What makes Great Weapon Master and Sharpshooter so good?

[The Crimson Binome]

Quesrion is if such a feat is needed at all. My take is "yes". Probably something different that is automatic and has no active part.

My favorite version of Cleave is that surplus damage after dropping a foe can be applied to another enemy within reach. It's not quite as useful against small groups of large enemies, but it's great against large groups of chumps, and it doesn't require any extra dice to be rolled.

 

[Tony Vargas]

Sage Advice compendium here for clarification.

Is the title 'Sage Advice' used with intentional irony, I wonder?

That aside, the whole "burn it with realism" answer to balance issues requires very inconsistent application of realism.

 

[TwoSix]

I stand corrected. Sage Advice is perfectly ok with this stupidity, but a shield master can't choose when to use their bonus attack because it's too cheesy.

I'd just ban this in a home game. It's dumb for a weapon that shouldn't be anything other than a toy or perhaps a poison delivery device.

Glad to see you've come around.

 

[Oofta]

Glad to see you've come around.

Meh. I've always thought SS was overpowered, and a feat tax for ranged weapon attackers when all the benefits are considered. Well, that and I could have sworn the feat said that you must have a loaded hand crossbow.

But it's also an easy fix. I either tweak it, ban it or just have a grue jump out of the darkness and eat the guy who's two football fields from the rest of the party.

 

[TwoSix]

Meh. I've always thought SS was overpowered, and a feat tax for ranged weapon attackers when all the benefits are considered. Well, that and I could have sworn the feat said that you must have a loaded hand crossbow.

But it's also an easy fix. I either tweak it, ban it or just have a grue jump out of the darkness and eat the guy who's two football fields from the rest of the party.

Heh. The great irony of these threads is that no one really has a serious problem with any of the proposed solutions, the controversy is about the diagnosis of (and frankly, the tone of some of the posts about) the problem.

 

[Oofta]

Heh. The great irony of these threads is that no one really has a serious problem with any of the proposed solutions, the controversy is about the diagnosis of (and frankly, the tone of some of the posts about) the problem.

Well, some people (person?) seem to think that unless there's official changes to the rules that 5E is broken.

I guess we all have our sore spots. Me? The idea that you could be at the extreme range of what a bow (or crossbow) could do can still hit someone looking through a crack in the wall with no penalty. Really? You're 2 football field away. How are you even seeing your target to hit them? I'm not even sure the -5/+10 thing bothers me all that much. You are taking a 25% penalty to attack after all. But I think I'll just use the suggestion that someone had in one of these threads to allow only 1 option at a time: choose one option of no cover penalty, ignore range penalty or take -5/+10 but not all 3 at the same time.

The idea of the "super archer" is a pretty well established trope though, whether or not it's realistic. I just have a problem with someone with a glorified slingshot laying waste to everything around them.

 

[Tony Vargas]

Well, some people (person?) seem to think that unless there's official changes to the rules that 5E is broken.

They're (he's?) technically right.

But it's still not a problem, because, on the same technicality, no one is actually playing (broken) 5e.

 

[Mistwell]

I stand corrected. Sage Advice is perfectly ok with this stupidity, but a shield master can't choose when to use their bonus attack because it's too cheesy.

I'd just ban this in a home game. It's dumb for a weapon that shouldn't be anything other than a toy or perhaps a poison delivery device.

Obviously they are using a fully automatic crossbow.

 

[Oofta]

Obviously they are using a fully automatic crossbow.

Actually I envision it more like Hawk the Slayer.

 

[SkidAce]

Well, some people (person?) seem to think that unless there's official changes to the rules that 5E is broken.

I guess we all have our sore spots. Me? The idea that you could be at the extreme range of what a bow (or crossbow) could do can still hit someone looking through a crack in the wall with no penalty. Really? You're 2 football field away. How are you even seeing your target to hit them? I'm not even sure the -5/+10 thing bothers me all that much. You are taking a 25% penalty to attack after all. But I think I'll just use the suggestion that someone had in one of these threads to allow only 1 option at a time: choose one option of no cover penalty, ignore range penalty or take -5/+10 but not all 3 at the same time.

The idea of the "super archer" is a pretty well established trope though, whether or not it's realistic. I just have a problem with someone with a glorified slingshot laying waste to everything around them.

As an aside, if the foe is that far away and looking through a crack, the pc CAN'T see them (imho) so they cant attack them.