Weapon Damage: An Attempt At Accuracy - Downloaded from the Wizards Community, all coding removed by Solauren

Weapon Damage: An Attempt At Accuracy

Post/Author/DateTime Post
#1
zombiegleemax
May 11, 2006 13:17:49 Under the standard rules of D&D, weapons can be used in a limited way, dealing only certain kinds of damage. In the real world, of course, this is not the case, and a warrior is able to improvise as they see fit, using a weapon as needed for the situation. Even in fantasy stories, we hear of knights striking foes with the hilt or flat of the blade on their sword, or of the dwarf who knocks out the goblin guard with the haft of his axe. So, we must ask is "Why not in D&D?"

It would seem that in a world where anything is possible, and a player has only to imagine something before finding a way to do it, that we should at least have the luxury of choosing how to wield our own weapons. Alas, with preset damage types, this is not possible, save through houseruling. However, what if weapons had, not one, but two damage types? One for normal damage and one for a secondary or alternate damage. Under this system, a rapier might be Primary: piercing, Secondary: Slashing and a broadsword might be Primary: slashing, Secondary: piercing or bludgeoning.

Of course, there must be some difference between these damage categories, or the system falls apart. For the sake of example, let us say that a weapon's secondary damage has two properties to distinguish it. First, we shall say that the damage die for secondary damage is reduced by one die category. Secondly, the critical on secondary damage should be a 20/x2, regardless of the normal damage. In this way, players are encouraged to use standard damage.
#2
verelor
Jun 19, 2006 18:04:26 Jethren, this would have been a great begininning or a good first one-half of an informative article, but as it currently is, you really didn't take this one far enough. But it is a good idea you bring forth; I give you props for that.
#3
sinaz
Jun 19, 2006 18:28:05 You seem to want to house-rule roleplaying. I haven't encountered a gaming group yet that considers thwacking someone atop the head with the butt of a dagger piercing or slashing damage. Or the improvisation of manually stabbing someone with an arrow a ranged attack.

The rules are a guideline... its up to the DM to adjudicate the nuances of the players' imagination. The core books actually have some rules, variances, and suggestions about this.
#4
highbulp
Jun 19, 2006 19:03:02 Interesting suggestion. Of course, what's to stop a weapon from having three or more types of damage?

It seems there are a number of mechanics already in place. Usually if you hit someone with the flat of the blade, it's because you're trying not to kill them. Hence, you take a -4 to attack (because it's an odd maneuver) and do subdual damage. If you want to attack someone with the shaft of your spear rather than the head, you're using an improvised weapon: -4 to attack.

You might get more milage thinking of more combat mechanics, like the subdual strike, rather than just giving weapons another type of damage. Or perhaps a feat that lets you improvise weapons better, so that you can perform such maneuvers.
#5
zombiegleemax
Jun 19, 2006 21:42:13 It would seem to me that the -4 penalty taken for dealing subdual damage is representative of your example of hitting an opponent with the flat or hilt of the blade. Making the "alternate strike" deal bludgeoning damage would make sense, however, and it shouldn't be too hard to convince your DM to allow it.
#6
amatulic
Jun 19, 2006 22:33:51
Under the standard rules of D&D, weapons can be used in a limited way, dealing only certain kinds of damage. In the real world, of course, this is not the case, and a warrior is able to improvise as they see fit, using a weapon as needed for the situation. Even in fantasy stories, we hear of knights striking foes with the hilt or flat of the blade on their sword, or of the dwarf who knocks out the goblin guard with the haft of his axe. So, we must ask is "Why not in D&D?"

Why not, indeed.

Page 113 of the Player's Handbook already addresses improvised weapons. In this case, you're not improvising a mundane object as a weapon, rather you're improvising one weapon as another kind of weapon. Improvised weapons deal the same damage as the weapon they're imitating, have 20/x2 critical threat/damage, and a range increment of 10 feet when thrown.

