feats!

[magwaaf]

where are they all? is it just in the PHB? there needs to be a way bigger list somewhere. Pathfinder did it better with their "MORE FEATS!" way of doing things.

is there a site with an official list?

[AkashNem]

The list in the PHB is it. One of the points of 5e is that feats and ability score improvements are rare. I like that they cut out all the feat bloat.

[Ninja_Prawn]

The list in the PHB is it. One of the points of 5e is that feats and ability score improvements are rare. I like that they cut out all the feat bloat.

Agreed. The PHB feat list is plenty. None of them are redundant, and there are no ugly feat trees.

If you're not happy, check out the homebrew subforum!

[Mara]

where are they all? is it just in the PHB? there needs to be a way bigger list somewhere. Pathfinder did it better with their "MORE FEATS!" way of doing things.

is there a site with an official list?
Pathfinder has good qualities. The dumpster of trash feats is not one of them.

[Naanomi]

There is one racial feat for svirfneblin also, but that's it (so far)

[Ralanr]

I can only guess the next time they print feats will be in the sword coast guide.

Or never. I'd be fine with never actually.

[Ninja_Prawn]

There is one racial feat for svirfneblin also, but that's it (so far)

*cough* Dragonmarks *cough*

[Ralanr]

*cough* Dragonmarks *cough*

Not really released.

[nanoboy]

I don't mind the addition of new feats. Setting- or race-specific feats can be cool. The main thing is that each feat provides all of what its name implies. That's what was annoying about 3.x/PF feats. You had to plan a whole bunch of feat and stat choices to get your character to do what you envision the character doing.

[GiantOctopodes]

My main issue with feats is that there are plenty that mechanically influence combat (crossbow expert, sharpshooter, warcaster, great weapon master, polearm master) but only in a very narrow subset of fighting styles and options, which makes (in games where feats are included) a distinction between those fighting styles supported by feats (which tend to be mechanically superior) and those which are not supported (which are mechanically inferior). As such, I either would like to see more feats supporting different combat options, or just not have seen any combat feats in play at all. Just my feelings on it.

[LaserFace]

I'm pretty sure the introduction of Feats as an optional rule with few examples - as opposed to a basic one with long lists - is the change in tone towards this kind of character customization.

3.x had IMO a poor approach to handling feats, which somewhat bled over into 4E; you weren't just getting things to make your character stand out, but you were practically taxed at regular intervals to get specific things, or you ended up suffering as a result. And, there wasn't much in the way of support for DMs to just say "you can just have this/do that"; it was you have the feat, or you either can't do it, or you can do it but it's a terrible option, wtf are you doing (ie you're a Fighter trying to do something other than attack, but lack the Improved X feat).

I think 5E moved towards placing less emphasis on feats - thus giving them smaller mention in the PHB - because there was a desire to leave these as smaller, finishing touches on a character that you mostly describe and the DM supports; in this sense there is less necessity to do homework, to figure out the proper way to get the mechanics correct. The assumption is that the mechanics are mostly going to suit everyone - even people who don't want to read all the rulebooks - and that you're also playing with a cool DM who has a "describe it, and we'll make it work" mentality.

Edit: Although I am very pleased with 5E's take on feats, I do think some feats like Polearm Master and Crossbow Expert could have been made more readily available to those who think the benefits are integral to their character image. In my game, I'm toying with the idea of making them interchangeable with the currently-available Fighting Styles (and vice versa, ie making Dueling Style (+2 to damage with a one-hander) available as a feat).

[Nifft]

My main issue with feats is that there are plenty that mechanically influence combat (crossbow expert, sharpshooter, warcaster, great weapon master, polearm master) but only in a very narrow subset of fighting styles and options, which makes (in games where feats are included) a distinction between those fighting styles supported by feats (which tend to be mechanically superior) and those which are not supported (which are mechanically inferior). As such, I either would like to see more feats supporting different combat options, or just not have seen any combat feats in play at all. Just my feelings on it.

I like some of those, but don't like others. Specifically:

- Polearm Master influences fighting style. You want to stand out front, instead of behind the shield-guy. It changes how you play, which adds tactical impact to your weapon choice, and that makes it good.

- Warcaster is a Gish-enabler. It allows you to play a sword-and-board mage. I think it's fine.

- Sharpshooter seems to add power, but not add anything in terms of style. I don't like it.

- Crossbow Expert seems to add power and remove weapon flavor: it removes a playstyle difference between crossbows and bows. I don't like it.

- Greatweapon Master has one good part (the Cleave analogue) and one bad part (the Power Attack analogue). The Cleave-analogue is good because it encourages the Greatweapon Fighter to stand adjacent to two (or more) enemies, which is riskier than facing enemies one at a time. That's a distinct tactical impact, which changes the implicit fighting style of that character, and that's great. The Power Attack-analogue is bad because it doesn't really change play: if you think you'll hit even with the -5 penalty, you take the penalty. No tactical impact beyond some basic math. Half good, half bad.

- Shield Expert seems to add one option and not increase power all that much. It's mostly defensive, which isn't surprising. Pushing isn't as important in 5e as it was in 4e, so this feat isn't as universally applicable as it would have been. I like it, but that's predicated on map-combat rather than TotM-combat.

- Charger influences fighting style, kinda. It's also grid-dependent, or at least dependent on the DM telling some players "no, you can't reach the X and stab it" in a way that lets you know you could reach the X and stab it with Charger. It seems fine.

- Defensive Dualist influences fighting style. It makes you very good against a single enemy, but you don't want multiple enemies attacking you. It's the opposite reward mechanic as Greatweapon Master, and that's cool. I like it.

[dropbear8mybaby]

- Shield Expert seems to add one option and not increase power all that much. It's mostly defensive, which isn't surprising. Pushing isn't as important in 5e as it was in 4e, so this feat isn't as universally applicable as it would have been. I like it, but that's predicated on map-combat rather than TotM-combat.

Once again, my beloved Shield Master feat is disparaged. Oh woe is I :smallfrown:

I use the shove and trip of the Shield a lot. Mostly the trip, which I combine with Goading Attack and Pushing Attack. The trip gives me advantage on follow up attacks most of the time. If a follow up Goading Attack is successful, then I use a Pushing Attack. If that's successful then I have a prone enemy who has disadvantage to attack anyone else but me and who is up to 45 feet away (combined 15 foot push with 30 foot move). So if they want to get back to me, they have to probably provoke opportunity attacks and if they don't, then they suffer disadvantage against anyone else. And it's more than likely that they can only get to one of the other melee combatants, if even them, since they will have lost half their movement just getting up from prone.

It has proven to be a most excellent strategy. I had it combined with Greater Invisibility cast on me by the party bard. Disadvantage to attacks against everyone, even my character :smallbiggrin:

[Ralanr]

Shield master is probably the most creative feat in 5e. In my opinion anyway.

[Occasional Sage]

Pathfinder has roughly a thousand more feats than 5e. That isn't an improvement. The majority of PF's feats are either:

only useful for corner-case builds
needlessly fragmented across multiple feats
totally useless
some combination of the above


Sorry, but blech and no thanks.

[Slipperychicken]

- Greatweapon Master has one good part (the Cleave analogue) and one bad part (the Power Attack analogue). The Cleave-analogue is good because it encourages the Greatweapon Fighter to stand adjacent to two (or more) enemies, which is riskier than facing enemies one at a time. That's a distinct tactical impact, which changes the implicit fighting style of that character, and that's great. The Power Attack-analogue is bad because it doesn't really change play: if you think you'll hit even with the -5 penalty, you take the penalty. No tactical impact beyond some basic math. Half good, half bad.


You can move between attacks in 5e. That means a character could start his turn next to one enemy, reduce that enemy to zero hit points, then move up to his speed to another enemy and use his remaining attacks (including any bonus-action attacks he may have) as desired.

[Nifft]

Once again, my beloved Shield Master feat is disparaged. Oh woe is I :smallfrown: But I said I like it.

It's adding options, rather than power, and I like it (but I see it being more useful on a grid-map than a TotM not-map).


You can move between attacks in 5e. That means a character could start his turn next to one enemy, reduce that enemy to zero hit points, then move up to his speed to another enemy and use his remaining attacks (including any bonus-action attacks he may have) as desired.
Oh. Huh, I thought that bonus action had to come immediately after the triggering condition.

Well, that's less tactically interesting, and I now have nothing nice to say about the Great Weapon feat.

Oh well.

[Slipperychicken]

I now have nothing nice to say about the Great Weapon feat.

Oh well.

Yeah, I feel like it might be too strong. Whenever I make a melee character with the extra attack feature, GWM or Polearm Master immediately come to mind because there's basically no beating them in terms of damage. Other styles do have their strengths, but it's always tempting to take one or the other.

[Nifft]

Yeah, I feel like it might be too strong. Whenever I make a melee character with the extra attack feature, GWM or Polearm Master immediately come to mind because there's basically no beating them in terms of damage.

IMHO the ideal would be if all combat-style / weapon-type feats were around the strength of Defensive Dualist or Shield Master.

I'm not sure if Polearm Master is broken without GWM -- the few times I've gotten to play 5e, I saw them used in combo.

[Slipperychicken]

IMHO the ideal would be if all combat-style / weapon-type feats were around the strength of Defensive Dualist or Shield Master.


Yeah, I think the balance they were going for is that most of the fight-y feats give something for damage, and some for benefits other than damage. GWF and Polearm Master are entirely damage, but don't give any other benefit. It may balance out overall (given considerations like AC and saves and such), but superiority in damage is quite tempting.

[Ralanr]

Yeah, I think the balance they were going for is that most of the fight-y feats give something for damage, and some for benefits other than damage. GWF and Polearm Master are entirely damage, but don't give any other benefit. It may balance out overall (given considerations like AC and saves and such), but superiority in damage is quite tempting.

