Random Damage Bonus versus Static Damage Bonus

[RosenMcStern]

Originally Posted by The Last Conformist

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?)

I was not advocating either RQ or SB. In fact I see maces having a higher minimum, as in SB, as being more realistic. The point is that they are different and they should do different damage.

I don't see the point in difference for difference's sake.

peterb has already replied to this.

(in fact, the sword is slightly better at punching through armour).

Flexible armour. This was the point. Vs. hard armour, sharp weapons are more effective.

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.

But a grazing hit is impossible with a weapon that is basing its damage on sheer impact force. You cannot be grazed by a modern .45 shot, and I am very uncertain about a heavy maul grazing anyone, too. An arrow or a super-sharp katana is another story. The point is exactly what you have just reminded us: the SB way where blunt weapons have the highest minimum is superior to the RQ way where the sharp weapons do. But whatever the right way, having a difference is realistic.

[frogspawner]

Originally Posted by RosenMcStern

You are just assuming that "It is good because it was in RQ4".

This assertion is incorrect. I've only recently seen RQ4 (RQ:AiG) so I am not a long-time devotee. I believe that absence of "+1"s for weapon damage is good, and only saw that RQ4 didn't have them when I looked it up prior to posting here.

Originally Posted by peterb

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.

Absolutely. But what with different Special effects, I'm sure there would still be enough differences between weapons to give interesting in-game choices. By all means keep a flat bonus for some weapons, where it seems specialy justified. Perhaps the ones currently having +2's could be reduced to +1's, and the +1's dropped. If you like difference, there seems more of a difference between one with a bonus and one without, than between two similar bonuses.

Originally Posted by The Last Conformist

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

Same here. For BRP it's Scimitar d8+1 and L.Mace d6+2 (H.Mace d8+2). So much for the 'curved edge' theory.

[Rurik]

Originally Posted by frogspawner

I use flat damage bonuses and they work just fine.

I think they work ok for normal humans with a +1 or maybe +2 fixed bonus, it is when you get into higher bonuses the fixed system starts to bug me. A fixed +5 bonus is just brutal, I much prefer a variable d8 or d10 bonus to a fixed +5.

Originally Posted by frogspawner

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.

Funny you mention that - I almost did mention bladesharp in my last post as an example of how lethal fixed bonuses are. Bladesharp 3 or 4 are very lethal spells, turning a d8+1 weapon into a d8+5 weapon is brutal in most games. Though that is a magical effect, and can be justified as such.

I just prefer a more variable range for damage - and have argued the same in the weapon damage threads of days past. The 2d6+4 rifle damage in CoC makes it impossible to do a minor wound in a hit location system, yet in real life people a grazed only moderately wounded by large caliber rifles frequently. I would prefer 2d10 to 2d6+4 any day. The average damage is the same, the round is potentially more lethal, but it is still possible to do a 2 point wound (though really there is only a 1% chance of that happening). Let a .50 cal do 2d20. The average shot is still going to kill any human, hit locations or not, but at least there is a chance of surviving, however slim.

Long story short (I know, too late for that...): More variable damage allows for a more realistic (in my opinion anyhow) range of results.

[frogspawner]

Originally Posted by Rurik

I think they work ok for normal humans with a +1 or maybe +2 fixed bonus, it is when you get into higher bonuses the fixed system starts to bug me. A fixed +5 bonus is just brutal, I much prefer a variable d8 or d10 bonus to a fixed +5.

I can see what you mean.

I realize now that I must be used to playing at the low-end of the damage-bonus scale. So let me qualify what I said - at that end, flat bonuses work fine.

If it's a Big Ugly Monster doing lots of dice damage anyway, a big flat bonus probably isn't too offensive, either. But for a super-strength character-type, with a small-ish one-or-two die weapon, I can see that it would be. It's a matter of taste, but I'd probably agree that at about +5 it starts to break down.

However - is this a problem that should be solved in a different way?

