Great Weapon Master & Dexterity

[Catullus64]

It seems like it's an explicit design goal for the Great Weapon Master feat not to be useable with Dexterity. This seems to me like the reason why the Kensei Monk, and later the Dedicated Weapon alternate class feature, specifically call out the lack of the Heavy property. The reason why this reads as intent to me is simply that I can't think of much mechanical consequence to this restriction other than locking out GWM + Dexterity. This is particularly noticeable since other attack-and-damage-roll-ability-substitution features don't have this restriction (the Hexblade and the Battlesmith, though there may be others I'm forgetting, and the Hexblade takes a weird route to it.)

So... why? One refrain I can already hear ringing is "Dexterity builds are already super strong; they shouldn't get access to one of Strength-melee's best toys." But if you think that Strength builds are inferior to Dex builds, I hardly think that restricting access to a pretty-good-but-vastly-overrated feat really helps fix that; the advantage of Dexterity builds is not in damage output, but in how useful Dexterity is for a bunch of other stuff outside of attack and damage. Conversely, if you don't think the imbalance is that severe, access to that feat doesn't seem likely to upset things. Great Weapon Master is not the linchpin of people wanting to play Strength builds (I hope).

Some might also make an appeal to theme, since Great Weapon Master expressly deals with the great heft and momentum of a weapon, and therefore tying that in with nimbleness and speed might seem incongruous. I may be more inclined to listen on that score, but would need to hear the argument more convincingly wielded than I'm imagining it in my head.

So, people who A). Agree that this non-synergy is a deliberate design principle, and B). Agree with that principle, what's your reasoning?

This thread is motivated by intellectual questions about game design, and not at all motivated by bitterness over the loss of the greatsword-wielding Kensei murder machine I got to play when that subclass made its first UA debut. What do you mean, that first iteration was a kludgy mess?

[Segev]

It's worth noting that if you can get proficiency with the greatsword by other means, nothing stops your monk - of any subclass - from using the greatsword when he would use monk weapons otherwise, unless he's really needing to use Martial Arts's bonus action attack rather than spending ki on Flurry of Blows. Monk weapons do very little if they already have better damage types than the monk's martial arts die. If you really want to use Martial Arts's bonus action unarmed strike, you can even use the greatsword for one attack, then (after level 5) make an unarmed strike as your second attack, and then bonus action for martial arts. If you're spending ki for flurry of blows, you merely need to have made an attack action; it isn't picky about with what weapon.

[Catullus64]

It's worth noting that if you can get proficiency with the greatsword by other means, nothing stops your monk - of any subclass - from using the greatsword when he would use monk weapons otherwise, unless he's really needing to use Martial Arts's bonus action attack rather than spending ki on Flurry of Blows. Monk weapons do very little if they already have better damage types than the monk's martial arts die. If you really want to use Martial Arts's bonus action unarmed strike, you can even use the greatsword for one attack, then (after level 5) make an unarmed strike as your second attack, and then bonus action for martial arts. If you're spending ki for flurry of blows, you merely need to have made an attack action; it isn't picky about with what weapon.

Well, locking yourself out of Martial Arts and having to invest in Strength rather than Dexterity as a Monk doesn't seem like a recipe for great success. It also matters for the Kensei specifically, for whom their Kensei weapons are a key part of their subclass. But my complaint wasn't really about Monks or that subclass, they were just my primary points of evidence about a design choice that seems weirdly dogmatic.

[Gurgeh]

It's 5e's take on Power Attack and Cleave. It was always going to be tied to strength.

[Catullus64]

It's 5e's take on Power Attack and Cleave. It was always going to be tied to strength.

But those come from an edition when, by default, all melee was based on Strength; Weapon Finesse didn't even apply to damage. 5e has definitely taken big strides towards all-Dex melee being a thing, I just wonder why they drew this particular line in the sand.

[strangebloke]

There's obviously no magical rule that says that the devs couldn't support a dexterity based heavy weapon character, but that doesn't mean they should have included one.

If anything I'd argue that there are too many ways to increase damage without strength.

[Segev]

Well, locking yourself out of Martial Arts and having to invest in Strength rather than Dexterity as a Monk doesn't seem like a recipe for great success. It also matters for the Kensei specifically, for whom their Kensei weapons are a key part of their subclass. But my complaint wasn't really about Monks or that subclass, they were just my primary points of evidence about a design choice that seems weirdly dogmatic.

