Troll Lord Games

There seems to be lots of choices for weapons but only a few that players would actually pick.

I would rather a character use a weapon that represents their role-playing choice rather than the one handed /two handed weapon that does the most or highest average damage.

Why not have the damage based on the class of character and the handedness of the weapon. Example:

Fighter Types: 1 handed 1d8 / 2-handed 1d10

Rogue / Cleric types 1 handed 1d6 / 2-handed 1d8

Wizard Types: 1-handed 1d4 / 2- handed 1d6

I read this somewhere so its not original with me. The numbers may be played with but I think its a good solution to allow max role-playing without perhaps taking an inferior weapon.

Maybe its not a problem?

Morgan

Strange or unusual weapons are not likely to be found as magical treasure and it takes quite a long time to get the moneys to fund a NPC to make one for the player... so, encourage them to play whatever weapon they want, but don't whine when they have to resort back to that dagger or long sword to kill the throng of wraiths they just met.
_________________
If it matters, leave a message at the beep.
Serl's Corner

Yeah dude I've based it off the character's Hit Die type before.

Any small weapon is -1 die type, medium is same die type, large (two handers) are +1 die type (if it's D12 then it goes to 3d4). Minimum D4, so a mage wielding a dagger still gets 1d4.

So a fighter wielding a dagger gets d8 dmg, same fighter wielding longsword gets d10, same fighter with two handed axe gets d12.

I don't think that seriously breaks anything. At this level of abstraction, not taking the characteristics of the target into consideration beyond AC, I can't imagine such a system would matter too much. I am not sure how it works for the goblin who picks up a guisarme-glaive.

At the end of the day the fancy 7 ringed sword is still just a sword, and if max damage output was important when they chose it, it will be more important when they find a +2 broadsword lying in a lair, so you are back where you started; they'll pick the "better" one.

If you hear a player saying, well, i am from the desert and really want one of these curved swords, but I don't like the damage they do, I might consider supporting it down the road, throw such a thing into a trove, or make it a reward for a personal quest, give it a fancy name, and do sort of like the 3.5 D&D legacy weapons; have it grow with the character and take on new stats as the player levels, maybe have it drink the magic from other found weapons (and the XP reward with them, which keeps them important to loot splitting for the party.)
_________________
Sir Aergraith Aethelmar of Cyrswud, CaCS,OotF

I've considered doing this for the next generic D&D-style game (not my sometime-in-the-furture-Conan C&C game).

I'd divide weapons in to Small/Medium/Large catagories, with 2handed weapons and reach weapons being 'Large'; Daggers, handaxes, etc, being 'Small', and everything else being 'Medium'. Each class would have a damage type, based on weapon size.

Class S/M/L damage

Fighter, ranger, d6/d8/d10

barbarian, knight,

paladin, monk,

bard

Cleric, druid d4/d6/d8

rogue, assassin d6/d6/d6

Wizard, illusionist d4/d4/d6

As a person who usually picks exotic weapons for his characters, unless you put magical weapons of the type selected by the PC, they are not going to have a lot of selections when it comes to the random magical weapons (which tend to be long/broad swords or battle axes etc), so they tend o revert back to the "standard" weapons anyways by higher levels.

R-
_________________
Rigon o' the Lakelands, Baron of The Castles & Crusades Society
The Book of the Mind

I've never thought of it, but I think that's pretty cool

(Damage by class)

There is this, however. You, as CK, determine what's actually AVAILABLE for sale at the weapon shop.

whaddya mean you don't have any falcattas. How can I slay goblins without a falcatta?!? Don't you peasant merchants know anything!?!

CK: roll to dodge spitball.
_________________
The obvious will always trip you up FAR more than the obscure.

Baron Grignak Hammerhand of the Pacifica Provinces-

High Warden of the Castles & Crusades Society

I appreciate all the input as I will probably ask lots of dumb questions over the next several weeks.

Tomorrow we will be doing a character creation session with a mini adventure to familiarize ourselves with using the rules.

Have not run a C&C type system for a long while. I do look forward to the quicker pace of combat and hopefully easier planning and prep.

