Help replacing the "power attack" portion of Great Weapon Master and Sharpshooter?

[thoroughlyS]

I want to move the "power attack" feature to its own feat, and I need help replacing the benefit for Great Weapon Master and Sharpshooter.

So far, I'm considering merging Charger and Great Weapon Master (which both have the same theme) so Great Weapon Master currently looks like this:

GREAT WEAPON MASTER
You've learned to put the weight of a weapon to your advantage, letting its momentum empower your strikes. You gain the following benefits while you are wielding a two-handed weapon or a versatile weapon in two hands:
On your turn, when you score a critical hit or reduce a creature to 0 hit points, you can make one melee weapon attack as a bonus action.
When you use your action to Dash, you can use a bonus action to make one melee weapon attack or to shove a creature.
If you move at least 10 feet in a straight line immediately before making a melee weapon attack or shoving a creature, you either add your proficiency bonus to the attack's damage roll (if you chose to make an attack and hit) or push the target up to 10 feet away from you (if you chose to shove and succeed).



I'm pretty happy with my replacement for sharpshooter, but I would also appreciate feedback on it.

SHARPSHOOTER
You can make shots that others find impossible. You gain the following benefits while wielding a thrown weapon or ranged weapon:
Attacking at long range doesn't impose disadvantage on your ranged weapon attack rolls.
Your ranged weapon attacks ignore half cover and three-quarters cover.
You have advantage on ranged weapon attack rolls against prone creatures even when you are farther than 5 feet from the creature.

[Damon_Tor]

If the bonus action attack is supposed to be a "follow through" attack, don't make it cost a bonus action. Just straight up give then a free extra attack as a part of their attack action when the conditions are met, just as long as the extra attack is against a different creature from the one that triggered it. Hell, don't even limit it to once per turn, let them keep the swing going as long as it keeps cleaving through stuff.

Do that and lose the fell handed effect. It happens too rarely to matter, and most of the time if you're attacking with advantage the other guy is probably already prone, and if he isn't, well the primary reason you want him prone is to get advantage... which you already have.

[Dienekes]

Well, what do you think the weapon set is supposed to do?

Reach weapons were supposed to focus more on area control, so they got OAs when the enemy enters reach.

Shield Master was supposed to be the tank option so it gave benefits to survive and single target lockdown feature.

GWM was supposed to be for the guys who only care about dealing damage, so it got the big damage effect. Getting rid of that, what do you think GWM is supposed to be now? You seem to be pushing it more toward single target lockdown, just done noticeably worse than Shield Master’s on demand shove. Not that it doesn’t have some benefits over it, but unless you’re using flanking gets advantage variant rule it is too inconsistent to really plan around.

[thoroughlyS]

Well, just piling on damage is a really boring direction so I'd like to avoid that. I liked that the first benefit evokes the idea of an attack having so much force behind it that it can damage multiple enemies. That's why I originally added the benefit from Fell Handed. It seemed to fit the theme of an attack having more power behind the swing. But you raise an excellent point that this competes with Shield Master, which isn't very fun. So I guess the direction I want to take Great Weapon Master is that each individual swing does more, in a way that isn't just damage. I'm not currently allowing Tasha's content at my tables but I'm not set on that forever, so I'd like to avoid taking from Crusher, Piercer, or Slasher.

[BerzerkerUnit]

I personally have never seen GWM be an issue at the table as is. That said, the most reasonable fix I've seen has been: sacrifice proficiency to hit for double proficiency damage. That scales it back to -2/+4 at level 1 and so on.

[thoroughlyS]

As I mentioned in the first post, I am keeping the "power attack" option in the game, but moving it to its own feat. I am dealing with separately. My question is how to shore up Great Weapon Master?

[thoroughlyS]

What about merging it with Charger? The themes overlap, and Charger also needs a boost. This makes Charger unavailable for unarmed characters, but other than that I think this works.

GREAT WEAPON MASTER
You've learned to put the weight of a weapon to your advantage, letting its momentum empower your strikes. You gain the following benefits while you are wielding a two-handed weapon or a versatile weapon in two hands:
On your turn, when you score a critical hit or reduce a creature to 0 hit points, you can make one melee weapon attack as a bonus action.
When you use your action to Dash, you can use a bonus action to make one melee weapon attack or to shove a creature.
If you move at least 10 feet in a straight line immediately before making a melee weapon attack or shoving a creature, you either add your proficiency bonus to the attack's damage roll (if you chose to make an attack and hit) or push the target up to 10 feet away from you (if you chose to shove and succeed).

