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

[Darkthorne]

Lizard,
I think if you went with your idea you should add size classes of weapons. (Small, Med, Large)

Fighter small weapon (dagger, short sword) D8
Fighter Med Weapon (Long sword, flail) 2d6
Fighter Large Weapon (2 handed sword, great axe) 2d8

Whereas a wizard with the same weapons Small = D4, Med = D6 Large = 2d4. At least the opponent that does something to restrict his use from the massive weapon knows he's (hopefully) not going to be hurt as much. Just a thought

 

[drjones]

Because it is fun.

 

[outsider]

Because, at it's heart, D&D embraces gamist aspects over narrativist ones. Having varying weapon damage(and other weapon stats/features/abilities) adds a plethora of mechanically signifigant choices for players to make, adding more strategic options to the game.

 

[AndrewRogue]

Gameism and cinematic trope.

 

[Jhaelen]

Well, they had to hold some changes back for 5E, right?

No, really, I think, this is an interesting idea that we may eventually see in D&D.

There are other things I can imagine seeing in future editions:
- truly built-in multiclassing: EVERY character starts with training in a second class
- getting rid of ability scores: just use ability modifiers
- attacks and defenses folded into skills
- ...

Eventually, we'll slaughter all of them sacred cows!

 

[Mort_Q]

Eventually, we'll slaughter all of them sacred cows!

I'd slaughter classes first, then there'd be no need for multiclassing.

 

[Henry]

Lizard, I'd say you have your first GSL project! Now all you need is a publisher and October to arrive...

 

[CleverNickName]

When I read the title of the thread, the first answer that popped into my head was "because that's the way it's always been done!" I started to formulate the typical arguments that I normally make (change for the sake of change, not broken/don't fix, video game this and MMORPG that, you know the drill) and prepared to click on the Quote button.

Then I read your post.

You know what? You make an excellent point. Why does weapon damage depend so much on the choice of weapon? In the right hands, an ordinary brick would be just as damaging as a baseball bat or a hammer. The size and shape of the weapon is a factor, sure, but it isn't the only factor. I'd dare say that it isn't even the primary factor.

I think you are right. The choice of weapon should dictate the type of damage (bludgeoning, piercing, slashing) and qualify it for special abilities and attacks (backstabbing, tripping, disarming.) The amount of damage should be determined by your class, your ability scores, and your feats. If you are proficient with the weapon, you get a bonus to attack and damage. If you aren't, you don't. Large weapon? more damage. Small weapon? less damage.

This would go a long way to balancing the weapons IMO. Very interesting idea indeed.

 

[JDJblatherings]

once upon a time all weapons in D&D inflicted 1d6 of damage.

There were at least two combat charts in use the man to man chart (from chainmail) that took into consideration differences between weapons and armors and the flat "alternative combat' (which almost everyone used).

then a supplement called greyhawk came out. some weapons did more damage, some weapons did less damage. fighters got a wider range of weaponas that had a wider range of damage scores (certainyl against large critters) other characters had smaller ramge of weapons that geenrally didnt' do as much damage. at the tiem all 1st level pcs fought just as well so Fighters got an edge with weaposn that inflicted mroe damage that other couldnt use.

D&d combat is abstract and the orignal combat rounds were long, hitting could be multiple blows not just one so a wepaosn damage ratign really indicated how much damage it was likely to inflict over the course of a round.

AD&D used pretty much the same setup with slight rejiggering of numbers. Fghter classes still got weapons that did more damage.

3e widened the rage of choices availabel to all sorts of characters but the martial types still generally got the advantage of using more weapons that did more damage without havign to invest extra feats to do so.

In truth any single weapon blow can kill a normal man. What makes a weapon differnt from another is it's opportunity to wound you, how quickly you can bash someone again, how likely you are to penetrate armor. The D&D method dos this well soemoen armed with a dagger (doing 1d4) has muich less opportunity to damage someone then a person armed with a longsword (1d8) does. a host of variables can be covered by weapons having different damage ratings.

Some weapons are better then other ones. Real people seldom went into battle with a weapon for "flavor reasons" they wanted the most effective weapon their skills would allow them to use on the battle field. I recall no historical account of legions of knife fighters but plenty of people all over the world used spears and pikes. The spear gave one reach of course but also increased the opportunities one would have to harm the other; thus a higher damage rating when compared to a dagger.

 

[pinbot]

Abstracting weapons seems like a story-telling focused switch. Aren't there already a bunch of games like that?

I'd rather see weapons make more of a difference--2 handed swords for cleaves, axes for power attacks, spears for readied attacks, daggers for attacks during a grapple, etc

Anyway, what you want is perfect as a house rule. Better to have weapon details in there for you to ignore if you choose. Omit them and the 'roll-players' would probably be chased away to an alternative (gurps? where would a 'simulationist' turn these days?)