Morgan

Go0gleplex wrote:
whaddya mean you don't have any falcattas. How can I slay goblins without a falcatta?!? Don't you peasant merchants know anything!?!

CK: roll to dodge spitball.

Heh! What is a Godentag anyway.....?

You can see one here...
http://www.retromud.org/frames/weapons/bludgeons.html
_________________
The obvious will always trip you up FAR more than the obscure.

Baron Grignak Hammerhand of the Pacifica Provinces-

High Warden of the Castles & Crusades Society

Go0gleplex wrote:
You can see one here...
http://www.retromud.org/frames/weapons/bludgeons.html

Thanks for the link!

Morgan

i kinda like the choice of weapons. If you are using EV then i could see a fair range getting used as players try to work around that.

My players tend to choose about 50% of weapons for purely style or roleplaying reasons so the list is cool.

Damage by class is a fair enough idea but makes things a little bland for me, I like the differences between weapons, it adds something i think.

As a player I find myself drawn to two weapons, the bastard sword and the scimitar. Don't know why other than I just like them.

As a CK, I usually try to make sure the treasure that is looted meets the needs of the players. If I have a player who is using a whip or a scythe, then They will find enough of those to keep their character balanced with the group.

I can see where basing damage on class could reflect the various levels of strength and training with weapons. Another solution might be to allow different classes to use attributes other than strength with a close combat weapon.

A suggestion would be allowing a rogue to use dex with small bladed and bludgeoning weapons. Arcane spellcasters use intel with staffs and clerics use wisdom with dieties favored weapon.

Gives a higher to hit bonus and more damage without having to keep up with what dice your supposed to be using this time.
_________________
"So you just sit around a table and play make-believe?" My wife when I first tried to explain rpgs to her.

HEHEHEHEHE I'm a skobbit

Well...for one, you're right it allows for MAX potentials, though I don't think it has anything at all to add to role playing. In point of fact, it actually takes away from role playing the character in that you genericize the character by merely assigning damage by class as opposed to weapon. If I have a fighter from a desert environment, the odds are he's going to have a scimitar or whatever weapon that is common to the region irregardless of damage. Weapons have characteristics that are just abstracted into obscurity in most cases. I think one of the things that truely made weapons stand out from one another was the weapon speeds in 2e. Sure, a fighter could take that two hander, but the guy with the scimitar was going to carve him into kibbles before he could employ it, despite the scimitar doing less damage.

Saying that just because someone is a fighter they get X damage, irregardless of the weapon simply makes even naming a weapon pointless because no matter what it is...it will always do that X damage. To me...weapons are part of what give a character character...so what if the damage is not "optimal" for the class. What the flipping hey does optimal have to do with role playing anyhow. It belongs with the ROLL playing munchkins IMO. Different strokes for different folks, but this is one suggestion that I'd not like to see spread to the detriment of the gaming experience.
_________________
The obvious will always trip you up FAR more than the obscure.

Baron Grignak Hammerhand of the Pacifica Provinces-

High Warden of the Castles & Crusades Society

Go0gleplex wrote:
Well...for one, you're right it allows for MAX potentials, though I don't think it has anything at all to add to role playing. In point of fact, it actually takes away from role playing the character in that you genericize the character by merely assigning damage by class as opposed to weapon. If I have a fighter from a desert environment, the odds are he's going to have a scimitar or whatever weapon that is common to the region irregardless of damage. Weapons have characteristics that are just abstracted into obscurity in most cases. I think one of the things that truely made weapons stand out from one another was the weapon speeds in 2e. Sure, a fighter could take that two hander, but the guy with the scimitar was going to carve him into kibbles before he could employ it, despite the scimitar doing less damage.

Saying that just because someone is a fighter they get X damage, irregardless of the weapon simply makes even naming a weapon pointless because no matter what it is...it will always do that X damage. To me...weapons are part of what give a character character...so what if the damage is not "optimal" for the class. What the flipping hey does optimal have to do with role playing anyhow. It belongs with the ROLL playing munchkins IMO. Different strokes for different folks, but this is one suggestion that I'd not like to see spread to the detriment of the gaming experience.

