D&D 5E Current take on GWM/SS

[Hussar]

I've heard you trumpet on about the resource argument before. Not every fight is deadly. There is a mix of easy and hard fights. For the easy fights, you don't really need to have bless up and the SS guy still has the best attack bonus in the game (and ignores cover) so can plink off low AC enemies usually on a roll of 2-3 or better. No bless required, still massive damage.

Read more: http://www.enworld.org/forum/showthread.php?458799-Current-take-on-GWM-SS/page16#ixzz3dH2522wO

If your fighter is hitting on a 2-3 even after the -5 from GWF/SS without buffs, then something is seriously, seriously wrong. That would mean that your attack bonus would have to be 5 higher than the AC of the opponent. Even at AC 12, that means you'd need a +15 to hit without buffs. Possible, but, how many AC 12 opponents are you fighting when you've got a +15 base bonus? Heck, +5 from stat, +2 from Style, +5 from Proficiency, +2 from magic weapon is still only +14. Magic ammo I suppose, but, that's not an unlimited resource.

And, so what if he kills three opponents in a round? If you're using such low level fodder at 15th level, there should be a bloody mountain of them. Even in a standard encounter. Meh, like I said, this is all about play style. The DM designs encounters where the SS has lots of room to manoeuvre and clear sight lines. Sheesh, use some light or lack thereof once in a while. Add a tree to three to the encounter. Fog or other vision limited effect. Water the plants and let it rain. There's a million and one ways to make this more interesting, even to groups that laser focus on aiding the fighters.

I mean, heck, you mention you bless your own cleric. Does he never fail a concentration check? It's not like Clerics are proficient in Con saves, so, he's getting what, +4 (2 for Con, 2.5 for Bless) on Concentration saves. Hit him three times and Bless should go away. Never minding that simply killing the cleric makes Bless go away too. Why isn't the Cleric target number one? He's in the front lines and he's the reason that the fighter is the engine of destruction. Bless, when facing large mobs of weaker monsters such as in our example, should last maybe one round.

Like I said, the plural of anecdote is not data. Your data only applies to your table. It's not universal. It might be similar to other tables who share your DMing and play style. But, that does not mean that the problem is systemic. It means that there are other people who play like you do, and face a similar problem. But, please stop dismissing those of us who don't play the way you do and are not having this problem.

As I see it, you have two choices - either amend your play style such that the feat isn't an issue, or change the feat. But, again, remember, this is your issue. You can certainly offer advice to those who play in a similar fashion to you, but, always remember that that's what's going on. Trying to make this universal isn't going to work because there is a fairly significant portion of the base that simply does not have the issues that you have. Look at the numbers the poll. The largest segment, by almost 2:1 to any other choice, is that there is no systemic problem with these feats.

 

[DaveDash]

Okay, thank you for providing the information you could. Unfortunately, this just highlights the problem with "using real data" as you like to say.

First, since this is a "real" encounter with "Real Data".... how do they have an attack bonus of 14.5? Shouldn't it be 14? or 15?

Second, what you are telling me does not match the data you provided.

The Longbowman had 3 crits, on a 32. Which means an attack bonus of 12, not 14.5

Bless.

The Crossbowman had 1 crit on a 32. Which means an attack bonus of 17 (to give a +12 bonus after SS)
The Crossbowman also rolled a 32 which did not crit.... no idea what that means...

Not sure what you're talking about here at all. A crit is always a hit, no matter what your attack bonus is. If something wasn't bolded it was probably because I missed it.

If the crossbowman had an attack bonus of 9.5 as you say... how was he rolling those 30,31,32 results?
If their bonus was 14.5, how did no one get anything beyond a 32?

We minus the 5 off each of his attacks manually, and we assume he is doing SS -5/+10 unless stated otherwise, because it's so good. Bless is rolled separately.

How do we know that they were targetting equivalent AC creatures? Was the SS player 'cherry picking' the low AC creatures?

This is only relevant in a white room. In a real game scenario, smart players don't shoot equivalent AC creatures for testing purposes. They take the most optimal path to doing the most damage.

I like Data, I really do. It helps discover issues that may not have been evident otherwise. But to be useful, data needs to be accurate and the details must be known. What you have presented does not match what you are telling us. Based on the numbers, it looks like the SS player had a much higher attack bonus.
Second, you are looking at someone with two synergizing feats (SS and CE) and somehow determining that only one of them is the "problem".

