thoughts on weapon size and damage

[clockwork warrior]

a though came to me as i was considering planning a low magic game.

i was thinking " wow, in a setting were magic is rarer than normal, magic weapons would hold more value, and a +1 longsword would be looked at with awe and stuff." so i was thinking what if a party found a magic sword, the fighter of the group would probably switch it out... but then i thought, what if the fight had a great sword, not even master worked, and going to a +1 long sword was a step down?

this confused me, as i looked at it " well, my great sword was shoddily built in a backwoods hamlet, and this long sword was forged by an expert craftsman and imbued with arcane magic... i will stick with the great sword"
to me that doesnt seem right... a magic weapon should trump a mundane one, even with a size difference.

this made me think more about the great sword. why does it do so much damage? yeah, its a powerful weapon, but really? should the difference be that much?
dagger = 1d4
short sword = 1d6
long sword = 1d8
great sword = 2d6?

that seems just to large of a gap to be filled by the other weapons, plus the fact that you get your strength and a half added makes this seem unreasonable...

so would it be reasonable to have it do less damage? or take away its ability to hit things as easly? ( a large weapon like that makes it hard to hit an armored foe, sheilds tend to get in the way) or am i just looking to far into this?

[tyckspoon]

You're thinking about it too much. All of D&D's weapons are horribly unrealistic; accepting this is part of the same suspension of disbelief we apply to the existence of magic within the game. (You missed the 'hand and a half' weapons like the bastard sword and dwarven waraxe, btw. They fill the 1d10 space and are, at least historically speaking, much more what the phrase 'greatsword' meant. D&D's greatsword is more like real-world Really Big Swords, like claymores or the European zweihanders.)

That said, if you really want magic to be special, it helps to create a system of more mundane enhancements (and penalties) as well. In the normal system, a +1 sword isn't much better than a masterwork sword, and there is, mechanically, no such thing as a poorly-made weapon. If your example greatsword had a penalty to hit or to damage to reflect its shoddy craftmanship while the expertly made magic sword had some other bonus (maybe it's keen enough to do a Wounding effect on a crit in addition to the +1 bonus, for example) it would be a much harder decision to leave it behind or sell it.

[clockwork warrior]

perhapes shoddy was not the right word choice. what i was going for is the fact that no extra effort was put behind the items forging, and its just a run of a mill great sword.

i think it bothers me because i love low magic gritty settings ( havent played a long time, but i think im never going to not play an e6 game cause i love the feel of it) so it bothers me that in a setting where magic is limited, it still doesnt compare to a bigger sword...( for a while...or a magic big sword?)

i know that a +1 enchantment isnt much, but to even get that costs more than 2 houses in dnd, so its simply beyond almost anyone who isnt a noble of some sort or an adventurer ( or a villain) it just doesnt really seem worth it...

[Chronicled]

Nah, the real problem comes from having 2-handed weapons count double for Power Attack, instead of every weapon giving a 1:1 ratio. The only change from 3.0 to 3.5 I don't like.

[Xefas]

Well, for one, you're comparing a 1-handed weapon and a 2-handed weapon.

You should really be comparing:
2d6 [av 7]
or
1d8+1 [av 5.5] and +1 to hit and 2 AC (for the shield)

The more accurate comparison would be other 2-handed martial weapons, like:
2d6 [av 7]
or
1d10+1 [av 6.5] and +1 to hit
or
2d4+1 [av 6] and +1 to hit

Not even taking into account xCrit and Crit Range.

[mystikphish]

I'd have to say I agree with tyckspoon, you're over-thinking this with regard to weapon damage.

If you are playing a low-magic campaign, you need to decide *how* low magic it is. If you truly want to make magic items memorable then make each one that appears a "legendary" weapon, so to speak. What's the point of calling it "low-magic" if the first truly impressive weapon is a "longsword, +1" (which implies generic magic)?

I would say stay away from the standard bonuses and make the special magic weapons with more esoteric powers as tyckpsoon suggested. Also, make them more difficult to manage. For example (stealing tyckspoon's idea): the sword is an war relic belonging to a warrior noted for his ability to cut down many opponents simultaneously, but only while fighting in the light of the sun. Mechanically it's a Keen sword, heck you're the DM make it "double-keen", but only during the day. Whenever the "keen" ability is not active, the sword is black and seems pitted (it's still a masterwork item though), but in the light of the sun it gleams in the ligth with reddish cast and appears to have rivulets of blodo running down it's length. Make it "intelligent" enough to prod the owner into glorious battle (not a talking weapon, just empathy), but not control him. Give it a second, crit-activated ability (I like the crit-Wounding idea) that is accompanied by some special-effect that makes it obvious; a thunderclap followed by red flames or a jet of glowing blood that shoots out of the wound created.

If magic weapons are REALLY rare, make sure that the first or second time the character uses the blade his opponents recognize it and RUN AWAY... "OH NOES! He has retrieved the Blood Blade of the Clockwork Warrior, we're DOOMED!"

Making something COOL will usually convince many characters to take a "sub-optimal" choice.

[mystikphish]

umm... It occrus to me that pairing a "Keen" weapon with a crit-activated ability might be asking for trouble. Maybe pair up something like "Mighty Cleave" with a crit-activated "Wounding."

Oh, and don't "double-keen" a longsword, forgot they have a 19 crit.

My point stil stands, just make it coooool... ;-)

[leperkhaun]

make the longsword a greatsword so the player will use it.

[Wordmiser]

I pretty much have to agree with the other posters.

"Low Magic" doesn't mean you make your magic items suck. If anything, it means the opposite.

And if you do want to stick with the standard enhancements, make the magic sword that the fellow drags out of the ancient king's tomb [or whatever else it is he's doing] a "+4 Wounding Goblinbane" Longsword rather than a measly +1 weapon. It would better fit the world and the attitude you expect your players to show for the item.

If you do make your magic items crap, your players will probably try to exchange them for something useful [Like an army of TDCrap-riding Gnomish Vikings] rather than hold onto the really really valuable garbage items (+1 Damage! Weeee!).

[Yami]

I once managed to get my players to hold onto a "Dagger of Erythnul". Now this was a normally magical seting, but I was appearantly giving out less that standard WBL (First time going back to D&D in a while, and DMing a large group, no time to double check myself.)

Now why would a fighter wish to use a dagger of all weapons? Improved Great Cleave (5-foot step allowed between cleaves.) The idea was that if they used it for long enough it would grant them greater powers. They eventually dropped it off by some goody goody temple to get uncurst, but until then it made it's rounds.

But really, if you want them to wield a weapon that's supposedly weaker, you make it shine somehow. In that same campaign I made the mistake of offering them 3 magical enhancements to thier weapons for a great deed they'd done. Once finished the party argued that I never declared they couldn't be on the same weapon before they took the job, and I eventually caved after one player showed me the WBL tables. So despite 'better' weaponry in the party only the cleric had a magical weapon, meaning that they dumped all thier enhancements into it to get more bang for thier buck.

That +1 flaming, shocking, cold longsword survived some 3-4 character deaths before it got lost at sea, and was truely the symbol of the party. (Actually, they had a druid with them at the time, so it wasn't lost at sea for long, but it did take a bit of adventure to get it back.) Never saw a greatsword again.

[Nebo_]

Maybe in a low magic setting, the powerful magic should actually be powerful. I'm playing in a game at the moment where magic itself isn't rare, but magic weapons are. When we do find one, it is powerful. Why would people think magic is so great if it isn't?

[Matthew]

As others have pointed out, you seem to be ignoring the context of the weapons. 1D8 (Av. 4.5) versus 2D6 (Av. 7.0) is not directly comparable because the former is a One Handed Weapon and the latter is a Two Handed Weapon. Personally, I think a Great Sword should do 1D12 (Av. 6.5) damage, but that's really just an aesthetic preference.

[Leadfeathermcc]

That said, if you really want magic to be special, it helps to create a system of more mundane enhancements (and penalties) as well.

Crow passed on his expanded masterworked system to me, here it is, the magic changes are mine and are not D&D kosher, but it does what I want for the game I am running.

There are no enhancement bonuses to magic weapons only special bonuses. Instead of enhancement bonuses to magic weapons there is an expanded masterworked system.

Inferior : -1 to hit and -1 damage
Normal : (normal)
Fine : +1 to hit
Superior : +1 to hit and +1 to damage
Masterwork : +2 to hit and +1 to damage

Inferior weapons break on a critical failure.

