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

[Celtavian]

And if you need a 9+ to hit, using GWF is an average increase if you do 13 or less points per hit.

Which is just about everyone other than rogues.

 

[samursus]

For TWF feat, how about making the off-hand attacks on the bonus action = #regular attacks÷2 round down?

 

[Staffan]

Which is just about everyone other than rogues.

Greatsword, Str 20, and Great Weapon fighting style gives you an average damage of 13.3. Many characters who are candidates for great weapon mastery will have some other form of damage - e.g. improved divine smite or rage, not to mention magic weapons.

Sharpshooter is probably a better feat for the -5/+10, because (a) lower base damage means you lose less damage to the -5 to hit, and (b) archery fighting style gives additional accuracy rather than additional damage. If a great weapon fighter would hit on a 9+, the sharpshooter hits on 7+ instead, so the "balance point" for damage is 18 - and getting above 18/hit with a ranged weapon is pretty hard. Heavy Crossbow + Dex 20 + Hunter's Mark brings you to average 14 (and requires a second feat to get multiple attacks with the crossbow - otherwise you're using a longbow for 1 point less per hit).

 

[jodyjohnson]

Personally, Sharpshooter is in its own category of over-powered.

Depending on the situation a +2/+5 to hit and/or cancels Disadvantage from long range. And that's just half of the feat.

And cover is extremely common, especially at 600 ft range.

 

[Coredump]

I'd prefer, "Once on your turn, when you make a weapon attack, you may take a -5 penalty to your attack to deal +1d4 damage on a hit. The bonus damage increases to +1d6 at 5th level, +1d8 at 9th level, +1d10 at 13th level, and +1d12 at 17th level."
.

That will almost never be a worthwhile choice, especially at the early levels. -5/+10 is situational, you want to use -5/+2.5..... never happen.

 

[Celtavian]

Greatsword, Str 20, and Great Weapon fighting style gives you an average damage of 13.3. Many characters who are candidates for great weapon mastery will have some other form of damage - e.g. improved divine smite or rage, not to mention magic weapons.

The problem with the majority of attempts to calculate the white room damage don't understand how GWM works in conjunction with archetype and group capabilities. It is nearly impossible to account for every variation of archetypes and groups. That is why I recorded the damage from fights. The GWM in question was doing 150% to 200% of the damage done by the other characters save for the occasional chance to AOE by the wizard and some lucky critting by the paladin, with 70% of it coming from GWM.

If the fighter were wandering around on his own, he might occasionally make great use of GWM. If this were the case, this discussion would have never happened. The value of GWM in the group dynamic of D&D play increases its value in a way no other feat or fighting style other than Sharpshooter can match.

Sharpshooter is probably a better feat for the -5/+10, because (a) lower base damage means you lose less damage to the -5 to hit, and (b) archery fighting style gives additional accuracy rather than additional damage. If a great weapon fighter would hit on a 9+, the sharpshooter hits on 7+ instead, so the "balance point" for damage is 18 - and getting above 18/hit with a ranged weapon is pretty hard. Heavy Crossbow + Dex 20 + Hunter's Mark brings you to average 14 (and requires a second feat to get multiple attacks with the crossbow - otherwise you're using a longbow for 1 point less per hit).

Sharpshooter is even better. Eliminating ranged and cover penalties limits the enemies defensive options. Attacking from ranged limits the enemies ability to threaten the PC. Due to the new movement rules, it's very easy for an archer to maintain total cover against an enemy while doing full damage. And you get -5/+10. Which designer made Sharpshooter was either not thinking too deeply about the game mechanics or loves archers.

 

[77IM]

That will almost never be a worthwhile choice, especially at the early levels. -5/+10 is situational, you want to use -5/+2.5..... never happen.

Fair enough. Would +2d4, +2d6, +2d8, +2d10, +2d12 be better?

My main complaint with -5/+10 is that it makes a huge difference at low levels, and not enough difference at high levels (unless you are the fighter with 4 attacks, but that's too subtle of a rules-interaction for my taste), so changing it to some sort of scaling damage seems like the obvious fix. Because of bounded accuracy and advantage, I think -5 to attack remains roughly balanced at all levels.

 

[77IM]

If WotC, or the population of ENWorld, or you specifically, were to design feats to make duelists, two-weapon wielders, and sword-and-board fighters slightly more effective in combat than they are, but in a way that does not resemble GWM or otherwise simply add to damage dealt, what would such a feat look like?

Why wouldn't you want to add to damage dealt? People hit things with their weapons in order to kill those things. Trading-off damage for some other bonus that is not damage is a very tough sell. Sword-and-board in 5e is a VERY effective style, it's just not as "sexy" as laying out the damage with GWM.

I think if something needs to be done, I would address this not as a feat, but as a general called-shot rule, aiming for specific body parts, and then make it harder to do with heavy weapons.

