Why do Martial Damage Dice stop progressing at lvl 11?

It seems odd to me that I can say "my lvl 11 Fighter can Protect as well as a lvl 20 Fighter" no matter what.

While comparison to Wizards and Clerics seems unpopular (despite that these are all "Basic" classes and should be comparable) it seems strange that some classes continue to escalate their capability to use lower level abilities (by getting higher spell slots which lower level spells can be put into for more power) while others do not.

While I appreciate that the raw damage capability of Fighters continue to increase thanks to Martial Damage Bonus it seems unfortunate that there is no option to build a "Protector" style Fighter who focuses on something other than damage.

I'd be happy to simply give feedback (as I have been doing) and wait for changes, but the recent comments in the Podcast insinuating that the Fighter is all but finished in the form we see in this playtest has me worried.

I'd like Martial Damage Dice to continue to develop after lvl 11.

It's not like "simplicity" can be an argument, as the Basic Game caps at lvl 10 and everything afterwards is optional.  Surely anyone ready for the Standard Game can handle  the complexity... anyone wanting to play an Arcane or Divine character concept has to (as there is still no "simple" Wizard or Cleric).

So:

Why do Martial Damage Dice stop progressing at lvl 11? 


So:

Why do Martial Damage Dice stop progressing at lvl 11? 



Possibly because at some point it becomes a headache to roll up double fists full of dice every single round of combat.  Also, it may be because D&D is notorious for the math bloating into something unwieldy at higher levels.  Even still, it may be such that the class still isn't in its final form.  
I'm slowly developing a theory that levels 11+ will be optional.  Kind of DDN's epic tier, the way epic levels were optional in 3e.

There are a great many problems that can be circumvented by players and DMs having a mature discussion about what the game is going to be like before they ever sit down together to play.

 

The answer really does lie in more options, not in confining and segregating certain options.

 

You really shouldn't speak for others.  You can't hear what someone else is saying when you try to put your words in their mouth.

 

Fencing & Swashbuckling as Armor.

D20 Modern Toon PC Race.

Mecha Pilot's Skill Challenge Emporium.

 

Save the breasts.

Don't we get martial damage bonus after that?
I think so, yes.  Anybody got the PDF handy that can verify?
MDB starts at level 7.

There are a great many problems that can be circumvented by players and DMs having a mature discussion about what the game is going to be like before they ever sit down together to play.

 

The answer really does lie in more options, not in confining and segregating certain options.

 

You really shouldn't speak for others.  You can't hear what someone else is saying when you try to put your words in their mouth.

 

Fencing & Swashbuckling as Armor.

D20 Modern Toon PC Race.

Mecha Pilot's Skill Challenge Emporium.

 

Save the breasts.

Don't we get martial damage bonus after that?



No, we get it before that.

And the maths doesn't work for it to be a "replacement".

Further, it Martial Damage Bonus can't be used with Maneuvers.

If it COULD be then it might be better.



And I don't buy "but it'd be too many dice!!!"... we're STILL not getting ANYWHERE NEAR the number of dice Wizards often roll per action. 

I don't know about "often."  Cetainly some spells have the potential for lots of dice, but not necessarily every round.  However, MDD pretty much happen every round.  I think that's a really important distinction when we're talking about level of nuisance.  Moreover, just because you don't buy it doesn't mean it's not a valid reason.  You asked for a reason...that's a good one for some people.


I don't know about "often."  Cetainly some spells have the potential for lots of dice, but not necessarily every round.  However, MDD pretty much happen every round.  I think that's a really important distinction when we're talking about level of nuisance.  Moreover, just because you don't buy it doesn't mean it's not a valid reason.  You asked for a reason...that's a good one for some people.




Perhaps.

But many Maneuvers don't actually roll dice, just spend them.

It isn't going to be "every round" that a Fighter actually rolls all those dice together.

So why is that an excuse for shutting down development of the class' primary abilities? 
For all the reasons discussed above?


I don't know what kind of answer you're looking for.  There have been some potential ones given but you've rejected them out of hand.  Are you sure you really want an answer or are you just raging at the wind?
I just want multiplayer attacks back. I am annoy that monsters can get it, but not us. 
I'm of the opinion that some multiattacks might be a good thing.

