You see, this is my point.Look, like I said, we are talking past each other. So. See ya later. Go do your homework.
With what? The existence of a thread about a single feat? That supports your claim of "your better off with feats or multiclassing"?I already supported my claim.
Specious reasoning such as "of all feats and multiclasses there's only about three that get talked about as degenerate, all of which are highly contested"?and instead use specious reasoning, vague statements,
You mean such as "Enjoy your Polearm Master whatever or your Sentinel whatever". No no, the wuoted statement more accurately applies to yourself good sir.or poor insults to back up your "points."
You mean when you repeated the same information rephrased without adding anything new? Yeah, that's a pretty accurate example of spam. I find it ironic you talk of an unwillingness to listen given any point you don't like your only response has basically been "yeah, whatever."Your unwillingness to listen was evident when called my post spam.
Thank you for the perfect example of what I'm on about.Yeah, whatever
I have no clue why you guys are working from a chart of values when you can simply solve the system algebraically with a ratio.
That ratio is this: D/H = 30, where D is the average expected damage-per-hit before feat/stat bumps, and H is the the decimal chance to hit before feat/stat bumps. If the quotient is less than 30, GWM is better. If the quotient is greater than 30, +2 Str is better.
Y'all make things so complicated.
I have no clue why you guys are working from a chart of values when you can simply solve the system algebraically with a ratio.
That ratio is this: D/H = 30, where D is the average expected damage-per-hit before feat/stat bumps, and H is the the decimal chance to hit before feat/stat bumps. If the quotient is less than 30, GWM is better. If the quotient is greater than 30, +2 Str is better.
Y'all make things so complicated.
It may be forgiving, but even if going non optimal, the use of feats and m/c still leads to a party with homogenized abilities and stale gameplay.
This is a common issue in classless systems which people wrongly assume will lead to more unique characters. Instead, you end up with characters that play very similarly.
The strength of class based systems is in setting limits on what a character can do to promote party diversity.
5e does a great job of allowing choices in chargen with archetypes and races. Those keep party members varied while giving them choice. If you add in m/c and feats, characters start to define themselves by low level dipped abilities or cheesy feats rather than by their class.
The best evidence of this is this thread. A huge debate over a single feat. This feat defines martial characters in some ways more than the bulk of their class abilities. Those who count themselves amongst the best martial characters are those whose class abilities synergize best with this one feat. But, ultimately, all martial characters using this will play pretty similarly.
If you take the feat away, all these characters will end up relying much more on their class abilities and this results in more dynamic play.