Should small characters be able to use GWM?

[Corran]

Please be advised: This thread's purpose is not to discuss how well balanced the feat GWM is.

Assuming a game already allows GWM (as is in the PHB), how reasonable would it be to allow it for small characters to use it with (str) versatile weapons used as two handers (eg a halfling wielding a longsword with two hands)?

One concern would be that GWM would work better with the lower weapon die of a versatile weapon, than with the weapon di(c)e of a heavy weapon (essentially because you risk less damage in order to get the +10 to damage). I would think that this balances out with the fact that small races dont get a str bonus, which is counterproductive in regard to GWMastering.

As for the fact that it is only meant to be used with heavy weapons, I find it very logical that if a greatsword counts as a heavy weapon for a human, then a longsword would count as a heavy weapon for a halfling. So I translate the GWM as an ability that does not rely on the actual size of the weapon, but rather as an ability that allows you to fight effectively with large weapons in respect to your own size. This reasoning makes more sense to me.

As for any arguments that small sized races are just too small to use suck a combat style, consider that size is always relative. If a human can use GWM when fighting against an ogre or a giant, I wouldn't see why a halfling cannot do it whe fighting against a human or an ogre. The fact that there are no size limitations (as for example with grappe or shoving) further enhances the idea that GWM should work regardless of size differences between the user and the target.

So, personaly, I find it completely reasonable that a small character should have the choice to select (a perhaps suboptimal due to lack of str racial bonus?) a fighting approach that would allow him to fight using two handers effectively (I fail to see any compelling reason as to why small races shouldn't have that extra option, at least by RAL).

The only real doubt that I have, is if GWM in this case becomes strictly superior for small characters when comparing to how medium sized characters use it. If the lack of any racial str bonuses is not enough, perhaps we could alter the -x/+d by a tiny bit so that it is balanced in regard to how medium sized characters use it? (ie, to balance against the fact that small characters would use it with lower die weapons, if the lack of racial str boost is not enough).

What does the playground think?

[Gastronomie]

I think that the small races not being able to use large weapons is just a piece of fluff created to make stuff seem more "logical". It has nothing to do with how powerful the option is.

If you're the DM and a character wants to use a heavy weapon with a small character, just let him do it. Wouldn't hurt anything.

[Lollerabe]

We allow it and my gnome with a versatile warhammer and GWM is bad'ass :)

No need to nerf it, a d10 has an average damage of 5,5 compared to the 7 of a 2d6 weapon. The small races as you mention don't have a racial strength bonus AND great weapon fighting (the fight style) is even worse with a d10 than a 2d6. If you have a player going for a small race with GWM, he is already gimping himself - no need to add insult to injury by nerfing the feat.

I very much enjoy my gnome EK but he would've been way better with SB than 'great weapons' I dealt 1d10 +3 damg (we allow 16s with point buy) had I gone SB I would deal 1d8 +5 - so more damage and a shield to boot.

It's weird that small races using versatile weapons with GWM should break belief but the same small race can by RAW grab dual wielder and go to town with a warhammer in one hand and a battle axe in the other, no questions asked.

TL;DR allow it without nefs

[Vogonjeltz]

I think that the small races not being able to use large weapons is just a piece of fluff created to make stuff seem more "logical". It has nothing to do with how powerful the option is.

If you're the DM and a character wants to use a heavy weapon with a small character, just let him do it. Wouldn't hurt anything.

It's not fluff, in the case of Halflings it's balanced against the Halfling Nimbleness racial feature that lets them move through the spaces of creatures larger then them (i.e. Basically everyone).

A Halfling with a Great Weapon could just cavort through enemy lines to attack a Wizard no problem. Not to mention Lucky is probably the best racial feature bar none.

But if that doesn't deter you, and none of your players nor you care remotely about verisimilitude, by all means, go for it.

[TheProfessor85]

Damn, now I'm imagining a Halfling fighter with a long sword in each hand.

[Grod_The_Giant]

[QUOTE=Corran;21099565One concern would be that GWM would work better with the lower weapon die of a versatile weapon, than with the weapon di(c)e of a heavy weapon (essentially because you risk less damage in order to get the +10 to damage).[/QUOTE]
I... don't think this is in any way true. The feat is better because... you deal less damage? You have exactly the same odds of hitting or not hitting; a damage die one size smaller means essentially nil.

