Damage modifier

[Trifletraxor]

With kind of damage modifier system to you use? Dice based (+1d4, 1d6, etc) like RQ3, MRQ and BRP, or number based (+1, +2, +3, etc.) like RQ4?

If you have an opinion about which is best, what are your arguments?

Dice based is good since rolling dice is always fun, while the number based has more granularity to it. I'm currently not sure which one to go with.

SGL.

[threedeesix]

With kind of damage modifier system to you use? Dice based (+1d4, 1d6, etc) like RQ3, MRQ and BRP, or number based (+1, +2, +3, etc.) like RQ4?

If you have an opinion about which is best, what are your arguments?

Dice based is good since rolling dice is always fun, while the number based has more granularity to it. I'm currently not sure which one to go with.

SGL.

Pure BRP baby.

[cjbowser]

I learned BRP through CoC, so I stick with the die based modifers.

[Nightshade]

I always prefed the dice based approach, though I understand the attraction of the fixed adders; they just seem to produce a little too predictable a damage output for my taste. That said, I prefer to break down the steps as finely as possible (I'm not averse to using a D2 for the bottom step for example).

[Atgxtg]

I use adie variable. I do prefer to smooth out the progression a little though, rather than +1D6/16 points.

One idea that I've seen and like is a "die shift" approach. That is, rather than an add, the damage modifer adjust the die used by the weapon. For example, changing a weapon that does 1D8+1 to 1D10+1. The only drawback to this approach in BRP is how BRP handles critical and specials.

[frogspawner]

Number based (+1, +2, +3, etc.). For historical reasons, having evolved my game from D&D (I'd love to say it was RQ4 influence, but...)

My players might have balked at dice-for-bonuses, but I can't just blame them - I actually prefer the plain plusses myself. The weapon dice give enough randomness, and having to roll more dice just slows it down - finding the darn things to roll (which takes some players a horribly long time!) and adding them all up is harder. And the finer-grained flat bonuses are clearly better for the low-powered gaming that I aim for.

PS: Also, when the weapon dice are the only dice being rolled, there's no room for 'confusion' (let's call it) over which are to be doubled for various types of special hits.

Edited March 14, 2009 by frogspawner
PS

[Trifletraxor]

Number based (+1, +2, +3, etc.). For historical reasons, having evolved my game from D&D (I'd love to say it was RQ4 influence, but...)

What table or calculation do you use?

I was thinking of:

- if STR 1-10; damage modifier = 0.

- if STR 11+; damage modifier = +(STR-10)/2

SGL.

[frogspawner]

What table or calculation do you use?

I was thinking of:

- if STR 1-10; damage modifier = 0.

- if STR 11+; damage modifier = +(STR-10)/2

Sounds good. I use the straight D&D3.x bonuses, i.e. the same as your 11+ formula (if rounded down) - but continued down below 10. That may be a bit harsh (especially on any STR 9-ers!) considering there are also minimum STRs for weapons (is that why you'd cut it off at 10?). But I say - what the heck.

[soltakss]

I use D4/D6 etc.

There were a lot of interesting ideas in RQ4 but the base rules were not that good, in my opinion. Having a straight add results in potentially less damage, which I don't like.

Also, it takes away all the fun of rolling lots of D6s when using big, strong NPCs.

[RosenMcStern]

Yes. There is nothing that scares players more than picking up D6s from all around the game table while saying "It is for the damage modifier." It improves PC stealth and diplomatic skills big time.

[Trifletraxor]

Sounds good. I use the straight D&D3.x bonuses, i.e. the same as your 11+ formula (if rounded down) - but continued down below 10. That may be a bit harsh (especially on any STR 9-ers!) considering there are also minimum STRs for weapons (is that why you'd cut it off at 10?). But I say - what the heck.

Yes, the STR minimums for weapons allready keep the damage down enough I think.

Also, it takes away all the fun of rolling lots of D6s when using big, strong NPCs.

That is true. :ohwell:

[frogspawner]

There is nothing that scares players more than picking up D6s from all around the game table while saying "It is for the damage modifier."

That is true. :ohwell:

Maybe I got the "handfuls of d6's"-kick out of my system back in the days spent playing Tunnels & Trolls.

PS: Or maybe not - Fireball-type spells still give a buzz...

[Tywyll]

Personally I use the flat bonus, ala RQ4 ((Str+Siz-25)/5=DB). Though to be fair, I'm thinking of removing SIZ from the equation, though if I do that, i haven't figured out how I'll figure it.

I dislike the randomness of the multiple d6 approach, finding it a bit lacking in veracity. I also strongly dislike the lack of PC attribute significance (to be fair, this has always been one of my complaints about BRP in its various incarnations, especially in the versions that don't use category bonuses). there is little difference between a barely above average strength character and an extremely strong character in the d4/d6 system.

[kaddawang]

I was a bit surprised to see the damage-bonus mechanic in the new BRP-book unaltered. It was one of the things I expected would change, as it is a bit wonky.

