In Lion & Dragon, I'm not listing a specific damage for each weapon (you know, like swords doing a d8, maces a d6, flails 2d4 or whatever). Instead I'm just listing weapons into certain categories, of small, medium or large, plus a couple of special categories.
I think this will encourage Players to choose the weapon they want their character to have, rather than worrying about how one weapon does a d6 while the other does a d6+1 or 2d4-1 versus large creatures or whatever.
How much does it matter to you that weapons work with the standard D&D 'weapon damage' lists where every specific weapon has its specific damage? Would you prefer something more generalized into categories of weapons like what I'm suggesting?
Seems fine, makes it more useable in an edition-neutral way as well.
I run OD&D/S&W:WB and I've been much happier since I went to D6 as the base weapon damage. Daggers and clubs do 1D6-1, 2H weapons and crossbows do D6+1 damage. But to make weapon choices meaningful, I gave each weapon some mechanical effect. AKA, axes and hammers are great tools, whereas other weapons don't function well as tools to hacking doors or chests.
The response from players has been great. My OD&D game has fighters who use a spear, or two handaxes, or a two handed flail without concern for "which is best" numbers wise.
Doesn't matter to me, as long as it's consistent and there aren't any weird corner cases that can be exploited.
It depends:
If it is along the lines of WFRP just having maces, swords, axes etc. all be 'Hand Weapon', that is fine with me.
On the other hand, if its along the lines of the rebooted 7th Sea RPG having you to do the same damage with a teacup as you would with a halberd, no thanks.
Removing the consequences of a choice is the same as removing the choice itself. Would you also say,
"You can chose any armor you want, but everyone is AC5"
or
"You can cast any spell you want but all spells do d6 damage/level"
I could see removing all equipment from the game and just assigning damage, AC, and other effects via a chart based on class and level. Effects based games, such as Champions, work fine. But I don't see why you'd remove the significant of the weapon choice while still retaining such minor things as whether or not someone bought a mirror versus a vial of holy water.
I'd prefer d6 for everything, but understand folks wanting different dice. Right now I'm running Swords & Wizardry complete, using the variable dice for damage.
In my homebrew version of Whitebox D&D, I use weapon categories to differentiate damage types.
Small weapons - 1d3, 2d6 if backstab
1-hand weapons - 1d6
2-hand weapons - 2d6 drop lower
I go round and round on this question even in my own mind, never mind when other people discuss it. Today I'm unsure. Ask me tomorrow, and I'll probably give another answer.
I like any of 1) a consistent small/medium/large or light/1H/2H system where specific weapon type doesn't matter and is just for flavor, 2) a historically accurate system where weapon A is good in this situation and weapon B is good in this situation (this is only good in games where you are expecting complexity), or 3) a balanced, complex system mastery focused system where weapon choice, weapon skill, and investment in the weapon decision is part of the character decisions. Any will work, as long as it supports the rest of the game style (so #3 only in games where character build is 'part of the fun').
What doesn't work, IMO, is a system like AD&D 2e (or 1e and OD&D+GH if people don't use WvsAC) where there is a clear and obvious 'best choice' weapons.
Not especially as the idea that one sword does more damage than another is fairly nonsensical anyway if combat is at all abstracted. A poniard to the throat can be just as deadly as a broadsword.
Quote from: Nerzenjäger;962826In my homebrew version of Whitebox D&D, I use weapon categories to differentiate damage types.
Small weapons - 1d3, 2d6 if backstab
1-hand weapons - 1d6
2-hand weapons - 2d6 drop lower
Kinda like that idea of advantage/disadvantage for weapon damage according to type.
Quote from: RunningLaser;962835Kinda like that idea of advantage/disadvantage for weapon damage according to type.
Well, it was important for me to have players choose their weapon according to their fancy (as in the LBBs), but
also take shields into account.
Quote from: RPGPundit;962774In Lion & Dragon, I'm not listing a specific damage for each weapon (you know, like swords doing a d8, maces a d6, flails 2d4 or whatever). Instead I'm just listing weapons into certain categories, of small, medium or large, plus a couple of special categories.
I think this will encourage Players to choose the weapon they want their character to have, rather than worrying about how one weapon does a d6 while the other does a d6+1 or 2d4-1 versus large creatures or whatever.
How much does it matter to you that weapons work with the standard D&D 'weapon damage' lists where every specific weapon has its specific damage? Would you prefer something more generalized into categories of weapons like what I'm suggesting?
