Quote from KiallVunMyeret >>

Quote from Pantagruel666 >>

The core problem with shillelagh is that it can be boosted by abilities that boost weapon attacks, which means you can't make it good for druids without making it overpowered for a different class taking it as a feat or dip. By far the easiest way to resolve that is to make it not synergize with extra attack (add a "once per turn" restriction, for example) and then boost the base effect to something like a d8 per tier.

 Wouldn't that just make it a worse primal savagery?

 No, it would make it better than primal savagery, because you're still adding wisdom modifier to damage. Most damage cantrips are garbage until you get certain higher level features which are high enough level that they don't matter because you don't use cantrips any more.

Quote from Yurei1453 >>

Quote from KiallVunMyeret >>

...
A monster with 1 hp or 7 hp highly likely is dying to the next attack regardless and is equally as dangerous
...

 
Unstated is the issue of what happens when your greataxe rolls low multiple times.  Which it very much can.

Your attack rolls a 1, reduces the monster to 7 HP.  Your next attack also rolls a 1, reduces the monster to 1 HP.  Perfectly normal, if somewhat unlikely, with the greataxe.  Impossible with 2d6, and even if the 1 isn't the only failure number, having edge cases where rolling low enough multiple times eats more total attacks is as commonas edge cases where maxing damage just so happens to remove an enemy early.  2d6 dramatically reduces the chances of multiple consecutive lowbie rolls.

IS 2d6 strictly better?  No, and it's weird scaling.  They don't really have any other option though, they wedged themselves in a corner with over-standardized weapon dice.  So this is what we get if we want it to scale at all.  Suppose as a DM I'd let the player choose to roll a d12 instead if they wanted, no harm to it, but eh.

 
God, more than anything else in 1DD I wish they would adjust weapon damage to address this issue. It would help rebalance martials against casters and rebalance Str against Dex. It would solve a lot of problems.

Tell me more about this "over-standardized weapon dice" problem. stuff, please.

• My thoughts on weapon damage as a basic core function work something like this:
• A Commoner (the basic everyday person) has 4 hit points.  to my way of thinking, a person trained in unarmed combat should, in a fantasy game, be able to kill one with a single blow at least half the time.
• And with those in place, we next have the point of weapons causing more damage than an unarmed blow. Any weapon capable of killing a commoner should be able to do at least that much damage -- on a high roll if necessary. Because "real" weapons can kill anyone in one strike.
• So I would even say that at the low end, damage caused should be around 3 points minimum average, and scale up from there.
• A bandit has 11 hit points, representing greater ability to fight and defend and all that, and so would be more difficult (in the basis I am looking at, call it 3.5 average for unarmed, 4.5 to 6.5 for weapons). Goblins have 7 hp, Gnolls have 22. All within the general range, given the nature of the their existence within a standard fantasy setting.
• So this would mean that weapons generally do d6, d8, d10, d12, d14, and d16 damage. Only there are no d14 and d16 in the standard D&D dice set, so they have to shift somehow. If they drop down (2 punches to kill a person, unarmed), they go to the d4, d6, d8, d10, d12 possibilities, but still need a high end result (given other things, likely 2d6, since mixed die rolls are considered to be not only unorthodox, but also non-aesthetic). Due Disclosure: I solved it for my table by simply getting d14, d16, d18, d22, d24, d26, and d28 dice. 
• So next comes weapons that would allow that greater damage thing to happen, and for that we probably should look at facility with the weapon, but they won't since they have decided to give aspects of facility and embed them as properties of a weapon. That would be my pet peeve about that.
• If we try to turn to "reality", then all weapons do the same damage. Because there is no system of strike points or other complex horsehsit when you have an HP based system. You don't have broken bones, subdural hematomas, and the assorted stuff that one could likely take the time to say could cause damage of varying types. That ignores the whole "but a maul is big and heavy and so it causes more" thing, or the interminable fights they wanted to skip past about how this kind of long bladed weapon is better than that kind of long bladed weapon and would allow them to go to a nice "the specific type doesn't matter" thing they did in the name of simplicity.
• So, we have the issue of how to scale weapons, and honestly, it is a fantasy game so size probably matters as much as how you use it, and that's where they went in the past.
• Using a basic model, this gives us Dagger -> Short sword -> Long sword -> Great sword, and a die model of d4, d6, d8, d10.
• They went to d4, d6, d8, and 2d6 (so, a default d12). They likely should have done it scaling down with a Great sword as d12, and a dagger at d6, so they could have needles and other stuff like darts or brass knuckles do the d4.
• The next reasonable step in my mind would be to strip out the "skill of user" properties from the weapons like finesse, versatile, and so forth, and give those to the martials as capabilities of their classes. Those, in turn, could scale up through their normal structures as they exist, but also "at higher levels" scale the die higher, reflecting facility with the weapons.
• It does mean, once again, that a 17th level Fighter with a particular weapon and maxed out to be a murderbot on steroids, would rip through foes like soft butter on hard bread, but it also means that other classes would be more like hard butter on soft bread.

