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

[Scribble]

Ah, in my 1981 Basic Rules (Moldvay) weapons have separate damage values (the classic d4 dagger, d6 shortsword, d8 longsword), must be an earlier version of Basic?

I think it's the 81 version. The one with the Otus picture on the front with the green dragon? MAybe it's 80? The outside cover says copyright 1980, but the inside says 81... weird.

On Page B25 "AMOUNT OF DAMAGE: All Weapon attacks by characters (PC or NPC) will do 1-6 (ad6) points of damage, adjusted by Strength and magical bonuses, if applicable. If the Variable Weapon Damage system (hereafter) is used, check the weapon type to find how much damage each weapon will do (adjusted by Strength and magical bonuses or penalties).


B27 has the variable weapon damage chart.

 

[Steely_Dan]

I think it's the 81 version. The one with the Otus picture on the front with the green dragon? MAybe it's 80? The outside cover says copyright 1980, but the inside says 81... weird.

On Page B25 "AMOUNT OF DAMAGE: All Weapon attacks by characters (PC or NPC) will do 1-6 (ad6) points of damage, adjusted by Strength and magical bonuses, if applicable. If the Variable Weapon Damage system (hereafter) is used, check the weapon type to find how much damage each weapon will do (adjusted by Strength and magical bonuses or penalties).


B27 has the variable weapon damage chart.

Yep, you're absolutely right, I'm sitting with it in my hands right now, funny how I was perusing it this morning and assumed the variable was standard (I really should get my eyes checked...).

I really like that idea that Mearls is doing of running a Basic campaign and adding/changing (house rules etc) as you go along.

 

[WheresMyD20]

Which edition was that?

Original D&D. Variable weapon damage was introduced in Supplement I: Greyhawk.

In OD&D, all attacks do 1d6 damage (except for some powerful creatures like giants). Hit dice are also stated in d6s. One hit die generally absorbs one hit of damage.

 

[Scribble]

Yep, you're absolutely right, I'm sitting with it in my hands right now, funny how I was perusing it this morning and assumed the variable was standard (I really should get my eyes checked...).

I really like that idea that Mearls is doing of running a Basic campaign and adding/changing (house rules etc) as you go along.

I think it just goes to show you how the game rules weren't all that user friendly... Like you could be using a rule completely wrong or something and not realize it because a random paragraph somewhere mentions something about it.

If you're just looking at the charts, it looks like weapons do various damage by default.

 

[Steely_Dan]

I think it just goes to show you how the game rules weren't all that user friendly... Like you could be using a rule completely wrong or something and not realize it because a random paragraph somewhere mentions something about it.

If you're just looking at the charts, it looks like weapons do various damage by default.

Total, while I love the system, for someone who's fresh in, reading that (by themselves), could be rough to know how it all fits together.

But I like that basically it hasn't changed much (Basic or 4th Ed, Move and make an Attack).

 

[the Jester]

LOL i know that they said they did it. Does that mean they actually did it? Hell no.

If you're coming into the discussion assuming that the designers and developers are lying to you, I don't see what anyone could say to convince you of anything. Sounds like your mind is made up already.

That's fine, but calling Mearls and the rest liars? Not so much. That doesn't contribute anything but trolling to the conversation.

Given WoTC's traditionally piss poor job of figuring out how their own mechanics will interact with each other I have absolutely no faith that they can figure out older editions they didnt write. Especially if they dont give them a lot of time and a very serious look.

WotC is actually very good at figuring out how their mechanics will interact. The entirety of 3e and 4e, both of which have their flaws, is mechanically sound; the only thing I think is a genuine (and HUGE) exception is the original 4e monster math, pre-MM3.

 

[P1NBACK]

Of course, I don't want them to get too carried away with the old edition familiarity and come out with a game where all weapons do the same damage.

What's wrong with all weapons doing the same damage? Or, certain weapon groups doing the same damage?

 

[mudbunny]

I believe I saw that on the Paizo board, but I'm not sure who reported it. This may apply to just the convention, NDA-based play testing round. I would hope the open play test would be more, well, open when its turn comes around.

I think that it is quite common for companies which compete in a field to not allow their employees to sign an NDA for a competing company for a competing product.

 

[GX.Sigma]

Hadn't heard anything about this. Where did you hear this? Seems a shame considering how much system expertise some of those guys have.

If you were Willy Wonka, would you give Slugworth a golden ticket?

(talking book-verse where Slugworth was a rival candy company known for stealing Wonka's ideas)

 

[mudbunny]

WotC is actually very good at figuring out how their mechanics will interact. The entirety of 3e and 4e, both of which have their flaws, is mechanically sound; the only thing I think is a genuine (and HUGE) exception is the original 4e monster math, pre-MM3.

Given the incredibly large number of parts that interact with each other, it is a testament to the skill of the designers how few combinations are *completely* broken.