Actually I prefer that, as long as there are some other ways to distinguish between the weapons within a category.
That doesn't bother me at all. Hit Points are already an abstraction, why shouldn't damage rolls be a simple scale (size) abstraction as well?
Even the distinction of an enemy being more susceptible to a certain type of damage, (blunt vs edged, that sort of stuff), isn't served by a different bonus without making the damage rolls or modifiers an encumbrance on the rules. Ultimately, this sort of distinction is better served in how the enemy is stated up in the first place rather than on the damage roll end of things. Sure, it's nice to get the occasional bonus (and it's exciting) but it adds little in the long run.
Quote from: hedgehobbit;962819Removing the consequences of a choice is the same as removing the choice itself. Would you also say,
"You can chose any armor you want, but everyone is AC5"
or
"You can cast any spell you want but all spells do d6 damage/level"
The problem with weapon choices is that some weapons end up being better than others. Players pick weapons based on what gives a better bonus rather than what sounds cool or fits their character concept. This also ignores the reason why there are so many different types of weapons in real life rather than just one that is most effective.
Quote from: hedgehobbit;962819I could see removing all equipment from the game and just assigning damage, AC, and other effects via a chart based on class and level. Effects based games, such as Champions, work fine. But I don't see why you'd remove the significant of the weapon choice while still retaining such minor things as whether or not someone bought a mirror versus a vial of holy water.
I've seen some house rules than treat mirrors and holy water as equally effective.
Quote from: Nerzenjäger;962840Well, it was important for me to have players choose their weapon according to their fancy (as in the LBBs), but also take shields into account.
I like this idea too. I supported creating character concepts by tying fixed damage to level (same for all levels) and treating chance to hit and defense (AC) as attributes that can be increased as you increase levels. Without armor or weapons, chance to hit, defense, and damage all take a negative reduction.
That way you can pick whatever armor you want for your character and still make the statistics match your character concept. Meaning, if you want leather armor with only "some" protection, don't increase defense much. If you want leather armor but good defense because the leather lets you react/move faster, then increase defense more.
Any changes beyond the basics (additional limitations or doing more or less damage) are handled by benefits and disadvantages. But it is not a point build system and disadvantages do not give you more points or benefits. Disadvantages are actually all optional, but all of my players take them, and often take significant ones (like a -1 to everything while underground in a dungeon crawl game).
This is a tough one - and just one of several related issues re. the level of detail in rpg combat. I think the most important question to ask before deciding any such issue is, how much time do I want to spend resolving fights during play? Should a conflict be resolved in one turn (round, whatever) or 20? How many people are involved, and how long should it take to resolve each of their actions each turn? This will give you a kind of time budget, which you can spend how you like but should be focused on things that are both fun and important to the outcome. Figuring out how much damage each person does each round is one of the things you have to do in D+D; if you are happy to give each person 5 minutes per turn to figure that out, then you have enough time to fold in a variety of details. If this needs to happen in 10 seconds, you really need to boil things down to essentials and should not waste your time on bullshit.
As an example, say I want to run a game where the average fight can be resolved in 10 minutes (so I can have several per session without the game turning into nothing but a string of combats). I want each fight to take on average 5 turns, enough so that everyone gets to make a few decisions per fight, but it doesn't drag on forever. I assume a typical party has 5 members, and a typical fight is roughly balanced in numbers. Thus, I need to resolve one participant-turn every 12 seconds. Let's say we'll split that time evenly between movement and action, so it should be typical to decide and execute one action (say, an attack) in 6 seconds. I just designed a game in which combat is quite abstract, where nearly every variable that might be of interest needs to be 'baked in' to the stats - so each participant can simply roll and consult a pre-determined set of possible outcomes. Can variable weapon damage fit into that combat system? Maybe. Probably. But it is definitely one of the details I would consider sacrificing.
