D&D 5E All weapons doing d6?

[Shiroiken]

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.

I know nothing of this quote, but my source was an interview or article from Gygax (pretty sure it was in The Dragon, but could be incorrect). Either Gygax fudged the truth to avoid embarrassment or Mondard did.

 

[jmartkdr2]

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.

shrug

It's definitely an idea that's been around, and probably deserves a look if the idea of swords and axes being the same is more of a pro than a con for you.

I think the idea in the post title goes too far, but there's value is saying "a barbarian using a two-handed melee weapon does 1d12 damage, regardless of the weapon," because barbarians with greatclubs probably shouldn't be a terrible idea. It's just a matter of finding the right balance for you.

(Isn't it always about that, though?)

 

[Fenris-77]

shrug

It's definitely an idea that's been around, and probably deserves a look if the idea of swords and axes being the same is more of a pro than a con for you.

I seem to to remember tags of some kind to differentiate weapon effects. Again, with my memory this whole idea could be a portmanteau of a RPG mechanic and something I saw on the A-Team when I was little.

 

[Snarf Zagyg]

I know nothing of this quote, but my source was an interview or article from Gygax (pretty sure it was in The Dragon, but could be incorrect). Either Gygax fudged the truth to avoid embarrassment or Mondard did.

okay.

I gave you a first-hand account from the person involved, and that is generally considered to be accurate AFAIK.

I’d appreciate an actual quote or source if you are familiar with something that indicated Mike Monard was incorrect.

 

[Charlaquin]

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.

That’s how it works in 13A too ( where each class has its own weapon table), I was just generalizing.

 

[jaelis]

Well if you are allowing weapon properties and class variations, you might get something like this:

- Divide classes into martial and non-martial

- For martial classes, there are four weapon classes with different damage dice:
Heavy: 1d12
Reach: 1d10
1H: 1d8
Light/finesse: 1d6

- Non-martial classes get three types:
2H: 1d8
1H 1d6
Light/finesse: 1d4

In any case you describe the weapon how you like and pick your damage type from bludgeoning, slashing or piercing

That seems fine to me but it's really close to what 5e already does.

 

[Shiroiken]

okay.

I gave you a first-hand account from the person involved, and that is generally considered to be accurate AFAIK.

I’d appreciate an actual quote or source if you are familiar with something that indicated Mike Monard was incorrect.

I can't (I honestly don't even know who he is), I simply pointed out my source. Based on Mr. Monard's quote, it would make sense that Gygax would fudge the truth to avoid embarrassment.

 

[Perun]

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 had something similar in mind. At first, my idea was to just increase the damage die by one size for Simple weapons for all characters who get full proficiency in Martial weapons. The idea was that Simple weapons are (generally) easier to use than Martial, and at the basic level of proficiency, they deal the listed amount of damage. Expert users (i.e. those classes that get the proficiency in all Martial weapons) use them with more skill, and the damage die increases. However, this works for some Simple weapons (eg. mace, a single-handed bludgeoning weapon normally deals 1d6, with this house-rule in effect, that increases to 1d8, with similar situations for club, greatclub, hand axe, morning star, etc.), but not really for the others, like dagger, which would deal 1d6 piercing damage, just like shortwsord, or shortbow, whose damage would equal that of longbow. With bows, you at least get the range difference, while with dagger vs. shortsword, dagger becomes just the better weapon (1d6, piercing, finesse, light, thrown (20/6) vs. 1d6, piercing, finesse, light).

I'm still interested in the idea, but it would require more house-rules than I'm willing to deal with. Perhaps at some time in the future...

 

[Dormammu]

To me, this is a rabbit hole that benefits very little from delving into.

Some people like different damage type per weapon (whether traditional style or 13th Age style), others might enjoy reducing all weapons to a d6. But there is no meaningful reduction in complexity for the latter. Is anyone confused by rolling a d8 for a long sword and a d6 for a short sword?

My point being, if the former group of players enjoys it and it doesn’t bog down the game, there is no concrete advantage for removing different weapon dice. Let the players who like rolling different dice have their fun and simplify the game rules somewhere that confers more benefit.

 

[atanakar]

Not sure if anyone mentioned this but there is a class based variant that I find very interesting. I found this on the Dragonsfoot AD&D forum :


Weapon Damage
Q: With all weapons doing 1d6, I like it that magic-users can use swords and there generally aren't class weapon restrictions. How can I keep that flavor but vary weapon damage?
A: Many people who run Holmes Basic or White Box D&D use class-based damage. Here is my recommendation using weapon classifications:

• Short weapon - dagger, hand axe, javelin, club
• Long weapon - mace, sword, battle axe, morning star, flail, spear, pike, staff (though yes the latter two are technically two-handed)
• Two-handed weapon - pole arm, halberd, two-handed sword, lance
• Light Missile - dagger, javelin, sling stone
• Heavy Missile - arrow, quarrel, spear, hand axe

Class	Short	Long	Two-Handed	Light Missile	Heavy Missile
Fighter	1-6	1-8	1-10	1-4	1-6
Thief	1-4	1-6	1-8	1-4	1-6
Cleric	1-4	1-6	1-8	1-3	1-4
Magic-User	1-3	1-4	1-6	1-2	1-3

Note that in this design, fighters are tops at everything, but thieves tie with them in missile weapons.