Haravikk and I were specifically talking about two weapon fighting being the best option for rogues, who can't use polearms. And how we might prefer the fighting style to be different in general. I added in rangers too. While the advantages aren't as clear as they are for rogues, rangers can't get the Great Weapon fighting style except as a feat at 4th level, so it's not as obvious a choice to have a polearm fighting ranger. I should have probably not complicated the discussion. But mostly there are just multiple conversations happening at the same time and wires are getting crossed.
Ok, so what are the exploits? Rogues can't take Fighting Styles or use Shields. As far as I can tell, the reason it is the best option for Rogues is that they have no other options.
It also allows them two chances to land a sneak attack on their turn instead of just one so even if they could take up a polearm, it would not be a finesse weapon and could not trigger sneak attack.
Haravikk and I were specifically talking about two weapon fighting being the best option for rogues, who can't use polearms. And how we might prefer the fighting style to be different in general. I added in rangers too. While the advantages aren't as clear as they are for rogues, rangers can't get the Great Weapon fighting style except as a feat at 4th level, so it's not as obvious a choice to have a polearm fighting ranger. I should have probably not complicated the discussion. But mostly there are just multiple conversations happening at the same time and wires are getting crossed.
Ok, so what are the exploits? Rogues can't take Fighting Styles or use Shields. As far as I can tell, the reason it is the best option for Rogues is that they have no other options.
I'm not sure what you mean. I'm kind of lost at this point haha.
The statement was made that PAM far outperforms two weapon fighting in potential damage.
I said I don't mind if two weapon fighting doesn't do as much damage. PAM is for Martials. I thinks it's fine if they do more DPR. But because people want all the fighting styles to be balanced, it needs something other than damage. It needs some other, more interesting feature.
Haravikk said maybe give them advantage on an attack instead of an additional attack. But then expressed concern that it might make it too appealing to rogues because it's guaranteed sneak attack. Then added that two weapon fighting was already kind of the best option for rogues.
I agreed.
We then went on to try to think of other cool features for two weapon fighting that were a little more realistic, but offered something that makes it still viable compared to other fighting styles for balance, that wasn't just more attacks.
That's all I think of that we were taking about.
Ok, I am mixing up too many conversations here. I'm really not trying to be difficult. I am just trying to understand.
Haravikk and I were specifically talking about two weapon fighting being the best option for rogues, who can't use polearms. And how we might prefer the fighting style to be different in general. I added in rangers too. While the advantages aren't as clear as they are for rogues, rangers can't get the Great Weapon fighting style except as a feat at 4th level, so it's not as obvious a choice to have a polearm fighting ranger. I should have probably not complicated the discussion. But mostly there are just multiple conversations happening at the same time and wires are getting crossed.
Ok, so what are the exploits? Rogues can't take Fighting Styles or use Shields. As far as I can tell, the reason it is the best option for Rogues is that they have no other options.
I'm not sure what you mean. I'm kind of lost at this point haha.
The statement was made that PAM far outperforms two weapon fighting in potential damage.
I said I don't mind if two weapon fighting doesn't do as much damage. PAM is for Martials. I thinks it's fine if they do more DPR. But because people want all the fighting styles to be balanced, it needs something other than damage. It needs some other, more interesting feature.
Haravikk said maybe give them advantage on an attack instead of an additional attack. But then expressed concern that it might make it too appealing to rogues because it's guaranteed sneak attack. Then added that two weapon fighting was already kind of the best option for rogues.
I agreed.
We then went on to try to think of other cool features for two weapon fighting that were a little more realistic, but offered something that makes it still viable compared to other fighting styles for balance, that wasn't just more attacks.
That's all I think of that we were taking about.
Ok, I am mixing up too many conversations here. I'm really not trying to be difficult. I am just trying to understand.
Haha, no problem, same here! There's just a lot going on. And actually not much of it has to do with this thread's topic anyway. Maybe we need a different one for fighting styles. Hahaha
Why is the baseline assumption for an Opportunity Attack set to 25%?
And why does Polearm Master increase the odds from 25% to 75%?
Forgive me, but these seem arbitrary. There's no reasoning given.
I didn't want to clog up the post with the explanation but this is based on my observations from playing and DMing continuously for the past 3 years.
Sources of Opportunity Attacks: 1) Dissonant Whispers - extremely popular spell for bards and aberrant mind sorcerers and proccs AoO for allies next to the target on a failed save - 90% of my parties have at least one character with this spell and it gets cast at least once per significant combat. 2) Enemies with AoE abilities repositioning in order to maximized targets hit by the AoE 3) Enemies moving to attack a caster that is concentrating on a nasty spell, or who is healing people. 4) Flying enemies escaping into the air to get away from the melees.
Sources of PAM Opportunity Attacks: 1) Enemies charge the PAM character b/c they beat them in initiative or start combat more than 30ft from the PAM character and the PAM moves & Dodges waiting for them to attack rather than Dashing. 2) PAM character moves to hit the enemy at 10ft reach then backs up 5ft without proccing an AoO from the enemy. 3) One of the hit & run characters (usually rogue, occasionally monk) hits and runs next to the PAM character to lure the enemy attacking them into the PAM character's reach. 4) Forced movement of various types - Crusher, Gathered swarm, Dissonant Whispers, Thunderwave, Telekinesis, etc... - pushes the enemy out of PAM character's reach. 5) Caster Misty Steps (or other teleportation) away from an enemy attacking them and runs away, leaving the PAM character as the only target the enemy attacking them can now reach with their movement. 6) PAM character stand in / near a doorway or other bottleneck forcing enemies to move into their reach before getting to the other party members. 7) PAM character charges the BBEG so the minions swarm the PAM character to protect their master.
