D&D 5E Current take on GWM/SS

[FormerlyHemlock]

First, to pick nits: That would cost 2,500 GP per shot (the prices are per dose) and -- unless the DM is very generous about how long PWV retains potency after it's applied -- would require either time for pre-combat buffing or would use up actions during combat to apply the poison, which would dramatically drop the effective DPR.

A dose applies to three pieces of ammunition, not one.

You've found another thing in the DMG with an even larger damage bonus, which (issues aside) stacks up in exactly the same way as GWM and SS only to a larger degree. Is your argument that because there's one thing in the entire DMG that would result in even more damage and which might be available to characters on a very limited basis, SS resulting in double damage every single combat isn't a balance problem?

No. My point is that your assumptions control your analysis. When you analyze the net effect of a whole bunch of accuracy-boosting factors + one damage-boosting factor, of course the damage factor will dominate the results. This is true whether the damage booster is purple worm venom (or wyvern venom, or drow poison--I picked purple worm venom for beholders but the monk in my party uses more drow poisons) or paladin smites or Elemental Weapon or a Flame Tongue or anything else.

There's always an opportunity cost. The ability to leverage poisons more cheaply (vs. just putting it on a melee weapon for use all combat) is one of the things your crossbow expert is giving up by focusing relentlessly on your CE/SS strategy. He's also giving up the ability to easily exploit the easier kind of advantage to generate (prone foes), which means that your analysis requires one or two concentration slots devoted to the fighter (for generating advantage via Faerie Fire or similar, and for casting Bless--in the cases where you're dropping one of these factors you obviously only need one concentration). There are other things you could do with that concentration.

-Max

 

[FormerlyHemlock]

Your chart merely proves that SS is less of a damage buff per hit than Purple Worm Poison. Math 101. It does nothing to illustrate how potent or weak SS is.

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:

The fact that you found a poison in the DMG that PCs typically have to find and kill a purple worm to acquire (a CR 15 creature compared to the CR 13 Beholder they are trying to kill) actually illustrates how broken SS is. If you have to go find a rare poison to get better damage (and you are limited to the number of doses) than a feat that PCs can just acquire and use every single round, then that feat sounds pretty potent.

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.

 

[FormerlyHemlock]

One more thing: I have yet too see somebody argue these feats ACTUALLY ADD VALUE to the game. Lots of chaff defending feats in general and trying to dissuade any house ruling discussion.

But not a single poster have actually said these feats are good for the game. (The most I've heard is feats in general is good, or that there's nothing wrong with these feats)

I'm pretty sure I've said several times that without feats, fighters are boring. (Some people disagree, which is fine, but I've definitely said it.) Furthermore I've argued that SS/GWM are on par with other good feats, and that removing them simply narrows the number of good options, thus making fighters slightly more boring. You can infer from that that I think these feats are good for the game.

In fact, I'll go slightly further and argue that SS/GWM are even better for the game than most feats because they enable a new tactical option (sniping/power attacking), and interesting tactical options are more fun than boring old bonuses.

(The only caveat is that it wouldn't kill me if the option were available to everybody even without the feat (maybe at -5/+5) and the feat just brought it up to +10. Under that variant rule the game would be approximately as good with or without the feat, because everyone would still have an interesting option regardless.)

 

[FormerlyHemlock]

RAI maybe, but it does not state this is so anywhere in the text. They should have added that a simulacrum is a construct to prevent healing spells. That would not prevent a long rest from working.

You can also heal constructs with the Aura of Vitality spell.

 

[Minigiant]

Hussar (and Celtavian): this thread isn't about "the problems with Fighter". This thread isn't about taking many or few short rests.

This thread is about the -5/+10 feats.

It has clearly shown me that without feats, the game works well.

But when you add feats, some bad things happen to the game:
1) the Rogue's Sneak Attack isn't impressive anymore
2) heck, even spellcaster top level damage isn't "rare and amazing" - it's just rare.
3) choosing to fight sword-and-board or with two weapons lose steam completely

All of this is caused by adding two feats to the game, and not those feats in their entirety, but the -5/+10 mechanism specifically.

There have been several detractors, but none of you have addressed the core issue. (All the talk about your opponent's math errors does not mean your own position is right; all the talk about adventure composition and rest frequency is simply irrelevant to the question, the argument that rules fiddling is bad or wearysome still does not save a mistaken feat design; etc etc). Your arguments may be sound and right, but unless they specifically show that these feats work even for a group with experienced minmaxers, they're... irrelevant.

Whenever an argument is made and several attempts to shoot it down are simply missing the mark makes for a pretty convincing argument there in fact is truth to that argument.

This is so in this case.

One more thing: I have yet too see somebody argue these feats ACTUALLY ADD VALUE to the game. Lots of chaff defending feats in general and trying to dissuade any house ruling discussion.

But not a single poster have actually said these feats are good for the game. (The most I've heard is feats in general is good, or that there's nothing wrong with these feats)

Actually I've said before feats allow an offensive character to focus. It allows for the striker to fill the role stronger and frees up other characters to take other roles as healer, face, defender, leader, controller, explorer, etc.

In a featless damage, every party member is heavily encouraged to be a damage dealer. Nothing wrong with that, but you can't stray from damage too much else you weaken the group or the DM stops using DMG assumptions. But if your archer fighter deals crazy damage, your defensive mage loses the need spend some many slots to blast as much and can fall back to cantrips early.

 

[DaveDash]

You can also heal constructs with the Aura of Vitality spell.

Simulacrum is an illusionary duplicate and not a construct.

 

[DaveDash]

I'm pretty sure I've said several times that without feats, fighters are boring. (Some people disagree, which is fine, but I've definitely said it.) Furthermore I've argued that SS/GWM are on par with other good feats, and that removing them simply narrows the number of good options, thus making fighters slightly more boring. You can infer from that that I think these feats are good for the game.

