An idea came to me once and was solidified when I read a post by Zak S:
QuoteGandalf should be using a staff, not a sword
…since one of the things left that separates the fighter from the wizard is the fighter's using better weapons, or at least the fighter gets to add a level-based bonus to a sword attack.
An easy hack around this is to just use class-based damage unless a weapon is specialized. Wizards=d4, Rogue/Druid=d6, Cleric=d8, Fighter/Ranger/Paladin=d10, Barbarian=d12
Another game that I've played (Dungeon World) also does this.
I kind of like it, to be honest. Each class' Hit Die is also their damage die, unless some specific rule overrides it. The damage type, reach and effects vary as they do now (bludgeoning vs piercing etc...).
What do you think? Could this work?
EDIT: I already see a potential problem: two-handed weapons. Uh... how would that work?
And no, as a GM, I wouldn't allow char-op people to carry the smallest weapons possible as a loophole vs. encumbrance...
Quote from: Necrozius;782509EDIT: I already see a potential problem: two-handed weapons. Uh... how would that work?
The easy fix is to have it add +1 (or a die step; the mathematics work out the same) to damage.
Or you could roll 2 dX with two-handed weapons and keep the better die. It will skew damage to the upper end of the die while keeping the same range of results.
A less favourable ruling would be to steal from Savage Worlds and roll a d3 or d4 along with the class based damage die, keeping the better. All this will do is to make bad rolls of 1 and 2 rarer, and provide diminishing returns of two-handed weapons for higher-damage classes.
That's LBB OD&D/S&W White Box. Old is new, etc.
The idea has been around for a while. :)
For the encumbrance issue, assume that the damage die per class is for a medium sized weapon. If a small weapon is used the drop down by a die. A d4 would become a d2.
And as, already noted, roll two dice and use the higher die for two handed weapons.
I have been playing around with a homebrew system that uses this as a core damage mechanic. The fighting classes just keep getting bigger damage dice(and multiple dice at high level) instead of more attacks. That way there is an ever increasing effectiveness without bogging down the action economy.
Whoa. Awesome ideas! Thanks!
It would also depend on how you handle shields. In a game where shields are just plain +1AC, it would be better balanced to give two-handed weapons something is equally nice but not decisive (like +1 damage, one die size up, oder "d3/d4 + dX, keep the best").
If you beef up shields to be more than -5% to hit (with a free shield bash as bonus attack, or Shields Shall Be Splintered, or whatever), you can likewise go wild with two-handed weapons and still keep both sword&board and zweihänder as viable choices.
So far I'm working with this:
1. Damage die is determined by class. My initial guess is that this is the same as their Hit Die type (Fighter is d10, Wizard is d6, although my instinct would have been d4, but I'll go with simplicity here). Barbarians get d12 (!).
2. Versatile weapons "bump" up damage die by one level (d6 to d8, d10 to d12 etc..). (not sure what to do with the Barbarian - I don't have any crazy Dungeon Crawl Classics dice..)
3. Small weapons, conversely, bring the damage die DOWN by one level.
4. Two-handed weapons mean roll twice and pick highest result.
5. I really, really like the idea of just adding an extra die of damage instead of extra Attacks (thanks Exploderwizard). Could that work?
6. Shields: ?? Still thinking this one through (thanks for highlighting that one, Skyrock).
Quote from: Necrozius;7825585. I really, really like the idea of just adding an extra die of damage instead of extra Attacks (thanks Exploderwizard). Could that work?
Rumor is this will be a variant in the 5E DMG, so if you're willing to wait two and a half months to see how they handle it ... :)
Quote from: Necrozius;782558So far I'm working with this:
1. Damage die is determined by class. My initial guess is that this is the same as their Hit Die type (Fighter is d10, Wizard is d6, although my instinct would have been d4, but I'll go with simplicity here). Barbarians get d12 (!).
2. Versatile weapons "bump" up damage die by one level (d6 to d8, d10 to d12 etc..). (not sure what to do with the Barbarian - I don't have any crazy Dungeon Crawl Classics dice..)
