D&D 5E Current take on GWM/SS

[TwoSix]

Having tried it out for a session, I'm inclined to drop the -5/+10 mechanic from the game entirely. It made my battle master fighter less inclined to use Commander's Strike on a rogue, because my damage was keeping pace with his at a greater accuracy! The damage curve is just too distorted with the mechanic in play. My house would be to just change the option to a +1 Str or Dex.

 

[Coredump]

What is an appropriate damage boost from a feat?

If a feat boosts damage output by 10% is that okay? 25%? 50%? 100%? 200%?

Does it matter what the base damage is? If a feat increases a D6 attack by 100%, is that better/worse than a feat that increases a 2D10 attack by 50%?

Does it matter if a feat is only usable sometimes? Does that change your opinion?

 

[Coredump]

If you want to reduce it to -5/+5, it is because you don't understand math. That combo will never be beneficial
TO reduce to -5/+8 is better, but likely also worthless in the vast majority of situations.

You really need to keep the X/2X ratio to make it ever worthwhile. So either limiting it to 1/action, or switching to something like -4/+8 or -3/+6



Keep in mind that the more damage you do, the less likely the -5/+10 is worthwhile.
The less damage you do, the more likely it will be beneficial. But that also means that it is somewhat self correcting, it helps low damage more than high damage.


There is a curve to how much it helps. For example, a +8 to hit with a 2D6+4 GWF/GWM fighter means it causes more damage at AC17, and causes less damage at AC18. But either way only a few percent. You have to get down to AC13 before you get past a 20% damage boost.
Which means if you limit it to 1/action, even at AC13 most classes are only getting an 11% damage boost, and if you have 3 attacks, only a 7% damage boost.

 

[Paraxis]

I have two issues with the feat.

The -5 penalty is huge, but people still want to use it all the time so unless they have a buff like bless going or advantage they usually miss often.

The +10 damage is huge, especially at low levels.

My solution was to change it so you lose your proficiency bonus on the attack roll, but gain a damage bonus of double proficiency bonus. This way it scales much better, and solves my two major issues.

At first level it would be a -2/+4 and at the most it will be -6/+12.

I haven't had any complaints, players still take the feats and they still want to use them all the time, but now they hit more often even when not buffed but they also don't one shot my boss monsters when they do.

 

[iserith]

I've had no issues with these feats in play. I'm not in competition with my players, so their damage output is not really something I need to think about. As DM, I also control all aspects of the game outside what they choose to do, so I can always add more or stronger monsters to my challenges if I need to in order to achieve the goals of play. (I find I don't have to, in general.)

 

[Gladius Legis]

Change it to -3/+6. Similar base DPR boost mathematically, it's actually better against higher ACs, but the top-end damage after all the buffs and advantage isn't as obscene.

 

[Psikerlord#]

I've had no issues with these feats in play. I'm not in competition with my players, so their damage output is not really something I need to think about. As DM, I also control all aspects of the game outside what they choose to do, so I can always add more or stronger monsters to my challenges if I need to in order to achieve the goals of play. (I find I don't have to, in general.)

It is intraparty balance that is put out of whack by the mechanic more than chewing through monsters quickly. The DM can always add more monsters.

 

[thalmin]

It's noteworthy that, while this poll has a definite biased assumption that there is somthing wrong with the rules as written, nearly half chose "The problem isn't that bad, leave the feats as-is", which by it's wording still says there is a problem. I can't tell how many of the "Other" votes are for and how many are against the feats as written. It seems to me that the "problem" is not as big a deal to many of the respondents.

 

[Mercule]

Playing 5e without feats has been a great choice for our group. It really has helped avoid these petty little problems.

I'm starting to lean this way. There are some that aren't bad and build personality. There are others that just make me scratch my head. I hated the 3E focus on feats almost above class abilities -- and I thought 3E had too many class abilities.

 

[Taronkov]

I've played in multiple group with it and I'm running a group that will have a player taking it. I voted "The problem isn't that bad, leave the feats as-is" but in reality I don't have or see a problem at all. As others have pointed out, the DM can add more enemies to compensate if there does seem to be a disparity and at higher levels the damage isn't as noticeable. I don't worry about my players damage output and honestly I couldn't begin to tell you who does the most in the game I'm running. Because my players don't care as long as they are having fun. Any mechanics issues that may arise get fixed on the fly and then discussed later. I keep a document with all ruling changes/clarifications we've made since beginning play and players can have a copy anytime. I've never had an issue in all my years of DM'ing that couldn't be fixed this way. It lets the players know and keeps things consistent.