Some thoughts about weapons

[Zulgyan]

I'm really getting into non-variable weapon damage. I've always thought it was non-sense but I am getting each time more convinced that it is really a great rule.

From a "system" point of view, it simplifies things, reduces tables, statblocks, helps to run on the fly, reduces metagame choices in weapon, and other benefits I will shure discover as I play OD&D.

From a "world-representation" point of view, I'm really buying the "a dagger can kill just as well as a battle axe" argument I read on Philotomy's OD&D Musings (great site by the way).

Yet, I thought about some OD&D style house-rules to "fix" some issues I have with non-variable damage.

This are the house-rules:

*small weapons (daggers and hand axes) fight at -1 to hit due to their short reach.
*medium weapons, no modifiers.
*large weapons fight at +1 due to their longer reach or heavier weight.
*fighting with 2 weapons goes like meepo's rules: roll 2 dice and keep the highest.


I like this house rules:
*there is a reason to use a medium weapon over a light weapon.
*the trade bewteen to use or not to use shield is to either get +1 AC (for the shield) or +1 to hit (if a two-handed weapon is used).
*fits well in OD&D.

[Zulgyan]

I'm also been thinking about unarmed combat...

I was thinking about making all unarmed attacks such as punches and kicks deal 1 point of damage.

No distintion bewteen lethal or non-lethal. All damage is substracted from the same pool of hit points.

In this way, using weapons is still very important, but you can still beat your opponents to death.


If someone wants to engage in unarmed fighting for sport, or wants to train (using wooden swords for example), reaching cero hit points can mean K.O instead of death.

[angantyr]

Your rule itself is quite reasonable, though Philotomy's justification for everything doing a generic d6 really is just nonsense, as you originally thought it. There is a myopic focus on the low end, to the total exclusion of the high end. When you cleave someone with a halberd, as opposed to poking them with a dagger, the wound dealt with the former is potentially far more grevious than that done by the latter. Does it matter? Well, yes... any combat veteran will tell you that overkill is ALWAYS better than underkill. Put another way a halberd can wound an armoured opponent (to some extent), while a dagger is useless (unless you wrestle your foe to the ground and stick the dagger into a visor slot, etc.) Conversely, a dagger is more likely to wound, rather than kill (again, this can depend on circumstances; I'm assuming an open melee)

Look at it this way - a hand held melee weapon is simply a lever. According to basic physics, which allows you to move more: a short lever or a long one?

Historically speaking, a dagger vs. any significantly larger weapon, like a sword, almost always results in the death of the dagger wielder, and rarely is there any injury to the swordsman foe (the best one can usually hope for is a Mexican standoff where both parties are dealt mortal wounds).

Anyone who doubts this is welcome to come visit me - I have a collection of high end reproduction swords and daggers. This could be settled quite quickly, I should imagine...

While I admire streamlining things (which is what has lured me back to the roots of D&D in the first place) one can take a good idea too far. In my mind, going to "d6 for everything" is only a notch above flipping a coin to decide who wins, so what's the point?

Keep in mind, though, that the point is to have fun, first and foremost. If non-variable damage really turns your crank, don't let me stop you! While I may look in askance at it, you have no need to please me - only yourself and those you enjoy the game with. Just don't take Philotomy's musing as a factual commentary on actual Mediaeval weapon effectiveness, as it is quite incorrect. I stress this because there are enough baseless myths floating around regarding European Mediaeval arms and armour and their use, and I really hate to see new ones crop up.

The foregoing should not be construed as advocacy for turning OD&D into a precise combat simulation. But a little more detail enhances, not detracts, from the game. And it can be done in a way that is simple, fast, eminently playable, and most of all fun, yet still captures some of the considerations and "feel" of Mediaeval combat. When I've let my current "musings" on the subject simmer a bit more, I'll post them for comment.

