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

[AaronOfBarbaria]

Huh. I had thought you were trying to say that the SS and GWM feats could be mitigated by the DM choosing monsters

I was actually saying that they aren't "mitigated" by DM choice - their potency is just dependent upon it, so that choice matters, whether it is giving more opportunities for these feats to shine, or less.

...but now it seems your just making a trivial semantic point that the DM technically chooses the monsters even if he chooses to use the ones in the published adventure.

I said the DM chooses monsters, you seemed to offer running a published adventure as a time when that isn't true, I pointed out the error.

You can characterize it as "trivial" or "semantic" all you want - that doesn't make it untrue, nor does it reduce the relevancy or accuracy of my statement that the DM chooses monsters, and that affects the power of Great Weapon Master and Sharp Shooter.

Right there were you come up with a thing you say I mean unless you don't understand.

That thing is a misrepresentation of my statements.

No, it isn't. No more than it is a misrepresentation of what color I am seeing (I'm color deficient, by the way) for me to say "Unless that's green, I'm lost as to what color it is." Nor is that any accusation of the thing actually being green, that's just my best guess because I can't see the difference between certain shades of yellow and green, nor between certain shades of green and grey.

I've had it on applicable authority that putting such things into question doesn't make it better.

I didn't put anything in a question, just like I didn't represent any particular statement as being yours.

 

[Krachek]

And here I though it was a discussion. If you score points in your game by having the last word, though, by all means do so.

the game is Dnd, the discussion is what we are trying to have in this forum.
I admit that I am a better player than poster.

 

[Ovinomancer]

I was actually saying that they aren't "mitigated" by DM choice - their potency is just dependent upon it, so that choice matters, whether it is giving more opportunities for these feats to shine, or less.

This is as trivially true as saying that sometimes you just roll low for awhile. Are you offering the argument that DMs should choose monsters to offset the effectiveness of GWM and SS or are you just wrapped up in pointing out things everyone knows as if they're profound?

I said the DM chooses monsters, you seemed to offer running a published adventure as a time when that isn't true, I pointed out the error.

You can characterize it as "trivial" or "semantic" all you want - that doesn't make it untrue, nor does it reduce the relevancy or accuracy of my statement that the DM chooses monsters, and that affects the power of Great Weapon Master and Sharp Shooter.

It is trivially true. It amounts to a tautoligy: the DM runs the game so the DM chooses the encounters. Well, duh? If that's the extent of your argument, then it's a very short extent. Is that the extent of your argument?

Because I had thought you were advancing the idea that DM choice can offset the effectiveness of the feats. For that to be the case, and for it to be anything more than random fluctuations if duce, then intent becomes critical: the DM must intend to select offsetting creatures. And, if that's the case, then there is a difference in running published encounters by the book because you cede intent to the author -- the DM is no longer choosing the monsters to offset the feats, he's just choosing an adventure.

No, it isn't. No more than it is a misrepresentation of what color I am seeing (I'm color deficient, by the way) for me to say "Unless that's green, I'm lost as to what color it is." Nor is that any accusation of the thing actually being green, that's just my best guess because I can't see the difference between certain shades of yellow and green, nor between certain shades of green and grey.
I didn't put anything in a question, just like I didn't represent any particular statement as being yours.

You could have just said, "Sorry, didn't mean it to come across that way," and it'd be forgotten. Perhaps you should ponder that.

 

[discosoc]

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.

Unfortunately, modern gaming -- especially MMO's -- have turned RPG's into an exercise of "dps/r charts" and group-think min/maxing. If something is 12% worse than something else, one of those things must be broken. The industry has always had these kinds of powergamers at the table, but now we have normal casual players basing their opinions on what the powergamers say. That level of influence *is* sort of a new twist on the old 90's munchkin player.

I'm happy that D&D has found a larger audience compare to the 80's and 90's, but I'm not so sure about the quality of players who look at it like it's a board game and the objective is to beat the GM.

 

[Savevsdeath]

It can be OP as hell when you have clerics and bards around along with faerie fire. I have seen it used up to AC 18 and 20 reliably, advantage to hit+bard dice+bless. Also the diviner wizard.

I have also seen action surge+crossbow expert+SS combo, 100+ damage in the mid levels. With low ACs and great low level buff spells/bard dice yeah.

So it took a lot of character resources that could have been used on something else to make it that strong.

You are not proving that the feat is OP.

 

[AaronOfBarbaria]

Are you offering the argument that DMs should choose monsters to offset the effectiveness of GWM and SS or are you just wrapped up in pointing out things everyone knows as if they're profound?

Neither.

Is that the extent of your argument?

Reading my posts should make it clear that it is not. If you have read my posts up to this point and find it unclear what my argument is, I'm afraid I can not help you understand, so you'll just have to move on.

