D&D 5E So Was That Z Fellow right?

hejtmane · Nov 20, 2017

smbakeresq said:
While this math is approximately correct, its also why we play 3-5 combat encounters between rests, or 36-60 attacks. So getting those 4 extra hits in means less than if you are only making 24 attacks.

The issue isn't with the feats, its the adventuring day, and every build assumes frequent short rests to make sure those builds don't run out of resources. If you make your players have more encounters and random encounter then more then to "burst" feats and features lose value while feats and features with staying power gain in value. That's a DM and group issue, and frankly an assumption in published material that you can just rest wherever and whenever you want and the DM wont bother. That WILL NOT happen with any good DM.

POTA specifically put in some places where it might be safe to rest. The DM has to add some in and make sure the environment and creatures act appropriately. In the Caves of Chaos the denizens might not look for you, in the Hobgoblin caves run as a military camp full of lawful creatures your resting players will encounter search parties, patrols, etc to keep them on their toes.

I had no issues with any of the feats I always put the blame on the GM's then I get told that i am telling them how to play. While 5e is not perfect I think to many on this form have over analyze about them yet feat are optional; what ever this has been a dead horse argument beaten to death there are plenty of options I am old school d&d and 1e guy so I have no arguments over edition wars which is were I see most the arguments about the feats come from especially from people that mainly did 3 to 4 were they had rules for every little thing from my understanding. With 5e that is not the case and so we get in these over analysis when there are plenty of options available for DM's that do not like the feats.

smbakeresq · Nov 20, 2017

renbot said:
This may be the sweetest thing I've ever read on a gaming messageboard. And as a bonus it exemplifies how different games have different goals and thus require different strategies. As a single childless man it never occurred to me that sometimes spell choice can be about being a better parent!

Tormyr said:
Having gone through the numbers game on GWM enough times with lovely spreadsheets that compare builds and cover any AC, +to hit, or adv/dis, I can tell you that GWM can give 0%-90% extra damage: 0% or worse in bad situations such as high AC or disadvantage (so don't use it in those) and 90% in any ideal situations (low AC or advantage). In all but the worst situations, a PC could always use GWM and still get some increase, but the overall is much better if at least not using it with disadvantage.

Our last campaign covered levels 1-20 and had a half-orc Champion fighter with a Defender greatsword, the GWM feat, and GWF style. She routinely did more damage than anyone else. This was usually in the 50%-66% range, but near the end of the campaign, the wizard would cast foresight on her. With a +14 to hit, advantage, and a 18-20 crit range, she could land 9 hits on an action surge and do around 250+ damage on a turn. The party lost wish, meteor swarm, and other 9th-level spells for the day, but they viewed it as a good combination of PC powers in many circumstances.

Because the effects of this build occurred over time, it was easy to see the effects and adapt to them. The end result was that the I often considered her to be worth 2 PCs. Some of the encounters were cakewalks, some were middle of the road, and some were harrowing. Despite the obvious combat proficiency, the other members of the party still had lots of moments to shine in and out of combat.

Occasionally I would also give the party an, "Oh, ," moment by removing her from the field of battle or turning her on the party. Fear effects, mind control, maze, banishment, curses, all drastically would alter the balance of power and send the party scrambling to figure out how to deal with the situation. Other times, just being in the thick of things meant she fell. One of the worst was when the party went up against a ancient silver dragon shape-changed into an elf. The dragon had an antimagic field that covered her and her erinyes bodyguards. The fighter tried to run in but found she could not do 35 damage in a single hit to force the dragon to drop concentration (minimum the dragon could roll was a 17). The dragon grappled and then pinned the fighter prone while the erinyes hacked away at her. The paladin got a very lucky contested roll to pull the fighter to safety. Otherwise the fighter would have died. Another time an evil palading cast banishment on the paladin. With the anti fear aura gone, the fighter succumbed to the fear effects and had to stay away from the battle. The monk died. The wizard barely managed to break the banishment (I allow dispel magic to be cast on spellcasters who are concentrating). With the anti-fear aura back in place, the fighter was able to get back in the action). They then used a rod of resurrection on the monk to bring him back.

tl;dr
GWM is powerful. Other party members still shine. Changes happen so slowly over levels that they are easy to adapt to. Budget encounters for one additional party member if needed. There are lots of ways to keep encounters fun and challenging.

