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.
This is all technically true, but in the particular case here we're discussing how to bring one player with a non-optimal build to feel that they're contributing, specifically against 2 players with GWM and SS feats.
The suggestion to change the monsters to have high AC means always running high AC monsters. Otherwise, the dual wield player will still feel left out in the fights where the other 2 are going ham with their feats.
If you change all the monsters to do this, you are nerfing the characters; imagine if there was a sorcerer specialising in cold spells and every monster suddenly had cold resistance. It may not be a character nerf, but it's an indirect nerf nonetheless. The character gets depowered through deliberate choices the DM is making.
I have an issue with monsters having counterspell against my players' party. They have one caster only; if I include a counterspelling NPC, the caster is totally locked down the whole fight (he's a cleric, so can't counterspell back). Now imagine I include a counterspell NPC in every combat. Who would choose to be a cleric if they knew that in advance? The same goes for the feats.
I don't have an issue with boosting dual wielding, but it's important to challenge the PCs, and that means, entirely independent of what you do with dual wielding, optimized PCs get optimized monsters.
Increasing AC muddies up the CR of creatures a lot so I would be careful....
Generally higher AC creatures in the mid tier range tend to have awful damage output to compensate so while you maybe challenging them on the hitting part the combats maybe come slogfests that take a long time to resolve.
Another approach might be to add more minions that have low hp. That way the TWF can take them out and feel like they are contributing to the fight.
Also you could use movement restrictions for the GWM build and full cover for the sharpshooter.
Barb has to run through a spike growth gets torn up or through a small field of goblins that the TWF can take out to open up the lane for the slam dunk.
Have enemies dart behind walls/pillars after they hit...force them to maneuver or hold their action which could affect their damage output while still making them be creative.
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.
That's my point exactly (a bit agressive, I know, I am tired of narrow minded DM's in this forum not putting themselves on the players shoes). If you're not comfortable with feats, some sub-classes, races, multiclassing... etc just start the game without it, that's ok. Ban Tasha's, play PHB only, that can make for a fun game anyway.
BUT, if your players made characters within the boundaries you've agreed with, nerfing (and purposefully tweaking monsters to respond especifically to them, is a nerf in itself) them will always leave a sour taste on the game. They are suppose to feel like heroes and part of that is feeling powerful.
There are many ways of balancing the game around powerful characters without making they feel like crap. And, in OP's case, buffing TWF is obviously the best solution, as any indirect nerf to the others will, also, nerf the TWF player.
I agree perfectly with your analogy on the cold resistance and counterspell, is the exact same problem, making people feel weak is not the purpose of the game.
BUT, if your players made characters within the boundaries you've agreed with, nerfing (and purposefully tweaking monsters to respond especifically to them, is a nerf in itself) them will always leave a sour taste on the game. They are suppose to feel like heroes and part of that is feeling powerful.
This is an argument that has never made any sense to me. The way you make characters feel powerful is by having them beat epic foes, not by letting them pummel hapless mooks, so going "Wow, the PCs are finding this too easy, I'm going to upgrade the opposition" is not a nerf as long as it's clear that these really are upgraded opposition.
Listen buddy, I spend as much time as a player as I do behind the DM’s screen. And I’ve been both playing and GMing for almost 30 years. I am well familiar with the players’ shoes.
When the DM ups the difficulty, that isn’t a “nerf” to the players. It’s just in increase in difficulty. If you think playing on “normal” instead of “easy” is a nerf to your PC, that says more about you as a player than it does me as a DM.
Listen buddy, I spend as much time as a player as I do behind the DM’s screen. And I’ve been both playing and GMing for almost 30 years. I am well familiar with the players’ shoes.
Dude, what? No matter how long you've done shit, you'll never know better than ANYONE else. This is a huge misconception in human thinking. If you stop to questioning your own opionion you'll prevent yourself from improving. I know this is probably not what you meant here, but this argument is just not viable.
When the DM ups the difficulty, that isn’t a “nerf” to the players. It’s just in increase in difficulty. If you think playing on “normal” instead of “easy” is a nerf to your PC, that says more about you as a player than it does me as a DM.
