Random Damage Bonus versus Static Damage Bonus

[Tywyll]

One of the things that bothered me about the BRP system, especially coming from playing d&d for years, was the relative lack of significance to attributes (this was because I was mostly playing CoC which lacks attribute category bonuses). This was especially true for strength based damage.

I guess I didn't feel the system was 'grainy' enough.

But then I came across the flat bonus from RQ4, and that seems to solve the problem. Has anyone used that? What are the feelings about it versus the bonus die method?

[RosenMcStern]

I cannot see any real advantage in having a fixed number for the damage bonus. RQ3/CoC have a sudden increase in damage bonuses, going straight from 0 to 1d4, and this may result in the "poor granularity" you lament. MRQ uses the same progression as RQ4 (1 step every 5 pts. of combined SIZ and STR), but with dice (1d2, 1d4, 1d6, 1d8 etc.). My group has adopted the RQ4 damage bonus, and the result is not really satisfactory. All considered, I prefer the dice.

[Tywyll]

I cannot see any real advantage in having a fixed number for the damage bonus. RQ3/CoC have a sudden increase in damage bonuses, going straight from 0 to 1d4, and this may result in the "poor granularity" you lament. MRQ uses the same progression as RQ4 (1 step every 5 pts. of combined SIZ and STR), but with dice (1d2, 1d4, 1d6, 1d8 etc.). My group has adopted the RQ4 damage bonus, and the result is not really satisfactory. All considered, I prefer the dice.

What is unsatisfactory about it? It seems like it would not only make larger creatures more accessible, but allow characters to feel the difference in their stats more.

I'm curious why they didn't like it.

[RosenMcStern]

First of all, rolling a lot of dice is more fun.

With RQ4 modifiers, you usually deal only 1 pt. extra damage, rarely two, where you used to deal 1d4. This decreases the damage dealt, so it is more difficult to down opponents. Having monsters do a slightly lower damage is not as important, when it comes to balance, as being able to take them down in one blow, as you are supposed to parry them with a 12-15 point shield and they are not supposed to parry you.

STR+SIZ RQ3 RQ4

21-24 - -

25 1d4 -

26-30 1d4 1

31-32 1d4 2

33-35 1d6 2

Not everything that was in RQ4 is necessarily better than RQ3. If nobody has revived this concept it is because it does not add anything, not because they forgot.

[Dredj]

This is semi related to the subject.

My problem with most gaming systems is that no matter how good you roll to hit, you can still roll low on the damage dice. I realize critical hits are supposed to make up for it, but it would be interesting if there was some way to make sure a good, though non-critical hit, was rewarded each time. And hits that just barely made it wouldn't do as much damage. FUDGE is the only system I've found that does this well. Too bad it's so grainy for the types of games I wish to play.

But I suppose the damage rolls can account for a blow being deflected off a bone, or the opponent zigged at the time the character zagged, with the percentage to hit merely accounting for whether the character hit or not.

[Trifletraxor]

I agree with rolling dice being fun, and that the mrq d4, d6, d8, d10, etc. damage modifiers have a better progression.

d2 and d3 sucks though. I want to roll those dices as little as possible. Maybe +1 and +2 from rq4 could be combined with the mrq way?

SGL.

[RosenMcStern]

D2 sucks big time, but when the reward is taking that pesky trollking down one SR before he possibly impales you, I think that no one would choose a fixed 1 instead. The lack of granularity in Damage Bonuses wa the first time I wanted to correct when I learned RuneQuest 3 in (gulp :shocked:) 1987. After 21 years and all manners of houserules, I think this is just a minor nuisance and there is no real need to correct it. Either you have 1d4 at start, or you'll manage to learn Bladesharp, sooner or later.

[peterb]

The Swedish RPG "Drakar & Demoner", which was based on Magic World, but later developed along its own lines (but still always has been clearly a BRP-engine game) used a different table in its 3:rd ed. (from 1987).

