D&D 5E Current take on GWM/SS

[kerbarian]

Advantage, whatever the source, isn't a threat to Bounded Accuracy because it doesn't stack and is lower-impact at the extremes of very easy and very hard targets.

It seems like damage, and not Bounded Accuracy, is what's at issue.

I agree. In practice, what Bounded Accuracy means to me is that players will hit most of the time (70%?) against most targets, unless you're fighting a creature known for its exceptional AC. If you add Bless, Advantage, etc. to that, the best you can do is get it up to 95%, which is a meaningful but not huge increase in damage.

What keeps damage bounded is the fact that the maximum potential damage doesn't vary that much between different classes and builds. GWM and SS completely break that, typically more than doubling the potential damage of characters using them.

That's borne out in the table I posted earlier, where adding Bless and Advantage to a baseline fighter results in only a moderate increase in damage, but using them with SS creates a huge multiplier.

 

[Minigiant]

.

This isn't a problem of a character focused on combat (e.g. a fighter) outdamaging a character focused on social and exploration (e.g. a bard). It's a problem of a few specific combat builds (using SS or GWM) dramatically outclassing other characters who are also focused on combat. That's a problem of balance within the combat pillar, regardless of what happens in the other pillars.

The only underpowered damage characters being outclassed are dual wield warriors, beastmaster rangers, and wild mages.

Archers are fine.
Heavy Weapon guys are fine.
Cavaliers are fine
Dragon sorcerers are fine.
Warlocks are fine.
Evokers are fine.

 

[kerbarian]

It's those things combined with specific tactics that the players are choosing to do. They don't have to choose to do that if causing some characters to outclass other characters who should be doing well with the combat pillar and negatively impacting the game experience. Instead of buffing up the guy with the feats all the time, buff the other guy sometimes instead. Or defeat the enemies through means other than hit point attrition. Players have control over the spotlight and they can choose to share it with others.

These things are getting talked about as "must-have" feats and "must-do" tactics. None of that is true if it's negatively impacting the game experience.

Sure, players or the party can intentionally handicap themselves in order to give more spotlight to other characters in combat. The fighter with SS could just decide not to use all of her attacks each round -- that would bring her damage down and stop stealing the spotlight in combat. But if you know you're holding back and winning combats anyway, they don't feel as challenging or exciting.

It's the same thing if the party intentionally avoids buffing the guy with the feats -- you know you're holding back as a party, and combat becomes less exciting.

Just fixing the feats lets everyone push their limits and still share the spotlight in combat. I find that much more fun than trying to metagame about when and how much we should handicap ourselves.

 

[iserith]

Sure, players or the party can intentionally handicap themselves in order to give more spotlight to other characters in combat. The fighter with SS could just decide not to use all of her attacks each round -- that would bring her damage down and stop stealing the spotlight in combat. But if you know you're holding back and winning combats anyway, they don't feel as challenging or exciting.

It's the same thing if the party intentionally avoids buffing the guy with the feats -- you know you're holding back as a party, and combat becomes less exciting.

Just fixing the feats lets everyone push their limits and still share the spotlight in combat. I find that much more fun than trying to metagame about when and how much we should handicap ourselves.

I don't believe that needs to be the case. As I explained way upthread, challenge and difficulty are different things. A player's choices can increase or decrease the difficulty of a challenge (as it should do). The feats and tactics being used can reduce the difficulty to an unsatisfying level because at least some level of difficulty is required for a challenge to be satisfying. There's a balance to be struck here and that can be controlled by the players simply by making different choices.

I think what we're seeing is that some people are playing the game in a very particular way that wasn't necessarily intended and as a result they are seeing issues with the game design. If they don't want to change their approach to the game, then changing the feats is what is necessary. I'm suggesting an alternative to that.

 

[Coredump]

Holy crud. I spend a day with the family and I am 7 pages behind....

For those looking for a 'fix' I would suggest looking at the combinations that are problematic in your games. I don't think the -5/+10 is the problem by itself.

So something like only allowing the -5/+10 for 2 handed ranged weapons, or only with Heavy ranged weapons.

Crossbow Expert: Remove the extra attack, and instead allow loading a handbow while wielding a shield.

Crossbow Expert: (I hate the 'use in melee' ability... ranged should have a 'melee weakness'..... but no idea of the change to make)

 

[Ashkelon]

Holy crud. I spend a day with the family and I am 7 pages behind....

For those looking for a 'fix' I would suggest looking at the combinations that are problematic in your games. I don't think the -5/+10 is the problem by itself.

So something like only allowing the -5/+10 for 2 handed ranged weapons, or only with Heavy ranged weapons.

Crossbow Expert: Remove the extra attack, and instead allow loading a handbow while wielding a shield.

Crossbow Expert: (I hate the 'use in melee' ability... ranged should have a 'melee weakness'..... but no idea of the change to make)

Actually, the -5/+10 is the biggest problem there. If you remove that suddenly:

Crossbow expert is fine
Polearm Master is fine
Bless is fine
Advantage on attacks all the time is fine
Dual wielding is competitive with other combat styles
A player with feats is competitive with a player without them
A rogue remains competitive against a archer or great weapon fighter
Etc

Without -5/+10, advantage gives a moderate boost to damage, but with those feats advantage can boost DPR by upwards of 50%. The same is true for bless.

Abilities that grant bonus action attacks using small weapon dice (Polearm Master and Crossbke Expert specifically) get a huge boost from -5/+10. Without those feats, hand crossbows deal damage in par with heavy crossbows and poke arms deal damage on par with greatswords.