Did you ever looked on the changed settings of skyrim when you toggle the difficulty? Look over all, this is simply a quibble between nerf and difficulty. While raising the difficulty is equivalent to a nerf to your whole party a nerf to single attributes of some player is just a nerf to single aspects of the game. But both of them are still "nerfs". An example already been made is over all improving the ac of monsters. But overall improving the AC of monsters will nerf all party members that rely on weapon attacks (Melee/ranged or magical). Another example is raising the HP of Monsters. If you raise the HP of Monsters you will automatically nerf any players capabilities of dealing damage. Double the HP of any monster is (nearly) literally the same as halving the party's damage (depends on how you scale other natural havocs). The ONLY difference is the perception of the players. Giving your monsters magic resistance all the time will nerf spell casters. Giving monsters immunity to charmed condition (because you can't stand creative player with awesome suggestions anymore) is a nerf to all PC that rely on enchanting. Players don't know how you (as a dm) set up HP or AC or other defensive abilities for Monsters, but the effect is the same (The psychological effect is different, because players don't like their capabilities to be reduced. This is also why i didn't like to play skyrim at high difficulties, because it literally said: "you deal only 25% damage"....and it made some builds unplayable until the late levels. But that is only a salty side note of an old wound). And here are where the true problems of this conversation begins.
Now we have the problem of two feats (namely GWM and SS) that are somewhat unbalanced, because these two feats are mandatory, when you want to build a non magical damage dealer. That is, in a lot of campaigns, not a problem. A Paladin won't care if a Barbarian in the party deals more damage than he does, if the barbarian needed to take a feat or two to do so. BUT in the particular combination of the OP (different non-magical melee chars) i can totally understand why the TWF-Fighter really feels left behind compared to his companions. Because overall TWF is way worse then the presented counterparts. It literally grants you nothing "special" to rely on. So if you are a dm in a campaign where these special circumstances come together you need to make more clever solution then "just raise the AC" or "raise the difficulty of the encounters". Because the problem is, no matter what you as a dm do to balance the encounters for the party won't change the feeling for the player who feesl left behind. And the dex-based two-weapon fighter ALSO did nothing wrong as he choosed his fighting style and Feat of two weapon fighting, but still is WAY LESS effective as his optimized counterparts.And that IS a problem of the gamebalance. Not of Min-maxing players or unexperienced DM's, but just the plain gamebalance within the allowed mechanics. In my opinion there are just 2 solutions for this problem:
Nerf GWM and SS. For example: Make the hit-modifier and damage-modifier rely on the proficiency bonus (PB): -PB to hit / + (PBx2) to damage. This will reduce the damage-gap between the builds until tier 4 maybe enough to work fine. Also i like the idea of involving the proficiency bonus in nearly any aspect of the game, because the mechanic is pretty good for balancing.
create a homebrew feat or improve already existing fighting styles and feats to even out the gap between TWF and SS or GWM. This can go in many directions, so i don't make any suggestions here. Talk to your player and what she wants to do with her character or what she thinks will make her feel more worthwhile on the battlefield.
First off, when my own experience as a player is questioned under the assumption that I am only a DM, then yes, my experiences as a player are indeed viable.
Second, no, I never played Skyrim.
Third, so your opinion is that it’s a nerf to the players if the DM uses incrementally more difficult monsters to challenge them as their characters increase in power level? Again, that says more about you as a player than it does me as a DM.
Fourth, and finally, in the campaign I am DMing currently I have both a SS fighter and a T-WF fighter and I don’t have these balance problems that the OP mentioned. So, I guess I might possibly have some little itty bitty, teeny weeny, yellow polka dotted clue what the heck I might be talking about here. Just sayin.’
Did you ever looked on the changed settings of skyrim when you toggle the difficulty?
Increasing difficulty settings in a video game -> the same monsters as before, only they're tougher.
Upgrading the opposition -> congratulations, you're doing level 5 dungeons instead of level 4.
It's a problem if you boost the opposition without doing anything to give the players a greater sense of achievement, but just straight up throwing harder monsters isn't the same thing.
It doesn't matter how you achieve a challenging encounter for your party (raising the stats of lower monsters or sending stronger monsters against them) the effect is the same. The only thing that changes is the way you look upon the situation. And as far as i know as a dm, you always have to use way higher CR monsters or improve monsters by a lot to make the encounters challenging for your players. But nonetheless this is a quibble. And it doesn't say anything about me as a player or dm. I even don't know what you want to say with this phrase about me... Should i feel insulted now?
