D&D 5E Do DM's feel that Sharpshooter & Great Weapon Master overpowered?

shoak1 said:

Maybe you should tweak your statement a bit to take into account the different floor for SS/archery vs GWM right? I would say hitting the floor is uncommon (but a factor) when it comes to SS but more rare when it comes to GWM. And even hitting the floor only adds 5% increases depending on har far you are able to push below the floor (an increasingly difficult/impossible task), it doesn't give the whole 25% extra damage all at once.

Click to expand...

I could, but you seem to have understand that subtext easily enough. Never did I claim that it was all the time erased, or that different numbers wouldn't change the math. I just provided an example to showcase the concept.

Helldritch said:

So if I understand correctly, those feats are Overpowered because you can use bless and a bard's ability to put them out of their misery????

These combos have existed since the beginning of OD&D (well not the bard thing but then we had chants and prayers). Using them is part of the game. Not using them is not only illogical but it is playing with a needless handicap. Why on earth would you not use those spells/abilities to buff yourselves up for a tough fight?

And by the way. The sharp shooter feet does allow to ignore cover. I don't know in your games, but in mine, overturning a table, using tree as covers, shooting from a corner are all considered pretty much essentials and the ranged enemies are using these covers as much as possible. Sharp shooter and Spell snipers are pretty much essential in my games.

Click to expand...

Well, you don't understand correctly as I never said they were overpowered because of this, I just pointed out that the statements that there's always a 5 point difference and/or you can't erase the penalty with buffs are somewhat wrong -- you can, and not even in terribly corner cases. AC 12 isn't that corner, and that's at level 8.

Sheesh. This is what bugs me about so many conversations these days. If you try to make a minor point of clarification, you get attacked as if you agreed with the worse or most totalitarian statement of the "other side." Cannot someone point out an error, minor one even, without having to declare that they don't actually eat babies as well?

Ovinomancer said:

Well, I largely thought that you could maybe supply some enemies with AC 12 or less yourself. I typically assume that people I debate D&D with have a passing familiarity with the game, and aren't stumped by references to monsters with AC 12. Shall I not assume this for you, anymore?

Click to expand...

Ad hominem? Really? With that I take it you are basically conceding that you have no examples to present which might furthers your theory?

Corwin said:

Again: Shooting at *what* thought? What is that 8th-level archer attacking that he does not feel that -5 penalty?

Besides the fact that you have yet to give even one example, I believe you are misrepresenting this "claim" you say you are refuting. It's not that "you can't get rid of the penalty", it's that the penalty is still there even if you apply mitigating benefits to help mask them. Because that -5 *is* still there. Not to mention the other issue being avoided: mitigating that penalty generally requires the expenditure of resources. You act like bless or bard's inspiration is an always-on, free benefit divvied out on a whim.

Click to expand...

First part answered above.

It's effectively not there at all, though. If you gain no benefit from the buff if you don't use the -5/-10, but you gain full benefit to the point of totally mitigating the -5 if you do use it, then, yes, you should say that you can get rid of the penalty.

Ovinomancer said:

AC 12 isn't that corner, and that's at level 8.

Click to expand...

So your 8th-level archer, with his +10 to hit, needs a '2' to hit AC 12. No prob. Using the feat to gain +10 damage, he now needs a '7'. Penalty is still there. Is it a solid tactic? Only a 30% chance to miss? Probably. Until the player rolls a '3' and a '5' on his two attack that round. Ask the player then if it was a good choice.

Corwin said:

So your 8th-level archer, with his +10 to hit, needs a '2' to hit AC 12. No prob. Using the feat to gain +10 damage, he now needs a '7'. Penalty is still there. Is it a solid tactic? Only a 30% chance to miss? Probably. Until the player rolls a '3' and a '5' on his two attack that round. Ask the player then if it was a good choice.

Click to expand...

Again you show you didn't read the first post because you're just saying things I said in that post as if they refute my points. It's becoming very hard to believe you're engaging this honestly.

Ovinomancer said:

Again you show you didn't read the first post because you're just saying things I said in that post as if they refute my points. It's becoming very hard to believe you're engaging this honestly.

