D&D 5E 5th Edition has broken Bounded Accuracy

KarinsDad

Adventurer
I'm not overestimating the damage increase. As I've stated we hashed this out in another thread. Once you start taking into account buffs, battlemaster dice, vows, bless, foresight, familiars providing adv., spells providing advantage, prone, and numerous other party capabilities that boost hit chance, the damage divide is immense. From the damage I recorded during the course of a campaign, I believe it is 70 to 100% more damage over the course of a fight than a character not using either of those feats. They do more damage in nearly every fight. Major fights they nova using special abilities. In mook fights a single bless spell allows them to use GWMf on every hit vastly outpacing other classes for damage. This is recorded over the course of about 6 levels after level 10 because I wanted to see the real game effect of the feats. You have a seven person party. You should record damage and see the percentage difference. You must have a Sharpshooter and GWM user in your party.

Theory-crafting only goes so far. Hard data is much better. The hard data showed that the GWM fighter when set up to succeed with bless and fly (to eliminate mobility issues with a melee martial) out-damaged everyone in the group by 70% to 100% over the course of a fight. Sometimes the paladin closed the gap with smite criticals. Occasionally a caster would have a good hit here and there with a spell critical. Overall, the GWM fighter was damage king by a wide margin.

Who does this hurt the most? Mostly martials not using the feats, though I don't worry about it as a much with defensive martials using Shield Master. It hurts lower level casters that lack spell versatility and especially rogues. Rogues are hurt the most by the feats given their damage balance is based on single large hits using Sneak Attack damage.

Sure. The DM can always make something harder for any class with something imbalanced. At least neither of those feats are as bad as Come and Get Me or 3E Power Attack at high level. Unless you're going to make every fight so hard that you can't use GWM, the GWM will have a vast damage advantage over non-GWM fighters. I think the Sharpshooter damage advantage will be greater than GWM. I'll start recording damage once he hits level 10 like before. It doesn't seem as big a problem at lower level save on a few nova occasions.

I'll post the data this time to add information for those still in doubt.

The data I collected before was in the following party:
1. Shield Master Paladin: Probably skewed the numbers in favor of the GWM fighter because he was using one of the lower damage paladin options, though he was a Vengeance Paladin.

2. Battlemaster Fighter: Probably the best fighter for consistent nova damage with GWM.

3. Life Cleric: Not much of a damage dealer.

4. Lore Bard: Also not much of a damage dealer, but great at helping the GWM fighter do his damage.

5. Evoker Wizard: Supposed to be a damage dealer, but could not match the GWM fighter save with AoE damage. I was getting better at dealing damage. If the DM allows the Evoker to use his Maximize evocation damage capabilities on cantrips for max cantrip damage all the time, the gap closes somewhat at level 14 plus. That usually allows the Evoker to use one maximized regular spell, then max his cantrip for the rest of the day for an average of 45 point fire bolt hit.

Not the best comparison, since no TWF damage dealer. Still clearly showed the damage advantage a GWM fighter has over other classes.

I think the next comparison with Sharpshooter will be better because I have an Eldritch Blast specialist warlock in the group (not a Sorlock. Warlock Fighter) and an Open Hand Monk. That should give me some good real game damage number comparisons.

First off, I stated that I was explicitly discussing GWM using the -5/+10 versus GWM not using it. You appear to have missed that in your response here. So if we are not discussing the same thing, of course there will be miscommunications.


I do absolutely think that GWM has the potential to do huge amounts of damage. But I also think that your "hard data" here is skewed and you don't even see it. Your group purposely buffed this PC with Fly and Bless (although other PCs were also buffed with Bless) and (eventually) Foresight and advantage from familiars and such, and you wrote down the damage results.

But this is anecdotal. You have stated before that your DM allows the PCs to dictate combat and such. With a different DM, this PC might not shine quite as much. For example, a DM who throws large groups of foes at the PCs could easily grapple/prone this PC, giving him disadvantage (or having NPCs put up Darkness or Fog Cloud, or using traps to split up the party, or killing familiars, or a wide variety of other things that can shake up the effectiveness of a party).

