New approach to Weapon Damage

[Clovenhoof]

Right, and that's what this thread is about. ^^

IMC so far, I have nerfed the 2Hs by nixing the double Power Attack bonus (so you only get single bonus) and reducing the damage dice one step (i.e. 2d10 becomes 2d8 and so forth). And guess what, 2Hs are STILL more powerful than anything else, but not so much better than TWF anymore.

Some people however advocate that taking away stuff from players is not the good way to go. So if I am supposed to grant the 2Hs all those free overpowering boons, I am obliged to think up similar boons for OHs and TWF, to avoid everyone running around with 2Hs exclusively. That's what the "Diversifying Fighting Styles" thread is also about.

And this thread here was an attempt to make Light and 1H weapons at least nearly as effective as 2Hs. But at the end of the day, maybe leaving those as is and just nerfing 2Hs is the smarter way to go.

 

[Supplement Four]

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.

Not so! :shock:

It depends on what character generation system you use. If you use the optional Heroic system, then, yeah, you'll get some heavy stats.

If you use the arrange-to-taste method, you'll also get heavy stats in the attributes important to that PC (STR for soldiers).

This is why, in my game, I insist on either the offical method of rolling for each stats without arrange-to-taste, or the limited arrange allowed with my house rule Conan 321.

We've got a soldier in our group, and his strength is STR 14 at 1st level.

 

[Supplement Four]

Another idea: Armours have Max Dex bonuses. Maybe you could give weapons Max Str bonuses?

Oooo. I like that idea, too.

Remember, though, the rule has to be easy to implement. I prefer using exising Conan d20 data (which is why I was looking at weight).

I'd like to be able to look at the exisiting weapon data and know what the limitation is without adding anything new.

One of the goals is to keep it easy-cheesy.

 

[Clovenhoof]

This is why, in my game, I insist on either the offical method of rolling for each stats without arrange-to-taste, or the limited arrange allowed with my house rule Conan 321.

I don't know your 321 houserule, but as far as this "organic" creation goes, I say frankly that I wouldn't want to play with you. I prefer to decide myself what kind of character I'm going to play and not leave it to the whims of some dice.
I played with such a GM once (some obscure system of the 80s) and boy, it sucked big time. I was looking forward to playing an archer or a thief or something, and the way my stats turned out, all I got was a short and skinny summoner that gave me absolutely nothing. So no sir, if I don't at least get to arrange the stats I rolled the way I want, I ain't gonna play.

(We also have a guy in this forum who prescribes his players what classes to take on level up. "You were drafted into the army, so you all take Soldier." That would also be too much for me.)

As for my game, I allow my players a rather generous Point Buy, not die rolls because I want them to start out with equal opportunities, and I want them to become movers and shakers in the world and not some mediocre charge by other lords' grace.
But that's simply a matter of scope. I might just as well dictate a more restricted stat generation method, but I'd never ever even think about prescribing how the players are supposed to distribute their stats.

</end rant>

As for a possible max Str bonus... you won't find a proper stat you can hijack for this; the weights are unrealistic anyway. And the more I think about it, the more I doubt it's really a good idea to have a max Str bonus as such.
What might make more sense would be a max AP score. Maybe something like 3 times the base AP. So a Poniard or something would have max AP 3, all the more reason to use it with Finesse.

 

[Supplement Four]

I don't know your 321 houserule, but as far as this "organic" creation goes, I say frankly that I wouldn't want to play with you.

No prob. I wouldn't want a player who wouldn't want to play a character, no matter what that character was. (No offense meant, but the truth.)

I played with such a GM once (some obscure system of the 80s) and boy, it sucked big time.

I've had doubting Thomases come into my games before, with your same feeling. To a man (some women), they've come out with a pleasant surprise and an involving game.

As long as the story and experience are interesting and well told, the game is usually addicting.

With my current Conan game, I wanted to keep it small, and I've turned away 4 players. (I could have seven--I've got three.)

I may allow them in later. I'm not sure at this point.

