Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="AaronOfBarbaria" data-source="post: 6919981" data-attributes="member: 6701872">That's not a good example because the hypothetical feat being used to illustrate a point doesn't function acceptably on its own (i.e. no one would take that feat in the hopes that other factors come into play that allow it to be used).That does not contradict any point I've made. Though it does show that there is a possibility my point hasn't been understood - for which I will admit I am potentially part of the reason for that, and not blame it on you specifically. Which might help to illustrate my point more clearly; Our communication is the combination of Great Weapon Master (your reading of my post), and some number of other game mechanics (the words I've chosen to use in my post).That our communication hasn't worked out as hoped, with you understanding the point I am making, doesn't mean that one of us can be picked out as the cause - just like Great Weapon Master can't be singled-out as the part of a combo that is causing problems.Both matter.We are both presenting approaches based on fact. It's rude of you to try to suggest otherwise.I've never once said that the rules exist in isolation, nor that we should not be evaluating combinations of rules to make sure nothing undesired is happening.What I have said is that when we put [game element A] together with [game element B] and reach an undesired result that saying "[game element B] is broken" is not a reasonable conclusion if [game element B] didn't produce any undesired results without [game element A], or some other game element, in the mix.The information used as evidence by one side of this argument that Great Weapon Master and Sharp Shooter allowing -5 to-hit for +10 damage is "broken", while insisting all the other things that exist in the combos that produce that result are working fine, is not actually supporting that, and only that conclusion.With the above Great Weapon Master + Advantage, we have equal evidence that Great Weapon Master is at fault, and that whatever granted Advantage is at fault, and yet one of them has been selected as an arbitrary scape goat.The argument is coming across as "That's too much for one feat to do", and I am answering "It isn't just one feat doing it."</blockquote>

Verification