D&D 5E [5e] Modification of -5/+10 Feats

[Tormyr]

2 points of Effective Damage per Attack is a big deal though. A very big deal. When most characters deal less than 10 Effective damage per attack then +2 to that is a big deal. Could be 20-40% of a difference in damage.

I think I missed the point of this assessment. But taking the change in AC to the extreme in case it is useful...

Having the target go up 2 AC means a loss of 1 effective damage per attack for non GWM and a loss of 2 for the GWM fighter or a difference of an additional -1 for the GWM fighter. At AC 19, the regular fighter does about 1 DPR more than the GWM fighter at level 1 but is still 10 DPR less at level 20 because the GWM fighter gets better chances to activate the bonus attack with each additional attack.

Essentially, the only time a GWM fighter should not use power attack is at level 1-4 against high AC targets and when they have disadvantage on the attack roll.

Even then, a DM either gets heartburn from GWM or they do not. I have not had an issue with this or sharpshooter. Enemies die faster. Yes, and? The GWM fighter that was in our level 1-20 adventure path was valued by the other players rather a point of annoyance. They worked together to provide optimal situations for the fighter, but they sacrificed resources to do so, and the damage output saved the PCs on more than one occasion.

A DM has 4 main options I can think of if they find GWM to be breaking things:
* Treat their encounter building as if there is 1 more PC, especially against significantly weaker enemies
* Remove GWM from the game.
* Choose the GWM power attack modification from page 3 of this thread that allows extra damage while giving them the least heartburn.
* Turn GWM into a half feat that gives +1 strength and the bonus attack Cleave option.

And then they move on.

 

[Tormyr]

I would like to thank everybody for the precise mathematical calculations and the continued "yes, it's beoken" and "no, it's not" statements. I think we can agree that once people pick a side in a polarized discussion like this that they are rarely swayed by opposing opinions.

What I am more interested in is brain-storming possible solutions for those that consider these feats to be a problem. I have presented a few ideas, only one has received much feedback because people seem to dislike it. Any thoughts on my other suggestions? Or does anybody else have any constructive ideas or suggestions?

Which ones did you want to look at that are not covered in my list on page 3 of the thread?

 

[Yunru]

Or my linked maths on page 1 for a full list against ACs 1 to 30 (but doesn't cover a flat +10 1/turn because that's quite easy to calculate, being a flat increase).

Of course, there's also the deviation, not just the mean, which is actually really important and I really should figure out how to do.

 

[Geeknamese]

Taken as an argument for "this tweak brings the feat back into the fold of the average", I have no issues with it.

But if you mean it as an argument to leave the feat unchanged, I completely disagree.

The bigger question is: why should only greatweapon and archery deal massive damage, and not other weapon combos?

And why should ANY weapon combo deal massive damage, when monsters can't do it, and are clearly not built to withstand it.

It is just such a "I win" button. While I can certainly see how this can be fun, that would be in a video game. Allowing one of the fighters to press "I win" but not the other in a ttrpg that is a cooperative experience makes no sense to me.

What I mean is reducing the existing feat for a -5/+10 attack once per round is a knee jerk reaction to a problem. It makes the feat unappealing and you might as well remove the feat completely from the game which is a shame as the feat has thematic quality. The feat as is, I don't believe is broken but you're going to nerf it, at least do it so that it's still viable and a fun feat. My suggestion above still limits it to once per turn, increases the risk with higher miss chance but still offers a reward that feels like something. There's a lot more detail that has to be worked out like preventing some feature combos (pally smiting).

Going back to your earlier post about your Feat abuse scenario. That character example is broken. You can't dual wield crossbows. You have to have a hand free in order to reload the crossbows for multiple attacks per turn. It's detailed in the Sage Advice.


Sent from my iPhone using EN World mobile app

 

[FrogReaver]

What I mean is reducing the existing feat for a -5/+10 attack once per round is a knee jerk reaction to a problem. It makes the feat unappealing and you might as well remove the feat completely from the game which is a shame as the feat has thematic quality. The feat as is, I don't believe is broken but you're going to nerf it, at least do it so that it's still viable and a fun feat. My suggestion above still limits it to once per turn, increases the risk with higher miss chance but still offers a reward that feels like something. There's a lot more detail that has to be worked out like preventing some feature combos (pally smiting).

