The unseen effects of a ruling

[SpawnOfMorbo]

Say we have a ruling of...

Rule: Only one source of extra damage may apply per turn unless the feature says otherwise.

With this in effect one would not be able to gain both Great Weapon Master and Smite damage on the same turn. I would say small extra damage, such as from the Charger feat, could stack in some way but not others.

Essentially we are calling extra damage as being one group of damage and no matter the source, it doesn't stack.

This would limit damage stacking, for sure, but what are some unintended consequences?

[orange74]

The first question is, what, exactly, counts as stacking?

Agonizing Blast + Hex? Archery + Hunter's Mark? Rage + GWM? Sneak Attack + Combat Inspiration? If not, why not? GWM + Smite is a pretty iconic combination, it's not like this is something exploiting some weird edge case synergy. The only place where I can think of that the book spells out that bonuses stack is Smites, and that doesn't seem like "this should really stack even if other things don't" but "we could see where you might think this might not stack, so we'll be extra clear."

If you are going to allow small bonuses to stack but not large ones, why? Why should two small bonuses deal more damage than a small bonus and a large bonus?

(Easy way around that: rather than eliminating certain bonuses but not others, cap 2nd and successive bonuses.)

As far as unintended consequences, I think the biggest one might be that some of your players might try to murder you.

[MrFahrenheit]

Combat.will.be.super.slow.

[Foxhound438]

As far as unintended consequences, I think the biggest one might be that some of your players might try to murder you.

yep. side effects may include smaller playgroups.

[SpawnOfMorbo]

The first question is, what, exactly, counts as stacking?

Agonizing Blast + Hex? Archery + Hunter's Mark? Rage+GWM? If not, why not?

If you are going to allow small bonuses to stack but not large ones, why? Why should two small bonuses deal more damage than a small bonus and a large bonus?

(Easy way around that: rather than eliminating certain bonuses but not others, cap 2nd and successive bonuses.)

As far as unintended consequences, I think the biggest one might be that some of your players might try to murder you.

Well, being as almost everyone I play D&D with wouldn't be able to even hit me with a thrown book if I was blind and tied up, I think I'm safe :smallbiggrin: (won a few dodge ball tournaments in my day, if I can dodge a ball I can dodge a book).

Reason: Combining different styles doesn't always work. Just because you can do two things doesn't mean that those two styles work together. Plus I don't think the multiclassing was assumed when they were creating a lot of these rules.


Though I just might say that things like bonus damage from feats like GWM are 1/round, lass features don't stack with each other (rage and sneak attack, smite and sneak attack) and call it a day.


****

Even without these options combat goes super fast in 5e, I've DMed plenty of 5e games that didn't have multiclassing (no stacking damage) and no one took GWM and combat did not slow down one bit.

This is one of the reasons I, and many of my friends, feel that the base rules for 5e wasn't made with the idea of MC or feats at all. The game is balanced around them not being there.

[Zman]

Honestly, I don't think it is really needed. It is a clunky ruling, how does a Paladin's Improved Smite work with Divine Smite? How about Hex and Agonizing Blast, what about Hex and Greenflame Blade, etc. Things like say Rage and Sneak attack are fine, both have their own progressions and if Multiclassed don't overlap in any way that skyrockets damage. Now, something like Greenflame Blade and Sneak attack does up the power level a bit, but it still is within a reasonable range IMO.

You are better off, IMO, just fixing the problem children ie make GWM and Sharpshooter a once per turn effect for their -5/+10s, that goes a long way to making things better.

[Boci]

This seems like a poorly thought out house rule. It makes things like Collosus Slayer basically useless, and it seems to unfairly nerf melee, who do more damage, which looks flashier, rather than casters, who are awesome in other ways untouched by this rule.

[MrFahrenheit]

And beyond all of what everyone above has mentioned...I'll elaborate on my original point: YOU will come to hate this rule once you see how long combat drags on, and even one player with meta knowledge of the MM starts rules lawyering you about being sure that similar bonuses which monsters got to use on damage are only applied once a round.

[SpawnOfMorbo]

And beyond all of what everyone above has mentioned...I'll elaborate on my original point: YOU will come to hate this rule once you see how long combat drags on, and even one player with meta knowledge of the MM starts rules lawyering you about being sure that similar bonuses which monsters got to use on damage are only applied once a round.

Seriously dude, this won't effect length of battle at all.

Even in a featless and MC-less games, fights go way fast.

Also, it seems like you have some DM v Player mentality thing going... I assure you, my group(s) don't have this issue.

Though I do want to note that I haven't actually made this a rule or anything or even started to do anything with it. I do however think they should have made extra damage its own category and worked it into the system at a base level.

[orange74]

Is GWM+smite actually unbalanced?

Assuming 18 strength, greatsword, and GWF, a hit plus a 2d8 smite will average 21 2/3 damage (4 1/3*2+4+9). (I'm not going to try to account for crits in any of this math, but it would actually make my case stronger if I did.) With -5/+10, that obviously goes up to 31 2/3. If you need a 6 to hit, that means your average damage per attack would be 16 1/4 without GWM. With, your damage per attack (since you now need an 11) is 15 5/6. If I've done the math right, you need to be hitting on 5 or lower (before the -5) for GWM to be advantageous. Even if you only need a 2 to hit, you're only averaging about 2 extra damage per hit. The more damage you can do without it, the less favourable GWM is, so smites actually make it less effective.

(With deepest apologies if my math is all messed up.)

[R.Shackleford]

Is GWM+smite actually unbalanced?

Assuming 18 strength, greatsword, and GWF, a hit plus a 2d8 smite will average 21 2/3 damage (4 1/3*2+4+9). (I'm not going to try to account for crits in any of this math, but it would actually make my case stronger if I did.) With -5/+10, that obviously goes up to 31 2/3. If you need a 6 to hit, that means your average damage per attack would be 16 1/4 without GWM. With, your damage per attack (since you now need an 11) is 15 5/6. If I've done the math right, you need to be hitting on 5 or lower (before the -5) for GWM to be advantageous. Even if you only need a 2 to hit, you're only averaging about 2 extra damage per hit. The more damage you can do without it, the less favourable GWM is, so smites actually make it less effective.

(With deepest apologies if my math is all messed up.)

Its typically the fighter and barbarian that get the most out of GWM. Barbarian due to reckless attack and rage (frenzy) and Fighter due to the sheer number of attacks they get.

+30 and +40 damage on their turn adds up fast.

There are other builds that get use out of it tho.

[MrFahrenheit]

Seriously dude, this won't effect length of battle at all.

Even in a featless and MC-less games, fights go way fast.

Also, it seems like you have some DM v Player mentality thing going... I assure you, my group(s) don't have this issue.

Though I do want to note that I haven't actually made this a rule or anything or even started to do anything with it. I do however think they should have made extra damage its own category and worked it into the system at a base level.

Assuming no feats and no MC, a paladin is adding smite damage as s/he pleases with their action - to include extra attack. Barbarians are adding rage damage. Anyone with GWF is re rolling 1s and 2s - potentially on both (or more if a fighter) attacks - in effect, a damage boost. If they only get to apply this to one attack, then they are dealing less damage overall, causing enemies to lose hp slower, and as result, combat drags on longer.

As for your player vs DM presumption about my table, I can only say that in the decade plus I've been DMing, players like to be sure house rules are applied across the board. So...will you be making sure that NPCs and anything out of the MM with a similar damage boost feature applies only once per turn, too?

Meanwhile, the arguable DPR gap between blasting casters and martials turns into a chasm. Will your ruling apply to agonizing blast? What about silver or white blooded draconic sorcerers and the added damage on cone of cold, for example? Since martials only get to apply their extra damage once per turn under this rule, seems like the caster examples should only get to apply the relevant modifier to one enemy per turn, too.

In effect:

Martial attack 1 damage: dice + mod + bonus damage
Martial attack 2+ damage: dice + mod

Magical attack with more than one target 1 damage: dice + mod
As above, but for the second and subsequent targets: dice only

[Grod_The_Giant]

Honestly, I'm not sure what you're really trying to accomplish, but I don't think this is the way to do it. If you don't want feats or multiclassing, don't allow them. If you're worried about supposedly "problem" stuff like GWM, use a more targeted fix. If YOU have a vermissitude problem with your players' characters... sorry, that's on you; ask for better descriptions, maybe, but don't destroy that which you don't understand. The game is basically unbreakable as long as you don't some broken as "marginally higher dpr."

I'll also note that things that are supposed to be" different styles" are usually noted as such. You can't combine GMW and Sneak Attack because they require different weapons. Charger won't help you with Flurry of Blows because they're both bonus actions. (Things like Smite and Hex are, well, magic; I don't see how they could interfere with anything.)

[Mandragola]

I'd be strongly against this change. These abilities are what makes martial classes good. Without them there's even less of a reason for the whole party not to play wizards and bards.

I just don't think there's a problem with how things are now. If the ranger adds hunters's mark and colossus slayer to an attack, so what? He's there to deal damage to stuff and he's dealing damage to stuff. It's a feature, not a bug.

These abilities trigger off the player spending resources. Spell slots, superiority dice, rages/day or whatever. If you prevent them from working then you just make those classes less good. So a GWM fighter wouldn't ever pick to be a battlemaster - he'd be an EK or champion instead. And GWM just flat out doesn't work for a raging barbarian, who is the archetypal person to be doing it. Why would you want that?

[R.Shackleford]

I'd be strongly against this change. These abilities are what makes martial classes good. Without them there's even less of a reason for the whole party not to play wizards and bards.

I'm not saying I'm for or against the ruling but...

No, these things are not what makes martials good. Each martial, in terms of damage, can keep up with the game without MC or feats. Stacking damage is a byproduct of the MC system (a horrible system to start with) that I don't think the designers really accounted for (reckless attack + sneak attack). Feats also boost damage but it isn't like you need them to be good at damage. It's like having a car that does 100 MPH when the speed limit is 60 MPH and you have the option of superchargers your car to do 200 MPH... You car could already do everything needed and then some, optimizing for speed is almost a waste.

The notion that these make you good is completely false. At direct damage, martials options are already great.

[Sir cryosin]

Its typically the fighter and barbarian that get the most out of GWM. Barbarian due to reckless attack and rage (frenzy) and Fighter due to the sheer number of attacks they get.

+30 and +40 damage on their turn adds up fast.

There are other builds that get use out of it tho.

30 40 damage at the levels that it takes to get that is on the low side on the damage scale for a caster of same lv. Finger of death deals 7d8+30 damage. A warlock is doing 4d10+4d6+20

[Sir cryosin]

You keep talking about mc but I don't see that many mc were your just stacking damage. Now I'm not saying there are any I had a character that was ranger lv2, fighter lv5 and rogue lv2. With sharpshooter and crossbow expert vhuman. My dex was 18. 1d10+4+2d6+10 on first attack, next attack 1d10+4+1d6+10. I was stacking heavy crossbow,sneak attack,hunter's mark,and sharpshooter. At low lv it was pretty powerful but quickly leveled out with the casters in my Groupe. Do to higher ac monsters and resistance to non magical weapons ect... ect..

[orange74]

What I'm not getting is the assertion that stacking damage is a product of multiclassing.

GWM+smite+improved smite+divine favour are all paladin effects. (GWM is a feat, but I think it's fair to say that given the fact that GWF is a class option, it's part of an intended path for that class.) And, unless my math is wrong, the only issue with that stack is that GWM is actually counterproductive to dealing maximum average damage unless you're hitting on a 2.

