D&D 5E Current take on GWM/SS

[pemerton]

And I always saw this as a silly complaint unless you are a two-weapon type. Duelists, shield users, and pikeman aren't damage builds.

And I didn't mention polearm users or shield-users being overshadowed.

I'm not sure what you think a duelist or two-weapon fighter is for, though, if not damage. They're not generally battlefield control, and two-weapon fighting has been a go-to damage build in earlier editions of the game (eg AD&D, 4e).

If the complaint is that the feats lets the SS/GWM user vastly outdamage an non-damage focused build....

The solution is for the player to make a damage build​

If the complaint is that the feats les the SS/GWM user vastly outdamage a damage focused build....

Then nerf the feats or buff the feats of those other damage builds​

<snip>

If the complaint is that the feats lets the SS/GWM user, a bless-bot, and support PC breeze through the game via powergaming and even DM powergaming following the rules doesn't work....

Then change the feat. The designers have messed up.​

I'm not sure of your point.

On your first solution, one complaint I've seen is that these feats channel players who want to have competitive damage-dealing PCs into great weapons and archery at the expense of other fantasy archetypes (eg duelist, two-weapon fighting). Is there a good reason for this?

On your second and third solutions, they are more-or-less what this thread is about, as far as I can tell.

I don't really see the point of telling people who find the feats problematic that they are playing the game wrong. What's wrong with wanting the game not to channel all damage-dealing builds into two rather narrow mechanical pathways? (Eg the game has many, many pathways for magical utility builds.) How is that approaching the game the wrong way, or in the wrong spirit?

Because of the above, I'm also unclear on what you think would have to be shown, about the design or effect of some particular mechanical game element, to support the conclusion that it is an error of design, or at least a weak design feature. The designers clearly think that the maths of the game matters, including its damage subsystem, given the obvious amount of effort put into designing it. Why is reasoned criticism of some of their choices out-of-bounds?

 

[Hussar]

Both are level 6. One is a variant human with 18 Strength and 16 Con + GWM. The other is a dwarf with 29 STR and 17 Con. Everything else is basically the same.

Assuming you meant 19 str.

How did our human get that 16 Con? He burned his 15 for Str. His Con should be 15. When ch gives him 6 less hp. And shouldn't our dwarf not have an 18 Con at this point? Two ASI's +2 for dwarf? That gives him 12 more HP.

And, who's carrying the torch or lantern?

 

[DaveDash]

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.

It's also very possible for the players to make choices during play that cause the group to fail to achieve the goals of play at a later stage of play, especially if they are not really fully aware of the consequences of those choices - having just read about them somewhere in a guide.
They may even be lead to believe that their decisions won't cause potential issues down the track due to the supposed play-testing this edition has gone through.

 

[Hussar]

But that's not the case here [MENTION=6786202]DaveDash[/MENTION]. If it was, then removing the feats would be problematic.

 

[DaveDash]

But that's not the case here [MENTION=6786202]DaveDash[/MENTION]. If it was, then removing the feats would be problematic.

How do you know it's not the case? One forum poster at least that I know of HAS ran into this issue. Paging [MENTION=6716779]Zardnaar[/MENTION].

He and all players agreed that the combination was game breaking and they cancelled their campaign and started a new one, removing the troublesome feats in question. This is not strictly a new or unique problem to D&D 5e, but to claim it's simply a player issue and that D&D 5e is perfect is quite the claim.

There were no problem players in Zardnaars case, only problem feats.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

What is the point of two handed weapons if not damage... maybe a much easier solution than netting those feats would be following solution:
everyone may take -5 penalty to attack rolls and add 5 damage. usually that is a bad trade. Buy against very low Ac targets, you are still competitive.

 

[Psikerlord#]

Honestly, without GWM and SS, things are pretty well balanced. There is about a +/- 15% variance from the baseline for the most part. The fighter, barbarian, rogue, and paladin all deal fairly similar DPR across most levels of the game. But once you give one of them SS or GWM, the difference can only be made up by the others also taking the feat.

Yes I agree. I've found in practice as a player and DM that without the +10, the party's damage is in a good place. We dont use multiclassing however so not sure if that poses any difficulties.

 

[Celtavian]

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.

And game designers can create rules that that cause groups to fail to achieve the goals of play requiring groups to make changes to the rules.

 

[Celtavian]

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.

Are you seriously saying you think that players sitting at the table concentrate on "the goals of play" outlined in Page 2 of the basic document? Do you seriously think they do?

 

[Celtavian]

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.

Or I as DM can figure out the problem, create a rule solution to balance it, and solve the imbalanced problem creating a situation where the players don't have to worry about Page 2 of the Basic PDF. Instead Page 2 of the Basic PDF occurs naturally because there is no rule outlier to interfere with the goals of play.