Do you use variable weapon damage?

[saveforhalf]

I go with:

1-handed weapon + shield = +1 to AC
2-handed weapon = +1 to damage
Two 1-handed weapons = +1 to hit

Clubs, daggers, slings, and staves get a cumulative -1 to damage. (Daggers, slings, and 1-handed clubs do 1d6-1 damage. Staves and 2-handed clubs do 1d6.)
Dual-wielding does 1d6 damage unless both weapons are daggers and/or clubs, in which case it does 1d6-1.

[Zenopus]

Anybody differentiate weapons by cost? It's one of the few statistics actually provided for weapons in the LBBs. I was thinking of something like:

On an attack roll of 1 (natural), a weapon must make a saving throw to avoid being broken. The score for the save is 16, which is extrapolated from the saving throw tables in Monsters & Treasures, where a +1 weapon saves with a 14, +2 with a 12, etc. Each weapon can add its initial cost per Men & Magic as a bonus to the save. So a club (not listed with a price) would get no bonus, a spear (1 gp) would get a +1, a battle axe a +7, a sword +10, etc. This would give an incentive to buy more expensive weapons if possible because they would less likely to break, and also to have back-up weapons. I like the idea of weapons breaking and needing to be replaced after a while, so this would simulate the wear on weapons - the more times used, the more chance for eventual breakage.

Just a thought I had today.

[zeraser]

Jul 17, 2013 22:43:58 GMT -6 Zenopus said:

Anybody differentiate weapons by cost? It's one of the few statistics actually provided for weapons in the LBBs. I was thinking of something like:

On an attack roll of 1 (natural), a weapon must make a saving throw to avoid being broken. The score for the save is 16, which is extrapolated from the saving throw tables in Monsters & Treasures, where a +1 weapon saves with a 14, +2 with a 12, etc. Each weapon can add its initial cost per Men & Magic as a bonus to the save. So a club (not listed with a price) would get no bonus, a spear (1 gp) would get a +1, a battle axe a +7, a sword +10, etc. This would give an incentive to buy more expensive weapons if possible because they would less likely to break, and also to have back-up weapons. I like the idea of weapons breaking and needing to be replaced after a while, so this would simulate the wear on weapons - the more times used, the more chance for eventual breakage.

Just a thought I had today.

I like the idea of making weapon quality (and breakability) a mechanical issue - but I think I'd prefer to do so in a way that doesn't necessitate an extra roll. Is there a simpler way to handle this?

[oakesspalding]

That, or something like it is a great idea. Though even a starting character with only 30-180 GP's would be STRONGLY advised to buy a two-handed sword--it breaks only 1 out of 400 times, as opposed to a regular sword that breaks 1 out of 67 times or a spear that breaks 1 out of 29 times.

[talysman]

I can't remember who pointed out that the melee weapons are arranged on the Equipment table in rough order of length or Chainmail weapon class. That might be worth something.

[Zenopus]

Jul 18, 2013 5:49:06 GMT -6 zeraser said:

I like the idea of making weapon quality (and breakability) a mechanical issue - but I think I'd prefer to do so in a way that doesn't necessitate an extra roll. Is there a simpler way to handle this?

You could require the weapon to be replaced/repaired after X number of adventures (or even combats), where X = initial cost in gold. Of course this eliminates the variability and there is the drawback of having to track the number.

Another option would be to make the weapon saving throw once after a combat (or at the end of an adventure). This would reduce the number of times rolling. You could combine this with the above and still have it required to be replaced after X number of adventures even if it has always made its save.

Another option would be integrate the chance of weapon break into a more general fumble table for rolling a natural 1. This table could include other types of failure so the weapon break roll would not come up as often.

[Zenopus]

Jul 18, 2013 14:41:57 GMT -6 talysman said:

I can't remember who pointed out that the melee weapons are arranged on the Equipment table in rough order of length or Chainmail weapon class. That might be worth something.

We discussed this briefly in the comments to one of Jon Peterson's posts: playingattheworld.blogspot.com/2012/10/armor-class-in-chainmail.html

The Chainmail order of weapons (from page 41):

1. Dagger
1. Hand Axe (the "1" may be a typo for "2")
3. Mace
4. Sword
5. Battle Axe
6. Morning Star
7. Flail
8. Spear
9. Pole Arms, Halberd
10. Two-Handed Sword
11. Mounted Lance
12. Pike

These weapons are ordered from shortest to longest, and this information is preserved in the equipment list in Men & Magic, the weapon tables in Greyhawk, and the equipment list in Holmes, which pretty much copies the one from Men & Magic. So the relative lengths are always right in front of you if you are using OD&D or Holmes - the only thing missing is the number itself. This is another form of weapon data that could be used to differentiate weapons when they all do d6. One way of implementing it could be to simply compare the weapon length and have longest weapon strike first, or perhaps only on the first round of combat.

