D&D 5E Current take on GWM/SS

[Celtavian]

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?

Yeah. Besides those two feats, the contagion spell they recently corrected, and some problems with the concentration mechanic that are more to do with play-style than balance, I'm pretty happy.

If I weren't, I wouldn't spend so much time on this forum discussing the game.

 

[KarinsDad]

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.

Let's see. Without optional feats:

Lvls, Damage Rogue TWF, Damage Fighter GWS

1: 13.5 11.3
2: 13.5 11.3
3: 17.0 11.3
4: 18.0 12.3
5: 21.5 24.6
6: 21.5 26.6
7: 21.5 26.6
8: 26.0 26.6
9: 26.0 26.6
10: 29.5 26.6
11: 29.5 39.9
12: 33.0 39.9
13: 33.0 39.9
14: 36.5 39.9
15: 36.5 39.9
16: 40.0 39.9
17: 40.0 39.9
18: 43.5 39.9
19: 43.5 39.9
20: 47.0 53.2

It looks to me that without feats, the Rogue is actually competitive here.

The Fighter eventually has AC 18, the Rogue AC 17. The Fighter has various other abilities to nova or defend, the Rogue has powerful defenses vs. spells and attacks. Some levels the Fighter does more damage, some levels the Rogue does more damage.

The point is, however, that without feats, Fighters do not just run away on damage here. Rogues are always at 73% to 150% of Fighter damage range. Taking out the outliers levels of 3, 4, and 11, it's generally 81% to 120% of damage.

Granted, Fighters eventually get more chances to critical (levels 5 and 11), but TWF Rogues have that "I missed with the first attack, I hit with the second attack and still get my sneak attack damage" capability, and they have the option of bugging out with disengage (at the cost of a little bit of damage). The TWF Rogues hit for solid damage nearly every round. If a Fighter misses once in a round, the Rogue typically does more damage even if he does miss once.

 

[DaveDash]

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.

The rules serve as the contract that everyone agrees upon as to the type of game they're going to be playing.

I mean no offence by this but your style of DMing, whether it's what the basic rules say, is not my cup of tea.
I'm sure you're a fantastic DM but I like rules not rulings. I don't like rulings not rules. I take great comfort and satisfaction in reading the rule book and knowing that is the game I am playing, not the game you've created in your head.

I am not alone. There are lots of players like me - it's one of the reasons pathfinder is so popular.

We like to do things as RAW as possible and when there are issues with following RAW, that's when we house rule. We also like playing with feats, and banning all feats because there are a couple of problem ones is not the solution.

Self policing is an option, you have to know what you need to police first, and that only comes with experience. What about your first play through of D&D? You're going to run into issues with these feats on your first go, especially if you approach the game like pathfinder, 3e, and even later versions of 4e where you needed to min/max to be effective in combat.

And low and behold it has causes issues on first play-throughs at tables. I've seen one group have such a first bad impression of 5e they stopped playing it, and I know another poster who found the EK + SS combination ruined his fun as a DM so started a new campaign.

What do these feats really bring to the game? What does the game lose by removing them? I say there's far more to gain by removing them than by keeping them in there, and its certainly not a player issue. It's a design flaw.

 

[iserith]

The rules serve as the contract that everyone agrees upon as to the type of game they're going to be playing.

I mean no offence by this but your style of DMing, whether it's what the basic rules say, is not my cup of tea.
I'm sure you're a fantastic DM but I like rules not rulings. I don't like rulings not rules. I take great comfort and satisfaction in reading the rule book and knowing that is the game I am playing, not the game you've created in your head.

I am not alone. There are lots of players like me - it's one of the reasons pathfinder is so popular.

We like to do things as RAW as possible and when there are issues with following RAW, that's when we house rule. We also like playing with feats, and banning all feats because there are a couple of problem ones is not the solution.

The entire game is run on rulings.Those rulings may or may not be based on RAW. That is how the game is designed. It's an RPG, not a boardgame. You would probably find that most of my rulings are based on RAW.

Self policing is an option, you have to know what you need to police first, and that only comes with experience. What about your first play through of D&D? You're going to run into issues with these feats on your first go, especially if you approach the game like pathfinder, 3e, and even later versions of 4e where you needed to min/max to be effective in combat.

As I said above, it's forgivable if a player makes a decision that unintentionally impacts the game experience in a negative way. But when that player continues to do it after being made aware, what is his or her excuse? "The rules say I can make the game not fun for you?"