Except Polearm master gives you a more offensive defense tactic. Though with the limit on reactions it could go either way I suppose.

[Slipperychicken]

Except Polearm master gives you a more offensive defense tactic. Though with the limit on reactions it could go either way I suppose.

That one is certainly defensive, but it's still a damaging effect. If a savvy player changes his MO to accommodate the reaction attack (stepping back when appropriate or using a mount for free disengages), it essentially amounts to an increase in damage.

[Ardantis]

The list is shorter, sure, but the feats are WAAAY bigger.

[SharkForce]

But I said I like it.

It's adding options, rather than power, and I like it (but I see it being more useful on a grid-map than a TotM not-map).

options *are* power.

and the usefulness will depend greatly. if you have several melee characters, it gets quite a bit better (knock them prone and gang up on them), even in TotM. also, just because it's TotM doesn't mean you can't shove enemies off cliffs or into a trap. just tell the DM you want to try and knock the target off the cliff or into the trap.

[Shining Wrath]

I'd call most 5e feats as being worth two or three steps in one of those long 3.5 feat trees. Which is great; it was pretty sad to take two or three lousy feats to get to something like Spring Attack or Robilard's Gambit.

The imbalance between the feats is an entirely different discussion. The mismatch between fighting styles and feat support does need to be fixed, so that all fighting styles are equally valid. While I'm on that topic, almost all the spell support of the Ranger class is for the archer type range, not the TWF type. They ought to fix that, too.

[tieren]

While I'm on that topic, almost all the spell support of the Ranger class is for the archer type range, not the TWF type. They ought to fix that, too.

What do you mean?

I can only think of a few ranger spells that don't support both styles (conjure barrage, conjure volley, and swift quiver) two of which you don't get until level 17, and two of which you can easily carry a thrown weapon with you to get benefit from.

[Ralanr]

What do you mean?

I can only think of a few ranger spells that don't support both styles (conjure barrage, conjure volley, and swift quiver) two of which you don't get until level 17, and two of which you can easily carry a thrown weapon with you to get benefit from.

Those sound like support of the archery style.
Also, lightning arrow. A ranger only spell that surprised the ever loving hell out of me.

[Nifft]

options *are* power.

Don't be obtuse.

GWM is basically: "When you do the thing you were going to do anyway, you get more damage! Also, more damage!"

Shield Master is: "When you do the thing you were going to do anyway, you get an additional tactical option! Also, two unique types of defense against magic, including one new way to use your Reaction!"

Can you spot the qualitative differences?

[Ralanr]

Don't be obtuse.

GWM is basically: "When you do the thing you were going to do anyway, you get more damage! Also, more damage!"

Shield Master is: "When you do the thing you were going to do anyway, you get an additional tactical option! Also, two unique types of defense against magic, including one new way to use your Reaction!"

Can you spot the qualitative differences?

I can't see anyone other than a barbarian that wouldn't have issues with a -5.

Options are power. Some options more than others but the concept still holds.

Shield master is awesome though.

[Nifft]

I can't see anyone other than a barbarian that wouldn't have issues with a -5.

Bless and a +3 sword do a lot to mitigate that -5. Too much, IMHO.

But you seem to be forgetting the other function, which apparently gives extra attacks (= extra damage) for zero tactical impact.

[Ralanr]

Bless and a +3 sword do a lot to mitigate that -5. Too much, IMHO.

But you seem to be forgetting the other function, which apparently gives extra attacks (= extra damage) for zero tactical impact.

You mean the "hit the guy next to the other guy if you roll a crit or kill him"?

I can't imagine how hitting another person before your next turn has zero tactical impact at all.

[Nifft]

You mean the "hit the guy next to the other guy if you roll a crit or kill him"?

I can't imagine how hitting another person before your next turn has zero tactical impact at all.

Because it's just another attack, and apparently (to my unhappy surprise) you're not required to hit the guy next to anyone, you can walk across the room before using your bonus action attack.

Seriously, what's tactically different about your play between "3 attacks" vs. "3 attacks, or 4 if you kill a dude"? Be specific.

[Ralanr]

Because it's just another attack, and apparently (to my unhappy surprise) you're not required to hit the guy next to anyone, you can walk across the room before using your bonus action attack.

Seriously, what's tactically different about your play between "3 attacks" vs. "3 attacks, or 4 if you kill a dude"? Be specific.

Scenario:
There are 5 people and tou believe you have 5 bullets. But you also suck at counting and can't check at the moment. Let's say you're a great shot and kill 4 and wound the last one, who is now pointing a gun at you. Then on defensive reflex you pull the trigger at the wounded guy. Boom! He's dead and you need math lessons."

The problem here is that you don't know you have that extra shot. But the person playing you knows. Just like the person controlling the guy with GWM

[Nifft]

Scenario:
There are 5 people and tou believe you have 5 bullets. But you also suck at counting and can't check at the moment. Let's say you're a great shot and kill 4 and wound the last one, who is now pointing a gun at you. Then on defensive reflex you pull the trigger at the wounded guy. Boom! He's dead and you need math lessons."

The problem here is that you don't know you have that extra shot. But the person playing you knows. Just like the person controlling the guy with GWM

I don't see any tactics in that, just a mostly incoherent non-D&D situation which gave you the opportunity to use phrases like "you also suck" and "you need math lessons", which seem vaguely insulting but whatever.

But maybe the tactic is just hidden, deep in the subtle narrative. Could you highlight what different tactic you used, which a person would not have chosen to use if that person lacked GWM?

(Also, try to use a situation with melee weapons instead of guns, because seriously, what the hell.)

[georgie_leech]

I don't see any tactics in that, just a mostly incoherent non-D&D situation which gave you the opportunity to use phrases like "you also suck" and "you need math lessons", which seem vaguely insulting but whatever.

But maybe the tactic is just hidden, deep in the subtle narrative. Could you highlight what different tactic you used, which a person would not have chosen to use if that person lacked GWM?

(Also, try to use a situation with melee weapons instead of guns, because seriously, what the hell.)

GWM is a feat that encourages the taker to get into the thick of combat more often; they'll be adjacent to enemies much more often, as they're encouraged to immediately chase after a new target if they drop their current, out of a desire to not "waste" the bonus attack.

[dropbear8mybaby]

I don't see any tactics in that...

{scrubbed}

You have a point but that doesn't mean that point extends into infinity. There is an end to it and there are degrees. GWM does expand ones tactical options it just doesn't do it as much as other options. More damage is a tactical option, as is doing it to an extra target. {scrubbed}

[Nifft]

GWM is a feat that encourages the taker to get into the thick of combat more often; they'll be adjacent to enemies much more often

That was my initial impression, but apparently it's not actually true.

If that were true, I would totally agree with you.

I wish that were true.

[Ralanr]

I don't see any tactics in that, just a mostly incoherent non-D&D situation which gave you the opportunity to use phrases like "you also suck" and "you need math lessons", which seem vaguely insulting but whatever.

But maybe the tactic is just hidden, deep in the subtle narrative. Could you highlight what different tactic you used, which a person would not have chosen to use if that person lacked GWM?

(Also, try to use a situation with melee weapons instead of guns, because seriously, what the hell.)

I apologize if you believe I was directing anything negative towards you, I was trying to be humorous and failed horribly.

You also specified "extra attack" if I remember correctly.

[Nifft]

I think at this point you're just being argumentative for the sake of it and continuing to do so to hold on to the thread of your argument even if it's all wrapped up in knots.

You have a point but that doesn't mean that point extends into infinity. There is an end to it and there are degrees. GWM does expand ones tactical options it just doesn't do it as much as other options. More damage is a tactical option, as is doing it to an extra target. Stop being obstinate.

I'm not being obstinate, I just don't think "you get 4 attacks" implies any different tactics than "you get 3 attacks". It's not a new option, it's not a more interesting use of an existing option, it's just more of the same.

It's a boring power-up, which is not the same as the expanded options offered by better, more interesting feats.

[georgie_leech]

That was my initial impression, but apparently it's not actually true.

If that were true, I would totally agree with you.

I wish that were true.

Um... no, they are explicitly encouraged to immediately move to a new target after dropping the first. Not stand next to multiple creatures, but they're more likely to have attacks left over after dropping a creature (in fact, they will always have at least one), and so are encouraged to use any available movement to immediately go after another. If two Fighter 20's each use 4 attacks to drop a foe, but one has GWM, that Fighter is encouraged to run after another target to get their bonus attack, while the other isn't.

In other words, since that single bonus attack is unlikely to drop a creature, a GWM user is more likely to be adjacent to something threatening at the end of their turn.

[Nifft]

I apologize if you believe I was directing anything negative towards you, I was trying to be humorous and failed horribly.

You also specified "extra attack" if I remember correctly. Yeah humor can be difficult over the interweb, especially in the middle of an argument-slash-discussion. No harm, no foul.

Anyway.

Here's the sort of thing I'm looking for in terms of tactics:
- Shield Mastery - I can push a dude away from my allies and then move into the space he previously occupied.
- Polearm Mastery - I could hide behind the shield-guy, but with the feat, now I get more attacks if I stand up in front. So I'm going to take point when I want to be more offense-oriented.
- Defensive Duelist - There's one ogre in front, and six goblins in back. I choose to go handle the ogre myself, while my allies take care of the goblins, because I'm much better at avoiding one big hit than a bunch of littler attacks.

Those are not the only tactical implications, but they're the simplest ones I could think up.

I want something similar from GWM -- I want it to change the tactical choices that a player makes.

