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

[Tony Vargas]

If you're fighting a lone enemy and it dies so you can't hit it again then you've won! Yay! Or if it's not dead then 18.5% of rounds you get to hit it again! Yay!

Well, if nothing else, good energy, there. Like the enthusiasm.

It isn't 18.5% of rounds that you get to hit it again.
It's an 18.5% chance in a given round that you get to hit it again.

True. What would the expected number of rounds be? About 5 or 6, no? (About 3 rounds for a 50% chance of it kicking in even once). Except, it's not each round that's a trial, but each attack, so that's probably off, too...

Of course, it could happen every round, or not at all. That's the thing about randomness, it's so random. Same reason Improved Critical isn't all it's cracked up to be. Yes, it does something cool and spikey, but the player doesn't control it, so it's independent of the 'drama of the scene,' no 'player agency,' &c...

:shrug:

That would be a whole lot more relevant, as in at all relevant, had I told someone that their phone hasn't exploded (that the feat works fine in their campaign) rather than having told them that not all phones explode (that the feat works in other campaigns).

It'd be relevant if I had the model of phone prone to the defect. Point is, even if relevant, my experience does nothing to un-explode anyone else's phone.

 

[AaronOfBarbaria]

Point is, even if relevant, my experience does nothing to un-explode anyone else's phone.

You seem to be implying that I've said otherwise. I haven't.

 

[Corwin]

IMO, the flaw in the whole phone analogy is that the phones being alluded to have a real and identifiable defect. These feats? Subjective.

 

[Tony Vargas]

IMO, the flaw in the whole phone analogy is that the phones being alluded to have a real and identifiable defect.

Mine doesn't.

These feats? Subjective.

Open to DM interpretation, at least, (and explicitly opt-in optional) but printed in black & white.

You seem to be implying that I've said otherwise. I haven't.

I'm not implying you've said other wise, I'm saying you've implied otherwise. When someone complains, and you answer with the information that you do not have the same complaint, that might seem to you like it's just a factual statement, but it at least implies, oh, skepticism, perhaps, as to whether his complaint is valid.

Otherwise, why even mention it?

 

[Corwin]

I'm not implying you've said other wise, I'm saying you've implied otherwise. When someone complains, and you answer with the information that you do not have the same complaint, that might seem to you like a factual statement, but it at least implies, oh, skepticism, perhaps, as to whether his complaint is valid.

Otherwise, why even mention it?

I find these types of exchanges can be prevented simply by the OP not making "factual" and "universally true" claims about subjective opinions. Rather, they should couch their observations by accepting their own POV and playstyle choices are potential vectors.

Instead of, "These feats are clearly broken!", how about, "I'm finding these feats to overshadow play in my game."

 

[AaronOfBarbaria]

I'm not implying you've said other wise, I'm saying you've implied otherwise. When someone complains, and you answer with the information that you do not have the same complaint, that might seem to you like a factual statement, but it at least implies, oh, skepticism, perhaps, as to whether his complaint is valid.

Otherwise, why even mention it?

I see where the issue is.

You've seen me tell CappnZapp that a feat not working in his campaign doesn't mean the feat is unable to work in any campaign, and presenting my own campaign in which the feat works fine as evidence.

You've misinterpreted it as me telling CappnZapp anything other than that he should fix things for his campaign, but stop telling the rest of us we have to fix it for ours too because ours isn't broken.

I'm not skeptical of his complaint. I am fully accepting of it as truth - but a truth of his own campaign, not a universal and unquestionable truth that includes my campaign, and the rest of us just can't see it yet.

Or, to phrase this differently in hopes that it is understood: I didn't say he couldn't tell people his phone exploded. I didn't say he couldn't caution people using similar phones. I said he was wrong when he said literally all phones are going to explode once the rest of us phone-users level up (and our phones too).

 

[Tony Vargas]

CappnZapp .. should fix things for his campaign, but stop telling the rest of us we have to fix it for ours too because ours isn't broken.

Has he been telling anyone that, or just insisting that the problem is with the feats in question? I mean, if we allow that I've been misinterpreting prettymuch everything you've said in this and a few other threads this week, maybe you've read a little something into his posts on this one?

I didn't say he couldn't tell people his phone exploded. I didn't say he couldn't caution people using similar phones. I said he was wrong when he said literally all phones are going to explode once the rest of us phone-users level up (and our phones too).

Well, I'm in no rush to upgrade at the moment. Not to a 7 Edge, nor to allowing Feats when I run 5e.

I find these types of exchanges can be prevented simply by the OP not making "factual" and "universally true" claims about subjective opinions.

Instead of, "These feats are clearly broken!", how about, "I'm finding these feats to overshadow play in my game."

Very reasonable. It might invite examination of "what's wrong with your game" rather than "how might I fix this" but at least it's constructive from the get-go.
Similarly, in making this a poll, it's seeking a consensus, which 'universalizes' the whole thing, inviting contrary opinions presented as if they were conclusive counter-example, the same sort of mistake.

Of course, the healing 'whack-a-mole' thread came closer to that, and still invited the same kind of responses. :shrug: Hazards of the medium, I guess.

 

[AaronOfBarbaria]

Has he been telling anyone that, or just insisting that the problem is with the feats in question?

He told me I had the wrong eyes, and he said that everyone will see the problem when their players level up (and their characters to) - and that is his parenthetical add-on to his original choice of words, not mine.

I mean, if we allow that I've been misinterpreting prettymuch everything you've said in this and a few other threads this week, maybe you've read a little something into his posts on this one?

I've been constantly open to their being some misunderstanding, which is why conversation on the matter continues past my initial statement and the other person's reply to it. However, I also believe that I've used clear phrasing in my own posts, since everyone but you seems to be getting what I'm saying in the way I'm saying it.

Of course, the healing 'whack-a-mole' thread came closer to that, and still invited the same kind of responses. :shrug: Hazards of the medium, I guess.

That thread was a case of someone saying an issue was a mechanical issue (meaning one inherent to the mechanics themselves) and me saying the issue was non-mechanical in nature in an effort to help them solve the problem they were experiencing - and you misinterpreting that much the same way you are misinterpreting me in this thread.

 

[Valetudo]

Are these feats op? Or are some feats so underwhelming that they make these feats shine. SS and GWM are really good feats but feats/ASIs are very unbalanced. Your class choice alone can change how important what you do with your feat choice.

 

[Xeviat]

Are these feats op? Or are some feats so underwhelming that they make these feats shine. SS and GWM are really good feats but feats/ASIs are very unbalanced. Your class choice alone can change how important what you do with your feat choice.

I suppose the only way to "determine" if GWM was if it was more powerful than +2 Str, which comes with skills and a save and other things that make them hard to compare. If GWM is the balance threshold for combat feats, then there are a few other combat feats that suddenly look a lot weaker (savage attacker?).


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk