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

[Willie the Duck]

Anyways,
My thoughts on the overall situation: 1d6 for everything made sense when and if the assumption was that people were going to use the WvsAC table. Thus, there would be reasons to use one weapon over the other. If that is not going to be the case, there's an issue of why not just use the cheapest or lightest weapon on the list (that is apparently what happened a lot in the early games since they often didn't, if Mornard is to be believed -- people would fight using the spikes originally meant to spike doors). Certainly why would you use a two-handed weapon. Obviously flavor can trump all, but beyond that I mean. Personally, I can get behind something other than damage being the main difference between weapons - 1d6 vs 1d8 or the like just isn't that memorable anyways (whether it is important depends on the rest of the system). Systems I've played have used damage type (B/P/S) being meaningful, and with different weapons being usable for different feats or special moves or having different rider effects. Those seem to work okay, but then you need a more complex combat system. I think Numenera just has light, medium and heavy weapons and you get to choose what specific weapons they are and I think that also works.

 

[Charlaquin]

What if we just used broad weapon “styles” that come in simple and martial varieties. Single weapons are d6 simple or d8 martial and can be paired with a shield or open hand. Light weapons are d4 simple or d6 martial and can be dual-wielded. Heavy weapons are d10 simple or d12 martial and require two hands. Polearms are d8 simple or d10 martial, require two hands, and have increased reach.

Your class determines which “styles” you can use martial. For example, maybe fighters and barbarians can use martial weapons of any style. Paladins can use martial single, heavy, or polearm weapons, but only simple light weapons. Rangers can use martial single, light, or polearm weapons, but only simple heavy weapons. Rogues can use martial single or light weapons but only simple heavy and polearm weapons. Clerics and druids can only use martial single weapons or simple weapons of any other type. Wizards and sorcerers can only use simple weapons.

 

[overgeeked]

These rules are not referenced as optional.

They explicitly are.

"All weapon attacks by characters (PC or NPC) will do 1-6 (1d6) points of damage, adjusted by Strength and magical bonuses, if applicable. If the Variable Weapon Damage system (hereafter) is used..." B/X, B25, Damage, Amount of Damage.

The Variable Weapon Damage chart doesn't have "(optional)" listed next to it. But even a bad reading of the rules shows that it's explicitly optional.

 

[Thunder Brother]

What if we just used broad weapon “styles” that come in simple and martial varieties. Single weapons are d6 simple or d8 martial and can be paired with a shield or open hand. Light weapons are d4 simple or d6 martial and can be dual-wielded. Heavy weapons are d10 simple or d12 martial and require two hands. Polearms are d8 simple or d10 martial, require two hands, and have increased reach.

Your class determines which “styles” you can use martial. For example, maybe fighters and barbarians can use martial weapons of any style. Paladins can use martial single, heavy, or polearm weapons, but only simple light weapons. Rangers can use martial single, light, or polearm weapons, but only simple heavy weapons. Rogues can use martial single or light weapons but only simple heavy and polearm weapons. Clerics and druids can only use martial single weapons or simple weapons of any other type. Wizards and sorcerers can only use simple weapons.

How would you imagine damage types (bludgeoning, piercing, slashing) working in such a system? For me, the different weapon damage types are almost vestigial elements, with only a handful of creatures having vulnerabilities, resistances, or immunities to one type. So merging them all into "physical" damage doesn't seem like any great loss.

 

[eyeheartawk]

you know, d6 ... or d12 (THE KING OF DICE!)

It sure is.

The king of rolling forever and right off the table.

 

[Vaalingrade]

I fee like static damage closes lot of design space much like removing crit range and multiplier did. So variable all the way.

 

[Charlaquin]

How would you imagine damage types (bludgeoning, piercing, slashing) working in such a system? For me, the different weapon damage types are almost vestigial elements, with only a handful of creatures having vulnerabilities, resistances, or immunities to one type. So merging them all into "physical" damage doesn't seem like any great loss.

Yeah, either merge B/P/S into a single “physical” damage type, or say you can choose a damage type appropriate to the weapon’s description.

 

[payn]

It sure is.

The king of rolling forever and right off the table.

You should see DCC D18, D24, D30 in action.

 

[MGibster]

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

The gambler in me kind of prefers variable damage. I enjoy the highs of rolling max damage and the agony of rolling low.

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?

Is that you, Jack Handy?

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

Sure, that’s how Alien and Twilight 2000 works. A rifle might do a base damage of 2 but each additional success on a to-hit roll can increase the base damage.

 

[Snarf Zagyg]

The gambler in me kind of prefers variable damage. I enjoy the highs of rolling max damage and

So, maybe I should make this more clear.

By static damage, I don't mean that you are taking the average damage instead of rolling. You're still rolling.


I only mean that all weapons roll the same die. I'll edit that to make it more clear in the OP.