D&D 5E (2014) Do DM's feel that Sharpshooter & Great Weapon Master overpowered?

[Corwin]

Have you not been following this whole thread? I feel like it's easy enough for you to read through it and see for yourself. It's also not about "correct" math. I never said that. Please quit trying to change my words to suit your purposes.

 

[Kryx]

Again I ask to please provide the math that shows that GWM is in line with an ASI (+2 Str). As I said above the math provided in this thread is woefully insufficient as it ignores many factors.

I've spent several hours providing a detailed analysis of this feats with numbers, a spreadsheet, and a graph. If you're going to attempt to minimize the accuracy of that then at least provide a competing dataset that is complete.

 

[Corwin]

I just have to go back a few posts to illustrate where your math may be lacking. Check out my post #121 above. How did your math account for the fact that GWM doesn't increase attack bonus, strength save, leaping distance, Athletics skill, opposed checks using strength, nor carrying capacity?

Edit: That doesn't even include the opportunity cost of not taking another cool feat. Your GWM fighter gets to do a bit more damage. Cool. My fighter took a feat that gives him two cantrips and a 1/day spell. I'd like to see you try and do the math on that.

 

[CapnZapp]

One thing I've noticed is that clever self and party buffing can definitely make these feats better, but I don't think they're better than intended. The raging GWM barbarian swings with advantage and when he hits, it deals damage like a fireball....but then, only to one target, and it costs a daily use of Rage to get that advantage (and I'm not sure he'd risk it without rage). The sharpshooter has advantage far less often, but when she hits the damage is comparable (a bit less, but she's ranged, so she's gaining defensive ability to do that)....and she's missing a lot more.

5e's mild preference for many critters in a fight and for many fights/day helps bring that curve down to a respectable level. If every attack you make is at advantage (or at +1d4 from a bless or something) in a day, maybe it could seem OP, like a single-target at-will fireball. But, these things are not always easy to come by. And, as I'm sure my party ranger can attest, missing is a real negative pressure. Heck, last session, another party member was like "Maybe don't use Sharpshooter for a round? Because you are having a lot of whiffs?"

As far as I can see, your argument is based on unoptimized play, because I can paint a different picture.

But this is not directed to you in particular, so I think it best to start a new post.

 

[CapnZapp]

When you have players that aren't troubled by the math involved, they don't make the mistake of using the -5+10 mechanism when they shouldn't. The fact that you can (unintentionally) lower your dpr should not factor into the analysis. The fact the feats are poor past the AC cutoff point is wholly irrelevant. It might make the feats work well at your table, but that should hopefully not prevent you from seeing the problem they pose in the general case (where we can and should assume not-unoptimal play).

Also, there is too much math focused on level 5 or thereabouts. At higher levels, it is common (very common) to face lots of foes with mediocre AC (since AC doesn't rise that much except for boss monsters). And at that time you have three or more attacks. And you have maxed out your Strength or Dex. And you might have a magical weapon, further depressing the AC cutoff point.

The end result is that characters with greatweapon or ranged routinely deal twice as much damage as other weapon choices if not more. Please stop treating that as speculation just because it doesn't happen at your table. Please accept as fact that this will happen at your table too once your players level up (and their characters too).

To me, that is too much. It actively discourages other style choices.

 

[AaronOfBarbaria]

Important clarifications:

• GWF, or Great Weapon Fighting, is the fighting style. GWM, or Great Weapon Master, is the feat. It's important to keep these two acronyms separate.
• Spellcasting power is at best tertiary to this discussion. There is a caster/martial divide, though it is much smaller in 5e. However this topic is talking about the power that this feat gives some martial characters. That inceased power isn't really relevant to the topic of the caster/martial divide and to use this feat as a "fix" to that divide is incredibly problematic as it does nothing for many martial builds. At best this strategy would further weaken classes like Monk, Rogue, Ranger, or TWF.

