Simplified Weapons

[Chaot]

For a long time I've wanted to shift away from 'how dangerous the weapon is' to 'how dangerous the character is with the weapon.' I also want the end results to be a bit streamlined while keeping enough meat there to be entertaining. So, here's the run down. None of these terms are set in stone by the way, it's just something I use to organize my thoughts.

The characters have Brawn [(Str+Siz)/2] and Finesse [(Str+Dex)/2]. These are used to determine how much damage the character does in combat. Brawn is used for big hefty weapons. Finesse is used for small and quick weapons.

Character Damage (Brawn or Finesse)

1-8 = 1d4

9-14 = 1d6

15-20 = 1d8

21+ = 1d10

(this table can be expanded upwards as needed)

For weapon skill, I would take a page from RQ6 and have the PC write down their 'fighting styles.' Fumble, Failure, Success, Critical, Special work as in BGB.

Exceptions

• The damage above is listed for martial weapons. Impromptu weapons bump down a die type.
  
• A skill of 90% or above in a 'fighting style' bumps damage up a die type.
  
• 'Certain Kill' situations (point blank shot) bump damage up a die type. That is, of course, if you want to roll for it. Some 'Certain Kill' situations just result in a kill.
  
• Special Weapons (magic, amazing quality, special abilities, etc.) provide a +1, 2, 3 or 4 to a roll.
  

Thoughts?

[SDLeary]

I remember you mentioning this before. A question is about the weapons themselves.

Do the weapons have anything, such as effects against certain things, that might differentiate them? For example, what can I do with a 2h Spear that I can't do with a shortsword?

Also, how do you figure missile weapons into this?

SDLeary

[Chaot]

Good points. And I should really dig around to see what was posted before in those old threads.

The basic rules for weapon length and missile weapons can probably be left in. Alternatively, one might handle it through the narrative.

Circumstantial Bonuses

Depending on the situation and the declared actions, a player can gain a skill bonus ranging from 5% to 20% in steps of 5% (or penalties in steps of 5%) or can declare an special action using the weapon. Where applicable, the damage die can either step down one or up one.

So a Vespiritus has his spear and is confronted by a ruffian with a knife. The ruffian has to close before he can attack Vespiritus. Should the ruffian be in a narrow area, Vespiritus could describe how the ruffian is pinned down and gain a bonus to his attack.

Say Vespiritus declares that he wants to keep the three ruffians confronting him at bay. Instead of rolling attack to damage, he rolls to keep them back. Should he succeed, he doesn't do damage but the ruffians are held at bay. Should the ruffians close anyway, Vespiritus might get free attacks on them at a stepped up die.

Jonna fights florentine. She presses her opponent but her goal is actually to knock them of balance. In a flurry of steel, she steps in and trips the opponent. Her attack die is stepped down one but her opponent now lays sprawled on the floor.

[deleriad]

Good points. And I should really dig around to see what was posted before in those old threads.

If you're using Legend/RQ6 then special effects and reach is what would largely differentiate weapons as opposed to raw damage potential.

Then again, following your logic, parry protection might also be derived, at least in part, from skill.

[Chaot]

If you're using Legend/RQ6 then special effects and reach is what would largely differentiate weapons as opposed to raw damage potential.

Then again, following your logic, parry protection might also be derived, at least in part, from skill.

Oh yes? I've read the combat chapter but unfortunately I don't own it and really remember little of the details.

Long ago, on a website by an individual who's place and name are lost in the sands of the time corridors, I read an article suggesting that damage should be set to 1d6 across the board and that combat should be varied based on skill and weapon length (and slash/crush/impale or something along those lines).

While I wouldn't begrudge a list of effects, ultimately I would want the special circumstances invoked by the player to spring organically from play.

Also, I've an eye at using this in a sort of (ever elusive) stripped down BRP, where the magic system is also a bit free form (possibly through the same sort of system). I'm thinking of combining skill packages into individual profession skills (like how my vague understanding of Barbarians of Lamuria works). Just to give a reference frame.

