Club PA 2.0 has arrived! If you'd like to access some extra PA content and help support the forums, check it out at patreon.com/ClubPA
The image size limit has been raised to 1mb! Anything larger than that should be linked to. This is a HARD limit, please do not abuse it.
Our new Indie Games subforum is now open for business in G&T. Go and check it out, you might land a code for a free game. If you're developing an indie game and want to post about it, follow these directions. If you don't, he'll break your legs! Hahaha! Seriously though.
Our rules have been updated and given their own forum. Go and look at them! They are nice, and there may be new ones that you didn't know about! Hooray for rules! Hooray for The System! Hooray for Conforming!

[D&D 5E] Nothing is true, everything is permitted.

1474850525399

Posts

  • AbbalahAbbalah Registered User regular
    Sleep wrote: »
    Hexmage-PA wrote: »
    Honestly to me it sounds like Great Weapon Mastery is broken and/or Dual Wielder sucks.

    Honestly it's neither because the difference is rather negligible in actual practice. The white room dissection of the math is kinda useless because it only really maps to super boring combats where everyone's doing the exact same thing every round because the dynamics of the fight don't force them not to.

    It matters plenty.

    Dealing more damage per round wins fights better, whether you're spending every round attacking or half of them doing some scenario-specific thing and only the other half benefiting from your higher damage.

    And yes, those feats (and several others) are poorly tuned - but the broader problem is just that the move away from more 'tactical' combat and the homogenization of everything from class features to spells to weapons has created an environment where once you're in combat, damage is frequently the only thing that matters. There's very little in the way of compelling "greatsword deals more damage but using a warhammer unlocks this cool ability that knocks enemies prone but requires a hammer"-type decisions to make. Certain options clearly dealing more damage than others wouldn't be an issue if there were a compelling mechanical reason to play the other options, but those compelling reasons would generally be things like status effects and positional control which 5e combat has intentionally moved away from. And in the absence of those things, damage is all you can really measure combat ability by because it's frequently the only mechanically-supported hook you have for interacting with a combat.

    But the fact that the math underlying the design is frequently screwed up doesn't help matters. ("Hey, what's the advantage of dual-wielding?" "You get extra attacks for doing it, at the cost of a smaller damage die" "Great, I'm trying to come up with a feat for 2h polearms. How about more attacks than dual wielding gets, for more damage per attack, with reach?" "What's the tradeoff?" "I don't understand the question." "Cool, let's print it.")

    ElvenshaeMegaMek
  • SleepSleep Registered User regular
    edited April 2018
    Denada wrote: »
    Sleep wrote: »
    Hexmage-PA wrote: »
    Honestly to me it sounds like Great Weapon Mastery is broken and/or Dual Wielder sucks.

    Honestly it's neither because the difference is rather negligible in actual practice. The white room dissection of the math is kinda useless because it only really maps to super boring combats where everyone's doing the exact same thing every round because the dynamics of the fight don't force them not to.

    Some people enjoy the theorycraft for its own sake. Personally I don't have the mind for it, but I like skimming through it because it gives me a window into game mechanics and design that I don't have on my own.

    Don't get me wrong I enjoy crunching some numbers. Half the reason I played 40k was that I enjoyed doing the probability math for it, and its definitely cool to just see how crazy the calculations can get. When it comes to actual in game performance though I haven't seen a recognizable gap between the builds that isn't covered up by randomization and the unpredictable scenarios that arise in combat that completely divert characters from attacking.

    Like I'll barely even argue that GWM+PM is like the tops for DPR in white room calculation outside some specific test cases... you just don't actually need it, and the gap isn't significant enough to actually give a shit when building a character.

    If someone asks, "hey is there a point to grabbing dual wielder or two weapon fighting on a hexblade", my answer is "yes if you want to fight with two weapons which is definitely still a viable build for hexblade."

    Always saying "no GWM+PM is better", while technically true is kinda useless, and a bit shitty as it disregards the very apparent intent of the question which is "I want to play a two weapon fighter, is two weapon fighting a viable build for hexblade?"

