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

[Li Shenron]

First of all, similar weapons have different costs. Why in the world would anyone buy a greatsword when they could get a maul for cheaper?

Second of all, the greataxe is useless. Look at it. 1d12. The maul and greatsword (which are otherwise similar to the greataxe) have 2d6. Just think about that for a second. The greataxe can deal 1-12 damage. The maul can deal 2-12 damage. In fact, if you do the math, 2d6 averages one point higher than 1d12. So why in the world would anyone use the greataxe?

For the people that down't niggle over DPR and drool over optimization options, use what you like. I'm a greataxe wielding barbarian! Fear me!

For the rest, use the thing that will get you another point per hit. I do 18.73 damage every 2.5 rounds! Fear me!

Best of both worlds!

Do all weapons have to be exactly equal? Why can't some be better than others? I'm fine with it. I'm not a fan of balance just for it's own sake - it's a tool, not a goal.

IMHO the problem is that this actually goes against the casual players.

I like making choices based on character image and "style", as casual players often do. I don't like feeling cheated by the game when I do so, and that's how I would feel if I didn't notice that another weapon (or spell, or another choice) was straight better.

Especially when it could have been *EASY* for the designers to fix that! I mean, look at the weapons list in the 3.0 PHB as an example, it was hard to find two weapons one of which was straight better than another, there was nearly always a trade-off.

Two nearly identical weapons are not a problem. If they are truly identical but they have a small price difference, I easily get over it since minute money differences are irrelevant after a level or two, but even in that case I'd be so easy to compensate for instance by making the cheaper weapon a little heavier to carry.

Maybe I am too OCD about details (I do that at work all the time...) but seeing designers being told their details are a little off and not seeing them taking any actions, is what we call sloppy design.

 

[FitzTheRuke]

There are some weapons that aren't as good as others, but I find it pretty minimal. A half point of damage (a whole one on crits!) less is really not that big a deal, IMO.

Presumably there will be feats and features to make up some of the difference, and really, who was any good with the trident, aside from gladiators? If the trident was actually GOOD, you'd have tons of characters running around with it, and it's really a strange weapon, isn't it?

Besides, if all the weapons are mechanically equal, then we'd have another issue, simulationists might start complainining. Weapons really weren't all created equal. (Not that this list reflects much of that, D&D is not terribly simulationist.)

 

[The Black Ranger]

There <em>are</em> some weapons that aren't as good as others, but I find it pretty minimal. A half point of damage (a whole one on crits!) less is really not that big a deal, IMO.<br>
<br>
Presumably there will be feats and features to make up some of the difference, and really, who was any good with the trident, aside from gladiators? If the trident was actually GOOD, you'd have tons of characters running around with it, and it's really a strange weapon, isn't it?<br>
<br>

<br><br>Uthegental Del'Armgo would like to have a word with you.<br>
<br>

 

[GX.Sigma]

Wait, hold on... The quarterstaff is 1d6/1d8?! Why would anyone use a mace in this world? How does a quarterstaff (a two-handed whacking stick, wielded awkwardly in one hand) deal more damage than a club (which is specifically a one-handed whacking stick)?

 

[pemerton]

First of all, similar weapons have different costs. Why in the world would anyone buy a greatsword when they could get a maul for cheaper?

Second of all, the greataxe is useless. Look at it. 1d12. The maul and greatsword (which are otherwise similar to the greataxe) have 2d6.

For what it's worth, I agree with your post.

The crit rules from the playtest would make a difference here: assuming 1 in 12 hits is a crit (hit 9+ on d20, crit on a nat 20), then expected damage from a great axe hit is 6.5 + 12 (max)/12 (1 in 12 hits crits), or 7.5. Whereas expected damage from a 2h sword is (7*11 + 15.5)/12 = 7.7. Which is very close, and increasing crit range by 1 (or other benefits, like advantage) would tip great axe into the lead.

But that is very opaque. And multiple damage dice for weapons cause other headaches too, like the debates in the early 4e days around how the vorpal property interacts with a 2d4 falchion. Just make them all d12 weapons and be done with it!

Greatsword is flat out numerically superior in every way, as well as a much more common drop (with better properties too) in the magic item tables.

Does 1d12 damage confer any benefit for crits over 2d6? If so, that slightly makes up for it, if you're a warrior.

I've done some maths above, assuming a 60% hit chance and a nat 20 to crit. But I still think this is very opaque, and not a good thing in a starter set.

Because we've all grown up a bit and realised that character > math?

