D&D 5E All weapons doing d6?

[Tonguez]

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)

 

[Prakriti]

5e already normalizes damage across the classes (or attempts to). That's why classes that use dinky weapons, like Rogues, get big damage boosts like Sneak Attack (2d6 at level 1), and classes that use big hurking weapons, like Barbarians, get smaller damage boosts like Rage (+2 at level 1). All classes are supposed to be dealing commensurate damage, so if you nerf some classes' preferred weapons, then class balance goes out the window.

 

[jaelis]

So has anyone tried to reintroduce this system?

Sounds really boring to me.

 

[Jester David]

I can see a Gamma World style system where light weapons do 1d6, heavier weapons do 1d8, and big weapons do 1d10, with the different types flavoured accordingly.

It's fine in theory to say "it was the characters inherent attributes and ‘skill’ that determined combat effectiveness not damage dice" but that still requires some additional damage or abilities that make one effective. If the goblin and the fifth level fighter are doing the same damage then the fighter isn't any more effective. And while the fighter might be more accurate, that doesn't help them kill an inferior foe any faster

 

[Tonguez]

I can see a Gamma World style system where light weapons do 1d6, heavier weapons do 1d8, and big weapons do 1d10, with the different types flavoured accordingly.

It's fine in theory to say "it was the characters inherent attributes and ‘skill’ that determined combat effectiveness not damage dice" but that still requires some additional damage or abilities that make one effective. If the goblin and the fifth level fighter are doing the same damage then the fighter isn't any more effective. And while the fighter might be more accurate, that doesn't help them kill an inferior foe any faster

The fighter would get their Str bonus and style bonus and proficiency bonus, is that not enough v the goblin? I suppose one could add proficiency bonus to damage too

Sounds really boring to me.

Can you tell me why d6 damage is boring? What extra does having daggers do d4 and a spear doing d6 more exciting?

 

[AaronOfBarbaria]

If you introduce all weapons dealing the same dice of damage you would also have to completely alter the way in which monster HP are determined, or you'd be making already large pools of hit points feel even more inflated.

If you ask me, there's good reason why this ruling went away very early on in the life of the D&D game.

 

[Charlaquin]

5e already normalizes damage across the classes (or attempts to). That's why classes that use dinky weapons, like Rogues, get big damage boosts like Sneak Attack (2d6 at level 1), and classes that use big hurking weapons, like Barbarians, get smaller damage boosts like Rage (+2 at level 1). All classes are supposed to be dealing commensurate damage, so if you nerf some classes' preferred weapons, then class balance goes out the window.

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.

 

[Tonguez]

If you introduce all weapons dealing the same dice of damage you would also have to completely alter the way in which monster HP are determined, or you'd be making already large pools of hit points feel even more inflated.

If you ask me, there's good reason why this ruling went away very early on in the life of the D&D game.

Yes, HP bloat is another big issue with the game but I didnt want to conflate the two too much (though I suppose that is unavoidable) - d6+con+proficiency per level for HP could do, maybe have Martial classes use d8.

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.

Ah, thats certainly a useful approach I hadnt considered

 

[jaelis]

Can you tell me why d6 damage is boring? What extra does having daggers do d4 and a spear doing d6 more exciting?

Because having different weapons gives you a mechanically meaningful choice point for character design. If every weapon is an undifferentiated d6, then there's no real point for me in picking a weapon. It basically becomes just part of drawing your character profile, which is not for me a very interesting part of making a character. (Others may disagree.)

 

[jmartkdr2]

13th Age does a slight variant where it's by class and size but not by specific weapon - a fighter using a one-handed weapon does d8s. A wizard does d6's (IIRC.)

It works well enough, but you do lose some impact from customization while gaining freedom i how you describe your character.