D&D 5E Current take on GWM/SS

[Minigiant]

Rogues are not strikers in 5th.
Rogues are experts in 5th. They win skill checks.
Archer fighters and archer rangers are strikers in 5th. They primarily deal damage and take little.
GWM fighters, paladins, rangers, and barbarians are defenderish strikers. They deal tons of damage and hope not to get battlefield controlled or ganged up on.

The only problem is TWF warriors.

 

[KarinsDad]

You yourself said that each player is responsible for their own fun at the table. So as long as I gets mine, who cares that I overshadow Bob, right? Except Bob maybe, but he's responsible for his fun and shouldn't "pout." He should be "mature." Expecting others to share the spotlight in a game about storytelling is "entitlement."

Yes. Everyone is a winner. Everyone deserves a trophy. In Oregon, 20 kids just all became class valedictorian with vastly differing weighed GPAs. My players are not at a gaming table to babysit the other players, they are there to have fun. If a player has a problem, it is really his or her problem (fortunately, I do not have divas I have to deal with at my table).

And I'm not "holier." I just take care that the choices I make are contributing to the fun of others instead of just my own. In the doing, I self-police my tendency to optimize in a way that negatively impacts the game experience.

You are when you post phrases like "explains a lot". Your expectations of other posters seem to mirror your expectations of player behavior.

The behavior exists separate and apart from the rules. The rules are just tools that the group uses to play the game. Some players use them in a way that negatively impacts the game experience. They don't have to. If a group has players that can't control themselves in this regard, then by all means, remove or change the feats.

The behaviors to use the best choices available are human nature. The expectation that "people should be above that" and handicap their PC so that other players don't get upset is silly. People are people. The fact that you are judgemental on them and have expectations on their behaviors is questionable. As long as they are not doing something seriously rude or extremely detrimental to the game, what's the issue?

Fix the feat. Don't try to fix the people.

 

[iserith]

Yes. Everyone is a winner. Everyone deserves a trophy. In Oregon, 20 kids just all became class valedictorian with vastly differing weighed GPAs. My players are not at a gaming table to babysit the other players, they are there to have fun. If a player has a problem, it is really his or her problem (fortunately, I do not have divas I have to deal with at my table).

More of the insights I've come to expect.

You are when you post phrases like "explains a lot". Your expectations of other posters seem to mirror your expectations of player behavior.

I've been around long enough to see the same old arguments trotted out, with the usual (and hilarious) complaints of these being related to perceived societal ills. Often they come in some form of "The kids these days..."

The behaviors to use the best choices available are human nature. The expectation that "people should be above that" and handicap their PC so that other players don't get upset is silly. People are people. The fact that you are judgemental on them and have expectations on their behaviors is questionable. As long as they are not doing something seriously rude or extremely detrimental to the game, what's the issue?

Fix the feat. Don't try to fix the people.

The "best choices" in a cooperative game about storytelling with the goals of play stated in the Basic Rules aren't necessarily the most optimized ones.

 

[Celtavian]

Rogues are not strikers in 5th.Rogues are experts in 5th. They win skill checks.

Is that how it is supposed to be? I get that rogues shine in exploration and can shine in social, but are they supposed to fall that far behind in combat? They are pretty competitive without Sharpshooter or GWF. There are literally zero problems with their damage absent those feats. If you look at the base rules, seems rogues were built to be good damage dealers.

Archer fighters and archer rangers are strikers in 5th. They primarily deal damage and take little.

Due to 5E mobility. Using the base rules rogues are extremely good at this too.

GWM fighters, paladins, rangers, and barbarians are defenderish strikers. They deal tons of damage and hope not to get battlefield controlled or ganged up on.

I don't have any issues with defensive builds. In play defensive builds have a very powerful place in the game. GWM is not a defensive build. It is an offensive build. They do not compete with the sword and board unless they are a barbarian.

The only problem is TWF warriors.

The problem is the feats and the way they effect TWF. TWF without those feats is a perfectly balanced option as effective as other options. Without those feats, the rogue is fine. Without those feats martial damage for all classes is pretty fairly balanced. Slight edges here and there, but offsetting penalties compensating for the minor differences. They did a great job balancing things absent Sharpshooter and GWM. Wish they had used that same keen eye for those feats.

 

[KarinsDad]

The "best choices" in a cooperative game about storytelling with the goals of play stated in the Basic Rules aren't necessarily the most optimized ones.

There are no "best choices" in a cooperative game about storytelling with the goals of play stated in the Basic Rules. None. Zero. Zip. Zilch. Nada. There are only the choices made by the players and the DM. There might be better or worse choices, but who cares?

