Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Thorvald Kviksverd" data-source="post: 253974" data-attributes="member: 1495">I totally agree with your point about conceptualization, it's probably the most important thing when it comes to mechanics--it isn't whether or not a mechanic is scientifically sound necessarily but, rather, whether or not it 'feels' right to the players (of course, the two are not always mutually exclusive <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f609.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=";)" title="Wink    ;)"  data-smilie="2"data-shortname=";)" /> ).As to your example of the bat and cleaver vs leather...I recently had a 'conceptual breakthrough' of my own for my Basic D&D campaign.  Though the details have yet to be finalized, I have a good feeling about it.Basically, I'm taking a little from both of your points; armour makes you less likely to take a damaging 'hit', but weapons differ in whether they score more or less damage versus certain armours, vis-a-vis other weapon types.For example...Damage by Weapon vs Armour (excepting shields)WEAPON: NONE / LIGHT / MEDIUM / HEAVYSword:  d8 / d8 / d6 / d4 (fast)Axe:  d8 / d6 / d8 / d4 (average)Mace: d6 / d4 / d6 / d8 (slow)So, rather than messing with To Hit modifiers, all weapons are equally likely to score a damaging 'hit', but weapons will differ in how effective they are, relative to other weapons, in scoring damage vs armour types. I think this will add a bit of tactical variety, without slowing down combat.I know the above seems a bit counter-intuitive at first, but if the conceptual hurdle can be overcome, I think it is a neat little system.In particular, certain weapons actually doing less damage vs worse armour classes than against better ones requires some mental gymnastics.It certainly hurts more to be hit with a mace when not wearing any armour, but it would hurt even more if hit by a sword or axe--remember, the damage values are relative to other weapons.Of course, the mace is more effective at transfering its energy through plate armours than the sword.While, at first blush, it would appear that the mace is more effective in absolute terms (i.e. not compared to other weapons) vs heavy armour than against light, it must be remembered that it will still be scoring a 'hit' against the more heavily armoured foe less often--so it may actually be scoring 2d6 or more damage againt the unarmoured foe during the time that it takes to land a single d8 hit versus heavy plate.Anyway, it works for me <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile    :)"  data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" />I've still got to play around with the numbers a bit.I'm also considering allowing a character to score an additional point of damage for every -1 To Hit penalty he accepts.  So, a character wielding a sword will be able to score as much damage in a single blow as a mace wielder, but he will have to aim carefully at the chinks in the armour (i.e. accept a To Hit penalty).  Similarly, a mace wielder will have to be more careful in the placement of his attack versus light armour if he wishes his strike to be as damaging as a blow from an axe or sword.</blockquote>

Verification