Ok, so with those things out of the way lets consider the actual math:
http://i.*****.com/CKyQkj5.png
Math provided on google spreadsheet: DPR of Classes

So for a 5th level barbarian any AC up to AC 18 the Barbarian is better off having taken GWM and using -5/+10. Assuming a barbarian fights an equal distribution of enemies from CR 2 to CR 8 from every officially published WotC book the average enemy's AC will be 14.4. This aligns closely with the DMG's recommendation of 15 AC for a CR 5 enemy. So the AC of an enemy would have to be much higher than average to have a negative impact on this choice.

Using that 14.4 a 5th level GWM Barbarian is averaging 36.7 DPR while a 5th level Barbarian who took 1 strength instead is doing 23.3 DPR. The difference is massive: 57% more damage.
Sure there are cases where a barbarian isn't going to want to use -5/+10, but as you can see in the graph above the Barbarian is still better off taking GWM and not using -5/+10 than taking +1 str.
Let me make that part clear: The cleave part of GWM is better than +1 strength modifier in terms of damage.
So even if we ignore -5/+10, GWM is an incredibly powerful feat. Add in -5/+10 and it's definitely out of the expected range for damage - especially for classes with easy access to advantage like Barbarian, OoV Paladin, Fighter (BM w/ trip).

Does it make martial classes equivalent to casters in versatility? No.
Does it make certain martial classes do far more damage than expected compared to their martial counterparts? Yes.

It's overpowered.

I've noticed something about your math; I can't seem to duplicate it when making what seemed based on your data provided to be the same assumptions.

My assumptions of a 5th level barbarian, in a rage, with the only difference for purposes of comparison being Great Weapon Master feat vs. 2 higher strength, lead me to a 16 strength with the feat vs. 18 strength without it - and with those assumptions alone, not adding in other factors that create a combination and thus invalidate the comparison, I'm seeing not only much smaller DPR numbers than you have listed (around 15, rather than around 25), but I am also seeing the DPR of the 2 higher strength higher than the DPR of the feat user (15.65 over two attacks with a greataxe vs. 13.55 over two attacks with a greataxe and using great weapon master's -5/+10).

Could you elaborate upon your math, and the assumptions behind it, so I can see why your math just doesn't even kind of line up with mine?

 

[AaronOfBarbaria]

The fact the feats are poor past the AC cutoff point is wholly irrelevant.

I don't find that to be true. If we ignore that a feature only applies in certain situations and analyze that feature as if it were universally applicable, how could we possibly feel our assessment is fully accurate?

In fact, I think this might be the core point explaining how some people arrive at the conclusion that these feats are "over powered"; by considering that they always apply. Even if that is true in a particular campaign, it is not the feat, but the campaign, which has created the issue - and a feat not working for a particular campaign doesn't mean that feat doesn't work at all.

Please accept as fact that this will happen at your table too once your players level up (and their characters too).

I've got high-level characters at my table, and they are played by experienced players, and yet this thing you insist will happen has not.

Also, it's a bit rude to insist that what you view as "not-unoptimal play" is the only possible result of when players "level up"

 

[CapnZapp]

I don't find that to be true. If we ignore that a feature only applies in certain situations and analyze that feature as if it were universally applicable, how could we possibly feel our assessment is fully accurate?

In fact, I think this might be the core point explaining how some people arrive at the conclusion that these feats are "over powered"; by considering that they always apply. Even if that is true in a particular campaign, it is not the feat, but the campaign, which has created the issue - and a feat not working for a particular campaign doesn't mean that feat doesn't work at all.

Now I'm not following you, Aaron.

Nobody is considering they always apply. Nobody is analyzing the feat as "universally applicable". At least not I.

What I was talking about is the tendency to excuse the feat because of all the times where it is used erroneously; that is when you elect to apply the -5+10 even when the AC is too high.

 

[AaronOfBarbaria]

Nobody is considering they always apply. Nobody is analyzing the feat as "universally applicable". At least not I.

Excuse my misunderstanding, as it did seem the only possibility given that you were saying the rest of us aren't supposed to point out when the feat isn't a viable damage boost.

What I was talking about is the tendency to excuse the feat because of all the times where it is used erroneously; that is when you elect to apply the -5+10 even when the AC is too high.

Including that does indeed lower the dpr boost... but doing so is also a mistake.

I see where the confusion seems to lie.

