GWM/SS = for finesse weapons

[viaFAMILIAR]

Heavy weapons get it, as do ranged. You know, that feat which grants the -5/+10 penalty/bonus. Is there some reason why finesse weapons aren't , or shouldn't be, given the same respect as the others?

[PhantomSoul]

Heavy weapons get it, as do ranged. You know, that feat which grants the -5/+10 penalty/bonus. Is there some reason why finesse weapons aren't , or shouldn't be, given the same respect as the others?

It's not just Finesse Weapons that don't apply to Great Weapon Master -- it's any Weapon that (a) doesn't have the Heavy Property [not lacking the Finesse Property], (b) isn't currently used for an Melee Attack [e.g. a Weapon being Thrown doesn't get it nor do Ranged Weapons for that Feat], or (c) you aren't Proficient with [so that Heavy Melee Weapon isn't helping if you're not Proficient].

It fits the fluff/feel of those weapons hitting harder, fits the idea that weapons should have different "feels", and it also is not only singling out Finesse Weapons at all.

[viaFAMILIAR]

It's not just Finesse Weapons that don't apply to Great Weapon Master -- it's any Weapon that (a) doesn't have the Heavy Property [not lacking the Finesse Property], (b) isn't currently used for an Melee Attack [e.g. a Weapon being Thrown doesn't get it nor do Ranged Weapons for that Feat], or (c) you aren't Proficient with [so that Heavy Melee Weapon isn't helping if you're not Proficient].

It fits the fluff/feel of those weapons hitting harder, fits the idea that weapons should have different "feels", and it also is not only singling out Finesse Weapons at all.

I understand how GWM operates. Let me rephrase my question. There's a feat (great weapon master) for heavy weapons, and there's a feat (sharpshooter) for ranged weapons, is there a reason why finesse weapons shouldn't have thier own damage buffing feat?

Perhaps I should tag this homebrew?

[patchyman]

I understand how GWM operates. Let me rephrase my question. There's a feat (great weapon master) for heavy weapons, and there's a feat (sharpshooter) for ranged weapons, is there a reason why finesse weapons shouldn't have thier own damage buffing feat?

IMO, it is part of the balancing act between STR and DEX. If you go DEX, you get better initiative, better skills and the ability to go ranged easily. If you go STR, overall you get higher AC (with heavy armor) and you can do more damage at the cost of a feat.

[Nhorianscum]

Heavy weapons get it, as do ranged. You know, that feat which grants the -5/+10 penalty/bonus. Is there some reason why finesse weapons aren't , or shouldn't be, given the same respect as the others?

Not gonna say sneak attack but...

[Foxhound438]

Not gonna say sneak attack but...

you can sneak attack with a SS bow, so I don't think that's it.

If you ask me, it's probably because this puts a pretty tight restriction around using power attack with a shield. Sure, you can use a hand crossbow, but even with the CBE feat you still have the ammunition property making it so you can't shoot again if your other hand is occupied with a shield. The other option is darts, and there you still get stuck by the drawing weapons limitation. The newest artificer gets to ignore both of those if they want though, UA be breaking things as always.

The other explanation that I can think of is preventing getting more attacks with it as a 2wf, but they really fumbled if that was the intention considering how CBE and PAM both give you an extra attack with it and give you more range in both cases...

Anyways, I don't personally like how I can never power attack with an unarmed strike as a monk, but I've never felt like losing a pinch of damage was killing me on my monks.

[Aprender]

IMO, it is part of the balancing act between STR and DEX. If you go DEX, you get better initiative, better skills and the ability to go ranged easily. If you go STR, overall you get higher AC (with heavy armor) and you can do more damage at the cost of a feat.

This is how I view it as well. If Great Finesse Weapon Master was a thing, it would be too attractive to pass up for a lot of players as Dex is just so valuable.

[DevilMcam]

All these weapons that qualify for -5/+10 feats require 2 hands to be used properly.
this means no shield and most likely no spellcasting (without specific opportunity cost)

All finesse weapons only require a single hand to be used properly.
That is why you don't have feats supporting -5/+10 for finesse weapons.

Finesse weapons trade in higher damages (bigger dices, -5/+10s) in exchange for better defences (Dex to AC, free offhand and Dex Saves bonuses)
If you want to homebrew somethin for them, sure but This will quite heavily impact balance.

A first go at it would be :
"when you make a melee weapon attack with a single weapon you are proficient with, before making the attack you may add the two handed and heavy properties to this weapon until the begining of your next turn if the weapon does not already possess them, roll the attck with a -5 modifier to hit.
If the attack hits it deals +10 damages"

[darknite]

There is, it's called Sneak Attack.