Another problem with this is that you put all of this effort into making this one PC shine so much that you totally disregard how much other PCs can shine if the spotlight is focused on them and the party tactics revolve around them instead.

As an example, at level 6 when a fire Draconic Sorcerer gets Elemental Affinity, if he has Elemental Adept fire, he does 36.3 average points of damage on average with an Empowered Fireball spell instead of the normal 28 (+3 more for Charisma, +5.3 more for re-rolling 3 bad rolls and all 1s automatically becoming 2s). At level 12 with a 20 Cha, this increases to 39.3 (5 rerolls, +5 for Charisma).

Many encounters, he should be able to get 3 foes in each of his Fireball spells (sometimes more foes, sometimes less foes, but usually at least 3 because he casts the spell when he has the best chance of hitting more foes). At level 6, that's a range of damage of 163 to 327 points of damage. Typically at these levels, foes have a Dex mod of +1 or less, so average damage here against DC 14 or 261 average points of damage per day, 87 in the round he casts (29 per foe). The 6th level GWM fighter in this party averages 28 or so points of damage per round (2+ attacks, assume 60% chance to hit at -5/+10 due to buffs like Bless or Feinting), so it typically takes the fighter 3 rounds to do the same damage that the Sorcerer does in 1 round.

The Sorcerer then has other options to add even more damage in the other 2 rounds. Granted, at level 6, this is only 3 times per day, but that's 3 encounters a day where the Sorcerer is typically going to do more damage than the Fighter (and the Sorcerer still has 7 more spells he can use). Granted, there will be times when the Fighter rolls huge damage, criticals, etc. But there will also be rounds where the Sorcerer rolls 5 or better on most of his damage dice and/or he gets 5 foes in the blast and/or most or all of his foes fail their save. Sure, the Fighter might nova at 75 points in a single round, but the Sorcerer might nova at 200 points.

At level 17 when the GWM Fighter is near his peak often doing 75 or more points of damage per round (a portion of this because he is buffed), the Sorcerer gets upwards of 12 Fireballs a day (potentially 2 or 3 per encounter) ranging from 19 to 65 damage per spell per foe (limited in number to more powerful spells) or 692 to 1384 points of damage per day with a save DC of 17 (close to 1200 points of damage). The Sorcerer can still average better damage per round as the Fighter for those 12 rounds (more if he can get more than 3 foes in a blast, the times for which he will use higher level slots). The Sorcerer also has a lot of other spells and options.

Granted, this tactic does not work against creatures immune to fire. And if the party plays dumb, the Sorcerer will not be able to get as many foes in without hitting allies. And he will not be able to use it every single encounter. And the Fighter has more opportunities to wipe out creatures at the higher levels and will be doing more damage in rounds when the Sorcerer is not casting Fireball. But this is a lot of levels where the Sorcerer does comparable damage per day than the Fighter. No doubt, the Fighter does more damage at higher levels, especially if the rest of the party buffs him.

But if the party tried to assist the Sorcerer (setting up a front line so that most of the foes are on one side of the fight, pushing foes into Wall of Fire spells, funneling foes into chokepoints, etc.) like you have the party assisting the Fighter, the Sorcerer would shine too. The numbers above do not take into account any other ways to optimize this Sorcerer or to have other PCs buff him.

I'm not an optimizer and I was able to find a PC who could do comparable damage to a GWM fighter for many levels (maybe not at level 20, but probably just as good per day at levels 6 through at least 15 or so, a big chunk of the levels). I'm sure that someone who really lives and breathes optimization could find other combinations that work even better, even for melee types.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

DaveDash

Explorer
First off, I stated that I was explicitly discussing GWM using the -5/+10 versus GWM not using it. You appear to have missed that in your response here. So if we are not discussing the same thing, of course there will be miscommunications.


I do absolutely think that GWM has the potential to do huge amounts of damage. But I also think that your "hard data" here is skewed and you don't even see it. Your group purposely buffed this PC with Fly and Bless (although other PCs were also buffed with Bless) and (eventually) Foresight and advantage from familiars and such, and you wrote down the damage results.

