New approach to Weapon Damage

[Clovenhoof]

Hi folks, it's been a while since I posted here, hope everyone is alive and kicking. ^^

The other day we had a little discussion about how little sense the weapon damage scores make, considering that in reality, a dagger can be just as deadly as a longsword.

"Never mind boys, just a dagger hit in the stomach, what harm can 1d4 possibly do?"

I recall we strafed that topic here a few months ago but never got anywhere. But now someone made a suggestion that think would be worth looking into. The basic idea is this:

Give all weapons a similar, high maximum damage, and just alter the minimum damage by using different die sizes and modifiers.
For example, a dagger might make 1d20 damage, anything between a scratch and a deadly blow, while a war sword might make d8+12 damage, so there are no scratches with a war sword.

Also, the Armour Piercing score can be tweaked to be more important, but I'll get to that later.

These values are of course subject to discussion and by no means a fixed must-have. But I generally like the idea that all weapons can force an MDS even without a critical hit.

Of course, the overall, average damage output would vastly increase, so some balancing is in order.

Firstly, the maximum damage could be defined by the class of weapon, i.e. Light, One- or Two-handed and Simple, Martial or Exotic. Picking the extremes, a Two-Handed Exotic Weapon would still have a higher max damage than a Light Simple Weapon.

Secondly, the DR and AP values may have to be tweaked. Maybe increase DR throughout the armour table, and also limit the AP capacity by, for instance, capping the Str bonus at the AP score or something. Fiddle with the AP scores in return -- it would require serious and complex balancing work.

I don't know if it's all worth the trouble, but right now I'd like to give food for thought and am keen to hear your thoughts on the matter.

 

[warzen]

Give all weapons a similar, high maximum damage, and just alter the minimum damage by using different die sizes and modifiers.

Firstly, the maximum damage could be defined by the class of weapon, i.e. Light, One- or Two-handed and Simple, Martial or Exotic. Picking the extremes, a Two-Handed Exotic Weapon would still have a higher max damage than a Light Simple Weapon.

Some contradictions ?

Anyway, even if I'm not using d20 to play Conan (I'm using Reign), this topic is really interesting.
The first thing to address is how much max damage do you want (remember that STR bonus will be added) ?
Then for each class of weapon, remove 1 or 2 pts (ie with 4 classes "light", "simple", "martial" and "exotic" - 2Handed geting 1.5STR is a sufficient bonus - light weapon will do 6 less pts of dmg).

Then tweak your min damage but beware of the Gauss curve if you mix single and multiple dice weapon.

W.

 

[Edhel]

I don't know if it's all worth the trouble, but right now I'd like to give food for thought and am keen to hear your thoughts on the matter.

Yeah, no, I don't this is fruitful at all. D20 isn't about simulation and making arbitary tweaks that feel realistic to you personally isn't worth it. The strength of the system is that it's fast and easy to improvise because the basic mechanics are simple and exception-based. Hit points in d20 don't have to (and usually don't) describe the physical damage you can take but it's a combination of toughness, resistance to weariness and will to fight.

There's lots of more simulationistic systems out there and the damage type thingy you described is IMO well executed in GURPS. It basically combines armor piercing, damage and damage type,

Eg. a dagger does d6 impaling damage vs a sword's d6+2 cutting damage
=> the damage that the target takes through armor's DR is doubled with impaling damage and 1.5x with cutting - unless it hits the limbs (imp x1 & cut x2).

Thinking about rules changes is best started by thinking what you really want to achieve and at what cost. Most simulationist systems are pretty clunky and possibly depend on charts.

Take a look at Hârnmaster, GURPS 4th edition (with GURPS Martial Arts) and even Mongoose's latest Runequest system - they all have a different take on this issue.

 

[Clovenhoof]

Right, I do NOT want to turn the game into a "realism simulation", due to the inherent clunkiness of those, exactly as you mention. Among other things because I am convinced that the more realistic a system strives to be, the less realistic it is in the end.

