I must confess that I am not a fan of optimized builds. I build to have fun and if the GWM/Polearm/Fighter/Barb is doing piles of damage and I'm not then I'm usually okay with it.
However, I'm running a game and some of my players aren't as open-minded as I am and I'm getting serious negative feedback. We have one Fighter/Ranger with Crossbow Expert and Sharpshooter and they're cranking out 60+ points a round and that's without Action Surge. Another is a Fighter/Barb with Polearm Master and GWM who can do the same thing in melee. I can build a combat encounter to deal with the Damage Twins but the rest of my players are feeling outclassed. In particular, is one who likes 2-weapon fighting. They have the Dial Wield Feat and the Two-Weapon fighting style and their typical damage is far behind the curve.
Have any other DMs tried to rebalance this or fix it somehow? If so, how did you do it? I'm opposed to nerfing the GWM et. al. but I'm having trouble figuring this out.
Give the duel wielding player a magic item, like a +1/+2 rapier that only they can use. Perhaps one with a cool ability like a weapon of warning. This would help them feel more useful, probably.
You can make the dual wielder scale with extra attack. Meaning an extra off-hand attack for each bonus attack. Considering the bounded accuracy of 5e and +4 to damage, this amounts to +5.59 dmg per round - less than the +10, but more accurate.
Another thing you can do is add a flat +2 to each attack damage (as with dueling), this would round up to +6 dmg.
I don't think is too much if you're already dealing with the other two.
If a particular PC does solid damage per attack but needs a boost, give them another attack.
If a particular PC does a lot of attacks but needs a boost, give them more damage per attack. Even just another 1d4 per attack will really start to add up, especially if their attack modifier is high so they rarely miss. I have a T-WF Fighter* in a campaign I’m DMing right now, and she needed a boost to DPR. A magic item with charges and divine favor should make them happy.
*She went with double shortsword, but I personally prefer rapier & whip, and the Sentinel feat. The two different reaches plays well with Sentinel. But double shortswords and piercer is also nice.
Need more detail. Assuming this is tier 2, there's no real reason the dual weapon build should be falling behind in dpr.
The avg damage of a reckless attacking fighter/barb with PAM+GWM is about 34.5 per turn, on the other hand, dual wielder will reach 16.5 per turn at tier 2. It is a big difference.
Need more detail. Assuming this is tier 2, there's no real reason the dual weapon build should be falling behind in dpr.
The avg damage of a reckless attacking fighter/barb with PAM+GWM is about 34.5 per turn, on the other hand, dual wielder will reach 16.5 per turn at tier 2. It is a big difference.
Use high AC enemies? The baseline damage at strength 20 for PAM is +8/2d10+1d4+15 (28.5), for dual is +8/3d8+15 (28.5). GWM doubles average damage per hit, but against an AC 19 target it halves hit probability. Not to mention that it cost two feats, while the dual wielder only spent 1. Also, if they're continually using reckless attack, give them appropriate punishment for doing so.
Need more detail. Assuming this is tier 2, there's no real reason the dual weapon build should be falling behind in dpr.
The avg damage of a reckless attacking fighter/barb with PAM+GWM is about 34.5 per turn, on the other hand, dual wielder will reach 16.5 per turn at tier 2. It is a big difference.
Use high AC enemies? The baseline damage at strength 20 for PAM is +8/2d10+1d4+15 (28.5), for dual is +8/3d8+15 (28.5). GWM doubles average damage per hit, but against an AC 19 target it halves hit probability.
But that is the same as nerfing GWM, which the OP don't want to do and I agree. Making someone feel less competent don't solve the problem, just creates more problems. Hence, why buffing Dual Wielder is the way to go.
BTW, just to have the math:
Against and AC 19, a reckless attacking PAM+GWM has a hit % of 36%, applied to the average damage of 64.5 (Weapon avg.+mod+rage+GWM), it would amount to 23.22/round.
