The final word on DPR, feats and class balance

[Oofta]

In a more realistic game a knife in the back would kill far more often than an arrow at 200 yds.

I don't agree with the ranges for longbows in D&D; all I'm saying is that a knife in the back is less likely than a longbow at a reasonable distance.

In genre, neither will kill the hero, unless it's his time, and both will kill a mook just fine when the hero uses them.

True, there is no armor as powerful as plot armor.

Hit points are the compromise for better genre emulation and playability over realism. Bigger weapons doing bigger damage is just intuitive. But smaller weapons doing far less max damage is unrealistic for any weapon that can kill. ::shrug::

Ultimately, the level of realism in D&D, in general, is very, very low, while the level specific things are held to in discussions is much higher - sometimes even to the level if reality-isnt-real.

I think you're over-estimating the capacity of a knife to kill someone. Nobody hunts deer with throwing knives and unless you get lucky a throwing knife probably wouldn't penetrate more than a few inches. But regardless, a knife does 2.5 points per hit and a longbow does 4.5. I think that's reasonable ... so not sure why you think there's a huge difference.

4e did 'Action movie' almost too well - better than it did fantasy. The most reviled-as-magic of all fighter power, Come & Get It, straight out if any action movie where the hero inexplicably uses a melee weapon over a gun...

Yeah, this is just stupid "how do we justify melee characters in a world with guns" logic. My wife and I groan every time we see it. Certain shows really abuse it (CW's Arrow for example).

Rarely, outside of hps and, with 6 sec rounds, RoF, which breaks what's possible to pieces.
OTOH, Sometimes they're even pushed in the wrong direction, there are many things a genre hero will do w/o magic that D&D has often resorted to spells or arbitrary special abilities, to model - or am I the only one who remembers Giants in the Earth...

You may be, I certainly don't. I do remember certain Arnold S movies that were so over the top as to be groan-worthy. I don't want a game that's groan worthy. Or where someone can survive a nuclear blast in a refrigerator after being thrown a few miles.

Can't argue with that: the 'feel' of classic D&D is class imbalance.

But, I don't even think that's the imbalance at issue, here, caster supremacy isn't being challenged in this thread, mainly its the weight given to weapon choice, at bottom, that's triggered the OP...

I don't necessarily disagree, I just haven't seen the issue in games I play. If it really breaks the game for someone, it's easy to fix.

Which is my real issue with this argument. Don't like GWM and SS? Don't allow them. Or use one of the many, many tweaks others have suggested. Think feats or multi-classing lead to overpowered combos? Don't allow the optional rules.

D&D is a toolkit used to build a campaign. I think too much blame is placed on the tools when it's really the use of those tools that's the source of the problem.

 

[Satyrn]

And Toll the Dead. But I was going to post this same response when I saw the poster said "best" not "most damaging". Poison spray is not the best cantrip despite its slightly higher damage for multiple reasons.

Aye, its biggest drawback for me is that I don't get to roll a d20 when I use it. It kinda lowers the fun of it, but still, it's my druid's go-to "melee" because it fits his spider/snake wildshape focus better than any other cantrip. And if I my gnome battlemaster had lived just a little longer he'd have had the spell (and acid splash) to model his alchemy expertise.

It has actually been the best spell for my characters . . . despite kinda sucking in the field because nearly everything I fight is immune to poison.

 

[jasper]

How we just drop weapon damage but use weapon damage but by class. does not matter the weapon type except for resistances
Wizards and their type get 1d4
Clerics get 1d6
Rogues get 1d8
Fighters get 1d10.
If your dirty dipping multiclasser you take the worse.

 

[TwoSix]

How we just drop weapon damage but use weapon damage but by class. does not matter the weapon type except for resistances
Wizards and their type get 1d4
Clerics get 1d6
Rogues get 1d8
Fighters get 1d10.
If your dirty dipping multiclasser you take the worse.

13th Age does this, it works quite well.

 

[Satyrn]

My 5e monk always looks for the highest thing he can jump off of to deliver a flying head-butt.

Ah, the crazy days of ECW.