However: in the Conan system as it is, it usually simply doesn't make sense to use any smaller weapon but the biggest one you can wield. Maybe it doesn't matter so much for a Thief whether he has a base of d6 or d10 when he adds a shopping bag of d8 to his damage, but for all other classes it does.

So by making all weapons potentially useful (at moderate Str bonus), maybe we'd see a bit more diversity in characters' weapon selection. Of course I'd want to minimize the ripple effects, and not introduce any _new_ rules, just alter some existing ones for balance.

 

[Krushnak]

The easiest way i can see it working is if you just have penetration on the damage dice. roll max and roll again! take a -1 for each time you roll the dice after the first one and a lucky dagger strike can be devestating.

note: the extra dice from sneak attack wouldnt be able to penetrate only the weapons dice.

 

[Clovenhoof]

Ah, I think I get it: the smaller the die is, the higher its chance to roll max.
I think the terminus technicus is "exploding dice". But why -1 on each roll?
How about weapons with 2 dice? Do you get to reroll single dice if it shows Max (which would favour double-dice weapons), or only if you score max with both dice (which would favour single-die weapons)?

 

[Der Rote Baron]

However: in the Conan system as it is, it usually simply doesn't make sense to use any smaller weapon but the biggest one you can wield. Maybe it doesn't matter so much for a Thief whether he has a base of d6 or d10 when he adds a shopping bag of d8 to his damage, but for all other classes it does.

I would agree if there was THE ONE AND ONLY Über-Weapon in Conan - fast, cheap, doing lots of damage with no negative characteristic whatsoever - like old AD&D's longsword.

And, yes, it is difficult to get killed by a dagger in Conan in an open melee after third level or so - if the other guy doesn't crit with a MASSIVE Power Attack.

But - so what? How many chracters do you, as a gm wnat to be killed by peasants wielding knives? Not Conesc in my book at all.

And it is realistic to prefer a BIG stick over a small one. And a pointed one over a non-pointed and a big sword over a small sword.
Even in reality people prefer high-damaging weapons.

So why do companies still produce .22 caliber handguns? Different marked (sports) and because people get suspicious if you enter a meeting packing a Kalashnikow or a flame-thrower.

But a small pistol is insuspicious, easy to hide - and still does LOTS of damge because you are a Zingarian Thief with a powerful Sneak Attack.
:wink:
Choose your weapon wisely - damage is just one aspect.

 

[Supplement Four]

Remember that the weapon damages consider an opponent to be wary and expecting attack--defending himself.

EX: Two men in an ally, both fighting with daggers. It's harder to kill the target.



If the target is able to defend himself but not aware of the attacker, usually some sort of extra damage is included.

EX: Sneak up on a guard, do dagger damage plus sneak attack damage, which, in many cases, can kill the target.



In any situation, there's the Massive Damage rule, too, that allows for instant death.

EX: Sneak up on a guard, but not a thief and don't have the sneak attack attack form. But, the surprise round ends with the attacker doing 25 points of damage--the guard may be instantly killed.



And, all of these rules are thrown out the window when logic takes over when a target is incapacitated.

EX: Tip toe into the guard barracks and see a guard sleeping. This is an instant kill under the coup de grace rule.



Plus, there is GM interpretation, too.

EX: Tip toe into the guard barracks and see a guard sleeping. Place the dagger to the guard's throat and wake him up. Gently, the guard gets out of his bed, with you, the attacker, having a blade to his throat. The GM rules that if the guard moves, he'll get a Reflex saving throw at a huge penalty, and if he fails, the coup de grace rule is still in effect. Basically, the guard makes his save to grab the arm of his attacker or its instant death for him--no hit points counted.



What I'm saying is: If you've got a good GM who knows the rules (and can adapt to situations not presented in the rules as I did in my last example above), then the rules and the damage associated with each weapon work rather well.

Any time damage doesn't seem to be logical, then the GM should alter the rules to fit the scenario--using a logical extension of the rules as written.

That's what a good GM does.



