New approach to Weapon Damage

[Spectator]

Am I missing something?
But it seems that all of you (well a lot) seem to be trying to design the solution around the MD save.

Isn't it easier just to forget the MD save altogether and let the PC slash your chest open for 30 hp of damage?

If you get knicked for anything over 20 hp of damage, I think you are sent enough of a message that you are against a fierce opponent and might want to run away.

In fact I have ditched MD and the fighting is just as fun.
It sucks having a shitty roll of luck and losing your PC or even worse yet, your favorite villain to a MD save!

 

[Clovenhoof]

I like the MD rule

One thing to keep in mind:
Overall damage outputs in Conan are generally lower than in D&D, due to the absence of "+" weapons, buff spells like Bull's Strength etc., elemental damage sources (like Flaming Weapons) etc. A level 12 D&D character with gear will on average do about 50-100% more damage per round against a given AC than a level 12 Conan character, and that's without taking DR into account.

Sutek maintains that MD is there to make short work of mooks with, I'd guess, 30-50 hits. Normally it'd take about two full rounds to kill one, but with MD you can plough through them.
Well, that would be the idea. In practice under the current rules it works only for high-Strength two-handed power attackers, but for these it works extremely well.

I (and some others) say that MD is (also) useful against high-HP opponents, which you'd normally have to wear down over multiple rounds, if you could vanquish them at all before they have depleted your HP. So MD can cut such a combat short, especially as far from all high-HP monsters also have high Fort.

What's so sweet about MD is that nobody can rely on his HP reservoir without risk. In D&D, you (i.e. PC or NPC) could say "Ah, I have 120HP and that bugger has a max damage of 24 on a crit, so I'll be good for at least 5 rounds before I run out, probably much longer". With MD, you must be aware that there is always a chance, and if it's just 1%, to be dropped by one blow. Without MD there simply is no such chance.

Of course one man's meat is another man's poison, so if your group prefers not having that risk or chance, there's absolutely nothing wrong with that.

 

[Sutek]

Yeah, MD in D&D 3.X is 50 points! That's nearly impossible until well after mid-level, or with some few spells that garner loads of damage in some early mage levels (liek fire ball or lightning bolt). It's really hard to get MD to ever kick-in in D&D, but in Conan is occurs at a much, much lower benchmark and therefore much more regularly at earlier levels. I'll grant Hoofy the fact that it's most easily attained through 2handed chops with power attack, but aother pesky source (as someone mentioned a while back) is Sneak Attack, lest we forget.

But we're discussing an augmented damage system here, so I felt it a worthy spot to discuss how other systems handle the less dice-oriented side of things, through crits and feat tweaks.

In answer to C-hoof's questions:
Yes, Power Attack has not player adjusted ability to scale. The stronger you are, the more power you put into the blow, subtracting that amount fromt he attack. It's more reflective of putting all one's strength behind a strike. If you're really, really strong, it might not even be a wise idea to go all out for fear of missing altogther, which is an interesting twist to the feat, I think.

Regarding the SG1 vitality/wounds system and achieving crits with firearms...uh...yeah. It's freakin nasty. There's a prestige class that adds a few extra class abilities to the normal feat trees that gets threat range with rifles down to 12+. You can also aim, which in that game's fluid Initative (very cool system, BTW) gains you initiative count, and the ability to hit with a Barrett M82A1 .50 cal sniper rifle for 2d12, armor piercing. Almost every other shot is simply a death blow. And, yes, no save. Just dead. That'll take out just about everyone short of an Unas. BTW, that gun has a 17-20 threa range base, so even a desk clerk has a good chance of a kill shot without any specialized training.

I don't know how such a rule would alter the damage mechanics of Conan RPG, but there are definitely fewer opportunities to broaden threat range, making it a decent way of upping the odds of an outright kill but only in rare circumstances.

As another thought, instant death stuff like failed MD saves can also easily be blunted (not necessarily nerfed) by just counting the affected target as "dying" instead of "dead." Makes things somewhat more forgiving.

 

[treeplanter]

Ah, good catch with the TWF. Let's see.

Current: TWF does similar gross damage as THF, except that
1.) Light weapons are incompatible with Power Attack;
2.) you split the damage over twice the numbers of attacks, meaning that the DR is deducted twice;
3.) and despite those drawbacks, you need to spend up to two feats to pull it off (except for Borderers), whereas using THF doesn't mandate any feat;

So TWF only wins if you have some extra damage source, such as Sneak Attack (and that's pretty much the only extra damage you get in Conan).

