weapons and damage

[ecz]

hi all dear judges.

I wonder why all weapons have basically the same damage.
1d4 OR 1d6 OR 1d8 OR 1d10 and there are no differences. for example 1d6-1 for an hammer, 1d6 for a mace, 1d6+1 for an hand axe could be more realistic (these are just examples).
For missile weapons it's the same. Short bow, Long bow and Crossbow make the same damage (1d6), changes only the effective range.
I find this a little unrealistic.

I know that Strenght acts as a drm so it's a matter of WHO uses a weapon, but having a "standard" basic damage for very different weapons is an uneeded abstraction. Is there a "technical" reason to do not use the classic dier roll modifiers like +/- 1/2 ?

Also I wonder why there are so many "classic" weapons lacking. why no flail? why only one kind of generic "polearm"? why no mornigstar, two-handed axe or peculiar weapons like the whip?

To all the above questions the answer is : to keep things simple but the judge can develop-change anything OR I'm missing something crucial about combat? I'm still studying the system and must figure if I have to change-modify something according to my players taste. But at the same time I do not want harm the integrity of the system.

[Enoch]

If you want to talk "classic" weapons--all those you listed didn't exist in early editions of D&D. The weapons in DCC are very much reminiscent of those early editions.

[ecz]

If you want to talk "classic" weapons--all those you listed didn't exist in early editions of D&D. The weapons in DCC are very much reminiscent of those early editions.

I have never played D&D although I know that system. I understand that DCC has the "flavor" of the old style RPG but I think is much better because it belongs to another era. So, assuming that new weapons can be added at will, I wonder why all these weapons have only four type of damage, 1d4, 1d6, 1d8, 1d10 without any modification ranging from -2 to +2 to better depict the inherent differences from weapon to weapon.

[beermotor]

It's up to the judge. I do a fair bit of this actually, for example, Molan's flail in my campaign is 2d3+2 damage, and I've made nicer daggers or crappier shortsword 1d5... use the funky dice for more flavor.

[GnomeBoy]

How would a penalty to damage work? Sometimes it just does no damage???

[beermotor]

Nah, min one. It just tweaks the range. For example, think about a fine steel sword that's 2d4, or an elven blade could be 2d5. A poorly made weapon could be d7, or d8-1...

[GnomeBoy]

I guess I'd rather just see a smaller die used, than upping the chances that a '1' is generated, realism or no.

I mean, something like 2d4 -1 I could get behind, or using the penalty to represent a rusted out, pitted weapon, maybe. But rolling low for damage sucks enough as it is...

[cjoepar]

hi all dear judges.

I wonder why all weapons have basically the same damage.
1d4 OR 1d6 OR 1d8 OR 1d10 and there are no differences. for example 1d6-1 for an hammer, 1d6 for a mace, 1d6+1 for an hand axe could be more realistic (these are just examples).
For missile weapons it's the same. Short bow, Long bow and Crossbow make the same damage (1d6), changes only the effective range.
I find this a little unrealistic.

I know that Strenght acts as a drm so it's a matter of WHO uses a weapon, but having a "standard" basic damage for very different weapons is an uneeded abstraction. Is there a "technical" reason to do not use the classic dier roll modifiers like +/- 1/2 ?

Also I wonder why there are so many "classic" weapons lacking. why no flail? why only one kind of generic "polearm"? why no mornigstar, two-handed axe or peculiar weapons like the whip?

To all the above questions the answer is : to keep things simple but the judge can develop-change anything OR I'm missing something crucial about combat? I'm still studying the system and must figure if I have to change-modify something according to my players taste. But at the same time I do not want harm the integrity of the system.

I think the idea is to keep the "official" rules simple. You can, and should, change any rule that you don't like, but rather than introduce a complex system with lots of modifiers, a simpler system was presented as the basis. Want 6 different varieties of polearms? Go for it. Or maybe you would prefer to concentrate your creativity on creating a dungeon for your players instead. It's different for all of us, and that's part of what makes this system so nice. Some people don't like to keep track of yet another modifier, some people don't mind. Either way, I don't think any changes you might make could "break" the game balance as long as you are consistent for characters and monsters alike.

[AQuebman]

Agreed I think the goal with DCC was the make it open ended and focused towards more experienced judges. If you want to make it super complex go for it, if your like me and want a simple lazy system use the basics as they are written.

