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

[occam]

If each weapon shines in different places, then it is balance without homogenization.

If it's being wielded by a wizard, sure. If you put a 10 Str on your two-handed Fighter, then you have bigger optimization issues than sword-vs-axe.

You've missed the point. The 1d12 weapon only looks superior, or even equal, if you can cherry-pick the hit points of your opponent. Over a range of hit points, 2d6 is better.

And you don't need homogenization to achieve balance. For instance, if the critical damage rule is the same as in the last playtest, then I don't think there's a problem between 1d12 and 2d6. In fact, I loved the cleverness of how that simple rule allowed for balanced weapons with those two damage values.

But if the crit rule has changed as suggested in this thread, then this damage diversity comes at the cost of balance. That's a cost I won't (can't) pay, which means I'll never use an axe, and that makes me sad. It could be fixed so easily. I will fix it in games I control, but most games will end up with some people making trap choices, which I thought we'd left behind in 3e. Whether a person cares that they chose a mechanical dud is another matter.

 

[DDNFan]

Using an axe instead of a sword, for an average difference of half a hit point per successful attack, is hardly a high risk behavior.

Not only that, just because it's something you wouldn't do and find distasteful, that doesn't make it stupid. Some people value their enjoyment of the activity in question, whatever it may be, more highly than you do, and that's fine. There is no one way to live your life, just as there is no one way to play D&D.

Oh I've engaged in plenty of high risk behavior (as do my characters), but I'm under no illusions that it's prudent or smart when I do so. Indeed, I would often do it because I know and understand it to be stupid or risky, and that's what makes it fun!

My sister just bought a chopper, and I wanna try it. Doesn't mean buying and riding a motorcycle is a smart thing to do, given the dangers. I just hope I never have to say "I told you so", because that would be a nightmare.

The criticism about reliability has nothing to do with the 1/2 point average damage benefit, but everything to do with, if I have two squads of dwarven fighters fighting orcs, and those using mauls are consistently killing more orcs and having less of their own members die, than the squadron that uses greataxes, then that would tell me, as the general in charge, sorry guys, it's time for everyone to use mauls, this next battle is just too important and vital to do otherwise.

I'd like to see such a situation plotted. Two groups of dwarves, with mauls vs greataxes. The difference in their kill rate and survival rate will be greater than that afforded by +0.5 DPR. They will also take less incoming damage on average because the faster one can reliably take orcs out of the picture, the quicker the rest can jump in and help the rest.

Anyone here good at writing stats simulations? We need to chart : dwarf survival rate, average number of rounds before each orc or dwarf dies. Average DPR doesn't tell the whole story. The whole story likely makes greatswords and mauls even better still. Potentially much better, is my hunch, due solely to the bell curve.

 

[occam]

It could be fixed so easily. I will fix it in games I control, but most games will end up with some people making trap choices, which I thought we'd left behind in 3e. Whether a person cares that they chose a mechanical dud is another matter.

BTW, I'd also like to avoid public play experiences where one jerk complains about or belittles another player for making an obvious trap choice and having their PC wield a greataxe. Those people are out there. I'm not saying a game should be designed around preventing jerkitude, but I just don't see a reason for laying those traps in the first place.

 

[Halivar]

BTW, I'd also like to avoid public play experiences where one jerk complains about or belittles another player for making an obvious trap choice and having their PC wield a greataxe. Those people are out there. I'm not saying a game should be designed around preventing jerkitude, but I just don't see a reason for laying those traps in the first place.

The issues I'm taking is that it isn't a "trap" choice because it isn't really an awful option. We're quibbling over percentages and +1's. We are well and truly in the zone of pure min-maxing. Let's save the "trap choice" nomenclature for truly, obviously bad and terrible options.

Like 3.x half-elf bards.

 

[Agamon]

I'd like to see such a situation plotted. Two groups of dwarves, with mauls vs greataxes. The difference in their kill rate and survival rate will be greater than that afforded by +0.5 DPR. They will also take less incoming damage on average because the faster one can reliably take orcs out of the picture, the quicker the rest can jump in and help the rest.

