D&D 5E Getting Rid of Variable Weapon Damage- An Immodest Proposal

[Snarf Zagyg]

You are wrong. BECMI had variable weapon damage. It had a crazy complex weapon mastery system. Weapon Mastery was optional. But variable damage was not.

Ummmmmmm........ I sometimes wonder if people read what I write?

On the other hand, when Holmes went to create Basic D&D by simplifying and clarifying OD&D, he went back to the d6 original d6 damage dice for all weapons. This continued in Moldvay/Cook (B/X) where all weapons did d6, unless the optional variable damage was used (p. B25). This continued through Mentzer's BECMI (which also had the optional rule, but IIRC recommended switching to variable weapon damage?).

BECMI (Mentzer Red Box) treats variable weapon damage the same as does Moldvay/Cook. It's an optional rule. If you go to additional rules at the end of the book, you will see that it is listed as an additional rule- variable weapon damage, aka "This advanced damage system ..." (Mentzer p. 60). The book teaches you the static, d6 method. Then it provides an optional rule for an "advanced damage system."

This is in contrast with AD&D (and it's progeny) which never used the static damage system.

 

[Willie the Duck]

You are wrong. BECMI had variable weapon damage. It had a crazy complex weapon mastery system. Weapon Mastery was optional. But variable damage was not.

BECMI (Mentzer Red Box) treats variable weapon damage exactly the same as does Moldvay/Cook. It's an optional rule. If you go to additional rules at the end of the book, you will see that it is listed as an additional rule- variable weapon damage, aka "This advanced damage system ..." (Mentzer p. 60). The book teaches you the static, d6 method. Then it provides an optional rule for an "advanced damage system."

This is in contrast with AD&D (and it's progeny) which never used the static damage system.

It's odd. Looking at the Basic set, it states: "Variable Weapon Damage Whenever you hit a monster in your adventures so far, your character’s weapon inflicted 1-6 (ld6) points of damage. But if we consider the battle realistically, a dagger should do less damage than a sword (for example). This advanced damage system allows different weapons to inflict different amounts of damage. The damage done by each weapon type is given on the chart below." At no point is this called an optional rule{EDIT: language showing that it must be optional, even if not spelled out, has been pointed out}. It's genuinely not clear if you are supposed to have made the switch now that you are past the initial (Aleena) adventure, or if 1d6 is supposed to continue to be a valid option. The expert set and beyond (the ECMI in EBCMI) reinforce the VWD-as-standard model.

 

[Malmuria]

Possible Topics for Discussion
A. Do you prefer variable weapon damage or static weapon damage?

I have an even more radical idea for you: not rolling for damage at all! Same way a lot of people don't roll for HP anymore (5e). If you hit, you do a static amount of damage ( x + modifier, critical is y + modifier). Imagine how this would speed up combat! "I hit, 8 damage, next turn." I had a friend who kept casting scorching ray but always forgot the mechanics. That's 3 d20 to hit and 3 damage dice potentially and it took forever because we had to go through how it worked each time.

B. Would we be so uncaring about cutting trees down if they could scream? Maybe, if they screamed all the time, and for no good reason?

“[My friend,] we have reduced the forest [to] a wasteland,
[how] shall we answer Enlil in Nippur?
[In] your might you slew the guardian,
what was this wrath of yours that you went trampling the forest?’ ”

(the answer is no, humans don't give a __)

C. Would you like a system that made variable weapon damage dependent on the wielder, and not the weapon?

The Black Hack -- English

 

[DeviousQuail]

Once upon a time I tried making a system where the attack roll was also the damage roll. Each weapon had a static damage amount. The higher your attack roll the more damage you dealt following a basic system of +1 damage for every two points above ten on the attack roll. Pretty much the classic modifier system. You end up with weapon damage + modifiers + attack roll bonus. For me this was a way to speed up the attack process (not tested) and give benefits to higher attack rolls (no more crits that end up with low damage).

Ultimately, I like variable weapon damage but I'm willing to trade it out for different weapons offering other bonuses like reach, defensive, and special attacks.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

A. Do you prefer variable weapon damage or static weapon damage?
B. Would we be so uncaring about cutting trees down if they could scream? Maybe, if they screamed all the time, and for no good reason?
C. Would you like a system that made variable weapon damage dependent on the wielder, and not the weapon?

Re: A, with a strictly weirdly abstract damage system like D&D, I don't have a strong preference. I have seen static damage dice be perceived as boring by players, and it tends to make anything which doesn't use those dice, like say spells, more interesting by comparison.

Re: C, you mean like Dungeon World? Where damage is by class, and weapons just add tags to that damage? Yeah that works pretty well in my experience.

