D&D 5E GWM, SS, CEx: updated!

Oofta said:

Really? No one has dumped dex? It seems really, really common in my experience for anyone wearing heavy armor. It's also easy to modify, I'll run a scenario or two and see if it really matters tonight.

Click to expand...

I'll back you up there, every Strength-based character in my games hasn't had above a 10 Dex. Most Str-based characters do need a decent Con and a casting stat. Once those are gone, putting a 8, 10, or 12 in Dex doesn't make a big difference.

I don't see the fighter in the example using pr vision attack on near misses?

@Oofta @TwoSix @ro @Coroc @FrogReaver someone asked about Bless, and also about the comparisons without the feats. So if you remember my best estimates* for a 30 round day (11th level chars) so far are -

Wizard: 20 Int, Evocation, Fire Bolt, Levitate, Fireball, Wall of Force = ~1,700/d aka "the bar"

Fighter: GWM, 20 Str, GWF, Precision, G.Sword = ~1,400/d Bless +200
without GWM = ~1,000/d Bless +100

Fighter: SS/CEx, 18 Dex, Archery, Precision, H.Xbox = ~1,200/d Bless +200
without SS/CEx = ~800/d Bless +100

Fighter/Rogue: Sentinel, Shield Master, 18 Dex, Dueling, Precision, Booming Blade, Rapier = 1,200/d Bless +100
without Sentinel and Shield Master = ~800/d Bless +100

Ranger: SS, 18 Dex, Archery, Beast Master, Longbow = ~1,000/d Bless +100
without SS = ~800/d

Fighter: SM, 20 Dex, Dueling, Precision, Longsword = ~1,100/d Bless +100
without SM = ~900/d

Fighter: Sentinel, 20 Dex, Dueling, Precision, Rapier = 1000/d
without Sentinel = ~900/d

Q. Elsewhere I've argued that range is worth about +30% on damage, putting SS/CEx ahead of GWM. Doesn't that put SS/CEx nearly 200 points ahead of GWM? Is that good balance?
Q. What do you estimate the one-handed fighter's defensive and crowd control benefits to be worth? Obviously they would need to be worth about +40% to equal GWM, and about +60% to equal SS/CEx. Are they worth that much?
Q. And what about Wizard? How should martials stack up against casters?



*I'm going back to round to nearest 100 to represent level of estimating accuracy.

[MENTION=6801845]Oofta[/MENTION] [MENTION=205]TwoSix[/MENTION] [MENTION=6890747]ro[/MENTION] [MENTION=6895991]Coroc[/MENTION] [MENTION=6795602]FrogReaver[/MENTION] please see also revised OP.

I believe GWM should not be nerfed, but the other revisions I've suggested look sound based on everything I know so far.

vonklaude said:

[MENTION=6801845]Oofta[/MENTION] [MENTION=205]TwoSix[/MENTION] [MENTION=6890747]ro[/MENTION] [MENTION=6895991]Coroc[/MENTION] [MENTION=6795602]FrogReaver[/MENTION] please see also revised OP.

I believe GWM should not be nerfed, but the other revisions I've suggested look sound based on everything I know so far.

Click to expand...

I'm relatively comfortable with those numbers, although, perfect world, I wish the 30% melee/range difference was baseline.

Just to recap the DPR effects of the -5/+10 mechanic, here is a table. These calculations use a d10 weapon (avg 5.5 dpr), +4 proficiency bonus, +6 attack bonus (+4 main stat, +2 magic weapon or other buff) against a 17 AC target, for a character having one attack or four attacks. This is a feat, chosen against a +2 ASI.


We see that for normal attacks, the -5/+10 mechanic is equivalent to a +4 ASI.
For attacks with advantage, the -5/+10 mechanic is equivalent to a +8 ASI!
Note that disadvantage is much less common, and a -5/+10 character can opt not to use that feature in that case.

Dropping to once per turn makes it much closer: a big bump for single attack characters, but not so good for four-attack characters.

