Pretty spot on.
D&D 5E Current take on GWM/SS
- Thread starter CapnZapp
- Start date
Pretty spot on.
That really is because the feat is spammable multiple times per round.
Code:
10 16.9 22.2 23.0 26.8
11 16.0 21.0 21.4 24.7
12 15.1 19.8 19.8 22.6
13 14.2 18.6 18.2 20.5
14 13.3 17.4 16.7 18.4
15 12.4 16.3 15.1 16.4
16 11.5 15.1 13.5 14.3
17 10.6 13.9 11.9 12.2
18 9.7 12.7 10.3 10.1The columns here are: Foe AC, Rogue DPR, Fighter DPR (18 Str), Fighter GWM -5/+10 once per turn, and Fighter -5/+10 twice per turn. The Rogue is fighting two weapon and the Fighter gets two attacks per round and is a great weapon specialist. This does not include damage for the bonus attack due to GWM. The PCs are level 5 (Rogue took +2 Dex, Fighter took GWM feat except in column 2 where he took +2 Str). Level 5 is the point at which the Fighter spikes in damage due to two attacks per round and is expected to surpass the Rogue in DPR for a few levels.
The Rogue (column 2) is not even competitive with the Fighter in column 3 and 4, but really lags behind column 5. The Rogue won't be competitive against the column 3 and 4 Fighters until level 8 and never catches up to the unlimited -5/+10 GWM column 5 Fighter except maybe at high ACs.
Course, to hit buffs change this picture even more. The unlimited GWM Fighter starts going nuts.
The Rogue actually doesn't need to catch up though. He has other defensive abilities that allow him to shine. The issue is that he needs to still be competitive. 6 to 10 less DPR against low AC foes at level 5 is not competitive at all for a "striker class".
This is a difference of opinion.
You believe the players should be self-policing.
I feel the game designers are paid to police the rules for issues like this.
I find that we will not agree on this subject. I pay for rules that don't allow these types of options in. If too many enter the game, I'm doing too much of the work the game designers are paid for. They need to create rules that support goals of the game, not options that give players the opportunity to exploit the goals of play.
You seem firmly ensconced in the idea the players should be self-policing and that is the problem. I very much disagree with that idea given the large number of players involved in a game of this size. Even on this forum there are thousands of posts discussing numerous aspects of play. The only touchstone we have to work with is the designed rules. Not every player should be expected to self-police.
I understand you don't see a problem with these feats in particular. That is fine. Many agree with you. Trying to sell me on players self-policing rules that exploit the goals of play is not what we pay game designers for.
Judging from your posts, you focus your design on creative adventures. You don't pay the game designers for story creativity. You pay them for a rule set that you can use to resolve situations in your story. If they give you a rule set with an ability that creates a situation that ripples through the game creating multiples issues, that rule is a problem, not the player.
We have listed the multiple issues seen with Sharpshooter and GWF throughout a 16 levels:
1. Focus on optimizing the feat.
2. Shunting players into two fighting styles: archery and GWF making the effectiveness of TWF a suboptimal choice.
3. Making rogue Sneak Attack seem less potent.
4. Eliminating the ability of a DM to use anything less than full cover against a Sharpshooter causing enemy casters to have to maintain full cover all the time even with a wall of martial protection in front of them.
5. Forcing an upward adjustment of AC for the majority of creatures straining Bounded Accuracy to keep the -5/+10 mechanic from overshadowing everyone else's damage.
6. Sharpshooter eliminates the advantages of fliers because it allows you to attack at up to 600 feet without penalty, while moving back and forth behind full cover.
7. How both feats combine with spells like bless, faerie fire, and other class abilities to create an effect more powerful than would otherwise be produced by the base spell or class ability.
Few things ripple through the game like these two feats creating additional issues that must be adjusted for. When a rule creates this type of ripple effect, I think there is ample evidence the rule is faulty. If you feel self-policing is the better way to handle these things, so be it. I much prefer the game designers handle it because an official ruling provides a touchstone we can all work from whether we've known the players twenty years or twenty minutes.
Players define the goals of play for themselves. Some players do choose options that strengthen group play. I have one player that enjoys making a group oriented character most of the time. He always tries to work as a team and optimize the power of the team. I have another player that focuses mostly on his own fun making his character as powerful as possible. Each player has fun playing that way. Player two flat out says I have fun making my character as powerful as possible. I wouldn't play if I couldn't. The third player doesn't like min-maxing at all. He doesn't even think about it when making a character. He is very into aesthetics (his appearance, his personality) and story. He barely bothers to learn the rules. He makes a character because he likes how sword and shield looks caring very little how they play. Not that the other players don't like some of the other aspects, but they naturally focus on those aspects of the game they find most interesting. That can often lead to the optimizers overshadowing the story focused players. As a DM, which side do you pick? Or do you pick a side? If a rule in the game creates a conflict between the two sides, what do you do?
I don't share the mindset. I feel it is my job as DM to allow players of varying play-styles to all have fun together. That is why I work to make sure the TWF or rogue feels equally effective in combat to a GWF or sharpshooter. I also ensure the GWF or Sharpshooter feels like they are a part of the story out of combat and encourage them to choose a skill like Stealth or Survival so I can work in scenarios where those skills are useful and shine some of the non-combat spotlight on them.