My point is more that you don't have to give up on martial arts. You can attack with the great sword than than unarmed strike, then use martial arts.

that does mean needing strength, though, yes.

[Catullus64]

There's obviously no magical rule that says that the devs couldn't support a dexterity based heavy weapon character, but that doesn't mean they should have included one.

If anything I'd argue that there are too many ways to increase damage without strength.

Well could you, please? Argue, I mean. I don't quite understand the nature of your concern about there somehow being "too many" ways to do non-Strength damage. Too many for what?

Although while we're on the general subject, I am similarly disappointed that there's still no officially-supported Strength archery.

[Zevox]

Seems like an obvious thematic choice to me. Big, heavy weapons intuitively make the most sense being swung around by very strong individuals, and being difficult or impossible to use without great strength. Hence why there's no such thing as a weapon with both the heavy and finesse properties to begin with.

Frankly, I don't even think Great Weapon Master is anything except incidental to the decision to not let those abilities work with heavy weapons (because it happens to be about giving you bonuses with those big, heavy weapons). They're simply maintaining that theme that you need strength to use those kind of weapons in general, because the idea of a weak but dextrous character swinging around a greatsword or other such weapons effectively seems silly.

(Note, I am not arguing whether this is realistic - I honestly don't know whether it is. Only that it makes the most intuitive sense at first glance, and seems like a theme I'd expect the devs probably want to stick to.)

[Quietus]

Well could you, please? Argue, I mean. I don't quite understand the nature of your concern about there somehow being "too many" ways to do non-Strength damage. Too many for what?

Although while we're on the general subject, I am similarly disappointed that there's still no officially-supported Strength archery.

This is just thrown weapons.

[Mastikator]

I don't think there's any rule against dexterity and GWM. It just so happens that there are no weapons that are both heavy and finesse. The reason I think this is because of the Hexblade, which can use Charisma with GWM. If Charisma + GWM makes sense then dex would too. You just have to find a weapon that is both finesse and heavy, or a class that can use dex on non-finesse melee weapons.

[strangebloke]

Well could you, please? Argue, I mean. I don't quite understand the nature of your concern about there somehow being "too many" ways to do non-Strength damage. Too many for what?

Although while we're on the general subject, I am similarly disappointed that there's still no officially-supported Strength archery.

Dexterity confers a lot of advantages currently, not least of which is access to far far better ranged options. Initiative, a more relevant save, and WAY better access to stealth. For contrast, strength builds confer


better AC with moderate starting strength compared to light armor builds (but not really for medium armor builds)
+1 max AC (unless they have mage armor)
(slightly) better melee damage


Its pretty much universally agreed that strength and by extension heavy armor builds are weaker than their dexterity based counterparts. Dexterity builds and Charisma builds are the best damage dealing builds in the game, while also having more general utility. Strength remains a niche choice for like, specifically clerics and maybe paladins, and otherwise its strictly worse.

I don't think the solution here is giving STR character powerful ranged options because that's just 'fixing' the issue by making build choices matter less.

[Catullus64]

Dexterity confers a lot of advantages currently, not least of which is access to far far better ranged options. Initiative, a more relevant save, and WAY better access to stealth. For contrast, strength builds confer


better AC with moderate starting strength compared to light armor builds (but not really for medium armor builds)
+1 max AC (unless they have mage armor)
(slightly) better melee damage


It's pretty much universally agreed that strength and by extension heavy armor builds are weaker than their dexterity based counterparts. Dexterity builds and Charisma builds are the best damage dealing builds in the game, while also having more general utility. Strength remains a niche choice for like, specifically clerics and maybe paladins, and otherwise its strictly worse.

I don't think the solution here is giving STR character powerful ranged options because that's just 'fixing' the issue by making build choices matter less.

You'll pardon, I hope, my reflexive skepticism at some of the phrases you employ here.

"It's pretty much universally agreed." Almost always a hasty judgment, and incorrect here, I think. The optimization perspectives you cite are not even close to all of the players of the game. Even people like me, who agree with the judgement that, on the whole, Dexterity-focused characters have more going on, don't think that disparity amounts to a significant divide that renders Strength-focused characters "niche." What data we have on how widely played different classes are (which, in fairness, is not airtight info) suggests this not to be the case.

