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

[mlund]

That might be less a system problem than a characterization problem--to the extent it's a problem. Choosing to use one weapon to the exclusion of all others, as impractical as that may be, is a valid thing for a player to choose his character to do, but it's not necessarily something the game should reward.

Let's not confuse the issue. There were enemies that were immune to piercing damage and Kerrek always kept a good dagger and a club as back-up, even putting low-grade enchantments on them as he leveled. He never just said, "Hey, this Axe is way better than my chain. I guess its time to be Kerrek the Axe."

There's no need to reward such a decision, but there's definitely no reason to punish such a decision either. In fact, if the idea is to appeal to a broad swath then you really ought to accommodate classic fantasy tropes like By My Father's Sword in your core design.

In GURPS, such a thing would be considered a Disadvantage, and you'd get character points for it.

The perception that such a thing ought to be treated as a disadvantage is where we make a wrong term at the outset, IMO.

By contrast, choosing to play a generalist fighter, who uses the best tool for the job, has not been a mechanically rewarding experience up to now in D&D.

Actually, the generalist fighter was pretty rewarding to play in 4th Edition, barring the Expertise Feat Tax. It definitely wasn't as severe as prior editions. Once they printed "Master At Arms" that problem was completely bypassed (other than the general Expertise problem).

Perhaps it's time to make that the default. I've seen a lot of fighters built around the use of one weapon over the years, but it seems to me that the reason for that is that's the way the game encourages you to play. I wonder if we'd see as many if the game didn't reward it so.

I think we'll see less "I can't fight without my specific magic gizmo" scenarios for Fighters thanks to flatter math and class-driven damage. I also think we'll see missed opportunities for player adoption if the game brazenly says, "Want to focus on X, Y, or Z weapons-based tropes as part of your character vision? Mr. D% says you can suck eggs!"

So what about real life medieval knights and fighters? Did they specialise in a specific set of weapons or could they all use bows as well as a staff or a sword or a mace? Isn't some kind of weapon specialisation more believable? I would think so, but perhaps the knights and fighters of the old days really were more allrounders than I think.

Professional soldiers trained with the weapons appropriate to their battlefield role. Knights definitely had a handle on the relevant martial weapons of the day that fit their station (swords, lance, dagger, bludgeon-de-jour, possibly ax), but they were used primarily as cavalry. Specialty pole-arms and bows weren't their bag. An infantry man-at-arms probably had a more broad spectrum of weapon skills with a deficiency in cavalry weapons like the lance or the horseman's ax / mace / flail.

But fighters aren't real-life soldiers either. They are adventurers - exceptional fantasy (low, high or otherwise) protagonists. It isn't like Perseus or Aeneas stopped and went "You know, I really never took time to learn the bow. It just never came up. Sorry."

- Marty Lund

 

[Warbringer]

Right now there is no reason to prefer the sword ...over +2 damage...

Most of the comments I've read in this post are more about ac loss (mainly reach) with weapon choice ... Ok,how about a simple ac modifier on weapon vs weapon ... I have a greatsword you have a dagger, I get an ac benefit of +4 ...(d12-d4)/2 ....add a shield which gives ac bonus +2, reduces this by 2 ....to only +2 .

 

[Stalker0]

Right now, the big problem is you've got two different damage mechanisms, and it's not readily apparent that that's necessary. Remove one of them, give a higher level fighter 2 attacks, and having a higher damage weapon becomes a more significant factor, while still keeping the majority of a fighters damage inherent in the fighter, where it should be.

I think we can tweak the current model to bring in weapon damage without going overboard.

For example, I think instead of having a martial damage bonus added in, the weapon dice for the weapon can be doubled. For example a 10th level fighter weilding a greataxe rolls 2d12 + his martial dice...and at the highest levels 3d12 + dice. I think that can help keep weapons a bit more relevant, but still let all weapons get the benefits of martial dice.

 

[Rune]

I think we can tweak the current model to bring in weapon damage without going overboard.

For example, I think instead of having a martial damage bonus added in, the weapon dice for the weapon can be doubled. For example a 10th level fighter weilding a greataxe rolls 2d12 + his martial dice...and at the highest levels 3d12 + dice. I think that can help keep weapons a bit more relevant, but still let all weapons get the benefits of martial dice.

Oh yeah. I think we have a winner.

 

[KidSnide]

I think we can tweak the current model to bring in weapon damage without going overboard.

