Friendship ended with -5/+10, Power Attack is now my best friend

[Nifft]

If you wanted to kind of model real bows it would more likely be a STR prereq like Heavy Armour has.

Have you ever tried to pull a high draw weight bow? You literally can't do it if you aren't strong enough.

(Just FYI the thing you quoted was talking about crossbows... but bows are cool, too.)

I've used modern composite bows which required some muscle, yeah.


IIRC there was a thing for Str-bonus composite bows in 3.x where you needed a certain bonus or higher to draw it without penalty, and you got to add that bonus to damage.

Maybe have composite bows require Str 15, and give +2 damage?

Rapid Shot might be a high-Str trick.

[MaxWilson]

This, but I wouldnt make a requirement like that too high. 11 or maybe 12 at the most. Masses of what were essentially "commoners" were armed with longbows in England after all. The trained from a young age with them but I doubt England just had a nation of 13-14 str peasants.

But I actually think that an 11 str req on a longbow isnt really a bad idea.

Or just bring back the hoary of chestnut of rating bows by Strength, and the wielder gets a damage bonus based on min(bow's Str rating, wielder's actual Str) instead of based on Dex. That would make it possible to model e.g. cataphract cavalry with their super-heavy bows.

But again, if you do this, you need to consider ways to tone down spellcasters, like making antimagic zones more common, or making spellcasting trigger opportunity attacks.

[Anonymouswizard]

I also have a distaste for finesse weapons, but I also dislike the idea that a warrior can be big and strong or lithe and quick. A good warrior is strong and fast, he doesnt just pick one. So what I've tried to do is make dex matter a little more even if youre wearing heavy armor, and I dont think I need to remove finesse but just make it clearly inferior to strength for the purposes of melee combat.

Yeah, I think I eventually ended up moving AC to being 8+proficiency bonus+dex modifier+armour or class modifier. So Barbarians still get their Con bonus and Mage Armour and a Sorcerer's Draconic Bloodline still grant a bonus, but armour just gives +1/+2/+3 (maybe +1/+2/+4) for light/medium/heavy, with an additional +2 if you use a shield. At that point Dexterity is so important for everybody finesse as a tag has to go, along with most 1d6 martial weapons.

It will still be the god stat for multiclassers though. Its just hard to unweave that from the system. In an ideal world D&D might have dexterity to hit and strength to damage for all melee weapons, and somehow make that not MAD.

The ideal would be an Agility stat for defence, a Dexterity stat for accuracy, and then basing damage on Strength for melee or a Perception stat for ranged. At that point we essentially have an eight stat system, Strength/Dexterity/Agility/Constitution/Intelligence/Willpower/Perception/Charisma, with some stats being better than others (appart from governing accuracy and a couple of skills there's not a lot Dexterity does). We could maybe break up other stats if we wanted to, such as separating Intelligence into Knowledge and Intuition, but they start to get a little too specialised. Plus this is already stretching the limits of homebrew slightly (although I pretty much know how I'd divide up the skills in that hack).

In my experience thats really only the case if you only have a few encounters every day. Spells are limited, particularly so in the Warlocks case. In my games, as a player and DM, we find ourselves using a lot more utility-ish spells than maybe a "normal" group does. I know what youre getting at and im not saying that fighter types shouldnt be able to do damage, but i think even without the feats they shake out fine. Feats are optional after all you know, so getting all twisted because I'm proposing a change to one of them as destroying fighter capabilities just implies that you think the game is broken in that respect without feats (which maybe you very well do, who knows) but it hasnt been my experience.

Yeah, having played with groups with a lot of one encounter adventuring days, I'm pretty much desperate to use the Gritty Rest rules if we're going to continue playing D&D (and I'm playing a Wizard or Sorcerer). It's just not nice to be the Fighter in that situation where the casters can just bust out their spells for every problem even at low levels.

[UrielAwakened]

The ranged damage of those classes is not the same as a -3/+10 of a Sharpshooter, anyone who thinks it is is just wrong. That -3/+10 overwhelms the math of the game.

