D&D 5E GWM/SS alternative mechanics to the -5/+10 bonus?

[Prism]

We're leaving Great Weapon Master alone because the user has to enter melee and take hits. They can't use a shield. They have to contend with mobility issues

We've decided to do the following with Sharpshooter. We feel it provides too many benefits at once. We have decided to limit the benefits a Sharpshooter gains per shot. This will allow DMs to use cover or distance and the Sharpshooter to use the feat tactically according to circumstances.

Sharpshooter
You have mastered ranged weapons and can make shots that others find impossible. You can choose one of the following benefits before each ranged attack you make:
• Attacking at long range doesn't impose disadvantage on your ranged weapon attack rolls.
• Your ranged weapon attacks ignore half cover and three-quarters cover.
• Before you make an attack with a ranged weapon that you are proficient with, you can choose to take a – 5 penalty to the attack roll. If the attack hits, you add +10 to the attack’s damage.

I like this. Taking an aimed shot, from 600 ft though an arrow slit does seem a bit silly. Any one of those individually though seems worthy of a feat

 

[Zardnaar]

double post ignore

 

[Zardnaar]

I like this. Taking an aimed shot, from 600 ft though an arrow slit does seem a bit silly. Any one of those individually though seems worthy of a feat

Its 2 3.5 feats (precise shot, far shot) and a buffed 3.0 PrC ability (power shot) . The archery style is also worth 2 3.x feats- weapon focus and improved weapon focus.

 

[Celtavian]

So do the other melee styles though. I have seen GWM do the same amount of damage as the rest of the party put togather.

True. Melee is inherently more dangerous due to enemy proximity and mobility issues can slow melee damage down. And Great Weapon Fighting does nothing else but allow you to add damage with the occasional bonus action attack. We will the trade off of having to be in melee and dealing with closing the distance makes it balanced.

 

[SHAFFSTER]

Maybe a -2 Attack for +5 damage could be better: smaller penalty and more reliable but less crazy damage.
Or add a second bit of variability to the roll. Say, -2 attack for +1d10 damage. (The disadvantage of this is it'd be doubled on a crit).

I'm leaning in this direction, same basic mechanics just toned down a bit. Still worth giving up an ASI for in my opinion.

 

[Fanaelialae]

I haven't remotely thought this through; it's just an idea off the top of my head.

What about leaving the feat as it is, but only permitting the -5/+10 once per round? So even if you have multiple attacks, you can only use it on one of them? (Other benefits of the feat remain as normal.)

I've considered making it -2/+10, but only once per round.

Limiting it to once per round significantly reduces any potential abuse, however it also has the less desirable effect that it makes the attack very swingy. If the penalty causes you to miss one in three attacks on average, it's not a big deal if you have three attacks a round. Two of the attacks land and the + 20 damage makes up for whatever was lost on the missed attack. If you can only make that attack once per round however, you're more susceptible to the vagaries of chance. You are making less power attacks per encounter, so the law of averages applies less in any given round. A power attack that misses is hurting you, not the enemy. Which is why I would reduce the penalty to a -2. That keeps it a primarily beneficial option.