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.

1464749515299

Posts

  • AbbalahAbbalah Registered User regular
    It's a 15-20% difference. By all means, play whatever you think is cool, but the difference in output is not insignificant.

    If we're all in agreement that you don't have to min/max what you play and that there's no shame in wanting to play something that is not The Most Powerful Thing because it's cool, then we shouldn't also need to justify the decision to play TWF over GWF by pretending that there's not a substantial difference in power when there is.

    It seems fundamentally odd to me that "It doesn't matter if X is more powerful than Y" is almost always presented alongside a clear investment in the idea that actually X isn't really more powerful than Y anyway. I can't recall the last time I heard somebody say "Yeah, X is much stronger than Y, but I don't care, because Y is fun, and that's what actually matters" without immediately following up with some variation on "But it's not much stronger. It wouldn't matter if it was! But it isn't. And I don't care if it is! But it's not!"

  • SteelhawkSteelhawk Registered User regular
    See, I glossed over the math in the previous posts (because I don't care). But you are right. 22.5 vs 26 is about a 15% difference.

    I still don't care. Giant axes vs two swords are both still equally as cool. :)

  • SleepSleep Registered User regular
    edited April 2018
    Because in application I've literally never seen it matter. In 200+ games the maximization of damage has rarely mattered. My parties have rarely had trouble with ending any fight I send at them. Its cool to have some decent damage, but the 10% to 15% difference is totally unimportant.

    Sleep on
    Nyht
  • SmrtnikSmrtnik job boli zub Registered User regular
    I mean, a good DM well plan the fights out (and adjust in the fly as needed) so that all the bad guys are dead with the party barely hanging on to life and all resources spent. I think.

    steam_sig.png
    Kwoaru
  • DevoutlyApatheticDevoutlyApathetic Registered User regular
    Really it is only an issue with regards to the perception intra-party efficiency. If Bob wants to know why Ava is so much better at killing stuff the answer is often this sort of thing. If nobody cares then that's fine but if folks are unhappy with how the system is portraying their character you have to dig into the math stuff to understand and adjust it.

    SleepSteelhawkRendtinwhiskersElvenshaenever die
  • AbbalahAbbalah Registered User regular
    Sleep wrote: »
    Because in application I've literally never seen it matter. In 200+ games the maximization of damage has rarely mattered. My parties have rarely had trouble with ending any fight I send at them. Its cool to have some decent damage, but the 10% to 15% difference is totally unimportant.

    The flip side being that I have also played DnD for about ten years, and I've seen those marginal amounts of damage matter a lot - both in terms of deciding a difficult fight and in terms of the much more common scenario where the party was obviously always going to win the fight, but the extra 15% damage ended the fight a turn or two faster, saving spell slots and preventing incoming damage so that the party didn't have to try and rest mid-dungeon, or making the difference between 'killing the monster' and 'killing the monster fast enough to also save the hostage'. "The party didn't literally die so their performance didn't matter" isn't a great metric for success.

    Again, if you don't care about optimization, that's perfectly fine. If you argued that the DM can adjust the difficulty to account for underpowered characters and allow them to succeed without being optimized, that'd be generally true. But you seem to be arguing that optimization doesn't materially change a characters performance, and that's just not accurate.

    SteelhawkElvenshae
  • RendRend Registered User regular
    Really it is only an issue with regards to the perception intra-party efficiency. If Bob wants to know why Ava is so much better at killing stuff the answer is often this sort of thing. If nobody cares then that's fine but if folks are unhappy with how the system is portraying their character you have to dig into the math stuff to understand and adjust it.

    The last 5e game I ran I accidentally gave a really OP bow to the ranger and they were dealing like twice as much damage as anyone else, but nobody cared and everyone was having a good time so it was a non-issue.

    With another group it could have been a huge issue, but things shook out the way they did.

    Elvenshae
  • SleepSleep Registered User regular
    edited April 2018
    notice that past 4 years ago you were playing a different game with different mechanichal concerns that don't necessarily map to this game. Hence why i didn't refer to any of those games I've played and ran before then.

    Sleep on
    Nyht
  • FryFry Registered User regular
    edited April 2018
    Back in 4E, I created a fairly low-level character that was capable of dealing a pretty consistent 30ish damage per round when I was playing it correctly, while the other two characters in the party were doing maybe 10ish damage per round. One session I (as a player) was kinda falling asleep so my output dropped down to the same range as the others. The DM (rightly) complained that that difference in effectiveness, both between me and the other players, and me vs other me, made balancing and running encounters pretty hellish.

