On weapons & ability mods

It's been proposed that ability mods may not apply to weapon damage.

There are some interesting ideas that spring up.

For one, TWF is a bit easier to deal with. Might actually get 2 attacks and 1d8/1d6 damage.

Secondly, great-weapons could be an exception. Maybe they could get the damage bonus.

On the flip side, unarmed fighting by non-monks is borked.

I dunno what the total ramifications are, but at least there are some interesting paths to walk down.

OTOH - if ability mod to damage is OP at low levels, maybe just rebalance the low-level math.

-Brad

 

Bawylie's Dungeon Mastery blog!

Players 101

DM 101

Yeah... the truth is you can accomplish exactly the same thing  by fiddling with monster HP, with much less collaterol damage.  Not really sure what Mearls' problem even is with ability mod to damage.  I see how it's a big portion of your damage at low levels and a small portion at high levels, it's adding to the intercept of your damage graph but not the slope (much).  But if you add to the intercept but not the slope of Monster HP, say by letting them max their first HD (just like PCs do...), the problem goes away.  With much less fuss, much less break with tradition, much less screwing of STR characters, no dramatic increase in the swinginess of PC damage, and assuming the rule follows for monsters, no INCREASE IN THE SWINGINESS OF MONSTER DAMAGE.  Most people already seem to think monster damage is too swingy because so many monsters can one-shot PCs with a lucky hit even if their average damage isn't that bad.  If you take away even the small part of current monster damage that comes from ability scores, the danger zone where a full HP PC can be one shotted by a lucky roll extends even further into higher levels.  If a white dragon's bite becomes 3d12 instead of 2d12+6, for instance, even a 9th level wizard is at risk from crits/high rolls if he has even a few points of damage on him, and forget about it if the monster has class levels.  Now maybe they'll just bring down monster damage and bring up monster attack values a bit to compensate, that would reduce swing a bit, maybe even enough to completely counteract it statistically.  But I'm still not a fan of the idea that a dragon can hit you for 2 points of damage, or for 12 times that much.  
I don't think it should change. I'm even glad they added damage bonus for Dex weapons. Just goes back to how a Fighter can swing a sword better than a Wizard: they don't just hit more often, they would also hit much harder. Getting rid of the damage bonus just would't make sense.
If anything should change it is the removal of ability score bonuses from attack rolls.
If anything should change it is the removal of ability score bonuses from attack rolls.



Interesting proposition. Instead, you could add proficiency bonuses like we saw in 4E, which would also add more diversity to the weapons as well. As it stands, removing Ability mods to damage really doens't make sense and breaks my verisimilitude. Does it make sense that Conan deals the same amout of damage swinging a sword as a 175 lb. fencer with a Strength of 10 (assuming the same weapons are used)? To me it doesn't.
I don't think it should change. I'm even glad they added damage bonus for Dex weapons. Just goes back to how a Fighter can swing a sword better than a Wizard: they don't just hit more often, they would also hit much harder. Getting rid of the damage bonus just would't make sense.




I just built a mage with 16 dex (battle mage) and if he uses a staff, he still gets to hit at +5 in melee and dmg with a +3, which would be roughly the same as a fighter having 16 str/dex (+6 to hit, +3 dmg). 

Unless I did something wrong, the mage and the fighter hit as hard at low levels, but the fighter will hit slightly more often.

Therefore, your statement would be invalid, at least at low levels, but it wouldn't change because of ability mod, but because of a higher chance to hit and expertise dice. 
Not quite true.  It's obscured by the fact that you're using a light weapon, but effectively all you've proven is that a fighter with a 16 stat should hit as hard as a wizard with a 16 stat.  That doesn't invalidate his point that a fighter with a high stat should hit harder than one with a low stat.  
Ability mods just bloat the numbers. With it you will have a 500 HP dragon rather then a 250HP dragon without them.

Removing them will also increase swingyness and puts more weight on weapon choice.

Though i agree with removing it from the to-hit, and giving more freedom to pick your stats for RP purposes and less for combat purposes.

guides
List of no-action attacks.
Dynamic vs Static Bonuses
Phalanx tactics and builds
Crivens! A Pictsies Guide Good
Power
s to intentionally miss with
Mr. Cellophane: How to be unnoticed
Way's to fire around corners
Crits: what their really worth
Retroactive bonus vs Static bonus.
Runepriest handbook & discussion thread
Holy Symbols to hang around your neck
Ways to Gain or Downgrade Actions
List of bonuses to saving throws
The Ghost with the Most (revenant handbook)
my builds
F-111 Interdictor Long (200+ squares) distance ally teleporter. With some warlord stuff. Broken in a plot way, not a power way.

