D&D 5E Dear 5e design team: Please research earlier editions

[P1NBACK]

I think some people find that attractive. The choice becomes an affectation or a signature rather than an optimized tool. Though the simulationist in me cries at the idea, I can see its attraction and feel its pull.

That's odd to me, Bill. If someone wanted to "simulate" reality, you would think that any weapon to the neck would have a chance of killing someone.

If I stab you in the throat with a dagger or if I hit you in the neck with a sword, I would think they are very similar in terms of odds of you dying.

But, yes, having all weapons deal the same damage means that I can wield a shortsword or mace or any other weapon and not feel like I have to wield the most "optimized" weapon for damage purposes. I can flavor my character in any way.

Secondly, we can differentiate weapons with other mechanics besides damage. The hammer can have devastating blows that push you back, the dagger can be hidden and get bonuses to attacks from surprise, the mace can break bones and splinter shields, the greatsword and do massive damage on a crit, or ... whatever. The specific mechanics aren't the point.

The point is, I think it's hilarious how people dismiss stuff out of hand simply because it's something different from what they know.

Take a look at Dungeon World, which gives all the same damage for each weapon, but it's based on your martial prowess (class). A wizard can use a longsword, but he's not as effective with it and so only does d4 damage. While the fighter is far more capable and can deal d8 with it.

T

 

[Scribble]

That's odd to me, Bill. If someone wanted to "simulate" reality, you would think that any weapon to the neck would have a chance of killing someone.

If I stab you in the throat with a dagger or if I hit you in the neck with a sword, I would think they are very similar in terms of odds of you dying.

I think it just kind of gives people a way to kind of show there is a difference between weapons, but without getting to complex about it.

 

[P1NBACK]

I think it just kind of gives people a way to kind of show there is a difference between weapons, but without getting to complex about it.

I agree. I'm not against variable weapon damage. The game we use right now has variable damage based on how you wield the weapon (1-handed = d6, 1-handed wielded with two hands = d8, twohander = d10), which I think is a good happy medium: it let's you pick a weapon that suits your flavor and also gives variation to how weapons work.

My point is, I kind of find it disheartening to see people just dismissing (or scoffing at) these things entirely without even discussion about how it may or may not work and pros and cons to each approach.

 

[DMKastmaria]

I agree. I'm not against variable weapon damage. The game we use right now has variable damage based on how you wield the weapon (1-handed = d6, 1-handed wielded with two hands = d8, twohander = d10), which I think is a good happy medium: it let's you pick a weapon that suits your flavor and also gives variation to how weapons work.

My point is, I kind of find it disheartening to see people just dismissing (or scoffing at) these things entirely without even discussion about how it may or may not work and pros and cons to each approach.

You can make good arguments for both variable and non-variable. One of my favorite variants is damage by class, which I use when running S&W. A Fighter does d8 with a one-handed weapon. A Cleric does d6. MU does d4. Any class can use any weapon.

I use a modified version of Akrasia's S&W housrule:
Akratic Wizardry: Class-Based Weapon Damage

 

[avin]

Google their list of annual layoffs sometime. They've fired their developmental heads every year for almost 10 years now. And every year a bunch of writers get the axe too.

He was being sarcastic... everybody on these boards is aware of Wotc layoffs...

 

[Dungeonosophy]

CD&D monster classes in 5e

Another example is, when 5e makes its "Savage Species" monster PC rules module, it would be a pity if the designers didn't go back and read and glean from the Classic D&D Creature Crucible series, which was all about PC monsters (Sphinxes, Treants, Sea Giants, Harpies, etc)

Their various racial-class abilities ought to be taken into account in 5e.

 

[Dungeonosophy]

Distilling dragons

Likewise, when making the 5e dragon PC race module, please distill the Dragon PCs from Council of Wyrms, and the detailed dragon rules from AC10, Bestiary of Dragons and Giants. The weird AC10 dragon lore was forgotten in other iterations.