The non reckless attacking dual wielder would have a 45% hit %, applied to an average 28.5 (weapon avg.+mod), what would translate to 12.82/round.
Need more detail. Assuming this is tier 2, there's no real reason the dual weapon build should be falling behind in dpr.
The avg damage of a reckless attacking fighter/barb with PAM+GWM is about 34.5 per turn, on the other hand, dual wielder will reach 16.5 per turn at tier 2. It is a big difference.
Use high AC enemies? The baseline damage at strength 20 for PAM is +8/2d10+1d4+15 (28.5), for dual is +8/3d8+15 (28.5). GWM doubles average damage per hit, but against an AC 19 target it halves hit probability.
But that is the same as nerfing GWM, which the OP don't want to do and I agree. Making someone feel less competent don't solve the problem, just creates more problems. Hence, why buffing Dual Wielder is the way to go.
No, using higher AC monsters is not the same as nerfing GWM. Nerfing GWM is nerfing GWM, using a higher AC opponent is making the enemies tougher.
Need more detail. Assuming this is tier 2, there's no real reason the dual weapon build should be falling behind in dpr.
The avg damage of a reckless attacking fighter/barb with PAM+GWM is about 34.5 per turn, on the other hand, dual wielder will reach 16.5 per turn at tier 2. It is a big difference.
A couple of ideas.
Use more foes. If there are ten archers hitting the barbarian, then reckless attack is a lot less attractive than if there is only a single foe.
More foes also allows the players of the dps monsters to feel absolutely epic, mowing their way through hordes of mooks!
Use some foes with a higher armour class. In the game I'm GMing, the archer with sharpshooter is hitting half as much as the ranged attackers without it (in the lst battle, the archer needed to roll 16+ to hit, the melee fighter only 10+). +10 damage is nice, but is nowhere near as devestating when you are hitting half the time.
Call for more Dexterity checks. :-) Someone with PAM+GWN or Crossbow Expert+Sharpshooter and has spent two ASIs on feats that someone else could have put into +4 DEX or +2 DEX and Dual Wielder.
Need more detail. Assuming this is tier 2, there's no real reason the dual weapon build should be falling behind in dpr.
The avg damage of a reckless attacking fighter/barb with PAM+GWM is about 34.5 per turn, on the other hand, dual wielder will reach 16.5 per turn at tier 2. It is a big difference.
Use high AC enemies? The baseline damage at strength 20 for PAM is +8/2d10+1d4+15 (28.5), for dual is +8/3d8+15 (28.5). GWM doubles average damage per hit, but against an AC 19 target it halves hit probability.
But that is the same as nerfing GWM, which the OP don't want to do and I agree. Making someone feel less competent don't solve the problem, just creates more problems. Hence, why buffing Dual Wielder is the way to go.
No, using higher AC monsters is not the same as nerfing GWM. Nerfing GWM is nerfing GWM, using a higher AC opponent is making the enemies tougher.
😑
If the only reason you're buffing your monsters is to counter a single character, that's a nerf. He is less likely to succeed on what he is built to do. A +1 to the enemy side has the same effect as a -1 on your side.
You might say: "But you don't need to use that in all encounters...", yeah, but how that solve OP's problems? Does a couple encounters seeing the damage twins be less effective will really make the Dual Wielder happier? Especially since this solution, also, makes him less effective.
Against and AC 19, a reckless attacking PAM+GWM has a hit % of 36%, applied to the average damage of 64.5 (Weapon avg.+mod+rage+GWM), it would amount to 23.22/round.
The non reckless attacking dual wielder would have a 45% hit %, applied to an average 28.5 (weapon avg.+mod), what would translate to 12.82/round.
Why yes, Reckless does increase damage. It also increases damage taken. And not every attack can be reduced by rage, particularly since rage is a limited resource.
Of course, the main virtue of TWF is that you can do it with finesse weapons. Strength builds are terrible at range (now, Sharpshooter I consider legit broken, but that's a separate issue).
