Quote from: S'mon;799818Oh you're right, I misread 'no other weapons' as 'nothing else'. Guess I'll be going Duellist at level 2 then.

I 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. My Paladin PC mini is carrying a Maul, but now I'm going to have to say it's actually a Warhammer and the mini is also carrying an Invisible Shield of Privilege (+2 AC) to go with his privileged Duellist Style +2 damage... compared to GWF style I end up with +2 AC for less than a 2-point reduction in typical damage output.

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. My Paladin PC mini is carrying a Maul, but now I'm going to have to say it's actually a Warhammer and the mini is also carrying an Invisible Shield of Privilege (+2 AC) to go with his privileged Duellist Style +2 damage... compared to GWF style I end up with +2 AC for less than a 2-point reduction in typical damage output.

Yeah but these type of discussions are just pointless cos no one learn anything real about the game obviously ....

Quote from: jibbajibba;799911Yeah but these type of discussions are just pointless cos no one learn anything real about the game obviously ....

Yeah, I think looking back over the thread you were right & they were way over-harsh on you. Just that your initial language describing the (real) problem was a bit confusing.

Without the fighting styles, I thought two-handed weapon was maybe just about viable vs sword & board in 5e, though when I played the Starter Set Fighter I soon swapped out my great axe for a longsword. Giving sword & board another boost on top seems really weird; it's close to AD&D where a longsword d8 & +1 AC for shield was clearly better than two-handed sword d10.

True. But better or "optimal" does not allways make for more interesting.

Quote from: Omega;799997True. But better or "optimal" does not allways make for more interesting.

Luckily "optimal" in 5e is barely different from damned good or "interesting". Whoopie you get10 points more damage then my 9/11 Abjurer/Eldritch Knight while I never let you even get wounded, awesome and so gamebreaking right?

Quote from: Marleycat;800009Luckily "optimal" in 5e is barely different from damned good or "interesting". Whoopie you get10 points more damage then my 9/11 Abjurer/Eldritch Knight while I never let you even get wounded, awesome and so gamebreaking right?

So you think the 9/11 Abjurer/EK is broken?

Quote from: Omega;799997True. But better or "optimal" does not allways make for more interesting.

No I totally agree and never optimise but ...

Some weapon combos are better. I have no problem with that it mirrors real life.
But in RL some weapons most weapons have a niche in which they are particularly good which is why they were developed.
I think the game should try to mirror that if it can. You can't go all the way the benefits of a fencing sabre over an epee, the small sword vs the rapier, these are marginal. However, if your game is say OD&D and all weapons do 1d6 damage then everyone should use a dagger. There are no rules for reach or anything. You can carry a lot of daggers they are light you can throw them.

So Handaxes, they don't deal as much damage as a long sword but they should be throwable. Shortswords, you can't mirror their advantages in tight millitary formation, but you can mirror the fact that you can use two of them at once and you can use them like a long knife if you are in a grapple situation. etc

I think GWF works much better with a straight advantage on damage. It prevents the Great sword becoming the only weapon you consider two handed and it compensates for no shield a little and and this is key you can see it working every go. As it stood GWF with most weapons rarely actually came into play.
If you can pick between 2 options and one you get to use each attack (+2 damage) and the other you get to use every now and then (20% of the time for a glaive, 17% of the time for a Great axe, but a whopping 54% of the time for a Great sword) it feels a bit useless. Stuff like feats and weapons styles and pacts and magical schools, all the choices you make in your character have to seem relevant as well as being relevant.

Quote from: jibbajibba;800015So you think the 9/11 Abjurer/EK is broken?

Reading comprehension dude. You're S&B Fighter is a DPR monster but my multiclassed Abjurer/EK can reflexively throw a ward around any of my allies that forces you to burn through to actually hit them. It's called a Shielding Swordmage I could make it a Conjurer instead to be an Attack Swordmage that teleports herself to anywhere or others in a switch anytime also. It's all about preferred tactics.

Being multiclassed like that means you lose big time abilities that the original classes have if you remain single class. But it allows for concepts a person likes regardless of IF they are strictly optimal or not.

But is a fighter with weapon 3 attacks and a wizard with 5th level spells so it's a good tradeoff IF you know what concept you want to play and accept the limitations for not remaining single classed (combining spells and weapon attacks simultaneously or being impervious to concentration breaks when controlling a summoned creature, massive spell resistance and having a 45 hitpoint ward up seperate from your actual hitpoints etc).

Basically it's different with unique abilities but by no means stronger than a single class character, in fact it can be argued to be weaker from a optimization standpoint.

Quote from: Marleycat;800023Reading comprehension dude. You're S&B Fighter is a DPR monster but my multiclassed Abjurer/EK can reflexively throw a ward around any of my allies that forces you to burn through to actually hit them. It's called a Shielding Swordmage I could make it a Conjurer instead to be an Attack Swordmage that teleports herself to anywhere or others in a switch anytime also. It's all about preferred tactics.

Being multiclassed like that means you lose big time abilities that the original classes have if you remain single class. But it allows for concepts a person likes regardless of IF they are strictly optimal or not. And is fighter with 3 attacks and a wizard with 5th level spells so it's a good tradeoff IF you know what concept you want to play and accept the limitations for not remaining single classed (combining spells and weapon attacks simultaneously or being impervious to concentration breaks when controlling a summoned creature etc).

Sorry I was just teasing you because you were being ridiculous.
You deny optimisation then throw arround terms and forms of language that would make the most avid Denner blush.