Sorry for the long digression, but it caught my eye and made my mind work. Hence my curiosity about the "over-standardized weapon dice" problem.

In my opinion, the melee weapons should break down more or less as foillows:

 The only thing I would really change with ranged weapons is to make the heavy crossbow a d12 weapon, and add a heavy longbow/warbow to the list.

As I said previously, I believe that would partially address the imbalance between martial classes and casters, and the imbalance between Str builds and Dex builds among martials.

Interesting.

Because I went into a more of a proficiency style system (harkening back to 2e era) I have a few more classes of weapons than Simple and Martial, but I seem to be very close to what you have put down in terms of damage. My maul does d16, for example. I also have variants on whips and nets, and since I added Abrasion and Crushing damage as damage types, basic whips do abrasion damage (which is functionally "lighter", but also I had to do something since "sand" and particulate matter is a thing).

Thank you for the effort!

Now all you have to do is work on damage reduction from armor types!

Quote from Wysperra >>

Now all you have to do is work on damage reduction from armor types!

 
I think I will leave that one to one of my other DMs, lol. there isn't a lot of different kinds of Armor on Wyrlde (they don't have plate mail).

but dang nabbit, you go the brain working. Ugh.

So, the premise, then is that armor reduces damage above and beyond the existing structure that reduces damage (in relation to HP and AC, that's sorta what they are supposed to handle). The best existing basis for this is damage types. THe defalt game offers 3: Piercing, Slashing, and Bludgeoning. One could likely include some of the other damage types, as well -- necrotic, lightning, and so forth, but if go down that road, you end up breaking out of the simplicity ethos, so for general sake let's stick with just the weapon damage types.

Besides, Plate mail and Lightning Bolt is a really efficient way to take out the Paladin if we do that.

Now, we have to keep in mind the whole structure around HP and AC as we do this -- while a pair of rolls might be an attack for each side, the "reality" in game is that they are fiercely parrying and striking and trying to get through each others defenses, and managing to score a hit if the rolls are good. So what we are looking at isn't going to make a huge difference, but shold be enough to have some impact.

For example, one of the big benefits to Chainmail, historically, was that it made it hard to break the skin with a slashing attack, which was the primary form of attack at the time. Ringmail has a similar structure, but is less good at it, and much less good at it than Chain, because it is more susceptible to piercing attacks. Chain is slightly better at piercing than Plate, oddly enough, if the rings are small enough.

Bludgeoning is where Plate mail comes in handy, reducing effectiveness of slashing, piercing and bludgeoning attacks overall. A Breast plate would be good at this, half plate would be better, plate mail would be te best.

That gives us two place where we have some good data points to use for determining our factors.  I would suggest a -1 to -3, if it is done on a per die basis (which is a pain in the ass) or we could steal an idea from Vehicles and have a damage threshold (3,, 4, and 5 would be my take), but odds are pretty good for simplicity we should just take off some of the damage as a whole.

Going back to our weapon stuff, we look at a commoner who has an AC of 10, with no armor (this seems high to me, but whatever). our unarmed blow does an average 3.5 damage to them. the lowest AC Armor is also the cheapest, so let's say that they are wearing that for our baseline. That armor should not only make the damage they take more difficult to happen, but in this case also reduce some of it.

Padded armor is leather and layered material padded to absorb blows. The padding could be reasonably expected to reduce bludgeoning, and the leather should impact slashing -- but neither is very good at piercing. So let's say that Padded armor reduces bludgeoning damage by 1 and slashing damage by 1.

Leather armor is the same, as is studded leather. THey are not so much critical improvements, though we might be able to argue that studded reduces lashing by 2. Hide, if we use an idea *other* than buckskin, say something that still has fur attached, the thick warrior style, we could have take off 2 points of blunt damage.

Next would be the strange armors: Splint and Scale. Splint is essentially an upgraded version of Studded plus padding. It reduces Piercing by one, because of thickness of materials and introduction of metal, but I am inclined to keep it at the reduction of 2 for slashing and blunt, because we don't want to overdo it on this damage reduction since we only have 4 points to ply with (the HP of a commoner is still our baseline, matchings the baseline weapons do). Now, for the fantasy aspect, we could go on and say it reduces 1 Piercing, 2 Slashing, and 3 Bludgeoning -- but I wouldn't go so far as to make it 3/3 on Slash Bludgeoning. Not quite yet. It doesn't have enough of a penalty to make that a reasonable thing.

Scale Mail, if we use the "interlocking scales" approach, doesn't have the padding. But those scales are tight, and the leather underneath them is usually tick in order to support the weight, so we can say -2 piercing, -2 slashing. But, without  the padding, it doesn't help with bludgeoning.

