D&D 5E Damage in this Packet is Totally Out of Control

Salamandyr · Dec 26, 2012

What A'koss said...

I guess I would be okay with weapon choice being a somewhat greater component of a fighters damage. My original pushback was because the recommendations for making that happen made weapon choice all powerful...again.

For instance, I've seen a few suggestions to make the martial damage die weapon dependent, so that a dagger wielder could roll all d4's and a great axe wielder would wield all d12's. Can you see why I think that would be a terrible idea?

Others have suggested 3e style where a fighter specializes in a single weapon and is less efficient with everything else. I hate this idea too.

Right now, the big problem is you've got two different damage mechanisms, and it's not readily apparent that that's necessary. Remove one of them, give a higher level fighter 2 attacks, and having a higher damage weapon becomes a more significant factor, while still keeping the majority of a fighters damage inherent in the fighter, where it should be.

"The weapon is only as dangerous as the person carrying it"

YRUSirius · Dec 26, 2012

doublepost

mlund · Dec 26, 2012

I'll deign to add a caveat, "Detailed, realistic weapon-on-armor combat does not integrate well with the specific kind of fun Core D&D is aiming at."

I'm sure there's got to be a niche game system out there that somehow makes simulating the physical reality of how useless sword-slashes are against heavily-armored enemies fun for somebody.

In the meantime, however, I don't think D&DNext is going to sell better if it has a system that disabuses people of the romantic/fantastic notion that swinging a katana at someone in plate mail does anything other than break the katana. The fact that you have a much better chance killing a man in heavy armor with a properly designed dagger or a flanged mace than an arming sword is better left unsaid in this game system.

Differentiate weapons at low-levels with damage and at high-levels with Specialties / styles. I loved how 4th Edition gave certain weapon groups special feats at higher levels to expand critical hit range or deal glancing blows, etc.

- Marty Lund

A'koss · Dec 26, 2012

Salamandyr said:
What A'koss said...

I guess I would be okay with weapon choice being a somewhat greater component of a fighters damage. My original pushback was because the recommendations for making that happen made weapon choice all powerful...again.

One of the problems you can run into with specific weapon specializations is when, in true D&D fashion, you find an awesome weapon... that isn't one you're specialized in. The broad, skill-based approach keeps everything from boiling down to a couple of ideal weapon choices. Even the Weapon Focus/Weapon Specialization feats apply to all your proficient weapons which helps keep your options open. Say you find a frostbrand longword.. but you're specialized in a maul. Or later a Hammer of Thunderbolts... but you're specialized in that longsword. Or after an epic adventure manage to acquire Blackrazor, the mightiest weapon you're ever going to run across... but oh... you're specialized in that greataxe.

Certainly there's no reason you can't have a particular weapon you favor, and even pass over a greater weapon to remain true to your concept, but why mechanically pigeon-hole yourself? With a broad skill-based approach, your character concept can change whenever and however you want over your career.

Derren · Dec 26, 2012

A'koss said:
One of the problems you can run into with specific weapon specializations is when, in true D&D fashion, you find an awesome weapon... that isn't one you're specialized in. The broad, skill-based approach keeps everything from boiling down to a couple of ideal weapon choices. Even the Weapon Focus/Weapon Specialization feats apply to all your proficient weapons which helps keep your options open. Say you find a frostbrand longword.. but you're specialized in a maul. Or later a Hammer of Thunderbolts... but you're specialized in that longsword. Or after an epic adventure manage to acquire Blackrazor, the mightiest weapon you're ever going to run across... but oh... you're specialized in that greataxe.

Certainly there's no reason you can't have a particular weapon you favor, and even pass over a greater weapon to remain true to your concept, but why mechanically pigeon-hole yourself? With a broad skill-based approach, your character concept can change whenever and however you want over your career.

As long there is any form of weapon specialization, and 5E will have them, you will run into this problem, It doesn't matter if the damage depends on the weapon or not.

mlund · Dec 26, 2012

A'koss said:
One of the problems you can run into with specific weapon specializations is when, in true D&D fashion, you find an awesome weapon... that isn't one you're specialized in.

Frankly, I think this is a problem even when there are 0 additional mechanical consequences for changing weapons. When someone formulate a character with a concept in mind that involves a particular weapon and then you find a loot weapon that outside that concept it can be irritating. Kerrek the Chain killed enemies with a spiked chain made out of his manacles and chains from his days as a Pomarj galley slave. Yes, he's proficient with the Great Ax in a pinch. No, he's not taking the +3 Frost Ax of Legend to wield.

(My goodness, how bad are Loot Weapons in a Samurai-themed game like Legend of the Five Rings?)

In 3.X he'd sell it away at horrible exchange rates for money to enchant his signature weapon.
In 4E he'd turn the Ax into Residuum to be used upgrading the Spiked Chain.
In other systems or rules variants he wouldn't even get the Frost Ax of Legend in the loot. His weapon would get some sort of equivalent awakened power or boon from slaying Fjordmonger the Frightening Frostlord instead.

One of the things I hope D&DNext has out of the gate when it goes to press is loot-management guidance outside of random tables. Wizards get to customize their spell books directly level after level. Clerics get every spell their deity hasn't banned to them. Martial types should be able to manage their equipment features at least well enough not to have to compromise the look-and-feel of their characters.

- Marty Lund

Salamandyr · Dec 26, 2012

Derren said:
As long there is any form of weapon specialization, and 5E will have them, you will run into this problem, It doesn't matter if the damage depends on the weapon or not.

Which is pretty much why I don't want there to be weapon focus, at least as we are used to understanding it. I actually started to write a paragraph on why weapon specialization was bad but took it out because it was tangential to the point I was trying to make. Suffice to say, I'm totally cool with the majority of damage coming directly from ones class and like it the way it is now. I want Conan to prefer to have a sword, but if all he has is a dagger, or a club, or his fists, he will still find a way to get things done. And if a dragon chooses to stay airborne, he can whip out a bow and bring him down.

YRUSirius · Dec 26, 2012

Yeah, if a character finds a nice weapon in his loot he isn't optimized for, then the game system doesn't necessarily need to account for this (cart before horse again). This is a matter of campaign planning and the DM is responsible for this.

When Gandalf found Glamdring he just uses it. We could argue why he does this: Is Glamdring so epic that Gandalf's skill doesn't matter, or is he so awesome that it doesn't really matter that he uses Glamdring and he could use his staff alone to kill mobs of goblins?

I'd like to chose the first option, because it is an ounce more believable.

-YRUSirius

Salamandyr · Dec 26, 2012

mlund said:
Frankly, I think this is a problem even when there are 0 additional mechanical consequences for changing weapons. When someone formulate a character with a concept in mind that involves a particular weapon and then you find a loot weapon that outside that concept it can be irritating. Kerrek the Chain killed enemies with a spiked chain made out of his manacles and chains from his days as a Pomarj galley slave. Yes, he's proficient with the Great Ax in a pinch. No, he's not taking the +3 Frost Ax of Legend to wield. (My goodness, how bad are Loot Weapons in a Samurai-themed game like Legend of the Five Rings?) In 3.X he'd sell it away at horrible exchange rates for money to enchant his signature weapon. In 4E he'd turn the Ax into Residuum to be used upgrading the Spiked Chain. In other systems or rules variants he wouldn't even get the Frost Ax of Legend in the loot. His weapon would get some sort of equivalent awakened power or boon from slaying Fjordmonger the Frightening Frostlord instead. One of the things I hope D&DNext has out of the gate when it goes to press is loot-management guidance outside of random tables. Wizards get to customize their spell books directly level after level. Clerics get every spell their deity hasn't banned to them. Martial types should be able to manage their equipment features at least well enough not to have to compromise the look-and-feel of their characters. - Marty Lund

That might be less a system problem than a characterization problem--to the extent it's a problem. Choosing to use one weapon to the exclusion of all others, as impractical as that may be, is a valid thing for a player to choose his character to do, but it's not necessarily something the game should reward. In GURPS, such a thing would be considered a Disadvantage, and you'd get character points for it. Perhaps 5e should have an optional rule module for Flaws. I've never been a big fan of them, but it would be a cool way to mechanically reward a character who has made that choice. By contrast, choosing to play a generalist fighter, who uses the best tool for the job, has not been a mechanically rewarding experience up to now in D&D. Perhaps it's time to make that the default. I've seen a lot of fighters built around the use of one weapon over the years, but it seems to me that the reason for that is that's the way the game encourages you to play. I wonder if we'd see as many if the game didn't reward it so.

YRUSirius · Dec 26, 2012

So what about real life medieval knights and fighters? Did they specialise in a specific set of weapons or could they all use bows as well as a staff or a sword or a mace? Isn't some kind of weapon specialisation more believable? I would think so, but perhaps the knights and fighters of the old days really were more allrounders than I think.

-YRUSirius

D&D 5E Damage in this Packet is Totally Out of Control

Salamandyr

Adventurer

YRUSirius

First Post

mlund

First Post

A'koss

Explorer

Derren

Hero

mlund

First Post

Salamandyr

Adventurer

YRUSirius

First Post

Salamandyr

Adventurer

YRUSirius

First Post

Similar Threads