|
|
Post by misanthropicblue on May 10, 2017 16:14:37 GMT
I'm probably over thinking this but how does an arrow or bolt do more damage than a spear, or how does a rapier do the same damage as a long sword? I'm considering house ruling some of these numbers to something that seems more appropriate. Thoughts?
|
|
|
|
Post by DM Exitium on May 10, 2017 16:33:14 GMT
I think the bounded accuracy makes the weapons damage in and of itself arbitrary and not comparable to each other as the weapon deals different amounts of damage depending on the wielder.
For example, Dex based weapons vs Str based may appear to do similar damage, but only in the hands of a skilled wielder does the damage become comparable for balance and fairness.
Eg) the dexterity based rogue flipping around wielding a rapier and dagger knows how to find the best spots to stab whereas a barbarian with a great axe is just going to smash your face in. They might to similar damage in 1 round but they both got there 2 very different ways.
TL;DR- the damage is fine, when put into perspective of who is wielding it.
|
|
|
|
Post by dmsam on May 10, 2017 16:53:08 GMT
I wouldn't mess with the numbers too hard until you are absolutely sure that a weapon is significantly underperforming mechanically.
Reflavoring weapons is a completely different story though. If your fighter wants to use a spear and shield but dislike the fact that a longsword or a rapier deals more damage, you can always reflavor a spear to match the damage of a longsword (or rapier), except it does piercing damage.
However, be transparent about these changes with your players. Let them know that this is purely for flavor. Otherwise, your monk that is stuck with a spear or quarterstaff would want a new spear that does 1d8 damage, which is inappropriate.
|
|
|
|
Post by misanthropicblue on May 11, 2017 17:36:36 GMT
All things being equal (without strength or dexterity modifiers) I think that when slashing, a rapier should do less damage than a long sword because of the weight difference, but possibly the same amount of damage as a spear when piercing because of similar width of hole and depth of penetration. I would give the rapier a base damage of 1d6.
I'm tempted to drop the base damage of arrows and bolts to a base damage of 1d6 also, for similar reasons.
|
|
|
|
Post by dmsam on May 12, 2017 1:02:38 GMT
Be careful when you mess with those sort of numbers (damage die, etc). At the end of the day, this is still a game, and it often does well to forego realism for mechanical balance. You don't want ranged attacks to be at an obvious disadvantage when compared to melee, because it can ruin the fun  |
|
|
|
Post by dmgenisisect on May 12, 2017 3:53:21 GMT
All things being equal (without strength or dexterity modifiers) I think that when slashing, a rapier should do less damage than a long sword because of the weight difference, but possibly the same amount of damage as a spear when piercing because of similar width of hole and depth of penetration. I would give the rapier a base damage of 1d6. I'm tempted to drop the base damage of arrows and bolts to a base damage of 1d6 also, for similar reasons. If your slashing with a rapier your using it wrong, it is a thrusting weapon and as such the weight doesn't come into it. Further the angles and sharpness of a rapier makes it a far better thrusting weapon then a spear so it should definetly do more damage then it. But on a mechanical valence level if you make a rapier 1d6 you've made it pointless as it's now just a short sword without the light property... With bolts and arrows their deadliness really is down to speed, and the numbers seem pretty decent hand xbows and bows achieve about the same amount of penetration, longbows and light xbows getting more penetration and heavy xbows greeting greater penetration. |
|
|
|
Post by misanthropicblue on May 12, 2017 18:21:18 GMT
Thanks, your opinions are appreciated.
|
|
DMFunkopotamus
Commoner
Posts: 20 
Favorite D&D Class: Sorcerer with nuclear bloodline
Favorite D&D Race: Demilich
|
Post by DMFunkopotamus on May 31, 2017 23:39:28 GMT
One of my personal mantras is, "don't overthink it." In any game, there's a balance between realism and playability. You can make a system that's 100% realistic, but it'll be so complex and convoluted that it'll be unplayable. So the challenge for the game designers is to make it as true to reality as they can while still keeping it playable, which means that any playable game will have parts to it that might not make much sense on close examination.
If you want a good, published example of trying too hard for weapons realism, get a hold of the 1E AD&D rules and give the weapons rules a good, thorough read. They're incredibly realistic, taking in to account each weapon's size, weight, and type of damage, and contrasting that with how different types of armor protect against different types of attacks (e.g., chainmail is great against slashing weapons, but not as much versus piercing or bludgeoning). And I've never encountered anyone who actually used those rules in play, other than just to see if they can, not even at cons & tournaments.
|
|
|
|
Post by Lexurium on Jun 3, 2017 8:23:59 GMT
I agree completely with DMFunkopotamus, and if I were to add anything it is this:
Changing the damage of weapons will change the entire balance of the encounter-system. The math of 5e is very particular and if you get too deep into it without understanding the underlying mechanics you might end up having a bad time.
If this truly irks you, reduce the number of weapons availible to your players, or re-flavour them completely to your liking, but don't mess with the numbers.
(Bonus points: Why does a monster with Multiattack and a high AC have higher CR than a monster with high HP that hits harder for each hit? A fighter has taken the fighting style "Great Weapons Master", which two-hander gives the best average damage? While dual-wielding, the second attack does not do ability damage, why?)
|
|