But this is anecdotal. You have stated before that your DM allows the PCs to dictate combat and such. With a different DM, this PC might not shine quite as much. For example, a DM who throws large groups of foes at the PCs could easily grapple/prone this PC, giving him disadvantage (or having NPCs put up Darkness or Fog Cloud, or using traps to split up the party, or killing familiars, or a wide variety of other things that can shake up the effectiveness of a party).

Another problem with this is that you put all of this effort into making this one PC shine so much that you totally disregard how much other PCs can shine if the spotlight is focused on them and the party tactics revolve around them instead.

As an example, at level 6 when a fire Draconic Sorcerer gets Elemental Affinity, if he has Elemental Adept fire, he does 36.3 average points of damage on average with an Empowered Fireball spell instead of the normal 28 (+3 more for Charisma, +5.3 more for re-rolling 3 bad rolls and all 1s automatically becoming 2s). At level 12 with a 20 Cha, this increases to 39.3 (5 rerolls, +5 for Charisma).

Many encounters, he should be able to get 3 foes in each of his Fireball spells (sometimes more foes, sometimes less foes, but usually at least 3 because he casts the spell when he has the best chance of hitting more foes). At level 6, that's a range of damage of 163 to 327 points of damage. Typically at these levels, foes have a Dex mod of +1 or less, so average damage here against DC 14 or 261 average points of damage per day, 87 in the round he casts (29 per foe). The 6th level GWM fighter in this party averages 28 or so points of damage per round (2+ attacks, assume 60% chance to hit at -5/+10 due to buffs like Bless or Feinting), so it typically takes the fighter 3 rounds to do the same damage that the Sorcerer does in 1 round.

The Sorcerer then has other options to add even more damage in the other 2 rounds. Granted, at level 6, this is only 3 times per day, but that's 3 encounters a day where the Sorcerer is typically going to do more damage than the Fighter (and the Sorcerer still has 7 more spells he can use). Granted, there will be times when the Fighter rolls huge damage, criticals, etc. But there will also be rounds where the Sorcerer rolls 5 or better on most of his damage dice and/or he gets 5 foes in the blast and/or most or all of his foes fail their save. Sure, the Fighter might nova at 75 points in a single round, but the Sorcerer might nova at 200 points.

At level 17 when the GWM Fighter is near his peak often doing 75 or more points of damage per round (a portion of this because he is buffed), the Sorcerer gets upwards of 12 Fireballs a day (potentially 2 or 3 per encounter) ranging from 19 to 65 damage per spell per foe (limited in number to more powerful spells) or 692 to 1384 points of damage per day with a save DC of 17 (close to 1200 points of damage). The Sorcerer can still average better damage per round as the Fighter for those 12 rounds (more if he can get more than 3 foes in a blast, the times for which he will use higher level slots). The Sorcerer also has a lot of other spells and options.

Granted, this tactic does not work against creatures immune to fire. And if the party plays dumb, the Sorcerer will not be able to get as many foes in without hitting allies. And he will not be able to use it every single encounter. And the Fighter has more opportunities to wipe out creatures at the higher levels and will be doing more damage in rounds when the Sorcerer is not casting Fireball. But this is a lot of levels where the Sorcerer does comparable damage per day than the Fighter. No doubt, the Fighter does more damage at higher levels, especially if the rest of the party buffs him.

But if the party tried to assist the Sorcerer (setting up a front line so that most of the foes are on one side of the fight, pushing foes into Wall of Fire spells, funneling foes into chokepoints, etc.) like you have the party assisting the Fighter, the Sorcerer would shine too. The numbers above do not take into account any other ways to optimize this Sorcerer or to have other PCs buff him.

I'm not an optimizer and I was able to find a PC who could do comparable damage to a GWM fighter for many levels (maybe not at level 20, but probably just as good per day at levels 6 through at least 15 or so, a big chunk of the levels). I'm sure that someone who really lives and breathes optimization could find other combinations that work even better, even for melee types.

There's quite a lot of problems with all this, I'm not going to break them down individually, because there are a few high level points to consider.