[Galadrin]

Honestly, I have never felt that different weapons damage is at all "realistic". Realistically, all weapons should do the same damage since all weapons are just as good at killing. I chopped wood all my childhood growing up in rural America and I can tell you that my Mora knife sitting next to my keyboard here will do the job just as well as any axe or maul. Historically, weapons were selected according to how well they defeated the enemy's defences—either catching the enemy's weapon or by bypassing armour. Thus, in OD&D (using Chainmail), all weapons did the same damage but had different abilities verses enemy arms and armour.*

Later D&D (and DCC for that matter) did away with the more detailed Chainmail combat and thus had to introduce different weapon damages to account for the difference in weapon prices.

*It helps to keep in mind that daggers, not greatswords, were often used to finish off a fallen enemy on the battlefield. Was it because daggers inherently do less damage, are less efficient, and require more blows to finish the job? No, it was because they were more efficient when used under their proper circumstances. While a long arm was essential in a typical mêlée, daggers were not ruled out because "they did less damage."

[finarvyn]

As others have noted, DCC intends for the core rules to be a base structure and you can house-rule things you don't like. If you want a complex weapon damage system, look into systems like AD&D and use their weapon damage values in DCC. Or make up your own.

What I have found is that often when you have the weapons rated by specific damage you encourage players to min/max the system. Why use a sword, for example, if a katana can get them an extra +1. It's a lot easier if all weapons are the same, in which case a weapon type becomes "flavor" without changing game effect. If a hammer fits your character style use it, but if it's a halberd use it instead. Stopps players from working the system.

I think that what works best, actually, is making weapon damage a function of class. For example, let fighters do a d8 with all weapons, dwarves a d7, elves and clerics a d6, and so on. The rationale is that certain classes of character are better trained with weapons and thus are better able to inflict damage with them.

[Raven_Crowking]

*It helps to keep in mind that daggers, not greatswords, were often used to finish off a fallen enemy on the battlefield. Was it because daggers inherently do less damage, are less efficient, and require more blows to finish the job? No, it was because they were more efficient when used under their proper circumstances. While a long arm was essential in a typical mêlée, daggers were not ruled out because "they did less damage."

Quick Houserule: "When used on a fallen foe, a dagger can automatically critical with each successful attack. On an unsuccessful attack, the dagger does 1d10 damage. This reflects the wieldiness of a dagger for precision work."

[cjoepar]

What I have found is that often when you have the weapons rated by specific damage you encourage players to min/max the system. Why use a sword, for example, if a katana can get them an extra +1. It's a lot easier if all weapons are the same, in which case a weapon type becomes "flavor" without changing game effect. If a hammer fits your character style use it, but if it's a halberd use it instead. Stopps players from working the system.

This is a very good point. Over the years, I have had players who always go for the two handed swords or great axes just so they can maximize damage. Then I have to keep putting them in situations where their weapons are at a disadvantage like a tight corridor so that I can discourage that type of play. It gets very tiresome.

I think that what works best, actually, is making weapon damage a function of class. For example, let fighters do a d8 with all weapons, dwarves a d7, elves and clerics a d6, and so on. The rationale is that certain classes of character are better trained with weapons and thus are better able to inflict damage with them.

This is indeed a more realistic approach. But I would also add that if you want realism, skill level is really important, too. The impact of strength on damage is really insignificant compared to the impact of good technique. The reason why is that with good technique you are being much more efficient with the strength you have, whereas if you just swing like an ogre with a club, you are wasting a great deal of your strength. So maybe increasing the modifiers based on level should also be considered if you take this approach.

...
Still, some weapons do do more damage than others. I can assure you, a katana will tend to do more damage than a knife, regardless of who is using it or their respective skill levels. But in the end, if you want realism, almost any weapon would kill or seriously maim someone outright with a single hit and the whole hit point system is where the realism breaks down, really. In the end, knowledge and skill level doesn't allow someone to take more physical damage, it allows someone to reduce the amount of damage they would take. So if someone were really hell bent on a system that was more realistic then it should be something where higher skill levels increase the damage that is dealt and reduce the damage that is sustained, with only a minor variation for weapon type.

