D&D 5E How much should 5e aim at balance?

[Shadeydm]

Even post-errata, RoB says:

If you’re wielding a flail, a light blade, or a spear and have Dexterity 15 or higher, make the attack a third time against either the target or a different creature.​

And if you're don't have the DEX, and are not wielding a flail, a light blade or a spear at least some of the time, then what are you doing with the power in the first place? That's what retraining is for.

My fighter actually uses a trident which is technically a spear but I have to say thanks man! I had no idea I could pick a different target sweet!

 

[pemerton]

My fighter actually uses a trident which is technically a spear but I have to say thanks man! I had no idea I could pick a different target sweet!

You're very welcome. But I want to say: read you power descriptions more closely! They're pretty important.

(I'm taking you at face value here - if you're joking then sorry, I missed it.)

 

[Alzrius]

Beside the starvation example already given, there is the fact that psionics and the Phantasmal Killer spell can both do hit point damage in AD&D. I'm sure there are other examples, too, that I am not remembering at the moment.

As I mentioned in response to the starvation example, it's specifically called out as an exception because it's an exception.

Likewise, the (possible) hit point damage from phantasmal killer is that it's causing physical damage based around your fear being so bad that it's effecting your physicality - hence why it can kill you outright, or just hurt you so bad (e.g. a low-grade heart attack) that it causes physical wounding. It's not a stretch to see magic as bending (but not breaking) the rule about hit point loss being physical damage.

 

[Shadeydm]

You're very welcome. But I want to say: read you power descriptions more closely! They're pretty important.

(I'm taking you at face value here - if you're joking then sorry, I missed it.)

I'm totally not kidding I wonder if its cut off at the bottom of a sheet or something. I will have to look next time I go upstairs. I have noticed that the sheets don't print out too cleanly cutting off the bottom of boxes at times. It's possible I could have overlooked it i guess.

 

[pemerton]

the (possible) hit point damage from phantasmal killer is that it's causing physical damage based around your fear being so bad that it's effecting your physicality - hence why it can kill you outright, or just hurt you so bad (e.g. a low-grade heart attack) that it causes physical wounding. It's not a stretch to see magic as bending (but not breaking) the rule about hit point loss being physical damage.

Is it magic? Or fear?

If the former, then we're back in the territory of "only wizards get cool things". That territory is well-trodden (though not every will agree with my description of it!). I've got nothing new to add to the discussion.

If the latter, then what's the problem with psychic damage in 4e? If you think that fear can cause physical damage via physical responses, then that's how psychic damage works. (A bit like the strange but traditional ruling that an illusion of a fireball can cause damage, but not fatal damage, you could easily adopt a house rule that if the "killing" blow is from psychic damage then the foe is only knocked out regardless of the player's desire - though your reference to a heart attack suggests that death from fear may be feasible on this interpretation.)

 

[Alzrius]

Is it magic? Or fear?

It seems pretty clearly to be both - that is, fear created and augmented via magic - particularly since it's a spell with the fear descriptor.

If the former, then we're back in the territory of "only wizards get cool things". That territory is well-trodden (though not every will agree with my description of it!). I've got nothing new to add to the discussion.

This comment is completely divorced from the discussion on what hit points mean. Even if it weren't, it's making far too many assumptions for my taste - since "cool things" is completely relative, as is the idea that somehow "only wizards" would get to do them.

Hence, you're probably right not to talk about such a thing at all (though it's weird then that you brought it up in the first place, since you seem to recognize it's a silly thing to say).

If the latter, then what's the problem with psychic damage in 4e? If you think that fear can cause physical damage via physical responses, then that's how psychic damage works. (A bit like the strange but traditional ruling that an illusion of a fireball can cause damage, but not fatal damage, you could easily adopt a house rule that if the "killing" blow is from psychic damage then the foe is only knocked out regardless of the player's desire - though your reference to a heart attack suggests that death from fear may be feasible on this interpretation.)

See above. It's not "just" fear - it's magical fear that's specifically and reliably able to create physical wounding based around the target feeling extreme fear. You might be able to induce a heart attack in someone by scaring them (which is a function of their circumstances, rather than your ability to scare someone so badly), but this isn't something that can be reliably done - that is, done on command to various targets as you like.

 

[Emerikol]

This doesn't work at all.

I am a first level fighter with (let's say) 10 hp. I trip over a cobblestone and suffer a modest graze to the knee that very mildly impedes movement, making me favour my other leg. Let's be very hardarse about that and say I'm now down to 9 hp.

You are a 10th level fighter with (let's say) 70 hp. A hobgoblin attacks you with a sword, and hits for 7 hp. You ducked and took a very minor graze to your knee. You are now at 63 hp.

All each PC knows is that s/he has a graze to the knee. But what the player of me knows is that a lucky hit with a sword, or two ordinary hits, will kill me. Whereas what the player of you knows is that even 5 or 6 lucky hits with a sword can be survived, unless the sword-fighter has superlative strength and skill.

Any time a player says I stand still and take a sword thrust from the enemy, I as DM would respond by saying - ok you are dead. Knowing that an enemy isn't skillful enough to do that to you doesn't require special knowledge.

Your hit point total becomes more granular and more of the enemies blows become less effective.

Martial daily powers are so far beyond this that it isn't even close. I accept you don't mind. But stop implying that those of us who take issue with them don't have a valid view. It's just a view different from yours. I guarantee 9 out of 10 times at least we'd all agree on what was or wasn't a dissociative mechanic. Your own inability to grasp the concept is probably why it doesn't bother you.

 

[pemerton]

Any time a player says I stand still and take a sword thrust from the enemy, I as DM would respond by saying - ok you are dead. Knowing that an enemy isn't skillful enough to do that to you doesn't require special knowledge.

Your hit point total becomes more granular and more of the enemies blows become less effective.

This is not relevant to the point I made.

The player of a PC knows what the PC's hit point total is, and therefore knows when that PC's luck is running out - knows when the next good sword blow will not be a graze or nick or scratch, but instead something fatal or near-fatal.

Does the PC know that too? And if so, how? Does s/he have the Norns on speed-dial?

 

[CM]

Although I have already ansewered his question I would like to take a minute and thank you for being so short sighted that you can't imagine a simple feat or two would change things a bit
You have actually played 4E I hope and not just chiming in out of pure ignorance?

The problem lies in the fact that you are equating an at-will maneuver that the fighter character has a very significant investment in natural talent and training (two feats, Wisdom 15 and Dex 15 minimum, which are tough for a fighter to get when they already want Strength and Constitution) plus an uncommon level 7 magic item with a stock-standard level 3 encounter attack which any fighter can select. His skill is such that he can effortlessly perform a maneuver that other (nonspecialized) fighters can only dream of. That seems perfectly believable to me.

I have just such a level 16 spear-wielding goliath fighter in my 15th-level campaign, by the way.

 

[CM]

Why does it do the essentially the same damage at 3rd as 7th or even 11th.

Because it's a badly-designed power. God knows 4e isn't perfect. I love it to death but there is a ton of cruft that ought to be weeded out.