A Question Concerning GWM/SS

[Amechra]

Namely, how often have you actually seen people use the "-5 to attack rolls, +10 to damage" part of those feats? I've been thinking of dropping those benefits in my home game and making them half feats (GWM would give +1 Str, SS would give +1 Dex).

Or would this break everything forever and a day?

[BloodSnake'sCha]

In one of my hame we have a zelot barbarian that use it every attack.
(Can't write anymore,my hands freezing, sooooory for the problems)

[Amechra]

(Can't write anymore,my hands freezing, sooooory for the problems)

That's terrible. Stick your hands into your armpits if you can - that should help warm them up!

(Thanks for the data, by the way.)

[BloodSnake'sCha]

That's terrible. Stick your hands into your armpits if you can - that should help warm them up!

(Thanks for the data, by the way.)

Tnx :)
That's work.

He use it with adv on every attack every time he can as he is ok with dieing (zelots can be revived for free).

I know another player that use SS on his rogue. He very rarely use it as he took it for the range and 3/4 cover gave him problems in the past.


It depends on the character ability to attack, damage sources and enemies AC.

If your players tells you they will not use it then go for it.
I like to talk with my players and use their feedback when I run a game as they are the ones that will use my ruling.

Hope you will have fun.


Edit: I remember that someone in here have a graph for SS and GWM.
I will try to look for it after work.

[ProsecutorGodot]

I think as the feats are they're already overtuned. Every player that has taken the feat in one of the games I've been a part of has used it almost all the time, only "turning it off" when an enemy with an AC of 18+ is present. Even then sometimes the opportunity to deal 10 extra damage is more valuable than the normal attack would have been alone.

Taking that part out and offering a +1 asi is definitely not going to be worse in terms of balance. What I can't say for sure is whether it's an appropriate change to maintain the feats power.

My gut instinct is that Great Weapon Master would need a second minor benefit to go with the change and that Sharpshooter would be just fine. Perhaps something to go with the flavor text of the feat where you're supposed to be using your weapons weight to your advantage. I think adding a variant of the cleaving rules in the DMG could be interesting.

[Mith]

A barbarian that is Reckless Attacking should always use GWM, as the damage always improves.

[DeTess]

Namely, how often have you actually seen people use the "-5 to attack rolls, +10 to damage" part of those feats?

Are you wondering whether people actually use these parts, or whether it's actually useful to use them. Because for the latter question, I did a simulation a while back that shows that, against a target with AC18, going -5/+10 results in a higher average DPR at all levels than not doing so, so presumably attacking anything with less AC means that it gets even better, while attacking something with more AC will eventually reach a break-even point.

That having been said, dropping the -5/+10 part on sharpshooter and turning it into a half feat should be fine. For great weapon master the only part left is one that triggers when you crit, which will probably feel very inconsistent. I certainly wouldn't take that half-feat variant.

[stoutstien]

Namely, how often have you actually seen people use the "-5 to attack rolls, +10 to damage" part of those feats? I've been thinking of dropping those benefits in my home game and making them half feats (GWM would give +1 Str, SS would give +1 Dex).

Or would this break everything forever and a day?
The question is what is your end goal for the feats? Is it to reduce impact at lower levels of play or do you think theses feats are just to powerful on general?

[Amechra]

Alright, so what I'm hearing is "people take GWM for the -5/+10, while they don't do it as much for SS." That's kinda what I expected, honestly.

GWM already includes cleaving (the bonus action triggers on a crit or when you drop something to 0). Not entirely sure what to hand out as a secondary benefit, since that's off the table...

---

To clarify, I'm planning on bringing a list of minor tweaks to discuss with my players next time we start a campaign (I'm in the player seat at the moment).

[Amechra]

The question is what is your end goal for the feats? Is it to reduce impact at lower levels of play or do you think theses feats are just to powerful on general?

I just find those bits of the feats really clunky. They also don't feel like the rest of the game to me, where you generally don't have penalties to attack rolls and the like.

[stoutstien]

I just find those bits of the feats really clunky. They also don't feel like the rest of the game to me, where you generally don't have penalties to attack rolls and the like.
Agreed. Power attack always has been.

SS is strong as a half feat so we are left with needed a third point for GWM. Personally I think 2hd weapons should do the most damage so how about just added a bonus die of damage? With quick Napkin math a d6 on all attacks with the attack action moves it above other styles. Not factoring in PAM which might make it tricky.

[NaughtyTiger]

Let me chime in...
In my experience, archers use SS -5/+10 all the time because +2 archery FS offsets the -5 well.

I also hate SS cuz it is too strong. Several folks have convinced me that removing cover bonus from SS still makes for a good full-feat.
I am warming up to the idea of called shot -5/+10, and remove those from the feats.

[Amechra]

Agreed. Power attack always has been.

SS is strong as a half feat so we are left with needed a third point for GWM. Personally I think 2hd weapons should do the most damage so how about just added a bonus die of damage? With quick Napkin math a d6 on all attacks with the attack action moves it above other styles. Not factoring in PAM which might make it tricky.

Or a d12, if you're a Barbarian.

[Keravath]

A barbarian that is Reckless Attacking should always use GWM, as the damage always improves.

This isn't true. It depends on the AC of the target. Advantage shifts the number you need to roll to hit where it becomes worthwhile using the GWM -5/+10 feature by about 1 to 2 depending on the damage of the weapon you are using. The higher the damage of the weapon/attack, the less you want to use GWM since the cost of missing is greater.

Even when you are near the number where the average damage using GWM is about equal to not using it, it can be worthwhile not using GWM just so you do some damage. GWM means the damage will be very swingy. On a lucky round, you will do a lot and an unlucky one you will miss.

The best GWM build is probably a fighter/barbarian which can use reckless attack and obtain several attacks.

http://www.enworld.org/forum/showthread.php?655006-The-math-of-GWM-SS

[MilkmanDanimal]

In my experience, almost every single attack once a character gets a few levels in and the additional Proficiency bonuses + magic items kick in. Playing with someone who has a probably level 12-13 mutliclassed Bear Totem/Champion and recklessly attacks every time, and I don't know that he has never not used the -5/+10 since probably his first few levels.

It's actually my issue with that feat; -5 is somewhat of a big deal at first, but, as you level, it's less and less impactful as your to hit bonuses increase. The penalty doesn't at all scale with the expected accuracy of the character.

[Keravath]

SS is a good feat. The ignoring cover and long range penalties can be useful, however, these are very DM and game dependent. There are some DMs I play with who don't impose cover for firing into a melee with another creature in the way. In theory, the target should get partial cover (+2 AC) which the archery fighting style would normally offset. In this case, taking SS to avoid cover only comes up relatively rarely. On the other hand, a DM who does impose cover in melee and has NPCs make use of available cover will make the cover aspect of SS much more appealing.

Similarly, the range aspect of SS often only comes into play with hand crossbows. Most D&D combats in the games I have played start between 20' and 80', rarely more. A long bow is 150' normal range. If you are using a long bow, the range aspect of SS will also mostly not be used in many games.

For these reasons, I would tend to see SS without the -5/+10 as, at best, a half feat that will be useful depending on the game/DM. Changing the -5/+10 to +1 dex won't break anything in my opinion and should make it weaker than the standard SS if you find it to be a concern.

Also, overall, I would say that GWM without the -5/+10 is weaker than SS without it so just adding +1 str would seem to me to be not quite sufficient to balance things out. You could add a condition that 2-handed weapons add str * 1.5 damage rather than just str. This would thus vary between an extra +1 to +2 damage/attack (if you round down) depending on str - though that might be too much?

[Keravath]

In my experience, almost every single attack once a character gets a few levels in and the additional Proficiency bonuses + magic items kick in. Playing with someone who has a probably level 12-13 mutliclassed Bear Totem/Champion and recklessly attacks every time, and I don't know that he has never not used the -5/+10 since probably his first few levels.

It's actually my issue with that feat; -5 is somewhat of a big deal at first, but, as you level, it's less and less impactful as your to hit bonuses increase. The penalty doesn't at all scale with the expected accuracy of the character.

Agreed. GWM begins to shine in tier 3 when the attack rolls get maxed, proficiency rises, magic items and weapons and spells are more common, but opponent AC doesn't continue to rise. (A level 15/16 barbarian/fighter mix is brutal at melee damage with GWM).

[Crucius]

I use GWM quite a lot, not always, but a lot. I found that combat got pretty stale on my barbarian, so I wanted a feat that allowed me to make a choice on every attack. It turned a slugfest into a little more tactical experience, where I have to gauge enemy AC.

When I DM'ed a game one of the players took SS on a character that could make 5 attacks in the first round of combat (extra attack, bonus action attack, action surge), all with +10 damage and that got ugly real quick; out-damaging the entire party and leaving the DM almost no way to play around it because he ignored cover. I'll go on record and say that SS is a boring feat, since the one thing that could be interesting about ranged combat is the cover mechanics, which is removed completely.

