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

[Starfox]

Weapon-specific maneuvers should be available at level 1, at least the ones taken from RL. Few things annoy me more than when you HAVE to be a lvl 7 fighter to fight competently from horseback or use two weapons. Anything there was ever a troop of men doing should be available at very low levels.

High-level maneuvers, on the other hand, could be quite generic and not weapon specific. Anyone can disarm using a swordbreaker or sai, but an expert can disarm with any kind of weapon. And when we come to people like Musahsi, he grew away from using conventional weapons altogether in favor of improvised weapons like oars and tree branches, and his prowess did not suffer for it. It fits my imagery of King Conan perfectly that he can kill with a thrown ale tankard.

 

[Markn]

I fully support the idea of scaling damage using the 2w and 3w style of 4e. Additionally, I think higher level d&d games could be differentiated from lower games with the idea of weapon mastery. I took a look at the old Rules Cyclopedia and I think there are some excellent ideas in there. Using some of those ideas, the game could change from "rolling dice to do damage" at low levels to becoming more tactical with more "maneuvers" and "fighting styles" which open up further tactical options as the game progresses. Weapon categories can then provide more impact on what styles are available to the character. I think if DDN gives these options too early it is missing a perfect opportunity to differentiate the low end and high end playing style.

On the DM side, monsters at the low end have lesser tactics while higher level monsters begin to have much more varied tactics using some of the cool ideas suggested in this thread - things like the dragons wing buffet for example.

Additionally, I would really like the designers to continue to design monsters like 4e but go further. Many monster traits only appear once during a fight which does not differentiate them enough. Too many traits relied on mechanics. Some examples I would like to see include: demons are so evil and depraved that their very presence has an effect on the environment, devils summon other devils in combat as much as possible, flying creatures have much more movement than land based creatures and fighting them means a lot of readying an action to strike them as they make flyby attacks. While these traits kind of exist in the game they don't go far enough to make the feel of combat different.

I think a slow addition of tactics as the game progresses is an excellent way of changing the feel of the game over time and I'm sure a complexity dial can be built in for groups who don't want this.

 

[Markn]

I want to expand on my last post a little. Keep in mind these are just ideas rattling around in my head and I am sure some tweaking would be required for the math to work.

First, all simple weapons do d6 damage, all one handed martial weapons do d8 damage, all two handed weapons do d10 damage. At this point I don't care about special weapons/ranged weapons for this example so please ignore them for now. Since weapon damage is standardized, the weapon group and/or weapon property becomes the differentiating factor. Different groups/properties allow for different things on the battlefield. Bludgeoning weapons push people, axes cleave, etc, and these tactical options get layered on top over time through feats/manuevers/martial dice. I believe this approach strongly supports the "building a character concept" approach. For example, if you picture being an axe wielder, then you probably picture cleaving someone in two and hitting his buddy. If you picture your character as a hammer wielder, then you probably picture pushing people away in combat. So feats could maintain the space they do now - giving access to cleave, spring attack, etc, but the prereqs for that feat fall under the weapon type instead of being open to the class - afterall it seems silly that a warhammer wielder would use spring attack for example. I also believe there is great design space in allowing both players/monsters to attack something other than AC. Perhaps a feat/manuever/martial die allows the character to target Str/Con/Dex/Int/Wis/Cha instead a limited number of times per day. This encourages "combat roleplaying" - if I know an ogre is dumb and I have an attack that can target intelligence (which perhaps deals normal damage but gives the next ally advantage for putting the ogre in a bad position), then using it makes sense, and since these powers are very limited, the timeing of this type of attack could be very crucial and could create interesting decision points.

