D&D 5E [5e DM Help] Keeping the lid on....what builds should I NOT allow?

[kilpatds]

At level 5, you're getting around 3 attacks per round with the stereotypical Barb5 GWM. Two from attack + extra-attack feature, one bonus action attack from the fact that you either crit or killed something with those first two attacks. (Alternately, you add Polearm master "just to make sure" you have a bonus action attack, but lets assume you're not that flush on feats and/or want some stat boosts). 1d12 (or 2d6) averages around 7. +4 from strength, +2 from rage, +10 from GWM. 23*3 =~ close enough to 70 to round off. (~45 round one, where you had to rage as your bonus action. 70 round two+, because you're pretty sure to kill something)

You hit because you reckless attack (and you reckless attack, because dead things don't get advantage). And you hit because after the first time you do this, the party cleric goes "Oh yeah. THAT'S why you keep asking for bless!" after the first time you do this via dice luck. I'm ignoring misses here because that's not what he was talking about.

The 120 number is Barb2 or Barb3/Fighter 5+. Basically the same, except that now you also hit via Precise Attack, and maybe throw in some expertise dice for damage ("prone") too. Action surge for 5 attacks @ 23 damage: 115. 120 if you added an expertise die in there. You'll notice the level 5 build doesn't transition that cleanly to the level 8 build... so in practice you either do an "LFR rebuild" somewhere or you temporarily fall behind where you'd rather be from levels 5-7.

So that's where those numbers came from, and the caveats. (ignores miss chance. Assumes the bonus action attack always triggers). But since I've played with one of these and run for one of these: the "70 every round, 120 nova round" number sure is a pretty accurate description of what it feels like.

 

[kilpatds]

Re: "change the encounter and this guy is neutered". Yeah, higher-ac enemies mean you have to turn off GWM. But those typically have fewer HP, and since you have to have a certain accuracy focus to suck up the -5 anyway, you're not hurt that much. Non-melee enemies really hurt, but they hurt the TWF or Polearm master too. Since I played the bladelock Polearm-master when I played in this game...I know the feeling here.

 

[Alatar]

I'm a player, not a DM, and I like to optimize my character builds. So, whenever I see a thread like this, I think, hmm, yes, tell me about all those builds that the DM's fear. But I always come away disappointed.

Let's take that GWM barbarian as an example, since it is such a straight forward build. I have two points to make about this guy, and they are closely related.

Point number 1: he's a striker, to dip into the useful parlance of the previous edition. He hits things hard. He's really good at hitting things hard. The only thing he is good at is hitting things hard. And he's so good at hitting things hard that he can hit things hard while naked. He's got resistance to everything, He doesn't have to give a thought to defense. All he has to do is run up and hit things. Cool. Have at it.

There are other roles to play besides striker, like defender and controller (fighter and wizard). They can can hit things too, but not as hard. But they can do other things as well, things that the uber striker cannot do. I realize that I'm pointing out the obvious, but when we talk about how overpowered a build is, I think we tend to ignore this obvious point. Most of the other players in the group are not measuring their characters against their friend's GWM barbarian. It's apples and oranges.

But maybe some of them are. There are two or three strikers in the party. There is a ranger and a rogue as well as the GWM barbarian. And they do less damage. But the ranger has hunter's mark, a particular fighting style, a favored enemy, hunting and tracking chops, stealth mojo. He's got more going on than our barbarian. There are more levers to pull, more ways for the player to play his character. More degrees of freedom. The same goes for the rogue. Both classes can do things better than the barbarian, and they can approach combat in a greater variety of ways. And on those occasions when the encounter does not lend itself to a melee scrum, the ranger and rogue will suck a whole lot less than big barb, the guy who hits hard while naked.

The GWM barbarian is one dimensional in comparison to other striker types. If all the gameplay is of a type to favor his one dimensionality, is that because the build is broke or is it because the DM is not all that he might be?

And the ranger and the rogue, and our wizard and fighter as well, they have to think about not getting dead. They are not resistant to everything. Their game has a basic component that the GWM barbarian's game lacks. Who's the loser on this deal?

