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

[Corwin]

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.

But it is white-room. Where are those buffs coming from? From a white-room "buff vending machine", of course. There are so many practical examples of real table play where those bonuses would have been nice, but either impractical or unavailable. Even when the party is otherwise capable of dispensing them. Buffs aren't free. And they aren't guaranteed. Calculating them into the value of these feats is pointless.

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?

That sounds like its bordering on OneTrueWayism. At the least, judgemental.

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.

That's the opposite of true. If you somehow managed the impossible of truly balancing D&D absolutely, how would you min-max it?

Its also drifting a little into the fallacy that people are somehow saying these feats shouldn't provide real bonuses and/or benefits. Because they obviously should. If you take away their substantive gifts, why would anyone want them?

 

[CapnZapp]

None of which are inherent to the Great Weapon Master feat, and as such are not relevant in determining if the feat itself functions acceptably or not.

A separate consideration of the performance of a particular combo is useful, because combos exist, but consideration of a combo isn't going to illustrate that any one element of the combo in particular isn't functioning acceptably.

That position is unsustainable.

The game features does not exist in isolation.

What matters isn't evaluation of each feature taken separately, but how players put them together.

If there exists three game features A, B and C, we can and must take into account the following combinations (at the very least):

A+B, B+C, A+C

Now, if A+B is not disruptive, but B+C and A+C is, what does that tell you?

"Nothing conclusive", is one correct answer. But "possibly C needs a closer look, particularly how it interacts with features like A or B" is another.

If you don't want GWM to be abusable, nothing I can say can persuade you. But I don't need to. I intend to show the math to the thread, and then the readers can choose between my factual approach and yours, based on... I don't know what to call your approach. Dogmatic perhaps?

I really have no words for the argument since it most of all reminds me of Yes, Minister.

To your

"consideration of a combo isn't going to illustrate that any one element of the combo in particular isn't functioning acceptably"​

I say

"of course it will"​

 

[Ovinomancer]

None of which are inherent to the Great Weapon Master feat, and as such are not relevant in determining if the feat itself functions acceptably or not.

A separate consideration of the performance of a particular combo is useful, because combos exist, but consideration of a combo isn't going to illustrate that any one element of the combo in particular isn't functioning acceptably.

Rules don't exist in isolation. If there is an easy to get and common bonus that can dramatically increase the effectiveness of a feat, it needs to be evaluated with that as well. This is the argument being made: that the SS and GWM feats were evaluated in isolation, and so deemed fine, but in actual play they're easily augmented to a noticeable degree.

Now, when that happens, you can look at the different parts and see where the problem is. Bless works pretty well across the board, as does Bardic inspiration, and these don't break in combination with other things outside of GWM and SS. Now, with GWM and SS, they do cause those feats to begin to operate in ways that dramatically reduce their intentional costs, and, in many low AC cases, to nearly or completely erase it. The effect is that these feats become much better in those conditions than their evaluation in isolation would show. That's the argument, and it's true -- these feats are much, much better in those cases where you can mitigate the costs. Now, whether or not that's overpowered for you is a different argument, but you shouldn't discount the rules working together as a problem because you could just look at it in isolation.

 

[Yunru]

To negate that -5 to hit, you need Bless, Archery fighting style and... +1 from somewhere. And that's not accounting for the instability of bless being a die roll.
That's a fighting style, a spell slot per fight, the action required to cast bless, and a player's concentration all taken up for +10 damage, vs a regular archer without the archery fighting style. Especially at later levels, that's not worth giving up say... Spirit Guardians.

 

[CapnZapp]

I'm starting a new thread, since I can't keep apart all the various subthreads.

http://www.enworld.org/forum/showth...-are-overpowered-(cont-d-actual-calculations)

If you recently made a suggestion (directed at me) and you don't see it reflected in the example over at the new thread, please simply repost your suggestion. I could simply have missed your post.

See you over at http://www.enworld.org/forum/showth...-are-overpowered-(cont-d-actual-calculations)

 

[Ovinomancer]

To negate that -5 to hit, you need Bless, Archery fighting style and... +1 from somewhere. And that's not accounting for the instability of bless being a die roll.
That's a fighting style, a spell slot, and a player's concentration all taken up for +10 damage, vs a regular archer without the archery fighting style. Especially at later levels, that's not worth giving up say... Spirit Guardians.

I think it's a bit extraordinary to compare a character that made choices that are somewhat obvious for improving their chosen role as an archer (fighting style, a feat called sharpshooter) with a character that didn't choose such things. I mean, I can try comparing a fighter with 20 STR, magic greatsword, GWF style, and GWM against a same level wizard, with an 8 STR, no proficiency, and Magical Adept, but I don't think that's going to tell us much about how GWM effects the game.

 

[Corwin]

I'm sorry, I didn't realize there were rules that prevented casting bless in some circumstances.

Of course there are. Many, in fact. Here are only a few obvious ones: The archer would have to be close enough to the cleric when cast. Bless does not have unlimited range. The cleric might be rendered unconscious. Or fail a concentration check after taking damage. Or it could be counterspelled. Or dispelled.

Also, did you not realize that spell slots were a limited resource? Maybe that's something to consider.

Nor did I realize that doing so was negated if there was a character, somewhere, that didn't benefit. Is this a serious objection?

Bless targets three of you. The average/expected/assumed party size is four. Why are you giving the archer a bonus he doesn't need at the expense of someone else in the group? He's already hitting on a '2'. Give that bless benefit to a PC that can use it. Seems obvious to me anyway.

You have a strange sense of winning. Are there other secret words I need to be aware of? What if I say 'beeswax'? Does that win something?

No, what I knew was that you'd immediately engage this kind of argument. It was a comment on you, not me. Thank you for confirming my suspicions that you're not a serious person.

I regularly find, when someone starts to resort to such nonsense like this, its a pretty clear indicator that they are flailing and hoping to deflect away from their flawed argument. Do you think its working?

 

[Yunru]

I think it's a bit extraordinary to compare a character that made choices that are somewhat obvious for improving their chosen role as an archer (fighting style, a feat called sharpshooter) with a character that didn't choose such things. I mean, I can try comparing a fighter with 20 STR, magic greatsword, GWF style, and GWM against a same level wizard, with an 8 STR, no proficiency, and Magical Adept, but I don't think that's going to tell us much about how GWM effects the game.

It would be, which is why I don't do that.

 

[Ovinomancer]

Of course there are. Many, in fact. Here are only a few obvious ones: The archer would have to be close enough to the cleric when cast. Bless does not have unlimited range. The cleric might be rendered unconscious. Or fail a concentration check after taking damage. Or it could be counterspelled. Or dispelled.

Also, did you not realize that spell slots were a limited resource? Maybe that's something to consider.


Bless targets three of you. The average/expected/assumed party size is four. Why are you giving the archer a bonus he doesn't need at the expense of someone else in the group? He's already hitting on a '2'. Give that bless benefit to a PC that can use it. Seems obvious to me anyway.

I regularly find, when someone starts to resort to such nonsense like this, its a pretty clear indicator that they are flailing and hoping to deflect away from their flawed argument. Do you think its working?

I do, too. I doesn't look like it's working for you at all, now that you ask.

 

[Ovinomancer]

It would be, which is why I don't do that.

Okay, I must have misunderstood your comment about the difference between an archer with a fighting style vs a regular archer without one. On rereading, I still don't understand that.