It does match. You're just not reading it correctly on purpose because you're looking for holes to pick in it.

 

[Minigiant]

I don't buy this. Healing, for one, is almost nonexistent at most tables in most combats. Bards, Druids, and Clerics can cast either Cure Wounds or Healing Word; Paladins and Rangers can cast Cure Wounds; and Fighters can do damage mitigation (Second Wind, Feint);, and everyone can use dice to heal out of combat. Bards, Druids, and Rangers can cover the skills guy portion in many cases as well.

A dedicated archer, especially a Ranger, is very welcome in most groups as one of the core four. He can heal, skill, stealth, and kill at range before bad guys necessarily get in close. Buffed up with Sharpshooter, he's a beast (and even not buffed, the +2 to hit negates a fair portion of the -5 to hit). I don't know of many groups that would say "Don't bring him in, bring in a Rogue instead".

Not in combat healing. Out of combat healing.

If you follow the design guidelines of 5-7 encounters, you'll want a full time healer or 2 part time healers per 4 PCs. You can do it without a real healer but one bad encounter can screw you over big time and if unprepared it can snowball.

Paladins and Rangers were designed to use their spells for offense. Their healing is good for emergencies and some refills but dedication drains them fast. My Ranger goes to crap when he has to do more than patch ups with spells.

 

[DaveDash]

If your fighter is hitting on a 2-3 even after the -5 from GWF/SS without buffs, then something is seriously, seriously wrong. That would mean that your attack bonus would have to be 5 higher than the AC of the opponent. Even at AC 12, that means you'd need a +15 to hit without buffs. Possible, but, how many AC 12 opponents are you fighting when you've got a +15 base bonus? Heck, +5 from stat, +2 from Style, +5 from Proficiency, +2 from magic weapon is still only +14. Magic ammo I suppose, but, that's not an unlimited resource.

Nothing is wrong. No magic items were used in these games, but in most games they are used, so it gets even worse.

You fight plenty of opponents with low ACs, 5e is designed with this in mind. Run an encounter with more than three opponents in it and you start having to use ~CR5 creatures even at the higher levels.

And, so what if he kills three opponents in a round? If you're using such low level fodder at 15th level, there should be a bloody mountain of them. Even in a standard encounter. Meh, like I said, this is all about play style. The DM designs encounters where the SS has lots of room to manoeuvre and clear sight lines. Sheesh, use some light or lack thereof once in a while. Add a tree to three to the encounter. Fog or other vision limited effect. Water the plants and let it rain. There's a million and one ways to make this more interesting, even to groups that laser focus on aiding the fighters.

I highly encourage you to actually go work it out. Design an encounter for a level 16 party using 4-8 creatures. Tell me what CR creatures you end up coming back with.

Most DM's like myself will run a mix of encounters that use easy, hard, and deadly, and use a mix of numbers in those encounters from 1 all the way up to dozens.
Unless you're running 1 creature in every encounter that's of a high CR all the time, the SS fighter is going to be able to rip into them with ease - something ignored by the white room maths.

I mean, heck, you mention you bless your own cleric. Does he never fail a concentration check? It's not like Clerics are proficient in Con saves, so, he's getting what, +4 (2 for Con, 2.5 for Bless) on Concentration saves. Hit him three times and Bless should go away. Never minding that simply killing the cleric makes Bless go away too. Why isn't the Cleric target number one? He's in the front lines and he's the reason that the fighter is the engine of destruction. Bless, when facing large mobs of weaker monsters such as in our example, should last maybe one round.

The Cleric in these examples was a Hill Dwarf with resilient (CON) with a +10 bonus to his constitution saving throw. Then Bless on top of that, so effectively +12.5. For him to even start losing concentration he needs to take more than ~26 damage in one hit. He also has an AC of 20.

Like I said, the plural of anecdote is not data. Your data only applies to your table. It's not universal. It might be similar to other tables who share your DMing and play style. But, that does not mean that the problem is systemic. It means that there are other people who play like you do, and face a similar problem. But, please stop dismissing those of us who don't play the way you do and are not having this problem.

Like I said, I'm perfectly willing to accept that those people who do not play with group optimisation in mind won't find these feats broken. But that is self evident. By the same token, those that don't play with group optimisation in mind also probably wouldn't care if these feats are removed.

