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

[Ovinomancer]

I've had enough of the accusations of ill intent and bad behavior, and seemingly deliberate misunderstandings, so I'm going to address just two last things and then I'm done.

Then I'd suggest not opening yourself up to it by selectively quoting. If you hadn't, then the worst that could have been said was that you were wrong.

You are flat out wrong.

I told you that any DM will notice if something about their game wasn't fun, and I provide you the example of my first session in which I noticed a particular thing that wasn't fun. There is no cognitive dissonance between that - noticing a thing that could have been better - and the other thing - thinking my session was a good one at the time, but knowing that my more recent sessions are even better.

Still think that's gloriously optimistic. Just a quick perusal of DM help threads shows that many DMs don't pick up on what's not fun.

You seem, by the way you've put quotes on this one word in this sentence, to be implying that I said I think I was (or am) "absolutely" a good DM. That's not a thing I said.

I used the word "absolutely" only once; it was the answer I said I'd give if asked if I thought my first game was good at the time I ran it.

My apologies, I didn't realize that you were advancing the idea that you could have a good game and while being a bad DM.

 

[shoak1]

Look at the math used to show the power of the feat by anyone that's ever concluded "it's broken" - they assume an average AC other than that set by how the DM chooses monsters. Then look at any time someone brings up "...but what if the DM doesn't choose that many low-AC enemies?" and how the replies seem to treat that as inherently different from the DM choosing monsters that match the average AC used in the math.

First, we can't separatley analyze each knucklehead DM across the nation. Let's agree to use the AC indicated in the CR DMG chart as our baseline, ok?

I mathematically analyzed GWM and used the CR guideline ACs, assumed a common deviation of +/-3, w/deviations becoming increasingly uncommon thereafter. I really expected to see it was OP - but to my surprise, my analysis showed a balanced feat as compared to +2 STR. I - wait for it - changed my view. Now the real problem I see remaining is the dearth of other balanced options for those of us that are of a more Gamist bent.

SS common synergy w/the archery fighting style IS OP. That extra +2 to hit really synergizes just too well w/SS, and creates some fruit that's too low-hanging for my comfort. The billions of guys out there playing that same archer dude are not wrong - it is an obvious choice.

 

[shoak1]

Eliminating Sharpshooter sniping heightens spellcaster supremacy. Keeping Sharpshooter/GWM as written gives Fighters (and Barbarians) a reason to exist.

A feat should never exist that is out of balance w/its other choices. Certainly not to correct some imbalance between classes you perceive. "Gee I want to play a fighter, but I know they suck w/o SS....and I'm tired of playing that same archer template over and over in every campaign.....screw it! Let's play Warcraft!"

 

[Corwin]

A feat should never exist that is out of balance w/its other choices.

Agreed. Good thing no one has been able to objectively prove any feat is out of balance w/its other choices.

Certainly not to correct some imbalance between classes you perceive. "Gee I want to play a fighter, but I know they suck w/o SS....and I'm tired of playing that same archer template over and over in every campaign.....

So you think fighters can only not suck if they are archers with SS? That's an interesting position to take. Have you played, or seen in play, a non archer fighter without SS? I have. Many. Seem to do just fine. Better than fine, actually.

screw it! Let's play Warcraft!"

You may be onto something.....

 

[shoak1]

So you think fighters can only not suck if they are archers with SS? That's an interesting position to take. Have you played, or seen in play, a non archer fighter without SS? I have. Many. Seem to do just fine. Better than fine, actually.

Corwin, I know you are only sniping here bud, but at least pay attention enough to know that I was responding to someone else's post, and that it was they, not I, that took that position.

Dude, you seem more interested in scoring points than you are in working toward mutual understanding. I may take a bit of a condescending or argumentative tone sometimes, but at least I am debating w/the intent of illumination rather than just for the sake of debating. I have changed a number of my views based on this discussion. That's something you should consider - if you're view after a dozen+ posts and responses in this thread is exactly the same as it was before, you are likely not being open minded - and maybe its time for you to move on.

 

[FormerlyHemlock]

A feat should never exist that is out of balance w/its other choices. Certainly not to correct some imbalance between classes you perceive. "Gee I want to play a fighter, but I know they suck w/o SS....and I'm tired of playing that same archer template over and over in every campaign.....screw it! Let's play Warcraft!"

I believe in holistic analysis, not piecemeal. You shouldn't be analyzing feats in isolation; you should analyze the complete package, or as close to it as you can get.

Fighters are lots of fun in 5E; but Sharpshooter and GWM are how they can turn their superior number of attacks per round into a distinctive advantage. Similarly, GWM is how Barbarians turn Reckless Attack into "hits really hard!" instead of "is really accurate". (Seriously, raise your hand if your idea of the raging barbarian trope is "precise guy who rarely misses".) There's nothing wrong with a Fighter equipping a sword and shield every once in a while if that's what the occasion calls for, but if tanking with sword-and-shield is what you're really into, you will be better off as a Warcaster paladorc. Fighters are ideal offensive specialists, and the PHB rules are written so that a good Fighter is a better at-will offensive specialist than anyone else*.

