D&D 5E Observations
FormerlyHemlock
Hero
Is your group hungry for less weapon specialization, or is it just the DM who wants them to not be hungry for greataxes? Maybe the status quo is fine.
I enjoy "I can kill you with a toothpick" too, and the archery-specialized Dex fighter in 5E can indeed kill you with any finesse weapon including a toothpick, even though he's best with a bow. He might do so in an area where military weapons are illegal, or to make a point of his contempt for a weaker opponent.
Maybe what's needed is a reason to kill something with a toothpick.
Last edited:
Prism
Explorer
I wonder what would happen if you let them find a two handed sword Flame Tongue. Once you have that then the +10 damage part of the feat is probably not worth using that often anyway since the reduced damage from the misses offsets the +10 from the feat. I wonder if they would feel that the feat is not optimal then. My character has a weapon that does +2d6 damage and I hardly ever use that part of the feat.
Cap,
I see your point about feats locking in fighters (and to a certain extent, other classes; Defensive Duelist, Dual Wielder, Elemental Adept, and Medium Armor Master come to mind) to certain ways of playing. A GWM fighter will not take a magic longsword as first choice, of course, because by taking GWM, the player has chosen to play his character a certain way. I played a half-orc Champion fighter using a greataxe because that was my mental image of the character; a little trite, yes, but it fit my concept.
I have a player in my games who loves to be a ranged attacker. Doesn't matter the class; he always chooses to maximize his ranged ability. He likes Crossbow Expert, Sharpshooter, etc. This is fun for him, and central to his character concept. He enjoys playing ranged attackers and accepts the conditions that come with it; e.g., he has to wait until there's a specific magical ranged weapon available to him, and that certain magical items to boost his ranged attack ability come with limitations (i.e., Bracers of Archery requiring attunement).
As long as a player is making these choices in full knowledge of the impacts, then I see it as their choice. I don't like to limit player agency, especially in character concept. Maybe you can look at variations on the feats, where one version is more generalized (but provides a lower bonus) and another version is more specialized but with higher bonus.
One thing; does your player know that the first bonus of GWM (the Cleave option) is useful with ANY melee weapon, not just one with the Heavy or Two-Handed property? We had a 2-weapon champion fighter who took both GWM and DW, and used rapiers. The combination of the higher crit range and multiple attacks allowed him to slice and dice his way through low CR monsters with ease.
I see your point about feats locking in fighters (and to a certain extent, other classes; Defensive Duelist, Dual Wielder, Elemental Adept, and Medium Armor Master come to mind) to certain ways of playing. A GWM fighter will not take a magic longsword as first choice, of course, because by taking GWM, the player has chosen to play his character a certain way. I played a half-orc Champion fighter using a greataxe because that was my mental image of the character; a little trite, yes, but it fit my concept.
I have a player in my games who loves to be a ranged attacker. Doesn't matter the class; he always chooses to maximize his ranged ability. He likes Crossbow Expert, Sharpshooter, etc. This is fun for him, and central to his character concept. He enjoys playing ranged attackers and accepts the conditions that come with it; e.g., he has to wait until there's a specific magical ranged weapon available to him, and that certain magical items to boost his ranged attack ability come with limitations (i.e., Bracers of Archery requiring attunement).
As long as a player is making these choices in full knowledge of the impacts, then I see it as their choice. I don't like to limit player agency, especially in character concept. Maybe you can look at variations on the feats, where one version is more generalized (but provides a lower bonus) and another version is more specialized but with higher bonus.
One thing; does your player know that the first bonus of GWM (the Cleave option) is useful with ANY melee weapon, not just one with the Heavy or Two-Handed property? We had a 2-weapon champion fighter who took both GWM and DW, and used rapiers. The combination of the higher crit range and multiple attacks allowed him to slice and dice his way through low CR monsters with ease.
chriton227
Explorer
Dual Wielding/Two Weapon Fighting requires using your bonus action to make the off-hand attack, and the cleave option of GWM also requires the use of a bonus action to make the cleave attack. If you make an off-hand attack, you can't make a GWM cleave attack in the same round, and if you don't make the DW/TWF off-hand attack, you can get at most one GWM cleave in a round.
hawkeyefan
Legend
I think the issue is one of minmaxing: yes, you CAN take the feat as a sword and board fighter... But why not then shuck the shield and grab that sword in both hands*…?
(*yes I know, a longsword is versatile but not heavy)
...To gain ALL of the feat's benefits, I mean. D&D is a game rewarding specialization, but this does run counter to the desired state of "I'm a fighter, I can use every weapon equally well, I can kill you with a tooth pick if I want to" (slightly exaggerated
I guess that design philosophy is a bit too... casual? for our group of seasoned 3e optimizers!
The feat doesn't actually take anything away, though. So they can still kill you with any weapon...but with a greatsword they can really kill you good.
I think you're right in that it's a min-maxing kind of situation. If one player plays a GWM fighter, and then other players won't even bother trying any other type of fighter because they see them as "lesser", then I see the problem.
Otherwise, the feat is a choice and the player is basically locking themselves in to a certain fighting/playing style...so as long as they're cool with that, so be it.
Would you consider beefing up the other fighter options in some way?
Yes, we know that. The combination allowed him to use the bonus action for his attack if he didn't get a crit or reduce to zero. He is an 11th level fighter, with 3 attacks.
Saeviomagy
Adventurer
Yeah, but GWM is literally doing nothing for him. On rounds when he crits or downs someone, he gets... the same bonus action attack that he always gets from dual wielding.
I think in general the combat feats are very poorly designed. They muck with numbers, distort and break CR assumptions muddy the rules and tend to not work how people expect them (No! Thrown weapons aren't attacking with a ranged weapon! Yes, you can attack with both ends of a staff that you're holding in one hand!), while at the same time locking characters into specific weapons.
Psikerlord#
Explorer
In my experience custom feats is what you want. Make your own custom longsword feat, or whatever. We have Whip Master and Psionic Initiate feats, for example. Otherwise yeah you are going to get locked into certain weapons if your players highly optimize.
Hussar
Legend
Honestly I think this is one of the big issues. The idea that your character will actually be able to choose between magic weapons for example. If you take GWF, the choice, at 8th level anyway should be between using the bigger weapon or using a smaller magic one. Not between two magic weapons. The game doesn't really assume that you'll ever find any "made to spec" magic items.
Nor does the game assume that your players will squeeze out every bonus from the system. A group taking the 3e style system mastery approach will likely be a lot more powerful relative to standard challenges.
