Bringing PAM, SS, and GWM in line?

[strangebloke]

Balance is very important.

Yes, within some tolerances, some players won't notice or care. I had a lot of fun in 3.5. It depends on how good your party is.

But imbalance is still bad. New players can feel trapped by the lack of good options, or by the lack of good non-complex invests. I've seen new players utterly lose interest in the game because their build didn't do what they expected, or was completely overshadowed in what they expected their role to be.

So if I want to play 'ranged dps,' I go ranger and pump dex, right? No, you go battlemaster with sharpshooter.

gwm and sharpshooter are two of the most ridiculous, out of balance things in 5e, and I don't think it's wrong to want to change that.

[FinnS]

So if I want to play 'ranged dps,' I go ranger and pump dex, right? No, you go battlemaster with sharpshooter.

Valor Bard/Battlemaster with Sharpshooter actually

[Blue Lantern]

Balance is very important.

Yes, within some tolerances, some players won't notice or care. I had a lot of fun in 3.5. It depends on how good your party is.

But imbalance is still bad. New players can feel trapped by the lack of good options, or by the lack of good non-complex invests. I've seen new players utterly lose interest in the game because their build didn't do what they expected, or was completely overshadowed in what they expected their role to be.

And I have seen players purposely chose an "unoptimal" option even when presented with a better one that would not change the concept of the character and still had a blast playing.

I don't like to make assumption but I would dare say that people who go to internet forum to ask for optimisation help to squeeze that +5 DPR are not in the majority among players, let alone new players.

Hell, the majority of people would hardly notice that a GWM fighter did 10 to 20 more damage that the TWF ranger over the course of 5 or 6 session, unless specifically looking for it.

So if I want to play 'ranged dps,' I go ranger and pump dex, right? No, you go battlemaster with sharpshooter.

Yet somehow lots of people still plays ranger, and enjoys it, I had a player who choose to play the original PHB beastmaster even when given the possibility to use the revised version. Didn't use sharpshooter, and still was enjoin the game

gwm and sharpshooter are two of the most ridiculous, out of balance things in 5e, and I don't think it's wrong to want to change that.

Neither is wrong to leave them as they are, because plenty of people can play with them without issue.

I have houserules on the subject, but it is mostly because I am a bit obsessive on the matter and enjoy the intellectual exercise, but I am also well aware that I could play or run games with the rules as they are and would have not had problems for 95% of the cases.

[strangebloke]

And I have seen players purposely chose an "unoptimal" option even when presented with a better one that would not change the concept of the character and still had a blast playing.

Sure. I have done this fairly frequently. But wouldn't it be better if that cool option wasn't suboptimal to begin with?

I don't like to make assumption but I would dare say that people who go to internet forum to ask for optimisation help to squeeze that +5 DPR are not in the majority among players, let alone new players.

That's exactly my point. A new player won't go to the handbook, will pick a weak option, and feel crappy when he sucks relative to the guy who did. Weak and strong options are not friendly to new players.

Balance isn't important.

My first character was a 3e fighter. I sort of knew it was bad, but I liked the simplicity. By sixth level, I was totally sidelined by the party druid. I could still do things, sort of, but combat was mostly a game of 'try not to die.' by tenth level, it was basically unplayable. I still had fun, though. Role-playing is just that great, and I had a good group of guys. But I've had a lot more fun playing characters that were actually good at what they were intended for.

It's demonstrably false that players don't recognize how op sharpshooter etc. are. There are threads about this crap like every other week, by players or DMs who are frustrated. 20-30 damage a round against foes at level four or so is 100% obtrusive.

A BM sharpshooter with crossbow expert can pretty effectively nullify the cons of sharpshooter wilst simultaneously maximizing the pros of it. That is bad.

[Blue Lantern]

Balance isn't important.

My first character was a 3e fighter. I sort of knew it was bad, but I liked the simplicity. By sixth level, I was totally sidelined by the party druid. I could still do things, sort of, but combat was mostly a game of 'try not to die.' by tenth level, it was basically unplayable. I still had fun, though. Role-playing is just that great, and I had a good group of guys. But I've had a lot more fun playing characters that were actually good at what they were intended for.