[Willie the Duck]

Heavy weapons get it, as do ranged. You know, that feat which grants the -5/+10 penalty/bonus. Is there some reason why finesse weapons aren't , or shouldn't be, given the same respect as the others?


I understand how GWM operates. Let me rephrase my question. There's a feat (great weapon master) for heavy weapons, and there's a feat (sharpshooter) for ranged weapons, is there a reason why finesse weapons shouldn't have thier own damage buffing feat?

Ostensibly, no two weapon fighting styles (the generalized concept, not the fighter class feature) have exactly the same mechanical setup and it is really that these two feats both sharing the -5/+10 quality that is the outlier. I think the generalized answer to the 'why' of that is mostly just to make them feel distinct.

There are balance issues. Dex is rather high powered as it is. Sneak attack is the standard avenue towards increasing that damage*. two-weapon fighting might combine with a -5/+10 to some amazing effect**. Overall, though, I think the basic logic is: these feats give archery and big-ol' weapons a reason to be (and let's be clear, there's not a lot of reason to not pick a greatsword in a featless game), two-weapon fighting has a reason to be (mostly rogues, and the occasional Hunter's Mark-focused ranger or similar situation), and weapon-and-shield has reason to be (featless games, tank, or person who doesn't want to devote ASIs).
*As others point out, Sharpshooter and Dex/SA-builds are a thing. It sure seems to me that maybe the designers thought that DMs would be enforcing some kind of reasonable arrow max and/or wouldn't be handing out magic hand crossbows and the like. As it stands it really feels like a Dex-maxing SS/XBE character does really well in lots of cases.
**immediately countered by XBE and PAM

[GlenSmash!]

Feats like GWM, PAM and mechanics like Grappling (which is of limited use) are the only reasons to make a strength based character. Oh and +1 AC.

If Finesse weapons had an equivalent you are that much closer to making strength a useless stat.

[Teaguethebean]

Even more on the imbalance this would make let's say a dex fighter with a rapier and shield with the dueling fighting style do with each hit 21.5 dmg with a 20 dex, and have 19ac.
Now a traditional strength fighter with a great sword and plate with the defense fighting style will have the same ac and do 22 dmg per hit.
So looking at that we may say eureka the math says it's fair until you consider that the dex fighter has excellent stealth while the strength fighter can't hide if his life depends on it. Even more the dex fighter will win out on initiative more and has a better dex save which is far better than a better strength save when you already have proficiency. In all I feel like that feat would make a strength fighter worse than a dex fighter in melee and that hasn't even taken into account ranged attacks, in which obviously the dex fighter wins. Additionally with stats the dex fighter can ignore strength entirely relying all on dex, con, and a mental score of there choice (probably wisdom for the saves). But the strength fighter needs to invest in strength, con, and has to invest at least a little into dex resulting in a lower mental score taking away the perception/saves that the dex fighter gets.

In conclusion the dex fighter has .5 less dmg but the strength fighter can't do anything as well as the dex fighter besides .5 dmg in melee and having athletics.

[stoutstien]

As mentioned above, dex based characters can do this they just have an extra feat tax with crossbow expert.

[Talij]

Finesse weapons get Defensive Duelist. Not saying it's an equivalent exchange, but they do have a feat just for them.

[tieren]

Plus attacking less accurately for more damage doesn't make sense, finesse weapons should be about attacking more accurately not less.

In fact a weapon feat that worked in reverse would be interesting (+10 to hit/ -5 dmg).

I can see some rogues that really want to land that sneak attack still choose this for the BBEG with real high AC.

[N810]

I was just thinking the same thing...
Maybe tack on some other minor bonus like GWM.
like +1 AC until the next round or something ?

[Yakmala]

When you use a finesse weapon...

1: You don't have to invest in both Strength and Dexterity.
2: The same attribute that is adding to your bonus to hit and damage is also providing you with bonuses to AC, saves vs AoE attacks and bonuses to a wide range of skill rolls.
3: Only one hand needed for the weapon, allowing you to use a shield and Dueling or Protection fighting styles as well as feats like Defensive Duelist and Shield Master.

These are some pretty hefty advantages. You might not do as much overall DPS as a GWM/SS character but you are going to be better in a multitude of different ways.

[Talij]

Thinking about it, I'd argue the opposite and say that GWM and SS shouldn't both have the same bonus. Each weapon type should have different benefits. If all had the same feat perks, why bother with separate feats? I'd say I'd prefer sharpshooter change to something like forego your movement for the round to get +5 to hit (steady aim) or take a -5 to hit to allow a ranged attack with a bonus action (rapid fire). Something that makes sense mechanically for the type of weapon, but different from the other types.