3. Small weapons, conversely, bring the damage die DOWN by one level.
4. Two-handed weapons mean roll twice and pick highest result.
5. I really, really like the idea of just adding an extra die of damage instead of extra Attacks (thanks Exploderwizard). Could that work?
6. Shields: ?? Still thinking this one through (thanks for highlighting that one, Skyrock).
Bigger / smaller weapons are adequately handled through them being, well, bigger; harder to hide, harder to be precise with. While a smaller weapon has a shorter striking range, so you'd need to be closer and more vulnerable to use it.
If two-handed weapons roll twice for damage, that has a bit of a diminishing returns effect, allowing the classes with better damage dice to take shields (And thus survivability) without losing much damage; it makes them more versatile. Conversely, it encourages the weaker types to take weapons they aren't so good at, if they want to keep up the damage (Which will make them fragile), or go for a shield (Which will make them weak).
Quote from: Ladybird;782592Bigger / smaller weapons are adequately handled through them being, well, bigger; harder to hide, harder to be precise with. While a smaller weapon has a shorter striking range, so you'd need to be closer and more vulnerable to use it.
Very true: wielding a two-handed hammer in a crowded hallway would be disadvantageous.
Quote from: Ladybird;782592If two-handed weapons roll twice for damage, that has a bit of a diminishing returns effect, allowing the classes with better damage dice to take shields (And thus survivability) without losing much damage; it makes them more versatile. Conversely, it encourages the weaker types to take weapons they aren't so good at, if they want to keep up the damage (Which will make them fragile), or go for a shield (Which will make them weak).
Also a good point. I'm afraid that I'm quite terrible at juggling mechanics like this. Would Skyrock's suggestion counter this issue?
Quote...roll a d3 or d4 along with the class based damage die, keeping the better. All this will do is to make bad rolls of 1 and 2 rarer, and provide diminishing returns of two-handed weapons for higher-damage classes.
Quote from: Necrozius;782558I don't have any crazy Dungeon Crawl Classics dice...
That's your biggest problem, all else can be remedied. :D
Quote from: Ladybird;782592If two-handed weapons roll twice for damage, that has a bit of a diminishing returns effect, allowing the classes with better damage dice to take shields (And thus survivability) without losing much damage; it makes them more versatile. Conversely, it encourages the weaker types to take weapons they aren't so good at, if they want to keep up the damage (Which will make them fragile), or go for a shield (Which will make them weak).
The system is designed exactly because of that. Martial characters
should have more versatility and options as far as armor & weapons are concerned.
The weaker types of characters will have other abilities that don't involve hitting something with a weapon.
EDIT:
The entire idea behind this whole treatment is to remove much of the focus and damage properties of individual weapons and instead base damage largely on the skill of the one wielding them. It is an idea strongly tied to the abstraction of class.
Quote from: Necrozius;782595Also a good point. I'm afraid that I'm quite terrible at juggling mechanics like this. Would Skyrock's suggestion counter this issue?
You'd need to run the numbers, produce spreadsheets with all the possible die rolls and what results they give, and see if they're what you like. For this it's pretty simple, you can just write out all the combinations and produce tables from there.
Comparing max(d4,d6) and max(d6,d6) gives mean averages of 3.9 and 4.4 respectively (Versus a mean average of 3.5 for d6 rolls); max(d4,d6) has mode average 4, while max(d6,d6) has mode average 6.
Quote from: Exploderwizard;782599The system is designed exactly because of that. Martial characters should have more versatility and options as far as armor & weapons are concerned.
You misunderstand, I think that's a good thing. It makes fighters better because they can do high damage and survive, while non-fighters can do high damage
or survive.
What do people think of pairing up the damage die with a class' Hit Die?
It seems like a clean and simple concept ("HIT" die, am i right?).
BUT, what would the Barbarian do if they use a Versatile weapon? What would the next step-up for d12 be?
