Houseruling MDD's as Weapon Damage Dice

So, working out my own houserules for MDD's based on weapon die, and I've come to this.
I decided to think about my own rules for weapon die as MDD until it's actually added to the packet.

EDIT: Yeah this unbalances certain manuevers, and the best solution I can think of is that those manuevers should simply state that they force a specific dice type, because there aren't a huge amount of those.  I also think that Veggie-sama's thread is a much better solution than this one, and unifies the system in a more coherent way.  I'm going to leave this thread here in case it gives someone inspiration though.

====

You have a number of Martial Damage Dice, the exact type of dice is based on the weapon you're weilding in your main hand, or the only weapon you're weilding, or your unarmed attack if you aren't weilding a weapon.  When rolling Martial Damage Dice in relation to the use of a weapon, always use that weapon's damage dice.  If your weapon has a +1 or greater bonus, these are added to Martial Damage Dice rolls, but no other effects, like damage type or magic effects, are applied.

Martial Damage Dice refresh at the beginning of your turn.

The number of Martial Damage Dice you have is based on levels gained in classes with Combat Expertise (the first level gained with Combat Expertise in a class counts as 1).

lvl mdd
01 - 1
02 - 1
03 - 1
04 - 2
05 - 2
06 - 2
07 - 3
08 - 3
09 - 3
10+ - 4

====

I first though about matching the progression up to half (when you'd normally get 4, you get 2, and when you would normally get 6, you get 3) but then the epitome of that would be 6d6 (3 with a 2d6 weapon) which is the current max, and every other weapon would be weaker and this would be generally worse.  So I decided to make it slightly higher but cap at nearly the same time while keeping the progression linear with level.

Comments?
I don't think it's a problem to make the whole system generally weaker, since the current system is overpowered, most agree.
Could I as a monk draw a Great Axe and use that for my Step of the Wind? Or any other manouver that says "roll as many as you like, pick the higest"
First of all, I feel that the dice should be refreshed at the end, but, this point has been discussed to death already.

I'd like to analyze the damage output
Let's compare 2-handed users to multi-attack users.
2-handed weapon users will most likely get a 1d12 weapon. w/o advantage they'll probably sit at a 60% hit chance, meaning that you get +.6*Nd12 or N*3.9 additional damage.

 Multi-attackers get a penalty to hit, putting them at 50% chance of hitting base. Having 2 chances to hit we get 75% of either hitting. The WDD adds .75*Nd8 = N*3.375.  
The 2-handed weapon is better, by 13%.  Close enough to hand-wave.

Now we'll grant both advantage
2-handed user: (1-(1-.6)^2)*Nd12 =  N*5.46
2-weapon user: (1-(1-.5)^4)*Nd8 =  N*4.122
The 2-handed user still comes out on top.
But we haven't taken into account crit chance so I'll modify them to be more accurate
2-handed user has a 9.75% chance of critting :


  • Chance to non-crit hit: 1-chance to miss - chance to crit = 1-.4^2-.0975 = .7425

  • Damage from non-crit hit: Nd12*.7425 = N*4.9

  • Damage from crit: .0975*N*12 = N*1.17

  • Total : N*6.07


2-weapon user has a 18.55% chance of critting


  • Chance to non-crit hit: 1-chance to miss - chance to crit = 1-.5^4-.1855 = .752

  • Damage from non-crit hit: Nd8*.752 = N*3.384

  • Damage from crit: .1855*N*8 = N*1.484

  • Total : N*4.868


Still the 2-handed user wins.  Not a bad thing.  Just keep this analysis in mind in your proposal.
Food for thought.

