Increased base damage from weapons

[Quasqueton]

I'm toying with an idea to make combat a little more dangerous, but I also don't want to make intricate and detailed and complicated changes to the core game. I don't want new HP rules for PCs to learn. I want to still be able to use monsters right out of the books with very minimal tweaking. Etc.

The idea that started my thinking in this direction was possibly adding firearms (flintlock or ball & cap style) as a main weapon to standard D&D. If firearms are to be serious weapons they need to be better than just using a bow or crossbow.

What would be the ramifications to the standard rules if I doubled the dice of damage by weapons?

Examples:

rapier does 2d6 +str, magic, etc.

longsword does 2d8 +whatever

greatsword does 4d6 +whatever

ogre's Huge greatclub does 4d6+7

hellhound's bite does 2d8+1 (fire breath does 2d4+1?)

shortbow does 2d6 . . .

heavy crossbow does 2d10 . . .

Maybe:

single-shot pistol does 3d8 (50% more than a light crossbow)?

single-shot musket does 3d10 (50% more than a heavy crossbow)?


How about if I also incorporated the d20 Modern concept of massive damage threshold = con score?

How about if the massive damage save was a Reflex save instead of a Fort save (same mechanic otherwise - still take full damage, just not knocked down to -1 and dying if save successful)? This to represent the victim dodging and having the damage scratch or wind him, rather than representing the victim taking the damage full on and still standing.

I'd really appreciate some feedback on this. What are your thoughts?

I'm crossposting this to the House Rules forum and the d20 Modern forum.

Quasqueton

 

[Khorod]

I've worked out some lethal mods to the game- I settled on Con score x 2 for Massive Damage.

Given the way D&D damage already increases, using straight con score would be terribly lethal- in many combats the people with less than a score of 15 or so would be constantly rolling Fort saves.

When considering low-end lethality, remember that a dagger does enough damage that one good hit can still kill the average commoner. Or the above average commoner. By doubling the base damage, you are saying that weapons can automatically kill many 2nd level characters as well with a single attack.

Not only that, but you are greatly decreasing the value of the Strength bonus and other bonuses to damage- making things like Weapon Specialization not worth quite so much.

I'm sure others will be along with numbers, but I suggest you just stick to the max damage threshold. And if you want to get a little nasty, have that Fort save be 15 + damage beyond threshold.

For my game, which is intended to be heroic-through-basic-survival, I also have Hero Points that only allow you to automatically make saves against death, that way the increased lethality won't always kill the characters, just scare their panse off.

EDIT: And making guns better is perfectly fine- I suggest guns have like a -3 Att as a trade off- sure they're powerful, but they are inaccurate. That way bows and slings aren't completely invalidated, and you have a dangerous weapon that only elite forces can use well outside of mass volleys.

 

[Zhnov]

Quasqueton,

The changes you are recommending will make battles bloody and the lives of PCs quite short. Don't forget that most opposing NPCs and monsters die in the first fight they have with PCs, and that is with existing damage rules (this translates to any fundamental change like this weighing double on the PCs).

Short lives=frustrated players. I played with an aggressive DM once that killed 3 of my new characters in one weekend. As I said, I played with the DM *once*. Your mileage may vary.

OP

 

[Galethorn]

What seems to work pretty well in the campaign I play in is a simple rule the DM came up with.

Massive damage applies if you take more than half of your HP worth of damage in one hit. The base DC for 50% of your health is 10, with +1 for every percent above 50. Or something like that....it hasn't really come up much...I do have another similar idea though.

This would be for a campaign that you want to be pretty deadly...
Massive damage applies if you take more than (BAB)x(Con Mod)+((levels of d4 hd classes)x2)+4, so a 1st level fighter with 16 con would need to take 7 or more damage, a level 10 barbarian with 22 con would have to take 64 damage, and a level 20 wizard with 12 con would have to take 54 damage. The Fort DC to survive would be 10+(damage taken/10), for a minimum of 10. So, if the fighter got hit for 10, the DC would be 11, and if the barbarian got hit for 76 the DC would be 17, and if the wizard got hit for 59 the DC would be 15.
This will make it so that you end up making fort saves fairly often at low levels, which I think isn't such a bad thing, since combat is supposed to be especially dangerous at the low levels.

This is just the most basic version of my Massive Damage rule, so feel free to pick at it and offer any ways to change it.....If you were wondering, the (BAB)x(Con Mod)+{(levels of d4 hd classes)x2}+4 mechanic is so complicated because everything simple I though of didn't work right at some levels and with low/high Cons and certain classes. This way, level 1 fighters can easily survive most encounters with goblins, and even level 20 wizards can be killed by a single well-placed stab in the heart by a rogue. The fact that it's based on BAB makes the warriors especially tough, and it makes mages more vulnerable than before, which, frankly, is a good thing. However, to keep them from dying _really_ fast, the d4 HD classes get that extra bonus.