[Giant2005]

What is to stop the Halfling from using his Versatile weapon two-handed, and then pulling out a second sword (for the bonus action attack) if he hasn't crit or killed something by the time his attack action has been used up?

[JellyPooga]

It's not fluff, in the case of Halflings it's balanced against the Halfling Nimbleness racial feature that lets them move through the spaces of creatures larger then them (i.e. Basically everyone).

A Halfling with a Great Weapon could just cavort through enemy lines to attack a Wizard no problem. Not to mention Lucky is probably the best racial feature bar none.

But if that doesn't deter you, and none of your players nor you care remotely about verisimilitude, by all means, go for it.

A Halfling with a shortbow and the Sharpshooter Feat can take out a Wizard in the back ranks with about as much efficiency, if not more, as allowing him to use GWM with a longsword or quarterstaff wielded two-handed. Game balance has nothing to do with it.

As for verisimilitude, the OP isn't asking about allowing Halfings to use a Greataxe or Halberd; that would break my suspension of disbelief. Allowing the GWM Feat to work with Versatile weapons, on the other hand, allows the little folk to fill the same role of "dude with a big honkin' weapon" while still maintaining the image of "little weapons for little people". As it stands, Halflings and Gnomes are literally forbidden from being efficient two-handed weapon wielders compared to the big-folk (at least in a game that allows Feats).

[Drackolus]

Trying to talk verisimilitude in a game where greataxes are a reasonable option compared to greatswords and rapiers and shortbows can be used to fight enemies in full plate with no penalty compared to a mace is already nonsense. Also, studded leather somehow protects you (when it turns out it was based on the inside of other armors, which was not known in Gygax's time). Also, nothing stops a halfling from using a full longbow and actually be better at it than a human, despite the fact that their arms are too short and likely too weak.
I supose that any suspension of disbelief is personal and some things are weirder to some people... But, 5e especially makes no real effort to simulate well, mostly because the average players don't have multiple doctorates and are able to explain things like biology, sociology, and medieval combat at length.

[jaappleton]

I think Small characters should be able to use GWM while holding a Versatile weapon with two hands.

[Giant2005]

Why Versatile? Versatile is messy due to being able to be used with one hand (it would essentially emulate a more damaging version of the GWM + PAM combo, except without having to spend a feat on PAM).
Why not have it apply to weapons with the two-handed property instead?

[uraniumrooster]

I think this would make the Quarterstaff even better than it already is. A GWM+PAM valid simple weapon, that Monks can use with Dex and Shillelagh casters can use with their casting stat.

[Joe the Rat]

Trying to talk verisimilitude in a game where greataxes are a reasonable option compared to greatswords and rapiers and shortbows can be used to fight enemies in full plate with no penalty compared to a mace is already nonsense. Also, studded leather somehow protects you (when it turns out it was based on the inside of other armors, which was not known in Gygax's time). Also, nothing stops a halfling from using a full longbow and actually be better at it than a human, despite the fact that their arms are too short and likely too weak.
I supose that any suspension of disbelief is personal and some things are weirder to some people... But, 5e especially makes no real effort to simulate well, mostly because the average players don't have multiple doctorates and are able to explain things like biology, sociology, and medieval combat at length.
Verisimilitude is not Realism. It's "Looks close enough for what we're doing." That said, where you draw the line is going to vary a lot from person to person.
I accept the general weapons pool, because bonus by armor type tables were a pain in the ass. I might take an AC modifier by damage type again.
Studded leather checks "brigandine jack" in my head, and I just roll with it.

And Halflings will do worse with long bows, since they're heavy weapons. Heavy meaning "small folk don't use them well."

[jaappleton]

Why Versatile? Versatile is messy due to being able to be used with one hand (it would essentially emulate a more damaging version of the GWM + PAM combo, except without having to spend a feat on PAM).
Why not have it apply to weapons with the two-handed property instead?

Because most weapons that require two hands to use at all are already available through GWM and unavailable to Small characters.

By allowing GWM to be used with Versatile weapons and ONLY while they're being held with both hands, it should be fine. Both hands would need to be used, so no benefits of a Shield or such things.

I'm not sure what you mean by they'd get PAM without a feat, I don't follow that. Am I missing something?