[Deleted]

Jul 18, 2013 5:49:06 GMT -6 zeraser said:

Just a thought I had today. I like the idea of making weapon quality (and breakability) a mechanical issue - but I think I'd prefer to do so in a way that doesn't necessitate an extra roll. Is there a simpler way to handle this?

In Pendragon, weapon breakage was determined by comparing weapons, i.e. swords broke axes, etc. To apply this to Zenopus' idea: When a creature rolls a fumble, if his weapon is cheaper than his opponents, his weapon is broken. Monsters without weapons are assumed to be worth 1 gp / HD, monsters with tough claws or crude weapons such as dragons, giant insects or ogres, are treated as 2 gp / HD, whereas large monsters with true weapons, such as Fire Giants, are treated as 3 gp / HD.

Because the system is more offensive, your nice weapon is breaking their crappy one, it will probably go over better with the players than a random chance of breaking for no reason. I think you'll see PCs rushing out to buy well made dwarven or elven weapons and hesitating before they pickup that rusty orc sword they find lying around.

[Zulgyan]

In many OD&D demo-one-shots I ran, I kept 1d6 for all weapons just to give players a feel of orthodox OD&D play. But there were the following exceptions that modified the attack roll:

Small weapons and spears in melee attack at -1.

Pole arms attack at +1 and deal doble damage vs. charge.

Two-handed swords attack at +2.

Nice and easy.

In most games thought, I prefer the physical contact with a variety of diferent dice. It's fun!

[tec97]

Jun 17, 2013 8:39:58 GMT -6 scottenkainen said:

Jun 17, 2013 8:33:24 GMT -6 zeraser said:

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

I'd think that while and arrow/bolt/sling bullet certainly could kill you with a decent shot, a blow from a two-handed sword or battle ax would, on average stand a better chance.

Personally if I HAD to pick, I'd opt for getting hit by the missle weapon over whacked by a claymore!

[Zulgyan]

I think variable damade in the OD&D context works best when the standart is set by the sword dealing 1d6. That would be the medium. Daggers could deal then 1d4 and two handed weapons 1d8. But a weapon dealing 1d10 where HD is 1d6, is too much IMO.

[inkmeister]

First of all, if I'm reading this right, this is your first day back in a couple years, at least, Zulgyan. I always enjoyed reading your posts, so I hope this marks a return!

Secondly, I agree with you; if you are going to do variable damage in the d6 HD paradigm, d6 is the standard, d4 is for smaller/weaker/inferior weapons, and d8 is for the heavy hitters. I've done it that way before, and I like it. You can easily improvise monster damage along the lines of d4,d6,d8,d10,d12,d20! Or multiples of any of the above (they're your monsters, do whatever you want!). I prefer certain monsters having big damage rather than the Greyhawk/Classic D&D/AD&D method of attack routines. Represent all that craziness with one bad-ass attack, generally speaking.

[Zulgyan]

Aug 14, 2013 18:08:50 GMT -6 inkmeister said:

First of all, if I'm reading this right, this is your first day back in a couple years, at least, Zulgyan. I always enjoyed reading your posts, so I hope this marks a return!

It certainly is. Had to deal with some stuff. Now I'm Ok. Thanks for the greetings!

[busman]

I'm with ink, great to see you back, Zulgyan!

[Red Baron]

I like the ad&d concept of different weapons being more or less effective against larger creatures. Although all weapons are equally lethal to men, longer weapons like pikes could be pushed up into a giants internal organs, while a dirk would be lucky to get through the creature's thick hide. An oaken cudgel could easily crush in the skull of a berserker, but beating a triceratops with one isn't going to do a whole lot other than get it mad.

[Zenopus]

Aug 16, 2013 11:58:38 GMT -6 Red Baron said:

I like the ad&d concept of different weapons being more or less effective against larger creatures. Although all weapons are equally lethal to men, longer weapons like pikes could be pushed up into a giants internal organs, while a dirk would be lucky to get through the creature's thick hide. An oaken cudgel could easily crush in the skull of a berserker, but beating a triceratops with one isn't going to do a whole lot other than get it mad.

As so much in AD&D, that actually originated in OD&D. Take a look Greyhawk pg 15, it's got the variable weapon damage for both man-size and larger opponents.