In all the examples cited above, the improvised weapon serves as a club: a simple melee weapon, 1d6 base damage, 20/x2 critical. The DM and players can come to an agreement beforehand whether or not any magical enhancements would apply when using a weapon "wrongly" thus; however, I'd be inclined to rule that a +2 flaming keen scimitar employed as a club deals the same damage as any other object improvised as a club, 1d6 base damage.

Similarly, a player could stab a foe rather than slash with that same scimitar, for a damage similar to an unenhanced rapier. Or slash with a rapier with the same damage as an unenhanced sword. Or throw a sword with the same damage as a thrown spear.

I don't think improvisation needs to be as complex as Jethren proposes.
-Alex
#7
stargate525
Jun 19, 2006 23:08:35
Of course, there must be some difference between these damage categories, or the system falls apart. For the sake of example, let us say that a weapon's secondary damage has two properties to distinguish it. First, we shall say that the damage die for secondary damage is reduced by one die category. Secondly, the critical on secondary damage should be a 20/x2, regardless of the normal damage. In this way, players are encouraged to use standard damage.

I would say that the damage goes down by one die, and the crit goes down by one. For instance a (theoretical) weapon doing 19-20x3 would be reduced to x3. a x3 would go down to a x2, and a x2 weapon cannot crit on secondary damage.
#8
cantankerous
Jun 20, 2006 3:54:30 D&D needs accuracy almost as much as a ship needs wheels.

Hit points and the entire ideal that the combat system is founded on is utterly unsuited to any kind of accuracy. Too, most weapons for which there is more than a single "useful" weapon damage category already have them.

For instance, Daggers do piercing and slashing damage and you can do subdual (which is obviously blunt damage, striking with the pummel) with them as well, simply by stating the intent and taking the appropriate penalty.

Anything more "realistic" than that falls apart with the entire hit point damage structure.
Isshia
#9
sphyre
Jun 20, 2006 7:24:34 I believe that there is a rule in D&D that covers this.

Improvised Weapons: Sometimes objects not crafted to be weapons nonetheless see use in combat. Because such objects are not designed for this use, any creature that uses one in combat is considered to be nonproficient with it and takes a –4 penalty on attack rolls made with that object. To determine the size category and appropriate damage for an improvised weapon, compare its relative size and damage potential to the weapon list to find a reasonable match. An improvised weapon scores a threat on a natural roll of 20 and deals double damage on a critical hit. An improvised thrown weapon has a range increment of 10 feet.

While using the flat of a blade is not the intended design of a sword, it is entirely possible to use it. Taking a -4 to hit, would allow you to deal bludgeoning or subdual damage with a sword that you otherwise would hurt someone with. While a bastard sword may not be designed for throwing, you could certainly throw it to try to damage your opponent. By applying the Improvised weapons rules to normal weapons, you can achieve the desired result without too much trouble.
#10
gilean_dup
Jun 20, 2006 10:17:32 Why not just let the players describe how they do stuff, maybe giving a minor bonus for cool descriptions?
#11
oravennasbrother
Jun 20, 2006 11:31:27 Or let the improvised non-standard use of weapons be played using the existing rules on improvised weapons. You might even house rule to allow proficiency with "non-standard" uses of weapons to be covered by the general proficiency with that weapon. In either case, allowing a secondary use which won't be used (except to overcome things like DR 10/Bludgeoning) won't make a big difference.
#12
bester
Jun 20, 2006 12:30:01
Of course, there must be some difference between these damage categories, or the system falls apart. For the sake of example, let us say that a weapon's secondary damage has two properties to distinguish it. First, we shall say that the damage die for secondary damage is reduced by one die category. Secondly, the critical on secondary damage should be a 20/x2, regardless of the normal damage. In this way, players are encouraged to use standard damage.

This is similar to how I treat weapons in my campaign. If a secondary damage of a weapon is logical, it may be used with a -4 penalty to the attack roll. Crits are reduced by one in both range and multiplier (to a minimum of 20/x2).

Specific circumstances (like using a rapier to slice through web or other unattended object) allow a character to ignore the -4 attack penalty. Weapon Focus with a weapon also negates the penalty.