When comparing the DPR of the -5/+10 boost vs. +2 strength, it is clear and unquestioned that the times when the -5/+10 option isn't used that the +2 strength has superior DPR, since it is both more accurate and more damaging.

So that means that all we need to know is A) how much the use of the -5/+10 actually improves DPR in those occassions that it is an improvement, and B) how many situations in which the use of the -5/+10 improves damage vs. how many it doesn't.

That is why the comparisons are done in the way they are, assuming use of the -5/+10 even though it might not be enhancing DPR against that particular AC, because the result then tells us either that this is a situation where there is a boost and how much that boost is, or that this is a situation where the feat is not providing a damage boost.

So no, it isn't a mistake to do the comparisons that way - though there can be a mistake made in assuming how frequently a particular AC is or isn't going to come up in a campaign, since that assumption might match one campaign, but not another.

 

[CapnZapp]

Excuse my misunderstanding, as it did seem the only possibility given that you were saying the rest of us aren't supposed to point out when the feat isn't a viable damage boost.

I see where the confusion seems to lie.

When comparing the DPR of the -5/+10 boost vs. +2 strength, it is clear and unquestioned that the times when the -5/+10 option isn't used that the +2 strength has superior DPR, since it is both more accurate and more damaging.

So that means that all we need to know is A) how much the use of the -5/+10 actually improves DPR in those occassions that it is an improvement, and B) how many situations in which the use of the -5/+10 improves damage vs. how many it doesn't.

That is why the comparisons are done in the way they are, assuming use of the -5/+10 even though it might not be enhancing DPR against that particular AC, because the result then tells us either that this is a situation where there is a boost and how much that boost is, or that this is a situation where the feat is not providing a damage boost.

So no, it isn't a mistake to do the comparisons that way - though there can be a mistake made in assuming how frequently a particular AC is or isn't going to come up in a campaign, since that assumption might match one campaign, but not another.

Ah, okay. Yes of course you should calculate the dpr against, say, AC 25.

But only to conclude the feat isn't going to be used then. So the actual dpr number should not be included in the "average dpr". Not saying you make this mistake, but I have seen it been made.

The next step, then. Yes, above the cutoff point "it is clear and unquestioned that the times when the -5/+10 option isn't used that the +2 strength has superior DPR, since it is both more accurate and more damaging".

Absolutely true. But it is also unquestionably true that the difference here is slight, since we're talking about -1 to hit and -1 to damage.

So if the the feat, when it does turn on (below the cutoff point), provides a much larger benefit than what is lost when it is not turned on, then the feat can still provide a massive benefit.

And the way to calculate this isn't simply to pit the gains from AC 11 and 12, say, against the losses from AC 18 and 19 (again, very simplified).

But it is to gauge the number of rounds where you are attacking something with AC 11 and 12, versus the number of rounds where you attack something with AC 18 or 19. And remember, each round vs AC 11 covers a lot of rounds vs AC 19, simply because the gain vs AC 11 is much larger than the loss vs AC 19. (Again, in our ruthlessly simplified scenario only used to make my point come across)

It is to this point few if even one analysis has reached. And any analysis that doesn't get here is simply not a good basis for discussion and evaluation.

It is now that I am telling you and everybody else that a correctly played GWM or SS character will dominate big in many cases, while not suffering especially much in some.

First thing: the cutoff point is not as low as the straight-forward analysis would have you believe.

So you can't dismiss the claim simply by saying "sure against zombies it's great". At higher levels (where the feat really start coming into its own, since its damage potential is no longer 8,5 or even 17 points of damage, but 25 or even more) many monsters still have AC lower than 15. And against monsters with AC near or past the cutoff point, you can employ a long list of boosters whose effects are balooned by this feat.

Taken by itself, something like the bonus given by Bards or Battlemasters or Clerics seem decent enough. Or advantage (from any of a great number of choices). But when combined with the ability to deal +10 damage, the balance is blown clean out the water.

Then it's no longer just weak or clumsy monsters you gain a hefty damage bonus against, but many monsters.

So many in fact, that if you're a martial character that does not choose either of these feats, you will have to resign yourself to being severely outdamaged in way too many fights.