Thought Switch Higher level build that grants upto 14 attacks on turn 1. If your allies play along, it's broken.

Elven Critters Crit op with crit generation. 5 of these will end anything. Broken.

King Fisher Optimized net user.  Moderate.

Boominator Fun catch-22 booming blade build with either strong or completely broken damage depending on your reading.

Very Distracting Warlock Lot's of dazing and major penalties to hit. Overpowered.

Pocket Protector Pixie Stealth Knight. Maximizing the defender's aura by being in an ally's/enemy's square.

Yakuza NinjIntimiAdin: Perma-stealth Striker that offers a little protection for ally's, and can intimidate bloodied enemies. Very Strong.

Chargeburgler with cheese Ranged attacks at the end of a charge along with perma-stealth. Solid, could be overpowered if tweaked.

Void Defender Defends giving a penalty to hit anyone but him, then removing himself from play. Can get somewhat broken in epic.

Scry and Die Attacking from around corners, while staying hidden. Moderate to broken, depending on the situation.

Skimisher Fly in, attack, and fly away. Also prevents enemies from coming close. Moderate to Broken depending on the enemy, but shouldn't make the game un-fun, as the rest of your team is at risk, and you have enough weaknesses.

Indestructible Simply won't die, even if you sleep though combat.  One of THE most abusive character in 4e.

Sir Robin (Bravely Charge Away) He automatically slows and pushes an enemy (5 squares), while charging away. Hard to rate it's power level, since it's terrain dependent.

Death's Gatekeeper A fun twist on a healic, making your party "unkillable". Overpowered to Broken, but shouldn't actually make the game un-fun, just TPK proof.

Death's Gatekeeper mk2, (Stealth Edition) Make your party "unkillable", and you hidden, while doing solid damage. Stronger then the above, but also easier for a DM to shut down. Broken, until your DM get's enough of it.

Domination and Death Dominate everything then kill them quickly. Only works @ 30, but is broken multiple ways.

Battlemind Mc Prone-Daze Protecting your allies by keeping enemies away. Quite powerful.

The Retaliator Getting hit deals more damage to the enemy then you receive yourself, and you can take plenty of hits. Heavy item dependency, Broken.

Dead Kobold Transit Teleports 98 squares a turn, and can bring someone along for the ride. Not fully built, so i can't judge the power.

Psilent Guardian Protect your allies, while being invisible. Overpowered, possibly broken.

Rune of Vengance Do lot's of damage while boosting your teams. Strong to slightly overpowered.

Charedent BarrageA charging ardent. Fine in a normal team, overpowered if there are 2 together, and easily broken in teams of 5.

Super Knight A tough, sticky, high damage knight. Strong.

Super Duper Knight Basically the same as super knight with items, making it far more broken.

Mora, the unkillable avenger Solid damage, while being neigh indestuctable. Overpowered, but not broken.

Swordburst Maximus At-Will Close Burst 3 that slide and prones. Protects allies with off actions. Strong, possibly over powered with the right party.

Yeah... the truth is you can accomplish exactly the same thing  by fiddling with monster HP, with much less collaterol damage.  Not really sure what Mearls' problem even is with ability mod to damage.  I see how it's a big portion of your damage at low levels and a small portion at high levels, it's adding to the intercept of your damage graph but not the slope (much).  But if you add to the intercept but not the slope of Monster HP, say by letting them max their first HD (just like PCs do...), the problem goes away.  With much less fuss, much less break with tradition, much less screwing of STR characters, no dramatic increase in the swinginess of PC damage, and assuming the rule follows for monsters, no INCREASE IN THE SWINGINESS OF MONSTER DAMAGE.  Most people already seem to think monster damage is too swingy because so many monsters can one-shot PCs with a lucky hit even if their average damage isn't that bad.  If you take away even the small part of current monster damage that comes from ability scores, the danger zone where a full HP PC can be one shotted by a lucky roll extends even further into higher levels.  If a white dragon's bite becomes 3d12 instead of 2d12+6, for instance, even a 9th level wizard is at risk from crits/high rolls if he has even a few points of damage on him, and forget about it if the monster has class levels.  Now maybe they'll just bring down monster damage and bring up monster attack values a bit to compensate, that would reduce swing a bit, maybe even enough to completely counteract it statistically.  But I'm still not a fan of the idea that a dragon can hit you for 2 points of damage, or for 12 times that much.  


