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

[clearstream]

For a B/X type game I am a big fan of damage by class, probably following HD type.

I'd argue that 5e does have damage by class.

I want my wizard to wield a sword but I am happy with him doing less damage than a fighter wielding the same sword. That makes sense.

I agree with you that it makes sense, and in 5e wizard can't wield the same sword as fighter (wizard has simple weapon proficiency, not martial). Suppose though that they did, they would still deal less weapon damage. They wouldn't have high STR or DEX, they wouldn't have the fighting style, and they wouldn't have superiority or higher crit chance.

But we do need to do things like increase damage for two handed weapons to compensate for the loss of shield* and add in reach weapons (the spear in particular needs more love).

Again, fully agree. And it is why weapon damage variability exists. Each beneficial weapon feature costs a point of damage. Martial adds a point. Each negative weapon feature refunds a point of damage.

Quarterstaff (simple) 1d6 (this is what your mage uses)
Longsword (martial) 1d8 (you can have a shield)
Halberd (martial) 1d10 (no shield, reach)
Greataxe (martial) 1d12 (no shield)

If you have STR or DEX (wizards don't, they have INT and CON) then add 3 or 4 to damage.
If you are a fighter (wizards aren't) you can take dueling and add 2 to damage (by way of example).

* similarly for armour I favour simple categories of light, medium and heavy and leave all the fluff to the description. He,ps get rid of some of the anachronisms and means we can have different time milieus modelled. Shields need to be much more effective though. The move to +2 in 5e was a step in the right direction, perhaps their bonus should be based on class as well. Something for another topic though.

5e instantiates all or most of the weapon feature combinations. It 'costs' features in damage: that's why it seems variable. Truly, 5e weapon damage is down to wielder.

 

[DND_Reborn]

For people who dislike the uniform proficiency bonus, if you are interested, I would advise adding a proficiency focus, which is for:

1. Ability checks (with or without skills)
2. Combat (attack rolls and armor class)
3. Magic (spell attacks and spell save DC)

It adds half proficiency bonus to those d20 rolls (so +1 to +3). Your character chooses what their proficiency focus is at 1st level and any time you gain a multiclass level you can switch your proficiency focus.

We also have individual weapon proficiency. So, you pick your weapons, not huge weapon groups (simple or martial).

A fighter with a sword is more dangerous and has potential to cause greater damage in a fight than one with a dagger. If you base damage on class, how would you represent this difference without variable weapon damage?

Now, as to wizards fighting as well as fighters. 5E is more than just the proficiency bonus when it comes to relating that fighters are better at fighting than wizards. Yes, it starts out very slowly, but it's there. Points that have been brought up include:

1. Fighting longer with more hit points (d10 vs d6)
2. Fighting styles (increase damage, attack rolls, etc.)
3. Higher STR and/or likely higher DEX
4. Greater weapon selection
5. At later levels, more weapon attacks (which leads to more chances to hit and thus more damage)

 

[Jack Daniel]

There would have to be some other benefit to the two-handed weapon (in which case you might be eliminating one game complexity by replacing it with another) -- they are better at piercing heavy armor, they have more reach (and then a mechanic where that is a benefit), they have better riders/add-on effects, etc.

I think my point wasn't clear enough. The long term effect of just about any benefit you can think of is increased DPR for the better weapons. Even if all weapons are made to ostensibly inflict 1d6 damage on a hit, anything you do to increase your chance of hitting with a bigger, better weapon (flat bonus to hit, situational bonus to hit, extra attacks, added reach, armor piercing, even quirky rider effects that momentarily hinder a foe or defensive bonuses that serve to keep you in the fight longer) is effectively the same thing as just upping the damage die.

 

[pnewman]

Am I the only one who thought this thread was going to be about not rolling for damage, but just taking the average (rounding down, as usual for 5e)? A dagger does not do 1d4, it does two. A short sword does not do 1d6, it does three. A Fireball does not do 8d6, it does 28. Etc.

 

[James Gasik]

Snarf Zagyg said:
Possible Topics for Discussion
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?

A. I never gave it much thought, although there was an instance when I did. A thousand years ago, I looked at the 1e Monk Class, and I thought it strange that they did a set amount of "open hand damage" based on level that was irrespective of what moves you were using.

