Goodman Games

After a playtest today some issues came up over some of the weapon damages and the clear superiority that some have over others.

1. There is little reason to use a Two-Handed Sword (with it's -4 initiative penalty and the loss of shield use) when you can use a Longsword and do similar damage. Worse still is the Battle Axe which has no advantage.

2. If crossbows have the same rate of fire as bows then I suggest no changes to them. Otherwise they need a boost, perhaps a +2 to hit or 1d8 damage. Another consideration would be to make them more effective in dungeons. Perhaps allow them to shoot up to their full range in dungeons but due to the arc of bows, they can only shoot up to their short range (or perhaps up to medium).

3. A call to Equalize Damage somewhat:
The way things are most warriors will end up with a longsword and shield or spear and shield and ignore most other combinations which is disappointing. As time goes on I am becoming more and more a fan of equalizing the damage of weapons in RPGs in to a few categories and letting players pick based on flavour (it even harkens back to the "every weapon does d6 damage" days). Afterall this is abstract combat so it's easy to justify, maybe that Longsword is quicker but if your shield is clobbered by a warhammer perhaps it leaves you open to extra hits. There are many ways to reason it out and no need to get in to fiddly bonuses, just equalize their damages and let players pick based on flavour/image. Something like this:

Damage
1d4 - Dagger/Dart/Sling/Staff/Club
1d6 - Shortsword/Handaxe/Javelin/Hammer
1d8 - Longsword/Warhammer/Mace/Flail/Spear/War Axe
1d10 - Polearm (Two-Handed but can use in the 2nd rank)
1d12 (or d10, roll twice and keep the better) - Two-Handed Sword/Battle Axe (need a boost to be viable choices)

This keep the Halflings to the 1d6 or lower weapons (avoiding a dual wield issue) and ensures that warriors are free to choose weapons they actually want. If you make Swords the cream of the magic item crop then players will still gravitate towards them anyway (if that's something you want).

At this point I thought you were going to just go with weapon damage by CLASS. Warriors: d8 (maybe more at higher level), thief: d6, cleric: d6, wizard: d4, elf: d6, halfling: d5, dwarf: d7, 0-level: d4.

Consider that 0-level folk have around 2 hit points normally. Any weapon damage above d4 is just greater odds for rolling 2 or better.

I realize that is an issue but you already have enemies/PCs that can wield longswords and spears (pitchforks even) so unless these are dropped to 1d6 the issue remains anyway. Other than boosting the flail, mace and warhammer (and I added a War axe for flavour) to 1d8 I didn't make any huge changes. If you equip your enemies with Shortswords, axes and hammers (replaces the warhammer in the 1d6 category) you end up where you were.

The two-handed swords and battle axes saw an increase but you likely won't face enemies with those anyway at 0 level. So really it comes down to flails, maces and warhammers...

This isn't a big deal, I will just house rule it anyway but I thought I'd point out that this was an immediate issue as not everyone wanted to go the spear/longsword route but felt "forced" there.

I can't say how much I like this recommendation. If anyone has picked up the new Gamma World 4E game they know that in the system everything was abstracted to light melee, heavy melee, light ranged, heavy ranged and guns. This gives the mechanical rules that work in the system and allows players to be creative in their descriptions. I've found it works beautifully.

Now, DCC has a specific inspiration, and also wants to hold compatibility with lots of prior art. So, a hybrid solution like this works wonderfully. Examples are given of the various weapons that exist at each damage level and if a player wants to have a Wakizashi they just decide if it is dagger-like or shortsword-like and have their damage (or even take a d5 since it is between).

You could implement the limits by class type, if you wish, by simply saying what die size they can wield without penalty and if there are any particular weapons at a higher size they get access to. Other than religious strictures, backstabbing and warrior's lucky weapons, I don't personally see weapon use restrictions adding a lot to play.

What do you mean? Like an elf does d6, an orc does d8 and an orge does 2d8 with ANY weapon. I don't understand what you mean a longsword in a wizard's hand is as effective as a dagger in a wizard's hand. Oh, I get it. When I said CLASS, I meant character class not weapon class. Wasn't that apparent? I feel like I'm totally missing something here.

Hmm I'm not sure what is happening here either I am not saying a longsword is as effective as a dagger in a wizard's hand. Under this change the longsword would still do 1d8 and the dagger would do 1d4, nothing changes with those. I am not pushing for a weapon damage by class mechanic (not that I would be opposed), I am mainly just pushing to change the categorical spread of the weapons so that spears and longswords are not the only choices at 1d8 damage (and thus the optimal choices for most characters). Just in case I am still not clear, let's go back...



My comment was in regards to this part. I thought (maybe I'm wrong) that you were opposed to boosting a few weapons up to 1d8 like I have to make them on par with the Longsword/Spear. I thought you were suggesting that the more weapons that do 1d8, the greater chance they have of rolling 2 or better (which is true), so boosting the mace to 1d8 is probably a bad idea for instance.

In return I suggested that many PC's and NPC's are already using Longswords/Spears/Pitchforks and hitting for 1d8 damage. Boosting a Warhammer from 1d6 to 1d8 therefore doesn't really put the PCs in more danger when there are other weapons that do the same damage out there. Basically if you weren't giving the NPCs Longswords/Spears already, don't give them a warhammer either (maybe just a hammer).

Reread my first message. I was taking the conversation in a different direction. EQUALizing damage to me means everything does the same damage based on the USER of the weapon. All warriors do d8 with all weapons. All wizards only do d4 with all weapons. I quoted your post about "since it is all abstract anyway" because basing damage on the user and not the weapon is just as abstract as the traditional weapon damage concepts.

Now that we can see which pages we both are separately on....

I like your weapon classification system and my by character systems. So how to combine them? Keep my system as the "base" damage done. (Warrior and Dwarf: d8*; cleric, thief, elf: d6; halfling: d5, wizard: d4) * At 4th level increase warrior to d10. At 5th level increase dwarf to d10.

Then use the Zocchi dice to perform shifts in damage based on weapon class: Suppose there are 3 weapon classes (to simplify the explanation, the real system could have any number of weapon classes): High, Medium and Low.

So based on the dice step line: 1 d2 d3 d4 d5 d6 d7 d8 d10 d12 d14 d16, a High damage weapon is one shift up from your base damage, a Low damage weapon is one shift down from your base, and of course Medium is no change from the base.

So a wizard (base d4) with a dagger (low), does d3 damage. A thief with a short sword (medium) does d6 damage. A Warrior (base d8) with a battleaxe (high) does d10 damage. And you can add fun rules like using a 2-handed melee weapon with one hand reduces the damage one die step. So the same warrior can use the battleaxe one handed for d8. Bows can be created that require minimum strength that grant additional damage (Fine Bow +1 damage step Minimum strength 15).

Ok I see, yeah I suppose calling it Equalizing damage was a bit misleading on my part when I really want to shift the categories of some of the weapons so that their are more choices in the d8 range.

As to your suggestion I was working on house rules for D&D that had sliding die shifts and class-based damage so trust me that I am not opposed to the idea. I just think it gets a bit annoying and fiddly for the rewards it gives you if it is if over-done. Having Low/Med/High for each class wouldn't be much work but I wouldn't shift it again (ie. due to levelling, etc).

For now I'd like to just change the weapon groups a bit so that 1d8 has more options. We can work on that other part next

I've been wanting to do this for forever. Seriously. And allow weapon die type to increase by level or some classes get multiple dice to roll instead of increasing the die type.

It makes complete sense, IMO. Then specific types of weapons can play off that. So a crossbow that can only be fired every other round would do 2d4 damage in the hands of a wizards and 2d8 damage in the hands of a warrior.

I also toyed with the notion of having a variance between ranged/melee damage dice. So a warrior would get a d8 and a d6 at 1st level. He could put one in Ranged and the other in Melee. Then a damage die boost at 2nd or 3rd level. So he could jump up to d10/d6 or even out at d8/d8.

Weapons that force the wielder to go last in the round (like two-handed weapons) can get a die boost. So polearms and 2-handed swords are d10 in the hands of that 1st level warrior. Those weapons can also get a free whack on opponents with fewer hit dice than the warrior (but other classes won't get this).

Thieves can get a d6 and a d4. And maybe they go up multiple dice. So at 4th level the Thief rolls 2d4 and 2d6. At 7th level, 3d4 and 3d6.

All sorts of fun can be had with this type of mechanic. And weapons become flavor (outside of those which offer a mechanical benefit at the cost of initiative position, damage die reduction or attack die reduction).

Maybe weapons that fall outside of a class's weapon training get similar reductions (either a d16 as the attack die or the damage die lowered by one level).

I think it's a little out of the scope of DCC's rulebook. But I've given it enough thought to want to offer it as a rule variant in the thing I'm putting together.

I see where this is coming from but I don't know if I agree 100%. Why can't a Thief do as much damage with a Dagger (1d6) as a Cleric does with a Mace?

I don't mind having different weapons increase or decrease the damage die. But I think that should come in response to an advantage or disadvantage the weapon brings.

If a dagger is lowering a class by one die type, maybe it's because they crit on 19 or 20. If a battleaxe does d10 damage, then it should have an initiative penalty.

Making a minimum strength requirement for melee weapons is double-dipping. But I could see doing it for missile weapons, as you've suggested. Maybe the appeal of the crossbow is that it doesn't require a minimum strength.

Again, out of the scope of DCC (IMO) but a fun thought exercise nonetheless.

Because in my example, the dagger is a "low" weapon that reduces the damage one step.


See you like the idea too. Some weapons just are better than others. Where I would find this system cool would be in having damage differences based on stance. A spear is great if you can keep your opponent away from you (and devastating if you can get someone to run into it) but once they get inside your reach, it's potential for doing damage drops significantly.


That's too 3e.


What if you are holding a dagger at the start of the battle and then pick up the battleaxe? A disadvantage that isn't a disadvantage should not support an advantage. (I've played HERO/Champions. I know all about adv/disad systems.


I didn't give any ranged weapon a minimum strength. I gave a special ranged weapon additional damage output in the hands of a strong user.

Truly cool would be changing the whole game so that instead of modifiers for ability scores, dice shifts happened for ability scores. But the game is far developed to make such a radical change:

Strength 10 warrior with long sword does d8 damage (no modifiers). Strength 13 warrior with the same long sword does d10 damage (no +1 for strength, the +1 is in the die). Strength 18 warrior with the same long sword does d14 damage. The average damage is still just +1 and +3 different from the strength 10 warrior. But the max damage is much higher. It's a great idea. But it's not the game Joseph is looking for.

I'd rather have die types increase with level. I think having die types increase via attribute makes the ability TOO good. And Strength is already really good. It doesn't need the help.

Besides, I prefer skill to play a greater role than innate ability. It's not that 16 Strength that makes the Warrior so good with a broadsword. It's those 5 levels of experience.

It sounds like we both find the idea appealing but have different ideas for how it could and should work.

That's cool. Different strokes, different folks.

The difference is at the bottom. Try a 16 Str and compare d8+2 to d12. d8+2 ranges from 3 to 10 with an average of 6.5. d12 has a range of 1 to 12 with an average of 6.5. The d12 can still NOT kill a 0-level character. The d8+2 will almost always kill a 0-level character.


That's the warrior class ability.

I don't think I'm being clear.

Take a 1st level Thief. He gets a d6 and a d4. He assigns one to ranged attacks (d4) and the other to melee attacks (d6). These are his "damage dice". The baseline for the damage he is able to do with weapons in which he's trained. At 3rd (or 4th) level, the Thief gets one damage die increase. He can increase his d4 ranged to d6 or his d6 melee to d8.

Take a 1st level Warrior. He gets a d8 and a d6. He assigns the d8 to melee and the d6 to ranged. His attack (or class) die is a d3. At 3rd level, he gets one damage die increase. So he can bump up to d10/d6 or d8/d8, on his DAMAGE DICE. His attack die is a d5. Nothing happening with the damage dice affects the existing class features in place.

The damage dice are their own thing. They can be added, removed or whatever without disturbing the rest of the system. Except for the weapon list, which would have to be scrapped or re-written.

Again, I think we're talking around each other here. Either I don't understand what you're talking about. Or I'm not communicating my ideas clearly.

The 16 STR fighter would still get his Strength bonus with a damage die -- with the exception of ranged attacks.

They would work in the exact same way as the dice rolled as per weapons in existing D&D. Only they would be differentiated by class, not weapon. The choice of weapon might affect the damage die by raising it up or down or allowing a character to roll more than one. But 90% of the time that would not be the case.

I thought our ideas shared common ground. I'm now thinking I was wrong. I think we're talking about two completely different things. I've been fiddling with my idea on damage dice for a while now -- starting with an LotFP campaign a few months ago. I was about to move it along into playtesting as a variant for my DCC supp.

I'm having multiple conversations about damage so I can't tell where I've said what.


I missed this completely. It may be the source of our impeded discussion.

At some point in this thread I suggest Zocchi-izing the damage of weapons. So, in ADDITION to setting the base die by character class, the weapon type and ability score could change the die size.

So your d6 melee d4 ranged thief with a 13 strength would become a d7 ranged d5 thrown d4 other ranged. If he picked up a claymore or huge battleaxe, his melee damage would rise to d8. Clearer now?

I understand that using strength to modify the die step is a RADICAL change to the rules. But I also think it fits the rules better than +1 flat bonus to damage. When you roll a 1 on the damage, only 1 hp of damage is caused. That fits the randomness of DCCRPG, to me, more than rolling a 1 on the die and causing 2 or 3 or more points of damage.

I prefer keeping the ability modifiers to damage. Going too crazy with dice steps up and down for different things would introduce an entirely new level of complexity, IMO. Putting us right back where we started with a litany of modifiers. Also, keeping the ability modifiers allows for the system to exist in isolation. Encapsulated against the rest of the system. Making it more appealing (or easier to ignore) as a variant.

I like allowing some weapons to shift a die type up or down based on different factors. But I think most of them shouldn't.

What I like about moving the strength bonus to damage into the die shift realm is it makes monsters simpler too. Want a stronger than your average ogre ogre? Just shift his damage up a die type or two. Easier that putting a strength score on each of the monsters and having to remember to add one or two to each damage roll. And if you disarm the ogre and he picks up a dagger, you can easily refigure his damage die.

But again, it's too radical and too late to the party for serious consideration in the game.

I treat monsters differently anyway. I never consider their stats. I'm more likely to give them the OD&D treatment where the damage they do is just the damage they do. So shifting dice up or down based on monster strength isn't a win for me. Because it means I'll have to start calculating monster strength.

When I put out my supp, I'll most likely be including something along these lines. I doubt it will have die shifts to the level of sophistication you've advocated on the forums. But hopefully it will be good enough or at least a launching pad to take that last step to where you want it to be.

Well, I was looking at the ogre based on this conversation and was disappointed: slam 1d6+6 or weapon 1d8+6

+6? You mean like 18/00 strength? There must be something better for the ogre. How about d12 and d14 respectively?

How are d12 and d14 better than 1d6+6 and 1d8+6?

No math, wacky dice instead boring old dice, what's not to love about it. Also, I like the idea that a 0-level character MIGHT survive a glancing blow from an ogre VS the idea that it is impossible for a 0-level character to survive a glancing blow from an ogre (d6+6 is minimum 7. d4+Sta of +3 is maximum 7. = no possibility to live).

And I'm disliking the +6 in general because of the "ogre strengthness" of it.

I completely agree with this.

Where possible I prefer to bump damage dice up (dice shift), rather than give static bonuses for the reasons given. Using "dice shifts" in-game though can be cumbersome so I don't mind that a PC strength bonus does +1 to +3 damage. Afterall players often switch weapons during the game or suffer changes to their abilities and I don't want to be figuring these things out everytime someone changes their weapon.

For an NPC though, that you will likely have generated before the game begins, you can do the mental math and dice shift then though. I suppose the ogre might pick up a different weapon during the game but you do your best to find the right die or use an appropriate + then, on the fly.

It's not that hard. If the weapon is bigger, up the die. If the weapon is smaller, down the die. Same with PCs stat changes if they go from +2 to +1, shift down one die. It's really not that different from having to remember to add only +1 instead your usual +2.