CapnZapp
Legend
You seem to be talking about the "tank" archetype (tank, damage dealer, healer), but D&D is not set up that way. I believe there are existing threads on this subject.
Good luck tweaking the game to meet your requirements.
Balancing D&D
You seem to be talking about the "tank" archetype (tank, damage dealer, healer), but D&D is not set up that way. I believe there are existing threads on this subject.
Good luck tweaking the game to meet your requirements.
CapnZapp
Legend
There are plenty of other threads for you to take this discussion to. Please don't turn this thread into yet another GWM thread. Thank you both.
In terms of weapon feats... as you say, avoiding making them weapon-specific is an important necessity. Even making them style specific (like all long blades, all axes, all hammers etc.) is too restrictive when you take the possibility of magic item appearance into account.
So my feeling is that probably the best way to give feat options to weapons while also help boost the ones that need it are by going the bludgeoning / piercing / slashing route. Three separate feats (or if you want to go even further into the weed, three separate feat chains) that buff the weapons in each of the three categories.
Because if we take a look at the different weapons groups, my personal thought is that the "weakest" group-- and by weakest I mean has the less likely magic item appearances on the random tables, has the weapons show up less when you take both STR and DEX fighters into account, and even base damage on their own-- is the Bludgeoning group. They are the ones that could probably do with the strongest weapon group feat.
After that... it's kind of a toss-up. The Piercing group encompasses pretty much all the strongest ranged weapons (especially when you take the fighting style and the CE into account) as well as the primary weapons of the DEX users (the finesse category). The Slashing group I would ordinarily say was the strongest of the three before you were to nerf GWM (because its usually the greatsword/greataxe that gets used) or Polearm Master (because of halberd/glaive). But if you nerf both GWM and PE, then the Slashing group comes back down to earth a bit. So then you can make Piercing feats and Slashing feats more based on the flavor of the style rather than needing to boost one against the other.
Now what the Bludgeoning Weapon Expert, Piercing Weapon Expert, and Slashing Weapon Expert could be... that's beyond the scope of what I can provide. Since I really don't know just how bad the disparity is in your games between the hammers/maces/flails versus arrows/bolts/spears/shortblades vs longblades/axes, it's hard to say how you should go. My instinct would be to give the Bludgeoning feat a "Stunning Strike" type of effect (to symbolize getting your bell rung)... but without the Ki points of a monk to help regulate its use plus the possibility of getting this feat at 1st level... doing an exact port of the monk ability wouldn't work. You would need to create a lesser version of Stunning Strike since it'll occur more often and at a much lower level to start with, plus you don't want to take away the Monk's best schtick from him. But at least that's a possible starting point.
So my feeling is that probably the best way to give feat options to weapons while also help boost the ones that need it are by going the bludgeoning / piercing / slashing route. Three separate feats (or if you want to go even further into the weed, three separate feat chains) that buff the weapons in each of the three categories.
Because if we take a look at the different weapons groups, my personal thought is that the "weakest" group-- and by weakest I mean has the less likely magic item appearances on the random tables, has the weapons show up less when you take both STR and DEX fighters into account, and even base damage on their own-- is the Bludgeoning group. They are the ones that could probably do with the strongest weapon group feat.
After that... it's kind of a toss-up. The Piercing group encompasses pretty much all the strongest ranged weapons (especially when you take the fighting style and the CE into account) as well as the primary weapons of the DEX users (the finesse category). The Slashing group I would ordinarily say was the strongest of the three before you were to nerf GWM (because its usually the greatsword/greataxe that gets used) or Polearm Master (because of halberd/glaive). But if you nerf both GWM and PE, then the Slashing group comes back down to earth a bit. So then you can make Piercing feats and Slashing feats more based on the flavor of the style rather than needing to boost one against the other.
Now what the Bludgeoning Weapon Expert, Piercing Weapon Expert, and Slashing Weapon Expert could be... that's beyond the scope of what I can provide. Since I really don't know just how bad the disparity is in your games between the hammers/maces/flails versus arrows/bolts/spears/shortblades vs longblades/axes, it's hard to say how you should go. My instinct would be to give the Bludgeoning feat a "Stunning Strike" type of effect (to symbolize getting your bell rung)... but without the Ki points of a monk to help regulate its use plus the possibility of getting this feat at 1st level... doing an exact port of the monk ability wouldn't work. You would need to create a lesser version of Stunning Strike since it'll occur more often and at a much lower level to start with, plus you don't want to take away the Monk's best schtick from him. But at least that's a possible starting point.
CapnZapp
Legend
Maybe I explained poorly.
Once GWM/PM and SS/CE are nerfed, or if you run a game without feats, cantrips rule the day.
At level 11, a Sorcerer can expect 6d10+10 fire damage, reliably, every round of all but the absurdly longest adventuring day.
