Are GWM and Sharpshooter overpowered?

[Fflewddur Fflam]

I remember when I first read the PHB and was reading the descriptions for Great Weapon Master and Sharpshooter, my eyes bugged out of my head "-5 to hit but +10 damage?!?" In 3e, there would be feats that would get you bonus damage at the cost of an equivalent subtraction in attack roll, so something like -5 to hit with +5 damage. That seems much more balanced to me, but GWM and SS of 5e seems crazy overpowered, especially when you can get advantage on attacks.

Anybody else think these feats would be more balanced if they were -5 to hit with +5 damage or is it just me?

[MrFahrenheit]

ACs are far lower in this edition (thank bounded accuracy for that - though IMO it's a good thing), but hp still scales the same way it did in 3.5. So -5/+10 is fine in my book.

[MaxWilson]

I remember when I first read the PHB and was reading the descriptions for Great Weapon Master and Sharpshooter, my eyes bugged out of my head "-5 to hit but +10 damage?!?" In 3e, there would be feats that would get you bonus damage at the cost of an equivalent subtraction in attack roll, so something like -5 to hit with +5 damage. That seems much more balanced to me, but GWM and SS of 5e seems crazy overpowered, especially when you can get advantage on attacks.

Anybody else think these feats would be more balanced if they were -5 to hit with +5 damage or is it just me?

Balanced with what? If you make them -5 to hit but +5 to damage, then the feats are pretty balanced with the absence of feats: you'll probably do about the same damage with or without them, so they're basically just flavor, about as good as spending your ASI on +0 to Dexterity. (Well, Sharpshooter would still be useful for the cover negation and range stuff, but the headshotting portion would just be flavor.) Is that what you're looking for in a feat?

Sharpshooter and GWM have an opportunity cost. If you're taking them, you're not taking Heavy Armor Master or Mobile or Lucky. Furthermore, to really leverage Sharpshooter you have to be a fighter for 3+ attacks per round, which means you're not a Hexing warlock or a wizard with a squad of Planar Bound Air Elemental bodyguards.

It's disputably true that Sharpshooter is a great feat--GWM somewhat less so but it has its uses--and that if you are an archer you want it. But it's not imbalanced, and nerfing them would make them less balanced in the sense that it would just make spellcasting the clearly dominant strategy for dealing damage. Since I like games where Fighters are relevant, I like Sharpshooter the way it is. (And GWM isn't bad either.)

P.S. Note that at low levels, Crossbow Expert is better than Sharpshooter, because it essentially doubles your damage output (modulo weapon die size impact) whereas Sharpshooter merely increases it by 30-50% depending on what you're fighting.

[Saggo]

Anybody else think these feats would be more balanced if they were -5 to hit with +5 damage or is it just me?
Even with Advantage, -5 for only +5 is a DPR loss, unfortunately.

[Pex]

NPCs & monsters do not follow the same rules as PCs. I'm running Princes of the Apocalypse. For the 1st and 2nd level prequel already the party is facing a 6th level spellcaster with Vampiric Touch for a BBEG and faced a specter doing 3d6 damage that can outright kill on a failed CON save, albeit it's possible they don't have to fight it. Later they will face a foe who is a level 6 sorcerer wearing heavy armor and gets two attacks. That a PC gets something "powerful" himself of -5 to hit for +10 damage is not something I'd cry about.

PCs are allowed to do powerful things. Certainly a Something can be too powerful that causes a PC to "win D&D", but a Something just being powerful isn't itself a cause for alarm.

[Fflewddur Fflam]

Balanced with what? If you make them -5 to hit but +5 to damage, then the feats are pretty balanced with the absence of feats: you'll probably do about the same damage with or without them, so they're basically just flavor, about as good as spending your ASI on +0 to Dexterity. (Well, Sharpshooter would still be useful for the cover negation and range stuff, but the headshotting portion would just be flavor.) Is that what you're looking for in a feat?


I disagree. First of all, GWM and SS give you more than just the -5 attack/+10 damage, and also if it were -5 attack/+5 damage, this wouldn't be "just flavor", this would always be a tactical consideration. If you are going up against something with AC of say 16 or lower, it would make sense to use your -5 attack/+ 5 damage, if something had high AC, it wouldn't. Having to make strategic choices is not a bad thing, unless you just want mindless combat.

[Fflewddur Fflam]

NPCs & monsters do not follow the same rules as PCs. I'm running Princes of the Apocalypse. For the 1st and 2nd level prequel already the party is facing a 6th level spellcaster with Vampiric Touch for a BBEG and faced a specter doing 3d6 damage that can outright kill on a failed CON save, albeit it's possible they don't have to fight it. Later they will face a foe who is a level 6 sorcerer wearing heavy armor and gets two attacks. That a PC gets something "powerful" himself of -5 to hit for +10 damage is not something I'd cry about.

PCs are allowed to do powerful things. Certainly a Something can be too powerful that causes a PC to "win D&D", but a Something just being powerful isn't itself a cause for alarm.

Haven't you found in general that PC's wipe the floor against enemies? I have. When an enemy gets reduced to 0 hp, it's either dead or unconscious, depending on what the PC wants. When a PC gets reduced to 0 hp, it's just unconscious, and can be brought back into the battle rather easily by being healed. Combat is totally geared to letting the PC's kick ass all over the place. I just view GWM and SS like "man, combat is already too easy, do we have to make it easier?"

[Saggo]

I disagree. First of all, GWM and SS give you more than just the -5 attack/+10 damage, and also if it were -5 attack/+5 damage, this wouldn't be "just flavor", this would always be a tactical consideration. If you are going up against something with AC of say 16 or lower, it would make sense to use your -5 attack/+ 5 damage, if something had high AC, it wouldn't. Having to make strategic choices is not a bad thing, unless you just want mindless combat.

-5/+5 would rarely be a tactical consideration. It's a damage loss at any level against AC 16, and you'll need roughly AC 12 depending on level for it to even give you any sort of noticeable increase. I guess maybe worth using on a Mammoth. Not worth putting in a feat.

[famousringo]

I actually think they're overrated. Partially because it's difficult to "prove" any optimization that doesn't come down to average DPR, partially because it feels stronger when you get big damage spike, even if your expected damage is actually lower when power attacking, and finally because parties start building around supporting the martial attackers instead of other valuable things they could be doing.

Not that support is wrong, exactly, but often a surge of damage or control is more valuable than a long term investment in your martials' DPR. I hear stories of clerics that cast Bless and sorcerers who cast Haste every fight and shake my head.

[Fflewddur Fflam]

-5/+5 would rarely be a tactical consideration. It's a damage loss at any level against AC 16, and you'll need roughly AC 12 depending on level for it to even give you any sort of noticeable increase. I guess maybe worth using on a Mammoth. Not worth putting in a feat.

As said before, both GWM and SS as feats give you much more than just the damage bonus.

[Fflewddur Fflam]

Not that support is wrong, exactly, but often a surge of damage or control is more valuable than a long term investment in your martials' DPR. I hear stories of clerics that cast Bless and sorcerers who cast Haste every fight and shake my head.

Well, and that's what D&D used to be all about, buff buff buff! 5e has tried to get away from buffing big-time via concentration restrictions, taking away a lot of buff spells, etc., but it's still around. It's certainly not as bad as it was in previous editions.

[jas61292]

Overpowered? Maybe Sharpshooter, but probably not either.

Unbalanced? Absolutely.

The fact is that while neither of these feats is going to break the game (the measure of overpoweredness), they both absolutely and completely cause characters that have them to outclass similarly built characters that lack them. A feat should be made so that it is a trade off for an ability score increase. These feats (along with a few others) are not even close to a balanced tradeoff. If you are a martial combat class and you are not picking one of these (or one of a small number of other combat feats), you are inferior. That is not balanced.

Sharpshooter in particular is a horrible offender. The -5 / +10 part is already pushing balance, due to archery fighting style naturally partially mitigating the penalty. But the real poor design is the fact that it allows you to completely and totally ignore the two biggest checks on ranged combat: cover and long ranged disadvantage. That alone is worth far more than +2 Dex. The damage increase is just a kicker.

Now that said, neither of these is necessarily the most unbalanced of feats. That award goes to Polearm Master which not only outclasses anyone trying to use a polearm without taking it, but makes an entire fighting style (two weapon) worthless in comparison, and comes close to making an entire subclass (Berserker) worthless in comparison. But just because they are not the worst offenders does not mean they don't break the balance.

In another thread a while back, I mentioned how there are two types of balance: internal and external. External balance is how an individual options effect the game as a whole. If an option makes a character too strong compared to the expectations of the game itself, then that option makes the character externally unbalanced. The most common example of something like this is Wizard Simulacrum shenanigans. But that is not the only way to be unbalanced. Internal imbalance is far more common. Internal balance is all about making sure all the options for a given character are balanced with one another, and that you are not forced into particular choices in order to avoid being inferior.

Ultimately, it doesn't matter if a Great Weapon Master Fighter is balanced compared to a Sorcerer. What matters is that they are balanced compared to a sword and board fighter, a two weapon fighter, and an archer fighter. And as is, it really is not.

[MagusJeran]

I remember when I first read the PHB and was reading the descriptions for Great Weapon Master and Sharpshooter, my eyes bugged out of my head "-5 to hit but +10 damage?!?" In 3e, there would be feats that would get you bonus damage at the cost of an equivalent subtraction in attack roll, so something like -5 to hit with +5 damage. That seems much more balanced to me, but GWM and SS of 5e seems crazy overpowered, especially when you can get advantage on attacks.

Anybody else think these feats would be more balanced if they were -5 to hit with +5 damage or is it just me?

Yes, we allowed them at our table until one of the players took the feat. It was so overpowered that after several sessions he willingly made a new character. The amount of damage he was doing was insane. Compounding the issue, he received a +2 Crossbow after a few adventures, which partially negated the penalty, but it was so ridiculous even before he had the crossbow that he was thinking of giving up the feat. The crossbow sealed the deal. These feats are broken.

Once he gave up the feat, we voted to remove them from our game.

Frankly, our group can't see how they made it through the play testing phase.

[Kryx]

Unbalanced? Absolutely.

The fact is that while neither of these feats is going to break the game (the measure of overpoweredness), they both absolutely and completely cause characters that have them to outclass similarly built characters that lack them. A feat should be made so that it is a trade off for an ability score increase. These feats (along with a few others) are not even close to a balanced tradeoff. If you are a martial combat class and you are not picking one of these (or one of a small number of other combat feats), you are inferior. That is not balanced.
Well said!

They're not equivalent in value to other feats.

[Ovarwa]

Hi,

The funny thing about gunning down the most powerful options is that that once the dust clears, a new group of powerful options emerges that outclass other things.

GWM and Sharpshooter are good, but so is PM and SM (this last often overlooked because inflicting a state is hard to measure against a raw damage number). A Warlock doesn't need any of this to be almost as good, and he gets other options besides. Other spellcasters get to do other neat things (which we should probably get rid of, to preserve a balance of neatness.)

Characters who take these feats and can use them effectively tend to be characters whose most important feature is "I hit stuff and do damage." I say let them be good at it.

Anyway,

Ken

[MaxWilson]

I disagree. First of all, GWM and SS give you more than just the -5 attack/+10 damage, and also if it were -5 attack/+5 damage, this wouldn't be "just flavor", this would always be a tactical consideration. If you are going up against something with AC of say 16 or lower, it would make sense to use your -5 attack/+ 5 damage, if something had high AC, it wouldn't. Having to make strategic choices is not a bad thing, unless you just want mindless combat.

Assume an 8th level Crossbow Expert w/ Archery Style and Dex 16 (+8 to hit) firing three times at an AC 16 target:

[regular] 3x +8 for d6+3 = 13.20 points of damage.
[-5/+5] 3x +3 for d6+8 = 14.33 points of damage. [8% better than baseline]
[-5/+10] 3x +3 for d6+13 = 20.33 points of damage. [54% better than baseline]

If it turns out that the apparently-AC 16 target can actually cast Shield, then he's really AC 21:

[regular] 3x +8 for d6+3 = 8.33 points of damage.
[-5/+5] 3x +3 for d6+8 = 5.70 points of damage. [32% worse than baseline]
[-5/+10] 3x +3 for d6+13 = 7.95 points of damage. [5% worse than baseline]

The fight is more interesting w/ RAW than it would be with your proposed variant, because at -5/+5 it's basically not worth using even if you guess his AC correctly.

But none of this math matters because what player characters will actually do under the -5/+5 rule is just take Spell Sniper and be warlocks instead. The headshotting (-5/+10) portion of Sharpshooter is the only thing which sets it apart from Spell Sniper, but as warlocks they can get +d6 to every shot without having to take the -5 penalty to hit, and without any of the logistics issues than an Archer has, AND they get to use Repelling Blast on top of that, AND they get four attacks by level 17 even if they multiclass to Wizard or something instead of staying pure Warlock. Fighters get none of that, but fighters are nevertheless pretty cool in vanilla 5E in part because they do have access to high damage via Sharpshooter/GWM.

Therefore I ask again, "imbalanced compared to what?"

======================


I actually think they're overrated. Partially because it's difficult to "prove" any optimization that doesn't come down to average DPR, partially because it feels stronger when you get big damage spike, even if your expected damage is actually lower when power attacking, and finally because parties start building around supporting the martial attackers instead of other valuable things they could be doing.

Not that support is wrong, exactly, but often a surge of damage or control is more valuable than a long term investment in your martials' DPR. I hear stories of clerics that cast Bless and sorcerers who cast Haste every fight and shake my head.

This is a good point. I have a Bard who was originally built with the intention of Blessing the party, but in practice it often turns out that a given fight is either so easy it's not worth expending Bless on, or hard enough that his concentration would be better spent on Hypnotic Pattern or Confusion or Conjure Animals anyway. (Full disclosure: there are no Sharpshooters in the party, and he doesn't actually have Bless yet, until he hits Warlock 2/Lore Bard 10--but I've still been on the lookout for situations when I would have cast it.)