See, and I'm thinking just the opposite. It allows for a wider range of choices for the characters to have a unique vision, without worrying about min-max damage issues.

As I said, I haven't tried it yet, and I don't even know if my group would like it.

brotherdew wrote:
As a player I find myself drawn to two weapons, the bastard sword and the scimitar. Don't know why other than I just like them.

As a CK, I usually try to make sure the treasure that is looted meets the needs of the players. If I have a player who is using a whip or a scythe, then They will find enough of those to keep their character balanced with the group.

I can see where basing damage on class could reflect the various levels of strength and training with weapons. Another solution might be to allow different classes to use attributes other than strength with a close combat weapon.

A suggestion would be allowing a rogue to use dex with small bladed and bludgeoning weapons. Arcane spellcasters use intel with staffs and clerics use wisdom with dieties favored weapon.

Gives a higher to hit bonus and more damage without having to keep up with what dice your supposed to be using this time.

This seems unfair to fighters and just makes all the classes fighting badasses for no real benefit other than buffing stats, what does it add except power creep and weakening the fighter in comparison by making everyone better at fighting?

Would you let fighters save against all spells by adding their strength bonus? Barbarians with their con?

While it's an interesting idea, I think it actually limits the players options instead and sets up some unrealistic situations.

If I want a longsword-wielding mage (ala Gandalf), that weapon's only going to do 1d4? The same damage of a dagger in his hands? Then why would I want to go with a flavorful route with this character and ask the CK to allow me to have a longsword if it's going to have the same effectiveness as a dagger (but come with the weight and EV of a longsword)?

And speaking of daggers, let's look at the opposite end of the spectrum. I once played a dual-wielding dagger fighting pit fighter. My daggers did 1d4 points of damage plus my Str modifier. I shouldn't be doing the same amount of damage as the dwarf fighter with the two-handed axe.

I don't think that the little bit of damage that't put out by a character who chooses the 1d10 damage weapon over the 1d6 damage weapon is going to be that big of deal in the long run. Even if he is only picking the 1d10 weapon because more damage. I think your idea is interesting, mabon, but this method, to me, kind of makes it less a role-playing friendly because it doesn't matter what weapon a certain class takes, because he'll be the same as every other person of that class.

Just my two cents. *shrug*
_________________
LD's C&C creations - the witch, a half-ogre, skill and 0-level rules

Troll Lord wrote:
Lord D: you understand where I"m coming from.

Lord Dynel wrote:
While it's an interesting idea, I think it actually limits the players options instead and sets up some unrealistic situations.

If I want a longsword-wielding mage (ala Gandalf), that weapon's only going to do 1d4? The same damage of a dagger in his hands? Then why would I want to go with a flavorful route with this character and ask the CK to allow me to have a longsword if it's going to have the same effectiveness as a dagger (but come with the weight and EV of a longsword)?

And speaking of daggers, let's look at the opposite end of the spectrum. I once played a dual-wielding dagger fighting pit fighter. My daggers did 1d4 points of damage plus my Str modifier. I shouldn't be doing the same amount of damage as the dwarf fighter with the two-handed axe.

I don't think that the little bit of damage that't put out by a character who chooses the 1d10 damage weapon over the 1d6 damage weapon is going to be that big of deal in the long run. Even if he is only picking the 1d10 weapon because more damage. I think your idea is interesting, mabon, but this method, to me, kind of makes it less a role-playing friendly because it doesn't matter what weapon a certain class takes, because he'll be the same as every other person of that class.

Just my two cents. *shrug*

The Gandalf thing is easy. If allowed to use longswords then it opens up a whole new realm of magical swords that are not available as daggers. Things the very mage wielding them could actually CREATE at some point. Awesome. 1d4 + vorpal? Sign me up.

You kind of counter your own dual wielding dagger argument in the very next argument: the damage difference in the long run wont be that big a deal (in the second argument). In your first argument, you seem to find it a big deal. Why shouldnt two one-handers do the same as one two-hander? I think it's perfectly equitable. If you are using both hands, your damage output should reflect the sacrifice of your shield.

