Converting to an all-d6 weapons system

13 posts / 0 new
Last post
BigFatStupidHead
Barbarian Conquerors of Kanahu BackerACKS Heroic Fantasy Handbook Backer
Joined: 2017-07-30 22:31
Converting to an all-d6 weapons system

So here's a question for you;

   I am working on moving to a all-weapons-deal-d6 system and have run into a creative block.

Where all weapons are essentially the same, there is no point having a class-based weapon proficiency list. So instead, I have decided that weapons work for initiative, longest first in the intial engagement, shortest first thereafter. Fighters (and others with two points in the combat build category) treat their weapon one step more favourably for this. Wizards (and others with no points in same category) strike last. 1a and 1b sorta throw me though. If thieves get no bonus, then what makes clerics worse than this? Or should thieves and fighters have some extra bonus, and clerics just play it straight?

Thanks for any ideas!

jojodogboy
Patreon Supporter
Joined: 2017-09-04 12:05

Question - Is it that you only want to use d6 for damage, or is it that you want every weapon to do the same amount of damage?

The main effect of weapon limitation is a slight reduction to versatility for damage (small one handed vs. 1 or 2 handed vs. 2 handed), and flexibility in terms of magical weapns found.  

The limitation on weapon selection still impacts magical weapons found and flexibility even if every weapoon does 1d6.  This is especially true if swords are restricted as magical swords are much more common than other magical weapons in base ACKS. 

BigFatStupidHead
Barbarian Conquerors of Kanahu BackerACKS Heroic Fantasy Handbook Backer
Joined: 2017-07-30 22:31

Yes, all weapons deal d6.

 

You make a good point on magic weapon types. Even before variable weapon damage was introduced, magic swords were restricted to fighters. Then thieves. And maybe wizards sometimes? It's kinda murky. I'll have to put some thought into this.

What about a system of fighters have initiative of weapon length+, thieves of length, clerics of weapon-, and wizards of LAST? 

Aryxymaraki
Aryxymaraki's picture
Patreon SupporterDomains At War BackerSinister Stone of Sakkara BackerLairs And Encounters BackerBarbarian Conquerors of Kanahu ContributorACKS Heroic Fantasy Handbook Contributor
Joined: 2014-01-04 02:20

What gameplay benefit do you get by making all weapons deal the same damage?

I agree in general, that if all weapons deal the same damage then you need to have some other method of differentiating them. I'm just not sure what you gain by unifying weapon damage; it's only a complexity reduction if you add nothing else and leave them all identical.

jojodogboy
Patreon Supporter
Joined: 2017-09-04 12:05

The question is whether the complexity of length of weapon systems vs. diffirent dice  for weapon differentiation is worth it.

The fun part of play is PCs making meaningful chooses.  The question is whether the level of complexity is worth the xtra work, and vice versa - does the added simplicity worth the loss of choice.  

The easiest way is to slap on a initiative bonus based on level of fighter - 

fighter +2     Thief +1     Cleric +0     Mage -1

then match this to length modifier - 1st round (approach)/subsequent round (engaged)

long +1/-1     med 0/0     short -1/+1

so a fighter with a 2 handed sword faces a thief with a dagger.  Round 1 - as he approaches the fighter gets +3 to init (+2 as fighter +1 for a long weapon) while the thief gets +0 (+1 as thief -1 for short weapon).  While they are engaged, the fighter now gets +1 to inititative (+2 for init and -1 for length) and the thief gets +2 (+1 for thief and +1 for length).

That's the simplest system to get what you want.  This can be made simpler by adding spaces on the character sheets:

Weapon     to-hit       init(approach)     init(close)      Damage   (assume a fighter)

sword          10+            +2                     +2               1d6+1   

dagger         10+            +1                    +3                1d6+1

2H sword      10+          +3                     +1                1d6+1

I might ask my PCs if they like that weapon length initiative bonus/penalty switch. 