[Stonegiant]

With the d6 damage for all weapons is truly makes sense when used with the weapons vs. AC type chart in the Greyhawk supplement. When used together the use of certain weapons vs. others makes sense due to their effectiveness (or ineffectiveness as the case may be) vs. certain armor types, in other words any weapon can kill just some are better can openers. Some people complain that the chart is to cumbersome to use but I haven't found that to be the case IMC. Then again I use the original rule that a DEX bonus, that would have been applied to AC in later incarnations of the game, is actually subtracted from the opponents To Hit roll, Thus AC is strictly how hard your armor is to get around and having a high DEX makes you harder to hit. I also use d6 Hit Dice for all monsters and all of the classes use the d6 system (slightly modified) as detailed in the original three books, but hey each to their own and whatever works in your campaign that allows you and your players have fun

[philotomy]

angantyr said:

Your rule itself is quite reasonable, though Philotomy's justification for everything doing a generic d6 really is just nonsense, as you originally thought it...don't take Philotomy's musing as a factual commentary on actual Mediaeval weapon effectiveness

I don't view the damage ratings as the "whole story" behind weapon effectiveness (and certainly not as any form of realistic/factual commentary).

Nevertheless, the idea that any of the D&D weapons are capable of inflicting killing damage to the average man in a single attack seems quite reasonable, to me. A dagger thrust in the right location can be even be more damaging than a halberd chop to an extremity. And since D&D uses a very abstract method for handling damage, I don't see a problem in having their damage rolls use the same die.

The reason a sword fighter has a huge advantage over a dagger-wielder isn't because the dagger can't inflict as deadly a wound, but because the sword-wielder has reach, et cetera. In that sense, the sword is "deadlier." Similarly, a dagger against a foe in plate mail is less useful than a halberd, but this is not because the dagger can't be used to inflict a deadly wound (as you note); it's because of the particular circumstances of the combat.

IMO, if you want to include these factors in your D&D game, a good approach is the weapon vs. AC tables (as Stonegiant suggested), or applying other modifiers to the "to hit" roll that reflect the circumstances. In the case of a dagger vs. an armored foe, you can then assume that a successful hit means you *did* find a chink or gap in the armor to thrust your blade home, despite the disadvantage.

[Finarvyn]

I like a simple weapon damage system:
Small = d4 = dagger, slingstone, maybe punch/kick, maybe short sword
Medium = d6 = sword, bow, mace, axe, flail
Large = two-handed sword, halberd, other polearm

Simple, easy to remember.

[Deleted]

Yep, that's a pretty simple system, Fin; that's basically the system I use, too. Keeps everything on an even keel.

[dwayanu]

A couple of observations:

Damage mods are "grosser" than to-hit mods. With a base of 1d6, it takes +6 to hit to match +1 to damage, in terms of average dealt per round.

[edit: See correction on p.2, Reply #28]

In proportion, mods to hit are more significant the worse the basic chance (e.g., at low levels and versus better AC). The reverse holds for damage mods.

[thorswulf]

I liked EPT's method. Daggers, and slingstones got a d4. Normal swords and spears, axes, and clubs got 1d6. Battle axes, Flails, and Pole Weapons a d6+1, and the mighty two handed sword a whopping d6+2. But remember a 10th level warrior rolled five dice vs. a first level- soon to be toast -warrior.

[angantyr]

philotomy said:

I don't view the damage ratings as the "whole story" behind weapon effectiveness (and certainly not as any form of realistic/factual commentary).

On the one hand, I thought this the case. On the other hand, you would be surprised how many folks take D&D rules as authoritative - it's appalling how many people think the weapons and armour lists out of AD&D are factually correct (while Gygax tried, he was flat wrong with a lot of his details, mostly owing to obsolete references) Hence my zealousness in posting.

philotomy said:

Nevertheless, the idea that any of the D&D weapons are capable of inflicting killing damage to the average man in a single attack seems quite reasonable, to me. A dagger thrust in the right location can be even be more damaging than a halberd chop to an extremity. And since D&D uses a very abstract method for handling damage, I don't see a problem in having their damage rolls use the same die..

