View Profile: FrogReaver - Morrus' Unofficial Tabletop RPG News
  • FrogReaver's Avatar
    Today, 04:19 PM
    Yes and TWF isn't balanced out the gate. It's much to strong early and much to weak later. Fix both and you are a long way to having a fairly balanced TWF style.
    197 replies | 4946 view(s)
    0 XP
  • FrogReaver's Avatar
    Today, 04:16 PM
    Suppose you remove the BA cost from TWF. Now suppose you balance TWF and GWF such that TWF does equal damage to GWF no matter how many attacks are made (without buffs etc). Now consider what happens when the TWF get's a per attack damage buff. He's making more attacks than the GWF so he get's 1 more use of the damage buff per round than the GWF. In short, by removing the BA and balancing...
    197 replies | 4946 view(s)
    0 XP
  • FrogReaver's Avatar
    Today, 12:44 AM
    You'll never balance anything looking at level 1 as the goal. You don't want level 1 to out of whack. But you don't want your analysis to default to those levels or you are missing a lot of context. PVP should never be the test.
    197 replies | 4946 view(s)
    0 XP
  • FrogReaver's Avatar
    Today, 12:41 AM
    I meant by current rules.
    197 replies | 4946 view(s)
    0 XP
  • FrogReaver's Avatar
    Yesterday, 11:34 PM
    Yes.
    197 replies | 4946 view(s)
    0 XP
  • FrogReaver's Avatar
    Yesterday, 11:27 PM
    Just curious, how do your ranger numbers change if the combat goes 4 rounds? Or maybe even 5 rounds?
    197 replies | 4946 view(s)
    0 XP
  • FrogReaver's Avatar
    Yesterday, 11:12 PM
    it is but Specific context trumps general context.
    197 replies | 4946 view(s)
    1 XP
  • FrogReaver's Avatar
    Yesterday, 11:06 PM
    But it's very important to the context of this thread ;)
    197 replies | 4946 view(s)
    0 XP
  • FrogReaver's Avatar
    Yesterday, 11:04 PM
    Your rules give the TWF ranger about a 40% damage boost over a duelist. 40% more damage is far greater than +2 AC. Heck at that point he would also have about a 40% damage boost over a similar Greatsword using ranger. IMO, +2 Ac should do between about 10-20% less damage over a same classed PC without +2 AC.
    197 replies | 4946 view(s)
    0 XP
  • FrogReaver's Avatar
    Yesterday, 05:56 PM
    . Then you are flat out ignoring it. No you are attmpting to declare a specific implementation as the only true way despite others pointing out that such an implementation is nearly impossible to balance around without changing way to many things already in the game. If I were building 5e from the ground up I like your suggestion. Iím not. The implementation of a TWF fix should...
    197 replies | 4946 view(s)
    1 XP
  • FrogReaver's Avatar
    Yesterday, 03:10 PM
    I'll tell you what, your next game, allow a 2d6 dex based great weapon and a cool 1d8 dex based one handed weapon (call it a katana or something) and see how many fighters choose strength ever again.
    197 replies | 4946 view(s)
    0 XP
  • FrogReaver's Avatar
    Yesterday, 03:07 PM
    The issue you seem to be overlooking is that most of the bonus action abilities that scale damage scale by number of attacks. Both Hunter's mark and GWM/SS do. So if you keep the extra attack but remove the bonus action cost: 1. Classes like rangers start never looking at Great weapons or sword and shield again because TWF is better. 2. It also becomes problematic to add in a -5/+10...
    197 replies | 4946 view(s)
    0 XP
  • FrogReaver's Avatar
    Friday, 14th June, 2019, 05:51 PM
    Nice dismissive comment. Itís balanced and it works and I even understand it but I donít like how itís written..
    197 replies | 4946 view(s)
    0 XP
  • FrogReaver's Avatar
    Friday, 14th June, 2019, 02:02 AM
    I've attached a chart detailing the proposed changes below for a fighter and comparing them with some popular fighter builds. 1. Replace the current TWF style with "Gain +1 Damage to all attacks. When you gain extra attack this increases to +2. If you are able to make more than two attacks with an attack action this bonus increases to +3" 2. Keep Dual Wielder feat the same 3. Add a...
    197 replies | 4946 view(s)
    2 XP
  • FrogReaver's Avatar
    Thursday, 13th June, 2019, 11:53 PM
    In a featless game without mod damage to offhand a +1 damage per attack isnít enough to keep up with a GWF style fighter.
    197 replies | 4946 view(s)
    0 XP
  • FrogReaver's Avatar
    Thursday, 13th June, 2019, 06:40 PM
    Anyone looked at having a feat allow 2 bonus action attacks instead of 1 for twf? If if you take off mod damage from fighting style I think this could work. Mod damage age comes from dual wielded feat. Fighting style adds adds a small amount of Dana age per attack. Might scale up to +2. I donít think adding 1 more attack drastically throws off balance of anything.
    197 replies | 4946 view(s)
    0 XP
  • FrogReaver's Avatar
    Thursday, 13th June, 2019, 06:28 PM
    You will have proficiency in con saves and a decent ac from either a shield or dragon skin sorc ability. You will also hit enemies with booming blade and move away. Further disincintivising them from going after you. I highly recommend warcaster for this pc as well to further up con saves since you are very reliant on shadow blade. But all in all due to reduced enemy attack rate, good ac...
    37 replies | 951 view(s)
    0 XP
  • FrogReaver's Avatar
    Thursday, 13th June, 2019, 02:42 PM
    Use shadowblade spell and booming blade. Take the mobile feat. Rely on hit and run tactics. Would work great as a wood elf for extra speed and dex bonus. Consider starting with a level of fighter or dragon sorcerer for con saves and an ac fix. At level 5 you can do 4d8 +mod damage. And if the enemy moves you will do extra damage. Mobile allows you to move away without oa. You can invest...
    37 replies | 951 view(s)
    1 XP
  • FrogReaver's Avatar
    Thursday, 13th June, 2019, 02:29 PM
    Looking at the numbers more closely +3 is to much in high level play for the polearm master vs dual wielded feat case. As such thee cap should be +2 at level 5. This is keeps the damages of the primary 3 combinations in line (about 12% variation max, not including off turn attacks) fighting style only fighting style + extra attack feat fighting style + extra attack feat + -5/+10 feat
    197 replies | 4946 view(s)
    0 XP
  • FrogReaver's Avatar
    Thursday, 13th June, 2019, 02:09 PM
    Unless I note otherwise or am replying to someone about a particular idea then Iím posting a stand-alone idea. The scaling damage is simple. A level 1 fighter with twf style would get +1 damage to both his attacks A level 5 fighter with twf style would get +2 damage to all his attacks. The scaling is basically by #of attack action attacks up to 3 attacks. Sorry if that wasnít clear
    197 replies | 4946 view(s)
    0 XP
  • FrogReaver's Avatar
    Thursday, 13th June, 2019, 01:21 PM
    Then youve not done the math. You just seeing big bonuses and screaming. My preliminary results results show that this change puts twf in the ballpark of a gwf when they both pick the style. (In all tiers) if he takes the new dial wielded feat it puts him him in the ballpark of a spear using polearm master in all tiers if he takes the dual wielded and -5/+10 feat I think he will be in...
    197 replies | 4946 view(s)
    0 XP
  • FrogReaver's Avatar
    Thursday, 13th June, 2019, 12:47 PM
    I don't have time at the moment. But someone might want to evaluate these changes. Move the mod damage to offhand attack to Dual wielder feat Create a new -5/+10 feat for Dual Wielding TWF style now does a scaling damage bonus per attack action attack. Maybe +1 at 1, +2 at 2, and +3 at 3.
    197 replies | 4946 view(s)
    0 XP
  • FrogReaver's Avatar
    Thursday, 13th June, 2019, 01:18 AM
    You go for it. I like TwoSix implementation better. You don't have to change a blazillion other rules to get it to work.
    197 replies | 4946 view(s)
    0 XP
  • FrogReaver's Avatar
    Thursday, 13th June, 2019, 12:37 AM
    Is it established that this hypothetical bonus action requires you use the extra damage on your next hit?
    197 replies | 4946 view(s)
    0 XP
  • FrogReaver's Avatar
    Wednesday, 12th June, 2019, 11:48 PM
    I rather like this idea.
    135 replies | 3920 view(s)
    0 XP
  • FrogReaver's Avatar
    Wednesday, 12th June, 2019, 02:35 PM
    On a side note only allowing 1 smite a round doesnít really hurt the crit fishing build much
    197 replies | 4946 view(s)
    0 XP
  • FrogReaver's Avatar
    Wednesday, 12th June, 2019, 02:24 PM
    If if you make all those changes then removing twf bonus action should be fine. You might impact other areas of the game. We have just been looking at those changes through the lens of twf thats still a lot of work just to give twf an increasing number of attacks
    197 replies | 4946 view(s)
    0 XP
  • FrogReaver's Avatar
    Wednesday, 12th June, 2019, 07:20 AM
    Monks can TWF and still use martial arts. Any magic items that grant a per attack damage bonus start to greatly favor the TWF. Haste would grant 2 attacks (possibly is intentional) Gloomstalker would potentially get a bonus action attack on first turn as well with his ability. Crit Fishining on Paladins or warlocks could be very strong. Personally I'd be most concerned about crit...
    197 replies | 4946 view(s)
    0 XP
  • FrogReaver's Avatar
    Wednesday, 12th June, 2019, 04:18 AM
    Ovinomancer, by the way I can account for multiple enemies etc in my formulas. The only thing I can't implement yet is variable damage dice. My formula is surisingly easy to use. Simply list rounds out. Find first round enemy can be killed and then copy paste my formula in every cell.
    135 replies | 3920 view(s)
    0 XP
  • FrogReaver's Avatar
    Wednesday, 12th June, 2019, 03:57 AM
    I didn't. I showed my calculations. There was an error in them though. I needed .5 rounds accounted for. That was throwing it off. Now as expected the 1 attack characters and the 2 attack character are killing 5-8 hp enemies at the same rate. So basically disregard the premise of this post as the math around it was incorrect (stupid .5 rounds). But I think it's given me some ideas on...
    135 replies | 3920 view(s)
    0 XP
  • FrogReaver's Avatar
    Wednesday, 12th June, 2019, 03:24 AM
    You keep saying things like that but it's simply not true. Calculating a weighted average for chance to kill on round (X) results in a value that is the number of rounds to kill. There's no misinterpreting what that means. It means exactly what I'm claiming it means. For comparing 2 different characters chances to kill. The rounds to kill an enemy is a much better metric than...
    135 replies | 3920 view(s)
    0 XP
  • FrogReaver's Avatar
    Wednesday, 12th June, 2019, 03:18 AM
    Found the error. I needed to account for half rounds.
    135 replies | 3920 view(s)
    1 XP
  • FrogReaver's Avatar
    Wednesday, 12th June, 2019, 03:01 AM
    I tried that before I posted. It gives an incorrect value of 1.667 rounds. The actual number of rounds is below:
    135 replies | 3920 view(s)
    0 XP
  • FrogReaver's Avatar
    Wednesday, 12th June, 2019, 02:42 AM
    It's statements like the one above that make me question whether you really understand what a weighted average is. Weighted averages by definition does take into account EVERYTHING. That's why I'm very puzzled when you make statements like these. My average rounds to kill takes into account rounds 1 to infinity. Your chance to kill by round X only takes into account rounds 1 to X.
    135 replies | 3920 view(s)
    0 XP
  • FrogReaver's Avatar
    Wednesday, 12th June, 2019, 01:17 AM
    I did not. As already mentioned, chance to kill by round X doesn't help with computing average rounds to kill. This figure is the more important one for evaluating the 2 PC's. I account for the killing being done on round 1 in my probability for round 1. I account for the killing being done on round 2 in my probability for round 2. I am simply not interested in the chance the enemy is...
    135 replies | 3920 view(s)
    0 XP
  • FrogReaver's Avatar
    Wednesday, 12th June, 2019, 12:49 AM
    I've already commented on this part. Please let me know if something with the calculation still doesn't make sense to you. Of course an example showing overkill wasn't being cared about in my OP. My argument was that a mechanic other than overkill exists and so there shouldn't be so much focus on overkill (at least until it can reasonably be quantified along with quantifying this other...
    135 replies | 3920 view(s)
    0 XP
  • FrogReaver's Avatar
    Wednesday, 12th June, 2019, 12:40 AM
    The OP stated: 1. Mechanic X exists (where mechanic X is that one attack PC's with equal DPR kill some enemies faster on average than those with multiple attacks) 2. There is the proof mechanic X exists (it was provided in the OP) 3. Because Mechanic X exists, overkill damage isn't the only thing to consider. 4. The fallacy is not that overkill damage exists or doesn't. It most certainly...
    135 replies | 3920 view(s)
    0 XP
  • FrogReaver's Avatar
    Tuesday, 11th June, 2019, 04:59 PM
    Ovinomancer im still on phone the method to obtain a weighted average is simple Calculate (chance X happens) * X sum each value
    135 replies | 3920 view(s)
    0 XP
  • FrogReaver's Avatar
    Tuesday, 11th June, 2019, 01:48 PM
    Weighted average of the round you are killing the enemy on. If im looking for that then I literally canít use cumulative percentages as I need to know the exact chance I have of killing an enemy on exactly round X so I can use that value as my weight for round X on a phone so lengthy math discussion is hard. Hopefully that helps
    135 replies | 3920 view(s)
    0 XP
  • FrogReaver's Avatar
    Tuesday, 11th June, 2019, 01:06 PM
    Ovinomancer i will reply more detail later to find weighted average you donít use cumulative probabilities. Doesnít that affect your analysis?
    135 replies | 3920 view(s)
    0 XP
  • FrogReaver's Avatar
    Monday, 10th June, 2019, 11:18 PM
    No problem. I never have put much stock in overkill. But a big portion of that is no one has actually attempted to quantify it in a meaningful way. I'm close to being able to do so at least for the quasi PC's I'm using that have static damage.
    135 replies | 3920 view(s)
    0 XP
  • FrogReaver's Avatar
    Monday, 10th June, 2019, 10:56 PM
    You shouldn't provide silly guesses when you can ask the person that started the thread what brought this on.
    135 replies | 3920 view(s)
    0 XP
  • FrogReaver's Avatar
    Monday, 10th June, 2019, 10:55 PM
    Or it was perfectly clear and you were so caught up in how you thought things worked that you just ignored what I was saying. That's not at all what I'm talking about. The point that I'm making is that there are other potentially more important factors at play than overkill. Thus brining overkill into the discussion while ignoring those other potentially more important factors is...
    135 replies | 3920 view(s)
    0 XP
  • FrogReaver's Avatar
    Monday, 10th June, 2019, 04:03 PM
    this is is untrue. Iíve provided concrete examples that demonstrate this to be untrue. ive included all that in my counter example proof. Itís like your not listening to what Iím saying... Mans the average of all those situations favors the single attack character in the example I provided. On average he kills the single 5 hp enemy faster. On any given trial he may kill it slower...
    135 replies | 3920 view(s)
    0 XP
  • FrogReaver's Avatar
    Monday, 10th June, 2019, 02:23 PM
    You jumping around a lot. First itís, less balance it in a featless game and a feat based game and with haste. Now you are saying letís forget the rest and just add a feat and remove the bonus action. Thatís some major shifting goal posts man
    197 replies | 4946 view(s)
    0 XP
  • FrogReaver's Avatar
    Monday, 10th June, 2019, 06:23 AM
    ...I edited your post down to the crux of my issue with it... This is untrue. Please see the explanation below. Equal DPR PC's don't necessarily kill enemies at the same rate. In the first example I posted, on average the 1 attack PC killed the 5 hp enemies faster than the 2 attack PC. ON AVERAGE. Let that sink in. It's a non-intuitive result. On average a PC with the same DPR as...
    135 replies | 3920 view(s)
    1 XP
  • FrogReaver's Avatar
    Monday, 10th June, 2019, 06:03 AM
    Could something that allows a TWF to attack with his offhand anytime he misses with his mainhand work? It seems thematic and provides a mechanic that scales based on number of attacks. The DPR increase would be between 1 and 2 for most chances ho hit.
    197 replies | 4946 view(s)
    0 XP
  • FrogReaver's Avatar
    Monday, 10th June, 2019, 02:40 AM
    The case for PC1 and PC 2 vs enemy with 9 hp. PC 1 PC 2
    135 replies | 3920 view(s)
    0 XP
  • FrogReaver's Avatar
    Monday, 10th June, 2019, 02:29 AM
    Rangers, rogues and paladins all can dual wield just fine. I've used every one of those characters or seen them played in my games. Monks pretty much never dual wield because martials arts, however you don't want monks to turn into always dual wielders either. Removing the bonus action basically makes all those classes listed above be no brainer dual wielders in a featless game. With feats...
    197 replies | 4946 view(s)
    0 XP
  • FrogReaver's Avatar
    Monday, 10th June, 2019, 02:22 AM
    Nagol isn't doing anything wrong.
    135 replies | 3920 view(s)
    0 XP
  • FrogReaver's Avatar
    Monday, 10th June, 2019, 02:06 AM
    Well yes. I don't think you even remember what my point was.
    135 replies | 3920 view(s)
    0 XP
  • FrogReaver's Avatar
    Monday, 10th June, 2019, 01:34 AM
    no means no
    135 replies | 3920 view(s)
    0 XP
  • FrogReaver's Avatar
    Monday, 10th June, 2019, 01:26 AM
    Congrats on being soo special that you get away doing things the rest of us can't. Until the forum is updated the way I'm describing the block function is how it currently works. Once they fix the issue for the rest of us schmucks then you'll have a leg to stand on but as it stands blocking someone now blocks their access to your threads. So until forum is updated, please stop responding to me...
    135 replies | 3920 view(s)
    0 XP
  • FrogReaver's Avatar
    Monday, 10th June, 2019, 12:45 AM
    My issue with removing the bonus action on TWF comes down to classes other than fighter. Why not use TWF with a melee ranger if you don't have to worry about the bonus action attack competing with your hunters mark extra attack. Why not disengage away with rogue cunning if you can attack and TWF attack with no bonus action. Why not cast a smite spell and attack 3 times at level 5 while using...
    197 replies | 4946 view(s)
    0 XP
  • FrogReaver's Avatar
    Monday, 10th June, 2019, 12:29 AM
    1. My point remains no matter what happens in the other cases. 2. Some important info The normal use cases are 1. When Hp of X mod 8 and Hp of X mod 4 are equivalent then PC 1 will require Y attacks and PC 2 will require 2Y attacks to defeat the enemy 2. When Hp of X mod 8 and hp of X mod 4 are not equivalent then PC 1 will require Y attacks and PC 2 will require 2Y-1 attacks. The...
    135 replies | 3920 view(s)
    0 XP
  • FrogReaver's Avatar
    Monday, 10th June, 2019, 12:16 AM
    Right, the game is very complicated. Discrete things always are. That said DPR is quite meaningful. It's one of the best performance gauges we have (it's easy to calculate and typically a pretty good reflection of PC offensive capability). One of the biggest reasons for that is that it's one of the few stats that's nearly fully in control of the player. Defensive stats typically only come...
    135 replies | 3920 view(s)
    0 XP
  • FrogReaver's Avatar
    Sunday, 9th June, 2019, 11:33 PM
    Being able to make 2 attacks instead of 1 is important because on some turns you will kill an enemy with your first attack and be able to attack another enemy with your 2nd while the comparison pc with a single attack doesn't get a chance to do damage except on the enemy you killed with your first attack. The point I am making is that there is a similar scenario where the single attack PC is...
    135 replies | 3920 view(s)
    0 XP
  • FrogReaver's Avatar
    Sunday, 9th June, 2019, 10:01 PM
    If that's your rebuttal then you don't understand the argument.
    135 replies | 3920 view(s)
    0 XP
  • FrogReaver's Avatar
    Sunday, 9th June, 2019, 09:25 PM
    Question #1. For a feat based game does a -5/+10 feat for TWF fix it?
    197 replies | 4946 view(s)
    0 XP
  • FrogReaver's Avatar
    Sunday, 9th June, 2019, 08:41 PM
    You can use whatever you want. Though that doesn't mean you didn't pick the mechanically inferior choice. You see it's choices like that which make TWF impossible to balance perfectly. So you either must assume the dex version or the str version when doing the balancing. If we balanced for the str version then the dex version would be far better than GWF. So the answer is to balance for...
    197 replies | 4946 view(s)
    0 XP
  • FrogReaver's Avatar
    Sunday, 9th June, 2019, 08:36 PM
    Common in what sense. That it occurs. Sure. Common in the sense that most of the fights in a given campaign are against kobolds and goblins? no.
    135 replies | 3920 view(s)
    0 XP
  • FrogReaver's Avatar
    Sunday, 9th June, 2019, 08:35 PM
    Yep. Though I don't think such a formula extends very easily to 2 and 3 hit cases.
    135 replies | 3920 view(s)
    0 XP
  • FrogReaver's Avatar
    Sunday, 9th June, 2019, 08:01 PM
    Likewise, just because it's quite common for some others doesn't mean it's part of the norm.
    135 replies | 3920 view(s)
    0 XP
  • FrogReaver's Avatar
    Sunday, 9th June, 2019, 07:12 PM
    It's not about the choice of what to use while TWF. It's about dex being the default option for TWF but dex not being an option for GWF.
    197 replies | 4946 view(s)
    0 XP
  • FrogReaver's Avatar
    Sunday, 9th June, 2019, 05:49 PM
    Average Rounds to kill 5 different 5 hp enemies with PC 1 with a single attack doing exactly 8 dmg. PC 2 with a 2 attacks doing exactly 4 damage each. 60% chance to hit for both PC's. PC 1: PC 2: This single attack PC still has the advantage in killing 5 different 5 hp enemies.
    135 replies | 3920 view(s)
    0 XP
  • FrogReaver's Avatar
    Sunday, 9th June, 2019, 05:03 PM
    For everyone but you the block rules apparently prevent the blocked user from responding to a thread that the person blocking them has started. If you want to be special and refuse to abide by the apparent spirit of the block rules that's on you. I can't stop you and the mods don't appear interested in doing so either. But I will continue to call you out on it.
    135 replies | 3920 view(s)
    0 XP
  • FrogReaver's Avatar
    Sunday, 9th June, 2019, 05:00 PM
    Right, the argument wasn't that overkill damage doesn't exist and can't allow a multi attack character to sometimes kill an enemy faster than a single attack character of equivalent DPR. The argument I am making is that there are also mechanisms in place that allow for the single attack character to kill an enemy a round faster and apply his next rounds damage to a new enemy while the two...
    135 replies | 3920 view(s)
    0 XP
  • FrogReaver's Avatar
    Sunday, 9th June, 2019, 04:33 PM
    BINOMDIST(successes, trials, success chance, ) Round1:= BINOMDIST(2;2;0.6;0) Round 2:= BINOMDIST(1;2;0.6;0)*(1-BINOMDIST(0;2;0.6;0))+BINOMDIST(0;2;0.6;0)*(1-BINOMDIST(1;2;0.6;1)) Round 3:= BINOMDIST(1;4;0.6;0)*(1-BINOMDIST(0;2;0.6;0))+BINOMDIST(0;4;0.6;0)*(1-BINOMDIST(1;2;0.6;1)) Round 4:= BINOMDIST(1;6;0.6;0)*(1-BINOMDIST(0;2;0.6;0))+BINOMDIST(0;6;0.6;0)*(1-BINOMDIST(1;2;0.6;1)) Basic...
    135 replies | 3920 view(s)
    0 XP
  • FrogReaver's Avatar
    Sunday, 9th June, 2019, 06:29 AM
    Not a holdover at all. I didn't play 3e. I don't like 3e. The point was that dex is the superior stat to str. The precise degree is debatable... but the stat itself is better. That fact needs at least acknowledged in any debate about improving TWF.
    197 replies | 4946 view(s)
    0 XP
  • FrogReaver's Avatar
    Sunday, 9th June, 2019, 05:25 AM
    A) Assuming magic weapons the values actually are very close. (Also some pc's like the ranger arguably do better with TWF than with great weapons or sword and shield. There's also the added benefit of the TWF pc giving up less to attempt to knock an enemy prone.) b) add a -5/+10 feat for TWF (or get fancy and do a -3/+6 one) c) Haste is balanced within 1d6 damage and the class...
    197 replies | 4946 view(s)
    0 XP
  • FrogReaver's Avatar
    Sunday, 9th June, 2019, 05:01 AM
    It can be both
    135 replies | 3920 view(s)
    0 XP
  • FrogReaver's Avatar
    Sunday, 9th June, 2019, 04:58 AM
    Mistwell By the way why are you even here? I just told you on another thread: My opinion since then has only hardened.
    135 replies | 3920 view(s)
    0 XP
  • FrogReaver's Avatar
    Sunday, 9th June, 2019, 04:54 AM
    I think your missing the forest for the trees. When making generalizations we most definitely should discount outliers. While the game can handle such a situation, we both agree that it's an outlier.
    135 replies | 3920 view(s)
    0 XP
  • FrogReaver's Avatar
    Sunday, 9th June, 2019, 04:50 AM
    My one hit kills were with the higher damage attack not the lower damage attack... I really don't expect you to understand the significance of that though
    135 replies | 3920 view(s)
    0 XP
  • FrogReaver's Avatar
    Sunday, 9th June, 2019, 04:34 AM
    Showing that the 2 attack PC kills enemies faster in a given scenario doesn't prove overkill had anything to do with it. In fact overkill had nothing to do with it. The damage distribution favored the two attack PC in this situation. How would you know when overkill would have been a factor in actual play? (Let me grab some popcorn because this explanation should be good)
    135 replies | 3920 view(s)
    0 XP
  • FrogReaver's Avatar
    Sunday, 9th June, 2019, 04:25 AM
    Sure. But are you really claiming such an encounter is anything other than an exception to the norm?
    135 replies | 3920 view(s)
    0 XP
  • FrogReaver's Avatar
    Sunday, 9th June, 2019, 04:24 AM
    In 1v1 scenarios it can be. The moar damage paradigm occurs because there's generally not much stopping enemies from ignoring the high defense guy till last. If enemies are attacking one particular character more often than the others then him investing in defense is very beneficial. It's simply that players have little to no control over what the enemies do and are less apt to build...
    135 replies | 3920 view(s)
    0 XP
  • FrogReaver's Avatar
    Sunday, 9th June, 2019, 04:11 AM
    Actually, in the broader context of the game, enemies typically take multiple hits to down, especially past first tier. An example like yours only works because the lower damage character is killing full hp enemies in 1 hit and gets 2 attacks. In every other scenario that will not be a case. Thus your example is a very poor representation of the game. The underlying mechanisms it shows what...
    135 replies | 3920 view(s)
    0 XP
  • FrogReaver's Avatar
    Sunday, 9th June, 2019, 12:49 AM
    Thanks. The calculation I did wasn't calculating overkill damage. It was calculating the rounds to kill an enemy. The point I'm making is that if you kill an enemy faster then any extra time the other build is spending killing the first enemy you are able to redirect whatever damage you can cause in that time to another enemy. That said, I think I can adapt the formula I'm using to...
    135 replies | 3920 view(s)
    0 XP
  • FrogReaver's Avatar
    Saturday, 8th June, 2019, 11:24 PM
    I already derived the general case for who is better and who is worse for those PC's. It was in the OP. hp values 1-4 favor PC 2. values 5-8 favor PC 1. values 9-12 favor PC 2. values 13-16 favor PC 1. etc.
    135 replies | 3920 view(s)
    0 XP
  • FrogReaver's Avatar
    Saturday, 8th June, 2019, 11:12 PM
    Overkill damage mattering in the general sense is wholly based off the idea that 2 equal DPR PC's will kill enemies at the same rate. The example I provided crushed that premise.
    135 replies | 3920 view(s)
    0 XP
  • FrogReaver's Avatar
    Saturday, 8th June, 2019, 11:08 PM
    1. It doesn't change the fact that overkill damage is meaningless if the rounds to kill isn't the same. 2. PC 1 does more overkill damage in general than PC 2.
    135 replies | 3920 view(s)
    0 XP
  • FrogReaver's Avatar
    Saturday, 8th June, 2019, 10:22 PM
    Maybe you should read the whole analysis before you comment negatively... replying to the tldr version you miss alot
    135 replies | 3920 view(s)
    0 XP
  • FrogReaver's Avatar
    Saturday, 8th June, 2019, 09:52 PM
    TLDR: PC's with equal DPR don't kill enemies at the same rate Thus, looking at overkill damage without looking at average round to kill an enemy doesn't reveal anything important - it's kind of looking at the reaminder of a dividion problem without looking at how many times something went into it.
    135 replies | 3920 view(s)
    0 XP
  • FrogReaver's Avatar
    Saturday, 8th June, 2019, 09:49 PM
    If someone can help me fix the tables I would be appreciative
    135 replies | 3920 view(s)
    0 XP
  • FrogReaver's Avatar
    Saturday, 8th June, 2019, 09:48 PM
    Overkill Damage is often brought up in DPR discussions as a theoretical offset to the damage that characters with fewer harder hitting attacks are doing. The basic concept seems reasonable on the surface but what never gets accounted for is that a character with a single attack can kill enemies faster on average than a character with 2 attacks even when they do the same DPR. Proof: Enemy has...
    135 replies | 3920 view(s)
    0 XP
  • FrogReaver's Avatar
    Friday, 7th June, 2019, 06:02 AM
    Suppose there was a -5/+10 feat for dual wielding. Then Dual wielding would basically be equal to polearm mastery + GWF. If you want to fix dual wielding I think you need a feat like that. Now if you are playing in a featless game then TWF has some overlooked utility once you reach extra attack. You can start using the first attack in your sequence to attempt to prone an enemy and still...
    197 replies | 4946 view(s)
    0 XP
  • FrogReaver's Avatar
    Thursday, 6th June, 2019, 11:58 PM
    That's why I see an integral part to a point buy system is empowering the DM to adjust the point costs and starting allotment to fit his campaign. Medicine won't be important in your campaign then give it a low cost of 1. Survival is the most important skill. Give it a high cost of 3.
    70 replies | 1733 view(s)
    0 XP
  • FrogReaver's Avatar
    Thursday, 6th June, 2019, 09:33 PM
    I have blocked you. Please abide by the spirit of the block rules (even though you are apparently immune to the condition) and refrain from posting in my threads and replying to my posts. Thanks.
    70 replies | 1733 view(s)
    0 XP
  • FrogReaver's Avatar
    Thursday, 6th June, 2019, 09:25 PM
    The lore bard performs very well. I recommend him over the valor bard. Ac and a slightly better attack is just not worth it IMO.
    33 replies | 112952 view(s)
    0 XP
More Activity
About FrogReaver

Basic Information

Age
32
About FrogReaver
Disable sharing sidebar?:
No

Statistics


Total Posts
Total Posts
4,655
Posts Per Day
3.12
Last Post
Improving Two-Weapon Fighting Today 04:19 PM

Currency

Gold Pieces
51
General Information
Last Activity
Today 10:33 PM
Join Date
Tuesday, 19th May, 2015
Product Reviews & Ratings
Reviews Written
0

1 Friend

  1. Warpiglet Warpiglet is offline

    Member

    Warpiglet
Showing Friends 1 to 1 of 1
Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Sunday, 16th June, 2019


Saturday, 15th June, 2019


Friday, 14th June, 2019


Thursday, 13th June, 2019


Wednesday, 12th June, 2019


Tuesday, 11th June, 2019


Monday, 10th June, 2019


Sunday, 9th June, 2019



Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Page 1 of 4 1234 LastLast

Saturday, 8th June, 2019

  • 11:29 PM - Blue mentioned FrogReaver in post The Overkill Damage Fallacy
    FrogReaver, Serious reply, not an "instant naysayer". I'm commenting to improve your calculations so we can get a clear view. I see two things I don't think were taken into consideration and I would be interested in how much or how little they impact the end results. First issue is that overkill is about damage wasted. The calculations shown do not differentiate for the twice-attacker between if the kill is done by the first attack or the second attack. Because if done with the first attack, then there is an additional attack that can be used to start damaging the next. If that's ignored, that's being treated as "overkill" (wasted") damage just like any extra done by the killing blow, but it actual play that is the opposite of overkill, that's damage that can be redirected to another target. Perhaps a better way would be to see how many can be killed in 5 rounds. Or if you want to keep it on killing, then assume 5 opponents and count how many are (statistically) alive each round to ma...

Thursday, 11th April, 2019

  • 04:53 PM - Benny89 mentioned FrogReaver in post Elven Accuracy Samurai Archer vs Xbow master battlemaster analysis.
    ...ving more than 3 is a tiny percent chance. Analysis You will turn about 80% of misses in a day into hits with precision attack. Without elven accuracy the Samarui will turn 25% of his total attacks into additional hits. With elven accuracy it's about 35-40%. This still makes precision attack better and that's without factoring in the difference in going crossbow expertise vs going elven accuracy. So let's do an actual analysis at level 11. BattleMaster 11 vs Samauri 11. I'll assume 6 combats a day that last 4 rounds each. Samauri will be a half-elf with elven accuracy + sharpshooter + 20 dex (uses a longbow) Battlemaster will be variant human with sharpshooter + crossbow expertise + 20 dex (uses a handcrossbow) At level 11 I'm getting that the battlemaster does about 20-30% more damage per day than the Samauri. (That's without crits calculated which will give the samauri a small advantage but not overly much. So maybe 15-25% estimated) Btw. do you have AnyDice math for that FrogReaver? I would like to save that somewhere and also show a friend who asked for it. Thank you!

Sunday, 24th March, 2019

  • 08:55 PM - TaranTheWanderer mentioned FrogReaver in post Can Sharpshooter be used with a Net?
    "-" is also listed as the weight of a sling. Are you trying to say that the sling has an undefined mass? FrogReaver would say it has 0 mass. It actually has mass but its value is inconsequential to the encumbrance mechanic. Its mass is N/A.

Thursday, 21st March, 2019

  • 01:04 AM - TaranTheWanderer mentioned FrogReaver in post Can Sharpshooter be used with a Net?
    FrogReaver I hate to disagree with you because I often do agree with you but, in this situation, the table in the book doesnít say 0, it instead, has a dash, which I interpret as N/A. So you canít add damage if damage is not applicable to the attack. Now, you could maybe reskin that sucker as a bola...

Saturday, 16th March, 2019

  • 07:41 PM - Satyrn mentioned FrogReaver in post Playing with the Averages - A simplistic approach
    Our DM was thinking about using the average unless it would automatically reduce a character to zero, and then actually roll in those cases to give the character a chance to keep going after the hit. He would also use it for BBEGs, etc. I like the idea that @FrogReaver put forth. What your DM is considering would require that he knows how many hit points the player has left, or would result in the player saying "oh, that takes down" and the DM responding "no, wait; let me roll the dice," then gathering up the dice, etc. I think that it would be more straightforward when a player is dropped to 0, he flips a coin. Heads, he's still up at 1 hp. Tails, he's on his butt at 0. A character with only 1 hit point when he takes damage doesn't get to make the coin flip.

Friday, 8th March, 2019

  • 09:15 PM - TaranTheWanderer mentioned FrogReaver in post Bard Faerie Fire in Tier 1
    ... you, Bad, bad charisma save. Someone previously mentioned testing FF against Bane. I think that is a much more interesting comparison than Tashas' or DW, even though one is more buff and the other debuff. You give me 4 orcs, I will cast Bane on 3 of them or all of them if higher level within tier 1. I'm not a maths guy so cannot run the numbers, so this is just my experience, but if you are thinking of playing a Bard, Bane would be my absolute first pick, and then Healing word, and then Disguise self for shenanigans and just add one more for flavour. Ps. I cannot wait to reach a level where I can try Synaptic Static, Bane, Cutting Words and Mockery. That will be a good day indeed! Interesting. Iím a bard newb and I would like to recruit you to peruse this thread: http://www.enworld.org/forum/showthread.php?657398-Bard-Advice-how-much-can-I-dump-combat-stats&daysprune=14 Please help me kit out my bard and help advise me on spells. I will pay you double whatever FrogReaver paid. Now back to your regularly scheduled debate.

Saturday, 23rd February, 2019

  • 05:09 PM - ClaytonCross mentioned FrogReaver in post Here Are The Most Popular D&D Feats (War Caster Leads The Pack!)
    FrogReaver I just want to say I appropriate you actually trying to argue the point even half side ways where others have devolved into personal attacks trying to devalue people instead of debate the information we know. On the point of the question asked. Why are people personally offended by the idea they don't need warcaster to cast a vary small niche of spells instead of considering something like multi-classing and low level paladins getting a better consecration save than resilient(con) for games that are not expected to go higher than 7 and that might inflate those numbers as you pointed out?

Sunday, 10th February, 2019

  • 10:57 PM - MNblockhead mentioned FrogReaver in post The Pitfalls of D&D Beyond Data
    You keep taking about things you ďhaveĒ to do. What you mean is things you ďwantĒ to do. Can we cut FrogReaver some slack on his overly imperative writing style and just agree that a significant percentage of us geeks enjoy discussing statistics? I find his posts on this and other other thread to be, overall, measured and interesting.
  • 03:56 PM - Blue mentioned FrogReaver in post The Pitfalls of D&D Beyond Data
    FrogReaver, I agree with all of your points and I'd like to add another - self selection. Just like ENworld we discuss a lot of points but we're just a subset of all players and not necessarily a representative sample. I hadn't thought at all about the skewing, either from subclass choice level or multiclassing. That's a really good catch. I wish they would release their data on github or somewhere so we could all examine it.

Friday, 8th February, 2019

  • 11:11 PM - squibbles mentioned FrogReaver in post Cantrip House Rule
    I commented on FrogReaver's proposed changes in an earlier post (summary; the balance is probably fine but I suspect the changes would not be much fun), but have had some further thoughts while continuing to read the thread. To compensate for the lack of scaling cantrips I would reward casters with extra spell slots. I'm leaning toward 1 extra spell slot of each level up to level 6 spells. You would gaub the extra spell slot immediately upon reaching the level where you first gain that spell slot. For example a level 5 Wizard would have spell slots of 5 level 1, 4 level 2, 3 level 3 but his cantrips would not scale. Casters would scale with more spell slots, more powerful spell slots and more powerful spells. So my take is that removing cantrip scaling doesn't go against any of that. The design principle underlying cantrip scaling is that 5e aims for a balanced rate of power acquisition across classes. All the classes get a power spike at 5th, 11th, and 17th levels, usually from multiple features...

Saturday, 19th January, 2019


Friday, 11th January, 2019

  • 02:23 AM - CleverNickName mentioned FrogReaver in post Out Of Combat Action Surge Uses
    What FrogReaver and aco175 said. I'm sure that Action Surges can be used out of combat, they just aren't. A player won't normally want to "waste" the ability trying to force a door or climb over a wall or whatever, because they will want to hang on to that surge for whatever might be lurking behind it. I'm sure our DM could engineer a very specific situation that might force a player to use an action surge out of combat, but it hasn't happened yet. (Or if it has, we have found other ways around it. We're pretty stingy with our per-rest abilities.)

Friday, 14th December, 2018

  • 12:57 AM - Hussar mentioned FrogReaver in post Cantrip Auto-Scaling - A 5e Critique
    ...e a different cantrip for a different element as you can't switch cantrips. Sure, you could have chosen two ranged damage dealing cantrips - say, fire bolt and ray of frost. But, that comes at a cost as well. One of your very small suite of cantrips is now very often not used because, unless you happen to be fighting something resistant to fire, you're always using Fire Bolt because Fire Bolt deals better damage and reducing something's speed by 10 feet for a round often isn't all that useful. With one first level spell, I can ALWAYS choose different energy types. Outside of something that is immune/resistant to all energy types, it's unlikely that I won't be dealing full damage every time I cast it. With that added bonus that anything that has weakness to a particular damage type is always an option. So, we have a spell that, at most levels, deals as good if not better damage than a comparable cantrip, with considerable added versatility. Again, not seeing the problem. FrogReaver - despite repeated examples being shown, you still have not demonstrated that cantrips are better at dealing damage than even 1st level damage dealing spells, never minding second level ones. Thus, it's pretty clear that game balance is not your concern here. Please, please, demonstrate why you think that cantrips outstrip direct damage 1st and 2nd levels spells and please walk me through how you came to that conclusion because EVERY SINGLE example that's been brought up has shown that cantrips, outside of very corner cases, NEVER out damage 1st and 2nd level spells.

Wednesday, 12th December, 2018

  • 11:13 PM - cbwjm mentioned FrogReaver in post Cantrip Auto-Scaling - A 5e Critique
    I think folks were thinking that it meant that improved divine smite added another additional d8 when you use divine smite? That looks to be the case. I did a check on sage advice and I think I've found the tweet that FrogReaver was thinking of, or at least the tweet that clarifies that it is only a single +1d8 not +2d8 that Jeremy had originally stated. https://twitter.com/JeremyECrawford/status/880852301140811777 Removing the sentence should remove that ambiguity. With all of the errata we've had, part of me wonders if I should just rebuy the core books, or at least the PHB. I think I have the 1st or 2nd printing so now, they are quite out of date. They're still useable but I can see there being possible issues when people have different printings.
  • 04:38 PM - doctorbadwolf mentioned FrogReaver in post Cantrip Auto-Scaling - A 5e Critique
    FrogReaver At this point, I think any further discussion is a waste of time. You continue to act as though no one is addressing your complaint, even though most participants have done so. In response to someone else, you even try to claim that versatility is irrelevant to the complaint. It isnít, and the idea that it is is patently absurd. Versatility is an advantage that level 1 spells have over cantrips. The idea that magic missile using a level 1 slot has to be strictly better, at all levels, than any cantrip, is false. Magic missile (and other level 1 damaging spells) is better than any cantrip is specific situations. You keep saying weird stuff like ďThat would be a valid point if anyone had brought it up but no one hasĒ....but I and others have done so, repeatedly! But you refuse to address it! Instead of nitpicking, shifting goalposts, and trying to condescend to people who absolutely get what youíre saying and disagree with you, why not just...try to engage genuinely with ...
  • 04:26 AM - Thyrwyn mentioned FrogReaver in post Cantrip Auto-Scaling - A 5e Critique
    FrogReaver said: 1) ďMy reason was that a level 1 spell slot is a resource...Ē ó-this is undeniable; 2) ď...anything which requires a resource should be better than something that does not.Ē ó-on its own, most people, myself included, would agree with this design philosophy. The problem is that your position has nothing to do with 1st level spell slots: itís about 1st level spells, which are not the same thing, and are not included in either of the statements quoted above. Counter-arguments have included A) Cantrips have slots, too - that is a resource, too. See point #2, above B) 1st level spell slots are versatile, and can be used to cast a greater array of spells as needed. Cantrip slots cannot be changed. Versatility is better than unchangeable. C) The value of a 1st level spell slot decreases at a greater rate than the value of the cantrip slot. A Wizard will gain 2 cantrips over their entire career, but 20 additional spell slots. Take any spell caster that has exhaus...

Wednesday, 14th November, 2018

  • 06:55 PM - TaranTheWanderer mentioned FrogReaver in post How useful is the Dodge action?
    OverlordOcelot I think you're making this out to be a big deal when it isn't. When I dm, I play the opponents in a way that would be logical to their motives and their intelligence and their tactical and arcane knowledge guides the kind of decisions I make for them. I, personally, donít change an action based on what a player does unless I feel it makes sense to change the action. Smarter opponents with knowledge of PCs abilities will change tactics more often to adapt while stupid enemies might keep slugging away. I donít change tactics based on ooc info. If I can help it. You are free to do it any way you like. FrogReaverďYou keep on ignoring that Spreading damage around is useful in itself. Ē Actually, Iím not arguing for or against this. I didnít touch on that point at all. But itís probably true that it can be useful, especially if a DM uses dodge as a guide to attack someone other than the person dodging. (I assume thatís what you mean by spreading the damage, unless Iím misunderstanding. An enemy sees someone is hard to hit so they choose to attack someone else thus spreading the damage around.)

Friday, 9th November, 2018

  • 07:45 AM - ClaytonCross mentioned FrogReaver in post Is Ranged really better than Melee?
    ... is better to use from people with different intent not qualifying that intent to each other. On topic. Ranged and Melee both have similar weapons with 1d6, 1d8, and 1d10 dice with the same 1-5 bonus to hit and damage and both have feats with -5 to hit for +10 damage. So I am not sure that "to hit" or damage be it average or max are normally distinctly different enough to matter. You can argue Greatsword vs a Hand crowsbow and a Heavy crossbow vs dagger but really its the classes that make those weapons matter for damage and to hit more than the weapons themselves. A monk with dagger, a rogue with a hand crossbow, a fighter with heavy crossbow, a barbarian with great sword etc. So if we are talking about range vs melee the tactical advantage of reach for defense and offense it what makes ranged better. When you start talking about party composition, enemies, and classes... your not talking about ranged vs melee any more your just jumping into scenario testing. I think the heart of @FrogReaver 's original post is under appreciation and general consideration of melee character's contributions to a group. That said, I generally don't care about melee vs ranged as a rogue as either is generally more important to the group as scout, a wizard as combat manipulator, and I really feel like when melee characters are under appreciated its not for the melee fighting style its more for a lack of out of combat utility which can often be fixed by the player finding a party role. Example, Grog on critical role was not just the Berserker Barbarian he was also the groups quartermaster and many of best moments of Critical Role that involved Grog were not his combat triumphs but when he made party members trade party goods in comical ways. Don't get me wrong he put down the damage at times and he struggled to be in the fight bring a melee weapon to a ranged fight but I feel like it was the out of combat role that really made the best moments. I see this in my group too and it does not just e...

