Variable Weapon Damage for OD&D

[waysoftheearth]

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.


Enjoy

[talysman]

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.

[derv]

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?

[waysoftheearth]

Talysman; yes, that is the intention.

Derv; the modifiers apply to attack rolls (to hit) only. There is no adjustment to damage rolls, they are 1-6 as per usual.

[talysman]

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]

Jul 8, 2012 16:25:28 GMT -6 waysoftheearth said:

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 .

[talysman]

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

[derv]

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.

[jamesm]

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

[waysoftheearth]

Jul 8, 2012 18:08:45 GMT -6 derv said:

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.


Thanks for your interest guys

[derv]

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.

[waysoftheearth]

Jul 8, 2012 21:45:07 GMT -6 derv said:

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.

Jul 8, 2012 21:45:07 GMT -6 derv said:

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.

[derv]

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.

Jul 8, 2012 22:32:54 GMT -6 waysoftheearth said:

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?

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 .

[waysoftheearth]

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.

[derv]

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.

[waysoftheearth]

Jul 11, 2012 16:17:48 GMT -6 derv said:

hope my feedback was of interest, if nothing more.

Thanks Derv, it's all interesting stuff to hear ;D

The "theory" is that combat should be approximately the same duration using variable weapon damage either by damage die size, or by attack adjustments. That's the long term maths of it, anyway. But it sounds like you are reporting that combat was shorter using variable damage die size than it was using the alternate attack adjustments.

There are a number of reasons this might be so. One reason might be weapon selection; some weapons might (mathematically) be advantaged in one method compared to the other -- you could compare the HPPR figures I provided in the OP to determine whether this was a factor. Another reason might be that the observed differences were due entirely to randomness -- in a sample of just three combats this might be plausible.

It might also be possible that the variable damage die size method is more deadly than the variable attack adjustment method against 1 HD monsters (such as Orcs, for example) because the probability of a one hit kill is greater. I'd have to look more closely at the figures to confirm or deny that one.

Another possibility is that the above "theory" is actually invalid, and another is that there is an underlying mathematical error in the attack adjustments I suggested.

Without knowing much more, I would initially suspect that the difference in combat duration you observed might be due to a combination of the first two possibilities (differing weapon performance, and randomness).

In any case, I'm planning to give it a test run myself some time soon, so I'll add my observations to the heap, and possibly adjust the numbers accordingly. (All this effort is in preparation for a game which I'm planning by the way).

Thanks for your input Derv

[derv]

I believe that weapon selection and randomness did play a factor. I still was surprised that there was only one occurrence where the attack modifiers were the difference between a successful hit. FYI- halfling: leather armor, sh. bow, sh. sword; cleric: chain & shield, flail; dwarf: chainmail, battle axe; fighter: plate & shield, sword.

I look forward to hearing your play reports. I'm sure the results will be more extensive then my short scenario. It will be interesting what a longer game reveals.

[waysoftheearth]

Jul 11, 2012 20:19:35 GMT -6 derv said:

I believe that weapon selection and randomness did play a factor. I still was surprised that there was only one occurrence where the attack modifiers were the difference between a successful hit. FYI- halfling: leather armor, sh. bow, sh. sword; cleric: chain & shield, flail; dwarf: chainmail, battle axe; fighter: plate & shield, sword.

I was thinking about this some more...

Assuming that each of the mentioned weapons (short sword, flail, battle axe, sword) attacked equally often, and that enemy with/without shields occurred equally frequently, then the average attack adjustments for these weapons would have been +0, +1, +2, +2. This is +5 across 4 weapons, or an average of +5/4 on every attack roll.

Statistically speaking, that should have produced 6.25% more hits because +5 pips * 5% (each pip on a d20 is worth 5%) = 25%, divided by 4 = 6.25%.

You would therefore expect to observe only 1 extra hit if that 1 attack accounted for 6.25% of all attacks observed. Therefore, because 16 * 6.25% = 100%, we would expect to observe 1 extra hit from each 16 attacks.

Assuming all four players could attack each round, 16 attacks would occur in 4 melee rounds. But, if you actually played more than 16 attacks and only observed 1 additional hit, then your players were unlucky not to roll more hits.

[aldarron]

I'm not too invested in variable weapons discussions but I've been having a reccuring thought that might be of interest: it seems to me that part of the attraction to variable weapon damage in a weapon vs. Armor scheme isn't just the idea that not all weapons are created equal, but also that all weapons are not created equal against all armors.