Need more detail. Assuming this is tier 2, there's no real reason the dual weapon build should be falling behind in dpr.
The avg damage of a reckless attacking fighter/barb with PAM+GWM is about 34.5 per turn, on the other hand, dual wielder will reach 16.5 per turn at tier 2. It is a big difference.
Use high AC enemies? The baseline damage at strength 20 for PAM is +8/2d10+1d4+15 (28.5), for dual is +8/3d8+15 (28.5). GWM doubles average damage per hit, but against an AC 19 target it halves hit probability.
But that is the same as nerfing GWM, which the OP don't want to do and I agree. Making someone feel less competent don't solve the problem, just creates more problems. Hence, why buffing Dual Wielder is the way to go.
No, using higher AC monsters is not the same as nerfing GWM. Nerfing GWM is nerfing GWM, using a higher AC opponent is making the enemies tougher.
😑
If the only reason you're buffing your monsters is to counter a single character, that's a nerf. He is less likely to succeed on what he is built to do. A +1 to the enemy side has the same effect as a -1 on your side.
You might say: "But you don't need to use that in all encounters...", yeah, but how that solve OP's problems? Does a couple encounters seeing the damage twins be less effective will really make the Dual Wielder happier? Especially since this solution, also, makes him less effective.
🙄
No, it would be to rebalance combat for the campaign. Those big swingers are doing a disproportionately high amount of damage because the foes they are facing have AC too low for their Attack Modifiers. Since they make fewer attacks, missing one will mean they are now suddenly dealing roughly the same amount of damage as the T-WF who also misses one more per round. But since the T-WF are putting up smaller numbers over more attacks, it means they will statistically be less affected than the others.
The reason to do it isn’t to “nerf” those two lumberjacks (or lumberjills), it’s to rebalance the campaign for the DM’s not keeping the bar as high as it needs to be for that party. When the DM adjusts for their own miscalculations, that isn’t “nerfing” the player’s characters, it’s correcting their own math.
I'm thinking that an additional Attack for the multi-attacker might be a good idea. She's built as a speed fighter so 20 Dex and twin weapons. She currently has three attacks (2 plus the off-hand BA attack) so if she gets an item that grants another Attack then that helps a lot.
I also want to thank all the people who provided the hard math because that also brought to light a mistake I've been making: Because the twins do so much damage I've been making fewer but higher-HP enemies. I should go the other way instead to mix things up. The damage the twins can crank out per attack is 15+ the damage die. If the targets have about 12 HP each then they're over-killing where the speed fighter will just about drop one per attack. When the BBEG or tougher mid-range bosses show up the twins can still do their thing but the speed fighter is built to fight hordes of mooks so I should give them more hordes of mooks.
There's not much you can do without homebrewing. If some players have taken a more optimised (e.g. stronger) combination of feats and gear etc. then that's just a result of their choices.
However, I do feel your pain: barbarians with GWM just deal too much damage due to Reckless Attack.
Homebrew a feat for your dual wielder, something that capitalises on the fact that they're dual wielding. I designed the feat below so that it scales with Extra Attack, but also that it feels flavourful for a character wielding two weapons. The fact that it won't always trigger is offset by the fact that it scales up with Extra Attack.
Dual Wield Master
While you are wielding a light or finesse weapon in both hands, if you hit a creature with all of your attacks during a single turn, you may immediately take the Attack action again.
Alternatively, just balance it with magical items!
Arm the character with a pair of magical weapons (two scimitars, for instance). Have one deal a bonus 1d8 cold damage, and the other deal 1d8 fire damage - and they only function if both are wielded at the same time. If you're running a low magic game then make these the end result of an epic quest chain.
Need more detail. Assuming this is tier 2, there's no real reason the dual weapon build should be falling behind in dpr.
The avg damage of a reckless attacking fighter/barb with PAM+GWM is about 34.5 per turn, on the other hand, dual wielder will reach 16.5 per turn at tier 2. It is a big difference.