Then I realized, that was potentially a strength of the class! You could describe whatever kind of martials arts style or maneuver you wished, and the difference in effectiveness was the damage you rolled! Roll high? It's a powerful haymaker or a Sho-Ryu-Ken or what have you. Roll low? It's a glancing blow (something D&D has never really modeled well).

In a system where everyone rolls the same die, and the difference in weapons is irrelevant, the strength is that you decide what weapon or fighting style your character uses, and how effective your choice isn't based on an equipment chart.

How many of us looked at a weapon on an equipment list and said "that's wrong, this weapon would be much better/worse based on (whatever experience or source I draw opinions from)!"

Be it arguments about crossbows to katanas (oh no, I said the word!) gamers have argued about this from the dawn of time.

How many cool character concepts (like a whip wielding warrior based on Simon Belmont?) have died a thousand deaths due to whips being terrible?

How many characters use a weapon not because it's what they want to use, ideally, but because it is the "best" weapon?

A gamist version of D&D that lets you play whatever you want and not have the rules get in the way could be a lot of fun (for some people).

B. Treants exist, therefore, obviously not.

C. As stated in A, I can see the merits to such a system, and I think it would be great as an option for D&D. Most players love rolling dice too much for this to become a standard rule, I fear.

From here on out, you can play a master of all weapons, for whom anything is deadly in their hands, from a sword, to a carved wooden oar, to a boa feather, what the Fighter class probably should be!

You wouldn't need to worry about limiting certain weapons to certain classes- want to play a Monk that uses a greatsword or a Rogue that wields brass knuckles? Go for it!

Want to use a weapon that isn't in the game (such as 5e's often put-upon and anemic weapon list)? Who cares, it's all the same for your character anyways!

So if the option existed, I'd want to at least try it out, because my inner roleplayer can do whatever he thinks is cool and not be bound by "sorry, there's no room for an expert boomerang wielder in this game/edition and the rules shouldn't be expected to let you do it".

 

[Mannahnin]

From here on out, you can play a master of all weapons, for whom anything is deadly in their hands, from a sword, to a carved wooden oar, to a boa feather, what the Fighter class probably should be!

You could also model bigger weapons being more dangerous and small ones less so using a common OD&D house rule- roll the same damage die with advantage or disadvantage, respectively. So a two handed weapon, for example, for which you forego the benefits of a shield, lets you roll your standard damage die twice and take the best result. And a small concealable knife or something the reverse.

 

[delericho]

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

Variable. That said, the difference between d4 and d6, d6 and d8, d8 and d10, and d10 and d12 is too small to be really worth it - I'd consider dropping down to only d4, d8, and d12 as options.

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?

Probably not. We're not exactly reticent about killing animals for food, or other humans for all manner of reasons.

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

I'm inclined to think that the skill of the wielder should have some effect - maybe high-level martial characters could boost the die type used and/or increase the number of dice rolled?

 

[AMP]

I tie melee damage die to Strength. What is a weapon but a way to inflict lethal damage via your body? High Str means you do more damage. Using the Rules Cyclopedia/BECMI stat bonues table (my preferred edition), Str 9-12 defaults to 1d6. Then its a progression up and down the dice chain like in DCC, but without the "weird" dice included except for the ones most of us are uaed to. If fighting with fists, you can decide whether or not to do lethal damage, because it's absolutely possible to kill someone with your bare hands, although I step unarmed characters down the dice chain 1 step. Depending on the situation, certain weapons may add a bonus or penalty. This is a case of rulings not rules in my campaign. I don't flesh out every option, just every option I'll happen to need, or I rule on the fly. The way D&D was intended if you ask me. Ranged damage is Dex based in the same fashion, reflecting skill not power (thrown weapons could be the greater of both if the player asks). Monsters need no special rule because they're monsters. They shouldn't follow the same rules, for my taste. If someone wanted to use a whip, for instance, I might classify that as a ranged weapon so they can benefit from Dex if they have it, and require them to take two steps down the damage dice chain if they desire to inflict lethal harm with it. Whips are harder to kill with. A dagger does Str damage up close or Dex damage if thrown, or the greater of both if the player asks for that. He's less likely to toss away an effective weapon, however. If he wants to fight someone with a reach weapon, I may make him take a -1 AC penalty, however. Rule 0, or DM fiat, is king.