DPR King Candidates 3.0
How much damage should I shoot for?
You're fired : 1 Kills Per 5 Rounds = .2 KPR Fair Striker : 2 Kills Per 5 Rounds = .4 KPR Highly Optimized : 3 Kills Per 5 Rounds = .6 KPR Nerfbat please : 4 Kills Per 5 Rounds = .8 KPR It's OVER 9000!!!!!: 5 Kills Per 5 Rounds = 1+ KPR
DPR? KPR? KP4R? Bless you
DPR = Damage Per round ~= Chance to hit * damage on a hit KPR = Kills Per Round. 1 Kill = 8*Level+24 damage = DPR/(8*level+24) KPNR = Kills Per N Rounds. How many standards can you kill in N rounds?
First of all, I feel that the dice should be refreshed at the end, but, this point has been discussed to death already.



Seconded.  It has a much more elegant feel to it, and allows you to not waste any of your limited resource within a single round.

More on topic, I personally feel that only a simple change needs to be made to the whole thing.  Under the Combat Expertise section across all of the classes that have it, replace the second paragraph of the Martial Damage Dice sub-section with this:

When you hit a target with a melee or ranged attack using a weapon with which you have proficiency, you can spend any of your martial damage dice to deal extra damage.  For each martial damage die that you spend, roll your weapon's damage dice an additional time, and then add their total to the damage you dealt by that attack.  You do not get any additional bonuses to these extra weapon dice.



So, in the case of a dagger, the player spending 3 damage dice would roll 1d4 for the initial dagger damage and an additional 3d4 for MDD.  If, say, a player used 2 MDD and was attacking with a large-sized maul (which would do 2d6 damage), then they would roll 2d6 for the initial maul damage and 4d6 for the MDD.

With this change, any other abilities you have that key off MDD would still use d6's, but the abilities that use weapon damage would scale up.
neat and elegant landale... I really dont want to see monks draw their great sword to move faster... or a person with a 2d6 maul being better at elegant manouvers.

How would all this affect the stereoypical rogue with a dagger? Any reason for them not to pick up a shortsword instead?
neat and elegant landale... I really dont want to see monks draw their great sword to move faster... or a person with a 2d6 maul being better at elegant manouvers.

How would all this affect the stereoypical rogue with a dagger? Any reason for them not to pick up a shortsword instead?




The stereotypical rogue with a dagger should be using a short sword to fight.



The advantage to a dagger is that you can carry it in places where a sword would be inappropriate and draw attention to itself.


Carl     

Precisely.  There's no reason to not use, at least, a shortsword during a conventional combat.  Dagger, on the other hand, is a much more versatile weapon - they can be wielded in a fight, hidden on your person, thrown at an enemy or object, or they can even be used as a crude tool.  Every rogue I've ever played has at least one or two daggers on them at all times for their utility alone.
I'm disappointed in this packet. Based on what Mike said I thought they were going to fix MDD and change it to WDD. MDD is broken and needs to be taken out. Not to mention the MDB.
If I get the change to run playtest I would use the houserule listed
in this thread. I already planned on sometihng similiar to it.
Changing martial damage dice to weapon damage dice would be a huge mistake. Not only would fighter types be doing even more damage, they'd all use the biggest weapon possible.
Changing martial damage dice to weapon damage dice would be a huge mistake. Not only would fighter types be doing even more damage, they'd all use the biggest weapon possible.



I agree with this.    Fighters with greataxes doing 3d12 or 4d12 plus damage bonus seems excessive.  

And, if a human rogue is proficient with daggers, he should be able to do the extra damage (or sneak attack) that does the extra damage, not 2x or 3x 1d4...that's wimpy.

I can see maybe 1d6 through level 5, 2d6 levels 6-10, 3d6 levels 11-15, 4d6 levels 15+.    That might not be too bad.   

   

A Brave Knight of WTF

 

Rhenny's Blog:  http://community.wizards.com/user/1497701/blog

 

 

Get rid of MDB an nobody is going to be doing too much dmg. Obvioulsy it would scale differently. Fighter WDD would only be 4WD at level 16 or so. Have it scale just like it does in 3ed.
As for rogues and sneak attack start giving them multipliers. Every 5 levels give them another multiplier so a rogue of 15th level would have a multiplier of x5. So if he's using a short sword he would have (3d6)x5 on a sneak attack at 15th level.
Changing martial damage dice to weapon damage dice would be a huge mistake. Not only would fighter types be doing even more damage, they'd all use the biggest weapon possible.



