Friendship ended with -5/+10, Power Attack is now my best friend

[Trask]

I'm breaking up with GWM and SS. The feats are just too good, especially GWM is the lynchpin that keeps Strength above Dexterity as a the go to stat for fighters.

To that end, I am removing entirely GWM and SS in my game and doing the following

•When you take the Attack Action a character may make a Power Attack, forgoing his proficiency bonus to his attack roll and add it to his damage roll. This cannot be used with Finesse Weapons. When using a weapon 2 handed increase to 1.5x Proficiency.

I like this for 2 reasons. One it tones down the feat significantly since I feel personally that the feat is too strong as is and overwhelms the monster HP as written at almost every level. Two, its not a feat, its just an attack option. I do not like feats that feel mandatory to perform, I like feats that augment your abilities in some niche or roleplaying way.

Also yes SS is just gone because in my opinion its just too strong, period. Ranged combat has a significant number of advantages over melee in this game and having experienced it firsthand as a player and DM i think the feat should just be removed entirely. Big damage should be the purview of melee strength fighters, not archers hiding the the back.

[Nifft]

Suggestion on wording:


When you make a weapon attack using Strength, you may ...

That way you're not excluding Finesse weapons, some of which are perfectly compatible with strength attacks (like Scimitars), you're just excluding Dexterity-based attacks.

[GlenSmash!]

I've done something similar, but I've limited to Attacks Made with a Weapon in two hands using Strength. It allows for Versatile or Twohanded as I don't think it fits with one handed weapons.

Of course YMMV.

[Pex]

I'm breaking up with GWM and SS. The feats are just too good, especially GWM is the lynchpin that keeps Strength above Dexterity as a the go to stat for fighters.

To that end, I am removing entirely GWM and SS in my game and doing the following

•When you take the Attack Action a character may make a Power Attack, forgoing his proficiency bonus to his attack roll and add it to his damage roll. This cannot be used with Finesse Weapons. When using a weapon 2 handed increase to 1.5x Proficiency.

I like this for 2 reasons. One it tones down the feat significantly since I feel personally that the feat is too strong as is and overwhelms the monster HP as written at almost every level. Two, its not a feat, its just an attack option. I do not like feats that feel mandatory to perform, I like feats that augment your abilities in some niche or roleplaying way.

Also yes SS is just gone because in my opinion its just too strong, period. Ranged combat has a significant number of advantages over melee in this game and having experienced it firsthand as a player and DM i think the feat should just be removed entirely. Big damage should be the purview of melee strength fighters, not archers hiding the the back.

"I agree. So unfair for warriors to do that", says Wizard while casting Fireball.

"Here, here!" agrees Warlock casting Hex as a Bonus Action then Agonizing Eldritch Blast.

[ZorroGames]

"I agree. So unfair for warriors to do that", says Wizard while casting Fireball.

"Here, here!" agrees Warlock casting Hex as a Bonus Action then Agonizing Eldritch Blast.


This one we agree on.

[Trask]

"I agree. So unfair for warriors to do that", says Wizard while casting Fireball.

"Here, here!" agrees Warlock casting Hex as a Bonus Action then Agonizing Eldritch Blast.


I dont see your point. Maybe instead of just being snide all the time you could give actual constructive criticism?

[TheUser]

I in general have issues with the narrative notion of -5 to hit/+10 damage because I can't really visualize it. Aren't you already aiming for vital points when you are making attacks? Why are they more difficult to hit? The eyes? The throat?

Being clad in armor has the same openings that are usually the vital points; in essence, the parts you can normally strike through full plate (eyes, throat, armpit, behind the knee etc etc) are also the parts that impart the most damage. Right? Am I taking crazy pills?

Against unarmored foes like rogues and monks a hit is going to hurt no matter where really. Sure a hit to the chest sucks less than a hit to the throat or eyes but a hit to the arm affects the ability to use said arm. Same with legs, back, organs in the abdomen....I mean the parts that normally score hits on monsters (e.g. working past their "natural armor") are also their vital points right?

Ultimately there comes a point where it stops becoming a decision because either the opponent's AC is too high, too low or the regular damage of a hit is too high vs AC (it's been mathed out).

I'd rather just have +5 damage for succeeding on a hit by 5 or more
Essentially when you hit them with what would normally be a power attack you no longer have to evaluate a choice (we've established that there is a choice but it's already been made for us thanks to math) but you also create a feat that is no risk all reward (the same way an ASI operates) and is far less egregious on the power scaling of the game (because +10 damage is nuts).

[Lunali]

I dont see your point. Maybe instead of just being snide all the time you could give actual constructive criticism?

I believe their point is that SS archers are far from having a monopoly on ranged damage.

[Trask]

I believe their point is that SS archers are far from having a monopoly on ranged damage.

The ranged damage of those classes is not the same as a -3/+10 of a Sharpshooter, anyone who thinks it is is just wrong. That -3/+10 overwhelms the math of the game.

[Trask]

I in general have issues with the narrative notion of -5 to hit/+10 damage because I can't really visualize it. Aren't you already aiming for vital points when you are making attacks? Why are they more difficult to hit? The eyes? The throat?

Being clad in armor has the same openings that are usually the vital points; in essence, the parts you can normally strike through full plate (eyes, throat, armpit, behind the knee etc etc) are also the parts that impart the most damage. Right? Am I taking crazy pills?

Against unarmored foes like rogues and monks a hit is going to hurt no matter where really. Sure a hit to the chest sucks less than a hit to the throat or eyes but a hit to the arm affects the ability to use said arm. Same with legs, back, organs in the abdomen....I mean the parts that normally score hits on monsters (e.g. working past their "natural armor") are also their vital points right?

Ultimately there comes a point where it stops becoming a decision because either the opponent's AC is too high, too low or the regular damage of a hit is too high vs AC (it's been mathed out).

I'd rather just have +5 damage for succeeding on a hit by 5 or more
Essentially when you hit them with what would normally be a power attack you no longer have to evaluate a choice (we've established that there is a choice but it's already been made for us thanks to math) but you also create a feat that is no risk all reward (the same way an ASI operates) and is far less egregious on the power scaling of the game (because +10 damage is nuts).

Thats not bad. I like your reasoning too. But for my purposes I meant for this to shore up strength a bit and solidify it as superior to dex in melee, since without GWM its not really that much better. That method could be justified for both strength and dex so i see no reason not to extend it to dex as well.

[TheUser]

Thats not bad. I like your reasoning too. But for my purposes I meant for this to shore up strength a bit and solidify it as superior to dex in melee, since without GWM its not really that much better. That method could be justified for both strength and dex so i see no reason not to extend it to dex as well.

Make two-handed weapons deal an extra 8 damage instead of 5 7 damage for exceeding AC by 4 or more?

I like it actually. A 2 handed weapon is supposed to easily bypass armor dealing lots of damage when you make a well aimed/lucky attack.

[Trask]

Make two-handed weapons deal an extra 8 damage instead of 5 7 damage for exceeding AC by 4 or more?

I like it actually. A 2 handed weapon is supposed to easily bypass armor dealing lots of damage when you make a well aimed/lucky attack.

If this was the case I would have each player (and I would do the same for each enemy) write down 2 AC values. His normal AC and then his Wounded AC (placeholder name) for ease of reference. This is basically just a straight buff to crits though, which isnt necessarily a bad thing but just worth noting.

[Pex]

I'm breaking up with GWM and SS. The feats are just too good, especially GWM is the lynchpin that keeps Strength above Dexterity as a the go to stat for fighters.

To that end, I am removing entirely GWM and SS in my game and doing the following

•When you take the Attack Action a character may make a Power Attack, forgoing his proficiency bonus to his attack roll and add it to his damage roll. This cannot be used with Finesse Weapons. When using a weapon 2 handed increase to 1.5x Proficiency.

I like this for 2 reasons. One it tones down the feat significantly since I feel personally that the feat is too strong as is and overwhelms the monster HP as written at almost every level. Two, its not a feat, its just an attack option. I do not like feats that feel mandatory to perform, I like feats that augment your abilities in some niche or roleplaying way.

Also yes SS is just gone because in my opinion its just too strong, period. Ranged combat has a significant number of advantages over melee in this game and having experienced it firsthand as a player and DM i think the feat should just be removed entirely. Big damage should be the purview of melee strength fighters, not archers hiding the the back.

I wasn't aware that 8d6 damage or 2d10 + 2d6 + 8 damage at 5th level was so little.

This is why fighters don't get nice things. It's ok for spellcasters to do something, but give it to a warrior and the game falls apart needs to banned.

[MrStabby]

I did an experiment with some house rules over a couple of 1-shot adventures that kind of half solved the problem, whilst creating some others.

For context GWM wasn't an issue. My style of campaign had enough heavily armoured enemies that the option for extra damage wasn't that advantageous. SS was a problem as archers could reliably break concentration on the lightly armoured casters and kill them off from range too fast.

My partial solution was to say that ranged attackers do not get advantage for being unseen. Once fog could, darkness and similar effects can impose disadvantage on ranged characters things came into line.

The martial/caster split mentioned is something that has a knock-on effect, I wont say I got it quite right but I handled this in the campaign world by having dex saves and strength saves be on the more common and mental saves less common. It ended up being pretty balanced - from my perspective.

My suggestion is not to make blanket rules changes across all campaigns but instead work out what you world will look like and how things will need to change to be balanced specifically for that world/campaign.

[druid91]

The ranged damage of those classes is not the same as a -3/+10 of a Sharpshooter, anyone who thinks it is is just wrong. That -3/+10 overwhelms the math of the game.

.... Overwhelms the math of the game? Not in the least.

Let us take for example. Level 2 Human Fighter. Archery Fighting Style. First of all Sharpshooter is -5 to hit and +10 to damage. Not -3 to hit.

Let's say he rolls really well. 20 Dex.

So His basic to hit with that longbow is a +9 Not bad. A Skeleton is AC 13. So he needs a 4 or more to hit. At which point he'll do 1d8+5(Meaning anywhere from 6-13 damage) Damage if he hits. So more than 3/4ths of the time, he's gonna hit. A skeleton has 13 hitpoints, so if he rolls an 8 for damage he might even kill it outright, and it almost certainly won't take more than two shots to kill any given skeleton.

So, swap over to Sharpshooter. -5 to hit means he's now +4. to hit. Meaning just SLIGHTLY better than 50/50 odds of hitting. You hit on 9 or higher. And you're guaranteed a kill because it's 1d8+5+10 Increasing your damage to (16-23).

Meanwhile, Let's go for a Warlock. Level 2. Human. 20 Charisma. Spell Sniper Feat, and the Invocations Agonizing Blast and Eldritch Spear. And the Hex spell.

So, without needing to take a malus to hit, The Warlock can match the range of the above Archer. Eldritch blast has a base damage of 1d10. Agonizing blast adds Charisma to it. So 1d10+5. Hex adds another 1d6. So Minimum damage of seven. Maximum Damage of 21. Yes, it's more variance. But mind you he's got a +9 to hit. Meaning he's going to hit more than 3/4ths of the time, and deal comparable damage to the Fighter while using sharpshooter, who has to take a massive hit to accuracy.

If you just don't like the mental image? That's one thing, but it's another to say it overwhelms the math of the game. Given there could be up to eight of these skeletons apiece for the party to deal with....

You're looking at AC 16, assuming the fighter hasn't upgraded their armor from the basics. Skeletons have +4 to hit, meaning that in order to hit they need to roll 12 or better. 45% chance of hitting. So, roughly half will hit. That's 2-4 hits per round. at 1d6+2 damage a piece with their shortbows.