Sure there is some variation between different encounter designs and different campaigns, but generally: the first turn a particular enemy decides to attack the PAM character will give the PAM character and AOO. Assuming multiple enemies per combat, and combats that last 4-5 rounds and your party does something to try to take advantage of the PAM character you should be getting at least two PAM AOO per major combat.
But that's one of the oddities we've always had with Rogue in that there has never been a good reason to have only one weapon, as it's always been better to have a backup for a second chance at getting sneak attack if the first one missed; probably something that needs to be fixed on Rogue though.
TBH I think that is deliberate design. Not all classes should be equally good at all styles of fighting. The rogue with a dagger in each hand is a classic archetype which the rules should favour. The other (basically equally good option) for rogue is the hide + shortbow build, because Rogues don't get a fighting style and have their requirement for Sneak Attack, the ranged rogue is mathematically optimal -> Advantage on an attack that adds your modifier & has guaranteed sneak attack is better than two attacks where one does not add your modifier and that risks not getting sneak attack sometimes. [Crossbow Expert + Hand crossbow is actually the optimal rogue]
The melee rogue has really only become ubiquitous because of Booming Blade which synergizes ridiculously well with Rogue nearly doubling their average DPR.
But that's one of the oddities we've always had with Rogue in that there has never been a good reason to have only one weapon, as it's always been better to have a backup for a second chance at getting sneak attack if the first one missed; probably something that needs to be fixed on Rogue though.
TBH I think that is deliberate design. Not all classes should be equally good at all styles of fighting. The rogue with a dagger in each hand is a classic archetype which the rules should favour. The other (basically equally good option) for rogue is the hide + shortbow build, because Rogues don't get a fighting style and have their requirement for Sneak Attack, the ranged rogue is mathematically optimal -> Advantage on an attack that adds your modifier & has guaranteed sneak attack is better than two attacks where one does not add your modifier and that risks not getting sneak attack sometimes. [Crossbow Expert + Hand crossbow is actually the optimal rogue]
The melee rogue has really only become ubiquitous because of Booming Blade which synergizes ridiculously well with Rogue nearly doubling their average DPR.
How would that double their DPR? You give up your offhand strike/second chance at sneak attack and hope the target moves willingly for an extra 1d8 (scaling up to 2d8 at lvl 5) damage during the round. Am I missing some trick ?
Booming blade is good for rogues because it is normally balanced against extra attack, which of course rogues do not get, so for them it's a direct upgrade from just attacking. The booming part of the blade is also especially useful on rogues because rogues tend to hit and then get out. If nobody else is near, then an enemy pretty much has to move if they want to melee. Compare this to classes that don't get disengage as a bonus action, i.e. all of the them, where a lot of the time the target has no reason to move since they're still in melee. It also scales very well (+2d8 per level, up to a max of 7d8 at 17th), works with sneak attack, and is really damn cool.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Look at what you've done. You spoiled it. You have nobody to blame but yourself. Go sit and think about your actions.
Don't be mean. Rudeness is a vicious cycle, and it has to stop somewhere. Exceptions for things that are funny. Go to the current Competition of the Finest 'Brews! It's a cool place where cool people make cool things.
How I'm posting based on text formatting: Mod Hat Off - Mod Hat Also Off (I'm not a mod)
Okay, I crunched my own numbers just for 5th level and wanted to share my results. The assumptions are
Everyone chose the optimal fighting style for damage. This could be from a class feature or a customized background at 1st level.
Everyone chose a feat at 4th level that increased their primary ability score─for attacking─to 18.
Everyone is fighting a CR 5 enemy, which the DMG currently suggests should have 15 AC.
All that together means the odds of landing any given blow are 65%. The mean damage per swing will be reduced accordingly.
I'll be looking at four specific combinations:
Greataxe, Great Weapon Fighting, Great Weapon Master
Greatsword/Maul, Great Weapon Fighting, Great Weapon Master
Glaive/Halberd/Pike, Great Weapon Fighting, Polearm Master
Longsword & Shortsword, Two Weapon Fighting, Dual Wielder
Great Weapon Master is a little tricky to calculate for because the damage bonus only applies on a hit. To err on the side of caution, I will include two outcomes: one where the damage is reduced and one where it is not. This way, all the bases are covered. I will not be factoring in the increased odds for an Opportunity Attack with Polearm Master because it's too unpredictable. Its use can vary wildly; from party composition to the mood and mental state of the DM. With that in mind, it strikes me as another one of those "Mother, may I?" situations the designers are trying to avoid. It has a hard mechanical trigger, but the DM has to trigger it and can know to avoid that trigger. So, for this exercise, it's excluded.
