Martial Damage Dice and Martial Damage Bonus

Martial Damage Dice: I was formerly in support of a progression change that favored d6's, but I'm now thinking that the progression proposed in these forums is a more elegant solution. Sure, we're using disparate dice, but the handful of d6's I'm rolling in conjunction with my weapon dice and other such riders is feeling unwieldy. Perhaps I'd feel better if the d6's didn't progress so steeply and then taper off so oddly in the upper levels?

Martial Damage Bonus: Hate this. It's clunky, weird, needlessly complicates the math, and all around appears inelegant. The math should be based on the expected output of the martial damage dealers. This modifier feels like a pasted quick-fix and I'm not likin' it.

Thoughts?

Danny

Agree. Looks clumsy and confusing, and the reasons for extra damage to be expressed like this are obscure.
Agree. Bigger isn't always better, and scaling damage by flat bonuses seems like a poor way to handle things.

Magic Dual Color Test
I am White/Green
I am White/Green
Take The Magic Dual Colour Test - Beta today!
Created with Rum and Monkey's Personality Test Generator.
I am both orderly and instinctive. I value community and group identity, defining myself by the social group I am a part of. At best, I'm selfless and strong-willed; at worst, I'm unoriginal and sheepish.
Agree as well,

I actually liked most of the changes in this packet.

Martial Damage Bonus is really unnecessary.

I also find Martial Damage Dice 'outshines' damage ability modifier and weapon damage dice. The later seems redundant at high levels. I'll have to test more too see if its 'too much'.

Also, why not just call it 'Damage Die' , like there is 'Hit Die' and 'Skill Die'
Martial Damage Dice: I was formerly in support of a progression change that favored d6's, but I'm now thinking that the progression proposed in these forums is a more elegant solution. Sure, we're using disparate dice, but the handful of d6's I'm rolling in conjunction with my weapon dice and other such riders is feeling unwieldy. Perhaps I'd feel better if the d6's didn't progress so steeply and then taper off so oddly in the upper levels?

I see a lot of that with this packet, I think it is just something people will get used to. The power curve across levels for D&D next isn't like that of previous editions, in Next the power curve tapers off at 10th level and characters gain less per level. Wizard gain few high level spells at all and the martial classes just get a few abilities.

Martial Damage Bonus: Hate this. It's clunky, weird, needlessly complicates the math, and all around appears inelegant. The math should be based on the expected output of the martial damage dealers. This modifier feels like a pasted quick-fix and I'm not likin' it. Thoughts?

I actually like it, it keeps the fighters damage going up without adding complexity to the game. That way the martial dice can cap out at a reasonable number of dice at a fairly low level.

has anyone actually compared these bonuses to the challenges they are meant for?  like has anyone done the actual math to see how the scaling bonuses compare to the way monster health scales?  I think we need to do that work before we start trying to poke holes in the system.  It may look klunky from the outside, at least to you, it looks fine to me from the outside, but it may in fact be a needed portion of the math.  Once we get a breakdown of the math we can start poking holes in it or suggesting alternative systems, or start mutating the numbers on both ends to get them to a more reasonable level, but at the moment static damage such as this is a simple and effective method.

I personally love the use of d6 if only because it gives the user more options of how to use their dice in a given situation.  less dice means less things you can do at a time.  with 6 dice i could make one attack against a giant, from 5 feet away (lunge),trip him and make it cost his whole movement to stand (trip with three dice spent), and send him flying 5 feet further away (shove away 2 dice spent).  All while still dealing 20 extra damage on top of my weapon damage thanks to my martial damage bonus.  

Though I would like to see the martial damage bonus act as a pool of damage rather than a one shot additive.  Mainly because of things like whirlwind attack where I would rather spread that damage than blow it on one guy in the circle.
Martial Damage Dice: I was formerly in support of a progression change that favored d6's, but I'm now thinking that the progression proposed in these forums is a more elegant solution. Sure, we're using disparate dice, but the handful of d6's I'm rolling in conjunction with my weapon dice and other such riders is feeling unwieldy. Perhaps I'd feel better if the d6's didn't progress so steeply and then taper off so oddly in the upper levels?