So, even assuming two hits out of eight, that's a minimum of 6, Maximum of 16 damage. Even assuming our fighter has maxed out constitution in addition to maxed out dexterity, he's got at most 30 hitpoints. That's potentially more than HALF of his hitpoints. Even if he action surges, he'll only be able to shoot twice. Is that fifty fifty shot really worth it when a normal shot might work? And is it really breaking the game all that much? At higher levels yes, it's 10 free damage, but ten damage is nothing at higher levels.

[Trask]

I wasn't aware that 8d6 damage or 2d10 + 2d6 + 8 damage at 5th level was so little.

This is why fighters don't get nice things. It's ok for spellcasters to do something, but give it to a warrior and the game falls apart needs to banned.


.... Overwhelms the math of the game? Not in the least.

Let us take for example. Level 2 Human Fighter. Archery Fighting Style. First of all Sharpshooter is -5 to hit and +10 to damage. Not -3 to hit.

Let's say he rolls really well. 20 Dex.

So His basic to hit with that longbow is a +9 Not bad. A Skeleton is AC 13. So he needs a 4 or more to hit. At which point he'll do 1d8+5(Meaning anywhere from 6-13 damage) Damage if he hits. So more than 3/4ths of the time, he's gonna hit. A skeleton has 13 hitpoints, so if he rolls an 8 for damage he might even kill it outright, and it almost certainly won't take more than two shots to kill any given skeleton.

So, swap over to Sharpshooter. -5 to hit means he's now +4. to hit. Meaning just SLIGHTLY better than 50/50 odds of hitting. You hit on 9 or higher. And you're guaranteed a kill because it's 1d8+5+10 Increasing your damage to (16-23).

Meanwhile, Let's go for a Warlock. Level 2. Human. 20 Charisma. Spell Sniper Feat, and the Invocations Agonizing Blast and Eldritch Spear. And the Hex spell.

So, without needing to take a malus to hit, The Warlock can match the range of the above Archer. Eldritch blast has a base damage of 1d10. Agonizing blast adds Charisma to it. So 1d10+5. Hex adds another 1d6. So Minimum damage of seven. Maximum Damage of 21. Yes, it's more variance. But mind you he's got a +9 to hit. Meaning he's going to hit more than 3/4ths of the time, and deal comparable damage to the Fighter while using sharpshooter, who has to take a massive hit to accuracy.

If you just don't like the mental image? That's one thing, but it's another to say it overwhelms the math of the game. Given there could be up to eight of these skeletons apiece for the party to deal with....

You're looking at AC 16, assuming the fighter hasn't upgraded their armor from the basics. Skeletons have +4 to hit, meaning that in order to hit they need to roll 12 or better. 45% chance of hitting. So, roughly half will hit. That's 2-4 hits per round. at 1d6+2 damage a piece with their shortbows.

So, even assuming two hits out of eight, that's a minimum of 6, Maximum of 16 damage. Even assuming our fighter has maxed out constitution in addition to maxed out dexterity, he's got at most 30 hitpoints. That's potentially more than HALF of his hitpoints. Even if he action surges, he'll only be able to shoot twice. Is that fifty fifty shot really worth it when a normal shot might work? And is it really breaking the game all that much? At higher levels yes, it's 10 free damage, but ten damage is nothing at higher levels.

You know every time I bring up how strong, perhaps overly so, SS and GWM are theres always people that come out in its defense as not even that good, just decent, good but not broken. But EVERY char op guide and EVERY char post recommends, or in some cases DEMANDS their use as the only way to be optimized. There is a disconnect.

And lets assume I'm wrong and you're right, that the feats are perfectly fine, balanced, and in line with everything (not my experience, not my impression but I'll assume). If you read past the first sentence of the post, I offered alternate reasons why the feat is bad, even if it is balanced. Its essentially a tax to do good damage, it makes you good at something you should already be good at, ect. I offered an alternate rule to help keep the spirit of GWM. Can we focus on that please?

[Daghoulish]

And lets assume I'm wrong and you're right, that the feats are perfectly fine, balanced, and in line with everything (not my experience, not my impression but I'll assume). If you read past the first sentence of the post, I offered alternate reasons why the feat is bad, even if it is balanced. Its essentially a tax to do good damage, it makes you good at something you should already be good at, ect. I offered an alternate rule to help keep the spirit of GWM. Can we focus on that please?

I'll say I have no experience with anyone using GWM, my concern comes more from your removal of SS. I mean, you made a replacement for GWM, but nothing for sharpshooter. I mean, why play a ranged martial character when you could make a warlock with 300-600 feet of range easily. That's even before the damage you would lose. I mean, you talk about a tax for being good at something you should be good at and you replaced one. However you just removed one and gave nothing, implying that martial ranged characters shouldn't have damage/range comparable to any spell caster.

[Trask]

I'll say I have no experience with anyone using GWM, my concern comes more from your removal of SS. I mean, you made a replacement for GWM, but nothing for sharpshooter. I mean, why play a ranged martial character when you could make a warlock with 300-600 feet of range easily. That's even before the damage you would lose. I mean, you talk about a tax for being good at something you should be good at and you replaced one. However you just removed one and gave nothing, implying that martial ranged characters shouldn't have damage/range comparable to any spell caster.

Its mostly because I dont think -5/+10 is thematically appropriate for an archer (in melee you are taking a massive, less aimed swing, shooting a bow you are doing what exactly? Shooting a ballista bolt?) and the interaction with archery style +2 to hit essentially makes it strictly better than the melee version. I will probably do something else for archers but for now I made this thread to focus on the melee option.

I also do not think that archers or casters should be able to just ignore cover basically all the time, its one of the only tools melee enemies and characters have against ranged attacks and in one feat that basically everyone takes its gone. I played in a long game, to about 13th level as multiple melee fighting characters (i died a bit) and the ranger archer never dies, never is in danger, and does about as much (or more) damage than me because he ignores cover and is more accurate with his -3/+10. I do not think that archers should be equal to melee characters in every way when they shoulder a lot less risk. Cover should be a real way to counter an archer or a spellcaster.

[Daghoulish]

Its mostly because I dont think -5/+10 is thematically appropriate for an archer (in melee you are taking a massive, less aimed swing, shooting a bow you are doing what exactly? Shooting a ballista bolt?) and the interaction with archery style +2 to hit essentially makes it strictly better than the melee version. I will probably do something else for archers but for now I made this thread to focus on the melee option.

I also do not think that archers or casters should be able to just ignore cover basically all the time, its one of the only tools melee enemies and characters have against ranged attacks and in one feat that basically everyone takes its gone. I played in a long game, to about 13th level as multiple melee fighting characters (i died a bit) and the ranger archer never dies, never is in danger, and does about as much (or more) damage than me because he ignores cover and is more accurate with his -3/+10. I do not think that archers should be equal to melee characters in every way when they shoulder a lot less risk. Cover should be a real way to counter an archer or a spellcaster.

So why not change the parts of the feat you don't like? Lose the part that removes cover, and make it so using it nullifys your archery style bonus for that shot. I always assumed that thematically you were aiming for a weak spot, thus the reduced hit. You were taking a shot to hit their face through their helmet, or the exposed section under a fighters shoulder. Also yes, your ranger wasn't in danger, he had great frontline (meatshields) like you to be in danger for him to make sure he could hurt them, like a wizard but slightly less squishy and more focused on single target damage.

[druid91]

You know every time I bring up how strong, perhaps overly so, SS and GWM are theres always people that come out in its defense as not even that good, just decent, good but not broken. But EVERY char op guide and EVERY char post recommends, or in some cases DEMANDS their use as the only way to be optimized. There is a disconnect.

And lets assume I'm wrong and you're right, that the feats are perfectly fine, balanced, and in line with everything (not my experience, not my impression but I'll assume). If you read past the first sentence of the post, I offered alternate reasons why the feat is bad, even if it is balanced. Its essentially a tax to do good damage, it makes you good at something you should already be good at, ect. I offered an alternate rule to help keep the spirit of GWM. Can we focus on that please?

Because... it's free damage past early levels? It's never the WRONG choice, but it's not a game breaking choice.

It's like, when playing a two handed fighter, you don't take a dagger as your weapon of choice. It's not exactly powergaming to just use the options as presented in a fairly obvious manner. You want to be an Archer? You do Sharpshooter. You want to be a Great Sword Guy? GWM. You want to be a polearms-man? Polearm Master.

The point is that these allows you to go 'Oh, that's why he's terrifying with a two handed sword!' Storywise. It's not the weapon, it's the guy wielding it. From a story point of view, what you're doing is basically saying that anyone who picks up a two handed sword is going to do tons of damage. Which isn't necessarily true.

My concern is not so much that you're going to break the game, but that this is a kneejerk reaction to something that you would be better set fixing by looking at encounter design rather than trying to arbitrarily smack down things at random.

[LudicSavant]

You know every time I bring up how strong, perhaps overly so, SS and GWM are theres always people that come out in its defense as not even that good, just decent, good but not broken. But EVERY char op guide and EVERY char post recommends, or in some cases DEMANDS their use as the only way to be optimized. There is a disconnect.

I think there's a disconnect between this post and what "every" char post recommends or demands. Perhaps you are confusing "maximizing at-will solo DPR" or "optimizing an archer or greatsword user" for "most optimized." I can guarantee you that there are many optimizers out there who will steer you towards a spellcaster for the latter. And I know there are some guides floating around singing the praises of Shield Master, Polearm Master, and Sentinel. If you want to debate whether or not they're right, that's up to you, but saying in caps that every char-op guide recommends or demands you pick up a greatsword is just... well, not true.


The ranged damage of those classes is not the same as a -3/+10 of a Sharpshooter, anyone who thinks it is is just wrong. That -3/+10 overwhelms the math of the game.

If you wish to demonstrate this, I recommend putting up a specific build that you think is overpowered, then inviting people to try to compete with it.

[Pex]

You know every time I bring up how strong, perhaps overly so, SS and GWM are theres always people that come out in its defense as not even that good, just decent, good but not broken. But EVERY char op guide and EVERY char post recommends, or in some cases DEMANDS their use as the only way to be optimized. There is a disconnect.

And lets assume I'm wrong and you're right, that the feats are perfectly fine, balanced, and in line with everything (not my experience, not my impression but I'll assume). If you read past the first sentence of the post, I offered alternate reasons why the feat is bad, even if it is balanced. Its essentially a tax to do good damage, it makes you good at something you should already be good at, ect. I offered an alternate rule to help keep the spirit of GWM. Can we focus on that please?

You claim that only melee strength characters should do lots of damage so you got rid of that ability from archers, yet that takes nothing away from other characters who don't need sharpshooter to deal lots of damage from range. I haven't even talked about melee dexterity characters doing lots of damage without the need of great weapon style. There's the stereotypical rogue with his sneak attack. There's the battlemaster fighter with his maneuvers and action surge, granted not so consistently. A monk gets two attacks at level 1. A Nature cleric can go to town with Wisdom using Shillelagh and Spiritual Weapon. Hexblade uses charisma, and along with Hex spell can have his own magic weapon giving a +1 to attack and damage rolls at level 3. If he wants to stay at range he can add his proficiency to damage rolls to Hex Agonizing Eldritch Blast and crit on a 19.

There are many ways to dealing lots of damage that have nothing to do with great weapon master or sharpshooter. If a character doing lots of damage bothers you so much you have fixed nothing banning sharpshooter and nerfing great weapon master. There's also the unfairness of doing so considering the bag of hit points monsters have and the great amount of damage they do on a hit. PCs doing lots of damage is factored in 5E design.

[Trask]

You claim that only melee strength characters should do lots of damage so you got rid of that ability from archers, yet that takes nothing away from other characters who don't need sharpshooter to deal lots of damage from range. I haven't even talked about melee dexterity characters doing lots of damage without the need of great weapon style. There's the stereotypical rogue with his sneak attack. There's the battlemaster fighter with his maneuvers and action surge, granted not so consistently. A monk gets two attacks at level 1. A Nature cleric can go to town with Wisdom using Shillelagh and Spiritual Weapon. Hexblade uses charisma, and along with Hex spell can have his own magic weapon giving a +1 to attack and damage rolls at level 3. If he wants to stay at range he can add his proficiency to damage rolls to Hex Agonizing Eldritch Blast and crit on a 19.

