Discrepencys in the character sheets

Good day,

I was hoping to find a post (didn’t go to all of them sorry) about this but I did in the quick scan of the forum. We sort of noticed some interesting discrepancies between the character sheets what we found in the How to Play I don’t know if it was done deliberately or that we just are over looking something in our group but here it go’s.


Let’s start off with the character I played:


Rouge Hafling:


She has 2 weapons on her person a dagger and a sling on the sheet it writes the following:


Weapon (atk) (damage)


Dagger (+5) (1D6+ 3 Piercing; Range 20)


Sling (+5) (1D8+ 3 bludgeoning; Range 20)


Now we sort of went going troug the how to play trying to fignre it out.. But If we use the how to play book I get a completely difrent dagme out put


For the dagger the dice is difrent (1d4) and the sling the same (1d8)


Also bast on the stat disciption the to hit would be in both cases +3 not the +5 we saw these difrences all over the character sheets. And we were wondering is this falty or just as designed atm.


 

There is "hidden math" in the sheets. My group has assumed, in the case of the halfling rogue, that the die bump to the sling is from being a Halfling, and that the die bump to the dagger is either from being a Rogue in general, or specifically from the Thief Scheme.

We have further presumed that something similar will make the rapier a mechanically more viable choice than, say, a short sword. Given that they are both 1d6 piercing weapons, but the short sword is light, and is half the price, I think that there will probably be some sort of "Swashbuckler" background or theme that will bump that to 1d8. Supposition of course, but I think grounded in what we've seen so far. 

For those confused on how DDN's modular rules might work, this may provide some insight: http://www.tor.com/blogs/2012/11/the-world-of-darkness-shines-when-it-abandons-canon

@mikemearls: Uhhh... do you really not see all the 3e/4e that's basically the entire core system?

 

It is entirely unnecessary to denigrate someone else's approach to gaming in order to validate your own.

Mike Mearls' recent chat (www.enworld.org/forum/news/324047-d-d-ne...) included the fact that we've not been shown enough of the chargen to reverse-engineer the char sheets.
Mike Mearls' recent chat (www.enworld.org/forum/news/324047-d-d-ne...) included the fact that we've not been shown enough of the chargen to reverse-engineer the char sheets.



In that chat, though, I do recall Wizards confirming that racial favored weapons receive a step-up in damage dice.  Plus, there are missing attack modifiers...

Mountain Dwarf, Cleric of Moradin, Knight Guardian:


  • warhammer is +4 to hit, 1d10 + 2 dmg (by what we can see, should only be +2, 1d8 + 2)


Human, Cleric of Pelor, Priest Healer:


  • quarterstaff is +1, 1d8 - 1 (s/b -1, 1d8 - 1 using STR mod or +2, 1d8 + 2 using DEX mod as a finesse weapon)


Hill Dwarf, Fighter, Soldier Slayer:


  • greataxe is +6, 2d6 + 7 (s/b +3, 1d12 + 5)

  • light crossbow is +4, 1d8 + 5 (s/b +1, 1d8 + 3)


Lightfoot Halfling, Rogue, Commoner Lurker:


  • dagger is +5, 1d6 + 3 (s/b  +1, 1d4 + 1 using STR mod or +3, 1d4 + 3 using DEX mod as a finesse weapon)

  • sling is +5, 1d8 + 3 (s/b +3, 1d6 + 3)


High Elf, Wizard, Sage Magic-User:


  • quarterstaff is +1, 1d8 - 1 (s/b -1, 1d8 - 1 using STR mod or +1, 1d8 +1 using DEX mod as a finesse weapon)

  • ray of frost is +6 (s/b +5)

  • shocking grasp is +6, 1d8 + 3 (s/b +5, 1d8 + 3)


So, the damage dice bumps all make sense to me: mountain dwarf with a warhammer, hill dwarf with a greataxe, lightfoot halfling with a dagger and a sling.

As for the remaining discrepancies, here are my conjectures based on patterns in the missing modifiers:


  • The clerics are using favored weapons of their deities, giving them an extra +2 to hit (though I cannot explain why the Cleric of Pelor is not using his DEX mods).

  • The fighter and the rogue have backgrounds that only give them +3 to 3 skills, whereas the other 3 PCs get +3 to 4 skills.  The unlisted "skill" is a +2 to hit with any weapon with which the character is proficient.  (This, admittedly, is the biggest stretch of these conjectures.)

  • The fighter is still missing a +1 to hit with both his weapons, and the wizard is still missing a +1 to hit with both his spells.  I was originally thinking these were class features, but attack and damage mods were already discussed in each PC's class features, so I am considering their themes to have an influence here.

  • The fighter is still missing a +2 to damage for both his weapons.  With no other similarity in any of the other PCs, I don't really have anything to go on here.


Please feel free to dissect, but be gentle.

We also seen discrepensies in the monsters were a monster had the dex for 2 hit but the minus from strenght.. witch is weard.
We also seen discrepensies in the monsters were a monster had the dex for 2 hit but the minus from strenght.. witch is weard.

The monster stats may be entirely fudged at this point, and if they are built using some 5e prototype, we have no idea what math is actually involved. It may be rather like the 4e system, where the monsters attacks are determined by some arbitrary difficult scale that is independent of their stats. Until we actually get some real rules, I wouldn't worry about any oddities there.

We also seen discrepensies in the monsters were a monster had the dex for 2 hit but the minus from strenght.. witch is weard.

The monster stats may be entirely fudged at this point, and if they are built using some 5e prototype, we have no idea what math is actually involved. It may be rather like the 4e system, where the monsters attacks are determined by some arbitrary difficult scale that is independent of their stats. Until we actually get some real rules, I wouldn't worry about any oddities there.



Either Mearls or Cordell has stated that the monster stats have received the least amount of attention of everything else they've released so far and part that they're watching the closest. So expect a lot of funny math there. Don't worry about trying to reverse-engineer the monsters right now but just take note and point out when a monster seems too strong or too weak for its "level".
Sign In to post comments