|
Post by geoffrey on Jun 16, 2013 15:36:55 GMT -6
Do you use variable weapon damage?
|
|
gronkthebold
Level 3 Conjurer
That low level hireling who carries the 10 ft poles...
Posts: 69
|
Post by gronkthebold on Jun 16, 2013 15:48:00 GMT -6
I usually use a damage-by-class system where damage with weaponry varies based on class and not weapon type (So, for example, a fighter rolls 1D8 when wielding a long sword while a cleric would roll 1D6). I like this because it eliminates the "Gandalf with Glamdring" argument, and it also allows players to have a favorite weapon without feeling less effective in combat. For magic swords and whatnot, I allow clerics and magic-users to wield magic swords but they act as normal swords in their hands (unless the weapon in question was created specifically for their class).
|
|
|
Post by scottenkainen on Jun 16, 2013 15:53:12 GMT -6
I like that mechanic, Gronk, but it just feels like too big a departure for me. I'm sticking to variable weapon damage a while longer.
~Scott "-enkainen" Casper
|
|
gronkthebold
Level 3 Conjurer
That low level hireling who carries the 10 ft poles...
Posts: 69
|
Post by gronkthebold on Jun 16, 2013 16:18:55 GMT -6
I like that mechanic, Gronk, but it just feels like too big a departure for me. I'm sticking to variable weapon damage a while longer. ~Scott "-enkainen" Casper I completely respect your opinion. It's your game, so do whatever you like.
|
|
|
Post by dizzysaxophone on Jun 16, 2013 18:04:13 GMT -6
I use d6 damage for all weapons. I like it when noone has to ask what damage their weapon does. It also leaves the game pretty simple where usually all you need is a d20 and a d6.
|
|
|
Post by talysman on Jun 16, 2013 19:40:11 GMT -6
d6 damage for almost every weapon, here. But spears, etc., do double damage vs. a charge, as does a lance from horseback. In a couple situations, like fists against plate mail, the attack does no damage except on a roll of 5+, when they do 1 point.
I have used the "roll 2 dice and pick the highest" rule for heavy two-hand weapons, but I'm not set on this.
|
|
|
Post by waysoftheearth on Jun 16, 2013 20:23:51 GMT -6
I've experimented with various rules/house rules for rolling damage, but now I've come back to d6s for everything (excepting spears can do double damage). The simplest rules are very often the best I differentiate other weapons by their attack adjustments and the space required to use them (i.e., how many can fight abreast in a 10ft wide passage?)
|
|
zeraser
Level 4 Theurgist
Posts: 184
|
Post by zeraser on Jun 17, 2013 8:33:24 GMT -6
I use the Searches of the Unknown principle: One-handed melee weapons deal 1d8, two-handed melee weapons deal 1d10, ranged weapons deal 1d6, small weapons deal 1d4; no attack adjustments, and I don't really care how much space is required. This is still pretty simple without draining one's choice of weapon of its mechanical import. Plus it lets us use more of our dice. I paid for them, after all...
|
|
|
Post by scottenkainen on Jun 17, 2013 8:39:58 GMT -6
I use the Searches of the Unknown principle: One-handed melee weapons deal 1d8, two-handed melee weapons deal 1d10, ranged weapons deal 1d6, small weapons deal 1d4; no attack adjustments, and I don't really care how much space is required. This is still pretty simple without draining one's choice of weapon of its mechanical import. Plus it lets us use more of our dice. I paid for them, after all... I'm interested in the justification for the 1d6 for ranged weapons; why are two-handed weapons 40% more lethal than crossbow or longbow arrows? ~Scott "-enkainen" Casper
|
|
|
Post by inkmeister on Jun 17, 2013 9:37:58 GMT -6
Yes, I am definitely a fan of variable weapon damage. At the moment I'm just working from the Moldvay book (Actually playing B/X D&D minus the thief, keeping some dungeoneering rules from OD&D), but I've also experimented with d6 for most "normal sized" weapons, d8 for big weapons and d4 for small or less optimal weapons. I basically like the "weak/normal/powerful" kind of approach, especially with the d6 hit die of OD&D. D6 for all weapons always seemed kind of weird to me. I tried it a bit, but couldn't stick with it. To me, having variable damage gives greater meaning to the choice of weapon. If I recall correctly, Mike Mornard and Rob Kuntz wanted to add variable damage because without it, players were incentivized to use the cheapest weapon available - a spike. If someone is going to shell out the extra money for a sword, why shouldn't that mean something?
