D&D 5E Random Starter Set Teaser from Google+

[Ruin Explorer]

He said it is always better. Showing a single counter-example conclusively demonstrates that he was incorrect, full stop.

(This is why words like "always" should generally be avoided. But not always.)

It's one of those times you can be technically "right", yet that actually be actively degrading the quality of discussion, I feel, personally. It's an argument that has nothing to do with the rules, or the game, really, just the semantics of the English language.

Alternately and more kindly one could say:

"Technically correct, the best kind of correct!"

On a completely different note:

One thing not much considered yet is that this is the Starter Set table - presumably the actual PHB will offer a more interesting set of weapons.

Hopefully the rest of the game isn't filled with such facepalm-worthy stuff. This is strike 1 for me. Damage on a miss is strike 2. Polearms being double heavy weapons with threatening reach is strike 3 (it's spike chain city all over again).

After that I'm out.

Er, is 5E then on 2 strikes for you with a very likely 3rd coming up, then? I mean, as of October playtest, Polearms, with a Feat, were Double, Heavy, Two-handed weapons, which, for a Fighter with the Two-Handed style, do damage on a miss, and had Reach, which, with the same Feat, acted kind of like Threatening Reach.

It seems kind of unlikely that'll have changed, but I guess you live in hope, like the rest of us. Does seem a little strange you called yourself DDNFan, when, apparently, just the material in the October playtest was enough to make you "out" of the game.

 

[Agamon]

I don't think anyone's saying this is a *huge* deal. It's an annoyance that didn't need to exist. Don't assume that people who disagree with you are ignorant of game theory. If you're thinking about game theory, you're looking for strategies that are more likely to win, or less likely to lose. Doing less damage on average means you're more likely to lose.

I've already stated why I believe this in too insignificant to worry about, so I won't post it again, as I'm sure it too would just be ignored. I would also post yet again about how easy a fix this is if it does appear to be a problem for you, or, that if one does like to optimize that this is a bonus easter egg, but that would just get ignored too.

So I guess we'll just agree to disagree and leave it at that. Apologies for trying to use facts to kill a good debate.

 

[Bugleyman]

It's one of those times you can be technically "right", yet that actually be actively degrading the quality of discussion, I feel, personally. It's an argument that has nothing to do with the rules, or the game, really, just the semantics of the English language.

Is there a prize for that?

Seriously, though, I didn't mean to be counter-productive. I just generally wish people would avoid dealing in absolutes (obligatory Star Wars reference inc.)

On a completely different note:

One thing not much considered yet is that this is the Starter Set table - presumably the actual PHB will offer a more interesting set of weapons..

Yup...I thought the same thing. Heck, half of the information about the weapons that are shown may have been omitted from the Starter Set. I know it's fun to discuss mechanics, but I think we'd be better off waiting until we see the full game before we draw too many conclusions.

Though that probably isn't as entertaining...

 

[Mistwell]

Hopefully the rest of the game isn't filled with such facepalm-worthy stuff.

That's the thing - this isn't facepalm-worthy stuff. Objectively speaking it's extremely minor, but you're making it out to be major.

 

[Tormyr]

Who is saying that? The only stupid thing going on here is saying that it makes you a better roleplayer if you consciously pick an inferior choice, over one who doesn't think it's plausible that D&D races wouldn't be aware of the damage differential of the weapons they are using.

I don't see any dwarves manufacturing greataxes over mauls, for instance.

Mauls also have the added benefit of being less resisted and more creatures have vulnerability to blunt damage.

Hopefully the rest of the game isn't filled with such facepalm-worthy stuff. This is strike 1 for me. Damage on a miss is strike 2. Polearms being double heavy weapons with threatening reach is strike 3 (it's spike chain city all over again).

After that I'm out.

I don't think people are saying they are better roleplayers for consciously choosing "inferior weapons." I think they are saying it makes you a better roleplayer if you choose a weapon that fits your character or make a reason why your character chose the weapon that you, the player, wanted to use. Even, "It does a miniscule amount more damage," would be a legitimate reason for a character to choose a weapon.

More often though (in real life), I would say someone chooses a favored weapon because of tradition, culture, technological advances, natural adeptness or it looks cool.

Being a better role player is about inhabiting a role to the point that little things do not get in the way of acting how your character would act. These include not necessarily choosing the optimum weapon over a weapon that fits the character's story better, ignoring player knowledge and acting only upon character knowledge and following a fleeing villain that you have sworn your oath of enmity upon.

 

[Sword of Spirit]

So a Great Club is for Strength people and the quarterstaff for Dex? Finesse always uses Dex or only if its better?

The Great Club/Quarterstaff (unless I am missing something) I dont understand it. Maybe the crit damage is missing component, the Great Club does a +d8 while the staff does +d6?

You can make a lighter weapon deal the same damage as the other weapon + use it in one hand with a shield if you want to for only 1 gp more. ??

Unless the designers are trying to say ... hey Great Club users you really only use great clubs at the start of the game, and you should be using the more powerful martial weapons or they are for monsters. We know druids and Wizards use Staves so they're balanced for those players. IF that is the intention that Great Clubs are meant to be an inferior choice then I suppose it is working as intended.

But, I wouldn't tell a player using a great club ... why are you using that? are you stupid?! He might like the idea of a giant tree branch kicking ass.

Finesse can use either Str or Dex.

