Random Damage Bonus versus Static Damage Bonus

[peterb]

Originally Posted by Jason Durall

You might take a look at Rolemaster Express (or HARP) for another system in which the quality of the dice roll directly affects the damage dealt.

One way of implementing such a system in BRP would be to compare what the two combatants rolled and add the difference as a damage bonus.

First you need to implement a method of finding out the relative level of success of any roll. A simple, yet elegant, method to solve this problem is to compare the tens of skill roll with the tens of the effective skill level. For example, assume that Abe and Bernie are competing in a poetry contest. For this purpose the GM uses the Oratory skill. Abe has skill 78% and Bernie 65%. If Abe rolls 50 and Bernie 46 then Abe’s relative level off success was 7 – 5 = 2 and Bernie’s was 6 – 4 = 2, it’s a tie.

Special successes increases the level of success by 150% and a critical increases it by 200%.

If the attacker manages to hit (his level of success is higher than 1) then use the following table:

Effect   Damage Bonus
1               1
2               1d3
3               1d6
4               1d8
5               1d10
6               2d6
7               2d8
8               3d6
9               2d10
10              4d6
each extra level adds +1d6 to the damage

A win by 5 or 6 points roughly equals an impale, double normal damage. A win by 8 points and up is similar to a critical. The bonus damage will defeat almost all types of armour making it similar in effect to a critical.

EDIT: One could also change the damage calculation completely and base it on the effectiveness of the blow, the damage bonus and add a bonus for the weapon used. The later would then be a fixed value. I would suggest using the average of the dice used (rounded down) - 1 and ignore any added value, i.e. a dagger would do 1 point of damage (2.5, rounded down, -1), a broadsword would do 2 points (3.5, rounded down, - 1) and a pole axe would do 6 points (3 times 3.5, rounded down, -1). A strong human of average size that managed a good hit with a sword would do 1d10 + 1d4 + 2 points of damage.

A successful parry would soak damage up to shields AP, a successful dodge would avoid the hit.

[RosenMcStern]

It's a variation of the Degree of Success used in SPQR (Steve Perrin's system). It is nice, but it creates a totally new system. Also remember that even 4d6 is not enough to bypass a Dragon's armor, so a success level of 10+ is not equal to a critical.

[NickMiddleton]

Originally Posted by Tywyll

...But then I came across the flat bonus from RQ4, and that seems to solve the problem. Has anyone used that? What are the feelings about it versus the bonus die method?

I dislike the fixed damage bonus approach, as it removes any possibility of a glancing blow from exceptionally large creatures. The increasing die size damage bonus seen in MRQ (and earlier in the things like the Elric! effect die table) is a better solution, addressing both the lack of variability in the fixed system, and the bias towards average (and thus large) damage adds of the traditional d4/d6/2d6/3d6 DB progression...

But I thought long and hard about it during the BRP play test and to be honest, at the point at which things get a 2d6 DB in BRP , I don't think it's an issue. Before I'd re-jig the DB table I'd re-jig the weapons damage tables to remove the flat +'s, as I think they distort things far more. YMMV.

Nick

[The Last Conformist]

Originally Posted by NickMiddleton

Before I'd re-jig the DB table I'd re-jig the weapons damage tables to remove the flat +'s, as I think they distort things far more. YMMV.

I always thought the 1d8+1 damage for your basic sword odd. Why not simply 1d10? Anyone know?

[Dredj]

Originally Posted by Jason Durall

You might take a look at Rolemaster Express (or HARP) for another system in which the quality of the dice roll directly affects the damage dealt.

I'm sticking with BRP. I've looked at too many systems trying to find the "right one". BRP is the best I can find to cover everything I want a role-playing system to do. I was just wondering if someone came up with a way to do the same thing with BRP?

[frogspawner]

Originally Posted by Tywyll

But then I came across the flat bonus from RQ4, and that seems to solve the problem. Has anyone used that?

I use flat damage bonuses and they work just fine.

Originally Posted by Tywyll

... I'm curious why they didn't like it.

I think he's saying his group does like and use flat RQ4-style damage bonuses, in fact - he's just not keen himself. And if you've got a character in the 25-32 range it must be annoying to miss out on a +d4 and probably just get +1. But, objectively, it does give a smoother progression.

