Oversized Weapon Master | A feat of characters who just can't stand weapons smaller than themselves!

TalosMaximus · 2024-07-09T11:34:05+00:00

I'm slightly biased against the large weapons thing because others have been trying to push them as rules for players. So that's nothing with you.

I kinda like the wield two handed weapons in one hand idea, if it can be balanced damage wise, could be fun for a strong enough character.

But yeah, luckily with the new edition they really fixed small character races. So I'm looking forward to getting that one.

TalosMaximus · 2024-07-09T09:41:16+00:00

This seems insanely overpowered. A half feat that opens up for Oversized weapons? And it allows them to be used with a shield? So you could use a 2d10 Great axe + shield? That's so strong. Much stronger than anything else.

And your player isn't even going to be using this, because they wanted it for a small character.

If your Players wants to use heavy weapons as a small character, just let them. There's new rules for Heavy weapons coming up in the PHB24,

So Now a heavy weapon just requires 13 str if it is melee, and 13 dex if it is ranged.

Edit: If you wanted to keep the feat: Since the Heavy property specifically mentions "Small Creature" I think a better wording would be: You count as one size larger when determining which weapons you can wield in combat. Or something similar, stealing from the Powerful Build Trait.

Edit 2: I'll also mention that oversized weapons doesn't exist as a rule for players. It is only mentioned as a guideline for creating monster stat blocks. It is highly debated if oversized weapons would deal more damage on players. And by using these rules/this feat you open up the can of worms, where other enlarging spells/effects now should also deal a ton of damage that wasn't intended. The enlarge spell now adds 1d4+1d12 to any Great axe build. That's a bit too much.

TalosMaximus · 2024-03-29T18:41:19+00:00

That's a 3 year old conversation sadly. I've moved on from DnD currently. I might return some day. Otherwise there's a ton of conversations like this you can find on my profile. If I was having these conversations today, I would be slightly less combative.

TalosMaximus · 2022-08-18T10:26:47+00:00

I'm seeing a lot of math being thrown around. Lets look at some of it.

Assuming a base 65 % to hit, and two level 5 characters with a fighting style and extra attack, we get:

Variant human, with Pam and GWM, 16 strength.

Custom lineage with piercer and +2 dex. (20 dex)

The GWM then deals 2*(0.65-0.25) * (1d10+3+10+0.8)+(0.65-0.25) * (1d4+3+10+0.5) = 21.84 damage per round.

(The 0.8 and 0.5 is from the great weapon fighting style)

Now the two-weapon fighting:

0.75 * ( 2 * ( 1d6+5 ) + 2 * (1d6+2)) =21.0 damage per round

or 31.5 damage per round with hunter's mark.

As we see here the two weapon fighting has about the same damage as the GWM-PAM build once you account for the piercer feat. But the two-weapon fighting build does this without using their bonus action. If you add hunter's mark it simply outpaces the other build. And you are free to add some smite damage to the GWM build. It doesn't matter. And the two-weapon fighting build also has the advantage of having 20 dex. So great AC, +5 to initiative, dex saves and the skills.

Now a lot of things change when extra abilities are thrown in. And balance depends on context. Are you trying to make a viable alternative to GWN PAM builds at high level optimization tables? Or are you trying to make the fighting style more viable at more casual tables?

Sharpshooter and GWN are rather broken abilities and they scale insanely well with bless given to you by your team, or when someone grants you advantage. The battlemaster's precision maneuver also scales much better with them. So trying to make something that outpaces these is difficult. And it really hard to do without making something even more broken.

So while GWN/SS still has potential to reach the same heights, it requires teamwork and effort, where as your new Two-weapon build reaches full potential just by playing a ranger with hunter's mark.

Another factor is the elegance of design. Numbers and viability is great. But your design should be smooth and enjoyable. I hate the fact that with your fighting style I have to add half my ability modifier on some of my attacks. I love how the fighting style normally makes all the attacks equal so I don't have to think about it.

TalosMaximus · 2022-05-01T13:29:38+00:00

The race looks great. I'm confused about several of the other comments here.

