D&D 5E Sharpshooter/Great Weapon Master and Why They Are Broken 101.

[Corwin]

I guess that it would be pretty awesome. I can imagine a few things like a king Arthur's theme like a set of knights righting wrongs. Versatility would be weak but with backgrounds and a few tweaks it could be really fun. Damage output could be something to behold too. One GWM, one shield master with two SS. I can even imagine them taking a two level dip into life cleric. Bless all around with a few healing spells. Not much but enough to go by.

I'd bet there is probably some correlation between those DMs out there who cringe and fret over running a game for such a party, and the DMs who tend to play a more adversarial role.

 

[Fanaelialae]

You're missing the point. Allow me to restate:

Party power scares superlinearly in the number of wizards in the party, due to synergies and pooled spell knowledge.

That is all I have claimed. I have expressed no opinion about the scaling of Fighters. (I suspect scaling is roughly linear but I haven't thought through all the scenarios involving proning/etc.)

If you ask for a strong commitment, I suspect that I'd wind up telling you that a party of all wizards will handle at least twice the total adjusted XP of monsters per day that a party of all fighters would. Nailing down enough parameters to do a generalized analysis would be enough of a pain though that I'd prefer to just avoid making any such comparative claims. However, that also does not mean that I'm conceding some kind of equality between fighters and wizards, and you certainly can't draw inferences about "5E normal" from that concession, which hasn't even been conceded.

I stand by my observation that a wizard-heavy party is an extremely strong configuration in 5E. (Especially if multiclassing is involved, and especially at levels 9+.) This claim is prima facie obvious enough that I'm surprised that there's even anyone controverting it. How can anyone not see this?

Edit: I agree with you though that 5E is geared to be quite easy. IMO it's more fun if you crank up the difficulty quite a bit.

Having played casters, it might be "prima facie obvious", but as I think we all know prima facie knowledge is not a fact. Whenever I've played casters in 5e, I've struggled with the limitations imposed by both prepared/known spells and with spell slots. Perhaps I'm just bad at playing casters, but I don't think that's the case. In at least some of those cases, I was in a party with other casters. Monsters making saves when I was sure they would fail was yet another issue.

I really feel that those who believe casters are some much more powerful are looking at only ideal circumstances. They always have the right spells prepared. They never run out of spells. Monsters never make their save or have counters for spell effects. Circumstances are always in the party's favor. The casters can survive long enough to become high level in the first place. So on and so forth.

I mean, sure, the summon spells are potent. But, except for certain druid spells, they take a minute to cast and only last an hour. Additionally, if you lose concentration the results could be somewhat disasterous. Planar binding can extend the duration, but it had an expensive component so you won't be using it regularly until high levels.

 

[Tony Vargas]

Whenever I've played casters in 5e, I've struggled with the limitations imposed by both prepared/known spells and with spell slots. Perhaps I'm just bad at playing casters,

It might be one of those grumpy old man effects. When I played a 5e caster (which was all of twice, because I'd long since done it to death, and like all my Essentials & 5e play experiences, it got old fast), I was struck by how carefree and lacking meaningful limitations they seemed - compared to playing a 1e caster, which I did a lot back in the day (I was less into casters in 3e, but did quite enjoy Sorcerers, arguably quite limited compared to neo-Vancian 5e types, too, if carefree compared to traditional 1e Vancian).
I think maybe it's just a matter of having internalized the struggle that was even getting a 1e caster out of 1st level while trying to make an impact with his one and only spell (memorized, from a random list of 4 known) each day.

 

[FormerlyHemlock]

Having played casters, it might be "prima facie obvious", but as I think we all know prima facie knowledge is not a fact. Whenever I've played casters in 5e, I've struggled with the limitations imposed by both prepared/known spells and with spell slots. Perhaps I'm just bad at playing casters, but I don't think that's the case. In at least some of those cases, I was in a party with other casters. Monsters making saves when I was sure they would fail was yet another issue.

I really feel that those who believe casters are some much more powerful are looking at only ideal circumstances. They always have the right spells prepared. They never run out of spells. Monsters never make their save or have counters for spell effects. Circumstances are always in the party's favor. The casters can survive long enough to become high level in the first place. So on and so forth.

I mean, sure, the summon spells are potent. But, except for certain druid spells, they take a minute to cast and only last an hour. Additionally, if you lose concentration the results could be somewhat disasterous. Planar binding can extend the duration, but it had an expensive component so you won't be using it regularly until high levels.

