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

[shoak1]

Sorry but I don't understand. Who is character C? Or perhaps you're merely proposing I add "unlucky character C" who uses the feat when she shouldn't?

I'm sorry - while this might illustrate when and why exactly you shouldn't use the feat, I don't want to bog down the analysis with flawed gameplay, since that has no bearing on its real utility.

You seem to be getting a bit snippety CapnZapp....I did what you asked - sorry if it was less than efficient...in any case, I'll go back now and examine the rest of your post and see what I think.

 

[AaronOfBarbaria]

But this does not take into consideration the numerous ways of boosting your GWM usage.

None of which are inherent to the Great Weapon Master feat, and as such are not relevant in determining if the feat itself functions acceptably or not.

A separate consideration of the performance of a particular combo is useful, because combos exist, but consideration of a combo isn't going to illustrate that any one element of the combo in particular isn't functioning acceptably.

 

[Ovinomancer]

Against an AC 12, who according to the DMG tables, with have a HP such that the +10 is unneeded in the first place. Tut tut, no going and ignoring context to suit your argument.

The good Yeti disagrees with you. AC 12 and 30 hps.

 

[Corwin]

Until the cleric casts bless, at least.

Now who's not following along? Is that cleric casting bless on the archer if he doesn't have SS? Probably not. Because it would be a waste of a limited resource.

Now that archer hits on a 7 or better always, and could hit on a 4 or better (rolls a 4 on his Bless d4).

So, no longer hitting on a '2', huh?

I also got a kick out of how you knew you were presenting highly niche examples and felt the need to caveat the heck out of them preemptively. That says a lot more than you think.

In related news, warhammers are totally broken because skeletons take double damage from bludgeoning.

 

[CapnZapp]

Ah yes, except you are the one that choose the lowest of ACs, which conveniently helps makes SS and GWM look overpowered. An AC of 16 is a much better AC, yes. Except no, you don't get +1 Strength, +2 proficiency, and a _1 magic weapon. Because you're expected to fight ACs of 16 long before you get any of those boosts. And when you do, it's to make those ACs matter less.

Sorry but I still don't follow you?

Are you suggesting there does not exist a monster such that you have 75% hit probability yet it sports more than 20 hit points?

Because if you do, congrats - that's the first time I've heard (or at least fully understood) that particular argument against the feat.

Otherwise, I will assume you are okay with me picking such an example.

Furthermore I don't understand the "you're expected to fight ACs of 16 long before" part either. You did see me clearly using an AC 18 example, did you not? I definitely did not assume any of those boosts, and yet I showcased the AC 18 openly and clearly.

You will have to be more specific, I'm afraid. If it helps, I encourage you to set up two contrasting examples yourself, so I can understand where you feel I am misrepresenting actual play.

 

[Ovinomancer]

DMG p.274. Average HP of a AC <13 creature is assumed to be 1-6hp.

I'm thinking you might not understand that table. The defensive CR of a critter is, in part, determined by it's AC. An AC of twelve lowers it's defensive CR to a 0. This is averaged with it's hitpoints (and special abilities) to determine it's actual defensive CR, so you can set the AC to 12, pick up the 0, and then give it 100 hps for a CR 3, and that averages to a defense CR of 1 or 2 (depends on how you feel like rounding 1.5). If the offensive CR is high, say good for a CR 6, then you have a CR 4ish beast with very low AC, medium hitpoints, and very good damage outlay for that CR. Hopefully, this helps.

 

[Yunru]

The good Yeti disagrees with you. AC 12 and 30 hps.

I directly reference the DMG tables, your example is irrelevant because it's not said tables.
Not to say exceptions to the 13 AC->Low HP rule don't exist, but it's not the assumed state.

 

[CapnZapp]

You seem to be getting a bit snippety CapnZapp....I did what you asked - sorry if it was less than efficient...in any case, I'll go back now and examine the rest of your post and see what I think.

Apologies. You are right. The way it's open season on making underhanded and insubstantiated and frankly insulting attacks and snipes lately does no wonders for your composure.

As for what I asked, the thread is a bit chaotic recently, so I will have to jump back through the quotes to see what you mean. I'll get back to you if I have further questions.

 

[Ovinomancer]

Now who's not following along? Is that cleric casting bless on the archer if he doesn't have SS? Probably not. Because it would be a waste of a limited resource.

I'm sorry, I didn't realize there were rules that prevented casting bless in some circumstances. Nor did I realize that doing so was negated if there was a character, somewhere, that didn't benefit. Is this a serious objection?

So, no longer hitting on a '2', huh?

You have a strange sense of winning. Are there other secret words I need to be aware of? What if I say 'beeswax'? Does that win something?

I also got a kick out of how you knew you were presenting highly niche examples and felt the need to caveat the heck out of them preemptively. That says a lot more than you think.

No, what I knew was that you'd immediately engage this kind of argument. It was a comment on you, not me. Thank you for confirming my suspicions that you're not a serious person.

In related news, warhammers are totally broken because skeletons take double damage from bludgeoning.

Again, thank you for further confirmation.

 

[shoak1]

None of which are inherent to the Great Weapon Master feat, and as such are not relevant in determining if the feat itself functions acceptably or not.

A separate consideration of the performance of a particular combo is useful, because combos exist, but consideration of a combo isn't going to illustrate that any one element of the combo in particular isn't functioning acceptably.

Yes and no - I would argue the "low hanging fruit" concept here. To many it might seem a bit too easy and clear of a choice. Let me propose an imaginary feat that is a bit more extreme to illustrate the point:

Battle Captain: If you attack with a weapon and currently have +12 to hit or better, score 10 additional damage.

Would you then still argue that since it likely requires buffs to get there that its the combo that's the culprit and not the feat?