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

[Libramarian]

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.

I disagree, I think that the game should discourage that level of exactitude in character concept. Like actually say "it's fine for your character to have a favorite weapon, but remember that being flexible in your choice of gear will give you the greatest chance of success."

 

[FireLance]

I disagree, I think that the game should discourage that level of exactitude in character concept. Like actually say "it's fine for your character to have a favorite weapon, but remember that being flexible in your choice of gear will give you the greatest chance of success."

It's a fine distinction, but while I think the game's rules should dictate consequences for specialization vs. being a generalist, I don't think it should either encourage or discourage it. That is a matter for the DM to decide.

For example, if a generalist has a flat 80% chance of success in any scenario, a specialist might have a 90% chance of success in scenario A and a 70% chance of success in scenario B. It would then be up to the DM to determine which scenarios are encountered more often in his games.

 

[mlund]

You have to be careful about that though, because very quickly you run into the same issues we had before where there are only a few ideal weapon choices and no player would touch anything else.

The problem is without the weapon's damage bonus keeping up relevance as a percentage the shield's persistent contribution (+1 AC vs. Flat Math) makes all the two-handed melee weapons a trap-choice for character's with shield proficiency at higher levels right now.

I would also add that I'd like to see some specialties and maneuvers that require certain types of weapons. So, if you want to play a glaive specialist, you start with the polearm specialty, and take a maneuver (or sub in a feat) that works with slashing weapons. I think this is the sort of thing I'd hope to find in a fighter splat book. (Hopefully, a fighter splat book that is released a healthy amount of time after the original rulebooks, with plenty of time for playtesting...)

And, although I like all this detail, I'd also like to see a "simple weapons" module where all of these properties are simplified away and the difference between a longsword and a battleaxe is largely non-mechanical.

I can't find a single part of these ideas that I don't like.

Again, that's fine for some playstyles, but not everyone wants a whip-wielding dude to be all that effective in their game.

If it's not my own character then 99% of the time in such a situation I'm being way too much of a busy-body trying to tell them what they can and can't play based on my own tastes - regardless of whether my role in player or DM at the given table.

There are all kinds of realism issues- how does a whip hurt a man in full plate?

Once I realized the appeal to Realism is a red herring it's was a moot point. They hurt men in full plate pretty much the same way Long Swords do in reality - by tripping them so you can get a dagger past their gorget or rip off their helmet and cut their throat / bash their brains out / strangle them to death. In reality long swords can't cut a man in full plate, or even chain mail with a proper helmet, footwear, and gauntlets. We only hand-waive these things in D&D because the general consensus is that hitting people in armor with swords makes for dramatic and cool fantasy combat.

What about a monster with thick hide? What about an earth elemental?- that some groups find detract from their experience.

If an entire table wants to, as a collective, start pruning the weapons tree for their table to accommodate their specific taste in fantasy tropes that's certainly an option.

Likewise, some groups think the big burly fighter guy who chooses to use a short sword for no reason when obviously superior weapons like the long sword are available ought to be inferior to those who use said superior weapons.

The Long Sword isn't superior to the Short Sword. The Short Sword does slightly less damage, does piercing damage, and is a light weapon. It's actually perfectly balanced, IMO. If the character in question doesn't pick a fighting style that fully utilizes the strengths of his weapon of choice despite the weapon being objectively balanced (or at least close to the mark) I'm not seeing a problem.

I don't want the game to encourage the kind of player entitlement that 3e and 4e did vis-a-vis magic weapons.

Thankfully, DNDNext treats magic items as optional, not requirements baked into the math.

The whole idea of tailoring loot to the party utterly and absolutely fails in a sandbox style game.

I disagree in the overall, but it's certainly the table's prerogative, as a collective, to play in a world where unique assumptions and challenges are part of the fun they want to have.

Heck, it's even the individual player's prerogative in a game where items are entirely fungible. If part of your shtick is using the next best thing to come along regardless of form or function that's awesome. I've played and run games for characters of both kinds.