I see a lot of that with this packet, I think it is just something people will get used to. The power curve across levels for D&D next isn't like that of previous editions, in Next the power curve tapers off at 10th level and characters gain less per level. Wizard gain few high level spells at all and the martial classes just get a few abilities.

Martial Damage Bonus: Hate this. It's clunky, weird, needlessly complicates the math, and all around appears inelegant. The math should be based on the expected output of the martial damage dealers. This modifier feels like a pasted quick-fix and I'm not likin' it. Thoughts?

I actually like it, it keeps the fighters damage going up without adding complexity to the game. That way the martial dice can cap out at a reasonable number of dice at a fairly low level.




+1
I was glad to see the shift to d6s.

Then the damage bonus almost threw me. When I saw the chart, and started to read the description for the columns, I thought I was about to read something like the following:

The damage bonus is added to all melee attacks as a fixed increase. So multiple attacks, off-turn attacks, etc. all benefited from this increase - always. And then the dice can add even more damage where you needed it focused, or spent on maneuvers.

I liked where I thought it was going.

But then, I got to the part where I read that it's just more one-off assigned damage each turn, just like the dice are.

I was disappointed.

Clunky.
By creating two separate progressions - martial damage dice and martial damage bonus - it lets you manipulate each while still getting the total damage output where the system math needs it. Because martial damage die can be used to power maneuvers, you can cap the number of die at a reasonable level (which they feel is six, right now) and still boost damage as necessary. 20 extra damage average with d6s would be another six dice; on top of the six you already have, that would make for an unwieldy dice pool.

I was glad to see the shift to d6s.

Then the damage bonus almost threw me. When I saw the chart, and started to read the description for the columns, I thought I was about to read something like the following:

The damage bonus is added to all melee attacks as a fixed increase. So multiple attacks, off-turn attacks, etc. all benefited from this increase - always. And then the dice can add even more damage where you needed it focused, or spent on maneuvers.

I liked where I thought it was going.

But then, I got to the part where I read that it's just more one-off assigned damage each turn, just like the dice are.

I was disappointed.

Clunky.



Agreed.  I can see that they don't want the flat bonuses being abused by multiple attacks, but having two separate kinds of add-once-per-round damage... that just doesn't seem like good game design to me.
has anyone actually compared these bonuses to the challenges they are meant for?  like has anyone done the actual math to see how the scaling bonuses compare to the way monster health scales?  I think we need to do that work before we start trying to poke holes in the system.  It may look klunky from the outside, at least to you, it looks fine to me from the outside, but it may in fact be a needed portion of the math.  Once we get a breakdown of the math we can start poking holes in it or suggesting alternative systems, or start mutating the numbers on both ends to get them to a more reasonable level, but at the moment static damage such as this is a simple and effective method.

I personally love the use of d6 if only because it gives the user more options of how to use their dice in a given situation.  less dice means less things you can do at a time.  with 6 dice i could make one attack against a giant, from 5 feet away (lunge),trip him and make it cost his whole movement to stand (trip with three dice spent), and send him flying 5 feet further away (shove away 2 dice spent).  All while still dealing 20 extra damage on top of my weapon damage thanks to my martial damage bonus.  

Though I would like to see the martial damage bonus act as a pool of damage rather than a one shot additive.  Mainly because of things like whirlwind attack where I would rather spread that damage than blow it on one guy in the circle.



