D&D 5E Current take on GWM/SS

[Psikerlord#]

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?

It stacks up very well. But if you just remove the -5/+10, it still stacks up very well even with feats.

 

[Minigiant]

Let's see. Without optional feats:

Lvls, Damage Rogue TWF, Damage Fighter GWS


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.

Well I don't see any increases on the fighter subclass levels. Granted only the champion is easy to gauge. The BM and EK would require assumptions. Added in, fighter would probably get ahead and stay there. This isn't counting the 2 + 1/level extra HP, the extra AS (which will probably go to Con for +1/level hp), higher AC, self heal and nova.

The rogue has mostly noncombat subclasses. Their default weapon defense is a bonus action Disengage which lower damage. Their second weapon defense is Uncanny Dodge. Third is Elusive.

You don't bring a rogue for damage. You bring a rogue for skills and see the damage as a nice bonus. This isn't a 3e/4e rogue. This is a pre3e rogue.

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.

A striker is a just a term for a character who deal high damage and is moderately hard to kill while doing so.

By default before feats and MCing, heavy weapon warriors, two weapon warriors, archer warriors, lance warriors, warlocks, and blaster mages are strikers. They have the tools to deal damage and mitigate damage at the same time.


The problem with feats is the TWF one sucks.

The problem with Multiclassing is you have to take 5 levels of fighter or ranger and 5+ levels of rogue to make it not suck.

The issue is the design team's hate of TWF. This is because TWF was far away overpowered for a long time in the playtest they were too cautious withe the options.

TWF is fine with no options. The options for it however suck.

 

[DaveDash]

It was the mantra for the design of this game.



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



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?

Your group clearly doesnt put as much emphasis on the combat pillar of play.

The only groups I've really encountered like yours are those on the forums, where you run into hard core roleplayers who want to really escape reality and dive into a new world.

Not everyone plays D&D like that, and combat is a mini game within all that. Many players (like the Sorc guy in my group) only play the game for that pillar, and if that pillar is not living up to their expectations because of design flaws in the game, without house ruling there's no other way out of it.

Your frame of reference is so heavily invested in this idea of "rulings" and "story" and all three pillars of the game, you have a disconnect when it comes to the fact that some people just like combat, big damage numbers, and a more of a board game (or CRPG) experiance with a little more choice and immersion.

For those groups having feats that throw the balance way off (and a 40%-200% increase in damage based on various factors is a huge difference) these feats are going to be a problem. Also for DMs who don't have the time, skill, or ability to modify encounters to tackle these feats.

One "mantra" of D&D 5e is bounded accuracy. These feats combined with bless break that matra. That is a design flaw.

 

[Psikerlord#]

It was the mantra for the design of this game.



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



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?

Iserith you use spotlight balance which works for some tables, hence you have no problem. But for those of us that want a rough damage balance, you have to remove the -5/+10. It's a playstyle difference and you guys will never agree.

 

[Tony Vargas]

One "mantra" of D&D 5e is bounded accuracy. These feats combined with bless break that matra. That is a design flaw.

I don't see how feats that give you a large penalty to your accuracy break bounded accuracy. Not that they might not be 'broken' in some other sense in some campaigns.

Besides, how can a game that's designed not to be used as designed have a 'design flaw?' Isn't it just as legitimately an opportunity to customize the game to your own tastes by 'fixing' that perceived 'flaw?' - even as others tweak different things to their tastes, and see no 'flaw' where you see it?

 

[Psikerlord#]

A striker is a just a term for a character who deal high damage and is moderately hard to kill while doing so.

By default before feats and MCing, heavy weapon warriors, two weapon warriors, archer warriors, lance warriors, warlocks, and blaster mages are strikers. They have the tools to deal damage and mitigate damage at the same time.

I define a "true striker" as doing insanely high damage on a consistent basis. If you use the core rules, there are none. I have no issue with characters doing low, moderate or high damage consistently, and very high occasional burst.... in fact the game probably needs this kind of differentiation.