I modified the GWM feat to be like the old Power Attack, which I preferred simply because you had to choose what to hit bonus to lose to get a damage bonus. It goes like this

1. GWM can be taken by anyone.

2. You subtract any number up to proficiency bonus to get a damage bonus, the bonus is as follows using proficiency bonus of 2 as an example
a. one handed weapons (but not light or finesse weapons) the bonus damage equals what you subtracted from to hit roll, in this case 2
b. One handed used in 2 hands the bonus damage is 1.5 times what you subtracted from your to hit roll, in this case 3.
c. Two handers get double the amount they subtracted, or 4 in this case.

3. The second part of the feat stays the same.

At the table this works fine, and balances out the difference in fighting styles, dueling gets a flat +2 bonus which is better than what great weapon fight gets. The feat is more valuable for 2 handed users, and also gives something to people who use one handed weapons in both hands. Making the penalty smaller for a smaller reward means its used more often, which is good you want your players to use their feats. The fact that it scales over levels is good also, it should scale.

Fanaelialae · Nov 20, 2017

Sacrosanct said:
I think those folks who keep touting their expertise in math are forgetting a pretty big factor. I work in project management and testing, and we have a saying: "Garbage in, garbage out." That means, if there is a flaw (garbage) in just one factor of your equation, it doesn't matter how you approach the formula, you're going to end with a bad result.

The flaw I'm seeing here is that some people are assuming that the opponent's total HP is infinite, when what they should be doing, in order to make it a fair comparison and analysis, is to have the opponent's HP be the same for all scenarios. Why is this important? Because if you're adding an extra 10hp per damage per round, then you will NOT have as many rounds of combat as the fighter without these feats. So 74 total damage is not accurate. You can't keep adding damage once a target is below 0.

For example, if a fighter without feats does 10 points per round, and there are 200 total monster HP between rests, that's 20 rounds of combat between rests. If you have a fighter with those feats that adds 5 hp more damage per round, you simply can't use the same 20 round metric to see how much more damage you're doing. That's bad math. The fighter with the feats doesn't add an extra 100 points of damage (5 extra points for 20 rounds) like what is the logic FrogReaver has claimed. The fighter with the feat will go through those 200 HP in 14 rounds (rounded up). So that's 5 points for 14 rounds, not for 20 rounds. Or 70 extra points, not 100.

It may seem like a minor difference, but if you want your math and scenario to be accurate, you have to factor it in. Bottom line is that the fighter with the feat isn't doing as much extra damage as claimed unless the monster HP is infinite. Which it can't be, because then your rounds of combat per rest value would be infinite as well. There can be an argument made about how extra damage means beating the encounter faster which means good, but that's a different argument, and isn't what is being claimed.

An interesting point but, much as [MENTION=6776887]Tormyr[/MENTION] did, the DM with the higher damaging fighter may simply up the challenge a bit, thereby maintaining encounter length. In that scenario, GWM/SS et al become less of a damage buff and more of an experience bonus for the party. Granted, some DMs won't like it that, but that's yet another factor to take into account when deciding for yourself whether these are too good or just quite good.

It's the problem with any white room scenario. You have to make certain assumptions, otherwise the complexity spirals out of control.

Party composition could be a factor. The types of monsters your DM likes to use could be a factor. Overkill damage is probably a factor. Even terrain might factor in.

Still, I think you're right to point out that these are over-simplifications. I think white rooms can be useful, but only so long as one keeps in mind that they won't accurately model the complexities of what actually goes on during real play. They're more like estimations of what you might be able to expect.

