changing damage bonus to weapon progression [Archive] - Wizards Community

changing damage bonus to weapon progression [Archive] - Wizards Community

Post/Author/DateTime Post
Erloas
07-24-06, 04:22 PM So recently my brother (and a player in my game) asked how they are supposed to progress when you use the same weapon from level 1 to level 20. His barbarian's greataxe will be d12 damage always and forever, there is just the change to the bonus damage being applied. From what I've read (haven't not played much myself) it seems that later on in the game the dX part of weapon damage is fairly moot, it makes a relatively small difference in the final damage. Right now when he rages its d12+9, thats with no magic items, or stat increases at level 1, its only going to get worse from here. If he were using many other weapons 2h his damage bonus would be greater then the weapon possibility.

What I'm wondering then is if anyone has made a damage progression chart for weapons to replace some of the normal +damage. Making the dice mean a little more. Something like the size progression chart, but not necessarily the same. Also probably not for every point of bonus, and not every type of bonus. Maybe just magic weapon bonuses and str bonuses, and for every 3 points of bonus. So temporary adjustements from rage, timed buffs, that sort of thing stay the same but more long term bonuses adjust the dice rolled.

So maybe instead of d12+6 it would change to 3d6, or maybe 2d10. Or if it was d12+8 it would be 3d6+2 (because the 2 is the difference between the +6 progression and the +9 progression)
I know as you add more and smaller dice you increase the minimum, decrease the chances of really high and really low roles and increase the average. It also greatly increases the probability of an average roll. With your normal d12 the average is 6.5, a 6 will come up 8% of the time, but so will a 1 and so will a 12. Were as 2d6 will average with 7 which will come up 17% of the time, but a 2 or a 12 will only come up 3% of the time (3% chance each that is).
So given that, it shouldn't be that hard to make a die progression that will keep the average about the same as the old method and not hurt or benifit the players too much.

So has anyone tried a system like this? Does anyone already have a thorough die probablility table to build it off of that they could post? (I can build one myself, but I'm hoping to avoid some of the work)
Does this even seem like a reasonable idea?
Fraser1986
07-24-06, 05:00 PM I am a little confused by what you are trying to achieve. You appear to have two conflicting goals.

1.) You feel the bonus damage from strength, magic enhancements, weapon specialisation "overpowers" the dice so the roll becomes insignificant. Ie the overall damage will vary very little in % terms

2.) You want to replace rolling a single dice with mutliple dice which increases the probability of avarage rolls and causes the damage to vary very little in % terms.

Perhaps I am misunderstanding you but there seems to be little point in enacting such a change. Now i feel bad so i will make up for my unhelpfulness with the following table for 2D6

Dice roll Probability %
2 1/36 2.8
3 1/18 5.6
4 1/12 8.3
5 1/9 11.1
6 5/36 13.9
7 1/6 16.7
8 5/36 13.9
9 1/9 11.1
10 1/12 8.3
11 1/18 5.6
12 1/36 2.8

Basically the more dice rolled the more avarage results you get and the less likely they are to deviate from the mean
Erloas
07-24-06, 05:46 PM Well I am kind of looking at doing both, although they seem somewhat conflicting that is what I'm looking for.

I don't necessarily want to just add more dice to the rolls, I just know that it will be needed because you quickly run out of options for just increasing the die size.

a D8+6 would be an average of 10.5, but its not like I can change to a d14 die because I don't have one, its the same max but lower average. I also don't want to chance to a d20 which has the same average but a greater max and the possibility of lower rolls too.

I want to increase the importance of the dice roll, while keeping the average about the same, maybe increase the max a little bit because the possible min will be a little lower too.

Maybe that d8+6 turns into 3d6, giving a similar average, but making the minimum score 3 (but very unlikely) instead of 7, and making the max 18 instead of 14.

so a d10 weapon progression might go
d10
d10+1
d10+2
2d6
2d6+1
2d6+2 (=d10+5)
4d4
4d4+1
4d4+2
3d8 (=d10+9)
3d8+1
3d8+2

or something like that, don't have time to run all the numbers right now, but I think it shows the idea.

