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

[the Jester]

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

Clearly, this is a playstyle choice. The "everything is easily identified" assumption is relatively new for D&D- before 3e, that was most certainly NOT the case.

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.

IF you distribute treasure with specific pcs in mind. IF you don't do treasure randomly. IF you don't run a high-lethality game where that magic pick might be useful to the new pc who comes in next session, or the new one two sessions after that... etc.

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.

That's a perfectly valid playstyle, but not one that everyone enjoys.

Also, putting a magic sword in the treasure horde doesn't mean Indy has to take it in place of his whip; he can sell it, another pc can take it, etc. One of the things about weapon choice in 1e was knowing that most magic weapons found were going to be longswords. Did that mean nobody used other weapons? Not at all! And in fact, with 1e's slow advancement, you had plenty of chances to find that magic whip (or what have you).

Of course, I'm also showing my preference for much slower advancement here...

 

[B.T.]

D&D damage has never been that dependent on weapon type, at least not in 3e / 4e / [notranslate]Pathfinder[/notranslate] / OD&D. You're either doing +50 in 3e, stacking damage onto your attacks in 4e, or doing a flat 1d6 if you go really far back.

 

[mlund]

For example, I think instead of having a martial damage bonus added in, the weapon dice for the weapon can be doubled.

I like it. If nothing else the +1 AC from having a shield retains its value as a percentage steadily over all 20 levels, so the compensation of extra damage from a two-handed weapon needs to persist it's percentage value to some extent rather than just drop off a cliff in obscurity.

+5 damage is the average result of a hypothetical D9 roll. One-handed military weapons are good for about 1d8, and two-handed weapons are around 1d12 with some overlap at the 1d10 area as outlying data points. Converting directly from each increment of +5 martial damage bonus to a weapon damage die multiplier might be the best of both worlds.

At level 7 the Fighter doubles his weapon damage die roll (x2). At level 11 it goes to a x3 multiplier. At 14th level it's x4. At 17 it maxes out at x5. You could have the multiplication option and a "gobs of dice ("5d12 + 6d6 make Thog feel smart like Wizard casting meteor swarm! Yaaaaay!") option side-by-side.

Clearly, this is a playstyle choice.

Every decision as to what to retain, remove, or modify from the core rules of a game is a choice of one form or another. It's a moot point.

The "everything is easily identified" assumption is relatively new for D&D- before 3e, that was most certainly NOT the case.

Even in AD&D it was relatively simply to identify magic items. That's why there was an Identify spell. It was merely expensive, at lower levels. A loot-tax, if you will, does not cause the process to cease being simple. Identification that is faster and cheaper, however, has become the default core assumption from 3.0, 3.5, [notranslate]Pathfinder[/notranslate], 4E, and the current iterations of DNDNext.

Having an optional module for "mysterious loot" is definitely low-hanging fruit that ought to be picked, though. Personally, I find at least a smattering of that sort of thing livens up a game.

IF you distribute treasure with specific pcs in mind. IF you don't do treasure randomly. IF you don't run a high-lethality game where that magic pick might be useful to the new pc who comes in next session, or the new one two sessions after that... etc.

IF the players don't mind / enjoy [insert method] then that's all well and good. The default Core assumptions shouldn't put the DM or the percentile dice as arbiter of completely arbitrary / random penalties for a player wanting their character to use a sword over an ax or a wand over a staff for aesthetic purposes.

And the Core definitely isn't being designed / balanced around the assumption of a high turnover rate of characters with loot inheritance.

Also, putting a magic sword in the treasure horde doesn't mean Indy has to take it in place of his whip; he can sell it, another pc can take it, etc.

Hence why I wrote: "If the function is the same, treat the form as being fungible through one means or another." [Italic emphasis added]

It's a balance / fun issue if Indy has to find and sell 5 magical +1 Longswords to get a magical +1 whip while Conan gets a +1 Longsword the first time around and gets 4 more items in the same period because he picked the "right" weapon. It's effectively an embedded "style tax" that serves no further purpose.

As long as there's a significantly less punitive means for players to convert from what I've given them to what they need to keep their vision of their characters it's not a problem.

If their vision for a character is someone who uses anything they come across and makes due that's awesome. However, if they want to be decked out as Indy, Green Arrow, Conan, or Gimli there's no real prerogative to rain on their parade.

- Marty Lund

 

[Derren]

However, if they want to be decked out as Indy, Green Arrow, Conan, or Gimli there's no real prerogative to rain on their parade.

