Giving Away GWM and Sharpshooter

[Helldin87]

Has anyone given consideration to a rules tweak that bakes these two feats into the game? They seem to be 3 combat oriented feats that make their way again and again to the optimization builds:

GWM, Sharpshooter, and PAM.

GWM and Sharpshooter are both similar in that they offer a benefit of +dam with the downside of a -hit. The additional features of these feats seem to be rarely discussed and are certainly not things people BUILD around. Mechanically though the option to trade accuracy for damage is interesting, tactical, and somewhat thematic. Why not allow it as a houserule?

I propose that anyone proficient in the weapon could make that choice at will. Remove the feats from the choices and see what players do instead.

PAM is a different animal. This feat is, IMO severely over-powered and it dis incentivizes choice amongst 2 handed weapons. As they stand now Polearms have the inherent reach benefit and with the above rule would have the damage choices as other such weapons like great swords and mauls. Adding the free reaction AND the bonus action break the action economy hard (bonus action from PAM makes TWF even worse too.

TLDR: Remove PAM. Give damage options to players from GWM and SS for free and see what they do.

[Gastronomie]

Actually, in my experience people build around GWM and SS.

My opinion here is that it's fine, but if it's to be implemented as a house rule, the -5/+10 should be not on just heavy weapons, but on every attack roll regardless of the weapon (including damaging cantrips). Otherwise some options will become overpowered compared to others. For instance, the Monk will be unhappy about this.

[Helldin87]

Actually, in my experience people build around GWM and SS.

My opinion here is that it's fine, but if it's to be implemented as a house rule, the -5/+10 should be not on just heavy weapons, but on every attack roll regardless of the weapon (including damaging cantrips). Otherwise some options will become overpowered compared to others. For instance, the Monk will be unhappy about this.


I may have not been clear. They absolutely build around the feats in their PHB forms. Players value the -5/+10. I am saying they don't build around the OTHER components such as the ignoring cover in SS.

[Mitsu]

You forgot about Crossbow Expert which is basically better PAM for range weapons. You don't get free OA, but you want to be at range anyway.

Actually, GWM is not that great as SS.

SS is superior because of Archery. +2 Accuracy suddenly makes it -3/+10.

In game with bounded accuracy every +1 is super strong. Archery style suddenly makes SS devastating. Pair that with Crossbow Expert for extra attack and whoopie!

GWM I think is balanced. For example in testing on Vengeance Paladin (because VoE) it shows quite small damage difference at AC level 17+ and is loosing actually vs 1h weapons on AC 19+. While winning hard on AC 16 and lower. But that was for Paladin and misses hurt them more because Smites.

Anyway!

It's good feat that has as much cons and pros. Sadly it's mandatory feat for Barbarians and Fighters because they do not have any other source of boosting their melee damage. Which is problem I want to highlight lower - where are damage feats for other styles?



As for PAM. Just want to note that PAM also works for 1h weapons (Spear and Q-staff), so it's superior also for S&B builds.

But back to PAM- I agree it's super strong talent but I don't think it's overpowered. I just think that there is simple not many other good alternatives when it comes to melee.

Where is One-Handed Mastery feat, Finesse Master feat etc. Dual Wielding Mastery feat? There is just no good alternative to PAM. And also not good alternative for GWM for pure melee classes to boost their damage.

So I don't say remove PAM- make some good alternatives instead.

[Keravath]

I may have not been clear. They absolutely build around the feats in their PHB forms. Players value the -5/+10. I am saying they don't build around the OTHER components such as the ignoring cover in SS.

Actually, this isn't entirely true. I have a ranged rogue character with sharpshooter primarily to avoid the cover restrictions which, depending on DM, can come up any time you fire into melee and avoiding disadvantage on long range attacks. Both of these can make it much harder to land a sneak attack.

In addition, crossbow expert is similar to PAM in providing an additional bonus action attack with a hand crossbow and removing disadvantage when making a ranged attack with opponents adjacent. It does not add the additional opportunity attack option that is included with PAM but is otherwise very similar.

Although these feats can be very effective, I haven't found them to be really unbalanced but everyone's opinion varies.