MAKE UP YOUR MIND LD!!!!1111

Lord Dynel wrote:
While it's an interesting idea, I think it actually limits the players options instead and sets up some unrealistic situations.

If I want a longsword-wielding mage (ala Gandalf), that weapon's only going to do 1d4? The same damage of a dagger in his hands? Then why would I want to go with a flavorful route with this character and ask the CK to allow me to have a longsword if it's going to have the same effectiveness as a dagger (but come with the weight and EV of a longsword)?

And speaking of daggers, let's look at the opposite end of the spectrum. I once played a dual-wielding dagger fighting pit fighter. My daggers did 1d4 points of damage plus my Str modifier. I shouldn't be doing the same amount of damage as the dwarf fighter with the two-handed axe.

I don't think that the little bit of damage that't put out by a character who chooses the 1d10 damage weapon over the 1d6 damage weapon is going to be that big of deal in the long run. Even if he is only picking the 1d10 weapon because more damage. I think your idea is interesting, mabon, but this method, to me, kind of makes it less a role-playing friendly because it doesn't matter what weapon a certain class takes, because he'll be the same as every other person of that class.

Just my two cents. *shrug*

The wizard could multi-class and use the sword I suppose. Though Gandalf was a demi-god of sorts.....

I'll try it today with the players and see what they want to do.

As for role-playing my hope is to encourage it by making the question a player asks about weapons not "which weapon should I pick?" but "which weapon would my character have?" and not have this decision penalize them in the game.

I really do appreciate all the sides of the argument it helps!
Morgan

zarathustra wrote:
This seems unfair to fighters and just makes all the classes fighting badasses for no real benefit other than buffing stats, what does it add except power creep and weakening the fighter in comparison by making everyone better at fighting?

Would you let fighters save against all spells by adding their strength bonus? Barbarians with their con?

I was just offering an option to the generic damage arguement. I don't see where it would make the fighter weaker though. Yes, the other classes may be more effective in close combat offensively, but you still have a rogue with an ac of 14 or a wizard in a robe.

At the most, the altered attack would do one or two points more of damage. a dagger plus a 16 dex is just going to do 2 more points of damage that it would if the rogue was using his 9 strength.

I think that if you allowed the other classes to use a prime sttribute for attack and damage then you would definitely have to limit which weapons they could use. To say that this option only applies to a ROLL player is not necessarily true.

If I'm playing a rogue, I usually lean toward a thug type. I have always thought it unfair that my sneaky abilities seem to suffer because I put my biggest roll into strength to relay the thug in him.

Also I don't think that using strength relays the true skill of a weapon. The strength of a dagger or shortsword isn't actually strength, but speed, or dex. I could also see allowing a barbarian the use of constitution with two handed weapons to relay the energy it takes to wield a weapon effectively.

I think the difference we are seeing in this arguement may be that some people look at roll playing as dealing with weakenesses, while others see it as an opportunity to utilize all that a character has to offer. Neither way is wrong, it's just a difference in play style.

I think that you might be able to lure some of these ROLL players into ROLE playing if you offer them some options, but require them to ROLL play those options. The can't just choose the options, they have to explain them and roll play them throughout the game.
_________________
"So you just sit around a table and play make-believe?" My wife when I first tried to explain rpgs to her.

HEHEHEHEHE I'm a skobbit

again we get back to the abstraction issue on the weapons. One thing not covered by C&C for the weapons is how effective they were in various circumstances. The evolution of the pike for instance helped fend off cavalry. The two handed sword was meant to cut pikes down to size, clearing the way for cavalry and other footmen to close with the pike wielders. Chainmail offeres little to no protection versus arrows. The flamberge was designed to more efficiently cut through fluted armor which itself was designed to better resist the slashing effects of longswords and the like. Beaked warhammers were designed to punch through plate armor...the list goes on.

sure...the weapons are not optimal in damage. they are not supposed to be. If anything, weapon damage is not the problem...the problem is making the weapons so generically simplified that their nuances are lost in the grander picture due to the tradeoff for simpler play. Further simplifying this just takes more away from even worrying about weapons. a fighter doesn't do more damage because of the wizard, but because of the weapon used...which they have the training for while the wizard (normally) does not. A dagger will punch the same hole in someone irregardless of class...just like an arrow will...or a battleaxe.