So, I'd say that the damage in the book really doesn't need to be adjusted--except in those few occasions when the GM needs to step in and make adjustments.

 

[kintire]

But - so what? How many chracters do you, as a gm wnat to be killed by peasants wielding knives? Not Conesc in my book at all.

And it is realistic to prefer a BIG stick over a small one. And a pointed one over a non-pointed and a big sword over a small sword.
Even in reality people prefer high-damaging weapons.

Why a peasant?

It is a fact that almost every warrior in history has carried a knife as a sidearm. They are very very effective weapons.

EX: Two men in an ally, both fighting with daggers. It's harder to kill the target.

S4, i think you've missed the point. This isn't about why damage varies in different circumstances, but with different weapons. Why is it harder to kill the target with a dagger than a longsword?

 

[Ichabod]

Should have read all of the threads first.

I find the idea of exploding damage based on die size really interesting. I doubt it would work without changing some numbers around and even then might be a mess, but I can just imagine what happens when you crit with a x3 on a d4 and have a rule that any of the 4's would be rerolled. This would be different from, say, a 2d4 weapon where you would only reroll on an 8 or on either 8 if there was a x2 crit. It just sounds neat in the absence of any actual testing.

The way the game works just has so many unfortunate cases. As said, a thief can kill with anything, it's not like you would want to make their attacks any more robust, though maybe you ignore the problem since they can kill with anything anyway or maybe you reduce SA damage to d6's (not complex change) if you upgrade weapon damage. Then, you have to work through what gets 1.5x STR damage, what gets 2x PA damage, and keep an eye on how 2w fighting is affected. There's a bunch of variables besides just improving crappy weapon damage. At the point where you screw around with these other variables, you are truly rewriting combat.

I would say that in general a broadsword should be doing more like 2d6 damage and a dagger more like 1d10 if you keep the d8+d10 top level where it is just to make a lot of weapons not useless to most characters. Still, that doesn't get the dagger up to MDS level unless it critted way more often and with a higher crit multiplier. But, then, make the max damage too good and you'll see Fate Points spent on Mighty Blow at awkward times (... or not? Who uses Mighty Blow currently?).

I do also like the idea that the lighter the weapon, the more likely it is to crit, assuming you make critting meaningful, which currently it isn't for a lot of weapons. The small weapons won't be terribly reliable, but they may become spectacular.

 

[Clovenhoof]

After fiddling a bit with Excel, I can announce that Exploding Die increases theaverage damage by about 0,6 points of damage per hit, for most d8 to d12 weapons. Smaller dice get a bit more: 0,7 points for d6 and 0,8 points for d4.
Double-die weapons might get a bit more out of it if you allow rerolling each die separately.
(The sheet goes through 3 iterations. The odds of rolling max number more than 3 times in a row are rather small anyway)

To put it into perspective, the pure weapon damage averages (no Str bonus or anything) increase as follows:

Dagger: 2,5 --> 3,3
Poniard: 3,5 --> 4,2
Short Sword: 4,5 --> 5,1
Broadsword: 5,5 --> 6,1
War Sword: 6,5 --> 7,1

2d10, separate dice: 11 --> 12,2
2d10, max damage only: 11 --> 11,055 --> minimal change

In this light of things, I don't think exploding weapon dice would break the game in any way. They improve the smallest weapons, which is good, but also the biggest weapons if you allow separate dice, which is bad because these are quite powerful enough already.

I did not bother yet to take Crits into account. If it weren't for the Massive Damage rule in Conan, crits would altogether be just noise in the system. This can be ameliorated a bit by skipping the confirmation roll.

 

[Ichabod]

I wouldn't skip the confirmation roll. It's my sense that the confirmation roll is an important PC advantage in that it reduces the number of random "you're f*ed" results you get from high volume antagonist attacks when facing superior numbers/inferior quality antagonists or certain big bads with modest attack rolls that are bad enough when they connect but auto failed MDS if they crit, meanwhile the PCs will usually confirm in their attacks giving them more dramatic attacks.

