D&D 5E Current take on GWM/SS

[Hussar]

there is no one to blue but... yourselves.

Read more: http://www.enworld.org/forum/showthread.php?458799-Current-take-on-GWM-SS/page36#ixzz3dSMywbVM

I know this was just an autocorrect fail, but, it made me giggle. It's just so smurfy.
[MENTION=6786202]DaveDash[/MENTION] - you talk about players doing this by 8th level. Do you really think it's so obvious that a player will stumble onto this accidentally by 8th level? I mean, you had to take very specific classes, specific feats, specific races, and then you had to have at least one other player at the table enabling you - blessing/buffing every single combat - in order to see this happening at a table.

I'd argue that this is not something you're going to randomly stumble onto. If your party lacks a cleric, then most of the problems vanish. If your party lacks a cleric player who's willing to give up his first action in every encounter to cast Bless, then this problem goes away. If your party lacks a cleric player who is willing to stay out of combat, or is willing to burn significant character resources increasing his Concentration check as high as possible, the issue isn't going to appear. After all, it's GWF/SS in combination with buffs that is the issue. GWF/SS without buffs is largely not a problem at all.

From the way I see, you need at least two players to pull this off, and quite possibly three. That's going to tend to limit the issue significantly. Sure, that druid might be casting Faerie Fire, but then again, he might be wild shaped and getting beaten like a piñata, thus failing a concentration check pretty early.

In ranged combat, don't any of your opponents simply drop prone? Poof, advantage goes away. Costs the baddies half their movement, true, but, it is going to greatly limit the ranged combatants. Or, again, fight in the dark/at night. Now you have a 60 foot range limit - baddies get into melee range in one round. Everyone's insisting on humans to get that feat, which means you're limited to light sources - a huge disadvantage. Or, use dungeon crawls/indoor settings/forests/swamps and reduce combat range significantly. Why are the archers able to avoid melee combat all the time? I would think that investing everything into ranged combat would be a pretty big weakness as soon as you're in melee - disadvantage on attacks, no shield.

See, again, this is my problem with the anecdotal evidence and simple DPR analysis. The former only highlights your own personal campaign. If you are having issues, but another DM is not, that doesn't mean that there are systemic issues, simply that the way that you are playing may be a contributing factor. The latter lacks a lot of the variables that occur at a D&D table.

Look, I'm not saying for absolute sure that there is no issue. I can see where you are coming from. There may be an issue here. My point is, that I find the data to be somewhat inconclusive. By the same token, simply stripping out those two feats, or dropping the bless spell seems to be the simplest fix for tables that are having issues.

 

[iserith]

These expectations are pretty common - otherwise the designers wouldn't have attempted to create a reasonably balanced game in the first place.

Unless you're one of the game designers, I don't think you can really make that assertion and have any facts to back it up. I think game balance is important to the extent that it ensures that everyone can contribute meaningfully to the creation of the story. I don't say that's what the designers intended, because I can't read their minds. Neither can you, I assume. This is thus a pointless line of discussion.

What I can read, however, are the goals of play in the Basic Rules which are quite clear. And my players and I act accordingly with exactly zero problems with the game.

Instead of being completely oblivious to any potential issues that may pop up as a result of this, it's much wiser to actually be aware and house rule accordingly.

I'm not arguing against house ruling. I'm simply pointing out that there is no objective problem with these feats or the like. They're only a problem in your game because of your group's approach. If you like your approach to the game, then keep doing it!

As a note I don't think any of my new players have read or even care about that first chapter in the basic rules, because they all know what their own goals of play are to begin with.

Maybe they should read it. It's the part of the book that tells you what the game is about and how you "win" at it. I think it makes it pretty easy to see what you have to do in the game.

 

[kerbarian]

As I said, balance is important to the extent that players all have a chance to contribute to the creation of the emergent story. That doesn't mean they need to have nearly equal damage output because there is more than one pillar.

Do you believe that balance is important within the combat pillar, between different characters who are both focused on combat?

 

[iserith]

You actually agree with me even though you're playing with semantics. You said a few posts up that you agree balance is important so one player doesnt continuously steal the spot light, otherwise you'd let fighters run around with at-will meteor swarms.
This combination does allow one character to overshadow and steal the spot light, so I am glad you agree that its important that its house ruled.