Firsts of all, congratulation for attributing me a quote that I never written in the first place, firstly it make me feel like an internet celebrity, and secondarily it shows just exactly what are the chances of having an honest discussion, so I'll respond just once to reiterate and clarify my point and then ignore you for the rest of my life.

I never said that balance wasn't important. All I said is that is not the most important point, and that it is perfectly fine for people to play with the rules as they are because for the most part it will not be an issue, and the effort required to create a series of hourules to perfectly balance everything without creating unintended consequences is much more than most players will ever need.

5e is not 3.5, the difference with the best and worst option are not as large and is perfectly possible for both to coexists and contribute equally to a game.

It's demonstrably false that players don't recognize how op sharpshooter etc. are. There are threads about this crap like every other week, by players or DMs who are frustrated. 20-30 damage a round against foes at level four or so is 100% obtrusive.

A BM sharpshooter with crossbow expert can pretty effectively nullify the cons of sharpshooter wilst simultaneously maximizing the pros of it. That is bad.

And it is It's demonstrably false that every player, even if they recognise the imbalance have issues with it or let it take away from their fun. People like you who take issues with every little problem in the rules are a minority, a very vocal and annoying one, but a minority nonetheless.

If balance was the only important point, or even the most important point in an RPG in general, and in D&D in particular we will still all be playing 4th edition right now.

Sure. I have done this fairly frequently. But wouldn't it be better if that cool option wasn't suboptimal to begin with?

Yes, but not to the point of needing to change the game for the sake of it

That's exactly my point. A new player won't go to the handbook, will pick a weak option, and feel crappy when he sucks relative to the guy who did. Weak and strong options are not friendly to new players.

That is not my point at all, you are either misunderstanding or wilfully misinterpreting. Just because you had this issue, not all new players will. And if we go by anecdotal evidence I have dozens of people I played with who never had issues with the balance or lack thereof, and none who had.

[babubala]

The delivery will comprise a turnkey line

[Coidzor]

The thing is, I always thought the magic items being baked into the game's power curve to the point where your level 15 fighter - ostensibly a mighty hero - is, in terms of actual play experience, rather pathetic if someone takes his magic sword away, was a rather obnoxious aspect of the 3.x games that I was glad to see they had got rid of in 5E.

Which has jack all to do with including magic weapons in the game, but only ever ones that have been deliberately chosen to vex and annoy your players personally.

[Lombra]

GWM SS and PAM are fine. Lucky is far worse (in the sense that it is strictly better than many feats), and still very acceptable.
TWF is always looked at in the wrong way: it's not about DPR, not in this edition. It's about action economy.

Damage is not the only thing that keeps the balance together. GWM may give a greater DPR than a +2 tho STR, but it is not gona give +1 to strength saves and skills, or improve carrying capacity.

SS is not better than GWM because of Archery FS: think about how many times you have the opportunity to get advantage in melee versus the amount of times that you can get it during ranged combat.

PAM is just good, and just because it gives you something to do with your bonus action it doesn't mean that it is competing with TWF.

[Zalabim]

It's demonstrably false that players don't recognize how op sharpshooter etc. are. There are threads about this crap like every other week, by players or DMs who are frustrated. 20-30 damage a round against foes at level four or so is 100% obtrusive.

It's demonstrably true that players will "recognize" how OP sharpshooter is even when it's demonstrably not OP.

https://www.reddit.com/r/dndnext/com...is_completely/ Demonstrated. Anecdotal, sure, but everyone knows Sharpshooter is OP and monks are bad at dealing damage.

[strangebloke]

It's demonstrably true that players will "recognize" how OP sharpshooter is even when it's demonstrably not OP.

https://www.reddit.com/r/dndnext/com...is_completely/ Demonstrated. Anecdotal, sure, but everyone knows Sharpshooter is OP and monks are bad at dealing damage.

Sure. I mean, I've seen threads complaining about rogues etc.

But how is it 'demonstrably not op'?

[Zalabim]

Sure. I mean, I've seen threads complaining about rogues etc.

But how is it 'demonstrably not op'?