In fact, I'll go slightly further and argue that SS/GWM are even better for the game than most feats because they enable a new tactical option (sniping/power attacking), and interesting tactical options are more fun than boring old bonuses.

(The only caveat is that it wouldn't kill me if the option were available to everybody even without the feat (maybe at -5/+5) and the feat just brought it up to +10. Under that variant rule the game would be approximately as good with or without the feat, because everyone would still have an interesting option regardless.)

Here's the thing, once you get past a certain level,they'd stop offering tactical options. They become 'always on' abilities that REDUCE tactical options.
Because it's almost always in your best interest to use them constantly. Only fighting the highest AC things in the game when you may not have any buffs do you actually have to think about it.

Things like ignoring cover penalties and removing penalties to fire in melee also reduce the tactical aspect of the game further, because they don't require any thinking on behalf of the player. You don't need to worry about positioning, cover, weigh up whether or not to use the feats or not, etc. You just spew out bolts at maximum range against targets hiding in arrow slits without worry, consideration, or any tactical thought what so ever.

 

[FormerlyHemlock]

They become 'always on' abilities that REDUCE tactical options. Because it's never in your best interest NOT to use them.

A simple counterexample:

You're a level 11 Fighter with Sharpshooter and Dex 20, and you notice that there's an invisible stalker on your tail. What do you do?

Normally invisible stalkers have AC 14, so sniping it will boost your expected DPR from 23.12 to 24.75. But if it turns out that someone cast Mage Armor on it beforehand, it actually has AC 17, which means that sniping it will actually drop your expected damage from 16.07 to 14.66 DPR.

I've learned that I need to be clear with you, so let me be clear: this is not the only case where sniping is not no-brainer. Some of them are high-powered (dragons with Greater Invisibility and the Shield spell: sniping drops your 20th level damage from 4.7 DPR to 0.83) and some of them are simple and low-tech (hobgoblins lying prone behind half-cover while shooting back with crossbows: AC 18, disadvantage means that the 11th level fighter will do 14.00 DPR when shooting normally, or 11.88 DPR when sniping[1]). But since the statement I'm disagreeing with is absolutist, "Because it's never in your best interest NOT to use them," I don't need to illustrate all the counterexamples. It's sufficient to have shown one, which is the invisible stalker. Sometimes sniping is an optimal choice, sometimes it's suboptimal, and while suboptimal choices aren't disastrous, it is fun to have to think about which approach is better.

[1] DPR isn't always the best measure because overkill matters too, but the hit rate is also more than twice as good with normal attacks (0.49 with regular shots vs. 0.2 with sniping), and since a normal arrow usually takes two shots to kill a hobgoblin and a sniped arrow always only takes one, you're still coming out ahead when not sniping.

 

[DaveDash]

A simple counterexample:

You're a level 11 Fighter with Sharpshooter and Dex 20, and you notice that there's an invisible stalker on your tail. What do you do?

Normally invisible stalkers have AC 14, so sniping it will boost your expected DPR from 23.12 to 24.75. But if it turns out that someone cast Mage Armor on it beforehand, it actually has AC 17, which means that sniping it will actually drop your expected damage from 16.07 to 14.66 DPR.

I've learned that I need to be clear with you, so let me be clear: this is not the only case where sniping is not no-brainer. Some of them are high-powered (dragons with Greater Invisibility and the Shield spell: sniping drops your 20th level damage from 4.7 DPR to 0.83) and some of them are simple and low-tech (hobgoblins lying prone behind half-cover while shooting back with crossbows: AC 18, disadvantage means that the 11th level fighter will do 14.00 DPR when shooting normally, or 11.88 DPR when sniping[1]). But since the statement I'm disagreeing with is absolutist, "Because it's never in your best interest NOT to use them," I don't need to illustrate all the counterexamples. It's sufficient to have shown one, which is the invisible stalker. Sometimes sniping is an optimal choice, sometimes it's suboptimal, and while suboptimal choices aren't disastrous, it is fun to have to think about which approach is better.

[1] DPR isn't always the best measure because overkill matters too, but the hit rate is also more than twice as good with normal attacks (0.49 with regular shots vs. 0.2 with sniping), and since a normal arrow usually takes two shots to kill a hobgoblin and a sniped arrow always only takes one, you're still coming out ahead when not sniping.

You're quoting from the email notification you got, not the actual edited post of mine, which I edited seconds after posting.

I stated the only time you actually have to think about it is when you're sitting there fighting highest AC creatures *without* buffs. Which in my experience in game is pretty rare.

I'm not interested in "what-ifs" with you. What-ifs are not conclusive, since both sides can create what-if's till the cows come home.

You're also ignoring CBE. Just wander up to the Hobgoblins and have at them. As an SS + CBE you can and should get up in their faces, especially as an EK when you can get great AC by using Shield.

Your maths is also wrong. The expected damage values against a range of AC's with and without Bless have been posted numerous times in this thread. Go back and refer to those. Even against AC20 it's still pretty much worth using it once you get to around level 12.
My group is high level and they all come armed to the teeth with see invisibility, true sight, dispel magic, etc, and have done since their first encounter with a Greater Invisibility creature, so claiming things like Greater Invisibility is going to be any sort of hindrance is pretty amusing.

Answer me this directly with a Yes or No answer.
Ignoring the massive DPR boost you get, do you honestly believe that the ability to ignore cover, ignore range penalties, and ignore penalties from fighting from melee *increases* tactical options?

 

[Psikerlord#]

Actually I've said before feats allow an offensive character to focus. It allows for the striker to fill the role stronger and frees up other characters to take other roles as healer, face, defender, leader, controller, explorer, etc.

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..?