How do you think this compares to Shield Master or Polearm Master?

[thoroughlyS]

It's been a few days, and I'd really appreciate the feedback on these changes. Does anyone have any thoughts on this? Would you take either of these feats?

[BerzerkerUnit]

I think rolling Charger in is okay I guess, but thematically off center from the rest of the feat.

Example: monk with Charger does a flying side kick for extra move and damage on their turn. A mounted paladin with charger uses a lance, A barbarian dervish dashes into combat so his two scimitars can chop and the blow from his first rotation will shred a foe. Now none of that can happen (unless you're keeping charger, which I can't imagine since you have a feat 1/3rd of which is 90% of charger...)

The "power attack" portion is a little underwhelming as its own feat unless you're expanding it to versatile weapons wielded in two hands as well, in which case you've probably actually made it a bigger issue than it was as part of GWM.

I recall reading your original post and not really understanding your need to make these changes.

If you think the feat is too strong as it is (something I don't think is born out by the math when compared to caster progression and %'s that include miss chances at average AC per CR) that's fine. But I would think just banning it would do a better a job. Great Weapons would be the realm of the fighter since they'd only really be a stonger option at 3+ attacks. Everyone else would TWF or Sword and Board. Which is fine if you're trying to incentivize or force more build diversity at your table.

In my experience, DM's take issue with GWM bc it's a simple path to solid damage and they have difficulty reconciling Player A that puts 5 hours into character design for a schtick that's good, Player B that puts little thought into their build (either focusing on RP choices or just low investment), and Player C that picks PAM and GWM and is a top end build with 2 seconds of thought.

That said, Cloud Stryfe is bar none one of the most iconic and enduring videogame characters of all time. Cultural penetration for the spiky blonde is deeeep and there are more iterations and side games of FFVII than any FF previous or since and a big part of that is the Buster Sword. So even with this sideways nerf reallocation of mechanical elements, I don't think you'll see fewer great weapon wielders at the table, they'll just be less effective overall.

[thoroughlyS]

I think rolling Charger in is okay I guess, but thematically off center from the rest of the feat.

Example: monk with Charger does a flying side kick for extra move and damage on their turn. A mounted paladin with charger uses a lance, A barbarian dervish dashes into combat so his two scimitars can chop and the blow from his first rotation will shred a foe. Now none of that can happen (unless you're keeping charger, which I can't imagine since you have a feat 1/3rd of which is 90% of charger...)
The official rules for charger don't allow you to do the mounted paladin or barbarian dervish either. Its mechanics are... really restrictive. What you're looking at is my already beefed up version of charger, reworked because the thematic focus of the two are so similar.

I recall reading your original post and not really understanding your need to make these changes.

If you think the feat is too strong as it is (something I don't think is born out by the math when compared to caster progression and %'s that include miss chances at average AC per CR) that's fine. But I would think just banning it would do a better a job. Great Weapons would be the realm of the fighter since they'd only really be a stonger option at 3+ attacks. Everyone else would TWF or Sword and Board. Which is fine if you're trying to incentivize or force more build diversity at your table.
Official great weapon master and sharpshooter absolutely immediately improve your damage against average AC opponents (compared to taking +2 STR/DEX). That trend stays true the entire game. In a vacuum, the change is small ~1.5 damage per attack, but if you find solid ways of generating advantage (via sublclass or other party members) your damage skyrockets. The fact that this benefit can only be accessed by some fighting styles is the part that bothers me. Yes, I am allowing any martial character to get a version of the power attack benefit, but also limiting it as well. I also want to provide some kind of option for two-handed martials who want a "style feat". Ideally, I would want the population of two-handed martials to come down to the level of the other styles.

So even with this sideways nerf reallocation of mechanical elements, I don't think you'll see fewer great weapon wielders at the table, they'll just be less effective overall.
This change isn't aimed at two-handed weapon fans, its aimed at optimizers. If you make it a less obvious pickup, they will move to something else that is better. That reduces the pressure on two-handed weapon fans to feel like they have to take GWM/SS just to keep up and encourages build diversity. Maybe they'll take mage slayer, or magic initiate, or maybe they will still take this version of great weapon master, but instead of just being a unilateral improvement to their numbers it gives them more tactics to apply in combat.