[jp42]

Long ago, on a website by an individual who's place and name are lost in the sands of the time corridors, I read an article suggesting that damage should be set to 1d6 across the board and that combat should be varied based on skill and weapon length (and slash/crush/impale or something along those lines).

I wonder if that wasn't an early Steve Jackson Game - Melee, for example - that you are recalling. The system you talk about there is very GURPSy in nature, where weapon damage is based on Strength, which has a Thrust value and a Swing value, and a 10 STR character does 1d6 of Swing damage, and then the weapon dictates how much you add or subtract, and the type of damage (impaling, cutting or crushing).

There are issues with GURPS with regards to scaling of damage as strength increases, but otherwise it's a very good system for representing the impact of weapons on damage, I think.

[Mankcam]

Actually this sounds a little similar to the new stripped down version of FATE Core - called the FATE Accelerated Edition - where there is no actual skills, but every character has six 'Approaches' (Careful, Clever, Sneaky, Flashy, Quick, Forceful) which are applied to any situation. Characters also have modifiers for Aspects/Stunts (kinda like D&D Feats or Heroic Abilities) and modifiers for equipment. So a character attacking someone would use Forceful, but backstabbing would be Sneaky, etc). The basic idea is that it is the 'Approach' that is important, not an actual skill.

You are kinda in the same flow of thought with using Brawn or Finesse as abilities rather than getting down to individual weapon skills. I think that this system could work quite well, but perhaps all the entire BGB skill list needs to be looked at to see if it could be trimmed down to Approaches/Abilities rather than Skills. Stealth, for example covers Hide/Sneak, as well as Fine Manipulation/Sleight of Hand etc. Agility could cover Dodge, Initiative rate, etc. you get the idea.

Of course it is a big departure from BRP's simulationlist origins, but the idea certainly has merit, especially for a BRP-Lite ruleset that could focus more on narrative than nuts n bolts rules. For inspiration you could check out FATE Accelerated Edition from either DrivethruRPG or EvilHat.com, I think it is free.

Edited July 20, 2013 by Mankcam

[Chaot]

I wonder if that wasn't an early Steve Jackson Game - Melee, for example - that you are recalling.

It was definitely an old RuneQuest website, but not Pete Maranci's or Simon's or Tal Meta's or any of the other big ones I haunted. I'm sure if I spent some time going through links I'd find it again eventually. It might require the WayBack Machine though. I definitely see how my description sounds like Melee though.

Actually this sounds a little similar to the new stripped down version of FATE Core - called the FATE Accelerated Edition

I really need someone in my area to run a FATE game or to demand that I run one. It's silly really, but FUDGE dice kinda turn me off a bit. Otherwise I might be playing FATE right now! Approaches sound interesting, and I'll see if I can get Accelerated Edition.

You are kinda in the same flow of thought with using Brawn or Finesse as abilities rather than getting down to individual weapon skills. I think that this system could work quite well, but perhaps all the entire BGB skill list needs to be looked at to see if it could be trimmed down to Approaches/Abilities rather than Skills. Stealth, for example covers Hide/Sneak, as well as Fine Manipulation/Sleight of Hand etc. Agility could cover Dodge, Initiative rate, etc. you get the idea.

I do want to keep weapon skills, just broaden them up a bit. Brawn and Finesse would be used to determine what the PC's base damage is. I have gone very broad on skills before. I ran a couple loose Pokemon games for my daughter that was BRP based with very broad skills. It works, but I'm not sure if that's what I'm aiming for or if I want to shoot for a skill list like the Magic World from the WoW boxed set.

Thanks for batting this around with me, guys.

[Mankcam]

Well the skill list for BRP Worlds of Wonder: Magic World was reasonable actually. In many ways I would have preferred if the recent Magic World had been more influenced by its predecessor rather than the Stormbringer rules, I think that a stripped down BRP-lite concept was a good idea.