If your players are not having problem, that can rely on many different factors. For example this could be the fact, that your SS-fighter doesn't have taken the Crossbow-expert feat. As a reminder: OP asked about balancing TWF against SS+CE or GWM+PAM. These two feat-combinations are oppressive optimized when combined, maybe only beaten by PAM+Sentinel when it comes to gamebalance. Or your TWF-player just don't care, because other aspects are more important to her/him. And a very important side note: the fact, that TWO PLAYERS AT YOUR TABLE doesn't have an issue with different feat combinations won't help the OP at all. What's that for a response at all? OP:"I have a problem with xyz at my table" YOU: "I don't have a problem with this at all at my table, so there is no problem! See ya!" Okay, fine. So maybe you can't help the OP here, because you can't see the problem. But here is a problem at someone else's table....
The problem is not good feat vs. suboptimal feat. The problem is a somewhat min-max builds vs. suboptimal builds. And you adressed in your campaign the difference between these builds somehow as far as i understand your posts:
I have a T-WF Fighter* in a campaign I’m DMing right now, and she neededa 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.
i don't understand why you can't admit that there is a problem here that needs to be addressed, that you solved (as far as i understand your post) with a magic item and the suggestion of combining TWF with arguably the second strongest feat in the game. And your support of Pantagruel666 suggestion of increasing the AC or even now sending stronger monsters won't change anything about the gap between the presented builds (as shown by the math of RaSeyssel).
It doesn't matter how you achieve a challenging encounter for your party (raising the stats of lower monsters or sending stronger monsters against them) the effect is the same. The only thing that changes is the way you look upon the situation. And as far as i know as a dm, you always have to use way higher CR monsters or improve monsters by a lot to make the encounters challenging for your players. But nonetheless this is a quibble. And it doesn't say anything about me as a player or dm. I even don't know what you want to say with this phrase about me... Should i feel insulted now?
If your players are not having problem, that can rely on many different factors. For example this could be the fact, that your SS-fighter doesn't have taken the Crossbow-expert feat. As a reminder: OP asked about balancing TWF against SS+CE or GWM+PAM. These two feat-combinations are oppressive optimized when combined, maybe only beaten by PAM+Sentinel when it comes to gamebalance. Or your TWF-player just don't care, because other aspects are more important to her/him. And a very important side note: the fact, that TWO PLAYERS AT YOUR TABLE doesn't have an issue with different feat combinations won't help the OP at all. What's that for a response at all? OP:"I have a problem with xyz at my table" YOU: "I don't have a problem with this at all at my table, so there is no problem! See ya!" Okay, fine. So maybe you can't help the OP here, because you can't see the problem. But here is a problem at someone else's table....
The problem is not good feat vs. suboptimal feat. The problem is a somewhat min-max builds vs. suboptimal builds. And you adressed in your campaign the difference between these builds somehow as far as i understand your posts:
I have a T-WF Fighter* in a campaign I’m DMing right now, and she neededa 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.
i don't understand why you can't admit that there is a problem here that needs to be addressed, that you solved (as far as i understand your post) with a magic item and the suggestion of combining TWF with arguably the second strongest feat in the game. And your support of Pantagruel666 suggestion of increasing the AC or even now sending stronger monsters won't change anything about the gap between the presented builds (as shown by the math of RaSeyssel).
Yeah AC changes will not really balance much... You will have to think of ways to get them to attack less overall or provide minions for the twf to kill off to help.
Two weapon fighting is just not going to keep up with those other feats.
I might consider giving them some sort of curse or magic item that essentially lets them cast Hunter's Mark once per long rest as a free action, or which gives them the defensive duelist feat, or both.
You could also homerule that the dual wielding fighting style also adds a +2 to damage rolls like dueling.
It won't catch up, but it will decrease the gap.
Alternatively, you could give them a bit of a witcher sort of ability to coat their blades in acid, poison, holy water, etc. It could only work practically with one handed weapons because of their intense practice in two weapon fighting.
…And as far as i know as a dm, you always have to use way higher CR monsters or improve monsters by a lot to make the encounters challenging for your players.
”As far as you know” meaning you have no first-hand experience as a DM. Sure, let me get my notepad so I can take DM tips from you. Hold up, lemme flip past the almost 30 years of accumulated notes I already have to get a nice, clean page ready for your gilded wisdom…. 🤨
If your players are not having problem, that can rely on many different factors. For example this could be the fact, that your SS-fighter doesn't have taken the Crossbow-expert feat. As a reminder: OP asked about balancing TWF against SS+CE or GWM+PAM. These two feat-combinations are oppressive optimized when combined, maybe only beaten by PAM+Sentinel when it comes to gamebalance.