I take it you've never actually handled (let alone done cutting exercises) with actual weapons, have you? I have. You would have a very different take on this had you done so. (hint: there is a difference between what is possible and what is probable). What you do not see is this: a dagger cannot cut off an arm, and even a serious wound that cuts a major artery is relatively unlikely. But a halberd can snip off a limb with utter ease. Again, possible and probable are different things. Even a rolled up newspaper can be a lethal weapon. That does not mean that taking such against a swordsman is a terribly good idea...

philotomy said:

The reason a sword fighter has a huge advantage over a dagger-wielder isn't because the dagger can't inflict as deadly a wound, but because the sword-wielder has reach, et cetera. In that sense, the sword is "deadlier." Similarly, a dagger against a foe in plate mail is less useful than a halberd, but this is not because the dagger can't be used to inflict a deadly wound (as you note); it's because of the particular circumstances of the combat.

This is largely incorrect. Tell me, can you cut someone in half with a dagger? No. But you can with a sword... (really - I'm not making that up) it is not just about reach. Again, it really just boils down to basic physics. And those "particular circumstances of the combat" are really very exceptional, and not common. This is the flaw in your reasoning: it is not that the particular examples you cite are wrong, per se, but that they are overapplied, beyond what is remotely reasonable or probable.

philotomy said:

IMO, if you want to include these factors in your D&D game, a good approach is the weapon vs. AC tables (as Stonegiant suggested), or applying other modifiers to the "to hit" roll that reflect the circumstances. In the case of a dagger vs. an armored foe, you can then assume that a successful hit means you *did* find a chink or gap in the armor to thrust your blade home, despite the disadvantage.

It falls quite short, though is not altogther bad. I do find the tables in question to be far more complicated than necessary. Compliants that damage mods are "too gross" are not of great import to me, as it happens to reflect reality relatively well. Not that we *have* to, but I find that it helps, rather than hinders, role playing, which makes it of value. At the least, it makes combat tactically more interesting, requiring greater thought on the part of the players.

BTW - finding a chink in plate armour with a dagger is not an easy feat, unless you have said plate armoured opponent pinned to the ground, but that's a whole different set of circumstances.

I'm inclined to come up with a couple of different combat systems to experiment with - one that is very simple, and another with more detail (though still simpler than Greyhawk/AD&D) so folks have a choice. Something I'm working on.

[philotomy]

angantyr said:

I take it you've never actually handled (let alone done cutting exercises) with actual weapons, have you? I have. You would have a very different take on this had you done so.

Yes, I have. I lived in Japan and studied batto and kendo. The kendo didn't use "live" blades, but batto does (including plenty of cutting exercises). I also lived in Hawaii (military family), and practiced Arnis.

However, I don't consider any of that as a "qualification" for this discussion. I'm just answering your question.

angantyr said:

This is largely incorrect. Tell me, can you cut someone in half with a dagger? No. But you can with a sword...

Similarly, you can't cut someone in half with a footman's mace...

I don't view the killing potential of a dagger (or a footman's mace) as dependent on its ability to cut someone in half or lop off an arm. The killing potential of a dagger is from penetrating trauma; and a dagger is very effective for delivering precise penetrating blows.

I'm not arguing that a dagger vs. a sword is an equal match. Or that a universal damage roll is more realistic than other approaches. I'm saying that once you assume that a telling blow was delivered (i.e. a blow that "hits" and does damage), any of the D&D weapons are capable of delivering a mortal wound to the average man. Given the abstract nature of D&D combat, I think the use of a 1d6 for PC weapons works fine.

(Tangentially, EGG uses a similar system in Lejendary Adventures, except that instead of a 1d6, the damage die is a 1d20. The average man in Lejendary Adventure will be killed by 20 points of damage. Each weapon rolls 1d20 for damage. However, he creates distinctions between weapons by manipulating the minimum amount of damage a given weapon will inflict, within the 1-20 range. I find that an interesting approach, too, although the 1-6 range in D&D doesn't give you as much room to work with.)

[jrients]

RE: Reach

I believe it was in the first edition of <i>Ninja Hero</i> for the HERO System that I first encountered a splendidly simple rule for weapon reach. In any situation where a long weapon wielder can fend off an opponent with a short weapon, the wielder of the longer weapon receives +1 to hit and his foe is -1 to hit. Once the person with the short weapon scores a hit, he is considered to have stepped up close enough that the situation reverses itself. Now the fellow with the long weapon is penalized because he is fighting with a weapon too big for his own good and the guy with the little weapon can strike more telling blows. This can reverse itself again and go back and forth during a prolonged conflict. In a world where all weapons do d6 and many combatants have d6 hit points, the guy with the wrong size weapons starts the fight with a potentially lethal disadvantage.