Greataxe: 10.5 (1d12 + 4) + 0.83 (fighting style) = 11.33 * 0.65 = 7.365 per hit Greatsword/Maul: 11 (2d6 + 4) + 1.33 (fighting style) = 12.33 * 0.65 = 8.015 per hit Great Weapon Master adds either +3 or +1.95 (3 * 0.65) A greataxe can be expected to yield 17.73 or 16.68 DPR A greatsword or maul can be expected to yield 19.03 or 17.98 DPR
Glaive/Halberd/Pike: 9.5 (1d10 + 4) + 0.8 (fighting style) = 10.3 * 0.65 = 6.89 per hit Bonus Action: 6.5 (1d4 + 4) + 0.5 (fighting style) = 7 * 0.65 = 4.55 on hit In total, this should yield 18.33 DPR─at the cost of their bonus action
Two-Weapon Fighting 1d8 weapon: 8.5 (1d8 + 4) * 0.65 = 5.525 per hit 1d6 weapon: 7.5 (1d6 + 4) * 0.65 = 4.875 on hit In total, this should yield 15.925 DPR
So, at first glance, PAM looks like the strongest and DW looks like the weakest. Having said that, PAM is reliant on the bonus action to accomplish its work. If we include just one of its Opportunity Attacks, the expected DPR across three rounds of combat jumps to 20.627. Remove the bonus action from that set up, and we're left with 16.077. And if that looks similar to the yield for DW, it's unlikely an accident.
The DW setup is no longer reliant on the bonus action, so using that as the point of comparison against PAM (sans bonus action) makes a certain amount of sense. DW can be supplemented with something like the monk's Martial Arts; or spells like hex and hunter's mark. Either spell would add 6.825 DPR─for a total of 22.75─at the cost of a spell slot and possibly concentration. And that might be the intended balancing point. Both have a bonus action to supplement raw Attack damage. One can reliably get higher, but the other has reach. This does seemingly leave the greataxe/greatsword/maul users to bring up the rear. But they have a free bonus action. The aforementioned spells wouldn't proc as many times, but every little bit helps. And dealing 23.58 to 22.53 damage per round, depending on your preferred bonus from GWM, looks about right. Or they could do something else, entirely.
Things will likely either break down or shift as higher levels are reached and demands change, but at this moment in time they're all competitive.
Just wanted to note that the way to calculate GWM damage with accuracy taken into account is to treat the GWM chance to as if you rolled at advantage. At least when it is 2 attacks chance of adding GWM damage goes up the more attacks there are. Also, mind you, at higher level PAM can take and benefit from GWM.
Just wanted to note that the way to calculate GWM damage with accuracy taken into account is to treat the GWM chance to as if you rolled at advantage for 2 attacks. Also, mind you, at higher level PAM can take and benefit from GWM.
That's...no. If advantage is part of the calculations, it's for everyone. And with the new version of the feat in playtesting, it's unnecessary. It's additional damage equal to your proficiency bonus once per turn. There's no penalty to hit, so fishing for advantage isn't as big a priority. And as a baseline, I think the new version is slightly stronger.
Just wanted to note that the way to calculate GWM damage with accuracy taken into account is to treat the GWM chance to as if you rolled at advantage for 2 attacks. Also, mind you, at higher level PAM can take and benefit from GWM.
That's...no. If advantage is part of the calculations, it's for everyone. And with the new version of the feat in playtesting, it's unnecessary. It's additional damage equal to your proficiency bonus once per turn. There's no penalty to hit, so fishing for advantage isn't as big a priority. And as a baseline, I think the new version is slightly stronger.
Dear lord, If it only triggers once per turn, and you make 2 attacks the chance of it triggering once is equal to the chance of hitting with AT LEAST one attack. Which, when you make 2 attacks, is the same percentage as if you made a single attack with advantage.
So at level 5 the damage is 3x chance to hit with AT LEAST one attack or 87.75%x3 damage= 2.63 damage per round average additional damage. I am NOT talking about the great weapon master attacking with advantage I am talking about the PB damage you gain from GWM that you were struggling to calculate.
So in short the damage from great sword or maul is neither 19.03 OR 17.98 it is 18.66.
But that's one of the oddities we've always had with Rogue in that there has never been a good reason to have only one weapon, as it's always been better to have a backup for a second chance at getting sneak attack if the first one missed; probably something that needs to be fixed on Rogue though.
TBH I think that is deliberate design. Not all classes should be equally good at all styles of fighting. The rogue with a dagger in each hand is a classic archetype which the rules should favour. The other (basically equally good option) for rogue is the hide + shortbow build, because Rogues don't get a fighting style and have their requirement for Sneak Attack, the ranged rogue is mathematically optimal -> Advantage on an attack that adds your modifier & has guaranteed sneak attack is better than two attacks where one does not add your modifier and that risks not getting sneak attack sometimes. [Crossbow Expert + Hand crossbow is actually the optimal rogue]
The melee rogue has really only become ubiquitous because of Booming Blade which synergizes ridiculously well with Rogue nearly doubling their average DPR.
How would that double their DPR? You give up your offhand strike/second chance at sneak attack and hope the target moves willingly for an extra 1d8 (scaling up to 2d8 at lvl 5) damage during the round. Am I missing some trick ?
Level 5 Rogue (no fighting styles, +4 Dex modifier): 3d6 sneak attack, 1d8 baseline BB + 2d8 BB if move. Chance to hit = 0.65 (no adv), or 0.88 (adv)
Shortbow at Adv = 0.88*(14+4) = 15.8 DPR Rapier + BB, no Adv, BB bonus damage always occurs b/c of free disengage = 0.65*(15+4+4.5 + 2*4.5) = 21 DPR
If you get BB on the rogue via Magic initiate or as an Arcane Trickster, then you can also grab Find Familiar, and thus get free Adv on your BB attack. Rapier + BB, at Adv, BB bonus damage always occurs b/c of free disengage = 0.88*(15+4+4.5 + 2*4.5) = 28.6 DPR -> 80% increase DPR over a shortbow!
