Random Damage Bonus versus Static Damage Bonus

[Al.]

No version of d100 has ever had a 4-point granularity in the table. RQ3 and DBRP are "+1d6 per 16 points" (+3.5 per 16 points), while RQ4 and MRQ are "+1 or +1d2 per five points". Your table is a nice synthesis of RQ4 and MRQ, but the curve is definitely too steep. I have had player characters in my game with STR+SIZ normally enhanced to 66, and the bonuses you suggest are too high (4d6!).

By Jove you're right

I made the second table by splitting the blocks in the first (official) in half (so eight point granularity halved to 4) but you are certainly correct that it steepens for big numbers.

'My' table what I uses has +d2 for +5 Str+Siz or +d6 for +15 (as previously) posted and works well for me, the most recent was more of an off the cuff response to our chum reminding us of what the official chart is.

I am sure that someone who cared could massage the numbers.

Al

[Tywyll]

By Jove you're right

I made the second table by splitting the blocks in the first (official) in half (so eight point granularity halved to 4) but you are certainly correct that it steepens for big numbers.

'My' table what I uses has +d2 for +5 Str+Siz or +d6 for +15 (as previously) posted and works well for me, the most recent was more of an off the cuff response to our chum reminding us of what the official chart is.

I am sure that someone who cared could massage the numbers.

Al

I'm not sure why the chart has to follow the same progression forever. Having one progression at the bottom for differentiating PCs, then having it increase in spread as it goes up, seems to make more sense to me.

[RosenMcStern]

I'm not sure why the chart has to follow the same progression forever. Having one progression at the bottom for differentiating PCs, then having it increase in spread as it goes up, seems to make more sense to me.

This is approximately what BRP does, except that the "more granular" increase at the low end of the scale fails because the (in)famous D2 is not included. A table with D2/D4/D6/2D6/3D6 etc. would be fine to me, but again, D2 is not very popular. Which is a shame, since it is the cheapest die (one cent ).

[Mugen]

Note that the SPQR mentionned above use static damage bonus as an option.

Another way to change the system would be to use the same method than in GURPS or Pendragon : Have a base random damage function of (STR+SIZ) and add or substract a value depending on the weapon.

[RosenMcStern]

As an option: if you like it, use it flat. If you do not, use the dice.

ALL systems (including D&D) use the same system: damage is weapon + personal. The difference is just:

SYSTEM--|D&D/RQ4|GURPS/Pend|BRP/MRQ

Weapon--|-Random|--Fixed---|Random

Personal|-Fixed-|--Random--|Random

All combinations were attempted except the Fixed/Fixed that would be incredibly boring. Frankly, I think fixed damage for weapons is not realistic (there are many ways you can deal an effective blow with a weapon, and a die roll is a good way to represent them), so it all boils down to whether your STR provides a fixed amount of damage or a rolled amount.

[Harvey Walters]

As an option: if you like it, use it flat. If you do not, use the dice.

ALL systems (including D&D) use the same system: damage is weapon + personal. The difference is just:

SYSTEM--|D&D/RQ4|GURPS/Pend|BRP/MRQ

Weapon--|-Random|--Fixed---|Random

Personal|-Fixed-|--Random--|Random

All combinations were attempted except the Fixed/Fixed that would be incredibly boring. Frankly, I think fixed damage for weapons is not realistic (there are many ways you can deal an effective blow with a weapon, and a die roll is a good way to represent them), so it all boils down to whether your STR provides a fixed amount of damage or a rolled amount.

Tri-Stat used Fixed/Fixed. There was an optional rule for rolling on a table

to multiply the fixed damage by a percentage modifier to give more varied results.

You could to the same to BRP with Fixed/Fixed damage multiplied by a D10 roll for 10% to 100%.

[Trifletraxor]

1. Firearms Damage esp. 2d6+4 for Lee Enfields

Pistol

Damage = 1d (metric calibre rounded up)

AP=0

Examples

.22 Pistol 1d6 damage no AP

.38 Pistol 1d10 damage no AP

Al

AP, is that armor points or armor piercing?

Metric calibre rounded up, can you explain how that a bit more?

SGL.

[Al.]

double post

[Al.]

AP, is that armor points or armor piercing?

Armour-piercing. The round ignores that many points of the targets armour. No matter how high the AP value Armour cannot be reduced below zero.

i.e. Lt Bill Shut fires his M16 at a an eldritch horror with 6 armour points. The 5 points of armour-piercing reduce this to 1 point. If the horror had only 3 armour points then this would be reduced to zero the 2 extra points are lost

Metric calibre rounded up, can you explain how that a bit more?

The maximum damage a pistol inflicts is a die with as many sides as the pistol round's calibre rounded up to the nearest die size.

i.e. a 9mm pistol round does 1d10 damage.

a 5.56mm pistol round does 1d6 damage.

Al

[Trifletraxor]

Thanks! Interesting idea.

SGL.

[Rurik]

Just don't tell the velocity freaks that you are using the diameter of the round to base damage on...

[Nightshade]

Just don't tell the velocity freaks that you are using the diameter of the round to base damage on...

You probably really want to use muzzle energy; its not a perfect solution either (ballistics is too complicated for there to be a perfectly solution) but it'll probably produce less artifacts than any other single criterion.

[Al.]

Just don't tell the velocity freaks that you are using the diameter of the round to base damage on...

I'm kinda including velocity by having a subtly different calculation for pistol, carbine and rifle. To take into account length of barrel and quantity of propellant and thus velocity.

Ultimately it is a very rough and ready calculation (well six of them) which give same numbers which make ENOUGH sense to me for a GAME.

I am sure that there are better ones out there.

I am equally sure that the whole muzzle energy vs. energy imparted at target debate has been aired by people infinitely more qualified and erudite than me.

Al

[Lord Twig]

I like the idea of rolling damage dice, but I also like the idea of more granularity. I have come up with the following. Obviously some people won't like it. An option would be to just add +1d6 for every 16 after 33 or 49, depending on when you thought that the granularity was no longer useful.

STR+SIZ = Damage Dice = Average Damage

01-04 = -1d6 = -3.5

05-08 = -1d3+1 = -3

09-12 = -1d3 = -2

13-16 = -1 = -1

17-20 = 0 = 0

21-24 = +1 = +1

25-28 = +1d3 = +2

29-32 = +1d3+1 = +3

33-36 = +1d6 = +3.5

37-40 = +1d6+1 = +4.5

41-44 = +1d6+1d3 = +5.5

45-48 = +1d6+1d3+1 = +6.5

49-52 = +2d6 = +7

53-56 = +2d6+1 = +8

57-60 = +2d6+1d3 = +9

61-64 = +2d6+1d3+1 = +10

65-68 = +3d6 = +10.5

etc...

Edit: Hmmm... Just had a thought. You could replace the 1d3+1 with 1d4 and you would get a pretty good progression as well.

STR+SIZ = Damage Dice = Average Damage

01-04 = -1d6 = -3.5

05-08 = -1d4 = -2.5

09-12 = -1d3 = -2

13-16 = -1 = -1

17-20 = 0 = 0

21-24 = +1 = +1

25-28 = +1d3 = +2

29-32 = +1d4 = +2.5

33-36 = +1d6 = +3.5

37-40 = +1d6+1 = +4.5

41-44 = +1d6+1d3 = +5.5

45-48 = +1d6+1d4 = +6

49-52 = +2d6 = +7

53-56 = +2d6+1 = +8

57-60 = +2d6+1d3 = +9

61-64 = +2d6+1d4 = +9.5

65-68 = +3d6 = +10.5

etc...

[Tywyll]

I like the idea of rolling damage dice, but I also like the idea of more granularity. I have come up with the following. Obviously some people won't like it.

etc...

Personally? I think it looks great. I look forward to taking it for a spin. :thumb:

[The Last Conformist]

Sorry for late reply.

The point is that they are different and they should do different damage.

This seems to be our fundamental disagreement. I do not want or like difference for difference's sake - do things meaningfully different, or don't bother in the first place. A cosmetic difference in damage codes isn't worthwhile. Losing the adds would make things simpler, introducing a big difference would add interest, the present system achieves neither.

peterb has already replied to this.

He said players should be given choices; I quite agree, but only to the extent they're interesting choices. 1d10 vs 1d8+1 for damage isn't interesting.

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

Other way round. Hard armour (eg. plate) is relatively more protection against a sword (it stops you from getting cut in two!) than against a mace (which wasn't going to cut you in the first place). You still suffer the impact from either (but spread over a larger area - less risk of broken bones etc), but the mace presumably has more of it (it must have to deal the same damage as the sword to an unarmoured target).

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.

What gives you the idea you can't have a grazing hit with a bullet? It's very possible for a periferal hit to just punch through skin, fat and muscle without actually damaging anything important.

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.

As per above, the SB way is the wrong way round compared to reality. Reversing the damage codes would be marginally more realistic than having the same for both weapons, but I'd happily pay that small price in realism for getting rid of the complication of the flat adds.