log in or register to remove this ad

 

5E All weapons doing d6?


log in or register to remove this ad


A good weapon is supposed to be a big deal, in a world where not everyone has one. One of the big marks against Gamma World 7E is that there's no reason to care about having a nice sword when you can pick up a fence post and it's exactly as effective.
This is actually why the first supplement of the game (OD&D) got rid of it. Players were using iron spikes for their weapons, since it was the cheapest option. Buying a real weapon was just a waste of coin.
 

Tonguez

Hero
This is actually why the first supplement of the game (OD&D) got rid of it. Players were using iron spikes for their weapons, since it was the cheapest option. Buying a real weapon was just a waste of coin.
thats a myth as iron spikes arent weapons and so dont do d6 damage at all - only weapons do D6, at best an improvised weapon would do d3 or d4 if you’re generous.
 

Bacon Bits

Adventurer
I was simplifying for the sake of the discussion, but yes, this is more accurate.
Heaven forfend you make a correct but generalized declarative statement. Consider yourself chastened. ;)
A longsword in 13th Age always uses d8s regardless of class. The same is true for all weapons. The die size never actually varies by class. The difference is whether you get no penalty to hit, a small penalty to hit, or a large penalty to hit. That's the only difference.

The designers could have assigned different damage dice by class with their design. They didn't actually do that. Instead it works like a pretty bog standard proficiency system. The armor system does grant different AC by class, but it's still mostly a bog standard proficiency system except that there are a few +1 and -1 adjustments on top of the attack penalties for armor you're not proficient with.

I'm not trying to be a jerk or pedantic. I'm just saying that the example is incorrect. I'm just trying to be clear so if others in the thread are looking for that sort of system, then 13th Age is not where they should be looking.
 

So way back in the earliest runs of D&D all weapons did d6 damage* as a dagger thrust to the vitals, a sword across the gut, or great club bashing a head all had the same ability to wound and kill. A goblin with a dagger was as much a threat as a orc with a great sword and it was the characters inherent attributes and ‘skill’ that determined combat effectiveness not damage dice. More importantly weapon choices wasnt determied by damage output but rather be based on character concept - a quick dagger fighter, a mighty swordsman, a cautious halberdier.

So has anyone tried to reintroduce this system? I think its even more viable now that 5e has an advantage/disadvantage system (eg polearms get range advantage, daggers get a advantage when using dex)
If you're mentioning the Chainmail or 1975 Greyhawk rules, I'm pretty sure those differentiated weapons according to the opponent's armor. There were extensive weapon vs. armor charts back then... I believe the earliest incarnation was called the "Man-to-Man Melee Table." So instead of differentiating weapons by damage, they differentiated them by certain weapon being able to more easily hit against certain armor types. For example, maces were better at hitting plate armor, while piercing/slashing weapons generally were worse at hitting the better the armor.

So there were very clear distinctions drawn between weapons mechanically.

If you attempted to implement universal damage in 5e (where there is no weapon vs. armor chart) then you'd be left with having to answer the question: what does distinguish these weapons from each other?
 


Hriston

Adventurer
So way back in the earliest runs of D&D all weapons did d6 damage* as a dagger thrust to the vitals, a sword across the gut, or great club bashing a head all had the same ability to wound and kill. A goblin with a dagger was as much a threat as a orc with a great sword and it was the characters inherent attributes and ‘skill’ that determined combat effectiveness not damage dice. More importantly weapon choices wasnt determied by damage output but rather be based on character concept - a quick dagger fighter, a mighty swordsman, a cautious halberdier.

So has anyone tried to reintroduce this system? I think its even more viable now that 5e has an advantage/disadvantage system (eg polearms get range advantage, daggers get a advantage when using dex)
First, what's with the asterisk after the word damage? I don't see what it refers to.

If you're going to do this, you should also make all hit dice d6, but since this thread is posted in a forum for an edition of (Advanced)D&D, I think the die size you want is d8.
 