I also don't think allowing the -5/+10 for everyone is really a good idea. It is very easy to mathematically figure out when this is a good idea to use and everyone will just make use of it to increase their average damage ... why wouldn't they? ... and without having to spend a feat and focus on either heavy 2-handed weapons or ranged weapons it provides too much benefit for no cost. On the other hand, folks who take it have to give up stat increases or other feats.

[TheUser]

Ignoring Cover and extending longbow range to 600ft are the bigger reasons I take the feat.

The -5/+10 is highly situational since the player has very little control over enemy AC, but do get to have impact on range and so the 600ft becomes a godsend against a multitude of opponents with limited ranged options.

[nickl_2000]

This kind of shoehorns players into certain builds. For example, it is now more efficient to be a Two Handed Weapon fighter or Archer than it is to be a Sword and Board fighter.

You get these power items for free whereas you get nothing if you aren't using these options. It ends up being a slippery slope, do you give S&B fighters Shield Master? What about casters, do you give them Warcaster for free or Spell Sniper?


If you want to do this, don't give these particular items for free. Instead give everyone a free feat at level one. It gives all players the same power bonus through a feat, and doesn't penalize those that are going GWM or SS build style.

[strangebloke]

Sharpshooter is insanely overpowered. I nerf it to the ground in my own campaign. Same for Crossbow expert.

Superficially, people look at GWM and see it as better. You get a bonus action attack sometimes and heavy weapons deal great base damage.

But the problem is that archery is already a very very powerful focus. In a game with no feats, a dex-focused archer will be very dangerous at range and nearly as good as a strength character in melee. By comparison, the strength character will be nigh-useless at range. The only two limitations to an archer are that they can't fight effectively if they're in melee with an enemy, and that they sometimes are forced to deal with cover.

CE and SS remove both of those counterplay options. A Specialized archer will deal nearly as much damage as a specialized melee character. The only reason to play melee, from an optimization perspective, is to get access to certain powerful spells and class features that only work in melee, like barbarian and paladin features.

[Guy Lombard-O]

I may have not been clear. They absolutely build around the feats in their PHB forms. Players value the -5/+10. I am saying they don't build around the OTHER components such as the ignoring cover in SS.

I actually sought out the feat because of the other components. The party I was with before my SS character kept having the enemies flee, and due to slow movements and a lack of ranged killing power in our party, they often escaped. I built a high-mobility SS character with a short bow specifically because it increased my effective (non-disadvantage) range. Honestly, I didn't use the -5/+10 feature until tier 2, because I wasn't accurate enough.

That said, I think your larger idea of letting everyone use the -5/+10 is not a great idea. Logically, it makes sense. But having such a large damage bonus available to everyone makes the difference between large, two-handed weapons and small finesse weapons or sword & board almost negligible. A dagger would be 1d4+10+3 is 15.5 damage per strike. A rapier would be doing 1d8+10+3 is 17.5 damage per strike. A great axe is 1d12+10+3 is 19.5 damage per strike. The difference of 4 average damage points between a dagger and a great axe seems rather minor, when all weapons are doing between 15-20 damage on average. So why use a larger weapon? Why not just go sword & board, take a rapier, get that +2 AC from a shield, and do the same damage as the fool with the great axe (with Duelist FS)? It just flattens out the damage from all weapons too much, makes some options objectively better than others, and makes combat less interesting.

[Helldin87]

I agree with much of what is being said. I guess the challenge is to look back at the fighting options that coalesce out of the PBH:


1 handed weapon/open hand: 1d8 at best (option to be D10 if you take a versatile weapon and go 2 handed). Your open hand is free to be used for somatic components, interact with objects, etc.
sword and board: +2 to AC is really, really good. Doing this means you forfeit everything but the raw damage of the above setup.
dual wielding: Light weapons only therefore tops out at 1D6 each with damage bonuses applied to only the main hand. Uses your BA to attack. Forfeits extra options of the open hand.
2 handed: Highest damage output but loses the option to have a shield or other open hand benefits. Loses BA.
Ranged: Ranged is good. maxes out at 1d8 for longbow OR 1D10 heavy crossbow (only one attack as the PHB stands due to loading property). Enemies can annoy you by being within 5ft. Most ranged encounters that are not a true player driven ambush occur at less than 150 ft so the longbow easily can reach out and touch enemies.



Interactions with fighting styles are important to consider and should be taken into account for balance.

1 handed/open: Dueling: +2 damage
sword/board: Protection or Dueling
dual wielding: adds bonus to offhand damage
2 handed: reroll 1/2 on damage dice. Incentive to use greatsword for RNG advantage?
Ranged: Archery +2 to hit.

OK now let's add in feats:

1 handed/open: gets almost nothing out of feats but remains super flexible and it does NOT REQUIRE feats (more ASI or non-combat feats)
sword/board: Doesn't require feats but if you have spell casting this changes to wanting warcaster. PAM also allows you to take a quarterstaff and get a use for your BA.
dual wielding: TWF is nearly required for sanity (not being able to draw both weapons at once is annoying). The damage and AC bonuses are helpful too of course.
2 handed: GWF and PAM make this easily the most desirable for martial classes. -5+10 and BA economy give all martial classes 3 attacks that can hit like a truck. PAM makes it dirtier by giving you reaction opportunity attacks more often.
Ranged: SS and Archery together net out to -3+10 and the cover reductions.



So now my mental math tries to arrange these into cost/benefit. Points to consider are as follows:


3 of the above REQUIRE a feat to function well. 1 of them requires 2.
PAM+GWM is simply better than GWM. PAM+ sword and board is simply better than sword and board.
Warcaster is good for everyone that isn't a 1handed/open.


After reviewing everything what I really think needs to be done is just the removal of PAM. The baseline fighting style 1 handed/open is available to all classes and simultaneously represents the least damage with the most flexibility. Comparing other martial approaches to this one shows that every single one of them benefit from a combination of a fighting style and ONE feat. PAM builds benefit off TWO feats. If PAM is removed polearms are still attractive with their reach and versatility rules (depending on the weapon) but will no longer overshadow other 2 handed weapons or other one handed sword and board choices.

TLDR: poster thought a lot and decided to just remove PAM. =D

[Man_Over_Game]

One solution that I've seen a few times is just to change the damage rate of Sharpshooter or GWM to allow you to take a hit penalty up to your Proficiency, and gain twice that much damage.

So taking GWM at level 4 will mean you can do -1 to your attack to deal +2 damage, or -2 to your attack to deal +4 damage. Once you hit level 6, you now can -3 to your attack to deal +6 damage.

This scales a lot more gradually than just the -5/+10 version that GWM and SS provide that makes them stand out so much. It also makes them a lot less build dependent, since you can now just decided to add a minor penalty to gain some extra DPS against low AC targets rather than only using it when you have Advantage.

[Helldin87]

One solution that I've seen a few times is just to change the damage rate of Sharpshooter or GWM to allow you to take a hit penalty up to your Proficiency, and gain twice that much damage.

So taking GWM at level 4 will mean you can do -1 to your attack to deal +2 damage, or -2 to your attack to deal +4 damage. Once you hit level 6, you now can -3 to your attack to deal +6 damage.

This scales a lot more gradually than just the -5/+10 version that GWM and SS provide that makes them stand out so much. It also makes them a lot less build dependent, since you can now just decided to add a minor penalty to gain some extra DPS against low AC targets rather than only using it when you have Advantage.

This appeals to me. Nothing more frustrating at low levels then hitting a goblin and dealing 6 damage. Its MOSTLY dead. Not as fun as dead. As DM I fudge this a bit if it makes sense and doesnt really change the encounter much.

Meaningful choices are fun imo.

[strangebloke]

TLDR: poster thought a lot and decided to just remove PAM. =D

But... how can you remove PAM and not get rid of CE?

They're nearly the same feat, except that CE covers most of the major weaknesses of the archery style.

A specialized melee character will have slightly high DPR over all than a specialized ranged character.

GWF:
(1d10 + 5 + 10)*4 = 86
-or if you don't get both extra attacks-
(1d10 + 5 + 10)*2 + (1d4 + 5 + 10) = 60.5

vs.

archery
(1d10 + 5 + 10) * 3 = 61.5

And the archer gets to ignore cover, hit flying enemies, and can still fight in melee.