If a fine or better weapon is commissioned as a custom piece (rather than picked up from a treasure hoard or something), it gets an additional +1 to hit (on top of all other bonuses). This is because the piece can be specifically sized and balanced for the intended wielder. This bonus only applies to the intended wielder, but can apply to another person if they are of close to the same height/build as the original owner.

A fine or better weapon can have any magic weapon special ability valued at up to +2 added to it. Examples: A fine holy long sword, would have a +1 to hit and deal an extra 2d6 holy damage. A masterworked mace of flaming, would have a +2 to hit, +1 damage and deal an extra 1d6 of fire damage. A a custom masterworked keen long spear, specially made for you, would have a +3 to hit, +1 damage and a doubled crit range.

[clockwork warrior]

jolly good. after reading what you have all said i think your right. crunch and fluff wise, a +1 sword really isnt all that great... even if rare, its just a shiny longsword that hurts a little but more. so i think that im gonna have to say no to normal magic items as tyckspoon and mystikphish suggested, which i think is a great idea ( i can see my players beaming faces when the first swing that sword they found and it does more than they ever thought!)

thanks everyone

[Roderick_BR]

So, you are asking if it's worth changing weapons for a smaller total damage?
If the fighter from the example is allowed, he's better keep the greatsword, and use the longsword only when fighting something harder to hit, or with damage reduction x/magic.

[Crow]

You can get strength-and-a-half with any one-handed weapon wielded two-handed. Same for double power attack.

[raygungothic]

The D&D weapons table isn't exactly a paragon of historical accuracy. Most of the time this doesn't matter very much, but sometimes it sticks out badly.

A lot of later-mediaeval war swords have hand-and-a-half grips, and there's quite a lot of surviving documentary material suggesting that sophisticated bastard-sword styles were pretty widely studied. I've handled one historical one and a couple of replicas, and while they're clearly meant to be used with a whole arsenal of sophisticated techniques and training, they're still relatively intuitive to get started with if you've handled a single-hand sword before*. All of which suggests that the bastard sword should be a Martial weapon - i. e. one which people with martial training are likely to be familiar with.

On the other hand, the true two-handed sword occurs only infrequently even in its early-Renaissance heyday; it was a specialist weapon, used only by a tiny number of specialist soldiers and for a certain kind of tournament combat. Like the bastard sword it is intended for a sophisticated fighting art, but it is very difficult to acquire even basic familiarity with; someone tried to teach me once (decent replica, I've never handled a real one) and the initial learning threshold seemed really quite high. All this makes it seem a really good candidate for an Exotic weapon which even experienced fighting characters need special training (= a Feat) to be able to use.

Simple houserule, if you can bear adding on yet another patch. On the other hand, it doesn't really screw things up TOO much if you can't be bothered.

(Corollary: if it were this way around, members of the knightly classes don't need to spend a feat to learn to use hand-and-a-half swords because their basic education/class-granted proficiencies sort it out automatically. Zweihander soldiers, on the other hand, are ordinary warriors so experienced that they've gained a feat and spent it on Exotic Weapon Proficiency: Two Handed Sword - neatly explaining why only a tiny proportion of soldiers qualify. This way around, D&D almost matches up to history... look out catgirls! The published way around is more problematic, with far too many two-handed swords in the lower ranks of the army and an awful lot of hand-and-a-halfs languishing on castle walls as no-one knows how to use them...)

From a DMing perspective, the possibility of critters immune or resistant to non-magic attacks can go a long way towards making a magic sword seem a significant advantage even if said critters don't actually show up all that often. Personally, though, I like giving magic swords more complicated powers than just a flat "+1" just to make it easier to describe them in ways that make them sound special.

*(even if you're terrible at same, like I am)

[Lemur]

A +1 weapon is still useful to have around for breaking damage reduction, and DR/magic is one of the more common types.

Also, the +1 longsword has a slightly superior average damage if the warrior has power attack (which he really should, especially if he's using a greatsword in the first place). The greatsword has an average damage of 7, while if the warrior two-hands the longsword and power attacks for 1 point (giving him the same attack bonus as with the nonmagical greatsword) his average damage is 7.5 (4.5 base +1 magic +2 PA). So unless the warrior is power attacking for full all the time (he's crazy, or has shock trooper, or both) the longsword actually is better, although maybe not by as much as you'd think.

