D&D 5E Feats, class balance and fun

[FormerlyHemlock]

Those feats need to be scaled back to -proficiency for +5 damage. The Ignoring cover part of Sharpshooter trivializes a lot of what DMs try to do to make some encounters more challenging. Especially when it is combined with +2 attack from the fighting style. The cover ignore ability should be swapped for some kind of Quickdraw mechanic or bonus to attacks at short range.

Sharpshooter does not lot you ignore cover. It lets you ignore 1/2 and 3/4 cover, which are the worst kinds of cover. Against good cover (total), Sharpshooters are just as crippled as anyone else. They have to either switch targets or maneuver for a shot.

 

[Bacon Bits]

Why?

Off the top of my head, here's four things you shouldn't try Sharpshooter against:

(1) Spellcasting dragons w/ Shield spell (AC 24)
(2) Drow Elite Warriors shooting at you from beyond your darkvision range (AC 18 + disadvantage)
(3) Nycaloths inside of Darkness spells (AC 18 + disadvantage)
(4) Almost anything that isn't a mook while you're being constricted by a giant snake/toad/octopus or caught in a Web spell or whatever (typically AC 15-18 + disadvantage)

The decision point for Sharpshooter doesn't always come into play, but sometimes it does (GWM even moreso), and PCs now have an additional reason to jockey for advantage over disadvantage. And that adds interest to the fight (at least for me as a DM!).

Forcing players to make decisions is what make creating scenarios and running scenarios interesting. Teaching them to "solve" the puzzle of how to deal with drow in the dark is fun.

Sure, some things have AC over 20. That's why I used that key word, "essentially." There are, in fact, 11 monsters in the Monster Manual with AC 21 or higher (Tarrasque, Empyrian, Solar, 4 ancient metallics, and 4 ancient chromatics). You probably don't want to use power attack against those until you're at very high level. However, you're not going to spend levels 10 to 20 fighting nothing but those creatures.

Well, how about spellcasters? If we exclude monsters with base AC below 16 (since 15 + 5 = 20) and also exclude those counted above, there are... 33 spellcasting stat blocks in the Monster Manual: Androsphinx, Arcanaloth, Cambion, Couatl, Dao, Death Knight, Death Slaad, Deva, Djinni, Drider, Efreeti, Githyanki Knight, Githyanki Warrior, Githzerai Zerth, Glabrezu, Gray Slaad, Green Hag, Green Slaad, Guardian Naga, Gynosphinx, Lich, Marid, Mezzoloth, Mummy Lord, Night Hag, Nycaloth, Oni, Orc Eye of Gruumsh, Pit Fiend, Planetar, Rakshasa, Storm Giant, Ultroloth. [For my source, Google "5e monster manual spreadsheet" and you'll likely find what I did.] Now, a lot of things on that list are likely to be friendly NPCs (one side or the other). And not everything else is actually a real spellcaster. A lot of them just have "Innate Spellcasting" instead of "Spellcaster" and just have a handful of spells that they get each day (Storm Giants, Genies, Githyanki, most fiends, etc.). There's no real chance that an Efreeti is casting darkness or shield, right? So, some of them might get shield, darkness, or some other magical effect that can raise AC... but most do not. And even then... for every darkness there is a daylight or dispel or Reckless Attack. For every shield there is a bless or Precision Attack.

And yeah, congratulations, you as a DM can construct encounters where typically good choices are instead bad. Are you saying you're planning to do that every encounter? I mean, that's pretty BS if you do, isn't it? You're not fixing the problem. You're just mitigating it without telling the players you're going to do that, preventing them from making an informed choice about the game. That's pretty poor style, and is going to upset your players. "Here's an optimal choice, but it will never be relevant because I'm never going allow it to be." I mean, that clearly can't be what you mean, right? No one would expect players to stick around for a game that pulled something like that? That's like giving out only magical swords, and then making every enemy resistant or immune to magical slashing damage. Nobody is really going to do that every encounter.

