D&D 5E Getting Rid of Variable Weapon Damage- An Immodest Proposal

[Filthy Lucre]

There are a lot of things I vehemently dislike about Dungeon World, but I think, it tying damage to class rather than the weapon is one of the best things ever.

Fighter is good at fighting — with his bare fists, with a dagger, with a greatsword, doesn't matter. Weapon, though, determines what the character can do with it — oh, you're wielding a dagger? You can stab someone in close quarters with no retaliation — it's not like they can swing their sword in a 3ft wide tunnel, right? Oh, you're wielding a spear? You can keep the enemies at bay, but if they get close... Good luck. Etc, etc.

I hate almost everything about dungeon world EXCEPT that. Great minds think alike.

 

[CleverNickName]

But, in practice, you never actually swing the sword with only that overall competency. You swing it with a stat mod (which may be +0 or even negative). Those who are more fully trained also swing with feats and class abilities changing up what happens.

Looking at that competency alone isn't really an accurate picture. The total end result is what counts.

This. The importance of the d20 roll tends to get ignored in these discussions.

You're adding a random number between 1 and 20 to that attack bonus, and that's enough to swing nearly any throw. Sure, you can roll a d20 a few thousand times and you'll have an average result of 10.5. But in practice, at the table, you're rolling it only once, and the result probably isn't going to be a 10 or 11.

 

[Aldarc]

Sorry, just doorkicking this thread.

There are a lot of things I vehemently dislike about Dungeon World, but I think, it tying damage to class rather than the weapon is one of the best things ever.

Fighter is good at fighting — with his bare fists, with a dagger, with a greatsword, doesn't matter. Weapon, though, determines what the character can do with it — oh, you're wielding a dagger? You can stab someone in close quarters with no retaliation — it's not like they can swing their sword in a 3ft wide tunnel, right? Oh, you're wielding a spear? You can keep the enemies at bay, but if they get close... Good luck. Etc, etc.

At first I remember thinking that this was a silly idea when I encountered it in Dungeon World; however, the more that I thought about it, the more that I liked it for the reasons you overview here.

Edit: I'm still eagerly anticipating Snarf's spin-off thread.

 

[clearstream]

Today, I want to discuss one of the ideas that is so ingrained in Dungeons & Dragons that it often escapes notice, yet it is as hard-baked into the identity of Dungeons & Dragons as such concepts as the d20, classes, and levels.

I am, of course, talking about variable weapon damage. If you are blinking your eyes in shock and amazement at these words, with a look of incomprehension, this is the concept that different types of weapons do different amounts of damage, and that this is captured by giving different weapons different dice for damage.

For many that play D&D, this is just common sense! If I stab someone with a fork, or I whack them with a giant Conan-esque sword, those will have different effects on the sweet, sweet bags of experience points that I am trying to kill, right? And yet ... I will say that not only does it not have to be this way, it shouldn't be this way. I am going to point out why we shouldn't differentiate damage by weapon type. Moreover, I would like to propose an idea for a new and improved way to conceptualize weapon damage!


1. The History of Variable Weapon Damage in D&D.
If you want to know what God thinks of money, just look at the people he gave it to.

You thought you'd escape without a history lesson? DO YOU KNOW ME? My posts are as regular as the April showers, the soporific rhythms of a Ken Burns documentary, or the twee details of a Wes Anderson film. All that is past is prologue, and we're going to take a detour into ancient history that very few people will care about because of my extreme and incurable case of keyboard logorrhea. As always, this is an abbreviated history that simplifies things, and I suggest looking into this more if you're really interested!

