D&D 5E Current take on GWM/SS

[Celtavian]

Yes, that was why I said you got two of the three guesses wrong and not all three. You are in fact correct that I let necromancers get away with more socially than you do. They're viewed as dangerous, arrogant types whose murder machines could easily get somebody killed (basically a "mad scientist" vibe), kind of like someone who purposefully breeds barely-controlled land sharks. (Hence the necromancer not keeping more than a token force of skeletons on hand during peacetime.) But they're not viewed as defilers of the dead, although zombies horrify people and smell bad. In that respect my world is indeed looser than yours.

No, I don't think that raising skeletons is as simple as casting Magic Missile. Not only do you have to have bones on hand, you need weapons and armor for them too. It's easy if you've prepared ahead of time, but you can cast Fireball while standing naked on the shore of a lake that you just swam across, with nothing but your arcane focus medallion; you can't raise a skeletal army quite that quickly. As I said in my previous post, as a player my big thing is versatility and foresight--many things are easy only because I've taken steps to make them easy. An example of that would never letting all my skeletons get too close to each other; a standard formation is squads of five or ten with a 50' separation between squads, even if that means that some squads are straggling behind out of sight in a dungeon environment. It's more important to me not to put all my eggs in one basket.

Edit: final point is that if the strategy isn't feasible the way you play, obviously you shouldn't do it! If I were at your table and it was clear that skeletons would be an unacceptable hassle given social constraints, I wouldn't use them, of course. (Well, I might be tempted to cast Seeming on them all and try it anyway... but I probably just wouldn't bother.) (A)D&D is all about accepting the logic of the game as it stands and playing within those constraints.

Thanks for clarification. I imagine if we were running an evil campaign I would be more tolerant. In general, I try to run heroic campaigns because I prefer heroic stories. Necromancers don't fit in particularly well in those stories. A squad of skeletons overshadowing players I would not be happy with unless it were some desperation move that fit the story like the need for troops regardless of how they are procured.

 

[FormerlyHemlock]

Thanks for clarification. I imagine if we were running an evil campaign I would be more tolerant. In general, I try to run heroic campaigns because I prefer heroic stories. Necromancers don't fit in particularly well in those stories. A squad of skeletons overshadowing players I would not be happy with unless it were some desperation move that fit the story like the need for troops regardless of how they are procured.

Thanks for the productive discussion. I'm glad it ended amicably.

 

[CapnZapp]

It's my opinion that you can houserule anything in the book. However, once you houserule it, you have to be prepared to use it on either side of the DM screen. That goes to the players and the DM. I voted in favor of "The problem isn't that bad; use the feats as-is" because:

1) Changing a rule may have a domino effect and you end up rewriting more rules to fix the 'broken' rule.

2) WotC may end up rewriting the rule in an errata and you'll have to revisit it anyways.

3) Players will always find way to make another feat/rule work in their favor. This means you've only lowered the abuse cap and will have to figure out yet another loophole to close elsewhere. Go back to 1) and wash, rinse, repeat.

I'm not saying the RAW are perfect. On the contrary, they are flawed because of the wiles of human nature. What works for one or some may not work for others. it's your responsibility of the DM to be creative with how you implement the rules. I love these forums. I've recieved a good amount of advice and i've only joined in a few days ago.

I hope you sort out your feat dilemma and can bring lots of enjoyment to the story and the game.

Thank you for your reply!

 

[AlmirEldignor]

This may not work for everyone, but the solution we use for our games it to replace the -5/+10 with a -3/+1d8, this way the damage is more variable, and less likely to be worth the tradeoff every single time.

 

[Hussar]

With the random damage though, shouldn't the damage be higher potentially, not lower? Sure, you only have a -3 on the attack, but, there's a 1 in 4 chance that I'm only doing 1 or 2 points of damage more. Not really worth the risk is it? I'm increasing my miss chance significantly, and 1 in 4 times, I'm only going to do a smidgeon more damage?

Why 1d8 bonus damage?

 

[KarinsDad]

With the random damage though, shouldn't the damage be higher potentially, not lower? Sure, you only have a -3 on the attack, but, there's a 1 in 4 chance that I'm only doing 1 or 2 points of damage more. Not really worth the risk is it? I'm increasing my miss chance significantly, and 1 in 4 times, I'm only going to do a smidgeon more damage?

Why 1d8 bonus damage?

It's actually a fairly decent compromise. DPR-wise, it tends to be partway between +0/+0 and -5/+10 for both low and high-AC foes. At a 50% chance to hit, it's actually a hair higher than +0/+0 or -5/+10 (normal damage depending). It's a middle ground solution because if it is used all of the time, it makes novas smaller, but it makes day in and day out damage bigger. And like -5/+10, it's better to use it against lower AC foes, but middle AC foes becomes more likely candidates. And it does remove one of the main objections to GWM which is that of a potential 20 to 50 extra points of damage in a nova round, just from GWM (more like 13 to 30 with this solution). The decision to only buff the GWM PC is not that clear cut for the other players.

 

[Ashkelon]

I prefer the solution of -5 to hit +1[W] damage. This prevents GWM or SS abuse from crossbow expert and polearm master while still providing a benefit (though lessened) to other weapons.

 

[Ohillion]

Stepping back...isn't to the party's advantage to have a heavy hitter (or hitters) in order to help advance the party's goals? I put it on the DM to make all characters integral to the group regardless. As both player and DM, I can honestly say there's always going to be a rule or feat or combinations of either that will need to be addressed by a DM in action and in story.

A Barbarian with GWM isn't going to be the key player in finding and removing traps. Scratching up information in cities isn't going to be the Barbarian's strength either. I know that the game is generally combat heavy, but in the grand scheme of things, a DM doesn't have to put the party into constant combat. A difficult role play through a city can leave this element of the game right out of the picture for a few sessions. And it's only ONE element.

I build a rogue for the sake of being the sneaking, quick fingered, and sometimes sneaky backstabber. I build a barbarian for the sole sake of destroying my foes and perhaps do some hunting/gathering in the wilderness. I build a ranger for scouting out my foes and attacking at range, standing sentinel over the wilderness See where I'm going with this?

I don't really think making a feat the focus of a houseruling is the fault of the feat or the rules. If the feat were broken, then it's truly broken. I don't think I'm hearing that here. But it is up to the DM to work with and/or around it as an element of the game.

So I'll ask a question back in return for consideration: Can a DM be creative enough to work within the parameters given without allowing the feat to be the all encompassing rule that breaks the game? I'm open to any answer. I think it's a great debate and so far the answers have been inspiring.

 

[Sword of Spirit]

My preferred solution is the following:

1. Remove the clause from Crossbow Expert that allows those players to attack from melee without disadvantage.

I didn't read this thread past the second post, but I have a question.

Why does everyone seem to feel this particular option is the best way to nerf Crossbow Expert, rather than addressing the third benefit of it? I'd just remove the way it lets you get a bonus shot every round. Ignore Sage Advice, and say it just lets you take an off hand shot, so you can start a fight with two-loaded hand crossbows (so you can two-weapon fight on your first turn) and after that you are using a single 1d6 ranged weapon with no bonus attack.

It seems to me that keeps the feat in line while still allowing for the concept of the second feature of the feat in the game. Nerfing the second feature just removes an entire concept from the game, and I'm not sure the concept itself is overpowered.

 

[CapnZapp]

Sword of S, I have collected my thoughts on Crossbows and dual-wielding here:

http://www.enworld.org/forum/showthread.php?470488-Crossbows-and-dual-wielding

In short, it's a hot mess (to use Leatherhead's words).