What makes Great Weapon Master and Sharpshooter so good?

[FrogReaver]

Hey. I am still waiting for the rest of your analysis. I come to a bit different damage (19.25) against AC 11 for -5/+10 with advantage with great sword and bonus action attack.
I wanted to remind you that the bonus action is already used for entering rage as well as the bersetker extra attack. So I think you should exclude it in your analysis. One reason why I chose barbarian. The other one was that you can easily gain self sustained advantage. I wanted an analysis for the feat where it realistically is weighted against +2 Str. After that it would be stupid to not take the feat as damage dealer althougj a barbarian can also profit from dex and con.

Yea I will get it posted but it was a pain to type out so I left off where I did. It was taking longer to post than to compute lol.

While I may lose a bonus action due to raging a few encounters a day I will also gain a few due to killing an enemy. The loss vs gain of bonus action attacks should be reasonably close IMO. Don't you agree? Also did you take into account the extra crit damage from half orc? (Also I used great axe as I remembered that being the weapon you originally posted for the build)

 

[Wrathamon]

For me it was the consistent damage and agree that sharpshooter really is a -3 for +10 because of archery.

I HR it to be

-5 for 2d6 Damage. You avg 3 less damage but have a chance to go higher or lower. Also, rolling dice is fun. I thought about making it a D12 to make it more swinging. I thought about adding a line about not allowing this to be doubled if you crit. Currently, playing it as you can ... I can see other people abusing it (we dont) but getting 4d6 does make for some crazy damage swings but on average that is +4 damage on a crit.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

Yea I will get it posted but it was a pain to type out so I left off where I did. It was taking longer to post than to compute lol.

While I may lose a bonus action due to raging a few encounters a day I will also gain a few due to killing an enemy. The loss vs gain of bonus action attacks should be reasonably close IMO. Don't you agree? Also did you take into account the extra crit damage from half orc? (Also I used great axe as I remembered that being the weapon you originally posted for the build)

Yes i used the extra damage. And i specified the one battle where I frenzy. The other don't matter in this calculation. So it should be left out as I assume we are in the big fight that day. I also think outside of rage reckless attack on a regular base is too reckless. So please leave the bonus attack out especially because that is not the part the OP has problems with.
And just to reiterate myself, I think the feat is good and useful so we don't have to prove that part.

 

[The Crimson Binome]

I think you both exagerate a bit, Saelorn, when you state that in your campaign the GWM got a good Magic greatsword, making him theoretically even better at what he should do best, but otoh stating that now the more a shield wearer would be more use of the Party, why is that so? Do you Count Magic weaponry as a + on secret intimmidation rolls?

It goes back to the decision-making process for monsters. They prefer targets that are easy to hit, and targets that are causing more trouble for them. The fancy magic sword made him better at his job, which made him seem like a bigger threat. (The sword itself, being very magical, also made him look more threatening. Imagine your own party in that place, facing one foe in plate armor with a shield, and another foe with a jaggedy lightning-bolt greatsword. Who would your party focus down first?)

In video game terms, his damage was so high that he immediately pulled aggro from all of the enemies, and spent most of the tough fights unconscious. That's not to say he didn't contribute, but slow and steady wins the race. Even if the paladin didn't contribute as much damage over ten rounds as he did during his three, she was able to stay up and engaged the whole time, allowing the warlock and everyone else to do their job.

 

[Inchoroi]

I banned both because my players complained at how OP they were when the Fighter was using them in a campaign.

 

[Tony Vargas]

LOL. Two threads basically arguing the same thing.

Only two? That must be a record!

But you're saying something stronger. Basically, that there's a moral imperative for the community to push for iteration in the system in some manner (errata, new books, an official Sage Advice, a change in AL rules, etc.) when the rules are deemed imbalanced. "Reprehensible" isn't a word you use for actions you're not taking a moral stance on. You're also saying that WotC has that same moral imperative to adjust the metagame in a more balanced direction via official recognition.

By that standard I guess there's a lot about D&D that's morally reprehensible, as well as ethically bankrupt.

Fairness and balance get conflated a lot, maybe that's what's going on? Fairness certainly has a moral or at least ethical shading to it.

I'd actually consider fairness a lower technical hurdle to good game design than balance, though. To be fair, just put the same choices in front of everyone, with the same access to them. Balancing those choices, so that each choice is meaningful in itself, and each one remains viable regardless of which other combination of choices was made, OTOH, is comparatively fraught.

