Quote from: RPGPundit;1058998Do you want your melee weapons to have more sophisticate differences between each of them? Or are you fine with a short sword, spear, mace, hammer and handaxe all doing 1d6 and being basically interchangeable?

I wrote an article for Knockspell about this years ago.

I use 1D6 base for weapons in OD&D. I say base because weapons have characteristics, such as a mace and sword might do 1D6 HP damage each, the mace is good for breaking down doors and smashing chests and the sword is not. However, the sword is a stabbing weapon, thus better in tight quarters combat. Sword is good at poking stuff too.

Also, in OD&D, a +1 or -1 modifier is meaningful because HD is D6 as well. So 1D6 sword vs. a 2HD monster means the monster usually has 7 HP. So if you have a +1 STR mod, you can outright kill that monster 15% of the time.

As for gameplay, I have been exclusively using D6 base for weapons for 10 years in my OD&D to great result. The players LOVE not worrying about sub-optimal choices and instead choosing a weapon just because it's cool for their character to use. It's really made spears popular at my games. Oddly, pick axes too.

Quote from: Aglondir;1059094Perfect.

I do something similar with armor types.

Quote from: Chris24601;1059360I think you're misusing "damage" here.

No I'm not.  This is a Mass + Velocity = Damage formula.  And Mass is the weapon in question.  The extra damage caused by either critical hits or special powers is to simulate the knowledge of a more lethal location or a lucky strike.  There's a reason swords and axes and maces are of differing lengths and weights, because the weapon's MASS means something.  A man using dagger doesn't do that much physical damage, no matter how strong they are, because the velocity a strong man can generate isn't as different as a weaker man.  It doesn't do that much hydro-static shock either, unlike a bullet (which is what really kills a human being when it comes to ballistics.)  So weapon sizes and the strength require to use them do matter, more than y'all want to speculate.  

Another factor not taken into account is leverage as well.  The more/faster you can more the pointy end into the enemy with the least amount of force required is also part of Mass and Velocity.

Quote from: RPGPundit;1058998Do you want your melee weapons to have more sophisticate differences between each of them?

Or are you fine with a short sword, spear, mace, hammer and handaxe all doing 1d6 and being basically interchangeable?

1: No. Its just senseless overcomplication usually.
2: Yes. As long as its within reason.

O, B, and BX D&D used too basic a system. all reapons did 1d6. BX mixed it up a little so there was some differentiation.
AD&D in a way went too far in the other direction depending on point of view. There is alot of interchanability in the basic stats. But there was too much differentiation with the vs AC aspect.

Same with armour. Or guns. etc.

Quote from: jhkimI don't think anyone here has suggested that all weapons do the same damage - rather reducing the differentiation to eliminate differences between, for example, a morningstar and war pick or spear vs trident. I gave some specific examples earlier.

Quote from: Skarg;1059387Doesn't the very first post in this thread ask exactly that? i.e.: (my bold)

Quote from: RPGPunditDo you want your melee weapons to have more sophisticate differences between each of them? Or are you fine with a short sword, spear, mace, hammer and handaxe all doing 1d6 and being basically interchangeable?

Or did I over-apply that, and RPGPundit meant not like White Box 0D&D (where really almost every weapon does 1d6), but merely games where certain weapons are interchangeable, but several are not?

You extended Pundit's quote to suggest that even a stick or a rock would do the same damage as a sword, whereas I interpreted it more narrowly that one-handed military weapons would all do the same damage. The one oddball in Pundit's list is spear - which is often seen as a large two-handed weapon, but there are short one-handed spears like the iklwa.

Quote from: Christopher Brady;1059353Which is completely wrong.  A dagger in a thief's hand will do the same amount of damage as in a fighter.  Because the length thickness of the metal is the same.  It's why it takes multiple hits to kill a human being with a knife typically.  Bleeding out is how a knife kills.

No, it breaks the suspension of disbelief.  Yes, I know Sneak Attack and Strength/Dex bonus change that, but it's still to show TRAINING.  A dagger will always to the same amount of damage, it's how it's used that changes it.

