Forums of the Megaverse®

All there any rules anywhere in the main PFRPG that says how weapons will dull. Whats the point of getting a seldom/or never dulls weapon, or getting it indescructable? Where is this written?

There are no blanket rules about weapons dulling in PF. It's the sort of thing that would pop up in one of D&D's Books-Of-Nothing-But-Obscure-Charts-And-Tables, but is way too far in to the field of minutiae for Palladium. I believe that worrying about it just detracts from the enjoyment of the game for the majority of players, and it's generally assumed that weapons are sharpened and cared for as necessary. I mean, who wants to play a game where the first hour of every session is telling the GM what kind of oil you want to use on the blade, the order of the stones you're using to hone the edge, and rolling to see if you need to re-wrap the grip?

In absolute terms, the benefit of an Eternally Sharp weapon is that it has a damage bonus. A Super Sharp weapon has damage bonus and AC penetration. In general terms, both would also be good candidates for "above-and-beyond" uses by the player, where the GM makes a ruling that it's beyond a normal edge, it's so fine it can do things a normal sharp blade couldn't. Slicing through a material in a non-combat situation, that might otherwise resist, or a surgically trained character being able to use a dagger blade as a scalpel, or the like.

An Indestructible weapon is useful for things that otherwise would damage a weapon, like being used to prop up a ceiling trap, jam a door, or paddle in lava. Are these GM fiat calls? Yes, but they're logical ones. Also, Indestructibility keeps the weapon from being destroyed by deliberate attacks against it, and makes it generally more viable for blocking excessively powerful attacks.

These enchantments, like most things in PF, are best used in conjunction with a hearty imagination. Palladium will never tell us how to use them, they want us to think about it and come up with things for ourselves. That's why this forum is so great - it lets us all talk and share ideas

Weapons do dull, but in my game I have players write out what a nightly or morning routine is for them. Typically the men at arms do weapon care and armor cleaning, the priest do some prayers, the ranger checks his small game traps, etc etc etc. Unless there is a situation out of the ordinary I (and the players) just assume that the routine happens and they are covered in that aspect.

Thank You both for your views, we all agree with them. This is what we agreed upon tonight. When reading through the PFRPG some characters start with weapons of "good" quality, some with "very good" quality and some with "superior" quality. So we are thinking about doing it like this. Tell me what you think, and if you think it is too much.

Weapons come in three varieties (more than that, but they will for simplicity sake fall into one of three)
Poor Quality
Good/Average Quality
Superior Quality

Poor Quality has a penalty of either -1 to strike and parry or a penalty of a number equal to the amount of dice rolled.
(A Poor Quality Claymore would do 3D6-3 damage, with the lowest amount of damage being 1. Poor Quality Shortsword would do 2D4-2, etc.)

Good Quality has no modifier.
Superior Quality is same as listed in book.

Do you think this is taking it too far? If I took it further to acount damages for parrying and SDC's of weapons and such, would it be too much?

Short answer, yes.

Longer answer... maybe. As long as everybody in your group is happy, and your game is focused on fun instead of rules for everything, you're ok. Generally, though, I would suggest a GM should make sure they're not sweating the small stuff. Palladium is not a game of charts and tables - it's a game of imagination and adventure!

Personally, myself and my group prefer to leave things like the distinction between the various qualities of starting weapons up to GM for those occasions where it may come up. If you make a specific definition for every little thing, you hamstring yourself as a GM! If a "poor quality weapon" is defined as "-1 damage per die" and "x damage from parrying Y sized weapon wielded by Z type enemy," then how can you argue that it also is defined by "won't hold open a stone door against F pounds of force" unless that's written down too? Basically, once you start defining specifics, you'd better define every last possible specific there is, or else the players can argue you're "not following the rules." Because there are infinite possible situations that can come up, far beyond a GM's ability to define, it's better to simply stick with the knowledge that the weapon is poor quality, and address specific situations in accordance with logic and what your game needs. That way, when a player says they want to prop open a giant magically closing door, you can simply reply "Ok, but be advised that your weapon may break" instead of "Hang on a sec, let me check what the rules say" followed by a 10 minute debate.

Obviously, everything here is my opinion, and should be taken as such. If your group is hardcore in to charts and tables, and refuses to play without every detail written down beforehand, by all means, start making those charts. Just be aware that that isn't really the "feel" of a Palladium game, and they'll be in for a shock if they sit down with another GM down the road somewhere. One of the most remarked upon things I've heard from people seeing people like Kevin, Julius, and Erick running games for the first time is "wow, they did it so free form, without lots of rules!" That's why they're awesome GMs in my mind - they go with the flow, and don't let a rulebook run their table for them. Having been fortunate enough to play under all of them on occasion, I can tell you, it works!

I totally agree with everything you are saying Lionheart. We love the game, plain and simple. We were just looking for something to add a smidge more detail, or "realism" to the sword system. Last night I was thinking that the book may have meant something else when they say good or very good.

A good weapon could be a short sword or a long sword (a simple non-descript weapon)
Where as a very good weapon could be a claymore or flamberge. (a more powerful more descriptive weapon)

Thanks so much for all of your insight. I wouldnt ask if I didnt want it.

Thanks again!

If you want to implement it realistically then you are going to need a weapon bucket for damage.

Strikes against metal objects or stone objects or objects with an AR of 12 or over, the striking weapon takes 1/10th the damage it inflicted, rounded up (so always at least 1 point)

Parrying or being parried causes the weapon to take 1/5th damage (roll for damage against the weapon from the attacker) rounded up

Strikes against flesh, bone or things with an AR of 11 or less the strike weapon takes no damage.

Basic short sword has 50SDC, long sword 75 SDC, bladed polearms and axes have 100SDC. Poor quality weapons have half the SDC and exceptional quality (anything with a bonus) has 50% more SDC.

This SDC has nothing to do with what it takes to break the weapon, that is a seperate SDC bucket. This SDC bucket is to determine how dull the blade becomes.

At half the original SDC the weapon is -1 to damage, at 1/4 it is -2 to damage, at 1/10th SDC it is -3 to damage and -1 to strike and parry, at 0 SDC the weapon is -4 to damage and -2 to strike and parry. This only applies to edged weapons.

If the SDC of the weapon is ever reduced to 0 then the quality of the weapon is permenantly reduced by one grade (from exceptional to good, good to poor)

10 minutes of basic maintenance repairs 2d4 SDC to the weapon.

The only way to restore a weapon permenantly reduced in quality is to have it reforged by an equivellent weapon smith (an average to good one to return a weapon to good quality, and an exceptional weapon smith such as a Dwarf or Kobold to return an exceptional weapon to that quality). This reforging costs half of the new price of the weapon.

Poor quality weapons are -1 to strike and parry and -the die roll to damage round the final result up (so a 1d6 short sword that is poor quality does 1d6-1 rounded up, so always at least 1 point of damage, a poor quality spear 2d4-2 with a minimum of 1 damage)

There's your realistic system.
-Matt

Thanks.

But i really am seeing how that detracts from the epic fun of the game. If only there were something in the middle.

But thank you very much.

Not much in the middle other then saying something like character have to at least once per day spend 15 minutes on weapons maitenance if they fought a battle that day or the previous. If they don't then the weapon is -1 or 2 to damage. That gets a little to simplistic.
-Matt