One person is using GWM+PAM, another is using SS+CE, the third is using DW+0. Gee… what might be an issue…? Oh! Wait a second, maybe another feat (like sentinel) might help…? Gee, I wonder if that was recommended yet? 🤨
OP:"I have a problem with xyz at my table" YOU: "I don't have a problem with this at all at my table, so there is no problem! See ya!" Okay, fine. So maybe you can't help the OP here, because you can't see the problem. But here is a problem at someone else's table....
No, I attempted to help the OP because I have already addressed the problem at my table. I even offered no fewer than two alternative methods of compensating for the issue. So, if I am offering solutions to a problem, how can you say I don’t see the OP’s problem?!? 🤨 You make no sense.
Me: Here are two different ways to fix that, they both work. I know they do because they have both worked at different points at my table. One of them is currently working in the game I am currently DMing.
And you adressed in your campaign the difference between these builds somehow as far as i understand your posts:
I have a T-WF Fighter* in a campaign I’m DMing right now, and she neededa 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.
i don't understand why you can't admit that there is a problem here that needs to be addressed, that you solved (as far as i understand your post) with a magic item and the suggestion of combining TWF with arguably the second strongest feat in the game.
You’re right, you don’t understand anything.
I suggested a single magic item with a single 1st-level spell and a limited number of uses. That would be an Uncommon (at the highest) magic item. (That was one suggestion to help the OP with their problem.)
As an alternative, I personally prefer the mixed weapon types and adding the Sentinel feat. (That was another, completely separate suggestion to help the OP with their problem.)
The issue is that the GWM is adding PAM, and that the SS is adding CE, so why would it be an out of wack suggestion to add “arguably the second strongest feat in the game” (Sentinel) as a way to balance a character with others who are using the ‘arguably first, third, fourth, and fifth strongest feats’ (SS, GWM, CE, PAM) in the game? 🤨 You make no sense.
And who the heck said their was no balance issue here?!? If I am making suggestions to fix a balance issue, then obviously I am in full recognition that there is a balance issue. 🤨 Again, you make no sense.
And your support of Pantagruel666 suggestion of increasing the AC or even now sending stronger monsters won't change anything about the gap between the presented builds (as shown by the math of RaSeyssel).
I don’t know RaSeyssel from a hole in the ground. But for more than two years now I have witnessed Pentagruel666 give countless users fantastic advice. I have taken their advice myself and found it most efficacious. And I happen to agree with them. (Pentragruel’s advice goes in my DM notepad.)
In summation, I have no effing clue why you have decided to vilify and attack me, nor do I give a fig. Either way, you might want to get your information straight next time before going off half-cocked.
Two weapon fighting is just not going to keep up with those other feats.
I might consider giving them some sort of curse or magic item that essentially lets them cast Hunter's Mark once per long rest as a free action, or which gives them the defensive duelist feat, or both.
You could also homerule that the dual wielding fighting style also adds a +2 to damage rolls like dueling.
It won't catch up, but it will decrease the gap.
Alternatively, you could give them a bit of a witcher sort of ability to coat their blades in acid, poison, holy water, etc. It could only work practically with one handed weapons because of their intense practice in two weapon fighting.
This is all remarkably similar to my suggestion of giving them a magic item that adds +1d4 to their damage rolls. (But clearly I have no clue what I’m talking about according to some people. 🙄)
Two weapon fighting is just not going to keep up with those other feats.
I might consider giving them some sort of curse or magic item that essentially lets them cast Hunter's Mark once per long rest as a free action, or which gives them the defensive duelist feat, or both.
You could also homerule that the dual wielding fighting style also adds a +2 to damage rolls like dueling.
It won't catch up, but it will decrease the gap.
Alternatively, you could give them a bit of a witcher sort of ability to coat their blades in acid, poison, holy water, etc. It could only work practically with one handed weapons because of their intense practice in two weapon fighting.
This is all remarkably similar to my suggestion of giving them a magic item that adds +1d4 to their damage rolls. (But clearly I have no clue what I’m talking about according to some people. 🙄)
That'd be a nice simple way to start closing the gap somewhat.
I appreciate the advice and I apologize if I started a feud. That certainly was not my intention.
