Joined: Sept 2008 Gender: Male Posts: 1,209 Location: Melbourne, Australia Karma: 195
Variable Weapon Damage for OD&D « Thread Started on Jul 8, 2012, 4:12am »
It has been a while since my last "missive", so please excuse the length of what follows... I tend to get carried away with this stuff
In Original D&D, the alternative combat system treats all weapons equally. With the exception of spears charging/set against a charge, all weapons deal 1-6 hit points of damage on a successful hit.
Greyhawk soon introduced Variable Weapon Damage, however, and it has been an iconic feature of D&D's combat system in every edition since.
The principle mechanism of variable weapon damage is simple and intuitive; bigger weapons roll larger damage die. I.e., 1d4 for daggers, 1d6 for maces, 1d8 for swords, 1d10 for two-handed swords, and so on. This works brilliantly, and is (presumably) still employed by almost all D&D players today.
But, perhaps? rather awkwardly, Greyhawk (and AD&D) also specify a second mechanism; the weapon type versus armour type attack adjustments. This is more subtle but the basic premise is that if a weapon hits more (or less) frequently, it deals more (or less) damage over time.
This effect is achieved by a complicated table of adjustments to attack rolls versus each armour type. Unfortunately, this is hard to use, and armour type data was never formally supplied for monsters. This is probably why the second mechanism tends to be ignored by a majority of players.
What does it Mean for OD&D Players?
Yes, we know all that, but how is it useful to us OD&D players?
It may not be "useful", but one possibility is to look at the oft discarded second mechanic as a way to achieve variable weapon damage without discarding OD&D's classic 1-6 hit points of damage per hit.
Firstly, let's see what variable weapon damage actually means to the players in terms of possible damage caused.
Variable Damage by Damage Die
In OD&D, average damage per hit is 3.5 hit points regardless of weapon type.
Considering only variations in damage die introduced with variable weapon damage:
* In GH the average damage per hit is increased to 3.9 hit points, with individual weapons ranging from 2.5 (dagger) to 5.5 (halberd, two-handed sword).
* In AD&D the average damage was again raised to 4.1 hit points per hit, with individual weapons now ranging from 2.5 (dagger, sling) to 6 (lance).
Variable Damage by Damage Die AND Attack Adjustment
Now, let's factor in the weapon versus armour type adjustments.
This is more complicated, because we now need to consider the probability of a hit versus any armour type along with the damage caused by a hit. The following analysis assumes that all armour types are encountered equally frequently (which may or may not actually be so in any given game).
In OD&D, average damage per round is 1.3 hit points regardless of weapon type (assuming the hit/miss probabilities of a 1st-3rd level fighter).
Considering (for the same hit probabilities) variations in damage die and weapons vs armour adjustments introduced with variable weapon damage:
* In Greyhawk, the average damage per round was increased to 1.5 hit points without weapon vs armour adjustments, or 1.63 hit points with them. Individual weapons range in effectiveness from 0.86 hit points per round (hppr) (dagger) to 2.65 hppr (two-handed sword), a threefold range.
* In AD&D, the average damage per round increased again to 1.54 hit points without weapon vs armour adjustments, or 1.7 hit points with them. The dagger is still the overall least effective weapon at 0.86 hppr, while the two-handed sword is down marginally to 2.58 hppr. However, the lance has been raised to 2.7 hppr, and the morning star now surpasses all other one-handed weapons at 2.16 hppr (flails being the next best at 1.97 hppr, followed by swords at 1.94 hppr).
So, for all their rich detail and complexity, the weapons vs armour adjustments add (on average) 9% to damage scored per round in Greyhawk, and 11% to damage scored per round in AD&D. Individual weapons will differ, of course, and that is the possible value of the system. Experience has shown that players tend not to tax themselves with this, however.
Err, yeah? And?
So, getting back to the point of this post; what does it all mean for OD&D players?
It means that a system of attack adjustments can be used to produce variable weapon damage while retaining the classic 1-6 hit points of damage per successful hit.
Put simply, OD&D weaponry can "scaled" to match the relative threat levels they represent according to Greyhawk, or AD&D, or whatever scheme is desired.
A theoretical "average" weapon deals 1.31 hppr in OD&D, while the same weapon deals 1.63 hppr in Greyhawk, or 1.7 hppr in AD&D. From here, weapon effectiveness can be scaled up or down (as appropriate) by applying attack roll adjustments.
For example, a very close match to Greyhawk's or AD&D's hit points per round is achieved with the following attack roll adjustments and 1d6 damage per hit:
1/2 adjustments represent a +1 (or -1) adjustment versus opponents with shields, but no adjustment to those without.
