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

[CM]

I really don't get the response of "who cares about math?"

The point is they've had two years to fix the math and for whatever reason it wasn't done. Yes, people who want to use a greataxe for flavor's sake will continue to do so, but if the math was fixed they wouldn't have to be gimping themselves in the process.

Before I get jumped on, it's not something I'm flipping out over, just a minor disappointment.

 

[Jeff Carlsen]

One thing I've noticed over the years is that some players like rolls like 2d6, with a bell curve that trends toward the average, and some enjoy more volatile roles like 1d12, where high and low numbers are more common. I tend to prefer the former, but that alone is enough reason to have both.

 

[Paraxis]

I can't confirm where I heard or saw this, maybe a tweet or a post in google+ but somewhere in the past month I could have sworn they said the final crit rule was going back to just double damage to keep it simple. Not +[W] or an extra die, just roll your normal damage and double it ability modifier/rage bonus/spell buffs and all.

On to roleplaying what weapon a character would pick. A trained seasoned warrior would know that a greatsword is a deadlier weapon than a greataxe, so why would the character decide to use the greataxe?
To me it is very in character to pick the most optimal weapons, feats, talents, etc...my character doesn't want to die, he doesn't want to let his companions die, he should do all he can to keep himself and loved ones alive. That means all my characters optimize for roleplaying reasons.

 

[mach1.9pants]

For me you either have some weapons that are mathematically better than others or you just wipe the lot and go the way of 13th Age, class based damage. If all weapons are exactly equally balanced, well there cannot be many weapons on the list, there is only so many ways to split damage/hands/range etc, especially without the crit range of 3x or wep tables of 1E. So I like some to be suboptimal, it is not like they are so suboptimal your character will become useless in combat.

 

[The Human Target]

I mean, I knew it wasn't going to happen with this edition.

But I was still hoping for all weapons being different but equal.

I'm sure we'll have full blades and executioner's axes back soon enough as well.

 

[Blackwarder]

One thing I've noticed over the years is that some players like rolls like 2d6, with a bell curve that trends toward the average, and some enjoy more volatile roles like 1d12, where high and low numbers are more common. I tend to prefer the former, but that alone is enough reason to have both.

Exactly, im prety sure that one if the reasons you have 1d12 and 2d6 weapons, I personaly like rolling a 1d12.

Warder

 

[the Jester]

I can't confirm where I heard or saw this, maybe a tweet or a post in google+ but somewhere in the past month I could have sworn they said the final crit rule was going back to just double damage to keep it simple. Not +[W] or an extra die, just roll your normal damage and double it ability modifier/rage bonus/spell buffs and all.

If it's roll and double, whether bonuses are doubled or not, it seems that greataxe crits are more likely to be either very high or relatively low damage. Basically, the axe is swingier than the sword.

It's a matter of taste, do you want a tiny bit more damage consistently or bigger swings in damage output with a higher potential for lots in a single blow?

 

[occam]

For me you either have some weapons that are mathematically better than others or you just wipe the lot and go the way of 13th Age, class based damage. If all weapons are exactly equally balanced, well there cannot be many weapons on the list, there is only so many ways to split damage/hands/range etc, especially without the crit range of 3x or wep tables of 1E.

That's not true. 4e has a much more extensive weapon list than this, and it always involves tradeoffs in making a weapon choice. Strictly mathematically inferior weapons are almost nonexistent. I'm surprised they didn't just follow the same guideline with this edition. In fact, earlier versions of the Next playtest rules were more balanced.

Paraphrasing another poster, if someone really wants to use a greatclub or a mace and miss out on the versatility of a quarterstaff, and they know that's what they're doing, fine. What bugs me is that some will use a mace "because that's what clerics use" or something, and not realize what they've missed. This is the 3e system mastery argument all over again, and it could've been avoided just by tweaking a few numbers.

 

[mach1.9pants]

Except the damage is the same if they are using a shield (+2 to AC, finally shields are more worthwhile) or one handed, which is what a mace user is going to be doing. Their character is not broken or rubbish, just very slightly less optimal/versatile

I can't get worried about it. If it did a d4 then yeah, but they both do a d6.

 

[occam]

If it's roll and double, whether bonuses are doubled or not, it seems that greataxe crits are more likely to be either very high or relatively low damage. Basically, the axe is swingier than the sword.

It's a matter of taste, do you want a tiny bit more damage consistently or bigger swings in damage output with a higher potential for lots in a single blow?

Well, if that's really how crits work now, it's also a half-point less average damage on normal hits, and a full point less on crits. I'm one of those people that can't help but take simple optimizations. *If* that's the current rule, I would never, ever choose to use a greataxe over a greatsword, and I would make sure the character concept worked with that. But I would prefer for it to be an even choice.