D&D 5E GWM Bonus Attack

[BenKester]

He's interpretting it as a "Cleave" attack. It makes sense, for the old Cleave ability...but this isn't Cleave.

You have struck the enemy with such force as to deal a killing blow. Just like chopping wood, when you get a clean cut the blade goes straight through without resistance. Using the momentum of that swing the character can then move and utilize that momentum for an extra strike. In a way, its bit like Action Surge in that you are getting a burst of action on top of your normal action.

How to RP it:
Blood-lust - if the fighter is particularly barbaric, he may see the damage he inflicted and give him a rush of adrenaline to quickly follow with another attack.

Cleaving/follow-through - Slashing entirely through an enemy and carrying onto a nearby target. Additionally, if this is used against the same target, you can see a downward slash, chopping the targets arm then leg.

Redirecting Momentum - Any broadly swung weapon could be seen as the critical hit as the attacker having such perfect timing as to recover from the attack much quicker than normal. For example, He was able to follow through from a high guard to a low guard perfectly after the attack, thus enabling a reverse swing much quicker than a blocked attack that made him return to high guard.

This is what I was looking for. I'm sure there's carry-over from prior dnd versions.

 

[Mistwell]

Doesn't matter. He's nerfing it.
The story can be adjusted. After all, he's the one defining it as swinging through one enemy into another.
He could of just as easily described it as an adrenaline rush from the kill, or as you swinging through one enemy and using that momentum to carry you into another.

Nothing about it as written limits movement. The only thing that does that are the arbitrary limits he has applied because of the narrow flavour he has imposed.

It matters why something is being changed. If the DM is not concerned about balance issues, the DM can house rule something else for that character to make up for the loss of flexibility from this first houserule. I don't see any issue with changing it for story reasons if, for example, the DM gives him free use of the Lucky feat or something like that.

 

[Ovinomancer]

Our dm isn't not nerfing them because of power. It's all about story.

Okay, it's still a red flag. The DM isn't trying to find a way to accommodate player ability choices in the story, he's nerfbatting them for a narrow reasoning of what story allows. What's the next ability that will get changed for story?

Now, if the DM said this is how it is before the player took it, okay, that's now on the player. But if the DM decided it works like this after the player took it, that's a nerfbat.