How? Make the thought experiment where you build a dragon sorcerer focused on defense/survivability and cantrips. You will find that you gain nigh infinite sorcery points once you don't feel compelled to use them for Fireball et al. Once off the lowest levels, you will find that you will have plenty of Shield spells, and still loads of metamagic for twinned Firebolt. At level 11, I believe you can easily spend 60 sorcery points in one day; grotesquely more than, say, the Monk and her 11 ki points.
If you're restricted to either [3d8+15 plus +2 AC] or [3d12+15], then the survival benefits of a fighter can no longer compete. The Fire Bolt DPR is nearly twice the DPR of the Longbow, for crissakes!
(With my suggestion, we're comparing 28 (3d8+15) missile fire to 33 (6d10). With a greataxe it's even more equal at 34 (3d12+15). Suddenly we have achieved parity, more or less! The sorcerer-as-archer build no longer achieves anything special, so mission accomplished!
Remember, this is before feats - once feats are in, I expect this sorcerer-as-archer loophole to be thoroughly closed, even though Spell Sniper will still make it perfectly viable. (Let's make a short recap. Viable = good. Better than anything else = bad.) The hit die of a dragon sorcerer is already effectively d8. And this build can easily afford to increase Con (compared to the spellcaster that worries about monsters and save DCs).
TL;DR: A sorcerer is balanced around the idea it actually casts spells. But if you create a "magical archer", you can short-circult this.
Last edited:
This is why I don't envy your table.
The idea that someone would want to play a dragon sorcerer and convert all their slots into sorcery points just so they could cast Twinned Firebolt over and over and over and over and over and over... and that's FUN for them? Yeesh! No wonder you get bored watching your players do the same things with the same build repeatedly. If just cranking out hit point damage is all that matters to the group... it explains why you want to try and find different ways to create such damage, just so they vary up how they accomplish it.If it was me and I was stuck in this Groundhog Encounter Day of just cantrip/cantrip/cantrip, GWM/GWM/GWM, CE/CE/CE for every single fight for every single day for every single adventure, for every single campaign... I'd purposefully say "We're playing Paranoia!" and throw D&D on the trash heap. And if my friends revolted, I'd wave them bye-bye and find a new group of players who weren't do DPR-centric.
But again, that's just me.
CapnZapp
Legend
I've asked my players to avoid the Sorcerer X/Warlock 2 combo, but that's about it. We haven't seen multiclassing as a huge source of OP-ness.
(We haven't yet created characters with more than PHB options)
CapnZapp
Legend
The problem is, you don't sign a contract never to cast Fireball or Forcecage when you create this character. The flexibility is enormous, once you shed the expectation you're supposed to use most or even many slots for spells.This is why I don't envy your table.
About the fun part. Killing monsters is fun. Killing the most monsters the fastest is more fun.
Whacking/shooting monsters with a longsword/longbow all day is no more fun than blasting them with cantrips. In fact, if you deal nearly half damage, it is way less fun. (Having to bother with magical resistance is even less fun. Constrast the "sorcher" who simply switches to cold damage or something as soon as she sees the Fire Magmins or whatever)
The point here is: you can have two sorcerers, one acting as the spellcaster, the other acting as the archer. You can even switch roles each day, or have no archer one day, and two archers the next.
I don't see how this is inherently any less fun. Your class is after all only a tool. I can describe my character as an "arcane archer" despite not touching the Fighter class. If building this "martial" character using the Sorcerer class yields almost twice as good results, why not?
The designers are doing a bad job when the balance can be broken in these ways. But more importantly, I wish to do their job for them so the game can be actually balanced, and thus, more (not less) fun
After all - the real gain is all the previously not-good-enough builds and feats and whatnot. My main aim is to allow players to pick all sorts of builds, weapons, and class features, without feeling they have to sacrifice significant utility (which in a combat-heavy game is equal to "dealing damage").
Last edited:
Sacrosanct
Legend
Unfortunate use of words in that last thread for sure
Not only have I done this, I actually created monster specific feats to add some variety to the table (as well as rules in how this impacts CR)
Heh heh... well, this is the bed you and your table are lying in and have to find a way to make work. I don't envy you. And I also know I can't comprehend it either, as this style of gameplay (which I kind of see as synonymous with high-end MMO raiding) is so far away from how I enjoy playing RPGs that there's nothing I can add other than throw out occasional game mechanic ideas that might fall along the path you are heading.
Mistwell
Crusty Old Meatwad (he/him)
So I guess the final word on DPR was not in fact the final word on DPR?
Nothing makes sense anymore. It's almost like you're making the same thread over and over again every month with slightly different wording. But I know that can't be the case, and I thought I could believe in a Final Word thread.
Nothing makes sense anymore. It's almost like you're making the same thread over and over again every month with slightly different wording. But I know that can't be the case, and I thought I could believe in a Final Word thread.
Similar Threads
