D&D 5E When -5/+10 starts becoming Very Reliable?

[Ancalagon]

All that being said... I'm still leery of the sharshooter version of the feat.

A 2-handed weapon warrior in 5e sacrifices a lot. He can't use a shield for very very precious AC. He does a bit more damage but when someone uses duelist they almost catch up (*and* can use a shield!). In 3e he got 1.5 strength bonus in extra damage, but he no longer anymore. This feat seems to be a way to compensate for that lack - and as I mentioned, it's less efficient for high base damage warriors anyway.

However, for a ranged warrior most of these considerations are moot. The base damage is lower (so it works better) and the archer sacrifices little - yes there is no shield used, but range is a form of protection too. With dex increasing ranged damage in 5e, an archer can afford to focus on dex and have high to hit, damage *and* AC. So I think the sharpshooter version is stronger than GWM. I don't think it's as good as some people are saying (doubling damage? please) *but* it may be too good nevertheless.

 

[Tormyr]

What's +2 asi?

Anyway, percentage calculation should be trivial: 13 to hit vs AC 19 means that a you need to roll 6 or higher to hit 19. This translate to 15/20, or 75% hit probability. (*please* let me know if this is wrong, because if it is 5e has introduced changes I am unaware of).

I'll note that the feat gets better when the AC is lower (or the to-hit is higher). However,the feat gets *worse* when your base damage is higher! A reduction in to-hit probability reduces the % of hitting, thus reduces the amount of base damage applied. For the feat to be worth it, the amount of damage gained via the feat must be fairly significant to compensate.

Ability Score Increase

 

[Flamestrike]

All that being said... I'm still leery of the sharshooter version of the feat.

A 2-handed weapon warrior in 5e sacrifices a lot. He can't use a shield for very very precious AC. He does a bit more damage but when someone uses duelist they almost catch up (*and* can use a shield!). In 3e he got 1.5 strength bonus in extra damage, but he no longer anymore. This feat seems to be a way to compensate for that lack - and as I mentioned, it's less efficient for high base damage warriors anyway.

However, for a ranged warrior most of these considerations are moot. The base damage is lower (so it works better) and the archer sacrifices little - yes there is no shield used, but range is a form of protection too. With dex increasing ranged damage in 5e, an archer can afford to focus on dex and have high to hit, damage *and* AC. So I think the sharpshooter version is stronger than GWM. I don't think it's as good as some people are saying (doubling damage? please) *but* it may be too good nevertheless.

Agree with this, but its generally harder to gain advantage with ranged attacks than melee attacks.

This is about its only disadvantage, and considering the Archery style adds +2 to hit and the feat also removes range and cover penalties, its a bit much.

 

[Rune]

Clerics get a save to avoid and it is only DC 10. THye can bless themselve, 14 con or so and they get +4.5 on average on the save. Call it +5 and they make the save 80% of the time. The cleric always blesses herself. THe bard dice also buf saves, the wizard portent ability also can make the save automatic if it is critical, and clerics often have warcaster or resilient (constitution).

That's a minimum DC of 10. Depending on the damage taken (per hit), it could be much higher.



That said, I have houseruled GWM and Sharpshooter to scale with character level: - proficiency to hit / + double proficiency damage. Oh, and Sharpshooter also only downgrades (non-total) cover by a step, instead of completely negating it. I think these will reign the feats in (especially at lower levels, where it matters most). But I haven't seen them in action, yet.

 

[Flamestrike]

That's a minimum DC of 10. Depending on the damage taken (per hit), it could be much higher.



That said, I have houseruled GWM and Sharpshooter to scale with character level: - proficiency to hit / + double proficiency damage. Oh, and Sharpshooter also only downgrades (non-total) cover by a step, instead of completely negating it. I think these will reign the feats in (especially at lower levels, where it matters most). But I haven't seen them in action, yet.

I had a houserule that imposed disadvantage on a ranged attack (including ranged spell attacks) when targeting someone in melee.

The Sharpshooter and spell sniper feats (respectively) removed this penalty.

Cover penalties were retained however (in my view the +2 for archery takes this into account).

 

[Saggo]

I'll note that the feat gets better when the AC is lower (or the to-hit is higher). However,the feat gets *worse* when your base damage is higher! A reduction in to-hit probability reduces the % of hitting, thus reduces the amount of base damage applied. For the feat to be worth it, the amount of damage gained via the feat must be fairly significant to compensate.

You can reduce this concept to a formula.

(Max AC threshold) = (attack bonus) - (base damage/2) + 16

As your base damage increases, the maximum AC you should power attack on decreases. Any AC above the given max threshold will have better average damage not power attacking.

Source: http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?472938-Great-Weapon-Mastery-How-to-5-10-Like-a-Pro

I had a houserule that imposed disadvantage on a ranged attack (including ranged spell attacks) when targeting someone in melee.

You shouldn't need to houserule. PHB 195, you have ranged disadvantage if within 5 feet of a hostile creature.

 

[CapnZapp]

Yup. Just like every other RPG game out there, when the party builds to optimize and coordinate, they can break the game.

So?

The relativizing argument again - do you mean no rpg rule is ever wrong and can never be improved, or do you have a more specific point in mind? Because then I'd like you to make a less sweeping statement.

Let me rephrase the complaint for your benefit: "It would make the game better if breaking it isn't as simple as figuring out that the so-called drawback of GWM can be trivally offset by Bless among several other cheap options".

Thank you

 

[CapnZapp]

Time for more math.

So I was criticized for having a "straw man" scenario with AC 19... which is a character wearing scale male, a shield, dex 14 and defensive style fighting. It's not a stretch at all. But fine, fine, let's look at an AC 15 situation.

No, you were criticized for having a AC 19 scenario and still elect to have the GWM fighter use the -5/+10 ability, despite that being mathematically unsound.

It means your example forgets one very important ability of the feat: it leaves up to the PC to decide when and where to use it and when not to use it.

Phrased otherwise: with optimal play, you will only use it when it benefits you.

If you want to use math, I suggest that you first calculate the cutoff point. The AC where it is no longer useful to use -5/+10. Probably you're going to arrive at a relatively low AC.

What this means is that without help, GWM is only useful against low AC enemies. Not average AC, lower than that. Most enemies will have a greater AC than this.

So far so good.

But then instead of trying to defeat the argument, you should think like a scientist. Put yourself into the minmaxer's shoes.

Ask yourself the question "what can I do to give myself enough bonuses to effectively raise the cutoff AC to a point where it now makes sense against lots of enemies?"

Let's start there.

Hint: Bless is a good starting point. Perhaps the easiest way to ensure advantage (a huge bonus equivalent to more than +3 in the scenario we're investigating, namely the one where you have roughly a 50% attack chance) is the Barbarian's Reckless Attack.

Or you might team up with someone that renders the foe Prone. Or Stunned. Or Held. Or... there's lots of ways.

Try it.

And then and only then you get to refute the argument. If you still believe the argument is invalid.

Cheers

 

[CapnZapp]

The only way your math works is if you use both feats all the time. That is not how they are used. They are used under optimal conditions against optimal ACs.

QFT

 

[CapnZapp]

I dont want to rehash the whole 'the game is balanced around a six encounter adventuring day' argument again, but thats how you 'fix' it.

I call your bluff.

If you really mean to persist propagating this myth, Flamestrike, at least be honest enough to admit "I dont want to rehash the whole 'the game is balanced around a six encounter adventuring day' argument again, but thats how you 'fix' it: with lots and lots of DM prep time.

And you still haven't answered my question in that other thread Flamestrike:

What advice do you give a DM that purchases an official module to not have to create her own adventures?