• Welcome to this new upgrade of the site. We are now on a totally different software platform. Many things will be different, and bugs are expected. Certain areas (like downloads and reviews) will take longer to import. As always, please use the Meta Forum for site queries or bug reports. Note that we (the mods and admins) are also learning the new software.
  • The RSS feed for the news page has changed. Use this link. The old one displays the forums, not the news.

Homebrew Another attempt at fixing the -5 / +10 issue

FrogReaver

Explorer
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..
The fighter with precision attack is actually worse than the barbarian early and he scales without bonus action interference and maintains that +2 ASI lead for a decent portion of the career. Even longer for non-variant humans.

Thus, IMO your proposed change is not balanced.
 

GlassJaw

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

FrogReaver

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

5ekyu

Explorer
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.
TheGM can already chose your new "solution" option of just banning them. So, really the new part would be using them and you open them up to all, not just a few styles.

So, back to the new solution being having more of it in play across a wider group of builds or banning it.

Course, if it takes an extra fest, that makes the human feat variant even more appealing- so more ofvthstnond, fewer of all the rest.

Agsin, I wonder why not make it a non-feat aspect. If all the combat hitters are gonna get it now, make it core and adjust upward the overall estimations - that will need to be re-evaluated anyway.
 

GlassJaw

Explorer
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.
But the damage is more consistent and less swingy. Also less likely to make a mess of your boss encounters. Plus it scales better from 1-20.
 

5ekyu

Explorer
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.
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.
 

FrogReaver

Explorer
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"?
It's a combo thing. If you invest in -5/+10 you have to invest in accuracy too or the investment doesn't really pay off.
 

FrogReaver

Explorer
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.
Give me what you feel is a fair AC distribution for the test case. I already have it set up to use any.
 

TwoSix

Lover of things you hate
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.
Just for the record, I don't think anyone is advocating for the variable power attack of 3e. -Prof/+2*Prof is a fixed -2/+4 until level 5, when it becomes -3/+6. It changes with level, but it can't be varied by the player.


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.
True, but the fights that matter are also going to feature greater resource expenditure on buffs. Better scaling with accuracy is one of the primary perks of the -X/+2X construction.
 

77IM

Explorer
I always liked the idea of -5/+(1 damage die). This makes the maneuver actually bad in the general case, although it's still good if your attack bonus is buffed way higher than the enemy's AC. It's also another subtle buff to the greataxe over the greatsword.

I like the OP's idea of introducing this trade-off into the other pillars, but those pillars very distinctly lack any sort of consistent degree-of-success mechanic. Occasionally a check will say "If you succeed by 5 or more..." but I don't think that's widely adopted enough to make the -5/+10 formula work here.

I really wish that "skill crits" were a thing. If you roll a 20 on an ability check, it should feel special (or if you have Expertise, a 19-20). Then the trade-off could just be -5/+crit. The meaning there is pretty clear: you're taking a really risky approach that might have a better payoff. I'm not sure this sort of thing should be gated by a feat, though. It seems like id't work better as just a thing in the DM's toolbox. Like, "If the player describes a risky approach with a big payoff, increase the DC by 5, but if they succeed, they get an extra benefit, such as..."
 

Quartz

Explorer
I like the OP's idea of introducing this trade-off into the other pillars, but those pillars very distinctly lack any sort of consistent degree-of-success mechanic. Occasionally a check will say "If you succeed by 5 or more..." but I don't think that's widely adopted enough to make the -5/+10 formula work here.
I had opposed skill checks in mind, where you roll to see who gets the better score. Say the DC to lift something is X, but the more by which you exceed X the better.
 

TheSword

Villager
I used to think the -5/+10 was broken as a DM. Until I was a player. I’m pretty convinced now that sneak attack, attack cantrips, etc balance this out with other classes and actually the extra damage is needed against high hp/low AC monsters like giants. I’m leaving this feat alone for now.
 

Xeviat

Explorer
I never suggested -Prof/+2xProf to be variable. It's fixed at your proficiency bonus.

Additionally, -5/+10 should be better than 0/0 because it is part of a feat. If we were trying to balance a universal mechanic, that might actually help out the duelists and twfers, then we would be wanting to compare those two directly. What we should be comparing is -5/+10 to +1/+1.
 

FrogReaver

Explorer
I never suggested -Prof/+2xProf to be variable. It's fixed at your proficiency bonus.

Additionally, -5/+10 should be better than 0/0 because it is part of a feat. If we were trying to balance a universal mechanic, that might actually help out the duelists and twfers, then we would be wanting to compare those two directly. What we should be comparing is -5/+10 to +1/+1.
Yes, but more importantly we should be comparing TWF with a built in bonus action with -5/+10 to various setups of classes without that built in bonus action.
 

Xeviat

Explorer
Yes, but more importantly we should be comparing TWF with a built in bonus action with -5/+10 to various setups of classes without that built in bonus action.

I don't think TWFing should get a -5/+10 feat. I don't think that should be usable with one-handed weapons and I don't like it stacked with polearm mastery.

TWFing needs a universal fix and a better feat, but -5/+10 isn't the answer.
 

FrogReaver

Explorer
I don't think TWFing should get a -5/+10 feat. I don't think that should be usable with one-handed weapons and I don't like it stacked with polearm mastery.

TWFing needs a universal fix and a better feat, but -5/+10 isn't the answer.
This thread is about a proposed feat that separates out the -5/+10. I'm not sure how comparing -5/+10 to +1/+1 (which is a solved problem in favor of -5/+10) is going to do anything.
 

Quartz

Explorer
I had opposed skill checks in mind, where you roll to see who gets the better score. Say the DC to lift something is X, but the more by which you exceed X the better.
Maybe 'Apply Disadvantage and add 10 to the result' might be better?
 

Xeviat

Explorer
This thread is about a proposed feat that separates out the -5/+10. I'm not sure how comparing -5/+10 to +1/+1 (which is a solved problem in favor of -5/+10) is going to do anything.
You're proposing separating -5/+10 out into it's own feat, which means TWFing characters could pick it up.

I said I don't think TWFing should have access to -5/+10. So I wouldn't like your change.
 

Advertisement

Top