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

[GrahamWills]

How come other people can do it?

Oh yeah... cause a new edition that was banged out in nine months would have been swell!

13th Age. Frankly, it seems amazing that, as you say, a couple of guys can do a great job making a system that seems very D&D-like and solves a lot of its historic problems in the time you allocate them, whereas wizards seems to b spending forever to work out they cannot do basic math. Very odd.

 

[Elodan]

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.

I'm going to both agree and disagree with this. I think the extra attack is more fun and I like that fighters get to make 2 per round; (2 attacks per round should be the maximum).

The implementation in 3E is what started slowing down the game. Compared to AD&D where you used the same bonus for attack, 3E gave each one a different to hit bonus. Instead of being able to quick read the dice to figure out hits/misses, you needed to do so for each individual swing to get the math right; possibly taking four times as long depending on how many attacks per round you got. I know we had no issues with the 3/2 and 2/1 attacks in AD&D slowing us down.

 

[B.T.]

13th Age. Frankly, it seems amazing that, as you say, a couple of guys can do a great job making a system that seems very D&D-like and solves a lot of its historic problems in the time you allocate them, whereas wizards seems to b spending forever to work out they cannot do basic math. Very odd.

It's not really odd. It's a symptom of large scale, and it pertains to society and government as well as large corporations. Wizards of the Coast is not just a few guys working on a project. 13th Age is. 13th Age is tightly focused and designed in a certain way. Hasbro is entirely filled with human resource busybodies and middle managers and corporate trainers--and, by proxy, so is WotC. The entire company is paralyzed with inefficiency and design-by-committee, and so everything goes at a snail's pace.

 

[GrahamWills]

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.

I assume you haven't actually tried fighting with different weapons at all seriously. The thought that the olympic gold medalist archer would last more than one round in a club-level martial arts is, frankly, a little silly. Even if you restrict just to ranged weapons, a high-school javelin champ will beat the ranger. Even if you restrict to a really focused category, like weaponless martial arts, I guarantee that a decent club-level brazilian jiu-jitsu fighter will take apart the TKD world champion at his sport.

This is a traditional area of debate in game systems, the "natural talent" versus "training" debate. In the real world, you absolutely need training to be vaguely competitive. And weapon type is such a factor their are bazillions of rules in competition to make sure the playing field is level

I have had 2 years training with a katana. Let me totally assure you that if, in an empty room I started 40' from anybody in the world with a nail file, the chances of them winning a fight with me are very low. And I'm now a barely fit 46 year old. I could even tell them my strategy, which is to assume the standard hold and advance on them and as soon as they are in range, diagonal downward cut aiming at the neck/shoulder join. Since they have zero parrying ability, their choices are basically to strike first or dodge. Both require them to be able to close 6' faster than I can bring down the sword, which is possible, but really unlikely. I have fought (in TKD) the US lightweight junior champion who was ungodly fast and even so, I'm pretty sure I'd cut him before he got to me.

Fighters being even close to equally good with weapons they have never used before, or even weapons they do not regularly train with, is total fantasy -- which is fine -- but it's not vaguely realistic.

 

[KidSnide]

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!

I don't mind multiple attacks as a special ability, but I really like the fast combat that results when 90+% of PC turns only require a single action.

Yes, some players are good about rolling everything ahead of time. But you're lucky if you play with a whole group of those players, and the rules need to worry about speeding up combat for folks who don't roll their attacks before their turn begins.

-KS

 

[B.T.]

I assume you haven't actually tried fighting with different weapons at all seriously. The thought that the olympic gold medalist archer would last more than one round in a club-level martial arts is, frankly, a little silly. Even if you restrict just to ranged weapons, a high-school javelin champ will beat the ranger. Even if you restrict to a really focused category, like weaponless martial arts, I guarantee that a decent club-level brazilian jiu-jitsu fighter will take apart the TKD world champion at his sport.

This is a traditional area of debate in game systems, the "natural talent" versus "training" debate. In the real world, you absolutely need training to be vaguely competitive. And weapon type is such a factor their are bazillions of rules in competition to make sure the playing field is level

I have had 2 years training with a katana. Let me totally assure you that if, in an empty room I started 40' from anybody in the world with a nail file, the chances of them winning a fight with me are very low. And I'm now a barely fit 46 year old. I could even tell them my strategy, which is to assume the standard hold and advance on them and as soon as they are in range, diagonal downward cut aiming at the neck/shoulder join. Since they have zero parrying ability, their choices are basically to strike first or dodge. Both require them to be able to close 6' faster than I can bring down the sword, which is possible, but really unlikely. I have fought (in TKD) the US lightweight junior champion who was ungodly fast and even so, I'm pretty sure I'd cut him before he got to me.