From your attempt to describe spellcaster strengths here, I think what's going on is that you are "bad" at playing spellcasters. You're superficially correct in your criticisms of a certain caricature of spellcasters, but the very criticism reveals a simplistic first-order view of how you think spellcasters ought to be played: reactively, haphazardly, relying on luck, with an eggshell perimeter defense instead of defense in depth. Even the way you describe losing control of an elemental is revealing. If you're putting yourself in a position where losing control of an elemental is disastrous, let alone likely and disastrous, you must be courting disaster already. (It's like those people who claim that an inconvenient critical hit is disastrous for them--if it is, either you're playing extremely challenging scenarios already or you're doing it wrong.)

Yes, spells known and spells prepared are very real constraints, and so is concentration. That is precisely where my observation about multi-wizard parties comes from: some of the best combos and synergies come from removing those constraints. I already mentioned the brokenly-good Wall of Force + Cloudkill combo, and it should be obvious that having 3x as many wizards in the party goes a fair way towards removing that "you won't always have the right spell known + prepared" constraint you yourself mentioned. I could name a few other multi-concentration combos (Haste + Polymorph into T-Rex is amazingly fun and effective, especially if you exploit the mobility aspects; and it works just as well on a wizard as it does on a fighter unless you have an unusual interpretation of Polymorph) but the deeper point is simply that: spellcasters have more affordances, and in particular more proactive affordances; and non-spellcasting affordances in 5E are front-loaded. Yes, Rogues are great; but a Rogue 2/anything 18 is approximately as amazing as a Rogue 20, so you can afford to fill up the rest of your levels with something that gives you more affordances, like Rogue 2/Bladesinger 18. And now you're a Rogue who can use his invisible familiar to scout ahead while he follows invisibly behind, and can Teleport to safety if he needs to.

I don't want to derail this thread much more, but the criticisms you make ("you don't always have the right spells prepared") reveal a reactive mindset that to my eye explains why you've struggled with spellcasters. And I agree with your criticisms to an extent--many people who like to moan about "caster supremacy" are just wrong, and they're wrong in exactly the ways you identified. A wizard doesn't have unlimited spell slots, and you can't judge merely by peak performance in ideal situations. But the next step is to look at the actual proposed party (e.g. necromancer, summoner, two bladesingers if I recall correctly which thread we're in) and consider what is the number and variety of situations in which the party is prepared to excel. If you choose your spells wisely, that number will be very high.

As an aside: Rope Trick should be a mandatory spell for any party which includes members (bladesingers, moon druids, warlocks) who have important abilities that recharge on a short rest.

 

[Helldritch]

the deeper point is simply that: spellcasters have more affordances, and in particular more proactive affordances; and non-spellcasting affordances in 5E are front-loaded. Yes, Rogues are great; but a Rogue 2/anything 18 is approximately as amazing as a Rogue 20, so you can afford to fill up the rest of your levels with something that gives you more affordances, like Rogue 2/Bladesinger 18. And now you're a Rogue who can use his invisible familiar to scout ahead while he follows invisibly behind, and can Teleport to safety if he needs to.

I don't want to derail this thread much more, but the criticisms you make ("you don't always have the right spells prepared") reveal a reactive mindset that to my eye explains why you've struggled with spellcasters. And I agree with your criticisms to an extent--many people who like to moan about "caster supremacy" are just wrong, and they're wrong in exactly the ways you identified. A wizard doesn't have unlimited spell slots, and you can't judge merely by peak performance in ideal situations. But the next step is to look at the actual proposed party (e.g. necromancer, summoner, two bladesingers if I recall correctly which thread we're in) and consider what is the number and variety of situations in which the party is prepared to excel. If you choose your spells wisely, that number will be very high.

As an aside: Rope Trick should be a mandatory spell for any party which includes members (bladesingers, moon druids, warlocks) who have important abilities that recharge on a short rest.

Right on target, as is often the case. Casters, especialy wizards, are the kings of versatility and massive AoE. What about Tiny Hut? Which is one of the best spells for a long rest. The evasive possibilities of wizards is what gives them their strength. They can scout in advance using familiars or spells, summon appropriate help to counter the strength of the ennemies, Kite brutes to almost no ends and with blade singers, they have just the right touch in melee that is needed to either regroup or simply block a passage and use cantrip/magic missiles barrage.

