Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 19, 2013 9:13:09 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. I definitely agree you should run the game in a way you feel makes sense. After all, as a referee, you're responsible for keeping an entire world spinning! Regarding your final statement, it takes no more imagination to run a fun anything goes campaign than it does a narrowly focused one. I know, I've done both.
|
|
|
Post by inkmeister on Jun 19, 2013 12:53:54 GMT -6
I don't buy the argument that d6 makes sense for abstract combat. I think it was Scottkainen that made the point that I would second; it makes logical sense to me that even if you are handling combat as minute rounds (B/X shortened this to ten seconds, btw) it makes sense that certain weapons have more killing potential than others. D&D as written implies that a king may well outfit much of his army with daggers, as it would save a fortune over producing swords and the like, and would be just as effective. Does anyone really agree with this scenario? For an incredibly small penalty in the form of added complexity, one can make some weapons truly seem more effective than others, and it does indeed make sense that some weapons would be more effective than others. I'm the first to admit I don't know much about the particulars of various weapons and why one would be much better than another in certain situations, so I couldn't offer an explanation of why a sword is more effective than a bow and arrow. It's one reason I might differ a little from the B/X approach; I'd be ok wtih small/light weapons getting the d4, most standard weapons, including swords, bows, maces, getting the d6, and large two handed weapons getting the d8. But at the end of the day, the B/X classic D&D approach works fine for me.
There is no way I consider a dagger in most people's hands to be the equal of a sword.
There are many ways to model this stuff. One could keep the d6 damage and give different weapons different bonuses to hit, possibly modified by things like armor and so on. Thus, over a number of rounds, certain weapons would show more effectiveness than others. I think the simple d4/d6/d8/d10/d12 approach is cleaner, simpler, and accomplishes the same thing.
Of course, all of this has to do with pretend, and some of us are more comfortable with handwaving certain details than others. I do not at all intend to be dismissive of another person's preferences - just stating what I prefer.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 19, 2013 13:20:12 GMT -6
I've no issue with anyone's approach listed, I think they all have plenty of merit. I'm certainly not dismissing anyone's approach to the game so please don't take my posts this way. If I've created a different impression then the fault lies with me.
With that being said, I believe Scott took the wise course and exited this thread. I'm doing the same.
[EOT]
|
|
|
Post by dizzysaxophone on Jun 19, 2013 13:48:42 GMT -6
I do d6's in my own OD&D campaign, though, I can see some arguments being made for variable weapon damage. Personally I'm trying to keep mechanics simple, so I'm even importing LotFP's d6 skill system in. For a middle road between d6, and variable, how about Swords & Wizardry: Whitebox's where normal weapons do d6, daggers, and small weapons like that doing d6-1, and two-handed swords and the like doing d6+1?
I've never had a player who picked a weapon because it was the cheapest and did the same damage (the dagger if using d6 damage). My players have always picked what they felt went with their concept. Of course, our players and play-styles all differ, I just can't imagine picking my weapon because of that.
|
|
|
Post by waysoftheearth on Jun 19, 2013 23:37:20 GMT -6
D&D as written implies that a king may well outfit much of his army with daggers, as it would save a fortune over producing swords and the like, and would be just as effective. Does anyone really agree with this scenario? My understanding is that this is pretty much what did happen historically. Armies throughout the ancient and medieval worlds were equipped, in the main part, with spears because these were the most cost effective weapons available in those periods. Swords were expensive things limited to persons of rank and/or nobility. I think spears run to 1 gp in D&D, one third the cost of daggers? For an incredibly small penalty in the form of added complexity, one can make some weapons truly seem more effective than others The penalty (*cough*) is partly that the ref will have to rule what variable damage every non-humanoid monster should do. What damage should Lions do? Giants? Giants that carry giant swords? And what about pixies? Etc. But the genuine complexity comes from the combined effect of variable damage, attack adjustments, and multiple attacks per round. An attacker's ultimate damage output per round not just the size of his damage die, but is the product of his hit probability, damage potential, and his number of attacks per round. So the ref really needs to consider variable damage in the context of his other house rules, rather than as a stand alone thing. I'm not saying that's a bad thing. In fact, it can be a great exercise for the ref to figure all this out, and therefore be able to conclude what house rules he genuinely favours, and what impact they have on the game. There is no way I consider a dagger in most people's hands to be the equal of a sword. It's worthwhile remembering that there can be as much variation within a single weapon category as between categories, and that a dagger can easily be a 12 inch stabbing blade. (dictionary.com) Maybe a glance at this: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dagger#Middle_Ages will help illustrate how varied (and popular!) daggers were. And finally, one may bear in mind that OD&D is derived from a battle game, and that battle effectiveness of ancient and medieval troops had far more to do with their discipline and how they fought, than what weaponry they carried. OD&D seems to model this notion rather closely. All just food for thought
|
|
|
Post by inkmeister on Jun 20, 2013 15:12:11 GMT -6
WOTE, as always, well thought out and presented points.
Where I really agree with you the most is that later editions, say B/X or even the changes Greyhawk brought, bring about a vastly higher degree of complexity with things like multiple attacks given to the various monsters. I still don't know how well those kinds of changes sit with me.
It often seems to me in the development of D&D, one "problem" was fixed by some addition, only to create a new problem. I often see the addition of the cleric, and later the thief, as a sort of tarnishing of the symmetry that would have existed before, and led to the proliferation of all kinds of whacky classes to model small conceptual differences. And as you bring up, things like multiple monster attacks challenge the abstract nature of the combat round. IT also raises questions of why a monster should get two swipes with claws, plus a bite, when a fighter armed with two blades only gets one attack.
Anyway, I largely agree with many of your points - you raise problems for anyone to chew on regardless of where they stand in the debate.
I don't know much about the history of warfare, but it does seem evident that military forces always concern themselves with having an advantage in weaponry, and that would make no sense if all weapons were effectively the same.
|
|
|
Post by inkmeister on Jun 21, 2013 8:08:32 GMT -6
Of course, OD&D does have some degree of variable damage; some monsters add to their d6 damage roll, and others roll multiple d6's. Also, magic weapons add to the to-hit value of a weapon, and usually damage as well. So for those who generally do not favor variable damage, why would you allow the above forms of variable damage? What is it about the above cases that makes them acceptable while variable damage in general is seen as compromising abstract combat, or simplicity, or what have you? Is there something unique in those cases that makes them acceptable, whereas the idea of a dagger generally being less effective than a sword is not basically acceptable? Would any of you assert that the included cases of varying damage (giants, magic weapons, etc) are something of a mistake in the original game?
There is no question there is some kind of spectrum here, the question is why one would draw a line at one spot versus another (of course, I'm not trying to imply that there is a universally right answer).
Also, I'm always fascinated to hear Geoffrey's take on things. Geoffrey, where do you stand at the moment?
|
|
zeraser
Level 4 Theurgist
Posts: 184
|
Post by zeraser on Jun 21, 2013 8:24:51 GMT -6
For a middle road between d6, and variable, how about Swords & Wizardry: Whitebox's where normal weapons do d6, daggers, and small weapons like that doing d6-1, and two-handed swords and the like doing d6+1? That's probably a good way to handle variable damage too. Let me ask, though: Does the pleasure of using d4s, d8s, and d10s alongside d6s count for nothing? I'm not a dice fetishist - nor do I have much inclination to invest in d16s, d5s, etc. - but I think if I were going to jettison variable damage dice, I'd probably just ditch the d20 too and go back to the d6-only Risus hack I used to use (which is perfectly fun and can be played by raiding a few board games).
|
|
|
Post by inkmeister on Jun 21, 2013 8:36:04 GMT -6
Zeraser, good comment. A poster I've always enjoyed reading (mainly posts at K&K and I think Dragonsfoot) - T.Foster - pointed out before that he prefers d6 to everything, and if I remember correctly, said that the weird dice of D&D contribute to the perception of roleplaying being the activity of a fringe nerd culture. His thinking was that a d6 seems more normal to most people, since all kinds of popular and conventional games use the d6. For my part, there is something interesting in the economy of using only one die type.
I've never been big on rolling lots of dice, but I do like the variety of dice in D&D.
|
|
|
Post by dizzysaxophone on Jun 21, 2013 20:04:52 GMT -6
The variety of dice really have no effect on me. Of course I don't only play OD&D, so variable weapon damage is fine. I just prefer using a d6. Anything to make combat a little faster for me as a DM is perfect. The d20 is kind of a staple, and I don't want to mess with changing it, so I have no issue with it either. But looking into the recent Swords & Six-Siders I am excited to try an all d6 game soon.
|
|
|
Post by geoffrey on Jun 22, 2013 7:20:10 GMT -6
I'm always fascinated to hear Geoffrey's take on things. Geoffrey, where do you stand at the moment? Lately I've been ruling that weapons (depending on type) do 1-4, 1-6, 1-8, or 1-10 points of damage. Monsters get one melee attack per round, and they also do one of those four ranges of damage. I'm considering the idea, however, of having all weapons and all monsters doing 1-6 points of damage. The comments in this thread are helping me clarify my thoughts on the matter. Part of me thinks that variable damage is redundant. Hit dice (or level in the case of humans) in and of itself already allows for increased damage in two ways: 1) The higher the HD/level, the more likely the being is to hit; and 2) The higher the HD/level, the more times the being can attempt to hit before being slain. Thus (for example) a 10 HD monster will likely inflict more damage over the course of a melee than would a 1 HD monster, regardless of the fact of each doing 1-6 points of damage/round with a successful attack. Two-handed weapons, however, present a difficulty for me. Why wield a two-handed weapon if they do not do extra damage, since one is precluded from using a shield?
|
|
|
Post by inkmeister on Jun 22, 2013 7:34:49 GMT -6
Cool, thanks for sharing Geoffrey. Actually, the problem of the two handed sword that you raise is a big part of what got me back into thinking about variable damage. Why would one forsake a shield in favor of the two handed sword if there is only a penalty to AC for doing so? For OD&D, I decided I like a d4/d6/d8 divide (dagger/sword/2 handed sword, for example). Still simpler than B/X D&D (which is already very simple), because you don't have to justify why a mace is weaker than a sword... the categories are more broad than that.
I agree with keeping monster attacks to one (except in cases like the hydra), but allowing up to d20 damage, or otherwise following the OD&D pattern of more 6 sided dice thrown for damage.
The multiple monster attacks of Greyhawk, Holmes, B/X, etc. don't quite make sense to me - they create a similar problem you raise; why would a character dual wield when he or she still gets the single attack, while a monster gets an attack for each claw, plus a bite? I'm all in favor of trying to model a greater intensity of attack power in various monsters (a reason I don't like d6 all around), but I don't think it needs to be done with multiple attack types.
|
|
|
Post by waysoftheearth on Jun 22, 2013 8:28:22 GMT -6
So for those who generally do not favor variable damage, why would you allow the above forms of variable damage? I don't think there's any question that D&D folks use variable damage. It's more a question of what mechanism they use to achieve it. I had assumed the poll question more or less implied: "Do you use different sized damage dice by weapon type, as suggested in Greyhawk?" Given that OD&D already includes a system of variable damage determination based on varying hit frequency (and a few other cases here and there), the question might be rephrased as: "Do you find OD&D's system of variable damage satisfactory, or do you extend it with the Greyhawk method?" Let's have another look at the two mechanics (OD&D and GH): OD&D's principal mechanic (the attack matrices) attributes increased damage output to increasingly experienced/skilled/ferocious fighters; those who hit more frequently do more damage over time. Greyhawk's "variable weapon damage" mechanic instead attributes damage output in proportion, more or less, to weapon size; bigger weapons do more damage. The OD&D mechanic seems reasonable. I don't imagine anyone would disagree with the general notion that better fighters should hit more frequently than poorer fighters. The GH mechanic, on the other hand, is not quite so straight forward. Firstly, there's no compelling evidence that two-handed swords are more deadly than one-handed swords. Or that pole-axes are more deadly than battle axes. And so on. There's little doubt that a blow from a heavier weapon is more brutal than a blow from a lighter weapon -- and this is exactly what the GH mechanic models. But what it omits is that heavier weapons must hit less frequently. The net effect of hitting less frequently but dealing more harm on a hit is unknown. What we do know is what weapons were actually used (someone somewhere knows this, surely?). One might speculate that the frequency with which weapons occurred historically is a good indicator of their genuine effectiveness. It would be interesting to see some real figures, but I'm pretty sure two-handed swords would not feature near the top of the list. Another issue for GH's variable weapon damage mechanic is that it is typically used on top of the attack matricies. So, it's effectively double dipping; the experienced fighter does more damage by virtue of hitting more often (thanks to the attack matrices) and does more damage again by virtue of choosing a bigger weapon. So to talk about the variable weapon damage mechanic in earnest we should consider it in isolation. Does "variable weapon damage" makes good sense by itself? Without advancement on the attack matrices? I.e., should a super-hero with a hand-axe (Conan the Conqueror) be half as dangerous as a 1st level fighter (Bernhardt the Bold) with a battleaxe? When Conan drops his hand-axe and picks up (the recently deceased) Bernhardt's battle axe, should he suddenly be twice as dangerous?? If that doesn't seem sensible in isolation, why should it be so sensible in combination with other rules? To put it succinctly; one rule says it's the fighter that's dangerous. The other rule says it's the weapon that's dangerous. Which is it? Personally, I think it's a lot more satisfying to vest the power in the fighter than in the weapon. Clearly in D&D it's a bit of both; how much either way is up to you. On that front, I believe that simple game systems tend to work the best. Anything that combines multiple systems together immediately makes the game more complex, and we'll have to be cautious not to let things get out of hand. It's also worth mentioning the implicit "arms race". As soon as weapons deal more damage, characters need more hit points. And spells and monsters need to do more damage to keep up. The arms race between damage and hit points started with GH, and the trend continued with every subsequent iteration of the rules. And we've seen how that worked out Also (it just occurred to me) another side-effect of using d4 damage for daggers and d10 damage for two-handed swords is that a +1 dagger is 25% improved, while a +1 two-handed sword is only 10% improved. Ultimately, I'm sure most people simply don't care about all this. It's a game after all, and people should just to what's fun. But this is the odd74 forum, right? And inkmeister did ask FWIW -- Heavier weapons would not have been especially desirable to the medieval fighter precisely because they were heavier. Men had to lug the things across miles of countryside. They would be fatigued before even arriving on the battlefield, let alone after ten minutes of swinging the things about in battle. The optimal equipment would surely have been the lightest weapons that could do the job at hand. Heavier weaponry was necessary, in the main part, for defeating heavier armour, not for causing more grievous injuries. It's not surprisingly that GH also includes a rule to model this; the "weapon type versus armour type" mechanic. Alas, it seemed too fiddly for general adoption, and once again omitted any reduced attack speed for heavier weaponry.
|
|
|
Post by inkmeister on Jun 22, 2013 12:45:24 GMT -6
WotE - always enjoy your thoughtful replies and your posts in general. I do care about this topic!
Two of your points (please correct me if I have it wrong): 1) Bigger is not necessarily better or more effective. 2) Later iterations of D&D muddy the waters by double dipping; representing damage in terms of to hit AND in terms of weapon damage.
The problem is that OD&D already does these things. Giants are the obvious example; they are bigger and have lots of hit dice, which means (in OD&D terms) that they are more effective fighters; they will hit more often than humans will, generally. Already this is questionable in terms of your own point 1: why should the giant hit more often just because it is big? In fact, it seems to me that giants are often represented as being rather clumsy (though very powerful). But OD&D demonstrates the double dipping problem; not only is the giant effective at hitting, he also hits for up to 4x the damage of a normal being.
On the other hand, double dipping can make a lot of sense, since it can model that more than one variable is important in terms of combat effectiveness. Being into cycling, an obvious analogy can be made. A strong cyclist on a really poor bike may be able to beat a poor athlete on an awesome bike, but there is no way the strong cyclist on a poor bike will beat a similar cyclist on a much better bike. Various grand tours have been settled by things as small as pony tails and aerodynamic handlebar extensions (and doping! heh heh); there is no way Lance or anyone else is going to win Le Tour on a mountain bike. Choice of weapon does matter, of course, and so does one's ability to use the weapon. Where I will totally concede to you is on the specifics; I really know a pathetic amount about weapons, and so I can accept your argument about the two handed sword being inferior to the long sword, and thus OD&D would more adequately model the difference).
Another issue is that OD&D (and classic D&D in general) won't generally show more than a 10 or 20% difference between fighters and magic users in raw combat effectiveness (I'm talking levels 1-9 or so). The difference is determined by things like magic weapons. Speaking of magic weapons, they often demonstrate the double dipping problem - they cause more damage and increase the likelihood of hitting in a given round (though for swords this is mysteriously not the case). If we were to model combat effectiveness in terms of to hit numbers, this seems to me to be inadequate, since you have on the one hand those folks who focus primarily on combat being not significantly more effective than those who focus primarily on books and rituals and arcane business. On this last point, I think LotFP got it right; warriors consistently improve in attack effectiveness, and magic users don't improve at all - it's just not their focus.
In short, I can see why you might feel the way you do, but I don't think OD&D purely represents the argument you are making. Unless I'm mistaken, some compromise is suggested one way or the other.