(Remember that the feats in question and +2 ASI all have additional, non-attack/damage benefits. For simplicity, let's assume these roughly balance.)

If you prefer the always-on mechanic, I suggest changing -5/+10 to either -2/+3 or -3/+4:


These are not as extremely powerful with advantage but are still solidly better than a stock +2 ASI, but they create the need to choose wisely, as without advantage they are better than no ASI at all, but not as good as a +2 ASI. (Disadvantage numbers come from the no-ASI numbers, which are better.)

Going -3/+5 would be strictly better than a +2 ASI even without advantage, but not as overpowered as -5/+10.

In summary:

Regardless of the desire for a melee fighter to be the best damage dealer of all, a feat should match a +2 ASI. Short of rewriting the feat entirely there are two solutions: change both GWM and SS to once per turn, or change them to -2/+3 or -3/+4.

Addendum:

Crossbow Expert can be modified, too, such as dropping the disadvantage-cancellation in melee to once per turn (helping only single-attackers). This will make the crazy combos much less potent. You could also specify that the bonus action crossbow must be a different crossbow.

ro said:

We see that for normal attacks, the -5/+10 mechanic is equivalent to a +4 ASI.
For attacks with advantage, the -5/+10 mechanic is equivalent to a +8 ASI!
Note that disadvantage is much less common, and a -5/+10 character can opt not to use that feature in that case.

Click to expand...

Agreed they won't use it (I think some analyses fail to take into account player intelligence and volition). As you note, an ASI does other things - +1 on Save, +1 on Skills, some other benefits. So it's okay if on damage alone, a feat is double an ASI. It shouldn't be much more, however!

ro said:

Dropping to once per turn makes it much closer: a big bump for single attack characters, but not so good for four-attack characters.

(Remember that the feats in question and +2 ASI all have additional, non-attack/damage benefits. For simplicity, let's assume these roughly balance.)

If you prefer the always-on mechanic, I suggest changing -5/+10 to either -2/+3 or -3/+4:

Click to expand...

You know, I share your views when looking at martial characters only, but once we bring in casters I feel like it just isn't right to nerf GWM. For me, the character that goes toe-to-toe, sacrificing defense for the sake of a two-handed weapon, has to deal damage/day that at least nods toward parity with Wizard.

ro said:

Regardless of the desire for a melee fighter to be the best damage dealer of all, a feat should match a +2 ASI. Short of rewriting the feat entirely there are two solutions: change both GWM and SS to once per turn, or change them to -2/+3 or -3/+4.

Click to expand...

Okay, so I don't hate your suggestion at all, when it comes to balance among martial classes. That's the road I took... and in the end you have to acknowledge casters. What do you suggest, taking casters into account?

ro said:

Addendum:

Crossbow Expert can be modified, too, such as dropping the disadvantage-cancellation in melee to once per turn (helping only single-attackers). This will make the crazy combos much less potent. You could also specify that the bonus action crossbow must be a different crossbow.

Crossbow Expert​

Thanks to extensive practice with the crossbow, you gain the following benefits:
- You ignore the loading quality of crossbows with which you are proficient.
- Once per turn, being within 5 feet of a hostile creature doesn’t impose disadvantage on your ranged attack rolls.
- When you use the Attack action and attack with a one handed weapon, you can use a bonus action to attack with a hand crossbow you are holding in your other hand.​

Click to expand...

Take a look at Eldritch Knight and Quickened Spell, and I think you'll get a better sense of how my wording functions. I much prefer making it similar to Mobility: each foe you make a melee attack against doesn't impose disadvantage. Mostly, that is only once per turn, but my way I believe encourages more player experimentation and more interesting possible scenarios (difference for example, between being attacked by one foe and mobbed by several).

Take a look at Eldritch Knight and Quickened Spell, and I think you'll get a better sense of how my wording functions. I much prefer making it similar to Mobility: each foe you make a melee attack against doesn't impose disadvantage. Mostly, that is only once per turn, but my way I believe encourages more player experimentation and more interesting possible scenarios (difference for example, between being attacked by one foe and mobbed by several).

