D&D 5E Current take on GWM/SS

[iserith]

I've watched quite a few games on youtube from different groups. There seems to be two camps.

Those influenced by CRPG gaming tend to group optimize, strategize in combat, and treat each combat like an individual little tactical war game. There's a couple of groups out there I've seen who play D&D this way - unfortunately though one group has given up on 5e and has gone back to streaming pathfinder which is a chore to watch.
I've ran into about 8-10 Kobolds with my Cleric and didn't get hit once. Why - dodge action + high AC. I drew fire while everyone else picked them off from range. That's MMO thinking - I don't care about doing damage or being the 'star', I want our group to win. In MMO's you need to play like this or you simply cannot proceed through to the next boss and get your rewards. It conditions you to think differently.
When we pick characters and builds, we think of "Role that will help the party win" first, "concept" second.

Lots of other groups that I've seen don't really do this kind of thing. They don't focus fire. They don't use the dodge action. They don't utilize cover and pop out and attack. They do what their characters would do, which often leads to some pretty poor tactical decisions. But hey, they seem to be having fun. The EK in your example earlier probably would have lived if he used dodge and his hand crossbow bonus action to attack.

Here's something I think is worth considering:

In a well-designed encounter (or scene of conflict if you will), there should be challenge and difficulty. Many times these concepts are conflated, but they are different. Challenge is when there is a conflict that can go either way - the PCs can win or lose (whatever winning or losing means in context) based on what they choose to do. Difficulty is how hard it is to achieve success. The choices of the PCs in a well-designed challenge can either increase or decrease the difficulty. Naturally, players will want to make solid choices that decrease the difficulty to increase their chances of success and - in a D&D context - will generally cost them the least amount of resources.

However, there is a problem with this: Reducing the difficulty too much can also make the challenge less satisfying, especially if the choices involved in reducing the difficulty are essentially the same from encounter to encounter. So we have these groups of optimizers (a term I don't use pejoratively) that are essentially using the same tactics over and over. They've got particular feats because they feel those are "must-have" choices. The cleric is a bless machine. And so on. The same operating procedure is trotted out every time initiative is rolled. The challenge is subsequently reduced in difficulty and is, as a result, less satisfying.

Because these scenes are less satisfying, the goals of play - having a good time together and creating an exciting, memorable story by playing - are harder to achieve. As a result, the group searches for a solution and settles on getting rid of or changing the feats. That's fine, as far as that goes. Really though, the problem is the players choosing particular procedures for reducing the difficulty to an unsatisfying level. This is like always playing a computer or console game on Easy Mode. Can it be fun? Sure, for a time. But since we know that some measure of difficulty is necessary for a satisfying game experience, it's important to keep this in mind and to temper one's choices so as to more easily achieve the goals of play.

 

[KarinsDad]

However, there is a problem with this: Reducing the difficulty too much can also make the challenge less satisfying, especially if the choices involved in reducing the difficulty are essentially the same from encounter to encounter. So we have these groups of optimizers (a term I don't use pejoratively) that are essentially using the same tactics over and over. They've got particular feats because they feel those are "must-have" choices. The cleric is a bless machine. And so on. The same operating procedure is trotted out every time initiative is rolled. The challenge is subsequently reduced in difficulty and is, as a result, less satisfying.

This is not true for all groups or all players. Some players are content to use the same tactics over and over again and are totally satisfied with that.

To me, the GWM issue has nothing to do with using the same tactics over and over again. The reason players do it and DMs of higher level campaigns find it problematic is because GWM is TOO potent. It's 10 extra points of damage multiple times per round, the equivalent of the extra damage done by a Rogue 6 levels higher once per round, a Rogue 12 levels higher twice per round, or in the more typical high level or more obnoxious case, a Rogue 24 levels higher when done with Hold Person (autocrit, 4 times per round for a 11 to 19 level fighter, level 20 doesn't matter since player rarely play at that level).

