The low end of damage

[LegendaryJWP]

From a discussion I saw over on the BRP boards...

Using Legend instead of the terms used there: If a character has a Dirk (1d3+2 damage) with a +1d2 damage bonus, the least damage he can do on a hit is 4 points - very nearly as much as the average hit from a Short Sword (1d6) wielded by the same guy. There doesn't appear to be a mechanic for dealing with a shallow or other flesh wound, even if you allow for a "graze" to be what you get from just barely a miss, or just barely a parry or evade.

So, should there be some sort of mechanic for this? Is there a workaround that leaves you with different damage from different weapons, without this gray area in the middle where there's no way to do 1 point of damage?

 

[DamonJynx]

So, should there be some sort of mechanic for this? Is there a workaround that leaves you with different damage from different weapons, without this gray area in the middle where there's no way to do 1 point of damage?

Personally, I don't see the need for it. Not every weapon does die damage + a bonus and not every character has a positive damage modifier.

As an example: a character with Sword & Shield combat style using a longsword & target shield with average STR & SIZ scores does 1 pt of damage minimum.

Not to mention the fact that damage has to penetrate armour as well... so there is a very real chance of characters sustaining 'scratches'.

Feel free to house rule as you see fit, but IMO, due to the fact that PC'S & major NPC's use Hit Locations, the need for additional mechanics regarding 'flesh wounds' is largely redundant.

It sounds from your post that you haven't actually played through a combat yet. I strongly suggest you do so with your group to get a feel for how combat works in play, rather than just theoretically. It really is quite good and doesn't require much in the way of tweaking.

 

[Dan True]

even if you allow for a "graze" to be what you get from just barely a miss, or just barely a parry or evade.

If he parries the attack with a 1-step smaller weapon, it will half the damage. I.e. minimum 2.

Most people expecting combat, and some not, will be wearing leather for 1 or 2 AP. Dedicated warriors much more.

But when a strong (+1d2 dmg mod.) hits you, it generally tends to hurt. Especially with a weapon.. Try to google or youtube for wounds after knife fights... Even small knives tend to screw up muscle badly if they hit (which they usually do).

- Dan

 

[Olaus Petrus]

I haven't experienced any problems with low end of damage. 0-2 point hits are quite frequent in my own game. And players seem to curse a lot when 1 point of damage causes them bleed or impale.

And when we consider damage modifier's effects, it's important to remember that average result for of 3d6 is 10 or 11. If both your STR and SIZ are in that average then your damage modifier is either -1d2 or +0. If your damage modifier is +1d2 then you're stronger than average person and your hits should do more damage.

And personally I believe that not every weapon should have same minimum damage, because some weapons make nastier bruises or wounds than others. Sword hit can be anything from small cut to serious injury, but dirk stab wound is usually deep and painful.

 

[LegendaryJWP]

I haven't experienced any problems with low end of damage. 0-2 point hits are quite frequent in my own game. And players seem to curse a lot when 1 point of damage causes them bleed or impale.

And when we consider damage modifier's effects, it's important to remember that average result for of 3d6 is 10 or 11. If both your STR and SIZ are in that average then your damage modifier is either -1d2 or +0. If your damage modifier is +1d2 then you're stronger than average person and your hits should do more damage.

And personally I believe that not every weapon should have same minimum damage, because some weapons make nastier bruises or wounds than others. Sword hit can be anything from small cut to serious injury, but dirk stab wound is usually deep and painful.

0 point hits must be from negative DBs or armor, I assume?

I can't get behind the idea of a "minimum damage" higher than 1 for any weapon. I don't care if it's a pocket knife or a four foot long sword, I can cause only the slightest of damage. Is it as likely if I'm a huge brute with a huge weapon? No, not really. But it does happen.

But agree or disagree, isn't it odd that a Dirk does more minimum damage than a short sword?

 

[Olaus Petrus]

I haven't experienced any problems with low end of damage. 0-2 point hits are quite frequent in my own game. And players seem to curse a lot when 1 point of damage causes them bleed or impale.

And when we consider damage modifier's effects, it's important to remember that average result for of 3d6 is 10 or 11. If both your STR and SIZ are in that average then your damage modifier is either -1d2 or +0. If your damage modifier is +1d2 then you're stronger than average person and your hits should do more damage.

