D&D 5E Current take on GWM/SS

[Celtavian]

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.

Without feats, the rogues are good damage dealers. Feats are optional. If rogues aren't meant to be good damage dealers, then why are they good without feats?

 

[iserith]

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.

The rules don't control your players and don't run your game. You run your game and the players control themselves. The rules are there to help you have a good time when you need them. If you all agree on this:

"There’s no winning and losing in the Dungeons & Dragons game—at least, not the way those terms are usually understood. Together, the DM and the players create an exciting story of bold adventurers who confront deadly perils. Sometimes an adventurer might come to a grisly end, torn apart by ferocious monsters or done in by a nefarious villain. Even so, the other adventurers can search for powerful magic to revive their fallen comrade, or the player might choose to create a new character to carry on. The group might fail to complete an adventure successfully, but if everyone had a good time and created a memorable story, they all win."

Then it's exceedingly easy to see how the choices the the DM and players make during play either lead to "winning" or not. This includes the use of the feats under discussion. Players can make mistakes, of course, such as making a choice that isn't very fun for others or doesn't lead to a memorable story. But once they're aware of it (e.g. their feat choices and use thereof are trivializing difficulty or overshadowing their friends), there is really no excuse continuing to engage in that behavior in my view.

 

[Tony Vargas]

I feel the game designers are paid to police the rules for issues like this.

I pay for rules that don't allow these types of options in. If too many enter the game, I'm doing too much of the work the game designers are paid for. They need to create rules that support goals of the game, not options that give players the opportunity to exploit the goals of play.

You are referring to a pair of feats, right? Feats are already optional, so you, as the DM, have to allow them in. Do you find any such issues if you just leave all the options in their Pandora's box?

 

[Minigiant]

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.

I could argue that this is a personal problem and not something wrong with the game.
You don't like numbers they choose. However there are no number metric to base it on.

So its a preference. I want the Charger feat to deal +10 since you usually give up an attack, but charging isn't a style in 5th.

If 2/3 of the offensive weapons styles deal very high damage and 1/3 doesn't, it is the 1/3 that I'd off not the 2/3.

 

[Ristamar]

I hope Mearls and Crawford start responding to questions regarding perceived rules imbalances with questions of their own about the respective player's maturity level and social skills.

 

[Ashkelon]

I could argue that this is a personal problem and not something wrong with the game.
You don't like numbers they choose. However there are no number metric to base it on.

So its a preference. I want the Charger feat to deal +10 since you usually give up an attack, but charging isn't a style in 5th.

If 2/3 of the offensive weapons styles deal very high damage and 1/3 doesn't, it is the 1/3 that I'd off not the 2/3.

is it though? I mean without GWM Feat and SS Feat the Great Weapon Style, Two Weapon Style, and Archery Style are fairly well balanced. Without GWM and SS feats, Crossbow Expert and Polearm master are good feats, but not insanely good feats.

Then take the comparison of a GWM Feat fighter to a Fighter without that feat. Without that feat, the fighter deals about 20% less damage per round, before taking into account accuracy boosts from advantage or bless (which greatly favor the GWM feat). Should a single feat contribute so much to damage per round, especially when feats are supposed to be optional?

Replacing the -5/+10 portion of the feat with a +1 to STR or DEX still leaves those feats as attractive options. Getting +1 Strength and a free attack on a crit or when you drop enemy is still quite potent. As is +1 Dex and the ability to ignore range and cover penalties. I'm sure most great weapon fighters would still take GWM and most archer fighters would still take SS as those abilities are too good to pass up on their own.

 

[Minigiant]

is it though? I mean without GWM Feat and SS Feat the Great Weapon Style, Two Weapon Style, and Archery Style are fairly well balanced. Without GWM and SS feats, Crossbow Expert and Polearm master are good feats, but not insanely good feats.

Then take the comparison of a GWM Feat fighter to a Fighter without that feat. Without that feat, the fighter deals about 20% less damage per round, before taking into account accuracy boosts from advantage or bless (which greatly favor the GWM feat). Should a single feat contribute so much to damage per round, especially when feats are supposed to be optional?

.

Sounds like the Dual Wielder feat is the problem.

Think of it this way.

Are long swords and battleaxes overpowered or are morningstars, war picks, and flaiks underpowered?

 

[Celtavian]

I hope Mearls and Crawford start responding to questions regarding perceived rules imbalances with questions of their own about the respective player's maturity level and social skills.

Iserith is doing that for them. You know, blame the player, not the game. Is that you mean?

 

[Celtavian]

You are referring to a pair of feats, right? Feats are already optional, so you, as the DM, have to allow them in. Do you find any such issues if you just leave all the options in their Pandora's box?

Maybe they'll balance TWF and casters with splat books. All the other feats are fairly well balanced. Maybe Medium Armor Mastery isn't great compared to Heavy Armor Mastery. Not as the difference between Duellist/TWF and GWF/Sharpshooter.

 

[Tony Vargas]

Maybe they'll balance TWF and casters with splat books. All the other feats are fairly well balanced. Maybe Medium Armor Mastery isn't great compared to Heavy Armor Mastery. Not as the difference between Duellist/TWF and GWF/Sharpshooter.

I mean, assume no feats, no optional rules at all in use:

How does 5e stack up? Have the designers done what you paid them for, if you assume you were just buying the non-optional stuff?