I think I'll only run two rpg systems these days: BRP and FATE, as there is very little overlap between the two systems and they are both great to run. I'm leaning more towards FATE Accelerated Edition for my FATE games as it is quite different basing actions upon Approaches rather than Skills, and I'll keep BRP as my main gaming engine based upon a skill set.

I don't think the Brawn & Finesse skills works well with the current set of skills, but if you do make a mix list of Aspects and Broad Skills then the concept could be consistent. In any case, it is the nucleus of a good idea here, one that should be explored further. Good luck with it!

[Questbird]

Long ago, on a website by an individual who's place and name are lost in the sands of the time corridors, I read an article suggesting that damage should be set to 1d6 across the board and that combat should be varied based on skill and weapon length (and slash/crush/impale or something along those lines).

Ray Turney's Fire and Sword rules, available here at BRP central, have all 1-handed weapons doing 1d10 and all 2-handed ones 1d10+2. Length makes a difference for strike order, and probably something like your Brawn or damage bonus. That game also has no hit points at all. (It's got a few interesting ideas like that, mostly to do with reducing in-game bookkeeping; worth a look).

[Chaot]

I don't think the Brawn & Finesse skills works well with the current set of skills, but if you do make a mix list of Aspects and Broad Skills then the concept could be consistent. In any case, it is the nucleus of a good idea here, one that should be explored further. Good luck with it!

Just so we are on the same page, Brawn and Finesse aren't actual skills, they're really derived stats. Brawn is just the Damage Bonus score. I modified the Damage Bonus table, dropping the negatives and such, and am using it for base weapon damage. Finesse is just another way to calculate weapon damage so that you can have big bruisers and the tiny quick guys standing toe to toe. I just want to make sure that my concept is actually making it's way through my laborious description.

Another way to thing of it, using RC D&D. We used to play around with the idea that the weapons used by the characters were just fluff. A fighter did a d8 (d10?) damage, a cleric did d6, mage did d4 damage in combat no matter what they were equipped with. Two things I want to instill. One, no need for futzing around with equipment lists. Describe what you want your character to be skilled in and they are. Two, keep variety of damage effects while not tying damage directly into PC skill level.

Ray Turney's Fire and Sword rules, available here at BRP central, have all 1-handed weapons doing 1d10 and all 2-handed ones 1d10+2.

Hmmm, I remember reading it long ago, but I don't remember much from it... In fact I just looked and found it sitting here on my hard drive. I will definitely dive back in and give it another read.

Edit: Looking at the table of contents I'm betting I read it for the Politics section. I may not have even looked at combat.

Edited July 20, 2013 by Chaot

[Mankcam]

Just so we are on the same page, Brawn and Finesse aren't actual skills, they're really derived stats.

Gotcha. Yeah I misinterpreted that initially, I thought you were describing aspects rather than skills, and were wanting to replace core skills with aspects to cut down the list of abilities and make the system more narrative in flavour, hence why I indicated that FATE Accelerated Edition was a good source of inspiration. I do like that idea, but I did think it was becoming less BRP in the approach..

I can see more clearly now that you are using 'Brawn' and 'Finesse' as more apt terms to describe different character aspects (derived stats) that can be used to achieve a Damage Bonus or Damage Value. Quite a good idea actually, one I have never thought of before. So a rapier-wielding duellist can be just as devastating as the maul-wielding brute in terms of damage bonus, yes I do like this idea.

Could you, perhaps, just use the Damage Bonus Table from the BGB, but alter it slightly: Use the calculations as basing it on the SIZ of a character, and then choose either to add either STR or DEX (whichever is highest) to calculate the Damage Bonus, thus if STR is used then perhaps call it a Brawn Bonus, and if DEX is used perhaps call it a Finesse Bonus? It probably achieves the same thing without making too many new rules, yet describes different aspects of the character as being more prominent.

Although by the looks of your previous post, you are after a very different damage system rather than just damage bonus aspects. More in line with Pendragon RPG perhaps, where you have a consistent Damage Value based upon Attributes (in Pendragon it is STR+SIZ), and this value is altered according to equipment or other modifiers. I didn't really find this a great mechanic for damage at the time, but it could easily be replicated in BRP using the Damage Bonus Table as a guide, but replace the bonuses with ascending dice levels instead, starting with D4 for +0 DB. This could work, especially if you keep the pre-existing weapon mechanics for length, range, weapon specific specials, etc.

Not sure if I would go to the trouble though, as if I wanted to do this I would probably just play Pendragon as is rather than convert it to BRP. But there is certainly no reason why much of that wouldn't port over to BRP, including the Damage Value idea. Food for thought in any case...

Edited July 21, 2013 by Mankcam

[Questbird]

Hmmm, I remember reading it long ago, but I don't remember much from it... In fact I just looked and found it sitting here on my hard drive. I will definitely dive back in and give it another read.

Edit: Looking at the table of contents I'm betting I read it for the Politics section. I may not have even looked at combat.

I picked it up for the same reason, but the Economics (characters have a base standard of living and don't have to track every minor expenditure) and hitpointless combat are also very interesting.

[Chaot]

Little thread necromancy here.

 

I haven't played in a little while because a new job has taken all of my time.  However, I'm itching to do a little something with Magic World and since I'm chronically unable to run something directly without dabbling I've got a new scheme.

 

I've used Brawn and Finesse to determine damage bonus now for a while and it works well.  I've taken Combat Styles from RQ6 and think they're the bee's knees.  I still want to deemphasize the weapons the PC is using and tie it more to ability.  So I'm thinking about adding a Prowess skill.

 

Weapon Skill (05%)

This skill measures how proficient you are using a given weapon or combat style.  It applies to technique and form and shows how proficient you are in combat with the weapon.  This is the skill used when rolling attack/parry. 

 

Prowess (05%)

This skill is an overall rating of your effectiveness on the field of battle.  It rates your ability to wade into battle and cause damage to your enemies.  This skill partly determines the amount of damage you do in combat.

 

1-60% - 1d4

61-90% - 1d6

91-120% - 1d8

121-150% - 1d10

151-180% - 1d12

 

So now there are three factors that affect combat.  The first is tied to Stats, with the Brawn/Finesse damage bonus.  The second is the Prowess skill, which sets the damage you do.  The third is Weapon skill, which determines whether you hit or not.

 

Thoughts?  I'm looking forward to testing it to see how it holds up at the table.

[Montjoy]

Seems a tad bit clunky to me personally.

It reads like you have a weapon skill twice for every weapon you are trained with yet they measure the same thing.

 

Have you considered allowing the margin of success in the attack to determine the base damage?

We have used an approach like this in other games and it has worked but I am unsure how to adjust it for brp specifically.

 

Maybe use the % spread of a successful attack to determine if they roll a d4 d6 d8 etc then a bonus for the weapon type.

This is all just off the top of my head:

A hit d4

a hit by 10-35 a d6

a hit by 36-70 a d8

a hit by 71-100 a d10

Bump the die type by one for a special and two for a crit possibly

It would keep the damage dealt primarily related to the skill used and by the margin of victory in the skill challenge.

 

Not sure if this is helpful for you or not just ramblings off the top of my head.

Good luck with it and please let us know how it turns out whatever you do.

I always love to hear about the tweaks people have done.

 

Edited part:

Just realized with the lower rolled values generating a special or crit bumping damage in my example would likely just have to be fixed larger dice.

So, maybe if the damage range was d4, d6, d8, allow specials the d10 and crits the d12

Edited November 4, 2014 by Montjoy

[Darkholme]

Seems a tad bit clunky to me personally. ...

 

Have you considered allowing the margin of success in the attack to determine the base damage?

We have used an approach like this in other games and it has worked but I am unsure how to adjust it for brp specifically. ...

I've actually been thinking of reworking weapons myself.

 

My thought was that weapon damage would be a flat "1" and a flat bonus damage calculated from the margin of success, with more dangerous weapons multiplying the result of the flat bonus damage or multiplying the formula before the result. (though I haven't crunched any of the numbers to determine where I would put the damage thresholds or anything like that, it was just an idea I've been mulling around in my head.)

 

The idea was that you would make your attack roll, and that would be the only roll, the quality of the hit and the dangerousness of the weapon would determine the damage. Someone skilled enough could attain good damage with a dagger, whereas someone less skilled could attain equally good damage using something like a halberd.

[Montjoy]

I've actually been thinking of reworking weapons myself.

 

My thought was that weapon damage would be a flat "1" and a flat bonus damage calculated from the margin of success, with more dangerous weapons multiplying the result of the flat bonus damage or multiplying the formula before the result. (though I haven't crunched any of the numbers to determine where I would put the damage thresholds or anything like that, it was just an idea I've been mulling around in my head.)

 

The idea was that you would make your attack roll, and that would be the only roll, the quality of the hit and the dangerousness of the weapon would determine the damage. Someone skilled enough could attain good damage with a dagger, whereas someone less skilled could attain equally good damage using something like a halberd.

 

That is pretty much what we do in our current game.

It is not brp though so the actual crunch would not translate properly.

Most attacks and defense rolls are between a d6 and a d12 if attacker wins he does damage equal to the margin of success + an additional bonus of +1 to +4 for weapon type, - the armors value (range is 1-4).

We also have a location table and that die is rolled at the same time as the attack. Roll once (but two dice, location and attack) + defender rolls = complete result.

It just scales way way badly going to % dice.

 

I'm sure there is a sweet spot for the value to translate to a straight die type but it might just be more math than people want.

Hard to say with every table of players being different.

[Darkholme]

That is pretty much what we do in our current game.

It is not brp though so the actual crunch would not translate properly.

Most attacks and defense rolls are between a d6 and a d12 if attacker wins he does damage equal to the margin of success + an additional bonus of +1 to +4 for weapon type, - the armors value (range is 1-4).

We also have a location table and that die is rolled at the same time as the attack. Roll once (but two dice, location and attack) + defender rolls = complete result.

It just scales way way badly going to % dice.

 

I'm sure there is a sweet spot for the value to translate to a straight die type but it might just be more math than people want.

Hard to say with every table of players being different.

Hmm. That's not quite what I had in mind, but close-ish.

 

My thoughts were more along the lines of a glancing hit with any weapon only does 1, and then the different weapons would increase in damage at a different rate, but without each weapon type having a different maximum. So if you succeed well enough, you could do as well with your fist as someone else using a halberd, but the halberd can do that kind of damage much easier. All of this with or without a global maximum damage cap.

 

The damage formula I've been playing with since this post that gives the kinds of results I'm looking for is somewhat complex though, and it would be easier to refer to a table than to calculate it, which is not ideal. I'll toy with the idea a bit more, and maybe I will come up with something simpler.

 

Admittedly my idea was less concerned with simplifying the rules and more concerned with doing away with the damage roll, making damage based more on the quality of the hit, and making weaker weapons such as daggers into more competitive choices for extremely skilled characters.

 

Here is an idea of what I was thinking of.

As mentioned, the table is a little too granular (but the formula too complex to calculate quickly in your head), and the damage output : margin of success ratio may be off, but it should give you some idea of what I was thinking of. The way you read the table is you add together your weapon damage and siz/str damage to get the maximum damage you could do normally, and that tells you which column to use, and the rows correspond to how much you succeeded by (surpassing the higher of the difficulty of the test and any opposed roll). It's a rough draft idea with some numbers slapped into excel, not any kind of finished product, but I thought it might help with discussion.

The formula is:

MAX(1,MIN(ROUNDDOWN(("Degree"*AVERAGE("Max Damage"/"Base Damage",1)),0),"Overall Max Result"))

With "Base Damage"=20, and "Overall Max Result"=40

Or more succinctly: Average((Damage Potential/20),1) * Degree of Success, with a minimum result of 1 and a max of 40.

[Chaot]

I think that would work great for an automated system or even a group that are a bit more mathematically mentally quick than I am.  Applying various bonuses and then multiplying them is out of my league.

 

An easy dice trick, if you want to get rid of the damage roll, is to add up the tens and ones for the attack roll to determine damage.

 

If I hit with a roll of 73 that's ten points of damage.  If I hit with a 23 that's 5 points of damage.

[Montjoy]

I think that would work great for an automated system or even a group that are a bit more mathematically mentally quick than I am.  Applying various bonuses and then multiplying them is out of my league.

 

An easy dice trick, if you want to get rid of the damage roll, is to add up the tens and ones for the attack roll to determine damage.

 

If I hit with a roll of 73 that's ten points of damage.  If I hit with a 23 that's 5 points of damage.

 

I like that simple trick, nice.

The only problem I would see with using it is it is counter to the higher skill generating the better effect as a special for instance of 14 would do 5 where a normal hit on 66 would do 12.

 

BTW I do like that you have altered your weapons damage to allow more nimble characters to play on their accuracy over brute strength. I failed to mention that earlier.

 

 

Edit below:

I am of course assuming you are still using specials and critical effects.

Edited November 4, 2014 by Montjoy

[Darkholme]

I think that would work great for an automated system or even a group that are a bit more mathematically mentally quick than I am.  Applying various bonuses and then multiplying them is out of my league.

Yeah, unless I were to come up with a way to get comparable results without requiring such complicated on the fly math, I would hand players a copy of that table, or at least, the rows relevant to them. I could also see simplifying the table, cutting out every other row, and every other column, for simpler referencing at the expense of granularity.

 

But I do like the variation in results that this table would (at least in theory) produce. I'd need to run some combat sims to make sure it's "calibrated" correctly, however, and adjust the "base"  and maybe the multiplier until the damage is coming out consistently enough. at the right ranges. It would take some fiddling with.

 

Except that means your damage will always be between 1 and 10, and the probabilities would be pretty wonky, but they would gradually average higher as your skill goes up. Also, criticals would have the lowest possibilities for damage, which seems wrong to me; but the system it's replacing ranges in potential damage from a max of 1 to a max of 40 (assuming it's the same scale in Legend as whatever BRP you're referring to).

 

 

I could really get behind that, but I think it would take some doing to get much benefit out of it, otherwise you're just replacing the dice (which could maybe also be helpful). But digital character sheets, with automated rolling and whatnot, and digital tools for GMing (such as a combat manager, digital library of NPCs/monsters, etc) would be something I would definitely use (I already make all my players use digital sheets stored online, and everyone has a laptop in front of them anyways). It's a decent amount of work though (more than I can see being worthwhile for a personal game), and I don't know how marketable it would be to justify doing all of that work.

[Chaot]

I like that simple trick, nice.

Thanks.  I was tired of seeing players making hulking bruisers.  Size had become the stat that everyone wanted to pump up.  Adding Finesse broke that up a bit, but I'm also thinking now that it was a phase my players were going through.  I am using specials and criticals.

 

To change up the dice trick, you could use the ones column to determine damage, 1-10.  Or, if you are using hit locations, use the ones column for location and tens for damage.

 

 

 

Out of curiosity, what is your equation?  Mind giving a break down of what you're thinking?

 

 

Are you referring the the dice tricks I mentioned.  Adding the tens and ones will give a numerical range of 2 (1+1) though 20 (0+0).  That changes a bit when you apply criticals, fumbles and all that.  One nice consequence of the system is the higher your skill gets, the higher your potential damage gets.  A PC with a combat skill of 45% will be able to do a maximum base damage of 9 while a PC with a skill of 85% will have a max base of 13.

 

Ha!  Actually thinking about it, a PC with a 91% actually has a lower max base that a PC with an 85%.  10 and 13, respectively.  Ah well.  It's an imperfect world.