What I dont want, and the game does not need, is constant very high damage. Coz it ultimately breaks the game and ends campaigns early.

 

[Minigiant]

I define a "true striker" as doing insanely high damage on a consistent basis. If you use the core rules, there are none. I have no issue with characters doing low, moderate or high damage consistently, and very high occasional burst.... in fact the game probably needs this kind of differentiation.

What I dont want, and the game does not need, is constant very high damage. Coz it ultimately breaks the game and ends campaigns early.

Your definition of striker is wrong and doesn't appear in any edition of D&D.

"Strikers specialize in dealing high amounts of damage to a single target at a time. They have the most concentrated offense of any character in the game. Strikers rely on superior mobility, trickery, or magic to move around tough foes and single out the enemy they want to attack. " 4th edition PHB page 16.

If you don't like high damage, that's a personal problem. But nothing in any PHB shows an expected damage guideline, expected encounter lengthsm nor are there damage caps.

 

[DaveDash]

I don't see how feats that give you a large penalty to your accuracy break bounded accuracy. Not that they might not be 'broken' in some other sense in some campaigns.

Besides, how can a game that's designed not to be used as designed have a 'design flaw?' Isn't it just as legitimately an opportunity to customize the game to your own tastes by 'fixing' that perceived 'flaw?' - even as others tweak different things to their tastes, and see no 'flaw' where you see it?

Have you not been following this thread? The maths proves that these feats (SS + Crossbow Expert) combined with other effects like Bless increase the damage potential from anywhere from around 40% at the very worst case against high AC, all the way up to 200% in cases (refer to the maths way back in this thread by another poster) where you can stack the odds in your favor. That's breaking bounded accuracy.
If these damage spikes were intended, all damage classes would have mechanisms to do so. They're not intended. The designers did the maths in isolation and failed to take into account Bless. Bless by itself "breaks" bounded accuracy.

The designers have a lot of really nice well balanced feats, so they obviously intended to keep feats balanced. A lot of feats add interesting mechanics without adding on pure numbers. The logic that because feats are optional they shouldn't be balanced is not sound. Feats even went through play testing.

The reason feats are optional is not because they're intended to be unbalanced, it's to keep all the pre-3rd Edition gamers happy who are not comfortable with the idea of feats. It's a flavour mechanism, not a balancing mechanism.

 

[Psikerlord#]

Your definition of striker is wrong and doesn't appear in any edition of D&D.

"Strikers specialize in dealing high amounts of damage to a single target at a time. They have the most concentrated offense of any character in the game. Strikers rely on superior mobility, trickery, or magic to move around tough foes and single out the enemy they want to attack. " 4th edition PHB page 16.

If you don't like high damage, that's a personal problem. But nothing in any PHB shows an expected damage guideline, expected encounter lengthsm nor are there damage caps.

When I say true striker on the forums, I mean crazy damage dealer. Of course there must be a damage cap in practice, and the +10 feats break it.

 

[Tony Vargas]

increase the damage potential from anywhere from around 40% at the very worst case against high AC, all the way up to 200% in cases (refer to the maths way back in this thread by another poster) where you can stack the odds in your favor. That's breaking bounded accuracy.

Maybe I'm being pedantic, but increasing damage doesn't sound like improving accuracy too much, -5 to hit sure doesn't. I mean, you take one of these feats, but monsters of lower level can still hit you, you can still hit monsters of higher level. Bounded Accuracy seems intact. Indeed, a -5 feat seems designed with the idea that Bounded Accuracy will let you keep hitting in spite of it, since ACs don't advance rapidly in lock-step with levels.

Bless by itself "breaks" bounded accuracy.

OK, that's different. But +1d4 certainly seems innocuous. You can roll a '1,' and miss an easy target, you can roll a 4 and hit a difficult one. Seems to leave things wide open.