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

[Blackeagle]

Because they're not quite willing to turn this sacred cow into steak yet.

Actually, I've seen a very similar system proposed as a house rule for 3e, but it went even farther, subsuming magical enhancements as well as physical properties. Basically players got a number of "weapon points" that increased with level which they could use to buy more/bigger weapon dice, bigger crit ranges and multipliers, magical bonuses, special effects, etc. The actual description of the weapon you were using was just fluff on top of this point buy system. It actually seemed like quite an interesting idea, but it took away the prospect of finding a really cool weapon as treasure.

 

[hong]

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".

NWoD, yo!

 

[FitzTheRuke]

I was thinking I agreed with the OP, but then I read Korgoth's post. I guess if I had to choose, I would rather someone stabbed me with a dagger than hit me with a heavy axe.

That said, it's really the arm that wields the sword, not the sword itself. I'd also rather have an idiot swing at me with a heavy axe than go up against a guy who actually knew what he was doing with a knife.

They probably thought about it, but decided it was too much of a change. I can only imagine the freakout if they'd changed weapon damage to a cosmetic change.

Fitz

 

[Fallen Seraph]

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".

That is somewhat similar to the Storytelling system. They have combined hits and damage into one. The more well trained you are in whatever method of combat your employing the more dice you have to roll. Thus how well you hit equals how many dice hit 8 or above and you do more damage.

Damn, ninja'ed by Hong

 

[AZRogue]

It's a good idea and I, for one, would try out something like that. It makes sense to me. Of course, I've ran campaigns where I've used a houseruled attack system that gave players a "pool" of bonuses to apply to their attack and defense, as they wished, like Rolemaster but with d20 and armor was just damage reduction. That was fun too.

As for the way 4E did things, I think it's just because, on average, having damage dice is just more fun for most and being able to choose a large fierce weapon with more potential damage is a balance to using a shield and being harder to hit. And it's a sacred cow. I imagine they want to keep the cows that they think are fun.

 

[Boarstorm]

If someone were to work on a system like this (Lizard, I'm lookin' at you), I think it would be wise to see SOME benefits tied to the weapon type you choose to wield.

For example, axes remaining high crit, or light blades critting more often, or... I dunno, something. Some mechanical benefit tied directly to how the weapon handles.

 

[Zelc]

I think almost getting hit by a greataxe is more "OMG I almost died" than almost getting hit by a dagger, regardless of who is swinging. And different skill levels is represented by proficiencies.

 

[keterys]

In the d20 system I was toying with after I got tired of 3.x, one handed weapons did 1d6 damage and two-handed weapons did 2d6 damage (as did dual wield). The rest was specials.

Of course, that's not quite what you're saying, but I'm not inherently opposed to the concept that planting a dagger in you is just as dangerous as a sword slashing. I do wonder how much of a sacred cow it is vs. how much is people really just wanting there to be very real differences between weapons, even when you don't use their special abilities.

 

[FadedC]

4e actually seems to put MORE emphasis on weapon dice then 3e does. In 3e once you were high level it didn't really matter if you were hitting for d12+104 damage or d4+104 damage. But in 4e it appears at high level it might at times be the difference between 7d4+40 and 7d12+40. Now that's actually important....even important enough you might consider giving up that extra +1 to hit or bit of extra reach.

 

[ProfessorCirno]

If someone were to work on a system like this (Lizard, I'm lookin' at you), I think it would be wise to see SOME benefits tied to the weapon type you choose to wield.

For example, axes remaining high crit, or light blades critting more often, or... I dunno, something. Some mechanical benefit tied directly to how the weapon handles.

I dunno, being hacked in the face with a great axe or stabbed in the face with a dagger; I'm pretty sure I'd die horribly from both ;p

Which brings me to the odd point - yes, I know real world things aren't allowed here, because of some unknown and unwritten designation that stated anything that could ever possibly exist in reality is like, totally uncool man, but a knight would probably fear that dagger MORE then the greataxe. One can go through the weak points in his armor, the other just CLANGs against him or his shield as it's owner is run through for using a stupid weapon on a battlefield.