The point is that the game's core mechanics shouldn't hinder those options out of the gate. They shouldn't make generalists or specialists objectively weaker or stronger in absolute terms - even indirectly.

mlund, you make it sound like not having your chosen weapon automatically spoils the fun.

No. I think arbitrarily denying players the ability to use their weapon of choice outside of a situational challenge is a sign of poor design decision. I may make characters jump through an adventure hoop or two to get where they want to go, but shoving things at unwilling players and saying, "Take it and like it," strikes me as juvenile so I keep it out of my games.

- Marty Lund

 

[Salamandyr]

I'm happy to see the conversation move in this direction--whether and how much weapon specialization should be rewarded (very little in my case)...but, somebody's using Conan as an example of a weapon specialist? The guy who never uses the same weapon two stories running? The guy who is regularly depicted wielding an axe, a (usually single handed) sword which might be a scimitar, big knife, or broadsword, and sometimes even his bare hands? The one thing we can say for Conan is that he shows a preference for melee combat, and all things being equal will use a sword, though he doesn't show much preference for what kind.

I guess it shows how perceptions can be different. I was using Conan for my example of a generalist.

 

[the Jester]

Once I realized the appeal to Realism is a red herring it's was a moot point. They hurt men in full plate pretty much the same way Long Swords do in reality - by tripping them so you can get a dagger past their gorget or rip off their helmet and cut their throat / bash their brains out / strangle them to death. In reality long swords can't cut a man in full plate, or even chain mail with a proper helmet, footwear, and gauntlets.

You can shove the tip in through a weak spot (armpit), you can bludgeon with the hilt, etc.

The appeal to realism is only a red herring if the group agrees to discard realism as a consideration. Not all do. Again, it's a matter of taste.

The Long Sword isn't superior to the Short Sword...

Heh, I should have specifically set this up as a high-str, low-dex fighter type. But point taken.

The point is that the game's core mechanics shouldn't hinder those options out of the gate.

And since magic items aren't baked in to the math, not having a cool magic whip shouldn't matter, right?

No. I think arbitrarily denying players the ability to use their weapon of choice outside of a situational challenge is a sign of poor design decision. I may make characters jump through an adventure hoop or two to get where they want to go, but shoving things at unwilling players and saying, "Take it and like it," strikes me as juvenile so I keep it out of my games.

Aha, two thing: It's hardly arbitrary to say that whips, as relatively rare weapons, will see relatively few magic versions show up. I think that's not just reasonable, but a major nod to verisimilitude. I know many groups don't hold to the idea of the milieu as a thing independent of the pcs, but I certainly do. Just because my 5th level party goes to the Stinking Pit, home of a notorious pit fiend, doesn't mean that the monsters they will encounter should be 5th level- THIS IS THE HOME OF A PIT FIEND! That's the whole thing about sandboxing; the pcs get to choose their risk level, and ideally, higher risks bring higher rewards and lower risks bring lower rewards. Likewise, ideally, the treasure is populated independently of the pcs' identities and choices.

Thing two is, the option to do the research and quest for a magic whip should be there, assuming that whips (and magic ones) exist in the campaign. Really, the pcs should be able to attempt to find whatever they want. They shouldn't automatically succeed- I don't care how hard you look for a whip +3, dwarven thrower, you ain't finding one in my campaign- but the option should exist. Sometimes, the option to make your own, too.

(Which brings up, tangentially, another thing. Shouldn't a high level fighter with a smithing background have the ability to qualify for magic weapon creation abilities/feats/whatever?)

 

[mlund]

but, somebody's using Conan as an example of a weapon specialist

No. Someone used the example of a player enamored of the iconic movie-poster image from Conan the Barbarian making the Greatsword their character's signature weapon. Meanwhile the actual Howard story depictions of Conan are also a great depiction of why a Fighter should be still be death-on-wheels even armed with a pair of chop-sticks.

You can shove the tip in through a weak spot (armpit), you can bludgeon with the hilt, etc.

Longswords do slashing damage. That's not slashing damage. So much for realism. You can get a whip around someone's throat and strangle them to death / crush their throat / snap their neck too, but that's all taken care of in the abstractions layer. D&D combat mechanics are spun almost entirely from abstractions to pace and balance the game and the accommodation of fantasy tropes - not reality.