That all true BUT:

1. You forget that with 2 weapon you get 2 chance to hit. That make 2-weapon fighting as efficient as two-handed for unarmored foes and LOT more efficient against multiple foes.

2. Two-weapon strike. Sure cost you a feat but you get the best of the two-world. You can mimic a two-hand weapon if you want or make separate attack depending of the kind of the fight.

3. Two-weapon defence. You can chose a "shield" and still make lot of attack. Become pretty good when you have lot of attack

Let say i take your system with the two-handed = d12 now 2-weapon is just plain better. No question asked ill never fight with a two-hand weapon!


I think the problem in fact are:
1. 20 is two low for MD. Try 20+fortitude save as a trigger. Unless you score a critical or a pretty lucky sneak attack good luck.

2. Some two-hand weapon are not balanced with other (mainly the bardiche). I think making the bardiche exotic and making the spear like the battleaxe but with x 2 crit and 1 more AP is enough to solve those small issue.

3. Power attack is stupid

BTW i got the Hyborian finest this week and Reckless attack is like Power attack but more stupid what the f%"%$? and you can combine the 2.
Oh well...

 

[Ichabod]

That all true BUT:

1. You forget that with 2 weapon you get 2 chance to hit. That make 2-weapon fighting as efficient as two-handed for unarmored foes and LOT more efficient against multiple foes.

2. Two-weapon strike. Sure cost you a feat but you get the best of the two-world. You can mimic a two-hand weapon if you want or make separate attack depending of the kind of the fight.

3. Two-weapon defence. You can chose a "shield" and still make lot of attack. Become pretty good when you have lot of attack

Seems to me that people forget that not every round of combat involves making a full attack and that the reason any sensible character would have PA is not just because of PA but because it's a prereq. for Cleave.

For 2w fighting to be good, you need to be able to do full attacks. Otherwise, the 2h fighter is going to get more attacks as it Cleaves through everything.

The typical situation I see is:
1. Move in to engage, 2h fighter kills a minimum of two things assuming it can get adjacent. Thief nukes someone with lower initiative or maybe Tumbles to flank-nuke. Everyone else takes up space.
2. Engaged, 2h fighter kills two things adjacent at low levels and everything adjacent at higher levels. Others may or may not kill one thing.

The exception is when there's some ridiculous big bad that can actually suck up a 30-40 HP strike or that doesn't need to make MDSs.

It's very important not to forget Cleave. At low levels, Cleave is better than PA. At higher levels, Cleave makes 2w fighting a joke.

It's possible to concoct scenarios where 2h fighting is not clearly better or even as good, but so many scenarios favor the 2h fighter that it's always the way to go for a frontliner.

BTW, while I like the concept of the 20 MDS, I'm willing to let it go if there's some way to balance out damage output. Just eliminating it and not touching anything else doesn't seem like it would help as the 2h still does more than double the damage output of others.

 

[Clovenhoof]

1. You forget that with 2 weapon you get 2 chance to hit. That make 2-weapon fighting as efficient as two-handed for unarmored foes and LOT more efficient against multiple foes.

As Ichabod said - and I hadn't found necessary to mention above - with 2F you simply take (Great) Cleave and every One-Hit gives you an extra attack. Now if that isn't efficient I don't know what.

2. Two-weapon strike. Sure cost you a feat but you get the best of the two-world. You can mimic a two-hand weapon if you want or make separate attack depending of the kind of the fight.

The idea is good but the feat is badly written. It forces you to take a prereq that is useless for your chosen fighting style, namely Power Attack, which can't be used with the Light Weapon(s) you'll be wielding. Also, you have to spend _another_ feat to just get a bit closer to that 2HFers can do without extra feats.

FWIW, in my game I have made Two Weapon Strike a Combat Manoeuvre available to _anyone_ with TWF ability; no feat, no further prereqs.

3. Two-weapon defence. You can chose a "shield" and still make lot of attack. Become pretty good when you have lot of attack

And another feat into the equation, except for the Borderer of course.

Let say i take your system with the two-handed = d12 now 2-weapon is just plain better. No question asked ill never fight with a two-hand weapon!

