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

[Corwin]

Corwin: Ovinomancer simply pointed out that there is a floor beyond which it is possible to get special synergy between GWM/SS and buffs.

There is a *theoretical* floor. One that is so white-room improbably no feat should be designed to it anyway. I've asked him repeatedly for an example. Anything. He can't/won't.

It's a valid point, and he believes that floor to be in relatively easy reach.

Then he should be able to provide examples. Heck, one practical example at this point. But my hopes are low.

However, as you are trying to say (and I agree), the likelihood of this threshold being reached is debatable (more easily debatable imo w/GWM than SS).

The other part I'm also trying drive home, is that, in order for his theory to hold, he needs buffs and mitigators that wash the penalty away *and* maintain the bottom floor. But those factors aren't free. Even *if* you found a situation where his theory came to fruition, what generated that "automatic" +10 damage? The feat? No, the feat would have caused those two rolls of '3' and '5' to miss. The expenditure of those resources - buffs like bless and bardic inspiration - are what did the job. So how can the feat be pointed too as the "culprit"? Not only that, but those buffs are a limited resource. Would the benefactors of those buffs spent those resources on the archer if he wasn't taking that -5? Clearly not, since they offer no benefit otherwise.

 

[Yunru]

Here's an actual example of a character using a greatweapon with and without GWM, and with +2 Strength respectively.

Before the choice point: Strength +3, To hit +6, Base damage 3+2d6=10

After the choice point:
A. Strength +4, To hit +7, Base damage 11
B. Strength +3, To hit +6, Base damage 10 or 20

Versus AC 18:
A. Hit probability 50% (needs to roll 11) = expected damage 11x0,5=5,5
B. Hit probability 45% (needs to roll 12) so does not use feat
Actual hit probability 45% x 10 = expected damage 10x0,45=4,5

Winner A by one point (much as expected)

Versus AC 12:
A. Hit probability 80% (needs to roll 5) = expected damage 11x0,8=8,8
B. Hit probability 75% (needs to roll 6) so uses the feat
Actual hit probability 50% x 20 = expected damage 10

Winner B by not much more than one point.

So far the feat seems balanced or underpowered even.

But this does not take into consideration the numerous ways of boosting your GWM usage.

So let's compute vs AC 12 with advantage, shall we?

Versus AC 12 with advantage:
A. Hit probability 96% (needs to roll 5 once) = expected damage 11x0,96=10,56
B. Hit probability 9375% (needs to roll 6 once) so uses the feat
Actual hit probability 75% x 20 = expected damage 15

Winner B by four and a half point, or over +40% damage.

Before we move over to conclusions, I'm posting this so you can check so I haven't made a mistake, or suggest why another set of comparison points would improve the analysis.

Against an AC 12, who according to the DMG tables, with have a HP such that the +10 is unneeded in the first place. Tut tut, no going and ignoring context to suit your argument.

 

[shoak1]

Here's an actual example of a character using a greatweapon with and without GWM, and with +2 Strength respectively....Before we move over to conclusions, I'm posting this so you can check so I haven't made a mistake, or suggest why another set of comparison points would improve the analysis.

Cool - Here's a little more clear presentation imo, my edits in red:

After the choice point:
A. (STR choice) Strength +4, To hit +7, Base damage 11
B. (GWM choice, but turned off) Strength +3, To hit +6, Base damage 10
C. (GWM choice, but turned off) Strength +3, To hit +1, Base damage 20

Versus AC 18:
A. Hit probability 50% (needs to roll 11) = expected damage 11x0,5=5,5
B. Hit probability 45% (needs to roll 12) so does not use feat
Actual hit probability 45% x 10 = expected damage 10x0,45=4,5
C. Hit probability 20% x 20 = expected damage 20x0.2=4

and so on in this format through the rest of your analysis

 

[CapnZapp]

Against an AC 12, who according to the DMG tables, with have a HP such that the +10 is unneeded in the first place. Tut tut, no going and ignoring context to suit your argument.

What?

The AC 12 bit is utterly irrelevant. The hit probability is all that counts. Feel free to imagine AC 16 instead (and perhaps I need to spell out the obvious, a +1 strength bonus increase, a +2 proficiency bonus increase, and perhaps a +1 magic weapon) if that makes it easier.

Don't go for the cheap shot where you try to invalidate my entire premise just by assuming it only applies for the lowest of levels. You're better than that, Yunru.

Now if you have an actual comment or suggestion...?

 

[shoak1]

There is a *theoretical* floor. One that is so white-room improbably no feat should be designed to it anyway. I've asked him repeatedly for an example. Anything. He can't/won't.....Then he should be able to provide examples. Heck, one practical example at this point. But my hopes are low.

He provided you with an example of the 5th level archer w/+10, and I brought up the owlbear as an AC 13 mob. If he then gets even 2 extra TH buffs, he starts getting the bonus synergy. So claiming it is "white board only" theorey is a bit extreme.

The other part I'm also trying drive home, is that, in order for his theory to hold, he needs buffs and mitigators that wash the penalty away *and* maintain the bottom floor. But those factors aren't free. Even *if* you found a situation where his theory came to fruition, what generated that "automatic" +10 damage? The feat? No, the feat would have caused those two rolls of '3' and '5' to miss. The expenditure of those resources - buffs like bless and bardic inspiration - are what did the job. So how can the feat be pointed too as the "culprit"? Not only that, but those buffs are a limited resource. Would the benefactors of those buffs spent those resources on the archer if he wasn't taking that -5? Clearly not, since they offer no benefit otherwise.

