I have always played D&D with variable weapon damage, having moved quite rapidly from Holmes (which does feature non-variable damage) to AD&D (with variable damage) in the olden days. Yet of all the characteristics of OD&D that differ from my personal habits and traditions, it is perhaps the concept of non-variable weapon damage that intrigues me the most. It may be awhile before I would make this switch in my own campaign, particularly since I've got a couple players in my group who are brand-spanking-new to the hobby, and I don't want to confuse them at this early stage of their learning curves by switching gears. Yet I remain intrigued. In this I am indebted to a recent post by Al at Beyond the Black Gate for re-raising this issue, and I should refer my own readers (as Al does) to a superb and comprehensive post by JB that explains the logic and philosophy behind non-variable damage quite brilliantly. If I were going to adopt non-variable weapon damage as my own campaign standard sometime in the future, I would probably go with a close approximation of JB's system, which Jim Pacek encapsulates nicely in his comment on Al's blog:
I'm using d6 for all weapons but daggers/darts -- they do d4. Two-handed weapons do d6+2 in trade for the lack of shield. (Shields add +1 to AC -and- I use the "Shields will be Splintered" rule too). Fighting with two weapons is best of 2d6. This all seems to be working for my group.
Hmm. Thought-provoking.
