Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="JellMoo" data-source="post: 6964586" data-attributes="member: 29821">Someone far better at math than I would need to get into that. My sensibilities towards it are old school in that I hate taking a penalty to hit, but I have no math to back it up as a sub par choice here.The issue I have is that you only get the advantage on your first attack. Your subsequent attacks you either eat the -5, or don't use the GWM feature.Complete agreement here. Exhaustion is prohibitively terrible for the feature benefit.Unless there's errata or a rules clarification I don't know about (and there very well could be) the wording of GWM indicates that you don't have the option to move between attacks. There's just the trigger (a crit or dropping an enemy to 0) and the effect (you can take a bonus action to make an attack). The wording seems to indicate that you need to follow the trigger with the bonus action attack.True, but the monsters still outside of your zone can make attacks. The resistance absolutely helps, no doubt, and it can work to pull off some great pseudo tanking, but it can still cause some serious payback.I think the danger we run into in regards to a discussion about balance is that when you add outside variables, it becomes harder to identify what exactly is the balance issue (not that I think we have one here). For example: If we have a Wizard dissecting the battlefield and funneling enemies to the Barbarian for slaughter and we think this is imbalanced (not that we do), is the issue with the Barbarian or the Wizard?The problem there is the fact that the Ranger is simply underpowered more than anything. <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile    :)"  data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" /> When it comes to 5e, I truly feel their balance is better than previous editions, but they fumbled a bit with melee. I don't think there's a single dominant build, but there is a definite divide between the better options (Barbarian, Fighter and Paladin) and the weaker ones (Ranger or Monk).In those cases, was it mostly a situation of other melee characters lacking a bit of optimization, or was it more the fact that regardless of potential optimization, they lacked the mechanics to be competitive?</blockquote>

Verification