You probably have the right idea to remove the power attack parts of the feats, and I'm curious to see what you come up with for GWM.

[Willie the Duck]

Namely, how often have you actually seen people use the "-5 to attack rolls, +10 to damage" part of those feats?

I just find those bits of the feats really clunky.

More than merely clunky, they seem to incentivize a different style of play--focusing on getting advantage on all your attacks (barbarians, devil's sight hexblades), or generating huge bonuses to hit (20 Dex archer with archery fighting style, bard or blessing cleric in the party, etc.). There are opportunity costs, and I wouldn't say that -5/+10-focused combat is worse per se than other optimized play (5-minute workday with smite-spamming sorlockadin, maybe with PAM-assisted 1-handed quarterstaff and shield or similar would definitely be more annoying), it just tends to feel really formulaic and stale already.

[GlenSmash!]

I'm playing a Zealot with GWM right now. When fighting hordes of low AC enemies I use it liberally. When fighting High AC bosses, never.

[Pex]

Few people I've gamed with have taken the feat, so they're not necessarily as popular as people make them out to be. When they are taken the power attack feature has been used often. When it's not it's either because the player forgot or the monster's AC is too high in their opinion. When it is used no one complains about the damage. The player is happy he has his shining moment. The party is happy the bad guy is that much closer to defeat, feeling no resentment about the player's contribution. The DM records the damage and moves on, feeling no resentment the bad guy is that much closer to defeat. The animosity some people feel about the feats is not universal. The desire to change them is not universal. Some people have no problem with the feats at all.

I can't make you like the feats, but I think it needs to be said there exists players and DMs who have no problem with the feats because when you ask if they should be changed and how, only those who have changed them are likely to respond. I can easily say leave them alone, don't change them, they aren't a problem.

[Amechra]

Few people I've gamed with have taken the feat, so they're not necessarily as popular as people make them out to be. When they are taken the power attack feature has been used often. When it's not it's either because the player forgot or the monster's AC is too high in their opinion. When it is used no one complains about the damage. The player is happy he has his shining moment. The party is happy the bad guy is that much closer to defeat, feeling no resentment about the player's contribution. The DM records the damage and moves on, feeling no resentment the bad guy is that much closer to defeat. The animosity some people feel about the feats is not universal. The desire to change them is not universal. Some people have no problem with the feats at all.

I can't make you like the feats, but I think it needs to be said there exists players and DMs who have no problem with the feats because when you ask if they should be changed and how, only those who have changed them are likely to respond. I can easily say leave them alone, don't change them, they aren't a problem.

Oh, I know that the animosity isn't universal - this is almost purely a personal gripe that I'm fleshing out.

I was mostly checking to see whether or not the remaining benefits would suffice as part of a half feat - the fact that SS stands up better there than GWM is kinda interesting in-and-of-itself.

---

As for a secondary benefit for Great Weapon Master, I'm leaning towards some kind of damage-on-a-miss. Something like Psychic damage equal to your Strength modifier, because your weapon is so huge and scary? I dunno, it needs workshopping.

[Willie the Duck]

I was mostly checking to see whether or not the remaining benefits would suffice as part of a half feat - the fact that SS stands up better there than GWM is kinda interesting in-and-of-itself.

It kinda makes sense. Cover and range are near universal problems for archers (range in particular if you are not using a longbow or heavy crossbow, as is the case with a hand crossbow which are popular with rogues and people with the other ranged combat feat, Crossbow Expert). The extra situational bonus attack, on the other hand, is a nice little perk (particularly if you do not have other regular bonus actions), but hardly so directly tied to the defining characteristics of the fighting style.

[Misterwhisper]

Oh, I know that the animosity isn't universal - this is almost purely a personal gripe that I'm fleshing out.

I was mostly checking to see whether or not the remaining benefits would suffice as part of a half feat - the fact that SS stands up better there than GWM is kinda interesting in-and-of-itself.

---

As for a secondary benefit for Great Weapon Master, I'm leaning towards some kind of damage-on-a-miss. Something like Psychic damage equal to your Strength modifier, because your weapon is so huge and scary? I dunno, it needs workshopping.

I just replaced the damage aspect of sharpshooter with adding that you don’t have disadvantage in melee

[djreynolds]

Namely, how often have you actually seen people use the "-5 to attack rolls, +10 to damage" part of those feats? I've been thinking of dropping those benefits in my home game and making them half feats (GWM would give +1 Str, SS would give +1 Dex).

Or would this break everything forever and a day?

IMO, especially higher level play these are a fighter's bread and butter for damage.