    Yes it is a viable build, and there are a few steps you can take to really get everything out of that build, and those steps aren't necessarily: rewrite your character to be a great weapon fighter instead.

    Sleep on
  • AldoAldo Hippo Hooray the swamp, always the swampRegistered User regular
    Zonugal wrote: »
    Steelhawk wrote: »
    Sounds ambitious and awesome.

    Why are you dropping them back down to 1st level in between seasons? That seems frustrating. Why not make new characters?

    I'd give them that option but if they want to carry over their current characters it seems the easiest way?

    You can adjust encounters or skip over a few meandering bits of the story instead? You don't have to gimp your characters for every new campaign.

  • DarkPrimusDarkPrimus premium Registered User regular
    Zonugal wrote: »
    So later next month I am thinking I'm going to try to put together a bi-monthly game for my friends.

    I'm thinking this will be the progression of adventures for them:

    Season One
    - The Sunless Citadel (levels 1-3)
    - The Forge of Fury (levels 3-5)
    - The Hidden Shrine of Tamoachan (levels 5-8)
    - White Plume Mountain (level 8+)
    - Dead in Thay (levels 9-11+)
    - Against the Giants (levels 11-14)

    Season Two
    They are transported to Ravenloft by the Mists, thrown back down to first-level and have to escape back to their previous realm.
    - Curse of Strahd (levels 1-10)

    Season Three
    Upon escaping Ravenloft the adventurers find themselves back at level one in a new city with a new threat.
    - Tomb of Annihilation (levels 1-11)
    - Tomb of Horrors (levels “high-level”)

    Thoughts? Advice?

    Isn't Tomb supposed to start at like Level 3? I know for the ToA group I'm in, we did Sunless Citadel first.

    dt3GeqU.png
    Gamertag: PrimusD | Rock Band DLC | GW:OttW - arrcd | WLD - Thortar
  • tzeentchlingtzeentchling Doctor of Rocks San DiegoRegistered User regular
    I'm thinking of making a Halfling Barbarian for a future campaign. Is there a way to do this and not wreck my damage output compared to a more standard, average-size/strength-build Barbarian? Flavor and story-wise I like the idea, but I also want to be effective.

  • Ken OKen O Registered User regular
    I think as a player it'd be frustrating to have my character dropped back to level one repeatedly. Losing all their cool powers and such doesn't seem fun. Would all their gear be stripped each time too?

    http://www.fingmonkey.com/
    Comics, Games, Booze
    SteelhawkWassermelone
  • iguanacusiguanacus Desert PlanetRegistered User regular
    edited April 2018
    Small thing there, but GWM, PAM and Dual Wielder get the same number of attacks. All of their extra attacks use your Bonus Action. Each die step up or down is a 1 dpr difference. So PAM gets +2 for each regular attack for going from a d6 to a d10, but then a -1 for its bonus attack at a d4. Dual Wielder is a +1 for each attack for going from a d6 to a d8.

    The only real difference is that PAM's bonus attack qualifies for GWM. A +10 is a big bonus, if you can land it of course.

    **EDIT**
    I'm thinking of making a Halfling Barbarian for a future campaign. Is there a way to do this and not wreck my damage output compared to a more standard, average-size/strength-build Barbarian? Flavor and story-wise I like the idea, but I also want to be effective.

    As long as you ignore the stupid rule about small races and Heavy weapons, go nuts. You'll probably be one step behind any race that gave a +2 to Str during creation (and maybe 1 or 2 hp a level) but it's not the end of the world really. One dpr per attack less and 5% higher chance to miss. A halfing Ancestral Guardian barb seems like a fun idea. Or a displaced Dark Sun halfling, those fuckers are craaaazy.

    iguanacus on
  • DenadaDenada Registered User regular
    Sleep wrote: »
    Denada wrote: »
    Sleep wrote: »
    Hexmage-PA wrote: »
    Honestly to me it sounds like Great Weapon Mastery is broken and/or Dual Wielder sucks.