In that example, the OP is worried that the amount of damage their party's ranger is dealing is completely blowing away the rest of the party, especially the party's monk, even when using Flurry. However, the party's monk, when using Flurry, has the very slightly higher average DPR in the situation given. You can see the proof for yourself and read all the kinds of responses. It's a peculiar situation, to be sure, but it is illustrative.

[Theodoxus]

I don't see the issue.

If you're using PB or Standard Array, and have a vuman fighter with GWM, you're getting exactly whatever your roll on your d20 as your to hit at 1st - 4th levels. (assuming you put a 16 in Str... and honestly, I've seen strange PBs, so that's not even guaranteed).

Sure, Archery grants you that +2, but that's still not all that competitive. When the rest of the party is +5 to hit, they'll be bringing more DPR, even if the individual hits are far smaller.

@Pex, regarding missing all attacks the 1st round, and dealing 24 the second, for an average of 12; 1) 12 might be enough to KO a critter outright, so that's leaving 12+ damage as overkill and is wasteful. 2) Knocking out a critter in round 1, instead of a string of wiffs might save the party from crowd control, aoe attacks, or similar. Afterall, the best healing is not getting damaged in the first place. As a discussion of DPR, you're correct. As a discussion as to whether a specific course of action, attack, or in this case, feat choice is optimal - you're wrong misrepresenting the argument.

Now, granted, rolling stats can get you some pretty powerful builds. But, presumably, the DM is aware of that - by offering the rolled method. I don't tend to make critters harder to hit - as expressed earlier that it's less fair, bounded accuracy exploits and all that. I do tend to pad HPs though. Give enough 1 shot minions to make the SS/GWM folk happy, but the boss should be able to take a few hits before going down. If that means he has 20-30 more HP than the book states, so be it. Every module does it, so why shouldn't I?

[Rebonack]

I want to reiterate that my issue, especially with PAM and GWM, is less their raw power and more their ability to over-shadow other fighting styles. Especially since they over-shadow TWF by granting an attack attack when using your bonus action, which is ostensibly TWF's thing. If these GWM and PAM gave you some other tactically interesting thing to use your bonus action for, preferably something related to hitting a dude really hard and controlling an area, respectively, then I don't think I would have as much of an issue with them.

From a game-design standpoint, the various supported fighting styles should all be providing a specific niche that they fill. If several styles are providing the same benefit, then there's a pretty good chance that at least one of them is going to fall by the wayside, as has happened with TWF. Notice that you don't ever really see anyone complaining about sword and board style because it has a pretty solid niche all on its own (better defense, the ability to knock things prone as a bonus action) that isn't filled by PAM or GWF despite it having noticeably lower DPR. People don't take Shield Master because they want to max out DPR, they take it because they want to bolster their defense and shove things around.

[Pex]

@Pex, regarding missing all attacks the 1st round, and dealing 24 the second, for an average of 12; 1) 12 might be enough to KO a critter outright, so that's leaving 12+ damage as overkill and is wasteful. 2) Knocking out a critter in round 1, instead of a string of wiffs might save the party from crowd control, aoe attacks, or similar. Afterall, the best healing is not getting damaged in the first place. As a discussion of DPR, you're correct. As a discussion as to whether a specific course of action, attack, or in this case, feat choice is optimal - you're wrong misrepresenting the argument.

Which doesn't contradict what I wrote. That's about the play experience, not statistical analysis, which is my point. The play of the game is more important than statistical analysis. It shows an example of how using the feats can be a disadvantage, but I'm not arguing the feats are overpowered. I'm saying that even though the feats provide extra damage over the long run they do not monopolize the game. The OP may have trouble with them, but it's not universally true. When the feats do work it should not bother the DM the monster was defeated one round sooner than otherwise to get all antsy about it. It's not their character.

[strangebloke]

Twf does have a niche, if a very questionable one.

It's good for rogues, since they get a second chance to apply their sneak attack.

... Not that they need twf style to duel wield.

[Rebonack]

Twf does have a niche, if a very questionable one.

It's good for rogues, since they get a second chance to apply their sneak attack.

... Not that they need twf style to duel wield.

This topic is primarily concerned with Fighting Style/Feat pairs. But yes, that is true. One extra attack as a bonus action when you only get one attack period is a pretty big boost. Of course, if a Rogue wants a bonus-action attack Crossbow Master is vastly superior to a pair of daggers.