01-16  No extra damage

17-20  +1d4

21-25  +1d6

26-30  +1d10

31-40  +2d6

51-60  +3d6

61-70  +4d6

71-90  +5d6

each additional 

+ 20   +1d6 

Then in the 4:ed (from 1991) the game designers changed the rules again:

  01-26  No extra damage

  27-29  +1

  30-32  +1d2

  33-40  +1d4

  41-50  +1d6

  51-60  +1d10

  61-80  +2d6

 81-100 +3d6

101-140 +4d6

141-180 +5d6

They also upgraded the damage two-handed weapons did. A standard human wielding a Greataxe normally did 2d6+2+1d4 points of damage in RQ III (with an average of 11), in D&D 4 (as its known in Sweden) the same human would do 2d10+1 (for an average of 11). Creatures that where strong (such as dwarves) benefited from the new system since it only cared about whether or not you could handle the heavy weapon (i.e. the STR value).

[Jason D]

This is semi related to the subject.

My problem with most gaming systems is that no matter how good you roll to hit, you can still roll low on the damage dice. I realize critical hits are supposed to make up for it, but it would be interesting if there was some way to make sure a good, though non-critical hit, was rewarded each time. And hits that just barely made it wouldn't do as much damage. FUDGE is the only system I've found that does this well. Too bad it's so grainy for the types of games I wish to play.

But I suppose the damage rolls can account for a blow being deflected off a bone, or the opponent zigged at the time the character zagged, with the percentage to hit merely accounting for whether the character hit or not.

You might take a look at Rolemaster Express (or HARP) for another system in which the quality of the dice roll directly affects the damage dealt.

[Rurik]

Though the d2 bugs me too I still much prefer the random bonus and the MRQ progression over fixed bonuses.

A fixed bonus rapidly sets a minimum damage threshold that proves quite lethal - especially when used with hit locations.

A creature with a +3 damage bonus is pretty much goint to always take out an average persons arm on every hit, even with a relatively weak damage attack (say 1d4). If the same creature instead had a +1d6 damage bonus the average damage done will be slightly higher, bit there is still a chance that it will do only a 2 point wound.

The opposite holds true on the max damage side. That d4+3 damage is never going to do more than 7 points, were it a d6 bonus it could do 10 (and hence do some real damage to a heavily armored foe). Though this 'max threshold' doesn't bother me as much as the high minumum damage value.

[peterb]

You might take a look at Rolemaster Express (or HARP) for another system in which the quality of the dice roll directly affects the damage dealt.

One way of implementing such a system in BRP would be to compare what the two combatants rolled and add the difference as a damage bonus.

First you need to implement a method of finding out the relative level of success of any roll. A simple, yet elegant, method to solve this problem is to compare the tens of skill roll with the tens of the effective skill level. For example, assume that Abe and Bernie are competing in a poetry contest. For this purpose the GM uses the Oratory skill. Abe has skill 78% and Bernie 65%. If Abe rolls 50 and Bernie 46 then Abe’s relative level off success was 7 – 5 = 2 and Bernie’s was 6 – 4 = 2, it’s a tie.

Special successes increases the level of success by 150% and a critical increases it by 200%.

If the attacker manages to hit (his level of success is higher than 1) then use the following table:

Effect   Damage Bonus

1               1

2               1d3

3               1d6

4               1d8

5               1d10

6               2d6

7               2d8

8               3d6

9               2d10

10              4d6

each extra level adds +1d6 to the damage

A win by 5 or 6 points roughly equals an impale, double normal damage. A win by 8 points and up is similar to a critical. The bonus damage will defeat almost all types of armour making it similar in effect to a critical.

EDIT: One could also change the damage calculation completely and base it on the effectiveness of the blow, the damage bonus and add a bonus for the weapon used. The later would then be a fixed value. I would suggest using the average of the dice used (rounded down) - 1 and ignore any added value, i.e. a dagger would do 1 point of damage (2.5, rounded down, -1), a broadsword would do 2 points (3.5, rounded down, - 1) and a pole axe would do 6 points (3 times 3.5, rounded down, -1). A strong human of average size that managed a good hit with a sword would do 1d10 + 1d4 + 2 points of damage.

