PDA

View Full Version : Weapon Damage Question / Suggestion



Joseph
08-26-2010, 03:56 AM
It seems odd to me that a flaming dagger does the same amount of 'extra' damage that a flaming great sword does. I look at it like the difference between a candle and a torch.

What would happen to overall weapon damage modifiers if weapon burst damage (such as elemental) was calculated from base weapon damage instead of the 1d10 it is currently based from?

In the case of a Flaming Burst Dagger (1d4@19-20x2):

1d4 weapon damage
1d4 flaming damage
1d4 burst damage (small dagger = small fire)

In the case of a Flaming Burst Great Sword (2d6@19-20x2):

2d6 weapon damage
2d6 flaming damage
2d6 burst damage (great sword = great fire).


Even if the base element damage (flaming) was changed to 50% of the base weapon damage (1d2 for dagger and 1d6 for great sword - the 'burst' damage still makes more sense when it is weapon size appropriate - like a 'burst of 1d4 on a small dagger, or a 'burst' of 2d6 on a huge great sword - keeping in mind that it is 1d10 at present).

I'm not so much asking for a change as I am looking for thoughts on the subject.

Adarro
08-26-2010, 04:03 AM
I think it depends on your perspective of 'where' the damage comes from.

If the 'burst effect' is magical, then giving it the power to say... spew fireballs wouldn't really matter whether it was an Ox Cleaver or a pen knife, the fireballs gonna be a fireball.

If its physical, then I agree the splash damage should be proportionate to the splash, and a great sword should never make the same splash as a dagger.

Tumarek
08-26-2010, 04:16 AM
Well its magic..

ask any wizard, they will assure you size doesnt matter!

Dawnsfire
08-26-2010, 04:47 AM
Well its magic..

ask any wizard, they will assure you size doesnt matter!

Aussieee begs to differ (http://forums.ddo.com/showthread.php?t=270929) :eek:

Dunklerlindwurm
08-26-2010, 04:53 AM
Small Weapons are already gimped/unused why make them even worse? You can remove them completly from the game then.

Joseph
08-26-2010, 05:01 AM
In the words of Bullwinkle, "I think I shall now be sick."

:D

TheDearLeader
08-26-2010, 05:21 AM
This would take more coding, and retract from them fixing all the things currently broke.
This would require a re-work of every named weapon, see above.

And, the most important, this game does at least attempt to emulate a lot of the features of the original Dungeons and Dragons. And, according to 3.5, flaming is a d6, flaming burst is d10/2d10/3d10. It is a magically enchanted effect on an otherwise masterwork weapon.

I appreciate your input, however I can't agree with this line of thinking.

Joseph
08-26-2010, 05:51 AM
I was more just considering the Khopesh issues (summed up in terms of a bullet that was slightly off target going several miles farther than anyone had ever considered it possible to go), and that got me to wondering about alternate modifications that would not break the rest of the system, which in turn got me to wondering how the initial modifiers for weapon effect damage were calculated.

I very much agree that there are far more important things than this if one were to change game mechanics, and I also agree that it would make daggers basically worthless - but I was more curious on the thoughts people had as to the how and why behind it - but as mentioned initially, I am not suggesting a change - more just discussing, thinking out loud.

For those who understood my post - I agree that the magic 'burst' part could be independent of the weapon, but the elemental damage should be based on weapon type - I mean, a flaming dagger has a LOT less surface burn than a flaming great sword.

Think of it like the flaming dagger is that tiny George Foreman, while the Great Sword is the Webber Master Grill. One just cooks faster.

(perhaps this is in the wrong thread?)

zealous
08-26-2010, 06:07 AM
It seems odd to me that a flaming dagger does the same amount of 'extra' damage that a flaming great sword does. I look at it like the difference between a candle and a torch.

What would happen to overall weapon damage modifiers if weapon burst damage (such as elemental) was calculated from base weapon damage instead of the 1d10 it is currently based from?

While the coupling between esthetics and game mechanics in my mind bears scant importance, just because a falchion looks better when swung slightly slower..., the idea itself has some merit from a mechanistic point of view.

Looking at the 3.5 system it seems to be designed for fairly low magic settings and for low levels. E.g. ls vs. scimitar, a difference in base damage of 1 appears to be thought to be balanced with a difference of 1 in threat range.

