Quote from: S'mon;799906I find this really odd BTW. Sword & Board already looked to be the most powerful fighting style in 5e due to bounded accuracy. Then they add an extra +2 damage on top, vastly better than great-weapon fighting rerolls.

The great-weapon rerolls also apply to the damage dice you add to your attack from Smite, which makes it considerably better than +2 Damage for a Paladin.

Quote from: jadrax;800258The great-weapon rerolls also apply to the damage dice you add to your attack from Smite, which makes it considerably better than +2 Damage for a Paladin.

This is more the sort of stuff I was hoping for . Yes it does if you read the text straight up I agree and it also applied to Critical damage. As Duelist text says "+2 bonus to damage rolls" and GWF says "1 or 2 on a damage die for an attack you made with a melee weapon ...".
I think it's a corner case for paladin's , and I think the divine smite is itself awesome but obviously curtailed by spell slots.
I also think its a little weird from an immersion perspective. The Divine strike always does d8s so its deliberately removed from the weapon itself. A dagger or a great sword divine smite is the same because its additional Divine damage, but if you are trained with a great weapon and have GWF its somehow more potent? Not sure that really works logically.

Crit damage is going to be bound by the size of the dice again.
I am going to use Advantage on the weapon damage roll so criticals will be a smidgen weaker (if you get a crit on a great axe you will roll 3d12 and take the highest 2, crit on a great sword, 5d6 highest 4 etc so only 1 additional dice) but the general damage improvement and the ability to see the bonus on each strike outweigh the loss I think.

Would be interested if anyone has done the maths...

Quote from: jadrax;800258The great-weapon rerolls also apply to the damage dice you add to your attack from Smite, which makes it considerably better than +2 Damage for a Paladin.

I was looking at that, but I'll only get a couple 2d8 Smites a day, the rerolls may not even come up.

If it were a straight choice between rerolls & +2 damage for my Paladin then they would be balanced. But giving up 2 points of AC in 5e needs a *lot* of extra damage to justify it. I have STR 16 so +3. I'd rather be Duellist & Smiting for '1d8+5+2d8 and +2 AC' than '2d6+3+2d8 reroll-1&2'. The latter gives higher damage in one round but the former's +2 AC keeps me standing much longer, which means my actually damage output over the fight is likely to be higher.

Quote from: jibbajibba;800232The comparison between classes issue comes when the archer has designed their character to be the coolest archer they can be they picture themselves as Robin Hood, William Tell or Harding Grim. Then a caster picks up a cantrip from a list with out any thought other than they get to pick a new cantrip and voila they are suddenly as good as the archer. That stuff bugs people.
Its been a problem in D&D for ages. The thief is off scouting and the wizard says hold on I can do that better and turns into a bat or something. But the limiter was always that the caster had to have prepped that and could only do it once.
So being outshone once by a caster who planned stuff out is fine but when you see your character being outclassed continuously with no forethought it becomes more frustrating.  

As for the choices a character makes being relevant .... I think that is a key to good game design. No choice should seem weak. The GWF dwarf with his axe is much weaker under RAW than the guy using the Great sword, or the same dwarf dueling with a shield. That isn't weaker than the other characters that is weaker than he would have been had he made another choice.

As for WildMagic the Tides of Chaos power which lets the Sorcerer "buy" an advantage in return for a Wild surge once per "day" ensures some usage but I agree that the Wild magic stuff could be a little more impactful maybe randomising the known spells daily or something.

1: Again we come back to the damn cantrips.

Ok. We've allready shown that if an archer tricks themselves out to be the bestest archer ever. Then there is no way even a dedicated Eldrich blaster can hope to even approach the archers level of damage output. Even the limited ammo of an archer isnt as limited as it seems. Jan carries 20 in a quiver. I have yet to see her run out simply because she effectively has 38 arrows due to the pick-up system. More if one of us carries an extra quivver for her. Even without Sharpshooter her damage output is slightly better than mine with basic EB. And she just picked up sharpshooter so her damage is now double mine and will stay double mine even if I pumped up EB.

This has been explained how many times now?

2: So the dwarf chose an great axe instead of a great sword? SO WHAT? That was his choice wasnt it? Its right there on the weapons page that the Great Sword does 2d6. Maybe he wanted an axe because he thought it fit the character and didnt give a flying fuck about optimal damage output?
But for old times sake lets look at it again...
GWF with Great axe = average of 7.3
GWF with Greats word = average of 8.3
Duel with the best possible one-hander which is a d8 = average 6.5

Great Sword does 1 more average than great axe. In the heat of battle no one should be bean counting that much to ever notice.
Duelling does less damage - but you can use a shield. Thats up to the individual if the extra AC offsets the lower output. Assuming they give a damn about output.

3: Agreed. Wild magic is a bit underwhelming. Though keep in mind that the surges are at the DMs option and can be called for every time the Wild Sorcerer casts a non-cantrip spell. But its a flat 5% chance.

Quote from: Omega;8002691: Again we come back to the damn cantrips.

Ok. We've allready shown that if an archer tricks themselves out to be the bestest archer ever. Then there is no way even a dedicated Eldrich blaster can hope to even approach the archers level of damage output. Even the limited ammo of an archer isnt as limited as it seems. Jan carries 20 in a quiver. I have yet to see her run out simply because she effectively has 38 arrows due to the pick-up system. More if one of us carries an extra quivver for her. Even without Sharpshooter her damage output is slightly better than mine with basic EB. And she just picked up sharpshooter so her damage is now double mine and will stay double mine even if I pumped up EB.

This has been explained how many times now?

2: So the dwarf chose an great axe instead of a great sword? SO WHAT? That was his choice wasnt it? Its right there on the weapons page that the Great Sword does 2d6. Maybe he wanted an axe because he thought it fit the character and didnt give a flying fuck about optimal damage output?
But for old times sake lets look at it again...
GWF with Great axe = average of 7.3
GWF with Greats word = average of 8.3
Duel with the best possible one-hander which is a d8 = average 6.5

Great Sword does 1 more average than great axe. In the heat of battle no one should be bean counting that much to ever notice.
Duelling does less damage - but you can use a shield. Thats up to the individual if the extra AC offsets the lower output. Assuming they give a damn about output.

3: Agreed. Wild magic is a bit underwhelming. Though keep in mind that the surges are at the DMs option and can be called for every time the Wild Sorcerer casts a non-cantrip spell. But its a flat 5% chance.

1. The pimped out archer will be better then the EB guy in a white room scenario that never happens in actual play. The sharpshooter feat is great but a 255 minus to add 10 isn't a minor risk. In actual play when in a long combat arrows run out or you are doing stuff that means a bow is too awkard to use ... meh. Maybe I put more emphasis on the surroundings etc in combat than most.
My concern is more "why does the damage cantrip need to stay combat relevant if casters get a range of spells." I guess it feels like balance for its own sake. But I can totally see that is only my opinion and everyone else loves it

2. The great ax isn't about actual damage its about the perception. If I have a power that only kicks in 17% of the time compared to a power that kicks in 54% of the time it just feels underwhelming and using advantage fixes it easily and elegantly.

3. I have tended to do that (may them roll after most spells) but as a sorcerer doesn't necessarily cast too many spells a day .. I mean using 11th which is to me the start of "high level" a sorcerer is going  to at most cast 15 spells a day (top end and unlikely ) if you made them roll for each spell it would give a 55% change of a wild surge happening at least once. 55% of something that might be bad for the party a day seems underwhelming. I like Tides of Chaos, and its possible that that advantage will be very useful but ... I just feel like something a little cleverer with spell acquisition would have been nice.

More importantly than the detail though is that I am merely trying to fit 5e into my style of play and asking questions seems a reasonable way to get answers. I am not even saying its a bad game, I think it looks great but I have a handful of concerns is all.

Quote from: jibbajibba;800233Like I said the players have to feel that their choices are impactful and not obviously weak.

If optimizers loved balance then Fallen Empires would have been the best selling magic expansion of all time.

Have you ever actually played MTG? Fallen Empires was not a "balanced" expansion by any measure. One the other hand the set that most players consider the best ever Ravinca was part of one of the most diverse and balanced formats in the history of Magic.

Quote from: gamerGoyf;800284Have you ever actually played MTG? Fallen Empires was not a "balanced" expansion by any measure. One the other hand the set that most players consider the best ever Ravinca was part of one of the most diverse and balanced formats in the history of Magic.

It was a throwaway comment and yes I played from Legends through to Tempest and then dipped back in later.

We always thought Fallen Empires was very balanced. Maybe we were playing it wrong?

Quote from: jibbajibba;800287We always thought Fallen Empires was very balanced. Maybe we were playing it wrong?

Fallen Empires was massively under-powered to the point that only 6 cards from that set have seen serious play over the course of the games history

Quote from: gamerGoyf;800299Fallen Empires was massively under-powered to the point that only 6 cards from that set have seen serious play over the course of the games history

Agreed and as such the cards in the set were very balanced with each other.
Just because a bunch of things are low powered doesn't mean they aren't balanced.

A race between overweight dwarves may well be a very close race but none of them are going to trouble Usain Bolt.

1: -5 to hit which can be offset by good stats in DEX. Jans allready pointed that out. Also applies to Great Weapon Master which has the same +10 damage for -5 to hit. So even the melee fighters can outclass EB at maximum pump.

And I agree. Why do they need to be so damn potent? Remember. They were more powerful during playtest! Aside from the Warlock none of the classes really need such overtorqued cantrips. A d6 would have been reasonable, or even a gradually increasing die after X levels. Such is.

2: The player has to A: Know the perentages and B: give a damn. And actually the advantage isnt exactly fixing anything. With the d12 weapon the average bumps up 1 point. whoopie. And with the 2d6 weapon it actually doesnt change at all really. Having advantage means its gone from a roll now and then, to a roll every single time. More rolling is not allways a good thing.

3: Yes. Or at least beefed up the path abilities. A once per day advantage isnt much. The bend luck power though is actually not bad when you realize its an at-will power. the next is kinda meh and Bombardment feels not all that great as well since its only going to add 1d to the damage.

