D&D 5E Current take on GWM/SS

[Minigiant]

Rogues get double proficiency 4 times by level 6.
Rogues get reliable talent at mid-high levels.
Rogues can double and triple dash.
Rogues can disengage as a bonus action.

A martial character is one that focuses on nonmagical aspects of combat , ability checks, features, or a combination of the three.

Made for Adventure + Not magic focuses = Martial.

Rogues are martial experts in 5th edition. They aren't martial warriors.

 

[Celtavian]

Rogues get double proficiency 4 times by level 6.
Rogues get reliable talent at mid-high levels.
Rogues can double and triple dash.
Rogues can disengage as a bonus action.

A martial character is one that focuses on nonmagical aspects of combat , ability checks, features, or a combination of the three.

Made for Adventure + Not magic focuses = Martial.

Rogues are martial experts in 5th edition. They aren't martial warriors.

Every other class but the barbarian brings major action to the adventure part.

Only the fighter and barbarian might be considered martial warriors by your definition.

 

[Minigiant]

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

Yup. It's obvious what is needed if you want rogued to keep up

Rogues need a damage feat.

Every other class but the barbarian brings major action to the adventure part.

Only the fighter and barbarian might be considered martial warriors by your definition.

Barbarbarian and fighters have adventure features. I've seen remarkable athlete used well and barbarians rage holes in walls. They also don't rely only magic for their primary functions.

Barbarians, fighters, and rogues are martial. Barbarians and fighters are martial warriors. Rogues are martial experts.

 

[SkidAce]

Currently 64% of people think the feats are fine.

 

[Coredump]

No where is anyone arguing they must be equal. When one character can do more damage than everyone else combined however - to me that is breaking balance.

But they can't. It helps them do a lot of damage, but it usually requires other players to assist. (Bless, Faerie Fire, Knock Prone, etc.)
And even then you are not going to be half of the groups output unless everyone else is just a buff-bot sitting and watching.

 

[Gadget]

Why I remain unconvinced:

...

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.

This is a very well reasoned response, let me offer my counter opinion. I posted up thread that this debate reminds me of the 3.0 haste debate, as the arguments of the "it's okay" crowd sounded remarkably like the ones put forth by the "haste is okay, it makes you burn through your spells faster, after all" group of yesteryear. Basically, it comes down to "I don't see it in my game" or "so what? Any DM worth his/her salt can..." and "It is supposed to give a damage boost, it costs the player a feat after all". Well sure, if you don't care over much about balance in this area of the game, then of course it won't make much of a difference to you! By these arguments, almost nothing would be out of balance.

I'm not saying that the game must be balanced in every aspect down to a fine hair's worth of difference, that's a fool's errand for sure. But it does seem that these feats are a little out of whack, probably not to the degree that 3.0 haste was, but there none the less. In addition to the arguments above my main problem with these feat designs is this:

1) The designers obviously intended these feats to have some mitigating factor or cost attached to them (in addition to the opportunity cost of picking the feat in the first place) by attaching the -5 to attacks to go a long with the +10 damage. This design principle, used often in RPG's over the years, has proven to be fraught with unintended consequences. From 2e's role-playing set backs in exchange for mechanical benefits to the myriad other ways this idea has been used, gamers have proven that there are many ways to counter act or trivialize the penalty that is supposed to counter balance the mechanical edge of the feat (or whatever other mechanical construct is under discussion) and make it a non factor. Now this principle can work, especially if the ways to trivialize the penalty are convoluted or very niche, but it is already on shaky ground in my book when it appears.

2) The feats grow in power as a character levels (i.e. gets more attacks). Now there is nothing wrong with a feat that grows as a character levels, most feats are at least designed to remain relevant throughout a character's career, but they should be specifically designed to do so, and I'm not sure these were. I mean any feat that affects attacks or damage is going to scale as a character gets more attacks, but this one seems to scale better than most, with the mitigating penalty becoming less relevant as well.

3) The ways to mitigate or trivialize the penalty are not that convoluted or hard to come by. Granted, gaining advantage can be somewhat DM dependent, but there are proscribed ways to do so in the rules, especially through various spells. It's not like a player has to pull a prestige class from splat book A, a feat from a Dragon Mag. #xyz, and an obscure race/spell etc from some other source to take advantage. The fact that with bounded accuracy, opponent ACs don't really scale as much, compounds the issue.

