D&D 5E Current take on GWM/SS

[FormerlyHemlock]

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.

I'd be fine with that, although I fail to see how that's satisfying complaints about GWM being a barbarian "class feature." But yeah, aesthetically I'd prefer if the decision were purely tactical and available to any weapon-user, as in AD&D and GURPS. Feat gates are built into 5E but I don't love them.

 

[Minigiant]

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.

But if you remove the "broken" feats, damage powergamers will just grab the next tier down. And evenually one combination will be on top. Nerf GWM, well every GW user focused on damaged will take Savage Attacker once they hit 20 strength. Then Martial Adept. Then Lucky.

There will always be must haves it there is a choice goal to victory or an easiest path.
In Default D&D, it's damage.
At my table it's Charisma and languages.

Only obstacle variety removes "must-haves".

 

[DaveDash]

But if you remove the "broken" feats, damage powergamers will just grab the next tier down. And evenually one combination will be on top. Nerf GWM, well every GW user focused on damaged will take Savage Attacker once they hit 20 strength. Then Martial Adept. Then Lucky.

There will always be must haves it there is a choice goal to victory or an easiest path.
In Default D&D, it's damage.
At my table it's Charisma and languages.

Only obstacle variety removes "must-haves".

But this is the thing. The rest of the feats are well balanced and interesting because they don't go and pile on numbers.

All that aside, the ability of 8th level Fighters to pump out 100 damage in a round 1/short rest doesn't match up with the monsters in the game, and will cause issues for a DM, at the very least increase DM workload.

These feats don't belong in 5e.

 

[Minigiant]

But this is the thing. The rest of the feats are well balanced and interesting because they don't go and pile on numbers.

These feats don't belong in 5e.

Rest of the feats aren't balanced if damage helps you so much at your table. No one is ever going to take Linguist if you don't take language matter. My greataxe fighter will always take Savage Attacker if you nerf GWM. 100%. Every time. Buff Strength to 20 then grab damage feats in order of power.

But when I DM, Linguist and Actor are the most powerful feats. Everyone has Actor, Observant, or Linguist

No one will ever use a sling unless you make bludgeoning damage matter. Removing bows and crossbow, will just make them use axes and javelins.

You can't remove must haves unless there are oo many obstables to worry about. Basic Game theory.

 

[Ashkelon]

But if you remove the "broken" feats, damage powergamers will just grab the next tier down. And evenually one combination will be on top. Nerf GWM, well every GW user focused on damaged will take Savage Attacker once they hit 20 strength. Then Martial Adept. Then Lucky.

There will always be must haves it there is a choice goal to victory or an easiest path.
In Default D&D, it's damage.
At my table it's Charisma and languages.

Only obstacle variety removes "must-haves".

If you remove the -5/+10 part of the feat, all combat feats (except for savage attacker) are pretty much equally good though. There is no longer a "must have". It also means that polearm master and crossbow expert are actually balanced against the other combat styles as well (ex a PM GWM Barbarian does 77 DPR at level 20, while a regular GWM barb with no polearm deald only 46).

The removal of the obviously top tier feat leads to everything working out better. If GWM or SS gave a +1 STR or DEX instead of the -5/+10, then a warrior would have a pretty hard time choosing between GWM or SS, Polearm Master or Crossbow Expert, Lucky, Mobile, Sentinel, Heavy Armor Mastery, and Resilient. In my mind that is a good thing. GWM will still a potent feat (don't underestimate a free attack on a crit or when you drop a foe), but it is no longer the #1 choice. And because of that, it makes other feats relatively more attractive too.

 

[DaveDash]

Rest of the feats aren't balanced if damage helps you so much at your table. No one is ever going to take Linguist if you don't take language matter. My greataxe fighter will always take Savage Attacker if you nerf GWM. 100%. Every time. Buff Strength to 20 then grab damage feats in order of power.

But when I DM, Linguist and Actor are the most powerful feats. Everyone has Actor, Observant, or Linguist

No one will ever use a sling unless you make bludgeoning damage matter. Removing bows and crossbow, will just make them use axes and javelins.

You can't remove must haves unless there are oo many obstables to worry about. Basic Game theory.

I don't care what other feat you take, as long as you're not doing 100 DPR at level 8, creating extra work for me as a DM, and eclipsing other party members.

 

[Ashkelon]

Rest of the feats aren't balanced if damage helps you so much at your table. No one is ever going to take Linguist if you don't take language matter. My greataxe fighter will always take Savage Attacker if you nerf GWM. 100%. Every time. Buff Strength to 20 then grab damage feats in order of power.

But when I DM, Linguist and Actor are the most powerful feats. Everyone has Actor, Observant, or Linguist

No one will ever use a sling unless you make bludgeoning damage matter. Removing bows and crossbow, will just make them use axes and javelins.

You can't remove must haves unless there are oo many obstables to worry about. Basic Game theory.

Except without GWM and SS there are no must haves.

Seriously, tell me a combat feat you think is a must have in the absence of the -5/+10 from GWM and SS?

Sentinel? Crossbow Expert? Dual Wielder? Polearm Master? Lucky? Mobile? Alert? Tough? Healer? Inspiring Leader? Charger? Resilient? Mage Slayer, Savage Attacker? Great Weapon Master? Sharpshooter?

The only things that I feel are "must haves" for combat are a 20 in your primary ability score and maybe Resilient. Everything is all seems pretty even to me. Even GWM and SS are still potent feats, especially if you replace the -5/+10 with something like +1 STR or DEX. On top of that, the non combat feats seem relatively more appealing as well in the absence of the old version of GWM and SS.

 

[pemerton]

Replacing the -5/+10 part with a Str/Dex increase I can understand why some of you like. It kills the entire infected problem area. But I kind of like there to be a way to make a "power attack", if only when you try to hack off a chain or other object. Having to take -5 nicely interacts with the 5e attack-an-object rules of the DMG. Likewise, getting to make a SS attack once per turn does simulate the "aiming really carefully" shot, so I hope to be able to keep it too.

Restricting GWM/SS to once per turn means nothing at low levels. On the other hand, this is where you authoratively state there is less of a problem. So this should alleviate that concern.

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.

Just a little bit of advocacy here for dropping the mathematical inanity of power attack altogether, which encourages players to get bogged down in statistical calculations, and doesn't correspond to anything in the fiction.

My maths (spreadsheet attached) tells me that at 5th level, from AC 10 through AC 17, the -5/+10 gives an average +2 expected DPR. (That is without advantage, Bless etc.)

From 20th level, from AC 10 through 22, it gives an expected average DPR of better than +5.

Above those ACs there is no expected gain in DPR, so the feat would not be used (assuming perfect information on the part of the player).

In both cases I'm treating each AC as equally likely; at 20th level in particular that's obviously not so, which means the actual experienced DPR boost would be less.

If you want rationed spike damage, I'd suggest trying +5 damage on an even-numbered attack roll that hits. At 5th level, that's an expected boost in DPR of around +1.5, which is weaker than the current feat on low ACs but obviously better on high ones. At 20th it's weaker than currently - about +2 DPR against all ACs - but that's not necessarily a bad thing.

 

[pemerton]

My group recently converted a 4e campaign to a level 11 5e campaign and really, the spellcasters seem a bit overpowered with all their save-or-suck spells. From what I am seeing a GWM/SS character would basically be on the same level of OP.

I still feel sort of bad for non-9 level casters at high level. Casters, especially wizards, druids, and clerics, get a little crazy at high level. Spell versatility is a hell of a powerful ability when you have a bunch of spell slots and even your 1st level spells have some dangerous effects on a missed save.

It seems that the two main options are either to nerf the damage elements of the feats, which runs the risk of making high level casters overpowered; or to introduce new feat options that make other sorts of high-damage martial builds viable.
[MENTION=5834]Celtavian[/MENTION], I believe you've taken the second option in your game - is that right?

 

[Hussar]

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.

So, we're back to, "if you don't see a problem it's because you've just never actually played it". It couldn't possibly be that a group uses these feats and doesn't have a problem.

I mean, you call it "minimal work" to bypass the limitations. I say that having your cleric contribute nothing for the first round of half of combats (presuming the fighter goes before the cleric 50% of the time) is more than "minimal work". I'd say that having the cleric spend about half his/her daily slots on blessing someone else is more than "minimal work". I'd say that having your buffing characters ride the pines in combat so they don't lose concentration or spend significant character resources to increase their concentration check is more than "minimal work".

You have to remember, that the problems you are having are, in part, of your own devising. They ARE NOT PROVEN.