[Red Baron]

Aug 16, 2013 19:34:05 GMT -6 Zenopus said:

Aug 16, 2013 11:58:38 GMT -6 Red Baron said:

I like the ad&d concept of different weapons being more or less effective against larger creatures. Although all weapons are equally lethal to men, longer weapons like pikes could be pushed up into a giants internal organs, while a dirk would be lucky to get through the creature's thick hide. An oaken cudgel could easily crush in the skull of a berserker, but beating a triceratops with one isn't going to do a whole lot other than get it mad.

As so much in AD&D, that actually originated in OD&D. Take a look Greyhawk pg 15, it's got the variable weapon damage for both man-size and larger opponents.

Very cool. I have PDFs of the 3LBBs, but my knowledge of the supplements is limited. I've only had the privilege to flip through my DM's copies of the supplements and FFC a few times, whereas I know the DMG, PHB, and MM by heart.

I had no idea Gygax had already introduced damage by man-sized vs. larger opponents alongside variable damage in Greyhawk!

[Zenopus]

You can see a version of it that I made for Holmes Basic here: Variable Weapon Damage for Holmes - What If?

[inkmeister]

More and more I really see the arguments for non-variable damage. Ways did a very good job arguing that position. Here is something I found online about medieval weaponry - the guy posting seems to be saying he has a masters degree on topics such as this:
-------------------------
Question: What was the most effective medieval weapon for unmounted combat?

Ranged it would be the crossbow. Easy to use, and devastating against armor.

Up close and personal, it's a toss up between three tools of death: The spear, the mace, and the shortsword. Spears are great because you can set them against a charge, mounted or on foot, and allow the enemy to impale himself. The were also good in close quarters because they were thrusting weapons. The mace is simplicity itself: a club with a metal head. Add spikes and you have a morningstar. This nice thing about impact damage is it goes right through most armor and breaks bones. Very easy to use, and deadly. The shortsword was a double-edged blade, usually about 18-24" in length, that was carried as a melee weapon by bow and spearmen. Most had a point, so could be used as a stabbing and slashing weapon. Most of the actual French casualties at Agincourt came by way of the shortsword.

Honorable mention to the axe; a basic tool turned to iconic weapon. A good heavy blade could cut straight through armor. However, most military axes did double duty as camp tools, so weren't optimized for combat. The Frankish Francisca was a military axe that was balanced for throwing. I've seen one demonstrated and at short ranges a skilled thrower can penetrate chain mail and padding.

A note about swords: Larger swords like the bastard sword, the claymore, and the like were mostly shows of wealth and power. Steel was expensive. So have a three-foot blade was a show of ostentatious wealth, like driving a Ferrari is today. The problem is that medieval steel tended to be very poor, and a sword would get dull and bend easily. There are plenty of woodcuts and illustrations of frustrated knights trying to unbend their swords. The most common attribute of legendary magical swords was that they stayed sharp!
Source(s):
One guess what my M.A. is in.

[giantgenesis]

Jun 17, 2013 9:54:01 GMT -6 @gronanofsimmerya said:

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'm really late in this topic, but I would like to know, since I do not have access to Chainmail, what is the general idea of the "weapon length" rules from Chainmail ?

Thanks!

[Deleted]

Summarizing, longer weapons attack first on the first round, then smaller weapons attack first on subsequent rounds.

[sepulchre]

The question of variable weapon damage is misleading:
1. Weapon Factors/Weapon vs. armor type differentiates one weapon from the next.
2. Anything in addition is redundant and ruins the elegance of the abstraction.
3. Variable weapon damage came about,as I understand it, because Gary did not like to use weapon vs. armor type.

[bestialwarlust]

I don't I did at one time but found the simplicity better for abstract combat. Now I or someone can do a quick combat narration if they wish.

"You swing several times at your foe landing a blow here and there, forcing him back against the wall you crack him across the jaw bouncing his head off the cold stone."

*rolls 1d6*

or the player or I can attempt a "feat"

Ref: ok last round the orc moved up close inside your spear range
Player: When I attack I want to try and use my spear to trip him
Ref: ok make and attack if you hit and the damage roll is high enough I'll allow it

*dice clatter rolls a 18 on the d20 and a 5 on the d6*

Ref: Your spear is a blur as you beat back the orc you score several hits as you spin your spear haft around and slam it into the back of the orcs legs he hits the ground*

So yes I prefer non variable damage

[jeff]

Dec 19, 2013 21:30:04 GMT -6 @gronanofsimmerya said:

Summarizing, longer weapons attack first on the first round, then smaller weapons attack first on subsequent rounds.

