What makes Great Weapon Master and Sharpshooter so good?

[Sadras]

@Ovinomancer are you playing the feats as written or have you tweaked them at your table with the or between the benefits as you have suggested on these boards?

All we can do now is await the revised edition and hope these feats are included in it.

@CapnZapp - As you know WotC released an UA with feats relating to other weapons categories. Ofc not all categories were covered (spear user or knife thrower), but they did in good faith outline their thinking about their design philosophy for weapon-styled feats. Whatever its faults this edition is more shared and transparent between the designers and their playerbase than ever before. At times we agree and at times we disagree - but with the free release of UA along with their design philosophy as well as the DMs Guild they are essentially encouraging you (the DM or player) to take part in the design process to suit the needs of your table and character.
I do not see how these two feats alone can propel you to request a revised edition especially given the easy fixes for your table that you and others have provided numerous times on these boards and given the designers'/publishers' encouragement for homebrewery.

Do I think the feats can be an issue at certain tables? Sure they can be under specific circumstances (which includes DM inexperience).

Am I demanding a revised edition? Heck no!

EDIT: Just to be clear, the recent clarification of the use of Shield Mastery irritates me more than these two feats. I will just have to ignore this recent ruling - but I won't be calling for a new edition.

 

[Umbran]

But I do not suppose we can get any further, so I guess our discussion is at an end.

Yes, but not for the reason you seem to imply.

The point at which you claim that other people are lying, or otherwise deny their experiences, is the moment when you are closed to information or evidence. You can go no farther here, because you will no longer accept facts that run contrary to your preferred notions - you will even construct a narrative that others lie in order to protect your preconceptions. How sad is that?

Calling folks liars in this manner is extremely rude. Do not post in this thread again.

 

[Krachek]

We can do a contest : How to reduce optimizing with less change as possible to the rules.

I do it in 2:
Change the -5/+10 for an +1 ability increase.
Disallow MC for Paladin and Sorcerer. Add Warlock if you want it.

 

[FrogReaver]

Everyone remember back in the day when certain posters would claim that quadratic wizards weren't a problem in Their games. @Ovinomancer reminds me of that..

 

[FrogReaver]

We can do a contest : How to reduce optimizing with less change as possible to the rules.

I do it in 2:
Change the -5/+10 for an +1 ability increase.
Disallow MC for Paladin and Sorcerer. Add Warlock if you want it.

I suspect that the -5/+10 feats are one of the few things keeping us from complaining that full casters are much too strong.

if they were removed we would just be back to complaint about weaknfighters compared to wizards and clerics.

 

[Oofta]

Everyone remember back in the day when certain posters would claim that quadratic wizards weren't a problem in Their games. @Ovinomancer reminds me of that..

He's not the only one saying that they don't see the problem at their table. Some people seem to say that every fighter out there uses this one feat and only this feat, but I've never seen it. YMMV.

 

[FrogReaver]

He's not the only one saying that they don't see the problem at their table. Some people seem to say that every fighter out there uses this one feat and only this feat, but I've never seen it. YMMV.

That's kind of he point.. many people used to say quadratic wizards were not a problem at their tables. We all now ageee such a thing is problematic and such people were either naive or blinded.

 

[Oofta]

That's kind of he point.. many people used to say quadratic wizards were not a problem at their tables. We all now ageee such a thing is problematic and such people were either naive or blinded.

So in other words: people who disagree with you and don't see the issue in their games are either naïve or blind.

Give me a break. This is exactly the type of response Umbran was warning people about a few posts up.

 

[Sadras]

That's kind of he point.. many people used to say quadratic wizards were not a problem at their tables. We all now ageee such a thing is problematic and such people were either naive or blinded.

To be fair there are still many people playing the older editions - to say we all agree that it was/is problematic is not accurate. Perfect balance between classes and sub-classes is not every table's priority - that is not to say that imbalance is not a problem for other tables.

 

[FrogReaver]

To be fair there are still many people playing the older editions - to say we all agree that it was/is problematic is not accurate. Perfect balance between classes and sub-classes is not every table's priority.

Pardon my hyberbole. A significant majority agrees with that assessment?