The final word on DPR, feats and class balance

[Flexor the Mighty!]

13th Age does this, it works quite well.

I told my DM I approach 5e as a mix of wuxia and loony tunes, should have added in 90's wrestling. I'm going retcon him as the original Hardy boy.

 

[Satyrn]

I told my DM I approach 5e as a mix of wuxia and loony tunes, should have added in 90's wrestling. I'm going retcon him as the original Hardy boy.

. . . I feel icky for it, but I was picturing him as Chris Benoit.

 

[5ekyu]

Are difference in damage dice for weapons, or in feat support for weaon categories, key thematic differences?
A knife thrower is going to be carrying many knives, probably in a bandolier. Those are not going to all be hidden.

Moreover, the OP is not complaining about the viability, or otherwise, of a knife-wielding assassin in a courtly intrigue game. It's clear, from having read many of the OP's posts in threads over the past few years, that the concern is about bog-standard dungeon-style, AP-style RPGing. Concealed weaponry is pretty marginal in those contexts.

This seems to invoke other system elements. For instance, in a system in which first strike is a big advantage (Rolemaster, Classic Traveller, arguably RuneQuest) then the sort of advantage you describe here is noticable. And I've seen RM knife-throwing characters who are quite viable.

In an attrition-based system like D&D, this sort of advantage is less signficant. Hence eg rogues have additional mechanics, like sneak attack, to make them viable in attrition-oriented combat.

"A knife thrower is going to be carrying many knives, probably in a bandolier. Those are not going to all be hidden."

Well, now we know why hidable knives arent a thing of merit or value in your games or in your white rooms.

 

[Flexor the Mighty!]

. . . I feel icky for it, but I was picturing him as Chris Benoit.

I was a huge fan of Benoit, a true wrestling machine, but my monk is far too fat to be like him. Horrible what happened with CB. I try not to hate him as I have no idea what goes though a brain that damaged from years of flying headbutts off the top rope and chairs to the skill.

 

[5ekyu]

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.

Its perfect for many cinematic and genre based games where two things take precedence over "reslity"

1 its the character that is the danger, not the weapon.

2 the choice of weapon is a stylistic and thematic character (cultural) or stylistic nod.

It can work quite well for rpgs where crunch and fiddlies are less in spotlight.

 

[5ekyu]

Ah, the crazy days of ECW.

Perhaps but the earliest flying headbutt afficionado i saw was Harley Race, tho never higher than top rope that i saw.

 

[Satyrn]

Perhaps but the earliest flying headbutt afficionado i saw was Harley Race, tho never higher than top rope that i saw.

Aye. Picturing his monk leaping off a roof onto some poor schmuck 20 feet below him is what had me remembering ECW and the panic about copycat kids in their backyard.

 

[Oofta]

Its perfect for many cinematic and genre based games where two things take precedence over "reslity"

1 its the character that is the danger, not the weapon.

2 the choice of weapon is a stylistic and thematic character (cultural) or stylistic nod.

It can work quite well for rpgs where crunch and fiddlies are less in spotlight.

I enjoyed D&D back when all weapons did 1d6 damage, that doesn't mean that I want to continue to play that version of the game.

There are a lot of games with different goals, features and options. That doesn't make them any better or worse than D&D, it just makes them different.

So in case it wasn't clear I don't mean any disrespect, I just think it's taking sledge hammer to something that needs a light sanding. It might work, but it wouldn't be the same game. I also think there would be more issues. For example, why would any fighter not take a sword and shield if it doesn't make any difference to damage? Then you have to decide what to do about feats, etc.

Of course, that's one of the great things about D&D. Like this change and it works for your group? You could still keep a lot of things from 5E. I think it would be different from the game I play, but that's not an issue.

 

[5ekyu]

I enjoyed D&D back when all weapons did 1d6 damage, that doesn't mean that I want to continue to play that version of the game.

There are a lot of games with different goals, features and options. That doesn't make them any better or worse than D&D, it just makes them different.

So in case it wasn't clear I don't mean any disrespect, I just think it's taking sledge hammer to something that needs a light sanding. It might work, but it wouldn't be the same game. I also think there would be more issues. For example, why would any fighter not take a sword and shield if it doesn't make any difference to damage? Then you have to decide what to do about feats, etc.

Of course, that's one of the great things about D&D. Like this change and it works for your group? You could still keep a lot of things from 5E. I think it would be different from the game I play, but that's not an issue.

Perhaps my comment was misunderstood... I dont consider dnd 5e to be an rpg that meets any of the criteria i listed for games where that change would be good or well suited to.

5e is a fiddly bits and details rpg... Not as much as some but still too much to imo make "character based dmg" a real coherent part of its make-up

 

[Tony Vargas]

I don't agree with the ranges for longbows in D&D

Yeah, should be 300 yds, to fit the myth of the English longbow.
And SS makes you just as accurate at long range as point blank. Which is lovely for the Robin Hood types, but there's no similar level of reality-pushing for most other weapon choices.

all I'm saying is that a knife in the back is less likely than a longbow at a reasonable distance.

"In the back" is probably unfair, on my part.

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.

A thrown weapon hits harder than one held, because humans naturally pull back slightly when hitting something (it's instinctive, to avoid hurting yourself, martial artists try to train it away), a thrown knife can /easily/ penetrate human flesh to the hilt. D&D daggers are like a foot long, all the vital organs in the human body are very much on it's menu. Absolutely a lethal weapon.

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.

I was thinking more Rogue vs SS.

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).

Heh. Fantasy has a lower standard than /that/. So groan at the movie (if you're not in a theatre), but hold 'em in at the gaming table, please!

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 want to say you shouldn't be playing FRPGs, at all, you should be playing Aftermath, or something with that level of realism - but, really, it's all so subjective, what seems like too much or too little - too RL-realistic for fantasy or too gonzo for gritty fantasy or whatever - is something groups need to work out for themselves.

Systems should, ideally, be more concerned with mechanics that are workable/playable/balanced, and leave the descriptions and interpretations of the fiction as suggestions that can float. 5e does give the DM that latitude, so, as DM, you'd be w/in your rights to change what a given feat (or not opt into feats in the first place, still my preferred solution) or other game element represents in the fiction (along with any mechanical tweaks that may imply). There might be some back-and-forth with a player trying to build to a given concept, but it seems like the kind of things DMs should be up for...

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

And hps have long done a surprisingly good job of modeling plot armor - even if it's never been clear that's what they're doing. ;|

Which is my real issue with this argument. Don't like GWM and SS? Don't allow them. Think feats or multi-classing lead to overpowered combos? Don't allow the optional rules.

Much as I agree, those options were discarded as insufficient (throwing out feats would render fighters non-viable, throwing out MCing wouldn't allow the players the characters they wanted, etc - to the OP's standard, anyway) right in the first post.

Perhaps my comment was misunderstood... I dont consider dnd 5e to be an rpg that meets any of the criteria i listed for games where that change would be good or well suited to...5e is a fiddly bits and details rpg...

It is, that. And, much as weapons all doing the same damage would be an amusing reference the games' earliest days for those few who remember the pre-fad years, it wouldn't turn the "feels like D&D" litmus paper the right color for anyone else.

Not as much as some but still too much to imo make "character based dmg" a real coherent part of its make-up

There's rather a lot of character-based damage, really - bonuses, SA dice, scaling cantrip damage, etc - but only as a component on top of other 'fiddly bit' damage sources & modifiers.