No-one has objected to Bladesharp's flat damage bonus. So I think it's just that most people around here are accustomed to variable DB's, and the grainy progression they give.

There seem to have been several improvements in RQ4, including both flat damage bonuses and removal of fiddly "+1"s from weapon damages. (Just dropping them, rather than rounding up to the next die, btw - avoiding an 'arms race' with armour points, and reducing lethality of criticals).
No reflection on Jason's superb effort with BRP - he had to base it on what was actually published. But - ah! - what might have been...

[RosenMcStern]

Originally Posted by frogspawner

I think he's saying his group does like and use flat RQ4-style damage bonuses, in fact - he's just not keen himself.

Exactly. Except that about one month ago someone (not me) started considering that the overall damage was reduced and taking down enemies was becoming increasingly difficult.

There seem to have been several improvements in RQ4, including both flat damage bonuses and removal of fiddly "+1"s from weapon damages.

You are just assuming that "It is good because it was in RQ4". This is no point. Removing the +1/+2s has just the effect of reducing variability among weapons, and this is by no means an improvement. The flat additions represent weapon shape in RQ3/BRP: curved blade weapons have +2 but a smaller die, straight-bladed weapons have +1, blunt weapons have no blade bonus. Polearms are the only exception.

Removing flat bonuses yelds the improvement of scimitars, battleaxes, broadswords and maces having about the same statistics. If that is what you call an "improvement"...

No reflection on Jason's superb effort with BRP - he had to base it on what was actually published.

What if he just thought the +1s were ok?

[peterb]

Originally Posted by RosenMcStern

You are just assuming that "It is good because it was in RQ4". This is no point. Removing the +1/+2s has just the effect of reducing variability among weapons, and this is by no means an improvement. The flat additions represent weapon shape in RQ3/BRP: curved blade weapons have +2 but a smaller die, straight-bladed weapons have +1, blunt weapons have no blade bonus. Polearms are the only exception.

Removing flat bonuses yelds the improvement of scimitars, battleaxes, broadswords and maces having about the same statistics. If that is what you call an "improvement"...

In a real fight the real differencing factor would probably not be whether one of the combatants had a scimitar and the other a mace, but who had the greater skill and tactical ability. When designing a RPG, one has to take the "game" part of it in consideration. Giving players the possibility to make choices makes for a better game. So, from that perspective, it's good game design to let scimitars do 1d6+2 in damage and a mace 1d8.

[RosenMcStern]

Originally Posted by peterb

In a real fight the real differencing factor would probably not be whether one of the combatants had a scimitar and the other a mace, but who had the greater skill and tactical ability.

Well, this is still true in BRP, because your average parrying weapon will absorb 1d6+2 or 1d8 in damage equally well, assuming you are skilled enough to parry. The difference is just that the scimitar is a bit more likely to cripple if it actually strikes an unarmored foe, while the mace has some extra chances to knock down a lightly armored foe (if you use the old rule of "halve soft armor vs. maces"). Which is somehow realistic. And, as you pointed out, much more fun.

[The Last Conformist]

Originally Posted by RosenMcStern

The flat additions represent weapon shape in RQ3/BRP: curved blade weapons have +2 but a smaller die, straight-bladed weapons have +1, blunt weapons have no blade bonus.

I'm afraid the logic of this convention escapes me completely.

(Also, it plain doesn't apply to SB5, where a 1H mace does 1d6+2 damage. I thought the new BRP book took its close combat weapon stats from SB5?)

Removing flat bonuses yelds the improvement of scimitars, battleaxes, broadswords and maces having about the same statistics. If that is what you call an "improvement"...

I don't see the point in difference for difference's sake. If a mace, say, did less damage than a broadsword but ignored or reduced armour, there would be a mechanically interesting choice between them, but the difference between 1d6+2 and 1d8+1 is pretty much cosmetic (in fact, the sword is slightly better at punching through armour).


Also, as was already mentioned, flat adds leads to the anomaly where you can't get grazing hits. This is particularly noticeable in CoC with rifle damages like 2d6+4.