[Nifft]

Um... no, they are explicitly encouraged to immediately move to a new target after dropping the first. Not stand next to multiple creatures, but they're more likely to have attacks left over after dropping a creature (in fact, they will always have at least one), and so are encouraged to use any available movement to immediately go after another. If two Fighter 20's each use 4 attacks to drop a foe, but one has GWM, that Fighter is encouraged to run after another target to get their bonus attack, while the other isn't.

In other words, since that single bonus attack is unlikely to drop a creature, a GWM user is more likely to be adjacent to something threatening at the end of their turn.

That does not follow. This is equally likely:

Attack (kill) -> move -> Attack x3
vs.
Attack (kill) -> move -> Attack x4 (kill)

There's no reason to assume that fewer attacks would result in more turns spent away from opponents... unless you're assuming that opponents ~always~ die on the last normal attack? But that would be absurd.

[Shining Wrath]

That was my initial impression, but apparently it's not actually true.

If that were true, I would totally agree with you.

I wish that were true.

This DM believes in terrain. Many of us do. So if you've got a 30' move, and you want to use your extra attack, and you've got to go around that table, or over it, or perhaps move through that guy's space and take the opportunity attack to get to the target you really want -

options. And choices. GWM rewards improving your movement rate, encourages you to be proficient in Athletics, and requires some thinking to use properly.

As much as every other martial feat? Perhaps not. But 0 < X < Y does not usually mean X = 0.

[dropbear8mybaby]

I'm not being obstinate, I just don't think "you get 4 attacks" implies any different tactics than "you get 3 attacks".

That's almost the dictionary definition of tactics...

[Nifft]

This DM believes in terrain. Many of us do. So if you've got a 30' move, and you want to use your extra attack, and you've got to go around that table, or over it, or perhaps move through that guy's space and take the opportunity attack to get to the target you really want -

options. And choices. GWM rewards improving your movement rate, encourages you to be proficient in Athletics, and requires some thinking to use properly.

As much as every other martial feat? Perhaps not. But 0 < X < Y does not usually mean X = 0. Everything you say is equally true for a Fighter with 3 attacks and no feats.

The feat has zero impact on the player's choices.

That makes it a bad combat feat.



That's almost the dictionary definition of tactics... {scrubbed}

[dropbear8mybaby]

{scrubbed}

Sigh, no you just don't want to see what it's contributing. Getting an extra attack and choosing how to use it is tactics. Maybe you don't understand the meaning of the word, I don't know, but you obstinately refusing to acknowledge the reality of it is what's turning a discussion into an argument that is now just going in circles rather than progressing. So I'm out. Have fun thinking you're right when everyone else disagrees with you.

[QuadraticW]

The main problem with the small selection of feats is that each and every one of them is available from level 1. That means that you get the best feats first, then those less desirable as you level up.

The only reason I can think of that they don't have tiers of feats for the tiers of play is that 4e already solved the problem of feat chains by doing exactly that.

[Ralanr]

The main problem with the small selection of feats is that each and every one of them is available from level 1. That means that you get the best feats first, then those less desirable as you level up.

The only reason I can think of that they don't have tiers of feats for the tiers of play is that 4e already solved the problem of feat chains by doing exactly that.

This sounds like a variant human problem.

[Nifft]

The main problem with the small selection of feats is that each and every one of them is available from level 1. That means that you get the best feats first, then those less desirable as you level up.

The only reason I can think of that they don't have tiers of feats for the tiers of play is that 4e already solved the problem of feat chains by doing exactly that.
Perhaps feats should have scaling benefits, based on character level.

Might be too complicated for the benefit, though.


This sounds like a variant human problem. Heh, could be.

However, level 4 is still tier 1.

[Ralanr]

I do see the issue in some feats. Inspiring leader seems like a great early feat.

Not so much later.

[dropbear8mybaby]

I do see the issue in some feats. Inspiring leader seems like a great early feat.

Not so much later.

I think it's still great at level 20. Consider that most classes that will take it will be Charisma-based which means at level 20 you're giving 25 temporary hit points every short rest. At 20th-level a sorcerer or wizard with no Con bonus (I know, a rarity but still we have to compare base values) will only have 82 hit points. That extra 25 is a significant boost to survivability. Even a barbarian will only have 145 hit points (not including Con bonus) so that 25 temporary hit points represents a (if I have my math right) roughly 15% boost to hit points.

Plus, who doesn't love the guy that gives them a bunch of extra hit points every short rest?

[Ralanr]

I think it's still great at level 20. Consider that most classes that will take it will be Charisma-based which means at level 20 you're giving 25 temporary hit points every short rest. At 20th-level a sorcerer or wizard with no Con bonus (I know, a rarity but still we have to compare base values) will only have 82 hit points. That extra 25 is a significant boost to survivability. Even a barbarian will only have 145 hit points (not including Con bonus) so that 25 temporary hit points represents a (if I have my math right) roughly 15% boost to hit points.

Plus, who doesn't love the guy that gives them a bunch of extra hit points every short rest?

It's that low for a sorcerer by then?

Wow. I guess it's because I play barbarian, but I expected a bit higher in life total.

[dropbear8mybaby]

It's that low for a sorcerer by then?

Wow. I guess it's because I play barbarian, but I expected a bit higher in life total.

Assuming you're using the static hit points and not rolled, yeah. Even then, over 20 levels it's most likely that you'll average to that amount anyway. d6 means 4 points per level, 6 at first level, so 82 at 20th. This is one of the reasons why Con is such a popular stat even though it only applies to saving throws and hit points. Even just a +1 Con bonus will give you an extra 20 hit points by 20th-level.

[Ralanr]

Assuming you're using the static hit points and not rolled, yeah. Even then, over 20 levels it's most likely that you'll average to that amount anyway. d6 means 4 points per level, 6 at first level, so 82 at 20th. This is one of the reasons why Con is such a popular stat even though it only applies to saving throws and hit points. Even just a +1 Con bonus will give you an extra 20 hit points by 20th-level.

I honestly can't imagine a game where the stat that increases your health pool isn't important. Even if that's all it did.

[Psikerlord]

where are they all? is it just in the PHB? there needs to be a way bigger list somewhere. Pathfinder did it better with their "MORE FEATS!" way of doing things.

is there a site with an official list?

the phb feats are just examples. youre supposed to make your own custom feats, just like making your backgrounds, or even classes/subclasses. in co-operation/consultation with your dm/table of course.

Custom feats are the best part about feats. You are free to cook up whatever you like. :smallsmile:

[Ralanr]

the phb feats are just examples. youre supposed to make your own custom feats, just like making your backgrounds, or even classes/subclasses. in co-operation/consultation with your dm/table of course.

Custom feats are the best part about feats. You are free to cook up whatever you like. :smallsmile:

This is the first I've heard of this.

[Daishain]

This is the first I've heard of this.
That's less of a hard rule and more of an extension of 5E design philosophy. DMs are encouraged to create new content, and large chunks of the DMG are devoted to guidelines for creating new content.

Now, the players making up their own feats... that's a minefield that I suspect most DMs are likely not to mess with at all.

[Shining Wrath]

Everything you say is equally true for a Fighter with 3 attacks and no feats.

The feat has zero impact on the player's choices.

That makes it a bad combat feat.


That's almost a contribution to the conversation.

(Almost is a fancy word for "not".)

I see that you define good as "allows character to undertake an action they previously could not perform". So if, e.g., there was a feat that let me add +20 to my attack and damage rolls and granted 10 extra attacks per round, that would be inferior to a feat that let me taunt the enemy and granted a 5% chance that he might have to attack me on his next turn. The first gives no new capability, the second does.

No one else has to accept this definition of goodness, and I think very few people do. Do you have an argument not based on this semantic trick?

[Fwiffo86]

The feat has zero impact on the player's choices.


If you are saying what I think you are saying, I think your logic is faulty. Do you mean that an additional attack granted for making sure an opponent is downed as efficiently as possible, to enable you to enhanced the speed at which you eliminate a secondary target is tactically unsound or meaningless?

Tactics is much more than positioning, or having additional options at your disposal. If your opinion is contrary to this, it is possible that your understanding of what tactics are, may be the underlying issue instead.

[Psikerlord]

That's less of a hard rule and more of an extension of 5E design philosophy. DMs are encouraged to create new content, and large chunks of the DMG are devoted to guidelines for creating new content.

Now, the players making up their own feats... that's a minefield that I suspect most DMs are likely not to mess with at all.
Yes it is part of 5e design philosophy.

The DMG and Unearthed Arcana promote optional rules, tinkering with rules, making new sub-classes, classes, backgrounds and spells. Feats must surely also included in the mix. There are already examples of new feats in UA (Dragonmarked feats and the gnome feat). In our game for example we have a Psionic Initiate feat and a Whip Master feat.

If you are not thinking about how you can create cool, interesting, custom made feats for your PC or your players, you are missing out! Of course, like anything in 5e, your table/DM needs to be cool with it.

[Nifft]

I see that you define good as "allows character to undertake an action they previously could not perform". So if, e.g., there was a feat that let me add +20 to my attack and damage rolls and granted 10 extra attacks per round, that would be inferior to a feat that let me taunt the enemy and granted a 5% chance that he might have to attack me on his next turn. The first gives no new capability, the second does.

No one else has to accept this definition of goodness, and I think very few people do. Do you have an argument not based on this semantic trick? You are using the definition of "good for the PC", which is not the correct definition to consider when designing a feat.

I am using "good for the game".

I doubt anyone would consider that a feat which grants +20 to attack and damage would be good for the game -- that sort of thing would be terrible design, for very obvious reasons.

If these reasons aren't obvious to you, let me know, and I'll explain why.


If you are saying what I think you are saying, I think your logic is faulty. Do you mean that an additional attack granted for making sure an opponent is downed as efficiently as possible, to enable you to enhanced the speed at which you eliminate a secondary target is tactically unsound or meaningless? What I mean is that "making sure an opponent is downed as efficiently as possible, to enable you to enhanced [sic] the speed at which you eliminate a secondary target" is exactly what every character is trying to do anyway, all the time, even if Feats don't exist in the game.