"Strictly worse" is a phrase most at home in talking about card games with rigid systems of interaction; I'm pretty sure it actually emerged from M:TG parlance. Its use in a discussion of a game as open-ended and flexible as D&D seems suspect.

All of these quibbles of mine amount to this: Whatever gap may already exist between Dexterity-based and Strength-based characters, I don't think it's sufficiently obvious or severe enough that opening up the DEX+GWM combo would significantly throw off that balance, hence I don't think that's the primary motive behind the developers seemingly intending to keep it locked off.

Also, I think you misconstrued my comment about Strength Archery. It wasn't a proposed "solution" to anything, except the lack of support for what I consider a cool concept (just like DEX+GWM).

[Ashe]

Great Weapon Master is not the linchpin of people wanting to play Strength builds (I hope).

I've got some bad news.

[Segev]

For whatever it's worth, Strength is essential to a grapple-based build.

[strangebloke]

You'll pardon, I hope, my reflexive skepticism at some of the phrases you employ here.

"It's pretty much universally agreed." Almost always a hasty judgment, and incorrect here, I think. The optimization perspectives you cite are not even close to all of the players of the game. Even people like me, who agree with the judgement that, on the whole, Dexterity-focused characters have more going on, don't think that disparity amounts to a significant divide that renders Strength-focused characters "niche." What data we have on how widely played different classes are (which, in fairness, is not airtight info) suggests this not to be the case.

"Strictly worse" is a phrase most at home in talking about card games with rigid systems of interaction; I'm pretty sure it actually emerged from M:TG parlance. Its use in a discussion of a game as open-ended and flexible as D&D seems suspect.

All of these quibbles of mine amount to this: Whatever gap may already exist between Dexterity-based and Strength-based characters, I don't think it's sufficiently obvious or severe enough that opening up the DEX+GWM combo would significantly throw off that balance, hence I don't think that's the primary motive behind the developers seemingly intending to keep it locked off.

Also, I think you misconstrued my comment about Strength Archery. It wasn't a proposed "solution" to anything, except the lack of support for what I consider a cool concept (just like DEX+GWM).

*sigh*

Look. I don't use the phrase "generally-agreed-upon" lightly, nor do I use the phrase "strictly worse" lightly. But we've had this discussion on this forum a million times. The downsides to playing a STR-based character are significant. You can't fight effectively at range so if a flameskull is cackling and throwing fireballs at you from 60 feet you need to have significant resources invested into moving you in range. You can't use stealth effectively so the party may just leave you behind completely for the first part of a given mission. Strength's only benefits are the ones I outlined, and a marginal advantage on athletics checks which is relevant... in basically just grappling and a few low level situations. You can sit there and say that there's no consensus, that I'm making crap up, but I don't really care. I'm not interested in rehashing what is at this point an incredibly tiresome argument.

Yes, people play classes that traditionally rely upon strength. But that doesn't mean anything. People play champion fighters! Generally speaking most players pick their class because of thematic reasons. They want to be Arnie or The Mountain or Boromir, and they're not going to shy away from it because of some silly consideration like "its almost strictly worse."

But here's the thing: Players may not care about optimization when they build a character, but they do care when that flameskull is overhead and they can't do anything about it. They do care when they get left behind on the stealth mission (or when they bungle the stealth mission for everyone else). They do want to have moments where they can shine, do things that nobody else can do, and as I already outlined, those moments are rare.

Is GWM the only payoff for paying a strength character? No. But its on a very short list and I'm inherently skeptical that allowing people to use it without strength is particularly "cool."

If you want to make a fast-moving GWM warrior with high wis, play a ranger.

[quindraco]

It seems like it's an explicit design goal for the Great Weapon Master feat not to be useable with Dexterity.

Yes, agreed.


This seems to me like the reason why the Kensei Monk, and later the Dedicated Weapon alternate class feature, specifically call out the lack of the Heavy property.

No, Kenseis have access to a specific Heavy weapon: the longbow (for no clear reason, not the heavy crossbow). I promise you, the real intent of the Monk ban on Heavy weapons is because Martial Arts functionally adds the Light keyword to any Monk weapon you wield (since you can functionally engage in two weapon fighting, with your other light weapon as your unarmed strikes), and WOTC has an unstated ban on any weapon having the Heavy and Light properties simultaneously. There's no way WOTC is doing this specifically to lock Monks out of GWM - they never pay that close attention to design. Heck, they've openly admitted they absolutely never stop to consider multiclassing, and that has a bigger design impact than feats (both of which are wildly popular optional rules).


