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

[CapnZapp]

To negate that -5 to hit, you need Bless, Archery fighting style and... +1 from somewhere. And that's not accounting for the instability of bless being a die roll.
That's a fighting style, a spell slot per fight, the action required to cast bless, and a player's concentration all taken up for +10 damage, vs a regular archer without the archery fighting style. Especially at later levels, that's not worth giving up say... Spirit Guardians.

This isn't directed at you personally Yunru. Your post is merely a good example of why we're not getting anywhere. There are no hard numbers in the above. This mixes in so many variables everything becomes cloudy.

The reason I'm setting up a real specific example is because all this arguing back and forth where we only use examples that support our own positions lead nowhere.

I encourage y'all to discuss over at http://www.enworld.org/forum/showth...-are-overpowered-(cont-d-actual-calculations)

GWM vs Strength, Advantage vs No Advantage. Nothing more.

 

[Yunru]

Okay, I must have misunderstood your comment about the difference between an archer with a fighting style vs a regular archer without one. On rereading, I still don't understand that.

I merely point out the investments needed just to maintain an accuracy on par with a character with the same stats and no other investments, since one of the claims was the -5 was trivially negated.

 

[Corwin]

I think it's a bit extraordinary to compare a character that made choices that are somewhat obvious for improving their chosen role as an archer (fighting style, a feat called sharpshooter) with a character that didn't choose such things.

But that second guy did still get to choose *other* things. Are you implying one way is the right way to go? Is the second person in your hypothetical comparison lesser for not focusing on DPR? Can you site an example or two to illustrate your point as to how the non archery/SS fighter is somehow worse? I know, you've expressed a certain kind of dread for actually having to provide practical examples. But I beg of you to at least try.

 

[shoak1]

Here's an actual example of a character using a greatweapon with and without GWM, and with +2 Strength respectively.

Before the choice point: Strength +3, To hit +6, Base damage 3+2d6=10

After the choice point:
A. Strength +4, To hit +7, Base damage 11
B. Strength +3, To hit +6, Base damage 10 or 20

Versus AC 18:
A. Hit probability 50% (needs to roll 11) = expected damage 11x0,5=5,5
B. Hit probability 45% (needs to roll 12) so does not use feat
Actual hit probability 45% x 10 = expected damage 10x0,45=4,5

Winner A by one point (much as expected)

Versus AC 12:
A. Hit probability 80% (needs to roll 5) = expected damage 11x0,8=8,8
B. Hit probability 75% (needs to roll 6) so uses the feat
Actual hit probability 50% x 20 = expected damage 10

Winner B by not much more than one point.

So far the feat seems balanced or underpowered even.

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

So let's compute vs AC 12 with advantage, shall we?

Versus AC 12 with advantage:
A. Hit probability 96% (needs to roll 5 once) = expected damage 11x0,96=10,56
B. Hit probability 9375% (needs to roll 6 once) so uses the feat
Actual hit probability 75% x 20 = expected damage 15

Winner B by four and a half point, or over +40% damage.

Before we move over to conclusions, I'm posting this so you can check so I haven't made a mistake, or suggest why another set of comparison points would improve the analysis.

OK - so first, it seems now we agree on what I said earlier, which is that at best (vs AC 12, with advantage, and against a low AC mob) you only get about a 4 average damage increase w/GWM.

As for the 40% increase, I think to be fair, that is misleading. First because any damage buff at a low level when expressed as a +x% is going to sound OP (OMG! my mage just got a +1 dagger and his dps went up 100% - yay!!! sic). How about when you are 20 STR w/a +2 weapon and your avg dmg.is 14? Now its 28%.

And baddies' AC and hp go up in somewhat proportionate patterns. So if the AC is as low as you mention, there hp are going to be lower and your "bigger chunk" damage is more likely to produce overkill. Now I know overkill can be mitigated by cleave to some extent, but it is merely mitigated a bit, not eliminated as a soak to avg damage.

Examples:
vs Orcs w/AC 13 and 15 hp, you win - no likely overkill and low AC - also GWM allows you to 1 shot him - perfect opponent
vs ANKYLOSAURUS w/AC15 and 68 hp - overkill is a dicey affair, and AC weakens GWM's effectiveness
vs Will-o-wisp w/AC 19 and 22 hp, overkill is an issue, and the high AC means GWM=suck
vs Ghoul w/AC12 and 22 hp, overkill is an issue, but low AC helps GWM
vs Hill giant w/AC 13 and 105 hp, no real overkill problem here vs this big bag of hp, and low AC makes this a good target of GWM

Also, consider that many feats, powers and spells are more deadly in combinations. You have Advantage in your example, something very effective as a combo w/a lot of feats and powers. I think in the case of SS/archery its a bit more clearly low hanging min-max fruit, but GWM is a bit harder to make that argument for. I would argue there are hundreds of other equivalently deadly combos, both for players and DMs.

 

[Yunru]

But that second guy did still get to choose *other* things. Are you implying one way is the right way to go? Is the second person in your hypothetical comparison lesser for not focusing on DPR? Can you site an example or two to illustrate your point as to how the non archery/SS fighter is somehow worse? I know, you've expressed a certain kind of dread for actually having to provide practical examples. But I beg of you to at least try.

Nah, clearly SS/GWF is too powerful because a two person team makes it stronger than a single character without it [emoji14]

 

[shoak1]

Nah, clearly SS/GWF is too powerful because a two person team makes it stronger than a single character without it [emoji14]

Objection your honor - argumentative.

Unsportsmanlike conduct - 10 yard penalty - repeat 3rd down.

