D&D 5E Current take on GWM/SS

[Celtavian]

indeed if the fighter is UP without the +10 then the core rules are broken.

They were broken for a long time in 3E. Rogue was played one time in Pathfinder. Fighters were a few times, but they were easy to counter with casting. Been that way a while. It's a little better in 5E at low levels. I'm not sure about higher levels. Fighter missed a lot of frightened saves. If the paladin hadn't been present, things might have gone differently.

 

[Celtavian]

Shot at with a bow two or three times and dies?


(j/k, couldn't resist.)

But it was The Black Arrow fired by the legendary Bard the Bowman. It was forged by Thror, King Under the Mountain and ancestor of Thorin Oakenshield, when Thror had a Ring of Power.

Epic.

 

[aramis erak]

The only feat we have changed is Warcaster allowing casters to used ranged spell attacks in melee range. We thought it was ridiculous to require a caster to buy Crossbow Expert to use ranged spells in melee range. Warcaster seemed the more appropriate feat for that ability.

I'm still a bit torn on the Sharpshooter and Great Weapon Master feats because if the fighter doesn't do a lot of damage, he's a fairly weak class. Removing the feats would remove one of the best options for the fighter to boost his damage. Whereas casters have tons of versatility at higher level and can attack the various weaknesses of enemies in a highly effective fashion against non-legendary creatures.

I would keep an eye on Legendary Resistance and Concentration. Those two anti-caster abilities have a bad effect on casters turning them into buff bots for the end game fights. I don't know if I like that aspect of the game.

Until he's at a 20 on Str, He's probably better off taking the bonus to attribute, because the damage per attack is better against credible threat targets. Or, if he's a dex-based fighter, until dex 20. And a rogue has little reason not to go dex-based, given their armor limitations and proficient weapons. Not the least because the Rogue's stealth is also dex based as is the acrobatics he uses to climb; the fighter gets to push people around with strength, and usually also climbing and leaping, and so there are non-violent uses for both.

The cases where damage is needed most, the power attack feats are worse damage per attack, because the AC's are one the order of 10+AttackMod... and the penalty of 5 reduces the value of that bonus damage.

Plus, except for the Rogue, ALL classes have only about 1-2 rounds of nova damage.

 

[Celtavian]

Until he's at a 20 on Str, He's probably better off taking the bonus to attribute, because the damage per attack is better against credible threat targets. Or, if he's a dex-based fighter, until dex 20. And a rogue has little reason not to go dex-based, given their armor limitations and proficient weapons. Not the least because the Rogue's stealth is also dex based as is the acrobatics he uses to climb; the fighter gets to push people around with strength, and usually also climbing and leaping, and so there are non-violent uses for both.

The cases where damage is needed most, the power attack feats are worse damage per attack, because the AC's are one the order of 10+AttackMod... and the penalty of 5 reduces the value of that bonus damage.

Plus, except for the Rogue, ALL classes have only about 1-2 rounds of nova damage.

I think we've shown it's pretty easy to circumvent the -5 penalty for almost all ACs. I'm more worried without the feats the fighter becomes the red-headed stepchild he was in 3E. I don't want to see that happen.

 

[Psikerlord#]

They were broken for a long time in 3E. Rogue was played one time in Pathfinder. Fighters were a few times, but they were easy to counter with casting. Been that way a while. It's a little better in 5E at low levels. I'm not sure about higher levels. Fighter missed a lot of frightened saves. If the paladin hadn't been present, things might have gone differently.

With the extra feats, most fighters will take Wis Resilience or Lucky I presume. That shores up their primary weakness and makes them very competitive in my book.

As far as feats go, I like all of them, with the exception of the +10 and the removal of disad on melee shooting in CE. Keep everything else and fighters have lots of great feats to choose from. But... the beeeest things about feats is making your own - custom made feats for your individual PCs which your own players make (in consultation with you).

 

[Minigiant]

The melee Fighter is weak-ish. The ranged Fighter is not.

Well I don't think it's that simple.

Before Feats
Bow Fighter is Great
Crossbow Fighter is Bad
Duelist Fighter is Weak
GWF Fighter is Average until level 5 when it becomes Good
Polearm Fighter is Below Average
Shield Fighter is Great
TWF Fighter is Great until level 5 when it becomes Bad

With Feats
Bow Fighter is Great
Crossbow Fighter is Awesome
Duelist Fighter is Average
GWF Fighter is Average until level 5 when it becomes Good and level 8 when it becomes Great
Polearm Fighter is Below Average until level 5 when it becomes Good and level 8 when it becomes Great
Shield Fighter is Awesome
TWF Fighter is Great until level 5 when it becomes Very Bad

This is comparing each style with its effectiveness at its job. It becomes a question of whether you need to bring the Good styles down and risk them being outclassed or bringing the Bad ones up and having the fighter dominate at damage or defense.

 

[KarinsDad]

Well I don't think it's that simple.