Continuing the example, a fighter begins play dealing 1W damage. As he increases in level, both the damage he deals and the options that he gains increase. At level 6 he would deal 2W, at level 11 he would deal 3W, and at level 16 he would deal 4W (which follows nicely with 3e's extra attack at each of these levels but without the extra decision points of who to attack with the multiple attacks and the additional delay of rolling/adding dice to determine if its a hit and how much damage it does). At pre-determined levels he gets feats/manuevers/martial dice that increase his tactical options. Depending on his choice, these could be limited use abilities or effects that apply when he choosese to use them. An example of a limited ability would be the ability to target Int instead of AC (and to add just a bit more complexity here, it could be keyed of a different ability for the fighter which again encourages not just STR fighters, but to target the ogres Int score, perhaps the fighters power is keyed off of his Cha bonus). Conversely, something that could be triggered when chosen is the ability to push someone 1 square as sometimes this is tactically advantageous and other times it is not.

While this may not be perfect, I think it is something for WotC to consider.

The end result is a low level game which is mostly about rolling dice and dealing damage and it slowly adds on the tactical options where the options change the battlefield throughout the fight, which is also mirrored with the DM monsters going from few tactical effects to more.

 

[the Jester]

I want to expand on my last post a little. Keep in mind these are just ideas rattling around in my head and I am sure some tweaking would be required for the math to work.

First, all simple weapons do d6 damage, all one handed martial weapons do d8 damage, all two handed weapons do d10 damage.

Yuck. I dislike changes that subtract flavor for no good reason.

At this point I don't care about special weapons/ranged weapons for this example so please ignore them for now. Since weapon damage is standardized, the weapon group and/or weapon property becomes the differentiating factor. Different groups/properties allow for different things on the battlefield. Bludgeoning weapons push people, axes cleave, etc, and these tactical options get layered on top over time through feats/manuevers/martial dice. I believe this approach strongly supports the "building a character concept" approach. For example, if you picture being an axe wielder, then you probably picture cleaving someone in two and hitting his buddy. If you picture your character as a hammer wielder, then you probably picture pushing people away in combat. So feats could maintain the space they do now - giving access to cleave, spring attack, etc, but the prereqs for that feat fall under the weapon type instead of being open to the class - afterall it seems silly that a warhammer wielder would use spring attack for example.

Why does that seem silly to you?

Put another way, just because it seems silly to you doesn't mean it will to everyone, and so limiting e.g. Spring Attack by weapon type is an unnecessary complication that locks characters into weapon types. Dislike again. To maximize choice and make feats and maneuvers meaningful, we need to get rid of 90% of the "can only use with a specific weapon type" of limitations, IMHO.

I also believe there is great design space in allowing both players/monsters to attack something other than AC.

I'm okay with contests for this, but it seems to me that the whole point of ditching Fort, Ref, Will, touch AC, etc. was to simplify the game. You're talking about adding another layer of complexity that costs immersion (how do you attack Int with an axe?) and adds a gamist element that many D&D players have shown a strong dislike of (based on the response to 4e). Again, dislike.

Perhaps a feat/manuever/martial die allows the character to target Str/Con/Dex/Int/Wis/Cha instead a limited number of times per day.

Without referencing game mechanics, explain what exactly an attack with a weapon against Intelligence is and looks like. Or against Charisma.

Continuing the example, a fighter begins play dealing 1W damage. As he increases in level, both the damage he deals and the options that he gains increase. At level 6 he would deal 2W, at level 11 he would deal 3W, and at level 16 he would deal 4W (which follows nicely with 3e's extra attack at each of these levels but without the extra decision points of who to attack with the multiple attacks and the additional delay of rolling/adding dice to determine if its a hit and how much damage it does).

I like this stuff, though I'm not sure where the level breaks should be on it. I'm still in favor of MDD being their own thing as well, though.

At pre-determined levels he gets feats/manuevers/martial dice that increase his tactical options. Depending on his choice, these could be limited use abilities or effects that apply when he choosese to use them.

Any limited use martial powers are gonna need a seriously heavy in-game, in-world justification to fly. Again, the response to 4e indicates that this kind of thing, unless strongly grounded in the game's fiction, will be rejected by tons of players.

The end result is a low level game which is mostly about rolling dice and dealing damage and it slowly adds on the tactical options where the options change the battlefield throughout the fight, which is also mirrored with the DM monsters going from few tactical effects to more.