I think it's very natural for players (especially noobs) to WANT to aim for specific body parts ("I aim for the missing scale on his chest!") and D&D has never supported that well. I think if there were a good rule for it, and it didn't work with heavy weapons or was harder to do with them, that would kill two birds with one stone.

First Draft of a called-shot rule (pulled directly out of my butt, just now, so forgive me if this is terrible):

AIMING
You can use an action to aim at a creature, granting benefits to your next attack against that creature. If you have multiple attacks when you take the Attack action, you can give up one attack to get the benefit of aiming on your next attack.

If the creature leaves your sight, or if you attack another creature, your next attack against that creature gains no special benefit. You can't aim at a creature beyond the normal range of a ranged weapon. If you are using a heavy weapon you take a -5 penalty on the attack roll. Your attack may be a spell attack only if the spell is a cantrip, and it must be done as a separate action since cantrips can't be cast as part of the Attack action.

Aiming for the vitals. You try to attack a creature's weak spot, or a chink in its armor. Some creatures may have no such weak spot, and for exotic monsters, the DM may require you to make an ability check to notice the weak spot or identify it as such. If your attack hits, it is a critical hit.

Aiming for a body part. You can aim at a specific body part such as a limb or eye. If you hit, you deal normal damage, and the enemy must succeed on a Constitution saving throw (DC = 10 + 1/5 the damage you dealt) or be unable to use that body part. Unless you scored a critical hit, the creature can repeat the save at the end of each of its turns; on a success, it recovers use of the body part. The exact effects of a disabled body part are up to the DM, but as a guideline, a creature can't attack with a disabled limb, has its speed reduced for a disabled leg, can't see with a disabled eye or hear with a disabled ear, has its flying speed reduced for a disabled wing, etc.
​

The rationale is that you have to give up one of your attacks, so that the next one deals double damage or has a minor and temporary special effect. That's not usually attractive to power-gamers, but I think it would feel perfectly natural to many casual/new players, and it fits the fiction very well (standing your ground and aiming with your bow, or circling in melee looking for that opening...).

 

[Greg Benage]

No, it's because they don't have the "suddenly big number at level 1" effect. The DPR isn't as important (and without Bless it's significantly less than you would think) as seeing that one hit that manages to get 25+ damage when the guy next to you is averaging 8.

Yeah, I think a lot of the angst (not all, not everyone) comes from disproportionate experience playing at low levels.

I don't think anyone is against GWF or SS. I'm fine with martials doing a ton of damage. They should outdamage casters in my opinion. They did so in 3E as well. 3E martials did far more single target damage than casters. That dynamic continues in 5E. I don't want the whole two-handed style and archery style becoming the two dominant styles in 5E as they were in 3E.

Well, I guess I want them to be the dominant direct-damage-dealing styles, as long as "archery style" doesn't include dual-wielded repeating crossbows.

I want to be able to make a single-weapon fighter or two-weapon fighter and not feel like I'm gimping myself for damage.

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.

Take your own advice, here! Look at a F11/R9 with Dueling, no feats and 5d6 sneak attack. I guess make the target's AC really low to make it "fair" for the GWF, say, AC 16. That gives the fighter-rogue 80% to hit and 99% to land a sneak attack. That's good for 45 DPR. The fighter with GWF style and GWM feat will take 4 attacks at base 23.33, with a 55% to hit, good for 51 DPR. Anything with higher than AC 16 for these 20th-level PCs will favor the fighter-rogue.

Now give your fighter-rogue Sentinel for the possibility of double sneak attacks and control (and awesome Uncanny Dodge synergy), plus Shield Master (with Athletics Expertise) for bonus-action knockdowns, Alert for combos with Assassinate...and have fun.

The point is, if you want to go sword-and-board fighter and match the GWF on damage, you have to look for other sources of damage -- there isn't a feat that will give it you. I think that's appropriate. There also shouldn't be a feat for GWFs that give them +2 AC, make their weapons versatile, and make great weapons more common on the magic item charts.

The problem with the majority of attempts to calculate the white room damage don't understand how GWM works in conjunction with archetype and group capabilities. It is nearly impossible to account for every variation of archetypes and groups. That is why I recorded the damage from fights. The GWM in question was doing 150% to 200% of the damage done by the other characters save for the occasional chance to AOE by the wizard and some lucky critting by the paladin, with 70% of it coming from GWM.

Anecdotal data is a valuable complement to simply crunching numbers. Based on both, I think GWF and SS are perfectly fine, and in fact I think most of the suggestions here to "fix" them unbalance the game in ways that aren't appealing to me. I reserve the right to change my mind as I gain more experience with the game, but for now, I'm happy to let players who want to play focused martial direct-damage dealers actually deal a lot of direct damage.

 

[Leatherhead]

For TWF feat, how about making the off-hand attacks on the bonus action = #regular attacks÷2 round down?

That would only work for high level Fighters. Rangers and Rogues would be left out in the cold.