For example, I think instead of having a martial damage bonus added in, the weapon dice for the weapon can be doubled. For example a 10th level fighter weilding a greataxe rolls 2d12 + his martial dice...and at the highest levels 3d12 + dice. I think that can help keep weapons a bit more relevant, but still let all weapons get the benefits of martial dice.

I agree that a 4e-style "2[w]" or "3[w]" damage could go a long way to making weapons more meaningful at high levels. Personally, I think choice of weapon should become less important as characters level. My sense of the common fiction is that, as characters become more powerful, it becomes harder to decrease their effectiveness by forcing them to fight with sub-optimal weapons (unless you're disarming their artifacts). Rules for 20th level fighters should reflect the "bad-ass mythical fighters." After all, it's not clear that the real world really has any analogs to 20th level characters.

That said, I agree that the current rules probably go too far in making weapon choice completely irrelevant. Something that brings it a little more in the picture would be nice.

-KS

 

[FireLance]

For example, I think instead of having a martial damage bonus added in, the weapon dice for the weapon can be doubled. For example a 10th level fighter weilding a greataxe rolls 2d12 + his martial dice...and at the highest levels 3d12 + dice. I think that can help keep weapons a bit more relevant, but still let all weapons get the benefits of martial dice.

I think my preferred approach would be to have a feat or maneuver that allows a character to deal +1[W] damage by expending a martial damage die. This goes up to 2 dice for +2[W] damage at 5th level, and 3 dice for +3[W] damage at 10th level.

As for the martial damage bonus, I would tone it down to +2 at 7th level, then +4, +6, etc. and introduce a more generic system of damage boosters as an optional module. The basic damage booster is +2 (can be selected multiple times), but a character could also choose Intelligent Fighter (+ Int bonus to damage, can only select once), Intuitive Fighter (+ Wis bonus to damage, can only select once), Inspirational Fighter (once per round, when an ally hits an enemy, you can grant that ally a bonus to damage equal to your Charisma modifier, can only select once), etc. You select a damage booster each time your martial damage bonus would increase.

 

[the Jester]

Martial types should be able to manage their equipment features at least well enough not to have to compromise the look-and-feel of their characters.

- Marty Lund

I think martial types ought to have a good array of masterwork but nonmagical options available for their gear.

I do not think the pcs should EVER be in charge of deciding what the loot is. I know a lot of groups dig that; I prefer to have mysterious and intriguing treasure that the pcs must figure out, rather than "mysterious and intriguing" treasure that the pcs picked out of the Adventurer's Vault.

 

[KidSnide]

I think my preferred approach would be to have a feat or maneuver that allows a character to deal +1[W] damage by expending a martial damage die. This goes up to 2 dice for +2[W] damage at 5th level, and 3 dice for +3[W] damage at 10th level.

The point of providing these damage bonuses are to give Fighters the correct DPR for their level (whatever the designers decide it should be). Every fighter should have approximately that DPR, not just fighters that take the "adequate DPR feat." Anyway, a feat should be about providing some aspect of a specialty, not just doing more damage.

-KS

 

[mlund]

I do not think the pcs should EVER be in charge of deciding what the loot is. I know a lot of groups dig that; I prefer to have mysterious and intriguing treasure that the pcs must figure out, rather than "mysterious and intriguing" treasure that the pcs picked out of the Adventurer's Vault.

Mysterious loot is not a core game assumption. Everything is easily identified by default.

Moreover, the entertainment value of random or arbitrarily formed arms and armor that may be useless or just conflict with character designs varies widely on a player-by-player basis. The amusement value to the DM is pretty much irrelevant considering the player is the one that's expected to actually use the blasted things for session after session.

As long as there isn't a balance issue there's very little justification for saying, "Here, you get a gnomish war pick that you aren't even proficient in. Take it and like it," when an axe or hammer is essentially interchangeable. If the function is the same, treat the form as being fungible through one means or another. I make it a rule never to try to shove a sword into Indy's hands because I think its cooler than a whip. That's not my call to make as a DM.

- Marty Lund

 

[FireLance]

The point of providing these damage bonuses are to give Fighters the correct DPR for their level (whatever the designers decide it should be). Every fighter should have approximately that DPR, not just fighters that take the "adequate DPR feat."

If replacing +1d6 damage with +1[W] damage is too much variation, then the standard of balance is much higher than even 4e's. And the same gamers who complained that there was insufficient variation among 4e characters should probably find these damage bonuses to be equally lacking in variation, if they choose to apply the same standard to 5e.