
And I would perhaps allow the implements to break in the same way.
I did think about an alternative rule that would force the reroll on non-magical weapons, but it does not seem to be too different, so why bother.
Also I'm going to state the obvious by saying that if a caster doesn't have a magic implement(very probable) or hasn't taken Superior Implement Training(possible) then a destroyed implement has almost no effect on them whatsoever. Hell, inherent bonuses means your Battlemind or Ardent can grab Warlock powers and not have to carry an implement.
... then a destroyed implement has almost no effect on them whatsoever. Hell, inherent bonuses means your Battlemind or Ardent can grab Warlock powers and not have to carry an implement.
Music is correct. The ultimate effect of destroying a weapon is to remove the proficiency bonus and [W] damage of the item. Implements don't have either of these effects, so the user doesn't have to worry about these negative effects.
If someone decides to roll up a defiler I'll probably tweak that system as well.
Since *every* user of arcane daily powers gets the arcane defiling power, there's really no such thing as "rolling up a defiler." You can create a character that focuses on defiling, of course, or just choose to use the power a lot (or not), but every arcane class can use defiling magic out of the gate.
pun intented, couldn't resist
I might use something similar to the weapon breaking rule for defiling. The consequences and options for defiling are too wonky for me right now, i'd rather it be a constant temptation.
I figure they roll a 1 they have the option to defile and reroll and defiling takes away a healing surge from allies within a certain radius relative to the power level.
Not perfect, but I want it to be a constant temptation even for preservers ("well, just this once"), not have a devastating effect on allies but be dangerous enough. I'll tweak it. Maybe the area around the defiler becomes drained and defiling cannot be done on it.
I might use something similar to the weapon breaking rule for defiling. The consequences and options for defiling are too wonky for me right now, i'd rather it be a constant temptation.
I figure they roll a 1 they have the option to defile and reroll and defiling takes away a healing surge from allies within a certain radius relative to the power level.
Not perfect, but I want it to be a constant temptation even for preservers ("well, just this once"), not have a devastating effect on allies but be dangerous enough.
wont that make defiling less tempting... as is you can use it on any miss
Encounter 1: Rolls reckless breakage on her metal spear. Breaks it. Fights with fists for a while, then picks up another metal spear from a dead Templar. Breaks it. She finds a obsidian spear after the fight.
RP scene: "My daughter, as your Noble father, I cannot help you liberate the Brickyards. But take this: the magical metal Spear that is a metaphor for both our relationship and the fate of our Noble house."
Encounter 2: (eh, blazing starfall + minions + strategery = let's skip this encounter)
Encounter 3: Rolls reckless breakage on her ancestral metal spear.
html_removed
Breaks it. (Meanwhile, the Battlemind rolls Reckless Breakage for the first time and crits a templar. I imagine him basically pumping his weapon in the air like "WHO'S THE PSIONIC DEFENDER AND HAS FOUR ARMS? THIS GUY!")
It was fun. Perhaps this player will not roll as much Reckless Breakage in a longer game, and it's a good question of how often it would show up in that case, but it was fun for us. (Maybe I'll avoid suggesting it after a player has already lost a metal weapon.)
The ultimate effect of destroying a weapon is to remove the proficiency bonus and [W] damage of the item. Implements don't have either of these effects, so the user doesn't have to worry about these negative effects.
True, but I'll probably use a some kind of penalty for using an "improvised" implement, maybe -2 to hit or something.
Not perfect, but I want it to be a constant temptation even for preservers ("well, just this once"), not have a devastating effect on allies but be dangerous enough. I'll tweak it. Maybe the area around the defiler becomes drained and defiling cannot be done on it.
I'd be interested in hearing what you come up with.
I myself would probably keep the weapon breakage to weapons only. The destructive powers of the arcane source is already well implemented via Defiling and a Reckless Breakage rule for arcane casters would SEVERELY undermine the temptation to defile. The powers of a Psion are no where near as visceral as that of a weapon using character and don't seem as inherently destructive as an Athasian arcane caster. Primal caster powers would feel out of place if they destroyed the implements they channeled through considering it is the power source that is trying to...you know?... restore the world and all.
What about monks?
What about monks?
Unarmed monks should definitely not suffer from implement breakage imo. It would be wierd for a Monk to punch so hard that his magical prayer beads break. Weapon using monks are a grey area since they use weapons in melee as implement powers. Making weapon breakage apply to them would then make it so that other weapliment users may be forced to do weapon breakage rolls if you are using the same logic across the board.
