Quote from: jibbajibba;799602Not a charop question just a point that the only people outside fighters who get more than 2 attacks a round are those that take the EB cantrip. Whatever class they are (although obviously that requires a feat).

Just a flag that the EB cantrip (and the cantrips in general) is a bit more than just a backup so the wizard doesn't need to carry a bag of daggers which was how it was origially pitched.

Attack roll is not a seperate attack it's basically the same as magic missile except that you have to make attack rolls instead of autohit and it's a ranged attack that is subject to all the factors and possible penalties ranged attacks deal with. Very subtle but important differences there. And only two subclasses can even attempt it which the warlock can't without multiclassing and even then the best any subclass that has the ability (EK or VB) can do is attack with EB and ONE weapon attack as a bonus action regardless of how many weapon attacks they have normally.

So yes at 17th level you could average 42 points damage if all 4 beams hit and you have 20 CHA plus one weapon attack so, what a 1d8+11 and whatever extra damage your magic sword adds? 30-40 points on the generous side? So 70-80 points a round at that level is right on par and not gamebreaking by any means.

Running the premade adventures, I have not yet used NPCs with PC classes yet.  However, eyeballing it looks just fine.

A PC class level N is not equal to CR N.  PC classes look like they are in the ballpark of CR N-3.  As such, it is not accurate to look at, say, the ogre and say its HP are way higher than a 2nd level fighter.  Rather, it is more accurate to look at an ogre and say its HP are comparable to a 5th level fighter.  Your 2nd level party fights one ogre...or your 2nd level party fights one 5th level fighter...not rocket tag at all...should work just fine.

Quote from: One Horse Town;799576To anyone who has had their groups fight other classed NPCs, how have the combats run? I imagine short and brutal.

Short and absolutely brutal.

Quote from: Omega;799614Short and absolutely brutal.

Have you ran them say 100+ vs 4-5? (You decide to break up a big fight on the street or bar and can't kill anyone while they are possessed or in an alcohol rage etc) Because in my experience numbers really change things to being a serious threat to the PC's. If they are classed I would suggest a completely different tactic.

Quote from: Marleycat;799608Attack roll is not a seperate attack it's basically the same as magic missile except that you have to make attack rolls instead of autohit and it's a ranged attack that is subject to all the factors and possible penalties ranged attacks deal with. Very subtle but important differences there. And only two subclasses can even attempt it which the warlock can't without multiclassing and even then the best any subclass that has the ability (EK or VB) can do is attack with EB and ONE weapon attack as a bonus action regardless of how many weapon attacks they have normally.

So yes at 17th level you could average 42 points damage if all 4 beams hit and you have 20 CHA plus one weapon attack so, what a 1d8+11 and whatever extra damage your magic sword adds? 30-40 points on the generous side? So 70-80 points a round at that level is right on par and not gamebreaking by any means.

Um....
I was just agreeing with you that the only default class that can get more than 2 attacks is Fighter but ....
Anyone that takes EB (and using the feats anyone can) will get an at will ability that can for all purposes make more than 2 atttacks... at 11th level you can target 3 opponents or 1 opponent 3 times so each bolt is a separate attack.
Now it might be that at 11th level and beyond without the Warlocks Invocations to bump it the EB damage is too low to worry about versus CR equivalent foes but the fact that the only exception to a fairly strong rule on number of attacks is a cantrip is at least interesting no?

Quote from: Marleycat;799620Have you ran them say 100+ vs 4-5? (You decide to break up a big fight on the street or bar and can't kill anyone while they are possessed or in an alcohol rage etc) Because in my experience numbers really change things to being a serious threat to the PC's. If they are classed I would suggest a completely different tactic.

Im running an RPG. Not a wargame...

And the current group has enough sense to try and get the hell away from large groups they cant handle and go look for the source of the problem instead. Or just wait for the dust to settle.

Quote from: jibbajibba;799623Um....
I was just agreeing with you that the only default class that can get more than 2 attacks is Fighter but ....
Anyone that takes EB (and using the feats anyone can) will get an at will ability that can for all purposes make more than 2 atttacks... at 11th level you can target 3 opponents or 1 opponent 3 times so each bolt is a separate attack.
Now it might be that at 11th level and beyond without the Warlocks Invocations to bump it the EB damage is too low to worry about versus CR equivalent foes but the fact that the only exception to a fairly strong rule on number of attacks is a cantrip is at least interesting no?

Not attacks but the ability to hit multiple targets with ONE attack and unless you're a Warlock you don't have access to the invocations required to make it more damaging ie. not all the beams get the CHA damage adder, no push and you can only get the 240 ft range not the 600 ft range with a feat.

Again it works EXACTLY like Magic Missile in that you have the choice to target 1-4 targets but EACH target requires a subtraction from the total number of beams and you have to make a ranged attack roll for each. Remember a fighter gets 3 seperate attacks which can attack 3 seperate targets in melee within movement range anybody that has EB does the same but at range as a ranged attack even in melee. No appreciable difference from the damage perspective really.