And personally I believe that not every weapon should have same minimum damage, because some weapons make nastier bruises or wounds than others. Sword hit can be anything from small cut to serious injury, but dirk stab wound is usually deep and painful.

0 point hits must be from negative DBs or armor, I assume?

I can't get behind the idea of a "minimum damage" higher than 1 for any weapon. I don't care if it's a pocket knife or a four foot long sword, I can cause only the slightest of damage. Is it as likely if I'm a huge brute with a huge weapon? No, not really. But it does happen.

But agree or disagree, isn't it odd that a Dirk does more minimum damage than a short sword?

Yep, there are other modifiers than just base damage of the weapon. Personally I don't find it strange that weapons have bigger minimum damage than 1 point, almost every RPG has weapons which have bigger minimum damage than 1 point and I think it's just normal.

And it's not just the size of the blade which matters, but it's shape and purpose. In real life knives and daggers are very deadly. Dirk is designed to be pushed through the enemy armour and it's early modern bladed weapon, so it has more advanced design than more primitive swords and daggers.

 

[Dan True]

I can't get behind the idea of a "minimum damage" higher than 1 for any weapon. I don't care if it's a pocket knife or a four foot long sword, I can cause only the slightest of damage. Is it as likely if I'm a huge brute with a huge weapon? No, not really. But it does happen.

I wouldn't say so. If a strong person (or even a mediocre person) hits you, even the slightest, with a glaive, you're hurt... Strokes that simply cut of a piece of hair or perhaps grace your clothes, are in game terms simply not hits (and are pretty unlikely).

If a glaive in motion connects with you, it hurts badly.

I would say the explanation of the higher minimum dmg of a dirk than a shortsword above is pretty good. A dirk is rarely used for anything rather than thrusts - and a thrust will either not connect or penetrate at least some distance below the skin. And attack which only just stings him, is in game terms simply a miss.

- Dan

 

[LegendaryJWP]

Yep, there are other modifiers than just base damage of the weapon. Personally I don't find it strange that weapons have bigger minimum damage than 1 point, almost every RPG has weapons which have bigger minimum damage than 1 point and I think it's just normal.

For me, this is the biggest issue I have with the situation. It's not based on realism nearly so much as it is an artifact of the game and the dice used. Legend/RQ/BRP has it, though not as bad as some. Hero and GURPS, with only d6 to work with, has it in spades. It's not uncommon in GURPS for a big guy with a sword or an axe to do 2d6+4 damage (which can be modified to 3d6, but isn't always enforced), with a minimum of 6 points of damage, or better than half the HP of the average guy in GURPS (not even allowing for the fact that cutting wounds do 1.5x damage after armor is taken into account).

And it's not just the size of the blade which matters, but it's shape and purpose. In real life knives and daggers are very deadly. Dirk is designed to be pushed through the enemy armour and it's early modern bladed weapon, so it has more advanced design than more primitive swords and daggers.

Okay, so it's more about honoring the difference between thrusting, impaling weapon and a slashing one. I can buy that. Except that short swords can also Impale, and the Great Hammer (with or without optional pointy-end) does 1d10+3 (min 4) damage without impaling at all. Yes, being hit with a giant hammer is going to hurt, but it really doesn't allow for anything short of "made your arm useless" in play when there really could be solid hits, that cause damage, bruising and blunt trauma, that don't totally trash the limb.

 

[strega]

Okay, so it's more about honoring the difference between thrusting, impaling weapon and a slashing one. I can buy that. Except that short swords can also Impale, and the Great Hammer (with or without optional pointy-end) does 1d10+3 (min 4) damage without impaling at all. Yes, being hit with a giant hammer is going to hurt, but it really doesn't allow for anything short of "made your arm useless" in play when there really could be solid hits, that cause damage, bruising and blunt trauma, that don't totally trash the limb.

I'll tell you what, we'll do some practical testing. Whereabouts are you located? I'll come over and hit you with a sledgehammer and we'll see if your arm is useless or if your arm is not totally trashed.

That'll solve the problem right there!

 

[Olaus Petrus]

Yep, there are other modifiers than just base damage of the weapon. Personally I don't find it strange that weapons have bigger minimum damage than 1 point, almost every RPG has weapons which have bigger minimum damage than 1 point and I think it's just normal.

