The Mechanical Impact of -5/+10

[Yunru]

Btw I come at it from a different perspective - I am fine 100% fine that not every selection of fighting style has the same top damage or not that close enough to not matter.

Right now, the big dmg according to the white roommates are the 5/10 which are the big weapons and the bows etc - basically two handers.

That tends to rule out the shield users and the TWF users at the same time.

So you got your big whammy in the white room by choosing the offensive weapons but you dont get the defense of the shield or the benefits of light weapons - mixed in thrown or easily concealed mostly dex etc (tho that last bit does crossover ewith some bow builds but only for ranged.

If you go making one handed weapons open for the same optimized dmg, why would someone grab the big 2h weapons? Seems you will just be trading big top dogs for little top dogs.

But that's me.

But one-handed weapons already do less damage than 2. Why should they suffer a damage penalty and a lack of feat support.

Maybe if Defensive Duelist worked with all one-handed weapons?

 

[Mistwell]

In my experience when such information is requested it’s an attempt to find some piece of information to use to shut down a claim the requestor disagrees with.

That's not my motivation but I am not sure that would be such a bad thing. If it's a fact there is something atypical and meaningful, then pointing it out is reasonable thing to do, isn't it?

So I’m asking why that information is important to you. What does knowing it change things for you? If there’s nothing unusual in his playstyle then is that going to make you think any differently?

Because there is an element of faith being asked for here. Faith that what's happening in his game is reasonably represetative of something larger than his game. We can't know that without details. We can't know if they're doing things like house ruling something which is resulting in a weird result (and they may not even know it's a house rule - it might be one of those "that's just how we've always done X" type things), or if his players are unusually adept or deficient at something that the average table does, or if the DM has tweaked the number or difficulty of encounters, or if the geography of their typical fights is unusually influencing certain play styles, or the setting, or the expectations of the players, or a whole host of things. Details would help a lot to fill in that information.

[If you're going to repeat a question in response to a detailed answer, I am going to repeat the detailed answer in response to that repeated question.]

 

[Mistwell]

It doesn't break the game.

Capn says it broke his games. It's fair to ask about the details of that, isn't it?

It's easy to argue against CapnZapp when he's being hyperbolic

It really is not easy. It's extraordinarly tiresome. It derails countless threads including this one. If this is what easy looks like to you, I'd love to see what hard looks like. If his game broke and it's real and representative of a lot of games out there, it would help to know how. If his game has not been breaking or it's not representative of a lot of games out there and it's just hyperbolic as you stated, it would be helpful to know that as well. But it's time we got to the bottom of these frequently repeated claims about games breaking.

 

[TwoSix]

Btw I come at it from a different perspective - I am fine 100% fine that not every selection of fighting style has the same top damage or not that close enough to not matter.

They don't have to have the same top damage....they have to be equally effective. Obviously sword and board should do less damage in exchange for its AC bonus, just as an example.

So you got your big whammy in the white room by choosing the offensive weapons but you dont get the defense of the shield or the benefits of light weapons - mixed in thrown or easily concealed mostly dex etc (tho that last bit does crossover ewith some bow builds but only for ranged.

What, exactly, are the benefits of light weapons? I do agree Dex oriented melee builds should take a damage penalty compared to Str builds, but only in the 10-15% range.

If you go making one handed weapons open for the same optimized dmg, why would someone grab the big 2h weapons? Seems you will just be trading big top dogs for little top dogs.

As long as the damage delta is relatively small, pretty much everyone will prioritize fidelity to concept. I mean, I'm a fairly strong powergamer, and I don't agonize over tiny bits of damage. My last character used a greataxe instead of a greatsword, for example, despite the 0.5 penalty to damage simply because I think d12s are more fun.

But that's me.

It usually is.

 

[WhosDaDungeonMaster]

Well, I see this took off a lot more than I thought it would LOL. Gone for a 12-hour shift and dozens of post to read.

I can easily see both sides of the debate. I can also see how some players and DMs might feel GWM and SS are too powerful. I've looked at the numbers briefly, and in retrospect I don't feel a -X/+2X base rule would not be a good idea. First off, if it is a base rule, it takes away from the feats. Second, because the concept is variable (any penalty to attack for twice the bonus to damage), it is subject to even greater abuse than GWM and SS are at present according to some points of view. Third, players who favor casters might argue for it to apply to spell attacks as well.

