The campaign im running has mostly bone weapons, with others made of glass, and rarely metal. Should I include like a weapon durability? I found a few previous editions of dnd with weapon durability, but what would be your choice:
Weapons do less damage if their different material
Weapons break after dealing certain damage.
also would this be an ok rule to automatically add?
Weapons become lighter or heavier depending on the material
Don’t bother. If metal is rare, then these weapons should obey the basic rules. I assume the glass is magically enforced to not break, so I might consider it a magical weapon and be a bit rarer if a find. In this setting I would consider metal weapons to be above the normal setting of weapons, so make them deal more damage than normal bone weapons (that use regular stats) or even have special properties. However, durability, breaking, and weapon weight are all super irritating. No one wants to keep track of that, and while scavenging for weapons might sound fun, it can sometimes deprive a warrior of a favored weapon and force them to use something ineffective or dislikable. Weapon weight also means nothing unless you use encumbrance and carrying capacity, which many people don’t, so I would make bone and glass weapons be a pound or two lighter (minimum of 1 pound).
If metal weapons are rare and bone or stone weapons are the norm, you can either weaken them, or strenghten or empower metal ones. For exemple, you could have metal weapons be normal, and more brittle ones break on natural 1 following a failed saving throw. Or you could have bone and stone weapons be normal and metla weapons very hard to break and doing critical hit on 19-20 etc..
I try to answer challenges like this by using the rules on hand. Thinking in the moment that might mean I just put Disadvantage to work here with a less durable weapon. The first time they roll a natural '1' on an attack with that weapon it loses it's dudrability and always attacks at disadvantage.
That is a bit nasty, but it's a system we all know how to use and really brings the point home.
Seems like it screws over martials. Will the wizard’s staff break or be less effective as well? Or the sorcerer’s component pouch? The bard’s lute? Though monks would do ok. But warlocks with their magical, unbreakable pact weapons would be head and shoulders above a fighter with his wooden longsword.
And what about armor? If they can’t scrape together enough metal for a sword, how are they making plate mail? And will that also be made from alternative materials and also break? Because now you’re just screwing the martials again.
Maybe just make them bone and what have you for flavor. Then make magic weapons and armor metal. You could even say they’re not actually enchanted, they just act is if they are because they’re much higher quality. Or that people only bother to enchant metal weapons.
The campaign im running has mostly bone weapons, with others made of glass, and rarely metal. Should I include like a weapon durability? I found a few previous editions of dnd with weapon durability, but what would be your choice:
Weapons do less damage if their different material
Weapons break after dealing certain damage.
also would this be an ok rule to automatically add?
Weapons become lighter or heavier depending on the material
Don’t bother. If metal is rare, then these weapons should obey the basic rules. I assume the glass is magically enforced to not break, so I might consider it a magical weapon and be a bit rarer if a find. In this setting I would consider metal weapons to be above the normal setting of weapons, so make them deal more damage than normal bone weapons (that use regular stats) or even have special properties. However, durability, breaking, and weapon weight are all super irritating. No one wants to keep track of that, and while scavenging for weapons might sound fun, it can sometimes deprive a warrior of a favored weapon and force them to use something ineffective or dislikable. Weapon weight also means nothing unless you use encumbrance and carrying capacity, which many people don’t, so I would make bone and glass weapons be a pound or two lighter (minimum of 1 pound).
If metal weapons are rare and bone or stone weapons are the norm, you can either weaken them, or strenghten or empower metal ones. For exemple, you could have metal weapons be normal, and more brittle ones break on natural 1 following a failed saving throw. Or you could have bone and stone weapons be normal and metla weapons very hard to break and doing critical hit on 19-20 etc..
I try to answer challenges like this by using the rules on hand. Thinking in the moment that might mean I just put Disadvantage to work here with a less durable weapon. The first time they roll a natural '1' on an attack with that weapon it loses it's dudrability and always attacks at disadvantage.
That is a bit nasty, but it's a system we all know how to use and really brings the point home.
Seems like it screws over martials. Will the wizard’s staff break or be less effective as well? Or the sorcerer’s component pouch? The bard’s lute? Though monks would do ok. But warlocks with their magical, unbreakable pact weapons would be head and shoulders above a fighter with his wooden longsword.
And what about armor? If they can’t scrape together enough metal for a sword, how are they making plate mail? And will that also be made from alternative materials and also break? Because now you’re just screwing the martials again.
Maybe just make them bone and what have you for flavor. Then make magic weapons and armor metal. You could even say they’re not actually enchanted, they just act is if they are because they’re much higher quality. Or that people only bother to enchant metal weapons.
That’s a really good recommendation. I think I’ll just reflavor the weapon as bone and call it good.