- Marty Lund

Indy uses the best weapon available (He doesn't even consider the whip a weapon if you watch the movies), so does Conan. And nowhere I have read that Gimli was married to his axe either.
You are enforcing your vision where D&D characters are more like super heroes with signature weapons. I have a very different vision of D&D characters as hardened adventurers who use all tools available if they want to survive. If someone wants to keep a inferior weapon because of sentimentality, fine. But that should cost him. The conflict between using the best available and using outdated equipment for various reasons should be real and not waved away by "weapons don't matter".
What does someone find as treasure? Well, what makes sense? When the PCs loot the hoard of a dragon who has recently slain a Paladin chaplain he will likely find a blessed sword as loot. No of the PCs use swords? Then they should try to find other uses for it.

 

[YRUSirius]

In an ideal world the advantages a magic weapon has, which the character isn't specialized in, would balance out with the disadvantage the character would get if he isn't specialized in the weapon.

Say a longsword +2 balances out with losing a +2 axe specialization bonus an axe fighter would have. So the axe fighter would not be penalized to use the magic longsword instead of using his trusted axe. So if the story would call for it, he could use the longsword (the mighter "Foehammer"!) to unite a kingdom and still be viable.

He would just not be as optimized as if he would be if he would use a +2 axe. Optimization is not everything, especially with bounded accuracy.

Still viable, not optimized, but definitely not penalized.

-YRUSirius

 

[mlund]

Indy uses the best weapon available (He doesn't even consider the whip a weapon if you watch the movies), so does Conan.

Actually, Indy seldom fells any foes outside of a punch to the jaw. The one time they tried to make a spectacular melee combat scene for Indy, Harrison Ford did a brilliant ad lib to draw a gun and shoot the big bad swordsman and the stunt-man sold it beautifully.

But more to the point, the image of a whip-cracking adventurer that he evokes should be accommodated in the D&D system (which is much more combat oriented and less chase-prone than an Indiana Jones movie) - not penalized.

Likewise the Great Sword is part of a signature image of Conan. Then there's the functional role of the Elven Archer. I don't want a system that tells him to stick it in his pointy ear and use that sling, javelin, or crossbow or pay the price. It's his character.

You are enforcing your vision where D&D characters are more like super heroes with signature weapons.

What I'm asking for is that options be left open for everyone to do their own thing unmolested. Taking an attitude of "Your character will take what I want to give you," is forcing things down the throats of others. My position is simply that the Core game's loot-management and weapon damage infrastructure should not penalize characters, directly or indirectly, who take on a signature weapon - especially not considering the numerous tropes of things like awakened items, ancestral weapons, and racial weapon preferences that are already well established.

I have a very different vision of D&D characters as hardened adventurers who use all tools available if they want to survive.

I've played a fair share of those types of characters and enjoyed them. I've also played character concepts and with other people that had character concepts that didn't function that way. Both style of play should be free to play without penalty. It's up to the individual player, not anyone else.

If someone wants to keep a inferior weapon because of sentimentality, fine. But that should cost him.

That's an unnecessary failure of game balance, and frankly it can come across to a player as being petty so I avoid it like the plague. It violates the Rule of Cool and the Rule of Fun so that people can enforce their vision on someone else's character - even to the point of aesthetics.

What does someone find as treasure? Well, what makes sense?

Since its narrative fiction just about anything can be rationalized to make sense if you spend about a minute on back-story when appropriate. The real point isn't that you need quantum loot all the time, but rather that a sub-set of characters shouldn't be suffering the imbalance of losing out on 50, 80, or 100% of the value of what they do find due to exchange rates (or a lack thereof) when they want to stick to their image for their own character. If they aren't gaining undue advantage from it the rules shouldn't get in the way.

- Marty Lund

 

[YRUSirius]

Guys, there is always a middleground between two extremes...

-YRUSirius

 

[Derren]

But more to the point, the image of a whip-cracking adventurer that he evokes should be accommodated in the D&D system (which is much more combat oriented and less chase-prone than an Indiana Jones movie) - not penalized.

And thereby removing all flavor the whip has because he is no different than a sword/axe/spear/whatever-wielding adventurer.

Likewise the Great Sword is part of a signature image of Conan. Then there's the functional role of the Elven Archer. You're really going to tell him to stick it in his pointy ear and use that sling, javelin, or crossbow or else suffer the consequences? It's not your place or mine to tell someone that. It's their character.

