What makes Great Weapon Master and Sharpshooter so good?

[Krachek]

I suspect that the -5/+10 feats are one of the few things keeping us from complaining that full casters are much too strong.

if they were removed we would just be back to complaint about weaknfighters compared to wizards and clerics.

Why those feats are optional if they are mandatory to Classes balance?

 

[Mistwell]

Everyone remember back in the day when certain posters would claim that quadratic wizards weren't a problem in Their games. @Ovinomancer reminds me of that..

That's kind of he point.. many people used to say quadratic wizards were not a problem at their tables. We all now ageee such a thing is problematic and such people were either naive or blinded.

You are putting words in my mouth. I must ask you to stop that.

OK let's not put words in your mouth. What precisely was the point of you saying:

1) remember when...certain posters would claim X?
2) Ovi's [argument] reminds me of [#1]
3) [T]he point.. many people used to say X. We all now agree such a thing is problematic and such people were either naive or blinded

I am failing to see how [MENTION=6801845]Oofta[/MENTION] put words in your mouth, but I will listen to your clarification. How were you saying anything other than "people like Ovi who say things which remind me of X are, like those people before him, either naive or blinded?"

Because if you didn't mean to communicate that, then you probably need to clarify what you said and apologize to Ovi for making a reasonable implication about him from your words.

 

[Tony Vargas]

He's not the only one saying that they don't see the problem at their table. Some people seem to say that every fighter out there uses this one feat and only this feat, but I've never seen it. YMMV.

Yeah, it makes so much more sense when the fighter uses his one bonus ASI at 6th level for GWM/SS when he's behind on damage, for Actor when he's behind in the Social Pillar, or to shore up a low stat when he's suffering from bad saves, etc, etc, etc....

That's kind of he point.. many people used to say quadratic wizards were not a problem at their tables. We all now ageee such a thing is problematic and such people were either naive or blinded.

Except for the people still saying it, of course. And, seriously, there are players/campaigns for which LFQW if still a feature, not a bug.

Why those feats are optional if they are mandatory to Classes balance?

Because class balance is optional.
If, for some reason, you want class balance, and want to play run D&D, anyway, you can opt into it. You choose a specific sub-set of the rules that you find least imbalanced or most susceptible to being balanced, run your campaign in 6-8 encounter/2-3 short rest 'days,' place a variety of challenges that puts each PC in the spotlight, in turn, place magic items and any other perks with an eye towards maintaining or re-establishing that balance, etc...

 

[The Crimson Binome]

Why those feats are optional if they are mandatory to Classes balance?

It's not just balance, either. I would also argue that GWM is fundamental to class identity.

In the big core game that I ran, the Barbarian player was somewhat disappointed to find out that his class was actually an extremely durable tank, rather than an offensive powerhouse. The Power Attack portion of GWM appears to be designed specifically to address that issue, except they buried it over in the feats, which are twice as optional as the Barbarian class is.

 

[FrogReaver]

OK let's not put words in your mouth. What precisely was the point of you saying:

1) remember when...certain posters would claim X?
2) Ovi's [argument] reminds me of [#1]
3) [T]he point.. many people used to say X. We all now agree such a thing is problematic and such people were either naive or blinded

I am failing to see how [MENTION=6801845]Oofta[/MENTION] put words in your mouth, but I will listen to your clarification. How were you saying anything other than "people like Ovi who say things which remind me of X are, like those people before him, either naive or blinded?"

Because if you didn't mean to communicate that, then you probably need to clarify what you said and apologize to Ovi for making a reasonable implication about him from your words.

I'll give you a chance to catch up on the thread before I respond.

 

[Mistwell]

I'll give you a chance to catch up on the thread before I respond.

Nope we're not talking about the new ground you carved out after that, I am asking how he put words in your mouth when, from everything you said to that point, he was concisely and accurately describing what you had said back to you.

 

[Ovinomancer]

@Ovinomancer are you playing the feats as written or have you tweaked them at your table with the or between the benefits as you have suggested on these boards?

In two games (the last two mentioned) I offered SS in both original format and in subbed +1 DEX vs -5/+10 format. I had the alternate selected by two players and the original by the 3rd. I didn't see any real delta. I also offered both versions of GWM, but had no takers.

 

[Oofta]

It's not just balance, either. I would also argue that GWM is fundamental to class identity.

In the big core game that I ran, the Barbarian player was somewhat disappointed to find out that his class was actually an extremely durable tank, rather than an offensive powerhouse. The Power Attack portion of GWM appears to be designed specifically to address that issue, except they buried it over in the feats, which are twice as optional as the Barbarian class is.

Funny what people think is "good enough" or fundamental to their identity. My wife was quite happy with her barbarian in our last campaign, but had gone with an axe and shield build so she could be sort-of-tanky but make up for it by always being reckless. She never complained about not doing enough damage.

Which is not to say your buddy was wrong in any way. Just that different people have different concepts of what's fun to play and what makes a barbarian a barbarian. Kind of relates back to the whole premise though ... GWM is broken for some people, not a consideration for some and a defining characteristic (in a good way) for others.

 

[FrogReaver]

Nope we're not talking about the new ground you carved out after that, I am asking how he put words in your mouth when, from everything you said to that point, he was concisely and accurately describing what you had said back to you.

Opinions are like ... everyone's got one

Anyways, I don't think this forum is the place to try and put words in others mouths. If you can't move on from your misunderstanding of my words then this discussion can be over as well

 

[Mistwell]

Opinions are like ... everyone's got one

Anyways, I don't think this forum is the place to try and put words in others mouths. If you can't move on from your misunderstanding of my words then this discussion can be over as well

It would be swell if you explained how there was any misunderstanding of your words by others. It sure looks like you misspoke, but I am again open to hearing how I am wrong. "Nuh uh!" is not really an explanation.