INTRO
Hi All,
A long time D&D player here - the game system first caught my fancy as i first lay my eyes upon the 2nd Ed (?) box set with the Red Dragon at Toy R Us circa 1991. Have been hooked every since. I think i invested my majority time and resources DMing 3/3.5 ed games with friends and family. 4th ed was a total miss for me and while i purchased the core books in 2008, i never revisited it after my first playtest session at my local NYC store.
Now in India, i recently acquired the 3 core 5E books via Amazon, and im hooked. In the past 2 weeks, they havent left my study/bedside and ive enrolled in 2 sessions on roll20. Kudos to WOTC for rediscovering the joy of D&D with this edition.
Of the many reviews, threads and critiques of the edition, i have 2 pet peeves in this edition, one of which i wish to discuss in this thread.
OP Weapon, Feat, Class Feature Combos
I wish to quiz the game designers and other DMs/players how you look at the following weapon combos. Most of them arise from either ambigious or 'creative' reading of the printed rules in the PHB. Majority of them seem unintended, while some might be intended and at the risk of being 'that DM', i just wish for feedback from the community before i house rule the below, as i see fit:
1. Duelist Fighting Style, Fighter/Paladin:
I know the game designer has specifically clarified that 1h+shield was intended to be used with this style, i however still find a +2 damage, which makes most 1h martial weapons increase their hit dice by two, frankly OP. A battleaxe (1d8 = 4.5 avg dmg) becomes a single handed greataxe equivalent (1d12 = 6.5 avg dmg). Yes, Fighter/Paladins are meant to favor Greatswords/Mauls with the GWF style for the re-rolls, but still Duelist seems OP.
House-Rule: I intend to house-rule this as a +1 to damage if used with any object in the off-hand or +2 if the off-hand is empty. If you want 1d12 damage, use a 2hander.
2. Crossbow Mastery + a. Light/Heavy Crossbow, b. Dual wielding Hand crossbows:
(a.) The best ranged weapon in the game becomes a Heavy Crossbow at 1d10 damage. Now in a fantasy setting like D&D, I find it highly grating that the premier weapon of choice for a marksman is not a longbow (due to 'loading' removed by the feat).
Crossbows were designed to be used by poorly trained folks/militia, as a Longbow took years of martial training to use effectively in war/battle. Even assuming a character is highly trained with these mechanical devices and supremely agile, hence able to reload this contraption with superhuman speed, makes more precise attacks (gets DEX bonus to attack roll, as with all ranged weapons), why would his speed/agility have any bearing on how hard a bolt fired from this mechanical device hits (i.e. the DEX bonus to Damage).
With this ruling, the Longbow’s superiority over all Crossbows increases, the more attacks (higher levels) you make per turn, something that seems more elegant to me.
House-Rule: All crossbows ruled as simple weapons (any class can pick them up and pull a trigger), however, they DO NOT apply any attribute bonus to damage. With Mastery feat, Crossbow damage is +2.
(b.) Dual Wielding two hand crossbows, is NOT Two Weapon fighting, since theyre not 'melee' weapons which the PHB specifies for TWF. However with the Crossbow Mastery feat, it seems legal for a Human character at Level 1, to fire two attacks at 1d6+DEX damage (3.5+3 = 6.5 x2 = 13, 1 attack+1bonus action), making it hands down the best Archery setup v/s Longbow 1d8+DEX (4.5+3 = 7.5), across nearly all levels. I suspect the feat was intended for 1 melee weapon + 1 hand crossbow, as many Drows are envisioned (so you are in the thick of melee battle), not as a Diablo III Demon-Hunter, spraying from 30 feet away.
House-Rule: Firstly, I would permit this dual wielding of hand xbows, it’s an admittedly ‘cool’ flavor. In addition to above ruling (i.e. no DEX bonus to damage using ANY crossbows, +2 to damage with this Feat), the bonus damage would NOT apply to the bonus action attack, without the TWF fighting style.
Still keeps Dual Hand Xbows setup better than a Longbow at early levels (e.g. 16DEX Level1 Fighter 1d8+3 = 7.5 Longbow v/s 2d6+2 = 9), but then that includes an investment of a Feat and limited range. Longbow superiority at later levels with higher no. of attacks (e.g. 18DEX Level5 Fighter, 2d8+8 = 17 Longbow dmg v/s 3d6+4 = 14.5) – again, seems far more elegant to me.
