D&D 5E GWM, SS, CEx: updated!

[TwoSix]

In which case my concern is legitimate because fighter buffs may never materialize after the removal of GWM and SS.

Sure, but there's no world where GWM and SS get changed except as a house rule; any DM savvy enough to make targeted changes to feats for balance purposes for their own games is probably also savvy enough to take the knock-off effects of those changes on class balance into account.

 

[FrogReaver]

Sure, but there's no world where GWM and SS get changed except as a house rule; any DM savvy enough to make targeted changes to feats for balance purposes for their own games is probably also savvy enough to take the knock-off effects of those changes on class balance into account.

In which case you are back to arguing the changes are going to be bundled together. Jeez I wish you'd make up your mind...

 

[TwoSix]

In which case you are back to arguing the changes are going to be bundled together. Jeez I wish you'd make up your mind...

I'm going to be honest; I have no idea what your expectation for me here is. I was pretty sure I agreed with you.

 

[ro]

Your post brings up another good way to measure "how strong". Taking into consideration the extra point of damage and the extra 5% to hit, one ASI on the relevant ability is worth ~120 damage over an adventuring day. So we clearly want GWM to be worth more than 120 (because it lacks those other things that you point out the ability does.) How much more? How does "100% more!" grab you?

I don't think those other things are significant enough to merit "100% more". In fact, I think they are mostly ribbon features.

The problem that this tweak is designed to solve is to avoid ranged characters being as good in melee as melee characters. Each group might have different tastes. For me, I like to be able to say that "Melee weapons, are best in melee." Or I ask questions, like "How good are melee weapons at range?"

We have a difference of opinion on how to address this issue, mine being that the negation of close-range disadvantage should exist in a feat somewhere, though it doesn't have to be this one. Here's a compromise idea that I think may meet your goals of keeping range from overtaking melee up close:

Crossbow Expert
You ignore the loading quality of crossbows with which you are proficient.
When you use the Attack action to attack with a one-handed weapon, you can use a bonus action to load and attack with a hand crossbow you are holding.
Once per turn, being within 5 feet of a creature doesn’t impose disadvantage on your ranged attack roll.​

This still allows for a low-end ranged character to benefit, including spellcasting and single-attack classes trapped in melee, but does not allow a beefed up SS/CE three-attack archer to function normally in melee.

 

[FrogReaver]

[MENTION=205]TwoSix[/MENTION]

Frogreave says - if you change feats without changing fighters then fighters will suck
TwoSix says - change the feats first then look at fighter's balance
Frogreaver says - no don't do that, instead change the feats and the fighter balance at the same time
TwoSix says - that's just not goina happen in the real world
Frogreaver says - that means my concern is real that changing these feats is going to make fighters suck
TwoSix says - nah, the DM will just change them both at the same time

I mean Whiskey Tango Foxtrot!

 

[Sadras]

I mean Whiskey Tango Foxtrot!

Sometimes whiskey is all you need.

 

[TwoSix]

[MENTION=205]TwoSix[/MENTION]

Frogreave says - if you change feats without changing fighters then fighters will suck
TwoSix says - change the feats first then look at fighter's balance
Frogreaver says - no don't do that, instead change the feats and the fighter balance at the same time
TwoSix says - that's just not goina happen in the real world
Frogreaver says - that means my concern is real that changing these feats is going to make fighters suck
TwoSix says - nah, the DM will just change them both at the same time

I mean Whiskey Tango Foxtrot!

Fairly accurate. I would say only I don't think it's [MENTION=71699]vonklaude[/MENTION] 's job to fix the fighter, or address class balance at all in the context of this thread. You seem to feel (or are presenting yourself as feeling) that it's somehow irresponsible to address one issue with addressing other balance issues simultaneously. I don't agree. If the feats are addressed, another discussion can be opened about addressing class balance within the context of those corrected feats.

After all, it's not like the discussion here impacts anyone's game, it's purely theory and discussion. Any DM who chooses to adopt the changes listed in the thread puts the onus on themselves to address any other issues that may arise.

 

[Oofta]

Share your data and scenario assumptions. That's what the "justified" word in the title of this thread is about. Pics or it didn't happen.

I will. Just adding a couple more monsters and double checking my logs.

But the simulation tried to cover aspects that usually get glossed over including knocking prone, critical hits, being attacked by the monster, second wind, action surges, etc, etc, etc. In other words, while it's a narrow slice (dwarven fighter, same beginning stats, no magic or other aide) I did try to make it an accurate slice.

 

[Guest 6801328]

I think what TwoSix meant was: pretend GWM doesn't exist and see where fighter damage is, then figure out a new feat (or something) that would bring fighters up to your target DPR. He is treating that as TWO steps during theorycrafting.

FrogReaver (if I have this right) was focused on what happens next when you actually change the rules: delete GWM, insert new Feat, at the same time.

 

[Oofta]

Share your data and scenario assumptions. That's what the "justified" word in the title of this thread is about. Pics or it didn't happen.

One log sample and the results of the different styles vs a troll with the fighter at 10th level. Go through the log and tell me if I did something wrong (and I just added the Troll last night). I'm a developer, so it's not real until it's been through QA.

The one thing I haven't simulated is multiple monsters so that the bonus attack for GWM could come into play. I was going to add it, but considering how poorly they do on my simulation I don't think it would change overall numbers much.

The results after 1,000 simulated fights. This is pretty typical, although the shield and two weapon are frequently much closer.
[TABLE="width: 500"]
[TR]
[TD]level[/TD]
[TD]style[/TD]
[TD]monster[/TD]
[TD]PC wins[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]10[/TD]
[TD]GreatWeapon[/TD]
[TD]Troll[/TD]
[TD]66.65%[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]10[/TD]
[TD]Shield[/TD]
[TD]Troll[/TD]
[TD]83%[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]10[/TD]
[TD]Two-Weapon[/TD]
[TD]Troll[/TD]
[TD]88.02%[/TD]
[/TR]
[/TABLE]

View attachment Fight Log.txt

Anyway more numbers later. But feel free to let me know how my log shows how I f'ed up the fight. Please.