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

[occam]

There are some weapons that aren't as good as others, but I find it pretty minimal. A half point of damage (a whole one on crits!) less is really not that big a deal, IMO.

Good for you that this doesn't bother you; I mean that sincerely. I wish it didn't bother me, but it does. I'm constitutionally incapable of overlooking an easily fixed bug, even a minor one, and I'm not alone in that.

 

[occam]

Agreed. Complete balance is only achievable through homogenization, which I don't think is worth it. I'd rather see the game and DMs encourage players to build their characters based upon a concept rather than optimization.

Balance does not require homogenization. There is plenty of variety in the 4e (or 3e) weapon selection, without these balance problems.

 

[occam]

Or why it's suddenly an issue NOW.

Because we (at least, I) thought these issues would be fixed in the final rules. This is our first look at those rules, and the issues aren't fixed. So it's time to talk about them. I provided feedback during the playtest, so it's not like it just became an issue now.

 

[occam]

Sorry, but your "always mechanically better" argument sounds wrong to me. Let's ignore bonuses due to strength or other effects. You are fighting against an enemy with 10 HP. A successful hit with the axe puts him out of the fight with a probability of 25%. The sword offers you only 16.7%. I wouldn't exactly call a lower chance to drop an enemy with one blow "better".

This is the first good argument I've seen for 1d12 vs. 2d6 (barring some other fix, such as by using the last playtest crit rules). I don't think it's good enough, but it's something.

Consider that the advantage you highlighted depends on the hit point value you chose. Give the opponent 7 hp, and the sword is more likely to drop the opponent in one hit (ignoring damage bonuses). Give it 14 hp, and the sword is more likely to drop it in two. Give it 2 hp, and there's no way the sword can avoid dropping the opponent, while the axe could.

You can tailor the results based on chosen hp, but overall, average damage determines the odds over a range of hit points.

 

[Halivar]

Consider that the advantage you highlighted depends on the hit point value you chose. Give the opponent 7 hp, and the sword is more likely to drop the opponent in one hit (ignoring damage bonuses). Give it 14 hp, and the sword is more likely to drop it in two.

If each weapon shines in different places, then it is balance without homogenization.

Give it 2 hp, and there's no way the sword can avoid dropping the opponent, while the axe could.

If it's being wielded by a wizard, sure. If you put a 10 Str on your two-handed Fighter, then you have bigger optimization issues than sword-vs-axe.

 

[Kobold Stew]

Various small points:

If weapon #1 is totally identical to weapon #2 but has +1 damage, then #2 is functionally useless in the game.

This is relevant to the trident (vs. spear), and the quarterstaff (vs. mace) but not the greataxe (vs. great sword).

Time to stop confusing a recognised weapon with a walking stick. Stylisticly a druids quaterstaff might not be ironbound but will be hardened and weighted on the end to make it as effective.

You miss my point: the weapon you describe is not the image that I have for a default weapon for wizards or druids. I'll extend my point and say I suspect that my view is widely shared.

But then you get the trident. Its use is more restricted than a spear (martial vs. simple), it costs more, is heavier, does exactly the same damage, and has exactly the same tricks!

I would say one is strictly inferior to the other.

Yes.

If you want to do 2d6 + mod damage for the reliability, then you should dual wield short swords or handaxes. There is NO reason to make greatswords mathematically identical to two short sword attacks in terms of damage, this is chasing the same design space with completely different weapons.

Unless you have a +1 weapon; unless you are a barbarian or fighter (with access to higher crit ranges); unless you include crits in your calculation; unless...

 

[the Jester]

Engaging in high risk behavior because one uses dopamine a certain way is a stupid thing to do, which can cost you big time.

Using an axe instead of a sword, for an average difference of half a hit point per successful attack, is hardly a high risk behavior.

Not only that, just because it's something you wouldn't do and find distasteful, that doesn't make it stupid. Some people value their enjoyment of the activity in question, whatever it may be, more highly than you do, and that's fine. There is no one way to live your life, just as there is no one way to play D&D.

 

[Snapdragyn]

Where's Goldilocks when you need her? Presumably being hit by a medium-sized bear armed with a medium-sized club or something...

*choking on his drink*

Can someone +1 this for me? Can't spread the xp around fast enough today.

 

[Halivar]

I like that the quarterstaff is no longer stat'd like a walking stick; agree that wizards should not be proficient with it. I will house-rule that wizards are proficient in 1d4 walking sticks. Quarterstaff is a martial weapon, not a simple one. D&D history is just wrong on this.

 

[Umbran]

Someone call for Superman?

Engaging in high risk behavior because one uses dopamine a certain way is a stupid thing to do, which can cost you big time.

Yes, but you see, the *players* aren't engaging in high-risk behavior. It's only a paper hero we are talking about.

And, if you hadn't noticed, PCs in games are *constantly* engaging in high-risk behaviors. They don't call 'em "murder hobos" without reason.

So, please, let us back off from the point of calling players stupid because they want a particular thing for their notably no-real-risk playthings, okay? You don't want to do it, that's fine. But let us not pass judgement on others.

Thanks, all!