D&D 5E Level-Up Rewards

[Zustiur]

I'd suggest that twf be two attack rolls and two damage rolls but only the better result applies. Reliable damage, contrasting with greater damage on two handed and higher safety of sword and shield.

Sent via Tapatalk 2

 

[Chris_Nightwing]

To those who believe that humans are incapable of coordinating two hands' actions independently in complex feats of manual dexterity need to get out more. Or even look at youtube a bit.

try "Bach", for starters. Or martial arts. Or dual-wielding forms. Or boxing. Or whatever...the examples are limitless. Whether the human mind achieves multi-tasking with time-slicing focus or true independence is as irrelevant to its perceived effect as a single core system running a pre-emptively multitasking operating system and opening up 8 apps at once is only actually processing one thing at a time.

My point is...humans can do plenty in parallel. I don't want my heroes in D&D to be strictly worse than I am at basic dexterity.

I profoundly disagree that TWF should ever be modelled a single attack with some kind of "baked-in" bonus of whatever. It's pointless to even debate that, because they will not model it that way. It is terrible the way they did it in this packet, but that's something they'll need to rectify.

I, for one, after playing D&D for twenty years, cannot go back to a system with combat rules that are worse than...well, virtually all the editions I've played so far.

A single attack with a single weapon is not a single swing, hit or miss, it's a series of attacks, parries, dodges, and we choose to represent that with a simple, single attack roll.

I'm not debating that people are capable of using two weapons at the same time effectively, I'm suggesting that we stick to the representation premise, and make a single attack roll to see if you achieve any damage. The benefit of having two weapons rather than one is then either that you're more likely to hit, you do more damage when you do hit, or you can defend yourself better whilst in melee.

At the same time bear in mind that carrying a single weapon, or a weapon and shield, have been viable combat options in reality, and we should also try to make it so that each of these is a reasonable option in the game itself. Because two attacks has a fundamentally different probability distribution to a single attack, this is very tricky, and neither the previous playtest TWF rule (half damage) nor the currrent rule (disadvantage on both attacks, no ability modifier) stack up.

 

[the Jester]

I think that more than one action per turn for higher level beings is in keeping with the movies. Conan often slays 2 or 3 before someone takes a swing at him.

First of all, Cleave or similar effects emulate this just fine.

Secondly, D&D isn't a movie.

In the movies, it doesn't matter how many bad guys Conan faces, because he has plot immunity. While that's true for some pcs in some campaigns, in many others it isn't.

I think comparing "how fantasy film works" with "how fantasy gaming ought to work" is ignoring the many, many factors that set the two apart. In a fantasy movie, the "party" often splits up. Most of the focus is usually on one character. There is no obstacle that the heroes won't overcome.

But D&D is different. You can't focus on just one player (unless you've only got one player), or the rest get bored. If the party splits up too often or for too long, the game slows to a crawl AND the party's chances of success drop substantially. Some obstacles may not be overcome.

Speed of play, especially, is a huge issue with giving extra actions to everyone. In a movie, Conan cuts down three guys in less than a second. In game play, each requires attack- damage- results, and things take three times as long when there are three times as many decisions, rolls and actions.

 

[ren1999]

As long as everybody gives up multiple actions per turn, I'm o.k. with it. But they aren't. They're talking about two weapon fighting at low levels and that is two attacks in one turn. You can't tell me that I should drop the multiple attacks per turn idea and then try to call it something different when someone suggests off-hand weapon rules or two weapon fighting which IS MORE THAN ONE ACTION PER TURN.

 

[GnomeWorks]

A single attack with a single weapon is not a single swing, hit or miss, it's a series of attacks, parries, dodges, and we choose to represent that with a simple, single attack roll.

That is only one interpretation of what an attack roll means.

I - and possibly the poster you were replying to - am in the camp that one attack roll is equal to one swing of the sword. Whether or not that is realistic, I'm not entirely sure, not being a person who uses a sword on a regular basis. But that's my interpretation, that's how I present it in game, that's how I visualize the mechanics working.

With that understanding, TWF should provide for two attack rolls, one with each weapon.

Obviously these two worldviews are at odds with each other and are impossible to reconcile in the same system, so 5e is either going to have to come out and say what an attack roll (and similar) represents (thereby either making you or me unhappy), or provide options for both interpretations (TWF usable as a single-attack thing with bonuses, or two separate attacks).

 

[ren1999]

How about this compromise?

Everybody gets one main attack per turn, even the monsters.
But at 5th level or higher, a fighter character can use an off-hand up to 1d8 weapon, or punch, or kick, or use a 4E style combination. Rouges can use a 1d6 off-hand weapon in addition to their main weapon

If you cast a spell, you get no additional standard actions. But if you are a wizard type caster, and you use weapons. You can get a main 1d4 attack, and an off-hand attack 1d4. Cleric types can get a main 1d6 attack and a 1d4 off-hand attack.