Now DDO is far from a low level low magic setting which has some imbalancing implications.

In DDO a increase of 1 to crit range is obviously far more beneficial to a increase of 1 damage. The existence of adding 5 or more extra damage dice to each attack as well as scaled up boosts to base damage applied equally to both main and off hand, heavily favors 2wf.

Having weapon effects scale according to base damage could be a way to reduce imbalance if done right.


This would take more coding, and retract from them fixing all the things currently broke.
This would require a re-work of every named weapon, see above.

Depending on how weapon effects are implemented this should simply be the matter of changing the effects themselves.

E.g. Burst effects could be implemented as Adifferent burst effects with a different burst based on weapon they are placed on. Alternatively they could be implemented as B the same burst effect and determine the burst based on the weapon.
Likewise the burst could be X placed directly on the weapon or Y the weapon would only receive a reference to the burst effect. I.e. Either all weapons have a unique burst or they reference the same one.

To illustrate, Let's say I'm having a costume party and I want all the lads dress in one way and all the ladies dress in another way.
For the invitation I could A) have two separate invitations for lads and ladies detailing their respective costumes or B) detail "lads dress like this, ladies like this". I could also X) send the invitation on a paper by snail mail or Y) mail them a link to a online document where the invitation is detailed.

Now if I changed my mind and wanted to change it from a 70s party to a pirate themed party what I would have to do would be dependent on my choices for the invitation.
A/B would determine if I would need to change 1 or 2 documents whereas X/Y would change how much of a hassle it would be to change the invitation.

The drawback of B would be that people would need to think about what gender they are and the drawback of Y that checking the email might be more work than checking the paper invitation.

Aesop
08-26-2010, 06:08 AM
same energy just different concentrations

if anything I'd say the great sword would do less Flame damage in this case.


think about an acetylene torch. ignited it spews out a large flame but that flame isn't concentrated enough to cut through metal... its only when you concentrate the flame down to a much smaller point that it becomes potent enough to cut through.


or think of a hose. without something to focus the stream in a smaller area it kinda just blubs out but with a smaller area to pass through it suddenly becomes a hard fast stream


Aesop

Nospheratus
08-26-2010, 06:09 AM
This would take more coding, and retract from them fixing all the things currently broke.
This would require a re-work of every named weapon, see above.

And, the most important, this game does at least attempt to emulate a lot of the features of the original Dungeons and Dragons. And, according to 3.5, flaming is a d6, flaming burst is d10/2d10/3d10. It is a magically enchanted effect on an otherwise masterwork weapon.

I appreciate your input, however I can't agree with this line of thinking.

Special effects, such as flaming, can only be added to weapons with an enhancement bonus of at least +1. The same goes for armor.


A weapon with a special ability must have at least a +1 enhancement bonus.
here (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/magicItems/magicWeapons.htm) or here (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/magicItems/creatingMagicItems.htm#creatingMagicWeapons)

I don't think the flaming effect damage should vary with the type/size of weapon, that's what flaming burst is there for.

Wrendd
08-26-2010, 07:04 AM
You should also consider that not every "hit" with a greatsword will be the same. It is possible to hit someone with just the tip of the sword in a slahing attack, utilizing as much surface area as a dagger. And the dagger could concieveably puncture the victim causing a greater release of the energy (flaming or whatever) inside of the target.

I understand what you are talking about, and to a certain degree I think you are correct. But I think that no matter what would be "realistic" here must bow before the alter of game balance.

I would actually be more supportive of increasing the elemental effects on low damage weapons in order to bring them more in line with the main weapons of choice. When playing PnP I always enjoyed playing fighters that used 2 hand axes, or 2 daggers, or just one rapier. They were not the most powerful fighters you could make, but I had a lot of fun with them. Of course we played in a VERY low magic campaign, we had wizards and clerics but permanent magic items were the stuff of an ancient age and were very rare. My lvl 9 fighter had a +2 Handaxe that added +2 to my woodcraft skill and my holy of holys: a +1 Returning handaxe that did +1d4 bleed damage on a critical (lasted for 1d4 rounds). The quest to get that baby was a true adventure. (I know that the odds of the corect types of weapons "droping" for us were small... the DM fudged to keep everyone happy).