As I said, this mandates you have to rebalance TWF as well, so you don't get twice the number of attacks, or it would indeed be vastly more powerful than the other styles. My working proposition is that it would give pluses to your regular, primary attacks, and no off-hand attacks at all. And Two-Weapon Defense would give +2 to Defense alright.

1. 20 is two low for MD. Try 20+fortitude save as a trigger. Unless you score a critical or a pretty lucky sneak attack good luck.

Well, you are aware that this would mean that any MDS actually triggered requires a natural 20 to survive?
I think 20 is fine. The threshold has been chosen so low _so that_ it happens relatively often. If you have high Fort, you will reliably make the save and get on with it.

Some two-hand weapon are not balanced with other (mainly the bardiche). I think making the bardiche exotic

"Exotic" in Conan is just a word. It would just mean that Bardiches are restricted to Barbarians (who get it for free) and Soldiers (who can easily afford the feat), but those are the classes that most often use them anyway.
However, in our upcoming game, I think we will make all two-handed weapons except the spear "exotic" in the sense of: not commonly known, made or used. There simply _are_ no Greatswords, Bardiches, Bills etc except maybe in the hands of that huge grunt of a temple guardian...
mainly because we want to create a feeling of a classical / barbarian world, not late medieval or renaissance, regardless what appears in the odd Howard story.

3. Power attack is stupid

Well, if you think so. I think it's one of the strong points in D20 combat that there are ways to shift points around between attack, defense and damage, otherwise it would just be "rolling down" HPs without any variation. Only two-handed PA is broken, and that is easily fixed by making the damage bonus a flat x1 regardless of weapon type.

I don't have HFinest, but I'm guessing Reckless Attack lets you trade defense for damage? ^^

 

[treeplanter]

Well it is not stupid in the sense it is truly stupid, it is stupid the way it is written.

personnaly i put a -5/+5 limit on PA

yeah reckless attack is sacrifice defense to add damage.

then you should change the save too. fix DC 20 for fortitude. The thing is it should be harder to one-shot a higher level character or a strong monster.

Let the 2-weapon fighter get 2 attacks as a standart action i think that evident?

For the cleave argument, cleave is pretty situational. Don't know how you run your campaing, but the fighter don't use cleave that often in mine.

 

[Clovenhoof]

For the cleave argument, cleave is pretty situational. Don't know how you run your campaing, but the fighter don't use cleave that often in mine.

True, but we are looking at a specific situation: combat against multiple adjacent foes. That's the regime you proposed when talking about the alleged advantages of TWF over THF. When fighting a solitary foe, it's true that Cleave won't help you, but neither will any extra attacks from TWF, unless you do extra damage (i.e. Sneak). In other words, all your two-weapon attacks won't do more damage than all your two-handed attacks, rather less.

 

[treeplanter]

ho ok see your point

well in that case isnt having Power attack + two weapon strike or Power attack +cleave the same thing? Especially if you use tw strike as a combat manoeuver?

 

[Clovenhoof]

well in that case isnt having Power attack + two weapon strike or Power attack +cleave the same thing? Especially if you use tw strike as a combat manoeuver?

If you make a few more adjustments:
- by RAW, PA is incompatible with Light weapons. But a TWFer must use at least one Light weapon to avoid penalties. So if he uses PA to boost his main-hand damage, he also gets the attack penalty for the off-hand weapon but not the damage bonus. So you'd have to alter PA to be compatible with Light weapons.
- TWS as written is usable only once per round.

 

[treeplanter]

Hum ok i see I ve never really saw that PA don t apply to light weapon i did not bother reading it at first. We were playing that it added half for off-hand weapon.

I guess that prove the point power attack is the problematic feat it is unbanlanced as it s written. Twice damage for 2-hand is clearly stupid and no bonus to light weapon clearly debalance the fighting style

whatever

 

[treeplanter]

just for fun I calculated the damage output assuming you hit at a 50% rate and no strenght bonus (to add strenght bonus just add to average damage)

Tulwar (8.5/20 x 9 + 1.5/20 x 18) = 5.175
Greasword 9/20 x 10 + 1/20 x 20) = 5.5
bardiche 9.5/20 x 11 + 0.5/20 x 33) = 6.0375

Broadsword + short sword (9/20 x 5.5 + 1/20 x 11) + (9/20 x 4.5 + 1/20 x 9) = 5.5

Note that the best weapon here is the bardiche. and it s a martial weapon (not exotic). And it have a better AP than both Greatsword and tulwar...

