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

[shoak1]

Unfortunately, modern gaming -- especially MMO's -- have turned RPG's into an exercise of "dps/r charts" and group-think min/maxing. If something is 12% worse than something else, one of those things must be broken. The industry has always had these kinds of powergamers at the table, but now we have normal casual players basing their opinions on what the powergamers say. That level of influence *is* sort of a new twist on the old 90's munchkin player.

I'm happy that D&D has found a larger audience compare to the 80's and 90's, but I'm not so sure about the quality of players who look at it like it's a board game and the objective is to beat the GM.

Please don't try to portray D and D as an RPG only. D and D was founded as a hybrid rpg/miniature game and has gone through many different incantations that alternatively favored RPGers (5e), miniature enthusiasts (3.5), and power gamers (4e). The RPG purists are admittedly currently on top in the edition wars. But guess what - modern gamers want to beat the game, and use analytics to do it. Embrace them and learn to share your game fairly or watch your game slowly wither and die or get turned on its head next edition. In any case, lets hope the "power gamers" you deride are kinder to you and your "normal casual players" in 6e than you are to them while you're on top in 5e.

You did get one thing right lol - if something is 12% more powerful than another, one of em's broken! So you have completed the first step in the road to acceptance and tolerance - which is to understand what we don't like. The second step would be not telling us it doesn't matter, and instead taking our objection seriously....in other words acting like you want to share the playing field...

 

[Ovinomancer]

Yeah, 5e is much better in that regard. There's just a ton of players who haven't caught on, and keep trying to turn 5e into a crunchier system than it is.

Here's the deal. This complaint isn't asking to turn the game crunchier, it's about how the current crunch is a bit abusable and can lead to clear differences in effectiveness at some tables. If you prefer a less combat focused game, that's great! I sincerely hope you enjoy your game. I like a wide range of gamestyles, and my current campaign is full of mysteries, ancient evils, rival factions, and lots of roleplaying, so I get it. The thing is, though, is that a game that doesn't care about these things still won't care if they're nudged a bit to bring them closer to mechanical balance. That really only matters in games where such things are more to the forefront, and, hey, dontcha know, the rules and the game support that playstyle as well. So let's not get into a war about which way of playing the game is better than they other -- the way you play is great for you -- and especially not the one that says that the people that look at and care about this kind of mechanical balance thing aren't bad people that have badwrongfun. Anything that gets hashed out in this thread affects you exactly as much as you want it to. If you don't care, try to do that in a way that doesn't dismiss people that do.

Thanks.

 

[AaronOfBarbaria]

I"m sorry, but could you actually explain the effective difference between what I said and what you said?

The difference I've been discussing with you is one of connotation.

Your phrasings, such as saying that the DM is choosing to decrease the effectiveness of the feats in question, carries with them a connotation that the DM is doing something different that they normally would be doing.

My phrasing avoids that connotation, and my discussion with you on the matter has been intended to highlight that "the DM adjusts the game to make the feat less powerful" and "the feat's potency is a direct result of the monsters the DM chooses, whatever they might be" are literally and primarily the same thing, but the former also introduces another idea - that the feat's default state is something other than DM-dependent, and the DM has altered the game to make the feat DM-dependent.

Connotation is important - especially in cases like this discussion where some folks interpret the fact that the potency of these feats is DM dependent as irrelevant to how potent the feats are expected to be.

Let's take a moment to recall that this sidebar occurred in response to me saying that the average AC was 15ish in the game, across all CRs. You took exception, which I now understand is because you're saying that this average isn't truthful because some DM may choose a set of monsters over play that has a different average AC.

Again, connotation is important - it isn't just "some DM", it's literally any DM that could be experiencing a different average AC in their campaigns - because there is nothing in the average AC across all CRs that guarantees the average AC of any given campaign won't be noticeably different.

Frankly, I'm now not certain why you wasted so much time getting to this trivial point. It's uninteresting.

That you keep calling my point "trivial", nor that you find it "uninteresting", does not actually make it trivial - and it doesn't matter if you find it interesting or not, it's still a valid point.

No, if he's not intending to select the creatures, then it's, as I said, a random occurrence like dice rolls.

What I stated to be false is that it is required to be intent to be offsetting the power of the feat in order to arrive at a selection of monsters that make the feat less powerful than it otherwise could be. That intent can be entirely absent from the DM, and the same result achieved - I know because I've done it; the feat is in use in one of my campaigns and it doesn't perform as well as other groups have reported it performing in their campaigns, and I had zero thought about how powerful I wanted the feat to be in the campaign, and thus no intent to set its power to any specific value by way of my monster choices.