Reducing the damage die by one step seems like a neat idea, too. I'll have to consider it. I may include that, but I may also allow Weapon Focus to bring it back up.
#13
zombiegleemax
Jun 20, 2006 13:58:56
Even in fantasy stories, we hear of knights striking foes with the hilt or flat of the blade on their sword, or of the dwarf who knocks out the goblin guard with the haft of his axe. So, we must ask is "Why not in D&D?"

I agree in general - in my experience, this type of thing isn't attempted in-game very often. But the answer to your question is that there's no reason at all why you can't do this in D&D - these examples are all covered by the rules:
Nonlethal Damage with a Weapon that Deals Lethal Damage: You can use a melee weapon that deals lethal damage to deal nonlethal damage instead, but you take a –4 penalty on your attack roll.

IIRC the PHB text specifically lists striking with the flat of a sword's blade as an example. Also:
Improvised Weapons: Sometimes objects not crafted to be weapons nonetheless see use in combat. Because such objects are not designed for this use, any creature that uses one in combat is considered to be nonproficient with it and takes a –4 penalty on attack rolls made with that object. To determine the size category and appropriate damage for an improvised weapon, compare its relative size and damage potential to the weapon list to find a reasonable match. An improvised weapon scores a threat on a natural roll of 20 and deals double damage on a critical hit. An improvised thrown weapon has a range increment of 10 feet.

As a few others have mentioned, there's no reason you couldn't use this rule to allow characters to deal different damage types with items that are crafted to be weapons as well (i.e. bludgeoning an enemy with the hilt of one's longsword, or stabbing them with a sai to deal piercing damage). I like your idea that when the improvised weapon is an actual weapon (as opposed to a table leg or a wine bottle), using a reduced damage die would probably be simpler and more consistent than looking for a "reasonable" match from the weapons list as per the improvised weapons rule (although the -4 penalty might be enough incentive to keep PCs using their weapons as intended most of the time without reducing the base damage as well). I'd also say that you could do without the secondary damage types, so long as the player can provide some reasonable explanation of how the weapon they're using would deal the selected damage type - I'd be hard-pressed to let them deal piercing damage with a whip, for instance.

The main difference between this and your houserule is using the standard -4 penalty on attack rolls with improvised weapons or lethal weapons used to subdue, and dropping the secondary damage types. Other than the reduced damage die variant for improvised damage types, this is already totally legal.

Kang
#14
zombiegleemax
Jun 20, 2006 18:45:36 In all honesty, I'm not the least bit surprised that I've received more criticism than praise for this submission. I was greatly pressed for time and ended up writing a much shorter piece than I had intended. In actuality, I only hit Submit in the hopes that my article would be sent back to me for editing, as I didn't have a disk to save it on at the time. Finding that it was actually posted in its present form is a surprise.

While I freely admit that for most purposes, defining alternate damage as being either nonlethal or improvised with the appropriate penalty is fine, I do not believe that this covers the full range of possibilities. For example, using a rapier to perform a slashing attack is clearly not a nonlethal attack, but it is also not an improvised weapon. A rapier can be used to slash, as it has a blade, though it is not its primary function...hence, a second damage type. Similarly, any knife or sword (with the exception of certain exotic types) can, having both a blade and a point, pierce or slash at the wielder's choice, and both fall within the realm of normal uses for the weapon, yet some do not possess both damage types, as they are commonly used in only the most effective way. What I am suggesting is not to rule for every way in which a weapon can be used, but merely the ways in which a weapon is built to be used.

A weapon's damage type, as written, shows the most common and effective way(s) in which it is used. A second damage type would simply show any other way(s) that a weapon might be employed without improvising, with reduced effectiveness. I would further suggest, though I did not mention it originally, that the damage type a weapon normally uses for nonlethal attacks be listed, or that the notation (L)Lethal or (S)Subdual could be included in a weapon's damage entry. This is not to houserule roleplaying, but rather to provide a mechanical foundation for complex tactics. As certain monsters are best overcome by certain types of damage, it is quite helpful to know which weapons can be used to deal such damage without having to carry an arsenal on one's back. If, for example, your party has between them two bows, five daggers, and three longswords, it is comforting to know that you can check which one is best to use against the monster with DR 2/Bludgeoning.