I've thought of using the aforementioned damage by class approach, too, as a way to allow all classes to use all weapons while still allowing the fighter to be the best in melee.
Anyway, I'm doing it the Moldvay way at the moment.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 17, 2013 9:54:01 GMT -6
I'm the person who convinced Rob Kuntz to help me convince Gary to use multiple weapon damage.
I now have switched back to all weapons doing the same damage. Gary was right; combat is best when abstract.
However, I do use the "weapon length" rules from Chainmail.
|
|
|
Post by mgtremaine on Jun 17, 2013 10:30:26 GMT -6
I'm the person who convinced Rob Kuntz to help me convince Gary to use multiple weapon damage. I now have switched back to all weapons doing the same damage. Gary was right; combat is best when abstract. However, I do use the "weapon length" rules from Chainmail. Classic I use same same also when playing OD&D [and variants]. -Mike
|
|
|
Post by strangebrew on Jun 17, 2013 10:44:49 GMT -6
I prefer d6 for damage. I usually give a +1 or 2d6-take-the-high-roll for two-handed weapons. The players pick their preference and then we stick with the precedent for the rest of the game (I make the same concession with critical hits, after explaining thoroughly that all monsters also get critical hits). If the players all really want variable weapon damage, I'm okay with that too, so I guess I don't really care that much. I am a stickler for d6 HD and damage for monsters, as well as one attack per monster, for my sake.
When I use d6 damage, I also usually change the weapons list so that most melee weapons are about the same price, two-handed weapons double price.
|
|
zeraser
Level 4 Theurgist
Posts: 184
|
Post by zeraser on Jun 17, 2013 11:03:07 GMT -6
I use the Searches of the Unknown principle: One-handed melee weapons deal 1d8, two-handed melee weapons deal 1d10, ranged weapons deal 1d6, small weapons deal 1d4; no attack adjustments, and I don't really care how much space is required. This is still pretty simple without draining one's choice of weapon of its mechanical import. Plus it lets us use more of our dice. I paid for them, after all... I'm interested in the justification for the 1d6 for ranged weapons; why are two-handed weapons 40% more lethal than crossbow or longbow arrows? You know, I'm not sure. Because you can operate them from further away, so the user is safer? I certainly don't know whether an arrow shot from a longbow is more or less dangerous than a two-handed sword in real life (nor do I find it particularly relevant to the game). You'd have to ask Nicolas, I guess - maybe he'll see this thread and respond.
|
|
|
Post by waysoftheearth on Jun 17, 2013 18:19:10 GMT -6
I think variable weapon damage might, perhaps, be suitable when we're modelling combat as: one attack roll == one swing, and one successful attack roll == exactly one hit with a specific weapon. This would likely be a very detailed model with short rounds, and a genuine opportunity to make use of extra rules such as GH's weapon type versus armour type, hit location rules, and so on.
Conversely, variable weapon damage is probably less suitable when we're modelling combat as: one attack roll == the sum of actions during a one minute period of melee. At this level of abstraction, one successful attack roll == many individual actions, and plausibly includes blocks, dodges, feints, kicks, shoves, head butts, hits with the weapon hilt, and so on, in addition to zero or more hits with "the pointy bit" of a weapon, or even several weapons.
|
|
|
Post by scottenkainen on Jun 17, 2013 18:51:49 GMT -6
The relative dangerousness of a weapon is already relevant if you're already accepting variable weapon damage.
I'll agree that no variable weapon damage is *one* way to run abstract combat, but it is certainly not the only way, nor is there a necessary connection between variable weapon damage and "one attack roll = one attack". 1d8 vs. 1d6 is still abstract damage, but it reflects that the 1d8 weapon is a more reliable killing weapon. Given combatants with equal skill, in equal conditions, but one armed with a dagger and one armed with a bow, it just makes more sense to predict that the bowman is going to win and variable weapon damage reflects that.
