|
6 months ago ::
Dec 18, 2012 - 10:20PM
#91
|
Date Joined:
Apr 10, 2009
|
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.
Personally - I like the 'damage metric'. I think it (theoretically) allows low lever monsters to be a threat into higher levels and allows players to play 'over their heads' against very tough creatures.
But I don't like the current monster hit point/ player damage curve. I think that player (melee) damage scales much too quickly. And claiming it is necessary 'to keep pace with the monster hit points' isn't a valid argument because it is a chicken and egg. The monster hit points are inflated to make them relevant given the PC damage; lower the PC damage and you can lower the monster hit point curve.
Carl
|
|
|
|
6 months ago ::
Dec 19, 2012 - 12:19AM
#92
|
Date Joined:
Jan 21, 2004
|
Yes it won't matter if low level PCs can hit if they inflict so little damage that they still end up dead before they can chip away at high hit points. I have no objection to damage scaling but I think maybe it should scale just a fraction slower.
If they are going to split the PCs at level 11 then they should also consider capping Con bonuses to hit points at that level so that the PC treadmill doesn't get too fat apart. A gap of 50hp is still huge but better than a gap of 100hp.
|
|
|
|
6 months ago ::
Dec 19, 2012 - 1:02AM
#93
|
Date Joined:
Sep 26, 2001
|
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.
And consider how unreal hps, themeselves, are. A high level character might have 100 or more hps, yet he should still logically be killed just as dead by a dagger through the heart as sword through the heart. The higher-level MDD character doing /almost/ the same damage with a sword or dagger represents that. All that 'damage' with the dagger is just getting past the high-level enemy's defenses to you can plant that little blade in his heart.
Love 4e? Concerned about its future? Join the Old Guard of 4e"You want The Tooth? You can't handle The Tooth!" - Dahlver-Nar. "If magic is unrestrained in the campaign, D&D quickly degenerates into a weird wizard show where players get bored quickly" - E. Gary Gygax
|
|
|
|
6 months ago ::
Dec 19, 2012 - 1:31AM
#94
|
Date Joined:
Jun 24, 2005
|
I bald faced like the disconnection of bonus damage from the weapon..
High end characters ability ought to be more significant than there gadgetry (unless you are a gadeteer by choice in which case your choice  .
You are going too far with that notion. The Egyptian from Spartacus was a beast with dual daggers as the God Thor is with a hammer. Take away their choice weapons and it should matter more than -4 and -8. I would rather the mechanics give a dual dagger beast a damage boost through weapon skills and mastery. Bring back weapon speed and critical skills.
|
|
|
|
6 months ago ::
Dec 19, 2012 - 1:58AM
#95
|
Date Joined:
May 23, 2012
|
I think counting all the damage dice and bonuses wastes game time.
Just assign regular standard damage for attacks but grant multiple attacks, which is what the play-test is doing anyway.
Let's also standardize the expertise or martial dice or whatever they are calling it now.
We also still don't know how high levels are going to go. Until we get a confirmation on that I will assume level 30 is max.
What about 1d6 for levels 1-10, 2d6 for levels 11-20, and 3d6 for levels 21-30?
The 30th level fighter parry's with damage reduction of 3d6 for his reaction.
|
|
|
|
6 months ago ::
Dec 19, 2012 - 5:06AM
#96
|
Date Joined:
Jan 29, 2005
|
Ok, so why not just ditch the weapon damage dice altogether? Use a standard damage progression based on level, and give each weapon/weapon group it's own set of properties. Two handed weapons gain an additional damage die. There's a few threads that have good ideas for weapon properties.
Magic Dual Color Test
Show
|
|
|
|
6 months ago ::
Dec 19, 2012 - 5:38AM
#97
|
Date Joined:
Jan 15, 2009
|
I bald faced like the disconnection of bonus damage from the weapon.. High end characters ability ought to be more significant than there gadgetry (unless you are a gadeteer by choice in which case your choice .
You are going too far with that notion. The Egyptian from Spartacus was a beast with dual daggers as the God Thor is with a hammer.
Lancelot and Beowulf, Herakles each no less awesome without weapon as with ... turning in to a nerf - fed nothing for lack of a weapon is not the stuff of heros... Weapon dependent design needs to be a choice... you might choose to be an Elric reduced to weakness due to lack of equippage. But a large number of these heros had stories explicitly about NOT being dependent, about being caught naked and unarmed and defeating fully armed and armored adversaries or of how putting down the weapon they are similarly powerful. The reason those stories occur and why we see characters disarmed is not because it is easy to be disarmed ... but rather a way to feature of how awesome they are is not a function of eqquipage. The process of becoming legendary awesome should make that happen naturally.
Sure, Out of sorts because one cannot use ones signature style is one thing, otherwise that style has no meaning right? (which may occur due to things like not being able to do some of the maneuvers they normally use, part of the reason they need more maneuvers than they currently get).. the amount of disablement often seen in D&D is not par for the course of these heros, in 4e I think we calculated somebodies chance to hit etc was -9 and there damage was less than halved... which is in some reguards too realist...ie it made a minion out of them 1/4 there normal capabilities  . Thor without Mjolnir looses his ranged fighting but he is still the god of strength.
|
|
|
|
6 months ago ::
Dec 19, 2012 - 5:44AM
#98
|
Date Joined:
Jan 15, 2009
|
People want hollywood flashy easy disarms.. having damage get progressively less dependent on the weapon helps enable that
|
|
|
|
6 months ago ::
Dec 19, 2012 - 5:45AM
#99
|
Date Joined:
Nov 21, 2009
|
And would someone please tell me if Martial Damage dice refresh at the beginning or end of your turn?
They can be used every turn (not just yours, but any combatant's turn). Within a turn you may have a choice as to when or how you use the dice - all damage; power a maneuver; split between damage and maneuver; distributed across multiple attacks and so forth.
|
|
|
|
6 months ago ::
Dec 19, 2012 - 5:46AM
#100
|
|
|
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.
Its a deal breaker for allot of past edition players.
Bounded Accuracy is awesome and a welcome change, but at the cost of rediculous damage inflamation? Make both weapon choice and ability score absolete? One shotting Ogres and Trolls? A fireball in every stroke? Its just not what I am looking for in D&D. My favourite edition just went from D&D Next back to 3.5 lol. Its unfortunate because I like all the other stuff they did with this packet, not sure why they had to push for this awkward and drastic change. There are other ways of making daggers usefull without bloating damage like this.
|
|
|