As I see it, you have two choices - either amend your play style such that the feat isn't an issue, or change the feat. But, again, remember, this is your issue. You can certainly offer advice to those who play in a similar fashion to you, but, always remember that that's what's going on. Trying to make this universal isn't going to work because there is a fairly significant portion of the base that simply does not have the issues that you have. Look at the numbers the poll. The largest segment, by almost 2:1 to any other choice, is that there is no systemic problem with these feats.

Myself and many others have chosen to amend the feats. See my first post in this thread.

 

[Hussar]

/snip

I may cast banish if it's fighting something that can be banished easily but that entire argument is moot because that one spell probably wins the encounter anyway.

/snip

Swimming upthread because I forgot about this one. How is it moot? Isn't it better to cast one spell that wins the encounter? Given the choice between buffing myself and the fighter or ending the fight entirely, wouldn't it be a better option to just end the fight?

See, again, this is why I keep harping on the idea of play style. For you, it's not even worth considering a concentration spell that ends the encounter. It's all about the buffing. Fair enough, if that's what you want to do. To me, there are just so many other choices.

And, again, you are presuming a group with a cleric. Or a paladin I suppose. In a group with a Druid, for example, instead of a cleric, Bless goes away, as do a lot of buffs. EK fighters might buff themselves, but, again, very limited casting ability. The Battlemaster might be giving himself advantage, but, he's going to burn through those dice in a heck of a hurry and certainly can't keep it up throughout 7 encounters. Once you lose a dedicated buffing character, a lot of the issues with GWF/SS go away.

Not every group has a dedicated buffing character.

 

[DaveDash]

Swimming upthread because I forgot about this one. How is it moot? Isn't it better to cast one spell that wins the encounter? Given the choice between buffing myself and the fighter or ending the fight entirely, wouldn't it be a better option to just end the fight?

See, again, this is why I keep harping on the idea of play style. For you, it's not even worth considering a concentration spell that ends the encounter. It's all about the buffing. Fair enough, if that's what you want to do. To me, there are just so many other choices.

And, again, you are presuming a group with a cleric. Or a paladin I suppose. In a group with a Druid, for example, instead of a cleric, Bless goes away, as do a lot of buffs. EK fighters might buff themselves, but, again, very limited casting ability. The Battlemaster might be giving himself advantage, but, he's going to burn through those dice in a heck of a hurry and certainly can't keep it up throughout 7 encounters. Once you lose a dedicated buffing character, a lot of the issues with GWF/SS go away.

Not every group has a dedicated buffing character.

What the hell are you talking about man? Seriously?

Of course I'd consider a spell that ends the encounter early. Heck one of the most powerful combinations I've discovered in game is Hold Person + Paladin with GMW + smite (for the bonus attack). I've had ~CR18 NPC's drop like flies to this combination.

Banishment however is totally moot to a conversation about DPR and the effects of SS vs non SS characters.

I'm assuming Bless yes, but there's a crapton of things I am not assuming, such as advantage. Druids can cast faery fire and Dex saves are the weakest monster saves in the game. Battlemasters can trip. etc. This is why white rooms maths is useless and real game examples > white room maths.

Also I'm willing to accept that SS are only really a problem with Fighters and not other classes, and that bless is a big enabler of these issues.

 

[kerbarian]

People on both sides seem to be asking for "real numbers", so here's one more stab at it. This is the damage per Attack action by an archer fighter, with various combinations of feats and bonuses vs. various target ACs. This does not give the fighter any benefit from magic weapons or subclass abilities (both of which tend to make CE+SS even stronger). This also ignores any accuracy benefit from Sharpshooter (SS) allowing the fighter to ignore cover or range penalties or Crossbow Expert (CE) ignoring disadvantage in melee. So overall I think this is biased somewhat against CE+SS compared to actual play.

For the target ACs, I chose the DMG-recommended AC for a monster with a CR of character level - 2, as well as -4 AC and +4 AC from there.

The fighter is a variant human starting with 16 Dex and the Archery fighting style. The versions with Crossbow Expert use a hand crossbow; those without use a longbow. The "no feats" version chooses a non-combat feat and then uses all ASIs to increase Dex until it's capped at 20. The single-feat versions start with that feat and then use ASIs to increase Dex. The CE+SS version has both feats by level 4 and then uses ASIs to increase Dex. Versions with SS are always using the -5/+10.

The math includes all relevant factors and probabilities, including crits. Damage is rounded to the nearest 0.1.