In regards to one of the few replies I received that wasn't telling me why I wasted my time in writing this article, stargate525 suggests having the critical go down by one category, rather than an arbitrary reduction to 20/x2. I had considered this, however, I feel that it would be, in the first place, unnecessarily complicating what is already a more complex system, and in the second place, would be ridiculous with certain weapons.

I would also like to take this chance to add a suggestion I did not have the time to post the first time. This is the addition of a fourth damage category. The fourth category I propose is rending. While slashing damage does a fine job of defining most cuts, there are certain kinds of wounds that do not necessarily fall into this category. In cases where flesh is torn or shredded, rather than simply cut open, this type of damage would apply. Weapons that might have this damage type would include the spiked chain or hooked weapons, like the sickle or scythe.

I hope that I have made my views on the subject clear, and that there are those that I have convinced. My view isn't the only one which can be taken, but it should not fail to be considered. Thank you.
#15
ineednosalt
Jun 20, 2006 23:26:07
Why not just let the players describe how they do stuff, maybe giving a minor bonus for cool descriptions?

Exalted gives bonuses for awesome actions and descriptions, and it is a fine idea that any system should implement.
#16
ghostwheel
Jun 21, 2006 0:40:15 If you look at an encyclopedia of archaic weapons, you will see that most European 2-handed swords have an unsharpened portion of the blade just before the quillions. This was there to make it possible for the wielder to safely grasp it for stabbing purposes.

However, unless you were going to give the greatsword both slashing and piercing damage types, nothing needs to be changed mechanically. The weapon works fine within the rules as it is. As can be said for most of the weapons in the PHB list.

That will be 2-cents, please.
#17
gilean_dup
Jun 26, 2006 11:09:48
Exalted gives bonuses for awesome actions and descriptions, and it is a fine idea that any system should implement.

As does Sorcerer and many other modern RPGs.
For a more radical approach, see Wushu.

Stunting is pretty much a purely positive spin on player description. Bonuses ranging from +1 to +4 could be appropriate in D&D. I see no point in not using it.

For the uninitiated: Describe your action in a cool way, get a bonus. You can add minor details to environment while doing it.