Just saying. It's fine to choose not to use variable weapon damage, but there also seems to be an awful lot of dismissiveness about it too here...
~Scott "-enkainen" Casper
|
|
|
Post by talysman on Jun 17, 2013 19:00:05 GMT -6
Agreed. (Edit: Oops, I'm agreeing with waysoftheearth. Got caught in a crosspost...) In a "one-minute round, one roll, many actions" arrangement, the "damage" roll is really a quality roll. Any successful attack roll means one hit that round is potentially fatal to *someone*, so a damage roll of 1 really means "this hit would kill one-sixth of all ordinary humans" and a 6 means "this hit would kill any ordinary human".
Setting a spear for a charge does 2d6 instead of 1d6 because it has to be able to kill an ordinary *horse*, not just an ordinary man. Giants do more damage because, in many cases, their attacks ought to be able to take out more than one opponent with a single hit (although I don't think I've heard of anyone running a giant's attack that way.)
|
|
|
Post by waysoftheearth on Jun 17, 2013 19:11:15 GMT -6
I don't mean to seem argumentative; all of the following is intended in the spirit of interesting debate... It's fine to choose not to use variable weapon damage, but there also seems to be an awful lot of dismissiveness about it too here... I certainly didn't mean to dismiss variable weapon damage; my apologies if it came across that way. I meant to convey that there is a place for both variable and fixed damage. Depending on how you want to run your combats, you may find either appropriate. 1d8 vs. 1d6 is still abstract damage, but it reflects that the 1d8 weapon is a more reliable killing weapon. I agree that both are abstract damage, but my previous post was about abstract combat. Abstract damage is not the same thing as abstract combat. The relative dangerousness of a weapon is already relevant if you're already accepting variable weapon damage. I suspect that the effectiveness of any particular weapon not a fixed value, but is instead highly circumstantial. A two-handed sword, for example, may well be a fearsome weapon on an open battle field, but it may be nearly useless in a cramped dungeon. Similarly, a dagger might be an inferior weapon in a one-on-one duel against an opponent armed with a broadsword, but it might also be the optimal weapon to have in the tight crush of melee.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 17, 2013 19:33:28 GMT -6
I go back and forth regarding variable weapon damage. I've used a system similar to that in BD&D but have usually used straight d6. Mostly because it is simple and fast, I tend to favor that in my games, and not because I have any objection to variable damage.
|
|
|
Post by geoffrey on Jun 17, 2013 21:08:44 GMT -6
I'm the person who convinced Rob Kuntz to help me convince Gary to use multiple weapon damage. I now have switched back to all weapons doing the same damage. Gary was right; combat is best when abstract. However, I do use the "weapon length" rules from Chainmail. I seem to remember that, in his later years, Gary did not use variable weapon damage when refereeing both OD&D and LA. Am I remembering right?
|
|
zeraser
Level 4 Theurgist
Posts: 184
|
Post by zeraser on Jun 17, 2013 21:15:35 GMT -6
The relative dangerousness of a weapon is already relevant if you're already accepting variable weapon damage. Sorry, I should have been more clear: How dangerous actual weapons are, like in real life, isn't something I care about, nor do most of the players I encounter. (Loath though I am to bring up GNS stuff, I think this may be a gamist vs. simulationist thing.) What I really want is a system that makes the character's choice of weapon a decision that has both flavor and tactical ramifications but doesn't add to the game's mechanical overhead. Using the Searchers system, a two-handed melee weapon deals the most damage; a one-handed melee weapon deals a bit less but can accommodate a shield; a ranged weapon can be fired from a distance; and a small weapon can be concealed or used to make a sneak attack. Edited to add: In other words, it's about rules designed for the players rather than the characters.
|
|
|
Post by blackbarn on Jun 17, 2013 22:56:19 GMT -6
Lately I prefer the d6 damage for all weapons concept, and have been using it. I'm not opposed to the variable damage idea, but it seems a little "off" to me since combat rounds are so abstract.
|
|
|
Post by scottenkainen on Jun 18, 2013 10:50:34 GMT -6
>I suspect that the effectiveness of any particular weapon not a fixed value, but is instead highly circumstantial. A two-handed sword, for example, may well be a fearsome weapon on an open battle field, but it may be nearly useless in a cramped dungeon. Similarly, a dagger might be an inferior weapon in a one-on-one duel against an opponent armed with a broadsword, but it might also be the optimal weapon to have in the tight crush of melee.<
The last thing I have to add here is that I feel the above quote from Ways is the best argument for uniform weapon damage I've yet seen.
