Hi, so I'm running into a bit of a problem where I have a player consistently taking issue with their damage levels. It's a conversation that comes up between myself and the player after every single game at this rate and it's getting to a point where I don't know what to do.
The player is insistent that they should be the party's highest damage dealer as a 5 Assassin Rogue/5 Battlesmith Artificer, and they almost consistently are. As they are dual-wielding homebrew uncommon guns that deal 1d6+6 damage, plus sneak attack, they on average are dealing 6d6+18 per round (between two attacks + bonus action attack and sneak attack), in addition to having Piercer to reroll damage. This puts them on par damage wise with the fighter build that is wielding a flame tongue longsword. I know this for a fact because this obsession with damage has gone so far into the territory of me going back into the logs of the game to count up how much damage was dealt throughout combat as to prove to them that their damage is still on par.
The major problem that I'm having with this situation is that I advertised the game as roleplay and story heavy. I was not expecting to have someone so concerned about damage and builds, and the like. And especially someone who is normally leading the pack in damage to be unsatisfied with their damage. If you exclude a crit, our last combat they got top damage 2/3 times.
So, I'm wondering how I tell this person their damage is fine and to not worry about it. Or if I'm crazy and being unreasonable.
Also, because it's important: The fighter and barbarian, the two other highest damage dealers in the party, both have rare weapons. The Artificer/Rogue had this option but wanted to dual wield so chose to go for the two uncommon weapons and took their rare item as the Rogue's Mantle instead. We just hit level 11 last night, so I imagine their damage will suffer a blow in our next combat session considering the fighter just got their third attack, so I'm expecting another conversation with this player.
This is where folks like D&D Shorts irritate me personally. These theory-crafting builds for silly damage or crazy effects, I have found give players an impression that doesn't always match reality.
That said, your artificer could always 'replicate magic item' that Flame Tongue Sword as a rapier or similar light weapon. So, that to me says they're not changing up their infusions as often as they could do. Now, I don't tend to enjoy artificer as a class and as such understand it the least. But to my mind an artificer is a great swiss army knife. They could change up infusions and replicate different magic items ahead of their next quests. If they aren't doing that I feel like an artificer would be missing out.
Beyond that - as a battlesmith, they've got their steel defender dealing damage - and at Level 6 Artificer, they could also have a Homunculus Servant as well who is able to force strike at range.
Versitility, as I understand it is the whole point of the artificer. They literally can dip into a little of everything, and their infusions help to make them more survivable in combat. My read on the situation is that they're worrying over nothing. I would also suggest keeping eyes peeled for a touch of main character syndrome (a player who wants their character always to be the hero, or main character of the story). I've had a few players like that and it can cause problems - issues like the one you present are often the first warning sign of such a player in my experience to date.
The major problem that I'm having with this situation is that I advertised the game as roleplay and story heavy. I was not expecting to have someone so concerned about damage and builds, and the like. And especially someone who is normally leading the pack in damage to be unsatisfied with their damage. If you exclude a crit, our last combat they got top damage 2/3 times.
So, I'm wondering how I tell this person their damage is fine and to not worry about it. Or if I'm crazy and being unreasonable.
I think the message needs to be less about proving the math of their damage and more about the style of play. You advertised a roleplay and story game, but this person has other expectations. They aren't wrong, but you may not be DM'ing a game they can enjoy. They may need to find another table if they can't adjust their lens on what the shared focus is.
You have told them they are fine. You showed them the math.
Explain that even if they did less damage than somebody else, what's the big deal? Did the party win? At the end of the day, that is the main goal. If they're not happy don't worry about it. You cannot please the whole world. If the majority of the other players are having a good time with your campaign, you've done your job. Don't let one player get you down especially on such a trivial issue.
Sidenote: 15 minutes of google will show that Assassin 5/ Battlemsmith 5 is NOT the highest damage dealing build.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"Sooner or later, your Players are going to smash your railroad into a sandbox."
-Vedexent
"real life is a super high CR."
-OboeLauren
"............anybody got any potatoes? We could drop a potato in each hole an' see which ones get viciously mauled by horrible monsters?"