There are many ways to dealing lots of damage that have nothing to do with great weapon master or sharpshooter. If a character doing lots of damage bothers you so much you have fixed nothing banning sharpshooter and nerfing great weapon master. There's also the unfairness of doing so considering the bag of hit points monsters have and the great amount of damage they do on a hit. PCs doing lots of damage is factored in 5E design.

As ive already said, im willing to assume that i am wrong, but i want to rework -5/+10 feats, specifically the melee one, into something that is a baseline option for PCs.

Thats what Id like to discuss, if at all possible. Not your quibbles with my preferences.

By the way, spells are limited. Every time you nova your spell damage you are depriving yourself of other options later. -5/+10 is all day every day all the time. And its just really really strong to the point where in my experience melee and ranged fighter types just melt enemies. In my experience these feats are a bit much. If you dont agree, fine, but please stick to the OP or stop trying to argue with me about why im so wrong about thinking these feats are too good.

[bid]

"I agree. So unfair for warriors to do that", says Wizard while casting Fireball.

"Here, here!" agrees Warlock casting Hex as a Bonus Action then Agonizing Eldritch Blast.

Now, now.

https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/hear,_hear

[LudicSavant]

As ive already said, im willing to assume that i am wrong, but i want to rework -5/+10 feats, specifically the melee one, into something that is a baseline option for PCs.

Thats what Id like to discuss, if at all possible. Not your quibbles with my preferences.

By the way, spells are limited. Every time you nova your spell damage you are depriving yourself of other options later. -5/+10 is all day every day all the time. And its just really really strong to the point where in my experience melee and ranged fighter types just melt enemies. In my experience these feats are a bit much. If you dont agree, fine, but please stick to the OP or stop trying to argue with me about why im so wrong about thinking these feats are too good.

Why don't you provide a specific build as an example of Heavy Weapon Master being (in your opinion) too good? Preferably at multiple levels.

If you're not willing to talk in terms of specific numbers then it's unlikely you're going to get too far here, whether the feat is overpowered or not. Even if we were to assume your premise that these feats are overpowered, in order to tweak the numbers well you'd have to accurately evaluate exactly how much better it is, how much other options are doing, and adjust the values to make those things competitive with each other.

Stop beating around the bush and put down some numbers or it's just gonna be a bunch of he-said-she-said with arbitrary amounts of nerfing.

[Trask]

Why don't you provide a specific build as an example of Heavy Weapon Master being (in your opinion) too good? Preferably at multiple levels.

If you're not willing to talk in terms of specific numbers then it's unlikely you're going to get too far here, whether the feat is overpowered or not. Even if we were to assume your premise that these feats are overpowered, in order to tweak the numbers well you'd have to accurately evaluate exactly how much better it is, how much other options are doing, and adjust the values to make those things competitive with each other.

Stop beating around the bush and put down some numbers or it's just gonna be a bunch of he-said-she-said with arbitrary amounts of nerfing.

Did you read the op? I listed a possible tweak to the attack action allowing for a power attack.

[LudicSavant]

Did you read the op? I listed a possible tweak to the attack action allowing for a power attack.

You realize the post you just quoted asked you for a build, right? Because that is not a build.

Again, why don't you show us an example of a character you think is overpowered (due to the Great Weapon Master feat), preferably at multiple levels? With specific numbers. That way it could be compared to other things that don't use the feat, and you could get an accurate idea of how much exactly you need to "tone it down" (or whether you should tone it down at all).

[Trask]

You realize the post you just quoted asked you for a build, right? Because that is not a build.

Again, why don't you show us an example of a character you think is overpowered (due to the Great Weapon Master feat), preferably at multiple levels? With specific numbers. That way it could be compared to other things that don't use the feat, and you could get an accurate idea of how much exactly you need to "tone it down" (or whether you should tone it down at all).

Thats not what im asking for, i dont want to go through the exercise of doing that when its not even the point. Again, just as much as i think the feat is too strong compared to other options, i want to make its effects more of a baseline option in combat that could be done by anyone.

Im not pretending to be a build head who can break down dpr. Im just reacting to what ive played, played with, and dmed for.

I can say though that i think one of the main problems with the feat, and why comparing it with spells is a bad comparison, is that spells are limited and you can smack people all day with gwm and ss. Also you basically have to dance around any magic items, lest the feat user become a completely monstrous combatant. I like to give a lot of magic items and this feat has caused a lot of problems in conjunction with that.

im not even a balance nut either, i just want

1. a great option, thats basically a must have on a 2h build to become a good baseline action that anyone can do
2. Reinforce strength as the premier stat for melee damage even in the absence of said feat

[Zalabim]

Putting aside that all your opinions are wrong and you don't know how to do what you want to do, let's look at a goal and see what it takes to meet that goal. The goal I'm putting forward is that "power attack" should be an option that fighters using a greatsword should consider using often enough to remember that they have the option. For the sake of simplicity, power attack here will be "-5 to hit" and I'll calculate how much extra damage it needs to add, rather than having anything to do with proficiency.

As I often do, I'm defining midline accuracy as 65% at any level. Lower AC or bonuses to hit will raise it, and the reverse will lower it. I'll expect the simple greatsword fighter to deal between 10 and 13.33~ damage on a hit (a 15 strength fighter without the style actually does 9, but they'll probably still benefit from whatever value I end up with.) I don't want the option used all the time, so my upper limit will be set by making sure it isn't a benefit to use at midline accuracy with low end damage. Normal average is 6.85, taking -5 to hit the average is 4.35+40% of the damage bonus, which means my damage bonus needs to be 6.25 or lower. On the other end, let's say I want the option useful on an enemy with relatively -2 AC, even with the highest damage bonus (for a fighter without magic weapons). There the normal average is 10.416~, taking -5 to hit the average goes to 7.0833~+50% of the damage bonus, which means my damage bonus needs to be 6.66 or higher.

Well, these goals present an impossible situation.

How about a goal of relatively -4 AC or advantage? For -4 AC, it's 11.75 normal, power attack as 8.4166~+60% of the damage bonus, which means a damage bonus needs to be 5.55~ or higher. So, 6. Then considering advantage as an alternative, with advantage the normal average is 12.5125 and power attack at 9.345833~+64% of the damage bonus, so the damage bonus needs to be 4.9479166~ or higher. So, 5 or 6.

So depending on your desired goal, a universal power attack, for two-handed melee weapons, could be -5 to hit and +6 to damage, but I suspect players will just not bother with it for such small benefits.

[Beelzebubba]

I am SO GLAD that all the new players at my table don't have any of the utter crap of 3.x, old-school, 'linear fighter quadratic magic user being sensible' baggage.

I mean, I've seen message board posters literally sneering like "you swing a sword, I *change reality*' like a game that is made to be fun is somehow bolstering the ego of that person by them choosing another class in the game.

News flash: Fighters are better at killing stuff than classes that can kill stuff AND do other things. I don't know why this is such a problematic thing to understand. Warlocks get killer ranged damage AND a suite of 'always on' spell-like abilities that enable them to be incredibly versatile outside of combat. Wizards/Clerics/etc. get a wide variety of damaging and controlling effects, AND amazing utility that the fighter can't match.

Where in the hell did anyone get the idea that Wizards should always do everything better? Oh yeah, 3E. That edition literally broke brains beyond repair.

I understand. I'm a former addict myself. You get a 'shot' of that illicit thing that makes all your narcissistic, emotional dreams come true, it's very hard to let go. It's always calling. It never lets go.

I'm glad that all these new folks to the game are creating new communities away from this nonsense place. I mean, I do get a lot of value here, but like that one racist Uncle at the family reunion, there's a few here that literally can't stop spewing every possible chance they get and trying to put us back to the 'good old days' that were only good for whi- I mean, Wizard peo- I mean, players.

[ProseBeforeHos]

Sharpshooter is too good, I have no objections here. I banned it in my own games.

I think GWM is fine however. If you ban it there's really almost no reason to go greatsword/axe over longsword + dueling (damage is basically the same).

[2D6GREATAXE]

I'd rather just have +5 damage for succeeding on a hit by 5 or more
Essentially when you hit them with what would normally be a power attack you no longer have to evaluate a choice (we've established that there is a choice but it's already been made for us thanks to math) but you also create a feat that is no risk all reward (the same way an ASI operates) and is far less egregious on the power scaling of the game (because +10 damage is nuts).

I really like this!

you could even create a separate feat for it.

Feat: Superior Strike

[Merudo]

Its mostly because I dont think -5/+10 is thematically appropriate for an archer

I dislike that line of thought as it tends to unnecessarily mess with the balance of the game, typically to the detriment of non-spell casting classes.

Fighters get their best abilities denied because a DM can't imagine them performing the action, yet spellcasters don't have to conform to reality because magic.

GWM and SS are the two main ways martial classes can keep up with the spellcasters - removing them is ill-advised.

[Tanarii]

OP: "I don't want to use the optional rule, intentionally made optional because they aren't properly balanced, in my games because I find it overpowered. Instead I'd like to use a house rule X. What do you think?"

Hecklers: "Prove the optional rule, intentionally made that way because they're not properly balanced, is overpowered!"

/smh

[DeAnno]

Where in the hell did anyone get the idea that Wizards should always do everything better? Oh yeah, 3E. That edition literally broke brains beyond repair.

You've got it backwards. Very few from the 3.5e community would ever endorse a nerf like this, as they are mostly reasonable individuals that understand giving martials some shiny toys isn't going to end the world. The people who want to nerf anything that resembles a cool martial option into the ground are the people who don't know the lessons of 3.5.

I'm probably one of the 3.5iest people to even look at this forum, and I have a strong tendency to hit the red X on a set of houserules the second I even see a GWM/SS nerf.

[MrStabby]

You've got it backwards. Very few from the 3.5e community would ever endorse a nerf like this, as they are mostly reasonable individuals that understand giving martials some shiny toys isn't going to end the world. The people who want to nerf anything that resembles a cool martial option into the ground are the people who don't know the lessons of 3.5.

I'm probably one of the 3.5iest people to even look at this forum, and I have a strong tendency to hit the red X on a set of houserules the second I even see a GWM/SS nerf.

The caster/martial split thing kind of grows with level. Admittedly even low level casters can do good stuff - spider climb vs athletics for example but the cost of losing your level 2 spell slot at 3rd level represents a pretty high opportunity cost.

I think the issue is that nerfing these feats can help balance at low levels, up to about level 6 or 7 but after that point martials need to be good at killing stuff with weapons as that's what they do.

[druid91]

OP: "I don't want to use the optional rule, intentionally made optional because they aren't properly balanced, in my games because I find it overpowered. Instead I'd like to use a house rule X. What do you think?"

Hecklers: "Prove the optional rule, intentionally made that way because they're not properly balanced, is overpowered!"

/smh

Incorrect.

OP: "I am fine with the optional rule, but rather dislike one random instance of this optional rule. An instance that is demonstrably not overpowered. The point of which is to allow a fighter with a great sword to do more damage than say, a wizard who happens to pick up a greatsword. Instead, I would like to use a House Rule which allows litterally anyone wielding a melee weapon that isn't finesse to make a similar, though weaker version of the same strike. Allowing all manner of nonsense such as power-attacking two-weapon fighting. While removing a source of damage from the GWF. All because my encounter design isn't taking the GWF into account."

Great Weapon Master and Sharpshooter are not broken in the least. Strong? Yes. But not broken. And no amount of random nerfs or retweaks will fix encounter design. If he thinks that 2d6 +15 Damage (MAX! You don't get better than that! Ever! Unless you find a magical weapon which is entirely up to the DM to provide!) per hit is broken? His encounters aren't working and he needs to look at that. Not at GWM and SS.

