Balancing Weapon Damage

[Perceval]

I just started to re-adjust the damage of all weapons in LL, which seems to me quite unbalanced. Nobody would ever pick a crossbow over a bow, noboby would use a 1d6 two-handed weapon and actually the swords are more powerful than all other types of weapons.

So, I came up with some (not new) ideas in order to create dilemmas when the players choose their starting weaponry:
1) All one-handed melee weapons do 1d6 damage.
2) One-handed melee weapons that weight 3 lb. or less are considered light and can be used as secondary (off-hand) weapons when characters decide to use the "two-weapon fighting" combat technique.
3) Using a one-handed non-light melee weapon with both hands results in 1d8 damage. Beware of the halfling and his longsword!
4) All two-handed melee weapons do 1d10 damage. Exception: quarterstaff = 1d8 damage.
5) All ranged (missile/thrown) weapons do 1d6 damage. Exceptions: longbow = 1d8 damage and light/heavy crossbow = 1d10/1d12 damage every other round.

Also, I made some specific changes:
1) Battleaxes are one-handed.
2) Maces weigh 4 lb.
3) Polearms weigh 12 lb.
4) Two-handed swords weigh 8 lb.
5) Bastard sword is removed.
6) New weapon added...
Name: greataxe
Classification: two-handed
Cost: 10 gp
Weight: 12 lb.

All these came up when I realized that in B/X D&D all weapons do the same damage (1d6), this gives a great variety of choices to the players in picking whichever weapon they'd like to wield.

What do you think about these changes? Suggestions on how to mod this whole thing are more than welcome!

Edits: updated everything

[elf23]

Watch out... magic-users are typically allowed to use a staff (see viewtopic.php?f=9&t=2500). Up to you whether you feel that MUs having access to d10 damage melee weapons is a good or bad thing.

[Wizardawn]

All these came up when I realized that in B/X D&D all weapons do the same damage (1d6), this gives a great variety of choices to the players in picking whichever weapon they'd like to wield.

Have you considered the "Damage by Class" concept? This came up in a very early edition of Dragon magazine where you handle the damages that weapons do by the class wielding it. Now I thought the Dragon magazine article needed better defining so I came up with the below matrix for my B/X game...



As you will probably wonder, I use the Companion Expansion material in my game that provides the Wildwood Elf, Gnome, etc...but this essentially lets any class use any weapon without taking away from the fighter class. So you can have a mage with a huge sword or a cleric swinging an axe for example. The complete supplement for this can be found HERE if you are interested in checking it out. The one drawback that some people would point out is that using these rules does give access to the abundance of magic swords which commonly appear when rolling on the treasure tables. In many versions of D&D...the fighter classes usually get these weapons, but my supplement would allow any class to take that two-handed sword +1 for themselves.

[Blood axe]

Neat system Wizardawn. Are "large" weapons two handed?

[Wizardawn]

Neat system Wizardawn. Are "large" weapons two handed?

Great Weapons are two-handed in my supplement. If you download the PDF link you can see the list of weapons and what categories they fall into.

[Perceval]

This is very interesting Wiz! However, I have to admit that I'm that fresh in LL that I wouldn't try to mod the system THAT much as of yet. I'll seriously consider your "by-class" approach, which is quite detailed. Still though I kinda don't like the "every class can use everything" approach, it feels like it defeats the purpose of weapon proficiency between classes, and still some weapons remain unused.

About the MU staff damage, I don't really feel that a player would risk his head for a 1d10 melee hit with a generally low attack chance that MUs possess. If that creates unbalance though, it could be easily fixed by lowering quarterstaff damage to 1d8 - which is logical because a quarterstaff isn't made to be particularly deadly like a polearm, for example.

[Wizardawn]

Still though I kinda don't like the "every class can use everything" approach, it feels like it defeats the purpose of weapon proficiency between classes, and still some weapons remain unused.

You obviously can do whatever fits your group/game. My thought on the matter is this, however...

1. I personally do not know how to use a katana...but I can pick one up and run around my home town and do damage to dogs that threaten to bite me. I don't need the lessons of a weapon master to use it. I could use it "better" if trained...but I can still use it.

2. With that said, I never cared for the "magic-users can't use longswords" type rules as they are hard to convey to some players. You can try to simply state that they are not proficient with them...but I dismiss that in #1. It is not like the longsword will scorch the wizard's hand if he tries to pick it up. This mechanic sounds too video-gamey to me where the computer would simply just not allow you to put the longsword in the wizard's right hand.

3. Attack tables are "by class" so the proficiencies are built into those attack tables (I don't believe there are weapon proficienies in LL like in AD&D). Fighters have better attack values than magic-users which is a representation of fighters being better trained in weapons. The damage by class simply promotes this methodology.

4. Roleplaying opportunities should be encouraged. Gandalf used a large sword and a player may want to emulate that character. I think they should be able to.

These are the reasons I have went this route in my games. It seems like an easier solution than trying to figure out if you have +2, 0, or -2 to use a particular weapon in combat as you can simply put the "1d6" note next to your weapon and know you roll that for damage. Fighters are strong (hence they will have a + to attack and damage), and wizards are physically weaker (so they may not have such bonuses). In the setup I have, a fighter may do 12 points of damage with a two-handed sword and a wizard might do half of that. Clerics can be more convincing about weapon restrictions because you can simply say "your god hates it...blah, blah, blah...you lose your powers if you use that longsword". That is all fine and good...but again...it provides a roleplaying opportunity for someone to wield a sword and claim to be a crusader for truth and justice. It is all in how you want your game world perceived.

[Perceval]

Good thoughts on the matter Wiz, can't argue on anything you've said - this whole thing though is all about how you judge the system. In my opinion, you can run around with a katana and slay that evil dog which peed on your house doorstep! However, I wouldn't dare to challenge a peeing TROLL into combat with a weapon I've never been trained to wield! So, I think I'll keep my own thoughts and, for example, restrict the MUs with a small weaponry (dagger/darts/quarterstaff/sling), their attack rating will be lower than a fighter's anyway.

[Dyson Logos]

In some of my campaigns I also use the "weapon damage by class" rule as above. The downside of the system is that it really does steal some of the fighter's thunder. In the core rules, magic swords are the most powerful magic weapons with all other weapons playing second or later fiddle - and both major spellcasting classes cannot use magic swords.

I'm not 100% sold that this is a bad thing, but I am at least 50% sold.

[by_the_sword]

1ed. Had non-proficiency penalties that were assigned to characters who used weapons that they were not allowed to use. They varied by class (and even fighters had them as they could not use every weapon in AD&D).

For the purpose of Labyrinth Lord, you could make the Non-Proficiency Penalty a -2 modifier to attack rolls. Since fighters and thieves and elves can use any weapon while other classes are restricted, this might not be game-breaking if a Magic User picks up a spear to ward off an attacker or the cleric has no recourse but to use a dagger. Since Clerics and M-U's get worse attacks than fighters the -2 is more of a detriment, even if they use magical weapons, their lesser fighting ability coupled with a -2 penalty would make them inferior combatants next to fighters, thieves and demi-humans.

The -2 penalty could also be applied when short demi-humans lime dwarves and halflings try to used out-sized weapons like battle axes and two-handed swords.

I like the Original Poster's proposed weapon damage changes. They are more realistic as maces, axes and war-hammers should be every bit as deadly as a longsword, possibly more so as they had a greater armor piercing capabillity.