|
Dahbadu posted:As someone who's played 5e for close to 20 hours (with a cool group of people including my wife -- so this may have colored my experience), most of the complaints in this thread (e.g. the save system sucks, fighters suck, opportunity attacks are worthless, the unconscious/death system sucks, etc.) conflict with my personal experience playing Hoard of the Dragon Queen. The line sort of blurs because the "make poo poo up as you go along" inherent in tabletop RPGs can shield a player/group from anything short of a disastrously bad system. Something like Lamentation of the Flame Princess can be unambiguously agreed upon as bad because of the content, something like Rolemaster can be unambiguously agreed upon as bad because of the mechanics, and then you have FATAL which does both. When you get to something as potentially subtle as the save system, mundane vs magic balance and encounter building, the DM can just paper over them and maybe it'll take so many more hours and plays and replays for the issues to rear its head. Throw in a smattering of "I found it fun!" and "yes, but I like it that way" and you end up with people talking past each other because even if we were to establish mechanic x as objectively badly designed, if the person actually playing the game never runs into it then the game can't really be that bad, can it?
|
#
?
Oct 15, 2014 20:31
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 13, 2024 23:27 |
|
|
Gort posted:I don't think much of 5e, but I have no complaints with the death-and-dying rules, they're pretty similar to 4e's, and a billion times better than 3e's "you die at -10" which was reasonable at 1st level but got ridiculous later on. From what I can tell, the idea behind the new near death system is that it's a signal to the GM to "put the brakes on" killing your character. It also makes it harder for the GM to accidentally kill you once your unconscious (compared to Pathfinder). If you have a decent GM, he should play it so a NPC would need special motivation (a sadistic NPC, knows that there's healers around that can heal you back up, etc.) before attacking your unconscious character. In terms of being brought to 0 hp at early levels too easily, that's been an issue in everything except 4e. I'm used to it and I chalk it up to the designers trying to make this game "feel more like D&D" and trying to appease 3e grogs (most people that frequent a hobby shop / convention) instead of 4e grogs (most people on this forum, apparently).
|
|
#
?
Oct 15, 2014 20:47
|
|
|
Dahbadu posted:most of the complaints in this thread (e.g. the save system sucks, fighters suck, opportunity attacks are worthless, the unconscious/death system sucks, etc.) conflict with my personal experience playing Hoard of the Dragon Queen. The rules say that my personal anecdotes override yours. Ask your DM.
|
|
#
?
Oct 15, 2014 20:48
|
|
|
Dahbadu posted:5e also feels vastly better than Pathfinder/3.x, which is key for me. If there is one positive thing this thread tends to have consensus on (besides skeletons being awesome) it would be that 5e is better than 3.x or pathfinder. But then most of this forum would call that the most backhanded compliment conceivable and that's where all the hate comes from.
|
|
#
?
Oct 15, 2014 20:49
|
|
|
Infinite Karma posted:So if I don't include a Wizard in the group, you bitch that this is only possible because we don't have a supreme overlord in the party, hogging the spotlight, and if I do, he's trivializing the encounter? Yes, I remember that part of those epic fantasy films where the heroes are being worn down by the tides of orcs they kill so they need a cleric to heal their wounds mid-combat.
|
|
#
?
Oct 15, 2014 20:49
|
|
|
The big bad in my Halloween game is Strahd, so I'm slapping some levels of necromancer over the vampire from MM. I'm guessing he'll be at least CR 15 if not higher. I want the party to face him and have a slight chance of killing him, but really, just escaping the castle is the name of the game. Other enemies include regular vampires, spectres, wights, demons, and so forth. What level should the 6 PCs be?
|
|
#
?
Oct 15, 2014 20:50
|
|
|
Peas and Rice posted:I think this is the heart of it for me. Since I pretty much skipped 4e entirely and no one in our group wants to run it, we're fine going straight to 5e, and the 5e rules are what I wanted 3.P to be. There is kind of one. The Dungeonscape thing that is supposed to be a character builder, and eventually some other stuff. It is in Beta right now though, a closed Beta so not everyone has gotten access. Perhaps someone has a link to the thing where you can sign up. It wasn't all that great yet the last time I used it. I hope it actually gets to be as good as the old 4e Offline Builder, and it would be nice if it could export a file that could be inputted into something like Orokos for all the character sheet viewing and dice rolling needs like the 4e character builder's exports can.
|
|
#
?
