D&D 4E Why do weapons have different damage in 4e?

[Lizard]

Seriously.

If hit points are now purely narrative (as both the minion and healing rules indicate), then why cling to the simulationist (and actually not entirely accurate) notion of differential weapon damage? Why not have weapon damage be CLASS based, as a reflection of general combat prowess, i.e,

Wizard-types: 1d6 base
Rogue-types:1d8 base
Fighter-types:1d10 base

Have feats to increase damage. The actual weapon you use is a "special effect". Want to play a fighter with twin blades? You do 1d10. A fighter with a massive axe? 1d10. A fighter with bare-knuckle brawling? 1d10.

"Balance" weapons with special effects -- light blades use Dex, not Str. An axe does double damage against objects. Bare knuckles can do lethal or non lethal. But damage? Remains the same. Weapons might open up different feats or allow different exploits, but raw damage is purely based on class skill.

(You may wish to have a division between 2 handed fighting (either two weapons or one two handed weapon), and weapon-and-shield fighting, come to think of it. So you'd have two damage numbers per class, or maybe just "If you give up a shield, you do +2 damage")

I've got to think on this. If nothing else, it might make an interesting PDF. It certainly frees players to make the character they imagine, without needing to battle with mechanics. Your rapier-wielding fencer no longer has greataxe envy, and if your wizard wants to wield a longsword, well, fine, but he's not going to do much damage with it due to his low martial skill.

 

[Fallen Seraph]

Well I think part of that is covered in the mechanics now with proficiency, what with more accurate weapons doing less damage then larger more cumbersome ones.

So, it shows that your combat prowess with a more accurate weapon means your more likely to wear down a opponent, more often. But, a higher damage one entails that it takes less blows to do so.

So a rapier may slice open a arm, or trip a guy up. A warhammer would knock a guy to his knees, have his ears ringing, etc.

 

[FadedC]

Even if hit points partially represent things like energy and pain threshold, it still seems reasonable that a glancing blow with a greataxe would be take more out of you then one with a dagger.

From a game mechanics perspective, different damage ranges allow for another tool in balancing weapons while still making them unique which it would seem is a good thing. I'm not sure there is any mechanical advantage to getting rid of them.

 

[Boarstorm]

I think you kind of missed his point, Seraph.

Lizard -- I see where you're going here. Narratively speaking, why should a "near miss" with a greataxe do more plot-armor damage than a "near miss" from a dagger? Presumably, one might have to exert themselves MORE to avoid the axe, but that's a pretty minor detail based more on the skill of the opponent than the weapon itself.

Which is where the class-based damages come into play. A fighter is more deadly, no matter the weapon, than a wizard (at least, when it comes to swinging that weapon at a bad guy).

That said, weapon damage is one sacred cow that I think a LOT of people would balk at were it to meat (intentional) its end.

 

[Fallen Seraph]

Well I don't think it is just plot armour though. Some is yes, but some is other things. As such, the effect when there is contact (doesn't have to be actual wounds either) can differentiate depending on the weapon.

 

[Korgoth]

Unfortunately, from a realism standpoint, it's probably most important to take into account weapon length, armor penetration and employment doctrine. However, D&D traditionally doesn't take much account of these things (I say "much" because there are things like the Weapon vs. AC table, the Judge's Guild weapon length charts, etc. that never took off).

As it is, weapon damage seems to be linked to how overtly destructive the weapon is. If, as I postulate, hit points are the pool of resources you spend to turn a lethal blow into a near miss or inconsequential nick (which is for all intents and purposes a "miss" in D&D anyhow), then we can see that you're charged more points for avoiding death at the hands of a Gargantuan Dire Mercurial Nukular GreatAxe (which would presumably chop you and then the planet you're standing on in half) than you are for avoiding more subtly lethal weapons like the dirk or the gladius (which merely destroy 1-2 vital organs or perhaps lop off a single limb). Perhaps we might reason that you have less margin for error against those grosser weapons in that it is harder to merely be "nicked" by them.

It ends up "looking" more or less right, so I'm fine with it.

 

[Boarstorm]

I want a Gargantuan Dire Mercurial Nukular GreatAxe.

I'd hang it on the wall and tell stories about that time I visited Pluto. Take that Pluto!

 

[hong]

I'm all for weapon choice being cosmetic.

Heck, I'm all for armour choice being cosmetic.

 

[VannATLC]

That said, weapon damage is one sacred cow that I think a LOT of people would balk at were it to meat (intentional) its end

This.

I understand the point, and don't disagree with it, in any real sense.

I do, however, like the idea of weapons giving attributes, as opposed to damage.

Keep the bonuses to hit from certain weapons, give others different properties, etc. But that just becomes more complicated, I think.

 

[Lizard]

That said, weapon damage is one sacred cow that I think a LOT of people would balk at were it to meat (intentional) its end.

True, but you might as well go the distance.

IAE, the earliest edition of D&D had all weapons doing 1d6, no matter who used them -- yet oddly restricted weapon types by class.

It's an intellectual exercise. Another variant, though one with more in-play slowdown, is to base damage solely on how well you hit...say, 1d6 for every 5 points you made your attack by. Fighters, with presumably higher melee rules, would average out doing more damage. You wouldn't need 'to hit' and 'damage' bonuses -- one bonus covers, effectively, both. I can see some real problems with this, especially with growing hit points -- a high level character would do 6d6 to a lowly minion and 1d6 to a level appropriate foe. So it wouldn't work without seriously redoing the game engine, so file that under "Something to add to a game design of my own".