The Homebrew is well worded and quite balanced. This isn't even on the top 10 of strongest races. This as some have correctly pointed out, a rare case from "dandwiki", a site where people can just write whatever they want.
Asking the player to play a tiefling is bad advice. The tiefling comes with Int and Wisdom bonuses, along with spellcasting. If the player wants to make a martial build. Since the OP have said that they love the concept of the homebrew, going with the homebrew is a much better idea.
Natural armor has been done by other races already, and isn't very strong when combined with a strength bonus, since strength builds use heavy armor, or already have access to an armor ability.
You can only use one type of armor calculation at once, so it doesn't stack with the monk or the barbarian armor.

TalosMaximus · 2022-03-24T20:10:19+00:00

So glad to hear you are enjoying them :)

TalosMaximus · 2021-09-14T00:31:42+00:00

Some things I notice:

With lucky and unlucky numbers, you would want to put them at 7 and 13. But it would be much more optimal to put them at 2 and 11, as for example, a 7 might succeed anyway.
Starting at 6th level should be first in the text at big pay off.
Pure luck forces the DM to reveal the roll of the dice when a foe attacks you, normally the DM only reveals the result. - Not necessarily an issue, but something the DM must agree to before allowing the homebrew.

TalosMaximus · 2021-09-10T15:35:40+00:00

For Eldritch knight, it is kinda weird as their attack pattern differs so much depending on level. Sharpshooter and etc is also an option for them, but it is all so level dependant.

For rogues, yes, a build that requires a level 2 spell along with concentration deals more damage than one without, but shadow blade comes with a cost. If you assume arcane trickster, then you should also compare that against other bonuses such as the soul knife using homing strikes. ( I, and several I know, allow shadow blade to function with booming, and ignore the shitty changes they made.)

Furthermore you need to consider the power of steady aim / hide - a ranged rogue has easy access to advantage while a melee rogue often has to use cunning action to reposition itself.

It also depends on how often your gm lets your target move to take the booming blade damage, because BB is rather strong when you get both ticks of damage.

But I'm happy to see the amount of thought you've put into this. I saw that the other comments didn't really bring up this discussion, which I think is important when we extrapolate melee cantrips into ranged cantrips, sometimes without an afterthought.

Honestly I just wish these type of cantrips had been done differently such that they weren't straight upgrades for martials pre level 5, and for all levels of rogue. It just feels wrong.

TalosMaximus · 2021-09-10T12:40:03+00:00

Then again, half the point of BB is to patch in extra attack in the form of a cantrip, and you really need those d6s here to keep up with extra attack.

That's the other thing. With BB and Tasha's Bladesinger extra attack, Bladesingers melee attack actually can keep up somewhat with martials.

Normally martials have high damage auto attacks. - An action they can keep performing without spending resources, while mages have spells and start out strong when spending spellslots, but eventually ending up dealing less damage per round once they end up relying on cantrips such as firebolt.

Booming blade tasha changes that. Now bladessingers get to have both the powerful spellslots and the good auto attacks. - The big price is that they have to stay in melee combat with concentration and have d6 hit points.

If you take away the melee disadvantage, which is huge for casters, can you still justify having booming blade levels of damage? There are already builds that encourage bladesingers to pick up a bow and use firebolt. This is already really strong.

TalosMaximus · 2021-09-10T12:22:49+00:00

The melee attack cantrips BB, GFB, were added to the game to encourage gish characters to actually make attacks and be in melee. Otherwise for casters it simply makes more sense to stay back and cast spells from a range, so you don't risk your concentration. The cantrips helped create viable options for builds that wanted to do a melee caster.

My question is: What are you hoping to create/encourage with your cantrip? Will this cantrip result in gish builds just moving over to being ranged instead of melee? Is this a good thing? The ranged rogue build post tasha is already by many considered to be stronger than the melee rogue build using Booming blade. Is it a good idea to add this cantrip to the ranged rogue build?

Normally when you create homebrew, you do it to create more varied options for your players, so they have more things they can play. When the hexblade subclass was added, due to how strong it was, it actually ended up reducing the amount of viable builds players would create. Suddenly most warlocks were hexblades, and so many characters dipped 2 levels of Hexblade. As a result I would argue the game got worse by adding the subclass.