Click to expand...

But if you have to make a melee attack, someone dual wielding hand crossbows wouldn't qualify, which is rather silly for Crossbow Expert. I think getting to reuse the same hand crossbow is silly, too, but dual wielding hand crossbows should be ok.

vonklaude said:

You know, I share your views when looking at martial characters only, but once we bring in casters I feel like it just isn't right to nerf GWM. For me, the character that goes toe-to-toe, sacrificing defense for the sake of a two-handed weapon, has to deal damage/day that at least nods toward parity with Wizard. ... Okay, so I don't hate your suggestion at all, when it comes to balance among martial classes. That's the road I took... and in the end you have to acknowledge casters. What do you suggest, taking casters into account?

Click to expand...

This is a fair question. Has there been an analysis of different types of casters and how they compare? If only the evoker wizard is OP, we don't want to nerf Bards, for example.

If casters as a whole are too strong in comparison, I do not think that making GWM tons better is the way to do it: it leaves out all the other martial archetypes.

Are all casters better than all martials?
If so, how should we address this?

Are only specific casters better than all martials?
Is it ok for a caster to be the best?
Do these casters regularly overshadow other characters? How do we stop this?
Would most players want to play these casters, or do most caster players choose a different play style?

This is similar to the issue of range vs. melee. If spellcasting or range or melee is strictly better enough than the others to create a problem, then how do we address it as a matter of overarching rules and gameplay? A feat is unlikely to appropriately address the issue.

vonklaude said:

Take a look at Eldritch Knight and Quickened Spell, and I think you'll get a better sense of how my wording functions. I much prefer making it similar to Mobility: each foe you make a melee attack against doesn't impose disadvantage. Mostly, that is only once per turn, but my way I believe encourages more player experimentation and more interesting possible scenarios (difference for example, between being attacked by one foe and mobbed by several).

Click to expand...

Here's another adjustment that knocks out the SS/CE/Archery combo:

Crossbow Expert

Thanks to extensive practice with the crossbow, you gain the following benefits:
- You ignore the loading quality of crossbows with which you are proficient.
- Once per turn, being within 5 feet of a hostile creature doesn’t impose disadvantage on your ranged attack rolls.
- You may use one handed light ranged weapons when two-weapon fighting.

ro said:

But if you have to make a melee attack, someone dual wielding hand crossbows wouldn't qualify, which is rather silly for Crossbow Expert. I think getting to reuse the same hand crossbow is silly, too, but dual wielding hand crossbows should be ok.

Click to expand...

Dual-wielding H.Xbow isn't supported in the system anyway. You only get to loose one bolt with the primary (as no hand free to reload) and then one bonus bolt with the secondary. Also, the situation envisioned is that with your melee weapon, you give foes a reason to keep back, letting you get a clean shot. I'm not seeing why another ranged attack should be supposed to help with that.

ro said:

Are all casters better than all martials?
If so, how should we address this?

Are only specific casters better than all martials?

Click to expand...

Without further analysis we can make an odds-on guess that any caster with Fireball on their list is better than all martials, at least so far as damage-dealing is concerned.

ro said:

Is it ok for a caster to be the best?

Click to expand...

For me, the ideal balance is where casters are best at X, ranged is best at Y, melee is best at Z and so on. We can make everyone best... just at different things.

ro said:

Do these casters regularly overshadow other characters? How do we stop this?
Would most players want to play these casters, or do most caster players choose a different play style?

This is similar to the issue of range vs. melee. If spellcasting or range or melee is strictly better enough than the others to create a problem, then how do we address it as a matter of overarching rules and gameplay? A feat is unlikely to appropriately address the issue.

Click to expand...

Caster overshadow has always been the footprints in the butter of D&D: everyone politely ignores them... explodes into a rant... and then goes back to politely ignoring them.

Great balance in RPG broadens great strategies, letting more character concepts shine. I don't think casters need to be a problem at all, and I don't think a feat (or two) could easily address the issue.