An improvised weapon is a d4, same as a dagger, right? Are you saying a chopstick or fiddlesticks or a broken chair should be 94% as effective as a two-handed sword vs a giant? Really? That's the way the rules are now.
I get your point that killing humans is possible with a ball-point pen if you are that deadly to begin with, but let's get real here. Human targets are not the same as ogres or giants. Weapons should matter.
Why shouldn't a fighter who's been killing people with his greatsword become all the more effective at killing with his greatsword, as proportionately as someone who's been focusing on a dagger gets better and better with a dagger. If you're a generalist, and good at all weapons equally, I might see your point about being very close in damage no matter the weapon. But not this close. This is really absurd.
Conan should be able to strangle to death most men with his bare hands. But when fighting a hydra, he pulls out his sword. The right tool for the job. Most humans are weak, puny and easily killed.
I get your point about all weapons being useful to a high-level fighter, grab what's around and fight with it, you are not insanely gimped. But the guy who fights with a net or a polearm or a whip does so because he wants to trip, disarm or possibly capture you with maneuvers, and maybe light weapons or specific weapons are not only more beneficial than clumsier ones, but required to even attempt to pull it off. You could chop off a dude's leg with a big sword, but tripping him? not so much. Parrying with a lighter, faster weapon should be more effective too, so in that sense, I completely agree that using W as the martial die for a 1:1 usage for those ends is bad design, but that's easily circumvented by making maneuvers have their own specific die that you give up a W for.
I totally see your point about this, but I think it's too extreme in the other direction, towards favoring lighter weapons. It's the same thing as light armor vs plate. There are so many in-game penalties to using plate, and so many benefits to min-maxing your dex instead and going for finesse weapons (especially since W becomes ...4-10% of your total damage by the end). What this says to me is that light weapons are not balanced vs heavier ones. You SHOULD be giving up more bonus damage by doing a parry with your greatsword than you would a dagger. I think that's a good balancing factor. There's less penalty to someone with an offhand dagger using his offhand martial die (if there ever will be such a thing) to parry than someone with a single greatsword or two longswords doing so. It just makes sense to me. The big sword guy wants more damage. Give it to him. The maneuver guy picks his weapons to give bonuses to certain tricks, which in the end have a good chance of making him way more effective, especially against certain foes, than just brute force war of attrition.
Just not liking the way these rules are taking D&D, to be honest. We're gonna playtest this, but it'll likely be just the low-level adventure. I doubt I could stomach a full campaign with rules in which I fundamentally disagree with the way they work and penalize iconic warrior's weapons in terms of mechanical viability.
Then again, there are massively broken / unrealistic things I see in PF and 4e too, and I would never touch AD&D again. Too rigid and inflexible. I just find reducing the penalty of using light weapons to such an extent is an insult to the game's history and spirit. It's not D&D, IMO.
Which he promptly changed, and has remained so in every single edition since. Thanks for proving my point.
If D&D Next game designers think that's a good idea, let them just come out with it and see what the fan base has to say. I think you'll be surprised at the backlash. I'd give max 1% of users would think a dagger and a greatsword should do the same damage, if that.
I get your point that killing humans is possible with a ball-point pen if you are that deadly to begin with, but let's get real here. Human targets are not the same as ogres or giants. Weapons should matter.
Why shouldn't a fighter who's been killing people with his greatsword become all the more effective at killing with his greatsword, as proportionately as someone who's been focusing on a dagger gets better and better with a dagger. If you're a generalist, and good at all weapons equally, I might see your point about being very close in damage no matter the weapon. But not this close. This is really absurd.
Conan should be able to strangle to death most men with his bare hands. But when fighting a hydra, he pulls out his sword. The right tool for the job. Most humans are weak, puny and easily killed.
I get your point about all weapons being useful to a high-level fighter, grab what's around and fight with it, you are not insanely gimped. But the guy who fights with a net or a polearm or a whip does so because he wants to trip, disarm or possibly capture you with maneuvers, and maybe light weapons or specific weapons are not only more beneficial than clumsier ones, but required to even attempt to pull it off. You could chop off a dude's leg with a big sword, but tripping him? not so much. Parrying with a lighter, faster weapon should be more effective too, so in that sense, I completely agree that using W as the martial die for a 1:1 usage for those ends is bad design, but that's easily circumvented by making maneuvers have their own specific die that you give up a W for.
I totally see your point about this, but I think it's too extreme in the other direction, towards favoring lighter weapons. It's the same thing as light armor vs plate. There are so many in-game penalties to using plate, and so many benefits to min-maxing your dex instead and going for finesse weapons (especially since W becomes ...4-10% of your total damage by the end). What this says to me is that light weapons are not balanced vs heavier ones. You SHOULD be giving up more bonus damage by doing a parry with your greatsword than you would a dagger. I think that's a good balancing factor. There's less penalty to someone with an offhand dagger using his offhand martial die (if there ever will be such a thing) to parry than someone with a single greatsword or two longswords doing so. It just makes sense to me. The big sword guy wants more damage. Give it to him. The maneuver guy picks his weapons to give bonuses to certain tricks, which in the end have a good chance of making him way more effective, especially against certain foes, than just brute force war of attrition.
Just not liking the way these rules are taking D&D, to be honest. We're gonna playtest this, but it'll likely be just the low-level adventure. I doubt I could stomach a full campaign with rules in which I fundamentally disagree with the way they work and penalize iconic warrior's weapons in terms of mechanical viability.
Then again, there are massively broken / unrealistic things I see in PF and 4e too, and I would never touch AD&D again. Too rigid and inflexible. I just find reducing the penalty of using light weapons to such an extent is an insult to the game's history and spirit. It's not D&D, IMO.
Which he promptly changed, and has remained so in every single edition since. Thanks for proving my point.
If D&D Next game designers think that's a good idea, let them just come out with it and see what the fan base has to say. I think you'll be surprised at the backlash. I'd give max 1% of users would think a dagger and a greatsword should do the same damage, if that.
Why do you hate fun?!