I do think any system that goes static, whether A or C style, should probably make an effort to make actual weapons more interesting/tactical in some way. One of the dead-worst things about D&D is that it's a game with dozens of weapons, but in most editions, you just pick one (usually the most mechanically optimal one you have available), become good at it, and mindlessly stick with it in all situations except maybe ranged if it's melee or melee if it's ranged.

I'd like to see a game where like different weapons actually had different uses, without getting into lame tables of weapon vs. armour type or the like. You'd probably need monsters redesigned too.

 

[Snarf Zagyg]

It's odd. Looking at the Basic set, it states: "Variable Weapon Damage Whenever you hit a monster in your adventures so far, your character’s weapon inflicted 1-6 (ld6) points of damage. But if we consider the battle realistically, a dagger should do less damage than a sword (for example). This advanced damage system allows different weapons to inflict different amounts of damage. The damage done by each weapon type is given on the chart below." At no point is this called an optional rule. It's genuinely not clear if you are supposed to have made the switch now that you are past the initial (Aleena) adventure, or if 1d6 is supposed to continue to be a valid option. The expert set and beyond (the ECMI in EBCMI) reinforce the VWD-as-standard model.

Look at the Table of Contents. At the beginning of the book ...

Notice, how you have the whole game mapped out, and at the very end you have have the additional rules? Which includes variable weapon damage? You're provided the rules for combat earlier (d6)- those are additional rules. After you've been using the d6 rules.

That said, and as I thought I made clear- there was a progression from Holmes (d6 only) to the Moldvay exhortation (which was d6 is standard, and here is a variable weapon damage table) to Mentzer (which was d6 is the training wheels, and here's the real system you should use later).

EDIT- I should have included that this continued into the E in BECMI, which had the variable damage table, and included references such as for the Girdle of Giant Strength, which allowed a character to inflict 2-16 points of damage, unless the variable weapon damage system was being used, in which case you did double damage.

 

[overgeeked]

A. Do you prefer variable weapon damage or static weapon damage?

I'm more a fan of reduced hit points and damage. Even as simple as 3 hits and you're unconscious, 1 more hit and you're dead. All weapons can do 1 hit per successful strike. Something like crits, massive damage, and sneak attacks could do 2 hits. Anything more complicated than that is needless paperwork.

If we have to keep variable weapon damage, everything should do 1d6. PCs should only ever have hit points equal to some mostly fixed number, physical stat scores totaled, physical mods totaled, 1d6 per level up to 7-8, something low. Because the current numbers are silly.

B. Would we be so uncaring about cutting trees down if they could scream? Maybe, if they screamed all the time, and for no good reason?

Only if it's Ravenloft and the trees scream you to madness.

C. Would you like a system that made variable weapon damage dependent on the wielder, and not the weapon?

Yeah, that makes a lot of sense. A wizard with a battle axe is going to do less than a barbarian with a battle axe, and not just the difference between their STR mods. Pull from Dungeon World and base weapon damage on class. Your hit dice is also your weapon damage. So a barbarian with an ice pick is going to destroy but a wizard with a battle axe is going to barely cut.

 

[Bolares]

Snarf not only hates bards... but also cows, specially the sacred ones.

 

[Willie the Duck]

Look at the Table of Contents. At the beginning of the book ...

Notice, how you have the whole game mapped out, and at the very end you have have the additional rules? Which includes variable weapon damage? You're provided the rules for combat earlier (d6)- those are additional rules. After you've been using the d6 rules.

These rules are not referenced as optional. In contrast morale (DM section, p.20) is called out as optional.

That said, and as I thought I made clear- there was a progression from Holmes (d6 only) to the Moldvay exhortation (which was d6 is standard, and here is a variable weapon damage table) to Mentzer (which was d6 is the training wheels, and here's the real system you should use later).

You called it optional multiple times, as well as stating, "exactly the same as does Moldvay/Cook" (is it exactly the same or a progression?) . If you are getting pushback, this might be why (also, when commandercrud suggested otherwise, you implied they must be thinking of the RC along with a great big wonderful condescending "Ummmmmmm........" and a suggestion labelled as a 'Protip'. Bet those have something to do with it as well).

 

[payn]

Possible Topics for Discussion
A. Do you prefer variable weapon damage or static weapon damage?

I like variable, but I also like crit threat ranges and damage multipliers of 3E/PF1

B. Would we be so uncaring about cutting trees down if they could scream? Maybe, if they screamed all the time, and for no good reason?

wut?

C. Would you like a system that made variable weapon damage dependent on the wielder, and not the weapon?

Its an interesting idea. Perhaps full casters are D4, half casters are D6, and no casters are D8 by class? Just spit balling. I've been coming around to the idea that all modifiers and advancement should be placed on the character chassis and not on stuff. So, yeah this is appealing to me.