In the beginning, there was formless void. And from the heat of this formless void, we had galaxies, and stars, and then, the Earth cooled. And then the dinosaurs came, but they got too big and fat, so they all died and they turned into oil. From these lovely petrochemicals, eventually arose primordial OD&D. OD&D was famously confused and confusing with its rules- notably, it based its combat system on Chainmail (which was a fantasy wargame). The original OD&D had all weapons doing d6 damage- and this came from Chainmail, which also did not differentiate weapon damage (Chainmail just had a certain number of hits-to-kill, and effectiveness of different weapons against different armor). However, by the time of the publication of the Greyhawk Supplement (1975), we see the first variable weapon damage with the alternative combat system- with both damage by weapons (daggers do d4, swords do d8) and damage against opponent types (different damages against different sizes of opponents). The question is ... why? What caused this change? Why did Gygax switch from static to variable weapon damage?

Because in CHAINMAIL different weapons have different numbers to kill. And I thought it would be cool if different weapons in D&D had different effects. Gary didn't like the idea, but I didn't give up, and ultimately he did. That's right, variable weapon damage is included in D&D because a 17 year old kid thought it was a neat idea and harassed the writer until he gave in.
I (expletive) you not.

That's Mike Monard, explaining why we have variable damage included. From that time, we basically have two forks in the road-

The Advanced D&D (1e) line, that continued with 2e, 3e, 4e, and 5e. Although the various versions mentioned complicated the differentiation of weapons in various ways (such as to hit v. AC, or heavy/light/finesses etc.), or simplified them (such as 4e's balancing) they all used the variable damage dice by weapon type.

On the other hand, when Holmes went to create Basic D&D by simplifying and clarifying OD&D, he went back to the d6 original d6 damage dice for all weapons. This continued in Moldvay/Cook (B/X) where all weapons did d6, unless the optional variable damage was used (p. B25). This continued through Mentzer's BECMI (which also had the optional rule, but IIRC recommended switching to variable weapon damage?).

In effect, the Basic line kept on with the static damage, while the "Advanced" (or mainstream) line kept the variable damage. And with the Basic line discontinued, so, too, went the static damage ... well, except for some retroclones.


2. A Brief Summary of Arguments for and against Variable Damage by Weapon Type.
Smoking cures all weight problems…eventually.

You might be saying to yourself, "Self, should I be worried that my lips are moving when I am engaged in an internal monologue?" I can't answer that question, but I can address something more relevant- why do people care about variable or static weapon damage?

Since the vast majority of people reading this are familiar with variable weapon damage, I'm going to be quick on the advantages- if you like "realism," (or simulationism) then, for certain values of that approach, it can seem more realistic. If you enjoy having more "choice points" for your character, then having weapons with different damage dice allows for yet another area that you can choose from (and/or optimize).

With that in mind, why even both with static damage for weapons? Why have a system where every weapon does the exact same damage- you know, d6 ... or d12 (THE KING OF DICE!).

Well, the first reason is that differentiating weapons by damage dice is often arbitrary. I don't want to bore you with long digressions into combat simulations, but the received wisdom about the effectiveness of different weapons by damage dice is often more gamist that simulationist. Which is a fancy way of saying that some weapons that are truly effective in some situations (like a spear against a sword) are simply discounted in terms of damage dice. The actual advantages of most weapons are incredibly situational- dependent far more on the armor of your opponent, the weapon your opponent is using, whether your opponent is mounted or on foot, whether you are skilled with that weapon, etc. Most weapons do a sufficient bit of "killing" when in the hands of a skilled person. Moreover, given the ... well, let's say the interesting nature of hit points, it's unclear why we are using differentiated dice at all.

The second reason is that it allows for better weapon-choice for a conception of a character. While variable weapon damage presents choices, as many of you know, you quickly run into the Rapier/Model T problem. Famously, you could have any color Model T so long as it was black. In a similar fashion, there might be a lot of weapon choices out there, but there also seems to be a lot of Dex-builds with rapiers. There are only a few "real" choices out there in any given category (I take this basic dex build, I take this with basic str build, I take this with PAM build, and so on). If you have an idea for a character using a "cool weapon" that isn't optimal and doesn't have a supported feat, you're often outta luck without the DM's allowance of homebrew. Static weapon damage avoids this issue- your character does the same amount of damage, and you can pick whatever weapon makes the most sense in your head for this character.

Now, I am sure that people can (and will!) come up with even more arguments, and more details for the arguments ... both pro and con, in the comments, but that's a good nutshell.


3. What if Weapon Damage was a Function of the Wielder, not the Weapon?
To steal ideas from one person is plagiarism; to steal from many is research.

So now we get to the important part (SO SOON?). My immodest proposal. I think we've all seen or read fiction about some awesome character who is really good with some sort of non-standard weapon; heck, Oddjob could kill you with his hat. Why not design a weapon system around the skill of the wielder, and not the weapon used? In a way, this would be similar to the way cantrips "scale" with level. But ... better. Because cantrips suck. Ahem. Sorry, that's a different post.

I'm spitballing here, so I hope people improve on this in the comments, but the basic gist would be something like this (for melee only, but I'm sure people will come up with something similar for missile weapons)-

Weapons start with a basic damage die. Like, d6.
If you state that it's a two-handed weapon, you get a bonus to each damage die (+1 or +2) to make up for loss of shield.

Certain classes or abilities within classes (for martial classes) will increase the damage die for wielding a weapon- d8, d10, d12.
In addition, there would be feats that would also allow you to increase the amount of damage.

In effect, all weapons will do the same damage, but you can choose martial classes, abilities within classes, or feats that allow you to increase the damage die of the weapon. In that way, you can ensure that players can both choose weapons that they think matches their character conception the best, while also allowing meaningful choice between increasing the damage die and other abilities; moreover, you can also make it such that martial characters have significant advantages, which is something that is lacking in 5e currently.


And that's it- I'm sure other people will have much better ideas; that's what the comments are for. So have at it!

Good post. I wish I could write so engagingly

Possible Topics for Discussion

PLEASE NOTE- Static weapon damage means you roll the same die, like a d6, for all weapons. It doesn't mean that you do a standard amount of damage with no rolls.

A. Do you prefer variable weapon damage or static weapon damage?

I'm neutral. Either is okay for me.

C. Would you like a system that made variable weapon damage dependent on the wielder, and not the weapon?

From my observation of play, 5th edition has something like that in it already. As you point out "While variable weapon damage presents choices, as many of you know, you quickly run into the Rapier/Model T problem." The only word in that I'll quibble is "problem." What we mostly see is:

Simple melee = 1d6
Rogue, or Martial with shield = 1d8 ("martial classes) will increase the damage die for wielding a weapon- d8, d10, d12")
Martial without shield but with reach = 1d10
Martial without shield or reach = 1d12 ("you get a bonus to each damage die (+1 or +2) to make up for loss of shield")

So one take is to notice that it's just the locating of the parameter. Instead of it being Fighter = d8 damage die. It's Fighter = martial weapon proficiency = d8 damage die (+step increase for loss of shield). 5th then offers class features and feats that players can choose or exercise control over, that give certain wielders increases to their damage. Rage. Dueling.

Thus I would say that the premise is not quite hitting its mark: in 5th edition weapon damage is down to the wielder. But 5th is scattering these factors around more, and that obfuscates for sure. So a question I might add to yours is

D. What might we gain that is worth having, by aggregating damage step more clearly and simply under each class?

 

[clearstream]

The fact that there is no correlation between skill/attack rolls and damage output has always bugged me.

You roll a 19 to hit? Awesome! Too bad you rolled a 1 on your damage. Better luck next round.

A martial will have an ability modifier on their attack roll, and that same modifier will almost always apply to their damage roll.

So its - you rolled 13 + 3 PB + 3 modifier = 19 to hit. You rolled 1 + 3 modifier = 4 damage.

PB is only on one side, but wielder level comes back into damage, in features like rage. I think they left that parameter-space deliberately open, so that they could fill it with such features.

