Damage by hit die type, with a question

[aspiringlich]

In my next campaign, I'm going to experiment with fixed weapon damage according to hit die type. So regardless of whatever type of weapon they're using, fighters will do 1d8 damage, clerics 1d6, and magic-users 1d4. I'm hoping this will encourage a little more variety in weapon selection.

My question concerns what to do with two-handed weapons. They clearly should have some sort of additional benefit to compensate for the lack of a shield, but I can't decide what it should be. Here are some options I'm considering:

a. A flat +1 bonus to damage rolls
b. Roll two damage dice and take the higher roll
c. Use the next higher hit die type, so fighters would do 1d10 damage with two-handed weapons, clerics 1d8, magic-users 1d6.

(a) still doesn't seem enough to outweigh the loss of a shield, (b) caps the damage at the same amount as a one-handed weapon, and (c) allows for the possibility that a fighter could do just as much damage with a staff (1d10 plus STR) as with a two-handed sword. Actually, come to think of it, all three end up making the staff on a par, damage wise, with any other two-handed weapon.

Thoughts?

EDIT: I've decided that I like (c) best, so I'll just make an exception for the staff. Instead of giving it a damage bonus as a two-handed weapon, I'll allow it to be used defensively, giving a +1 bonus to AC against melee attacks.

[kipper]

Mathematically, (a) and (c) both do the same average amount of damage per attack, just the range is different.

I ran a PBP game a few years ago using damage by class and I think it worked really well, I personally love it.

I went with:

Fighter, Dwarf: 1d8
Cleric, Elf, Halfling, Thief: 1d6
Magic-user: 1d4

Small Weapons (eg dagger): 1dX-1
Medium Weapons: 1dX
Two-handed weapons: 1dX+1
Two-weapon fighting: Roll damage for both weapons, but use only the best roll. If the off-hand weapon is not Small, it receives a –1 penalty to damage. (Only one attack roll is made for the entire two-weapon attack).

[aspiringlich]

Mathematically, (a) and (c) both do the same average amount of damage per attack, just the range is different.

I ran a PBP game a few years ago using damage by class and I think it worked really well, I personally love it.

I went with:

Fighter, Dwarf: 1d8
Cleric, Elf, Halfling, Thief: 1d6
Magic-user: 1d4

Small Weapons (eg dagger): 1dX-1
Medium Weapons: 1dX
Two-handed weapons: 1dX+1
Two-weapon fighting: Roll damage for both weapons, but use only the best roll. If the off-hand weapon is not Small, it receives a –1 penalty to damage. (Only one attack roll is made for the entire two-weapon attack).

How did you handle ranged weapons? That's my one issue with this approach. I have no problems with magic-users swinging longswords for 1d4, but I just can't see them using longbows and crossbows.

[kipper]

I believe I stuck with the standard BtB weapon restrictions, so no swords or bows for magic users.

Bows and xbows although technically "two handed" did only normal damage. I made an exception for the heavy crossbow, does +1 damage but takes one round to reload.

[aspiringlich]

I believe I stuck with the standard BtB weapon restrictions, so no swords or bows for magic users.

OK, that's how I was going to handle it too. Very often people have used the damage-by-class approach to allow clerics and magic-users access to weapons that are ordinarily forbidden for mysterious reasons (why can't a cleric use a blade? why can't a magic-user swing a sword like Gandalf?) I only want to do it to encourage a wider weapon selection, so that a fighter could use a mace or a flail just as effectively as a longsword.