And, I'd have no problem at all with a chargen rule that said, "All characters have been in the Turanian Army together--all must be soldiers."



I mean, let's say that the scenario I have in mind takes place in a Cimmerian villiage that is raided by some bloodthirsty Vanir. I want the PCs to be Cimmerians.

If a player such as yourself wanted to play a noble, he'd be out of luck for this game. It doesn't "fit", and I'm not inclined to make it "stretch" that far. I'd rule that Barbarians are favored. And, I'd allow a Scholar Priest as long as that priest was a Cimmerian shaman.

I might make special case exceptions based on a player's input. Say someone wanted to play a thief. This thief would be much different than your standard city thief. A soldier character who was run off to the north might be worked into the story, living among the Cimmerians.

I can be a bit flexible--it depends on the story. But, most likely, I'd be looking for Cimmerian Barbarian characters only.

 

[Trodax]

And this thread here was an attempt to make Light and 1H weapons at least nearly as effective as 2Hs. But at the end of the day, maybe leaving those as is and just nerfing 2Hs is the smarter way to go.

I kind of feel that way, because of the reasons I expressed above; I don't want MD to become more common. I've always thought the game runs pretty well as long as everyone is armed with one-handed weapons; MD shows up occasionally as a pleasant (or highly unpleasant) surprise. It's when the Str 20 bardiche-wielding Cimmerian barbarian with Great Cleave enters the fray things start coming apart.

 

[Supplement Four]

And this thread here was an attempt to make Light and 1H weapons at least nearly as effective as 2Hs. But at the end of the day, maybe leaving those as is and just nerfing 2Hs is the smarter way to go.

I kind of feel that way, because of the reasons I expressed above; I don't want MD to become more common. I've always thought the game runs pretty well as long as everyone is armed with one-handed weapons; MD shows up occasionally as a pleasant (or highly unpleasant) surprise. It's when the Str 20 bardiche-wielding Cimmerian barbarian with Great Cleave enters the fray things start coming apart.

Well, what doesn't quite fit "right" with me is that my STR 7 thieves can wield a bardiche as well as they can a dagger. They're -2 damage on either.

It does seem that there should be some increased penalty for a STR 7 character to wield a big, honkin' weapon.

I mean, if my STR 7 character wields a poinard, he does 1d6 -2 damage. If he wields a warsword, he does 1d12 -2 damage.

There should be something in the game that attracts the weaker characters to lighter weapons (besides Finesse fighting).

You've got to be in shape and fairly strong to wield a broadsword correctly. I'd like to see some simple mechanic that discourages weak characters from using larger weapons (and, I'd like to see them be effective with smaller weapons).

 

[Trodax]

I've been thinking about the Str/Dex-requirement proposed by Sup4. It's a bit tricky to come up with a way to use it that isn't overly complex, though (and I agree that such a rule needs to be easy to implement).

I agree that the idea of a Min Str requirement for weapons is a good idea. I mean, many characters in the game are limited because they want to fight using finesse, or because they aren't proficient with certain weapons. But there are exceptions, such as the Str 10/Dex 10/Cha 20 noble Mr. Fancy-Pants who "might as well wield a bardiche". (I have, luckily, never seen such a character in my game - Mr. Fancy-Pants is just a figment of my imagination). As stated before, though, this rule wouldn't really change much in the game, except for restricting a few weak characters from wielding ridiculously large weapons.

The Max Str bonus or Max AP to weapons I'm not so keen on. This will not affect weak characters in any way, but will heavily encourage strong characters to look for the biggest weapon around. And I actually want strong characters in the game to be able to slay opponents messily, even when armed only with a dagger or a rock (as opposed to running around looking for a bardiche or greatsword).

 

[Supplement Four]

More thoughts...

There is an edge to having a longer reach weapon. The arming sword should be a better weapon than a dagger.

Then, again, maybe this is already written in the rules, and we're overlooking it.

Weak characters will use Finesse Fighting style, to rely on DEX to attack vs. STR. They still use the STR penalty, though, to damage.