The point is that it's far more effective to buff the GMW/SS fighter because his base damage is so high, that increasing his chance to hit pays off massive dividend compared to buffing someone else.

A few people here have reported that they've run into problems with these feats just running Bless - @Zardinaar is one of those guys - who eventually rolled up one of his early campaigns because it was too problematic. These problems started appearing from level 8+, so it's not like the party can buff stack in a major way then with spells like foresight.

Another issue outside of the maths, it makes these feats "Must Have" choices, instead of agonizing choices, which is a detriment to the game and build diversity as a whole.

Also do take note that the Fighters with these feats are expending at-will abilities basically. I've played a high level Sorcerer and sure his damage was nice..... a few times a day. These classes with these feats can pump out comparable damage without expending any sort of resource (except perhaps ammunition).

I actually don't have too much of an issue with GMW. SS + Crossbow expert are more where I have issue. Archery is already too good in this game and those feats can create characters with a lot of strengths and few weaknesses. For me it's not about damage, let fighters have their cake for all I care, but it's about the dilution of interesting build choices and overshadowing of other classes that I really have issues with.
 

KarinsDad

Adventurer
There's quite a lot of problems with all this, I'm not going to break them down individually, because there are a few high level points to consider.

The point is that it's far more effective to buff the GMW/SS fighter because his base damage is so high, that increasing his chance to hit pays off massive dividend compared to buffing someone else.

The real issue here, IMO is that the -5/+10 aspect of GWM and Sharpshooter is not once per turn or round. Almost all other damage buffs in the game are once per turn or once per round (sneak attack damage, superiority dice, Divine Smite, Paladin spells, Hunter's Mark, Colossus Slayer, etc.).

A few people here have reported that they've run into problems with these feats just running Bless - @Zardinaar is one of those guys - who eventually rolled up one of his early campaigns because it was too problematic. These problems started appearing from level 8+, so it's not like the party can buff stack in a major way then with spells like foresight.

Another issue outside of the maths, it makes these feats "Must Have" choices, instead of agonizing choices, which is a detriment to the game and build diversity as a whole.

Agreed. Again, IMO, due to unlimited usage. Doing an extra 10 points of damage per round is one thing, doing an extra 30 points of damage per round (or even more with OAs) at level 5 is another.

Also do take note that the Fighters with these feats are expending at-will abilities basically. I've played a high level Sorcerer and sure his damage was nice..... a few times a day. These classes with these feats can pump out comparable damage without expending any sort of resource (except perhaps ammunition).

I actually don't have too much of an issue with GMW. SS + Crossbow expert are more where I have issue. Archery is already too good in this game and those feats can create characters with a lot of strengths and few weaknesses. For me it's not about damage, let fighters have their cake for all I care, but it's about the dilution of interesting build choices and overshadowing of other classes that I really have issues with.

Agreed.
 

Syntallah

First Post
I don't allow MCing but do allow feats. I wonder sometimes however if I got it backwards. Feats give some cool customization choices. But so does MCing.

I allow multiclassing, but I enforce the prereqs and have added the following caveat: the classes must be within one level per point of the additional class' prime ability. For example, a Fighter/Sorcerer. According to the table [PHB, pg 163] the character needs a Cha of 13. Assuming the PC has that, and keeps it that way, his Fighter level must be within one of his Sorcerer level (e.g. 7th/6th). If he spends a couple of ASIs and bumps his Cha up to 17, then his levels could be as far as three off (7th/4th).

I personally love the flexibility of multiclassing, but absolutely hate the "level dipping" so prevalent these days. My rule allows the former, but negates the latter.

Note: I haven't had it come up yet, but I would allow a PC to pick up a second class if he was already beyond the house limit, on a case by case basis and a sit down with the player. If the Fighter above decides to multiclass into Sorcerer at level 5, putting his new Sorcerer level 4 behind his Fighter level, I would have the PC do some searching for a mentor to unlock his 'until now hidden potential', and tell the player that he would need to take the next several levels in the Sorcerer class until he was within the house limit...
 

