D&D (2024) What is your oppinion of 5.24 so far?

[tetrasodium]

Stuff we don't have yet.

That makes it impossible to use for support in ignoring the problems we already see as you've been doing.

And if you're reject my assessment based on lack of evidence, then you shouldn't be making judgments yet either.

I reject your assessment because you are trying to use an unknown empty hypothetical in an unrelated area in order to refute criticism and concern about ones wotc themselves have been spotlighting

 

[DEFCON 1]

it needed some balancing but WotC in their endless wisdom gave up on it instead

Why spend time balancing something few people want? That's called throwing good money after bad.

 

[mellored]

I reject your assessment because you are trying to use an unknown empty hypothetical in an unrelated area in order to refute criticism and concern about ones wotc themselves have been spotlighting

If WotC acknowledged the issue, and said they worked on it, that is not an unknown empty hypothetical in an unrelated area.

It's a direct response to your criticism.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Why spend time balancing something few people want? That's called throwing good money after bad.

It depends on why they didn't want it.

 

[FitzTheRuke]

And yet, in their context, we can clearly see how these things can frustrate GMs. And so did they.

I've DM'd what is probably approaching a hundred sessions with playtest characters and I have not noticed it playing very differently from 2014 5e. And I am very sensitive to things that slow the game down. I loathe fiddly bits. I didn't like 3.5 very much because it had too many fiddly bits. I honestly think that I would be the first to notice if your fears were true. Have you played with it much, or are you concerned from reading it?

 

[DEFCON 1]

It depends on why they didn't want it.

Meh, not really. If people voted it down poorly because while they liked the IDEA of a half-caster warlock they just didn't like this particular method for doing it... AND they didn't make that absolutely clear in their written survey summaries why this downvote was the case... there's zero reason for WotC to take these down votes as anything more than just a desire to not make the switch.

 

[Clint_L]

Well yeah of course the math looks bad if you give the target a huge AC and ignore Advantage. If you built a Level 20 character without guaranteed Advantage on demand then you are doing it very wrong, with or without GWM. Even against 22 AC, that should be 16 damage per attack with GWM and 13.2 without GWM

Is AC 22 a huge AC for a significant encounter at level 20? I picked a dragon because I felt it rather typical; if I wanted to sandbag I could have gone much higher.

A level 20 character with guaranteed advantage on demand? So, a rogue or barbarian (which has a significant opportunity cost)? Or just a really accommodating DM? But even with advantage on demand, you only get a slight DPR increase (my math says 17 vs. 14.1), and that's only by ignoring the possibility of additional damage increasers that get nerfed by GWM. I notice you don't address what happens if, say, that attacker also has holy weapon cast on them; that's probably because GWM then remains a DPR decrease even with advantage on demand.

The reason for that is, as I noted, that the penalty for GWM is multiplicative, meaning that it becomes stronger as your damage gets higher, at some point inevitably rendering the feat a damage decrease, since the bonus is a static +10. There are a lot of factors that affect where that line will be drawn in a particular encounter, and AC is a big one, but the math on GWM means that the more damage you do, the less effective it becomes, regardless of AC. In other words, it is designed so that it scales poorly.

It is a situational feat at best, mostly useful for generating big hits against soft opponents.

I completely missed this! That is a huge deal, I'm over here comparing a half-feat to a full-feat like they ought to be the same damage output


Anyone optimizing properly will already have advantage on demand - all you're really doing with Topple (at least damage-wise) is screwing over your ranged attackers who now have to straight roll

Obviously knocking someone probe has to take into account party composition and the situation, but I think most will agree that it, and most of the other weapon mastery traits, are extremely potent new tools to have in the kit, that will typically be used in ways that are tactically important and usually lead to significant DPR gains. That is certainly what play testing is showing us.

 

[Tales and Chronicles]

I'm open to house rules on Topple or any ability that you can effectively spam requiring a saving throw on each attack.

Whoa...pause that a second, I must have missed something: topple requires a save? Like, my fighter will be able to make 4 attacks rolls in a turn, then force a save for each hit, then roll for damage, with some advantages in the mix if the save is failed on the first few strikes?

 

[Distracted DM]

You mean the alternate gritty realism recovery rules that we already have in the DMG that I use? I get that nobody reads the DMG and I'd like more option suggestions, but it's already there.

Yes, I am quite aware of the alternate recovery rules. I have read the DMG.
I'm saying that separating recovery from sleep should be the default, whether it's a couple days or a week or whatever the GM decides, because it's so very useful in helping the GM manage party resources and help to challenge the players on that front. It really helps solve the "6-8 encounters/rest" issue.

 

[Clint_L]

Oh ok maybe I misunderstood that. I thought the point was that damage ceiling (i.e. optimized damage) is going up for martials (per post #122), specifically due to GWM and weapon masteries.

Actually, what I posted was that it was going up significantly due to weapon masteries before even taking into account the many other goodies that martial classes and subclasses got. The bottom line is that martial classes are hitting much harder now, and hopefully the new CR ratings take that into account; DMs will also have to adjust how we design encounters or parties will blow through them.