[DwarvenGM]

My player's gnome barbarian uses gwm and it has yet to cause any issues. Truthfully it seems less effective on him then the half orc fighter (champion)

I ignore the 2 handed weapons ban for small races. So our gnome uses a great axe, I won't derail the thread by arguing my reasons for it but in my experience a small race doesn't harm the balance with gwm any more then a medium race.

[Giant2005]

Because most weapons that require two hands to use at all are already available through GWM and unavailable to Small characters.

By allowing GWM to be used with Versatile weapons and ONLY while they're being held with both hands, it should be fine. Both hands would need to be used, so no benefits of a Shield or such things.

I'm not sure what you mean by they'd get PAM without a feat, I don't follow that. Am I missing something?

What I mean is that at level 5, a Fighter with GWM and PAM gets two attacks and a bonus attack. The two attacks are made with a 1d10 weapon, if one of those attacks crits or kills a target, then they get a 1d10 bonus attack, otherwise they get a 1d4 bonus attack.
At level 5, a small Fighter with GWM and this hosue rule gets two attacks and a bonus attack. The two attacks are made with a 1d10 weapon, if one of those attacks crits or kills a target, then they get a 1d10 bonus attack, otherwise they get a 1d8 bonus attack by taking one of their hands off their longsword, pulling a second longsword, and striking with that.
They are basically the same, except the small guy doesn't have to spend a feat and has the reliable bonus damage attack increased from 1d4 to 1d8.

[JellyPooga]

What I mean is that at level 5, a Fighter with GWM and PAM gets two attacks and a bonus attack. The two attacks are made with a 1d10 weapon, if one of those attacks crits or kills a target, then they get a 1d10 bonus attack, otherwise they get a 1d4 bonus attack.
At level 5, a small Fighter with GWM and this hosue rule gets two attacks and a bonus attack. The two attacks are made with a 1d10 weapon, if one of those attacks crits or kills a target, then they get a 1d10 bonus attack, otherwise they get a 1d8 bonus attack by taking one of their hands off their longsword, pulling a second longsword, and striking with that.
They are basically the same, except the small guy doesn't have to spend a feat and has the reliable bonus damage attack increased from 1d4 to 1d8.

Rule that all attacks made that round incur the -5 penalty, but only attacks that are made two-handed benefit from the +10 damage. BOOM. Problem solved.

That or, as GM, simply intone a flat "NO" to any such BS shenanigans.

[Lollerabe]

He wouldn't add mod to the second hit though, and that just seems like obvious cheesing from the player - which would be weird as his dm allowed a cool concept to work despite raw.

Or you can just say that gnomes and halflings got 'mauls' 'greataxes' etc, they can't wield them in 1 hand and they deal a d10 damg, easy.

Again it's not really a problem at all.

[Ruslan]

What is to stop the Halfling from using his Versatile weapon two-handed, and then pulling out a second sword (for the bonus action attack) if he hasn't crit or killed something by the time his attack action has been used up?

Only the rules.


When you take the Attack action and attack with a light
melee weapon that you’re holding in one hand, you can
use a bonus action to attack with a different light melee
weapon that you’re holding in the other hand

(Having the Dual Wielder feat allows you to bypass the "light" limitation, but not the "holding in one hand" limitation)

[Theodoxus]

Was gonna say, it still requires 2 feats (DW and GWM vs PAM and GWM) though as pointed out, it doesn't actually work, at least per RAW.

I think a flourish feat could be devised though, where you swing a versatile weapon two handed, then do a one handed bonus action spin strike (very common in cinema) - let it do 1d4+Str and boom, done.

Probably either grants a +1 Str or add a second rider effect... not sure what, Reactions are common, but kinda boring at this point...

[Vogonjeltz]

What is to stop the Halfling from using his Versatile weapon two-handed, and then pulling out a second sword (for the bonus action attack) if he hasn't crit or killed something by the time his attack action has been used up?

The rules for two weapon fighting.


A Halfling with a shortbow and the Sharpshooter Feat can take out a Wizard in the back ranks with about as much efficiency, if not more, as allowing him to use GWM with a longsword or quarterstaff wielded two-handed. Game balance has nothing to do with it.

As for verisimilitude, the OP isn't asking about allowing Halfings to use a Greataxe or Halberd; that would break my suspension of disbelief. Allowing the GWM Feat to work with Versatile weapons, on the other hand, allows the little folk to fill the same role of "dude with a big honkin' weapon" while still maintaining the image of "little weapons for little people". As it stands, Halflings and Gnomes are literally forbidden from being efficient two-handed weapon wielders compared to the big-folk (at least in a game that allows Feats).

