|
Post by Zenopus on Jun 24, 2013 19:46:10 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? Just give any fighter wielding a two-handed weapon the same bonus to AC as a shield. If you need a reason, the longer weapon keeps the opponent further away giving a defensive bonus. If abstracting all weapons to 1d6 damage, why not do the same for shield/two-handed weapon? Then weapon choice is solely whatever the player feels fits the character.
|
|
|
Post by geoffrey on Jun 24, 2013 23:32:01 GMT -6
It occurs to me that having all weapons do the same amount of damage helps an adventuring party be a little more like Thorin and Company. Consider that Bilbo alone was caught by surprise by the quest. The other 14 people all knew long ahead of time where they were going, what they were going to try to do, etc. Yet look at the list of weapons they carried out of Hobbiton: knives That's it. No swords. No hammers. No battle axes. No bows and arrows. Nothing other than...knives. Later in the story, Gandalf, Thorin, and Bilbo accidentally acquire magic blades. And Beorn supplies them with bows and arrows (which were used solely for futile hunting in Mirkwood). Other than the three who stumbled on magic blades, none of the 15 were ever armed (or armored, for that matter) until the Battle of Five Armies. I like that. I like D&D characters who look more like they are going camping and/or spelunking, and less like they are going off to war. "Sword? Battle axe? Halberd? Pshaw! My dagger is just as effective."
|
|
|
Post by Porphyre on Jun 25, 2013 0:58:21 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? Just give any fighter wielding a two-handed weapon the same bonus to AC as a shield. If you need a reason, the longer weapon keeps the opponent further away giving a defensive bonus. If abstracting all weapons to 1d6 damage, why not do the same for shield/two-handed weapon? Then weapon choice is solely whatever the player feels fits the character. In a similar way, I would rather give a +1 to hit to the belligerent with the longest reach. That way, when using a two-handed weapon, you loose the protection of a shield, but you also "cancel" the one of your opponent, so it settles the score.
|
|
|
Post by inkmeister on Jul 5, 2013 11:15:48 GMT -6
It occurs to me that perhaps no one ever questions "variable armor protection." What if we looked more closely at that side of things?
I think a big part of the problem in this whole discussion for some people is the question of why one's choice choice of armor should mean more than one's choice of weapon. For choosing a heavy and costly suit of platemail, I am rewarded with a very favorable AC (and penalized with slow movement and certain other risks - ie drowning). On the weapon side, this (arguably fun) variety seems lacking.
I do think one can try to game the system a bit, by choosing the lightest, cheapest, and most flexible weapon (ie one that can be thrown and used in melee). I'm going to say that, where non-magical weapons are concerned, the overall best bang for the buck is probably something like a spear; costs 1 gp, is presumably lighter than a sword, and can be thrown or set against charge (for 3x damage?). Or you could pay 10 gp for a sword, which can't , IIRC, be thrown or set against charge, and which presumably weighs more than a spear. Or you could pay 15gp for a 2 handed sword, which has the same limitations as the standard sword, but weighs 3 times as much (and, I guess, looks 3 times as cool to some people, not all of whom have issues with their manhood).
I think that in a variable weapon damage situation, I may very well still choose the spear for it's cost and versatility, but it is interesting to think that the choice isn't automatically so advantageous, and that one would have good reason to choose the heavy 2 handed sword.
Given the 3 main variables, HP, to hit, and AC, I wonder how people would view the situation if the variability moved from armor choice to weapon choice modifying to-hit rolls. Thus, choice of armor would have no effect (beyond weight, cost, etc). One would choose armor based only on roleplaying concerns. Or, similar to Geoffrey's observation about the 2 handed sword as treasure, we would see that platemail would serve ideally as treasure to be sold.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 5, 2013 13:26:37 GMT -6
It occurs to me that perhaps no one ever questions "variable armor protection." What if we looked more closely at that side of things? I've seen people introduce class-based AC as well. MU 9, Thief 7, Cleric 5, Fighter 3. The first thing my players do in pour over the weapon and armor charts looking for the best deal. I don't think they'd tolerate that level of abstraction.
|
|
bexley
Level 4 Theurgist
Posts: 104
|
Post by bexley on Jul 6, 2013 3:33:01 GMT -6
Personally I see both ideas (weapon and armour variants) to be a bit arbitrary. In the end the game scales whether it's d6 or not.
|
|
|
Post by derv on Jul 6, 2013 10:41:03 GMT -6
I've always used variable damage. Straight d6 damage interests me in its simplicity and I would not be opposed to using it, I just havn't.
