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

[Cadfan]

I'm pretty sure that a lot of weapons ARE the same now in terms of damage. The maul is 2d6, for example, and I'd be surprised if the greataxe and greatsword weren't 2d6 as well. The fact that the maul is a giant hammer and the greatsword is a giant sword will probably be represented by special abilities attached to weapon types and available by means of feats or powers.

Still, part of making weapons "feel" different is giving them abilities that actually occur mechanically. Some mechanical benefits will be better than others. For balance reasons, that means that sometimes certain weapons will need to do more damage than others. If Weapon X is a high critical weapon that does 1d8 damage, and Weapon Y is a regular weapon that does 1d8 damage, Weapon X is superior. It might be a good idea to reduce it to 1d6 to accommodate, or to provide a benefit of some other kind to Weapon Y.

 

[Dragonblade]

Also, I feel that rolling different damage for different weapons to simply be more fun. But I can't really articulate why I feel that way...

 

[Mister Doug]

I swear I saw damage by class in one version of the Basic Set years ago... certainly there are traces of it in the AD&D 1e Monster Manual damage for different humanoids, so this doesn't seem like a crazy idea.

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.

 

[apoptosis]

Lizard,

I think that is a really good idea. It allows characters to wield the weapons they want without having to worry about subpar choices.

I think it probably fits in with the spirit of 4e much better than having different weapon damages, though i would remove the class effect and just have the weapons all do the same damage.

 

[Andur]

Overall I can find no real objection to the base concept. The "trick" would be to define both attributes (light blades get +3 to hit) and "point cost" for each keyword. Then the trick is to "balance" the keywords with their costs.

Each class than would get a set of points to spend, fighters the most, wizards the least. Mix in what is known about magical modifiers and give them point costs and you can get rid of magic weapons entirely, just budget in "weapon points" every x level(s).

Of course the "problem" enters as soon as someone multiclasses, do they do the original class damage, either class damage, or do different classes have different point costs for certain keywords. (Rogues pay less for light blades than fighters perhaps)

 

[apoptosis]

There is a also a suspension of disbelief issue. We who live in the real world, expect that size and mass equals damage. When we see games where this doesn't hold true, even in games that strive for a purely cinematic feel, there is still a bit of a disconnect.

Honestly for me this is so low down on the list of disbelief issues (even given that a world with magic exists).

If hitpoints are abstract and combat is pretty abstract then weapon damage being somewhat abstract seems pretty expected to me.

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

Because it's a concept which fits with the changes 4e is making? And because the answer to "in 3e" would be "because in 2000, there were a lot of sacred cows not to be slaughtered"?

Can we not discuss 4e rules variants/options/ideas? I mean, just because it's not out yet...

Maybe it should be in the D&D 4 house rules forum, but since you're not really discussing a specific mechanic and more the idea behind it, that's probably a bit to early.

Just to clarify (and as a general response), I'm not strongly advocating this idea, just playing with it, because I like to play with game design concepts. I strongly like differentiating weapons mechanically, but if we're going for a narrative game style, the differentiation should be on tricks/powers, not absolute damage dealt. In fiction, a character's weapon choice is often a matter of cultural/personal/symbolic significance, and it does whatever damage it needs to. In a story about daring rogues in the dark alleys of the cold metropolis, the knife wielded by a thug is deadlier than the pikes wielded by the city guard. The hero of a Poul Anderson novel -- can't remember the name of it -- used a big wooden cudgel to great effect.

If I play 4e, I probably won't use this concept until I'm really comfortable with the rules, but it's interesting to think about. (And the other reason its 4e is that the exploits system makes creating weapon-based powers easier than the feats system.)

I like the idea. I think the current idea,though, is to still have a way to make weapons mechanically different, to increase the amount of character build options (which weapon and maneuvers do I learn or specialize on), and tactical options (what weapon do I use now?)

That said, I think it would still be possible to do this. Iron Heroes uses a lot of weapon descriptors that do little to nothing, until you pick the right feats. A similar thing could be introduced in 4E.

 

[D'karr]

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,

Honestly I think it is because most of us gamers really enjoy rolling dice. It would not be the same experience if we just did a certain amount of "static" damage based on class or some other metagame construct.

 

[Kaffis]

My fighter is more deadly with his un-bent paperclip than your wizard is with a greatsword!

 

[Scribble]

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.

Well, to a degree they're doing this... Looks like for the most part your "powers" that you use determine the actual damage output.

The weapons themselves seem almost to be a base power. Like a cheap at will power anyone can grab, and those with more weapons knowledge (fighters) can improve...