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

[FireLance]

You also forgot about possible critical hits.
How did you arrive at 91%? Other than that, if your math is correct, I think this is too much. Or maybe monsters' HP is too low, not sure.

A 20th level fighter with 20 Str has a +10 bonus to attack rolls vs. Asmodeus's AC of 17. Hence, he misses 30% of the time. If he uses Combat Surge, he can get two attacks and the chance that both miss is 9%. So, the chance that at least one hits is 91%.

 

[DEFCON 1]

They have way too long a leash and are wasting a lot of time here. When you think about it's pretty ridiculous that it takes 3+ years to put together a new edition of a 38 year old dice game.

Oh yeah... cause a new edition that was banged out in nine months would have been swell!

 

[the Jester]

That would seem fine if you really like fighters with high intelligence, but what do I tell a player if he asks if he should increase his strength when leveling up his fighter? I'll tell him that being strong doesn't really mean anything? If we want stats to not matter than they shouldn't be included as a mechanic.

I am not saying that I think stats should matter. I am just saying that either they do matter and we include them or they don't matter and we throw them out. It's the middle ground that makes things come out funny.

Strength matters. It affects your melee attacks and damage.

I like that, in the current iteration of the 5e rules, skill matters more. I like it a lot. I acknowledge that this is a matter of taste, but I certainly don't see how you can argue that strength doesn't mean anything under the current playtest rules- it certainly does mean a lot! It can provide about half of your 20th level pc's accuracy (i.e. total weapon attack bonus). The fact that it's a lesser component of damage is fine in my book; I want my non-strength-focused fighters to be viable, not completely useless. The way it is now, it allows for non-strength fighters and strength fighters to adventure together, with a small (but definitely noticeable!) advantage to the strong guy.

 

[the Jester]

They have way too long a leash and are wasting a lot of time here. When you think about it's pretty ridiculous that it takes 3+ years to put together a new edition of a 38 year old dice game.

Rushing to make sure they don't have time to get it right is exactly the wrong course. The long lead time gives them lots of time to playtest, get feedback, tweak, experiment and improve the game. Rushing a new edition out only leads to broken promises and angry gamers (witness the terrific foul ups of the 4e digital stuff that was promised on release, much of which never appeared, and the reaction to it).

 

[Stormonu]

Perhaps this is being looked at from the wrong angle.

I think some folks are trying to scale damage at the same rate as HP acquisition, and I think its misguided - we'll simple see the number treadmill shift from the front end to the back end.

If PCs are going to expect gaining HP every level, then I think damage should scale, if at all, at a much slower rate. This gives the PCs increasing staying power over more encounters - and I think it was the scale 1E/2E/3E was built on.

In turn, monsters might have much lower HP - they don't need to survive over multiple scenes/encounters and you don't want to end up with grindy fights.

This does create the issue however, that PCs may seem invulerable - at higher levels you would HAVE to send them through more encounters before you can see a risk to their life and well-being because of the up-front plot armor they have. Of course, this could be mitigated by setting aside some of the hit points/hit dice with something like 4E's surges, so you have endurance over the long run.

In the end, We're seeing scaling damages because old wizard spells scaled on damage and we don't want to leave the martial characters out on this go around. Maybe its time for high scaling spell damage to go away and just use spell levels to limit what you can do, not neccessarily how much you can do.

 

[Falling Icicle]

I know alot of people hate 4e, and I wasn't its biggest fan either, but it did do some things right. Sneak Attack started at +2d6 and only went up to +5d6 at 21st level. Fireball, a 5th level spell, did 5d6 + Int mod damage. Meteor Swarm, a 29th level spell, did 8d6 + Int mod. damage. The damage scaling in 4e is something they really should use as a model in Next.

 

[A'koss]

Strength matters. It affects your melee attacks and damage.

I like that, in the current iteration of the 5e rules, skill matters more. I like it a lot. I acknowledge that this is a matter of taste, but I certainly don't see how you can argue that strength doesn't mean anything under the current playtest rules- it certainly does mean a lot! It can provide about half of your 20th level pc's accuracy (i.e. total weapon attack bonus). The fact that it's a lesser component of damage is fine in my book; I want my non-strength-focused fighters to be viable, not completely useless. The way it is now, it allows for non-strength fighters and strength fighters to adventure together, with a small (but definitely noticeable!) advantage to the strong guy.

Very much agreed.

