Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="CapnZapp" data-source="post: 6967046" data-attributes="member: 12731">Great Weapon MasterI understand the general concept, but I vaguely feel that "disadvantage abuse" isn't as disruptive as "advantage abuse". I might be wrong, but at least my powergaming players aren't especially interested in breaking the game engine just for the lulz, they're interested in optimization. I just might lack the play experience, but I don't see how "disadvantage abuse" makes you more powerful - it seems to be much more about you keeping a decent shot at doing something even when common sense says it should be much more difficult.While this can threaten campaign verisimilitude, can it directly threaten to trivialize encounters and monsters?Not sure what you mean by the first problem. Limiting a feat for two-handed combat only isn't a problem in my book. The problem before was that original GWM was too good, making the choice of other melee weapons cost too much in lost DPR relative to greatweapons. The ideal is to give two-weapon users a unique something that you don't get using a dagger. Also note the incoming UA feats for hammers, spears etc. I realize you might dislike having many feats for various kinds of weapons, but I can't say do. Having one feat for axes and another for flails isn't bad in my book. Thus I want to keep GWM restricted to two-handed use.Double proficiency balances the feat for low-level use but breaks it for high level use. I need my feats to be never overpowered, even if I have to make them underpowered at the other end. But that's not the reason for the +2 at low levels. I could have made the damage bonus a straight +5. But I don't want to, since I don't want low-level characters to have any way of significantly increasing their damage output for a single strike. (Rules for hardness, breaking of chains and locks, etc work on the assumption you can't normally deal more than 1d12+Strength damage. While +5 is half as problematic as the previous +10, I felt like taking a conservative start).So if you complain "this feat will never be taken at low level" that's probably correct, but also not a problem. The interesting question to me is: can this feat interest a, say, level 10 fighter? Because if it can, then it's good enough for me.The real issue is something else. I realize all level 16 two-handed fighters will pick this feat.The big question is: is is still sufficiently interesting to fight with other styles (single weapon, sword and board, dual-wield etc)?My hope is that players that want to play one of those styles will go "okay so I gain a fair bit of damage by going GWM, but not so much so I feel compelled to go GWM, and only at high levels, where lots of damage isn't as valuable as it is at low to mid levels". <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=":)" />Thanks!Out of curiosity: why the hedging? What (corner) cases do you see stopped by both calling out the weapon and the hand use? Or do you simply prefer specifying weapons by properties? Or it's more a matter of making it clear how its supposed to work?One thing: Your phrasing allows user to turn it on and off for individual attacks. I meant to force the player to endure disadvantage during the rest of the round and indeed the entire turn (including any OA).</blockquote>

Verification