If this is a persistent drag on you and your time (i.e. you say this becomes a component of every session debrief), and you're not really running a combat crunch centered game anyway, it's perfectly fine to draw a boundary here. Explain to him, "Look, we've done the math, I've reviewed the math with you, and you can keep doing it on your own. In advance I explained that this was not going to be a combat focus game, and I don't really feel inclined and definitely not obligated to reviewing the blow by blow of every combat after session since we come to the same conclusion every time. After this many sessions it should be apparent to you whether my DM styles and this table is giving you enjoyment or not. I feel it is not. If that's the case, it may be for the best that you find some other place to play where your combat calculations will be more valued. As it is, going forward I intend to focus on the aspects of my game that bring the rest of the party back to the table every session."
As a DM, you can try to accommodate everyone, but at a certain point when a persistent issue/objection/note whatever begins to take away from your enjoyment of the game and instead becomes an incessant nuisance, lines must be drawn.
I can enjoy really crunchy and gritty tactical games where the protractors are out and effect of wind on a long range shot becomes a factor, etc. as much as everyone else into hardcore tactical competency **** ... but I also realize when I'm not playing that game and have the flexibility to enjoy a game for what it is.
If this is an RP-heavy game, is it really that important to be top damage dealer?
Characters don't 'deserve' to be top damage dealer. Sure, you make tradeoffs in builds, and if you sacrificed everything else to be good at dpr and still fail to be good at dpr there's a problem with your build, but (a) rogue/artificer is by no means sacrificing everything to be good at dpr, and (b) it's not the DMs problem.
tbh even don't know what to advice since judging from your post - you already explained to player that they unreasonable but instead issue remains
your options is throw stuff in player inventory untill his dpr ego would be appeased (and it's quite a question if it ever be appeased), or have issue remain each session
so only way to supress this indeed red flag is capsing on "your character building decisions" and meet each complaint with you have done that yourself obi wan jpg
You've already indulged this player too much. Just tell them you will not discuss this with them anymore, because it's not relevant, and the constant complaints are distracting. As others pointed out, the player is the one who created this character, and you've been fair with how you've awarded combat-related items. There's nothing more for you to do here. If the player persists, make it clear that they can let it go and play the roleplaying/story-oriented campaign you created, or they can find another game.
Hi, so I'm running into a bit of a problem where I have a player consistently taking issue with their damage levels. It's a conversation that comes up between myself and the player after every single game at this rate and it's getting to a point where I don't know what to do.
That's his/her problem. Not yours. I would politely explain that if (s)he isn't happy with his/her damage output then (s)he needs to think of something to do in order to increase it. What's (s)he expecting you to do? Give him/her a pair of guns that do one bajillion damage per round?
Sounds a bit like video game mentality to me. Always looking for higher numbers and ways to be better then anyone else.
The problem is that you as a DM scale the fights to be meaningful. So if he gets more damage output, you as a dm will just increase the CR of the monsters. It is a never ending cycle that the player can not win. All he does is outshine the other two.
All you can do is say no and remind him that it is D&D and not WoW, it is more about story telling as a group instead of slaughtering the highest amount of mindles mobs in the shortest time.
This is where folks like D&D Shorts irritate me personally. These theory-crafting builds for silly damage or crazy effects, I have found give players an impression that doesn't always match reality.
That said, your artificer could always 'replicate magic item' that Flame Tongue Sword as a rapier or similar light weapon. So, that to me says they're not changing up their infusions as often as they could do. Now, I don't tend to enjoy artificer as a class and as such understand it the least. But to my mind an artificer is a great swiss army knife. They could change up infusions and replicate different magic items ahead of their next quests. If they aren't doing that I feel like an artificer would be missing out.
Beyond that - as a battlesmith, they've got their steel defender dealing damage - and at Level 6 Artificer, they could also have a Homunculus Servant as well who is able to force strike at range.
Versitility, as I understand it is the whole point of the artificer. They literally can dip into a little of everything, and their infusions help to make them more survivable in combat. My read on the situation is that they're worrying over nothing. I would also suggest keeping eyes peeled for a touch of main character syndrome (a player who wants their character always to be the hero, or main character of the story). I've had a few players like that and it can cause problems - issues like the one you present are often the first warning sign of such a player in my experience to date.
Just a quick comment but a level 5 artificer is incapable of replicating a flame tongue sword of any kind, it is NOT one of the things that they can do with their infusions. In fact, RAW, even a level 20 artificer can't replicate a flame tongue sword. There is a very limited list of magic items that can be replicated by an artificer - these lists are available at artificer level 2, 6, 10 and 14.
Also, since both the Steel Defender and the Homunculous servant use the artificer's bonus action to attack, there is no benefit to a battle smith for having both. The Homunculous servant infusion is an option to give the other artificer sub-classes a pet. However, having the Steel Defender is one reason for a Battle Smith to avoid taking a feat allowing for a ranged bonus action attack since it will conflict with their Steel Defenders attacks. Some of the Battlesmith builds I've seen might go with a Heavy Crossbow with a repeating shot infusion and later the sharpshooter feat.
---------------
To the OP -
1) I'm assuming that you have some sort of house rules that allow for dual wielding two ranged weapons? Normally, two weapon fighting only applies to melee weapons.
"Two-Weapon Fighting
When you take the Attack action and attack with a light melee weapon that you’re holding in one hand, you can use a bonus action to attack with a different light melee weapon that you’re holding in the other hand. You don’t add your ability modifier to the damage of the bonus attack, unless that modifier is negative.
If either weapon has the thrown property, you can throw the weapon, instead of making a melee attack with it."
2) Is the artificer using the sharpshooter feat? Without it they will fall behind other characters using GWM/SS. If they already have it then they should already have maximum damage. Other than that, they should be a bit ahead of the other characters.
3) If the artificer has 3 weapon attacks at d6+6 then their average damage is 28.5 plus 3d6 for sneak attack which is 39. A fighter with a flame tongue long sword and two attacks is 2 x (d8+2d6+5) (assuming maxed stat) = 33. Barbarian is a bit over the base fighter due to damage from rage but pulls farther ahead if using reckless attack for advantage on each attack.
So, on average, the Artificer/rogue is likely to do more damage assuming that sneak attack is available (this ignores the advantage an assassin has against targets in the first round of combat) ... I'm assuming the auto-crit feature doesn't come up very often.
-------------------------
So - the artificer/rogue should be doing a bit more damage than the others depending on gear and feat choices (a figthter with a flametongue great sword and great weapon master would do quite a bit more than the artificer/rogue for example) but it isn't a staggering amount. In addition, the artificer/rogue has a lot of out of combat utility - expertise in skills, various useful infusions, tool expertise from the artificer.
There is no reason for the player to complain about their damage since it would seem fine. On the other hand, maybe they really notice when they miss their attack rolls which makes them feel like they aren't doing much - that is just luck and has nothing to do with how good or bad the character is at doing damage. In any case, my suggestion would be to chat to the player about what their expectations are for the character and see if they are unrealistic. If they picked up some unreasonable expectations from somewhere you can gently correct them while explaining that they are doing very well for damage on average while also having more out of combat options than the other characters in many cases.
You could also mention that the assassin rogue is a bit of a trap option since although its signature crit abilities sound really good .. the real benefit is the advantage in the first round of combat against creatures that haven't taken a turn yet that will effectively enable sneak attack before any team mates have moved into position. Surprise happens quite infrequently in most games.
Crossbow Expert allows you to make a hand crossbow attack with your bonus action after taking the attack action with any one handed weapon. So you could dual wield hand crossbows. But you would still need a free hand to load them, even though you get to ignore the loading property. So you would either need to be a race with extra hands or have automatic loading weapons. And since the guns were specified as being homebrewed weapons, they likely do not have the loading feature.
Crossbow Expert allows you to make a hand crossbow attack with your bonus action after taking the attack action with any one handed weapon. So you could dual wield hand crossbows. But you would still need a free hand to load them, even though you get to ignore the loading property. So you would either need to be a race with extra hands or have automatic loading weapons. And since the guns were specified as being homebrewed weapons, they likely do not have the loading feature.
