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

[Umbran]

So you've proved he's only right 98% of the time, not 100%? Good job, I guess!

You know that engaging in snark is pretty much dooming your communication to failure, right? So, why do it? Next time, try to resist the impulse. Thanks!

 

[DDNFan]

My point is, if you're attacking a large sack of infinite hp forever, then this matters. It matter a lot, actually. But because we're attacking small bags of hp where much of damage caused will be wasted on the killing blow, attacking as a part of a team, not always hitting, and the difference is that small? Negligible.

The CharOpers are so used to the difference of one build doing 38 damage per attack and another doing 138, that now every little difference in the math appears huge. It's not. The distance between you and your computer screen and the distance between you and the edge of the galaxy are both mathematically measurable. But there's an obvious difference, right?

I'm glad the designers at least understand this, if not everyone.

Let's say two weapons have the exact same average and minimum and maximum damage, except one is more reliable at reaching the average.

Which do you prefer? Do you prefer to take a bus to work that's unreliable but potentially much faster or slower? And take a gamble? This is just a job we're talking about, deadly combat is much more serious. If you have weapon A that's super reliable and weapon B that's much less reliable, but over many many hits they converge to the same value, which is better? Faster convergence is a desirable property for the same reason that having the trains show up on time and follow a schedule is better than trains that can go potentially faster but screw up your schedule. Frustrating, innit? I don't care if train A has a 20% faster top speed than train B, if the average speed of both is the same and train B always shows up when the ticket says it will, and gets me to my destination at the pre-ordained time. This allows you to plan on a schedule, and make that meeting or connection after you get ott. This the same thing for weapon damage, only instead of potentially missing a connection, you could be not killing a crucial foe you're engaged with before it's too late. Swinginess is dangerous. Less swingy is better. That's why it's desired, and it's not just a char op thing, it's an in-game thing. I don't see why dwarves wouldn't notice their chosen weapon's variability is greater through analysis, for the same reason that they would be aware that a greataxe kills enemies faster than a battle axe or a short sword. That's not char op, that's part of the fiction and deals directly with the believability of these weapons.

What some believe is a benefit to the greataxe is actually a penalty. Killing opponent A 1 round sooner but opponent B 1 round later is a wash. Killing opponents A, B, C, D....Z all at a fixed rate would be very advantageous, because it allows you to plan your moves, it allows you and other allies using similar reliable weapons to much more readily ensure that opponent A dies in round X than X+1.

Crits only make it even worse. A crit used to max out the first 12 HP and then add another 1d12 or 2d6. Now it doubles the impact of the greataxe variability, resulting in a lot more overkill than the greatsword would have.

Weapons that are twice as reliable as twice as good, given all other factors are equal. Since the other factors are not equal, then that just compounds the superiority of 2d6 vs 1d12.

In earlier packets dwarves used to get a boost to their hit dice when taking a short rest, so that a barbarian would go from 1d12 to 2d6. How many times have you rolled a 1 on your hit dice? It happens a lot. Here, getting a more reliable average is a big benefit, because it means you will be less likely to waste bonus HP if you are somewhat close to your max, but also less likely to roll a 1 and have to spend 2 HD to achieve the same effect.

In the extreme, if you took out all variability from damage for character A and made them deal the average each time, and twice the average on a crit each time, there are less situations where that would be a disadvantage than an advantage, because there is not always a benefit to dealing more damage (if your total surpasses the foe's current HP), but there is always a benefit to never dealing less than the average.

Greatswords and mauls aren't quite like that, but their distribution function does make them inherently better, and not because of the loss of rolling max damage often. Rolling max damage or close to it, might be exciting at the table, but it's not sound math game design

 

[Mistwell]

Okay, last try;

Li Shenron: "a weapon dealing 2d6 damage is always better than a weapon dealing 1d12 damage."

Me: "in the case of an enemy with 10 hp this is mathematically wrong. Therefore, always better isn't true."

One design goal of 5e, due to bounded accuracy, is to allow for low level creatures to continue to be a threat into mid and even high level play. They do this by increasing the quantity of the creatures. So taking out an orc in one blow will be valuable at all levels of play, and not just for low level play.

 

[Agamon]

Rolling max damage or close to it, might be exciting at the table, but it's not sound math game design

If the design goal is perfect balance, then no, it's not good design.

I don't want to speak for the designers, but it doesn't look like that's the goal this time around.

 

[Pickles JG]

Okay, last try;

Li Shenron: "a weapon dealing 2d6 damage is always better than a weapon dealing 1d12 damage."

Me: "in the case of an enemy with 10 hp this is mathematically wrong. Therefore, always better isn't true."

This is like arguing that because in one in 20 accidents a seat belt actually increases your risk of death it makes sense never to wear one.

(unless you choose to carry a spare great axe about for hitting 10 hp monsters)

Still it's a trivial difference.

 

[Thaumaturge]

Let's say two weapons have the exact same average and minimum and maximum damage, except one is more reliable at reaching the average.

Which do you prefer?

I don't think the people who are saying they'll use a greataxe instead of a greatsword don't understand. I think they just have different preferences.

And it's ok that they do. Especially in a system that allows for both styles. Those who share your point of view have already recommended a number of seemingly easy to implement house rules.

Thaumaturge.

 

[DDNFan]

Some people like dragonborn, some people like gnomes. We'll have both in the game.

Some people like "I swing" fighters, some people like "I maneuver" fighters. We'll have both in the game.

Also, some people like the thrill of a 1d12 weapon, some people like the reliability of a 2d6 weapon. We'll have both in the game. Once you're facing monsters with 50 hp, 0.5 is nothing. Get over it, people. One would believe that by now, with the design goals of 5E clearly stated and the failure of 4E's onetruewayism, people would have learned that different people enjoy different things about this game.

I, for one, will gladly swing my d12 axe just for those times when I get to roll a 12 and celebrate it like I just rolled a 20 in an attack roll. I know every time I swing with that axe I'll be losing an average 0.5 damage, and I couldn't care less. I'm pretty sure we all agree that there's enough room in this community for both me and the guy who wants more reliable damage, including the 0.5 extra damage.

That's it. Move along, this discussion is just like the "dragonborns in the PHB" discussion, just more nitpicky.

"Move along." Condescending much? Why don't you just leave the discussion if you find it so petty.

If you want to do 2d6 + mod damage for the reliability, then you should dual wield short swords or handaxes. There is NO reason to make greatswords mathematically identical to two short sword attacks in terms of damage, this is chasing the same design space with completely different weapons.

All great weapons should do 2d6, or 1d12. If you want reliable, dual wield instead. The rules already support that.

When a fighter has 3,4 attacks, rolling up to 6d6 or 8d6 every round is going to get very tiresome for everyone at the table. That's at-will fireball amounts of dice rolling. And that's just damage.

It's going to bog the game down for no good reason. 1d12 is the better game design choice. 2d6 is the dual wielder's thing.

 

[Agamon]

Isn't this an easy house rule? Or is debate for debate's sake useful?

 

[DDNFan]

Isn't this an easy house rule? Or is debate for debate's sake useful?

It's easy to house rule, but mocking people's valid reasons for doing so is antagonizing.

A reliable car is superior to an unreliable one. Which do you take to your important job interview, your old faithful Honda Civic that never breaks down, or your Porsche that's always in the shop because it breaks down at the worst times and you actually obey the speed limits.

If reliable is valuable in real life for things like cars and buses and train schedules, then you can imagine how important it is for weaponry that will keep you alive. This is no different.

I like the d12, but I don't see why a greatsword or maul should have a greater average and minimum damage than a greataxe, while a greataxe doesn't have a greater maximum damage. Try cutting wood with a sword then try it again with an axe. Two very different things. Axes should do more max damage, period. Don't even try to use simulationism or realism as an argument for swords doing more damage, it's false.

 

[TwoSix]

It's easy to house rule, but mocking people's valid reasons for doing so is antagonizing.

A reliable car is superior to an unreliable one. Which do you take to your important job interview, your old faithful Honda Civic that never breaks down, or your Porsche that's always in the shop because it breaks down at the worst times and you actually obey the speed limits.

On the other hand, if I have to get from New York to DC in three hours to stop an attack on the President, I know which one I'm picking. Ideally, D&D should be more like saving the President than a job interview.