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

[CapnZapp]

As a separate but related notion, we are forgetting the psychology of game design.

And if not by any other standard, the feats are a failure in balance by this one.

Because even if you always meet hobgoblins and duergar and other units with good armor, the impact of having chosen the feat (that is the -1 -1 from not taking +2 strength) is nearly invisible.

While the impact of having chosen the feat versus goblins and ogres and various other undisciplined humanoids is extremely visible.

So even in the hypothetical scenario where you gain +10 damage once but lose -1 damage ten times, the feat is still a win.

Because we don't have a dpr counter like in a videogame, the loss of those ten -1 damage won't be felt at all, while everybody will still talk about that one time you completely dominated with much higher damage than everybody else.

Now imagine if you don't gain +10 once, but five times. And you don't lose -1 damage ten times, but five.

...

 

[AaronOfBarbaria]

So if the the feat, when it does turn on (below the cutoff point), provides a much larger benefit than what is lost when it is not turned on, then the feat can still provide a massive benefit.

Correct, but it is important to remember that the "massive benefit" is situational, and it is generally accepted that reducing something from constant to situational earns it the right to be of larger benefit when it does apply.

The important part of the consideration here is to determine if the benefit, at it's greatest potential without inclusion of combination of other features or abilities, is too strong. I don't find that to be the case.

But it is to gauge the number of rounds where you are attacking something with AC 11 and 12, versus the number of rounds where you attack something with AC 18 or 19.

The reason why most analysis doesn't get to this point is because the numbers you refer to are not a thing which can be meaningfully measured beyond the scope of a single campaign - the numbers of of such rounds would no doubt vary wildly between even just your table and mine, and to average them wouldn't be of any greater benefit because campaigns don't have to adhere to any kind of average when it comes to establishing what threats will be faced.

And I don't think discounting any analysis that didn't account for the impossible to quantify variables of DM design style and monster usage as "not a good basis for discussion and evaluation" is reasonable.

...you can employ a long list of boosters whose effects are balooned by this feat.

At which point we are no longer evaluating a feat, but a combination of interacting choices, so the information we gain will not tell us whether this single feat is functioning appropriately or not - it will only tell us about that particular combination of interacting choices.

So many in fact, that if you're a martial character that does not choose either of these feats, you will have to resign yourself to being severely outdamaged in way too many fights.

Outdamaged by who, exactly? Also, why is it an issue for a martial character to be outdamaged by whomever?

I ask because the barbarian played in one of my campaigns does not know have this feat, nor is there any intention to take it later, and he seems to be doing just fine keeping up with the damage dealt by the rest of the party - even when he was choosing to use a magical dagger instead of a mundane greataxe because a larger magical weapon had yet to be found.

 

[Kryx]

I'm seeing not only much smaller DPR numbers than you have listed (around 15, rather than around 25), but I am also seeing the DPR of the 2 higher strength higher than the DPR of the feat user (15.65 over two attacks with a greataxe vs. 13.55 over two attacks with a greataxe and using great weapon master's -5/+10).

Could you elaborate upon your math, and the assumptions behind it, so I can see why your math just doesn't even kind of line up with mine?

The spreadsheet has everything referenced so you can see it all in formula form.

Since the spreadsheet is rather big and can not be so user-friendly I'll write it out here. Numbers all provided on the 5th level of DPR of Classes
Ignoring rage:
To Hit: A 5th barbarian has a 3(str)+3(prof) = +6 to attack. Compared to an enemy AC of 14.4 (rounded to 14 for flat 5% numbers for ease of use). If you want to see monster AC then look at "Monster Stats". It assumes fighting an distribution of enemies between CR 2 and CR 8 based on the numbers in the monster manual.
Back to the math: That's +6 vs AC 14. Barbarian needs to roll an 8 or above so his standard to hit is 65%, or 88% with Reckless Attack. Add in -5 and we're at 40% or 64% after advantage.
So we can take 64% and multiple it by the damage
Damage: I have the Barbarian using a battleaxe for thematics (Greatsword is slightly better). 6.5+3+10 = 19.5 damage if he hits. Add in crit of 5% and we get 20.1 (math can be seen in formula).
So if we take 20.1 and multiple it by .64 we get 13.1.
Multiple Attacks: We have 2 attacks so 13.1 becomes 26.2
Crit Chance: Advantage with 2 attacks gives us a 18.5% chance to crit.
Chance to Kill: Take the 26.2 damage from above and compare it to the average HP of an enemy. Average HP of an enemy for a 5th level character is 71 (see monster stats - same system as above). If we assume enemies are on average at about 80% of normal hp as our allies have hurt them (80% is probably very conservative) and we focus the hurt ones that gives us .8*71 = 56.8. 26.2/56.8 = 46% chance to kill an enemy
Overall GWM Chance: If we add the crit chance and kill chance (19%+46% = 65%) and remove the overlap we end up with 56%.
GWM Damage: So if we take our 13.1 from earlier and multiple it by .56 from GWM chance we get 7.4
Opportunity Attack: I assume opportunity attacks happen 1/10 rounds (or 10% of the time). This is very conservative I'd wager. Either way I multiple that by the greataxe (normal hit chance and without +10 as Reckless attack only works on your turn) we get .4 damage.

