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

[shoak1]

Of course the character is going to take a penalty. It's just not the one you are thinking off. Because the opportunity cost of the feat is +2 ASI, that means that STR/DEX mod is one less. So every single attack they make, regardless if they are engaging the feat or not, is at -1/-1.

So if the baseline is +2 ASI, then compared to that the feat either gives:

-1 to hit / -1 to damage (when not using it)
OR
-6 to hit / +9 to damage (when using it)

So either you are strictly inferior with -1/-1, or you're getting about +1.5 damage potential for every point of to hit you are losing, but that lost to hit means that you are also gabling the base damage.

Let's try a few examples. I'll start 50/50 and go up and down.
Baseline: Greatssword (2d6 avg 7) +5 (str, magic, whatever) = 12 avg damage
GWF: Greatsword but -2 STR = 11 avg damage.

Good analysis, but there are a few problems with it I see. To ground this analysis into a specific example, lets take a 5th level fighter w/18 STR and a +1 greatsword - so he has +8 to hit and does 15 avg damage, twice per round. His avg opponent would be a CR 5-7 boss (AC 15, hp 150) or a few CR 3-4 guys (AC 13-14, hp 100).

So first, lets dispel the idea of overkill mattering since hp are plenty big enough for it to rarely matter, and just say the feat is not good at really low levels.

Now consider that his avg chance of hitting is going to be 75% normally w/o GWM or STR bonus, throughout levels +/- a bit. Damage at this level would be 15 as above.

Now lets look at your specific examples:

If baseline has a 50% chance to hit, that's 6 expected damage per attack (50% * 12)
GWF not using it has a 45% for 11 damage = 4.95
GWF using it has a 20% for 21 damage = 4.2 damage
Okay, even chance to hit definitely favors not taking the feat.

Almost never gonna happen that L5 guy faces AC18. But if it does, here is the revised stats based on 15 dmg.:
Baseline has a 35% for 15 = 5.25
GWF not in use = 30% for 14 = 4.2
GWF in use is 5% for 24 = 1.2
So if facing such a high AC, he can turn the feat off and does 20% less damage than if he had taken STR buff instead.

Let's try +3 AC harder to hit.
Baseline has a 35% for 12 = 4.2
GWF not in use = 30% for 11 = 3.3
GWF in use is 5% for 21 = 1.05
As expected, anything harder makes the feat even worse.

Never gonna happen that L5 guy faces AC21.

Let's go -3 AC easier to hit.
Baseline has a 65% for 12 = 7.8
GWF not using it has 60% * 11 = 6.6
GWF in use has 35% * 21 = 7.35
Hmm, GWF is pulling close, but it's still better not to have taken the feat. But at least if you had taken the feat it's finally better to use it then ignore it.

Revised to baseline 15 dmg:
Baseline has a 65% for 15 = 9.75
GWF not using it has 60% * 14 = 8.4
GWF in use has 35% * 24 = 8.4
So against the few AC 16 guys he faces, our L5 guy is at a 10% disadvantage by taking GWM.

Let's go up another to -6 to AC, make it REALLY easy to hit.
Baseline has 80% for 12 = 9.6
GWF not using 75% for 11 = 8.25
GWF using it 50% for 21 = 10.5
Woo, GWF is finally better!

And so here we finally have a more common scenario for our L5 hero - against AC13, here is the stats revised for 15 baseline dmg.:
Baseline has 80% for 15 = 12
GWF not using 75% for 14 = 10.5
GWF using it 50% for 25 = 12.5
Here he does 5% more damage on average w/GWM as opposed to STR buff. Not exactly game breaking.

I think my revised data above (based on baseline 75% chance to hit and 15 dmg) shows that GWM is on par the STR buff. BUT - while GWM in combat is arguably equal to +2 STR in combat effect, the STR buff adds Athletics checks and STR saves - at least until it maxes out, and that makes +2 STR "better" imo. Even after STR maxes out, GWM is not a HUGE advantage - so I am revising my opinion and I think GWM is not imbalanced for combat. I think it is a cool and balanced option.

 

[Xeviat]

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:

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.

This is with advantage, right? My barbarian player feels that without GWM, he wouldn't play a barbarian.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[CapnZapp]

meaningless numbers

Sigh. What a load of crock.

A load of numbers creating a single scenario designed to support my opinion. And the evidence I crafted myself then lets me write off all complaints. What the frack?

I think it is a cool and balanced option.

You sure you don't want to change that to "a fair and balanced option"...? :-(

 

[shoak1]

Sigh. What a load of crock.

A load of numbers creating a single scenario designed to support my opinion. And the evidence I crafted myself then lets me write off all complaints. What the frack?


You sure you don't want to change that to "a fair and balanced option"...? :-(

I'm confused by your quote of me re "meaningless numbers?" Were you quoting someone else? And when you are saying a load of numbers to support my opinion are you referring to me?

