D&D 5E Current take on GWM/SS

[CapnZapp]

This is preposterous. In the end, why then not have one character killing people by just looking at them (no save). That would really allow the others to focus on exploration and social, and not have to ensure they do decent damage...

Sheesh.

It's far more important one kind of fighter doesn't completely outshine another.

If you don't want to deal with damage, the thing going to take away is that you don't care about balanced options, which is what this entire discussion is about.

 

[KarinsDad]

The point being made was about analysis, not Sharpshooter: you can create any conclusion you want by controlling the assumptions of the analysis. Those assumptions are still subject to criticism. The fact that you guys are now thinking, "Hey, maybe just because it's in a chart doesn't make it so" is a desired outcome. Apply that same level of skepticism to every other chart: how valid are the assumptions? You may have noticed that in the second analysis, Sharpshooter is not only less important than Purple Worm Venom, it's less important than every other factor too. The reason why is obvious to anyone who understands basic algebra: DPR is accuracy times per-hit damage times number of attacks, so additive factors on one are dominated by additive factors on another. That applies to Sharpshooter just as well as Purple Worm Venom.

Even though Purple Worm poison isn't really the point, I did want to address the acquisition of it:



I have level 4 characters in my game who've had the dubious pleasure of running away from purple worms, so finding one isn't an issue. Killing or disabling one would indeed be a job. But if you think a purple worm is more dangerous than a beholder just because it has a higher CR, you're crazy. If I needed to take on a tyrant ship (two dozen beholders) I would absolutely ensure access to purple worm venom first. Purple worms are just sacks of HP, you could spend a few days camping out and kill a dozen even at level 10. Beholders are crazy smart, magical, and with anti-magic capabilities. The threat levels aren't even comparable.

Sorry, but you seriously do not make sense.

First off, you assume that it is easy to get the best poison in the game (regardless of finding it adventuring, buying it in a shop, or camping out and killing Purple Worms). That doesn't happen at all tables.

Second, you assume that Purple Worms are easy to find. Again, not at all tables.

Finally, you assume that Purple Worms are easy to kill. Not in my game. A Purple Worm is a predator in my game. It might be dumb, but it doesn't just attack PCs above the surface of the earth. It comes up from under the ground, bites its prey, swallows it, and then burrows back underground. Often all in the same round. The other PCs can often follow, but that doesn't mean that it's easy. The Worm might burrow straight down. It might burrow through dirt where it's easy to for it to collapse. I've had more than one PC in campaigns buried by collapsing Purple Worm tunnels, especially in dirt.

And one of the situations that can occur with Purple Worms (at least IME) that does not typically occur with most monster encounters is that if they are burrowing through rock or ground and regurgitate one or more PCs, those PCs now find themselves in pitch dark, with the mouth of a Purple Worm a foot away, and even if they do kill it, they could still suffocate or get crushed by its dead body. Some DMs play the game to make sense. Gargantuan bodies of creatures do not just magically disappear.


I find it a bit funny how you assume that an item in the DMG (or monster in the MM) is easily available to find, and that if you create an absurd damage chart that uses that item, that all damage charts must be suspect. This is not the case. Some situations are common and some are extremely rare. Your example was beyond extremely rare. It would almost never happen at most tables. Bless? It happens at nearly every table. The other charts in this thread are reasonable, yours was not.

Sorry, but your point is invalid.

 

[KarinsDad]

[1] DPR isn't always the best measure because overkill matters too

In my experience, overkill is a bit irrelevant. In yesterday's session, there were two foes with 1 hit point remaining. In our last session, there were three foes with 1 hit point remaining; two of which were killed with Magic Missile, the player of the Bard (with a wand) had no clue that they had 1 hit point left.

Sure, if one is using a resource that takes effort to renewal (or is non-renewable), it does "kinda of suck" to overkill with it. But when just using a resource like -5/+10, the alternative of not killing it is worse.


I will agree, however, that overkill is a reason why multiple attacks per round for the same DPR is better than a single attack. The multiple attacks can result in the foe dropping with an early attack, leaving other attack or attacks for other foes.


But for every case of the high DPR PC doing overkill, there will be a case of the low DPR PC not doing enough damage to kill a foe. Mathematically, it's mostly a wash and white noise.

 

[jadrax]

Just checking the % on the poll, seems like it's whack. Should be about 50% "no problem" and "50" the rest..?

It's a multiple choice poll. Looks like around a 3rd of respondents ticked more than one box.

But at the time of writing, 116 of the 165 who voted picked 'The problem isn't that bad; use the feats as-is' - which is approximately 70%.

 

[the Jester]

In my experience, and opinion, this is precisely the opposite of what most players want. Everyone wants to do decent damage. Spread the love.

Just checking the % on the poll, seems like it's whack. Should be about 50% "no problem" and "50" the rest..?

Except that more than 50% of the respondants don't see the feats as a problem (or at least not much of one). Don't be fooled by a few loud voices.

 

[KarinsDad]

Some of them are high-powered (dragons with Greater Invisibility and the Shield spell:

Sure, such a combo could exist in the game. But the Shield spell lasts at most a round and Greater Invisibility can be countered (Counterspell DC 14, Dispel Magic DC 14, or even damage).

Note: The Shield spell often does not last close to a full round. It only lasts a full round if the Dragon uses it on the PC's init immediately next after the Dragon's. Otherwise, it often lasts way less than a round. In our Dragon encounter yesterday, there were 7 PCs, 4 monsters, and a Dragon. 12 inits. The Dragon's init was 2 creatures below the Wizard's init, so its Shield spell lasts for 2 inits out of 12 or 1/6th of a round (2/7th of PC's inits).