Tonguez

Hero
If you're mentioning the Chainmail or 1975 Greyhawk rules, I'm pretty sure those differentiated weapons according to the opponent's armor. There were extensive weapon vs. armor charts back then... I believe the earliest incarnation was called the "Man-to-Man Melee Table." So instead of differentiating weapons by damage, they differentiated them by certain weapon being able to more easily hit against certain armor types. For example, maces were better at hitting plate armor, while piercing/slashing weapons generally were worse at hitting the better the armor.

So there were very clear distinctions drawn between weapons mechanically.

If you attempted to implement universal damage in 5e (where there is no weapon vs. armor chart) then you'd be left with having to answer the question: what does distinguish these weapons from each other?
All weapons doing D6 was the RAW up until Basic Masters rule set - use of variable dice was an optional rule that lots of people used.

if all damage is standardized then weapons are distinguished by Player style - ie whether the PC wants weapon that is ranged, finesse (Dex), reach or two handed. I’ve also got no issue with tagging weapons for blunt/slash/pierce effects too


First, what's with the asterisk after the word damage? I don't see what it refers to.

If you're going to do this, you should also make all hit dice d6, but since this thread is posted in a forum for an edition of (Advanced)D&D, I think the die size you want is d8.
ah yeah, the asterisk was to remind me that its D6 with modifiers, but then I didnt actually go into what the modifiers were.

and yes HD being d6 would probably work out better too, though I dont think d8 would be an issue either if the damage modifiers and PC abilities keep pace
 
Last edited:

jmartkdr2

Explorer
A longsword in 13th Age always uses d8s regardless of class. The same is true for all weapons. The die size never actually varies by class. The difference is whether you get no penalty to hit, a small penalty to hit, or a large penalty to hit. That's the only difference.

The designers could have assigned different damage dice by class with their design. They didn't actually do that. Instead it works like a pretty bog standard proficiency system. The armor system does grant different AC by class, but it's still mostly a bog standard proficiency system except that there are a few +1 and -1 adjustments on top of the attack penalties for armor you're not proficient with.

I'm not trying to be a jerk or pedantic. I'm just saying that the example is incorrect. I'm just trying to be clear so if others in the thread are looking for that sort of system, then 13th Age is not where they should be looking.
Rogues using daggers do d8s, everyone else does d4. Rogue – 13th Age SRD

If you're going to argue the example for the sake of being pedantic, at least check your source.
 

Snarf Zagyg

Bargle's brother, Argle.
This is actually why the first supplement of the game (OD&D) got rid of it. Players were using iron spikes for their weapons, since it was the cheapest option. Buying a real weapon was just a waste of coin.
No.
.
"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.” -Mike Monard

That’s right. You can blame an obnoxious teenager. Gygax later went back to standardized weapon damage in a post-D&D system, IIRC.
 

Fenris-77

Small God of the Dozens
Supporter
Something that has always bothered be is that if feels intuitive, to me at least, the the prime factor in weapon damage should be skill, rather than stats. I'm not advocating for a rules change or anything, just mulling over the heavy emphasis on stats rather than skill in D&D generally. Not that stats shouldn't matter, they obviously should. I thought I'd have firmer thoughts on exactly what that should look like, but I find I don't. It seems obvious, generally, that a highly trained fighter should do more damage with a weapon than a rank novice, but this is only represented at a level of abstraction in the improved chance to hit. Huh, to the back of a handy napkin!
 

Voadam

Adventurer
It seems obvious, generally, that a highly trained fighter should do more damage with a weapon than a rank novice, but this is only represented at a level of abstraction in the improved chance to hit. Huh, to the back of a handy napkin!
And number of attacks.
 

TwoSix

The hero you deserve
Supporter
Rogues using daggers do d8s, everyone else does d4. Rogue – 13th Age SRD

If you're going to argue the example for the sake of being pedantic, at least check your source.
I think this is kind of a case where both people are right, but aren’t talking about the same thing.

There is a fixed pattern to the die progression for weapons, for pretty much every class a martial one handed weapon (like a long sword) does a 1d8. (There might be exceptions in 13 True Ways, I didn’t check).

But, it is also true that this is a pattern and not a rule. By rule, the weapon die used is a function of both the weapon type and the character class. You can extrapolate that a long sword would do a d8 in any character’s hand, but without knowing the class, that has no RAW supporting it.
 