Further Extrapolations
Now that we have the basis of a variable weapon damage system by attack adjustments only, we can apply whatever level of gamesmanship we desire.
For example, I can hardly resist "correcting" several perceived flaws in the official system, including flails (which arguably never existed historically), and morning stars (which would not have been the best weapon available if their relative scarcity is indicative)!
Moreover, I would prefer that weaponry exclusive to fighters be "better" than weaponry usable by the other classes. This is very nearly so in any case, only requiring minor corrections to the clerical weaponry.
Of the clerical weaponry (staff, hammer, mace, flail, war hammer), the flail seems overrated, but this may be balanced by the fact that only a single man can fight in a 10ft wide passage. Similarly, the spear may seem underrated, but this may be balanced by the fact that three men can fight abreast in a 10ft wide passage, with others possibly attacking from rearward ranks also.
Considering its widespread adoption, the battle axe also seems sadly underrated. Personally, I would switch the modifiers for flails and battle axes, and be done with it.
All of the numbers above are mathematically "factual" (barring errors), being derived directly from those given in the various D&D editions. What follows, however, is pure authorship. You may disregard it at your whim...
So, in light of the above arcana, my "grand *cough* solution" for variable weapon damage in OD&D would look something like this:
All on paper, of course, seeing as I haven't had a chance to actually test it in play! If anyone does give it a go, I would be interested to hear how it turns out.
Joined: Nov 2010 Gender: Male Posts: 659 Karma: 19
Re: Variable Weapon Damage for OD&D « Reply #1 on Jul 8, 2012, 2:22pm »
Just to clarify: in the final table, any entry with two modifiers, like "Morning star: +3, +1 vs shields" means that the second modifier is substituted when a shield is involved, right? Not added?
The entry for military pick seems to suggest this, but I want to verify.
Re: Variable Weapon Damage for OD&D « Reply #2 on Jul 8, 2012, 3:20pm »
Just curious if your variable table implies the potential for zero damage (neg. damage?) with a successful "to hit" roll or would a min. 1 pt. damage apply?
Joined: Nov 2010 Gender: Male Posts: 659 Karma: 19
Re: Variable Weapon Damage for OD&D « Reply #4 on Jul 8, 2012, 6:40pm »
It's much more thorough than the method I recently proposed. I prefer moving weapon differences toward the attack roll instead of the damage roll, too, but since I didn't feel like preserving the weapon vs. AC table precisely, so I went with "weapons get a bonus equal to their approximate length in feet". My numbers wind up a bit higher as a result, but it's easy to remember and not that far away (you could subtract 3 from length and approximate your numbers, I believe.) I might add a rule that axes and flail/chain weapons get a +2 vs. shields, based on your table.
Derv; the modifiers apply to attack rolls (to hit) only. There is no adjustment to damage rolls, they are 1-6 as per usual.
WotE, okay, I misunderstood the application. I like the utility of d6 only and your reasons for modification seem reasonable. But how do you apply these rules to non-humanoid monsters? I may be coming across as thick in the head, but a couple illustrations could be helpful. I guess I'm having trouble breaking my paradigm .
Joined: Nov 2010 Gender: Male Posts: 659 Karma: 19
Re: Variable Weapon Damage for OD&D « Reply #6 on Jul 8, 2012, 7:22pm »
I would think that non-humanoid monsters are the default against which weapons are measured. No adjustments normally, especially since big monsters are the ones that do multiple dice damage.
Edit: Also, you could add +1 per extra attack, instead of using the "claw/claw/bite" approach, with multiple attack rolls, from Greyhawk
Re: Variable Weapon Damage for OD&D « Reply #7 on Jul 8, 2012, 8:04pm »
talysman, I took a look at M&T and that sounds like a reasonable explanation, but then I look at monsters like trolls, minotaurs, and giants who these rule mods might/might not apply to. As far as non-humanoids, I wonder about creatures like centipedes and beetles that vary in size.
Joined: Dec 2007 Gender: Male Posts: 813 Location: The Echo Chamber Karma: 24
Re: Variable Weapon Damage for OD&D « Reply #8 on Jul 8, 2012, 9:22pm »
This is really intriguing. As someone who both likes 1d6 damage for all weapons and the idea of weapon vs AC adjustments, this might be just what I need
But how do you apply these rules to non-humanoid monsters?
As these adjustments are based on the effectiveness of weapons versus armour, they wouldn't necessarily be applicable to unarmed non-humanoid monsters.
But there is no reason why they shouldn't be, if desired.
If an ogre or a giant attacked with a weapon, the referee would be free to use the appropriate weapon adjustment, as described above.
If a non-humanoid monster attacked with tooth, claw, stinger, trampling or whatever else, the referee would be free to rule that these were not "weapons" and apply no adjustment.