Fighters being even close to equally good with weapons they have never used before, or even weapons they do not regularly train with, is total fantasy -- which is fine -- but it's not vaguely realistic.

Here's the deal, though: a D&D fighter is not an "Olympic gold medalist archer." I've long since given up on emulating real life in D&D because D&D does not really resemble real life. We can approximate real life in the D&D system, but a fighter is not an Olympic archer. Is an Olympic archer trained in the use of heavy armor, swords, and axes? No. Fighters are professional soldiers who exist to defend towns from dragons and slaughter demons. Even if he never uses a bow in combat, the fighter is assumed to be training with a bow (after all, he's proficient, and his attack bonus with it goes up as he levels).

 

[Szatany]

The implementation in 3E is what started slowing down the game. Compared to AD&D where you used the same bonus for attack, 3E gave each one a different to hit bonus. Instead of being able to quick read the dice to figure out hits/misses, you needed to do so for each individual swing to get the math right; possibly taking four times as long depending on how many attacks per round you got. I know we had no issues with the 3/2 and 2/1 attacks in AD&D slowing us down.

In 5e, if you had multiple attacks per turn, it would still slow down the game. Even if the bonus to hit was the same, 5e uses maneuvers and combat dice so you have to make a few decisions for each attacks. Arguably, multiple attacks could take more time than they took in 3e.

 

[Salamandyr]

I assume you haven't actually tried fighting with different weapons at all seriously.

My bonafides: At various times in my life, I've tinkered around with unarmed martial arts, I was trained as an Army Infantryman, though I rode a desk, and for the past seven years I've made a fairly serious study of classical fencing-foil, epee, and saber, and Western Martial Arts, specifically the rapier, cut and thrust and longsword. I'm really good with Hutton saber, and am working on Polish/Eastern European saber.

If you look up "salamandyr" on youtube, I've got a couple videos up of myself and of few of my fellows bouting, if you want to check them out.

So that's what I've got going for me. You said that you are studying katana; good man. Keep at it, the benefits of swordsmanship are grand!

The thought that the olympic gold medalist archer would last more than one round in a club-level martial arts is, frankly, a little silly. Even if you restrict just to ranged weapons, a high-school javelin champ will beat the ranger. Even if you restrict to a really focused category, like weaponless martial arts, I guarantee that a decent club-level brazilian jiu-jitsu fighter will take apart the TKD world champion at his sport.

OK, here's the problem...these are all sports. We're talking about combat. A fighter isn't someone who studies one thing, archery, say, to the exclusion of all other things, so that he becomes the best there is at using that particular thing. A fighter doesn't study archery at all...or fencing...or jiu-jitsu. A fighter studies how to kill people. The bow, the sword, the bare hands, those are just means to an end, not the ends themselves. So, like the special forces soldier, he or she relentlessly cross trains, because he or she never knows what will be available when the need arises.

This is a traditional area of debate in game systems, the "natural talent" versus "training" debate. In the real world, you absolutely need training to be vaguely competitive. And weapon type is such a factor their are bazillions of rules in competition to make sure the playing field is level

There are no rules to combat save for "Don't die!" and "Pointy end goes in the other person!".

I have had 2 years training with a katana. Let me totally assure you that if, in an empty room I started 40' from anybody in the world with a nail file, the chances of them winning a fight with me are very low. And I'm now a barely fit 46 year old. I could even tell them my strategy, which is to assume the standard hold and advance on them and as soon as they are in range, diagonal downward cut aiming at the neck/shoulder join. Since they have zero parrying ability, their choices are basically to strike first or dodge. Both require them to be able to close 6' faster than I can bring down the sword, which is possible, but really unlikely. I have fought (in TKD) the US lightweight junior champion who was ungodly fast and even so, I'm pretty sure I'd cut him before he got to me.