Oct 15, 2014 20:54
|
|
|
Dahbadu posted:In terms of being brought to 0 hp at early levels too easily, that's been an issue in everything except 4e. Being brought to 0 HP is fine. Being killed outright by a lucky crit (or just a normal hit from a poorly-designed monster) is the problem.
|
|
#
?
Oct 15, 2014 21:04
|
|
|
Peas and Rice posted:The big bad in my Halloween game is Strahd, so I'm slapping some levels of necromancer over the vampire from MM. I'm guessing he'll be at least CR 15 if not higher. Depends on how the encounters are built, what of those monsters each encounter contains, what your 6 PC party is comprised of, class-wise, And whether or not your characters are willing to treat this one-shot as an average encounter, and don't Alpha-Strike their way through the encounter by knowing there's no need to hold back resources. I'd love to hear that there is a means to resolve this using the MM and the PHB, but I have not heard that information yet.
|
|
#
?
Oct 15, 2014 21:06
|
|
|
Gort posted:Being brought to 0 HP is fine. Being killed outright by a lucky crit (or just a normal hit from a poorly-designed monster) is the problem. Sorry to be obtuse, but how would this happen? Let's say a level 1 character gets hit for 30 damage by a spear. That character has a max HP of 12. That 30 damage hit will take the character to 0 HP, right?
|
|
#
?
Oct 15, 2014 21:08
|
|
|
If a single hit can bring a character to the negative value of their maximum HP, they die. This has a decent chance of happening at low level, especially with certain monsters, but is extremely unlikely when your HP total gets to a respectable level.
|
|
#
?
Oct 15, 2014 21:09
|
|
|
Dahbadu posted:Sorry to be obtuse, but how would this happen? Let's say a level 1 character gets hit for 30 damage by a spear. That character has a max HP of 12. That 30 damage hit will take the character to 0 HP, right? There's no rule that damage stops at 0. That character would be dead.
|
|
#
?
Oct 15, 2014 21:09
|
|
|
Dahbadu posted:Sorry to be obtuse, but how would this happen? Let's say a level 1 character gets hit for 30 damage by a spear. That character has a max HP of 12. That 30 damage hit will take the character to 0 HP, right? Have you been playing this game in a really non-lethal fashion for twenty solid hours? Here's the relevant section of the rules: Instant Death Massive damage can kill you instantly. When damage reduces you to 0 hit points and there is damage remaining, you die if the remaining damage equals or exceeds your hit point maximum. For example, a cleric with a maximum of 12 hit points currently has 6 hit points. If she takes 18 damage from an attack, she is reduced to 0 hit points, but 12 damage remains. Because the remaining damage equals her hit point maximum, the cleric dies.
|
|
#
?
Oct 15, 2014 21:11
|
|
|
Since we're on lethality chat, what's the best RPG to play for fantasy vietnam? And can those ideas be ported into 5e? The only one I'm really familiar with at all is the level 0 character games for Dungeon Crawl Classics.
|
|
#
?
Oct 15, 2014 21:12
|
|
|
Bassetking posted:Depends on how the encounters are built, what of those monsters each encounter contains, what your 6 PC party is comprised of, class-wise, And whether or not your characters are willing to treat this one-shot as an average encounter, and don't Alpha-Strike their way through the encounter by knowing there's no need to hold back resources. Yeah, I don't think there is. The plan is to run them through I6, or at least an adapted version of it, so if they're fighting Strahd, it's at the climax and they'll use whatever resources they have left. The good news is, I'm also making the PCs for them to use since our regular group is only 3rd level, so I have some flexibility there. I may just have to gently caress around with it and see what works and what doesn't by running it a few times on my own.
|
|
#
?
Oct 15, 2014 21:14
|
|
|
Dahbadu posted:In terms of being brought to 0 hp at early levels too easily, that's been an issue in everything except 4e. I'm used to it and I chalk it up to the designers trying to make this game "feel more like D&D" and trying to appease 3e grogs (most people that frequent a hobby shop / convention) instead of 4e grogs (most people on this forum, apparently). I don't disagree with your assessment of their rationale, but that strikes me as a bad idea. Most players who are new to D&D are going to play a game where they start at level 1. Having a low-level play experience that isn't representative of the larger game is a serious mistake. It's an especially bad idea when it's actually more lethal than later levels (and lethality has a fundamentally different meaning at low levels anyway without Raise Dead/etc). Just getting KO'd easily isn't as big a deal, but I still wouldn't say it's a good thing. When you spend a significant chunk of your first session of D&D dead or KO'd and not participating, that's not a good introduction to the game. Basically for the low level experience they've picked the preferences of 3e grogs over what's best for attracting new players to the game. I just don't see how that's a good thing. branar fucked around with this message at 21:22 on Oct 15, 2014 |
|
#
?