[Darkholme]

Out of curiosity, what is your equation?  Mind giving a break down of what you're thinking?

I gave a break down of the equation on the first page after I posted the link to the table, but sure.

Average ((Damage Potential/20), 1) * Degree of Success (Surplus % after meeting the target), with a minimum result of 1 and a max of 40(because that's where damage maxes out in the book).

 

The idea being, that removing the cap on each weapon makes a master in daggers capable of doing much more damage than a novice.

The reason for the averaging is to lessen the damage gap between the weak weapons and the strong ones, while also reigning in the damage on the really strong ones so it becomes less likely for absolutely massive damage.

Additionally, tying the damage for the weapon to the total amount you succeeded by means that better hits universally do better damage, removing the situations where you get an excellent to-hit roll, and then roll crap on the damage dice. Crappy damage comes from a bad quality hit, which I think is an improvement.

[Edit] And one thing I forgot to mention, is that it further emphasizes the difference between weak and strong characters in combat, as mook-type NPCs will end up taking more damage than skilled characters, since the skill of the enemy's defense directly factors into the quality of the hit and therefore the damage dealt[/Edit]

 

That's the idea behind it. I'm not saying it couldn't be refined to do it better/simpler, however, it was after all, only the result of me crunching some numbers in excel for 15 minutes.

 

Ah. I was thinking that 0 was 0, not 10. Though I suppose if you succeed on a 99, that would do 18. The damage is a bit wonky since a (successful) roll of 91 does less damage than a roll of 89, but a successful roll of 99 does better damage than the 89 does, and it makes weapons rather unimportant in comparison to combat skill %, and the highest damage possible is with a roll of 09 (for 19 damage), since 100 (for 20 damage) is always a miss.

[el_octogono]

In "Diezlados", a system I made, weapons have a base damage with very little variation between them. The game works with a single d10 roll under. Additional damage is not rolled but substracted voluntarily from skill and added point by point (this is called Effort). So a brawl skill of 12 with 4 points of effort makes +4 damage in the attack at the expense of skill (now roll 8 or less to succeed). You could do something similar in BRP but it will change success levels.

Elric! had a skill to damage chart for demons. Perhaps a similar table with the die as base damage, and a weapon type modifier could work.

 

0-19%         1d2
20-39%       1d4
40-59%       1d6
60-79%       1d8
80-99%       1d10
100-119%   1d12

Brawl: +0
Short weapons: +1d2
Medium weapons: +1d4
Large weapons: +1d6

 

[p_clapham]

For a long time I've wanted to shift away from 'how dangerous the weapon is' to 'how dangerous the character is with the weapon.' I also want the end results to be a bit streamlined while keeping enough meat there to be entertaining. So, here's the run down. None of these terms are set in stone by the way, it's just something I use to organize my thoughts.

The characters have Brawn [(Str+Siz)/2] and Finesse [(Str+Dex)/2]. These are used to determine how much damage the character does in combat. Brawn is used for big hefty weapons. Finesse is used for small and quick weapons.

Character Damage (Brawn or Finesse)

1-8 = 1d4

9-14 = 1d6

15-20 = 1d8

21+ = 1d10

(this table can be expanded upwards as needed)

For weapon skill, I would take a page from RQ6 and have the PC write down their 'fighting styles.' Fumble, Failure, Success, Critical, Special work as in BGB.

Exceptions

• The damage above is listed for martial weapons. Impromptu weapons bump down a die type.
• A skill of 90% or above in a 'fighting style' bumps damage up a die type.
• 'Certain Kill' situations (point blank shot) bump damage up a die type. That is, of course, if you want to roll for it. Some 'Certain Kill' situations just result in a kill.
• Special Weapons (magic, amazing quality, special abilities, etc.) provide a +1, 2, 3 or 4 to a roll.

Thoughts?

 

It's interesting.  I'd rather have the weapon damage be based on the character's skill with the Brawn or Finesse acting as a damage bonus to the weapon.