TL;DR: Sharpshooter/GWM: working as designed.

* Or at least, better than any other simple class. Trick builds like Eldritch Knight 7/Warlock 2/Rogue 11 may equal or exceed the Fighter's DPR by leveraging Sneak Attack and Eldritch Blast simultaneously.

 

[Corwin]

Corwin, I know you are only sniping here bud, but at least pay attention enough to know that I was responding to someone else's post, and that it was they, not I, that took that position.

I don't care if you were replying to someone else. This is a public discussion. Posters, other than the person quoted, are allowed to chime in. Also, quit telling me what my motives are. I know you are getting overly defensive because I called your hyperbolic statement to task, but please find the irony in the fact that in your post, where you quoted Hemlock, he was responding to someone *else* (Ovinomancer) and not to you.

Also, are you saying you aren't the same shoak1 who just said: "A feat should never exist that is out of balance w/its other choices."? Was that not you? Do you not believe there are feats that exist that are "out of balance w/its other choices"?

Dude, you seem more interested in scoring points than you are in working toward mutual understanding. I may take a bit of a condescending or argumentative tone sometimes, but at least I am debating w/the intent of illumination rather than just for the sake of debating. I have changed a number of my views based on this discussion. That's something you should consider - if you're view after a dozen+ posts and responses in this thread is exactly the same as it was before, you are likely not being open minded - and maybe its time for you to move on.

I believe this is against the rules of this forum. You should reconsider how you choose to defend your opinions. Ad hominems are generally seen as an inability to defend one's claims on their own merits.

 

[Mort]

I believe in holistic analysis, not piecemeal. You shouldn't be analyzing feats in isolation; you should analyze the complete package, or as close to it as you can get.

Fighters are lots of fun in 5E; but Sharpshooter and GWM are how they can turn their superior number of attacks per round into a distinctive advantage. Similarly, GWM is how Barbarians turn Reckless Attack into "hits really hard!" instead of "is really accurate". (Seriously, raise your hand if your idea of the raging barbarian trope is "precise guy who rarely misses".) There's nothing wrong with a Fighter equipping a sword and shield every once in a while if that's what the occasion calls for, but if tanking with sword-and-shield is what you're really into, you will be better off as a Warcaster paladorc. Fighters are ideal offensive specialists, and the PHB rules are written so that a good Fighter is a better at-will offensive specialist than anyone else*.

TL;DR: Sharpshooter/GWM: working as designed.

* Or at least, better than any other simple class. Trick builds like Eldritch Knight 7/Warlock 2/Rogue 11 may equal or exceed the Fighter's DPR by leveraging Sneak Attack and Eldritch Blast simultaneously.

Keep in mind that if a fighter wants to go sword and board, they can choose different options and be very effective. Choose the dueling style (+2 to damage) and grab the shield master feat. Knocking your opponent prone and then walloping him with your large number of attacks is pretty hefty. Heck throw in a level of rogue and skill mastery athletics - then you're really talking.

That's one reason I don't think GWM is overpowered. Feats for other styles are good too - the choice is still there and it's quite meaningful.

 

[FormerlyHemlock]

Keep in mind that if a fighter wants to go sword and board, they can choose different options and be very effective. Choose the dueling style (+2 to damage) and grab the shield master feat. Knocking your opponent prone and then walloping him with your large number of attacks is pretty hefty. Heck throw in a level of rogue and skill mastery athletics - then you're really talking.

That's one reason I don't think GWM is overpowered. Feats for other styles are good too - the choice is still there and it's quite meaningful.

Yes, they can be very effective. But they'll be less effective than some other guy in the same role (e.g. Fighter 5/Rogue 10+, or Fighter 1/Sorlock X), which means that the Fighter class per se has no real reason to exist from a design perspective.

Today, pure Fighters are the best archers and the best greatsword/greatclub-wielders. They aren't the best at shield bashing and they aren't the best at tanking. That doesn't mean you can't play a sword-and-shield fighter and have a great deal of fun--but when we put our game designer hats on, it is easy to see why Sharpshooter/GWM are written the way they are, because they help create a niche.

Edit: another way to accomplish the same thing would be to use a large number of magic-immune monsters in your campaign, like old-style golems and old-style Mind Flayers. If you do this then "being very good with weapons" will be a niche again, with Fighters and Rogues as the two prominent examples, with the bonus effect that sword-and-shield Fighters will be just as much or more in demand than greatsword Fighters. So, if you eliminate Sharpshooter/GWM headshot benefits, be sure to adjust your campaign in other ways to compensate.

 

[Corwin]

Today, pure Fighters are the best archers and the best greatsword/greatclub-wielders. They aren't the best at shield bashing and they aren't the best at tanking.

Come again? Using what parameters? What are you basing these claims on?