D&D 5E (2014) Creative solutions to the hypothetical GWF/Sharpshooter issue

[Mephista]

Sentinel is good for a control build.

I've been finding that I adore Sentinel for fiend blade'locks, in truth. Damned if you hit me, damned if you don't. Been playtesting the feat with a whip lately to see how effective the extra range is.

 

[Celtavian]

I take it any existing feats for the other styles are somehow inadequate? Is it just because they can't easily be parsed into DPR?

Nope.

Duelist Style allows you to use your reaction to gain proficiency bonus to AC for one attack. You only ever get one reaction. If players received more reactions, it might be worthwhile.

TWF gives +1 AC and the ability to use equal sized weapons. You're better off boosting your Con or another stat for anything but style purposes.

 

[Black_Staff]

when you look at damage, do you also take survivability into account? This game has dismal healer options, so individual player resilience is important. Barbarians don't do a ton of damage, but they are hard to kill. If all you are looking for is damage, then play a high damage class and build. If damage is the most important thing in your campaign and you don't like that, consult your DM, because its his/her fault. In my campaign, we have one player who is trying to is trying to run the mechanics for greatest effect. He has made poor decisions that have nearly gotten the whole group killed. the players are learning not to follow his lead. hopefully he will learn not to try and beat every problem into submission.

 

[Celtavian]

when you look at damage, do you also take survivability into account? This game has dismal healer options, so individual player resilience is important. Barbarians don't do a ton of damage, but they are hard to kill. If all you are looking for is damage, then play a high damage class and build. If damage is the most important thing in your campaign and you don't like that, consult your DM, because its his/her fault. In my campaign, we have one player who is trying to is trying to run the mechanics for greatest effect. He has made poor decisions that have nearly gotten the whole group killed. the players are learning not to follow his lead. hopefully he will learn not to try and beat every problem into submission.

Yep. We looked at survivability. Barbarians do a good amount of damage with GWM with the Reckless ability. That feat doubles their damage output and Reckless offsets the -5 penalty very effectively. Fighters in general take Heavy Armor Mastery for defense which grants 3 points of DR against p, b, and s damage from non-magical sources. Paladin has so many great qualities for offense and defense that measuring them all is too difficult.

It's Bounded Accuracy that makes the damage boosting feats so valuable. We found this out as we leveled. When you're level 1 to 5 and swinging at an 18 AC with one or two attacks, you don't use GWM too much. When you're level 9 to 11 with a magic weapon and bless nearly every battle and you're still swinging at AC 18, you're using GWM at will.

 

[Mephista]

This game has dismal healer options, so individual player resilience is important.

Really? We're finding that our games are flooded with hp recovery and THP generation.

 

[Tony Vargas]

It seems like a big part of the issue is the perennial problem of multiple attacks, well, multiplying damage bonuses. What if Sharpshooter or GWM could apply to only 1 attack/round? Would that pull it down to the same level as the other feats in question, or nerf it too hard?

 

[Celtavian]

It seems like a big part of the issue is the perennial problem of multiple attacks, well, multiplying damage bonuses. What if Sharpshooter or GWM could apply to only 1 attack/round? Would that pull it down to the same level as the other feats in question, or nerf it too hard?

It would nerf martials too much against the capabilities of casters, but would make the different fighting styles balanced. If you lower martial damage too much, they start to feel overshadowed by casters. Casters can do a lot of stuff at higher levels, especially the wizard. You should see how amazing animate objects is. You destroy against any creatures that don't have resistance to non-magical weapons. You cast animate objects, then toss in an AoE spell with a summoned creature and a simulacrum, sheesh, things don't stay fair. Martials need the damage boosting feats to feel good about their capabilities. Single-target damage is what makes them feel special.

Otherwise the wizard is going to have to be Dr. Phil. "It's ok Wulfgar. You're contributing...You did really well. Teleport doesn't matter... No, your shield is as good as the Tiny Hut for helping us...Fly is just a way to help you contribute more...I do need you. This bound demon is here to help a little bit....Wall of Force is useful, but it's not better than you, Wulfgar...I know it seems better than you, but it isn't." Then you end up in those situations. At least if the martials do a lot of damage, they get to feel good about those big hits.

 

[Nine Hands]

From my play experience running Adventures League both of the -5/+10 feats are actually balanced. When facing heavily armored enemies, the characters with those feats use them and miss a good amount of time. When it comes to lower AC enemies, they hit a good amount of the time.

In the end, at lower levels it is VERY powerful but that is because you are using feats before 4th level. Once things get to higher level hit points increase and its less useful.

I haven't had much play beyond 4th level in AL so I think it will become powerful again at 5th, then taper off until the next time the fighter's get Extra Attack.

 

[Tony Vargas]

It would nerf martials too much against the capabilities of casters, but would make the different fighting styles balanced.

That's something I never thought I'd hear you say.

Seriously, though, if weapon-users stack up adequately only when one of two arguably-broken feats are in play, what happens when the DM doesn't use the optional feat rules, at all? If balance is a concern (that is, if the DM chooses to make it a concern, and chooses to address it with rule changes instead of using GM force to arbitrarily impose balance through situations), shouldn't classes be balanced with eachother, without feats, and then feats balanced with eachother, so they can be used, or not?

And if balance isn't a concern, then letting a GWF or Archer take a feat and do even more damage, is just a way of mechanically differentiating them, and giving all other weapon mixes a similar feat would just make them 'samey.'

If you lower martial damage too much, they start to feel overshadowed by casters. Casters can do a lot of stuff at higher levels, especially the wizard. You should see how amazing animate objects is. You destroy against any creatures that don't have resistance to non-magical weapons. You cast animate objects, then toss in an AoE spell with a summoned creature and a simulacrum, sheesh, things don't stay fair.

I have heard folks go on about that spell's potential, yes. Not as much as Simulacrum, but enough.

Martials need the damage boosting feats to feel good about their capabilities. Single-target damage is what makes them feel special.

Well, they need a whole lot more than that, even to feel 'interesting,' let alone /actually/ contribute fully rather than just feeling like it because they overkilled a monster by 60 hps instead of 12 - but that's a whole 'nuther topic, and a much more intractable problem.

Otherwise the wizard is going to have to be Dr. Phil. "It's ok Wulfgar. You're contributing...

Heh. Reminds me of a one-square comic in the old DMG, with a wizard comforting a fighter "Don't feel bad, lots of fighters have swords that are smarter than they are..."

 

[Celtavian]

That's something I never thought I'd hear you say.

Seriously, though, if weapon-users stack up adequately only when one of two arguably-broken feats are in play, what happens when the DM doesn't use the optional feat rules, at all? If balance is a concern (that is, if the DM chooses to make it a concern, and chooses to address it with rule changes instead of using GM force to arbitrarily impose balance through situations), shouldn't classes be balanced with eachother, without feats, and then feats balanced with eachother, so they can be used, or not?

And if balance isn't a concern, then letting a GWF or Archer take a feat and do even more damage, is just a way of mechanically differentiating them, and giving all other weapon mixes a similar feat would just make them 'samey.'

It's really only the fighter and barbarian. They're like polar opposites in specialization. Fighter is the top single target damage dealer. Barbarian is the best at taking damage.

The ranger class is too weak period. I don't know what they were thinking with the ranger, but they missed the boat. The only viable competitive build for power gamers is Archery style. Rangers can be great if your DM focuses on the Exploration pillar. They are average in the combat pillar and not much in the social pillar. I don't know many DMs that focus enough on the exploration pillar to make playing a ranger worthwhile. You're better off playing a fighter archer with survival.

Monk, rogue, and paladin are amazing and very well differentiated. I'm having as much fun with those three classes as with the wizard. Rogue is strong in the exploration pillar, can be helpful in social situations, and is good in all areas of combat. Monk is well rounded in all areas of combat. Paladin is amazing in social situations (Good cha) and healing abilities very nice and good all around in combat. I can't even begin to explain how fun the rogue is. I'm playing a monk right now. Their combat capabilities are interesting. You can do stuff like get surrounded, take Dodge action as a bonus action with a Ki Point, get missed all round, and set up the fighter or archers to crush the opponent. Your mobility is insane. With the Mobility feat, you can literally move in and out of combat so that the opponent can't even close the distance to attack you. You can catch ranged weapons once a round out of the air. Your defensive options are damn awesome. I wish they had some focus on skills, but their defensive options are so plentiful that you can overlook it. Being Wisdom focused is nice, since wisdom gives you a good save against a lot of dangerous abilities.

Remember the monk in 3E? You couldn't move in and out of combat without bringing a rain of AoOs on you and if you moved over 5 feet, you couldn't do a full attack. Now a mobility feat monk can be that Kung Fu Master that is attacking all over the battlefield like some flying Wuxia martial artist. No other class in the game can do it. Nothing can escape from you running it down. Monk big time fun.

The only classes that feel samey are the barbarian and the fighter with very focused specializations.

I don't know how many classes you have tried. If you can't played one yet, I highly recommend playing a rogue. It's so much fun. You feel like the old school stealthy killer rogues are supposed to be.

Well, they need a whole lot more than that, even to feel 'interesting,' let alone /actually/ contribute fully rather than just feeling like it because they overkilled a monster by 60 hps instead of 12 - but that's a whole 'nuther topic, and a much more intractable problem.

Heh. Reminds me of a one-square comic in the old DMG, with a wizard comforting a fighter "Don't feel bad, lots of fighters have swords that are smarter than they are..."

You know what I've found in all my years of gaming: players that play martial characters like to hit things real hard. If you let them do that, they don't care about much else. My players definitely fit in this category. When they play a martial character, they like to keep it simple, do a little roleplaying, and wreck enemies with big damage. They don't give a rip about exploration or social situations. That's why I never understood the complaints about the three pillars for martials. Many players that like playing a fighter or barbarian, the most basic of the martials, don't even want to participate in those situations. They're the type of players that say, "Call me back to the table when there is something to wreck. All this talky, talky, and looky, looky is for you pointy hat, wiggly finger, stealthy dudes."

I figure all the players that want to be good at something other than hitting something will play a rogue or paladin (if they want to be the noble knight) or some kind of caster. I'm good giving them feats that let them hit stuff real hard. It brings a smile to their face and makes them feel good about their character. If I accomplish that, I feel I've done my job as DM.