Another weapons topic

[teknoman2]

Various RPGs have various ways of calculating the damage done by weapons and various ways to present it to the player. In DnD you get 1D8 for damage, and that practically is a more elaborate way of saying 1-8 damage. Would you like to see in a weapon's stats 1D8 or 1-8? Personaly i prefer the second since it's the same thing but more clear, however i never liked the idea of weapons doing x-y damage, so i'd rather see a system where the weapons have flat damage and it's the character's stats that determine if the weapon does more or less damage than it's base.

What do you all think?

Edited October 28, 2012 by teknoman2

[Jarmo]

1-8

 

I'm fine with 1d8 but since it's about dice and this is a crpg, it should be done away with already.

First, because it's more confusing to newcomers, and secondly because it misleads developers.

You hardly ever see crpg weapons doing 1-7 or 1-5, just because the ancients didn't have dice like that.

Instead they fall back to silly things like 1d6+1 , which means the weapon does, for some unknown reason

always at least 2 damage and is better than 1d8 weapon in that regard.

 

Second. I'd like the damage the final bonus to come from weapon extra stats + character stats + character skill.

So a master swordsman of equal strength and equal weapons, would still do more damage with each strike,

in addition to connecting with more strikes.

 

Easier example would be of archer, if two archers hit the target every time, but only the other one puts all arrows into the bullseye,

I'd think he'd be more likely to put them into center of the mass or to orcs face on each shot, thus more damage on each shot.

Edited October 28, 2012 by Jarmo

[Hellfell]

1d8 is very very d&d-esque. (derp)

 

They are making new system with new original rules so I'm almost positive it will be x-x

[Tamerlane]

The specific thing with dice is that they can give you a range of damage but will tend towards middling numbers.

 

Compare a weapon that hits for 2d6 with a weapon that hits for 2-12. They are not the same. With the 2-12 weapon, the odds of doing 12 damage are the same as the odds of doing 11 damage or 7 damage or 2 damage. Not so with 2d6. Rolling two six-sided dice, there is only one way to do twelve damage: two sixes. However, there are two ways of getting an 11: 6 and 5 or 5 and 6. There are six ways to do 7 damage:1 and 6, 2 and 5, 3 and 4, 4 and 3, 5 and 2, and 6 and 1. And then there is only one way to do 2 damage: one and one.

 

So instead of a random distribution from two to twelve, what you get is mostly 6-7-8 damage, but also a fair smattering of abnormally high and low damage attacks without relying on critical hits and what-not.

 

Having said all that, I don't care that much what they go with. I'd prefer either the first or third poll choice, but it's not a huge deal to me.

[Nerei]

Personally I would probably go with the 1D8 method, not that it had anything to do with D&D, but it makes for a simple way simulate different types of hits (say 1 glancing and 8 cutting into the thigh or something like that) which without some other modifiers a flat number will have problems with.

Also as have already been mentioned 2d6 does not mean all numbers come out equally, that can help eliminate the extreme outliers. To me rolling a 12 with 2d6 is basically a mini-crit and 2 a mini-botch.

 

Ultimately though what makes for the best method really depends on the other mechanics that I do not know. Part of my reasoning for what I think would be best could be incorporated into other aspects it could be a system that does not need them and would thus make it superflous or even counter-productive to have it here.

[Sensuki]

1d8 is the same as 1-8 it's just presented differently

 

The only difference is that with 1-8 you can make more consistent numbers without it looking ridiculous such as 12-14 damage instead of 1d3+11 damage

[Monte Carlo]

Are we talking about 4E?

 

Weapons do damage dependant on their type / size. Y'know, 1d8 for a trusty longsword, 1d6 for a short-sword, 1d4 for a dagger.