For me, this is the biggest issue I have with the situation. It's not based on realism nearly so much as it is an artifact of the game and the dice used. Legend/RQ/BRP has it, though not as bad as some. Hero and GURPS, with only d6 to work with, has it in spades. It's not uncommon in GURPS for a big guy with a sword or an axe to do 2d6+4 damage (which can be modified to 3d6, but isn't always enforced), with a minimum of 6 points of damage, or better than half the HP of the average guy in GURPS (not even allowing for the fact that cutting wounds do 1.5x damage after armor is taken into account).

And it's not just the size of the blade which matters, but it's shape and purpose. In real life knives and daggers are very deadly. Dirk is designed to be pushed through the enemy armour and it's early modern bladed weapon, so it has more advanced design than more primitive swords and daggers.

Okay, so it's more about honoring the difference between thrusting, impaling weapon and a slashing one. I can buy that. Except that short swords can also Impale, and the Great Hammer (with or without optional pointy-end) does 1d10+3 (min 4) damage without impaling at all. Yes, being hit with a giant hammer is going to hurt, but it really doesn't allow for anything short of "made your arm useless" in play when there really could be solid hits, that cause damage, bruising and blunt trauma, that don't totally trash the limb.

Think it this way. Dirk's more advanced blade design gives it better penetration, therefore it gives you better average damage. Short sword is bigger, but more primitive thrusting weapon. It doesn't make deep wounds as often as dirk, but when you can thrust it all the way it makes more damage.

I have no particular interest to continue this debate as it doesn't seem to go anywhere, but I just want to remind you that 4 point hit doesn't destroy location (unless it's already badly damaged). If your character does have linen or leather armour then it's just a scratch and metal armour stops it completely.

I don't really see any problem with the system, it's much more realistic than other games which I have played recently and both myself and my players like it and like I said earlier small bruises and cuts are common in battle.

 

[LegendaryJWP]

I won't belabor the point any further then. All I'm saying is that weapons that do a mandated minimum amount of damage break realism for me, as they don't allow for situations where less damage would be appropriate, without armor, or a weak weapon wielder. I'm not trying to say that Legend, or any other system is broken because of it - just that they could be better, and are suffering primarily because of the granularity of the dice involved.

The fact that Legend/RQ/BRP make heavy use of percentile dice makes me happy. I just wish they'd done so with damage, with a simple cross-ref table maybe, in this instance as well.

 

[DamonJynx]

I'll tell you what, we'll do some practical testing. Whereabouts are you located? I'll come over and hit you with a sledgehammer and we'll see if your arm is useless or if your arm is not totally trashed.

That'll solve the problem right there!

Not nice, but very funny :lol:

I was thinking the same thing. Obviously hasn't had a corked muscle.

When I was doing Tae Kwon Do years ago I was sparring with a chap (a mate of mine actually) the week before my first tournament and he did a spinning back kick that got me in thigh, right in the joint of the muscles. I nearly didn't make the tournament! I could barely walk for 3 days!

Imagine a sledgehammer being swung with intent!

 

[DamonJynx]

I won't belabor the point any further then. All I'm saying is that weapons that do a mandated minimum amount of damage break realism for me, as they don't allow for situations where less damage would be appropriate, without armor, or a weak weapon wielder. I'm not trying to say that Legend, or any other system is broken because of it - just that they could be better, and are suffering primarily because of the granularity of the dice involved.

Sorry, but there are rules in place to minimise damage. If IIRC pulling a blow reduces damage, negative damage modifiers are applicable to weaker characters and so on (not to mention the odd fudge of a die roll!). What other system for damage would you propose? Weapons are given their damage dice based on function, design and min STR & DEX requirements to wield the weapon. There is a need to differentiate the damage weapons do and the only logical way to do that is to have varying die formulas for their result. Which of course means that some weapons will have higher minimum damage values and may have lower maximum damage than others that are similar. It's a lot better than saying weapon X does Y damage.

After playing D&D for a decade, Legend, BRP, MRQII, RQ6 - whatever, all trounce the D&D tropes IMO.

The fact that Legend/RQ/BRP make heavy use of percentile dice makes me happy. I just wish they'd done so with damage, with a simple cross-ref table maybe, in this instance as well.

Why add levels of complexity that aren't needed?

At least in Legend (and other games in the same family) it is possible to actually do no damage on a successful hit unlike other, big name FRPG's where if you hit, you're always guaranteed at least 1 point of damage.