The reason why this reads as intent to me is simply that I can't think of much mechanical consequence to this restriction other than locking out GWM + Dexterity. This is particularly noticeable since other attack-and-damage-roll-ability-substitution features don't have this restriction (the Hexblade and the Battlesmith, though there may be others I'm forgetting, and the Hexblade takes a weird route to it.)

WOTC focuses on flavor more than balance - e.g. they've openly admitted Druids avoid metal armor for entirely flavor reasons. If they were focused more on balance, Martial Arts would legit grant the Finesse property (enabling Monk/Rogue synergy), and we'd be talking about GWM + Sneak Attack. You can bet your bottom dollar the real intent here is entirely based on which weapons WOTC considers flavorful for a Monk (which is why Darts aren't Monk weapons - WOTC doesn't watch much anime, apparently).


So... why? One refrain I can already hear ringing is "Dexterity builds are already super strong; they shouldn't get access to one of Strength-melee's best toys." But if you think that Strength builds are inferior to Dex builds, I hardly think that restricting access to a pretty-good-but-vastly-overrated feat really helps fix that; the advantage of Dexterity builds is not in damage output, but in how useful Dexterity is for a bunch of other stuff outside of attack and damage. Conversely, if you don't think the imbalance is that severe, access to that feat doesn't seem likely to upset things. Great Weapon Master is not the linchpin of people wanting to play Strength builds (I hope).

What are you proposing? Note that GWM's second bullet is so wildly broken right now absolutely no-one actually plays with it (in fact, your post is premised on not playing with it RAW), since it works with any heavy weapon. A Kensei who chooses longbow and then uses the longbow to make melee attacks can, RAW, apply GWM's second bullet to it - in fact, they can apply GWM and SS to it (GWM's second bullet is only melee attacks but SS's third bullet is not only ranged attacks). This is banned in practice by every DM ever because it's overpowered as hell, but WOTC's never errataed it or anything. GWM's first bullet has poorly written text that doesn't get any focus because 5E has such bad rules for throwing weapons, but note the first bullet is mechanically and thematically flawed as well: RAW, you can satisfy the trigger with a ranged attack with a melee weapon you're not proficient with, and you won't even have a problem - you can take the bonus action attack with a different weapon from the triggering weapon. This is clearly overall not WOTC's actual intent. They're really bad at writing rules.

If GWM's second bullet worked with every melee weapon, the primary use-case for it would be two weapon fighting (which might be a good thing, since right now two weapon fighting cripples your DPR for no clear reason), and it would also work with natural weapons, including a Dhampir bite and a Beast Barbarian's claws. If it worked with every melee weapon wielded in two hands, that might be up your alley for monks, since it could be used with any two-handed non-heavy melee weapon (which is just greatclubs, which are a waste of everyone's time, but I want to be explicit about them) and any versatile melee weapon (since none of them are heavy). Monks are the only real use-case in the game for versatile weapons - everyone else who uses them is using them for other reasons - so this would hit the nail you're trying to hit pretty accurately.


Some might also make an appeal to theme, since Great Weapon Master expressly deals with the great heft and momentum of a weapon, and therefore tying that in with nimbleness and speed might seem incongruous. I may be more inclined to listen on that score, but would need to hear the argument more convincingly wielded than I'm imagining it in my head.

So, people who A). Agree that this non-synergy is a deliberate design principle, and B). Agree with that principle, what's your reasoning?

This thread is motivated by intellectual questions about game design, and not at all motivated by bitterness over the loss of the greatsword-wielding Kensei murder machine I got to play when that subclass made its first UA debut. What do you mean, that first iteration was a kludgy mess?

Like I said, I don't give WOTC any credit for intentional design, and hence I don't agree with them on anything here. However, I will point out that GWM is worse than Sharpshooter: ignoring half cover, three-quarters cover, and long range is much better than bonus action attacks on a crit. This is particularly absurd because a) SS is Dex-based and that makes it better from the jump, and b) SS is ranged-based and that makes it better from the jump. If your goal is to buff GWM instead of nerfing SS, here's how you reword GWM to bring it up to par with SS; I recommend renaming it for flavor reasons, and note that I've deliberately redone it to make it work with unarmed strikes:


Your melee weapon attacks don't have disadvantage against Prone targets for being more than 5 feet away, and have advantage against Prone targets even if more than 5 feet away.
Your melee weapon attacks ignore half cover and three-quarters cover.
Before you make a melee weapon attack roll that includes your proficiency bonus, you can choose to take a -5 penalty to the attack roll. If the attack hits, you add +10 to the attack's damage.
On your turn, when you score a critical hit with a melee weapon attack or knock a creature Prone with one, you can make one melee weapon attack with the same weapon (or unarmed strike, if the attack was made with an unarmed strike) as a bonus action.


