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

[Parmandur]

People find eldritch blast boring lol. I do even though it's the more optimal choice most of the time. A warlock wielding weapons is just much cooler than one going pew pew pew.

Yes, precisely, my wife playing a Warlock will try to avoid EB at all costs. Now, we can grant that the two feats in question provide the best DPR, and that the few who see that are to some level rewarded for system mastery: but only so much, and not in a way that will break the typical game.

 

[Hussar]

How many players are in your 6th level party?

Five

But even at +25 DPR, if we accept that number, whoopee. Ooh, you spent 4 feats and ten levels to up my party's damage by 25%. Ok.

Again, if your game is breaking that easily, that's on you.

 

[FrogReaver]

Yes, precisely, my wife playing a Warlock will try to avoid EB at all costs. Now, we can grant that the two feats in question provide the best DPR, and that the few who see that are to some level rewarded for system mastery: but only so much, and not in a way that will break the typical game.

I dunno. When 1-2 characters can carry nearly all the combat encounters due to things like that then it opens up the others to be almost entirely non-combat focused. They don't need to use their spells in combat. They can save them for out of combat etc. If the DM throws something really big at them one nice control spell usually thwarts it and then the combat guys dominate as always and then the casters get back to their out of combat shenanigans.

In other words, those feats enable spell casters to try and break all the out of combat situations they can dream of by freeing up spell choices and spell slots for out of combat situations.

Then there's also the issue of 1 optimized character going for damage and a not nearly as optimized character going for a cool them and trying to primarily do damage. Those situations are clearly broken because of the feats in question.

 

[FrogReaver]

Five

But even at +25 DPR, if we accept that number, whoopee. Ooh, you spent 4 feats and ten levels to up my party's damage by 25%. Ok.

Again, if your game is breaking that easily, that's on you.

First of all. Do you realize what kind of amazing character it takes to increase a party of 5's average damage by 25%?

 

[Parmandur]

I dunno. When 1-2 characters can carry nearly all the combat encounters due to things like that then it opens up the others to be almost entirely non-combat focused. They don't need to use their spells in combat. They can save them for out of combat etc. If the DM throws something really big at them one nice control spell usually thwarts it and then the combat guys dominate as always and then the casters get back to their out of combat shenanigans.

In other words, those feats enable spell casters to try and break all the out of combat situations they can dream of by freeing up spell choices and spell slots for out of combat situations.

Then there's also the issue of 1 optimized character going for damage and a not nearly as optimized character going for a cool them and trying to primarily do damage. Those situations are clearly broken because of the feats in question.

Well, sure. That's why there is a Dungeon Master to tailor the game to the specific party. Indeed, Perkins has said the reason they aren't producing any adventure material north of ~15th level is how parties that have reached that level are too individualized yo make meaningful broad focused material.

 

[Nick Hatfield]

Maybe I'm jaded with what you could do in previous editions and that's why I don't think any of the feats are broken in 5th. Everyone points to Pun-Pun as the golden example of breaking something, but you didn't need to go nearly that far in optimization to make any unoptimized character irrelevant in 3.5. Join a few 4e campaigns and play a rebreather sorcerer, Mia, and a killswitch. Those will be examples of characters that are so good at their jobs that anyone else in that role will feel uneeded. By comparison, -5/+10 is negligible.

Now the counter is "less broken=/=not broken". If we are acting as though 5th is the only edition of DnD ever, and that there needs to be absolute balance between all feats, ASIs, classes, and subclasses, then sure there are a lot of broken things. But I don't view the game that way. There is never going to be perfect balance and what is considered "ok" in terms of power discrepancy is going to vary from person to person. I believe Battlemaster/Gloom Stalker with XBE and SS makes the best use of these particular feats, and if that is the most optimized archery in the game then I don't consider it broken.

 

[Sacrosanct]

There is never going to be perfect balance and what is considered "ok" in terms of power discrepancy is going to vary from person to person. .

This is the key right here. Even among the optimizer crowd, there is rarely agreement as to how it should be "fixed". People's opinion's differ. Balance is a subjective term, by and large, because the game is an RPG and we all play it a different way. One table may do nothing but combat so they think SS is overpowered, but another group may hardly do any combat, so they think SS is a wasted feat because it's hardly used.