So a Barbarian without rage gets 34 DPR. Let's come back to this.

With rage
We have a similar process here.
14.4 damage on each attack. 28.8 total. 8.6 from GWM, .8 from OA. For a total of 38 DPR

Adventuring Day
If we now look at the number of rages the barbarian has we see he has 3 rages. Based on the DMG's XP system I use 4.44 combat encounters per day with 5.6 rounds per encounter to give us 24.9 rounds in a day. (I can expand on this if needed, but it would be really difficult to come up with more rounds per day using the game's expected system)
If the average combat is 5.6 rounds and we have 3 rages that's 16.8/24.9 = 67%. I assume a Barbarian can lose his rage 10% of the time and after rounding end up with raging 58% of the time.

Total DPR
So using the adventuring day above I multiple .58*38 DPR and .42*34 DPR and end up with 36.5 DPR.


Hopefully this has been helpful to understand what is going on.

When comparing the DPR of the -5/+10 boost vs. +2 strength, it is clear and unquestioned that the times when the -5/+10 option isn't used that the +2 strength has superior DPR, since it is both more accurate and more damaging.

This is not true. I showed the math on this above. GWM's cleave > +2 Str.

 

[CapnZapp]

Correct, but it is important to remember that the "massive benefit" is situational, and it is generally accepted that reducing something from constant to situational earns it the right to be of larger benefit when it does apply.

I don't even know what that means.

The important part of the consideration here is to determine if the benefit, at it's greatest potential without inclusion of combination of other features or abilities, is too strong. I don't find that to be the case.

Hey wait a minute, who said you could exclude "combination of other features or abilities"?

Of course it's not too strong if you exclude that!

That's the entire argument against the feats - that the designers have missed/overlooked/underestimated the relative ease with which you negate its downside to utilize the full brunt of its upsides!

Look. If you don't look at this with an optimizer's eyes, Aaron, you will never understand why the feats are-->can be-->will be-->are too strong.

The reason why most analysis doesn't get to this point is because the numbers you refer to are not a thing which can be meaningfully measured beyond the scope of a single campaign - the numbers of of such rounds would no doubt vary wildly between even just your table and mine, and to average them wouldn't be of any greater benefit because campaigns don't have to adhere to any kind of average when it comes to establishing what threats will be faced.

And yet I say it is precisely because the analyses I have seen does not exit the white room and enter a real world (note the "a" and not a "the") they do not catch the true strength of the feats.

And I don't think discounting any analysis that didn't account for the impossible to quantify variables of DM design style and monster usage as "not a good basis for discussion and evaluation" is reasonable.

You say it's impossible. Okay.

Let me then tell you I have seen the impossible. And it aint pretty.

At which point we are no longer evaluating a feat, but a combination of interacting choices, so the information we gain will not tell us whether this single feat is functioning appropriately or not - it will only tell us about that particular combination of interacting choices.

Bingo! Congratulations, Aaron!

Outdamaged by who, exactly? Also, why is it an issue for a martial character to be outdamaged by whomever?

Not "whomever". The other martial character.

The real issue with these feats isn't that you deal OMGBBQWTF amounts of damage.

The real issue with these feats is that only greatweapon and ranged character are allowed to deal OMGBBQWTF amounts of damage.

I ask because the barbarian played in one of my campaigns does not know have this feat, nor is there any intention to take it later, and he seems to be doing just fine keeping up with the damage dealt by the rest of the party - even when he was choosing to use a magical dagger instead of a mundane greataxe because a larger magical weapon had yet to be found.

If your barbarian player is only trying to keep up, I gotta tell you, your campaign isn't much like mine...

 

[Tony Vargas]

I don't even know what that means.

It means that even if you can prove it's broken by the numbers, it's not broken because the DM can always make sure it's 'situation' comes up exactly enough to balance it.

