What makes Great Weapon Master and Sharpshooter so good?

[TwoSix]

So because a 20th level maxed-out character has +10 damage bonus against a monster with a low-level AC, we should worry and ban the feat since level 1?

Besides, we gotta stop this negative mentality that the game has to be competitive among the players. If my friend is playing an archer in the same group and is dropping goblins left and right, this actually benefits me as well. Am I doing less damage than the archer? Who cares, I have tons of other things to do to 'shine', unless the only thing I am capable/interested of doing in the whole game is just damage, and if that's the case then I should pick that feat too.

Some people are just obsessed by having a smaller dpr

If the feat adds nothing to the game beyond damage, why not just drop it?

Better question: If the feat had never been in the game to being with, would you be asking for its inclusion?

 

[Li Shenron]

If the feat adds nothing to the game beyond damage, why not just drop it?

Better question: If the feat had never been in the game to being with, would you be asking for its inclusion?

90% of the game material is unnecessary to the game. OD&D worked fine with 3 classes, so what?

 

[TwoSix]

90% of the game material is unnecessary to the game. OD&D worked fine with 3 classes, so what?

That doesn't really answer my question.

 

[Li Shenron]

That doesn't really answer my question.

The answer is obviously NO, if GWM didn't exist, I would not have asked for it. But it's a mean question because that could be said about most of the exact game mechanics. And then, I would have certainly asked something in terms of tactical feats, we got GWM and thus I am glad we did. I liked the idea of Power Attack and Combat Expertise back in 3e, so this kind of feats are a good fit for me, especially if a group wants to bring back a 3e feel to the game. So no, I would not have demanded for them, but I am happy they included them. Does this answer in retrospective make your question a better one?

 

[TwoSix]

The answer is obviously NO, if GWM didn't exist, I would not have asked for it. But it's a mean question because that could be said about most of the exact game mechanics. And then, I would have certainly asked something in terms of tactical feats, we got GWM and thus I am glad we did. I liked the idea of Power Attack and Combat Expertise back in 3e, so this kind of feats are a good fit for me, especially if a group wants to bring back a 3e feel to the game. So no, I would not have demanded for them, but I am happy they included them. Does this answer in retrospective make your question a better one?

Answers my point in the affirmative. You're not attached to the exact mechanics, you want the conceptual niche that the feat occupies to be filled. A similar conceptual feat with a better balance point could have been in the PHB back in 2014 and you wouldn't have a problem.

 

[guachi]

The TWF should have +1 AC so against 250 goblins he will take about 12 hits less. So he has some advantage. I'd be honest here: twf feat is not that strong.

If an opponent has a 50% chance of hitting then +1 AC reduces the hit chance to 45%. So basically a 10% reduction in number of times hit. It's not nothing, of course. But TWF is best from level 1-4 before Extra Attack kicks in but it's still not great when combined with the DW feat.

For kicks, I'll look at PAM and Shield Master (original ruling) when I get home from work today.

It'll be a melee feat showdown!

 

[BookBarbarian]

Yes.



Keep in mind party size and composition are different from table to table and my issue was less the GWM but the high AC of the character. I wanted to make mobs surrounding the character more threatening. I'm not really satisfied with this solution but this is what we currently use and this mainly because we predominantly play ToM. Even when we do use a grid, we stick to the below table.

1 opponent - normal
2 opponents - Lesser Advantage (+2 on attack roll)
3 opponents* - Advantage (per PHB)
4 opponents* - Advantage (per PHB)
5 opponents* - Greater Advantage (Advantage +2)
6 opponents* - Greater Advantage (Advantage +2)
7 opponents* - Greater Advantage (Advantage +2)
8 opponents* - Greater Advantage+ (Advantage +2, and every hit converts into a critical hit)

* Advantage only allowed if the environment allows for the target to be surrounded, otherwise the 3rd+ opponent only gains Lesser Advantage.

EDIT: It bolsters low-level enemy combatants with their +2 to +4 attack bonuses, ensuring their relevance for longer throughout the campaign.

Interesting. It still seems to steal some thunder from Wolf totem 3 and Pact Tactics, but having 3+ party members next to one enemy is a lot less likely to occur.

 

[Sadras]

Interesting. It still seems to steal some thunder from Wolf totem 3 and Pact Tactics, but having 3+ party members next to one enemy is a lot less likely to occur.

Ah, no Barbarian at our table - just looked it up, but you are certainly right in both respects. Thanks!
It definitely needs a rethink - especially when you're playing mostly ToM (perhaps an initial AoO cost or a bonus action to maintain).

 

[BookBarbarian]

Ah, no Barbarian at our table - just looked it up, but you are certainly right in both respects. Thanks!
It definitely needs a rethink - especially when you're playing mostly ToM (perhaps an initial AoO cost or a bonus action to maintain).

It certainly does add a fear of Hordes for players.

Well, I'm already afraid of hordes given the action economy.

 

[Satyrn]

Well, I'm already afraid of hordes given the action economy.

I've got a headache, so I can't think of how to make a witty comment about how hordes mess with the action economy the way hoards mess with the magic item economy.



So, uh, maybe consider this a setup for someone funnier to deliver the punchline.