Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Horwath" data-source="post: 8833744" data-attributes="member: 6801299">sure, maybe all styles should be +prof to damage. except TWF.yeah, a little. but here reality needs to take a backseat for a little so thrown weapons can be an option to take. 30/120 is just horrible for ranged option.one attack per round that uses reaction. and damage reduction has been scaled down from d10 to d6needs a feat and fighting style. off hand still needs to be light.if we take new TWF feat and new GWM, and say tha GWF style give +prof bonus and that GWM bonus action attack triggers in 20% of rounds and you use your extra prof bonus every round for simplicity.that would give TWF (1d8+5)×2 and (1d6+5)×2 vs (2d6+5+3)×2 +prof(+3 lets say) and (2d6+5+3)×0,2TWF 19+17=36, GWF 30+3+3=36.GWF only needs one magic weapon vs. two, has better AoO, TWF has less overkill and can use more attack riders.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Horwath, post: 8833744, member: 6801299"] sure, maybe all styles should be +prof to damage. except TWF. yeah, a little. but here reality needs to take a backseat for a little so thrown weapons can be an option to take. 30/120 is just horrible for ranged option. one attack per round that uses reaction. and damage reduction has been scaled down from d10 to d6 needs a feat and fighting style. off hand still needs to be light. if we take new TWF feat and new GWM, and say tha GWF style give +prof bonus and that GWM bonus action attack triggers in 20% of rounds and you use your extra prof bonus every round for simplicity. that would give TWF (1d8+5)×2 and (1d6+5)×2 vs (2d6+5+3)×2 +prof(+3 lets say) and (2d6+5+3)×0,2 TWF 19+17=36, GWF 30+3+3=36. GWF only needs one magic weapon vs. two, has better AoO, TWF has less overkill and can use more attack riders. [/QUOTE]

Verification