I agree with this.    Fighters with greataxes doing 3d12 or 4d12 plus damage bonus seems excessive.  

And, if a human rogue is proficient with daggers, he should be able to do the extra damage (or sneak attack) that does the extra damage, not 2x or 3x 1d4...that's wimpy.

I can see maybe 1d6 through level 5, 2d6 levels 6-10, 3d6 levels 11-15, 4d6 levels 15+.    That might not be too bad.   

   


Just because the dagger weilding rogue is sterioypical doesn't mean it's realistic.  What we want to balance is expected damage, not how many dice you throw.  
doing 4d100 damage but only a 5% chance of hitting has about the same average as magic missile. You would say it's broken by your logic but a deeper analysis is in order, thus my analysis above.  The optimal 2-handed fighter should be within 1 step of expected damage of another optimal striker.  I chose the 2-weapon duelist and found that they are within 1 step of eachother.
Comparing this expected damage to a guy with a butterknife or a sword+board does not account for the difference in focus.  The butterfinger chose to be suboptimal or favored the option of throwing the dagger. The sword+board may or may not get sufficent armor boosters to compensate for the lack of damage output.
Let's compare oranges to oranges, not to butterfingers. 
DPR King Candidates 3.0
How much damage should I shoot for?
You're fired : 1 Kills Per 5 Rounds = .2 KPR Fair Striker : 2 Kills Per 5 Rounds = .4 KPR Highly Optimized : 3 Kills Per 5 Rounds = .6 KPR Nerfbat please : 4 Kills Per 5 Rounds = .8 KPR It's OVER 9000!!!!!: 5 Kills Per 5 Rounds = 1+ KPR
DPR? KPR? KP4R? Bless you
DPR = Damage Per round ~= Chance to hit * damage on a hit KPR = Kills Per Round. 1 Kill = 8*Level+24 damage = DPR/(8*level+24) KPNR = Kills Per N Rounds. How many standards can you kill in N rounds?
Changing martial damage dice to weapon damage dice would be a huge mistake. Not only would fighter types be doing even more damage, they'd all use the biggest weapon possible.



I agree with this.    Fighters with greataxes doing 3d12 or 4d12 plus damage bonus seems excessive.  

And, if a human rogue is proficient with daggers, he should be able to do the extra damage (or sneak attack) that does the extra damage, not 2x or 3x 1d4...that's wimpy.

I can see maybe 1d6 through level 5, 2d6 levels 6-10, 3d6 levels 11-15, 4d6 levels 15+.    That might not be too bad.   



Using the dice of the weapon makes weapon choice relevant.
It maks it clear that the damage was inflicted WITH the weapon.
Using fixed D6 feels clunky and conter-intuitive, the dices don't actualy represent anything clear
And it creates weird things, like the difference in average damage between a 2-handed axe weilding fighter and a barehanded one is only 4 points per round...
Fighters would indeed use the biggest weapon possible...just like you would in real life.
The difference between 4D12 and 4D8 is roughly 8 points of damage, a very reasonable amount by most acounts

The real problem is that the number of MDD  is too high
Try radiance RPG. A complete D20 game that supports fantasy and steampunk. Download the FREE PDF here: http://www.radiancerpg.com
Changing martial damage dice to weapon damage dice would be a huge mistake. Not only would fighter types be doing even more damage, they'd all use the biggest weapon possible.



I agree with this.    Fighters with greataxes doing 3d12 or 4d12 plus damage bonus seems excessive.  

And, if a human rogue is proficient with daggers, he should be able to do the extra damage (or sneak attack) that does the extra damage, not 2x or 3x 1d4...that's wimpy.

I can see maybe 1d6 through level 5, 2d6 levels 6-10, 3d6 levels 11-15, 4d6 levels 15+.    That might not be too bad.   