To me the abstraction of combat in the game is not whether a certain weapon is more likely to do more damage, but it is whether a certain weapon is more likely to kill with a single blow. This may be splitting hairs in how combat is percieved because, in real life, all weapons are designed to kill and can kill with a single blow. Yet, there's that old addage about taking a knife to a gun fight that sticks in my head. No matter how you determine damage, the system is abstract. A dagger and a long sword (or other weapon of choice) both have the potential to kill or simply leave a scratch.
|
|
|
Post by Finarvyn on Jul 7, 2013 7:21:55 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. Congratuations! You've just re-invented Chainmail! Regular guys could take one hit, a hero could take 4 hits, a super hero could take 8. A couple things, if I may... (1) I don't see the d6-only damage system as just a way to make things simple, even though it does happen to do this. I see it mostly as an attempt to avoid the min/max problem that works its way into later editions. How many times have you seen a player suddenly want a katana or some such becuause it does d8+1 instead of d8. If you play a d6-only game you allow folks to pick the weapon that fits their character concept instead of the one that gives them some tiny bonus. (2) I guess the best solution for me (asssuming I want to continue the d6-only model) would be the damage-by-class adjustment which was mentioned back on page 1 of the thread. I've used it before and it certanly gets rid of the "why can't my MU use a sword" thing. If, for example, all fighers do d6+1, clerics and thieves d6, and MU's d6-1, then you can let the MU use that sword all he wants. No different from the dagger in game mechanics, but allows for the desired character concept. (3) If I decide to abandon the d6-only system, my next thought would be that I would divide weapons into a few key piles and not add in many little bonuses. For example: - d4 = daggers, sling stones, smaller weapons
- d6 = short swords, maces, shortbows, medium weapons
- d8 = swords, battle axes, longbows, large weapons
- d10 = pole arms, halberd, two handed sword, extreme weapons
And I would avoid the d8 versus d8+1 issue.
(4) I'm kind of surprised that no one has mentioned the other form of variable damage. (Unless I missed it somewhere.) Page 15 of Supplemnt I Greyhawk mentions variable damage by opponent size; e.g. a sword might do d8 versus man-sized but d12 versus giant creatures. This is sort of a tricky thing because it means that hit dice aren't all created equal. An 8 HD vampire has more hit points when fighting a swordsman than an 8 HD dragon with equal rolls, yet has fewer hit points when fighting a guy with a dagger than that same dragon.
This is a great discussion!
|
|
|
Post by waysoftheearth on Jul 7, 2013 19:45:02 GMT -6
Reducing the 1-6 hp per HD/hit to 1 hit kills may be more efficient, but it also eliminates all variability between individual hits and HD. This variability is, IMHO, a classic distinction between war games and RPGs. With variation comes weaker and tougher individuals, mortal and feeble hits, etc., etc.
Also, the 1-6 range enables us to use +1 and +2 etc. adjustments to HD and hits (another staple of D&D), which is impractical with the 1 hit kills model.
As a halfway between the two, It might be interesting to model only the probability of being killed by a hit (x many chances in 6) instead of recording hit points...
|
|
|
Post by derv on Jul 7, 2013 21:01:26 GMT -6
As a halfway between the two, It might be interesting to model only the probability of being killed by a hit (x many chances in 6) instead of recording hit points... Please elaborate.
|
|
|
Post by Finarvyn on Jul 7, 2013 21:04:25 GMT -6
Reducing the 1-6 hp per HD/hit to 1 hit kills may be more efficient, but it also eliminates all variability between individual hits and HD. This variability is, IMHO, a classic distinction between war games and RPGs. Agreed. I bellieve that this marks a huge step from miniatures game play to "role play." Wargame or miniatures units are by design cookie-cutter, but roleplay characters have more variation. Hit points and variable weapon damage mark a point where luck of the dice means you might take more hits than you are "supposed" to, or perhaps fewer. I was just pointing out that hedgehobbit's observation was a step back into the pre-OD&D days.