That takes us to Ring and Chain. The chain shirt would get a -2 Piering and Slashing, as would the Chain mail, but Ring would only get a -1 for each -- but ring could get a -1 for bludgeoning because it is padded in the sense that it has multiple layers often held together by the fastening of the metal plates.

Breast plate, Half plate, and Full plate:  Bludgeoning would get a -3 for Half and Full plate, but nothing for breastplate. Piercing would go to all at -2, but not for firearms, which have too great a velocity. So in this case, to do it justice, we should recognize that heavy crossbows can and could pierce it as well. simplicity, again -- call it -1 for piercing for all to account for possibilities (since creating five different exceptions is a headache to put on a character sheet). Slashing for all of them would be -2 for breat plate (not full coverage), -3 for half and full plate.

No allof that follows the same systems and approach used to determine the weapon damage dice earlier. THe difference (going up in dice size versus going up on point in benefit) comes from the different basis we have to use -- this is something defending a Commoner from those basic weapons.

A =3 to damage is not a huge amount, granted -- but it is enough to save the life of a commoner against the usual weapons they would be facing, which would be mostly 1d6 or 1d8 damage weapons (3.5 and 4.5), while still not being enough against the more powerful weapons.

Such a small motn is meaningless once someone hits 5th level, but for 1st level and 2nd level this tiny adjustment is huge, and going any higher creates defensive tools that are *too good*.  However, magical enhancements could raise those numbers up as well for higher level characters.  In any case, I wouldn't suggest or support a system that granted more than a bonus of 5 against any kind of damage. It not only ignores the core basis of the game's combat structures, it implodes the system by essentially aming 1st level PCs walking tanks who will be very surprised when the local villager puts on his armor and turns into the local watch guard, becoming *more* of a tank than the PCs.

Now, these are just my figurings, based on the material descriptions and a very rudimentary knowledg eof armor types that I am in no way an expert on. But, if I were to introduce such a system into my game, that's how I would do it.

Quote from Wysperra >>

Now all you have to do is work on damage reduction from armor types!

 
Lol

Quote from AEDorsay >>

Interesting.

Because I went into a more of a proficiency style system (harkening back to 2e era) I have a few more classes of weapons than Simple and Martial, but I seem to be very close to what you have put down in terms of damage. My maul does d16, for example. I also have variants on whips and nets, and since I added Abrasion and Crushing damage as damage types, basic whips do abrasion damage (which is functionally "lighter", but also I had to do something since "sand" and particulate matter is a thing).

 

Thank you for the effort!

 
Thank you.I tried to keep mine in line with the current damage types and the existing dice. I would just use slashing instead of abrasion and bludgeoning instead of crushing. I don’t really see the need for the additional damage types.

Quote from IamSposta >>

Quote from AEDorsay >>

Interesting.

Because I went into a more of a proficiency style system (harkening back to 2e era) I have a few more classes of weapons than Simple and Martial, but I seem to be very close to what you have put down in terms of damage. My maul does d16, for example. I also have variants on whips and nets, and since I added Abrasion and Crushing damage as damage types, basic whips do abrasion damage (which is functionally "lighter", but also I had to do something since "sand" and particulate matter is a thing).

 

Thank you for the effort!

 
Thank you.I tried to keep mine in line with the current damage types and the existing dice. I would just use slashing instead of abrasion and bludgeoning instead of crushing. I don’t really see the need for the additional damage types.

 
yeah, whips and nets are the only ones I use the abrasion for, and crushing is only used for falling and similar effects (like landslides, rockfalls, avalanches). I wanted a damage type that was hard to avoid, and crushing was perfect.

Quote from Pantagruel666 >>

Quote from KiallVunMyeret >>

Quote from Pantagruel666 >>

The core problem with shillelagh is that it can be boosted by abilities that boost weapon attacks, which means you can't make it good for druids without making it overpowered for a different class taking it as a feat or dip. By far the easiest way to resolve that is to make it not synergize with extra attack (add a "once per turn" restriction, for example) and then boost the base effect to something like a d8 per tier.

 Wouldn't that just make it a worse primal savagery?

 No, it would make it better than primal savagery, because you're still adding wisdom modifier to damage. Most damage cantrips are garbage until you get certain higher level features which are high enough level that they don't matter because you don't use cantrips any more.

 Ow right that's true. My bad

Quote from R3sistance >>

Who actually thinks a d12 is better than 2d6... madness. With a d12 you can still get a 1! Which you can not with 2d6. This is to say, the majority of the time a 1d12 will likely do LESS damage than a 2d6. Additionally 2d6 is more consistent which makes it more reliable and predictable in turn.

Now is 1d12 to 2d6 a good upgrade? Probably not, it is lackluster 3d4 would have been better, in my opinion. I don't think anybody thinks 1d12 to 2d6 is great upgrade. But at 3d4, it raises other issues... would be more damage than any other weapon, so would need some other caveat, like only once per turn or something like that.