I think his problem is that it doesn't fit the Expertise Dice math, because ED right now goes from 1d4 to 3d10... so while the ability modifier for damage is significant at low levels, it can be considered ignorable at high levels.

If you want to remove swinginess, remove swinginess: average out the damage and, like how minions worked in 4E, use static damage instead.  So instead of a White Dragon dealing 2d12+6 or 3d12, just put in 19 damage, done.  The less time spent on the monsters, the more time spent on the PCs, the faster the rounds, yes?

The only time this would feel "wrong" would be for the players who would be used to rolling, even though statistically speaking, over the course of several rounds, your damage would naturally average out the longer combat takes.  But for monster side I see nothing wrong with this.

While I don't mind removing ability mod to damage rolls to make combat faster (so long as monster hit points are adjusted accordingly), I'd also like mention of averaged damage as an alternative so that those who would want even faster combat can skip the dice rolling and go straight to the next turn.

But honestly, if you could just fix ED and spell damage scaling in the first place -- you know, in accordance to Bounded Accuracy -- maybe then would ability mod to damage retain its relevance at higher levels. 
Show

You are Red/Blue!
Take The Magic Dual Colour Test - Beta today!
Created with Rum and Monkey's Personality Test Generator.

You are both rational and emotional. You value creation and discovery, and feel strongly about what you create. At best, you're innovative and intuitive. At worst, you're scattered and unpredictable.

D&D Home Page - What Monster Are You? - D&D Compendium

57047238 wrote:
If you're crossing the street and see a city bus barreling straight toward you with 'GIVE ME YOUR WALLET!' painted across its windshield, you probably won't be reaching for your wallet.
I Don't Always Play Strikers...But When I Do, I Prefer Vampire Stay Thirsty, My Friends
This is what I believe is the spirit of D&D 4E, and my deal breaker for D&D Next: equal opportunities, with distinct specializations, in areas where conflict happens the most often, without having to worry about heavy micromanagement or system mastery. What I hope to be my most useful contributions to the D&D Community: DM Idea: Collaborative Mapping, Classless 4E (homebrew system, that hopefully helps in D&D Next development), Gamma World 7E random character generator (by yours truly), and the Concept of Perfect Imbalance (for D&D Next and other TRPGs in development) Pre-3E D&D should be recognized for what they were: simulation wargames where people could tell stories with The Best Answer to "Why 4E?" Fun vs. Engaging
That doesn't explain the problem.  That points out a fact, but I'm not at all clear why it's a problem that ability mod becomes less important (even to the vanishing point) with level.  And I'm even less clear why the solution to ability mods becoming less important is to make them irrelevant.  

I've used static damage.  I liked it at high levels in 4e where having a meaningful proportion of damage in dice meant rolling cubic feet of dice (especially if you upped monster damage to where it needed to be).  But it would be a mistake to think that "too much swinginess is bad" means that "no swinginess is good."  There's a middle ground, or else why bother rolling for attack?  Why not just multiply average damage by average chance to hit, and subtract that number from HP ever round?  A certain amount of swing is good, it keeps the game a little bit unpredictable.  If you know the monster does exactly 9 damage every time, and you've got 10 HP, you know you can survive two rounds.  That's not knowledge you should have, either from an immersion standpoint or a fun standpoint.  If the monster does between 5 and 15 damage, you don't have that knowledge.  That's a good thing if you've normally got 20 HP, because the uncertainty of whether you can survive 2 or 4 hits adds a little excitement.  It's too much if you've normally got 15 HP, because you never have a safe zone where you can afford to take heroic risks, because there's no space to build up tension, and because character death is too darned frequent for you to get attached to your characters or to make it a deal without constantly derailing the campaign. Moderation in all things.  Of course, if you want static damage in your game, go ahead.  Nothing stopping you, even if it isn't mentioned in the books (and it's already in the bestiary).  