The Sorc/Warlock dealing 8d10+8d6+40 damage a turn with eight chances to crit (or 24 if they're a half-elf and of course they are) agrees with you and is glad to have additional job security.

[MaxWilson]

The Sorc/Warlock dealing 8d10+8d6+40 damage a turn with eight chances to crit (or 24 if they're a half-elf and of course they are) agrees with you and is glad to have additional job security.

In any situation where a half-elf would have 24 chances to crit due to Elven Accuracy, a regular human would have 16.

If you don't already have advantage, Elven Accuracy doesn't magically give you advantage.

[UrielAwakened]

In any situation where a half-elf would have 24 chances to crit due to Elven Accuracy, a regular human would have 16.

If you don't already have advantage, Elven Accuracy doesn't magically give you advantage.

Your chance of critting on each attack goes from 9.75% to 14.26% though. And assuming you need a 10 to hit, your chance of missing goes from 20.25% to 9.11%.

That's a significant DPR improvement.

And still way better than anything anyone with SS is going to pull off.

You're also a caster meaning you have about a dozen ways to get CA from your spells alone.

[MaxWilson]

Your chance of critting on each attack goes from 9.75% to 14.26% though. And assuming you need a 10 to hit, your chance of missing goes from 20.25% to 9.11%.

That's a significant DPR improvement.

Sure. I agree with your basic point that eliminating Sharpshooter enhances warlock job security. I've said so several times in this thread. I'm just saying, if the half-elf is rolling 24 dice for 8 attacks, the human is rolling 16. And since you're using your concentration on Hex, it's relatively harder for you to get that ranged advantage in the first place. (How hard depends on various factors, e.g. what rules your DM is using for unseen attackers.) Arguably the Fighter actually has an easier time than you do exploiting Elven Accuracy since his concentration is still free (he could be an Eldritch Knight with Darkness up); it just isn't enough to overcome the attack deficit when you're making roughly twice as many attacks as he is.

And still way better than anything anyone with SS is going to pull off.

Yep. But not because of Elven Accuracy.

You're also a caster meaning you have about a dozen ways to get CA from your spells alone.

I'm not sure what you mean here by "CA".

[Doug Lampert]

You could also include most ranged weapons in that, crossbows being the exception.

Any crossbow I can span in less than 6 seconds (i.e. ALL of them in D&D land), is one that still needs lots of strength to load and shoot quickly and accurately.

That's not a winch assisted draw.

This, but I wouldnt make a requirement like that too high. 11 or maybe 12 at the most. Masses of what were essentially "commoners" were armed with longbows in England after all. The trained from a young age with them but I doubt England just had a nation of 13-14 str peasants.

But I actually think that an 11 str req on a longbow isnt really a bad idea.

Yeomen were the highest social-class not part of the gentry. They weren't peasants.

War of the Roses era tapestries show the archers in plate armor, 100 Years war employment contracts gave them half the pay of a fully armored man-at-arms, but the man-at-arms was required to bring an armed servant and a warhorse for his double pay. Archers had a ransom like any other upper class sort in a war back then (the French would occasionally threaten to cut the thumbs off captured archers, the reason they couldn't threaten to massacre them is that their own troops would never have given up all those ransoms if they'd managed to capture a large group of archers).

Additionally, the bows found in the Mary Rose salvage were 120lb draw at the LOW END. The high end bows were up about 180lb.

For reference, prior to that salvage, plenty of alleged experts would swear up and down that anything higher than an 80lb draw was outright impossible for an actual combatant.

Your bow was customized to your strength, same as your sword or mace or whatever, it's a perfectly reasonable simplification to simply say that since everyone uses the heaviest draw bow they can, you apply your full strength to damage with all bows.

[UrielAwakened]

Sure. I agree with your basic point that eliminating Sharpshooter enhances warlock job security. I've said so several times in this thread. I'm just saying, if the half-elf is rolling 24 dice for 8 attacks, the human is rolling 16. And since you're using your concentration on Hex, it's relatively harder for you to get that ranged advantage in the first place. (How hard depends on various factors, e.g. what rules your DM is using for unseen attackers.) Arguably the Fighter actually has an easier time than you do exploiting Elven Accuracy since his concentration is still free (he could be an Eldritch Knight with Darkness up); it just isn't enough to overcome the attack deficit when you're making roughly twice as many attacks as he is.



