Page 1 of 8 12345678 LastLast
Results 1 to 30 of 230
  1. - Top - End - #1
    Orc in the Playground
     
    Rebonack's Avatar

    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    The King's Grave

    Default Bringing PAM, SS, and GWM in line?

    So Polearm Master, Sharp Shooter, and GWM are grossly out of line with the general power level of feats. PAM and GWM both step on Two Weapon Fighting's toes by adding an extra attack as a bonus action. And SS is simply overloaded. Any suggestions on reigning these feats in so they don't completely overshadow everything else? My kneejerk reaction is split GWM and SS and simply give PAM's bonus attack the axe. Would that do it? Would game health in general be improved if these feats weren't quite so centralizing? Or are these grossly over-tuned fighting style feats required for martial folks to compete with the not-so-martial folks?

    EDIT

    After listening to a ton of great feedback, I've come to the conclusion that the best option is to make Power Attack a weapon option that is granted at first level to classes that have the Extra Attack class feature as one of their core features.. If Extra Attack is granted by a sub-class (like Valor Bard), you don't gain Power Attack until you actually have the Extra Attack feature. Power Attack only triggers on weapon attacks so it would be incompatible with the Monk's unarmed strikes. Sorry Monk.

    Power attack: When you make an attack with a weapon you're proficient with you may decline to apply your proficiency bonus ToHit before making the attack roll. If the attack hits, you deal bonus damage equal to twice your proficiency modifier.
    Last edited by Rebonack; 2017-08-12 at 11:16 PM.
    Warning! Random Encounter™ detected!
    Mythos Stuff Nightmære Stuff
    It doesn't matter whether you win or lose, just how awesome you look doing it.

  2. - Top - End - #2
    Pixie in the Playground
     
    SwashbucklerGuy

    Join Date
    Jan 2017

    Default Re: Bringing PAM, SS, and GWM in line?

    I thought PAM and GWM were fine until someone told me you add your ability bonus to the damage. So you could make it so the bonus attack granted by them does not add your ability bonus to damage, much like an offhand weapon with two-weapon fighting. No idea about ss though.

  3. - Top - End - #3
    Bugbear in the Playground
     
    mephnick's Avatar

    Join Date
    Dec 2012

    Default Re: Bringing PAM, SS, and GWM in line?

    The only real offender is SS because of the Archery style and the ability to ignore cover, plus attacking from range and how good Dex is etc etc etc. GWM isn't nearly as "broken".

  4. - Top - End - #4
    Orc in the Playground
     
    Rebonack's Avatar

    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    The King's Grave

    Default Re: Bringing PAM, SS, and GWM in line?

    Quote Originally Posted by danksteel View Post
    I thought PAM and GWM were fine until someone told me you add your ability bonus to the damage. So you could make it so the bonus attack granted by them does not add your ability bonus to damage, much like an offhand weapon with two-weapon fighting. No idea about ss though.
    I feel like getting more attacks is explicitly what the two-weapon style is for. Just making them bad attacks will slow down combat for not much gain on the feat-user's part. If GWM and PAM really need a second benefit beyond power attack and easy access to reaction attacks it should probably be some other bonus that's something other than making an extra attack as a bonus action.


    Quote Originally Posted by mephnick View Post
    The only real offender is SS because of the Archery style and the ability to ignore cover, plus attacking from range and how good Dex is etc etc etc. GWM isn't nearly as "broken".
    PAM and GWM crowd out other melee fighting styles. Slightly on the part of Sword+Board and majorly on the part of Two Weapon Fighting. Getting lots of attacks is TWF's whole thing. GWM on its own isn't that daunting, but when paired with a source of reliable advantage it absolutely mulches encounters. If they got some (weaker) benefit that isn't an extra attack it wouldn't be quite so terrible.
    Last edited by Rebonack; 2017-07-30 at 12:28 AM.
    Warning! Random Encounter™ detected!
    Mythos Stuff Nightmære Stuff
    It doesn't matter whether you win or lose, just how awesome you look doing it.