All his fix does is push people into TWF, at which point they can now pseudo-GWM their two weapons and suddenly Drizzt is drooling at all the damage he can put out. Do you honestly want to make Drizzt happy?

5e already has a problem with the Fighter's Schtick being something everyone can do. No need to make it worse.

[Tanarii]

An instance that is demonstrably not overpowered.
What's silly about posters asking for proof, and this statement, is the -5/+10 of GWM and SS has been proven to be OP many times. With math. Those who have done the most solid math inevitable have house rules for fixing it. And yet people keep asking for proof.

[MaxWilson]

I'm breaking up with GWM and SS. The feats are just too good, especially GWM is the lynchpin that keeps Strength above Dexterity as a the go to stat for fighters.

To that end, I am removing entirely GWM and SS in my game and doing the following

•When you take the Attack Action a character may make a Power Attack, forgoing his proficiency bonus to his attack roll and add it to his damage roll. This cannot be used with Finesse Weapons. When using a weapon 2 handed increase to 1.5x Proficiency.

I like this for 2 reasons. One it tones down the feat significantly since I feel personally that the feat is too strong as is and overwhelms the monster HP as written at almost every level. Two, its not a feat, its just an attack option. I do not like feats that feel mandatory to perform, I like feats that augment your abilities in some niche or roleplaying way.

Also yes SS is just gone because in my opinion its just too strong, period. Ranged combat has a significant number of advantages over melee in this game and having experienced it firsthand as a player and DM i think the feat should just be removed entirely. Big damage should be the purview of melee strength fighters, not archers hiding the the back.

I'm very sympathetic to your position that attack options are better for the game than feats. I agree, and I allow something similar: anyone can target vitals for -5/+5, but GWM/SS just makes you better at it so you get -5/+10. Typically you'd see someone taking -5/+5 against low-AC foes like zombies, or against someone who is prone or restrained, which is precisely when it makes sense (from an in-game perspective) to focus on power over accuracy; so the fiction aligns with the mechanics, which I like.

RE: your specific change (banning GWM/SS), be advised that GWM/SS is a large part of the competitive advantage fighters have over spellcasters (especially Warlocks and anyone using Booming Blade/Greenflame Blade), so removing both feats from the game will tend to produce more spellcasters. You might need to put restrictions on magic in order to balance things out, e.g. use antimagic zones more frequently, and/or eliminate Booming Blade, Greenflame Blade from your game, and consider some way of eliminating warlocks and especially sorlocks from the game.


My partial solution was to say that ranged attackers do not get advantage for being unseen. Once fog could, darkness and similar effects can impose disadvantage on ranged characters things came into line.

Oh yeah, I agree, absolutely necessary. Otherwise ranged advantage is just too easy to get. Also it's logically offensive for two blind men shooting arrows at each other from 600' to be better at hitting each other than two regular archers shooting at each other from 200'.

My rule: being unseen does not grant advantage on ranged attacks, but it does enable Sneak Attack as long as you don't have disadvantage. Being unseen does grant advantage on melee attacks. (The logic here is that melee attacks are normally subject to parries much more easily than ranged attacks, due to being anchored on one end to the attacker, and that that is factored into to-hit difficulties; but unseen attacks cannot be effectively parried, hence the advantage.)

So two fighters in pitch darkness can flail around and hit each other with greatswords with no net disadvantage, but if they were using crossbows it would be at disadvantage.


Its mostly because I dont think -5/+10 is thematically appropriate for an archer (in melee you are taking a massive, less aimed swing, shooting a bow you are doing what exactly? Shooting a ballista bolt?)

In GURPS terms, this is would be shooting someone through the eyeslit in their helmet. Steep penalty to-hit but massive damage, mental stun, and debilitating brain trauma if it does hit.

D&D being D&D, we skip the brain trauma and just call it +10 to damage.

It's pretty easy to imagine vital locations on most monsters that you could target. It does make sense that certain monsters would be immune to Sharpshooter headshots due to lack of anatomical differentiation, and I'd expect most players to be okay with it if you made Sharpshooter conditional on seeing a weak spot to target. Shoot the dragon in the eye, shoot the hobgoblin warlord in the throat, shoot the Gloom Weaver in the heart, but try to use Sharpshooter on a Black Pudding and the DM is just going to look at you and say, "Exactly what are you shooting at here that's going to give you a damage bonus?"

[LudicSavant]

Its mostly because I dont think -5/+10 is thematically appropriate for an archer (in melee you are taking a massive, less aimed swing, shooting a bow you are doing what exactly? Shooting a ballista bolt?)

Consider a person going for a headshot: Easier to miss, but more damaging.

[Nifft]

What's silly about posters asking for proof, and this statement, is the -5/+10 of GWM and SS has been proven to be OP many times. With math. Those who have done the most solid math inevitable have house rules for fixing it. And yet people keep asking for proof. I'm with you here.

Even if they weren't too good, both -5/+10 feats tend to reward spreadsheet analytics & metagaming based on OoC monster knowledge rather than social gaming behavior.

The fact that someone wants to remove the -5/+10s from a game should not be a controversy.

[MaxWilson]

Even if they weren't too good, both -5/+10 feats tend to reward spreadsheet analytics & metagaming based on OoC monster knowledge rather than social gaming behavior.

You don't really need to metagame to use Sharpshooter effectively. You can pretty much just intuitively guess and be correct: don't use it against heavily-armored targets unless you have a really high to-hit. The rest of the time, use it.

It's demonstrably a damage boost against most targets, but those who claim that it is "demonstrably OP... shown with math" don't understand the foundations of that analysis.

[Trask]

Not even just OP, I'm willing to assume that maybe I'm wrong that these feats are not OP when compared with other caster silliness (I dont think I am, but Ill humor the point), even compared to other feat options its just way strong. The way I prefer feats to be is that a feat should be something you take to shore up a weak spot, or develop a niche, not just become better at what you already do. Otherwise there are always feats that are better than "non optimal" choices and it becomes a feat arms race. I've buffed some of the other weaker feats, but thats not the point of this. The point is that I feel what GWM does should be something that everyone could try, and I dont like its existence as a feat you have to take.

I like the suggestion of -proficiency/+double proficiency as a standard "power attack", because the attack sort of "scales" with level and therefore monster HP as well.. But that would be reserved for 2h weapons, and 1h weapons would use -proficiency/+proficiency. Another poster commented that it could be taken advantage of hardcore with twf and thats a good point, so maybe a good additional rule is that this attack can only be made once per turn? Thats actually a fairly common house rule Ive seen with base GWF and SS so that could work in this case too.

As for SS, I think you guys are right that its not that visually silly and it does make sense for archers to be able to do something like that, but my problem here lies with the almost equality of ranged and melee damage. At least in my campaigns, I think that strength (especially two handed) melee should be the masters of raw damage. It annoys me when a character who sits in the back and takes no risk deals just as much, or more damage with very possibly the same amount of HP. I've died many times because of ̶c̶o̶w̶a̶r̶d̶l̶y̶ cautious archers who pounded enemies with far more damage than me and incurred little to no risk. People say that SS just makes fighters competitive with warlocks and such but I feel as though thats completely ignoring the limited availability of spell slots, especially for warlocks in this case. My "adventuring days" are usually fairly long, so my caster players are conservative. I think SS using -proficiency/+proficiency is enough, especially considering their archery style is essentially canceling out with the penalty for the first levels.

[bid]

It's demonstrably a damage boost against most targets, but those who claim that it is "demonstrably OP... shown with math" don't understand the foundations of that analysis.
IIRC, it's +2 DPR per attack against expected AC. Not really better than a Str ASI.

And it's a one-hit kill against zerglings, but since overkill does nothing and the DM controls how often you have zergling encounters...

So, aside from the reckless barbarian, tempest over teapot.


I still don't like it, I'd rather get something utilities outside combat. "Boring and bland" is an argument that strikes true.

[Anonymouswizard]

I wasn't aware that 8d6 damage or 2d10 + 2d6 + 8 damage at 5th level was so little.

This is why fighters don't get nice things. It's ok for spellcasters to do something, but give it to a warrior and the game falls apart needs to banned.

I'm in total agreement here.

D&D is not The Dark Eye. While casters can burn through their spells quickly they'll get them all back at the end of the day, and several have an inbuilt ability to regain slots when they desperately need them. Spells give incredibly powerful nova ability (although warriors are the King of Damage this edition), and give an incredibly wide array of tools with which to solve problems. Plus spells work automatically, making out of combat casting even more powerful because the spell will never fail.

TDE can get away with keeping warriors realistic because it's magicians and priests have limited direct combat options, require a significant chunk of their resources for combat spells, can fail their spells unless they put a lot of character resources into either Attributes or the spells themselves (and even then might not get the QL they need), and both Astral Energy and Karma recharge slowly (1d6 per eight hours of rest, maximum 2d6 a day). So that lance of fire you threw at an enemy? It'll take you an entire day of rest to get that 8AE back (on average). The same for causing pain, turning people into toads, causing paralysis, and most other ways to directly harm an opponent. Hope you didn't want to affect multiple enemies with a spell, your basic fireball will be costing you over 30AE. Basic utility spells are cheaper, but again you have a chance to fail and using too many will again leave you out of AE. Magic is really useful, but a well built mundane will keep up by simply not being recovering for days on end. A magician that renders mundanes obsolete has thrown thousands of experience into their spells, by which point the warriors have mastered not only combat, but carousing, clothworking, wildernes survival, social interaction, and potentially other things as well, so while they might not be as powerful they can still keep up and don't have to spend years recharging when they run out of power.

D&D doesn't place limits anywhere near as harsh on it's casters. The main place they're lacking is in direct damage, but they go from low level SoS spells to literally reshaping the battlefield and causing enemies to hallucinate that they've gone blind and that there's an army of halflings with shortbows hiding behind the sofa, before having a toolkit available that allows them to solve potentially any out of combat problem.

TLDR; either warriors have nice things, or magicians have to have major limits placed on the reality warping.

5e does okay at giving warriors nice things, but really should have just butchered the monk and given the Wuxia powers to everybody without spells.


On the proposed rule, it works, but it goes the opposite way to what I'd do. I'd instead look at the other options for mundane combat and see if we can give them a boost up with their dedicated feats. GWM gives you -5/+10? Well Dual Wielder allows you to make multiple attacks as a bonus action, for one example.

[Trask]

I'm in total agreement here.

On the proposed rule, it works, but it goes the opposite way to what I'd do. I'd instead look at the other options for mundane combat and see if we can give them a boost up with their dedicated feats. GWM gives you -5/+10? Well Dual Wielder allows you to make multiple attacks as a bonus action, for one example.

In my personal house rules, at level 11 2 attacks can be made with the TWF bonus action attack but they both must be with the same weapon.

[Anonymouswizard]

In my personal house rules, at level 11 2 attacks can be made with the TWF bonus action attack but they both must be with the same weapon.

Yeah, that totally works. My point was really that we have this 'benchmark of awesome' to compare everything else to, let's bring options up to Sharpshooter's level. Because Strength based characters are poor enough as it is (although I've come to hate finesse weapons with a passion, I houserule them away when running 5e, which makes things better).

On that note, last page somebody brought up the idea that Sharpshooter might be launching a ballista bolt from your ranged weapon instead of an arrow/quarrel as a joke.

That sounds awesome and totally in the spirit of D&D. I really want to find a GM who would be willing to allow that fluff.

[Trask]

Yeah, that totally works. My point was really that we have this 'benchmark of awesome' to compare everything else to, let's bring options up to Sharpshooter's level. Because Strength based characters are poor enough as it is (although I've come to hate finesse weapons with a passion, I houserule them away when running 5e, which makes things better).