This way also, that great new +3 battle-axe the barbarian just found isn't just the same as the old d12 battle-axe he just upgraded out of. He would still of course get the +3 to attack, but I think it would make the weapon feel more powerful even if it doesn't actually increase its power that much.
Milandros
07-24-06, 07:29 PM A sword rammed through your belly by a clumsy fool who turned around too fast does little omre damage than a sword rammed through your belly by a brilliant master swordsman. That's the point of the weapon damage remaining unchanging.

However, the brilliant swordsman can attack faster, can aim more precisely and is more likely to hit you, can hit more forcefully (power attack), can do many other things such as disarm or trip you, and so on. Fighters do definitely dish out a lot more damage as they gain in skill, and also become much more effective overall combat experts. Because of their extra skills they are also more consistant in their damage (meaning that the dice are less important and the fixed damage is more important).
Erloas
07-24-06, 10:18 PM So what you are telling me is that Bob the Orc's battleaxe, the one he found the head for in an old battlefield and all covered in rust, which he made an improvised handle from a stick and then used it for the next 10 years doing everything from hitting other people to smashing rocks (just because he was bored) does just as much damage, is able to cut just as well as the brand new crafted with the best steel in the land by the finest blacksmith ever battleaxe? It just doesn't make any sense. The very finest weapon ever made by non-magical means is only slightly easier to hit with but in all other respects equal to some random old weapon of the same type?

One of the things I wanted to do in my world is downplay a bit the importance of magical items, but at the same time have similar effect. Kind of in the idea of higher crafting skill and somewhat improved technology. I would still have a +3 battle axe, but maybe that would become a masterworked battle axe, the normal masterworked battle axe might become a above average crafted axe, a +5 battle axe might be a prefectly crafted one. They would still give the same bonus to hit, but their bonus to damage would come in the form of a change in the die rather then a straight +bonus. I'm not sure a logical way to justify having the strength bonus modify the die roll. Maybe weapon specialization would come more into the care and mantance of said weapon, knowing how to keep the edge on it just right, knowing how to add weights in the right place to keep it balanced better, that sort of thing. But it would be continual mantance and personalized so you couldn't do it for other people.

I never planned on the system working for temporary ability enhancements, or special attack bonus damage, or bane types of bonuses. Just the straight forward types of bonuses that would apply all the time to any opponent.
Even if I went with just the specilization and +enchantments (and not strength) I could still have 6 levels of weapon progression which would be enough.
Archmage Atrus
07-24-06, 11:02 PM So what you are telling me is that Bob the Orc's battleaxe, the one he found the head for in an old battlefield and all covered in rust, which he made an improvised handle from a stick and then used it for the next 10 years doing everything from hitting other people to smashing rocks (just because he was bored) does just as much damage, is able to cut just as well as the brand new crafted with the best steel in the land by the finest blacksmith ever battleaxe?

Technically, no.

I would preface this answer by saying I stopped reading after this - I'm tired, and don't want to think too much. But, while the rules on their face might seem to imply this, your paragraph description seems to imply that:
1) The steel manufactured sword is masterwork. (that's the easy one)
2) The orc's battleaxe is basically a cudgel with a knife on one end.

From this I would rule that the battleaxe is an improvised weapon of some kind (-4 penalty to attacks) that does damage similar to a battleaxe.

That sword, however, is masterwork, granting a +1 to attacks. That gives the sword a +5 bonus over the axe.

Why is it to attack instead of damage? Because you're talking about cutting through something - armor, specifically, and with the AC system, that means it goes to attack instead of damage. The bizarre amorphous nature of hit points makes it... murky to justify damage increases.
Always-Late
07-24-06, 11:23 PM The kind of weapon you use really becomes pointless once you start dishing 1d12+216 damage.

Anyway, I like the idea, but I'd hand a straight plus to hit but a die bonus to damage. For example, a +1 Longsword has +1 to hit and deals 1d10 base damage.
Oakspar77777
07-24-06, 11:35 PM First, I am glad to see that you are not trying to increase the damage of the weapons. I know many players who have complained that things like HP increase MUCH faster than damage output. Of course, this is to balance against BAB increasing faster than AC, as well as subsequent attacks.

Second, it seems that you want more randomness to the damage. I would suggest playing through some time with RaW before seeking to change them. 1d12 is still an 11 point difference, which even with several bonuses, will mean one hit might be only 50% of the damage of another (which is signifigant).