  5. - Top - End - #5
    Troll in the Playground
    Join Date
    Dec 2014

    Default Re: Bringing PAM, SS, and GWM in line?

    i have only 2 problems with those feats:

    1) they give more power at low levels than i would particularly like to see.

    2) they reduce diversity. they reduce diversity of fighting styles by having feat support when no other fighting styles do. and they reduce diversity of builds by making almost every other feat 3rd in line or lower for any character that can make use of them.

    i'm not entirely certain there's a simple solution to the first problem (maybe making power attack scale so that you lose your proficiency bonus to attack but add double proficiency to damage would do the trick)

    but 2 is fairly simple. we mainly need feats to support other styles and concepts. and i don't just mean using different weapons (though having a few more options in that specifically be nice), i mean in other areas of the game; we have a few other feats that people pick up to basically add another element to their character that i'd love to see more things similar to them; magic initiate to pick up some cantrips, or healer/inspiring leader to add some healing/sustain to their party, that kind of thing.

  6. - Top - End - #6
    Barbarian in the Playground
     
    PirateCaptain

    Join Date
    Sep 2016

    Default Re: Bringing PAM, SS, and GWM in line?

    PAM: 1d10 + 1d4 = 8 average damage, +2*Stat, and the extra riders.
    Dual Wielding: 1d6 + 1d6 = 7 average damage +1*Stat. With a Feat you increase this base damage to 9. With a Fighting Style you can add 2*Stat. There are no worthwhile additional riders.
    --This is the issue with PAM. It is the quick and efficient answer to dual wielding, essentially granting you a Double Weapon (something that they have been careful to avoid in 5e, after Spike Chain shenanigans in 4e, IMO) and also gives you additional Reaction options. PAM also stacks with Great Weapon Fighter, Great Weapon Master, and does not require any Fighting Style to give extra +Stat damage on attacks.
    Answer?
    Remove the extra stat to damage on the offhand attack. Now it's just a plain d4 for a bonus action. And/or remove the riders. Count the d4 side as a separate weapon, it does not benefit from GWM or GWF, or any magical effect on the main end of the weapon.

    GWM:
    Honestly, I see little wrong with GWM. -5 for +10 is relatively fair, as there is little which can mitigate this at will.

    Sharp Shooter:
    There are two major issues here. The first, is Archery Style on top of it. This reduces it to -3/+5. This throws off what the designers seem to have considered "fair". The second problem, albeit a smaller one, is Crossbow Expert giving more opportunities to hit. With a pair of Hand Crossbows and a liberal GM, a player can lay out 5 shots with the +10 damage. You cannot do this with GWM unless, as stated above, you pair it with PAM.
    In my opinion, Sharp Shooter should not work with thrown weapons or with hand crossbows. It also should not stack with Archery Style - if you use the -5, it is a flat -5, and cannot be modified.

    In truth, ruling that you cannot "correct" the -5 would go to great lengths to fix both GWM and SS. No Reckless Attack, no Bless, no Archery Style. You get a flat To Hit and -5, end of story.

    Another important fix, in my opinion, is a rebalance of the Dual Wielder feat. The best feature to add to a character who is dual wielding, is the Two Weapon Style. The problem is that this gives the edge to dual wielding until Level 4, or even Level 11 if you don't include feats. Meanwhile, Great Weapon Style, and Dueling Style add roughly +2 damage to their attacks. It would make more sense to allow Fighters and Rangers to wield larger-than-normal weapons, essentially, giving them the benefit of the Dual Wielder Feat in place of Two Weapon Style. Then, the ability to add your Stat to damage becomes the benefit of the Dual Wielder feat, instead. This makes it possible for any class to get a reasonable damage boost without having to invest a level dip in Fighter or Ranger.
    "If it's just Dailies done, they'll press on; Fighter cussing monsters, Ranger and Rogue cussing Fighter, and the Cleric cussing everyone. They're only down to about 70% HAIR (hard a** indicative rating) anyway, and probably have yet to run across any sand-paper"

  7. - Top - End - #7
    Ogre in the Playground
     
    Pex's Avatar

    Join Date
    Nov 2013

    Default Re: Bringing PAM, SS, and GWM in line?

