Realistic Weapon Damage

[Roman]

To the people urging me 'not to worry about realism' (paraphrased), as I said, I am not worried about it, it is just something which interests me. Yes, some of us may have strange interests.

[quote+Notmousse]If you wanted to model reality then anything that could be considered a weapon would do 1 D infinity...

Honestly, all it takes is one good whack from anything potentially dangerous to kill someone. Have a hammer? Knock a vertibrae out of alignment severing their spinal nerves and wait. Have a (titanium) spork? A good jab to the left or right side of the neck renders them at -1 HP, just wait. The same could be said for most weapons.[/quote]

It is true that even a bare fist of an individual of average strength can probably kill an average healthy adult human if it strikes the right spot. Correct me if I am wrong here, I am certainly no expert on medicine or fighting, but I figure a fist blow to the temple even by an average person would kill another average person, no?

Nevertheless, I think it is reasonable to say that weapons do different amounts of damage simply based on the fact that hitting the temple is not that common and other weapons will kill an average healthy adult human even when they hit other vital areas or even non-vital areas.

Still, even the infinity effect is modelable by having the dice explode on their maximum roll.

 

[Roman]

actually, the current RAW is pretty accurate.

the average noncombatant human has 1d4 HD, meaning an average of 2 hit points. A dagger used by the average noncombatant human deals 1-4 damage. Meaning that on a hit that matters, there's a 50 percent chance that once the attacker has struck a meaningful blow, the victim falls to the ground, and starts bleeding to death. This seems realistic to me.

This also means that fistfights between people not trained in fighting are resolved in 2-4 successful, hard punches or kicks. Once again, this is pretty damned realistic.

Hmm, so if an average human had 4d8 hit points, would it simply make sense to extend unarmed damage to 4d8 per hit?


Melayl - thanks for chiming in with medical perspectives - I am not a doctor or a nurse, so any such insight is much appreciated.

 

[Land Outcast]

Then you'd have to have the damage based off size of the weapon.
Condidering average human commoner:

Light: 1d4
One-handed: 1d6
Two-handed: 2d4

 

[Land Outcast]

Hmm, so if an average human had 4d8 hit points, would it simply make sense to extend unarmed damage to 4d8 per hit?

No, it would make sense to use a shock system mechanic in which the shock treshold is Character Level + Con modifier (minimum 1).
Also, add exploding dice (both ways, including d20s)

A Fortitude save follows, and depending on the result you can result:
Beat DC: No secondary effects
Miss DC by 5: Dazed
Miss DC by 10: Stunned
Miss DC by 15: Killed

Example: DC = Damage received

Deadly and complicated, yes.

 

[AbeTheGnome]

Assuming that an "average" human has 4d8 HD and 10 Con (18 hp), I think all weapon damage is about right. A dagger deals 1d4, a longsword deals 1d8. What should be changed in this system is critical multipliers. On a crit, a dagger should be able to kill just about anyone. Any weapon should be able to kill just about anyone on a crit. I suggest either a modified WP/VP system or increased crit multipliers in order to model realistic damage. Multiply the multipliers by, say, 5. That way, an attacker with an average Str does 1d4 x10 on a successful hit: anywhere from 10-40 points of damage!

 

[BRP2]

Hit Points really are the most confusing stat of DnD.

It's not just vitality, but luck, fate, and ability to avoid lethal wounds.

 

[Roman]

Interesting systems, but what about if I were to preserve current mechanics as much as possible - how much damage would weapons cause then?

Does anybody know of some actual statistics on the lethality of weapons (especially not modern weapons, guns are not really as relevant for this purpose as punches, swords or daggers)?

Also, I made a mistake with the 4d8 hit points per average human - I meant to suggest 3d8 as the baseline human.

 

[3d6]

Then you'd have to have the damage based off size of the weapon.
Condidering average human commoner:

Light: 1d4
One-handed: 1d6
Two-handed: 2d4

I'm not sure why a dagger and a longsword would deal different amounts of damage if damage represents the amount of physical trauma the weapon can inflict. A dagger, a short sword, and a longsword can all cause a puncture wound deep enough to pierce vital organs, which is the primary way you're going to die to a blade. The damage difference in D&D seems to mainly reflect the weapons overall combat effectiveness. That is, a dagger and a longsword will both kill an unarmed man with one strike, but a man with a longsword fighting a man with a dagger has an advantage.

 

[Roman]

I'm not sure why a dagger and a longsword would deal different amounts of damage if damage represents the amount of physical trauma the weapon can inflict. A dagger, a short sword, and a longsword can all cause a puncture wound deep enough to pierce vital organs, which is the primary way you're going to die to a blade. The damage difference in D&D seems to mainly reflect the weapons overall combat effectiveness. That is, a dagger and a longsword will both kill an unarmed man with one strike, but a man with a longsword fighting a man with a dagger has an advantage.

This is a good point, but I would say that due to its greater size, a hit from a long sword has a greater likelihood of striking vital organs than a hit from a dagger. Also, although I asked for damage based on humans, in D&D we also fight Dragons and other creatures whose size is such that a dagger cannot necessarily be assured of reaching the vital organs.

 

[Michael Silverbane]

Interesting systems, but what about if I were to preserve current mechanics as much as possible - how much damage would weapons cause then?

Does anybody know of some actual statistics on the lethality of weapons (especially not modern weapons, guns are not really as relevant for this purpose as punches, swords or daggers)?

Also, I made a mistake with the 4d8 hit points per average human - I meant to suggest 3d8 as the baseline human.

If you want to use 3 (or 4) d8 as your run of the mill meat sack, and you want weapon damage to sometimes (but not always, because people occassionally get shot five or six times and live to tell the tale) be lethal, then I'd say that you should use bigger dice for damage. That way, you maintain the potential lethality, but add in much more granularity and randomness.

Somebody with 3d8 hit points is generally going to have 13 hp... so 1d12 or so would be just about right for your "can kill, but won't necessarily do so" weapons...

later
silver