This is more about damage rules and limitations than the atlatl. I am just going to assume the following about the atlatl. I don’t need no science nor nothing (I did do more research than was necessary). The atlatl is useful for close range and far range. It is very accurate. It has the virtually the same impact power as a hand thrown spear (this is backed up by numerous studies). It takes practice to use properly (as does everything). It does not require much strength to use effectively. The atlatl has deep penetrating power.
As I am going to be adding to Arms and Armor over the next year, the following issue will come up daily. What damage should be assigned to the Atlatl? This is a constant befuddlement where I tend to overthink everything. Effectively, virtually every iteration of The Game is limited to damage ranges by a d4, d6, d8, d10, and d12. Sometimes a d20 is thrown in there. That really is a small range of damage to create meaningful mechanical differences between weapons.
Step Uno: Simple and Complex Solutions on the Way
The simple approach to weapon’s damage would be to break weapons into five categories.
Category Damage Weapons
1 1d4 dagger, dart, club, etc
2 1d6 short sword, mace, scimitar, etc
3 1d8 longsword, battle axe, trident, etc
4 1d10 two handed sword, great axe, etc
5 1d12 weapons reserved for giants or large creatures
By moving everything to those categories, one great simplifies weapon’s damage. From there it is a matter of choosing the category. That is the simple step and mechanically works very well. However, it does not differentiate between weapons. The only differences of import outside of damage are ‘cultural’ selections. I rather like that because if foists a role playing dynamic into the game. In one area of a setting a character may only have access to a falx whereas in another a katana.
But that never really seems to satisfy anyone. Here is the cool thing about weapons; they are tools designed for specific purposes and have optimal manners of use. Some weapons are far superior to others (outside of just the creation of the weapon). Some weapons are superior to others in certain contexts. A scimitar or similarly curved weapons is better suited to cavalry warfare than a straight sword. As one can see the complexity of weapon’s damage can escalate very quickly. Mechanically though, there are limitations.
Step Duo: I already have a Headache.
The next step is to make a quick modifier to weapons. In lieu of straight d4, d6, d8, d10, or d12, the weapon receives a die with a +1 modifier to damage. For example, instead of 1d6, the weapon becomes 1d6+1. This effectively gives one ten categories for weapons. By halving the result of a d10, d6, and d4 one adds three more categories giving us 13 categories of weapon’s damage. By subtracting 1 from the d8, d10, and d12 (with a 0 being a 1), we add three more categories for a sum of 16 weapon damage categories.
Does it make a difference? Yes, in the long run it does make a difference in damage output, which, let us be honest, is important. It’s easy to notch up the complexity with critical hit spreads, unique characteristics, to hit advantages, weapons versus armor charts, defensive advantages, and other factors. But just how complex does a weapon need to be for use in a game and at what point does the complexity detract from the game rather than add to it?
 |
| A well armed knight would carry a variety of weapons in combat. Each serving a particular purpose. |
I really have no idea. Having a bent for complexity, I have a lingering desire to keep adding charts and modifiers. As a player and running the game, I want it simple and fast flowing. The actions and story are not in the weapon’s average damage output, the action is in the fight. So my real question, does that weapon’s complexity add to the story or become the story?
I may come up with the atlatl damage today and may not as I, apparently, have decided to go about redesigning weapons in general.
PS: don’t tell Steve, he’ll screech at me.
No comments:
Post a Comment