I suspect the real problem may be that small weapons should not allow big bonuses (i.e. getting a +2d6 damage bonus when wielding a toothpick is clearly wrong). Has anyone previously recognized this problem and got a good scalable solution to it? One that isn't just the GM saying "that's silly"?

[Dredj]

Originally Posted by frogspawner

I can see what you mean.

I realize now that I must be used to playing at the low-end of the damage-bonus scale. So let me qualify what I said - at that end, flat bonuses work fine.

If it's a Big Ugly Monster doing lots of dice damage anyway, a big flat bonus probably isn't too offensive, either. But for a super-strength character-type, with a small-ish one-or-two die weapon, I can see that it would be. It's a matter of taste, but I'd probably agree that at about +5 it starts to break down.

However - is this a problem that should be solved in a different way?

I suspect the real problem may be that small weapons should not allow big bonuses (i.e. getting a +2d6 damage bonus when wielding a toothpick is clearly wrong). Has anyone previously recognized this problem and got a good scalable solution to it? One that isn't just the GM saying "that's silly"?

Turn the +5 into a +1D6-1; or just a +1D6. +4 is just +1D4.

The damage bonus is for the force behind the blow (at least, that's how I understand it). Not only would you get a toothpick in the eye, but also a few knuckles. However, if you're sticking a toothpick into a prone character's eye, then it just succeeds as the character can't fight back.

[RosenMcStern]

Ah, the Giant-with-a-dagger paradox! Maybe just "damage bonus cannot exceed base weapon damage"? (Or twice base damage)?

But again, impact-based weapons benefit more from strength, so a general rule may be impossible to define. A realistic rule might become too complicate for most groups to adopt, as most players prefer KISS games.

[Dredj]

Originally Posted by RosenMcStern

Ah, the Giant-with-a-dagger paradox! Maybe just "damage bonus cannot exceed base weapon damage"? (Or twice base damage)?

But again, impact-based weapons benefit more from strength, so a general rule may be impossible to define. A realistic rule might become too complicate for most groups to adopt, as most players prefer KISS games.

There's no paradox, the giant's hand is too big to use a dagger effectively. Unless he's going to jab you with it like a toothpick

[frogspawner]

Originally Posted by RosenMcStern

Ah, the Giant-with-a-dagger paradox! Maybe just "damage bonus cannot exceed base weapon damage"? (Or twice base damage)?

Yes, exactly. It'd probably have to be some rule like that - but I was just hoping someone might know the perfect, elegant and, yes, Stupidly Simple solution.

Originally Posted by Dredj

There's no paradox, the giant's hand is too big to use a dagger effectively.

Sorry, but that's just the GM saying "it's silly". The paradox remains.

[peterb]

Originally Posted by RosenMcStern

Ah, the Giant-with-a-dagger paradox! Maybe just "damage bonus cannot exceed base weapon damage"? (Or twice base damage)?

One way might be to rule that when a creature uses a weapon with a STR requirement less than one third of his own STR then the weapon only adds +1d6 extra damage to his damage bonus. If the creature STR is more than four times higher than the weapons STR requirement then the weapon adds a flat +2.

Example: a Giant with STR 45 that uses a Halberd (req. STR 13) does 6d6+1d6 damage. If the Giant used a dagger it would do 6d6+2. If the Giant uses a trollmaul, it could make use of the momentum of the weapon and do 3d6+6d6 in damage.

[Dredj]

Originally Posted by frogspawner

Yes, exactly. It'd probably have to be some rule like that - but I was just hoping someone might know the perfect, elegant and, yes, Stupidly Simple solution.


Sorry, but that's just the GM saying "it's silly". The paradox remains.

I know, I was just trying to make a funny that didn't succeed.

Either way, if a person were to use a toothpick or a giant a dagger in the heat of battle, it would more resemble a punch than a stab--even though they would be stabbing with a toothpick/dagger. Therefore, the damage modifiers would remain in place.