That being said, I use the standard dice-mechanic, because

-it says so in the BB(big book)

-it works

-and, since it works, I don't think much about it.

And dice are always fun:)

[sdavies2720]

...I also strongly dislike the lack of PC attribute significance (to be fair, this has always been one of my complaints about BRP in its various incarnations, especially in the versions that don't use category bonuses). there is little difference between a barely above average strength character and an extremely strong character in the d4/d6 system.

Yeah, this is one thing that bothers me too. I was thinking about using the MRQ system of +1% per attribute point, but decided to stay with canon.

Steve

[Nightshade]

I dislike the randomness of the multiple d6 approach, finding it a bit lacking in veracity. I also strongly dislike the lack of PC attribute significance (to be fair, this has always been one of my complaints about BRP in its various incarnations, especially in the versions that don't use category bonuses). there is little difference between a barely above average strength character and an extremely strong character in the d4/d6 system.

Well, that's one reason I prefer a smaller die-step approach; you can make smaller increments matter. And of course I wouldn't run the game without category bonuses. But then, I'm an RQ grognard.

[Tywyll]

Yeah, this is one thing that bothers me too. I was thinking about using the MRQ system of +1% per attribute point, but decided to stay with canon.

Steve

I started with BRP as written on cat bonuses, but they quickly became too fiddly for my tastes, especially with POW being a factored attribute.

So I switched to RQ4's system of +1% per point over 10, typically only two attributes figuring into any category, and dropping POW from any category. I can kind of understand its inclusion, but I think POW gets enough play that it doesn't need to get an added helping of influencing skills as well.

But ultimately, yes, I hate how little variation there is in human level strength modifiers. I'll grant that with the smaller number of hit points, you don't need a huge range, but frankly, I think you need some for human scale. Maybe when you get to a +4 bonus you can then switch to the +d6 normal system because at that point you are dealing with things like bears and horses and even bigger things.

[Nightshade]

I started with BRP as written on cat bonuses, but they quickly became too fiddly for my tastes, especially with POW being a factored attribute.

So I switched to RQ4's system of +1% per point over 10, typically only two attributes figuring into any category, and dropping POW from any category. I can kind of understand its inclusion, but I think POW gets enough play that it doesn't need to get an added helping of influencing skills as well.

I never quite understood the problem with this; unless you shifted skills for temporary alterations in Power (which we never did), it always seemed easy enough to remember that when you improved or decreased Power you needed to adjust all of (category) skills by X amount. I suppose if you had extremely frequent changes here it could be a problem (in our local experience, people got up to whatever Power they thought they wanted and tended to threshold at that, sacrificing any Power above that for divine magic or other benefits).

[Jason D]

Given the chance to completely rewrite the damage system, I'd keep it as dice rather than a static modifier, but I'd certainly add more granularity and lower it so it's not as high a value as most weapons.

For example:

STR+SIZ

20-24 = +1d2

25-28 = +1d3 (1d6/2)

29-32 = +1d4

33-36 = +1d6

37-40 = +1d8

41-44 = +1d10

45-48 = +1d12

49-52 = +2d8

53-56 = +2d10

57-60 = +2d12

etc.

[RosenMcStern]

It's certainly more realistic. But how do you halve it for missile weapons?

[NickMiddleton]

It's certainly more realistic. But how do you halve it for missile weapons?

Reduce it one die step? So if your melee damage bonus is +1d6, your missile weapon bonus is +1D4?

Cheers,

Nick (also a fan of the "linear dice" damage bonus idea)

[threedeesix]

Reduce it one die step? So if your melee damage bonus is +1d6, your missile weapon bonus is +1D4?

Cheers,

Nick (also a fan of the "linear dice" damage bonus idea)

I literally halve it. 2D6 becomes 1D6, 1D6 becomes 1D3, etc.

I have to admit though, not sure how you half a penalty. I assume a penalty of -1D4 halved, would actually be -2D4. It is confusing though and still don't know if thats right.

Player: I throw my dagger.

GM: Don't you have a damage penalty?

Player: Yes I do.

GM: Then do something else.

Rod

[RMS]

I've also contemplated giving a different damage bonus for 2-handed weapons vs. 1-handed weapons. Perhaps, one step higher for 2-handed weapons in the above list, or one step down on the one in the BPR book for 1-handed weapons.

Thoughts?

[Trifletraxor]

I've also contemplated giving a different damage bonus for 2-handed weapons vs. 1-handed weapons. Perhaps, one step higher for 2-handed weapons in the above list, or one step down on the one in the BPR book for 1-handed weapons.

Thoughts?

Might make 2H weapons too powerfull, as 2H weapons usually do higher damage to start with. I can understand the reasoning though.

SGL.

[RosenMcStern]

Reduce it one die step? So if your melee damage bonus is +1d6, your missile weapon bonus is +1D4?

It's a good idea, and I like the "2H weapons get 1 step up in the db scale" idea, too. But isn't it too complicate for the average player?