D&D 5E Current take on GWM/SS

[Ristamar]

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.

Heh. Okay. This conversation is obviously at a dead end. Only thing left to say at this point is...

 

[Tony Vargas]

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.

And 'broke' more than just DPR.

 

[pemerton]

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.

Taking a feat that grants a damage bonus with a penalty to hit, and then using a spell (or other simple mechanical) device to obviate the penalty, isn't some sort of corner-case abuse of a rules loophole. It looks to me like playing the game as it was designed.

In other words, I don't understand how it is exploitative for a player to build a PC according to the rules of the game, and to use those mechanical elements that the game provides in order to increase chances to hit.

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.

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.

The game is clearly designed taking damage output seriously as an aspect of mechanical balance. One can see this from the spell rules (eg damage scaling, dice formulae that are somewhat counter-intuitive relative to earlier editions of the game, etc); the way the extra attack class feature is allocated across classes; etc.

(To say that it is an aspect is not to say that it is the sole aspect.)

Suppose the feats under discussion just gave a flat +10 to damage (with no penalty to hit). Would that be an "objective problem"?

If not, then I think the notion of "objective problem" has become unhelpful. Whatever sort of "subjectivity" you thought the problem of flat +10 to damage feats would involve, it would still be a problem that many players of the game would have to deal with, because of the dramatic effect it would have on the damage output of characters built with or without the feat.

If yes, then the presence of the -5 penalty to hit doesn't necessarily cease to make the problem an objective one. The game provides many ways to reduce or eliminate penalties to hit. Given the number and intricacy of those methods, the game clearly expects players of it to engage with them. (In this respect, 5e continues the "puzzle-solving" approach to game play that is found in 3E, 4e and in the spell-casting elements of earlier editions.)

If the point of the feats is to grant certain characters a modest damage boost, dropping back to a flat +2 to damage would seem an improvement. The +1 STR/DEX option is a variant on this, although it imposes a stricter cap.

If the point of the feats is to grant certain players the thrill of an occasional damage spike, then it turns out that a -5 penalty to hit is not an especially effective technique for rationing that spike, because other aspects of the game which players are invited to explore and make use of make it relatively easy, at upper levels, to break the rationing method. The 1x/turn option is a more effective way of rationing, although might lack the element of thrill. There are other rationing techniques that could be use too (eg 13th Age's natural roll triggers).

 

[iserith]

Page 2 of the Basic PDF says:

Simply put, it is very possible for the players to make choices during play that cause the group to fail to achieve the goals of play. The DM can also make choices and adjudications that do the same. By being conscious of the goals of play and making choices that are fun for everyone and that lead to the creation of an exciting, memorable story, the group can ensure that they "win" D&D.

 

[iserith]

Taking a feat that grants a damage bonus with a penalty to hit, and then using a spell (or other simple mechanical) device to obviate the penalty, isn't some sort of corner-case abuse of a rules loophole. It looks to me like playing the game as it was designed.

In other words, I don't understand how it is exploitative for a player to build a PC according to the rules of the game, and to use those mechanical elements that the game provides in order to increase chances to hit.

It might not have been clear, but I was using the words of someone earlier in the thread who referred to these mechanics as exploitable.

Suppose the feats under discussion just gave a flat +10 to damage (with no penalty to hit). Would that be an "objective problem"?

It's only a problem if the players used the feat in a way that caused the group to fail to achieve the goals of play.

 

[Psikerlord#]

So they beat the game on Easy Mode. Why don't they set it to Medium by making other choices and see what happens?

If you're going to manage damage balance by relying on players not taking broken feats, you might as well just remove the broken bits. Either way they arent getting used.

 

[Minigiant]

Taking a feat that grants a damage bonus with a penalty to hit, and then using a spell (or other simple mechanical) device to obviate the penalty, isn't some sort of corner-case abuse of a rules loophole. It looks to me like playing the game as it was designed.

In other words, I don't understand how it is exploitative for a player to build a PC according to the rules of the game, and to use those mechanical elements that the game provides in order to increase chances to hit.

It's not exploitative.
But it take more than one player to do it.