Use high AC enemies? The baseline damage at strength 20 for PAM is +8/2d10+1d4+15 (28.5), for dual is +8/3d8+15 (28.5). GWM doubles average damage per hit, but against an AC 19 target it halves hit probability.
But that is the same as nerfing GWM, which the OP don't want to do and I agree. Making someone feel less competent don't solve the problem, just creates more problems. Hence, why buffing Dual Wielder is the way to go.
No, using higher AC monsters is not the same as nerfing GWM. Nerfing GWM is nerfing GWM, using a higher AC opponent is making the enemies tougher.
😑
If the only reason you're buffing your monsters is to counter a single character, that's a nerf. He is less likely to succeed on what he is built to do. A +1 to the enemy side has the same effect as a -1 on your side.
You might say: "But you don't need to use that in all encounters...", yeah, but how that solve OP's problems? Does a couple encounters seeing the damage twins be less effective will really make the Dual Wielder happier? Especially since this solution, also, makes him less effective.
🙄
No, it would be to rebalance combat for the campaign. Those big swingers are doing a disproportionately high amount of damage because the foes they are facing have AC too low for their Attack Modifiers. Since they make fewer attacks, missing one will mean they are now suddenly dealing roughly the same amount of damage as the T-WF who also misses one more per round. But since the T-WF are putting up smaller numbers over more attacks, it means they will statistically be less affected than the others.
The reason to do it isn’t to “nerf” those two lumberjacks (or lumberjills), it’s to rebalance the campaign for the DM’s not keeping the bar as high as it needs to be for that party. When the DM adjusts for their own miscalculations, that isn’t “nerfing” the player’s characters, it’s correcting their own math.
Meaning of nerf: "... a nerf is a change to a game that downgrades the power, effectiveness or influence of a particular game element in the attempt to achieve balance. ..."
You can call correcting your math all you want, your player will feel downgraded. You gotta learn to put yourself on your players shoes...
BTW, mathematically, for TWF to do the same amount of damage as a reckless attacking PAM+GWM the monsters AC needs to be 22 (the math is up on another one of my replies, if you want to check it out). On that stage, the Barbarian will be hitting 9% of time - that sounds like fun - and the dual wielder 30% - well, she should feel good about it, I guess?.
And the fact that you don't realize that PAM+GWM, CE+SS and TWF do the same amount of attacks is just putting salt to injury...
Anyway, you do you man, but with your lack of understanding of several subjects, I would advise that you should just ban those feats, or you will end up with a less than pleasant game for those players...
Need more detail. Assuming this is tier 2, there's no real reason the dual weapon build should be falling behind in dpr.
The avg damage of a reckless attacking fighter/barb with PAM+GWM is about 34.5 per turn, on the other hand, dual wielder will reach 16.5 per turn at tier 2. It is a big difference.
Use high AC enemies? The baseline damage at strength 20 for PAM is +8/2d10+1d4+15 (28.5), for dual is +8/3d8+15 (28.5). GWM doubles average damage per hit, but against an AC 19 target it halves hit probability.
But that is the same as nerfing GWM, which the OP don't want to do and I agree. Making someone feel less competent don't solve the problem, just creates more problems. Hence, why buffing Dual Wielder is the way to go.
No, using higher AC monsters is not the same as nerfing GWM. Nerfing GWM is nerfing GWM, using a higher AC opponent is making the enemies tougher.
😑
If the only reason you're buffing your monsters is to counter a single character, that's a nerf. He is less likely to succeed on what he is built to do. A +1 to the enemy side has the same effect as a -1 on your side.
You might say: "But you don't need to use that in all encounters...", yeah, but how that solve OP's problems? Does a couple encounters seeing the damage twins be less effective will really make the Dual Wielder happier? Especially since this solution, also, makes him less effective.