Yes, multiclassing does set up a paladin for more smites per day, and obviously there are plenty of threads here demonstrating the ways you can exploit overlaps between class abilities. But you need to do a lot of smiting to make up for being behind by one or two (or more) spell levels—or even just delaying your ASIs. If you figure 6 encounters per day, about 3 rounds per encounter, 2 attacks per round, that's about 40 attacks per day. Delaying your ASI on your attack stack means, per day, two attacks that would have hit miss, and if you hit half the time, the attacks you do land do a total of 20 less damage. So you've left 20+4d6(GWF)+2=38 damage on the table, i.e. >4 smites.

I understand that one or two damage here and there will often be less important (and certainly less impressive) than landing a big nova, and that's kind of what paladins are for. But there's almost always a cost for these synergies (both in terms of delayed abilities and per-rest resources), and depending on what kind of enemies you're facing and your role in the party and how well your allies set you up, that cost can be quite high.

[Sneak Dog]

What this ruling does is make multi-attackers with damage features and spells sad. So barbarian, paladin, warlock and ranger. It nerfs GWM and SS. (Great Weapon Master and SharpShooter respectively, the feats.)

On top, it makes classes with multiple damage features sad. So rangers with colossus slayer and hunter's mark, warlocks with eldritch blast, hex and the cha to damage, paladins of vengeance with smiting and hunter's mark. It also nerfs buffing spells like enlarge person.

Fighter is surprisingly ok with this, he'll just avoid dueling fighting style and get that 20 mainstat as soon as possible.
Rogue doesn't care one little bit because his sneak attack already has this ruling and he'd be prone to losing his sneak attack damage if he goes SS.

I think you're better off nerfing GWM and SS. Classes usually are balanced around their damage bonuses.
If you want to prevent multi-class cheese, stay below a certain level (11ish?) and multiclassing will have a significant cost attached to it, even for non-casters. Then just keep an eye on the most egregious multiclasses like the good old 2 levels warlock dip.

[Mandragola]

I'm not saying I'm for or against the ruling but...

No, these things are not what makes martials good. Each martial, in terms of damage, can keep up with the game without MC or feats. Stacking damage is a byproduct of the MC system (a horrible system to start with) that I don't think the designers really accounted for (reckless attack + sneak attack). Feats also boost damage but it isn't like you need them to be good at damage. It's like having a car that does 100 MPH when the speed limit is 60 MPH and you have the option of superchargers your car to do 200 MPH... You car could already do everything needed and then some, optimizing for speed is almost a waste.

The notion that these make you good is completely false. At direct damage, martials options are already great.

I didn't mention MCs. If you don't like MCs, ban or nerf MCs. If you don't like reckless sneak attacks then fine, say they aren't compatible. You could say that you can only use features granted by a single class on any given attack, if you wanted.

I talked about single-class multiple damage boosts, such as the ranger and paladin's. Those classes are intended to stack damage bonuses and are balanced around doing so. A vengeance paladin is intended to be able to stack hunter's mark and smites. That's why he has them - he's a damage-dealer. Other flavours of paladins get different features that make them good in other ways.

It's true that martials keep up with casters for damage. That's their job in 5e. Casters are controllers and martials deal high damage, usually (obviously with a few exceptions) to single targets. Martials don't deal too much damage at the moment, they deal the correct amount of it.

[CursedRhubarb]

Stacking different damage types has kept my lock alive several times when mobs have gotten up close and personal. Instead of having to rely on an AoE that would hot allies I've been able to just stab things for some very nice damage due to it. I've been lucky enough to get a Dagger of Venom, which I'm loving even though I've heard lots say it's terrible. With it, if something gets close I just stab with stacked damage types and most mobs will drop. I get 1d4+1(Dagger)+1d6(Hex)+1d8(GFB)+2(Dex) and once per day the extra 2d10 poison makes it very nice. (That DC 15 save on the dagger is very nice)
Without the damage stacking I'd be stuck dealing with mobs until a meat shield can help and It would lead to very dead casters.