Third, some of the biggest damage additions to a weapon are still random. Fiery, Frost, Caustic, Shocking . . . all of these add another (random) dice roll to the damage.

Of course, you could always rule that bonus damage should be rolled. The best way to do this (especially since bonus damage is continually in flux with Rage, spell modifiers, increasing enhancement bonus, etc) is to roll two die. One should be the base d12, and the other should be for the bonus. Of course, that is going to nerf bonus damage unless you make sure the dice double the bonus:

Thus, rather than 1d12+6, you could have either 2d12 or 1d12+2d6 or even 1d20+1d4.
Thus, rather then 1d10+8, you could have 1d10+2d8 or 1d20+1d6.

This will add some damage to the roll, but so long as you are consistant with the foes as well, it will balance.

Fourth, the best reason I can give you not to do this is the accounting cost. If something in the rule system takes more time to figure than it pays out in fun, then it is okay to toss the added realism for the sake of the game (and I'm not sure this really adds realism).

Fifth, on a critical hit, that 3d12 can be trash or treasure, which seems to be what you are after.
Erloas
07-25-06, 12:05 AM Technically, no.

I would preface this answer by saying I stopped reading after this - I'm tired, and don't want to think too much. But, while the rules on their face might seem to imply this, your paragraph description seems to imply that:
1) The steel manufactured sword is masterwork. (that's the easy one)
2) The orc's battleaxe is basically a cudgel with a knife on one end.

From this I would rule that the battleaxe is an improvised weapon of some kind (-4 penalty to attacks) that does damage similar to a battleaxe.

That sword, however, is masterwork, granting a +1 to attacks. That gives the sword a +5 bonus over the axe.

Why is it to attack instead of damage? Because you're talking about cutting through something - armor, specifically, and with the AC system, that means it goes to attack instead of damage. The bizarre amorphous nature of hit points makes it... murky to justify damage increases.

Well I did overstate the weapon a bit, but it was to make the point that it really doesn't matter how well the item was made in the first place or how well it has been taken care of, as long it fits the definition of a battle axe (big axe blade on the end of a handle) then its just as good as any other one. Even if that one has been taken well care of and keep sharp and in good shape.

And while a very sharp weapon does have a better chance of bypassing armor (bonus to attack vs AC) it would also mean that said weapon has more momentem/force left after getting through the armor to deal more damage to what is benith it (the person)

I would keep the bonus to hit the same, mostly because modifying that part of it has to take into account the entire counter balance of AC, where as damage is a one sided system.

I really want to try and keep the average of the new system close to the average of old system, but I know given the limitation on dice it will increase the range of damage a bit, giving them lower minimums but higher maxes too, and because of the increase in the number of dice used it will also increase the probability of average rolls and decrease the chance of exceptionally devistation blows. Which I think in the long run (according to many of the sidebars in the DMG) will help the players out more then it will hurt them.
DrWorm
07-25-06, 01:32 AM Funny thing is I was just thinking about this. Back in the day, durring basic D&D, there was a Blue box expansion (I believe it was expert, or master) and in it there was an extensive list of weapons with damage progressions and special effects based on what was called weapon specializations. It was really cool, and I as recall really balanced. Not only did it represent getting more proficient with weapons, but made otherwise unused weapons have some neat affects. My brother has it somewhere. We ported it over to 2nd Ed, but then stopped playing. We have never really thought about porting it to 3.5.

The basic idea was there were basic leves of skill, I think they were: Unskilled, Proficient, Skilled, Expert, Master, Grandmaster. Each class got these proficiencies at differing rates. Battle classes got them faster, and non-battle classes got them slower. However after enough levels even a wizard with his staff could have some cool extra weapon abblities.

If you can find it on ebay you might be able to adapt it.
Fraser1986
07-25-06, 07:11 AM so a d10 weapon progression might go
d10
d10+1
d10+2
2d6
2d6+1
2d6+2 (=d10+5)
4d4
4d4+1
4d4+2
3d8 (=d10+9)
3d8+1
3d8+2

Be careful here. Your table has 2d6 as being better than d10+2. Infact the avarage score for d10+2 is 7.5 whereas the avarage score for 2D6 is 7. Furthermore (sorry to be so negative) you appear to have a progression that starts out quite random (with the d10 every score is equally likely) which gets less random (4D4 will give a very low standard deviation) which then gets more random again (3D8 is more random than 4D4)
Cifer
07-25-06, 07:28 AM And while a very sharp weapon does have a better chance of bypassing armor (bonus to attack vs AC) it would also mean that said weapon has more momentem/force left after getting through the armor to deal more damage to what is benith it (the person)
And that is why a professional fighter usually can powerattack, trading the +1 attack for +1 or +2 damage.

Saying that the enhancement bonusses represent superior craftsmanship in your game is fine, but I'd avoid doing strange stuff with dice for it.
Erloas
07-25-06, 12:06 PM Well I was planning on having the progression not take into account temporary effects, such as power attacks, str increasing or decreasing spells, that sort of thing. If you had a weapon that progressed to 3d8 and then got hit with a str penalty it wouldn't de-progress the weapon, it would just do the normal modifier like 3d8-2 or whatever it would be. Or when you raged it wouldn't progress the weapon, just add the bonus so it would chance to 3d8+2. I wouldn't expect the progression to change more often then maybe once every 2-3 sessions, which if I had some tables made would be very little additional paperwork.

As for the numbers there, it was just an example, I haven't ran any numbers yet so I really don't know how I would chance it yet. I was hoping someone had some sort of chart already made up to save me the trouble, but I guess I'll have to make one up myself. I'm not looking forward to doing it by hand, and mixed die sizes seems like it would make any simple program exceptionally more complicated. In case I wanted to or ended up needing non-standard combinations like 2d6+1d8.

I want the progression to start off more random, but as it progresses it becomes less random but with slightly higher and lower maxes and mins (just happening at a much lower rate)

I'll see if I can find anything on the old expansion box, maybe I can use that.
Decepticons
07-25-06, 12:54 PM Erloas,

What you might want to do is check out the WoTC book Weapons of Legacy. They offer progression in terms of the weapon growing more powerful as the character does.

I also enjoy the fact that it encourages my PCs to keep their weapons instead of running around looking for the next bigger, badder sword or axe.

They also require some sort of event to take place for the PCs to be able to "open" the next stage of weapon power which might be anything from defeating an equal ECL level opponent in single combat with the weapon of legacy to finding a hidden forest and meditating there. In other words, each weapon of legacy can provide adventure paths or hooks, which means less work for you as a DM.