For the people that down't niggle over DPR and drool over optimization options, use what you like. I'm a greataxe wielding barbarian! Fear me!

a player might feel that a greataxe fits their character concept better than a maul.[/

<snip>

story and character trumps math and rules, or at least it should.

If in fact a greatsword is a more fearsome weapon than a greataxe, then why would NPCs fear the greataxe wielding barbarian? The story of that character is going to be one of doing slightly less damage than the greatsword wielder for the whole campaign.

If weapon choice is in fact motivated primarily by player aesthetic judgements, then why make it a system mastery thing too?

the game punishes that player for not mastering the system first.

Agreed. Just make them all 1d12 weapons.

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?

This too.

 

[Li Shenron]

If you read the critical hit rules, you'll see that this is wrong. On a critical hit, a greatsword deals 12+1d6. A greataxe deals 12+1d12. Much like 3E, you're trading lower average damage for a better critical.

I forgot about that... if crit rules stay the same then there is indeed a choice between greataxe and greatsword.

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.

Agree wholeheartedly.

I may not care much about the math, but that doesn't mean the designers shouldn't care, because clearly lots of other gamers do!

If they make a math-sloppy game, those who don't care are happy and those who care are sad.

If they make a math-reliable game, those who care are happy, and those who don't care... well they don't care so clearly they are happy too!

 

[ren1999]

When you think about weapons in 5E, consider this.

Weapon experts right here on Enworld have informed us that a primary and secondary attack had equal accuracy but the damage of the secondary attack is always less.

Statistically 2d6 does only .5% more damage than 1d12. So 2d6 just adds time to the game.

Damage Dice Variety
1d4+proficiency bonus damage secondary attack
1d4+proficiency bonus+ability mod damage primary attack
1d6, 1d8, 1d10, 1d12

Consider weapon types
one handed small weapons(more attack actions)
two handed large weapons(more critical chances)
versatile bastard weapons(one or two hands)
grappling weapons(grapple at advantage)
bludgeoning weapons(knock unconscious option)
thrown weapons
projectile weapons
slashing weapons(a small bonus vs non-metal armor)
piercing weapons(a small bonus vs metal armor)

 

[Majoru Oakheart]

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.

I believe you're mixing up metagaming with roleplaying.

Your character would have absolutely no way of knowing which one was "deadlier". Most people in the world have 1 hp and die when you hit them with ANY weapon. Hitpoints are themselves an abstraction. Hit someone in the skull with any weapon and they die. HP just determine how good your opponent is at blocking, dodging, parrying, and maneuvering in combat. As well as how lucky they are and how blessed by the gods they are and how well they can take a non-solid blow.

I always assume from an in character point of view that most attacks go like this:
I attack with my Greataxe and do 6 points of damage="I swing my Greataxe at the enemy who parries the blow, preventing me from hitting them in the head, but it deflects off their weapon and slams into their side, giving them a nice bruise."

and

I attack with my Greatsword and do 7 points of damage="I swing my Greatsword at the enemy who parries the blow, preventing me from hitting them in the head, but it deflects off their weapon and slams into their side, giving them a nice bruise."

 

[Kobold Stew]

A few observations:

1. I'm happy the "loading" property stayed as it is. Fighters and elves will naturally gravitate towards longbows, but for most of us, the crossbow becomes a sensible chice. When was the last time that happened?

2. I'm not worried about the differences between Greataxe and Greatsword: player experience of the math is more important than the actual math. Very few players will experience the .2 points difference (assuming numbers given above), but they will remember doing Max Damage more often.

3. However fun it will be, using a quarterstaff one-handed will likely be overplayed -- it, to me, does seem the automatic choice for druids and mages.

For that, I agree:

Wait, hold on... The quarterstaff is 1d6/1d8?! Why would anyone use a mace in this world? How does a quarterstaff (a two-handed whacking stick, wielded awkwardly in one hand) deal more damage than a club (which is specifically a one-handed whacking stick)?

4. Where are the pole arms? Glaive, halberd, pike?

 

[Teataine]

I believe weapons are missing because this is the starter set and you only need weapon stats for pregens and monsters and it saves space. The PHB/Basic will have the rest.

And I think we need some mental image shifting. There was never something like the longsword historically. So merging them with bastatd swords only makes sense. Same with quarterstaff. I think we should stop thinking of it like an old man's walking staff (treat that as a club rather) but a monk's iron-clad battle staff. I think the inferiority of the club comes from the fact it's basically an improvised weapon. Break a leg off a table or a branch off a tree and presto, you have a club. The mace is the new club in that sense.