Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="pming" data-source="post: 6734247" data-attributes="member: 45197">Hiya.So am I to take it, by your 'cutsie' reply, that you disagree with me? (or is this some kind of internet pick up line... if so... it's working... *wink wink* <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f609.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=";)" title="Wink    ;)"  data-smilie="2"data-shortname=";)" /> ).Seriously though, in my experience of DM'ing one "GWF" Goliath Barbarian (Rage, of course), vs. the generally two-weapon fighting Bard (yes, BARD), GWF didn't upset anything. He was a beast at dealing damage...when he could. That said, there was a LOT of game play in which he couldn't (such as when, oh, there wasn't any combat). But even when there was combat...he did damage, but he most definitely didn't "overshadow" others in the group as far as the "grand scheme of things" was concerned, including the 2WF 'bard' (who, btw, didn't even *have* 2WF...but fought that way for character reasons).Does GWF have better "DPS" than a 2WF guy? Sure, I guess...as long as we are making absurd assumptions. Like, "I will always hit my opponent and will never get disarmed or be in a position where I can't swing my massive weapon". Alas (or, thankfully!) an RPG session usually has a LOT more going on. I believe the original question/post had something about the "grand scheme of things". So, in this regard, no. GWF is not "unbalanced" against 2WF as far as my experience goes (and, as I said, same character, about a year of play, every weekend). I'm guessing your experience is different? Or are you just spouting off numbers and statistical data without any regard for how an "actual game session and campaign" plays out? If so...perhaps rephrasing your original question to not include "grand scheme" might be in order, because otherwise your conclusions of "balance" is going to be for naught.As a final note, we've (my group and I) have found that 5e plays out a lot like 1e AD&D does; everyone seems to have a "thing" they are good at, but nobody is good at everything. PC classes compliment others better than they compliment themselves. For example, it was much better for the Cleric to cast Protection from Evil on the barbarian when they fought a huge, multi-tenticled swamp 'god'. She could have cast it on herself, but the barbarian was the big 'damage dealer'. That was his job. It was his "thing". Him surviving longer was better for everyone...even if it meant the cleric went down a few rounds later. Teamwork prevailed, and that's what we are finding. Taking GWF gives you a good "big damage" focus...but you're giving up other things (different Feats or Ability score improvements). Taking 2WF would give you more opportunity to hit, which would make a difference if your weapon has something that is based on connecting with the enemy rather than dealing lots of damage (ex; poison, or some magic effect that triggers on a hit of 5 or more over your opponents AC, etc). It's all a trade off, and balanced...in the grand scheme of things. <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=":)" />^_^Paul L. Ming</blockquote>

Verification