 

[LegendaryJWP]

I'll tell you what, we'll do some practical testing. Whereabouts are you located? I'll come over and hit you with a sledgehammer and we'll see if your arm is useless or if your arm is not totally trashed.

That'll solve the problem right there!

Not nice, but very funny :lol:

I was thinking the same thing. Obviously hasn't had a corked muscle.

When I was doing Tae Kwon Do years ago I was sparring with a chap (a mate of mine actually) the week before my first tournament and he did a spinning back kick that got me in thigh, right in the joint of the muscles. I nearly didn't make the tournament! I could barely walk for 3 days!

Imagine a sledgehammer being swung with intent!

I forgot to comment on this when he posted it before. All I would say is that there is still the chance that this fat middle aged guy could *almost* evade your hit, and instead of hitting my arm, you catch me in the flabby part of my belly as I pass. You leave me with an abrasion and a nasty bruise, but I'd argue that I'd probably not taken at least four points of damage in the process. Maybe one - or two, because I'm a big ol' pussy.

 

[LegendaryJWP]

I won't belabor the point any further then. All I'm saying is that weapons that do a mandated minimum amount of damage break realism for me, as they don't allow for situations where less damage would be appropriate, without armor, or a weak weapon wielder. I'm not trying to say that Legend, or any other system is broken because of it - just that they could be better, and are suffering primarily because of the granularity of the dice involved.

Sorry, but there are rules in place to minimise damage. If IIRC pulling a blow reduces damage, negative damage modifiers are applicable to weaker characters and so on (not to mention the odd fudge of a die roll!). What other system for damage would you propose? Weapons are given their damage dice based on function, design and min STR & DEX requirements to wield the weapon. There is a need to differentiate the damage weapons do and the only logical way to do that is to have varying die formulas for their result. Which of course means that some weapons will have higher minimum damage values and may have lower maximum damage than others that are similar. It's a lot better than saying weapon X does Y damage.

After playing D&D for a decade, Legend, BRP, MRQII, RQ6 - whatever, all trounce the D&D tropes IMO.

The fact that Legend/RQ/BRP make heavy use of percentile dice makes me happy. I just wish they'd done so with damage, with a simple cross-ref table maybe, in this instance as well.

Why add levels of complexity that aren't needed?

At least in Legend (and other games in the same family) it is possible to actually do no damage on a successful hit unlike other, big name FRPG's where if you hit, you're always guaranteed at least 1 point of damage.

First and foremost, let me be clear. By calling out what I see as a failing in the system I am not attempting to demean it, or make it out as anything short of one of the top five systems for dealing with combat that I've encountered. D&D and other D20 based systems are bottom of the heap, for me for the very reason that I appreciate verisimilitude in my systems.

I didn't say you can't ever do one point of damage, only that an average strength guy, not pulling his blow, under perfectly normal combat parameters can't hit with a saber, or a short spear, or a dirk, or a battle axe or a ball and chain, and do one point of damage. And that, to me, is a concern that I would like a solution to. Hell, it wasn't even my idea, but once it got planted there, it's grown like nobody's business. Why, in this system, and in every other system I've encountered (short Rolemaster) do we stand idly by and let the nature of multiple dice dictate that there are weapons that can't do minor damage - that it's a clean miss/graze/just caught your loose clothing, or else it's a potentially debilitating hit?

There doesn't have to be a big deal made of it, or that much added complexity, really. If a spear is weapon class 7, you roll d100 and compare to the chart cross referenced with weapon damage class 7. If you roll 01 to 14, you do one point of damage, if you roll 87-00, you do seven, and all possible values in between. There's no question about it then - a one point hit, whether it does minor damage or is shrugged off by armor, is always possible. Maybe you include a little version of the chart on the back of the character sheet, so it's easy to reference. Maybe, after a few games, you don't even have to bother checking anymore because you can do the math in your head. And no more 1d4+3 versus 1d6+1 versus 1d4+1+1d2 nonsense.

In either case, it eliminates my problem, and I may well go ahead and use it. And I invite others to join in, if they're similarly inclined and can see that just because there's a perceived problem it doesn't mean the whole product is being attacked, and can see things from an ecumenical point of view.

