D&D 5E Sharpshooter/Great Weapon Master and Why They Are Broken 101.

[Fanaelialae]

Compare those feats to other feats or published official 5E adventures. If a DM has to work hard to accommodate these feats or target rare saves with illithids it might kind of prove my point.

Catching up on this thread and this caught my eye.

Why would you assume that the DM wouldn't have to work hard to accommodate optimized characters, much less an optimized party designed for optimal synergy?

As far as I can tell, the base game (and official adventures) seems to be designed so as to be approachable for casual players. It doesn't assume optimized characters, much less an entirely optimized party.

Due to this, a DM needs to take optimization into consideration, much as if they were to give a Staff of the Magi to a level 1 character. The alternative is to accept that the encounters will simply be that much easier. Fortunately, optimization usually comes with experience, and experienced players will tend to have an experienced DM who understands how to adjust difficulty to compensate for characters that are above the baseline.

As an example, consider that thanks to concentration and the hide action I think it's fairly reasonable to say that Invisibility is not broken in 5e. However, the players could create a party completely composed of characters that can cast invisibility, and suddenly the 2nd level spell enables the party to completely ignore a large variety (perhaps even the majority) of encounters. With 2 levels of rogue (for cunning action and expertise stealth) or sorcerer (for quicken spell) they don't even need to have the spell cast beforehand, because either of those classes enables you to hide during the same turn you cast invisibility. If some of the characters have less than stellar stealth scores, the druid could cast Pass Without Trace and assume an extremely innocuous form, such as that of a mouse or a fly. The DM of this party might say that invisibility is broken, since he needs to put in extra work to challenge the party. After all, what other 2nd level spell enables the PCs to treat most encounters as if they weren't even there? Certainly, the WotC modules aren't designed for challenging a stealth party, so such a party might breeze through such adventures. Now, I'll grant you that this party might miss out on leveling if the DM doesn't award xp for the encounters they bypassed, but even if they fight they can cherry pick which encounters to engage with and do it on their own terms (likely with a surprise round). From this DM's standpoint the invisibility spell might seem broken, but that doesn't actually mean it's broken. It's simply that the players managed to create their party in such a way as to get the most bang for their buck.

The DM could simply ask the players not to optimize the party like this. After all, if the DM increases the difficulty of the campaign to compensate for their optimizations (making every encounter deadly x 5) things may simply escalate to the point of mutually assured destruction, which isn't likely to be fun for anyone involved. Another option is for the DM to simply do his best to challenge the PCs without making every encounter a TPK waiting to happen, but that will generally involve more work for the DM. Finally, the DM might choose to do neither, keep the game at baseline difficulty, and let the players breeze through. Either the players will enjoy their power trip, in which case at least the goal of fun (for the players) has been achieved, else they'll grow bored of it and next time hopefully create a party that can more reasonably be challenged by the base game.

 

[cmad1977]

Hey! A thread about something that isn't a problem! I'm shocked.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Zardnaar]

Catching up on this thread and this caught my eye.

Why would you assume that the DM wouldn't have to work hard to accommodate optimized characters, much less an optimized party designed for optimal synergy?

As far as I can tell, the base game (and official adventures) seems to be designed so as to be approachable for casual players. It doesn't assume optimized characters, much less an entirely optimized party.

Due to this, a DM needs to take optimization into consideration, much as if they were to give a Staff of the Magi to a level 1 character. The alternative is to accept that the encounters will simply be that much easier. Fortunately, optimization usually comes with experience, and experienced players will tend to have an experienced DM who understands how to adjust difficulty to compensate for characters that are above the baseline.

As an example, consider that thanks to concentration and the hide action I think it's fairly reasonable to say that Invisibility is not broken in 5e. However, the players could create a party completely composed of characters that can cast invisibility, and suddenly the 2nd level spell enables the party to completely ignore a large variety (perhaps even the majority) of encounters. With 2 levels of rogue (for cunning action and expertise stealth) or sorcerer (for quicken spell) they don't even need to have the spell cast beforehand, because either of those classes enables you to hide during the same turn you cast invisibility. If some of the characters have less than stellar stealth scores, the druid could cast Pass Without Trace and assume an extremely innocuous form, such as that of a mouse or a fly. The DM of this party might say that invisibility is broken, since he needs to put in extra work to challenge the party. After all, what other 2nd level spell enables the PCs to treat most encounters as if they weren't even there? Certainly, the WotC modules aren't designed for challenging a stealth party, so such a party might breeze through such adventures. Now, I'll grant you that this party might miss out on leveling if the DM doesn't award xp for the encounters they bypassed, but even if they fight they can cherry pick which encounters to engage with and do it on their own terms (likely with a surprise round). From this DM's standpoint the invisibility spell might seem broken, but that doesn't actually mean it's broken. It's simply that the players managed to create their party in such a way as to get the most bang for their buck.

The DM could simply ask the players not to optimize the party like this. After all, if the DM increases the difficulty of the campaign to compensate for their optimizations (making every encounter deadly x 5) things may simply escalate to the point of mutually assured destruction, which isn't likely to be fun for anyone involved. Another option is for the DM to simply do his best to challenge the PCs without making every encounter a TPK waiting to happen, but that will generally involve more work for the DM. Finally, the DM might choose to do neither, keep the game at baseline difficulty, and let the players breeze through. Either the players will enjoy their power trip, in which case at least the goal of fun (for the players) has been achieved, else they'll grow bored of it and next time hopefully create a party that can more reasonably be challenged by the base game.

It creates more work for the DM and I had enough of doing this in 3.x.

