D&D 5E Current take on GWM/SS

[Celtavian]

I understood what you meant (and I didn't feel insulted in the least).

You are so convinced about your conclusion that these feats are overpowered, that you assume that anyone not agreeing with you simply haven't played the game as much as you have. You believe that anyone disagreeing with you are doing so because of a lack of information and experience and that we mere novices will certainly see the light when we finally reach your level of mastery.

I certainly haven't played as much as you, I am sure, but I am not at all convinced I will find these feats overpowered when I become a D&D 5e Expert.

I believe not enough people have played to high enough level with the feats to see the problem. If after another year or so and a bunch more campaigns, people still find both feats to be ok, then so be it. I believe there is currently insufficient experience with the feats to provide a sizeable enough body of data based on experience to influence the community.

Right now there are groups that have near zero experience with the feats. I know how it was with our group when we started. We didn't know all the ways to gain advantage. We didn't know which feats were best. We sort of saw things on paper, but weren't sure how they would work in game. The -5 penalty seemed like a big deal at low level and would always be a big deal. We didn't know about Bounded Accuracy. We tossed some characters together and ran them up. I imagine many groups are doing what we are doing. I'm not sure how many have reached 16th level in one campaign, 5th in another, and 7th in another. We're not the fastest leveling group, but probably faster than average given the surveys.

That's three different groups for a fairly fast leveling group of players. We've tried Sharpshooter pretty heavy because it is an obvious power feat. GWF only once due to the players not liking the mobility problem with melees.

Maybe you won't find them to causing problems in your campaigns. I do not know. I'd sure like see you use them quite a bit and then let me know what your experience is like both as a DM and a player before making a final decision. Maybe play a TWF with a Sharpshooter or GWF and track the damage. Run some encounters against players with the feats in an optimal group, see how it affects the encounters.

I want more people to test these things. See how they feel. I'm adding my experience to the discussion to give other DMs and players a head's up on some of the issues. I'm hoping others in the community see the issues as well because they are present. Whether or not they judge them as "overpowered" or problematic, I don't know. That is personal preference. I know they lead to at least the following indisputable issues:

1. They make GWF and Archery far better than TWF or single-weapon use.

2. They spike damage a huge amount on single targets for a group that focuses on maximizing their effect even using minimal resources like bless.

If these issues are not a problem in your campaigns or your play-style, you're probably won't mind them.

 

[Celtavian]

If a player (or that player's DM) knows that a given game mechanic "overshadows" others and negatively impacts their game experience, why then do they choose to take it? Or, having taken it, self-regulate its use to only those times when it is really necessary and will be fun for everyone? If the player has read and understands the goals of play as discussed in the Introduction of the game - having a good time together and creating an exciting, memorable story as a result of play - then why doesn't he or she keep that in mind when taking or using these mechanics?

In other words, are people house-ruling or denying the use of these feats to curb abuse? And, if so, isn't the underlying problem players who are willing to abuse these mechanics in a way that negatively impacts the game experience rather than the mechanics themselves?

Why would a player that figures out how to make his character as powerful as possible using the available game rules be the problem rather than the system? The player is making intelligent choices to create a concept he finds entertaining. The abuse is not something that requires a complex set of circumstances like say misreading a feat or a grouping of feats and spells that are insane like some of the looney stuff we saw in 3E/Pathfinder. Heck, even I realize that both feats power is minor compared to the crazy in 3E and Pathfinder. I'd like a little less spikey, nova damage in this edition. For the most part they removed it, but these feats brought it back.

The problem occurs with something as simple as giving a GWF a +1 sword, casting bless, and using Action Surge with Battlemaster dice or a Paladin using his Vow of Enmity or a Barbarian using Reckless. These are very common circumstances in the game with any of the chosen classes. You can choose the combination that creates the issues I've outlined without even knowing you're doing it.

You can say, "Hey. I'm playing a vengeance paladin with a greatsword and taking GWF." Bada bing, bada boom, he's using Vow of Enmity to gain advantage, bless from the bard or cleric, and a +1 sword with smite for some nutty damage. If it were abuse, I'd just end it. It's pretty standardly played character types and tactics that allow a character to take full advantage of the feats. Not to mention the natural result of Bounded Accuracy. That is to say it is inherent in the game.

That being said it is a matter of personal play-style if you mind the damage spikes or the overshadowing of TWF by archer and GWF. If you don't mind either one, you won't mind the feats.

 

[iserith]

Why would a player that figures out how to make his character as powerful as possible using the available game rules be the problem rather than the system?

It's not a problem... unless the player's choices are making the game less fun for others at the table or are leading to a boring, forgettable story as a result of play.