[airless_wing]

A house-rule I saw on here a while back (I wish I could credit the user but I only saw it in passing) that I enjoy is that any player can take a penalty to their attack roll equal to they proficiency bonus to add double their proficiency bonus to the damage roll.
Functionally the same as GWD/SS bonuses, but grants all characters access to it, and greatly limits the initial power of those feats at lower levels.

[Trickery]

Enough people have said balance that I want to point out: that may be why you're okay with it, but it isn't why WotC did it.

When talking about balance between weapons, there are a couple of styles people mention: big two-hander, two weapons, weapon and shield, or ranged weapon firing ammunition. Left out of that consideration are versatile weapons and throwing weapons. Unlike everything else I just mentioned, versatile weapons and throwing weapons have no support whatsoever. Sure, some feats and fighting styles partially apply to throwing and versatile weapons. But it ain't much.

There are lots of weird examples like that across the weapons table and feats. Several weapons are worse than they ought to be, such as harpoons, light hammers, clubs, maces, and the blowgun. The great club costs more and weighs more than the quarterstaff while doing the same damage in two hands and having no added perks. And there is no support for many of the weapons.

That's how I know that WotC didn't care too much about balance when designing the weapons table or weapon feats.

If WotC had done this for balance reasons, then it would apply to any attack made with two-hands - there are no two-handed finesse melee weapons. It wouldn't be limited to heavy weapons. Take a look at the weapons table, seeing how many weapons have versatile or are two-handed but not heavy, and you see how many of them got shafted. The spear and quarterstaff are saved, but only because of Polearm Master.

Regarding the whole strength versus dexterity debate, a few things:

Strength is the more common check, not counting skills. Dexterity checks come up for initiative and that's about it. Strength checks are for breaking anything that can be broken.
Strength gives you better armor, but the gap between dexterity and strength AC is much higher at low levels.
Strength only has one skill, which is athletics. Rather than working against strength, this actually means that a strength character can diversify their skill checks more since that one skill comes up so often. Athletics is tied with Perception for how useful it is. And yes, I know a rogue with Expertise in Athletics does just fine, but that's beside the point.
Stealth is only useful if your DM says so. It's like illusion spells in that it's often nerfed to the point of uselessness.
Dexterity saving throws are only more common than strength saving throws if your DM says so. In my experience, DMs very often use tentacled monsters grappling players or force saving throws to avoid being blown or pushed off of something. DMs aren't required to base their saving throws on what player spells tend to do. So Dexterity saving throws are only better than Strength saving throws in some campaigns.

The Strength Versus Dexterity debate is often had online. On paper, Dexterity looks better for most classes, the exceptions being clerics, barbarians, and any fighter who wants to maximize damage. But again, that's on paper. DMs have no obligation to stick to your paper. Your campaign might have lots of strength saving throws, athletics checks, and chains, walls, and other things to break or burst.

Good DMs both can and should ensure that all players at their table are able to contribute regardless of their choices. Going one direction or the other is more a matter of fluff than of mechanics because you can make a good character either way.

What you can't do is build Aragorn. Aragorn uses a longsword and a bow, and there is no build whatsoever that is best off using that combination. No matter what you try to build with a longsword and bow, you'll always be better off with some other combination of weapons. It's primarily because of Great Weapon Master not supporting longswords and there being no fighting style that benefits versatile weapons when wielded in one hand or two. That's how I know WotC didn't do this for balance reasons. They just did what they thought made thematic sense.

[TheUser]

Is nobody going to mention the clear favoritism for wielding a longbow as an improvised weapon and therefore qualifies for BOTH feats simultaneously!?

-10/+20
If we start stacking bonuses like a +3 longbow, Devotion Paladin's channel divinity, Bless (average 2.5) and Archery Fighting Style rocking +23.5 to hit becomes +13.5

Getting hit by a +3 longbow for 1d4+28 damage is no joke....

[GlenSmash!]

What you can't do is build Aragorn. Aragorn uses a longsword and a bow, and there is no build whatsoever that is best off using that combination. No matter what you try to build with a longsword and bow, you'll always be better off with some other combination of weapons. It's primarily because of Great Weapon Master not supporting longswords and there being no fighting style that benefits versatile weapons when wielded in one hand or two. That's how I know WotC didn't do this for balance reasons. They just did what they thought made thematic sense.

Well, Aragorn in the novels is never shown to use a bow, but that's probably a moot point I'd assume he had experience with them.

There is actually the Artificer Battlesmith that is equally good with the Longsword and Longbow using both with Intelligence as long as they are magic weapons and it's trivially easy for an artificer to make magic weapons.