Swords work in D&D the way they do because the kind of completely unrealistic, trope-based fight scenes in like in BBC's Merlin series are more fun and more the expectation / demand of the customer base than real-life swords-and-plate combat like Derren was kind enough to link to examples of.

It's not about realism - it's about tropes-of-choice.

And since magic items aren't baked in to the math, not having a cool magic whip shouldn't matter, right?

If no one has cool magic weapons then, no, it shouldn't matter at all.

If Dave's character has a +3 magic longsword because the DM thinks swords are cool or the random loot table happens to be weighted to those results while Bob's character is still stuck with the stock crossbow that can become an issue.

It's hardly arbitrary to say that whips, as relatively rare weapons, will see relatively few magic versions show up.

The relative rarity of weapons is an optional setting feature. Play in Oerth anywhere around the Pomarj some time and you'll be awash in whips, axes, and spears and have a real hard time finding a decent sword, hammer, or longbow. If the consensus at the table is to play in a sandbox where weapon rarity is an issue that's definitely their option and I doubt anyone who threw in with such an idea is going to bat an eye that off-beat weapons are harder to come by.

They shouldn't automatically succeed- I don't care how hard you look for a whip +3, dwarven thrower, you ain't finding one in my campaign

Oh, come on. Other than the "Dwarven" part it's not that far a cry from a Dancing Sword, it just comes back to your hand faster.

(Which brings up, tangentially, another thing. Shouldn't a high level fighter with a smithing background have the ability to qualify for magic weapon creation abilities/feats/whatever?)

Or whatever the appropriate craft is, yes, certainly - or at least the ability to convert / cannibalize one magic weapon into another. I'm actually very much opposed to the notion that by default to have a magic item come into being there needs to be a magic-user in the mix. There are a lot of other fantasy tropes about how magical items and artifacts come into being other than, "A Wizard Did It." I'm quite partial to the "Awakened Item" trope, myself.

- Marty Lund

 

[Li Shenron]

I think it would make a lot of sense if weapon made the most difference at the lowest level, exactly because the characters aren't good enough yet, and later on the difference decreases because the characters get so good that their skills take over the "skills" of the weapon.

I would definitely like to see a 20th-level Monk fight with chopsticks, but I would hate a game that lets anybody do that at 1st level just because it looks cool. I don't see any point in having 20 levels if you don't have to earn their benefits. And if a gaming group wants to play superheroes since the beginning, they can begin playing at high level, or they can just add over-the-top abilities straight onto their 1st level PCs.

 

[KidSnide]

I think it would make a lot of sense if weapon made the most difference at the lowest level, exactly because the characters aren't good enough yet, and later on the difference decreases because the characters get so good that their skills take over the "skills" of the weapon.

I agree with this. The gradual de-emphasis on weapon choice as characters level is a positive feature of the current rules packet. It's just that the current rules packet has too much of that feature (IMO).

-KS

 

[KidSnide]

I think it would make a lot of sense if weapon made the most difference at the lowest level, exactly because the characters aren't good enough yet, and later on the difference decreases because the characters get so good that their skills take over the "skills" of the weapon.

I agree with this. The gradual de-emphasis on weapon choice as characters level is a positive feature of the current rules packet. It's just that the current rules packet has too much of that feature (IMO).

-KS

 

[nightwalker450]

I think we should see more weapon (style) specific maneuvers. Make a two-handed maneuver that allows you to exchange for x weapon dice. Or a shield attack, that allows you to store martial dice to use as an extra parry reaction before your next turn. A maneuver for melee to double the effect of vulnerability to their weapon damage (piercing/slashing/bludgeoning) as they bring it to bear optimally.

Post-Level 10 we need more maneuvers (or something) this would be a good place for them. Some can be generic like the last one I mentioned, that the generalist can use to make whatever weapon he is using bring that weapon's properties to bear more. While other's could be more like the first 2 for the specialist to take, that makes him better at his signature style.