[HidesHisEyes]

I think the most serious problem with the feats may be that GWM and PAM synergise so well. If these are supposed to model different fighting styles I think it's an oversight to let the polearm master also be a great weapon Master and add that +10 to the bonus action haft attack. Maybe GWM should have a specific list of weapons it applies to (greatsword, greataxe, greatclub and maul, I guess). Or maybe PAM should have some other way of using the bonus action that is, as someone suggested, more about control than damage. I'd suggest shove as a bonus action but shield master has already taken that. Would make more sense as a polearm thing to me but hey ho.

[Pex]

I think the most serious problem with the feats may be that GWM and PAM synergise so well. If these are supposed to model different fighting styles I think it's an oversight to let the polearm master also be a great weapon Master and add that +10 to the bonus action haft attack. Maybe GWM should have a specific list of weapons it applies to (greatsword, greataxe, greatclub and maul, I guess). Or maybe PAM should have some other way of using the bonus action that is, as someone suggested, more about control than damage. I'd suggest shove as a bonus action but shield master has already taken that. Would make more sense as a polearm thing to me but hey ho.

I would think trip swinging the pole about the legs. Knock out the knees or otherwise hit the lower legs in a sweep.

[KorvinStarmast]

You're confusing DPR (damage per round) and damage.

No, I am not. I know exactly what DPR is: an analysis tool.

In actual play, which happens encounter by encounter, it is irrelevant. What happens during real play is damage, or no damage, not an average. Why? Combats don't last long enough to overcome the tyranny of small numbers. Each combat is its own instance.

Now, if you had combats lasting dozens of rounds, I'd be less likely to make the above point. We both understand variance, and you do a nice job of providing analysis and an explanation of what you find.

Honestly asking: this is a troll reply, no?

Not in the least, see above.

For your edification, and others', I'll point out that just because "people started doing this in 3e" does not grant an activity inherent virtue.

And as before, I am glad Kryx (and some others) do crunch them because I find it interesting for its own sake.

[Elric VIII]

No, I am not. I know exactly what DPR is: an analysis tool.

In actual play, which happens encounter by encounter, it is irrelevant. What happens during real play is damage, or no damage, not an average. Why? Combats don't last long enough to overcome the tyranny of small numbers. Each combat is its own instance.

Now, if you had combats lasting dozens of rounds, I'd be less likely to make the above point. We both understand variance, and you do a nice job of providing analysis and an explanation of what you find. Not in the least, see above.

For your edification, and others', I'll point out that just because "people started doing this in 3e" does not grant an activity inherent virtue.

And as before, I am glad Kryx (and some others) do crunch them because I find it interesting for its own sake.

I agree. Just like how in real life you either win the lottery or you don't. None of that silly "statistics" BS matters!

[Waterdeep Merch]

I agree. Just like how in real life you either win the lottery or you don't. None of that silly "statistics" BS matters!

Not to be pedantic, but it absolutely matters. If you do or don't is a quantifiable difference. Next, statistics can tell you the chances of being a winner versus the likelihood of being a loser. Knowing this, you look at the cost of entry and the repercussions of losing- especially in the case of long odds, you have to be that much more okay with accepting defeat.

When the numbers show you have a 15% chance of hitting an opponent, a 40% chance of killing them if you did, and an 80% chance that a failure to kill them will instead kill you, the numbers say you should realistically retreat as the chances of winning aren't worth the odds of losing. In cases like this you probably don't even need to run the numbers (you'll probably know how boned you are and act accordingly), but having a good grasp on statistical likelihoods gives you a firm advantage in knowing when to take your chances and when to play it safe. It's why counting cards in casinos will get you kicked out.

[Finieous]

I agree. Just like how in real life you either win the lottery or you don't. None of that silly "statistics" BS matters!

Not to be pedantic, but it absolutely matters.

Pretty sure that was sarcasm. I think. I hope.

[Waterdeep Merch]

Pretty sure that was sarcasm. I think. I hope.

That is entirely possible. Probable, even. Likely, most definitely.

I should likely stop trying to post in the middle of accounting work. My ability to communicate efficiently may be impaired by a wide factor, as algorithms inhibit my natural human speech and understanding.

