|
5 months ago ::
Dec 18, 2012 - 8:18PM
#81
|
Date Joined:
Nov 12, 2012
|
Yes, the weapon's user is important, but envisioning a fighter jabbing a foe with a small dagger and doing comparable damage to one swinging a greataxe seems just wrong.
Considering that every weapon on the list can strike a one shot leathal blow IRL, it's probably one of the most realistic things that D&D has ever done.
Perhaps, but that example of lethality would likely apply to more vulnerable/weaker creatures. I can't wrap my head around a fighter pricking a dragon with similar results as a fighter swinging a greataxe. Perhaps I'm in the minority...
|
|
|
|
5 months ago ::
Dec 18, 2012 - 8:18PM
#82
|
Date Joined:
Feb 12, 2009
|
No one of them is a greataxe wielder because thats what he grew up with, or thats what he found, or thats the tribal weapon of his people...or whatever reasoning you decide on, and one of them uses a dagger because its the weapon his dad gave him before he died, etc etc. I dont have to worry and fret over making the right decision and mutating my story around it. I can select whetever weapon I want for my story and don't have to lament that at higher levels I must abandon my weapon for anything other than story choices. I won't have to suffer and be an inferior character because my father gave me his short bow that he gained in the service of the king (when a great bow would deal far more damage). In the beginning yes there will be a noticable disparity however eventually it doesn't really matter that I am using a short bow because I am just that good with it. this is one of the few places I really don't want the choice to have a long lasting effect. Especially since in this case the effect is a notable ineffectiveness. Anything even resembling that is clear cut ivory tower design. It would be the same as having two feats that do the same thing but one of them eventually does it in a noticably less effective manner. Making the effect of weapon choice too great can easily make that an area full of trap options. Though I will agree that I like weapons that have special effects and uses. Like the net or the bolas from the current packet.
You're still the blatantly inferior weapon user for the first six levels of your career, and are marginalized for the next six. It isn't till around Level 13 that numbers get so big that differences fade from the obvious. -- And said differences will always be cast in the light of inferiority when comparative numbers start hitting the table.
And it has been explained to us by the devs, numerous times, that the vast majority of campaigns take place at those early-mid-levels.
Like I said: I'm hearing you, I'm just hating it. 
Eh around level 3 the weapon damage is becoming somewhat trivial +2d6 is better than any weapon (barring you being a dwarf and using a greataxe) at level 5 the bonus damage is outright better than the weapon damage. at level 7 the weapon damage is basically no contest as compared to all your bonus damage. Assuming a 20 in stat (even more assumable by level 8) you basically have 4d6+10 at that point the d12, while noticably different from the d4, is not massively better than the d4. You can still be effective with the d4 weapon. After that point the disparity starts getting to be less and less noticeable. So even at "top levels" of your less than level ten at all times assumption you are in an area where the weapon damage isn't unbalancingly diparate. If you were to do it by multiple d4 vs multiple d12s the gap never closes the d12 is 100% always better than the d4, and as a side effect the d4 is never an effective weapon it is always a trap option, and will never be the weapon of an effective character.
|
|
|
|
5 months ago ::
Dec 18, 2012 - 8:20PM
#83
|
|
|
Yes, the weapon's user is important, but envisioning a fighter jabbing a foe with a small dagger and doing comparable damage to one swinging a greataxe seems just wrong.
Considering that every weapon on the list can strike a one shot leathal blow IRL, it's probably one of the most realistic things that D&D has ever done.
Perhaps, but that example of lethality would likely apply to more vulnerable/weaker creatures. I can't wrap my head around a fighter pricking a dragon with similar results as a fighter swinging a greataxe. Perhaps I'm in the minority...
I would think that that's where the number of dice for the fighter's level and the dragon's HP total come into play. Because I have no problem with a fighter who has advanced to truly mythic levels one-shotting a dragon like Thor slaying giants by throwing his hammer at them.
Why Mechanics-Alignment Integration is Bad
Show
so why even play a fighter if you can play the paladin the exact same way behaviorally and get added power to boot. "Paladin" is about accepting better game-enhancing mechanics at the price of more rigid in game behavior.
Really? So it goes something like this?
Fighter: "I want to be a paladin."
NPC: "Really?"
Fighter: "Yes."
NPC: "Very well." Starts reading from a holy book while still in-character "Do you accept having to choose and stick to the lawful good alignment, eventhough neither of us actually knows that it exists or what it is?"
Fighter: "I do."
NPC: "Do you reject good game balance because you accidentally rolled a high Charisma?"
Fighter: "What?"
NPC: "I don't know what it means either."
Fighter: "Oh. Umm, ok I do."
NPC: "In the name of all that is metagamey and broken, accept these better game enhancing mechanics."
Fighter: "These what?"