If you're trying to imply that "making sure an opponent is downed as efficiently as possible" is only possible with GWM, then you're wrong.


Tactics is much more than positioning, or having additional options at your disposal. If your opinion is contrary to this, it is possible that your understanding of what tactics are, may be the underlying issue instead. n. The military science that deals with securing objectives set by strategy, especially the technique of deploying and directing troops, ships, and aircraft in effective maneuvers against an enemy: Tactics is a required course at all military academies.
n. Maneuvers used against an enemy: Guerrilla tactics were employed during most of the war.

So yeah, positioning ("deployment") and options ("maneuvers"). Those are what I'm talking about.

The dictionary seems to support my understanding. Does anything support your alleged understanding?

[LaserFace]

My thoughts on GWM ...

Although the Power Attack feature it grants literally gives you a new option, I think the bonus attack feature will mostly only give new options mid-turn if your plans are fundamentally changed by the addition of one attack you randomly get. This may not be frequent, but I do think it's possible to squeeze more into a turn that could result in slightly different play. You probably want to do these things anyway, but because of the randomized outcomes, I think it can add (a little) thinking, and may grant opportunities for your party to do more thinking as well.

So let's say for example you're fighting A, B and C.

A is wounded, but still a considerable threat if unchecked.
B is healthy, blocking the only path to C.
C is an annoying caster or something.

Your options, if you have two attacks, might be either to finish off A and then hit B, alternatively maybe just focus B, or (if the variant rule is allowed) spend one attack to Shove Aside B and start hitting C. Or maybe other things, I dunno.

Your plan is obviously to kill all your enemies - and you'll still move between attacks to do this in the most efficient manner - but maybe with GWM you can come up with a plan that kills A, and then also shoves B aside and hits C. You can't always count on your hits landing, but with GWM you can consider it a possibility, which may be important to weigh if C is concentrating on a spell that hinders your party. If you lacked GWM, your only way to get to C might be by completely ignoring A, because you will only ever have two attacks (and you need to use one to Shove Aside B). But with GWM, you might get to do more, and if you succeed you can give teammates some breathing room or the chance to take different actions. What I mean is that gambling on the possibility of an extra attack can lead you to prioritize different targets, which strikes me as opening at least one alternative, in some cases.

While these scenarios aren't common in my games, I think this demonstrates how GWM can give you another way of looking at how a fight may unfold. That said, I think you're likely do get more opportunity to use tactics with feats like Polearm Master or Sentinel, or something else that changes the rules of the battlefield, rather than sometimes give you another attack.

[Fwiffo86]

If you're trying to imply that "making sure an opponent is downed as efficiently as possible" is only possible with GWM, then you're wrong.

I am not implying that at all, and I find it interesting that you read that into my post. I will clarify. If I presented an ability to you that allowed your character to accomplish his goal 20% faster than he would normally, would you take it? Is it not tactically sound to enhance your ability in such a way?

My point is that just because something enhances something that already exists, doesn't mean it isn't a tactical option. I understand your point of view, you are not forcing your opponents to change their own strategy by making them move, or interposing yourself to prevent proper target acquisition. I get that. I take issue with your dismissing an additional attack triggered by an event as a non-tactical option when I genuinely feel it is.



n. The military science that deals with securing objectives set by strategy, especially the technique of deploying and directing troops, ships, and aircraft in effective maneuvers against an enemy: Tactics is a required course at all military academies.
n. Maneuvers used against an enemy: Guerrilla tactics were employed during most of the war.

So yeah, positioning ("deployment") and options ("maneuvers"). Those are what I'm talking about.

The dictionary seems to support my understanding. Does anything support your alleged understanding?

I am not going to get into a dictionary debate with you. You're own post supports both our positions, rendering it as useless evidence.

[Nifft]

I am not implying that at all, and I find it interesting that you read that into my post. I will clarify. If I presented an ability to you that allowed your character to accomplish his goal 20% faster than he would normally, would you take it? Is it not tactically sound to enhance your ability in such a way? You're confusing "good for the PC" with "good for the game". Those are not the same thing.

Illustration: If you could take a feat which allowed your character to just kill every enemy in line-of-sight -- no rolling, they're just dead -- would you take it?

You'd be a fool if you didn't, but you'd also be a fool if you thought that feat was good game design.



My point is that just because something enhances something that already exists, doesn't mean it isn't a tactical option. I understand your point of view, you are not forcing your opponents to change their own strategy by making them move, or interposing yourself to prevent proper target acquisition. I get that. I take issue with your dismissing an additional attack triggered by an event as a non-tactical option when I genuinely feel it is.
It's not an option because you don't have any choice about when it happens.

It's not a new or different tactic because it's exactly the same thing you can already do.

It's nothing more than a random power-up of something you were going to do anyway. It's not presenting a different tactic, nor a choice.

Like I said above, if it had a positioning constraint, such that you wanted to be next to TWO bad guys instead of one, that would make it significantly better in terms of game design. It would change the player's decision process about optimal positioning. That's good.



it is possible that your understanding of what tactics are, may be the underlying issue instead.

I am not going to get into a dictionary debate with you.

Well, in the future, you might want to not try to start such a debate. :biggrin:

Certainly you should avoid starting a dictionary debate without looking at a dictionary, or you'll get caught in an obvious fact-fail again.

[Fwiffo86]

You're confusing "good for the PC" with "good for the game". Those are not the same thing.


We are not discussing the same thing. I have no opinion on what is good for the PC or the game. I offered no opinion on it either. I am simply bringing to point "MY" opinion, that a feat that grants additional attacks is a valid tactical choice. Your opinion is that it is not. Your evidence is that all it does is add to what a character already has, and therefor offers nothing additional, which is thus not a tactical decision the player makes.

I counter with the fact that a GWF who moves to a nearly defeated opponent (damaged by other players abilities and attacks) is making the tactical decision to eliminate the target (thus preventing retaliatory attacks) and gaining the bonus of an additional attack which he can move to a new target and execute. How is this not a tactical decision?



Well, in the future, you might want to not try to start such a debate. :biggrin:

Certainly you should avoid starting a dictionary debate without looking at a dictionary, or you'll get caught in an obvious fact-fail again.

Are you attempting to be humorous? You may want to pay attention to what is actually being said, as opposed to what you believe is being said. Comprehension of the post is vital.

[Shining Wrath]

You are using the definition of "good for the PC", which is not the correct definition to consider when designing a feat.

I am using "good for the game".

I doubt anyone would consider that a feat which grants +20 to attack and damage would be good for the game -- that sort of thing would be terrible design, for very obvious reasons.

... SNIP ...

I'll try again. Setting aside the specific illustrations, you argue that the only feats which are good for the game are ones that let the player take actions which are qualitatively different than their options without that feat.

I do not agree. I don't think many do.

Is Resilience a bad feat because it only grants proficiency in a save and +1 to an ability? It's passive, especially if taken for Constitution.

I'll give you a different definition of "good"; a good feat is one that lets me create a character that matches my concept. And there's lots of different character concepts. The only bad feats are those that don't really help a character accomplish any in-game task. Some feats are clearly better than others, and D&D 5e does not support all concepts equally. But if my character concept includes "tough as nails", then Resilience(Constitution) is a good feat, even though it grants no actions at all.

[Nifft]

We are not discussing the same thing. I have no opinion on what is good for the PC or the game. I offered no opinion on it either. I am simply bringing to point "MY" opinion
Why are you even bothering to join in the conversation if you didn't intend to discuss the same topic?

And why do you keep quoting me if you ~knew~ you weren't discussing the same thing?

The fact that you have an opinion on an unrelated topic is not relevant to ... anything, really.



I'll try again. Setting aside the specific illustrations, you argue that the only feats which are good for the game are ones that let the player take actions which are qualitatively different than their options without that feat. You've misread or misunderstood my position.


Is Resilience a bad feat because it only grants proficiency in a save and +1 to an ability? It's passive, especially if taken for Constitution. Nah, Resilience is fine.

Did you notice what I said about Warcaster? That's applicable to Resilience.


I'll give you a different definition of "good"; a good feat is one that lets me create a character that matches my concept. And there's lots of different character concepts.

My character concept is "better than your character at literally everything", so I can get my +20 bonus to literally everything, right?

Is that what you think is good design?

It looks very, very bad to me.

2e Bladesinger bad.

[Shining Wrath]

Why are you even bothering to join in the conversation if you didn't intend to discuss the same topic?

And why do you keep quoting me if you ~knew~ you weren't discussing the same thing?

The fact that you have an opinion on an unrelated topic is not relevant to ... anything, really.


You've misread or misunderstood my position.

Nah, Resilience is fine.

Did you notice what I said about Warcaster? That's applicable to Resilience.



My character concept is "better than your character at literally everything", so I can get my +20 bonus to literally everything, right?

Is that what you think is good design?

It looks very, very bad to me.

2e Bladesinger bad.

Never said there was no need for balance, and if that's your idea of fun good luck having people play with you.

[Nifft]

Never said there was no need for balance

{scrubbed}

What you're saying is that you think it's okay to have a feat which just makes one character flat-out better at what he was doing already.

To me, that says either what he was doing already was mechanically weak -- and for front-line melee, it's simply not the case that making melee attacks is mechanically weak -- or it says that the feat is breaking the game's balance.

{scrubbed}

[Fwiffo86]

{scrubbed}

[Nifft]

{scrubbed}

[dropbear8mybaby]

{scrubbed}

[Nifft]

{scrubbed}

It's probably because I make an effort to be nice, so people who think they can bully their way through an argument give me a go.

Then they fail, and they learn that nice isn't the same as weak.

