D&D 5E Creative solutions to the hypothetical GWF/Sharpshooter issue

[Tony Vargas]

I don't know what they were thinking with the ranger, but they missed the boat. The only viable competitive build for power gamers is Archery style. Rangers can be great if your DM focuses on the Exploration pillar. They are average in the combat pillar and not much in the social pillar.

That's probably exactly what they were thinking: "When it's time to go camping or track or sneak around in the woods, the ranger will own the game. If there's not a ranger in the game, the party won't do stuff like that, if there is, the DM will make it happen exactly enough to balance the ranger's less stunning performance in the other two pillars."

You know what I've found in all my years of gaming: players that play martial characters like to hit things real hard. If you let them do that, they don't care about much else.

You know what I've found in all my years of gaming? That gamers are as prone to offensive stereotypes as the general population.

 

[Celtavian]

You know what I've found in all my years of gaming? That gamers are as prone to offensive stereotypes as the general population.

Even in balanced 4E, fighters and barbarians liked to hit stuff. Stereotypes are only offensive when they're disparaging and false. I guarantee if you polled players that like fighters and barbarians, you hitting stuff for a lot of damage high on their priority list. Probably why WotC made them that way this time around after accumulating data on player wants. Or do you think it is an accident that fighters are the top single target damage dealer in this game and barbarians are almost pure combat monsters?

You have a view that players of fighters and barbarians want something else because you know a few that do. The vast majority (probably 70 to 80% of barbarian and fighter players) want to wreck stuff. I'd say given the way they are designed, WotC game developers received the same message from fighter and barbarian players.

 

[Tony Vargas]

Even in balanced 4E, fighters and barbarians liked to hit stuff.

Barbarians were primal characters in 4e, and fighters were defenders, DPR was secondary to well-supported defender functions. So, no, those are not examples supporting your stereotypes. In 4e, it was rogues & rangers who were the 'hit hard' strikers, and they also had the non-combat skills that previously were segregated to the poor-combat-ability thief. And, 4e also had the Warlord, a martial character who filled a much more interesting 'leader' role, and even had a build - further supported by popular demand - that didn't require him to attack, personally, at all.

Even 3.x, caster-dominated as it was, gave the fighter more options than just 'hit hard,' and was appreciated for it.

You're basing your stereotype on the truism that, when the game offers martial archetypes nothing but DPR, the people who settle for them will have to be satisfied with just that - not /want/ only that, but have no other choice.

Stereotypes are only offensive when they're disparaging and false.

And your stereotype is disparaging the intelligence, player skill, and role-playing ability of anyone who chooses to play a martial archetype. And, I stand as a counterexample that proves it categorically false. Nor am I alone - everyone whose ever enjoyed playing a 3.5 battlefield-control fighter build, or a 4e fighter or warlord, categorically proves your stereotype to be false.

 

[Jeff Albertson]

And, I stand as a counterexample that proves it categorically false.

No, let's not get hysterical, you're just once again praising 4th Ed and bashing non-4th Ed.

 

[Mouseferatu]

That's kinda redundant (and thus not quite as exciting as it could be), it heavily favors greatswords over greataxes (which is bad for orc barbarians), slightly favors crossbows over bows, boosts DPR in every situation as opposed to some (which is hardly an even change), and could potentially slow down combat as much as a player trying to figure out AC against a target (because they are re-rolling up to 1/2 of the time)

I don't think this is the solution that you are looking for.

Hmm. Fair. I haven't seen the GWF reroll slow things down too much, but that doesn't mean it can't.

I still think the solution may be to find a way to up the average damage, though, rather than the maximum. Or to up the max a little (flat +2?), and add some other benefit in addition.

I do not think, with respect to those who've suggested it, that a 5/10 feat for other styles is the way to go. I get wanting the different styles to be equal, but they shouldn't be identical. Dueling, finesse, all of that? Should offer a different sort of bonus than GWF.

Perhaps--again, top of my head, haven't analyzed it--a duelist-related feat, rather than providing a 1/round defensive bonus that takes your reaction, could instead apply a defensive bonus for an entire round against a target that you successfully hit and damage with a one-handed weapon?

 

[Staffan]

No they don't, no magic items and no spells a fighter still does more damage.

Fighter - Great Weapon Fighting style - great weapon master (feat)

That is 4 attacks doing 2d6+5+10 each (8d6+20+40) min 68, average 88, max 108.

Compared to 1 attack from a rogue using sharpshooter(feat) that is doing d8+5+10+10d6(sneak attack) min 26, average 55, max 83.

Rogues should generally not be using Sharpshooter, at least not at high levels. They do too much damage per hit for the -5/+10 to be worthwhile.

I mean, let's take a more reasonable level than 20, say 10. So the rogue has a 5d6 sneak attack and 1d8+5 base damage, and let's say he hits on 11+. Without Sharpshooter, he has a 45% chance of dealing 1d8+5+5d6 (average 27 per hit) and a 5% chance of dealing 2d8+5+10d6 (average 49 per crit), or 14.6 total average. With Sharpshooter, he hits on 16+ for an average of 37 on a hit or 59 on a crit, total average 10.35.