A successful parry would soak damage up to shields AP, a successful dodge would avoid the hit.

[RosenMcStern]

It's a variation of the Degree of Success used in SPQR (Steve Perrin's system). It is nice, but it creates a totally new system. Also remember that even 4d6 is not enough to bypass a Dragon's armor, so a success level of 10+ is not equal to a critical.

[NickMiddleton]

...But then I came across the flat bonus from RQ4, and that seems to solve the problem. Has anyone used that? What are the feelings about it versus the bonus die method?

I dislike the fixed damage bonus approach, as it removes any possibility of a glancing blow from exceptionally large creatures. The increasing die size damage bonus seen in MRQ (and earlier in the things like the Elric! effect die table) is a better solution, addressing both the lack of variability in the fixed system, and the bias towards average (and thus large) damage adds of the traditional d4/d6/2d6/3d6 DB progression...

But I thought long and hard about it during the BRP play test and to be honest, at the point at which things get a 2d6 DB in BRP , I don't think it's an issue. Before I'd re-jig the DB table I'd re-jig the weapons damage tables to remove the flat +'s, as I think they distort things far more. YMMV.

Nick

[The Last Conformist]

Before I'd re-jig the DB table I'd re-jig the weapons damage tables to remove the flat +'s, as I think they distort things far more. YMMV.

I always thought the 1d8+1 damage for your basic sword odd. Why not simply 1d10? Anyone know?

[Dredj]

You might take a look at Rolemaster Express (or HARP) for another system in which the quality of the dice roll directly affects the damage dealt.

I'm sticking with BRP. I've looked at too many systems trying to find the "right one". BRP is the best I can find to cover everything I want a role-playing system to do. I was just wondering if someone came up with a way to do the same thing with BRP?

[frogspawner]

But then I came across the flat bonus from RQ4, and that seems to solve the problem. Has anyone used that?

I use flat damage bonuses and they work just fine.

... I'm curious why they didn't like it.

I think he's saying his group does like and use flat RQ4-style damage bonuses, in fact - he's just not keen himself. And if you've got a character in the 25-32 range it must be annoying to miss out on a +d4 and probably just get +1. But, objectively, it does give a smoother progression.

No-one has objected to Bladesharp's flat damage bonus. So I think it's just that most people around here are accustomed to variable DB's, and the grainy progression they give.

There seem to have been several improvements in RQ4, including both flat damage bonuses and removal of fiddly "+1"s from weapon damages. (Just dropping them, rather than rounding up to the next die, btw - avoiding an 'arms race' with armour points, and reducing lethality of criticals).

No reflection on Jason's superb effort with BRP - he had to base it on what was actually published. But - ah! - what might have been...

[RosenMcStern]

I think he's saying his group does like and use flat RQ4-style damage bonuses, in fact - he's just not keen himself.

Exactly. Except that about one month ago someone (not me) started considering that the overall damage was reduced and taking down enemies was becoming increasingly difficult.

There seem to have been several improvements in RQ4, including both flat damage bonuses and removal of fiddly "+1"s from weapon damages.

You are just assuming that "It is good because it was in RQ4". This is no point. Removing the +1/+2s has just the effect of reducing variability among weapons, and this is by no means an improvement. The flat additions represent weapon shape in RQ3/BRP: curved blade weapons have +2 but a smaller die, straight-bladed weapons have +1, blunt weapons have no blade bonus. Polearms are the only exception.

Removing flat bonuses yelds the improvement of scimitars, battleaxes, broadswords and maces having about the same statistics. If that is what you call an "improvement"...

No reflection on Jason's superb effort with BRP - he had to base it on what was actually published.

What if he just thought the +1s were ok?