Before Feats
Bow Fighter is Great
Crossbow Fighter is Bad
Duelist Fighter is Weak
GWF Fighter is Average until level 5 when it becomes Good
Polearm Fighter is Below Average
Shield Fighter is Great
TWF Fighter is Great until level 5 when it becomes Bad

With Feats
Bow Fighter is Great
Crossbow Fighter is Awesome
Duelist Fighter is Average
GWF Fighter is Average until level 5 when it becomes Good and level 8 when it becomes Great
Polearm Fighter is Below Average until level 5 when it becomes Good and level 8 when it becomes Great
Shield Fighter is Awesome
TWF Fighter is Great until level 5 when it becomes Very Bad

This is comparing each style with its effectiveness at its job. It becomes a question of whether you need to bring the Good styles down and risk them being outclassed or bringing the Bad ones up and having the fighter dominate at damage or defense.

I think it depends a bit on campaign and DM style.

For my table, I like dungeons (crypts, barrow mounds, caverns, mazes, whatever) with a lot of encounters. I prefer the other two pillars to lead up to the dungeon. It is not always this way, but often this way. With this style, it makes more sense to me to not do anything in the house rules until a given player decides to take a given feat. Then, I will probably buff up it a little if it is a terrible one and pull it in a little if it is awesome.

In my experience, players really enjoy taking a feat over an ability score increase. There is no way that I would remove feats. But, that does not mean that I will allow them to run roughshod over the game. Since I will not be removing feats, I think that having certain styles be a bit weaker until level 4 or 5 is totally ok. PCs are still wet behind the ears and learning their craft in the first tier.


Since I do have this particular style where spell casters cannot just burn through all of their spells in the first encounter, I do think all of this is fairly well balanced. Celtavian appears to run a game or in games where there are fewer more daunting encounters. In such a model, the spell casters might be casting a spell and not a cantrip nearly every round. In such a campaign world, then there could be more of a concern that the melee types are being outclassed. But, I do not think that 5E is designed with that type of encounter design in mind. It's flexible enough to handle it, but the DM has to realize that it is his own style that is allowing the spell casters to shine more. That's his decision. He is the one who is skewing this, not the players. Because he is doing this, he might just have to beef up the melee feats a bit to make up for it.

 

[Minigiant]

I think it depends a bit on campaign and DM style.

For my table, I like dungeons (crypts, barrow mounds, caverns, mazes, whatever) with a lot of encounters. I prefer the other two pillars to lead up to the dungeon. It is not always this way, but often this way. With this style, it makes more sense to me to not do anything in the house rules until a given player decides to take a given feat. Then, I will probably buff up it a little if it is a terrible one and pull it in a little if it is awesome.

In my experience, players really enjoy taking a feat over an ability score increase. There is no way that I would remove feats. But, that does not mean that I will allow them to run roughshod over the game. Since I will not be removing feats, I think that having certain styles be a bit weaker until level 4 or 5 is totally ok. PCs are still wet behind the ears and learning their craft in the first tier.


Since I do have this particular style where spell casters cannot just burn through all of their spells in the first encounter, I do think all of this is fairly well balanced. Celtavian appears to run a game or in games where there are fewer more daunting encounters. In such a model, the spell casters might be casting a spell and not a cantrip nearly every round. In such a campaign world, then there could be more of a concern that the melee types are being outclassed. But, I do not think that 5E is designed with that type of encounter design in mind. It's flexible enough to handle it, but the DM has to realize that it is his own style that is allowing the spell casters to shine more. That's his decision. He is the one who is skewing this, not the players. Because he is doing this, he might just have to beef up the melee feats a bit to make up for it.

Well I was assuming the vase assumption: 5-7 encounters using the xp guidelines.

My games go over XP budget if you don't win exploration and interaction challenges before and during adventure. So a damage monster fighter might outclass the basic rogue in damage. You will need that crazy damage if you fail to break the truce between the orcs and drow or do not rescue the Blackbird lieutenant from the jail silently.

 

[KarinsDad]

Well I was assuming the vase assumption: 5-7 encounters using the xp guidelines.

My games go over XP budget if you don't win exploration and interaction challenges before and during adventure. So a damage monster fighter might outclass the basic rogue in damage. You will need that crazy damage if you fail to break the truce between the orcs and drow or do not rescue the Blackbird lieutenant from the jail silently.

It's not needed.

It's preferred. A way to make combats shorter. It's a play style preference. Do not confuse how you want certain classes to work with how other tables expect them to work.

 

[Minigiant]

It's not needed.

It's preferred. A way to make combats shorter. It's a play style preference. Do not confuse how you want certain classes to work with how other tables expect them to work.

I don't want anyone playing how I play. Keeps me unique.

I am just stating the base assumption from the DMG. One needs to know the base assumption before they criticize it as broken.

My games are 50%-150% of the DMG assumptions on encounters with 50% the treasure and 200% the nonadventure.