Yep. But not because of Elven Accuracy.



I'm not sure what you mean here by "CA".

Combat Advantage.

Look my point is a Warlock is making at minimum twice as many attack rolls as your SSer, in an idealized scenario for the SSer, and also rolling twice as many dice, so all of his crits are twice as good.

This did not to diverge so far, no point you're making contradicts the point I'm making. Let it go.

[Kane0]

When you take the Attack Action a character may make a Power Attack, forgoing his proficiency bonus to his attack roll and add it to his damage roll. This cannot be used with Finesse Weapons. When using a weapon 2 handed increase to 1.5x Proficiency.

Seems aight. But if I may make a suggestion:
'When you make a weapon attack using a weapon you are proficient in, you can choose to add your strength or dexterity modifier to the damage roll instead of the attack roll.'
Easy remember, doesn't treat different styles differently, and one less reason to automatically pick Hexblade.

[CircleOfTheRock]

I dont see your point. Maybe instead of just being snide all the time you could give actual constructive criticism?

His point is that martials are a bit worse than spellcasters, even in this edition, and that getting rid of GWM only widens the gap.

[Trask]

Seems aight. But if I may make a suggestion:
'When you make a weapon attack using a weapon you are proficient in, you can choose to add your strength or dexterity modifier to the damage roll instead of the attack roll.'
Easy remember, doesn't treat different styles differently, and one less reason to automatically pick Hexblade.

I always forget about the darn Hexblade.

[Trask]

His point is that martials are a bit worse than spellcasters, even in this edition, and that getting rid of GWM only widens the gap.

His only example was the warlock with a combo that is

1. Limited
2. Part of the warlocks "thing" as a blaster.

[Daghoulish]

His only example was the warlock with a combo that is

1. Limited
2. Part of the warlocks "thing" as a blaster.

I think their not only talking about in-combat. I mean, if the fighter isn't doing great in combat, then they need to be able to help out of combat. None of the fighter ability's help you out of combat, unless your a eldritch knight. Let's look at all the things any warlock can do out of combat.

At level 2 a warlock can use at will.
-speak with animals
-see in magical and normal darkness to 120 feet
-detect magic
-read any writing
-disguise self
-silent image

This only goes up from here. That's even before adding anything that they would get from their patron or pact boon. If the fighter isn't king at combat what is he good at, beyond being a meat bag for other people to hide behind.

[Morty]

I think the OP has a definite point, though I really don't think bringing real world weapon discussions into this is a good idea. "Martials should get nice things!" is a very weak response to the argument, because if martial characters do need an extra damage boost to keep up with magic, they should just get it, instead of having to pay a feat tax. If they don't... I question the purpose of these feats. They don't let you do anything new or interesting - they're just a numbers game. One that boosts your damage if you solve it properly and choose to trade accuracy for power when it's advantageous for you.

Besides, a -5/+10 tradeoff seems directly opposed to 5e's philsophy of not providing fiddly numbers and relying on proficiency bonuses and advantage/disadvantage instead. Sharpshooter's ability to ignore cover and distance is likewise not very good for the game. Dealing with cover and distance is part of what fighting from a distance is about, and being able to just remove that from the equation is dull. There might be a way to make it more interesting, but with how stripped-down and deliberately simplistic 5e's mundane combat is...

[Trask]

I think their not only talking about in-combat. I mean, if the fighter isn't doing great in combat, then they need to be able to help out of combat. None of the fighter ability's help you out of combat, unless your a eldritch knight. Let's look at all the things any warlock can do out of combat.

At level 2 a warlock can use at will.
-speak with animals
-see in magical and normal darkness to 120 feet
-detect magic
-read any writing
-disguise self
-silent image

This only goes up from here. That's even before adding anything that they would get from their patron or pact boon. If the fighter isn't king at combat what is he good at, beyond being a meat bag for other people to hide behind.

