Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Ancalagon" data-source="post: 7195502" data-attributes="member: 23">Here we are, the final countdown.&nbsp; Thank you for your patience. So featless Rodrigo went &quot;wait a minute, I have maneuvers too! Ha-ya!&quot;. But instead of using precision - he already is pretty good at hitting - he decided to use a maneuver that gives him *damage*. And well... suddenly GWM isn't so awesome anymore. I mean it's still decent, but it's not that stark.[ATTACH]87143[/ATTACH]It's also worth noting that several of the damaging maneuvers only have to be declared when you hit - so there is no chance of a &quot;wasted&quot; maneuver dice. A precision maneuver may fail (ie you need 3 more to hit but you roll a 2 on your d8). Furthermore, several of the damaging maneuvers also can impose negative conditions on the target - fear, being tripped etc. At this point someone may say &quot;but what if GWM Rodrigo uses precision and damaging maneuvers!&quot; OR a bard inspiration, the luck feat etc etc etc. Sure. But you always have to compare that to featless Rodrigo *also* using more maneuvers, bard juice etc etc etc. And that is THE KEY ELEMENT that seems to be always missing from these analysis - we need to compare like with like. First people were comparing base attacks to GWM + advantage. I showed that if both had advantage, the difference wasn't so great. Then other bonuses got piled on - but again, if you compare PROPERLY it's not such a big difference.There also comes a point where it's ridiculous to pile too much stuff into a single attack.&nbsp; For example Rodrigo could have had the lucky feat and used it too.&nbsp; Sure but now Rodrigo only has 16 strength... and wouldn't you want to spread out those bonus rolls?&nbsp; Or better yet, keep it for something more important than a single attack, like a key skill check or save? So in conclusion, I used to think that GWM was OP - maybe not as broken as some made it out to be, but still too good.&nbsp; Now... maybe it's OP?</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Ancalagon, post: 7195502, member: 23"] Here we are, the final countdown. Thank you for your patience. So featless Rodrigo went "wait a minute, I have maneuvers too! Ha-ya!". But instead of using precision - he already is pretty good at hitting - he decided to use a maneuver that gives him *damage*. And well... suddenly GWM isn't so awesome anymore. I mean it's still decent, but it's not that stark. [ATTACH=CONFIG]87143._xfImport[/ATTACH] It's also worth noting that several of the damaging maneuvers only have to be declared when you hit - so there is no chance of a "wasted" maneuver dice. A precision maneuver may fail (ie you need 3 more to hit but you roll a 2 on your d8). Furthermore, several of the damaging maneuvers also can impose negative conditions on the target - fear, being tripped etc. At this point someone may say "but what if GWM Rodrigo uses precision and damaging maneuvers!" OR a bard inspiration, the luck feat etc etc etc. Sure. But you always have to compare that to featless Rodrigo *also* using more maneuvers, bard juice etc etc etc. And that is THE KEY ELEMENT that seems to be always missing from these analysis - we need to compare like with like. First people were comparing base attacks to GWM + advantage. I showed that if both had advantage, the difference wasn't so great. Then other bonuses got piled on - but again, if you compare PROPERLY it's not such a big difference. There also comes a point where it's ridiculous to pile too much stuff into a single attack. For example Rodrigo could have had the lucky feat and used it too. Sure but now Rodrigo only has 16 strength... and wouldn't you want to spread out those bonus rolls? Or better yet, keep it for something more important than a single attack, like a key skill check or save? So in conclusion, I used to think that GWM was OP - maybe not as broken as some made it out to be, but still too good. Now... maybe it's OP? [/QUOTE]

Verification