    In my experience they haven't been a problem at all.

    Out of at least 20 players among my gaming groups:

    Only one player took Sharpshooter. Everyone cheered when she used it. No one resented it.

    Only one player took Polearm Master. Everyone thought it was cool that he had it. No one resented it.

    No one has taken Great Weapon Master.

    If your group is having issues with them that's your business, but I object to the notion they are universally a problem that needs fixing.
    Quote Originally Posted by Erit View Post
    "The DM is the world, the gods, the trees and the bees. But no matter what covenant is struck or words exchanged, the DM is not the PCs."

  8. - Top - End - #8
    Barbarian in the Playground
     
    Beelzebubba's Avatar

    Join Date
    Feb 2017

    Default Re: Bringing PAM, SS, and GWM in line?

    Yes, let's nerf martials back to 3.x era uselessness.

    How dare they be really really good at the one thing they're built for.

    Why, given the rate they're going, they could potentially overshadow a spellcaster occasionally!

  9. - Top - End - #9
    Barbarian in the Playground
     
    PirateCaptain

    Join Date
    Sep 2016

    Default Re: Bringing PAM, SS, and GWM in line?

    Quote Originally Posted by Beelzebubba View Post
    Yes, let's nerf martials back to 3.x era uselessness.

    How dare they be really really good at the one thing they're built for.

    Why, given the rate they're going, they could potentially overshadow a spellcaster occasionally!
    The issue isn't that they overshadow spell casters - it's that these Feats are so ubiquitous that they overshadow other martial options. Martials are already pretty close to what a Caster can put out, and have their own advantages - especially if you have a DM who understands and avoids the "five minute adventuring day." They don't need these feats to remain competitive. In fact, short of goofy stuff like saying, "Oh, I'll just pack 25 Orcs into a room, and then cast Fireball" - a lot of the best Nova builds are Martials, and the best sustained damage builds are almost always martials.
    "If it's just Dailies done, they'll press on; Fighter cussing monsters, Ranger and Rogue cussing Fighter, and the Cleric cussing everyone. They're only down to about 70% HAIR (hard a** indicative rating) anyway, and probably have yet to run across any sand-paper"

  10. - Top - End - #10
    Ettin in the Playground
     
    ClericGuy

    Join Date
    Aug 2014

    Default Re: Bringing PAM, SS, and GWM in line?

    I limit them to once per turn with the -5/+10

    Seems to work fine.

    I make the same limits with sip dice and smite.

  11. - Top - End - #11
    Dwarf in the Playground
    Join Date
    Jun 2016

    Default Re: Bringing PAM, SS, and GWM in line?

    Bah I find no issue with em; I also find no problem with those fighting styles being overly represented because of those choices.

    If anything, what needs to happen is the development of comparable feats for other fighting styles.

  12. - Top - End - #12
    Ogre in the Playground
     
    Kryx's Avatar

    Join Date
    Nov 2013

    Default Re: Bringing PAM, SS, and GWM in line?

    Here is how I bring GWM, PAM, and SS in line with other feats and ASI options:
    • GWM: Remove -5/+10. Mathematically GWM is worth more than a +2 Str ASI even without -5/+10. I have a comparison at level 5 that shows this. So the feat is balanced (on a Barbarian at least) without the -5/+10 part. You could add +1 Str instead if you think it's too weak, though that'd make it one of the strongest feats in the game again.
    • PAM: Remove the bonus attack. Removing the bonus attack really frees up TWF to have a niche in the number of attacks. A polearm's niche is to have reach and poking people that come within range (used to be brace for a charge, now it's a reaction). Again you can add +1 Str in its place if you deem it necessary.
    • Sharpshooter: Remove -5/+10 and ignoring cover.-5/+10 is even more explotative on ranged attacks due to the archery fighting style. It's really OP, mathematically. Additionally there are all these great rules for cover and this feat is basically a tax to get rid of all those great rules and offset the balance between melee and ranged. I find the balance between melee and ranged to be much better with those great cover rules in place (Same thing on spell sniper). If a player wants to keep the "attacking at long range doesn't impose disadvantage" then I'd definitely add a +1 Dex as it is relatively niche.


