D&D 5E Mike Mearls's Tweets

[Steely_Dan]

I especially like no ability modifier damage bonus for monsters, just roll dice, like pre-3rd Ed.

Apparently one of the 3rd designers (Jonathan Tweet?) regrets adding ability modifier damage to monster attacks.

Now I just want them to drop the word "Ki".

 

[delericho]

I especially like no ability modifier damage bonus for monsters, just roll dice, like pre-3rd Ed.

Apparently one of the 3rd designers (Jonathan Tweet?) regrets adding ability modifier damage to monster attacks.

In the context of 3e, Tweet is wrong - it's an unavoidable feature, not a bug.

3e monsters use, fundamentally, the same rules as the PCs. That means that if Str adds to damage for PCs then it must apply for monsters.

Furthermore, that's good design. In 3e, it's entirely likely that monsters will gain the same buffs as the PCs, and they should work in essentially the same way. If a PC is hit with bull's strength and gains +4 Str (with a corresponding increse to damage), and then a monster is hit with the same spell, then the monster really must gain the same effect.

Now, it's important to note that this is not the only way that the game can be constructed. Prior to 3e, and also after 3e, monsters used different rules from the PCs. And the games were also constructed so that it isn't common for monsters to receive the same buffs as the PCs. (4e, to its credit, also got away with things that gave ability adjustments, negating one of the big problems in the game, and also this particular issue.) Under that paradigm, it's entirely sensible that monsters don't add their Str to damage.

But, under 3e, it's not only desirable - it is required by the rest of the system.

 

[bbjore]

You can deal with that by giving the Assassin a Death Attack power that requires him to be using an appropriately light weapon (and be hidden, of course), but which gives him 3d4 for each 'die' he assigns from his pool, or otherwise makes up the difference. That way, there'a trade-off to be made - use a heavy weapon and get a consistently high benefit, or use a light weapon and get a lesser benefit most of the time but a huge bonus when the conditions are set up right.

The assassin issue was just an example. The problem is that if you weigh the damage dice of a weapon too much, you restrict the usage of other weapons. Everyone ends up grabbing the biggest weapon they can. The advantage to static ED dice for damage scaling is that it allows everyone to pick the weapon they want for RP or archetype purposes. Yes you can hack it with extra rules for a class, but it seems like a needless restriction.

The ideal is to design the rules so that the fighter is just as deadly with a shortsword as he is with a greatsword, but picking one or the other creates unique opportunities or playstyles. When you make damage the major difference, it becomes hard for other factors to compete, because damage is so overwhelmingly useful compared to most other benefits.

That's why I like ED for scaling and balance, it allows you to balance weapons in other ways, with different maneuvers or other properties. But when you do that, you have to provide benefits that are just as useful as a shield, and of course, it's still annoying to roll a bunch of different dice for damage.

 

[delericho]

The assassin issue was just an example. The problem is that if you weigh the damage dice of a weapon too much, you restrict the usage of other weapons. Everyone ends up grabbing the biggest weapon they can.

Only if all other factors are equal. The reason to use a dagger instead of a shortsword is stealth. The reason to use a shortsword rather than a longsword is that it's better for massed groups of combatants. The reason to use a longsword instead of a greatsword is that you can use a shield as well. And the reason to use a greatsword is moar damage.

The advantage to static ED dice for damage scaling is that it allows everyone to pick the weapon they want for RP or archetype purposes.

The disadvantage of static ED is that it makes the longsword strictly better than the greatsword - if I'm doing 1d8+3d6 damage with the longsword or 1d12+3d6 damage with the greatsword, then giving up on those 2 points of damage (on average) for an AC bonus is a no-brainer. If it's instead 4d8 vs 4d12, that's a different calculation.

Yes you can hack it with extra rules for a class, but it seems like a needless restriction.

Actually, you don't even need to hack it my class - make the Death Attack available to anyone using a small enough weapon, and the same calculations get made.

