Enter rule sketch:
All weapons do d6 damage. But fighters, and only fighters, can use certain weapons to their full extent.
For example, swords allow a second attack if the first one hits. This way, swords are better against enemies with light armor or none, and they get exponentially better as the fighting man or woman accumulates attack bonus.
The table below shows the equivalent damage per attack in percentage (where a 100% would be a d6 sword that always hits) and which damage die would deal that amount in a single attack. Notice that it behaves as a common longsword a little above leather armor, and drops a little on plate and shield (17 ac)
On the other side of the ring, we have the mace. Maces, on the hands of fighters, deal double damage on natural 20s. This increment will be hardly noticed against low acs unless the occassional lucky shot, but against highly armored foes, and those who are above your hitting range and require 20s, you will deal much more damage per hit. See below:
Mace keeps being a d7 (a little better than the d6 it is normally) until plate armor, at which it exponentially rises. I have also calculated the effect of a +1 damage in both cases. For the full effect of a +1 strength (+1 to hit and +1 damage) see the +1 damage at the next best ac. The equivalence to the normal bonus is flawless (+3 numbers in the die as it should).
And now, my opinion:
All weapons being equalled one to other both in damage and to hit makes no sense. "b-b-but a dagger can slit your throat just as a broadswooord". NO. If you are so retarded as to not find the flaw on that argument you deserve to be thrown into the roman colosseum with a broomstick.
All weapons being differentiated by their damage dice makes a little to introduce the concept of good and bad weapons. But it fails in the gamist aspect, not as much as it is unrealistic, but because it annuls any meaningful choice in weaponry: the d8 longsword is the best on one hand, and then there is the greatsword. End. "b-but an axe can be used to chop a door". Well, yes. But how are they going to chop it if NOBODY PICKS THE AXE, BECAUSE THE LONGSWORD DOES D8?
All weapons having a VS ARMOR table is wonderful. It comes with problems on its own, of course. Referencing the table is one, and also is when monsters are adjudicated an armor type based on their numerical value instead of their armor type in game. But at least comes close to what it should be the ideal: give weapons small nuances in combat that makes them a valid choice to be carried, even if in a completely marginal case and even if their bonus is almost always negligible (in fact, marginal differences would be the best in my opinion)
My approach here described is just an idea, but fails in the execution as the mace gets too good at 20+ and does it too far from plate armor, which the sword damages very competently anyways. The choice would be viable if the Plate Armor spot was around 18 AC instead. But still, I spent a lot of work tonight on calculating this shit. Let's call it a day, and who knows, this study might be useful at some point.
I like the idea of having unique qualities to differentiate weapons beyond damage. I remember reading somewhere that someone uses "imploding" damage dice for axes, where if you get a 1 you roll again and add the results. I implemented it in my game and so far it has worked great—keeps swords as the reliable damage dealer while axes are more exciting.
ReplyDeleteThinking about other ideas for a mace, I was contemplating ruling that any amount of damage dealt could be exchanged to impose an equivalent penalty to the target's attack and AC for the next round (so if a the attacker would do 4 damage they can instead choose to deal 2 damage and impose a -2 penalty to attacks and AC). Haven't tested it at all but I like the idea of maces being less individually effective as axes+swords but situationally more useful and conducive to strategizing.
Damage in exchange of future AC is interesting in concept but as it is I think its not a good deal at all, if done in a 1:1 damage for penalty, at least. Havent got the numbers but I think in the long run it will be always better to finish the monster as quick as possible to receive the less damage.
DeleteI just thought: maybe maces can provoke a save vs stun on a damaged opponent? and make them lose their turn