D&D 5E GWM/SS alternative mechanics to the -5/+10 bonus?

[famousringo]

what about: when attacking with great weapons you add 1 and a half time your str bonus to damage.

I say cut out the math and just make it a flat +2. Instead of getting +1 to hit and damage of an ASI, you get +2 damage and a side benefit (cleave or range/cover bonus) to a particular class of weapons.

It's still good, but maybe not definitively better than the ASI. You lose out on +1 to hit, saves, and skill checks.

 

[pming]

Hiya.

Opt #1) You can take the Feat multiple times; each time gives -1/+2, up to a maximum of -5/+10.

Opt #2) It now gives +1 to hit, and +2 damage.

Opt #3) It gives +1/+1 and you can take it any number of times, but it is weapon specific (e.g., "longsword", "dagger", etc).

Opt #4) It gives -5/+10, but you can only make ONE attack that round, and automatically drop 1 point in initiative behind your opponent (if you were ahead of him). If you are hit before you swing, your damage bonus drops to only +5.

There's 4 options I just pulled outta my butt in a minute and a half. IMHO, you guys are being a bit too...picky?...about balance. If you think it's unbalanced now, you can hardly make it much worse by just trying something different for a few session, right? It's a game, and if you use Feats, part of the fun of the game is coming up with your own slant on things. Take Shia's advice.

^_^

Paul L. Ming

 

[Blue]

While people have issues with the +10 damage and I can see it, it at least has a trade-off in terms of the -5 damage. It also has (until you hit 20 Str) the opportunity cost of +1 to hit and damage that an ASI would bring you.

Straight extra damage on every attack on the other hand is just inflating the numbers game. There's no trade-off. It applies to every attack, not just when you have enough buffs going against non-high-AC opponents. Regardless of balance, it doesn't create tension or interest like the current one. It's not an option to chose based on the situation, it's a math fix you calculate in once.

As a though experiment (not a serious suggestion for balance), what if the feat was -10/+20? Would that give enough penalty that it's not reliable even with buffs that it would be a real Faustian bargain? Big risk, a chance to lose all your damage, but a big payoff?

Other thoughts to keep it a choice to be made. -5 to hit & ac / +10 damage. Make it hard to offset all of the penalties without a lot of resources spent. And if you're doing heavy damage, you're a target. (This fits better for GWM then Sharpshooter, since it's easier to focus damage in melee.)

My challenge - fix the feat not only for balance as you see it, but to keep it interesting.

 

[SmokingSkull]

I don't really see why taking a minus 5 penalty to add 10 to damage is such a big deal? I mean really what do two handed weapons do besides damage? Honestly only things I can think of is either they hit other enemies nearby or the attacks made by them have more force to them. While I'm completely against changing these feats in any way for the sake of this thread I'll offer a solution.

How about this: When you make a melee attack with a heavy weapon, if there are hostile creatures adjacent to the target you attack and your original attack roll would hit the adjacent creature they take damage equal to half the amount of damage deal by the original attack. Or alternatively when you roll a critical hit against a hostile creature with a heavy melee weapon, the target must make a Strength saving throw equal to 8 plus your proficiency bonus plus your Strength modifier, if they fail they fall prone, this feature only works on a target of Large size or smaller. I wouldn't word it exactly like that but you get the point.

 

[Jefe Bergenstein]

I'm not a fan, because it gives no immediate return on your investment. Assuming standard array, you dont get a benefit until your 4th ability score increase/feat choice at the earliest. That's needlessly delaying gratification, and to be honest, many games wont even go on that long. Feats should be fun out of the gate.

Limiting it to once per round/turn is better.

 

[CapnZapp]

Thank you for your suggestions

 

[Moorcrys]

Someone in an earlier thread like this suggested the -5/+10 rule be allowed once per target per turn. That way your high level fighter with multiple attacks could potentially cleave through multiple weaker enemies, yet it still addresses the concern of a negligible penalty translating into massive damage against a single target.

I remember liking that take on the feat(s).

 

[Jester David]

I like the at-will aspect of GWM. It's basically an at-will power for martials, giving them a choice each round. I'd be hesitant to take that aspect of the feat away. Plus it fills the game design niche of Power Attack.
Really, the numbers are probably just too high. +10 can be a lot of damage, especially with extra attacks.

Maybe a -2 Attack for +5 damage could be better: smaller penalty and more reliable but less crazy damage.
Or add a second bit of variability to the roll. Say, -2 attack for +1d10 damage. (The disadvantage of this is it'd be doubled on a crit).

 

[Celtavian]

We're leaving Great Weapon Master alone because the user has to enter melee and take hits. They can't use a shield. They have to contend with mobility issues

We've decided to do the following with Sharpshooter. We feel it provides too many benefits at once. We have decided to limit the benefits a Sharpshooter gains per shot. This will allow DMs to use cover or distance and the Sharpshooter to use the feat tactically according to circumstances.

Sharpshooter
You have mastered ranged weapons and can make shots that others find impossible. You can choose one of the following benefits before each ranged attack you make:
• Attacking at long range doesn't impose disadvantage on your ranged weapon attack rolls.
• Your ranged weapon attacks ignore half cover and three-quarters cover.
• Before you make an attack with a ranged weapon that you are proficient with, you can choose to take a – 5 penalty to the attack roll. If the attack hits, you add +10 to the attack’s damage.

 

[Zardnaar]

We're leaving Great Weapon Master alone because the user has to enter melee and take hits. They can't use a shield. They have to contend with mobility issues

We've decided to do the following with Sharpshooter. We feel it provides too many benefits at once. We have decided to limit the benefits a Sharpshooter gains per shot. This will allow DMs to use cover or distance and the Sharpshooter to use the feat tactically according to circumstances.

Sharpshooter
You have mastered ranged weapons and can make shots that others find impossible. You can choose one of the following benefits before each ranged attack you make:
• Attacking at long range doesn't impose disadvantage on your ranged weapon attack rolls.
• Your ranged weapon attacks ignore half cover and three-quarters cover.
• Before you make an attack with a ranged weapon that you are proficient with, you can choose to take a – 5 penalty to the attack roll. If the attack hits, you add +10 to the attack’s damage.

So do the other melee styles though. I have seen GWM do the same amount of damage as the rest of the party put togather.