D&D 5E Feats Redux II

[Xeviat]

Sorry, I don't understand how it can provide a bonus to hit.

It's really hard to read you as anything else than the feat being a total failure - a total bonus of +2 is hardly worth it compared to even a secondary ASI, or another feat.

So if that really is what you mean, feel free to say so I need accurate data to calibrate my designs.


Sent from my C6603 using EN World mobile app

The amount of damage you gain from perfect usage of your version of GWM is about the same as the average gain of getting +1 to hit and damage. I compared a Str 18 with GWM against Str 20 without GWM.

So, at the +6 damage point, I'd say it's spot on for half a feat. Below that, it's weak. But, as it increases your damage above the 20 Str cap, you may still see it picked up at level 20.

I tested -Prof/+2Prof, and I actually like how it looks. I'll redo it for -Prof/+Prof to see what that looks like too.

If you're heart set on Disadvantage, which I was exploring a little while ago, I think you'll want to fix it at +5 damage, not +Prof. +5 is not that big of a difference at low levels, it's about half a character's normal damage. It scales with the number of attacks. I'll check that too.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[LapBandit]

The -5/+10 of Great Weapon Master is both band-aid and reward for going full offense and taking strength over dexterity. In my campaigns, having changed it to -PROF/+2xPROF worked out well. Play-tested over about 100 sessions.

 

[Xeviat]

The -5/+10 of Great Weapon Master is both band-aid and reward for going full offense and taking strength over dexterity. In my campaigns, having changed it to -PROF/+2xPROF worked out well. Play-tested over about 100 sessions.

This backs up what I'm seeing on paper. Yes, at level 20, a Fighter could be scary with this, gaining a potential of +48-+60 damage. But, -6 to hit is going to be painful, especially if they have a magic weapon with nifty properties.

2d6*+5 at +11 to hit vs 2d6*+17 at +5 to hit against AC 19 without advantage is a loss. It's only good with advantage or against lower ACs. If all four attacks hit, that's 101.33 damage. Yes, that's a lot. But against the baseline AC, you're looking at 30% chance to hit, or 51% with advantage. So you're looking at more like 50 damage.

What I have been noticing with all these eyeball tests is that Advantage may be the real problem. Advantage and GWM offers a huge spike of value. It's almost useless to use without it. I'm wondering if retooling it to only work while you have advantage, requiring you to give up advantage, would be the best way to universally balance it. It reminds me of wild swings in boxing; you only attempt them when someone drops their guard.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Blue]

So much good stuff to talk about, if I do this with ENWorld's normal quoting it'll turn into such a wall of text, so forgive me if I use an alternate formatting to reduce that some.

[CZ] But the end result is that everybody can take the Charger feat, and everybody can use it, thanks to the new Running rule.

Understood now. That's great.

Trying to think up abuses and not finding any. Closest I can get is a rogue 2/caster X could cast a spell, charge and attack once (not using the attack action), delivering their "massive" +1d6 SA. In other words, looks good.

[Blue] Worried savage attack still not up to par
[CZ] Me too. Not sure what to do about it.
At least it's easier to buff things than to nerf them. My biggest concern is when you lot tell me something is too good.

What niche needs to be filled with this feat? GWM (both yours and the original) add damage to two-handed weapons. If none, maybe just drop it.

Side note, "Savage Attacker" and "Great Weapon Master" names fit better if you switch them - which one sounds like you are giving up accuracy to pund harder? I wouldn't do it because it would confused people.

[Blue] ...and mandatory for rogue if there is ever a finessable 2H weapon like the D&D Next katana.
[CZ] Feel free to explain mandatory katanas if you like

Just that being able to reroll all of your sneak attack damage would be really nice. But no default weapon has two-handed melee (for this) and finesse (to deliver SA damage).

[CB] I'm sure plenty of people will dislike the new Archery Style. The alternative is to remove it entirely, however.

So let's not discuss it in terms of it being too weak. Let's discuss it in terms of how needlessly good it was before, and how ranged fighting is so damn good in 5E it certainly didn't need a super-generous general +2 to everything...!

I think the correct place to compare it it is how it compares to the other Fighting Styles that will be active in your game.

[CZ] +2 to actual disadvantage... I guess I can do it. Minmaxers won't think of it as an improvement, though. Making attacks at actual disadvantage is something you never do.

You know, I'm not too worried about optimizers. They will have a good enough character regardless, and if this doesn't help tune that little extra bit of DPS/whatever I'm fine with that. However, it will help the "regular player" who wants to play an archer and does sometimes have disadvantage.

(And I say this happily optimizing when playing at tables that optimize, and also cheerfully "detuning" my character if they are made too well for the table so we're all at the same level.)

 

[CapnZapp]

The -5/+10 of Great Weapon Master is both band-aid and reward for going full offense and taking strength over dexterity. In my campaigns, having changed it to -PROF/+2xPROF worked out well. Play-tested over about 100 sessions.

This backs up what I'm seeing on paper. Yes, at level 20, a Fighter could be scary with this, gaining a potential of +48-+60 damage. But, -6 to hit is going to be painful, especially if they have a magic weapon with nifty properties.

Yes, the original mechanism's -5 is possible to compensate for. Not easily, but doable. And once you do that, the feat breaks the game.