|
|
|
Post by waysoftheearth on Jul 8, 2013 0:07:11 GMT -6
Instead of recording x many hp, record (just for example) a "saving throw-like" number that should be tested on one (or more) hits in any round of combat. maybe it's a number based on HD or on constitution that needs to be scored on a d6, or 2d6, 3d6, d20, or whatever. It could be adjusted by number of hits suffered in the round, or weapon versus armour, or monster HD, or whatever else you can think of. I haven't thought it through, just dreaming it up on the spot...
|
|
|
Post by inkmeister on Jul 9, 2013 14:37:13 GMT -6
Well, I've been largely on the variable weapon damage side of the fence here, but I found a good bit of text in favor of non-variable damage quoted by DHBoggs (Alderron, IIRC, on these boards), which he attributes to old time wargamer T. Shiels at www.thortrains.net/armymen/index.htmlHere is the text: After my Army tour, I lived a bit too wild and got involved in too many scary episodes. It seemed like wasted talent, but when rewriting wargame rules it came to work for me. There is a way people fight, and it should be reflected in games. My problem with re-enactors is that their mock fights are bound by rules for safety and fairness. In a real situation where bodily harm is likely and safety rules do not exist, it gets very different... Chainmail came up short. I figured that the writers had never been in so much as a fistfight, never mind a brawl with polearms and axes. I had been in a couple of brawls that involved bats, barstools and other "field expedient" medieval weaponry.... One thing we realized was that the writers of "Chainmail" had gotten too interested in weapons. Their rules gave certain implements a distinct advantage in hand-to-hand, man-to-man combat. The morningstar, mace, two-handed axe and two-handed sword were overwhelming, while the spear and sword came up short. In actual accounts of medieval close combat, the spear was favored. Dismounted French knights preferred to make spears of their lances than depend on maces or broad axes. The favorite battlefield weapon of the Samurai was a spear. The sword only came into play in situations where the spear was impractical. So why would "Chainmal" regard a spear as a weak weapon? Obviously, the writers were impressed with their idea of busting out armor. As with tanks, it is not armor penetration alone that makes a kill. One thing I learned from jujitsu, the Army and some other arcane studies (never mind!) was that weapon skill was personal. A warrior had his preferences, so a man who was good with, say, a mace would be the equal of a man who was skilled with the hand axe. The weapon was not as important as the man behind it. We dropped the idea of adding or subtracting for each type of weapon. A man going into a fight will take the weapon with which he is most secure. This goes for everything from bar room brawling to Indian raids. A man who is good with a chain will take it. The fellow who prefers a club won't want a chain. Though outsiders may view the chain as more effective because of its appearance and weight, you can be sure that a ghood club man will be equally effective with his choice of weapon. All the "Chainmail" weapon rule did was fuel the fires of those with a fascination for odd medieval fighting instruments. Another thing about weapons was environment. A chain is not very good when fighting in water or in thick brush. You need room to swing it. A club is fine provided you have room to swing it. In close quarters, a thrusting weapon would be better. Fighting in a tight hallway, swinging weapons are at a disadvantage. Hand-held weapons drop an enemy either by impact / concussion or cutting. A concussive weapon tends to be more effective in a very close fight. A sword, though it cuts, also acts as an iron bar. An axe is like a sharp truncheon. Pole weapons give that extra second or two to drop the enemy, hence most are for cutting. Though a cut is more likely to be fatal, it is less likely to drop an enemy instantly. Cuts take a few seconds more than impact... " Which echoes things others have said here, perhaps especially WotE.
|
|
|
Post by derv on Jul 9, 2013 15:22:31 GMT -6
There's much that I agree with in Shiels explanation, but all these variables that he describes is exactly why the combat system is abstract and what I feel variable damage (along with modifiers) actually more closely emulates by taking into consideration. If you take his input seriously, then the only thing one might want to consider changing is what weapons get what die of damage in what environment. I feel the system already takes into account weapon preference in a general way (MU-staffs & dagger, Clerics- maces, fighters- swords or axes, etc.)
Thought provoking content though.
|
|
|
Post by inkmeister on Jul 10, 2013 7:26:21 GMT -6
Agreed, Derv, basically 100%.