The most powerful move in a fight is to take control of the situation. Gain the upper hand and THEN crush your enemies. A damage spike can let you seize the initiative, if it takes out all the enemies in one section of the map, letting you stabilize your lines against the rest. But adding +10% or even +30% to your archer's DPR for the next ten rounds isn't a good way of taking control of the situation.

[krugaan]

My feeling is this:

Yes, on paper, on average, it is powerful, particularly with advantage.

However, I think abilities which increase variability are "in general" detrimental to the party in ways which don't show up on paper.

will edit later, brain not functioning, but essentially over long term i'd rather have reliable > streaky.

[Saggo]

As said before, both GWM and SS as feats give you much more than just the damage bonus.

They do, doesn't change anything, -5/+5 still isn't worth putting in a feat. There is an extremely narrow range of monsters that have a low enough AC to increase average DPR but enough HP to warrant the increase in missed attacks. It might still feel good when the hit lands, no doubt, but you're missing so often that it's usually a trap choice.

If you don't like -5/+10, it's smoother to remove the option or make an entirely new feature to replace it.

[Fflewddur Fflam]

If you don't like -5/+10, it's smoother to remove the option or make an entirely new feature to replace it.

I wonder if a +2 to damage in addition to the other benefits of GWM and SS would be good? So no attack roll negative, just a +2 to damage with the specified weapons for the feat plus the other stuff the feats provide.

[Fflewddur Fflam]

Overpowered? Maybe Sharpshooter, but probably not either.

Unbalanced? Absolutely.

The fact is that while neither of these feats is going to break the game (the measure of overpoweredness), they both absolutely and completely cause characters that have them to outclass similarly built characters that lack them. A feat should be made so that it is a trade off for an ability score increase. These feats (along with a few others) are not even close to a balanced tradeoff. If you are a martial combat class and you are not picking one of these (or one of a small number of other combat feats), you are inferior. That is not balanced.

Sharpshooter in particular is a horrible offender. The -5 / +10 part is already pushing balance, due to archery fighting style naturally partially mitigating the penalty. But the real poor design is the fact that it allows you to completely and totally ignore the two biggest checks on ranged combat: cover and long ranged disadvantage. That alone is worth far more than +2 Dex. The damage increase is just a kicker.

Now that said, neither of these is necessarily the most unbalanced of feats. That award goes to Polearm Master which not only outclasses anyone trying to use a polearm without taking it, but makes an entire fighting style (two weapon) worthless in comparison, and comes close to making an entire subclass (Berserker) worthless in comparison. But just because they are not the worst offenders does not mean they don't break the balance.

In another thread a while back, I mentioned how there are two types of balance: internal and external. External balance is how an individual options effect the game as a whole. If an option makes a character too strong compared to the expectations of the game itself, then that option makes the character externally unbalanced. The most common example of something like this is Wizard Simulacrum shenanigans. But that is not the only way to be unbalanced. Internal imbalance is far more common. Internal balance is all about making sure all the options for a given character are balanced with one another, and that you are not forced into particular choices in order to avoid being inferior.

Ultimately, it doesn't matter if a Great Weapon Master Fighter is balanced compared to a Sorcerer. What matters is that they are balanced compared to a sword and board fighter, a two weapon fighter, and an archer fighter. And as is, it really is not.

Well said. I don't like the idea of just throwing out all feats because I think feats are a fun, optional rule. But these feats just make me go "whaaaat?!?"

[jas61292]

Well said. I don't like the idea of just throwing out all feats because I think feats are a fun, optional rule. But these feats just make me go "whaaaat?!?"

Yeah, while I initiated it as DM, even with other people DMing, my group has pretty much agreed to ban a few specific feats (including these two) while still allowing the vast majority of feats. I love feats as a concept; letting you trade pure statistical advantage for a variety of abilities. But they only work so long as it is a fair trade off.

[Vogonjeltz]

I remember when I first read the PHB and was reading the descriptions for Great Weapon Master and Sharpshooter, my eyes bugged out of my head "-5 to hit but +10 damage?!?" In 3e, there would be feats that would get you bonus damage at the cost of an equivalent subtraction in attack roll, so something like -5 to hit with +5 damage. That seems much more balanced to me, but GWM and SS of 5e seems crazy overpowered, especially when you can get advantage on attacks.

Anybody else think these feats would be more balanced if they were -5 to hit with +5 damage or is it just me?

Perspective: it is a functional damage increase of 10x whatever hits - 5x damage from a regular hit.

So if you average 10 damage per hit, and have less than 6 possible hits, there is no gain at all in total damage dealt.

So if you need a roll of 16+ after turning it on, it's a wasted feat. (Because you also lost out on the alternative feats/ASI)

For clarity, in the same scenario with the change you proposed, you'd have to be hitting on a roll of 5+ before turning the feat on to realize any gain in damage at all, making the feat borderline worthless.

[Southpaw]

I wonder how it would work out if the damage bonus from GWM/SS was a once per round bonus? I like it as is but I do see the concern when rating the damage between characters that use these feats to those who do not.

Limiting it to once a turn would still provide a damage boost but would not cause the wild damage spikes that occur with 3+ attacks. The feat would also be just as powerful on a single attack class as they would with a extra attack class.

I am going to keep using it as written for now but I may try running some numbers and seeing how this change may balance things out a bit.

[famousringo]

I wonder if a +2 to damage in addition to the other benefits of GWM and SS would be good? So no attack roll negative, just a +2 to damage with the specified weapons for the feat plus the other stuff the feats provide.

The funny thing is, -5/+10 often amounts to less than +2 to average damage. And the more damage you get from other sources (magic weapon, Hunter's Mark, smite, etc.), the more painful that -5 hit penalty becomes.

Don't believe me? Let's compare your version of the feat at 75% hit chance to a -5/+10 attack. Typical 20 STR, Great Weapon Style fighter:

15.3 average damage with 75% hit chance = 11.5 DPR
23.3 average damage with 50% hit chance = 11.6 DPR

Your version of the feat would be less effective against low AC targets, but more effective against high AC targets.

[Grod_The_Giant]

Oh no, characters that specialize in doing damage can do damage! Whatever shall we do?

ASIs are terrible and dull. Do not balance feats against a +5% to hit and damage; that way lies madness and boring options. Do not balance characters against the weakest option; that way lies boredom and frustrated PCs. Balance against the world. How does DPR with the -5/+10 compare to monster hit points? Does it maintain the expected rate of killing, or does it drastically increase? How does it compare to casters using non-cantrip spells? If it's comparable to monsters and to casters, the problem isn't that it's too strong, it's that other combat styles are too weak.

[Saggo]

I wonder if a +2 to damage in addition to the other benefits of GWM and SS would be good? So no attack roll negative, just a +2 to damage with the specified weapons for the feat plus the other stuff the feats provide.

If you replace -5/+10 with 0/+2 here (https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1d-9xDdath8kX_v7Rpts9JFIJwIG3X0-dDUtfax14NT0/edit?usp=sharing) you'll find they're roughly equivalent, at least for Fighter and Barbarian.

Consider you also took an active feature that relies on AC and Advantage and replaced it with a passive feature that always gives a damage bonus regardless of target or accuracy. Probably not what you're looking for.

[GoodbyeSoberDay]

I'm with Grod. If you find a combat feat that looks bad relative to GWM, that doesn't mean GWM is overpowered. That means the other feat is underpowered. Luckily most of them are pretty competitive.

However, since I believe trading off accuracy for damage should be fundamental to using the weapon as opposed to a unique ability, I house rule it the following way: Everyone using a weapon they're proficient in can subtract [prof mod] from their to-hit modifier and add 2*[prof mod] to damage. Instead of the damage trade-off, GWM adds +1 STR, and Sharpshooter adds +1 DEX.

[Pex]

Haven't you found in general that PC's wipe the floor against enemies? I have. When an enemy gets reduced to 0 hp, it's either dead or unconscious, depending on what the PC wants. When a PC gets reduced to 0 hp, it's just unconscious, and can be brought back into the battle rather easily by being healed. Combat is totally geared to letting the PC's kick ass all over the place. I just view GWM and SS like "man, combat is already too easy, do we have to make it easier?"

PCs are supposed to win. When combat CR = party's level, it's a relatively easy fight. The party will use up resources, but they're generally expected to win. CR + 1 and CR + 2 are the tough fights. CR + 1 they'll win but a character or two will drop and the party will need a short rest at least afterwards. A CR + 2 is hard even when the party is at full resources. The party may have to retreat or otherwise lose, but it's still a winnable fight. The party needs every advantage it can get, figuratively and literally. The party will need to long rest afterwards. CR + 2 fights are usually the BBEG finale of the adventure arc if the CR + 1 isn't.

When a DM is upset the party is winning fights, he needs to get out of the chair.

Obligatory: Supposed to doesn't mean have to, but generally speaking if the party loses a fight they either made a tactical mistake somewhere, they weren't supposed to be in that fight in the first place, the DM screwed up in encounter design, or it was a toss up the dice just hated the players that day but it could have gone either way usually intended in BBEG finale fights.

[ClintACK]

Overpowered? Maybe Sharpshooter, but probably not either.

Unbalanced? Absolutely.

...


In another thread a while back, I mentioned how there are two types of balance: internal and external. External balance is how an individual options effect the game as a whole. If an option makes a character too strong compared to the expectations of the game itself, then that option makes the character externally unbalanced. The most common example of something like this is Wizard Simulacrum shenanigans. But that is not the only way to be unbalanced. Internal imbalance is far more common. Internal balance is all about making sure all the options for a given character are balanced with one another, and that you are not forced into particular choices in order to avoid being inferior.

Ultimately, it doesn't matter if a Great Weapon Master Fighter is balanced compared to a Sorcerer. What matters is that they are balanced compared to a sword and board fighter, a two weapon fighter, and an archer fighter. And as is, it really is not.

I like this formulation -- very clarifying.

So, if GWM is *externally* balanced with other classes, but not balanced with Shield Master and Dual Wielder... then doesn't that suggest that the problem is that Shield Master, and especially Dual Wielder, need to be made *more* powerful, not that GWM needs to be made less so?

[MaxWilson]

However, since I believe trading off accuracy for damage should be fundamental to using the weapon as opposed to a unique ability, I house rule it the following way: Everyone using a weapon they're proficient in can subtract [prof mod] from their to-hit modifier and add 2*[prof mod] to damage. Instead of the damage trade-off, GWM adds +1 STR, and Sharpshooter adds +1 DEX.

I believe in something similar. I'd let anyone do -5/+5 on their attacks; Sharpshooter/GWM just make it -5/+10.

=======================


PCs are supposed to win. When combat CR = party's level, it's a relatively easy fight. The party will use up resources, but they're generally expected to win. CR + 1 and CR + 2 are the tough fights. CR + 1 they'll win but a character or two will drop and the party will need a short rest at least afterwards. A CR + 2 is hard even when the party is at full resources. The party may have to retreat or otherwise lose, but it's still a winnable fight. The party needs every advantage it can get, figuratively and literally. The party will need to long rest afterwards. CR + 2 fights are usually the BBEG finale of the adventure arc if the CR + 1 isn't.

I agree with the point but not with the numbers. CR = level + 1 is still pretty easy for an 8th or 9th level party. Are you thinking of 1st-2nd level parties?

I've seen level 1 PCs solo CR 3 Owlbears before with a 50% success rate. (Half the time, he fails and gets eaten. The other half the time, he wins and saves the children in a tree. Schrodinger's PC.) If there had been three other PCs in the fight it wouldn't have even been a contest.

[Kryx]

In another thread a while back, I mentioned how there are two types of balance: internal and external. External balance is how an individual options effect the game as a whole. If an option makes a character too strong compared to the expectations of the game itself, then that option makes the character externally unbalanced. The most common example of something like this is Wizard Simulacrum shenanigans. But that is not the only way to be unbalanced. Internal imbalance is far more common. Internal balance is all about making sure all the options for a given character are balanced with one another, and that you are not forced into particular choices in order to avoid being inferior.

Ultimately, it doesn't matter if a Great Weapon Master Fighter is balanced compared to a Sorcerer. What matters is that they are balanced compared to a sword and board fighter, a two weapon fighter, and an archer fighter. And as is, it really is not.
Can you link to that thread? I'd love to read the discussion of internal balance.

[Easy_Lee]

Can you link to that thread? I'd love to read the discussion of internal balance.

Ditto. I've seen many games fail by trying to externally balance all of the classes against each other, while spending no time ensuring that the options within a class were actually viable. It leads to homogeneous play and cookie cutter builds every time.

[Giant2005]

I like this formulation -- very clarifying.

So, if GWM is *externally* balanced with other classes, but not balanced with Shield Master and Dual Wielder... then doesn't that suggest that the problem is that Shield Master, and especially Dual Wielder, need to be made *more* powerful, not that GWM needs to be made less so?

Shield Master sure shouldn't be made more powerful - it is probably he most powerful combat feat in the game (possibly even more-so than Polearm Master).
He was saying that the combat feats are imbalanced with one another (and he is right in that), not that GWM is more powerful than them.

[Fflewddur Fflam]

PCs are supposed to win.
When a DM is upset the party is winning fights, he needs to get out of the chair.


Well, I'm not speaking as a DM (I've never DMed), I'm speaking as a player. Combat in 5e is generally way too easy and too geared for the PC's to win. I have found combat to get pretty boring in 5e because of this.

[Giant2005]

Well, I'm not speaking as a DM (I've never DMed), I'm speaking as a player. Combat in 5e is generally way too easy and too geared for the PC's to win. I have found combat to get pretty boring in 5e because of this.

That is because DnD has a bunch of stupid encounter balancing rules that are designed to ensure that the players never face anything they can't defeat.
Those rules are both unrealistic and boring.
If a DM ignores those rules and populates the world in a much more genuine manner, then the players have to evaluate the situation for themselves and decide what risks are worth taking. That often results in far more challenging encounters (and makes the game actually fun).