Post/Author/DateTime	Post
#1 zombiegleemax May 11, 2006 13:17:49	Under the standard rules of D&D, weapons can be used in a limited way, dealing only certain kinds of damage. In the real world, of course, this is not the case, and a warrior is able to improvise as they see fit, using a weapon as needed for the situation. Even in fantasy stories, we hear of knights striking foes with the hilt or flat of the blade on their sword, or of the dwarf who knocks out the goblin guard with the haft of his axe. So, we must ask is "Why not in D&D?" It would seem that in a world where anything is possible, and a player has only to imagine something before finding a way to do it, that we should at least have the luxury of choosing how to wield our own weapons. Alas, with preset damage types, this is not possible, save through houseruling. However, what if weapons had, not one, but two damage types? One for normal damage and one for a secondary or alternate damage. Under this system, a rapier might be Primary: piercing, Secondary: Slashing and a broadsword might be Primary: slashing, Secondary: piercing or bludgeoning. Of course, there must be some difference between these damage categories, or the system falls apart. For the sake of example, let us say that a weapon's secondary damage has two properties to distinguish it. First, we shall say that the damage die for secondary damage is reduced by one die category. Secondly, the critical on secondary damage should be a 20/x2, regardless of the normal damage. In this way, players are encouraged to use standard damage.
#2 verelor Jun 19, 2006 18:04:26	Jethren, this would have been a great begininning or a good first one-half of an informative article, but as it currently is, you really didn't take this one far enough. But it is a good idea you bring forth; I give you props for that.
#3 sinaz Jun 19, 2006 18:28:05	You seem to want to house-rule roleplaying. I haven't encountered a gaming group yet that considers thwacking someone atop the head with the butt of a dagger piercing or slashing damage. Or the improvisation of manually stabbing someone with an arrow a ranged attack. The rules are a guideline... its up to the DM to adjudicate the nuances of the players' imagination. The core books actually have some rules, variances, and suggestions about this.
#4 highbulp Jun 19, 2006 19:03:02	Interesting suggestion. Of course, what's to stop a weapon from having three or more types of damage? It seems there are a number of mechanics already in place. Usually if you hit someone with the flat of the blade, it's because you're trying not to kill them. Hence, you take a -4 to attack (because it's an odd maneuver) and do subdual damage. If you want to attack someone with the shaft of your spear rather than the head, you're using an improvised weapon: -4 to attack. You might get more milage thinking of more combat mechanics, like the subdual strike, rather than just giving weapons another type of damage. Or perhaps a feat that lets you improvise weapons better, so that you can perform such maneuvers.
#5 zombiegleemax Jun 19, 2006 21:42:13	It would seem to me that the -4 penalty taken for dealing subdual damage is representative of your example of hitting an opponent with the flat or hilt of the blade. Making the "alternate strike" deal bludgeoning damage would make sense, however, and it shouldn't be too hard to convince your DM to allow it.
#6 amatulic Jun 19, 2006 22:33:51	Under the standard rules of D&D, weapons can be used in a limited way, dealing only certain kinds of damage. In the real world, of course, this is not the case, and a warrior is able to improvise as they see fit, using a weapon as needed for the situation. Even in fantasy stories, we hear of knights striking foes with the hilt or flat of the blade on their sword, or of the dwarf who knocks out the goblin guard with the haft of his axe. So, we must ask is "Why not in D&D?" Why not, indeed. Page 113 of the Player's Handbook already addresses improvised weapons. In this case, you're not improvising a mundane object as a weapon, rather you're improvising one weapon as another kind of weapon. Improvised weapons deal the same damage as the weapon they're imitating, have 20/x2 critical threat/damage, and a range increment of 10 feet when thrown. In all the examples cited above, the improvised weapon serves as a club: a simple melee weapon, 1d6 base damage, 20/x2 critical. The DM and players can come to an agreement beforehand whether or not any magical enhancements would apply when using a weapon "wrongly" thus; however, I'd be inclined to rule that a +2 flaming keen scimitar employed as a club deals the same damage as any other object improvised as a club, 1d6 base damage. Similarly, a player could stab a foe rather than slash with that same scimitar, for a damage similar to an unenhanced rapier. Or slash with a rapier with the same damage as an unenhanced sword. Or throw a sword with the same damage as a thrown spear. I don't think improvisation needs to be as complex as Jethren proposes. -Alex
#7 stargate525 Jun 19, 2006 23:08:35	Of course, there must be some difference between these damage categories, or the system falls apart. For the sake of example, let us say that a weapon's secondary damage has two properties to distinguish it. First, we shall say that the damage die for secondary damage is reduced by one die category. Secondly, the critical on secondary damage should be a 20/x2, regardless of the normal damage. In this way, players are encouraged to use standard damage. I would say that the damage goes down by one die, and the crit goes down by one. For instance a (theoretical) weapon doing 19-20x3 would be reduced to x3. a x3 would go down to a x2, and a x2 weapon cannot crit on secondary damage.