    IMO 22.5 vs 26 is enough to say one is better than the other, but I don't think it's going to noticeably change encounter balance, so I don't think I would choose the "less cool" option for myself or care which option someone else chose for themselves.

    edit: another point that may be relevant, and this could just be the DMs I play with, but in my experience DMs tend to metagame in their encounter planning. If the party deals on average X damage per round, and the DM wants the fight to last for Y rounds, then the big bad solo monster will have X*Y HP. If all of the encounter planning runs that way, it doesn't really matter what the exact value of my Damage per Round is, that's already been factored in.

    Fry on
    SleepSmrtnik
  • AbbalahAbbalah Registered User regular
    Sleep wrote: »
    notice that past 4 years ago you were playing a different game with different mechanichal concerns that don't necessarily map to this game. Hence why i didn't refer to any of those games I've played and ran before then.

    "Does dealing 20% more damage make you materially better at fighting" is a pretty system-agnostic question.

    Elvenshae
  • SleepSleep Registered User regular
    Fry wrote: »
    Back in 4E, I created a fairly low-level character that was capable of dealing a pretty consistent 30ish damage per round when I was playing it correctly, while the other two characters in the party were doing maybe 10ish damage per round. One session I (as a player) was kinda falling asleep so my output dropped down to the same range as the others. The DM (rightly) complained that that difference in effectiveness, both between me and the other players, and me vs other me, made balancing and running encounters pretty hellish.

    IMO 22.5 vs 26 is enough to say one is better than the other, but I don't think it's going to noticeably change encounter balance, so I don't think I would choose the "less cool" option for myself or care which option someone else chose for themselves.

    Like i said it's basically the conclusion we always run to here after all the caveats get established. Yeah its more damage, it's just not really as important a difference in this edition.

  • iguanacusiguanacus Desert PlanetRegistered User regular
    edited April 2018
    It really only matters when you really start stacking it up buffs. Advantage adds about 25% to your to hit, Bless is ~12% so when you have a higher ceiling it can make those power attacks much more potent

    I mean, here's the absolute numbers we're talking here

    Dual Wielding Fighter, with Two-Weapon Fighting Style, ASI's to Dex at 4 & 6, Dual Wielder feat at 8, average DPR
    • Level 5 - 22.5
    • Level 6 - 25.5
    • Level 8 - 28.5
    • Level 11 - 38.0

    Great Weapon Fighter, with Great Weapon Fighting Style, ASI's to Str at 4 & 6, Great Weapon Master feat at 8, average DPR
    • Level 5 - 24.7
    • Level 6 - 26.7
    • Level 8 - 27.3 without GWM
    • Level 8 - 47.8 with GWM
    • Level 11 - 40.7 without GWM
    • Level 11 - 71.2 with GWM

    Without GWM the numbers don't get outside of 2 points of each other. GWM takes a sizable lead in DPR but that doesn't take into account missing 25% more of the time

    iguanacus on
  • SleepSleep Registered User regular
    edited April 2018
    Yeah the -5 to hit is a really big factor to the math.

    But if we were doing a hard comparison we'd do it as a spreadsheet comparing against different AC values.

    Sleep on
  • DarkPrimusDarkPrimus Registered User regular
    Makes me yearn for the Dwarf Fighter I made in 4e who dual-wielded crag-hammers.

    wpyz0Y5.png
    Gamertag: PrimusD | Rock Band DLC | GW:OttW - arrcd | WLD - Thortar
    Elvenshae
  • AbbalahAbbalah Registered User regular
    iguanacus wrote: »
    It really only matters when you really start stacking it up buffs. Advantage adds about 25% to your to hit, Bless is ~12% so when you have a higher ceiling it can make those power attacks much more potent

    I mean, here's the absolute numbers we're talking here

    Dual Wielding Fighter, with Two-Weapon Fighting Style, ASI's to Dex at 4 & 6, Dual Wielder feat at 8, average DPR
    • Level 5 - 22.5
    • Level 6 - 25.5
    • Level 8 - 28.5
    • Level 11 - 38.0

    Great Weapon Fighter, with Great Weapon Fighting Style, ASI's to Str at 4 & 6, Great Weapon Master feat at 8, average DPR
    • Level 5 - 24.7
    • Level 6 - 26.7
    • Level 8 - 27.3 without GWM
    • Level 8 - 47.8 with GWM
    • Level 11 - 40.7 without GWM
    • Level 11 - 71.2 with GWM

    Without GWM the numbers don't get outside of 2 points of each other. GWM takes a sizable lead in DPR but that doesn't take into account missing 25% more of the time

    This doesn't account for a number of things.