On that note, last page somebody brought up the idea that Sharpshooter might be launching a ballista bolt from your ranged weapon instead of an arrow/quarrel as a joke.

That sounds awesome and totally in the spirit of D&D. I really want to find a GM who would be willing to allow that fluff.

I also have a distaste for finesse weapons, but I also dislike the idea that a warrior can be big and strong or lithe and quick. A good warrior is strong and fast, he doesnt just pick one. So what I've tried to do is make dex matter a little more even if youre wearing heavy armor, and I dont think I need to remove finesse but just make it clearly inferior to strength for the purposes of melee combat.

It will still be the god stat for multiclassers though. Its just hard to unweave that from the system. In an ideal world D&D might have dexterity to hit and strength to damage for all melee weapons, and somehow make that not MAD.

[Lunali]

It will still be the god stat for multiclassers though. Its just hard to unweave that from the system. In an ideal world D&D might have dexterity to hit and strength to damage for all melee weapons, and somehow make that not MAD.

You could also include most ranged weapons in that, crossbows being the exception.

[Pex]

Now, now.

https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/hear,_hear

Oops oops

Drat drat

:smalltongue: :smalltongue:


As ive already said, im willing to assume that i am wrong, but i want to rework -5/+10 feats, specifically the melee one, into something that is a baseline option for PCs.

Thats what Id like to discuss, if at all possible. Not your quibbles with my preferences.

By the way, spells are limited. Every time you nova your spell damage you are depriving yourself of other options later. -5/+10 is all day every day all the time. And its just really really strong to the point where in my experience melee and ranged fighter types just melt enemies. In my experience these feats are a bit much. If you dont agree, fine, but please stick to the OP or stop trying to argue with me about why im so wrong about thinking these feats are too good.

Wanting to change the feats is a different concept than claiming only strength melee characters should be dealing lots of damage so you boast banning sharpshooter. Changing the feats to Minus Proficiency to hit Double Proficiency to damage has been proposed before by others.

[Phoenix042]

I'll level my constructive criticism point by point.


I'm breaking up with GWM and SS. The feats are just too good,

Quite false; they do what they mean to do very well, but they have stiff competition from a variety of other, extremely effective feats.


especially GWM is the lynchpin that keeps Strength above Dexterity as a the go to stat for fighters.

Very false; strength and dex are both extremely viable for melee fighters already, and dex is obviously superior for ranged combat. While the godliness of dex as a main attack stat are obvious and numerous, strength has a number of points in its favor, including feats, but also including athletics and heavy armor.



•When you take the Attack Action a character may make a Power Attack, forgoing his proficiency bonus to his attack roll and add it to his damage roll. This cannot be used with Finesse Weapons. When using a weapon 2 handed increase to 1.5x Proficiency.

It's actually physically painful for me to read this. Here's the corrected version:


Before making an attack using strength with a melee weapon that you are proficient with, you can choose to forgo adding your proficiency bonus to your attack roll. If the attack hits, you add your proficiency bonus to your damage roll instead. If you made the attack with a weapon that you are wielding in two hands, you add 1.5 times your proficiency bonus to the damage roll instead.


I like this for 2 reasons. One it tones down the feat significantly since I feel personally that the feat is too strong as is and overwhelms the monster HP as written at almost every level.

It makes the feats pretty bad, actually. If you do this, you should at least make them half-feats (as in, +1 to strength for GWM, and +1 dex for SS)


Two, its not a feat, its just an attack option. I do not like feats that feel mandatory to perform, I like feats that augment your abilities in some niche or roleplaying way.

I can understand this, but you should recognize the insane power of several of the other combat-oriented feats. Polearm master MAKES reach fighting styles strong, and synergizes very well with classes like paladin or barbarian who get stronger attacks instead of more. Tavern brawler makes the already strong athletics skill simply ludicrous for strength-based warriors, and sentinel makes defending allies and zone-controlling into a breeze.

I think the complex and intricate system of balance in 5e is easy to overlook and simplify in our minds, but hasty, half-thought out "solutions" to imagined problems like this are almost always as ineffectual as they are ill-conceived.


Also yes SS is just gone because in my opinion its just too strong, period. Ranged combat has a significant number of advantages over melee in this game and having experienced it firsthand as a player and DM i think the feat should just be removed entirely. Big damage should be the purview of melee strength fighters, not archers hiding the the back.

I don't even know how to reply to this... It seems like your main beef is that fighting styles other than the one you like exist, are viable, and that your favored style costs a whole FEAT to make strong.

There is very little wrong with the feats. From a mechanical perspective, they're on par with quite a few other strong options. Sharpshooter has a number of significant differences over GWM, and both of them have drawbacks which hit harder than basically anyone ever gives them credit for.

I'd reconsider actually implementing this change. or really any change, if I were you.

[No brains]

I actually have seen that meme you're referencing. It's a dank one. :smalltongue:

[Pex]

What's silly about posters asking for proof, and this statement, is the -5/+10 of GWM and SS has been proven to be OP many times. With math. Those who have done the most solid math inevitable have house rules for fixing it. And yet people keep asking for proof.

They were not proven broken. It was opined their existence made other forms of combat subpar - weapon & shield and two weapon fighting. It's a strong argument, but I'm not convinced it's definitive. Personal experience has shown me that not every warrior takes those feats when available, so however good they are they are not must haves. Players are willing to use the shield for the AC not caring they do less damage because they do decent enough damage by whatever means, and even then not everyone takes Shield Mastery though I have seen it taken. I have seen very few two-weapon warriors, but I don't think it's because of damage. It uses up the bonus action players want for something else. The rules of how it works makes it subpar, not damage comparisons. When it's taken it's done so by new players who are excited about getting an extra attack. They learn the price is too high soon enough because of their class abilities that use the bonus action.

[Trask]

Oops oops

Wanting to change the feats is a different concept than claiming only strength melee characters should be dealing lots of damage so you boast banning sharpshooter. Changing the feats to Minus Proficiency to hit Double Proficiency to damage has been proposed before by others.

I didnt say that only strength melee characters should be doing lots of damage, but strength melee characters (particularly 2 handed ones) should, imo, be the best damage dealers because theyre really sacrificing more than everyone else for it.


I'll level my constructive criticism point by point.

It makes the feats pretty bad, actually. If you do this, you should at least make them half-feats (as in, +1 to strength for GWM, and +1 dex for SS)

They arent feats. Its about the 3rd time ive said this in this whole thread. They arent feats. They are possible extension of the attack action.



I'd reconsider actually implementing this change. or really any change, if I were you.

Thanks for the advice, but you'll have to pardon me if I dont hang my hat on it.

[Pex]

I didnt say that only strength melee characters should be doing lots of damage, but strength melee characters (particularly 2 handed ones) should, imo, be the best damage dealers because theyre really sacrificing more than everyone else for it.



So we return to wizards casting Fireball and warlocks casting Hex Agonizing Eldritch Blast. PCs are capable of dealing lots of damage from a distance without sharpshooter already. Banning the feat does nothing to fix your dislike of the concept. It only prevents warriors having the ability with spellcasters not affected at all.

[Trask]

So we return to wizards casting Fireball and warlocks casting Hex Agonizing Eldritch Blast. PCs are capable of dealing lots of damage from a distance without sharpshooter already. Banning the feat does nothing to fix your dislike of the concept. It only prevents warriors having the ability with spellcasters not affected at all.

In my experience thats really only the case if you only have a few encounters every day. Spells are limited, particularly so in the Warlocks case. In my games, as a player and DM, we find ourselves using a lot more utility-ish spells than maybe a "normal" group does. I know what youre getting at and im not saying that fighter types shouldnt be able to do damage, but i think even without the feats they shake out fine. Feats are optional after all you know, so getting all twisted because I'm proposing a change to one of them as destroying fighter capabilities just implies that you think the game is broken in that respect without feats (which maybe you very well do, who knows) but it hasnt been my experience.

[MaxWilson]

In my experience thats really only the case if you only have a few encounters every day. Spells are limited, particularly so in the Warlocks case.

Eh. It doesn't take that many spell slots for a Warlock to exceed a fighter's damage once Sharpshooter and GWM are off the table. One Hex can last all day for d10+5+1d6 per hit, or you can do d10+5+4d4 per hit if someone tosses up a Spike Growth, or even more with other spells and/or other circumstances. 2d6+6 doesn't really compete with that.

[Nifft]

It will still be the god stat for multiclassers though. Its just hard to unweave that from the system. In an ideal world D&D might have dexterity to hit and strength to damage for all melee weapons, and somehow make that not MAD. With bounded accuracy, it might be possible to balance a homebrew system around Str as damage and Dex as attack. You'd probably want to remove Dex from AC, though.

(Add Int to AC instead. Call it Combat Expertise.)


You could also include most ranged weapons in that, crossbows being the exception. Maybe it's a Str check to reload as a faster action, or no check to reload as a standard action. That's realistic, and might be interesting.

[mephnick]

Maybe it's a Str check to reload as a faster action, or no check to reload as a standard action. That's realistic, and might be interesting.

If you wanted to kind of model real bows it would more likely be a STR prereq like Heavy Armour has.

Have you ever tried to pull a high draw weight bow? You literally can't do it if you aren't strong enough.

[Trask]

If you wanted to kind of model real bows it would more likely be a STR prereq like Heavy Armour has.

Have you ever tried to pull a high draw weight bow? You literally can't do it if you aren't strong enough.

This, but I wouldnt make a requirement like that too high. 11 or maybe 12 at the most. Masses of what were essentially "commoners" were armed with longbows in England after all. The trained from a young age with them but I doubt England just had a nation of 13-14 str peasants.

But I actually think that an 11 str req on a longbow isnt really a bad idea.

[Nifft]

If you wanted to kind of model real bows it would more likely be a STR prereq like Heavy Armour has.

Have you ever tried to pull a high draw weight bow? You literally can't do it if you aren't strong enough. (Just FYI the thing you quoted was talking about crossbows... but bows are cool, too.)

I've used modern composite bows which required some muscle, yeah.


IIRC there was a thing for Str-bonus composite bows in 3.x where you needed a certain bonus or higher to draw it without penalty, and you got to add that bonus to damage.

Maybe have composite bows require Str 15, and give +2 damage?

Rapid Shot might be a high-Str trick.

[MaxWilson]

This, but I wouldnt make a requirement like that too high. 11 or maybe 12 at the most. Masses of what were essentially "commoners" were armed with longbows in England after all. The trained from a young age with them but I doubt England just had a nation of 13-14 str peasants.

But I actually think that an 11 str req on a longbow isnt really a bad idea.

Or just bring back the hoary of chestnut of rating bows by Strength, and the wielder gets a damage bonus based on min(bow's Str rating, wielder's actual Str) instead of based on Dex. That would make it possible to model e.g. cataphract cavalry with their super-heavy bows.

But again, if you do this, you need to consider ways to tone down spellcasters, like making antimagic zones more common, or making spellcasting trigger opportunity attacks.

[Anonymouswizard]

I also have a distaste for finesse weapons, but I also dislike the idea that a warrior can be big and strong or lithe and quick. A good warrior is strong and fast, he doesnt just pick one. So what I've tried to do is make dex matter a little more even if youre wearing heavy armor, and I dont think I need to remove finesse but just make it clearly inferior to strength for the purposes of melee combat.

Yeah, I think I eventually ended up moving AC to being 8+proficiency bonus+dex modifier+armour or class modifier. So Barbarians still get their Con bonus and Mage Armour and a Sorcerer's Draconic Bloodline still grant a bonus, but armour just gives +1/+2/+3 (maybe +1/+2/+4) for light/medium/heavy, with an additional +2 if you use a shield. At that point Dexterity is so important for everybody finesse as a tag has to go, along with most 1d6 martial weapons.