Quarterstaves are versatile, which means they can be used in one hand for 1d6 or two-handed for 1d8. So they are already as good as a mace or a greatclub. You just choose which weapon to emulate.

My two-hand finesse quarterstaff houserule will make the mace useful (since quarterstaff won't work one-handed), make the quarterstaff cooler (without actually making it any more powerful), at the expensive of making the great club a strictly inferior weapon, just like the regular club. I'm kinda okay with clubs being the worst weapons, since you can just pick up any old object of about the right size and call it a club.

A greatclub is still just as useful for a brawny character who doesn't intend to finesse it. And most characters who are going to be focusing on swinging large objects will have martial weapon proficiency anyway, which provides a superior option in the maul.

 

[occam]

I've already stated why I believe this in too insignificant to worry about, so I won't post it again, as I'm sure it too would just be ignored. I would also post yet again about how easy a fix this is if it does appear to be a problem for you, or, that if one does like to optimize that this is a bonus easter egg, but that would just get ignored too.

So I guess we'll just agree to disagree and leave it at that. Apologies for trying to use facts to kill a good debate.

You aren't using facts, you're using your opinion. You "believe this in too insignificant to worry about", which is fine. Others don't, and their opinions are equally valid. There's no disagreement over the facts.

I just wish Wizards had continued the weapon design philosophy used in earlier playtest packets, and in 4e, and largely in 3e. Then, those not bothered by small imbalances would still be happy, and those who are bothered would also be happy. I don't understand why they would create obvious, if small, imbalances when they're easily avoidable.

 

[Agamon]

You aren't using facts, you're using your opinion. You "believe this in too insignificant to worry about", which is fine. Others don't, and their opinions are equally valid. There's no disagreement over the facts.

My opinion wasn't the facts I was inferring to. The facts are that this is the way it is, and there simple ways to deal with it.

A .5 point of damage difference actually making some sort of significant difference in any given battle being very rare is also fact. Whether one is bothered or not by that is opinion, and as I stated, I understand why some would have that opinion.

I just wish Wizards had continued the weapon design philosophy used in earlier playtest packets, and in 4e, and largely in 3e. Then, those not bothered by small imbalances would still be happy, and those who are bothered would also be happy. I don't understand why they would create obvious, if small, imbalances when they're easily avoidable.

Maybe we don't actually have the whole story. This might be something to ask Mears on Twitter.

 

[Ruzak]

I am certainly not a charop guy, and I fall in the "find this annoying but will live" camp. It is a little less fun knowing your flavor choices are not only suboptimal, but just flat out worse. Might there be something in the weapon descriptions we are missing, such as axes being useful for tripping or cutting wood or something?

 

[DDNFan]

Er, is 5E then on 2 strikes for you with a very likely 3rd coming up, then? I mean, as of October playtest, Polearms, with a Feat, were Double, Heavy, Two-handed weapons, which, for a Fighter with the Two-Handed style, do damage on a miss, and had Reach, which, with the same Feat, acted kind of like Threatening Reach.

It seems kind of unlikely that'll have changed, but I guess you live in hope, like the rest of us. Does seem a little strange you called yourself DDNFan, when, apparently, just the material in the October playtest was enough to make you "out" of the game.

Damage on a miss is probably toast though, which is why I've been playing D&D Next twice a week for months now in a campaign that will likely evolve into the final rules. There will be an axeman pregen who will definitely have the final GWF selected, there is just no way they're releasing damage on a miss as the preselected feature for the new edition. I have it on good sources that it was removed during private playtests.

The greatsword / greataxe divide is house-rulable, but still bothersome. Polearms are another story. One of my characters is a dual wielder, and about to turn level 4. It's vexing to look at Dual Wielder feat compared with Polearm Master feat, which is loads and loads better, and if they don't fix that, it seems like they haven't understood a single thing about feat balance and the rest of the game is probably going to have similar trap choices in it.

Trap choices are poor game design, I thought they wrote some L&L articles about how they didn't want system mastery to be a thing in 5th edition. If my character picks Dual Wielder instead of Polearm Master, he will gain only 2/3rds the benefit of great weapon master, while giving up reach and a possible extra attack, as well as extra damage. It seems like the design team should have spent more time reading the text of the feedback they received instead of multiple choice radio buttons. My character, when comparing which to take, would think, gee, do I want to do d10 damage with reach possibly 3x per round, and d4 + mods (two weapon fighting + colossus slayer d6 + any other buffs that may or may not benefit a single weapon or multiple weapons). They gave paladins access to two weapon fighting style, yet didn't think to make Sacred Weapon, another class feature, benefit both weapons? Or even divide the bonus between each hand, for symmetry? More facepalm stuff. They should spend more time peering over their work with a critical eye. I noticed tons of bugs that many others brought up and they probably didn't fix half of them.

Maybe then they could explain to us why they thought it was a good idea for Mauls and Greatswords to be better than Greataxes, and why rapiers are 2 lbs and non-light, whereas scimitars are 3lbs and light.

To quote someone on another forum, maybe Mearls thinks 2 is greater than 3. I've swung rapiers and scimitars in real life, and rapiers are both much lighter and much easier to swing (weight doesn't always tell the whole story, but in this case, it definitely does).

Don't mistake my criticisms here for assent that prior editions are perfect or even better. They aren't. But 5th ed could have been so much better than it already is turning out to be. I don't believe those who think that it's pithy to say "don't let perfect be the enemy of good", that sounds like a rationalisation for lazy mediocrity.