DaveDash

Explorer
I allow multiclassing, but I enforce the prereqs and have added the following caveat: the classes must be within one level per point of the additional class' prime ability. For example, a Fighter/Sorcerer. According to the table [PHB, pg 163] the character needs a Cha of 13. Assuming the PC has that, and keeps it that way, his Fighter level must be within one of his Sorcerer level (e.g. 7th/6th). If he spends a couple of ASIs and bumps his Cha up to 17, then his levels could be as far as three off (7th/4th).

I personally love the flexibility of multiclassing, but absolutely hate the "level dipping" so prevalent these days. My rule allows the former, but negates the latter.

Note: I haven't had it come up yet, but I would allow a PC to pick up a second class if he was already beyond the house limit, on a case by case basis and a sit down with the player. If the Fighter above decides to multiclass into Sorcerer at level 5, putting his new Sorcerer level 4 behind his Fighter level, I would have the PC do some searching for a mentor to unlock his 'until now hidden potential', and tell the player that he would need to take the next several levels in the Sorcerer class until he was within the house limit...

I find 5e multiclassing is filled with agonizing choices now. There are some, but few "must have" choices, unlike 3rd edition multi-classing which allowed you to construct characters with very few weaknesses.

I don't find level dipping is common - there are some but few exceptions, and I tinker with builds all day. It's usually a very difficult choice to delay your ASI.

They got multi-classing right with 5e IMO.

You're rule is a bit harsh. I couldn't play my War Cleric/Fighter very effectively under your rule, 20 Str and 19 Wis is a way too strict requirement, and I definitely don't want to "mutli-class" like AD&D non-human races, having to wait 7 levels for your ASI's is a huge penalty and a real turn off.
 
Last edited:

EzekielRaiden

Follower of the Way
Given that you pay for multiclassing by delaying many of the juicy features most people don't want to live without (e.g. your ASIs), I agree that [MENTION=17152]Syntallah[/MENTION]'s rule seems a little too punitive as it is. That said, I understand the impetus--certain classes are great as a quick dip (Fighter, Cleric) or mere starting platform (Warlock), from which you then focus on some other class. To help deal with that while not punishing people who want a more "dabble" character, I'd suggest making multiclassing a temporary "lock in" instead.

That is, let's say you're a 5th level Sorcerer, and you want to multiclass to Fighter. You meet the ability prerequisites easily. However, once you start the path of the Fighter, you cannot take levels in other classes until you have hit at least 3rd level. You cannot even take Sorcerer levels. This is because you don't really "learn how to be a Fighter" until you hit 3rd level.

This encourages most people to go for four levels (to pick up that class's ASI, lest it get delayed even further), and outright prevents the one-level dip. Any character that multiclasses is--essentially--taking the burden of a new training regimen, for the benefit of a complete set of new skills rather than the still-unfortunately-front-loaded skills that most "dippable" classes give.

And, besides, for the majority of games this will be very close to equivalent to your rule, assuming you allow characters to multiclass at (say) level 5 and focus on that new class until it reaches level 5/6 as well. Not many characters are going to make it past 15 anyway.
 

Psikerlord#

Explorer
I allow multiclassing, but I enforce the prereqs and have added the following caveat: the classes must be within one level per point of the additional class' prime ability. For example, a Fighter/Sorcerer. According to the table [PHB, pg 163] the character needs a Cha of 13. Assuming the PC has that, and keeps it that way, his Fighter level must be within one of his Sorcerer level (e.g. 7th/6th). If he spends a couple of ASIs and bumps his Cha up to 17, then his levels could be as far as three off (7th/4th).

I personally love the flexibility of multiclassing, but absolutely hate the "level dipping" so prevalent these days. My rule allows the former, but negates the latter.

Note: I haven't had it come up yet, but I would allow a PC to pick up a second class if he was already beyond the house limit, on a case by case basis and a sit down with the player. If the Fighter above decides to multiclass into Sorcerer at level 5, putting his new Sorcerer level 4 behind his Fighter level, I would have the PC do some searching for a mentor to unlock his 'until now hidden potential', and tell the player that he would need to take the next several levels in the Sorcerer class until he was within the house limit...