It doesn't matter what the players decide. If they do something way out in left field, there might be consequences by the other players (typically via their PCs, but for seriously egregious behavior, the players themselves might show one player to the door) and/or the DM (typically via NPCs and/or environment).


Our disconnect appears to be one of a player making a PC choice that results in other players having less fun. Does that even exist a lot in games? Yes, occasionally, one group of players wants to do one thing and another group wants to do something else and the group has to decide what thing and some players get outvoted or out logic-ked or whatever, but that's just life in a cooperative endeavor.

But, we are not talking about that. We are talking about an apparently overpowered feat. Your opinion is that if it becomes an issue at the table, the player should reign its use in. My opinion is that if it becomes an issue at the table, the DM should reign its use in.

I find it silly to think that players should be self policing and expected to conform to some standard of group fun where some group majority dictates how the one player plays and has fun. If there is an issue, the DM should step in. That's part of his job. The concept of politically correct gaming behavior is very strange to me. People are people. They will act as they will based on group dynamics and individual personalities. I stopped telling players a long time ago that they were having BadWrongFun.

Some DMs do think, however, that their idea of a fun game is the right one. Personally, I think my idea of a fun game as DM is the right one. It's the one where I balance out overpowered game elements that I think the game designers just went "oops" on. As DMs, we all modify our games to get the best game possible. I don't think it is the responsibility of the players, though, to have to think about their decisions in the light of "what should I do to make the most fun for the table". They will have fun regardless of their PC decisions. Seriously. It just happens.

 

[Minigiant]

Optimization in D&D is related to the group's style.

Great Weapon Master doesn't help you past the Wisdom check to notice the noble is lying, the dungeon is a deathtrap prison, and there's an extra optional dragon at the bottom you'll aggro if you do as the noble says.

But GWM is fine. SS mostly is as archers are strikers. Its just a bit to easy like archer rangers in 4th. The problem isn't the feats, it is the "fighting style". Range and heavy weapons aren't punished enough at high levels and if you abuse it more than the base assumption the game is easy.

Its like abusing AI stupidlity in a strategy game in scummy ways then complaining that it makes it easy.

 

[iserith]

There are no "best choices" in a cooperative game about storytelling with the goals of play stated in the Basic Rules. None. Zero. Zip. Zilch. Nada. There are only the choices made by the players and the DM. There might be better or worse choices, but who cares?

The best choices are those that lead to everyone having a good time and to the creation of an exciting, memorable story. That is, if one cleaves to the "win" conditions the Basic Rules set forth. Therefore, if I make choices that causes someone else to not have a good time or that create a boring, forgettable story, I am jeopardizing the group's ability to achieve the goals of play. Sometimes, the optimal choice is the best choice for achieving the goals of play. In other cases, it is not. Therefore, a player that makes choices with the goals of play in mind knows when to make the optimal choice and when to do something else. As a result, they self-police when it comes to the feats under discussion.

I find it silly to think that players should be self policing and expected to conform to some standard of group fun where some group majority dictates how the one player plays and has fun. If there is an issue, the DM should step in. That's part of his job. The concept of politically correct gaming behavior is very strange to me. People are people. They will act as they will based on group dynamics and individual personalities. I stopped telling players a long time ago that they were having BadWrongFun.

Some DMs do think, however, that their idea of a fun game is the right one.

As much as I personally find it funny to see posters link societal ills and "political correctness" with the simple notion that maybe it's helpful to give a thought to other people's fun at the table when making choices during play, I wouldn't want to provoke you into further thread-derailing rants about "the kids these days." So I'll leave off by saying that I am not saying my idea of a fun game is the right one. I'm simply raising a point to consider when deciding if the problem lay with the player or the game so that the solution becomes more readily apparent. I think I've made my point as to which one I think that is and needn't belabor the point further.

 

[Ashkelon]

Optimization in D&D is related to the group's style.

Great Weapon Master doesn't help you past the Wisdom check to notice the noble is lying, the dungeon is a deathtrap prison, and there's an extra optional dragon at the bottom you'll aggro if you do as the noble says.

But GWM is fine. SS mostly is as archers are strikers. Its just a bit to easy like archer rangers in 4th. The problem isn't the feats, it is the "fighting style". Range and heavy weapons aren't punished enough at high levels and if you abuse it more than the base assumption the game is easy.

Its like abusing AI stupidlity in a strategy game in scummy ways then complaining that it makes it easy.

I would argue that those feats are not fine though. If you compare an archer with SS to one without, the difference in DPR is quite dramatic. The same is true for a warrior using GWM and one who is not.

I would rather not have such feats impact combat to quite the degree that those two do, especially in combination with things like crossbow expert and polearm master. The damage characters deal is find if you remove those feats. Great Weapon warriors will be at top, then archers, then rogues, etc. As things are now, Crossbow SS are at top, then GWM Polearm Masters, then GWM, then quite a bit below that are two handed fighters, archers, and rogues.

