D&D 5E Current take on GWM/SS

[DaveDash]

Are players who are taking these feats aware that they are taking spotlight away from other players? If so, why do they continue to choose these feats, or having taken them, choose not to use them to act in service of making other characters shine from time to time?

Is this a case where we must change the rules to save players from themselves? Or might we expect they'll voluntarily make choices that don't overshadow others to the detriment of the game experience?

The feats just don't fit in 5e.

The monsters aren't designed to handle them, and other classes aren't designed to compete with them.

They're a mistake to be there.

It's not about players wanting to overshadow other players, it's about those of us who came from 4e/3e where you needed to take such feats to be effective, then finding around level 10+ the game really isn't designed with these combinations in mind. That's a good 8 months of investment of time potentially ruined.

 

[Minigiant]

I haven't a problem. At my table. The general assumption is that the greatswordsman and archer are top single damage as that's all they got: damage. The shield user and pikeman is having fun with their defensive prowess. At one table, the greatswordsman and archer are berated by the casters and rogue for not dealing enough damage when they roll low.

 

[iserith]

The feats just don't fit in 5e.

The monsters aren't designed to handle them, and other classes aren't designed to compete with them.

They're a mistake to be there.

I disagree. I think they fit fine. The DM can always add more monsters or go above average hit points, if he or she feels the need to. He or she can also design encounters where extra damage may modify the difficulty of the encounter, but not remove the challenge. Also, characters are not in competition with each other.

It's not about players wanting to overshadow other players, it's about those of us who came from 4e/3e where you needed to take such feats to be effective, then finding around level 10+ the game really isn't designed with these combinations in mind. That's a good 8 months of investment of time potentially ruined.

Are you playing D&D 5e with D&D 3e/4e assumptions and finding it's not working out as you expect? I played those games as well. I just don't play D&D 5e like I'd play those games. As a result, these feats don't seem to be an issue at all.

 

[pming]

Hiya.

"Other".

I have two suggestions:

Suggestion #1
Change the -5/+10 to just a flat "+1/+2". So you'd get +1 to hit and +2 damage. Hit a bit more offten, do a bit more damage overall. Nothing the system can't handle. The -5/+10 is a problem because in order to balance your -5 down, you want maxed out strength; with that maxed out strength, you're doing +15 damage, with nor appreciable lowering of your to hit chance. So, basically, there isn't a drawback to using it.

Suggestion #2
Change the -5/+1- to "You are treated as if you had a 20 Strength with a Single two-handed weapon of your choice" (or "...20 Dexterity...single missile weapon of your choice" for SS). This nixes the whole "just pile on bonuses" problem. Now you can have a fighter who wants to do a lot of damage (re: pretty much all of them), who doesn't have to sacrifice Dex. With Sharpshooter, same thing in reverse.

My biggest gripes with Feats, in any game, is that all they do is "add stuff" to the character. They never have any drawbacks. Everything else in the game is about compromises. If I take bow over crossbow, I can't use one hand to hold a torch while walking, but I do get better range. I can wear lighter armor and save on weight so I can carry more treasure and be a bit more mobile, or wear heavy armor, but be able to carry less treasure and be less nimble. I can choose the Fireball spell to do damage to a larger group of people, or I can choose Vampiric Touch for less damage, but can heal myself.

When feats were designed, they dropped the ball on "balancing" them. Because the system wasn't designed with them in mind (re: why they are Optional), they should have been "self balancing". They aren't. That's the problem.

Personally, I'd go with Suggestion #1 first.

^_^

Paul L. Ming

 

[Psikerlord#]

Hiya.

"Other".

I have two suggestions:

Suggestion #1
Change the -5/+10 to just a flat "+1/+2". So you'd get +1 to hit and +2 damage. Hit a bit more offten, do a bit more damage overall. Nothing the system can't handle. The -5/+10 is a problem because in order to balance your -5 down, you want maxed out strength; with that maxed out strength, you're doing +15 damage, with nor appreciable lowering of your to hit chance. So, basically, there isn't a drawback to using it.