I don't believe in any expectation that characters are equal in damage output. This doesn't mean they can't contribute meaningfully to combat. There also are three pillars in the game. You have stated that you don't really care for or engage with two of them. And so it's easy to see why you need to change the feat.

 

[iserith]

Do you believe that balance is important within the combat pillar, between different characters who are both focused on combat?

Somewhat, but damage output isn't the only metric.

 

[DaveDash]

I know this was just an autocorrect fail, but, it made me giggle. It's just so smurfy.

[MENTION=6786202]DaveDash[/MENTION] - you talk about players doing this by 8th level. Do you really think it's so obvious that a player will stumble onto this accidentally by 8th level? I mean, you had to take very specific classes, specific feats, specific races, and then you had to have at least one other player at the table enabling you - blessing/buffing every single combat - in order to see this happening at a table.

I'd argue that this is not something you're going to randomly stumble onto. If your party lacks a cleric, then most of the problems vanish. If your party lacks a cleric player who's willing to give up his first action in every encounter to cast Bless, then this problem goes away. If your party lacks a cleric player who is willing to stay out of combat, or is willing to burn significant character resources increasing his Concentration check as high as possible, the issue isn't going to appear. After all, it's GWF/SS in combination with buffs that is the issue. GWF/SS without buffs is largely not a problem at all.

From the way I see, you need at least two players to pull this off, and quite possibly three. That's going to tend to limit the issue significantly. Sure, that druid might be casting Faerie Fire, but then again, he might be wild shaped and getting beaten like a piñata, thus failing a concentration check pretty early.

In ranged combat, don't any of your opponents simply drop prone? Poof, advantage goes away. Costs the baddies half their movement, true, but, it is going to greatly limit the ranged combatants. Or, again, fight in the dark/at night. Now you have a 60 foot range limit - baddies get into melee range in one round. Everyone's insisting on humans to get that feat, which means you're limited to light sources - a huge disadvantage. Or, use dungeon crawls/indoor settings/forests/swamps and reduce combat range significantly. Why are the archers able to avoid melee combat all the time? I would think that investing everything into ranged combat would be a pretty big weakness as soon as you're in melee - disadvantage on attacks, no shield.

See, again, this is my problem with the anecdotal evidence and simple DPR analysis. The former only highlights your own personal campaign. If you are having issues, but another DM is not, that doesn't mean that there are systemic issues, simply that the way that you are playing may be a contributing factor. The latter lacks a lot of the variables that occur at a D&D table.

Look, I'm not saying for absolute sure that there is no issue. I can see where you are coming from. There may be an issue here. My point is, that I find the data to be somewhat inconclusive. By the same token, simply stripping out those two feats, or dropping the bless spell seems to be the simplest fix for tables that are having issues.

A new player could have easily read about it on a guide and gone for that combination, and a new DM is unaware of the potential effects.

I never knew how ridiculous this feat combination was until I saw it in action. I never knew the potential power level and difficultly of dealing with such a character in combat until I started play testing it myself.

Even without Bless, it still makes this a potentially trouble some combination, but Bless just makes it "no contest". Throw in magic weapons such as what you can get from LMoP or what have you and you don't even really need a Cleric for this to be a problem.

Even if you look at pure maths which have been posted a couple of times in this thread the data is very conclusive. You can gain a VERY good damage boost in unfavourable conditions and then absurd damage boosts when you can stack odds in your favour, which most groups I know of WILL do. I play two Clerics and I'm more than happy to be a Bless bot then go in and dodge because it's simple so effective.

I've played a crossbow expert guy in heavy armour. He just got up in peoples faces all the time. He really didn't care about losing movement because he ignores cover penalties and can shoot the size of most battle maps. Dropping prone would do no good against him, especially if the Barbarian is in their face anyway.

You've never really seen how game breaking this combination can be in action. It may not be an issue - that's not the point - its completely out of whack with almost everything else in the game.

Admitting that this combination is fine is OK, but its basically 3rd Edition MCing all over again. You're creating a character that can really have few weaknesses and can over shadow other members of the party. Do you like 3e multi classing?

