The approach of Brendan, and the commenters on G+, is to create small mechanical benefits of various kinds for the different weapons. I don't belittle that at all, and I love some of the ideas, but on the other hand the purity of all weapons doing apparently the same amount of damage is appealing to me.
I find myself increasingly wondering whether there needs to be any explicit mechanical differentiation between weapons given that different weapon types provide in-game benefits outside of combat for an enterprising DM and players. Viz:
- Daggers are concealable. This is a particularly useful attribute if the DM is being sensible about social rules and not just handwaving the fact that players are wandering around the local nobleman's palace or merrie olde inn armed to the teeth with awl-pikes, tridents and spiked chains.
- Polearms, spears and their ilk are useful for probing and measuring. They are an invaluable dungeoneering tool. This is why all 1st level fighters should have a spear or similar as their primary weapon.
- Axes can be used to hack down doors and other obstacles.
- Slings are essentially infinitely re-loadable provided there are rocks in the vicinity. They can also be used to hurl flasks of oil.
This makes me think that every kind of weapon can provide a benefit of some kind without violating the d6 for damage standard or even introducing any mechanical difference. Even two-handed weapons could be seen as intimidating and factored into the DM's calculations for how potential foes react to the PCs.
I'm coming around more and more to the view that good gaming is about the DM paying careful attention to the details of his world to the extent that the players are aware that every choice they make has consequences. This seems to feed into that philosophy.
This is what I point out to my players every once in a while. Different weapons can be put to different uses despite the fact, that they 'all do the same amount of damage'.
ReplyDeleteBut when it comes to weapons game stats seem more powerful than words to some players.
People just like to customize, I suppose, and weapons are part of the customisation process. I think there's some sort of mental block which makes us obsess over mechanical difference at the expense of more intangible things.
DeleteI like the club, as in anybody can make a club. You wake up naked in a cage enough, you think this is reason enough to always take is as a weapon.
ReplyDeleteYep, indeed.
DeleteThe only point where my faith in the "D6 only" credo waves is for two-handed weapons.
ReplyDeleteEven if you can find some intangible advantages (stats-wise) for them; there is still one big , very tangible side effect (stats-wise): when using them, you must forfeit the protection of a shield.
Yes, that's a fair comment. Maybe +1 to hit to offset the -1 to defence.
DeleteI like 2d6, take highest for two-handed weapons and +1 to attack for dual-wielding. (Credit to Philotomy for that setup.)
DeleteI'm a big fan of +1 to hit (er, rather, "to attack") for two-handed weapons. It's more in keeping with the Chainmail rules.
DeleteFor dual-wielding, I'd probably go with a limited +1 defense (e.g. not vs. missiles). An off-hand weapon is really a way to get SOME of the benefits of a shield without having to lug around a heavy, specialized parrying implement. There are other benefits: if your primary weapon gets dropped/broken/etc, you still have your off-hand weapon, while a shield is less useful in this regard.
This system preserves the purity of the 1d6 damage system, while giving three fighting modes with their own strengths:
Two-handed: strong offense
Shield: strong defense
Dual-wielding: versatility
Oh, and one more thing:
DeleteThe idea of ramping up damage from 1d6 under ANY circumstance really highlights the awkwardness of how the Chainmail rules were adapted to D&D. The sticking point, it seems to me, comes up in this early comment:
"When fantastic combat is taking place there is normally only one exchange of attacks per round, and unless the rules state otherwise, a six-sided die is used to determine how many hit points damage is sustained when an attack succeeds. Weapon type is not considered, save where magical weapons are concerned."
– Strategic Review 1975, Frequently Asked Questions
This is a real departure from Chainmail, where a single-round exchange between Fantastic characters (i.e. anyone past 1HD) could easily result in one of them being slain instantly. The quotation above would have such combatants whittle each other down slowly over time, at a maximum rate of 1d6 HP per exchange.
I know there's been a lot of discussion recently about hit points and the duration of combat between characters of various levels, but it seems to me that if you were interested in preserving the combat dynamics of Chainmail in the context of D&D's more granular HD/HP system, you'd want to have a corollary to the Fighter's ability to engage multiple 1HD targets. It might look something like this:
"When a Fighter is engaged in melee or missile combat with a single other creature, a successful attack by the Fighter deals a number of dice of damage equal to his or her level."