I started a comparison thread for Fighter vs. Rogue and it turns out there aren't that many high level monsters. There are two 18th level monsters and one 20th level monster. Their average AC is 16.66 and their average HP is 202. It takes an optimized level 20 Fighter or Rogue 5 rounds to kill an average at level creature alone.
"Unite the [fan] base? Hardly. As of right now, I doubt their ability to unite a slightly unruly teabag with a cup of water."--anjelika
1-4E play style
The 4E play style is a high action cinematic style of play where characters worry less about being killed in one hit and more about strategy and what their next move is and the one after it. The players talk back and forth about planning a battle and who can do what to influence the outcome. 4E play is filled with cinematic over the top action. An Eladrin teleports out of the grip of the Ogre. The Fighter slams the dragons foot with his hammer causing it to rear up and stagger back in pain. The Cleric creates a holy zone where their allies weapons are guided to their targets and whenever an enemy dies the Clerics allies are healed. 4E is about knowing when to lauch your nova attack, whether its a huge arcane spell that causes enemies to whirl around in a chaotic storm, or if its a trained adrenaline surge that causes you to attack many many times with two weapons on a single target, or a surge of adrenaline that keeps you going though you should already be dead. Its about tactics and the inability to carry around a bag of potions or a few wands and never have to worry about healing. Its about the guy that can barely role play having the same chance to convince the king to aid the group as the guy that takes improv acting classes and regularly stars as an extra on movies.
Stormwind Fallacy
The Stormwind Fallacy, aka the Roleplayer vs Rollplayer Fallacy Just because one optimizes his characters mechanically does not mean that they cannot also roleplay, and vice versa. Corollary: Doing one in a game does not preclude, nor infringe upon, the ability to do the other in the same game. Generalization 1: One is not automatically a worse role player if he optimizes, and vice versa. Generalization 2: A non-optimized character is not automatically role played better than an optimized one, and vice versa. ...[aside]... Proof: These two elements rely on different aspects of a player's game play. Optimization factors in to how well one understands the rules and handles synergies to produce a very effective end result. Role playing deals with how well a player can act in character and behave as if he was someone else. A person can act while understanding the rules, and can build something powerful while still handling an effective character. There is nothing in the game -- mechanical or otherwise -- restricting one if you participate in the other. Claiming that an optimizer cannot role play (or is participating in a play style that isn't supportive of role playing) because he is an optimizer, or vice versa, is committing the Stormwind Fallacy.
The spells we should getLook here to Check out my adventures and ideas. I've started a blog, about video games, table top role playing games, programming, and many other things its called Kel and Lok Games. My 4E Fantasy Grounds game is currently full.
Again, I have to say that it's over complicating the math, DMG, and time it will add to any given turn. Clunky and unnecessary all in the name of mechanical "balance".
has anyone actually compared these bonuses to the challenges they are meant for?  like has anyone done the actual math to see how the scaling bonuses compare to the way monster health scales?  I think we need to do that work before we start trying to poke holes in the system.



Its all pure speculation at this point. I think were all pretty much aware of that fact. I obviously wouldn't make this comment in the survey until testing it out.

But first impressions tell me that its clunky and a bit much.

In any case, I think the feedback is overall positive compared to the previous packet, there isn't nearly as much rage. I find most of the initial impression for this one is a general sense of confusion. They introduced so many new things were not quite sure how to digest it — we just have to try it out and hope it settles
I'm hearing and understanding what's being reasoned, but it's definitely ugly no matter how much sense it may or may not make.

I can live with the 6d6, and I'll concede to its offered versatility. However, I'd be MUCH happier with the Melee Damage Bonus if it capped at +5 and applied to all attacks made.

Fair compromise, methinks.

Danny

I can live with the 6d6, ait's ill concede to its offered versatility. However, I'd be MUCH happier with the Melee Damage Bonus if it capped at +5 and applied to all attacks made.

Precisely.

It makes more sense as to why they are separate columns/progressions/mechanics. One (using dice) is applied situationally. The other (fixed bonus) is added to all damage as a new baseline for being high level.

Obviously, the damage bonus would need tweaking down some. I'm sure the math gurus would be happy to help figure out the right progression if its an always-on bonus. But even if less, it feels more intuitive that way. To me at least.

A 20th level fighter (20 Str) with a long sword deals 1d8 + 5 + 6d6 + 20 with every attack, seems very odd, talk about trivialising weapons (and ability scores).

That's not right at all.

