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

[Prism]

When discussing this earlier in the thread me and davedash were comparing some characters we had played. He had come to the conclusion that sharpshooter overshadows other fighters including the gwf due to its mobility, flexibility and inbuilt bonus to hit. I haven't seen one but it does look good - maybe too good.

I have been playing a great weapon master fighter and I'm not finding it always hits, and I do more damage generally anyway. This is due to a magic sword - basically a flame tongue but not quite the same. It can be situational as some things resist fire. There are a number of items which increase damage output as much or more than the feats. Yes I know these are optional. So are feats. But my point is that there a lot of moving parts at high level so I'm not sure the math holds out. The math works for a game without magic items and dm created enemies. For everything else its a guide. Only playing in your group really tells you if there is a problem

 

[DEFCON 1]

If the -5/+10 feats increase damage by that margin, that simply confirms they are very broken, and best not allowed. Anything that so blatantly brings back the awful "striker" role is to be avoided at all costs. Nothing kills a game quicker ime.

Therein lies the question though-- if those feats are indeed "very broken" to a certain subset of players (that subset which are playing in the late 3rd / 4th tier and who are focusing their party around giving the GWM/SS feat holder the best chance for success)... is that very broken *enough* to warrant actually changing the game in its entirety through errata?

My guess is the answer from WotC's p.o.v. will be "No". Reason being... the "fix" to a numerical issue that only a certain segment of the players was finding will end up being more of an issue to a greater number of people. The solution being worse than the problem-- the old "Weapon Focus Feat" conundrum. Wherein WotC decision's to try and fix a slight damage imbalance in the 4E math resulted in the creation of a fix that ended up pissing more people off and causing more conflict that the original issue itself did. And I would suspect that any official change to GWM/SS runs the same risk to the rest of the D&D population.

The fact that the game itself tells you to make any changes you need to it for your own best experience is really all that they need to do to "fix" this problem. Any DM and table who finds themselves having these GWM/SS issues can make their own ruling to counteract the issue, rather than WotC needing to write down an "official" change that affects everybody.

 

[MonkeezOnFire]

I always found the replacement of the -5/+10 aspects with a +1 to a stat to be a little boring. Would placing a restriction that the -5/+10 attack could only be used once per turn (like the rogue's sneak attack) be an effective house rule? I've never seen these feats used so I'd appreciate input from those that have. From what I've read in this and other threads the extra damage is not bad at low levels and only gets out of hand when you start piling on multiple attacks, so from a theoretical perspective it seems fair.

 

[Parmandur]

So, I don't allow feats. Don't like them. This thread makes me glad for that decision.

 

[spinozajack]

No it doesn't. We have a six-month long running thread on this that I know you've seen. The math shows it really isn't that much different. Only a +1/-1 difference in the vast majority of cases, +/-2 at best/worst. And with the variance already there in how a player chooses to allocate, what race they choice, and if they use feats or not, it's an insignificant difference.

There are valid reasons why someone doesn't like to use random ability scores, but don't make up reasons that aren't true because you don't.

This.

Accuracy with point buy or rolling will most likely be the exact same or off by 1, for most of the levels except 1-8 (20 main stat, thanks to the ability cap) by the teen levels certainly.

The OP was talking about breaking bounded accuracy. If the -5 / +10 feats didn't exist it would take forever to kill monsters which is NOT FUN. Endless Grinding HP attrition is NOT FUN. They learned not to repeat that mistake from 4th edition. If you didn't have optimized strikers your combats would drag on and on.

In 5th, if you don't want your players to have super high accuracy, then give monsters some armor (ogres and trolls wore plate in ROTK, for example) or boost their AC by 1 by giving them a level of fighter.

Although I do agree with Paraxis, that it's better to give +1 weapons with a little extra. Many of the magic items in the book don't give more than +1 to hit, even the exotic ones. But +3 weapons won't break the game. Just beef up the monsters a bit, or increase their numbers, if the players are crushing them handily.

 

[spinozajack]

So, I don't allow feats. Don't like them. This thread makes me glad for that decision.

I would do it a different way.

I would make all feats give a +1 to their relevant stat, and take away something else. This would slow down the inexorable march to 20 main stat, and delay it until the teens.

But yes, basically, the difference between a character with one of the -5 / +10 feats and without one is enormous. They are "must have" feats for 5th edition characters who can take them and want to stay on par with what's expected of them. But one should also be careful there as well, some characters that do not rely on those feats will suddenly have their relative power greatly enhanced. I like the idea that feats are optional, but in practice, disallowing them merely changes which is the next highest DPR target. And puts weapon users down a notch. On the other hand, it does make dual wielding a viable choice for a strength based fighter, or a barbarian. Or anything with damage bonuses that apply to both weapons' attacks.

 

[spinozajack]

I always found the replacement of the -5/+10 aspects with a +1 to a stat to be a little boring. Would placing a restriction that the -5/+10 attack could only be used once per turn (like the rogue's sneak attack) be an effective house rule? I've never seen these feats used so I'd appreciate input from those that have. From what I've read in this and other threads the extra damage is not bad at low levels and only gets out of hand when you start piling on multiple attacks, so from a theoretical perspective it seems fair.

-5 for an extra weapon die. That suddenly makes greataxes awesome again, and -5 to hit for +6.5 damage on average is not a huge DPR boost, but it's certainly worth taking once your accuracy gets high enough that you are consistently hitting anyway.

Good point about "gets out of hand when you start piling on multiple attacks", because you can do that by level 4 with a variant human and the polearm master's bonus attack which should never have been published for this exact reason. It makes dual wielding and the style and the feat obsolete and outclassed, especially since dual wielding can't benefit from GWM but polearm master can.

I wonder who it is who was hired as a consultant on feat balance, because I'd like to have some words with them. Dual wielding is a nasty trap for str based PCs to fall into. Once they realize the polearm guy can use GWM, or the GWM guy realizes he can get an extra attack with +10 damage (at reach!), he will take it unless he is not interested in damage. Which is he. So he will take it. After GWM there is no other damage feat for melee warriors to take other than PM, or boosting the stat to 20, and then that's just 4 more levels until PM becomes the only real choice to take again.

 

[Parmandur]

I would do it a different way.



I would make all feats give a +1 to their relevant stat, and take away something else. This would slow down the inexorable march to 20 main stat, and delay it until the teens.



But yes, basically, the difference between a character with one of the -5 / +10 feats and without one is enormous. They are "must have" feats for 5th edition characters who can take them and want to stay on par with what's expected of them. But one should also be careful there as well, some characters that do not rely on those feats will suddenly have their relative power greatly enhanced. I like the idea that feats are optional, but in practice, disallowing them merely changes which is the next highest DPR target. And puts weapon users down a notch. On the other hand, it does make dual wielding a viable choice for a strength based fighter, or a barbarian. Or anything with damage bonuses that apply to both weapons' attacks.

Disallowing feats goes a long way towards making a discussion of DPR and similar terminology pretty much irrelevant.

 

[spinozajack]

Disallowing feats goes a long way towards making a discussion of DPR and similar terminology pretty much irrelevant.

I disagree, it just changes which things are going to be considered OP.

 

[Parmandur]

I disagree, it just changes which things are going to be considered OP.

You disagree that DPR doesn't get considered at my table?