So, no, I really don't think the existence of mitigating circumstances changes anything. They're going to be uncommon enough that it isn't likely to come up all day every encounter. It doesn't change the fact that once you get to mid level your default mode of attack in any given encounter should be to use power attack. All things being equal, power attack is the superior default choice. Just like using a magical sword over a mundane mace is the superior default choice even though you might encounter skeletons or oozes.

 

[FormerlyHemlock]

Sure, some things have AC over 20. That's why I used that key word, "essentially." There are, in fact, 11 monsters in the Monster Manual with AC 21 or higher (Tarrasque, Empyrian, Solar, 4 ancient metallics, and 4 ancient chromatics). You probably don't want to use power attack against those until you're at very high level. However, you're not going to spend levels 10 to 20 fighting nothing but those creatures.

Well, how about spellcasters? If we exclude monsters with base AC below 16 (since 15 + 5 = 20) and also exclude those counted above, there are... 33 spellcasting stat blocks in the Monster Manual: Androsphinx, Arcanaloth, Cambion, Couatl, Dao, Death Knight, Death Slaad, Deva, Djinni, Drider, Efreeti, Githyanki Knight, Githyanki Warrior, Githzerai Zerth, Glabrezu, Gray Slaad, Green Hag, Green Slaad, Guardian Naga, Gynosphinx, Lich, Marid, Mezzoloth, Mummy Lord, Night Hag, Nycaloth, Oni, Orc Eye of Gruumsh, Pit Fiend, Planetar, Rakshasa, Storm Giant, Ultroloth. [For my source, Google "5e monster manual spreadsheet" and you'll likely find what I did.] Now, a lot of things on that list are likely to be friendly NPCs (one side or the other). And not everything else is actually a real spellcaster. A lot of them just have "Innate Spellcasting" instead of "Spellcaster" and just have a handful of spells that they get each day (Storm Giants, Genies, Githyanki, most fiends, etc.). There's no real chance that an Efreeti is casting darkness or shield, right? So, some of them might get shield, darkness, or some other magical effect that can raise AC... but most do not. And even then... for every darkness there is a daylight or dispel or Reckless Attack. For every shield there is a bless or Precision Attack.

If players are having to cast Bless and use Precision Attack to mitigate the effects of Shield (which comes into play as early as CR 2 on a Githzerai zerth--AC 22 when Shielding IIRC) then that's a pretty meaningful decision that Sharpshooter introduces--do I spend my concentration on Bless to help the Sharpshooter do marginally better damage than a non-Sharpshooter, or do I spend my concentration on something else like Confusion?

If the players feel they have to crack the Nycaloth's Darkness spell with Dispel Magic before they can meaningfully Sharpshooter it with their weapons, that's interesting too.

And yeah, congratulations, you as a DM can construct encounters where typically good choices are instead bad. Are you saying you're planning to do that every encounter?

Nope. I'm responding to the suggestion that Sharpshooter homogenizes the game because nothing has AC over 20 and so using Sharpshooter's power attack all day every day is a dominant strategy. My experience is that this isn't the case. Fighting over advantage/disadvantage is perhaps the most important thing you can do in combat. The important/difficult combats, anyway--in easy straightforward combats you can do whatever you want and it turns out okay, but I presume we're not talking about those because those fights are supposed to be boring and easy.

I run a combat-light game where combat is intended to be an emotionally-significant event when it happens, so if the players have the enemy pinned down by a Sharpshooter in a hopeless position like you seem to be worrying about, my goal is the same as the monsters'--to end the combat as soon as possible by surrendering or fleeing. Boring fights shouldn't take up table time, unless the players are having fun and don't want to end it yet. (In that case, clearly only the DM is bored.)

I mean, that clearly can't be what you mean, right?

Clearly it isn't.

Nevertheless, drow happen, if you go in the Underdark; and dragons happen, if you go in a dragon's lair.

So, no, I really don't think the existence of mitigating circumstances changes anything. They're going to be uncommon enough that it isn't likely to come up all day every encounter. It doesn't change the fact that once you get to mid level your default mode of attack in any given encounter should be to use power attack. All things being equal, power attack is the superior default choice. Just like using a magical sword over a mundane mace is the superior default choice even though you might encounter skeletons or oozes.

