D&D 5E Current take on GWM/SS

[Celtavian]

Players aren't in a competition with each other for damage output. It is a cooperative game about storytelling so it's spotlight that matters - how much impact a PC has on the story. Calculating spotlight time requires examining all three pillars, not just combat.

If your game is nothing but combat and your combats all amount to nothing more than a race to get Team Monster to 0 hp, then yeah, those feats are going to seem "off." For everyone else who engages with all three pillars of the game and who design encounters where the enemy can be defeated through means other than hit point attrition, these feats are not an issue.

What percentage of encounters are defeated without combat in modules designed and put out by WotC? The ones who wrote this Page 2 you keep mentioning. In my experience, over 80% of the encounters are decided by hit point attrition. Why would WotC endorse modules with such design if they didn''t consider combat the largest portion of the game?

 

[KarinsDad]

Players aren't in a competition with each other for damage output. It is a cooperative game about storytelling so it's spotlight that matters - how much impact a PC has on the story. Calculating spotlight time requires examining all three pillars, not just combat.

If your game is nothing but combat and your combats all amount to nothing more than a race to get Team Monster to 0 hp, then yeah, those feats are going to seem "off." For everyone else who engages with all three pillars of the game and who design encounters where the enemy can be defeated through means other than hit point attrition, these feats are not an issue.

Everyone else???


Frankly, we use all three pillars and I still see a major design flaw here (easily corrected though).

 

[KarinsDad]

What percentage of encounters are defeated without combat in modules designed and put out by WotC? The ones who wrote this Page 2 you keep mentioning. In my experience, over 80% of the encounters are decided by hit point attrition. Why would WotC endorse modules with such design if they didn''t consider combat the largest portion of the game?

Logic isn't going to work here.

 

[iserith]

What percentage of encounters are defeated without combat in modules designed and put out by WotC? The ones who wrote this Page 2 you keep mentioning. In my experience, over 80% of the encounters are decided by hit point attrition. Why would WotC endorse modules with such design if they didn''t consider combat the largest portion of the game?

The DM (and dice to varying degrees) decides how an encounter goes based on how the players engage with it, not the designers.

 

[iserith]

Frankly, we use all three pillars and I still see a major design flaw here (easily corrected though).

Only a "flaw" if the group judges spotlight time by damage output. I don't find myself burning with envy when someone across the table from me has a character that does more damage than mine. I cheer that person on and then demonstrate my characters' strengths in other ways.

 

[KarinsDad]

Only a "flaw" if the group judges spotlight time by damage output. I don't find myself burning with envy when someone across the table from me has a character that does more damage than mine. I cheer that person on and then demonstrate my characters' strengths in other ways.

No, it's a design flaw because it breaks the design paradigm and the math backs that up. Nearly every damage boost in the game system (Hex, Hunter's Mark, Sneak Attack, Colossus Slayer, Giant Killer, Horde Breaker, etc., etc., etc.) are either once per turn or once per round. Even things like casting spells. Once per round (plus potentially an extra cantrip).

This is how the game is designed. I cannot help it if you cannot see this. For people who do various types of design for a living, it's obvious. The game designers went out of their way to prevent abuse by limiting frequency. Remember the 3E Haste issue. It opened up a HUGE can of worms. WotC learned from that.

And many posters here understand it. This is an exploitable design anomaly. Pretending that "it's a people problem, not a design problem" doesn't make it so for many people's tables.

Sorry, but WotC dropped the ball on this one. And, that's ok. You can play it your way at your table. I can fix it at mine. I prefer to fix what I perceive as flawed game elements, not flawed players. This is not a player problem. Saying that the only ones who have a problem with it are tables who don't use all three pillars is totally inaccurate and rude.

 

[Minigiant]

Snip.

Actually it's not that bad.

+2 to Strength is better than taking any feat unless you have another PC devoted to buffing you and debuffing your enemy specifically. The issue is the bless-bot cleric in heavy armor and a full caster dropping debuffs everwhere making things too easy.

Getting to 20 Strength or Dexterity as a warrior class is most important if you want damage.

If you hate the feats, like the Ability score cap of 20.

 

[iserith]

This is an exploitable design anomaly. Pretending that "it's a people problem, not a design problem" doesn't make it so for many people's tables.

Mechanics don't exploit themselves.

Why play with those who have shown themselves willing to exploit rules to the point of negatively impacting the game experience for others?

 

[KarinsDad]

Mechanics don't exploit themselves.

Why play with those who have shown themselves willing to exploit rules to the point of negatively impacting the game experience for others?

You are making the assumption that a player using this feat is exploiting the rules. The feat is in the book, to be used. The player is just having fun. It's judgmental people who think that a case of design flaw is a case of exploitation.

Game designers are not perfect. But, I do not attribute their mistakes to the players playing the game. You really seem to be wrapped around the axle that if there is a problem here, it's the players causing it. Odd.

 

[iserith]

You are making the assumption that a player using this feat is exploiting the rules. The feat is in the book, to be used. The player is just having fun. It's judgmental people who think that a case of design flaw is a case of exploitation.

Game designers are not perfect. But, I do not attribute their mistakes to the players playing the game. You really seem to be wrapped around the axle that if there is a problem here, it's the players causing it. Odd.

You're the one who said it's an "exploitable design anomaly." That requires a player to exploit it. They can choose otherwise if exploiting the exploitable design anomaly is impacting the game experience in a negative way.