Maybe some even try being nice, eventually.

[Shining Wrath]

{scrubbed}

What you're saying is that you think it's okay to have a feat which just makes one character flat-out better at what he was doing already.

To me, that says either what he was doing already was mechanically weak -- and for front-line melee, it's simply not the case that making melee attacks is mechanically weak -- or it says that the feat is breaking the game's balance.

{scrubbed}

Feats that you seem to approve of, such as Warcaster, make a spell caster better at what he already did - casting spells in the face of the enemy. Getting better at what you do as you level up is in fact pretty much the point of the game.

I never seriously meant for there to be +20 to hit, +10 attacks. I hope you realized that was hyperbole.

[Nifft]

Feats that you seem to approve of, such as Warcaster, make a spell caster better at what he already did - casting spells in the face of the enemy. Getting better at what you do as you level up is in fact pretty much the point of the game. Nah. What it does is change "must avoid melee" into "can keep Concentration in melee".

Casting in the enemy's face is NOT what a Sorcerer, Warlock or Wizard does by default. It's expressly a bad idea because of the mechanics which Warcaster changes.


I never seriously meant for there to be +20 to hit, +10 attacks. I hope you realized that was hyperbole. We have both used hyperbole in this conversation. I hope you figured mine out, too.

[AbyssStalker]

Sorry, but in this case "power is power", and tactics in essence, is the proper application of power.

If you are wielding a great weapon, than odds are, you REALLY want that damage and likely want to be upfront presenting an intimidating target for your enemies to either quail or assail at instead of your allies, now, if I were some poor goblin schmuck in combat, I would be a little more focused on the man who just cleaved through my brother in arms and wounded me in the same hit than as to one who couldn't (or more importantly, ISN'T), and so would the rest of the goblins in any kind of proximity to the man.

I think there should be a better way of representing this than what they do with GWM, but it is better than nothing and does contribute in it's own way to the ideal.

[Fwiffo86]

What I mean is that "making sure an opponent is downed as efficiently as possible, to enable you to enhanced [sic] the speed at which you eliminate a secondary target" is exactly what every character is trying to do anyway, all the time, even if Feats don't exist in the game.

First, the quoted post doesn't actually say anything helpful. It does not offer anything that can be used as evidence or support. You are simply stating something, or in this case clarifying another post. You do not offer any sort of angle to apply this to the discussion. Please explain further. How does doing what you normally do at a 20% increased rate the same? How does dropping one opponent to enable you to immediately attack another opponent out of sequence the same as before? To my knowledge, the rules do not allow you to just randomly attack more than your class allows in all other circumstances. I understand that you feel more attacks is more of the same. I get that. I don't see it that way. I see it as a form of triggered haste. Something a character could not do before the feat = a option/tool the player did not previously have.

Your argument is that its just the same and offers no additional "tactical" value and is thus bad "for the game". Yet you do not offer any support for why you think it's bad for the game, you simply declare an opinion and drop it. I have offered on more than one post, why I think GWF is a sound "tactical" feat. You never address my offered support. You never offer counter evidence other than the quoted statement above. You instead choose other things about my posts that are not relevant and focus on them. As far as your quote...

Eliminate opponents is what everyone is trying to do all the time is generally true, if a bit narrowly defined. Granted, the dropping of an opponent (in my opinion) is far superior to any other form of control (charm/holds/etc). However, that doesn't change the fact that a feat that allows you to Drop goblin 1, move your full move to attack goblin 2 when you would only be able to drop the first and then ONLY move to the second is, in fact a good tactical option to choose. It keeps the GWF fighter in someone's face every round they can manage it. Is that not what you were explaining? That interposition is part of tactics? I am trying very hard to understand why you think otherwise when you have used the example of standing between enemies and allies.

[Nifft]

To my knowledge, the rules do not allow you to just randomly attack more than your class allows in all other circumstances. {scrubbed}


Something a character could not do before the feat = a option/tool the player did not previously have. GWM is not providing an option because you have no choice regarding when it triggers, and you have no choice about what you do with the triggered bonus.


Your argument is that its just the same and offers no additional "tactical" value and is thus bad "for the game". Yet you do not offer any support for why you think it's bad for the game, you simply declare an opinion and drop it. Well, I did explain several times that simply adding bigger numbers was specifically what I think is bad for the game.

See, this is 5e. In 5e, there are no generic +X bonus adder feats. There is no Spell Focus. There is no Weapon Focus. There are no belts of +6 Strength. Those things were declared to be bad for the game, and were cut out of this edition.

So, when I see a feat which is behaving suspiciously like a +X bonus adder feat, I consider it to be just as bad as the rest of them.

If you need an explanation on why 5e eliminated that sort of +X bonus adder, I'm sure you can find that being discussed somewhere else.


Eliminate opponents is what everyone is trying to do all the time is generally true, if a bit narrowly defined. Granted, the dropping of an opponent (in my opinion) is far superior to any other form of control (charm/holds/etc). However, that doesn't change the fact that a feat that allows you to Drop goblin 1, move your full move to attack goblin 2 when you would only be able to drop the first and then ONLY move to the second is, in fact a good tactical option to choose. It keeps the GWF fighter in someone's face every round they can manage it. Is that not what you were explaining? That interposition is part of tactics? I am trying very hard to understand why you think otherwise when you have used the example of standing between enemies and allies. You keep trying to say that every thing a character does in combat is a "tactic".

That's a disingenuous argument, since what I'm discussing is feats that give new tactics or change the value of currently low-value tactics.

GWM does not change the player's choice of tactics. All it does is make what the default action even better.

Here, let me give you an example:

No Feats: "I hit it with my big sword."
Has GWM: "I hit it with my big sword."

For contrast, here's a similar comparison featuring Polearm Master:

No Feats: "I have reach, so I stand behind the shield-cleric."
Has PM: "I want to use my reach to catch an opponent on approach, so I stand in front of the shield-cleric."

Do you notice how one of these feats changed the behavior of the character? That is what I wish to see.

[sigfile]

That's a disingenuous argument, since what I'm discussing is feats that give new tactics or change the value of current tactics.

GWM does not change the player's tactics. All it does is make what the default action even better.

Which is the definition of "changing the value of current tactics."

[Nifft]

Which is the definition of "changing the value of current tactics."

Ah, you caught a mistake, thanks.

Yeah, what I should have said is, "Changing the value of tactics which are usually low-value".

Changing the value of the best tactic such that it remains the best tactic is ... a change which makes no difference, so it's technically a change, but not practically.

[Fwiffo86]

{scrubbed}


This is an ability available to every character regardless of class. I therefore do not consider it a class ability/feat. Meaning more specifically, that it is meaningless to the discussion at hand since we are discussing feats.



GWM is not providing an option because you have no choice regarding when it triggers, and you have no choice about what you do with the triggered bonus.

True, you have no choice when it is triggered. False that you have no choice what to do with that trigger. You are free to move and attack as you wish. While I am AFB, I would wager you can also use that triggered attack to push, trip, grapple, etc. I cannot say for sure as again, I am AFB. Someone will have to fact check this.



Here, let me give you an example:

No Feats: "I hit it with my big sword."
Has GWM: "I hit it with my big sword."

For contrast, here's a similar comparison featuring Polearm Master:

No Feats: "I have reach, so I stand behind the shield-cleric."
Has PM: "I want to use my reach to catch an opponent on approach, so I stand in front of the shield-cleric."

Do you notice how one of these feats changed the behavior of the character? That is what I wish to see.

No Feat Polearm: I have reach, so I stand behind the shield cleric to attack when he can't hit me.
Has PM: I use my reach to attack when he can't hit me and back away.

Its the same tactic. You prevent a counter attack by using reach. Which is a function of the weapon itself. PM grants an AOO when they enter, a triggered attack (the same as GWF, albeit more reliable) and an additional attack at reduced damage (as TWF). I am not seeing anything in PM that isn't available elsewhere. All that is changing is the condition of the trigger of the attack.

[Nifft]

This is an ability available to every character regardless of class. I therefore do not consider it a class ability/feat. Meaning more specifically, that it is meaningless to the discussion at hand since we are discussing feats. Feats are not class abilities. That's kind of their point.


True, you have no choice when it is triggered. False that you have no choice what to do with that trigger. You are free to move and attack as you wish. Ah, of course. You can take any action you want! As long as it's an attack. Very persuasive reasoning. :D


No Feat Polearm: I have reach, so I stand behind the shield cleric to attack when he can't hit me.
Has PM: I use my reach to attack when he can't hit me and back away.

Its the same tactic. You prevent a counter attack by using reach. It's not the same tactic. It's not similar at all if you think about how the shield-cleric feels, since his situation is radically different.

In one case, the polearm guy is using the shield-cleric as a meat-shield.

In the other case, the polearm guy is protecting the shield-cleric.

That's different in a very significant way.

You've gotta think about how your allies feel, you know. It's simple human empathy. Or dwarf empathy.

[georgie_leech]

Feats are not class abilities. That's kind of their point.

Ah, of course. You can take any action you want! As long as it's an attack. Very persuasive reasoning. :D

It's not the same tactic. It's not similar at all if you think about how the shield-cleric feels, since his situation is radically different.

In one case, the polearm guy is using the shield-cleric as a meat-shield.

In the other case, the polearm guy is protecting the shield-cleric.

That's different in a very significant way.

You've gotta think about how your allies feel, you know. It's simple human empathy. Or dwarf empathy.

Okay. Human Fighter, uses a Greatsword, took GWM. Lets say level 1.

Without GWM: Hit a guy, killed them.
With GWM: Hit a guy, killed them, charged off to hit a second guy.

This human fighter is now playing in a different manner than they would have if they hadn't had the feat.