EDIT:

Quote from KiallVunMyeret >>

 Rolling 1's twice in a row with a d12 is a 1/144 or slightly more then 0.5%

Saying that there is a 0.5% chance the d12 is worse is not a convincing argument when i say there is a 11% higher chance it's significantly better.

Sorry but avarages don't work well to calculate damage when you are dealing with different die types. It's quite literally comparing apples to oranges.

It's not as simple as "this number is higher so it's certainly better" 

 

It isn't a 0.5% it's worse tho, since a 1 and a 2 is also worse and the chances of getting a double a double 2 (two 1s, twice) with 2d6 is significantly lower than your chance of getting a double 1 with a d12

With a D12, it's easy to figure out the chance of getting each number, it is 1/12 each or roughly 8.33%, that is an 8.33% chance to get a result so bad you can't even get it with 2d6. Now to get a 2 with a d12 is a 1 in 36 chance, or roughly 2.77% chance, the difference in the chances of getting a 2 is 5.55% higher with a D12. As for a 3, it is 2.77% higher to get a 3 with a d12 then a 2d6.

Basically, if you work it all out, and go over every number, you find out that the D12, is in fact a much MUCH inferior choice. Yes with a D12 you can hit the higher numbers more often but the probability is hitting a lower number more often, which makes the D12 just straight up worse. Mix this, with predictably, in most RNG systems, more consistent numbers are more predictable and thus usually more reliably, a D12 can hit any number equally, a 2D6 has a bias towards 7, meaning middling numbers are expected much more often.

If you run up to an Orc you know has 8 HP left with +3 strength/dexterity, your chances of not killing that orc with your 1d12 is on a 1 to 4 of which you have a 4/12 (or 1/3) chance of hitting while with the 2d6 it is a 2-4 of which you have a 6/36 chance of hitting (or 1/6), this is a difference of 1/3rd.

If you run up to an Orc you know has 12 HP left with +3 strength/+3 dexterity, you need a 9-12 to kill that orc which is the same 4/12 chance. Meanwhile for your 2d6 that is also a 9-12, which there is a 10/36 chance of hitting (or 5/18).

In the first example, you're 33.33% more likely to kill the orc with the 2d6, in the latter example you're only 5.55% more likely to kill the orc with the d12, this is because the average result of the 1d12 is just fundamentally lower.

And encase you wonder why I choose THESE numbers of 9-12, it is because the results of getting an 8+ is actually even, here is the table showing that:

Orc Health	roll needed	d12 chance to kill	2d6 chance to kill	difference
4	1	100.00%	100.00%	0.00%
5	2	91.67%	100.00%	-8.33%
6	3	83.33%	97.22%	-13.89%
7	4	75.00%	91.67%	-16.67%
8	5	66.67%	83.33%	-16.67%
9	6	58.33%	72.22%	-13.89%
10	7	50.00%	58.33%	-8.33%
11	8	41.67%	41.67%	0.00%
12	9	33.33%	27.78%	5.56%
13	10	25.00%	16.67%	8.33%
14	11	16.67%	8.33%	8.33%
15	12	8.33%	2.78%	5.56%
			Total	-50.00%

As we can see, the chances of killing orcs are all these different health values definitely favours the 2d6.

 There is more of a chance monsters are in the higher hp tresholds though. Orcs litteraly start the battle with the hp that favours the d12.

But that's mood, you litteraly proved my point

The point i was trying to make is not that a d12 is better then 2d6, but that a 2d6 isn't stricktly better then a d12. And your math proves that

I don't know where i mispoke that made people think i thought a d12 is just better but that wasn't the point i was trying to make.

I personally like the increased chance of oneshotting them and don't mind the 10-15% chance i can't 2 tap them. You don't have to, it's fine

But there are situations you are better of with a d12 and monsters being on a hp treshold  of 10-12+your damage bonus is something that pretty much happen every single campaign

That's just a fact

I think we've done all the math that we can. The problem here is as follows: most people believe something to be an upgrade if it is better over the course of a campaign. Most people don't have an issue with 4d10 fire damage being worse than 3d10 fire damage when fighting an iron golem. Evidently, you're not most people.

Quote from Quar1on >>

I think we've done all the math that we can. The problem here is as follows: most people believe something to be an upgrade if it is better over the course of a campaign. Most people don't have an issue with 4d10 fire damage being worse than 3d10 fire damage when fighting an iron golem. Evidently, you're not most people.

 I'm still having a hard time grasping how you think the iron golem is in any way a solid argument
It's a single monster that in 95+% of campaigns is never going to be seen vs the situation where any monster has 10-12+damage bonus hp left.
One is a lot more common then the other.
That would be like me saying this poor country has food issues cause 20% of the children are starving and then you respond by saying it's not a problem cause in this rich country there also was a single child has starved. That's the kind of mental gymnastics you are making.
We've done all the math we needed right from my first post. I made a statement that there are situations (which aren't uncommon) where the 2d6 is worse then the d12 and that is 100% a fact
The entire point of this thread is that the new scalling of shill isn't a step in the right direction and that's pretty much the case in anyway you look at it.
-It doesn't mesh well with druids at all cause they don't have acces to multi-attack meaning the damage increase for them is extremely minimal compared to meme martials builds who pick it up with a feat

-There are situations where after the upgrade you have less chance to kill the thing you are trying to kill regardless of what it actually is. This is a fact. not a single other cantrip scaling has this. Even in the hyperspecific single monster you brought up you didn't have less chance to kill

-And even if you ignore that and just use averages to not hurt your brain to much it's still a sudden drop from 1 avarage damage increase per upgrade to 0.5 avarage increase at the last one. It's a super small boost that get even smaller at the highest lvl

It just not a step in the right direction in any way you look at it. Something like you imbue club/staff with magic, once per turn you can use your spellcasting modifier for hit/damage and change the damage dice to 1/2/3/4d8 would be better scaling, work less well for multiattack classes then it does for the base druid and always be a strict upgrade.

But i guess if most people are fine with it having bad scaling, who am i to say otherwise? Never been much of a fan of druids anyway

Quote from KiallVunMyeret >>

Quote from Quar1on >>

I think we've done all the math that we can. The problem here is as follows: most people believe something to be an upgrade if it is better over the course of a campaign. Most people don't have an issue with 4d10 fire damage being worse than 3d10 fire damage when fighting an iron golem. Evidently, you're not most people.

The entire point of this thread is that the new scalling of shill isn't a step in the right direction and that's pretty much the case in anyway you look at it.
-It doesn't mesh well with druids at all cause they don't have acces to multi-attack meaning the damage increase for them is extremely minimal compared to meme martials builds who pick it up with a feat

-There are situations where after the upgrade you have less chance to kill the thing you are trying to kill regardless of what it actually is. This is a fact. not a single other cantrip scaling has this. Even in the hyperspecific single monster you brought up you didn't have less chance to kill

-And even if you ignore that and just use averages to not hurt your brain to much it's still a sudden drop from 1 avarage damage increase per upgrade to 0.5 avarage increase at the last one. It's a super small boost that get even smaller at the highest lvl

It just not a step in the right direction in any way you look at it. Something like you imbue club/staff with magic, once per turn you can use your spellcasting modifier for hit/damage and change the damage dice to 1/2/3/4d8 would be better scaling, work less well for multiattack classes then it does for the base druid and always be a strict upgrade.

But i guess if most people are fine with it having bad scaling, who am i to say otherwise? Never been much of a fan of druids anyway

Um, did you seriously just make an argument that Druids need to be able to keep up with martials when they are spell casters who at higher levels are among the group that most folks say are overpowered in relation to Casters? DO not compare Druid damage scaling to martials, please -- they are not martials, who have a very different basis.

By and large, the difference you are arguing over is one of philosophical approach: the development group (and the game as a whole) does not rely on curves. They rely strictly on averages. This holds for everything (even d100 tables) in the game as it is designed right now (with about a dozen total exceptions on the d100 tables). Simply put, they don't rely on distributive probability at all. 

So you are arguing in opposition to the ethos of the game. Doable, no fault, but it is a fight you can't win and won't succeed in altering the end result (even if they walk back the change) because they aren't going to use the distributive probability as a reason for it.

As my prior statement acknowledged, there is a very peculiar shift there (though it is not uncommon in a real world basis that at the highest levels improvements come at a slower pace and a lower return on investment for anything), it does just really itch that they couldn't bounce to d14 because there is no such die. However, at the same time, how do you achieve that bump in game, without going over the 14 and still allowing for the 1? All your distributive arguments apply to any die combination, so you are saying the problem isn't solvable even if you do have a problem with it, but you aren't offering a solution, which is not constructive, and so not more than pissing in the wind.

The solution you do offer is outside the scope and ignores the obvious goals here -- you are essentially suggesting a new spell damage structure that is outside the ethos as well. Which is not a criticism of your suggestion in the sense of it beign a bad mechanic, merely that it is one that doesn't fit the circumstance or the apparent design goals. You went to a d8 basis to start, and ultimately you create a more powerful cantrip than they intended to create.

At most, your suggestion should provide for 14 points of damage. You went and aimed for 32 points, which is obscenely overpowered and utterly outside the obvious expectations, in the name of "better scaling"? That's ludicrous. 

Now, bear in mind that part of the reason I cannot say much about it is that we unified all damage across all spells. all cantrips have a d6. All 1st level have a d8. All 2nd level have a d10. and so forth. Then for number of dice, again, across the board we went with 1 die per level of the spell caster. A simple, basic uniform spell damage (and healing) system that applies regardless.

And we did it because we got tired of this exact kind of argument, lol. They were clogging up our table and wrecking our playing time.

There were some unexpected side benefits, as well -- shield type spells now also roll dice, and that's the defensive power of the shield. Resistance in some cases works the same way.

But that is just as ludicrous a suggestion to make to the dev team as going to 1/2/3/4 d8 for Shillelagh. The idea isn't bad (no everyone would like it, no, but mechanically it is simpler), but it doesn't fit with the obvious goals of the spell.

It also means that at 1st level our Shillelagh only causes 1d6 damage. No matter how they rewrite the spell. But a 2nd level druid does 2d6. and so forth. With a 20th level Druid's Shillelagh doing 20d6 damage from a cantrip. So yeah, our system *really* doesn't work for the 5e ethos (even with me scaling it back some for the next campaign).

Quote from AEDorsay >>

Quote from KiallVunMyeret >>

Quote from Quar1on >>

I think we've done all the math that we can. The problem here is as follows: most people believe something to be an upgrade if it is better over the course of a campaign. Most people don't have an issue with 4d10 fire damage being worse than 3d10 fire damage when fighting an iron golem. Evidently, you're not most people.

The entire point of this thread is that the new scalling of shill isn't a step in the right direction and that's pretty much the case in anyway you look at it.
-It doesn't mesh well with druids at all cause they don't have acces to multi-attack meaning the damage increase for them is extremely minimal compared to meme martials builds who pick it up with a feat

-There are situations where after the upgrade you have less chance to kill the thing you are trying to kill regardless of what it actually is. This is a fact. not a single other cantrip scaling has this. Even in the hyperspecific single monster you brought up you didn't have less chance to kill

-And even if you ignore that and just use averages to not hurt your brain to much it's still a sudden drop from 1 avarage damage increase per upgrade to 0.5 avarage increase at the last one. It's a super small boost that get even smaller at the highest lvl

It just not a step in the right direction in any way you look at it. Something like you imbue club/staff with magic, once per turn you can use your spellcasting modifier for hit/damage and change the damage dice to 1/2/3/4d8 would be better scaling, work less well for multiattack classes then it does for the base druid and always be a strict upgrade.

But i guess if most people are fine with it having bad scaling, who am i to say otherwise? Never been much of a fan of druids anyway

 

Um, did you seriously just make an argument that Druids need to be able to keep up with martials when they are spell casters who at higher levels are among the group that most folks say are overpowered in relation to Casters? DO not compare Druid damage scaling to martials, please -- they are not martials, who have a very different basis.

By and large, the difference you are arguing over is one of philosophical approach: the development group (and the game as a whole) does not rely on curves. They rely strictly on averages. This holds for everything (even d100 tables) in the game as it is designed right now (with about a dozen total exceptions on the d100 tables). Simply put, they don't rely on distributive probability at all. 

So you are arguing in opposition to the ethos of the game. Doable, no fault, but it is a fight you can't win and won't succeed in altering the end result (even if they walk back the change) because they aren't going to use the distributive probability as a reason for it.

As my prior statement acknowledged, there is a very peculiar shift there (though it is not uncommon in a real world basis that at the highest levels improvements come at a slower pace and a lower return on investment for anything), it does just really itch that they couldn't bounce to d14 because there is no such die. However, at the same time, how do you achieve that bump in game, without going over the 14 and still allowing for the 1? All your distributive arguments apply to any die combination, so you are saying the problem isn't solvable even if you do have a problem with it, but you aren't offering a solution, which is not constructive, and so not more than pissing in the wind.

The solution you do offer is outside the scope and ignores the obvious goals here -- you are essentially suggesting a new spell damage structure that is outside the ethos as well. Which is not a criticism of your suggestion in the sense of it beign a bad mechanic, merely that it is one that doesn't fit the circumstance or the apparent design goals. You went to a d8 basis to start, and ultimately you create a more powerful cantrip than they intended to create.

At most, your suggestion should provide for 14 points of damage. You went and aimed for 32 points, which is obscenely overpowered and utterly outside the obvious expectations, in the name of "better scaling"? That's ludicrous. 

Now, bear in mind that part of the reason I cannot say much about it is that we unified all damage across all spells. all cantrips have a d6. All 1st level have a d8. All 2nd level have a d10. and so forth. Then for number of dice, again, across the board we went with 1 die per level of the spell caster. A simple, basic uniform spell damage (and healing) system that applies regardless.

And we did it because we got tired of this exact kind of argument, lol. They were clogging up our table and wrecking our playing time.

There were some unexpected side benefits, as well -- shield type spells now also roll dice, and that's the defensive power of the shield. Resistance in some cases works the same way.

But that is just as ludicrous a suggestion to make to the dev team as going to 1/2/3/4 d8 for Shillelagh. The idea isn't bad (no everyone would like it, no, but mechanically it is simpler), but it doesn't fit with the obvious goals of the spell.

