D&D 5E Assuming no GWM/SS, are different fighting styles roughly balanced?

[Barolo]

I'm aware, but considering that GWS is weaker overall than Dueling, especially in a no-GWM setting, I don't use that ruling.

I would rather incentivize paladins to go S&B, just for aesthetic reasons, so I'd be inclined to follow the sage advice on that, but paladins aren't really common enough in my games for me to really bother either way. Different rulings apart, GWS can also be appealing to the crit-fishing champion, in a non-GWM setting.

My curiosity is for a project more extensive than just nerfing a few feats. I just want to make sure that a lot of the combinations of features that are widely used don't have some large deviation in effectiveness I'm not aware of.

And maybe beefing-up some lacking feats that are currently being ignored would be under your radar, I guess? To that regard I would draw awareness about that "savage attack" feat, as it works weirdly. This feat delivers more impact at lower levels when martials are limited to one attack per round, and can even be an attractive for a variant human fighter for a low level one-shot, when they know beforehand they will never play past 4th level. I wonder why it was designed that way, and what would make it more competitive with PAM, GWM, sentinel or SM. Maybe just allowing it affect all attacks?

 

[clearstream]

My curiosity is for a project more extensive than just nerfing a few feats. I just want to make sure that a lot of the combinations of features that are widely used don't have some large deviation in effectiveness I'm not aware of.

Hmm... okay, working from your list what I am aware of from my DMing includes the following

Potentially Distorting

1. Crossbow Expert with Sharpshooter and Archery, especially as Battlemaster applying Maneuvers from range
2. Polearm Mastery especially with Variant-Human Paladins
3. Polearm Mastery with Sentinel
4. Crit-focused Great Weapon Mastery, especially Half Orc Fighter Champion / Totem Barbarians
5. Shield Mastery with Dueling and potentially a dip into Rogue for Athletics Expertise (also see next below)
6. Swashbuckler with Battlemaster multiply triggering Sneak Attack (added to above)
7. Lore Bard/Diviner Wizard probably using Lucky and Bane or Bless
8. Druids milking the hit point refresh on changing

Reasonable but can be Strong

1. Eldritch Blast with Agonizing Blast and Eldritch Spear (if you want range, this beats most things) possibly with Distant Spell (600' range) or Quickened Spell applied (cast it twice)
2. Monk Martial Arts with Mobile and possibly Wood Elf
3. Greenflame Blade or Booming Blade are conditionally good depending on multiclassing
4. Poison use depending on accessibility in your campaign
5. Wizard milking Fighter for Action Surge (cast Fireball twice to start the combat)
6. Hill Dwarf Life Cleric possibly going into Celestial Warlock
7. Archfey / Pact of Chain Warlock milking magical familiars possibly with Magic Stone
8. Variant Human Shadow Monk Assassin hoping to milk Assassinate (really only good for one round of a combat and quite conditional)
9. ...there's really a lot of possibilities in this category: too many to list and no doubt a lot my group hasn't found yet

Sneak Attack is pretty much average and frankly, straight Wizard for 11 levels beats all of them.

 

[CapnZapp]

I will reply in more detail later. However, I should have made clear that I use opponents with character-class abilities a lot in my campaigns. So with that in mind, the reason CX/SS archer is gimped inside is that they will be closed on and they will be worse in close than other fighter setups. They need a hand free for ammo so they must stop using the crossbow if they want a shield. I read your other thread and possibly you aren't playing ammo as tightly as me. Nothing in CX/SS obviates the need for a hand free to load. And between firing with their attack action and firing with their bonus action they must use their one free interaction with an object to load their crossbow (else, no bonus attack with it).

Okay.

Still have never claimed the X-bow fighter can or does use a shield. Lack of shield does not equal "gimped" in my world.

All he's holding is his hand crossbow. I'm assuming we are in agreement he can shoot as per Crossbow Expert, with no need to "play" ammunition in any particular way as long as that's all he's trying to use in a round.

Feels like you're bashing in doors that I am fully aware are open already? At first I got the impression you were talking to somebody else, but that does not appear to be the case. Still, I'm open to there being a huge misunderstanding somewhere.

 

[CapnZapp]

Hmm... okay, working from your list what I am aware of from my DMing includes the following

No argument with somebody else's effort - just a comment:

The real issue is when, say, two characters choose "potentially distorting" builds and the remaining two chooses builds not on these lists at all.