I'm enjoying the discussion!
|
|
|
Post by geoffrey on Jun 22, 2013 13:18:02 GMT -6
Giants are the obvious example; they are bigger and have lots of hit dice, which means (in OD&D terms) that they are more effective fighters; they will hit more often than humans will, generally. Already this is questionable in terms of your own point 1: why should the giant hit more often just because it is big? In fact, it seems to me that giants are often represented as being rather clumsy (though very powerful). But OD&D demonstrates the double dipping problem; not only is the giant effective at hitting, he also hits for up to 4x the damage of a normal being. Here's how I imagine giants in combat: They are indeed clumsy, bashing around blindly. They do that for a full minute, and that is one combat round. Within that round they do a certain amount of damage. This does not imply that the giant actually hit his target! Perhaps he swung at his opponent, and in missing he instead hit and shattered a boulder, and the flying rock shards did the damage to the giant's foe. Or perhaps the giant accidentally knocked a tree over, and the tree fell on the giant's opponent, thus doing damage. Etc. So in D&D terms a giant often "hits" because of its high HD. But these "hits" mean only that the giant's opponent takes damage. It does not imply that the giant actually connected with his foe. (Plus the fact that hit points are so abstract. A fighting-man who drops from 38 to 18 hp in the course of slaying a giant hasn't taken grievous wounds. He's winded, he's bleeding a bit, he's bruised, and he's psychologically drained from fighting an opponent twice his height who flailed around with all the destructiveness of a whirlwind.)
|
|
|
Post by talysman on Jun 22, 2013 13:31:49 GMT -6
WotE - always enjoy your thoughtful replies and your posts in general. I do care about this topic! Two of your points (please correct me if I have it wrong): 1) Bigger is not necessarily better or more effective. 2) Later iterations of D&D muddy the waters by double dipping; representing damage in terms of to hit AND in terms of weapon damage. The problem is that OD&D already does these things. Giants are the obvious example; they are bigger and have lots of hit dice, which means (in OD&D terms) that they are more effective fighters; they will hit more often than humans will, generally. Already this is questionable in terms of your own point 1: why should the giant hit more often just because it is big? In fact, it seems to me that giants are often represented as being rather clumsy (though very powerful). But OD&D demonstrates the double dipping problem; not only is the giant effective at hitting, he also hits for up to 4x the damage of a normal being. The problem with comparing damage caused by gigantic creatures to damage caused by bigger weapons is that there's a huge difference in scale. That's why giants do more damage *and* hit more often: they aren't just big, they're *really big*, off the normal human size scale. Let's take the ogre (the itty bittiest of giants) as a comparison. Ogres are 7 to 10 feet tall and usually pictured as massive, not tall and skinny. They do 1+2 damage because of their size, and fight as well as a hero. Now, the problem with changing weapon damage based on weapon size is: should a hero with a two-hand sword be the equivalent of an ogre? It seems stretching it a bit that a great sword should do as much damage as an ogre. But that means that, if a great sword does more damage than normal, but not as much as 1+2, you have exactly one choice: 1+1. Or, if you're OK with the 1 to 6 range, but just want to shift the odds, 2d6 and keep the highest. The only weapons that should do more damage than this are things off the human scale: siege weapons, for example. Otherwise, you're going to have to increase the damage of ogres and giants to compensate. Again, that's not "double dipping", as I understand Simon to be using the term, because we're talking about a different "scale", in this case magic. Magic weapons are supposed to be different from ordinary weapons; increasing attack bonus and damage makes sense, because it makes magic weapons way better than merely bigger weapons. Again: should a mundane great sword be better than a +1 magic axe? Should an experienced fighter be able to choose a mundane weapon that would invalidate the advantage of a less-experienced fighter armed with a magic weapon?
|
|
|
Post by geoffrey on Jun 22, 2013 17:27:03 GMT -6
Two-handed weapons, however, present a difficulty for me. Why wield a two-handed weapon if they do not do extra damage, since one is precluded from using a shield? I think I've answered my own difficulty. Men & Magic on page 14 already has numerical differences for the various weapons: the costs! After the PCs have slain a group of bandits, they naturally loot their stuff. A two-handed sword is much more valuable than a spear (for instance), regardless of them both doing the same amount of damage. Using the guideline found on page 9 of module B2 ("purchases from adventurers are at 50% of listed cost"), the PCs could sell a looted two-handed sword for 7 g.p. and 1 e.p., whereas they'd get only a single e.p. for a looted spear. It isn't about combat. It's about treasure.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 22, 2013 17:30:52 GMT -6
Another way to do it is to try, within limits, to duplicate real-world features of weapons. This is what I do in Niflheim.
|
|
idrahil
Level 6 Magician
The Lighter The Rules, The Better The Game!