Do not forget that feats are optional and not in play at every table.
Hi! I want to thank everyone for their input! It's been really helpful in helping shift my perspective and gather other thought processes in what has been going on with everything. I'm sorry that I wasn't answering to each and every one of you as you posted. I wanted to get a decent pool of answers and kind of sit on what was said before saying anything. lol
I'll respond to the pieces that stuck out to me the most but know that I've read all of your replies and I appreciate all of the input.
For those that said that I've indulged them enough and that this is a roleplay focused game, perhaps if this behavior continues, this table isn't for them. I think I'm going to have to agree at this stage. I had a conversation with the player in that regard and even just opening the conversation, the player realized the route that it was taking and has agreed to back off on it. lol I don't know what it was about my tone, all I said and I quote was "Hey, I wanted to ask because I think there seems to be a misalignment between what is expected out of me and what I am providing: What exactly do you want out of this game?" And they proceeded to ignore me for a few days and then came back, saying maybe they've been hasty. They later said that it seemed as if I was going to kick them from the table for their behavior based on that statement and they definitely do not want that.
Ultimately, the weapon I gave them is homebrew but they agreed and knew what the weapons damage is. If they disagree, they have the option to move to hand crossbows, daggers, or something more conventional. It genuinely is not my problem at this stage because I've been plenty fair.
When it comes to dual wielding the ranged weapons, yes, I did homebrew to allow two-weapon fighting to have them dual wield the ranged weapons. I know normally they don't allow for that, but I figured with the player sinking 3 feats into this build (as I describe below) to make it work, I'd allow for it.
As for the feat situation, I do in fact allow for feats. The player has taken the two feats that the normal leveling has allowed for, on top of the fact that I allowed for an extra feat during creation and they took custom lineage. So, this player has a grand total of four feats at their disposal. None of which are Sharp Shooter. The player took (1) Fighting Initiate: Two Weapon Fighting, (2) Gunner, to ignore the loading property and remove the 5ft disadvantage, (3) Dual Wielder, because I refused to allow these weapons to be classified as light as part of their balancing (these homebrew weapons will be scaling up with them as they gain more levels), and (4) Piercer, why? No idea why they took piecer over Sharpshooter, especially considering that the range I imposed on these guns is absolute garbage compared to a crossbow but is inline with the other medieval era guns from the DMG. My best guess is ignorance on the part of the player to the existence of Sharpshooter.
Well, 4 feats does seem a bit like overcharging, you can basically get what they're doing with two feats (crossbow expert and piercer). Crossbow expert is a sort of dysfunctional feat, its intent is clearly to permit the equivalent of two-weapon fighting with hand crossbows, but as actually written it does not require using two hand crossbows (you can get the BA with just one) and also does not work with two (because the ammunition property means you need two hands even though it's a one-handed weapon). If the weapon is meaningfully better than a hand crossbow it might deserve an extra feat, but 1d6+6 doesn't look meaningfully better than a hand crossbow.
The player, very specifically, did not want crossbows. They wanted guns. Which I did talk to them about the difference in the feats and such, but no dice.
Normally, I would have simply given them Palm Pistols from Exandria and called it a day, but very specifically they wanted Gunblades that could double as melee weapons as well as guns themselves. The reason why they're 1d6 is because they're roughly the same damage as a shortsword and I wanted the weapon to have the same damage type for both the blade and the projectile for ease. The trade off being the versatility between using the gun portion or the blade portion whenever they wanted, swapping between attacks, etc. I could have still made it a 1d8, grant it, but hey.
Crossbow Expert allows you to make a hand crossbow attack with your bonus action after taking the attack action with any one handed weapon. So you could dual wield hand crossbows. But you would still need a free hand to load them, even though you get to ignore the loading property. So you would either need to be a race with extra hands or have automatic loading weapons. And since the guns were specified as being homebrewed weapons, they likely do not have the loading feature.
In the case of crossbow expert there is no reason to dual wield hand crossbows unless you like the look and want to have problems loading them. You can attack with a hand crossbow in one hand, more than once if you have extra attack, and then use the same hand crossbow for the bonus action attack provided by crossbow expert. So, you only need one hand crossbow and then still have a hand free for loading it.