FrogReaver · Nov 20, 2017

Overkill damage is meaningless to analyze. All it generally tells us is that you are killing monsters in fewer turns/hits on average.

The goal of damage isn't to have a high damage number it's to kill a monster faster. DPR without overkill damage factored in is a better gauge of how fast you are killing monsters than DPR with overkill damage factored in.

Sacrosanct · Nov 20, 2017

Fanaelialae said:
An interesting point but, much as [MENTION=6776887]Tormyr[/MENTION] did, the DM with the higher damaging fighter may simply up the challenge a bit, thereby maintaining encounter length. In that scenario, GWM/SS et al become less of a damage buff and more of an experience bonus for the party. Granted, some DMs won't like it that, but that's yet another factor to take into account when deciding for yourself whether these are too good or just quite good.

.

True, but then you aren't comparing apples to apples any more. You're applying two different standards and sets of values to each, which results in a flawed comparison.

As you say, white room analysis is fundamentally flawed anyway. I've said it for a long time. 5e, probably moreso than any other edition, is not good with white room analysis because there are sooo many factors going on in the actual game itself that screws with that. Which is why I agree with Crawford when he says he wants to see how things pan out in actual games first before issuing errata.

smbakeresq · Nov 20, 2017

FrogReaver said:
Average adventure day is 6-8 encounters by DMG. You are saying you typically encounter more than half th expected encounters before a short rest? You are saying there's never days with 2 short tests?

Yes, the DM suggestion of 2 encounters, short rest, 2 encounter, short rest, 2 more and long rest is absurd IMO. You enter a dungeon, fight through a few rooms, and then stop for an hour in the middle of the place, then fight through a few more rooms and then leave for the day, rest up and come back like nothing happened? They don't even do that in adventure movies. The players should NEVER fight the BBEG with full resources, the whole purpose of being a BBEG is to have minions to wear the players down so they get to you weakened.

Take published adventure POTA, Sacred Stone Monastery encounter. There is between 10-15 combat encounters there, plus some non-combats also, including some real tough ones for the players. However, it is also an organized Monastery run by intelligent defenders, there is just no way you would be able to rest inside without them organizing a response, and to leave on come back would make it even harder. The defenders move about their own place, they see bodies of the dead and quickly realize they are being invaded. This might shorten the place to fewer but larger encounters, which is what the text seems to imply should be done. The adventure does provide a place to rest if it is role played correctly. Essentially the DM should force you through it with one rest, maybe 2 at the most. The clock is ticking, when the PC are resting the defenders are reacting, setting traps and ambushes, organizing defenses, casting augury, aid, locate object etc. The DM is free to harass players to make sure they cant rest. A smart group can slow down the process through hiding bodies, covering their tracks, casting suggestion and forget and spells like that. Distractions work also.

The idea that the group is in the middle of some dungeon and after an encounter the fighter is down to 1 BM dice and the monk is down to 2 ki points so the world stops for on hour so they can recover their abilities is crazy. The players should be FORCED to ration resources correctly, it shouldn't be "well the DM guide says 2 encounters then short rest, I didn't use any short rest resources last encounter so I can blow them all now because a rest is coming" is absurd.

People always say here the CR ratings for Monster Manual are off, they didn't have any problem with the encounter. Well there are some problems there, no doubt. But if you are fighting the Fire Giant King with more than half your rest-limited resources and spells available that's a DM fail to me. You would get to him in my game at least 1-2 combats after your last short rest, combats that would make you burn some of those resources. You should rarely if ever get to a creature like that with Temp HP from Inspiring leader still available.

BTW stretching the PCs out makes things like Healer a great feat to conserve spells, Durable more valuable as it conserves hit dice for healing, etc. It does degrade the value of some feats, generally the ones most people consider OP. The players do have to balance resource management more, its not all nova every other encounter.