Posts: 398
|
Post by idrahil on Jun 22, 2013 21:48:59 GMT -6
I spent some much time playing 2nd Edition, 3rd Edition and D&D Computer games that I pretty much insisted on variable damage.
When I first started messing around with the original style rules, I could not grasp the d6 mechanic and did not like or use it.
However, as I got used to running more rules light sessions, the more it started to make sense. I am now a 90% convert.....
I have daggers do d4 and 2 handers & heavy xbows do 1d6+1.
|
|
|
Post by waysoftheearth on Jun 22, 2013 23:21:36 GMT -6
The problem is that OD&D already does these things. Giants are the obvious example; they are bigger and have lots of hit dice, which means (in OD&D terms) that they are more effective fighters; they will hit more often than humans will, generally. Already this is questionable in terms of your own point 1: why should the giant hit more often just because it is big? In fact, it seems to me that giants are often represented as being rather clumsy (though very powerful). But OD&D demonstrates the double dipping problem; not only is the giant effective at hitting, he also hits for up to 4x the damage of a normal being. I didn't mean to imply that OD&D modeled combat "perfectly" before GH. Only that GH's variable weapon damage added an additional layer of complexity into the mix without necessarily adding anything in terms of "realism". Whether or not realism matters at all is up to each individual group. Regarding Giants: 1. I don't think it's fair to compare larger weapons with larger creatures. Larger weapons are inanimate objects that become proportionally more unweildy (to a man of fixed size) due to the man's decreasing leverage over the weapon. A larger creature has a larger skeleton and larger muscularture, and does not suffer then same diminishment in leverage. Large creatures -- even "clumsy" ones -- retain excellent motor control over their own bodies. 2. A Giant hits more often because of its size, strength and ferocity. It goes through plate mail like tin foil. Yes, I can see the similarity between a Giant's "size and strength" and the size and weight of larger weapons. Yes, I agree that larger weapons should go through heavier armour more easily. This is, in fact, exactly what they were designed to do. As I mentioned in my previous post I think the weapon type versus armour type rules was an attempt to model exactly this. I believe that OD&D's orginal mechanic (1-6 damage for all weapons) adequately balances a larger weapon's "penetrating power" with its "unweildyness" by assuming they balance one another out. Based on the anecdotes we have, this seems to be a reasonable approach. GH's variable weapon damage rule, on the other hand, only models one half of the equation and it does so "weirdly". It models increased armour penetration with more damage on a hit, which seems unintuitive. And it doesn't deal with weapon speed at all. I suspect variable weapon damage rule was based mostly on a desire to roll those funky dice more often. A strong cyclist on a really poor bike may be able to beat a poor athlete on an awesome bike, but there is no way the strong cyclist on a poor bike will beat a similar cyclist on a much better bike. This is a nice analogy which (I believe) reinforces the case that the majority of the effect is vested in the athlete/fighter, and a minority of the effect is vested in the equipment. It's only when the athletes/fighters are evenly matched that differences in their equipment matter. To which I imagine you'll reply: Yes! So when two 1 HD fighters engage, they are equally matched so we should differentiate them by their choice of weapon. To which I'd reply: OD&D combat, as it's written, is not that granular. A "hit" is not a hit with one specific weapon. It's the sum of all actions taken by the combatant that round. It might represent be one or more hits with one or more different weapons, combined with kicks, head butts, scathing language, dirt flicked in the eyes, and whatever else. A "hit", regardless of the source, represents sufficient harm to threaten a normal man's life. That threat is represented by 1-6 points of damage. If you want to play combat in a less abstract fashion that's fine too. Personally, I'm much happier with something like the weapon types versus armour types rule than the variable damage dice rule. But each to his own! This is a bit off topic but... OD&D (and classic D&D in general) won't generally show more than a 10 or 20% difference between fighters and magic users in raw combat effectiveness (I'm talking levels 1-9 or so). OD&D fighters are head and shoulders above magic-users in combat. Anyone who argues otherwise must be ignoring most of the fighter's advantages. For a start, magic-users are AC 9 while fighters are AC 2. Insofar as the first row of attack matrix II is concerned, magic-users get hit 250% as frequently as do fighters. Combined with this, fighters can take hits that would kill magic-users and still fight on. Even more decisively, magic-users are subject to one attack per enemy HD until they reach 7th level, while fighters are subject to multiple attacks per round at 1st and 2nd level only. On the