Maybe one or two, especially on the Fighter.

Maybe at lvl 6 and lvl 16.

But that STILL doesn't help with the problem of lvl 11 Fighters being EXACTLY as good at the majority of what a Fighter does as a lvl 20 Fighter.




The poor excuses which are being touted as "reasons" are simply not good enough. 
Why bother? Maneuvers already provide multiple attacks, and the damage scales ok.

The fighter needs real features, not spam. 
Well, as it goes, I don't think I'd want many more than 6 dice. We have trouble enough at the moment scrounging together 4d8 for a weapon that has criticalled, let alone if it is every attack.

This I would like to say with consideration of a few other things.

Like Mearls has been saying should be happening, I am interested in seeing these as weapon damage dice, rather than just a flat bonus, offering some variation between weapons. Still not sure as to whether this will be too much variation between characters. But I feel that with the right properties applied to a few weapons (Light, Two Handed, One Handed, Thrown, Brutal, High Crit) might be able to alleviate the difference.

I would also like to see more maneuvers gained at higher levels. Maybe even things such as 'Advanced Maneuvers' which require more dice but have some more powerful effects.

Oh, and I'd like to see the dice scale more slowly, all the way to 20th level. Same with Combat Surge. I'd like to see it earlier on, with a more gradual increase in uses - and maybe even an alternate use or four.

Anyway, thats my thoughts on how the Fighter could be filled out a bit more, whilst not bloating the number of dice that are rolled too much.
 
I still think we need 2 at 1st level.

But slower scaling after that all the way through to 20th level could be viable.

I'm not a fan of MDD as Weapon Dice though.

I think there is too much risk that it'll kill options for Fighters in terms of weapons.

AND too many of the Maneuvers make no sense working better with a two handed axe, for example. 
I think they should spread the martial dice over 20 levels (i.e. 1d6 at level, +1d6 at level 4 and every 4 levels thereafter). They've already admitted that martial characters are doing way too much damage and have said that they're going to reduce it anyway. They might as well solve the "nothing after level 10" problem while they're at it.

Or, even better, they should just merge skill dice and martial dice together. Just give fighters (and other classes with martial dice) the ability to use their skill dice for damage or other maneuvers. Yes, that would mean that fighters would do ALOT less damage than they do now, and that would mean that spell damage and hit points would also need to be reduced, but I think that would be a good thing! 
I have seen several posts since the recent podcast where people have been concerned that Mearls said the fighter was "mostly done." Although Mearls does not say it in the podcast, I suspect he was only referring levels 1 to 10. The December packet was the first with levels 11+ and they have said in other places they are still figuring out what to do with these levels.

As for the fighter, I would also like MDD (or WDD) that are spread more evenly over 20 levels, as well as some other class features besides combat surge. 

Why would HP need to be reduced?



Because monster hp could be scaling faster than player damage. It also depends on the monster. Right now monster HP are all over the place. They need work regardless.
it could also be like old school dnd where you stopped getting hit dice rolls after 20 the mechanic maxes out
I'm slowly developing a theory that levels 11+ will be optional.




That would be an AD&D-ish approach and one that might be quite interesting.
AD&D didn't have you stop at around level 10 per se, but your progress from level 10 on was much slower and you didn't gain as much per level as before (Hit Dice most of all was reduced).
Levels 11+ were treated more or less like "epic levels." And even then there were some monsters who would never be an easy job.


We could have a basic system like that in DDN, and an optional rule for keeping things like Hit Points, Martial Dice, etc growing regularly at all levels, instead of pulling the breaks at around level 10... for those who want more heroic/super-heroic games where single characters or small parties can accomplish more absurd and fantasious things, like slaying a dragon all by yourself and stuff like that.

I'm slowly developing a theory that levels 11+ will be optional.  Kind of DDN's epic tier, the way epic levels were optional in 3e.



I think level 11+ will be modular.

thay already mentioned a legecy system that gives things like folowers and strongholds becoming a mover and shaker in the world, this would be more ADnD ish.

