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

TwoSix · Jun 21, 2019

FrogReaver said:
Because then the player that got the -5/+10 for free will simply max str or dex faster. So for the first half of the game it just introduces power creep. Maybe if you were playing a campaign at level 12+ that would be a good idea.

If I was making it a base rule, I'd do it as -Prof/+2*Prof, rather than a flat -5/+10. Not nearly as problematic in Tier 1-2 that way.

5ekyu · Jun 21, 2019

FrogReaver said:
Because then the player that got the -5/+10 for free will simply max str or dex faster. So for the first half of the game it just introduces power creep. Maybe if you were playing a campaign at level 12+ that would be a good idea.

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"?

Blue · Jun 21, 2019

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).

I remember a while ago that someone showed the math that reducing the penalty meant it was an appropriate thing to use more often, and the feat ended up contributing more total damage. This was with the 1:2 ratio of damage. But I'd be concerned about reducing the penalty - that actually made it stronger.

It was several years ago so I can't vouch for the math, but if correct than the effects are counter-intuitive. For example, if your options are +0/+0 (normal) and -2/+4, then the -2/+4 will be the mathematically correct move enough more often that the total damage added over hits will be more then if your option was -5/+10.

-5/+10 is more of a concern when you build around it and get either buffs from your party (bless, etc), or buffs from your DM (higher ability scores, regular +X magic items, etc.).

FrogReaver · Jun 21, 2019

Blue said:
I remember a while ago that someone showed the math that reducing the penalty meant it was an appropriate thing to use more often, and the feat ended up contributing more total damage. This was with the 1:2 ratio of damage. But I'd be concerned about reducing the penalty - that actually made it stronger.

It was several years ago so I can't vouch for the math, but if correct than the effects are counter-intuitive. For example, if your options are +0/+0 (normal) and -2/+4, then the -2/+4 will be the mathematically correct move enough more often that the total damage added over hits will be more then if your option was -5/+10.

-5/+10 is more of a concern when you build around it and get either buffs from your party (bless, etc), or buffs from your DM (higher ability scores, regular +X magic items, etc.).

It sounds to me like the calculation you are talking about likely had 1 to many assumptions in it.

There is no way to know what distribution of AC's a player will face in a given campaign. As such I would question the assumptions of any math conclusion drawn about which is better or which is worse. That said, the general principle you talk about is always going to hold - there will always be a breakpoint where using it more often for less damage will be more beneficial than using it less often for more damage. The question is where is that breakpoint and do reasonable distributions of AC's for s given level hit that breakpoint.

TwoSix · Jun 21, 2019

Blue said:
I remember a while ago that someone showed the math that reducing the penalty meant it was an appropriate thing to use more often, and the feat ended up contributing more total damage. This was with the 1:2 ratio of damage. But I'd be concerned about reducing the penalty - that actually made it stronger.

It was several years ago so I can't vouch for the math, but if correct than the effects are counter-intuitive. For example, if your options are +0/+0 (normal) and -2/+4, then the -2/+4 will be the mathematically correct move enough more often that the total damage added over hits will be more then if your option was -5/+10.

-5/+10 is more of a concern when you build around it and get either buffs from your party (bless, etc), or buffs from your DM (higher ability scores, regular +X magic items, etc.).

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.

Quartz · Jun 22, 2019

FrogReaver said:
[MENTION=40552]Quartz[/MENTION], where's your justification that your proposed change actually fixes GWF/SS?

It breaks the -5 / +10 out so that anyone can take it with any weapon. So a TWF PC can take the feats as can a Duellist. They're not restricted to ranged weapons and heavy weapons.

FrogReaver · Jun 22, 2019

FrogReaver said:
It sounds to me like the calculation you are talking about likely had 1 to many assumptions in it.

There is no way to know what distribution of AC's a player will face in a given campaign. As such I would question the assumptions of any math conclusion drawn about which is better or which is worse. That said, the general principle you talk about is always going to hold - there will always be a breakpoint where using it more often for less damage will be more beneficial than using it less often for more damage. The question is where is that breakpoint and do reasonable distributions of AC's for s given level hit that breakpoint.

[MENTION=20564]Blue[/MENTION] - I created a simple excel sheet that can take into account:

1. Number of attacks made at various AC's
2. Always making the optimal choice between using the -0/+0 and the -2/+4 or -0/+0 and the -5/+10
3. (+3 attack bonus estimate for precision attack when used)
4. All variables can easily be changed manually to display most examples.

In my case I used a level 5 fighter with defense style and a great sword.

The sheet calculates DPA. It turns out that for an equal weight in all AC's 11-20 that the -5/+10 wins out. For more of a bell shaped distribution on AC 11-20 the -2/+4 wins out. With precision attack the -5/+10 wins out. Etc.

That's at level 5.

By level 20 even on the bell shaped distribution the -5/+10 wins handily. If I skew the distribution more toward 18 AC and leave out all enemies with AC 13 and below the -5/+10 still wins out at level 20.

Quartz · Jun 22, 2019

5ekyu said:
I believe the question is why the need to add the skill 5-10 at all?

Because it increases the range of the feat.

Do you not feel the 5-10 a track damage is not enough on own?

Correct.

So you decide to solve that by giving every fighting style the 5-10 **not** by introducing other options that are equivslent.

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

FrogReaver · Jun 22, 2019

Quartz said:
It breaks the -5 / +10 out so that anyone can take it with any weapon. So a TWF PC can take the feats as can a Duellist. They're not restricted to ranged weapons and heavy weapons.

So the question is whether a TWF that can potentially start with extra attack and the -5/+10 feat is much stronger than the other styles for most of his career.

I propose you look at level 1 and then again at level 3 and then again at level 5 to get a good idea. Heck, do this on a barbarian cause you can get easy advantage starting at level 2.

Quartz · Jun 22, 2019

FrogReaver said:
So the question is whether a TWF that can potentially start with extra attack and the -5/+10 feat is much stronger than the other styles for most of his career.

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..