No More Variable Weapon Damage!

Men & Magic list hit dice for all characters classes and monsters as a D6 and all damage including weapons and monstrous attacks as a D6. This is a neat symmetry that encapsulates the premise that any weapon or monster can kill a normal man or first level character (who has 1-6 hit points) in one successful attack.

Supplement I “Greyhawk”, complicated the situation by introducing variable hit dice by class, Mr. Gygax even  “strongly suggesting” they be adopted,  as well as an option for variable weapon damage for both PC’s and Monsters. Variable weapon damage was also offered as an option in B/X , although interestingly hit dice by class was standard. Variable weapon damage, and hit dice by class is standard in all later editions of D&D.

I propose that in a combat rule system that simulates combat with a one minute combat round (OD&D and AD&D) and uses the hit point system, (All versions of D&D) weapon damage should be abstracted and rules that model the “damage” of a particular piece of medieval weaponry are not only too granular to make sense in an abstract combat system, but contradict the entire premise of hit points. Hit dice by class however are a satisfying and logical way to reflect the difference in combat prowess and general martial ability of the various classes. Thus we must reconcile non variable weapon damage, with hit dice by class.

Variable Weapon Damage

I suspect that the variable weapon damage system was a product of two things. The first being the wider availability of various polyhedral dice by the late 70’s and the desire to roll all of them! Additionally there seems to have been an almost perverse fascination with the minutia of medieval weaponry by wargamers of the time, and Mr. Gygax in particular. The voluminous information and rule systems for pole arms are a testament to Mr. Gygax devotion to obscure 15^th century martial tools. (See AD&D, and Strategic Review)

Variable weapon damage as modeled in Supplement I, and later editions of D&D is built on the assumption that the larger the weapon the more damage it does. This is an arguable claim, best left to medieval European martial artist (worth looking into as an interesting subject but outside the scope of D&D.) D&D also assumes that when character is more experienced, or a monster has more hit die, it becomes a better fighter, with more hit points, and a better chance to land a blow. This also equates mathematically to more potential damage over the course of a combat. Why do we need two mechanics that accomplish the same thing? In fact we don’t, and using both systems simply adds more and bigger numbers in an attempt to simulate something that is arguable at best (the damage potential of weapons.) In addition, increasing the damage potential in multiple ways results in a sort of arms race, where everything needs more hit points and does more damage in order to compensate. This arms race started with Supplement I, and in subsequent editions everything has more hit points, does more damage etc…

It is critical to understand that D&D does not model individual blows with a weapon. The combat rules are very clear that a combat round is full of thrust and parries, feints, movement for position etc. Nor does D&D equate damage with physical harm. The losses of hit points up to the killing blow simply represent a deterioration of fighting capability. (As Mr. Gygax states in the 1^st Ed PHB , thinking of HP any other way leads to absurdity.)  Linking the damage dice of a weapon to the physical damage potential of the weapon is a glaring contradiction to this combat system. One could attempt to reconcile it by arguing that a big weapon has a greater impact to enemy morale etc., but again this is a rabbit hole of conjuncture that requires an expertise in medieval melee combat. No, the HP system reflects a physical blow only when the last few hit points are lost, the last d6 as it were. Why then open the game up to the contradictions and uncertainties of weapon damage variables? What does it add to the game?

What it adds is an incentive for min-maxing and “munchkinism.” Many players will peruse the weapons list, finding the item that does the most damage, and select it for no other reason than its damage potential. While this style of play is not necessarily wrong, it is not what I seek in D&D. It also begs the question of why have different weapons at all. Why not just list the one weapon that does the most damage? Why wouldn't everyone in the world capable of acquiring it carry one?

It seems clear to me that variable weapon damage should be abandoned. Modifications to the damage dice can be made to reflect the player choice of using a weapon one handed versus two handed, or carrying as shield. This gives some tactical benefit to the player for his fighting style and weapon choice. Weapons are otherwise differentiated by their actual characteristics, can they be concealed, set against a charge, used one handed and two handed etc. Ignoring the variable damage option also simplifies combat and equipment, which is in line not only with the philosophy of OD&D but also the abstract nature of dungeons and dragons one minute combat round and hit point system.

Next I will look at how to use common damage dice with hit dice by class.