 

[pemerton]

I think that's probably the most interesting (and controversial) take in this thread. I certainly think the preponderance of evidence over the last 4 years has been that these are overall a little too strong. (I don't see any threads, anywhere, about the feats being terrible and not worth taking.)

But you're saying something stronger. Basically, that there's a moral imperative for the community to push for iteration in the system in some manner (errata, new books, an official Sage Advice, a change in AL rules, etc.) when the rules are deemed imbalanced. "Reprehensible" isn't a word you use for actions you're not taking a moral stance on. You're also saying that WotC has that same moral imperative to adjust the metagame in a more balanced direction via official recognition.

To follow on from this. I don't agree with [MENTION=12731]CapnZapp[/MENTION] that there's some sort of moral imperative of the sort you describe. It's WotC's prerogative to publish what it wants to publish (within the bounds of good taset etc) and if that happens to include broken elements, well, that's how it is!

But I think the community response is a bit different. The community, if it wants to remain healthy and inclusive, probably should at least take seriously that these feats can have certain fairly forseeble implications from their use, and therefore be readu to advise new players who run into those issues, have standard suggestions for how to house rule them, etc. I thnk the response "They've never caused a problem for me, so you must be doing it wrong", which seems to come up a fair bit, isn't the healthiest in this regard.

(If the community wants to drive out wargame-type players and push strongly for a very highly GM-curated experience, of the 2nd ed AD&D sort, then the "you must be doing it wrong" response would make sense. But is that really what the community wants?)

 

[ad_hoc]

(If the community wants to drive out wargame-type players and push strongly for a very highly GM-curated experience, of the 2nd ed AD&D sort, then the "you must be doing it wrong" response would make sense. But is that really what the community wants?)

When you say 'community' do you mean ENWorld or 5e players?

Because 5e players are already there.

The 5e subforum on ENWorld by its very nature will attract people who think about 5e a lot. At the very least those posters will tend to post more than others. These people do not represent the 5e player base.

The 5e player base is much too large to be represented by an internet forum.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

To follow on from this. I don't agree with [MENTION=12731]CapnZapp[/MENTION] that there's some sort of moral imperative of the sort you describe. It's WotC's prerogative to publish what it wants to publish (within the bounds of good taset etc) and if that happens to include broken elements, well, that's how it is!

But I think the community response is a bit different. The community, if it wants to remain healthy and inclusive, probably should at least take seriously that these feats can have certain fairly forseeble implications from their use, and therefore be readu to advise new players who run into those issues, have standard suggestions for how to house rule them, etc. I thnk the response "They've never caused a problem for me, so you must be doing it wrong", which seems to come up a fair bit, isn't the healthiest in this regard.

(If the community wants to drive out wargame-type players and push strongly for a very highly GM-curated experience, of the 2nd ed AD&D sort, then the "you must be doing it wrong" response would make sense. But is that really what the community wants?)

I think it is healthy to tell newcomers that they are usually not making big problems. Big numbers yes. More damage yes. Powergamers may break them. Probably yes. But at that point where they might become an issue, there are different things that also do. And even though they add damage at lowere level even for the unexperienced... that is what those feats should do. And they are so good that they are rarely trap options and at least at low levels there is a cost to them (-2 relevant attribute). It is also quite clear when to use them. In fights with low armor oponents. Against high AC targets. Those which might be more dangerous, +2 str/dex usually is stronger. So I do believe if someone asks me why they are considered (too) good I tell them exactly that.

 

[pemerton]

When you say 'community' do you mean ENWorld or 5e players?

Either? Both?

I imagine ENworld comes up fairly easily on any sort of Google for 5e advice. So it's one important community. It's not the whole of it.

Because 5e players are already there.

Are you saying that 5e players are already pushing for a highly GM-curated experience and hence driving out wargame-type players?

I think it is healthy to tell newcomers that they are usually not making big problems.

Sure. But suppose someone posts saying, say, "Ever since my group saw what a GWM fighter can do damage-wise, we're seeing other sorts of fighter archetypes crowded out." What sort of response to that is helpful?

Telling the poster that his/her players are sucky DPR-obsessives doesn't seem, to me, the right way to go. Flagging a range of alternatives - from feat-banning to house-ruling to comparable feats for other fighting styles - isn't the only possible response, but seems healthier.