But as it was presented it sounded like this might just be one of the systems you could chose for level 11+
So if instead of chosing the legecy system, you might be able to chose a epeic destiny system instead

Like the levels 3,6,9,12,15,18 often have less class abilities as you gain power at those levels trough gaining feats.
the levels 13 16 and 19 seem to be reserved for power gain dependent on what system you chose for level 11+ play. 

It's been stated a handful of times that (at least for a while) the goal was to have the game go for 10 levels, and after that is considered Epic. I was pretty surprised to see the classes go up to 20 in the playtest. Maybe their feedback found that 10 levels was unsatisfying?

In any case, it's also been said by Mearls more recently in a tweet that high levels seem unsatisfying for the core four, so they'll be revisiting that at some point. I'm curious how they do so. I think a good way for Martial Damage Dice is to increase the size of the dice (if not the number) after 11th level.  6d8 (at 13th level), then 6d10 (at 15th level), then 6d12 (at 17th level).
I don't use emoticons, and I'm also pretty pleasant. So if I say something that's rude or insulting, it's probably a joke.
Like the levels 3,6,9,12,15,18 often have less class abilities as you gain power at those levels trough gaining feats.

You cannot balance around optional componnts.

If you don't use maneuvers then you're not using the full class and nothing the designers do can help you.

IF you want the ability for the fighter totarget a single creature with multiple hits that is still missing (barring some multi-classing rules). Furthermore the fighter doesn't deal too much damage, to deal too much damage the fighter would need to insta-kill solars.

Right now a fighter can spend one die to hit an extra target with whirlwind. So yes the fighter can spend dice for extra attacks. 
HP seems too low for monsters, considering how much damage the characters are pumping out, so I say reduce damage, not HP.



It all depends on how much they reduce PC damage. I was only suggesting a possible need to change monster HP if they were to use my second, more radical idea of using the skill die for martial damage and maneuvers.
Martial die based on weapon damage die?


Well that's a bad idea.

I mean now they've either gotta adjust stuff for weapons wirth different damage die or they really need to put some teeth into the special wepaon abilities because otherwise no one would ever wield a dagger.
That costs you upwards of 14 damage to use?
I like the idea of MDD being weapon damage dice, but I can see the balance issues when comparing a dagger to a greatsword or even a longsword.

What if they balanced that by granting MDD for each weapon you wield? So with a Greataxe you get a flat 1d12, and while dual wielding a longsword and a short sword you get 1d8 and 1d6 (drawback is the -2 to hit with both). Also give a die for a shield that can only be used to parry and applicable maneuvers like bull rush and not for extra damage.
Doesn't really address the core issue, what's the point of having all these weapons if the only parameter that counts for anything is damage die type?

The fighter is supposed to be our weapon master, why is he being punished for using non-standard weapons? The barbarian makes sense to use base damage die for MDD, but the fighter is supposed to be good at a broad array of weapons and nailing the smaller ones just makes life harder for the knifers, the chainers, the spearmen, the shield bearers, and the brawlers.
Doesn't really address the core issue, what's the point of having all these weapons if the only parameter that counts for anything is damage die type?

The fighter is supposed to be our weapon master, why is he being punished for using non-standard weapons? The barbarian makes sense to use base damage die for MDD, but the fighter is supposed to be good at a broad array of weapons and nailing the smaller ones just makes life harder for the knifers, the chainers, the spearmen, the shield bearers, and the brawlers.



Well, what's the point of being skilled in a broad range of weapons if most of your damage comes from a secondary mechanic and not from the weapon? I think it should be a completely different strategy to use a greataxe vs a rapier. Maybe more weapon-specific maneuvers could make that happen, but I think the MDD should reflect it in some way. A dagger cannot possibly cause as much damage as a maul, no matter how well you wield it. Knife-fighting and such could be made valid options, though, perhaps with a maneuver like flurry of blows, allowing light weapons to spend their small MDDs on multiple attacks instead of extra damage. Suddenly the combatant with 18 Dex wielding two daggers can deal 3d4+12, while the two-handed Fighter with 18 Str can deal 2d12+4.


