What makes Great Weapon Master and Sharpshooter so good?

[FrogReaver]

I would relay my experience and disagree. I would try to determine why their experience was different. I would chalk it up to people running a different style of game than I do.

All of which you can done without being insulting.

Well I disagree. The way these conversations go is that the initial complaint gets disregarded and diminished by such posters to the point where it's no longer a your game vs my game difference but a you are doing something wrong, their is no problem and we play the same as you, etc. That's insulting. When that happens the only thing left to believe is that the other side is blind and naive.

 

[dco]

We do not all agree.

Obviously it is not going to be a problem for all, some people don't care if their character is inferior or better than others, if the fights are easier or more complicated, if there are lots of magic items or not, if there is roleplaying or not, etc. It can be said of anything, so it is a pointless discusion.

Another thing is the balance of damage, who cares if people has problems or not when the math is there.

 

[Oofta]

Well I disagree. The way these conversations go is that the initial complaint gets disregarded and diminished by such posters to the point where it's no longer a your game vs my game difference but a you are doing something wrong, their is no problem and we play the same as you, etc. That's insulting. When that happens the only thing left to believe is that the other side is blind and naive.

In other words: if anyone disagrees with you they are blind and naïve.

So how am I putting words in your mouth?

 

[FrogReaver]

In other words: if anyone disagrees with you they are blind and naïve.

So how am I putting words in your mouth?

Again that's words in my mouth and not what I said. I said when someone disagrees to the point of invalidating my experience then that is insulting. When they are willing to do that then I am justified in believing them blind and naive.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

Again that's words in my mouth and not what I said. I said when someone disagrees to the point of invalidating my experience then that is insulting. When they are willing to do that then I am justified in believing them blind and naive.

Hey. I think you two are running in circles. Its a problem for you but not for him. Both can be true.
It is also no problem for me. The challenge you accepted showed that the feat did exactly what I expected it to do and is at the powerlevel I want. At least at that level.
If it should be problematic some day, I would limit it to once per turn. But at that level it seems perfect. For the SS I'd tend to do the same if it should prove problematic.
It is the same 1/turn I might add to healing spirit.

I would not want to be called naive or blind if I have not seen the problems show in my campaign. I would not accuse you of playing wrong if they did.

 

[Oofta]

Again that's words in my mouth and not what I said. I said when someone disagrees to the point of invalidating my experience then that is insulting. When they are willing to do that then I am justified in believing them blind and naive.

Right. So if someone disagrees with you call them blind and naïve. No one is putting those words in your mouth, I am merely repeating them.. I guess I should probably just report it instead and let the moderators deal with it.

We all have different opinions and experiences. I don't agree with a lot of things people post. People disagree with me all the time. Occasionally I probably get a little perturbed and cross a line in my response.

But I accept responsibility and apologize. I don't think it's justifiable to think that my opinion is the only valid one.

Many people disagree with the basic premise that GWM is 'broken". That's all.

 

[FrogReaver]

Hey. I think you two are running in circles. Its a problem for you but not for him. Both can be true.
It is also no problem for me. The challenge you accepted showed that the feat did exactly what I expected it to do and is at the powerlevel I want. At least at that level.
If it should be problematic some day, I would limit it to once per turn. But at that level it seems perfect. For the SS I'd tend to do the same if it should prove problematic.
It is the same 1/turn I might add to healing spirit.

I would not want to be called naive or blind if I have not seen the problems show in my campaign. I would not accuse you of playing wrong if they did.

Then I wouldn't refer to this behavior as naive or blind

 

[FrogReaver]

Right. So if someone disagrees with you call them blind and naïve. No one is putting those words in your mouth, I am merely repeating them.. I guess I should probably just report it instead and let the moderators deal with it.

We all have different opinions and experiences. I don't agree with a lot of things people post. People disagree with me all the time. Occasionally I probably get a little perturbed and cross a line in my response.

But I accept responsibility and apologize. I don't think it's justifiable to think that my opinion is the only valid one.

Many people disagree with the basic premise that GWM is 'broken". That's all.

Discussion over

 

[Ovinomancer]

Again that's words in my mouth and not what I said. I said when someone disagrees to the point of invalidating my experience then that is insulting. When they are willing to do that then I am justified in believing them blind and naive.

To jump in, I'm not invalidating your experience. I've been in quite a few if these threads correcting maths and showing that GWM and SS are indeed powerful choices and can, in the extremes, lead to dramatic differences to the point of completely overshadowing other choices. So, I'm clearly not denying the problem can exist.

What I said was that they aren't a problem for me because my games are not as combat focused and often involve challenges that aren't "reduce hitpoints at the fastest rate." The counterclaim was that my game didn't exist. How you reached the idea that I was denying your game I cannot fathom.

Clearly, if you play where combats are primary focus and have optimizing players, these feats are a problem I've offered numerous choices to offset this, as I clearly see how that problem can obtain. My game isn't better than your game, it's different. I'll offer suggestions to help overcome problems others are having because differences exist and playstyles are varied.

What I categorically reject is the notion that WotC owes anyone a redo because they've chosen to use optional rules and yet refuse to make adjustments because of that. The rules do not promise you everything works with all or any options turned on; you, as players, have the duty to make it work for you. Period. Want help, I and scores of others are willing.

As an aside, I have lots of issues with LFQW, and enjoy that 5e had tamped that down greatly. Your assumptions about my opinions and motivations are incorrect on almost all counts.

 

[FrogReaver]

To jump in, I'm not invalidating your experience. I've been in quite a few if these threads correcting maths and showing that GWM and SS are indeed powerful choices and can, in the extremes, lead to dramatic differences to the point of completely overshadowing other choices. So, I'm clearly not denying the problem can exist.

What I said was that they aren't a problem for me because my games are not as combat focused and often involve challenges that aren't "reduce hitpoints at the fastest rate." The counterclaim was that my game didn't exist. How you reached the idea that I was denying your game I cannot fathom.

Clearly, if you play where combats are primary focus and have optimizing players, these feats are a problem I've offered numerous choices to offset this, as I clearly see how that problem can obtain. My game isn't better than your game, it's different. I'll offer suggestions to help overcome problems others are having because differences exist and playstyles are varied.

What I categorically reject is the notion that WotC owes anyone a redo because they've chosen to use optional rules and yet refuse to make adjustments because of that. The rules do not promise you everything works with all or any options turned on; you, as players, have the duty to make it work for you. Period. Want help, I and scores of others are willing.

As an aside, I have lots of issues with LFQW, and enjoy that 5e had tamped that down greatly. Your assumptions about my opinions and motivations are incorrect on almost all counts.

Thanks for clarifying. I am sorry if I was overly critical and took anything you had previously said wrong