So in the end baring the power attack stupid rule Greatsword and 2 weapon is the same damage output BUT on unarmored foes and assuming you have the same number of attack with your off-hand weapon. On armored foes thing get ugly for two-weapon fighting.

On the other hand two-weapon fighting is a lot more powerful when you have sneak attack (which won t work with 2-handed weapon anyway). Or if you take the 2 weapon expert feat and have 20-22 strenght now it become really ugly too.

I think the style that is the more screwed up is the one-handed weapon. That unfortunate because that the style Conan use in most story!

 

[Sutek]

But we've shifted into the age-old discussion about whether 2WF or 2HW is better. This thread is more about trying to fix flaws in the damage output.

Are we tangentially agreeing that you can't touch the damage dice for weapons without considering how that reaches out into overall game ballance in terms of feats and combat manuevers?

If damage dice are where the problem lies, then there are some decent ideas on how to change those, but I feel like Conan gets the damage levels right-on compared to D&D. The damges are higher, and dual-dice makes more sense for higher impact weapons becuse it also increases the minimum and mean damage they deal. Personally, I like the idea of weapons that deal 4d4 instead of 2d8 for that reason. A really nasty weapon might be like that.

If MD is everyone's problem, as least treeplanter raised the simplest option as a fix: Increase MD. I obviously thin his 20+FORT is too high, but 10+CON might not be. That actually lowers MD until higer levels, where it gets higer than 20. I tend to alter MD for monsters that have profiles showing abnormally high FORT saves exactly as treeplanter describes, though, so that they are much harder to insta-kill, but I've found that 20+FORT only works under that condition. Take a look at Ghouls and Golems, and you'll see it works pretty good.

If Power Attack is where the problem lies, then there are something like four different alternatives of the feat out there, with the Pathfinder version veing the best in my opinion because it takes the scaling out of player control and limits the bonus and penalty to STR bonus. Very clean and efficient, while still attributing a nasty knot on somebody's head.

To "fix" damge output, we have to first decide on where the breaks are, and I'm having a hard time seeing them except in the case of PA. We can do equations and talk about averages and sruff all day long, but that doesn't really address the issue. Models only get you so far in life.

Note that the best weapon here is the bardiche. and it s a martial weapon (not exotic). And it have a better AP than both Greatsword and tulwar...

And it's always use 2-handed. You don't take that into account in your equation. Sure, you're trying to show those weapons with no STR mod involved, but add just +1 and the bardiche gets most nasty real fast. bar-none, it's the best weapon in the RAW, but it's easily limited as a weapon usually only available to soldiers and guards.

Plus, I think you guys ought to be breaking more weapons. I do it arbitrarily sometimes jsut to put my players off ballance and give them something else to (a) do in a fight and (b) to spend their money on, often not for an identical replacement. :wink:

 

[treeplanter]

And it's always use 2-handed. You don't take that into account in your equation. Sure, you're trying to show those weapons with no STR mod involved, but add just +1 and the bardiche gets most nasty real fast. bar-none, it's the best weapon in the RAW, but it's easily limited as a weapon usually only available to soldiers and guards.

Plus, I think you guys ought to be breaking more weapons. I do it arbitrarily sometimes jsut to put my players off ballance and give them something else to (a) do in a fight and (b) to spend their money on, often not for an identical replacement. :wink:

Good point on the weapon breaking.

I'll look stupid but what RAW stand for??? I don't get your point on Bardiche are you saying it's too powerfull and you limit it only for soldier and guard as a house rule i'm a bit confused

 

[thelevitator]

RAW = "Rules As Written"

That one took me a while to learn too, until I started going to the WotC D&D site.

 

[Demetrio]

treeplanter raised the simplest option as a fix: Increase MD.

That won't fix it, it'll just increase the importance of having a 2hw as only 2hw can regularly do MD on a normal hit as things stand.

The damges are higher, and dual-dice makes more sense for higher impact weapons becuse it also increases the minimum and mean damage they deal.

We could argue about the realism of that but from a gameplay perspective it heavily slants damage in favour of 2hw (as wel as the whole MD problem) and 2hw are very unConan.

Now I grant you some weapons are just better than others, and there's no harm in having some good weapons and some bad weapons in the game. But the good weapons should reflect the stories, I think, and 2hw are damn thin on the ground in Howard - and when they are met, they do not do disproportionate damage.