Is it just me or has this thread been nothing but talks about Polearm Master and related feats for the past several posts?
I guess there's not much else to discuss until the next UA.
Yeah, I think generally people are pretty happy with Cleric and Life Domain. Dragonborn is better but hasn't really been discussed for the most part. Goliath seems popular enough that I think it will pass muster. Ardling is the only real sticking point for the UA because there is not consensus for what it should be. Other parts have been discussed (spells for example) but it hasn't really been a focal point except for a small number of people here.
Is it just me or has this thread been nothing but talks about Polearm Master and related feats for the past several posts?
I guess there's not much else to discuss until the next UA.
Yeah, I think generally people are pretty happy with Cleric and Life Domain. Dragonborn is better but hasn't really been discussed for the most part. Goliath seems popular enough that I think it will pass muster. Ardling is the only real sticking point for the UA because there is not consensus for what it should be. Other parts have been discussed (spells for example) but it hasn't really been a focal point except for a small number of people here.
Ardling is just funny to me at this point. It basically boils down to some people want Ardling, Some people want Not-Ardling, and others don't want Not-Ardling thinking that Not-Ardling is Ardling, and some people don't want Ardling.
In essence, the big argument is some people want a generic beast folk, which is specifically NOT what an Ardling is, and they want to force Ardling into that (they want Not-Ardling). Some people specifically DONT want a generic beast person and think that is what Ardling is, which it is specifically not that (They dont want Not-Ardling). Some people want Ardlings, and finally some people don't want any more celestial races at all and feel 1 is good enough to cover every type of pantheon in existence.
These 4 factions are somewhat evenly split, so honestly we are not likely to see Ardling in any DnD publication. Failed race for at least another 10 years.
Is it just me or has this thread been nothing but talks about Polearm Master and related feats for the past several posts?
I guess there's not much else to discuss until the next UA.
Yeah, I think generally people are pretty happy with Cleric and Life Domain. Dragonborn is better but hasn't really been discussed for the most part. Goliath seems popular enough that I think it will pass muster. Ardling is the only real sticking point for the UA because there is not consensus for what it should be. Other parts have been discussed (spells for example) but it hasn't really been a focal point except for a small number of people here.
Ardling is just funny to me at this point. It basically boils down to some people want Ardling, Some people want Not-Ardling, and others don't want Not-Ardling thinking that Not-Ardling is Ardling, and some people don't want Ardling.
In essence, the big argument is some people want a generic beast folk, which is specifically NOT what an Ardling is, and they want to force Ardling into that (they want Not-Ardling). Some people specifically DONT want a generic beast person and think that is what Ardling is, which it is specifically not that (They dont want Not-Ardling). Some people want Ardlings, and finally some people don't want any more celestial races at all and feel 1 is good enough to cover every type of pantheon in existence.
These 4 factions are somewhat evenly split, so honestly we are not likely to see Ardling in any DnD publication. Failed race for at least another 10 years.
That is exactly my take on it as well. No single idea has enough backing to make it successful, but all together they will easily sink Ardling completely.
Just wanted to note that the way to calculate GWM damage with accuracy taken into account is to treat the GWM chance to as if you rolled at advantage for 2 attacks. Also, mind you, at higher level PAM can take and benefit from GWM.
That's...no. If advantage is part of the calculations, it's for everyone. And with the new version of the feat in playtesting, it's unnecessary. It's additional damage equal to your proficiency bonus once per turn. There's no penalty to hit, so fishing for advantage isn't as big a priority. And as a baseline, I think the new version is slightly stronger.
Dear lord, If it only triggers once per turn, and you make 2 attacks the chance of it triggering once is equal to the chance of hitting with AT LEAST one attack. Which, when you make 2 attacks, is the same percentage as if you made a single attack with advantage.
So at level 5 the damage is 3x chance to hit with AT LEAST one attack or 87.75%x3 damage= 2.63 damage per round average additional damage. I am NOT talking about the great weapon master attacking with advantage I am talking about the PB damage you gain from GWM that you were struggling to calculate.
So in short the damage from great sword or maul is neither 19.03 OR 17.98 it is 18.66.
I never used the word struggle, so don't put words in my mouth. If I made a mathematical error, you can offer up a correction with (a) clear and concise language and (b) not being rude in your delivery.
Just wanted to note that the way to calculate GWM damage with accuracy taken into account is to treat the GWM chance to as if you rolled at advantage for 2 attacks. Also, mind you, at higher level PAM can take and benefit from GWM.
That's...no. If advantage is part of the calculations, it's for everyone. And with the new version of the feat in playtesting, it's unnecessary. It's additional damage equal to your proficiency bonus once per turn. There's no penalty to hit, so fishing for advantage isn't as big a priority. And as a baseline, I think the new version is slightly stronger.
Dear lord, If it only triggers once per turn, and you make 2 attacks the chance of it triggering once is equal to the chance of hitting with AT LEAST one attack. Which, when you make 2 attacks, is the same percentage as if you made a single attack with advantage.
So at level 5 the damage is 3x chance to hit with AT LEAST one attack or 87.75%x3 damage= 2.63 damage per round average additional damage. I am NOT talking about the great weapon master attacking with advantage I am talking about the PB damage you gain from GWM that you were struggling to calculate.
So in short the damage from great sword or maul is neither 19.03 OR 17.98 it is 18.66.
