Screwy Shit in RPGs That Bugs You

>>54115810
This problem exists because many systems don't take into account that people with low strength can't wield heavy weapons. Weapons should have a minimum strength requirement attached to them. In some games (DnD, Pathfinder) however, you get half again your strength for wielding a weapon with two hands, so in that case it benefits strong characters more to wield weapons in two hands, rather than one.

>>54115855
>This problem exists because many systems don't take into account that people with low strength can't wield heavy weapons. Weapons should have a minimum strength requirement attached to them.
But the problem still exists, it just has a higher ground floor. The weakest people capable of wielding heavy weapons are the most incentivized to use them.

>In some games (DnD, Pathfinder) however, you get half again your strength for wielding a weapon with two hands, so in that case it benefits strong characters more to wield weapons in two hands, rather than one.
This does address the problem, though in my opinion, it's a less than elegant solution for a couple of reasons. First, it's kind of obnoxious to add one-and-a-half times your strength bonus (but then I like shit as simple and streamlined as possible, so others may not understand my point of view). Second, it stacks inflated damage on top of already-larger weapon damage, so things can get a bit out of hand damage-wise. One thing I don't like about it is that it takes away the possibility of a graze--or anything approaching that. If your strength bonus is 4, for instance, the very least damage you can do with a two-handed weapon is 7, which is pretty close to the maximum damage a normal dude does with a normal sword.

In the end, it feels like a patch on a flawed system. With that said, I'm not sure what the ideal solution is. It still bugs me though.

>>54115810
The problem exists because those "heavy Weapons" like the 2 handed sword weren't that heavy, and are easier for someone with a lower strength to use for prolonged times.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aSy9GLi2H44
this should help you learn a thing or 3.

1. This problem is nowhere common except in very direct D&D clones
2. Even there the modifier is usually multiplied on 2h weapons.
3. Actually, that's accurate. Most likely totally accidentaly, but still. One handed weapons DO benefit from user's physical strength more than two handed ones. Because in case of one handed weapons it is the ONLY factor that drives them, while in case of two handed weaponry the leverage can compensate for it to a large degree.

This is why you only make two handed weapons give a strength bonus to damage, other weapon types do not. This means that if you have low or negative strength modifier, you should stick with smaller weapons that way you aren't being penalized for using a big sword.

>>54116136
You could have all weapons do the same damage and just differ in how much of your strength bonus is applied.

>>54115961
Video makes a good point.

>>54116174
I think this is the way to go.

>>54116174

Seems more fiddly with no gain.

>>54116250
Depends on the way the game is structured really.

Compare:
dagger -- d4
sword -- d8
greatsword -- 2d6

To all weapons do d8 and:
dagger -- 1/2x str
sword -- 1x str
greatsword -- 2x str

>>54115810
What are you talking about? You have a skill penalty per point your ST is lower than the min. ST for the weapon you're wielding.

>>54115810
I think the problem with your Grok of the situation is that most player characters have at least average strength, which is enough to wield "heavy" weapons. A zero (or a 10 in DnDs case) is not weak, its average.

>>54115810
If I had strenght bonus of 1000 (assuming 3.pf rules) I wouldn't bother with weapons anymore. Clearly my fists are the greatest weapons ever forged by any god or mortal.

>>54116288
But then you run into the inverse problem where the guy with no strength bonus hits just as hard with a six inch shank as he does with a six foot compensator.

>>54119923
the solution: larger hit dice for lighter weapon, higher strength multiplier for heavier weapon

>>54116815
>(assuming 3.pf rules)

>>54120129
Well if I'd just said 1000 strenght bonus some autist would have dug up his homebrew campaign where 1000 Str bonus is like pennies.

>>54116815
Even then Monks would still be shit.
'cept for Zen archers.

>>54119923
Base damage on the stat rather than the attribute then... or don't play dnd

>>54115810
Well, to be fair, I think shield and sword does require a fair bit of strength because you don't have all that weight distributed between two hands and one of the things in your hands is a slab of metal, wood, and/or hide.

but, this does seem a bit of an issue for a DnD-based system.

Perhaps the obvious suggestion might be that while using heavy, two-handed weapons, a player can apply x3 their strength bonus rather than x1 (one handed) or x1.5 (normal two handed)

Add to that maybe some minimum strength score requirements and maybe that can patch something?

>>54119923
>But then you run into the inverse problem where the guy with no strength bonus hits just as hard with a six inch shank as he does with a six foot compensator
A guy with no strength bonus wouldn't be able to use a six foot compensator.

>>54115855
Oddly enough, in real life, the actual weapons that were used two-handed arguably require more finesse and less strength (with the exception of stupid big fantasy style weapons). Think about it. If you have two points of contact on a weapon, you have much more control, and weapons in real life were nowhere near as insanely heavy as they are implied to be in pretty much any game. Equivalent hand tools are much heavier, for example, because you don't need to recover from strikes or change their angle swiftly.

If I was weaker and wanted to hurt somebody more effectively I would prefer to use a two-handed spear, or a longsword.