There isn't an equivalent rule allowing a bonus action attack with guns so they must be homebrewing it.
P.S. Sorry :) ... I had not read the rest of the thread when I posted this reply and see that all my comments were already covered by others.
The player, very specifically, did not want crossbows. They wanted guns. Which I did talk to them about the difference in the feats and such, but no dice.
Normally, I would have simply given them Palm Pistols from Exandria and called it a day, but very specifically they wanted Gunblades that could double as melee weapons as well as guns themselves. The reason why they're 1d6 is because they're roughly the same damage as a shortsword and I wanted the weapon to have the same damage type for both the blade and the projectile for ease. The trade off being the versatility between using the gun portion or the blade portion whenever they wanted, swapping between attacks, etc. I could have still made it a 1d8, grant it, but hey.
Honestly, I think you went overboard in accommodating them already.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Find your own truth, choose your enemies carefully, and never deal with a dragon.
"Canon" is what's factual to D&D lore. "Cannon" is what you're going to be shot with if you keep getting the word wrong.
Overwhelming damage targetting the player. Now they get to roll up a new character that might fit the campaign and their owb bloodlust better, but it's still going to be a PICNIC issue (Problem In Chair Not In Character).
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Hi, so I'm running into a bit of a problem where I have a player consistently taking issue with their damage levels. It's a conversation that comes up between myself and the player after every single game at this rate and it's getting to a point where I don't know what to do.
The player is insistent that they should be the party's highest damage dealer as a 5 Assassin Rogue/5 Battlesmith Artificer, and they almost consistently are. As they are dual-wielding homebrew uncommon guns that deal 1d6+6 damage, plus sneak attack, they on average are dealing 6d6+18 per round (between two attacks + bonus action attack and sneak attack), in addition to having Piercer to reroll damage. This puts them on par damage wise with the fighter build that is wielding a flame tongue longsword. I know this for a fact because this obsession with damage has gone so far into the territory of me going back into the logs of the game to count up how much damage was dealt throughout combat as to prove to them that their damage is still on par.
The major problem that I'm having with this situation is that I advertised the game as roleplay and story heavy. I was not expecting to have someone so concerned about damage and builds, and the like. And especially someone who is normally leading the pack in damage to be unsatisfied with their damage. If you exclude a crit, our last combat they got top damage 2/3 times.
So, I'm wondering how I tell this person their damage is fine and to not worry about it. Or if I'm crazy and being unreasonable.
Also, because it's important: The fighter and barbarian, the two other highest damage dealers in the party, both have rare weapons. The Artificer/Rogue had this option but wanted to dual wield so chose to go for the two uncommon weapons and took their rare item as the Rogue's Mantle instead. We just hit level 11 last night, so I imagine their damage will suffer a blow in our next combat session considering the fighter just got their third attack, so I'm expecting another conversation with this player.
This is where folks like D&D Shorts irritate me personally. These theory-crafting builds for silly damage or crazy effects, I have found give players an impression that doesn't always match reality.
That said, your artificer could always 'replicate magic item' that Flame Tongue Sword as a rapier or similar light weapon. So, that to me says they're not changing up their infusions as often as they could do. Now, I don't tend to enjoy artificer as a class and as such understand it the least. But to my mind an artificer is a great swiss army knife. They could change up infusions and replicate different magic items ahead of their next quests. If they aren't doing that I feel like an artificer would be missing out.
Beyond that - as a battlesmith, they've got their steel defender dealing damage - and at Level 6 Artificer, they could also have a Homunculus Servant as well who is able to force strike at range.
Versitility, as I understand it is the whole point of the artificer. They literally can dip into a little of everything, and their infusions help to make them more survivable in combat. My read on the situation is that they're worrying over nothing. I would also suggest keeping eyes peeled for a touch of main character syndrome (a player who wants their character always to be the hero, or main character of the story). I've had a few players like that and it can cause problems - issues like the one you present are often the first warning sign of such a player in my experience to date.