And, since Finesse weapons are lighter weapons...that's the encouragement for weak characters to use those weapons.

So, the question becomes: What reason does a thief have to use a poinard or a dagger over an arming sword? There realy isn't any.

Maybe a simple Feat is all that is required. Add in a Feat that makes daggers, poinards, and smaller weapons more attractive. Maybe a version of the Power Attack Feat would be in order, but designed to focus on the lighter weapons.

That way, there would be an incentive to use a dagger. Maybe they're harder to hit with (giving kudos to the longer weapons), but in the hands of a skilled user, they can do more damage.

Maybe Sneak Attack damage is the key...limit that to small, one handed weapons? Rule that you can't take a sneak attack style with an arming sword. You can with a poinard, dagger, or knife?

Just thinking out loud, here.

 

[Trodax]

Maybe a simple Feat is all that is required. Add in a Feat that makes daggers, poinards, and smaller weapons more attractive. Maybe a version of the Power Attack Feat would be in order, but designed to focus on the lighter weapons.

Sure, you could always make a "Knife-fighter" feat. A version of Power Attack (capped by your Dex-bonus in some way perhaps?) could become a little strange in it's interaction with finesse fighting; a penalty to hit also makes it harder to successfully finesse. Then again, maybe it could give rise to some interesting tactical decision-making, and against unarmed opponents it would be sweet. Or perhaps something like Weapon Specialization (+2 damage) but available to non-soldiers, and limited to daggers/knives/poinards. Or something along the lines of the Light-footed feat, but only usable with daggers and the like. (Is the name Light-footed? Anyways, I mean the feat that gives you extra sneak attack damage.)

Maybe Sneak Attack damage is the key...limit that to small, one handed weapons? Rule that you can't take a sneak attack style with an arming sword. You can with a poinard, dagger, or knife?

That might not be a bad idea. You could only choose the sneak attack style class ability for the smaller weapons. The question is where to draw the line; is the short sword allowed (it is a Light weapon, same as the dagger)?

Note: I would not limit sneak attack as such to small weapons (as opposed to sneak attack style), because this would make multiclassing into thief kind of useless for characters who usually fight with broadswords. And I think it's kind of cool with multiclassed soldiers and barbarians who also have a die or two of sneak attck (much like Conan himself). To rephrase that, I think you should get some benefit out of sneak attack even with a greatsword, but that benefit could easily be much smaller than with a dagger.

Actually, thinking about it a little bit more, if you were to rewrite the rules a little bit more extensively, you could make it so that sneak attack was dependent on the type of weapon used; d8's for light weapons, d6's for one-handed, and d4's for two-handed weapons, for example (I seem to remember this was something that we saw in the early drafts for Conan 2nd edition). Combine this with a feat that gave you an extra sneak attack die when using a dagger, and those small, sharp things might not be so unattractive. (And also, as I stated earlier, I think the base damage of a dagger could easily be 1d6 instead of 1d4.)

Just thinking out loud, here.

Hey, me too; what I wrote above might be complete hogwash.

 

[Clovenhoof]

Alright, let me sum up what I've drawn from this last exchange:

* there should be a Min Strength requirement for the larger weapons. In good old D20 tradition this should be an odd number, just like feats with attribute prerequisites also require odd numbers. This would clear up the unintuitive situation that a huge bardiche is still the best weapon for a scrawny weakling.
Here I propose: no requirement for Light weapons, Str 11 or 13 for 1H weapons, and Str 13 or 15 for 2H weapons, respectively.

* forget about the max Str mod, Trodax has made a very good point here about that encouraging folks to take the biggest cleaver they can carry.

* still, 2H weps should always carry a -2 attack penalty in standard situations and -4 in confined quarters.