Options:
- make it a d14 (either buy DCC dice or roll a d20 and re-roll if the result is 15+)
- [EDIT: this wouldn't work well, so scrap this from the record] go super fucking METAL and make it d20. It's the goddamn Barbarian, after all!
- make it a combo of d8 + d6 for a range of 2-14 (thanks Exploderwizard)
Quote from: Necrozius;782788What do people think of pairing up the damage die with a class' Hit Die?
It seems like a clean and simple concept ("HIT" die, am i right?).
BUT, what would the Barbarian do if they use a Versatile weapon? What would the next step-up for d12 be?
Options:
- make it a d14 (either buy DCC dice or roll a d20 and re-roll if the result is 15+)
- go super fucking METAL and make it d20. It's the goddamn Barbarian, after all!
To keep in in line of a relatively small bump you could go with a d8 & d6 combo giving a damage range of 2-14.
Quote from: Exploderwizard;782801To keep in in line of a relatively small bump you could go with a d8 & d6 combo giving a damage range of 2-14.
That's a much better solution. Come to think of it, D20 would be kind of dumb because the Barbarian would never, ever use anything but a Versatile weapon, I guess.
Quote from: The Butcher;782534That's LBB OD&D/S&W White Box. Old is new, etc.
With respect, LBB OD&D allowed d6 damage on a hit, period, except for some exceptional monsters (probably ogres, giants, and monsters of that ilk, if I'm making a wild guess).
S&W WB (at least when I last read it) had d6 damage for all PC weapons with some variables (daggers doing d6-1 and certain weapons doing d6+1 I think was the extent of the variation, though) and most monsters following suit. I seem to remember S&W Core offering DM's choice of either White Box-style damage or damage more in line with Greyhawk (the familiar this-weapon-uses-this-die of every D&D since).
I do like non-variable damage and class-based damage quite a bit, following the idea that it's the training and familiarity with a weapon that makes it a good choice for a given combatant, not any inherent quality of the weapon itself (unless it is really shoddy, improvised, broken, cursed, etc.). But I don't REALLY care either way, and will happily let players use d8 longswords because the difference does not make or break The Fun for me.
I don't like the idea of class-based damage at all.
I'd much rather weapons did damage based on their qualities, and fighters just get to be a lot better at hitting and doing extra damage.
Quote from: Necrozius;782788What do people think of pairing up the damage die with a class' Hit Die?
i recommend it.
though to address Pundit's concern I'd make sure some weapons had special qualities in certain conditions
Quote from: RPGPundit;785567I don't like the idea of class-based damage at all.
I'd much rather weapons did damage based on their qualities, and fighters just get to be a lot better at hitting and doing extra damage.
Agreed. It kills any kind of multiclassed concept based on race ala old skool without some stupid houserule. If you're a fighter you should should use weapons better because that's what you study not because it's your class or can't use magic or suck at picking a lock or whatever.
A fighter should gain certain qualities regardless (extra damage being one of them if you study that path).
Really, you can capture a similar effect by simply giving certain classes damage bonuses or penalties.
In 5e, weapons are fairly balanced, with a trade-off of various abilities for weapons.
Let's say, all d10 HD characters get +1 damage (or better damage die). All d6 get -1 damage (or worse die). Then Barbarians get +2 damage.
But I don't think it's necessary with the other stuff going on.
On the other hand, if I were going to do a microlite 5e, I would definitely go with this idea (and probably poke at Dungeon World for some ideas).
Quote from: Will;785573(and probably poke at Dungeon World for some ideas).
Reading 5e's saving throw mechanics, I was like, "so that's Defy Danger, then".
So. Base weapon damage = class' hit die. Bump up the damage for two-handed weapons to the next-bigger die. Tamp it down for small weapons, non-proficient weapons, or for bows with a default rate of fire of two per round. For multiclassing freaks, use the class in which the character has the most levels until superseded by another class with more (in case of ties).
Your fighter does d8 with swords and d10 with the zweihander. d6 with the longbow, and he can still kill you with his d6 dagger (which was my entire reason for thinking along these lines--a fighter should be able to kill you with an emery board).
A wizard does a pitiful d2 with a dagger, but keeps his d6 staff damage. If he picks up a sickle with which he's not proficient, he's doing d1. I like weakening wizards' combat abilities, but perhaps they'd need some overlay like Scarlet Heroes' Fray die; if that's too rich make 'em roll to hit with that Fray die.
Needs work, but it's appealing.
I'm still not entirely sure what to do for the Barbarian, however. Sure, you can fudge it without a d14 (or if you use an app or online dice roller)...
Quote from: Necrozius;785616I'm still not entirely sure what to do for the Barbarian, however. Sure, you can fudge it without a d14 (or if you use an app or online dice roller)...
I wasn't thinking to get that granular. I would lump barbarians in with fighters, rangers and paladins.
Barbarians get a d12, fighters, rangers and paladins get a d10. Simple.
Quote from: Necrozius;782509An idea came to me once and was solidified when I read a post by Zak S:
Another game that I've played (Dungeon World) also does this.
I kind of like it, to be honest. Each class' Hit Die is also their damage die, unless some specific rule overrides it. The damage type, reach and effects vary as they do now (bludgeoning vs piercing etc...).
What do you think? Could this work?
EDIT: I already see a potential problem: two-handed weapons. Uh... how would that work?
In old D&D, one die size larger (the staff being d6 as in Original and Advanced, not d4 as in Basic). Thieves are an exception, use of swords - normal as well as magical - being an important class feature.
This is
maximum potential, as I have played it. A fighter does not get d10 or d12 for wielding a club two-handed.
The benefits of magic (I rule) simply do not accrue to unqualified wielders. Curses, alignment opposition, contests of will, etc., do apply.
QuoteAnd no, as a GM, I wouldn't allow char-op people to carry the smallest weapons possible as a loophole vs. encumbrance...
D12+1 gives the same average as d14. If you feel it necessary, you can roll d14 with d8 (reroll 8) and hi-lo.
A bit off topic, but I wanted to say that I'm excited to see these kinds of threads popping up in 5e. In 3e and 4e I think there'd be a lot less "Here's how you could do this", or even "Here are the problems with doing it that way" and more "You can't do this, you'll break the game".
On topic, I love the idea of a two-handed (large) weapon gaining "advantage" on the damage. Maybe a small weapon could get "disadvantage"?
I'll look when I get home, but I thought an old Dragon magazine article covered this exact thing that was re-printed in one of the Best of compilations.
Quote from: Monster Manuel;785678On topic, I love the idea of a two-handed (large) weapon gaining "advantage" on the damage. Maybe a small weapon could get "disadvantage"?
I think the problem with this is, you want people to use daggers without disadvantage, and the more properties you put on the weapon, the more important you make the weapon rather than the wielder in the equation; by giving daggers "disadvantage", you've made them a strictly worse choice, rather than a situationally worse choice. IMO, damage by class should make the wielder the most important thing.
I definitely think qualities are the way to go - a zweihander is big, obvious, hard to use in small spaces, while a dagger is concealable, requires getting close to the opponent, but also versatile enough to be thrown if required (Ranged damage, at the expense of losing your weapon either temporarily or permanently); now both are inherently balanced, and situationally better or worse.
I keep circling this idea, and I think part of the problem I notice over and over is that big tough barbarians already have an advantage. Essentially giving them bigger, tougher weapons doesn't ... balance.
One thing I keep wondering is if it might be useful to make all weapons do, say, 1d6, and then give everyone perks. Maybe... 4 perks.
For example, a barbarian can use all their perks on damage. 1d6+4 damage. RAR!
A fighter can use up to 2 perks on damage, but can also use them on maneuvers, reach, whatever.
A rogue might use all perks on damage, but only under sneak attack conditions. But she may also use them on various tricks and maneuvers.
A wizard can use perks to boost various spells or apply spell damage (ok, I'm using a perk to do fire damage with this quarterstaff, and a second perk to do it at 20/60 range, and a third perk to up that to 30/120 range, and the last for 'catch fire' check)
Obviously, this starts ... not being 5e at all, but just thinking.
You know, if you want your barbarians to be good at surviving but not at punching, you could give them a d8 hit die and a +2 HP / Level class feature, or something.
Quote from: Will;785695Obviously, this starts ... not being 5e at all, but just thinking.
Have you read SpyLite? Microlite D20 hack, has a similar simple weapon construction system.
The problem of this system is, that instead of letting Gandalf using a sword, it may result in Gandalf using a spear. And so'd Aragorn. In fact, everyone'd. Pikes probably, not spears. Just to get that greater reach of a weapon.
And then, if you also abstract and throw out weapons lengths, you are also taking away another tactical decision from the game, at which point the combat may become poorer, less about choices and positioning and more random dice chucking and all around less interesting. and you may come to wonder yourself "what happened?"
Quote from: Monster Manuel;785678A bit off topic, but I wanted to say that I'm excited to see these kinds of threads popping up in 5e. In 3e and 4e I think there'd be a lot less "Here's how you could do this", or even "Here are the problems with doing it that way" and more "You can't do this, you'll break the game".
On topic, I love the idea of a two-handed (large) weapon gaining "advantage" on the damage. Maybe a small weapon could get "disadvantage"?
With 1d6, it's close enough to the same as tossing d8 and d4 respectively, or +1/-1: 1/36 pip short on the former, same higher on the latter.
Why bother?
Also, what do you with multiple counts of ad/disad?
Quote from: Rincewind1;785698The problem of this system is, that instead of letting Gandalf using a sword, it may result in Gandalf using a spear. And so'd Aragorn. In fact, everyone'd. Pikes probably, not spears. Just to get that greater reach of a weapon.
Nah, Gandalf and Aragorn's players obviously wanted them to have swords.
Plus, pikes and spears are kinda crap in confined spaces... and if someone parries your pike or spear out of the way, they can just run past it and stab you. Once they're past the stabby bit, you die.
Quote from: Phillip;785701With 1d6, it's close enough to the same as tossing d8 and d4 respectively, or +1/-1: 1/36 pip short on the former, same higher on the latter.
Why bother?
Also, what do you with multiple counts of ad/disad?
It was a throwaway idea, but in this system I don't see how you'd get multiple Advantage/disadvantage on this. The idea was to apply the advantage/disadvantage rule of rolling twice and picking one to
damage, not to-hit. Since a weapon can't be both large and small, it wouldn't apply more than once.
Quote from: Ladybird;785707Nah, Gandalf and Aragorn's players obviously wanted them to have swords.
Plus, pikes and spears are kinda crap in confined spaces... and if someone parries your pike or spear out of the way, they can just run past it and stab you. Once they're past the stabby bit, you die.
the same is true of sword though "once they are past the stabby bit you die".
You want to try and engender a system that manges to
i. allow different weapons to be better in different circumstances (short range, log range , open spaces, confined spaces)
ii. allows the differentiation between big slow weapons and small fast weapons
iii. Allows PCs to select tactics, possibly supported by mechanics, that allow them to drive combat into situations where their choice of weapon can maximize its benefits.
iv. Runs fast with minimal complexity in actual play (ie complexity can be front loaded if required) and places comon sense real tactical skill over system mastery.
If this works then a figther with a spear should have the advantage in a wide open space where manuverability is key, a fighter with dual daggers should have the advantage in a close grapply battle, a fighter with a rapier should have the advantage where enemies are lightly armoured and speed counts over raw power, etc etc
The figther should always have advantage in melee combat over another class of the same level but... there may be corner cases where the other class can tactically drive the combat to give them advantge in a very specialised niche.
That is our Platonic Ideal to which our designs should try and move.