 

[UngeheuerLich]

This. If martials need help then a more global manuever system or flat damage increases if necessary is the way to go. Boosting a few martial options is not.


Ya, giving weapon specific options is hard to make work. For my game I made most of the weapon specific feats Inherent Weapon Properties. See page 2 of my houserules:

• Charger is now a default option: "When you use your action to Dash, you can make one melee weapon attack or shove a creature. If you move at least 10ft. in a straight line immediately before this, you either gain a +5 bonus to the attack's damage roll or push the target up to 10 feet away from you (if you succeed in pushing)."
• Cleave (see GWM). Greataxe, Greatsword, Maul
• Polearms. While you are wielding a glaive, halberd, or pike in two hands, other creatures provoke an opportunity attack from you when they enter your reach.
• TWF. Ability score bonus and draw 2 light. See TWF above.
• Shield. If you take the Attack action on your turn, you can use a bonus action to try to shove a creature within 5 feet of you with your shield.

Now you can switch weapons without concern. I should probably add a few more for options like daggers or others, but no player has inquired.




Rodney Thompson's departure was a big one. He left 6 months after 5e released. In my perception the UA content that has been published since has varied quite a bit from some of 5e's core concepts that Rodney talked about extensively during the 5e process.

Greg Bisland left on June 21, 2016. He was a lead producer/designer for WotC. He "worked closely with Mike Mearls and Christopher Perkins to develop the 5e core books"

James Wyatt moved to Magic in April 2016, but I have no idea if that had an impact as I think he's more of a writer

Ah ok. Yes those two did a good job, but so did and does mike mearls and the rest.

 

[Helldritch]

I really see no problems with these two feats. They work as intended. For low AC you use them. For High AC you stop using them. By taking one of these, you sacrificed an ASI and you suffer a bit against high AC. In all my games, I have seen no problems in relation with these. The trade off is quite on target.

 

[Zardnaar]

Which i think -5/+10 makes great weapons feel great and mighty as intended!

They are already mighty with the cleave part of the feat and the bonus attack on polearm master.

It is more or less at the level of Pathfiner/3,0 levels of stupidity in regards to how good big weapons are. They overshadow everything else.

Or combine them togather with Polearm Master+GWM, extra attack, +10 damage on all attacks is very silly assuming even 1 or 2 miss relative to say what a dual wielder or sword and board type deals.

Also look at how careful they were in the PHB to mitigate bonus damage. Generally you can get something like charisma to damage at level 12 with a bladelock or an extra dice of damage (hex/hunters quarry) or a level 8 cleric.

Using the same logic that team work matters its the same argument used in 3.x where you could have Bards giving everyone +8 to +16 to hit an damage or Clerics using combinations to empower persistent spell+ divine favor/power etc.

The feats also cause other problems like idiotic players using them all the time causing them to miss or they hit do much and deal about the same amount of damage as the rest of the party put together.

 

[CapnZapp]

I really see no problems with these two feats. They work as intended. For low AC you use them. For High AC you stop using them. By taking one of these, you sacrificed an ASI and you suffer a bit against high AC. In all my games, I have seen no problems in relation with these. The trade off is quite on target.

What do you mean by "work as intended", Helldritch?

Before we can respond to your opinion, it would help to know what that is.

 

[MiraMels]

I don't think they are overpowered. In my experience, when my players feat stack into these combos that most folk complain about, they end up cripplingly overspecialized, and the gains from those feats hardly measure up against the raw edge in ability scores (or the extra versatility gained from using your feats to branch out) that their party members have.

My only complaint with the Sharpshooter feat is that it encourages BORING PLAY. When cover is simply negated and range is extended to absurd lengths, my players STOP INTERACTING WITH THE ENVIRONMENT. They stand in one spot, move only when the most wounded token on the board has total cover against them, and then they complain to me about how boring playing an archer is.

When I play archers, I give them Athlete and avoid Sharpshooter. It's an unnecessary feat that makes having fun harder. No DPR gain is worth that.

 

[Psikerlord#]

When the playtest was underway, the mechanics of the system were explained to us as were the reasonings behind various decisions. One of those explanations was that flat bonuses were bad, as were plus damage, minus attack bonuses. And yet, we got both in the published system.

In particular the combination between the Archery fighting style and Sharpshooter seems to be problematic, but so too is GWM + PAM. The consistent factor in these seemingly overpowered combinations is the -5/+10 mechanic. Personally, I do away with that aspect of those feats and I'm finding more and more that other DM's are doing the same. So I wanted to find out if this was a trend and whether the majority (of DM's) think this aspect of those two feats is problematic or not.

I'm sure players love it, which is why I'm hoping and asking for only DM's to respond to the poll.

yep, those feats are fine as half feats instead: +1 stat and the other ability. There is already a lot of damage inflation in 5e, the -5/+10 should never have made it past playtesting.

PS - all the evidence I need is from playing. Two games with the -5/+10 allowed, those PCs dominated and others round the table complained. Since then, removing the -5/+10, no issues.