D&D 5E Mike Mearls's Tweets

[Warbringer]

And worst of all, the huge damage potential of deadly strike makes using other maneuvers too costly an option.

I think this is the real problem. Unless the number of dice in deadly strike is limited, all other damage sources wil pale in comparison, unless there really is a major advantage to non damage maneuvers ending combat faster.

I really think damage dice should not change, but be fixed, probably by weapon type, then limit the number of dice that can go into direct damage.

It's nice to think that players will try to simulate powers from 4e with ED, but in reality, I'd guess at least 70% of the time they will spam damage.

 

[GX.Sigma]

Ok, let me try to explain this better...

Ah, I see. I totally agree with the desire for slower scaling in general, but... if damage and HP scale so slowly that a +4 is always relevant, then what exactly is scaling? We're not getting better attacks and defenses, and we're not dealing significantly more damage, so what does a Fighter get after 9 levels? (Note that this has to be on par with what the Wizard gets after 9 levels, which is cloudkill, dominate person, et.al.)

Also, I think many of your criticisms could be addressed simply by slowing down the Expertise progression (or making it ramp up to 4d6 instead of 3d10, or whatever).

 

[Argyle King]

Actually, this is in fact more realistic. A weapon deals damage because of its own weight, and because it's got one of two main advantages: it's sharp, or it has all of its weight at the end-point to lend momentum to a swing.

Realistically, the only thing strength would do to help with a weapon is to let you wield the bigger ones more easily. This is (somewhat abstractly) modeled by adding Strength to your attack roll: higher Strength allows you to wield a heavy weapon with greater ease, allowing you to attack more fluidly and thus hit more often.

I don't particularly mind how they do it, but if you're gonna complain about "realism", then adding Strength to damage is far less realistic than not.

Eh... I have to disagree.

I can easily cut through a tough steak with a knife. My children --even if using the same knife-- cannot. If we change the target from a tough steak to an adversary during combat, I'm going to go out on a limb and say that I'm capable of doing more damage with a knife thrust than one of my children are able to with the same knife and same attack.

Also, it's worth noting that what many weapons are designed to do is act as a lever --which does increase the amount of strength/damage generated from a swing. While that means the weapon is amplifying what the user can do, the amount of strength I start with is going to factor into how much damage is amplified. To be fair, there is a point at which a weapon reaches a limit and cannot do anymore; there's only so much force that a dagger or sword can carry, and --beyond a certain point-- more strength will not help any more. However, to say that more strength has no value at all is something I believe to be a false statement.

You can test this very easily. Ask a 5 year old to hit you with a baseball bat. Then ask an adult to do the same. It is my belief that the latter is going to cause more damage.

 

[Falling Icicle]

Ah, I see. I totally agree with the desire for slower scaling in general, but... if damage and HP scale so slowly that a +4 is always relevant, then what exactly is scaling? We're not getting better attacks and defenses, and we're not dealing significantly more damage, so what does a Fighter get after 9 levels? (Note that this has to be on par with what the Wizard gets after 9 levels, which is cloudkill, dominate person, et.al.)

When they were originally talking about flatter math and their design goals for 5e, they mentioned that gaining levels was going to be alot more about getting more abilities and cooler stuff (like more/better maneuvers, in the case of fighters) than it was about bigger numbers. Yes, the numbers would still grow, but at a much slower pace than before. And while this is true of the way they're doing AC and attack bonuses, they're doing just the opposite with hp and damage.

I think 4e did a pretty good job of keeping damage scaling to a reasonable level. Sneak Attack, for example, started at 2d6 and only improved at level 11 and 21, to 3d6 and 5d6 respectively. Strikers such as rogues got abilities like that and while the bonus was significant enough to matter, it wasn't enough to leave non-striker classes in the dust. Spells in 4e were similar. Fireball, a 5th level spell, did 5d6 + int mod. Meteor Swarm, a 29th level spell, did 8d6 + Int mod. Of course, hp bloat was still a problem in 4e, and 4e's math wasn't perfect, but I think it was a big step in the right direction in those regards. As far as Next is concerned, 9th level spells don't need to be 9 times as powerful as 1st level spells. I'd much rather they be closer to 3 times as powerful.

Also, I think many of your criticisms could be addressed simply by slowing down the Expertise progression (or making it ramp up to 4d6 instead of 3d10, or whatever).

I think they could do a few things better with expertise dice. One idea people have suggested is that expertise dice be [W] dice. That would help your choice of weapon be relevant and a strategic choice, though they would need to have some incentive to use lighter weapons. Most importantly, I think they should change Deadly Strike so that you only use the highest die roll instead of adding them all together. That way, having more dice is still an increase in power, but it doesn't allow your damage to skyrocket as you go up in level and it doesn't make all of the other maneuvers pointless in comparison.

 

[Szatany]

I think this is the real problem. Unless the number of dice in deadly strike is limited, all other damage sources wil pale in comparison, unless there really is a major advantage to non damage maneuvers ending combat faster.

I really think damage dice should not change, but be fixed, probably by weapon type, then limit the number of dice that can go into direct damage.

I'm ok if they change, but the values must be reigned in.

Level 1: 1d4
Level 2: 1d6
Level 3: 1d6
Level 4: 1d4+1d6
Level 5: 1d6+1d6
Level 6: 2d6
Level 7: 2d6
Level 8: 1d6+2d4
Level 9: 2d6+1d4
Level 10: 3d6

 

[Derren]

Eh... I have to disagree.

I can easily cut through a tough steak with a knife. My children --even if using the same knife-- cannot. If we change the target from a tough steak to an adversary during combat, I'm going to go out on a limb and say that I'm capable of doing more damage with a knife thrust than one of my children are able to with the same knife and same attack.

Don't compare yourself to children but to, for example, a body builder way stronger than you. Both of you can cut flesh easily. Do you really think that he can somehow do more damage with a knife than you?

 

[Steely_Dan]

Thereby reducing the damage and HP across the board...

Have they talked about reducing HP as well?

I have no problem with no ability modifier to damage, especially for monsters.

But I am not thrilled with Expertise, it's pretty cool, but I am already getting dubious of its future.

 

[Amurayi]

... +1

 

[UngeheuerLich]

That way, having more dice is still an increase in power, but it doesn't allow your damage to skyrocket as you go up in level and it doesn't make all of the other maneuvers pointless in comparison.

But it is indeed important that the damage skyrockets...

Maybe the default scaling should not be too big, but it needs to scale up so much, that increasing in level means doing so much more damage that threats of a much lower level are minionized...

Damage scaling seems important in this edition. And while damage always scaled with spells, it now also does for weapon wielders.

And when you look at old ADnD, damage of spells always scaled with 1d4 or 1d6 per level. So we should not be too afraid of giving weapon wielders good stuff.

 

[Bluenose]

Pretty much. I think DDN could work towards making weapons more situational, such as penalties to two-handed weapons in confined spaces.

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.