So it's really - you rolled 13 + 3 PB + 3 modifier = 19 to hit. You rolled 1 + 2 dueling + 3 modifier = 6 damage.

 

[clearstream]

What if we just used broad weapon “styles” that come in simple and martial varieties. Single weapons are d6 simple or d8 martial and can be paired with a shield or open hand. Light weapons are d4 simple or d6 martial and can be dual-wielded. Heavy weapons are d10 simple or d12 martial and require two hands. Polearms are d8 simple or d10 martial, require two hands, and have increased reach.

Your class determines which “styles” you can use martial. For example, maybe fighters and barbarians can use martial weapons of any style. Paladins can use martial single, heavy, or polearm weapons, but only simple light weapons. Rangers can use martial single, light, or polearm weapons, but only simple heavy weapons. Rogues can use martial single or light weapons but only simple heavy and polearm weapons. Clerics and druids can only use martial single weapons or simple weapons of any other type. Wizards and sorcerers can only use simple weapons.

Smart post. Am I right in supposing that your line of thought anticipated mine (see #94 above) and you just make the case with more subtlety?

[Actually, I see I am probably wrong. Still a good post. What do you think of my #97?]

 

[clearstream]

Today, I want to discuss one of the ideas that is so ingrained in Dungeons & Dragons that it often escapes notice, yet it is as hard-baked into the identity of Dungeons & Dragons as such concepts as the d20, classes, and levels.

I am, of course, talking about variable weapon damage. If you are blinking your eyes in shock and amazement at these words, with a look of incomprehension, this is the concept that different types of weapons do different amounts of damage, and that this is captured by giving different weapons different dice for damage.

For many that play D&D, this is just common sense! If I stab someone with a fork, or I whack them with a giant Conan-esque sword, those will have different effects on the sweet, sweet bags of experience points that I am trying to kill, right? And yet ... I will say that not only does it not have to be this way, it shouldn't be this way. I am going to point out why we shouldn't differentiate damage by weapon type. Moreover, I would like to propose an idea for a new and improved way to conceptualize weapon damage!


1. The History of Variable Weapon Damage in D&D.
If you want to know what God thinks of money, just look at the people he gave it to.

You thought you'd escape without a history lesson? DO YOU KNOW ME? My posts are as regular as the April showers, the soporific rhythms of a Ken Burns documentary, or the twee details of a Wes Anderson film. All that is past is prologue, and we're going to take a detour into ancient history that very few people will care about because of my extreme and incurable case of keyboard logorrhea. As always, this is an abbreviated history that simplifies things, and I suggest looking into this more if you're really interested!

In the beginning, there was formless void. And from the heat of this formless void, we had galaxies, and stars, and then, the Earth cooled. And then the dinosaurs came, but they got too big and fat, so they all died and they turned into oil. From these lovely petrochemicals, eventually arose primordial OD&D. OD&D was famously confused and confusing with its rules- notably, it based its combat system on Chainmail (which was a fantasy wargame). The original OD&D had all weapons doing d6 damage- and this came from Chainmail, which also did not differentiate weapon damage (Chainmail just had a certain number of hits-to-kill, and effectiveness of different weapons against different armor). However, by the time of the publication of the Greyhawk Supplement (1975), we see the first variable weapon damage with the alternative combat system- with both damage by weapons (daggers do d4, swords do d8) and damage against opponent types (different damages against different sizes of opponents). The question is ... why? What caused this change? Why did Gygax switch from static to variable weapon damage?

Because in CHAINMAIL different weapons have different numbers to kill. And I thought it would be cool if different weapons in D&D had different effects. Gary didn't like the idea, but I didn't give up, and ultimately he did. That's right, variable weapon damage is included in D&D because a 17 year old kid thought it was a neat idea and harassed the writer until he gave in.
I (expletive) you not.