Which is what I said...

If the dagger adds +2 to any wielder's damage, the dagger is doing the same damage (+2). The difference is in the wielder's skill/training. The warrior or rogue will do more damage with that dagger because they know how and where to strike to do more damage better than the wizard, but the dagger itself is still only doing +2 damage.

Quote from: Christopher Brady;1059416It doesn't do that much hydro-static shock either, unlike a bullet (which is what really kills a human being when it comes to ballistics.)  

Not really (except sort-of for supersonic shots to the head, which can cause the skull to basically explode). From my reading (not having been shot personally) normally it's not the hydrostatic shock that makes bullets much deadlier than knife or arrow wounds, even though those weapons make bigger holes. A bullet even when subsonic is going fast enough that it tears flesh apart as it tumbles through, whereas an arrow or knife is going slow enough that the flesh slides around the blade. The result is that a small bullet does more and worse damage than a big arrow, but it's still due to direct impact not a shock wave.

This also means the torn flesh from a bullet wound has a much harder time knitting back together than the typical much cleaner incision from a knife. Pre-antibiotics that means people are much likelier to die of torso bullet wounds where a knife wound that misses major organs might be survivable.

For me, the answer is no. If anything, I prefer more generic damage by broad-class of weapon. That's what I did in Lion & Dragon. It frees up players to choose the weapon for aesthetic/roleplaying reasons, rather than mechanical reasons.

Quote from: RPGPundit;1059866For me, the answer is no. If anything, I prefer more generic damage by broad-class of weapon. That's what I did in Lion & Dragon. It frees up players to choose the weapon for aesthetic/roleplaying reasons, rather than mechanical reasons.

A lot of games do it this way. I don't think it's realistic historically, but it makes sense for gaming purposes to keep things tidy.

I think there is a sweet-spot, but most games tend to go a little strongly in one direction or another for my tastes.

Quote from: tenbones;1059892A lot of games do it this way. I don't think it's realistic historically, but it makes sense for gaming purposes to keep things tidy.

I think there is a sweet-spot, but most games tend to go a little strongly in one direction or another for my tastes.

The issue is that weapons vary from setting to setting but for the most part it's visual not mechanical.  In D&D for example, a Katana could easily be represented as a Long Sword or Bastard Sword depending on the edition.  There's nothing really different in the base system.

in palladiums dead reign, curved blades dont get stuck in the zombies where a straight edge does.  So that's fun.

One difference that I've started enforcing that makes a huge amount of difference is how much elbow room different weapons need to swing.

For example with spears you can pack in three guys in a map square since they don't need much elbow room, a sword or mace can fit two guys in a square and something like a two-handed sword needs a whole map square to himself to swing his sword about without penalty.

Made my players start favoring spears even with lower damage due to reach and being able to pack them in densely. Having a bunch of back rank henchmen with spears made a huge difference when facing down gnolls with two-handed swords.

Overall I wouldn't mind something like this for weapon specific advantages:
-Spears etc.: can pack people into tighter formations which is great in a dungeon.
-Swords: +1 AC due to swords being good at parrying.
-Bludgeoning: tiny bit of damage if you miss due to armor.
-Axes etc: slightly more damage.

Gives some good trade-offs without complicating things too much. Calculating whether you missed due to just missing the dude or due to his armor is easy to calculate if you use a White Hack-style d20 mechanic (basically in White Hack you have to roll under a target number based on your skill but if something is really difficult then the lower numbers also become failures, so if my attack skill is 15 I have to roll a 15 or less to hit the dude but if he has chain mail then 1-5 become misses due to his armor while 6-15 are still hits).

Quote from: tenbones;1059892A lot of games do it this way. I don't think it's realistic historically, but it makes sense for gaming purposes to keep things tidy.

I think there is a sweet-spot, but most games tend to go a little strongly in one direction or another for my tastes.

Greetings!

