D&D General Reification versus ludification in 5E/6E

[Charlaquin]

It comes from the CR, simple as. It's a Monster stat block for use in a 2-3 round combat, not part if a whole-world simulation.

For a lot of folks, they’d rather a feature explicitly state that it’s giving such a bonus. Or at least like, have it be 1d8+1 slashing damage and 1d12 poison damage since it’s already doing extra damage via poison on its bow attacks anyway. Just something to make it feel more like the longsword it’s using is a thing that exists in the fictional world and functions consistently in different contexts.

 

[Remathilis]

First of all, let me acknowledge that I'm using ludification wrong, because it means to mock, tease, or make fun of.

Can I point out you started your argument about the preciseness of language in 2014 vs 2024 not only by mislabeling the current rules edition, but also by admitting you are using the word central to your argument wrong and have made up your own definition for it?

If you can stomach creating your own definition for a word to describe a ruleset you created your own label for, you can stomach longswords with variable damage dice and conjuring intangible spirit animals.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Can I point out you started your argument about the preciseness of language in 2014 vs 2024 not only by mislabeling the current rules edition, but also by admitting you are using the word central to your argument wrong and have made up your own definition for it?

If you can stomach creating your own definition for a word to describe a ruleset you created your own label for, you can stomach longswords with variable damage dice and conjuring intangible spirit animals.

I feel that those two things are very different, and so I suspect does the OP.

 

[Remathilis]

In that case, though, why not show the work that gets things from A to B? If a stock longsword does d8 damage and your design wants Hobgoblins to do d10+3 with one, what's wrong with saying Hobgoblins get a species-based bonus of +5 on longsword damage and leaving the root damage at d8? That way you get the extra damage for Hobs AND keep longsword damage consistent with itself.

On the PC side the work is already shown, in that we know how things like the Battlemaster's extra damage is calculated.

I remember a long time ago a discussion about an alternative way to handle weapon proficiency in A/D&D. The idea was any class could use any weapon, but the damage dice of the weapon was tied to the user, not the weapon. So a fighter, a thief and a magic user could all use a longsword, but the fighter did d8 with the weapon (he is a master of weapons), the thief a d6 (some training, but not an expert) and a magic-user a d4 (he can swing it around and hurt someone, but isn't nearly as good as the fighter or thief.

That was considered a viable mechanical option at the time. Same longsword, different damage depending on who was using it. If that was an acceptable mechanic then, I fail to see why a PC and NPC doing different damage is unacceptable now.

 

[Remathilis]

I feel that those two things are very different, and so I suspect does the OP.

I don't care if he thinks 9th edition is positively cromulent, it undermines his argument.

 

[Micah Sweet]

I remember a long time ago a discussion about an alternative way to handle weapon proficiency in A/D&D. The idea was any class could use any weapon, but the damage dice of the weapon was tied to the user, not the weapon. So a fighter, a thief and a magic user could all use a longsword, but the fighter did d8 with the weapon (he is a master of weapons), the thief a d6 (some training, but not an expert) and a magic-user a d4 (he can swing it around and hurt someone, but isn't nearly as good as the fighter or thief.

That was considered a viable mechanical option at the time. Same longsword, different damage depending on who was using it. If that was an acceptable mechanic then, I fail to see why a PC and NPC doing different damage is unacceptable now.

Feels like at the time those rules applied to everyone using weapons, not just PCs. Or at least, they would be acceptable to me if they did apply to everyone.

 

[Remathilis]

For a lot of folks, they’d rather a feature explicitly state that it’s giving such a bonus. Or at least like, have it be 1d8+1 slashing damage and 1d12 poison damage since it’s already doing extra damage via poison on its bow attacks anyway. Just something to make it feel more like the longsword it’s using is a thing that exists in the fictional world and functions consistently in different contexts.

The idea that everything in the stat block must be rationalized and explained is how we got 3e's monsters built like PCs problem.

 

[Remathilis]

Feels like at the time those rules applied to everyone using weapons, not just PCs. Or at least, they would be acceptable to me if they did apply to everyone.

In theory, yes. I don't remember how the idea would have worked with monsters, but I could see arguments based on size and training that monsters could use weapon damage dice that were unavailable to PCs. A hobgoblin using 2d6, or a ogre 1d12 for example.

 

[Lanefan]

A hobgoblin warrior wouldn’t do 3d6 or 4d6 damage. It does 2d10 damage. “Longsword” doesn’t refer to a real thing that exists, it’s just the name of one of the attacks the stat block named Hobgoblin Warrior has, and 2d10 is how much damage that attack does.

The bolded is exactly the problem: in the fiction's reality the longsword does exist and, as such, has certain baked-in capabilities based on what it is and what it does.

One of those baked-in capabilities is that it can cut - or sometimes stab - things and inflict a variable amount of injury in so doing, with "amount of injury" abstracted as d8 hit points for purposes of game play.

In thinking about “how much damage would a hobgoblin warrior do with a greatsword?” you are thinking about hobgoblins and greatswords as independent reified objects, which is not how the rules actually work. A hobgoblin with a greatsword would be represented by a different stat block, and how much damage it deals would be dependent on what degree of offensive challenge you wanted it to pose. You may not like thinking about the rules in such a nakedly mechanical way, and I don’t blame you. But it is how the rules actually work. The 2024 monster manual is just revealing those naked mechanics to you, buy making the “clothing” transparent.

Just because that's how the rules actually work doesn't excuse them from having got it fundamentally wrong.

 

[Parmandur]

For a lot of folks, they’d rather a feature explicitly state that it’s giving such a bonus. Or at least like, have it be 1d8+1 slashing damage and 1d12 poison damage since it’s already doing extra damage via poison on its bow attacks anyway. Just something to make it feel more like the longsword it’s using is a thing that exists in the fictional world and functions consistently in different contexts.

Sure, but...that is not really how the game works.