D&D 5E All weapons doing d6?

[Snarf Zagyg]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

 

[Guest 6801328]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.