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

[Celtavian]

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

I agree DPR is very well balanced without feats.

 

[Celtavian]

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

Ah. You have a flame tongue. That explains it. You might be better off not using GWM on quite a few occasions. When the +10 damage becomes a lower percentage of your overall damage, it can become a liability to use GWM.

 

[Celtavian]

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.

It's still pretty lame for players who want to play a TWF or a single-weapon user without a shield not to have some means to boost damage to equivalent levels. Those are also classic fictional weapon choices, it would be nice if they were on par with two-handed weapon use and archery. Bounded Accuracy also eliminates the ability of feats to provide a substantial defensive advantage, while making a substantial damage advantage far more valuable. The two-weapon fighter feat provides a +1 AC. That bonus becomes a moot point at later levels. The Duellist feat only works against one melee attack per round and takes up one's prescious reaction, which is not valued very highly for a variety of reasons. I think the best option is add similar feats to every fighting offensive fighting style. That would balance them amongst each other.

 

[DEFCON 1]

I think the best option is add similar feats to every fighting offensive fighting style. That would balance them amongst each other.

This would be the more likely option were WotC to do anything at all. Although I still suspect they're not going to go out of their way to "balance" the other fighting styles damage levels just because certain small segments of tables have gone through all the numbers trying to calculate the true measure of DPR and whatnot. That's how they ran into troubles in 4E when they listened to the people who felt damage balance was off +1/+2/+3 per tier and then they tried to fix it, thereby pissing off the larger playerbase.

Maybe eventually WotC will. But it probably won't happen for a while I wouldn't think (since releasing new feats seems way down on the list). And thus individual tables will need to figure out their own solutions to these problems, and where checking the boards such as EN World will come in handy.

 

[The Crimson Binome]

It's still pretty lame for players who want to play a TWF or a single-weapon user without a shield not to have some means to boost damage to equivalent levels. Those are also classic fictional weapon choices, it would be nice if they were on par with two-handed weapon use and archery.

Two-weapon fighting, sure, but single-weapon with no shield? I'm not sure if that would fall under a classic choice. I can't think of a single armored hero from the last thirty years who routinely goes into combat against armed opponents while leaving one hand empty, unless they're using that other hand to cast spells.

 

[Celtavian]

Two-weapon fighting, sure, but single-weapon with no shield? I'm not sure if that would fall under a classic choice. I can't think of a single armored hero from the last thirty years who routinely goes into combat against armed opponents while leaving one hand empty, unless they're using that other hand to cast spells.

Aragorn and Conan used Versatile weapons and fought two-handed quite often. What about Zatoichi? And Musketeers with fencing blades? They didn't always have a knife in the off-hand. Didn't the Chinese sword fighters fight with one blade?

 

[The Crimson Binome]

Aragorn and Conan used Versatile weapons and fought two-handed quite often. What about Zatoichi? And Musketeers with fencing blades? They didn't always have a knife in the off-hand. Didn't the Chinese sword fighters fight with one blade?

Sure, versatile weapons are versatile, and allow you to strike two-handed while keeping a hand free on the off chance that you really need it. I'm not terribly familiar with Zatoichi. The musketeers are clearly rogues, though - to use the overly broad buckets which we get from a class-based system - and the sneak attack mechanic does a wonderful job of representing that style of fighting.

House rule question: Would it be balanced for a fighter to exchange extra attacks for a rogue's sneak attack feature?

 

[Jeff Albertson]

Yeah, the GWM (or whatever it is called) and SS get the boot. And why is Archery Style not "Ignore Half-Cover"?

 

[Celtavian]

Sure, versatile weapons are versatile, and allow you to strike two-handed while keeping a hand free on the off chance that you really need it. I'm not terribly familiar with Zatoichi. The musketeers are clearly rogues, though - to use the overly broad buckets which we get from a class-based system - and the sneak attack mechanic does a wonderful job of representing that style of fighting.

House rule question: Would it be balanced for a fighter to exchange extra attacks for a rogue's sneak attack feature?

You see them as a rogues, eh. A Musketeer might be better as multiclass. I did like the Pathfinder Swashbuckler class. It did seem to mirror a musketeer type much better than a regular fighter. I honestly hope they add classes to the game like Pathfinder did. I think it allow for more interesting variation than attempting to shoehorn every difference between fighters into an archetype. I don't think you could make a good musketeer with the base fighter class even substituting sneak attack. You could probably make it balanced mathematically, but not sure it would be worth it.

 

[Parmandur]

You see them as a rogues, eh. A Musketeer might be better as multiclass. I did like the Pathfinder Swashbuckler class. It did seem to mirror a musketeer type much better than a regular fighter. I honestly hope they add classes to the game like Pathfinder did. I think it allow for more interesting variation than attempting to shoehorn every difference between fighters into an archetype. I don't think you could make a good musketeer with the base fighter class even substituting sneak attack. You could probably make it balanced mathematically, but not sure it would be worth it.

The Swashbuckler Rogue can cover a Musketeer very well.

They've stated a general reluctance to do more classes. Mearls has said he is mulling an Artificer, and we might see a Psion. Doubtful we will ser many more.