attacking side of the equation, fighters have the advantage of missile weapons and spears which alone can be decisive. On top of this they hit more often. Sure, the fighter is only 1 pip better off "to hit" than the magic-user at 1st level (against the majority of the enemies he is likely to encounter) but against AC 5, say, that's a ~15% advantage (40% likely to hit versus 35% likely to hit, 40/35 = 1.143). At 2nd level and up there is absolutely no quibbling over such details as the fighter gets two attacks per round at 2nd level, 3 attacks per round at 3rd level and so on. Put simply, a magic-user would have to be ridiculously foolish to enter melee combat, while the fighter is made for it. Back on topic... Speaking of magic weapons, they often demonstrate the double dipping problem - they cause more damage and increase the likelihood of hitting in a given round (though for swords this is mysteriously not the case). In my mind that's okay precisely because they are magic. Magic does not respect the natural laws. Magic is impossible. Therefore magic weapons should be modelled differently to mundane weaponry. Unless I'm mistaken, some compromise is suggested one way or the other. I agree completely on this. It's all about which compromises you prefer.
|
|
|
Post by inkmeister on Jun 23, 2013 10:27:32 GMT -6
WotE, compelling arguments as always. I'm not sure it sits well with me, but I don't really have anything new to add. There definitely is something to be said for a more abstract style of combat (and game).
I am curious if your feeling changes at all if we assume the 10 second combat round of Moldvay basic.
Also, if you were to use weapon vs armor types, your source for that would be Greyhawk?
|
|
zeraser
Level 4 Theurgist
Posts: 184
|
Post by zeraser on Jun 23, 2013 11:34:21 GMT -6
Two-handed weapons, however, present a difficulty for me. Why wield a two-handed weapon if they do not do extra damage, since one is precluded from using a shield? I think I've answered my own difficulty. Men & Magic on page 14 already has numerical differences for the various weapons: the costs! After the PCs have slain a group of bandits, they naturally loot their stuff. A two-handed sword is much more valuable than a spear (for instance), regardless of them both doing the same amount of damage. Using the guideline found on page 9 of module B2 ("purchases from adventurers are at 50% of listed cost"), the PCs could sell a looted two-handed sword for 7 g.p. and 1 e.p., whereas they'd get only a single e.p. for a looted spear. It isn't about combat. It's about treasure. As I read this, the high cost of two-handed weapons makes them even less appealing to PCs, then: They're more expensive, probably heavier, and no more effective in battle. It's doubly d**ning if the PCs' weapons tend to get lost or destroyed in your game.
|
|
|
Post by geoffrey on Jun 23, 2013 12:55:57 GMT -6
I think I've answered my own difficulty. Men & Magic on page 14 already has numerical differences for the various weapons: the costs! After the PCs have slain a group of bandits, they naturally loot their stuff. A two-handed sword is much more valuable than a spear (for instance), regardless of them both doing the same amount of damage. Using the guideline found on page 9 of module B2 ("purchases from adventurers are at 50% of listed cost"), the PCs could sell a looted two-handed sword for 7 g.p. and 1 e.p., whereas they'd get only a single e.p. for a looted spear. It isn't about combat. It's about treasure. As I read this, the high cost of two-handed weapons makes them even less appealing to PCs, then: They're more expensive, probably heavier, and no more effective in battle. It's doubly d**ning if the PCs' weapons tend to get lost or destroyed in your game. Right. Smart PCs wouldn't buy the expensive weapons. They'd instead loot them from dumb NPCs, and then sell them. A two-handed sword isn't a weapon. It's treasure.
|
|
|
Post by talysman on Jun 23, 2013 13:41:10 GMT -6
WotE, compelling arguments as always. I'm not sure it sits well with me, but I don't really have anything new to add. There definitely is something to be said for a more abstract style of combat (and game). I am curious if your feeling changes at all if we assume the 10 second combat round of Moldvay basic. I don't know about WotE, but I've always felt that varying damage based on weapon size fits better with the shorter rounds. Moldvay would be one example, but a more dramatic example would be replacing D&D combat with Melee/Advanced Melee from The Fantasy Trip, something some of us talked about back in the day, although I'm not sure anyone wound up doing it. Advanced Melee does have the advantage of basing bare-hand damage (and claw, bite, headbutt, or other animal attacks) directly on Strength instead of on monster variety... and which weapon you can use is based on its minimum Strength needed, with two-hand melee weapons like the two-hand sword becoming wieldable with only one hand if your strength is very high. So, that solves the ogre problem: an ogre may be able to use two-hand maul one handed, with a shield in the other hand, making him formidable even against a hero with a two-hand sword.