[kieza]

I DM a campaign right now that uses generic d20 system mechanics. The way weapons work is that some, the ones that the PCs and higher-level NPCs typically use, are "good" weapons; cheap weapons, the stuff that commoners and guards use, do the same damage and have the same attack bonus, but they have lower hardness and gradually degrade. Same with armor; whenever someone in poor armor takes damage, their armor's AC bonus decreases by 1. In the Middle ages, weapons and shields typically didn't last through more than a few battles; well made weapons and armor became family heirlooms after surviving a war or two.

Magic weapons don't give attack or damage bonuses; the enhancement bonus is used for bypassing damage reduction, which is better than it sounds, since loads of my NPCs have DR/+1 or +2. Other enhancements include energy damage (+2 points, not +1d6) and bane enhancements (+4 points). Magic items are generally rare loot, but I've never seen a player pass one up yet, even if it isn't what they usually use. (I once had a player go from a greatsword to a shortsword because it had a +2 enhancement.)

[clockwork warrior]

A +1 weapon is still useful to have around for breaking damage reduction, and DR/magic is one of the more common types.

Also, the +1 longsword has a slightly superior average damage if the warrior has power attack (which he really should, especially if he's using a greatsword in the first place). The greatsword has an average damage of 7, while if the warrior two-hands the longsword and power attacks for 1 point (giving him the same attack bonus as with the nonmagical greatsword) his average damage is 7.5 (4.5 base +1 magic +2 PA). So unless the warrior is power attacking for full all the time (he's crazy, or has shock trooper, or both) the longsword actually is better, although maybe not by as much as you'd think.

whao-wee. you guys do a lot a number crunching ( to much work for a lazy mang like me)

also, while i use the name dnd, "technically" i normally run monte cooks arcana unearthed d20 variant game. normally this doesnt make enough of a difference to bother mentioning, but it does raise two good points to say
1. no shock trooper
2, power attack works as it did in 3rd ( not 3.5) ed, all weapons, regardless of size power attack an a 1:1 scale

as for the weapons thing, i think it would be funner and better to customize the items in the game instead of generic ones from the dmg.

[Demented]

Just because it's magic doesn't mean it has to be badass.

Imagine a pipe wrench.
Your typical pipe wrench is basically an iron block with an odd shape, a little paint, and a twisty grip to move the second arm.

Now imagine a +1 Pipe Wrench.
It looks like an iron block with an odd shape, a good paintjob, and a twisty grip to move the second arm. Oh, and it doesn't rust, doesn't dent, stays cleaner, gives you a little better torque, and you're not as likely to bash your thumb while trying to use it.

Not that much better, but it makes the little things easier. You might not even realize it's magical.
And, chances are, you'd trade it out for an electric wrench at the first opportunity. Until you had to look for batteries for 20 minutes, but that's another matter....

[horseboy]

A +1 weapon is still useful to have around for breaking damage reduction, and DR/magic is one of the more common types.

Also, the +1 longsword has a slightly superior average damage if the warrior has power attack (which he really should, especially if he's using a greatsword in the first place). The greatsword has an average damage of 7, while if the warrior two-hands the longsword and power attacks for 1 point (giving him the same attack bonus as with the nonmagical greatsword) his average damage is 7.5 (4.5 base +1 magic +2 PA). So unless the warrior is power attacking for full all the time (he's crazy, or has shock trooper, or both) the longsword actually is better, although maybe not by as much as you'd think.

Yeah, that'd pretty much be my point. If it's a true low magic world, then you don't just "drop" a +1 weapon into the campaign. It should be a plot token. You are after this sword so you can use it to slay the Evil. As stated, the +1 will negate the DR so it will actually be hurt the Supreme Supernatural Evil.

[Riffington]

1. no shock trooper
2, power attack works as it did in 3rd ( not 3.5) ed, all weapons, regardless of size power attack an a 1:1 scale

as for the weapons thing, i think it would be funner and better to customize the items in the game instead of generic ones from the dmg.

If power attack is 1:1, then sword&board is a good strategy, so the +1 longsword is better than the greatsword anyway.
That said, I totally agree with customizing your items. If they're gonna be rare, you might as well make each one memorable.