I agree w/you here partially. But on the other hand, its kind of low hanging min-max fruit wouldn't you say? The kind that gets players to make predictable and therefore boring builds, since it is a clear and easy fruit to pick?

Min maxers have claim to D and D just as much as anyone else. They (us?) deserve the game to be a bit more balanced w/options in this regard.

 

[Yunru]

What?

The AC 12 bit is utterly irrelevant. The hit probability is all that counts. Feel free to imagine AC 16 instead (and perhaps I need to spell out the obvious, a +1 strength bonus increase, a +2 proficiency bonus increase, and perhaps a +1 magic weapon) if that makes it easier.

Don't go for the cheap shot where you try to invalidate my entire premise just by assuming it only applies for the lowest of levels. You're better than that, Yunru.

Now if you have an actual comment or suggestion...?

Ah yes, except you are the one that choose the lowest of ACs, which conveniently helps makes SS and GWM look overpowered. An AC of 16 is a much better AC, yes. Except no, you don't get +1 Strength, +2 proficiency, and a _1 magic weapon. Because you're expected to fight ACs of 16 long before you get any of those boosts (Guards are CR 1/8th, Bugbears CR 1, Gladiator CR 5). And when you do, it's to make those ACs matter less.

 

[Ovinomancer]

I just went back and reread that entire wall of text post of yours. All theory and double speak circular math. Not one mention of a practical target for this 8th-level archer to shoot at where his -5 penalty is not, in fact, a penalty. Nowhere to be found. Please show me I'm wrong. Quote yourself in that post of yours. I've repeatedly asked you for anything. If you can't do that, at least provide what it is you think already addressed my requests. Because I'm not seeing it. Maybe you're not as good at expressing a concise point as you seem to think you are?

Well, I must say I'm glad you read the post.

Let's say a zombie. AC 8, come in hordes, can be used quite effectively to challenge an 8th level party. The non-SS user hits the zombies as often as they hit an AC 12 monster -- 95% of the time. The SS user hits the zombies 90% of the time (needs a 3) for an effective penalty of -1 (note, not -5), for +10 damage. This is useful because the SS archer is hitting for 1d8+4+10 damage, zombies have 22 hit points, so they could, 1 in 8 times, 1 shot a zombie. This isn't possible for the non-SS archer. Further, as a matter of basis, the CON save for zombie survival using undead persistence against the SSer is a minimum of DC 20 (5 + minimum damage of 15) and can make the save impossible for the zombie to make on 50% of their hits.

But, since I foresee an argument about zombies being a special case, let's look at a gelatinous cube, iconic monster, CR 2, a good addition to a number of types of encounters. Also, AC 6. Our SS archer suffers zero penalty whatsoever using SS to attach the GC. His chance to hit and miss are the same as the non-SS archer, he just does 10 more damage per hit.

But, let's go up a bit, and look at something with an AC of 13. The mighty T-Rex, CR 8, fits this bill. The non-SS archer hits this big guy on a 2 or better (1 always misses). The SS archer hits it on a 3 or better without using SS's damage boost, so there's a 5% difference, alright. But let's go with the SS. Now the SS archer hits on an 8 or better. Way worse, a clear -5 penalty. Until the cleric casts bless, at least. Now that archer hits on a 7 or better always, and could hit on a 4 or better (rolls a 4 on his Bless d4). In that latter case, that's only a penalty of -1 over his normal, and only 2 worse than the non-SS archer. But let's look at what this does for the non-SS archer, because it must help him as much, right? Nope, it doesn't help the non-SS archer, ever. Bless to totally irrelevant to his chances to hit. So, here, a simple bless spell removes the penalty without helping the non-ss archer at all, which was my point.

Now, I expect there to be complaints about this wall of text, and I'm sure some whinging about my choice of targets, but I'll make you deal, if you got this far -- you pick the monster, AC 13 or less, and I'll show you it doesn't make a difference.

CAVEAT: this post, in no way, makes any claim about the OP nature, or lack thereof, of the SS or GWM feats. It is meant to illuminate a point in the broader discussion about the falsity of the statement that you can't get rid of the penalty. Fin.

 

[CapnZapp]

Cool - Here's a little more clear presentation imo, my edits in red:

After the choice point:
A. (STR choice) Strength +4, To hit +7, Base damage 11
B. (GWM choice, but turned off) Strength +3, To hit +6, Base damage 10
C. (GWM choice, but turned off) Strength +3, To hit +1, Base damage 20

Versus AC 18:
A. Hit probability 50% (needs to roll 11) = expected damage 11x0,5=5,5
B. Hit probability 45% (needs to roll 12) so does not use feat
Actual hit probability 45% x 10 = expected damage 10x0,45=4,5
C. Hit probability 20% x 20 = expected damage 20x0.2=4

and so on in this format through the rest of your analysis

Sorry but I don't understand. Who is character C? Or perhaps you're merely proposing I add "unlucky character C" who uses the feat when she shouldn't?

I'm sorry - while this might illustrate when and why exactly you shouldn't use the feat, I don't want to bog down the analysis with flawed gameplay, since that has no bearing on its real utility.

 

[One_Shots]

Ovinomancer: Mobs w/ACs of less than 12 tend to be low hp, low CR dudes

That's not true at all and in fact it's the opposite. Low AC creatures tend to be the ones with the most hit points and doing the most damage. They're the brutes of this edition, to coin a 4e term.

 

[Yunru]

That's not true at all and in fact it's the opposite. Low AC creatures tend to be the ones with the most hit points and doing the most damage. They're the brutes of this edition, to coin a 4e term.

DMG p.274. Average HP of a AC <13 creature is assumed to be 1-6hp.