The referee would be equally within his rights to rule an unarmed ogre or giant's fist equivalent to a hammer, for example. A bear's claws might be equivalent to a battle axe, a wyvern's stinger equivalent to a lance, a manticore's tail spikes equivalent to a crossbow, and so on.
Personally, I think the latter approach might make for an enjoyable piece of research, and for that reason I would probably tend toward that approach. The former is far easier, however, and works right "out of the box" with no further fuss.
It is worthwhile noting that all of the machinations in my previous post demonstrate (more or less) that:
-2 to hit @1d6 hp is approximately equivalent to +0 to hit @1d4 hp, +2 to hit @1d6 hp is approximately equivalent to +0 to hit @1d8 hp, +4 to hit @1d6 hp is approximately equivalent to +0 to hit @1d10 hp.
In terms of average damage output over time.
Therefore, if you have a giant which already deals 2d6 damage on a hit and you also apply an attack adjustment of +2, you are effectively upping its damage output to the equivalent of 2d8 (or is it 1d8+1d6..? I'll have to think about that). Be advised, therefore, to use of these attack adjustments judiciously.
Re: Variable Weapon Damage for OD&D « Reply #10 on Jul 8, 2012, 10:45pm »
This helped me understand better where you are coming from. I kept looking at the greyhawk tables and was getting tripped up. There's a statement in there that says, "If varying amounts of damage according to weapon type used is employed, the various monsters will likewise be subject to recieve additional points of damage or dice of damage." I understand you are only modifying the attack roll, but this implies, to me, that any mods should also apply to monster attack rolls as well. In the abstract, I would have a hard time justifying a rule that allowed less likelyhood of a successful attack with a dagger against a gnoll then a wyvern if the mods weren't used across the board. Others may see it differently though.
Thanks for getting me thinking about this in a new direction.
This helped me understand better where you are coming from. I kept looking at the greyhawk tables and was getting tripped up. There's a statement in there that says, "If varying amounts of damage according to weapon type used is employed, the various monsters will likewise be subject to recieve additional points of damage or dice of damage."
Without referring to the actual text, I believe that this is effectively saying: If the players are granted the advantage of "variable weapon damage" then so too should the monsters be given their various multiple attack routines and variable damage rolls.
It's a valid point Derv, and certainly supports the case for determining equivalent "weapon types" for each form of monster attack.
I would have a hard time justifying a rule that allowed less likelyhood of a successful attack with a dagger against a gnoll then a wyvern if the mods weren't used across the board.
I'm not sure what you mean here, Derv.
Are you questioning the probability of a PC armed with a dagger hitting a gnoll versus the same PC hitting a wyvern?
Or are you questioning the probability of a PC armed with a dagger hitting gnoll versus the probability of a wyvern hitting the same gnoll?
(All of the following off the top of my head without too much thought...)
In the first case, according to my original post I would rule that the PC has the same attack adjustment in either case due to employing a dagger (-3). Actual probability of a hit would come down to the AC of the gnoll and the AC of the wyvern.
In the second case, according to my original post and the concern you raised for non-humanoid monsters, I would rule that the PC employing a dagger would attack at -3, while the wyvern would have various attack options -- including bite, claw, trample, stinger, etc.
Assuming it attacked with its tail stinger, I would rule it equivalent to a lance attack and thus apply the lance's +5 adjustment*. Otherwise it might make a claw attack, which I would rule as a pole-axe, applying a +2 adjustment (or +4 adjustment if the target has a shield). And so on. Once again, the actual probability of a hit would come down to the AC of the target.
My apologies if you intended to ask something else
* I have just now noticed that while all the other "piercing" type weapons are -2 versus shields, the lance is not. I will correct this tonight, so that the lance should more correctly be +5, +3 vs shields.
Re: Variable Weapon Damage for OD&D « Reply #12 on Jul 9, 2012, 5:24pm »
WotE, I"ve given up on trying to figure out how to put multiple quotes into my post.
So, your first reply was exactly what I was getting at. This led to my second point. I was going on the assumption that Talysman suggested, where non-humanoid, large HD monsters are the basis for what weapons are measured and hence, no adjustments apply. I think I misunderstood his intent and concluded that neither PC nor large HD non-humanoids used the modifiers then.
Are you questioning the probability of a PC armed with a dagger hitting a gnoll versus the same PC hitting a wyvern?
so going on the above assumption (you know what they say about assuming ), if you only use these modifiers when attacking humanoids, then it would essentially be more likely for a 1st level PC with a dagger to hit a wyvern (AC 3 to hit 16) then a gnoll (AC 5 to hit 14 +3=17). But, if you use these modifiers across the board, then as you said, it would come down to the AC of both creatures.
