D&D 5E Should GWF & Sharpshooter's "Power Attack" work with all weapons?

[feartheminotaur]

Thanks for your input on this, it's exactly the kind of feedback I'm looking for. I just wanted to respond to this part...Precision with aimed spell attacks is already assumed in the rules, elsewise you wouldn't be able to crit with them.

Right. I just kind of cock an eye at the idea that a -5 to hit is somehow increasing precision. The damage part makes sense. Yet another incongruity between "game" and "reality".

 

[Salamandyr]

5e really is more oriented on magic-using character concepts atm, there's only 5 builds in the PH that /don't/ use magic at all.

Yeah, but a lot of the magic doesn't feel all that magical. Paladin smites don't really feel all that magical. The hunter ranger in our party mowing down everything further than 5 feet away doesn't feel magical. They just roll a lot of dice.

I don't really like feats. I don't like sequestering cool options in them instead of sticking them out there for everybody to use. So I'm vacillating between giving each weapon type a cool effect (stealing some stuff from feats) and coming up with feats to cover the weapons WOTC didn't think were cool enough to have a feat. And I don't think a shield feat is a good option for someone who, while he uses a shield, wants to focus on the cool way the character uses his weapon.

 

[Salamandyr]

Right. I just kind of cock an eye at the idea that a -5 to hit is somehow increasing precision. The damage part makes sense. Yet another incongruity between "game" and "reality".

Agreed. It makes total sense mechanically--trade accuracy for damage, but unlike the great weapon "power attack" doesn't make a lot of sense within the fiction.

 

[Tony Vargas]

I don't really like feats. I don't like sequestering cool options in them instead of sticking them out there for everybody to use.

I suppose if you don't care for feats you could come up with more Styles, instead, and decide which classes can choose which. (Fighters tend to get all the styles, where Ranger & Paladins get a sub-set - you could build on that.)

So I'm vacillating between giving each weapon type a cool effect (stealing some stuff from feats) and coming up with feats to cover the weapons WOTC didn't think were cool enough to have a feat. And I don't think a shield feat is a good option for someone who, while he uses a shield, wants to focus on the cool way the character uses his weapon.

That's fine, just be aware that the shield is a benefit of using a 1-handed weapon that's presumably meant to make up for doing less damage than the two-handers.

Agreed. It makes total sense mechanically--trade accuracy for damage, but unlike the great weapon "power attack" doesn't make a lot of sense within the fiction.

'Called Shots' have never made a lot of sense, that way. I mean, a little - if you go for the head shot, and miss, there's a lot clean miss possibilities compared to aiming for center of mass...

 

[Salamandyr]

That's fine, just be aware that the shield is a benefit of using a 1-handed weapon that's presumably meant to make up for doing less damage than the two-handers.

It's not one handed vs two handed. There's a feat for pole arms that stacks with great weapon mastery and nothing for swords or axes. So you've got, at least on the boards, a bunch of barbarians running around with weapons from the Rennaissance. If someone wants to build for it, he can make a crossbow a faster shooting weapon than a longbow, and still stack with Sharpshooter.

Even if one takes the position that the proper match for Great Weapon Mastery for two handed weapons is a Shield Mastery feat for sword and shield fans, there is still room for weapon mastery feats for the sword, the axes, the bludgeons, chain weapons, bows, slings, hurled weapons, all of which could conceivably stack with Great Weapon Mastery or Shield Mastery.

One possibility I mentioned upthread was not letting feats stack. From round to round, you could use the abilities of either Great Weapon Master or Polearm Mastery, but not both. That would keep the corner cases that got more feat love from dominating.

 

[Psikerlord#]

Heretofore, I've chose to run feat-less games, for all the usual reasons, as well as a couple probably idiosyncratic to me.

However, I'm gearing up for a new campaign, and I'm plotting out player options, so I'm thinking about whether to allow feats in the upcoming game, with the addition of feats for the "forgotten" weapons (the classic fantasy weapons that WOTC never seems to thinks of anything interesting for).

The problem of course, is that means I have to actually "design" those feats. So I'm wondering, should that -5, +10 bonus be something any weapon should do? Is it so powerful it should be removed entirely?

Let's go whole hog, and ask should this just be a general combat option? Maybe let everybody do it, including wizards with their cantrips?

And while I'm at it, what tricks would you like your characters to be able to pull off with their weapons that they can't do now?

I dont think the -5/+10 should be used at all (causes too much damage) - but if you are going to use it, I think it is best if everyone can do it - a kind of "called shot" anyone can attempt any time. Quarantening it to two handers only just makes "strikers" which imo ought to be avoided at all costs (there are still strikerish aspects to the game, but no point making it worse).

 

[psychophipps]

No.

 

[n00b f00]

I'm going to be the voice of dissension and vote in favor of it. I think that 2 handed fighters who are using their bonus attack should be doing more damage than a great weapon fighter. It would give melee rogues a way to get up on sharp shooter rogues. And one handed weapon users who want to mostly but not all the way catch back up to two handers is fine with me. Without those feats there's not a large discrepancy in the martial damage, but with it 1 handed users can lag behind.

Not a huge deal either way, you yourself just ran a featless game. But I think it's dope.