I freely admit that I am very old school, when adventures pushed you to edge, and you didn't have non-magical healing between encounters, and HP returned over days instead of over night. HP meant more because you went into most encounter at less than full health. The current idea of a few encounters in the morning, followed by a protein shake, then another encounter, then lunch, then a final workout followed by a night of rest is just crazy. This is a video game mentality, enter a room, spawn a few monsters, draw them outside so as not to hit another spawn point, kill them, heal up, then go back into the room. I don't follow that at all in D&D.

However, because of that, I am generous with my players as far as customization. I know I will grind your PC down, so you will need that edge.

smbakeresq · Nov 20, 2017

FrogReaver said:
Overkill damage is meaningless to analyze. All it generally tells us is that you are killing monsters in fewer turns/hits on average.

The goal of damage isn't to have a high damage number it's to kill a monster faster. DPR without overkill damage factored in is a better gauge of how fast you are killing monsters than DPR with overkill damage factored in.

Correct.

In addition, using the GWM feat as an example, the only people who will take that are GW users. That also means that if you don't take that feat you are most likely taking another good option, like dueling for a flat +2 damage per attack (and hitting more) combined with a shield (getting hit less) and then shield mastery (giving more advantage to you and your team through prones.) The GWM user will out damage the Dueling + Shield Mastery used in every reasonable case, but if you go back and add in the damage through the extra times you hit, the extra times you get to attack with full advantage since you proned them, the extra damage your team just piled on because they get to attack with advantage you created, it all ends up as a wash.

I see the SS and CE feats more in these forums then I ever do at the tables.

You see this with tactics also. An example is Booming Blade with Warcaster sounds like a great combo, you get to use once or twice in your whole career after the DM sees you use it unless you have a Bard spamming dissonant whispers. I can see that getting Shilleagh through magical secrets is a great spell for a gish build, but the people who do that are casting way more spells into combat then getting into combat themselves to use that feat and spell.

FrogReaver · Nov 20, 2017

putting many more encounters per day and many more per short rest is a valid way to play. Let's not act like having more encounters per day than the DMG suggestion is normal. It's pretty abnormal. It's probably more normal to see 2-6 encounters per day. Maybe an average of 4.

When we are talking about 2 options that don't conform to the norm as predicted in the DMG then let's err toward the far more common one. So yes in your game it's inherently nerfed as most any limited use resource would be. It still takes you a lot further than most limited use resources as you don't need or want to use it that often. I'd wager it's still by far the best damaging ability and character in your game. Without more info on your campaign I can't give you numbers though

smbakeresq said:
Yes, the DM suggestion of 2 encounters, short rest, 2 encounter, short rest, 2 more and long rest is absurd IMO. You enter a dungeon, fight through a few rooms, and then stop for an hour in the middle of the place, then fight through a few more rooms and then leave for the day, rest up and come back like nothing happened? They don't even do that in adventure movies. The players should NEVER fight the BBEG with full resources, the whole purpose of being a BBEG is to have minions to wear the players down so they get to you weakened.

Take published adventure POTA, Sacred Stone Monastery encounter. There is between 10-15 combat encounters there, plus some non-combats also, including some real tough ones for the players. However, it is also an organized Monastery run by intelligent defenders, there is just no way you would be able to rest inside without them organizing a response, and to leave on come back would make it even harder. The defenders move about their own place, they see bodies of the dead and quickly realize they are being invaded. This might shorten the place to fewer but larger encounters, which is what the text seems to imply should be done. The adventure does provide a place to rest if it is role played correctly. Essentially the DM should force you through it with one rest, maybe 2 at the most. The clock is ticking, when the PC are resting the defenders are reacting, setting traps and ambushes, organizing defenses, casting augury, aid, locate object etc. The DM is free to harass players to make sure they cant rest. A smart group can slow down the process through hiding bodies, covering their tracks, casting suggestion and forget and spells like that. Distractions work also.

The idea that the group is in the middle of some dungeon and after an encounter the fighter is down to 1 BM dice and the monk is down to 2 ki points so the world stops for on hour so they can recover their abilities is crazy. The players should be FORCED to ration resources correctly, it shouldn't be "well the DM guide says 2 encounters then short rest, I didn't use any short rest resources last encounter so I can blow them all now because a rest is coming" is absurd.

