Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="FormerlyHemlock" data-source="post: 6631289" data-attributes="member: 6787650">Two points:No, I don't think GWM and SS are broken. I've never seen anyone take them who isn't a fighter, ranger, barbarian, or paladin, and the paladin isn't even good at exploiting the feat. If SS/GWM was broken you'd expect Rogues, monks, and clerics to take it too. Second, I was responding to the idea of nerfing it until the bonus damage stops &quot;completely negating&quot; the to-hit penalty, wherever that point may be for your games' mix of monster ACs. If you're just trying to limit the DPR boost instead of eliminate it then yeah, you could tinker with the numbers to accomplish that goal. Of course.RE: repercussions, I sometimes see the exact same people complaining sharpshooter and &quot;caster dominance,&quot; so no, I don't get the impression that nerfing fighters is an intended goal. If it is then fine, ban away.Sent from my LS670 using Tapatalk 2</blockquote>

[QUOTE="FormerlyHemlock, post: 6631289, member: 6787650"] Two points: No, I don't think GWM and SS are broken. I've never seen anyone take them who isn't a fighter, ranger, barbarian, or paladin, and the paladin isn't even good at exploiting the feat. If SS/GWM was broken you'd expect Rogues, monks, and clerics to take it too. Second, I was responding to the idea of nerfing it until the bonus damage stops "completely negating" the to-hit penalty, wherever that point may be for your games' mix of monster ACs. If you're just trying to limit the DPR boost instead of eliminate it then yeah, you could tinker with the numbers to accomplish that goal. Of course. RE: repercussions, I sometimes see the exact same people complaining sharpshooter and "caster dominance," so no, I don't get the impression that nerfing fighters is an intended goal. If it is then fine, ban away. Sent from my LS670 using Tapatalk 2 [/QUOTE]

Verification