Click to expand...

How does he still hits on a '2'?!? Just because you say so? You are the one who picked the 8th-level archer with +10 to hit attacking an AC 12 target. Not me.

Corwin said:

How does he still hits on a '2'?!? Just because you say so? You are the one who picked the 8th-level archer with +10 to hit attacking an AC 12 target. Not me.

Click to expand...

Read the post, try to understand, but I'm not answering any of your questions that show a complete disregard for the time I've already spent.

Corwin said:

How does he still hits on a '2'?!? Just because you say so? You are the one who picked the 8th-level archer with +10 to hit attacking an AC 12 target. Not me.

Click to expand...

Let's see if I can play peacemaker here lol.

Corwin: Ovinomancer simply pointed out that there is a floor beyond which it is possible to get special synergy between GWM/SS and buffs. An archer at 5th level w/a +10 to hit is not uncommon at my table and an Owlbear is CR 3 and has AC13. His point re. a floor is a valid one, and he believes that floor to be in relatively easy reach. However, as you are trying to say (and I agree), the likelihood of this threshold being reached is debatable (more easily debatable imo w/GWM than SS).....so:

Ovinomancer: Mobs w/ACs of less than 12 tend to be low hp, low CR dudes - the kind that a party would typically (at my table) face only in large groups if at 5th level (or else it would be little challenge) - and these mobs are probably more appropriately dealt w/using AOE than using 1 target dps personnel. Sure there are exceptions, but perusing the monster manual and examining the expected AC at L5 in the DMG (AC 14) shows that they are the exception rather than the rule.

To both of you: So what is the likelihood of this occurring? It depends on your table. At my table, I almost invariably use tougher mobs, and when I don't, my players will trash the opposition irregardless of tactics/feats/or anything else. But 5e was designed to be easier than many of us like to play. Maybe that's where the divide is. If a guy plays at a table where fighting weak mobs is common, he's going to believe the "floor problem" is more of a problem than me or my players would.

Ovinomancer said:

Read the post, try to understand, but I'm not answering any of your questions that show a complete disregard for the time I've already spent.

Click to expand...

I just went back and reread that entire wall of text post of yours. All theory and double speak circular math. Not one mention of a practical target for this 8th-level archer to shoot at where his -5 penalty is not, in fact, a penalty. Nowhere to be found. Please show me I'm wrong. Quote yourself in that post of yours. I've repeatedly asked you for anything. If you can't do that, at least provide what it is you think already addressed my requests. Because I'm not seeing it. Maybe you're not as good at expressing a concise point as you seem to think you are?

Here's an actual example of a character using a greatweapon with and without GWM, and with +2 Strength respectively.

Before the choice point: Strength +3, To hit +6, Base damage 3+2d6=10

After the choice point:
A. Strength +4, To hit +7, Base damage 11
B. Strength +3, To hit +6, Base damage 10 or 20

Versus AC 18:
A. Hit probability 50% (needs to roll 11) = expected damage 11x0,5=5,5
B. Hit probability 45% (needs to roll 12) so does not use feat
Actual hit probability 45% x 10 = expected damage 10x0,45=4,5

Winner A by one point (much as expected)

Versus AC 12:
A. Hit probability 80% (needs to roll 5) = expected damage 11x0,8=8,8
B. Hit probability 75% (needs to roll 6) so uses the feat
Actual hit probability 50% x 20 = expected damage 10

Winner B by not much more than one point.

So far the feat seems balanced or underpowered even.

But this does not take into consideration the numerous ways of boosting your GWM usage.

So let's compute vs AC 12 with advantage, shall we?

Versus AC 12 with advantage:
A. Hit probability 96% (needs to roll 5 once) = expected damage 11x0,96=10,56
B. Hit probability 9375% (needs to roll 6 once) so uses the feat
Actual hit probability 75% x 20 = expected damage 15

Winner B by four and a half point, or over +40% damage.

Before we move over to conclusions, I'm posting this so you can check so I haven't made a mistake, or suggest why another set of comparison points would improve the analysis.