   


Just because the dagger weilding rogue is sterioypical doesn't mean it's realistic.  What we want to balance is expected damage, not how many dice you throw.  
doing 4d100 damage but only a 5% chance of hitting has about the same average as magic missile. You would say it's broken by your logic but a deeper analysis is in order, thus my analysis above.  The optimal 2-handed fighter should be within 1 step of expected damage of another optimal striker.  I chose the 2-weapon duelist and found that they are within 1 step of eachother.
Comparing this expected damage to a guy with a butterknife or a sword+board does not account for the difference in focus.  The butterfinger chose to be suboptimal or favored the option of throwing the dagger. The sword+board may or may not get sufficent armor boosters to compensate for the lack of damage output.
Let's compare oranges to oranges, not to butterfingers. 




A dagger wielding rogue isn't a stereotype.  The dagger is a weapon that is most easily concealed.  It is the logical choice for a sneaking character who is light on his feat and more concerned with stealth than open combat.   If martial skill is trained, it should be something that a trained PC can apply to any weapon he or she is proficient with.   If weapon damage were used for MDD, then no martially trained PC would ever use a dagger.   I like the idea that someone can be skilled and dangerous using a dagger. 

I don't understand what % chance of hitting has to do with my post.   All I'm saying is that MDD is a good idea, it is just too powerful/too many dice at this point.   It needs to be nerfed.   Personally, I don't think weapon choice should make so much of a difference for anyone who is trained to inflict more damage with proficient weapons.


      

A Brave Knight of WTF

 

Rhenny's Blog:  http://community.wizards.com/user/1497701/blog

 

 

I support this idea

Using the biggest weapon possible can easily fixed in other ways

For example - Daggers could have a +1 attack bonus, because lets be honest a dagger with a 2 inch blade should never put out anywhere near as much damage as a massive great axe

Maneuvers and the like can be fixed after changing the rule


Also even if they dont change the dice to refresh at the end of turn, I and my group are still going to play it that way
This is what I would do.

  1. We state that you may only apply any static bonus to damage once per turn.

  2. We keep weapon damage die sizes as is.

  3. We make shields grant cover instead of a +1 AC bonus. Shields also grant people the ability to parry: as a reaction they may soak up a quantity of damage equal to their skill die.

  4. We remove the martial damage bonus.

  5. We replace martial damage dice with bonus weapon damage dice. Bonus weapon damage dice equate to a bonus number of dice rolled whose die size equals the weapon damage die you are using with your main hand.

  6. When dual wielding you add a number of damage dice to your BWDD pool equal in number to your base BWDD and equal in size to your offhand weapon’s damage die. That number, however, is modified by a property called “weapon speed.” Your main-hand weapon must be the weapon with the largest damage die. When using any main-hand weapon larger than a dagger (1d4 offhand weapon) you subtract a number of dice from your off-hand BWDD equal to your weapon speed. D4 offhand weapons have a weapon speed of 1. D6 offhand weapons have a weapon speed of 2. D8 onehanded weapons are given a property called “large mainhand;” using a large mainhand weapon increases the weapon speed of your off-hand weapon by 1. You cannot use a D8 weapon in your off-hand. These rules replace the current dual wielding rules. (Note: you no longer make a second attack roll when dual wielding, and you no longer take a -2 penalty to your attack roll when dual wielding. The benefit of dual wielding is that it can grant you bonus WDD.)

  7. We rewrite the fighter’s parry as improved parry: improved parry now soaks an amount of damage equal to your skill die + your level if you are not wielding a shield; if you are wielding a shield you roll two skill dice + your level. 

  8. We rewrite any maneuvers that allow you to roll your martial damage dice when performing a maneuver in some way that shouldn’t logically improve with a bigger weapon, such as protect, so that each MDD spent grants a fixed benefit (or die size rolled) instead of a WDD roll.