Another issue: the reasons why you introduce variable weapon damage (and armor protection) are to provide some level of perceived realism, and because it is one of the ways to individualize characters and actions, adding texture and interest to play. But it isn't a very good way to represent what is really different about weapons. Anyone who has engaged in a weapon-focused competitive combat sport (especially one that includes an element of test cutting) knows that there are several things that dictate what a weapon is good for and how it is used: Reach is huge. So is the level of protection the weapon provides to its wielder (i.e., can you protect yourself with your weapon system, or is it really just for dealing out damage?). Weapons are basically tools for doing things to the inside of a human body, whether it is covered by some sort of protection or not, so the arms race between weapon types and armor types is key. And, of course, it matters how much force a weapon brings to bear, a .22 pistol round fired at you from 100 yards away has little chance of killing you, whereas a 12 gauge slug fired from point blank range is likely to kill you, almost irrespective of where you are hit. There is a lot to think about here, but a complex description of each weapon could easily involve 3-4 properties, and a complex description of armor should have 3-4 properties as well. And now you are playing GURPS.
I was the first person to suggest to Gygax that different weapons did different amounts of damage.
Shit, was I wrong. I've gone back to 1d6 for everything, with a small damage bonus for heavy 2 handed weapons like the halberd, morning star, and greatsword.
Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;962858I was the first person to suggest to Gygax that different weapons did different amounts of damage.
Shit, was I wrong. I've gone back to 1d6 for everything, with a small damage bonus for heavy 2 handed weapons like the halberd, morning star, and greatsword.
So... it was you who did this...
you mother fucker!
:)
Quote from: RunningLaser;962861So... it was you who did this...
you mother fucker!
:)
I've never...
....wait, that's right, she did have kids...
I want weapons to be different in ways that make sense and that have them work differently and be more or less usable/effective in different ways in different situations etc. Similar to what GURPS does when you use the full rules, or greater level of detail. That is, more detail than a different damage number for each weapon.
But if a game design isn't interested in that, and isn't going anywhere near that level of tactical detail, then I'd rather it do something interesting than conform to a half-hearted set of damage numbers. That is, I'd rather read your new idea than a list like you suggest, because the weapon damage list you mentioned is less interesting than TFT Melee's weapon table, to me.
Quote from: Larsdangly;962857...And, of course, it matters how much force a weapon brings to bear, a .22 pistol round fired at you from 100 yards away has little chance of killing you, whereas a 12 gauge slug fired from point blank range is likely to kill you, almost irrespective of where you are hit. There is a lot to think about here, but a complex description of each weapon could easily involve 3-4 properties, and a complex description of armor should have 3-4 properties as well. And now you are playing GURPS.
Why yes, I am. :cool:
Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;962865I've never...
....wait, that's right, she did have kids...
Stay gold forever Gronan:)
A few years ago, I'd have been neutral on it, but ever since picking up Scarlet Heroes and S&W, I've come to prefer 'classes' of weapons, like d4 for small, d6 for light, d8 for one handed and d10 for two handed, and let the player describe what they're using.
The only issue I have with this is that certain weapons have 'special effects', like extended reach, can be 'defensive', is designed for disarming and the like, which is a case for case basis a lot of the time.
I think if you are going to take the realism track, and take it seriously, you need to think this through more deeply than just assigning more or less damage to each weapon. Consider, for example, the late medieval longsword and the Napoleonic military saber: both are swords, the weigh nearly the same amount, overlap enough in length range that we could justify saying they have the same reach, have similar points of balance, and are similarly effective at cutting stationary soft targets (mats, clay, water jugs, etc.). But they are used in radically different ways and interact with armor in very different ways because of differences in their blade profiles and handles. A late-period longsword is a very effectively thrusting weapon that can deliver a fatal injury against an opponent in late-period full plate armor. A military saber has almost no chance of doing any damage whatsoever to an opponent in plate armor - cuts and slices with a long blade have no effect on such armor unless the blade is placed somewhere you'll never reach on an active, aware opponent, and the broad, curved blade and one handed grip of a saber make it a poor thrusting weapon, particularly if you need to work your way into a small armor gap. Actually, you would be way better off with a rondel dagger than a saber against such a foe. Remove the armor and the story changes - now the saber is extremely dangerous as an offensive weapon, and provides an effective defense because of its hand guard and stout blade - you would likely prefer it over the longsword and it is certainly miles better than the rondel dagger.
For all the flack it gets, AD&D's weapon vs. armor tables are probably the best treatment I've ever seen for the issues I describe above. The only trouble is that it's quite slow to use these tables, so people tend to ignore them.
