D&D 5E Current take on GWM/SS

[kerbarian]

Are players who are taking these feats aware that they are taking spotlight away from other players? If so, why do they continue to choose these feats, or having taken them, choose not to use them to act in service of making other characters shine from time to time?

Is this a case where we must change the rules to save players from themselves? Or might we expect they'll voluntarily make choices that don't overshadow others to the detriment of the game experience?

A system that's balanced so that players can make any choices they want and not worry about overshadowing others is a worthwhile goal, IMO. If a system does allow character builds that overshadow most others, it's true that you can remedy that by having every player voluntarily avoid those choices. But I see that as the players working together to fix a flaw in the system, and it's better if the system doesn't have that flaw to start with.

Requiring players to not only understand the choices relevant to their character but to also understand the entire system well enough to avoid overshadowing other types of characters is essentially requiring that players have a large amount of system mastery in order to make choices that will be fun for the group. Isn't it much better if players can choose anything they want without worrying that they'll break the game for others?

My personal experience is that GWM and SS do generate that feeling of overshadowing other characters when used effectively, and the game would be better if they were rewritten.

 

[pming]

Hiya.

On the second option, you've pretty much destroyed the reason for the feat to exist past about level 8, ensuring that the only players taking it are those in a game they know won't run past level 8 or so.

...and...?

So, because it becomes less useful at higher levels, that makes it "a stupid choice"? And ,just how would it be a stupid choice if your fighter has a 14 Str to begin with? Or a lower Strength even? Of course, "power-mad optimizer" types may complain voiciverously over it...but who cares? They complain about anything that goes against them min/MAX'ing their characters pure DPS. If you are using Multiclassing in your game, I can easily see an elven fighter taking this as soon as he hits level 4. He's probably balanced his stats to be good overall, and not focused. At least when he fights with his Greatsword/Longbow he's comparable to the other Fighters (even if he's lower level in Fighter).

Taking suggestion #2 at level 1 (for a human, using the Optional human thing), I'm pretty sure it would *greatly* enhance the chance of that character even *surviving* to level 8. I'd hardly call that a "waste". Of course, if death in your (general "your") game doesn't happen or happens rarely, then it becomes less so. But in my game, I have yet to have a PC crack the level 4 barrier. I'm sure if someone ever hits level 5 there will be much rejoicing at the table (and, I suspect, this may happen in the next game session or two...then again...death can sneak up on you pretty good!).

At any rate, it's a Feat. So it's all Optional anyway. If they are a problem in anyone's game, drop 'em.

^_^

Paul L. Ming

 

[iserith]

Requiring players to not only understand the choices relevant to their character but to also understand the entire system well enough to avoid overshadowing other types of characters is essentially requiring that players have a large amount of system mastery in order to make choices that will be fun for the group. Isn't it much better if players can choose anything they want without worrying that they'll break the game for others?

My personal experience is that GWM and SS do generate that feeling of overshadowing other characters when used effectively, and the game would be better if they were rewritten.

I think that sharing the spotlight is no harder than sharing anything else - a skill we learn early on as humans - or simply having a conversation and letting other participants have a say (a skill with which some struggle). System mastery isn't required. If one takes a certain feat and finds he or she is dominating the conversation of the game, the player can choose to self-correct.

On the same token, I think that concern over these feats causing one character to overshadow another requires overlooking how characters that don't have those feats contribute to the other pillars of the game (social interaction, exploration).

 

[DaveDash]

A system that's balanced so that players can make any choices they want and not worry about overshadowing others is a worthwhile goal, IMO. If a system does allow character builds that overshadow most others, it's true that you can remedy that by having every player voluntarily avoid those choices. But I see that as the players working together to fix a flaw in the system, and it's better if the system doesn't have that flaw to start with.

Requiring players to not only understand the choices relevant to their character but to also understand the entire system well enough to avoid overshadowing other types of characters is essentially requiring that players have a large amount of system mastery in order to make choices that will be fun for the group. Isn't it much better if players can choose anything they want without worrying that they'll break the game for others?

My personal experience is that GWM and SS do generate that feeling of overshadowing other characters when used effectively, and the game would be better if they were rewritten.

Totally agreed. As written they subtract more from the game than they add IMO. D&D 5e doesn't need feats that are basically -0.5/+10 on damage in the case of SS. The game runs fine without that damage boost.

The argument "Just increase monster HP or add more monsters" only serves to widen the gap between GMW/SS and non GMW/SS, as the former can effectively deal with the increase in creatures much greater than the later.

 

[Psikerlord#]

Totally agreed. As written they subtract more from the game than they add IMO. D&D 5e doesn't need feats that are basically -0.5/+10 on damage in the case of SS. The game runs fine without that damage boost.

The argument "Just increase monster HP or add more monsters" only serves to widen the gap between GMW/SS and non GMW/SS, as the former can effectively deal with the increase in creatures much greater than the later.