Now others may argue that the designers knew how trivial it would be to mitigate the -5, and it was intended to be no more than a mild restraint; or that, yes, there is a balance issue, but the effect on game play is not as great as it seems, but they still seem to be poorly designed feats, IMHO. If there is one thing that martial oriented players do not lack in this edition (especially THW and ranged styles) is DPR. In fact, most of the complaints seem to revolve around that fact that this is all they do (particularly fighters), and need beefing in other areas. Whether or not these complaints are valid is a separate issue, but rather telling on how much this is needed.

 

[Ashkelon]

I think my biggest problem with these feats is simply the fact that the feel like "must have" feats. I understand that nobody is forcing me to take them, and that by taking them I am giving up some other feat, but really no feat comes close to providing as much capability in combat as these feats do. They are the single highest contribution to DPR you can get from an ASI.

With how limited ASIs are to begin with, I was actually hoping that feats wouldn't significantly affect DPR, but would primarily focus on new options and capabilities. Shield Master is a good example of such a feat. It allows you to shove as a bonus action, a potent ability, but not one with a pure DPR boost. For players that want a pure DPR boost, they can increase their primary ability score. Since it is capped at 20 though, there is an upper limit to your combat potential. Once capped, players can choose feats for unique abilities or RP enhancing feats.

But with GWM and SS, all this changes. Suddenly there is one more feat you can take to increase DPR (on top of the other amazing benefits the feats give). Suddenly, The max potential damage is pushed skyward yet again. Suddenly you lose a lot of incentive to choose flavorful or interesting feats in the name of pure raw combat power. Sure, you can choose not to take them, but then you are missing out on a 15-20% boost to your DPR (25-40% for barbarians). This boost increases even more if you have a party with bless or a reliable source of advantage (wolf totem barbs, familiars using help, spellcasters using CC, etc). The boost is almost too large to pass up. It is far more of a boost than a mere +2 to an ability score gives (weren't feats and ability scores supposed to be "balanced").

What is worse, is that those feats marginalize other combat styles. The duelist, the dual wielder, the martial artist, etc all can't keep up with GWM and SS. Without those feats, they are at least in a similar ballpark, still lower mind you, but not overwhelmingly so.

To me it seems obvious where the problem lies. Change those feats and you will see much wider variety of characters. No longer will every two handed warrior take GWM and every archer take SS. No longer will dual wielders, rogues, and monks feel incapable of dealing a relevant amount damage after level 11. No longer will DMs have their encounters mopped up in a single round. No longer will the player who choose to be simple and just take ability boosts be completely and utterly outshone by the one with feats. No longer will crossbow expert and polearm master combine to give the fighter or barbarian a whopping +50% boost to their DPR. No longer will DMs have to artificially inflate the challenge of encounters, resulting in little more than an endless treadmill for the players. To me, that all sounds good.

 

[DaveDash]

Currently 64% of people think the feats are fine.

64% of people probably never get past level 8. 36% of people have had their game experience negatively impacted by these feats are also 36% too many.

 

[DaveDash]

But they can't. It helps them do a lot of damage, but it usually requires other players to assist. (Bless, Faerie Fire, Knock Prone, etc.)
And even then you are not going to be half of the groups output unless everyone else is just a buff-bot sitting and watching.

They can easily.

Do 60% of a damage increase which is perfectly reasonable based on maths, when they already are doing the best damage in the party, easily makes them do more damage than everyone else in the party combined.

I've seen it in 10-15 sessions and the maths proves it conclusively.

Bless benefits multiple party members so it's not like the entire party is standing back doing nothing while the fighter does everything.

 

[SubDude]

Been working on this issue for about a month now. My group is still 3rd level, and this issue was one reason I considered not allowing feats at all. But, I've never played with feats, and I think it would be a lot of fun.

I haven't seen a problem myself yet, obviously, but I don't need to see it for myself - that is why I'm here on EN World, so I can learn from those more experienced than I am.

I plan to head this all off early with some adjustment to the feats in question. Most likely, I'll go with (and voted for) the once per turn option. If they only get to use it once, then if it DOES miss, it will really sting, and the tradeoff will be apparent.

Could I be overreacting, since many people have some decent arguments explaining why it isn't a problem? Sure, but I don't want to just wait and see. If it turns out I've reduced the power too much, I'll throw the player a bone with a magic sword; but I'd much rather err on the side of caution given how many experienced DM's are telling me it will become a big issue.