 

[Dan True]

I didn't say you can't ever do one point of damage, only that an average strength guy, not pulling his blow, under perfectly normal combat parameters can't hit with a saber, or a short spear, or a dirk, or a battle axe or a ball and chain, and do one point of damage. And that, to me, is a concern that I would like a solution to. Hell, it wasn't even my idea, but once it got planted there, it's grown like nobody's business. Why, in this system, and in every other system I've encountered (short Rolemaster) do we stand idly by and let the nature of multiple dice dictate that there are weapons that can't do minor damage - that it's a clean miss/graze/just caught your loose clothing, or else it's a potentially debilitating hit?

I must admit it doesn't bother me in the least. I fence Sword & Buckler three times a week, using historical manuals, and from the illustrations in those and from my experiences, hits are either pretty debilitating or ignorable. In fact I would likely go the other way and introduce minimum damage on most weapons, as that would fit my experiences more... but, this would also make Legend/RQ6 an even more dangerous system, and it is plenty dangerous as it is.

But remember that the weapon damage is always for a "clean" hit to some degree. Weapon damage is applied:
- when a parry failed
- when the parrying weapon was too slow to stop anything (and also failed to gain a CM to enhance parry)
- when the person was too preoccupied to defend properly (out of CA).
- When a parry was successful, but the attack critted and choose bypass parry.

In all other cases, weapon damage will either be ignored or halved - in which case 1 damage hits can easily be seen.

And, taking this into account - if the two of us were fighting. I attack you with my broadsword and you are either in one of the following situations:

- Either you fail to defend properly with your buckler, shield or weapon. Or perhaps simply your footwork fails
- You try to parry with a free hand or a dagger
- You are simply too slow for me
- You defend properly, but I make such a masterful attack that I bash your parry out of the way, angle my sword to ignore it or some such

If I make a proper attack and ANY of the above is true, I will likely hit you pretty badly. Scratches are almost only seen when one moves his buckler up too slowly or has his hands too far out - then the sword might graze him and "deal 1 damage"... And this would be seen when the damage is halved by a parry.

But I understand your point - to you it seems like it is a fact coming from the dice types and therefore simply a fact of dice distribution, not realism or design. Pete who made the combat system knows a lot more about fighting than I do and if he believes Dirks never make the smallest scratches, I tend to believe him... he knows his stuff.

That doesn't need to mean anything to you or your game of course. See below.

There doesn't have to be a big deal made of it, or that much added complexity, really. If a spear is weapon class 7, you roll d100 and compare to the chart cross referenced with weapon damage class 7. If you roll 01 to 14, you do one point of damage, if you roll 87-00, you do seven, and all possible values in between. There's no question about it then - a one point hit, whether it does minor damage or is shrugged off by armor, is always possible. Maybe you include a little version of the chart on the back of the character sheet, so it's easy to reference. Maybe, after a few games, you don't even have to bother checking anymore because you can do the math in your head. And no more 1d4+3 versus 1d6+1 versus 1d4+1+1d2 nonsense.

In either case, it eliminates my problem, and I may well go ahead and use it. And I invite others to join in, if they're similarly inclined and can see that just because there's a perceived problem it doesn't mean the whole product is being attacked, and can see things from an ecumenical point of view.

Well, this would be an extra layer or complexity that would annoy me. First of you need the chart - I have enough charts to think of anyway, and I much prefer that the players have on their character sheets what they need to roll.

But, your legend may wary. If this really annoys you that much, then create the chart, change weapon damages, or add a pumpkin to anything - it's your game, your rules

 

[Olaus Petrus]

First and foremost, let me be clear. By calling out what I see as a failing in the system I am not attempting to demean it, or make it out as anything short of one of the top five systems for dealing with combat that I've encountered. D&D and other D20 based systems are bottom of the heap, for me for the very reason that I appreciate verisimilitude in my systems.

I didn't say you can't ever do one point of damage, only that an average strength guy, not pulling his blow, under perfectly normal combat parameters can't hit with a saber, or a short spear, or a dirk, or a battle axe or a ball and chain, and do one point of damage. And that, to me, is a concern that I would like a solution to. Hell, it wasn't even my idea, but once it got planted there, it's grown like nobody's business. Why, in this system, and in every other system I've encountered (short Rolemaster) do we stand idly by and let the nature of multiple dice dictate that there are weapons that can't do minor damage - that it's a clean miss/graze/just caught your loose clothing, or else it's a potentially debilitating hit?