From a mechanical perspective, a -X/+X is much more reasonable. Limiting GWM and SS to once per round also helps (that has become our group's house-rule). But my players also explore their character types and we have a pretty decent variety:

Tiefling Barbarian with GWM and a Greatsword (now uses a Greatspear, similar to a Lance in 1d12 damage).
Wood Elf Ranger with SS and longbow
Dragonborn Fighter (Knight) with sword and shield in Plate +1 (tank-type)
Half-Orc Rogue (Assassin) dual-wielding Shortsword and Handaxe (dipped into Fighter for two weapon fighting style).

Other PC "warriors" currently absent:
Drow Elf Ranger (archer style) but no SS, also dual-wields but no style or feat taken yet.
Duergar Fighter (tank) with Plate/Shield and War Pick. Likes to attack with shield as off-hand weapon so took two weapon fighting style).

Then there are the clerical and other types, using weapons secondary and spells, including cantrips, more often.

My point is simply that for our group thus far, no one has been awed by the use of GWM or SS, and I don't see it being much of an issue in the future. It has popped up a couple times and been useful (against low AC foes, such as Zombies at AC 8), but the player who uses them (he plays both of those characters) is often just as disappointed he missed because of the -5 penalty as he is happy when it works.

Anyway, good luck to all in whatever path you choose. Cheers.

 

[TwoSix]

Capn says it broke his games. It's fair to ask about the details of that, isn't it?

Sure, why not? It's certainly not like Capn can't defend himself.

If this is what easy looks like to you, I'd love to see what hard looks like.

Why, Mistwell....what if Eric's grandmother saw?!

In all seriousness, I guess it doesn't bother me because I tend to agree with his assessments on feats and balance. I just disagree with his belief that WotC has failed some moral imperative to be aggressive with is rules development.

If his game broke and it's real and representative of a lot of games out there, it would help to know how. If his game has not been breaking or it's not representative of a lot of games out there and it's just hyperbolic as you stated, it would be helpful to know that as well. But it's time we got to the bottom of these frequently repeated claims about games breaking.

I wish you the best of luck in your endeavor!

 

[TwoSix]

I can easily see both sides of the debate. I can also see how some players and DMs might feel GWM and SS are too powerful. I've looked at the numbers briefly, and in retrospect I don't feel a -X/+2X base rule would not be a good idea. First off, if it is a base rule, it takes away from the feats. Second, because the concept is variable (any penalty to attack for twice the bonus to damage), it is subject to even greater abuse than GWM and SS are at present according to some points of view. Third, players who favor casters might argue for it to apply to spell attacks as well.

Just to clarify, my own house rule is that:
1) GWM and SS lose the -5/+10 mechanic, which is replaced by a +1 Str/+1 Dex, respectively.
2) The mechanic is to sacrifice proficiency bonus to attack to gain twice proficiency bonus in damage.
3) The mechanic can only be applied to weapon attacks, not spell attacks. Although I'm willing to hear arguments if someone has a weird use they'd like to try.

 

[WhosDaDungeonMaster]

Just to clarify, my own house rule is that:
1) GWM and SS lose the -5/+10 mechanic, which is replaced by a +1 Str/+1 Dex, respectively.
2) The mechanic is to sacrifice proficiency bonus to attack to gain twice proficiency bonus in damage.
3) The mechanic can only be applied to weapon attacks, not spell attacks. Although I'm willing to hear arguments if someone has a weird use they'd like to try.

For item #2, depending on the adjusted number needed to hit and average base damage, I would probably use this to some degree 90% of the time or more. Granted, the increased effective damage (damage calculated by probability of hitting successfully) is not great in most cases, but it is there...

For example:

A 7th-level character with a shortsword and Dex 14 has a +3 proficiency bonus and +2 ability modifier, granting +5 attack and +2 damage. Average damage is 3.5 (1d6) + 2 = 5.5.
The player elects to accept the maximum proficiency bonus penalty (-3) to gain a +6 to damage, bringing average damage to 11.5.
The ONLY ACs the character will average lower effective damage are 21, 22, and 23. The further away from those (higher or lower!) only increases the effective damage for the character.

Now, if you change it to -X/+X instead of -X/+2X, the range of AC which would result in lower effective damage grows to AC 18 to AC 24 for this character. Any AC below 18 or above 24 would result in better effective damage by accepting the -3 to attack rolls for +3 to damage. But, at least that is 7 values of AC where the tactic is no longer beneficial instead of three values for AC.

You can calculate optimal use for all values and weapon types. The more powerful the weapon, the less beneficial the strategy in improving weapon damage output.

I've saved the excel spreadsheet if you want to see it.

 

[CapnZapp]

I personally don't consider this thread derailed.

I don't have anything against the analysis in the first post. I haven't looked at the numbers in detail, and I don't have any reason to - I choose to believe in Yunru's mathematical skills.

No, it's what's not in that post I object against.

Or rather, objected past tense. Now I find this thread to be an excellent resource for anyone wishing to know more about the -5/+10 mechanic. Or, in other words, "The Mechanical Impact of -5/+10"

What would derail the thread, however, is to make it about me and my game, so I won't.

In short: -5/+10 is bad for the casual gamer who uses it when it is not mathematically sound. The very fact the OP started this thread is ample evidence it is far from trivial to understand the math involved, and for a supposedly accessible game, -5/+10 fails for this purpose.

That powergamers can conclusively break the mechanism means that for them, it's a very big ask to forego them for their fighter:y characters. The really sad part is that this unbalanced damage boost is kind-of needed to allow martials to compete. Which brings us back to the real conclusion:

But even if you aren't such a gamer, you should be concerned. I see no valid reason for WotC's decision to make a cool knife-fighter deal less than half of what the greataxe fighter deals. Fixing this by adding a feat for spears, another feat for rogues, and so on would indeed help balance. But given the anemic monsters in the MM I would much prefer the nerfing of the very few too-good feats, along with those few other builds that the feats are needed to compete against. That is, reduce cantrips, and you can reduce feat damage, and voila: the majority of the game options become much more viable as written!

There are many other points factoring into this decision. In their urge to appease gamers who want to play lithe wuxia stars they nearly invalidated the strong slow archetype. 5th edition has a very different idea of what kind of hero that should dominate the battlefield. Remember those old Dragon & Dungeon magazine covers? Yeah, didn't think so. Anyway, I'm thinking of the Tolkien ripoff heroes featured. Having that kind of combat hero as your ideal is almost a trap option in this edition. Peter Jackson really had his ear to the ground - his depiction of the slow Dwarf as a joke, and the fast Elf as an über-soldier, is exactly what 5E supports more than a decade later!

To keep this very short: it is not unlikely the GWM feat would be sorta-balanced if it imposed a hard speed limit - if you take the feat you can never move faster than speed 25 ft, no exceptions. (No, no exceptions - wear boots of speed and move at Speed 25; drink a potion of flying and fly at Speed 25) Feel free to start a separate thread if you're interested in hearing me justify this hypothesis.

The Crossbow Expert feat, on the other hand, is bad in every atom and should just be removed from the game.

Cheerio,
Zapp

 

[5ekyu]

But one-handed weapons already do less damage than 2. Why should they suffer a damage penalty and a lack of feat support.

Maybe if Defensive Duelist worked with all one-handed weapons?

The amount of difference from the 1s8 vs 1d12 is trivial once you hit the mid and upper tiers especially once you start looking at the value of the AC boost from shield. The fears and builds let's there be wider difference in potential at the top- once feats are more likely in full swing for games that allow them

After all, the threads and white rooms are not going on about the awesome might of a d12 vs a d8... it's about the 10pt bonus once you imagine a scene where the -5 isnt real.

2 chances in 20 vs a giants club to miss each swing is better than 2 chances for a skeleton to miss... but that d12 vs d8 pretty much matters a tad less vs that giant give it cant one shot that beast like a d12 might with bonuses and lucky roll.

Again, from my POV, it's a design feature that puts certain feats tied to offensive choices in weapons to escalate the damage.

**obviously** this is not what is sometimes referred to as cinematic wespon."