D&D 5E Another attempt at fixing the -5 / +10 issue

Quartz said:

TWF is already superior at damage dealing at tier 1 without feats but with this change those without heavy or ranged weapons can deal serious damage - for a price. Note though that 1st level PCs are very squishy and taking a -5 on your attack could prove a fatal mistake. I did consider putting the requirement of Proficiency Bonus +3 but that would mean ruling the feat out at level 4 and only fighters could get it at level 6 - others would have to wait until level 8..

Click to expand...

Xeviat said:

I always felt like +10 damage was way too much at lower levels. I also think it's way, way too much damage for a single handed weapon user to get. Combining it with bonus action attacks also feels too much. I'd think long and hard about going toward -Prof/+Prof (or +2xProf if it's needed to be balanced).

Click to expand...

GlassJaw said:

This is my preferred solution. I'd start with -Prof/+Prof and then reevaluate if it needed a boost.

Click to expand...

Quartz said:

Because it increases the range of the feat.



Correct.



No, I decide to solve it by breaking it out into separate feats which the GM can allow or ban at their discretion.

Click to expand...

FrogReaver said:

The thing is, in the early tier -prof/+prof is very close in average damage to -5/+10 and alot more relaible. As an optimizer, if I had that option over -5/+10 i'd gladly take it.

Click to expand...

GlassJaw said:

But the damage is more consistent and less swingy.

Click to expand...

Also less likely to make a mess of your boss encounters.

Click to expand...

Plus it scales better from 1-20.

Click to expand...

TwoSix said:

Assuming a bog standard level 1 greatsword attack (+5 attack, 2d6+3 damage), normal attacking is superior when AC >= 20,
AC 19 is equal, -2/+4 is better between ACs 18 and 14, and -5/+10 is better when AC <= 13.

Click to expand...

5ekyu said:

Uhhh adding the 5-10 to everyone who is into dsmage output is already raising the bar. Your shield guys and twf guys will already be adding their newfound 5-10 must have output in.

Is there another game smashing must have feat we should be looking at too or is the new " must have" the +2 score option?

When do we carve out enough thst balance isnt spelled " one way"?

Click to expand...

5ekyu said:

Power attack in forms that allowed chosen minuses to hit and comparable gains in damage have been around for a while in various types of d20 gsmes snd others for a long time.

Experience with them backs up your claims in actual play non-ehite room excels where the right assumptions get you amy results you want.

Those who typically evangelize the 5 -10 round here fall back when pressed on how you just eont use it when it's not superior and then ignore that part of the sample.

But, in actual play, a variable -×+2× will mean a lot more opportunities for the feat to give you extra. It eont be the same yield, but then, the -1 to -4 gains will be all coming from cases which would have been-0+0 so anything gained is more to the average. Its all gain, no downside if applies eith the same perfect choosing.

But, back to those pesky assumptions, to me it's a bit bigger than it likely seems to some. I never count either random distributions or such. Too often the math pretends to offset high results with low ones and rarely does that play out.

For my analysis, instead of random ACs or ACs distributed by entries in MM, I tend to pay more attention to "that matters". The idea is that casual warm- ups and skirmishes are gonna be over easy anyway.

The fights "that matter" are the hard to deadly ones. Those, IMO, do not show anything like an "even spread" of ACs or a bell curve of defenses. The fights that matter and are hard to deadly tend to combine higher ends of both defenses and offenses.

So, anything that weights the outputs against say AC 10-12 in anything even remotely the same zip code as the results against AC 18-20 is gonna be a product of that assumption.

Winning the hard fights that matter counts for a lot more than squashing the trivial fights that dont matter in 2 rounds of never-ending cantrips and swings rather than 3 rounds.

The -×+2× flexibility is gonna apply in more of those "hard that mwtter" than the locked in -5/+10 do.

Click to expand...

5ekyu said:

Power attack in forms that allowed chosen minuses to hit and comparable gains in damage have been around for a while in various types of d20 gsmes snd others for a long time.

Experience with them backs up your claims in actual play non-ehite room excels where the right assumptions get you amy results you want.

Those who typically evangelize the 5 -10 round here fall back when pressed on how you just eont use it when it's not superior and then ignore that part of the sample.

But, in actual play, a variable -×+2× will mean a lot more opportunities for the feat to give you extra. It eont be the same yield, but then, the -1 to -4 gains will be all coming from cases which would have been-0+0 so anything gained is more to the average. Its all gain, no downside if applies eith the same perfect choosing.

Click to expand...

5ekyu said:

Winning the hard fights that matter counts for a lot more than squashing the trivial fights that dont matter in 2 rounds of never-ending cantrips and swings rather than 3 rounds.

The -×+2× flexibility is gonna apply in more of those "hard that mwtter" than the locked in -5/+10 do.

Click to expand...