I never used the word struggle, so don't put words in my mouth. If I made a mathematical error, you can offer up a correction with (a) clear and concise language and (b) not being rude in your delivery.
You don't need to be defensive, if you felt I was rude I apologize I was not trying to be rude. You called GWM damage tricky to calculate. I wanted you to know it is really quite simple. It is PB X chance to hit with a single attack. Which the formula for that is 1-(chance to miss one attack^number of attacks). I hope this helps in the future.
But that's one of the oddities we've always had with Rogue in that there has never been a good reason to have only one weapon, as it's always been better to have a backup for a second chance at getting sneak attack if the first one missed; probably something that needs to be fixed on Rogue though.
TBH I think that is deliberate design. Not all classes should be equally good at all styles of fighting.
It's not so much that they should be as good at all styles of fighting, we're only really talking about two, and the Rogue with a single weapon should really be viable without having to take feats or a specific sub-class, especially because they're given rapier proficiency (and Swashbuckler has been a popular sub-class). But in 5e for a standard Rogue the rapier is a trap because it only adds 1 extra damage on average compared to twin shortswords, while with the latter you always have the option of having the off-hand weapon ready just in case you miss with the first attack.
With the updated light property the off-hand weapon no longer has any competition for the bonus action (it's no longer a choice between trying again vs. Disengage etc.) so it's hands down the superior option as proposed, meaning the rapier or other single weapon is going to become even more of a trap for new players. The only advantage to the rapier is if you find a really good magic rapier, but if you found an equally good shortsword it would still be the better option (as while the off-hand one wouldn't be magical as well, it'd still be a second try).
It's tough to say what the best fix for that is though, it probably belongs on the Rogue class itself, e.g- bringing back Steady Aim but making it a free action that only works with a single weapon? I dunno, it's tough. I do sometimes wonder if WotC went the wrong route with two-weapon fighting being a generic feature tied to a weapon property, and they should maybe have developed it as a special type of "paired" weapon you always take and use as a set (but can be treated as a single weapon if you drop/stow one).
Former D&D Beyond Customer of six years: With the axing of piecemeal purchasing, lack of meaningful development, and toxic moderation the site isn't worth paying for anymore. I remain a free user only until my groups are done migrating from DDB, and if necessary D&D, after which I'm done. There are better systems owned by better companies out there.
I have unsubscribed from all topics and will not reply to messages. My homebrew is now 100% unsupported.
But in 5e for a standard Rogue the rapier is a trap because it only adds 1 extra damage on average compared to twin shortswords,
I mean, it flatly isn't because in 5e by far the most optimal Rogue build is Arcane Trickster, or one with Magic Initiate that uses a Rapier + Booming Blade as I described above, also with Tasha's Steady Aim + Rapier is as good or better than twin shortswords depending on how often you need to move as a melee Rogue. It is One D&D where the one-weapon Rogue is sub-optimal - though honestly in One D&D the optimal Rogue is very clearly the Handcrossbow + Crossbow Expert - though it could be easily fixed by giving back the "Use an Object" as a bonus action, and giving the "small bag of sand" equipment rules for blinding an enemy, thus the one-melee weapon rogue uses their BA to throw sand into the face of the enemy to try to get Adv on their one attack similar to how the shortbow rogue uses a bonus action to hide to get Adv on their one attack.
TBH I'm not sure why a Swashbuckler Rogue needs to use a single rapier? most pirates I recall from movies use a rapier+dagger or rapier+hook. Pretty much the only Roguish character that uses a single rapier that I can think of are the ones in the Princess Bride b/c the swordplay in that movie is the most realistic thing in it.
I mean, it flatly isn't because in 5e by far the most optimal Rogue build is Arcane Trickster, or one with Magic Initiate that uses a Rapier + Booming Blade as I described above
That's a very specific build requiring a specific sub-class and access to a specific cantrip, I'm talking more in the general sense. Even on the Swashbuckler, for whom the rapier is the obvious thematic choice, it's not the better option. Also, even with the specific Arcane Trickster + SCAGtrip build, it's a tiny damage difference as trade off for having the option of a second weapon in case you need it, so I'd still personally take two daggers or shortswords on that build rather than the rapier as I'd rather have the option for when two attacks makes more sense than the cantrip.
also with Tasha's Steady Aim + Rapier is as good or better than twin shortswords depending on how often you need to move as a melee Rogue.
Steady Aim hasn't been carried over into the OneD&D Expert Classes playtest, but I'm not sure how much you strictly want to rely on it when it is allowed as remaining in range for reprisals isn't usually going to be great for a Rogue's health (Uncanny Dodge only stops so much damage).
I'd much rather use Cunning Action to avoid reprisals entirely, which was the main drawback of the two-weapon option before (bonus action conflict), but the proposed OneD&D changes to two-weapon fighting does away with that, and if Steady Aim did exist you could use it with those as well (for effectively a third attempt to hit).
Also worth pointing out the bonus action conflict with two-weapons is only an issue in 5e when you miss with the first attack, as it's only then that you need to decide to spend the bonus action to try again or not; if you hit on the first try then you have the same option to do anything else you like, and if you're in range already and don't want to leave you have the same option to use Steady Aim if you prefer, it's not a unique benefit of the single weapon.
It is One D&D where the one-weapon Rogue is sub-optimal - though honestly in One D&D the optimal Rogue is very clearly the Handcrossbow + Crossbow Expert - though it could be easily fixed by giving back the "Use an Object" as a bonus action, and giving the "small bag of sand" equipment rules for blinding an enemy, thus the one-melee weapon rogue uses their BA to throw sand into the face of the enemy to try to get Adv on their one attack similar to how the shortbow rogue uses a bonus action to hide to get Adv on their one attack.