Personally as a DM I'd apply weapon breakage to monks who use weapons, but not to weapliment based casters. Removing the temptation to defile from Sorcerers simply because they only use staves and daggers sort of undermines one of the key parts of the setting. Not to mention all of a sudden Wizards, Artificers, and Swordmages who both have weapliment options by default are no longer tempted to defile EVER. Warlocks and Bards can take Arcane Implement Proficiency which would then likewise remove the need to defile from them.
If you think about it when you compared them Arcane Defiling deals about 1/8th of your party's total hitpoints in damage to the party, defiles the land around the caster, and can not be hidden via bluff checks so has SEVERE roleplaying consequences in a city. "Weapon" breakage for a caster causes them lose +1 damage per tier (via Weapon Focus) and possibly another +1 bonus to attack rolls if the weapliment has a superior implement version. However all of that is immediately cancelled out if the caster is carrying extra implements and has spare minor actions.
True, but I'll probably use a some kind of penalty for using an "improvised" implement, maybe -2 to hit or something.
Which would do nothing whatever, since the implement wielder has a built in enhancement bonus and does not need implements to use implement powers. Why would they use an improvised implement that inflicts a penalty on their attack roll when they could just go without?
Implement classes have very little reason to use implements *at all* in dark sun, unless they have class features tied to them, as wizards do. Unlike weapon users, their damage is hardcoded into their powers and they don't need proficiency bonuses. Because their built-in enhancement bonus does not stack with implement enhancement bonuses, all a magical implement offers them is its crit dice and any powers and properties it might have. Nice, but far from essential.
Given all of that, implementing an implement breakage system really does not fix the stated problem: Weapon breakage rules will still penalize weapon using classes more than it will implement-using classes, who can more easily do without implements than weapon using classes can do without weapons.
Implement classes have very little reason to use implements *at all* in dark sun, unless they have class features tied to them, as wizards do. Unlike weapon users, their damage is hardcoded into their powers and they don't need proficiency bonuses. Because their built-in enhancement bonus does not stack with implement enhancement bonuses, all a magical implement offers them is its crit dice and any powers and properties it might have. Nice, but far from essential.
Actually the table for inherent enhance bonuses says that you get +1d6 bonus crit damage for every +1 of inherent enhancement bonus that you have.
In RL,w epaon breakage with iron/steel wepaons was a real problem, hence why high quality swordmakers and metallurgists were in such high demand.
ancient Damascus steel was amazing, you cna go read up on it, and what any lord, knight etc worth his salt wouls want to get if they could
1 = weapon break - fair to me. hence smart folk would carry several weapons! you'd epxect that in Dark Sun
also not all weapons are inferiror (a club or staff for instance, but good wood isn't too common on Athas) and in my games I use "psionic tempering", whereby craftsmen use psionics to strengthen obsidian etc.
Obsidian is much harder than steel and the sharpest edge you can practically get in real life. it's flaws in the crystal make it prone ot shatter, if you could remove the flaws you'd have a super material
I imagine that since Athasians nealry always have some psionic talent, a few would have the ability to "temper" materials, remove flaws, strengthen them (see 2nd ed Psionic handbook)
such crafters would be very valuable!
Only non-magic weapons should break, any DM breaking a PC's magic item without damn good reasoon is a total jerk.
The weapon breakage rules differentiate between metal and nonmetal weapons, not magical and nonmagical. "Damaged magical weapons loose their ehancement, properties, and powers until repaired." page 122.
But breaking magic weapons doesn't matter that much due to inherent enhancement bonuses. You lose a possible property, a possible daily magic item ability, and your crit dice may change. That is until you pay the 50 gold or whatever it costs to cast the Make Whole ritual.
Breaking a magic weapon is incredibly "lame" to use one of the current and rather useful meanings of that word, in this circumstance :p
As a DM I'd never EVER break a magic item except when say:
some major critter like a fire gaint was trying specifically to sunder it,
or
the gods of ill fortune just take an enormous dump on your head
"You rolled THREE "1s" in a row? WTH?! um sorry bud, the Fates take a poo on you and your sword snaps!"
or
maybe the magic item is specifically weak, old etc. wich is quite appropriate to Athas, actually.
~~Edited for inappropriate language~~
However, Dark Sun includes the inherent bonus system as default to represent the low magic of the world. In all reality your adventuring party shouldn't find many if any magic items, but the system compensates for that. When a gladiator Fighter breaks his +4 Vicious Greatsword he curses, starts handing out knuckle sandwiches like its a lunch buffet, and loses very little effectiveness while he is at it.
