Balancing D&D

[Gadget]

I agree with the OP about nerfing the feats named, they just weren't well designed. I'm not sure I agree on other things, other than any replacement feats/abilities should be fairly general/generic in application, rather than weapon specific.

I disagree that feats are the answer, as a feel that feats have been problematic in every addition of the game they've been in. I would much rather see them replaced by a menu of options tailored to the class selecting them, ala warlock invocations, Battle Master maneuvers, Sorcerer metamagic, etc. If generic feats must be kept, I would want to keep them very generic and somewhat mild: new skill, weapon/armor proficiency, language; perhaps even require a feat to multiclass (that may cut down on the dips a little bit).

 

[Mistwell]

Maybe we need a separate forum to discuss the Sharpshooter and Great Weapon Master feats, like we did once with the "hit on a miss / warlord" threads?

 

[Zardnaar]

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.

1. The fre Dragon Sorcerer is the striker option for the arcane casters.
2. Fire resistance is really common.
3. Switching to ray of frost if you encounter a fire immune/resistance critter craters your damage. 6d10+10 becomes 6d8.

A striker fighter at level 11 without feats can deal 2d6+5 X3 with crits and action surge. And magic weapons are fairly common or you can indirectly get one via spells (magic weapon) and class features.

A firebolt spamming Sorcerer I would consider a theory craft build and even if does turn up its no big deal. Its a lot less offensive than a Sorlock. I'm not sure if I was the 1st to figure out the Sorcerer as Archer thing but I did see a melee sorcerer build that spammed GFB. Fighter still beat him in damage but the Sorcerer was competitive. I was probably one of the 1st to see a Sorlock in a real game.

A fire dragon sorcerer is roughly equivalent to the 4E Genasi Sorcerer that got to stack strength onto its damage via a racial feat IIRC. In 5E you can build a Sorcerer as a striker or something else the role is a lot less rigid than 4E. You can build a controller Sorcerer for example or even a leader one (Divine Soul).

Same thing in 4E some of those guides let you deal double damage or more or non optimised characters. Jedi mafia, frostcheese etc.

I would be happy if a fire dragon sorcerer was played as an archer over dropping fireballs every fight from level 9+ if they wanted to.

 

[Krachek]

Some of those guides were ported over from the WoTC boards when they shut down and some of the info in them dates from 2014.

Most of the worst combos were spotted in the 1st month or 2 5E was out (GWM+PAM, SS+ CE). Some of the more subtle ones took an extra month or two.

You don't see the Polearm Master+ warcaster + bladelock+ EB combo being mentioned much anymore maybe they errated it IDK. It was another very early combo spotted. Basically whenever someone came within 10' of you you got to use EB on them (perhaps with repelling blast). The 2 level warlock dip was spotted very early as well.

My first solution is a wood nerf hammer.
If you insist I can use my iron nerf hammer.
You now consider eldritch blast as an attack mode for the warlock. EB use an action that allow multiple attack base on warlock level. Invocation can still apply to EB.

 

[Sacrosanct]

I do have to give credit where credit is due. Yeah, CapnZapp keeps posting the same thread over and over and gets mocked for that. I don't agree with a lot of his assumptions, especially with what the game should or shouldn't do because it's pretty clear that his playstyle is in the minority so what they are doing now works just fine and aren't actual widespread problems.

That being said, at least he's providing solutions to problems he finds at his table. Which is better than these threads used to be, when he would just complain about how the game is broken, the designers are all lazy, and anyone defending them is an apologist. So I think he does deserve credit for adjusting what he has posted to actually offer things that other players who share his playstyle may encounter. That shouldn't get lost here. I don't like people who complain and don't offer a solution. He's not doing that here. So whether I agree or not with the details isn't relevant, and he deserves credit for making much better posts than he used to.