    -5/+10 is very problematic in that it is the largest damage boost in the game when you can achieve reliable advantage (Reckless Attack or Trip Attack from a Fighter for example). It only fails when the AC is quite far outside of the normal expected for the enemy CR ( though based on my math you have to go quite far outside of the normal AC range to hit a point where it is not effective to use -5/+10).

    In my games I make the cleave aspect of GWM and the reaction aspect of PAM inherent properties of the weapons with my half feat system (see my houserules) and find that offers players more options to switch weapons as desired.

  13. - Top - End - #13
    Colossus in the Playground
     
    NecromancerGuy

    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    The Amber Temple
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: Bringing PAM, SS, and GWM in line?

    If you're going to change the rules, buff/rewrite how TWF works, I say.
    Quote Originally Posted by Keld Denar View Post
    +3 Girlfriend is totally unoptimized. You are better off with a +1 Keen Witty girlfriend and then appling Greater Magic Make-up to increase her enhancement bonus.
    Homebrew
    To Do: Reboot and finish Riptide

  14. - Top - End - #14
    Ogre in the Playground
     
    Kryx's Avatar

    Join Date
    Nov 2013

    Default Re: Bringing PAM, SS, and GWM in line?

    Quote Originally Posted by Coidzor View Post
    If you're going to change the rules, buff/rewrite how TWF works, I say.
    See http://www.giantitp.com/forums/shows...9&postcount=25 and the thread attached to that to see how difficult buffing TWF in a balanced way in a world with GWM/PAM/SS would be.

    You have 2 options when attempting to fix GWM/PAM/SS:
    1. Buff every option to match the power level of GWM/PAM/SS. All feats are now worth about twice the value of an ASI.
    2. Bring GWM/PAM/SS in line with the power level of ASIs and other feats.


    While TWF, flails, battleaxes, morningstars, etc could use some uniqueness I do not believe having feats be twice the value of an ASI is good balance. GWM/PAM/SS are outliers based on the math and buffing everything to match that outlier level is incredibly difficult to balance and seemingly poor design in a world where feats and ASIs are meant to have tradeoffs.

  15. - Top - End - #15
    Dwarf in the Playground
    Join Date
    Dec 2016
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: Bringing PAM, SS, and GWM in line?

    I like feats.
    If they weren't there then martials wouldn't be able to keep up.

    looking at mid level PCs:
    an archer is going to be doing 2 attacks, per round, the BM fighter will do 2d8+dex per arrow, the ranger with CS will get an additional d8. an average of 18/22.5. Against one target.
    the wizard is doing 8d6 (scorching ray at 3, fireball, whatever) to a single or multiple opponents, 28 average.
    a derplock is firing at 2d10 + 2d6 + 8, averaging 26, single target but no resources spent.

    And the numbers only go up in favour of casters as levels increase.
    I don't mind casters doing more damage per se, it's just that I think a lot of that can be covered with aoe spells (or high end spells. disintegrate and the like).

  16. - Top - End - #16
    Ogre in the Playground
     
    Kryx's Avatar

    Join Date
    Nov 2013

    Default Re: Bringing PAM, SS, and GWM in line?

