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

[Corwin]

Yes, in the post. The one you apparently still haven't read because that question is directly answered, and it's not a corner case.

So what is this archer shooting at that he can take that -5 with impunity? I saw no such examples in your post. Just theoretical numbers that have zero value at the table.

 

[Ovinomancer]

My analysis is specific to GWM, so your sharpshooter/archery style example is not really relevant - I am not suggesting SS is not OP, just GWM.

As for GWM, I already addressed your point when I said "In order for it to be a factor, you would have to have so many buffs that your target to hit # goes below 5 WHEN GWM is on, something that shouldn't really ever happen in a competitive game." Your level 8 guy w/GWM would likely only have +8 to hit. But the typical AC he should be facing at that level is 16 as per DMG. So unless he gets more than +6 in buffs, or fights a lot of AC9 or less monsters, or some combination thereof, he's not gonna hit the floor except rarely. Is it possible? Sure - but if it happens more than rarely your DM should be giving you better challenges lol....

I, personally, think it's very odd if the average AC you're facing at level 8 is AC 16. That puts optimized characters at a 50% hit rate, and that's not what the game's designed for. Also, that would mean that you're doing a lot of fighting single monsters as a CR 8 against a party of 4 8th level characters is a medium challenge. 2 are a deadly one. 4 CR 2 critters is also a medium challenge, and have ACs much lower than 16. I don't think your argument that 8th level means average AC 16 enemies holds much water.

But, yes, the floors are lower for non-archery style characters. That's a true statement. I went with SS because I have a character in my game that fit that bill precisely, and I knew the point stood and came up often enough to matter -- that the penalty was moot for low AC (ie, 12 and lower) critters.

I read the post. It's always a factor as long as you don't hit on a -3 normally or only on a natural 20, otherwise it affects your accuracy. The only areas which the -5 isn't a full -5 is when you chance of hitting can't improve or worsen by a full 5. We're talking miss on a 15 or hit on a 1 (if it weren't a fumble). That's the rare event.

Not if you add in Bless, or a Bard. Or advantage. Point is, that 2+attack bonus is the floor against which you gain no benefit from bonuses (you gain a slight one from advantage). So long as the enemies are close to 2+attack bonus, using the -5/+10 gains full use from any buffs including advantage. If the AC you're aiming at is higher than 2+attack bonus, the advantage drops off -- for instance, at 3+attack bonus, you only ever get a +1 benefit from any bonus die or effect, but the -5 guy is still getting all of it. If you both roll 4 on the Bless die, your chance to hit increases by 5%, their's increases by 20%.

Depending on the AC and the bonus dice, you can completely erase the -5 penalty without ever giving any advantage to a non-SS/GWM character. So, the point that you can erase the penalty exists, and it's not much of a corner case. Bard's get d6's right off the bat.

 

[Ovinomancer]

So what is this archer shooting at that he can take that -5 with impunity? I saw no such examples in your post. Just theoretical numbers that have zero value at the table.

If it's hard for you to put the numbers to a thing, I suggest opening the Monster Manual and looking at all the monsters with AC 12 or less. Those are what's being shot at in the example. Glad to be of help to you grasping this theoretically difficult point.

 

[Corwin]

Not if you add in Bless, or a Bard. Or advantage.

Talk about, "Good grief, rtft."

So we are back to this? The idea that you are putting all the "blame", on some extremely effective combos, squarely on the shoulders of the feat, and the feat alone, has already been debunked. Repeatedly. Here in this thread.

 

[Corwin]

If it's hard for you to put the numbers to a thing, I suggest opening the Monster Manual and looking at all the monsters with AC 12 or less. Those are what's being shot at in the example. Glad to be of help to you grasping this theoretically difficult point.

Like what? What is the archer shooting at? If its so easy, why can't you name a thing? You are the one presenting your theory. I'm asking you for examples to prove it. I should haven't to do the heaving lifting for you.

 

[shoak1]

But, yes, the floors are lower for non-archery style characters. That's a true statement. I went with SS because I have a character in my game that fit that bill precisely, and I knew the point stood and came up often enough to matter -- that the penalty was moot for low AC (ie, 12 and lower) critters......Depending on the AC and the bonus dice, you can completely erase the -5 penalty without ever giving any advantage to a non-SS/GWM character. So, the point that you can erase the penalty exists, and it's not much of a corner case. Bard's get d6's right off the bat.

Maybe you should tweak your statement a bit to take into account the different floor for SS/archery vs GWM right? I would say hitting the floor is uncommon (but a factor) when it comes to SS but more rare when it comes to GWM. And even hitting the floor only adds 5% increases depending on har far you are able to push below the floor (an increasingly difficult/impossible task), it doesn't give the whole 25% extra damage all at once.

 

[Ovinomancer]

Talk about, "Good grief, rtft."

So we are back to this? The idea that you are putting all the "blame", on some extremely effective combos, squarely on the shoulders of the feat, and the feat alone, has already been debunked. Repeatedly. Here in this thread.

I didn't make that claim at all, I was specifically refuting the claims that it's always 5 points worse and you can't get rid of the penalty, both of which have been advanced in this thread.

 

[Helldritch]

So if I understand correctly, those feats are Overpowered because you can use bless and a bard's ability to put them out of their misery????

These combos have existed since the beginning of OD&D (well not the bard thing but then we had chants and prayers). Using them is part of the game. Not using them is not only illogical but it is playing with a needless handicap. Why on earth would you not use those spells/abilities to buff yourselves up for a tough fight?

And by the way. The sharp shooter feet does allow to ignore cover. I don't know in your games, but in mine, overturning a table, using tree as covers, shooting from a corner are all considered pretty much essentials and the ranged enemies are using these covers as much as possible. Sharp shooter and Spell snipers are pretty much essential in my games.

 

[Ovinomancer]

Like what? What is the archer shooting at? If its so easy, why can't you name a thing? You are the one presenting your theory. I'm asking you for examples to prove it. I should haven't to do the heaving lifting for you.

Well, I largely thought that you could maybe supply some enemies with AC 12 or less yourself. I typically assume that people I debate D&D with have a passing familiarity with the game, and aren't stumped by references to monsters with AC 12. Shall I not assume this for you, anymore?

 

[Corwin]

I didn't make that claim at all, I was specifically refuting the claims that it's always 5 points worse and you can't get rid of the penalty, both of which have been advanced in this thread.

Again: Shooting at *what* thought? What is that 8th-level archer attacking that he does not feel that -5 penalty?

Besides the fact that you have yet to give even one example, I believe you are misrepresenting this "claim" you say you are refuting. It's not that "you can't get rid of the penalty", it's that the penalty is still there even if you apply mitigating benefits to help mask them. Because that -5 *is* still there. Not to mention the other issue being avoided: mitigating that penalty generally requires the expenditure of resources. You act like bless or bard's inspiration is an always-on, free benefit divvied out on a whim.