Look. If you don't look at this with an optimizer's eyes, Aaron, you will never understand why the feats are-->can be-->will be-->are too strong.

I suppose there's levels of broken? There's broken only in the hands of those evil optimizers (so shun them), breaks even with just obvious decisions, breaks without even trying, doesn't break if you're terribly careful to avoid breaking it, not broken if the DM constantly fixes it, and/or just plain broken all the time no matter what.

The real issue with these feats is that only greatweapon and ranged character are allowed to deal OMGBBQWTF amounts of damage.

So, OMGWTFBBQ Damage {Insert Style} Feats? Round it out? Make -5/+10 just an attack option anyone can take?

 

[Corwin]

This is not true. I showed the math on this above. GWM's cleave > +2 Str.

Is it really though? Under what parameters? I think you are selling the strength bonus vastly short. And intentionally so, IMO. I already pointed out twice why this is. You have yet to address it. Why is that?

 

[I'm A Banana]

As a separate but related notion, we are forgetting the psychology of game design.

And if not by any other standard, the feats are a failure in balance by this one.

Because even if you always meet hobgoblins and duergar and other units with good armor, the impact of having chosen the feat (that is the -1 -1 from not taking +2 strength) is nearly invisible.

While the impact of having chosen the feat versus goblins and ogres and various other undisciplined humanoids is extremely visible.

So even in the hypothetical scenario where you gain +10 damage once but lose -1 damage ten times, the feat is still a win.

Because we don't have a dpr counter like in a videogame, the loss of those ten -1 damage won't be felt at all, while everybody will still talk about that one time you completely dominated with much higher damage than everybody else.

Now imagine if you don't gain +10 once, but five times. And you don't lose -1 damage ten times, but five.

...

They might be MORE balanced by psychology than by the raw numbers.

Because you are going to remember the time you could've hit if you hadn't had the -5 more than you're going to remember the 10 extra damage, even if the 10 extra damage applies more often.

Missing and doing nothing is a much greater price to pay than dealing a smaller amount of damage, more reliably (magic missile is iconic for just this reason).

 

[Corwin]

CapnZapp said:
Look. If you don't look at this with an optimizer's eyes, Aaron, you will never understand why the feats are-->can be-->will be-->are too strong.

As a long-time optimizer and powergamer myself, I am a bit offended when some people claim to speak for me or that I must agree with their theories. I see the benefits of these feats. Of course I do. I don't see how they break D&D. And I certainly don't see how they are obvious must-have choices over a plethora of other good choices.

 

[AaronOfBarbaria]

Look. If you don't look at this with an optimizer's eyes, Aaron, you will never understand why the feats are-->can be-->will be-->are too strong.

You have this habit of thinking that because I disagree with you I must not have "optimizer's eyes."

You are wrong. I can disagree with you even though I do have the ability to optimize and recognize optimization.

Because what we disagree on is not the effect of the combination of factors that go into the optimal scenario, but that a single one of those factors can be ruled as over-powered because of the performance of the entire combination of factors - because those other factors (buffs, for example) are not an inherent part of the single factor (the feat).

Not "whomever". The other martial character.

What other martial character? There is no guarantee of their being any other martial character in the party, nor of another martial character that happens to be in the party having better damage - so again I ask, Outdamaged by who and why does that matter?

If your barbarian player is only trying to keep up, I gotta tell you, your campaign isn't much like mine...

Which is exactly the thing I've said to you numerous times so far - that something not working appropriate in one of our campaigns doesn't mean it won't work appropriately in another, which I acknowledge when I say things like "seems to be working as intended" because the thing can work without alteration, when you say things like "is broken." because it doesn't work appropriately in your campaign (and then rudely insist that anyone whose campaign it works in just isn't looking at it with the "right" eyes.)

Also, I used the phrase "keeping up" not because the rest of the party is doing roughly equal portions of the damage, but because the barbarian is keeping up enough damage that it isn't out of place to refer to him as the party's "go to damage dealer." But I can see why one would assume the other usage as you have done.

 

[Kryx]

Is it really though? Under what parameters? I think you are selling the strength bonus vastly short. And intentionally so, IMO. I already pointed out twice why this is. You have yet to address it. Why is that?

As above I challenge you to provide math showing the alternative. The parameters were fully outlined above. This is just becoming a game of "go there and do this. Now, spell it out fully. Oh, it's spelt out? Well I'm going to ignore that and bring up this other thing without substantiating it with any math"

This is a balance discussion. You haven't provided any math and continuously ignore mine while asking for more. This is obviously a game to you and not one to be respected.