In lower level play, especially without a cleric or spamming the precision maneuver, you will miss as much as you hit... even with advantage.

I'm playing a scout Vhuman scout fighter, took SS at 1st... and have missed all but three -5/+10 attempts.

Right around 9th level you will see more hits, as attack stat is maxed and +4 proficiency... +9 to hit, +11 to hit for archers.

What I have done is this, instead of the -5/+10, I used -proficiency/ double proficiency in damage. So at 1st through 4th, -2/+4 up to -6/+12. It easy to manage and the power curve levels with the danger.

[Trickery]

The question is whether barbarians, rangers, and fighters will be able to keep up in optimized games without these feats. Why do you play a level 6 Fighter and not a level 6 Bladesinger Wizard, or a level 6 Rogue? Both of that latter have significant utility advantages over the Fighter and may even be harder to kill due to their features.

A big part of the Fighter's kit is having access to feats that other classes either can't afford or don't benefit from. It's possible that these feats aren't the problem, and that inferior feats are.

[Spiritchaser]

I have an EA Half Elven hexblade at my table. Any time he has advantage (which is most of the time) he uses the +10.

Even with the corresponding-5, he gets three rolls. He doesn’t miss much.

[Willie the Duck]

The question is whether barbarians, rangers, and fighters will be able to keep up in optimized games without these feats. Why do you play a level 6 Fighter and not a level 6 Bladesinger Wizard, or a level 6 Rogue? Both of that latter have significant utility advantages over the Fighter and may even be harder to kill due to their features.

A big part of the Fighter's kit is having access to feats that other classes either can't afford or don't benefit from. It's possible that these feats aren't the problem, and that inferior feats are.

The fighter clearly suffers in a feat-less game, and if fighters got the most benefit from these feats, I would agree with this analysis. Barbarians and hexblades, however, seem to be the primary beneficiaries of these feats.

Still, I see your general point and agree.

[Trickery]

The fighter clearly suffers in a feat-less game, and if fighters got the most benefit from these feats, I would agree with this analysis. Barbarians and hexblades, however, seem to be the primary beneficiaries of these feats.

Still, I see your general point and agree.

I mention Fighters mostly due to action surge and their ability to pick up these feats at low levels. Considering most play happens between levels 1 and 10, the Fighter's ability to grab three feats by level 6 (if variant human) is significant. It's possible to play a GWM Sentinel PAM Fighter in many games, but you often won't get that chance on a Hexblade (who would be heavily tempted to choose Warcaster as their first feat, and for good reason). Plus, in a low level game, action surge and second wind are major.

Fighters can also pull off the Archery + Sharpshooter + CBE combo starting at level 4 and can supplement SS with Precision Shot if they play a battle master. This combination is so good that, as long as you can find some way to gain advantage, it remains relevant all the way to endgame. Without those two feats in combination, there would be little reason to pick Fighter over a Hexblade archer even if you knew your game would end by sixth level. Elven Accuracy, Devil's Sight, and Darkness working together is too strong to compete with even if the Hexblade can't maintain 100% uptime.

[Amechra]

The question is whether barbarians, rangers, and fighters will be able to keep up in optimized games without these feats. Why do you play a level 6 Fighter and not a level 6 Bladesinger Wizard, or a level 6 Rogue? Both of that latter have significant utility advantages over the Fighter and may even be harder to kill due to their features.

A big part of the Fighter's kit is having access to feats that other classes either can't afford or don't benefit from. It's possible that these feats aren't the problem, and that inferior feats are.

While this is something to consider, my table is not, generally speaking, optimized.

I personally would prefer that GWM/SS weren't as strong (obviously), and that there were more situations like Sentinel + PAM, where two feats have synergy with each-other while still being decent by themselves. Then Fighters would be notable for being able to build around those synergies.

[Trickery]

While this is something to consider, my table is not, generally speaking, optimized.

I personally would prefer that GWM/SS weren't as strong (obviously), and that there were more situations like Sentinel + PAM, where two feats have synergy with each-other while still being decent by themselves. Then Fighters would be notable for being able to build around those synergies.

Any class can be optimized to compete at a high level. It sounds like your problem may not be these feats, but that the players in your group are not all playing at the same level of optimization - and that is a problem because you can't tune encounters to all of them at once.

You might have better luck talking to your players and saying you'd rather run a low optimization game where players take fun, non-optimal builds and expect challenges that allow for their lower power (assuming my guess is accurate).

[Amechra]

Any class can be optimized to compete at a high level. It sounds like your problem may not be these feats, but that the players in your group are not all playing at the same level of optimization - and that is a problem because you can't tune encounters to all of them at once.