Which brings me to my second point. I don't want to play that GWM barbarian. Can you imagine doing exactly the same thing, over and over again, for 20 levels? You have absolutely nothing to think about. You have no choices to make, no trade-offs to consider, no repercussions to rue, no achievements to celebrate. A bot could play your character. Yuck.

That's why my black heart always comes away from these discussions broken. I don't want to play that Sorlock, where if you do exactly this in round one and you do exactly that in round two, your DPR shoots so high above the curve OMG. Your boring builds are boring.

Yes, you can be a harder hitter than everyone else, and you can hit harder while naked. The catch is, you have to play a GWM barbarian for the whooole campaign. Have fun with that.

And if you have a player who will have fun with that, but he picked blade pact warlock by mistake, well, oops. You can't have the luxury of building cool characters without the peril of building uncool characters. And if you take away the latter, you've taken away the former.

And some of your players, if they do measure their characters against the GWM barbarian, and find that they simply come up short, may be the type that says, hey, fair play. That guy picked the better build. That's on me. It's a game. And I'm a gamer.

edit: And that was three points, not two.

 

[kilpatds]

Until your last two paragraphs, I'm in complete agreement. Yes, there is far more to the game than being a 1-dimensional melee striker. Yes, doing attack-plan-alpha every combat every time gets a bit boring. Yes to all of that.

My only areas of disagreement are around "how fair is this to the TWF that think's he's a striker. He shoulda just built better" parts. D&D is a weird game in that it's neither zero-sum nor really competitive. I (and many others) don't play D&D to WIN it, I play it for various other reasons. As a result, "oh, I didn't win when I could have" is a really weird line of thought, and one I think ends up being destructive to the actual game experience.

So I think "outshining the guy who thought he was a striker, but wasn't" is an actual issue. I'm just trying to point out that, IMHO, that's the only actual issue here. Outshining the DM isn't really possible: the DM can do whatever is required (all monsters roll max HP, but have -2 to their saves. All combats involve a ranged element and a melee element. Etc, whatever, whatever). The concerns are only around outshining other players.

And in that regard, I'm usually more worried about the guy who thinks the monk's a striker, or the guy who picked a Bladelock than I am about the guy w/ the GWM barbarian or the fighter archer sharpshooter+xbow expert.

 

[Alatar]

I (and many others) don't play D&D to WIN it

You know, come to think of it, we do seem to win every encounter, always, regardless of the odds. Wait a minute...

Outshining the DM isn't really possible: the DM can do whatever is required (all monsters roll max HP, but have -2 to their saves.

Well, sure. But the DM is also playing. He's the ultimate metagamer of course, and can do anything. His goal to to bring the fun, and see to it that it gets shared all the way around the table. But once he builds the stage and places the antagonists upon it, he has to play those antagonists, and with minimal prep. And to keep the game somewhat gamey, he has to play them fairly straight up. He has to bring his game.

And from a player's perspective, during those combat encounters, it's always that one guy or gal who is trying to gank you, despite the fact that he's really there to help you have a "rewarding experience" in a "cooperative gaming environment." So there are games within games, and they can be fun too. I could tell you stories.

And in that regard, I'm usually more worried about the guy who thinks the monk's a striker, or the guy who picked a Bladelock than I am about the guy w/ the GWM barbarian or the fighter archer sharpshooter+xbow expert.

I can't argue with that. I think my perspective is just different. I play with a bunch of old timers. We have a few (comparative) youngsters, second generation. But even they grew up with the game. So, aside from the occasional girlfriend, which we had grown out of but have now grown back into, everyone at the table has a fairly nuanced appreciation and understanding of the game.

We have one player in my group, a grey beard, who likes to play bad character builds. He's that guy who played a diviner wizard back in 3e. He plays the variant encumbrance rules, all by himself. He quietly interprets the combat rules in the most player-hostile way imaginable, to the degree that we let him get away with it. That's what floats his boat. He enjoys the adversity, with no discernible inclination to spread the misery. Though that time he took the DM seat was pretty awful.

And we take a relaxed view to some aspects of the game. If, two or three or eight levels into it, a player is experiencing character builder's remorse, then, hey, ditch that turkey. Bring in something else, or keep the same character, keep the story, just upend the character build. Whatever works, whatever brings the fun.