[Yakk]

I'd actually advise against making power attack its own feat.

It is better when game mechanical elements tie into fiction more. Great Weapon Master has at least a bit of tie in, in that it is "you use heavy weapons effectively". "Power Attack" is "you can toggle a mechanical feature to do more damage in some situations" -- it is more divorced from the fiction, especially if the same feat covers bows and great axes.

---

One thing I've played with is replace the -5/+10 with "sacrifice your proficiency bonus for 2x to damage". Then you can attach other abilities to "an attack where you add your proficiency bonus to attack" to make them not stack if you want.

---

Also, the mini-game of finding advantage (either in play or in build) is actually fun.

Without advantage, -5/+10 (or -prof/+2prof) isn't usually all that good at dealing damage; it competes with +2 to your attack stat, but the beefier the fight the worse it does. You'll be great at clearing multiple weak monsters, or low-AC medium difficulty encounters, and not as good in the boss fight typically.

With advantage it is a solid damage increase.

---

My view of the problem (which you are free to disagree with) is that the GWM+PAM and XBE+SS builds have more feat support, which make for a more fun character building minigame. And people who like the character building minigame often do some charop, which means they can outshine other PCs even if the feats they use aren't OP, and the other players can feel pressured to mimic it.

So add feat support to other weapon loadouts that don't "stack" with the above pairs.


Archer
The blood of the bowman or woman flows in your veins.
You can add both your strength and dexterity attribute bonus (instead of one of them) to damage with a long or short bow.
If a creature moves closer to you while within the first range increment of your weapon, you can expend a reaction to make a ranged weapon attack with disadvantage on it. If you hit, they cannot take a reaction until the end of your next turn.
If a creature within the first range increment of your loaded long or short bow hits an ally of yours, you can expend a reaction to make a ranged weapon attack with disadvantage. If you hit, they have to reroll their attack roll with disadvantage.
You can expend a bonus action to gain overwatch until the end of your next turn. While in overwatch, you do not have disadvantage on either of the above attacks.

This is designed as an alternative to XBE.

I killed TWF style and throwing style, made duelist say

"When making an attack with a melee weapon held in one hand, you deal +2 damage. When you make an attack with a melee weapon, you can draw the weapon as part of the action you use to attack."

Then
Dual Wielder
You master fighting with two weapons, gaining the following benefits:
You gain a +1 bonus to AC while you are wielding a separate melee weapon in each hand.
You can use two-weapon fighting even when the one handed melee weapons you are wielding aren’t light, and you add your attribute bonus to damage on any attack granted by it.
As part of the attack action, if you make an attack with advantage with a weapon held in one hand, you may use one lower attack roll to attack with a weapon held in the other hand.

this makes TWF a viable damage alternative to GWF.

Great Weapon style also fails to live up to its promise; the damage boost is less than Dueling

Great Weapon Fighting
Whenever you roll an odd value on a weapon damage die from a two-handed or versatile melee weapon attack while you are wielding the weapon in both hands, replace it with the maximum value on the die.

This is both fun (look for odd dice) and makes GWF compete with Dueling style damage wise better than the reroll.

So 2d6 of a 3 and a 4 becomes a 6 and a 4, so 10 damage.

I made this versatile weapon friendly, because why not.

To compete with PAM, I wrote Master of the Blade, Hammer Rhythm, and Deadly Axe. I also removed some of the conditions on Shield Master; so you can push first, the shield-bonus-to-dex-save is unconditional, etc.

This produces:
PAM+GWM (GWF style)
MotB+GWM (GWF style)
HR+GWM (GWF style)
DA+GWM (GWF style)
PAM+SM (Dueling style)
MotB+SM (Dueling style)
HR+SM (Dueling style)
DA+SM (Dueling style)
MotB+DW (Dueling style)
HR+DW (Dueling style)
DA+DW (Dueling style)
as different "obvious" fighting styles you can spend feats on. (PAM+DW happens not to work well)

For ranged we get:
XBE+SS (Archer Style)
Archer+SS (Archer Style)
MotB+SS (thrown) (Dueling style)
HR+SS (thrown) (Dueling style)
DA+SS (thrown) (Dueling style)

which is a large set of builds

Finally, I tweaked Defence/Protection/Unarmed/Blind Fighting/Superior Technique upwards to remain tempting. Part of this is to make the Champions 2nd style more tasty.


