New approach to Weapon Damage

[Sutek]

Yeah, I think I narrowed it down to -2 for Reach Weapons, and -2 for Two Handed Weapons, so -4 for 2HWs with reach. I felt that the rules for not getting to attack within 5' for reach weapons covered a further penalty related to "enough space." There were too many conditionals to sticking an extra penalty in based on combat grid situations, so I didnt' mess with it.

I also disagree with modifying initiative with weapons, because INIT is far too important for dealing that first blow. Not for the "time warp" reason that Hoof mentioned, but just because it's not penalizing the right operative in combat for the way D20 combat works. It functions much better to rob from the TO HIT fr the gain in damage and combat effect that larger weapons grant.

At least it made sense to me.

 

[Supplement Four]

Something like this might be what you're looking for. I've eliminated weapon damage throws. Damage depends on the success of the attack throw. All weapons are dangerous.



1 - First off, use Active Defense. The attacker makes an attack, and the defender makes a defense throw.

2 - Damage is based on the attack. The higher the attack, the more damage inflicted.

3 - Pick an increment number to represent the wound breaks. I haven't studied this in depth (I'm writing off the top of my head), so the number 5 might not be ideal. But, I'll use it here in my example to express my idea.



If an attack is 5 points higher than the defense roll, damage is a minor wound. The GM describes the actual wound based on the situation. This could be a bruise or a scrape.

If an attack is 10 points higher than the defense roll, damage is a major wound. This is a cut or a sprained body part. -5 to all attacks.

If an attack is 15 points higher than the defense roll, damage is a serious wound. This could be a deep, bleeding stab or a broken bone. -10 to all attacks.

If an attack is 20 points higher than the defense roll, damage is an instant kill. Arm or head chopped off. Gutted. Head bashed in. I'd allow the Fort Save for the defender to save himself (Fort vs. Attack roll), and every 5 points rolled over that number results in a wound reduction of one category (making the roll = a serious wound; 5 points over = a major wound; 10 points over = minor wound; 15 points over = no damage).



Let's look at an example:

Ruslan, the thief, uses his poinard while in combat with Severyn, the City Watchman.

Ruslan is a 1st level thief
Finesse attack total: +2
Dodge defense: +2
Weilding a poinard

Severyn is a 1st level soldier
Melee attack total: +3
Parry defense: +2
Weilding a warsword



Ruslan wins initiative and moves first. He attacks. d20 +2 = 19

Severyn attempts to block the swing. His defense. d20 +2 = 7

Ruslan's attack was 10 points higher than Severyn's defense, meaning Ruslan landed a major wound. The GM says that Ruslan's blade flashed and cut a deep trench across Severyn's arm. He's bleeding.

Severyn's turn. Now, he's -5 attack due to the wound.

Severyn's attack: d20 +2 -5 = 10.

Ruslan's defense: d20 +2 = 6.

It was close, but Ruslan just sidestepped Severyn's swing (Severyn did not roll 5 higher than the defense throw).



There's some bugs to be worked out of this (how to handle finesse, for example), but this system might be what you're looking for.

 

[Der Rote Baron]

Sounds a little like True 20/ Mutants & Masterminds (or: Conan & Critters) to me.

 

[Clovenhoof]

That basically looks workable, but I've developed a certain dislike against multiple-roll combat actions, which includes active defense. During any combat, twice as many rolls have to be made, so this invariably bogs down the process.

Also, while the concept of wounds hampering you certainly is realistic, it's counterproductive in a heroic fantasy game. I want the player characters to be bold and daring adventurers, who throw themselves into the fray fearlessly and accomplish great feats of battle.
By introducing a Death Spiral mechanism, the players will act a lot more cautious, because they know that taking a single wound is likely to lead to their untimely demise.

The general idea of the system is a bit similar to Shadowrun (SR2/3 at least): taking physical or mental damage reduces your initiative and increases all Target Numbers (which corresponds to DC in D20 systems). In practice this means that even a Light Wound (=10% damage) seriously hampers your fighting ability, and a Medium Wound is almost guaranteed to make you totally ineffective in combat, even though you're technically only at 30% damage.
That system is fine for the Shadowrun genre, because it's mostly about Covert Ops where you want to avoid fights as much as possible, but the Shadowrun playing style is not what I have in mind for a bawdy round of Sword & Sorcery.

 

[Supplement Four]

That basically looks workable, but I've developed a certain dislike against multiple-roll combat actions, which includes active defense. During any combat, twice as many rolls have to be made, so this invariably bogs down the process.

Normally, Conan has an attack roll and a damage roll. The above is an attack roll and a defense roll.

Same number of throws.



Also, with regular Conan, I can understand the thought that Active Defense will bog down a game. More dice throws usually means longer combat rounds.

But, I've found that Active Defense is damn fun in a game--not bogging it down, but rather adding to the game. The Vanir comes in, dirk in hand, and he swings, low, to your mid section...roll!

The player is more "active" in his character's defense, feeling the throw be his character desperately trying to avoid that Vanir bastard's dirk!

Active Defense might not be for everyone, but it certainly adds to my game (or I wouldn't use it).

Also, while the concept of wounds hampering you certainly is realistic, it's counterproductive in a heroic fantasy game.

The above was just a thought. You can define the wound categories any way you wish--describe them with heroic fantasy in mind. Make the wound catgegories less fatal.

You could always have some penalties that don't lead to wounds (stun, for example. Have to wait a turn before you can act).

And, you can say that the fight ends only when someone rolls a 20, for a critical hit...or whatever. Define wounds as you wish.

 

[Clovenhoof]

Normally, Conan has an attack roll and a damage roll. The above is an attack roll and a defense roll.

Okay, that's a point.
(Though many groups roll attack and damage in the same toss.)

But, I've found that Active Defense is damn fun in a game--not bogging it down, but rather adding to the game. The Vanir comes in, dirk in hand, and he swings, low, to your mid section...roll!

Yeah, but you can also have that with a single roll - it's an optional rule called Players Roll All The Dice. I use it in my group. The players roll their attacks as usual, against a DV. The opposition however doesn't roll their attacks, but always adds a flat 11 in place of the die roll. The players in turn roll a D20 instead of the Base 10, and add all their DV modifiers to that D20 roll.

The probabilities are exactly the same as normal, but it takes workload off the GMs hands, reduces the players' idle time, and they get the feeling that they actually have an influence on the outcome of the enemy attacks.

 

[Supplement Four]

The probabilities are exactly the same as normal, but it takes workload off the GMs hands, reduces the players' idle time, and they get the feeling that they actually have an influence on the outcome of the enemy attacks.

Wow. The probability may be the same, but you've eliminated the exciting swings and dips that comes from dice rolling.

And, Active Defense adds more of that uncertainty--which is why it's fun. For example, you may roll a lousy attack throw, totaling 7. But, then the defense comes in, and it's even more lousy at a total of 5! You hit!

The reverse can be true, as well. Some big, honking, bad-breathed Vanir swings his massive sword with both hands, coming down at you hard. He rolls a 17! You've got no hit points left. Next hit will probably kill you, and, now, likely you're hit!

But, then, your defense is rolled, resulting in 18!.

Narrowly, you just jumped aside, dodging that swing!

Like I said, it's fun. I find that players tend to "feel" the swings when using Active Defense.

If it didn't add to the game, I sure wouldn't use it. But, those desperate moments when it's, "Roll your defense! And, roll high, or you're dead!" are worth it.

 

[Clovenhoof]

Well, it's great that you and your chums are having a blast.

I must say that my negative experiences with active defense stem from a totally different game. In that system, attack and parry are not opposed rolls. Everyone has certain Attack and Parry scores (usually between 6 and 18 and you have to roll _under_ that score with a D20 to make a valid attack or parry. And no matter how good your attack roll is, the defender still only has to beat his regular parry check to block you. Of course this sucks because it's very difficult to score a hit. And as insult comes to injury, most weapons do only rather piddly damage which is further reduced by very effective DR armour.

So the transcript of a fight might look like this.
P1: "I attack the bandit."
GM: "Roll Attack."
P1 (rolls): "Success."
GM (rolls): "Parry success. The bandit attacks you. *rolls* Miss."
repeat for the other players in order of initiative score with varying results of "attack/parry success" and "attack miss". Until at last...
P1: "Attack success."
GM: "Parry... failed. You hit."
P1: "Woo hoo! I roll damage for my sword... D6+4... 7 points." normal longsword damage
GM: "7 points, minus 3 points from leather armour, 4 damage." and be glad he's not wearing a helmet, bracers or greaves
P1, knowing full well that even a level 1 human always has at least 30HP: "Pooh."
GM: "Anyway, the bandit strikes back. Attack.. success."
etc. etc....
Honestly, we sometimes spent an hour realtime for a couple of combat rounds and a total of 10 damage dealt between about 10 involved combatants. It was _extremely_ boring.