I still favor the variable weapon damage. I find the idea of modeling it on the to-hit side of the equation really interesting, but ultimately more fiddly and complex in play than just picking up a different die. Also, the variable damage system still allows for more skilled warriors using lesser weapons to defeat less skilled warriors with better weapons. It just works for me, I guess!
|
|
|
Post by zarathustra on Jul 10, 2013 9:06:27 GMT -6
d6. 2d6 take lowest for daggers, slings, light bows & xbows & improvised clubs etc. 2d6 take highest for 2 handed weapons.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 10, 2013 9:42:36 GMT -6
Reducing the 1-6 hp per HD/hit to 1 hit kills may be more efficient, but it also eliminates all variability between individual hits and HD. This variability is, IMHO, a classic distinction between war games and RPGs. With variation comes weaker and tougher individuals, mortal and feeble hits, etc., etc. I disagree as I see the distinction as one between granularity vs fiddlyness. Traveller used 2d6 for attributes, D&D used 3d6 whereas EPT uses d100. Empire of the Petal Throne isn't more of a RPG than Traveller just because it allows for more variation among characters. The same is true for hit points. Giving a 4th level fighter 4 hitpoints or 4d6 or 4d100 won't change the amount of role-playing in a game, it will only change the amount of detail that is tracked during combat. Detail which isn't that important in a game with two states: alive and dead. IOW, I don't believe there is some magical level of detail that, should you drop below it, you are now simply playing a wargame instead of an RPG. Which brings me back to my original points which is that if we are going to go through all the trouble to keep track of hit points and lots of +1s and -1s and 9d6+2s, etc, then we might as well have some variety in our weapon statistics. Whether that's damage, space required or modifiers vs armor is up to each person's preference. What I was thinking is that the damage roll, on a d6 will cause a hit on a 4+ for most weapons. Two-handed weapon will hit on a 3+ and small or impromptu weapons (daggers, clubs) will cause a hit on a 5+. Strength and magic bonuses for the weapon reduce the number required. Maybe with the added rule that rabble/mooks/minions/normal men will automatically take a hit without bothering to roll.
|
|
|
Post by waysoftheearth on Jul 11, 2013 5:25:10 GMT -6
Empire of the Petal Throne isn't more of a RPG than Traveller just because it allows for more variation among characters. I didn't mean to imply that some games are "more of a RPG" than others. I simply meant to point out that one of the features common to many (most?) RPGs is that they have, in general, transitioned from the mass combat systems associated with wargames, to the man-to-man combat systems that are (generally) more detailed. Whether or not this involves tracking individual hit points depends on the individual game. Some track more details, others track fewer details. Giving a 4th level fighter 4 hitpoints or 4d6 or 4d100 ... will only change the amount of detail that is tracked during combat. Detail which isn't that important in a game with two states: alive and dead. The D&D combat system has many more states (unrelated to hit points) including; full of/out of spells, paralysed, petrified, undead, infected with lycnathropy, charmed, cursed, feebleminded, body dead but soul alive in magic jar, etc. etc. But even considering only hit points, a player may be inclined to make different choices when his PC is on 1 hit point than when he has 20 hit points because he is in a different state. He has at least these states to think about: With 7 or more hit points he can't be slain on the next normal hit. With 6 to 2 hit points he could be slain on the next normal hit. With 1 hit point he will be slain on the next hit. With 0 hit points he is out of play. There there are non-normal hits to consider too... I don't believe there is some magical level of detail that, should you drop below it, you are now simply playing a wargame instead of an RPG. True. But equally, when there are 200 figures on the table and each figure represents 20 men, and nothing distinguishes one figure from the next, and a single roll will eliminate one or several figures, you'd probably call it a wargame. There probably is a fuzzy boundary between RPGs and wargames somewhere, but I won't speculate about where it might be. Which brings me back to my original points which is that if we are going to go through all the trouble to keep track of hit points and lots of +1s and -1s and 9d6+2s, etc, then we might as well have some variety in our weapon statistics. Whether that's damage, space required or modifiers vs armor is up to each person's preference. That's the widely accepted view, and I agree that it's possibly good "gamesmanship". D&D is ultimately just a game so there's nothing wrong with gamesmanship -- especially if it makes a good game. The point of contention is, I think, whether or not increasing damage output with increasing weapon size is a "better" model than standard damage across weapon size. Many seem to think so, but I think not (for all the reasons discussed above). But that's only my opinion, and it ain't worth snot. If others think otherwise that's fine, and I'd be happy to play it their way at their tables too.
|
|
|
Post by Porphyre on Jul 11, 2013 8:11:48 GMT -6
(3) If I decide to abandon the d6-only system, my next thought would be that I would divide weapons into a few key piles and not add in many little bonuses. For example: - d4 = daggers, sling stones, smaller weapons
- d6 = short swords, maces, shortbows, medium weapons
- d8 = swords, battle axes, longbows, large weapons
- d10 = pole arms, halberd, two handed sword, extreme weapons
And I would avoid the d8 versus d8+1 issue.