I'm empathetic, but the entire basis of the melee feat is that the weapons have great weight, and using the momentum from that is what is making for the powerful (if less accurate) attack.

A non-heavy weapon simply won't have the momentum, it's not that you can use two hands.


Also, nothing stops a halfling from using a full longbow and actually be better at it than a human, despite the fact that their arms are too short and likely too weak.

Longbows have the heavy property, which imposes Disadvantage on the attacks of small creatures. So that is what stops them.


The two attacks are made with a 1d10 weapon, if one of those attacks crits or kills a target, then they get a 1d10 bonus attack, otherwise they get a 1d8 bonus attack by taking one of their hands off their longsword, pulling a second longsword, and striking with that.

Which doesn't work even with Duelist. The rules require the attacks be made with a weapon in one hand then the bonus with a weapon in another hand.

[R.Shackleford]

A Halfling with a shortbow and the Sharpshooter Feat can take out a Wizard in the back ranks with about as much efficiency, if not more, as allowing him to use GWM with a longsword or quarterstaff wielded two-handed. Game balance has nothing to do with it.

As for verisimilitude, the OP isn't asking about allowing Halfings to use a Greataxe or Halberd; that would break my suspension of disbelief. Allowing the GWM Feat to work with Versatile weapons, on the other hand, allows the little folk to fill the same role of "dude with a big honkin' weapon" while still maintaining the image of "little weapons for little people". As it stands, Halflings and Gnomes are literally forbidden from being efficient two-handed weapon wielders compared to the big-folk (at least in a game that allows Feats).

It breaks my suspension of fantasy that a Halfling with 20 strength isn't treated like a fantasy character with 20 strength just because some people like to bring "realism" as an argument in a game where we have giants, talking dragons, and the ability to shoot fire out of your hands.

But yeah, no, let's draw the line at the short dude holding a big weapon THAT is what crosses the line.

[JellyPooga]

But yeah, no, let's draw the line at the short dude holding a big weapon THAT is what crosses the line.

*shrugs* Everyone draws that line somewhere differently to the next guy.

Giants and dragons and firebolts are magical; the realm of fantasy and make-believe. That's fine and well within the bounds of my suspension of disbelief.

A three foot dude wielding a seven foot polearm, though? That's well within the realm of physical laws, not magic and as such doesn't fly at my table. Not unless that three foot dude has, like, Gauntlets of Displaced Size or something that *magically* allows him to do so. That's cool :smallbiggrin:

Just because magic exists, doesn't mean it's the only thing that does. It can in your games, if you like, but don't be surprised when someone asks if they can walk back to this morning or argues that being dead doesn't stop you from taking an Action, you know, because magic (and the rules don't say you can't).

[NNescio]

It's not fluff, in the case of Halflings it's balanced against the Halfling Nimbleness racial feature that lets them move through the spaces of creatures larger then them (i.e. Basically everyone).

A Halfling with a Great Weapon could just cavort through enemy lines to attack a Wizard no problem. Not to mention Lucky is probably the best racial feature bar none.

But if that doesn't deter you, and none of your players nor you care remotely about verisimilitude, by all means, go for it.

They would still trigger OAs, no?

[N810]

So you want a GWM Halfling fighter, ok sure...
but they will probably be rolling with disadvantage all the time, so good luck trying to hit anything. :nale:

[Ruslan]

So you want a GWM Halfling fighter, ok sure...
but they will probably be rolling with disadvantage all the time, so good luck trying to hit anything. :nale:

Can you please clarify which rule will impose disadvantage in this situation?

[NNescio]

Can you please clarify which rule will impose disadvantage in this situation?

GWM requires an attack be made with a heavy weapon in order to benefit from the -5 to attack +10 to damage 'power attack'-like feature (PHB p.167). Small creatures have disadvantage on attack rolls with heavy weapons (PHB p. 147). Ergo, by RAW, a small creature will suffer disadvantage on attack rolls if he intends to use the -5/+10 option.

Of course, the OP is suggesting houseruling GWM to make it work with versatile weapons when wielded two-handed. N810 missed that.

[N810]

Using an oversized weapon ?
... I think I recall that it invokes disadvantage. :smallconfused:

Doh, ninjaed....

and yea I missed that in the first post.