[MaxWilson]

Well, I'm not speaking as a DM (I've never DMed), I'm speaking as a player. Combat in 5e is generally way too easy and too geared for the PC's to win. I have found combat to get pretty boring in 5e because of this.

5E is easy by design--it's designed for casual players. If you calculate the equivalent CR of PCs, you'll find that the DMG Medium encounters pit maybe 2000 XP worth of monsters against 6000 or 7000 XP worth of PCs--and that lowballs the PC abilities because most PC abilities don't fit neatly into DMG CR calculation guidelines. Fortunately, it's easy to step up the challenge, if your DM is willing to increase your risks and rewards. Tell him that you want lots of fights against things that are approximately as powerful as you are, so that failure to play smart will mean that you lose and die. Also tell him that you want an appropriate reward every time you do overcome an equally-matched foe; and that you want a nice funeral and a new PC every time you fail.

Alternately, you can be a Real Man and handicap yourself to make the game harder, e.g. "I will beat enemies to death with my bare fists, eschewing the use of weapons."

Alternately, you can stick with the easy game, accept that further expertise in violence is basically unnecessary, and seek solace in wine and love, thus shifting from Real Man to Real Roleplayer. E.g. "Where you all see only a vicious bulette in need of a good beating, I see a lonely beast in need of a friend. I'm going to feed it!" On second thought, that might be more Loonie than Real Roleplayer.

Alternately, you can leave the difficulty low and embrace the Munchkin role, with or without GWM/Sharpshooter. If the DM nerfs Sharpshooter/GWM, you just find another way to break the difficulty of the game. E.g. the Mobile feat, or Conjure Animals, or Necromancer armies, or Sorlocks, or grappling + high AC, or Planar Binding, or any of a thousand and one other ways to kill things easily in the 5E ruleset. Munchkins are all about savoring their mastery of a "too easy" challenge.

[Grod_The_Giant]

I'm with Grod. If you find a combat feat that looks bad relative to GWM, that doesn't mean GWM is overpowered. That means the other feat is underpowered. Luckily most of them are pretty competitive.

However, since I believe trading off accuracy for damage should be fundamental to using the weapon as opposed to a unique ability, I house rule it the following way: Everyone using a weapon they're proficient in can subtract [prof mod] from their to-hit modifier and add 2*[prof mod] to damage. Instead of the damage trade-off, GWM adds +1 STR, and Sharpshooter adds +1 DEX.
I'm a fan. Especially since that means it scales, as opposed to starting out as a huge bonus and slowly winding down.


Well, I'm not speaking as a DM (I've never DMed), I'm speaking as a player. Combat in 5e is generally way too easy and too geared for the PC's to win. I have found combat to get pretty boring in 5e because of this.
That's your subjective experience, perhaps; in the Curse of Strahd game I've been playing we've seen quite a few close calls, two unwinnable encounters and one outright death during a fight that was literally one character with 7 HP away from being a TPK; in my home game we've only just started and nearly lost the Warlock in the first session. D&D has the marvelous thing where the DM can adjust the difficulty without changing the rules.

[jas61292]

I like this formulation -- very clarifying.

So, if GWM is *externally* balanced with other classes, but not balanced with Shield Master and Dual Wielder... then doesn't that suggest that the problem is that Shield Master, and especially Dual Wielder, need to be made *more* powerful, not that GWM needs to be made less so?

Potentially, though I personally think there is more to it than that. These feats are not balanced with ability score increases, which I personally think they should be. That's not as important to everyone, but to me, it means that we need to reign them in, not buff other things up. ASIs give you power. If feats are to be different while being balanced, they need to be about giving more options, not more power. Shield Master is a wonderful feat, but you never see anyone complaining about it being unbalanced because it is about giving you different abilities, not simply about making your existing abilities stronger. On the other hand the two feats this thread references, along with Polearm Master, and occasionally Crossbow Expert, get complained about all the time. These are the feats that straight up make your existing combat options stronger, and/or give you more opportunities to attack. Simply from a design perspective, these feats are not well made.

Now, to be clear, I definitely feel that combat feats can work well. But the existing ones are almost all poorly made. Some are far too powerful while others are far to weak, and it would pretty much require and entire re-write of all of them to make it truly balanced, with the focus being on versatility ("what unique options could this weapon type provide" rather than "how do we make this weapon type stronger").


Can you link to that thread? I'd love to read the discussion of internal balance.

The thread it was in was not specifically made to talk about my whole concept of internal and external balance, though there were a few other comments on it when I brought it up. That said, I honestly can't remember off the top of my head what topic it was. But I'll see if I can locate it.

[Giant2005]

Shield Master is a wonderful feat, but you never see anyone complaining about it being unbalanced because it is about giving you different abilities, not simply about making your existing abilities stronger. On the other hand the two feats this thread references, along with Polearm Master, and occasionally Crossbow Expert, get complained about all the time. These are the feats that straight up make your existing combat options stronger, and/or give you more opportunities to attack. Simply from a design perspective, these feats are not well made.

I have to disagree with that. Shield Master increases DPR by a far higher percentage than the likes of GWM does.
The reason people don't complain about it like they do the others is because of perception. The other increase damage by increasing damage directly or by giving extra attacks, Shield Master increases average damage by increasing accuracy. Things that increase damage directly increase damage in a much more overt manner than ones that increase average damage via accuracy and so they are much more noticeable, even if they are less effective. The more noticed something is, the more complained about it is. It is also why the likes of GWM is singled out more than Polearm Master. People think that GWM is more powerful because the penalty to its accuracy is much less overt than its damage bonus; but in reality, the damage increase gained from GWM pales in comparison to that bestowed by PAM.

[jas61292]

I have to disagree with that. Shield Master increases DPR by a far higher percentage than the likes of GWM does.
The reason people don't complain about it like they do the others is because of perception. The other increase damage by increasing damage directly or by giving extra attacks, Shield Master increases average damage by increasing accuracy. Things that increase damage directly increase damage in a much more overt manner than ones that increase average damage via accuracy and so they are much more noticeable, even if they are less effective. The more noticed something is, the more complained about it is. It is also why the likes of GWM is singled out more than Polearm Master. People think that GWM is more powerful because the penalty to its accuracy is much less overt than its damage bonus; but in reality, the damage increase gained from GWM pales in comparison to that bestowed by PAM.

In a sense this is true, but I don't fully agree. Shield Master increases accuracy, but it does so by allowing for the opportunity for you to gain advantage. It is far from the only method of gaining advantage however, and, like all advantage, it can be canceled out. A guy with a two handed weapon and a sorcerer buddy that just restrained their opponent with web hits just as accurately as the shield master, and for even more damage based on their fighting style. The advantage of the feat is fully in the fact that it gives the fighter the option to attempt to gain that same advantage with their own actions.

[Kryx]

Shield Master increases DPR by a far higher percentage than the likes of GWM does.
Shield Master is a great feat.

That said, comparing the percentage increase over normal Sword and Board isn't the best way to determine balance imo.

A S&B Fighter with Shield Master does 80% of a GWM Fighter with -5/+10. A Barbarian (vs barb gwm) 62%, a berserker Barb (vs berserker barb gwm) 64%, a Paladin 94%, a Ranger (vs fighter GWM) does 73%, a bladelock (vs bladelock gwm) 90%.

S&B should still do some damage. A 20% decrease in damage received (which is what +2 AC is equivalent to) is worth a 20% damage output. 80% is the ideal balance imo. Removing Shield Master reduces S&B to pure tank.

[Spacehamster]

I remember when I first read the PHB and was reading the descriptions for Great Weapon Master and Sharpshooter, my eyes bugged out of my head "-5 to hit but +10 damage?!?" In 3e, there would be feats that would get you bonus damage at the cost of an equivalent subtraction in attack roll, so something like -5 to hit with +5 damage. That seems much more balanced to me, but GWM and SS of 5e seems crazy overpowered, especially when you can get advantage on attacks.

Anybody else think these feats would be more balanced if they were -5 to hit with +5 damage or is it just me?

My take: against low AC monsters they are mint, super nice and powerful, against a high AC monster they are not that useful even with advantage i.m.o.

[Gastronomie]

Consider this question:

Without GWM, Sharpshooter and PAM, can melee characters ever get better than Casters?

[Kryx]

Consider this question:

Without GWM, Sharpshooter and PAM, can melee characters ever get better than Casters?
Consider this question: With GWM, Sharpshooter, and PAM can TWF, Monks, Rogues, Bladelocks, Rangers, Paladins (not OoV) put out enough damage to be considered respectable vs their martial counterpart?
All of those classes should do somewhat less damage than a Fighter, but not 70-75% of what a Fighter, Barbarian, OoV Paladin, etc can do.

And more damage isn't going to solve a Martial and Caster divide - though even that divide is much much smaller in 5e. What you'd be looking to solve there is usefulness beyond just damage for martials (which 5e does quite well for most options)

[Gastronomie]

Consider this question: With GWM, Sharpshooter, and PAM can TWF, Monks, Rogues, Bladelocks, Rangers, Paladins (not OoV) put out enough damage to be considered respectable vs their martial counterpart?
All of those classes should do somewhat less damage than a Fighter, but not 70-75% of what a Fighter, Barbarian, OoV Paladin, etc can do.

And more damage isn't going to solve a Martial and Caster divide - though even that divide is much much smaller in 5e. What you'd be looking to solve there is usefulness beyond just damage for martials (which 5e does quite well for most options)Eeeehhh, I don't really get it - Monks and TWFs may count in, sure, but the other classes use GWM, Sharpshooter or PAM anyways. Sure Fighter gets most ASIs, but still, a majority of non-caster classes benefit from the "strong martial feats".

Without feats, fighters will be hell boring to play. I consider them good for the game. And it's not like Fighters with a bunch of Feats completely outclasses the other classes.

[Longcat]

The -5/+10 feats, as well as Crossbow Expert/Polearm Master, are incredibly unbalanced for the following reasons:
-Availability only to select fighting styles. These fighting styles will overshadow other fighting styles and even some archetypes which otherwise would be balanced without these feats. Both Polearm Master and Great Weapon Master can poach TWF's defining feature while dealing significantly higher damage per hit.
-They trivialize monsters with high HP and low AC. Monsters in 5E are either "high HP & low AC", balanced stats or "low HP & high AC". In a normal game, your expected DPR means that each of these is roughly the same difficulty with a different feel to each. With -5/+10, you breeze through the former.
-They can be cheated in via Variant Human, thereby bypassing the choice between ASI and Feat entirely. Variant Human is literally "have your cake and eat it too".

In 5E, the combat feats take away so much build variety. Just look at nearly every thread about CO suggesting Variant Human+Feat X.

[MaxWilson]

The -5/+10 feats, as well as Crossbow Expert/Polearm Master, are incredibly unbalanced for the following reasons:
-Availability only to select fighting styles. These fighting styles will overshadow other fighting styles and even some archetypes which otherwise would be balanced without these feats. Both Polearm Master and Great Weapon Master can poach TWF's defining feature while dealing significantly higher damage per hit.

TWF is known to be weak (except for Rogues). You can't seriously claim that X is "unbalanced" because it overshadows TWF offensively.

TWF has a reasonably strong early game, and late game it does at least give a +1 AC bonus while still maintaining a modest damage advantage over sword-and-shield, but it's still the weakest fighting style in the game, and probably in real life too. On the plus side, you have better odds of sneaking a couple of daggers into the fancy ball than you do a greatsword or a longsword + shield combo--its niche is at court and in combat-light scenarios.

[Grixis]

Overpowered? Maybe Sharpshooter, but probably not either.

Unbalanced? Absolutely.

The fact is that while neither of these feats is going to break the game (the measure of overpoweredness), they both absolutely and completely cause characters that have them to outclass similarly built characters that lack them. A feat should be made so that it is a trade off for an ability score increase. These feats (along with a few others) are not even close to a balanced tradeoff. If you are a martial combat class and you are not picking one of these (or one of a small number of other combat feats), you are inferior. That is not balanced.

Sharpshooter in particular is a horrible offender. The -5 / +10 part is already pushing balance, due to archery fighting style naturally partially mitigating the penalty. But the real poor design is the fact that it allows you to completely and totally ignore the two biggest checks on ranged combat: cover and long ranged disadvantage. That alone is worth far more than +2 Dex. The damage increase is just a kicker.

Now that said, neither of these is necessarily the most unbalanced of feats. That award goes to Polearm Master which not only outclasses anyone trying to use a polearm without taking it, but makes an entire fighting style (two weapon) worthless in comparison, and comes close to making an entire subclass (Berserker) worthless in comparison. But just because they are not the worst offenders does not mean they don't break the balance.

In another thread a while back, I mentioned how there are two types of balance: internal and external. External balance is how an individual options effect the game as a whole. If an option makes a character too strong compared to the expectations of the game itself, then that option makes the character externally unbalanced. The most common example of something like this is Wizard Simulacrum shenanigans. But that is not the only way to be unbalanced. Internal imbalance is far more common. Internal balance is all about making sure all the options for a given character are balanced with one another, and that you are not forced into particular choices in order to avoid being inferior.

Ultimately, it doesn't matter if a Great Weapon Master Fighter is balanced compared to a Sorcerer. What matters is that they are balanced compared to a sword and board fighter, a two weapon fighter, and an archer fighter. And as is, it really is not.

This dude knows what he's talking about.

[Belac93]

They are great for fighters with multiple attacks (especially battlemasters with precision attack). Rogues can also use sharpshooter, as they often have advantage. I usually see it as risk and reward.

[Pex]

Well, I'm not speaking as a DM (I've never DMed), I'm speaking as a player. Combat in 5e is generally way too easy and too geared for the PC's to win. I have found combat to get pretty boring in 5e because of this.

