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

[Ruin Explorer]

Agreed. Complete balance is only achievable through homogenization, which I don't think is worth it. I'd rather see the game and DMs encourage players to build their characters based upon a concept rather than optimization.

Some balance is a good thing, but the rules as is seem to do that just fine.

It's funny that you say this, because people reject homogenization because it's boring, and the current weapon list for 5E is nothing if not boring, I'd say.

 

[Halivar]

It's funny that you say this, because people reject homogenization because it's boring, and the current weapon list for 5E is nothing if not boring, I'd say.

It's a mundane weapon table. What were you looking for?

You say this almost as if you were unaware that D&D originally had all weapons do equal damage.

Well, 1st Edition is as early as I've ever gone; sounds like that idea was chucked out pretty early on.

 

[Jan van Leyden]

That's a useless example because in D&D, enemy HP grows extremely rapidly, but weapon damage does not. In a lot of games, where enemy HP was static, that'd be a totally valid example, and I'd agree. Not D&D though. Not 5E. Enemy HP rapidly goes outside the range where your example makes any sense, because the way you get extra weapon-based damage in 5E is extra attacks or static modifiers, both of which push things towards averages. So yeah, no, try again.

My example isn't "useless" as Li Shenron's calld the sword "always mechanically better". Which it isn't.

I'll grant that against a monster with 100 hp DPR is much more important than probability of high damage. This guy would take on the average 14.28 hits with the sword as opposed to 15.38 with the axe.

So unless the hp numbers for enemies for 1st-level characters are some 100 hp, I stand by my argument.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

My example isn't "useless" as Li Shenron's calld the sword "always mechanically better". Which it isn't.

I'll grant that against a monster with 100 hp DPR is much more important than probability of high damage. This guy would take on the average 14.28 hits with the sword as opposed to 15.38 with the axe.

So unless the hp numbers for enemies for 1st-level characters are some 100 hp, I stand by my argument.

It's increasingly invalid as monsters go up in HP. Your "lol 100hp at level 1" stuff is silly business. Every level makes your argument less and less relevant. Even at L1 it's less relevant than you suggest, because most monsters have HP that either have both equally good, or favour the GS. If you want to stand by that, that's up to you, but it remains pretty useless.

 

[Halivar]

Your "lol 100hp at level 1" stuff is gibberish.

That's not what he said or how he said it.

EDIT: Why did you throw in the "lol"?

 

[Ruin Explorer]

That's not what he said or how he said it.

It pretty much is - he says "unless the hp numbers for enemies for 1st-level characters are some 100 hp", which is a nonsense-argument. That "unless" if a false unless.

I threw it in to show he was attempting to ridicule my position, which he was.

EDIT - I didn't mean literally gibberish, perhaps that's confusion? I mean nonsensical, which is why I edited my post.

 

[Pickles JG]

The 10 HP monster also has a greater chance of surviving 2 hits from the axe user than the sword user (or 3 or 4) so whether it's better even in this case is very moot.

I see the appeal of different dice too - I hate gambling & the despair of rolling a 1 on my d12 is never made up by rolling a 12 on a crit.

That said I do not mind the small difference between these weapons exspecially if crits do balance it some way. I do not mind the pointless unless you want to stage gladiatorial fights Trident.

I would prefer "homogenisation" if it lets some people play an axe wielder & others play a sword user with no mechanical penalty - I don't see why it is better that these are dehomogenised by making one inferior as a player is just as able to flavour their weapon if it has the same stats as if it has worse ones.

I would really like to see small but equivalent differences between weapons cf 4e. I do not mind detailed good rules or simple light rules what I do not like is the half assed bad maths hybrid.

 

[Zaukrie]

Not everyone feels punished for using a weapon that deals as much damage as another weapon. I don't understand the anger.

 

[Halivar]

Not everyone feels punished for using a weapon that deals as much damage as another weapon. I don't understand the anger.

Or why it's suddenly an issue NOW.

 

[TwoSix]

My example isn't "useless" as Li Shenron's calld the sword "always mechanically better". Which it isn't.

I'll grant that against a monster with 100 hp DPR is much more important than probability of high damage. This guy would take on the average 14.28 hits with the sword as opposed to 15.38 with the axe.

So unless the hp numbers for enemies for 1st-level characters are some 100 hp, I stand by my argument.

I agree, this is a very valid argument. DPR is an average. Average is a great tool when you're measuring against a large sample size, such as attacking a 100 HP monster where you do 1d12+4 damage, and it might take 20 attacks to kill it. It's not as useful for measuring effectiveness against a monster with 10 HP. The more relevant metric for those battles is "What is the probability of killing the monster in X attacks?" The greatsword has a lower average number of attacks necessary, but it also has a lower probability of killing the monster in 1 attack. And that probability, the chance to do high burst damage, is a valuable strategic difference. We all know that an injured monster is just as dangerous as an intact one in D&D.

I would argue, in fact, that in a comparison between the 2d6 weapon and a hypothetical 1d12 brutal 1 weapon (for non 4e players, brutal 1 means re-roll 1s on damage.), the 1d12 weapon is obviously superior because of its greater burst potential, despite having the same average and range of damage values.