Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="CapnZapp" data-source="post: 6644754" data-attributes="member: 12731">Wow. 400 plus replies. Thank you - I guess ;-)---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------To those wanting an "no problem at all" option: You have my symphaties, but I believe this thread proves without a doubt that the overall situation isn't that rosy, I'm afraid. That doesn't mean the feats can be perfectly unproblematic and even excellent at your table. But I'm not talking about any specific table here, neither yours nor mine.To those voting "use as-is": I realize some of you truly mean you have found the feat working in order. But you will have to accept that I think many of you have merely not found the problem, simply by your preferred playstyle, or even by not having used the feats very much. Perhaps I should have included a separate poll where you can reply how much play experience you have had, so I could see how many experienced high-level players answer "use as-is".To those actively arguing there are nothing wrong with the feats: sorry, but I mostly see attacks on the opposing side. Trying to shoot holes in the opposing side does nothing to prove your own position. I could not find a single well-argued example of real play data where SS/GWM was shown to be unproblematic. (Sorry if I missed your post here, please repost and I promise to give you a personal reply) The best I found was white room DPR calculations, but none of you who took the trouble of posting this replied to the very important objection that these feats are used in favorable conditions only, meaning that calculating averages drag down the result by including the cases that never happen in practice.  Any useful DPR calculation must take into account when the feats are NOT used, since the choice to not use them is completely free. (If taking the feats meant that you took a permanent, always-on, -2 penalty to AC or whatever, then there would be far more merit to this line of thought. But the reality is that whenever your calculations suggest you're worse off with the feat than without, you forget that the real worst-case result MUST BE just one step below "not using the feat" since you simply don't use the feat when it doesn't help you, and in this case the cost is simply not getting the +1 to attack and +1 to damage that a stat increase would have gotten you. And even this cost is debatable since at level 12 or so, you will have maxed out your prime stat anyway. At that stage, the "cost" would instead be not taking the best alternative feat, which unfortunately makes for an impossibly complex calculation)  To those banning these particular feats, or playing w/o feats entirely: Thank you for participating in the poll. I wish you good luck, but will not follow in your footsteps myself - my play group likes the crunch of build options too much to be able to do without feats <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":-)" title="Smile    :-)"  data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":-)" />To those answering my main line of interest, that is, what to do about them: it seems many of you counsel "once per turn" as a solution. When I set up the poll, I thought reducing the damage bonus was the way to go. I don't consider myself statistically incompetent, but I must confess a fascination by the way even the feats' strongest critics saying that the feat quickly loses its relevance when the damage bonus is reduced. I thought that if +10 is completely overpowered, and +5 is useless, then perhaps +8 would be a golden compromise and easy fix. But the poll tells me that was wishful thinking. I don't know why you don't like this solution, but I accept there is something wrong with it.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.Of course, I couldn't find any real play analysis of this scenario. That is, your conclusions regarding a variant "once per turn" GWM/SS. But, this thread is too much as is, so that's something to revisit elsewhere. (Also, the "ignore cover" part of SS, what is the main issue: that it exists or that it can be used together with -5/+10?)The issue that Polearm Master completely eclipses Two Weapon Fighting also is best discussed separately. Thank you for pointing it out.Apologies to anyone feeling ignored. I encourage you to repost your sentiment if you want my reply.</blockquote>

Verification