Is it a notation issue?  The way I'm looking at it, fighter bonus damage caps out at (6d6+20), where you get to add that much bonus damage in a round but you also have the option to spend the dice on other stuff.

This solves the problem of rolling, say, 10d6 - which has been noted as a lot of dice to be rolling every round, and would allow for far too many combinations of ways to spend those dice.  Of course, I could totally see how adding that flat bonus to all weapon attacks (particularly opportunity attacks) would go a long way to making such things more meaningful.

Right now, my biggest issue with Martial Damage is that clerics get so little of it, and wizards are left entirely out in the cold Cry

I'd really prefer if they made fighter bonus damage at 6d6+20, gave rogues maybe 6d6+15, then brought clerics up to 4d6+10, and gave wizards at least 4d6+5.

The metagame is not the game.

Is it a notation issue?  The way I'm looking at it, fighter bonus damage caps out at (6d6+20), where you get to add that much bonus damage in a round but you also have the option to spend the dice on other stuff.

I understand it. I just don't like it.

Please explain how it works. 

The part you got wrong was when you said, "every attack".

These bonuses are spent and expended. So multiple attacks in the same round do not benefit from all (or potentially any) of it.

Damage dice refresh every turn.

Always a GM, never a player (not really but sometimes feels like it).

Hex Grid UserPopcorn InitiativeAndroid UserD&DMapTools

DungeonScape

But why 6d6 + 20 , why so much damage? It just seems excessive to me, even for a high level character. Even 6d6 is allot compared to your weapon + mod which is essentially at most 1d12 +5

Can't they just scale things down all around so that you don't even need the additional +X Martial Damage Bonus?


Its like every sword thrust is a frekin bomb lol, you'll be slaying ogres in a single sword thrust, heck you could kill an ogre with a sling shot or staff.

I'm not kidding, an Ogre has on average 32 HP. A 20th level fighter with 10 str and a dagger, can hit 1d4 + 20 + 6d6 for an average of 40 dmg. I thought Bounded Accuracy was supposed to stop powerfull NPCs/PCs from being godlike, now, instead of godlike defences, you have godlike power bombs in every strike no matter what weapon you are using.
I thought Bounded Accuracy was supposed to stop powerfull NPCs/PCs from being godlike, now, instead of godlike defences, you have godlike power bombs in every strike no matter what weapon you are using.

Actually, this damage inflation is almost directly a result of Bounded Accuracy.  When they decided that they want lower-level enemies to still be able to hit, they realized that they still need to give a metric for character improvement somewhere.  Their "solution" was to increase the damage and HP at higher levels, so everyone can hit everyone but high-level character smash lower level ones and low-level characters deal trivial damage to higher level ones.

Is the exchange worth it?  That's a matter of personal opinion.  Personally, I really like using the accuracy metric rather than the damage one.  Others would disagree.

The metagame is not the game.

Am I the only person here that enjoys weapon choice being somewhat trival?  I kinda like that my fighter will be reasonably and somewhat similarly effective weather I wield a great axe or a dagger.  Opens up far more characters to play, and
Am I the only person here that enjoys weapon choice being somewhat trival?  I kinda like that my fighter will be reasonably and somewhat similarly effective weather I wield a great axe or a dagger.  Opens up far more characters to play, and



I like this as well, at lower levels your damage is more based upon the weapon you use, as you get higher level and better trained it becomes more a matter of training.

I'd just like some weapon specific maneuvers as you get higher level, so that the fighting styles feel different between the weapons. Right now it's just hit hard, and parry the first significant hit, regardless of weapon. 

Always a GM, never a player (not really but sometimes feels like it).

Hex Grid UserPopcorn InitiativeAndroid UserD&DMapTools

DungeonScape

I thought Bounded Accuracy was supposed to stop powerfull NPCs/PCs from being godlike, now, instead of godlike defences, you have godlike power bombs in every strike no matter what weapon you are using.

