Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Oofta" data-source="post: 7436228" data-attributes="member: 6801845">I pretty much ignore CapnZapp's threads because they're pretty much the same: 5E is broken for one reason or another.&nbsp; But I thought I throw in my 2 coppers for his two primary beefs.What else could be expected?&nbsp; The DM needs to adjust difficulty level for their group.&nbsp; In what edition was this not the case?&nbsp; I use stock monsters all the time.&nbsp; For one group I'll throw a few more at them or use slightly better tactics.&nbsp; It's simple.I also agree that there are a handful of perceived optimal builds.&nbsp; Want to reward that dagger thrower?&nbsp; Set up scenarios where openly carrying large weapons is forbidden or difficult.&nbsp; Or let thrown weapons count as ranged weapons for purposes sharp shooter.&nbsp; Or just don't worry about it.&nbsp; A longbow should probably be more dangerous than daggers.On the other hand I disagree that, for example, GWM is always better than two-weapon fighting.&nbsp; It varies by level and average target ACs, and support received by other characters.&nbsp; In many cases GWM will be better then TWF by a point or two if it really matters. But people that crunch numbers IMHO also tend to over-emphasize the difference.&nbsp; &nbsp; In my personal experience (which may not match anyone else's) the difference between the different fighting styles is so small most people won't notice.I have more of a problem with sharp shooter. It feels like a feat tax for ranged weapon attackers.&nbsp; But the fact that 5E has a few warts doesn't really bother me; I don't see the issues in real play.&nbsp; It would be interesting to see analysis from DnDBeyond, but other than that I don't know if there's any way of knowing how skewed the builds are.&nbsp;&nbsp; I and my friends will continue building characters that sound fun even if they do fall a few points behind the curve.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Oofta, post: 7436228, member: 6801845"] I pretty much ignore CapnZapp's threads because they're pretty much the same: 5E is broken for one reason or another. But I thought I throw in my 2 coppers for his two primary beefs. What else could be expected? The DM needs to adjust difficulty level for their group. In what edition was this not the case? I use stock monsters all the time. For one group I'll throw a few more at them or use slightly better tactics. It's simple. I also agree that there are a handful of [I]perceived[/I] optimal builds. Want to reward that dagger thrower? Set up scenarios where openly carrying large weapons is forbidden or difficult. Or let thrown weapons count as ranged weapons for purposes sharp shooter. Or just don't worry about it. A longbow should probably be more dangerous than daggers. On the other hand I disagree that, for example, GWM is [I]always[/I] better than two-weapon fighting. It varies by level and average target ACs, and support received by other characters. In many cases GWM will be better then TWF by a point or two if it really matters. But people that crunch numbers IMHO also tend to over-emphasize the difference. In my personal experience (which may not match anyone else's) the difference between the different fighting styles is so small most people won't notice. I have more of a problem with sharp shooter. It feels like a feat tax for ranged weapon attackers. But the fact that 5E has a few warts doesn't really bother me; I don't see the issues in real play. It would be interesting to see analysis from DnDBeyond, but other than that I don't know if there's any way of knowing how skewed the builds are. I and my friends will continue building characters that sound fun even if they do fall a few points behind the curve. [/QUOTE]

Verification