[Fighting_Ferret]

You folks are arguing over a small technicality, but a rather important one, I think. One side argues that GWM offers no tactical options in it's current form. You were going to hit an enemy and if you critical hit or kill an enemy you can make another attack as a bonus action. His argument is that if it is used to kill an opponent, you can then use you movement to move to an other enemy and get a free attack. It centers around the movement. If you just get a free attack as a bonus, then the feat is only granting you bonus damage (which is fine, he is just arguing that it doesn't allow for anything you wouldn't have done anyway... it's a valid fighting style, he just sees feats as adding something new). He would prefer that the extra attack from the critical hit be used against that opponent (and it most likely would), but he initially thought that the bonus attack was limited to an enemy within five feet of you, therefore encouraging the GWM to take on multiple opponents, in order to get their bonus attack (a tactical decision vs damage output and defence).

The other side is arguing that the entire reason to go GWM is for increased damage, and countering his argument by stating hitting harder is tactically sound. Hitting harder is a valid fighting technique, and it is inherently built into both the weapon style and the feat.

The main argument is should feats allow you different options or enhance your existing options. He says more options and you say enhance. This is an agree to disagree thing that an easily be solved at each table by house rulings. I agree that the extra attack from GWM should be on an existing enemy within your current attack distance, much like whirlwind attack, and I would rule it that way in my game. The main benefit is the extra damage with the the penalty... you know it's good, because almost no abilities in 5e come with drawbacks/penalties and there are numerous ways to negate that penalty, which is a flat -5 and not disadvantage as other penalties would be. If damage output is your thing, I have nothing against the GWM feat. I do have issues with GWF fighting style and how people want to use it to re-roll extra damage not caused by the weapon itself (looking at you smite), but that's another argument, which is also very easily covered by a DM explaining how they see it working.

[mephnick]

Yeah, I get what Nifft is getting at with GWM and I also have a problem with it. It is a dull feat that almost sounds required to be taken by anyone that wants to be "the damage dealer" of the party. As a DM, I'd prefer my players to take Shield Master, or Actor, or Linguist, or anything else because they add something to the game that wasn't there before. I think that's all Nifft is saying and this has probably devolved into a nothing argument.

[Nifft]

You folks are arguing over a small technicality, but a rather important one, I think. One side argues that GWM offers no tactical options in it's current form. You were going to hit an enemy and if you critical hit or kill an enemy you can make another attack as a bonus action. His argument is that if it is used to kill an opponent, you can then use you movement to move to an other enemy and get a free attack. It centers around the movement. If you just get a free attack as a bonus, then the feat is only granting you bonus damage (which is fine, he is just arguing that it doesn't allow for anything you wouldn't have done anyway... it's a valid fighting style, he just sees feats as adding something new). He would prefer that the extra attack from the critical hit be used against that opponent (and it most likely would), but he initially thought that the bonus attack was limited to an enemy within five feet of you, therefore encouraging the GWM to take on multiple opponents, in order to get their bonus attack (a tactical decision vs damage output and defence).

The other side is arguing that the entire reason to go GWM is for increased damage, and countering his argument by stating hitting harder is tactically sound. Hitting harder is a valid fighting technique, and it is inherently built into both the weapon style and the feat.

The main argument is should feats allow you different options or enhance your existing options. He says more options and you say enhance. This is an agree to disagree thing that an easily be solved at each table by house rulings. I agree that the extra attack from GWM should be on an existing enemy within your current attack distance, much like whirlwind attack, and I would rule it that way in my game. The main benefit is the extra damage with the the penalty... you know it's good, because almost no abilities in 5e come with drawbacks/penalties and there are numerous ways to negate that penalty, which is a flat -5 and not disadvantage as other penalties would be. If damage output is your thing, I have nothing against the GWM feat. I do have issues with GWF fighting style and how people want to use it to re-roll extra damage not caused by the weapon itself (looking at you smite), but that's another argument, which is also very easily covered by a DM explaining how they see it working.


Yeah, I get what Nifft is getting at with GWM and I also have a problem with it. It is a dull feat that almost sounds required to be taken by anyone that wants to be "the damage dealer" of the party. As a DM, I'd prefer my players to take Shield Master, or Actor, or Linguist, or anything else because they add something to the game that wasn't there before. I think that's all Nifft is saying and this has probably devolved into a nothing argument.

These folks seem to have a good understanding of my argument and position.

[Fwiffo86]

Feats are not class abilities. That's kind of their point.

I counter with you give up ASI for a feat. ASI is a class ability (granted every class has it, but it is level codified, and not something you can just "elect" to do, such as shove, or dual-wield, or rest to regain Hit Die.



Ah, of course. You can take any action you want! As long as it's an attack. Very persuasive reasoning. :D

As I said before, it needs fact checking. But if the ability to use your "bonus" attack allows you to do anything you could with an attack action (push, trip, shout, etc) the usefulness of that bonus attack is increased exponentially. If I can drop goblin one and as a bonus action trip goblin two giving the remaining melee characters advantage on all of their attack rolls until the goblin gets up, that is vastly more useful than just hitting it again. That is all I'm saying.



It's not the same tactic. It's not similar at all if you think about how the shield-cleric feels, since his situation is radically different.

To my knowledge, we were not considering outside influences to the scenario. If you wish to expand the scenario, then yes, I can see your point. But what you are discussing now is the reactions of the cleric, who neither has GWF or PM. His feelings on the matter are an entirely different issue.

Good Feat/Bad Feat
I disagree with the logic that feats to be considered "good for the game" are constrained to feats that add something to your character that did not exist before. This is a narrow perspective. A good feat should be judged on its usefulness to character concept and utility (utility not defined as number of options, but in quantity of usage). A feat that obviously calls into question balance issues warrants additional adjudication

[LaserFace]

I don't think anyone is arguing the Usefulness of GWM, as much as what it's actually doing. Is it giving you more options vs is it just boosting your ability to do the same things in fewer turns. You can already trip, disarm, shove etc; I think it comes down to whether or not having the option to maybe do one more thing necessarily change your tactics. I think sometimes it can, but I don't know how frequent that really is.

I think "Good for the Game" feat discussion tends to relate to how much a feat further defines a character as a distinct individual - rather than making them stronger - because ideally everything we do in an RPG is somehow geared towards elements of immersive storytelling and whatever. Er, to me, anyway.

I don't know if GWM is necessarily bad for my game, but does a bonus attack really enhance my view of a character? What's the concept, "I'm a really good Fighter"? I already knew that by the Fighter levels. If anything, it's the other ability granted by the feat (which lets you opt for -5 to hit for +10 to damage) that gives me imagery, in the form of a daring and reckless hero.

I don't know if efficient feats that add nothing new to playstyle or whatever are necessarily good or bad, but there's nothing creatively inspiring about "And my character is the same as any sword-guy, but he attacks more!"; hopefully there are players out there who give it better justice than that, but nothing comes to me. Meanwhile, Polearm Master is at least giving you an indication of what the character is doing, separate from others like him. It helps to give a clearer picture. I'm not sure the more abstract feats are necessarily bad for a game, but I aspire to give my players reason to be distinct, because I think the game is more fun that way.

[coredump]

Niffft, I understand what you are saying....


lets try a different example, using Warlock Invocations.

Warlock casts EB, does 1D10 damage.

Agonizing Blast does not give him any further options.... it just lets him do what he was already doing...better.

Repelling Blase *does* give him further options.... now he can not only do damage, he can knock someone off a cliff, or into a fire, or whatever.

[Nifft]

Niffft, I understand what you are saying....


lets try a different example, using Warlock Invocations.

Warlock casts EB, does 1D10 damage.

Agonizing Blast does not give him any further options.... it just lets him do what he was already doing...better.

Repelling Blase *does* give him further options.... now he can not only do damage, he can knock someone off a cliff, or into a fire, or whatever.
Agonizing Blast would be a very bad Feat, sure.

It's a fine class feature, though.

The only thing I'd want to change is to make Eldritch Blast and Agonizing Blast REQUIRED for Warlocks, so new players don't risk screwing up one of the most essential "choices" of their careers.

[JNAProductions]

*cough cough Bladelock cough*

Sorry, had a different and perfectly viable build caught in my throat.

[Nifft]

*cough cough Bladelock cough*

Sorry, had a different and perfectly viable build caught in my throat.

Hope it wasn't a ~big~ sword.

I hear those can be bad for your throat.

But, yeah, that's probably why EB / AB isn't required... but it really should be for non-Bladelocks. Not really that difficult, except that they put Pact Boon at level 3 instead of 2.

[JoeJ]

I don't think anyone is arguing the Usefulness of GWM, as much as what it's actually doing. Is it giving you more options vs is it just boosting your ability to do the same things in fewer turns. You can already trip, disarm, shove etc; I think it comes down to whether or not having the option to maybe do one more thing necessarily change your tactics. I think sometimes it can, but I don't know how frequent that really is.

I think "Good for the Game" feat discussion tends to relate to how much a feat further defines a character as a distinct individual - rather than making them stronger - because ideally everything we do in an RPG is somehow geared towards elements of immersive storytelling and whatever. Er, to me, anyway.

I don't know if GWM is necessarily bad for my game, but does a bonus attack really enhance my view of a character? What's the concept, "I'm a really good Fighter"? I already knew that by the Fighter levels. If anything, it's the other ability granted by the feat (which lets you opt for -5 to hit for +10 to damage) that gives me imagery, in the form of a daring and reckless hero.

I don't know if efficient feats that add nothing new to playstyle or whatever are necessarily good or bad, but there's nothing creatively inspiring about "And my character is the same as any sword-guy, but he attacks more!"; hopefully there are players out there who give it better justice than that, but nothing comes to me. Meanwhile, Polearm Master is at least giving you an indication of what the character is doing, separate from others like him. It helps to give a clearer picture. I'm not sure the more abstract feats are necessarily bad for a game, but I aspire to give my players reason to be distinct, because I think the game is more fun that way.