    Honestly it's neither because the difference is rather negligible in actual practice. The white room dissection of the math is kinda useless because it only really maps to super boring combats where everyone's doing the exact same thing every round because the dynamics of the fight don't force them not to.

    Some people enjoy the theorycraft for its own sake. Personally I don't have the mind for it, but I like skimming through it because it gives me a window into game mechanics and design that I don't have on my own.

    Don't get me wrong I enjoy crunching some numbers. Half the reason I played 40k was that I enjoyed doing the probability math for it, and its definitely cool to just see how crazy the calculations can get. When it comes to actual in game performance though I haven't seen a recognizable gap between the builds that isn't covered up by randomization and the unpredictable scenarios that arise in combat that completely divert characters from attacking.

    Like I'll barely even argue that GWM+PM is like the tops for DPR in white room calculation outside some specific test cases... you just don't actually need it, and the gap isn't significant enough to actually give a shit when building a character.

    If someone asks, "hey is there a point to grabbing dual wielder or two weapon fighting on a hexblade", my answer is "yes if you want to fight with two weapons which is definitely still a viable build for hexblade."

    Always saying "no GWM+PM is better", while technically true is kinda useless, and a bit shitty as it disregards the very apparent intent of the question which is "I want to play a two weapon fighter, is two weapon fighting a viable build for hexblade?"

    Yes it is a viable build, and there are a few steps you can take to really get everything out of that build, and those steps aren't necessarily: rewrite your character to be a great weapon fighter instead.

    Yeah the actual, at-the-table numbers of 5E are never tight enough (in my experience) to warrant any kind of hand-wringing about effectiveness. I don't recall seeing much that was outright bad, nor anything that was so powerful that it ought to be changed. But then again I haven't look too hard and, like I said, I don't have a great head for that kind of theorycraft so I might not know it when I see it.

    Sleep
  • Hexmage-PAHexmage-PA Registered User regular
    Hmmmm...what if I buy a lot of poison to coat my weapons with?

    Friend Code: 1590-5696-7916
    Friend Safari Type: Rock
  • GoumindongGoumindong Registered User regular
    Takes a action for every application. Gives +1d4 damage with a (DC 10) save for 1 minute. Not really worth it except in specific circumstances.

    Good if you have a free action but you still only get one weapon per application.

    wbBv3fj.png
  • DarkPrimusDarkPrimus premium Registered User regular
    I'm thinking of making a Halfling Barbarian for a future campaign. Is there a way to do this and not wreck my damage output compared to a more standard, average-size/strength-build Barbarian? Flavor and story-wise I like the idea, but I also want to be effective.

    The heavy tag means you couldn't wield any 2d6 or d12 weapons, but you could still do a versatile weapon to get a d10. You'll be doing a little bit less damage, but not by an incredible amount, I think.

    dt3GeqU.png
    Gamertag: PrimusD | Rock Band DLC | GW:OttW - arrcd | WLD - Thortar
  • Hexmage-PAHexmage-PA Registered User regular
    Goumindong wrote: »
    Takes a action for every application. Gives +1d4 damage with a (DC 10) save for 1 minute. Not really worth it except in specific circumstances.

    Good if you have a free action but you still only get one weapon per application.

    Nah, I mean Purple Worm Poison:
    A creature subjected to this poison must make a DC 19 Constitution saving throw, taking 42 (12d6) poison damage on a failed save, or half as much damage on a successful one.

    Get one dose on my scimitar and another on my shortsword.

    Friend Code: 1590-5696-7916
    Friend Safari Type: Rock
  • SleepSleep Registered User regular
    yet again, Ive watched barbarians really benefit from two weapon fighting especially in the leveling region before GWM and PAM become options.

    For a halfling that can't get GWM+PAM going two weapons might not be your worst plan as extra hits let you tap your rage damage more frequently, and let's you fish for crits with all those attacks at advantage. Might not be a terrible character to put lucky on either. Aim for two weapons in the morningstar, flail, war pick range that are one handed and do 1d8 damage.