#8 cantankerous Jun 20, 2006 3:54:30	D&D needs accuracy almost as much as a ship needs wheels. Hit points and the entire ideal that the combat system is founded on is utterly unsuited to any kind of accuracy. Too, most weapons for which there is more than a single "useful" weapon damage category already have them. For instance, Daggers do piercing and slashing damage and you can do subdual (which is obviously blunt damage, striking with the pummel) with them as well, simply by stating the intent and taking the appropriate penalty. Anything more "realistic" than that falls apart with the entire hit point damage structure. Isshia
#9 sphyre Jun 20, 2006 7:24:34	I believe that there is a rule in D&D that covers this. Improvised Weapons: Sometimes objects not crafted to be weapons nonetheless see use in combat. Because such objects are not designed for this use, any creature that uses one in combat is considered to be nonproficient with it and takes a –4 penalty on attack rolls made with that object. To determine the size category and appropriate damage for an improvised weapon, compare its relative size and damage potential to the weapon list to find a reasonable match. An improvised weapon scores a threat on a natural roll of 20 and deals double damage on a critical hit. An improvised thrown weapon has a range increment of 10 feet. While using the flat of a blade is not the intended design of a sword, it is entirely possible to use it. Taking a -4 to hit, would allow you to deal bludgeoning or subdual damage with a sword that you otherwise would hurt someone with. While a bastard sword may not be designed for throwing, you could certainly throw it to try to damage your opponent. By applying the Improvised weapons rules to normal weapons, you can achieve the desired result without too much trouble.
#10 gilean_dup Jun 20, 2006 10:17:32	Why not just let the players describe how they do stuff, maybe giving a minor bonus for cool descriptions?
#11 oravennasbrother Jun 20, 2006 11:31:27	Or let the improvised non-standard use of weapons be played using the existing rules on improvised weapons. You might even house rule to allow proficiency with "non-standard" uses of weapons to be covered by the general proficiency with that weapon. In either case, allowing a secondary use which won't be used (except to overcome things like DR 10/Bludgeoning) won't make a big difference.
#12 bester Jun 20, 2006 12:30:01	Of course, there must be some difference between these damage categories, or the system falls apart. For the sake of example, let us say that a weapon's secondary damage has two properties to distinguish it. First, we shall say that the damage die for secondary damage is reduced by one die category. Secondly, the critical on secondary damage should be a 20/x2, regardless of the normal damage. In this way, players are encouraged to use standard damage. This is similar to how I treat weapons in my campaign. If a secondary damage of a weapon is logical, it may be used with a -4 penalty to the attack roll. Crits are reduced by one in both range and multiplier (to a minimum of 20/x2). Specific circumstances (like using a rapier to slice through web or other unattended object) allow a character to ignore the -4 attack penalty. Weapon Focus with a weapon also negates the penalty. Reducing the damage die by one step seems like a neat idea, too. I'll have to consider it. I may include that, but I may also allow Weapon Focus to bring it back up.
#13 zombiegleemax Jun 20, 2006 13:58:56	Even in fantasy stories, we hear of knights striking foes with the hilt or flat of the blade on their sword, or of the dwarf who knocks out the goblin guard with the haft of his axe. So, we must ask is "Why not in D&D?" I agree in general - in my experience, this type of thing isn't attempted in-game very often. But the answer to your question is that there's no reason at all why you can't do this in D&D - these examples are all covered by the rules: Nonlethal Damage with a Weapon that Deals Lethal Damage: You can use a melee weapon that deals lethal damage to deal nonlethal damage instead, but you take a –4 penalty on your attack roll. IIRC the PHB text specifically lists striking with the flat of a sword's blade as an example. Also: Improvised Weapons: Sometimes objects not crafted to be weapons nonetheless see use in combat. Because such objects are not designed for this use, any creature that uses one in combat is considered to be nonproficient with it and takes a –4 penalty on attack rolls made with that object. To determine the size category and appropriate damage for an improvised weapon, compare its relative size and damage potential to the weapon list to find a reasonable match. An improvised weapon scores a threat on a natural roll of 20 and deals double damage on a critical hit. An improvised thrown weapon has a range increment of 10 feet. As a few others have mentioned, there's no reason you couldn't use this rule to allow characters to deal different damage types with items that are crafted to be weapons as well (i.e. bludgeoning an enemy with the hilt of one's longsword, or stabbing them with a sai to deal piercing damage). I like your idea that when the improvised weapon is an actual weapon (as opposed to a table leg or a wine bottle), using a reduced damage die would probably be simpler and more consistent than looking for a "reasonable" match from the weapons list as per the improvised weapons rule (although the -4 penalty might be enough incentive to keep PCs using their weapons as intended most of the time without reducing the base damage as well). I'd also say that you could do without the secondary damage types, so long as the player can provide some reasonable explanation of how the weapon they're using would deal the selected damage type - I'd be hard-pressed to let them deal piercing damage with a whip, for instance. The main difference between this and your houserule is using the standard -4 penalty on attack rolls with improvised weapons or lethal weapons used to subdue, and dropping the secondary damage types. Other than the reduced damage die variant for improvised damage types, this is already totally legal. Kang
