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

[Rykion]

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,

Hit points are only partially narrative based. Anything that is purely narrative based would require no die rolls to adjudicate. That is why different weapons deal different damage in 4e. A simpler damage system would work, but I for one prefer weapon based damage systems.

 

[proto128]

Interesting. If my compulsive gambler rogue can deal 1d8 weapon damage by throwing cards or flicking copper pieces, I'm all for it.

 

[GoodKingJayIII]

I've always liked the idea of "weapons as special effects." Someone created some very good houserules for that and posted them here on ENWorld. If I can dig it up, I'll post it when I get home from work.

Essentially, all weapons dealt static damage based on the character's class (and feat selection), and damage dice could be traded for effects (so one might deal 3d6 damage, or 2d6 damage with the tripping effect).

It let people play a concept character without worrying about equipment, and it had a very kung fu movie feel that sits well with me. Ultimately I was not interested in playtesting it, because my players are not very rules oriented. But I'd love to see someone develop this concept for 4e.

 

[Rykion]

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.

The greataxe is far more dangersous to a knight, assuming the person wielding it can use it effectively. A mounted knight has to worry about being knocked off his horse or his horse being killed by someone with a greataxe. I guess a ninja would throw a dagger through the knight's visor or slit the horses throat, but most knights don't seem to have spent much time worrying about ninjas. On foot, a sword and board knight has a major reach and defensive advantage over a person with a dagger. The dagger wielder would need some advantage such as fighting an exhausted or injured knight, or again be a ninja himself to have much chance. Archers used daggers as effective secondary weapons when dealing with unhorsed knights. In this case, the archers are likely to be dealing with an injured or stunned knight facing several enemies. Against a greataxe wielder, the knight would have to seriously worry about the weapon damaging or getting through his armor and shield. Then there is the fact that a blow from a greataxe can bruise, break the bones of, or stun a man even when his armor itself isn't damaged.

The greataxe's main disadvantages are that it takes a lot of strength, stamina, training, and space to be used effectively. That makes them poor choices for any sort of close formation combat. They are also poor choices for mounted combat.

 

[Rex Blunder]

Why is this in the 4e forum?

And why does the thread title have "in 4e" in it?

 

[Lizard]

Dark Ages != New World of Darkness.

Sorry, didn't see the qualifier. I've played a lot of OWOD, but no NWOD, and so, am unfamiliar with the changes.

 

[Lizard]

Why is this in the 4e forum?

And why does the thread title have "in 4e" in it?

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...

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.)

 

[Mishihari Lord]

Easy - because it would make the game less interesting. I takes away a meaningful player choice. Why would you want to do that?

 

[Rex Blunder]

Oops, I totally snarked on your post, Lizard. It's actually a very interesting thought. I apologize.

 

[Dragonblade]

Because D&D's damage system is not purely narrative. In fact, no game system is purely narrative.

One of the flaws in point based special effect based games such as HERO and M&M is caused by the disconnect between a fully narrative point based character creation and a game world that is still run in a somewhat simulationist manner by most GMs.

Let's say you have two characters, one is a martial artist and all his damage is unarmed. One carries a big huge claymore and all his damage comes from his sword. In a special effects based system, both of these weapons do the same damage. However, the Unarmed character has several advantages. The Unarmed PC can go anywhere and is always armed and can never be disarmed. The Sword PC can be disarmed and cannot go freely about the game world carrying his big huge sword. Point based systems try to compensate for these drawbacks by giving you a point discount for the claymore. But whether this discount is a good deal or a bad deal is entirely dependent on the DM and how they run their world, and thus is not consistent from game to game.

Also other issues related to point based systems arise. How much damage is done if the weapon is picked up by another who didn't pay the original cost? I find the answers to these questions somewhat unsatisfactory in point based systems. I much prefer the item to be a completely self-contained entity that is not purchased by the PC via points, and thus its advantages (more damage) and drawbacks (big size and weight) are fully conveyed to whoever wields it.

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.