It will still be the god stat for multiclassers though. Its just hard to unweave that from the system. In an ideal world D&D might have dexterity to hit and strength to damage for all melee weapons, and somehow make that not MAD.

The ideal would be an Agility stat for defence, a Dexterity stat for accuracy, and then basing damage on Strength for melee or a Perception stat for ranged. At that point we essentially have an eight stat system, Strength/Dexterity/Agility/Constitution/Intelligence/Willpower/Perception/Charisma, with some stats being better than others (appart from governing accuracy and a couple of skills there's not a lot Dexterity does). We could maybe break up other stats if we wanted to, such as separating Intelligence into Knowledge and Intuition, but they start to get a little too specialised. Plus this is already stretching the limits of homebrew slightly (although I pretty much know how I'd divide up the skills in that hack).


In my experience thats really only the case if you only have a few encounters every day. Spells are limited, particularly so in the Warlocks case. In my games, as a player and DM, we find ourselves using a lot more utility-ish spells than maybe a "normal" group does. I know what youre getting at and im not saying that fighter types shouldnt be able to do damage, but i think even without the feats they shake out fine. Feats are optional after all you know, so getting all twisted because I'm proposing a change to one of them as destroying fighter capabilities just implies that you think the game is broken in that respect without feats (which maybe you very well do, who knows) but it hasnt been my experience.

Yeah, having played with groups with a lot of one encounter adventuring days, I'm pretty much desperate to use the Gritty Rest rules if we're going to continue playing D&D (and I'm playing a Wizard or Sorcerer). It's just not nice to be the Fighter in that situation where the casters can just bust out their spells for every problem even at low levels.

[UrielAwakened]

The ranged damage of those classes is not the same as a -3/+10 of a Sharpshooter, anyone who thinks it is is just wrong. That -3/+10 overwhelms the math of the game.

The Sorc/Warlock dealing 8d10+8d6+40 damage a turn with eight chances to crit (or 24 if they're a half-elf and of course they are) agrees with you and is glad to have additional job security.

[MaxWilson]

The Sorc/Warlock dealing 8d10+8d6+40 damage a turn with eight chances to crit (or 24 if they're a half-elf and of course they are) agrees with you and is glad to have additional job security.

In any situation where a half-elf would have 24 chances to crit due to Elven Accuracy, a regular human would have 16.

If you don't already have advantage, Elven Accuracy doesn't magically give you advantage.

[UrielAwakened]

In any situation where a half-elf would have 24 chances to crit due to Elven Accuracy, a regular human would have 16.

If you don't already have advantage, Elven Accuracy doesn't magically give you advantage.

Your chance of critting on each attack goes from 9.75% to 14.26% though. And assuming you need a 10 to hit, your chance of missing goes from 20.25% to 9.11%.

That's a significant DPR improvement.

And still way better than anything anyone with SS is going to pull off.

You're also a caster meaning you have about a dozen ways to get CA from your spells alone.

[MaxWilson]

Your chance of critting on each attack goes from 9.75% to 14.26% though. And assuming you need a 10 to hit, your chance of missing goes from 20.25% to 9.11%.

That's a significant DPR improvement.

Sure. I agree with your basic point that eliminating Sharpshooter enhances warlock job security. I've said so several times in this thread. I'm just saying, if the half-elf is rolling 24 dice for 8 attacks, the human is rolling 16. And since you're using your concentration on Hex, it's relatively harder for you to get that ranged advantage in the first place. (How hard depends on various factors, e.g. what rules your DM is using for unseen attackers.) Arguably the Fighter actually has an easier time than you do exploiting Elven Accuracy since his concentration is still free (he could be an Eldritch Knight with Darkness up); it just isn't enough to overcome the attack deficit when you're making roughly twice as many attacks as he is.


And still way better than anything anyone with SS is going to pull off.

Yep. But not because of Elven Accuracy.


You're also a caster meaning you have about a dozen ways to get CA from your spells alone.

I'm not sure what you mean here by "CA".

[Doug Lampert]

You could also include most ranged weapons in that, crossbows being the exception.
Any crossbow I can span in less than 6 seconds (i.e. ALL of them in D&D land), is one that still needs lots of strength to load and shoot quickly and accurately.

That's not a winch assisted draw.

This, but I wouldnt make a requirement like that too high. 11 or maybe 12 at the most. Masses of what were essentially "commoners" were armed with longbows in England after all. The trained from a young age with them but I doubt England just had a nation of 13-14 str peasants.

But I actually think that an 11 str req on a longbow isnt really a bad idea.
Yeomen were the highest social-class not part of the gentry. They weren't peasants.

War of the Roses era tapestries show the archers in plate armor, 100 Years war employment contracts gave them half the pay of a fully armored man-at-arms, but the man-at-arms was required to bring an armed servant and a warhorse for his double pay. Archers had a ransom like any other upper class sort in a war back then (the French would occasionally threaten to cut the thumbs off captured archers, the reason they couldn't threaten to massacre them is that their own troops would never have given up all those ransoms if they'd managed to capture a large group of archers).

Additionally, the bows found in the Mary Rose salvage were 120lb draw at the LOW END. The high end bows were up about 180lb.

For reference, prior to that salvage, plenty of alleged experts would swear up and down that anything higher than an 80lb draw was outright impossible for an actual combatant.

Your bow was customized to your strength, same as your sword or mace or whatever, it's a perfectly reasonable simplification to simply say that since everyone uses the heaviest draw bow they can, you apply your full strength to damage with all bows.

[UrielAwakened]

Sure. I agree with your basic point that eliminating Sharpshooter enhances warlock job security. I've said so several times in this thread. I'm just saying, if the half-elf is rolling 24 dice for 8 attacks, the human is rolling 16. And since you're using your concentration on Hex, it's relatively harder for you to get that ranged advantage in the first place. (How hard depends on various factors, e.g. what rules your DM is using for unseen attackers.) Arguably the Fighter actually has an easier time than you do exploiting Elven Accuracy since his concentration is still free (he could be an Eldritch Knight with Darkness up); it just isn't enough to overcome the attack deficit when you're making roughly twice as many attacks as he is.



Yep. But not because of Elven Accuracy.



I'm not sure what you mean here by "CA".

Combat Advantage.

Look my point is a Warlock is making at minimum twice as many attack rolls as your SSer, in an idealized scenario for the SSer, and also rolling twice as many dice, so all of his crits are twice as good.

This did not to diverge so far, no point you're making contradicts the point I'm making. Let it go.

[Kane0]

When you take the Attack Action a character may make a Power Attack, forgoing his proficiency bonus to his attack roll and add it to his damage roll. This cannot be used with Finesse Weapons. When using a weapon 2 handed increase to 1.5x Proficiency.


Seems aight. But if I may make a suggestion:
'When you make a weapon attack using a weapon you are proficient in, you can choose to add your strength or dexterity modifier to the damage roll instead of the attack roll.'
Easy remember, doesn't treat different styles differently, and one less reason to automatically pick Hexblade.

[CircleOfTheRock]

I dont see your point. Maybe instead of just being snide all the time you could give actual constructive criticism?
His point is that martials are a bit worse than spellcasters, even in this edition, and that getting rid of GWM only widens the gap.

[Trask]

Seems aight. But if I may make a suggestion:
'When you make a weapon attack using a weapon you are proficient in, you can choose to add your strength or dexterity modifier to the damage roll instead of the attack roll.'
Easy remember, doesn't treat different styles differently, and one less reason to automatically pick Hexblade.

I always forget about the darn Hexblade.

[Trask]

His point is that martials are a bit worse than spellcasters, even in this edition, and that getting rid of GWM only widens the gap.

His only example was the warlock with a combo that is

1. Limited
2. Part of the warlocks "thing" as a blaster.

[Daghoulish]

His only example was the warlock with a combo that is

1. Limited
2. Part of the warlocks "thing" as a blaster.

I think their not only talking about in-combat. I mean, if the fighter isn't doing great in combat, then they need to be able to help out of combat. None of the fighter ability's help you out of combat, unless your a eldritch knight. Let's look at all the things any warlock can do out of combat.

At level 2 a warlock can use at will.
-speak with animals
-see in magical and normal darkness to 120 feet
-detect magic
-read any writing
-disguise self
-silent image

This only goes up from here. That's even before adding anything that they would get from their patron or pact boon. If the fighter isn't king at combat what is he good at, beyond being a meat bag for other people to hide behind.

[Morty]

I think the OP has a definite point, though I really don't think bringing real world weapon discussions into this is a good idea. "Martials should get nice things!" is a very weak response to the argument, because if martial characters do need an extra damage boost to keep up with magic, they should just get it, instead of having to pay a feat tax. If they don't... I question the purpose of these feats. They don't let you do anything new or interesting - they're just a numbers game. One that boosts your damage if you solve it properly and choose to trade accuracy for power when it's advantageous for you.

Besides, a -5/+10 tradeoff seems directly opposed to 5e's philsophy of not providing fiddly numbers and relying on proficiency bonuses and advantage/disadvantage instead. Sharpshooter's ability to ignore cover and distance is likewise not very good for the game. Dealing with cover and distance is part of what fighting from a distance is about, and being able to just remove that from the equation is dull. There might be a way to make it more interesting, but with how stripped-down and deliberately simplistic 5e's mundane combat is...

[Trask]

I think their not only talking about in-combat. I mean, if the fighter isn't doing great in combat, then they need to be able to help out of combat. None of the fighter ability's help you out of combat, unless your a eldritch knight. Let's look at all the things any warlock can do out of combat.

At level 2 a warlock can use at will.
-speak with animals
-see in magical and normal darkness to 120 feet
-detect magic
-read any writing
-disguise self
-silent image

This only goes up from here. That's even before adding anything that they would get from their patron or pact boon. If the fighter isn't king at combat what is he good at, beyond being a meat bag for other people to hide behind.

The out of combat utility of casters over melee will always exist to some degree, but this is a roleplaying game. There is no such thing as being "useless" if you arent just fighting all the time. In my games I do not experience the uselessness of martials outside of combat because everyone can contribute with their creativity. It often doesnt take any special power to set some trap or what have you, it just takes creativity and roleplaying.

I do think that martials should be good at doing damage, but i disagree that changing aspects of GWM and SS will make that impossible. The game is balanced around feats not existing and in my experience martials do plenty of damage even without these feats. (as long as your players dont have 5 minute adventuring days, my players often are stressed and scrounging their last spells and abilities and I use a lot of puzzles and challenging that pure damage wont solve and requires a variety of spells. Martials will always be ready to fight at or near maximum efficiency. Casters only get weaker as the day goes on.)

And thats the thing, im not even just removing it entirely, im introducing a concept for something similar that doesnt eat a feat just to compete.

[Kuulvheysoon]

I've got no issues with GWM.

Sharpshooter, on the other hand, I have issues. But not with the -5/+10, it's the other two parts. I have a ranger archer (hunter) with Sharpshooter, and she is... annoying. Ignoring cover and being able to shoot from 600' is patently ridiculous. If I allowed the feat again, I'd probably have it reduce cover by one step and double the short range of the ranged weapon.

[MaxWilson]

Sharpshooter's ability to ignore cover and distance is likewise not very good for the game. Dealing with cover and distance is part of what fighting from a distance is about, and being able to just remove that from the equation is dull. There might be a way to make it more interesting, but with how stripped-down and deliberately simplistic 5e's mundane combat is...

Do note that Sharpshooter only lets you ignore BAD cover. The best kind of cover (total) works against everything including spells and Sharpshooters. Well, almost everything anyway.

Also, Sharpshooters take disadvantage as usual against prone targets. Dropping prone is the standard countermeasure against missile fire for a good reason.

[Nifft]

"Martials should get nice things!" is a very weak response to the argument, because if martial characters do need an extra damage boost to keep up with magic, they should just get it, instead of having to pay a feat tax. If they don't... I question the purpose of these feats. They don't let you do anything new or interesting - they're just a numbers game. One that boosts your damage if you solve it properly and choose to trade accuracy for power when it's advantageous for you.

Besides, a -5/+10 tradeoff seems directly opposed to 5e's philsophy of not providing fiddly numbers and relying on proficiency bonuses and advantage/disadvantage instead.
Agree with your points.

Hmm, what would be a better Sharpshooter feat? Maybe something like...

- When you spend Inspiration to make an attack with a ranged weapon, you can ignore cover.

- You can perform feats of amazing archery precision against objects within your range, such as cutting a rope with an arrow, pinning a falling item to a tree, triggering a known trap, extinguishing a candle, flipping a switch, pressing a button, or other such object interactions. You can't do something that would be impossible for an archery attack (like splitting a mountain in a single shot). You don't have to roll for these, you just declare that you're performing precision sharpshooting as your Action.

[MrStabby]

I think the OP has a definite point, though I really don't think bringing real world weapon discussions into this is a good idea. "Martials should get nice things!" is a very weak response to the argument, because if martial characters do need an extra damage boost to keep up with magic, they should just get it, instead of having to pay a feat tax. If they don't... I question the purpose of these feats. They don't let you do anything new or interesting - they're just a numbers game. One that boosts your damage if you solve it properly and choose to trade accuracy for power when it's advantageous for you.



I would kind of take issue with this. A "Tax" would be something like an ASI that is entirely passive. This feat gives you an option on every attack to modify it or not, it adds meaningful choice to what could otherwise be a rather bland attack action. It isn't perfect but I do see it adding fun, not least as the fighters pay particular attention to descriptions to try and ascertain the AC of their target beforehand.

GWM pulls this off better than SS because it also adds a lot more to tactical depth - who to attack to get the kill to get the sweet bonus action attack, where to stand to be near the less armoured targets and so on. SS kind of eliminates much of what you cared about in positioning anyway by ignoring so much of cover and range.

[Pex]

I think the OP has a definite point, though I really don't think bringing real world weapon discussions into this is a good idea. "Martials should get nice things!" is a very weak response to the argument, because if martial characters do need an extra damage boost to keep up with magic, they should just get it, instead of having to pay a feat tax. If they don't... I question the purpose of these feats. They don't let you do anything new or interesting - they're just a numbers game. One that boosts your damage if you solve it properly and choose to trade accuracy for power when it's advantageous for you.

Besides, a -5/+10 tradeoff seems directly opposed to 5e's philsophy of not providing fiddly numbers and relying on proficiency bonuses and advantage/disadvantage instead. Sharpshooter's ability to ignore cover and distance is likewise not very good for the game. Dealing with cover and distance is part of what fighting from a distance is about, and being able to just remove that from the equation is dull. There might be a way to make it more interesting, but with how stripped-down and deliberately simplistic 5e's mundane combat is...

There's a difference between thinking -5/+10 is too much of a thing and needs to be toned down and archers should never ever do lots of damage but it's ok for spellcasters like a warlock because blasting is their shtick. Minus Proficiency/Plus Double Proficiency gives more palatable math for those who need it without saying warrior classes are forbidden from doing lots of damage at a range.

[Trask]

There's a difference between thinking -5/+10 is too much of a thing and needs to be toned down and archers should never ever do lots of damage but it's ok for spellcasters like a warlock because blasting is their shtick. Minus Proficiency/Plus Double Proficiency gives more palatable math for those who need it without saying warrior classes are forbidden from doing lots of damage at a range.

A warlock can do his blast combo a couple of times, and thats assuming all hes doing is hexing. You keep bringing it up so I keep feeling I have to point out that in a vacuum of course spells look overpowered but thats not how the game is played at all in the real world. Archers are hyper accurate, and do good damage with d8 bows and can basically shoot all day from a safe distance. They also have higher ACs and can pull out a melee weapon if needed. If theyre not right there at the top of the margins with the 2 encounters that a warlock gets to blow their entire load, well is it really that bad?

[bid]

A warlock can do his blast combo a couple of times, and thats assuming all hes doing is hexing.
That's WAGging pretty hard. I'd like to see some numbers because once you remove feats and slots, warlock does as much damage as archery fighters.

Without hard numbers, that belief is nothing but a fantasy.

[UrielAwakened]

A warlock can do his blast combo a couple of times, and thats assuming all hes doing is hexing. You keep bringing it up so I keep feeling I have to point out that in a vacuum of course spells look overpowered but thats not how the game is played at all in the real world. Archers are hyper accurate, and do good damage with d8 bows and can basically shoot all day from a safe distance. They also have higher ACs and can pull out a melee weapon if needed. If theyre not right there at the top of the margins with the 2 encounters that a warlock gets to blow their entire load, well is it really that bad?

A Sorcerer/Warlock can do it forever.

Also recognize that you're comparing an archer to the worst caster in the game, claiming it might be a little worse, and asking is that really that bad?

Yes. It is. Because literally every other caster in the game is gonna make your SS-less archer look like an NPC.

[Pex]

A warlock can do his blast combo a couple of times, and thats assuming all hes doing is hexing. You keep bringing it up so I keep feeling I have to point out that in a vacuum of course spells look overpowered but thats not how the game is played at all in the real world. Archers are hyper accurate, and do good damage with d8 bows and can basically shoot all day from a safe distance. They also have higher ACs and can pull out a melee weapon if needed. If theyre not right there at the top of the margins with the 2 encounters that a warlock gets to blow their entire load, well is it really that bad?

The warlock can do it most every combat because slots refresh on a short rest. Eventually Hex lasts long enough to not needing to be recast. It's not about alleged overpowerness of spells at all. You think doing lots of damage at a range is BadWrongFun, so you want to deny the ability from warriors but the concept of BadWrongFun lots of damage at a range will still exist because spellcasters can do it.

[MaxWilson]

I think the OP has a definite point, though I really don't think bringing real world weapon discussions into this is a good idea. "Martials should get nice things!" is a very weak response to the argument, because if martial characters do need an extra damage boost to keep up with magic, they should just get it, instead of having to pay a feat tax. If they don't... I question the purpose of these feats. They don't let you do anything new or interesting - they're just a numbers game. One that boosts your damage if you solve it properly and choose to trade accuracy for power when it's advantageous for you.

Besides, a -5/+10 tradeoff seems directly opposed to 5e's philsophy of not providing fiddly numbers and relying on proficiency bonuses and advantage/disadvantage instead. Sharpshooter's ability to ignore cover and distance is likewise not very good for the game. Dealing with cover and distance is part of what fighting from a distance is about, and being able to just remove that from the equation is dull. There might be a way to make it more interesting, but with how stripped-down and deliberately simplistic 5e's mundane combat is...

Fighters gets extra feats (ASIs) as class abilities. They need something to spend it on. Doing more damage is a pretty reasonable thing for them to spend it on, especially since the feats in question (GWM and Sharpshooter) work better for fighters than for anyone else (since they scale with number of attacks). Sharpshooter isn't really worth it on a monk, for example, and is only barely worth it on a ranger.

And 5E is all about fiddly little bonuses. 5E's class design expects you to get all excited about getting e.g. an bonus +1d8 to your weapon damage once per round at 8th level.

And Sharpshooter doesn't let you ignore good cover, and it doesn't remove prone from the equation. A good Sharpshooter still needs either a sniping position from which it is impossible to take cover, or else ground-pounder allies. And Sharpshooter doesn't work so well at night. If you're looking for ways to make ranged combat more interesting, try using more intelligent tactics with your monsters (as appropriate to their intelligence level--if necessary, use smarter creatures like hobgoblins and drow) including nighttime attacks and hiding.

Complex tactics like stealth-on-stealth battles can be really time-consuming in terms of table time, but also fun.

[Tanarii]

The warlock can do it most every combat because slots refresh on a short rest. Eventually Hex lasts long enough to not needing to be recast. It's not about alleged overpowerness of spells at all. You think doing lots of damage at a range is BadWrongFun, so you want to deny the ability from warriors but the concept of BadWrongFun lots of damage at a range will still exist because spellcasters can do it.Yup. A Warlock with a single invocation investment has a baseline on par with a non-SS archer. Technically that's not a straight comparison because it is a class feature investment, but it's a pretty minor one. OTOH most other "archer" classes have plenty of other class features that up DPR pretty dramatically from there.

[Specter]

I'm late to this party, but this -5/+5 'fix' ignores the fact that to-hit bonuses are far harder to get than damage ones. This tradeoff will only be worth it against enemies with pitiful AC.

Also, as a DM, I could care less about raw damage. All you need to do is max monster HP or get tougher monsters altogether. A Monk that stuns my boss for consecutive rounds is far more scary to me than any greataxe barbarian.

[PhoenixPhyre]

I'm late to this party, but this -5/+5 'fix' ignores the fact that to-hit bonuses are far harder to get than damage ones. This tradeoff will only be worth it against enemies with pitiful AC.

Also, as a DM, I could care less about raw damage. All you need to do is max monster HP or get tougher monsters altogether. A Monk that stuns my boss for consecutive rounds is far more scary to me than any greataxe barbarian.

And raw damage is only at its peak against few, tough enemies. Against 5e's default (more smaller enemies), it just results in tons of overkill.

[MaxWilson]

I'm late to this party, but this -5/+5 'fix' ignores the fact that to-hit bonuses are far harder to get than damage ones. This tradeoff will only be worth it against enemies with pitiful AC.

That's why I'm comfortable offering -5/+5 to everyone even without a feat. It just lets you convert to-hit into damage. E.g. Recklessly Attacking Barbarians can choose to hit harder instead of becoming more accurate, which seems appropriate.

GWM/SS just make the tradeoff more attractive, -5/+10, in a way similar to how Mounted Combatant makes the mounted combat option more attractive. Specialization yields extra benefits.

[UrielAwakened]

The best fix anyone has ever suggested for SS and GWM is instead of a flat -5/+10, you trade your prof bonus for 2x your prof in damage.

The problem with those feats is they're really really good early. That helps hamstring them a little and keeps them good late-game when ACs are still higher but not so high that you necessarily always need it.

Any change larger than that is doing too much.

[jas61292]

Yup. A Warlock with a single invocation investment has a baseline on par with a non-SS archer. Technically that's not a straight comparison because it is a class feature investment, but it's a pretty minor one. OTOH most other "archer" classes have plenty of other class features that up DPR pretty dramatically from there.

Yeah. It's really funny to me how people seem to think this (no class features) is the end of the comparison.

Yes, Agonizing Blast lets them be about as good as a standard archer. If that archer is not using any other features. The Archery fighting style by itself already puts the archer ahead, as +2 to hitits far more valuable than the one damage die size larger the warlock gets. And taking it is far less of a trade off. If you are an archer, it is the only choice worth taking. A warlock on the other hand has to give up on another possibly great invocation just to almost match the archer (and for the record, I personally consider agonizing blast among the most overrated features inall of 5e). And again, then at this baseline, the archer is still better.

But what about Hex? Well, that about the archer's other class feature? A pure archer is almost certainly a Fighter or Ranger, so what do they do? Well...

The Ranger uses Hunter's Mark to equal Hex, remaining ahead (before even taking subclass features into account) for the much cheaper cost of a level 1 Ranger spell slot. Add in said subclass features, such as hoard breaker, and they are well ahead.

The Fighter base class really only adds Action Surge, but that can crucially allow them to blow through an enemy when needed. However, add in superiority dice, or whatnot and they surge past the warlock. And again, it is almost certainly at a cheaper cost.

Now, if this thread was on warlocks, I would probably go on to talk about how the "archer" warlock is overrated and a waste of resources, but this thread is about the -5/+10 feats. And I think it should be abundantly clear to anyone who has done a real analysis that martials do far more than keep up without the need for these feats. If martials are behind in any way, it is outside of combat, and adding more combat prowess will do nothing to help close that gap.

