D&D (2024) Sharp shooter/Great Weapon Mastery

[Mort]

It's actually IMO an upgrade over the old Protection Style (which imposed disadvantage) because it's completely reliable and so can effectively give multiple allies +2AC across multiple attacks; it only needs to be triggered once.

Disadvantage is better than -2 the great majority of the time, especially if a nat 20 is still an automatic hit.

and how are you getting across multiple attacks?

across multiple rounds, yes. But never more then once in a round. And costing a reaction is huge.

Of course Protection Style was always bad.

That's the prevailing thought. They could have improved instead of nerfed it even further.

 

[Neonchameleon]

This provides a +2 against 1 attack and only at the cost of the warrior's reaction. That's WAY too big a sacrifice as levels get higher, attack bonuses get significant and multiple attacks become common.

You're not actually seeing the impact. You choose to pop the -2 after knowing that the attack hits. That means that it might as well be -2 to all attacks until one in the round lands in that sweet spot where it changes the outcome. You make that one miss and only if there are more in the turn are they not at effective -2

 

[TwoSix]

You're not actually seeing the impact. You choose to pop the -2 after knowing that the attack hits. That means that it might as well be -2 to all attacks until one in the round lands in that sweet spot where it changes the outcome. You make that one miss and only if there are more in the turn are they not at effective -2

My only thing is that it's weird it gives a -2, since 5e is usually so sparing with -X or +X bonuses/penalties. Granting half cover would be more in line with how 5e usually does things.

I absolutely agree with you that being able to activate it after the result is known makes the feature MUCH stronger.

 

[Horwath]

Yes but if you have STR/DEX 20 they can be worth it. Particularly for Fighter that have more feat slots to play with.
They could also be very useful for classes that do not otherwise get a fighting style, to pick as their level one feat. A rogue or a Bladesinger might want it.

when you have 20 it's too little, too late.
It's about 4th level and having +4 primary mod vs +3 and a feat.

what will rogue sacrifice for FS? +2 dex? now way in hell.
yes, maybe, just maybe as 10th level feat. Even then I doubt it.

 

[Mort]

You're not actually seeing the impact. You choose to pop the -2 after knowing that the attack hits. That means that it might as well be -2 to all attacks until one in the round lands in that sweet spot where it changes the outcome. You make that one miss and only if there are more in the turn are they not at effective -2

I did miss the "immediately after the attack roll..." part. That's actually significantly better because you'll only trigger it when it's useful. So it's an upgrade from the original. Still don't think the -2 is enough though.

 

[Neonchameleon]

Yes but if you have STR/DEX 20 they can be worth it. Particularly for Fighter that have more feat slots to play with.
They could also be very useful for classes that do not otherwise get a fighting style, to pick as their level one feat. A rogue or a Bladesinger might want it.

OK. With the possible exception of archery style which of them do you think is worth it.

I mean I'm not taking Protective over Sentinel or Great Weapon Fighter over Great Weapon Master for example. I'm not even taking them if the stat point goes to a secondary stat.

 

[fluffybunbunkittens]

My only thing is that it's weird it gives a -2, since 5e is usually so sparing with -X or +X bonuses/penalties. Granting half cover would be more in line

I suppose they didn't want for people to have to check whether someone's already in half cover before they can protect them.

I wonder if it would be cleaner to say 'you make the attack miss if it isn't 2 or more over the target AC'. Same thing.

 

[TwoSix]

OK. With the possible exception of archery style which of them do you think is worth it.

I mean I'm not taking Protective over Sentinel or Great Weapon Fighter over Great Weapon Master for example. I'm not even taking them if the stat point goes to a secondary stat.

I'm OK with Ranger only getting 1 since it's not technically a Warrior class, but the other Warrior classes should get multiple Fighting Styles early on. At least 3. They're not synergistic, other than Defense. Make Warriors versatile again.

 

[TwoSix]

I suppose they didn't want for people to have to check whether someone's already in half cover before they can protect them.

I wonder if it was cleaner to say 'you make the attack miss if it wasn't 2 or more over the target AC'. Same thing.

Well, I think you can make the argument that the shield bonus shouldn't stack if they're already in half cover. But I see your point.

 

[Neonchameleon]

when you have 20 it's too little, too late.
It's about 4th level and having +4 primary mod vs +3 and a feat.

what will rogue sacrifice for FS? +2 dex? now way in hell.
yes, maybe, just maybe as 10th level feat. Even then I doubt it.

Which FS is the rogue going for?

And why are they putting it ahead of e.g. Skulker, Sharpshooter, Speedster, Dual Wielder (for the double dagger toss), or soemthing useful like observant or actor?

For that matter the Fighting Style feats have the prerequisite of Warrior Group - so rogues can't take them. But they almost certainly wouldn't if they could - and why does a fighter want a second choice from this group?