This isn't a discussion about is my xyz character tougher than your abc character. This is a discussion about I have a choice of what combat style to choose and one of them looks far weaker than the other and doesn't seem to have a benefit in kind elsewhere. Sure you can ignore it but the fact is that in the RAW GWF is weaker than Duelist and not marginally weaker much weaker. Within GWF RAW a Greataxe is a rubbish idea, the benefit of the skill only comes into play on 1 in six attacks compared to over 50% for a great sword. Now that isn't flavourful or a cool quirk at best it's bad math and at worst is deliberate anti-dwarf racism.
Changing it to simple advantage has a host of benefits. It is more elelgant, one less rule quirk to remember, it always gets used so you can see it at work, it makes the Great axe vs Great sword a much better debate as now you are back to the great sword having a higher average and the great axe being more likely to score maximum damage so its a genuine choice.

I don't care is the cool multi-clas combo you have come up with could totally burn my fighter with its kewl powerz. What I care about is that my players feel like the character choice they made was a reasonable one that looks about as good as the others they could have taken when they use it in actual play. I don't care about 20th level characters. I care about the first few levels cos my PCs are in the first few levels.After 6 months play they might be a 10th, chances are they will be closer to 6th because we spend way too much talking to barmen, haggling over the price of dinner, exploring ruins and running through city backstreets to maximise our XP per session, oh and I am a stingy fucker.

But the fact is the slight possible advantage damage wise you worry is negligible at best and something nobody BUT an optimizer would give two shits about yet you want to houserule a game you have no clue about based on your concerns. Just perfect and typically "Denner" of you.

Quote from: Marleycat;800030But the fact is the slight possible advantage damage wise you worry is negligible at best and something nobody BUT an optimizer would give two shits about yet you want to houserule a game you have no clue about based on your concerns. Just perfect and typically "Denner" of you.

No you see you misunderstand again.

My concerns are that people at my table notice things like "with that skill he adds 2 damage to every roll but with my skill every time I roll a 1 or a 2 I get to reroll. My skill is crap can I change it" or "he is doing the same damage with his cantrip as I am doing with my bow but I have to carry arrows, have room to use the bow and he just wiggles his hand and points his finger"

It doesn't actually matter if one is better or not as much as it matters how they are percieved by the players. I want my players to feel like their choices were suitable for their characters, weren't stupid and made them better at the thing they were supposed to be good at than the guy that does it as an afterthought.

By the way Optimisers rather than wanting balance generally want disparity. Optimisation is about spotting the expolits (like great sword vs great axe for example).

But again it falls back to a decision of playstyle rather than optimal damage output.

Jan plays an archer. But someone will say "But but! She could easily be playing a caster and have more powah!?!?!". Jan plays an archer because she LIKES playing an archer. She does NOT like playing a straight-up caster. Heck, she barely uses her ranger spells when playing a ranger. She enjoys keeping track of arrows and loves the new feature to recover arrows after a fight.

Kefra, one of the other players in my group, favours Great Weapon Fighting over Dueling when shes playing the fighter, which is often. It fits her style and preferences whereas Dueling does not. Her other favorite is the spear and the thrown axe.

If you have a player so shallow as to want to change styles because of a percieved difference like that. Then let them! Really its not going to end the world allowing someone to reconsider. Now if they play with duelling a while and then want to change back to GWF then tell them to go fuck themselves!

For the group I am DMing for the player with the Sorcerer realized that the wild magic wasnt triggering very often. Or at least not enough to make things "interesting" and asked to switch over to Dragonblooded. Since he was low level and hadnt yet used any wild magic tricks I said sure. If he asks later to switch back. Too bad. Im pretty sure though he wont.

Quote from: jibbajibba;800040No you see you misunderstand again.

My concerns are that people at my table notice things like "with that skill he adds 2 damage to every roll but with my skill every time I roll a 1 or a 2 I get to reroll. My skill is crap can I change it" or "he is doing the same damage with his cantrip as I am doing with my bow but I have to carry arrows, have room to use the bow and he just wiggles his hand and points his finger"

It doesn't actually matter if one is better or not as much as it matters how they are percieved by the players. I want my players to feel like their choices were suitable for their characters, weren't stupid and made them better at the thing they were supposed to be good at than the guy that does it as an afterthought.

By the way Optimisers rather than wanting balance generally want disparity. Optimisation is about spotting the expolits (like great sword vs great axe for example).

First you've never struck me as a person all that concerned with ultimate balance and second you're wrong about optimizers they prefer balance over obvious imbalance because it's more of a challenge to optimize which is their primary enjoyment in a game.

Quote from: Omega;800071But again it falls back to a decision of playstyle rather than optimal damage output.

Jan plays an archer. But someone will say "But but! She could easily be playing a caster and have more powah!?!?!". Jan plays an archer because she LIKES playing an archer. She does NOT like playing a straight-up caster. Heck, she barely uses her ranger spells when playing a ranger. She enjoys keeping track of arrows and loves the new feature to recover arrows after a fight.

Kefra, one of the other players in my group, favours Great Weapon Fighting over Dueling when shes playing the fighter, which is often. It fits her style and preferences whereas Dueling does not. Her other favorite is the spear and the thrown axe.

If you have a player so shallow as to want to change styles because of a percieved difference like that. Then let them! Really its not going to end the world allowing someone to reconsider. Now if they play with duelling a while and then want to change back to GWF then tell them to go fuck themselves!

For the group I am DMing for the player with the Sorcerer realized that the wild magic wasn't triggering very often. Or at least not enough to make things "interesting" and asked to switch over to Dragonblooded. Since he was low level and hadn't yet used any wild magic tricks I said sure. If he asks later to switch back. Too bad. I'm pretty sure though he wont.

The 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.

Quote from: Marleycat;800096First you've never struck me as a person all that concerned with ultimate balance and second you're wrong about optimizers they prefer balance over obvious imbalance because it's more of a challenge to optimize which is their primary enjoyment in a game.

Like 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.