I don't want to nerf anything that's been played for the last 6 levels. Truth be told, the problem only became evident when the three in question hit lvl 5 and got an additional attack. Before that, the GWM only got an additional attack if they got a Crit or they killed an enemy. The shooter made some good shots but, again, they had one attack to the speed fighter's two.
I've decided to allow her to buy a pair of Toxic Blades. If she hits, the target makes a Con Save or takes an additional 1D4 Poison damage. This makes the extra damage situational and raises the average damage to a point where she's happy. Since the damage buffs that the others get come at a price (the -5 to hit), it should all shake out in the wash.
I'd really recommend just making that poison be extra damage. Rolling a saving throw every single time she hits is going to noticeably slow down the game. 1d4 is not a lot and poison is the weakest damage type - it should be fine to just be always on.
If you want a cost, it would make sense to have an ongoing cost associated with reapplying the poison.
No feud started, at least not on my end. (One has to care to feud.)
Scatterbraind makes an excellent point, rolling a save every hit is a giant time suck. The reason I suggested a BA command word style activation was to keep it similar to stuff like a flame tongue and other similar magic items for action economy “costs.” (The charges were there for the other limiting factor for # of uses. Figure it might regain 2d3/2d4 charges each dawn so there is a bit of tactical decision making, but they can still use it pretty much every fight since they want to feel just as bad-apple as the others. But the charges aren’t the only way.)
However, I wouldn’t attach it to the weapons themselves, I would make it a wondrous item or something. That way, as the player continues to upgrade and swap out equipment, their PC can continue to use this with all any weapons they decide to dual wield.
As to “non-Homebrewed” answers, or things the player could do to help themselves:
Don’t forget that the twins have also combined feats whereas the dual wielder has not. If they go mixed reaches (rapier/longsword & whip) like I suggested, then sentinel as a second feat for them really would go a long way towards helping them rebalance in line with the others. (Heck, even if they don’t mix reaches.) If they prefer matched shorswords, then I suggest Piercer as a secondary feat. Piercer does a great job upping overall DPR. (Mayhap one of my detractors would be so kind as to run those stats for you.) If your Dual Wielder combos themselves with a second feat the way the twins did, then they will be in a much different position than they are now in terms of overall DPR.
Dual wield shines when you have riders on your attacks, spells on the target, sneak attack, smite, magical items, etc. Giving the player magical weapons with a rider can fix the problem in the short term, but in the long term they should probably change their planned build a bit to get access to a rider of some sort.
Dual wield shines when you have riders on your attacks, spells on the target, sneak attack, smite, magical items, etc. Giving the player magical weapons with a rider can fix the problem in the short term, but in the long term they should probably change their planned build a bit to get access to a rider of some sort.
One option was for her to MC into Ranger for 2 levels and pick up Hunter's Mark. As long as she focuses on one target that's an extra D6 per hit and she hits a LOT.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
This is all technically true, but in the particular case here we're discussing how to bring one player with a non-optimal build to feel that they're contributing, specifically against 2 players with GWM and SS feats.
The suggestion to change the monsters to have high AC means always running high AC monsters. Otherwise, the dual wield player will still feel left out in the fights where the other 2 are going ham with their feats.
If you change all the monsters to do this, you are nerfing the characters; imagine if there was a sorcerer specialising in cold spells and every monster suddenly had cold resistance. It may not be a character nerf, but it's an indirect nerf nonetheless. The character gets depowered through deliberate choices the DM is making.
I have an issue with monsters having counterspell against my players' party. They have one caster only; if I include a counterspelling NPC, the caster is totally locked down the whole fight (he's a cleric, so can't counterspell back). Now imagine I include a counterspell NPC in every combat. Who would choose to be a cleric if they knew that in advance? The same goes for the feats.
I don't have an issue with boosting dual wielding, but it's important to challenge the PCs, and that means, entirely independent of what you do with dual wielding, optimized PCs get optimized monsters.
Increasing AC muddies up the CR of creatures a lot so I would be careful....
Generally higher AC creatures in the mid tier range tend to have awful damage output to compensate so while you maybe challenging them on the hitting part the combats maybe come slogfests that take a long time to resolve.
Another approach might be to add more minions that have low hp. That way the TWF can take them out and feel like they are contributing to the fight.
Also you could use movement restrictions for the GWM build and full cover for the sharpshooter.
