Opinion on OD&D magic weapons

[mephisto]

Hi everybody,

it's mephisto again, with a new question:

Has somebody of you tried out the rules of OD&D in which magical pluses of weapons, unless specified, only apply for to hit, in his/her AD&D-game ?
Do you think this could be some interessting modification (combat-challenge will become tougher), or would this
stealing something from the players fun?

I've also read about some of Dave Arnesons house rules, in which the pluses were some kind of positiv energy to overcome negative AC, for example you needed at least a weapon +2 to hit AC-2.

Greetings,
mephisto

[Scott]

I've seen and used many variant magic weapons, including ideas similar to the OD&D weapons listed above, but never considered Dave's house rule you describe.

[mephisto]

What was your experience with variant similar to OD&D ?
Is it too much harder (and frustrating) for the characters/players if they don't get the bonus on damage,
or just make it the players a little bit more afraid about foes?

[Scott]

Neither. I never used the variant exclusively. Individual weapons might work like this, but others could be found that used the standard, or maybe other variants, so the players just considered them magic weapons, just like the others they could find.

[GT]

I've used weapons that were just bonus to hit or just bonus to damage; but never adopted a "total" system of either. That can be fun!

[geneweigel]

I'm not sure if you've got it right.

Get rid of all your "game baggage" from AD&D and start from Chainmail then 3 book set then Greyhawk. Then you'll see why its different. Theres no damage bonus because there is no "big damage" til Greyhawk. Everything is 1d6. When "big damage" was introduced then it made sense to add magical damage later.

[mephisto]

That makes sense,
although IIRC other magical waepons than swords get the "to hit &to damage bonus", right?

[geneweigel]

I was referring to your original line about getting rid of the damage bonus. Honestly, I find rule discussion tiresome but the original post hit a nerve as I'm an "anti-minimalist". So I get fired up about making the game smaller when it should always be going the opposite way.

[GT]

I reckon that I should qualify my "that can be fun" as having weapons that only do one or the other, but not abandoning the dual plus to hit/plus to damagesystem. I'm all for the "total system", and that includes the UA stuff as well! ^__^

[Falconer]

I like that all weapons naturally do only 1-6 as in OD&D, but I like that magical weapons do + to damage as in AD&D. To me, it's not right that a non-magical halberd is better than a magical short sword, or magic axe, or whatever. In fantasy, all normal weapons are just, well, normal, but a MAGIC weapon is SOMETHING! Variable damage by weapon strikes me as wargamey. Regards.

[geneweigel]

That wargame authentic edge is really at the heart of what was lost later on. So it is kind is hard to walk away from it although specifically you are right. That damage is a waste of time. I've been throwing some weapons around in the past few years testing medieval techniques (plus take into account my foam sword veteran status!! ) and I'm surprised at some of those numbers. I can't justify a lot them. Especially the pole arm variance. Gary was a little biased on that "Swiss shit", he told me that himself.

[geneweigel]

What I'm referring to is the difference in pole arm damage (and armor adjustemnts as well) shouldn't be that great and the most noticeable variance is constituted of singular functions when most pole arms had multiple functions. Even the sword has multiple damage functions in reality. Where it can be "speared" at arm's length, "axed" at close range or "daggered" with hand on blade at an opponent. For me the best thing is to keep it simple to move play along by a simple damage roll.