I really don't understand what you mean by "fixing ED and spell scaling in accordance with bounded accuracy" though.  First, bounded accuracy is about accuracy, chances of success on attacks and ability checks, not about damage.  In point of fact, it practically requires rapidly scaling damage, as that's about all you're getting for your level up.  It's not about characters not gaining in power as they level, or about replacing "vertical" power gains (getting better at what you do) with "horizontal" power gains (broadening the range of things you can do) (although perhaps it should be, at least a little bit more than it is now), it's about attack and AC values increasing relatively slowly with level, so that low level monsters can still be a threat in numbers and high level monsters can be defeated by massed fire from low-level characters/NPCs.  That's all.  Are you trying to say that damage scales faster than monster HP, or that you'd rather power progression generally were more flat?  I haven't run the numbers on monster HP, so I don't know, but I can't say I agree that power progression feels too quick.  I like level ups having noticable impacts, personally.  
But it would be a mistake to think that "too much swinginess is bad" means that "no swinginess is good."  There's a middle ground, or else why bother rolling for attack?  Why not just multiply average damage by average chance to hit, and subtract that number from HP ever round?

Because the most important thing in a round is that you hit.  As lokiare mentioned in another thread, if you truly want to remove ability score modifiers from damage, you must remove ability score modifiers to accuracy because accuracy affects damage much more than rolled or rolled + static modifier damage.

Plus, 4E minions easily prove that combat works much faster when the damage rolls are removed, even if we assume that we give them much more HP than what they currently have.  Their turns just end that much quicker.
A certain amount of swing is good, it keeps the game a little bit unpredictable.  If you know the monster does exactly 9 damage every time, and you've got 10 HP, you know you can survive two rounds.  That's not knowledge you should have, either from an immersion standpoint or a fun standpoint.  If the monster does between 5 and 15 damage, you don't have that knowledge.  That's a good thing if you've normally got 20 HP, because the uncertainty of whether you can survive 2 or 4 hits adds a little excitement.  It's too much if you've normally got 15 HP, because you never have a safe zone where you can afford to take heroic risks, because there's no space to build up tension, and because character death is too darned frequent for you to get attached to your characters or to make it a deal without constantly derailing the campaign. Moderation in all things.  Of course, if you want static damage in your game, go ahead.  Nothing stopping you, even if it isn't mentioned in the books (and it's already in the bestiary).


If a monster does exactly 9 damage every time, and has a 95% accuracy rating, then you will very likely survive two rounds.  But if a monster does 9 damage every time and has a 40% accuracy rating, there is a good chance that you will very likely survive three rounds.  And if you have crit = max damage, that means that 9 average damage can easily translate to 16 max damage (assuming 9 is the average of 2d8), which means there is always a 5% chance to die in one hit.

I really don't understand what you mean by "fixing ED and spell scaling in accordance with bounded accuracy" though.  First, bounded accuracy is about accuracy, chances of success on attacks and ability checks, not about damage.  In point of fact, it practically requires rapidly scaling damage, as that's about all you're getting for your level up.  It's not about characters not gaining in power as they level, or about replacing "vertical" power gains (getting better at what you do) with "horizontal" power gains (broadening the range of things you can do) (although perhaps it should be, at least a little bit more than it is now), it's about attack and AC values increasing relatively slowly with level, so that low level monsters can still be a threat in numbers and high level monsters can be defeated by massed fire from low-level characters/NPCs.  That's all.  Are you trying to say that damage scales faster than monster HP, or that you'd rather power progression generally were more flat?  I haven't run the numbers on monster HP, so I don't know, but I can't say I agree that power progression feels too quick.  I like level ups having noticable impacts, personally.  

Both.  Monster HP as it stands is sickeningly pathetic, as the only thing keeping them from being easy shishkabobs would be their AC.  And as much as I like levels having noticeable impact too, if that impact is restricted to MOAR DAMAJE only, that's not exactly "noticeable" if you ask me, especially if your to-hit would be the same.

50% to hit with 1d12+1d4 (average: 9 damage per hit, 4.5 damage when accuracy taken into consideration), is only marginally better than 50% to hit with 1d12+1d6 (average: 10 damage per hit, 5 damage when accuracy taken into account).  Comparing 1d12+1d6 vs. 1d12+2d6 might be marginally better (average: 13 damage per hit, 6.75 damage when accuracy taken into account), but that's because you're adding 3 points damage as opposed to just 1 point damage... and even then, a 5% increase in accuracy in favor of the 1d6 shrinks the gap to 1.25 damage, and a 10% increase in accuracy in favor of the 1d6 shrinks the gap to 0.25 damage.
Show

You are Red/Blue!
Take The Magic Dual Colour Test - Beta today!
Created with Rum and Monkey's Personality Test Generator.

