D&D 5E Precision Attack + SS + CBE is like +2d6 sword

[FrogReaver]

I gave a player a Frost Brand at level 3. It was an ancestral family weapon.

So, yes, if the plot demanded it, or a character was underperforming.

Sure but that's not the question. The question is when the plot doesn't demand it and when no other character is underperforming, would you at that time give out a +2d6 sword? Because that's what allowing SS + CE on this fighter is equivalent to.

 

[Paul Farquhar]

Sure but that's not the question. The question is when the plot doesn't demand it and when no other character is underperforming. Would you give out a +2d6 sword? Because that's what allowing SS + CE on this fighter is equivalent to.

Yes.

Yes.

Yes.

Yes.

 

[FrogReaver]

Yes.

Yes.

Yes.

Yes.

Could have just said so the first time

 

[Paul Farquhar]

Could have just said so the first time

I did, with explanation.

I would not give out a +2d6 sword to someone with a powergaming build though. The character with "Precision Attack + SS + CBE" would get - a rock.

Magic items are great levelers.

 

[DND_Reborn]

What does the feat count have to do with anything? I factored in the opportunity cost by including +2 str for the sword build at level 4.

That's not how precision works. You are incorrect that you are limited to +2d6 damage equivalent weapon 4 times per short rest. Precision allows it's benefits to be extended through the whole short rest because all it's doing is increasing your chance to hit on the 20% or so of attacks that need it to hit. Allowing it to last nearly the whole short rest.

Also you never actually answered my question
Would you give a +2d6 sword out at level 4?

Oi...

You aren't giving them a +2d6 sword. There are costs associated with every feat choice. And I know exactly how precision attack works, thank you very much, it really isn't that hard to figure out.

Also, more than enough people have complained about how powerful GWM and SS are, so you aren't doing anything new here, you know?

You state such things as if they are fact when most of it depends on what assumptions you are making in doing your calculations--which you failed to disclose, by the way--so forgive me if I don't take your word at face value.

Finally, I have a game to go prepare for, so I'll just leave it as I said in the beginning: I really don't see what the big issue is with this...

Oh, and to "answer" your question when you are being particularly thick, for two feats and using up your superiority dice, yeah, take a +7 to damage (on average or whatever) because you are paying for it. Good luck not having other things which your feat selection cost you. FWIW, in over 20 PCs in our games, only one has taken GWM (barbarian) and only one has taken SS (ranger), both by the same "power-gamer"-type player. The rest of us don't value them as highly as other feats.

 

[FrogReaver]

I did, with explanation.

I would not give out a +2d6 sword to someone with a powergaming build though. The character with "Precision Attack + SS + CBE" would get - a rock.

Magic items are great levelers.

Your explanation actually bypassed the questions intent.

My take away from all your answers is that you use stronger magic items to somewhat balance out the party but would not give such stronger magic weapons to highly optimized characters. That's a fair DMing philosophy. It's not one I particularly like as a player as it can end up invalidating many of my character generation choices - but that's a different discussion.

There is another DM philosophy, which is that each character should end up with roughly equivalent magical items. That's the one I approach the game from. I can't imagine anyone using that philosophy feeling comfortable giving out a +2d6 magic weapon - unless everyone gets them.

 

[Paul Farquhar]

Your explanation actually bypassed the questions intent.

My take away from all your answers is that you use stronger magic items to somewhat balance out the party but would not give such stronger magic weapons to highly optimized characters. That's a fair DMing philosophy. It's not one I particularly like as a player as it can end up invalidating many of my character generation choices - but that's a different discussion.

There is another DM philosophy, which is that each character should end up with roughly equivalent magical items. That's the one I approach the game from. I can't imagine anyone using that philosophy feeling comfortable giving out a +2d6 magic weapon - unless everyone gets them.

It doesn't really arise - my players tend not to make highly optimised characters. I've only seen SS once (and that was on a ranger), and GWM never.