At 10th level, a main attack, off-hand attack, and a kick.
A 10HD monster, for example, two claw attacks, the second attack does less damage, and a bite.

Are monks going to be in 5th Edition? We need to talk about the multiple actions per turn for a monk.

 

[Chris_Nightwing]

That is only one interpretation of what an attack roll means.

I - and possibly the poster you were replying to - am in the camp that one attack roll is equal to one swing of the sword. Whether or not that is realistic, I'm not entirely sure, not being a person who uses a sword on a regular basis. But that's my interpretation, that's how I present it in game, that's how I visualize the mechanics working.

With that understanding, TWF should provide for two attack rolls, one with each weapon.

Obviously these two worldviews are at odds with each other and are impossible to reconcile in the same system, so 5e is either going to have to come out and say what an attack roll (and similar) represents (thereby either making you or me unhappy), or provide options for both interpretations (TWF usable as a single-attack thing with bonuses, or two separate attacks).

I agree, you can interpret it the other way, one attack roll is one swing. I guess combatants are just really, really slow, only doing that every six seconds.

I don't mind if TWF offers two attacks, I just think it's very tricky to balance it at that point - the fundamentals of your damage output change completely, since you only need one hit to get additional damage like Deadly Strike. The response to that is to downgrade your single hit damage, but then if you don't have bonus damage coming from somewhere you're rather behind the curve. It's very difficult to make it an equal option.

 

[Zustiur]

That is only one interpretation of what an attack roll means.

I - and possibly the poster you were replying to - am in the camp that one attack roll is equal to one swing of the sword.

I think this might actually be an AD&D vs 3/4 thing. In 3 and 4, a round is 6 seconds, and the text says something like "an attack roll represents your attempt to strike your target".
In AD&D (specifically 2e) it says:

When making an attack, a character is likely to close with his opponent, circle for an opening, feint here, jab there, block a thrust, leap back, and perhaps finally make a telling blow.

It is important to remember that in AD&D a round lasted about 1 minute, not 6 seconds. That's a very big difference.
[MENTION=882]Chris_Nightwing[/MENTION]'s statement makes perfect sense for AD&D, but [MENTION=162]GnomeWorks[/MENTION]'s interpretation makes more sense for 3E & 4E.
Personally I side with Chris Nightwing, even bearing the 6 seconds in mind.

Any single swing of a sword takes a fraction of a second - even for me, and I only have a handful of hours training with a sword. I don't believe for a moment that an adventurer only makes one strike in 6 seconds at 1st level.

Here's another quote from 2E which I feel sums up combat abstraction (in any version of DND) really well:

Since a round is roughly a minute long, it should be easy for a character to move just about anywhere he wants during the course of the round. After all, Olympic-class sprinters can cover vast amounts of ground in a minute.
However, a character in an AD&D game is not an Olympic sprinter running in a straight light. He is trying to maneuver through a battle without getting killed. He is keeping his eyes open for trouble, avoiding surprise, watching his back, watching the backs of his partners, and looking for a good opening, while simultaneously planning his next move, sometimes through a haze of pain. He may be carrying a load of equipment that slows him down significantly. Because of all these things, the distance a character can move is significantly less than players generally think.

Call me a grognard if you want, but I feel that this interpretation is still valid in the 6 second round. 1 dice roll does not equal one swing of the sword.

For what it's worth, I'm also in favour of defining a combat round as 10 or 12 seconds, rather than 6. Especially if iterative attacks exist in any form. No person should be making 5 shots with a bow in 6 seconds. AD&D's 2 shots per minute is closer to the mark, particularly given that the adventurers are aiming at specific moving targets, not just raining arrows down on an opposing army.

 

[Chris_Nightwing]

I like a 10 second combat round, it's easy to grasp. The number of attack rolls doesn't matter that much (other than probabilistically) within this time. Strangely, with missile weapons, it's much easier to imagine a single attack roll for a single attack rather than the sum of many thrusts and parries.

 

[GnomeWorks]

I agree, you can interpret it the other way, one attack roll is one swing. I guess combatants are just really, really slow, only doing that every six seconds.

Six seconds isn't a whole lot of time. Another way to look at it is the "openings" thing, and in that six seconds you're not just swinging, but also looking for the opportunity to swing.

I don't mind if TWF offers two attacks, I just think it's very tricky to balance it at that point - the fundamentals of your damage output change completely, since you only need one hit to get additional damage like Deadly Strike. The response to that is to downgrade your single hit damage, but then if you don't have bonus damage coming from somewhere you're rather behind the curve. It's very difficult to make it an equal option.

It's a tricky problem, and one that I don't have a ready answer for at the moment.

I like a 10 second combat round, it's easy to grasp.

Metric for the win!