I do this in all my campaigns.
Why do you think the feats bother me so much? The cause the combat spotlight to shine too bright in one area. They short-circuit fights against big solo creatures that should be longer and more dramatic with more of a shared accomplishment defeating the creature. If using the feat allows the character to nova and take out the creature doing most of the damage of alone, it creates a pretty serious spotlight problem for me as a DM. It is the rule causing it, creating a situation where two things must happen:
1. The player self-polices choosing to avoid the problem feat.
2. I as a DM remove it or modify it to make available options more equal in effectiveness in the combat pillar, so the other players don't feel overshadowed.
Is a player selfish if they have fun doing a lot of damage and being highly effective in combat? If the player's goal was to overshadow the other players, then I could agree with you. What if he just has fun making the most effective character possible and due to the way the rules work, that ends up overshadowing everyone else? Is that the player's fault or the fault of the rules?
the Jester
Legend
The real answer I would like to vote for is "There is no problem, everything is fine."
iserith
Magic Wordsmith
The designers can't control your players. What we can do as DMs is seek consensus on the goals of play the designers set forth (Basic Rules, page 2) and how to achieve them as a group. Achieving the goals of play is how one "wins" at D&D. If you're making optimal choices that fail to help the group achieve the goals of play because your CoDzilla character is frustrating everyone else, then you just caused the group to "lose" at D&D. Your choices, not the feat, is to blame.
To be clear, I'm not trying to "sell" you on anything. I have no stake in your game. But I am bringing up things that I think are worth addressing and are often overlooked when it comes to these sorts of issues at the table.
You misunderstood my statement. We have mature players who can have fun doing what they want to do and for the most part, the other players are mature and are not "whiny when someone does something that they do not like". The point that I was trying to make is that each player can play to have fun without worrying about other entitled players who pout if their fun is stepped on at my table.
Yes, D&D is a cooperative game. That does not mean that the goals of the PCs always have to align, or that there has to be group consensus on decision making. PCs can have different goals and can approach situations in different ways without a given player having BadWrongFun because he is not "cooperating" and not casting Fly on the non-mobile melee PC, or not casting Cure Wounds on the wounded PC.
Each player can make their own choices without being judged at my table for "playing the wrong way". Every player gets to shine. Every player gets to have fun. We do not have to worry about whether someone else is having fun because we all have fun, and I as DM work to let everyone shine at the table.
If your table plays the game where the players worry about whether every other player is having fun and they are making their decisions on some type of pleasing everyone else at the table mindset, then their focus is on the wrong thing. It's my job as DM to make sure that each player gets some time in the spot light to shine and play in the play style they prefer, not the job of the other players.
In fact, my table is different from Dave's and Celtavian's. They have group discussions on group tactics. I focus a lot more on the individual. It's your turn (or, the Innkeeper is talking to you). What do you want to do (or say)? It's your moment to shine. If the player makes a tactical error, there might be some laughter over it, but nobody rebukes him or her. A mistake was made. Big deal. Move on. Who cares? Let's play.
Our table does cooperate. But they do not make in character decisions with the goal of making sure everyone else is having fun. That was my point.
Last edited:
That might be true for EKs, but for BMs, they Feint and minimize damage on themselves a lot. They take less damage and they do more damage. They do get hit 10% more often than sword and board, but they wipe out foes faster and get attacked less often because of it. Hard to quantify, but definitely a factor. There are a lot of PCs in our group that require healing more often than the great weapon Fighter.
iserith
Magic Wordsmith
Well, you've certainly included all the usual keywords I've come to expect from certain kinds of posters.
Consider this:
Players' Goals (as defined by Basic Rules, page 2, paraphrased): Have a good time together and create an exciting, memorable story.
Character Goal: Whatever your character might seek to do in the context of the game that contributes to achieving the player goals.
In other words, our characters' goals can diverge. Our goals as players cannot or else we risk failing to "win" at D&D. When you have a table full of people who get this, all these little problems that are reported on the forums simply melt away in my experience without needing to change the game.
Note: I was not talking about a player at my table, but what can happen in general. So, could you leave your multiple holier than thou "explains a lot" comments at the door?
But people are people. Why allow the rule set to encourage this? Why be judgmental about people instead of being judgmental about subpar rules that can encourage unwanted behaviors?
Hate the player? For using the rules as written? Harsh.
iserith
Magic Wordsmith
You yourself said that each player is responsible for their own fun at the table. So as long as I gets mine, who cares that I overshadow Bob, right? Except Bob maybe, but he's responsible for his fun and shouldn't "pout." He should be "mature." Expecting others to share the spotlight in a game about storytelling is "entitlement."
And I'm not "holier." I just take care that the choices I make are contributing to the fun of others instead of just my own. In the doing, I self-police my tendency to optimize in a way that negatively impacts the game experience.
The behavior exists separate and apart from the rules. The rules are just tools that the group uses to play the game. Some players use them in a way that negatively impacts the game experience. They don't have to. If a group has players that can't control themselves in this regard, then by all means, remove or change the feats.
Similar Threads