The out of combat utility of casters over melee will always exist to some degree, but this is a roleplaying game. There is no such thing as being "useless" if you arent just fighting all the time. In my games I do not experience the uselessness of martials outside of combat because everyone can contribute with their creativity. It often doesnt take any special power to set some trap or what have you, it just takes creativity and roleplaying.

I do think that martials should be good at doing damage, but i disagree that changing aspects of GWM and SS will make that impossible. The game is balanced around feats not existing and in my experience martials do plenty of damage even without these feats. (as long as your players dont have 5 minute adventuring days, my players often are stressed and scrounging their last spells and abilities and I use a lot of puzzles and challenging that pure damage wont solve and requires a variety of spells. Martials will always be ready to fight at or near maximum efficiency. Casters only get weaker as the day goes on.)

And thats the thing, im not even just removing it entirely, im introducing a concept for something similar that doesnt eat a feat just to compete.

[Kuulvheysoon]

I've got no issues with GWM.

Sharpshooter, on the other hand, I have issues. But not with the -5/+10, it's the other two parts. I have a ranger archer (hunter) with Sharpshooter, and she is... annoying. Ignoring cover and being able to shoot from 600' is patently ridiculous. If I allowed the feat again, I'd probably have it reduce cover by one step and double the short range of the ranged weapon.

[MaxWilson]

Sharpshooter's ability to ignore cover and distance is likewise not very good for the game. Dealing with cover and distance is part of what fighting from a distance is about, and being able to just remove that from the equation is dull. There might be a way to make it more interesting, but with how stripped-down and deliberately simplistic 5e's mundane combat is...

Do note that Sharpshooter only lets you ignore BAD cover. The best kind of cover (total) works against everything including spells and Sharpshooters. Well, almost everything anyway.

Also, Sharpshooters take disadvantage as usual against prone targets. Dropping prone is the standard countermeasure against missile fire for a good reason.

[Nifft]

"Martials should get nice things!" is a very weak response to the argument, because if martial characters do need an extra damage boost to keep up with magic, they should just get it, instead of having to pay a feat tax. If they don't... I question the purpose of these feats. They don't let you do anything new or interesting - they're just a numbers game. One that boosts your damage if you solve it properly and choose to trade accuracy for power when it's advantageous for you.

Besides, a -5/+10 tradeoff seems directly opposed to 5e's philsophy of not providing fiddly numbers and relying on proficiency bonuses and advantage/disadvantage instead.

Agree with your points.

Hmm, what would be a better Sharpshooter feat? Maybe something like...

- When you spend Inspiration to make an attack with a ranged weapon, you can ignore cover.

- You can perform feats of amazing archery precision against objects within your range, such as cutting a rope with an arrow, pinning a falling item to a tree, triggering a known trap, extinguishing a candle, flipping a switch, pressing a button, or other such object interactions. You can't do something that would be impossible for an archery attack (like splitting a mountain in a single shot). You don't have to roll for these, you just declare that you're performing precision sharpshooting as your Action.

[MrStabby]

I think the OP has a definite point, though I really don't think bringing real world weapon discussions into this is a good idea. "Martials should get nice things!" is a very weak response to the argument, because if martial characters do need an extra damage boost to keep up with magic, they should just get it, instead of having to pay a feat tax. If they don't... I question the purpose of these feats. They don't let you do anything new or interesting - they're just a numbers game. One that boosts your damage if you solve it properly and choose to trade accuracy for power when it's advantageous for you.

I would kind of take issue with this. A "Tax" would be something like an ASI that is entirely passive. This feat gives you an option on every attack to modify it or not, it adds meaningful choice to what could otherwise be a rather bland attack action. It isn't perfect but I do see it adding fun, not least as the fighters pay particular attention to descriptions to try and ascertain the AC of their target beforehand.

GWM pulls this off better than SS because it also adds a lot more to tactical depth - who to attack to get the kill to get the sweet bonus action attack, where to stand to be near the less armoured targets and so on. SS kind of eliminates much of what you cared about in positioning anyway by ignoring so much of cover and range.

