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

Jack Daniel said:

As soon as you decide to give two-handed weapons more damage output than one-handed weapons, you have a variable weapon damage system.

And if you don't do that, why in the world would anyone ever favor a two-handed weapon over a one-handed weapon and a shield or second weapon?

Click to expand...

There would have to be some other benefit to the two-handed weapon (in which case you might be eliminating one game complexity by replacing it with another) -- they are better at piercing heavy armor, they have more reach (and then a mechanic where that is a benefit), they have better riders/add-on effects, etc.

I think the Idea is neat. And instead I'd rather see different weapon properties. And bonuses by class.

Mordhau said:

But completely static damage is overly simplistic for little gain and emergent problems. Aside from shields, the moment a player realises they can do the same damage with a dagger while concealing the dagger, or having room to carry more loot, is the moment the dagger becomes the best weapon.

Click to expand...

Right, so if you're using static damage, you'll ideally include some sort of keywords or properties for different weapons which give them different tactical advantages and uses.

eyeheartawk said:

Having played a fair amount of OD&D I can say that it's pretty much half a dozen of one and half dozen of the other. With variable weapon damage, you'll always pick the rapier (or equivalent strength based two handed great weapon or crossbow or whatever). There is an optimal obvious choice.

Though, when I played OD&D and B/X using a d6 for all weapons basically meant always using spears and polearms since, if all weapons do the same damage, why not use the weapons that have reach and allow you to fight from a rank back. That's especially useful when a bunch of hirelings are about. Then you also have a dagger for when you are in the front rank or space does not permit the spear/polearm, also doing the d6.

Click to expand...

Whether this happens in OD&D may depend on what your DM does about initiative.

In the 1974-style (now up to 1975-style, as it's been running more than a year, so we've brought in some of Greyhawk, and more recently, some of Blackmoor) OD&D game I've been playing in for a while, we've used d6 damage the entire time. The DM normally rules initiative situationally, but in general, in the first round of combat or as opponents close into melee, longer weapons always get first attack. Once combatants are engaged at close quarters, shorter weapons normally get first attack, and may qualify for multiple attacks if the enemy's weapon is particularly long and thus cumbersome.

Mannahnin said:

In the 1974-style (now up to 1975-style, as it's been running more than a year, so we've brought in some of Greyhawk, and more recently, some of Blackmoor) OD&D game I've been playing in for a while, we've used d6 damage the entire time. The DM normally rules initiative situationally, but in general, in the first round of combat or as opponents close into melee, longer weapons always get first attack. Once combatants are engaged at close quarters, shorter weapons normally get first attack, and may qualify for multiple attacks if the enemy's weapon is particularly long and thus cumbersome.

Click to expand...

Yeah, that's correct. We did it similarly. I forgot to mention that as well. If you are using that you would still always walk around with a reach weapon and a dagger. Dagger for first rank fighting and going first and the reach weapon to fight from a back rank in confined areas and being less likely to take damage.

Snarf Zagyg said:

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?

Click to expand...

Some Deep Thoughts here!

Some OSR games do HD-based damage, or fixed d6 damage like 1974 OD&D. I've also seen some folks add a really simple variation on this like "small concealable weapons roll 2d6 and take the lowest, large two handed weapons roll 2d6 and take the highest".

In general I like the idea of static damage, or static damage based on class (like make it match HD), in part because it allows more variety of weapons used without characters having to compromise effectiveness. The trap you have to watch out for is of course making it a no-brainer choice to always just use the smallest/cheapest weapon, the dagger issue folks have mentioned. If you're playing Holmes Basic, for example, you're basically always best off to wield a dagger, until and unless you find a particularly good magic weapon.

The best solution to that I can identify is to give weapons different keywords/properties which give other advantages, and make different weapons better situationally.

The idea of accuracy-based damage a couple of folks have floated here also sounds potentially cool. Maybe just 1pt for hitting the opponent's AC dead-on, and 1 additional point for every 2 points by which you exceed the AC/number needed to hit. Armor thus would serve to more directly reduce damage taken, higher rolls would (intuitively) literally represent better, more damaging hits, and more skilled characters having higher attack bonuses would translate directly to deadlier strikes.

eyeheartawk said:

Yeah, that's correct. We did it similarly. I forgot to mention that as well. If you are using that you would still always walk around with a reach weapon and a dagger. Dagger for first rank fighting and going first and the reach weapon to fight from a back rank in confined areas and being less likely to take damage.

Click to expand...

Yup. I told the DM at one point that I'd be using a dagger by default most of the time, since I was a frontline fighter. Of course, once I found a magic weapon that did finally change.

Awesome blog post by one of my favorite writers in the OSR, highly relevant to this discussion:

Snarf Zagyg said:

Do you prefer variable weapon damage or static weapon damage?

Click to expand...

For one ruleset, weapons are clumped via light, medium and heavy. Light does less damage, but has effects. Medium does a little more damage, and a few effects. And heavy does the most damage, no effects. To me, this is the preferred. This way, it shows a fighting style, which in the end, I think is a better concept for a character to get behind.

Snarf Zagyg said:

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?

Click to expand...

If they screamed all the time, we would have cut them all down by now.

Snarf Zagyg said:

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

Click to expand...

That would be interesting. Although, not the exact concept, I remember Rolemaster had many tables for each weapon. Each table simulated the weapon hitting the armor type. For example, a rapier could do great damage against cloth armor, but plate almost nothing. Maybe if you had tables set up via class? For example, the fighter using weapons versus the wizard.

Snarf Zagyg said:

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.

Click to expand...

Oops! I assumed from the title this would be about using dice for damage vs a static/fixed number (like we have for monsters in the MM now). I guess I will have to read further for another Snarf history lesson.

I smell a sequel...'The Silence of the Elms."

Clarice, be sure and tell me when those elms stop screaming.