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

[jaelis]

I don't think they are way overpowered. But a little too strong IMO.

 

[Jester David]

I think they're good, and a little strong when you get two or more attacks. Limiting the bonus damage to once per turn fixes the issue.

 

[ad_hoc]

For me, the poll question isn't quite right. Yes, they are very strong, but whatever, that's fine.

I don't like what they do in the game.

They're like if Savage Attacker were good. Savage Attacker is a fundamentally flawed feat because it isn't interesting. A damage feat will either be bad and not worth taking, or good and always worth taking. In either case not interesting. Feats should be narrow. The cleave bonus is an example of good design. In a specific case you get a bonus. There is nothing good about Sharpshooter.

I like that monsters are designed to be easy to hit. I like that there are easy ways to increase character accuracy. I don't like how GWM/SS interact with that.

In a similar way I also don't like the feats that give out always on bonus action attacks because of how they interact with other abilities (making them obsolete in many cases).

 

[bgbarcus]

I thought those feats were overpowered until I watched how how often that -5 to hit causes misses. The one feature that is most vexing is Sharpshooter ignoring cover and long range. That undermines monster tactics far more than a chance at more damage on a hit.

 

[Blue]

This seems to the be the essential point. A character with one of these feats is not going to take the penalty if the target is difficult to hit.

Of course the character is going to take a penalty. It's just not the one you are thinking off. Because the opportunity cost of the feat is +2 ASI, that means that STR/DEX mod is one less. So every single attack they make, regardless if they are engaging the feat or not, is at -1/-1.

So if the baseline is +2 ASI, then compared to that the feat either gives:

-1 to hit / -1 to damage (when not using it)
OR
-6 to hit / +9 to damage (when using it)

So either you are strictly inferior with -1/-1, or you're getting about +1.5 damage potential for every point of to hit you are losing, but that lost to hit means that you are also gabling the base damage.

Let's try a few examples. I'll start 50/50 and go up and down.
Baseline: Greatssword (2d6 avg 7) +5 (str, magic, whatever) = 12 avg damage
GWF: Greatsword but -2 STR = 11 avg damage.

If baseline has a 50% chance to hit, that's 6 expected damage per attack (50% * 12)
GWF not using it has a 45% for 11 damage = 4.95
GWF using it has a 20% for 21 damage = 4.2 damage
Okay, even chance to hit definitely favors not taking the feat.

Let's try +3 AC harder to hit.
Baseline has a 35% for 12 = 4.2
GWF not in use = 30% for 11 = 3.3
GWF in use is 5% for 21 = 1.05
As expected, anything harder makes the feat even worse.

Let's go -3 AC easier to hit.
Baseline has a 65% for 12 = 7.8
GWF not using it has 60% * 11 = 6.6
GWF in use has 35% * 21 = 7.35
Hmm, GWF is pulling close, but it's still better not to have taken the feat. But at least if you had taken the feat it's finally better to use it then ignore it.

Let's go up another to -6 to AC, make it REALLY easy to hit.
Baseline has 80% for 12 = 9.6
GWF not using 75% for 11 = 8.25
GWF using it 50% for 21 = 10.5
Woo, GWF is finally better!

So it looks like the majority of the time GWF gives you less damage per round then the +2 ASI would, but against very easy to hit opponents it gives more damage. What that averages out to depends on the foes your DM throws at you and how much buffing you receive.

To shoot holes in my own argument, once a character maxes their attack stat and the the opportunity cost is not longer being charged against it, the dynamic changes. Now it's giving you an option without a corresponding cost in that category, so that category improves unilaterally.

 

[jaelis]

Of course the character is going to take a penalty. It's just not the one you are thinking off. Because the opportunity cost of the feat is +2 ASI, that means that STR/DEX mod is one less. So every single attack they make, regardless if they are engaging the feat or not, is at -1/-1.

So take the feat after you get your attack stat to 20.

 

[Prakriti]

So take the feat after you get your attack stat to 20.

Tell me about it. Why does every GWF analysis assume that D&D has a level cap of level 7?

A level 8 human can max his primary ability score AND take GWF. There is no meaningful trade-off.

 

[Horwath]

Tell me about it. Why does every GWF analysis assume that D&D has a level cap of level 7?

A level 8 human can max his primary ability score AND take GWF. There is no meaningful trade-off.

No special racial abilities,
no darkvision,
just one extra skill,
and you're a lame human.

Hmm, there is a tradeoff.


+2 str is better than GWM, except on paperclass AC of monsters.

Now, all say take it after 20 str; WOW!, a feat is actually better then boosting a SECONDARY stat? Sounds to me working as intended.

More of a problem are bottom tier of feats that needs boosting.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

No. What the game lacks however is a powerful blow or aimed shot combat option. -5 to hit for +5 damage (head shot). Maybe also -5 to hit to inflict a wound on the leg for half speed for a round or to the hand for disadvantage on the next attack. That way against low AC opponents that -5/+10 combat option would not be so far ahead. (Which is -6/+9 for most levels that count if you are not human. )

 

[Kryx]

Important clarifications:

• GWF, or Great Weapon Fighting, is the fighting style. GWM, or Great Weapon Master, is the feat. It's important to keep these two acronyms separate.
• Spellcasting power is at best tertiary to this discussion. There is a caster/martial divide, though it is much smaller in 5e. However this topic is talking about the power that this feat gives some martial characters. That inceased power isn't really relevant to the topic of the caster/martial divide and to use this feat as a "fix" to that divide is incredibly problematic as it does nothing for many martial builds. At best this strategy would further weaken classes like Monk, Rogue, Ranger, or TWF.

Ok, so with those things out of the way lets consider the actual math:

Math provided on google spreadsheet: DPR of Classes

So for a 5th level barbarian any AC up to AC 18 the Barbarian is better off having taken GWM and using -5/+10. Assuming a barbarian fights an equal distribution of enemies from CR 2 to CR 8 from every officially published WotC book the average enemy's AC will be 14.4. This aligns closely with the DMG's recommendation of 15 AC for a CR 5 enemy. So the AC of an enemy would have to be much higher than average to have a negative impact on this choice.

Using that 14.4 a 5th level GWM Barbarian is averaging 36.7 DPR while a 5th level Barbarian who took 1 strength instead is doing 23.3 DPR. The difference is massive: 57% more damage.
Sure there are cases where a barbarian isn't going to want to use -5/+10, but as you can see in the graph above the Barbarian is still better off taking GWM and not using -5/+10 than taking +1 str.
Let me make that part clear: The cleave part of GWM is better than +1 strength modifier in terms of damage.
So even if we ignore -5/+10, GWM is an incredibly powerful feat. Add in -5/+10 and it's definitely out of the expected range for damage - especially for classes with easy access to advantage like Barbarian, OoV Paladin, Fighter (BM w/ trip).

Does it make martial classes equivalent to casters in versatility? No.
Does it make certain martial classes do far more damage than expected compared to their martial counterparts? Yes.

It's overpowered.