It also means that at 1st level our Shillelagh only causes 1d6 damage. No matter how they rewrite the spell. But a 2nd level druid does 2d6. and so forth. With a 20th level Druid's Shillelagh doing 20d6 damage from a cantrip. So yeah, our system *really* doesn't work for the 5e ethos (even with me scaling it back some for the next campaign).

 What the heck is with these forums and people trying to twist what people are trying to say.Where did i say that druids need to keep up with martials? What i said was that it's a bit peculiar that the druid specific cantrip is better on a martial who takes it as a feat then it would be for the druid. Am i really being that creptic with what i'm saying? English isn't my first language so if that's the case i apologize

Also you kinda lost me in the second part but you can't seriously be suggesting that a 17th lvl caster being able to do 4d8+5 damage in melee for both bonus and regular action on the first turn to be "obscenely overpowered and utterly outside the obvious expectations"
Green flame blade exist and does weapon damage +3d8 with a added benefit of 3d8+mod against a nearby target at lvl 17
The change i suggested to shill is barely better then Primal Savagery at the cost of needing a bonus action and a action. How on earth is that overpowered? 

Quote from KiallVunMyeret >>

...it's a bit peculiar that the druid specific cantrip is better on a martial who takes it as a feat then it would be for the druid.

(just using this particular quote because it's concise)

Is that a big problem? It's true of the current 5e version of the cantrip, and the new changes still make it better (than before) for both the Druid and the martial.

It does not seem broken that the martial can get it with a feat, and it does not seem bad for the druid or the druid's class identity --- after all, it was a minorly useful spell on the druid's list before, and now it's just a little better. I get that the improvements do not make it a suddenly stellar spell for druid, but that's not what any cantrip does...

The example of children dying of hunger is... unfortunate to say the least.
But let's calm down and try to focus the thread a little. Is your complaint that the cantrip scales poorly? In that case I agree. But from there to saying, or suggesting, or implying, or, at least, leaving the door open for someone to interpret that what you are saying is that the cantrip is worse at level 17 than level 11, there is a long way. The cantrip is best at level 17. Whether a lot, a little, insignificantly, etc., I will leave it to each individual's interpretation. But going from a 1d12 to a 2d6 is an improvement. Can we at least agree on that?

Quote from KiallVunMyeret >>

Quote from AEDorsay >>

Quote from KiallVunMyeret >>

Quote from Quar1on >>

I think we've done all the math that we can. The problem here is as follows: most people believe something to be an upgrade if it is better over the course of a campaign. Most people don't have an issue with 4d10 fire damage being worse than 3d10 fire damage when fighting an iron golem. Evidently, you're not most people.

The entire point of this thread is that the new scalling of shill isn't a step in the right direction and that's pretty much the case in anyway you look at it.
-It doesn't mesh well with druids at all cause they don't have acces to multi-attack meaning the damage increase for them is extremely minimal compared to meme martials builds who pick it up with a feat

-There are situations where after the upgrade you have less chance to kill the thing you are trying to kill regardless of what it actually is. This is a fact. not a single other cantrip scaling has this. Even in the hyperspecific single monster you brought up you didn't have less chance to kill

-And even if you ignore that and just use averages to not hurt your brain to much it's still a sudden drop from 1 avarage damage increase per upgrade to 0.5 avarage increase at the last one. It's a super small boost that get even smaller at the highest lvl

It just not a step in the right direction in any way you look at it. Something like you imbue club/staff with magic, once per turn you can use your spellcasting modifier for hit/damage and change the damage dice to 1/2/3/4d8 would be better scaling, work less well for multiattack classes then it does for the base druid and always be a strict upgrade.

But i guess if most people are fine with it having bad scaling, who am i to say otherwise? Never been much of a fan of druids anyway

 

Um, did you seriously just make an argument that Druids need to be able to keep up with martials when they are spell casters who at higher levels are among the group that most folks say are overpowered in relation to Casters? DO not compare Druid damage scaling to martials, please -- they are not martials, who have a very different basis.

By and large, the difference you are arguing over is one of philosophical approach: the development group (and the game as a whole) does not rely on curves. They rely strictly on averages. This holds for everything (even d100 tables) in the game as it is designed right now (with about a dozen total exceptions on the d100 tables). Simply put, they don't rely on distributive probability at all. 

So you are arguing in opposition to the ethos of the game. Doable, no fault, but it is a fight you can't win and won't succeed in altering the end result (even if they walk back the change) because they aren't going to use the distributive probability as a reason for it.

As my prior statement acknowledged, there is a very peculiar shift there (though it is not uncommon in a real world basis that at the highest levels improvements come at a slower pace and a lower return on investment for anything), it does just really itch that they couldn't bounce to d14 because there is no such die. However, at the same time, how do you achieve that bump in game, without going over the 14 and still allowing for the 1? All your distributive arguments apply to any die combination, so you are saying the problem isn't solvable even if you do have a problem with it, but you aren't offering a solution, which is not constructive, and so not more than pissing in the wind.