Oct 15, 2014 21:14
|
|
|
I would probably just put Strahd at a similar level to the PCs and give him a few plot tricks where he summons wolves for them to fight or hypnotises someone to get them to turn against their friends or something. It seems more effort than it's worth to roll up level 15 characters just because you want to run a single level 15 monster.
|
|
#
?
Oct 15, 2014 21:16
|
|
|
Gort posted:Have you been playing this game in a really non-lethal fashion for twenty solid hours? No, I just never took a hit that would kill me outright, so it never came up. However, past level 3 I don't see this being a negative mechanical issue. Also, if your characters are ever in a situation where they can slaughter a bunch of weenie minions, this "outright death rule" (or whatever it's called) is actually a good thing -- or when a dragon breathes lightning on a bunch of town guards, which happens in HotDQ.
|
|
#
?
Oct 15, 2014 21:17
|
|
|
Dahbadu posted:No, I just never took a hit that would kill me outright, so it never came up. However, past level 3 I don't see this being a negative mechanical issue. Also, if your characters are ever in a situation where they can slaughter a bunch of weenie minions, this "outright death rule" (or whatever it's called) is actually a good thing -- or when a dragon breathes lightning on a bunch of town guards, which happens in HotDQ. You still seem to be under the impression that anyone has a problem with the 5e death and dying rules, which is an opinion nobody has voiced.
|
|
#
?
Oct 15, 2014 21:20
|
|
|
Gort posted:You still seem to be under the impression that anyone has a problem with the 5e death and dying rules, which is an opinion nobody has voiced. People said (I even think you might have), that killing low level PCs is too easy in 5e. And I feel that the only system in the D&D genre where low level characters are harder to kill is 4e. In other words, 5e is a nice balance between 3e bullshit and 4e progressiveness, while also appealing to the 3e grogs that spend money on this stuff. I don't think I should post more in this thread. It just seems too many people are looking at things as if they're in a vacuum.
|
|
#
?
Oct 15, 2014 21:29
|
|
|
S.J. posted:Since we're on lethality chat, what's the best RPG to play for fantasy vietnam? And can those ideas be ported into 5e? The only one I'm really familiar with at all is the level 0 character games for Dungeon Crawl Classics. I'd start with Chaosium's BRP, 4e with zero surges, or Torchbearer. And Next doesn't have the framework to support anything that makes those games work. You could even make something like Cthulhu Dark work if you wanted a beer & pretzels Fantasy Vietnam.
|
|
#
?
Oct 15, 2014 21:30
|
|
|
moths posted:I'd start with Chaosium's BRP, 4e with zero surges, or Torchbearer.
|
|
#
?
Oct 15, 2014 21:32
|
|
|
Dahbadu posted:People said (I even think you might have), that killing low level PCs is too easy in 5e. They were complaining about people at low levels being killed easily because the CR system is loving broken to hell not because of the death and dying system.
|
|
#
?
Oct 15, 2014 21:33
|
|
|
It would be a radical change, but there's enough abilities that DON'T use surges. They're just substantially weaker, which contributes the Fantasy Vietnam he wanted.
|
|
#
?
Oct 15, 2014 21:34
|
|
|
Dahbadu posted:People said (I even think you might have), that killing low level PCs is too easy in 5e. We've said that certain monsters have the potential to kill a character before they get a turn in a combat, which anyone can see is bullshit. You then decided we hate the death and dying rules, which are possibly the best rules in 5e. These are not the same thing, so we called you out on it. quote:I don't think I should post more in this thread. It just seems too many people are looking at things as if they're in a vacuum. Your choice, but bad monster designs are NOT the death and dying rules, and that's not my fault for "looking at things as if they're in a vacuum", it's looking at two fairly separate sets of rules, one of which is really bad in 5e, and one of which is pretty good.
|
|
#
?
Oct 15, 2014 21:35
|
|
|
S.J. posted:Since we're on lethality chat, what's the best RPG to play for fantasy vietnam? And can those ideas be ported into 5e? The only one I'm really familiar with at all is the level 0 character games for Dungeon Crawl Classics. Warhammer Fantasy 2nd edition works pretty well for a very lethal game. And character creation takes 5-10 minutes once you get used to it. Just don't play as a wizard, might be a bit too lethal then, especially if you use the expanded tzeentch's curse rules.
|
|
#
?
Oct 15, 2014 21:37
|
|
|
Power Player posted:4E wouldn't work so well because so many class abilities are keyed off healing surges. Clerics would become useless, Artificers would become hands-down the best due to THP-granting stuff. Just change "spend a surge" to, say, -2 to your defenses or weakness until the beginning of your next turn, but I dunno moths posted:I'd start with Chaosium's BRP, 4e with zero surges, or Torchbearer. I honestly don't know anything about Chaosium stuff or Torchbearer 
S.J. fucked around with this message at 21:41 on Oct 15, 2014 |
|
#
?
Oct 15, 2014 21:37
|
|
|
Torchbearer is basically an OSR mod of Burning Wheel, and BRP is the Call of Cthulhu engine. Lethal!
|
|
#
?
Oct 15, 2014 21:41
|
|
|
Infinite Karma posted:So if I don't include a Wizard in the group, you bitch that this is only possible because we don't have a supreme overlord in the party, hogging the spotlight, and if I do, he's trivializing the encounter? ...And that number isn't one covered by the encounter math. Which is the problem, and it's one you ain't seeing, pardner.
|
|
#
?
Oct 15, 2014 22:19
|
|
|
Chaosium? Torchbearer? OSR? Oh I am getting the vapors from all of this 4e grog
|
|
#
?
Oct 15, 2014 22:22
|
|
|
S.J. posted:Since we're on lethality chat, what's the best RPG to play for fantasy vietnam? And can those ideas be ported into 5e? The only one I'm really familiar with at all is the level 0 character games for Dungeon Crawl Classics. As mentioned, WHFRP2e works well for Fantasy Vietnam, especially as at low levels players will mostly only have light armor, may have randomly rolled classes, and if they let themselves get outnumbered not only will they run out of active defenses to roll against hits, their enemies also get a significant bonus to hit for outnumbering in a combat.
|
|
#
?
Oct 15, 2014 22:36
|
|
|
Dahbadu posted:Also, if your characters are ever in a situation where they can slaughter a bunch of weenie minions, this "outright death rule" (or whatever it's called) is actually a good thing -- or when a dragon breathes lightning on a bunch of town guards, which happens in HotDQ. The two tipping points of lethality are the instant death rule for low levels, as it becomes pretty much a non issue after a few levels. But balancing it is the tipping point of non-proficient save or sucks. When you're low level, you're only slightly out of favor for making non-proficient saves, but at higher levels that gap widens considerably, and the frequency tends to go up as your opponents have more complex capabilities, and the potency of those affects you're saving against tend to get worse. It may be a heavily skewed hindsight, but I seem to recall 3.0 having a roughly even balance of those two points of lethality being equal threats to PCs, and that both became more dangerous as you progressed through the levels. Bhaal fucked around with this message at 22:43 on Oct 15, 2014 |
|
#
?
Oct 15, 2014 22:41
|
|
|
Dahbadu posted:People said (I even think you might have), that killing low level PCs is too easy in 5e. That's not a problem with the death and dying rules, which are nice and streamlined. It's a problem with first level HP being wildly too low/attacks at first level being way too powerful. If first level HP:Damage ratio was at the same level as basically everything from second on up, instagibbing characters wouldn't be anywhere near as much of a problem. The death and dying rules are about the only thing 5e has genuinely improved over all previous editions.
|
|
#
?
Oct 15, 2014 22:42
|
|
|
Night10194 posted:As mentioned, WHFRP2e works well for Fantasy Vietnam, especially as at low levels players will mostly only have light armor, may have randomly rolled classes, and if they let themselves get outnumbered not only will they run out of active defenses to roll against hits, their enemies also get a significant bonus to hit for outnumbering in a combat. Oh right, it's been a long time since I've played that. I don't know if there's anything much you could grab from that to put in 5e though.
|
|
#
?