But newer and more casual players do deserve particular consideration, and they are just as entitled to a good time as the veterans, if not more so. The DM has to play to the folks around his table. In that sense, circumstance dictates one's approach to setting the boundaries, the traps, and, perhaps the safety nets.

 

[JellMoo]

At level 5, you're getting around 3 attacks per round with the stereotypical Barb5 GWM. Two from attack + extra-attack feature, one bonus action attack from the fact that you either crit or killed something with those first two attacks. (Alternately, you add Polearm master "just to make sure" you have a bonus action attack, but lets assume you're not that flush on feats and/or want some stat boosts). 1d12 (or 2d6) averages around 7. +4 from strength, +2 from rage, +10 from GWM. 23*3 =~ close enough to 70 to round off. (~45 round one, where you had to rage as your bonus action. 70 round two+, because you're pretty sure to kill something)

Hmm... I think I'm missing something here that's looping your build together. Let me just take a second to try and break down what I think you're going with.

5th level Barbarian
GWM feat

I'm not sure what the "extra attack feature" is? Do you mean the attack given by Frenzy from the Path of the Berserker? Because here's what I'm breaking down:

Attack action: 2 attacks
Bonus action: Rage OR Frenzy Attack (after you Rage) OR extra attack from GWM

Without GWM for extra damage, assuming you hit 3 times you're likely doing about: 7 (weapon) + 4 (Str) +2 (Rage) per attack for a total of 13. If you hit 3 times you do 39 points of damage.

Against a low AC enemy, you can try your luck using GWM for extra damage. So +30 if you hit all 3 times.

69 points of damage is impressive, but you have to admit that it comes with quite a few caveats.

1) If you are using Frenzy, you have to deal with having 1 level of exhaustion, which isn't all that good. If you use Frenzy in your next encounter, you're dealing with 2 levels, or 3 if you use it with your 3rd Rage of the day. Risk vs reward is heavily at play here.

2) If you're intention is to use GWM for the extra attack, you're pretty much required to have multiple enemies centered around you to make it work. It's a great trick, no doubt, but battlefield composition puts a big limit on it. It also hurts your mobility since you can't move between the triggering attack and the follow up one.

3) Relying on Reckless Attack is another risky strategy. It only applies to your first attack, and even with advantage, your're still eating that -5 to hit which doesn't make it a guarantee. Adding a component from another class definitely can help, but it feels disingenuous to include it since the feature(s) in question are of a balance concern. If there are other enemies at play (say ranged, or just ones outside of your own range), granting all of them advantage can be a massive hindrance.

Honestly, the limits in place are rather heavy and contain the overall ability of the build. When the character can pull it off, it's brutally effective, no doubt. But it requires specific scenarios to do, and carries a lot of innate risk when it happens. When you consider that at the same level a Sorcerer can drop a pair of Fireballs for an average of 56 (assuming two failed saves) damage to each enemy in the area at a large range with low risk, and it just doesn't strike me as overpowered.

Thanks for the explanation though!

 

[kilpatds]

Reckless Attack is the barbarian feature of "get advantage on your attacks, but give advantage to everyone". That's how you eat the -5 to hit (the math around advantage vs. AC targets isn't worth getting into, but your odds of hitting on a 10 rolling once, and hitting on a 15 rolling twice are pretty similar.)

Don't go frenzy. Exhaustion kills. If GWM gives you an extra attack, take it. Otherwise you don't.

Re: multiple enemies. You can always move between attacks in 5e, so no. You don't need multiple enemies surrounding you when you start... you just need multiple enemies within movement range.

Re: Reckless attack getting you hit: remember you have resistance, and you're doing silly damage and dead monsters don't attack back.

Also: you're not doing this solo, you're doing it with a party. The wizard might weaken some enemies with an AoE making it easier for you to finish them for the extra attack. The cleric/paladin might cast Bless, giving you +1d4 to hit. The control wizard might give you advantage so you don't need to Reckless attack.

And as I've been trying to say before: I don't think this is really overpowered when compared to a Wizard or Cleric or Bard (or in this level range, still the Moon Druid). It's just overpowered when compared to a TWF ranger that thought S/HE was the striker of the group. I was just trying to answer the specific question of "that's insane damage. What are you talking about because I don't believe you" with the details that were being referenced.