Ok, here's another example. 4 levels of wizard, 3 levels of rogue, with 14 con. Has to take (2+3)x(2)+(4x2)+4=22 damage for massive damage to apply...I hope everyone understands....

If you want to try this out, feel free. If you want to suggest changes, that's also fine.


*********
Oh, and to figure it out for monsters, use the HD in place of BAB.

 

[Mike Sullivan]

What character levels are you thinking about, Quasqueton? The changes you propose are more lethal in the lower levels (when raw weapon damages make up a larger part of the expected damage per hit), and less lethal at higher levels (when base weapon damages tends to be overwhelmed by Str, magic, large sneak attack, and the like).

The Reflex save vs. Fort save will make fighter-types have a kind of eerie weakness in combat -- in some ways, they'll be more fragile than rogues...

 

[Aaron2]

Wouldn't it be easier just to lower the character's hit points? Maybe rolling at first level instead of getting max.


Aaron

 

[Arc]

Try multiplying hitpoints by 0.75, it could be a whole lot simpler. The increased damage from weapons would suddenly make magic weaker, and there are all sorts of balance issues with enchantments... the list goes on. If things are harder to kill, and there's a massive damage rule. Also, try making all criticals require a massive damage save. With 3.5 rules, supercrit scimitars won't be as easy to get, and every crit will feel like a truly life threatening event. Just a few ideas.

 

[totoro]

I don't think massive damage works very well at all levels. I would suggest that you should simply increase damage on a crit. Of course, you need to consider the effect this will have on the value of weapons. For example, a longsword (crit 19-20) will become better than an axe (crit 20) if crits are lethal.

How about: if you threaten a crit with a '20' (and only a '20'), then the opponent makes a fort save vs. the damage (better not multiply damage). Alternatively, if you roll a '20' to threaten *and* a '20' to confirm, the target has to make a fort. save. The alternative is slightly less dangerous, but will still cause a little concern when a '20' is rolled the first time.

Yet another alternative, if you roll a '20' on an attack roll, the target makes a fort save vs. the modified attack roll of the confirmation -20. That makes the confirmation check more significant (you want to roll as high as possible).

Please note that I don't use any of these rules so they might suck. We don't have any massive damage rules anymore (though we started out using some).

 

[totoro]

As to the original post about increasing weapon damage, why not make masterwork weapons do an extra die (or more if the weapon does 2 or more dice) of damage (instead of +1 attack)? First level characters will avoid the worst of the increased damage because masterwork usually doesn't come around until 2nd level. Second level characters have twice as many hit points so they should be able to survive a hit.

Alternatively, introduce a new class of masterwork items that cost a bit more and do double base damage (mavencraft?) High CR creatures should also do a little more damage. If mavencraft weapons are relatively cheap, maybe CR 2+ creatures do double base damage.

I think you could also make even higher level masterwork weapons (legendcraft?) that do triple base damage.

Edit: If you increase the base damage of masterwork weapons, there is no reason to keep the requirement that magical weapons be masterwork. Non-masterwork magic weapons would just do less base damage.

 

[Zhnov]

As to the original post about increasing weapon damage, why not make masterwork weapons do an extra die (or more if the weapon does 2 or more dice) of damage (instead of +1 attack)?

First level characters will avoid the worst of the increased damage because masterwork usually doesn't come around until 2nd level. Second level characters have twice as many hit points so they should be able to survive a hit.

I see this quickly getting out of hand. I think the DM would find it hard to build appropriate ELs in this kind of campaign. Also, characters would quickly learn to covet these high-powered increased damage weapons, especially if they are non-magical. Anyone with money would be able to buy some of these juiced weapons, and TPK the little guys.

...mavencraft weapons are relatively cheap, maybe CR 2+ creatures do double base damage.

Now, I've been known to be crafty, but I'm certain this is too juiced. Double base damage, or an extra die, represents a minor order of magnitude. Don't get me wrong, I'm all for levels of craft, but this much of a difference in unbalancing.

I think you could also make even higher level masterwork weapons (legendcraft?) that do triple base damage.

Sorry, not in my campaign.

Edit: If you increase the base damage of masterwork weapons, there is no reason to keep the requirement that magical weapons be masterwork. Non-masterwork magic weapons would just do less base damage.

That's true... but who would need +3 hit/dam when you could walk down the street and buy +d6 or +2d8 cheaply?? Put a critical on top of that, and any creature without a hand to hold a yard of steel will be running for the hills.

Orlic