D&D (2024) Sharp shooter/Great Weapon Mastery

[tetrasodium]

"Choose one of your Skill Proficiencies"

Meaning you have to choose something you are proficient in, if you are not proficient in Athletics, you can't assist. That doesn't mean you aren't able to physically assist, you can, but Athletics is not one of your Skill Proficiencies, so you cannot grant advantage.


Help action was never a formal reaction, but it was used that way and still will be even with these new rules. Because that had nothing to do with the rules of the game, and everything to do with how people play at the table.

And... yeah, they totally CAN fix the fundamental level of the skill system without first removing every ability to interact with it. Game design isn't like spinning knives or juggling, you can take out any part, and it makes FAR more sense to start at the fundamental level and change outward, because otherwise you are just doubling your work.



Except we know that we are supposed to be using the older versions of the classes, and looking at how little the rogue and bard changed, there is little reason to think the paladin changed that fundamentally.

Additionally, I don't care if you do get to do it for 24 hours, it still isn't that impressive. Here, let me show you again. High level ranger, without a subclass, and the new feat, three attacks for a total of 2d8+4d6+dex x 3... compared to a high level fighter, no subclass, the GWM feat, 8d6+strx4+prof bonus + re-rolling 1's and 2's. Also, btw, able to be done for 24-hours, without spending a spell slot.

Also, why the heck are we trying to argue level 1 balance for a LEVEL 4 feat? This feat's design doesn't affect level 1 in any way shape or form, it is entirely unrelated.

Back in post 200 I literally said "players need to be proficient in the same skill" & in 207 I quoted the mechanic itself, why are you echoing what's already been said as if pointing out something unnoticed? It's pure good that players in that situation without proficiency in the same skill need to convince the gm how some other proficiency or some other thing should be allowed to work for this help action rather than the players being salty because the gm refused to allow it or because the GM wanted more than "and I help".

The help action being a codified action is part of a trend where a number of things now have codified actions the GM can choose to handwave or make an exception to rather than a vague unfilled outline the gm needs to browbeat the players with using questions like "do you want to use your action for that." Game design for a functional skill system is heavy in math, "rulings not rules" & 5e's collection of never ending unintended edge cases thrown to the gm to fix causes a lot of these problems the GM is left to fix or build around with consequences.

Did you not take the time to read the class? Hunters mark is cast with a first level slot with no concentration for one hour at level 1 for the new ranger giving them +1d6 each time the ranger damages the marked target. With a third & 5th level slot that jumps to 8 hours & 24 hours. Ranger gets those at levels higher than first at higher levels, no 4th level feat needed. Higher level ranger gets all kinds of things yes, the bard getting hex & ranger getting hunters mark variation was an example of why the outrage over not being able to dual wield rapiers was not reasonable.

 

[Chaosmancer]

Back in post 200 I literally said "players need to be proficient in the same skill" & in 207 I quoted the mechanic itself, why are you echoing what's already been said as if pointing out something unnoticed? It's pure good that players in that situation without proficiency in the same skill need to convince the gm how some other proficiency or some other thing should be allowed to work for this help action rather than the players being salty because the gm refused to allow it or because the GM wanted more than "and I help".

So, two players, unproficient in Athletics, cannot work together to move things and make it easier. The exact complaint I made, to which you responded "What are you talking about?" and posted the rules. And now that I've clarified... you knew exactly what I was talking about?

And, most of your reasoning that this change is "purely good" has nothing to do with the mechanics, and everything to do with the interaction between the player and the DM. With the old rules I often asked people "How do you help" and I often refused to let them use the Help action on things like "Can I roll Arcana to see if I know X" because I couldn't justify other player helping them know something. And if the player in question had a good reason to help... then I let them. In fact, this entire issue ISN'T solved by the proficiency, but is instead solved by "To give this assistance, you must be near enough to the ally to assist verbally or physically when the ally makes the check. " Which is a clarification I'm completely for.

But having the player try and justify why they can use Persuasion to offer assistance instead of just physically aiding the person trying to move the thing is utterly ridiculous. If they want to do it, fine, but requiring it? There is no sense to it. Now, again, if the player in question is say attempting to perform surgery, I'd be perfectly fine requiring proficiency in Medicine to perform the Help action. That is an advanced skill, but I also would have required Proficiency in Medicine to begin the check in the first place. Meanwhile, I don't require proficiency in Athletics to attempt to pick up things, or break down doors, so why would I require it to aid those actions? Simply to force the player to say that they use Religion to give a sermon on hardwork to inspire their ally? No, both of you shoulder charge the door at the same time, advantage. Easy and done.

The help action being a codified action is part of a trend where a number of things now have codified actions the GM can choose to handwave or make an exception to rather than a vague unfilled outline the gm needs to browbeat the players with using questions like "do you want to use your action for that." Game design for a functional skill system is heavy in math, "rulings not rules" & 5e's collection of never ending unintended edge cases thrown to the gm to fix causes a lot of these problems the GM is left to fix or build around with consequences.

And this doesn't change any of that in the slightest. All it does is force people to adapt to more restrictions, but no restrictions that actually prevent the type of situations that the GM would be forced to contend with. And again, this line in the rules covers that 100%, the need for proficiency doesn't "The DM has final say on whether your assistance is possible."

Did you not take the time to read the class?

You know, accusing your interlocutor of ignorance is never a good way to start.

Hunters mark is cast with a first level slot with no concentration for one hour at level 1 for the new ranger giving them +1d6 each time the ranger damages the marked target. With a third & 5th level slot that jumps to 8 hours & 24 hours. Ranger gets those at levels higher than first at higher levels, no 4th level feat needed.

What does any of this have to do with a 4th level feat? Third level spell slots come online for the ranger at 9th level. Fifth level slots come on at 17th level.

So, if I understand your issue, at 1st level, the ranger can deal 4d6+dex mod. This is decently high, and by level 17 they can do this for 24 hours. Which means that at level four you can't let them have a feat that changes some of those dice to d8's? Meanwhile, I compared this spell and the new feat, active for 24 hours at level 17, to a fighter with a different new feat, with no spell at all, so therefore active for 24 hours, and showed that the other feat is stronger and therefore it wouldn't be broken to unnerf the feat.

None of your replies make any coherent sense, meanwhile you keep insulting me, like I don't understand the mechanics I am trying to discuss. Let's try to make this simpler, once again.

The damage from Dual-Wielding, once you hit level 5, is no longer that impressive. Yes, at level 1, it is. However, nothing about the balance of a level 4 feat applies to level 1, because you cannot have a level 4 feat at level 1. And this has been a known problem with dual-wielding for a long time, I'm not exactly breaking new ground by noting that Dual-Wielding often struggles to be as strong as other options. There was no reason for the de-buff that you cannot dual-wield non-light weapons. It doesn't address the parts of the combat style that could potentially be a problem, and it is an unnecessary restriction. Let people do it, it doesn't make the style too powerful.

Higher level ranger gets all kinds of things yes, the bard getting hex & ranger getting hunters mark variation was an example of why the outrage over not being able to dual wield rapiers was not reasonable.

You keep bringing up dual-rapiers like it is some sort of holy grail that I am lusting after. I'm actually more upset that I can't dual-wield battleaxes. By the way, how does my fighter or barbarian (who have the same fighting style and the same new feat) matter towards spells for the bard or the ranger?

Look, you despise rapiers, I get it. Solution? Build more weapons that are finesse, one-handed, and deal 1d8 damage. The only reason the Rapier is so ubiquitous is because it is the only option. Seriously, take a look at the weapons.

One-handed Strength weapon -> 15 weapons ranging from 1d4 to 1d8 (some are versatile, giving access to 1d10). At that high end, where the 1d8 is? You have SIX options, 2/5ths of all the options are at the high end

Two-handed Strength weapon -> 7 weapons, ranging from 1d8 to 1d12, and actually there is only one that is 1d8 (the greatclub) all of the others are either 1d10, 2d6, or 1d12.

One-handed Finesse Weapon -> 5 weapons, ranging from 1d4 to 1d8. This is a third of the options for strength, two of them are 1d4 (the dagger and the whip), two of them are 1d6 swords (scimitar and shortsword) and the last one is the rapier.

Two-handed Finesse weapon -> Zero options.

So, why are rapiers ubiquitous? Why does every dex-melee build use the same weapons? Because there are only five choices, and only one of them is a 1d8. And if you don't have access to martial weapons... you literally only get daggers, that's it. They are the only finesse melee weapon for simple weapons. And if you don't want to deal 1d6, you get a rapier because you literally have no other choice.

Add more weapons, like you have for strength, and you will have people choosing other options.

 

[Stalker0]

So, two players, unproficient in Athletics, cannot work together to move things and make it easier.