🙄
No, it would be to rebalance combat for the campaign. Those big swingers are doing a disproportionately high amount of damage because the foes they are facing have AC too low for their Attack Modifiers. Since they make fewer attacks, missing one will mean they are now suddenly dealing roughly the same amount of damage as the T-WF who also misses one more per round. But since the T-WF are putting up smaller numbers over more attacks, it means they will statistically be less affected than the others.
The reason to do it isn’t to “nerf” those two lumberjacks (or lumberjills), it’s to rebalance the campaign for the DM’s not keeping the bar as high as it needs to be for that party. When the DM adjusts for their own miscalculations, that isn’t “nerfing” the player’s characters, it’s correcting their own math.
Meaning of nerf: "... a nerf is a change to a game that downgrades the power, effectiveness or influence of a particular game element in the attempt to achieve balance. ..."
You can call correcting your math all you want, your player will feel downgraded. You gotta learn to put yourself on your players shoes...
BTW, mathematically, for TWF to do the same amount of damage as a reckless attacking PAM+GWM the monsters AC needs to be 22 (the math is up on another one of my replies, if you want to check it out). On that stage, the Barbarian will be hitting 9% of time - that sounds like fun - and the dual wielder 30% - well, she should feel good about it, I guess?.
And the fact that you don't realize that PAM+GWM, CE+SS and TWF do the same amount of attacks is just putting salt to injury...
Anyway, you do you man, but with your lack of understanding of several subjects, I would advise that you should just ban those feats, or you will end up with a less than pleasant game for those players...
See ya
While I think we can always say things without aggression, if the DM begins modifying the monsters so that characters who should be dealing higher damage because of their feat/equipment/spell choices deal less damage, then they are nerfing those abilities. Players choose them on the understanding that they will be useful; purposefully making all creatures AC22 would not only be baffling, it would be retroactively de-powering the abilities. Hence, nerfing them.
It would be the same as if you had a player who was principally using Cold based spells and had taken Elemental Adept: Cold and the monsters all suddenly had cold resistance for no reason.
Moreover, let us be absolutely clear that the Min-Maxers have done nothing wrong and should not have their damage output toned down. They've built the most effective combatants that they want to play, using the basic rules of the game. The third player has chosen a less optimised build. If they are an inexperienced player, then they can be powered up with custom feats or magical items so that they feel like they contribute, but if you remove any advantage from taking the feats then why allow them at all? Always power up the character whose player feels they aren't contributing, never power down the characters who are just playing totally legitimate builds.
No, it would be to rebalance combat for the campaign. Those big swingers are doing a disproportionately high amount of damage because the foes they are facing have AC too low for their Attack Modifiers. Since they make fewer attacks, missing one will mean they are now suddenly dealing roughly the same amount of damage as the T-WF who also misses one more per round. But since the T-WF are putting up smaller numbers over more attacks, it means they will statistically be less affected than the others.
The reason to do it isn’t to “nerf” those two lumberjacks (or lumberjills), it’s to rebalance the campaign for the DM’s not keeping the bar as high as it needs to be for that party. When the DM adjusts for their own miscalculations, that isn’t “nerfing” the player’s characters, it’s correcting their own math.
Meaning of nerf: "... a nerf is a change to a game that downgrades the power, effectiveness or influence of a particular game element in the attempt to achieve balance. ..."
You can call correcting your math all you want, your player will feel downgraded. You gotta learn to put yourself on your players shoes...
BTW, mathematically, for TWF to do the same amount of damage as a reckless attacking PAM+GWM the monsters AC needs to be 22 (the math is up on another one of my replies, if you want to check it out). On that stage, the Barbarian will be hitting 9% of time - that sounds like fun - and the dual wielder 30% - well, she should feel good about it, I guess?.
And the fact that you don't realize that PAM+GWM, CE+SS and TWF do the same amount of attacks is just putting salt to injury...
Anyway, you do you man, but with your lack of understanding of several subjects, I would advise that you should just ban those feats, or you will end up with a less than pleasant game for those players...
