D&D 5E Why Good Players Do Not 14.25.

[Oofta]

Just as a quick comparison, I did a test using an app I had written for a different thread that calculates damage.

For a champion, if you have GWF or sharpshooter, you are pretty much always better off taking the penalty for the extra damage.

If we assume 16 strength/15 AC target you gain 2-3 points of damage up to level 10 or so, then it slowly increases to 10 extra points of damage by level 20. Playing with strength and/or target AC doesn't make a huge difference, although the difference gets increased by 2-5 points if you assume high strength with average (15) AC.

Increase chance to hit weapons pluses/bless/lucky/precise and I'm sure it would be worse.

Is that broken? I don't know. All I can relate is that in my personal experience it seems to make a large difference.

 

[The Crimson Binome]

Yeah, so? I change the types of encounters/how I run them based upon A) the PLAYERS present, B) the actual characters they're using. Specific feats are just part of the characters.
I do this so that the game is fun & challenging.

Don't you?

That is metagaming, which is widely considered to be uncool. If you use stronger enemies against stronger characters, then paradoxically, the best character is the weakest one since it will face the least resistance.

It's not a mindset that a player should be forced into. This is a game about going into dungeons and killing dragons. It's not a psychology test about how to game the DM.

 

[Zardnaar]

Yeah, so? I change the types of encounters/how I run them based upon A) the PLAYERS present, B) the actual characters they're using. Specific feats are just part of the characters.
I do this so that the game is fun & challenging.

Don't you?




Well if you're not going to do your job as DM, or only do a part of it, I don't see you're complaint as being valid.
Because feats are an optional rule. And the modules (at least the WoTC ones) aren't written accounting for optional rules.
So it would stand to reason that if you allow an optional rule - like feats! - then you might need to adjust some of the encounters.

Sometimes but I try not to over do it as it leads to rocket tag and DM vs players arms war and often more xp handed out due to tougher monsters being used.

I got bored of that with 3.5 and I would rather use my time to do other things.

Simple is good. Roll dice kill stuff eat some junk food washed down with some wine.

 

[hejtmane]

Choosing monsters to use, and choosing how to equip those monsters, is categorically not "metagames against you" territory - it's what a DM is expected to be doing whether they allow feats or not.

That is the core issue that I seen in all these arguments I have SS I have GWM and I just provide the correct encounter build for these feats and if I wanted the players all dead they would be it is pretty darn easy. Why do people think giving a monster in the book higher AC meta gaming the system the players get higher AC as they level so why can not monsters. If I take Hobgoblins that had a successful raid what they are not going to use the armor and weapons they found really.

Why I dropped out of the making melee relevant discussions it was going no were because the DM's had their mindset and I was not going to change it and that is on them. This is the same mindset i see too often with the feat arguments is lack of encounter building. Now to be fair I do not run any of the D&D pre built campaigns and if I did I would just modify them.

 

[Sorcerers Apprentice]

That is metagaming, which is widely considered to be uncool. If you use stronger enemies against stronger characters, then paradoxically, the best character is the weakest one since it will face the least resistance.

It's not a mindset that a player should be forced into. This is a game about going into dungeons and killing dragons. It's not a psychology test about how to game the DM.

I have no time to waste for boring combats. If there is to be a fight in the game it has to be challenging to be interesting, and that means taking party composition into consideration when designing encounters. If you think that exciting fights are uncool then the joke is on you.

 

[The Crimson Binome]

I have no time to waste for boring combats. If there is to be a fight in the game it has to be challenging to be interesting, and that means taking party composition into consideration when designing encounters. If you think that exciting fights are uncool then the joke is on you.

Part of the DM's job, in the role of world-builder, is to allow the opportunity for exciting things to happen. There's no reason you can't have exciting encounters without metagaming based on your knowledge of the party. Just put a dragon there, where a dragon should be, and let the PCs deal with it in whatever manner they feel most suitable.

 

[jgsugden]

The biggest variant factors in this discussion are DM specific. Monster selection, the prevalence of advantage, how often does the DM assign disadvantage, etc... have a HUGE impact on the value of these feats.

But who the freak cares?

If you're a DM and you see these feats ruining the fun of some players, adjust. If you don't see them ruining the fun, let them be. It is as simple as that.

 

[mellored]

I'm pretty sure most monsters with ultra low AC, like zombies, die in 1 hit anyways. Using sharpshooter is a clear waste on them.
Any creature with 5 or less HP should be counted as having much higher AC.


Besides, fighters can't do anything besides damage. No reason they shouldn't be good at it.

 

[Flamestrike]

On another forum I was reading about help+ wanted in regard tot he Sharpshooter and GWM feat. And on these forums people are still posting about them and there seems to be a growing consensus those feats are overpowered (OP) if not out right broken.

I also called bless broken/OP back in October 2014 or so due to the way it interacted with these feats.

Anyway in regard to the thread title on one of these other threads the claim was made he average AC in the Monster Manual is only 14.25. If true that is functionally very close to 14 AC.

In 5E I notice level 8/9 is also where things start to go wrong. This is due to feat combos coming online combined with ability scores hitting 20. For example a variant human fighter with the default array can have Sharpshooter+Crossbow expertise+ 20 dex and a +4 proficiency bonus at level 9.

Or you could have Polearm Master+ GWM or PAM+ Sentinel + 20 strength.

+4 Proficiency, +5 ability score, +2 archery style, + 2.5 off bless is +13.5 to hit AC 14.25 is almost an auto hit. with some rounding and the -5 penalty you more or less have +8 to hit vs AC 14 which is a hit ratio of 75% including the -5.

This is without any additional buffing that comes with bard dice or advantage. With SS+CE you only need a hit ratio of around 50% or 45% to deal more damage than by not using it.

So if 14.25 as an average AC is accurate I would say those 2 feats are even more borked than what I think they already are. IDK if that number is accurate all I know is unless the DM metagames against you with lots of high AC monsters the -5 pnealty is not that bad (except maybe for rogues).

Really? This thread again?

Just ban the feats if they're causing you so much grief, or replace the -5/+10 with a +1 to Str/ Dex.

 

[Shiroiken]

On another forum I was reading about help+ wanted in regard tot he Sharpshooter and GWM feat. And on these forums people are still posting about them and there seems to be a growing consensus those feats are overpowered (OP) if not out right broken.

Consensus doesn't make it true though. The issue varies from table to table and DM to DM. I've had no issue with GWM in my campaign since the start of 5E. If they are an issue for you or your table, simply ban them, change them, or not allow the OPTIONAL rule for feats. Complaining about them is unproductive.