This is the price for bounded accuracy. Flavor wise, they might be helping each other, but not enough to grant "advantage", and since 5e doesn't normally apply smaller bonuses, it doesn't factor in mechanically.

Same way with things like higher ground that used to be a +1 or flanking at +2, a lot of things were loss in the interest of a streamlined bounded accuracy game. I don't know why having two people that are schlubs in athletics have to get a bonus in this system, especially advantage which is practically a +4-+5.

I am playing a game right now where I actually use this requirement on help, and players still use the action all the time, just not all ALL the time I've got a player who has some knowledge skills but not a high int, so he commonly will help the big knowledge people rather than roll.

 

[Chaosmancer]

This is the price for bounded accuracy. Flavor wise, they might be helping each other, but not enough to grant "advantage", and since 5e doesn't normally apply smaller bonuses, it doesn't factor in mechanically.

Same way with things like higher ground that used to be a +1 or flanking at +2, a lot of things were loss in the interest of a streamlined bounded accuracy game. I don't know why having two people that are schlubs in athletics have to get a bonus in this system, especially advantage which is practically a +4-+5.

I am playing a game right now where I actually use this requirement on help, and players still use the action all the time, just not all ALL the time I've got a player who has some knowledge skills but not a high int, so he commonly will help the big knowledge people rather than roll.

Funny how this WASN'T the price for bounded accuracy before. Pretty much your entire defense of this decision is based off factors that were true for the old version as well. So, what has changed? Bounded accuracy is the same, so why have we decided that an extra pair of hands is no longer enough help to grant advantage?

And your point about the person with the knowledge skill only emphasises my point. I still wouldn't allow someone to help another person think. It just doesn't make sense to me, sorry, but per the rules I could have someone with Performance sing a "thinking song" and grant advantage. It is a Skill Proficiency that they have, and the target can hear them. It fits every box except the DM saying it is okay. And this can be done for EVERY. SINGLE. CHECK. The only thing that will stop it is the DM saying no. So, how is this different than not needing a skill proficiency and it only being stopped by the DM saying no?

 

[FitzTheRuke]

So, two players, unproficient in Athletics, cannot work together to move things and make it easier.

Two Things:

1) If they can carry the thing, why would you make them roll? Is there a meaningful consequence for failure?
2) If you think they should have advantage, give 'em advantage. This isn't really a situation where someone is using a skill and another is helping them. This is a matter of two people carrying an object. (It doesn't entirely fall under ability checks, unless you want it to - it falls under encumbrance). But if you want to just judge that the weaker one is giving the stronger one advantage, just do it. (Heck, personally I would just have them both roll STR, and allow the higher result to stand for the test.)

 

[Chaosmancer]

Two Things:

1) If they can carry the thing, why would you make them roll? Is there a meaningful consequence for failure?

Because it was a simple and easily understandable example to stand in for "two people make an athletics check". Also, because the item is heavier than their "lift score". There are plenty of examples of rolling to exceed the standard limits in the game.

Do you have a better or preferred action for two people not trained in athletics to try and accomplish together? Or is this just trying to undercut the point because I didn't come up with a perfect example that is as easily understood and parsed because I'm sure all of us have had to carry something unweildy and heavy, and have had someone assist us in doing so.

2) If you think they should have advantage, give 'em advantage. This isn't really a situation where someone is using a skill and another is helping them. This is a matter of two people carrying an object. (It doesn't entirely fall under ability checks, unless you want it to - it falls under encumbrance). But if you want to just judge that the weaker one is giving the stronger one advantage, just do it. (Heck, personally I would just have them both roll STR, and allow the higher result to stand for the test.)

Right. See, this isn't a game book of published rules we are discussing. It is a playtest. A playtest with the explicit purpose of trying to make better rules. Yes, I could trivially change the rules to what I feel is better by homebrewing them, but, you know, it kind of defeats the entire purpose of a playtest to look at a rule and say "well, this is a rule with problems, but I can rewrite it for myself, so why bother telling the designer about it or discussing it with the rest of the playtesters?"

Seriously, why is this the second time (at least) I've been told to just homebrew playtest rules instead of discussing their merits? If the rules were already published, that's one thing, but these are rules in development, discussion on developing them is the entire point!

 

[Micah Sweet]

Because it was a simple and easily understandable example to stand in for "two people make an athletics check". Also, because the item is heavier than their "lift score". There are plenty of examples of rolling to exceed the standard limits in the game.