  9. Spread out the BMDD progression out over the course of 20 levels instead of 11 levels. I think a progression of +1 BWDD at level 1, 3, 5, 9, 13, and 17 should work just fine.

  10. While you still only roll one single attack roll, you may spread out dice between any foe in reach of your weapon so long as your attack roll is high enough to hit that foe. If you are using a ranged weapon you must spend ammunition for each foe hit. 


There are also some minor changes you would need to make here or there. For example, the Dual Wielding feat should now read: You reduce the attack speed of all existing off-hand weapons by 1. You may also treat large mainhand weapons as off-hand weapons with an attack speed of 2 when they are wielded in your off-hand. (Note: that means that you can wield a dagger and a longsword with a speed of 1, a short sword and a longsword with a speed of 2, or two longswords with a speed of 3. You can also wield a dagger and a shortsword with a speed of 0 or two shortswords with a speed of 1). 

Two-Weapon Strike should probably read: prior to making an attack roll you may spend two of your off-hand weapon's BWDD to gain advantage on that attack. 
If the concern is about too great of damage output, then perhaps a straight WDD is too much.  I do agree, however, that two-handed weapons should deal considerably more damage than smaller weapons and MDD grants too much unexplainable damage.  Maybe light weapons should have d4s, full one-handed weapons get d6s, and two-handed weapons get d8s instead.  There's still an advantage from using two-handed weapons which is presently missing and the damage does change too much to make them unbalanced.

For the rogue, the sneak attack multiplier could level with the character as it did before.  Also, if the character wants to dual wield or use a shield, he could not employ a two-hander obviously.  Some of the maneuvers may have to be reworked to compensate for the potential increase in outcome; a two-handed weapon would be more difficult to parry with than sword and board. 
Rogues still have Sneak Attack that effectively doubles the amount of MDD

Using Borgs math it would essentially end up as

 Multi-attackers get a penalty to hit, putting them at 50% chance of hitting base. Having 2 chances to hit we get 75% of either hitting. The WDD adds .75*Nd8 = N*3.375.  x2 = 6.75 (8.31 with crit chance factored in)

Math I used, obviously using excel - =((1-((1-(G6*0.01))^G11))*G4)+((1-((1-(G7*0.01))^G11))*G3)


and dont even get me started on Assassinate
I see MDD as improved ability to connect with any weapon in a more critical location.  As such, it should remain a consistent value no matter what weapon is used.  It's like being able to hit the armpit of your enemy, not just catch him somewhere in the side.  The way I see it, whether you hit that spot with a dagger or with a broad sword, the additional damage will be approximately the same, because of differences in how the weapons are used.  The dagger you will be able to drive more deeply, while the sword will create a shallower, but longer, gash.  The short sword won't penetrate as deeply as the dagger because of the width of the blade, and the two-hander isn't nearly as sharp as the broadsword.

The larger weapons already do greater average damage without added MDD, especially on a crit.  Also, imo, the goal should be to entice the players into using the interesting maneuvers whenever possible instead of going with the basic attack, but changing MDD to WDD will increase the chances that maximizing damage by throwing all the WDD into it will be seen by players as the most effective option.  I don't know if the "maneuvers without spending MDD" mechanics will change that, but as it stands now, I think they should remain as they are.

As they are, we don't see enough reason to use larger weapons. I worry that the changes will swing things in the other direction, but they don't have to; the rule system I outlined above would give people a reason to use every sized weapon in this game (even if larger weapons will give people more damage).

That being said, there is really no point in discussing it right now (until we see the changes being made). Based on WotC's notes, the changes are so drastic that it is hard to imagine how they will work without seeing the rules. For example, while MDD are becoming WDD, it looks like WDD are not spent on maneuvers anymore. Or, if they are, they are only spent on basic/common maneuvers (such as those granted by feats). It looks like a fighter's maneuvers are now performed using expertise dice. A fighter gets a level based pool of expertise dice which he expends every time he uses a maneuver. He can recharge that pool by spending an action. That changes a lot! We need to see the new rules before we can comment accurately. 


