D&D 5E Do DM's feel that Sharpshooter & Great Weapon Master overpowered?

[Plaguescarred]

I don't think -5/+10 is overpowered it's a (not-so) high risk vs high reward that help value martial against spellcaster, which have potentially high damage or usefulness. It's not AoE damage but single target one too so it's not an "i win" button. But it's definitly strong and it's the whole intention behind it - to increase the lethality of those weapon use.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

No special racial abilities,
no darkvision,
just one extra skill,
and you're a lame human.

Hmm, there is a tradeoff.


+2 str is better than GWM, except on paperclass AC of monsters.

Now, all say take it after 20 str; WOW!, a feat is actually better then boosting a SECONDARY stat? Sounds to me working as intended.

More of a problem are bottom tier of feats that needs boosting.

Or when you have a reliable source of advantage or other hot bonuses.

But I think even the barbarian has a certain tradeoff: He is mlre ir less forced to use reckless attack all the time. He has to use -5/+10.
He also should not use one handed weapon and shield if tanking hits is needed.
And before someone says it is impossible to tank in 5e, there are a lot of options to root someone in place or make disengaging a bad option. (difficult terrain etc.)
You also give up the opportunity of chosing sentinel feat instead or alertness or whatever may be more helpful. Still I think the option -5/+5 should be available for everyone in their main hand at least.

 

[CapnZapp]

Important clarifications:
*GWF, or Great Weapon Fighting, is the fighting style. GWM, or Great Weapon Master, is the feat. It's important to keep these two acronyms separate.

Important points to remember when nitpicking:
* Be correct

Hint: Those two aren't acronyms, they're initialisms

 

[Kryx]

GWF is a totally different feature that people argue over whether it's valuable or not (Mathematically it's half as powerful as other fighting styles - see Fighting Styles).
Acronyms/Initialism make understanding difficult for those not fully knowledgeable on the jargon. It's important to get them correct.
Also of note: many dictionaries include the initialism usage inside acronym now.

It's more important to understand the math. Unfortunately this post has many opinions not substantiated by math.

 

[Zardnaar]

It can be OP as hell when you have clerics and bards around along with faerie fire. I have seen it used up to AC 18 and 20 reliably, advantage to hit+bard dice+bless. Also the diviner wizard.

I have also seen action surge+crossbow expert+SS combo, 100+ damage in the mid levels. With low ACs and great low level buff spells/bard dice yeah.

 

[CapnZapp]

I don't think -5/+10 is overpowered it's a (not-so) high risk vs high reward that help value martial against spellcaster, which have potentially high damage or usefulness. It's not AoE damage but single target one too so it's not an "i win" button. But it's definitly strong and it's the whole intention behind it - to increase the lethality of those weapon use.

It's that some of us want and expect feats to cater equally to all martials regardless of your choice of weapons combo.

That is the real downfall of the -5/+10 feats. It's essentially saying this:

§1 if you play in a combat-heavy game, your primary job as a character with a weapon is to defeat monsters
§2 the primary means of doing that is to cause damage
§3 if you want to do your job well, you need to drop that parrying dagger, you need to drop the flourishing cape, you need to drop the shield...
...because
§4 greatweapons and ranged weapons are the only two tools that get the job done right

That is the first and foremost complaint.

Not that you deal more damage in general. Not even that you deal much more damage compared to non-weapon users.

But that ALL weapon users will be compelled to choose either greatweapons or ranged.

It is boring. It is unfun. It is limiting.

It is all of the things opting for feats should not be.

---

Compare to a different game where the feats did not simply increase your damage output, but actually enabled you to pull off special stunts you could not otherwise do.

That is: not taking the feat would still be an option. Taking ANOTHER feat would still be an option.

Many other feats clear this threshold. The cleave part of GWM is powerful, but not so that it completely overwhelms the alternatives. Sentinel, Polearm Mastery, Mobility... there are several feats that I would consider good design.

The -5+10 feats does not belong in that group.

Those feats require you to first agree to the assumption "dealing damage isn't very important", and in a combat-centric game that is just not true.

 

[Zardnaar]

It's that some of us want and expect feats to cater equally to all martials regardless of your choice of weapons combo.

That is the real downfall of the -5/+10 feats. It's essentially saying this:

§1 if you play in a combat-heavy game, your primary job as a character with a weapon is to defeat monsters
§2 the primary means of doing that is to cause damage
§3 if you want to do your job well, you need to drop that parrying dagger, you need to drop the flourishing cape, you need to drop the shield...
...because
§4 greatweapons and ranged weapons are the only two tools that get the job done right

That is the first and foremost complaint.

Not that you deal more damage in general. Not even that you deal much more damage compared to non-weapon users.

But that ALL weapon users will be compelled to choose either greatweapons or ranged.

It is boring. It is unfun. It is limiting.

It is all of the things opting for feats should not be.

---

Compare to a different game where the feats did not simply increase your damage output, but actually enabled you to pull off special stunts you could not otherwise do.

That is: not taking the feat would still be an option. Taking ANOTHER feat would still be an option.

Many other feats clear this threshold. The cleave part of GWM is powerful, but not so that it completely overwhelms the alternatives. Sentinel, Polearm Mastery, Mobility... there are several feats that I would consider good design.

The -5+10 feats does not belong in that group.

Those feats require you to first agree to the assumption "dealing damage isn't very important", and in a combat-centric game that is just not true.

I tend to help out the low damage dealers a bit. A flaming longsword or +2 or +3 dagger might drop over say a +1 greatsword. At higher levels the holy avenger won't be a heavy weapon.

Magical hand crossbows are also rare.

We had an inexperienced DM who used to hand out things like +1 shortsword or mace vs a +2 greatsword with abilities. 1 Fighter was dealing more damage than the rest of the party combined. Or people don't take buffers if there is a powergamer around to enable them./

 

[CapnZapp]

It can be OP as hell when you have clerics and bards around along with faerie fire. I have seen it used up to AC 18 and 20 reliably, advantage to hit+bard dice+bless.

I have also seen action surge+crossbow expert+SS combo, 100+ damage in the mid levels.

Exactly.

It's so sad when the defenders of the feat consistently fail to acknowledge our real-world play experiences, far removed from any "white room" theorycrafting.

This is clearly a feat where the math was shown to work in the white room, but does not actually work in real gameplay, not in the hands of experienced optimizing gamers.

If the feat somehow said "the -5 can never be negated or countered by any means short of a wish" then it would probably be fine.

That is, if the feat simply did not activate the +10 damage part if you attack with Bless or with advantage or any other bonus, then we probably would not have this conversation.

(Of course, then we would all drown in the complaints the feat was artificially restricted in ways you can't really explain, but that's another story )

 

[Kryx]

It's that some of us want and expect feats to cater equally to all martials regardless of your choice of weapons combo.

That is the real downfall of the -5/+10 feats. It's essentially saying this:

§1 if you play in a combat-heavy game, your primary job as a character with a weapon is to defeat monsters
§2 the primary means of doing that is to cause damage
§3 if you want to do your job well, you need to drop that parrying dagger, you need to drop the flourishing cape, you need to drop the shield...
...because
§4 greatweapons and ranged weapons are the only two tools that get the job done right

That is the first and foremost complaint.

Not that you deal more damage in general. Not even that you deal much more damage compared to non-weapon users.

But that ALL weapon users will be compelled to choose either greatweapons or ranged.

It is boring. It is unfun. It is limiting.

It is all of the things opting for feats should not be.

Very eloquently said. This is exactly how I feel as well.

 

[CapnZapp]

I tend to help out the low damage dealers a bit. A flaming longsword or +2 or +3 dagger might drop over say a +1 greatsword. At higher levels the holy avenger won't be a heavy weapon.

Magical hand crossbows are also rare.

Sure, but I prefer the rules to work on their own.

Don't get me wrong, I see what you're saying and I do it too.

It's just that as a DM I would have preferred it if I did not have tweak the world and my adventures to fix imbalances in the rules.