For the final bullet, I reworded it to remove what I regard as crippling rules problems with it, but I kept it in to help GWM keep up with SS still being a better feat on a fundamental level because of how much better ranged attacks are than melee attacks, in general.

This fundamentally spikes the feat's overall impact on DPR; unless you can make at least 4 attacks in a turn without touching your bonus action (or if you can reliably knock your target prone), two-weapon fighting will always win out, because of the "extra" +10 swing (this is why SS is always paired with CBE and GWM is always paired with PAM). Any conditions in which you assume an OA count the OA as one of these, of course. If you want to avoid this in the way that GWM as written tries to, explicitly mandate two-handed wielding:


Your melee weapon attacks don't have disadvantage against Prone targets for being more than 5 feet away, and have advantage against Prone targets even if more than 5 feet away.
Your melee weapon attacks ignore half cover and three-quarters cover.
Before you make a melee weapon attack with a weapon you are proficient with and are wielding in two hands, you can choose to take a -5 penalty to the attack roll. If the attack hits, you add +10 to the attack's damage.
On your turn, when you score a critical hit with a melee weapon attack or knock a creature Prone with one, you can make one melee weapon attack with the same weapon as a bonus action.


SS doesn't need to do this because twf is melee-only. The first feat I listed here provides better DPR than SS does, in general, due to twf interactions - use it if you want this to be the case, to incentivize melee. The second doesn't, other than that Greatswords and Mauls out-DPR muskets by 0.5. Both versions work fine for monks - the latter version simply requires a spear or quarterstaff, or if you have proficiency any of several ways, a longsword, battleaxe, or warhammer.

Also bear in mind that while it feels good to buff monks, every time you reduce the relative benefits of Strength, Barbarians suffer. You may want to buff Barbarians as well while implementing a change like this - for example, I am a long-time fan of letting Barbarian abilities work with any Strength-based attack with a melee weapon (unlocking thrown weapons) or even any Strength-based weapon attack (unlocking the same thrown weapons, plus Darts).

[Catullus64]

*sigh*

Look. I don't use the phrase "generally-agreed-upon" lightly, nor do I use the phrase "strictly worse" lightly. But we've had this discussion on this forum a million times. The downsides to playing a STR-based character are significant. You can't fight effectively at range so if a flameskull is cackling and throwing fireballs at you from 60 feet you need to have significant resources invested into moving you in range. You can't use stealth effectively so the party may just leave you behind completely for the first part of a given mission. Strength's only benefits are the ones I outlined, and a marginal advantage on athletics checks which is relevant... in basically just grappling and a few low level situations. You can sit there and say that there's no consensus, that I'm making crap up, but I don't really care. I'm not interested in rehashing what is at this point an incredibly tiresome argument.

Yes, people play classes that traditionally rely upon strength. But that doesn't mean anything. People play champion fighters! Generally speaking most players pick their class because of thematic reasons. They want to be Arnie or The Mountain or Boromir, and they're not going to shy away from it because of some silly consideration like "its almost strictly worse."

But here's the thing: Players may not care about optimization when they build a character, but they do care when that flameskull is overhead and they can't do anything about it. They do care when they get left behind on the stealth mission (or when they bungle the stealth mission for everyone else). They do want to have moments where they can shine, do things that nobody else can do, and as I already outlined, those moments are rare.

Is GWM the only payoff for paying a strength character? No. But its on a very short list and I'm inherently skeptical that allowing people to use it without strength is particularly "cool."

If you want to make a fast-moving GWM warrior with high wis, play a ranger.

I'm sorry that my pushing on this point irritates you. I'm aware that I'm not saying anything particularly new. Discussion forums don't exactly work like case law, where you simply consult the previous times that the argument has been had and abide by the precedent. The same conversation can be had a million times and still not reach a satisfactory conclusion, but that doesn't make it not worth having. All the same, my reply to you was perhaps a bit discourteous.

