Advantage on Damage Rolls

[Quickleaf]

What sort of effect would this have mathematically? I've been thinking about ways to make physical damage types more relevant (bludgeoning, piercing, slashing) but I find Vulnerable to be too big a swing. Perhaps against heavy armor, bludgeoning damage gets advantage, medium armor piercing, and light/no armor slashing. Obviously this would be a lot more fiddly modifiers to keep track of, but I'm just speculating.

You can use this site to speed up calculating the odds: http://rumkin.com/reference/dnd/diestats.php

For 1d4 damage, the average is 2.5. With advantage it increases to 3.13.

For 1d6 damage, the average is 3.5. With advantage it increases to 4.47.

For 1d8 damage, the average is 4.5. With advantage it increases to 5.81.

For 1d10 damage, the average is 5.5. With advantage it increases to 7.5

For 2d6 damage, the average is 7. With advantage it increases to 9.34.

As you can see, the greater the damage die, the more value that granting advantage on a damage roll provides.

 

[ClaytonCross]

Sure and 1d12 is 6.5 increased to 8.49 with advantage which is slightly different than only re-rolling low dice.

My point is that across the board the +2 damage from The Dueling Fighting Style is better.

 

[jasper]

"why yes yes dungeon master. I would love to roll damage die twice. " Jasper droned.

 

[Blue]

Thanks guys. I figured it would be more hassle than it's worth. I just wish weapon types made more of an impact.

Just curious, but why? I'm not asking in a dismissive way, I'm trying to jive it with my own observations.

In theory it sounds like it could add interest, but the practice didn't work out like that. In 3.x (and I understand PF) a weapons based character just carried multiple weapons of different materials to be able to get around DR. So the game result had little change since characters would be able to switch to the appropriate weapon, but everyone looked like a pack-rat and had to carry a bunch otherwise be randomly nerfed at what they did. In this case it would be changing to different type of damage - hmm, do I use my maul or my greataxe?

In 5e, with less resilience on magic weapons and less weapon-specific feats, it seems even more to "just carry a bunch of weapons and pull out the correct one".

 

[Aldarc]

Indeed, but this also wouldn't be a feat, just a feature of the game. Would it be a dramatic shift in damage? Would it be OP with Sneak Attack, or should it only work on the weapon damage dice? I'm curious what people think.

Attach it to Inspiration?

 

[ZenBear]

Just curious, but why? I'm not asking in a dismissive way, I'm trying to jive it with my own observations.

I like weapon damage being relevant for the sake of realism and uniqueness between weapons. You bring up a fair point, but I’m sure plenty people are fans of the Witcher series and don’t mind carrying multiple weapons to deal with different threats. A few ways to mitigate the pack rat mentality would be stricter enforcement of encumbrance, regulation of magic weapons and weapon specialization feats like in 3.5. It would also incentivize training in Knowledge skills for your character to know which damage type to use. My brother’s character is using a magic longsword and when they fought skeletons he asked if he could swap to a mordhau grip to deal bludgeoning damage, but he failed the Religion check so I said no. It was a clever idea though, and kind of undermines my point about weapon uniqueness, but oh well.

 

[GMMichael]

But since it's trivial to pull out the right weapon that would be a major buff, throwing off the balance between classes.

How is having the right weapon a trivial thing? First, you must actually possess the weapon (this requires foresight or luck). Next, it has to be accessible - on your person somewhere (which requires using the right storage methods). If you've passed those hurdles, you still need to commit up to two actions - stowing a weapon and drawing another - to getting your major-buff-weapon into play. What's your opponent doing during those two actions?

Go ahead and just drop a weapon to save an action - and see who kicks it into a gutter, or which goblin runs up and steals it.

Also, if a player wants to just carry around a different weapon for each vulnerability, the damage advantage he gains should be offset by the attack disadvantage that comes from having a bunch of weapons hanging off his body.

Thanks guys. I figured it would be more hassle than it's worth. I just wish weapon types made more of an impact.

1) I'll forgive the pun.
2) The DM can grant advantage (legally) anytime she wants. So there's no reason why using a bow against a monstrous pincushion or a warhammer against a glass golem couldn't get normal advantage. You don't need a special rule for it, just a situational advantage. It's not a stretch to provide the option of using advantage on the damage die instead if the situation involves causing damage. And it's not a stretch, from there, to say that rerolling a d12 or smaller is trivial, so why not just maximize that die's damage?

