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

[Corwin]

Myself included.

Awesome.

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

I do not see how the game's design is telling people anything of the sort. If people, you and I included, are capable of resisting the "need" to take these feats, what are you really saying?

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.

What do you mean by, "ribbons and quasi-ribbons"? Do you mean feats that are more obviously applicable to the other 2/3rds of D&D (i.e., other than combat)?

 

[AaronOfBarbaria]

I am not a fan of raw combat enhancements (Polearm Master, etc.) being situated side-by-side with ribbons and quasi-ribbons.

In more than one of my campaigns thus far, raw combat enhancements are the ribbons.

I get what you are saying though - there are ways to handle presentation of options which will vary in importance based on the campaign being played other than to call them all feats and have them all draw from the same pool of resources. However, I'm not sure that any of them would be more appealing to a wider portion of players than the current feat system (where the player can take feats that are important for the campaign they are in, and not be forced to take more ribbons beyond what their class has likely already saddled them with).

 

[Ganymede81]

I'm not sure that any of them would be more appealing to a wider portion of players than the current feat system

Well yeah. I certainly can't speak for all of those people.

 

[FormerlyHemlock]

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.

Alert and Mobile are​ straight-up combat power, in addition to their other benefits.

 

[shoak1]

In more than one of my campaigns thus far, raw combat enhancements are the ribbons.

I get what you are saying though - there are ways to handle presentation of options which will vary in importance based on the campaign being played other than to call them all feats and have them all draw from the same pool of resources. However, I'm not sure that any of them would be more appealing to a wider portion of players than the current feat system (where the player can take feats that are important for the campaign they are in, and not be forced to take more ribbons beyond what their class has likely already saddled them with).

I agree mostly w/you here. I feel the current feat system does indeed offer feats that are important to a wide variety of play-styles. It's just that the combat subset has a half-___ed feel to it, is a bit unbalanced, and is too limiting/confining in good options. With 5-6 more feats and a little more balancing work, they could have provided a much better product.

 

[Uchawi]

I believe the system would be better if they had implemented maneuvers for martial classes, similar to spells for casters. Then there would not be a heavy dependence on martial type feats offering a big boost to the martial side of the fence or the only choice to add variety. Instead, feats could be treated as neutral to all classes and only for fine tuning.

 

[Istbor]

I agree mostly w/you here. I feel the current feat system does indeed offer feats that are important to a wide variety of play-styles. It's just that the combat subset has a half-___ed feel to it, is a bit unbalanced, and is too limiting/confining in good options. With 5-6 more feats and a little more balancing work, they could have provided a much better product.

You are in luck! There is another wave of feats currently in the testing.

I am sure with it, will come more wringing of hands and gnashing of teeth.

 

[Helldritch]

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.

These are not system failures. But always putting players against low AC opponent is a DM failure. Encounters should be varied and challenging. By not using varied encounters and making the encounters more or less the same, the DM is encouraging players to take these feats. This is where the sense of these feats being over powered is coming from.

My players prefer to see different kind of encounters in which many styles and abilities will come into play. Always munchin against low AC, high HP opponents is not their cup of tea and it's not mine either. Not all fights are in big rooms or in the open. Some are in dense forest, others in cramped corridors, smelly swamps or even in the air! Variety makes GWM/SS not that great as they are somewhat limited in scope. Not all encounters are resolved with damage per round.

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.

So am I. I wholeheartedly agree with you on that. Unfortunately, most of the time, the problem comes directly from a DM's bad habit or a misunderstanding of the system or a rule. It can happen to anyone. I raise my hand and say: "Guilty of that myself." That is why I come to this forum. People in here share their knowledge freely and with dignity. That is what I like. Sometimes I'm right, sometimes I'm wrong. The goal is to improve both my knowledge and my play.

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

No they're not system failures. They work as expected (at least in my games and many that I am aware of). But you can bet that players will find ways to make things go in unexpected ways all the time. Be it a rule, a path taken in a dungeon that bypasses all your clever traps or anything else you can think of.

Pushing adjusting to that onto the DM so you don't have to consider the mechanics is trite.

Lacking originality in RPGs is quite an oxymoron. I don't think that anyone in here lacks imagination. But it can be easy for a DM to fall into bad habits or to miss the obvious. The pole itself shows that (for the moment) most people see nothing wrong in the feats themselves. Are we all wrong? I don't think so. Those who consider the feats to be over powered are concerned with some interaction. Yes, some of these interactions can make these feat truly shine. And then again that is what is expected from them. But with sufficiently varied encounters they won't dominate the field.

And to be frank, I am more afraid of Mobility, Sentinel and Alertness feats... These feats work in all circumstances and can be a real pain in the a**.

 

[Ovinomancer]

These are not system failures. But always putting players against low AC opponent is a DM failure. Encounters should be varied and challenging. By not using varied encounters and making the encounters more or less the same, the DM is encouraging players to take these feats. This is where the sense of these feats being over powered is coming from.

My players prefer to see different kind of encounters in which many styles and abilities will come into play. Always munchin against low AC, high HP opponents is not their cup of tea and it's not mine either. Not all fights are in big rooms or in the open. Some are in dense forest, others in cramped corridors, smelly swamps or even in the air! Variety makes GWM/SS not that great as they are somewhat limited in scope. Not all encounters are resolved with damage per round.



So am I. I wholeheartedly agree with you on that. Unfortunately, most of the time, the problem comes directly from a DM's bad habit or a misunderstanding of the system or a rule. It can happen to anyone. I raise my hand and say: "Guilty of that myself." That is why I come to this forum. People in here share their knowledge freely and with dignity. That is what I like. Sometimes I'm right, sometimes I'm wrong. The goal is to improve both my knowledge and my play.



No they're not system failures. They work as expected (at least in my games and many that I am aware of). But you can bet that players will find ways to make things go in unexpected ways all the time. Be it a rule, a path taken in a dungeon that bypasses all your clever traps or anything else you can think of.



Lacking originality in RPGs is quite an oxymoron. I don't think that anyone in here lacks imagination. But it can be easy for a DM to fall into bad habits or to miss the obvious. The pole itself shows that (for the moment) most people see nothing wrong in the feats themselves. Are we all wrong? I don't think so. Those who consider the feats to be over powered are concerned with some interaction. Yes, some of these interactions can make these feat truly shine. And then again that is what is expected from them. But with sufficiently varied encounters they won't dominate the field.

And to be frank, I am more afraid of Mobility, Sentinel and Alertness feats... These feats work in all circumstances and can be a real pain in the a**.

You just restated the argument, "It's the DM's fault if these rules aren't mitigated by his game." It was a poor argument the first time, it didn't get better.

 

[Corwin]

I'm still waiting patiently on a response to my simple and direct question from post #232:

http://www.enworld.org/forum/showth...-Weapon-Master-overpowered/page13#post6920659