Oct 15, 2014 22:42
|
|
|
S.J. posted:Oh right, it's been a long time since I've played that. I don't know if there's anything much you could grab from that to put in 5e though. Add a not-insignificant chance to kill the wizard every time he tries to use a high level spell, I suppose. This is a terrible idea not offered in any sort of seriousness.
|
|
#
?
Oct 15, 2014 22:51
|
|
|
Night10194 posted:Add a not-insignificant chance to kill the wizard every time he tries to use a high level spell, I suppose. This is a terrible idea not offered in any sort of seriousness. Just add in drawbacks to casting any spell of a given spell level. No penalty for level 1 spells, and progressively harsher penalties as a result of casting at progressively higher spell levels  Not that that would change the fact that those spells auto-won the encounter for you, so that wouldn't be much of a consequence unless it was like, permanent INT damage or something.
|
|
#
?
Oct 15, 2014 23:00
|
|
|
Dahbadu posted:People said (I even think you might have), that killing low level PCs is too easy in 5e. And I feel that the only system in the D&D genre where low level characters are harder to kill is 4e. In other words, 5e is a nice balance between 3e bullshit and 4e progressiveness, while also appealing to the 3e grogs that spend money on this stuff. Heres a cool post that everyone should read BEFORE they post in this thread. I'm going to quote it a lot. This is what you shouldn't do. Its a driveby shitpost that is here to make a comment without reading anything about the context. Ignoring what people are saying to you. Then saying the thread is groggy and not willing to listen and loving off. This is why the thread dogpiles people. This has been happening for 200+ pages. Please dont do this.
|
|
#
?
Oct 16, 2014 00:43
|
|
|
Bhaal posted:It may be a heavily skewed hindsight, but I seem to recall 3.0 having a roughly even balance of those two points of lethality being equal threats to PCs, and that both became more dangerous as you progressed through the levels. Not really. The problem with 3.x is that the threshold between "unconscious" and "dead" doesn't scale very well, if at all. It's -10 in 3.5 (and I think 3.0 too), -Con in Pathfinder, so figure -12ish in most situations. That's not insignificant at low levels where your unconscious-to-dead pool may be higher than your actual HP pool, although the HP-to-damage balance and especially the way criticals work mean that it's still pretty easy to get knocked from full to completely dead in a single hit. The problem is that after you're out of the shitfarmer HP levels, it continues to not scale even as the flat damage modifiers go from +5 to +40, and it becomes incredibly easy to overshoot that rapidly shrinking threshold. 4e bypassed the problem by making the threshold scale (you die instantly at negative bloodied value, so ~50% of your HP). 5e went even further, requiring you to get to full negative HP and that it needs to be in a single hit to boot because it's not additive. The problem with it is that they didn't fix the damage-to-HP scaling at low levels that existed in pathfinder, which was something they had actually fixed in 4e, so it's not that hard to go from 100% to -100% in a single hit. That goes away as you level up, but it's still silly that it's an issue at all.
|
|
#
?
Oct 16, 2014 00:46
|
|
|
Dahbadu posted:People said (I even think you might have), that killing low level PCs is too easy in 5e. When you have CR 1 monsters with attacks that can deal 2d8+2d6+2 (avg 18!) and half of the classes in the game start with 8+CON HP or less, yes, it is too easy to kill low level PCs. Although it's more of a symptom of the CR system being terrible as has been exhaustively covered.
|
|
#
?