This is why I picked "Rewrite the feat: you can do -5/+10, but once per turn only" in the poll above. It allow GWM to be nice, but it doesn't allow it to be spammed multiple times per round. Once the option to spam an overpowered ability goes away, the desire to use that one and only tactic every time also diminishes.

The issue is one of abilities being too effective and this encouraging players to become "groups of optimizers" as you put it. That is when players re-use the same tactic (or play on Easy mode as you stated). For similar powered tactics and abilities with minor pros and cons for each choice, many players mix it up a lot more and this concept of "groups of optimizers/easy mode" fades away a bit.


In our party, if our Paladin or Cleric cast Bless in a first level slot, it's a choice. The Fighter has GWM (once per turn version), the Druid often has multiple attacks per round with wild shape, the Rogue does solid damage, the Cleric does only 1 or 2 less damage as the Rogue (due to a magic item) but Bless helps on Concentration CONS saves, and the Paladin can nova. When casting a first level Bless, it becomes a decision as to which 3 of these 5 PCs will gain the most in this particular combat (the other 2 PCs in our group would typically not gain as much from Bless, so they would rarely be considered). If we used the standard GWM, then Blessing the Fighter would be an even stronger incentive for that PC over other PCs. It no longer becomes a choice, but more of a "must do" in many player's minds.

The imbalance of GWM is what is creating the issue IMO. Balance out the few 5E outliers, most of these types of problems go away.

 

[Celtavian]

What is the comparison missing? It is the most detailed mathematical analysis anyone has posted. It includes values over a number of levels, a range of ACs, expected magic items, and the like. You keep saying the math doesn't show GWM is an advantage, and here it clearly does.

Sure, it doesn't include all the AC numbers, but it includes enough that you can see a trend. It also doesn't include accuracy bonuses from things like bless of faerie fire, but those provide a larger boost to GWM and SS than to someone without those feats. The AC range given uses a high end AC for your characters level, and the net result is that it is almost always worthwhile to take the -5 to hit for +10 damage. For any party with easy access to advantage or bless, using those feats becomes a no brainer.

Finally, if the -5/+10 portion of GWM and SS was changed or replaced, Polearm Master, Crossbow Expert, and the like would be perfectly fine and balanced as feats. It is only in combination with GWM and SS that those feats become unbalanced. Shield master is also fine as is as it is not directly increasing combat potency, but doing so indirectly, and more interestingly than flat out increasing damage.

I appreciate the analysis, Ash. I think someone on each thread has done the same. It always supported your conclusions. My math is lazy. I tossed it together focusing on the power of individual hits to show the ratio of increased damage per hit and tried to explain that the GWF can turn it off in bad circumstances and turn it back on in ideal circumstances keeping pace with others in bad circumstances and far exceeding those without in good circumstances. I think your math is fine. Coredump doesn't like the conclusion, so it is in his best interests to find fault.

 

[iserith]

This is not true for all groups or all players. Some players are content to use the same tactics over and over again and are totally satisfied with that.

Clearly (very clearly), I'm referring to groups that are not achieving the goals of play and as a result are changing or removing these feats from the game. The issue isn't the feat. It's the level to which the players are reducing the difficulty such that the game is no longer as satisfying. This is a choice they are making. They are not compelled to do this outside of a self-imposed mindset that the most optimal choice must always be made, regardless of its impact on the game experience.

Change or remove the feat and such players, if they don't change their mindsets, may just find some other way to reduce the difficulty to the point of the game no longer being satisfying.

 

[KarinsDad]

Clearly (very clearly), I'm referring to groups that are not achieving the goals of play and as a result are changing or removing these feats from the game. The issue isn't the feat. It's the level to which the players are reducing the difficulty such that the game is no longer as satisfying. This is a choice they are making. They are not compelled to do this outside of a self-imposed mindset that the most optimal choice must always be made, regardless of its impact on the game experience.

Change or remove the feat and such players, if they don't change their mindsets, may just find some other way to reduce the difficulty to the point of the game no longer being satisfying.

