Menu
News
All News
Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
Pathfinder
Starfinder
Warhammer
2d20 System
Year Zero Engine
Industry News
Reviews
Dragon Reflections
Columns
Weekly Digests
Weekly News Digest
Freebies, Sales & Bundles
RPG Print News
RPG Crowdfunding News
Game Content
ENterplanetary DimENsions
Mythological Figures
Opinion
Worlds of Design
Peregrine's Next
RPG Evolution
Other Columns
From the Freelancing Frontline
Monster ENcyclopedia
WotC/TSR Alumni Look Back
4 Hours w/RSD (Ryan Dancey)
The Road to 3E (Jonathan Tweet)
Greenwood's Realms (Ed Greenwood)
Drawmij's TSR (Jim Ward)
Community
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Resources
Wiki
Pages
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Downloads
Latest reviews
Search resources
EN Publishing
Store
EN5ider
Adventures in ZEITGEIST
Awfully Cheerful Engine
What's OLD is NEW
Judge Dredd & The Worlds Of 2000AD
War of the Burning Sky
Level Up: Advanced 5E
Events & Releases
Upcoming Events
Private Events
Featured Events
Socials!
Twitch
YouTube
Facebook (EN Publishing)
Facebook (EN World)
Twitter
Instagram
TikTok
Podcast
Features
Top 5 RPGs Compiled Charts 2004-Present
Adventure Game Industry Market Research Summary (RPGs) V1.0
Ryan Dancey: Acquiring TSR
Q&A With Gary Gygax
D&D Rules FAQs
TSR, WotC, & Paizo: A Comparative History
D&D Pronunciation Guide
Million Dollar TTRPG Kickstarters
Tabletop RPG Podcast Hall of Fame
Eric Noah's Unofficial D&D 3rd Edition News
D&D in the Mainstream
D&D & RPG History
About Morrus
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
Do DM's feel that Sharpshooter & Great Weapon Master overpowered?
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="AaronOfBarbaria" data-source="post: 6914530" data-attributes="member: 6701872"><p>I feel that is important to point out a few things:</p><p></p><p>Firstly, it wasn't that flat bonuses, plus damage, minus attack bonuses, and such were explained as being "bad" - it was that having too many of them was difficult to track, and stacking a number of such features together could end badly.</p><p></p><p>Which is why we have a single -5/+10 mechanic, but it is relegated to an optional rule (more about that important distinction below), and the rules of the 5th edition game make sure to prevent multiplication of the flat bonus part of damage (unlike 3rd/3.5 did).</p><p></p><p>Second, the optionality of the rules. Something being presented as opt-in (you must specifically choose to use it), rather than opt-out (that's the rule, but you can elect to change the rules), makes it more acceptable to be presenting options that might perform better in one campaign than in another, because the intent is that only those campaigns that are improved (from the participants' view) by including an option will choose to include that option.</p><p></p><p>So that a combat-heavy campaign makes that -5/+10 look very appealing is the design working as intended, not something being "broken."</p><p></p><p>Also a result of the optionality of these rules, perception of the options must be carefully kept appropriate - we should not forget that the situation at the table is the result of deliberate choices, especially when it comes to combining multiple of those deliberate choices (i.e. taking two feats, or a fighting style and a feat, or any of the other things being used in conjunction such as spells or magic items).</p><p></p><p>Does choosing to use feats increase the power level of the characters? Yes, that much is (or at least should be) obvious since they are getting options they otherwise did not have. But that doesn't mean that feats are actually too-powerful to allow.</p><p></p><p>The actual effects of the -5/+10 also need to be held in clear perception: -5 to hit is a big difference in accuracy. Choosing to have that penalty will cause some attacks to miss. Those misses mean that the average damage added by the feat is actually not the +10 listed, but some smaller number. As a result, the practical effect of the feat is actually very situational - by which I mean it should only be used in particular situations or it will appear to the player using it to be reducing overall damage output thanks to missed attacks.</p><p></p><p>The folks that I've seen make a case for the feat being broken have only demonstrated that they choose not to run their games outside the limited circumstances when these feats are at their best performance.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="AaronOfBarbaria, post: 6914530, member: 6701872"] I feel that is important to point out a few things: Firstly, it wasn't that flat bonuses, plus damage, minus attack bonuses, and such were explained as being "bad" - it was that having too many of them was difficult to track, and stacking a number of such features together could end badly. Which is why we have a single -5/+10 mechanic, but it is relegated to an optional rule (more about that important distinction below), and the rules of the 5th edition game make sure to prevent multiplication of the flat bonus part of damage (unlike 3rd/3.5 did). Second, the optionality of the rules. Something being presented as opt-in (you must specifically choose to use it), rather than opt-out (that's the rule, but you can elect to change the rules), makes it more acceptable to be presenting options that might perform better in one campaign than in another, because the intent is that only those campaigns that are improved (from the participants' view) by including an option will choose to include that option. So that a combat-heavy campaign makes that -5/+10 look very appealing is the design working as intended, not something being "broken." Also a result of the optionality of these rules, perception of the options must be carefully kept appropriate - we should not forget that the situation at the table is the result of deliberate choices, especially when it comes to combining multiple of those deliberate choices (i.e. taking two feats, or a fighting style and a feat, or any of the other things being used in conjunction such as spells or magic items). Does choosing to use feats increase the power level of the characters? Yes, that much is (or at least should be) obvious since they are getting options they otherwise did not have. But that doesn't mean that feats are actually too-powerful to allow. The actual effects of the -5/+10 also need to be held in clear perception: -5 to hit is a big difference in accuracy. Choosing to have that penalty will cause some attacks to miss. Those misses mean that the average damage added by the feat is actually not the +10 listed, but some smaller number. As a result, the practical effect of the feat is actually very situational - by which I mean it should only be used in particular situations or it will appear to the player using it to be reducing overall damage output thanks to missed attacks. The folks that I've seen make a case for the feat being broken have only demonstrated that they choose not to run their games outside the limited circumstances when these feats are at their best performance. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
Do DM's feel that Sharpshooter & Great Weapon Master overpowered?
Top