So, while this active parry system's dreadfulness had other causes than the active defense as such, I'm kind of once bitten, twice shy.

However, there's also a good reason to keep the amount of dice rolling low. It's simply the fact that every procedure that is decided randomly works against the players in the long run, especially if the random effects add up, such as in an opposing combat check. Both players and GM will occasionally both a roll, which results in a combatant being hit when he normally wouldn't be. If the player rolls well and the GM botches the roll and his NPC dies prematurely, he shrugs and scratches the mook off his list, because he has an endless supply of mooks. If the player botches his roll and takes a hit that he would normally have dodged -- well in the worst case he can make a new character.

 

[Ichabod]

Whether you want to roll more or less dice also depends upon whether you want to have less or more, respectively, variance in results.

 

[Supplement Four]

However, there's also a good reason to keep the amount of dice rolling low. It's simply the fact that every procedure that is decided randomly works against the players in the long run, especially if the random effects add up, such as in an opposing combat check.

True. But, this is why players get Fate Points and most NPCs don't. That swings the edge back in the players' favor.

A good GM balances the award of Fate Points so that players have enough to maintain that edge, beat the dice rolling odds, but not become unbeatable munchkins.

 

[Trodax]

Here are just some of my random thoughts on weapon damage...

So by making all weapons potentially useful (at moderate Str bonus), maybe we'd see a bit more diversity in characters' weapon selection.

This idea I can subscribe to 100%. In a game like Conan, where your gear is not supposed to be very important, it shouldn't matter so much what you use to bash out your opponents brain.
In a homebrew thing I was tinkering with a while back (but of course never got anywhere with), I used a much narrower spread of weapon damage:

Unarmed - 1d4
Dagger - 1d6
Short sword - 1d8
Broadsword - 1d10
Greatsword - 1d12

With a spread like this, a greatsword is certainly still better than a dagger, but the difference isn't as enormous as between 1d4 and 1d10+1d8.

But I generally like the idea that all weapons can force an MDS even without a critical hit.

This idea I don't like. On the contrary, I basically think that MD should be reacheable pretty much only on critical hits. If you have a chance of scoring MD on a regular hit, you will probably have a very good chance of doing so on a critical, and all-in-all I think this makes MD's too frequent in the game.

I note that the chances of MD are pretty much perfect (IMO) for a character armed with a broadsword in the rules as written:

A Str 14 character has 0% of causing MD on a regular hit, and a 15% chance of MD on a critical.
A Str 16 character has 0% of causing MD on a regular hit, and a 28% chance of MD on a critical.
A Str 18 character has 0% of causing MD on a regular hit, and a 45% chance of MD on a critical.

This is actually exactly where I want the chances of MD to be, which means that I think the baseline frequency of MD's in the game is pretty good (if the broadsword is considered the baseline weapon). However, the spread between weapons is much too large (ie. a dagger never causes MD, while a greatsword can sometimes cause it almost automatically).

Oh, and regarding exploding damage dice, they can be fun for those unexpected "Booya!"-moments at the gaming table, but I feel that they may be a little redundant as we already have critical hits to fill that role.

 

[Clovenhoof]

In a homebrew thing I was tinkering with a while back (but of course never got anywhere with), I used a much narrower spread of weapon damage:

Alright, but what about the War Sword / Bastard Sword? ^^

[quoteThis idea I don't like. On the contrary, I basically think that MD should be reacheable pretty much only on critical hits.[/quote]

I've reconsidered and now think that indeed not every weapon should be able to MD without crits. The human body is relatively vulnerable yes, but it's not soft and mushy everywhere. So requiring small, light weapons to hit a vulnerable part - reflected by the critical hit - is fine on second thought.
BUT then every weapon should be able to cause MD _at least_ on a crit with a moderate Str bonus. (This would require Dagger damage to be 1d8, work your way up from there.)

A Str 14 character has 0% of causing MD on a regular hit, and a 15% chance of MD on a critical.
A Str 16 character has 0% of causing MD on a regular hit, and a 28% chance of MD on a critical.
A Str 18 character has 0% of causing MD on a regular hit, and a 45% chance of MD on a critical.