Actually, this damage inflation is almost directly a result of Bounded Accuracy.  When they decided that they want lower-level enemies to still be able to hit, they realized that they still need to give a metric for character improvement somewhere.  Their "solution" was to increase the damage and HP at higher levels, so everyone can hit everyone but high-level character smash lower level ones and low-level characters deal trivial damage to higher level ones.

Is the exchange worth it?  That's a matter of personal opinion.  Personally, I really like using the accuracy metric rather than the damage one.  Others would disagree.




So then Bounded Accuracy doesn't fix anything (it just switches it around), we need both Bounded Accuracy and Bounded Damage lol.

There is no reason they can't use attack and damage as a scaling metric without inflating to these rediculous amounts.


Am I the only person here that enjoys weapon choice being somewhat trival?  I kinda like that my fighter will be reasonably and somewhat similarly effective weather I wield a great axe or a dagger.  Opens up far more characters to play, and



No your not the only one, in fact allot of people like it that way.

Personally I prerfer weapon choice and ability score to matter all the way through but its hard to determine what the majority thinks.
Even 6d6 is allot compared to your weapon + mod which is essentially at most 1d12 +5
 


High end heros of myth and legend are awesome without there equipment.. low end and overtly realistic martial types are dependent on them... this is a good thing.

Disarm being overly easy is kind of a movie trope they are almost catering to it I think, so I am disarmed I still rock. Is usually the point. Lancelots and Beowulfs as noteworthy examples.
  Creative Character Build Collection and The Magic of King's and Heros  also Can Martial Characters Fly? 

Improvisation in 4e: Fave 4E Improvisations - also Wrecans Guides to improvisation beyond page 42
The Non-combatant Adventurer (aka Princess build Warlord or LazyLord)
Reality is unrealistic - and even monkeys protest unfairness
Reflavoring the Fighter : The Wizard : The Swordmage - Creative Character Collection: Bloodwright (Darksun Character) 

At full hit points and still wounded to incapacitation? you are playing 1e.
By virtue of being a player your characters are the protagonists in a heroic fantasy game even at level one
"Wizards and Warriors need abilities with explicit effects for opposite reasons. With the wizard its because you need to create artificial limits on them, they have no natural ones and for the Warrior you need to grant permission to do awesome."

 

There is no reason they can't use attack and damage as a scaling metric without inflating to these rediculous amounts.

I can't argue with that.  Give the choice, I would prefer Bounded Damage to Bounded Accuracy, but limiting both would be preferable to only limiting accuracy.

The metagame is not the game.

Even 6d6 is allot compared to your weapon + mod which is essentially at most 1d12 +5
 


High end heros of myth and legend are awesome without there equipment.. low end and overtly realistic martial types are dependent on them... this is a good thing.

Disarm being overly easy is kind of a movie trope they are almost catering to it I think, so I am disarmed I still rock. Is usually the point. Lancelots and Beowulfs as noteworthy examples.



It makes more sense when you put it that way and I understand the logic.

I just think it inflates too much, Theres a balance somewhere. I think they really pushed it to the extreme in this packet.
There is no reason they can't use attack and damage as a scaling metric without inflating to these rediculous amounts.

I can't argue with that.  Give the choice, I would prefer Bounded Damage to Bounded Accuracy, but limiting both would be preferable to only limiting accuracy.




I would much rather have numbers scale about twice as fast and damage/HP scale half as fast.

A level 20 fighter might have a +10 bonus to weapon attack rolls from class and have 6d6 damage dice, but no flat damage bonus.

Personally I would also like to see some minor class based AC and Saving throw bonuses as well.

Monster do not need level based scaling as a monster's HD do not represent the same thing as PC HD.  A monster's HD tends to relate more to their size and toughness while a PC HD represents training and experience.  This will remove any "treadmill" for those worried about such things.

 
I don't like the flat damage bonus, it just feels... awkward, I guess. It makes the columns look weird, it makes the description of the attacks look weird. It just feels weird.