 

Stuff I like:

 

* Different critical hit ranges for different weapons, making in certain circumstances and in the right hands, smaller weapons as powerful as big ones

 

* A blend of weapon type and user strength & skill to calculate damage

 

* The idea that some weapons are better against armoured opponents than others

 

* Some critters having better resistances to weapon 'X' than weapon 'Y' (always agreed with the idea that undead, for example, were more resistant to piercing weapons).

 

I am easy as to, mechanically, how this is achieved as this isn't a pen and paper game. But as a template, you could do worse than 3E / Pathfinder.

[Fridgemagnet]

I prefer not to have static damage, it makes the game feel too predetermined, and just seems unrealistic to me.

 

1d8, 2d8 etc. Works better mechanically as rolls are weighted towards the centre (as others have said earlier) and that just feels like the most accurate system for dice rolls to me.

 

However, it is unclear to people not experienced with cRPGs, and representing something like 1-7 as 2d4-1 can be a bit clunky.

For clarity, I like x-y damage over xdy (Or, more accurately, xd(y/x) damage), but I think it should be representing a system which weights rolls towards the middle, mechanically.

 

Alternatively, a system which ties your roll to hit directly to how much damage you deal could also be interesting. It's been done before in a lot of d10 based systems (White Wolf comes to mind), but that might just be over-complicating things.

[Karkarov]

The dice connotation needs to be removed regardless. We aren't at a kitchen table we are at a computer.

 

So I am going for the 1-8 + - whatever applicable modifiers. That said I don't see a problem with static damage either. There is many things that go into this type of decision and can change what would be the best method. How high is a "strong" characters HP total? Will armor have actual damage reduction, and if so, how much? Will that DR be random or fixed? Will evading an attack be something separate that is determined after a "hit" is calculated or is it just hard factored into how tough it is to land the hit? If it is done separately will it completely negate damage or just reduce it? If it reduces it how much does it take off?

 

Yada yada yada.

[Christliar]

The specific thing with dice is that they can give you a range of damage but will tend towards middling numbers.

 

Compare a weapon that hits for 2d6 with a weapon that hits for 2-12. They are not the same. With the 2-12 weapon, the odds of doing 12 damage are the same as the odds of doing 11 damage or 7 damage or 2 damage. Not so with 2d6. Rolling two six-sided dice, there is only one way to do twelve damage: two sixes. However, there are two ways of getting an 11: 6 and 5 or 5 and 6. There are six ways to do 7 damage:1 and 6, 2 and 5, 3 and 4, 4 and 3, 5 and 2, and 6 and 1. And then there is only one way to do 2 damage: one and one.

 

So instead of a random distribution from two to twelve, what you get is mostly 6-7-8 damage, but also a fair smattering of abnormally high and low damage attacks without relying on critical hits and what-not.

 

Having said all that, I don't care that much what they go with. I'd prefer either the first or third poll choice, but it's not a huge deal to me.

 

This is absolutely true and I say let's keep it at dice rolls - it not only is a way to ensure there's a higher chance to do average damage instead of giving the same percentage to do 2 or 12, It is a "cRPG thing" alla BG, IWD etc. It also keeps developers from giving us too many weapons with "1-6 dmg, but lo! this other one does 2-8" unnecessary micromanagement ad infinitum, which in turn shifts the focus from equipment to character building.

Edited October 28, 2012 by Christliar

[rjshae]

The only reason games used a nice even distribution of damage like 1d8 is because anything else is more complicated and time consuming. But there's no reason they need to do this on a computer. A more realistic approach would likely use a normal distribution, putting the damage on a bell curve. This is very easy to implement using the Box-Muller transform; requiring just two U(0,1) random numbers plus the log, sin, and cos functions. Doing this is trivial on a computer. The game designers would just vary the mean and deviation of the distribution depending on the weapon type and other factors.

[teknoman2]

well i certainly did not like the dice thing... it was way too random. and considering my luck, i tend to get lots of 10- rolls in DnD based games, while the enemies get lots of 15+ rolls making combat a traumatic experience

im all for flat stats. the less combat and other game mechanics are based on seer luck the better.

