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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="CapnZapp" data-source="post: 6994639" data-attributes="member: 12731">Indeed, that feat A is "better" than feat B is not in itself broken, "broken", or any other kind of bRoken.And here we are. A feat is "broken" if it effectively shuts down parts of the combat engine you expect ranged combat to have; in the case of SS that targets no longer become harder to hit the further away and the less you see of them.But even that might be argued is a fair price to pay for simplicity. Harder to argue is that Sharpshooter (together with GWM) isn't broken in regards to the menu of choices that is the list of weapons. As a player, you can find a role model in books, movies etc for essentially every combination of weapons there is. And while one might make d4+5 or 7 damage and another might make d12+5 or 11 damage, they remain in the same ballpark.But the addition of feats breaks this menu of choices. Suddenly there are a very select few choices that add between 30% and 100% effectiveness compared to all the rest. This is well and truly broken, since it considerably reduces variety. It reduces choice. And don't come arguing that you can still select the three-legged war scythe as a weapon. If it doesn't deal damage even comparable to what you could have chosen, it isn't really a choice.If you combine these two aspects (negating combat "physics"; non-competitive damage), there is no longer an argument. Especially if you pile on a third one: the fact that monsters in the MM seem calibrated for the featless game (monsters don't have feats and few monsters enjoy anything close to the upgrade player can accomplish through feats).The overall analysis can only be that (parts of) the 5E feat subsystem does not work as any sane designer could have intended it to. Thus broken.</blockquote>

Verification