As I said above, Conan frequently cleaves folk (and the occasional demon) in half - or nearly so - in combat and we can fairly see that as inflicting MD in game terms. This is almost always done with the broadsword.

Perrsonally I think Cloven hoof is on the right lines with his Simple d6/Light d8/Martial d10 progression and allowing 2h slashing variants like the greatsword or 2h axe an extra dice step (eg d10 becomes d12). The extra oomph coming largely from the additional strength bonus granted for wielding with 2 hands. this is more than adequate to give 2h weapons suitable flavour. A greatsword would do d12+1.5str bonus and thus is best suited to very strong warriors who can maximise its potential. Lesser men with str 13-15 won't do too much worse with the broadsword at d10+str than they would with the greatsword and can carry a shield, punch with their free hand, grab damsels with their free hand or whatever.

 

[Ichabod]

If you were really going to realign weapon damage, I'd be inclined more toward something like:

2h - 2d8
1h - 2d6
light - 1d10

One would think it would make for a rough world, especially at lower levels, but it's not any rougher than everyone running around with a bardiche.

This also makes crits with lighter weapons way more useful/spectacular.

 

[treeplanter]

I've suggested couple houseroule to my playing group to balance some of weapon

1. Bardiche is exotic and does 1d10 + 1d8.
2. New weapon: Battlespear. same as great axe except +1 AP but only 2 to crit.

3. A one handed weapon wielded with 2 hand add an extra 2 damage. So a broadsword is still less than greatsword (7.5 average vs 9) but it's more closer. And if you have the war sword feat it would become 8.5 vs 9 so almost the same.

4. If you wield a one handed weapon and nothing else in your off-hand you get a +2 circonstantial bonus to dodge defense. I think that fair and represent well the fact your more balanced and more agile by sacrificing offence.

The one last thing I would like to correct is the scimitar, wich is way inferior to the broadsword or battle axe, i tough I could boost it's AP by 2 (so it's more than the broadsword). Other tough?

 

[Sutek]

I don't get your point on Bardiche are you saying it's too powerfull and you limit it only for soldier and guard as a house rule i'm a bit confused

Those are the classes (careers) that would most likely have a bardiche. They way I see it, they aren't for sale outside of military issue, and only special cases or shops will have one and then it's like reeeaaallly expensive. They are used for reach and impact in guard duty situations or, in a Japanese model, used in battle from horseback. Guard ones are ceremonial or well used, handed down from guard to guard, and the calvary issue one are probably broken off at the haft if they find their way off a battle field. Generally, that allows players to only get one either thru serious perseverance and shopping, or by killing a dude who has one.

ANNI: "You must be a Jedi. Only a Jedi caries a weapon like that..."
QGJ: "Maybe I killed a Jedi and took his weapon."

It's more for control or everybody and their pony would have one, right? Not every merchant is gonna have everything on the equipment list out of the book either, and most towns are going to be selling plow and adze blades instead, with big knives (machetes) being about the only weapon-like thing you can find.

I do it for flavor, and so that when a PC gets an arming sword that lasts him a few good fights, he names the thing!

 

[Clovenhoof]

If you were really going to realign weapon damage, I'd be inclined more toward something like:

2h - 2d8
1h - 2d6
light - 1d10

Yeah, possibly. Thanks for the suggestion. Although this gives 2H a bigger statistical advantage again, compared to the D10/D12 scenario.

On another note, I recalled the system in Savage Worlds, where weapon damage is also limited by strength score. Now SW uses a lot of different die sizes (from d4 to d12), and a melee weapon typically does
Strength die + Weapon die
however the Weapon die cannot be greater than the Strength die.
So for instance, a Longsword may have a damage of D8, but if you only have Str D6 you also only get D6 from your weapon, for a total of 2D6.
(However, I don't see an obvious way to port this concept to D20.)

Thirdly, I played around a bit with the previously discussed concept of weapons doing D8/D10/D12. 2HW benefit from 1,5x Str bonus, while 1HW have a wider Threat range. Also all Crits ignore armour DR.
This leads to some very curious implications: Effectively, this results in 2HW being best against unarmoured foes and 1HW superior against heavily armoured foes. While that may work from a game balance point of view, I find it rather implausible and difficult to justify.