The importance of the weapon

I think this one point I've read on a column of Legends & Lore it's more important than it seems:

"Simplify the current expertise mechanic to make it run more smoothly at the table. Frankly, we think that martial damage dice and martial damage bonus are too fiddly. The current thinking is to ditch the static bonus, use your weapon's die as the die you gain for bonus damage to make two-handed weapons competitive, and elegantly bind two-weapon fighting and multiple attacks into one system. The hidden benefit of this change is that by dropping damage for martial characters across the board, we can deflate hit points a bit and make higher level monsters relatively tougher. "

Well it all seems really really really good to me.
What it bothered me in all editions I've played was the choice of your weapon.
In Basic your choice of weapon was probably too simpler, but it was Basic so it's ok.
In AD&D there was speed-factors and more dice variations and variety (like 1d6+1 base damage or something like that, I don't remember well)
In 3rd the damage dice of your weapon was a mere bonus to your +25764 damage "bonus", with the critical range or multiplier being the only meaningful factor in your choice of weapon.
In 4th I've seen something better, with dice multipliers using powers. But it was only when using certain powers in a limited number of occasions, also the variations within the weapon rules where lesser in number and meaning.

All in all the damage dice of your weapon was something sad, at best.
Why having all those different dice shapes to use if the effectiveness of using one over another was so little that you could drop the whole rule of throwing different dice without changing the game?

I know the answer, different dice shapes is funny. And I'm ok with it.
But it would be nice to have more.
So having the damage dice of the weapon gained progressively with levels, feats and manouvers would be really really really good for me.
The damage dice would be meaningful at all levels.

What do you think? It's important? Or the weapon choice should be only estethic so anything you want to use would be effective?
I like dice being derived from weapon. In before "but it punishes characters who want to play a specific concept"... which is countered with dice can't be the only factor a weapon gives. For example, I think daggers should be able to get extra dice faster to represent a flurry of jabs & strikes. 4e weapon properties like brutal could make standard rules for weapons unique beyond the dice type.
"What's stupid is when people decide that X is true - even when it is demonstrable untrue or 100% against what we've said - and run around complaining about that. That's just a breakdown of basic human reasoning." -Mike Mearls
I like dice being derived from weapon. In before "but it punishes characters who want to play a specific concept"... which is countered with dice can't be the only factor a weapon gives. For example, I think daggers should be able to get extra dice faster to represent a flurry of jabs & strikes. 4e weapon properties like brutal could make standard rules for weapons unique beyond the dice type.


Combat already represents a flurry.  Anyone who thinks "an attack" in D&D actually represents a single slash, thrust, shot, or any other single attempted strike is incorrect.

Also, a weapon's damage IS solely a measure of its effectiveness as a weapon.  Properties can make weapons distinct and unique, and can thus make weapon choice matter more (which I am totally in favor of), but damage is hardly the only or best way to do that because it does punish certain character concepts.

There are a great many problems that can be circumvented by players and DMs having a mature discussion about what the game is going to be like before they ever sit down together to play.

 

The answer really does lie in more options, not in confining and segregating certain options.

 

You really shouldn't speak for others.  You can't hear what someone else is saying when you try to put your words in their mouth.

 

Fencing & Swashbuckling as Armor.

D20 Modern Toon PC Race.

Mecha Pilot's Skill Challenge Emporium.

 

Save the breasts.


Jan 31, 2013 -- 8:52AM, YouKnowTheOneGuy wrote:

I like dice being derived from weapon. In before "but it punishes characters who want to play a specific concept"... which is countered with dice can't be the only factor a weapon gives. For example, I think daggers should be able to get extra dice faster to represent a flurry of jabs & strikes. 4e weapon properties like brutal could make standard rules for weapons unique beyond the dice type.



Combat already represents a flurry.  Anyone who thinks "an attack" in D&D actually represents a single slash, thrust, shot, or any other single attempted strike is incorrect.

Also, a weapon's damage IS solely a measure of its effectiveness as a weapon.  Properties can make weapons distinct and unique, and can thus make weapon choice matter more (which I am totally in favor of), but damage is hardly the only or best way to do that because it does punish certain character concepts.


Heavily disagree. Damage is not the only thing in a weapon that matters.



Jan 31, 2013 -- 8:52AM, YouKnowTheOneGuy wrote:

I like dice being derived from weapon. In before "but it punishes characters who want to play a specific concept"... which is countered with dice can't be the only factor a weapon gives. For example, I think daggers should be able to get extra dice faster to represent a flurry of jabs & strikes. 4e weapon properties like brutal could make standard rules for weapons unique beyond the dice type.





Combat already represents a flurry.  Anyone who thinks "an attack" in D&D actually represents a single slash, thrust, shot, or any other single attempted strike is incorrect.

Also, a weapon's damage IS solely a measure of its effectiveness as a weapon.  Properties can make weapons distinct and unique, and can thus make weapon choice matter more (which I am totally in favor of), but damage is hardly the only or best way to do that because it does punish certain character concepts.


Heavily disagree. Damage is not the only thing in a weapon that matters.


I didn't say that it was.

Edit: Damage is a measure of the weapon's effectiveness as a weapon, i.e. it's ability to be lethal when it hits.  DDN doesn't have crit ranges or crit multipliers, so damage is the sole determining characteristic of a weapon that indicates its ability to be a lethal weapon.  And that is all that it does.

There are a great many problems that can be circumvented by players and DMs having a mature discussion about what the game is going to be like before they ever sit down together to play.

 

The answer really does lie in more options, not in confining and segregating certain options.

 

You really shouldn't speak for others.  You can't hear what someone else is saying when you try to put your words in their mouth.

 

Fencing & Swashbuckling as Armor.

