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

[KidSnide]

An improvised weapon is a d4, same as a dagger, right? Are you saying a chopstick or fiddlesticks or a broken chair should be 94% as effective as a two-handed sword vs a giant? Really? That's the way the rules are now.

At high levels, the difference between an improvised weapon and a +3 two-handed sword is all in the two-hit roll. Even at high levels, getting a +3 to hit bonus is a big deal. Turning a 65% to hit chance into a 80% to hit chance increases damage by 23%, plus the (admitted small) bonus to damage. Also, as I read it, nobody really has proficiency in improvised weapons, so attacks with the chopstick would be at disadvantage. Now, you can question whether a powerful magic sword should only be twice as effective as chopstick, but I suspect the game is a little more fun if that's accurate.

As far the specifics of fighter damage, I find it hard to evaluate because I don't have a lot to compare it to. Sure, you can look at Asmodeus, but that's our only example of a 20th level monster, and it's far from clear that they have the design for Asmodeus down right. (If you compare the amount of time the designers have surely spent on fighters to the amount of time the designers have surely spent on Asmodeus, you have to conclude that fighters have received a lot more thought and a mistake is more likely on the monster side.) I agree that Asmodeus should require more than five hits, but I'm not sure I consider Asmodeus a good example of a 20th level monster. Surely, Asmodeus should compare to 20th level characters like small dragons compare to 1st level characters (i.e. fightable, but deadly). Small dragons are typically more powerful than 1st level monsters like goblins. Asmodeus should presumably be statted out like a 24th or 26th level monster.

Also, it looks like fighters, monks and rogues do vastly more damage than spell casters (including wizards). I don't think the designers have high-level martial / caster balance down yet. If you think fighters kill high level monsters too quick, is that an overall problem with PC damage or a specific issue with the numbers assigned to martial damage?

-KS

 

[Sadrik]

I completely agree with many of the points in this thread. I would like to point out that damage does need to scale for all classes. but the damage should scale at a rate where HP are more significant I high level. Example, currently the fighter overkills many 1st level monsters, so if he fights something he more than one shots it. High level minion type monsters should take several rounds of fighting... for a monster. The game has to feel different at that level. I think reigning in damage and HP is extremely important. I do not want to see an exponential curve. A gradual slope is much more important. This allows for more variability in encounter design too. If a monster is two levels higher than the PCs I dont want a massive slog because the characters do not do enough damage and I dont want triviality if they are two levels lower. Like I have said before damage and HPs are the most important feature of the game, and getting it right will give the feel of game during play.

For my own opinion, I think damage is out of wack. The more you scale damage up the more you have to tweak monsters to be able to handle it. I would like the whole extra damage dice thing to go away and for them to go back to bonus attacks. That seems to encapsulate a lot of the things that most players want to be taken into account, great axe vs knife, high strength vs weak... etc. For me it also allows better two weapon fighting... I think they have already chosen this path though so it is stuck and ingrained in the system...

 

[Starfox]

Sign me up in the loyalist crowd for this - I like the way they add damage instead of to-hit/AC, and don't mind at all that the weapon selection becomes purely a matter of taste.

If you wish to make a dragon (or Asmodeus) invulnerable to low-level commoners, give him something like DR - it will hardly impact high-level characters a t all. But keep this out of player hands . I DON'T want PCs invulnerable to city guards, ever.

 

[Libramarian]

Rushing to make sure they don't have time to get it right is exactly the wrong course. The long lead time gives them lots of time to playtest, get feedback, tweak, experiment and improve the game. Rushing a new edition out only leads to broken promises and angry gamers (witness the terrific foul ups of the 4e digital stuff that was promised on release, much of which never appeared, and the reaction to it).

I'm not advocating rushing anything. I'm advocating for less experimentation. They wouldn't need to rush if they weren't rebuilding the whole game from the ground up. They were working on this game internally for a year before announcing the playtest. They have a team of like 10 people working full-time on this thing. It should have been done in time for The Hobbit film premiere. Why is D&D between editions while the biggest fantasy film in a decade is in theaters? What a blunder that is.

I know I'm coming across as a grump, but between the uber Fighter damage, bizarre spell memorization system and skill dice I've really hit my too-different wall with this packet.

I don't consider any previous edition of D&D to be objectively "broken", so my patience for their attempts to "finally fix the mechanical problems that have plagued every edition of D&D" (paraphrasing Mike Mearls) is limited. I signed up to playtest a unifying, best-of edition. I did not sign up to playtest a fugly fantasy heartbreaker.

 

[Salamandyr]

I want to push back against the idea that damage should be differentiated more based on weapon type. One of the things I really dig about 5e, that previous editions since Unearthed Arcana have never really gotten, is that a weapon is not dangerous, the man wielding it is. A 20th level fighter, who in world terms we must assume is one of the greatest champions to ever walk the earth, a being who can go toe to toe with dragons and win, a being of such martial might that the very gods tremble at the thought of facing him, should be able to kill you with a nail file, or even his bare hands. By that point, he is so good what he actually chooses to kill you with is almost, not quite but almost, superfluous.