Hey Tenbones! CHOMP!!! CHOMP!!! lol. I agree with you. I think there is a definitely *elusive* sweetspot somewhere between elegant simplicity and overloaded technical detail. As an Historian, damn, what can I say? Historical nuances and performances of weaponry *matters*. There are reasons why group A decided to stop using this kind of sword, and instead embraced this kind over here. I imagine "gamists" or whatever they are called like to assume a sword is just a fucking sword, move on. lol. But there's a huge difference between any number of swords, their inherent strengths and weaknesses, and how they actually perform in combat. I must say, however, that while there is an inherent baseline to how a weapon performs, a good deal of its raw combat effectiveness is also closely tied to the training of the warrior using it.

For example; take the Gallic Longsword. Historians have noted--even primary historians from the day, as well!--how the Gallic Longsword, a fine weapon of three or four feet in length, was a slashing weapon, and well-suited to the wild, fierce fighting styles of the Celtic warriors. Many of the Celtic warriors were typically quite tall, physical beasts, with long arms and long reaches. So, the Gallic Longsword, also known to be of heavier and thick crafting, was a strong, powerful weapon, and suited to the Celtic warriors quite well.

The Roman Gladius--the Romans used the Gladius, a two-foot long shortsword, modified and improved from an old Spanish design from centuries before. Many Historians have said that the Roman Gladius was the most murderously effective weapon of the ancient world. The Roman Gladius was a thrusting weapon, designed to be thrust up into an enemy. The Romans, typically of average height, though strong, were well-suited to the Gladius. The Roman Legions trained the legionnaires over and over and over to use the Gladius in swift, stabbing motions, aimed at plunging the blade up into an enemy where the armor was thin or weaker. The Gladius blade itself was thick, broad, and when plunged up into an enemy, essentially disembowled them, and was immediately lethal. Furthermore, the Legions were trained to attack with their Gladius swords in unison, over and over again, creating a machine-like effect. With the ranks of the legions being constantly rotated every 10 to 15 minutes, each consecutive rank was fresh for the fight, after resting in behind ranks for periods of 45 minutes. This created a constant death machine, never tiring, always advancing and relentless.

The Gallic Longsword didn't save the Celts. They were consistently annihilated en masse by the Romans, even when the Gauls outnumbered the Romans greatly, at odds of 2, 3, 5 or more to 1. At the end of the day, Ceasar could seemingly take on any number of Gauls, and emerge victorious. The famous Greeks, using a different kind of sword, as well as their 18 foot long pikes--while fierce and brave--they too fell to the Gladius armed Roman Legionnaires. Clearly, whatever the technical merits of dozens of styles of swords and other melee weapons, the Roman Gladius remained as perhaps the most brutally effective weapon for hand to hand combat designed by man in 2,000 years. It's mass simplicity, ruggedness, and capacity for mass slaughter wasn't probably equalled until the mass deployment of hand-cannon in the 16th or 17th centuries.

But, as much as I favour nuances and special detail in a variety of weapons, as you mentioned, there is a serious "gamist" appeal--one of simplicity and ease of use. Embracing superior detail of individual weapons typically brings with it loads of extra details, extra sub-systems, and when combined, you've then embraced something which adds considerable time, attention, and record-keeping to the game. That has it's own trainload of headaches. I like the special details--but like others from a more gamist approach--I don't like the extra trainload of headaches. Finding that sweetspot seems to be elusive indeed!

Semper Fidelis,

SHARK

Quote from: Daztur;1059957One difference that I've started enforcing that makes a huge amount of difference is how much elbow room different weapons need to swing.

I have enforced this for years and had players rage at it.  Usually rules-laywer types.

But it makes sense to me that you can't easily tunnel fight with a great axe and that a fighter whirling a two-handed sword around cannot do so with his allies stood around him.

The players who know me better always take a dagger as a back-up weapon that can be used in confined spaces, easily concealed, drawn quickly in most circumstances, coup de grace, thrown accurately, etc.

An axe seems like a weapon that really does need a lot of space. A greatsword can be used as a stabbing polearm, and even half-sworded, so ought to be useable in fairly confined spaces I'd think. If you can use a spear you can probably use a greatsword.