BigFatStupidHead
Barbarian Conquerors of Kanahu BackerACKS Heroic Fantasy Handbook Backer
Joined: 2017-07-30 22:31

What gameplay benefit do you get by making all weapons deal the same damage? I agree in general, that if all weapons deal the same damage then you need to have some other method of differentiating them. I'm just not sure what you gain by unifying weapon damage; it's only a complexity reduction if you add nothing else and leave them all identical.

-Aryxymaraki
 

I'm looking to convert DnD basic's original d6 weapons and initiative phases to ACKS. A straight swap won't work because weapon proficiencies are pretty baked into ACKS's basic class assumptions, so I need to come up with ideas for how a class that used to have broad weapon proficiencies is still better than a class that used to have narrow weapon proficiencies. One idea was to give weapons 'powers' that would allow weapon proficiencies to still have real meaning. I think using weapon length as initiative phase is a better one though. So if Unrestricted weapons becomes "treat your weapon phase as one more favourable" and Restricted weapons is "you hit last", I need to decide what a Narrow and Broad weapon list translates into.

@jojodogboy: You've rediscovered weapon speed factors! I have to say that I like your implementation a lot better than 2e's.

 

 

 

 

Aryxymaraki
Aryxymaraki's picture
Patreon SupporterDomains At War BackerSinister Stone of Sakkara BackerLairs And Encounters BackerBarbarian Conquerors of Kanahu ContributorACKS Heroic Fantasy Handbook Contributor
Joined: 2014-01-04 02:20

I'm looking to convert DnD basic's original d6 weapons and initiative phases to ACKS. A straight swap won't work because weapon proficiencies are pretty baked into ACKS's basic class assumptions, so I need to come up with ideas for how a class that used to have broad weapon proficiencies is still better than a class that used to have narrow weapon proficiencies. One idea was to give weapons 'powers' that would allow weapon proficiencies to still have real meaning. I think using weapon length as initiative phase is a better one though. So if Unrestricted weapons becomes "treat your weapon phase as one more favourable" and Restricted weapons is "you hit last", I need to decide what a Narrow and Broad weapon list translates into.


-BigFatStupidHead

I thought something like that was the case, but it doesn't answer my question! My question is; why?

I mean, do you feel that d8/d10 is too much damage for a weapon to be doing? Are you looking to reduce the complexity of differing weapon type selection? Do you just really like cubes?

(I can offer better ideas on what differentiating factor to replace it with if I understand what your goal is with this change, which is why I ask!)

BigFatStupidHead
Barbarian Conquerors of Kanahu BackerACKS Heroic Fantasy Handbook Backer
Joined: 2017-07-30 22:31

why?


-Aryxymaraki

I think I am mostly attracted to the abstraction. I am using 1-minute rounds, and it seems to me most weapons will kill you just as dead in that large of a time space. And rather than getting crazy with a chainmail-like bonus-attacks-based-on-differing-weapon-speeds and splitting it among different opponents who might be granting you more or less attacks, using the same damage die seems to be the right way to go. Also, it may encourage characters to use a different weapon once in a while. Does that help?

Loswaith
Joined: 2017-05-12 02:19

As it goes, Fighters, Thieves and Clerics all already have access to d6 weapons, Wizards to a lesser degree.  Fighters do already get a factor for being better with weapons in their damage bonus and full cleaves, while the damage boost would bring up what a wizard can do, though their attack bonus would still be low.
The only reall difference between Thieves and Clerics is that some clerics cant use swords or heavier weapons (or some ranged weapons) while other clerical types (like the blade dancer) still can, but the thief and cleric are much the same when it comes to combat outside of those choices.  In practice they usualy choose a weapon or set of weapons (typically a melee and a ranged weapon) they always use anyway.

The bigger factor with unifying weapon damage is using a weapon 2-handed is rather pointless over a weapon and shield or two weapons.

Warhammer got around that by allowing 2 handed weapons to roll 2 damage dice and pick one (for a 1d6 this ups the average by about 1 point, to 4.47).