No, let's not do anything to make low-level play inherently less fun than high level play. Just because you're first level doesn't mean your only option should be "fat axe to head" over and over again.

 

[B.T.]

No, let's not do anything to make low-level play inherently less fun than high level play. Just because you're first level doesn't mean your only option should be "fat axe to head" over and over again.

I don't see how this is less fun. My favorite levels in D&D are low levels.

 

[Sunseeker]

I don't see how this is less fun. My favorite levels in D&D are low levels.

But are they your favorite because they lack options? Because the choices given to you are dull? Because the action is repetitive?

I doubt any of those reasons make low-level play your favorite.

This what was 4e saw as a flaw with 3.x and other editions. Choices at low levels were few for certain classes, so their choices were enhanced to give the game more variety, greater tactics and generally give players more things to do while playing.

I do believe that DDN is attempting to reach a compromise between forcing characters to always do "something different" as 4e did, and not giving players the ability to do "something different" at all. Even 4e came to the realization that some folks like it simple when they developed the Slayer in 4.5/Essentials. Likewise, some people like it complex, or just some variety. Even the best steak on earth becomes dull if it's all you eat. And I think Jester's point is simply that shooting for such a goal as allowing people to have variety from the start is a good goal to have.

 

[Markn]

Yuck. I dislike changes that subtract flavor for no good reason.

I don't see how this subtracts flavor. In fact, I think its the opposite. Damage has a standard, but each weapon still has a property; still gives bludgeoning, piercing or slashing damage; and the fact that it functionally will provide real differences to what a weapon can do only enhances flavor, IMHO.

Why does that seem silly to you?

Put another way, just because it seems silly to you doesn't mean it will to everyone, and so limiting e.g. Spring Attack by weapon type is an unnecessary complication that locks characters into weapon types. Dislike again. To maximize choice and make feats and maneuvers meaningful, we need to get rid of 90% of the "can only use with a specific weapon type" of limitations, IMHO.

I think its silly because, to some degree, the game should support versimilitude. A big two-handed warhammer (maybe I wasn't clear with the description the first time) or a big two-handed club does not make much sense to be paired with spring attack. Maybe that's my perception but I don't think I would be alone in this thought. On the flipside, if I was a player and the DM had a big lumbering creature (perhaps an ogre) use spring attack on me, I'd call lame. It's not that I expect the rules to be the same for the monsters as I do for the PCs, its that I expect the versimilitude to be the same. And I am certain that if WotC designed a monster with this combination, without any further explanation, the boards would be lit up with talk about how a lumbering two handed wielding creature shouldn't have spring attack. Creatures have been altered by WotC in the past for lesser offences.

I'm okay with contests for this, but it seems to me that the whole point of ditching Fort, Ref, Will, touch AC, etc. was to simplify the game. You're talking about adding another layer of complexity that costs immersion (how do you attack Int with an axe?) and adds a gamist element that many D&D players have shown a strong dislike of (based on the response to 4e). Again, dislike.

I suspected this component would be controversial. I can understand you opinion on this. Since a playtest is going on currently, I belive that WotC could find the right way for the community as a whole to get behind this more than 4e.

Without referencing game mechanics, explain what exactly an attack with a weapon against Intelligence is and looks like. Or against Charisma.

I think there could be multiple methods. It could simply be an attack roll against that particular stat. Or it could still be an attack roll that compares against both AC and the stat. The point is, damage is still done (or a fraction of what is normally done perhaps) but there is an additional effect on top of damage - such as advantage - which represents outsmarting/coercing the ogre and puting it into a bad position, hence the additional effect of the next attack against the ogre at advantage. Its not much different than a skill check outside of combat to convince someone to do something. And yes, that skill check could simply be done in combat, but there are two things that currently make this a less optimal choice. First, the majority of players tend to feel that if there isn't a potential to damage the creature, then the action isn't worth doing in place of an attack. Second, the damage plus effect supports the idea that the character is getting better over time since he could not do that at lower levels which is something most players would enjoy.

Any limited use martial powers are gonna need a seriously heavy in-game, in-world justification to fly. Again, the response to 4e indicates that this kind of thing, unless strongly grounded in the game's fiction, will be rejected by tons of players.