Taking my arguments in pieces instead of in context to dismiss them is bad pool.

If you think I've behaved inappropriately for this forum, the report button is right there at the bottom of my posts - but I will thank you not to make baseless accusations like that there is any reason I break apart quoted posts than A) to save space by omitting the less relevant portions, and B) to make it clearer what it is another poster has said to which a portion of my reply is directed to facilitate clearer conversation in a medium that is already prone to misunderstanding.

I have some ideas, but you won't like them.

Don't judge for me what I will or won't like, that's very rude. Share your ideas, or don't - no cause to tease or threaten, whichever this may have been.

 

[Corwin]

Here's the deal. This complaint isn't asking to turn the game crunchier, it's about how the current crunch is a bit abusable and can lead to clear differences in effectiveness at some tables.

To help us better understand where you are trying to take this, could you offer up an example of a TTRPG system that does not suffer from this "problem"?

 

[Yunru]

Here's the deal. This complaint isn't asking to turn the game crunchier, it's about how the current crunch is a bit abusable and can lead to clear differences in effectiveness at some tables.

If options don't lead to differences, then they're not really options. And a game without options isn't fun.

 

[Krachek]

Dont count on WotC to make an errata on SS or GWM. They considered the old Empowered Evocation more a problem than the actual SS and GWM.

So if these feats are a problems at your table tell us how you fix the situation.

 

[Ovinomancer]

The difference I've been discussing with you is one of connotation.

Your phrasings, such as saying that the DM is choosing to decrease the effectiveness of the feats in question, carries with them a connotation that the DM is doing something different that they normally would be doing.

My phrasing avoids that connotation, and my discussion with you on the matter has been intended to highlight that "the DM adjusts the game to make the feat less powerful" and "the feat's potency is a direct result of the monsters the DM chooses, whatever they might be" are literally and primarily the same thing, but the former also introduces another idea - that the feat's default state is something other than DM-dependent, and the DM has altered the game to make the feat DM-dependent.

Connotation is important - especially in cases like this discussion where some folks interpret the fact that the potency of these feats is DM dependent as irrelevant to how potent the feats are expected to be.

Again, connotation is important - it isn't just "some DM", it's literally any DM that could be experiencing a different average AC in their campaigns - because there is nothing in the average AC across all CRs that guarantees the average AC of any given campaign won't be noticeably different.

That you keep calling my point "trivial", nor that you find it "uninteresting", does not actually make it trivial - and it doesn't matter if you find it interesting or not, it's still a valid point.

What I stated to be false is that it is required to be intent to be offsetting the power of the feat in order to arrive at a selection of monsters that make the feat less powerful than it otherwise could be. That intent can be entirely absent from the DM, and the same result achieved - I know because I've done it; the feat is in use in one of my campaigns and it doesn't perform as well as other groups have reported it performing in their campaigns, and I had zero thought about how powerful I wanted the feat to be in the campaign, and thus no intent to set its power to any specific value by way of my monster choices.

All you're offering is a tautology, though. "The DM picks monsters and that affects the effectiveness of abilities in the game." This is true for everything in the game, and everything after "DM" is just restating the definition of DM. That's why I say it's trivial and uninteresting -- you're just stating the baseline definition of how the game is played as if it's profound. We all know this, it's not profound and it doesn't say anything for or against the effectiveness of the feats in commonly obtained situations in most games.

It's trivial that one game may have accidental or naive choices that have the effect of reducing the effectiveness of the feats. It's trivial because it doesn't speak to the general case, and for every game that has accidental and naive choices that reduce effectiveness, there will be one that increases it. So this idea washes out in the long run and isn't useful for general consideration.

But choice does become a factor if it's not accidental or naive with respect to the feats, but that brings in intent, as I have been saying. That can and does skew things, because, as it's not essentially random, it doesn't wash out. And that wraps right back into my argument that pushing moderating the feats into the DM's overhead isn't a good solution. It requires the DM to be aware there's an issue and to make good choices to offset it while not punishing others. That's a big ask for neophyte DMs.

If you think I've behaved inappropriately for this forum, the report button is right there at the bottom of my posts - but I will thank you not to make baseless accusations like that there is any reason I break apart quoted posts than A) to save space by omitting the less relevant portions, and B) to make it clearer what it is another poster has said to which a portion of my reply is directed to facilitate clearer conversation in a medium that is already prone to misunderstanding.