Post/Author/DateTime	Post
Erloas 07-24-06, 04:22 PM	So recently my brother (and a player in my game) asked how they are supposed to progress when you use the same weapon from level 1 to level 20. His barbarian's greataxe will be d12 damage always and forever, there is just the change to the bonus damage being applied. From what I've read (haven't not played much myself) it seems that later on in the game the dX part of weapon damage is fairly moot, it makes a relatively small difference in the final damage. Right now when he rages its d12+9, thats with no magic items, or stat increases at level 1, its only going to get worse from here. If he were using many other weapons 2h his damage bonus would be greater then the weapon possibility. What I'm wondering then is if anyone has made a damage progression chart for weapons to replace some of the normal +damage. Making the dice mean a little more. Something like the size progression chart, but not necessarily the same. Also probably not for every point of bonus, and not every type of bonus. Maybe just magic weapon bonuses and str bonuses, and for every 3 points of bonus. So temporary adjustements from rage, timed buffs, that sort of thing stay the same but more long term bonuses adjust the dice rolled. So maybe instead of d12+6 it would change to 3d6, or maybe 2d10. Or if it was d12+8 it would be 3d6+2 (because the 2 is the difference between the +6 progression and the +9 progression) I know as you add more and smaller dice you increase the minimum, decrease the chances of really high and really low roles and increase the average. It also greatly increases the probability of an average roll. With your normal d12 the average is 6.5, a 6 will come up 8% of the time, but so will a 1 and so will a 12. Were as 2d6 will average with 7 which will come up 17% of the time, but a 2 or a 12 will only come up 3% of the time (3% chance each that is). So given that, it shouldn't be that hard to make a die progression that will keep the average about the same as the old method and not hurt or benifit the players too much. So has anyone tried a system like this? Does anyone already have a thorough die probablility table to build it off of that they could post? (I can build one myself, but I'm hoping to avoid some of the work) Does this even seem like a reasonable idea?
Fraser1986 07-24-06, 05:00 PM	I am a little confused by what you are trying to achieve. You appear to have two conflicting goals. 1.) You feel the bonus damage from strength, magic enhancements, weapon specialisation "overpowers" the dice so the roll becomes insignificant. Ie the overall damage will vary very little in % terms 2.) You want to replace rolling a single dice with mutliple dice which increases the probability of avarage rolls and causes the damage to vary very little in % terms. Perhaps I am misunderstanding you but there seems to be little point in enacting such a change. Now i feel bad so i will make up for my unhelpfulness with the following table for 2D6 Dice roll Probability % 2 1/36 2.8 3 1/18 5.6 4 1/12 8.3 5 1/9 11.1 6 5/36 13.9 7 1/6 16.7 8 5/36 13.9 9 1/9 11.1 10 1/12 8.3 11 1/18 5.6 12 1/36 2.8 Basically the more dice rolled the more avarage results you get and the less likely they are to deviate from the mean
Erloas 07-24-06, 05:46 PM	Well I am kind of looking at doing both, although they seem somewhat conflicting that is what I'm looking for. I don't necessarily want to just add more dice to the rolls, I just know that it will be needed because you quickly run out of options for just increasing the die size. a D8+6 would be an average of 10.5, but its not like I can change to a d14 die because I don't have one, its the same max but lower average. I also don't want to chance to a d20 which has the same average but a greater max and the possibility of lower rolls too. I want to increase the importance of the dice roll, while keeping the average about the same, maybe increase the max a little bit because the possible min will be a little lower too. Maybe that d8+6 turns into 3d6, giving a similar average, but making the minimum score 3 (but very unlikely) instead of 7, and making the max 18 instead of 14. so a d10 weapon progression might go d10 d10+1 d10+2 2d6 2d6+1 2d6+2 (=d10+5) 4d4 4d4+1 4d4+2 3d8 (=d10+9) 3d8+1 3d8+2 or something like that, don't have time to run all the numbers right now, but I think it shows the idea. This way also, that great new +3 battle-axe the barbarian just found isn't just the same as the old d12 battle-axe he just upgraded out of. He would still of course get the +3 to attack, but I think it would make the weapon feel more powerful even if it doesn't actually increase its power that much.
Milandros 07-24-06, 07:29 PM	A sword rammed through your belly by a clumsy fool who turned around too fast does little omre damage than a sword rammed through your belly by a brilliant master swordsman. That's the point of the weapon damage remaining unchanging. However, the brilliant swordsman can attack faster, can aim more precisely and is more likely to hit you, can hit more forcefully (power attack), can do many other things such as disarm or trip you, and so on. Fighters do definitely dish out a lot more damage as they gain in skill, and also become much more effective overall combat experts. Because of their extra skills they are also more consistant in their damage (meaning that the dice are less important and the fixed damage is more important).