[JayDGee]

I like elements of random damage but there should be realistic minimums set.

 

If I successfully hit someone with a sledge hammer. Even if they get lucky they are in a world of pain.

 

Please note I do not promote the use of sledgehammer on people. Well not any more the police made it very clear it is frowned upon.

[PK htiw klaw eriF]

Aren't options 1 and 2 pretty much the same?

 

Anyways, I do like the damage to be in a range, rather than a flat number.

[The Guilty Party]

Saying 2d5+3 instead of 5-13 is needlessly obtuse and adds nothing aside from some mild nostalgia. It made a little sense when you were trying to capture people who were familiar with that way of displaying numbers. CRPGs can stand on their own now though, and don't need the help.

[Tamerlane]

Saying 2d5+3 instead of 5-13 is needlessly obtuse and adds nothing aside from some mild nostalgia. It made a little sense when you were trying to capture people who were familiar with that way of displaying numbers. CRPGs can stand on their own now though, and don't need the help.

Scroll up a little bit until you see the first time my handsome-ass avatar shows up in this thread. I did my best to explain why those two things actually are different.

[Jarmo]

They're different but not because it makes sense, only because that's the way the dice rolls.

Or is there a sensible explanation why greatsword 2d6 balances to middle scores,

while both greataxe 1d12 and bastard sword 1d10 are all over the place?

[AlKim]

They're different but not because it makes sense, only because that's the way the dice rolls.

Or is there a sensible explanation why greatsword 2d6 balances to middle scores,

while both greataxe 1d12 and bastard sword 1d10 are all over the place?

I think it's more about balance of game mechanics than anything else. There are craploads of weapons in D&D (3.5e, which is the one I'm most familiar with); giving similar qualities to several different ones would be quite odd.

 

Do remember that 2d6 is still a fairly simple example. For instance, a character with eleven levels of Rogue and nine of Assassin would score 11d6 samage on a Sneak Attack if you count out their equipment and Strength. 22d6 if they've got Telling Blow and they land a critical hit on a Sneak Attack. Sure, you could mark it as "11 - 66 damage" but that doesn't mean you've got an equal chance to deal 66 damage as 30.

 

Personally, I don't mind the die system, but then again I play tabletop games all the time.

Edited October 29, 2012 by AlKim

[BetrayTheWorld]

Saying 2d5+3 instead of 5-13 is needlessly obtuse and adds nothing aside from some mild nostalgia. It made a little sense when you were trying to capture people who were familiar with that way of displaying numbers. CRPGs can stand on their own now though, and don't need the help.

 

I agree with this. As a long-time tabletop RPer, I find this to be unnecessary in cRPGs. Tabletop rpgs would use a better system than this if they could. And since they aren't using D&D or any other table-top license for this game, it makes sense that they simply make any numbers that have to be in the game as succinct as possible. Longsword, Damage: 3-7.

 

Stepping away from the dice systems of the past will also allow them to create differences between weapons that were represented in d&d licensed games as statistically equal. Like short swords and rapiers, daggers and kukris...it would be great if there were more meaningful differences between weapons aside from aesthetic style. Using a non-dice system, in my opinion, better facilitates that.

Edited October 29, 2012 by BetrayTheWorld

[TrashMan]

You are always going ot be limited when you introduce 100 weapons.

I don't mind some simialr weapons having practicly the same stats and being diffeerent in appearance.

There's a limit to how fine you can simulate stuff with small numbers.

And if you put in bigger numbers, the difference just ceases to be statisticly significant.

[mstark]

As long as I don't do 4857-8829 physical + 598-1380 fire damage I'm happy for whatever representation makes the most sense for their system .

 

Using dice measurements is great for nostalgia, I was confused as hell by THAC0 and the whole "1D6" damage the first time I played Baldur's Gate. It took me finishing all of Irenicu's dungeon before I figured out that LOWER AC is actually better than higher (lol).

