the Jester
Legend
This seems to have been replaced by resistance to nonmagical weapons (i.e. half damage). Monsters that have it are extra-scary, but it still doesn't seem to make magic weapons "necessary".
YMMV.
-
The VOIDRUNNER'S CODEX is LIVE! Explore new worlds, fight oppressive empires, fend off fearsome aliens, and wield deadly psionics with this comprehensive boxed set expansion for 5E and A5E!
D&D 5E Is a +3 weapon needed...when it boosts damage by 53%?
- Thread starter Stalker0
- Start date
This seems to have been replaced by resistance to nonmagical weapons (i.e. half damage). Monsters that have it are extra-scary, but it still doesn't seem to make magic weapons "necessary".
YMMV.
I'd say +3 weapons aren't just needed, they are inadequate.
Lets imagine things without magic weapons. A level 16 Fighter has 180 HP (15 for lvl 1, and 15*(6+5)), and with a Greatsword, he is AC 19 (Full plate+Defender). So what would an appropriate mook look like? AC 16 and 100 HP? That is someone HUGELY down in levels. And yet.
Average GWF Fighter damage per swing is (12*(8.3+5)+3*(16.7+5))/20=11.85. It'll take this damage oriented fighter about 9 hits (3 rounds) to kill a mook. Guys who show up in large groups. It will take the longsword+shield guy 11 attacks, or almost 4 rounds. That is a LOT of dice rolling to kill something pretty darn weak. Moving the 5th attack to lvl 15 or 16 AND giving out +3 weapons will bring the fighter's offense up to "able to kill something that should be a speedbump in under 2 rounds). Just giving out +3 weapons won't. Even for the guy with a greatsword.
With the current rules, save or die is the only sane strategy at high levels, unless adventure designers manage to hold the line and never throw in groups of monsters with more than 50hp even for adventures designed for level 16+ PCs. Note that Ogres have 59 hp while being challenge level 2. So, um. Yeah. Right. For reference, the level 16 mundanely equipped GWF needs about 4-5 swings to kill an Ogre. Huzzah.
Further, Fighter vs. Boss is futility itself. For real hilarity, map out a lvl 18 longsword+shield fighter against himself. With an averaging damage output under 20 damage/round, significantly absorbed by 10 points of regeneration a round, the fight'll last 15ish rounds of utter boredom. With that kind of survivability against weapons, high level Bosses will always be taken down by a SOD.
The outcome of Bounded Accuracy, namely putting all the scaling into HP, which don't protect you against spells, is REALLY REALLY CLEAR. Very long, very boring fights unless a spellcaster gets involved or seriously impressive gear (which breaks BA) is handed out.
Lets imagine things without magic weapons. A level 16 Fighter has 180 HP (15 for lvl 1, and 15*(6+5)), and with a Greatsword, he is AC 19 (Full plate+Defender). So what would an appropriate mook look like? AC 16 and 100 HP? That is someone HUGELY down in levels. And yet.
Average GWF Fighter damage per swing is (12*(8.3+5)+3*(16.7+5))/20=11.85. It'll take this damage oriented fighter about 9 hits (3 rounds) to kill a mook. Guys who show up in large groups. It will take the longsword+shield guy 11 attacks, or almost 4 rounds. That is a LOT of dice rolling to kill something pretty darn weak. Moving the 5th attack to lvl 15 or 16 AND giving out +3 weapons will bring the fighter's offense up to "able to kill something that should be a speedbump in under 2 rounds). Just giving out +3 weapons won't. Even for the guy with a greatsword.
With the current rules, save or die is the only sane strategy at high levels, unless adventure designers manage to hold the line and never throw in groups of monsters with more than 50hp even for adventures designed for level 16+ PCs. Note that Ogres have 59 hp while being challenge level 2. So, um. Yeah. Right. For reference, the level 16 mundanely equipped GWF needs about 4-5 swings to kill an Ogre. Huzzah.
Further, Fighter vs. Boss is futility itself. For real hilarity, map out a lvl 18 longsword+shield fighter against himself. With an averaging damage output under 20 damage/round, significantly absorbed by 10 points of regeneration a round, the fight'll last 15ish rounds of utter boredom. With that kind of survivability against weapons, high level Bosses will always be taken down by a SOD.