This solves two problems: first, the one-minute combat round can now use more realistic movement rates without diminishing the efficacy of missile weapons; and second, it's now possible to simulate those Conan moments where he impales the giant serpent on a spear or cuts off his opponent's head in the first exchange, rather than thrashing around with the dude for fifteen minutes.
If you wanted to be generous to the non-Fighters (and, true to Chainmail, allow Wizards the ability to beat up on legendary creatures alongside Heroes and Superheroes), you could phrase it thusly instead:
"When a combatant is engaged in melee or missile combat with a single other creature, a successful attack deals damage equal to the combatant's Fighting Capability (e.g. a 6th-level Magic-User deals three dice plus one point of damage to the creature's hit points)."
I'm going to do my best to popularize the "to attrit" roll. ;)
DeleteI think that Fighter idea is a really good one. It makes a 9th level Fighter a combat monster, actually. Capable of killing a dragon. In fact, I think that could have the consequence of making D&D combat deadly and exciting at higher levels - particularly if you give fighter-type enemies the same sort of bonus (d6 damage per HD).
Yeah, you'd definitely want to give monsters increased damage based on their HD in that system as well.
DeleteI do find it personally fascinating to read "without ... introducing any mechanical difference" and "factored into the DM's calculations" in practically the same breath. Factoring things into the DM's calculations is a mechanical difference. It may not be a codified difference. It may vary wildly from situation to situation. But it is still mechanical.
ReplyDeletePersonally, I like to have different weapons to have different mechanics simply because the weapons are different for a reason. If, in real life, all weapons were essentially interchangeable, we'd still all be using the club. It is certainly very easy to go crazily overboard with pointlessly fine distinctions. But my personal taste is that the system should, at minimum, support broad categories of weapons (e.g., "Light", "Blunt", "Blade", "Reach").
I clearly have a different definition of "mechanical". If you'd prefer the word "statistical" instead, just find & replace.
DeleteI agree with you about different weapons and different mechanics in general, so obviously with more gritty, granular type games I like having the difference represented. I just think that OD&D is another kettle of fish.
In your examples:
ReplyDelete* polearms and spears then provide the mechanical advantages of 10' poles,
* axes essentially circumvent the necessary "open door" roll, and
* bows become harmonically bound by slings.
As Marshall Smith said, not codified advantages that interact with the rules are still mechanical in nature.
See above...but what does "harmonically bound" mean?
DeleteIn Optimality Theory, among two candidates competing for being an optimal choice A harmonically bounds B if they are equal in each but one aspect that makes A a more optimal choice.
DeleteThat is, if bows and slings deal the same amount of damage and the only difference between the two is that slings don't require ammunition, it makes slings an always better option.
The same thing is true of swords and all other melee weapons. One thing I like about this is that conventional choices (bows and swords) are disfavoured. I find this credible in some ways. I think scuzzy dungeoneers would be more likely to choose substance over style, and if PCs aren't armed with swords it makes them more true to life - i.e. fancy weapons the nobility use because they can afford all that steel.
DeleteIsn't the only reason they used d6s because that is all they had? They just designed a combat game where they wanted damage to be slightly random so they used d6s that were commonly available. As soon as a better option was commonly available (d4, d6, d8, d10, d12) they changed to it.
ReplyDeleteProbably. A lot of D&D rules are like that. Working with restrictions and rationalising them after the fact is fun.
DeleteWhy do you think that swords are more expensive than axes? According to http://whitebard.tripod.com/prices.htm, which has citations, a peasants sword is only one pence more expensive than an axe of unspecified type, presumably a wood cutting axe.
ReplyDeleteThere's not really enough information there for me to conclude anything. An axe cost 5d in 1457 apparently, whereas a "cheap peasant's sword" cost 6d in the 1340s. What was the rate of inflation over that 100 years? What's a cheap peasant's sword? What, for that matter, is a peasant - a freeman? A serf? And what kind of axe is it?
DeleteI think swords were more expensive because they are harder to make, have more steel, and only have one use (fighting) meaning that other weapons, like axes, would probably be made in greater quantities.