NPC: "Just get out there and try to fulfill a million different people's notion of good while not violating and part of any of them."
So the system is designed such that every single hit needs to be described to avoid confusion? Here's a scenario. The players are nudists, everybody in the world are nudists, it's not weird, it's totally normal in this land. They are naked and they fight drakes taking damage throughout, but healing up with surges. Later they meet the guy who raised the drakes.
Part 1: I didn't describe any of the hits. What does he see?
Part 2: Lets say I described the drakes as biting the players, yet they healed up. What does he see?
D20 Modern Toon PC Race.
Mecha Pilot's Skill Challenge Emporium.
|
|
|
|
5 months ago ::
Dec 18, 2012 - 8:28PM
#84
|
Date Joined:
Jan 15, 2009
|
Yes, the weapon's user is important, but envisioning a fighter jabbing a foe with a small dagger and doing comparable damage to one swinging a greataxe seems just wrong.
Considering that every weapon on the list can strike a one shot leathal blow IRL, it's probably one of the most realistic things that D&D has ever done.
Perhaps, but that example of lethality would likely apply to more vulnerable/weaker creatures. I can't wrap my head around a fighter pricking a dragon with similar results as a fighter swinging a greataxe. Perhaps I'm in the minority...
Bard put down smaug with but a prick... aye stick it in an eye or put it right through the roof of there mouth (a dangerous one to get to) .. 5 lbs pressure will kill the baddest toughest human on the planet... Dragons are well known to have weak spots ask Bilbo... its the job of the hero to find it.
|
|
|
|
5 months ago ::
Dec 18, 2012 - 8:31PM
#85
|
Date Joined:
Nov 12, 2012
|
Yes, the weapon's user is important, but envisioning a fighter jabbing a foe with a small dagger and doing comparable damage to one swinging a greataxe seems just wrong.
Considering that every weapon on the list can strike a one shot leathal blow IRL, it's probably one of the most realistic things that D&D has ever done.
Perhaps, but that example of lethality would likely apply to more vulnerable/weaker creatures. I can't wrap my head around a fighter pricking a dragon with similar results as a fighter swinging a greataxe. Perhaps I'm in the minority...
I would think that that's where the number of dice for the fighter's level and the dragon's HP total come into play. Because I have no problem with a fighter who has advanced to truly mythic levels one-shotting a dragon like Thor slaying giants by throwing his hammer at them.
Maybe testing will suggest otherwise. As of right now, I haven't had the chance to test this. I don't see the number of dice or the dragon's hp effecting this significantly. I could be wrong, though...
I just feel that the powerful weapons should reflect their power. Weapons that aren't as powerful in the sense of base damage should have some utility that offsets this. It doesn't seem like this is the direction they have been heading though. It seems as if weapons are being homogenized, are being made more mundane, and being made more trivial... *sighs*
|
|
|
|
5 months ago ::
Dec 18, 2012 - 8:34PM
#86
|
|
|
Yes, the weapon's user is important, but envisioning a fighter jabbing a foe with a small dagger and doing comparable damage to one swinging a greataxe seems just wrong.
Considering that every weapon on the list can strike a one shot leathal blow IRL, it's probably one of the most realistic things that D&D has ever done.
Perhaps, but that example of lethality would likely apply to more vulnerable/weaker creatures. I can't wrap my head around a fighter pricking a dragon with similar results as a fighter swinging a greataxe. Perhaps I'm in the minority...
I would think that that's where the number of dice for the fighter's level and the dragon's HP total come into play. Because I have no problem with a fighter who has advanced to truly mythic levels one-shotting a dragon like Thor slaying giants by throwing his hammer at them.
Maybe testing will suggest otherwise. As of right now, I haven't had the chance to test this. I don't see the number of dice or the dragon's hp effecting this significantly. I could be wrong, though...
I just feel that the powerful weapons should reflect their power. Weapons that aren't as powerful in the sense of base damage should have some utility that offsets this. It doesn't seem like this is the direction they have been heading though. It seems as if weapons are being homogenized, are being made more mundane, and being made more trivial... *sighs*
Oh, don't get me wrong. I'm all for weapons having their own character. But damage isn't the place to do this. Damage is about one thing only: effectiveness as a weapon. There is no character in a weapon's capacity to deal damage; there is only mechanical advanatage or disadvantage. The individual character of a weapon lies outside the damage (like being able to trip or disarm at range with a whip).
Why Mechanics-Alignment Integration is Bad
Show
so why even play a fighter if you can play the paladin the exact same way behaviorally and get added power to boot. "Paladin" is about accepting better game-enhancing mechanics at the price of more rigid in game behavior.
Really? So it goes something like this?
Fighter: "I want to be a paladin."
NPC: "Really?"
Fighter: "Yes."
NPC: "Very well." Starts reading from a holy book while still in-character "Do you accept having to choose and stick to the lawful good alignment, eventhough neither of us actually knows that it exists or what it is?"
Fighter: "I do."
NPC: "Do you reject good game balance because you accidentally rolled a high Charisma?"
Fighter: "What?"
NPC: "I don't know what it means either."
Fighter: "Oh. Umm, ok I do."
NPC: "In the name of all that is metagamey and broken, accept these better game enhancing mechanics."
Fighter: "These what?"
NPC: "Just get out there and try to fulfill a million different people's notion of good while not violating and part of any of them."
So the system is designed such that every single hit needs to be described to avoid confusion? Here's a scenario. The players are nudists, everybody in the world are nudists, it's not weird, it's totally normal in this land. They are naked and they fight drakes taking damage throughout, but healing up with surges. Later they meet the guy who raised the drakes.
Part 1: I didn't describe any of the hits. What does he see?
Part 2: Lets say I described the drakes as biting the players, yet they healed up. What does he see?
D20 Modern Toon PC Race.
Mecha Pilot's Skill Challenge Emporium.
|
|
|
|
5 months ago ::
Dec 18, 2012 - 8:52PM
#87
|
|
|
I have to voice my disapproval as well. This trivialization of weapon choice is, in my opinion, abhorrant. I'm not trying to start an edition war, but I liked the way it was handled in 3e a lot more(sure, certain weapons were imbalanced, but that is fixable). I liked that weapons had more properties, such as greater critical range, higher critical multiplier, reach(glad that one stayed), and so on. Yes, the weapon's user is important, but envisioning a fighter jabbing a foe with a small dagger and doing comparable damage to one swinging a greataxe seems just wrong. A weapon can have other perks of value, aside from just doing base damage. Perhaps a dagger could be a useful tool to someone and every bit as useful as a greataxe, if given advantages that can be greatly utilized by a certain kind of character. This is just something I want, though, so *shrugs*
I want this too, in fact for me it's a deal breaker, along with the trivialization of str/dex damage bonuses, especially as applies to heavy weapons. If I can't module/houserule it out I will regretfully find another system to play.
|
|
|
|
5 months ago ::
Dec 18, 2012 - 8:52PM
#88
|
Date Joined:
Aug 11, 2006
|
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
That's as it should be.
Agreed. Wizards get their own toys to play with. Called MAGIC! And so do Clerics.
I know that not everyone shares my view on this. Throughout the past fifteen years of AD&D and 3E, though, the wizard who relies upon staff/bow/dart for most attacks and only breaks out a spell once per encounter (if that) has been a constant in every game I've run or played. Even moreso with the cleric, who would frequently only cast spells out of combat.
That martial combat remain a viable option in Next is paramount to my play experience.
Actually that's been my experience, and I've heard no end of bitching from the casters because of it. What's the point of magic if you HAVE to hoard until the 'right moment', which it might not be and you've screwed the party because all your big spell(s) are gone and you can't one shot the monster, and it'll kill the PCs because it has more hitpoints than the damage output of the party combined, it hits harder than they do, and the wizard can barely hit the broadside of a barn because his 14 dex doesn't give him the defense or ranged capacity that the ranger does and oh look the Balor just TPK'ed the party... Again.
|
|
|
|
5 months ago ::
Dec 18, 2012 - 9:58PM
#89
|
Date Joined:
Jul 29, 2012
|
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).
I like it. It means it's the Warrior that matters, not the Weapon.
I'm warming to it, but the flat +20 to damage seems a tad excessive (sticks out to me).
And would someone please tell me if Martial Damage dice refresh at the beginning or end of your turn?
|
|
|
|
5 months ago ::
Dec 18, 2012 - 10:11PM
#90
|
Date Joined:
May 27, 2012
|
What's the point of magic if you HAVE to hoard until the 'right moment', which it might not be and you've screwed the party because all your big spell(s) are gone and you can't one shot the monster, and it'll kill the PCs because it has more hitpoints than the damage output of the party combined, it hits harder than they do, and the wizard can barely hit the broadside of a barn because his 14 dex doesn't give him the defense or ranged capacity that the ranger does and oh look the Balor just TPK'ed the party... Again.
Well, one-shotting the monster because you had sufficient reserve of big spells to never make a weapon attack... would be a tad over-powered. The monster causing a TPK if the wizard fails with one spell... seems like another issue altogether.
I'm not sure what kind of wizard players would complain about being (mostly) balanced, in terms of contribution during hostile encounters. You can't have both infinite and powerful magic; you get one, or the other, but both ... doesn't sound like much fun. If you make magic so common that you get it every round, then it has to be toned down so far that it's nearly indistinguishable from weapon attacks (at which point it's just flavor, whether you prefer ray of frost or quarterstaff every round, which is more or less where we're at right now).
The metagame is not the game.
|
|
|
