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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Ovinomancer" data-source="post: 7522737" data-attributes="member: 16814">You haven't played 5e at all, yet.  Dipping happens exactly no times in your game.I think planning what you're going to do now is a bit premature, then.  I have no problem with houserules -- I have had a few myself, and will have a few in my upcoming campaign.  I like houserules, but it's worth cautioning new players that drastic houserules will have drastic effects. \They aren't, really.  They have long term impacts.  Yes, GWF has a low average effect, but it can have an amazing effect, turning a 1 to a 12, which is remembered.  Averages are not what actually happens at the table.  Further, pluses to damage are increased with extra attacks.  If you play to Tier III or IV, your fighting styles will be adding rather large amounts of additional damage due to extra attack.  As I said, 5e has a subtle balance, and you need to take in the holistic effects of early class abilities to understand their full impacts.  For fighting styles, consider what they'll do over a campaign where fighters will be attacked more often than other classes (substantially increasing the benefit of a small bump to AC) and attack more often (substantially increasing the impact of a small bonus to damage/attack).  Frontloading because it seems to make fighters better at low levels will bite you as early as Tier II.  I have plenty of experience with 5e and making changes to it.  For example, many of your fighting styles are similar to high end magic items, like +3 armor or +3 weapons.  I've personally seen the distortion those can have, so doubling up on them is easy to guess.  One of my houserules, for example, is no pluses to armor or weapons.  Extra dice of damage or nifty effects are neat and don't unbalance to core math engine behind bounded accuracy.  So, yes, I can evaluate the impact your changes will likely have.  What I can't evaluate is if you'd care.  I would, so I offer my observations and cautions.You are, of course, free to ignore them.I do not, because I do not fully understand what your goal for the change is.  You've so far talked about what changes you'd make, but not what the goal behind those changes really is.  I can guess it's that you think fighters should be hitting harder and be tankier, but that's a guess.  If that's so, then I'd recommend much smaller changes -- fighters already hit hard and tank pretty well (although there's the counterintuitive example of the barbarian being the better tank, but that's due to resistance to damage and how bounded accuracy reduces the impact of AC unless it's very high).To be perfectly frank, you come across as less of a DM looking to improve gameplay than a player wanting to play a fighter and looking for support for power-ups to the class to pitch to your DM.  I say this because all of your posts so far have been about improving the fighter and nothing at all on how the game plays (something a new DM to 5e usually asks) or why the sorcerer doesn't do what it says on the tin (instead of being the easy wizard, it's a class that almost requires non-intuitive/non-precedent play to get the most out of it).</blockquote>

Verification