  • Hexmage-PAHexmage-PA Registered User regular
    edited April 2018
    Official art for the Giff from Mordenkainen's Tome of Foes:

    h1h4igark977.png

    Hexmage-PA on
    Friend Code: 1590-5696-7916
    Friend Safari Type: Rock
    SleepZonugalKadokeniguanacusSaint JusticeSteelhawktzeentchlingArthildoomybearNipsIvelliusSmrtnikElvenshaenever die
  • SleepSleep Registered User regular
    Wait, does this book have spelljamming?

  • BrainleechBrainleech 機知に富んだコメントはここにあります Registered User regular
    Well it is from across the realms so who knows

    Because of @Melding 's talk about the Urban Arcana book in the SE++ tabletop thread I bought the book and kind of want to play a game from that but I don't know like her would generate much interest since it's from the D20 era of D&D and a modern setting

    Ivellius
  • ZonugalZonugal The Holiday Armadillo I'm Santa's representative for all the southern states. And Mexico!Registered User regular
    Aldo wrote: »
    Zonugal wrote: »
    Steelhawk wrote: »
    Sounds ambitious and awesome.

    Why are you dropping them back down to 1st level in between seasons? That seems frustrating. Why not make new characters?

    I'd give them that option but if they want to carry over their current characters it seems the easiest way?

    You can adjust encounters or skip over a few meandering bits of the story instead? You don't have to gimp your characters for every new campaign.
    Ken O wrote: »
    I think as a player it'd be frustrating to have my character dropped back to level one repeatedly. Losing all their cool powers and such doesn't seem fun. Would all their gear be stripped each time too?

    Hmm... I definitely don't want to adjust or modify any of the current modules...

    What if I gave the players the following options:

    A. You make a new character at starting at level one for this new season.

    B. You can rebuild your character starting from level one for this new season.

    Eh?

    Ross-Geller-Prime-Sig-A.jpg
  • MeldingMelding Registered User regular
    Hello it is I, the elven tough hero, what is going on?

  • AbbalahAbbalah Registered User regular
    iguanacus wrote: »
    Small thing there, but GWM, PAM and Dual Wielder get the same number of attacks. All of their extra attacks use your Bonus Action. Each die step up or down is a 1 dpr difference. So PAM gets +2 for each regular attack for going from a d6 to a d10, but then a -1 for its bonus attack at a d4. Dual Wielder is a +1 for each attack for going from a d6 to a d8.

    The only real difference is that PAM's bonus attack qualifies for GWM. A +10 is a big bonus, if you can land it of course.

    Nah, PAM also lets you make an opportunity attack whenever an opponent enters your reach, which is going to go off a lot more often and reliably than the one everyone gets when an opponent tries to leave their reach.

    And PAM's attacks also benefit from GWF, including the d4 bonus attack, which bumps them up by another .5-.8 damage per attack over TWF, since PAM also comes with the entirety of the TWF bonus for free.

    They get the same number of on-turn attacks, and in addition to that PAM gets to make significantly more off-turn ones, resulting in more attacks per round overall, in addition to the higher damage of each attack. And then you can stack GWM on top of that to widen the gap even further if you want.

  • SleepSleep Registered User regular
    edited April 2018
    The offhand is a d4, amd utilising the PAM feat caps your main hand attack at a d10.

    Sleep on
  • BrainleechBrainleech 機知に富んだコメントはここにあります Registered User regular
    Melding wrote: »
    Hello it is I, the elven tough hero, what is going on?

    Do I need the D20 modern book to play the Urban Arcana book as well as the Weapons one?
    I got the book but work really killed it for me so I really don't have the will power to look it up

  • AbbalahAbbalah Registered User regular
    Sleep wrote: »
    The offhand is a d4, amd utilising the PAM feat caps your main hand attack at a d10.

    And?

  • MeldingMelding Registered User regular
    Brainleech wrote: »
    Melding wrote: »
    Hello it is I, the elven tough hero, what is going on?