 

[AaronOfBarbaria]

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?

That's not a good example because the hypothetical feat being used to illustrate a point doesn't function acceptably on its own (i.e. no one would take that feat in the hopes that other factors come into play that allow it to be used).

The game features does not exist in isolation.

That does not contradict any point I've made. Though it does show that there is a possibility my point hasn't been understood - for which I will admit I am potentially part of the reason for that, and not blame it on you specifically. Which might help to illustrate my point more clearly; Our communication is the combination of Great Weapon Master (your reading of my post), and some number of other game mechanics (the words I've chosen to use in my post).

That our communication hasn't worked out as hoped, with you understanding the point I am making, doesn't mean that one of us can be picked out as the cause - just like Great Weapon Master can't be singled-out as the part of a combo that is causing problems.

What matters isn't evaluation of each feature taken separately, but how players put them together.

Both matter.

...my factual approach and yours, based on... I don't know what to call your approach. Dogmatic perhaps?

We are both presenting approaches based on fact. It's rude of you to try to suggest otherwise.

Rules don't exist in isolation. If there is an easy to get and common bonus that can dramatically increase the effectiveness of a feat, it needs to be evaluated with that as well.

I've never once said that the rules exist in isolation, nor that we should not be evaluating combinations of rules to make sure nothing undesired is happening.

What I have said is that when we put [game element A] together with [game element B] and reach an undesired result that saying "[game element B] is broken" is not a reasonable conclusion if [game element B] didn't produce any undesired results without [game element A], or some other game element, in the mix.

The information used as evidence by one side of this argument that Great Weapon Master and Sharp Shooter allowing -5 to-hit for +10 damage is "broken", while insisting all the other things that exist in the combos that produce that result are working fine, is not actually supporting that, and only that conclusion.

With the above Great Weapon Master + Advantage, we have equal evidence that Great Weapon Master is at fault, and that whatever granted Advantage is at fault, and yet one of them has been selected as an arbitrary scape goat.

The argument is coming across as "That's too much for one feat to do", and I am answering "It isn't just one feat doing it."

 

[Helldritch]

The argument is coming across as "That's too much for one feat to do", and I am answering "It isn't just one feat doing it."

And I might add this:"Feats are working as intented. To circumvent penalties; the players' cooporation is required and surely hoped for."

No one is contesting that with the right buffs; these feats can be real killers.
Strangely, that is the goal of these feats. To be real killers at the right time, at the right place in the right hands.
So what are we arguing about?

 

[Ovinomancer]

That's not a good example because the hypothetical feat being used to illustrate a point doesn't function acceptably on its own (i.e. no one would take that feat in the hopes that other factors come into play that allow it to be used).

That does not contradict any point I've made. Though it does show that there is a possibility my point hasn't been understood - for which I will admit I am potentially part of the reason for that, and not blame it on you specifically. Which might help to illustrate my point more clearly; Our communication is the combination of Great Weapon Master (your reading of my post), and some number of other game mechanics (the words I've chosen to use in my post).

That our communication hasn't worked out as hoped, with you understanding the point I am making, doesn't mean that one of us can be picked out as the cause - just like Great Weapon Master can't be singled-out as the part of a combo that is causing problems.

Both matter.

We are both presenting approaches based on fact. It's rude of you to try to suggest otherwise.

I've never once said that the rules exist in isolation, nor that we should not be evaluating combinations of rules to make sure nothing undesired is happening.

What I have said is that when we put [game element A] together with [game element B] and reach an undesired result that saying "[game element B] is broken" is not a reasonable conclusion if [game element B] didn't produce any undesired results without [game element A], or some other game element, in the mix.

The information used as evidence by one side of this argument that Great Weapon Master and Sharp Shooter allowing -5 to-hit for +10 damage is "broken", while insisting all the other things that exist in the combos that produce that result are working fine, is not actually supporting that, and only that conclusion.

With the above Great Weapon Master + Advantage, we have equal evidence that Great Weapon Master is at fault, and that whatever granted Advantage is at fault, and yet one of them has been selected as an arbitrary scape goat.

The argument is coming across as "That's too much for one feat to do", and I am answering "It isn't just one feat doing it."

This touches exactly what I was saying, though -- you look at the other rules and see if they're a problem in other circumstances. Advantage isn't, because few other things impose penalties for benefits as mechanically, so advantage doesn't interact with them the same way. Similarly bless and Bardic inspiration don't function poorly with other things, and only cause issues with GWM/SS because of the floor issues (without those, everyone would get the same benefit, whereas with them, the penalty takers have a path to negate the penalties). It's really the interaction with GWM/SS -5/+10 abilities. Is that broken? That's a judgement call and depends on how your games work out. Is it a clear unintended interaction that can greatly reduce the cost of the ability? Appears so. Is the problem advantage or bless or inspiration? Those work in other circumstances without issue, and it's only the interaction with the unique mechanical penalty/bonus that seems to cause the issue. So, then, the one thing that has that kind of penalty/bonus interaction is the culprit, because you can't get that kind of interaction if you take it out of the mix. Again, does this mean it's broken? No, still a judgement call. But it does mean that arguments it could be anything fall a bit flat. The -5/+10 interact is a poor design, imo, given the structure of the system. We'd have been better off with something else, but I'm not prepared to universally say that it's so bad it's broken.

My argument is be aware of how it actually works -- where it can be negated and how -- and play your game accordingly.

 

[Yunru]

I like my +5/+10 War Clerics- being disposable enemy NPCs, X /day abilities become X/rest or shorter.