DM session planning template - My version of maps for 'Lost Mine of Phandelver' - Send your party to The Circus - Other DM Resources - Maps, Tokens, Quests - 'Better' Player Character Injury Tables?
Actor, Writer, Director & Teacher by day - GM/DM in my off hours.
I think the message needs to be less about proving the math of their damage and more about the style of play. You advertised a roleplay and story game, but this person has other expectations. They aren't wrong, but you may not be DM'ing a game they can enjoy. They may need to find another table if they can't adjust their lens on what the shared focus is.
You have told them they are fine. You showed them the math.
Explain that even if they did less damage than somebody else, what's the big deal? Did the party win? At the end of the day, that is the main goal. If they're not happy don't worry about it. You cannot please the whole world. If the majority of the other players are having a good time with your campaign, you've done your job. Don't let one player get you down especially on such a trivial issue.
Sidenote: 15 minutes of google will show that Assassin 5/ Battlemsmith 5 is NOT the highest damage dealing build.
"Sooner or later, your Players are going to smash your railroad into a sandbox."
-Vedexent
"real life is a super high CR."
-OboeLauren
"............anybody got any potatoes? We could drop a potato in each hole an' see which ones get viciously mauled by horrible monsters?"
-Ilyara Thundertale
If this is a persistent drag on you and your time (i.e. you say this becomes a component of every session debrief), and you're not really running a combat crunch centered game anyway, it's perfectly fine to draw a boundary here. Explain to him, "Look, we've done the math, I've reviewed the math with you, and you can keep doing it on your own. In advance I explained that this was not going to be a combat focus game, and I don't really feel inclined and definitely not obligated to reviewing the blow by blow of every combat after session since we come to the same conclusion every time. After this many sessions it should be apparent to you whether my DM styles and this table is giving you enjoyment or not. I feel it is not. If that's the case, it may be for the best that you find some other place to play where your combat calculations will be more valued. As it is, going forward I intend to focus on the aspects of my game that bring the rest of the party back to the table every session."
As a DM, you can try to accommodate everyone, but at a certain point when a persistent issue/objection/note whatever begins to take away from your enjoyment of the game and instead becomes an incessant nuisance, lines must be drawn.
I can enjoy really crunchy and gritty tactical games where the protractors are out and effect of wind on a long range shot becomes a factor, etc. as much as everyone else into hardcore tactical competency **** ... but I also realize when I'm not playing that game and have the flexibility to enjoy a game for what it is.
Jander Sunstar is the thinking person's Drizzt, fight me.
I think I'm confused; why are they complaining to you about their damage? They built the character. What are they suggesting you do about it?
I can two primary issues:
tbh even don't know what to advice since judging from your post - you already explained to player that they unreasonable but instead issue remains
your options is throw stuff in player inventory untill his dpr ego would be appeased (and it's quite a question if it ever be appeased), or have issue remain each session
so only way to supress this indeed red flag is capsing on "your character building decisions" and meet each complaint with you have done that yourself obi wan jpg
You've already indulged this player too much. Just tell them you will not discuss this with them anymore, because it's not relevant, and the constant complaints are distracting. As others pointed out, the player is the one who created this character, and you've been fair with how you've awarded combat-related items. There's nothing more for you to do here. If the player persists, make it clear that they can let it go and play the roleplaying/story-oriented campaign you created, or they can find another game.
That's his/her problem. Not yours. I would politely explain that if (s)he isn't happy with his/her damage output then (s)he needs to think of something to do in order to increase it. What's (s)he expecting you to do? Give him/her a pair of guns that do one bajillion damage per round?
Sounds a bit like video game mentality to me. Always looking for higher numbers and ways to be better then anyone else.
The problem is that you as a DM scale the fights to be meaningful. So if he gets more damage output, you as a dm will just increase the CR of the monsters. It is a never ending cycle that the player can not win. All he does is outshine the other two.
All you can do is say no and remind him that it is D&D and not WoW, it is more about story telling as a group instead of slaughtering the highest amount of mindles mobs in the shortest time.