See ya
So if the DM makes a miscalculation and then corrects for it subsequently that’s nerfing the PCs?!? If any of my players felt that way I would not be inviting those entitled brats back to my table.
Changing what monsters you use isn't nerfing the PCs. It's just changing what monsters you use. You should regularly change up monsters so the same old tactics don't work every time, because that's boring.
I think "correcting the math" is focusing on the wrong thing here. The core of the issue is a feeling of imbalance between the PCs. Some of that can be mitigated with encounter design, but some of it is simply that Sharpshooter and GWM blow a hole in the damage ceiling
One houserule I have floated is to let the TWF attack happen as a part of the Attack action rather than as a BA, as seen in the Beast barbarian's claw attack. This frees up the BA for other stuff, such as an additional attack from a scimitar of speed or various other class features that may add damage or utility. This combined with one or more additional magic items that favor the style should help bring her up to par. I'd also look at what your PC can do with a BA and try to create opportunities for that to be extra useful.
I must confess that I am not a fan of optimized builds. I build to have fun and if the GWM/Polearm/Fighter/Barb is doing piles of damage and I'm not then I'm usually okay with it.
However, I'm running a game and some of my players aren't as open-minded as I am and I'm getting serious negative feedback. We have one Fighter/Ranger with Crossbow Expert and Sharpshooter and they're cranking out 60+ points a round and that's without Action Surge. Another is a Fighter/Barb with Polearm Master and GWM who can do the same thing in melee. I can build a combat encounter to deal with the Damage Twins but the rest of my players are feeling outclassed. In particular, is one who likes 2-weapon fighting. They have the Dial Wield Feat and the Two-Weapon fighting style and their typical damage is far behind the curve.
Have any other DMs tried to rebalance this or fix it somehow? If so, how did you do it? I'm opposed to nerfing the GWM et. al. but I'm having trouble figuring this out.
Give the duel wielding player a magic item, like a +1/+2 rapier that only they can use. Perhaps one with a cool ability like a weapon of warning. This would help them feel more useful, probably.
Only spilt the party if you see something shiny.
Ariendela Sneakerson, Half-elf Rogue (8); Harmony Wolfsbane, Tiefling Bard (10); Agnomally, Gnomish Sorcerer (3); Breeze, Tabaxi Monk (8); Grace, Dragonborn Barbarian (7); DM, Homebrew- The Sequestered Lands/Underwater Explorers; Candlekeep
Need more detail. Assuming this is tier 2, there's no real reason the dual weapon build should be falling behind in dpr.
You can make the dual wielder scale with extra attack. Meaning an extra off-hand attack for each bonus attack. Considering the bounded accuracy of 5e and +4 to damage, this amounts to +5.59 dmg per round - less than the +10, but more accurate.
Another thing you can do is add a flat +2 to each attack damage (as with dueling), this would round up to +6 dmg.
I don't think is too much if you're already dealing with the other two.
If a particular PC does solid damage per attack but needs a boost, give them another attack.
If a particular PC does a lot of attacks but needs a boost, give them more damage per attack. Even just another 1d4 per attack will really start to add up, especially if their attack modifier is high so they rarely miss. I have a T-WF Fighter* in a campaign I’m DMing right now, and she needed a boost to DPR. A magic item with charges and divine favor should make them happy.
*She went with double shortsword, but I personally prefer rapier & whip, and the Sentinel feat. The two different reaches plays well with Sentinel. But double shortswords and piercer is also nice.
Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting
The avg damage of a reckless attacking fighter/barb with PAM+GWM is about 34.5 per turn, on the other hand, dual wielder will reach 16.5 per turn at tier 2. It is a big difference.
Use high AC enemies? The baseline damage at strength 20 for PAM is +8/2d10+1d4+15 (28.5), for dual is +8/3d8+15 (28.5). GWM doubles average damage per hit, but against an AC 19 target it halves hit probability. Not to mention that it cost two feats, while the dual wielder only spent 1. Also, if they're continually using reckless attack, give them appropriate punishment for doing so.
But that is the same as nerfing GWM, which the OP don't want to do and I agree. Making someone feel less competent don't solve the problem, just creates more problems. Hence, why buffing Dual Wielder is the way to go.
BTW, just to have the math:
Against and AC 19, a reckless attacking PAM+GWM has a hit % of 36%, applied to the average damage of 64.5 (Weapon avg.+mod+rage+GWM), it would amount to 23.22/round.
The non reckless attacking dual wielder would have a 45% hit %, applied to an average 28.5 (weapon avg.+mod), what would translate to 12.82/round.
No, using higher AC monsters is not the same as nerfing GWM. Nerfing GWM is nerfing GWM, using a higher AC opponent is making the enemies tougher.
Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting
A couple of ideas.
Use more foes. If there are ten archers hitting the barbarian, then reckless attack is a lot less attractive than if there is only a single foe.
More foes also allows the players of the dps monsters to feel absolutely epic, mowing their way through hordes of mooks!
Use some foes with a higher armour class. In the game I'm GMing, the archer with sharpshooter is hitting half as much as the ranged attackers without it (in the lst battle, the archer needed to roll 16+ to hit, the melee fighter only 10+). +10 damage is nice, but is nowhere near as devestating when you are hitting half the time.
Call for more Dexterity checks. :-) Someone with PAM+GWN or Crossbow Expert+Sharpshooter and has spent two ASIs on feats that someone else could have put into +4 DEX or +2 DEX and Dual Wielder.
😑
If the only reason you're buffing your monsters is to counter a single character, that's a nerf. He is less likely to succeed on what he is built to do. A +1 to the enemy side has the same effect as a -1 on your side.
You might say: "But you don't need to use that in all encounters...", yeah, but how that solve OP's problems? Does a couple encounters seeing the damage twins be less effective will really make the Dual Wielder happier? Especially since this solution, also, makes him less effective.
Why yes, Reckless does increase damage. It also increases damage taken. And not every attack can be reduced by rage, particularly since rage is a limited resource.
Of course, the main virtue of TWF is that you can do it with finesse weapons. Strength builds are terrible at range (now, Sharpshooter I consider legit broken, but that's a separate issue).
🙄
No, it would be to rebalance combat for the campaign. Those big swingers are doing a disproportionately high amount of damage because the foes they are facing have AC too low for their Attack Modifiers. Since they make fewer attacks, missing one will mean they are now suddenly dealing roughly the same amount of damage as the T-WF who also misses one more per round. But since the T-WF are putting up smaller numbers over more attacks, it means they will statistically be less affected than the others.
The reason to do it isn’t to “nerf” those two lumberjacks (or lumberjills), it’s to rebalance the campaign for the DM’s not keeping the bar as high as it needs to be for that party. When the DM adjusts for their own miscalculations, that isn’t “nerfing” the player’s characters, it’s correcting their own math.
Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting
I'm thinking that an additional Attack for the multi-attacker might be a good idea. She's built as a speed fighter so 20 Dex and twin weapons. She currently has three attacks (2 plus the off-hand BA attack) so if she gets an item that grants another Attack then that helps a lot.
I also want to thank all the people who provided the hard math because that also brought to light a mistake I've been making: Because the twins do so much damage I've been making fewer but higher-HP enemies. I should go the other way instead to mix things up. The damage the twins can crank out per attack is 15+ the damage die. If the targets have about 12 HP each then they're over-killing where the speed fighter will just about drop one per attack. When the BBEG or tougher mid-range bosses show up the twins can still do their thing but the speed fighter is built to fight hordes of mooks so I should give them more hordes of mooks.
Thanks for the help everyone.
There's not much you can do without homebrewing. If some players have taken a more optimised (e.g. stronger) combination of feats and gear etc. then that's just a result of their choices.
However, I do feel your pain: barbarians with GWM just deal too much damage due to Reckless Attack.
Homebrew a feat for your dual wielder, something that capitalises on the fact that they're dual wielding. I designed the feat below so that it scales with Extra Attack, but also that it feels flavourful for a character wielding two weapons. The fact that it won't always trigger is offset by the fact that it scales up with Extra Attack.
Alternatively, just balance it with magical items!
Arm the character with a pair of magical weapons (two scimitars, for instance). Have one deal a bonus 1d8 cold damage, and the other deal 1d8 fire damage - and they only function if both are wielded at the same time. If you're running a low magic game then make these the end result of an epic quest chain.
Meaning of nerf: "... a nerf is a change to a game that downgrades the power, effectiveness or influence of a particular game element in the attempt to achieve balance. ..."
You can call correcting your math all you want, your player will feel downgraded. You gotta learn to put yourself on your players shoes...
BTW, mathematically, for TWF to do the same amount of damage as a reckless attacking PAM+GWM the monsters AC needs to be 22 (the math is up on another one of my replies, if you want to check it out). On that stage, the Barbarian will be hitting 9% of time - that sounds like fun - and the dual wielder 30% - well, she should feel good about it, I guess?.
And the fact that you don't realize that PAM+GWM, CE+SS and TWF do the same amount of attacks is just putting salt to injury...
Anyway, you do you man, but with your lack of understanding of several subjects, I would advise that you should just ban those feats, or you will end up with a less than pleasant game for those players...
See ya
While I think we can always say things without aggression, if the DM begins modifying the monsters so that characters who should be dealing higher damage because of their feat/equipment/spell choices deal less damage, then they are nerfing those abilities. Players choose them on the understanding that they will be useful; purposefully making all creatures AC22 would not only be baffling, it would be retroactively de-powering the abilities. Hence, nerfing them.
It would be the same as if you had a player who was principally using Cold based spells and had taken Elemental Adept: Cold and the monsters all suddenly had cold resistance for no reason.
Moreover, let us be absolutely clear that the Min-Maxers have done nothing wrong and should not have their damage output toned down. They've built the most effective combatants that they want to play, using the basic rules of the game. The third player has chosen a less optimised build. If they are an inexperienced player, then they can be powered up with custom feats or magical items so that they feel like they contribute, but if you remove any advantage from taking the feats then why allow them at all? Always power up the character whose player feels they aren't contributing, never power down the characters who are just playing totally legitimate builds.
So if the DM makes a miscalculation and then corrects for it subsequently that’s nerfing the PCs?!? If any of my players felt that way I would not be inviting those entitled brats back to my table.
see ya
Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting
Changing what monsters you use isn't nerfing the PCs. It's just changing what monsters you use. You should regularly change up monsters so the same old tactics don't work every time, because that's boring.
I think "correcting the math" is focusing on the wrong thing here. The core of the issue is a feeling of imbalance between the PCs. Some of that can be mitigated with encounter design, but some of it is simply that Sharpshooter and GWM blow a hole in the damage ceiling
One houserule I have floated is to let the TWF attack happen as a part of the Attack action rather than as a BA, as seen in the Beast barbarian's claw attack. This frees up the BA for other stuff, such as an additional attack from a scimitar of speed or various other class features that may add damage or utility. This combined with one or more additional magic items that favor the style should help bring her up to par. I'd also look at what your PC can do with a BA and try to create opportunities for that to be extra useful.
My homebrew subclasses (full list here)
(Artificer) Swordmage | Glasswright | (Barbarian) Path of the Savage Embrace
(Bard) College of Dance | (Fighter) Warlord | Cannoneer
(Monk) Way of the Elements | (Ranger) Blade Dancer
(Rogue) DaggerMaster | Inquisitor | (Sorcerer) Riftwalker | Spellfist
(Warlock) The Swarm