PAM, GWM, SS, and Improving Martials Through Feat Improvements

[Waterdeep Merch]

Many bits have been spilt on the overpowered nature of PAM, GWM, and SS. I'm somewhat approaching them from a bit of a different angle- that I actually like how they improve the power of martials, though I don't like them comboing, hate how dominant they are in the early game, and I wish there was more room for other weapon types.

So, here are my proposed fixes for an upcoming game:

Sharpshooter-
* Remove the part about ignoring cover. Replace with treating 3/4 cover as 1/2 cover, and 1/2 cover as no cover.
* Remove -5/+10. Replace with -up to your proficiency bonus to attack, and double the negative you took to damage. The player decides how much to sacrifice before each attack.
(this one's not too different from most fixes I've read. The big thing is this is now the only feat with a 'power attack' feature)

Great Weapon Master-
* Instead of 'heavy' weapons, this now functions with 'great' weapons. This includes greatswords, greataxes, and mauls)
* Remove -5/+10. Replace with doubling your Strength ability modifier for damage.
* Remove the bonus action attack. Replace it with automatically dealing your Strength modifier (plus any magical enhancements to your melee damage) in damage to one additional target you can reach within 5 feet of you when you hit.
(GWM is part of the only real reason to use a two-handed weapon aside from being a half-orc barbarian, so it NEEDS to help their damage eclipse one-handed weapons, at the very least. I also like them being a melee AoE option, something that presently doesn't exist. There's also a side nerf that effects GWM-compatible weaponry, later on)

Polearm Master-
* You can only make a haft strike if you're wielding the polearm with two hands.
* All polearms gain the 'versatile' trait. They can all be wielded with one hand, at one die value lower than the usual one (so, d8/d10 for, say, glaives). Additionally, the Duelist Fighting Style now has a specific caveat about not functioning with polearms.
(in a vacuum, PAM isn't a problem. The issues come from interactions with GWM. I don't actually mind how it plays with Sentinel, it can control exactly one creature per turn and it still requires a hit. It's good, sure, but it should be for a two feat investment)


With that out of the way, now we can improve our wayward sons, one-handed non-polearms and dual-wielding. And grappling, because why not?:

Dual Wielder-
* Remove the +1 AC. Instead, the character gains a cumulative +1 to attack against that target until the end of their turn for each successful hit.
* Add a clause about gaining an extra attack at level 11 so long as you have the Extra Attack feature
(a rain of attacks should be the dual-wielder's thing, little pecks that whittle away at your defenses)

Defensive Duelist-
* Remove the 13 Dexterity requirement.
* Remove the finesses caveat. Add one about not working with polearms.
* Add an extra reaction each turn that can only be used to make an attack of opportunity, so long as you are wielding only one non-polearm weapon in a single hand.
(This intentionally synergizes with a LOT of features. DD is something I like on the surface, and I feel like one-handed users really should be innately defensive in nature and not necessarily require using a shield to be good. Especially because it's interesting for a dedicated grappler. Speaking of-)

Grappler-
* Replace the entire feat, because it was all garbage.
* Creatures you are grappling that are your size or smaller have disadvantage on Strength (Athletics) and Dexterity (Acrobatic) checks made to escape your grapple.
* While you maintain your grapple on a creature, you can prevent one of their limbs from being used for anything. Choose which limb at the end of each turn in which you are maintaining a grapple.
* Creatures you are grappling have disadvantage when attacking you with any melee weapon attack that lacks the ‘Light’ property. This includes natural weapons.
* Ranged weapon attacks and spells that make an attack roll have disadvantage against you while you are grappling a creature. If an attack roll misses you this way, they hit the creature you are grappling instead if the higher roll successfully hits their AC.
(I like grapplers, conceptually. They're cool. I want more players to do it, and I want to reward them for doing it. This is designed to make them exceptional at single-target control, perhaps the most dangerous martial against singular enemies. Also intentionally combos well with Defensive Duelist for protecting yourself while you're busy controlling someone)

Also, available for Fighters and Paladins-
Formation Fighting Style- You may use the Help action as a free action to aid an ally in attacking a creature you have made a melee attack against with a polearm, even if the creature was not within 5 feet of you. You may only use this ability once on your turn.

The only other thing of note for weapon styles I'm thinking so far is to allow the Two-Weapon Fighting Style for Paladins and the Great Weapon Fighting Style for Rangers.

Thoughts on all this?

[Willie the Duck]

Polearm Master-
* It's the same. No, really.
BUT- All polearms replace the 'heavy' trait with the 'versatile' trait. They can all be wielded with one hand, at one die value lower than the usual one (so, d8/d10 for, say, glaives).
(in a vacuum, PAM isn't a problem. The issues come from interactions with GWM. I don't actually mind how it plays with Sentinel, it can control exactly one creature per turn and it still requires a hit. It's good, sure, but it should be for a two feat investment)

One handed PAM quarterstaff Shillelagh + a shield is more ridiculous than overpowered, and a d8 halberd/glaive with PAM is not that dissimilar. However, one of the limits on the shillelagh build is that it is used by druids, nature clerics, and maybe rangers who have sunk an ASI into magic initiate (or similar shinnanegans by lore bards and tomelocks, etc.). Giving a martial class a d8 weapon they can use duelist with (multiple times, depending on how many multiattacks they have), and get a 1d4+str (+2?) bonus action attack, and use a shield... well, if not overpowered, it certainly rushed to the head of the line for sword and board builds.
I know pikes (well, longspears) absolutely historically were wielded one handed, but the idea of one-handing these weapons (outside of formation combat) seems to stretch my idea of what combat looks like.

I do agree with the basic premise that making PAM and GWM not work together would do well to reign in the feat. Another way to do it simply might be add a new weapon quality that triggers GWM that greatswords and great axes and mauls and such have that the polearms don't.



The only other thing of note for weapon styles I'm thinking so far is to allow the Two-Weapon Fighting Style for Paladins and the Great Weapon Fighting Style for Rangers.

Excluding niche protection, I can't think of any arguments against this.


Thoughts on all this?

I am of many multiple minds on where to go with the central premise. Clearly feat-less games are a different play experience for fighters and barbarians (and martials in general). Clearly also GWM, SS, PAM, and Sentinel cast a big shadow. I don't know what the 'correct' answer is, though. I think this is a reasonable idea (with some tweeks on specifics, and note I haven't crunched any math).

[Waterdeep Merch]

Polearms and the Dueling Fighting Style really shouldn't play together, good catch. It definitely makes them too obviously superior to all the traditional picks, which should be avoided.

I'm thinking of adding a fighting style for Fighters and Paladins that's unique to polearms.

Formation Fighting Style- You may use the Help action as a free action to aid an ally in attacking a creature you have made a melee attack against with a polearm, even if the creature was not within 5 feet of you. You may only use this ability once on your turn.

I'm intentionally letting that do cheeky thing with attacks of opportunities, too. It's to help polearms enter a sort of 'commander tank' role.

[Rerem115]

So GWM is just a straight +4-5 to damage? While I'm sure it's mathematically sound, I'm not sure I like it; while the -5/+10 of the original is dominant, especially at lower levels, it does prompt a decision. Should I risk that big hit? How can I change up my character to better make use of this big hit?

Maybe a direct +X to damage is the wrong way to go about it; I like the AoE bit, perhaps there's a way to fiddle around with something like re-rolls and critical hits that I like....Hmmm....Ha! Don't be surprised if you see my thread on this later.

For patching the GWM/PAM synergy, just add change the "heavy" tag requirement to, I don't know, the "great" tag, which you give to the relevant weapons. It's a bit gamist, but so's the problem.

Instead of tracking the -1 across multiple entities for Dual Wielder, maybe have something like the Ranger's Multiattack Defense? +1 AC for each time that you get hit in melee range, until the start of your next turn. Besides the -1 also makes this utterly debilitating for a melee enemies; if you're focusing a single foe, that's going to be between a -4 (Non-Fighter + 11th level) and a -6 (Fighter 20), up to a -11 (Fighter 20 + Action Surge + Haste).

I like your changes to DD, but honestly, I'd allow you to use a shield. Disallowing Rapier and Buckler with a feat called Defensive Duelist just rubs me the wrong way.

[Waterdeep Merch]

So GWM is just a straight +4-5 to damage? While I'm sure it's mathematically sound, I'm not sure I like it; while the -5/+10 of the original is dominant, especially at lower levels, it does prompt a decision. Should I risk that big hit? How can I change up my character to better make use of this big hit?

Maybe a direct +X to damage is the wrong way to go about it; I like the AoE bit, perhaps there's a way to fiddle around with something like re-rolls and critical hits that I like....Hmmm....Ha! Don't be surprised if you see my thread on this later.
The gamble was never really the issue, so much as how rewarding it tends to be. The straight damage enhancement stops the silliness early while still scaling well late, since the +25% chance to hit over classic GWM gives you a rather meaningful improvement in its own right.

That said, the math is perfectly sound if you go with the classic -proficiency/+double instead. I just want GWM to feel distinct from SS, and lining up a more difficult shot just felt more thematic than making big attacks forever as a 'master'.

It's part of my overall goal of making each weapon type act and feel differently.


For patching the GWM/PAM synergy, just add change the "heavy" tag requirement to, I don't know, the "great" tag, which you give to the relevant weapons. It's a bit gamist, but so's the problem.
That's not a bad idea. I'm a bit worried about how removing heavy might look a bit silly with the short races, and the game already acknowledges great weapons as a type. Might as well standardize it.


Instead of tracking the -1 across multiple entities for Dual Wielder, maybe have something like the Ranger's Multiattack Defense? +1 AC for each time that you get hit in melee range, until the start of your next turn. Besides the -1 also makes this utterly debilitating for a melee enemies; if you're focusing a single foe, that's going to be between a -4 (Non-Fighter + 11th level) and a -6 (Fighter 20), up to a -11 (Fighter 20 + Action Surge + Haste).
Actually, maybe I'm looking at this wrong. TWF is more about damage anyway; while I was trying to give them a defensive buff like the feat gave, I'm not sure that makes sense stylistically.

What if you got a progressive +1 to attack a creature until the beginning of your next turn, each time you hit? It shows off the idea that TWF gets into a rhythm of blows by leading one into the next.


I like your changes to DD, but honestly, I'd allow you to use a shield. Disallowing Rapier and Buckler with a feat called Defensive Duelist just rubs me the wrong way.
Oh, no, I meant that I designed it to perform even if you don't use a shield, not that it disallows it. I want it to play nice with Shield Master, but also not completely require it to make one-handed weaponry competent.

[stoutstien]

I'm still in the camp that we need to step back and rebalance the classes without feats or allow the classes to pick one of these feats for free at certain levels. The way I look at it the only thing that's reminiscent of the old feat taxes. You don't need them but the second one player takes it the entire power curve is off.

[Waterdeep Merch]

I'm still in the camp that we need to step back and rebalance the classes without feats or allow the classes to pick one of these feats for free at certain levels. The way I look at it the only thing that's reminiscent of the old feat taxes. You don't need them but the second one player takes it the entire power curve is off.
I don't disagree. I tend to allow a free feat at first level, and the game I'm designing this for has that potential (beyond Versatile Humans, of course).

I want there to be a single 'amazing' feat for each weapon style, self-contained enough that a player never needs another. This way they'll get what they want to begin with, if they're dedicated enough to weapons to really want one, and then the rest of their ASI's and feats can be spent on more interesting character development. I think the system works a lot better this way.

[fbelanger]

-5/+10 work only with the attack action. Not with opportunity, bonus, or haste extra action.

Quarter staff is a two handed weapon.

PAM oportunity attack is now a simple reaction attack. Avoid combo with sentinel feat.

[Xetheral]

Great Weapon Master-
* Remove -5/+10. Replace with doubling your Strength ability modifier for damage.

+STR mod on a hit is a bigger increase to expected damage than -5/+10 in a wide range of cases, including just about every attack that isn't made with advantage and a lot of them that are made with advantage.

The relevant data is the link in my signature: the final two spoilered tables of the first post show the average expected damage change by using GWM or SS for each pair of base hit chance and base damage. To compare that with your approach, calculate the hit chance for each row of the tables and multiply by the expected STR mod. Every cell where my tables show a lower result than your result from the corresponding row is a situation where +STR is actually a buff.

[Waterdeep Merch]

+STR mod on a hit is a bigger increase to expected damage than -5/+10 in a wide range of cases, including just about every attack that isn't made with advantage and a lot of them that are made with advantage.

The relevant data is the link in my signature: the final two spoilered tables of the first post show the average expected damage change by using GWM or SS for each pair of base hit chance and base damage. To compare that with your approach, calculate the hit chance for each row of the tables and multiply by the expected STR mod. Every cell where my tables show a lower result than your result from the corresponding row is a situation where +STR is actually a buff.
Thank you for this data, this is excellent for determining balance!

I actually don't mind GWM being more powerful (especially late), just it being swingy to the point of ending encounters immediately in the early game and interacting with PAM. Thanks to Archery style I *think* SS is still balanced enough against it, even if GWM is definitely dealing more damage on average, as you've clearly demonstrated. Figuring out expected DPR based on attack values isn't something I'm very good at.

At first tier, assuming a 16 in the attack stat and the appropriate fighting style, the average damage values I'm looking at are-
One-Handed- 9.5
Two-Handed- 17.1777 (assuming there's a second target, otherwise 14.1777)
Dual-Wield- 15
One-Handed Polearms- 13
Two-Handed Polearms- 14
Longbow Archery- 11.5 (9.5 if not risking -/+)
Crossbow Archery-12.5

By the time Extra Attack (and an assumed 18 in the attack stat) enters the scene-
One-Handed- 21
Two-Handed- 40.3555 (assuming there's a second target, otherwise 32.3555)
Dual-Wield- 25.5
One-Handed Polearms- 23.5
Two-Handed Polearms- 25.5
Longbow Archery- 29 (17 if not risking -/+)
Crossbow Archery-29 (assuming they took Crossbow Expert at 4 instead of an ASI, deals 17 if not risking -/+)

Two-Handed is above and beyond everything, exactly as you pointed out. But it really only gets crazy on Tier 3 Fighters and its numbers are partly inflated by a common, though not guaranteed, arrangement of enemies (assuming they've capped their attack stat by now)-
One-Handed- 34.5
Two-Handed- 69.5333 (assuming there's a second target, otherwise 54.5333)
Dual-Wield- 47.5
One-Handed Polearms- 36
Two-Handed Polearms- 39
Longbow Archery- 52.5 (28.5 if not risking -/+)
Crossbow Archery- 55.5 (31.5 if not risking -/+)

Looking it over, one-handed polearms are simply dealing too much damage. Lowering them an additional damage dice to a d6 solves this, putting the damage on par with one-handed weaponry. Or I just need to specify no haft strikes with one-handed polearms, which nerfs their damage to below normal one-handers; probably a good idea. Crossbows also need some love- they just don't get enough above longbows to warrant requiring an entire extra feat just to function.

Ranged in general may need something to keep up, with GWM performing this hard. I might have nerfed it too hard. Something to think about, alongside a working throwing feat.

Thanks again, I do need to watch my math more!

[stoutstien]

I disagree that range should do as much damage because they have the advantage of being safely away from stuff that want to hit them in the face maybe 80% of potential damage output

[Waterdeep Merch]

I disagree that range should do as much damage because they have the advantage of being safely away from stuff that want to hit them in the face maybe 80% of potential damage output
I agree with that notion, but as Xetheral points out, I'm not taking hit chance into account with damage calculations- and that has a dramatic effect on average values. By causing ranged attacks to need to wreck their accuracy in order to even compete, they're fairly likely to underperform in a way that won't feel great. Even with the Archery Fighting Style partially remedying it.

My solution to the disparity is to pull back a little on the nerfing of the OTHER aspect of SS- the part about ignoring cover. I've got it so you can't ignore half-cover, ever. Maybe if I make it work in steps, it'll stop the archer from facing situations where they either do no damage or have little chance at hitting; full cover's still full cover, but 3/4 cover becomes 1/2 cover, and 1/2 cover becomes no cover. This way, you can reliably sack at least a -2 and have standard to-hit values in combat. I think this is desirable.

[Kane0]

Ooh, totally nicking some ideas from here!

[stoutstien]

I agree with that notion, but as Xetheral points out, I'm not taking hit chance into account with damage calculations- and that has a dramatic effect on average values. By causing ranged attacks to need to wreck their accuracy in order to even compete, they're fairly likely to underperform in a way that won't feel great. Even with the Archery Fighting Style partially remedying it.

My solution to the disparity is to pull back a little on the nerfing of the OTHER aspect of SS- the part about ignoring cover. I've got it so you can't ignore half-cover, ever. Maybe if I make it work in steps, it'll stop the archer from facing situations where they either do no damage or have little chance at hitting; full cover's still full cover, but 3/4 cover becomes 1/2 cover, and 1/2 cover becomes no cover. This way, you can reliably sack at least a -2 and have standard to-hit values in combat. I think this is desirable.

I implemented something like this at my table. Pretty much I just move them all down one teir