I like the old-school house rules we have been using, which I think Tavis derived from Chainmail. The rules are here: http://redbox.wikidot.com/white-sandbox-rules.
Quick re-cap: the player rolls 1d6 damage, and the DM rolls 1d6 modifier. For small weapons the lesser of the two rolls prevails. Medium weapons use the player’s roll, and for two-handed weapons, the larger of the rolls prevails. Doubles produce a DM-determined special effect appropriate to the situation.
I started to wonder what exactly taking the better of two dice gets you – is it a minor boost or a big one? The result surprised me, so I want to share.
The second die means that the player using the dagger or mace has less than a 3% chance of doing 6 damage; only 11% of doing five or more. Alternately, the two-handed weapon is going to do 5-6 damage a full 55% of the time, and will roll 1 damage less than 3% of hits.
(Baseline medium weapon, like a long sword, has a 33% of doing 5-6 damage)
Rolled dice | Mean Damage |
Less of 2D6 | 2.5 |
1D6 | 3.5 |
Greater of 2D6 | 4.5 |
Is this a big enough gap to interfere with role play choice? For instance the fighting man who wants to use a mace and shield is heavily penalized vs. the fighting man wielding a long sword or spear with shield.
It is not as clear as it may seem at first; you have to also consider the idea that shorter weapons have an initiative advantage once melee begins. And that wielding two one-handed weapons allows for two to-hit rolls. And the benefits of a shield over a two-handed weapon, &tc.
But we should not overlook how important these choices can be, mechanically.