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

[ccs]

I basically expect you to stick a 16 in your primary attack number, 14 won't be to bad, 12 is kind of bad.

Apparently so bad that according to your own words in the sub-optimal thread that you'd have words with a player who did this & even boot them from the game....

If they have a 16 for example and the lucky feat for example are they optimised? No but they are good enough and that is fine. Running around in heavy armor with 12 strength is outright stupid though.

1) And unless it's Ringmail against the rules.....

2) Ringmail becomes the smartest armor choice for that STR.12 fighting guy if he also has a -mod on his Dex.

 

[Corwin]

Apparently so bad that according to your own words in the sub-optimal thread that you'd have words with a player who did this & even boot them from the game....

1) And unless it's Ringmail against the rules.....

2) Ringmail becomes the smartest armor choice for that STR.12 fighting guy if he also has a -mod on his Dex.

Something else I think is interesting about Zard's statements, regarding the idiocy of a 12 strength fighting guy: He has repeatedly gone on record as believing strongly in rolled stats. So if a player ended up with fairly low to middling set of stats, it might not even be a real choice to have a 12 strength. Yet, according to Zard, the player should be punished further by ridicule, and even potentially booting from the game. How dare him not roll high stats!

 

[Zardnaar]

Apparently so bad that according to your own words in the sub-optimal thread that you'd have words with a player who did this & even boot them from the game....





1) And unless it's Ringmail against the rules.....

2) Ringmail becomes the smartest armor choice for that STR.12 fighting guy if he also has a -mod on his Dex.

I don't see why you would have a PC like that as you are intentionally making your PC quite gimped and weakening the party.

if player was doing that deliberately in my experience there will be other issues that will crop up later with that player. I have seen this every time. They might be a hard core role player who thinks combat is beneath them (why play D&D then?) or prefers pretending they are a Vampire or some stupid crap or they like Paranoia RPG where screwing with other players is inherent to the system. There are other RPGs and groups for that type of thing. IN every single case those types of players are better off in another group in my experience so you may as well boot them and save everyone some sort of aggravation.

If you roll stats and roll crap that is different. I have seen PCs with 3 +1 modifiers as their best stats (not in 5E),

 

[Zardnaar]

Something else I think is interesting about Zard's statements, regarding the idiocy of a 12 strength fighting guy: He has repeatedly gone on record as believing strongly in rolled stats. So if a player ended up with fairly low to middling set of stats, it might not even be a real choice to have a 12 strength. Yet, according to Zard, the player should be punished further by ridicule, and even potentially booting from the game. How dare him not roll high stats!

Rolled stats are fine. If I rolled that I would play it but I would not pick a fighter I would go for one of the spellcaster types.

I would default to the groups preferences. I prefer rolling but if the DM said stat array when in Rome....

Anyone deliberately gimping their character is by default a disruptive player IMHO. And no I do not regard not building the most powerful PC possible as gimping but if you are deliberately making a worse PC than the ones in the 5E starter set that is.

 

[Corwin]

I don't see why you would have a PC like that as you are intentionally making your PC quite gimped and weakening the party.

Define, "weakening." Are you suggesting the character is draining the other characters' strength scores? Like a "strength vampire"? That's kind of a cool idea, actually. He maintains only a 12 strength, because to take more from his friends would weaken them and endanger their lives. He must remain vigilant and take only that which he needs to survive. Lest he become the monster he fears lies beneath the surface of his thoughts.

if player was doing that deliberately in my experience there will be other issues that will crop up later with that player. I have seen this every time. They might be a hard core role player who thinks combat is beneath them (why play D&D then?) or prefers pretending they are a Vampire or some stupid crap or they like Paranoia RPG where screwing with other players is inherent to the system. There are other RPGs and groups for that type of thing. IN every single case those types of players are better off in another group in my experience so you may as well boot them and save everyone some sort of aggravation.

This is a dysfunctional table problem. Not a system problem.

If you roll stats and roll crap that is different. I have seen PCs with 3 +1 modifiers as their best stats (not in 5E),

And yet, until now, not a part of your point.

 

[Corwin]

Rolled stats are fine.

You *say* that, but your larger opinions on this topic say different.

If I rolled that I would play it but I would not pick a fighter I would go for one of the spellcaster types.

So you would play a gimpy spellcaster. But not a gimpy fighter. Interesting dichotomy.

I would default to the groups preferences.

But what if the group said, "Play whatever you want. You are our friend. We want you to play something you think would be fun." And you really *wanted* to play a fighter with a greatsword. Now what?

I prefer rolling but if the DM said stat array when in Rome....

