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

[jgsugden]

People drastically simplify the math behind these feats. They look at DPR and they look at how much damage on average the feat allows versus the +1/+1 of a strength bonus, and they fail to consider aspects like overkill - wasted damage beyond what was needed to kill a monster.

If you try sitting down and looking at how these feats actually change the results of a combat, you'll find they are not as amazeballs as people believe. Do this exercise. Build two melee combatants.

#1: I took +2 strength rather than GWM. I hit on a 5 and crit on a 20. I do 4d6 + 6 on a crit and 2d6 + 6 on a hit (reroll 1 and 2 once each on the damage dice from GWF)
#2: I took GWM rather than +2 strength and am using it. I hit on an 11 and crit on a 20. I do 4d6+15 on a crit and 2d6+15 on a hit (rerolling 1 and 2 once each on the damage dice).

Have fighter 1 and fighter 2 both use the same attack and damage dice rolls when then hit (#1 may hit some times when #2 misses). They're trying to hack their way through 80 hp foes. Give them each 100 attacks. See how many targets each cuts through. If you build an excel spreadsheet and have it perform this anaylysis over and over to simulate hundreds of thousands of attacks and play a bit with the effective AC of the enemy, the hp total of the enemy, etc... you'll come to realize that the benefit of this feat over a +1 to hit and damage is not as great as people think.

 

[Yunru]

People drastically simplify the math behind these feats. They look at DPR and they look at how much damage on average the feat allows versus the +1/+1 of a strength bonus, and they fail to consider aspects like overkill - wasted damage beyond what was needed to kill a monster.

If you try sitting down and looking at how these feats actually change the results of a combat, you'll find they are not as amazeballs as people believe. Do this exercise. Build two melee combatants.

#1: I took +2 strength rather than GWM. I hit on a 5 and crit on a 20. I do 4d6 + 6 on a crit and 2d6 + 6 on a hit (reroll 1 and 2 once each on the damage dice from GWF)
#2: I took GWM rather than +2 strength and am using it. I hit on an 11 and crit on a 20. I do 4d6+15 on a crit and 2d6+15 on a hit (rerolling 1 and 2 once each on the damage dice).

Have fighter 1 and fighter 2 both use the same attack and damage dice rolls when then hit (#1 may hit some times when #2 misses). They're trying to hack their way through 80 hp foes. Give them each 100 attacks. See how many targets each cuts through. If you build an excel spreadsheet and have it perform this anaylysis over and over to simulate hundreds of thousands of attacks and play a bit with the effective AC of the enemy, the hp total of the enemy, etc... you'll come to realize that the benefit of this feat over a +1 to hit and damage is not as great as people think.

Or you can apply the law of averages and just use maths. Much simpler.

The feat comes out ahead, but not as game-breakingly so as some imply.

 

[Zardnaar]

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.

That and advantage is stupidly easy to get in 5E via spells and class abiloities. In addition to spells that grant it such as Faerie Fire any spell that causes blindness, paralysis, invisibility, knocks someone prone and probably several others grant it. This combines with the fact so many classes get spells now.

Faerie Fire, All Druids, All bards, a warlock and light cleric get it.
Bless. Al Clerics, all Paladins, Bards can get it

This also excludes multiclassing. If you have the right party composition Bless become better than say Spiritual Guardians in terms of damage- deal an extra 3d8 damage around you or bless 5 people and enable the -5/+10 feats.

Stick greater invisibility on an archer or at higher level foresight.


Pure numeric bonuses to hit are a bit more rare but bless and bard dice come to mind along with the archery weapon style.

We had a DM kind of metagame against it by using AC 18 and 20 type books like hobgoblins but

 

[Leatherhead]

The biggest problem with optional rules is still, after all this time, people who don't understand you need to tweak your game in order to use them.

Seriously, these feats are nowhere near powerful enough to generate the levels of vitriol they get.

 

[Helldritch]

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

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

These two feats, imo, are there mainly to plow through critters and low AC enemies. Not all groups have access to fireball and AOE spells.
The cleave part of the GWM feat helps against critters and it's even better with polearm master.
The Sharp shooter ignore partial covers does the same with ranged critters using walls, big rocks and whatever as partial cover.

(Blessed goblins/hobgoblins/skelletons with bows and partial covers can become quite hard or annoying.)

Sorry if I wasn't clear on that.

 

[jgsugden]

Or you can apply the law of averages and just use maths. Much simpler.

The feat comes out ahead, but not as game-breakingly so as some imply.

When my point was that looking at the average damage doesn't tell the true story, ....

 

[Bacon Bits]

My problems with the -5/+10 feats remain:

1. It forces players to do mathematics and cost/benefit analysis during combat. There is a mathmatically correct answer for when to -5/+10, and it's something you have to calculate based on your average damage, current attack bonus, and the AC of the target. It's typically not immediately obvious unless your character magically never changes any modifiers. This slows play and distracts from the narrative by encouraging players to think exclusively about mechanics. That makes it detrimental to the flow of the game and bad for the overall quality of play.

2. It's possible to make -5/+10 appealing enough to be "always on" against essentially all enemies by the mid to late game (level 12+). That means you've created an universal "best" strategy to use every combat. If every combat your party casts bless and then the Barbarian moves in, uses Rage, Reckless Attack, and Great Weapon Mastery and the Fighter uses his Crossbow with Sharpshooter... and you can't discover any alternative to compare to that strategy in essentially all encounters... that's bad design. Either the game has a problem with power level, or the game has a problem with discoverability.

I would still prefer something like GWM dealing an extra ~1d6 damage to creatures size large and larger if they are larger than you (calling back to two-handed swords dealing 3d6 damage to large creatures), and SS dealing an extra ~1d6 damage to creatures that resist damage from your ranged weapon attacks (armor piercing). I'd prefer situational damage bonuses instead of mathmatical​ damage bonuses.

 

[Psikerlord#]

Ahh, frankly if you want cool big hit moments, you're better off playing Low Fantasy Gaming and using a Major Exploit (which all PCs can do, incidentally)

 

[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?

Actually Capn Zapp if you notice I am no apologist for 5e - in fact I think (still) that the job they did on feats is crap. I didn't run those numbers with an "agenda," but if I did have a bias, it was that GWM is imbalanced. I thought (hoped?) that it was imbalanced.....But I kept an open mind, took reasonable statistics based on expected ACs at certain levels, as well as access to magic items, etc, and ran the numbers objectively. And it led me to a different conclusion than I expected.

If you do think the numbers I indicated were a "crock," then which numbers specifically? The +8 to hit for a martial PC at L5 ? The ACs for monsters of appropriate CR level (which are in line w/the CR recommendations from the DMG and actually much LOWER than the guy whose post I responded to)? The rest is basic math and not subjective.

Having said all that, the feats have a laundry list of other problems, such as relative balance to each other, the way they tend to only support certain lines of play/weapons, etc. I just don't think any longer than GWM is imbalanced for combat mathematically. I wish it was imbalanced to be honest - it would better help support my contention that the feat list = crap.

So tell me where I erred CapnZapp, so I can get back on the GWM Is Crap bandwagon - I miss you guys already

 

[One_Shots]

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.

Yes, that has been my experience as well, in hundreds of games so far (gaming 2-3 times a week with different groups each time since 5e released). Even as a player I won't play a character with these feats because I don't wish to dominate the game so drastically that I overshadow other players at the table.