#14 zombiegleemax Jun 20, 2006 18:45:36	In all honesty, I'm not the least bit surprised that I've received more criticism than praise for this submission. I was greatly pressed for time and ended up writing a much shorter piece than I had intended. In actuality, I only hit Submit in the hopes that my article would be sent back to me for editing, as I didn't have a disk to save it on at the time. Finding that it was actually posted in its present form is a surprise. While I freely admit that for most purposes, defining alternate damage as being either nonlethal or improvised with the appropriate penalty is fine, I do not believe that this covers the full range of possibilities. For example, using a rapier to perform a slashing attack is clearly not a nonlethal attack, but it is also not an improvised weapon. A rapier can be used to slash, as it has a blade, though it is not its primary function...hence, a second damage type. Similarly, any knife or sword (with the exception of certain exotic types) can, having both a blade and a point, pierce or slash at the wielder's choice, and both fall within the realm of normal uses for the weapon, yet some do not possess both damage types, as they are commonly used in only the most effective way. What I am suggesting is not to rule for every way in which a weapon can be used, but merely the ways in which a weapon is built to be used. A weapon's damage type, as written, shows the most common and effective way(s) in which it is used. A second damage type would simply show any other way(s) that a weapon might be employed without improvising, with reduced effectiveness. I would further suggest, though I did not mention it originally, that the damage type a weapon normally uses for nonlethal attacks be listed, or that the notation (L)Lethal or (S)Subdual could be included in a weapon's damage entry. This is not to houserule roleplaying, but rather to provide a mechanical foundation for complex tactics. As certain monsters are best overcome by certain types of damage, it is quite helpful to know which weapons can be used to deal such damage without having to carry an arsenal on one's back. If, for example, your party has between them two bows, five daggers, and three longswords, it is comforting to know that you can check which one is best to use against the monster with DR 2/Bludgeoning. In regards to one of the few replies I received that wasn't telling me why I wasted my time in writing this article, stargate525 suggests having the critical go down by one category, rather than an arbitrary reduction to 20/x2. I had considered this, however, I feel that it would be, in the first place, unnecessarily complicating what is already a more complex system, and in the second place, would be ridiculous with certain weapons. I would also like to take this chance to add a suggestion I did not have the time to post the first time. This is the addition of a fourth damage category. The fourth category I propose is rending. While slashing damage does a fine job of defining most cuts, there are certain kinds of wounds that do not necessarily fall into this category. In cases where flesh is torn or shredded, rather than simply cut open, this type of damage would apply. Weapons that might have this damage type would include the spiked chain or hooked weapons, like the sickle or scythe. I hope that I have made my views on the subject clear, and that there are those that I have convinced. My view isn't the only one which can be taken, but it should not fail to be considered. Thank you.
#15 ineednosalt Jun 20, 2006 23:26:07	Why not just let the players describe how they do stuff, maybe giving a minor bonus for cool descriptions? Exalted gives bonuses for awesome actions and descriptions, and it is a fine idea that any system should implement.
#16 ghostwheel Jun 21, 2006 0:40:15	If you look at an encyclopedia of archaic weapons, you will see that most European 2-handed swords have an unsharpened portion of the blade just before the quillions. This was there to make it possible for the wielder to safely grasp it for stabbing purposes. However, unless you were going to give the greatsword both slashing and piercing damage types, nothing needs to be changed mechanically. The weapon works fine within the rules as it is. As can be said for most of the weapons in the PHB list. That will be 2-cents, please.
#17 gilean_dup Jun 26, 2006 11:09:48	Exalted gives bonuses for awesome actions and descriptions, and it is a fine idea that any system should implement. As does Sorcerer and many other modern RPGs. For a more radical approach, see Wushu. Stunting is pretty much a purely positive spin on player description. Bonuses ranging from +1 to +4 could be appropriate in D&D. I see no point in not using it. For the uninitiated: Describe your action in a cool way, get a bonus. You can add minor details to environment while doing it.