Damage as SFX

[Quartz]

I'm thinking out loud here...

One of the key abstractions in D20 is that a hit is not simply a blow but a telling blow.

As such, can we not say that weapons are simply a special effect for doing damage? (A la Hero)

So how about if all weapons did the same damage? Don't laugh, there's precedent in Warhammer FRP.

But that's not quite what I have in mind; I'm thinking about weapons doing the same damage as your current class HD. If you're taking a non-combat-oriented class like wizard, your telling blows are feeble and do d4 + bonuses; if you're taking a class like fighter, your telling blows are mighty and do d10 + bonuses. Monsters do 1d8 + bonuses, as per their HD. Monks no longer have a special table, they just get a damage bonus - looking at the table, the average is Class Level/3, rounded, but I'd suggest simplfying to Class Level/2 rounded down to mitigate against losing the higher maximal damage.

We further abstract it by making all weapons only crit on a 20, and the +1 to +5 (or more for Epic) enhancements also denote the crit range, so a +5 weapon crits on a 16-20. This helps justify the huge cost increases going from +1 to +5.

Do note that the base damage of the weapon is quickly surpassed by all the various bonuses (Str, magic, etc), so this won't adversely affect higher level characters.
BAB stays the same, thus Power Attack stays the same. Nuff said.
Weapon specific feats can stay the same.

The real advantage is that it helps the GM significantly by cutting out having to look up damage when running NPCs and when PCs have weapons the properties of which they are ignorant or when PCs improvise weapons or pick up one along the way. A broken chair? A 2H sword? A scythe? All the same.

What do you think?

 

[Henrix]

I don't think most players will find it fun if their precious greatsword only is as useful in combat as a en empty tankard. :\

 

[Quartz]

Good point: we need to maintain the lethal / non-lethal distinction.

 

[Darklone]

I think D&Ds weapons are easy enough to distinguish yet they are different enough to make them interesting. Most other RPGs I know are much more complicated.

 

[Quartz]

I'm not sure I agree. At the moment, there are many weapons people simply don't take, like the shortspear, historically one of the more common weapons. Remember the duel in Troy?

And it makes things so much easier for the GM and player both. No more looking up the base damage, no more looking up the crit range; everything's standardised. While d20's no Rolemaster, it's still got a lot of info to absorb.

 

[Tonguez]

I don't think most players will find it fun if their precious greatsword only is as useful in combat as a en empty tankard. :\

I would!
I love Jackie Chan movies because of the way he can use buckets, ladders, bicycles and water melons as lethal weapons the ability of a Fighter to pick up a tankard and know that it will be an effective tool should be something that can be done.
Let the Greatsword give damage bonuses but as they say

"a sticks as good as a sword when it comes to a poke in the eye"

 

[Sravoff]

Weapons as special Effects.

It has been done, and done pretty well. It used a feat system, where your basic "combat proficiency" feat gave most weapons the following statistics. 1d6 damage 20-20x2.

As you took more feats, these statistic increased.

Here is the thread. And post 90 has the most recently updated rules.

 

[Quartz]

Ooh! Ooh! Ooh! It's time to go to bed, so I'll look at that later, but it looks good.

 

[awayfarer]

I'm sorry, I keep looking at the title to this thread and thinking it says "Damage as SEX" and tryng not to imagine what that would be like.

Anyhow, I think I'd rather keep different weapons. I like the variety and I don't like the idea that a thimble could cause as much damage as a hatchet.

 

[Vrecknidj]

Change is bad.

Dave