Random Damage Bonus versus Static Damage Bonus

[Tywyll]

One of the things that bothered me about the BRP system, especially coming from playing d&d for years, was the relative lack of significance to attributes (this was because I was mostly playing CoC which lacks attribute category bonuses). This was especially true for strength based damage.

I guess I didn't feel the system was 'grainy' enough.

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?

[RosenMcStern]

I cannot see any real advantage in having a fixed number for the damage bonus. RQ3/CoC have a sudden increase in damage bonuses, going straight from 0 to 1d4, and this may result in the "poor granularity" you lament. MRQ uses the same progression as RQ4 (1 step every 5 pts. of combined SIZ and STR), but with dice (1d2, 1d4, 1d6, 1d8 etc.). My group has adopted the RQ4 damage bonus, and the result is not really satisfactory. All considered, I prefer the dice.

[Tywyll]

Originally Posted by RosenMcStern

I cannot see any real advantage in having a fixed number for the damage bonus. RQ3/CoC have a sudden increase in damage bonuses, going straight from 0 to 1d4, and this may result in the "poor granularity" you lament. MRQ uses the same progression as RQ4 (1 step every 5 pts. of combined SIZ and STR), but with dice (1d2, 1d4, 1d6, 1d8 etc.). My group has adopted the RQ4 damage bonus, and the result is not really satisfactory. All considered, I prefer the dice.

What is unsatisfactory about it? It seems like it would not only make larger creatures more accessible, but allow characters to feel the difference in their stats more.

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

[RosenMcStern]

First of all, rolling a lot of dice is more fun.

With RQ4 modifiers, you usually deal only 1 pt. extra damage, rarely two, where you used to deal 1d4. This decreases the damage dealt, so it is more difficult to down opponents. Having monsters do a slightly lower damage is not as important, when it comes to balance, as being able to take them down in one blow, as you are supposed to parry them with a 12-15 point shield and they are not supposed to parry you.


STR+SIZ RQ3 RQ4
21-24 - -
25 1d4 -
26-30 1d4 1
31-32 1d4 2
33-35 1d6 2


Not everything that was in RQ4 is necessarily better than RQ3. If nobody has revived this concept it is because it does not add anything, not because they forgot.

[Dredj]

This is semi related to the subject.

My problem with most gaming systems is that no matter how good you roll to hit, you can still roll low on the damage dice. I realize critical hits are supposed to make up for it, but it would be interesting if there was some way to make sure a good, though non-critical hit, was rewarded each time. And hits that just barely made it wouldn't do as much damage. FUDGE is the only system I've found that does this well. Too bad it's so grainy for the types of games I wish to play.

But I suppose the damage rolls can account for a blow being deflected off a bone, or the opponent zigged at the time the character zagged, with the percentage to hit merely accounting for whether the character hit or not.

[Trifletraxor]

I agree with rolling dice being fun, and that the mrq d4, d6, d8, d10, etc. damage modifiers have a better progression.

d2 and d3 sucks though. I want to roll those dices as little as possible. Maybe +1 and +2 from rq4 could be combined with the mrq way?

SGL.

[RosenMcStern]

D2 sucks big time, but when the reward is taking that pesky trollking down one SR before he possibly impales you, I think that no one would choose a fixed 1 instead. The lack of granularity in Damage Bonuses wa the first time I wanted to correct when I learned RuneQuest 3 in (gulp ) 1987. After 21 years and all manners of houserules, I think this is just a minor nuisance and there is no real need to correct it. Either you have 1d4 at start, or you'll manage to learn Bladesharp, sooner or later.

[peterb]

The Swedish RPG "Drakar & Demoner", which was based on Magic World, but later developed along its own lines (but still always has been clearly a BRP-engine game) used a different table in its 3:rd ed. (from 1987).

01-16  No extra damage
17-20  +1d4
21-25  +1d6
26-30  +1d10
31-40  +2d6
51-60  +3d6
61-70  +4d6
71-90  +5d6
each additional 
+ 20   +1d6

Then in the 4:ed (from 1991) the game designers changed the rules again:

  01-26  No extra damage
  27-29  +1
  30-32  +1d2
  33-40  +1d4
  41-50  +1d6
  51-60  +1d10
  61-80  +2d6
 81-100 +3d6
101-140 +4d6
141-180 +5d6

They also upgraded the damage two-handed weapons did. A standard human wielding a Greataxe normally did 2d6+2+1d4 points of damage in RQ III (with an average of 11), in D&D 4 (as its known in Sweden) the same human would do 2d10+1 (for an average of 11). Creatures that where strong (such as dwarves) benefited from the new system since it only cared about whether or not you could handle the heavy weapon (i.e. the STR value).

[Jason Durall]

Originally Posted by Dredj

This is semi related to the subject.

My problem with most gaming systems is that no matter how good you roll to hit, you can still roll low on the damage dice. I realize critical hits are supposed to make up for it, but it would be interesting if there was some way to make sure a good, though non-critical hit, was rewarded each time. And hits that just barely made it wouldn't do as much damage. FUDGE is the only system I've found that does this well. Too bad it's so grainy for the types of games I wish to play.

But I suppose the damage rolls can account for a blow being deflected off a bone, or the opponent zigged at the time the character zagged, with the percentage to hit merely accounting for whether the character hit or not.

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.

[Rurik]

Though the d2 bugs me too I still much prefer the random bonus and the MRQ progression over fixed bonuses.

A fixed bonus rapidly sets a minimum damage threshold that proves quite lethal - especially when used with hit locations.

A creature with a +3 damage bonus is pretty much goint to always take out an average persons arm on every hit, even with a relatively weak damage attack (say 1d4). If the same creature instead had a +1d6 damage bonus the average damage done will be slightly higher, bit there is still a chance that it will do only a 2 point wound.

The opposite holds true on the max damage side. That d4+3 damage is never going to do more than 7 points, were it a d6 bonus it could do 10 (and hence do some real damage to a heavily armored foe). Though this 'max threshold' doesn't bother me as much as the high minumum damage value.