Menu
News
All News
Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
Pathfinder
Starfinder
Warhammer
2d20 System
Year Zero Engine
Industry News
Reviews
Dragon Reflections
White Dwarf Reflections
Columns
Weekly Digests
Weekly News Digest
Freebies, Sales & Bundles
RPG Print News
RPG Crowdfunding News
Game Content
ENterplanetary DimENsions
Mythological Figures
Opinion
Worlds of Design
Peregrine's Nest
RPG Evolution
Other Columns
From the Freelancing Frontline
Monster ENcyclopedia
WotC/TSR Alumni Look Back
4 Hours w/RSD (Ryan Dancey)
The Road to 3E (Jonathan Tweet)
Greenwood's Realms (Ed Greenwood)
Drawmij's TSR (Jim Ward)
Community
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions, OSR, & D&D Variants
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Resources
Wiki
Pages
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Downloads
Latest reviews
Search resources
EN Publishing
Store
EN5ider
Adventures in ZEITGEIST
Awfully Cheerful Engine
What's OLD is NEW
Judge Dredd & The Worlds Of 2000AD
War of the Burning Sky
Level Up: Advanced 5E
Events & Releases
Upcoming Events
Private Events
Featured Events
Socials!
EN Publishing
Twitter
BlueSky
Facebook
Instagram
EN World
BlueSky
YouTube
Facebook
Twitter
Twitch
Podcast
Features
Top 5 RPGs Compiled Charts 2004-Present
Adventure Game Industry Market Research Summary (RPGs) V1.0
Ryan Dancey: Acquiring TSR
Q&A With Gary Gygax
D&D Rules FAQs
TSR, WotC, & Paizo: A Comparative History
D&D Pronunciation Guide
Million Dollar TTRPG Kickstarters
Tabletop RPG Podcast Hall of Fame
Eric Noah's Unofficial D&D 3rd Edition News
D&D in the Mainstream
D&D & RPG History
About Morrus
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions, OSR, & D&D Variants
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
NOW LIVE! Today's the day you meet your new best friend. You don’t have to leave Wolfy behind... In 'Pets & Sidekicks' your companions level up with you!
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
Pathfinder 2e: Actual Play Experience
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Celtavian" data-source="post: 8000997" data-attributes="member: 5834"><p>This what I don't understand. Why would you want a game with choices that so clearly outclass other choices if you don't play that way? Why would you want them to exist?</p><p></p><p>Let's talk within the context of the game it sounds like you play right now.</p><p></p><p>Say a guy wants to make a two-weapon wielder in 5E. He makes a regular fighter. Buys the two-weapon feat that let's him at least use two equal sized weapons. He gets to use his bonus action to attack with two-longswords for 1d8+strength each. With <em>bless</em> he gets the same +1d4 as the rest of the party. He hits twice a round averaging 1d8+4 per attack for 17 points of damage per round.</p><p></p><p>Here comes Mr. Two-hander paladin with Great Weapon Master. He's using a two-handed sword with bless. This reduces his negative attack roll by an average of 2. So when he uses GWM, he is -5/+10 damage. His average hit is 1d12+14. Every time he hits he does 20 points of damage not including smites with a -3 to hit absent advantage.</p><p></p><p>This means each hit from the GWM is more valuable than two strikes from the two-hander fighter for a slight reduction to hit. This gap just increases if you add in smites and critical hits. So it is better for the party to focus on getting the GWM fighter more hits than the two-weapon fighter in every single situation.</p><p></p><p>That is optimization. So the player playing a two-weapon fighter is suddenly a chump who made bad choices as a player because they are bad choices to be made. In fact, the only good choice is the GWM two-hander fighter, every other choice is basically a bad choice. To some this is building a great character, but to me it means there are more sub-optimal choices in the game than optimal choices. It's not even about optimal choices for what you want to do like say two-weapon fighting. It's more that there is only one type of fighting that is optimal and if you're not doing it, then you're not competitive. I think that type of game design is poor. I find it limits character variability and punishes players who may want to play a two-weapon fighter because they liked Mad Martigan in Willow or Drizz't Do'urden in The Forgotten Realms or some sword and shield using knight in Arthurian legend. It's basically saying only Conan or some big two-hander guy is truly powerful within the context of the world and everyone else is some chump.</p><p></p><p>I don't like that type of game design. I much prefer a type of game design where you can pick a fighting style or character type that is a relative power level where you do things differently, but not sub-optimally. If the two-weapon fighter and the two-hander fighter do roughly the same amount of damage with maybe the two-hander guy getting a higher weapon die while two-weapon guy gets an additional attack, then we have much closer balance and less of a feeling of the two-weapon guy being mathematically less valuable than the two-hander guy in nearly every circumstance.