[Raven_Crowking]

But I would also add that if you want realism, skill level is really important, too. The impact of strength on damage is really insignificant compared to the impact of good technique.

Because the Deed Die, which rises with level, adds to damage and allows various special effects, is coupled with a better crit range and better crits, as well as a higher initiative, I tend to think that DCC has covered this, for warriors at least, extremely well.

[Disemvowel]

Originally, all weapons did d6 damage, no more, no less.

To boot, does me hitting you in the face with a sword or an axe cause more damage? Variable damage is sort of silly, as the weapons are more of aesthetic choices than practical ones (using RAW).

http://www.thearma.org/essays/TopMyths.htm

Swords should be limited to Warriors/Dwarves/Elves

[Gameogre]

I am always in favor of damage by class myself.

A warrior wielding a mace and shield shouldn't be less or more of a threat than one wielding a Axe and shield or whatever else he wants to use.

I think weapon damage as is just leads to everyone slapping the same weapon on their hip.

I know in my games every warrior tends to use a longsword unless some other magic weapon is found. Even then they just hunt down the magical longsword version of that weapon if they can.

It makes sense to me that a warrior with a knife is a deadly foe while a Wizard with a knife is much less so.

For game purposes it just makes it more interesting for pc's and npc's to use a wide variety of weapons.

[Skyscraper]

My grandma with her dough roller could do significant damage.

[Raven_Crowking]

My grandma with her dough roller could do significant damage.

What was her starting occupation?

[Skyscraper]

My grandma with her dough roller could do significant damage.

What was her starting occupation?

Ogre!

[ragboy]

I am always in favor of damage by class myself.

A warrior wielding a mace and shield shouldn't be less or more of a threat than one wielding a Axe and shield or whatever else he wants to use.

I think weapon damage as is just leads to everyone slapping the same weapon on their hip.

I know in my games every warrior tends to use a longsword unless some other magic weapon is found. Even then they just hunt down the magical longsword version of that weapon if they can.

It makes sense to me that a warrior with a knife is a deadly foe while a Wizard with a knife is much less so.

For game purposes it just makes it more interesting for pc's and npc's to use a wide variety of weapons.

Yep -- and this is already built-in with the warrior's deed dice and access to mighty deeds.

As far as tweaking weapon damage, I do a little of that -- with grades of weapons (though it's a bit cumbersome). Iron drops a weapon's damage by a die type (weapon die type) so an iron longsword does 1d6. Steel is the base damage. "Fine" or "masterwork" or whatever you want to call it has some bonus to damage (either +X or a higher die type). So, a "fine" longsword might to 1d8+1 or 2d4.

This has the added bonus of introducing "better" weapons without making them magical. And the added bonus of starting characters off with iron weapons so they have a motivation to seek out gold. Humanoid threats almost always have crappy iron or otherwise poorly made/maintained weaponry.

[cjoepar]

...As far as tweaking weapon damage, I do a little of that -- with grades of weapons (though it's a bit cumbersome). Iron drops a weapon's damage by a die type (weapon die type) so an iron longsword does 1d6. Steel is the base damage. "Fine" or "masterwork" or whatever you want to call it has some bonus to damage (either +X or a higher die type). So, a "fine" longsword might to 1d8+1 or 2d4.

This has the added bonus of introducing "better" weapons without making them magical. And the added bonus of starting characters off with iron weapons so they have a motivation to seek out gold. Humanoid threats almost always have crappy iron or otherwise poorly made/maintained weaponry.

I really like this approach, I sure wish I had done something like this from the start.

[Skyscraper]

...As far as tweaking weapon damage, I do a little of that -- with grades of weapons (though it's a bit cumbersome). Iron drops a weapon's damage by a die type (weapon die type) so an iron longsword does 1d6. Steel is the base damage. "Fine" or "masterwork" or whatever you want to call it has some bonus to damage (either +X or a higher die type). So, a "fine" longsword might to 1d8+1 or 2d4.

This has the added bonus of introducing "better" weapons without making them magical. And the added bonus of starting characters off with iron weapons so they have a motivation to seek out gold. Humanoid threats almost always have crappy iron or otherwise poorly made/maintained weaponry.

I really like this approach, I sure wish I had done something like this from the start.

Not too late now. If they find a cheaper weapon than what they had up to now, or a finer one, I guess that wouldn't be problematic?