[Pex]

I wouldn't think Sharp Shooter is an absolute need. A rogue I know likes archery and is happy enough with sneak attack. My objection is banning it because one thinks it's blasphemy (my hyperbolic word) for a range attacker to be doing lots of damage. If you don't like the math behind it as is that's a matter of taste. It's the philosophy I question.

[Nifft]

I wouldn't think Sharp Shooter is an absolute need. A rogue I know likes archery and is happy enough with sneak attack. My objection is banning it because one thinks it's blasphemy (my hyperbolic word) for a range attacker to be doing lots of damage. If you don't like the math behind it as is that's a matter of taste. It's the philosophy I question.

In my opinion, an archer shouldn't need any particular feat to do significant damage.

Feats are optional, after all. Some games don't have them, and even in other games some players don't choose to have any.

[MaxWilson]

I wouldn't think Sharp Shooter is an absolute need. A rogue I know likes archery and is happy enough with sneak attack. My objection is banning it because one thinks it's blasphemy (my hyperbolic word) for a range attacker to be doing lots of damage. If you don't like the math behind it as is that's a matter of taste. It's the philosophy I question.

That's a rogue though. Sharpshooter is a fighter thing. Rogue archers do less damage but are far more reliable (under vanilla PHB rules) due to advantage from being unseen.

A vanilla Dex 16 5th level Rogue with a longbow (assume proficiency due to being e.g. a wood elf) does an average damage of 16.58 HP per round against AC 15, assuming a successful Hide every round. The equivalent Dex 16 Fighter with a longbow and Archery style does only 10.95 damage per round. Give him Dex 18 and his damage climbs to 11.5 HP per round, still subpar; give him Sharpshooter instead of Dex 18 and his damage climbs to 16.58, on par with the Rogue.

Give Sharpshooter to the Rogue and his damage climbs only to 17.63, very little change.

Ergo, Sharpshooter is a Fighter thing, not a Rogue thing, unless your Rogue is a long-range sniper.

[Tanarii]

I wouldn't think Sharp Shooter is an absolute need. A rogue I know likes archery and is happy enough with sneak attack. My objection is banning it because one thinks it's blasphemy (my hyperbolic word) for a range attacker to be doing lots of damage. If you don't like the math behind it as is that's a matter of taste. It's the philosophy I question.I feel it's blasphemy for arcane spell casters to be able to prepare their spells at the end of a Long Rest instead of taking ten minutes per spell level, for spell casters to not to finish casting last in a round and automatically lose the spell if they're hit at any point in the round before that, and for them to require twice the XP to level up. And optionally for them not to warp themselves with Chaos by casting spells.

I feel it's blasphemy for archers not to hit a random target if they fire into melee, and to be able to attack at all at melee / point blank range.

But I don't try to houserule all that into modern D&D :smallamused:

[Zalabim]

The best fix anyone has ever suggested for SS and GWM is instead of a flat -5/+10, you trade your prof bonus for 2x your prof in damage.

The problem with those feats is they're really really good early. That helps hamstring them a little and keeps them good late-game when ACs are still higher but not so high that you necessarily always need it.
Half of why GWM is good is the cleave ability, and that's more important early on, and the ability to ignore some cover and shoot at longer ranges for SS is nice, though not as obviously useful as the cleave ability, but as far as the power attack functions go, they are never worse at any level than they are at level 1. PC attack bonus, enemy HP values, and PC number of attacks are all at their lowest point at level 1. At higher levels, the opportunity cost of taking the feat is lower, the chance of overkill is lower, and the PCs attack bonus is more sure to hit, with more PC durability to survive when they do miss. Making the power attack based on proficiency instead probably makes the option stronger at all levels. The feats may be good early anyway, but that is plainly when the power attack ability is at its worst.

That's a rogue though. Sharpshooter is a fighter thing. Rogue archers do less damage but are far more reliable (under vanilla PHB rules) due to advantage from being unseen.

A vanilla Dex 16 5th level Rogue with a longbow (assume proficiency due to being e.g. a wood elf) does an average damage of 16.58 HP per round against AC 15, assuming a successful Hide every round. The equivalent Dex 16 Fighter with a longbow and Archery style does only 10.95 damage per round. Give him Dex 18 and his damage climbs to 11.5 13.2 HP per round, still subpar; give him Sharpshooter instead of Dex 18 and his damage climbs to 16.58 16.2, on par with the Rogue.

Give Sharpshooter to the Rogue and his damage climbs only to 17.63, very little change.

Ergo, Sharpshooter is a Fighter thing, not a Rogue thing, unless your Rogue is a long-range sniper.
Just fixing some numbers. Give that rogue 18 Dexterity instead and his damage climbs to 18.135, as well as getting better chance to hide and higher AC. This is also with the fighter not using any class abilities [Action Surge, Superiority Dice/Arcane Shots/Fighting Spirit]. The point is the effect on the class's damage, not the class to class comparison.

[SpoCk0nd0pe]

That's the big fuss about GWM? It's only useful against low AC opponents. Don't hand out heavy magical weapons like candy and throw in some high AC opponents, that should totally handle the problem.

As to SS with archery fighting style: there are so many scenarios where an archer is really screwed in D&D 5. Many monsters and classes move ridiculously fast and low light gives disadvantage on ranged attacks even with dark vision. Let them have their deadly SS shots at daytime in open terrain.

People pretend SS and GWM are +10 dpr too often. It is not. Calculate dpr against various armor classes and see for yourself.
Also: SS is not -3/+10 because of the archery fighting style. It is still -5/+10. Again, do the math and see the damage increase. A stat increase is often better, depending on your target's AC.
At those insanely high damage builds: Again, do the math against AC. If you do a bazillion base damage, trading your hit chance for some more is not a good deal. This is the reason SS really sucks for rogues btw.

There even is a convenient graph to see the difference: http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?517267-Comprehensive-DPR-Calculator

SS and GWM are really good against low AC monsters and they are good feats. But there are other really good feats too. It is totally o.k. to let GWMs and SSs be good at their thing (killing high hitpoint low AC foes), they are not op. There are other things in 5e way more problematic imho (e.g. Hexblades lvl 1 SAD feature for Sorc and Blade multi classes).

[Tanarii]

That's the big fuss about GWM? It's only useful against low AC opponents.
The fuss is because that's not true. In case you're unaware, the threshold for most characters starts at AC 16 (when they don't have advantage) and goes up from there as they gain levels and other hit bonuses. That's not low.

[MaxWilson]

Just fixing some numbers. Give that rogue 18 Dexterity instead and his damage climbs to 18.135, as well as getting better chance to hide and higher AC. This is also with the fighter not using any class abilities [Action Surge, Superiority Dice/Arcane Shots/Fighting Spirit]. The point is the effect on the class's damage, not the class to class comparison.

Thanks. I must have fat-fingered or misremembered something when calculating.


As to SS with archery fighting style: there are so many scenarios where an archer is really screwed in D&D 5. Many monsters and classes move ridiculously fast and low light gives disadvantage on ranged attacks even with dark vision.

While I agree that SS is not a flat +10 to damage, I have to correct this point in bold: dim light (including darkness + darkvision) gives disadvantage on Perception rolls to see things, not on attack rolls.

Monsters and classes moving ridiculously fast... I haven't really seen that happen. Even the fastest of the fast monsters move only about 25 mph when dashing. An archer can keep the engagement range open against almost any monster with just Mobile feat + Expeditious retreat, or a regular old horse (which comes with free Dashes that don't even cost the rider's action to use). It's not hard to get even more mobility (using e.g. Phantom Steed for 200' movement per round).

Bottom line: without Sharpshooter in the game, but with warlocks and Spell Sniper still accessible, you should expect to see fewer archers and more spellcasters. Might want to think about ways to nerf spellcasting a bit (e.g. make magic not function in a home where you haven't been invited in).

[Psikerlord]

I'm breaking up with GWM and SS. The feats are just too good, especially GWM is the lynchpin that keeps Strength above Dexterity as a the go to stat for fighters.

To that end, I am removing entirely GWM and SS in my game and doing the following

•When you take the Attack Action a character may make a Power Attack, forgoing his proficiency bonus to his attack roll and add it to his damage roll. This cannot be used with Finesse Weapons. When using a weapon 2 handed increase to 1.5x Proficiency.

I like this for 2 reasons. One it tones down the feat significantly since I feel personally that the feat is too strong as is and overwhelms the monster HP as written at almost every level. Two, its not a feat, its just an attack option. I do not like feats that feel mandatory to perform, I like feats that augment your abilities in some niche or roleplaying way.

Also yes SS is just gone because in my opinion its just too strong, period. Ranged combat has a significant number of advantages over melee in this game and having experienced it firsthand as a player and DM i think the feat should just be removed entirely. Big damage should be the purview of melee strength fighters, not archers hiding the the back.

Definitely better than GWM, which is broken, and so is SS.

I prefer to turn both of them into "half feats". Remove -5/+10, and instead gain +1 Str or Dex. Still good, but not OP.

[SpoCk0nd0pe]

Sorry for my poor post, I didn't catch that lightly obscured only provides disadvantage to perception checks.

Also, you are right. SS and GWM are really good against challenge rating appropriate AC. But there are drawbacks:

Archers have their problems with many dungeon-esque scenes I remember playing. Many indoor and underground encounters do not allow much space to retreat.

GWMs have to invest heavily into strength. They likely have poorer initiative and worse AC. The barbarian can compensate for this but my last GWM vengeance paladin was pretty much always last.

Some GWM and SS damage will also be lost to overkill depending on the encounter.

All in all, I still don't think SS and GWM are broken. There are stronger things in 5e imho.

[MaxWilson]

Sorry for my poor post, I didn't catch that lightly obscured only provides disadvantage to perception checks.

Also, you are right. SS and GWM are really good against challenge rating appropriate AC. But there are drawbacks:

Archers have their problems with many dungeon-esque scenes I remember playing. Many indoor and underground encounters do not allow much space to retreat.

GWMs have to invest heavily into strength. They likely have poorer initiative and worse AC. The barbarian can compensate for this but my last GWM vengeance paladin was pretty much always last.

Some GWM and SS damage will also be lost to overkill depending on the encounter.

All in all, I still don't think SS and GWM are broken. There are stronger things in 5e imho.

If you'll pardon a digression on a tangential topic:

IME, the only times when players have no room to maneuver or retreat are when DMs are addicted to teleport gates, which don't even really exist by RAW. (I'm not saying a DM can't invent them, just that there are no spells that create permanent teleportation gates, nor magic items for them, so I don't expect them to be common at most tables.)

That doesn't mean the players necessarily will maneuver successfully. Plenty of players will just charge into a 30' x 20' room and fight whatever's there in melee, telling themselves that they have to fight in melee because that's how big the room is. But it was never their only option. They could have stationed themselves in the hallway outside the room, with plenty of caltrops pre-planted in the corridor and a fallback position down the next hallway, and sent in the wall-running and teleporting Mobile Shadow Monk to open the door to the 20' x 30' room and flush the inhabitants. If the monsters choose not to assault, and just stay in their 30' x 20' room, the Mobile Shadow Monk will plink them to death with arrows through the open doorway (etc.), so (in most cases) they pretty much have to take the offensive (in this example). Same room, same inhabitants, same rules, but a completely different ball game--now it's the monsters who are trying to assault a prepared position in the face of overwhelming firepower.

But most players will never even attempt this. It's like the world outside the room they're in doesn't exist. IMO it's a good DM's job to train players to think more broadly, and one way to do this is to have some monsters do it first (e.g. flee a room and shoot back through a doorway). And it's a smart player's job to be aware of this option even when he's playing with a DM who doesn't expect it.