3. Quarterstaff & Shield using Polearm Mastery and Duelist fighting style
Another munchkin favorite on reddit, Im very clear that the designers did not intend stick + shield to be the premium fighting setup of Paladins and Fighters, far superior to any Longsword/Battleaxe/Warhammer etc.
House-rule: The wording of the Polearm Mastery feat to specify, ‘a Quarterstaff held in both hands’.
4. Rapier + Shield, DEX setups
DEX is already an over-weighted stat, a 'god stat' some will say - all other things being equal it gives exactly the same benefits as STR using a Rapier for attacks and damage, while being used for saves v/s majority of spells/traps/conditions, skill checks (Nearly ALL the STR checks have an equivalent DEX check e.g. Overrun/Tumble or Athletics v/s Acrobatics) AND adds to your AC and Initiative.
With the exception of martial characters using a 2Handed melee weapon, in 5E there is near zero benefit for any class to take STR over DEX. Its a very big shortcoming of 5E design according to me. (well yes, you can CARRY more - but thats meh, especially in a party scenario. Also, the STR character can break doors and the like, initiate Grapples but the DEX char is as good at defending against these, while not being able to initiate.)
For e.g. All things being equal, imagine a level 1 Fighter with 16DEX and another with 16STR
16DEX Fighter with Duelist fighting style, Attack +2+3 and Damage 1d8+3+2 (Rapier), exactly the same as
16STR Fighter with Duelist fighting style, Attack +2+3 and Damage 1d8+3+2 (Longsword/Battleaxe/Warhammer etc.)
Additionally the 16DEX fighter would also have +3 to Initiative, be able to stealth and sneak (if he wanted to), have +3 to AC which would allow him to maintain the same AC with light/med armor + Shield, as a 16STR fighter using expensive Heavy armor + Shield. (Ok, in case of Full Plate, you do get a +1 benefit to AC v/s all other combinations, but that’s a 1200gp+ sink)
Basically, it’s the Rapier, created as the premier weapon of choice for the melee finesse warrior that causes this munchkin niche case.
House-rule: Rapiers do 1d6 damage if used with Med/Large shield (Restricting movement of a weapon that requires supreme agility)
5. Single Shield type, STR v/s DEX especially as a secondary stat
In addition to the above, think of a Cleric, why should one pick STR as an attribute over DEX, ever? The many domains that give Heavy Armor prof. become a wasted benefit, since all other things being equal, the Cleric is just better off sticking with a higher DEX and using a Shield with Light/Med Armor. Not only does he get higher Initiative, he gets better DEX saves, traditionally a weakness of the plated/defensive battle medic. It’s worse when you think of a pure DEX melee Fighter v/s a traditional STR melee fighter as illustrated above.
House-rule: Currently just one standard shield exists, gives +2 to AC – Add to the world a Small Shield/Buckler +1 AC, Medium Shield +2 AC (13 STR required) and a Large Shield +3 AC (15 STR required).
This change makes a pure DEX character (a) unable to carry Med/Large shields (b) Allows the pure STR character another +1 AC bonus via Large Shields. Leading to a +3 AC benefit
- High 20STR, low DEX character in Full-Plate (18) + Large Shield (3) v/s
- High 20DEX, low STR character in Studded Leather (12) + Small shield (1) + (5) Base armor character, who additionally has +5 to Initiative and Dex Saves ‘for free’ & doesn’t need to spend a fortune on Plate Armor. Fair Choice?
--------
Please give your feedback, im aware that some rulings may be too restrictive in conjuction with each other, but lets see what everyone has to say.
Please also add any other combos that seem unintended and OP, ill add them to the list.
I don't see the need for any of these changes.
Martial characters tend to fall behind without it.
The only changes i have is that you can't have crossbow master and use a shield + hand crossbow.
If anything, i would boost the other weapons. Mauls are 2d8 for instance. Longswords are d10.
I'm doubtful about the need too. Feats and Fighting Styles are intended to give a character a noticeable benefit, compared to not having them. If you dumb them down, you weaken the PCs and limit their choices, which is less fun for them.
Are you perhaps bringing 3.5e thinking into 5e? An expectation that feats should be small and of limited scope? Feats in 5e are bigger and more dramatic, by design intent.
