D&D General Reification versus ludification in 5E/6E

[AK81]

I haven't read through all the pages so I may have missed a lot.

But this is a discussion where I kind of agree with both sides. I like giving my monsters exactly what I need that monster to have without having to build it from scratch. But I also like that objects has a reality on to itself within the world.

So my solution would probably have been that a longsword is a longsword and always do the same amount of damage. But then you add on extra damage for the CR of the wielder. And say that a CR13 is just this skilled with weapons. It doesn't have to be the same extra damage for all CR13 monsters, as they can be more or less skilled in different areas.

Then you can change the longsword to a greatsword and get a bit more damage. Or if you disarm the monster you can take away the damage die from the longsword and so on. But without having to come up with a greater reason for the extra damage than that a CR13 monster is just a very skilled fighter and knows how to get the most out of his weapon.

This will probably be how I think about it in the future. And will just change the statblock with the weapon damage difference if I change weapons.

 

[Lanefan]

This seems unnecessarily punishing to non-casters, since the primary resource burned by a melee martial is HP, while the primary resource burned by a spell caster is magic.

Ideally, casters are getting hit for damage during a typical adventuring day just like non-casters and need to recover those hit points.

While I see the logic behind your point, it hasn't seemed to be an issue over the years. Another factor is that often IME the healers tend to pump up the martials first, perhaps for just this reason.

 

[Hussar]

I found that extending healing time just means that clerics only cast healing spells and nothing else. It basically has no actual effect on in game time.

 

[pawsplay]

I've been comparing the Hobgoblin stat blocks more closely.
Hobgobin Warrior has a longsword and shield, and does 2d10+1
Hobgoblin Captain has a greatsword and does 2d6+2
Hobgoblin Warlord has a longsword and shield, and does 2d8+3

Obviously there is an aesthetic decision that was made here. Setting that aside: This is not a game that tells you how much damage a Hobgoblin Captain would do with a longsword. The Warrior does what would be two-handed damage, while the Warlord does what would be one-handed damage, assuming each gets a bonus weapon die. The Captain gets no bonus weapon die, that is what a greatsword would actually do in the hands of a PC.

This is more than just providing a rationale for the numbers, or not, for the damage value. These are monsters who can't wield different weapons. If it ever come up in play, you would just have to make something up, and it isn't obvious what. Probably the simplest answer is that melee damage never changes no matter what they wield.

 

[Hussar]

But that’s the point. It’s not linked to weapons have wildly differing damage values. All one handed weapons deal d6 or d8 (barring daggers of course) and two handed weapons deal d8-d12 (sometimes 2d6 which isn’t a massive difference).

So why does it matter if you give your hibgoblin a battle axe, a sword or a halberd? There’s so little numerical difference that who cares? On average a d10 weapon only deals 1 more damage than a d8 weapon. There’s a whopping 2 damage spread here between weapons. Give them whatever weapons you want and move on.

 

[RhaezDaevan]

I've been comparing the Hobgoblin stat blocks more closely.
Hobgobin Warrior has a longsword and shield, and does 2d10+1
Hobgoblin Captain has a greatsword and does 2d6+2
Hobgoblin Warlord has a longsword and shield, and does 2d8+3

Obviously there is an aesthetic decision that was made here. Setting that aside: This is not a game that tells you how much damage a Hobgoblin Captain would do with a longsword. The Warrior does what would be two-handed damage, while the Warlord does what would be one-handed damage, assuming each gets a bonus weapon die. The Captain gets no bonus weapon die, that is what a greatsword would actually do in the hands of a PC.

This is more than just providing a rationale for the numbers, or not, for the damage value. These are monsters who can't wield different weapons. If it ever come up in play, you would just have to make something up, and it isn't obvious what. Probably the simplest answer is that melee damage never changes no matter what they wield.

So if a warrior gets promoted to a captain, they'll be handed a bigger sword...but deal less damage with it? Does the captain get any perks to make up for that?

 

[TwoSix]

But that’s the point. It’s not linked to weapons have wildly differing damage values. All one handed weapons deal d6 or d8 (barring daggers of course) and two handed weapons deal d8-d12 (sometimes 2d6 which isn’t a massive difference).

So why does it matter if you give your hibgoblin a battle axe, a sword or a halberd? There’s so little numerical difference that who cares? On average a d10 weapon only deals 1 more damage than a d8 weapon. There’s a whopping 2 damage spread here between weapons. Give them whatever weapons you want and move on.

I mean, I think a distinct difference here is the players involved. For the majority of my players, if I told them a hobgoblin was using a longsword and a shield, and then rolled 2d10 for damage, they would ask right away why the hobgoblin wasn't using d8s.

Heck, I'm familiar with the idea of "damage based on character, not weapon" from 13th Age and other games, and it would still stick out to me as a proud nail in the context of D&D.

 

[Remathilis]

I mean, I think a distinct difference here is the players involved. For the majority of my players, if I told them a hobgoblin was using a longsword and a shield, and then rolled 2d10 for damage, they would ask right away why the hobgoblin wasn't using d8s.

Heck, I'm familiar with the idea of "damage based on character, not weapon" from 13th Age and other games, and it would still stick out to me as a proud nail in the context of D&D.

And yet, if I said a Death Knight throws a fireball at the party and then roll 10d6 fire and 10d6 necrotic damage (save for half), are players going to say "but but but fireball is only 5d6 + 1d6/level over 3rd in fire damage. Why is the death knight doing 20d6 in two different damage types?"

 

[TwoSix]

And yet, if I said a Death Knight throws a fireball at the party and then roll 10d6 fire and 10d6 necrotic damage (save for half), are players going to say "but but but fireball is only 5d6 + 1d6/level over 3rd in fire damage. Why is the death knight doing 20d6 in two different damage types?"

Which is precisely why I would never say a death knight throws a fireball. I might say the effect is similar to fireball, but I would not call it fireball.

And heck, I remember some grumbling when 5e fireball was changed from "caster level"d6 to just 8d6. Players form attachments to the familiar algorithms in play. People got over it, just like people will probably get over the hobgoblin weapon scandal, but it takes time and getting accustomed to the change.

 

[Micah Sweet]

And yet, if I said a Death Knight throws a fireball at the party and then roll 10d6 fire and 10d6 necrotic damage (save for half), are players going to say "but but but fireball is only 5d6 + 1d6/level over 3rd in fire damage. Why is the death knight doing 20d6 in two different damage types?"

I think that's why they don't just call it a "fireball" anymore. Because it isn't in a D&D sense.