It's the rarity of PC crits in the first place combined with how some stuff is just immune to crits that makes me care not so much about them in the way the game currently plays. If lower damage weapons critted 20% of the time instead of 10% of the time, it might be noticeable. Of course, you still need to make sure that a crit does substantial damage if trying to fix things through extended crit ranges.

 

[Supplement Four]

Why is it harder to kill the target with a dagger than a longsword?

Simple. What the OP is not considering is that it is easier to damage a target with a longsword than it is when using a dagger. Both can kill, sure. But, what would you rather have in a fight? A longsword or a dagger?

More often than not, it's the fighter with the longsword that will be victorious in a combat with an opponent weilding a dagger.

The damage for the various weapons reflects this.





Remember, the damage in a d20 game is figured considering an opponent who is defending himself. We're not talking about using a dagger or a longsword to kill a sleeping guard. That's what the coup de grace rule is for. What we are talking about are damage assigned to two different weapons when used in melee.

 

[Hervé]

Sup4 wrote:

More often than not, it's the fighter with the longsword that will be victorious in a combat with an opponent weilding a dagger.

The damage for the various weapons reflects this.

That's OK for the dagger/longsword exemple, but how would you rate that a longsword, a scimitar or a battle axe have different damage ratings? What's more painful? Taking a sword blow or being chopped by an axe? :?

Actually, it's more a matter of weapon reach than weapon damage. It's far easier to hit an armed opponent with a sword than with a dagger.

Again, games that use generic weapons damage often split weapons in broad categories like light, one handed or heavy weapons. I agree that a double handed axe would probably hurt more than a stiletto, although both could kill...

 

[Krushnak]

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

And both can, one just has an easier time at it than the other.

I think the terminus technicus is "exploding dice". But why -1 on each roll?

I just took it straight from Hackmaster which allows you to roll any die that gets a max result again. the negative 1 is so you dont skip numbers otherwise you would never be able to roll a 4 on a d4 it would just jump from 3 to 5.

 

[Sutek]

I don't think what's being discussed will work. What you might try is shooting for the max damage a listed weapon can do, but where that damage is always divided by four and d4 are exclusively used to roll damage.

So, a weapon that normally does 1d4 still does, a weapon that normally does 2d10 (max 20) deals 5d4 (also max 20), and a weapon that normally deals 2d12 does 6d4 (both max 24).

Strength bonus could add another d4 to the mix, until it exceeded +4.

All of this would operate to increase the minimum damage without changing the maximum damage, so that weapons get more dangerous but don't alter rules like MD and soforth.

Another alteration might be to consider the ratio that the die rolled can accomplish, and apply the same ratio as dealt damage. For instance, 2hp damage from a 1d4 dagger is 50%, so it deals 50% HP damage to the target. A 2d10 dealing damage does almost the same thing, but you'd have to look at each die (5=50%, 2=20%, etc.) Reduce HP as damage individually, so that a 5 and a 2 rolled against someone with 50HP would reduce him to 25HP and then, ultimately, 20HP.

 

[Supplement Four]

That's OK for the dagger/longsword exemple, but how would you rate that a longsword, a scimitar or a battle axe have different damage ratings? What's more painful? Taking a sword blow or being chopped by an axe? :?

Again, it's not just the damage the weapon does. The damage rating reflects how likely and how often the weapon will damage a defending foe.

A broadsword does 1d10 as does a battleaxe. A scimitar does 1d8.

We're only talking about 2 points difference with these particular weapons. The other weapons seem, to me, to be fairly rated for their destructive power during a fight (and I note that Conan's damage for weapons is typically higher than standard d20 weapons).

I think it works and doesn't need to be "fixed".





One thing that could be added to the game (although it would be difficult to add) are the speed factors that were dropped from D&D when it went into its 3rd edition.

Remember? Each weapon was assigned a speed factor, and this number adjusted initiative making those with bigger, heavier weapons attack after those using smaller quick weapons.

If something like this could be figured out for Conan, it's make it so someone with a dagger could get in his quick two thrusts before his opponent hefted a heavy broadsword in his direction.