    -GWM gets better crits (They happen ~2/3rds as often, but each one adds twice as much damage as a TWF crit)
    -GWM generates periodic bonus action attacks of its own, either directly through GWM's cleave or via some other feature
    -GWM generally has its bonus action available, allowing it to E.G. cast damage buffs like Hex without giving up attacks to do so
    -GWM gets better value out of reaction-speed attacks like OAs and Riposte

    All of those things will boost its relative DPR above what's on that chart, in some cases substantially, on top of the fact that power attack creates a pretty large gap already (even after accounting for the reduced hit chance).

  • SleepSleep Registered User regular
    But I mean considering the request is a Warlock build the damage a fighter is going to do is kinda immaterial numbers wank.

    Smrtnik
  • SleepSleep Registered User regular
    edited April 2018
    Like yeah a GWM fighter build is going to pump out the best chance for damage.

    That is immaterial to building an effective dual wield hexblade.

    The fact theres a higher damage option, that is 100% not what you are aiming for, is immaterial to the fact that the build currently in question is effective or not.

    Sleep on
  • GoumindongGoumindong Registered User regular
    Abbalah wrote: »
    Goumindong wrote: »
    Abbalah wrote: »
    Even in the examples where this stuff actually matters - which are going to be relatively rare compared to turns where you just have to hit a guy, unless you find yourself holding off enemies with one-handed attacks while hanging from a cliff with the other hand much more often then I do - you're...still not actually getting any benefit from TWF, because the TWF bonus only applies to the bonus action attack, which you can only take with a different weapon held in a different hand from the one you took the attack action with.

    The GWF player will deal more damage turn-to-turn in basically every standard combat scenario, and then in wierd situations where he for some reason only has one hand available he is perfectly capable of dropping/stowing the greatsword and drawing a longsword to fight one-handed with and will still be more capable than the TWF guy in that very narrow scenario because he'll have a longsword and the TWF guy likely only brought a shortsword/scimitar since you can't TWF with a longsword without the feat.

    And if they do have feats, the GWF guy can still cleave people with his longsword but the TWF will get no benefit from his feat because he's not holding a weapon in each hand.

    Many interesting combat scenarios involve places where you can utilize the off hand.

    While you do indeed lose the off hand attack and benefit of TWF you do not lose the entirety of your action. I.E. you do slightly less damage normally in exchange for a lesser reduction in damage when it matters.

    There are plenty of things that you can indeed not let go of because regrasping them is an action. Sometimes its not but many times it is. As is tying a rope around yourself etc. That is an action, strictly.

    TWF is high damage plus a minor drop in damage when you want flexibility. GWF is a small advantage in damage in exchange for the flexibility.

    Like, the math shows you really do not do all that much more damage, and maybe even less once you consider the ability to crit fish on extra attacks. That isn't to say that 2 handed weapons are bad, its just to say that they're not strictly better than TWF.
    And if they do have feats, the GWF guy can still cleave people with his longsword but the TWF will get no benefit from his feat because he's not holding a weapon in each hand.

    Sure... but a GWF longsword user loses damage compared to a TWF fighter (20.6 vs 22.5)... A dueling longsword user does as well (21 vs 22.5). Which well is a reasonable tradeoff for more utility just as the increased damage of a two handed weapon is a tradeoff for less utility

    No, he doesn't, because the TWF guy isn't dealing 22.5 damage because TWF guy is not getting his bonus action attack unless he has weapons in both hands. TWF guy is getting 2 attacks for 1d6+4 and no bonus action attacks while GWF longsword guy is also using only one hand while dangling from a rope in the rain or whatever, but is getting 2 attacks for 1d8+4 and a bonus action attack every time he kills something.

    TWF is substantially lower damage and has no advantage in 'flexibility'. You're trying to defend its value by spending paragraphs discussing the importance of having one hand available in scenarios that simply are not that common, and even then you're overlooking the fact that in those scenarios the GWF guy can swap to a one-handed weapon just as easily as the TWF guy can and if he does so he'll adapt those those scenarios better than the TWF guy will.