A feat that makes you better at what you already do is very good for defining your character as a specialist at that thing. You've chosen to be very good at doing A, rather than merely competent at A but also able to do B. Compare, for example, a half-orc barbarian with GWM against an otherwise identical half-orc barbarian who took Magic Initiate or Skulker.

[Ralanr]

Agonizing Blast would be a very bad Feat, sure.

It's a fine class feature, though.

The only thing I'd want to change is to make Eldritch Blast and Agonizing Blast REQUIRED for Warlocks, so new players don't risk screwing up one of the most essential "choices" of their careers.

I don't know. If you're playing a low Cha bladelock then that'd be a waste.

Repelling is both awesome and BS

[LaserFace]

A feat that makes you better at what you already do is very good for defining your character as a specialist at that thing. You've chosen to be very good at doing A, rather than merely competent at A but also able to do B. Compare, for example, a half-orc barbarian with GWM against an otherwise identical half-orc barbarian who took Magic Initiate or Skulker.

I don't see a Barbarian who takes Magic Initiate or Skulker to be "merely competent" at fighting. Barbarians are specialized in fighting like a madman on the front lines regardless of feats; they are an optional rule. Edit: Feats are in addition to the features of a class, which define what the character is skilled in doing. The Barbarian with Magic Initiate is also capable of minor magic, the Barbarian GWM is also capable of More Attackingness.

I find the latter to be more abstract, and less interesting. The Trading to-hit for damage feature is interesting, however, because it's not a question of How Much Better Am I At Barbarian-ing Than You Because I'm Specialist Mark II, but it shows how a particular style makes them distinct.

[JoeJ]

I don't see a Barbarian who takes Magic Initiate or Skulker to be "merely competent" at fighting. Barbarians are specialized in fighting like a madman on the front lines regardless of feats; they are an optional rule.

Maybe so, but with Magic Initiate or Skulker they are not as good at hitting their enemies with large weapons as they would have been with GWM. Put another way, a GWM barbarian is more of a specialist, while a Magic Initiate barbarian is more of a generalist. Feats allow the player to choose which path their character will take.

[LaserFace]

Maybe so, but with Magic Initiate or Skulker they are not as good at hitting their enemies with large weapons as they would have been with GWM. Put another way, a GWM barbarian is more of a specialist, while a Magic Initiate barbarian is more of a generalist. Feats allow the player to choose which path their character will take.

I disagree. A Barbarian with Magic Initiate is a Barbarian. Feats are sprinkles to a massive cake that is class.

[Ralanr]

I disagree. A Barbarian with Magic Initiate is a Barbarian. Feats are sprinkles to a massive cake that is class.

I support this metaphor. The cake is also meat flavored.

[Knaight]

Seriously, what's tactically different about your play between "3 attacks" vs. "3 attacks, or 4 if you kill a dude"? Be specific.

For one thing, there's an incentive towards taking out easy opponents. In a lot of cases otherwise it might be more valuable to focus fire a high value target entirely, because they will hurt you more in the time it takes to wipe out some lackey of theirs than said lackey will in the time it takes you to deal with the high value target. With the extra attack though, the opportunity cost of attacking said lackey is lowered. Sure, if you fail to kill them then the high value target still has that much more time to beat your face in, but it changes the point where the decision is made. Then there's group implications, where the person with the feat is that much more effective at dealing with large groups of weaker enemies. If there are two people in melee and one reasonable point of access towards said high value target, it makes sense to send in the person who lacks the extra conditional attack, so that the situation as a whole can be better approached. On the other hand, there's every other difference between the two.

That's a specialization that leads to tactical differences.

[JoeJ]

I disagree. A Barbarian with Magic Initiate is a Barbarian. Feats are sprinkles to a massive cake that is class.

Colorful metaphor aside, that doesn't make any sense. Are you really telling me that you can't see any difference between between being able to hit really hard with a two-handed weapon and being able to cast Speak With Animals, Guidance, and Mending?

[LaserFace]

Colorful metaphor aside, that doesn't make any sense. Are you really telling me that you can't see any difference between between being able to hit really hard with a two-handed weapon and being able to cast Speak With Animals, Guidance, and Mending?

My argument there was that feats are fine details of customization; judging from your comments, you seem to think they way more impact than I believe they do. Sure, you can rank what each feat gives a character on a mechanical level in combat, but my beef GWM is basically just adding on non-distinct bonuses whereas Polearm Master, Mage Slayer and others actually further define what your character is.

I'll concede you can justify GWM as "My dude learns another technique that can sometimes help him kill stuff faster", but to suggest a Barbarian who takes Magic Initiate is somehow a "generalist barbarian" strikes me akin to calling Albert Einstein a "generalist scientist" because he liked making birdhouses as a hobby.

[Coidzor]

I disagree. A Barbarian with Magic Initiate is a Barbarian. Feats are sprinkles to a massive cake that is class.


I support this metaphor. The cake is also meat flavored.

Do you want meat-flavored sprinkles or stabby-flavored sprinkles or inspiration-flavored sprinkles or sneaky-flavored sprinkles or magic-flavored sprinkles?

[Nifft]

For one thing, there's an incentive towards taking out easy opponents. In a lot of cases otherwise it might be more valuable to focus fire a high value target entirely, because they will hurt you more in the time it takes to wipe out some lackey of theirs than said lackey will in the time it takes you to deal with the high value target. With the extra attack though, the opportunity cost of attacking said lackey is lowered. Sure, if you fail to kill them then the high value target still has that much more time to beat your face in, but it changes the point where the decision is made. Then there's group implications, where the person with the feat is that much more effective at dealing with large groups of weaker enemies. If there are two people in melee and one reasonable point of access towards said high value target, it makes sense to send in the person who lacks the extra conditional attack, so that the situation as a whole can be better approached. On the other hand, there's every other difference between the two.

That's a specialization that leads to tactical differences.

You're the first person to frame an actual tactical difference which the feat might impact. Thanks!

Yeah, target selection is a legitimate tactical difference, if you get a lot of mixed fights, or you get a lot of fighting retreats where you need to break through THAT wall of kobolds in order to escape THIS dragon which you cannot kill... though such things are not necessarily common, and even if you have a mixed group there's no guarantee all the weak minions are in a separate area than the tough brutes.

In some ways, though, that's an anti-synergy, since you're being rewarded for hitting foes who you will overkill, rather than hitting high-HP foes who take a really long time to kill unless someone sticks a nice big two-handed weapon in their face.

So, you've got a point, but the other half of the feat drives the character to make the OPPOSITE tactical choice, as do other Great Weapon class features... so I still don't really like GWM.

Thanks!

[JoeJ]

My argument there was that feats are fine details of customization; judging from your comments, you seem to think they way more impact than I believe they do. Sure, you can rank what each feat gives a character on a mechanical level in combat, but my beef GWM is basically just adding on non-distinct bonuses whereas Polearm Master, Mage Slayer and others actually further define what your character is.

I'll concede you can justify GWM as "My dude learns another technique that can sometimes help him kill stuff faster", but to suggest a Barbarian who takes Magic Initiate is somehow a "generalist barbarian" strikes me akin to calling Albert Einstein a "generalist scientist" because he liked making birdhouses as a hobby.

I didn't say "generalist barbarian" I said that a barbarian is more of a generalist than a barbarian with GWM, who is more of a specialist. I used the relative term on purpose. The GWM barbarian will have a higher average dpr and it will make sense for them to use reckless attack to go crit. fishing in more circumstances. In other words, they've gotten better at the thing they were already very good at - melee combat.

Except in a few unusual circumstances, the MI barbarian has not increased their melee combat power in any significant way, but have instead increased their out of combat utility and can now do something that without the feat they couldn't do at all.

With a different character, that could be reversed. For example, a sorcerer who picks up GWM (most likely after somehow becoming proficient with at least one heavy weapon) is becoming more of a generalist than one who chooses elemental adept.

In either case, however, GWM is helping to define who that character is, whether it's "I can do a little bit of everything," or "I'm the best there is at what I do," or somewhere in between.

[LaserFace]

I didn't say "generalist barbarian" I said that a barbarian is more of a generalist than a barbarian with GWM, who is more of a specialist. I used the relative term on purpose. The GWM barbarian will have a higher average dpr and it will make sense for them to use reckless attack to go crit. fishing in more circumstances. In other words, they've gotten better at the thing they were already very good at - melee combat.

Except in a few unusual circumstances, the MI barbarian has not increased their melee combat power in any significant way, but have instead increased their out of combat utility and can now do something that without the feat they couldn't do at all.

With a different character, that could be reversed. For example, a sorcerer who picks up GWM (most likely after somehow becoming proficient with at least one heavy weapon) is becoming more of a generalist than one who chooses elemental adept.

In either case, however, GWM is helping to define who that character is, whether it's "I can do a little bit of everything," or "I'm the best there is at what I do," or somewhere in between.

I'm not sure I'd use the same language to express the meaning here, because it seems implicit that there's some kind of judgment on mechanics. If the GWM Barbarian is More Specialized, it seems alternate feat choices can lead to one being Not-So-Specialized, which suggests to me that these minute differences in character have far-reaching impact, which is something I don't really see.

But, I do see your initial point, regarding how a character who selects GWM can explain that it may help to reflect a single-minded devotion to their profession, at the loss of exploring other things.

[Fwiffo86]

For one thing, there's an incentive towards taking out easy opponents. In a lot of cases otherwise it might be more valuable to focus fire a high value target entirely, because they will hurt you more in the time it takes to wipe out some lackey of theirs than said lackey will in the time it takes you to deal with the high value target. With the extra attack though, the opportunity cost of attacking said lackey is lowered. Sure, if you fail to kill them then the high value target still has that much more time to beat your face in, but it changes the point where the decision is made. Then there's group implications, where the person with the feat is that much more effective at dealing with large groups of weaker enemies. If there are two people in melee and one reasonable point of access towards said high value target, it makes sense to send in the person who lacks the extra conditional attack, so that the situation as a whole can be better approached. On the other hand, there's every other difference between the two.

That's a specialization that leads to tactical differences.

I have always thought that dropping the little guys is much more tactically sound than dealing with the big guy in the first place. You reduced the number of incoming attacks with every single guy you drop. So instead of taking 10 attacks per round against your party, you take 8, then 5, then 2, and finally, just what the big guy does. This goes a long way to reducing the amount of potential damage/effects that your opponents are generating in every scenario.

Makes good tactical sense to me regardless of the situation.

[Knaight]

I have always thought that dropping the little guys is much more tactically sound than dealing with the big guy in the first place. You reduced the number of incoming attacks with every single guy you drop. So instead of taking 10 attacks per round against your party, you take 8, then 5, then 2, and finally, just what the big guy does. This goes a long way to reducing the amount of potential damage/effects that your opponents are generating in every scenario.

Makes good tactical sense to me regardless of the situation.

It depends on the value of the attacks though. If you've got a little guy you can kill in 1 round dealing 1d8 damage per round, and a big guy you can kill in 3 rounds dealing 4d8 damage per round, then you can basically spend the next 4 rounds doing two things. Either you can pick off the little guy first, and take 16d8 damage from 4 hits from the big guy, or you can pick off the big guy first and take 12d8 damage from the big guy and 3d8 damage from the little guy. The second one actually works out better. Attacks per round is a bit of a misleading statistic, because some attacks are not even slightly equivalent to other attacks. Then there's the matter of how the minions might not even be able to aim reliably, and thus can have a really low average, particularly in comparison to something like an enemy spell caster.

[N810]

My lvl 9 berserker barb,
didn't choose GWM because my GM tends
to send high AC/HP monsters after us and I feel
the -5 to hit will likely cause a significant amount of misses.
instead I opted for an extra d12 on crit damage.

[Sindeloke]

Here's my problem with Great Weapon Master:

If I'm playing a spy character, and I get an ASI, I might take Actor, to help me impersonate important people when I need to sneak into a place with tight security. Then again, Magic Initiate could be a good choice - Minor Illusion plus Silent Image can be a very powerful combo for infiltration or quick disguise. Observant might even be a nice pick, to help me quickly examine important documents or learn passwords or schedules from people I'm watching through a spyglass. Even a 2-point Charisma bump to improve my Deception and Persuasion skills is a solid selection. They all do something good for me, there really isn't a clear winner, just a question of what kind of flavor I want to go for or what part of spying I feel the greatest need for a boost with.

If I'm playing a front line damage dealer, and I get an ASI, I might take Charger, to help me get into the fight more easily, or a Strength boost for hit and damage, or haha lol no I'm just messing with you, I take Great Weapon Master. Period. Always. It is stupid not to. Absolutely any other choice is baldly, massively inferior for damage, unless that choice is Polearm Master, which is also a no-brainer must-have for doing serious melee damage. (PM is more important first, actually, since the bonus action is guaranteed and the reliable advantage/high prof bonus that makes GWM's Power Attack feature so valuable kick in in the midgame, but still, it's PM at 4, GWM at 8 and then Str bonuses).

There is no incentive to ever take anything else as a Strength fighter besides those two feats - even a Strength boost - if they are available. If you want to take another feat (the aforementioned Magic Initiate, for example) you certainly can, and you'll still be a good frontline melee weapon attacker just from your class features, but you will basically be like that poor Int 10 Wizard from the monster thread of doom that's been hanging out on the frontpage for a week. You can do your job, but frankly you could be doing it a lot better and you're intentionally under-optimizing. The spy who decides to go Observant and never even picks up Actor? He's not. His feats are actual choices. PM and GWM are like Agonizing Blast - they're not actual choices, they're a performance tax, which is exactly what people hate about 3.path and 4e feats.

[Knaight]

He's not. His feats are actual choices. PM and GWM are like Agonizing Blast - they're not actual choices, they're a performance tax, which is exactly what people hate about 3.path and 4e feats.

I'd agree that that's indicative of bad design on those two feats (GWM in particular is strong enough that each of the features individually could probably have been a complete feat on par with the rest). Still, the feat system as a whole is a lot better - there are a handful of performance taxes still which could stand to go, there are a handful of near useless feats which could stand to go, but the days of Toughness existing right alongside Natural Spell are over. It's sloppy, but it's the sort of sloppy that at least engenders optimism for eventual splats, the inevitable 6th edition, etc.

[Citan]

I can't see anyone other than a barbarian that wouldn't have issues with a -5.
Well, I'd say that Devotion Paladin is even better placed than Barbarian on this: +CHA (Sacred Weapon) +1d4 (Bless) to hit completely offset GWM malus. Vengeance Paladin is as good as Barb as well against a single enemy (advantage + potential bless)
On a general note, any class that can cast at least Bless or Faerie Fire will be nearly as reliable as Barbarian. :)


Here's my problem with Great Weapon Master:

If I'm playing a spy character, and I get an ASI, I might take Actor, to help me impersonate important people when I need to sneak into a place with tight security. Then again, Magic Initiate could be a good choice - Minor Illusion plus Silent Image can be a very powerful combo for infiltration or quick disguise. Observant might even be a nice pick, to help me quickly examine important documents or learn passwords or schedules from people I'm watching through a spyglass. Even a 2-point Charisma bump to improve my Deception and Persuasion skills is a solid selection. They all do something good for me, there really isn't a clear winner, just a question of what kind of flavor I want to go for or what part of spying I feel the greatest need for a boost with.

If I'm playing a front line damage dealer, and I get an ASI, I might take Charger, to help me get into the fight more easily, or a Strength boost for hit and damage, or haha lol no I'm just messing with you, I take Great Weapon Master. Period. Always. It is stupid not to. Absolutely any other choice is baldly, massively inferior for damage, unless that choice is Polearm Master, which is also a no-brainer must-have for doing serious melee damage. (PM is more important first, actually, since the bonus action is guaranteed and the reliable advantage/high prof bonus that makes GWM's Power Attack feature so valuable kick in in the midgame, but still, it's PM at 4, GWM at 8 and then Str bonuses).

Theorycrafting is nice, but what about real life? Maybe you're generally very lucky with dice rolls, good for you.
For other people, unless you are a class that grants better chance to hit (Barbarian, Vengeance Paladin) you get high risk of missing unless using your precious resources (BM) or concentration slot (Bless, Magic Weapon, Faerie Fire etc). And missing = no damage AFAIK.

So, NO, GWM is NOT a no-brainer choice for any and every melee character who wants to focus on damage. The only classes it's a no-brainer for are Barbarian and Paladins, if only they go STR-based (which is not the only good way to go for Paladins at least).

Also, note that for characters who can afford two feats, DEX-based builds with Sharpshooter + Crossbow expert are strictly better than STR builds with GWM if you just want to "deal damage": roughly same damage (you lose 2 potential points of damage), more versatile (from melee range up to 400 feet), and all goodness of high DEX (armor/initiative/stealth). Can even benefit from Swift Quiver if available.
It's another story if you consider the specific Glaive combo though (GWM+PM). :)

Anyways, it's really a narrow way to consider party damage. If, because you put everything on attacking, you take so much damage or miss so often that party casters have to often protect/heal/buff you instead of casting debuffing/dealing damage spells, then the trade-off is not so good. :)

[Sindeloke]

Sharpshooter and Crossbow are just GWM and PM for ranged weapons, so that's not really an effective disputation. It just means that both Dex and Strength fighters get a performance tax.

And it is absolutely a tax for everybody, not just barbarians or people with hot dice. If you're a fighter with 16 strength and a greatsword, plus great weapon fighting (roughly 11 average damage per hit, or 12 for champions), you only need to hit on a 10 or more (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?373572-GWM-Reference-Table&highlight=when+to+use+GWM) to benefit more than you lose from taking the -5 from GWM. At level 8, that's anything up to AC 16, which is the majority of the Monster Manual, and an even larger majority of things CR 8 and below. That's not really expecting anything from your dice; 10 is a slightly less than average roll, after all.

If you should face an opponent with an unusually high AC - 18, say - you still want to use GWM on any turn when you can get +2 to hit. There are a large number of ways to do this, particularly considering it's going to be an uncommon experience and your party won't need to spend resources on it often:

* Ask for Bless
* Ask for Bardic Inspiration
* Be a battle master and use Precision
* Be a battle master and spend a die to trip your foe
* Ask your monk to stun
* Ask your caster to paralyze or blind
* Ask your wizard to have her familiar use Help
* Ask your barbarian to take Wolf Totem at level 3
* Ask your TWF rogue to use his primary attack to trip with Expertise (good for both of you), or, if your DM rules that improper, ask your rogue to go Iron Scoundrel (equally good for both of you)
* Be a barbarian
* Be 2 out of 3 paladins
* If a bladelock, use Darkness+Devil's Sight
* Ride a mount
* Use your environment; shove or lure the enemy somewhere with poor footing, jump down on them from above, stand between them and the sun, whatever you can get out of your DM
* Probably a lot more, that's just off the top of my head

The higher you get in levels, the more your proficiency bonus rises relative to the bounded accuracy of enemy AC, and the more often GWM becomes a good idea. Considering you can already use it 75%+ of the time at level 8 when you should be picking it up, that makes it a pretty much always good investment. (Not even considering the bonus hit from crits/kills, since that's really not too much of a damage spike past the Polearm Mastery you got at level 4....)