So a mace might be more effective against chain and plate, but less effective against leather, for example. Under that scheme you would need three or four different modifiers for each weapon (leather, chain, plate, and maybe unarmed).

[derv]

Ugh! I knew I shouldn't have thrown those papers out. That's okay, I rummaged through the trash and retrieved them. I probably should have given you all this info to begin with. I just didn't want to be presumptuous in thinking my brief scenario would interest you. Anyway, maybe this will help? BTW- the average mods were +0,+1,+1,+2, if I read your table correctly.

Party of 1st level PC raiders w/max HP’s in A Bereft Village: a short adventure.

*the only member with additional mods is Halfling fighter with +1 due to Dexterity.
Also when modified attack roll damage is same as variable, there was only one roll for damage. The variable damage was for comparison, but not applied.

Encounter 1
Combat rnd/ Modifiers/ d6 Damage/ Variable Damage
1. H 16+1=17 6 (dead orc) 6 (dead orc)
C 8 miss ------
F 18+2=20 6 (dead orc) 4
D 10+1=11 miss ------
Orcs
vs. C 11+2=12 miss ------
vs. F 15 miss ------
Vs. D 15 5 5
2. H 14+1=15 1 1
C 19 4 (dead orc) 6 (dead orc)
Orc vs. C 11+1=12 miss ------
F 16+2=18 n/a 4 (dead orc)
D 15+1=16 5 (dead orc) 5 (dead orc)
Orc vs. F 4 n/a miss
Orc vs. D 10 miss ------
Encounter 2
1. H 10+1=11 miss ------
C 13 miss ------
F 5+2=7 miss ------
D 5+1=6 miss ------
Ogre vs. H 5+1=6 miss ------
2. H 11+1=12 miss ------
C 7 miss ------
F 6+2=8 miss ------
D 17+1=18 4 6
Ogre vs. H 12+2=14 4 6
3. Ogre vs. D 7+2=9 miss ------
H 8+1=9 miss ------
C 3 miss ------
F 15+2=17 1 7
D 17+1=18 4 8 (dead ogre)
4. *Ogre vs. C 10+2=12 5 miss
H 4+1=5 miss ------
C 11 miss ------
F 18+2=20 3 5 n/a
D 14+1=15 4 1 n/a
5. Ogre vs. C 12+2=14 8 (dead C) 5 n/a
H 2+1=3 miss ------
C 5 n/a miss
F 4+2=6 miss ------
D 3+1=4 miss ------
6. H 12+1=13 miss ------
C 7 n/a miss
*F 12+2=14 1 miss
D 15+1=16 5 (dead ogre) 3 n/a
Encounter 3
1. H 5+1=6 miss miss
C 16 n/a 4
F 18+2=20 5 6
D 12+2=14 miss ------
Wyvern/H 12 5 (dead H) dead H
2. Wyvern/D 3 miss ------
C 8 n/a miss
F 17+2=19 4 3
D 4+2=6 miss ------
3. Wyvern/D 18 6 (dead D) dead D
C 16 n/a 8
F 14+2=16 6 2
4. C 14 n/a miss
F 17+2=19 4 7 (dead Wyvern)
Wyvern/F 16 6 (missed save-dead F) ------


*There actually seems to be two occurrences where the modifiers changed the outcome. I thought there was only one.

Sorry, this teletype didn't quite turn out like I wanted for the chart. Let me know if you encounter any clerical mistakes that would have altered the outcome.

[waysoftheearth]

Jul 15, 2012 10:50:40 GMT -6 aldarron said:

it seems to me that part of the attraction to variable weapon damage in a weapon vs. Armor scheme isn't just the idea that not all weapons are created equal, but also that all weapons are not created equal against all armors.

That's the original concept, yes. But we have seen from experience that a big table of modifiers versus each of 8 armour "types" (plate, chain, leather, none, all with and without shields) is too cumbersome. The net result is that most players ignore it.

My suggested method (above) essentially boils it all down to just two armor "types": with and without shield. For some weapons there is just a single modifier against all targets. Others have a modifier versus shield, and another versus without shield.

It is a lot simpler than the original method described in GH, but retains the two vital elements of the system: 1) some weapons are more effective than others, and 2) even among statistically "equivalent" weaponry, player weapon selection is a meaningful choice (i.e., versus opposition with/without shields -- or shield equivalents).

Additionally, OD&Ders have often asked the question "How can shields be given more oomph?" I believe that this method of with/without shield armour "types" gives shields a reasonable bump without changing their basic mechanic.