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

[Corwin]

I don't see where I claimed I got "pleasure" out of anything. So I don't know where that came from. But okay. I'll refrain from getting back into it for a bit. He's not really answering my question anyway, so not much left I can do about it even if I wanted to.

 

[shoak1]

This is the "irrelevant argument' at which you should stop and pay attention. If you're finding that the use of these feats reduces your enjoyment in the game either change or eliminate them. There is no doubt that both feats are extremely effective. There's a lot of doubt that they are "broken" and ruin the whole game. And it's patently false to say they ruin the whole game for everyone.

The problem many of you seem unaware of is that the trend in gamers is to want a balanced ruleset from which they can, at great challenge, try to "beat" the game. We like to kill stuff and beat the game. We DON'T like to have to balance games ourselves, or change unbalanced rules. D and D 5e has some big improvements in balance, and some big failures - like feats.

The problem w/D and D is that a large constituent of its players are sort of laize-fair in their need for "balance" in a rule set (though 90% of them would not agree or admit to that). To those that see roleplaying as the primary fun of the game, and especially to those who buy into the omnipotent DM concept, balance is entirely subjective. Not so to the gamist - we are used to analyzing and beating up games and we are very adroit and skilled at detecting imbalances - and such things matter a great deal to us.

An ideal solution to the problem is to let the detail-oriented balance-focused Gamists fix the imbalances. After all, imbalances are just perceptions and subjective to the typical rpger, so why not let us do our thing? If you let us, and anything wasn't to your liking, couldn't you just then follow your own advice and change whatever doesn't suit you and keep playing the way you are now? In other words, if you are so adamant about how acceptable it is to just modify the game to your liking, and feel that the printed rules are just a guide/suggestion anyway, why NOT let us try to fix the official rules and YOU then modify it unofficially back to your liking? Why fight it?

 

[shoak1]

Maybe the problem here is the by-product of something good - the fact that the feat list is inclusive of feats appealing to a diversity of audiences. As a combat oriented guy, I look at a feat like Keen Mind and think its the most worthless feat ever. An rpg focused gamer might look at GWM/SS and say it works fine in his group.

Perhaps we should yield to each others' specialties when talking about such perceived imbalances. Perhaps its inappropriate for me, a combat enthusiast Gamist, to write some thread about how stupid Keen Mind is. And maybe those of you less combat-focused should leave the issue of whether GWM/SS is OP to us.

After all, if you guys think Keen Mind is OP and nerf it, my group wasn't going to pick it anyway, so who cares?

In the end, maybe if WoC was so intent on throwing in feats for different schools of play, they should have made a bigger list. As it stands, one of the biggest problems I perceive as a combat Gamist is the lack of an abundance of solid choices in combat feats, that encourage different combat specialties.

 

[Krachek]

Trying to beat the game in DnD is a childish dream. The DM is on your side pal and play the game with you.

Even in PvP game like WoW and League of legends you break the game until the nerf bat pass.

These feats are fine until you push them to hard. If you remove them, optimizers will search for the next sweet spot to abuse. They will always find a new one.

 

[Ovinomancer]

Trying to beat the game in DnD is a childish dream. The DM is on your side pal and play the game with you.

Even in PvP game like WoW and League of legends you break the game until the nerf bat pass.

These feats are fine until you push them to hard. If you remove them, optimizers will search for the next sweet spot to abuse. They will always find a new one.

An inability to be perfect is no reason to not be better.

 

[SmokingSkull]

I've always felt that feats like GWM and SS just simply reinforce the fantasy of what those weapons and fighting styles do. Threads like this that beg the question as to whether or not these things are OP are worthless to me. As a guy who enjoys combat, exploration and RP I find GWM very useful for its intended purpose: slaughtering my foes and driving them before me. I feel that changing these feats in any way messes with the fantasy of what those weapons are supposed to do. But to be honest I'm also a firm believer that all weapons are not created equal, some weapons are simply meant to hit harder and kill more efficiently, the feats simply make that moreso.

No amount of math or conjecture will ever sway me, but for those who do see these as problems I say more power to you for trying to make it work. For if changing those feats for balance purposes really matters for the table and the group then you as the DM must ask yourself: What is the fantasy of two handed weapons/bows in my game? What are they supposed to do and how do I go about changing the feat/s to accommodate that? Once you have that down just tweak the numbers till it fits with whatever your notion of balance is, I won't assume or guess cause it's none of my business.

 

[AaronOfBarbaria]

That's a lot of handwaving.

That's odd, I didn't wave my hand even once.

Well, sure, but that runs into what I said before about pushing dealing with mechanics onto the DMs overhead, which is a poor solution.

Unless you are saying that you think the system, not the DM, should be selecting monsters, I'm really lost as to what it is that you think is being "pushed" anywhere.

 

[AaronOfBarbaria]

Why would anyone even bring up the issue of the DM picking the monsters? How does this help an analysis of GWM/SS power?

The DM choosing monsters is how the game is played, so that information is brought up because analysis of the GWM/SS power requires all the variables - one of which happens to be the DM's selection of monsters.

On the other hand, bringing up the DMG CR rating recommended AC IS relevant.

Theoretical AC that may or may not happen at a particular CR because that's just not how that chart works (because something with 20 HP and a 19 AC could be the same CR as something with 80 HP and a 13 AC, and both can be CR 1, and thus face-able at the very beginning of a campaign) is relevant, but "the average AC is set by the DM's monster choice" isn't?

Make up your mind - either it is relevant to consider what AC you are going to face, or it isn't.

Beyond that, I present a way to determine practical effect of the feat, and you are claiming that to be irrelevant because we can discuss theoretical effect instead.

Let's review the waste of time/irrelevant arguments:
"The feats are optional - so just don't use them!"

That's a mischaracterization of a different argument, which is: Feats are an optional rule - so it's up to whoever chooses to use that option to make sure it works out how they want it to.

"Every table varies, so how can you say anything is imbalanced?"

That's an argument no one ever made.

"In my game we only fight skeletons"

That's not even an argument.

"It says in the rules that the DM can make his own rules, so just change the feat!"

That's not an argument either... and isn't the goal of someone complaining that the feat doesn't work as they want it to in their games to change the feat? It seems like you are saying it is a waste of time to remind someone that they can totally just fix the problem they are having - you know, stop all the threads debating whether the feat is or isn't overpowered, stop side-tracking conversations about suitable adjustments/replacements by using language that over-states "I have a problem with this" into "this is a problem for everyone" and invites disagreement, and just focus on talking about how to make a thing that you don't like into something that you do?

"Math is subjective!"

Mischaracterization again.

"You focus more on combat than we do - that's the only "problem""

Mischaracterization of the arguments that are a natural result of someone declaring a thing to be a universal problem - which is that someone not having the problem says "No, that's not actually a universal problem.", and usually because it just isn't helpful to anyone to over-state the scope of a problem, not for any kind of "you are playing the game wrong" dig at the person over-stating their problem as universal.

 

[Krachek]

An inability to be perfect is no reason to not be better.

Beat the Game,
Beat the DM
Beat the Thread.
Go on!

 

[Ovinomancer]

That's odd, I didn't wave my hand even once.

And yet it was still handwaving. Very odd, indeed.

Unless you are saying that you think the system, not the DM, should be selecting monsters, I'm really lost as to what it is that you think is being "pushed" anywhere.

Misrepresenting my statements isn't helpful.