People always say here the CR ratings for Monster Manual are off, they didn't have any problem with the encounter. Well there are some problems there, no doubt. But if you are fighting the Fire Giant King with more than half your rest-limited resources and spells available that's a DM fail to me. You would get to him in my game at least 1-2 combats after your last short rest, combats that would make you burn some of those resources. You should rarely if ever get to a creature like that with Temp HP from Inspiring leader still available.

BTW stretching the PCs out makes things like Healer a great feat to conserve spells, Durable more valuable as it conserves hit dice for healing, etc. It does degrade the value of some feats, generally the ones most people consider OP. The players do have to balance resource management more, its not all nova every other encounter.

I freely admit that I am very old school, when adventures pushed you to edge, and you didn't have non-magical healing between encounters, and HP returned over days instead of over night. HP meant more because you went into most encounter at less than full health. The current idea of a few encounters in the morning, followed by a protein shake, then another encounter, then lunch, then a final workout followed by a night of rest is just crazy. This is a video game mentality, enter a room, spawn a few monsters, draw them outside so as not to hit another spawn point, kill them, heal up, then go back into the room. I don't follow that at all in D&D.

However, because of that, I am generous with my players as far as customization. I know I will grind your PC down, so you will need that edge.

pemerton · Nov 20, 2017

smbakeresq said:
dueling for a flat +2 damage per attack

Duellingis not +2 damage per attack, unless your hit chance is 100% (which I think the rules don't permit).

smbakeresq · Nov 20, 2017

FrogReaver said:
putting many more encounters per day and many more per short rest is a valid way to play. Let's not act like having more encounters per day than the DMG suggestion is normal. It's pretty abnormal. It's probably more normal to see 2-6 encounters per day. Maybe an average of 4.

When we are talking about 2 options that don't conform to the norm as predicted in the DMG then let's err toward the far more common one. So yes in your game it's inherently nerfed as most any limited use resource would be. It still takes you a lot further than most limited use resources as you don't need or want to use it that often. I'd wager it's still by far the best damaging ability and character in your game. Without more info on your campaign I can't give you numbers though

I put 3-5 encounters before a short rest, or larger encounters with a small break in between i.e. you finish the fight in the area and then in rounds another encounter starts. If I am DM you will see 2-3 encounters before we even order pizza, then another while we wait for the delivery, then we can short rest. You should keep games moving, you are in combat so you have about a minute before I skip you in order. It shouldn't take more than an hour or hour and half for the biggest combats, the short ones are 20 minutes, even with my kids playing.

There are too many rests in the current version of the game, with FAR to many builds dependent on constant resting. The way I see build analysis done is everyone assumes full health and full resources, so any class that is built on staying power is auto-nerfed right away, an unrealistic assumption. In addition, it is assumed that the rest of your group is focused only on supporting that build. Finally all of these builds are built on an island, the wizard controller that reduces a tough encounter to 2 easy ones through a well placed Hypnotism did far more than any martial class with any feat combo to win that encounter, something that no analysis can even begin to attach a value to.

Every Player should read and understand this from TreantMonk Wizard Guide.

"I had an idea how I could help the group without dominating the action, and I came back with a Wizard character. In the first combat, I was encouraged to use my fireball, and the group was quite confused when I told them that I didn’t have Fireball, lightning bolt or even magic missile. I still remember the DM asking me, “So what DO you do then?” When I explained I would be putting up walls, fogs, buffing, debuffing, etc. My character was declared “useless”

A couple months of playing and my character did not directly cause a single HP of damage to an enemy, nor did he use a single “save or die”. The campaign completed, and since my wizard was introduced, not a single character had died.

What I found really surprising is that everyone in the group still considered my character “useless”. Not a single player seemed to notice that my character had been introduced at the same time that the party death-toll had stopped. They had thought the campaign had become “easier” during the second half."