Quote from: Larsdangly;962906I think if you are going to take the realism track, and take it seriously, you need to think this through more deeply than just assigning more or less damage to each weapon. Consider, for example, the late medieval longsword and the Napoleonic military saber: both are swords, the weigh nearly the same amount, overlap enough in length range that we could justify saying they have the same reach, have similar points of balance, and are similarly effective at cutting stationary soft targets (mats, clay, water jugs, etc.). But they are used in radically different ways and interact with armor in very different ways because of differences in their blade profiles and handles. A late-period longsword is a very effectively thrusting weapon that can deliver a fatal injury against an opponent in late-period full plate armor. A military saber has almost no chance of doing any damage whatsoever to an opponent in plate armor - cuts and slices with a long blade have no effect on such armor unless the blade is placed somewhere you'll never reach on an active, aware opponent, and the broad, curved blade and one handed grip of a saber make it a poor thrusting weapon, particularly if you need to work your way into a small armor gap. Actually, you would be way better off with a rondel dagger than a saber against such a foe. Remove the armor and the story changes - now the saber is extremely dangerous as an offensive weapon, and provides an effective defense because of its hand guard and stout blade - you would likely prefer it over the longsword and it is certainly miles better than the rondel dagger.
For all the flack it gets, AD&D's weapon vs. armor tables are probably the best treatment I've ever seen for the issues I describe above. The only trouble is that it's quite slow to use these tables, so people tend to ignore them.
This is why I come here.
Im one of the types who believes you do not need to stat out every single damn variation on a dagger, sword, etc.
In my own I just had examples of what might fit this damage bracket. But noted that variations or even just local terms might shift it to some other bracket. EG: One persons long dagger is anothers short sword. Crafting was another factor. A well crafted dagger might handle as well as, or better than, a poorly crafted long sword.
So same as in another thread. No. I do not see a need to stat out a Khopesh sword when you can just use a short sword (or hand axe) and get the same result.
Quote from: Omega;962981Im one of the types who believes you do not need to stat out every single damn variation on a dagger, sword, etc.
In my own I just had examples of what might fit this damage bracket. But noted that variations or even just local terms might shift it to some other bracket. EG: One persons long dagger is anothers short sword. Crafting was another factor. A well crafted dagger might handle as well as, or better than, a poorly crafted long sword.
So same as in another thread. No. I do not see a need to stat out a Khopesh sword when you can just use a short sword (or hand axe) and get the same result.
Obviously all sorts of abstractions are made in games, and that is usually for the best. My point was that if you are trying to make rules that recognize functional differences between weapons (and armor), then just turning the damage knob up and down isn't really a very good way to do it.
I'd prefer a generalized approach. It's a bit easier and cleaner to handle...
Is there all that much difference between a two handed axe coming for your head at speed as opposed to a two handed sword. Might as well lump them in together (IMO)!
Quote from: Christopher Brady;962901...I've come to prefer 'classes' of weapons, like d4 for small, d6 for light, d8 for one handed and d10 for two handed, and let the player describe what they're using. The only issue I have with this is that certain weapons have 'special effects', like extended reach, can be 'defensive', is designed for disarming and the like, which is a case for case basis a lot of the time.
Perfect.
Could care less about damage being different. In most systems, combat's abstract enough that it doesn't really track anyway. Besides that, many systems go out of their way to try to make weapons equivalent, just using different math, which seems a bit silly at times.
What I do find interesting is the idea of weapons being different for various uses... a heavy machine gun being good for suppressive fire, while a sniper is good at distance shooting, while an assault rifle might be better at close quarters or whatever.
I like it if weapon choice is meaningful. Whether that stems from damage or something else.
I don't like game that are just "every one handed weapon is d6". Old school hack has essentially the same damage for all the weapons, but makes some better in different terrains, so that works.
Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;962865I've never...
....wait, that's right, she did have kids...
And this children is how the Bastard Sword was born... :eek:
I don't like it if some weapons are inherently sub-par.
I do like it if it adds tactical depth to the game with minimal complexity. Like - a mace might have some armor piercing but be less accurate than a sword. In that case (assuming armor=reducing damage) there are advantages to both. But if sword>mace (or whatever), that's lame.
Quote from: RPGPundit;962774How much does it matter to you that weapons work with the standard D&D 'weapon damage' lists where every specific weapon has its specific damage? Would you prefer something more generalized into categories of weapons like what I'm suggesting?
I don't look at "weapon damage" at all when grabbing a weapon I may one day use on someone. And I rarely look to see if I have a good enough skill to even use it.