Yardiff

Adventurer
Something that has always bothered be is that if feels intuitive, to me at least, the the prime factor in weapon damage should be skill, rather than stats. I'm not advocating for a rules change or anything, just mulling over the heavy emphasis on stats rather than skill in D&D generally. Not that stats shouldn't matter, they obviously should. I thought I'd have firmer thoughts on exactly what that should look like, but I find I don't. It seems obvious, generally, that a highly trained fighter should do more damage with a weapon than a rank novice, but this is only represented at a level of abstraction in the improved chance to hit. Huh, to the back of a handy napkin!
I think its more along the lines that the skilled fighter will hit more often so will general do more damage over-all.
At least that the way I see it.
 

That’s why I think 13th Age’s version of this concept is the best. Damage dice in that game are based on class rather than weapon, so your rogue always does 1d6, your Barbarian always does 1d12 and what weapon you use to do it is up to you and how you want to describe your character.
Haven't read the whole thread, but I was going to mention Dungeon World, which does a similar thing, and which I like a LOT more than D&D-like systems, where you study the weapon tables and try to optimize the numbers. I'd much rather choose weapons based on flavor and not worry about numbers.
  • Your damage die is based on class.
  • Within that, however, there might be various advantages between 2H vs. 1H+shield vs. dual-wield.
 

Hriston

Adventurer
ah yeah, the asterisk was to remind me that its D6 with modifiers, but then I didnt actually go into what the modifiers were.
Okay, I just wanted to make sure I wasn't missing something. Did you have any particular ones in mind, other than ability modifiers?

and yes HD being d6 would probably work out better too, though I dont think d8 would be an issue either if the damage modifiers and PC abilities keep pace
To unpack my reasoning a little, differential weapon damage dice were introduced at the same time as differential class hit dice (in the Greyhawk supplement), so, in my mind at least, they are of a piece, and undoing one should necessitate undoing the other. At the same time and explicitly called out as a condition for using differential damage, monster hit dice went up from d6 to d8. Then with the publication of AD&D, most of the classes, except magic-users, got a boost in die size, which are mostly the same sizes used in 5E, so I see the whole thing as sort of a two step process, and assuming you're going to keep the AD&D "boost" while undoing the differential part of it, I think the default damage and hit die size ought to be d8.
 

Fenris-77

Small God of the Dozens
Supporter
I think its more along the lines that the skilled fighter will hit more often so will general do more damage over-all.
At least that the way I see it.
Yeah, different mental pictures I guess. The novice is just wailing away, while the trained professional is using his weapon precisely as intended and striking where they will do the most damage. In the case of trained vs untrained with the same weapon and equal stat the trained warrior does no more damage at all on a hit, and only has more attacks behind level gates. That seems somewhat odd to me, at least at first glance. IDK, this isn't a complaint, or a thread hijack, it just got me thinking about how'd I'd do it differently given the chance.
 

jmartkdr2

Explorer
Yeah, different mental pictures I guess. The novice is just wailing away, while the trained professional is using his weapon precisely as intended and striking where they will do the most damage. In the case of trained vs untrained with the same weapon and equal stat the trained warrior does no more damage at all on a hit, and only has more attacks behind level gates. That seems somewhat odd to me, at least at first glance. IDK, this isn't a complaint, or a thread hijack, it just got me thinking about how'd I'd do it differently given the chance.
I'll mention 13th Age again (it really has a neat system for these things): you generally don't get extra attacks, but you do 1dX per level when you hit with basic attacks.

It result in, among other things, fast play at high levels and some pretty absurd hp scaling.
 

Fenris-77

Small God of the Dozens
Supporter
I'll mention 13th Age again (it really has a neat system for these things): you generally don't get extra attacks, but you do 1dX per level when you hit with basic attacks.

It result in, among other things, fast play at high levels and some pretty absurd hp scaling.
I'll be honest, I was misremembering the 13A system. I think was conflating the die per level thing with something else. Either a different part of the same game, or perhaps a mechanic from an altogether different game. IDK, and now I'm annoyed, because I know I've seen damage dice differentiated by class somewhere, I just don't remember were.
 

Most Liked Threads

Advertisement2

Advertisement4

Top