Horwath
Legend
well, fixed weapon damage would not be that bad, if we add that every point your attack roll is over targets AC is 1 bonus damage.
-
Monstrous Menagerie II: Hordes & Heroes has a launch date! Mark your calendars for November 12th, 2024. 300+ more monsters for your D&D 2024, or Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition games, plus new horde rules and rules for heroic monsters who level up alongside you--whether they be allies, companions, or foes! Click here to follow on Kickstarter!
D&D 5E Getting Rid of Variable Weapon Damage- An Immodest Proposal
- Thread starter Snarf Zagyg
- Start date
dave2008
Legend
To much work for me personally.
As a DM I prefer fixed damage for ease, as a player I prefer to roll for damage.
Update- I am working my way through the various thoughts here. Unfortunately, there are so many that I will probably have to return later to post a Part II as separate thread.
No good deeds go unpunished.
No good deeds go unpunished.
DND_Reborn
The High Aldwin
Pfft! How about the incredibly rare d34!
DND_Reborn
The High Aldwin
There is a direct correlation:
Increased skill/attack rolls leads to increased chances of hitting leads to dealing damage.
Example:
PC A has +5 attack, B has +10 attack, both deal 1d8+4 damage and are attacking AC 16.
Ignoring crits, the expected damage of A is 4.25 per attack, but B is 6.375, over 2 points better per attack.
So, the additional +5 on the attack roll of B over A directly impacts damage by increasing it by more than 2 points per attack.
That is the direct correlation.
Will both hit on the same roll of 19, sure, but one misses on a 9, and the other hits. As I said upthread, the attack roll is (and was meant to be) binary: hit or miss. Adding the crit on 20 messed it up and got people thinking that "the higher the roll the better" which really isn't the case.
You could make it the case, but then you are "double-awarding" higher attack bonuses both because you are more likely to hit AND adding even more damage on a lucky higher roll. Not something I think is necessary, but if you want that, as others have posted there are plenty of ways to implement it.
Personally, I would rather see crits based on hitting by a certain amount instead of natural 20.
Thinking about this a little more, I think there are three reasonable versions of weapon damage one can work with.
1. Fully static, every weapon does d6 (or whatever). Ideally, weapons should then either not come with additional baggage at all (no reach etc.) or all weapons should have balanced traits.
2. Rough categories (13th age). You get some balance stuff like choosing between shield + onehander for defense or a two-hander for moar dakka, but having a sword or an axe is mainly cosmetic.
3. Lots of detail (Pathfinder 2). For this category, you should seek to balance weapons against one another. and ideally each weapon should have something special about it. In Pathfinder 2 for example, both a battle axe, a longsword, and a warhammer are one-handed martial weapons dealing 1d8 damage, but the battleaxe has Sweep (giving you bonuses when attacking different foes), the longsword has Versatile P (allowing it to deal piercing damage instead of slashing), and the warhammer has Shove (letting you use the Shove maneuver without a hand free, and to apply its item bonus to Shove maneuvers). A flail only deals 1d6, but has three traits instead of one: Sweep, Disarm, and Trip (as Shove but for Disarm and Trip maneuvers). This is at least superficially balanced, but as we know not all traits are created equal (Sweep is a bit stronger than versatile P on a slashing weapon, for example – there are very few situations where the game cares whether you deal piercing or slashing damage)
1. Fully static, every weapon does d6 (or whatever). Ideally, weapons should then either not come with additional baggage at all (no reach etc.) or all weapons should have balanced traits.
2. Rough categories (13th age). You get some balance stuff like choosing between shield + onehander for defense or a two-hander for moar dakka, but having a sword or an axe is mainly cosmetic.