You are both rational and emotional. You value creation and discovery, and feel strongly about what you create. At best, you're innovative and intuitive. At worst, you're scattered and unpredictable.

D&D Home Page - What Monster Are You? - D&D Compendium

57047238 wrote:
If you're crossing the street and see a city bus barreling straight toward you with 'GIVE ME YOUR WALLET!' painted across its windshield, you probably won't be reaching for your wallet.
I Don't Always Play Strikers...But When I Do, I Prefer Vampire Stay Thirsty, My Friends
This is what I believe is the spirit of D&D 4E, and my deal breaker for D&D Next: equal opportunities, with distinct specializations, in areas where conflict happens the most often, without having to worry about heavy micromanagement or system mastery. What I hope to be my most useful contributions to the D&D Community: DM Idea: Collaborative Mapping, Classless 4E (homebrew system, that hopefully helps in D&D Next development), Gamma World 7E random character generator (by yours truly), and the Concept of Perfect Imbalance (for D&D Next and other TRPGs in development) Pre-3E D&D should be recognized for what they were: simulation wargames where people could tell stories with The Best Answer to "Why 4E?" Fun vs. Engaging
You and Iokiare apparently misinterpret what was meant by "take ability modifiers out of damage."  It's not that he wants to remove the impact of ability mods from DPR, it's quite clear from context that he meant no more than simply to stop adding them to the damage roll.  After all, the importance of accuracy scales perfectly with damage increases from ED, as you yourselves point out, and Mearls apparently thinks PC accuracy is just right not overpowered at low levels (not that I agree with him, but he thinks so, so it must not be the overpoweredness he wants to fix by scrapping ability mods to damage.  

Second, while hitting is conceived of as the most important thing in the round and may actually be according to the math as it stands/should stand/has stood, it needn't be.  In a world where you hit 95% of the time but may do anywhere from 1-100 damage, hitting becomes almost irrelevant next to the damage roll.  Moving 100% of the importance to hitting isn't necessarily a good thing.  I very pointedly said that in the 10 damage situation, it would take 2 hits to kill you, not two rounds.  The point is not that you know exactly when you're going to die, but that you know to a mathematical certainty that you will not die this round.  And that cuts an important sense of danger out.  I like to feel safe at full HP but progressively less safe below that.  Static damage puts an annoying meta-knowledge construct into my brain that says even though I've only got 11 HP, I can take two more hits just as if I still had my full 20.  I know I'm not in danger yet.  I find that problematic.  Maybe the speed factor is worth it, and I'm all in favor of having the option.  I might even take the option at higher levels where more than one or two dice are involved (I did in 4e), or for 1/2 monsters like goblins and kobolds where I need to be running so many of them that the seconds add up and the possibility that you'll be hit multiple times makes up for the impossibility that the damage roll will be high.  But recognize that you are giving something up for that.  Maybe it's not something you value terribly much, maybe you find that rolling damage takes more time than I do, but there are two sides to the coin.  So there's no reason not to go with the option we've already got: print both in the bestiary.  And since that's the option we've already got, there's no real reason to talk about it.

Also, I wasn't arguing that the power-scaling rate is a good one (and even less that dead levels are a good idea).  I am completely agnostic on that point, as I haven't run the numbers or played through to 10.  But insofar as your numbers suggest that the scale is really pretty slow (other than the odd jumps at 4 and 10, which pretty much average out the dead space between 5-7), that's just further evidence that the scale isn't too fast.   And honestly nobody believes that monster stats don't need to be reworked, not even Mearls, so why bother arguing about that either.  
You and Iokiare apparently misinterpret what was meant by "take ability modifiers out of damage."  It's not that he wants to remove the impact of ability mods from DPR, it's quite clear from context that he meant no more than simply to stop adding them to the damage roll.  After all, the importance of accuracy scales perfectly with damage increases from ED, as you yourselves point out, and Mearls apparently thinks PC accuracy is just right not overpowered at low levels (not that I agree with him, but he thinks so, so it must not be the overpoweredness he wants to fix by scrapping ability mods to damage.