But the better training of the fighter means that he can hit more vital spots than the wizard can and do more damage? Poppycock! A wizard knows just as much about anatomy, probably more so, than the fighter does, as does the rogue or the assassin and cleric. Saying that isn't so is just a strawman. If you wanted more damage by location, then use a hit location chart for all that will convolute the process more.

I know in playing my characters, I don't feel penalized because of the weapon I pick. But then again, from experience and research, I may have a better feel for how these weapons actually work(ed) while others may not. *shrug* But again...that's my opinion.
_________________
The obvious will always trip you up FAR more than the obscure.

Baron Grignak Hammerhand of the Pacifica Provinces-

High Warden of the Castles & Crusades Society

brotherdew wrote:
I think that you might be able to lure some of these ROLL players into ROLE playing if you offer them some options, but require them to ROLL play those options. The can't just choose the options, they have to explain them and roll play them throughout the game.

I just think that all the other classes have several strings to their bow- mages have several spells even at low levels in C&C, theives have a wide range of abilities etc but ALL fighters get is combat.

Yeah it is tempting to want other classes to be badass with this weapon or that weapon but I really don't see extra hit and damage bonuses as adding much to role playing- if players want a thuggish fighter it can be expressed via a sstrength prime and roleplay or yeah, put a good score in strength and truly see him better at strength stuff than sneaking, a thug and not a burglar- I just think making those choices, rather than having your cake and eating it too brings more to characters.

The 2 points extra is considerable in the case of the dagger, that is an extra 50% of its original damage potential added on (or 33% to the short sword or whatever). That significantly alters the killing potential especially at low levels.

I understand your point in the argument, I like to play fighters and sometimes it seems they get the short end of the stick, but he is what he is, a fighter.

Fighters are by design guys who jump into the fray and win or lose by skill, will and determination. Their strength of character comes from their simplicity.

Rogues, spellcasters and such are more specialized characters who shouldn't be penalized because they want to do more than fight. When I look at building a non-fighter, I feel pigeonholed with my backstory because if I mention that he originally was a part of an army or street gang I can't reflect that in his stats. If he was in an army, why can't he fight better?

One or two points of damage might make a differnce at lower levels, but once you progress past 4th or 5th level, I don't see it making much of a difference.

Instead of arguing against the options for other classes, maybe we can start a thread about what we could do to help make the fighter a better class?

Allow them to use strength or con with AC instead of dex.

If his backstory mentions that he was a guard give him a boost to spot or listen. Another thing you can do for a fighter is allow him to use two weapons without the high penalty to two-weapon fighting. decrease the penalty by 2 or three with certain weapons.
_________________
"So you just sit around a table and play make-believe?" My wife when I first tried to explain rpgs to her.

HEHEHEHEHE I'm a skobbit

The reason for the Damage as Class is to allow for freedom of weapon choice, without game penalties.

Fighters (and their subsets) are SUPPOSED to be the best in combat, presumably having the best training. So they get the best damage (d6/d8/d10). The standard weapons for fighters are longswords and battleaxes, which are d8 weapons. This allows for those scimitar wielding desert types to not be hindered by their logical weapon choice. A fighter is as deadlywith a dagger or handaxe as a non-fighter is with a sword.

Clerics and druids are second-line combatants (decent BtH progression and hit die). They get the next best damage range (d4/d6/d8). Since the quinessential weapon for clerics are maces, they don't loose their 'standard' die damage.

Rogues and Assassins have the second worst combat statistics (BtH and hit die). The get d6 damage across the board. A rogue or assassin with a dagger is as deadly as a fighter is with one. Since most rogues will use one handed weapons that are shorter than their arm (back attack), the d6 damage is standard.