Barb has to run through a spike growth gets torn up or through a small field of goblins that the TWF can take out to open up the lane for the slam dunk.
Have enemies dart behind walls/pillars after they hit...force them to maneuver or hold their action which could affect their damage output while still making them be creative.
That's my point exactly (a bit agressive, I know, I am tired of narrow minded DM's in this forum not putting themselves on the players shoes). If you're not comfortable with feats, some sub-classes, races, multiclassing... etc just start the game without it, that's ok. Ban Tasha's, play PHB only, that can make for a fun game anyway.
BUT, if your players made characters within the boundaries you've agreed with, nerfing (and purposefully tweaking monsters to respond especifically to them, is a nerf in itself) them will always leave a sour taste on the game. They are suppose to feel like heroes and part of that is feeling powerful.
There are many ways of balancing the game around powerful characters without making they feel like crap. And, in OP's case, buffing TWF is obviously the best solution, as any indirect nerf to the others will, also, nerf the TWF player.
I agree perfectly with your analogy on the cold resistance and counterspell, is the exact same problem, making people feel weak is not the purpose of the game.
This is an argument that has never made any sense to me. The way you make characters feel powerful is by having them beat epic foes, not by letting them pummel hapless mooks, so going "Wow, the PCs are finding this too easy, I'm going to upgrade the opposition" is not a nerf as long as it's clear that these really are upgraded opposition.
Listen buddy, I spend as much time as a player as I do behind the DM’s screen. And I’ve been both playing and GMing for almost 30 years. I am well familiar with the players’ shoes.
When the DM ups the difficulty, that isn’t a “nerf” to the players. It’s just in increase in difficulty. If you think playing on “normal” instead of “easy” is a nerf to your PC, that says more about you as a player than it does me as a DM.
Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting
Dude, what? No matter how long you've done shit, you'll never know better than ANYONE else. This is a huge misconception in human thinking. If you stop to questioning your own opionion you'll prevent yourself from improving. I know this is probably not what you meant here, but this argument is just not viable.
Did you ever looked on the changed settings of skyrim when you toggle the difficulty?
Look over all, this is simply a quibble between nerf and difficulty. While raising the difficulty is equivalent to a nerf to your whole party a nerf to single attributes of some player is just a nerf to single aspects of the game. But both of them are still "nerfs".
An example already been made is over all improving the ac of monsters. But overall improving the AC of monsters will nerf all party members that rely on weapon attacks (Melee/ranged or magical). Another example is raising the HP of Monsters. If you raise the HP of Monsters you will automatically nerf any players capabilities of dealing damage. Double the HP of any monster is (nearly) literally the same as halving the party's damage (depends on how you scale other natural havocs). The ONLY difference is the perception of the players.
Giving your monsters magic resistance all the time will nerf spell casters.
Giving monsters immunity to charmed condition (because you can't stand creative player with awesome suggestions anymore) is a nerf to all PC that rely on enchanting.
Players don't know how you (as a dm) set up HP or AC or other defensive abilities for Monsters, but the effect is the same (The psychological effect is different, because players don't like their capabilities to be reduced. This is also why i didn't like to play skyrim at high difficulties, because it literally said: "you deal only 25% damage"....and it made some builds unplayable until the late levels. But that is only a salty side note of an old wound). And here are where the true problems of this conversation begins.
Now we have the problem of two feats (namely GWM and SS) that are somewhat unbalanced, because these two feats are mandatory, when you want to build a non magical damage dealer. That is, in a lot of campaigns, not a problem. A Paladin won't care if a Barbarian in the party deals more damage than he does, if the barbarian needed to take a feat or two to do so. BUT in the particular combination of the OP (different non-magical melee chars) i can totally understand why the TWF-Fighter really feels left behind compared to his companions. Because overall TWF is way worse then the presented counterparts. It literally grants you nothing "special" to rely on. So if you are a dm in a campaign where these special circumstances come together you need to make more clever solution then "just raise the AC" or "raise the difficulty of the encounters". Because the problem is, no matter what you as a dm do to balance the encounters for the party won't change the feeling for the player who feesl left behind. And the dex-based two-weapon fighter ALSO did nothing wrong as he choosed his fighting style and Feat of two weapon fighting, but still is WAY LESS effective as his optimized counterparts.And that IS a problem of the gamebalance. Not of Min-maxing players or unexperienced DM's, but just the plain gamebalance within the allowed mechanics. In my opinion there are just 2 solutions for this problem:
Make the hit-modifier and damage-modifier rely on the proficiency bonus (PB): -PB to hit / + (PBx2) to damage. This will reduce the damage-gap between the builds until tier 4 maybe enough to work fine. Also i like the idea of involving the proficiency bonus in nearly any aspect of the game, because the mechanic is pretty good for balancing.