[peterb]

You are just assuming that "It is good because it was in RQ4". This is no point. Removing the +1/+2s has just the effect of reducing variability among weapons, and this is by no means an improvement. The flat additions represent weapon shape in RQ3/BRP: curved blade weapons have +2 but a smaller die, straight-bladed weapons have +1, blunt weapons have no blade bonus. Polearms are the only exception.

Removing flat bonuses yelds the improvement of scimitars, battleaxes, broadswords and maces having about the same statistics. If that is what you call an "improvement"...

In a real fight the real differencing factor would probably not be whether one of the combatants had a scimitar and the other a mace, but who had the greater skill and tactical ability. When designing a RPG, one has to take the "game" part of it in consideration. Giving players the possibility to make choices makes for a better game. So, from that perspective, it's good game design to let scimitars do 1d6+2 in damage and a mace 1d8.

[RosenMcStern]

In a real fight the real differencing factor would probably not be whether one of the combatants had a scimitar and the other a mace, but who had the greater skill and tactical ability.

Well, this is still true in BRP, because your average parrying weapon will absorb 1d6+2 or 1d8 in damage equally well, assuming you are skilled enough to parry. The difference is just that the scimitar is a bit more likely to cripple if it actually strikes an unarmored foe, while the mace has some extra chances to knock down a lightly armored foe (if you use the old rule of "halve soft armor vs. maces"). Which is somehow realistic. And, as you pointed out, much more fun.

[The Last Conformist]

The flat additions represent weapon shape in RQ3/BRP: curved blade weapons have +2 but a smaller die, straight-bladed weapons have +1, blunt weapons have no blade bonus.

I'm afraid the logic of this convention escapes me completely.

(Also, it plain doesn't apply to SB5, where a 1H mace does 1d6+2 damage. I thought the new BRP book took its close combat weapon stats from SB5?)

Removing flat bonuses yelds the improvement of scimitars, battleaxes, broadswords and maces having about the same statistics. If that is what you call an "improvement"...

I don't see the point in difference for difference's sake. If a mace, say, did less damage than a broadsword but ignored or reduced armour, there would be a mechanically interesting choice between them, but the difference between 1d6+2 and 1d8+1 is pretty much cosmetic (in fact, the sword is slightly better at punching through armour).

Also, as was already mentioned, flat adds leads to the anomaly where you can't get grazing hits. This is particularly noticeable in CoC with rifle damages like 2d6+4.

[RosenMcStern]

I'm afraid the logic of this convention escapes me completely.

(Also, it plain doesn't apply to SB5, where a 1H mace does 1d6+2 damage. I thought the new BRP book took its close combat weapon stats from SB5?)

I was not advocating either RQ or SB. In fact I see maces having a higher minimum, as in SB, as being more realistic. The point is that they are different and they should do different damage.

I don't see the point in difference for difference's sake.

peterb has already replied to this.

(in fact, the sword is slightly better at punching through armour).

Flexible armour. This was the point. Vs. hard armour, sharp weapons are more effective.

Also, as was already mentioned, flat adds leads to the anomaly where you can't get grazing hits. This is particularly noticeable in CoC with rifle damages like 2d6+4.

But a grazing hit is impossible with a weapon that is basing its damage on sheer impact force. You cannot be grazed by a modern .45 shot, and I am very uncertain about a heavy maul grazing anyone, too. An arrow or a super-sharp katana is another story. The point is exactly what you have just reminded us: the SB way where blunt weapons have the highest minimum is superior to the RQ way where the sharp weapons do. But whatever the right way, having a difference is realistic.

[frogspawner]

You are just assuming that "It is good because it was in RQ4".

This assertion is incorrect. I've only recently seen RQ4 (RQ:AiG) so I am not a long-time devotee. I believe that absence of "+1"s for weapon damage is good, and only saw that RQ4 didn't have them when I looked it up prior to posting here.

When designing a RPG, one has to take the "game" part of it in consideration. Giving players the possibility to make choices makes for a better game. So, from that perspective, it's good game design to let scimitars do 1d6+2 in damage and a mace 1d8.