Well, but you only roll a threat about 10% of the time, and if you confirm the threat 80% of the time, your total MD chance is multiplied by 0,08. So the actual odds of causing MD, for these characters, are actually 1,2%, 2,2% and 3,6%. Which I think is pretty lousy.

Oh, and regarding exploding damage dice, they can be fun for those unexpected "Booya!"-moments at the gaming table, but I feel that they may be a little redundant as we already have critical hits to fill that role.

They're certainly not necessary and they don't make that much of a difference. As I said, it's about an average 0,6 extra damage we're talking about. But as you said, it's for "Booya" moments.

 

[Supplement Four]

Borrowing an idea from Classic Traveller (and a rule I've always loved), a GM could place advantages and disadvantages to wielding certain types of weapons based on the character's physical ability (STR and DEX).

For example, in Classic Traveller, a character would need STR-X or suffer a penalty when weilding a broadsword. If a character has STR-Y, he gets a bonus using that weapon.

This makes different weapons ideal for different types of characters. The quick and agile but somewhat weak character (High DEX, low STR) would use a dagger, dirk, or knife before he'd use a bigger, heavier weapon, because of the stat penalty.

Of course, a character can overcome his penalty with his skill level. And, if the character uses a weapon more suited to his physical ability, that bonus he gets plus his skill with that weapon can be substantial.



This idea would be easy to transfer to Conan. In fact, it probably should be in the game already. A version of what I'm talking about is already used with bows in the game (the STR requirement).

My suggestion is to add a requirement to each and every weapon. Maybe a min STR and DEX requirement should be used. Weapons like warswords would require high STR and some DEX. Weapons like daggers would grant a bonus to those characters with high DEX, and the weapon would have a low STR requirement. The penalty would reduce that provided by a character's STR and DEX bonus if not met.

This penalty would be added to both the weapon's attack and damage, normally. List them under "misc" modifiers on the character's sheet.



Right now, in the game, my weak thieves--the ones with the STR-7--can use any weapon they chose, except bows, with no penalty. They are only limited by their choice of finesse or non-finesse weapons. The logical thing to do, then is to find the biggest finesse weapon that deals the most damage.

These guys should be more suited to daggers and poinards and knives.

So, if an arming sword had a STR requirement attached to it, these guys would stray away from them.



But, to go with the Traveller idea, weapons would have a "bonus" stat level, too. Each weapon would be rated for STR (require STR, bonus level STR) and DEX (same).

This way, a character with a high DEX but low STR would be encouraged to pick up a lite weapon, like a dagger or poinard. He would, in fact, be more effective with the dagger or poinard than he would be using a heavier weapon.

Characters with higher STR but low DEX would be drawn to the bigger, slower weapons.



So, for an example (and these numbers, I'm just pulling off the top of my head), a poniard my be: DEX 5 or -2; DEX 14 for +3. STR 5 or -1. STR 17 for +1.

Daggeri is DEX 15, STR 7.

with a poinard, finesse fighting style, he would be...

+2 Finesse Attack (DEX)
+3 Finesse Attack (Weapon Bonus)
+0 Finesse Attack (BAB)
----
+5 Attack total

-2 Damage (STR)
+0 Damage (Weapon Bonus)
----
-2 Damage total

A character like Daggeri would lean towards using a poinard because he's +5 to hit with it. He could use an arming sword, but his attack would probably be lower (+2). And, he might even have a bigger penalty to damage because his STR is so low.



I think this is an excellent idea....but the question becomes: How do you easily and fairly assign stat requirements to weapons in Conan?

 

[Clovenhoof]

At first glance I say it's a nice idea, though you need to consider that Dex and Str already factor into the attack and damage rolls; anyway I'll think about it later -- now I'm in a bit of a hurry, so I'll just say it also reminds me of Savage Worlds, where your weapon damage is also capped by your Strength. So while a Longsword would technically have a d8 damage, if your strength is only d6 the sword's inherent damage is reduced to d6 as well.

More later.

 

[Supplement Four]

I agree, it needs work. I'm just brainstorming. But, I think there might be something there if we can come up with an easy way to figure the requirement and penalty.

I think, for simplicity, we should drop the DEX modifier (those are for bows), and just use STR. Maybe we should mirror the way DEX is used with bows, except use STR for melee weapons.

Also, I'm looking at weight--some factor or sum of weight--of the weapon to give us the min. stat needed.

The rule needs to be easy to implement.