Sure, but there's a huge difference between "your default mode should be X" and "X is always the right choice." It's an especially huge difference if X turns out to be useless in all of the hardest scenarios (and some of the medium ones, like githzerai).

Something which makes easy things easier (and some types of hard things easier too) isn't something which concerns me as a DM. Sharpshooter has a niche but it's not game-warping. The way I run my game already means that Sharpshooter isn't disruptive.

Edit: I forgot to add, even something as simple as a prone hobgoblin (AC 18 + disadvantage) is a bad target for Sharpshooter. Does that mean hobgoblins will always drop prone against Sharpshooters? No, that would be metagamey. For the most part they won't even know they're facing a Sharpshooter, so if they're at long range already they'll have no reason to suspect that they're not safe, until they start dying. Eventually they will catch on in one way or another--either because they've heard of Sharpshooters before, or because they think it's a new, longer-ranged weapon. It's the players' job to make the most of the time between the fight starts and when the hobgoblins find an effective countertactic.

But an argument says "Sharpshooters are too strong/not interesting because monsters will NEVER do the right thing" is not resting on a strong foundation.

And yes, this is an example of something my hobgoblins actually do when they're taking missile fire. My hobgoblins are basically a cross between Romans and Mongols.

 

[Barolo]

Well, at higher levels they do get to use these feats more often, but surely it is not always on

On the contrary, that's precisely what I mean.

I am sorry, I may not be understanding what you meant here. My remark was not intended to be read as if I was inferring something that someone other than me meant or, to that regard, experienced. To be more clear, what I was trying to express was that, even though it is a fair assumption that at higher levels the -5/+10 will be "on" most of the time (hence, "at higher levels they do get to use these feats more often [than at lower levels]"), if one aims at maximizing average damage output, its use is not always granted, as the math you presented just shows. If this what you are trying to say too, then I guess we are in accordance?

I am confident all your math is correct, even though I did not check it, as I too have done these kinds of calculations before and found pretty much the same conclusions, under assumed circumstances. But what I would like to point out is that, at least in my gaming experience, the circumstances vary, maybe because of monster selection, or monster tactics, or natural hazards hampering combat, or magic items found, whatever. You even partially cover what was my intention on my original comment, here:

(...) I haven't not used power attack since about level 11 when I found a +2 maul. (...)

But...

(...) The only way it won't be is if you manage to get a flame tongue greatsword or some similar item that adds to damage without adding to attack bonus. (...)

More to the point, if a player spends a resource they get from a limited source for character development, which an ABI is, I can only find it fair they benefit from it. GWM specifically is all about dealing more damage, either by using -5/+10 or by earning that bonus attack. I do expect at least one of them to happen fairly often. On the other hand, I do not expect to, and have not experienced in game, this being some dominating build/strategy. The math not only clearly shows that the -5/+10 is frequently used to the PC's benefit, but also that the actual benefit is usually not a crazy unconditional +10 * number of initial attacks, per round, but some extra damage dependent on the difference between attack accuracy and defense. It is overall a damage boost, for sure, but it does have some inconvenience, leading to some interesting and meaningful in-game decision making, in contrast to if the feat would only give, for example, +2 damage per attack.



Now, this:

(...) In other words, your DM is "fixing" the problem by changing the playing field, which is like "fixing" fireball by making every enemy resistant to fire.

is something I partially disagree with.

The first thing is, the playing field is not to be taken for granted. Of course your example is extreme, adversarial, and I wouldn't argue against it, but monsters resistant or even imune to fire may appear eventually, and the optimized-for-dpr fire specialist (whatever class or build it is) will have to improvise sometimes, the same way a GWM will sometimes face enemies who have high AC and parry reactions, or grant disadvantage, or something else. Both fire specialist and GWM will be doing their "thing" most of the time, specially at higher levels, when they probably have already invested on ways to mitigate most unfavorable conditions, but not necessarily always.