    Do I need the D20 modern book to play the Urban Arcana book as well as the Weapons one?
    I got the book but work really killed it for me so I really don't have the will power to look it up

    you don't need the weapons book, but you do need the core rulebook, yeah.

  • GoumindongGoumindong Registered User regular
    Abbalah wrote: »
    Sleep wrote: »
    The offhand is a d4, amd utilising the PAM feat caps your main hand attack at a d10.

    And?

    And those things matter because E(1d10r2) is 6.3 while E(2d6r2) is 8.322; a reduction in 2 damage per attack.

    So the PAM fighter is doing 27.6 DPR and the Dual Weilder is doing 25.5 (assuming 18 stat, and 1 feat) = 8.2%

    You may get an extra opportunity attack per combat which is nice, but its not like you're a rogue.

    wbBv3fj.png
  • Hexmage-PAHexmage-PA Registered User regular
    So area of effect is complicated in 5E. 4E spoiled me with the simple to understand bursts, blasts, and zones. Now here I am in 5E trying to figure out how a 15 ft cone looks on a grid at different angles.

    Friend Code: 1590-5696-7916
    Friend Safari Type: Rock
    webguy20DarkPrimusElvenshae
  • SteelhawkSteelhawk Registered User regular
    Zonugal wrote: »
    Aldo wrote: »
    Zonugal wrote: »
    Steelhawk wrote: »
    Sounds ambitious and awesome.

    Why are you dropping them back down to 1st level in between seasons? That seems frustrating. Why not make new characters?

    I'd give them that option but if they want to carry over their current characters it seems the easiest way?

    You can adjust encounters or skip over a few meandering bits of the story instead? You don't have to gimp your characters for every new campaign.
    Ken O wrote: »
    I think as a player it'd be frustrating to have my character dropped back to level one repeatedly. Losing all their cool powers and such doesn't seem fun. Would all their gear be stripped each time too?

    Hmm... I definitely don't want to adjust or modify any of the current modules...

    What if I gave the players the following options:

    A. You make a new character at starting at level one for this new season.

    B. You can rebuild your character starting from level one for this new season.

    Eh?

    That's pretty much the same thing. Tell them to make new characters, and if they want to do the same thing again, then let them.

    These seasons, as you are planning them, are not really continuations of the same story with the same cast of characters... but rather spin offs.

    Elvenshae
  • SleepSleep Registered User regular
    Steelhawk wrote: »
    Zonugal wrote: »
    Aldo wrote: »
    Zonugal wrote: »
    Steelhawk wrote: »
    Sounds ambitious and awesome.

    Why are you dropping them back down to 1st level in between seasons? That seems frustrating. Why not make new characters?

    I'd give them that option but if they want to carry over their current characters it seems the easiest way?

    You can adjust encounters or skip over a few meandering bits of the story instead? You don't have to gimp your characters for every new campaign.
    Ken O wrote: »
    I think as a player it'd be frustrating to have my character dropped back to level one repeatedly. Losing all their cool powers and such doesn't seem fun. Would all their gear be stripped each time too?

    Hmm... I definitely don't want to adjust or modify any of the current modules...

    What if I gave the players the following options:

    A. You make a new character at starting at level one for this new season.

    B. You can rebuild your character starting from level one for this new season.

    Eh?

    That's pretty much the same thing. Tell them to make new characters, and if they want to do the same thing again, then let them.

    These seasons, as you are planning them, are not really continuations of the same story with the same cast of characters... but rather spin offs.

    If you really want to you could also make sure the new characters are connected to previous season cast in some way and possibly have guest spots from old characters as you can make em fit.

    ZonugalSteelhawkMoridin889Elvenshae
  • ZonugalZonugal The Holiday Armadillo I'm Santa's representative for all the southern states. And Mexico!Registered User regular
    Sleep wrote: »
    Steelhawk wrote: »
    Zonugal wrote: »
    Aldo wrote: »
    Zonugal wrote: »
    Steelhawk wrote: »
    Sounds ambitious and awesome.