~Scott "-enkainen" Casper
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 18, 2013 11:26:21 GMT -6
>I suspect that the effectiveness of any particular weapon not a fixed value, but is instead highly circumstantial. A two-handed sword, for example, may well be a fearsome weapon on an open battle field, but it may be nearly useless in a cramped dungeon. Similarly, a dagger might be an inferior weapon in a one-on-one duel against an opponent armed with a broadsword, but it might also be the optimal weapon to have in the tight crush of melee.< The last thing I have to add here is that I feel the above quote from Ways is the best argument for uniform weapon damage I've yet seen. I see that as an argument for more detailed weapon rules, not less detailed.
|
|
oldkat
Level 6 Magician
Posts: 431
|
Post by oldkat on Jun 18, 2013 19:32:28 GMT -6
I am dickering around with this mechanic as well. Variable vs. 1 Die. In rethinking it, I lean towards removing the d6 as the foundation, as this comes directly from the six-sider being used previously in games/gaming for decades-centuries. I am also leaning toward allowing variable for Fighting Men (including dwarf, elf, hobbit) and 1Die for cleric, mu, thief. I'll get back to this thread when I've got the kinks all worked out.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 18, 2013 20:37:00 GMT -6
I use relatively complex adjustments (by OD&D standards): maces and axes are good against heavy armor; swords can boost AC in the hands of a skilled swordsman; bows have a substantial penalty to to-hit rolls but can fire twice per round and do substantial damage.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 18, 2013 20:45:04 GMT -6
The last thing I have to add here is that I feel the above quote from Ways is the best argument for uniform weapon damage I've yet seen. I've enjoyed your input here. In an ideal world, you would continue your dialog here but I hope, at the very least, you mean you're done with this thread and not the entire forum.
|
|
|
Post by ravenheart87 on Jun 19, 2013 0:27:41 GMT -6
I prefer variable weapon damage. It makes sense to me, that bigger weapons can cause more damage. Sure, every weapon can kill normal people with a single blow. That's handled by critical hits in my campaigns. Sure, it's quick and simple to use d6s only. But we like using all those funky dice we have in our possession and it doesn't slows the game down notably. Sure, hit points and combat are abstract and a single die roll doesn't means a single strike. But combat is already a pretty much f*cked up mix of abstract and more or less realistic elements, since you have one minute rounds, hit points, non-armour based monster ACs along with ranged attacks having multiple attacks, weapon vs armour tables, et cetera - so why should I care. But then again, I'm the kind of Referee who eliminates level limits to some degree, uses psionics and lets players play lizard-man ninjas.
|
|
|
Post by Porphyre on Jun 19, 2013 5:43:38 GMT -6
I do both. I like variable damage because I liked to throw all kinds of funny-shaped dice; but I find 1d4 for a dagger too little when the average 1HD monster can have up to 8 hit points. I like all-D6 damage because of simplicity (Althought I give 1D6+1 damage to two-handed weapons IF wielded by a fighting-man with 15+ STR).
I already gave thougths to class dépendant variable damage but never had the occasion to experiment it.
|
|
|
Post by scottenkainen on Jun 19, 2013 9:05:13 GMT -6
The last thing I have to add here is that I feel the above quote from Ways is the best argument for uniform weapon damage I've yet seen. I've enjoyed your input here. In an ideal world, you would continue your dialog here but I hope, at the very least, you mean you're done with this thread and not the entire forum. Goodness, no. I just meant I was done on this topic. If I left the forum I'd have to find another new home for my campaign! ~Scott "-enkainen" Casper Thanks you for your concern...
|
|