In real life, most swordfights ended with one person dead and the other person injured--true. And in general, if you are unarmed (or have a nail file), you will lose against a moderately trained person with a sword. However, part of learning swodsmanship learning how to deal with a swordsman while unarmed. Sure your chances are less, but they're not zero. Let's take you, a moderately trained middle aged swordsman, and put you up against, not a lightweight junior champion, but a Navy SEAL, or Delta Force soldier. He's unarmed, and he's not really a champion of any particular fighting style. He's probably never faced a swordsman in his life, armed or unarmed. However, odds are he is going to take that razor away from you and feed it to you, because he's a warrior. That's what warriors do. If he took an injury he it would probably be a cut on his off-hand, sacrificed to immobilze your blade while his dominant hand dealt with you.

And that's dealing with the difference, in game terms, betweens someone 1st or 2nd level, and someone about 6th level. That's not even discussing the worlshattering might of a 20th level fighter.

Fighters being even close to equally good with weapons they have never used before, or even weapons they do not regularly train with, is total fantasy -- which is fine -- but it's not vaguely realistic.

I'm going under the assumption that by the time a fighter gets to the level that weapon choice becomes almost irrelevant to him, 10th level and up, there really doesn't exist a "weapon he's never used before". He's either used it, or he's used something so close that the moves translate. Or he's just so fundamentally familiar with body mechanics that he almost instinctively knows how and where to attack.

Basically what this comes down to, is that somebody said something to the effect above that "people should be scared of a barbarian wielding a giant axe". I agree, I just think what scares them should be the barbarian, not the axe.

 

[GrahamWills]

My bonafides: At various times in my life, I've tinkered around with unarmed martial arts, I was trained as an Army Infantryman, though I rode a desk, and for the past seven years I've made a fairly serious study of classical fencing-foil, epee, and saber, and Western Martial Arts, specifically the rapier, cut and thrust and longsword. I'm really good with Hutton saber, and am working on Polish/Eastern European saber.

OK, here's the problem...A fighter studies how to kill people. The bow, the sword, the bare hands, those are just means to an end, not the ends themselves. So, like the special forces soldier, he or she relentlessly cross trains, because he or she never knows what will be available when the need arises.

And in general, if you are unarmed, you will lose against a moderately trained person with a sword. However, part of learning swordsmanship learning how to deal with a swordsman while unarmed. Sure your chances are less, but they're not zero.

I'm going under the assumption that by the time a fighter gets to the level that weapon choice becomes almost irrelevant to him, 10th level and up.

Basically what this comes down to, is that somebody said something to the effect above that "people should be scared of a barbarian wielding a giant axe". I agree, I just think what scares them should be the barbarian, not the axe.

Sounds good Salamandyr, and thanks for the encouragement. Sadly, my sword instructor moved, and at TKD, my preferred MA, no-one worth fighting ever turns up in the 40+ bracket. At state events, maybe 2-3, and even at Nationals, there's less than a dozen. I used to drop down and fight 18-25 level (and lose almost all the time, but have a ton of fun) but alas, insurance companies have required that no longer be an option.

Anyway, I completely agree that combat and sports are completely different. AND I agree with pretty much all you say; I just find it hard to reconcile with being scared of a 20th level fighter with a nail file, assuming any form of reality. On your summary:
"people should be scared of a barbarian wielding a giant axe", absolutely. Because he knows how to use it AND it's a dangerous weapon. If, on the other hand he is charging at you across a field and you have 10 reasonably trained archers, go on coffee break, because he's dead. If he has been given a three-piece staff, just try and stand clear as I defy ANYONE to be able to do more damage to someone else than themselves using it without training.

In martial arts, the three critical things are power, speed and technique. If you can be better than the other guy at two of them, you should win, assuming any sort of parity with the others. For D&D I think weapon choice should add to that, so I'd say the triumvirate is STATS, SKILLS and WEAPON. As you level, stats + skills improve -- weapon does somewhat (because you buy better equipment!), so the barbarian will win, because STATS and SKILLs dominate, but if you take away anything like parity with a weapon and give him a nailfile, it should be much less likely a win.

Appreciate the thoughtful comment and good luck with the saber! I tried that once. EPIC FAIL.

 

[Libramarian]

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.

Really what I want, and what I was expecting at least in the very beginning of this process, is a sort of polished, more professional Castles & Crusades. I'm not sure how much more alienating that would be to 4e players than what DDN currently looks like.

Holmes was the one who changed that not Gygax. Gygax just expanded on it in AD&D.

Nope, Gygax invented variable weapon damage in OD&D supp. I Greyhawk