Indeed adding more monsters when you have an intraparty balance problem usually = accidental TPK. By trying to challenge the OP PCs, you add more monsters... which then at some point get lucky and overwhelm the normal PCs, which then snowballs to take down the OP PCs too.... ending in an unexpected TPK. A better approach ime is to correct the intraparty balance issue earlier (either by giving the weaker PCs better magic items, or in this instance, removing the -5/+10).

 

[iserith]

Or provide challenges that don't necessarily revolve around reducing the opposition's hit points to zero.

 

[DaveDash]

Or provide challenges that don't necessarily revolve around reducing the opposition's hit points to zero.

This is true but also player dependant, as some players like challenges that reduce opponents hit points to zero and little else. I play with a guy like this who plays a Sorcerer and wants to be the glass cannon. That's what he enjoys. He doesn't care about anything else except blasting spells and doing big damage.

Luckily we don't have any Fighter Archers in our group with these feats (if we did, because of our prior experience we'd probably ban them), otherwise he'd be completely outclassed in the one area of D&D that he actually really enjoys.
Where I am in Australia we don't have the luxury of having lots of D&D players to play with, losing one player would probably put our games on hold for weeks or months while we tried to locate another. We can't afford to lose a player because after level 8 he suddenly finds his enjoyment stifled by this OP combination on another character, one he doesn't have much interest in playing himself.
And then you can't just take away the feats from the Fighter guy whose invested the last 8 months into his character either, well you can but not easily.

For that very reason we put 5e through the ropes at the very beginning, months ago, to try and break it to see what would cause issues later on. SS/Xbow Expert is definitely one of the things we identified as a red flag.

 

[iserith]

This is true but also player dependant, as some players like challenges that reducing opponents hit points to zero, and little else. I play with a guy like this who plays a Sorcerer and wants to be the glass cannon. That's what he enjoys. He doesn't care about anything else except blasting spells and doing big damage.

I believe the key is providing challenges that offer the opportunity for the players to engage in whichever pillars most appeal to them at the time. As an example, Quiet Please. Your sorcerer player in this case can be helpful in any way he chooses including doing damage. Other players might engage in other pillars. Doing damage may or may not be the best way to handle the challenge.

If all the DM is putting out there are simple HP-attrition battles, certain feats might then seem overpowered or underpowered. But that is a factor of how that group chooses to approach the game rather than a problem with the game itself.

This is not to say that I see anything wrong with others changing the game to suit their interests. I just don't support the assertions made in this thread as to the problems inherent in the feats under discussion. I find when the DM offers the opportunity for the players to engage with all three pillars of the game as they see fit and the players are aware of the importance of sharing the spotlight, then these feats work just fine.

 

[DaveDash]

I believe the key is providing challenges that offer the opportunity for the players to engage in whichever pillars most appeal to them at the time. As an example, Quiet Please. Your sorcerer player in this case can be helpful in any way he chooses including doing damage. Other players might engage in other pillars. Doing damage may or may not be the best way to handle the challenge.

If all the DM is putting out there are simple HP-attrition battles, certain feats might then seem overpowered or underpowered. But that is a factor of how that group chooses to approach the game rather than a problem with the game itself.

This is not to say that I see anything wrong with others changing the game to suit their interests. I just don't support the assertions made in this thread as to the problems inherent in the feats under discussion. I find when the DM offers the opportunity for the players to engage with all three pillars of the game as they see fit and the players are aware of the importance of sharing the spotlight, then these feats work just fine.

I understand what you're saying, but not every DM has the time, energy, or ability to create encounters like that.

I'm really looking forward to running PoTA as my next adventure and *not* having to do hours upon hours of prep each week - yes there will be some. I'm not really planning on modifying each and every encounter in the module to make sure that it makes up for a GMW/SS Fighters ability to chew through the entire book with ease, and I wouldn't do that either. I'd just ban/modify the feats.

I'm lucky though, all my players have agreed not to use those combinations anyway. Self policing like you mentioned earlier. Not all players are like that though.

 

[Psikerlord#]

I believe the key is providing challenges that offer the opportunity for the players to engage in whichever pillars most appeal to them at the time. As an example, Quiet Please. Your sorcerer player in this case can be helpful in any way he chooses including doing damage. Other players might engage in other pillars. Doing damage may or may not be the best way to handle the challenge.

If all the DM is putting out there are simple HP-attrition battles, certain feats might then seem overpowered or underpowered. But that is a factor of how that group chooses to approach the game rather than a problem with the game itself.

This is not to say that I see anything wrong with others changing the game to suit their interests. I just don't support the assertions made in this thread as to the problems inherent in the feats under discussion. I find when the DM offers the opportunity for the players to engage with all three pillars of the game as they see fit and the players are aware of the importance of sharing the spotlight, then these feats work just fine.

The three pillar perspective only works if your players value all pillars equally. In my experience that is not the case. Most players, it seems to me, (i) weigh combat as the most important pillar, and (ii) weigh damage as the most valuable combat factor.