Menu
News
All News
Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
Pathfinder
Starfinder
Warhammer
2d20 System
Year Zero Engine
Industry News
Reviews
Dragon Reflections
Columns
Weekly Digests
Weekly News Digest
Freebies, Sales & Bundles
RPG Print News
RPG Crowdfunding News
Game Content
ENterplanetary DimENsions
Mythological Figures
Opinion
Worlds of Design
Peregrine's Next
RPG Evolution
Other Columns
From the Freelancing Frontline
Monster ENcyclopedia
WotC/TSR Alumni Look Back
4 Hours w/RSD (Ryan Dancey)
The Road to 3E (Jonathan Tweet)
Greenwood's Realms (Ed Greenwood)
Drawmij's TSR (Jim Ward)
Community
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Resources
Wiki
Pages
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Downloads
Latest reviews
Search resources
EN Publishing
Store
EN5ider
Adventures in ZEITGEIST
Awfully Cheerful Engine
What's OLD is NEW
Judge Dredd & The Worlds Of 2000AD
War of the Burning Sky
Level Up: Advanced 5E
Events & Releases
Upcoming Events
Private Events
Featured Events
Socials!
Twitch
YouTube
Facebook (EN Publishing)
Facebook (EN World)
Twitter
Instagram
TikTok
Podcast
Features
Top 5 RPGs Compiled Charts 2004-Present
Adventure Game Industry Market Research Summary (RPGs) V1.0
Ryan Dancey: Acquiring TSR
Q&A With Gary Gygax
D&D Rules FAQs
TSR, WotC, & Paizo: A Comparative History
D&D Pronunciation Guide
Million Dollar TTRPG Kickstarters
Tabletop RPG Podcast Hall of Fame
Eric Noah's Unofficial D&D 3rd Edition News
D&D in the Mainstream
D&D & RPG History
About Morrus
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
What makes Great Weapon Master and Sharpshooter so good?
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="CapnZapp" data-source="post: 7438326" data-attributes="member: 12731"><p>I think we're veering dangerously close to relativistic nothingness. </p><p></p><p>In fact, many if not most people denouncing the worth of these feats severely underestimate their minmaxing potential. So many posters bringing out detailed math that just from a quick look completely miss the hardcore combinations that bring the feats up to a whole other level.</p><p></p><p>And then you have the fundamental notion that offense means you get to choose (which enemy dies first). What defense means, is that the enemy is given the choice to ignore your greatest asset. In short: by skipping your impervious behemoth, they're attacking the weakest link.</p><p></p><p>So even before we go into specifics, <em>of course</em> offense is going to carry the day! It's comparing Panzers to the Maginot line.</p><p></p><p>Now, if D&D had offered a robust aggro system then I could have seen a point. If defensive tanks were given the power to control the actions of enemies. But it doesn't. It just does not. (There is experiments with token abilities but nothing that really approximates the power of the World of Warcraft Warrior main battle tank)</p><p></p><p>This means that: sure, if you have a DM that is sympathetic to your build, then yes, how lovely to see the goblins faff about ineffectually at your AC 26 mountain fortress of a character. </p><p></p><p>But this build will always be incredibly vulnerable to opponents that walk around that fortress. </p><p></p><p>In stark - very stark - contrast you have the optimized killers that leave every other fighter build in the dust. Each time you kill a foe a round earlier you're saving twice as many attacks against your side. A dead enemy can't choose to ignore your high AC and go for the squishies.</p><p></p><p>And I really am having trouble taking the detractors seriously. If offense meant that you got perhaps one point of attack value or two points of damage for a point of defense, then again: maybe you do have a point.</p><p></p><p>But D&D doesn't keep that balance. It features feats that blow you out of the water. The damage potential of an attack that otherwise might be 1d12+7 becomes 1d12+17. Times three or five each round! A huge huge increase! And it thinks that the penalty will counteract that; completely missing the feats' greatest power: </p><p></p><p>The player is in control, and can choose to <strong>not</strong> use the feats. This means that every time you bring up a player using the feats wrong, your argument is irrelevant, because nobody has ever claimed they're powerful in the hands of the inept.</p><p></p><p>Instead, they're absolutely ghastly in terms of intra-build balance in the hands of mathematically proficient players who know what they're doing. </p><p></p><p>That they're wasted on the average gamer is not a good thing - in fact I consider it another black mark against them. I think that "too-difficult" design is bad design, and a feat that makes you take bad decisions is a bad feat indeed.</p><p></p><p>But again: the main damage these feats are doing is the way they're saying: "forget about being a cool lethal killer with your throwing knives or with your spear, because compared to the greataxe guy, you simply are not".</p><p></p><p>Sure, they overturn balance and make monsters look wimpy, but that's not the greatest damage - the main issue is that if you like to contribute to the death of your enemies, these feats severely restricts your choice of weapon, <strong>reducing variety and lessening the fun</strong> of the game.</p><p></p><p>It boils down to this: </p><p></p><p>Some campaigns don't worry about damage, and combat isn't a centrepiece. Some campaigns don't feature a minmaxing player. In lots of campaigns these feats are not a problem, because they're not utilized to their full extent, or because their power (=DPR) isn't valued highly.</p><p></p><p>But errataing the feats would not change that. These campaigns would just be as happy with fixed feats.</p><p></p><p>And there's the rub. There are other campaigns, where these feats are absolutely devastating. You simply must use them or fall behind helplessly. These are the campaigns which would greatly benefit from official fixes.</p><p></p><p>And so every campaign would be better off (or indifferent to) improving these feats, and that is why they obviously should be fixed.</p><p></p><p>Had there been a group of campaigns that actively would be hurt by bringing these feats in line, then maybe there would be a credible argument against fixing them. But there isn't.</p><p></p><p>And so: resisting fixing these feats boil down to "they're not a problem for me, so I rather not errata my books". </p><p></p><p>And that's a reprehensible stance to take, and I detest it. Just fix these feats already, and the game will be better off for everybody. </p><p></p><p>Thank you</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="CapnZapp, post: 7438326, member: 12731"] I think we're veering dangerously close to relativistic nothingness. In fact, many if not most people denouncing the worth of these feats severely underestimate their minmaxing potential. So many posters bringing out detailed math that just from a quick look completely miss the hardcore combinations that bring the feats up to a whole other level. And then you have the fundamental notion that offense means you get to choose (which enemy dies first). What defense means, is that the enemy is given the choice to ignore your greatest asset. In short: by skipping your impervious behemoth, they're attacking the weakest link. So even before we go into specifics, [I]of course[/I] offense is going to carry the day! It's comparing Panzers to the Maginot line. Now, if D&D had offered a robust aggro system then I could have seen a point. If defensive tanks were given the power to control the actions of enemies. But it doesn't. It just does not. (There is experiments with token abilities but nothing that really approximates the power of the World of Warcraft Warrior main battle tank) This means that: sure, if you have a DM that is sympathetic to your build, then yes, how lovely to see the goblins faff about ineffectually at your AC 26 mountain fortress of a character. But this build will always be incredibly vulnerable to opponents that walk around that fortress. In stark - very stark - contrast you have the optimized killers that leave every other fighter build in the dust. Each time you kill a foe a round earlier you're saving twice as many attacks against your side. A dead enemy can't choose to ignore your high AC and go for the squishies. And I really am having trouble taking the detractors seriously. If offense meant that you got perhaps one point of attack value or two points of damage for a point of defense, then again: maybe you do have a point. But D&D doesn't keep that balance. It features feats that blow you out of the water. The damage potential of an attack that otherwise might be 1d12+7 becomes 1d12+17. Times three or five each round! A huge huge increase! And it thinks that the penalty will counteract that; completely missing the feats' greatest power: The player is in control, and can choose to [B]not[/B] use the feats. This means that every time you bring up a player using the feats wrong, your argument is irrelevant, because nobody has ever claimed they're powerful in the hands of the inept. Instead, they're absolutely ghastly in terms of intra-build balance in the hands of mathematically proficient players who know what they're doing. That they're wasted on the average gamer is not a good thing - in fact I consider it another black mark against them. I think that "too-difficult" design is bad design, and a feat that makes you take bad decisions is a bad feat indeed. But again: the main damage these feats are doing is the way they're saying: "forget about being a cool lethal killer with your throwing knives or with your spear, because compared to the greataxe guy, you simply are not". Sure, they overturn balance and make monsters look wimpy, but that's not the greatest damage - the main issue is that if you like to contribute to the death of your enemies, these feats severely restricts your choice of weapon, [B]reducing variety and lessening the fun[/B] of the game. It boils down to this: Some campaigns don't worry about damage, and combat isn't a centrepiece. Some campaigns don't feature a minmaxing player. In lots of campaigns these feats are not a problem, because they're not utilized to their full extent, or because their power (=DPR) isn't valued highly. But errataing the feats would not change that. These campaigns would just be as happy with fixed feats. And there's the rub. There are other campaigns, where these feats are absolutely devastating. You simply must use them or fall behind helplessly. These are the campaigns which would greatly benefit from official fixes. And so every campaign would be better off (or indifferent to) improving these feats, and that is why they obviously should be fixed. Had there been a group of campaigns that actively would be hurt by bringing these feats in line, then maybe there would be a credible argument against fixing them. But there isn't. And so: resisting fixing these feats boil down to "they're not a problem for me, so I rather not errata my books". And that's a reprehensible stance to take, and I detest it. Just fix these feats already, and the game will be better off for everybody. Thank you [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
What makes Great Weapon Master and Sharpshooter so good?
Top