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

[Fallen Seraph]

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.

Well that is sorta demonstrated by the proficiency level the dagger has, it has a higher chance of hitting then a axe. So it is more likely to go through weak points, while the axe is less likely, but would do much more serious damage if it did.

 

[Intense_Interest]

Because being disarmed or stripped of your weapon is a powerful narrative device.

Having to "make do" with a lesser weapon is another.

As a method for balancing weapon types without laying on arbitrary bonuses and pluses because of a limited ability to scale its power.

 

[MindWanderer]

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.

As it should. If you're going to make weapon die a meaningful factor, you have to make it meaningful at all levels. It shouldn't be like 3e, where by level 20 your modifiers overwhelmed your die so much that you chose a weapon more on other characteristics. Especially if you're trading die size for accuracy--if you're dealing 20 points of damage on an average attack, +1 to hit is much more valuable than +1 damage.

 

[ProfessorCirno]

As it should. If you're going to make weapon die a meaningful factor, you have to make it meaningful at all levels. It shouldn't be like 3e, where by level 20 your modifiers overwhelmed your die so much that you chose a weapon more on other characteristics. Especially if you're trading die size for accuracy--if you're dealing 20 points of damage on an average attack, +1 to hit is much more valuable than +1 damage.

I think the problem there is that we're going to see an immidiate hiarchy of weapons, and oh god I probably misspelt half of this sentence.

In 3.5, you could use (virtually) any weapon, because the base modifier didn't mean much as you went along. If you make that REALLY important, you'll get weapons that are literally *never* used, and other weapons that are ALWAYS used, because they're just rediculously much better then others.

 

[hong]

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.

Spoken like someone who's never been hacked with a greataxe.

 

[ProfessorCirno]

Spoken like someone who's never been hacked with a greataxe.

What, the first part or last part?

Last part is historically accurate which is, I know, totally uncool.

First part is...well, how do YOU know I've never been hacked in the face with a greataxe? You can't see me from your computer. Don't judge me, man.

 

[Korgoth]

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.

I think the knight really only fears the dagger when he's off his horse, wearing gothic plate, supine, and with one or more dagger-armed levies crawling on his torso. Then he has reason to fear the dagger.

Otherwise, the big axe is going to hurt more.

 

[dystmesis]

I've got a similiar houserule that I use for Microlite20.

 

[Sashi]

In 3E the actual damage die of the weapon stopped mattering at some point. If the difference between a +3 flaming frost keen scimitar of impact and a flaming frost keen greatsword of impact is 1d6 damage, but who cares when one crits on a 15+ and the other on a 17+? A 10% higher chance of doubling your damage trumps 1d6 extra damage (and the difference is even smaller with a Falchion).

By making different weapons have different abilities, and making PC abilities depend on those weapons more (when you're dealing 3W+bonuses instead of 1W+bonuses damage it matters a little more if you're doing 6d6 or 3d6, to use the Scimitar vs Greatsword comparison). By giving weapons different damages, they also let them have different abilities without one becoming completely superior.

 

[FadedC]

I think the problem there is that we're going to see an immidiate hiarchy of weapons, and oh god I probably misspelt half of this sentence.

In 3.5, you could use (virtually) any weapon, because the base modifier didn't mean much as you went along. If you make that REALLY important, you'll get weapons that are literally *never* used, and other weapons that are ALWAYS used, because they're just rediculously much better then others.

Well I'm not sure that weapon type being irrelevent is necesarily a good trait. But neither is having only one "good" option. The key is to balance them so that there are times when that d12 weapon with +1 to hit is better and there are times when that d4 weapon with +3 to hit is better. Whether 4e succesfully does that or not remains to be seen.

As for knights and daggers, I seriously doubt that the best option when facing a knight with a sword and shield on the battlefield was to throw away your sword/axe and pull out a dagger. The dagger might be more effective in a graple or if you catch him by surprise but it's hardly the weapon to use in a regular melee.