D&D 5E Damage Die Steps

[NotAYakk]

Everyone has their own perspective. Not opposed to adding more dice, but how is that any less fiddly than increasing the step? And how is a dynamic add (adding dice based on the die roll) less fiddly than a static die step. I'm not understanding your idea based on reducing "fiddlyness."

One rule, vs a table.

What happens with 1d12 and 2d6 ends up siginifcantly changing how 2H weapons balance.

Maybe fiddly is the wrong word. Just a lookup table with significant balance implications that are not easy to fix without adding in yet more subsystems, or punting.

Damage boost is tap based; different PC builds with different tap counts get different boosta that aren't automatically justified in scaling with tap count. Except the designer can punt or pretend it was what they intended, which is what I usually see.

The amount of boost is small per step. I like rules injections to matter and be noticed at the point of application, not just be noted on a character sheet and forgotten. (this is true even if they have larger impact; ie, +1 hit/damage sucks both because it disappears into character sheet math and because it is larger than it looks. A +1 damage effect meanwhile would suck because it disappears; size wise it is small.)

As a DM, interventions onto PC character sheets should be measured. Each one should matter enought hat the gametime spent describing them is "paid for" by their impact, both percieved and actual.

This has small impact (per unit), requires explaination, and then is forgotten about as the PC just uses a different die. It is fiddling with the game, not fiddly in use? If you repeat it (3 steps!) so the impact is significant, the impact is scales with attacks and possible exact weapon types in arbitrary ways.

 

[Horwath]

maybe it would be best approach with 13th age with damage attacks, but with a twist

you deal weapon based damage at 1st level and you get another die at 3rd level, 5th level, 7th level etc...

you would roll your damage at start of attack action. This is you damage total, then you roll attack rolls. If you hit, deal damage to the target. If there is leftover damage, make attack roll vs second target, repeat until you miss or there is not enough damage to kill the target.

fighter: 1d8 base for 1Handed weapons and ranged, 1d12 for 2Handed melee weapons

rogue: 1d6 base for 1Handed weapons, 1d8 for ranged and 2Handed melee weapons

wizard: 1d4 base for 1Handed weapons, 1d6 for ranged and 2Handed melee weapons

 

[GMforPowergamers]

So, I wanted to play with the idea of PCs being able to increase the Damage Die of a weapon by one or two steps. Now going by 5E weapon damage die logic, I pretty much get it. (I think) However, my question comes in regard to what happens when a Weapon is 1D12. Now, in theory that should go up to 2D4, I think, if I go by my logic. But the problem is, wouldn't a weapon with a damage die of 2D4 be weaker compared to a 1D12? And if it is, what would be the most logical step to move up to? A 2D6 seems like it. But then that seems like it's a moot point as an upgrade. (And yet, that's pretty much almost in the ball park of the 1D12, just more reliable I would assume in hitting the maximum damage value of 12 compared to the risk of a 1D12 and hitting the highest number on it.)

Not quite sure to be honest.

back in 2e we had a Weapon Grandmastery that upped a die code and to avoid the d20 as a damage die we went to 2d8

 

[dave2008]

One rule, vs a table.

What happens with 1d12 and 2d6 ends up siginifcantly changing how 2H weapons balance.

Maybe fiddly is the wrong word. Just a lookup table with significant balance implications that are not easy to fix without adding in yet more subsystems, or punting.

Damage boost is tap based; different PC builds with different tap counts get different boosta that aren't automatically justified in scaling with tap count. Except the designer can punt or pretend it was what they intended, which is what I usually see.

The amount of boost is small per step. I like rules injections to matter and be noticed at the point of application, not just be noted on a character sheet and forgotten. (this is true even if they have larger impact; ie, +1 hit/damage sucks both because it disappears into character sheet math and because it is larger than it looks. A +1 damage effect meanwhile would suck because it disappears; size wise it is small.)

As a DM, interventions onto PC character sheets should be measured. Each one should matter enought hat the gametime spent describing them is "paid for" by their impact, both percieved and actual.

This has small impact (per unit), requires explaination, and then is forgotten about as the PC just uses a different die. It is fiddling with the game, not fiddly in use? If you repeat it (3 steps!) so the impact is significant, the impact is scales with attacks and possible exact weapon types in arbitrary ways.

I don't understand how your response answers my question except maybe this part:

"Maybe fiddly is the wrong word. "

 

[Yaarel]

(3.5) 1d6
(4.5) 1d8
(5.5) 1d10
(6.5) 1d12

(7.0) 1d6 + 1d6
(8.0) 1d6 + 1d8
(9.0) 1d6 + 1d10
(10.0) 1d6 + 1d12

(10.5) 2d6 + 1d6
(11.5) 2d6 + 1d8
(12.5) 2d6 + 1d10
(13.5) 2d6 + 1d12

(14.0) 3d6 + 1d6
. . .

 

[clearstream]

Because you've established 2 as a minimum beforehand, and I would not want to go back to 1.

You could do 1d20 and then do

1d20+1d4
1d20+1d6
etc.

if you wanted to, but I don't like using a d20 for damage and prefer to keep with d12s as the base.

No other reason, really, just preference.

I also don't dislike reserving the d20 as the chance die

I just wondered if you had a specific motive.

 

[DND_Reborn]

I also don't dislike reserving the d20 as the chance die

I just wondered if you had a specific motive.

No problem.

I've updated my post above to show the average of each combination, which is a "regular progression" so works well in that sense.

 

[GMMichael]

So, I wanted to play with the idea of PCs being able to increase the Damage Die of a weapon by one or two steps.

That's legit - if a weapon uses a smaller die...

But everyone knows a medieval weapon can't do more than d12 damage.

 

[aco175]

But everyone knows a medieval weapon can't do more than d12 damage.

Get the popcorn and gather around. Who is going to challenge this. Is it the, "I actually train and fight with weapons in real life so your wrong.", or the "That is not what HP represent so it can do more damage." person to win out.

 

[GMMichael]

I had popcorn all ready. Now it's cold.

By the way, you can avoid using something larger than d12 by rerolling 1s on the d12. Or roll d12 with advantage. Or explode it.

But I really like the idea of adding additional dice in a ladder. The next six progressions after d12 are d12+d4, d12+d6, d12+d8, etc. PCs know they're in trouble when the DM starts by picking up two or more d12s!