I was just thinking on how this opens up a lot of different character options as far as character styles (eg. the Cha Fighter) and weapon choices go. A "toolkit" style approach to weaponry, especially at higher levels, is a very valid style of play. The icy shortsword sits very respectably beside the fiery greataxe. And the more I think on it, the more I like how they're playing up skill in this edition.

 

[Gorgoroth]

Yeah, but the icy shortsword, even while sitting respectably at the same table as the fiery greataxe or holy avenger or vorpal longsword at its head, should not sit closer and closer to the head as time goes on. What I mean is, the relative damage potential of the short sword vs greatsword becomes greater and greater as the fighter gets higher level. How is that right? So it models that a super high level fighter is very deadly with Sting. So why does not Aragorn use it? Or Gandalf not pick up Sting for hisself? I mean, weapons should suit their wearers size and style, sure, but look at it this way.

At 20th level, currently a fighter's damage is W + 6d6 + say 2d8 fire + 28 (+20 fighter damage bonus, +5 strength, +3 weapon). The non-weapon part averages to 58 + W. If W is d4 = ~3.5 for a dagger at the low end, and d12 = ~6.5 for a greatsword or greataxe, that means at level 20 the proportion of damage done by the weapon choice itself vs overall is 4.1% for the dagger and 10% for the greataxe. Meaning your entire character's look, feel, and iconic presentation to the world, the other players, the enemy...is worth 6% from the littlest to the biggest weapon. What...the...#@!@#. That SUCKS

The flavour of Martial Damage die is nowhere near as cool as the flavour of a big weapon doing more damage. Why have it at all? Some people even suggested that here.

That is NOT a feature of D&D. Weapon tables should matter. Gygax is probably rolling in his grave at this one.

d6s for everyone! you get a d6, you get a d6, you get a d6, YOU get a d6!!! omg think of the flavour and variety!!

In the end, a fighter is more effective with a shortsword or handaxe and shield than a greatsword. yes, I said shortsword over longsword, because you can use the deflect feat with it, conceal it. Heck you can even throw the axe (although this playtest doesn't state if you can throw it using str, it just says vaguely that you usually use Dex to throw stuff). Which brings me to another point, you're still better off overall in light armor with a super high dex, and a shield, than in plate with a greatsword. That is...sad, IMO.

 

[A'koss]

Yeah, but the icy shortsword, even while sitting respectably at the same table as the fiery greataxe or holy avenger or vorpal longsword at its head, should not sit closer and closer to the head as time goes on. What I mean is, the relative damage potential of the short sword vs greatsword becomes greater and greater as the fighter gets higher level. How is that right?

Look at it as your skill developing until you reach superhuman/cinematic levels. If I'm skilled enough to ram a tea cup into your heart, a chopstick through your eye into your brain or an icepick to the base of the skull... you're just as dead as if I had cut you in half with a greataxe. You're knowledge of how to kill simply grows to the point it matters less and less what you use to deal out that death. This is a good thing IMO. A very good thing in fact.

If you find a weapon with a good enchantment, there's no reason to balk at it just because it isn't a greatsword. You'll still have your favorites of course, but everything in your high-level hands is useful.

 

[Ultimatecalibur]

Yeah, but the icy shortsword, even while sitting respectably at the same table as the fiery greataxe or holy avenger or vorpal longsword at its head, should not sit closer and closer to the head as time goes on. What I mean is, the relative damage potential of the short sword vs greatsword becomes greater and greater as the fighter gets higher level. How is that right? So it models that a super high level fighter is very deadly with Sting. So why does not Aragorn use it? Or Gandalf not pick up Sting for hisself? I mean, weapons should suit their wearers size and style, sure, but look at it this way.

Because Aragon was wielding Narsil/Andúril and Gandalf was wielding Glamdring(which he got from the same pile of magic weapons that Bilbo got Sting).

At 20th level, currently a fighter's damage is W + 6d6 + say 2d8 fire + 28 (+20 fighter damage bonus, +5 strength, +3 weapon). The non-weapon part averages to 58 + W. If W is d4 = ~3.5 for a dagger at the low end, and d12 = ~6.5 for a greatsword or greataxe, that means at level 20 the proportion of damage done by the weapon choice itself vs overall is 4.1% for the dagger and 10% for the greataxe. Meaning your entire character's look, feel, and iconic presentation to the world, the other players, the enemy...is worth 6% from the littlest to the biggest weapon. What...the...#@!@#. That SUCKS

That is NOT a feature of D&D. Weapon tables should matter. Gygax is probably rolling in his grave at this one.

You mean the guy that had all weapons doing 1d6 damage in OD&D?