 

I was 12, barely knew any English (BG2 was the game that made me think knowing other languages could be a good idea, for the first time ever. I sat playing it with a dictionary beside me o_O), I had never tried anything D&D before.

 

None of these things made the game any less great to me, and it certainly developed me as a person, and made me forever love all IE games above all other.

 

/end random story

Edited October 29, 2012 by mstark

[JayDGee]

As long as I don't do 4857-8829 physical + 598-1380 fire damage I'm happy for whatever representation makes the most sense for their system .

 

Using dice measurements is great for nostalgia, I was confused as hell by THAC0 and the whole "1D6" damage the first time I played Baldur's Gate. It took me finishing all of Irenicu's dungeon before I figured out that LOWER AC is actually better than higher (lol).

 

I was 12, barely knew any English (BG2 was the game that made me think knowing other languages could be a good idea, for the first time ever. I sat playing it with a dictionary beside me o_O), I had never tried anything D&D before.

 

None of these things made the game any less great to me, and it certainly developed me as a person, and made me forever love all IE games above all other.

 

/end random story

 

What a lovely story it was, random or not.

[Hormalakh]

I actually really liked what someone else said here on this thread and wanted to expand on it. Firstly, I don't like either 2-8 or 2d4 or any variation of that. I played old IE games for many years without understanding exactly what those meant and I hated it. It was too complicated for me.

 

My proposal. Make the whole thing have a range, but base damages on probabilities that are skill-based. For example, you have a sword that does a damage range of 2-12 fatigue points, and 1-3 health points. Then you utilize both randomization and probability. This post requires some understanding of probabilities so go here if you don't understand what I'm talking about: http://en.wikipedia....on_distribution

 

At a low character skill, you have the same range-distribution (2-12/1-3), but at a lower-mean for a Poisson distribution. Therefore, while you are likely to hit with 12/3, it is extremely rare. It is more likely to hit with a 2-4/1 range than anything else.

 

At a medium character skill, again you have the same range-distribution (2-12/1-3), but at a gaussian/normal distribution. Therefore, you are just as likely to hit 12/3 as you are 2/1, but you are more likely to fall in the median range of 6-8/2.

 

At a high character skill: again, same range-distribution (2-12/1-3), but at a Poisson distribution with a high median around 10/3. Thus, much more likely to hit at higher ranges.

 

For those who like pictures, here are the differences. The abscissa (x-axis) is the fatigue hit and the ordinate (y-axis) is the probability for that. I didn't graph the hit-point damage.

 

You can then also have different weapons with the same range-distribution, but with different coefficients of variance. So maybe at medium skill one weapon is more likely to have a wider variance than another weapon.

 

http://en.wikipedia....al_distribution

 

What do you guys think?

Edited October 29, 2012 by Hormalakh

[Greensleeve]

-snip-

 

What do you guys think?

 

This is actually a pretty good idea. The only immediate problem with it all is that all of this information needs to be easily and readily available to the gamer on the character sheet or equivalent. I suppose you could have something like "Median Range: XX-XX/X-X" or something, but it could get really quite cumbersome to keep track of. Very good idea though.

[Hormalakh]

Eh, not really... if the concept is understood by most players, then you can always assume that a weapon will give higher damage with increased skill. The standard deviation bit might be a little difficult to convey, but I'm sure they can figure out a way of conveying that. Maybe a graph like I showed. Have a "standard" curve for like a simple "sword" always hitting 2-8 with a standard deviation of 2. Then everything is always compared to that standard.

 

The good thing about this is that these all already have equations that a computer can quickly calculate. he only difficulty with this is if this game becomes Pen and Paper, maybe they can give a software program that calculates the damages for you. You could always use a calculator too.

 

Edit: Also, I just realized the irony of xDy damages being confusing for me when I was young, and now coming up with a much more complicated system.

Edited October 29, 2012 by Hormalakh