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

[mlund]

As soon as you add such differences you have PCs who favor one weapon over the other, maybe even not because they are specialized in that weapon, but because their tactics favor this particular weapon type and you are back to having the problem that not everyone can use all loot.

I don't see the differences or the "can't use all loot as effectively" as a problem. Wizards can't use magical long swords, so it's no surprise that sometimes there's a magic wand in the loot or some means of converting the 178th magical long sword into something the Rogue, Cleric, or Wizard fancies. That same basic assumption's accommodations should be extended to the guy who wants to use an ax or a pole-arm over a sword. That's all.

When the enemy is 100ft away from you with difficult terrain between them and the PCs a bow is objectively a better weapon choice than a sword.

By objective standards the bow is situationally better.

Didn't I just write that, "Balance says things should be pretty close to equal equal, all things considered (like weapon complexity, accuracy, damage, two-hand vs. one-hand, light, ranged, rate of fire, etc.)."

I explicitly cited "ranged" as a balance factor differentiating weapons.

I just like to see some additional layers on that. Face a enemy with reach? Polearms are best. A heavily armored enemy? Maces and hammers. Swarmed by many enemies? Swords and Axes. All depends on the situation.

The base game hasn't supported most of those metrics well, if at all. I remember the weapon-type vs. AC tables with specific metrics for each weapon vs. armor & shield combination. That's highly unlikely to be making a comeback in anything but an expansion module. Reach, range, two-handed, heavy, light, simple, and military are all in there already though, and generally balanced along those lines even though it isn't realistic in most cases.

No one calls for a realism-simulator (which is certainly is possible, but see below) but for a bigger nod to realism. And you are wrong, it can be done. You are confusing "can't be done" with "I don't want it".

Actually, I think it's the other way around. You're confusing "realism" with, "the way I fantasize weapons ought to work." Realism, is swords that by-and-large can't damage a man in anything under the heavy armor category in the equipment list. Just a bigger nod to realism is swords that are merely terrible against anyone in heavy armor.

What you're really advocating for is a system that better emulates your fantasy tropes of choice. The fantasy notion of one guy in plate-mail cutting down another guy in plate-mail with a broadsword or arming sword just happens to be a widely popular trope that almost all of us are willing to put on our +3 Suspenders of Disbelief and hand-wave because it's cool and fun - just like Wizards and Dragons.

And guess what, for some people realism is more fun than tropes.

Judging by their choice to play a game where swords routinely hurt people in plate armor and Wizards can shoot lightning out of their hands either "realism" doesn't mean what you think it means or people are really cherry-picking their appeals to realism.

It kind of reminds me of how every Quadratic Wizard advocate inevitably winds up trying to keep their Fighter Wand Caddy in line by arguing that mechanics that make the Fighter into "some sort of super-hero" just "aren't realistic."

The D&D ship sailed from "realistic" to "wahoo" decades ago. All that's left is verisimilitude, entertainment value, and it's own internal logic.

Take Kerrek the Chain you mentioned. Would he stop using his chain when it became obvious that the enemies he faces are so strong that the improvised chain isn't harming them much (for examples demons)? How would he justify it? Would he feel guilty?

Since Kerrek was a Living Greyhawk character back in the day, he paid the 325gp it cost for a masterwork Spiked Chain and had his galley slave chains and manacles made into a weapon. When he had the 1000gp available he paid to have it enchanted too. That's how the system worked.

Did he, run into an enemy that was pretty much impervious to piercing damage once or twice? Sure. He had a back-up slashing and bludgeoning weapon with him for emergencies, and he took a bow on adventures after the first time he hand to climb and jump out of a tree to bring down a flying enemy he couldn't reach. Actually, I think he had an elven-craft longbow eventually just because it did double-duty as a bludgeon and a ranged weapon. He even had a Spiked Gauntlet in case he got grappled or swallow whole.

Most of my swordsmen who survived to level 2 were seasoned enough to pack a morning star as a back-up weapon against those pesky foes that were immune to slashing damage too. That said, 3.X went kind of overboard on weapon damage resistance and sneak attack immunity, but that was by far the least of its play balance problems.

- Marty Lund

 

[Derren]

I don't see the differences or the "can't use all loot as effectively" as a problem. Wizards can't use magical long swords, so it's no surprise that sometimes there's a magic wand in the loot or some means of converting the 178th magical long sword into something the Rogue, Cleric, or Wizard fancies. That same basic assumption's accommodations should be extended to the guy who wants to use an ax or a pole-arm over a sword. That's all.

But I am not talking about wizard weapon vs. fighter weapon, but a crit fighter weapon vs. a accuracy fighter weapon. As long as weapons are different, even when balanced, not all fighters want the same weapon and thus when presented the same loot some will use the weapon and some not. Same result as before.

By objective standards the bow is situationally better.

Didn't I just write that, "Balance says things should be pretty close to equal equal, all things considered (like weapon complexity, accuracy, damage, two-hand vs. one-hand, light, ranged, rate of fire, etc.)."

I explicitly cited "ranged" as a balance factor differentiating weapons.

Still doesn't change that some weapons are better than others in some situations. You will not get rid of that, so accept it and use it for a better game.

The base game hasn't supported most of those metrics well, if at all. I remember the weapon-type vs. AC tables with specific metrics for each weapon vs. armor & shield combination. That's highly unlikely to be making a comeback in anything but an expansion module. Reach, range, two-handed, heavy, light, simple, and military are all in there already though, and generally balanced along those lines even though it isn't realistic in most cases.

It hasn't, but I think it should instead of making weapons unimportant like some people are advocating.

Actually, I think it's the other way around. You're confusing "realism" with, "the way I fantasize weapons ought to work." Realism, is swords that by-and-large can't damage a man in anything under the heavy armor category in the equipment list. Just a bigger nod to realism is swords that are merely terrible against anyone in heavy armor.

What you're really advocating for is a system that better emulates your fantasy tropes of choice. The fantasy notion of one guy in plate-mail cutting down another guy in plate-mail with a broadsword or arming sword just happens to be a widely popular trope that almost all of us are willing to put on our +3 Suspenders of Disbelief and hand-wave because it's cool and fun - just like Wizards and Dragons.


Judging by their choice to play a game where swords routinely hurt people in plate armor and Wizards can shoot lightning out of their hands either "realism" doesn't mean what you think it means or people are really cherry-picking their appeals to realism.

I guess all the medieval fighting manuals about fighting guys in armor with a sword were lying then.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1S_Q3CGqZmg
They were not ideal, but you still could kill people in plate with them.

It kind of reminds me of how every Quadratic Wizard advocate inevitably winds up trying to keep their Fighter Wand Caddy in line by arguing that mechanics that make the Fighter into "some sort of super-hero" just "aren't realistic."

What has this to do with anything here? You seem to want to drag this into a balance discussion and paint me as someone who wants unbalanced gamplay because I want to be more powerful. My beef is more with what others suggested that weapons should be unimportant, but I also do not want the conflict between vision and optimization to disappear.

Imo weapons behaving differently (and matter) adds a lot to the game. If you tailor the loot to your PCs you have no problem anyway. If not, it adds just more RP potential.

PS: I would really like to hear your opinion on the role playing part of how a choice between a better weapon and a "vision" weapon enhances a character (see the Kerrek example).

 

[mlund]

But I am not talking about wizard weapon vs. fighter weapon, but a crit fighter weapon vs. a accuracy fighter weapon.

The issue is the same. Two character builds. One can use Weapon A optimally. The other can use Weapon B optimally. A good game makes it so that they can obtain and use their proper equipment with some manner of parity. It doesn't matter that it makes more logical sense for there to be many more magical melee weapons available than wands and staffs. Saying, "tough luck being an hammer guy," isn't any more acceptable than saying, "tough luck being a wizard."

As long as weapons are different, even when balanced, not all fighters want the same weapon and thus when presented the same loot some will use the weapon and some not. Same result as before.

The part you seem to be overlooking is that there is no pressing mechanical need to restrict the loot players end up with if they are balanced. Player wants an ax instead of a sword? The system should support that without being overly punitive like some editions were.

his is not about making weapons balanced with each other but about making weapons unimportant so that everyone can use whatever he wants with no mechanical difference.

No, that's where you're inferring things that I'm not implying.

Equivalent weapons should be fungible. If they are balanced it shouldn't matter to the other players or the DM whether Knuckles the 7th ends up with a +1 Longbow or a +1 Crossbow.

They were not ideal, but you still could kill people in plate with them.

Not with slashing damage, you couldn't.

The arming sword was primarily a peasant-killing implement. In a pinch you could use it as a bludgeon or lever to knock an armored foe over and then as an improved piercing weapon to stab him in the neck if you knocked him senseless. If he had bad armor you might be able to get him under the arm or something.

Or you could just use a flanged mace and the appropriate dagger and do a proper job of it.

Imo weapons behaving differently (and matter) adds a lot to the game.

I agree, depending on the definition of "matter."

If you tailor the loot to your PCs you have no problem anyway.

I think the Core game should actively support PCs getting the weapons and armor that fit their character - even when it is just a matter of aesthetics. Whether those solutions are quantum loot (like 4E), broad support for enchanting (3E / 4E), RP-based solutions, mercantile solutions, or something else they should be in the Core game. Then if you want to just roll dice for it and eat what you catch, as it were, that's purely optional for your own enjoyment.

I happen to like differentiated weapons and weapon specialties. I don't want obscurity on a percentile dice roll to make some weapons worse than their established mechanics as a matter of rarity, that's all. Hence my desire for different weapons to be balanced to the point of being fungible and the mechanics to support it.

As to "vision" weapons, let's just open up Oriental Adventurers and look at the Samurai, especially d20 Rokugan. There's a whole beautiful cultural apparatus in place about inheritance and honor as it relates to weapons. The solution to the looted weapons metric in classic D&D was to acknowledge that a looted +1 Great Ax was completely fungible (balanced) with a +1 enhancement bonus to your grandfather's katana by awakening and empowering the spirit of the blade.

Likewise the Book of Nine Swords and even the Boons system in 4E are all examples of great narrative tie-ins for tropes that required alternatives to random loot weapons.

- Marty Lund

 

[Derren]

I happen to like differentiated weapons and weapon specialties. I don't want obscurity on a percentile dice roll to make some weapons worse than their established mechanics as a matter of rarity, that's all. Hence my desire for different weapons to be balanced to the point of being fungible and the mechanics to support it.

Yeah, I reread the thread and noticed that the "make all weapons the same" opinion came from someone else. Sorry about that. I should triple check when I post this late.
Personally I think 3E/4E was good enough. If you want a specific weapon you could enchant/make one. But that had a cost and was not free. For me this conflict adds to the game. If the DM does not want that he can still tailor the loot.

 

[mlund]

Personally I think 3E/4E was good enough. If you want a specific weapon you could enchant/make one. But that had a cost and was not free. For me this conflict adds to the game. If the DM does not want that he can still tailor the loot.

I like them too, barring the peculiarity of 3.X's item crafting feats. I'm partial to making the conversion or creation of particularly important magical items like primary implements / weapons into a very brief side-quest or having certain arms and armor "awaken" further powers as their wielders accomplish feats of legend - like slaying powerful supernatural foes or completing Greater Quests.

Jeez, I don't think I ever even considered having the Hexblade in one of our games actually find a better magic rod among treasure piles. It's a unique affliction to the character, effectively cursed in the sense that he can't even throw it away without waking up with it in his hand again. It improves based on the quality of diet of souls is Blade of Annihilation consumes. Why? Because that's extra creepy and unsettling to the wielder and other PCs, while the player's entire concept of the character revolves around being accursed.

- Marty Lund

 

[the Jester]

Indy uses the best weapon available (He doesn't even consider the whip a weapon if you watch the movies), so does Conan. And nowhere I have read that Gimli was married to his axe either.
You are enforcing your vision where D&D characters are more like super heroes with signature weapons. I have a very different vision of D&D characters as hardened adventurers who use all tools available if they want to survive. If someone wants to keep a inferior weapon because of sentimentality, fine. But that should cost him.

Note that, with martial damage dice set up as they are, the difference is fairly minimal, especially at higher levels.

Actually, Indy seldom fells any foes outside of a punch to the jaw. The one time they tried to make a spectacular melee combat scene for Indy, Harrison Ford did a brilliant ad lib to draw a gun and shoot the big bad swordsman and the stunt-man sold it beautifully.

But more to the point, the image of a whip-cracking adventurer that he evokes should be accommodated in the D&D system (which is much more combat oriented and less chase-prone than an Indiana Jones movie) - not penalized.

Likewise the Great Sword is part of a signature image of Conan. Then there's the functional role of the Elven Archer. I don't want a system that tells him to stick it in his pointy ear and use that sling, javelin, or crossbow or pay the price. It's his character.

Again, that's fine for some playstyles, but not everyone wants a whip-wielding dude to be all that effective in their game. There are all kinds of realism issues- how does a whip hurt a man in full plate? What about a monster with thick hide? What about an earth elemental?- that some groups find detract from their experience. Likewise, some groups think the big burly fighter guy who chooses to use a short sword for no reason when obviously superior weapons like the long sword are available ought to be inferior to those who use said superior weapons.

I don't want the game to encourage the kind of player entitlement that 3e and 4e did vis-a-vis magic weapons. I am fine with some peoples' campaigns doing so, but the game itself should not. The whole idea of tailoring loot to the party utterly and absolutely fails in a sandbox style game. A sandbox isn't tailored to anything except its own internal consistency, and to me, the idea that the culturally common weapons are the ones that you find as magic treasure 75% of the time you find a magic weapon makes sense.

mlund, you make it sound like not having your chosen weapon automatically spoils the fun. Maybe sometimes, for some players. There was an old story in the letters column of Dragon magazine way back in the day. Pcs encounter some fairly high-level demon. The paladin engages it, discovering that his primary weapon couldn't hurt it. It grapples him and levitates. The only weapon that could hurt it that he had was a +2 dagger, so he fought that demon, climbing ever higher in the sky, with the only available tool for the job, dealing a measly 1d4+2 (maybe plus a strength bonus, I don't recall the letter specifying) while it ripped into him. Finally he brought it down, and the paladin and the demon's body plunged to the ground. The paladin barely survived, and the group had an awesome story to tell. A story that revolves around having the wrong weapon- ending in a dramatic triumph.

 

[Derren]

Note that, with martial damage dice set up as they are, the difference is fairly minimal, especially at higher levels.

Something, you likely have already noticed, I do not like.
Weapon choice should matter, if not (only) by having different weapons being better or worse in certain situations then by them affecting the damage you put out, your accuracy your crit etc. See spears and setting them against a charge in 3.X as example for imo good and still fast weapon specialization.

 

[the Jester]

Something, you likely have already noticed, I do not like.
Weapon choice should matter, if not (only) by having different weapons being better or worse in certain situations then by them affecting the damage you put out, your accuracy your crit etc. See spears and setting them against a charge in 3.X as example for imo good and still fast weapon specialization.

I half-agree with you- I like the martial damage dice being independent, but would like to see the flat bonus converted to additional weapon dice or something (a good middle ground!). I also like weapon properties, e.g. set vs. charge, mounted only, reach, high crit, etc. as a way to differentiate between weapons.

 

[A'koss]

I half-agree with you- I like the martial damage dice being independent, but would like to see the flat bonus converted to additional weapon dice or something (a good middle ground!).

You have to be careful about that though, because very quickly you run into the same issues we had before where there are only a few ideal weapon choices and no player would touch anything else. Right now they've got the right approach and what I think we'll see happen is the damage dice & bonus drop in the next iteration which will allow the base weapon damage to stand out a little more. But still not too much as to render 90% of the weapon tables irrelevant.

I also like weapon properties, e.g. set vs. charge, mounted only, reach, high crit, etc. as a way to differentiate between weapons.

I definitely prefer to distinguish weapons this way as opposed to just giving out multiple weapon dies.

 

[KidSnide]

I half-agree with you- I like the martial damage dice being independent, but would like to see the flat bonus converted to additional weapon dice or something (a good middle ground!). I also like weapon properties, e.g. set vs. charge, mounted only, reach, high crit, etc. as a way to differentiate between weapons.

I agree with this as well. I would also add that I'd like to see some specialties and maneuvers that require certain types of weapons. So, if you want to play a glaive specialist, you start with the polearm specialty, and take a maneuver (or sub in a feat) that works with slashing weapons. I think this is the sort of thing I'd hope to find in a fighter splat book. (Hopefully, a fighter splat book that is released a healthy amount of time after the original rulebooks, with plenty of time for playtesting...)

And, although I like all this detail, I'd also like to see a "simple weapons" module where all of these properties are simplified away and the difference between a longsword and a battleaxe is largely non-mechanical.

-KS