Absolutely. But what with different Special effects, I'm sure there would still be enough differences between weapons to give interesting in-game choices. By all means keep a flat bonus for some weapons, where it seems specialy justified. Perhaps the ones currently having +2's could be reduced to +1's, and the +1's dropped. If you like difference, there seems more of a difference between one with a bonus and one without, than between two similar bonuses.

I'm afraid the logic of this convention escapes me completely.

Same here. For BRP it's Scimitar d8+1 and L.Mace d6+2 (H.Mace d8+2). So much for the 'curved edge' theory.

[Rurik]

I use flat damage bonuses and they work just fine.

I think they work ok for normal humans with a +1 or maybe +2 fixed bonus, it is when you get into higher bonuses the fixed system starts to bug me. A fixed +5 bonus is just brutal, I much prefer a variable d8 or d10 bonus to a fixed +5.

No-one has objected to Bladesharp's flat damage bonus. So I think it's just that most people around here are accustomed to variable DB's, and the grainy progression they give.

Funny you mention that - I almost did mention bladesharp in my last post as an example of how lethal fixed bonuses are. Bladesharp 3 or 4 are very lethal spells, turning a d8+1 weapon into a d8+5 weapon is brutal in most games. Though that is a magical effect, and can be justified as such.

I just prefer a more variable range for damage - and have argued the same in the weapon damage threads of days past. The 2d6+4 rifle damage in CoC makes it impossible to do a minor wound in a hit location system, yet in real life people a grazed only moderately wounded by large caliber rifles frequently. I would prefer 2d10 to 2d6+4 any day. The average damage is the same, the round is potentially more lethal, but it is still possible to do a 2 point wound (though really there is only a 1% chance of that happening). Let a .50 cal do 2d20. The average shot is still going to kill any human, hit locations or not, but at least there is a chance of surviving, however slim.

Long story short (I know, too late for that...): More variable damage allows for a more realistic (in my opinion anyhow) range of results.

[frogspawner]

I think they work ok for normal humans with a +1 or maybe +2 fixed bonus, it is when you get into higher bonuses the fixed system starts to bug me. A fixed +5 bonus is just brutal, I much prefer a variable d8 or d10 bonus to a fixed +5.

I can see what you mean.

I realize now that I must be used to playing at the low-end of the damage-bonus scale. So let me qualify what I said - at that end, flat bonuses work fine.

If it's a Big Ugly Monster doing lots of dice damage anyway, a big flat bonus probably isn't too offensive, either. But for a super-strength character-type, with a small-ish one-or-two die weapon, I can see that it would be. It's a matter of taste, but I'd probably agree that at about +5 it starts to break down.

However - is this a problem that should be solved in a different way?

I suspect the real problem may be that small weapons should not allow big bonuses (i.e. getting a +2d6 damage bonus when wielding a toothpick is clearly wrong). Has anyone previously recognized this problem and got a good scalable solution to it? One that isn't just the GM saying "that's silly"?

[Dredj]

I can see what you mean.

I realize now that I must be used to playing at the low-end of the damage-bonus scale. So let me qualify what I said - at that end, flat bonuses work fine.

If it's a Big Ugly Monster doing lots of dice damage anyway, a big flat bonus probably isn't too offensive, either. But for a super-strength character-type, with a small-ish one-or-two die weapon, I can see that it would be. It's a matter of taste, but I'd probably agree that at about +5 it starts to break down.

However - is this a problem that should be solved in a different way?

I suspect the real problem may be that small weapons should not allow big bonuses (i.e. getting a +2d6 damage bonus when wielding a toothpick is clearly wrong). Has anyone previously recognized this problem and got a good scalable solution to it? One that isn't just the GM saying "that's silly"?

Turn the +5 into a +1D6-1; or just a +1D6. +4 is just +1D4.

The damage bonus is for the force behind the blow (at least, that's how I understand it). Not only would you get a toothpick in the eye, but also a few knuckles. However, if you're sticking a toothpick into a prone character's eye, then it just succeeds as the character can't fight back.