3. Lots of detail (Pathfinder 2). For this category, you should seek to balance weapons against one another. and ideally each weapon should have something special about it. In Pathfinder 2 for example, both a battle axe, a longsword, and a warhammer are one-handed martial weapons dealing 1d8 damage, but the battleaxe has Sweep (giving you bonuses when attacking different foes), the longsword has Versatile P (allowing it to deal piercing damage instead of slashing), and the warhammer has Shove (letting you use the Shove maneuver without a hand free, and to apply its item bonus to Shove maneuvers). A flail only deals 1d6, but has three traits instead of one: Sweep, Disarm, and Trip (as Shove but for Disarm and Trip maneuvers). This is at least superficially balanced, but as we know not all traits are created equal (Sweep is a bit stronger than versatile P on a slashing weapon, for example – there are very few situations where the game cares whether you deal piercing or slashing damage)
Mezuka
Hero
Weapons in Symbaroum have weapon traits that make each weapon type more than just xdx damage. For example, a fighter with a spear always attacks first in a round (because of reach) regardless of initiative.
You could have 1d6 for every weapon if they had a singular trait that made them unique.
You could have 1d6 for every weapon if they had a singular trait that made them unique.
Sir Brennen
Legend
There was a Dragon magazine article around 1983 that had class-based damage for AD&D. College-age me thought it was pretty cool, especially since it eliminated the weird "blunt weapons only" for clerics.
Nowadays, not so much. I was intrigued by the weapon special properties that popped up briefly in one of the Next playtest docs, but I'm really okay with the KISS approach mainly due to my limited adult game time.
Nowadays, not so much. I was intrigued by the weapon special properties that popped up briefly in one of the Next playtest docs, but I'm really okay with the KISS approach mainly due to my limited adult game time.
Mannahnin
Scion of Murgen (He/Him)
Yes, one of the virtues of going class/HD based damage folks have noted in OSR is that in simpler rules sets it can just replace weapon restrictions. If you want your wizards or clerics to be able to wield swords, they can without it being a power boost.
I agree there is some benefit to using "static" weapon damage compared to variable.
Two interesting systems I've seen related to this:
1) Beyond the Wall (based on OSR) has weapons, iirc, broken up into three broad categories: d6, d8, d10 (smaller weapons, medium (swords), large (pole arms, two handed). And there are examples in each category. So you could wield some strange weapon, and you'd just class is amongst "similar weapons". BUT, then they added for elves and dwarves, their weapon "proficiency" which bumped the weapon die from d6 to d8 for an axe, or d8 to d10 for the elf sword. The Fighter class also has specialization that affects combat values.
2) One of the d20 verison of A Song of Ice and Fire, and they don't add weapon damage from Str, for example, but have feats and skills that add those bonuses, same with ranged weapons. This kind of structure would allow fighting types to build that "class based" ability with weapons along with static weapon damage.
I think these kinds of approaches create more moving parts and dials which can lead to more interesting weapon choices, rather than "most effective point for point" by picking A versus B.
I also think that in 5e paradigms, using Proficiency Bonuses differently could do the same. Its kind of a shame that every class uses the same proficiency bonus scale whether using skills, casting spells, or wielding weapons.
Two interesting systems I've seen related to this:
1) Beyond the Wall (based on OSR) has weapons, iirc, broken up into three broad categories: d6, d8, d10 (smaller weapons, medium (swords), large (pole arms, two handed). And there are examples in each category. So you could wield some strange weapon, and you'd just class is amongst "similar weapons". BUT, then they added for elves and dwarves, their weapon "proficiency" which bumped the weapon die from d6 to d8 for an axe, or d8 to d10 for the elf sword. The Fighter class also has specialization that affects combat values.
2) One of the d20 verison of A Song of Ice and Fire, and they don't add weapon damage from Str, for example, but have feats and skills that add those bonuses, same with ranged weapons. This kind of structure would allow fighting types to build that "class based" ability with weapons along with static weapon damage.
I think these kinds of approaches create more moving parts and dials which can lead to more interesting weapon choices, rather than "most effective point for point" by picking A versus B.
I also think that in 5e paradigms, using Proficiency Bonuses differently could do the same. Its kind of a shame that every class uses the same proficiency bonus scale whether using skills, casting spells, or wielding weapons.
Similar Threads
