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

[Zaukrie]

There is a difference between arguing about the rules, and saying anyone that would play differently, i.e., play suboptimal choices, is stupid.

 

[Wrathamon]

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.

So a Great Club is for Strength people and the quarterstaff for Dex? Finesse always uses Dex or only if its better?

 

[Wrathamon]

There is a difference between arguing about the rules, and saying anyone that would play differently, i.e., play suboptimal choices, is stupid.

I wouldnt call someone playing sub-optimal as stupid.

I would say choices should be meaningful, and when given a choice between two clearly not equal options, then their really isnt a choice.

For example I think the Great Axe/Maul/Great Sword debate is fine. It's a marginal. If players find Great Axes to be an inferior choice its not by much.

The Great Club/Quarterstaff (unless I am missing something) I dont understand it. Maybe the crit damage is missing component, the Great Club does a +d8 while the staff does +d6?

You can make a lighter weapon deal the same damage as the other weapon + use it in one hand with a shield if you want to for only 1 gp more. ??

Unless the designers are trying to say ... hey Great Club users you really only use great clubs at the start of the game, and you should be using the more powerful martial weapons or they are for monsters. We know druids and Wizards use Staves so they're balanced for those players. IF that is the intention that Great Clubs are meant to be an inferior choice then I suppose it is working as intended.

But, I wouldn't tell a player using a great club ... why are you using that? are you stupid?! He might like the idea of a giant tree branch kicking ass.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

So a Great Club is for Strength people and the quarterstaff for Dex? Finesse always uses Dex or only if its better?

Only if you want it to, so presumably you'd only want it to when it was better.

 

[Agamon]

There is a difference between arguing about the rules, and saying anyone that would play differently, i.e., play suboptimal choices, is stupid.

Especially, as I've pointed out a few times now, if one thinks this is a huge deal, one does not understand basic game theory. So while I would never call such a person stupid (uninformed, perhaps, but not stupid), such a person calling others stupid is pretty ironic.

 

[occam]

A slight difference like this doesn't bug me at all. If the difference was 1d10 and 1d12, that's tough to ignore (even though it's still not that significant), but this isn't that.

It's half of that. It's enough to bother some people, and not for no reason.

 

[Bugleyman]

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

He said it is always better. Showing a single counter-example conclusively demonstrates that he was incorrect, full stop.

(This is why words like "always" should generally be avoided. But not always.)

 

[Bugleyman]

Another thought about the weapons table: We're looking at the weapons table from the Starter Set. It's quite possible that the full rules will have additional aspects which reduce or eliminate the "some weapons are strictly better" situation, but those rules were deliberately omitted for the sake of simplicity, brevity, etc.

 

[occam]

Especially, as I've pointed out a few times now, if one thinks this is a huge deal, one does not understand basic game theory. So while I would never call such a person stupid (uninformed, perhaps, but not stupid), such a person calling others stupid is pretty ironic.

I don't think anyone's saying this is a *huge* deal. It's an annoyance that didn't need to exist. Don't assume that people who disagree with you are ignorant of game theory. If you're thinking about game theory, you're looking for strategies that are more likely to win, or less likely to lose. Doing less damage on average means you're more likely to lose.

Some of the weapons in the list are mechanically inferior, given the information we have. That's an objective mathematical fact. For those not bothered by the presence of inferior weapons, I have a certain amount of envy for you. Truly. For those who are bothered by it, it's a problem. Not a *huge* problem, but a problem nonetheless, and one that could've been avoided.

 

[DDNFan]

There is a difference between arguing about the rules, and saying anyone that would play differently, i.e., play suboptimal choices, is stupid.

Who is saying that? The only stupid thing going on here is saying that it makes you a better roleplayer if you consciously pick an inferior choice, over one who doesn't think it's plausible that D&D races wouldn't be aware of the damage differential of the weapons they are using.

I don't see any dwarves manufacturing greataxes over mauls, for instance.

Mauls also have the added benefit of being less resisted and more creatures have vulnerability to blunt damage.

Hopefully the rest of the game isn't filled with such facepalm-worthy stuff. This is strike 1 for me. Damage on a miss is strike 2. Polearms being double heavy weapons with threatening reach is strike 3 (it's spike chain city all over again).

After that I'm out.