That is a problem of encounter design from the DM. If the party really is curb stomping over everything then he needs to increase the difficulty of some of the combats, especially the BBEG fights, since the party can handle it. He still shouldn't be increasing the difficulty to the point of having at least one PC die every combat because it's not his job to kill PCs, and I would say he's doing it wrong if at least one PC is dying every combat given the players aren't being stupid.

At is happens my paladin uses a two-handed weapon but doesn't have Great Weapon Master. I don't need it. I do decent enough damage without it, and when I need the extra punch I smite. The party loves me for it. The archer ranger has Sharpshooter and uses it often. The party loves her for it. We each get our moments to shine in a particular battle. Different PCs have been MVP in different battles as it should be. As for the DM he's quite happy with the whole thing. He mixes it up with easy, medium, and hard battles. For those hard battles I need to smite and the ranger needs to Sharpshoot. If we don't we lose. The Battle Master and Eldritch Knight do their own things. The Rogue sneaks attacks. The cleric spell supports and throws in the occasional attack. The druid mixes it up with spells and wild shape. Everyone does their job, and we work together as a team as we're supposed to do. No one resents what the others can do. We use our abilities to help each other as needed. We lay waste to our enemies, see them driven before us, and hear the lamentations of their bosses.

[Grod_The_Giant]

-They can be cheated in via Variant Human, thereby bypassing the choice between ASI and Feat entirely. Variant Human is literally "have your cake and eat it too".

In 5E, the combat feats take away so much build variety. Just look at nearly every thread about CO suggesting Variant Human+Feat X.
It's almost like trading off between bland ASIs and interesting Feats was a terrible design decision that should die in a fire.

[GoodbyeSoberDay]

I'd like to reiterate a general point regarding internal vs. external balance: If something is externally balanced and internally "overpowered," the problem lies with the other, weaker options, which are by definition externally under-powered.

Availability only to select fighting styles. These fighting styles will overshadow other fighting styles and even some archetypes which otherwise would be balanced without these feats. Both Polearm Master and Great Weapon Master can poach TWF's defining feature while dealing significantly higher damage per hit.The problem is that TWF is bad, not that great weapons or polearms are too good. Well, maybe PAM is too good. But they're competing with more general combat feats like Mobile and Alert.

They trivialize monsters with high HP and low AC. Monsters in 5E are either "high HP & low AC", balanced stats or "low HP & high AC". In a normal game, your expected DPR means that each of these is roughly the same difficulty with a different feel to each. With -5/+10, you breeze through the former.Alternatively, highly accurate characters who do low damage per hit (i.e., shield masters proning their foes) are going to have an easy time with high AC/low HP enemies relative to high HP/low AC enemies. There is no perfect balance point for these monsters without making them completely uniform. The key is variety.

They can be cheated in via Variant Human, thereby bypassing the choice between ASI and Feat entirely. Variant Human is literally "have your cake and eat it too".First, what Grod said. Second, it's not a "cheat." The trade off is actual racial features in exchange for a feat.

[Grod_The_Giant]

I'd like to reiterate a general point regarding internal vs. external balance: If something is externally balanced and internally "overpowered," the problem lies with the other, weaker options, which are by definition externally under-powered.
Also this.

[MaxWilson]

I'd like to reiterate a general point regarding internal vs. external balance: If something is externally balanced and internally "overpowered," the problem lies with the other, weaker options, which are by definition externally under-powered.

Meta-comment: this forum needs some kind of a method to acknowledge and raise the visibility of excellent points without having to write a "me too" or "+1" post.

In other words, "Good point. Me too!" :)

[Zman]

Yeah, GWM and Sharpshooter are unbalanced, at least when encounters can be won by sheer damage. Against moderate to high AC enemies when advantage isn't readily available it isn't too problem attic, but when monsters have low to moderate ACs and Advantage can readily be obtained then they break encounters. This isn't to say they are the only break the game, there are certainly problematic spells too.

There exists terrible interfeat balance. Some feats like Savage Attacker are not powerful enough and should be half feats, others like GWM and Sharpshooter are much better than an ASI.

Easiest fix for GWM and Sharpshooter is only allow the -5/+10 to be useable on a single attack per turn. For each feat their other half are still quite good and nearly enough to be feats themselves. Personally, the other half of Sharpshooter needs a nerd too, change to just double short range and downgrading cover instead of ignoring.

[MaxWilson]

Easiest fix for GWM and Sharpshooter is only allow the -5/+10 to be useable on a single attack per turn. For each feat their other half are still quite good and nearly enough to be feats themselves. Personally, the other half of Sharpshooter needs a nerd too, change to just double short range and downgrading cover instead of ignoring.

Don't forget Spell Sniper too.

[Zman]

Don't forget Spell Sniper too.

In my tweaks Spellsniper only downgrades cover as well.

[Fflewddur Fflam]

Easiest fix for GWM and Sharpshooter is only allow the -5/+10 to be useable on a single attack per turn.

Oh, I like that!

[Zman]

Oh, I like that!

Yep, it is still fun, impactful, suspenseful, but when it can't be used for multiple attacks with advantage in a turn it doesn't break the game. The Crit/Kill extra attack is awefully good to begin with and a single -5/+10 is enough to make it a well rounded feat.

[Inchoroi]

Overpowered? Maybe Sharpshooter, but probably not either.

Unbalanced? Absolutely.

The fact is that while neither of these feats is going to break the game (the measure of overpoweredness), they both absolutely and completely cause characters that have them to outclass similarly built characters that lack them. A feat should be made so that it is a trade off for an ability score increase. These feats (along with a few others) are not even close to a balanced tradeoff. If you are a martial combat class and you are not picking one of these (or one of a small number of other combat feats), you are inferior. That is not balanced.

Sharpshooter in particular is a horrible offender. The -5 / +10 part is already pushing balance, due to archery fighting style naturally partially mitigating the penalty. But the real poor design is the fact that it allows you to completely and totally ignore the two biggest checks on ranged combat: cover and long ranged disadvantage. That alone is worth far more than +2 Dex. The damage increase is just a kicker.

Now that said, neither of these is necessarily the most unbalanced of feats. That award goes to Polearm Master which not only outclasses anyone trying to use a polearm without taking it, but makes an entire fighting style (two weapon) worthless in comparison, and comes close to making an entire subclass (Berserker) worthless in comparison. But just because they are not the worst offenders does not mean they don't break the balance.

In another thread a while back, I mentioned how there are two types of balance: internal and external. External balance is how an individual options effect the game as a whole. If an option makes a character too strong compared to the expectations of the game itself, then that option makes the character externally unbalanced. The most common example of something like this is Wizard Simulacrum shenanigans. But that is not the only way to be unbalanced. Internal imbalance is far more common. Internal balance is all about making sure all the options for a given character are balanced with one another, and that you are not forced into particular choices in order to avoid being inferior.

Ultimately, it doesn't matter if a Great Weapon Master Fighter is balanced compared to a Sorcerer. What matters is that they are balanced compared to a sword and board fighter, a two weapon fighter, and an archer fighter. And as is, it really is not.

Summed up my thoughts perfectly. I, too, have cut GWM and Sharpshooter from my table.

[Xetheral]

Shield Master sure shouldn't be made more powerful - it is probably he most powerful combat feat in the game (possibly even more-so than Polearm Master).
He was saying that the combat feats are imbalanced with one another (and he is right in that), not that GWM is more powerful than them.

How is SM more powerful than PAM? Shield Master can Shove and Attack in the same round, but so can PAM (at a slight damage penalty, since the damage comes from the d4 bonus action attack). But PAM can also make two damaging attacks when shoving wouldn't be advantageous.


Consider this question: With GWM, Sharpshooter, and PAM can TWF, Monks, Rogues, Bladelocks, Rangers, Paladins (not OoV) put out enough damage to be considered respectable vs their martial counterpart?
All of those classes should do somewhat less damage than a Fighter, but not 70-75% of what a Fighter, Barbarian, OoV Paladin, etc can do.

70-75% sounds about right to me if you want a class to do less damage than a fighter but still be respectable. I tend to think (admittedly without evidence) that that's about the limit of human perception... 75% implies a ratio of 4-to-3, and I think most people would be hard pressed to notice a trend more subtle than that, particularly in highly-noisy (due to the large random factor) data like D&D combat results.

I tend to think that a difference in damage small enough to not be reliably noticable doesn't matter. Of course, a subjective belief that the feats are too powerful is a problem in it's own right, even if the numbers work out to whatever the desired ratio is.

[Kryx]

70-75% sounds about right to me if you want a class to do less damage than a fighter but still be respectable. I tend to think (admittedly without evidence) that that's about the limit of human perception... 75% implies a ratio of 4-to-3, and I think most people would be hard pressed to notice a trend more subtle than that, particularly in highly-noisy (due to the large random factor) data like D&D combat results.
75% is not small. Most options are much less different.

Without feats a TWF Rogue does the 90% of the DPR that a Fighter with a greatsword does.

[Lollerabe]

Same ol' same ol' - if a rogue only deals 10% less damage than a fighter, why the hell would I ever play a fighter/barb ?

The discussion dosent change every time some one rethreads it. GWM SS etc aren't overpowered compared to the game, they make certain martial classes able to outdamage other classes. The 'big' debate is about the margin of their damage advantage - I believe the fighter/barb should deal 20-25% more damg than other classes, since that's ALL they can do (I'm talking bout their class chasis here, so don't hit me with no 'they can do whatever they want - it's an rpg') others feel differently.

I fail to see the point in trying to convince the 5e community that these feats are OP, many of us have played the game with the feats and experienced that they aren't. I'm playing a EK (aka some1 that dosent have advantage on demand) and so far GWM is a complete wash, i would have been way better off with a str bump.

If you dislike the feats and want to remove them - cool, even more so when everyone at your table agrees (like at Kryx' table) but the notion that they are breaking the game is getting tedious to read about, they don't. Martials aren't breaking anything in 5e unless you really really suck at playing casters.

It's even more funny to me that GWM/SS always are the culprits in these threads when PAM is clearly more broken and/or boring, speaking from both a mathematical and a in play view.

[Kryx]

Same ol' same ol' - if a rogue only deals 10% less damage than a fighter, why the hell would I ever play a fighter/barb ?
That's the default math of 5e without feats. So you don't like that normal level of balance.



To turn that question around: Why would you play a Rogue if a Fighter does significantly more damage? To the larger discussion: Should a fighter be so limited outside of combat? Though a Rogue is rather limited by ability scores as well. I'd argue both should be able to contribute more outside of combat.


Also, I don't remove feats. I balance them to be of equivalent option to one another. You, like others, prefer the version that currently exists where some of the feats are worth far more than other feats/ASIs.

[Giant2005]

How is SM more powerful than PAM? Shield Master can Shove and Attack in the same round, but so can PAM (at a slight damage penalty, since the damage comes from the d4 bonus action attack). But PAM can also make two damaging attacks when shoving wouldn't be advantageous.

I said it is possibly more powerful than PAM. A solid case could be made for either being stronger, which is why I phrased it as an uncertainty.
It is true that PAM can do similar damage to a Shield Master when shoving for advantage is the right action to take, but they are by no means equal under those conditions - the defensive benefits of using a shield (and those provided by the feat) make the shield user far more powerful in that situation. However as you said, when advantage is unnecessary, the Polearm user inflicts more damage as a trade-off for the defensive benefits of the shield user.
The fact that either can be circumstantially better (and that those circumstances are both fairly reliable), gives them both solid grounds to be considered top billing when it comes to feat selection.

[Lollerabe]

The default level of balance angle bothers me. The fact that feats are 'optional' in 5e has made the online debates regarding them borderline dumb. We all know that 75% plus of all the tables represented at this forum uses feats, so I don't care at all about the balance in a featless/no-multiclass-allowed game. I apologize if I seem standoffish, but my previous post sums up my experience with this discussion quiet well.

Me and you have had this debate many a times Kryx, but we can rehash it. The rogue by class chasis can do WAAY more than the fighter outside of combat, if the rogue/monk/ranger/moondruid deals 90-95% the damage of barb/fighters then why would I play B and F's?

By game design those two classes are limited to beating stuff, and that's all they are good at (well I guess you can make a somewhat versatile EK) so let them shine at that, a lot, a lot more than a 5% shine.

I never said you removed feats in general, however you have removed GWM from your table IIRC - the cleave is a default weapon property for heavy weapons at your table, and the -5/+10 is gone = GWM is gone, right?

They (GWM) are worth 'far more' on a very few classes and subclasses. You are using hyperbole and you know it.

[Zalabim]

Without feats a TWF Rogue does the 90% of the DPR that a Fighter with a greatsword does.

I'm sure this varies level by level (because rogues and fighters scale in different ways), and it's time consuming to write a full breakdown for every level, but here's one to get started.

Level 15 Swashbuckler. Relevant features: 20 Dex. Two shortswords. Sneak attack 8d6. Enemy AC 18.

+10 to hit for 1d6+5 main hand. +10 to hit for 1d6 off hand. 8d6 Sneak attack if either hits, assuming this swashbuckler is not a moron, or, if this swashbuckler is a moron, then they suffer opportunity attacks to get a new position where they can use sneak attack when necessary. So they have a 65% chance to land each attack, a 5% chance to crit each attack, a (1-.35^2)87.75% chance to land sneak attack on their turn, and a (.05+.35*.05)6.75% chance that sneak attack is used on a critical hit.

Average damage is 34.61. The average damage if everything hits is 40. He just does this all the time until he dies.
(2d6)7*(Hit+Crit)0.7+(dex)5*(Hit)0.65+(8d6)28*(Hit +Crit)0.945=34.61.
Level 15 Battle Master. Relevant features: 20 Str. Greatsword. Great Weapon Fighting Fighting Style. Action Surge 1/rest. Extra Attack (2). Superiority dice D10 6/rest. 9 maneuvers known (Commander's Strike, Feinting Attack, Precision Attack, Riposte, Trip Attack, 3 others.) Enemy AC 18.

+10 to hit for 2d6+5 with three attacks. Action surge gives another three attacks. Average damage of a hit is 13.33~ because of the fighting style. 65% chance to land each attack and 5% chance to crit each attack.

Conservative (tired) average damage is 27.25. The average damage if everything hits is 40. Obviously, he's going to have try harder than this.
(6d6 GWF)25*(Hit+crit)0.7+(Str*3)15*(Hit)0.65=27.25
Action surge greatly increases one round's damage. Over three rounds, using action surge brings the average to 36.33~=(27.25*4)/3. He can't really ask everyone to take a break after every three rounds of combat, so we'll try to be more tactical with action surge later.

Many maneuvers add the die result to their damage. 1d10 is 5.5 extra damage on average, or 11 if it's used on a critical hit. He can't wait for a crit when he's already playing catch-up, but I'll give him 7.7%, because that's his chance any hit is also a critical hit. So he can spend dice for 5.9235 extra damage and an effect.

Combining this with Action Surge, he can now try six tricks and average 37.715166~=(27.25*7+5.9235*6)/6 if he gets to rest after each six rounds of combat. It's 35.098875 average if he's getting rest after eight rounds instead. He's doing fine, but he's not always showing up the rogue.

Advanced tactics. Battle Mastery 201. The rogue is using more than just Actions, so the battle master should get in on that too. A Riposte does 18.833~ damage on a hit, enabling him to use his reaction and average 12.933~ damage for a SD. That's 7 more damage than before, but enemies don't always miss him, so let's look for more options.

Feinting Attack gives him advantage on one attack, and also averages 18.833~ damage on a hit, for an average of 17.875 instead of 9.0833~ for that one attack, a gain of 8.79166~ for that die. Almost 3 more damage per die, and he can use it on nearly any turn.

Advantage is pretty nice, so let's try Tripping Attack. It always deals the bonus damage, and if it works on the first attack, he can get advantage for his next two, or five if he saves action surge for it. Surely this is what he's been waiting for. An advantaged attack averages 12.5125 instead of 9.0833~. That's a gain of 3.429166~ damage per die for each attack, averaging 12.781833~ normally or 23.0693~ if it's followed with action surge. But trip attack doesn't always work. It's best when the first attack of the round hits. Enemies can make a saving throw, and if they're too big it doesn't work at all.

Now, the nicest part about advantage may be that you hit things more, so let's look at Precision Attack. He doesn't always miss, but when he does, he could be dealing 13.33~ damage instead. That's promising, but Precision Attack doesn't always work. Unless he just missed by 1, he could use the die and still get nothing. Just like with crits, he won't wait for one specific number to use his dice. So he misses 35% of the time, but it can't help on a 1, so he'd use it 30% of the time. The chance it actually turns his miss around ranges from 50% at the worst (needs to roll 6+) to 100% at the best, so his average is 75%. Now without having to also take math 201 or memorize any monster manuals, my battle master figures he can count on precision attack for 10 average damage per die (13.33~*0.75). Not as good as Riposte or Trip, but more reliable.

Finally, my Battle Master visits a retreat for a team building exercise where he learns about Commander's Strike. It costs him a bonus action, an attack, and his partner/competition a reaction, so he's dubious at first, but the counselor asks him to give it a try all the same. So he gives up 9.0833~ damage, and the rogue does 42 damage on a hit, for an average of 29.15 damage, a value of 20.066~ for that die. That counts as mine, he tells the swashbuckler.

Now putting it all together, he can go for ten rounds of combat between rests, using Riposte and Precision Attack and average 36.5616~ damage [(27.25*11+12.933~*2+10*4)/10], or for a common broad view, his average damage over 25 rounds of combat, in a day with two short rests, alone against giants or something, is 38.424 [(27.25*28+12.933~*6+10*12)/25] giving +0.5 for each superiority dice from relentless and using them on Riposte.

Now if our competitors are fighting side by side, the battle master uses Commander's Strike a whole bunch and tallies 44.968 [(27.25*28+20.066~*18)/25] as "his" average, plus 0.8 for extra dice from Relentless.Results may vary. Every enemy is different. Consult your local party before using commander's strike. Side effects of using commander's strike may include a burning sensation the extremities, unexpected high fives, disputes over kill ownership, and "sudden rogue death syndrome". If you are unsatisfied with your results after using commander's strike, discontinue use and gain more levels.

[Kryx]

I'm not intending to hide behind "feats are optional". I agree it was silly to make them so, but the balance level of the game without feats is the best way to determine how impactful those feats are.

You're right that by game design a few classes are limited out of combat and that's unfortunate (I make changes to ideally solve this). But that doesn't weigh in on the damage difference in the default system (without feats).

@Zalabim you can see the DPR on my sheet. You'll have to modify some things to see it without feats (fairly easy). It averages to about 90% RAW TWF Rogue vs RAW greatsword Fighter. It's rather consistent per level/tier actually.

[Xetheral]

I said it is possibly more powerful than PAM. A solid case could be made for either being stronger, which is why I phrased it as an uncertainty.
It is true that PAM can do similar damage to a Shield Master when shoving for advantage is the right action to take, but they are by no means equal under those conditions - the defensive benefits of using a shield (and those provided by the feat) make the shield user far more powerful in that situation. However as you said, when advantage is unnecessary, the Polearm user inflicts more damage as a trade-off for the defensive benefits of the shield user.
The fact that either can be circumstantially better (and that those circumstances are both fairly reliable), gives them both solid grounds to be considered top billing when it comes to feat selection.

Thank you for elaborating!

[georgie_leech]

I remember when I first read the PHB and was reading the descriptions for Great Weapon Master and Sharpshooter, my eyes bugged out of my head "-5 to hit but +10 damage?!?" In 3e, there would be feats that would get you bonus damage at the cost of an equivalent subtraction in attack roll, so something like -5 to hit with +5 damage. That seems much more balanced to me, but GWM and SS of 5e seems crazy overpowered, especially when you can get advantage on attacks.

Anybody else think these feats would be more balanced if they were -5 to hit with +5 damage or is it just me?

Slight quibble, the feat in question, Power Attack, was already a 2 to 1 ratio for two handed weapons. So a Level 5 Fighter could get -5 attack, +10 damage.

[Lombra]

No, they're not.

[Fflewddur Fflam]

Slight quibble, the feat in question, Power Attack, was already a 2 to 1 ratio for two handed weapons. So a Level 5 Fighter could get -5 attack, +10 damage.

Hmmm? In 3e, Power Attack was -5 attack, +5 damage, and Improved Power Attack was -10 attack, +10 damage.

[georgie_leech]

Hmmm? In 3e, Power Attack was -5 attack, +5 damage, and Improved Power Attack was -10 attack, +10 damage.

Not in 3.5. I'd link to the SRD but mobile makes that a pain. The relevant bits:

Power Attack:
On your action, before making attack rolls for a round, you may choose to subtract a number from all melee attack rolls and add the same number to all melee damage rolls. This number may not exceed your base attack bonus. The penalty on attacks and bonus on damage apply until your next turn.

Special

If you attack with a two-handed weapon, or with a one-handed weapon wielded in two hands, instead add twice the number subtracted from your*attack rolls...

There's other notes, but that's the relevant bit for wielding weapons in two hands, except for double weapons, which were weird.

[Fflewddur Fflam]

Not in 3.5. I'd link to the SRD but mobile makes that a pain. The relevant bits:

Power Attack:
On your action, before making attack rolls for a round, you may choose to subtract a number from all melee attack rolls and add the same number to all melee damage rolls. This number may not exceed your base attack bonus. The penalty on attacks and bonus on damage apply until your next turn.

Special

If you attack with a two-handed weapon, or with a one-handed weapon wielded in two hands, instead add twice the number subtracted from your*attack rolls...

There's other notes, but that's the relevant bit for wielding weapons in two hands, except for double weapons, which were weird.

Ahhh, 3.5e, better known as Insane Power Creep edition.

[georgie_leech]

Ahhh, 3.5e, better known as Insane Power Creep edition.

Haste in 3e gave an extra Standard Action, letting casters cast 2 spells every turn. I wouldn't go pointing fingers :smallwink:

[Fflewddur Fflam]

Haste in 3e gave an extra Standard Action, letting casters cast 2 spells every turn. I wouldn't go pointing fingers :smallwink:

Touche. My point is: GWM and Sharpshooter are feats that don't fit the "bounded accuracy" of 5e very well.

[MaxWilson]

Touche. My point is: GWM and Sharpshooter are feats that don't fit the "bounded accuracy" of 5e very well.

There's a lot of misunderstanding out there about what the term "bounded accuracy" actually means. Bounded Accuracy (as explained (http://bluishcertainty.blogspot.com/2016/06/bounded-accuracy.html) by Rodney Thompson, who invented the term) is a DM-side thing. Essentially it's about tossing the 3E/4E concept of ever-increasing DCs and returning to an AD&D-style "ACs and difficulties have a concrete meaning" approach. Its benefits include, among other factors, "The DM's monster roster expands, never contracts... the lower-level monsters continue to be useful to the DM, just in greater numbers" and that "It's good for verisimilitude."

There is absolutely nothing about bounded accuracy, as defined by Rodney Thompson, that GWM/Sharpshooter detract from. They are 100% bounded accuracy-compatible.

[Cybren]

Hmmm? In 3e, Power Attack was -5 attack, +5 damage, and Improved Power Attack was -10 attack, +10 damage.

You're thinking of Neverwnter Nights

[Fflewddur Fflam]

There is absolutely nothing about bounded accuracy, as defined by Rodney Thompson, that GWM/Sharpshooter detract from. They are 100% bounded accuracy-compatible.

Sure. Suddenly doing 1d8+13 or 1d12+13 each hit when you were doing 1d8+3 or 1d12+3 before is "bounded". Sure. That's a frigging quantum leap in damage.

[Fflewddur Fflam]

You're thinking of Neverwnter Nights

I met a nice girl in Neverwinter, so sue me.

[Cybren]

Sure. Suddenly doing 1d8+13 or 1d12+13 each hit when you were doing 1d8+3 or 1d12+3 before is "bounded". Sure. That's a frigging quantum leap in damage.

That's not what the term means, though. Bounded accuracy just has to do with how bonuses and DCs scale

[Giant2005]

That's not what the term means, though. Bounded accuracy just has to do with how bonuses and DCs scale

It is even more narrow than that - it is about how AC and saving throw bonuses scale. It is a means of making sure low level characters/creatures can still hit high level ones, so only excessive defensive bonuses can have a negative impact.

[DeAnno]

I find it hilarious that Martials actually have a thing now, for a significant portion of the game even (damage), and the response of the community is this gnashing of teeth. Why anyone would ever bother playing a (non-EK?) Fighter without -5/+10 feats in an environment where being good at doing things mattered is beyond my comprehension.

Fighter is the only class that gets more than 2 attacks with its action easily. Fighter also has the thing of a short rest Nova which gives it even more attacks. -5/+10 feats are clearly made for such a situation; Fighter even has extra feat slots to take them in. You don't need a page of statistics on damage to figure out who a -5/+10 ban is going to hurt most. (Hint: the crowd control Abjurer Wizard doesn't care)

I can sort of see wanting to turn 5e into something even more vanilla than it already is and handing out a cavalcade of nerfs everywhere, but I don't see this as standing out more than a bunch of other things, most of them in the Spells section of the PHB.

[MaxWilson]

Sure. Suddenly doing 1d8+13 or 1d12+13 each hit when you were doing 1d8+3 or 1d12+3 before is "bounded". Sure. That's a ---- quantum leap in damage.

Find me one quote from Rodney Thompson's description of bounded accuracy that says "PCs are not allowed to increase their damage capability" or anything like unto it.

[Zman]

Touche. My point is: GWM and Sharpshooter are feats that don't fit the "bounded accuracy" of 5e very well.


Sure. Suddenly doing 1d8+13 or 1d12+13 each hit when you were doing 1d8+3 or 1d12+3 before is "bounded". Sure. That's a frigging quantum leap in damage.

Bounded accuracy is not about damage, it is about Attributes, Proficiency Bonus, AC, Saves, Skills, and Save DCs all being kept in a reasonably bounded range that keeps them relevant. There is no longer going from AC12 to AC50+ etc with an ever increasing BAB. Even low level PCs can be compared to a high level monster, sure, that at monster can likely kill them in a single turn but the numbers are comparable.

GWM and Sharpshooter don't break bounded accuracy... They break expected reasonable damage that the game is designed around, mainly because of advantage, and even without it they are too good. They are feats that are not balanced with other feats and are not balanced with damage expectations in the game, but that has nothing to do with bounded accuracy.

[Pex]

Sure. Suddenly doing 1d8+13 or 1d12+13 each hit when you were doing 1d8+3 or 1d12+3 before is "bounded". Sure. That's a frigging quantum leap in damage.

Do you object to a PC doing 2d10 + 4 damage from 60 ft away? How about two attacks of 1d10 + 1d6 + 4 each? How about one melee attack that does 4d6 + 4? Are two melee attacks of 2d6 + 2d8 + 4 ok with you? Does it matter that not one of these attacks are at -5 to hit nor use any feat?

[jas61292]

I find it hilarious that Martials actually have a thing now, for a significant portion of the game even (damage), and the response of the community is this gnashing of teeth.

I see this kinda thing said all the time, and I just have to say that it is the absolute worst kind of strawman. No one is saying they don't think fighters should have nice things.

What we are saying is that it doesn't matter how "nice" it is. If it is poorly designed, we don't want it in our game. And these are very poorly designed.

[Cybren]

I see this kinda thing said all the time, and I just have to say that it is the absolute worst kind of strawman. No one is saying they don't think fighters should have nice things.

What we are saying is that it doesn't matter how "nice" it is. If it is poorly designed, we don't want it in our game. And these are very poorly designed.

