D&D 5E Current take on GWM/SS

[KarinsDad]

And I say nothing is wrong with that picture. Nothing is wrong with one PC doing 50% of the damage if they are built for damage and the others are not.

You cannot say that for someone else's table. If the DM of that table has an issue, he has an issue. And you are assuming that the other PCs are not built for damage in the scenario given. Even built for damage, without those feats, nearly every other PC build will fall drastically behind in DPR, especially in buff scenarios.

 

[Minigiant]

If you are not convinced by the objective math discussion (at a relatively high AC which lowers the effectiveness of GWM) of the effective synergies of a first level spell plus a second level spell plus a feat here: Bless increasing the Rogue's DPR by 2% (52 to 53), Bless increasing the non-GWM Fighter's DPR by 11% (54 to 60), but GWM combined with Bless increasing the Fighter's DPR by 67% (54 to 90), then you will probably never be convinced. The Hold spell gets the DPR numbers to the first set of high numbers and Bless increases that by a 2% to 11% amount, but Bless plus GWM jumps it up by 67% (GWM alone without Bless increases Fighter DPR from 54 to 73 or 35%). I doubt that other more subjective arguments will persuade you. And that's fine. Neither side of the discussion has to actually prove anything.

I agree that bless boosts a GWM fighter a lot more than a rogue or nonGWM fighter.
I disagree that is is a problem.
The other players choose not to use the options.the non striker rogue is a non striker so I don't care about him. When the DM spawns a trap or lock, he'll shine. The nonGWM fighter with a great sword has other features too or playing suboptimal. No sympathy there. If he's a dwarf, I'll put some kobolds with poisoned javelins in so they have fun.

It is like 4th edition fighters. People wanted to play them as strikers. They weren't primary striker, striking was secondary. That's not a flaw of the game. Those people didn't understand it and fighters could deal decent damage if need be.

Also if the players use options, it is important that the DM does so to if the player choose not to handicap themselves. I don't run into the problem as my DM and when I DM, we use customization options to match the players. I fixed twf warriors without changing any feats by increases the effectiveness of mobs.

You cannot say that for someone else's table. If the DM of that table has an issue, he has an issue. And you are assuming that the other PCs are not built for damage in the scenario given. Even built for damage, without those feats, nearly every other PC build will fall drastically behind in DPR, especially in buff scenarios.

IGA DM has any issue, he or she should find the cause and fix it.

But a personal issue is not a technical issue.

I want rangers to get protection style., doesn't mean something is wrong with rangers

 

[Hussar]

Why I remain unconvinced:

There are two main issues I have here with the proof that there is a problem. So, I'm going to take a stab at explaining why I am not convinced by the evidence presented. Note, I'm not saying the problem does not exist. It very well might and the evidence might actually be accurate. I'm simply stating why it's not convincing to me.

1. DPR analysis. This analysis is very useful and it is a good benchmark, but, there are some very glaring omissions in the analysis. For one, it does not measure opportunity cost. It only measures damage potential. For example, in order to Bless, the cleric has to cast the spell. Say the cleric rolls low in initiative order, after the fighter(s) attack. That means for the first round of combat, the cleric has contributed nothing to the combat. Compare that to, say, a cleric that leads off with Flame Strike, even at the end of the round. Which has a bigger effect on the combat? Also, let's not forget, there is the opportunity cost of Concentration. Are there any other spells with concentration that the cleric could be casting instead? For example, a Light Domain cleric might be casting Flaming Sphere instead of Blessing 2 PC's. Which is more effective? I don't know. I'm picking rather random examples, but, the point is, DPR does not take this into account.

There is also the opportunity cost of taking the GWF/SS feats. A few posts up, we were comparing a human (variant) Lvl6 fighter to a hill dwarf Lvl 6 fighter. Thing is, our hill dwarf, with the Tough feat and an ASI has considerably more HP than the human. How much DPR is that worth when the hill dwarf can eat a dragon breath without saving while the GWF/SS fighter drops like a stone?

My point is this: DPR is a metric that can be used for comparison and it's an important one. Certainly the DPR analysis that has been done points in the direction that there might be an issue. It's not conclusive, but, it does highlight the issue and I feel that it indicates that we should be taking a closer look.