Not to mention, if a magic item breaks then you can just repair it if you have a ritual caster in your party.
Automatic weapon breakage on a natural 1 is just a severe critical fumble rule. Consult all of the arguments for why critical fumbles are bad for the party (in short: the best that can happen is the party has an easy time against a bunch of bumbling enemies, the worst that can happen is a TPK, one of these things is not like the other).
If weapon breakage is allowed as a choice, then you've just given everyone a new power. Players (and Team Monster) will never choose to risk breaking their weapon unless they can deal with a broken weapon.
But I still would like to implement some form of weapon breakage that the player has no control over. Nothing that would happen too often, but enough to where players don't have TOTAL control over weapon breakage.
A player mentioned that if a character was Dominated by a monster, and they rolled a one, the DM/monster could opt to break, a situation I am sorely looking forward to as a DM.
Natural ones can come up frustratingly often, so an option might be to have weapons break on a natural one, but the weapon gets a save on a 10+ secondary roll.
I don't know, I'm not a designer.
Breaking a magic weapon is incredibly "lame" to use one of the current and rather useful meanings of that word, in this circumstance :p
Well, that's incredibly offensive. I very rarely put people on ignore, but you, my friend, are at the top of my list.
"Breaking a magic weapon is incredibly lame" (emphasis mine) would have done the job of expressing your idea ;)
************
Please keep your posts polite, respectful, on-topic, and refrain from personal attacks and flaming, these are violations of the Code of Conduct. You can review the Code here: wizards.custhelp.com/cgi-bin/wizards.cfg... . You are welcome to disagree with one another but please do so respectfully and constructively.
************
Please return discussion to the topic of the thread, or it may need to be closed.
The suggestion about having implement breakage could balance things out but it seems kind of odd from a narrative perspective. Weapons I can understand, you attack them in melee but fumble and break the weapon, but how do you explain a psion, wizard, shaman and so on breaking implements on a natural 1? Does a power oveload accidently occur resulting in the implement exploding or something?
Thats how I'd play it personally
jeesh, I so loathe political correctness.
It's not the same as stopping abuse, which actually requires more effort in that you have to verify the INTENT. Like, you know, asking someone before going cuckoo on them
It's 2010 , folks. I know much of the world hasn't noticed this and still indulges in all kinds of heinous abuse, but for some of us, it ain't the Dark Ages, ok?
"Breaking a magic weapon is incredibly lame" (emphasis mine) would have done the job of expressing your idea ;)
WHOA!!! No need to go into bashing people who are crippled! I have had plenty of friends who have been crippled at some point in their life.
"Breaking a magic weapon is incredibly lame" (emphasis mine) would have done the job of expressing your idea ;)
WHOA!!! No need to go into bashing people who are crippled! I have had plenty of friends who have been crippled at some point in their life.
Well I'm not lame (*) but I am disabled, so using that would have been BAD! ;)
(*) well my right knee's iffy, but that's a minor problem thankfully :p
I was just thinking of a variation of the Reckless Breaking rule. If you roll a natural 1, and decide to reroll, you get an automatic crit if you hit. You strike really hard with your weapon, dealing alot of damage to your opponent, but damage and break the weapon in the process. If you go out, go out with a bang. Does this sound reasonable, or is it too powerful and unbalanced?
While it sounds cool as hell, it sounds crazy powerful. If I put myself in the shoes of a melee I'd want to roll 1 only slightly less then I'd want to roll a 20.
1. Martial Practice: Temporary Fix
For the cost of 1 healing surge and 10 min. your weapon is fine for 24 hours.
2. Ritual: Make Whole
For the cost of 20% of the items cost and 10 min. your weapon is permanently fixed.
Both of these are available to players at first level. All reckless breakage is going to do is spoil that one encounter you break your weapon in, unless someone in the party doesn't have one of the fixes listed above.
In summary, Breakage rules are a cool addition, and will be a handy tool even to other campaign settings to simulate primitive weaponry.
If weapon breakage is allowed as a choice, then you've just given everyone a new power. Players (and Team Monster) will never choose to risk breaking their weapon unless they can deal with a broken weapon.
This sums up my concern perfectly. I'd like to have my Athas be a hard and difficult place, and while fumble breakage IMO reflects this well, but giving the players a new option with no real downsides does not.