I'd be fully on board with that, and I like the bag of sand idea. I think I said something similar in my feedback specifically on the Thief, but I did also say it never made sense to me why it was a sub-class to begin with (most of its kit should just be standard Rogue features IMO).
Former D&D Beyond Customer of six years: With the axing of piecemeal purchasing, lack of meaningful development, and toxic moderation the site isn't worth paying for anymore. I remain a free user only until my groups are done migrating from DDB, and if necessary D&D, after which I'm done. There are better systems owned by better companies out there.
I have unsubscribed from all topics and will not reply to messages. My homebrew is now 100% unsupported.
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
It also allows them two chances to land a sneak attack on their turn instead of just one so even if they could take up a polearm, it would not be a finesse weapon and could not trigger sneak attack.
Ok, I am mixing up too many conversations here. I'm really not trying to be difficult. I am just trying to understand.
She/Her Player and Dungeon Master
Haha, no problem, same here! There's just a lot going on. And actually not much of it has to do with this thread's topic anyway. Maybe we need a different one for fighting styles. Hahaha
I didn't want to clog up the post with the explanation but this is based on my observations from playing and DMing continuously for the past 3 years.
Sources of Opportunity Attacks:
1) Dissonant Whispers - extremely popular spell for bards and aberrant mind sorcerers and proccs AoO for allies next to the target on a failed save - 90% of my parties have at least one character with this spell and it gets cast at least once per significant combat.
2) Enemies with AoE abilities repositioning in order to maximized targets hit by the AoE
3) Enemies moving to attack a caster that is concentrating on a nasty spell, or who is healing people.
4) Flying enemies escaping into the air to get away from the melees.
Sources of PAM Opportunity Attacks:
1) Enemies charge the PAM character b/c they beat them in initiative or start combat more than 30ft from the PAM character and the PAM moves & Dodges waiting for them to attack rather than Dashing.
2) PAM character moves to hit the enemy at 10ft reach then backs up 5ft without proccing an AoO from the enemy.
3) One of the hit & run characters (usually rogue, occasionally monk) hits and runs next to the PAM character to lure the enemy attacking them into the PAM character's reach.
4) Forced movement of various types - Crusher, Gathered swarm, Dissonant Whispers, Thunderwave, Telekinesis, etc... - pushes the enemy out of PAM character's reach.
5) Caster Misty Steps (or other teleportation) away from an enemy attacking them and runs away, leaving the PAM character as the only target the enemy attacking them can now reach with their movement.
6) PAM character stand in / near a doorway or other bottleneck forcing enemies to move into their reach before getting to the other party members.
7) PAM character charges the BBEG so the minions swarm the PAM character to protect their master.
Sure there is some variation between different encounter designs and different campaigns, but generally: the first turn a particular enemy decides to attack the PAM character will give the PAM character and AOO. Assuming multiple enemies per combat, and combats that last 4-5 rounds and your party does something to try to take advantage of the PAM character you should be getting at least two PAM AOO per major combat.
TBH I think that is deliberate design. Not all classes should be equally good at all styles of fighting. The rogue with a dagger in each hand is a classic archetype which the rules should favour. The other (basically equally good option) for rogue is the hide + shortbow build, because Rogues don't get a fighting style and have their requirement for Sneak Attack, the ranged rogue is mathematically optimal -> Advantage on an attack that adds your modifier & has guaranteed sneak attack is better than two attacks where one does not add your modifier and that risks not getting sneak attack sometimes. [Crossbow Expert + Hand crossbow is actually the optimal rogue]
The melee rogue has really only become ubiquitous because of Booming Blade which synergizes ridiculously well with Rogue nearly doubling their average DPR.
How would that double their DPR? You give up your offhand strike/second chance at sneak attack and hope the target moves willingly for an extra 1d8 (scaling up to 2d8 at lvl 5) damage during the round. Am I missing some trick ?
Booming blade is good for rogues because it is normally balanced against extra attack, which of course rogues do not get, so for them it's a direct upgrade from just attacking. The booming part of the blade is also especially useful on rogues because rogues tend to hit and then get out. If nobody else is near, then an enemy pretty much has to move if they want to melee. Compare this to classes that don't get disengage as a bonus action, i.e. all of the them, where a lot of the time the target has no reason to move since they're still in melee. It also scales very well (+2d8 per level, up to a max of 7d8 at 17th), works with sneak attack, and is really damn cool.
Look at what you've done. You spoiled it. You have nobody to blame but yourself. Go sit and think about your actions.
Don't be mean. Rudeness is a vicious cycle, and it has to stop somewhere. Exceptions for things that are funny.
Go to the current Competition of the Finest 'Brews! It's a cool place where cool people make cool things.
How I'm posting based on text formatting: Mod Hat Off - Mod Hat Also Off (I'm not a mod)
Okay, I crunched my own numbers just for 5th level and wanted to share my results. The assumptions are
Great Weapon Master is a little tricky to calculate for because the damage bonus only applies on a hit. To err on the side of caution, I will include two outcomes: one where the damage is reduced and one where it is not. This way, all the bases are covered. I will not be factoring in the increased odds for an Opportunity Attack with Polearm Master because it's too unpredictable. Its use can vary wildly; from party composition to the mood and mental state of the DM. With that in mind, it strikes me as another one of those "Mother, may I?" situations the designers are trying to avoid. It has a hard mechanical trigger, but the DM has to trigger it and can know to avoid that trigger. So, for this exercise, it's excluded.