If damage is the only axis along which weapons vary, you've already messed up for two reasons: you've declared one weapon to be the 'best' weapon and the rest are irrelevant; and, you've totally missed the point behind the designs of different sorts of weapons. It's like gathering together all your screw drivers and hammers into a big pile and deciding which one is 'best' by weighing them. The only options that make any sense are to either skip the whole issue or to give weapons one or more properties besides damage (weight and cost don't count; no one really pays attention to encumbrance, and every character can afford to buy whatever weapon they want within half a session of starting play).
Do different weapons have different damage capabilities if you're not talking critical hits to arteries or organs? Yes.
Do different weapons have different capabilities vs. different types of armor? Yes.
Do different weapons have different capabilities based on reach and space to wield? Yes.
But, if you're talking an OSR-type game, you have one pool of HPs representing both skill and meat, and likely no critical hit system. It's also fast as blazes, even if not terribly realistic/verisimilar.
It's a spectrum. On one end is flip a coin, live or die, and the other end is Phoenix Command. You want to make sure your damage, armor, and weapon systems are around the same place in the spectrum no matter where on the spectrum that is.
At the same time, choice and preparation do matter.
For D&D's generic bucket of death avoidance called hit points, a basic difference in damage vs. Small, Medium, and Large weapons seems to hit around the same level of abstraction. To make choice meaningful, may want to factor in speed, or maybe have certain damage types be conditional, like the old "skeleton takes no damage from piercing, half from cutting, full from crushing" kind of thing.
Quote from: jadrax;962799It depends:
If it is along the lines of WFRP just having maces, swords, axes etc. all be 'Hand Weapon', that is fine with me.
On the other hand, if its along the lines of the rebooted 7th Sea RPG having you to do the same damage with a teacup as you would with a halberd, no thanks.
That's my view - amongst roughly equally viable weapons, just make them the same. Warhammer & Mace, use the same stats. Make swords the same too unless you want to distinguish armoured from unarmoured fighting.
Don't make zweihanders and teacups the same.
Quote from: The Exploited.;962998...
Is there all that much difference between a two handed axe coming for your head at speed as opposed to a two handed sword. Might as well lump them in together (IMO)!
There are distinct differences. Depends on whether you want your game to include them or not. You don't, I do, because I am interested in the differences, the nature of medieval combat, and the choices and cause & effect involved. I want to play a game that is
about those situations and choices, and that includes such differences where they are significant enough to affect choices and outcomes.
Quote from: Caesar Slaad;963009I like it if weapon choice is meaningful. Whether that stems from damage or something else.
I don't like game that are just "every one handed weapon is d6". ...
Yes. When two weapons are equivalent, then the game no longer really represents any distinction between them, and they may as well be the same thing. That's ok if the players don't care. But if you wanted to play a game about medieval weapons, a game where axes, maces, swords and spears are all equivalent doesn't really provide a game about any content about them.
Quote from: Larsdangly;962906I think if you are going to take the realism track, and take it seriously, you need to think this through more deeply than just assigning more or less damage to each weapon. Consider, for example, the late medieval longsword and the Napoleonic military saber: both are swords, the weigh nearly the same amount, overlap enough in length range that we could justify saying they have the same reach, have similar points of balance, and are similarly effective at cutting stationary soft targets (mats, clay, water jugs, etc.). But they are used in radically different ways and interact with armor in very different ways because of differences in their blade profiles and handles. A late-period longsword is a very effectively thrusting weapon that can deliver a fatal injury against an opponent in late-period full plate armor. A military saber has almost no chance of doing any damage whatsoever to an opponent in plate armor - cuts and slices with a long blade have no effect on such armor unless the blade is placed somewhere you'll never reach on an active, aware opponent, and the broad, curved blade and one handed grip of a saber make it a poor thrusting weapon, particularly if you need to work your way into a small armor gap. Actually, you would be way better off with a rondel dagger than a saber against such a foe. Remove the armor and the story changes - now the saber is extremely dangerous as an offensive weapon, and provides an effective defense because of its hand guard and stout blade - you would likely prefer it over the longsword and it is certainly miles better than the rondel dagger.
For all the flack it gets, AD&D's weapon vs. armor tables are probably the best treatment I've ever seen for the issues I describe above. The only trouble is that it's quite slow to use these tables, so people tend to ignore them.
Does it give appropriate values for the examples you just gave?