I think that almost every single player does this though. There is nothing special about "optimizing players". It's nearly all players.

It is the rare player that plays a Fighter, using a dagger. Why? Because daggers are very subotimal. So nearly every player of a melee PC tends to pick their own weapon of choice (usually one of the best in category) and constantly use it. They vary little, at least IME. In our game, some of the players are carrying additional bludgeoning weapons because they are convinced that skeletons have slashing resistance. Other than that, they use the same weapon until a better one comes along.

This is not too dissimilar to a MMO, but it does indicate that players will use the same tactics: swing weapon. Swing this specific weapon.

The feat is no different. Use best feat. Use best feat again.

If there were a D20 melee weapon in the game system, players would use that instead of a Greatsword.

So yes, the real issue is the feat, not the players. Nearly all players do this. Making the feat a must have feat because it is too powerful is no different than creating a new D20 weapon. Almost everyone would take it, not just the optimizing PCs.


Granted, there is always a once in a blue moon player here or there that is a bit of a "counter optimizer". He goes out of his way to use the weakest weapon in the game, or to open a door in the middle of a combat so that the party can fight two fights at once, or whatever. His might do this to be contrary, or he might do it to "roleplay his PC in a specific way". But for such a player, the mega-feat doesn't matter anyway.

 

[Celtavian]

Karinsdad points out another aspect of the feats I really dislike. It makes the rogue's Sneak Attack appear less effective.

 

[iserith]

I think that almost every single player does this though. There is nothing special about "optimizing players". It's nearly all players.

It is the rare player that plays a Fighter, using a dagger. Why? Because daggers are very subotimal. So nearly every player of a melee PC tends to pick their own weapon of choice (usually one of the best in category) and constantly use it. They vary little, at least IME. In our game, some of the players are carrying additional bludgeoning weapons because they are convinced that skeletons have slashing resistance. Other than that, they use the same weapon until a better one comes along.

This is not too dissimilar to a MMO, but it does indicate that players will use the same tactics: swing weapon. Swing this specific weapon.

The feat is no different. Use best feat. Use best feat again.

If there were a D20 melee weapon in the game system, players would use that instead of a Greatsword.

So yes, the real issue is the feat, not the players. Nearly all players do this. Making the feat a must have feat because it is too powerful is no different than creating a new D20 weapon. Almost everyone would take it, not just the optimizing PCs.

Granted, there is always a once in a blue moon player here or there that is a bit of a "counter optimizer". He goes out of his way to use the weakest weapon in the game, or to open a door in the middle of a combat so that the party can fight two fights at once, or whatever. His might do this to be contrary, or he might do it to "roleplay his PC in a specific way". But for such a player, the mega-feat doesn't matter anyway.

The issue is the players. There is a balance to be struck between optimization and achieving the goals of play. If a certain set of choices causes the game to be less satisfying for a given group, then it's very simple to just not make those choices or to make those choices sometimes and not other times. The mere existence of the feats do not force a player to choose them, nor to use them in a way that negatively impacts the game experience when they are chosen.

I'm not saying we should avoid optimization. I'm saying it's advisable to be aware that optimal choices don't always lead to achieving the goals of play and to govern oneself accordingly. Because I have players that understand this, I have absolutely no problem with these feats or anything else in the game.

 

[KarinsDad]

The issue is the players. There is a balance to be struck between optimization and achieving the goals of play. If a certain set of choices causes the game to be less satisfying for a given group, then it's very simple to just not make those choices or to make those choices sometimes and not other times. The mere existence of the feats do not force a player to choose them, nor to use them in a way that negatively impacts the game experience when they are chosen.

I'm not saying we should avoid optimization. I'm saying it's advisable to be aware that optimal choices don't always lead to achieving the goals of play and to govern oneself accordingly. Because I have players that understand this, I have absolutely no problem with these feats or anything else in the game.

People are inherently competitive. It's the nature of being human. Saying that they have choices is all nice and well, but 8 people out of 10 will make the optimal choice and it will not cause the game to be less satisfying for the majority of the other players the majority of the time because they too are humans that are competitive and often make optimal choices.