    Why are you dropping them back down to 1st level in between seasons? That seems frustrating. Why not make new characters?

    I'd give them that option but if they want to carry over their current characters it seems the easiest way?

    You can adjust encounters or skip over a few meandering bits of the story instead? You don't have to gimp your characters for every new campaign.
    Ken O wrote: »
    I think as a player it'd be frustrating to have my character dropped back to level one repeatedly. Losing all their cool powers and such doesn't seem fun. Would all their gear be stripped each time too?

    Hmm... I definitely don't want to adjust or modify any of the current modules...

    What if I gave the players the following options:

    A. You make a new character at starting at level one for this new season.

    B. You can rebuild your character starting from level one for this new season.

    Eh?

    That's pretty much the same thing. Tell them to make new characters, and if they want to do the same thing again, then let them.

    These seasons, as you are planning them, are not really continuations of the same story with the same cast of characters... but rather spin offs.

    If you really want to you could also make sure the new characters are connected to previous season cast in some way and possibly have guest spots from old characters as you can make em fit.

    I am going to do this but also provide a brief epilogue for everyone's characters.

    Ross-Geller-Prime-Sig-A.jpg
  • iguanacusiguanacus Desert PlanetRegistered User regular
    Hexmage-PA wrote: »
    So area of effect is complicated in 5E. 4E spoiled me with the simple to understand bursts, blasts, and zones. Now here I am in 5E trying to figure out how a 15 ft cone looks on a grid at different angles.

    https://www.amazon.com/TruOffice-Transparency-Printers-Quantity-TF-LP/dp/B00KW8852K/ref=sr_1_3?ie=UTF8&qid=1524539629&sr=8-3&keywords=transparency+paper

    Buy a pack, cut a cone that's the desired length on down the center and across the base (1 inch = 5 ft. ). A Cone of Cold is 60 feet wide and 60 feet long, so 12 inches wide and 12 inches deep. Color it in with marker if you want, or print directly to it if you have a laser printer. Also works for cubes, circles, whatever.

    Hell, do it with construction paper.

  • BrainleechBrainleech 機知に富んだコメントはここにあります Registered User regular
    Zonugal wrote: »
    Sleep wrote: »
    Steelhawk wrote: »
    Zonugal wrote: »
    Aldo wrote: »
    Zonugal wrote: »
    Steelhawk wrote: »
    Sounds ambitious and awesome.

    Why are you dropping them back down to 1st level in between seasons? That seems frustrating. Why not make new characters?

    I'd give them that option but if they want to carry over their current characters it seems the easiest way?

    You can adjust encounters or skip over a few meandering bits of the story instead? You don't have to gimp your characters for every new campaign.
    Ken O wrote: »
    I think as a player it'd be frustrating to have my character dropped back to level one repeatedly. Losing all their cool powers and such doesn't seem fun. Would all their gear be stripped each time too?

    Hmm... I definitely don't want to adjust or modify any of the current modules...

    What if I gave the players the following options:

    A. You make a new character at starting at level one for this new season.

    B. You can rebuild your character starting from level one for this new season.

    Eh?

    That's pretty much the same thing. Tell them to make new characters, and if they want to do the same thing again, then let them.

    These seasons, as you are planning them, are not really continuations of the same story with the same cast of characters... but rather spin offs.

    If you really want to you could also make sure the new characters are connected to previous season cast in some way and possibly have guest spots from old characters as you can make em fit.

    I am going to do this but also provide a brief epilogue for everyone's characters.

    More meat for the grinder!

  • SmrtnikSmrtnik job boli zub Registered User regular
    Hexmage-PA wrote: »
    So area of effect is complicated in 5E. 4E spoiled me with the simple to understand bursts, blasts, and zones. Now here I am in 5E trying to figure out how a 15 ft cone looks on a grid at different angles.