 

[JohnLokiBeard]

I think this is an excellent idea....but the question becomes: How do you easily and fairly assign stat requirements to weapons in Conan?

Easiest way: steal them from the Runequest SRD.

 

[Clovenhoof]

Alright, here's what I thought of so far:

A min Strength requirement for Weapons by type would indeed not be a bad idea. For the simple reason that by RAW, a weak character with a bardiche makes more damage than a strong character with a battle axe, and that doesn't really follow, i.e. it is implausible.

But just a simple MinStr requirement is also not going to go very far. Most PC warriors start out with Str 16 or 18 anyway so they'll never feel the requirement. A general penalty for large weapons would follow through. For example, a weak character would find the weapon entirely unusable with an extra -2 penalty, and a strong character can use his strength to compensate the penalty, but couldn't ignore it completely.

Another idea: Armours have Max Dex bonuses. Maybe you could give weapons Max Str bonuses?
Off-the-shelf weapons could have something like +2 for Light weapons, +4 for One Handed and +6 for Two Handed weapons. (remember, just brainstorming). But, just like you have custom mighty bows that allow you to apply Str bonus, you could have Mighty weapons that allow you to apply a _higher_ Str bonus.
(For bows, the rules for Mighty bows actually make a lot of sense because the Str mod represents draw weight; a weak person cannot draw a 90 lbs bow, and a strong person can't use his strength when shooting a 30 lbs bow.)

Lunchtime, more later.

 

[Trodax]

A Str 14 character has 0% of causing MD on a regular hit, and a 15% chance of MD on a critical.
A Str 16 character has 0% of causing MD on a regular hit, and a 28% chance of MD on a critical.
A Str 18 character has 0% of causing MD on a regular hit, and a 45% chance of MD on a critical.

Well, but you only roll a threat about 10% of the time, and if you confirm the threat 80% of the time, your total MD chance is multiplied by 0,08. So the actual odds of causing MD, for these characters, are actually 1,2%, 2,2% and 3,6%. Which I think is pretty lousy.

One mans lousy is another mans delicious, I guess. :wink:
As I said, I prefer the chance of MD to be quite low. Especially when considering a "baseline character" like this, because you will invariably have stuff that pump damage and the chance of MD up (characters even stronger than Str 18, the use of Power Attack, sneak attack, Weapon Specialisation, etc.). So if a decently strong guy with a broadsword has a chance up around 10 or 20% of causing MD on every successful hit, you will also end up with guys where the chance will be very, very high. Basically, combat will revolve too much around MD for my taste.

I really like MD as it gives almost any attack the potential to be dangerous. But the key word here is potential, and I actually consider a few percents chance enough scariness if a random brute with a club comes after your high-level character. Left For Dead is a cool mechanic, but I don't want it to be the outcome of every tavern brawl the characters engage in. Anyway, when modifiyng the damage system, something to think about and calculate for is of course how often you want MD to crop up in your game. Basically, do you want your fights to be:

*hack*hack*MASSIVE DAMAGE!*hack*hack*hack*MASSIVE DAMAGE!*hack*MASSIVE DAMAGE!*hack*

or:

*hack*hack*hack*hack*hack*hack*hack*hack*hack*MASSIVE DAMAGE!*hack*hack*hack*hack*hack*hack*

 

[Clovenhoof]

The problem with the system is that MD is so unevenly distributed. Your MD chances with One-Handed weapons are very slim and you may find that good or bad, but it's a fact that the MD chances are massively better with Two-Handed weapons.

A Str 18 character with a Bill has 2% of causing MD on a regular hit, and a 77% chance of MD on a critical. Add in a -3 Power Attack, and numbers change to 67% on a regular hit and 95% on a critical, for a total of about 75% MD chance per hit (for DR 0).

So no matter if you prefer few or many MDS in your game, the system will never give you what you want for half the weapons. And that's the real issue for me. If MD is overall scarce, that's fine and I wouldn't complain. If it were overall frequent, that'd also be fine (though a lot more dangerous). But scarce for one type of weapon and abundant for another, that's broken.

 

[Trodax]

If MD is overall scarce, that's fine and I wouldn't complain. If it were overall frequent, that'd also be fine (though a lot more dangerous). But scarce for one type of weapon and abundant for another, that's broken.

I couldn't agree more.

So no matter if you prefer few or many MDS in your game, the system will never give you what you want for half the weapons.

Unless you implement some major changes to weapon damage, I guess we're stuck with this, yeah.