Greataxe, greatsword, and a little math

[GlassJaw]

We're on opposite sides of the fence here. I would go hand-weapons (sword, axe, mace) and two-handed weapons (battleaxe, two-handed sword). I would also get rid of damage types - it just does not add that much to the game.

Different strokes and all that. Sounds boring to me and fundamentally opposed to one of the core tenets of D&D. D&D has always been about a long list of weapons which variety of characters.

 

[Kobold Boots]

That is certainly a solution, but it does change the core mechanics and balance of 5E. 5E is predicated on extra damage dice getting doubled. If you remove that, I'm concerned you are actually hindering the classes that rely on that damage.

Everyone complains about the paladin's spike damage but if you remove the doubled smite damage on a crit, you are fundamentally changing the math for that class. That's fine for a home game but I'm considering publishing something on DMs Guild and one of my design goals is to make the weapon chart more mechanically interesting without changing the core math (too much).

That's all well and good, but a few things need to be kept in mind.

1. My reply has more to do with the problem and not your specific needs. So pulling your publication desire out of mid-air during a conversation about a solution that was never intended to meet DM Guild requrements, isn't going to help much.

2. Any significant change to any math in any system requires the entire system to be rebalanced, not just the one house rule. You'll note that my solution makes references to weapon properties, feats and damage die. That means that in order for me to implement the solution:

a. I'm re-writing the entire combat system, rebalancing character classes to account for the new feat to proficiency system.
b. Likely putting in saving throws for instant-death scenarios (so there's a way to kill without running through HP because those are abstract measures of total defense).
c. Then doing about a month of playtest sessions at minimum to make sure that monster math still makes sense and it's playable.

Playable = the majority of results falling into an acceptable range of values when compared against required success at each tier to move the game forward. If players can't expect to succeed at a minimum of 60% of the time against level appropriate challenges it's broken. Ideal is about 70% of the time, but this is really dependent on the flavor of the game.

This is something I'm willing to do because I'm good at math and can build computer programs to do that playtesting for me. Most folks don't have that kind of time.

Be well
KB

 

[GlassJaw]

1. My reply has more to do with the problem and not your specific needs. So pulling your publication desire out of mid-air during a conversation about a solution that was never intended to meet DM Guild requrements, isn't going to help much.

2. Any significant change to any math in any system requires the entire system to be rebalanced, not just the one house rule. You'll note that my solution makes references to weapon properties, feats and damage die. That means that in order for me to implement the solution:

a. I'm re-writing the entire combat system, rebalancing character classes to account for the new feat to proficiency system.
b. Likely putting in saving throws for instant-death scenarios (so there's a way to kill without running through HP because those are abstract measures of total defense).
c. Then doing about a month of playtest sessions at minimum to make sure that monster math still makes sense and it's playable.

"Done. No more crazy stuff"

I don't think either of us stated our design goals or plans up front!

 

[Kobold Boots]

"Done. No more crazy stuff"

I don't think either of us stated our design goals or plans up front!

Entirely fair. Glad to work with you on anything that meets your needs. I was just walking down the necessary path to make weapons feel "right" in the spirit of the OP.

 

[SmokeyCriminal]

I remember in a very very old thread people pointing out that the Great axe had a better "Kill percent" then the Great sword. In that a Great axe did less average damage then a Great sword, but that the Great axe was more likely to kill common CR 1/8, 1/4 (goblins, bandits, kobold, ect.) creatures with a single attack.

I don't remember any of the math shown or specifics, so take it with a grain of salt. But I figured it was worth mentioning.

 

[jaelis]

My solution.

Kill basic damage because if you don't know how to use the weapon you'd be limited to your strength bonus plus half of basic damage die. So for example. STR bonus +0 plus one half base damage die, lets' just say D8 so 4 = four points. This would be enough so that a bunch of untrained folks could start a murder spree on common people.

Each weapon has the ability to do the same amount of damage. Dagger, Great Axe, Whatever. Untrained is untrained.

Proficiency in the weapon allows you to roll the basic damage die and add your basic strength bonus. Criticals only happen on natural 20.

Expertise in the weapon allows you to roll the next basic damage die up for your weapon and add your strength bonus.. your D8 becomes a D12 and criticals happen on 19-20.

Mastery of the weapon allows you to roll same D12, extend the crit range to 18-20 and gives you an extra attack with the weapon every other round.