At the end of the day you dont really need an inherent difference, mechanically (outside of other options) between weapons, that actually lets players then choose a weapon their character would use thematically (likewise the class restrictions become more thematic), not one that is just numerically superior.

BigFatStupidHead
Barbarian Conquerors of Kanahu BackerACKS Heroic Fantasy Handbook Backer
Joined: 2017-07-30 22:31

@Loswaith: if you are suggesting there doesn't need to be any sort of compensation for the class with unlimited compared to one with narrow or broad, you are probably correct. It will all work out about right, and I doubt any player will feel cheated. Does it really matter that, in this system, the Dwarven Fury basically gains free powers by trading down to a narrow weapon selection? I doubt anyone would even notice. But it's not a tool I want to lose in class building, and I also feel it adds to the different feel of different classes. In this case, the fighters more technical training gives an edge over the rage fuelled combat of the fury. I like that!

 

Also, most 2h weapons will be striking first. That's a pretty good bonus! 

Alex
The Autarch
Joined: 2011-06-30 18:10

This is a tough one. In switching all weapons to d4/d6/d10 already I thought ACKS had moved fairly far down the abstraction curve. 

I will say this, though. Given that armor makes you harder to hit on the assumption that weapons don't penetrate it, and hit points represent fighting skill more than physical wounds, it would be plausible to have weapons give a bonus to hit or penalty to hit in lieu of damage.

So 1d4 weapons are -1 to hit, d6 weapons are 0 to hit, d8 weapons are +1 to hit, and d10 weapons are +2 to hit. If you combined this with a house rule that shields grant +2 AC instead of +1 you'd probably get a good outcome.

The only question then would be how to differentiate fighting-with-two-weapons versus fighting two-handed weapons, since right now the former gives a bonus to hit and the latter a bonus to damage. And perhaps you could say that fighting-with-two-weapons gives a +2 bonus on special maneuvers. Dunno. Just musing.

 

Loswaith
Joined: 2017-05-12 02:19

@Loswaith: if you are suggesting there doesn't need to be any sort of compensation for the class with unlimited compared to one with narrow or broad, you are probably correct. It will all work out about right, and I doubt any player will feel cheated. Does it really matter that, in this system, the Dwarven Fury basically gains free powers by trading down to a narrow weapon selection? I doubt anyone would even notice. But it's not a tool I want to lose in class building, and I also feel it adds to the different feel of different classes. In this case, the fighters more technical training gives an edge over the rage fuelled combat of the fury. I like that!

 

Also, most 2h weapons will be striking first. That's a pretty good bonus! 


-BigFatStupidHead

Keep in mind the dwarven fury is still actually paying more xp as well for those "free" abilities when it comes to leveling. 
At fighting 2 (or higher), traded off weapon tiers still have an added cost (150 xp if I recall right).  The trade-offs are a bit more 'free' for fighting 1 however as they dont have that added cost, though broard and narrow groups are still reasonably flexable (you just cant expect to pick up and use anything).
Thats one of the great things about the character creation rules, generally speaking characters are always still be paying for abilities (via the xp costs to level), even if it is just the type of ability that is changed.

While going first with a two handed weapon is a bonus, unless they actually kill/incapacitate something with that d6 damage, it still means the opponent gets to attack thus can be not as useful as the extra defense of a shield or even the attack bonus (of a second weapon) to better land the attack.  (just some food for thought).  Ultimatly seeing it in play will tell how it will work out, as that kind of thing varies a lot from player to player.

BigFatStupidHead
Barbarian Conquerors of Kanahu BackerACKS Heroic Fantasy Handbook Backer
Joined: 2017-07-30 22:31

Keep in mind the dwarven fury is still actually paying more xp as well for those "free" abilities when it comes to leveling. 


-Loswaith

I realised that not long after I posted it. I should have used a thief example - they can sell down from broad to narrow without the xp cost. Oops!