The DPR machine.
The bless-bot who just dodges.
The battlefield controller or tank who keeps damage off the previous two.

This isn't one guy. It's a team combo. A party combo.

You can't complain that a specific team combo makes the game too easy. You can complain that the DM is doesn't challenge your weaknesses. If you have no weaknesses as a party because you are over the game's powergaming expectations and the DM cannot bring the fun, either you have to change the rules or you have to change the characters.

I'm a firm believer of the DM matching the powergaming level of the players. This isn't one player powergaming. This is the party doing it. And if the party powergames, the DM should too. Orc shamans have bless too now. Let's see how many thrown handaxes your cleric can take!

 

[iserith]

If you're going to manage damage balance by relying on players not taking broken feats, you might as well just remove the broken bits. Either way they arent getting used.

Imagine having players that can take the so-called "broken feats" and still not ruin the game for anyone else. It's possible because I've seen it happen at my own table.

As this conversation has gone on a great deal longer than it needs to, I'll leave off with this simple suggestion:

DMs, before play, build consensus with the group on what they find fun and what they think constitutes an exciting, memorable story. Figure out how the rules support this effort. Then present content and make adjudications that do the same.

Players, before you make a choice - be it for your build, a tactic in battle, or a course of action in other situations - ask yourself, "Is this going to be fun for everyone?" and "Will this help lead to an exciting, memorable story?" If the answer to both of those questions is "Yes," then do it! If the answer to either of those questions is "No," then do something else that is also in keeping with your established characterization (or choose to undergo character growth and change). If the answer to either of those questions is "I'm not sure," then ask the table what they think before proceeding.

This simple thing works surprisingly well to ensure that the group "wins" D&D every single time.

Good luck.

 

[pemerton]

It's only a problem if the players used the feat in a way that caused the group to fail to achieve the goals of play.

It seems to be a consequence of your view that there can be no errors of design as far as the game is concerned. Is that correct, or am I misunderstanding?

 

[pemerton]

It's not exploitative.
But it take more than one player to do it.

<snip>

This isn't one guy. It's a team combo. A party combo.

You can't complain that a specific team combo makes the game too easy.

I didn't think that was the complaint. I thought the complaint was that it causes spotlight imbalance between team members (eg duelist and two-weapon types tend to be overshadowed by archers and great-weapon types).

My own view is that the debate around these feats shows the general flaw of the power attack mechanic. It is a purely mathematical trick that has no connection to the ingame fiction. The particular mathematical trick is the play on the fact that D&D uses both a to hit roll and a damage roll to determine the resolution of a declared attack.

Because it is a purely mathematical trick, it is prone to break down whenever the mathematics of the game falls outside the parameters that the designers had in mind in establishing the numerical trade-offs for the power-attack ability. And because huge swathes of D&D mechanics are all about tweaking those mathematics (ability score boosts, magic items, spells, etc) it turns out to be not that hard for that sort of break down to occur, particularly among players who pay attention to the maths. (That's not all of them, but it's not a negligible number, either, given that "paying attention to the maths" is a common trait among serious game players in general, a category that is over-represented among RPGers compared to humanity as a whole.)

It should be possible to define feats that serve the same function but aren't prone to mathematical breakdown. As I posted, it seems to me there are two main alternatives:

* If the point of the feat is a modest damage boost, change it to give one. That is what +1 to STR/DEX does. Another option is a flat +2 to damage.

* If the point of the feat is to give the player the thrill of occasional spike damage, redesign around that. The 1x/turn rationing is one approach, but perhaps not very thrilling because chosen by the player. Linking it to a particular natural attack roll (say, +5 to damage on an even attack roll that hits) might be better.

* If the feat is meant to involve a trade-off, make the trade-off something that does not operate in the same dimension of combat resolution as damage - eg to gain the damage bonus you have to take a -2 penalty to AC until the start of your next turn (the logic might be that a GWF is attacking more and defending less; a sharpshooter is taking more risks to aim the perfect shot).​

The suggested solution that players should just not use their PC abilities strikes me as unsatisfactory. I think an RPG should be designed so that player use of their PC abilities makes for a fun experience, not so that that players have to second guess whether or not actually deploying the game elements will make for good play.