D&D 5E What's your ideal Fighter damage ratio?

[FireLance]

Simple question: Let's say a high-level fighter with 20 Strength and a longsword (d8 weapon dice) deals 100 points of damage (possibly over two or three hits in a fight). Of that 100 points of damage, how many points should ideally come from :

1. His raw Strength bonus (+5)?
2. His weapon dice (d8)?
3. His skill (represented by Martial Damage Dice and Martial Damage Bonuses)?

Assume no other sources of damage for now, and try not to get too bogged down by whether you can get some combination of d8's, 6d6's, +20s and +5s to sum up to exactly 100. The idea is to get your gut level feel of what should be the proportionate contribution of raw Strength, weapon type and skill to damage at high levels.

 

[Chris_Nightwing]

Hm, a tough question. My first thought was to weigh strength and weapon choice equally, and have them modulated by skill. Consider a master and an apprentice swordsman of equal strength - the master knows his weapon better, and knows his own strength better and so gets better use of both. Consider two apprentices, one stronger than the other, I feel the stronger ought to have an edge in a trade of blows. Similarly if two apprentices fight longsword against greatsword, there's a clear winner in damage terms (sans shield at least, they need more respect). If two masters fight with either of these differences, I think the disparity between the two would be greater than that between the apprentices. If a weaker master fights a stronger apprentice, they still should win - I am seeing skill as an important factor.

So I would say that your damage output ought to be your weapon plus your strength (or your weapon sans strength if strength allows access to heavier weapons), multiplied by a skill factor. This might lead to quite big jumps in damage however when you increase your skill. If you were only adding the dice then it would be less abrupt, since your damage would be a distribution, so I'd prefer strength allowing access to heavier weapons, or perhaps acting as a number you add to each dice, capped by the dice maximum.

PS: Let's reduce HP all round to prevent 100 damage hits please

 

[DogBackward]

Weapon 20%
Skill 80%
(Keeping in mind that this is for high-level Fighters, not low-level. Say... start at 80% weapon, 20% skill at level one, then shift the balance by 3% or so every level after that.)

I support Strength and Dexterity as prerequisites for certain weapons (heavy and finesse, for example), and for weapon-based feats and abilities... but not for actual damage. This also ties into the fact that I would like damage and HP to both be lower, so we're not dealing with ridiculous numbers at high levels.

 

[A'koss]

I support what D&DN is trying to do now, even if the numbers need some work. At low levels your skill only plays a minor role gradually transitioning to high levels where the specific weapon plays very little role and your skill is what really matters. As I've touched on in other threads I really like this idea as it allows for the greatest flexibility in character concepts. This keeps all weapons as viable/attractive options at high levels instead of just a handful of the most damaging ones. A Riddick-style dagger fighter at high levels is nearly as lethal a greatsword wielding fighter. And as more attractive magic items become available your style can change (axe -> +1 longword -> dagger of soul stealing -> glaive of dragonslaying -> hammer of thunderbolts -> (Short) Sword of Kas...). All weapons become viable in your hands. This is why I don't want to see [2w], [3w]... boosts return, as they quickly make a lot of weapons unattractive.

 

[am181d]

I'd want a high level fighter to do at least 40 or 50 points of damage per hit, I think. A d8+5 yields about 10 points of damage, so you'd need to make up another 30 to 40 in other bonuses. That looks like about 10d6 to me. Or maybe 6d12?

 

[Chris_Nightwing]

I support what D&DN is trying to do now, even if the numbers need some work. At low levels your skill only plays a minor role gradually transitioning to high levels where the specific weapon plays very little role and your skill is what really matters. As I've touched on in other threads I really like this idea as it allows for the greatest flexibility in character concepts. This keeps all weapons as viable/attractive options at high levels instead of just a handful of the most damaging ones. A Riddick-style dagger fighter at high levels is nearly as lethal a greatsword wielding fighter. And as more attractive magic items become available your style can change (axe -> +1 longword -> dagger of soul stealing -> glaive of dragonslaying -> hammer of thunderbolts -> (Short) Sword of Kas...). All weapons become viable in your hands. This is why I don't want to see [2w], [3w]... boosts return, as they quickly make a lot of weapons unattractive.

Daggers can be kept viable by means other than doing a trivial amount less damage at high levels though - there can be specific enchantments or maneuvers that work with them, they already use dexterity instead of strength. Why would you ever use a large sword when you can have a free hand, or shield, is the question that people have yet to answer when they say they like the current damage setup.

 

[A'koss]

Daggers can be kept viable by means other than doing a trivial amount less damage at high levels though - there can be specific enchantments or maneuvers that work with them, they already use dexterity instead of strength. Why would you ever use a large sword when you can have a free hand, or shield, is the question that people have yet to answer when they say they like the current damage setup.

IMO weapon specific maneuvers and feats are not the answer. Once you go down the route of pigeon-holing yourself into a specific weapon it makes all other weapons undesirable, especially if you run across a weapon with a nice enchantment you like, but not one of your specialization. That's why I like the fact that weapon specialization & focus aren't weapon specific.

That said, I'm not opposed to two-handed weapons having a little extra benefit, but IMO [2w], [3w] damage isn't the answer. I'm not sure what the answer is though - maybe +1 to hit?

 

[Stormonu]

I'm with Dogbackward in about 80% skill and 15%-20% weapon. Strength should play a very small factor.

HOWEVER, my preferance for the total amount of damage would be much lower - for me 40 damage from a single round of attacks by ANY character would be what I see for the high end of damage capability.

 

[howandwhy99]

For a Fighter I like 1d8 +/-1 to 2 damage points more. That tilts the average up and down a little without sheer force (from strength) becoming the reason why someone is badly hurt, but rather allows the weapon factors to matter most.

Damage ratio or opponent Hit Points changes due to level. At 1st level the rates is equal (before all the variety is added in). Fighter weapons are 1d8 & Fighter hit points are 1d8. Scores modify this up and down 1-2 points (1-4 in D&DN). 2nd level however doubles hit points, while leaving damage amounts the same. Now spell damage increases with Hit Dice/Level, but those effects are highly limited in a day and a wizard without them is a scared wizard indeed. A trained warrior on the other hand attacks every round (minute or 6 seconds). He or she can swing away over and over (just like in training) with fatigue usually only affecting hitting odds.

This results in high level combats lasting longer and lower level combats resolving quickly. All of the strategic options are open to a Fighter's player at 1st level as at high levels, but the chance of a combat lasting to a point where some can be leveraged into play is less at lower levels. Foes just go down too easy.

However you also need to play it safe at lower levels. One lucky axe chop from that Orc and you're life is bleeding out onto the grass. The major asset to a Fighter at low levels is his Armor Class. He can wear proficiently the equivalent of a steel tuna can, if not necessarily purchase one right out of the gate. That means he is harder to hit for equivalent combat rated warriors, but as both PC and opponent increase in combat rating AC largely remains the same. They become easier to hit, but have the Hit Points to soak it up. A low combat rated opponent (like a non-Fighter class) is suddenly much easier to both hit and damage to incapacitation than ever before. At early levels the difference between these classes in combat wasn't nearly so much.

Once a player understands the more or less static elements of the game (like arms and armor) and the increasing elements (like class-based combat rating & HD) they can alter their strategies by level and also feel the results of all that XP gain.

 

[timASW]

Simple question: Let's say a high-level fighter with 20 Strength and a longsword (d8 weapon dice) deals 100 points of damage (possibly over two or three hits in a fight). Of that 100 points of damage, how many points should ideally come from :

1. His raw Strength bonus (+5)?
2. His weapon dice (d8)?
3. His skill (represented by Martial Damage Dice and Martial Damage Bonuses)?

1.20%
2 40%
3. 40%