The ideal is to design the rules so that the fighter is just as deadly with a shortsword as he is with a greatsword

Why? The greatsword is a strictly better weapon - unless the shortsword user has access to a shield and friends at his sides, the greatsword-weilder wins every time. Granted, in the real world that's due to greater reach rather than strict damage (since either can kill you easily enough), but in D&D terms that just gets boiled down to greater damage.

If you really wanted to model the differences between these weapons accurately, you should allow the shortsword user to spend an ED to double the shield bonus gained by characters to the left and right of him. And that way, the optimal use for that weapon is in massed ranks with shields - which is as it should be.

Likewise, you differentiate weapons of similar lethality (the longsword and battleaxe, for example) in a similar way - perhaps spending an ED with the LS can turn a nat-19 into a critical, while spending an ED on a nat-20 with a BA grants several extra damage dice. Or something.

 

[Li Shenron]

The ideal is to design the rules so that the fighter is just as deadly with a shortsword as he is with a greatsword, but picking one or the other creates unique opportunities or playstyles.

Weelll... I'm not so sure this would be "ideal" design for me.

To have rooms for a large variety of weapons that all makes sense YES, to make them all equally deadly NO.

Personally I think it's better design that some weapons are more deadly than others but have drawbacks in other mechanics or circumstances, such as being bulky and unwieldy, giving penalties somewhere, inadequate for certain targets or even environment, requiring additional training (thus costing something in terms of character "building blocks") etc...

The last bit about training or proficiency actually means that there can be some weapons that compared to others simply suck, such as a club or throwing rocks. To me that is completely fine, as long as for some characters or monsters that don't have the competence or proficiency, those are still totally sensible choices. It doesn't have to be that some Fighter must absolutely have a good reason for every single weapon in the PHB, much less that they should be "equally deadly". I don't really want to see a Fighter swinging a cotton swab being "equally deadly"...

 

[frankthedm]

Ditching damage mods can make huge inroads to deflating HP.

 

[keterys]

Ditching damage mods can make huge inroads to deflating HP.

HP is the primary system means of scaling. They won't be deflating much.

It might make some of their lower level monsters make more sense when everyone's damage isn't _always_ greater than the hit points of all the goblins, stirges, etc... at the same time that it makes splitting attacks for half damage make less sense.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

Totally called it:

stat modifiers to all damage is what caused the bulk of the hp bloat. Maybe fighters get a feature, that adds both expertise dice and stat to damage (exceptional strength!!!), but by default, it is not added.

This way, first level hp can be low enough that everyone feels confortable. 3hp goblins suddenly make sense, as there is a chance, that someone actually rolls a 2.

A second important thing is to remember, that as long as strength added to damage, everything was fine... but when in 4e dexterity also added to damage by default, every monster that was exceptionally nimble, but very weak started to do a lot of damage for no reason...

So please, test playing without adding dexterity and strength modifier to damage.

Let sneak attack add dexterity bonus to damage as an extra bonus, and allow the figter to add strength to damage as his extra!

This way most people should be happy!

 

[UngeheuerLich]

He also talks about opportunity attacks as a special ability.

It sounds right for me, that maybe a fighter (and rogue) should be the only one beeing able to do opportunity attack by default. Seems like opportunity attacks should rather ecourage the fighter to do maneuvering, than discouraging everyone all the time!

 

[DogBackward]

Removing ability modifiers to damage would be the final straw for me. A stronger person should do more damage from swinging an axe than a weaker person does. This is such a basic, common sense rule I can't believe they're even considering getting rid of it.

Actually, this is in fact more realistic. A weapon deals damage because of its own weight, and because it's got one of two main advantages: it's sharp, or it has all of its weight at the end-point to lend momentum to a swing.

Realistically, the only thing strength would do to help with a weapon is to let you wield the bigger ones more easily. This is (somewhat abstractly) modeled by adding Strength to your attack roll: higher Strength allows you to wield a heavy weapon with greater ease, allowing you to attack more fluidly and thus hit more often.

I don't particularly mind how they do it, but if you're gonna complain about "realism", then adding Strength to damage is far less realistic than not.