In hindsight, there may be other things as important as statistical analysis.

[Elric VIII]

It was indeed sarcasm. I always forget to put in a smiley to show the tone.

[Zman]

I've addressed these feats as well as TWF in general in my Tweaks, which also include lots of new tweaks.

Linked in my Sig. Also, I have a spreadsheet that analyzes stock 5e to my tweaks.

In Summary.

GWM- Only one -5/+10 attack per turn.

Sharpshooter- Only one -5/+10 attack per turn.

Polearm Master- No ability mod to BA attack damage. BA attack can't be combined with GWM. Opens it up to other weapons like spears.

I also bump TWF by giving it a second offhand attack at 8th level if they have extra attack. Not perfect, but substantially better than stock 5e.

[N810]

^ Yea that ought to cover most of the complaints.

[Easy_Lee]

Late to the party, but if you want to bring them in line then I'd do what Kryx proposed. Take away the - 5/+10 of GWM and SS, take away with bonus action attack of PM (and crossbow expert as well, honestly), and add +1 strength or dexterity in their place. That would be more consistent with the power curve and prevent low level shenanigans. GWM would still be pretty good, but that's not so bad for a character dedicated wholly to melee DPR.

But I would also revise TWF, so there's that too.

[KorvinStarmast]

Late to the party, but if you want to bring them in line then I'd do what Kryx proposed. Take away the - 5/+10 of GWM and SS, take away with bonus action attack of PM (and crossbow expert as well, honestly), and add +1 strength or dexterity in their place. That would be more consistent with the power curve and prevent low level shenanigans. GWM would still be pretty good, but that's not so bad for a character dedicated wholly to melee DPR.

But I would also revise TWF, so there's that too.

I am not sure I understand how depriving martials of tools is going to benefit that game, particularly given what happens at mid to high level.

My general objection to this crusade against these feats is that whatever "imperfection vis a vis balance" they may present hardly influences play in actual play (versus a white room analysis). When you put a party together you get synergistic effects: from spells, class features, and feats combine not to mention how the players use their brains to put together a plan of action for situation X.

So no, the assertion that the martial tools, that provide some neat boosts at low level and at level 5 (the first significant power spike) have to be stacked up against the broad array of "things" as play continues.

There's a lot more to play, and for that matter to a combat encounter, than DPR. FWIW, I had the chance to work with a guy a couple of days ago in trying to model non attrition based warfare models for Army training centers. If all you train is attrition based combat, you are missing a lot of what it is. While the relationship is only partial, DPR is an attrition based analysis tool.

As to the lottery: someone now and again wins it. And the rest of us (who do play) don't win that big pot, and the rest of us (who don't play) don't win that big pot. That's an irrelevant analogy for this discussion.

[Easy_Lee]

I am not sure I understand how depriving martials of tools is going to benefit that game, particularly given what happens at mid to high level.

My general objection to this crusade against these feats is that whatever "imperfection vis a vis" balance they may present hardly influences play in actual play (versus a white room analysis). When you put a party together you get synergistic effects: from spells, class features, and feats combine not to mention how the players use their brains to put together a plan of action for situation X.

So no, the assertion that the martial tools, that provide some neat boosts at low level and at level 5 (the first significant power spike) have to be stacked up against the broad array of "things" as play continues.

The OP asked about it. It wasn't a matter of whether that's a good idea or not, but how to address the OP's request.

I'd rather buff other options to make them comparable to these or, even better, make these feats general so they apply to all weapon types. In general, I prefer buffing over nerfing in all but the most extreme cases.

[KorvinStarmast]

The OP asked about it. It wasn't a matter of whether that's a good idea or not, but how to address the OP's request.

I'd rather buff other options to make them comparable to these or, even better, make these feats general so they apply to all weapon types. In general, I prefer buffing over nerfing in all but the most extreme cases.

By the way, I agree with you that they need to do something with TWF. I suspect they tried a number of things out and hadn't quite found the "sweet spot" and so settled for a "good enough" until the better idea came along.

FWIW, my opening to the previous post had as much to do with the OP as with your post. Sorry I didn't make that clear.