 

[DonT]

How we just drop weapon damage but use weapon damage but by class. does not matter the weapon type except for resistances
Wizards and their type get 1d4
Clerics get 1d6
Rogues get 1d8
Fighters get 1d10.
If your dirty dipping multiclasser you take the worse.

I would hate this. I enjoy playing hobgoblin wizards who fight with mauls or githyanki wizards who fight with great swords. If no wizard could do melee damage greater than 1d4, it would kill my interest in the game.

 

[Warpiglet]

I don't agree with the ranges for longbows in D&D; all I'm saying is that a knife in the back is less likely than a longbow at a reasonable distance.


True, there is no armor as powerful as plot armor.



I think you're over-estimating the capacity of a knife to kill someone. Nobody hunts deer with throwing knives and unless you get lucky a throwing knife probably wouldn't penetrate more than a few inches. But regardless, a knife does 2.5 points per hit and a longbow does 4.5. I think that's reasonable ... so not sure why you think there's a huge difference.



Yeah, this is just stupid "how do we justify melee characters in a world with guns" logic. My wife and I groan every time we see it. Certain shows really abuse it (CW's Arrow for example).


You may be, I certainly don't. I do remember certain Arnold S movies that were so over the top as to be groan-worthy. I don't want a game that's groan worthy. Or where someone can survive a nuclear blast in a refrigerator after being thrown a few miles.



I don't necessarily disagree, I just haven't seen the issue in games I play. If it really breaks the game for someone, it's easy to fix.

Which is my real issue with this argument. Don't like GWM and SS? Don't allow them. Or use one of the many, many tweaks others have suggested. Think feats or multi-classing lead to overpowered combos? Don't allow the optional rules.

D&D is a toolkit used to build a campaign. I think too much blame is placed on the tools when it's really the use of those tools that's the source of the problem.

Everything said here. I replied with quote to reinforce how right I think this post is...

Especially the solutions and their simplicity...

 

[Sacrosanct]

How we just drop weapon damage but use weapon damage but by class. does not matter the weapon type except for resistances
Wizards and their type get 1d4
Clerics get 1d6
Rogues get 1d8
Fighters get 1d10.
If your dirty dipping multiclasser you take the worse.

My personal preference is to go back to universal damage for all weapons like it was in OD&D and B/X (variable was optional). Then individual classes could get bonuses or even change the damage die type to reflect their expertise in the weapon.

 

[Oofta]

How we just drop weapon damage but use weapon damage but by class. does not matter the weapon type except for resistances
Wizards and their type get 1d4
Clerics get 1d6
Rogues get 1d8
Fighters get 1d10.
If your dirty dipping multiclasser you take the worse.

So make an even playing field by eliminating the value of all choices and trade-offs? No thanks, that would be a different game and throwing the baby out with the bathwater.

Do what makes sense for your game, but that's over-simplified for me.

 

[Warpiglet]

So make an even playing field by eliminating the value of all choices and trade-offs? No thanks, that would be a different game and throwing the baby out with the bathwater.

Do what makes sense for your game, but that's over-simplified for me.

I want to respectfully agree with this. Nothing against OP's playstyle.

I enjoy a number of strategy games. Some are asymmetrical some are scenario driven but frequently we want balance. This is not universally true though. We often have had fun with Axis and Allies or War of the Ring with asymmetry in forces.

I am all in for immersion and challenge. I think it is very telling that when posts talk about "spotlight" they often lose me. I am having fun using the tools I have to overcome obstacles. In the old days as I have often referenced, thieves kind of sucked. But we still would play them because of the challenge and fun in advancing them. Never did we avoid a cleric with a paltry mace (1-6+1) because it was less. We played them because we wanted that role.

There were big fights where turn undead was unleashed! There were times where flamestrike fell to the earth but I don't think we sat and reckoned damage the way it is often done online at present.

If it comes down to all doing nearly the same thing but with a different name it is no longer the roleplaying game for me. Fortunately it never has to come to that--given the great editions we have that already bucked that trend.

But I can absolutely see the appeal of it for some people. For me, it would be like playing a strategy game with its puzzles and traps and math problems/gambits. I like them when I play them.

That is good stuff....just not if it is the replacement for the D&D RPG my group loves.