Erloas 07-24-06, 10:18 PM	So what you are telling me is that Bob the Orc's battleaxe, the one he found the head for in an old battlefield and all covered in rust, which he made an improvised handle from a stick and then used it for the next 10 years doing everything from hitting other people to smashing rocks (just because he was bored) does just as much damage, is able to cut just as well as the brand new crafted with the best steel in the land by the finest blacksmith ever battleaxe? It just doesn't make any sense. The very finest weapon ever made by non-magical means is only slightly easier to hit with but in all other respects equal to some random old weapon of the same type? One of the things I wanted to do in my world is downplay a bit the importance of magical items, but at the same time have similar effect. Kind of in the idea of higher crafting skill and somewhat improved technology. I would still have a +3 battle axe, but maybe that would become a masterworked battle axe, the normal masterworked battle axe might become a above average crafted axe, a +5 battle axe might be a prefectly crafted one. They would still give the same bonus to hit, but their bonus to damage would come in the form of a change in the die rather then a straight +bonus. I'm not sure a logical way to justify having the strength bonus modify the die roll. Maybe weapon specialization would come more into the care and mantance of said weapon, knowing how to keep the edge on it just right, knowing how to add weights in the right place to keep it balanced better, that sort of thing. But it would be continual mantance and personalized so you couldn't do it for other people. I never planned on the system working for temporary ability enhancements, or special attack bonus damage, or bane types of bonuses. Just the straight forward types of bonuses that would apply all the time to any opponent. Even if I went with just the specilization and +enchantments (and not strength) I could still have 6 levels of weapon progression which would be enough.
Archmage Atrus 07-24-06, 11:02 PM	So what you are telling me is that Bob the Orc's battleaxe, the one he found the head for in an old battlefield and all covered in rust, which he made an improvised handle from a stick and then used it for the next 10 years doing everything from hitting other people to smashing rocks (just because he was bored) does just as much damage, is able to cut just as well as the brand new crafted with the best steel in the land by the finest blacksmith ever battleaxe? Technically, no. I would preface this answer by saying I stopped reading after this - I'm tired, and don't want to think too much. But, while the rules on their face might seem to imply this, your paragraph description seems to imply that: 1) The steel manufactured sword is masterwork. (that's the easy one) 2) The orc's battleaxe is basically a cudgel with a knife on one end. From this I would rule that the battleaxe is an improvised weapon of some kind (-4 penalty to attacks) that does damage similar to a battleaxe. That sword, however, is masterwork, granting a +1 to attacks. That gives the sword a +5 bonus over the axe. Why is it to attack instead of damage? Because you're talking about cutting through something - armor, specifically, and with the AC system, that means it goes to attack instead of damage. The bizarre amorphous nature of hit points makes it... murky to justify damage increases.
Always-Late 07-24-06, 11:23 PM	The kind of weapon you use really becomes pointless once you start dishing 1d12+216 damage. Anyway, I like the idea, but I'd hand a straight plus to hit but a die bonus to damage. For example, a +1 Longsword has +1 to hit and deals 1d10 base damage.
Oakspar77777 07-24-06, 11:35 PM	First, I am glad to see that you are not trying to increase the damage of the weapons. I know many players who have complained that things like HP increase MUCH faster than damage output. Of course, this is to balance against BAB increasing faster than AC, as well as subsequent attacks. Second, it seems that you want more randomness to the damage. I would suggest playing through some time with RaW before seeking to change them. 1d12 is still an 11 point difference, which even with several bonuses, will mean one hit might be only 50% of the damage of another (which is signifigant). Third, some of the biggest damage additions to a weapon are still random. Fiery, Frost, Caustic, Shocking . . . all of these add another (random) dice roll to the damage. Of course, you could always rule that bonus damage should be rolled. The best way to do this (especially since bonus damage is continually in flux with Rage, spell modifiers, increasing enhancement bonus, etc) is to roll two die. One should be the base d12, and the other should be for the bonus. Of course, that is going to nerf bonus damage unless you make sure the dice double the bonus: Thus, rather than 1d12+6, you could have either 2d12 or 1d12+2d6 or even 1d20+1d4. Thus, rather then 1d10+8, you could have 1d10+2d8 or 1d20+1d6. This will add some damage to the roll, but so long as you are consistant with the foes as well, it will balance. Fourth, the best reason I can give you not to do this is the accounting cost. If something in the rule system takes more time to figure than it pays out in fun, then it is okay to toss the added realism for the sake of the game (and I'm not sure this really adds realism). Fifth, on a critical hit, that 3d12 can be trash or treasure, which seems to be what you are after.