|
|
|
Post by waysoftheearth on Jun 23, 2013 18:54:42 GMT -6
geoffrey regarding two-handed swords, what about something completely crazy like... Two-handed swords (and pole-axes too) always attack last, but the target is treated as AC 6 regardless of its actual AC. Thus, nimble targets (ACs 9 to 7) become harder to hit, while heavily armoured targets (ACs 5 to 2) get easier to hit. Damage could be 1-6, 2-7, 2-12 or whatever you prefer. I am curious if your feeling changes at all if we assume the 10 second combat round of Moldvay basic. I think OD&D's one minute combat rounds are "just about right". They are abstract enough that the rules can still be representative of reality, albeit in a grossly simplified way, yet granular enough to enable the players to try innumerable strategies. The temptation with shorter rounds is to model combat more explicitly. This tends to lead to more "detailed" rules, which tend to diverge more radically from "realism". That's all fine, of course, for a fantasy game. It's a question of what level of fantasy is acceptable to the gaming group. Some enjoy wildly fantastic rules more, others enjoy grim and gritty (psuedo-)"realism" more. The more I think about variable sized damage dice, the less satisfying it seems to me. But that's just me -- I'm a hopeless case Also, if you were to use weapon vs armor types, your source for that would be Greyhawk? I'm currently using my own simplified version: odd74.proboards.com/thread/7451/variable-weapon-damage-odcombined with: odd74.proboards.com/thread/7571/simplified-od-combat-scales
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 23, 2013 20:52:26 GMT -6
Ways, that's a brillant idea (for the 2h swords).
|
|
|
Post by waysoftheearth on Jun 23, 2013 21:43:54 GMT -6
Ways, that's a brillant idea (for the 2h swords). I aim to please
|
|
|
Post by talysman on Jun 23, 2013 22:12:29 GMT -6
geoffrey regarding two-handed swords, what about something completely crazy like... Two-handed swords (and pole-axes too) always attack last, but the target is treated as AC 6 regardless of its actual AC. Thus, nimble targets (ACs 9 to 7) become harder to hit, while heavily armoured targets (ACs 5 to 2) get easier to hit. Damage could be 1-6, 2-7, 2-12 or whatever you prefer. After staring at your simplified weapon vs. AC charts for a while, I actually proposed something in this thread and on my blog that's about half-similar to that: attackers with long melee weapons (but not polearms) can substitute weapon length in feet for AC. Assuming a six-foot two-handed sword, all armor types would be effectively no better than AC 6. There was some disagreement on my blog about whether excluding spears from this benefit "nerfs" them or not. Still, it's appealing in that it eliminates one modifier to add/subtract from the attack, plus it's easy to remember.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 24, 2013 13:21:47 GMT -6
If I was so inclined as to use d6 damage for everything, I'd probably just simplify it further and have each hit do 1 point of damage and each character can take 1 hit per hit die. Save all the fiddly point counting.
I've tried to accept the d6 damage things because I consider myself more of an Arnesonian fan and he kept d6 damage in his Adventures in Fantasy. He did, just like OD&D, allow longer weapons to get the first attack at the start of melee. He also had a table which had to-hit penalties for weapons based on the conditions. For example, a Very Long weapon gets +2 to hit outdoors, -1 to hit in a corridor or small room and -2 when fighting through a doorway. Whereas a dagger user gets -2 outdoors, -1 in a corridor or regular room and no penalty when fighting through a doorway. I'm assuming the doorway modifier would be used in any situation where the combatants are very close together. Bushido had a similar table but allowed combatants to try and adjust the range at which they were fighting to gain or keep an advantage.
|
|
|
Post by jeffb on Jun 24, 2013 17:00:40 GMT -6
I like and have used everything. D6. or D6, D6+ or D6-.Variable ala Moldvay. Or Variable by class.
About the only thing I do not like is vs. Small/vs. Large. Too fiddly.
|
|