[Pex]

I think the OP has a definite point, though I really don't think bringing real world weapon discussions into this is a good idea. "Martials should get nice things!" is a very weak response to the argument, because if martial characters do need an extra damage boost to keep up with magic, they should just get it, instead of having to pay a feat tax. If they don't... I question the purpose of these feats. They don't let you do anything new or interesting - they're just a numbers game. One that boosts your damage if you solve it properly and choose to trade accuracy for power when it's advantageous for you.

Besides, a -5/+10 tradeoff seems directly opposed to 5e's philsophy of not providing fiddly numbers and relying on proficiency bonuses and advantage/disadvantage instead. Sharpshooter's ability to ignore cover and distance is likewise not very good for the game. Dealing with cover and distance is part of what fighting from a distance is about, and being able to just remove that from the equation is dull. There might be a way to make it more interesting, but with how stripped-down and deliberately simplistic 5e's mundane combat is...

There's a difference between thinking -5/+10 is too much of a thing and needs to be toned down and archers should never ever do lots of damage but it's ok for spellcasters like a warlock because blasting is their shtick. Minus Proficiency/Plus Double Proficiency gives more palatable math for those who need it without saying warrior classes are forbidden from doing lots of damage at a range.

[Trask]

There's a difference between thinking -5/+10 is too much of a thing and needs to be toned down and archers should never ever do lots of damage but it's ok for spellcasters like a warlock because blasting is their shtick. Minus Proficiency/Plus Double Proficiency gives more palatable math for those who need it without saying warrior classes are forbidden from doing lots of damage at a range.

A warlock can do his blast combo a couple of times, and thats assuming all hes doing is hexing. You keep bringing it up so I keep feeling I have to point out that in a vacuum of course spells look overpowered but thats not how the game is played at all in the real world. Archers are hyper accurate, and do good damage with d8 bows and can basically shoot all day from a safe distance. They also have higher ACs and can pull out a melee weapon if needed. If theyre not right there at the top of the margins with the 2 encounters that a warlock gets to blow their entire load, well is it really that bad?

[bid]

A warlock can do his blast combo a couple of times, and thats assuming all hes doing is hexing.

That's WAGging pretty hard. I'd like to see some numbers because once you remove feats and slots, warlock does as much damage as archery fighters.

Without hard numbers, that belief is nothing but a fantasy.

[UrielAwakened]

A warlock can do his blast combo a couple of times, and thats assuming all hes doing is hexing. You keep bringing it up so I keep feeling I have to point out that in a vacuum of course spells look overpowered but thats not how the game is played at all in the real world. Archers are hyper accurate, and do good damage with d8 bows and can basically shoot all day from a safe distance. They also have higher ACs and can pull out a melee weapon if needed. If theyre not right there at the top of the margins with the 2 encounters that a warlock gets to blow their entire load, well is it really that bad?

A Sorcerer/Warlock can do it forever.

Also recognize that you're comparing an archer to the worst caster in the game, claiming it might be a little worse, and asking is that really that bad?

Yes. It is. Because literally every other caster in the game is gonna make your SS-less archer look like an NPC.

[Pex]

A warlock can do his blast combo a couple of times, and thats assuming all hes doing is hexing. You keep bringing it up so I keep feeling I have to point out that in a vacuum of course spells look overpowered but thats not how the game is played at all in the real world. Archers are hyper accurate, and do good damage with d8 bows and can basically shoot all day from a safe distance. They also have higher ACs and can pull out a melee weapon if needed. If theyre not right there at the top of the margins with the 2 encounters that a warlock gets to blow their entire load, well is it really that bad?

The warlock can do it most every combat because slots refresh on a short rest. Eventually Hex lasts long enough to not needing to be recast. It's not about alleged overpowerness of spells at all. You think doing lots of damage at a range is BadWrongFun, so you want to deny the ability from warriors but the concept of BadWrongFun lots of damage at a range will still exist because spellcasters can do it.

