D&D 5E Mike Mearls's Tweets

[El Mahdi]

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.

You'd think this is how it works, but in the real world it's not. Between untrained people, Yes, strength would make a significant difference...though even then, the damage that a very strong "untrained" opponent can inflict is still measurably less than an opponent with proper technique. So with trained weapon wielders, the answer is No; variations in strength are less noticeable than one might think (once a minimum level of strength is reached). The effectiveness of a weapon attack is far more dependent upon technique than strength, and variations in strength have much, much less effect. With proper technique, a person with 10 strength is just as capable as someone with 20 strength at cutting off a limb or delivering a killing blow. With technique, the extra "strength" is actually wasted, and can actually be counterproductive if Strength is focused on rather than technique.

So though it seems like it would be common-sense or a no-brainer, it's actually a common misconception.

However, greater strength does give you a greater chance of overcoming defenses (be it the ability to block, dodge, or overcoming armor). So making Strength mod's apply to the attack roll, but not damage, is actually a more accurate modelling of how combat really works.

 

[El Mahdi]

A greatsword isn't strictly better, though. You've got a larger weapon, more unbalanced, and if I can get in close quickly then you can't bring your weapon to bear while I'm stabbing you repeatedly with my short sword... which is much better at making several quick stabbing motions. This is made even worse if I do have a shield, since I can try to catch your first swing and then step in close. No allies needed: even in a one-on-one fight, my shield can be used to deflect your sword. And I am going to have a shield if I'm using a one-handed weapon... because I'm not a bloody idiot.

In the end, realistically, shield+weapon beats two-handed weapon any day.

Now, when you're talking about D&D, I would still prefer there be a way to make two-handed weapons more on par with sword and board. But that's better done with weapon qualities, not mucking about with Expertise. I love that Expertise can make a short sword a viable weapon choice, compared to other larger weapons. Thematically and realistically, that is a great feature.

But speaking solely on thematics, the guy with the big-ass greatsword should still be able to be viable as well. I just think that's better modeled by weapon abilities.

(Also, for the record, even in D&D, +2 average damage (and +4 max, that's important to consider as well) can compare with +1 AC. Especially if you already have a decent AC and HP, increasing damage output by a bit can work very well. If nothing else, the bonus damage can help when you want to use your Expertise dice on other things, like Parry or other maneuvers. If I've got Cleave and am facing a bunch of goblins, I'd prefer the 1d12 over the 1d8 weapon easy, since I'm far more likely to drop multiple goblins per round that way.)

I think this could be done by giving every weapon an attack and defense modifier. When everything is taken into account, the overall effect of weapon size, length, weight, etc., contributes to its ability at attack and defense. However to use something like this, it would probably require using the same dice expression for damage for all weapons (rather than increasing die sizes for larger weapons).

The problem is that I don't know what effect adding a defense and attack bonus to each weapon would have on bounded accuracy.

 

[Libramarian]

I don't mind if ability score mods only affect attack and not damage.

 

[DogBackward]

Well, yes. That's why I said the greatsword is a strictly better weapon than the shortsword.

Except that a shortsword, as a weapon, allows you to wield a shield, while a greatsword does not. The ability to use a shield along with it is a feature of the shortsword, which is what makes the weapons even.

No, because the rules should also allow the shield user to apply Expertise Dice to improve his defensive capabilities. Thus, he's trading off greater damage in return for greater defence - which is exactly as it should be.

But there are no shield-specific maneuvers, and it doesn't look like there will be. Even Parry and Protect allow you to use them as long as you have a weapon.

The reason for connecting it with Expertise Dice, rather than making it something just anyone can do, is that that means that only players who can use ED need to worry about such things. The Cleric doesn't need to agonise over whether the longsword or the battleaxe is the better choice for him, he just picks whichever he feels goes better with his character.

You don't have to have the ability built into the weapon for this to work. As is, +2 damage (and the other benefits, like maximum damage) vs. +1 AC is still roughly equivalent. So bonus abilities could easily fall under feats and other abilities.

(...Broadly speaking, longsword & shield should be about equal with greatsword, realism or no.)

And they are. As I've kept saying, +2 damage is, in given situations, still better than +1 AC. And people keep forgetting that it's +2 average damage, but +4 maximum damage, which is still useful, especially on a critical hit. In addition to that, the Fighter is already better off with a two-hander as soon as they hit level 6: that's not +4 average damage since you've got two attacks.

 

[Stasis_Delirium]

Interesting. If they do go with playtesting the idea of not using stat-bonuses to damage on weapon rolls, I wonder if critical strikes would allow that exceptional strength (or dex or whatever the weapon calls for) bonus to be added in again.

