Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="shoak1" data-source="post: 6915703" data-attributes="member: 54380">Actually Capn Zapp if you notice I am no apologist for 5e - in fact I think (still) that the job they did on feats is crap.  I didn't run those numbers with an "agenda," but if I did have a bias, it was that GWM is imbalanced.  I thought (hoped?) that it was imbalanced.....But I kept an open mind, took reasonable statistics based on expected ACs at certain levels, as well as access to magic items, etc, and ran the numbers objectively.  And it led me to a different conclusion than I expected. If you do think the numbers I indicated were a "crock," then which numbers specifically? The +8 to hit for a martial PC at L5 ?  The ACs for monsters of appropriate CR level (which are in line w/the CR recommendations from the DMG and actually much LOWER than the guy whose post I responded to)?  The rest is basic math and not subjective.Having said all that, the feats have a laundry list of other problems, such as relative balance to each other, the way they tend to only support certain lines of play/weapons, etc.  I just don't think any longer than GWM is imbalanced for combat mathematically.  I wish it was imbalanced to be honest - it would better help support my contention that the feat list = crap.So tell me where I erred CapnZapp, so I can get back on the GWM Is Crap bandwagon - I miss you guys already <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=":)" /></blockquote>

Verification