              No feats  CE only  SS only  CE+SS  CE+SS+Bless  CE+SS+Bless+Adv  No feats+Bless+Adv
Lv 4, AC 9       8.3      14.6     14.1    23.5     27.6           32.6               8.9
Lv 4, AC13       7.0      12.3     10.4    16.9     21.0           28.9               8.9
Lv 4, AC17       5.3       9.3      6.7    10.3     14.4           22.7               8.3
Lv 6, AC10      18.5      24.8     31.7    39.9     46.5           52.5              19.8
Lv 6, AC14      16.6      22.2     23.9    29.4     36.0           47.8              19.8
Lv 6, AC18      12.8      17.1     16.1    18.9     25.5           38.9              18.9
Lv11, AC12      27.8      33.0     44.6    56.2     65.5           74.0              29.7
Lv11, AC16      23.5      27.9     32.9    41.4     50.7           67.3              29.5
Lv11, AC20      17.8      21.1     21.2    26.6     35.9           54.7              27.6

Even against the high-AC targets with no attack bonuses (Bless or Advantage), using the -5/+10 from Sharpshooter is always an advantage. In extreme cases adding CE+SS gives almost 4x (366%) the damage as not having the feats (32.6 vs. 8.9 damage for an AC9 target at Lv4 with Bless and Advantage).

For targets of typical AC, it looks like CE+SS gives a bit more than double damage compared to a baseline longbow archer if you assume that parties tend to generate more situational advantages for themselves as they increase in level.

For example:
At level 4 vs. an AC 13 target, CE+SS averages 16.9 damage vs. 7.0 damage without feats.
At level 6 with Bless vs. an AC 14 target, CE+SS averages 36.0 damage vs. 18.3 damage without feats.
At level 11 with Bless and Advantage vs. an AC 16 target, CE+SS averages 67.3 damage vs. 29.5 damage without feats.

It's true that Crossbow Expert also contributes significantly to damage, but SS is the larger component at higher levels and/or when you stack more attack bonuses.

 

[Hussar]

The Cleric in these examples was a Hill Dwarf with resilient (CON) with a +10 bonus to his constitution saving throw. Then Bless on top of that, so effectively +12.5. For him to even start losing concentration he needs to take more than ~26 damage in one hit.

Read more: http://www.enworld.org/forum/showthread.php?458799-Current-take-on-GWM-SS/page17#ixzz3dHCG9uIM

Hang on, your Hill Dwarf cleric has a 20 Con? Are these die rolled characters? Because I'm presuming 20 Wisdom (which means 2 ASI's on Wis (base 15+1 for Hill Dwarf, then 2 ASI's), 1 Feat for Resilience. How does he have a +10 Con save? If he's a standard array character, he should have a 16 Con at best (14+1 for hill dwarf, +1 for Resilient Feat), which gives him a +8 on his save. Where are the other 2 points coming from?

And what are the actual stats of this character?

 

[Coredump]

In the above example we were fighting an adult green dragon with 207 hit points.

Ah, so his AC should have been 19, which means GWM would have been even less effective.

The GWF did 115 points in the first round action surging with GWF. He took half its hit points in one turn.

I believe you. I really do. But here is the deal... he got lucky. He needed a 13 to hit, and rolled it 5 out 6 times. Even with precision attack, he should have hit 3, maybe 4, times.

So yes, if you get really lucky, you can do a lot of damage. But the next round, without Action Surge and without being really lucky... you are talking less than 30 more hp. Heck if he got as unlucky in round 2 as he got lucky in round 1.... maybe no HP. Luck is a factor in this game.

 

[DaveDash]

Hang on, your Hill Dwarf cleric has a 20 Con? Are these die rolled characters? Because I'm presuming 20 Wisdom (which means 2 ASI's on Wis (base 15+1 for Hill Dwarf, then 2 ASI's), 1 Feat for Resilience. How does he have a +10 Con save? If he's a standard array character, he should have a 16 Con at best (14+1 for hill dwarf, +1 for Resilient Feat), which gives him a +8 on his save. Where are the other 2 points coming from?

And what are the actual stats of this character?

He doesn't have 20 wisdom no. He does have 20 CON yes because maintaining concentration as a front line cleric is vitally important. Take a look through the Cleric subclass list and find me a couple of subclasses that are melee front line Clerics that don't require 20 wis.

I'm not posting these things for people here to pick apart like this - go do your homework.