Just a quick comment but a level 5 artificer is incapable of replicating a flame tongue sword of any kind, it is NOT one of the things that they can do with their infusions. In fact, RAW, even a level 20 artificer can't replicate a flame tongue sword. There is a very limited list of magic items that can be replicated by an artificer - these lists are available at artificer level 2, 6, 10 and 14.
Also, since both the Steel Defender and the Homunculous servant use the artificer's bonus action to attack, there is no benefit to a battle smith for having both. The Homunculous servant infusion is an option to give the other artificer sub-classes a pet. However, having the Steel Defender is one reason for a Battle Smith to avoid taking a feat allowing for a ranged bonus action attack since it will conflict with their Steel Defenders attacks. Some of the Battlesmith builds I've seen might go with a Heavy Crossbow with a repeating shot infusion and later the sharpshooter feat.
---------------
To the OP -
1) I'm assuming that you have some sort of house rules that allow for dual wielding two ranged weapons? Normally, two weapon fighting only applies to melee weapons.
"Two-Weapon Fighting
When you take the Attack action and attack with a light melee weapon that you’re holding in one hand, you can use a bonus action to attack with a different light melee weapon that you’re holding in the other hand. You don’t add your ability modifier to the damage of the bonus attack, unless that modifier is negative.
If either weapon has the thrown property, you can throw the weapon, instead of making a melee attack with it."
2) Is the artificer using the sharpshooter feat? Without it they will fall behind other characters using GWM/SS. If they already have it then they should already have maximum damage. Other than that, they should be a bit ahead of the other characters.
3) If the artificer has 3 weapon attacks at d6+6 then their average damage is 28.5 plus 3d6 for sneak attack which is 39. A fighter with a flame tongue long sword and two attacks is 2 x (d8+2d6+5) (assuming maxed stat) = 33. Barbarian is a bit over the base fighter due to damage from rage but pulls farther ahead if using reckless attack for advantage on each attack.
So, on average, the Artificer/rogue is likely to do more damage assuming that sneak attack is available (this ignores the advantage an assassin has against targets in the first round of combat) ... I'm assuming the auto-crit feature doesn't come up very often.
-------------------------
So - the artificer/rogue should be doing a bit more damage than the others depending on gear and feat choices (a figthter with a flametongue great sword and great weapon master would do quite a bit more than the artificer/rogue for example) but it isn't a staggering amount. In addition, the artificer/rogue has a lot of out of combat utility - expertise in skills, various useful infusions, tool expertise from the artificer.
There is no reason for the player to complain about their damage since it would seem fine. On the other hand, maybe they really notice when they miss their attack rolls which makes them feel like they aren't doing much - that is just luck and has nothing to do with how good or bad the character is at doing damage. In any case, my suggestion would be to chat to the player about what their expectations are for the character and see if they are unrealistic. If they picked up some unreasonable expectations from somewhere you can gently correct them while explaining that they are doing very well for damage on average while also having more out of combat options than the other characters in many cases.
You could also mention that the assassin rogue is a bit of a trap option since although its signature crit abilities sound really good .. the real benefit is the advantage in the first round of combat against creatures that haven't taken a turn yet that will effectively enable sneak attack before any team mates have moved into position. Surprise happens quite infrequently in most games.
Crossbow Expert allows you to make a hand crossbow attack with your bonus action after taking the attack action with any one handed weapon. So you could dual wield hand crossbows. But you would still need a free hand to load them, even though you get to ignore the loading property. So you would either need to be a race with extra hands or have automatic loading weapons. And since the guns were specified as being homebrewed weapons, they likely do not have the loading feature.
Do not forget that feats are optional and not in play at every table.
DM session planning template - My version of maps for 'Lost Mine of Phandelver' - Send your party to The Circus - Other DM Resources - Maps, Tokens, Quests - 'Better' Player Character Injury Tables?
Actor, Writer, Director & Teacher by day - GM/DM in my off hours.
Hi! I want to thank everyone for their input! It's been really helpful in helping shift my perspective and gather other thought processes in what has been going on with everything. I'm sorry that I wasn't answering to each and every one of you as you posted. I wanted to get a decent pool of answers and kind of sit on what was said before saying anything. lol
I'll respond to the pieces that stuck out to me the most but know that I've read all of your replies and I appreciate all of the input.
