Thread: Damage Revisited

So, every game I run into anymore, I find myself asking this question when it comes to weapon damage (or other damage rolls, honestly) - why are there ever situations where it is impossible to only do a single point of damage?

Example: A character is hit by a short spear (1d6+1 damage). The lowest damage roll possible with that spear is 2. It is literally impossible to cause only a single point of damage. It gets worse if the wielder has a +1d4 db, when now that spear can't do any less than 3 damage. Heaven forbid he's got a naginata (2d6+2) and is a giant with +2d6 db!

This sort of thing makes players happy - I have a higher guaranteed damage factor - but it makes me a little twitchy as a "realistic" gamer who wonders "what ever happened to grazes, or flesh wounds?" - I don't care how strong you are with that spear, if you only manage to score me along my fleshy belly with the point of that spear, I shouldn't take as much damage as an average hit from a sword cane or worse, a .22 pistol!

So, has anyone looked into alternative systems for dealing with stacking damage like this? Replace all +1's with a "increase die size" mechanic, maybe?

Okay, so my gut says that some mechanic could be arranged that based damage not on dice, but on weapon damage classes. You divide the d100 roll for your to-hit by the damage class, take the remainder (modulo), and add 1. Great strength leads to a higher damage class, rather than flat adds or additional dice. Its' very math-heavy, but it could probably be handled with a chart as well as a formula.

I don't like dice adds for damage any more, so I just use straight one-die rolls where possible.

It's something of a mixed blessing. On the one hand. the adds prevent some weapons from doing 1 point of damage, and make a dagger just too effective against leather, but on the other hand no adds and a high variable makes it harder to simulate armor. For instance, no real, current armor that can be worn, is going to stop a .50 cal.


I've been working on a Damage Class idea to address this, based in part on the risk system and EABA. Basically as the DC increases the damage dice goes up, but armor takes off the DC before rolling damage, rahter than absorbing points. .

Originally Posted by Atgxtg

It's something of a mixed blessing. On the one hand. the adds prevent some weapons from doing 1 point of damage, and make a dagger just too effective against leather, but on the other hand no adds and a high variable makes it harder to simulate armor. For instance, no real, current armor that can be worn, is going to stop a .50 cal.


I've been working on a Damage Class idea to address this, based in part on the risk system and EABA. Basically as the DC increases the damage dice goes up, but armor takes off the DC before rolling damage, rahter than absorbing points. .

I'd not thought of that, but it does make some sense. I don't want to get too Rolemaster, but it might even make sense for some weapons to have a bonus to Damage Class based on armor type, as well as points. I'd be keen to see what you've come up with, if it's remotely ready to share.

Originally Posted by Atgxtg

It's something of a mixed blessing. On the one hand. the adds prevent some weapons from doing 1 point of damage, and make a dagger just too effective against leather, but on the other hand no adds and a high variable makes it harder to simulate armor. For instance, no real, current armor that can be worn, is going to stop a .50 cal.

Well I think the OP's point is that a 1 HP damage roll represents a graze. It is just as possible to be grazed by a .50 cal as it is by a dagger. The 'problem' is that the effect of a successful hit is, random and largely independent of the skill. (Obviously criticals and specials influence the amount of damage.)

Although it seems oddly pedantic, it is hard to know what represents a "graze" in BRP. Is a graze a 'near miss' that does effectively no damage but maybe leaves a cut or a bit of a burn? In that case it is a failed attack. On the other hand, if a graze is defined as 1 HP of damage then the majority or weapons and anyone with a damage bonus, can't actually cause a graze. Personally, I tend to think of grazes as 'near misses' i.e. inconsequential damage. I think of any HP damage as significant.

Personally I'm all for losing +/-'s from damage rolls. I'm old enough that when faced with a weapon doing 2D6+2, a 1D4 damage bonus and +2 damage from a spell that I start to lose the will to live when asked to roll damage.

Originally Posted by deleriad

Personally I'm all for losing +/-'s from damage rolls. I'm old enough that when faced with a weapon doing 2D6+2, a 1D4 damage bonus and +2 damage from a spell that I start to lose the will to live when asked to roll damage.

In most cases, I'd prefer to simplify the damage roll down to 1 or 2 dice. For the example you gave above, I'd figure the max damage (20 pts) and then either go with a 1D20 roll or 2D10. Minus the spell bonus you roll 1D10 + 1D8. I prefer the much wider range of potential damage versus the minimum of 7 pts to max of 20 pts you get rolling and adding those bonuses.

I've pondered, every so often, a damage system that allowed you to use whatever weapon you wanted, and based the damage pretty much only on the effectiveness of your attack roll. Dagger versus battle axe? A .22 pistol versus a .50 machine gun? Any of those weapons could take out a human with one attack, but just as in realty, it all comes down to location, location, location!