5e models that perfectly. I also really love that the various weapon feats apply to all weapons (even bare hands!). Perhaps the fighter can finally stop being a build and start being a warrior. If they change it back to the 3e and 4e design of you pick your fighting style and it will never change, ever, and you are gimped the moment the DM takes your favorite toy away from you, I'll keep playing B/X and won't spend a dime on this.

One mechanical bit I'm not really comfortable with is that there are two mechanics, martial damage dice and martial damage bonus that do the same thing. I think I'd prefer that you either get more martial damage dice, or they get bigger. Two damage mechanics on the same class just feels redundant.

 

[FireLance]

I'm not advocating rushing anything. I'm advocating for less experimentation. They wouldn't need to rush if they weren't rebuilding the whole game from the ground up. They were working on this game internally for a year before announcing the playtest. They have a team of like 10 people working full-time on this thing. It should have been done in time for The Hobbit film premiere. Why is D&D between editions while the biggest fantasy film in a decade is in theaters? What a blunder that is.

Actually, given that An Unexpected Journey is only Part One of Three, it should be released in time for There and Back Again, when interest would presumably be at its peak.

And speaking of The Hobbit...

Likewise, with an AC of 15, I think red dragons a little too vulnerable to massed arrow fire, at least for my taste. It only takes 70-75 spear-wielding level 1 human warriors to kill a level 14 red dragon in a single round. (Worse, a mob of 160 rock-throwing human commoners are just as deadly.) I like the idea that low level warriors will remain relevant and I understand the realism aspect of "infantry is the ultimate weapon", but I think this is going a little too far for D&D.

Given how difficult it was to kill Smaug, I think the current version of the playtest rules fails the "Does it emulate Tolkien?" test.

 

[the Jester]

I'm not advocating rushing anything. I'm advocating for less experimentation. They wouldn't need to rush if they weren't rebuilding the whole game from the ground up.

It sounds like, in essence, you're advocating with making 5e a tweak of a previous edition instead.

The problem is- which edition? If it's just a slight tweak on 4e, people that 'left D&D' for [notranslate]Pathfinder[/notranslate] (or whatever) over 4e won't feel included. If it's just a 3e tweak, it won't capture 4e's fans or, likely, many [notranslate]Pathfinder[/notranslate] players. If it's just a tweak on 2e or earlier, many people who started with 3e or later will probably not be captured.

5e kind of has to be built from the ground up if it is going to hold together mechanically. 3e and especially 4e have set the bar for mechanical coherency, and that bar is high; if the game's math sucks, many many fans of 3e and later aren't going to buy in.

I know I'm coming across as a grump, but between the uber Fighter damage, bizarre spell memorization system and skill dice I've really hit my too-different wall with this packet.

Fair enough, and what's more, that's a completely valid complaint and bit of feedback for you to give. I think part of the negative reaction 4e triggered with some gamers was exactly that too-different wall (though certainly there are many other things about it that h4ters h4te on. )

I don't consider any previous edition of D&D to be objectively "broken", so my patience for their attempts to "finally fix the mechanical problems that have plagued every edition of D&D" (paraphrasing Mike Mearls) is limited. I signed up to playtest a unifying, best-of edition. I did not sign up to playtest a fugly fantasy heartbreaker.

I agree with you completely here, except that I think what we are seeing emerge in this game looks like it will be a unifying, best-of edition and you seem to think it's going to turn out a fugly heartbreaker. Perhaps this difference in perception comes from playstyle preference who knows. But having run about 12 hours of 5e playtest time last night and this morning, much of it with a solo rogue pc after everyone else was asleep or went home, I am really enjoying it.

 

[B.T.]

A high-level rogue can theoretically do 180 damage with a fork and knife in 3e. I don't see the issue with fighter damage.

 

[Kraydak]

A high-level rogue can theoretically do 180 damage with a fork and knife in 3e. I don't see the issue with fighter damage.

I do. It is too low. The estimates are for a Fighter DPR of about 40 at level 20. This means 5+ rounds to defeat most level-relevant foes. Fighter damage (at lvl 20) needs to be boosted by about 50%. Putting it all into single massive hits (extra dice, increasing the damage bonus) is probably a really bad idea though. Bring back extra attacks!

 

[Szatany]

Putting it all into single massive hits (extra dice, increasing the damage bonus) is probably a really bad idea though. Bring back extra attacks!

Extra attacks are probably more fun that bonus damage to a single attack (at least to me), but they also slow down the game considerably. For that reason alone I hope all classes stay with a single attack per turn. I'm fine with exceptions though, as long as they are rare. Fighters right now have the ability to make 2 attacks per round, but only a few times per day. I like that.