That's certainly an opinion you have, but you kind of have to defend "poorly designed" beyond begging the question

[jas61292]

That's certainly an opinion you have, but you kind of have to defend "poorly designed" beyond begging the question

I already have, thank you very much. You failing to acknowledge an argument does not make it nonexistant.

The feats are horribly balanced compared to the options with which they compete. That they are balanced compared to completely unrelated options is irrelevant and does not excuse the bad game design.

[Cybren]

Is this the post you are referring to? Because this doesn't constitute proof, it's literally begging the question- you are restating the premise: "these are overpowered" as "these are overpowered; it's wrong not to take them"

Overpowered? Maybe Sharpshooter, but probably not either.

Unbalanced? Absolutely.

The fact is that while neither of these feats is going to break the game (the measure of overpoweredness), they both absolutely and completely cause characters that have them to outclass similarly built characters that lack them. A feat should be made so that it is a trade off for an ability score increase. These feats (along with a few others) are not even close to a balanced tradeoff. If you are a martial combat class and you are not picking one of these (or one of a small number of other combat feats), you are inferior. That is not balanced.

Sharpshooter in particular is a horrible offender. The -5 / +10 part is already pushing balance, due to archery fighting style naturally partially mitigating the penalty. But the real poor design is the fact that it allows you to completely and totally ignore the two biggest checks on ranged combat: cover and long ranged disadvantage. That alone is worth far more than +2 Dex. The damage increase is just a kicker.

Now that said, neither of these is necessarily the most unbalanced of feats. That award goes to Polearm Master which not only outclasses anyone trying to use a polearm without taking it, but makes an entire fighting style (two weapon) worthless in comparison, and comes close to making an entire subclass (Berserker) worthless in comparison. But just because they are not the worst offenders does not mean they don't break the balance.

In another thread a while back, I mentioned how there are two types of balance: internal and external. External balance is how an individual options effect the game as a whole. If an option makes a character too strong compared to the expectations of the game itself, then that option makes the character externally unbalanced. The most common example of something like this is Wizard Simulacrum shenanigans. But that is not the only way to be unbalanced. Internal imbalance is far more common. Internal balance is all about making sure all the options for a given character are balanced with one another, and that you are not forced into particular choices in order to avoid being inferior.

Ultimately, it doesn't matter if a Great Weapon Master Fighter is balanced compared to a Sorcerer. What matters is that they are balanced compared to a sword and board fighter, a two weapon fighter, and an archer fighter. And as is, it really is not.

[Kryx]

Let's compare GWM vs a +2 to strength from levels 4 to 11 (skipping the rest as other feats could be picked then, but its the same).




4th
5th
6th
7th
8th
9th
10th
11th


Barbarian Greataxe
11.5
23.3
23.4
23.4
25.2
29
29
28


Barbarian GWM
17.4
36.8
32.7
32.2
33.4
40.1
39.8
35.7


Difference
+51%
+58%
+40%
+38%
+33%
+38%
+37%
+27%



With GWM the barbarian does about 40% more damage. Seeing as ASIs and feats are supposed to be comparable then that tells us that GWM is not in balance.

See DPR of Classes (https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1d-9xDdath8kX_v7Rpts9JFIJwIG3X0-dDUtfax14NT0/edit#gid=1741155585) starting at line 29 to line 64 on the RAW side.

[N810]

But enemy AC should be rising as level increases as well, Decreasing the likelihood that GWM will even hit.

[GoodbyeSoberDay]

I already have, thank you very much. You failing to acknowledge an argument does not make it nonexistant.

The feats are horribly balanced compared to the options with which they compete. That they are balanced compared to completely unrelated options is irrelevant and does not excuse the bad game design.Let's suppose for the sake of argument you've shown that Sharpshooter is better than other combat feats an archer might take, such as Mobile (hint hint). Even if you've done so, all you've shown is that there is a difference in value between those feats, and that the values should be brought together. You haven't shown whether one feat should be brought down or other, weaker feats should be brought up.

That's why external balance matters. If most archers end up being outclassed by necromancers and polymorphers and animal conjurers, then the other combat feats relevant to an archer should be brought up to sharpshooter's level, not the other way around.

EDIT: Replying to Kryx

Seeing as ASIs and feats are supposed to be comparable then that tells us that GWM is not in balance.First, a minor point: ASIs affect more than just DPR. This comes into play more with a DEX-based character.

More importantly, I think it's a well-established conceit that almost no martial class immediately goes for ASIs, so long as feats are available. You pick a few feats which are almost guaranteed to be better than ASIs, but as you continue picking, the marginal value of the next feat decreases (because you already have the best ones for your PC) until old reliable ASIs become the better option. To peg the value of a feat in its best case scenario to the value of an ASI, in the category that the feat is supposed to especially benefit, punishes people who need feats for options (martials) and especially people with a less valuable primary stat (STR).

[Cybren]

I suppose I should elaborate on my point:
1) You have to justify the claim that a feat should be worth the same as a bonus to an ability score. I don't think this is true. An ability score increase has too much of a variable meaning in its effectiveness. The particular weight of a particular ability score varies by class and subclass- a bard values a charisma increase more than a fighter does a strength increase, as an example, because for a bard that charisma increase represents an increase to their save DCs, spell attacks, another use of bardic inspiration, etc.

2) You have to justify that that increase in damage constitutes an unacceptable imbalance, meaning you have to concretely determine what is and isn't an acceptable amount of damage output. At the base CR's the game assumes, you don't need any DPR increases to overcome most challenges. One could just as much argue that an increase to your DPR isn't particularly good at all, as regardless the party can win the fight. That would necessitate that the DPR increase be substantial, so that it is noticeable over those that don't have it

3) You have to quantify the value of feats that don't boost your damage in some absurd abstract way. What is the damage increase that Lucky represents, and then how do you further calculate it's value to reroll saving throws or avert enemy critical's? How good is "resilient" in comparison to a feat that increases your DPR?

[Kryx]

But enemy AC should be rising as level increases as well, Decreasing the likelihood that GWM will even hit.
An enemy's AC rising is already part of my formula.


That's why external balance matters.
External balance matters, but you don't solve Martial vs Caster by buffing the Fighter and ignoring the monk, rogue, ranger, paladin, etc.

Internal balance (comparing feats to other feats and ASIs) is how we determine if a certain feat is balanced or not. To determine overall game balance you'd have to do much more.

[jas61292]

Let's suppose for the sake of argument you've shown that Sharpshooter is better than other combat feats an archer might take, such as Mobile (hint hint). Even if you've done so, all you've shown is that there is a difference in value between those feats, and that the values should be brought together. You haven't shown whether one feat should be brought down or other, weaker feats should be brought up.

That's why external balance matters. If most archers end up being outclassed by necromancers and polymorphers and animal conjurers, then the other combat feats relevant to an archer should be brought up to sharpshooter's level, not the other way around.

Except every single feat is alternative to the games base rule of an ASI. And as was just shown they are way more powerful than an ASI.

ASIs boost both hit and damage. That is the main part of their niche. To be completely honest, any feat that boosts DPR directly in any way is encroaching on that niche and highly suspect. It just so happens that in this specific case the imbalance is easily shown

[Cybren]

Except every single feat is alternative to the games base rule of an ASI. And add was just shown they are way more powerful than an ASI.

ASIs boost both hit and damage. That is the main part of their niche. To be completely honest, any feat that boosts DPR directly in any way is encroaching on that niche and highly suspect. It just so happens that in this specific case the imbalance is easily shown
The value of an ASI is too variable between classes to make any objective marker of their value possible. How much is a con boost for a barbarian worth vs a dexterity boost for a rogue vs a strength boost for a fighter? They aren't symmetrical, and they shouldn't be. Symmetry is the death knell of good game design

[GoodbyeSoberDay]

External balance matters, but you don't solve Martial vs Caster by buffing the Fighter and ignoring the monk, rogue, ranger, paladin, etc.

Internal balance (comparing feats to other feats and ASIs) is how we determine if a certain feat is balanced or not. To determine overall game balance you'd have to do much more.All of those classes you list except perhaps Monk would be made worse off by nerfing Sharpshooter/GWM and better off by buffing other options. Monk is its own can of worms which seems orthogonal to this discussion. Re-balancing a game should be like the practice of medicine: First, do no harm.

Except every single feat is alternative to the games base rule of an ASI. And add was just shown they are way more powerful than an ASI.

ASIs boost both hit and damage. That is the main part of their niche. To be completely honest, any feat that boosts DPR directly in any way is encroaching on that niche and highly suspect. It just so happens that in this specific case the imbalance is easily shownHere's what +2 DEX does:
+1 to hit and damage for DEX-based attackers
+1 AC
+1 initiative
+1 dex saves
+1 dex checks, such as Stealth

Now that looks like a decent balance point. It also looks nothing like a DPR ability, and feats that enhance DPR certainly don't "encroach" on what +2 DEX provides. The fact that STR-based characters have fewer benefits for taking an ASI that boosts their attacks shouldn't force them to only consider bad feats.

[Kryx]

Cybren, the amount of proof you're asking for is a fool's errand. You couldn't prove it's balance and shouldn't need to.

I've shown the damage difference. To compare GWM vs an ASI we then compare that damage difference vs +1 dex save, +1 Athletics and breaking doors, and a higher carrying capacity. In my eyes it's rather clear that GWM wins that comparison.



All of those classes you list except perhaps Monk would be made worse off by nerfing Sharpshooter and better off by buffing other options.
Removing -5/+10 hurts certain builds of the options listed. If you have a problem with Martial vs Caster then you have to address all martials. You're effectively ignoring a subset of build options.

[GoodbyeSoberDay]

Removing -5/+10 hurts certain builds of the options listed. If you have a problem with Martial vs Caster then you have to address all martials. You're effectively ignoring a subset of build options.I don't find much meaning in the distinction, if all the build options are still severely outclassed by external options. It's not as though these other build options are improved; they are only unaffected.

[Kryx]

I don't find much meaning in the distinction, if all the build options are still severely outclassed by external options. It's not as though these other build options are improved; they are only unaffected.
I think we're speaking past each other.

S&B should be balanced against TWF should be balanced against GWM should be balanced against PAM should be balanced against Archery.

Now all of those should have some balance against casters, but that balance is much more difficult to determine and all of those above build options should move as a unit in comparison to spellcasters. Not just 1 or 2 of the styles.

[jas61292]

You guys are right to an extent. Numbers are fiddly and can only show so much with indirectly comparable things. But that's what playtesting is for. And people here have done a lot of that.

So let me say this: if these feats are not so unbalanced as to be a superior option to all alternatives, show me one thread on optimizing someone who uses a two handed weapon where neither the OP nor a majority of posters consider GWM a necessity. I doubt you can. And no, threads from people in games without feats don't count (though people, in my experience, tend to not read the OP and suggest GWM anyways).

The fact is, on any character where they are applicable, these feats are needed to be optimized as a character. A feat can and should make you better at something specific, but it should not make you better overall as a character compared to its alternatives. If it does, it is unbalanced. And clearly, play experience shows this is the case.

[GoodbyeSoberDay]

S&B should be balanced against TWF should be balanced against GWM should be balanced against PAM should be balanced against Archery.

Now all of those should have some balance against casters, but that balance is much more difficult to determine and all of those above build options should move as a unit in comparison to spellcasters. Not just 1 or 2 of the styles.I agree. However, if TWF<Sword&Board=Greatweapons<Polearms=Archery, there are several ways to bring them closer together. You could bring everything down to TWF level, which would create good internal balance. But it would clearly hurt external balance. Complicated issues with external balance aside, I don't even think we're arguing that nerfing certain martial builds would hurt overall external balance.

Alternatively, you could buff TWF, and to a lesser extent S&B, until they were competitive as well. That would be equally effective in improving internal balance while helping external balance.

[Kryx]

It's not just the fighting styles that I mentioned above, but also internal balance between builds that use -5/+10. For example if you compare an OoV Paladin (who has access to advantage) to any other paladin you'll see that -5/+10 greatly favors OoV far beyond OoV's normal balance compared to the other oaths.

-5/+10 is inherently difficult to balance. Any bonuses to hit make it far more powerful. That's the problem with it.

But I agree on TWF - I buff it directly as well. On my balance GWM does about 100%, Polearm does about 95%, Polearm + GWM does about 105%, TWF does about 95%, S&B does about 85%, Ranged does about 80%

[MaxWilson]

You guys are right to an extent. Numbers are fiddly and can only show so much with indirectly comparable things. But that's what playtesting is for. And people here have done a lot of that.

You cannot simultaneously praise playtesting and still criticize the (extensively-playtested, working-just-fine-in-play) WotC-published game balance in favor of white room theorycrafting on somebody's spreadsheet. I guarantee you that no matter how much playtesting someone's home brew has had, 5E as published has had a lot more.

That doesn't mean that WotC can't or didn't make mistakes, but an appeal to "playtesting" isn't going to win your argument for you.

[Cybren]

Cybren, the amount of proof you're asking for is a fool's errand. You couldn't prove it's balance and shouldn't need to


Except you're the one attempting to use objective concrete measures to determine balance. You're doing a third of the work- showing that damage increases are large, without showing 1) why that's a problem or 2) what the character loses not taking other feats

[Xetheral]

GWM and SS can be a great source of bonus damage, but they don't stack very well with other sources of bonus damage (like sneak attack, smite, etc.). This is because the accuracy penalty hurts your chances of dealing your base damage including those other sources of bonus damage. So as your damage goes up, the damage-per-attack gain from using GWM/SS goes down. Here are two tables showing the change in expected damage per attack when using GWM or SS, both with and without advantage:


http://i264.photobucket.com/albums/ii192/Xetheral/GWM%20DPA%20Gain.jpg

http://i264.photobucket.com/albums/ii192/Xetheral/GWM%20DPA%20Gain%20with%20Advantage.jpg

As you can see from the tables, the expected damage gain from GWM/SS goes down as one's base damage increases. Without advantage, for each +1 increase in base damage, the expected increase from using GWM/SS drops by .25 damage. With advantage it's a variable loss, but in the midrange of the table it ranges from .20 to .35 damage lost for every +1 increase in base damage.

