D&D 5E Random Starter Set Teaser from Google+

[Jan van Leyden]

It's increasingly invalid as monsters go up in HP. Your "lol 100hp at level 1" stuff is silly business. Every level makes your argument less and less relevant. Even at L1 it's less relevant than you suggest, because most monsters have HP that either have both equally good, or favour the GS. If you want to stand by that, that's up to you, but it remains pretty useless.

Okay, last try;

Li Shenron: "a weapon dealing 2d6 damage is always better than a weapon dealing 1d12 damage."

Me: "in the case of an enemy with 10 hp this is mathematically wrong. Therefore, always better isn't true."

 

[Jan van Leyden]

It pretty much is - he says "unless the hp numbers for enemies for 1st-level characters are some 100 hp", which is a nonsense-argument. That "unless" if a false unless.

I threw it in to show he was attempting to ridicule my position, which he was.

I'm talking mathematics here. I demonstrated that in the specific case of a monster with 10 hp the "2d6 is better that 1d12" isn't true. On the other extreme I showed that for a monster with 100 hp the difference would be 1.something blows. I fail to see the nonsense in this.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

Okay, last try;

Li Shenron: "a weapon dealing 2d6 damage is always better than a weapon dealing 1d12 damage."

Me: "in the case of an enemy with 10 hp this is mathematically wrong. Therefore, always better isn't true."

So you've proved he's only right 98% of the time, not 100%? Good job, I guess!

 

[Agamon]

Li Shenron: "a weapon dealing 2d6 damage is always better than a weapon dealing 1d12 damage."

Me: "in the case of an enemy with 10 hp this is mathematically wrong. Therefore, always better isn't true."

Yup. Lots of gamers are good with math, not so many understand game theory.

 

[DDNFan]

Agreed. Just make them all 1d12 weapons.

This is likely going to be our first houserule. Let wizards have a bag of d6s, and warriors use the bigger dice to give them a bit of a workout.

The d12 is going to be a very neglected and lonely dice in 5th edition.

 

[DDNFan]

Yup. Lots of gamers are good with math, not so many understand game theory.

For every time the axe user kills that 10 HP monster one round sooner due to the swinginess of a single damage roll instead of two, there is another time where he rolls a 1 or a 2 and fails to do so. It can take a lot of rounds worth of actual hits before your actual damage converges to your expected damage, and rolling more than 7 on a d12 when you have a +3 strength bonus results in overkill anyway.

So, anyway you slice it, the greatsword wins. The only question you can answer is how many rounds does it take you to kill a foe? Being able to have a 70% certainty of killing it in three rounds vs a 40% certainty (or whatever the actual number is), makes the greatsword or maul much more reliable. This combined with the greater minimum and greater average damage, makes it a far better weapon. Reliable damage is worth a lot.

If the crit rules are now double damage, the opportunity cost for rolling low with a greataxe is doubled compared to a greatsword, and overkill becomes twice as much an issue. Rolling 2d6 + mods x2 is a lot closer to an average value than 1d12 + mods x2. Every point of overkill from the greataxe is simply wasted damage, and doesn't result in the enemy dying any rounds sooner.

Either all three should be 2d6 or all three should be 1d12.

 

[Agamon]

Either all three should be 2d6 or all three should be 1d12.

My point is, if you're attacking a large sack of infinite hp forever, then this matters. It matter a lot, actually. But because we're attacking small bags of hp where much of damage caused will be wasted on the killing blow, attacking as a part of a team, not always hitting, and the difference is that small? Negligible.

The CharOpers are so used to the difference of one build doing 38 damage per attack and another doing 138, that now every little difference in the math appears huge. It's not. The distance between you and your computer screen and the distance between you and the edge of the galaxy are both mathematically measurable. But there's an obvious difference, right?

I'm glad the designers at least understand this, if not everyone.

 

[TwoSix]

For every time the axe user kills that 10 HP monster one round sooner due to the swinginess of a single damage roll instead of two, there is another time where he rolls a 1 or a 2 and fails to do so. It can take a lot of rounds worth of actual hits before your actual damage converges to your expected damage, and rolling more than 7 on a d12 when you have a +3 strength bonus results in overkill anyway.

So, anyway you slice it, the greatsword wins. The only question you can answer is how many rounds does it take you to kill a foe? Being able to have a 70% certainty of killing it in three rounds vs a 40% certainty (or whatever the actual number is), makes the greatsword or maul much more reliable. This combined with the greater minimum and greater average damage, makes it a far better weapon. Reliable damage is worth a lot.

If the crit rules are now double damage, the opportunity cost for rolling low with a greataxe is doubled compared to a greatsword, and overkill becomes twice as much an issue. Rolling 2d6 + mods x2 is a lot closer to an average value than 1d12 + mods x2. Every point of overkill from the greataxe is simply wasted damage, and doesn't result in the enemy dying any rounds sooner.

Either all three should be 2d6 or all three should be 1d12.

But not every one thinks reliable damage is worth a lot! There's a lot to be said for having a greater chance of finishing off an enemy in a smaller number of rounds. There are both valid strategic AND aesthetic reasons to be willing to sacrifice reliability for a better chance at an extraordinary result.

 

[TwoSix]

My point is, if you're attacking a large sack of infinite hp forever, then this matters. It matter a lot, actually. But because we're attacking small bags of hp where much of damage caused will be wasted on the killing blow, attacking as a part of a team, not always hitting, and the difference is that small? Negligible.

Exactly. The range of the possible results vastly exceeds the importance of the 0.5 extra average damage the greatsword does.

 

[Giltonio_Santos]

Some people like dragonborn, some people like gnomes. We'll have both in the game.

Some people like "I swing" fighters, some people like "I maneuver" fighters. We'll have both in the game.

Also, some people like the thrill of a 1d12 weapon, some people like the reliability of a 2d6 weapon. We'll have both in the game. Once you're facing monsters with 50 hp, 0.5 is nothing. Get over it, people. One would believe that by now, with the design goals of 5E clearly stated and the failure of 4E's onetruewayism, people would have learned that different people enjoy different things about this game.

I, for one, will gladly swing my d12 axe just for those times when I get to roll a 12 and celebrate it like I just rolled a 20 in an attack roll. I know every time I swing with that axe I'll be losing an average 0.5 damage, and I couldn't care less. I'm pretty sure we all agree that there's enough room in this community for both me and the guy who wants more reliable damage, including the 0.5 extra damage.

That's it. Move along, this discussion is just like the "dragonborns in the PHB" discussion, just more nitpicky.