That's Mike Monard, explaining why we have variable damage included. From that time, we basically have two forks in the road-

The Advanced D&D (1e) line, that continued with 2e, 3e, 4e, and 5e. Although the various versions mentioned complicated the differentiation of weapons in various ways (such as to hit v. AC, or heavy/light/finesses etc.), or simplified them (such as 4e's balancing) they all used the variable damage dice by weapon type.

On the other hand, when Holmes went to create Basic D&D by simplifying and clarifying OD&D, he went back to the d6 original d6 damage dice for all weapons. This continued in Moldvay/Cook (B/X) where all weapons did d6, unless the optional variable damage was used (p. B25). This continued through Mentzer's BECMI (which also had the optional rule, but IIRC recommended switching to variable weapon damage?).

In effect, the Basic line kept on with the static damage, while the "Advanced" (or mainstream) line kept the variable damage. And with the Basic line discontinued, so, too, went the static damage ... well, except for some retroclones.


2. A Brief Summary of Arguments for and against Variable Damage by Weapon Type.
Smoking cures all weight problems…eventually.

You might be saying to yourself, "Self, should I be worried that my lips are moving when I am engaged in an internal monologue?" I can't answer that question, but I can address something more relevant- why do people care about variable or static weapon damage?

Since the vast majority of people reading this are familiar with variable weapon damage, I'm going to be quick on the advantages- if you like "realism," (or simulationism) then, for certain values of that approach, it can seem more realistic. If you enjoy having more "choice points" for your character, then having weapons with different damage dice allows for yet another area that you can choose from (and/or optimize).

With that in mind, why even both with static damage for weapons? Why have a system where every weapon does the exact same damage- you know, d6 ... or d12 (THE KING OF DICE!).

Well, the first reason is that differentiating weapons by damage dice is often arbitrary. I don't want to bore you with long digressions into combat simulations, but the received wisdom about the effectiveness of different weapons by damage dice is often more gamist that simulationist. Which is a fancy way of saying that some weapons that are truly effective in some situations (like a spear against a sword) are simply discounted in terms of damage dice. The actual advantages of most weapons are incredibly situational- dependent far more on the armor of your opponent, the weapon your opponent is using, whether your opponent is mounted or on foot, whether you are skilled with that weapon, etc. Most weapons do a sufficient bit of "killing" when in the hands of a skilled person. Moreover, given the ... well, let's say the interesting nature of hit points, it's unclear why we are using differentiated dice at all.

The second reason is that it allows for better weapon-choice for a conception of a character. While variable weapon damage presents choices, as many of you know, you quickly run into the Rapier/Model T problem. Famously, you could have any color Model T so long as it was black. In a similar fashion, there might be a lot of weapon choices out there, but there also seems to be a lot of Dex-builds with rapiers. There are only a few "real" choices out there in any given category (I take this basic dex build, I take this with basic str build, I take this with PAM build, and so on). If you have an idea for a character using a "cool weapon" that isn't optimal and doesn't have a supported feat, you're often outta luck without the DM's allowance of homebrew. Static weapon damage avoids this issue- your character does the same amount of damage, and you can pick whatever weapon makes the most sense in your head for this character.

Now, I am sure that people can (and will!) come up with even more arguments, and more details for the arguments ... both pro and con, in the comments, but that's a good nutshell.


3. What if Weapon Damage was a Function of the Wielder, not the Weapon?
To steal ideas from one person is plagiarism; to steal from many is research.

So now we get to the important part (SO SOON?). My immodest proposal. I think we've all seen or read fiction about some awesome character who is really good with some sort of non-standard weapon; heck, Oddjob could kill you with his hat. Why not design a weapon system around the skill of the wielder, and not the weapon used? In a way, this would be similar to the way cantrips "scale" with level. But ... better. Because cantrips suck. Ahem. Sorry, that's a different post.

I'm spitballing here, so I hope people improve on this in the comments, but the basic gist would be something like this (for melee only, but I'm sure people will come up with something similar for missile weapons)-

Weapons start with a basic damage die. Like, d6.
If you state that it's a two-handed weapon, you get a bonus to each damage die (+1 or +2) to make up for loss of shield.