Feats lend to the levels. Basic proficiency can be a class feature. Level limits set to when you can use a feat to attain each level.

Done. No more crazy stuff and people can just choose the weapon they want to use to further their vision. Certain weapons can have certain properties that make them more likely to do things out of combat that make sense for their size. (Ex: Great Axe might have a doorbreaker/shieldbreaker property. Daggers wouldn't. Swords may negate AC due to chain. Maces wouldn't)

Sometimes you just need to approach a problem from a different angle to make it simpler and more realistic. Why can a dagger do as much damage as an axe? If I do 12 points of damage that simulates a cleave, that same 12 points could be a thief gutting someone.

I see the point of this, and it seems like reasonable game design. It doesn't feel like dnd to me though. I think part of the game for me is the specific level of abstraction it applies to combat, which has been there from the beginning I think. Contemplating your suggestion, it strikes me that the different properties of different weapons is part of what sets that level of abstraction.

To try to explain it a bit further, consider a fighter with a sword vs a fighter with a dagger. In the real world I'm pretty sure the sword wielding will have a big advantage. Using damage to reflect that advantage isn't particularly realistic, but it is something. I think in your system, you would say that expertise with the dagger means knowing how to fight effectively against someone with a sword. In some sense, you have the skill to make up for the weapon difference. I don't have any logical beef with that, but it means that expertise with a sword is somehow different than expertise with a dagger which seems a little weird.

Maybe the best way to say it is, I would be willing play a game that used this system. But I think I would be disappointed if the next version of dnd used it.

 

[jaelis]

It makes the greataxe very swingy: A critical hit now has the potential to do 48 base damage instead of 24.

Indeed, and I'm myself fine with that. Ending a battle on a memorable crit is a win in my mind.

What I don't want is for people to feel like they have to take the greataxe because the chance of that massive crit is too enticing to pass up. The responses so far suggest that most of the people posting wouldn't take it that way, so I'm feeling OK about it.

 

[jaelis]

Trying to make both weapons equally attractive within the constraints of the damage per attack design parameter either leads to equality or the introduction or additional mechanical elements.

That is to say, we can either make them do the same damage and/or let players re-fluff their weapon however they wish* or add extra rules in attempt to make each weapon a 'meaningful choice' over the other, with the classic boons and trade-offs.

Even then, some classes and setups will still benefit more from one than the other. But then.... we need to be clear of our design objective. Are we trying to address the damage disparity between these two weapons or are we trying to make them equally appealing to all classes? We can't have it all.


*It's not a two-handed sword (a large, slashing, heavy bladed object), it's a two-handed axe (a large, slashing, heavy bladed object).

My proximate goal is to have two weapons with the same average damage but different variances. Ideally keeping both those properties with and without the GWF style. I think that in principle, that is an achievable goal.

You could worry about extra crit dice, for half-orcs and barbarians. But that is easy, I just let them reroll all the weapon dice. The book rules clearly push those characters to wield axes, I don't personally see a need for that.

 

[GlassJaw]

I see the point of this, and it seems like reasonable game design. It doesn't feel like dnd to me though.

Agreed. It's a cool idea but eliminates too many things that I expect from D&D.

I immediately thought it would be a great system for an online superhero MMO or something. You could create a hero that uses a weapon but the damage is based on a skill or a weapon "power" rather than the weapon itself. The choice of weapon may give you some unique maneuvers however.

 

[FrogReaver]

I remember in a very very old thread people pointing out that the Great axe had a better "Kill percent" then the Great sword. In that a Great axe did less average damage then a Great sword, but that the Great axe was more likely to kill common CR 1/8, 1/4 (goblins, bandits, kobold, ect.) creatures with a single attack.

I don't remember any of the math shown or specifics, so take it with a grain of salt. But I figured it was worth mentioning.

GreatAxe is better against some enemies than a great sword. It's not low hp enemies though.

A greatsword's 2d6 distributes more toward the center. As such a great axe has a higher chance of doing say 9 or more damage than the greatsword. Add on your mod damage bonus and you are better at one shotting enemies with 12-15 hp with a great axe. It's still not a great chance to happen, but you are better at it.

Anything lower than 9 damage and the greatsword has a better chance of doing that amount in a single blow. That actually makes it better for killing enemies in the 1-11 hp range.

If we are talking about enemies that take more and more hits to kill then greatsword is going to start looking better and better.