D20 Modern Toon PC Race.

Mecha Pilot's Skill Challenge Emporium.

 

Save the breasts.

How the weapon deals it damage is much more important then how much it deals in most games I have played. I like poison darts for instance but they only deal 1 damage without the poison. Mechanically stabbing a skeleton could do damage but smashing or slashing it will work much better. I am sure someone has a better example but I hope my point is useful.
second edition had it right with weapons vs armor type table for adjusted damage. also why no real rules on weapon or armor wear, damage and repair like hackmaster had
second edition had it right with weapons vs armor type table for adjusted damage. also why no real rules on weapon or armor wear, damage and repair like hackmaster had


That makes a great option (and I seem to recall the rules you mention being optional ones in AD&D 2e), but a fair number of people don't care about the game simulating how slashing, stabbing, and bludgeoning affect different armors in real life.

There are a great many problems that can be circumvented by players and DMs having a mature discussion about what the game is going to be like before they ever sit down together to play.

 

The answer really does lie in more options, not in confining and segregating certain options.

 

You really shouldn't speak for others.  You can't hear what someone else is saying when you try to put your words in their mouth.

 

Fencing & Swashbuckling as Armor.

D20 Modern Toon PC Race.

Mecha Pilot's Skill Challenge Emporium.

 

Save the breasts.

i find it adds realism to the game when a fighter is forced to care for his arms and armor and just cant blanket use the shield to protect himself forever with out any consiquences.
i find it adds realism to the game when a fighter is forced to care for his arms and armor and just cant blanket use the shield to protect himself forever with out any consiquences.


Ah, that's a different rule than I was thinking of.  Still, an armor and weapon upkeep rule makes a good optional rule as well.

There are a great many problems that can be circumvented by players and DMs having a mature discussion about what the game is going to be like before they ever sit down together to play.

 

The answer really does lie in more options, not in confining and segregating certain options.

 

You really shouldn't speak for others.  You can't hear what someone else is saying when you try to put your words in their mouth.

 

Fencing & Swashbuckling as Armor.

D20 Modern Toon PC Race.

Mecha Pilot's Skill Challenge Emporium.

 

Save the breasts.

yeah if you get a copy of hackmaster dmg it has a really good system to handle armor and weapon wear. armor has "hps" for each level of armor class and as it takes damage it loses protection over time. magic items have more hp levels and there are better armor repair skills you can take to fix things
yeah if you get a copy of hackmaster dmg it has a really good system to handle armor and weapon wear. armor has "hps" for each level of armor class and as it takes damage it loses protection over time. magic items have more hp levels and there are better armor repair skills you can take to fix things


Yeah, that's certainly one way to go.  I don't care to track that level of detail, so if I were going to use an upkeep rule I'd just set a monthly cost to it and be done with it.

There are a great many problems that can be circumvented by players and DMs having a mature discussion about what the game is going to be like before they ever sit down together to play.

 

The answer really does lie in more options, not in confining and segregating certain options.

 

You really shouldn't speak for others.  You can't hear what someone else is saying when you try to put your words in their mouth.

 

Fencing & Swashbuckling as Armor.

D20 Modern Toon PC Race.

Mecha Pilot's Skill Challenge Emporium.

 

Save the breasts.

second edition had it right with weapons vs armor type table for adjusted damage. also why no real rules on weapon or armor wear, damage and repair like hackmaster had



Got it right with weapon speed too.

Edit: Damage is a measure of the weapon's effectiveness as a weapon, i.e. it's ability to be lethal when it hits.  DDN doesn't have crit ranges or crit multipliers, so damage is the sole determining characteristic of a weapon that indicates its ability to be a lethal weapon.  And that is all that it does.


they don't have also speed factors and few have special properties
This could penalize too much some weapon choices made for "estethic" purposes, and it doesn't seem to me it's the goal of DDN. It's okay if some choices are more good than others, cause it's the whole point of building, the problem is when the difference in effectiveness is too much.
If the weapon that I see fit well for my character does 1d6 damage but my character is also proficient in a weapon which does 1d10 damage with no penalties over the first... why I should choose the first one?

There are many ways to solve the problem and I'm ok with almost all of them.
What I really want is the designer thinking about it and work on it, cause my opinion is that it's a more significant part of the rules than it seems.
second edition had it right with weapons vs armor type table for adjusted damage. also why no real rules on weapon or armor wear, damage and repair like hackmaster had



Assuming that it was *right*, that's a 1st edition thing. I'm not even absolutely certain 2nd edition kept it.



I think the proposed concept re: damage dice is horrible in intent and application. Pre-gunpowder, the skill and training of the combatant makes far more difference than the type of weapon they use. Ask Miyamoto Musashi if you don't agree.

These, in the day when heaven was falling, The hour when earth's foundations fled, Followed their mercenary calling, And took their wages, and are dead. Playing: Legendof Five Rings, The One Ring, Fate Core. Planning: Lords in the Eastern Marches, Runequest in Glorantha. 

..."window.parent.tinyMCE.get('post_content').onLoad.dispatch();" contenteditable="true" />I think the proposed concept re: damage dice is horrible in intent and application. Pre-gunpowder, the skill and training of the combatant makes far more difference than the type of weapon they use. Ask Miyamoto Musashi if you don't agree.


Citing a japanese swordmaster in european-like medieval world, if you really want to go historical in D&D which is probably not the best but it was in the intentions of his creators, was not the best idea to me.
Also the fact of training and skill of the warrior being more important than the weapon is a limited perspective of the matter. Some armours were basically impenetrable by some weapons. Also the reach and weight of a weapon were very important factors.
But I really don't think it's good to go too much historical.
My opinion is that damage dice isn't horrible in application, I think it's actually pretty funny.