 

[AaronOfBarbaria]

It creates more work for the DM and I had enough of doing this in 3.x.

The "it" in your sentence here is "The DM."

The DM creates more work for the DM by choosing to include optional rules - unless that DM is willing to accept whatever effect those optional rules have as-is.

You are trying to have your cake and eat it to when you expect engaging optional rules not to change the way the game works in a way that you might do something differently.

And also, as I've said before, you really aren't doing "more work". If no one takes Great Weapon Master or Sharp Shooter, you are picking out monsters for the party to face. If someone does take one of those feats, you are picking out monsters for the party to face. There is no "more" that is being done.

 

[Fanaelialae]

It creates more work for the DM and I had enough of doing this in 3.x.

I listed other options. You could ask your players not to optimize, or let the game be easy for them (and either they'll enjoy the power trip or stop optimizing on their own). Patching GWM/SS is just that - a patch. It only works until they come up with their next optimized "broken" party strategy.

 

[Zardnaar]

I listed other options. You could ask your players not to optimize, or let the game be easy for them (and either they'll enjoy the power trip or stop optimizing on their own). Patching GWM/SS is just that - a patch. It only works until they come up with their next optimized "broken" party strategy.

I stopped catering to the feats the the players stopped taking it once they realised they did not "need" it and the DM would counter it with harder matches.

It also makes them level up faster as well more monsters= more xp.

We have a returning player who is using it all the time vs AC 13-15 in an adventure and he was still hitting around 50-55% of the time unbuffed. 1d8+4 vs 1d8+14 and with hordebreaker he was often getting 2 attacks.

Whole party went dex based as a theme and to test out dex based melee.

Also if you counter those feats by designing harder challenges it might indicate that those feats are warping the game when the other feats do not have that effect (at least as much).

 

[Fanaelialae]

I stopped catering to the feats the the players stopped taking it once they realised they did not "need" it and the DM would counter it with harder matches.

I can't parse what your intended meaning is here.

It also makes them level up faster as well more monsters= more xp.

More monsters does equate to more xp. However, you could simply use a lot of low CR monsters (against which GWM and SS matter less) that give less xp than an equivalently challenging higher CR monster.

Alternatively, don't use more monsters at all, but rather give the monsters advantageous circumstances, such as surprise or difficult/hazardous terrain that the monsters are capable of easily ignoring (such as fighting an aquatic monster underwater or fire elementals in a volcano). Doing so increases the challenge without any increase in xp.

We have a returning player who is using it all the time vs AC 13-15 in an adventure and he was still hitting around 50-55% of the time unbuffed. 1d8+4 vs 1d8+14 and with hordebreaker he was often getting 2 attacks.

Without SS, he'd be hitting 75-80% of the time. That roughly works out to be 8.5 * 0.8 = 6.8 vs 18.5 * .55 = 10.175, which is a difference of 3.375 DPR per attack; my eyes aren't exactly bulging from my head in disbelief at those numbers. Also, because he's an archer without Crossbow Expert, any time an enemy gets in his face (and they should be trying) he'll either have to provoke opportunity attacks or suffer a heavy decrease in DPR. Enemies can also ignore him by simply moving behind total cover.

The player is trading steady damage for bursty damage. While the latter has the potential to make a greater impact, it is also more heavily reliant on RNG which can bite you when you least expect it.

Also, if you felt that the character was overpowered, denying him his Horde Breaker bonus is trivially simple. Just don't stand monsters directly next to each other (have them flank when in melee).

Also if you counter those feats by designing harder challenges it might indicate that those feats are warping the game when the other feats do not have that effect (at least as much).

The DMG outright states that if you use magic items you'll need to design harder challenges (to maintain the same level of challenge). Does that mean that magic items are warping the game? Having a group of players who work well together necessitates that you design harder challenges. Is good teamwork warping the game?

I don't deny that GWM/SS + Bless + FF is a very potent combo when used together, but the game encourages teamwork by rewarding synergy. It's not all that different in concept from casting entangle/web on a group of monsters and then using ranged attacks to kill them without taking a single point of damage in return, except that yours requires the players to coordinate choices during character creation. Both are effective.

 

[Flamestrike]

It creates more work for the DM and I had enough of doing this in 3.x.

Youre missing the whole point of the post you quote. Your players will just optimise elsewhere.

They will follow the path of least resistance, and will alter tactics to conform to your DMing style.

And please stop being a lazy DM. I just provided you with an adventure long enough to last several sessions and it took me all of an hour to think up, stat up and write down.

5e is probably the DM friendliest version of DnD we've had since AD+D.

Use your imagination and always keep in mind the longer AD of 5E and youll be fine.

 

[FormerlyHemlock]

Combing bless with GWM isnt a broken combo; its good teamwork that is (situationally) very potent.

Illustrating the difference between "good teamwork" and "broken combo":

Bless + GWM = +20% or so to DPR.
Wall of Force + Cloudkill = 500d8 poison damage, with no chance to fight back; about 1000 HP of damage if you make every single save for 100 rounds.

Only the latter is remotely "broken."

A party with multiple wizards in it is a powerhouse.

 

[Flamestrike]

A party with multiple wizards in it is a powerhouse.

Not really; it just requires different encounters than would (say) a party of Rogues, and experience with high level play.

You do need to be on top of your game as a DM with spellcasters at high level. A lot of the reasons for campaigns ending is DMs not taking into account what high level casters are capable of, and having a well crafted adventure get kerbstomped on account of a newly attained high level spell or two.

We've all been caught out like this before.