[Cespenar]

Yep, change the -5/+10 to -prof/+profx2.

Just remove the extra attack from PAM. Let the rest stay the same.

Quickest fix.

[mephnick]

Yep, change the -5/+10 to -prof/+profx2.


Didn't someone work out that this actually makes SS more powerful? -prof is nothing to an archer so it's basically free damage every attack while the -5 has a chance to fail.

The best fix for SS is to change the Archery fighting style and the ability to ignore cover. Those are the real problems.

[Cespenar]

Didn't someone work out that this actually makes SS more powerful? -prof is nothing to an archer so it's basically free damage every attack while the -5 has a chance to fail.

The best fix for SS is to change the Archery fighting style and the ability to ignore cover. Those are the real problems.

Nope, mathematically -5 +10 is much more powerful, unless you have a lot of riders on your damage already, like a really high sneak attack and stuff.

Archery style and ignoring cover are important as well, but something like a deep stalker putting out two arrows at 1d8+14 at really low levels is more problematic.

[Finney]

In the games I run, I add the following three words to SS and GWM:

Once per turn before you make an attack with a ranged weapon that you are proficient with, you can choose to take a -5 penalty to the attack roll. If the attack hits, you add +10 to the attack's damage.

Once per turn before you make a melee attack with a heavy weapon that you are proficient with, you can choose to take a -5 penalty to the attack roll. If the attack hits, you add +10 to the attack's damage.

Haven't had any complaints from my players.

[LudicSavant]

Didn't someone work out that this actually makes SS more powerful? -prof is nothing to an archer so it's basically free damage every attack while the -5 has a chance to fail.

The best fix for SS is to change the Archery fighting style and the ability to ignore cover. Those are the real problems.


Nope, mathematically -5 +10 is much more powerful, unless you have a lot of riders on your damage already, like a really high sneak attack and stuff.

Archery style and ignoring cover are important as well, but something like a deep stalker putting out two arrows at 1d8+14 at really low levels is more problematic.

DPR of level 4 Gloom Stalker attacking AC 14 (average for CR 4 according to DMG) with +4 Dex / Archery style / Hunter's Mark / Dread Ambusher with -2/+4 is pretty similar to -5/+10. As in, one is 25.275 DPR, the other 24.75 DPR. About half a point of DPR. Of course, the -5/+10 benefits more from Advantage.

By contrast, if the enemy got +2 cover against -5/+10, the DPR would drop all the way to 20.425, or 13.15 DPR with +5 cover.

[quark12000]

As for PAM. Just want to note that PAM also works for 1h weapons (Spear and Q-staff), so it's superior also for S&B builds.


PAM doesn't work with spears.

[LudicSavant]

PAM doesn't work with spears.

PAM explicitly works with spears, as of the November 2018 errata.

[stoutstien]

probably need to do something for two weapon fighters if you're going to give away quote on quote the feat tax for weapon focused players.

I think the best approach would be attached new special features to the weapons on the table.

[noob]

I did discuss a bit about using simultaneously GWM, PAM and Sharp shooter.
it would be possible if slingstaves existed in 5e.
(and if the gm used the rule of silly instead of the rule of cool)

[spacebarbarian]

I can tell you that playing an archer (ranger hunter), I use the SS -5/+10 almost every time I attack with advantage (which is "always" with the Nature's Guardian spell). Making that bonus available to everyone will encourage your players to seek advantage on attacks by any means possible to allow the archers to devastate the enemy. If the enemy can also use that bonus, the players would similarly avoid disadvantage on defenses as much as possible.

[djreynolds]

Has anyone given consideration to a rules tweak that bakes these two feats into the game? They seem to be 3 combat oriented feats that make their way again and again to the optimization builds:

GWM, Sharpshooter, and PAM.

GWM and Sharpshooter are both similar in that they offer a benefit of +dam with the downside of a -hit. The additional features of these feats seem to be rarely discussed and are certainly not things people BUILD around. Mechanically though the option to trade accuracy for damage is interesting, tactical, and somewhat thematic. Why not allow it as a houserule?

I propose that anyone proficient in the weapon could make that choice at will. Remove the feats from the choices and see what players do instead.

PAM is a different animal. This feat is, IMO severely over-powered and it dis incentivizes choice amongst 2 handed weapons. As they stand now Polearms have the inherent reach benefit and with the above rule would have the damage choices as other such weapons like great swords and mauls. Adding the free reaction AND the bonus action break the action economy hard (bonus action from PAM makes TWF even worse too.

TLDR: Remove PAM. Give damage options to players from GWM and SS for free and see what they do.

I have allowed players to something similar, all players can minus their current proficiency (ranges from +2 thru +6) to hit and add twice their proficiency in damage (ranges from +4 to +12).

It feel balanced, there is no reason why a bloodied wizard in melee, out of spells, can't open up a can of whoop A**.

I just call it a power attack. But it is discussed before players begin rolling up.

For 1 game it allowed players to add a bit more in damage, since it wasn't always a -5/+10, but a -3/+6. These players enjoyed it. But there were no power players at this table.

Another game, a player said no, his feeling was that was designed for specific "character" types and took away something allowing all players to have this.

So try it out, I personally felt, that the power attack seemed to land more and the damage wasn't noticeable as with traditional GWM/SS usage, but I really didn't try to capture the results on paper. TWF and PAM players did seem to do more damage, hence the resistance from the second table who said it would take away from greatsword builds

[Mitsu]

On the other hand, let's face it: there are always best feats, best multiclass combos, best spells, best weapons etc. It's a part of RPGs.

I think GWM is balanced.

I think PAM is not OP, it's just there are no other feats as good for different kind of weapons/styles.

Sharp Shooter is not OP, it's Archery Style combined with SS that makes it broken.

My personal solution is: make alternatives to PAM for different kinds of weapons/styles and nerf Archery. I think Archery should be just range Dueliing and give +2 damage, not accuracy.


But even then you won't avoid some OP combos like: Devotion Paladin with 20 CHA and GWM or Battle Master with superiority dices and Sharp Shooter.

There is always something better than others in RPGs.

[quark12000]

PAM explicitly works with spears, as of the November 2018 errata.

My mistake. I hadn't seen that errata.

[RSP]

Distance and cover typically are the only negatives to ranged fighting. SS does away with both and adds the -5/+10 option. It is a very strong feat for what is already the best fighting style in the game.

[LudicSavant]

In my experience, if you want to see people use a greater diversity of weapon choices, then you don't need to houserule, you just ignore two of Crawford's tweets (namely the ones that change GWF and Shield Master).

[PeteNutButter]

Many people recognize that the -5/+10 feats feel like they are a problem. Even on the surface they are usually something like -38% to hit plus ~100% or more to damage, which is clearly a great deal on the DPR front. Then players start stacking advantage and archery FS etc, making it even better.

Now the thing about our flawed human perception is they will tend to seem even more overpowered than they are. For every two fights they trivialize there is probably another where the -5/+10 made the character contribute little. But we remember the trivialized fights.

Yet, even if we accept that the -5/+10 feats are overpowered, we can't "fix" the problem by simply removing them or adding them to everyone. If the -5/+10 isn't a factor than it there is almost no reason to ever use a 2-handed weapon. With the FS, the greatsword does an average of 8.3 damage, the longsword with dueling does 6.5. That's a pittance compared to +2 AC from a shield. If magic items are involved this gap shrinks as less and less of the weapon's damage is from the base type, and magic shields provide more AC.

At its current state the GWM warriors do good damage, but lack the durability to live long. They tend to go down often, and end up doing only slightly obscene damage, as opposed to the obscene damage their theorycrafting tells them.

Ranged on the other hand, doesn't need the -5/+10. It's already a distinct tactic that has plenty of strengths. I'd remove that feature from the feat, but be sure to replace it with something else. Maybe something like, "As a bonus action you can steady your next ranged weapon attack, if you hit with it you deal bonus damage equal to your proficiency bonus[x2?]."

As for PAM, it's probably too strong. It and crossbow expert can probably be ditched, with their other features parsed up and reapplied to new feats that aren't so weapon specific. Maybe it'd feel better if they released other weapon feats, but it doesn't look like that'll ever happen at this point.