[MaxWilson]

I think the OP has a definite point, though I really don't think bringing real world weapon discussions into this is a good idea. "Martials should get nice things!" is a very weak response to the argument, because if martial characters do need an extra damage boost to keep up with magic, they should just get it, instead of having to pay a feat tax. If they don't... I question the purpose of these feats. They don't let you do anything new or interesting - they're just a numbers game. One that boosts your damage if you solve it properly and choose to trade accuracy for power when it's advantageous for you.

Besides, a -5/+10 tradeoff seems directly opposed to 5e's philsophy of not providing fiddly numbers and relying on proficiency bonuses and advantage/disadvantage instead. Sharpshooter's ability to ignore cover and distance is likewise not very good for the game. Dealing with cover and distance is part of what fighting from a distance is about, and being able to just remove that from the equation is dull. There might be a way to make it more interesting, but with how stripped-down and deliberately simplistic 5e's mundane combat is...

Fighters gets extra feats (ASIs) as class abilities. They need something to spend it on. Doing more damage is a pretty reasonable thing for them to spend it on, especially since the feats in question (GWM and Sharpshooter) work better for fighters than for anyone else (since they scale with number of attacks). Sharpshooter isn't really worth it on a monk, for example, and is only barely worth it on a ranger.

And 5E is all about fiddly little bonuses. 5E's class design expects you to get all excited about getting e.g. an bonus +1d8 to your weapon damage once per round at 8th level.

And Sharpshooter doesn't let you ignore good cover, and it doesn't remove prone from the equation. A good Sharpshooter still needs either a sniping position from which it is impossible to take cover, or else ground-pounder allies. And Sharpshooter doesn't work so well at night. If you're looking for ways to make ranged combat more interesting, try using more intelligent tactics with your monsters (as appropriate to their intelligence level--if necessary, use smarter creatures like hobgoblins and drow) including nighttime attacks and hiding.

Complex tactics like stealth-on-stealth battles can be really time-consuming in terms of table time, but also fun.

[Tanarii]

The warlock can do it most every combat because slots refresh on a short rest. Eventually Hex lasts long enough to not needing to be recast. It's not about alleged overpowerness of spells at all. You think doing lots of damage at a range is BadWrongFun, so you want to deny the ability from warriors but the concept of BadWrongFun lots of damage at a range will still exist because spellcasters can do it.

Yup. A Warlock with a single invocation investment has a baseline on par with a non-SS archer. Technically that's not a straight comparison because it is a class feature investment, but it's a pretty minor one. OTOH most other "archer" classes have plenty of other class features that up DPR pretty dramatically from there.

[Specter]

I'm late to this party, but this -5/+5 'fix' ignores the fact that to-hit bonuses are far harder to get than damage ones. This tradeoff will only be worth it against enemies with pitiful AC.

Also, as a DM, I could care less about raw damage. All you need to do is max monster HP or get tougher monsters altogether. A Monk that stuns my boss for consecutive rounds is far more scary to me than any greataxe barbarian.

[PhoenixPhyre]

I'm late to this party, but this -5/+5 'fix' ignores the fact that to-hit bonuses are far harder to get than damage ones. This tradeoff will only be worth it against enemies with pitiful AC.

Also, as a DM, I could care less about raw damage. All you need to do is max monster HP or get tougher monsters altogether. A Monk that stuns my boss for consecutive rounds is far more scary to me than any greataxe barbarian.

And raw damage is only at its peak against few, tough enemies. Against 5e's default (more smaller enemies), it just results in tons of overkill.

[MaxWilson]

I'm late to this party, but this -5/+5 'fix' ignores the fact that to-hit bonuses are far harder to get than damage ones. This tradeoff will only be worth it against enemies with pitiful AC.

That's why I'm comfortable offering -5/+5 to everyone even without a feat. It just lets you convert to-hit into damage. E.g. Recklessly Attacking Barbarians can choose to hit harder instead of becoming more accurate, which seems appropriate.

GWM/SS just make the tradeoff more attractive, -5/+10, in a way similar to how Mounted Combatant makes the mounted combat option more attractive. Specialization yields extra benefits.