This idea that "true" balance should be done is a fallacy, for those very reasons. At the end of the day, do what your table feels is right. Nerf stuff. Make it more powerful. Whatever. But don't go on internet message boards and act like you're so much smarter than everyone else, and insult the designers and your fellow gamers for being apologists to lazy design. That never solves anything, and just illustrates a lack on basic social skills.

 

[FrogReaver]

Maybe I'm jaded with what you could do in previous editions and that's why I don't think any of the feats are broken in 5th. Everyone points to Pun-Pun as the golden example of breaking something, but you didn't need to go nearly that far in optimization to make any unoptimized character irrelevant in 3.5. Join a few 4e campaigns and play a rebreather sorcerer, Mia, and a killswitch. Those will be examples of characters that are so good at their jobs that anyone else in that role will feel uneeded. By comparison, -5/+10 is negligible.

Now the counter is "less broken=/=not broken". If we are acting as though 5th is the only edition of DnD ever, and that there needs to be absolute balance between all feats, ASIs, classes, and subclasses, then sure there are a lot of broken things. But I don't view the game that way. There is never going to be perfect balance and what is considered "ok" in terms of power discrepancy is going to vary from person to person. I believe Battlemaster/Gloom Stalker with XBE and SS makes the best use of these particular feats, and if that is the most optimized archery in the game then I don't consider it broken.

I think broken and overpowered are somewhat relative terms. Also, most people also use them more or less interchangeably. So please don't commit the fallacy of sitting the bar far higher than is reasonable for those terms. All they mean is that the thing in question is far better than other related choices in the game. I think we can agree that the SS CE fighter definitely meets that bar. That's all that's being said. For people that never see such a combo they likely don't care. For those that do it's at least a problem on some level, intra party balance, freeing up casters to dominate out of combat even harder, etc. It's also not necessarily a problem a skilled DM can't handle. Thank goodness for people running the game instead of some rigid rule system!

So I agree, it's definitely not pun-pun OP but 5e is not 3.5e. Nothing in 5e is pun-pun OP and if there were then we would stop saying SS+CE is OP.

 

[Parmandur]

I think broken and overpowered are somewhat relative terms. Also, most people also use them more or less interchangeably. So please don't commit the fallacy of sitting the bar far higher than is reasonable for those terms. All they mean is that the thing in question is far better than other related choices in the game. I think we can agree that the SS CE fighter definitely meets that bar. That's all that's being said. For people that never see such a combo they likely don't care. For those that do it's at least a problem on some level, intra party balance, freeing up casters to dominate out of combat even harder, etc. It's also not necessarily a problem a skilled DM can't handle. Thank goodness for people running the game instead of some rigid rule system!

So I agree, it's definitely not pun-pun OP but 5e is not 3.5e. Nothing in 5e is pun-pun OP and if there were then we would stop saying SS+CE is OP.

"Better" is a nebulous term: better at DPR, mostly, but so what? Doesn't mean it is"over"-powered if an option is powerful.

 

[Nick Hatfield]

I think broken and overpowered are somewhat relative terms. Also, most people also use them more or less interchangeably. So please don't commit the fallacy of sitting the bar far higher than is reasonable for those terms. All they mean is that the thing in question is far better than other related choices in the game. I think we can agree that the SS CE fighter definitely meets that bar. That's all that's being said. For people that never see such a combo they likely don't care. For those that do it's at least a problem on some level, intra party balance, freeing up casters to dominate out of combat even harder, etc. It's also not necessarily a problem a skilled DM can't handle. Thank goodness for people running the game instead of some rigid rule system!

So I agree, it's definitely not pun-pun OP but 5e is not 3.5e. Nothing in 5e is pun-pun OP and if there were then we would stop saying SS+CE is OP.

Fair enough. The feats are definitely quite a bit better than the alternatives in DPR. I wonder if there would be as much debate if the OP feats were not about dealing damage but about buff/debuff/control. From my own experience, people don't care nearly as much if the support character is broken because they just make everyone else in the group better. Let's say this support character increased the groups DPR by 25%: do you think that would still be as big of a deal?