And low and behold it has causes issues on first play-throughs at tables. I've seen one group have such a first bad impression of 5e they stopped playing it, and I know another poster who found the EK + SS combination ruined his fun as a DM so started a new campaign.

The player ruined it, not the rules. The player chose to continue to use the rules in a way that negatively impacted the game experience to the point where the DM had to stop the game. Rules don't control the actions of players.

What do these feats really bring to the game? What does the game lose by removing them? I say there's far more to gain by removing them than by keeping them in there, and its certainly not a player issue. It's a design flaw.

I'm not arguing against removing the feats if that's what you feel you need to do to prevent your players from negatively impacting the game. I'm just pointing out that the rules aren't the only thing to blame when that happens.

 

[Psikerlord#]

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.

It is both the feat and the players for choosing it. You cant remove the players (or their preferred playstyle, well, not easily - and would you really want to, anyway?).

You can remove the feat. Or at least the -5/+10 part, the rest of the feat is cool beans. Problemo solvo.

 

[DaveDash]

The entire game is run on rulings.Those rulings may or may not be based on RAW. That is how the game is designed. It's an RPG, not a boardgame. You would probably find that most of my rulings are based on RAW.



As I said above, it's forgivable if a player makes a decision that unintentionally impacts the game experience in a negative way. But when that player continues to do it after being made aware, what is his or her excuse? "The rules say I can make the game not fun for you?"



The player ruined it, not the rules. The player chose to continue to use the rules in a way that negatively impacted the game experience to the point where the DM had to stop the game. Rules don't control the actions of players.



I'm not arguing against removing the feats if that's what you feel you need to do to prevent your players from negatively impacting the game. I'm just pointing out that the rules aren't the only thing to blame when that happens.

Rulings not rules is not a universal truth. Not like 1+1=2. It's an assumption, not a rule.

D&D combat is a board game and it's quite popular to play it as such, in fact, the last two versions of D&D the preferred method of combat was playing it like a board game. D&Ds combat roots are also a board game.

This is where the disconnect is in your mind.

Players cannot be at fault for their ignorance of a design flaw. Your post makes no sense. If SS + Xbow Expert are fine then they would never cause issues that require a change in player behavior.
If you've come to that point, you've encountered a game design issue.

What happens next could potentially be a player issue - how they choose to proceed - but what lead to this was most certainly a design flaw in the system.

It's not like these issues are apparent on your first play through upon character creation. It's only with experience and when you start stacking things like Bless that this becomes an issue. To stop using the feats is acknowledgement that the feats are an issue and you've house ruled them de facto.

 

[KarinsDad]

I like rules not rulings. I don't like rulings not rules. I take great comfort and satisfaction in reading the rule book and knowing that is the game I am playing, not the game you've created in your head.

I am not alone. There are lots of players like me - it's one of the reasons pathfinder is so popular.

We like to do things as RAW as possible and when there are issues with following RAW, that's when we house rule. We also like playing with feats, and banning all feats because there are a couple of problem ones is not the solution.

This, although I do purposely change some things as DM. Not so much in the PHB, but how things in the PHB might interact with the stuff in the DMG and MM (like Remove Curse does not remove this particular curse, or Dragons have double the number of spells of the MM).

its certainly not a player issue. It's a design flaw.

And this.

 

[Psikerlord#]

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.

There are no strikers if you remove the -5/+10 mechanic (and dont use MCing). Ie, in the core rules, not including feats or MCing, there are no strikers. And I greatly prefer it that way.

 

[Psikerlord#]

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?

this^. The "striker" concept introduced in 4e was a big mistake. The core PHB keep it at bay thankfully.

 

[iserith]

Rulings not rules is not a universal truth. Not like 1+1=2. It's an assumption, not a rule.

It was the mantra for the design of this game.

D&D combat is a board game and it's quite popular to play it as such, in fact, the last two versions of D&D the preferred method of combat was playing it like a board game. D&Ds combat roots are also a board game.

You can, but you should expect to run into some problems. And you have!

Players cannot be at fault for their ignorance of a design flaw. Your post makes no sense. If SS + Xbow Expert are fine then they would never cause issues that require a change in player behavior.
If you've come to that point, you've encountered a game design issue.

What happens next could potentially be a player issue - how they choose to proceed - but what lead to this was most certainly a design flaw in the system.

It's not like these issues are apparent on your first play through upon character creation. It's only with experience and when you start stacking things like Bless that this becomes an issue. To stop using the feats is acknowledgement that the feats are an issue and you've house ruled them de facto.

It's a design flaw in your game, but not in mine even at high levels. Even when players choose to take it. Why do you suppose that is?