The outcome of Bounded Accuracy, namely putting all the scaling into HP, which don't protect you against spells, is REALLY REALLY CLEAR. Very long, very boring fights unless a spellcaster gets involved or seriously impressive gear (which breaks BA) is handed out.
tomBitonti
Adventurer
The hit range needs to be included in the maths: A +3 sword on an attack which needs a 19 to hit changes 1 hit into 2.5. If the attack needed a 11 to hit then 1 hit changes into 1.2.
Thx!
TomB
Thx!
TomB
The AC in the OP is 16. The attack roll would be 5 (str) + 6 (prof) + 3 (weapon) = 14
A friend of mine crunched the numbers with the monster math from the last playtest and the rules from the basic pdf to see how long it takes a fighter to kill an average monster at each level.
Monster hp in the old bestiary scales much, much faster than the damage of the fighter increases. Now...what was the main change to damage and hp we've heard about? 1. Monster hp was inflated by a lot for longer combats, so that chart is actually CONSERVATIVE in how long it will take the fighter to take down a single monster and 2. damage dealing spells were increased in potency by a lot. Fireball used to be 6d6, and now it's 8d6. Chain Lighting was 10d6, now it's 10d8, and so on.
The math seems to really expect that the fighter is going to need some powerful magic items just to keep up with a naked wizard on a standard adventuring day, and without it, they're going to be contributing very little in the way of damage or threat at the higher levels.
Monster hp in the old bestiary scales much, much faster than the damage of the fighter increases. Now...what was the main change to damage and hp we've heard about? 1. Monster hp was inflated by a lot for longer combats, so that chart is actually CONSERVATIVE in how long it will take the fighter to take down a single monster and 2. damage dealing spells were increased in potency by a lot. Fireball used to be 6d6, and now it's 8d6. Chain Lighting was 10d6, now it's 10d8, and so on.
The math seems to really expect that the fighter is going to need some powerful magic items just to keep up with a naked wizard on a standard adventuring day, and without it, they're going to be contributing very little in the way of damage or threat at the higher levels.
Vicar In A Tutu
Explorer
This - alongside the weak saving throws and the uneven distribution of saving throws in regards to spells - is making me sad 
WTH? A mook with 100 hit points? That's not a "mook," that's a "respectable opponent"--say, an 11th-level fighter with Con 16. Of course it takes a couple rounds to put that foe down. If you're fighting large groups of 11th-level fighters, all I can say is, you've got a nasty DM.
If one more hit point would make it immune to power word kill, it ain't a mook.
You may be right on this one...and its something that will take some getting used to I imagine. We are used to play that a creature have your level is basically trash, but 5e is changing that.
And its true that a 11th level fighter can hit decently even 20th level character, and can take a beating.
So the real question is...what does a typical challenge for 20th level characters look like?
stevelabny
Explorer
Aren't these rules counting on a dearth of spells though?
Unless I'm missing something, (which is very possible, I didn't follow the playtest all the way through and I only read most of the PDF once)
at 14th level a wizard would have 7 less spell slots in 5E than 3.5E PLUS all the bonus spell slots from high INT. Assuming a 20 INT, thats another 6. So they'd be running 13 spells short.
If they really are trying a return to old-school d&d, the lack of spell slots will severely mess with an all-purpose wizard. If they focus on save or dies, they won't have the utility spells at all. If they help out with utility, they'll have even less spell slots to burn.
and that "less powerful" sword? will be able to swing multiple times a round, multiple times a combat, all day every day.
Unless I'm missing something, (which is very possible, I didn't follow the playtest all the way through and I only read most of the PDF once)
at 14th level a wizard would have 7 less spell slots in 5E than 3.5E PLUS all the bonus spell slots from high INT. Assuming a 20 INT, thats another 6. So they'd be running 13 spells short.
If they really are trying a return to old-school d&d, the lack of spell slots will severely mess with an all-purpose wizard. If they focus on save or dies, they won't have the utility spells at all. If they help out with utility, they'll have even less spell slots to burn.
and that "less powerful" sword? will be able to swing multiple times a round, multiple times a combat, all day every day.
While its true that the new wizard has less spells per day, they are compensate pretty well but a huge increase in spell flexibility.
Now I can prepare a few combat spells, and then use the rest for utility. If combat is heavy, I will use the slots for those spells. Else I can use them for utility.
Its not the old days where the wizard had to prepare 3 copies of fireball to be ready for a fight.
Similar Threads