Strength only applies to hit chance. Damage is exclusive weapon die. Weapons add a hit chance the lighter they are.
So a dagger have +3 (+str) to hit, 1d4 (no str added) damage. A sword is +1, 1d8 damage.

>>54115810
Well, usually I see that fixed by the fact that characters with low strength don't want to be using melee weapons to begin with, unless they have ones that can use their dexterity instead.

In cases where someone doesn't have very good strength or dex, they're also usually playing a caster who doesn't have access to a lot of those same weapons in general, and still would rather use something with range.

While mathmatically it's better to use a two-handed sword over a standard one if you have low strength, it's also better to use a crossbow or something that actually suits your stats, since the ability to keep your distance or use something you have an actual bonus in will help more in the long run.

Guys with high strength will usually still pick a big weapon to do more damage even if the proportional increase is less.

File: 1476904200076.jpg (86KB, 313x313px) Image search: [Google]

86KB, 313x313px

>>54115810
I fail do see the problem. Why wouldn't a bigger weapon do more damage?

Most of my players just pick a weapon that fits their character's personality.

Although I do have one guy who always rolls a caster and always buys a falchion because of the damage boost and crit range.

He rarely hits bc proficiency but hey, it's his choice.

>>54115810

You realise this means that big swords really are Compensating for low strength, right?

File: 1438217490377.jpg (45KB, 363x508px) Image search: [Google]

45KB, 363x508px

>one character is a guy who hits stuff with a sword
>one character is a guy who can magically bend reality to his will
>both are equally good at adventuring

>>54115810
Yeah that does bug me, glad I'm not the only one. The way the numbers scale does influence game.

Any game that's gives high flat damage bonuses offer renders the trade off between a d6 weapon and a d8 weapon irrelevant.

>>54120099
>the solution: larger hit dice for lighter weapon, higher strength multiplier for heavier weapon

Interesting. Could you elaborate more?

You could also do a what Savage World does. The Str bonus is rated from a d4 to a d12 same as the weapons, you roll both for damage and need at least the same Str to use that type of weapon secondly.

>>54115810
Why exactly are high strength characters incentivized to avoid high damage weapons? Because it's not as much of a percentage increase? Why does that matter if you're trying to maximize damage?

>>54126113
They're incentivized to avoid two-handed weapons, because they get proportionally less benefit from devoting two hands to one murder implement.
Reading comprehension.

>>54126113
Because you're getting diminishing results. +3 a covers average differences between d6 and a d12, with out the possibility of 1 damage.

Remember DnD has a "hand economy", someone with 16 strength could do a lot of damage with a great axe. But is usually better off getting a d6 shortsword and a shield or look into two weapon fighting.

>>54125904
Somebody has to keep the mage from getting shanked at the beginning of the adventure. And later, unless the DM is a retard, the guy with the sword should have magic gear that allows him to throw giants off their feet or whatever other shit.

>>54126113
because d4+3 is objectively better than 2d6+3, duh

>>54126403
>>54125904

The idea of fighters as defenders and bodyguards to wizards only worked in previous editions when they had strict penalties and limits on casting in combat.

Mechanically fighters *are* redundant nowadays. Just bring another wizard, or if you're feeling cautious maybe a cleric.

>>54122628
Or a crossbow, if you could afford one.

>>54125526
The problem isn't that big weapons do more damage, that's obvious and expected. It's that big weapons proportionately gain less from higher strength than smaller weapons. Having low strength and attempting to wield a heavy weapon should probably incur an accuracy and/or damage penalty if below a threshold based on the unwieldiness of the weapon in question much like the penalty for dual wield without ambidexterity but no such mechanic exists in DnD RAW.

>>54126623
>d4+3 objectively better then 2d6+3, duh.

No it's not, but offer not worth the trade off. But If it's a d4+3 but you can attack twice every round or what ever, or use an item or use a shild and most enemies don't have more than 8 hit points. That that extra damage is going to be wasted.

Plus if your GM is the common sort arsehole who says critical fumbles harm allies, you actually do you want to cap your maxuim damage.

Yes I've play those DMs.

>>54126782

AD&D pulled a load of dick moves for heavier weapons, with having axes in particular being essentially "trap weapons", as you had to basically be fairly proficient in them to counter-act both the attacks-per-round and initiative you lost due to their size, plus they generally had THAC0 penalties to boot, and with no real benefit in terms of being able to overcome some specialised DR like you got from hammers and other heavy bludgeoning weapons, and honestly while everyone's talkign about the difference from a knife and a bastard sword, the difference in damage die from a bastard sword and a great axe is a fart compared to a bastard sword's superior speed and lack of THAC0 penalties.

I remember a war game on /tg/ a while back which had odd taken this.

The bigger the weapon the bigger the dice type used and you had to roll over the enemie's armour defence as normal.

But rolling the highest number on the dice was a guaranteed wound. So there was a trade off (explained that smaller weapons were better a finding weak spots)

If anyone could remember what it was called that would be great.