There is a table which determines initiative from Judges Guild that is based on this concept. I like it very much.

[giantgenesis]

Thank you for the answers!

Sadly, I thought that the “weapon length” rules gave advantage to longer weapons.

I’m currently thinking of a way to make non-small weapons (well everything other that dagger and hand axe) better, will still using the 1d6 damage.

I was thinking running a game with “new school” gamers, and they (the fighters) were all like, well, I will fight with a dagger and a shield!

Pretty annoying, at least for me.

[jeff]

Dec 20, 2013 9:18:22 GMT -6 giantgenesis said:

Thank you for the answers!

Sadly, I thought that the “weapon length” rules gave advantage to longer weapons.

I’m currently thinking of a way to make non-small weapons (well everything other that dagger and hand axe) better, will still using the 1d6 damage.

I was thinking running a game with “new school” gamers, and they (the fighters) were all like, well, I will fight with a dagger and a shield!

Pretty annoying, at least for me.

If you use the image provided above, then longer range weapons have an advantage of hitting earlier in the round.

They'll also change their tune when they find a two-handed magical sword, which gives them much more than mechanical benefits.

[Deleted]

Longer weapons do have an advantage on the first attack. Since in CHAINMAIL a hit equals a kill, this is a big deal.

It encourages the historical sequence; first attack is with the long weapon, then the long weapon is dropped and sidearms are used. See, among other things, "Spanish sword and buckler men vs Swiss pikemen."



"1st Round:
First blow is struck by —
a) the attacker, unless
b) the defender has a weapon which is two classes higher, or
c) the defender is fighting from above (castle wall, rampart, etc.).

2nd Round and thereafter:
First blow is struck by —
a) the side which struck first blow previously, unless
b) the opponent has a weapon which is two classes lower, or
c) the opponent is fighting from above.

Men attacked from the rear do not return a blow on the 1st round of melee
and automatically receive 2nd blow position on the 2nd round of melee. Men
attacked from the left flank automatically receive 2nd blow position on the 1st
round of melee."

If the fighters are using dagger and shield, their enemies will ALWAYS get the first attack if they have swords. I bet they'll get sick of that.

[Deleted]

Note also the "weapon class" from CHAINMAIL. So have ALL the bad guys use Maces, and then drop their Maces and switch to Hand Axes. The Mace is Class 3 vs a Dagger at Class 1, so the Bad Guys get first attack. Then, on the second round, a Hand Axe is class 2 to a Dagger Class 1, so first round is struck by "the side which struck the first blow previously."

I bet the PCs get tired of ALWAYS going after the bad guys.

Or for variety, use the Hit Chart from CHAINMAIL instead of D&D. Daggers suck.

[Deleted]

Dec 20, 2013 9:18:22 GMT -6 giantgenesis said:

Thank you for the answers!

Sadly, I thought that the “weapon length” rules gave advantage to longer weapons.

I’m currently thinking of a way to make non-small weapons (well everything other that dagger and hand axe) better, will still using the 1d6 damage.

I was thinking running a game with “new school” gamers, and they (the fighters) were all like, well, I will fight with a dagger and a shield!

Pretty annoying, at least for me.

Re: dagger fighters, you could use a simplified version of the Legend/Runequest Closing rules.

An Adventurer whose reach is two sizes less than their opponent, needs to actively close into close combat range, otherwise he remains unable to strike at them.

The opponent must decide whether he wishes to counter the closing action, or whether to strike at the closer instead.

If the opponent decides to counter the closing action, then the closer and the opponent both make an attack roll with highest roll determining the winner. The winner either closes or maintains distance as desired.

However, if the opponent decides to take an attack instead, then the opponent makes an attack roll and rolls damage if successful. Whether or not he is hit, the closer then succeeds in reaching close combat distance (assuming the hit he took didn't kill him).

Once within the reach of the opponent’s weapon, the advantage switches to the wielder of the shorter weapon. The opponent now cannot attack with his weapon until he re-opens the distance. Re-opening distance works the same as closing, the opponent can try to maintain close combat range or take a free attack and allow distance to be re-opened.

Reach: The weapon’s length, how far it can reach in combat. The size categories are Touch (T), Short (S), Medium (M), Long (L) and Very Long (VL).

Some Sample Reach Ratings: Dagger (S), Battle Axe (M), Long Sword (L), Lance (VL)

[giantgenesis]

Thank you all (gronanofsimmerya, urieal and ptingler) for you answers!

I'm not sure yet of what I'll do, but at least I have some ideas!