I suspect if I went with MCing I would have similar requirements. I liked the old AD&D MCing where you went up in both classes. So I would prefer MCing to be a roughly even split if embarked upon, eg like 4/3 etc. I would not allow single level dips.
 

Melee Fighters really struggle in the late game. It's no wonder you don't think GMW isn't that powerful. The damage-per-encounter of our GMW polearm master fighter was very low compared to mine because he wasted so many rounds running around, huffing and puffing, trying to get within striking distance. The rub salt on the wounds if I did get engaged in melee I could tank awesomely, thanks to the brokeness of crossbow expert, and spells like shield.

Concur. Melee is lame. Last night my PCs boarded and defeated a neogi deathspider with 26 umber hulks on it and a neogi wizard captain, and they did it on the strength of skeleton archers, Spike Stones + Everard's Black Tentacles in a choke point, and judicious Counterspelling. (I didn't give the neogi Dispel Magic.) I honestly thought they were going to die even with 24 skeletal archers on their side and only 1d4 umber hulks emerging per round, but the difficult & deadly terrain spells carried the day and no more than three enemies at a time ever got into melee range. (I'll take credit at least for the awesomeness of Spike Stones taking 30 HP off each umber hulk since I was running the NPC who cast it.)

If the umber hulks had a ranged capability, or if the PCs hadn't proactively targeted and disabled the four neogi ballistas early on, the neogis would have won. Missile >> melee.

Sent from my LS670 using Tapatalk 2
 

Psikerlord#

Explorer
Concur. Melee is lame. Last night my PCs boarded and defeated a neogi deathspider with 26 umber hulks on it and a neogi wizard captain, and they did it on the strength of skeleton archers, Spike Stones + Everard's Black Tentacles in a choke point, and judicious Counterspelling. (I didn't give the neogi Dispel Magic.) I honestly thought they were going to die even with 24 skeletal archers on their side and only 1d4 umber hulks emerging per round, but the difficult & deadly terrain spells carried the day and no more than three enemies at a time ever got into melee range. (I'll take credit at least for the awesomeness of Spike Stones taking 30 HP off each umber hulk since I was running the NPC who cast it.)

If the umber hulks had a ranged capability, or if the PCs hadn't proactively targeted and disabled the four neogi ballistas early on, the neogis would have won. Missile >> melee.

Sent from my LS670 using Tapatalk 2

Missile is generally > melee, which is why missile should come with disad's to offset it - in 5e that ought to be less damage than melee, and/or disad when shooting in melee. Crossbow expert ability to negate disad shooting in melee is OP (and the 3rd of the 3 feats we changed - the other two being GWM and SS). If you don't use feats at all you don't have a problem.
 

Missile is generally > melee, which is why missile should come with disad's to offset it - in 5e that ought to be less damage than melee, and/or disad when shooting in melee. Crossbow expert ability to negate disad shooting in melee is OP (and the 3rd of the 3 feats we changed - the other two being GWM and SS). If you don't use feats at all you don't have a problem.

1.) I don't think it's a problem per se. "Never bring a knife to a gunfight" is a proverb for good reason IRL, it's not bad to have a game which reflects that reality.

2.) There were no feats in play in that combat except GWM on the barbarian. Regular old shortbows worked well enough to win anyway, due to Spike Growth/Everard's Black Tentacles. Conversely, if the Umber Hulks had had a ranged attack they would have avoided Spike Growth/Tentacles entirely, been able to choose targets freely (possibly including the wizard), and generally had far more tactical options open. Ranged vs. Melee damage doesn't affect CR at all but in reality it's a huge difference. 1000 XP of drow > 36,000 XP of Umber Hulk. (Well, to be fair, by the time they fought umber hulks they had a bunch more drow skeletons fighting on their side too. 24 skeletons now vs. 11 or so when they fought the drow.)

3.) Even though melee is lame IMO, the barbarian had tons of fun stonewalling the umber hulks and hitting them with his glaive (of lifestealing) for 27+ points of damage per turn. So obviously tastes vary.
 

Remove ads

Top