Certain classes or abilities within classes (for martial classes) will increase the damage die for wielding a weapon- d8, d10, d12.
In addition, there would be feats that would also allow you to increase the amount of damage.

In effect, all weapons will do the same damage, but you can choose martial classes, abilities within classes, or feats that allow you to increase the damage die of the weapon. In that way, you can ensure that players can both choose weapons that they think matches their character conception the best, while also allowing meaningful choice between increasing the damage die and other abilities; moreover, you can also make it such that martial characters have significant advantages, which is something that is lacking in 5e currently.


And that's it- I'm sure other people will have much better ideas; that's what the comments are for. So have at it!

Possible Topics for Discussion

PLEASE NOTE- Static weapon damage means you roll the same die, like a d6, for all weapons. It doesn't mean that you do a standard amount of damage with no rolls.

A. Do you prefer variable weapon damage or static weapon damage?
B. Would we be so uncaring about cutting trees down if they could scream? Maybe, if they screamed all the time, and for no good reason?
C. Would you like a system that made variable weapon damage dependent on the wielder, and not the weapon?

Spitballing, and partly criticising my own post (!) I believe what's at stake isn't variability, but the design assumption that reduced damage step is the right price to pay for weapon features. An example is reach: the obvious design motive is game balance. 5e and DW price most weapon features at 1 damage, which also gives those features parity for trading them off with one another. Some features are baseline (close) while others have negative costs (two-handed, heavy).

E) How might we pay for weapon features, in something other than damage variability?
Just for the sake of putting out some ideas

• One option is to narrow weapon proficiencies, so that wielder must be proficient in expressly halberd to add their proficiency bonus to halberd. Martial classes start with N weapon proficiencies of choice, and non-martials have a couple of basic weapon proficiencies locked in?
• Another option is cost in world currency, which of course only matters to the extent that currency matters. Make currency matter?
• Another option is balance-to-zero, so that every weapon has demerits matching its merits. Too forced? This might be basic to good balance, even if alleviating it via other options.

You can see the line of thought. The insight is that what's at stake isn't variable damage: it's pricing weapon features in damage.

 

[deganawida]

I was checking out OSE and Dolmenwood, thinking it might be a better fit than 2nd edition and Birthright for my family, and put on a Dolmenwood stream in the background while I read and thought and wrote.

Why is this relevant, you may (probably) ask? Well, in the below video, at about 35 minutes, the GM starts talking about his non-variable damage system. It’s based off of Hit Die. Not only that, but some weapons have the Deadly property, which is like Advantage for damage. Really elegant solution, I thought, that might add some more discussion to how to differentiate non-variable weapon damage weapon types (say that five times fast).

Not timestamped, sorry

 

[LoganRan]

Sure, overall competency, but my wizard is just as good at swinging a sword with that competency as aiming a spell. Seems odd.

I think we could have used a "teeny bit more" more complexity by keeping the "combat" and "magic" (or whatever they were called) PB's from the playtest, specific to each class.

Agreed.

Of the many things I dislike about 5E, the "One Proficiency Bonus to Rule Them All" paradigm is right up at the top of the list.
I would have had three categories for proficiency advancement: Combat, Magic and Skills.

 

[The Hierophant]

For a B/X type game I am a big fan of damage by class, probably following HD type.

I want my wizard to wield a sword but I am happy with him doing less damage than a fighter wielding the same sword. That makes sense.

But we do need to do things like increase damage for two handed weapons to compensate for the loss of shield* and add in reach weapons (the spear in particular needs more love).

* similarly for armour I favour simple categories of light, medium and heavy and leave all the fluff to the description. He,ps get rid of some of the anachronisms and means we can have different time milieus modelled. Shields need to be much more effective though. The move to +2 in 5e was a step in the right direction, perhaps their bonus should be based on class as well. Something for another topic though.