First off, when my own experience as a player is questioned under the assumption that I am only a DM, then yes, my experiences as a player are indeed viable.
Second, no, I never played Skyrim.
Third, so your opinion is that it’s a nerf to the players if the DM uses incrementally more difficult monsters to challenge them as their characters increase in power level? Again, that says more about you as a player than it does me as a DM.
Fourth, and finally, in the campaign I am DMing currently I have both a SS fighter and a T-WF fighter and I don’t have these balance problems that the OP mentioned. So, I guess I might possibly have some little itty bitty, teeny weeny, yellow polka dotted clue what the heck I might be talking about here. Just sayin.’
Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting
It's a problem if you boost the opposition without doing anything to give the players a greater sense of achievement, but just straight up throwing harder monsters isn't the same thing.
It doesn't matter how you achieve a challenging encounter for your party (raising the stats of lower monsters or sending stronger monsters against them) the effect is the same. The only thing that changes is the way you look upon the situation. And as far as i know as a dm, you always have to use way higher CR monsters or improve monsters by a lot to make the encounters challenging for your players. But nonetheless this is a quibble. And it doesn't say anything about me as a player or dm. I even don't know what you want to say with this phrase about me... Should i feel insulted now?
If your players are not having problem, that can rely on many different factors. For example this could be the fact, that your SS-fighter doesn't have taken the Crossbow-expert feat. As a reminder: OP asked about balancing TWF against SS+CE or GWM+PAM. These two feat-combinations are oppressive optimized when combined, maybe only beaten by PAM+Sentinel when it comes to gamebalance.
Or your TWF-player just don't care, because other aspects are more important to her/him.
And a very important side note: the fact, that TWO PLAYERS AT YOUR TABLE doesn't have an issue with different feat combinations won't help the OP at all. What's that for a response at all?
OP:"I have a problem with xyz at my table"
YOU: "I don't have a problem with this at all at my table, so there is no problem! See ya!"
Okay, fine. So maybe you can't help the OP here, because you can't see the problem. But here is a problem at someone else's table....
The problem is not good feat vs. suboptimal feat. The problem is a somewhat min-max builds vs. suboptimal builds. And you adressed in your campaign the difference between these builds somehow as far as i understand your posts:
i don't understand why you can't admit that there is a problem here that needs to be addressed, that you solved (as far as i understand your post) with a magic item and the suggestion of combining TWF with arguably the second strongest feat in the game. And your support of Pantagruel666 suggestion of increasing the AC or even now sending stronger monsters won't change anything about the gap between the presented builds (as shown by the math of RaSeyssel).
Yeah AC changes will not really balance much... You will have to think of ways to get them to attack less overall or provide minions for the twf to kill off to help.
Two weapon fighting is just not going to keep up with those other feats.
I might consider giving them some sort of curse or magic item that essentially lets them cast Hunter's Mark once per long rest as a free action, or which gives them the defensive duelist feat, or both.
You could also homerule that the dual wielding fighting style also adds a +2 to damage rolls like dueling.
It won't catch up, but it will decrease the gap.
Alternatively, you could give them a bit of a witcher sort of ability to coat their blades in acid, poison, holy water, etc. It could only work practically with one handed weapons because of their intense practice in two weapon fighting.
”As far as you know” meaning you have no first-hand experience as a DM. Sure, let me get my notepad so I can take DM tips from you. Hold up, lemme flip past the almost 30 years of accumulated notes I already have to get a nice, clean page ready for your gilded wisdom…. 🤨
One person is using GWM+PAM, another is using SS+CE, the third is using DW+0. Gee… what might be an issue…? Oh! Wait a second, maybe another feat (like sentinel) might help…? Gee, I wonder if that was recommended yet? 🤨
No, I attempted to help the OP because I have already addressed the problem at my table. I even offered no fewer than two alternative methods of compensating for the issue. So, if I am offering solutions to a problem, how can you say I don’t see the OP’s problem?!? 🤨 You make no sense.