* Sneak Attack with heyvy weapons: that's also something that's long since been a thorn in my side, no pun intended. I haven't had the situation in my game yet, but I have three ideas concerning the issue:
- Sneak Attack might only be possible with the Thief's class proficiency weapons. Note that in Conan, this includes One-Handed Martial weapons, so your broadsword-wielding multiclasser would be good to go. However, this leaves the question what happens to the Pirate.
- Sneak Attack might only be possible with _finessable_ weapons, which both restricts and extends the Thief selection a bit, but overall I think it makes more sense.
- finally, you could rule that you can only apply Sneak Attack if you actually do use Finesse for your attack. That would automatically include the above of course. Actually, I like the thought so well I might implement it. I think it's an elegant and plausible solution that should leave no questions unanswered.

* Weapon Range: intuitively I also say it should be a factor somewhere. There is an optional rule for weapon range in the book (at least 1st ed), that says you apply a -1 penalty to a defender's Parry Defence for every step (L, 1H, 2H) that his weapon is smaller than the attacker's weapon, or a +1 bonus for every step it is longer. Note that the attacker gains no bonus or penalty against Dodge defense, and that's fine that way.

Either way, reach is not everything, speed is also very important, and 2H weapons are definitely slower than 1H weapons. So in an ideal world, you could say the two factors just cancel out. (The way D&D does it)

 

[Elements Warden]

Has anyone done anymore work with the Min Strength requirement for the larger weapons?
Thanks

 

[Spongly]

I agree that a double handed axe would probably hurt more than a stiletto, although both could kill...

You see though, if I plunge a stiletto straight through your heart, whether that hurts any less than being hit with a double handed axe would quickly become a bit of a moot point...

The problem with "realistic" weapon damage in games is that people in real life can be killed by a two foot fall onto a hard pavement. They can also survive 15 or 16 stab wounds, or be killed instantly by one stab wound. How people are wounded is a combination of a huge number of different factors that goes way, way beyond what they're hit with. Trying to make a realistic wound system in a game would be very difficult, and I'm not sure it would be worth the effort.

All that said, I do think that the weapon matters less than the person wielding it - Conan regularly kills some fairly large nasty creatures armed with little more than a poniard.

 

[kintire]

There is also the fact that Hit Points do not represent physical damage, or not entirely. An arming sword is a more effective weapon than a dagger, mostly because of reach and leverage rather than actual "damage", and since I view hit points as more like fate than physical resilience, I'm okay with them doing more damage.

Still, a significant boost for daggers in grapples isn't unreasonable. They are lethal in close quarters, and very effective at bypassing armour. Its much easier to hit the chinks in a suit of armour if you are holding the wearer still!

 

[Hervé]

All that said, I do think that the weapon matters less than the person wielding it

Exactly what I think.
Another problem with weapons stats in most RPGs is that some weapons will be often overlooked in favor of the most effective ones. The recent Warspear problem is a perfect exemple of this.

There is also the fact that Hit Points do not represent physical damage, or not entirely. An arming sword is a more effective weapon than a dagger, mostly because of reach and leverage rather than actual "damage", and since I view hit points as more like fate than physical resilience, I'm okay with them doing more damage.

Still, a significant boost for daggers in grapples isn't unreasonable. They are lethal in close quarters, and very effective at bypassing armour. Its much easier to hit the chinks in a suit of armour if you are holding the wearer still!

Yes, I agree with most of this, but I think that the heaviest weapons should have stats that reflect their weight and clumsiness to compenstate their higher damage ratings. Maybe an Initiative and a Parry penalty would make them more balanced and "realistic"... Parrying with a two handed sword is not that easy!

 

[Demetrio]

Parrying with a two handed sword is not that easy!

In fact most two handed weapons tended to be best used defensively, including the various two handed swords - not quite for parrying as most might envisage it, more for keeping one's enemy at bay.

To be honest I find the double damage dice (2d8, 2d10 etc) for 2HW way too much. A dice step up to reflect their increased mass is okay but twice as much damage strikes me as a bit daft both from a 'realism' perspective and from a (more important) gameplay perspective.