This type of combo tends to last one or two round max. In those rounds, the Sharpshooter PC does not use the -5/+10. He uses normal attacks. After Shield and Invisibility are gone, then he again has the option to nova.

Again, you set up these scenarios and say "See, the SS -5/+10 DPR is less DPR than not using it.". Well, of course you can set up these scenarios.

But, that's irrelevant. There are more situations at most tables where a buffed SS or GWM PC does more DPR using -5/+10 because players go out of their way to set up those situations. If the situation is not good, then the SS or GWM PC just chooses to not use -5/+10. Gaming 101.

And in fact, most monsters do not have spells. Sure, you could throw a spell caster or two in with every encounter, but that is not the status quo at most tables in most encounters. Most monsters do not have ways to counter buffed -5/+10 SS or GWM PCs.

 

[jodyjohnson]

Better to ignore dissent. We'll go away eventually.

 

[Minigiant]

This is preposterous. In the end, why then not have one character killing people by just looking at them (no save). That would really allow the others to focus on exploration and social, and not have to ensure they do decent damage...

Sheesh.

It's far more important one kind of fighter doesn't completely outshine another.

If you don't want to deal with damage, the thing going to take away is that you don't care about balanced options, which is what this entire discussion is about.

With enough drawbacks, a "point and kill" PC would be fine. Again, it would just emphasize party roles. That's all feats do: shove you harder into a role.

The issue some have I'd that they dislike this. Well blame that on feats not being forced to fill all roles.

 

[FormerlyHemlock]

RE: purple worm hunting:

Sorry, but you seriously do not make sense.

First off, you assume that it is easy to get the best poison in the game (regardless of finding it adventuring, buying it in a shop, or camping out and killing Purple Worms). That doesn't happen at all tables.

Second, you assume that Purple Worms are easy to find. Again, not at all tables.

Finally, you assume that Purple Worms are easy to kill. Not in my game. A Purple Worm is a predator in my game. It might be dumb, but it doesn't just attack PCs above the surface of the earth. It comes up from under the ground, bites its prey, swallows it, and then burrows back underground. Often all in the same round. The other PCs can often follow, but that doesn't mean that it's easy. The Worm might burrow straight down. It might burrow through dirt where it's easy to for it to collapse. I've had more than one PC in campaigns buried by collapsing Purple Worm tunnels, especially in dirt.

And one of the situations that can occur with Purple Worms (at least IME) that does not typically occur with most monster encounters is that if they are burrowing through rock or ground and regurgitate one or more PCs, those PCs now find themselves in pitch dark, with the mouth of a Purple Worm a foot away, and even if they do kill it, they could still suffocate or get crushed by its dead body. Some DMs play the game to make sense. Gargantuan bodies of creatures do not just magically disappear.

I find it a bit funny how you assume that an item in the DMG (or monster in the MM) is easily available to find, and that if you create an absurd damage chart that uses that item, that all damage charts must be suspect. This is not the case. Some situations are common and some are extremely rare. Your example was beyond extremely rare. It would almost never happen at most tables. Bless? It happens at nearly every table. The other charts in this thread are reasonable, yours was not.

Sorry, but your point is invalid.

1.) No, I don't assume it is easy to purchase Purple Worm poison. Hence why we are talking about alternate methods for acquiring it. It might be easy to buy some, but it might not. No assumptions there, just contingency planning.

2.) No, I don't assume that it's easy to find them. Again I've made that point that it might be easy to do. It is in my current campaign because the PCs have travelled a lot with their spelljamming ship and found a place where enormous burrowing things come up and eat the cows the PCs had released as a stalking horse to see if the area was safe.

3.) No, I don't assume it's easy to kill them. I happen to think that it is easy to kill them, but reread my post and you'll see that the argument I'm making is just that it is easier to kill a purple worm than a beholder, or especially than two dozen beholders on a tyrant ship. Context is key. "Easier" and "easy" are not synonyms.

Name any group that can take on the beholders and I'll show you how they'd be better off killing some purple worms first.

P.S. If you're Purple Worm hunting you're going to do it on rock, not soil. It slows them down and ensures that you can follow them. Collapsing soil tunnels is therefore irrelevant to deliberate hunting of Purple Worms--it only comes into play when they're hunting you. One assumption I do make when I say "go kill some purple worms" is that you know how to do it correctly, stacking the odds in your favor. From what you say I may be assuming too much, but the problem is easily rectified: consult a sage or cast Commune or Contact Outer Plane, and the DM-in-the-persona-of-NPCs will give you some monster-hunting tips. (Or, in real life, come to Enworld and ask the other posters.) IMO it's more fun to figure these things out yourself though.

 

[FormerlyHemlock]

In my experience, overkill is a bit irrelevant. In yesterday's session, there were two foes with 1 hit point remaining. In our last session, there were three foes with 1 hit point remaining; two of which were killed with Magic Missile, the player of the Bard (with a wand) had no clue that they had 1 hit point left.

That's not what I meant by "overkill" in this context. What I mean is that calculating DPR is only a rough guide to "how long does it take to kill this foe". If you do 20 HP of damage twice against two different 11 HP targets, sure your DPR is 20 for that round, but you killed fewer foes than someone who did 12 HP against three 11 HP targets. Specifically, against hobgoblins a sniped arrow is guaranteed to kill them, but it usually takes two non-sniped arrows to kill them, so rather than focusing exclusively on DPR my analysis also touched on hit rates. Since hit rate was more than twice as good regular attacks, and regular attacks are more than half as good as sniped attacks, the hit rate analysis produces the same conclusions as the DPR analysis: not sniping the prone hobgoblins with -5/+10 is better. Just use regular attacks.