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

[Salamandyr]

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?

 

[The Crimson Binome]

If you're thinking about allowing it to one-handed weapons, keep in mind that the +10 damage bonus completely overwhelms the normal damage spread between a one-handed sword (1d8) and a two-handed sword (2d6). Someone using a one-handed sword, with the feat, would be taking 90% of the benefit for using a heavy weapon alongside 100% of the benefit of using a shield.

You probably also don't want anyone to dual-wield with that option, just in terms of sheer numbers of attacks.

 

[feartheminotaur]

My 2 cents in order:

No. Half for unintended consequences (Example: Two handed "power attack" Sneak Attack) and half because I like weapon variation (some weapons are versatile or finesse - expanding the feat gives 2H weapons nothing like that; 'heavy' becomes pointless). The second objection could be overcome by replacing the "heavy" property with one that is unique to those weapons (e.g., Brutal).

No. I prefer to tone the feat down to minus proficiency on the attack plus double proficiency on damage (-2/+4 up to -6/+12). That's one of the few changes I make to the core rules when I DM.

General? I'll refer to the first answer, but substitute "Sharpshooter Scorching Ray" as the example here. Additionally how to you "sharpshoot" a ray of disintegration?

I'd like to see more options like the Battlemaster maneuvers be available, via feat, for any character. A "you can use this to trip" feat would be sweet for a War Cleric with a flail, for example.

 

[Salamandyr]

General? I'll refer to the first answer, but substitute "Sharpshooter Scorching Ray" as the example here. Additionally how to you "sharpshoot" a ray of disintegration?
.

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.

 

[Salamandyr]

If you're thinking about allowing it to one-handed weapons, keep in mind that the +10 damage bonus completely overwhelms the normal damage spread between a one-handed sword (1d8) and a two-handed sword (2d6). Someone using a one-handed sword, with the feat, would be taking 90% of the benefit for using a heavy weapon alongside 100% of the benefit of using a shield.

You probably also don't want anyone to dual-wield with that option, just in terms of sheer numbers of attacks.

My logic is, the "power attack" is only half the value of a feat. A Great Weapon fighter also gets a bonus action cleave attack, which ideally is the meat and potatoes of the feat. A different feat would provide a similar new option for, say sword or axe wielders.

But I have noticed the spread between great weapons and one handed weapons (with duellist) is not particularly great. At the levels we've played, that shield has been a lot more useful than the handful of extra hp of damage that the greatsword is capable of (absent feats).

 

[The Crimson Binome]

But I have noticed the spread between great weapons and one handed weapons (with duellist) is not particularly great. At the levels we've played, that shield has been a lot more useful than the handful of extra hp of damage that the greatsword is capable of (absent feats).

The shield is huge, under Bounded Accuracy, so the heavy weapon people need a lot of damage to compensate for that. I feel like that was part of the underlying design intent, even if they hid most of the damage behind a feat.

And then they botched the monster ACs, to the point that -5/+10 is almost always the obvious choice, and they aren't nearly as balanced anymore.

 

[Salamandyr]

The shield is huge, under Bounded Accuracy, so the heavy weapon people need a lot of damage to compensate for that. I feel like that was part of the underlying design intent, even if they hid most of the damage behind a feat.

And then they botched the monster ACs, to the point that -5/+10 is almost always the obvious choice, and they aren't nearly as balanced anymore.

If they had kept that extra damage for Great Weapons only, I'd agree with you, but they also gave it to bows too. The bow may be 2 handed, but I'd say starting your combat 200 feet away considerably trumps having a shield.

I'm about convinced that "power attacks" should be a great weapon exclusive thing, which means I need to smack WOTC for giving it and an accuracy boost to longbows.

So now that we've cleared that up, what kind of abilities do you think we ought to come up with for swords, axes, and bludgeons, to put them on par with the turrets and the pole arm barbarians?

And would limiting feat stacking be a good plan? You can use Pole Arm Master (or Sword Master...how come there's never a Sword Master?) or you can use Great Weapon Master, but not both?

 

[Tony Vargas]

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

Honestly not a bad idea, IMHO.

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?

Different styles are supposed to have different things going for them Archery does DPR at range, and GWF does it up close and personal. TWFing has the potential synergy of yet another attack with any static multiplier. One-handed weapons get the added AC of a shield, which is nothing to sneeze at in 5e. Those other styles already have feats than enhance them. So, no, you probably don't need to add similar feats for different sorts of weapons or styles.

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?

5e lets you divide up your movement and attack at any point within it, which is pretty neat - though also maybe not that relevant when running TotM - and gives you some potential for a visually dynamic action. But that's about as cool as it gets. There's things I really miss from prior editions. There's the battlefield control you could exert with Combat Reflexes, Reach, and WWA in 3.5, for instance (no the Polearm feat doesn't really go there). Same for Cleave & Great Cleave. There were 'canny' builds that emphasized INT and fighting more defensively (in a dynamic way, not just a flat +1 for wearing armor). There's charge builds, versatile builds, mounted builds, exotic weapon masters, 'best tool for the job' approaches (which, really, 5e with it's magic-item-independence should be ideal for). There's the sheer number of tricks 4e gave melee types, which feats, being 'bigger' in 5e couldn't begin to touch, so not really relevant, though 'defender,' 'leader,' and 'controller' functions are all things that could be opened up for weapon-users, though, again, probably not just with some feats.

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.

 

[Krachek]

Sharp shooter have no restriction to ranged weapon.
You can use it with a blow gun!

Crosbow expert can use it on their bonus attack, and polearm master also.

The less is the initial damage the more advantageous is the -5/+10 feature.
They should, for both feat, state that the minimum damage for the attack must be a d8.

 

[AaronOfBarbaria]

I don't think the -5/+10 scheme really has much affect on game balance - yeah, I know that sounds outlandish to some folk, but all you have to do is use higher AC enemies so that a character has to normally roll an 11+ on the die to hit and the trade off of accuracy and damage actually doesn't change expected DPR, and then starts actually decreasing it if a higher roll than that would normally be needed. Then only at high levels does that become a thing you can't easily do, and at high levels a little higher DPR is a drop in a bucket so it still isn't much of an issue.

I think the feats that incorporate that feature restrict the weapons for flavor reasons rather than actual concerns of unbalancing the game.