Because I had thought you were advancing the idea that DM choice can offset the effectiveness of the feats.

For the final time, as clear as I can think to say it: The DM's choice does not offset the effectiveness of the feats - it determines it.

There is no scenario in which the DM's choice of monsters doesn't affect the effectiveness of these feats, so it is not some special, deliberate action to choose monsters in a way that affects the effectiveness of these feats.

the DM must intend to select offsetting creatures.

False.

You could have just said, "Sorry, didn't mean it to come across that way," and it'd be forgotten. Perhaps you should ponder that.

Yes, I could have offered up an apology for your mistaking me with your accusation of misrepresentation. Perhaps you should ponder why I didn't.

 

[Krachek]

Unfortunately, modern gaming -- especially MMO's -- have turned RPG's into an exercise of "dps/r charts" and group-think min/maxing. If something is 12% worse than something else, one of those things must be broken. The industry has always had these kinds of powergamers at the table, but now we have normal casual players basing their opinions on what the powergamers say. That level of influence *is* sort of a new twist on the old 90's munchkin player.

I'm happy that D&D has found a larger audience compare to the 80's and 90's, but I'm not so sure about the quality of players who look at it like it's a board game and the objective is to beat the GM.

In pvp games a mere 5% nerf is enough to kill a feature.
And 4ed was running in this direction.
5ed make a turn in the way of role play, which is surely more satisfying than crunching numbers.

 

[discosoc]

In pvp games a mere 5% nerf is enough to kill a feature.
And 4ed was running in this direction.
5ed make a turn in the way of role play, which is surely more satisfying than crunching numbers.

Yeah, 5e is much better in that regard. There's just a ton of players who haven't caught on, and keep trying to turn 5e into a crunchier system than it is.

 

[Zardnaar]

So it took a lot of character resources that could have been used on something else to make it that strong.

You are not proving that the feat is OP.

People spent a lot of resources in 3E breaking the game as well. Doesn't mean its not broken.

 

[Ovinomancer]

Neither.

Reading my posts should make it clear that it is not. If you have read my posts up to this point and find it unclear what my argument is, I'm afraid I can not help you understand, so you'll just have to move on.

For the final time, as clear as I can think to say it: The DM's choice does not offset the effectiveness of the feats - it determines it.

There is no scenario in which the DM's choice of monsters doesn't affect the effectiveness of these feats, so it is not some special, deliberate action to choose monsters in a way that affects the effectiveness of these feats.

I"m sorry, but could you actually explain the effective difference between what I said and what you said? As I take it, you're saying that DM choice determines how effective the feat is -- that by making some choice A, the feat is more effective, and by making some choice B, the feat is less effective. Assuming that you mean the choices the DM makes are intentional and not random (making this statement equivalent of saying the dice sometimes make the feat more effective and sometimes less) then how is that functionally different from me saying that the DM chooses intentionally to improve or reduce the effectiveness of the feat? I mean, if you go with how I said it, the outcome is that the DM can make some choice A, and the feat is more effective or could make some choice B and the feat is less effective.

I'm completely flummoxed as to why you think what you just said is any different from what I said. I can only guess that you want the more neutral wording of 'determines' over the less neutral wording of 'offsets' because the end result is exactly the same effect.

Let's take a moment to recall that this sidebar occurred in response to me saying that the average AC was 15ish in the game, across all CRs. You took exception, which I now understand is because you're saying that this average isn't truthful because some DM may choose a set of monsters over play that has a different average AC. I was making my point not that this isn't so -- it's trivially obvious -- but that the average AC across all CRs is indicative of many choices with lower ACs. I then took your statement to be an objection that this spread has any effect, but I now understand that you're entire argument is a semantic one about the fact that a given DM's choices over a game will have a slightly different (or, if very outliery, a noticeable) difference in that average AC. Which means you're just making a general argument about specific possibilities. I didn't twig to that because I generally expect that people understand that you can logically argue from the general to the specific (all Bobs are tall --> Bob Smith is tall) but not from the specific to the general (Alice Smith is tall --> all Alices are tall). Frankly, I'm now not certain why you wasted so much time getting to this trivial point. It's uninteresting.

False.

No, if he's not intending to select the creatures, then it's, as I said, a random occurrence like dice rolls. Taking my arguments in pieces instead of in context to dismiss them is bad pool.

However, I see now that your argument isn't this, but rather than different DMs will pick different monsters across their games, and as the average AC across CRs may not hold. You can have that argument, it's uninteresting.

Yes, I could have offered up an apology for your mistaking me with your accusation of misrepresentation. Perhaps you should ponder why I didn't.

I have some ideas, but you won't like them.