Martial Damage Bonus mitigates the difference between weapon's damage.

I find that it doesn't make much of a difference, in the game I'm in with a lvl 14 fighter, between a weapon with a d6 of damage and a d12 of damage when I get +20 to the damage roll (5 from strength, 15 from Martial Damage Bonus)

21-26 vs 21-32 (avg: 23.5 and 26.5) is only a difference with the d12 weapon of about 2 damage, or 12.7% stronger than the weaker weapon.

vs. a lvl 1 character with a Strength of 16...

4-9 vs 4-15 (avg: 6.5, 9.5) means the weapon with a d12 is 46.1% stronger.

It makes weapon choice seem pointless, and averages out damage, which is disappointing.

Maybe the martial damage bonus could let you re-roll damage and add, or raise the dice type of weapons used.  The current system is really harmful to strategy.

(I love most of the rest with the updated packet, skill dice, wizard and sorcerer merged, and so on)
i kinda saw it as the point. in the hands of a fighting expert, anything makes a deadly weapon. it comes down to the skill and not the weapon itself that decides the killing blow
i kinda saw it as the point. in the hands of a fighting expert, anything makes a deadly weapon. it comes down to the skill and not the weapon itself that decides the killing blow


And I like it.
i kinda saw it as the point. in the hands of a fighting expert, anything makes a deadly weapon. it comes down to the skill and not the weapon itself that decides the killing blow


And I like it.


So do I.
I like it, too. I think, too, the difference in weapon choice comes down to what you can do with it, not the damage.

For example, a Longsword has a certain reach that a shortsword doesn't.

A shortsword can also be thrown, but a dagger can be thrown farther.

And, certainly, a longbow has the greatest range.

So, for an experienced fighter, it becomes a matter of choosing the right tool for the job and less about which weapon does the most damage.

For everyone else, they are probably concerned more about the base amount of damage a weapon does because they cannot wield it very well. 
Let's also not forget that you might have a situation at higher level where the fighter has decided to whirlwind attack a number of foes.

Let's say he is attacking 4 creatures: He gets +20 damage, but only against one of them. He gets 2d6 martial damage dice to use for damage against some - but not all - of the targets, so he might do the following

Target 1: weapon damage +20
Target 2: weapon damage +1d6
Target 3: weapon damage +1d6
Target 4: just weapon damage

So the d12 weapons still outperform the d6 weapons meaningfully - especially when in situations of extreme whirlwind attack potential (5 attacks with only weapon damage, and 1 with weapon damage +20).

ATTENTION:  If while reading my post you find yourself thinking "Either this guy is being sarcastic, or he is an idiot," do please assume that I am an idiot. It makes reading your replies more entertaining. If, however, you find yourself hoping that I am not being even remotely serious then you are very likely correct as I find irreverence and being ridiculous to be relaxing.

Let's also not forget that you might have a situation at higher level where the fighter has decided to whirlwind attack a number of foes.

Let's say he is attacking 4 creatures: He gets +20 damage, but only against one of them. He gets 2d6 martial damage dice to use for damage against some - but not all - of the targets, so he might do the following

Target 1: weapon damage +20
Target 2: weapon damage +1d6
Target 3: weapon damage +1d6
Target 4: just weapon damage

So the d12 weapons still outperform the d6 weapons meaningfully - especially when in situations of extreme whirlwind attack potential (5 attacks with only weapon damage, and 1 with weapon damage +20).


yeah, but to me that is also realism. one on one, a master fighter will F*** you up! but then when it comes down to attacking multiple people, swinging a great axe around in a circle will be more effective than swinging a short sword or a dagger.

That's not realism.

Historically, different weapons were developed for different purposes, none of which was to be "swung around in circles".

Even a Whirlwind Attack, fantasious as it may feel, should not be interpreted as a warrior spinning on his axis.
To give an easy-to-visualize example: a WW attack would be more or less what Tom Cruise does on the Last Samurai when he is surrounded by enemies in that ambush scene on one of the town's streets, making multiple strikes in different directions all-round him.


A system that makes all weapons look alike when used in combat, especially in the hands of a master combatant, does not feel realistic, nor does it sound fun, really.
If anything, each weapon should be better for its specific purpose when in the hands of a master combatant.

Imagine a duel between a skilled samurai using a Katana and a skilled shinobi using a Kusari-gama. Or between a medieval warrior with sword and shield and another with a Bardiche.
Their techniques wouldn't look the same just because they're both skilled in their weapons, on the contrary, they'd be most distinct because each specialized in that particular weapon-use.

So a system where it makes no big difference what weapon you're using is not really realistic.
And it takes away diversity from the game, and the fun of choosing specific weapons for different reasons other than "this will look cool in my warrior's hands."
 

A system that makes all weapons look alike when used in combat, especially in the hands of a master combatant, does not feel realistic, nor does it sound fun, really.
If anything, each weapon should be better for its specific purpose when in the hands of a master combatant.



That's why I've kind of liked the thought of all weapons in a certain catagory (Light, Heavy, 1H, 2H, etc) all do the same damage, and do that damage regardles sof who is using it, but then each weapon catagory (axe, spear, sword, etc) has a special trait that can only be used by someone trained in the weapon, like extra damage or and AC bonus when wielded.
EVERY DAY IS HORRIBLE POST DAY ON THE D&D FORUMS. Everything makes me ANGRY (ESPECIALLY you, reader)

Imagine a duel between a skilled samurai using a Katana and a skilled shinobi using a Kusari-gama. Or between a medieval warrior with sword and shield and another with a Bardiche.
Their techniques wouldn't look the same just because they're both skilled in their weapons, on the contrary, they'd be most distinct because each specialized in that particular weapon-use. 


That's all the narrative though. A samurai dealing 26 damage with his katana and a shinobi dealing 26 damage with a Kusari-gama are going to look very, very different, but that's all in how the fight is narrated. The amonut of damage they deal shouldn't be what differentiates them, otherwise why would you want to play the one that deals less damage? That's not to say the differences can't be expressed elsewhere in the mechanics, but the amount of damage should be comparable, so that the guy who really wants to play a ninja doesn't feel gipped for picking a fighting style that's mathematically inferior.

Similarly, I love playing rogues that are loaded up with dozens of daggers. In previous editions, rapiers are generally a better choice mechanically, so my options have been suck it up and use a rapier, or play a suboptimal characacter. This way I get to roleplay my character the way I want without being punished for it with significantly lower damage output.
Historically, different weapons were developed for different purposes, none of which was to be "swung around in circles".

I'd like to see some manuvers/feats based on weapon/damage types. I think this'd go a LONG way in making the weapons feel different and give a reason to not JUST pick the one that does the most damage.
I'd like to see some manuvers/feats based on weapon/damage types. I think this'd go a LONG way in making the weapons feel different and give a reason to not JUST pick the one that does the most damage.


I like this as well, although I think I would extend it to include armor types as well. It might help to incentivize wearing certain types of armor. For instance, if you created "A" manuevers that were usable by Light Armor wearers and "B" manuevers that were available to Heavy Armor users, maybe Mediunm Armor folks have access to A & B type Manuevers.
Historically, different weapons were developed for different purposes, none of which was to be "swung around in circles".

I'd like to see some manuvers/feats based on weapon/damage types. I think this'd go a LONG way in making the weapons feel different and give a reason to not JUST pick the one that does the most damage.


shield smash: while wielding a two handed weapon, make an attack. if the attack hits the targets AC roll as many martial damage dice you like. if the total result beats the targets shield's hardness, the shield is destroyed.

just an example :P