For those that said that I've indulged them enough and that this is a roleplay focused game, perhaps if this behavior continues, this table isn't for them. I think I'm going to have to agree at this stage. I had a conversation with the player in that regard and even just opening the conversation, the player realized the route that it was taking and has agreed to back off on it. lol I don't know what it was about my tone, all I said and I quote was "Hey, I wanted to ask because I think there seems to be a misalignment between what is expected out of me and what I am providing: What exactly do you want out of this game?" And they proceeded to ignore me for a few days and then came back, saying maybe they've been hasty. They later said that it seemed as if I was going to kick them from the table for their behavior based on that statement and they definitely do not want that.
Ultimately, the weapon I gave them is homebrew but they agreed and knew what the weapons damage is. If they disagree, they have the option to move to hand crossbows, daggers, or something more conventional. It genuinely is not my problem at this stage because I've been plenty fair.
When it comes to dual wielding the ranged weapons, yes, I did homebrew to allow two-weapon fighting to have them dual wield the ranged weapons. I know normally they don't allow for that, but I figured with the player sinking 3 feats into this build (as I describe below) to make it work, I'd allow for it.
As for the feat situation, I do in fact allow for feats. The player has taken the two feats that the normal leveling has allowed for, on top of the fact that I allowed for an extra feat during creation and they took custom lineage. So, this player has a grand total of four feats at their disposal. None of which are Sharp Shooter. The player took (1) Fighting Initiate: Two Weapon Fighting, (2) Gunner, to ignore the loading property and remove the 5ft disadvantage, (3) Dual Wielder, because I refused to allow these weapons to be classified as light as part of their balancing (these homebrew weapons will be scaling up with them as they gain more levels), and (4) Piercer, why? No idea why they took piecer over Sharpshooter, especially considering that the range I imposed on these guns is absolute garbage compared to a crossbow but is inline with the other medieval era guns from the DMG. My best guess is ignorance on the part of the player to the existence of Sharpshooter.
Well, 4 feats does seem a bit like overcharging, you can basically get what they're doing with two feats (crossbow expert and piercer). Crossbow expert is a sort of dysfunctional feat, its intent is clearly to permit the equivalent of two-weapon fighting with hand crossbows, but as actually written it does not require using two hand crossbows (you can get the BA with just one) and also does not work with two (because the ammunition property means you need two hands even though it's a one-handed weapon). If the weapon is meaningfully better than a hand crossbow it might deserve an extra feat, but 1d6+6 doesn't look meaningfully better than a hand crossbow.
The player, very specifically, did not want crossbows. They wanted guns. Which I did talk to them about the difference in the feats and such, but no dice.
Normally, I would have simply given them Palm Pistols from Exandria and called it a day, but very specifically they wanted Gunblades that could double as melee weapons as well as guns themselves. The reason why they're 1d6 is because they're roughly the same damage as a shortsword and I wanted the weapon to have the same damage type for both the blade and the projectile for ease. The trade off being the versatility between using the gun portion or the blade portion whenever they wanted, swapping between attacks, etc. I could have still made it a 1d8, grant it, but hey.
In the case of crossbow expert there is no reason to dual wield hand crossbows unless you like the look and want to have problems loading them. You can attack with a hand crossbow in one hand, more than once if you have extra attack, and then use the same hand crossbow for the bonus action attack provided by crossbow expert. So, you only need one hand crossbow and then still have a hand free for loading it.
There isn't an equivalent rule allowing a bonus action attack with guns so they must be homebrewing it.
P.S. Sorry :) ... I had not read the rest of the thread when I posted this reply and see that all my comments were already covered by others.
Honestly, I think you went overboard in accommodating them already.
Find your own truth, choose your enemies carefully, and never deal with a dragon.
"Canon" is what's factual to D&D lore. "Cannon" is what you're going to be shot with if you keep getting the word wrong.
Overwhelming damage targetting the player. Now they get to roll up a new character that might fit the campaign and their owb bloodlust better, but it's still going to be a PICNIC issue (Problem In Chair Not In Character).