There doesn't have to be a big deal made of it, or that much added complexity, really. If a spear is weapon class 7, you roll d100 and compare to the chart cross referenced with weapon damage class 7. If you roll 01 to 14, you do one point of damage, if you roll 87-00, you do seven, and all possible values in between. There's no question about it then - a one point hit, whether it does minor damage or is shrugged off by armor, is always possible. Maybe you include a little version of the chart on the back of the character sheet, so it's easy to reference. Maybe, after a few games, you don't even have to bother checking anymore because you can do the math in your head. And no more 1d4+3 versus 1d6+1 versus 1d4+1+1d2 nonsense.

In either case, it eliminates my problem, and I may well go ahead and use it. And I invite others to join in, if they're similarly inclined and can see that just because there's a perceived problem it doesn't mean the whole product is being attacked, and can see things from an ecumenical point of view.

I used to run Middle Earth campaign back when I was a teenager and to be honest Arms Law (which has it's own chart for every weapon) was pain in the bottom. In many aspects MERP's more simplified rules were more to my taste than Rolemaster's charts and tables. Personally I rather just roll 1d4+1 than have books of charts and tables. Rolemaster isn't bad system, but these days I rather play BRP variants. But if you prefer that style, then I recommend that you'll replace Legend's combat system with Rolemaster's combat rules in your own campaign. It's not impossible task.

 

[PeteN]

Thanks for the nice compliment Dan.

The damage system in MRQ2/Legend is a continuation of how it has always been modelled in RuneQuest and other BRP games, with bashing or stabbing weapons gaining a +1 or +2 damage bonus. This has a degree of justification since stabs or bashes tend to be more able to bypass armour. Of course, the game is just a rough model of what happens in real life.

Yes, perhaps it would be more 'realistic' to always have a potential of only 1 point of damage on an unmodified damage roll. However this leads to several system consequences. Firstly, since there are only a limited number of dice variants, it leads to very little mechanical variation between similar types of weapons. Which is fine if for example, you want every single handed weapon to be 1d6 or 1d8.

Secondly, it makes modelling damage from particularly large creatures more difficult since there's a big step from 1d12 to 1d20 to 1d30 without introducing subtractions (something which psychologically irritates many GMs or players).

Feel free to tinker with the rules to finesse 1's for every type of weapon and creature, but whilst I endorse anyone to modify the system to suit their needs, I'm not sure its really worth the extra effort.

 

[DamonJynx]

I wasn't trying to say you were demeaning the system or anything like that, just that there are options within the system to accommodate for lower minimum damage rolls. I think we all understand where you're coming from, we just don't see it as an 'issue'. One of the beautiful features of this game system is its adaptability. If you want to change something go for it. Personally, I agree with Dan & Olaus, the damage table for each weapon would be painful for me and my group, but hey it's your game, do with it what you will. I did look at Rolemaster when I was looking for other game systems, but the introduction did my head in... not too mention the fact that you could die from falling off your horse! Waaaay, waaaay too complicated.

 

[LegendaryJWP]

Yes, perhaps it would be more 'realistic' to always have a potential of only 1 point of damage on an unmodified damage roll. However this leads to several system consequences. Firstly, since there are only a limited number of dice variants, it leads to very little mechanical variation between similar types of weapons. Which is fine if for example, you want every single handed weapon to be 1d6 or 1d8.

Honestly, this is all I've been trying to get anyone to admit to.

a) yes, all attacks should probably, for realism, be able to do only one point of damage against an unarmored target.
b) the reason we don't do this is, in no small part, due to the tools we choose to use - the granularity of the dice in the traditional polyhedral set
c) the easiest response (use only single dice without adds)
i) leads to a weird uniformity between weapons and
ii) becomes difficult to model between the range of 1d12 and 1d20 and then 1d30 and 1d100

My argument has never been that being more realistic and striving to simulate every possible result would be easy. Just that it isn't being done now, and it sure would be great to hear some other ideas on how one might!

You could hearken back to the old Basic D&D set and give folks chits to use - the original replacement for polyhedral dice. Then you take the chits for the d20 and eliminate the ones that aren't valid for a d15 and Bob's your uncle. Works great, but getting folks to pull tiny pieces of laminated card stock out of a sack is a bit of a stretch.

Take a page out of Savage Worlds, maybe, and use decks of cards. If everyone accepts that clubs are unmodified, diamonds +13, hearts +26 and spades +39, you've got a d52.

Write a random number generator for your iPod, iPad, android phone or TI calculator. Then you have a great deal of flexibility.

I dunno, anyone else?