What makes Great Weapon Master and Sharpshooter so good?

[BookBarbarian]

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.

Plucky Adventurers killed another Dragon, further devaluing Gold. Stay tuned. Details at 11:00.

 

[Oofta]

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!

I need to double check some stuff, but when I did a comparison Shield Master (original ruling) came out on top in most cases assuming champion fighter not getting any other buffs for survivability. My samples also included things like hell hounds where the save bonus may have helped some. But from what I remember, there wasn't a huge difference until higher levels that most people never hit anyway.

If I get around to it I may revisit my simulation and post some results, but I've been busy lately.

 

[Staffan]

Plucky Adventurers killed another Dragon, further devaluing Gold. Stay tuned. Details at 11:00.

I vaguely recall something in the 1e PHB or DMG saying that the prices in the PHB were adjusted for the kind of "gold rush pricing" you'd get when you have adventurers unearthing buried gold by the ton and spending it as fast as they find it.

 

[CapnZapp]

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?

Exactly.

What I hear here is that the only reason to keep it as is, is: I don't want change.

That's actually a valid reason.

At least we get to finally progress the discussion past the "it's totally not overpowered" smokescreen.

 

[TwoSix]

Exactly.

What I hear here is that the only reason to keep it as is, is: I don't want change.

That's actually a valid reason.

At least we get to finally progress the discussion past the "it's totally not overpowered" smokescreen.

Darn right. "The gain is small enough in utilitarian terms to make changing it not worth it" is a legitimate talking point. "It's fine unless you're a damage loving munchkin" is not.

 

[CapnZapp]

"It's fine unless you're a damage loving munchkin" is not.

No but "it damages many campaigns, is neutral to others, and is beneficial to none" is.

 

[Ovinomancer]

No but "it damages many campaigns, is neutral to others, and is beneficial to none" is.

It's a benefit to my games. There, statement refuted. And, to head it off at the pass, it's a benefit because it allows players that care to invest in build options they like and it doesn't distort my games if taken. I don't even really have to work around it much, and I have players that like to tweak builds and have a strong grasp of tactics. I do, however, do more than just fights, so maybe that's why I don't see it as such a problem -- the barbarian hits really hard but then finds out dumping CHA has bad effects when diplomacy is called for. I also have plenty of encounters where reducing hp isn't the primary goal. So, it works fine for me, and my players enjoy the option.

Would a different option be similarly good? Sure, I guess, but that's counterfactual and a poor argument. There's lots of things that could have been different and we can't evaluate hypothetical different things because they didn't happen. Insisting that WotC could have done a better job by you is fine, I guess, but WotC really doesn't care about your crusade here and aren't going to publish a new version officially just to suit your tastes. What's written is fine. Now, if you want to talk about ways to make it better for you and your style, there's plenty to talk about. I've presented quite a few options myself that address your complaints. I like talking about game design, the grittier the better, which, come to think of it, is probably why I find your cries for official redress so odd - design-wise the published feats work as intended: they're optional rules with the caveat that you'll need to adjust the game to fit. That seems right to me.

 

[CapnZapp]

It's a benefit to my games.

I don't believe you. I believe you say so only to deny yourself the truth. These feats make some (but not all) players decide against playing fighters with spears, throwing knives or whatnot, because they offer such a huge increase in primary efficiency. Other players couldn't care less, but also would not be disturbed by feats that were actually balanced and included more variety.

But I do not suppose we can get any further, so I guess our discussion is at an end. The OP has been given ample answer as to what exactly makes these feats so good.

All we can do now is await the revised edition and hope these feats are included in it.

 

[Ovinomancer]

I don't believe you. I believe you say so only to deny yourself the truth. These feats make some (but not all) players decide against playing fighters with spears, throwing knives or whatnot, because they offer such a huge increase in primary efficiency. Other players couldn't care less, but also would not be disturbed by feats that were actually balanced and included more variety.

But I do not suppose we can get any further, so I guess our discussion is at an end. The OP has been given ample answer as to what exactly makes these feats so good.

All we can do now is await the revised edition and hope these feats are included in it.

Just to be absolutely clear, you're accusing me of lying just so you can continue to be right?

My last group had two SS, a sword and board pally, and a non-GWM barbarian and finished at 12th level. 7 total PCs.

Before that, over 10 PCs through 11th, 1 SS vs a barbarian non-GWM, and a shield mastery fighter, and a PAM/Sentinal pally.

Current game, sword and board HAM fighter. That one's only at 4th, so I'll probably see the ranger take SS. 5 pcs.

Challenges OTHER than combat significantly increase the opportunity cost of GWM/SS.

 

[Oofta]

Just to be absolutely clear, you're accusing me of lying just so you can continue to be right?

My last group had two SS, a sword and board pally, and a non-GWM barbarian and finished at 12th level. 7 total PCs.

Before that, over 10 PCs through 11th, 1 SS vs a barbarian non-GWM, and a shield mastery fighter, and a PAM/Sentinal pally.

Current game, sword and board HAM fighter. That one's only at 4th, so I'll probably see the ranger take SS. 5 pcs.

Challenges OTHER than combat significantly increase the opportunity cost of GWM/SS.

Same here. GWM seems to be quite unpopular in the games I've played as well. Most people play what they think fit their character. In addition, most people ignore the optimizers and either increase ability scores or take feats that shore up a weakness or be fun for some other reason.

Posts like [MENTION=12731]CapnZapp[/MENTION]'s really make me wish we could downvote.