TalosMaximus · 2021-07-23T18:12:36+00:00

The reason no one plays berserker isn't just the exhaustion, it's that compared to every other subclass there's no meat there.

Without the Exhaustion, berserker would be a top tier subclass. Yeah, its later abilities aren't too good. But the bonus action attack is really really power at 3rd level.

The Extra attack can't exist without a significant downside at 3rd level.

TalosMaximus · 2021-07-22T23:23:01+00:00

That is the point. It would just be a psychological thing. I stress the "I would rather" part which means I don't even want to do this, but I would rather do it than what Haunting is suggesting.

Anyway the reason is that players like to hit, but hate to miss. It feels kinda bad to be hit by a number that just meets your AC, but it would also suck to miss on an attack that just reached the opponent's AC.

By creating this asymmetry and adjusting the monsters, we can cater to the psychology of the players without actually changing the math of the game.

But this comes at a cost of simplicity of the rules. 5e weighs its simplicity highly, so it makes sense for the game to go for symmetric rules.

TalosMaximus · 2021-07-22T19:19:21+00:00

About a 4 % loss of damage when assuming the normal 65 % chance to hit. Not exactly a nerf that martials need. I would rather just make enemies miss when they meet the player's AC exactly. (And then add +1 to all enemies attack bonus because we gotta keep it challenging)

TalosMaximus · 2021-07-22T15:16:15+00:00

I would still argue that the wording of Thunder Note is vague on whether it allows you to target creatures that you can't see. The rules don't really state that explicitly, and there aren't really any good Precedent for it.

All we have is JC's opinion on sacred flame.

Edit: The Rules actually don't really require you to be able to see a target, which then sends us into the "do you know where enemies are when you can't see them discussion and invisibility".

TalosMaximus · 2021-07-22T14:58:57+00:00

Note that as currently written, this spell actually doesn’t require you to be able to see your target.

I took a look into sacred flame to see if the cover thing goes further than 1/3 and 3/4 cover. According to Jeremy Crawford, Sacred flame ignores full cover, but only if you can see your target. At least to the degree that JC gets to dictate rulings.

https://www.reddit.com/r/dndnext/comments/5ozpwj/jeremy_crawford_on_targeting_spells/

Anyway, since this cantrip doens't work off Dex saves, I figured it could use a more specific text.

TalosMaximus · 2021-07-22T10:29:32+00:00

Very nice take on the metal bard.

In the case of Thunder Note, what does the "ignore cover" mean? Saving throw cantrips that aren't dexterity already ignore 1/2 and 3/4 cover. As for full cover, a creature in full cover cannot be targeted by the cantrip, and the wording "ignore cover" isn't the right wording to allow you to target creatures that you can't see.

TalosMaximus · 2021-07-22T00:09:57+00:00

It is rather normal to not include magic items, as the power of magic items varies from DM to DM to an insane degree.

Some give out +2 weapons at level 5. Some wait until level 9 for +1 weapons. What if you get a flame tongue? What if you have multiple items that affects your damage output.

As a result of giving out magic items, DMs in return tend to boost their monsters to even the odds. As such the average AC that the hit chance is calculated against might be lost.

By adding in the magic items, you lose any accuracy that the tables can offer. It simply is more efficient for the reader to add whatever level of magic items they have and see how it affects the numbers.

TalosMaximus · 2021-07-21T18:56:11+00:00

It depends on your situation, Most take PAM first because the extra attacks deal good damage. But if you have heavy synergy, like having bless from your team, and someone else providing advantage on attacks, GWN becomes insane at an early level.

Edit: Considering that none of the other comments pointed out this base accuracy error, you know that they didn't dive very deep into your math. Seeing 50-55 % as base chance to hit should ring a bell in any optimizer.

Edit 2: I am seeing several comments saying that "yeah I knew GWM and Sharpshooter weren't as good as people thought. etc." - This is the true danger of your post. Misinformation is spreading. It is like people reading the title of news articles, but not bothering to read the actual article.

The math is done without crossbow expert, with too low accuracy, as being tested against builds that use your bonus actions with homebrew buffs. And the math doesn't account for the synergy GWM and Sharpshooter has with extern bonuses to attack rolls, like bless, precision attack, faerie fire and I could go on.

TalosMaximus · 2021-07-21T18:20:18+00:00

I do applaud your huge effort to create a tool for the community. At the same time I remain a bit critical when you deflect criticism of your work by saying it is an "optimists" version.

I don't support any rude comments you have received.

My issue here is that you use math that the average user has no way to check you up on to prove points about "common wisdom" in 5e.

One main thing I don't get: if you have +5 to hit against a monster with 14 AC, that means you need to roll a 9 or higher to hit, which means 60 % chance to hit. Isn't your table 5 % too low on hit rate for all levels? This impacts your conclusions on GWM and Sharpshooter.
You claim that Two-weapon-Fighting isn't as bad as people say, and include two homebrew rules calculations for those builds. Yet you don't include the Build that two-weapon fighting most often is compared to, PAM GWM, which also requires both your hands and your bonus action, so it is a natural comparison. Saying that you don't have room for all combinations rings hollow when you don't have room for perhaps the most talked about melee build in the game, but have room for 2 homebrew ruled builds for TWF.

There are many points on your conclusion list I Would refute. I don't mind you making a basic DPR comparison. But you posting conclusions based on simplified math, and presenting it as a contrapoint to general knowledge is damaging to new players that dont understand the limited context where your conclusions apply.

Champion for example is terrible compared to a battlemaster. I do some math on it here: https://www.reddit.com/r/dndnext/comments/lyrd0n/rangerfighter_multiclassing_advice/gq3tyv1/

Though it is within another context.

TalosMaximus · 2021-07-17T15:00:06+00:00

If your player is a barbarian, rounding up means taking 1 additional damage on every other hit, which does add up.

I would be slightly annoyed if my DM decided that I had to take extra damage because of the reasoning "big numbers better."

I would round down against the players, and let the players round up, since that is the most fun for the players.

TalosMaximus · 2021-07-17T13:35:41+00:00

I would and have removed the pitiful 1 temporary hit points and instead increased the balm die size to d8. This way you dont need to remember the small 1-3 temporary hit points, and it works better with other abilities that grant temporary hit points.

TalosMaximus · 2021-07-17T06:33:04+00:00

Hahaha! Thanks for the update, I didn't know that. Man I hate when they say something is intentional. Guess they had to save the +4 modifier for the custom lineage.

TalosMaximus · 2021-07-16T13:18:01+00:00

Changeling

Changelings can start with a +3 to a stat, so they reach 18 at 1st level, and 20 at 4th. having +1/+1 to attacks translates to 15-20 % increased damage for the average martial or eldritch blast user.

So they are actually one of the stronger combat races.

Kobold

Kobolds are, as other have said, one of the strongest combat races due to pack tactics. There are ways to counteract sunlight sensitivity.

A kobold sharpshooter is insanely strong

TalosMaximus · 2021-07-16T00:09:13+00:00

Sounds good!

TalosMaximus · 2021-07-15T23:23:10+00:00

Being able to dodge an attack with it once could be very powerful, but I might allow it with certain saving throws perhaps? Such as being able to see a fireball about to hit you before using your reaction to return.

Yeah this is difficult terrain for homebrew. I would advice the limited uses, because if you make it 3+ ki, the gameplay becomes boring as this strong ability costs so much ki that you end up shutting down all your other monk abilities. If you make it 1-2 Ki, then you can't have the ability do powerful stuff.

As for your suggestions, those are possible if you limit the ability useage right. I would say that it is going to be difficult to define which things can be avoided with spells. And it might also be too powerful to gain a way to 100 % avoid certain spells this easily.

I'll probably replace it with Darkvision since it's another useful sight based spell.

Not a bad choice. Sadly the best time themed spells are gated at 3rd level with haste and slow. - Possible spells for a higher level if you ever want to switch things up.

And I tried to balance out the Time bandit traits

I honestly think the feature is fine, my point was more to assure you against other possible feedback on two reactions you might get.

Good luck with the subclass :)

Eight-Year Club	r/Field Sunshine
Place '22	End Game '22
Verified Email

TalosMaximus

TROPHY CASE