In other words, the reason I believe something like GWM is problematic is how it turns the "regular" fighter (the sword'n'board, the single weapon user, the odd combo user: throwing axes, dagger user, spear guy and so on) into such a comparatively weak choice that it stops being funny.

 

[CapnZapp]

And maybe beefing-up some lacking feats that are currently being ignored would be under your radar, I guess?

I have made just such an effort. Won't derail this thread by banging my own drum by linking, but in short: I first graded the existing feats, then started a process of replacing/upgrading the weakest ones with community input.

To that regard I would draw awareness about that "savage attack" feat, as it works weirdly. This feat delivers more impact at lower levels when martials are limited to one attack per round, and can even be an attractive for a variant human fighter for a low level one-shot, when they know beforehand they will never play past 4th level. I wonder why it was designed that way, and what would make it more competitive with PAM, GWM, sentinel or SM. Maybe just allowing it affect all attacks?

Since this was one of the feats identified as "weakest", I can share my playtest info.

I simply made it add the weapon die to damage once per turn (instead of a reroll). Playtest reveals what you expect: it's strong as the level 4 choice, but as soon as people reach level 5 it becomes reasonable.

It is, however, over-powered at level 1, and proved to be a irrestible lure for several players, sadly. (Human Paladins and Barbarians with Greatsword, to be exact) But the proper response is probably to ban or change variant humans, rather than focus too much on a single feat's OP-ness for this build.

Now back to your regular programming

 

[TwoSix]

The real issue is when, say, two characters choose "potentially distorting" builds and the remaining two chooses builds not on these lists at all.

In other words, the reason I believe something like GWM is problematic is how it turns the "regular" fighter (the sword'n'board, the single weapon user, the odd combo user: throwing axes, dagger user, spear guy and so on) into such a comparatively weak choice that it stops being funny.

Yes, this is exactly the issue.

 

[CapnZapp]

This is incorrect. While hasted, the rogue uses the haste action to attack and their standard action to Ready an attack on another creature's turn, thereby earning sneak attack twice in the round.

Good advice - I will remember that :goodjob:

 

[Greg Benage]

No argument with somebody else's effort - just a comment:

The real issue is when, say, two characters choose "potentially distorting" builds and the remaining two chooses builds not on these lists at all.

In other words, the reason I believe something like GWM is problematic is how it turns the "regular" fighter (the sword'n'board, the single weapon user, the odd combo user: throwing axes, dagger user, spear guy and so on) into such a comparatively weak choice that it stops being funny.

I agree with this. I created some homebrew feats to better support other combat styles. More good options is never a bad thing, IMO.

 

[clearstream]

Okay.

Still have never claimed the X-bow fighter can or does use a shield. Lack of shield does not equal "gimped" in my world.

All he's holding is his hand crossbow. I'm assuming we are in agreement he can shoot as per Crossbow Expert, with no need to "play" ammunition in any particular way as long as that's all he's trying to use in a round.

He only needs to play ammo to the extent he keeps a hand free and spends his one free interaction with an object. By gimped I mean relative to the fighter setup to go toe-to-toe, once they are toe-to-toe. In a fight between Battlemasters, landing the first Maneuver that works could be definitive e.g. Disarm, Trip or Menace. I think one of the neatest abilities of the CE/SS archer is being able to land those from range. In a fight between a 5e PC and an MM monster of recommended CR, the PC has a huge edge pretty much irrespective of what they take.

Feels like you're bashing in doors that I am fully aware are open already? At first I got the impression you were talking to somebody else, but that does not appear to be the case. Still, I'm open to there being a huge misunderstanding somewhere.

We're in furious agreement so far as I am concerned

 

[Xeviat]

Do the math on the "shenanigans".

Sent from my C6603 using EN World mobile app

Duelist: 4.5 ~ 6.5; a +2 bonus
Great Weapon Master: 6.5 ~ 7.33 on a hit and a crit; +0.83 bonus on hit, +1.66 on crit.
Or
7 ~ 8.33; +1.33 on a hit, +2.66 on a crit.

With a 65% hit chance, that's a 1.33 damage increase for duelist and a 0.58 increase for 1d12 and a 0.93 increase for 2d6, counting crits.

GWFing is less of a boost than Duelist. I think that's what was being said.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk