The Mechanical Impact of -5/+10

[TwoSix]

Hold on a second.

Let us be clear - with a finite, comprehensible ruleset, there *will* be some options that are better than others. Full stop. Those that like doing deep dives into rules options *will* find them. No game designer can avoid this. It follows, then, that the game can't/shouldn't be designed around preserving all the concepts for optimizers, as it is not a tractable task.

Putting WotC on the hook for a thing they literally cannot avoid is not reasonable.

Sure, but I think where people differ is what they consider an allowable delta between optimized and non-optimized concepts, and as to how many non-optimized concepts should exist. If the only difference between two fighters is using two weapons or using a 2H weapon, it doesn't seem to me that the 2H weapon user's damage should be 40-50% higher than a two-weapon user by the middle of Tier 2. (And to be clear, that's 5e as currently constructed.) Then you're in the awkward position of having to trade effectiveness for fidelity to character concept, which I don't feel is a trade a system should force you to make.

In my ideal world, there would be fighting styles and feats to make any choice of weapons interesting and competitive.

 

[Yunru]

Sure, but I think where people differ is what they consider an allowable delta between optimized and non-optimized concepts, and as to how many non-optimized concepts should exist. If the only difference between two fighters is using two weapons or using a 2H weapon, it doesn't seem to me that the 2H weapon user's damage should be 40-50% higher than a two-weapon user by the middle of Tier 2. (And to be clear, that's 5e as currently constructed.) Then you're in the awkward position of having to trade effectiveness for fidelity to character concept, which I don't feel is a trade a system should force you to make.

In my ideal world, there would be fighting styles and feats to make any choice of weapons interesting and competitive.

Of course, that's dwarfed by the difference between casters and martial. *Grumbles about caster supremacy *

 

[TwoSix]

Of course, that's dwarfed by the difference between casters and martial. *Grumbles about caster supremacy *

Lol...I don't really disagree, but that's an unwinnable argument. Believe me, I've tried.

 

[CapnZapp]

Hold on a second.

Let us be clear - with a finite, comprehensible ruleset, there *will* be some options that are better than others. Full stop. Those that like doing deep dives into rules options *will* find them. No game designer can avoid this. It follows, then, that the game can't/shouldn't be designed around preserving all the concepts for optimizers, as it is not a tractable task.

Putting WotC on the hook for a thing they literally cannot avoid is not reasonable.

Please do not reduce my expectation of balance to "there will always be one option better than the rest".

The comparison to a feat that gives some concepts roughly double damage than others is not reasonable.

Asking a lover of spears or short bows to accept half damage (roughly) compared to the greataxe or hand crossbow concept is entirely unreasonable in my opinion.

Have a nice day

 

[CapnZapp]

It only adds around 1-3 damage to an attack, it's just the nature of multiple attacks in a turn that causes that to escalate.

Sorry, I feel it to be irrelevant to discuss GWM under the unoptimized conditions you analyze.

If all you could achieve over the spear chucker (or whatever) was 3 piddly points of damage (12 at four attacks) I wouldn't be having this objection and we wouldn't be having this discussion.

But since you can I do and we are.

 

[Yunru]

Sorry, I feel it to be irrelevant to discuss GWM under the unoptimized conditions you analyze.

If all you could achieve over the spear chucker (or whatever) was 3 piddly points of damage (12 at four attacks) I wouldn't be having this objection and we wouldn't be having this discussion.

But since you can I do and we are.

That is optimised conditions. If you add any external resources, well then it's those adsing the damage, not GWF.

 

[TwoSix]

That is optimised conditions. If you add any external resources, well then it's those adsing the damage, not GWF.

If the -5/+10 damage increases damage multiplicatively, that isn't really true. As your own math shows, the damage difference between a -5/+10 attack and a base attack increases as hit rate does. A +2 bonus to hit is worth more in a -5/+10 situation than in a base situation.

 

[Yunru]

If the -5/+10 damage increases damage multiplicatively, that isn't really true. As your own math shows, the damage difference between a -5/+10 attack and a base attack increases as hit rate does. A +2 bonus to hit is worth more in a -5/+10 situation than in a base situation.

It depends. If it's a static increase like the Archery fighting style, I wouldn't xonsider it, but if it's something like Bless, taking an action and a spell slot, I'd aasign the increased damage to Bless.

 

[TwoSix]

It depends. If it's a static increase like the Archery fighting style, I wouldn't xonsider it, but if it's something like Bless, taking an action and a spell slot, I'd aasign the increased damage to Bless.

I guess, but that's mostly semantics. Part of what makes GWM/SS so good is that it turns buffs into better buffs.

 

[Yunru]

I guess, but that's mostly semantics. Part of what makes GWM/SS so good is that it turns buffs into better buffs.

Yeah, but unless you're self-buffing, someone else gets to feel good about that damage, so... eh.

Edit: And if you are self-buffing, that's a whole round of not attacking normally.