    Quote Originally Posted by StoicLeaf View Post
    looking at mid level PCs:
    an archer is going to be doing 2 attacks, per round, the BM fighter will do 2d8+dex per arrow, the ranger with CS will get an additional d8. an average of 18/22.5. Against one target.
    the wizard is doing 8d6 (scorching ray at 3, fireball, whatever) to a single or multiple opponents, 28 average.
    a derplock is firing at 2d10 + 2d6 + 8, averaging 26, single target but no resources spent.
    This quite conviently leaves out anything but basic weapon damage which heavily distorts the evaluation.

    At level 8:
    Hunter Ranger (20 dex, no feats) has a 79% chance to hit and does 25 DPR
    EB Warlock with Hex has a 64% chance to hit and does 18 DPR
    Scorching ray at 3rd level has a 64% chance to hit and does 28 damage or 18 DPR while consuming a 3rd level spell slot.

    Caster-martial damage balances are totally fine. Casters do significantly less at will and single target damage, but can do AoE damage just fine. Martials significantly trump their single target and at-will damage, only losing to AoE and crowd control.

  17. - Top - End - #17
    Dwarf in the Playground
     
    Goblin

    Join Date
    Dec 2016

    Default Re: Bringing PAM, SS, and GWM in line?

    I think the mean issue is just how weak TWF and the feats that support it is. What that style really needs is a damage boost. A new feat or change version of dual wielder that adds proficiency to damage while wielding two weapons will probably do the trick. Even without GWM and PAM, most martial shy away from TWF due to action economy and lower damage dice (at lvl 5 Dueling fighting style gives you +4 to your overall damage without wasting a bonus action). I also wonder why you don't mention Crossbow Expert which can get a free bonus attack as well.

  18. - Top - End - #18
    Ogre in the Playground
     
    Kryx's Avatar

    Join Date
    Nov 2013

    Default Re: Bringing PAM, SS, and GWM in line?

    Quote Originally Posted by suplee215 View Post
    I also wonder why you don't mention Crossbow Expert which can get a free bonus attack as well.
    Crossbow expert is basically TWF. It's not much different than handaxes. By RAW TWF has to be melee, but that feels rather arbitrary. Shooting 2 crossbows (or pistols) is not much different than fighting with 2 swords or 2 handaxes.
    Balance wise it's totally fine until you bring on the -5/+10 for multiple shots which ramps the damage up like crazy.

    Reloading or auto loading is a whole other debate, but mechanically and flavor wise it should work per the TWF rules imo. Drow sword and hand crossbow is a common example.

  19. - Top - End - #19
    Dwarf in the Playground
    Join Date
    Dec 2016
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: Bringing PAM, SS, and GWM in line?

    Quote Originally Posted by Kryx View Post
    This quite conviently leaves out anything but basic weapon damage which heavily distorts the evaluation.

    At level 8:
    Hunter Ranger (20 dex, no feats) has a 79% chance to hit and does 25 DPR
    EB Warlock with Hex has a 64% chance to hit and does 18 DPR
    Scorching ray at 3rd level has a 64% chance to hit and does 28 damage or 18 DPR while consuming a 3rd level spell slot.

    Caster-martial damage balances are totally fine. Casters do significantly less at will and single target damage, but can do AoE damage just fine. Martials significantly trump their single target and at-will damage, only losing to AoE and crowd control.
    And you rather intentionally ignore the fact that I included hunter's mark and BM dice?
    And you're including hit chances in a game where AC, prof. and mods can radically alter that.
    And even if you wanted to go down that route, the hit percentages between ranger and eb warlock shouldn't be different. Same dice, same mod, same prof, same amount of rolls.
    Sorry, not taking you seriously.

  20. - Top - End - #20
    Bugbear in the Playground
     
    SwashbucklerGuy

    Join Date
    Jan 2016

    Default Re: Bringing PAM, SS, and GWM in line?

    Quote Originally Posted by SharkForce View Post
    i have only 2 problems with those feats:

    1) they give more power at low levels than i would particularly like to see.