The only way to avoid the repetitive aspect of this as a DM is to remove the outlier "must have" options that creep up in a game (typically with splat books, but with these few feats as well).

This is human psychology. Saying that they have a choice in no way means that players will use subpar options, especially once they find good ones that work.


I'll give an example in our game. The fighter player loves to rush in and fight. He really does play D&D like an MMO. The ranger/wizard player gets frustrated at the fighter player once in a while because the ranger/wizard player is more of a "if I was really there, what would I do?" type of player. He wants to make more rational and informed in character choices and combat is not necessarily the best choice. Yes, the player of the fighter has a choice to NOT rush in and fight, but from that player's perspective, that IS what his PC would want to do. Just because two players have mutually exclusive character goals, one of them being to optimize/pick optimal choices, does not mean that the game is less satisfying because of it. In fact at our table, some of the funniest moments is when one player gets frustrated at another player's choices and it's already an "oh well" moment. We do not play the game in a mindset that we have to be cognizant of the fun of every other player. If you want to have fun, do what is fun for you and don't worry about whether it negatively impacts other players because in the long run, I as DM will make sure that every player gets their moment to shine.


Typically, it's not that a certain set of choices causes the game to be less satisfying for a given group. It's that a certain set of choices causes the game to be less satisfying for some specific members of a given group. Or, at least IME. It's not that the fighter with GWM is making the game less satisfying for all of the other players, it's usually that the fighter with GWM is outshining some other players who feel less satisfied because of it. Fix the feat. Don't fix the people. The problem is not with the people and their choices. It's because one PC is becoming Codzilla and some other players (including the DM whose carefully crafted encounter gets wiped out in 2 rounds) might resent it.

 

[iserith]

People are inherently competitive. It's the nature of being human. Saying that they have choices is all nice and well, but 8 people out of 10 will make the optimal choice and it will not cause the game to be less satisfying for the majority of the other players the majority of the time because they too are humans that are competitive and often make optimal choices.

A proclivity for being competitive is misplaced in a cooperative game which is what D&D is. It's a game about storytelling, at least according to the Basic Rules.

And again, my advice is aimed at those who feel the need to take away these choices from players because the player are failing to understand that always making the most optimal choices doesn't necessarily lead to achieving the goals of play.

This is human psychology. Saying that they have a choice in no way means that players will use subpar options, especially once they find good ones that work.

If players understand the goals of play and that their choices have a significant impact on achieving or failing to achieve them, then my experience is that they will make optimal choices sometimes and other times they will not, based on what they feel will best help the group achieve the goals of play.

We do not play the game in a mindset that we have to be cognizant of the fun of every other player.

That explains a lot.

How many others in this thread who dislike these feats have a similar mindset?

Typically, it's not that a certain set of choices causes the game to be less satisfying for a given group. It's that a certain set of choices causes the game to be less satisfying for some specific members of a given group. Or, at least IME. It's not that the fighter with GWM is making the game less satisfying for all of the other players, it's usually that the fighter with GWM is outshining some other players who feel less satisfied because of it. Fix the feat. Don't fix the people. The problem is not with the people and their choices. It's because one PC is becoming Codzilla and some other players (including the DM whose carefully crafted encounter gets wiped out in 2 rounds) might resent it.

That to me looks like a selfish player who doesn't give even a single flumph about the other players at the table. Which, again, explains a lot.

In this case, we really can hate the playah and not the game.

 

[Minigiant]

A lot of it is player choice.

GWM warriors have HUGE mobility and range issues. And since they are 2 points of AC behind a shield user and frontline, GWM warriors tend to need the most babysitting and suck the most heals. So if you have a cleric spamming bless, a mage spamming faeri fire, and using paladins for saving throw buffs, that is more than basic optimization.

If you are running a Human EK crossbow cannon, there is a high chance you pasted the optimization threshold the game assumed.