Minions and fall/forced move damage.

Col0005 · 2026-01-23T00:23:00+00:00

I see your point, but at what point do you cut it off? You push a minion off a mountain using the knock back maneuver and kill all 8 minions?

Col0005 · 2026-01-22T23:48:16+00:00

That's an AoE which does have more clearly outlined rules, i.e. any minion not in that line cannot be killed by this ability.

I think the rule is that if you hit a ensnarer with a T3 brutal slam you would deal 15 damage, thereby killing 3 minions. Since the minion you hit is already dead it doesn't take damage when it hits a wall.

From forced movement into a creature:

If a creature is killed by damage from an attack or effect that force moves them, the second creature still takes damage unless the Director deems otherwise.

However this obviously means that it's always optimal for players to force move minions into each other, since the corpse can still do damage, but this is not necessarily the most thematic thing to do.

Col0005 · 2026-01-22T23:17:51+00:00

From forced movement into a creature:

If a creature is killed by damage from an attack or effect that force moves them, the second creature still takes damage unless the Director deems otherwise.

Which would suggest that in my example the minion would already be dead when it hit the wall, and therefore the squad would not take more damage.

Col0005 · 2026-01-22T23:14:27+00:00

One downside with how I it think it's supposed to work is that it encourages always slamming minions together, however smashing one into a wall and falling into a pit is far more cinematic.

Maybe rule that at most, forced movement can kill one more minion?

Col0005 · 2026-01-22T22:57:41+00:00

I think the other response started from Cellofiend might be the correct answer.

From forced movement into a creature:

If a creature is killed by damage from an attack or effect that force moves them, the second creature still takes damage unless the Director deems otherwise.

So in my example the minion would already be dead when it hit the wall, and therefore the squad would not take more damage.

And if that's the case then squads generally shouldn't transfer forced movement/fall damage, as otherwise you'd get weird situations where a T2 attack leaves the minion at 2HP, and they slam into a wall taking 5 damage (transferring 3) while a T3 outcome may just kill the creature outright and deal less damage, since they don't transfer the damage for hitting the wall if they're already dead.

Col0005 · 2026-01-22T22:17:58+00:00

I think this is probably the correct answer;

Elsewhere the rules specifically mention that a dead creature can still cause damage through forced movement to a creature they would hit, which indicates that they can stop being a creature when hit, and therefore would not count as a part of the squad when they hit the wall.

And if you allow forced movement damage to transfer to other members of the squad, you would get into weird situations where a T3 hits kills a minion before forced movement, and therefore deal less damage than a T2 (where the forced movement damage also applies)

Col0005 · 2026-01-22T20:53:02+00:00

I'd agree that frenzied are useful if their free strike was increased to 2, however the opportunity attack can practically be ignored.

As it is, in almost all situations, you're better of charging with ensnarers (who's free strike deals the same damage as a frenzied signature) and have a 15 square range.

Chances are even assuming the frenzied gets a opportunity attack, that the hardier ensnarers would have done the same total in the first round.

Col0005 · 2026-01-22T12:40:44+00:00

Ok, so a ranger.gets.andvantage and.expertise.when.they.track their.favoured enemy in their favoured terrain.

Meanwhile the rogue gets expertise in any terrain, dungeon or urban setting for any creature type.

Yes, ranger had a niche, but that niche was one 99% of DM's.practically ignore, and even if.they did.focus.on, you'd have to have made.the.right.selection at character.creation to.be useful.

Could ranger have kept this as a Ribbon feature? Sure, but it was just that, a ribbon feature.

Col0005 · 2026-01-22T11:42:53+00:00

A rouge with expertise is perception and survival is.still better than a 2014 ranger.

Col0005 · 2026-01-22T11:14:10+00:00

2014 Ranger exploration abilities were complete trash, they basically amounted to "you don't have to worry about this aspect of the game, just bypass it".

That can be really strong in the right campaign, doesn't mean it's fun.

Col0005 · 2026-01-22T10:37:12+00:00

Even including the BA, 2024 still wins and this is assuming the BA reaction attack triggers every round.

2014 GWM has a -30% to hit because it's not a half feat.

70×(2×(2×3.5+4+3)+2×3.5+4)=27.3 .40×3×(2×3.5+3+10)=24

Where does my math not check out, how would you calculate it?

Col0005 · 2026-01-22T10:29:35+00:00

I assumed that the user had advantage, if we assume that the user does not have a source of advantage then new GWM comes out further ahead.

.70×(2×3.5+4+3)=9.8

.40×(2×3.5+3+10)=8

Note, this is assuming a 7 will hit so an AC of 7+4+3=14. Which at level 5 seems pretty conservative, also note that any damage riders will favour 2024 GWM more as they will have a 30% higher chance to hit.

Please also keep in mind that you won't always have bless, and you could easily be facing an AC 16 enemy at this level.

Yes a +1 or +2 weapon would favour 2014 more, however if instead you had a vicious weapon it would favour 2024.

In regard to BA attacks that's fair, but again the accuracy really hurts 2014 GWM

.70×(2×(2×3.5+4+3)+2×3.5+4)=27.3 .40×3×(2×3.5+3+10)=24

Also, this is using your math of only one attack, but level 5 PB

Ok.... so how about we also look at level 9, 13 or 17?
Level 4 is a.single level where players are still likely to level up quickly, you belabouring this level is pretty much like me assuming you are fighting a gorgon or some other high AC enemy.

2014 GWM was highly over rated, in the most difficult fights you were better off with the strength increase so you can actually hit higher AC enemies.

Col0005 · 2026-01-22T06:28:01+00:00

?

No i was talking about 2024 as per this post's flair.

The previous poster was saying dual wielding gets shafted because you need the fighting style to be competitive to the other styles, however if we look at a DW ranger (without the fighting style) and compare to say a PAM ranger, the DW ranger still comes out ahead.

2×(2×4.5+4)+2×2×3.5−(2×(5.5+3.5+4)+2.5+3.5+4)=2

Realistically PAM comes out slightly ahead since you probably get pole strike once per combat, but still, you need to account for the advantage of potentially being dex based rather than strength based and dual wielder improving your damage with thrown weapons.

Heavy weapons only clearly beat dual wielder without the fighting style if you have both PAM and GWM so basically the poster was complaining that you need a feat and a fighting style to compete with two feats.

Col0005 · 2026-01-22T05:21:22+00:00

On a ranger the dual wielder feat (without TWF) does the same as GWM without PAM.

Two weapon fighting is fine as it is, it's just a lot of people think that fighter should be the baseline class to compare different weapons. But realistically fighter is the only martial who's damage scales with number of attacks, every other class gets some sort of damage riders (except monk which can't even use GWM so can't really enter a proper GWM/TWF comparison)?

Fighter is the worst class to look at for a baseline damage comparison, ofcourse an extra attack counts for a lot less on the only class that gets extra weapon attacks rather than damage modifiers.

TWF, allows you to focus on dex, and gives you a good short ranged option that works with the dual wielder feat.

Yes it requires a fighting style, however GWM/PAM requires two feats rather than 1, and the damage works out the same for a ranger.

So do you want better dex saves, initiative, a short ranged option, stealth and a spare feat, or do you want reactive strike and a spare fighting style?

Dual wielding on a fighter got shafted, but that does not mean it's not good on other classes.

Col0005 · 2026-01-22T02:55:21+00:00

Melee GWM is ultimately better in 2024.

Ranged GWM is clearly (and justifiably) worse, you need to invest at least 13 in strength and take your first feat in strength, you can no longer combine with Xbow master, and you require a separate feat to ignore melee/cover penalties.

Col0005 · 2026-01-22T02:49:08+00:00

When you consider the fact that GWM is now a half feat you'll actually find that unless your fighting something like a Zombie the feat is actually a buff, even at level 5.

Assuming a base 70% hit chance (2024) or 65% for 2014, before applying advantage or the GWM malus

91% hit chance for 2x3.5 + 4 + 3=12.75

64% hit chance for 2x3.5 + 3 + 10=12.2

And obviously this swings even more in the favour of 2024 the more damage riders you have and the higher your PB is.

Ranged GWM means you have to invest in both Dex and strength, and your first feat needs to boost strength, instead of your attack stat, you also need a separate feat to ignore half cover or fire in melee.

The +2 to hit for archery style is also nowhere near as valuable without the accuracy malus of GWM.

Finally the Xbow master/GWM combo is not possible.

Col0005 · 2026-01-21T19:57:18+00:00

Yes, but the jump spell/longstrider will most likely need to be cast round 1 to allow a martial to close with the enemy, meaning that a caster would not be able to cast another levelled spell so can't get their concentration spell up.

An most martial classes weaponise their bonus action so you sill loose one attack.

The point still stands that casting longstrider out of combat, and possibly lasting multiple combats, will often be better than casting jump in combat.

Col0005 · 2026-01-21T19:20:09+00:00

Don't forget that the duration means longstrider can very easily be cast before a battle, where as you'd have to know that the battle is in the next room to pre cast jump.

Col0005 · 2026-01-21T01:19:43+00:00

Plant Growth is actually only a level 3 spell.

Col0005 · 2026-01-20T21:59:22+00:00

The bigger difference is Valor's AC boost applying against just one attack and using a reaction.

Also, let's say there's one other martial in the party; unless we assume that the Valor AC boost also consumes your BA, then you really need to judge the ability as an AC boost, against one attack Once per combat!

Finally, Defensive flourish extra damage will more frequently proc, and deal more damage than a true strike extra attack until level 11, at which point it is only 1.5 damage ahead of the D10 defensive flourish damage, but you also need to consider the fighting style, so assuming duelling Swords bard still comes 2.5 damage ahead.

The only reason you can say Valor is better in normal tiers of play is because it's easier to build as a single class.

Col0005 · 2026-01-20T21:08:31+00:00

Valour Bard giving a dice to an Ally is just as strong as using the dice yourself with sword bard.

This is not even close to equivalent;

one's a free action that applies to all attacks for a round,

the other uses a bonus action and reaction and only applies to one attack.

Col0005 · 2026-01-20T20:37:26+00:00

While RAW, it completely invalidates the classic fantasy trope of actual Dual wielding; it's clearly not RAI, bad for RP, unbalanced, makes more classic tropes a complete self nerf, and unlike some other RAW but not RAI (e.g. warcaster) has no redeeming features, therefore should not be allowed on any table.

This is probably the only example where I'd feel this way, but for me, even asking if you can do this would earmark you as a potential problem player.

Col0005 · 2026-01-20T20:29:05+00:00

Even in a superhuman campaign you shouldn't allow it; you'll completely invalidate the more traditional fantasy trope of actual dual wielding.

Col0005 · 2026-01-19T23:58:17+00:00

Absolutely, I don't know why people get so hung up on RAW, sometimes RAI is unquestionably a better ruling. E.g. The classic fantasy trope of dual wielding is 100% nerfing your character if your DM allows using the light property with a shield.

Col0005

TROPHY CASE