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

[AaronOfBarbaria]

What "wide range of creatures" are you suggesting?

I'm not suggesting a specific set of creatures - I am suggesting appropriate consideration of the fact that what creatures are faced is a DM choice.

...higher than the average AC in the MM...

Which isn't actually a useful number unless the campaign consists of fighting the same number of each stat block.

What is a useful number is the average AC in a campaign, which is going to vary from table to table, and even from campaign to campaign. It is also more the result of what monsters a DM feels like using than of what AC WotC has assigned to monsters.

That's the point: these feats actually are effective using what appears to be their limited situational ability in a much wider range of situations than it first appears.

The counter point being that exactly how wide that range of situations is for a given campaign is always influenced by the DM's monster selection - which doesn't mean that DMs selecting monsters in a way that this problem doesn't occur are, as you implied, doing something special to alleviate system issues, because the system is that the DM picks the monsters.

 

[Ovinomancer]

I'm not suggesting a specific set of creatures - I am suggesting appropriate consideration of the fact that what creatures are faced is a DM choice.
Which isn't actually a useful number unless the campaign consists of fighting the same number of each stat block.

What is a useful number is the average AC in a campaign, which is going to vary from table to table, and even from campaign to campaign. It is also more the result of what monsters a DM feels like using than of what AC WotC has assigned to monsters.

The counter point being that exactly how wide that range of situations is for a given campaign is always influenced by the DM's monster selection - which doesn't mean that DMs selecting monsters in a way that this problem doesn't occur are, as you implied, doing something special to alleviate system issues, because the system is that the DM picks the monsters.

That's a lot of handwaving. What I got was that DMs can pick a set of monsters with a high enough average AC so as to offset the effectiveness of the -5/+10 feats.

Well, sure, but that runs into what I said before about pushing dealing with mechanics onto the DMs overhead, which is a poor solution. Else, you're suggesting that it might just happen organically, which is a possibility, but the relative lack of high AC enemies and the fact that the encounter building favors more enemies of a lower CR than singles of higher CRs.

 

[Yunru]

That's a lot of handwaving. What I got was that DMs can pick a set of monsters with a high enough average AC so as to offset the effectiveness of the -5/+10 feats.

Well, sure, but that runs into what I said before about pushing dealing with mechanics onto the DMs overhead, which is a poor solution. Else, you're suggesting that it might just happen organically, which is a possibility, but the relative lack of high AC enemies and the fact that the encounter building favors more enemies of a lower CR than singles of higher CRs.

Stick the NPCs into some stronger armour. Worst come to worst, the defensive AC may rise 1 or 2 points.

 

[shoak1]

I'm not suggesting a specific set of creatures - I am suggesting appropriate consideration of the fact that what creatures are faced is a DM choice.
Which isn't actually a useful number unless the campaign consists of fighting the same number of each stat block.

What is a useful number is the average AC in a campaign, which is going to vary from table to table, and even from campaign to campaign. It is also more the result of what monsters a DM feels like using than of what AC WotC has assigned to monsters.

The counter point being that exactly how wide that range of situations is for a given campaign is always influenced by the DM's monster selection - which doesn't mean that DMs selecting monsters in a way that this problem doesn't occur are, as you implied, doing something special to alleviate system issues, because the system is that the DM picks the monsters.

Why would anyone even bring up the issue of the DM picking the monsters? How does this help an analysis of GWM/SS power? The wild swings of fancy that an individual DM might do (in picking monsters) are as irrelevant as it gets. On the other hand, bringing up the DMG CR rating recommended AC IS relevant.

Let's review the waste of time/irrelevant arguments:
"The feats are optional - so just don't use them!"
"Every table varies, so how can you say anything is imbalanced?"
"In my game we only fight skeletons"
"It says in the rules that the DM can make his own rules, so just change the feat!"
"Math is subjective!"
"You focus more on combat than we do - that's the only "problem""

 

[Corwin]

You shouldn't. I've little interest in rehashing the same circular arguments with you.

So you cannot explain yourself? That's a wonderful admission. You make a sweeping claim that somehow the feat is working "unexpectedly", but cannot say what you even mean by that? Well, you may have thought you were getting away with some kind of quasi-vague, unsupportable drivel. I'm just glad I was there to call you out on it so it didn't go unchallenged.

 

[AntiStateQuixote]

Let's review the waste of time/irrelevant arguments:

"It says in the rules that the DM can make his own rules, so just change the feat!"