So with all due respect LapBandit, this thread is not a good choice for arguing to keep either -5/+10 or its close cousin -prof/+profX2. And that's all there is to that.

2d6*+5 at +11 to hit vs 2d6*+17 at +5 to hit against AC 19 without advantage is a loss. It's only good with advantage or against lower ACs. If all four attacks hit, that's 101.33 damage. Yes, that's a lot. But against the baseline AC, you're looking at 30% chance to hit, or 51% with advantage. So you're looking at more like 50 damage.

What I have been noticing with all these eyeball tests is that Advantage may be the real problem. Advantage and GWM offers a huge spike of value. It's almost useless to use without it. I'm wondering if retooling it to only work while you have advantage, requiring you to give up advantage, would be the best way to universally balance it. It reminds me of wild swings in boxing; you only attempt them when someone drops their guard.

Requiring you to have advantage, that you then lose, is an intriguing possibility.

Thanks for your work on analyzing the feat as written in this thread. That it only becomes interesting at level 20 is definitely higher than I intended. (That it isn't useful at levels 1-9:ish is a price I'm willing to pay)

 

[Xeviat]

Requiring you to have advantage, that you then lose, is an intriguing possibility.

Thanks for your work on analyzing the feat as written in this thread. That it only becomes interesting at level 20 is definitely higher than I intended. (That it isn't useful at levels 1-9:ish is a price I'm willing to pay)

You're welcome. This is the kind of stuff I like doing. I firmly believe that anything can be balanced to some degree. GWM fell on my radar because a barbarian was rocking encounters with it. In the current game I'm running, we have a battle rager Barbarian who isn't using GWM who is still rocking it, so I'm now starting to question if the simplicity of Advantage is making the Barbarian shine so much. I've almost never seen him miss an attack. But the new game is a very martial heavy group, so everyone is hitting hard and sitting on huge ACs.

And it becomes interesting at 17th, not 20th.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[CapnZapp]

Requiring you to have advantage, that you then lose, is an intriguing possibility.

Although, to be honest, there really isn't much of a difference to how the feat is written today.

Disadvantage does, after all, not mean "-1 to -5" to attacks. It means "you can't benefit from strategies that provide advantage".

In practical play, the feat already does "require" you to have advantage, which you then lose. Actual disadvantage is a no-no for minmaxers.

Not sure there's anything to gain here, is what I'm trying to say.

 

[CapnZapp]

[Blue] Worried savage attack still not up to par
[CZ] Me too. Not sure what to do about it.
At least it's easier to buff things than to nerf them. My biggest concern is when you lot tell me something is too good.

What niche needs to be filled with this feat? GWM (both yours and the original) add damage to two-handed weapons. If none, maybe just drop it.

Side note, "Savage Attacker" and "Great Weapon Master" names fit better if you switch them - which one sounds like you are giving up accuracy to pund harder? I wouldn't do it because it would confused people.

[Blue] ...and mandatory for rogue if there is ever a finessable 2H weapon like the D&D Next katana.
[CZ] Feel free to explain mandatory katanas if you like

Just that being able to reroll all of your sneak attack damage would be really nice. But no default weapon has two-handed melee (for this) and finesse (to deliver SA damage).

Well, my intention is definitely that you only get to roll weapon dice twice, not all dice (as for a crit).

I checked the original feat, and it has worked that way already from the beginning:
https://twitter.com/JeremyECrawford/status/679830252005101568

If any of you have a succinct yet unambiguous way to phrase that, I'd happily accept suggestions

On the other hand I really want to keep the concept of rolling twice as many (weapon) dice, because then it does stack with critting.

In other words, what I'm aiming for is: a (versatile) Longsword to do 2d10 weapon damage on a savage attack, and 4d10 weapon damage on a savage crit.

With a finesse Katana and 3d6 sneak, this would become 2d10 (doubling the weapon dice) plus 3d6 (not doubling any other dice). On a crit: 4d10+6d6.

With a Flame Tongue Greatsword, this would become 4d6 (doubling the weapon dice) plus 2d6 fire (not doubling any other dice); and 8d6 slashing plus 4d6 fire on a crit.


A feat that does +7 avg damage (at most) per round is certainly a far cry from the original GWM. But it does add more damage than an ASI, especially once you've maxxed out your Strength.

Also: it provides everything already at low levels. At level 1 I would say it's a very strong feat. It just doesn't scale (which is a very good thing indeed).

One way to increase its value is to combine it with something thematic, yet not more damage, like +5 Speed.

 

[Cap'n Kobold]

[Blue] ...and mandatory for rogue if there is ever a finessable 2H weapon like the D&D Next katana.
[CZ] Feel free to explain mandatory katanas if you like

Just that being able to reroll all of your sneak attack damage would be really nice. But no default weapon has two-handed melee (for this) and finesse (to deliver SA damage).

Note that the version here states "weapon damage dice" not "attack's damage dice". Thus there shouldn't be any confusion over Sneak Attack, Smite, or similar additional damage being rerolled.

 

[CapnZapp]

Note that the version here states "weapon damage dice" not "attack's damage dice". Thus there shouldn't be any confusion over Sneak Attack, Smite, or similar additional damage being rerolled.

Okay, so you mean the wording is already okay?

Sent from my C6603 using EN World mobile app