Quote from: Omega;8003021: -5 to hit which can be offset by good stats in DEX. Jans allready pointed that out. Also applies to Great Weapon Master which has the same +10 damage for -5 to hit. So even the melee fighters can outclass EB at maximum pump.

And I agree. Why do they need to be so damn potent? Remember. They were more powerful during playtest! Aside from the Warlock none of the classes really need such overtorqued cantrips. A d6 would have been reasonable, or even a gradually increasing die after X levels. Such is.

2: The player has to A: Know the perentages and B: give a damn. And actually the advantage isnt exactly fixing anything. With the d12 weapon the average bumps up 1 point. whoopie. And with the 2d6 weapon it actually doesnt change at all really. Having advantage means its gone from a roll now and then, to a roll every single time. More rolling is not allways a good thing.

3: Yes. Or at least beefed up the path abilities. A once per day advantage isnt much. The bend luck power though is actually not bad when you realize its an at-will power. the next is kinda meh and Bombardment feels not all that great as well since its only going to add 1d to the damage.

Agree with 1 & 3 but on 2 the player doesn't need to know the % at all.
It doesn't matter if the numbers come out roughly the same the point is that the guy using the Great sword is going to get to use the power roughly every other swing and the guy with the great axe 1 swing in 6. At the table this is really noticeable. The fact that the Great axe will benefit more from that 1 in six occurrence (which is what the numbers tell you if you crunch them) doesn't matter because it feels less useful. Advantage means everyone gets to use the power each strike just like the Duelist. And roll 3 keep highest 2 or roll 2 keep highest 1 doesn't take any longer to roll. In fact it will save time on the current rule if its simplicity you are after.

Quote from: jibbajibba;800300Agreed and as such the cards in the set were very balanced with each other.
Just because a bunch of things are low powered doesn't mean they aren't balanced.

I'm not sure if anyone has ever tried to play A Fallen Empires only format but I'd think the white soldier deck would be the best by a country mile.

24 Plains

25 Creatures
4 Icatian Javelineers
4 Icatian Priest
4 Icatian Infantry
4 Order of Leitbur
4 Icatian Lieutenant
2 Combat Medic
3 Hand of Justice.

11 other spells
4 Aeolipile
3 Zelyon Sword
2 Icatian Town
3 Ring of Renewal

This deck actually plays like a real deck unlike the decks you can make with the other colors.

Quote from: gamerGoyf;800311I'm not sure if anyone has ever tried to play A Fallen Empires only format but I'd think the white soldier deck would be the best by a country mile.

24 Plains

25 Creatures
4 Icatian Javelineers
4 Icatian Priest
4 Icatian Infantry
4 Order of Leitbur
4 Icatian Lieutenant
2 Combat Medic
3 Hand of Justice.

11 other spells
4 Aeolipile
3 Zelyon Sword
2 Icatian Town
3 Ring of Renewal

This deck actually plays like a real deck unlike the decks you can make with the other colors.

They did OK at best back in the day, though we allowed Revised & Dark splash to flesh things out. Without the Ring of Renewal card draw you were soon SoL as white creatures are habitually squishy. The empires eventually succumbed to their internal horde threats; attrition wins.

Farrel's Zealots, Thrulls, & Dwarven Weaponsmiths were a nasty tri-color back in the day.

It's one of the few MtG settings that tops my list of Must Be Converted Into RPG Setting Now!

Quote from: Opaopajr;800316They did OK at best back in the day, though we allowed Revised & Dark splash to flesh things out.

If you're including Revised then that changes everything that set had stuff like Black Vise and Lightning Bolt. In that kind of format a deck with mostly fallen empires cards is going to be majorly behind the curve.

Quote from: gamerGoyf;800321If you're including Revised then that changes everything that set had stuff like Black Vise and Lightning Bolt. In that kind of format a deck with mostly fallen empires cards is going to be majorly behind the curve.

Depends. Hymn to Tourach was a staple in Hypnotic Specter decks. When Ice Age came out, before Alliances, Hypnotic Specter + Abyssal Specter + Hymn to Tourach basically meant empty your opponent's hand. No hand, no game. Throw in Necropotence for mid-late game salt in the wound.

Also the "pump knights" were good regardless.

High Tide was exponential mana ramp.

Night Soil and Breeding Pit were core to Ashnod Altar tricks back in the day. In fact, soon after FE tokens were ruled to enter the graveyard then immediately "exile" (modern term. remember, I played in the age of Interrupts). Yes, there was a brief period of token-on-token breed madness.

Also Zeylon Sword and Spirit Shield were about the earliest appearances of the modern game staple mechanic of Artifacts that Equip.

It's easy to look back and say it was a wasteland, but a lot more than remembered good ideas and strong cards popped up from that set. But yes, it is quite outclassed nowadays (but then so is quite a bit of Arabian Nights, Legends, Dark, and Antiquities). Block setting has allowed more sandboxed power creep per basic level play, along with fostering diversity away from ba-roken card dominance from past sets. Compared to the Age of Moxes, everything nowadays is "cute," moderately explosive power cards with pound-for-pound stronger commons.

Though I'm sure glad to be out of that rat race, let me tell you!