So my question, again, is that if this is the case and the player knows that it is so, then why is the player choosing these options?

If the player's choices are instead making the game fun for others and are leading to an exciting, memorable story, then is there a problem?

 

[Leatherhead]

That being said it is a matter of personal play-style if you mind the damage spikes or the overshadowing of TWF by archer and GWF. If you don't mind either one, you won't mind the feats.

Have you considered the possibility that two weapon fighting, being the outlier, is the thing that actually needs changing? It's not as if it's actually all that attractive in the first place, thanks to attack action scaling and the action economy on bonus actions.

 

[Celtavian]

It's not a problem... unless the player's choices are making the game less fun for others at the table or are leading to a boring, forgettable story as a result of play.

So my question, again, is that if this is the case and the player knows that it is so, then why is the player choosing these options?

If the player's choices are instead making the game fun for others and are leading to an exciting, memorable story, then is there a problem?

The player is choosing it because he enjoys being a powerful damage dealer. It is what makes the game fun for him. He has done this in every edition we've played for the past 20 years. In 1st and 2nd edition it wasn't much of a problem due to the specialization of the classes. In 3E it became a pretty big problem for me as a DM. But Pathfinder/3E allowed so much of this overpowering power that made it impossible to run a game without feeling like you're writing a term paper to prepare that it started to ruin my fun. When Mythic Adventures came out, I finally burned out. It took much work to modify 3E/Pathfinder rules to lower the power level at high level. I grew weary of writing house rules.

It's mostly a problem for myself and the other guy that DMs. We are the ones that have to design encounters specifically to challenge these feats when they are present. The other two players don't care. They just love doing tons of damage.

As a DM you want rules that don't create these kinds of headaches. Then you have to tone them down, often with resistance from the players. It's no fun for anyone.

 

[Celtavian]

Have you considered the possibility that two weapon fighting, being the outlier, is the thing that actually needs changing? It's not as if it's actually all that attractive in the first place, thanks to attack action scaling and the action economy on bonus actions.

Yep. We wrote a feat to give them the -5/+10 mechanic. That didn't stop the single target hammering that makes DMing hard.

I wrote a modification to all the feats to handle that.

 

[iserith]

The player is choosing it because he enjoys being a powerful damage dealer. It is what makes the game fun for him. He has done this in every edition we've played for the past 20 years.

Okay, but is this player aware that his choices are negatively impacting the game experience for others? If so, why does the player continue to make such choices?

 

[KarinsDad]

The player is choosing it because he enjoys being a powerful damage dealer. It is what makes the game fun for him.

This is like saying that a player who likes to play CoDzilla should be able to do so because it is what makes the game fun for him. It doesn't take into account the overall balance of the game, or the fun of the other players.

The player of the Rogue wants to do a ton of damage too. But he is generally limited to one solid attack per round at 19th level with damage of 11D6+magic+stat or low 40s damage. When a fighter at that level is doing 60 points of damage without the feat and 125 points of damage with the feat, it makes the feat a must have and can make the player of the Rogue feel like a 5th wheel.

 

[Celtavian]

Okay, but is this player aware that his choices are negatively impacting the game experience for others? If so, why does the player continue to make such choices?

Yes, he knows. He finally agreed to the house rule I wrote after some discussion. He doesn't like it, but he agreed because he knows myself and the other guy do most of the DMing. He doesn't want to have to DM too often himself, so he can be negotiated with as long as we keep DMing most of the time.

I agreed at least to hand out more magic items. I do feel more comfortable dispensing magic weapons and other items without those feats due to magical bonuses causing them to be easier to use with Bounded Accuracy. I think we've reached a happy medium.

 

[Celtavian]

This is like saying that a player who likes to play CoDzilla should be able to do so because it is what makes the game fun for him. It doesn't take into account the overall balance of the game, or the fun of the other players.

The player of the Rogue wants to do a ton of damage too. But he is generally limited to one solid attack per round at 19th level with damage of 11D6+magic+stat or low 40s damage. When a fighter at that level is doing 60 points of damage without the feat and 125 points of damage with the feat, it makes the feat a must have and can make the player of the Rogue feel like a 5th wheel.

Yeah. But the power level in Pathfinder was insane for practically every type of character. CoDzilla wasn't ever played. There were already far more powerful options. I never understood the dislike of it. I was like people on this thread are with my complaints about Sharpshooter and GWF. There were far worse options in Pathfinder and 3E after a few years than CoDzilla. I couldn't stop them all. They just keep putting out splatbooks with more and more insane options. It like trying to plug a leaking dam with my fingers.