D&D (2024) How is Flex still a thing?

[CreamCloud0]

what if in addition to it's current properties flex weapons granted you the ability to once a turn while wielding it 2-handed give yourself advantage on an attack roll? granting it for every 2-handed attack would definitely be too OP though wouldn't it.

 

[Remathilis]

Bastard swords (using exotic weapon proficiency) was a feat you took if you were trying to eek out every bit of damage you could. We also ahve to remember that fighters got a LOT of feats in 3e compared to now, so the oppurtunity cost was lower.

One major difference in 3e though around "versatile" was that the difference between SB and THW was MUCH bigger than it is today.

Once you got a magical shield (which was much cheaper to add magic to and get more AC than other methods), losing it could lose you 4-5 AC. But on the other hand, you get +50% damage from your strength mod, and most important your power attack bonus was DOUBLED. You would do a tremendous amount more damage.

And so some characters were willing to make the trade in different combats. Some fights you would need to tank, and an extra 5 AC was absolutely worth it. Other times you wanted to rip monsters apart, and so you would drop the shield, grip two handed, and go to work.

In comparison, switching from 1H to 2H in 5e is.... pretty garbage. You get effectively a +1.1 damage at the cost of +2 AC, and if you had the dueling fighting style you are actually losing damage.

Well now with flex you basically have zero reason to actually switch from 1 H to 2H

There is no reason to switch now. If you are built for 1 handed damage, you are doing so because you have a shield and dueling. There is 0% incentive to grab your longsword two handed and trade 1d8+2 for 1d10 and lose 2 AC for doing so. If you have any desire to hold a weapon two-handed, you have a greatsword with the appropriate fighting styles and feats.

Flex just makes using the gap between the sword-and-board and greatsword wielder a tiny-bit smaller. 1d10+2 (with +2 AC) vs 2d6 (reroll 1,2, DoaM). Its not sexy, but its serviceable.

 

[Chaosmancer]

Thanks! But this is not a mathematical proof, it's a single example. I must remain unconvinced.

What do I need to show it with other weapons? It isn't going to change the math. What more could you possibly want?

 

[Sorcerers Apprentice]

What do I need to show it with other weapons? It isn't going to change the math. What more could you possibly want?

Graphs showing expected damage at different levels and vs various ACs should be quite convincing.

 

[Chaosmancer]

Graphs showing expected damage at different levels and vs various ACs should be quite convincing.

Then feel free to do the math yourself and make your charts. I'm not learning how to work a graphing program just for you.

 

[Horwath]

Flex turns the Longsword into the equivalent of the 3.5 bastard sword. It's a d10 weapon that you can use two handed with just martial proficiency or one handed if you have taken specific training. The big difference is you can also use one handed without special training at -1 dice of damage.

I seem to recall bastard sword (and its cousin: dwarven waraxe) were fairly popular in 3.5.

You used Dwarven waraxe as a dwarf.

Bastard sword was too much of an investment for +1 damage, even for a fighter.

 

[Horwath]

sigh

Yeah, I'll do the math again since I don't feel like digging it up.

Level 5, fighter, +4 mod, Greatsword, masteries are the same, fighting style is the same. Assuming 60% hit rate for normal, think the math was 84% for adv

Old GWM w/o ADV:
2d6+14 = 21
21 x 2 x 0.35 = 14.7
7 x 2 x 0.05 = 0.7
14.7 + 0.7 =15.4
Total: 15.4

New GWM w/o ADV:
2d6+4 = 11
11 x 2 x 0.6 = 13.2
7 x 2 x 0.05 = 0.7
.4 x .4 = 16% of both attacks missing
1-0.16 = 0.84
0.84 x 3 = 2.52
13.2 + 0.7 + 2.52 =
Total: 16.42


Old GWM w/ ADV
2d6+14 = 21
21 x 2 x 0.59 = 24.78
7 x 2 x 0.0975 = 1.365
24.78 + 1.365 = 26.145
Total: 26.145

New GWM w/ADV
2d6+4 = 11
11 x 2 x 0.84 = 18.48
7 x 2 x 0.0975 = 1.365
.16 x .16 = 2.56% of both attacks missing
1-0.16 = 0.9744
0.9744 x 3 = 2.9232
18.48 + 1.365 + 2.9232 = 22.7682



Anyways, it actually doesn't give a damage boost slightly better than flex.

New GWM is +0.8 with a single normal attack levels 1 thru 4, +2.52 with two attacks 5 thru 9, +3.744 with three attacks 11 through 15, ect

Flex (not typing all the math) is +0.65 with single attack 1 thru 4, +1.3 with two attacks at 5 thru 9, and +1.95 with three attacks.

I mean, sure, levels 1 thru 4 it is a difference of .15 which is small, but that quickly rises into being nearly double the bonus by level 5 and staying there. And if you don't account for the scaling number of attacks, say you are looking for a paladin, then the flex bonus remains a +1.3 and the GWM bonus tops out at +5.04

you forgot to add that new GWM adds +1 STR, that would make your primary stat 18 and not 17 at the given level or 20 vs 19.

So old GWM must use default hit rate of 55% and 1 less base damage.

 

[Remathilis]

You used Dwarven waraxe as a dwarf.

Bastard sword was too much of an investment for +1 damage, even for a fighter.

Shrug. My group used it.

But ah'm just a simple country DM...

 

[Horwath]

Shrug. My group used it.

But ah'm just a simple country DM...

IF your REALLY want that extra damage, then I guess it't worth it.

Then again, I was dual wielding greatswords in 3.5e because it was cool.

 

[Njall]

Meh. Just remove Flex and rule that a PC that doesn't want to take advantage of weapon mastery gets a +1 damage. It's, mostly, an irrelevant amount anyway, especially for classes that don't get extra attack.
Then, give the longsword, an iconic weapon, a weapon mastery that's actually meaningful.
Done.
This way, you don't force players who don't want to engage with complex mechanics to do so anyway whenever they want to use something that doesn't have Flex and avoid making iconic weapons like the longsword a Timmy option.