Proposed tweak to Sharpshooter and GWM

[Eejit]

Personally I'm of the opinion that the -5/+10 options in these feats distort the game math too much when used in conjunction with other abilities and spells.

To reduced this I'm considering changing that aspect of the feats to work like Savage Attacker - it can only be used by the player once per turn.

That will have the biggest impact when combined with multiple attacks and Action Surge nova rounds, or with Crossbow Expert. The feats should still be desirable, but not must-have and borderline game-breaking.


So, does anyone have any points to raise about this proposed houserule before I implement it? Am I missing some unintended consequences? And should they be once per round rather than once per turn? - so no AoO -5/+10 for melee.

 

[Piratecat]

Only speaking for myself, but I'd never take the feats in a campaign that used this house rule; I'd consider them not useful enough. Feats are often conditional, and getting to use them is that character's chance to shine -- after all, they gave up +2 on an ability score (or +1 to hit and +1 damage on EVERY ATTACK) in order to get the feat. I'm not sure the limited version is a viable tradeoff.

That said, your campaign, your game balance! I don't see any other problems, myself.

 

[Azrothan]

IMHO if you're not currently experiencing any issues and/or haven't in previous campaigns, don't "tweak" it. If you are experiencing problems, ask your players about what would seem fair (like +y dmg instead of 10).

 

[Eejit]

Only speaking for myself, but I'd never take the feats in a campaign that used this house rule; I'd consider them not useful enough. Feats are often conditional, and getting to use them is that character's chance to shine -- after all, they gave up +2 on an ability score (or +1 to hit and +1 damage on EVERY ATTACK) in order to get the feat. I'm not sure the limited version is a viable tradeoff.

That said, your campaign, your game balance! I don't see any other problems, myself.

Both feats include multiple features, this particular aspect is just slightly too powerful. They'll still be useful, but IMO will be on the level of other combat feats rather than head and shoulders above them.
Currently they're both must-have for optimisation and builds which can't use them pale in comparison. They're also too strong considered in relation to monster HPs, as well as compared to other builds and feats.

IMHO if you're not currently experiencing any issues and/or haven't in previous campaigns, don't "tweak" it. If you are experiencing problems, ask your players about what would seem fair (like +y dmg instead of 10).

No, I'd rather +10 once per round than (e.g.) +5 twice. It eliminates the nova potential for when a high-level fighter action surges with that +5.

 

[trentonjoe]

They're also too strong considered in relation to monster HPs, as well as compared to other builds and feats.

[/QUOTE]

I don't find this at all, our groups struggle to do enough damage to monsters. Once you hit CR4+ and things have 80+ hit points those feats aren't a huge deal.

Sure you can one shot 1/2 CR things but you still you don't really dominate.

A 4th level fighter can't one shot an Ogre with this and without advantage he/she isn't doing it at 5th level very often.

 

[Eejit]

By the time you hit CR4+ your fighters will be able to hit 4 times or more with Action Surge.

The -5 to hit isn't a big deal with so many ways to get advantage, plus potentially having Bless, a War Cleric or a Valor Bard to pump up your attack roll.

So yeah, it is a problem when you combine it with plentiful attacks per round to out-nova assassin rogues

 

[jodyjohnson]

I agree that Heavy Weapon Mastery and Sharpshooter are too much.

Once per round might be too much to remember some times. Or too punitive. Are all attacks -5 or just the one which gets the bonus? Do you now need to roll attacks separately?

I lean towards 2 alternatives:
1: -5/+5 like 3.0 Power Attack
or the possibly more powerful option
2: On any attack that beats the AC by 5, do an additional +5 damage.

The factors that make -5/+10 seem balanced in say Pathfinder aren't present in 5th edition -- Iteratives, stacking penalties, smaller pluses, caster superiority, general BAB vs. AC parity (they both scale). 'Ignoring cover' or 'cleave' are almost worth a feat by themselves.

 

[jodyjohnson]

Another variation on your original idea is having multiple chances to try for the bonus damage per turn but you only get it once.

-5 to attack with a heavy weapon, if you succeed use a bonus action to do an extra +10 damage with the attack.

Less synergy with Action Surge, Crossbow Expert, and Polearm Mastery. Doesn't apply to off turn attacks where you probably want to have the higher to hit bonus.

More in line with the DPS boost from Crossbow Expert, Dual Wielding, Polearm Mastery and many of the spell boosts.

 

[canucksaram]

Personally I'm of the opinion that the -5/+10 options in these feats distort the game math too much when used in conjunction with other abilities and spells.

To reduced this I'm considering changing that aspect of the feats to work like Savage Attacker - it can only be used by the player once per turn.

That will have the biggest impact when combined with multiple attacks and Action Surge nova rounds, or with Crossbow Expert. The feats should still be desirable, but not must-have and borderline game-breaking.


So, does anyone have any points to raise about this proposed houserule before I implement it? Am I missing some unintended consequences? And should they be once per round rather than once per turn? - so no AoO -5/+10 for melee.

Limiting its use to once per round is fair. For it to be used a second time in the same round you might require that the conditions of the first bullet point listed under Great Weapon Master be met first.