Advantage on Damage Rolls

[Bawylie]

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).

It really does seem like bludgeoning, piercing, and slashing could be condensed down to “weapon damage” without any major disruption because there are so few instances in which damage type is relevant.

 

[BookBarbarian]

It really does seem like bludgeoning, piercing, and slashing could be condensed down to “weapon damage” without any major disruption because there are so few instances in which damage type is relevant.

There are 8 creatures with Bludgeoning Resistance in the MM, 2 with vulnerability. 6 with resistance to slashing and 2 with flat out Immunity. And 10 with resistance to piercing. Those numbers are small compared to the non-weapon types

But fall damage is Bludgeoning. Wouldn't make sense call that Weapon damage.

 

[Bawylie]

There are 8 creatures with Bludgeoning Resistance in the MM, 2 with vulnerability. 6 with resistance to slashing and 2 with flat out Immunity. And 10 with resistance to piercing. Those numbers are small compared to the non-weapon types

But fall damage is Bludgeoning. Wouldn't make sense call that Weapon damage.

You could call it falling damage. I call it “slammage” myself and apply it to collisions of all sorts. I mean what if you fell on something pointy?

Nevertheless, the damage type is underutilized to the point that it feels vestigial. I wonder if a grim-n-gritty rules set might rethink the relationship between damage types and armor types.

 

[BookBarbarian]

You could call it falling damage. I call it “slammage” myself and apply it to collisions of all sorts. I mean what if you fell on something pointy?

That would make it so Raging Barbarians no longer had Resistance against fall damage. Not necessarily a bad thing, but certainly a difference.

Edit: though I do love a grapple and jump off the cliff as much as the next guy.

Nevertheless, the damage type is underutilized to the point that it feels vestigial.

Definitely.

I wonder if a grim-n-gritty rules set might rethink the relationship between damage types and armor types.

That would be interesting.

 

[GMMichael]

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)

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."

All of this defense of D&D, as it has traditionally been played, is fine and dandy. The OP, you'll notice, is asking for something non-traditional. So you might have to step outside the box for a minute or two with this one.

I have not, for the record, allowed a PC to walk around with a silver weapon, a +1 weapon, a cold steel weapon, a powerpuff weapon, and a good-aligned weapon. Nor will I, unless that PC has a mule with several weapons mounted on it for easy access. Which brings us to the argument that you're hearing.

An encumbrance system (if you're opting against using common sense) that prevents characters from looking like Atlas isn't unbalanced. It's just practical. You might have noticed that old D&D editions (and probably 5e) have special rules for two-weapon fighting. This is because the designers recognized that carrying too large/too many weapons is not practical. Their rules for controlling the problem start at weapon/item slots and end before the inventory system not because it's a trivial matter, but because they didn't want to add an entire chapter dedicated to weapon and container dimensions.

 

[Blue]

All of this defense of D&D, as it has traditionally been played, is fine and dandy. The OP, you'll notice, is asking for something non-traditional. So you might have to step outside the box for a minute or two with this one.

I'm not "defending D&D" - I was against what was happening. I'm talking about the reality of what has happened regularly in the past with this type of setup.

I have not, for the record, allowed a PC to walk around with a silver weapon, a +1 weapon, a cold steel weapon, a powerpuff weapon, and a good-aligned weapon. Nor will I, unless that PC has a mule with several weapons mounted on it for easy access.

I'm glad that you didn't but that's not actually the case with what the OP is presenting, because all of the weapons are commonly available. Do your shopkeepers cut characters off from buying a third weapon?

Would you would disallow a high STR tank from carrying a longsword (slashing, 3 lbs), a flail (bludgeoning, 2 lbs) and a rapier (piercing, 2 lbs). Mind you that's lighter then some two handed weapons.

An encumbrance system (if you're opting against using common sense) that prevents characters from looking like Atlas isn't unbalanced. It's just practical.

Please note that the weapons given out by classes directly contradict what you are claiming as "common sense". For example, explicitly by the book a 1st level barbarian could have a great axe (7 lbs), two hand axes (4 lbs total), and four javelins (8 lbs total) - seven weapons totally 19 lbs. Actually, if I wanted to cherry pick they could have a pike (18 lbs), a great club (10 lbs) and those four non-negotiable javelins (8 lbs total) for 36 lbs of weaponry, but I figure the basics made my point without reaching.

So design intent is clearly having those weapon, and there's nothing about them being inaccessible or hard to get at for that.

I think that pretty much puts paid that to the point that if you want to restrict it, then it's you adding in another layer of restrictions, not anything core the the rules of the game.