I like different weapon damages. A single attack with a Longsword is 1d8, but a character can throw 3 darts at 1d3 damage each. So darts have a chance to do more damage, but require three different attacks. Etc.
Just having different weapon damage is dumb, because eventually the best option will rise to the top. So while I like different weapon damages, I also use weapon speed and attack rates. Reach is something to consider as well.
Weapon versus armor proved too fiddly at the table, so I don't use it.
Quote from: Ratman_tf;963109Just having different weapon damage is dumb, because eventually the best option will rise to the top.
I don't think anyone is advocating that damage is the only thing the differentiates the various weapons. Nor do I think that anyone is advocating that all weapons, from a spoon to a ship's cannon all do the same damage.
As I see it, damage is but one item on a list of stats for a weapon including:
-Cost & weights (not all that important)
-Reach (usually an advantage but can be a disadvantage in tight quarters)
-Room to wield (as in how many people with a particular weapon can fight side-by-side in a 10' corridor)
-Affect on armor (bonus or penalties vs various armor types)
The Weapon vs Armor is painful to use. I remember when running 2e that I reversed it, giving every armor type three AC values (vs cutty, stabby, & smashy). This worked fairly well and prevented a table look up as the target values were listed on the character sheet.
Quote from: hedgehobbit;963117The Weapon vs Armor is painful to use. I remember when running 2e that I reversed it, giving every armor type three AC values (vs cutty, stabby, & smashy). This worked fairly well and prevented a table look up as the target values were listed on the character sheet.
That's a great way to front-load the Armor v. Damage Types so that GM & players don't have to reference the chart. :) Makes armor diversity more accessible (and tinkerable!). Also makes DEX armor adjustment, and tactics that thwart it, all the more valuable.
Incorporate the table as a rework of the armor AC redout (Bludgeon, Slash, Pierce). A seemingly obvious solution once you see it, thanks! Also easy to use for 5e using damage keywords: Immunity, Resistance, Vulnerability.
While I am using d6 damage for everything in my OD&D campaign, I generally don't like unified damage systems. Back in the late 70s early 80s, John T. Sapienza proposed a unified set of weapons for RuneQuest. At the time, it seemed really cool, but as time wore on, I soon realized that it made weapon choice boring. Now in college, I did use pretty unified damage in a Cold Iron campaign (Cold Iron is a college friend's home brew), but that system really discouraged folks from using weapons other than sword anyway, except for spear which could be used from the second rank. For my Traveller campaign, I have decided to stick with 1977 damages just because by having adds or minuses to some number of D6 actually makes for more variation (plus some weapons got shortchanged in changing to just nD6, while others got advantaged).
I often miss use of all the crazy dice in AD&D... (well, Cold Iron at least used all the dice, in part because if you had a weapon that did 1d6 base, but you had +1 magic, instead of rolling 1d6+1, you roll 1d8, so all the dice end up seeing use).
Frank
I like the way Mythras/RQ6 has weapons of similar size having similar base damage, but adds in special effect keywords, such as 'impale' or 'bleed' depending on the weapon. Add in the size and reach values, and you get a good variety of available weapons/techniques even among nearly identical damage values.
The fact the spears are useful reach weapons even without a combat grid is a huge plus for me.
Quote from: AaronBrown99;963140I like the way Mythras/RQ6 has weapons of similar size having similar base damage, but adds in special effect keywords, such as 'impale' or 'bleed' depending on the weapon. Add in the size and reach values, and you get a good variety of available weapons/techniques even among nearly identical damage values.
The fact the spears are useful reach weapons even without a combat grid is a huge plus for me.
I can only concur, here;).
The physicality of the polyhedra is part of the appeal of D&D to me. A greataxe isn't just a bigger number on a page; it's a bigger die that makes a bigger thud on the table, especially when someone just stabbed you with a piddly ol' d4 dagger.
Quote from: hedgehobbit;963117The Weapon vs Armor is painful to use. I remember when running 2e that I reversed it, giving every armor type three AC values (vs cutty, stabby, & smashy). This worked fairly well and prevented a table look up as the target values were listed on the character sheet.
...that's a very good idea!
Quote from: ffilz;963138(well, Cold Iron at least used all the dice, in part because if you had a weapon that did 1d6 base, but you had +1 magic, instead of rolling 1d6+1, you roll 1d8, so all the dice end up seeing use).