Here's the chain for the unfamiliar:
3: 1d2
4-5: 1d3
6-8: 1d4
9-12: 1d6
13-15: 1d8
16-17: 1d10
18: 1d12

 

[laserbeard]

I'm definitely in the static camp. if one wants to keep size as the difference then small weapons have disadvantage damage roll and large weapons have advantage. this way all weapons have the same lethal cap while having different odds of doing it.

I lean more to all weapons do 1d6 (or whatever die you pick) and then advantage or disadvantage based on circumstances. using a dagger while in a grapple? advantage. using a great axe in a narrow corridor? disadvantage. again we have the same cap but now different weapons have clear situational uses. fighters have a reason to carry more than one weapon. generally speaking longer weapons will have the advantage until the shorter weapon moves inside the effective threat range.

this can be further combined with hit die as damage die. now different classes have different combat effectiveness without any math. everyone can make the same attack rolls. fighters are just far more likely to be lethal. a fighter doesn't need to worry about weapon if hitting a wizard but will want to take more care when attacking another fighter.

 

[AMP]

Today, I want to discuss one of the ideas that is so ingrained in Dungeons & Dragons that it often escapes notice, yet it is as hard-baked into the identity of Dungeons & Dragons as such concepts as the d20, classes, and levels.

I am, of course, talking about variable weapon damage. If you are blinking your eyes in shock and amazement at these words, with a look of incomprehension, this is the concept that different types of weapons do different amounts of damage, and that this is captured by giving different weapons different dice for damage.

For many that play D&D, this is just common sense! If I stab someone with a fork, or I whack them with a giant Conan-esque sword, those will have different effects on the sweet, sweet bags of experience points that I am trying to kill, right? And yet ... I will say that not only does it not have to be this way, it shouldn't be this way. I am going to point out why we shouldn't differentiate damage by weapon type. Moreover, I would like to propose an idea for a new and improved way to conceptualize weapon damage!


1. The History of Variable Weapon Damage in D&D.
If you want to know what God thinks of money, just look at the people he gave it to.

You thought you'd escape without a history lesson? DO YOU KNOW ME? My posts are as regular as the April showers, the soporific rhythms of a Ken Burns documentary, or the twee details of a Wes Anderson film. All that is past is prologue, and we're going to take a detour into ancient history that very few people will care about because of my extreme and incurable case of keyboard logorrhea. As always, this is an abbreviated history that simplifies things, and I suggest looking into this more if you're really interested!

In the beginning, there was formless void. And from the heat of this formless void, we had galaxies, and stars, and then, the Earth cooled. And then the dinosaurs came, but they got too big and fat, so they all died and they turned into oil. From these lovely petrochemicals, eventually arose primordial OD&D. OD&D was famously confused and confusing with its rules- notably, it based its combat system on Chainmail (which was a fantasy wargame). The original OD&D had all weapons doing d6 damage- and this came from Chainmail, which also did not differentiate weapon damage (Chainmail just had a certain number of hits-to-kill, and effectiveness of different weapons against different armor). However, by the time of the publication of the Greyhawk Supplement (1975), we see the first variable weapon damage with the alternative combat system- with both damage by weapons (daggers do d4, swords do d8) and damage against opponent types (different damages against different sizes of opponents). The question is ... why? What caused this change? Why did Gygax switch from static to variable weapon damage?

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.

That's Mike Monard, explaining why we have variable damage included. From that time, we basically have two forks in the road-

The Advanced D&D (1e) line, that continued with 2e, 3e, 4e, and 5e. Although the various versions mentioned complicated the differentiation of weapons in various ways (such as to hit v. AC, or heavy/light/finesses etc.), or simplified them (such as 4e's balancing) they all used the variable damage dice by weapon type.

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?).

In effect, the Basic line kept on with the static damage, while the "Advanced" (or mainstream) line kept the variable damage. And with the Basic line discontinued, so, too, went the static damage ... well, except for some retroclones.


2. A Brief Summary of Arguments for and against Variable Damage by Weapon Type.
Smoking cures all weight problems…eventually.

