Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="juggerulez" data-source="post: 6734186" data-attributes="member: 98250">let's assume yours are correct for the sake of the argument, in what way they should disprove my theory? I'm missing the point.Hunter's Mark is situational since it's not a cantrip.+2 dex is overall better, mechanics wise, yes! But this is not the point at hand.I'm speaking about Feats because we were speaking about a level 1-3 character and the only way to introduce a feat in that context is by rolling as human. As a human you get +1 on two stats and a feat OR +2 in all stats, and since there are no feats that provide you with more than +1 on a stat, you can't go over 17 even if you try, implying you're using the standard statistics builder (the formally known as '15 15 15 8 8 8 set' :v ).I know GWM is better, I told you so... roughly 68% times better if you want the odds. What I told also was that it gets disqualified because it handles a to hit ratio I wasn't going to contemplate in my explanation, but it was still mentioned because it's awesomely better.GFW provides BAs? Yes! Should you contemplate it in your statistics? no! because it's a situational event, not something you will bring to the table all the times. no it's not. It was just for the sake of the argument <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f600.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":D" title="Big grin    :D"  data-smilie="8"data-shortname=":D" />A paladin could go for magic initiate (druid) to get shillelagh to better her dps output, but that's not the end of it: I personally would go for guidance and goodberry (goodberry abuse? yes please) but thorn whip is a sweet control cantrip too!Level dip, though, it's definitely a big no-no <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=":)" /> I couldn't agree more but many don't even consider the implications of what *we* consider a "competitive option"... they simply go with their guts, something I've long forgotten how to do. <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=":)" />Cleave is *not* easy to quantify. you can't contemplate that it has a constant upkeep by simply watching the criteria it has: you must fall someone to 0hp or less and have someone else in reach to discharge a melee weapon strike as a BA.you can't make any assessment that involves the use of cleave as a reliable source of dpr, it's simply too inconsistent <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