    You can indeed spend an action sheathing your greatsword and drawing a longsword. But again you’re spending an action

    wbBv3fj.png
  • GoumindongGoumindong Registered User regular
    edited April 2018
    Steelhawk wrote: »
    See, I glossed over the math in the previous posts (because I don't care). But you are right. 22.5 vs 26 is about a 15% difference.

    I still don't care. Giant axes vs two swords are both still equally as cool. :)

    This math is wrong anyway. A greatsword does not do 26 damage/round with 2 attacks and GWF if the TWF user is doing 22.5/round. GWF does not provide brutal 2 it provides rerolls on 1s and 2s once. The average damage of a GWF greatsword at 2 attacks and 18 stat is 24.66 not 26.

    The GWF greatsword user does 9.6% more damage than the TWF fighter at 18 stat and 4.5% more at 20 stat. That isn’t a lot, and you do lose flexibility.

    Goumindong on
    wbBv3fj.png
  • AbbalahAbbalah Registered User regular
    Sleep wrote: »
    Like yeah a GWM fighter build is going to pump out the best chance for damage.

    That is immaterial to building an effective dual wield hexblade.

    The fact theres a higher damage option, that is 100% not what you are aiming for, is immaterial to the fact that the build currently in question is effective or not.

    The question was not 'how do I make a dual wield Hexblade'.

    The question was 'is there any reason for a Hexblade to pick up TWF'.

    The answer to that question is 'not really, no, because taking GWF instead and running a greatsword with GWM or a polearm with PM will do substantially more damage'.

    Fighter seems to have come up mostly as a consequence of it being mentioned that TWF falls even further behind GWF if you start getting 3 attacks per action. (And because presumably a hexblade picking up a fighting style is also taking levels in fighter or paladin)

  • SleepSleep Registered User regular
    except the answer is actually: because they want to fight with two weapons. Only reason there need be. It won't outright gimp them to do it, they will still be more than effective, and only moderately run behind the top damage they could get to with a totally different character focus.

    Nyht
  • AbbalahAbbalah Registered User regular
    Sleep wrote: »
    except the answer is actually: because they want to fight with two weapons. Only reason there need be. It won't outright gimp them to do it, they will still be more than effective, and only moderately run behind the top damage they could get to with a totally different character focus.

    It seems reasonable to assume that a player who specifically wants to fight with two weapons would not be asking people if there's any point in doing so.

    "Is there any reason to take X" is not the same question as "I want to take X, will I be gimped if I do"

    The conversation also moved on substantially from the original question to a factual discussion of whether my claim (that TWF was mechanically worse than the alternatives) was true or not.

    And then circled back several times to people cutting in to announce that you don't have to min/max in DnD if you don't want to, because it seems to be impossible to compare the mathematical value of two options without repeatedly having that conversation.

    ElvenshaeSCREECH OF THE FARGKwoaru
  • GoumindongGoumindong Registered User regular
    I mean... not even.

    A GWF greatsword warlock does 3d6+4 x 2 in all rounds. =31.64 damage

    A TWF warlock does 2x6 +4 x 2=22 in the first and x3 = 33 in subsequent.

    Since we seem to only care about peak damage and don’t care about other things you can do with your hands when necessary or flexibility the TWF warlock wins out on damage. As we add more charisma the TWF warlock expands in advantage.

    If we note that warlocks are (iirc) easily able to get +weapons for both hands which don’t cost attunement the advantage extends further...

    wbBv3fj.png
  • iguanacusiguanacus Desert PlanetRegistered User regular
    The bonus attack on crit is accounted for in those numbers, though not the bonus attack on kill (no idea how you'd model that) or the regular crit damage. But ok, I'll toss them in as well

    Dual Wielding Fighter, with Two-Weapon Fighting Style, ASI's to Dex at 4 & 6, Dual Wielder feat at 8, average DPR
    • Level 5 - 23.6
    • Level 6 - 26.8
    • Level 8 - 29.9
    • Level 11 - 39.9

    Great Weapon Fighter, with Great Weapon Fighting Style, ASI's to Str at 4 & 6, Great Weapon Master feat at 8, average DPR
    • Level 5 - 25.9
    • Level 6 - 28
    • Level 8 - 28.7 without GWM
    • Level 8 - 50.2 with GWM
    • Level 11 - 42.7 without GWM
    • Level 11 - 74.8 with GWM

    When not using the +10 to damage from GWM you have a 9.7%, 4.5%, -4%, and 7% difference in damage. Real world numbers are -2.3, -1.2, +1.2, -2.2 to damage. It's fairly insignificant.

    As for a Warlock, dual wielding is a very inefficient way to go about doing damage because of a number of reasons
    • No Two-Weapon Fighting style
    • You only get Improved Pact Weapon on 1 weapon
    • You only get Hex Warrior on 1 weapon
    • Bonus Action on a Warlock (Hexblade) is kinda full: Hex & Hexblade's Curse add 3.5 and 3 (4 at lvl 11) dpr per attack)

  • SleepSleep Registered User regular
    edited April 2018
    Pact of the blade hexblade can get hex warrior oon two weapons

    Sleep on
  • SleepSleep Registered User regular
    edited April 2018
    Abbalah wrote: »
    Sleep wrote: »
    except the answer is actually: because they want to fight with two weapons. Only reason there need be. It won't outright gimp them to do it, they will still be more than effective, and only moderately run behind the top damage they could get to with a totally different character focus.

    It seems reasonable to assume that a player who specifically wants to fight with two weapons would not be asking people if there's any point in doing so.

    "Is there any reason to take X" is not the same question as "I want to take X, will I be gimped if I do"

    The conversation also moved on substantially from the original question to a factual discussion of whether my claim (that TWF was mechanically worse than the alternatives) was true or not.

    And then circled back several times to people cutting in to announce that you don't have to min/max in DnD if you don't want to, because it seems to be impossible to compare the mathematical value of two options without repeatedly having that conversation.

    It seems regularly impossible to suggest any build that isn't GWM+PM without this coming up then circling back around.

    Sleep on
  • AbbalahAbbalah Registered User regular
    Goumindong wrote: »
    I mean... not even.

    A GWF greatsword warlock does 3d6+4 x 2 in all rounds. =31.64 damage

    A TWF warlock does 2x6 +4 x 2=22 in the first and x3 = 33 in subsequent.

    Since we seem to only care about peak damage and don’t care about other things you can do with your hands when necessary or flexibility the TWF warlock wins out on damage. As we add more charisma the TWF warlock expands in advantage.

    If we note that warlocks are (iirc) easily able to get +weapons for both hands which don’t cost attunement the advantage extends further...

    Incorrect on all counts. The GWF warlock will deal more damage than that due to better crits, better OAs, and potential cleaves/bonus action attacks, the TWF warlock will deal less than that because they'll lose another 11 damage every time they have to switch their hex target, and improved pact weapon will only give you one free magic weapon, which is great for the GWF warlock but a disadvantage for the TWF one who will either be making some attacks without the bonus or need to find a second magical weapon.

    Theoretically Hexblade Curse could tilt things in favor of the TWF on a long enough timeline, but since they have to give up 15 damage to cast it, they'd need to be wailing on the same target for 5 or 6 turns just to break even on using it at all, while the GWF warlock can cast it without giving anything up and start benefiting immediately. Lifedrinker eventually nets the TWF 5 damage over GWF, but that's not until level 12 at the earliest and won't be enough to overcome the advantage of GWM.

    Even if it were, you'd still be better off taking Polearm Mastery and getting more attacks per turn than TWF with a larger damage die and reach to boot, and stacking lifedrinker/hex/hexblade curse onto those.

    The position that TWF deals more damage than GWF seems like an odd one to suddenly take when you just spent all of last page trying to argue that TWF deals only a little less than GWF but it's worth the tradeoff because of flexibility.

  • DenadaDenada Registered User regular
    I've been pondering my party size dellima all day. Does it really MATTER what size the party is? I can see where pre made scenarios have a recommended size, but even then does a party of 2 really have a disadvantage over a party of 4 if encounters are scaled correctly?

    The short answer is no, it doesn't. You can run D&D just fine with two people.

    That being said, what you'll want to watch out for is how loosey-goosey the encounter math in 5E can be. You might think that a 2-person party is about one half as strong as a four-person party, but that isn't the case, particularly at lower levels. They're more like one quarter to one third the strength. That being said, this also depends heavily on your enemy composition. Ranged enemies are (generally) more dangerous than melee enemies, and multiple enemies are (generally) more dangerous than a single enemy, even if that enemy is stronger.

    My recommendation is to give the PCs a reusable healing item, or a companion character that can heal them maybe once a fight, or maybe three times per long rest, something like that. Basically a little Cure Light Wounds bot. Also err on the side of too easy when building or adjusting encounters, then add extra enemies or extra damage as necessary. In 5E encounter building is all about just feeling it out, rather than any kind of reliable math system.

    SleepSteelhawkElvenshae
  • GoumindongGoumindong Registered User regular
    edited April 2018
    Like... the crit thing adds .75 damage /attack with hex up... it’s barely worth talking about... because like... dual wield adds 1 damage/attack and you get +1 attacks so the margin on the feat is better

    Edit: we have been over the damage numbers a lot now and they do not show what you think they show

    Goumindong on
    wbBv3fj.png
  • ZonugalZonugal The Holiday Armadillo I'm Santa's representative for all the southern states. And Mexico!Registered User regular
    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?

    2mw6ukw.jpg
    Elvenshae
  • SteelhawkSteelhawk Registered User regular
    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?

    SmrtnikElvenshae
  • GoumindongGoumindong Registered User regular
    Re: encounter math

    In general a 2 person party is 1/4 as strong as a 4 person party. 1/2 the HP is one portion of it... 1/2 the dpr is the other half of it.

    A 6 person party is about 2.25 times as strong as a 4 person party.

    Wiggle room goes up as this scales because the relative value of HP before you go down goes up. IE if you add more monsters to deal with a larger party the ability to focus fire will make it easier for the monsters to down any particular player

    wbBv3fj.png
  • ZonugalZonugal The Holiday Armadillo I'm Santa's representative for all the southern states. And Mexico!Registered User regular
    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?

    2mw6ukw.jpg
  • Hexmage-PAHexmage-PA Registered User regular
    Honestly to me it sounds like Great Weapon Mastery is broken and/or Dual Wielder sucks.

    Friend Code: 1590-5696-7916
    Friend Safari Type: Rock
  • AbbalahAbbalah Registered User regular
    Goumindong wrote: »
    Like... the crit thing adds .75 damage /attack with hex up... it’s barely worth talking about... because like... dual wield adds 1 damage/attack and you get +1 attacks so the margin on the feat is better

    As soon as you can take a feat, GWM adds a hell of a lot more than 1 damage/attack, and gives an additional attack every time you kill something.

    And you certainly seemed to feel like .75 damage/attack was an amount large enough to be worth talking about when you repeatedly pointed out that GWF's reroll is not brutal and so GWF attacks deal 12.33 damage each instead of 13.

  • SleepSleep Registered User regular
    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.

    Nyht
  • DenadaDenada 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.

    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.

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

    Well see that is the thing. Neither of those are true. GWM is good but it’s only a marginal dpr increase over itself (unless you have advantage where it is very good). Dual wielder is about the same marginal DPR increase if you don’t have advantage and also gives you plus 1 AC. Which is really good. So good it’s generally considered to be the “best” fighting style you can take. Both GWF and TWF are similar marginal DPR increases compared to the feats.

    Using a two handed weapon is slightly better than using two weapons but not by much. You have their drawbacks.

    wbBv3fj.png
  • iguanacusiguanacus Desert PlanetRegistered User regular
    Sleep wrote: »
    Pact of the blade hexblade can get hex warrior oon two weapons

    Oh, you're right. I was misreading the last sentence.

    Numbers for Hexblade with 2 Shortswords then a Greatsword

    Dual Wield Warlock, ASI's to Cha at 4 & 8, Thirsting Blade and Improved Pact Weapon, Lifedrinker at 12
    • Level 5 - 20.5
    • Level 6 - 20.5
    • Level 8 - 22.5
    • Level 12 - 32.5

    Greatsword Warlock, ASI's to Cha at 4 & 8, Thirsting Blade and Improved Pact Weapon, Lifedrinker at 12
    • Level 5 - 24
    • Level 6 - 24
    • Level 8 - 26
    • Level 12 - 36

    If you use Hex in the first round you add 7 to each Greatsword number. For dual wielding you'd subtract 3.5 from the first round and then add 10.5 for all subsequent rounds till the target is dead.

    Two-Weapon Fighting, for the Warlock, would add 5 dpr, but would require you to take a level of Fighter to do it. Great Weapon Fighting would add about 2.6.

    I'd recommend starting as a Fighter in either of these cases, for the Con Save and Heavy Armor prof.

  • Hexmage-PAHexmage-PA Registered User regular
    I tried a mock battle with my character versus some skeleton warriors. I'll admit it was a bit aggravating to have to give up my bonus action attack to redirect Hex to another target each time.

    Friend Code: 1590-5696-7916
    Friend Safari Type: Rock
Sign In or Register to comment.