What makes Great Weapon Master and Sharpshooter so good?

[Ashrym]

What makes Great Weapon Master and Sharpshooter so good?

The answer is the way bonus damage is multiplied through multiple attacks.

I think opportunity cost and overkill make an impact on the value of the feats but the fact is that a fighter who takes two weapon fighting style and the dual wielder feat is far behind in average damage compared to a fighter who takes great weapon fighting and great weapon master with the advantage being a point of AC for the dual wielder.

It's counter-intuitive to look at a twf build (which is fine on some classes) and expect a bit of a defensive build instead a damage build. S&B expect lower damage for higher defense.

I find internet complaints can get over-stated and I find 5e generally good to the point I can play any class and I know I will enjoy it but no game is perfect. TWF is the poster child for fighter discrepancy in that regard.

I let champions who take twf as the first style take improved twf (house rule) for their second style for two off hand attacks on one bonus action because I think that gives the twf fighter a more viable option for the style.

 

[Li Shenron]

I am starting to think we've got it all wrong to always think that feats and multiclassing are for expert players... quite the contrary, perhaps they work best with beginners or casual players, or actually anyone who isn't a min-maxer obsessed with things such as "dpr" and probabilities. Experts should just progressively ban more and more things.

Those who think too much into the math, will always find a proof that something is better than something else, leading to the permanent frustration and unsatisfaction of never finding a perfect system. Perhaps your frustration is a sign that you should just stop talking about the current system, and try some other game, which of course will once again be imperfect, but at least you'll be annoying a different community.

 

[houser2112]

The default state for any new campaign is to not allow feats or multi-classing at all. In order for a specific feat to present itself as an issue, the DM has to go out of their way to allow feats and to allow that specific feat.

A piece of counter-anecdata: when our group switched from Pathfinder to 5E, the DM didn't explicitly allow MC/feats, but we all assumed those options were allowed. I would bet that a particular DM's favorite flavor of pre-5E D&D (and I would include PF as such a flavor for this purpose) has a strong influence on their willingness to allow the above options.

 

[CapnZapp]

Minor notational issue, but no DM should ever have to worry about removing a feat, unless they're in the middle of a campaign where someone already has it. The default state for any new campaign is to not allow feats or multi-classing at all. In order for a specific feat to present itself as an issue, the DM has to go out of their way to allow feats and to allow that specific feat.

The only place where a DM needs to worry about an unbalanced feat is in League play.

Talk for yourself.

Most DMs want PHB content to be good enough to be used as is.

Many use feats. Very few allow feats but first double-check WotC's work.

Asking DMs to pre-screen every option individually is
a) dismissive b) ridiculous and c) asking them to do WotC's work

 

[Charlaquin]

With Shapshooter specifically, the Archery fighting style removes a significant chunk of the drawback of taking a -5/+10 attack, the smaller damage dice of bows compared to two-handed weapons makes the trade off of accuracy for static damage more favorable for archers, and the Feat removing penalties for 1/2 and 3/4 cover removes one of the biggest drawbacks of ranged combat over melee (and 5e already favors ranged). It’s also compatible with another one of the most powerful Feats, Crossbow Expert, which eliminates the other drawback of ranged combat and allows you to effectively dual-wield with a weapon that qualifies for Sharpshooter.

Variant human battlemaster fighter with archery fighting style, sharpshooter, and crossbow expert gives you absurdly high at-will DPR for your level. Swapping archery for great weapon fighting and sharpshooter and crossbow expert for great weapon mastery and polearm master gives you similarly high at-will DPR, but with only 10-foot reach instead of 30/120 foot range.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

Talk for yourself.

Most DMs want PHB content to be good enough to be used as is.

Many use feats. Very few allow feats but first double-check WotC's work.

Asking DMs to pre-screen every option individually is
a) dismissive b) ridiculous and c) asking them to do WotC's work

And you should do the same. You did a poll a while ago and you know most people think the feat is good as is. It is your agenda to change something that is not broken for most people.

 

[iserith]

A piece of counter-anecdata: when our group switched from Pathfinder to 5E, the DM didn't explicitly allow MC/feats, but we all assumed those options were allowed. I would bet that a particular DM's favorite flavor of pre-5E D&D (and I would include PF as such a flavor for this purpose) has a strong influence on their willingness to allow the above options.

That mirrors my experience as well. I run a lot of pickup games, especially for other DMs, and they are almost always surprised that I don't normally use feats in my games. When I explain that it's an optional rule they act like it's the first time they've ever heard that. To a man or woman, they all played D&D 3.Xe and/or 4e.

 

[FrogReaver]

No, it is the other way round. And noone stated that it has to be without multiclassing or feats or the like. Please stay out of the conversation if you are unwilling to read every post. I never even said that the feat is not increasing damage by a good amount. I am saying that it is not as OP as some people claim because of denying reality of many games (I don´t speak about yours)

But, I am now willing to make a character fo you. half orc barbarian level 3. Berserker style. One encounter. Str 16, Con 16, Dex 14, Wis 12, In 8, cha 8 Longbow, Great axe, Scale armor.

Ummm. A level 3 half orc can't take great weapon master. Want to try for a character that would actually have the option of taking said feat?

 

[UngeheuerLich]

Nope. You can take variant human if you like. You said chose the level. I did. Now it is your turn. Or make it level 4. I take +2 str.

 

[The Crimson Binome]

A piece of counter-anecdata: when our group switched from Pathfinder to 5E, the DM didn't explicitly allow MC/feats, but we all assumed those options were allowed. I would bet that a particular DM's favorite flavor of pre-5E D&D (and I would include PF as such a flavor for this purpose) has a strong influence on their willingness to allow the above options.

Honestly, the assumptions probably come at the player level. Someone coming at 5E from Pathfinder is going to have different assumptions than someone coming at it from AD&D. And yes, the willingness to allow those options probably has to do with which edition the DM is most comfortable with.

I just feel it necessary to remind people, particularly in threads like this, that the design intent was for you to only include the stuff you actively want to use. Especially coming out of 4E, where everything was assumed to be in-play by default, they knew that this was going to be a hard sell. There's just a certain mindset of player which they're trying the best to discourage, but there's only so much they can do about it.