It isn't like those feats are worthless without the -5/+10 feature as well. Ignoring partial cover, gaining a free attack on a crit, and the like are quite potent. Replace the -5/+10 feature with +1 STR of Dex and you have a very nice feat indeed, without it being a "must have" for any ranged or two handed warrior.

 

[Ristamar]

It's those things combined with specific tactics that the players are choosing to do. They don't have to choose to do that if causing some characters to outclass other characters who should be doing well with the combat pillar and negatively impacting the game experience. Instead of buffing up the guy with the feats all the time, buff the other guy sometimes instead. Or defeat the enemies through means other than hit point attrition. Players have control over the spotlight and they can choose to share it with others.

These things are getting talked about as "must-have" feats and "must-do" tactics. None of that is true if it's negatively impacting the game experience.

People are naturally inclined to take the path of least resistance, regardless of the level of the challenge at hand, unless the challenge is so insignificant that the choices become moot. A DM shouldn't ask players to fight or ignore that urge. He should embrace it and let his encounters flourish through the players' exploration and manipulation of those choices. If that means the DM is modifying or removing options from table, so be it. But it's the DM's fiat, and player's should not have to self-police the efficiency of their tactics.

As a DM, I have no problem with a player taking any course of action available to them. As an arbiter of the rules and as the invisible engine that pushes the game forward, it's my responsibility to account for the choices available to tackle an encounter. It's not the players' responsibility to control the challenge level of an encounter. And if there is an easy out to an encounter because the players are clever or because I poorly designed an encounter, the players are going to take it.

And they should take it.

The players don't have a road map of the adventure. They don't know what lies behind the next door. They don't know who or what might come for them in the night. If combat breaks out, they're trying to survive, and survival means efficiently using the resources at hand so they can be best prepared for the next challenge.

This is hardly unique to tabletop games. Any challenging video game with a breadth of build options suffers the same fate. The most efficient choices are quickly discovered and typically reduced to a handful of variants. These builds remain commonplace until the choices are modified in some fashion, or the game itself is changed in some way that influences the efficacy of those choices. This doesn't mean the players are bad people. It just means they're human.

 

[iserith]

It's not the players' responsibility to control the challenge level of an encounter. And if there is an easy out to an encounter because the players are clever or because I poorly designed an encounter, the players are going to take it.

And they should take it.

I agree, players can't control whether or not a challenge exists - that's on the DM. They can, however, control difficulty by their choices, assuming it's a well-designed challenge. However, taking a chain of feats or making particular tactical choices to reduce difficulty to a level that isn't very fun for everyone and doesn't create a memorable story means the players have effectively "lost" at D&D according to the Basic Rules.

This is not a game that is necessarily "won" by being the biggest, baddest, most damage-dealing adventurer. Or by expending the least amount of resources. Or achieving all one's character goals. Or, heck, even surviving. It's "won" by having fun together and creating an exciting, memorable story. This requires the DM and players to make choices that allow for those two goals to happen. Sometimes that includes not making the most optimal choice.

Of course, if one changes the goals of play to something else, such as "overcoming the DM's challenges as easily as possible," "having the highest DPR," or "stealing the most spotlight," then one can set up other ways to "win" at D&D. That's up to the table to decide, but naturally since the game wasn't designed with those goals of play in mind, issues may arise.

 

[Ristamar]

I agree, players can't control whether or not a challenge exists - that's on the DM. They can, however, control difficulty by their choices, assuming it's a well-designed challenge. However, taking a chain of feats or making particular tactical choices to reduce difficulty to a level that isn't very fun for everyone and doesn't create a memorable story means the players have effectively "lost" at D&D according to the Basic Rules.

Assuming there is no underlying ill intent on the players part, it likely means the DM didn't do his job. Alternatively, it may simply mean that one or more of his players have play styles that don't mesh well with the other players, but that doesn't necessarily mean any of the players are "wrong" in the way they play the game. If there was ample opportunity for pregame prep with the players and/or a "Session 0", it still ultimately points back to the DM not doing his job. If the DM had done his homework and managed player choices and expectations, he'd have known there would likely be a problem before the game even started.

 

[iserith]

Assuming there is no underlying ill intent on the players part, it likely means the DM didn't do his job.

I disagree. I think a DM should design challenges that allow for the player to make choices that increase or decrease the difficulty based on their choices. That is part of what makes a challenge satisfying because it gives those choices meaning. At the same time, difficulty is also part of what makes a challenge satisfying. If the players have found some scheme to reduce difficulty to unsatisfying levels, however, they have a hand in their own dissatisfaction. The DM can then set up encounters to counter these tactics specifically, but this often results in something of an arms race. A better solution, in my view, is for the players to be cognizant of the goals of play and to make choices accordingly. Sometimes that means making the most optimal choice. Sometimes it does not.

Alternatively, it may simply mean that one or more of his players have play styles that don't mesh well with the other players, but that doesn't necessarily mean any of the players are "wrong" in the way they play the game. If their was ample opportunity for pregame prep with the players and/or a "Session 0", it still ultimately points back to the DM not doing his job. If the DM had done his homework and managed player choices and expectations, he'd have known there would likely be a problem before the game even started.

I can agree with that. I spend time during my own Session Zero making players aware of the goals of play and building consensus on what that might entail. But we've been talking about games where the DM is having to go in and change or eliminate these feats because of a problem he or she has seen in play. Or, in some cases, games that have ended because of these feat and tactics. The approach I have been advocating is advising players that their choices matter when it comes to achieving the goals of play and it's simply not enough to always choose the most optimal path and use the rules as a shield even when it creates a dissatisfying game for others.