Troll Lord Games

Hello All,

I tried searching the forums for this question but, I couldn't find a direct answer. The original AD&D used an increased weapon damage for greater than medium sized monsters. For example:

2-Handed Sword 1d10 damage

vs Large creatures 3D6 damage

Is this incorporated into the siege system as is with no increased weapon damage?

Thoughts on the subject??
Thanks!

Brian
_________________
Visit Altobanor.com, Home of the Castle Keeper Tool

There's a fine line between being on the leading edge and being in the lunatic fringe

-- Frank Armstrong

No, it is not included in C&C. Weapons deal their listed damage no matter what they hit, unless the victim has some ability that says otherwise. It is an AD&D-ism which may, or may not, be considered "needed" depending on your preference. For a game introducing the concept of role playing to people who have never played (one goal of C&C) having one damage rating is far simpler. Hell, it could have been even more "renaissance" and had a single damage for all weapons... if you wanted to do it, I'd suggest rewriting the majority of weapon damages, since most don't have damage modifiers either (that is, not many weapons deal XdY+Z without character-related modifiers.)
_________________
If it matters, leave a message at the beep.
Serl's Corner

My group has been around D&D since 1980. We respect the C&C rules and noticed yesterday that it was not in the books. I am more interested in making sure if we choose to use the alternate damage rule for large creatures, that we don't unbalance the game. We are sticking to C&C rules pretty tightly and the group is not so ingrained into D&D that they have to have this rule. It's my call, but I thought I would solicit a more seasoned opinion.

Brian

P.S. This is all in the name of fun, and I make sure that the players get their moneys worth rule or no rule.
_________________
Visit Altobanor.com, Home of the Castle Keeper Tool

There's a fine line between being on the leading edge and being in the lunatic fringe

-- Frank Armstrong

It wouldnt hurt the game to add more damage to larger weapons. Ive done this and it went fine.

Realize that the monster damage was decided upon taking such consideration into account for them.

I also give STR damage to clearly "strong" creatures.

Still, if you want the PC's to do more "mowing" than hacking, add the dice variance.
_________________
The Ruby Lord, Earl of the Society

Next Con I am attending: http://www.neoncon.com/

My House Rules: http://www.freeyabb.com/phpbb/viewtopic ... llordgames

To keep it simple, rather than changing all weapon damages, (such as having two-handed swords doing 1d10 vs. small / medium but 3d6 against large) you could have it add a single damage modifier, leaving the random aspect intact. Something like +3 damage. To go with the two-handed sword example, an AD&D attack of 1d10+3 yields an overall average of 7.5; a 3d6+3 result yields an overall mean of 13.5. Now, you could apply this only to characters who have Strength as Prime (keeping the elusive rule of 6,) as they can use it to penetrate the typically more stalwart defenses of big critters... or, you can have it work with a class of weapons such as cleaving (axes, two-handed swords, etc) or penetrative weapons (spears, heavy crossbows, etc...) or any other kind of system that might be of interest. It certainly does not "hurt" the game, especially if you use the numbers for monsters encountered and don'tr typically cheap them down.
_________________
If it matters, leave a message at the beep.
Serl's Corner

If I feel the monster should do more damage than listed in M&T I will add their hit dice to the damage.

For example: The ogre does damage as "Slam (d10) or by weapon". Now, shouldn't an ogre do as much damage at least as the strongest human (str 18, or +3)?

An ogre is a 4HD creature. I allow them damage as slam (d10) or weapon type +4.

An ogre weilding a 2handed axe [one handed, by the way] has a damage rating of d12+4.

It would be interesting to add the diciture "... or by weapon +4" in the monster description.

But monsters add their hit dices just to the attack by the rules isn't it? It would not be interesting for the humanoids to add them even to the damage?

I guess i never understood the logic of giving weapons more damage against larger creatures. In D&D it started with the Greyhawk supplement 1.

I don't think you would unbalance C&C too much if you included this in your house rules however.

I have a house rule increasing the base damage to all C&C weapons because I believe that D&D weapon damage is too little. But, I do not adjust for the size of the creature because as part of the challenge rating the HD and other factors are already calculated. If you are going to take on difficult monsters than I feel characters should be prepared as is, I should not have to give extra benefits.

JLL

Its not really different damage by size but I took AD&D weapon damages and a spread sheet and average the damages so I could make a shorter weapon list and interpted Weapon vs AC with just three armor types (leather/mail/plate). I am also playing with AD&D rate of fire.

So far no complaints so varying by size would not be a problem.

Hrolfgar wrote:
I guess i never understood the logic of giving weapons more damage against larger creatures. In D&D it started with the Greyhawk supplement 1.

I don't think you would unbalance C&C too much if you included this in your house rules however.

Larger creatures = bigger targets. It's easier to hit a vital area, generally speaking. Also, with some weapons, a larger surface area comes into play.

I don't think it unbalances C&C to use this AD&Dism. It just weakens large sized creatures a bit, and that should be considered.
_________________
Sir Fiffergrund, Lord Marshal of the Castle and Crusade Society.

He Who Hides Behind The Elephant's Back

All the idea's and advice will be taken into account. Thanks for posting!

Brian
_________________
Visit Altobanor.com, Home of the Castle Keeper Tool

There's a fine line between being on the leading edge and being in the lunatic fringe

-- Frank Armstrong

While it can be argued that the larger creatures present larger targets, it can also be argued that it takes more effort and force to get through the thicker skin, layers of fat, hide, scales, or whatever. In point of fact, it is more probable that weapons as a whole will deliver LESS telling damage than more.

As such, I think the presentation of a flat damage capability is more appropriate IMO
_________________
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 don't think it will break anything, but I like the btb method.
_________________
Never throw rocks at a man with a Vorpal Sword!

Go0gleplex wrote:
While it can be argued that the larger creatures present larger targets, it can also be argued that it takes more effort and force to get through the thicker skin, layers of fat, hide, scales, or whatever. In point of fact, it is more probable that weapons as a whole will deliver LESS telling damage than more.

As such, I think the presentation of a flat damage capability is more appropriate IMO

Oh, it can be argued. In fact, that's my problem with having two values, not with the potential reasoning behind it.
Just to play along, though, size trumps when all other factors are unknown. We know that larger creatures most often have larger organs and have a larger target surface area. We can't assume, however, that a larger creature automatically has tougher skin and those other qualities you mentioned. If any creature has advantages in this area, it's not determined by their size. In AD&D, this was represented by AC and HP, just as it is in C&C.

So, I wouldn't say it's a point of fact that weapons would probably deliver less damage to a large creature. I'll have a lot better chance using a longsword to slice the femoral artery of a hill giant than of a halfling. The artery is a bigger target, and it's probably right in a fighter's wheelhouse for a powerful swing. Consider that a large creature presents such a good target that it removes some of the need for the fighter to "aim" his swings, and instead he can put more power behind them.

That's the reasoning behind the AD&D system, but I'd say a case can be made for either argument.

I prefer a single damage value because 1) it's rules light and 2) having different values always starts discussions on "realism." It's far easier to have one value.
_________________
Sir Fiffergrund, Lord Marshal of the Castle and Crusade Society.

He Who Hides Behind The Elephant's Back