2. Anecdotal evidence. When you think about it, play testing is pretty much purely anecdotal. But, there is a significant difference here. As it stands, with the anecdotes we have, I know that if I play the say [MENTION=5834]Celtavian[/MENTION], [MENTION=6786202]DaveDash[/MENTION] or [MENTION=2011]KarinsDad[/MENTION] play and my players did the same, I'd likely have similar issues. But, are these issues the result of the mechanics or a result of how they play the game? We don't know. There just isn't enough evidence here. To properly explore this, you need about 10 groups playing the same half a dozen scenarios multiple times and recording the results each time. All I really know at this point in time is that some people are apparently having issues with these feats, typically at quite high level. What I don't know is why they are having these issues. And without doing a LOT more testing, the anecdotes don't really prove anything.

So, after this thread am I convinced there is a problem? No, not in the least. I am convinced that for some people there appears to be a problem. But is it systemic or an issue with the idiosyncrasies of their specific tables? Again, I don't know. I do know that my group is not having these issues, so, until we do have these issues or I see a LOT more hard evidence presented, I'm not going to worry about it too much.

 

[Psikerlord#]

That's the point though. You can remove them and the game works fine. It's not like these feats are necessary to play the game.

Very much this. The -5/+10 is unnecessary overkill and makes the game positively worse, not better, or even neutral.

 

[Psikerlord#]

And I say nothing is wrong with that picture. Nothing is wrong with one PC doing 50% of the damage if they are built for damage and the others are not.

My 4th edition ranger got most of the kills.
Same with my 3rd fighter/rogue, sorcerer, and ranger.
Same with my 5th edition damage ranger.

Strikers get more damage in than non strikers. I have no problem with a greatax user killing half the foes when you buff him with spells.

Now I agree that TWF is being overshadowed. But if that is the only striker which is underpowered, buff that.

And I say a single PC doing 50% of the party damage is a big problem, one that if left unchecked will end your game quicker than a TPK. That has been my experience, as both a player and DM. Better that the DM not let it get to that stage at all, by proactively managed PC damage balance. One way to do that, of course, if remove the +10.

Of course, I am of the school of thought that the "Striker" role was the single most glaring mistake in 4e. Happily the core of 5e got rid of it. Alas, they left the +10 feats in as options to reintroduce them (or that's my theory, anyhoo - I dont think the mechanic was accidental or inadvertent).

 

[KarinsDad]

I almost wish the poll had a "I like feats that allow martials to do tons of damage."

Is a Rogue a martial PC? Isn't he more or less forced to use weapons if he is going to be in combat (shy of Arcane Trickster)?

 

[Celtavian]

Is a Rogue a martial PC? Isn't he more or less forced to use weapons if he is going to be in combat (shy of Arcane Trickster)?

Not according to some. Remember, the rogue isn't supposed to do much damage.

 

[Minigiant]

And I say a single PC doing 50% of the party damage is a big problem, one that if left unchecked will end your game quicker than a TPK. That has been my experience, as both a player and DM. Better that the DM not let it get to that stage at all, by proactively managed PC damage balance. One way to do that, of course, if remove the +10.

Of course, I am of the school of thought that the "Striker" role was the single most glaring mistake in 4e. Happily the core of 5e got rid of it. Alas, they left the +10 feats in as options to reintroduce them (or that's my theory, anyhoo - I dont think the mechanic was accidental or inadvertent).

That's just like your opinion, man.

The paladin and ranger get 60% of the kills in my party. The cleric/fighter, wizard, and rogue have other jobs.
Until you prove it breaks the guidelines for encounters in a adventuring day with equal DM customization option used, its not a fact.

Is a Rogue a martial PC? Isn't he more or less forced to use weapons if he is going to be in combat (shy of Arcane Trickster)?

Nope.

Rogues are for skills, stealth, and mobility. They deal damage but everyone deals decent damage if they try.

 

[KarinsDad]

Nope.

Rogues are for skills, stealth, and mobility. They deal damage but everyone deals decent damage if they try.

Except that other PCs are better than Rogues at 60% of all skills (and Bards are better at more skills).

Other PCs can stealth as well as Rogues (Bard for one). And stealth is a single skill out of 16.

And other PCs can exceed their mobility (although they cannot do the disengage trick).


What's your definition of a martial class?

 

[Ashkelon]

If you run the math, a rogue actually puts out damage on par with an archer or great weapon fighter across all levels. It is only when GWM or SS are taken into consideration that the rogue falls significantly behind. But then again, if any weapon using class takes those feats, all other weapon using classes will fall significantly behind.

It seems fairly obvious where the problem lies.