Now to REALLY twist your brain...a 18th level Evoker can make Magic Missile at-will (1d4+1 per missile (3 missiles) +5 with INT 20) no attack roll, no save and you could overchannel it for maximum damage one time no ramifications and keep doing so every round after in exchange for 2d12 necrotic damage to yourself. So yes you could do that for 4-5 rounds pretty easily. Now image they have Meteor Storm prepared? Or Delayed Blast Firebolt, Prismatic Spray, Chain Lightning or whatever else prepared?

Quote from: jibbajibba;799573no I was saying I was thinking of replacing the GWF effect with advantage because its simpler, creates an effect more comparable to duelist's +2 damage but most importantly is seen to have an effect. If you use the GWF as written, in our experience from play, using a d10 weapon it simply comes up very rarely. 80% of the time it has no effect. That felt weak next to the +2 flat on all damage rolls.

But the duellist gives up +2 AC for using a shield, the greatweapon fighter doesn't give up anything. 1d8+2 is still lower than 2d6, never mind 2d6 reroll 1 & 2.

Looking at the styles, the +1 AC in armour one looks probably the strongest.

Quote from: S'mon;799683But the duellist gives up +2 AC for using a shield, the greatweapon fighter doesn't give up anything. 1d8+2 is still lower than 2d6, never mind 2d6 reroll 1 & 2.

Looking at the styles, the +1 AC in armour one looks probably the strongest.

Actually there is a lot of debate about that as the wording says a weapon in one hand but doesn't mention a shield.

The great weapon fighter of course can't use a shield
And some of those weapons like the Glaive do 1d10 not 2d6.

Part of it is dependent on how you run the world of course. if you insist that a Great sword needs ten feet of space to weild to its full potential its utility drops significantly in most games. There is a reason they were mainly used in big open battlefields against horses ...

Quote from: jibbajibba;799687Actually there is a lot of debate about that as the wording says a weapon in one hand but doesn't mention a shield.

The great weapon fighter of course can't use a shield
And some of those weapons like the Glaive do 1d10 not 2d6.

Part of it is dependent on how you run the world of course. if you insist that a Great sword needs ten feet of space to weild to its full potential its utility drops significantly in most games. There is a reason they were mainly used in big open battlefields against horses ...

In any rational world the shield is certainly a weapon.

Quote from: Exploderwizard;799701In any rational world the shield is certainly a weapon.

1d6 damage. Next playtest Shield Master feat.

Quote from: Exploderwizard;799701In any rational world the shield is certainly a weapon.

typical threads on the topic -

http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?370228-Fighter-Dueling-Style-and-Shield

http://rpg.stackexchange.com/questions/45094/duelist-and-shields

http://community.wizards.com/forum/rules-questions/threads/4106756 (Q5)

Etc

Personally I would say the point of duelist is to be sans sheild but dueling rapier and buckler was common and if you extend "duel" back to the medieval period then tournaments with sword and shield so ....
not black an white.

Quote from: jibbajibba;799741typical threads on the topic -

http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?370228-Fighter-Dueling-Style-and-Shield

http://rpg.stackexchange.com/questions/45094/duelist-and-shields

http://community.wizards.com/forum/rules-questions/threads/4106756 (Q5)

Etc

Personally I would say the point of duelist is to be sans sheild but dueling rapier and buckler was common and if you extend "duel" back to the medieval period then tournaments with sword and shield so ....
not black an white.

Sword and buckler is certainly a legitimate historical style. The issue isn't one of denying the possibility of fighting that way but of not permitting the cheese of claiming that because the very lethal object you are wielding in your off hand happens to provide more effective defense than another weapon that it is not in fact a weapon.

I would say that anyone using 5E rules that fights with sword and shield and chooses a fighting style that stipulates using a one handed melee weapon and no other weapons is incorrect on the matter.

Protection or two weapon fighting styles would be appropriate, dueling would not.

Rapier and dagger was also a popular dueling form. Should someone choose to do this and take the dueling style I suspect there would be more objections than those given for using a shield?  Why?

From a game balance perspective, such a style would be weaker than two weapon fighting since there is no defensive bonus for the off hand weapon in this case and the +2 damage gained may be less than the damage bonus potential from the off hand attack.

The objections would come because people regard the dagger as a weapon but not the shield. Both are equally valid weapons. Those trying to convince people that the shield isn't a weapon are just trying to get a free +2 to damage while fighting sword & board.

Official response from Jeremy in the Q&A thread on Reddit...

Quote from: Jeremy CrawfordA character with the Dueling option usually pairs a one-handed weapon with a shield, spellcasting focus, or free hand.

So weapon and shield fighter can use Duelist.

Quote from: jibbajibba;799687Actually there is a lot of debate about that as the wording says a weapon in one hand but doesn't mention a shield.

Oh you're right, I misread 'no other weapons' as 'nothing else'. Guess I'll be going Duellist at level 2 then.