D&D (2024) How is Flex still a thing?

[Chaosmancer]

No. You design something like the Warlock, where you have a solid, reliable "button mashing" mechanic and then a small, focused, rarely changing list of features.

The Warlock is the "flex" of casters.

If you want a simple class without many choices and abilities to remember, you don't pick the pact magic warlock. You can, but the sheer number of choices and abilities you get will be overwhelming to a player who can't remember to use cunning action as a rogue.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

Other people have pointed this out, but I think you and others are missing the point. Sometimes simple (ie. boring) is a strength all on it's own. Mechanically, it's not as strong as some others. But there is a huge advantage to having an always-on ability you don't have to think about.

I don't argue against simple.

I argue that flex takes away what makes those weapons interesting: having the option to dual wield them for extra effect.
Increase the 2-hand damage by one step too and I am fine with that.

Actually I have the same beed with duelling fighting style:

Use a verstaile weapon in two hands and you deal less damage. At least this is how I read it.

 

[Stalker0]

I don't argue against simple.

I argue that flex takes away what makes those weapons interesting: having the option to dual wield them for extra effect.
Increase the 2-hand damage by one step too and I am fine with that.

Actually I have the same beed with duelling fighting style:

Use a verstaile weapon in two hands and you deal less damage. At least this is how I read it.

Hmm interesting ideas:

Flex: Use the versatile property of the weapon if its wielded in 1 hand. If wielded in 2 hands, +1 damage.

Dueling: +2 damage when wielding a weapon in one hand with no weapon in the other, or when using a versatile weapon in both hands.




Though personally I solved the whole dueling problem and the whole "you have to choose this weapon to get your bonus" by merging all of them into one mechanic.

My houserule:

Offense Fighting Style (replaces TWF, Dueling, and THF fighting styles)
Gain +2 damage on all melee attacks.

 

[Sorcerers Apprentice]

Great Weapon Master was not removed, and I have proven mathematically that if you do not have advantage, the new version does superior damage compared to the old version.

Can you show me this proof?

Anyway, using Great Weapon Master was all about securing advantage and/or some other reliable accuracy boosters, so my point stands. The new GWM gives a damage boost just slightly better than Flex.

 

[Horwath]

My houserule:

Offense Fighting Style (replaces TWF, Dueling, and THF fighting styles)
Gain +2 damage on all melee attacks.

I would rather have:

Pick one type of weapon:
One handed melee
Two handed melee
Ranged

Gain prof bonus to damage with chosen weapons.

 

[Chaosmancer]

Can you show me this proof?

Anyway, using Great Weapon Master was all about securing advantage and/or some other reliable accuracy boosters, so my point stands. The new GWM gives a damage boost just slightly better than Flex.

sigh

Yeah, I'll do the math again since I don't feel like digging it up.

Level 5, fighter, +4 mod, Greatsword, masteries are the same, fighting style is the same. Assuming 60% hit rate for normal, think the math was 84% for adv

Old GWM w/o ADV:
2d6+14 = 21
21 x 2 x 0.35 = 14.7
7 x 2 x 0.05 = 0.7
14.7 + 0.7 =15.4
Total: 15.4

New GWM w/o ADV:
2d6+4 = 11
11 x 2 x 0.6 = 13.2
7 x 2 x 0.05 = 0.7
.4 x .4 = 16% of both attacks missing
1-0.16 = 0.84
0.84 x 3 = 2.52
13.2 + 0.7 + 2.52 =
Total: 16.42


Old GWM w/ ADV
2d6+14 = 21
21 x 2 x 0.59 = 24.78
7 x 2 x 0.0975 = 1.365
24.78 + 1.365 = 26.145
Total: 26.145

New GWM w/ADV
2d6+4 = 11
11 x 2 x 0.84 = 18.48
7 x 2 x 0.0975 = 1.365
.16 x .16 = 2.56% of both attacks missing
1-0.16 = 0.9744
0.9744 x 3 = 2.9232
18.48 + 1.365 + 2.9232 = 22.7682



Anyways, it actually doesn't give a damage boost slightly better than flex.

New GWM is +0.8 with a single normal attack levels 1 thru 4, +2.52 with two attacks 5 thru 9, +3.744 with three attacks 11 through 15, ect

Flex (not typing all the math) is +0.65 with single attack 1 thru 4, +1.3 with two attacks at 5 thru 9, and +1.95 with three attacks.

I mean, sure, levels 1 thru 4 it is a difference of .15 which is small, but that quickly rises into being nearly double the bonus by level 5 and staying there. And if you don't account for the scaling number of attacks, say you are looking for a paladin, then the flex bonus remains a +1.3 and the GWM bonus tops out at +5.04

 

[Sorcerers Apprentice]

sigh

Yeah, I'll do the math again since I don't feel like digging it up.

Level 5, fighter, +4 mod, Greatsword, masteries are the same, fighting style is the same. Assuming 60% hit rate for normal, think the math was 84% for adv
...

Thanks! But this is not a mathematical proof, it's a single example. I must remain unconvinced.

 

[Remathilis]

Flex turns the Longsword into the equivalent of the 3.5 bastard sword. It's a d10 weapon that you can use two handed with just martial proficiency or one handed if you have taken specific training. The big difference is you can also use one handed without special training at -1 dice of damage.

I seem to recall bastard sword (and its cousin: dwarven waraxe) were fairly popular in 3.5.

 

[Stalker0]

Thanks! But this is not a mathematical proof, it's a single example. I must remain unconvinced.

What would you need to convince you? The person has provided the most common example in the game. What else do you require?

 

[Stalker0]

I seem to recall bastard sword (and its cousin: dwarven waraxe) were fairly popular in 3.5.

Bastard swords (using exotic weapon proficiency) was a feat you took if you were trying to eek out every bit of damage you could. We also ahve to remember that fighters got a LOT of feats in 3e compared to now, so the oppurtunity cost was lower.

One major difference in 3e though around "versatile" was that the difference between SB and THW was MUCH bigger than it is today.

Once you got a magical shield (which was much cheaper to add magic to and get more AC than other methods), losing it could lose you 4-5 AC. But on the other hand, you get +50% damage from your strength mod, and most important your power attack bonus was DOUBLED. You would do a tremendous amount more damage.

And so some characters were willing to make the trade in different combats. Some fights you would need to tank, and an extra 5 AC was absolutely worth it. Other times you wanted to rip monsters apart, and so you would drop the shield, grip two handed, and go to work.

In comparison, switching from 1H to 2H in 5e is.... pretty garbage. You get effectively a +1.1 damage at the cost of +2 AC, and if you had the dueling fighting style you are actually losing damage.

Well now with flex you basically have zero reason to actually switch from 1 H to 2H