    We somehow ended up with this at my table and it's awesome http://arcknight.squarespace.com/shop/spell-effects-5e-wizard

    steam_sig.png
    Shawnasee
  • AbbalahAbbalah Registered User regular
    Goumindong wrote: »
    Abbalah wrote: »
    Sleep wrote: »
    The offhand is a d4, amd utilising the PAM feat caps your main hand attack at a d10.

    And?

    And those things matter because E(1d10r2) is 6.3 while E(2d6r2) is 8.322; a reduction in 2 damage per attack.

    So the PAM fighter is doing 27.6 DPR and the Dual Weilder is doing 25.5 (assuming 18 stat, and 1 feat) = 8.2%

    You may get an extra opportunity attack per combat which is nice, but its not like you're a rogue.

    An extra opportunity attack per enemy, at least for melee enemies. That's gonna be more than one in most combats.

    Again, though, this seems like a very odd debate, in which I say "TWF is worse than the alternatives because the alternatives deal 10-20% more damage" and get repeatedly told "no, you're wrong, here's math showing that the alternatives are only like 10% better"

    That's...that's what I said.

  • tzeentchlingtzeentchling Doctor of Rocks San DiegoRegistered User regular
    Thanks for the suggestions, everyone!

  • GoumindongGoumindong Registered User regular
    Abbalah wrote: »
    Goumindong wrote: »
    Abbalah wrote: »
    Sleep wrote: »
    The offhand is a d4, amd utilising the PAM feat caps your main hand attack at a d10.

    And?

    And those things matter because E(1d10r2) is 6.3 while E(2d6r2) is 8.322; a reduction in 2 damage per attack.

    So the PAM fighter is doing 27.6 DPR and the Dual Weilder is doing 25.5 (assuming 18 stat, and 1 feat) = 8.2%

    You may get an extra opportunity attack per combat which is nice, but its not like you're a rogue.

    An extra opportunity attack per enemy, at least for melee enemies. That's gonna be more than one in most combats.

    Again, though, this seems like a very odd debate, in which I say "TWF is worse than the alternatives because the alternatives deal 10-20% more damage" and get repeatedly told "no, you're wrong, here's math showing that the alternatives are only like 10% better"

    That's...that's what I said.

    You said 15 to 20% better... and they’re not. They’re 0 to 9% “better” and none of those numbers are the same.

    As for the extra OA. You get an extra OA per enemy only if enemies only close against you on different rounds. Taking your OA takes your reaction and you only get 1/round.

    That being said it has some great synergy with pushing attack so it’s got that going for it.

    wbBv3fj.png
  • Ken OKen O Registered User regular
    Zonugal wrote: »
    Aldo wrote: »
    Zonugal wrote: »
    Steelhawk wrote: »
    Sounds ambitious and awesome.

    Why are you dropping them back down to 1st level in between seasons? That seems frustrating. Why not make new characters?

    I'd give them that option but if they want to carry over their current characters it seems the easiest way?

    You can adjust encounters or skip over a few meandering bits of the story instead? You don't have to gimp your characters for every new campaign.
    Ken O wrote: »
    I think as a player it'd be frustrating to have my character dropped back to level one repeatedly. Losing all their cool powers and such doesn't seem fun. Would all their gear be stripped each time too?

    Hmm... I definitely don't want to adjust or modify any of the current modules...

    What if I gave the players the following options:

    A. You make a new character at starting at level one for this new season.

    B. You can rebuild your character starting from level one for this new season.

    Eh?

    I like the idea of new characters each time being somehow linked. You could do something where the new characters are the offspring of the party.

    http://www.fingmonkey.com/
    Comics, Games, Booze
    SteelhawkIvellius
  • FryFry Registered User regular
    I have a hard enough time getting a group to meet up for a full 1-14 campaign, much less multiple campaigns. Good luck!

    SteelhawkZonugalIvelliuswebguy20SmrtnikElvenshaePhoenix-DMegaMek
  • AbbalahAbbalah Registered User regular
    Goumindong wrote: »
    Abbalah wrote: »
    Goumindong wrote: »
    Abbalah wrote: »
    Sleep wrote: »
    The offhand is a d4, amd utilising the PAM feat caps your main hand attack at a d10.