    2) they reduce diversity. they reduce diversity of fighting styles by having feat support when no other fighting styles do. and they reduce diversity of builds by making almost every other feat 3rd in line or lower for any character that can make use of them.

    i'm not entirely certain there's a simple solution to the first problem (maybe making power attack scale so that you lose your proficiency bonus to attack but add double proficiency to damage would do the trick)

    but 2 is fairly simple. we mainly need feats to support other styles and concepts. and i don't just mean using different weapons (though having a few more options in that specifically be nice), i mean in other areas of the game; we have a few other feats that people pick up to basically add another element to their character that i'd love to see more things similar to them; magic initiate to pick up some cantrips, or healer/inspiring leader to add some healing/sustain to their party, that kind of thing.
    What are you talking about every fighting style has a feat that backs it.
    1: archery / sharpshooter
    2: Defense / heavy armor master, medium Armour master
    3: two weapon fighter/ duel wielder
    4: great weapon fighting/ heavy weapon master/ polearm master.
    4: dueling/ shield master, defensive duelist
    5: protection / shield master/ sental

    And I don't know why people think duel wielder is bad it's up your weapon die from d6 weapons to d8 weapons and give you a +1 to AC.

    Also on another note I'm find with PAM, GWM they are a ASI tax. They don't always hit and are not out pacing spells when there are spells that deal some kind of bamage no matter what.

  21. - Top - End - #21
    Halfling in the Playground
     
    AssassinGuy

    Join Date
    May 2016

    Default Re: Bringing PAM, SS, and GWM in line?

    I agree with the people saying that Dual Wielder needs to be buffed, also if you feel like the feats are a tax and too strong at low levels I would extend the Fighting Style choices of the classes that have the option so that they pick up parts of the feat as they level up so a fighter could get Archery at 1, ignoring cover at 7, long range at 9 and -5/+10 at 13 or something, it would keep them competitive with the casters as they level up and would mean that they didn't have a 'feat tax'.
    Spoiler: Playground Quotes
    Show

    Quote Originally Posted by CaptainSarathai View Post
    Nothing is a vacuum. If the PCs start knocking on the doors of godhood, they should expect the gods to come answering.
    Quote Originally Posted by Coffee_Dragon View Post
    "Um, when did you learn to play the guitar?"

    "Oh, you know, I got reincarnated as an elf and I was already good at spotting things, so..."

  22. - Top - End - #22
    Halfling in the Playground
     
    AssassinGuy

    Join Date
    May 2016

    Default Re: Bringing PAM, SS, and GWM in line?

    Quote Originally Posted by Sir cryosin View Post
    And I don't know why people think duel wielder is bad it's up your weapon die from d6 weapons to d8 weapons and give you a +1 to AC.
    The thing is for anyone in light armour it is strictly worse than just a +2 to Dex as you get the same increase to damage and AC but no increase in hit chance.
    Spoiler: Playground Quotes
    Show

    Quote Originally Posted by CaptainSarathai View Post
    Nothing is a vacuum. If the PCs start knocking on the doors of godhood, they should expect the gods to come answering.
    Quote Originally Posted by Coffee_Dragon View Post
    "Um, when did you learn to play the guitar?"

    "Oh, you know, I got reincarnated as an elf and I was already good at spotting things, so..."

  23. - Top - End - #23
    Barbarian in the Playground
     
    HalflingRangerGuy

    Join Date
    Sep 2013

    Default Re: Bringing PAM, SS, and GWM in line?

    Quote Originally Posted by Pex View Post
    In my experience they haven't been a problem at all.

    Out of at least 20 players among my gaming groups:

    Only one player took Sharpshooter. Everyone cheered when she used it. No one resented it.

    Only one player took Polearm Master. Everyone thought it was cool that he had it. No one resented it.

    No one has taken Great Weapon Master.

    If your group is having issues with them that's your business, but I object to the notion they are universally a problem that needs fixing.
    Pretty much this minus the specific group examples.