 

[FrogReaver]

Oi...

You aren't giving them a +2d6 sword. There are costs associated with every feat choice.

I hear their are opportunity costs alot and I agree in general with that. As you insinuated below "You aren't telling me anything I don't know". It's curious that no one proposes any specific ones though. I wonder why that is?

And I know exactly how precision attack works, thank you very much, it really isn't that hard to figure out.

Your post above indicated otherwise. Maybe you mispoke when you said:

allowing the +2d6 only 4 times (at best) per short rest? Sure.

Also, more than enough people have complained about how powerful GWM and SS are, so you aren't doing anything new here, you know?

They never put an in game number on it. I don't think anyone ever has.

You state such things as if they are fact when most of it depends on what assumptions you are making in doing your calculations--which you failed to disclose, by the way--so forgive me if I don't take your word at face value.

That's fair. In my defense I was hoping others would go do their own independent calculations and come back and say - I don't know what his assumptions were for sure but I used the ones I think are best and I got the same results. But perhaps more telling is that everyone knew they didn't have my assumptions and they made assumptions about my assumptions to fit their narrative without every actually asking my assumptions or independently calculating the results.

Finally, I have a game to go prepare for, so I'll just leave it as I said in the beginning: I really don't see what the big issue is with this...

Have fun. Don't let me keep you. I will be here after you are done if you decide you want to respond at that time.

Oh, and to "answer" your question when you are being particularly thick, for two feats and using up your superiority dice, yeah, take a +7 to damage (on average or whatever) because you are paying for it. Good luck not having other things which your feat selection cost you. FWIW, in over 20 PCs in our games, only one has taken GWM (barbarian) and only one has taken SS (ranger), both by the same "power-gamer"-type player. The rest of us don't value them as highly as other feats.

I don't mind to look at other things it's costing you - but can we at least agree I have the +2d6 damage correct before moving on?

 

[Charlaquin]

Any of y’all play Magic: the Gathering? I see character optimization in 5e as a bit like Commander/EDH. Yes, you can make a highly synergistic build that on paper outclasses all but a narrow subset of competitive builds. And if everyone is onboard with that level of optimization, it can be a lot of fun. But most groups would rather play a bit more casually, and will aim for a more middle-of-the-road power level to insure everyone can have fun, even if their build is kinda janky. Plus, the extreme variance built into the format and the added social concerns of multiplayer mean that if one player is a bit above the table’s power curve, it probably won’t ruin the experience. You only really run into problems when there’s a huge discrepancy, which generally only happens when the players aren’t on the same page about what level of optimization they’re shooting for.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

the

What does the feat count have to do with anything? I factored in the opportunity cost by including +2 str for the sword build at level 4.

That's not how precision works. You are incorrect that you are limited to +2d6 damage equivalent weapon 4 times per short rest. Precision allows it's benefits to be extended through the whole short rest because all it's doing is increasing your chance to hit on the 20% or so of attacks that need it to hit. Allowing it to last nearly the whole short rest.

Also you never actually answered my question
Would you give a +2d6 sword out at level 4?

Then you forgot something at level 1. Either +1 to strength, which admittedly is not that much for someone with 16 strength already, but you also could have taken at least savage attacker, or be a race that gives a little extra offensive power (like half orc) or a different feat, that increases damage in a more subtle way. A simple feat for a fighter is magic adept with hex or hunter´s mark. That is not as often available as sharp shooter, but you get your +1d6 when it matters. Being able to use the superiority dice for trip attack also increases the chances to deal damage not only for you once you reach level 5, but also for the rest of your team. If you also take into account that you lose out on +2AC (and usually more) because of the lack of a shield and your lack of strength for the heavier armors and that you have a very pitiful opportunity attack you get a lot closer. If you then track your crossbow bolts and their weight and encumbrance, you will notice, that there are disadvantages to your build.
That should not mean that the build is not very powerful, but that there is a bit of white room going on and ignoring a few other things...