Erloas 07-25-06, 12:05 AM	Technically, no. I would preface this answer by saying I stopped reading after this - I'm tired, and don't want to think too much. But, while the rules on their face might seem to imply this, your paragraph description seems to imply that: 1) The steel manufactured sword is masterwork. (that's the easy one) 2) The orc's battleaxe is basically a cudgel with a knife on one end. From this I would rule that the battleaxe is an improvised weapon of some kind (-4 penalty to attacks) that does damage similar to a battleaxe. That sword, however, is masterwork, granting a +1 to attacks. That gives the sword a +5 bonus over the axe. Why is it to attack instead of damage? Because you're talking about cutting through something - armor, specifically, and with the AC system, that means it goes to attack instead of damage. The bizarre amorphous nature of hit points makes it... murky to justify damage increases. Well I did overstate the weapon a bit, but it was to make the point that it really doesn't matter how well the item was made in the first place or how well it has been taken care of, as long it fits the definition of a battle axe (big axe blade on the end of a handle) then its just as good as any other one. Even if that one has been taken well care of and keep sharp and in good shape. And while a very sharp weapon does have a better chance of bypassing armor (bonus to attack vs AC) it would also mean that said weapon has more momentem/force left after getting through the armor to deal more damage to what is benith it (the person) I would keep the bonus to hit the same, mostly because modifying that part of it has to take into account the entire counter balance of AC, where as damage is a one sided system. I really want to try and keep the average of the new system close to the average of old system, but I know given the limitation on dice it will increase the range of damage a bit, giving them lower minimums but higher maxes too, and because of the increase in the number of dice used it will also increase the probability of average rolls and decrease the chance of exceptionally devistation blows. Which I think in the long run (according to many of the sidebars in the DMG) will help the players out more then it will hurt them.
DrWorm 07-25-06, 01:32 AM	Funny thing is I was just thinking about this. Back in the day, durring basic D&D, there was a Blue box expansion (I believe it was expert, or master) and in it there was an extensive list of weapons with damage progressions and special effects based on what was called weapon specializations. It was really cool, and I as recall really balanced. Not only did it represent getting more proficient with weapons, but made otherwise unused weapons have some neat affects. My brother has it somewhere. We ported it over to 2nd Ed, but then stopped playing. We have never really thought about porting it to 3.5. The basic idea was there were basic leves of skill, I think they were: Unskilled, Proficient, Skilled, Expert, Master, Grandmaster. Each class got these proficiencies at differing rates. Battle classes got them faster, and non-battle classes got them slower. However after enough levels even a wizard with his staff could have some cool extra weapon abblities. If you can find it on ebay you might be able to adapt it.
Fraser1986 07-25-06, 07:11 AM	so a d10 weapon progression might go d10 d10+1 d10+2 2d6 2d6+1 2d6+2 (=d10+5) 4d4 4d4+1 4d4+2 3d8 (=d10+9) 3d8+1 3d8+2 Be careful here. Your table has 2d6 as being better than d10+2. Infact the avarage score for d10+2 is 7.5 whereas the avarage score for 2D6 is 7. Furthermore (sorry to be so negative) you appear to have a progression that starts out quite random (with the d10 every score is equally likely) which gets less random (4D4 will give a very low standard deviation) which then gets more random again (3D8 is more random than 4D4)
Cifer 07-25-06, 07:28 AM	And while a very sharp weapon does have a better chance of bypassing armor (bonus to attack vs AC) it would also mean that said weapon has more momentem/force left after getting through the armor to deal more damage to what is benith it (the person) And that is why a professional fighter usually can powerattack, trading the +1 attack for +1 or +2 damage. Saying that the enhancement bonusses represent superior craftsmanship in your game is fine, but I'd avoid doing strange stuff with dice for it.
Erloas 07-25-06, 12:06 PM	Well I was planning on having the progression not take into account temporary effects, such as power attacks, str increasing or decreasing spells, that sort of thing. If you had a weapon that progressed to 3d8 and then got hit with a str penalty it wouldn't de-progress the weapon, it would just do the normal modifier like 3d8-2 or whatever it would be. Or when you raged it wouldn't progress the weapon, just add the bonus so it would chance to 3d8+2. I wouldn't expect the progression to change more often then maybe once every 2-3 sessions, which if I had some tables made would be very little additional paperwork. As for the numbers there, it was just an example, I haven't ran any numbers yet so I really don't know how I would chance it yet. I was hoping someone had some sort of chart already made up to save me the trouble, but I guess I'll have to make one up myself. I'm not looking forward to doing it by hand, and mixed die sizes seems like it would make any simple program exceptionally more complicated. In case I wanted to or ended up needing non-standard combinations like 2d6+1d8. I want the progression to start off more random, but as it progresses it becomes less random but with slightly higher and lower maxes and mins (just happening at a much lower rate) I'll see if I can find anything on the old expansion box, maybe I can use that.
Decepticons 07-25-06, 12:54 PM	Erloas, What you might want to do is check out the WoTC book Weapons of Legacy. They offer progression in terms of the weapon growing more powerful as the character does. I also enjoy the fact that it encourages my PCs to keep their weapons instead of running around looking for the next bigger, badder sword or axe. They also require some sort of event to take place for the PCs to be able to "open" the next stage of weapon power which might be anything from defeating an equal ECL level opponent in single combat with the weapon of legacy to finding a hidden forest and meditating there. In other words, each weapon of legacy can provide adventure paths or hooks, which means less work for you as a DM.