 A fighter gets a level based pool of expertise dice which he expends every time he uses a maneuver. He can recharge that pool by spending an action. That changes a lot!




This is a change I would welcome.


I'd like to see a system where we received more expertise dice balanced by a slower regeneration. Using an action to recenter yourself is great, but I'd still like the ability to recharge at least one a turn.  
Whatever other problems 4E had, I liked the Second Wind action. Once per combat, take a dramatic breather, get +2 to defenses, and get some HP back. I hope it comes back in some fashion, and if fighters could refresh maneuevers in a similar way (as the article hinted at), then all the better.

As they are, we don't see enough reason to use larger weapons. I worry that the changes will swing things in the other direction, but they don't have to; the rule system I outlined above would give people a reason to use every sized weapon in this game (even if larger weapons will give people more damage).

That being said, there is really no point in discussing it right now (until we see the changes being made). Based on WotC's notes, the changes are so drastic that it is hard to imagine how they will work without seeing the rules. For example, while MDD are becoming WDD, it looks like WDD are not spent on maneuvers anymore. Or, if they are, they are only spent on basic/common maneuvers (such as those granted by feats). It looks like a fighter's maneuvers are now performed using expertise dice. A fighter gets a level based pool of expertise dice which he expends every time he uses a maneuver. He can recharge that pool by spending an action. That changes a lot! We need to see the new rules before we can comment accurately. 




I've come up with an idea that replaces the static attack bonus with a die roll which increases much like the skill die. (I posted it somewhere in the General Discussion area.)  But, in a nutshell, every character starts with a d2 (I'm probably going to have to increase monster AC by 1-2 points), and whenever they want to do something besides a basic single-weapon attack (even a power attack), they have to step down the die type.  Any time a class gains a +1 to attack, the die is stepped up.  Also, racial skill proficiencies step up the attack die, as does the fighter-only weapon specialization feat/maneuver.

However, I haven't been able to get the group together to playtest this since character creation, so I have no idea how it'll work out.
Sneak Attack doubles the amount of dice, using 5 WDD with TWF d8 Rapier at level 1 would be 3d8(13.5)+Dex with a chance of 4d8(18)+Dex for a single WDD, with all 6WDD at level 11, it would do around 13d8(58.5)+Dex+10, thats massive damage

The comparable Barbarian at level 1 using a 2hander would be pulling 2d12(13)+STR+2 or 6d12(39)+STR+18 at 11
Sneak Attack and Assasinate are not that great this package as they consume Advantage, with the loss of precision it works out as only a marginal damage gain, and considering you might have had to spend a round to set it up by hiding etc, its actually an overall damage loss. Theres details in other posts.

The comparable Barbarian at level 1 using a 2hander would be pulling 2d12(13)+STR+2 or 6d12(39)+STR+18



How does the Barbarian get to 6d12 + Str + 18 at 1st level?



Fixed it by adding 4 letters that add the phrase "at 11" to the end of that sentence

Sneak Attack and Assasinate are not that great this package as they consume Advantage, with the loss of precision it works out as only a marginal damage gain, and considering you might have had to spend a round to set it up by hiding etc, its actually an overall damage loss. Theres details in other posts.



The loss of precision is marginal if you are TWF

With 55% Accuracy
TWF d8 with Advantage is 6.02 per Hit and WDD
TWF d8 with Sneak Attack is 4.59 per Hit and 9.19 per WDD

If we assume you used a single WDD
Advantage = 18.06 + Dex
Sneak Attack = 18.37 + Dex

If we assume you use 6 WDD and +10 Class Bonus
Advantage = 58.16 + Dex
Sneak Attack = 74.32 + Dex


Barbarian with Advantage and WDD is 7.2 per Hit and WDD
Single WDD with +2 Rage = 16.4 + STR
6 WDD with +18 Rage/Class Bonus = 68.4 + STR