You might have better luck talking to your players and saying you'd rather run a low optimization game where players take fun, non-optimal builds and expect challenges that allow for their lower power.

I think you're misreading me.

The issue is not that my players are out of synch with each-other. It's that I find "-5 to hit, +10 to damage" to be gross and messy, and want to avoid having it come up. If it had been "take disadvantage on the roll to roll an extra damage die" or whatever, I wouldn't have started this topic.

EDIT: The bit you quoted was just me trying to put concerns about the Fighter/Barbarian/Ranger keeping up to rest. I probably should've left out that "generally" - hedges like that sneak into my writing style because that's how I speak.

[Trickery]

I think you're misreading me.

The issue is not that my players are out of synch with each-other. It's that I find "-5 to hit, +10 to damage" to be gross and messy, and want to avoid having it come up. If it had been "take disadvantage on the roll to roll an extra damage die" or whatever, I wouldn't have started this topic.

EDIT: The bit you quoted was just me trying to put concerns about the Fighter/Barbarian/Ranger keeping up to rest. I probably should've left out that "generally" - hedges like that sneak into my writing style because that's how I speak.

I see. There's a common house rule that's much cleaner: remove your proficiency bonus to the attack, but add double proficiency to damage. That starts as -2/+4 and eventually becomes -6/+12, and it makes the feature a lot more consistent in how useful and swingy it is.

[djreynolds]

What I have done is this, instead of the -5/+10, I used -proficiency/ double proficiency in damage. So at 1st through 4th, -2/+4 up to -6/+12. It easy to manage and the power curve levels with the danger.

I have been posting this fix for years.

[Tharkun]

At most of the tables I have been at with SS, I have seen the users take every single shot with -5/+10. Every single time.

[Pex]

I just replaced the damage aspect of sharpshooter with adding that you don’t have disadvantage in melee

Despite what I wrote, that's a change that gets my nod of approval.
:smallsmile:

[Jerrykhor]

In my group, we have a resident GWM player who always plays a paladin built for dealing damage. He always takes that feat.

Surprisingly, I haven't seen SS being taken much. The only time i saw it being taken was in a one shot, which i advised against taking it because its not very good for rogues (he was an arcane trickster). He ignored my advice.

The final baddie of the session was a wizard with Shield. His attacks all went something like this: "Whats your attack roll? 18? Its a hit, but he cast Shield."

He eventually realised he has to stop using SS, and once he did, he rolled high enough to bypass the Shielded AC, and dealt the finishing blow to the wizard.

[Pex]

In my group, we have a resident GWM player who always plays a paladin built for dealing damage. He always takes that feat.

Surprisingly, I haven't seen SS being taken much. The only time i saw it being taken was in a one shot, which i advised against taking it because its not very good for rogues (he was an arcane trickster). He ignored my advice.

The final baddie of the session was a wizard with Shield. His attacks all went something like this: "Whats your attack roll? 18? Its a hit, but he cast Shield."

He eventually realised he has to stop using SS, and once he did, he rolled high enough to bypass the Shielded AC, and dealt the finishing blow to the wizard.

To be fair anyone would have the problem hitting, not because he's a rogue. It's not a good feat for rogues because their damage is sneak attack, and they only get one shot a turn. Accuracy is more important to them. It's still a nice feat to ignore cover, so it's not useless, but their bonus action hide is meant to give them advantage helping to overcome cover. A rogue with the feat should use the -5/+10 when he won't have sneak attack for whatever reason.

[HorstStonewall]

Interestingly, in the Star Wars 5E port, the player handbook has Great Weapon Master as

'you may forgo your proficiency bonus with a 2 handed weapon, to deal double your proficiency as bonus damage if that attack hits' or words to that effect

So it scales up with proficiency really nicely, especially early game when the -5 is almost your entire attack roll, but on the chance you do hit, that +10 damage is likely to oneshot a level 1 monster

[Zuras]

To be fair anyone would have the problem hitting, not because he's a rogue. It's not a good feat for rogues because their damage is sneak attack, and they only get one shot a turn. Accuracy is more important to them. It's still a nice feat to ignore cover, so it's not useless, but their bonus action hide is meant to give them advantage helping to overcome cover. A rogue with the feat should use the -5/+10 when he won't have sneak attack for whatever reason.

In my experience, ignoring disadvantage at long range is the biggest benefit of SS for a Rogue. Without it, you end up needing to get closer than you really want to get a sneak attack with a thrown dagger or hand crossbow, since you can’t Sneak Attack with disadvantage.