Oct 16, 2014 01:03
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 13, 2024 23:27 |
|
|
Infinite Karma posted:So if I don't include a Wizard in the group, you bitch that this is only possible because we don't have a supreme overlord in the party, hogging the spotlight, and if I do, he's trivializing the encounter? How are you killing two orcs per round? At level 5 or 6 most of the combat-oriented classes learn their Extra Attack feature, allowing them to make two attacks with one attack action. Only the fighter will ever gain the ability to make more attacks, though a combat-capable assassin does not and is stuck making one attack for increasingly higher amounts of damage. At any rate, if you're not a fighter with 3+ attacks then if you want to kill two orcs per round while only being able to make two attacks per turn you're going to need to kill each orc in one hit. In the orc corner, we have... AC 13, 15 HP, CR 1/2. In the martial corner, we have a weapon attack. Weapon attack rolls are your attack attribute (thus far either Str or Dex) plus your proficiency bonus plus other bonuses from enchanted weapons and the like. Weapon damage rolls are your weapon damage die plus your attack attribute plus other bonuses from enchanted weapons and the like. So let's say we're level 6. We put a 15 in our attack stat from the start, got a race that put +2 on top of that and then used our level 4 attribute boost to give it another +2, putting us at 19 for a +4 bonus. We even have a +1 weapon, lucky us! We're now rolling +3 proficiency + 4 attribute + 1 magic sword = +8 to hit, and 1[W] + 4 attribute + 1 magic sword = 1[W] + 5 damage. To kill two orcs per round with our two attacks per round we need to roll 5 or higher on the attack roll and 10 or higher on the damage roll. Weapon damage dice range from 1d4 for daggers up to 1d12 for greataxes or 2d6 for mauls and greatswords. On a hit, we have only a 25% chance of a successful one-hit kill with a greataxe and a 16.67% chance for a one-hit kill using a greatsword or maul, though odds do go up if we roll a critical hit. If that's not good enough then let's kick it up a few notches! We now have an attack stat of 20 (the maximum for PCs) and a +3 weapon (quite possibly the best enhancement bonus in the game)! 1[W] + 5 attribute + 3 magic weapon = 1[W] + 8, meaning we need to roll a 7 or higher on the damage- 50% shot with a d12 weapon and 58.33% with a 2d6 weapon. If we have the great weapon combat style then odds go up even farther. Unfortunately, if you're using a one-handed weapon then you're going to have more problems- only a 25% chance to roll a 7 or higher on a d8, though the Dueling style can make up the damage somewhat. Now, if you need more damage on your attacks, there's ways to do it- paladins get an extra 1d8 radiant per attack at level 11, while barbarians can range for +2 to +4 extra damage per attack, and there are feats such as Great Weapon Master or Sharpshooter that allow you to take a -5 to attack in exchange for +10 to damage (though that means you have much lower odds of landing the attack to begin with). I suspect there will also be magic weapons that add a few d6s onto your damage rolls, and there may be spells you can use to boost your damage rolls- though spells are a depleting resource and if you're willing to spend a spell to bump up your damage for a fight, why not use a similar slot to blast them with an AoE? If you can't kill an orc in one hit, you're going to have to aim to kill it in two, which means you need to find a way to make four attacks per round if you want to drop two opponents per round. Only a level 20 fighter has this natively, so you'd need to find a way to get two more attacks per turn (one more attack if you're a level 11 fighter). There are ways to get extra attacks such as Two-Weapon Fighting, cleaving with Great Weapon Master, or Crossbow Expert, but all of those extra attacks are made as bonus actions, which means they don't stack and you're only getting one attack out of them. Monks can get two attacks on a bonus action by spending ki, but that requires you to deplete your resources. Now what if we replace these orcs with gnolls? AC 15, 22 HP, CR 1/2. You can substitute them for orcs one-for-one in your encounter budget, except the encounter now has 50% more HP. If you want to kill two gnolls per round, you now need 50% more damage per attack, making killing two opponents in one round even harder to pull off than it already was between the difficulty of finding extra damage or extra attacks. If you can only kill one opponent per turn you now have to fight for twice as many rounds and expose yourself to many more attacks which still have a non-miniscule chance of hitting thanks to flattened math. Again, how are you reliably killing two CR 1/2 opponents per round (some of the weakest opponents in the game, only surpassed by CR 1/4 and CR 0). And what will you do if they're replaced by CR 1 opponents at higher levels? (Though, if you have two rangers each with Horde Breaker and Volley acting on the same initiative and targeting the same group of gnolls you could probably get a higher average than two dead gnolls per ranger per round assuming they clustered together and remained clustered together the entire fight... but then you're still proving the importance of AoE damage, you've just hired it out to the lowest bidder). There are CR 1/4 opponents like goblins and kobolds whose 5 to 7 HP means that they can be one-shot reliably by high-level heroes, but that same HP count means they can be one-shot semi-reliably by level 1 characters and cantrips because the only have 1 hit die which falls into the range of a level 1 character's 1[W] + attribute bonuses. Unless they're doing something absolutely amazing with the magic item rules (and again, in theory magic items are optional), weapon damage just doesn't scale up fast enough against enemy HP to take more than one higher CR opponent out of the fight per round.
|
|
#
?
Oct 16, 2014 01:21
|
|
