|
I honestly haven't the foggiest why one would use a fragile weapon over something else.
I mean if you look at say the terbutje, get past the fragile thing it's literally just a longsword functionally.I know there are some builds centered around the fragile aspect of these weapons, but would they really be worth having to constantly repair your weapon all the time?
Not every trait is supposed to be 'positive' and not every weapon is intended to be a 'good option' for adventurers.
Basically, this trait explains why Longswords are preferred over stone age weapons like the Terbutje (which is significantly cheaper and lighter).
|
I honestly haven't the foggiest why one would use a fragile weapon over something else.
I mean if you look at say the terbutje, get past the fragile thing it's literally just a longsword functionally.I know there are some builds centered around the fragile aspect of these weapons, but would they really be worth having to constantly repair your weapon all the time?
The primitive materials section is just that: primitive. It's an additional set of rules the designers included in case you wanted to set your campaign at a lower technology level than "Golarion standard."
The standard Pathfinder Roleplaying Game campaign takes place in a time period similar to the medieval and early Renaissance age of iron and steel. But even in fantasy campaigns set in this era, some cultures lack steel, and some lack metalworking entirely. Sometimes this deficit is due to geographical remoteness, lack of resources, repression by a strong overlord, or societal taboos. Other campaigns might be set before the medieval era, or in a dark future where apocalypse survivors eke out livings with the best tools they can scavenge. Some might even choose a lower level of technology as a point of pride, for religious reasons, as an assertion of superior martial prowess, or even to honor ancestral warriors by using their bones to make weapons, allowing them to symbolically keep fighting for their tribe or family from beyond the grave.
Other than technological limits, material availability, or roleplaying reasons, would a player with access to the full set of PF1 rules build a character using primitive or otherwise fragile weapons? Probably not except in extremely specific circumstances. I played in a "kill as much as you can" level 1 tournament one year. Built a Barbarian using Disposable Weapon and as many obsidian kukris as I could afford. Did pretty good. Didn't win but every roll of 18-20 eliminated an enemy.
I honestly haven't the foggiest why one would use a fragile weapon over something else...use and percentage chance of becoming broken, ability to easily repair item, immunity to acid/ooze, and COST.
(Glassy) Obsidian Dagger
Someone with the Vestige Sorcerer Bloodline, and the Restored Glory bloodline power, can make fairly good use of fragile objects.
|
Dogslicers are fragile because goblins discovered that if you drill a few holes in a blade, it weighs less, and is almost as good at killing as a full-weight weapon. When you're small, weak, and always hungry, every ounce of encumbrance matters!
Now, most PC goblins will try to acquire a masterwork dogslicer (which removes the fragile quality) as soon as they can, if they don't loot something better first. But few goblins are going to live long enough to ever get that chance.
Sometimes the character may not have a choice. If the GM starts the campaign where you are shipwrecked or otherwise without gear making items out of the available materials may be the only weapons you have access to.
|
Primitive weapons are an interesting addition if you want to play some encounters with the PCs meeting a primitive population, too.
If you want to make a "primitive" campaign where the PCs use them, I suggest limiting the magic somehow (generally excising spells from the spell lists) and flavoring the classes.