Do you have a better or preferred action for two people not trained in athletics to try and accomplish together? Or is this just trying to undercut the point because I didn't come up with a perfect example that is as easily understood and parsed because I'm sure all of us have had to carry something unweildy and heavy, and have had someone assist us in doing so.



Right. See, this isn't a game book of published rules we are discussing. It is a playtest. A playtest with the explicit purpose of trying to make better rules. Yes, I could trivially change the rules to what I feel is better by homebrewing them, but, you know, it kind of defeats the entire purpose of a playtest to look at a rule and say "well, this is a rule with problems, but I can rewrite it for myself, so why bother telling the designer about it or discussing it with the rest of the playtesters?"

Seriously, why is this the second time (at least) I've been told to just homebrew playtest rules instead of discussing their merits? If the rules were already published, that's one thing, but these are rules in development, discussion on developing them is the entire point!

I'd say that the purpose of the playtest is to determine if the decisions they've already made in concept are popular enough to sell us the core books again, but to each their own.

 

[Bill Zebub]

I'd say that the purpose of the playtest is to determine if the decisions they've already made in concept are popular enough to sell us the core books again, but to each their own.

Like the “decisions” about crits, and Inspiration on nat 20, which they already changed?

 

[Micah Sweet]

Like the “decisions” about crits, and Inspiration on nat 20, which they already changed?

The second playtest has explicitly been said not to be affected by the first playtest, but even if it were, I'm talking about the class, race and monster structural stuff.

 

[FitzTheRuke]

Because it was a simple and easily understandable example to stand in for "two people make an athletics check".

Was it? I would have thought that your example was more just a straight strength check, rather than an athletics check, but that's fine if you intended it that way.

Also, because the item is heavier than their "lift score". There are plenty of examples of rolling to exceed the standard limits in the game.

Sure. It's more of a corner case than I thought you were describing.

Do you have a better or preferred action for two people not trained in athletics to try and accomplish together? Or is this just trying to undercut the point because I didn't come up with a perfect example that is as easily understood and parsed because I'm sure all of us have had to carry something unweildy and heavy, and have had someone assist us in doing so.

No, I mean, that one's fine, it's just more corner-case than I'd worry too much about the rules needing to account for specifically. Your full scenario is "two people untrained try to carry something that is heavier than they should ought to based on their strength scores AND the DM has a reason in mind to make them need to roll for success". I'd expect the DM to make a call here. I think that it's covered in the playtest rules under "the DM has final say on whether your assistance is possible". Your scenario and any other similar one seems to me like most reasonable DMs would rule that the Help Action works. That's not the same as houserules.

I'm not trying to be difficult with you, I'm just trying to engage with you about it. Sure, I disagree with you (very mildly - I mean, I'm sure I'd be happy with a version of the rule that was worded in a way that was more to your liking, but I feel like this one is also fine).

Right. See, this isn't a game book of published rules we are discussing. It is a playtest.

I am well aware of this! I find myself pointing this out quite regularly. In particular when people post statements like "this is how it works now". (It doesn't - it only works that way if you're actively playtesting these rules, otherwise they're ATM just good for speculation).

A playtest with the explicit purpose of trying to make better rules.

Hopefully!

Yes, I could trivially change the rules to what I feel is better by homebrewing them,

That's not what I'm advocating. It's not homebrewing - it's following the rule "the DM has final say on whether your assistance is possible" in a scenario when NO ONE is skilled. Otherwise, if only one of the PCs involved is skilled, then by the playtest rule, THEY Help the unskilled one to do the task, AFAICT.

but, you know, it kind of defeats the entire purpose of a playtest to look at a rule and say "well, this is a rule with problems, but I can rewrite it for myself, so why bother telling the designer about it or discussing it with the rest of the playtesters?"

I didn't ask you to rewrite it. And I'm not asking you not to discuss it. I'm discussing it with you. I'm not sure the problem you're trying to point out is, in fact, a problem, and I felt like talking to you about it might make me understand it more fully. I disagree not to shut you down, but to find out more about your perspective.

Seriously, why is this the second time (at least) I've been told to just homebrew playtest rules instead of discussing their merits?

Again, I wasn't asking you to homebrew rules. I may have suggested that you make a ruling, however. That's a part of the game (as is not asking people to roll if the situation doesn't have interesting consequences). Most versions of "two people carrying a heavy object", I'd imagine that they'd just carry it with no roll.

If the rules were already published, that's one thing, but these are rules in development, discussion on developing them is the entire point!

Exactly! I'm with you!