Greataxe: 10.5 (1d12 + 4) + 0.83 (fighting style) = 11.33 * 0.65 = 7.365 per hit
Greatsword/Maul: 11 (2d6 + 4) + 1.33 (fighting style) = 12.33 * 0.65 = 8.015 per hit
Great Weapon Master adds either +3 or +1.95 (3 * 0.65)
A greataxe can be expected to yield 17.73 or 16.68 DPR
A greatsword or maul can be expected to yield 19.03 or 17.98 DPR
Glaive/Halberd/Pike: 9.5 (1d10 + 4) + 0.8 (fighting style) = 10.3 * 0.65 = 6.89 per hit
Bonus Action: 6.5 (1d4 + 4) + 0.5 (fighting style) = 7 * 0.65 = 4.55 on hit
In total, this should yield 18.33 DPR─at the cost of their bonus action
Two-Weapon Fighting
1d8 weapon: 8.5 (1d8 + 4) * 0.65 = 5.525 per hit
1d6 weapon: 7.5 (1d6 + 4) * 0.65 = 4.875 on hit
In total, this should yield 15.925 DPR
So, at first glance, PAM looks like the strongest and DW looks like the weakest. Having said that, PAM is reliant on the bonus action to accomplish its work. If we include just one of its Opportunity Attacks, the expected DPR across three rounds of combat jumps to 20.627. Remove the bonus action from that set up, and we're left with 16.077. And if that looks similar to the yield for DW, it's unlikely an accident.
The DW setup is no longer reliant on the bonus action, so using that as the point of comparison against PAM (sans bonus action) makes a certain amount of sense. DW can be supplemented with something like the monk's Martial Arts; or spells like hex and hunter's mark. Either spell would add 6.825 DPR─for a total of 22.75─at the cost of a spell slot and possibly concentration. And that might be the intended balancing point. Both have a bonus action to supplement raw Attack damage. One can reliably get higher, but the other has reach. This does seemingly leave the greataxe/greatsword/maul users to bring up the rear. But they have a free bonus action. The aforementioned spells wouldn't proc as many times, but every little bit helps. And dealing 23.58 to 22.53 damage per round, depending on your preferred bonus from GWM, looks about right. Or they could do something else, entirely.
Things will likely either break down or shift as higher levels are reached and demands change, but at this moment in time they're all competitive.
Just wanted to note that the way to calculate GWM damage with accuracy taken into account is to treat the GWM chance to as if you rolled at advantage. At least when it is 2 attacks chance of adding GWM damage goes up the more attacks there are. Also, mind you, at higher level PAM can take and benefit from GWM.
That's...no. If advantage is part of the calculations, it's for everyone. And with the new version of the feat in playtesting, it's unnecessary. It's additional damage equal to your proficiency bonus once per turn. There's no penalty to hit, so fishing for advantage isn't as big a priority. And as a baseline, I think the new version is slightly stronger.
Dear lord, If it only triggers once per turn, and you make 2 attacks the chance of it triggering once is equal to the chance of hitting with AT LEAST one attack. Which, when you make 2 attacks, is the same percentage as if you made a single attack with advantage.
So at level 5 the damage is 3x chance to hit with AT LEAST one attack or 87.75%x3 damage= 2.63 damage per round average additional damage. I am NOT talking about the great weapon master attacking with advantage I am talking about the PB damage you gain from GWM that you were struggling to calculate.
So in short the damage from great sword or maul is neither 19.03 OR 17.98 it is 18.66.
Level 5 Rogue (no fighting styles, +4 Dex modifier):
3d6 sneak attack, 1d8 baseline BB + 2d8 BB if move.
Chance to hit = 0.65 (no adv), or 0.88 (adv)
Shortbow at Adv
= 0.88*(14+4) = 15.8 DPR
Rapier + BB, no Adv, BB bonus damage always occurs b/c of free disengage
= 0.65*(15+4+4.5 + 2*4.5) = 21 DPR
If you get BB on the rogue via Magic initiate or as an Arcane Trickster, then you can also grab Find Familiar, and thus get free Adv on your BB attack.
Rapier + BB, at Adv, BB bonus damage always occurs b/c of free disengage
= 0.88*(15+4+4.5 + 2*4.5) = 28.6 DPR -> 80% increase DPR over a shortbow!
Yeah, I think generally people are pretty happy with Cleric and Life Domain. Dragonborn is better but hasn't really been discussed for the most part. Goliath seems popular enough that I think it will pass muster. Ardling is the only real sticking point for the UA because there is not consensus for what it should be. Other parts have been discussed (spells for example) but it hasn't really been a focal point except for a small number of people here.
She/Her Player and Dungeon Master
Ardling is just funny to me at this point. It basically boils down to some people want Ardling, Some people want Not-Ardling, and others don't want Not-Ardling thinking that Not-Ardling is Ardling, and some people don't want Ardling.
In essence, the big argument is some people want a generic beast folk, which is specifically NOT what an Ardling is, and they want to force Ardling into that (they want Not-Ardling). Some people specifically DONT want a generic beast person and think that is what Ardling is, which it is specifically not that (They dont want Not-Ardling). Some people want Ardlings, and finally some people don't want any more celestial races at all and feel 1 is good enough to cover every type of pantheon in existence.