</p><p></p><p>Players aren't dumb. They know when they're numbers are a good deal lower than another player's numbers. It ruins many player's enjoyment of the game and makes them feel like a less valuable contributor to the most important parts of the games: battles against the BBEG. It also decreases character choice by making the same choices optimal over and over again and forcing players to fit character concepts to powerful mechanics rather than the mechanics supporting whatever character concept they want today. I don't get why some want that in the game. </p><p></p><p>I played with this type of play for all of 3E. I didn't mind it at first because in 2E two-weapon fighters were supreme, so it was a refreshing change to see two-hander fighters being on top. Now I've seen that for ten plus years. Now I'd like see all fighting styles relatively balanced, so people can play what they want and not have to watch someone else double their numbers or more. I'm happy to see the fighting styles much tighter now and less encouraging of optimal playstyles.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Celtavian, post: 8000997, member: 5834"] This what I don't understand. Why would you want a game with choices that so clearly outclass other choices if you don't play that way? Why would you want them to exist? Let's talk within the context of the game it sounds like you play right now. Say a guy wants to make a two-weapon wielder in 5E. He makes a regular fighter. Buys the two-weapon feat that let's him at least use two equal sized weapons. He gets to use his bonus action to attack with two-longswords for 1d8+strength each. With [i]bless[/i] he gets the same +1d4 as the rest of the party. He hits twice a round averaging 1d8+4 per attack for 17 points of damage per round. Here comes Mr. Two-hander paladin with Great Weapon Master. He's using a two-handed sword with bless. This reduces his negative attack roll by an average of 2. So when he uses GWM, he is -5/+10 damage. His average hit is 1d12+14. Every time he hits he does 20 points of damage not including smites with a -3 to hit absent advantage. This means each hit from the GWM is more valuable than two strikes from the two-hander fighter for a slight reduction to hit. This gap just increases if you add in smites and critical hits. So it is better for the party to focus on getting the GWM fighter more hits than the two-weapon fighter in every single situation. That is optimization. So the player playing a two-weapon fighter is suddenly a chump who made bad choices as a player because they are bad choices to be made. In fact, the only good choice is the GWM two-hander fighter, every other choice is basically a bad choice. To some this is building a great character, but to me it means there are more sub-optimal choices in the game than optimal choices. It's not even about optimal choices for what you want to do like say two-weapon fighting. It's more that there is only one type of fighting that is optimal and if you're not doing it, then you're not competitive. I think that type of game design is poor. I find it limits character variability and punishes players who may want to play a two-weapon fighter because they liked Mad Martigan in Willow or Drizz't Do'urden in The Forgotten Realms or some sword and shield using knight in Arthurian legend. It's basically saying only Conan or some big two-hander guy is truly powerful within the context of the world and everyone else is some chump. I don't like that type of game design. I much prefer a type of game design where you can pick a fighting style or character type that is a relative power level where you do things differently, but not sub-optimally. If the two-weapon fighter and the two-hander fighter do roughly the same amount of damage with maybe the two-hander guy getting a higher weapon die while two-weapon guy gets an additional attack, then we have much closer balance and less of a feeling of the two-weapon guy being mathematically less valuable than the two-hander guy in nearly every circumstance. Players aren't dumb. They know when they're numbers are a good deal lower than another player's numbers. It ruins many player's enjoyment of the game and makes them feel like a less valuable contributor to the most important parts of the games: battles against the BBEG. It also decreases character choice by making the same choices optimal over and over again and forcing players to fit character concepts to powerful mechanics rather than the mechanics supporting whatever character concept they want today. I don't get why some want that in the game. I played with this type of play for all of 3E. I didn't mind it at first because in 2E two-weapon fighters were supreme, so it was a refreshing change to see two-hander fighters being on top. Now I've seen that for ten plus years. Now I'd like see all fighting styles relatively balanced, so people can play what they want and not have to watch someone else double their numbers or more. I'm happy to see the fighting styles much tighter now and less encouraging of optimal playstyles. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
Pathfinder 2e: Actual Play Experience
Top