Fortunately in this case, the well-trodden debate over the relative merits of Strength vs. Dexterity isn't my primary interest here. Even if I were overwhelmed by your force of persuasion about why Strength is so much worse than Dexterity (again, a point I agree with overall, though not to the same degree), that wouldn't actually answer my question of:

Does this imbalance between two ability scores constitute a compelling interest in the health of the game for locking off DEX+GWM? That's the point where I remain to be convinced.

Now, someone might turn to me and say, "Why should I (hypothetical opponent of DEX+GWM) need to convince you? Shouldn't you, the person voicing a complaint, have to justify why you think things should be changed?"

Fair enough, imaginary person I just invented. Great Weapon Master is a fun feat for me, on a mechanical plane. I find the accuracy-damage tradeoff tactically engaging; I enjoy trying to read an encounter for whether or not the risk of power attacking is worth it. The bonus action attack feature is deeply satisfying when it goes off, and creates excellent moments in gameplay. Combine that with the fact that I find melee combat more dynamic and interesting in this game than ranged, and I can say it's a more enjoyable feat than its cousin, Sharpshooter.

At the same time, I like Monks and Rogues, two classes that are designed to take great advantage of a high Dexterity. They can be made viable with Strength, but it's not their primary flavor. I enjoy these classes mostly for reasons that have nothing to do with the fact that they are Dex-based, but I understand that Dex-based is the smoothest experience for playing them by a far distance.

So, yeah. Two great tastes, and I'd like for it to be made easier to taste them together. I've stated my interest in changing this design paradigm. In order to be convinced that this desire is somehow illegitimate, I'd want an argument for how allowing it would actually do some harm to someone's play experience.

[strangebloke]

At the same time, I like Monks and Rogues, two classes that are designed to take great advantage of a high Dexterity. They can be made viable with Strength, but it's not their primary flavor. I enjoy these classes mostly for reasons that have nothing to do with the fact that they are Dex-based, but I understand that Dex-based is the smoothest experience for playing them by a far distance.

So, yeah. Two great tastes, and I'd like for it to be made easier to taste them together. I've stated my interest in changing this design paradigm. In order to be convinced that this desire is somehow illegitimate, I'd want an argument for how allowing it would actually do some harm to someone's play experience.

I think its probably fine for specifically Kensei to gain access to GWM, but that's about where I'd stop.

Making too many things too stat-flexible is bad for design because it centralizes the game toward those options. You see this a lot with the hexblade for example.

[Catullus64]

I think its probably fine for specifically Kensei to gain access to GWM, but that's about where I'd stop.

Making too many things too stat-flexible is bad for design because it centralizes the game toward those options. You see this a lot with the hexblade for example.

The analogy of the Hexblade is, I think, limited. (Not wrong, mind you; even the best analogies have limits.) I consider the Hexblade Patron (and specifically, the Hex Warrior feature) a problematic design not because of how it impacts other melee classes, but because of how it affects the Warlock class itself. Pact of the Blade and its associated Invocations are there to support (albeit thinly) melee Warlocks. Hexblade takes that space as its particular province, and makes all other Bladelocks seem amateurish by comparison. If there were a patron that gave you vastly upgraded powers on a Pact of the Chain familiar, I think that would create a similar problem.

But I get the sense that's not quite what you mean when you invoke the Hexblade Patron as a cautionary example. Could you unpack for me a little what you perceive to be the harm of the Hexblade, and how you think that harm would be replicated by the proliferation of GWM? I don't want to assume your meaning.

[Eric Diaz]

Does this imbalance between two ability scores constitute a compelling interest in the health of the game for locking off DEX+GWM? That's the point where I remain to be convinced.


I don't see any balance issues there, especially compared with SS. I'd allow GWM with versatile weapons, and even a finesse longsword (katana? elven longsword?) if necessary.

Let rogues sneak attack with katanas for all I care! I don't see how this breaks the game.

[strangebloke]

The analogy of the Hexblade is, I think, limited. (Not wrong, mind you; even the best analogies have limits.) I consider the Hexblade Patron (and specifically, the Hex Warrior feature) a problematic design not because of how it impacts other melee classes, but because of how it affects the Warlock class itself. Pact of the Blade and its associated Invocations are there to support (albeit thinly) melee Warlocks. Hexblade takes that space as its particular province, and makes all other Bladelocks seem amateurish by comparison. If there were a patron that gave you vastly upgraded powers on a Pact of the Chain familiar, I think that would create a similar problem.