I do something similar with magic weapons, giving them a different bonus to their damage. So a typical sword might do d8 damage, a magical sword could be +2/D10 or +1/d12, or +3/D8 or whatever. I tried increasing the damage die size with Strength bonus (and increasing hit dice with Con bonus) but that got out of hand a bit too easily.
Quote from: RPGPundit;962774In Lion & Dragon, I'm not listing a specific damage for each weapon (you know, like swords doing a d8, maces a d6, flails 2d4 or whatever). Instead I'm just listing weapons into certain categories, of small, medium or large, plus a couple of special categories.
I think this will encourage Players to choose the weapon they want their character to have, rather than worrying about how one weapon does a d6 while the other does a d6+1 or 2d4-1 versus large creatures or whatever.
How much does it matter to you that weapons work with the standard D&D 'weapon damage' lists where every specific weapon has its specific damage? Would you prefer something more generalized into categories of weapons like what I'm suggesting?
I've seen this sort of things countless times, and it's always struck me as odd.
There are obvious inherent advantages to a dagger that don't necessarily need to be mechanically represented. It can be concealed more easily than a sword, for example, just based on the descriptive characteristics alone. And it is more functional as a throwing weapon. That said, as much as I'd love the simplicity of all weapons do the same damage, if my objective is to truly allow the player to choose whatever weapon they want their character to have without worrying that it will be inferior in all ways to some alternative, then I need there to be some advantage to choosing the sword over the dagger. It doesn't have to be damage. Reach, speed factor, and ease of use are all things that could be statted out to give credence to a variety of viable alternatives. But as long as we're doing that, why not damage as well?
Damage is a part of differentiation and choice when it comes to weapon selection, so, yeah, I guess it's important to me, because it adds another layer to "well, what combat tool suits me?" But this only works if there are real choices in the weaponry, i.e.:
*Big weapon=I do BIG DAMAGE...once I finally swing this fat ass, heavy son of a bitch (which forces me to not have a fucking shield...)
*My trusty little, hidden shank=I attack first! (but it's just a flesh wound!).
*My RIFLE does 3d6! (it also jams and takes forever to reload).
*My bow is faster and easier to use than your Rifle! (but I ain't one-shotting a gnoll anytime soon).
*Trusty sling=AMMO EVERYWHERE! (but plink...plink....plink... [only 10 more plinks to go...]).
*My longsword is a good, middle of the road weapon (unfortunately, it's also a good, middle of the road weapon...[sniff] I'm not special...)
*Try firing that bow prone, like I can with my crossbow! (damn...I have to crank this thing...I may need to sit up...)
Dungeon World does damage by class, so the allure of weaponry is in the tags (precise=Dex; messy=tears shit up; forceful=drives your target back). Hell, if you're a fighter, even your fists do d10, but that just feels weird for some reason.
So, where was I...? oh, yeah....
I like weapons to offer choices, but I can play with static damage numbers, including saying "everything does a d6." But I'd rather have some form of differentiation, including one that's class-based. I sorta like that the fighter does more melee damage, whether it's inherent, or through the class ability to simply wield a bigger weapon.
I prefer weapons to be differentiated to a significant degree - I dont like all weapons doing d6, or similar. I like a longsword to be a bit different to a shortsword which is different to a battle axe. I just prefer a bit of crunch when it comes to weapons.
Quote from: fearsomepirate;963154The physicality of the polyhedra is part of the appeal of D&D to me. A greataxe isn't just a bigger number on a page; it's a bigger die that makes a bigger thud on the table, especially when someone just stabbed you with a piddly ol' d4 dagger.
Yeah that's a very good point. The way the physical use of the dice tallies with the in-game fiction is a big appeal of D&D style combat resolution for me. There's nothing like rolling 16d6 for that high level Fireball. :D
Quote from: jadrax;962799It depends:
If it is along the lines of WFRP just having maces, swords, axes etc. all be 'Hand Weapon', that is fine with me.
On the other hand, if its along the lines of the rebooted 7th Sea RPG having you to do the same damage with a teacup as you would with a halberd, no thanks.
No, definitely not the latter. It's just classifying weapon damage not by specific weapon but by overall class of weapon; so you have light, small, medium, and large weapons, doing d4, d6, d8, and d10 respectively. There's a few weapons (like spears/halberds, and obviously certain ranged weapons, especially gunpowder weapons) having some special qualities that need to be defined as well.