The problem, of course, is that initiative marks when a character can take all actions--not just attacks. So, penalizing initiative for someone carrying a warsword and not attacking doesn't make much sense--which is what used to happen with pre-3rd edition D&D.

What we used to do was allow the penalty not to be used if the player playing the character stated that his PC would not attack that round. Of course, things change in a round, and it hampered somewhat the ability of the PC to react to situations in the round.

Maybe another way to implement speed factors can be found?

Again, games that use generic weapons damage often split weapons in broad categories like light, one handed or heavy weapons. I agree that a double handed axe would probably hurt more than a stiletto, although both could kill...

Which is why I like games (the James Bond RPG comes to mind--so does WEG's Star Wars D6 game) where damage results in damage and not hit points. A stroke can kill you, incapacitate you, give you a heavy/moderate/light wound, or even stun you.

I don't think Conan needs to be reworked for this to occurr (not unless it was very easy to implement), but those games with that type of damage system seems to be a bit more "realistic"...as far as realism in rpgs go).

 

[Sutek]

I covered speed factors a long while ago here, and it wasn't met with much regard (lol). I just calculated a negative mod to the TO HIT roll based on the weapon size, so that larger weapons were "slower" but applied as a minus to hit.

 

[Clovenhoof]

Messing with Initiative modified by equipment is a bad idea, firstly for the reason that S4 gave, and secondly because it gets _very_ confusing if someone drops or switches weapons during the round. "Okay I drop the Greataxe and took out the Dagger with Quick Draw. That means now I warp back in time 4 phases and attack the mook before he could strike me 2 phases ago".
And last not least, messing with Ini does not change a thing about the character's actual speed -- he still does the same stuff as ever in a single round.

I covered speed factors a long while ago here, and it wasn't met with much regard (lol). I just calculated a negative mod to the TO HIT roll based on the weapon size, so that larger weapons were "slower" but applied as a minus to hit.

I've been toying with the same idea.
Right now there is a -2 penalty for using 2H weps in confined spaces. You might try implementing a -4 penalty for confined spaces and -2 penalty everywhere else. And -8 if you are not proficient, of course.

Another possible screw to turn is the number of attacks. It has been suggested to give 2H-wielders their iterative attacks at ever 6 BAB instead of 5. But this would only delay the iterative attacks a bit, and the number of attacks would still be identical during most of the game. It might make more difference on Base7, but I think this might turn out to be too much bookkeeping. So taking away attacks from 2HF doesn't seem to be the best idea to me.

Currently I'm dry-testing the possibility of giving Single-Handers extra attacks. I've refined my spreadsheet to calculate the chances for dealing Massive Damage now, so it's starting to get real useful.

Looking at the MD Chance, here's what I found out so far:
* a single extra attack works wonders for SH fighters in the low levels, putting them up to par with TWF and 2HF
* giving them the same number of extra attacks as TWFers is overkill, though. You'd get up to 8 attacks per round at full Str bonus and Power Attack, which again would make TWF totally pointless. Oh, and you outshine 2HF as well except for very high DRs.
* I'm currently trying to find out at what level range the "single extra attack" yield falls back, and possibly insert a 2nd extra attack there, probably at -5 penalty.

 

[Der Rote Baron]

SH fighters have an advantage already: The can use their shields to Parry! My group has pretty high Parries being soldiers with high STR and large shields.

Exploding dice sound nice. They bring that extra-hooray to the table, but I am pretty all right with the system right now. Just never switched to the boguy new damage of some weapons in 2nd Ed (1D10+1D8, yeah ... right!).

Massive Damage is quite powerful, especially with Sneak Attacks by Zingarian Pirate/Thices who like to feint improvedly or strong greatsword wielding pwerfully attacking noble/soldiers.

A 1d6 for a dagger would be okay, but I am not about to reconsider damge for handaxe and such so my knives saty at 1d4.

I am pretty much pleased as Punch with the damage system as is.