In theory you're absolutely right and the weapons should all have their own extensive mods.

However I doubt that's gonna happen.

It's a bunch of extra work and detail, just to get right back to where they started when they had uniform die.
I absolutely reject Weapon Dice as a replacement for Martial Damage Dice 'till someone explains why a Greataxe is a better parrying weapon than a longsword.
I absolutely reject Weapon Dice as a replacement for Martial Damage Dice 'till someone explains why a Greataxe is a better parrying weapon than a longsword.



You're absolutely right about that. Maybe parry should not be tied to MDD at all.
I absolutely reject Weapon Dice as a replacement for Martial Damage Dice 'till someone explains why a Greataxe is a better parrying weapon than a longsword.


Agreed.
And that's just the most glaring problem.

Few if any of the Maneuvers make ANY sense being better performed by two handed weapons. 
And that's just the most glaring problem.

Few if any of the Maneuvers make ANY sense being better performed by two handed weapons. 


Actually, you can get away with great swords (Like the 5 foot long ones) but axes and hammers are not designed for parrying or blocking.

In fact, this sort of thing could help in differentiating weapons as well...
I'm of the opinion that MDD should be spread across levels 1-20. And martial damage bonus should be removed. Because punching someone and doing 1d4+strength+6d6+10 damage at 10th level is just absurd.
I absolutely reject Weapon Dice as a replacement for Martial Damage Dice 'till someone explains why a Greataxe is a better parrying weapon than a longsword.



You're absolutely right about that. Maybe parry should not be tied to MDD at all.




I think Parry should be dropped completely as a class feature, my Bow-Boy has no need for it.

And, what Fighter in any edition has chosen to fight with a dagger over a weapon that deals more damage?



Yep 100x agreed.

If they want to give the fighter a defensive feature  simply give them a "Evade" power that uses their reaction to make an attack against them suffer disadvantage. It could be easily refluffed as blocking with a shield, dodging out of the way, or parrying with a weapon. No need for WDD to come into the picture at all.




we're STILL not getting ANYWHERE NEAR the number of dice Wizards often roll per action. 



Fireball is 6d6 now.  Higher slot spells may use more dice, but also can only be cast a few times per day.  So you are right, you aren't getting "anywhere near" the number of dice- you are getting MORE dice, when you consider that it's 6d6 martial dice plus the base weapon damage dice plus the attack roll.  I guess a wizard gets more dice when he uses his singular 9th slot to cast one spell per day, most every other case you get more dice.  

Though Magic Missile is a notable exception where the wizard does indeed get more dice.
I absolutely reject Weapon Dice as a replacement for Martial Damage Dice 'till someone explains why a Greataxe is a better parrying weapon than a longsword.



You're absolutely right about that. Maybe parry should not be tied to MDD at all.




I think Parry should be dropped completely as a class feature, my Bow-Boy has no need for it.

And, what Fighter in any edition has chosen to fight with a dagger over a weapon that deals more damage?



Fair points both.

But also irellevant.

I'm not talking about Daggers, even now we aren't seeing Dagger Fighters and these are the most Dagger-friendly rules for Fighters in the history of the game.

You are arguing for a rules change which will give MASSIVE advantages in Maneuver usage to wielders of two-handed swords, axes and hammers.

What justification is there for this?

Most of the Maneuvers seem to be best executed by medium one-handed weapons, longswords or axes.  Why is this change GOOD?          
Most of the Maneuvers seem to be best executed by medium one-handed weapons, longswords or axes.  Why is this change GOOD?          




So...this sounds like a problem with manoeuvres, not WDD.


You're right and wrong.  You're right in that the manuevers are an issue, but WDD is as well because of the increase in die size.  It makes it so that anything but the biggest and heaviest of weapons are the best thing to use.

Now, in real life this was so.  But this is not real life, this is a fantasy game, and there are those who like to sword and board, but they also need to contribute to the damage output, and the lower the damage, the longer the fight lasts, the longer the fight last, the more chance you have to die.

And that was a stupidly long run on sentence, to which I apologize for.
Sign In to post comments