Protection
When a creature other than you within 5’ of you is attacked, you can use your reaction to impose disadvantage on the attack roll. You must have a shield or a melee weapon equipped to do this. If you have a shield equipped and the triggering attack still hits, the target gets resistance to the damage.

Defense
You gain a +1 bonus to AC. In addition, while wielding a shield and light or no armor, you can use your strength instead of your dexterity modifier to calculate your AC. Finally, if you are wearing heavy armor or using a shield, at the start of each of your turns you gain temporary HP equal to your strength bonus.

But I admit it was a lot of work. So YMMV.

My goal was to generate more build diversity, rather than making the existing PAM+GWM type builds worse.

[BerzerkerUnit]

The official rules for charger don't allow you to do the mounted paladin or barbarian dervish either. Its mechanics are... really restrictive. What you're looking at is my already beefed up version of charger, reworked because the thematic focus of the two are so similar.

Official great weapon master and sharpshooter absolutely immediately improve your damage against average AC opponents (compared to taking +2 STR/DEX). That trend stays true the entire game. In a vacuum, the change is small ~1.5 damage per attack, but if you find solid ways of generating advantage (via sublclass or other party members) your damage skyrockets. The fact that this benefit can only be accessed by some fighting styles is the part that bothers me. Yes, I am allowing any martial character to get a version of the power attack benefit, but also limiting it as well. I also want to provide some kind of option for two-handed martials who want a "style feat". Ideally, I would want the population of two-handed martials to come down to the level of the other styles.

This change isn't aimed at two-handed weapon fans, its aimed at optimizers. If you make it a less obvious pickup, they will move to something else that is better. That reduces the pressure on two-handed weapon fans to feel like they have to take GWM/SS just to keep up and encourages build diversity. Maybe they'll take mage slayer, or magic initiate, or maybe they will still take this version of great weapon master, but instead of just being a unilateral improvement to their numbers it gives them more tactics to apply in combat.

Default charger allows you to make a bonus action attack that deals +5 damage when you dash on your turn.

You can benefit from that feat while mounted unless you decide to let the mount fight separately. The dervish bit was prose but an okay strategy if you find yourself having to dash on the first round a lot, common for random encounters in open terrain. I can see a Barbarian or other melee pc taking it to offset the damage loss on a dash round you otherwise would not be able to attack during.

[thoroughlyS]

Charger is nonsynergistic with fighting on a mount. Why would you ever Dash, when your mount could Dash for you instead?

I now have a better understanding of what you meant about a barbarian, but I'm not convinced it's a major loss.

[BerzerkerUnit]

Charger is nonsynergistic with fighting on a mount. Why would you ever Dash, when your mount could Dash for you instead?

I now have a better understanding of what you meant about a barbarian, but I'm not convinced it's a major loss.

BC if your mount is doing anything other than being a move/size buff, it rolls its own initiative and then you have to try and coordinate its turn and your attacks. Imagine round 1, if it goes first (likely if you’re a heavy armor user) it could move into melee and if targets also go before you, they can just walk away from it provoking your one AoO and when your turn comes up you maybe throw javelins? Dismount for 1/2 your speed and then dash to reach the enemies that walked away?

Mounted combat has its merits and most people play fast and loose, but RAW doesn’t make it so simple. It’s similar to familiar Help actions, most people don’t bother giving the familiar its own place in initiative order, but that is the RAW.

A mount that’s operating solely as your legs is still a great buff, functionally increasing reach and probably near doubling your speed while quadrupling your area denial. But when you have it taking actions, your turn can easily get staggered.

[thoroughlyS]

While you're mounted, you have two options. You can either control the mount or allow it to act independently. Intelligent creatures, such as dragons, act independently.
You can control a mount only if it has been trained to accept a rider. Domesticated horses, donkeys, and similar creatures are assumed to have such training. The initiative of a controlled mount changes to match yours when you mount it. It moves as you direct it, and it has only three action options: Dash, Disengage, and Dodge. A controlled mount can move and act even on the turn that you mount it.
If you opt to control a mount, its initiative count changes to match yours. You can opt for it to go first, and Dash with no action investment. Then on your turn (which immediately follows), you can use your action for whatever you want.