Flamestrike
Legend
Pretty nicely tooled up yeah?
Pretty nicely tooled up yeah?
I can't imagine. That chest full of medals from the edition war, perhaps?This is an old debate and there is a thread currently going downhill. So why would my opinion be any more relevant than any one else?
Finagling a +5 (canceling a -5) would be pretty brutal to Bounded Accuracy, in itself, though, wouldn't it?At the most basic level of min/maxing, char op whatever if you can eliminate the -5 part of the feat you get a +10 bonus to damage. That right there tends to break 5E IMHO.
Yep. The more so the more often you attack, and in a relative sense, the more so the closer you were to needing a 20 to hit. In 5e, you definitely can attack quite a lot, so it's a bigger benefit than in 4e when you rarely got multiple attacks, or in 3e, where your multiple attacks had declining BAB and required a full action. OTOH, in 5e, your chance to hit is usually pretty good at a baseline, around 65%, vs 50% in 4e, and declining in 3e (buffing to hit was actually really good for those iterative attacks) - all in theory, of course.Note even without the SS/GWM feat getting buffed to hit is always good in D&D regardless of edition.
This applies in OD&D, 4E, 5E doesn't matter it is always good in combat
I think you are getting at something here. In 5e, it's generally pretty easy to hit, to begin with. ACs just don't get all that crazy high, so you're often able to hit quite easily, a buff to attack isn't that potent when you're not missing a lot, already. What SS/GWM does, then, is to make attack buffing much more effective, precisely because of the penalty. To the extent that the bonus is remotely worth it without buffing, it's going to be excessively good with enough of it...In general a single decent buff effect can mostly mitigate the effect of SS/GWM, the more buffs you pile on the more the -5 part of the feat doesn't matter.
And, of course, the DM is free to do all that, and much, much more...The only way SS and GWM are not broken is the DM metagames against the PCs by using high AC opponents all of the time, hands out no magic items...
Sure. Extra Attack, multi-attacking of any kind, really, breaks D&D, in general. Always has. It's just too much of a multiplier on whatever you can use to enhance attacks. In 5e, between BA and lack of content, there aren't the huge number of bonuses to stack onto your attacks there were in 3e, but there are enough, and SS/GWM stand out as two of the biggest.Even without to many (or any) mitigating factors however what also breaks these feats is extra attacks.
The latter sounds pretty reasonable. Maybe SS could be limited to the first attack each round, on the theory that you don't have as much chance to 'aim' the rest (flimsy theory, I know), while GWM could consume a bonus action to designate which attack is affected?The obvious fix IMHO is eliminate the -5/+10 part of the feat (+1 dex or strength) or limit it to 1/round.
The obvious fix IMHO is eliminate the -5/+10 part of the feat (+1 dex or strength) or limit it to 1/round.
Since it was quoted before me: that fix for great weapon master is terrible. The other benefits work with any weapon. So you can't just do that or you have to rename the feat. If i thought the feat would need a fix I would change the first benefit to: you add 1.5 times your strength modifier to damage instead of your strength modifier with heavy weapons. That way you increase your damage per round by 1 or 2 (by 1 at level 1 or 4 usually. By 2 at level 8 usually). So you give up 1 to hit for the cleave potential and later be one or 2 damage ahead. Should be good for people who think it is broken. And it would nicely fit with a 3.5 rule.
Did you seriously just dismiss something as not feasible because of a currently nonexistent rule from a previous edition?The 3.5 rule was bad though combined with power attack. Made anything that was not a the obsolete.
The 3.5 rule was bad though combined with power attack. Made anything that was not a the obsolete.
Did you seriously just dismiss something as not feasible because of a currently nonexistent ability from a previous edition?
I can't conceive how you can declare a player disruptive by his choice of PC and if its not up to Starter Set standards. A Strenght 12 melee PC is not dysfunctional despite what you may think, while it's not optinmal in combat (behind by 2 from a 16-17, it can still function! Many monsters AC are low enought in 5E to have a non-optimal PC viable. If that player did put a lower stat in Strenght, he out to have a better one in at least one other attribute somewhere and get to be better than those Starter Set fighters afterall!Anyone deliberately gimping their character is by default a disruptive player IMHO. And no I do not regard not building the most powerful PC possible as gimping but if you are deliberately making a worse PC than the ones in the 5E starter set that is.
I am saying anyone deliberately making a front line melee character with 12 strength is inherently dysfunctional even with the default array.
I think you forgot a word and I really don't understand the problem. If you want to say that it made anything besides twohanded swords ovsolete you should not forget that this time strengthed is usually capped at 20.