Community

Jan 17, 2013 -- 4:54PM, lokiare wrote:

Jan 16, 2013 -- 8:52PM, Pyromantic wrote:

@lokiare and cassi_brazuca:

It feels like the debate here is covering two connected but ultimately distinct issues:

1.  Weapon properties are not sufficiently making up for the disparity in weapon damage.
2.  Martial damage dice should (or should not) be based on the weapon's damage.

If we accept the first one as an issue for a moment, then it must be solved irrespective of the decision on 2, since we want a number of viable options right from level 1.  Worse yet, if the same die type is used for martial damage dice regardless of weapon choice, you will find the issue that has been brought up before, namely that weapon damage decreases in significance over time, and any other benefits a weapon provides will seem much more important.  You would likely end up with a hierarchy of the "best" weapons that actually changes in different level ranges, which hardly strikes me as good design.  As such, effort should be taken to ensure that a variety of weapons are viable at first level without regard to how damage will scale over time.

However, if this issue is settled to general satisfaction, I agree that it makes more sense to have bonus damage be tied to weapon damage, rather than a flat d6 (or what have you.)  This is based on a particular assumption: that any benefits you gain from giving up some weapon damage also scale in a similar fashion as you increase in level.  This is not guaranteed by any stretch; a weapon property that allowed you to add dex to damage certainly doesn't scale that way if you are limited to adding it once per turn, for example.  However, a weapon that allowed you bonus to defenses (either directly, or by freeing a hand for a shield, for example) is likely to scale in such a way, and under those circumstances maintaining the proportional difference is the better option.

As for giving up weapon damage for defense, I will point out that simply comparing changes in the fighter's incoming and outgoing damage isn't necessarily the best approach.  If a fighter takes the front-line approach and is trying to absorb a substantial share of damage (which seems likely if they are working to increase their survivability) then it would be more helpful to consider the proportional decrease in the party's damage rather than the fighter's.  That is not so easy to judge, requiring some assumptions on the size and make-up of the party as a whole.

Math may not be your strong suit, but if your parties damage is the same and you swap out the sword and shield Fighter for a two handed weapon Fighter your parties damage will go up and they will take out monsters proportionately twice as fast. That's just basic math...

If your fighter does X amount of damage, and the rest of the party does Y amount of damage, doubling the fighter's damage does not double the party's damage, and does not result in taking out monsters twice as fast. 

Jan 18, 2013 -- 8:01AM, Rils wrote:

When all choices are the same, it's no longer a choice.  If taking a dagger or a greataxe nets me the same result, why should I bother or care?  Homogeneity is stale and boring.

Conversely, if you envision an effete snob nobleman fighter, but a greatsword does a hell of a lot more damage than a epee...

Jan 18, 2013 -- 8:15AM, Maxperson wrote:

You use an epee because an epee still does just fine.  You don't need to be the absolute best possible in order to perform well at the game or your class.

Alright, but don't complain when Lord Archibald Reginald Fancypants XIII of Northern Outer Sudenlandia is grossly outclassed in a fight by Bob13.

Jan 18, 2013 -- 8:29AM, Maxperson wrote:

What part of "perform well" did you not understand?

Most of the vowels.

See outclassed vs performed well... duel at 11.