 

[Mistwell]

I do have to give credit where credit is due. Yeah, CapnZapp keeps posting the same thread over and over and gets mocked for that. I don't agree with a lot of his assumptions, especially with what the game should or shouldn't do because it's pretty clear that his playstyle is in the minority so what they are doing now works just fine and aren't actual widespread problems.

That being said, at least he's providing solutions to problems he finds at his table. Which is better than these threads used to be, when he would just complain about how the game is broken, the designers are all lazy, and anyone defending them is an apologist. So I think he does deserve credit for adjusting what he has posted to actually offer things that other players who share his playstyle may encounter. That shouldn't get lost here. I don't like people who complain and don't offer a solution. He's not doing that here. So whether I agree or not with the details isn't relevant, and he deserves credit for making much better posts than he used to.

Has he though?

Here are threads which are, 1) started by Cap, and 2) in which GWM/SS are one of the primary themes of the post, and 3) where Cap mentions his "solutions" in some fashion. And this was just from a quick search so I probably missed some, and of course this doesn't include the very many more which are in threads he did not start:

Feat Redux [2017]
Feat Redux II [2017]
2106/2017 Workshop Feats Review [2017]
2016 Feat Review [2016]
Feat Workshop [2016]
As a DM [..] GWM are overpowered? (cont'd actual calculations) [2016]
As a DM do you feel that Sharpshooter & GWM are overpowered? [2016]
GWM/SS alternative mechanics to the -5/+10 bonus? [2016]
Current take on GWM/SS [2015]
Observations [2015 - yes a good portion is his observations about these two feats]
Prior to 2015, Cap was only commenting on 4e.

 

[pming]

Hiya.

Seriously, though, the Capn has not been shy about is 3.5/PF pedigree. So you're way off base.

Well, try playing it for 10 years and get back to us when you know what you're talking about.

I know CapnZapp hasn't been shy...we disagree most of the time on things. I'm cool with that; gives a directly opposing opinion on what "fun" in an RPG is. I would totally belly up to the table with CapnZapp. It just seemed that what he was suggesting was what I pictured the 4e design teem doing. Going over the system with a fine tooth comb, running the numbers, and then making changes and testing them out. Eventually then ended up with 4e. I know others love it...I wish I at least liked the goal they had set for it; ultimate balance. But I don't. I found the 'sameness' of it all to be...well, not my thing.

As for the "don't know what your talking about" implication... really dude? Really? C'mon...you know why people take their ideas and theories to other's in their field (whatever that field may be)? It's not because they expect those people to take the next decade off testing, researching, building, or otherwise 'doing' what the original person did. No, someone takes their idea/theory/whatever to others in their field because the others have collective experience. Some may have a bit, some a moderate amount, and others a lifetime. I think I fall into the "lifetime" category. I'm 48 years old and started RPG'ing D&D when I was 10. Because of that, I'm pretty sure that I "know what I'm talking about"...even if I don't take 10 years playing it. Someone with that much experience in a subject is generally considered a "professional" or an "expert". They can look at things and consider likely interactions FAR better than someone who has only been at it for a handful of years.

Personally, I think EnWorld is/was one of the absolute BEST places to talk about RPG's and different opinions on them. This thread is a prime example. CapnZapp has a pretty extreme preference to 5e...he's on one side, I'm much closer to the other. Doesn't mean we can't argue/debate about what is better and why. At least in regards to RPG's and not..."certain news articles of late".

I know you are also one of those "old guard", aren't you? Like, decades of doing this RPG thing? I know that you can read a game system, do some personal tests of it, roll up a couple characters, etc, and come away having a pretty good idea of how the system will 'feel' and play out. You'll also have a pretty good idea on if you are going to like it or not, what rules you will probably tweak, and stuff like that. I, and others, "trust" in your judgement because we know that you know what you are talking about through experience. Actual experience (playing various games)...not just one of those folks who don't have the opportunity to play much, if at all, and just read/collect books. Our experiences will likely be different, and that's good. Differences help define for ourselves what we actually like/think of something. When a person can't say "I disagree, I think X" without being labeled as some sort of extremist, we are all in for a very bad time.

