Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Warpiglet" data-source="post: 7436611" data-attributes="member: 6689161">I think there is value in having some choices be less powerful.  Granted this is a fantasy game, but how many individuals on a battlefield ran around throwing daggers?  Correct, probably none. Many knights had a dagger for finishing a kill.  A rogue doing sneak attack damage is another matter and rules increase damage in this case substantially.At a certain point it becomes absurd.  Why shouldn't my unarmored peasant with a dagger do as much damage and be as hard to hit as a knight in chain with shield and longsword?  Some limitations and differences are there for some sense of a model, however loose it may be.  The idea that I imagine a really fast peasant with a dagger is fine.  However, some level of absurdity might not be fun for others.  As an aside, I can do something like with with a monk.  Again, if you look you can find some mechanics for almost anything if you look to changing theme.Why should sorcerers do more with cantrips than a knight with a sword?  They generally don't.  If there is a case where they do, they ARE sorcerers with magic and it cannot be much different without feats.  If they are twinning etc. they are using a resource.  (In fact, without adding dragon sorcerer bonus it would be soundly in favor of a fighter even a sword and board one).  Save Warlock with EB, we also see resistance to fire, poison etc. fairly often and a magic longsword (even +1) suddenly holds its own big time.I think again, we come down to feats.  Feats are totally optional.  What is more, a DM could EASILY limit which feats are available.  You know the main concerns here: GWM and SS.  Even here I wonder at which level are they out of hand?  Is it at level 11 with three attacks?  Now we see it is high level fighters only that we are super concerned with...and why should a fighter not have SOMETHING?  Afterall, number of attacks is their thing.  Or if players don't like disparity of this sort agree to not take this feat for a fighter.  Or agree not to go out of your way to give advantage to a fighter.  I appreciate the OPs concern with balance.  I don't like any one character running the show.  But while a fighter is GWMing monster's heads off, what is the 11th level wizard doing?Look this goes way back.  What did 1e AD&D theives really do?  THEIR JOB.  We knew then that they could never stand up to a fighter one on one.  And neither could a cleric.  (Well especially since most fighters I came across had exceptional strength).  What we lacked in restraint as kids is available to us as adults.  In short, how big of a difference in damage is there without GWM and SS?  I think the OP has inflated the disparity and the solutions are too severe with easier ones being overlooked.  In a game with no feats, standard array etc., how poor is the balance?  Are we only talking about DPR or impact on the story?  In the latter case, see if less damage with a cantrip is much of an issue when the you stand at the gates of a fortress.  What are you going to do, batter the door down with a greatsword?  Disguise self, charm, friends, thieves tools...these things matter.If our only concern is going toe to toe in an arena, there is definitely a problem...less so with the rules and more so with that game.I suppose the same could be said for a dungeon full of locks and traps without the means to deal with them...</blockquote>

Verification