But I get the sense that's not quite what you mean when you invoke the Hexblade Patron as a cautionary example. Could you unpack for me a little what you perceive to be the harm of the Hexblade, and how you think that harm would be replicated by the proliferation of GWM? I don't want to assume your meaning.

The first problem you've already outlined. By making Hexblade THE bladelock subclass, it makes other builds like the fiend bladelock completely pointless (well, more pointless).
The second problem is Multiclassing. Hexblade frontloads a bunch of strong features in the early levels in order to make the concept work better, and that makes it an ideal dip, to the point that its hard to justify not dipping hexblade as a paladin or sorcerer for example.
The Front-loaded-ness also prevents it from being a very interesting class to play from level 1 to 20. Turning people into ghosts might not be weak but its, uh.... not really that interesting?
Hexblade was clearly made with mechanics in mind first, leaving us with a subclass that almost nobody runs with default fluff. When was the last time you saw a hexblade warlock who actually paid obeisance to "The Hexblade, a mythical smith who makes magic swords but is otherwise a nonentity"?


Kensei right now is kind of broken in the sense of being bad and nonfunctional if we follow tasha's rules. For this reason (and because huge swords like Odachi or the legendary monohoshizao are very on-brand for kensei) I would be fine expanding the Kensei's range to greatswords at 3rd level when the subclass comes online is fine. I also think that coming up with a different way for them to get +2 AC is a good idea.

I wouldn't be in favor of making this an option for dedicated weapon though, because frankly monks who are fixated on shadows and kung-fu shouldn't be the best greatsword masters. There's no thematic line to be drawn between open-hand monks and guys with giant swords.


I don't see any balance issues there, especially compared with SS. I'd allow GWM with versatile weapons, and even a finesse longsword (katana? elven longsword?) if necessary.

Let rogues sneak attack with katanas for all I care! I don't see how this breaks the game.

I don't think that SS is a good balance point. Rather, I think SS is one of the single most imbalanced things in the game, and the fact that people defend it purely on the basis of "its the only way for martials to really have a solid niche" kind of tells you everything you need to know about martials in 5e.

[Eric Diaz]

I don't think that SS is a good balance point. Rather, I think SS is one of the single most imbalanced things in the game, and the fact that people defend it purely on the basis of "its the only way for martials to really have a solid niche" kind of tells you everything you need to know about martials in 5e.

Well, I agree FWIW; I'm assuming the OP want to deal with this particular issue, not "fixing" other things such as SS and martials in general.

[Catullus64]

Well, I agree FWIW; I'm assuming the OP want to deal with this particular issue, not "fixing" other things such as SS and martials in general.

Pretty much. I take the view that 5e, in most places and for most things, generally works. I seldom concern myself with "fixing" big systemic issues, which in my view don't amount to much.

[Mitchellnotes]

Seems like an obvious thematic choice to me. Big, heavy weapons intuitively make the most sense being swung around by very strong individuals, and being difficult or impossible to use without great strength. Hence why there's no such thing as a weapon with both the heavy and finesse properties to begin with.

I think this is the short answer, but the long answer may be that the designers didn't want heavy weapons to be used for sneak attacks for thematic purposes, and then when GWM came on the scene, it just so happened to fall on the opposite end of the spectrum. I think it is less the designers not wanting GWM to work with finesse weapons and more so that they didn't want sneak attacks to work with heavy weapons. Granted, they probably could have used "two handed weapons" as the line in the sand and had the same impact (off the top of my head, I can't think of any finesse two handed weapons)

The other space this ends up getting into odd spots is with small races not being able to really effectively use GWM for the same purpose.

[Ertwin]

But those come from an edition when, by default, all melee was based on Strength; Weapon Finesse didn't even apply to damage. 5e has definitely taken big strides towards all-Dex melee being a thing, I just wonder why they drew this particular line in the sand.

You answered your own question in your opening post. It's a combination of both your suggestions.

1. Yes Dex is already super strong since it applies to attacks, armour, initiative, and several useful skills. I don't think you can fairly dismiss that out of hand.
2. Dexterity based attacks are almost exclusively piercing attacks with light weapons, where the weapon's weight is not leveraged to do damage. This is also true with the whip, despite it being slashing, the damage is done by the whip traveling quickly rather than any amount of force applied.