  24. - Top - End - #24
    Dwarf in the Playground
    Join Date
    Jun 2012

    Default Re: Bringing PAM, SS, and GWM in line?

    out of curiousity, how do the 'weapon specialization' feats like fell-handed stack up against the big three? Obviously nothing is as good as sharshooter but I feel like fell-handed is overall too strong.

    But eh.

    Honestly If I ever run another game myself, I would move a lot of features from feats into fighting styles. I think martials need to be able to throw their weight around in combat a bit more by default, since generally they have nowhere near the out of combat utility of casters, and because I'm garbage at preventing the 5 minute adventuring day.

    So, for example, GWF would gain the 'drop zero or crit' ability from GWM, and lose the yucky dice-rerolling nonsense. There would be a Polearm Fighting style that would give the OA bonus.

    Sharpshooter should just die in a hole. It's a horrible feat, and makes for a very boring damage turret. There's no strategy to it, just 'pick Archery style, pick SS, pick crossbow master, kill everything.' It really should be something like 'as an action, make a ranged weapon attack. If it hits, add x damage for every attack you can normally make as part of your attack action.' Sharpshooter should be about singular, powerful hits, not about spamming low accuracy but somehow high damage hits.

    There are enough abilities already that conflate accuracy and damage.
    Last edited by strangebloke; 2017-07-30 at 09:30 AM.

  25. - Top - End - #25
    Bugbear in the Playground
     
    SwashbucklerGuy

    Join Date
    Jan 2016

    Default Re: Bringing PAM, SS, and GWM in line?

    Quote Originally Posted by Rhynear View Post
    The thing is for anyone in light armour it is strictly worse than just a +2 to Dex as you get the same increase to damage and AC but no increase in hit chance.
    We're not weighing a stranded Asian to a feat.

  26. - Top - End - #26
    Orc in the Playground
     
    Findulidas's Avatar

    Join Date
    May 2017

    Default Re: Bringing PAM, SS, and GWM in line?

    Quote Originally Posted by Beelzebubba View Post
    Yes, let's nerf martials back to 3.x era uselessness.

    How dare they be really really good at the one thing they're built for.

    Why, given the rate they're going, they could potentially overshadow a spellcaster occasionally!
    I agree here. I think dnd people are so used to spellcasters just being better that they dont really see it as the obvious balance problem it is compared to anything else. Even in 5e, which is supposedly the most balanced, casters still dominate. I say this while still being very biased towards casters in general and intelligent casters like wizards specfically. I mean if we are talking about actually balancing the game here and not just making it more fun thats really THE prime target overshadowing the others.

  27. - Top - End - #27
    Dwarf in the Playground
     
    Goblin

    Join Date
    Dec 2016

    Default Re: Bringing PAM, SS, and GWM in line?

    Quote Originally Posted by Sir cryosin View Post
    What are you talking about every fighting style has a feat that backs it.
    1: archery / sharpshooter
    2: Defense / heavy armor master, medium Armour master
    3: two weapon fighter/ duel wielder
    4: great weapon fighting/ heavy weapon master/ polearm master.
    4: dueling/ shield master, defensive duelist
    5: protection / shield master/ sental

    And I don't know why people think duel wielder is bad it's up your weapon die from d6 weapons to d8 weapons and give you a +1 to AC.
    .
    I do think Shield Master is highly underrated but duel wielder sucks and defensive duelist is mediocre at best. Duel Wielder gives you +1 AC and +1 to damage. Compare this to -5/+10 and you see the power difference right there. It doesn't give enough is the problem. Not even a situational advantage like shield master provides. And it is on one of the worse fighting styles in the game because the system is based around multiple attacks for martial and TWF doesn't scale at all (it is always adding a single attack whereas archery, dueling and gwf are all applied to each attack)

  28. - Top - End - #28
    Halfling in the Playground
     
    AssassinGuy

    Join Date
    May 2016

    Default Re: Bringing PAM, SS, and GWM in line?