Agreed. This is walking a fine line, but since WotC is conducting an open playtest, now is the time to find out where the line is on this type of thinking. In fact, I suspect we will see more and more 4e-isms enter the play test as it continues. Some will be removed from fan backlash, others won't be, and others will be adjusted to suit fan taste and I think this could be an area where we see the latter..

No, let's not do anything to make low-level play inherently less fun than high level play. Just because you're first level doesn't mean your only option should be "fat axe to head" over and over again.

The fact is, low level has very vew options. "Fat axe to the head" is the common theme for low levels. I'm not saying itst he only thing, but the most common. Surely, new gamers, or casual gamers, gravitate to that style. I'm not advocating removing ALL options at 1st level, I'm just suggesting that the options can be spread out more, or designed differently to further enhance options in later game play.

It's clear that EVERYONE has a different view of what high level play is - but most agree that high level should feel different than low level. This is one idea on how to accomplish it and a decent idea, IMHO since this idea has no expecations on what the story will bring to the campaign - it doesn't matter if the characters rule domains or not, it doesn't matter if its a sea or land campaign, it doesn't matter if the characters are striving to become gods or not. This idea ignores all the potential variations of what a campaign could be focused on, yet provides for a significant difference from the early part of play.

At any rate, thanks for the feedback!

 

[Markn]

Yuck. I dislike changes that subtract flavor for no good reason.

I don't see how this subtracts flavor. In fact, I think its the opposite. Damage has a standard, but each weapon still has a property; still gives bludgeoning, piercing or slashing damage; and the fact that it functionally will provide real differences to what a weapon can do only enhances flavor, IMHO.

Why does that seem silly to you?

Put another way, just because it seems silly to you doesn't mean it will to everyone, and so limiting e.g. Spring Attack by weapon type is an unnecessary complication that locks characters into weapon types. Dislike again. To maximize choice and make feats and maneuvers meaningful, we need to get rid of 90% of the "can only use with a specific weapon type" of limitations, IMHO.

I think its silly because, to some degree, the game should support versimilitude. A big two-handed warhammer (maybe I wasn't clear with the description the first time) or a big two-handed club does not make much sense to be paired with spring attack. Maybe that's my perception but I don't think I would be alone in this thought. On the flipside, if I was a player and the DM had a big lumbering creature (perhaps an ogre) use spring attack on me, I'd call lame. It's not that I expect the rules to be the same for the monsters as I do for the PCs, its that I expect the versimilitude to be the same. And I am certain that if WotC designed a monster with this combination, without any further explanation, the boards would be lit up with talk about how a lumbering two handed wielding creature shouldn't have spring attack. Creatures have been altered by WotC in the past for lesser offences.

I'm okay with contests for this, but it seems to me that the whole point of ditching Fort, Ref, Will, touch AC, etc. was to simplify the game. You're talking about adding another layer of complexity that costs immersion (how do you attack Int with an axe?) and adds a gamist element that many D&D players have shown a strong dislike of (based on the response to 4e). Again, dislike.

I suspected this component would be controversial. I can understand you opinion on this. Since a playtest is going on currently, I belive that WotC could find the right way for the community as a whole to get behind this more than 4e.

Without referencing game mechanics, explain what exactly an attack with a weapon against Intelligence is and looks like. Or against Charisma.

I think there could be multiple methods. It could simply be an attack roll against that particular stat. Or it could still be an attack roll that compares against both AC and the stat. The point is, damage is still done (or a fraction of what is normally done perhaps) but there is an additional effect on top of damage - such as advantage - which represents outsmarting/coercing the ogre and puting it into a bad position, hence the additional effect of the next attack against the ogre at advantage. Its not much different than a skill check outside of combat to convince someone to do something. And yes, that skill check could simply be done in combat, but there are two things that currently make this a less optimal choice. First, the majority of players tend to feel that if there isn't a potential to damage the creature, then the action isn't worth doing in place of an attack. Second, the damage plus effect supports the idea that the character is getting better over time since he could not do that at lower levels which is something most players would enjoy.