Remember, the game rules as they stand were not just theory-crafted, they were extensively play-tested for balance. Try the vanilla game for a good few sessions and see how it plays for real. If your players actually take those fighting styles and feats (which they may well not), and if you find the party as a whole is defeating monsters too easily, then rather than houseruling away some of the PC's strengths (which is less fun for them), you can make the encounters more challenging (which is more fun for everyone).
The deciding factor should be: is it more fun for the players?
I don't see any of these changes making the game better. Adding rules complexity and weakening printed character options automatically comes at some cost to the game, and what you're proposing doesn't really offset it.
RealSeolfor wrote:
CahPahkah wrote:
Kalani wrote:
You are correct. Once you calculate hit chance, crit chance, and other similar factors - the discrepency between the weapons widens. I was simply being lazy, and only looked at the raw damage die (sans hit rolls or damage rerolls).
Even then, discrepencies showed up once I started comparing the damage ranges between the weapons. Even a single discrepency was all I needed to show that their premise was flawed, and therefore so was their conclusion. If Longsword + FS was equal to (or superior to) GA + FS, then yes - the OP would have had a legitimate complaint. Such was not the case however.
It really bugs me when people look at details in a vacuum and then say they are OP compared to other details.... especially when they skew results by adding a "bonus" to one side of the equation, but not a comparable bonus to the other.
- Oh look - weapon + fighting style appears OP compared to a weapon (and no other features)..... (or worse yet)
- A weapon + feat is broken compared to this weapon (and no feat/ABI).
These kinds of comparisons annoy me greatly but they seem to occur on a semi-regular basis.
Kalani wrote:
Thanks for all the responses, even the pedantic hostile ones 
Beyond your internet angst, i still see the merit of most of the points raised.
Youre right, some of the comparisons do indeed matchup as a 'FIghting Style/Feat + Weapon' to simply a 'Weapon', which ofcourse is wrong.
To the person who said these changes dont make the game better or would nerf martial classes, who anyways tail-off - my intention is fairness and creation of choice. When one choice is so far superior to the other, that choosing it for RP reasons would be plain sub-optimal, something is wrong with the ruling (intended or 'read creatively').
I want to see martial characters remain relevant, in fact my house ruling regarding Variety Shields is to reward martial STR focused characters. (because i feel DEX focused melee characters already gain enough side benefits)
I'd like to address then in order of 'percieved' importance (and this time i will pay particular attention to ensure a like for like comparison):
1. Quarterstaff + Shield + Duelist + Polearm Mastery:
I still think allowing this is playing into or participating in munchkin power-gaming. Neither does it make sense flavor wise, RP wise or mechanically. Still, to play the math out
Sample a Fighter, STR 16, Level 4:
Choice A Damage: Longsword + Shield + Duelist + 2 STR (i.e. now 18STR)
[W] Attack action gives 1d8+4+2 = 10.5 mean Longsword dmg (Range 7-14). Figuring in Crits on 19-20 (Champion subclass) thats about a 11.5 mean
[P] If you wish to bring in Attack hit probability, To Hit is +6 or v/s AC15 or hit% = (1-8/20) = 60%
W*P = 6.9 expected damage per attack turn, as well as for each reaction
Choice B Damage: Quarterstaff + Shield + Duelist + Polearm Mastery
[W] Attack action gives 1d6+3+2 = 8.5 mean Quarterstaff dmg, Additionally Bonus action gives 1d4+3+2 = 7.5 mean dmg (the creative reading of the rules has allowed the addition of +3 STR bonus to 'off-hand' WITHOUT TWF fighting style, as well as a +2 damage from the Duelist FStyle) i.e. total 16 mean dmg. Figuring in Crits on 19-20 (Champion subclass) thats about a 17.5 mean (9.35+8.25)
[P] If you wish to bring in Attack hit probability, To Hit is +5 or v/s AC15 or hit% = (1-9/20) = 55% for each attack
W*P = 5.1 (9.35x0.55) + 4.5 (8.25x0.55) = 9.6 expected damage per attack turn and 5.1 for a reaction attack
Its a 40% better option, i absolutely wouldnt allow it. (Yes, as multiple attacks kick in, the difference narrows down, but i wouldnt allow my players to abuse this combo from levels 1 through 5). Further, it allows you to treat a 1h Quarterstaff as threating Opportunity attacks to enemies coming in range. Its worst when combo-ed at Level 1 by a Variant Human. So, NOPE, not happening. Ill bet a good few dollars that the first errata will surely clarify this.
