D&D 5E Mike Mearls's Tweets

[Li Shenron]

With the "HP damage is not real wounds until you drop to 0" idea of the last and the next editions, all your clever dissertations tend to fly a bit over the head...

 

[WhatGravitas]

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

Yeah, I'd really like that, too - better weapon training = more damage. Of course, differentiating weapons is neat, too - but it doesn't have to be damage. 4E did a nice job with introducing mundane weapons with interesting mechanics - Brutal, High Crit etc. I could really see a system where the damage dice is determined by your class (plus perhaps feats), then have all axes with high crit, all swords with +1 to hit, all hammers with brutal 2, all polearms with extra reach etc.

 

[Li Shenron]

Yeah, I'd really like that, too - better weapon training = more damage. Of course, differentiating weapons is neat, too - but it doesn't have to be damage. 4E did a nice job with introducing mundane weapons with interesting mechanics - Brutal, High Crit etc. I could really see a system where the damage dice is determined by your class (plus perhaps feats), then have all axes with high crit, all swords with +1 to hit, all hammers with brutal 2, all polearms with extra reach etc.

I don't know what 4e did, but 3.0 did it well enough for me. There were different damage dice, weapon sizes, proficiency types, reach, damage type, crit range, crit multiplier, and special weapon abilities. Enough variables to populate a fairly large list of weapons, and the PHB list was balanced enough so that there was a place for almost every core weapon in the game (despite a couple of goofs).

Understandably, there can be gaming groups which aren't interested in all this, and prefer weapon choice to be purely a matter of "image", in which case there can always be a supersimple option that says e.g. "treat everything as a longsword" (or whatever weapons is considered the most "average")..

 

[Bluenose]

Yeah, I'd really like that, too - better weapon training = more damage. Of course, differentiating weapons is neat, too - but it doesn't have to be damage. 4E did a nice job with introducing mundane weapons with interesting mechanics - Brutal, High Crit etc. I could really see a system where the damage dice is determined by your class (plus perhaps feats), then have all axes with high crit, all swords with +1 to hit, all hammers with brutal 2, all polearms with extra reach etc.

4e also put some effects into powers that differed depending on the type of weapon you were using. Personally I'd like to see something along the lines where your class and level - your training, as you suggest, and experience - have most effect on the amount of damage you do, but the type of weapon you use gives the other effects. Dazing with a mace or warhammer, shattered equipment with axes, bleeding from swords, pushed back by polearms. Not that I'm in love with those particular effects, but that would be an interesting module even if it wasn't the default.

 

[GX.Sigma]

Release of design guidelines for homebrewing "very doable," says Mike Mearls on Twitter.

 

[El Mahdi]

Considering that what D&D traditionally considers a shortsword has a 1 to 2 foot blade and a true two-handed sword has a 4 and 1/2 foot blade, a half-sworded two-handed sword would have between 6" to 2 feet greater reach than a shortsword in confined spaces.

And here you're describing only one aspect or factor in which the two-handed sword is more effective. One aspect does not support a blanket statement that larger is more effective.

Weapons are simply tools, tools for the job of defending and attacking. Each tool has its place and use: "The Right Tool For The Job."

Saying one weapon is more effective than another is the same as attempting to say that a hacksaw is more effective than a hammer.

You still have not shown evidence that proves two-handed swords are "more effective" than a short-sword.

Since D&D uses an abstract quantification for things like attack, defense, and Hit Points, making a blanket mechanic that makes one weapon more effective than another has no grounding in reality. If one wants to do so for game balance or game color, then so be it (and I'm fine with that). But don't say it's done because it more closely models real world effectiveness, when it simply does not.

 

[El Mahdi]

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

True, but the effect of more strength is a lot less important than proper technique (proper swing angle, proper wrist position, etc.) and the pitch itself. It doesn't matter how strong the batter is if all he's getting are 70 mph change-ups/off-speed pitches...he's likely not going to be hitting them out of the park. A 100 mph fast-ball? It doesn't matter how strong you are. Have your bat in the right place, at the right time, at the right angle...and that ball is out of here.

Again, technique is far more important than strength.

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?

In my opinion: No. The extra strength is simply wasted for most applications that require proper technique.

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.

Which is a perfect example of why Strength applies to Attack and not Damage. Thank You for proving the point!

Seriously though, overcoming armor, natural armor (tough hide), etc., is predominantly handled by attack in the abstract D&D mechanics - since such things tend to increase A/C. Though an argument could also be made that Hit Points are part of that equation, especially when describing harder bones, larger bodies, etc. - and thus more damage to deal with higher Hit Points would be appropriate.

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.

Agreed 100%. Also, whether this approach more closely models reality or not, I doubt that Mearls and company are making these design decisions based on real world modelling. I'm betting their motivations are completely about balance. It's a tough equation to balance though. It's not just balancing Attack and Damage, it's balancing Attack with Damage with Hit Points. That's a tricky thing to get the right "feel", especially as they want a system that's easy for DM's to tweak at their own table for different feels. They need to know exactly what happens to feel and balance when any one of those three variables change. It's a tall order.

 

[Ultimatecalibur]

And here you're describing only one aspect or factor in which the two-handed sword is more effective. One aspect does not support a blanket statement that larger is more effective.

My original reply to Derren was pointing out the fallacy that in the situation he provided that implied that a shortsword would be potential more effective than a Two-handed sword.

Weapons are simply tools, tools for the job of defending and attacking. Each tool has its place and use: "The Right Tool For The Job."

Saying one weapon is more effective than another is the same as attempting to say that a hacksaw is more effective than a hammer.

Only when you are not comparing them for a job at hand. If you are trying to split boards, both a hacksaw and a hammer could do it but the splits created with the hacksaw would be cleaner and more accurate.

Also a shortsword:two-handed sword isn't a hacksaw:hammer comparison. It is more a 6" hacksaw to 4' handsaw comparison. I'm not comparing a shortsword(a thrusting/cutting weapon) and a mace(a bludgeoning weapon), I'm commenting on a comparison about two thrusting/cutting weapons.

You still have not shown evidence that proves two-handed swords are "more effective" than a short-sword.

I wasn't trying to say that.

Since D&D uses an abstract quantification for things like attack, defense, and Hit Points, making a blanket mechanic that makes one weapon more effective than another has no grounding in reality. If one wants to do so for game balance or game color, then so be it (and I'm fine with that). But don't say it's done because it more closely models real world effectiveness, when it simply does not.

I never did. I think you are confusing me with other posters.

 

[jrowland]

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.

Will you sign my petition where weapons confer a special maneuvers? (Shield gets "block", short sword gets "riposte", greatsword gets "cleave" etc)

P.S. - There is no petition.

 

[Bluenose]

Will you sign my petition where weapons confer a special maneuvers? (Shield gets "block", short sword gets "riposte", greatsword gets "cleave" etc)

P.S. - There is no petition.

Perhaps. Classes get some manoeuvres that they can perform; Rogues have sneak attack and ddge, Monks tumble and ki, Fighters parry and feint - some should be offensive techniques, some defensive. Weapons have manoeuvres, so a Warhammer has stun and armour-piercing, a greatsword has cleave and bleed, a shield has block and push, crossbows are armour piercing and impale. That way, the class has unique abilities compared to other classes, but the weapons they carry also affect what manoeuvres they can perform.