D&D 5E Mike Mearls's Tweets

[DogBackward]

Why? The greatsword is a strictly better weapon - unless the shortsword user has access to a shield and friends at his sides, the greatsword-weilder wins every time. Granted, in the real world that's due to greater reach rather than strict damage (since either can kill you easily enough), but in D&D terms that just gets boiled down to greater damage.

A greatsword isn't strictly better, though. You've got a larger weapon, more unbalanced, and if I can get in close quickly then you can't bring your weapon to bear while I'm stabbing you repeatedly with my short sword... which is much better at making several quick stabbing motions. This is made even worse if I do have a shield, since I can try to catch your first swing and then step in close. No allies needed: even in a one-on-one fight, my shield can be used to deflect your sword. And I am going to have a shield if I'm using a one-handed weapon... because I'm not a bloody idiot.

In the end, realistically, shield+weapon beats two-handed weapon any day.

Now, when you're talking about D&D, I would still prefer there be a way to make two-handed weapons more on par with sword and board. But that's better done with weapon qualities, not mucking about with Expertise. I love that Expertise can make a short sword a viable weapon choice, compared to other larger weapons. Thematically and realistically, that is a great feature.

But speaking solely on thematics, the guy with the big-ass greatsword should still be able to be viable as well. I just think that's better modeled by weapon abilities.

(Also, for the record, even in D&D, +2 average damage (and +4 max, that's important to consider as well) can compare with +1 AC. Especially if you already have a decent AC and HP, increasing damage output by a bit can work very well. If nothing else, the bonus damage can help when you want to use your Expertise dice on other things, like Parry or other maneuvers. If I've got Cleave and am facing a bunch of goblins, I'd prefer the 1d12 over the 1d8 weapon easy, since I'm far more likely to drop multiple goblins per round that way.)

 

[Gorgoroth]

..

Also if you're a Dwarf, a greataxe does 2d6...Killing goblins is my speciality! Very reliable kills

A few points :

1) weapon damage die are not all that likely to go to a 2dX whatever, as someone suggested, so we're pretty much stuck with the way it is now. (except for some minor tweaks here and there)

2) EDs overpower weapon damage die at high levels, this is seen as a bug by some, a feature by others. I like rolling one type of die, and have my weapon choice matter more, than making a short-sword very close in damage to a greatsword. If anything, IMO the damage spread should remain proportional throughout the levels (i.e. EDs ARE the weapon die). A short sword guy would probably learn maneuvers that don't add the die value per se, but an on/off type effect (such as an extra attack, since it's faster). This mixes in well with the phalanx formation type stuff mentioned above. Great ideas!

3) Sneak attack should require finesse weapons, advantage, but give more dice. So a short sword or even a Katana could be used, but then you get those extra dice added on top. You trade normal damage for the ability to stab you in the balls or jugular. Much, Much harder with a longsword or battleaxe (though not impossible...but I'd say that's better modeled as a critical or called short than a sneak attack)

4) In a war of attrition, a short sword is better because you can swing it all day and your arm won't get tired. That's why the romans used Gladiuses...the battle vs Queen Cartimandua's uprising had a legion (5000) defending an outpost vs 80,000 greataxe wielding barbarians in a single day. Try fighting all day long swinging that greataxe around. No matter how strong you are, you'll lose out eventually out of fatigue. But in short bursts, they could do quite a bit of damage...

 

[Jeff Carlsen]

I'm in favor of giving individual weapons different abilities to interact with expertise dice, either by default or through a fighter's fighting styles.

For example, a great sword is a big weapon. Even if you deflect it, you feel the weight. As such, you can apply a great sword's damage die to the Glancing Blow maneuver.

 

[Nikosandros]

Actually, this is in fact more realistic. A weapon deals damage because of its own weight

It's not the weight it's the kinetic energy. The faster the weapon goes (with mass being equal), the more damage it inflicts. A stronger person will be able to accelerate the weapon more and thus having a higher velocity and more energy.

 

[Gryph]

On the matter of whether a +1 to hit or +1 to damage is better..

It seems intuitive that you should want the +1 to hit. On average though, if you do less than 20 average damage, +1 to hit increases you average damage by less than 1. So you really want to increase your damage until it's over 20 on average, and then go for to hit bonuses. (Obviously combats are much shorter though, so reliability is favoured, not to mention you can do things other than damage when you hit)

If your chance to hit is less than 100% than +1 damage is worth less than 1 extra damage per attack as well.

Expressed as expected damage per attack, a +1 to hit always adds more than +1 damage.

EDIT: After reading Delricho's response, I ran some numbers and he is right. For low average damages a +1 damage is better than a +1 to hit.

 

[delericho]

A greatsword isn't strictly better, though. You've got a larger weapon, more unbalanced, and if I can get in close quickly then you can't bring your weapon to bear while I'm stabbing you repeatedly with my short sword...

And there's the rub. If you can get in close. Against a combatant of equal skill, you can't.

This is made even worse if I do have a shield, since I can try to catch your first swing and then step in close. No allies needed: even in a one-on-one fight, my shield can be used to deflect your sword. And I am going to have a shield if I'm using a one-handed weapon... because I'm not a bloody idiot.

In the end, realistically, shield+weapon beats two-handed weapon any day.

Of course, if the comparison is shortsword & shield versus greatsword, that changes the balance. But that's not the comparison that was being made.

And factoring in the shield as well is an argument for ED matching the weapon damage. Without it, the balance is very clearly in favour of the shield-user:

If you're doing 3d6 damage from ED, the difference between a base damage of a 1d8 longsword and 1d12 greatsword is a trivial loss - of course you'll accept that and get an AC bonus to go with it! But if it's a difference between 4d8 and 4d12 damage, that's a different, and harder, calculation.

 

[DogBackward]

And there's the rub. If you can get in close. Against a combatant of equal skill, you can't.

Assuming no shield, then there is a bit of risk involved, I'll agree. Only problem is, you only get one try to stop me from getting close: if your first swing misses or I dodge, or if I'm just plain faster than you, then I'm on you and you're not shaking me off. Admittedly, it is a more dangerous task. But again, comparing a greatsword to a shortsword alone is pointless, since the sole reason you would have a shortsword as opposed to a greatsword is so that you can use a shield.

You're essentially saying "I can beat you up if I get to use both hands and you only get to use one." Well... yeah, you probably could. That's just a silly comparison to make.

And factoring in the shield as well is an argument for ED matching the weapon damage. Without it, the balance is very clearly in favour of the shield-user:

As it should be. And again, there are still instances where a two-handed wielder could shine, even then. As I said in my post, I'm not against allowing a special move or something with a two-handed weapon, I just don't think Expertise dice are the way to model that.

If the dice match your weapon, we're back to light weapons being, once again, made far less useful than they realistically would be. Without some sort of weapon speed module (which I'm against purely for the sake of system simplicity), you're back to everybody always going for the two-handed weapons, since there's no real competition from a shield-bearer when you're dealing +8 damage per swing on average.

The guy with the shield is supposed to do better in combat. That's why we kept using shields throughout most of (pre-firearms) history.

 

[Gorgoroth]

It's not the weight it's the kinetic energy. The faster the weapon goes (with mass being equal), the more damage it inflicts. A stronger person will be able to accelerate the weapon more and thus having a higher velocity and more energy.

Not only that, but K = 1/2 mv^2, so it's proportional to the velocity squared. This is why, to my mind, it makes sense to just keep str mod to hit AND damage, and use Dex for to-hit only, and even then only with finesse weapons.

Rogues should do plenty of damage with extra sneak attack dice. If they want to stabbity stab with a short sword and get a str mod bonus to damage, I'd say let there be a new column in weapons : MAX str mod.

Like medium armor, a short sword or less shouldn't benefit from having a str higher than 14 (+2). I hate that rogues can make str a complete dump stat with little penalty. This rule I propose would make all rogues try to stick 14 in their strength score, if they can, to get their optimal +2. Anything higher is wasted, unless they can sneak attack with a katana

This mirrors the max dex of 2 for medium armor. I'd also add, that if there's also a Minimum str mod to wield a weapon, such as +1 or +2, that is a feature, not a bug, since you expect a battle axe to do a minimum of 2 damage, or a greatsword/greataxe a minimum of 3 (including str)

 

[WhatGravitas]

It's not the weight it's the kinetic energy. The faster the weapon goes (with mass being equal), the more damage it inflicts. A stronger person will be able to accelerate the weapon more and thus having a higher velocity and more energy.

Of course, thinking about this too much can be problematic, since AC is not ablative, so to-hit bonuses (better at bypassing thin armour) already mean doing more damage, allowing you to get through thick armour/skin etc.

 

[delericho]

You're essentially saying "I can beat you up if I get to use both hands and you only get to use one." Well... yeah, you probably could. That's just a silly comparison to make.

Well, yes. That's why I said the greatsword is a strictly better weapon than the shortsword.

If the dice match your weapon, we're back to light weapons being, once again, made far less useful than they realistically would be. Without some sort of weapon speed module (which I'm against purely for the sake of system simplicity), you're back to everybody always going for the two-handed weapons, since there's no real competition from a shield-bearer when you're dealing +8 damage per swing on average.

No, because the rules should also allow the shield user to apply Expertise Dice to improve his defensive capabilities. Thus, he's trading off greater damage in return for greater defence - which is exactly as it should be.

As I said in my post, I'm not against allowing a special move or something with a two-handed weapon, I just don't think Expertise dice are the way to model that.

The reason for connecting it with Expertise Dice, rather than making it something just anyone can do, is that that means that only players who can use ED need to worry about such things. The Cleric doesn't need to agonise over whether the longsword or the battleaxe is the better choice for him, he just picks whichever he feels goes better with his character.

Likewise, with monsters, that's one less thing the DM needs to give any thought to - it doesn't matter if this hobgoblin has a longsword and that one has a battleaxe, because he just rolls d8 damage in either case - any special combat training the hobgoblins have is due to their racial training, is listed in their monster write-up, and is common to both.

Otherwise, you get a massive rulebook with hundreds of options that anyone can use... and so there's that much more information that every player needs to process.

The guy with the shield is supposed to do better in combat. That's why we kept using shields throughout most of (pre-firearms) history.

Well... bear in mind that D&D characters both hit and get hit far more often than real warriors - something to do with them getting access to easy and perfect healing (where a single blow in real life can readily mean permanent maiming even if you survive). Protection is hugely more important in real life than D&D - and the rules would be a little foolish not to take that into account, at least somewhat.

(Plus, greatsword-wielding barbarians are cool - the game really should allow for them. Broadly speaking, longsword & shield should be about equal with greatsword, realism or no.)