[R.Shackleford]

*shrugs* Everyone draws that line somewhere differently to the next guy.

Giants and dragons and firebolts are magical; the realm of fantasy and make-believe. That's fine and well within the bounds of my suspension of disbelief.

A three foot dude wielding a seven foot polearm, though? That's well within the realm of physical laws, not magic and as such doesn't fly at my table. Not unless that three foot dude has, like, Gauntlets of Displaced Size or something that *magically* allows him to do so. That's cool :smallbiggrin:

Just because magic exists, doesn't mean it's the only thing that does. It can in your games, if you like, but don't be surprised when someone asks if they can walk back to this morning or argues that being dead doesn't stop you from taking an Action, you know, because magic (and the rules don't say you can't).

I tend to draw my line at my own character.

If I don't like a certain type of character then I don't have to play it, if someone else likes a halfling wielding a polearm then I have no say in them playing it or not.

[Theodoxus]

A three foot dude wielding a seven foot polearm, though? That's well within the realm of physical laws, not magic and as such doesn't fly at my table. Not unless that three foot dude has, like, Gauntlets of Displaced Size or something that *magically* allows him to do so. That's cool :smallbiggrin:

So, you disbelieve pole vaulters, who use 20'+ poles in their tiny 5-6' bodies? :smallwink:

Seriously though, pikes are far longer for humans than the halberd ratio to halflings. It's not like the torsion created by swinging a halberd is higher than the halflings inertia. Especially if we're talking about a 20 strength halfling who would have a power stance, not just bulgy arms. Plus, they're just as magical a race as dragons or fairies, so 'magic' is just an adequate answer... just saying. :smallbiggrin:

[BurgerBeast]

I'm cool with small races wielding versatile weapons as two-handed. I'm not sure why you would use the versatile (increased) die-size, though.

Doesn't a small character have to use two-hands just to achieve the one-handed damage of a medium creature? Doesn't the versatile property imply that a medium sized creature can "double up" to do more damage?

It would see to me that if it takes two hands for a hallooing to wield a longsword, then there's no way to "triple up or quadruple up."

If there was, then a medium character, who requires two hands to wield a great sword, ought to be able to "triple up or quadruple up" to increase the die size of the greatsword.

If you are simply asking, if it will ruin balance, then: I don't think so.

[Mechaviking]

Damn, now I'm imagining a Halfling fighter with a long sword in each hand.

I had a gnome and he had a khopesh(long sword) and a mace and it was glorious :D

On topic I personally do not see a problem with it, since practically speaking stout halfling sword and boarders are the best in the game and two handing as a halfling is worse, so by all means have at it :D

[Vogonjeltz]

They would still trigger OAs, no?

Only upon leaving reach, that's 15 feet of movement, 25 if the enemy passed through is wielding a reach weapon.

[Joe the Rat]

Doesn't a small character have to use two-hands just to achieve the one-handed damage of a medium creature? Doesn't the versatile property imply that a medium sized creature can "double up" to do more damage? In short, no.
Versatile is the hand-and-a-half function - you can swing with both hands for more damage. The weapon doesn't change, so the change in dice is damage from the extra leverage. There's no requirement for small creatures to use "medium" one-handed weapons in two hands. As it stands, you "can't" wield a weapon in two hands without Two-Handed or Versatile (or that doing so has no effect). Having the size requirement, or ruling reduced die for small creatures is purely in houserule territory.

[Saggo]

I... don't think this is in any way true. The feat is better because... you deal less damage? You have exactly the same odds of hitting or not hitting; a damage die one size smaller means essentially nil.

The principle works, as it's not about how much DPR you do but how often you will use GWM. The less damage your normal attack does, the more weight +10 carries. Look here (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?472938-Great-Weapon-Mastery-How-to-5-10-Like-a-Pro) and you'll see that between a d10 and a 2d6 there's about a 1 AC difference, roughly meaning there is a target AC where a d10 has better average DPR using -5/+10 but 2d6 has better average damage attacking normally. This is a visible change in tactics, so not nil.

Against the same target, Heavy weapons will always do more damage than Versatile, of course. But Versatile weapons would be incentivized to -5/+10 against more targets, making the feat itself more appealing to them. However, given the likelihood of seeing that specific AC consistently and the lower DPR of Versatile weapons, it's not a problem (opinions may vary).