Wizards and illusionists are limited to daggers, staves, and darts generally speaking. Usual weapon damage is d4 (d6 for the staff). Giving them a damage output of d4/d4/d6 gives them the roleplay option of using a longsword (ala Gandalf), but their lack of training limits their damage potential.

I'm not saying it's for everyone, but it is a clever way of simplifying damage and widening weapon choice with minimal drawbacks.

Except a broadsword was a brutal hacking type weapon with a heavy blade designed to shear through limbs and armor, whereas the scimitar is a light slashing weapon for use from horseback against normally lighter armors than the plate used by the english. They should not do the same damage. To say they should simply because a "fighter MUST do more damage with his weapon because HE is a FIGHTER" just demonstrates an ignorance about the weapons themselves and munchkinistic tendencies.

That's why the concept is fundamentally flawed.
_________________
The obvious will always trip you up FAR more than the obscure.

Baron Grignak Hammerhand of the Pacifica Provinces-

High Warden of the Castles & Crusades Society

Go0gleplex wrote:
Except a broadsword was a brutal hacking type weapon with a heavy blade designed to shear through limbs and armor, whereas the scimitar is a light slashing weapon for use from horseback against normally lighter armors than the plate used by the english. They should not do the same damage. To say they should simply because a "fighter MUST do more damage with his weapon because HE is a FIGHTER" just demonstrates an ignorance about the weapons themselves and munchkinistic tendencies.

That's why the concept is fundamentally flawed.

Given that every rule in a RPG is an abstraction to some degree I feel pretty safe saying that fighters will generally do more damage.

I really am not trying to play an historic simulation. I am playing a game of heroic fantasy. Heroes run around with weapons defeating enemies in a variety of armors, hides, scales, magic fields, stone exoskeletons,etc.

I'm hardly ignorant of weapons I just don't care to calculate weapon speed vs armor vulnerability vs steel quality vs weight per square inch of striking surface vs... yadda yah. That's why I chose C&C vs say Arms Law (a perfectly fine game in its own right)

I'm not sure you understand the meaning of "munchkin" Assigning the damage by class, by 1 or 2 handedness puts the weapon damage at a reasonable level. The classes (under the new system) are doing damage at a rate they would anyway according to class weapon restrictions.

I would allow you to choose to use an inferior damage die if this helped you to better get into character and simulate your vision of accuracy. For most others they will pick a weapon that best suits their role-playing desire and roll a die based on class and handedness.

For what I want to accomplish the concept is not fundamentally flawed but works to increase rping. Thanks for the input!

Without hijacking the topic, this got me thinking about the general case of honoring character concept above Rules As Written, and the constraints of D&D-like games as a concept to be embraced in themselves.
http://www.freeyabb.com/trolllordgames/ ... mes#183477
_________________
Sir Aergraith Aethelmar of Cyrswud, CaCS,OotF

I would like to point out something. A wizard can use a sword, or any other weapon for that matter. They are just -4 to hit with any weapon that is not on their listed weapons under their class descriptoions - per page 9 of the PHB.

So if a wizard wants to use a long sword, I let him, just at -4 to hit. At higher levels this is not so bad for the wizard. He is not a fighter, but if he hits, he can do some damage if he runs out of spells.
_________________
Lord Aladar

Warden of the Welk Wood

Baron of the Castles & Crusades Society

The Poster formerly known as Alwyn

Senior Gamer - Member of the Senior RPG Tour

"NEMO ME IMPUNE LACESSIT - At least not in Yu Gi Oh"
http://www.cncsociety.org/

Magic-users are in an odd sort. They have very few weapon skills yet they make the most powerful magic weapons. Perhaps allow them to enchant a weapon they can use? Of course, to do so, you might want to lower the level limit for such things... I'd suggest 5-7th and not 11th. I would further suggest that, as they gain experience levels, the "plusses" they can provide increase... so you do not end up with a 5th level wizard making a +5 vorpal defending bearded axe, bane against all life. Unless that is what you want.
_________________
If it matters, leave a message at the beep.
Serl's Corner