    And?

    And those things matter because E(1d10r2) is 6.3 while E(2d6r2) is 8.322; a reduction in 2 damage per attack.

    So the PAM fighter is doing 27.6 DPR and the Dual Weilder is doing 25.5 (assuming 18 stat, and 1 feat) = 8.2%

    You may get an extra opportunity attack per combat which is nice, but its not like you're a rogue.

    An extra opportunity attack per enemy, at least for melee enemies. That's gonna be more than one in most combats.

    Again, though, this seems like a very odd debate, in which I say "TWF is worse than the alternatives because the alternatives deal 10-20% more damage" and get repeatedly told "no, you're wrong, here's math showing that the alternatives are only like 10% better"

    That's...that's what I said.

    You said 15 to 20% better... and they’re not. They’re 0 to 9% “better” and none of those numbers are the same.

    As for the extra OA. You get an extra OA per enemy only if enemies only close against you on different rounds. Taking your OA takes your reaction and you only get 1/round.

    That being said it has some great synergy with pushing attack so it’s got that going for it.

    They are. Your own math keeps coming up around 10% better, and you're consistently leaving out factors that bump things further in favor of GWF which I've gone over a couple of times, most notably the substantial impact of GWM itself.

    Even if your point is supposed to be that a 10% difference is negligible and irrelevant, that would seem to suggest that spending two pages trying to prove that GWF is 'only' 9% better than TWF instead of the 15% I claimed is far more of an exercise in pedantry than the original claim could possibly have been. It seems difficult to argue that a base 10% difference is a meaningless rounding error but this other 6% you think you've found is somehow critically important.

    Elvenshae
  • iguanacusiguanacus Desert PlanetRegistered User regular
    Ken O wrote: »
    Zonugal wrote: »
    Aldo wrote: »
    Zonugal wrote: »
    Steelhawk wrote: »
    Sounds ambitious and awesome.

    Why are you dropping them back down to 1st level in between seasons? That seems frustrating. Why not make new characters?

    I'd give them that option but if they want to carry over their current characters it seems the easiest way?

    You can adjust encounters or skip over a few meandering bits of the story instead? You don't have to gimp your characters for every new campaign.
    Ken O wrote: »
    I think as a player it'd be frustrating to have my character dropped back to level one repeatedly. Losing all their cool powers and such doesn't seem fun. Would all their gear be stripped each time too?

    Hmm... I definitely don't want to adjust or modify any of the current modules...

    What if I gave the players the following options:

    A. You make a new character at starting at level one for this new season.

    B. You can rebuild your character starting from level one for this new season.

    Eh?

    I like the idea of new characters each time being somehow linked. You could do something where the new characters are the offspring of the party.

    You could make the meta narrative that it's your group telling stories at the bar of the Yawning Portal. Each new module is a different player saying "That's not what we did! We didn't even go there. I mean, Laney isn't even a gnome for God's sake. Let tell you all what really happened."

    Instant reason for the reset between modules.

    IvelliusSmrtniktinwhiskersElvenshaenever die
  • RendRend Registered User regular
    iguanacus wrote: »
    "That's not what we did! We didn't even go there. I mean, Laney isn't even a gnome for God's sake. Let tell you all what really happened."

    "So there we were, riding in on our arcanomancer motorcycles..."

    ZonugaliguanacusSmrtnikElvenshae
  • ZonugalZonugal The Holiday Armadillo I'm Santa's representative for all the southern states. And Mexico!Registered User regular
    Fry wrote: »
    I have a hard enough time getting a group to meet up for a full 1-14 campaign, much less multiple campaigns. Good luck!

    Oh, this is definitely a pipe dream.

    I'll be happy enough if I can get them through just the Sunless Citadel.

    Ross-Geller-Prime-Sig-A.jpg
Sign In or Register to comment.