I think I've finally wrapped my head around it now. thanks for your patience in expounding your points. I will be placing a copy of your mods with my OD&D material and possibly giving it a whirl .
Joined: Sept 2008 Gender: Male Posts: 1,209 Location: Melbourne, Australia Karma: 195
Re: Variable Weapon Damage for OD&D « Reply #13 on Jul 9, 2012, 6:51pm »
Great news that you want to test it in play, Derv I'll be interested to hear how it goes.
Having slept on it, the obvious implication has dawned on me.
All of the above implies that possible damage output (for weapon using man-types) is increased by approximately 7 or 8%, and therefore applying these to hit adjustments makes it a more dangerous game. For the players too.
Applying equivalent adjustments for non-humanoid monsters will make it more dangerous again (for the players), which may or may not be desirable.
So long as the ref is aware of this, it is all fine. He might want to balance this increased "deadliness" by allowing for somewhat better player ACs. Some plausible options might include: shields are worth 2 pips of AC, a helmet is worth 1 pip of AC, 15+ dexterity is worth 1 pip of AC, and so on.
Re: Variable Weapon Damage for OD&D « Reply #14 on Jul 11, 2012, 5:17pm »
WotE, the gauntlet was thrown down and I accepted the challenge .
basically, we had a party of four 1st level PC's that had three separate encounters (halfling, dwarf, cleric, fighter). I bogged down combat by using your modifiers and d6 damage, as well as variable damage when a hit would have been successful without the modifiers. I tracked these results separately. I allowed all PC's max hp's because I knew I would be instigating combat.
The first encounter involved four orcs (2 with handaxes/2 with spears hp: 5,3,5,3). The second encounter involved an ogre armed with a war hammer (hp: 18). The final encounter involved a wyrven ( I did not apply any mods. to the wyrvens attack rolls; only the PC's. hp: 26).
conclusions: TPK .
seriously though, the main thing I found was that the modifiers seemed to lengthen the combat longer then if using variable damage die. Interestingly, there was only one occasion where a hit with the modifiers would have normally been a miss (this was in combat with ogre). I thought this sort of occurrence would be more common, but it wasn't. The combat with the ogre would have only ran three combat rounds with variable damage and ended up lasting six with the modifiers (as a result of the additional rounds, the cleric was killed and the halfling was hanging by a thread). finally, in the encounter with the wyrven, it would have come down to the fighter (who was wearing plate & shield) either way. The difference would have been a vanquished wyrven with variable damage used or TPK with your modifiers.
for those who use d6 damage for all weapons without your modifiers, I believe combat would have lasted even longer.
hope my feedback was of interest, if nothing more.
![[Home]](http://images.proboards.com/menu/home.gif "[Home]")
![[New Topics]](http://images.proboards.com/menu/topics.png "[New Topics]")
![[Help]](http://images.proboards.com/menu/help.gif "[Help]")
![[Search]](http://images.proboards.com/menu/search.gif "[Search]")
![[Login]](http://images.proboards.com/menu/login.gif "[Login]")
![[Register]](http://images.proboards.com/menu/register.gif "[Register]")
![[Search This Thread]](http://images.proboards.com/search2.gif "[Search This Thread]")
![[Share Topic]](http://images.proboards.com/new/buttons/share.png "[Share Topic]")
![[Print]](http://images.proboards.com/buttons/print.gif "[Print]")
Author
![[avatar]](http://i561.photobucket.com/albums/ss56/waysoftheearth/Ways_100x100.jpg "[avatar]")
![[image]](http://i561.photobucket.com/albums/ss56/waysoftheearth/VWD_1_dam_per_hit.png "[image]")
![[image]](http://i561.photobucket.com/albums/ss56/waysoftheearth/VWD_2_dam_per_round.png "[image]")
![[image]](http://i561.photobucket.com/albums/ss56/waysoftheearth/VWD_3_dam_equivalence.png "[image]")
![[image]](http://i561.photobucket.com/albums/ss56/waysoftheearth/VWD_4_alternate_adj.png "[image]")
Logged
.
![[avatar]](http://img38.imageshack.us/img38/1214/comicbookjames.jpg "[avatar]")
![[aim]](http://images.proboards.com/aim.gif "[aim]")
![[homepage]](http://images.proboards.com/buttons/www_sm.gif "[homepage]")
), if you only use these modifiers when attacking humanoids, then it would essentially be more likely for a 1st level PC with a dagger to hit a wyvern (AC 3 to hit 16) then a gnoll (AC 5 to hit 14 +3=17). But, if you use these modifiers across the board, then as you said, it would come down to the AC of both creatures. 
.