Edit: And to be clear, I've played beside this character, and DMd for a party that included this character. And in practice, it is ABSOLUTELY as strong as I'm describing. But in practice, lots of things are actually this strong... The Nova-focused Pali-bard, for example. The control wizard.

 

[smbakeresq]

I see all these builds, but when you see that as DM you give them a chance to shine and then you give them a jolt with an encounter where it doesn't all work for them.

 

[JellMoo]

Reckless Attack is the barbarian feature of "get advantage on your attacks, but give advantage to everyone". That's how you eat the -5 to hit (the math around advantage vs. AC targets isn't worth getting into, but your odds of hitting on a 10 rolling once, and hitting on a 15 rolling twice are pretty similar.)

Someone far better at math than I would need to get into that. My sensibilities towards it are old school in that I hate taking a penalty to hit, but I have no math to back it up as a sub par choice here.

The issue I have is that you only get the advantage on your first attack. Your subsequent attacks you either eat the -5, or don't use the GWM feature.

Don't go frenzy. Exhaustion kills. If GWM gives you an extra attack, take it. Otherwise you don't.

Complete agreement here. Exhaustion is prohibitively terrible for the feature benefit.

Re: multiple enemies. You can always move between attacks in 5e, so no. You don't need multiple enemies surrounding you when you start... you just need multiple enemies within movement range.

Unless there's errata or a rules clarification I don't know about (and there very well could be) the wording of GWM indicates that you don't have the option to move between attacks. There's just the trigger (a crit or dropping an enemy to 0) and the effect (you can take a bonus action to make an attack). The wording seems to indicate that you need to follow the trigger with the bonus action attack.

Re: Reckless attack getting you hit: remember you have resistance, and you're doing silly damage and dead monsters don't attack back.

True, but the monsters still outside of your zone can make attacks. The resistance absolutely helps, no doubt, and it can work to pull off some great pseudo tanking, but it can still cause some serious payback.

Also: you're not doing this solo, you're doing it with a party. The wizard might weaken some enemies with an AoE making it easier for you to finish them for the extra attack. The cleric/paladin might cast Bless, giving you +1d4 to hit. The control wizard might give you advantage so you don't need to Reckless attack.

I think the danger we run into in regards to a discussion about balance is that when you add outside variables, it becomes harder to identify what exactly is the balance issue (not that I think we have one here). For example: If we have a Wizard dissecting the battlefield and funneling enemies to the Barbarian for slaughter and we think this is imbalanced (not that we do), is the issue with the Barbarian or the Wizard?

And as I've been trying to say before: I don't think this is really overpowered when compared to a Wizard or Cleric or Bard (or in this level range, still the Moon Druid). It's just overpowered when compared to a TWF ranger that thought S/HE was the striker of the group. I was just trying to answer the specific question of "that's insane damage. What are you talking about because I don't believe you" with the details that were being referenced.

The problem there is the fact that the Ranger is simply underpowered more than anything. When it comes to 5e, I truly feel their balance is better than previous editions, but they fumbled a bit with melee. I don't think there's a single dominant build, but there is a definite divide between the better options (Barbarian, Fighter and Paladin) and the weaker ones (Ranger or Monk).

Edit: And to be clear, I've played beside this character, and DMd for a party that included this character. And in practice, it is ABSOLUTELY as strong as I'm describing. But in practice, lots of things are actually this strong... The Nova-focused Pali-bard, for example. The control wizard.

In those cases, was it mostly a situation of other melee characters lacking a bit of optimization, or was it more the fact that regardless of potential optimization, they lacked the mechanics to be competitive?

 

[kilpatds]

Reckless attack says "Doing so gives you advantage on melee weapon attack rolls using Strength during this turn, but [...]". So you get advantage on all the attack rolls. Regarding moving between the blow and the bonus-action attack, I'll just note our table allowed it (and I believe accurately).

I'll also note that giving advantage seemed to effectively counter the bonus damage reduction, at least until you got your AC so high that monsters only hit on a 18 or 19 or so (at that point, advantage no longer helps so much). But yes, if there are a lot of monsters that hit on a 12, and you try this trick... your DPR for the encounter won't be so high, because as previously covered dead creatures don't do any damage.