Thats the way BECMI deals with damage (the only exceptions being the bastard sword and the heavy crossbow
|
|
ratikranger
Level 3 Conjurer
D&D is 50? That makes me ... even older.
Posts: 70
|
Post by ratikranger on Jul 12, 2013 15:45:13 GMT -6
I totally see the attraction of "d6 for everything" and I was pretty much convinced of it until I saw "class-based damage" which just "clicked" with me on so many levels. I do, however, also like the idea that there's *some* difference between a dagger and a two-handed sword, so I now combine those two aspects. The notation I use is "light/medium/heavy" with the obvious weapons being in the obvious categories:
Fighter: d6/d8/d10 Cleric: d4/d6/d8 Thief: d6/d8/d6 Magic-User: d4/d4/d6
I usually get the "your thieves are all wrong" response when I post this, but they are totally "on the mark" for me. I like to tempt thieves into going out and hitting stuff every now and then, given their crappy AC (on average) they need to be fairly desperate to do it but then they can hit a few times for some decent damage. But thieves with two-handed swords or halberds are just not my thing, so I cut them off at medium weapons.
|
|
|
Post by librarylass on Jul 13, 2013 16:47:36 GMT -6
It occurs to me that perhaps no one ever questions "variable armor protection." What if we looked more closely at that side of things? I think a big part of the problem in this whole discussion for some people is the question of why one's choice choice of armor should mean more than one's choice of weapon. For choosing a heavy and costly suit of platemail, I am rewarded with a very favorable AC (and penalized with slow movement and certain other risks - ie drowning). On the weapon side, this (arguably fun) variety seems lacking. *snip* Given the 3 main variables, HP, to hit, and AC, I wonder how people would view the situation if the variability moved from armor choice to weapon choice modifying to-hit rolls. Thus, choice of armor would have no effect (beyond weight, cost, etc). One would choose armor based only on roleplaying concerns. Or, similar to Geoffrey's observation about the 2 handed sword as treasure, we would see that platemail would serve ideally as treasure to be sold. Well, what about shields in this situation?
|
|
|
Post by inkmeister on Jul 14, 2013 15:23:31 GMT -6
Right, exactly; what about shields? It's the same situation as "what about two handed swords?" but moved over to the armor side. I find it odd that people will so readily accept variable armor protection, but not variable weapon effectiveness; that's really my point.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 14, 2013 16:56:57 GMT -6
The differences in armor effectiveness in the real world are greater than the differences in weapon effectiveness. Club vs. sword vs. flail vs. crossbow might be a close fight, but plate vs. leather and shield would not.
|
|
|
Post by Stormcrow on Jul 14, 2013 17:19:05 GMT -6
when there are 200 figures on the table and each figure represents 20 men, and nothing distinguishes one figure from the next, and a single roll will eliminate one or several figures, you'd probably call it a wargame. There probably is a fuzzy boundary between RPGs and wargames somewhere, but I won't speculate about where it might be. I'll give it a shot. A game ceases to be a role-playing game and becomes a wargame when you start ordering your figures about as if you were a general, instead of pretending to be those figures yourself. A wargame is also bound by its rules; an RPG is not.
|
|
|
Post by Stormcrow on Jul 14, 2013 17:20:03 GMT -6
Thief: d6/d8/d6 I usually get the "your thieves are all wrong" response when I post this, but they are totally "on the mark" for me. Your thieves are all wrong!
