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

[Mistwell]

Trap choices are poor game design, I thought they wrote some L&L articles about how they didn't want system mastery to be a thing in 5th edition.

A .5 difference is not a trap choice. It's a minor difference. It's a rounding error.

 

[FitzTheRuke]

Don't mistake my criticisms here for assent that prior editions are perfect or even better. They aren't. But 5th ed could have been so much better than it already is turning out to be. I .

You're sure right about that. I can live with this weapons list (I like it better than inconsistent tool proficiency) but it could be much better - and frankly, SHOULD be better, as most of these same problems were discussed at length during the playtest process.

I have to admit, one starts to wonder just how much was actually listened to...

That said, I'll not count 5e out until I've played it for some time. I wouldn't be surprised that if an element of 5e proves unpopular over time, their modular approach to the rules allows for "optional" rules that can sub-in to replace the unpopular bits. Not QUITE the same thing as errata, but effectively similar. Better, probably.

 

[DDNFan]

A .5 difference is not a trap choice. It's a minor difference. It's a rounding error.

.5 difference in average DPR doesn't account for wasted damage during overkill, doubly wasted damage during crit overkill, and the exact round # where a monster dies at, which is the only metric that matters in D&D.

Until you show me the stats of a sim between a large squad of greataxe wielding dwarfs vs maul wielding dwarfs, vs wave after wave of orcs, I think you reducing the difference between 1d12 and 2d6 to 0.5 is simplistic and wrong (considering the new crit rule with is probably just double damage, thus exacerbating this difference even further).

The benefit of hitting average DPR more often vs less often (which 2d6 achieves over 1d12), is something you're not considering in your facile analysis. Show actual sim data vs a variety of monsters and we'll chat further then. I think the results will be far greater than .5 DPR. I want the results in # of rounds it took to kill X. Don't forget, for hard to hit opponents, when you roll a 1 on your d12, you might not get a chance to deal damage again for another round or 2. Hitting the average damage on a hit values hits more, because rolling a 12 on a d12 vs 2 6s on 2d6 doesn't matter as much as dealing 6 + mods (the mean damage), which is quite possibly sufficient to finish the job. At least finish it 1 round sooner. Most mobs don't last more than 2-3 rounds, so the quicker you converge to average DPR the more benefit it gets you on average, in terms of # of rounds it took you to kill that monster. All that matters is how much HP the monster has right now, and whether the average (considering the standard deviation) enough to kill it or not. For every time the d12 allows you to kill a foe faster than a 2d6, it also slows you down the next time. Hitting average DPR more often allows you to kill stuff more reliably, and thus better / faster / better / stronger. Unreliable stuff is crud.

2d6 is potent vs 1d12, and not simply because it gives .5 dpr benefit or +1 benefit on crits. There is more to the story here.

 

[Sword of Spirit]

If there isn't anything else to the balance, I think I'll allow axes to do a better job attacking objects. Taking an axe to a door is a heck of a lot more effective than trying to slash it down with a sword. I might even apply that to weapon/shield sundering attempts.

 

[Paraxis]

If there isn't anything else to the balance, I think I'll allow axes to do a better job attacking objects. Taking an axe to a door is a heck of a lot more effective than trying to slash it down with a sword. I might even apply that to weapon/shield sundering attempts.

So then everyone in your game just uses a maul. 2d6 and perfect for smashing down doors and things.

 

[Mistwell]

.5 difference in average DPR doesn't account for wasted damage during overkill, doubly wasted damage during crit overkill, and the exact round # where a monster dies at, which is the only metric that matters in D&D.

Until you show me the stats of a sim between a large squad of greataxe wielding dwarfs vs maul wielding dwarfs, vs wave after wave of orcs, I think you reducing the difference between 1d12 and 2d6 to 0.5 is simplistic and wrong (considering the new crit rule with is probably just double damage, thus exacerbating this difference even further).

The benefit of hitting average DPR more often vs less often (which 2d6 achieves over 1d12), is something you're not considering in your facile analysis. Show actual sim data vs a variety of monsters and we'll chat further then. I think the results will be far greater than .5 DPR. I want the results in # of rounds it took to kill X. Don't forget, for hard to hit opponents, when you roll a 1 on your d12, you might not get a chance to deal damage again for another round or 2. Hitting the average damage on a hit values hits more, because rolling a 12 on a d12 vs 2 6s on 2d6 doesn't matter as much as dealing 6 + mods (the mean damage), which is quite possibly sufficient to finish the job. At least finish it 1 round sooner. Most mobs don't last more than 2-3 rounds, so the quicker you converge to average DPR the more benefit it gets you on average, in terms of # of rounds it took you to kill that monster. All that matters is how much HP the monster has right now, and whether the average (considering the standard deviation) enough to kill it or not. For every time the d12 allows you to kill a foe faster than a 2d6, it also slows you down the next time. Hitting average DPR more often allows you to kill stuff more reliably, and thus better / faster / better / stronger. Unreliable stuff is crud.

2d6 is potent vs 1d12, and not simply because it gives .5 dpr benefit or +1 benefit on crits. There is more to the story here.

I am not the one making a claim about a major issue here. Right now, it's just .5 difference. If you want to prove to people it's more than that, then you run the full calculation. The burden, as always, is on the one making the claim that something is a problem. Otherwise - it's a rounding error that bothers you but doesn't seem to bother most people all that much.

More importantly though - please cut the rudeness out. There is no need to claim my analysis is facile while simultaneously refusing to run the full calculation yourself. We can simply disagree about how important this issue to each of us.

 

[jadrax]

I just wish Wizards had continued the weapon design philosophy used in earlier playtest packets, and in 4e, and largely in 3e. Then, those not bothered by small imbalances would still be happy, and those who are bothered would also be happy. I don't understand why they would create obvious, if small, imbalances when they're easily avoidable.

I suspect that actually a lot of people are only happy with the small imbalances. Moreover I suspect that a lot of feedback came along the lines that certain Weapons doing certain Damage dice is 'iconic' and people get very unhappy when its changed.

 

[thalmin]

Missing out on .5 hp of damage per attack bothers me much less in game than another player telling me I should play his idea of an ultra-optimized character. I am not trying to win a tournament. I am playing a story-based game in which enjoyment is based on the story were are creating/telling. It is more about the journey than the destination. I don't need the rules to give me a reason to use my weapon of choice.

This axe was my father's axe, and his father before him. It is the weapon I know how to use best. It honors their memory. It has a long history.
If a fellow party member questions my choice, I might explain it to him. If he makes fun of my choice or tells me I am stupid for making my choice, he will end up with a fat lip. In character.

If another player tells me I am not optimized, I will say I know, but it's my character. If he says "Well that's just stupid" or "That's just wrong" I will know one of us is sitting at the wrong table.

 

[thalmin]

BTW, I think the trident is on this chart not because so many PCs use it (in over 30 years I've seen it used maybe 3 times), but because they may encounter it in the hands of an opponent, like a lizardfolk or something.

 

[Halivar]

BTW, I think the trident is on this chart not because so many PCs use it (in over 30 years I've seen it used maybe 3 times), but because they may encounter it in the hands of an opponent, like a lizardfolk or something.

I'll say the same applies to the greatclub.