But you didn't use an array. We've already established, in this hypothetical example, that you rolled and got average to middling scores to work with. Please don't try to squirm out of it by pretending you all-of-a-sudden use array. We know you don't.

Anyone deliberately gimping their character is by default a disruptive player IMHO. And no I do not regard not building the most powerful PC possible as gimping but if you are deliberately making a worse PC than the ones in the 5E starter set that is.

Define, "deliberately gimping."

I think, at the end of the day, you have an extremely narrow definition of what is acceptable. That every PC at the table needs to conform to your definition of what it should be and have, or you revile it. Your countless dozens of posts on the subject, over the years, has led me to that opinion. I have given it much thought. That's where I am right now. Just thought you should know.

 

[Zardnaar]

Define, "weakening." Are you suggesting the character is draining the other characters' strength scores? Like a "strength vampire"? That's kind of a cool idea, actually. He maintains only a 12 strength, because to take more from his friends would weaken them and endanger their lives. He must remain vigilant and take only that which he needs to survive. Lest he become the monster he fears lies beneath the surface of his thoughts.


This is a dysfunctional table problem. Not a system problem.


And yet, until now, not a part of your point.

I am saying anyone deliberately making a front line melee character with 12 strength is inherently dysfunctional even with the default array. Assuming they were not doing something else like casting spells or using eldritch blast with a high charisma.

I don't know why you would do that except maybe for roleplaying purposes and as I said there are other games where that can be accommodated D&D is not really one of them its a team based game (5E more so)


If you roll crap it is somewhat understandable.

Lets just say I turned up to your game and took a fighter. I would have 16 strength or dex and I might take the lucky feat for example. Not the best but it meets a basic level of competency. I might take a high charisma or intelligence for RP purposes but it would fit the basic criteria of a fighters job (hit stuff with a stick).

THe special snowflake players/idiots/morons are better off somewhere else. They are generally the players who want to weird crap anyway like Drow on Darksun.

 

[Corwin]

THe special snowflake players/idiots/morons are better off somewhere else. They are generally the players who want to weird crap anyway like Drow on Darksun.

I think this right here says all anyone needs to know about your opinions in these matters. Thank you for your raw honesty.

 

[Zardnaar]

You *say* that, but your larger opinions on this topic say different.


So you would play a gimpy spellcaster. But not a gimpy fighter. Interesting dichotomy.


But what if the group said, "Play whatever you want. You are our friend. We want you to play something you think would be fun." And you really *wanted* to play a fighter with a greatsword. Now what?


But you didn't use an array. We've already established, in this hypothetical example, that you rolled and got average to middling scores to work with. Please don't try to squirm out of it by pretending you all-of-a-sudden use array. We know you don't.


Define, "deliberately gimping."

I think, at the end of the day, you have an extremely narrow definition of what is acceptable. That every PC at the table needs to conform to your definition of what it should be and have, or you revile it. Your countless dozens of posts on the subject, over the years, has led me to that opinion. I have given it much thought. That's where I am right now. Just thought you should know.

I would play a gimped spellcaster that would be as effective as I could make it. Basically I would be playing support so a cleric casting bless and guidance or a wizard casting mage armor on others. Your cantrips might be a bit meh with only 1 to hit/DC's

I let my players roll if they want to, if another DM and if you roll crap you live with the consequences. I'm talking about pumpkins using the default array and deliberately picking low stats in their primary ability which I have seen happen without a good plan B.

 

[Zardnaar]

I think this right here says all anyone needs to know about your opinions in these matters. Thank you for your raw honesty.

I'm being blunt and Drow do not belong on Darksun for obvious reasons. Its like you want to run an evil campaign and someone wants to be a Paladin (in earlier editions).

Its part of the social contract. Asking to play a Drow on Faerun or Eberron fair enough.

I expect a basic level of teamwork. This means not deliberately gimping yourself and not screwing over the pother party members (stealing from them, fire balling them etc). D&D is a team based game in all editions and each class more or less has a job to do. Clerics cast spells, heal, beat face, wizards cast spells, fighter hit things with sticks.

And that is a big thing now for us as I have seen a few pumpkins recently in various groups.

Z's main rule in D&D. "The enjoyment of the game for any player is ideal but that enjoyment can not come at the expense of other players".

And if you build a gimped character and other people die because of it (and yes I have seen this happen twice in 5Es run), that player will rapidly find themselves out of my group. Hitting someone for 1d6+1 damage is really kind of bad and in LMoP we had a TPK because we had 2 PCs that were built "wrong" with a 12 and 14 in their prime stats and other random crap. Low ACs and 1d6+1 damage does that to a group when you have several pumpkins doing it.