These 4 factions are somewhat evenly split, so honestly we are not likely to see Ardling in any DnD publication. Failed race for at least another 10 years.
That is exactly my take on it as well. No single idea has enough backing to make it successful, but all together they will easily sink Ardling completely.
She/Her Player and Dungeon Master
I never used the word struggle, so don't put words in my mouth. If I made a mathematical error, you can offer up a correction with (a) clear and concise language and (b) not being rude in your delivery.
You don't need to be defensive, if you felt I was rude I apologize I was not trying to be rude. You called GWM damage tricky to calculate. I wanted you to know it is really quite simple. It is PB X chance to hit with a single attack. Which the formula for that is 1-(chance to miss one attack^number of attacks). I hope this helps in the future.
It's not so much that they should be as good at all styles of fighting, we're only really talking about two, and the Rogue with a single weapon should really be viable without having to take feats or a specific sub-class, especially because they're given rapier proficiency (and Swashbuckler has been a popular sub-class). But in 5e for a standard Rogue the rapier is a trap because it only adds 1 extra damage on average compared to twin shortswords, while with the latter you always have the option of having the off-hand weapon ready just in case you miss with the first attack.
With the updated light property the off-hand weapon no longer has any competition for the bonus action (it's no longer a choice between trying again vs. Disengage etc.) so it's hands down the superior option as proposed, meaning the rapier or other single weapon is going to become even more of a trap for new players. The only advantage to the rapier is if you find a really good magic rapier, but if you found an equally good shortsword it would still be the better option (as while the off-hand one wouldn't be magical as well, it'd still be a second try).
It's tough to say what the best fix for that is though, it probably belongs on the Rogue class itself, e.g- bringing back Steady Aim but making it a free action that only works with a single weapon? I dunno, it's tough. I do sometimes wonder if WotC went the wrong route with two-weapon fighting being a generic feature tied to a weapon property, and they should maybe have developed it as a special type of "paired" weapon you always take and use as a set (but can be treated as a single weapon if you drop/stow one).
Former D&D Beyond Customer of six years: With the axing of piecemeal purchasing, lack of meaningful development, and toxic moderation the site isn't worth paying for anymore. I remain a free user only until my groups are done migrating from DDB, and if necessary D&D, after which I'm done. There are better systems owned by better companies out there.
I have unsubscribed from all topics and will not reply to messages. My homebrew is now 100% unsupported.
I mean, it flatly isn't because in 5e by far the most optimal Rogue build is Arcane Trickster, or one with Magic Initiate that uses a Rapier + Booming Blade as I described above, also with Tasha's Steady Aim + Rapier is as good or better than twin shortswords depending on how often you need to move as a melee Rogue. It is One D&D where the one-weapon Rogue is sub-optimal - though honestly in One D&D the optimal Rogue is very clearly the Handcrossbow + Crossbow Expert - though it could be easily fixed by giving back the "Use an Object" as a bonus action, and giving the "small bag of sand" equipment rules for blinding an enemy, thus the one-melee weapon rogue uses their BA to throw sand into the face of the enemy to try to get Adv on their one attack similar to how the shortbow rogue uses a bonus action to hide to get Adv on their one attack.
TBH I'm not sure why a Swashbuckler Rogue needs to use a single rapier? most pirates I recall from movies use a rapier+dagger or rapier+hook. Pretty much the only Roguish character that uses a single rapier that I can think of are the ones in the Princess Bride b/c the swordplay in that movie is the most realistic thing in it.
That's a very specific build requiring a specific sub-class and access to a specific cantrip, I'm talking more in the general sense. Even on the Swashbuckler, for whom the rapier is the obvious thematic choice, it's not the better option. Also, even with the specific Arcane Trickster + SCAGtrip build, it's a tiny damage difference as trade off for having the option of a second weapon in case you need it, so I'd still personally take two daggers or shortswords on that build rather than the rapier as I'd rather have the option for when two attacks makes more sense than the cantrip.
Steady Aim hasn't been carried over into the OneD&D Expert Classes playtest, but I'm not sure how much you strictly want to rely on it when it is allowed as remaining in range for reprisals isn't usually going to be great for a Rogue's health (Uncanny Dodge only stops so much damage).
I'd much rather use Cunning Action to avoid reprisals entirely, which was the main drawback of the two-weapon option before (bonus action conflict), but the proposed OneD&D changes to two-weapon fighting does away with that, and if Steady Aim did exist you could use it with those as well (for effectively a third attempt to hit).
Also worth pointing out the bonus action conflict with two-weapons is only an issue in 5e when you miss with the first attack, as it's only then that you need to decide to spend the bonus action to try again or not; if you hit on the first try then you have the same option to do anything else you like, and if you're in range already and don't want to leave you have the same option to use Steady Aim if you prefer, it's not a unique benefit of the single weapon.
I'd be fully on board with that, and I like the bag of sand idea. I think I said something similar in my feedback specifically on the Thief, but I did also say it never made sense to me why it was a sub-class to begin with (most of its kit should just be standard Rogue features IMO).
Former D&D Beyond Customer of six years: With the axing of piecemeal purchasing, lack of meaningful development, and toxic moderation the site isn't worth paying for anymore. I remain a free user only until my groups are done migrating from DDB, and if necessary D&D, after which I'm done. There are better systems owned by better companies out there.
I have unsubscribed from all topics and will not reply to messages. My homebrew is now 100% unsupported.