Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="DDNFan" data-source="post: 6314538" data-attributes="member: 6776483">I'm basically forced to pick Polearm master now, despite my wish to focus on greataxes. My ranger in the playtests firstly doesn't have a favored enemy benefit that scales with weapon selection, it's fixed at d6, which is plain dumb. Secondly if I consider what to do at next level, 4, do I boost strength to 18 or take a feat, the only one comparable to +1 to hit and +1 damage is the polearm master feat, because dual wielder is more like +1 or +.75 to damage only (1d8 1d8 1d6 for battle axe battle axe hand axe whilst dual wielding), or do I take polearm master, and not only do I get my benefit from favored enemy proc more often (threatening reach), when it does it's at 1d10, and even without threatening reach, I have 1d10 1d10 1d4 which is equivalent to 1d8 1d8 1d8 battleaxe attacks, but with a single heavy weapon, yet with reach still, and also benefits from finding a +1 weapon. Granted +1 polearms are rarer than +1 battleaxes, but only by 4%.The real absurdity is that the magic item table consider it's reasonable that 4% of magic loot is a magic greatsword or a magic greataxe, while a magic greatsword would be strictly better in terms of damage, so why would anyone bother making such a weapon to begin with? It boggles the mind that nobody has spend a single second applying any sort of critical reasoning skills to either the weapon table or the magic weapon drop table.</blockquote>

Verification