D&D 5E Great Weapon Master: how about -5 AC instead of -5 to hit?

[dave2008]

This is very easy to manipulate. Think about a Barbarian that already is giving advantage to enemies with reckless attack, and relies upon damage resistance rather than enemies missing. Also, if you kill the enemy on your turn and then make it hard for another ememy to attack there is effectively no penalty.

The feat is actually not broken as is - there are a lot of perceptions of it needing to be fixed, but it really doesn't.

@Quartz never said the feat was broken, they had an idea about how large weapons work and reality and thought it might be better reflected with this adjustment. That being said, it does seem a bit odd to take a feat that makes you handle your weapon less effectively (though that is the case with original as well).

 

[DND_Reborn]

I think the penalty to hit makes sense because in order to deliver that much power, you are telegraphing your strike, making it easier to avoid.

I agree, the attack might put you out of position, especially if you miss, making it easier for others to retaliate, so I could even see a bit of both?

You have disadvantage on your attack roll (which could be overcome by the many sources of advantage) AND the next attack made against you before the start of your next turn has advantage.

This way, you are only penalized by one attack, and you can attempt to offset the penalty on your own attack.

EDIT: I just realized if you don't allow sources to stack, the above probably won't work for your table. For example, the Reckless Attack for barbarians would cancel the disadvantage, but not penalize you because others already have advantage to hit you...

Our group allows sources to stack, it would work fine for us.

 

[Vaalingrade]

I've just been watching a Matt Easton video about poleaxes and he makes the point that if you make a power blow you leave yourself open. Especially if you miss. In D&D terms this would be equivalent to giving opponents Advantage or -5 AC. I think in this case that -5 AC is much more game-friendly as Advantage against someone with an AC of 20+ isn't so hot and it allows Advantage and Disadvantage on top. And the Shield spell. Has anyone experimented with this?

I mean there's much easier ways to kill a PC than give their enemies a +Yes to stabbing them to death.

The GWF is the one most likely to be in the thick of it, surrounded by enemies, so this is just removing hit points for using their weapon.

 

[Dausuul]

And don't forget that a Barbarian can have proficiency in heavy armour either by feat or by multiclassing.

They can have it, but it doesn't do them any good. Wearing heavy armor disables all benefits from rage, including damage resistance. And using the -5/+10 of GWM requires a heavy weapon, so you can't have a shield either.

This change would make GWM significantly more powerful than it already is. Trading defense for offense is highly exploitable; in fact, the barbarian's ability to do exactly that (via Reckless Attack) is the easiest way to abuse GWM as written. (GWM by itself is strong but fair, it's the combination with other abilities that makes it a problem.)

The last thing GWM needs is to be pushed even further that way.

 

[J-H]

In my future games, GWM and SS just give +2 damage with the appropriate weapon types, plus the other benefits. +2 damage is half the benefits of +4 strength or dexterity (+0 to hit, +2 to damage), so about equal to an ASI. It's also equivalent spending a feat learning the the Dueling fighting style (+2 damage), just with a different weapon type.

The added benefits (bonus action cleave for GWM, remove cover and range penalties for SS) stay, and are still decent on their own, making GWM/SS still a useful choice for characters wanting to specialize in big hits or straight shots, and often still a better choice than an ASI... but without adding "I do 20-40 extra damage every round" into the mix.

 

[Quartz]

Wearing heavy armor disables all benefits from rage, including damage resistance.

You're right: I'm getting it mixed up with Reckless Attack. Do note that some sources (like this one) don't mention the armour limitation for Rage.

Just keep in mind that a -5 to AC is much more punishing than an attacker having advantage, due to the fact that they can then get advantage from another source

I think I mentioned this possibility in my OP.

Great swords are not much bigger or longer than long swords really.

Nor necessarily is the poleaxe. Easton's is 6' but he mentions some poleaxes being much shorter.

 

[jgsugden]

.... This would make the Barbarian have to deal with absorbing even more damage. And don't forget that a Barbarian can have proficiency in heavy armour either by feat or by multiclassing. That raging barbarian can be rocking an AC of 20 or even more, which significantly diminishes the effect of enemy attacks having Advantage.

If a barbarian raises their AC, they're spending resources to do so. If they never take any damage, one of their key abilities, DR, goes to waste. After all, in most cases, whether you have 1 hp or 300. Generally, raising AC through significant resource expenditure (attunement slots, feats, etc...) is inefficienct for barbarians, often.

I would be able to easily abuse this proposition - and I can say that as it already reinforces a common tactic on my part - moving in and finishing enemies to prevent them from having an attack back. This option is making a strong option much stronger.

 

[Quartz]

If they never take any damage, one of their key abilities, DR, goes to waste.

Doesn't that depend upon the amount of healing available? The less healing available, the more important it is to not get hit.

I would be able to easily abuse this proposition

Do tell.

This option is making a strong option much stronger.

Are you assuming a one-on-one combat?

 

[jgsugden]

Doesn't that depend upon the amount of healing available? The less healing available, the more important it is to not get hit.

Only to a small extent. I played barbarain (with a few levels of fighter) from levels 1 to 20. My AC started out at 16, and ended at 16. Our healer was a paladin. Modianger was ... not cautious. Like - insanely not cautious. After level 5, he only went to 0 hp once. And this was not due to exceedingly great tactics - he was a blunt weapon, and he always reckless attacked, even against high AC foes. The adventure used an adventure path.

Do tell (how to abuse this option)

You're asking how we can abuse this option? Where we get to hit really hard without a decrease in accuracy?

Alpha strike is a label for one basic combat strategy. It has you get in there and focus on landing the first blow of the combat, and doing so in a way that prevents a counterstrike. Teams that focus on alpha strike are all offense, no defense. It can be exceedingly effective.

For example, I ran a 20th level one shot a couple years back. The fighter/ranger/barbarian/warlock in the party soloed a CR 23 Ancient Blue Dragon in 2 rounds. They dealt over 300 damage in a surprise round, and then finished it off in the second round before it acted.

Are you assuming a one-on-one combat?

While that last example was an example of a one on one - heck no. It is stronger against multiple foes when you get the 'cleave' of a bonus action strike at no penalty to hit on it.

Get a GM to run a one shot so that you can test this out and you should see what I've been saying. When the penalty isn't tied to the offensive bonus, it isn't really a penalty because it can usually be bypassed.

 

[dave2008]

For example, I ran a 20th level one shot a couple years back. The fighter/ranger/barbarian/warlock in the party soloed a CR 23 Ancient Blue Dragon in 2 rounds. They dealt over 300 damage in a surprise round, and then finished it off in the second round before it acted.
While that last example was an example of a one on one - heck no. It is stronger against multiple foes when you get the 'cleave' of a bonus action strike at no penalty to hit on it.

Wow! I didn't think that was possible for single target damage in 5e. Do you remember how they did it? My players are not optimizers or very tactical so it is not something I would have to worry about personally, but I am interested none-the-less!

EDIT: It is also interesting how legendary monsters, as written, are actually worse against a solo creature because they can't use all of their legendary actions. That is why I let legendary monsters use any unspent legendary actions at the end of a round.