A long sword crit might allow the fighter with a 17 str to add that +3 on top of whatever normal damage they do. The Greatsword or 2-handers might allow a multiplier of x2 or something, giving the same fighter +6 on a crit.

Then again, it might not pan out at the higher levels of play. I'm not much of a number-cruncher, and I don't know if a simple stat bonus on a crit would mean much to a 10th level fighter. Then again, the could start allowing certain martial classes to specialize in certain weapons to increase the range and/or multiplier for crits through feats or class features.

Who knows, though. I'm intrigued by the idea of just using dice, but don't want to see it get too out of hand at higher levels of play with players and GM's having to have 20D6 on hand to roll for every character or monsters action. It would start bogging things down just as much as having 8 attacks per round would, I'd imagine.

 

[Derren]

Well, yes. That's why I said the greatsword is a strictly better weapon than the shortsword.

Unless you are fighting in a confined space or against heavily armored opponents, etc...
In reality every weapon is situational, something D&D has so far completely ignored (except maybe 2E, not sure).

 

[Sunseeker]

Unless you are fighting in a confined space or against heavily armored opponents, etc...
In reality every weapon is situational, something D&D has so far completely ignored (except maybe 2E, not sure).

Pretty much. I think DDN could work towards making weapons more situational, such as penalties to two-handed weapons in confined spaces. However, I don't weigh this very heavily in terms of importance.

This is of course too, dependent upon the way they develop the "core" elements of a class. Does a dagger do less damage? Well, does the rogue have more skills? Though I feel the emphasis on combat, utility, or skill should be placed largely in the hands of the player, each class will undoubtedly have some particular leaning in one direction or the other. And that will be the primary determinant of weapons for that class.

But in all the games I've played, most classes that lacked weapon dice had significant tools that made up for them. The only class that has traditionally used powerful weapons, has also traditionally been one of the lowest output classes.

 

[Falling Icicle]

Mearls says he's considering removing ability modifiers from damage because of expertise dice and the way HP work, and how ability modifiers mean too much at 1st level but mean too little at higher levels. Well maybe THAT is the problem that needs to be fixed! The drastic HP and damage bloat is the problem, not the feature that needs to be kept at the expense of everything else.

 

[GX.Sigma]

Mearls says he's considering removing ability modifiers from damage because of expertise dice and the way HP work, and how ability modifiers mean too much at 1st level but mean too little at higher levels. Well maybe THAT is the problem that needs to be fixed! The drastic HP and damage bloat is the problem, not the feature that needs to be kept at the expense of everything else.

Yes... That is the problem... And they're trying to fix it by removing ability mods to damage... Thereby reducing the damage and HP across the board... I don't think I fully understand what you're trying to say here.

 

[Falling Icicle]

Yes... That is the problem... And they're trying to fix it by removing ability mods to damage... Thereby reducing the damage and HP across the board... I don't think I fully understand what you're trying to say here.

Ok, let me try to explain this better.

The way the game is right now, characters start with extremely low HP (their hit die + con modifier), but gain them very rapidly as they level, multiplying the amount of damage it takes to kill them. A 10th level fighter, for example, has several times as many hp as a 1st level fighter, and is doing +3d10 damage with deadly strike. Because of this, a few point bonus to damage from strength makes a pretty big difference at 1st level, but by the time a character is 10th level, a few points of damage is inisignificant, totally dwarfed by expertise dice and hp bloat.

Mike Mearl's suggested removing the ability bonus to damage as a solution to this problem. IMO, the problem here isn't the ability modifier, its the drastic rate at which hp and expertise dice scale. If players had more hp at 1st level (something alot of people want to see anyway, for other reasons) and gained hp more slowly, and if expertise dice scaled much more slowly, then your ability modifier wouldnt be ovpowered at 1st level yet insignificant at higher levels.

Removing the ability bonus to damage is not only a radical change for the game, it still leaves many other problems caused by the hp and damage bloat. Your ability modifier is not the only thing rendered insignificant by the ridiculous expertise dice at higher levels. Your choice of weapon is also made largely irrelevant. Magic weapons, which can only add +3 damage, and maybe +1d6 energy damage, are also rendered largely insignificant. And worst of all, the huge damage potential of deadly strike makes using other maneuvers too costly an option. It might be worth giving up 1d4 or 1d6 damage to trip someone. It's not worth giving up 3-30 points of damage to do so in most cases. I'd much rather my enemy be dead than be alive and tripped. So in that respect, the rapid growth of expertise dice end up ruining the very maneuver system they were designed for!