Well, in this case, you did take that statement out of context and it changed its meaning, so it wasn't at all baseless. Further, it doesn't break the rules of the forum to take things out of context, so your suggestion of reporting it just adds work to the moderation staff, so no thanks. Letting you know I dislike it, however, gives you the opportunity to correct the behavior, if you so choose. It appears you do not so choose, so I shall remain vigilant for future out of context quoting.

Don't judge for me what I will or won't like, that's very rude. Share your ideas, or don't - no cause to tease or threaten, whichever this may have been.

I can't possibly conceive of how it could have been a threat.

 

[Ovinomancer]

If options don't lead to differences, then they're not really options. And a game without options isn't fun.

Good thing I didn't advocate that, then, eh?

Dont count on WotC to make an errata on SS or GWM. They considered the old Empowered Evocation more a problem than the actual SS and GWM.

So if these feats are a problems at your table tell us how you fix the situation.

I don't expect it. As for fixes...

For SS, no -5/+10, +1 DEX instead. And you can either ignore cover OR ignore disadvantage at long range, but not both at the same time. You can pick the benefit for each attack.

No change to GWM. The bonus damage is better contained without a +2 to hit style being paired with it, and melee is weaker than ranged in this edition by a significant margin.

 

[FormerlyHemlock]

For SS, no -5/+10, +1 DEX instead. And you can either ignore cover OR ignore disadvantage at long range, but not both at the same time. You can pick the benefit for each attack.

Under this proposed rule, Spell Sniper warlocks >>> archer fighters. Is that really what you're going for? More spellcaster dominance?

Dex 20 Archer Fighter 12 w/ Sharpshooter' (proposed variant) and a Longbow vs. AC 18 Adult White Dragon: 3 attacks at +11 for d8+5 damage on a hit = 20.63 damage on average.

Cha 20 Warlock 2/Sorcerer 10 w/ Spell Sniper vs. AC 18 Adult White Dragon: 3 attacks at +9 for d10+d6+5 damage on a hit = 26.55 damage on average. (53 damage if he Quickens another Eldritch Blast.)

Dex 20 Archer Fighter 12 w/ regular Sharpshooter and a Longbow vs. AC 18 Adult White Dragon: 3 attacks at +6 for d8+15 damage on a hit = 27 damage on average.

I find the original Sharpshooter far cooler than the proposed variant. The only variant rule I think is needed is: anyone can attempt to "headshot" for +5 to damage and -5 to-hit. Sharpshooter just makes you better at it. If you do the math you'll find that this kind of attempted headshot is almost always a DPR loss if you don't have Sharpshooter unless you're fighting an extremely soft target like a zombie; since zombies are more resistant to low-damage hits than high-damage hits, trading accuracy for power is a good idea. Headshotting paralyzed or restrained targets could be a good idea too, but otherwise it's usually not, unless you just happen to like hitting for huge damage.

I like the effect having more tactical options has on the game.

 

[AaronOfBarbaria]

...you're just stating the baseline definition of how the game is played as if it's profound.

I'm not stating it as if I find it profound - I'm stating it because, prior to me stating it, it was being ignored by some and phrased by others in ways that had a connotation that suggested they think that if the DM's choice of monsters does anything but make these feats as powerful as they can possibly be, that said DM is "fixing" something "broken" rather than what you and I now agree upon, and hopefully no one else questions, is just the DM doing what a DM does.

...that wraps right back into my argument that pushing moderating the feats into the DM's overhead isn't a good solution.

The DM is not "moderating the feats" - the DM is just doing what a DM does. Not some special "the game is asking more of the DM than it should" situation.

It requires the DM to be aware there's an issue and to make good choices to offset it while not punishing others. That's a big ask for neophyte DMs.

No, it is not a "big ask" for any DM to notice that something is making their game less enjoyable. Because that's seriously how easy it is to notice an issue if (not when, since there's no guarantee that a group will take issue with these feats, nor that a group that would take issue with them will ever actually face conditions that point that issue out to them) one arises. And while some people decry trial & error as being the worst thing to have to do, it really isn't, especially not when dealing with things that are subjective like what seems fun - if something turned out not as fun as you wanted, you just try whatever else sounds fun.

I can't possibly conceive of how it could have been a threat.

Have you never heard a parent phrase something similarly, such as "I'll clean up your room, but I don't think you'll like it."?