Monday, 22nd October, 2018

  • 10:35 PM - Hawk Diesel mentioned FrogReaver in post Shield Attacks and AC Bonus
    Ganymede81 The way I understand him, FrogReaver is placing priority on how an object looks visually to determine whether the damage an object might deal when used as an improvised weapon can be similar to a given weapon when used as a basis for comparison. In his arguments he has made it clear that (for some reason) the force a weapon / object-used-as-an-improvised-weapon might deal can be similar, but that this characteristic cannot be considered when determining if an object resembles a weapon. And so while he has admitted that a mace and a shield could produce a similar force, they would not deal similar damage in a D&D 5e game because they do not look enough alike to resemble each other, which I take to mean that they do not visually resemble each other (despite the fact that they clearly do resemble each other when other qualities outside of visual characteristics are considered, especially those characteristics that are most valuable when assessing the deadlines of weapins and objects being used as weapons). So while he adm...
  • 06:04 PM - Hawk Diesel mentioned FrogReaver in post Shield Attacks and AC Bonus
    ...as if it were that weapon and use his or her proficiency bonus. An object that bears no resemblance to a weapon deals 1d4 damage (the DM assigns a damage type appropriate to the object). If a character uses a ranged weapon to make a melee attack, or throws a melee weapon that does not have the thrown property, it also deals 1d4 damage. An improvised thrown weapon has a normal range of 20 feet and a long range of 60 feet. Emphasis mine. Nowhere in the entry does the official RAW say what damage an improvised weapon must do, but that the damage assigned is strictly the DM's discretion. It does provide an example to measure against as a benchmark, stating that an object that bears no resemblance to a weapon deals 1d4 damage. However, it does not specify whether that is meant to be visible resemblance (your example of a kitchen knife versus a greatsword) or functional resemblance (a shield being able to be used in similar fashion and to similar effect as a club). So I'm sorry FrogReaver, but this is not a matter of house rule versus RAW. This is a merited interpretation of the rules, since it clearly states that the DM determines the appropriate damage. It does not state that all objects that are not directly in 1-to-1 correspondence to existing weapons must deal 1d4 damage, nor does it strictly clarify how the rules define "resemblance" in regards to an object compared to a weapon.


Page 1 of 4 1234 LastLast
No results to display...

Sunday, 16th June, 2019

  • 08:46 AM - CapnZapp quoted FrogReaver in post Improving Two-Weapon Fighting
    . Then you are flat out ignoring it. No you are attmpting to declare a specific implementation as the only true way despite others pointing out that such an implementation is nearly impossible to balance around without changing way to many things already in the game. You are way too aggressive about this. I am pointing out the high-level implications you need to be aware of if you are working on a solution. Does that mean you must obey me like a slave? Certainly not. It means that if you, in your best opinion, conclude you must compromise from these points, then you are free to do so. But then you need to compensate for the lost power, flexibility or potential! For example, locking down the bonus action already from level 1, as the original devs did, mean twfing should be and remain better than gwfing throughout. Why? Since you're already locked into your maximum potential. Then, if the GWFer finds a use for his bonus action it's okay if he catches up, and possibly even overtakes you. ...
  • 02:09 AM - Xeviat quoted FrogReaver in post Improving Two-Weapon Fighting
    I meant by current rules. By current rules, it will slowly approach the "no ba required" entry, but never quite reach it. An infinite series. LOL. You'll never balance anything looking at level 1 as the goal. You don't want level 1 to out of whack. But you don't want your analysis to default to those levels or you are missing a lot of context. PVP should never be the test. Well, then, if we pretend that Duelist and GWFing are balanced now, Fighter gets: 1d8+7 vs 2d6*+5 11.5 vs 13.33 2d8+5 (my twfing) is 14. So a 16% increase. Mine is a 22% increase on the Fighter. I'll see if I can get the ranger there. It might require testing a few ranger subclasses because some heavily favor single higher damage (gloom stalker, horizon walker, hunter with giant slayer or horde breaker). It might require changing how Hunter's Mark functions.
  • 12:20 AM - Xeviat quoted FrogReaver in post Improving Two-Weapon Fighting
    Yes. But this damage is required for the Fighter and Ranger's damage to equal the Rogue's in the beginning. The rogue with two weapons deals 3d6+Dex, and the fighter deals (1d6+3)*2 in core (13.5 vs 13). Monster AC X*0.65 = 100*0.75 X*0.65 = 75 X = 115 Player AC (+5 to hit vs 15, 55% chance to hit) X*0.55 = 100*0.65 X = 118 So in a strict pvp situation, nonshield users should deal 15 to 20 more damage than shield users. Should that be the goal benchmark, and just accept that TWFing is op at low levels? I'd rather balance it across the board, balancing it's difference between two weapons and sword and shield.
  • 12:04 AM - Xeviat quoted FrogReaver in post Improving Two-Weapon Fighting
    Just curious, how do your ranger numbers change if the combat goes 4 rounds? Or maybe even 5 rounds? For my change, the number of rounds don't matter. In the core rules, you'd be going from needing your BA for hunters mark towards not needing it. Mind you, I did also choose a build that favors TWFing, and the single weapon Wielder is going to have a slightly better opportunity attack (I consider that fair trade for the TWFer having a better ability to split damage.

Saturday, 15th June, 2019

  • 11:21 PM - Xeviat quoted FrogReaver in post Improving Two-Weapon Fighting
    Your rules give the TWF ranger about a 40% damage boost over a duelist. 40% more damage is far greater than +2 AC. Heck at that point he would also have about a 40% damage boost over a similar Greatsword using ranger. IMO, +2 Ac should do between about 10-20% less damage over a same classed PC without +2 AC. The Ranger starts with a +40% damage bonus for TWFing against Duelist at the early levels. Are those the erroneous levels? 2d6+5 vs. 1d8+5 is 12 vs 9.5 is +26%; is that the baseline I should be shooting for? I'm 100% not concerned with a Greatsword wielding Ranger. The Ranger doesn't get Great Weapon Fighting as an available style and the PHB seems to imply that the ranger is a Dex class (lol, I double checked, the quick build says some rangers who focus on two weapon fighting choose Str as their highest stat).
  • 11:09 PM - Tony Vargas quoted FrogReaver in post Improving Two-Weapon Fighting
    But it's very important to the context of this thread ;) I'm sorry, is it not a 5e thread?
  • 10:38 PM - Xeviat quoted FrogReaver in post Improving Two-Weapon Fighting
    . Then you are flat out ignoring it. No you are attmpting to declare a specific implementation as the only true way despite others pointing out that such an implementation is nearly impossible to balance around without changing way to many things already in the game. If I were building 5e from the ground up I like your suggestion. Iím not. The implementation of a TWF fix should never require changing specific abilities to work or not work with it. Why is it a problem to commit to the bonus action earlier? Why canít the TWF have the choice of doing less damage now for more damage later so long as itís sufficiently more damage later to make up the gap between a GWF using the same bonus action ability? The big issue, for me, is that TWFing falls behind Duelist and Duelist has a shield. Watch (using base 65% to hit, assuming short rest abilities are split between two encounters). Fighter Level - Duelist vs TWF - TWF difference 1st - 6.4 vs 8.8 - 138% 2nd - 9.6 vs 11.0 - 115% (action su...
  • 04:32 PM - doctorbadwolf quoted FrogReaver in post Improving Two-Weapon Fighting
    I'll tell you what, your next game, allow a 2d6 dex based great weapon and a cool 1d8 dex based one handed weapon (call it a katana or something) and see how many fighters choose strength ever again. I mean one of those is the Rapier. I still get longsword, Battleaxe, and even shortsword wielders who could be using a rapier. As for a 2d6 option, IME no great weapon fighters are gonna switch to a dex based build, because Iíve tested that with a d8 reach finesse weapon, as well as a versatile d6 version of the whip (spiked chain), and no one went from wanting to play a tough beefcake to a lithe acrobat to grab them. I would see more people who would already make dex builds doing so with more damage. But those guys only ever play dex characters regardless of edition. Then I gotta ask you why you are even in this discussion? You can't seriously be here only to tell us a little imbalance is nothing to worry about? This entire thread is based on the premise dual wielding is just not good enough a...
  • 04:23 PM - CapnZapp quoted FrogReaver in post Improving Two-Weapon Fighting
    The issue you seem to be overlooking I'm not overlooking anything. I am just defining where the design work of this thread must end up at to be truly satisfactory. I'm basically trying to save y'all some time and effort, so you don't end up with a solution that still sells TWFers short when it comes to high-end powers by committing the bonus action earlier than for the GWFer.

Friday, 14th June, 2019

  • 12:00 AM - Xeviat quoted FrogReaver in post Improving Two-Weapon Fighting
    In a featless game without mod damage to offhand a +1 damage per attack isnít enough to keep up with a GWF style fighter. In a featless game, missed attack gets a reroll offhand with ability modifier is only slightly behind greatsword. Though I can see a player asking if they can reroll a shield bash, punch, or kick and I can't come up with a good reason to say no if I'm letting someone with two weapons do it.

Thursday, 13th June, 2019

  • 10:47 PM - 5ekyu quoted FrogReaver in post The Overkill Damage Fallacy
    I rather like this idea.Iirc there was a version (perhaps more) of Traveller which had a pretty serious penalty for "took damage since last round." It changed play quite a bit and frankly in many good ways. Honestly if one wanted to do do, one could setup feats that would give bigger bonuses *if* not hurt since last turn, or bonus action maneuvers that stretched from turn to turn with big bonuses if you made it. Heck, maybe even a growing turn by turn focus - that worked like concentration. Damage can cause you to lose focus. Lots of potential there.
  • 03:03 PM - TwoSix quoted FrogReaver in post Improving Two-Weapon Fighting
    I don't have time at the moment. But someone might want to evaluate these changes. Move the mod damage to offhand attack to Dual wielder feat Create a new -5/+10 feat for Dual Wielding TWF style now does a scaling damage bonus per attack action attack. Maybe +1 at 1, +2 at 2, and +3 at 3. That's not bad. It puts the "+mod on BA attacks" back into feat territory, to go along with PAM and XBE. Moving the -X/+Y into a separate feat would make it so you need 2 feats for every combination of -X/+Y and a reliable BA attack, which is appealing. (PAM/GWM, SS/XBE, DW/New feat) Maybe for the scaling bonus, do something that gives a die bonus, rather than a flat increase? A die bonus makes it more interesting for rangers, and attractive for a rogue dip. Something like "When you make an attack while wielding a one-handed weapon in each hand, treat any 1 you roll as the maximum result instead." That gives a (N-1/N) increase per die, or slightly less than 1 per die. Edit: Just checki...
  • 01:07 AM - Xeviat quoted FrogReaver in post Improving Two-Weapon Fighting
    Is it established that this hypothetical bonus action requires you use the extra damage on your next hit? Yeah, just like the Smite spells.

Wednesday, 12th June, 2019

  • 05:18 PM - Xeviat quoted FrogReaver in post Improving Two-Weapon Fighting
    On a side note only allowing 1 smite a round doesnít really hurt the crit fishing build much How so? If you have to spend a bonus action before making the attack, you can't really crit fish. It's not a bonus action after you hit. It's exactly like the smite spells. The game went to lengths to avoid people using two spell slots in the same round, except for reactions.
  • 11:52 AM - Ovinomancer quoted FrogReaver in post The Overkill Damage Fallacy
    Ovinomancer, by the way I can account for multiple enemies etc in my formulas. The only thing I can't implement yet is variable damage dice. Cool. Of course you can. My point was that you didn't. My formula is surisingly easy to use. Simply list rounds out. Find first round enemy can be killed and then copy paste my formula in every cell. Can you make changes to target hp, PC damage, PC hit chance, PC number of attacks, and also adapt to changes from those to the number of rounds needed to kill? The PC1/PC2 sheets are pretty easy to do if you're limiting the range of possible inputs so that you can hard code things. It's when you have to create the probabilities density functions for variable inputs that it becomes a challenge. For example, for a given round on PC 2 with variable inputs, I needed to figure out: Number of hits needed to kill (HTK), then, Chance no hits have yet occurred times chance HTK occurs this round (not a given) PLUS Chance 1 hit has yet occured times cha...
  • 04:14 AM - Ovinomancer quoted FrogReaver in post The Overkill Damage Fallacy
    I didn't. I showed my calculations. There was an error in them though. I needed .5 rounds accounted for. That was throwing it off. Now as expected the 1 attack characters and the 2 attack character are killing 5-8 hp enemies at the same rate. So basically disregard the premise of this post as the math around it was incorrect (stupid .5 rounds). But I think it's given me some ideas on how to calculate the effect of overkill damage. According to what I've put up, it shows that certain DPRs are equivalent against a particular foe. PC1, for instance, has the same kill ratio for 8 damage as for 5 damage against the 5hp foe. Thus, overkill doesn't hasten kill rate. This will be very specific to the foe, though.
  • 04:03 AM - Ovinomancer quoted FrogReaver in post The Overkill Damage Fallacy
    You keep saying things like that but it's simply not true. Calculating a weighted average for chance to kill on round (X) results in a value that is the number of rounds to kill. There's no misinterpreting what that means. It means exactly what I'm claiming it means. No, this is the weighted average of the "chance to kill on round X", not the weighted average of the" number of rounds to kill". Your metric shows that a kill is most likely to occur sometime in round 2, because that's the weighted average of the chance to kill across all rounds (assuming the later rounds are essentially zero). You can't shift what you've measured into something new with a weighted average, so this isn't the weighted average of the "number of rounds to kill." There is a different between 'chance to kill ON round X' and 'chance to kill BY round X'. You show the former, not the latter. Your average is the average chance to kill ON round X. My method shows chance to kill BY round X. Different things. Thi...
  • 03:49 AM - Ovinomancer quoted FrogReaver in post The Overkill Damage Fallacy
    I tried that before I posted. It gives an incorrect value of 1.667 rounds. The actual number of rounds is below: 106992 Sigh. You can't declare your answer to be the right one by fiat. Explain why you think this is so. Following my own advice, it's because the assumptions are slightly different. I'm assuming at least one more enemy, so the case on a round where there was 1 previous hit and two hits on that round carries the second hit into the new target, This reduces the overall average because I'm not stopping at one enemy so that the difference in distributions matters -- by assuming at least one more bad guy, I've removed the artifact of the different distributions of hit probability. I've applied mine to the continuum, not just the one specific situation. I've also accounted for that third wheel of a third hit. To go back to an earlier point, have you investigated the region where target hp is from 9-12 in your construction? PC2 is ahead of the game, there. This means that...
  • 03:02 AM - Ovinomancer quoted FrogReaver in post The Overkill Damage Fallacy
    It's statements like the one above that make me question whether you really understand what a weighted average is. Weighted averages by definition does take into account EVERYTHING. That's why I'm very puzzled when you make statements like these. My average rounds to kill takes into account rounds 1 to infinity. Your chance to kill by round X only takes into account rounds 1 to X. No, weighted averages take into account what you've decided to measure and how you've decided to weight it. If I take the weighted average of the volume of a cat from tip to tail, I haven't said much about the dietary requirements of the cat, although some information towards that may be gleaned. Being able to take a weighted average does not, at all, mean you've successfully measured everything. This is reification -- you've done math and confused the concrete outcome of the math as applying to your assumptions. Nothing in stats will correct your assumptions -- tools will gleefully let you lie to yoursel...
  • 02:06 AM - Ovinomancer quoted FrogReaver in post The Overkill Damage Fallacy
    The OP stated: 1. Mechanic X exists (where mechanic X is that one attack PC's with equal DPR kill some enemies faster on average than those with multiple attacks) 2. There is the proof mechanic X exists (it was provided in the OP) 3. Because Mechanic X exists, overkill damage isn't the only thing to consider. 4. The fallacy is not that overkill damage exists or doesn't. It most certainly does. The fallacy is the focus on overkill damage. Okay, but you didn't show this. You shows something that wasn't about overkill damage and then claimed that since this not-overkill thing exists, asking about overkill (focusing on overkill?) is a fallacy. That's not how that works. Your thing can be true AND overkill can still be an issue worth investigating. Your effort, while interesting in a technical sense, don't illuminate overkill at all. And, all your method really does it look at the difference between a flat probability curve and a less flat probability curve. You say above in one o...


FrogReaver's Downloads

  Filename Total Downloads Rating Files Uploaded Last Updated

Most Recent Favorite Generators/Tables

View All Favorites