I think a better way of handling this would have been to add some class abilities that simply doubled or tripled the bonus dice damage. You'd get to basically the same place anyway. The average of 6d6 is 21 and with a +20 damage bonus, that is effectively doubling the damage.
I think accuracy/AC needs to be a bit steeper and damage/HP a bit shallower.  I can see the point of bounded accuracy but this is taking it too far.  Weapon choice and ability modifiers should have more effect than they currently do imo.  Just to illustrate the problems this causes: who in their right mind would choose a greatsword or greataxe under the current system?  These supposedly massive, awesome weapons that are supposed to make up in raw damage potential for you not being able to use a shield give you what, 2 damage on average on top of your die pool & martial bonus over a one-handed 1d8 weapon?  Why bother, with accuracy/ac in it's current state you would be MUCH better off with a shield bonus, with martial damage dice and bonus 2 extra on average is nothing.
Re martial damage dice: I think they should be weapon dependent. For example they begin at 1[W] and escalate to 6[W]. This would help make weapon choice significant while allowing the mechanic to remain reasonably balanced.

Adding your STR modifier to damage seems very significant in early levels and fairly meaningless in later levels. Maybe your STR modifier should instead work like Brutal. If your die roll is lower that your STR mod, treat the result as your STR mod. So on a d6 with 16 STR(+3), if you roll a 2, you treat it as a 3, etc. Apply this to all damage dice rolled.

As for melee damage bonus, I think we can eliminate it altogether if you adopt the "brutal" idea I outlined above. It seems MDB is there to increase average DPR to keep current with monster HP. If we use the Brutal rule, we're "folding in" the damage boost.

See?
Re martial damage dice: I think they should be weapon dependent. For example they begin at 1[W] and escalate to 6[W]. This would help make weapon choice significant while allowing the mechanic to remain reasonably balanced. Adding your STR modifier to damage seems very significant in early levels and fairly meaningless in later levels. Maybe your STR modifier should instead work like Brutal. If your die roll is lower that your STR mod, treat the result as your STR mod. So on a d6 with 16 STR(+3), if you roll a 2, you treat it as a 3, etc. Apply this to all damage dice rolled. As for melee damage bonus, I think we can eliminate it altogether if you adopt the "brutal" idea I outlined above. It seems MDB is there to increase average DPR to keep current with monster HP. If we use the Brutal rule, we're "folding in" the damage boost. See?



I guess that could work...

The problem would be no difference in maximums, someone with 10str could potentially do the same as someone with 20str.

Re martial damage dice: I think they should be weapon dependent. For example they begin at 1[W] and escalate to 6[W]. This would help make weapon choice significant while allowing the mechanic to remain reasonably balanced. Adding your STR modifier to damage seems very significant in early levels and fairly meaningless in later levels. Maybe your STR modifier should instead work like Brutal. If your die roll is lower that your STR mod, treat the result as your STR mod. So on a d6 with 16 STR(+3), if you roll a 2, you treat it as a 3, etc. Apply this to all damage dice rolled. As for melee damage bonus, I think we can eliminate it altogether if you adopt the "brutal" idea I outlined above. It seems MDB is there to increase average DPR to keep current with monster HP. If we use the Brutal rule, we're "folding in" the damage boost. See?




Problem: your greataxe wielder is dealing 6d12 my dagger wielder is dealing 6d4 (I'm dealing literally a third of the damage you can).  That isn't balanced in any way.  I am now forced to always make a great axe wielder, and can't ever make a dagger wielder if I want to be effective in combat.  As much as weapon choice is an important one (it really does say something about your character) it should not determine your effectiveness that much.  The great axe giving you the slight edge (8 more possible damage) is fine.  The great axe making you a god compared to my dagger user is not.
Simple fix to that. Have weapon damage dice be rebalanced. 3 steps d6, d8, d10.

Consider also that an axe is supposed to do greater max damage while the brutal rule makes the average damage more comparable.

A fighter with a d4 dagger and 18 Str vs a fighter with a d12 great axe and 18 str will have fairly close AVERAGE damage, even though our great axe fighter has the potential to slam the MAX.