But notice that even in the best case scenario of base damage of 4 (which effectively requires a hand-crossbow and a 10 dex, so it won't come up very often), SS doesn't actually add all that much damage per attack (for mid-range hit chances, it's between 0 and 4 extra damage per attack without advantage, and between 1 and 6 extra damage with advantage). With more normal levels of base damage, it's even lower, to the point that it frequently (depending on DM's choice of opponents) won't be optimal to activate the feat at all.

These feats are undoubtedly one of the most-accessible sources of bonus damage, and as such are very useful. But they provide a poorly-stacking bonus that in absolute terms doesn't add all that much damage per attack.

I'll edit my GWM/SS thread (linked in my signature) to include these two new tables.

[Zman]

A note about GWM from my group last night. We have a lvl 6 Champion Fighter with GWF and GWM and a magical Greataxe(Attunement, +2 Str, Disadvantage on Perception(Sight)). The group, upon seeing what it does when there is readily available advantage, in this case Minotaurs as enemies, all agreed the feat was broken and needed to be fixed. Previously, when it was being taken I mentioned that I was not going to houserule any feats during our game or use any houserules beyond a couple (Modified Flanking, "Breather" Rest, Exhaustion for 0HP). Upon seeing the feat in action against Orcs, Ogres, etc the group felt it was quite strong and they mentioned it felt too good. Upon seeing it in action with advantage the group unanimously voted for nerfing it down to only one -5/+10 attack per turn, and that included the player controlling the character. After a combat heavy session last night they all felt the change to GWM was definitely better balanced and definitely still worth it.

Moral of the story is a full group voted unanimously to voluntarily nerf GWM to only a single -5/+10 attack per turn and still felt is was absolutely still worth it as a feat. Despite my feelings on the feat I was trying to run this game without major modifications and houserules, partially because I'm still refining my tweaks for 5e, and the players virtually demanded it be addressed in game and nerfed. Internal Party balance and external balance with the game world is better for it.

[TentacleSurpris]

yes they are overpowered.

Play GWM in a game with flanking and watch the enemies faces melt off.

I feel GWM should be split into two feats. Getting Power Attack AND Cleave is too much.

[Zman]

GWM and SS can be a great source of bonus damage, but they don't stack very well with other sources of bonus damage (like sneak attack, smite, etc.). This is because the accuracy penalty hurts your chances of dealing your base damage including those other sources of bonus damage. So as your damage goes up, the damage-per-attack gain from using GWM/SS goes down. Here are two tables showing the change in expected damage per attack when using GWM or SS, both with and without advantage:


http://i264.photobucket.com/albums/ii192/Xetheral/GWM%20DPA%20Gain.jpg

http://i264.photobucket.com/albums/ii192/Xetheral/GWM%20DPA%20Gain%20with%20Advantage.jpg

As you can see from the tables, the expected damage gain from GWM/SS goes down as one's base damage increases. Without advantage, for each +1 increase in base damage, the expected increase from using GWM/SS drops by .25 damage. With advantage it's a variable loss, but in the midrange of the table it ranges from .20 to .35 damage lost for every +1 increase in base damage.

But notice that even in the best case scenario of base damage of 4 (which effectively requires a hand-crossbow and a 10 dex, so it won't come up very often), SS doesn't actually add all that much damage per attack (for mid-range hit chances, it's between 0 and 4 extra damage per attack without advantage, and between 1 and 6 extra damage with advantage). With more normal levels of base damage, it's even lower, to the point that it frequently (depending on DM's choice of opponents) won't be optimal to activate the feat at all.

These feats are undoubtedly one of the most-accessible sources of bonus damage, and as such are very useful. But they provide a poorly-stacking bonus that in absolute terms doesn't add all that much damage per attack.

I'll edit my GWM/SS thread (linked in my signature) to include these two new tables.

One question, where are getting these base damage assumptions from??? At low levels base damage of say 2d6+3 is 10 or 11.33 with GWF and only d8+3 or 7.5 for a Bow. Bump stats all the way to 20 and you are looking at 13.33 or a Greatsword with 20 Strength and only 9.5 for a Longbow with 20 Dex. My point is, why does the table expand so far if it isn't relevant?

[Xetheral]

One question, where are getting these base damage assumptions from??? At low levels base damage of say 2d6+3 is 10 or 11.33 with GWF and only d8+3 or 7.5 for a Bow. Bump stats all the way to 20 and you are looking at 13.33 or a Greatsword with 20 Strength and only 9.5 for a Longbow with 20 Dex. My point is, why does the table expand so far if it isn't relevant?

There are no assumptions regarding base damage in the table's calculations. As far as the range on the axes, I chose to go up to 24 because it wasn't any extra work to do so now, and that way it covers edge cases such as Sneak Attack and Smite. I make no claim that all values on the table will occur with equal frequency--I'm only trying to provide all the data. (Note that I based my own opinions on the data from the far left edge of the table!)

(Actually, since 10d6 sneak attack is 35 base damage all by itself, maybe I should have made the table go farther!)

[krugaan]

yes they are overpowered.

Play GWM in a game with flanking and watch the enemies faces melt off.

I feel GWM should be split into two feats. Getting Power Attack AND Cleave is too much.

Flanking is itself an optional rule which many don't play with precisely because it breaks feats like GWM. Well, just GWM, really.

Although in most cases, flanking rules are more detrimental to the party.

[jas61292]

You cannot simultaneously praise playtesting and still criticize the (extensively-playtested, working-just-fine-in-play) WotC-published game balance in favor of white room theorycrafting on somebody's spreadsheet. I guarantee you that no matter how much playtesting someone's home brew has had, 5E as published has had a lot more.

That doesn't mean that WotC can't or didn't make mistakes, but an appeal to "playtesting" isn't going to win your argument for you.

You completely missed my point. By playtesting I was referring to actual people on this site actually playing with the actual published mechanics, as is. Nothing to do with homebrew. My point is that both from a theorycrafting numbers perspective, and the perspective of people who have actively tried out the various builds it is pretty much unanimous, that any build that attempts to use the weapons involved with one of these feats without actually taking the feat is subsumption. If you are an archer that doesn't take sharpshooter, you are not optimized. If you use a maul and do not take great weapon master, you are not optimized. Both in theory and in practice the feats are not balanced vs the other available options, because you can't not take them and be optimized. That is my entire point. As I said, show me a thread where someone is trying to use one of these combat styles and the community doesn't treat the feats as practically mandatory. I don't think you can. And that's because they don't simply make you good with the weapon, they make it so that no similar character without the feat can catch up.

[Xetheral]

If you are an archer that doesn't take sharpshooter, you are not optimized.

Quibble: an archer who doesn't take sharpshooter isn't optimized for damage. They might still be optimized for skirmishing (Mobile), ambushing (Skulker), or being a counter-sniper (Alert and/or Observant).

[MaxWilson]

Flanking is itself an optional rule which many don't play with precisely because it breaks feats like GWM. Well, just GWM, really.

It also trivializes feats like Mounted Combatant, makes grappling/pushing weaker, makes Pack Tactics and Wolf Totem Barbarian pointless, trivializes the Barbarian's Reckless Attack, etc. It's not just GWM; the DMG flanking variant is just bad.

Giving +1 to hit on a flanked target is an interesting variant though, one that I mean to try out at some point.

[krugaan]

It also trivializes feats like Mounted Combatant, makes grappling/pushing weaker, makes Pack Tactics and Wolf Totem Barbarian pointless, trivializes the Barbarian's Reckless Attack, etc. It's not just GWM; the DMG flanking variant is just bad.

Giving +1 to hit on a flanked target is an interesting variant though, one that I mean to try out at some point.

It really is. What was flanking worth in 3.x?

Handing out advantage for a move action is severely breaking action economy.

[Zman]

It also trivializes feats like Mounted Combatant, makes grappling/pushing weaker, makes Pack Tactics and Wolf Totem Barbarian pointless, trivializes the Barbarian's Reckless Attack, etc. It's not just GWM; the DMG flanking variant is just bad.

Giving +1 to hit on a flanked target is an interesting variant though, one that I mean to try out at some point.

My group uses +1 per ally flanking. So if a target is flanked, you get +1 for each ally that is threatening them. Has been working out quite well so far and adds some considerations to terrain and movement, or putting your back to a wall etc.

[MaxWilson]

My group uses +1 per ally flanking. So if a target is flanked, you get +1 for each ally that is threatening them. Has been working out quite well so far and adds some considerations to terrain and movement, or putting your back to a wall etc.

That's pretty interesting too. I've also contemplated making flanking be "-1 to AC against all attackers, OR -2 to AC against all attackers except one." That neatly simulates facing rules without much hassle, and allows you to choose to ignore puny attackers and concentrate on the real threat. (Monsters can likewise use this to prevent familiars from giving a "free" +1 to hit to the PCs.)

The more I play 5E, the more I think advantage/disadvantage are overused (overly binary) and that small circumstantial modifiers should be part of a DM's toolkit too. In fact I am starting to think that advantage/disadvantage should be reserved only for codified rules such as spells or official house rules; throwing around advantage/disadvantage for circumstantial modifiers detracts more from the game than it adds to it.

[Cybren]

I kind of feel the opposite- codified rule effects like spells, feats, or class abilities don't have memory issues or subjective judgement problems, so they don't need to use advantage/disadvantage, which I think is more useful for various circumstantial effects players think of on the fly. That things like darkness impose disadvantage or being prone imposes advantage is just to speed up play, but those two things in particular come up so frequently I think they could have used flat modifiers like cover does (which doesn't use ad/disad because of how binary they are and how easy it would be to cancel)

[MaxWilson]

I kind of feel the opposite- codified rule effects like spells, feats, or class abilities don't have memory issues or subjective judgement problems, so they don't need to use advantage/disadvantage, which I think is more useful for various circumstantial effects players think of on the fly. That things like darkness impose disadvantage or being prone imposes advantage is just to speed up play, but those two things in particular come up so frequently I think they could have used flat modifiers like cover does (which doesn't use ad/disad because of how binary they are and how easy it would be to cancel)

Predictably imposing disadvantage is incredibly powerful though. (Gaining advantage is less so.) If Blur were only a +2 to AC like Shield of Faith, it would be as meh as it ever was in AD&D; but imposing disadvantage makes you basically immune to critical hits and also increases the value of any AC bonuses (e.g. Shield spell, Defense style, Haste, Shield of Faith, magical armor, rings of protection).

Now, it's not necessarily true that "incredibly powerful" effects should be reserved for clearly-defined abilities. Some people might like to play in a game where spells are less powerful than circumstantial bonuses--that will tend to encourage creative play leveraging the environment. My bias is to want play to be predictable for my players, so I'll save the powerful stuff for well-defined effects like knocking an enemy prone and leave the weak +/-1 modifiers for circumstantial ad-hoc stuff like "the ground is kind of slippery here".

[Zalabim]

Let's compare GWM vs a +2 to strength from levels 4 to 11 (skipping the rest as other feats could be picked then, but its the same).




4th
5th
6th
7th
8th
9th
10th
11th


Barbarian Greataxe
11.5
23.3
23.4
23.4
25.2
29
29
28


Barbarian GWM
17.4
36.8
32.7
32.2
33.4
40.1
39.8
39.6


Difference
+51%
+58%
+40%
+38%
+33%
+38%
+37%
+41%



With GWM the barbarian does about 42% more damage. Seeing as ASIs and feats are supposed to be comparable then that tells us that GWM is not in balance.

See DPR of Classes (https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1d-9xDdath8kX_v7Rpts9JFIJwIG3X0-dDUtfax14NT0/edit#gid=1741155585) starting at line 29 to line 64 on the RAW side.

First off, the feat needs to be stronger in its niche than the ASI. 42% tells us only 42%. Zeroth off, your level 11 column has (-4) for the attack penalty on GWM. Second off, the question of the thread is about the power attack portion of the feat. To see that, at level 4, +2 Str has damage of 11.6 (or 9.8 without rage) and GWM has damage of 13.1 (or 11.9 without rage). So of the 51% more total damage for GWM, 15.58% (based on 65% of rounds with rage) is from using "power attack," then increased by a further 30.6% from using "cleave" with it. Going over to your level 10 column where you have 37% more damage, 13.7% is from "power attack" and then "cleave" boosts that by another 20.4%. I believe your spreadsheet has each half of GWM very close to the same value. For barbarians.

Unrelated: Barbarians can't use Reckless Attack on off-turn attacks, so your value for Opportunity Attack and Polearm Provoke need to use normal hit values instead of advantaged hit values. There's no reason for a barbarian to use a greataxe between levels 4 and 8, and still no excuse to use a greataxe from 9 to 12 unless they're a half-orc. In your feat-replacement houserules, I suspect if you give cleave to the greataxe and power attack to the maul and greatsword that'd be a difficult choice.

Broader, more personal, issue: I don't like to reference your spreadsheet because every time I try, I run into another error in the application of rules (Like using reckless attack when it is not your turn) or wild unexplained assumption (so much rogues). It is also riddled with minor input(-4 instead of -5) and calculation mistakes (-1.1 to hit approximating cover. That's mainly a rogue thing. It isn't always wrong.) It is just generally not a useful reference.

[Kryx]

Zeroth off, your level 11 column has (-4) for the attack penalty on GWM.
Thanks! Corrected this on that post and the sheet. Average of 40% from 4-11 and even from 4-20, though without GWM has an additional feat at that point so I left it out earlier.


Second off, the question of the thread is about the power attack portion of the feat.
Sure, I can update the table:




4th
5th
6th
7th
8th
9th
10th
11th


Barbarian GWM w/o -5/+10
12.9
25.5
24.9
24.6
26.5
31.3
31.1
29.6


Barbarian GWM
17.4
36.8
32.7
32.2
33.4
40.1
39.8
35.7


Difference
+35%
+44%
+31%
+31%
+26%
+28%
+28%
+20%


Average of 31% more damage from -5/+10. It stays around 20% for the rest of the levels (avg 25% across 4-20).