    Quote Originally Posted by Sir cryosin View Post
    We're not weighing a stranded Asian to a feat.
    Except and ASI is what you trade for a feat, so they should be worth about the same and according to Kryx, who's maths I trust, the other weapon feats are worth a lot more than an ASI so it should be at least worth the same amount as an ASI if not the same amount as another weapon feat. Why would I get Dual Wielder until after I've maxed my DEX?
    Spoiler: Playground Quotes
    Show

    Quote Originally Posted by CaptainSarathai View Post
    Nothing is a vacuum. If the PCs start knocking on the doors of godhood, they should expect the gods to come answering.
    Quote Originally Posted by Coffee_Dragon View Post
    "Um, when did you learn to play the guitar?"

    "Oh, you know, I got reincarnated as an elf and I was already good at spotting things, so..."

  29. - Top - End - #29
    Barbarian in the Playground
    Join Date
    May 2011

    Default Re: Bringing PAM, SS, and GWM in line?

    Quote Originally Posted by Pex View Post
    In my experience they haven't been a problem at all.

    Out of at least 20 players among my gaming groups:

    Only one player took Sharpshooter. Everyone cheered when she used it. No one resented it.

    Only one player took Polearm Master. Everyone thought it was cool that he had it. No one resented it.

    No one has taken Great Weapon Master.

    If your group is having issues with them that's your business, but I object to the notion they are universally a problem that needs fixing.
    This. The only really valid point anyone has made about the power of these feats is that there are other combat styles lacking similar support.
    Back in my day we used all of our spells before the fight, and it was just a matter of time before the DM realized his encounter was over.
    And we walked to our dungeons uphill through the snow, both ways.

  30. - Top - End - #30
    Ogre in the Playground
     
    Kryx's Avatar

    Join Date
    Nov 2013

    Default Re: Bringing PAM, SS, and GWM in line?

    Quote Originally Posted by StoicLeaf View Post
    And you rather intentionally ignore the fact that I included hunter's mark and BM dice?
    Your arrows are stated as 2d8 + dex with an additional d8. Hunter's mark does 1d6, not 1d8.

    Quote Originally Posted by StoicLeaf View Post
    And you're including hit chances in a game where AC, prof. and mods can radically alter that.

    And even if you wanted to go down that route, the hit percentages between ranger and eb warlock shouldn't be different. Same dice, same mod, same prof, same amount of rolls.
    Perhaps you have forgotten that the Archery fighting style provides +2 to hit. Not including AC and Archery fighting style is incredibly disingenuous.
    Additionally the DMG provides the typical AC of an enemy and my numbers calculate the AC of enemies based on every monster in the monster manual and first few adventure paths.

    At level 8:
    • Hunter Ranger (20 dex, no feats) has a 79% chance to hit and does 25 DPR
    • EB Warlock with Hex has a 64% chance to hit and does 18 DPR
    • Scorching ray at 3rd level has a 64% chance to hit and does 28 damage or 19.4 DPR while consuming a 3rd level spell slot.


    Without hit chance (Assuming everything hits, which is a terrible way to calculate effectiveness, but sure):
    • Hunter Ranger (20 dex, no feats) deals 1d8 + 1d6 + 5 = 4.5 + 3.5 + 5 = 13 with 5% chance to crit = 13.4. 13.4 *2 = 26.8. Add on collosus and we have 4.5 * 1.05 = 4.725. In total that's 26.8 + 4.725 = 31.525 damage
    • EB Warlock (20 cha, no feats) deals 1d10 + 1d6 + 5 = 5.5 + 3.5 + 5 = 14 with a 5% chance to crit = 14.45. 14.45 * 2 = 28.9 damage
    • Scorching Ray (20 int, 3rd level) deals 2d6 = 7 with a 5% chance to crit = 7.35. 7.35 * 4 = 29.4 damage


    Even without hit chance both EB and Scorching ray are behind the Ranger. Your math inaccurately presents the balance between martials and casters.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •