D&D 5E When -5/+10 starts becoming Very Reliable?

[CapnZapp]

All that being said... I'm still leery of the sharshooter version of the feat.

A 2-handed weapon warrior in 5e sacrifices a lot. He can't use a shield for very very precious AC. He does a bit more damage but when someone uses duelist they almost catch up (*and* can use a shield!). In 3e he got 1.5 strength bonus in extra damage, but he no longer anymore. This feat seems to be a way to compensate for that lack - and as I mentioned, it's less efficient for high base damage warriors anyway.

However, for a ranged warrior most of these considerations are moot. The base damage is lower (so it works better) and the archer sacrifices little - yes there is no shield used, but range is a form of protection too. With dex increasing ranged damage in 5e, an archer can afford to focus on dex and have high to hit, damage *and* AC. So I think the sharpshooter version is stronger than GWM. I don't think it's as good as some people are saying (doubling damage? please) *but* it may be too good nevertheless.

Yes, the Crossbow Expert + Sharpshooter combo sets you up for a game where:

- you can use the full range of your weapon
- you are not disadvantaged in any way by having a foe right up to your face
- you can take the +2 Archery style and still get the equivalence of a Fighting Style.

That +2 can't be matched by a melee fighter. In theory, I guess the reasoning went "the melee fighter gets d12 damage dice, but the archer only gets d8; lets give the archer his +2 on attacks instead". But getting a +2 on attacks is better than a +2 on damage, especially in a game with GWM/SS!

My advice is: drop the Crossbow Expert feat and allow dual wielding with ranged as well as melee weaponry.

Of course, my real advice is: replace the -5/+10 mechanism of GWM with +1 Str and that of Sharpshooter with +1 Dex, or similar. (I still think the CR feat should be removed even if you do this)

 

[Celtavian]

All that being said... I'm still leery of the sharshooter version of the feat.

A 2-handed weapon warrior in 5e sacrifices a lot. He can't use a shield for very very precious AC. He does a bit more damage but when someone uses duelist they almost catch up (*and* can use a shield!). In 3e he got 1.5 strength bonus in extra damage, but he no longer anymore. This feat seems to be a way to compensate for that lack - and as I mentioned, it's less efficient for high base damage warriors anyway.

However, for a ranged warrior most of these considerations are moot. The base damage is lower (so it works better) and the archer sacrifices little - yes there is no shield used, but range is a form of protection too. With dex increasing ranged damage in 5e, an archer can afford to focus on dex and have high to hit, damage *and* AC. So I think the sharpshooter version is stronger than GWM. I don't think it's as good as some people are saying (doubling damage? please) *but* it may be too good nevertheless.

Now this I agree with and have seen in action. GWM is far more limited and you have to be up in their face to do the damage. A mobile creature can avoid you quite easily. Sure, GWM is a big damage boost. But you don't get to use it while avoiding damage. You have to eat damage to do damage.

Sharpshooter not so much. Huge benefits with minimal penalties that can be offset with the Crossbow Expert feat or the new Close Quarters Combat. The main limitation is the DM should watch how many arrows or bolts get used closely. That's the main limiting factor.

 

[Zardnaar]

Intrestingly these encounters are pretty much geared up for GWM fighters - all have medium-low AC (barring the Orogs) and are either high hit point monsters (perfect targets for GWM), or lots of mooks (bonus action cleave).

I would throw an Orc Wicca (use Mage stats) at them for a surprise. Watch the lols when the party mage and cleric get lightning bolted, and their counterspell gets counterspelled, and haste and bless drop mid battle.

Maybe a 'War troll' type encounter to mirror Moria, with an 'War Ogre' in Plate (AC 18), 30' move, 14HD (120 HP), Str 20, prof in athletics and Str save proficiency, multiattack with a greatsword at +8 (4d6+5), CR 5 monster. Maybe give it a legendary save or two and one or two legendary actions and sit back and enjoy the chaos as the players try and figure out what youve thrown at them.

An Orog champion with a few extra HD and HP, an increase in proff to +3, the brute (double dice damage) and knights parry (+3 to AC as a reaction) ability would also be epic.

The moral of the story is keep em guessing. Sounds like they know what encounters to use what abilities on, and when to use GWM/ Bless/ Haste and when not to.

He has been giving them chainmail and plate armor already.

 

[Celtavian]

I call your bluff.

If you really mean to persist propagating this myth, Flamestrike, at least be honest enough to admit "I dont want to rehash the whole 'the game is balanced around a six encounter adventuring day' argument again, but thats how you 'fix' it: with lots and lots of DM prep time.

And you still haven't answered my question in that other thread Flamestrike:

What advice do you give a DM that purchases an official module to not have to create her own adventures?

I don't know that you can take Flamestrike's word on the six to eight encounter adventuring day. When I started to destroy his encounters even with his recommended tactics forcing the encounters to follow a grid map, there were major weaknesses in his encounter design I exploited. Flamestrike even thought that dim light imposed disadvantage on ranged attack rolls. Now he's running it himself because I'm defeating his encounters too easily.

Go look at the thread and analyze my tactics as both DM and player. I'm using his encounters in an optimal fashion. But I'm not playing theater of the mind. I'm using grid mapping, which forces following of the movement rules like Squeezing and having to take double moves to cover father distances. As well as putting creatures in range of spells he hand-waved as not in range.

I'm done listening to this six to eight encounter day rubbish. I housed his encounters. I ran them as optimally as I ran the characters. Just like I do the majority of my monsters. There just seems to be this assumption by folks like Flamestrike that they can do things that aren't easy to do to optimized characters like break their concentration or attack them without making suboptimal movement choices that lead to them dead faster while dealing less damage. I can only assume their used to poorly spaced parties that don't bother to account for enemy movement.

Don't buy that six to eight encounter day rubbish. Optimized parties will destroy such encounters even with a time limit. No way you can maintain that level of challenge on a consistent basis against an optimized party using the Monster Manual or even the recommended design principles.

 

[CapnZapp]

I am sorry Celtavian, I really am. I know you want to tell the truth, but I really would like to ask you to critically reflect upon your own posts.

I am afraid you come across badly with an attitude of the things you write. I know games like us consider optimization more than perhaps other gamers, but you would really do yourself a favor if you tone down phrasings like "destroy" "I housed his encounters" "major weaknesses" or the like.

If you want to fly the banner of "it's difficult to make 6-8 encounter happen in practice" I'm all for it. But I can't stand behind you if you come across as "playing the game better than you".

Even if you don't really mean to.

Best Regards and good gaming,
Zapp

Don't buy that six to eight encounter day rubbish. Optimized parties will destroy such encounters even with a time limit. No way you can maintain that level of challenge on a consistent basis against an optimized party using the Monster Manual or even the recommended design principles.

My point was and remains something similar but different:

When the game assumes a 6-8 encounter day it asks us DMs to do a lot of work ourselves, with creating believable and creative reasons for the time limits. Which already there is a burden, that the game could have 1) done itself in published modules 2) done away with entirely by offering variant rules that move this away to the meta level 3) solved entirely by not balancing short-rest and long-rest on so bloody many encounters.

Much of this infected discussion would simply have been unneccessary had the balance point been, say, half that of 6-8! If the classes were equal when you have 4 encounters and 1 short rest per day. Then you would have far less instances of "too few" encounters (where long-rest classes such as wizards get "unfair" advantages) and possibly even an instance or three of "too many" encounters (where short-rest classes such as warlocks get "unfair" advantages!

As for the "my party kill puny adventure" hyperbole - I honestly feel the most constructive path forward is to simply say the recommended guidelines are written for "the average gamer", which means that it's possible to assemble parties much MUCH stronger than the assumed power level.

And then simply add more monsters (relatively easy and AL friendly), replace monsters with stronger varieties (moderately easy especially if you're able to do the reskinning game), or even to rewrite the monsters (as in this thread; not easy but doable).

 

[Ancalagon]

No, you were criticized for having a AC 19 scenario and still elect to have the GWM fighter use the -5/+10 ability, despite that being mathematically unsound.

It means your example forgets one very important ability of the feat: it leaves up to the PC to decide when and where to use it and when not to use it.

Phrased otherwise: with optimal play, you will only use it when it benefits you.

Well of course you only use something when it's beneficial! What the heck would be the point otherwise?!?

Bob the barbarian: hmmm, the final boss seems to be a single fire monster!
Jane the sorceress: Better use fireball then
Bob: I don't mean to tell you how to do your job but wut?
Jane: It's my best spell, I have to use it until I run out of slot. Guild rule
Bob: Ooooooh. So *that's* why you fireballed that peasant witness! I'm glad we had this conversation.

If you want to use math, I suggest that you first calculate the cutoff point. The AC where it is no longer useful to use -5/+10. Probably you're going to arrive at a relatively low AC.

What this means is that without help, GWM is only useful against low AC enemies. Not average AC, lower than that. Most enemies will have a greater AC than this.

So far so good.

Yup

But then instead of trying to defeat the argument, you should think like a scientist. Put yourself into the minmaxer's shoes.

I *am* a scientist. My approach has been fairly rigorous.

Ask yourself the question "what can I do to give myself enough bonuses to effectively raise the cutoff AC to a point where it now makes sense against lots of enemies?"

Let's start there.

Hint: Bless is a good starting point. Perhaps the easiest way to ensure advantage (a huge bonus equivalent to more than +3 in the scenario we're investigating, namely the one where you have roughly a 50% attack chance) is the Barbarian's Reckless Attack.

Or you might team up with someone that renders the foe Prone. Or Stunned. Or Held. Or... there's lots of ways.

Try it.

And then and only then you get to refute the argument. If you still believe the argument is invalid.

Cheers

My math *specifically* addressed that scenario!?!? Didn't you bother reading?!?\

My point is this: When those would-be min-maxers compare the boosted damage (GWM + advantage), they compare it to "vanilla attack" (scenario 1), NOT "vanilla attack + advantage". When you do *that* comparison, the bonus is still there, but it's not as great. And there are also opportunity cost to using buffing spells.

So it's a good feat. Perhaps too good. But please, no more "he does double damage than anyone else!!!!" because that's simply not true.

 

[Jester David]

So?

The relativizing argument again - do you mean no rpg rule is ever wrong and can never be improved, or do you have a more specific point in mind? Because then I'd like you to make a less sweeping statement.

Let me rephrase the complaint for your benefit: "It would make the game better if breaking it isn't as simple as figuring out that the so-called drawback of GWM can be trivally offset by Bless among several other cheap options".

Thank you

I'm a little more critical because this is another Zard complaint thread. They don't end up very constructive, since they're just critical. No solutions posited. No alternatives proposed. None even requested.
The intent of this thread is not to fix.

That said, no game is ever perfect.
The most balanced game in existence is Rock Paper Scissors. Three options, all with equal chance of wining, losing, or tying.
At any given round, you have a 33.3% chance of winning. Very fair.
Except, some people have won tournaments multiple times. Far beyond statistical likelihood. You can optimize Roshambo. There's psychology involved and reading opponents. Some moves and reactions are more likely and a player good at reading opponents can win far more than the odds suggest.
Because no game is ever so well designed that player skill can't break it.

D&D is even worse since the baseline is not even odds of victory.

 

[Zardnaar]

I'm a little more critical because this is another Zard complaint thread. They don't end up very constructive, since they're just critical. No solutions posited. No alternatives proposed. None even requested.
The intent of this thread is not to fix.

That said, no game is ever perfect.
The most balanced game in existence is Rock Paper Scissors. Three options, all with equal chance of wining, losing, or tying.
At any given round, you have a 33.3% chance of winning. Very fair.
Except, some people have won tournaments multiple times. Far beyond statistical likelihood. You can optimize Roshambo. There's psychology involved and reading opponents. Some moves and reactions are more likely and a player good at reading opponents can win far more than the odds suggest.
Because no game is ever so well designed that player skill can't break it.

D&D is even worse since the baseline is not even odds of victory.

So you don''t want any criticism of 5E? I have started 3 threads recently of which 1 is a complaint thread. Things I notice back in 2014 seem to be getting noticed a lot more- the -5/+0 feats, encounter rules are wonky at best BA doesn't work so well. The other 2 threads one was about SOng of Rest in an all Bard party and the other was a review of the EN5ider class material.

 

[Prism]

My fix is as the DM to give the player a flame tongue. No more need for +10 damage

 

[ccs]

So you don''t want any criticism of 5E? I have started 3 threads recently of which 1 is a complaint thread. Things I notice back in 2014 seem to be getting noticed a lot more- the -5/+0 feats, encounter rules are wonky at best BA doesn't work so well.

Yeah, we know this. And I imagine as the years progress & more people play more 5e these things will be noticed by more players....

In fact, this has happened in my own Sunday game.
We started out playing HotDQ/RoT dec.'14 - Spt.'15 Everyone but myself was unfamiliar with 5e. So classes/races/feats were picked fairly cautiously by most (something I see a lot when a new game/edition is begun)
When that ended DMing rotated & more varied characters appeared. Here the new DM learned to trust his own insticts more than the printed encounter guidelines. We didn't have the most optimized party by a longshot, & the adventure was more comedy/goofy RP than constant fighting - but he noticed it.
His initial adventure has now concluded & I'm DMing in two weeks.

Now, a bit over a year into playing 5e the players are beginning to really look at the mechanical aspects.
I'll be DMing for a party of 4 1/2orc barbarians! There was a lot of player discussion/excitement about how awesome GWM will be come 4th lv when they get feats. At least two of them are actively planning on taking this. And RIGHT NOW those two negate the -5 to hit penalty thanks to their strength. If the other two also go this rout? They'll only have a -1 & a -2.
They are gleefully planning to maul whatever gets in their way.
And you know what? I'm OK with this. It just tells me what I need to make encounters suitable against.

On top of that there was some talk of everyone of them taking the totem path so they could eventually fly.
So eventually I could be seeing a wall of flying, raging, great weapon toting 1/2orcs all dealing 15+ bonus damage per hit....