Anyway, I just needed to reply because one of my pet peeves is when one person dismisses another's opinion because "they didn't experience it". We all don't have to experience having a thigh bone broken, but we can all pretty much agree that it's painful and something you don't want. The same thing can be said for a lot of things in life (not everything, mind you, but a lot). I don't have to play 4e for a decade to know that it's not the game for me. Just like you don't have to have a broken leg to imagine how painful it probably is (or something equivalent). Your experience with pain allows you to make a reasonable guess as to how painful it is and how much it would suck (I've never had a "broken" bone in my life, but I have had sprains, pulled ligaments, a whole hand crushed to give hundreds of micro-fractures...and a kidney stone; I can guess that a broken thigh bone is probably worse than all of those except for the kidney stone...NOTHING, and I mean NOTHING is as painful as a kidney stone!).

^_^

Paul L. Ming

 

[TwoSix]

I know you've posted about GWM/SS a lot, and data isn't likely to change your mind. That's okay, because your experience matters more than data. But...apart from the combinations, it really doesn't make that big a difference (tables from Xetheral on GiitP):

View attachment 98481

If you're interested, I can post the table for attacks with advantage. In any case, if you have a baseline 65% chance to hit, you're on the "8" row (assuming you're keeping up with your attack ability score, in addition to taking the feats). If you have Archery fighting style, you're on the "6" row. So, anyway, I don't think it's that I'm "lucky," I just think its okay for martial PCs to take a feat that allows them to do a bit more damage with their heavy weapons and longbows.

I guess my take away is that the table shows more than "a bit more" damage. Most of the attacks you make are going to be in the top-left corner, for example. Base damage over 12 is the province of spells, magic weapons, and sneak attacks. And enemies with ACs higher than 18 (which would be needed to require more than a 10 to hit in a game at levels 8+, which is where the mechanic really shines) are not common, unless the DM is using custom monsters. (Example: We've been running CoS, and I haven't seen an enemy with an AC higher than 17 in the last 6 sessions, which has been 13 combats).

Also, using absolute values downplays the effect. "2.5" doesn't seem like much, in the "6 on the die", "10 base damage" row. But 6 on the die is a 75% hit rate. 75% * 10 base damage is 7.5 damage, which means that 2.5 is equivalent to a 33% damage increase. 33% is a lot!
Especially since it's in a non-fringe case.

I'm pretty much resolved to removing the big 4 problem combat feats when I DM, and introducing a broader range of "use-case" feats, rather than feats focused on one type of weapon or fighting style. I think your 2 feats there are pretty solid examples of what I'd like to introduce.

 

[Satyrn]

Sounds inside out. DPS just seems like it'd be metaphorically hard & shiny, like the candy coating on the M&M.

But DPR (not S, we use imaginary Rounds, not RL Seconds, in TTRPG land)

No. I got my metaphor the right way round. I don't need you correcting my language.

In my metaphor, "Interesting Thing" is the candy coating because the first thing we see when looking at a 4e power is it's shiny header inviting us to perform a Super Karate Monkey Death Chop, and it's only once we dig into it that we get to DPS.

 

[Greg Benage]

Also, using absolute values downplays the effect. "2.5" doesn't seem like much, in the "6 on the die", "10 base damage" row. But 6 on the die is a 75% hit rate. 75% * 10 base damage is 7.5 damage, which means that 2.5 is equivalent to a 33% damage increase. 33% is a lot!
Especially since it's in a non-fringe case.

Okay, so Dueling Fighting Style is +2 damage per attack. Assuming 10 base damage and a 65% hit chance (no Archery), that's 6.5 damage, which means Dueling is a 30.7% increase. Is Dueling OP? It's just one 1st/2nd-level class feature...GWM/SS are feats! What percentage increase in damage would be "balanced"?