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

[DEFCON 1]

Seems to me, the real question that should be asked here is not "Are these feats overpowered?", but rather "What are you going to do about it?"

The feats are in the game. They exist. If you are a player and your DM is letting you use feats, then you can select them. Likewise, if you are a DM and running a game, you have to decide whether or not to use feats, whether or not to allow SS/GWM to be taken, or whether or not you edit them.

But unless your idea is that if you complain about them being broken long enough, WotC will actually errata them... there's nothing really to talk about. You use them, or you don't use them. You leave them alone, or you re-balance them. And whatever you decide... it's entirely up to you. But YOU have to do it. As much as you want them to, WotC is not going to errata them. They've already said that errata is only for correcting mistakes in the writing of a rule, not in what the rule itself is. So these two feats will always be in the game. As they are. Which means that any changes you feel need to be made have to be made by you. The most you might hope for are new Sharpshooter-esque and Great Weapon-esque alternate feats getting released down the line... but again, that won't remove the current feats from the game. They will still exist. Which means that you, yourself, will have to make the decision whether or not to use or allow them once the new feats are released. Which is the same exact thing you have to do now.

Yeah sure, it'd have been "nice" if all the feats worked exactly right and were perfectly balanced for your particular game. That would have been lovely. Every single one of us getting exactly what we hoped and dreamed of for our D&D 5E game. But... that didn't happen. Sorry. Things don't work perfectly for each and every one of you. Which then brings up the ultimate question as I said above...

"What are you going to do about it?"

 

[CapnZapp]

I see zero benefit to comparing a PC with one of these feats to one without.

Good to know I can completely disregard your opinion from now on. Thanks.

 

[Corwin]

[MENTION=12731]CapnZapp[/MENTION], I'm not sure how you managed to quote me, since you are the one person I have on ignore. I was under the impression the ignore feature was a 2-way block. Oh well. But since I cannot see your post (I only know that I got a notification that you quoted me), please stop. I am uninterested in conversing with you. Thank you.

 

[Umbran]

Good to know I can completely disregard your opinion from now on. Thanks.

Hey. This rudeness is not called for. Treat folks with a modicum of respect, please and thank you.

 

[The Crimson Binome]

@CapnZapp, I'm not sure how you managed to quote me, since you are the one person I have on ignore. I was under the impression the ignore feature was a 2-way block. Oh well. But since I cannot see your post (I only know that I got a notification that you quoted me), please stop. I am uninterested in conversing with you. Thank you.

As far as I can tell, there are two levels of ignore. Basic members have the ability to ignore people, but they can still see your posts and reply to them (though you won't be able to see their post, since you're ignoring them). And then there's like a premium level where you can block people, which actually prevents them from seeing your posts in the first place.

Or maybe basic members can actually block other basic members, but premium members can still see posts from basic members who are ignoring them. Or maybe there's only one level of ignoring someone, but there's a bug where sometimes it doesn't apply fully. I haven't seen the documentation for this anywhere.

 

[Tony Vargas]

Seems to me, the real question that should be asked here is not "Are these feats overpowered?", but rather "What are you going to do about it?"

The feats are in the game. They exist.

They are op-in optional, so not opting in is the first line of defense against problematic feats.

Of course, AL opts in.

But unless your idea is that if you complain about them being broken long enough, WotC will actually errata them...

That might've worked in 3e, and would certainly have /seemed/ to work in 4e, since 'updates' were frequent and nerf-heavy (unintended irony there, nerf being notoriously lightweight, sorry about that), but the most you'll get out of 'em these days is a tweeted ruling.

You're meant to fix the game yourself (I know, that's the point you're making, but I feel like I have to make it, too), so how to fix it is a fair topic of conversation - and a more constructive topic than whether it's broken or not.

Yeah sure, it'd have been "nice" if all the feats worked exactly right and were perfectly balanced for your particular game. That would have been lovely.

Meh. If the game works too well, it discourages tinkering.

 

[Umbran]

As far as I can tell, there are two levels of ignore. Basic members have the ability to ignore people, but they can still see your posts and reply to them (though you won't be able to see their post, since you're ignoring them). And then there's like a premium level where you can block people, which actually prevents them from seeing your posts in the first place.

Or maybe basic members can actually block other basic members, but premium members can still see posts from basic members who are ignoring them. Or maybe there's only one level of ignoring someone, but there's a bug where sometimes it doesn't apply fully. I haven't seen the documentation for this anywhere.

I can say quite plainly that there are no *intended* levels of ignore. We don't make you pay for that feature.

It may be that some settings got screwed up when we had to step to the database backup. This is something for [MENTION=1]Morrus[/MENTION] to know about, and discuss in the Meta forum, but let's not bog this thread down with it, okay.

 

[Umbran]

I doubt the game could ever be bad enough to eliminate defensiveness when it's criticized, but there's probably an optimal degree of badness that'd minimize it...

... or something.

Right, so a moderator has already noted someone's rudeness in here just a couple of posts ago, and here we have this.

Let's be clear - either you discuss things with people like they are intelligent and rational, or you just leave them be. Trying to dismiss the opinions of others as fanboyism or the like is of the form "tearing down others to build myself up" - it is, in effect, ad hominem. It doesn't actually *support* any argument you make.

So, how about we not use this approach to discussion.

 

[Tony Vargas]

Not what I was going for, but I see the problem. Snipped.

 

[I'm A Banana]

This is me, too. Yeah, the sharpsooting ranger is a machine gun, and yeah, the GWM guy is a monster in melee, but neither dominates the game, and neither strikes me as overpowered compared to the other members of the group. Nor do those two feats end up selected by everyone, not even by every melee-heavy or ranged-attack-based pc in my game; I've actually seen more Spell Snipers and Keen Minds. But also, I am comfortable with not all pcs being equally powerful as long as everyone's having fun, so I haven't given the feats the sort of eye-wateringly intense analysis that some people have- it's just not necessary for my playstyle.

One thing I've noticed is that clever self and party buffing can definitely make these feats better, but I don't think they're better than intended. The raging GWM barbarian swings with advantage and when he hits, it deals damage like a fireball....but then, only to one target, and it costs a daily use of Rage to get that advantage (and I'm not sure he'd risk it without rage). The sharpshooter has advantage far less often, but when she hits the damage is comparable (a bit less, but she's ranged, so she's gaining defensive ability to do that)....and she's missing a lot more.

5e's mild preference for many critters in a fight and for many fights/day helps bring that curve down to a respectable level. If every attack you make is at advantage (or at +1d4 from a bless or something) in a day, maybe it could seem OP, like a single-target at-will fireball. But, these things are not always easy to come by. And, as I'm sure my party ranger can attest, missing is a real negative pressure. Heck, last session, another party member was like "Maybe don't use Sharpshooter for a round? Because you are having a lot of whiffs?"