(☝️ FIFY)
You are correct about that, you got one right. 👏
You’re right, you don’t understand anything.
I suggested a single magic item with a single 1st-level spell and a limited number of uses. That would be an Uncommon (at the highest) magic item. (That was one suggestion to help the OP with their problem.)
As an alternative, I personally prefer the mixed weapon types and adding the Sentinel feat. (That was another, completely separate suggestion to help the OP with their problem.)
The issue is that the GWM is adding PAM, and that the SS is adding CE, so why would it be an out of wack suggestion to add “arguably the second strongest feat in the game” (Sentinel) as a way to balance a character with others who are using the ‘arguably first, third, fourth, and fifth strongest feats’ (SS, GWM, CE, PAM) in the game? 🤨 You make no sense.
And who the heck said their was no balance issue here?!? If I am making suggestions to fix a balance issue, then obviously I am in full recognition that there is a balance issue. 🤨 Again, you make no sense.
I don’t know RaSeyssel from a hole in the ground. But for more than two years now I have witnessed Pentagruel666 give countless users fantastic advice. I have taken their advice myself and found it most efficacious. And I happen to agree with them. (Pentragruel’s advice goes in my DM notepad.)
In summation, I have no effing clue why you have decided to vilify and attack me, nor do I give a fig. Either way, you might want to get your information straight next time before going off half-cocked.
Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting
This is all remarkably similar to my suggestion of giving them a magic item that adds +1d4 to their damage rolls. (But clearly I have no clue what I’m talking about according to some people. 🙄)
Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting
That'd be a nice simple way to start closing the gap somewhat.
I appreciate the advice and I apologize if I started a feud. That certainly was not my intention.
I don't want to nerf anything that's been played for the last 6 levels. Truth be told, the problem only became evident when the three in question hit lvl 5 and got an additional attack. Before that, the GWM only got an additional attack if they got a Crit or they killed an enemy. The shooter made some good shots but, again, they had one attack to the speed fighter's two.
I've decided to allow her to buy a pair of Toxic Blades. If she hits, the target makes a Con Save or takes an additional 1D4 Poison damage. This makes the extra damage situational and raises the average damage to a point where she's happy. Since the damage buffs that the others get come at a price (the -5 to hit), it should all shake out in the wash.
Thanks again.
I'd really recommend just making that poison be extra damage. Rolling a saving throw every single time she hits is going to noticeably slow down the game. 1d4 is not a lot and poison is the weakest damage type - it should be fine to just be always on.
If you want a cost, it would make sense to have an ongoing cost associated with reapplying the poison.
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
No feud started, at least not on my end. (One has to care to feud.)
Scatterbraind makes an excellent point, rolling a save every hit is a giant time suck. The reason I suggested a BA command word style activation was to keep it similar to stuff like a flame tongue and other similar magic items for action economy “costs.” (The charges were there for the other limiting factor for # of uses. Figure it might regain 2d3/2d4 charges each dawn so there is a bit of tactical decision making, but they can still use it pretty much every fight since they want to feel just as bad-apple as the others. But the charges aren’t the only way.)
However, I wouldn’t attach it to the weapons themselves, I would make it a wondrous item or something. That way, as the player continues to upgrade and swap out equipment, their PC can continue to use this with all any weapons they decide to dual wield.
As to “non-Homebrewed” answers, or things the player could do to help themselves:
Don’t forget that the twins have also combined feats whereas the dual wielder has not. If they go mixed reaches (rapier/longsword & whip) like I suggested, then sentinel as a second feat for them really would go a long way towards helping them rebalance in line with the others. (Heck, even if they don’t mix reaches.) If they prefer matched shorswords, then I suggest Piercer as a secondary feat. Piercer does a great job upping overall DPR. (Mayhap one of my detractors would be so kind as to run those stats for you.) If your Dual Wielder combos themselves with a second feat the way the twins did, then they will be in a much different position than they are now in terms of overall DPR.
Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting
Dual wield shines when you have riders on your attacks, spells on the target, sneak attack, smite, magical items, etc. Giving the player magical weapons with a rider can fix the problem in the short term, but in the long term they should probably change their planned build a bit to get access to a rider of some sort.
One option was for her to MC into Ranger for 2 levels and pick up Hunter's Mark. As long as she focuses on one target that's an extra D6 per hit and she hits a LOT.