If it was so clear from the context, why do we have multi-page posts discussing the absence of ability mod to damage alone, and not damage and accuracy, among other possible effects of ability modifiers to damage?

Second, while hitting is conceived of as the most important thing in the round and may actually be according to the math as it stands/should stand/has stood, it needn't be.

Except 1) historically we only got 95% accuracy through system mastery, and casual play has usually gotten more than 50% only if the DM intended it to be easy, and 2) comparing the hit-miss mechanic with the always-hit-but-damage-varies mechanic, I'm not sure people would appreciate the latter compared to the former.

In a world where you hit 95% of the time but may do anywhere from 1-100 damage, hitting becomes almost irrelevant next to the damage roll.  Moving 100% of the importance to hitting isn't necessarily a good thing.  I very pointedly said that in the 10 damage situation, it would take 2 hits to kill you, not two rounds.  The point is not that you know exactly when you're going to die, but that you know to a mathematical certainty that you will not die this round.

Here's the curious thing: you say that it takes 2 hits to kill you, then you suddenly state that you know "to a mathematical certainty that you will not die this round".  If two opponents that deal 9 damage to you and you have 11 HP, or one opponent that makes two attacks that deal 9 damage each, at 95% accuracy it's almost a mathematical certainty that you will die this round.

Given the likelihood that a 2d8 will roll two 3s or better, two attacks at 95% accuracy will also almost certainly kill you as well (3 + 3 + 3 + 3 = 12).
Show

You are Red/Blue!
Take The Magic Dual Colour Test - Beta today!
Created with Rum and Monkey's Personality Test Generator.

You are both rational and emotional. You value creation and discovery, and feel strongly about what you create. At best, you're innovative and intuitive. At worst, you're scattered and unpredictable.

D&D Home Page - What Monster Are You? - D&D Compendium

57047238 wrote:
If you're crossing the street and see a city bus barreling straight toward you with 'GIVE ME YOUR WALLET!' painted across its windshield, you probably won't be reaching for your wallet.
I Don't Always Play Strikers...But When I Do, I Prefer Vampire Stay Thirsty, My Friends
This is what I believe is the spirit of D&D 4E, and my deal breaker for D&D Next: equal opportunities, with distinct specializations, in areas where conflict happens the most often, without having to worry about heavy micromanagement or system mastery. What I hope to be my most useful contributions to the D&D Community: DM Idea: Collaborative Mapping, Classless 4E (homebrew system, that hopefully helps in D&D Next development), Gamma World 7E random character generator (by yours truly), and the Concept of Perfect Imbalance (for D&D Next and other TRPGs in development) Pre-3E D&D should be recognized for what they were: simulation wargames where people could tell stories with The Best Answer to "Why 4E?" Fun vs. Engaging

If you want to remove swinginess, remove swinginess: average out the damage and, like how minions worked in 4E, use static damage instead.  So instead of a White Dragon dealing 2d12+6 or 3d12, just put in 19 damage, done.  The less time spent on the monsters, the more time spent on the PCs, the faster the rounds, yes?



I want my fate to be in the hands of the dice, not a number. For the same reason I hate what 4E did to saving throws, I don't want to see static damage as the only option. It should be an option between a roll and a static number like it is currently listed in the bestiary.


If you want to remove swinginess, remove swinginess: average out the damage and, like how minions worked in 4E, use static damage instead.  So instead of a White Dragon dealing 2d12+6 or 3d12, just put in 19 damage, done.  The less time spent on the monsters, the more time spent on the PCs, the faster the rounds, yes?



I want my fate to be in the hands of the dice, not a number. For the same reason I hate what 4E did to saving throws, I don't want to see static damage as the only option. It should be an option between a roll and a static number like it is currently listed in the bestiary.



Fair enough, although I fail to see how rolling 1d20 to hit isn't having your fate in the hands of the dice.
Show

You are Red/Blue!
Take The Magic Dual Colour Test - Beta today!
Created with Rum and Monkey's Personality Test Generator.

You are both rational and emotional. You value creation and discovery, and feel strongly about what you create. At best, you're innovative and intuitive. At worst, you're scattered and unpredictable.

D&D Home Page - What Monster Are You? - D&D Compendium

57047238 wrote:
If you're crossing the street and see a city bus barreling straight toward you with 'GIVE ME YOUR WALLET!' painted across its windshield, you probably won't be reaching for your wallet.
I Don't Always Play Strikers...But When I Do, I Prefer Vampire Stay Thirsty, My Friends
This is what I believe is the spirit of D&D 4E, and my deal breaker for D&D Next: equal opportunities, with distinct specializations, in areas where conflict happens the most often, without having to worry about heavy micromanagement or system mastery. What I hope to be my most useful contributions to the D&D Community: DM Idea: Collaborative Mapping, Classless 4E (homebrew system, that hopefully helps in D&D Next development), Gamma World 7E random character generator (by yours truly), and the Concept of Perfect Imbalance (for D&D Next and other TRPGs in development) Pre-3E D&D should be recognized for what they were: simulation wargames where people could tell stories with The Best Answer to "Why 4E?" Fun vs. Engaging
If it was so clear from the context, why do we have multi-page posts discussing the absence of ability mod to damage alone, and not damage and accuracy, among other possible effects of ability modifiers to damage?



Um, because it's the internet?  Welcome, newcomer!  OK, maybe clear was the wrong word.  Apparently some people misinterpreted it, and therefore it can't have been clear, but upon a close reading I would lay you 100:1 odds that Mearls did not mean he intended to remove the effect of ability scores on DPR.  That just isn't a reasonable interpretation of what he said, even if, out of context and through rage goggles, the language can be made to say that.  First, his reason for removing ability mods to damage was "Ability mod to damage unbalances at low levels, is irrelevant at high levels."  This is not true of ability mod to attacks, which add proportionately to DPR at all levels.  That doesn't indicate that he "truly want to ability score modifiers from damage," he just wants to reduce low-level damage and not high level damage.  Removing it from attack doesn't accomplish this, removing it from damage does (although there are better ways).  Second, it would be quite odd if he did want to "truly remove the effect" because ability mods are the central measure of character skill in D&D, and removing their effects would make all characters the same (not saying this has to be so, but changing it would be a dramatic shift in direction for D&D).  So there's just no basis for thinking that's his goal, and even less basis for thinking he's going to remove it from attacks in order to achieve that goal (given that he said "In this world, stat mods apply only to attacks, not to damage").  

Except 1) historically we only got 95% accuracy through system mastery, and casual play has usually gotten more than 50% only if the DM intended it to be easy, and 2) comparing the hit-miss mechanic with the always-hit-but-damage-varies mechanic, I'm not sure people would appreciate the latter compared to the former.



I didn't say 95% accuracy ever occurred.  That was a hypothetical situation to illustrate the point that one could create a system  where hitting was not the most important thing you do in a round.  Nor did I suggest that such an extreme example would be a good thing.  I merely pointed out that the relative importance of hitting and rolling high is a continuum, and the fact that hitting has historically been more important is not a reason to believe no benefit is derived from putting some importance on damage rolls.  

Here's the curious thing: you say that it takes 2 hits to kill you, then you suddenly state that you know "to a mathematical certainty that you will not die this round".  If two opponents that deal 9 damage to you and you have 11 HP, or one opponent that makes two attacks that deal 9 damage each, at 95% accuracy it's almost a mathematical certainty that you will die this round.

Given the likelihood that a 2d8 will roll two 3s or better, two attacks at 95% accuracy will also almost certainly kill you as well (3 + 3 + 3 + 3 = 12).



I should have clarified that in the hypothetical situation, there was only one monster attacking you and that monster got one attack.  Hence all that discussion of how it didn't apply so much to minions where it's expected you will be targeted by multiple attacks.  If there are two monsters attacking you, you get an identical situation if you have 21 HP; you know to a mathematical certainty you won't die this round.   And if there are three monsters attacking you, same thing at 31 HP.  If each of them could do anywhere between 5-15 damage, those certainties go away.  Similarly, if you have only 10 HP, you know that one hit will kill you and you are even less inclined to take risks than if there's a possibility you can survive a weak hit - you may as well only have 1 HP.  It's not the whole gammut of possibilities, but it's not an uncommon set and not one that should be ignored.  And even if there are multiple monsters attacking you, you know that this one won't kill you so it's only the second attack roll that gets scary.  

Again, I wasn't suggesting 95% accuracy was a good thing, and at closer to 50% hit rates mathematical certainties occur only at extremes where they should occur.  Yes, if a guy with 11 HP takes on the Tarrasque, he'd better be aware that it's not going to end well for him.  Mathematical certainty of death when you bite off more than you can chew isn't a problem for me, and that's not inconsistent with me having a problem with mathematical certainty of not dying when you take on something ever so slightly less than you can handle. What bothers me about static damage is the huge shift in durability between 10 and 11 HP, and the utter absence of any shift at all between 11 and 20 HP.  That's what creates the certainty of survival, the fact that 11 HP is actually functionally identical to 20 HP against these monsters, so being half dead is functionally equivalent to being completely fine.  That's not even a problem in the 95% accuracy, 100% variable damage world, much less the actual game world.  
@vic, hp and damage go hand in hand. Unless you want to change the number of turns in combat.


And yes, you do want some variety in damage. IMO, a 25% standardmore deviation would work. They should poll how much.

guides
List of no-action attacks.
Dynamic vs Static Bonuses
Phalanx tactics and builds
Crivens! A Pictsies Guide Good
Power
s to intentionally miss with
Mr. Cellophane: How to be unnoticed
Way's to fire around corners
Crits: what their really worth
Retroactive bonus vs Static bonus.
Runepriest handbook & discussion thread
Holy Symbols to hang around your neck
Ways to Gain or Downgrade Actions
List of bonuses to saving throws
The Ghost with the Most (revenant handbook)
my builds
F-111 Interdictor Long (200+ squares) distance ally teleporter. With some warlord stuff. Broken in a plot way, not a power way.

Thought Switch Higher level build that grants upto 14 attacks on turn 1. If your allies play along, it's broken.

Elven Critters Crit op with crit generation. 5 of these will end anything. Broken.

King Fisher Optimized net user.  Moderate.

Boominator Fun catch-22 booming blade build with either strong or completely broken damage depending on your reading.

Very Distracting Warlock Lot's of dazing and major penalties to hit. Overpowered.

Pocket Protector Pixie Stealth Knight. Maximizing the defender's aura by being in an ally's/enemy's square.

Yakuza NinjIntimiAdin: Perma-stealth Striker that offers a little protection for ally's, and can intimidate bloodied enemies. Very Strong.

Chargeburgler with cheese Ranged attacks at the end of a charge along with perma-stealth. Solid, could be overpowered if tweaked.

Void Defender Defends giving a penalty to hit anyone but him, then removing himself from play. Can get somewhat broken in epic.

Scry and Die Attacking from around corners, while staying hidden. Moderate to broken, depending on the situation.

Skimisher Fly in, attack, and fly away. Also prevents enemies from coming close. Moderate to Broken depending on the enemy, but shouldn't make the game un-fun, as the rest of your team is at risk, and you have enough weaknesses.

Indestructible Simply won't die, even if you sleep though combat.  One of THE most abusive character in 4e.

Sir Robin (Bravely Charge Away) He automatically slows and pushes an enemy (5 squares), while charging away. Hard to rate it's power level, since it's terrain dependent.

Death's Gatekeeper A fun twist on a healic, making your party "unkillable". Overpowered to Broken, but shouldn't actually make the game un-fun, just TPK proof.

Death's Gatekeeper mk2, (Stealth Edition) Make your party "unkillable", and you hidden, while doing solid damage. Stronger then the above, but also easier for a DM to shut down. Broken, until your DM get's enough of it.

Domination and Death Dominate everything then kill them quickly. Only works @ 30, but is broken multiple ways.

Battlemind Mc Prone-Daze Protecting your allies by keeping enemies away. Quite powerful.

The Retaliator Getting hit deals more damage to the enemy then you receive yourself, and you can take plenty of hits. Heavy item dependency, Broken.

Dead Kobold Transit Teleports 98 squares a turn, and can bring someone along for the ride. Not fully built, so i can't judge the power.

Psilent Guardian Protect your allies, while being invisible. Overpowered, possibly broken.

Rune of Vengance Do lot's of damage while boosting your teams. Strong to slightly overpowered.

Charedent BarrageA charging ardent. Fine in a normal team, overpowered if there are 2 together, and easily broken in teams of 5.

Super Knight A tough, sticky, high damage knight. Strong.

Super Duper Knight Basically the same as super knight with items, making it far more broken.

Mora, the unkillable avenger Solid damage, while being neigh indestuctable. Overpowered, but not broken.

Swordburst Maximus At-Will Close Burst 3 that slide and prones. Protects allies with off actions. Strong, possibly over powered with the right party.

Sign In to post comments