Rebalance the weapon damage dice, and the issue is almost totally resolved.
Simple fix to that. Have weapon damage dice be rebalanced. 3 steps d6, d8, d10. Consider also that an axe is supposed to do greater max damage while the brutal rule makes the average damage more comparable. A fighter with a d4 dagger and 18 Str vs a fighter with a d12 great axe and 18 str will have fairly close AVERAGE damage, even though our great axe fighter has the potential to slam the MAX. Rebalance the weapon damage dice, and the issue is almost totally resolved.




ummm in your system a dagger fighter wouldn't even have damage dice.  He'd be doing a static amount of damage...especially if he had a 20 strength (actually dex more precisely).  In that case would he be doing more damage than is possible with the weapon? I mean since his strength mod is 5 and the weapon is a d4 weapon?  In your system rolling the d4 would be pointless he always does 5 damage with every die anyways.  At that point the greataxe wielder has an average of 36 damage and the dagger fighter always does 30.  That 30 is the max, average, and base line damage for the dagger fighter in your system.  It is also the base damage for the similarly stated great axe fighter, but he can do better than that value on the regular.  Sorry but your system doesn't even pass a basic balance litmus test.  

The system they have far more elegently puts everyone on a somewhat similar footing as far as average damage goes with only a few numbers being off between different fighters.  Those being 1 die and your ability mod.  Even those disparities are small compared to the disparities in your system.  Your system would no matter what create a grand disparity between certain builds.  Easily identifying them as trap options.  I'm not trying to say their system is perfect, but your's is identifiably broken.
I think this is my first real bout of complaining.

A 20th level fighter (20 Str) with a long sword deals 1d8 + 5 + 6d6 + 20 with every attack, seems very odd, talk about trivialising weapons (and ability scores).

It really does having a trivializing affect on weapon choice, for sure.


Is it a notation issue?  The way I'm looking at it, fighter bonus damage caps out at (6d6+20), where you get to add that much bonus damage in a round but you also have the option to spend the dice on other stuff.

It's definitely a notation issue. It succeeds at what it sets out to do, but the presentation and numbers involved are klunky.


Am I the only person here that enjoys weapon choice being somewhat trival?  I kinda like that my fighter will be reasonably and somewhat similarly effective weather I wield a great axe or a dagger.  Opens up far more characters to play, and

No, I love and adore what stripping proficiency from weapons has done, but I did appreciate the damage differences.

I'm also hoping (expecting) to see effects and riders for the different weapon damage types sooner or later. -- Bounded numbers carried the promise of effects over inflated equations. 


I just think it inflates too much, Theres a balance somewhere. I think they really pushed it to the extreme in this packet.

Yes, if they're testing limits, they just established one. LOL

Probably their intent, though. (?)

Danny

I think that, in order to better balance the damage of martial classes with damage spells, I think that the best option is just take out the Martial Damage Bonus.
I think that a +5 should feel extra special throughout the system, in all of its math.

Attack mods, ability mods, damage mods, magic items, etc, should all marvel and salivate at the prospects of boasting a +5 static modifier. -- Make it a universally precious thing.

Danny

I think that a +5 should feel extra special throughout the system, in all of its math.

Attack mods, ability mods, damage mods, magic items, etc, should all marvel and salivate at the prospects of boasting a +5 static modifier. -- Make it a universally precious thing.



Yet again this makes the disparity between a d4 weapon and a d12 weapon far to great.  To the point of making anyone that uses a d4 weapon a measurably and identifiably weaker character.  If +5 damage is a precious amount of damage than the difference between a d4 and a d12 is far to great.  It basically make the dagger a trap option, and voids my use of daggers at any point other than when I am cursed to having to use it by my proficiencies.  Unfortunately this is an area where the +5 shouldn't be a precious thing because weapon choice itself can give you a +5 to your damage.  That is why in the realm of damage the +5 should not and cannot be precious.  Otherwise you completely limit the list of effective characters to those that use big weapons, and making a small weapon expert is completely out of the question because you will never be able to keep up with the damage of the larger weapons.  In any game where balance is even anywhere near an aim this can't happen.