Anyone here good at writing stats simulations? We need to chart : dwarf survival rate, average number of rounds before each orc or dwarf dies. Average DPR doesn't tell the whole story. The whole story likely makes greatswords and mauls even better still. Potentially much better, is my hunch, due solely to the bell curve.

I'm certain that over an averaged 1000 battles, a group of dwarven fighters that are all built the same and have the same weapon fighting the same group of orcs will fair better in the long run with one weapon over the other.

Good thing this isn't how D&D is played. Let's do it once and see what happens instead. Except that is too small a sample size and different results will be seen in each instance. Just as intended.

 

[Wrathamon]

I have the same issue with the Great Club and Quarter Staff. Not sure why you would ever use a Great Club other than its the only thing available to you.

 

[Sword of Spirit]

What I hate about quarterstaff is wielding quarterstaff (one-handed) and shield. That looks stupid. But it's a great idea for a druid, because it gives him the flexibility he needs while still allowing the use of shillelagh. Otherwise he has to go club and shield. I'd like him to have to make a choice.

So my quarterstaves are going to be 1d8 two-handed finesse weapons.

 

[GravyFingerz]

What I hate about quarterstaff is wielding quarterstaff (one-handed) and shield. That looks stupid. But it's a great idea for a druid, because it gives him the flexibility he needs while still allowing the use of shillelagh. Otherwise he has to go club and shield. I'd like him to have to make a choice.

So my quarterstaves are going to be 1d8 two-handed finesse weapons.

That's a pretty good idea. There is room for a d8 finesse weapon in the simple weapon category.

 

[Snapdragyn]

The d12 is going to be a very neglected and lonely dice in 5th edition.

So it IS about tradition!

 

[Ruin Explorer]

Arguing about the merits of greatsword versus greataxe is fruitless when we can't look at the complete rules.

By that logic, Talath, we wouldn't be able to argue about ANY of the rules, and what the hell would we do until August?! Ugh, I might have to go read a book or write an adventure or something! Such drudgery!

More seriously, because I'm a really serious guy, we can go on the October rules, and assuming they've not changed in really fundamental ways, the core of the argument remains the same - The GS is going to do a tiny little more damage on average (increasingly less more as you get a wider crit chance, but always more), but much more importantly, will really strongly average around 6 to 8 damage, where the Greataxe will be equally likely to be 1, 12 or anything in-between!

The one thing that may have changed will have put the GA a little further behind - we've heard rumours that they changed crits from maximize and add one of the weapon's damage dice to simply "double damage" (as per 2E, presumably different to 3E's varying crit multipliers and ignoring of bonuses), which to me, well seems like a bit of a retrograde change, despite the simplicity, because it increases the power of static damage multipliers, removes the one interesting facet about the GS, and means good old-fashioned 2E/3E-style crit scenarios will be back: "NATURAL 20!" *Cheers* *Damage dice comes up 1* "I crit... for 2 damage..." *Swearing*.

[MENTION=2525]Mistwell[/MENTION] - Yeah, I just think it's actually an interesting point - the value of being able to single-target one-shot, say, 15HP decreases significantly as levels and enemy numbers increase - it goes from being a serious fight-winner to, well, kind of meh. Even if you one-shot 3 Orcs in a pack of 30 (a number I saw plenty of times in 2E), that's not much of a dent - even if they can only hit on a nat 20, they're still a huge threat. Whereas AE spells which can do similar damage become ever-more significant, because whilst maybe they could only one-shot 4 Orcs when there were only 4 to toast, now that there are 30, they can still do it!

This shouldn't surprise me - it's exactly how 2E worked out, after all. It's not necessarily a bad thing, but it's quite a distinctive characteristic. Hopefully they don't JUST use the "THROW MOAR ORCS!" approach, and also sometimes throw smaller numbers of levelled-up Orcs or the like (2E did, so I imagine they will).