D&D 5E Current take on GWM/SS

[kerbarian]

I thought of a slight variant of the "once per turn" fix that I like even better:

Replace "you can choose to take a -5 penalty..."

with "you can use a bonus action to take a -5 penalty..."

That limits it to once per turn, prevents it from stacking with many other damage-increasing effects, has very simple and clear language, and (to me) makes sense in-game. You spend an extra moment to wind up for a massive swing or draw a bead on the slit in a monster's visor.

It's a bit more of a nerf than simply "once per turn", but I think GWM and SS with that change would still rank well among the combat feats.

Bonus actions and concentration -- the two cure-alls to balance problems in 5E

 

[DaveDash]

Been working on this issue for about a month now. My group is still 3rd level, and this issue was one reason I considered not allowing feats at all. But, I've never played with feats, and I think it would be a lot of fun.

I haven't seen a problem myself yet, obviously, but I don't need to see it for myself - that is why I'm here on EN World, so I can learn from those more experienced than I am.

I plan to head this all off early with some adjustment to the feats in question. Most likely, I'll go with (and voted for) the once per turn option. If they only get to use it once, then if it DOES miss, it will really sting, and the tradeoff will be apparent.

Could I be overreacting, since many people have some decent arguments explaining why it isn't a problem? Sure, but I don't want to just wait and see. If it turns out I've reduced the power too much, I'll throw the player a bone with a magic sword; but I'd much rather err on the side of caution given how many experienced DM's are telling me it will become a big issue.

And that's exactly the point.

A problem for 1/3rd of the community is still a problem.

What does the game lose by adjusting these feats? Nothing. What does it gain? Better balance and less DM workload.

 

[Hussar]

And that's exactly the point.

A problem for 1/3rd of the community is still a problem.

What does the game lose by adjusting these feats? Nothing. What does it gain? Better balance and less DM workload.

But, is it worth nerfing an element for 1/3? Why can't that 1/3 simply not use those feats?

Unless you are absolutely convinced that the only reason 2/3 are not having this issue is because they don't play high enough level to see the issue. But, AFAIC, that's a pretty big presumption that you simply shouldn't make. You're basically saying that anyone who disagrees with you just doesn't know what they're talking about. That's a smidgeon... arrogant in the least.

Why not actually accept that other people are not seeing this issue and then fix your own table yourself?

 

[DaveDash]

But, is it worth nerfing an element for 1/3? Why can't that 1/3 simply not use those feats?

Unless you are absolutely convinced that the only reason 2/3 are not having this issue is because they don't play high enough level to see the issue. But, AFAIC, that's a pretty big presumption that you simply shouldn't make. You're basically saying that anyone who disagrees with you just doesn't know what they're talking about. That's a smidgeon... arrogant in the least.

Why not actually accept that other people are not seeing this issue and then fix your own table yourself?

I've already accepted that many times in this thread.

Role-players and those that don't go beyond level 8 probably won't see an issue, but also won't see a gain, so errata on these feats won't effect them.

For the rest of us, that will serve to stay off all the potential issues that can arise for both the DM and other players.

These feats don't belong in a game like 5e period. The whole idea is to keep bonuses flat, and the designers failed to take into account the penalty to these feats can easily be bypassed with minimal work.

They are also not interesting feats that provide meaningful choice. They are "must have" feats that reduce choice.

And finally in the SS + CBE combination does create a class with many strengths and few weaknesses which I am strongly against in any game system. Ranged is already powerful enough.

 

[Ashkelon]

Honest question here?

Why do you want to keep those feats as is? Why do you think a feat that grants a 25% increase to DPR is good for the game?

I will freely admit that I am an optimizer. I primarily play weapon using classes. I would be glad for a change to these grass though. Because of these feats, any time I play with non-optimizes, I make their game experience worse. I come in with my level 5 Barb doing 35 DPR and their dual wielding beast master ranger is dealing a whole 15 and they feel incompetent. I can't not take GWM (especially as a Barb). The feat is simply too good to pass up. I would be stupid to not take it. So, instead of having a feat, my barbarian basically has GWM as a class feature. And so does my fighter. And any archer I make has Sharpshooter. It is boring. The feats are so potent that basically any weapon using character I make will take one. There isn't even a choice for when to use the feats either. I can mindlessly choose to take a -5 to hit and basically always deal more DPR.

It's like expertise feats in 4e. GWM feels like a feat tax. If the designers wanted the baseline DPR to be the number that you arrive at with GWM, I'd rather there have simply been the option to make an all out attack, available for everyone, that is -5 to hit for +10 damage. Now, I have to spend a feat to reach that top end of DPR. That means one less feat I could have chosen for actual fun. Blech.

 

[FormerlyHemlock]

Honest question here?

Why do you want to keep those feats as is? Why do you think a feat that grants a 25% increase to DPR is good for the game?

Because those feats are among the ten or so feats that are not meh. I'd rather find ways to boost the lame feats than smother the exciting ones. More options is generally more interesting and fun than fewer options. Lucky, Alert, GWM, SS, Mounted Combatant, Mobile, Resilient, Polearm Master, and several more are all competitive.

Plus, I like GURPS, and the sniping option reminds me of the fun parts of GURPS combat, namely Martial Arts. Without weapon feats D&D would be purely wizard/druid/etc.-centric., but SS/GWM/etc. add a martial combat dimension that I enjoy. More options is good.

YMMV obviously.

 

[Psikerlord#]

I think my biggest problem with these feats is simply the fact that the feel like "must have" feats. I understand that nobody is forcing me to take them, and that by taking them I am giving up some other feat, but really no feat comes close to providing as much capability in combat as these feats do. They are the single highest contribution to DPR you can get from an ASI.

With how limited ASIs are to begin with, I was actually hoping that feats wouldn't significantly affect DPR, but would primarily focus on new options and capabilities. Shield Master is a good example of such a feat. It allows you to shove as a bonus action, a potent ability, but not one with a pure DPR boost. For players that want a pure DPR boost, they can increase their primary ability score. Since it is capped at 20 though, there is an upper limit to your combat potential. Once capped, players can choose feats for unique abilities or RP enhancing feats.

But with GWM and SS, all this changes. Suddenly there is one more feat you can take to increase DPR (on top of the other amazing benefits the feats give). Suddenly, The max potential damage is pushed skyward yet again. Suddenly you lose a lot of incentive to choose flavorful or interesting feats in the name of pure raw combat power. Sure, you can choose not to take them, but then you are missing out on a 15-20% boost to your DPR (25-40% for barbarians). This boost increases even more if you have a party with bless or a reliable source of advantage (wolf totem barbs, familiars using help, spellcasters using CC, etc). The boost is almost too large to pass up. It is far more of a boost than a mere +2 to an ability score gives (weren't feats and ability scores supposed to be "balanced").

What is worse, is that those feats marginalize other combat styles. The duelist, the dual wielder, the martial artist, etc all can't keep up with GWM and SS. Without those feats, they are at least in a similar ballpark, still lower mind you, but not overwhelmingly so.

To me it seems obvious where the problem lies. Change those feats and you will see much wider variety of characters. No longer will every two handed warrior take GWM and every archer take SS. No longer will dual wielders, rogues, and monks feel incapable of dealing a relevant amount damage after level 11. No longer will DMs have their encounters mopped up in a single round. No longer will the player who choose to be simple and just take ability boosts be completely and utterly outshone by the one with feats. No longer will crossbow expert and polearm master combine to give the fighter or barbarian a whopping +50% boost to their DPR. No longer will DMs have to artificially inflate the challenge of encounters, resulting in little more than an endless treadmill for the players. To me, that all sounds good.

Amen!

 

[Ashkelon]

Because those feats are among the ten or so feats that are not meh. I'd rather find ways to boost the lame feats than smother the exciting ones. More options is generally more interesting and fun than fewer options. Lucky, Alert, GWM, SS, Mounted Combatant, Mobile, Resilient, Polearm Master, and several more are all competitive.

Plus, I like GURPS, and the sniping option reminds me of the fun parts of GURPS combat, namely Martial Arts. Without weapon feats D&D would be purely wizard/druid/etc.-centric., but SS/GWM/etc. add a martial combat dimension that I enjoy. More options is good.

YMMV obviously.

Without those feats damage is still competitive though, just not overwhelmingly so. And it's not like those feats give you interesting capabilities in combat, it is a brainless choice to always use them (unless you are fighting one of the few monsters with an obviously high AC).

I would much rather fix those feats so that later feats wouldn't compete with them. Imagine if they come out with some feats that give players really interesting combat options. Feats that aren't passive, aren't spam able, but actually require thought and decision making in combat. That would be awesome, no? The problem is, most people won't end up taking those feats becaus they don't directly increase damage. In fact, they can't directly increase damage or 5e damage will spiral (further) out of control. So what will end up happening is players will still choose GWM first, and then maybe some day choose the other feat... Maybe.

We can already see examples of this with things like Sentinel, Martial Adept, and the like. Those feats are more interesting than the pure damage increasers that are GWM and SS, but those are rarely a first choice feat for weapon users.

I completely agree with you that 5e combat is lacking, and that feats in general are meh. But I'd personally rather have no feat contribute to DPR and have lots of feats that grant new and interesting capabilities, than keep boring broken feats that only increase DPR.

 

[Psikerlord#]

Honest question here?

Why do you want to keep those feats as is? Why do you think a feat that grants a 25% increase to DPR is good for the game?

I will freely admit that I am an optimizer. I primarily play weapon using classes. I would be glad for a change to these grass though. Because of these feats, any time I play with non-optimizes, I make their game experience worse. I come in with my level 5 Barb doing 35 DPR and their dual wielding beast master ranger is dealing a whole 15 and they feel incompetent. I can't not take GWM (especially as a Barb). The feat is simply too good to pass up. I would be stupid to not take it. So, instead of having a feat, my barbarian basically has GWM as a class feature. And so does my fighter. And any archer I make has Sharpshooter. It is boring. The feats are so potent that basically any weapon using character I make will take one. There isn't even a choice for when to use the feats either. I can mindlessly choose to take a -5 to hit and basically always deal more DPR.

It's like expertise feats in 4e. GWM feels like a feat tax. If the designers wanted the baseline DPR to be the number that you arrive at with GWM, I'd rather there have simply been the option to make an all out attack, available for everyone, that is -5 to hit for +10 damage. Now, I have to spend a feat to reach that top end of DPR. That means one less feat I could have chosen for actual fun. Blech.

Indeed if you really want to use the -5/+10 mechanic, make it a "called shot" that anyone with a hit roll can attempt. At least that way the whole party can use it.

 

[FormerlyHemlock]

Without those feats damage is still competitive though, just not overwhelmingly so.

Only to the extent that they can still pick the other good feats that you haven't yet nerfed.

In a featless game rogues and warlocks do more damage than fighter archers, and wizards and druids lose almost nothing. Fewer choices.

Your question has been answered. You may not like the answer, but there it is all the same.