 

[WaterRabbit]

I like weapon damage being relevant for the sake of realism and uniqueness between weapons. You bring up a fair point, but I’m sure plenty people are fans of the Witcher series and don’t mind carrying multiple weapons to deal with different threats. A few ways to mitigate the pack rat mentality would be stricter enforcement of encumbrance, regulation of magic weapons and weapon specialization feats like in 3.5. It would also incentivize training in Knowledge skills for your character to know which damage type to use. My brother’s character is using a magic longsword and when they fought skeletons he asked if he could swap to a mordhau grip to deal bludgeoning damage, but he failed the Religion check so I said no. It was a clever idea though, and kind of undermines my point about weapon uniqueness, but oh well.

Yes, but you should have reduced the damage die as well by one because he was using the sword inefficiently, thus creating the trade off.

 

[Blue]

How is having the right weapon a trivial thing? First, you must actually possess the weapon (this requires foresight or luck). Next, it has to be accessible - on your person somewhere (which requires using the right storage methods). If you've passed those hurdles, you still need to commit up to two actions - stowing a weapon and drawing another - to getting your major-buff-weapon into play. What's your opponent doing during those two actions?

I know of no DM that regularly stops purchased from the PHB. Having the weapon is trivial. Costs are also not a big deal past 1st level.

If the game rewards having weapons of various types, weapon wielders will very quickly learn about it and take care to have a selection.

The weight of most weapons is not a big deal in terms of encumbrance, no penalties for carrying them. Heavy weapons require STR, so the weight isn't a big deal. Most finesse weapons don't weigh much.

A character gets free item swap every action. Just don't draw until you know what you are deal with. No actions. Dropping a weapon to pull out another also takes no actions - and if you're dropping it it should be because you don't need it until the end of the combat. Worst case is sheathing at the end of one round and pulling out a different the next - that removes your ability to have a reaction attack, but still is no actions.

All of these are trivially solved. Not just theoretically, but there's a long history of exactly this happening but with different weapon materials (silver, cold iron, adamantine) in D&D 3.x and Pathfinder. And those games are harder to do this than 5e because they rely more on magic weapons and they have more weapon-specific feats (vs. 5e'sweapon category feats)

Also, if a player wants to just carry around a different weapon for each vulnerability, the damage advantage he gains should be offset by the attack disadvantage that comes from having a bunch of weapons hanging off his body.

What I'm hearing is "we already have an encumbrance system, but I want to put in place another subsystem that isn't balanced unless I put in another set of restrictions on top of that for the same thing."

 

[toucanbuzz]

Wanted to be clear, not saying don't do it, just realize you're going to slow down the game a bit until players get used to it. AD&D failed on this rule because weapon types were so complex they required a chart to cross-reference. In my brainstorming on weapon types, people talked about art and literature from medieval times where a warrior carried multiple weapons: e.g. dagger, short sword, big sword, and mace. I thought it'd be neat if we could make weapon choice more realistic.

And we can, but the further you go, the harder it is to work into the game without the #1 killer of combat excitement: delay.

For example, a dagger is a poor weapon against a warrior in plate with sword. Equally skilled, you're probably going to lose. But put that same dagger close up, in a grappling struggle, and the dagger is great for finding the weak spots where the armor ties and hinges together. Do you give the weapon advantage on damage when used in a grapple against plate, or any armor, and what about no armor? A flail is an unwieldy weapon, but against a shield, it is designed to wrap around and make crushing contact. Do you give it advantage against shield users only? Even if you do (and AD&D did, bonus vs. shields), will your players remember it, and will you remember it if your monsters use particular weapons? What about no armor at all? Does it make sense my weapon does more damage when you're wearing plate armor but less if you're wearing only your underwear? Do we give damage advantage to all weapons against those who have no natural armor at all? Does even 1 point of natural armor count, and what about monsters? Does the skin of a giant lizard act as leather armor, or do our rules only apply to manufactured armors and weapons? What about an animated statue with a mace weapon, does it count as a mace or because it's carved does it not?

You get the idea, one question leads to another and another. And the last thing you want to be doing is arguing with your players. So if you do implement it, and it's a laudable goal to reward players for making a conscious choice on weapons, keep it simple. Make a list of weapons that deserve bonuses and run this by your players and the gaming community. Don't include monsters. Decide how you want to handle unarmored situations (and what counts as unarmored).