 

[Staffan]

Addendum: Ignoring crits, using -5/+10 is worth it when the number of possible rolls that hit is more than half the average damage per hit + 5.

So if you deal 13 points per hit, GWM is worth it if there are more than (13/2)+5 rolls of the d20 that hit, or 11.5. That means you need to hit on a 9+ or lower. If you need a 10+ to hit, it's not worth it.

[sblock=Warning! Math ahead!]
Let's say that P is the number of d20 rolls that would hit without using -5/+10, and D is the average damage per hit. That means that the average damage without -5/+10 is P * D / 20, and with is (P-5) * (D+10) / 20. Since both sides are divided by 20 we can ignore that part. We want the average damage with -5/+10 to be higher than without, so:

(P-5) (D+10) > P * D

P*D + 10P - 5D -50 > P*D

10P - 5D - 50 > 0

2P - D - 10 > 0

2P > D + 10

P > (D/2) +5
[/sblock]

I do not think including crits would change things - the chance to crit remains the same (5%), and -5/+10 damage is not multiplied on a crit (since it's not damage dice). It would change things somewhat in the edge case where you have an expanded crit range (e.g. Champion) and have a low enough chance to hit that the -5 would "waste" some of that crit range. But I'm fairly sure that in most of those cases, using -5/+10 would be a bad idea anyway.

 

[Leatherhead]

Perhaps--again, top of my head, haven't analyzed it--a duelist-related feat, rather than providing a 1/round defensive bonus that takes your reaction, could instead apply a defensive bonus for an entire round against a target that you successfully hit and damage with a one-handed weapon?

I think messing around with saving throw DCs is the way to go with this. It would benefit gishes and battlemasters, who are the kinds of people I would imagine to use just a single one-handed weapon.

 

[Mephista]

Hmm. Fair. I haven't seen the GWF reroll slow things down too much, but that doesn't mean it can't.

I still think the solution may be to find a way to up the average damage, though, rather than the maximum. Or to up the max a little (flat +2?), and add some other benefit in addition.

I do not think, with respect to those who've suggested it, that a 5/10 feat for other styles is the way to go. I get wanting the different styles to be equal, but they shouldn't be identical. Dueling, finesse, all of that? Should offer a different sort of bonus than GWF.

Perhaps--again, top of my head, haven't analyzed it--a duelist-related feat, rather than providing a 1/round defensive bonus that takes your reaction, could instead apply a defensive bonus for an entire round against a target that you successfully hit and damage with a one-handed weapon?

Well, if we're going to analyze things and make them "more balanced" then we should take a longer look at them.

We have three to six basic melee styles we're looking at, plus 2 ranged, and one hybrid. There's also two weapon-mage styles, but that's an unnecessary tangent.

Great Weapon (/Polearm)
Two Weapon Fighting
(STR/DEX) sword/board +(whip?)

Longbow and Shortbow
Rapid shooting Crossbows

Sword and ranged weapon combo


Whip and the Sword/Ranged don't have any Weapon Mastery feat support (or are maneuver), so lets set those aside for now. Most of the mega weapon style feats in 5e are actually old 3e style feat chains. Great Weapon Mastery is a combination of Power Attack and a few other things. Shield Mastery includes shield bash, shield evasion, etc. Duelist is kind of like the Combat Expertise feat. Dual Wielding combines Two Weapon Defense, Quick Draw, and that one feat that let you dual wield larger weapons.

Now, keeping in mind that a lot of these old feats ended up as battle maneuvers (trip, disarm, feint, etc) or just part of the system, we can look at other feats and try to boost up the power of these weaker "weapon style" mega feats.

To boost TWF, we can see about adding in more offhand attacks (as the TWF chain of 3e did) - part of the whole duel wielding is the large amount of off hand attacks in a flurry of blows. Maybe at a penalty. Boost that defense bonus up to +2; it should be equal to a heavy shield (again, like the 3e TWF chain).

That's how I would do it. Look back at 3/4e, find feat chains, and mimic the styles that way. Tweak numbers until balanced with GWF and Sharpshooter.

 

[Celtavian]

Rogues should generally not be using Sharpshooter, at least not at high levels. They do too much damage per hit for the -5/+10 to be worthwhile.

I mean, let's take a more reasonable level than 20, say 10. So the rogue has a 5d6 sneak attack and 1d8+5 base damage, and let's say he hits on 11+. Without Sharpshooter, he has a 45% chance of dealing 1d8+5+5d6 (average 27 per hit) and a 5% chance of dealing 2d8+5+10d6 (average 49 per crit), or 14.6 total average. With Sharpshooter, he hits on 16+ for an average of 37 on a hit or 59 on a crit, total average 10.35.

Depends on the rogue. If you're an arcane trickster that can provide himself with advantage all the time, then using Sharpshooter is a decent option. It also depends on the opponent's AC. If the opponent's AC is low enough that the difference in hitting and missing is low, you can use Sharpshooter. If you're using Crossbow Mastery to obtain two attacks per round with your bonus action, it also might be more attractive to use Sharpshooter.

I do agree in general absent other factors that make Sharpshooter more attractive to use, you should not use it as a rogue. The rogue loses more damage on a miss than any other class in the game due to the way Sneak Attack works.