Suggestion #2
Change the -5/+1- to "You are treated as if you had a 20 Strength with a Single two-handed weapon of your choice" (or "...20 Dexterity...single missile weapon of your choice" for SS). This nixes the whole "just pile on bonuses" problem. Now you can have a fighter who wants to do a lot of damage (re: pretty much all of them), who doesn't have to sacrifice Dex. With Sharpshooter, same thing in reverse.

My biggest gripes with Feats, in any game, is that all they do is "add stuff" to the character. They never have any drawbacks. Everything else in the game is about compromises. If I take bow over crossbow, I can't use one hand to hold a torch while walking, but I do get better range. I can wear lighter armor and save on weight so I can carry more treasure and be a bit more mobile, or wear heavy armor, but be able to carry less treasure and be less nimble. I can choose the Fireball spell to do damage to a larger group of people, or I can choose Vampiric Touch for less damage, but can heal myself.

When feats were designed, they dropped the ball on "balancing" them. Because the system wasn't designed with them in mind (re: why they are Optional), they should have been "self balancing". They aren't. That's the problem.

Personally, I'd go with Suggestion #1 first.

^_^

Paul L. Ming

I like both of these too.

 

[Psikerlord#]

Another option is making the -5/+10 a "called shot" mechanic anyone can try. This maintains intraparty balance, but will mean the whole party is doing obscene damage. Which will probably lead to the DM adding more monsters. I still think it's simplest and best to just remove the mechanic altogether.

 

[Henry]

I like both of these too.

On the second option, you've pretty much destroyed the reason for the feat to exist past about level 8, ensuring that the only players taking it are those in a game they know won't run past level 8 or so.

I will be curious to see how this plays in my pretty much by the book 5e game I'm running now after people start taking these feats.

 

[Minigiant]

My biggest gripes with Feats, in any game, is that all they do is "add stuff" to the character. They never have any drawbacks. Everything else in the game is about compromises. If I take bow over crossbow, I can't use one hand to hold a torch while walking, but I do get better range. I can wear lighter armor and save on weight so I can carry more treasure and be a bit more mobile, or wear heavy armor, but be able to carry less treasure and be less nimble. I can choose the Fireball spell to do damage to a larger group of people, or I can choose Vampiric Touch for less damage, but can heal myself.

When feats were designed, they dropped the ball on "balancing" them. Because the system wasn't designed with them in mind (re: why they are Optional), they should have been "self balancing". They aren't. That's the problem.

But feats were balanced against ability score improvements.

For your greatweapon users, it's +2 Strength (+1 melee/thrown attack rolls, +1 melee/thrown damage, and +1 Strength ability checks and saving throws) or great weapon master feat (cleave plus optional -5 attack roll/+10 damage roll). It's always going to be additive as it is an additive bonus. Whatever you take at ASI/Feat level will make you stronger. They aren't like spells and equipment.

EDIT: My main gripe is there aren't enough of them.

Where's Exotic Weapon Master that gives -5/+10 to tridents, whips, war picks, morningstars, and flails?
Where the option to take bloodlines instead of feats and ability increases?

 

[Bohemond D'Arlac]

The quickest answer I can come up with is never use solo monsters, and if you really want to, advance them with a few class levels so that they can actually stand a chance against the PCs. Use terrain to your monster's benefit, especially if the PCs bring the fight to its lair. Whatever you field, make sure it fights to win. If it's a group of creature, they MUST focus fire to efficiently remove the most threatening opponent just as the PCs would. Those suckers must EARN the loot they came to steal!

 

[Psikerlord#]

The quickest answer I can come up with is never use solo monsters, and if you really want to, advance them with a few class levels so that they can actually stand a chance against the PCs. Use terrain to your monster's benefit, especially if the PCs bring the fight to its lair. Whatever you field, make sure it fights to win. If it's a group of creature, they MUST focus fire to efficiently remove the most threatening opponent just as the PCs would. Those suckers must EARN the loot they came to steal!

I have found legendary monsters are fine as solos with one tweak - Legendary Resistance can grant a save when normally there is no save (and then can spend a second point to auto save, if necessary). The first time I unleashed a Legendary Creature on the party - and it got an action in between each PC action (3 PCs) - they were like "what the hell!?". It was priceless, and a very fun, very dangerous encounter.