What makes Great Weapon Master and Sharpshooter so good?

[CapnZapp]

And (an argument often offered) if your party isn't about the damage (go ahead and claim you're playing the game better than me, you're welcome) so it's not a huge deal.

But if damage isn't a huge deal for you then you will have no objection to another form of the feat which does not wreck our games!

A hypothetical version of the PHB where this feat offers, say, "+1 Str" instead of "-5/+10 damage" (just to pick one commonly offered fix) will, if you're not concerned about damage, work just as well for you.

And since such a version will make a huge improvement for those of us where DPR is not unimportant... then it stands to reason such a version would please everyone.

What this boils down to is this:

If you really only object to errataing GWM because you don't want change, then say so.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

I do not deny it requires a considerable level of system mastery to use right.

Actually that's another black mark against the feat. A feat that encourages casual players to take mathematically-unsound actions (using the feat in circumstances where it statistically lowers your DPR) is a bad feat.

Anyway, once your players have achieved suffienct system expertise, the feat is a damage-enabler bar none. There simply is no other way to reach the pinnacles of DPR. Your party simply will end up focusing all their minmax efforts on the GWMers (since that's much more worthwhile than wasting it on others).

This in itself might have not been such a huge issue if it did not leave every other martial archetype in the dust.

But this is the real issue: the intra-party balance. The way it creates two tiers of martials. The ones with GWM (and SS) and the ones without. At mid to high levels the damage potential differential reaches +50 points of damage - a potential completely unheard of by other means. No wonder the spellcasters focus their efforts on the GWM:ers and not on the others.

+50 points of damage over how many rounds?

Lets be benefical here and say you hit as often, didn't want to cast a different concentration spell than bless and had time to set every buff up and the enemy is someone who stands there with low ac not trying to stay out of reach... and of course you had your stats maximized and don't need precise strike anyway.
A fighter in mid level has 2-3 attacks per round. Twice as many with action surge.
It is in the best case (excluding vulnerability) +10 damage net gain per attack ignoring that spending resources to make sure every attack hits lowered damage otherwise. If you remember that you don't double static damage on a crit, it isn't that problematic at all. In 3.5 you doubled everything and could power attack to more than -5/+10 with two habded weapons... and i never heard anyone complaining that the feat is unbalanced...

I am still waiting for a sound calculation that assumes normal circumstances. E.g. having to build up buffs during combat. The fighter being the target of hold personnor dispell magic... actually taking resilience wisdom could be a much higher contributor to overall damage than gwm...
So if you are the guy with the big weapon and other resources than gwm, you can most probably be a big factor in most fights.
If you are not a fighter but a ranger with hunter's mark and extra d8 per hit, trading accuracy becomes less and less attractive.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

And (an argument often offered) if your party isn't about the damage (go ahead and claim you're playing the game better than me, you're welcome) so it's not a huge deal.

But if damage isn't a huge deal for you then you will have no objection to another form of the feat which does not wreck our games!

A hypothetical version of the PHB where this feat offers, say, "+1 Str" instead of "-5/+10 damage" (just to pick one commonly offered fix) will, if you're not concerned about damage, work just as well for you.

And since such a version will make a huge improvement for those of us where DPR is not unimportant... then it stands to reason such a version would please everyone.

What this boils down to is this:

If you really only object to errataing GWM because you don't want change, then say so.

I'd like the proposed "fix". It needs to be renamed cleave then because the -5/+10 ability is the only one that is bound to heavy weapons (which are all two handed). It would also be a nice option for variant humans that offers a strength boost along with a circumstancially useful offensive feature. That indeed would be a great balanced half feat. Maybe I'd allow both in my games.

 

[guachi]

So far, I found that the best way to deal with GWM/SS is to replace -5/+10 part with +1str/+1 dex.

I'm not certain it makes things much better. GWM would still be fantastic and now it has no drawbacks for a one-handed melee weapon wielder. Though maybe that's not a bad thing considering the nerf to Shieldmaster (which is a rule that should be ignored, IMO).

If I were playing one of those races with a +2 Str or +2 Dex bonus and playing a melee character in a point buy game I'd almost always get this ability at level 4 and you'd still have an 18 Strength. Or be a race with a +1 Str, start with a 16 Str, be a fighter, and take heavy armor and GWM and have an 18 Str at level 6.

On the other hand, since it uses a bonus action it's balanced against all the other things you can do with your bonus action.

 

[5ekyu]

The average AC in the MM being 14.5 (apparently).

Not sure if I was the 1st to call out these feats in 2014, I was one of the early ones anyway. HotDQ had a +2 Greatsword, found out the hard way a +2 bow/handcrossbow is worse.

But the average AC in the MM does not matter. How many of those are cr below 2 when most pc races wont see a feat at all possible until level 4, likely 6-8 if they use their first asi to max a primary? Add in sny multiclassing and that delays further.

How many of those are low hp peons in filler encounters where the +10 is more likely overkill or at least simply taking a fight from easy to still easy?

How many of these average ACs without tactical support etc turn out to be encounters that matter?

How useful are GWM and sharpshooter in something asapparently massively complex and awesomely tactical as "an enemy with low level caster throws fog cloud" and so no chance for gaining advantage exists?

 

[Zardnaar]

But the average AC in the MM does not matter. How many of those are cr below 2 when most pc races wont see a feat at all possible until level 4, likely 6-8 if they use their first asi to max a primary? Add in sny multiclassing and that delays further.

How many of those are low hp peons in filler encounters where the +10 is more likely overkill or at least simply taking a fight from easy to still easy?

How many of these average ACs without tactical support etc turn out to be encounters that matter?

How useful are GWM and sharpshooter in something asapparently massively complex and awesomely tactical as "an enemy with low level caster throws fog cloud" and so no chance for gaining advantage exists?

Well low AC+ buffing+ multiple attacks. It has the same problems 3.5 had where you take weapons that deal more damage anyway (two handed) and then add -1/+2 damage on top of it (plus 50% str mod in 3.5 as well) which means you deal around double or triple the damage of other weapon options.

 

[5ekyu]

+50 points of damage over how many rounds?

Lets be benefical here and say you hit as often, didn't want to cast a different concentration spell than bless and had time to set every buff up and the enemy is someone who stands there with low ac not trying to stay out of reach... and of course you had your stats maximized and don't need precise strike anyway.
A fighter in mid level has 2-3 attacks per round. Twice as many with action surge.
It is in the best case (excluding vulnerability) +10 damage net gain per attack ignoring that spending resources to make sure every attack hits lowered damage otherwise. If you remember that you don't double static damage on a crit, it isn't that problematic at all. In 3.5 you doubled everything and could power attack to more than -5/+10 with two habded weapons... and i never heard anyone complaining that the feat is unbalanced...

I am still waiting for a sound calculation that assumes normal circumstances. E.g. having to build up buffs during combat. The fighter being the target of hold personnor dispell magic... actually taking resilience wisdom could be a much higher contributor to overall damage than gwm...
So if you are the guy with the big weapon and other resources than gwm, you can most probably be a big factor in most fights.
If you are not a fighter but a ranger with hunter's mark and extra d8 per hit, trading accuracy becomes less and less attractive.

Or warlocks or paladins or even rogues... Anything that raises the base value of D (damage on typical hit without +10) raises the high to hit needed to make it even worthwhile.

2h-10 > d.

While the omg guys are right that if you knows its bad you wont use it, the fact is everytime you dont use it hits that dpr... Overall lowering the gains from this feat.

Its more like the reference to dpr is to dp1fr - amount you can get in one round in highly favorable circumstances.

 

[5ekyu]

In a wide open game, all feats on the table, i would take lucky before either gwm or the bow.

If lucky were off the table, it would depend on a lot of factors.

 

[mpwylie]

And (an argument often offered) if your party isn't about the damage (go ahead and claim you're playing the game better than me, you're welcome) so it's not a huge deal.

But if damage isn't a huge deal for you then you will have no objection to another form of the feat which does not wreck our games!

A hypothetical version of the PHB where this feat offers, say, "+1 Str" instead of "-5/+10 damage" (just to pick one commonly offered fix) will, if you're not concerned about damage, work just as well for you.

And since such a version will make a huge improvement for those of us where DPR is not unimportant... then it stands to reason such a version would please everyone.

What this boils down to is this:

If you really only object to errataing GWM because you don't want change, then say so.

There are many tables and many playstyles and it's not about one way being better, to each his own. And I am not saying the feats cannot be OP at some tables or that those tables are wrong for it, but I see no reason why the PHB needs amended to any one table. Isn't this what house rules are for? I am sure I have house rules at my table that you and others wouldn't like, but I'm not calling for the PHB to be amended to my changes. The base game lays out basic rules, but no where does it say that you have to follow them to the letter at your table. Remove it, alter it, whatever you want, you have the power!

 

[CapnZapp]

I'm not certain it makes things much better. GWM would still be fantastic and now it has no drawbacks for a one-handed melee weapon wielder. Though maybe that's not a bad thing considering the nerf to Shieldmaster (which is a rule that should be ignored, IMO).

If I were playing one of those races with a +2 Str or +2 Dex bonus and playing a melee character in a point buy game I'd almost always get this ability at level 4 and you'd still have an 18 Strength. Or be a race with a +1 Str, start with a 16 Str, be a fighter, and take heavy armor and GWM and have an 18 Str at level 6.

On the other hand, since it uses a bonus action it's balanced against all the other things you can do with your bonus action.

Believe me when I say "still fantastic" is a marked improvement over utterly broken