If a (game definitions) broadsword is doing d10 and a warsword d12 then a two handed sword should probably do d12+1 or d12+2 but grant a +2 bonus to defence.

Equally, a pike doing 2d6 is very odd. Better to have it doing d8 but giving a defence bonus of perhaps +2 or +3. Though I'd say that its reach and the fact it is meant to be used in formation dictate no defence bonus.

 

[kintire]

If a (game definitions) broadsword is doing d10 and a warsword d12 then a two handed sword should probably do d12+1 or d12+2 but grant a +2 bonus to defence.

Equally, a pike doing 2d6 is very odd. Better to have it doing d8 but giving a defence bonus of perhaps +2 or +3. Though I'd say that its reach and the fact it is meant to be used in formation dictate no defence bonus.

I'm with you on the reasoning for the swords, but given that you are giving up a shield there needs to be a good damage boost for them.

As far as pikes go, I have actually tried fighting with one, and they are completely useless one on one. If you have 500 pike wielding comrades they are lethal, but no one uses them in duels!

 

[Demetrio]

Yeah, I agree with the pike being a formation weapon. As I say, i'd just drop the damage to d8.

but given that you are giving up a shield there needs to be a good damage boost for them.

Or a minor damage boost and a minor defence bonus (or penalty to the other fellow's attack or something). Also the 2HW gets the 50% bonus to Str bonus to damage (damn that was an awkward phrase, but you see what I mean), which the chap with the shield will not benefit from.


Suppose we have the following choices for a fighter with Str 18

1: broadsword and large shield
2: greatsword

Choice 1 does d10+4 (average 9.5) damage and gains +4 to his defence.
Choice 2 does d10+d8+6 (average 16) damage but has no defensive bonus - in effect trading 4 Defence in exchange for +6.5 average damage but with a very much larger maximum damage (max is 24!, 10 points more than the Choice 1 max) which to me is without any sound grounding in either reality or gameplay.

Under my suggested system if a greatsword does d12+1 damage and gives +2 to Defence then Choice 2 becomes:

d12+7 (average 13.5) damage, +2 Defence. Thus he trades 2 Defence to gain +4 average damage. Max damage is now 19.

Notice that MD with the 2hW will now require a critical, which solves part of the current problem with them I think.

 

[kintire]

I think I'll give it a try and see how it works. It looks plausible on paper (so to speak...)

 

[Ichabod]

I see the problem not being how much damage larger weapons do but how little smaller do. Being effective at combat is all about figuring out how to deal 20+ net damage with every hit. As long as the MDS threshold is 20, characters are going to do whatever is most efficient, even if it's less efficient than it was, to achieve that. Reining in large weapon damage doesn't change that, in the absence of Sneak Attack, daggers and a whole host of other weapons are useless for killing enemies.

And, note how reducing weapon damage encourages thiefhood. Some already find SA damage outrageous and would be inclined to scale it back to preserve "balance" until what ends up happening is just an overall reduction in the lethality of combat. That could be desirable or not, though that can also be achieved in plenty of other ways.

What I'd like to see is a variation of what was done with Star Wars Saga: all PCs and NPCs of import do +1 damage per level with all attacks. So, yes, fear the 20th level scholar who ran out of PPs and decides to try to knife you (or kick you or huck a rock). This free damage moves everybody towards being lethal in combat which frees up characters to spend more time on defense or noncombat abilities.

For some people, purely upping the offense side is undesirable. There could be some similar defensive increase, such as improved DVs talked about in other threads. Though, messing with both offense and defense will likely produce new, unexpected problems.

There's also a question as to what to do about creatures of import. For creatures of no import, just adding numbers can balance combats. For creatures of import, they already tend to autohit (superhuman STR in this game being kind of broken) with autograpple. The ones with Power Attack should be just as lethal, so that just leaves giving PA to everything else to make every creature of import a killing machine.

As to how badly this could get out of hand with multiple attacks, it may be necessary to make it a bonus to damage in the round (after rolling damage so that you can pile the damage into one attack to force MDSs) and not to each attack.