Curiously why do you think the designers tried to put an end to the level dip in 5e?

 

[DaveDash]

I don't believe in any expectation that characters are equal in damage output. This doesn't mean they can't contribute meaningfully to combat. There also are three pillars in the game. You have stated that you don't really care for or engage with two of them. And so it's easy to see why you need to change the feat.

No where is anyone arguing they must be equal. When one character can do more damage than everyone else combined however - to me that is breaking balance.

 

[iserith]

No where is anyone arguing they must be equal. When one character can do more damage than everyone else combined however - to me that is breaking balance.

The player is choosing to do that though in a way that negatively impacts the game experience for others. That is the underlying problem that I see. I would wonder what's the next mechanic he or she would exploit after I changed this one. The behavior is what I see as problematic.

 

[Minigiant]

[MENTION=22779]Hussar[/MENTION]
That's the second autocorrect "blame" to "blue" for the day.

I agree. The main differences between the GWM/SS and CoDzilla was that CoDzilla was both easy, lower level, and required only the one PC.


____
@ Everyone.

What if the Dual Wielder feat was changed?

DUAL WIELDER

• Before you make a melee attack with a one-handed weapon while you are wielding two one-handed weapons you are proficient with, you can choose to take a -5 penalty to the attack roll. If the attack hits, you add +10 to the damage roll.
• You can use two-weapon fighting even when the one handed weapons you are wielding aren't light.
• You can draw or stow two one0handed weapons when you would normal be able to draw or stow only one.

Done.
You get damage bonus.
And You get damage bonus.
And You get damage bonus.
/Oprah

 

[pemerton]

I keep quoting them to point out that if one plays the game with those expectations, the game works fine. When one has other goals of play, the game doesn't work as well and thus needs to be changed. It is therefore not an objective fact that these feats or tactics used in combination with these feats represent a design flaw. It's only a flaw when one approaches the game a particular way.

Page 2 of the Basic PDF says:

Together, the DM and the players create an exciting story of bold adventurers who confront deadly perils. . . . f everyone had a good time and created a memorable story, they all win.​

It seems to me there are at least two key elements to that description of the goals of play.

First, there is a differentiation of roles, and hence (presumably) functions, between GM and players. According to the same page, "the Dungeon Master (DM) [is] the game’s lead storyteller and referee. The DM creates adventures for the characters, who navigate its hazards and decide which paths to explore." The players, not being lead storytellers, are presumably subordinate storytellers. What is the nature of their subordination? The same page states that "each player creates an adventurer (also called a character) and teams up with other adventurers (played by friends). . . . [T]he players decide what they want their adventurers to do." Each player is primarily in charge of playing his/her PC.

If a player, in playing his/her PC, was meant to approach the game in much the same way as a GM does when playing NPCs, what would be the point of the player/GM divide? It seems to me that a player is not expected to play his/her PC in the same way that the GM plays NPCs. For instance, while (as page 2 suggests) the game needn't come to an end if a PC dies, it seems to me that a player is not expected to be indifferent to the fate of his/her PC in the same way that a GM is expected to be indifferent to the fate of his/her NPCs.

Second, there is the injunction that everyone should have a good a time. There are many RPG players who don't have a good time if they have to play their PCs from the GM's bird's-eye point of view rather than from the point of view of the PC him-/herself. Or, to flip it around, part of their pleasure in play comes from the fact that they get to contribute to the creation of a memorable story without having to to make that the explicit goal of their decision-making.

After all, this is part of the distinctive pleasure of RPGs (as opposed to, say, round-robin story telling), that they can produce memorable stories emergently, out of the players doing their thing while the GM does his/her different thing. I think it tends to make for insipid RPGing if a player is expected to underplay his/her PC because it makes for a better story. A well-designed RPG should produce a good story when the players play their PCs at full tilt within the mechanical parameters set by the game.

(A comparison: a friendly game of chess or backgammon may be most fun when the game is close and tense, but that doesn't mean that either player should be playing with the aim of making the game close and tense. Rather, the game parameters should ensure this. That might mean, among players of somewhat mixed skill levels, preferring backgammon to chess, or perhaps having the stronger chess player grant a handicap to the weaker.)

I think this blog post by Eero Tuovinen elaborates these points well.