 

[WaterRabbit]

I'm not "defending D&D" - I was against what was happening. I'm talking about the reality of what has happened regularly in the past with this type of setup.



I'm glad that you didn't but that's not actually the case with what the OP is presenting, because all of the weapons are commonly available. Do your shopkeepers cut characters off from buying a third weapon?

Would you would disallow a high STR tank from carrying a longsword (slashing, 3 lbs), a flail (bludgeoning, 2 lbs) and a rapier (piercing, 2 lbs). Mind you that's lighter then some two handed weapons.



Please note that the weapons given out by classes directly contradict what you are claiming as "common sense". For example, explicitly by the book a 1st level barbarian could have a great axe (7 lbs), two hand axes (4 lbs total), and four javelins (8 lbs total) - seven weapons totally 19 lbs. Actually, if I wanted to cherry pick they could have a pike (18 lbs), a great club (10 lbs) and those four non-negotiable javelins (8 lbs total) for 36 lbs of weaponry, but I figure the basics made my point without reaching.

So design intent is clearly having those weapon, and there's nothing about them being inaccessible or hard to get at for that.

I think that pretty much puts paid that to the point that if you want to restrict it, then it's you adding in another layer of restrictions, not anything core the the rules of the game.

As I DM I would challenge you to show me how you could carry all of those weapons and draw the weapon you needed and more importantly fight with all of the other weapons festooned on you.

As a general rule, I do not allow a character to have more than three weapons on their person (include a shield as a weapon). As for pikes, go ahead and carry a pike or a halberd on a long march through the wilderness. Now add a second and see how that works for you.

Encumbrance is more than just weight. It is also about bulk and annoyance. It doesn't matter how much a person can carry, some things just get in the way.

A bag of holding is what changes the equation which can essentially act as a golf club bag for weapons. Trying to carry seven weapons that are not tiny at one time -- yep that would be disallowed or you could expect to have a few levels of exhaustion on your character all of the time.

 

[Sorcerers Apprentice]

Allowing re-rolls of 1s and 2s on damage dice is another way to boost average damage, and it's a lot less fiddly to resolve than advantage on damage rolls.

 

[Prakriti]

Why not just add your Proficiency Bonus to damage? Less dice rolling that way. A flat +2 at level 1.

Or if you like some extra dice rolling, but not too much, just make the bonus damage a d4, and have it increase at the same rate as the Proficiency Bonus. So at level 1, a longsword does an extra 1d4 damage against light armor. At level 5, it does an extra 2d4, etc. Then everyone can have "extra damage" d4s in their dice pile, just like everyone has an extra d20 for advantage and rogues have extra d6s for Sneak Attack.

 

[Blue]

As I DM I would challenge you to show me how you could carry all of those weapons and draw the weapon you needed and more importantly fight with all of the other weapons festooned on you.

If you want to say "the base weapon load given out by classes at 1st level is a ridiculous load to carry and can't be used" that's fine for your game, but don't try to pretend that is a actual rule of the game. Trying to disqualify someone's general discussion because of either your own house rule doesn't fly.

As a general rule, I do not allow a character to have more than three weapons on their person (include a shield as a weapon). As for pikes, go ahead and carry a pike or a halberd on a long march through the wilderness. Now add a second and see how that works for you.

Let's see how many of the 1st level weapon-focused classes you would disqualify.

Barbarians - 6-7 weapons
Fighter - 3-5 weapons/shields.
Paladin - 3-7 weapons
Ranger - 3 weapons - woo, they fit!
Rogues - 4 weapons

Demonstrably, the designers don't agree with you.

Encumbrance is more than just weight. It is also about bulk and annoyance. It doesn't matter how much a person can carry, some things just get in the way.

Yet the designers went for a lot more weapons. And didn't include any of the rules about "getting in the way". I can't talk abotu why, because it's a heroic game, or not wanting to clutter up the rules and add complexity, all I can do is definitely point out that starting characters are expected to be able to carry and use up to seven weapon.

A bag of holding is what changes the equation which can essentially act as a golf club bag for weapons. Trying to carry seven weapons that are not tiny at one time -- yep that would be disallowed or you could expect to have a few levels of exhaustion on your character all of the time.

Again, designer are explicitly fine with seven weapons, and implicitly fine with any number that fits encumbrance. You curtaining it at less is a house rule. Even if you don't recognize it as a house rule.

I'm all for house rules to adjust the game for a table, but using it as a foundation to try to prove your point in a general discussion that includes other tables isn't useful.