Their downsides are low hp usualy low AC and bad dex/con saves. A single bad save against a dragon's breath can spell doom for the unlucky wizard. A brute that can get his hands on a wizard is pretty much sure to kill him in a few strokes if the wizard can't get away or is surprised and can't get away. A drow assassin might not kill a fighter, but his odds on a poor frail wizard are almost a sure thing. A whole party of wizard can go down quite fast to assassin type enemies if the right circumstances are met, not so easily done with the fighters.

Spell selection can be a pain in the neck for a single wizard, but for four of them, it becomes much more easy to share utility spells among them, spreading the pressure on spell slot equally. And do not forget that they have rituals to boost the available magic. And nothing prevent them to multiclass into clerics to have access to some healing magic if the wisdom is high enough and it wouldn't even make them lose spell slots (but would slow down a weebit their access to high level spells.)

There are pros and cons to such a group. But I saw that kind of group in one of my 1ed game. The sight of 5 fire balls going at the same time toward a frost giant party can be awesome. Strangely, the sixth member, a dwarven fighter was quite happy to watch them clear out the trash for him

 

[Helldritch]

I'd bet there is probably some correlation between those DMs out there who cringe and fret over running a game for such a party, and the DMs who tend to play a more adversarial role.

And you are probably right. I would not mind that kind of group. But then again, I am not afraid to TPK. That kind of group if well played, will plow through almost any standard adventures. The magic word here is standard, I would go out of my way to challenge such a group with appropriate monsters, traps and challenge.

 

[FormerlyHemlock]

Right on target, as is often the case. Casters, especialy wizards, are the kings of versatility and massive AoE. What about Tiny Hut? Which is one of the best spells for a long rest. The evasive possibilities of wizards is what gives them their strength. They can scout in advance using familiars or spells, summon appropriate help to counter the strength of the ennemies, Kite brutes to almost no ends and with blade singers, they have just the right touch in melee that is needed to either regroup or simply block a passage and use cantrip/magic missiles barrage.

Their downsides are low hp usualy low AC and bad dex/con saves. A single bad save against a dragon's breath can spell doom for the unlucky wizard. A brute that can get his hands on a wizard is pretty much sure to kill him in a few strokes if the wizard can't get away or is surprised and can't get away. A drow assassin might not kill a fighter, but his odds on a poor frail wizard are almost a sure thing. A whole party of wizard can go down quite fast to assassin type enemies if the right circumstances are met, not so easily done with the fighters.

One of the most interesting features of 5E is a powergamer is how easily-mitigated a wizard's key weaknesses are. As you say, low-ish AC is typically one of them; but in 5E, you can just start your first level as a Fighter (with at least Dex 13 or Str 13) with Defense style, then multiclass to wizard at level 2, and now you have Con save proficiency instead of Wis save proficiency and excellent AC. Plus a bit of extra HP, Second Wind, and martial weapon proficiencies to tide you through the early levels.

Anotherfruitful channel, as Helldritch mentioned, is to multiclass to Life Cleric at some point. You don't get Con save proficiency or Defense style, but you do get heavy armor and some really neat spells (Bless, Shield of Faith, Sanctuary), and you avoid losing any spell slots. It also gives you the option for eventual neat stuff such as Contingency ("Cure Wounds V whenever I hit zero HP"), which is almost as good as always-on Death Ward and is actually better than the half-orc Relentless Endurance feature. You do have to invest in Wis 13 to make this happen, so you're either more MAD (if you invest in Wis AND Str) or less mobile (if you don't invest in Str but wear heavy armor anyway) but it's still a good option overall.

Dragon breath saves can be mitigated by learning the Absorb Elements spell, if EE is a thing at your table. (Without that spell wizards are obviously far more dragon-averse.)

 

[Mort]

One of the most interesting features of 5E is a powergamer is how easily-mitigated a wizard's key weaknesses are. As you say, low-ish AC is typically one of them; but in 5E, you can just start your first level as a Fighter (with at least Dex 13 or Str 13) with Defense style, then multiclass to wizard at level 2, and now you have Con save proficiency instead of Wis save proficiency and excellent AC. Plus a bit of extra HP, Second Wind, and martial weapon proficiencies to tide you through the early levels.

You can't cast spells until 2nd level, you're not going to get your wizard specialization until 3rd, you'll be a level behind any non-multiclass for stat/feat gain and you'll be a level behind in spell acquisition - It's not like you're sacrificing nothing. Now it may be well worth it - particularly for certain character concepts, but unless you start at mid/high level (and often even then) it's far from a no-brainer.