The second thing is, I don't see anything to be fixed. For instance, the way I see damage and elements in the game is that some energy types are supposed to be a bigger hazard damage-wise. For spellcasters, it means mostly fire damage, but also to an extent electricity damage. Acid is supposed to deal a lot of damage too, but with the inconvenience that it is over time. Cold has the apparent disadvantage of targeting con saves, which are usually higher for monsters, but in reality it will be used by clever casters against agile enemies, who may even have some neat damage mitigating ability on a successful dex save. Poison usually is a big source of damage in monsters, it is just not something spellcasting seems to imitate quite so well. And besides, some spells and monster abilities that employ some of those damage types also have a secondary effect, that is usually conveniently ignored when discussing dpr. I most often prefer ray of frost to firebolt as a wizard, for example. In the end are the elements balanced? Surely not. Should they be? I don't think so, as to really manage to do so would probably necessitate to make them just different "colors". They way they are arranged allows for gameplay of different circumstances requiring different resources for optimal output, which is what I would want in the games I DM or play. Some option is the simplest, thereafter the most frequently optimal, which is fine, as long as the others have their niche.

Regarding fireball specifically, and to a lesser extent lightning bolt, spellcasters gain access to those spells at level 5. This is supposed to be a mark in character development, as it is exactly the same level the warriors double their at will damage output. It seems to me nothing was done unintentionally here.

 

[Flamestrike]

You want to know when to use -5/+10? It's easy: (2 x Attack Bonus - Average Damage per Hit + 32) / 2 rounded down is the maximum AC your character should power attack against. By the time you get to level 10, the result of that formula is going to be 18+ for a GWM character, or 21+ for a Sharpshooter. The only way it won't be is if you manage to get a flame tongue greatsword or some similar item that adds to damage without adding to attack bonus.

How are the PCs knowing the monsters AC? I certainly mix those values up a bit.

And its all well and good to make such a claim, but 3 rounds of missing vs 3 rounds of hitting (but doing less damage) can be the difference in many fights, even if you do play the odds.

 

[FrogReaver]

Just a remark, it is not on every table that those "offender" feats wreak havoc. In mine, I don't know if my players that use said feats are downright incompetent or if the other players are tactical geniuses, but I can't discern any problematic spotlight imbalance during combat or even overall performance between those who chose to develop their PCs "combat-heavy" with either SS or PAM+GWM and others that just took a couple of ABIs or the eventual actor feat.

likely incompetent. Precision attack and often using reckless attack as a barbarian are the keys. Of course if there are no battlemasters or barbarians then those feats make a bit less of a difference.

 

[FrogReaver]

How are the PCs knowing the monsters AC? I certainly mix those values up a bit.

And its all well and good to make such a claim, but 3 rounds of missing vs 3 rounds of hitting (but doing less damage) can be the difference in many fights, even if you do play the odds.

it's not that hard to get a good enough estimate of monster ac after 4 or 5 of any PC's attacks against 1 monster type.

 

[Flamestrike]

it's not that hard to get a good enough estimate of monster ac after 4 or 5 of any PC's attacks against 1 monster type.

Like I said, I often mix AC up. 4 trolls might have have variable ACs (by a point or two) - one might have particularly scaly skin, and one might be in scraps of armor.

 

[FrogReaver]

Like I said, I often mix AC up. 4 trolls might have have variable ACs (by a point or two) - one might have particularly scaly skin, and one might be in scraps of armor.

So I have a good indication of which trolls are the high AC ones and which are the low. Almost just as good. If I know the high troll AC then I can estimate the low troll AC within 1ish. If I know the low troll AC then I can estimate the high troll AC within 1ish. It's very unlikely that a difference of 1ish AC is going to make for the "wrong" decision regarding GWM or SS.

 

[Flamestrike]

So I have a good indication of which trolls are the high AC ones and which are the low. Almost just as good. If I know the high troll AC then I can estimate the low troll AC within 1ish. If I know the low troll AC then I can estimate the high troll AC within 1ish. It's very unlikely that a difference of 1ish AC is going to make for the "wrong" decision regarding GWM or SS.

Do you also know the HP totals?

Its a little pointless using GWM on a creature with 10 or less HP remaining.