[Stonegiant]

Lets face reality here variable damage, d6 for all weapons, etc. all of them are unrealistic but then again D&D was never meant to be realistic, its a fantasy game for Gods sake! Its meant to reproduce the feeling and the spirit of stories like Beowulf, Conan, LotR, etc. Heroic fantasy, Sword and Sorcery, etc. It is not nor was it ever intended to reproduce the experience of men that fought at Agincourt, the Crusades, etc. The reality of Medieval military life was those that didn't or barely got injured survived more than those that suffered worst wounds. Disease and infection were the worst weapons out there. I claim no knowledge of or any wish to learn about oriental weapons but as far as European weapons go they were never razor sharp and relied more on the concussive force of their blows than they did the sharpness of their blades. As to a dagger being a man killer, stick someone in the leg, torso or arm with a European dagger from the middle ages averaging 12 to 23 inches in length and tell me that they can't cut an artery or vein or puncture an internal organ. Hell for that matter look at the death blows inflicted by bayonets in the last 60 years with a 8 inch blade on average. For that matter look at the accounts of medieval knights keeling over dead an hour after combat for no obvious reason other than their insides had turned to jelly from the beating that they had taken. 17th century surgeons constantly wrote about in the English Civil War and the European Thirty years war how they would rather treat and sew up a wound were a limb was cleanly cut off rather than treat the wound of a patient were the bone had been fragmented from a blow because both patients were going to lose that limb but the one cleanly cut off stood a better chance of survival were as the other had to be amputated and the surgeon attempted to clean out as many of the bone fragments as they could but often they missed some and this would often irritate the wound and allow infection to set in and usually kill the patient. If you want realism you should try out a system like Boothill used where they didn't really use hit points and a wound inflicted was rated- light, moderate, heavy, and mortal. It is a realistic system but a very deadly one and you will go through a lot of characters (I can remember 13 characters shot to death in a three day marathon session, ahh good times ;D).

Oh by the way yes I do use European weaponry on a regular bases and have seen first hand the damage and death that the knife and dagger can do to the human body.

[dwayanu]

I'm mighty dubious about the prospect of lopping off limbs or halving torsos (except on the headsman's block) with a halberd, or any other medieval European weapon. I'm more sanguine about a Cossack's anachronistic saber, provided the victim isn't in a lobster-suit of plate and mail.

In the latter case, a dagger has the advantage common to impaling weapons. The flipside of a good chance to kill with one thrust is that if doesn't settle the matter then one ought not to stick around for a second if it means getting clobbered meanwhile with a mucking big mace/ace/broadsword.

The Roman Legionary cleaned up with his little gladius against the barbarian broadsword once his commanders realized that the key lay in superior skill at fencing.

A host of such "realistic" elements can come into play from time to time. I reckon one gets most mileage from verisimilitude when it depends on key particulars of the situation.

In a fantasy game, other considerations may prevail most of the time. Tarzan doesn't pack a halberd, and Sir Gawain doesn't toss aside his sword for a Bowie knife.

In real life, I learned that "it's not not the camera but the nut behind the camera" that makes a shot. I think that's the prevailing ethos about ironmongery in swords & sorcery fiction.

[ant]

A year ago I was firmly in your camp, angantyr. I loathed uniform weapon damage and would passionately defend it.

Recently, however, I've discovered the joys of the "d6 for all". I had to let go though ... the simulationist in me fought hard but I was glad when I did. It was something of a revelation.

Regardless, while I'm no sword master I have been known to swing lumps of metal around -- if you check out the last dozen or so photos here you'll see me and a few mates having a bash at one of our local festivals. From my experience weapon reach outways the importance of the ability to deal mega-head-cleaving damage. And I tell you what, seeing someone coming at you with only a dagger can actually be pretty intimidating and, once they've slipped in under your reach, it's not that hard to get the pointy end of a dagger into a soft bit. Yep, feels like around d6 damage to me.