|
|
|
Post by waysoftheearth on Jul 15, 2013 1:59:15 GMT -6
The differences in armor effectiveness in the real world are greater than the differences in weapon effectiveness. Club vs. sword vs. flail vs. crossbow might be a close fight, but plate vs. leather and shield would not. This is approximately what is modeled in OD&D. Mail and plate armour are about twice and thrice as good as leather, respectively. But shields and helmets are not (IMHO) handled especially well in any iteration of D&D. I'm prone, in my own games, to give shields and helmets 2 and 1 pip of AC, respectively, and to reduce mail and plate to AC 6 and 5 to compensate. But that's just me. Given the 3 main variables, HP, to hit, and AC, I wonder how people would view the situation if the variability moved from armor choice to weapon choice modifying to-hit rolls. I'm not sure that hp, to-hit, and AC really are the three main variables in D&D combat. AC and "to-hit" are effectively the same thing; both adjust the probability of a hit by 5% per pip, either way. And what about number of attacks? One could argue that the critical variables are instead: 1. Damage that can be sustained, 2. Hit probability, 3. Number of attacks. HD are the foundation of the whole combat system. They determine both the amount of damage that can be sustained, and also the base probability of scoring a hit (items 1 and 2 on my list). Damage that can be sustained determines how many turns of comabt can be endured, and so is critical. But note that damage sustained and damage dealt are measured on the same scale (number of hit points) so any fiddling with one end of the equation (e.g., variable weapons damage) requires at least some consideration be given to the other end of the equation. Which is where the risk of hp inflation begins, as seen in GH and subsequent editions of the game. Hit probability is based on number number of HD (or PC level), but is also subject to many game circumstances including: armour worn, magical protection, enchanted attacks, and a plethora of circumstantial adjustments (surprise, flank, rear, invisibility, etc). There are overriding factors as well, such as invulnerability to normal weaponry (no chance of a hit), sleep or paralysis (100% chance of a hit), and so on. The sum of all this -- whether or not I "hit" and deal damage -- is the "core" of D&D's alternative combat system. Number of attacks is frequently overlooked in these discussions but is, IMHO, absolutely critical. While high level fighters roll multiple attacks versus mooks, that's not all that's going on here. The PCs' number of attacks compared to the monsters' number of attacks each round is primarily a tactical concern, and is the principal part of combat which the players have control over. The players should fire missiles first, then fight three abreast in 10ft passages with spears, or in door ways or other choke points. If the monsters are getting more attacks than the players, then the players are probably in trouble -- despite their fancy weapons and armour. Initiative is also a factor here, since anyone who is slain before their attack cannot riposte, and their attack is wasted. But, getting back on topic, AC and "to-hit" are intrinsically linked as both adjust the probability of a hit. Having the adjustment on the weapon end of the relationship (either instead of, or as well as, at the armour end of the relationship) shouldn't pose any problem for the existing game mechanics. In fact, the weapon type versus armour type rule in GH was an attempt to model exactly that. Unfortunately, that particular attempt was a bit too fiddly to see widespread adoption. That was, perhaps, what motivated me to simplify it to "with shield" and "without shield" in my condensed version. However, given all the discussion around weapons, armour, and damage that's gone on in the year since I posted that one, it might well be time to revisit my calculations and look at combining variable weapons with variable armour with variable number of attacks. Hmmm...
|
|
|
Post by zarathustra on Jul 15, 2013 2:47:35 GMT -6
I use some variable weapon damage. Daggers and small weapons do 2d6, take lowest result. 2 handed weapons do 2d6, take the highest. I also let any class use any weapon. I also give each weapon a "special feature" that only one skilled in it's use (fighters or dwarves) can use, I had my own system but now use this one for special features untimately.blogspot.com.au/2012/08/weapons-parrying-draft.html
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 15, 2013 11:22:45 GMT -6
You could possibly make chain and plate way too cumbersome and expensive to use while adventuring, but usable on the battlefield. If so, you could add +2/+1 AC for shield/helmet, as per WotE, and use the normal values of AC for those armor (plate = 7). But you could also rule that because these armors are fatiguing, you automatically lose 1 hp per engagement.
|
|
ratikranger
Level 3 Conjurer
D&D is 50? That makes me ... even older.
Posts: 70
|
Post by ratikranger on Jul 17, 2013 19:29:32 GMT -6
Thief: d6/d8/d6 I usually get the "your thieves are all wrong" response when I post this, but they are totally "on the mark" for me. Your thieves are all wrong! Thanks! Now prove it... :-)
|
|
|
Post by austinjimm on Jul 17, 2013 21:13:12 GMT -6
I didn't read the whole thread, so there's probably someone else who does it this way:
small weapon = 1-5 damage (1d6-1) normal weapon = 1-6 damage (1d6) two-handed weapon = 2-7 damage (1d6+1)
This may be the same as S&W White Box, I'm not sure, and fighting with 2 weapons is the same as a two-handed weapon.
|
|