You might be saying to yourself, "Self, should I be worried that my lips are moving when I am engaged in an internal monologue?" I can't answer that question, but I can address something more relevant- why do people care about variable or static weapon damage?

Since the vast majority of people reading this are familiar with variable weapon damage, I'm going to be quick on the advantages- if you like "realism," (or simulationism) then, for certain values of that approach, it can seem more realistic. If you enjoy having more "choice points" for your character, then having weapons with different damage dice allows for yet another area that you can choose from (and/or optimize).

With that in mind, why even both with static damage for weapons? Why have a system where every weapon does the exact same damage- you know, d6 ... or d12 (THE KING OF DICE!).

Well, the first reason is that differentiating weapons by damage dice is often arbitrary. I don't want to bore you with long digressions into combat simulations, but the received wisdom about the effectiveness of different weapons by damage dice is often more gamist that simulationist. Which is a fancy way of saying that some weapons that are truly effective in some situations (like a spear against a sword) are simply discounted in terms of damage dice. The actual advantages of most weapons are incredibly situational- dependent far more on the armor of your opponent, the weapon your opponent is using, whether your opponent is mounted or on foot, whether you are skilled with that weapon, etc. Most weapons do a sufficient bit of "killing" when in the hands of a skilled person. Moreover, given the ... well, let's say the interesting nature of hit points, it's unclear why we are using differentiated dice at all.

The second reason is that it allows for better weapon-choice for a conception of a character. While variable weapon damage presents choices, as many of you know, you quickly run into the Rapier/Model T problem. Famously, you could have any color Model T so long as it was black. In a similar fashion, there might be a lot of weapon choices out there, but there also seems to be a lot of Dex-builds with rapiers. There are only a few "real" choices out there in any given category (I take this basic dex build, I take this with basic str build, I take this with PAM build, and so on). If you have an idea for a character using a "cool weapon" that isn't optimal and doesn't have a supported feat, you're often outta luck without the DM's allowance of homebrew. Static weapon damage avoids this issue- your character does the same amount of damage, and you can pick whatever weapon makes the most sense in your head for this character.

Now, I am sure that people can (and will!) come up with even more arguments, and more details for the arguments ... both pro and con, in the comments, but that's a good nutshell.


3. What if Weapon Damage was a Function of the Wielder, not the Weapon?
To steal ideas from one person is plagiarism; to steal from many is research.

So now we get to the important part (SO SOON?). My immodest proposal. I think we've all seen or read fiction about some awesome character who is really good with some sort of non-standard weapon; heck, Oddjob could kill you with his hat. Why not design a weapon system around the skill of the wielder, and not the weapon used? In a way, this would be similar to the way cantrips "scale" with level. But ... better. Because cantrips suck. Ahem. Sorry, that's a different post.

I'm spitballing here, so I hope people improve on this in the comments, but the basic gist would be something like this (for melee only, but I'm sure people will come up with something similar for missile weapons)-

Weapons start with a basic damage die. Like, d6.
If you state that it's a two-handed weapon, you get a bonus to each damage die (+1 or +2) to make up for loss of shield.

Certain classes or abilities within classes (for martial classes) will increase the damage die for wielding a weapon- d8, d10, d12.
In addition, there would be feats that would also allow you to increase the amount of damage.

In effect, all weapons will do the same damage, but you can choose martial classes, abilities within classes, or feats that allow you to increase the damage die of the weapon. In that way, you can ensure that players can both choose weapons that they think matches their character conception the best, while also allowing meaningful choice between increasing the damage die and other abilities; moreover, you can also make it such that martial characters have significant advantages, which is something that is lacking in 5e currently.


And that's it- I'm sure other people will have much better ideas; that's what the comments are for. So have at it!

Possible Topics for Discussion

PLEASE NOTE- Static weapon damage means you roll the same die, like a d6, for all weapons. It doesn't mean that you do a standard amount of damage with no rolls.

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?

I am a fan of this approach. In my mind, weapons do a set amount of damage just due to physics, and all the variables are the abilities of those using the actual weapon, considering strength, skill, and training. Some weapons are better suited to bypass certain armors or fighting styles also. A knife only has different effects on a body because pf the user themself and the situation.