This is the "irrelevant argument' at which you should stop and pay attention. If you're finding that the use of these feats reduces your enjoyment in the game either change or eliminate them. There is no doubt that both feats are extremely effective. There's a lot of doubt that they are "broken" and ruin the whole game. And it's patently false to say they ruin the whole game for everyone.

 

[Ovinomancer]

This is the "irrelevant argument' at which you should stop and pay attention. If you're finding that the use of these feats reduces your enjoyment in the game either change or eliminate them. There is no doubt that both feats are extremely effective. There's a lot of doubt that they are "broken" and ruin the whole game. And it's patently false to say they ruin the whole game for everyone.

Shoak hasn't made those claims, though.

This is a rules discussion forum, wherein the rules are discussed. These rules clearly engender discussion, with some differing camps. Hiwever, dismissive statements like "you can change the rules" don't contribute. We know this. It's not news. But if I'd like to get a broader set of opinions, then I'd like you talk about how the rule works and about specific issues so that when I decide to change the rules for my game, it's well considered. Just pointing out, reoeatedly, that I am the master of my table as DM doesn't remove the utility on discussing what and where the issues may be with the RAW

So, thanks, but I'm with shoak on this: it's not helpful to say that, it's just dismissive.

 

[Corwin]

This is a rules discussion forum, wherein the rules are discussed.

Which is an odd thing to say when you go around making claims that the feats "operate in unexpected ways," yet cannot even defend it.

These rules clearly engender discussion, with some differing camps. Hiwever, dismissive statements like "you can change the rules" don't contribute.

Considering you dismiss your *own* statements, I don't see how you can call others out for dismissing other things.

We know this. It's not news. But if I'd like to get a broader set of opinions, then I'd like you talk about how the rule works and about specific issues so that when I decide to change the rules for my game, it's well considered. Just pointing out, reoeatedly, that I am the master of my table as DM doesn't remove the utility on discussing what and where the issues may be with the RAW

Are you sure that's constructive? I believe 5e itself begs to differ. It goes out of its way to say otherwise.

So, thanks, but I'm with shoak on this: it's not helpful to say that, it's just dismissive.

Speaking of dismissive, to whom do you think the feats are "operating in unexpected ways"?

 

[AntiStateQuixote]

I'd like you talk about how the rule works and about specific issues so that when I decide to change the rules for my game, it's well considered.

-5 to hit/+10 damage significantly increases the character's average damage against low to mid AC opponents and marginally reduces average damage against highest AC opponents (excepting the rare case of needing a 20 to hit before taking the -5 penalty). That's how the rule works, and it's working as intended.

The party (and sometimes an individual character) can make synergistic choices to mitigate the -5 to hit such that the increase in damage comes at little or no cost. The party cooperates to achieve a goal, and it's working as intended.

If the only thing of interest here is about how fast characters can reduce the hit points of their enemies then GWM and SS are the two strongest feats in the game. The weapon using characters at your table should take these feats at the earliest opportunity.

If the characters are reducing enemy hit points too fast for your taste then increase enemies' AC and/or increase enemies' HP.

If the problem you're experiencing is that one or two characters with those feats "outshine" the other characters at the table then consider:

• Altering the feat to remove -5/+10 (several good suggestions already offered above)
• changing the challenges such that enemy HP damage is not the main goal all of the time
• stop playing with whiny players that think D&D is a competition between the player characters
• stop playing D&D and instead try a board game with better "balance"

If the problem you're experiencing is that these feats make other martial options (sword-n-board, TWF) suboptimal or "trap" choices then I'd revisit the list above.

What I don't recommend is spending days, weeks and months arguing with people on the Internet about how the designers ruined D&D by introducing a couple of feats with which a minority of the D&D community seems to have an obsession.

 

[Umbran]

I'm just glad I was there to call you out on it so it didn't go unchallenged.

If you are actually getting pleasure from "calling out" people, it is time for you to leave this conversation.

Remember - nothing discussed on these boards is world shattering. We are talking about a niche hobby, in which we pretend to be elves. The stakes of having incorrect information out there are extremely low. You have saved no lives, today. There's not much pride to be had in winning an argument on the internet about D&D rules. There's nobody even keeping score of points for you to claim you "won".

The adversarial approach to discussion is a fairly natural one, but one that you must be wary of taking too far. You are taking it too far. Take a break and cool down.