There's no reason for a barbarian to use a greataxe between levels 4 and 8
Barbarian uses greataxe as that fits the style and most players will use that. Greatsword is probably a bit more optimal, but I'm trying to estimate the normal.
I do think it's unfortunate that a greataxe isn't better for a Barbarian for a large portion of his career.



Broader, more personal, issue: I don't like to reference your spreadsheet because every time I try, I run into another error in the application of rules (Like using reckless attack when it is not your turn)
I'm happy to fix any errors like reckless attack being used in the off turn.

For this comparison opportunity attack is already such little damage that it would alter the DPR by like .2 (which is why I didn't both to alter it above). It's incredibly insignificant.



wild unexplained assumption (so much rogues).
Rogue has an incredibly high chance to sneak attack due to it only requiring allies to be near to enemies. On the first round this is reduced as allies aren't next to enemies in most cases.
If you have suggestions for how to improve the rogue assumptions I'd be happy to hear them.


It is also riddled with minor input(-4 instead of -5)
Riddled? Oh come on. The sheet has thousands of lines. There are bound to be a few mistakes, but "riddled" is a gross exaggeration and you know it.


calculation mistakes (-1.1 to hit approximating cover. That's mainly a rogue thing. It isn't always wrong.)
Cover giving an average of -1.1 to attacks is not a calculation mistake. I didn't have a note attached, but I attached one now: "Assumes the enemy has half cover 30% of the time and 3/4 cover 10% of the time"


It is just generally not a useful reference.
Many people find it useful. I've received a lot of feedback on it. You're knocking it because you don't think it's 100% accurate and so therefore dismiss it. That's your choice, but if you fail to provide a better model then complaints that it's not 100% perfect will fall on deaf ears.

[Easy_Lee]

Barbarian uses greataxe as that fits the style and most players will use that. Greatsword is probably a bit more optimal, but I'm trying to estimate the normal.
I do think it's unfortunate that a greataxe isn't better for a Barbarian for a large portion of his career.

Based on math I did a year ago, I'd concluded that a 6 champion fighter / 14 barbarian half-orc was better off with a great axe than a greatsword. I'm unsure if there are any other class / race combinations for which the great axe is optimal.

[Zman]

Based on math I did a year ago, I'd concluded that a 6 champion fighter / 14 barbarian half-orc was better off with a great axe than a greatsword. I'm unsure if there are any other class / race combinations for which the great axe is optimal.

Any Barbarian 9+ that doesn't dip Fighter for Great Weapon Fighter? A half Orc Barbarian 1+ that doesn't dip Fighter for GWF. You are comparing less swingy damage from a Greatsword dealing 7 average damage vs a swingy 6.5 from the Greataxe. As soon as you get to add extra damage dice from a Crit the .5damage gape between them disappears quickly. Now, mathwise the Greataxe doesn't pull ahead until you have 2 extra crit dice with Reckless(I believe), but before that the average damage difference is so negligible and unnoticed it doesn't really matter and wouldn't be noticed.

If they get GWF, then it is very difficult for a Greataxe to ever pull ahead, can blame that on the poorly written GWF.

[MaxWilson]

Unrelated: Barbarians can't use Reckless Attack on off-turn attacks, so your value for Opportunity Attack and Polearm Provoke need to use normal hit values instead of advantaged hit values.

Huh. Never noticed that before. Thanks for the tip.

[krugaan]

Any Barbarian 9+ that doesn't dip Fighter for Great Weapon Fighter? A half Orc Barbarian 1+ that doesn't dip Fighter for GWF. You are comparing less swingy damage from a Greatsword dealing 7 average damage vs a swingy 6.5 from the Greataxe. As soon as you get to add extra damage dice from a Crit the .5damage gape between them disappears quickly. Now, mathwise the Greataxe doesn't pull ahead until you have 2 extra crit dice with Reckless(I believe), but before that the average damage difference is so negligible and unnoticed it doesn't really matter and wouldn't be noticed.

If they get GWF, then it is very difficult for a Greataxe to ever pull ahead, can blame that on the poorly written GWF.

barbarian capstone is pretty valuable ... if you end up going that far.

[dev6500]

For people who like images to refer to when thinking about things as opposed to just numbers. Here is a link to a graph (https://drive.google.com/open?id=0ByjoM6MWiYQ3VjRUTG1FMHE3Tm8). This graph lets you know what the break even point is for using the -5/+10 ability for GWM. Its based off of the equation
yx = (y-.25)(x+10) with y being chance to hit before -5 penalty and x being average damage on hit before +10 bonus.

All you need to do is match up your current weapon damage average and then you will know what hit chance minimum you need in order to break even or benefit from using the -5/+10.

A funny take away from this graph is how the -5/+10 ability is significantly better for a archer with sharpshooter than for a two handed weapon user since ranged characters consistently have 10% higher hit chance and lower average damage per hit( longbow ~ 4.5 vs greatsword ~7).

[Pex]

You guys are right to an extent. Numbers are fiddly and can only show so much with indirectly comparable things. But that's what playtesting is for. And people here have done a lot of that.

So let me say this: if these feats are not so unbalanced as to be a superior option to all alternatives, show me one thread on optimizing someone who uses a two handed weapon where neither the OP nor a majority of posters consider GWM a necessity. I doubt you can. And no, threads from people in games without feats don't count (though people, in my experience, tend to not read the OP and suggest GWM anyways).

The fact is, on any character where they are applicable, these feats are needed to be optimized as a character. A feat can and should make you better at something specific, but it should not make you better overall as a character compared to its alternatives. If it does, it is unbalanced. And clearly, play experience shows this is the case.

Currently I'm playing a 7th level paladin with great weapon style, 18 ST, 15 CO, 16 CH. Next level I get an ASI or feat. What are my worthwhile options?

ST to 20 - Nice, but I don't need it. I'm not hurting for hitting bad guys and +1 damage is meaningless when I'm already rerolling 1s and 2s and smiting. This is for much later when I have nothing else to do.

Great Weapon Master feat - Works well with my Devotion Channeling since +3 to hit compensates the -5 for a total -2. However, I'm still not hurting for damage. The 1s and 2s rerolling are making a difference and smites are prime. I don't see myself ever taking this. The -5 to hit is not worth it for this character for the damage.

CH to 18 - Very high value. +1 to all saving throws is a Big Deal. Paladin uses CH for other things, but saving throws are key.

Resilient (Con) - Proficiency in Con save is nice. I do occasional cast a concentration spell. What makes it worth considering over +2 CH is that my CO goes to 16 for more hit points. As a frontline warrior that matters. Bless is still there, by me or the cleric, for the saving throws so CH to 18 isn't that much needed now. As of now choosing this feat has priority. CH to 18 will be worth it for 12th level when I'll truly need every save bonus I can get.

[MaxWilson]

A funny take away from this graph is how the -5/+10 ability is significantly better for a archer with sharpshooter than for a two handed weapon user since ranged characters consistently have 10% higher hit chance and lower average damage per hit( longbow ~ 4.5 vs greatsword ~7).

Also, Sharpshooter is fantastic if you're using a sling. (~2.5 damage.)

I've always wanted to make a Hunter Ranger who Volleys dozens of sling bullets at a time.

[Cybren]

Currently I'm playing a 7th level paladin with great weapon style, 18 ST, 15 CO, 16 CH. Next level I get an ASI or feat. What are my worthwhile options?

ST to 20 - Nice, but I don't need it. I'm not hurting for hitting bad guys and +1 damage is meaningless when I'm already rerolling 1s and 2s and smiting. This is for much later when I have nothing else to do.

Great Weapon Master feat - Works well with my Devotion Channeling since +3 to hit compensates the -5 for a total -2. However, I'm still not hurting for damage. The 1s and 2s rerolling are making a difference and smites are prime. I don't see myself ever taking this. The -5 to hit is not worth it for this character for the damage.

CH to 18 - Very high value. +1 to all saving throws is a Big Deal. Paladin uses CH for other things, but saving throws are key.

Resilient (Con) - Proficiency in Con save is nice. I do occasional cast a concentration spell. What makes it worth considering over +2 CH is that my CO goes to 16 for more hit points. As a frontline warrior that matters. Bless is still there, by me or the cleric, for the saving throws so CH to 18 isn't that much needed now. As of now choosing this feat has priority. CH to 18 will be worth it for 12th level when I'll truly need every save bonus I can get.
Don't forget if you don't have them already:
Heavy Armor Master: +1 strength is a nice topping on your damage resistance cupcake, letting you use another ASI to get 20str16con
Mounted Combatant: Paladins get badass mounts already, and this gives a reliable source of advantage when you are able to fight from your mount
Lucky: I keep referring to this as the best feat in the game (because it is).
Inspiring Leader: Just starting every fight after a short rest with 11 temp HP for each party member is a surprisingly valuable ability

[Mechaviking]

I play a human variant paladin with GWM in a biweekly group. I haven´t hit anything in about 2 months and now were on break so probably up to 4 months. I regret not going polearm master personally.

Also regarding the nerfing/"rebalancing" of said feats, changing them would make a single classed fighter absatively pointless, IMO :D.

[krugaan]

Also, Sharpshooter is fantastic if you're using a sling. (~2.5 damage.)

I've always wanted to make a Hunter Ranger who Volleys dozens of sling bullets at a time.

Hah, extra points if you don't use a sling and just throw them. Or use pebbles or something.

"Hah, look at this idiot, throwing bullets instead of using a sling! It's only gonna do 1d4 damage! How you gonna get all of us?"

Dex 20 sharpshooter ranger grabs a handful of gravel and throws a volley, dealing 1d4+15 damage to everything he hits, lol.

edit: would thrown rocks get dex mod, or str? I guess str.

[Crgaston]

Hah, extra points if you don't use a sling and just throw them. Or use pebbles or something.

"Hah, look at this idiot, throwing bullets instead of using a sling! It's only gonna do 1d4 damage! How you gonna get all of us?"

Dex 20 sharpshooter ranger grabs a handful of gravel and throws a volley, dealing 1d4+15 damage to everything he hits, lol.

edit: would thrown rocks get dex mod, or str? I guess str.

Ha! That's awesome!
I'd argue Dex or Str. Str because of the added force, Dex because of the precision. A rock to the head is worse than one to the belly.

[Pex]

Don't forget if you don't have them already:
Heavy Armor Master: +1 strength is a nice topping on your damage resistance cupcake, letting you use another ASI to get 20str16con
Mounted Combatant: Paladins get badass mounts already, and this gives a reliable source of advantage when you are able to fight from your mount
Lucky: I keep referring to this as the best feat in the game (because it is).
Inspiring Leader: Just starting every fight after a short rest with 11 temp HP for each party member is a surprisingly valuable ability

Because of DM house ruling I mentioned in another thread a month or so ago, the DM purposely does not have bad guys target my Find Steed mount or affect it in other ways. I'm always target for attacks directed at me. It's mainly a glorified Fast Movement class feature. The only benefit Mounted Combatant would be to me is advantage on attacks, which is potent. However, since I'm not hurting for hitting the bad guys I'm not in desperate need of it. It is worth considering but not as valuable as Resilient is for me at this time.

[jas61292]

Ha! That's awesome!
I'd argue Dex or Str. Str because of the added force, Dex because of the precision. A rock to the head is worse than one to the belly.

RAW I believe it would have to be Dex. Its an improvised weapon, and its ranged, so unless the DM rules it is similar enough to an existing weapon to use its stats, it would just be an improvised ranged weapon that lacks any properties. And ranged weapons use Dex. The fact that it is thrown wouldn't give i the thrown property, but even if it did, as it would be a ranged weapon, not a melee weapon, it would always use Dex anyways.

But.... I bet a lot of DMs would rule Strength.

[krugaan]

RAW I believe it would have to be Dex. Its an improvised weapon, and its ranged, so unless the DM rules it is similar enough to an existing weapon to use its stats, it would just be an improvised ranged weapon that lacks any properties. And ranged weapons use Dex. The fact that it is thrown wouldn't give i the thrown property, but even if it did, as it would be a ranged weapon, not a melee weapon, it would always use Dex anyways.

But.... I bet a lot of DMs would rule Strength.

any improvised weapon would have no tags, basically, right?

to use dex mod it would need either the ranged or finesse tags.

thrown weapons still use str, don't they?

[jas61292]

any improvised weapon would have no tags, basically, right?

to use dex mod it would need either the ranged or finesse tags.

thrown weapons still use str, don't they?

Nah, thrown is a tag. Ranged is not.

A weapon is either melee or ranged. If it is melee (ie sword, axe) it uses strength. If it is ranged (ie bow, dart) it uses dexterity. The only tag that changes that is finesse. All the thrown tag does is make it so a melee weapon can be used at a distance and indicates the weapon itself is literally thrown, as opposed to an ammunition weapon.

As in improvised weapon, if we assume the weapon has no tags, then if it is being used at range, it must be a ranged weapon, and thus use dex.

[Cybren]

Nah, thrown is a tag. Ranged is not.

A weapon is either melee or ranged. If it is melee (ie sword, axe) it uses strength. If it is ranged (ie bow, dart) it uses dexterity. The only tag that changes that is finesse. All the thrown tag does is make it so a melee weapon can be used at a distance and indicates the weapon itself is literally thrown, as opposed to an ammunition weapon.

As in improvised weapon, if we assume the weapon has no tags, then if it is being used at range, it must be a ranged weapon, and thus use dex.

Except we can extrapolate that, as you are throwing it, it is a thrown weapon, so strength

[jas61292]

Except we can extrapolate that, as you are throwing it, it is a thrown weapon, so strength

Oh. I certainly agree that is a reasonable way to do it. I just don't think it is technically RAW.

Not that this is really related to this thread at all anymore.