If you guys have a chance, check out the hit location charts for Stalking the Night Fantastic or Fringeworthy. If you want "realism" then you might want to go with these charts. I prefer a smoother, quicker, less quasi-reality damage system myself. I play RPGs in part to enjoy a more heroic world, I don't need the reality of what even a .22 bullet between the eyes (fired by a scrawny junkie with sores on his face) would do to my STR 18 DEX 17 Judo Master.

Any RPG damage system is a balance between realism, ease of gameplay, and genre concept. There is no ONE answer to make everyone happy, we just need to find the particular balance that works for us and our gaming group.

Originally Posted by deleriad

Well I think the OP's point is that a 1 HP damage roll represents a graze. It is just as possible to be grazed by a .50 cal as it is by a dagger. The 'problem' is that the effect of a successful hit is, random and largely independent of the skill. (Obviously criticals and specials influence the amount of damage.)

Although it seems oddly pedantic, it is hard to know what represents a "graze" in BRP. Is a graze a 'near miss' that does effectively no damage but maybe leaves a cut or a bit of a burn? In that case it is a failed attack. On the other hand, if a graze is defined as 1 HP of damage then the majority or weapons and anyone with a damage bonus, can't actually cause a graze. Personally, I tend to think of grazes as 'near misses' i.e. inconsequential damage. I think of any HP damage as significant.

You're close to where I'm coming from, but I think that my question remains valid in either interpretation. If a graze is a 1HP hit, why can't I do that with a dagger (1d3+2), ever? If it's a near miss that causes no damage, what of the tip slash that causes a tiny bit of damage? I still can't do that with the 1d3+2 dagger. I can't do anything short of 3 points of damage, while a short sword can do 1 or 2 in the right (no db) hands.

Originally Posted by d_ns

I'd not thought of that, but it does make some sense. I don't want to get too Rolemaster, but it might even make sense for some weapons to have a bonus to Damage Class based on armor type, as well as points. I'd be keen to see what you've come up with, if it's remotely ready to share.

Weapon vs. Armor type makes some sense, but it gets complicated. In some cases it's required (like HEAT rounds) but in others it's not really necessary. As a houserule, I've been assuming that any armor defaults to half value against other types of attacks. So a tank will get some default protection against attack types other than kinetic.
As for what I got, It's not quite ready to share. The big obstacles trying to put all the damage methods (firearms, melee, falling, fire, etc.) all on the same scale, as well as armor. Over the years, each new manner of attack got it's own damage scale and progression, and they don't all match up, even when they should.

Originally Posted by deleriad

Well I think the OP's point is that a 1 HP damage roll represents a graze. It is just as possible to be grazed by a .50 cal as it is by a dagger.

Uh, not. It isn't "just as possible" to be grazed by a .50 cal as it is by a dagger. It is possible, but it is significantly less possible, as with the .50 cal, a graze in almost entirely due to bullet trajectory, while with a dagger a graze can be the result of several factors such as the force behind the blow, effects of a partial parry and so on.


Now, I agree that there should be a for somebody to get hit by a .50 cal and not have a hit location automatically disabled by the adds, but we also don't want to make the damage roll so random that weapons loose the ability to consistently penetrate armor that they can penetrate constituently. It's a tough balancing act.

The 'problem' is that the effect of a successful hit is, random and largely independent of the skill. (Obviously criticals and specials influence the amount of damage.)

Yup. That is one of the problems. I've raised that issue before, too. IN BRP as in RQ before it, the biggest factor for damage is the weapon being used, rather than the skill in placing the attack. In BRP, a guy with a 50% skill using a rifle that does 3D6 is a greater threat than a guy with 100% skill using a weapon that does 1D6 damage. Skill does not translate well into damage in BRP. Yes there are specials and crticals, but they do not come close to weapon damage rolls.

Although it seems oddly pedantic, it is hard to know what represents a "graze" in BRP. Is a graze a 'near miss' that does effectively no damage but maybe leaves a cut or a bit of a burn? In that case it is a failed attack. On the other hand, if a graze is defined as 1 HP of damage then the majority or weapons and anyone with a damage bonus, can't actually cause a graze. Personally, I tend to think of grazes as 'near misses' i.e. inconsequential damage. I think of any HP damage as significant.

That is one of the flaws of the HP{ mechanic. By the rules, an average human can be killed by a dozen 1 point knife wounds to the arms or legs. Realistically, it just can't happen that way. The guy might bleed out after a time, or the wounds could go septic. but in real life a dozen 1 point hits really do not equal one 12 point hit.

Personally I'm all for losing +/-'s from damage rolls. I'm old enough that when faced with a weapon doing 2D6+2, a 1D4 damage bonus and +2 damage from a spell that I start to lose the will to live when asked to roll damage.

I agree with you, up to a point. I think if we do drop the modifers, then we need to differnate between armor penetration and damage. Otherwise we won;t be able to simulate armor decently in the game.

What I plan on doing is making the skill roll's success level affect the amount of damage done. So basically higher and lower success levels than "normal" would give +/- to damage equal to success levels above or below the norm.