[foster1941]

I can't remember if I've posted this before or not (and even if I have it probably wasn't all in one place and definitely wasn't in this thread), but my current thoughts on weapons in D&D (derived/simplified from Chainmail & Supplement I) go something like this:

Weapons have a bonus or penalty on their "to hit" roll, as follows:

Dagger*, hand axe, spear*: -1 to hit
Mace, hammer, sword*, battle axe, pike: no adjustment
Military pick, morning star, flail, pole arm*, halberd*: +1 to hit
Two-handed sword, mounted lance: +2 to hit

*+2 to hit against prone opponents with AC 2-5

All weapons do 1 die of damage against man-sized opponents. Swords, pole arms, halberds and spears thrust vs. charge do +2 damage and pikes, two-handed swords, mounted lances, and spears set vs. charge do 2 dice of damage against opponents horse-sized or larger.

[angantyr]

Oh. Judging from the anonymous smite(s) this is a subject forbidden to discuss or provide any dissenting viewpoints on. My bad, and I extend my apologies to all and sundry.

[Finarvyn]

angantyr said:

Oh. Judging from the anonymous smite(s) this is a subject forbidden to discuss or provide any dissenting viewpoints on. My bad, and I extend my apologies to all and sundry.

Um ... as far as I know this isn't a forbidden subject or anything like that. True. the "realism" argument runs somewhat contrary to the philosophy of OD&D which has an emphasis on ease of play. Personally, I don't bother with critical hit charts, hit location charts, or any number of "realistic" rules. However, that doesn't mean that others might not be interested and bring such rules into their OD&D game.

My guess is that you pushed someone's buttons and got a SMITE for it. Tell you what; I'll give you an EXALT to cancel out the effects of the SMITE.

[foster1941]

Well, since you brought it up, I'm the one who smote you. And I did so not because of your "dissenting viewpoint" but because of the (IMO) inappropriately aggressive and insulting manner ("nonsense," "myopia," etc.) in which you presented it. You can disagree with someone without acting like a jerk about it...

[Finarvyn]

foster1941 said:

inappropriately aggressive and insulting manner ("nonsense," "myopia," etc.) in which you presented it

I confess I only skimmed some of the posts the first time through and didn't notice the phrases you mention, Foster, but in general you're on the money with your observations so I take your opinions seriously.

Angantyr hasn't posted many times and I don't want to chase him away, but if he's nasty I don't want to encourage him to stay that way either. I'll go back and re-read, but in the meantime perhaps we can all stay civil and polite in our discussion.


EDIT: I re-read the earlier posts and don't find them as offensive as Foster, but clearly a reminder is in order that OD&D is not designed to be a simulation game in the way that AD&D or Rolemaster or others might be. Clearly Angantyr has some experience with weapon use, but has perhaps forgotten that OD&D takes pains to "abstract" its combat system to the point where such details are rarely used to that depth.

[thorswulf]

You know I just re-read many of the posts about weapons and damage generated by them. I played around with sharp things too. I also know, I'm gonna hand over my wallet to somebody who gets the drop on me!

Seriously though, take it easy! In my OPINION, if you put 100 different gamers who studied weaponry, and the martial arts in one room, I think the result would be everyone thinking how much of a smart ass everyone else was.

You all raised very valid points about how damage is generated, reach being important, and that training and technique make any weapon dangerous. But you guys for got two things: Crossbows and Longbows.

Missle weapons in D&D have always seemed too weak in some respects. Pucture wounds from arrows and bolts are nasty, but not always lethal. Most people died from complications and sepsis when wounds festered.

D&D is just a skirmish wargame with some amateur acting for the most part. Nobody should expect miracles from this game. You want complicated? Play HarnMaster, or RoleMaster. Just my two cents worth.

[jrients]

Bows and such provide sufficient advantage by simply not allowing a return strike in some situations. In a world where the average joe has hit points in the single digits, how many points of damage do they really need to do?

And I suspect missile weapons have been weaker mechanically over many editions because the average player wants to play a manly swordsman, so close to the orc he can smell the halitosis.