Any limited use martial powers are gonna need a seriously heavy in-game, in-world justification to fly. Again, the response to 4e indicates that this kind of thing, unless strongly grounded in the game's fiction, will be rejected by tons of players.

Agreed. This is walking a fine line, but since WotC is conducting an open playtest, now is the time to find out where the line is on this type of thinking. In fact, I suspect we will see more and more 4e-isms enter the play test as it continues. Some will be removed from fan backlash, others won't be, and others will be adjusted to suit fan taste and I think this could be an area where we see the latter..

No, let's not do anything to make low-level play inherently less fun than high level play. Just because you're first level doesn't mean your only option should be "fat axe to head" over and over again.

The fact is, low level has very vew options. "Fat axe to the head" is the common theme for low levels. I'm not saying itst he only thing, but the most common. Surely, new gamers, or casual gamers, gravitate to that style. I'm not advocating removing ALL options at 1st level, I'm just suggesting that the options can be spread out more, or designed differently to further enhance options in later game play.

It's clear that EVERYONE has a different view of what high level play is - but most agree that high level should feel different than low level. This is one idea on how to accomplish it and a decent idea, IMHO since this idea has no expecations on what the story will bring to the campaign - it doesn't matter if the characters rule domains or not, it doesn't matter if its a sea or land campaign, it doesn't matter if the characters are striving to become gods or not. This idea ignores all the potential variations of what a campaign could be focused on, yet provides for a significant difference from the early part of play.

At any rate, thanks for the feedback!

 

[Stalker0]

The discussion on weapon types and specializations has been a great one so far.

My take is....I think weapons should be different, but I'm flexible on how that difference is applied. For example, the idea that all two handed weapons do 1d10 damage but have different properties would be fine with me, as long as the properties provided enough differentiation.

That said, you are taking away a degree a freedom from the designers by doing that, so the counterpoint is....what have you gained? If there is a major benefit to this standardization then great, but I would always argue not to take away design variables unless you get a solid benefit.


As to the question of specialization, my personal preference is to allow specialization benefits in a VERY limited fashion. I don't mind a fighter who wants to always use a greatsword to get a small benefit, but it should be pretty small. Specializations have always been greatly rewarded due to the nature of Dnd, so it doesn't take a lot of benefit to make it worthwhile.

 

[Gorgoroth]

The fact is, low level has very vew options. "Fat axe to the head" is the common theme for low levels. I'm not saying itst he only thing, but the most common. Surely, new gamers, or casual gamers, gravitate to that style. I'm not advocating removing ALL options at 1st level, I'm just suggesting that the options can be spread out more, or designed differently to further enhance options in later game play.

It's clear that EVERYONE has a different view of what high level play is - but most agree that high level should feel different than low level. This is one idea on how to accomplish it and a decent idea, IMHO since this idea has no expecations on what the story will bring to the campaign - it doesn't matter if the characters rule domains or not, it doesn't matter if its a sea or land campaign, it doesn't matter if the characters are striving to become gods or not. This idea ignores all the potential variations of what a campaign could be focused on, yet provides for a significant difference from the early part of play.!

I've been playing Batman Arkham City and I find the controls with attacks and counters simple to use and intuitive, and I'd LOVE a 5e fighter to mimick that, from level one. I think the parry mechanic is great. Thankfully, it looks like that's mostly already the case. Of course, you don't start out as Batman with all his tricks and gizmos, but I totally see fighters taking specific maneuvers that can only be used with certain weapons or against certain foes (like Trip or Disarm-type stuff). Getting more maneuvers + more versatile > more fun than just more damage (although you really need both to keep things interesting)

I don't like d8 for single hand weapons, d10 for 2handed, etc. Not all. It's a staple of D&D and I don't think per weapon damage die differentiation is going to change. I did like some of the tweaks they did in the last playtest, but since my group isn't in the end going to get together this holiday, I won't get a chance to test it all out. (i.e. choppy orc balls off)

/sad dwarf