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

[occam]

Ideas for fixes, using the existing list as a base:

• Club: No changes, it can continue to be suboptimal; making damage 1d6 would still leave it that way, too
• Greatclub: 1d10 damage, like a non-versatile warhammer
• Javelin: Make it light, essentially the same as a handaxe
• Light hammer: 1d6 damage, same as a handaxe
• Mace: Make it versatile (1d8), same as what a quarterstaff was
• Quarterstaff: Make it finesse, two-handed, still 1d6 damage
• Greataxe: Make it brutal 1, rerolling 1s gives it the same damage range as the greatsword on a flat curve
• Morningstar: Make it versatile (1d10)
• Trident: Eliminate, or just duplicate the spear

Note that the greataxe doesn't need fixing if the most recent playtest crit rule is still in place.

 

[GX.Sigma]

Note that the greataxe doesn't need fixing if the most recent playtest crit rule is still in place.

I think it would be even worse, with high-level warriors getting with multiple attacks and improved crit ranges. Then the greataxe would be too powerful--above a certain level, at least. My whole argument is that they should just be the same, to remove all such potential issues.

 

[Sword of Spirit]

My proposed "errata" for the quarterstaff:

simple weapon, 1d6 bludgeoning, two-handed, finesse.

A unique niche; still perfectly legitimate as a choice for certain builds; still capable of doing great damage in the right hands.

Okay, I'll revoke my suggestion in favor of this more elegant one. Essentially you just replace the versatile trait with two-handed and finesse.

 

[Uller]

I think it would be even worse, with high-level warriors getting with multiple attacks and improved crit ranges. Then the greataxe would be too powerful--above a certain level, at least. My whole argument is that they should just be the same, to remove all such potential issues.

No. I actually made a simple java simulator that tests various scenarios. Even with the Oct playtest crit rules great axe tends to lag behind greatsword/maul for 20 and 19-20 crit range and barely surpasses them for 18-19 for most typical ACs (around 50-60% chance to hit). When ACs get very high and characters start needing 16+ on the d20 to hit the great axe starts to really excell. Still...the oct playtest crit rules makes it much more in line with the greatsword (typically the gs takes .2 attacks less to bring down a foe with 20 hit points.

I'll post the code tomorrow once I make it a bit more robust and the output something that can be put into a spread sheet in some useful manner. I'd also like to account for differences in advantage because that might make one or the other more effective.

Still...IMXP, the small difference in 2d6 vs 1d12 is too small to notice at the table. A player's run of luck on the d20 has much greater impact on whether a player feels like his big damage fighter is being effective or not.

 

[GX.Sigma]

Still...IMXP, the small difference in 2d6 vs 1d12 is too small to notice at the table. A player's run of luck on the d20 has much greater impact on whether a player feels like his big damage fighter is being effective or not.

True. My point is that the difference, however small it may be, is an imbalance that doesn't need to exist.

 

[DDNFan]

Seems to me that the sword has always been the mainstay in D&D, probably coming from wargames where units were armed more often than not with swords, stemming form the fact that the sword was most common weapon for a light infantry soldier. Also, all the cool magic weapons in fiction and myth are swords.

So yeah, someone uses an axe because they are good at using axes specifially. Otherwise, defaulting to the sword makes sense.

Except they removed dwarves gaining any dmg benefit whilst using them in the last packet, making us unsure why anyone in-game or in-character would bother with them once they are richer than the 20gp difference between them.

 

[DDNFan]

No. I actually made a simple java simulator that tests various scenarios. Even with the Oct playtest crit rules great axe tends to lag behind greatsword/maul for 20 and 19-20 crit range and barely surpasses them for 18-19 for most typical ACs (around 50-60% chance to hit). When ACs get very high and characters start needing 16+ on the d20 to hit the great axe starts to really excell. Still...the oct playtest crit rules makes it much more in line with the greatsword (typically the gs takes .2 attacks less to bring down a foe with 20 hit points.

I'll post the code tomorrow once I make it a bit more robust and the output something that can be put into a spread sheet in some useful manner. I'd also like to account for differences in advantage because that might make one or the other more effective.

Still...IMXP, the small difference in 2d6 vs 1d12 is too small to notice at the table. A player's run of luck on the d20 has much greater impact on whether a player feels like his big damage fighter is being effective or not.

Thanks. Show us also the results with Brutal 1, 2, and also with a reroll a single 1 on either dice. I believe that's closer to the final GWF benefit. I don't care about non-fighters and non-specialists. I care about my guy spending all his points to be the best at wielding axes and STILL ending up behind the sword guy who doesn't invest at all beyond just picking up a random +1 greatsword.

 

[DDNFan]

Yeah; it depends how Brutal exactly works. If it comes down straight brutal 2 (IE, reroll all 1s and 2s on damage dice), then that's ridiculous for any 2d6 weapon. If it's "reroll once" or "reroll only one die", then it becomes a little better for the axe. Or if it's "if you roll a 1 or below on your damage dice, you may reroll", which would mean that a greatsword couldn't benefit at all from it (since it's minimum damage is 2).

That said, I wish they'd just have a greataxe add an additional d12 for critical hits. Makes the weapon swingier but super nasty when you land a crit. Or, perhaps go with weapon group specific feats; have an axe master and a sword master, etc. Polearm Master is pretty nifty, so I'd like some way of differentiating weapons at some point. I can understand not at release, but at least in a martial add-on or something.

I'm basically forced to pick Polearm master now, despite my wish to focus on greataxes. My ranger in the playtests firstly doesn't have a favored enemy benefit that scales with weapon selection, it's fixed at d6, which is plain dumb. Secondly if I consider what to do at next level, 4, do I boost strength to 18 or take a feat, the only one comparable to +1 to hit and +1 damage is the polearm master feat, because dual wielder is more like +1 or +.75 to damage only (1d8 1d8 1d6 for battle axe battle axe hand axe whilst dual wielding), or do I take polearm master, and not only do I get my benefit from favored enemy proc more often (threatening reach), when it does it's at 1d10, and even without threatening reach, I have 1d10 1d10 1d4 which is equivalent to 1d8 1d8 1d8 battleaxe attacks, but with a single heavy weapon, yet with reach still, and also benefits from finding a +1 weapon. Granted +1 polearms are rarer than +1 battleaxes, but only by 4%.

The real absurdity is that the magic item table consider it's reasonable that 4% of magic loot is a magic greatsword or a magic greataxe, while a magic greatsword would be strictly better in terms of damage, so why would anyone bother making such a weapon to begin with? It boggles the mind that nobody has spend a single second applying any sort of critical reasoning skills to either the weapon table or the magic weapon drop table.

 

[Kobold Stew]

I'm basically forced to pick Polearm master now, despite my wish to focus on greataxes. My ranger in the play tests ....

You're not "forced" to do anything, but your desire to play an axe-wielding Ranger is suboptimal. That's the choice you have made. A greataxe wielding fighter or barbarian would be fine (because they have access to increase crit ranges) but a Ranger or Paladin is not, if you assume DPR is the only variable at play (it isn't: skills and class abilities also come into play).

Your conclusion that the choice you have made somehow forces you to choose an entirely new class of weapon (pole arms, of which the list we are discussing contains exactly one, the simple quarterstaff) suggests you are actively looking for problems.

You have a concept: stick with it. Or don't: but do not say you are forced when you are playing a class that is not optimized for combat.

a magic greatsword would be strictly better in terms of damage, so why would anyone bother making such a weapon to begin with? It boggles the mind that nobody has spend a single second applying any sort of critical reasoning skills to either the weapon table or the magic weapon drop table.

Not everyone's mind is boggled, and it's clear thought has gone into this table. (Neither of us has seen the new magic drop table, so we don't know what that says, but even if it's the same as it was eight months ago, it does make sense given the prominence of fighters.)

Damage (and DPR) are more than simply a factor of the weapon wielded.

 

[Cybit]

I'm basically forced to pick Polearm master now, despite my wish to focus on greataxes. My ranger in the playtests firstly doesn't have a favored enemy benefit that scales with weapon selection, it's fixed at d6, which is plain dumb. Secondly if I consider what to do at next level, 4, do I boost strength to 18 or take a feat, the only one comparable to +1 to hit and +1 damage is the polearm master feat, because dual wielder is more like +1 or +.75 to damage only (1d8 1d8 1d6 for battle axe battle axe hand axe whilst dual wielding), or do I take polearm master, and not only do I get my benefit from favored enemy proc more often (threatening reach), when it does it's at 1d10, and even without threatening reach, I have 1d10 1d10 1d4 which is equivalent to 1d8 1d8 1d8 battleaxe attacks, but with a single heavy weapon, yet with reach still, and also benefits from finding a +1 weapon. Granted +1 polearms are rarer than +1 battleaxes, but only by 4%.

The real absurdity is that the magic item table consider it's reasonable that 4% of magic loot is a magic greatsword or a magic greataxe, while a magic greatsword would be strictly better in terms of damage, so why would anyone bother making such a weapon to begin with? It boggles the mind that nobody has spend a single second applying any sort of critical reasoning skills to either the weapon table or the magic weapon drop table.

Uhhhh slow down there; wait till you see polearm master before you jump on the bandwagon. It's good, but by all means, not that good. The polearm user in our game has no intention of taking it.