Next combo in the next post.
Here's the changes i came up with...
RealSeolfor wrote:
2. Single Shield type, STR v/s DEX especially as a secondary stat
No reason to penalize DEX melee builds, but given how 'poor' the STR stat is and in the spirit of helping Martial STR melee classes, the Shield ruling seems very fair to me i.e. Instead of just the one-size-fits-all Shield in the PHB, split into
1. Small Shield +1 AC (no STR/DEX requirements)
2. Medium Shield +2 AC (13 STR requirement)
3. Large Shield +3 AC (15 STR requirement)
No feats/fighting styles/class features are involved in this comparison. Plain and simple, all other things being equal a DEX melee v/s STR melee character enjoys higher Initiave and DEX saves, with this change, the STR character will enjoy a higher AC (Current benefit of +1 from Plate Mail, this increase that to +3 assuming the DEX melee uses a Small Shield).
Based on feedback from this thread and other forums, i do realize the other related house-rule (Rapier dice to d6) is not needed.
3. Crossbow Mastery + a. Light/Heavy Crossbow, b. Dual wielding Hand crossbows:
So i guess in my comparison i shouldve included a +2 to DEX in the Longbow case (instead of the Feat). I'll concede that adding this ruling isnt needed. If the designers wish to make Heavy Crossbows the premier ranged weapon of D&D, so be it. As far as dual wielding two Hand Crossbows goes, id definitely allow it WITH the Mastery feat, but no DEX bonus to damage from the off-hand, without the TWF fighting style (i.e. treat it no different from TWF with melee weapons).
I concede the Duelist house-rule, the fair comparison of 'Longsword + Duelist' (6.5 mean) v/s 'Great Sword + GWF' (8.33 mean) still keeps two-handers a very viable choice, especially with other compounding features/feats/powers.
Thanks for all your inputs!
mellored wrote:
RealSeolfor wrote:
RealSeolfor wrote:
RealSeolfor wrote:
Coredump00 wrote:
durntaur wrote:
Coredump00 wrote:
durntaur wrote:
There are different optimizations that must be considered.
Damage
Range + mobility
Defense
A highly ranged highly mobile longbow archer can likely take out many threats without taking even a single hit because he can "kite" enemies.
A highly defensive melee combatant may be better than one that does more damage because you cannot damage enemies when you are dead. Having higher defense also increase the effectiveness of healing on you.
Of course we all know the advantages of higher damage. Including the fact that dead enemies cannot hurt you.
The only advice I will give to the OP is that if you dont like how something works, just change it.
Discuss it with your roll20 group. Propose the changes you want to see. Your table will agree or not. Maybe they will all agree, cool bananas, get playing. Everyone plays 5e a bit differently. Houserules/optional rules are common and a significant degree of subjective adjudication is built into the rules (eg: stealth, improvised actions)Or there might be some other compromise. You dont need Wotc to make it official. How it works at your table what matters on the day.
Best of luck.
CahPahkah wrote:
RealSeolfor wrote:
Greenstone.Walker wrote:
mellored wrote:
Theres like 40 regulars at our AL game night....and only a few people are using the 'best' combos. Heck, half the people are using pre-gen characters that started off with unoptimized stat blocks.
My table's standard human bear totem barbarian is both our uber tank and big reliable damage dealer...with no feats. He walks up, does his reckless attack, and if it doesn't die, he just face tanks it for a turn till the 2 rogues pincushion it with their fistfulls of d6s.
Actually, there is only 2 people at our table with a feats...and the one I took is Observant for my mage. I usually just spam fire bolt unless either Big baddies come out or the party members-to-monsters ratio gets ugly, then the AE spells come out. Totally worth a fireball slot to nuke a room full of 14 3-4HD dudes with multiattack. Guess what, I did more damage with 1 spell slot then anyone else adding up all their damage all night.
The other feat taker is a Half orc Champion with a greatsword and GWM....he likes crits. He is way less tanky than the barbarian, but crits twice as often and those are always pretty.
All this is my way of saying, that +1 or 2 damage on a hit is hardly breaking your games....if your table is full of optimizers then its just easier to give the monsters an extra 5-10 hitpoints or +2 AC or whatever makes sense at the time to make it interesting....the PCs still get to feel special and u get to feel good that u ran a fun game.
lawrencehoy wrote:
lawrencehoy wrote:
Coredump00 wrote:
mellored wrote: