Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="spinozajack" data-source="post: 6641100" data-attributes="member: 6794198">Problems with GWM : 1) Makes weapon choice for damage die, and fighting style, nearly irrelevant. +10 damage is close to the max damage of all heavy weapons, and great weapon fighting style's benefit is similarly a minimal contribution of no real importance compared to this feat's.2) It stacks with polearm master, which gets a bonus attack and fighting style with PM, and adds an extra +10 attack, plus even one more from an OA. Too good. Giving up 1 W DPR to get reach, also means that when you kill or crit, you can more easily reach the next target.3) +10 damage is literally three times greater than the highest bonus damage from a legendary weapon. And available at level 1. Kind of hard to feel like this sword's really powerful when that non-magical polearm over there is doing loads more damage all day, every day.Not sure the best way to fix it, but reach weapons definitely need to not benefit from this feat. There is already a feat for that. If polearms can get +10 on all those extra attacks, why can't Dual wielder too? I can't comprehend the balance logic behind making polearms so overwhelmingly superior in this edition. It's quite beyond compare. At level 5 you will have 3-4 attacks (closer to 4 is you know how to position yourself and pick your targets), each with +10 damage and reach. The problem I have with GWM isn't that it's powerful, but that it applies to polearms and stacks with the other most powerful feat. It's like if SS + something else allowed 3-4 arrows a round at level 5 with +10 each. Right now SS allows +10 on two attacks per round at level 5, not three. And certainly not 4. SS is a picture of balance compared to GWM + PM.PM needs a hard nerf and lose the bonus extra attack with free twf style baked in to it. And it shouldn't be possible to get +10 damage on reach weapons but not dual wielded short range weapons. Polearms are too powerful thanks to both these feats stacking. It was a big mistake making them stack like this.</blockquote>

Verification