[thorswulf]

Halitosis and Orcs in the same sentance? I thought it went without saying.... As far as missle weapons being weakened by rules, I'd agree with that. The Complete Arduin rules seemed about the most reaonable I've ever seen without being too clumsy. Rolemaster does pretty well with this too, as does HarnMaster.

[coffee]

I don't think the missile weapons were so much weakened by the rules as left behind while the melee weapons were strengthened.

In the 3LB, both a bow and a sword would do 1d6. In Greyhawk, the sword now does either 1d8 or 1d12, but the bow still only does 1d6.

After that, when you factor in strength bonuses to hit and damage (and other such things like magic), melee weapons really leave the missile weapons standing.

However, if you just stick with the 1d6 for everything, it stays balanced.

[philotomy]

Also, if you're using Chainmail (or a derivative) as the basis of your turn/combat sequence, missile weapons can often attack more than once in a round, giving them additional damage-dealing potential.

[dwayanu]

IIRC, there was a similar "thread" back when (i.e., pre-Web) in the R.E. Howard fanzine "Amra." It basically came down to each weekend warrior singing the praises of his own weapon of choice (with a loud chorus seconding Poul Anderson's lauds to the sword).

I've come across (but can't "bibliograph" now) contemporary references to dismounted French knights' preferring broken lances wielded as spears to their expensively forged swords.

D&D is plainly fantasy, and so I reckon the exploits of such worthies as Conan and Fafhrd sounder precedent than any appeal to history.

[calithena]

Someone with some books told me that swords were primarily defensive weapons while spears were offensive. This vaguely jibes with my weekend warrior experience; I've always preferred the longest swords I could get in stick and boffer fighting because I'm a defensive fighter, trying to ward off blows and go for the sure thing. Ward, ward, ward, punish when he gets desperate and tries to get past my guard. The spear attempts to offset this by being too long, and it's harder to ward off, but if you get around the end just once it's an instant win for the sword, dagger, whatever.

Of course, I'm a lover, not a fighter...

[Finarvyn]

I remember back in the mid-1970's when Star Wars came out and a friend and I got these flashlight-with-tube light sabres for Christmas. I had always thought of my self as a "sword in one hand, shield in the other" type of fighter until he and I started dueling with light sabres in his front yard. When I actually started swinging tubes around I found that I was much more comfortable with a two-handed style.

Based on minimal actual combat experience, I think that the style of fighting seems to be as important as the weapon involved. An active fighter with a lesser weapon can infilct similar damage as a passive fighter with a greater weapon.

Just goes to show that OD&D boxed set "d6 damage for everything" method isn't so bad after all......

[dwayanu]

correction & clarification to my post (pg. 1, Reply #7) comparing bonuses:

With d6 damage, +6 to hit (if all is usable) increases average damage per round (APR) by 1.05 pips. Plus 1 to damage increases the APR by a full pip only with a 100% hit chance.

With a 50% base chance, +3 to hit is roughly equivalent to +1 damage (+.525 vs. .5 to APR).

With 85%, +1 to damage yields about 1.6x the APR boost (+3 almost 5x) of +3 to hit.

With 10%, +1 to damage yields less than 1/5 (+3 about 3/5) the boost of +3 to hit.

"If all is usable" refers to the practically relevant cap of 100% (in some games, 95%) chance to hit.

At 15% to 20%, a +1 bonus gives roughly the same APR whether applied to hit chance or damage roll (the former adding .175). Since first-level characters start with 20% to hit AC2, I call damage bonuses "grosser."

[Zulgyan]

foster1941 said:

Weapons have a bonus or penalty on their "to hit" roll, as follows:

Dagger*, hand axe, spear*: -1 to hit
Mace, hammer, sword*, battle axe, pike: no adjustment
Military pick, morning star, flail, pole arm*, halberd*: +1 to hit
Two-handed sword, mounted lance: +2 to hit

*+2 to hit against prone opponents with AC 2-5

foster, which of these weapons would be considered 2 handed??

All weapons do 1 die of damage against man-sized opponents. Swords, pole arms, halberds and spears thrust vs. charge do +2 damage and pikes, two-handed swords, mounted lances, and spears set vs. charge do 2 dice of damage against opponents horse-sized or larger.

What would be the difference bewteen thrust or set vs. charge?