Rule-of-Three: 01/24/12

[Klaus]

This one has a real good news-bad news feel to it on first reading.

The good news: they're considering bringing back weapon damage types. (and if they also bring back small/large damage dice they're really on the right track!) This tells me they're looking at how mechanics and flavour interact, which is a significant and welcome change of tack.

The bad news: the amount of concern about balance. (and isn't that a wonderfully loaded question from the interviewer to prompt that answer) If the system is kept simple then at least some sort of balance should be relatively easy to achieve; if they're that worried about balance already this tells me the system is going to be complicated, not a good sign. Just design the bloody game and let the playtesters sort out the balance issues - if any.

Lan-"unbalanced and ready to topple over"-efan

Read it again. "Balance" is not about symmetry, but about every choice having its own reward. In the case of classes, look at the Essentials Fighter in relation to the Wizard. The Wizard has those "spikes" in effectiveness thanks to Daily powers, but the Essentials Fighter has a more consistent effectiveness. Are they equal? No. Are they comparable across an adventuring day? Yes.

 

[Dornam]

A core Fighter in 3.5 lagged behind the core Wizard in high levels because the Wizard had a lot of interesting and powerful choices and the Fighter had not which was precisely the reason that many players liked the Fighter.

So it will be interesting to see how 5e, being even more modular and thus choice dependant, balances that.

 

[StAlda]

I agree about damage types, but even a step further as an option rule. As I displayed in another post, I think ever weapon should have its own stat block. Of the 3 damage types I'd say an axe would be slashing. But, its impact on a door is considerably different than a longsword (also slashing). But if you had a stat block something like this

---------------------------------------------
Battleaxe
Simple
Type: Melee Slashing
Attribute: Strength
Attack: Strength vs. AC
Die: d8
Size: Medium
Prof: +2
Min Attribute: 8

Optional
Attack Bonus/Penalty
Ignores Damage Reduction of soft materials (wood, soft metals, etc.)
---------------------------------------------

for every weapon, you would have the basics for 1e players with detailed rules for the 3e/4e players. Because, really in the end, if 5e can bring in 1e/2e lovers they will probably dabble in the detailed rules too, if for anything to help the DM make a judgement call.

 

[TerraDave]

This was good, and remains better then Legends and Lore.

 

[DEFCON 1]

While I'm all for re-introducing the slash/pierce/bludgeon keywords to weapon attacks... I do hope that within each of those three categories they keep the differences between the weapon groups themselves. Right now as it stands, they'd look like this:

Slashing:
Heavy blades
Axes

Piercing:
Spears
Picks
Light blades
Bows/Crossbows

Bludgeoning:
Maces
Flails
Staves
Slings

So I think each weapon group in each keyword should also include different properties to separate them from the others within the keyword group (like we do see in 4E right now). So the Heavy blades gain a +1 in proficiency bonus while the axes get a higher damage die for example. Light blades gain a +1 in proficiency bonus, Picks get High Crit, and Spears get Brutal 2 when used during a Charge as another example.

Keep the weapon groups mechanically different in addition to adding the damage type keyword, so that every weapon is different in terms of handedness, melee/range, simplicity, proficiency bonus, damage die, properties, and damage type. Every weapon should be mechanically unique.

 

[SKyOdin]

Am I the only person who has never liked the breakdown of physical damage types as it has always been done? The Slashing/Piercing/Bludgeoning set appears everywhere (in large parts due to being used in D&D), but I have never really liked it. It has too many problematic elements:
1) Swords can reasonably be used to either slash or stab a target, but are usually forced to do one kind of damage or the other.
2) Axes and razor blades both do slashing damage, even though their general properties and way they do damage are completely different.
3) The question of what kind of damage a weapon does occasionally leads to weirdness such as slashing/bludgeoning damage, which is confusing in how it interacts with damage resistance.
4) Unusual weapons such as whips don't quite fit into the three categories that well.

I do recognize the general desirability of having different weapon damage types though. I just wonder if there is a better way to break it down. One though I have tossed around is to generally break weapon damage down into two types:
Impact Damage: Weapons such as axes, maces, or hammers that do damage through massive force that can break bones and shatter steel. Good against hardened targets.
Blade Damage: Weapons such as swords, spears, and arrows that do damage by penetrating weak points. Good against soft targets.

Of course, even this division doesn't solve all of those problems.

 

[Frostmarrow]

Damage types can be very interesting if I easily can ignore them. If every single attack has to be compared with the opponent's armor things will get old quick. But if all damage just carries a tag that most often won't matter at all it might just be worth the trouble.

Longsword 1d8 [slash]

The only time I should have to bother with the [slash] bit is when I reduce my opponent to zero hit points. –And how did I do it? By chopping something off.

Well, at times the tag could tie into a power or other circumstance. I like to set [fire] to stuff and certainly I'll employ my hammer [blunt] when knocking down doors. But if you ask me to crossreference [type] with [material] for every attack I might just not bother with it.

 

[Klaus]

Longsword 1d8 [slash]

I want my weapons to do Slash damage!

 

[YourSwordIsMine]

I want my weapons to do Slash damage!

Some weapons will do Pierce damage though

Others will do Crush

 

[Primal]

While I'm all for re-introducing the slash/pierce/bludgeon keywords to weapon attacks... I do hope that within each of those three categories they keep the differences between the weapon groups themselves. Right now as it stands, they'd look like this:

Slashing:
Heavy blades
Axes

Piercing:
Spears
Picks
Light blades
Bows/Crossbows

Bludgeoning:
Maces
Flails
Staves
Slings

So I think each weapon group in each keyword should also include different properties to separate them from the others within the keyword group (like we do see in 4E right now). So the Heavy blades gain a +1 in proficiency bonus while the axes get a higher damage die for example. Light blades gain a +1 in proficiency bonus, Picks get High Crit, and Spears get Brutal 2 when used during a Charge as another example.

Keep the weapon groups mechanically different in addition to adding the damage type keyword, so that every weapon is different in terms of handedness, melee/range, simplicity, proficiency bonus, damage die, properties, and damage type. Every weapon should be mechanically unique.

I'm absolutely rooting for keeping 4E-style keywords and damage types in 5E/D&DNext; it's a simple and elegant way to deal with mechanical synergies (e.g. feats interacting with powers), and I also like that they might make slashing/piercing/bludgeoning damage types (again). However, I hope that certain weapons might belong to two categories; for example, while axes most definitely are slashing weapons, they're also high impact weapons. While I hope that prof. bonus will also remain (as an option, if nothing else), I'd rather see damage type(s) and keywords playing a bigger role than damage dice/attack bonus in balancing weapons. For instance, your battle axe would cause either bludgeoning *and* slashing damage, and therefore ignore through the skeleton's "Resist 5 slashing and piercing" ability (or however it will work in the final rules).

I also hope they will return to 3E crits; I don't think rolling and adding up 5d12+3d6+68 is any easier than doing (3d12+36) X3 damage in 3E/PF. It would also eliminate "ghetto crits" and bring back more lethality to combats, IMHO.