Honestly I'm concerned -5/+10 once per round may still be too much...

 

[FrogReaver]

I would like to thank everybody for the precise mathematical calculations and the continued "yes, it's beoken" and "no, it's not" statements. I think we can agree that once people pick a side in a polarized discussion like this that they are rarely swayed by opposing opinions.

What I am more interested in is brain-storming possible solutions for those that consider these feats to be a problem. I have presented a few ideas, only one has received much feedback because people seem to dislike it. Any thoughts on my other suggestions? Or does anybody else have any constructive ideas or suggestions?

Attack and damage are both essentially 2 components of the same thing. x*y=z. There are no other equations these components are used in. As such it's simply a maximization problem and that's pretty easy to calculate and ultimately there are very few other considerations to think about when using the feat. The feat needs a different drawback IMO. Maybe power attacking should also drop your AC along with your attack. Perhaps you should only get to move half your speed when you power attack or maybe not move any at all?

 

[hejtmane]

What I mean is reducing the existing feat for a -5/+10 attack once per round is a knee jerk reaction to a problem. It makes the feat unappealing and you might as well remove the feat completely from the game which is a shame as the feat has thematic quality. The feat as is, I don't believe is broken but you're going to nerf it, at least do it so that it's still viable and a fun feat. My suggestion above still limits it to once per turn, increases the risk with higher miss chance but still offers a reward that feels like something. There's a lot more detail that has to be worked out like preventing some feature combos (pally smiting).

Going back to your earlier post about your Feat abuse scenario. That character example is broken. You can't dual wield crossbows. You have to have a hand free in order to reload the crossbows for multiple attacks per turn. It's detailed in the Sage Advice.


Sent from my iPhone using EN World mobile app

Do not need to for the bonus action attack also confirmed by sage advice that is why the hand crossbow + sharp shooter is a better build than the polearm + gwm on a fighter or ranger because you get a +2 to range bonus and you no longer take disadvantage on max raged or at 5' only prone. If you want to know the truth I had a guy with that (he moved so no longer in group) but he usually outperformed the GWM + polearm fighter (Just to clarify taking the crossbow feat with Sharpshooter)

 

[Tormyr]

Honestly I'm concerned -5/+10 once per round may still be too much...

I am interested. For you, how much extra damage is too much?

 

[Geeknamese]

Do not need to for the bonus action attack also confirmed by sage advice that is why the hand crossbow + sharp shooter is a better build than the polearm + gwm on a fighter or ranger because you get a +2 to range bonus and you no longer take disadvantage on max raged or at 5' only prone. If you want to know the truth I had a guy with that (he moved so no longer in group) but he usually outperformed the GWM + polearm fighter (Just to clarify taking the crossbow feat with Sharpshooter)

There's nowhere in the Sage Advice that says you can dual wield two hand crossbows. You always need a free hand to draw and reload the hand crossbow. Most people misread the third Sage Advice that states you can fire a hand crossbow and then fire it again as a bonus action. It doesn't mean you can fire a separate hand crossbow again as a bonus action. It states that you can fire the same crossbow that you just used your Extra Attack feature with once again using your bonus action. You ALWAYS have to have a free hand to draw and reload your crossbow.

 

[hejtmane]

There's nowhere in the Sage Advice that says you can dual wield two hand crossbows. You always need a free hand to draw and reload the hand crossbow. Most people misread the third Sage Advice that states you can fire a hand crossbow and then fire it again as a bonus action. It doesn't mean you can fire a separate hand crossbow again as a bonus action. It states that you can fire the same crossbow that you just used your Extra Attack feature with once again using your bonus action. You ALWAYS have to have a free hand to draw and reload your crossbow.

You do not need two hand crossbows you get the bonus shot with one

Sent from my Pixel XL using Tapatalk