 

[Minigiant]

Is that how it is supposed to be? I get that rogues shine in exploration and can shine in social, but are they supposed to fall that far behind in combat? They are pretty competitive without Sharpshooter or GWF. There are literally zero problems with their damage absent those feats. If you look at the base rules, seems rogues were built to be good damage dealers.



Due to 5E mobility. Using the base rules rogues are extremely good at this too.



I don't have any issues with defensive builds. In play defensive builds have a very powerful place in the game. GWM is not a defensive build. It is an offensive build. They do not compete with the sword and board unless they are a barbarian.



The problem is the feats and the way they effect TWF. TWF without those feats is a perfectly balanced option as effective as other options. Without those feats, the rogue is fine. Without those feats martial damage for all classes is pretty fairly balanced. Slight edges here and there, but offsetting penalties compensating for the minor differences. They did a great job balancing things absent Sharpshooter and GWM. Wish they had used that same keen eye for those feats.

The rogue isn't a striker. Rogues deal good damage but you should not pick a rogue to deal damage. If you want weapon damage, be a barbarian, fighter, paladin, or ranger.

Rogue's specialty is skills and mobility. If a rogue complains about a fighters damage, the DM should tell the rogue player that his PC should have train to kill people with weapons like a fighter and spent less time sneaking around and messing with thieves tools.

If TWF had a -5/+10 feat, this wouldn't be a problem. The problems isnt that archers and heavies deal too much damage. It is that dual wielders do too little in comparison.

 

[Celtavian]

The designers can't control your players.

Yes they do. The rules are a control system. Sage Rulings help explain the rules that provide the controls to play the game. You can modify them to suit individual desires, but the rules set the parameters for play. The rules, numbers, and the dice system are the designers exerting control over you and your players providing you with a consistent, playable rule set.

What we can do as DMs is seek consensus on the goals of play the designers set forth (Basic Rules, page 2) and how to achieve them as a group. Achieving the goals of play is how one "wins" at D&D.

There is no "winning" in D&D, at least not in the traditional sense. I don't play for such an outcome. At this point, I don't need a Basic Rules Page 2. There has been something similar to Page 2 in every edition of D&D. Page 2 does not mean the game designers haven't made mistakes in the rule set.

If you're making optimal choices that fail to help the group achieve the goals of play because your CoDzilla character is frustrating everyone else, then you just caused the group to "lose" at D&D. Your choices, not the feat, is to blame.

You truly fail to acknowledge that rules can enter the game that can cause this failure without intention. This is a failure on your part to acknowledge something that has been true across every edition of D&D. You are in essence creating a false god in the game designers. That they can do no wrong and only the players can be blamed if the rules fail to provide an experience that doesn't abides by page 2 of the Basic Rules (Or whatever page of whatever edition that describes similar intent).

You seem unwilling to acknowledge that a player might choose a rule provided by the game designer that causes a breach of their own listed guidelines without intending to make the game no fun for others.

The designers make mistakes. They have done it quite often. They will do it again. If they correct them in a timely fashion, it helps all in the community reach the Page 2 guidelines of cooperative fun.

To be clear, I'm not trying to "sell" you on anything. I have no stake in your game. But I am bringing up things that I think are worth addressing and are often overlooked when it comes to these sorts of issues at the table.

You are definitely trying to sell your viewpoint. You believe the game designers have not made a mistake in the case of these two feats. That the players are at fault for not being self-policing. You haven't experienced any of the issues I have outlined or you just don't care about them or your players agreed to self-police leading back to no experience. Either way, this discussion has reached an impasse. Page 2 does not help me fix the game.

I have been doing this a long time. I don't need a Page 2 any more. I need a rule system that keeps certain options from overshadowing other options so I don't end up surprised at the table and have to take action to correct a problem. The player that used this feat did not know it would turn out as it did. As he leveled, the option kept getting better. Lo and behold, Houston we have a problem. My reaction was, "Damn. Wish the 5E designers had caught this little issue. I'm going to need to do something about it. I don't want another hard DMing experience in 5E."

I have no idea what your level of experience is with game systems. Mine is extremely high. I know when something is a problem. I usually know at what levels (or point level) and why. I make moves to correct it.

I do understand others will not see a similar problem for a variety of reasons. Maybe they don't play to high enough level. Maybe they like powerful martial damage dealers. Maybe they don't optimize. So be it. I know that using the RAW in the core PHB my players found a way to do an enormous amount of damage very quickly using GWM and Sharpshooter that otherwise would not exist without those feats in play. I will make sure to tone down their use to make encounters play out closer to the way I would prefer it in the fiction.