The solution you do offer is outside the scope and ignores the obvious goals here -- you are essentially suggesting a new spell damage structure that is outside the ethos as well. Which is not a criticism of your suggestion in the sense of it beign a bad mechanic, merely that it is one that doesn't fit the circumstance or the apparent design goals. You went to a d8 basis to start, and ultimately you create a more powerful cantrip than they intended to create.

At most, your suggestion should provide for 14 points of damage. You went and aimed for 32 points, which is obscenely overpowered and utterly outside the obvious expectations, in the name of "better scaling"? That's ludicrous. 

Now, bear in mind that part of the reason I cannot say much about it is that we unified all damage across all spells. all cantrips have a d6. All 1st level have a d8. All 2nd level have a d10. and so forth. Then for number of dice, again, across the board we went with 1 die per level of the spell caster. A simple, basic uniform spell damage (and healing) system that applies regardless.

And we did it because we got tired of this exact kind of argument, lol. They were clogging up our table and wrecking our playing time.

There were some unexpected side benefits, as well -- shield type spells now also roll dice, and that's the defensive power of the shield. Resistance in some cases works the same way.

But that is just as ludicrous a suggestion to make to the dev team as going to 1/2/3/4 d8 for Shillelagh. The idea isn't bad (no everyone would like it, no, but mechanically it is simpler), but it doesn't fit with the obvious goals of the spell.

It also means that at 1st level our Shillelagh only causes 1d6 damage. No matter how they rewrite the spell. But a 2nd level druid does 2d6. and so forth. With a 20th level Druid's Shillelagh doing 20d6 damage from a cantrip. So yeah, our system *really* doesn't work for the 5e ethos (even with me scaling it back some for the next campaign).

 What the heck is with these forums and people trying to twist what people are trying to say.Where did i say that druids need to keep up with martials? What i said was that it's a bit peculiar that the druid specific cantrip is better on a martial who takes it as a feat then it would be for the druid. Am i really being that creptic with what i'm saying? English isn't my first language so if that's the case i apologize

Also you kinda lost me in the second part but you can't seriously be suggesting that a 17th lvl caster being able to do 4d8+5 damage in melee for both bonus and regular action on the first turn to be "obscenely overpowered and utterly outside the obvious expectations"
Green flame blade exist and does weapon damage +3d8 with a added benefit of 3d8+mod against a nearby target at lvl 17
The change i suggested to shill is barely better then Primal Savagery at the cost of needing a bonus action and a action. How on earth is that overpowered? 

First bolded: "-It doesn't mesh well with druids at all cause they don't have access to multi-attack meaning the damage increase for them is extremely minimal compared to meme martials builds who pick it up with a feat"

Second bolded: In terms of what the designers were aiming for when they altered the spell, absolutely. They did not aim for the spell to be that powerful or to scale that high at higher levels. IF they had, they would have done that or something more similar. They did not. They scaled it for a single point improvement each stage (until the last, when it is only a half point). So the design goal was to scale it to 1 point for each increase, not increase the number of dice (in this case, 4.5 points per stage), so your suggestion is a multiplier of three greater (which is overpowered).

The issue isn't how good the spell is in comparison to others, the issue is how the changes to the spell affect the spell. IF you want to go for comparisons to other things, then the endless argument about damage is going to start up, and if you want to go there, well, then it would be just as reasonable for me to argue that all cantrips should be limited to 1d4. Which, for the record, is not reasonable, because we aren't talking about all the other spells, we are talking about this one and the specific changes made to it, within its own self. THe only comparison that makes sense to use is prior versions of shillelagh.

Unless we are doing a broad range of comparisons of different spells to each other. Which would make one question why they don't have all the spells doing the same damage, across the board, and would devolve to the end result position my group took.

Quote from kenclary >>

Quote from KiallVunMyeret >>

...it's a bit peculiar that the druid specific cantrip is better on a martial who takes it as a feat then it would be for the druid.

(just using this particular quote because it's concise)

Is that a big problem? It's true of the current 5e version of the cantrip, and the new changes still make it better (than before) for both the Druid and the martial.

It does not seem broken that the martial can get it with a feat, and it does not seem bad for the druid or the druid's class identity --- after all, it was a minorly useful spell on the druid's list before, and now it's just a little better. I get that the improvements do not make it a suddenly stellar spell for druid, but that's not what any cantrip does...

 I mean no it's not a big problem. It's not going to make or break the 2024 handbook if they print it like this.
But if we have the option to leave feedback and possibly change it for the better, why shouldn't i bring it up?
Even if i'm completely wrong it's still better to hear out a bad idea and dismiss it then to potentially not hear a good idea cause people keep silent