D&D 5E Mike Mearls's Tweets

[Nellisir]

I don't use swords on people, but I've used axes on trees more than a few times, and strength only takes you so far. The sharpness of the blade has far more effect than the strength of the wielder, and in many cases you don't want to go full-bore because doing so decreases control.

I've also used hammers for much of my professional life, and I think a good 20 or 22 oz framing hammer would make a nifty warhammer. Again, strength only takes you so far - the real power in the blow comes from the weight in the hammer, and knowing how to leverage that weight. I've worked extensively with volunteers, and knowing "how" has much more effect than "stronger".

Also, if you want to go into the differences between people and trees, assume I'm talking about wood golems and treants here.

 

[Sunseeker]

I wish people would stop saying this. There are actual surviving manuals of medieval martial arts and none of them regard most two-handed weapons as requiring huge space to use, though some will be used in different ways depending on the situation. If you're using a two-handed sword in a narrow space, expect to stab a lot with it. Which to be fair you should do anyway.

So, in a narrow passage, a greatsword becomes a finesse weapon, use your dex mod instead of str for attack rolls.

 

[bbjore]

With all the disagreement about which weapon can do the most damage, how much strength can be transferred to damage, and what situations benefit which weapons and how, I think it shows that trying to make damage the biggest difference between weapons may not be the best way to go.

Using ED to scale damage, makes the users skill the biggest determinant in damage. Sure, perhaps at low level you can have some differences in overall damage, but at 20th level, what really matters is how skillful the warrior wielding the weapon is. It just abstracts all the benefits or disadvantages of a particularly weapon, and assumes that a skilled PC knows how to best use their weapon in any particular situation. It opens up multiple approaches to character creation.

I think there's a lot to be said for that approach from a balance perspective. By declaring that a 20th level fencer, daggermaster, martial artist, or barbarian wielding a maul, are all equally skilled at increasing the amount of damage they do with their chosen weapons, you allow any archetype to play on a relatively even field when it comes to raw skill, which is a good thing.

All the complexities of this weapon vs. that weapon in a particular situation can then be left to maneuvers and tricks, or some other place are where you have design space to make a number of nice abstractions; think a sneak attack maneuver for finesse weapons, a power attack maneuver for large weapons, and a defensive reach maneuver for reach weapons.

 

[Argyle King]

I don't use swords on people, but I've used axes on trees more than a few times, and strength only takes you so far. The sharpness of the blade has far more effect than the strength of the wielder, and in many cases you don't want to go full-bore because doing so decreases control.

I've also used hammers for much of my professional life, and I think a good 20 or 22 oz framing hammer would make a nifty warhammer. Again, strength only takes you so far - the real power in the blow comes from the weight in the hammer, and knowing how to leverage that weight. I've worked extensively with volunteers, and knowing "how" has much more effect than "stronger".

Also, if you want to go into the differences between people and trees, assume I'm talking about wood golems and treants here.

I completely agree that leverage and skill matters.

However, without going into too much detail, I'll simply say that some of my real world experience (military) has involved using weapons on people. Physical fitness helps in more areas than simply your ability to carry a ruck. Granted, a lot of my experience is with modern weaponry, but I do have some with more mundane (meaning, without gunpowder) means as well.

Likewise, I've used battering rams and other entry tools & methods on doors, barred windows, walls, and other such things. Again, I will completely agree that technique and skill matters a lot, and --in many situations-- it may mean more than brute force. Still, when it came time to bash down a door, and the squad needed to get through quickly, the portable ram that I had went to the strongest member of the group.

 

[Sonny]

Isn't using stat-mods to only alter the attack numbers while giving the actual attack lots of dice basically the 3.X caster?

So, it would seem to me that their solution to finally balancing martial and magic is to make martial identical to magic.

Changing the way martial damage scales isn't making it identical to magic. Unless expertise dice now require memorization of abilities in the morning. And they can only use some maneuvers once a day. And some attacks use all the dice while other use only the highest value rolled. And other maneuver let them fly, turn invisible, etc..

Simplifying two things down to a singular element (damage) and claiming they're the same because those two elements are the same is a bit disingenuous.

 

[keterys]

As a random counterargument, I kinda wish all 1-handed did a certain die amount (let's call it 1d6) and two-handed all did a larger amount (let's call it 1d12). Alternatively, make it 1d6 / 2d6, and two-weapons deal 1d6 each, and since we're not adding stats all of a sudden, it just kinda works.

Cause frankly any arguments that differentiate weapons much beyond that are kinda missing the abstraction level that D&D is at. So let's just let people make characters in their own style.

