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

[shoak1]

My problems with the -5/+10 feats remain:

1. It forces players to do mathematics and cost/benefit analysis during combat. There is a mathmatically correct answer for when to -5/+10, and it's something you have to calculate based on your average damage, current attack bonus, and the AC of the target. It's typically not immediately obvious unless your character magically never changes any modifiers. This slows play and distracts from the narrative by encouraging players to think exclusively about mechanics. That makes it detrimental to the flow of the game and bad for the overall quality of play.

You don't have to run the numbers during combat to decide whether to turn it on/off. Here is a good rule of thumb:

1) Turn it on when you need an 8 or lower to hit a creature, assuming you do 15 avg damage total w/buffs

2) for every 2 points of average damage more than 15 you deal, subtract 1 from the target number above, and
for every 2 points of average damage less than 15 you deal, add 1 from the target number above.

3) add 1-2 to the target # depending on your crit chance or chance to fell a creature IF you have a bonus action available AND another creature to attack.
So if you normally do 13 avg damage, turn GWM on when you need a 9 or less to hit. The only thing that changes that target during combat is if you get a damage buff, which adds to that number on a 3-1 basis.

As for whether or not to take GWM over +2 STR, take it if you are at least L5 AND like beating up weak stuff OR if you are at STR 20 already. Otherwise take the +2 STR.

2. It's possible to make -5/+10 appealing enough to be "always on" against essentially all enemies by the mid to late game (level 12+). That means you've created an universal "best" strategy to use every combat. If every combat your party casts bless and then the Barbarian moves in, uses Rage, Reckless Attack, and Great Weapon Mastery and the Fighter uses his Crossbow with Sharpshooter... and you can't discover any alternative to compare to that strategy in essentially all encounters... that's bad design. Either the game has a problem with power level, or the game has a problem with discoverability.

As for combinations of abilities to make effective strategies, that's another story entirely, and a problem no game will ever fix when you have a bunch of min-maxers. I try to limit my house ruling to individual items, not creative combos. If the players work that sort of stuff out successfully, let em have their fun - just make sure that it doesn't come from predictable and repetitive encounters from the DM, and that you mix it up enough and give them different looks.

I would still prefer something like GWM dealing an extra ~1d6 damage to creatures size large and larger if they are larger than you (calling back to two-handed swords dealing 3d6 damage to large creatures), and SS dealing an extra ~1d6 damage to creatures that resist damage from your ranged weapon attacks (armor piercing). I'd prefer situational damage bonuses instead of mathmatical​ damage bonuses.

I dislike this because not only do I not (now) think GWM isn't broken, but also because one thing 5e did get right is to reduce the multitude of situational crap you have to remember

 

[Zardnaar]

Actually Capn Zapp if you notice I am no apologist for 5e - in fact I think (still) that the job they did on feats is crap. I didn't run those numbers with an "agenda," but if I did have a bias, it was that GWM is imbalanced. I thought (hoped?) that it was imbalanced.....But I kept an open mind, took reasonable statistics based on expected ACs at certain levels, as well as access to magic items, etc, and ran the numbers objectively. And it led me to a different conclusion than I expected.

If you do think the numbers I indicated were a "crock," then which numbers specifically? The +8 to hit for a martial PC at L5 ? The ACs for monsters of appropriate CR level (which are in line w/the CR recommendations from the DMG and actually much LOWER than the guy whose post I responded to)? The rest is basic math and not subjective.

Having said all that, the feats have a laundry list of other problems, such as relative balance to each other, the way they tend to only support certain lines of play/weapons, etc. I just don't think any longer than GWM is imbalanced for combat mathematically. I wish it was imbalanced to be honest - it would better help support my contention that the feat list = crap.

So tell me where I erred CapnZapp, so I can get back on the GWM Is Crap bandwagon - I miss you guys already

To many factors to consider with basic maths IMHO.

Have any of you seen a Sorcerer twin a greater invisibility on anyone using those feats? How about foresight advantage 24/7.

 

[FormerlyHemlock]

My problems with the -5/+10 feats remain:

1. It forces players to do mathematics and cost/benefit analysis during combat. There is a mathmatically correct answer for when to -5/+10, and it's something you have to calculate based on your average damage, current attack bonus, and the AC of the target. It's typically not immediately obvious unless your character magically never changes any modifiers. This slows play and distracts from the narrative by encouraging players to think exclusively about mechanics. That makes it detrimental to the flow of the game and bad for the overall quality of play.

In practice I find that it's reasonably obvious. Occasionally I check my advice to GWM/Sharpshooters after combat and it comes out close enough. That is, it's only non-obvious in cases where the DPR difference is small, on the order of +/- 1 points of DPR, which really means that either choice is valid.

2. It's possible to make -5/+10 appealing enough to be "always on" against essentially all enemies by the mid to late game (level 12+). That means you've created an universal "best" strategy to use every combat. If every combat your party casts bless and then the Barbarian moves in, uses Rage, Reckless Attack, and Great Weapon Mastery and the Fighter uses his Crossbow with Sharpshooter... and you can't discover any alternative to compare to that strategy in essentially all encounters... that's bad design. Either the game has a problem with power level, or the game has a problem with discoverability.

But the situation is not improved by using GWM/Sharpshooter. Those characters still have a "best" strategy, it just has one less inflection point: "I hit it with my axe" instead of "I power attack him with my axe."

But those kinds of games are boring anyway. Here's a more interesting choice: should you GWM power-attack an enemy earth elemental with your greataxe, or use one hand to grapple/prone it and then beat on it at advantage with backup battleaxe while it attacks you back at disadvantage? Should you GWM power-attack the Death Slaad twice and then threaten opportunity attacks to prevent movement, or should you power-attack him twice and then back away 40' out of his attack range (eating an opportunity attack in exchange for avoiding his multiattack sequence)? Should you engage the hooded figure immediately and blow your Action Surge to kill him ASAP, or should you avoid getting yourself surrounded and save your Action Surge for when/if you need to retreat, if the hooded figure turns out to be more formidable than you think? That roaring Balor who's shaking the ground--do you think it's real or an illusion, and are you going to attack him or the hobgoblin phalanx first? That group of riders who's been following you for the past three leagues--should you set an ambush and jump them without warning to gain surprise, or should you approach them openly and ask them what they want? That kobold who just fled around the corner of the cave--should you allow him to warn his buddies, or should you pursue?

GWM has essentially zero to do with whether or not you make interesting choices. (At best it adds another mildly-interesting choice about trying to guess the enemy's AC based on their appearance.)

 

[shoak1]

To many factors to consider with basic maths IMHO.

Have any of you seen a Sorcerer twin a greater invisibility on anyone using those feats? How about foresight advantage 24/7.

Yes, and I've seen Balrogs w/laser guns too - so what. Deadly combinations exist for both players and DMs - BOTH sides have access to them. If the PCs are always using a particular combination in order to maximize GWM than they are not using other combinations that might be more effective against a given creature. It does not diminish the usefulness of mathematically analyzing a feat for balance on its own merit.

 

[FormerlyHemlock]

Have any of you seen a Sorcerer twin a greater invisibility on anyone using those feats? How about foresight advantage 24/7.

Foresight is advantage for 8/7, not 24/7
[*]. Less than that if the spellcaster wants to ever play with more powerful spells like True Polymorph. It's also susceptible to Dispel Magic; maybe not every fight includes a Glabrezu or a Nycaloth or a Mezzoloth, but when one of them does manage to knock out your Foresight, you're probably not going to stop right there and recast it.

Foresight + GWM is infinitely less worrisome from a challenge perspective than "turn into an Ancient White Dragon, permanently until dispelled".

But really the best way (aside from Mounted Combatant or Reckless Attack) to gain advantage for GWM is "spend one attack to knock someone prone, then GWM with your remaining attacks". Compatible with Polearm Master or Fighter 11 or multiple cooperating melee fighters.


[*] You can theoretically Extend it to 16 hours out of every 24, but realistically speaking, no one will ever do that because the multiclassing is too awkward.

 

[shoak1]

PS - all the evidence I need is from playing. Two games with the -5/+10 allowed, those PCs dominated and others round the table complained. Since then, removing the -5/+10, no issues.

Yes, that has been my experience as well, in hundreds of games so far (gaming 2-3 times a week with different groups each time since 5e released). Even as a player I won't play a character with these feats because I don't wish to dominate the game so drastically that I overshadow other players at the table.

Meh.....People, especially groups of people, often come to conclusions without using the scientific method to justify their position. Mob mentality takes over and all kinds of nonsensical positions get taken. In the end, such "experience" is merely anecdotal evidence, and of little merit without any mathematical backing.

 

[Blue]

Good analysis, but there are a few problems with it I see. To ground this analysis into a specific example, lets take a 5th level fighter w/18 STR and a +1 greatsword - so he has +8 to hit and does 15 avg damage, twice per round.

Following along, but I think there's a flaw in your foundation.

Greatsword = 2d6 = 7 average
18 Str = +4 mod
+1 magic weapon = +1

Average damage = 12.

Am I missing something to bring it to 15? Because without an extra +3 damage that's the same number I used in my original post's math, so the numbers won't change and that math holds true.

On the other hand, when you point out that the lower ACs are more common, that's a valid point.

 

[shoak1]

Yeah, you are right re 12 damage. I think you and I are on the same page now - that your numbers hold true, but that the conclusions you made were a bit severe given the likelihood of ACs as i pointed out.

And now we both probably agree GWM is a useful feat against average or lower ACs for your level (and for a bit higher of ACs if you have opportunities to use the bonus attacks it provides), but the mild DPR boost it provides is balanced against the +2 STR benefits for Athletics, STR saves/checks.

On a side note, maybe you can check out my post re when to turn GWM on/off and give me your thoughts. http://www.enworld.org/forum/showthread.php?493845-When-to-turn-on-Great-Weapon-Master

 

[pming]

Hiya!

TL;DR ...so maybe someone has already brought this up...

I voted "Overpowered". But I would have put an * after that. By itself, taken as-is, with everything else in the game being core only...no, not OP.

However, from what I've read and those I've talked to on the 'net, a campaign that is going to allow GWM/Sharpshooter is almost always also going to allow Multiclassing, point-guy, other Feats, Spells, Classes, Races and whatnot from other sources, etc. THIS is when GWM/SS becomes absolutely OP (moreso when players get together to create synergistic characters together). "I'm a human fighter with a 15 STR and GWM" isn't OP. "I'm a fighter/rogue winged tiefling with DEX 20 and Sharpshooter" is OP. Add in another PC in the group being some other particular variant Class/Race with some select spells...now combine that with the F/R Tiefling SS and you suddenly have a two-man team that is nigh-unbeatable except in encounters specifically designed to not let them use their synergy and "kewl powerz".

So, yeah, overall the potential for OP just increases and increases as characters gain levels and the DM opens up (or starts allowing) more and more "OPTIONAL" rules and whatnot. This will NOT end well.

^_^

Paul L. Ming

 

[Amatiel]

My group removed the -5/+10, and replaced it with just a +3 damage bonus. Seems to work well. The +10 was just too excessive we found.