 

[Fanaelialae]

From your attempt to describe spellcaster strengths here, I think what's going on is that you are "bad" at playing spellcasters. You're superficially correct in your criticisms of a certain caricature of spellcasters, but the very criticism reveals a simplistic first-order view of how you think spellcasters ought to be played: reactively, haphazardly, relying on luck, with an eggshell perimeter defense instead of defense in depth. Even the way you describe losing control of an elemental is revealing. If you're putting yourself in a position where losing control of an elemental is disastrous, let alone likely and disastrous, you must be courting disaster already. (It's like those people who claim that an inconvenient critical hit is disastrous for them--if it is, either you're playing extremely challenging scenarios already or you're doing it wrong.)

I suppose it's either that I'm bad at playing casters, or my DMs (and myself) are experienced and comprehend how to challenge casters without having to bend over backwards. I'd say that if you're always so in control of the situation that nothing can go wrong, the DM is probably going easy on you. I mean, what, are you sending the elemental out to adventure for an hour, alone, while you stay in camp and do laundry?

Yes, spells known and spells prepared are very real constraints, and so is concentration. That is precisely where my observation about multi-wizard parties comes from: some of the best combos and synergies come from removing those constraints. I already mentioned the brokenly-good Wall of Force + Cloudkill combo, and it should be obvious that having 3x as many wizards in the party goes a fair way towards removing that "you won't always have the right spell known + prepared" constraint you yourself mentioned.

Wall of Force + Cloudkill requires both ideal terrain/positioning and an enemy that isn't immune to poison. If the enemy is flanking the party then you can only catch one group (and the others can attempt to break your concentration, ending the effects). Sure, when it works it'll be devastating (and for the cost of two 5th level spell slots and two characters' concentrations, it ought to be) but it won't always. In fact, this is highly dependent upon a DMing giving you an ideal scenario.

I could name a few other multi-concentration combos (Haste + Polymorph into T-Rex is amazingly fun and effective, especially if you exploit the mobility aspects; and it works just as well on a wizard as it does on a fighter unless you have an unusual interpretation of Polymorph) but the deeper point is simply that: spellcasters have more affordances, and in particular more proactive affordances; and non-spellcasting affordances in 5E are front-loaded. Yes, Rogues are great; but a Rogue 2/anything 18 is approximately as amazing as a Rogue 20, so you can afford to fill up the rest of your levels with something that gives you more affordances, like Rogue 2/Bladesinger 18. And now you're a Rogue who can use his invisible familiar to scout ahead while he follows invisibly behind, and can Teleport to safety if he needs to.

I love polymorph, but it is again a concentration spell. Haste too. If you cast these on a wizard and things go badly, you may end up with a unbuffed wizard surrounded by enemies.

While cunning action is great, rogues get plenty of worthwhile abilities past 2nd. My previous character was a rogue and went to 14th or 15th level. I never felt overshadowed by the party wizard or warlock. (Full disclosure, I was an arcane trickster although I didn't rely heavily on spells apart from shield and rope trick.)

I don't want to derail this thread much more, but the criticisms you make ("you don't always have the right spells prepared") reveal a reactive mindset that to my eye explains why you've struggled with spellcasters. And I agree with your criticisms to an extent--many people who like to moan about "caster supremacy" are just wrong, and they're wrong in exactly the ways you identified. A wizard doesn't have unlimited spell slots, and you can't judge merely by peak performance in ideal situations. But the next step is to look at the actual proposed party (e.g. necromancer, summoner, two bladesingers if I recall correctly which thread we're in) and consider what is the number and variety of situations in which the party is prepared to excel. If you choose your spells wisely, that number will be very high.

Well, what situations a caster party is prepared to excel at is precisely dictated by what spells they have prepared. And that number is likely to be decent if you choose your spells wisely. But good luck preparing every spell you might need for every contingency while still preparing power combos like Wall of Force + Cloudkill. I mean, Wall of Force is a top tier spell useful in a variety of situations IMO. Cloudkill... not so much. Then there's the fact that you may want to double up on at least some of these power spells in case they guy who memorized it rolls a 1 on initiative. I mean sure, you could let the enemy group up on you, then cast Wall of Force, and Misty Step out but then you're giving the enemy some free shots on you, you've all expended a 2nd level slot, and you've all used a prep on Misty Step (plus they guy who casts Wall of Force can't cast Misty Step the same turn he casts Wall of Force).