 

[Nellisir]

As a random counterargument, I kinda wish all 1-handed did a certain die amount (let's call it 1d6) and two-handed all did a larger amount (let's call it 1d12). Alternatively, make it 1d6 / 2d6, and two-weapons deal 1d6 each, and since we're not adding stats all of a sudden, it just kinda works.

Cause frankly any arguments that differentiate weapons much beyond that are kinda missing the abstraction level that D&D is at. So let's just let people make characters in their own style.

I really like a size/class approach. Wizards: 1d4 (small weapons)/1d6 (medium & large weapons); thieves & clerics 1d4/1d8; fighters 1d6/1d10

 

[Gorgoroth]

.

Disagree, D&D is not really a D6-centered game compared to many others. I remember a lot of the sense of wonder when I first rolled a d4 or a d12 ...(hmmm, what weapon does THAT damage??). haha. in D&D, I don't remember many weapons doing more than d10, which is what a 2handed sword did.

Just wanted to say, I really enjoy reading the perspectives here, and I wish that, ideally, a 20th level monk is using Dim Mak and Quivering Palm maneuvers, and you are all broken inside, stunned or disabled, but don't realize you are dead until a round or two later, and a 20th level fighter just chops you in half. Same end result, different ways of going about it.

Two handed weapons just need to be the ultimate in damage dealing in D&D again, for most normal dungeon scenarios. Once you're using Lances or Polearms from a mount, that's something else entirely.

But if I do ever get that 29-strength belt of Storm Giant strength, I do NOT want it to just mean I cannot miss except on a natural 2 or less. I want to be a fearsome sight, lifting a table with 5 orcs on it and throwing the whole thing into the pit, I want my sword to cut that IRON GOLEM in half, I want my warhammer to knock enemies left and right out of my way, Sauron-stylez.

You cannot do that sort of stuff with just a to-hit bonus. Needs a damage bonus and perhaps some maneuvers like "Throw enemy" depend on your strength mod and their weight. I do not want some "power" in a martial-themed character who does not use magic, to overcome the fact that he has 8 strength but stilll says "you knock your opponent back 20 feet".

I did martial arts for many years and know it's not just your weight, but your ability to deliver explosive bursts of strength, in say, a shuffling side kick to push your target back. But key word there : strength. A smaller / weaker monk would NOT be using that kind of northern style show of force, they'd be doing internal styles that focus on attacking pressure points or sensitive areas to "crit" instead.

The big brutish barbarian hordes lost out despite vast size differences and far greater numbers to roman soldiers, due to training, discipline, and smart choices of gear. But one on one is not the same, and the romans used Germans for the Praetorian Guard for a reason. Because they were big, scary-lookin' mofos that you didn't mess with, like twice the size of the average roman. Very intimidating. So the huge guy who focused on his strengh might win smaller battles, but larger ones requiring tactics and coordination and discipline would favour those with better training.

My point is : I want D&D to mimick and allow both of those biases in combat. And yeah, the big brutish guys would use bigger weapons for a reason. Definitely to take advantage of a larger strength mod bonus to damage

D&D rules adding a min and a max str mod per weapon, would allow this, and is not calculated each round, just written down once on your character sheet and bam, done.

 

[Stalker0]

I don't know much about swordfighting but I do play baseball, and a bigger guy hits the ball harder.

People are saying that technique matters more than strength, and I completely agree. But Dnd assumes every martial type is very competent technique-wise so the question is...does strength matter when technique is constant?

Second, people are talking about using a knife or a sword against bare flesh, and yes in that scenario strength probably doesn't mean that much.

But in Dnd, we are talking about fighting men in armor, and beasts with hides tougher than steel. Strength helps penetrate armor, helps break down shields, helps cut through bones 10 times thicker than a man's.


But all that said, I still don't mind trying out ability stats only applying to attacks instead of damage, but for a balance reason....not a realistic one.

 

[Falling Icicle]

Perhaps it would be more accurate to say it like this: once a minimum necessary strength is met, any extra strength does not provide an increase to damage. It's the weapon itself and the technique behind the strike that determines the effectiveness of the attack. As I stated earlier, the amount of damage from a sword strike by a trained attacker with 10 strength is going to be virtually the same as an attacker with 20 strength. They are both equally able to impale a target or sever a limb. Watch videos of people doing test cuts with swords and you'll notice that it really deosn't take a significant amount of strength to cut through an animal carcass (like a deer). It's much more about proper technique (proper draw during the cut, proper grip on the weapon, and proper cut angle to keep the blade from flexing during the cut).

It does make a difference, the difference is just "overkill." Once you are strong enough to cut through a limb, being even stronger doesn't really matter. This is also represented in game mechanics. An 18 Str character might do 10 damage on average, while a 10 Str character might do 6. Both are enough to one-shot a 4 HP Kobold. But put both of these guys up against a hulking ogre, and that extra strength is no longer wasted!