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

[AaronOfBarbaria]

<snipped for space> 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.

I agree with that much at least.

Is it a clear unintended interaction that can greatly reduce the cost of the ability? Appears so.

I'm not sure there is more evidence for it being unintended than there is for it being as intended, but that intention not matching to some peoples' preference.

But it does mean that arguments it could be anything fall a bit flat.

I've never made, nor seen anyone make, such an argument.

The -5/+10 interact is a poor design, imo, given the structure of the system.

I can agree with that.

If the feature didn't include that -5 to-hit, its effectiveness wouldn't be so dependent upon the DM's choice of opponents to use, and there wouldn't be a massive assumption (how frequently each range of AC values will come up during play) involved in the math illustrating the practical functionality of the feat.

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

Which isn't all that far off from my own argument, when it comes down to it.

 

[CapnZapp]

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."

Lots of words, but the time for winning this argument through oratory is past.

I encourage you to head on over to my new thread, where we are discussing actual math.

I intend to showcase actual practical scenarios that everybody should be able to agree to can and will happen without them being corner cases or white room theory.

Then I will leave it up to each reader to conclude for him or herself if these scenarios happen sufficiently often that the feat indeed might pose a threat* to their campaign, or if these scenarios happen sufficiently seldom for the reader not to have to care.

*) mainly that it steers efficiency-minded players of martial characters away from anything that isn't greatweapon or archery

 

[CapnZapp]

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?

Strange how you have participated in the thread for so long without knowing what it is about. But never mind, I'm here to help.

We are arguing that it is bad for variety that you can't be nearly as much of a killer without the feats.

It might not concern you, but some players like to do their job well. They don't appreciate realizing you can't be a "killer" with a one-handed weapon, or with sword-and-board, or with dual weapons... or with anything that isn't either a greatweapon or ranged. It makes them feel all those combos are second-rate.

Best regards

 

[Helldritch]

Strange how you have participated in the thread for so long without knowing what it is about. But never mind, I'm here to help.

We are arguing that it is bad for variety that you can't be nearly as much of a killer without the feats.

No need to be snide dear sir. I perfectly know what is the subject of this thread. If I need to tell you, that part was irony.

It might not concern you, but some players like to do their job well. They don't appreciate realizing you can't be a "killer" with a one-handed weapon, or with sword-and-board, or with dual weapons... or with anything that isn't either a greatweapon or ranged. It makes them feel all those combos are second-rate.

Best regards

It always depends on your tastes and the tastes of your players. All styles will have a chance to shine. A good GM makes sure that everyone at the table will have his/her moment where the others will say:"phew... lucky for us you chose that style or had that ability!".

From the sword and board who successfully hold his ground in a door, preventing a horde to get in, because he chose defender style, to the fighter/rogue dual wielding daggers that threw a sneaky dagger that killed the ogres that was about to kill the wizard, we salute you.

D&D is as much min/maxing as it is roleplay and personnal styles. Some prefer to be the stalwart defender that nothing can hit, some prefer to be the killing machines and others prefer a blend of the two. And believe it or not, some players do play hand in hand with their fellows.

The real argument here is not if the other styles and feats are not killers enough but if SS and GWM are too powerful. They are not. By themselves, they are limited to low to med AC. That means that against high AC, these feats are almost useless even with help. If high AC is rare, or even almost non existant in a campaing, don't be surprise if all players take these feats. I certainly would (and so would my players). But in a balanced campaing where you make sure that every style counts, these feats are not taken more than any other. They become what they are, options. Currently, the group I have took none of these two feats. The ranger will certainly take it but for the moment, he prefers to get an ASI. (high AC are present enough, damn these hobgoblins...)

 

[Ovinomancer]

No need to be snide dear sir. I perfectly know what is the subject of this thread. If I need to tell you, that part was irony.



It always depends on your tastes and the tastes of your players. All styles will have a chance to shine. A good GM makes sure that everyone at the table will have his/her moment where the others will say:"phew... lucky for us you chose that style or had that ability!".

From the sword and board who successfully hold his ground in a door, preventing a horde to get in, because he chose defender style, to the fighter/rogue dual wielding daggers that threw a sneaky dagger that killed the ogres that was about to kill the wizard, we salute you.

D&D is as much min/maxing as it is roleplay and personnal styles. Some prefer to be the stalwart defender that nothing can hit, some prefer to be the killing machines and others prefer a blend of the two. And believe it or not, some players do play hand in hand with their fellows.

The real argument here is not if the other styles and feats are not killers enough but if SS and GWM are too powerful. They are not. By themselves, they are limited to low to med AC. That means that against high AC, these feats are almost useless even with help. If high AC is rare, or even almost non existant in a campaing, don't be surprise if all players take these feats. I certainly would (and so would my players). But in a balanced campaing where you make sure that every style counts, these feats are not taken more than any other. They become what they are, options. Currently, the group I have took none of these two feats. The ranger will certainly take it but for the moment, he prefers to get an ASI. (high AC are present enough, damn these hobgoblins...)

I disagree that it's the hallmark of a good DM to offset system failures to achieve a good game anyway. This directly implies that failing to provide such in spite of system failures means you aren't a good DM. You're just pushing system problems into the DMS overhead, and that's already crowded enough with just the normal DM duties.

I strongly dislike the argument that any problem could be overcome by good DMs. It's a facile argument that's used to gloss over or excuse system failures too often.

Now, SS/GWM may not be system failures, but they certainly apply pressure and can, as shown, operate in unexpected ways. Pushing adjusting to that onto the DM so you don't have to consider the mechanics is trite.

 

[Corwin]

Now, SS/GWM may not be system failures, but they certainly apply pressure and can, as shown, operate in unexpected ways.

You, and a few others, keep saying things like this. But it leads me to have to ask: "Unexpected" to whom, exactly?

 

[Ganymede81]

I just think that straight-up combat power and extra attacks shouldn't be offered as feats. It makes them must-haves for those that use that fighting style.

I'm a much bigger fan of feats like Alert, Mobile, Observant, Athlete, et al, that offer more diffused benefits.

 

[Corwin]

I just think that straight-up combat power and extra attacks shouldn't be offered as feats. It makes them must-haves for those that use that fighting style.

I have seen many players, myself included, choose other options besides these two feats.

I'm a much bigger fan of feats like Alert, Mobile, Observant, Athlete, et al, that offer more diffused benefits.

Me too. But I do not feel compelled to tell others what feats are right for them. Or what they should think is more fun.

 

[AaronOfBarbaria]

It makes them must-haves for those that use that fighting style.

First, I don't agree with the sentiment that these feats are "must-haves", nor that a character without them isn't enough of a "killer" as was stated above.

...but isn't it kind of the design intent of 5th edition feats that they be a one-stop-shop for being the best at the thing they relate to? It seems to me to be working as intended that someone wanting to use a great weapon and kick as much butt as possible takes the Great Weapon Master feat and then is doing just that (assuming they find the opportunities for the situational benefits to apply).

 

[Ganymede81]

I have seen many players, myself included, choose other options besides these two feats.

Myself included.

Me too. But I do not feel compelled to tell others what feats are right for them. Or what they should think is more fun.

I was referring to a game-design perspective. I was not implying that people are having fun wrong.

...but isn't it kind of the design intent of 5th edition feats that they be a one-stop-shop for being the best at the thing they relate to?

If it is the design philosophy of the feats, I disagree with it. I am not a fan of raw combat enhancements (Polearm Master, etc.) being situated side-by-side with ribbons and quasi-ribbons.