As an aside: Rope Trick should be a mandatory spell for any party which includes members (bladesingers, moon druids, warlocks) who have important abilities that recharge on a short rest.

I swear by Rope Trick. Unless your DM is so easy-going that he would never attack during a short rest (not my DM), Rope Trick should be a mandatory spell for every party. But it does mean two less 2nd level spell slots per day (assuming two short rests).

 

[Helldritch]

I suppose it's either that I'm bad at playing casters, or my DMs (and myself) are experienced and comprehend how to challenge casters without having to bend over backwards. I'd say that if you're always so in control of the situation that nothing can go wrong, the DM is probably going easy on you. I mean, what, are you sending the elemental out to adventure for an hour, alone, while you stay in camp and do laundry?

I don't think anyone here accused you of being bad. Far from it. I believe Hemlock put the quotation mark were there to make sure of that. Just by looking at the knowledge you display it is obvious that you know your stuff. But do not assume that a DM is easy on his players. I would not hesitate to TPK for a second if the group played any less than the quality I expect from them. If a group does too many mistakes, boom! TPK.

And what the hell do you have against doing your laundry???? A clean wizard underwear makes for a happy wizard. Especialy when the laundry is made with a cantrip
Once the laundry is done. Said wizards will get in and mop clean the dungeon (or die in it if they're careless).

Wall of Force + Cloudkill requires both ideal terrain/positioning and an enemy that isn't immune to poison. If the enemy is flanking the party then you can only catch one group (and the others can attempt to break your concentration, ending the effects). Sure, when it works it'll be devastating (and for the cost of two 5th level spell slots and two characters' concentrations, it ought to be) but it won't always. In fact, this is highly dependent upon a DMing giving you an ideal scenario.

That scenario can happen but a party of wizards would not rely on situation combos but on general combos. Killed a few ogres? Animate some and cast haste on one of them if needed. Chances are that it will do more dmg than you think. Domination of a strong ennemy? Boost him and send him against his friends etc... Hypnotic pattern + circular firewall can do wonders too, the ennemy will get no save to get out of the circle. It is a sure 10d8 fire dmg and more if they failed to get the courage to pass through the wall. And that "combo" is generic enough to be done quite often.

More over, said combos might get prepared after scouting with arcane eyes, familiars with invisibility, divination magic and many other ways including the charming of an enemy scout and asking your new friend the layout of what he knows of the dungeon.

I love polymorph, but it is again a concentration spell. Haste too. If you cast these on a wizard and things go badly, you may end up with a unbuffed wizard surrounded by enemies.

That is why that the concentrating wizard won't be the target of the spell that could be disrupted. Both Bladesigners would be buffed by the necro and the summoner if needed or required. You seem to think in terms of one wizard. There are four of them. Some good defensive spells don't even need concentration.

Well, what situations a caster party is prepared to excel at is precisely dictated by what spells they have prepared. And that number is likely to be decent if you choose your spells wisely. But good luck preparing every spell you might need for every contingency while still preparing power combos like Wall of Force + Cloudkill. I mean, Wall of Force is a top tier spell useful in a variety of situations IMO. Cloudkill... not so much. Then there's the fact that you may want to double up on at least some of these power spells in case they guy who memorized it rolls a 1 on initiative. I mean sure, you could let the enemy group up on you, then cast Wall of Force, and Misty Step out but then you're giving the enemy some free shots on you, you've all expended a 2nd level slot, and you've all used a prep on Misty Step (plus they guy who casts Wall of Force can't cast Misty Step the same turn he casts Wall of Force).

Again you think in terms of one wizard. With so many of them, I can assure you that they will all prepare misty steps or maybe only the bladesingers. And they can always prepare their reaction with misty step or the wall of force depending on the situation.
Ex: " I prepare my wall of force to go when X get out of there" or "I don't attack, I'll cast dimension door when the wall of force is up" The bladesingers can even use the dodge action and one of the other will say "I cast Cloud kill once the last bladesinger is out of the wall of force".

I swear by Rope Trick. Unless your DM is so easy-going that he would never attack during a short rest (not my DM), Rope Trick should be a mandatory spell for every party. But it does mean two less 2nd level spell slots per day (assuming two short rests).

On that, I fully agree with you.