Conan would be a very good examples of characters who thematically could use the best weapon they had at hand no matter what it was. Conan is known for being a practical barbarian, not a 2 handed sword wielder.

No, I'm not enforcing any particular style on anyone. I'm demanding that options be left open for everyone to do their own thing unmolested. People who are taking an attitude of "Your character will take what I want to give you because I'm the DM and I'm the only person at this table who matters," are the ones forcing things down the throats of others. My position is simply that the Core game's loot-management infrastructure should not penalize characters, directly or indirectly, who take on a signature weapon - especially not considering the numerous tropes of things like awakened items, ancestral weapons, and racial weapon preferences that are already well established.

And by demanding that you are directly opposing my wishes of having weapons matter. How will WotC solve this? I do not know but there will always be cases where WotC can't please everyone. This is one of them.
And weapons mattering has the biggest trope support ever. Reality and history.

I've played a fair share of those types of characters and enjoyed them. I've also played character concepts and with other people that had character concepts that didn't function that way. Both style of play should be free to play without penalty. It's up to the individual player, not anyone else.



That's an unnecessary failure of game balance, and frankly it can come across to a player as being petty and spiteful so I avoid it like the plague. It violates the Rule of Cool and the Rule of Fun so that people can enforce their vision on someone else's character - even to the point of aesthetics.

The "Rule of Cool" and "Rule of Fun" is not universal and can some cases be detrimental to having fun (like in this one).
By making all weapons equal you are, in my eyes, cheapening the concept of characters with preferred weapons as they are no different than every other weapon in the game. Likewise you are, in my eyes, destroying roleplaying potential by removing the dilemma of sticking with your favorite weapon or upgrading it. If a player really wants to keep one weapon he still can. He only can't minmax/optimize in the same turn. For me that is no disadvantage of the system.

Since its narrative fiction just about anything can be rationalized to make sense if you spend about a minute on back-story when appropriate.

Or if the PC who uses a trident is due for a share of the loot for the sake of balance, maybe a minotaur warrior was recently eaten by said dragon. Heck, maybe the Paladin took the glorified pitch-fork off of a Legion Devil he slew earlier and was ambushed by the dragon on his way to destroy it in the sacred forge of the Temple of Moradin. I love the idea that every magic item has a story. That doesn't mean that every magic item needs to have its form, story, and location predetermined at the start of the campaign.

The imperative of "Sorry, Elf-boy. I know you like bows and trees and stuff but I need you take take Stormbringer over here out to move my plot along because I wrote this whole unpublished fan-fiction novela about how awesome swords are" is just not the kind of DM'ing I'd want to see any game built around.

Moreover the point isn't that you need quantum loot all the time, but rather that a sub-set of characters shouldn't be suffering the imbalance of losing out on 50, 80, or 100% of the value of what they do find due to exchange rates (or a lack thereof) when they want to stick to their image for their own character.

- Marty Lund

If that is how you solve things then you do not need to make all weapons the same. Just give the PCs things they can use. And honestly, a DM who says something like that is pretty bad and should not be the baseline of the D&D audience.

The difference is, as I see it, that I look at D&D from a simulationist/role playing perspective where people play a character they envision and interact with the world, that includes facing the consequences of their actions which includes weapon choice. And if that choice results in the character not being optimized so be it. This does not destroy the game but is part of it.
You seem to look at D&D from a gamist/combat perspective where every character must be powerful at combat and optimizing is a core part of the game and not doing it is a failure.

 

[mlund]

And thereby removing all flavor the whip has because he is no different than a sword/axe/spear/whatever-wielding adventurer.

This is conflating "different" and "better." As long as they are equal in objective worth you can treat two different things as if they are fungible from a balance perspective.

And by demanding that you are directly opposing my wishes of having weapons matter.

No. I'm directly opposing your wishes of having weapons matter to everyone.

If you want one particular weapon to be head-and-shoulders better than others with regards to absolute metrics including opportunity costs and all that then, yes, we have a situation where you can't please both of us.

I think we can probably meet in the middle with a system where weapons matter to a character if the player wants it that way.

The "Rule of Cool" and "Rule of Fun" is not universal and can some cases be detrimental to having fun (like in this one).

By definition what one person finds "cool" and "fun" is up to him. If someone can only have their fun by imposing restrictions on others at the table, however, there may be a problem on one side or the other.

By making all weapons equal you are

The logical fallacy of confusing "equal" with "same" is getting in the way. Balance says things should be pretty close to equal equal, all things considered (like weapon complexity, accuracy, damage, two-hand vs. one-hand, light, ranged, rate of fire, etc.). That doesn't make them the same.

If your position is authentically that there need to be objectively wrong weapon choices out there (too much cost for too little benefit), well we'll just have to agree to disagree.

The difference is, as I see it, that I look at D&D from a simulationist/role playing perspective where people play a character they envision and interact with the world, that includes facing the consequences of their actions which includes weapon choice.

See, while I try to accommodate that line of reasoning the citation of "weapons matter" in historical context always ruins it for me. Arming swords don't cut plate mail. Long bows (let alone short bows or slings!) don't penetrate high-quality riveted (not show quality or butted mail) chain mail. It can't be able realistic simulation, so it has to be about something else: like tropes, fun, and verisimilitude.

You seem to look at D&D from a gamist/combat perspective where every character must be powerful at combat and optimizing is a core part of the game.

I look at game balance consequences from a gamist perspective because realistic simulation is completely out the window in D&D combat - always has been. While it makes sense to consider weapons and armor from a combat perspective (that is their primary function, right) I'm actually probably disproportionately concerned with making sure that the Narrativist interest in style isn't getting lumped with unnecessary penalties on the Game Balance side of things.

- Marty Lund

 

[Derren]

This is conflating "different" and "better." As long as they are equal in objective worth you can treat two different things as if they are fungible from a balance perspective.

No. I'm directly opposing your wishes of having weapons matter to everyone.

If you want one particular weapon to be head-and-shoulders better than others with regards to absolute metrics including opportunity costs and all that then, yes, we have a situation where you can't please both of us.

I think we can probably meet in the middle with a system where weapons matter to a character if the player wants it that way.

By definition what one person finds "cool" and "fun" is up to him. If someone can only have their fun by imposing restrictions on others at the table, however, there may be a problem on one side or the other.

The logical fallacy of confusing "equal" with "same" is getting in the way. Balance says things should be pretty close to equal equal, all things considered (like weapon complexity, accuracy, damage, two-hand vs. one-hand, light, ranged, rate of fire, etc.). That doesn't make them the same.

As soon as you add such differences you have PCs who favor one weapon over the other, maybe even not because they are specialized in that weapon, but because their tactics favor this particular weapon type and you are back to having the problem that not everyone can use all loot. You would have achieved nothing.

If your position is authentically that there need to be objectively wrong weapon choices out there (too much cost for too little benefit), well we'll just have to agree to disagree.

Then we do.
When the enemy is 100ft away from you with difficult terrain between them and the PCs a bow is objectively a better weapon choice than a sword. I just like to see some additional layers on that. Face a enemy with reach? Polearms are best. A heavily armored enemy? Maces and hammers. Swarmed by many enemies? Swords and Axes. All depends on the situation.
Yes, that also includes having weapons which are simply inferior to others like the mentioned whip. When someone still wants to use it, great. What you call being at a disadvantage I call roleplaying potential. A side effect of that is that you can not only upgrade via magic but also in "technology" by getting a better weapon in the same group.

See, while I try to accommodate that line of reasoning the citation of "weapons matter" in historical context always ruins it for me. Arming swords don't cut plate mail. Long bows (let alone short bows or slings!) don't penetrate high-quality riveted (not show quality or butted mail) chain mail. It can't be able realistic simulation, so it has to be about something else: like tropes, fun, and verisimilitude.

No one calls for a realism-simulator (which is certainly is possible, but see below) but for a bigger nod to realism. And you are wrong, it can be done. You are confusing "can't be done" with "I don't want it". And guess what, for some people realism is more fun than tropes.

I look at game balance consequences from a gamist perspective because realistic simulation is completely out the window in D&D combat - always has been. While it makes sense to consider weapons and armor from a combat perspective (that is their primary function, right) I'm actually probably disproportionately concerned with making sure that the Narrativist interest in style isn't getting lumped with unnecessary penalties on the Game Balance side of things.

- Marty Lund

Which is what I said. You want that everyone is always optimized for combat and when someone is not because of his vision of the character then it is a failure of the system as it forced you to decide between optimization and vision. I think otherwise. 1. Combat to me is not the center of the universe. 2. Optimization is not required to play the game. 3. A choice between optimization and vision of a character imo adds depth to a character (by answering the question why he decided one way or another) instead of taking it away.
Take Kerrek the Chain you mentioned. Would he stop using his chain when it became obvious that the enemies he faces are so strong that the improvised chain isn't harming them much (for examples demons)? How would he justify it? Would he feel guilty?