With ranged weapons, dexterity is representing aim, that's why thrown weapons require strength (really the bows should require strength too, but that's a different thread)

3. Great weapon master applies to the application of force, which is strength. Dexterity is precision, and nimbleness.

[Zalabim]

So I think the reason the Kensei in particular doesn't get to use Heavy weapons is because there's already classes that focus on heavy two-handed melee weapons and there otherwise is no class that wants to use a versatile weapon in two hands. If you want to be an unarmored warrior wrecking **** with a glaive, barbarian already works. The Kensei should be adding a new option.

Then the feat issue I want to point out is that I don't think every class is expected to take feats. Feats can be taken by any character, but they're probably designed specifically for a particular character first. Then the benefits are adjusted to be a little more broadly applicable, to support other classes that do choose the feat. I don't think there's an effort to prevent monks from benefiting from feats, but they're also not one of the classes that is considered for whether they can use feats. So if a feat is not good for a monk, that's not a problem to WotC. Likewise if an option for a monk only makes sense if you take a feat (like Heavy Crossbow Kensei), then an exception doesn't need to be made to include it.

Finally, multiclassing. They absolutely do consider multiclassing, just not when they release the UA-test versions. Cleaning up wording for multiclassing comes later in development. There's a lot of class features that are specifically written so they do or do not synergize with other classes.

[DwarfFighter]

5e has definitely taken big strides towards all-Dex melee being a thing, I just wonder why they drew this particular line in the sand.

There is no line drawn. Heavy and Finesse are not mutually exclusive. That there are no weapons that use both is, in theory, incidental. In practice there are no weapons in the basic rules that fit both traits.

Of you can come up with an homebrew example, I'd be happy to see it.

[Ertwin]

There is no line drawn. Heavy and Finesse are not mutually exclusive. That there are no weapons that use both is, in theory, incidental. In practice there are no weapons in the basic rules that fit both traits.

Of you can come up with an homebrew example, I'd be happy to see it.

I'd argue that they are mutually exclusive. Heavy weapons rely on their weight and the application of force to slash or crush their targets. That is entirely contradictory to how finesse weapons are used, where jabs and stabs are used, and the weight of the weapon isn't leveraged to do more damage.

[Mastikator]

I'd argue that they are mutually exclusive. Heavy weapons rely on their weight and the application of force to slash or crush their targets. That is entirely contradictory to how finesse weapons are used, where jabs and stabs are used, and the weight of the weapon isn't leveraged to do more damage.

Finesse doesn't require you to use dex. You can use your strength just fine with daggers and rapiers. It just adds the option of using dex instead.

I don't think it's all that weird to be honest, a Battle Smith artificer can use both GWM and their intelligence modifier, hexblade warlock (with pact of the blade) can use charisma and GWM. Those are all magically motivated but I think there could be space for a subclass that lets you always use dex on all melee weapons you're proficient with. Even heavy ones.
Another option is a magical property that either adds finesse to a heavy weapon, or heavy to a finesse weapon. A "tungsten rapier", or a "greatsword of agility"

[JackPhoenix]

What are you proposing? Note that GWM's second bullet is so wildly broken right now absolutely no-one actually plays with it (in fact, your post is premised on not playing with it RAW), since it works with any heavy weapon. A Kensei who chooses longbow and then uses the longbow to make melee attacks can, RAW, apply GWM's second bullet to it - in fact, they can apply GWM and SS to it (GWM's second bullet is only melee attacks but SS's third bullet is not only ranged attacks).

There's no ranged weapon that allows you to use GWM. Both Heavy ranged weapons have ammunition quality, which means they are used as improvised weapons in melee. An improvised weapon isn't ranged, so you can't apply SS, and it's not heavy, so you can't apply GWM.

A Kensei who choses longbow and then uses the longbow to make melee attacks can, RAW, make non-proficient (unless he takes Tavern Brawler) attacks for 1d4+Str damage.

[FrancisBean]

There is no line drawn. Heavy and Finesse are not mutually exclusive. That there are no weapons that use both is, in theory, incidental. In practice there are no weapons in the basic rules that fit both traits.

Of you can come up with an homebrew example, I'd be happy to see it.

That's actually where my brain has been going while I read through the entire thread. I've been picturing some sort of exotic martial art weapon like the bastardized love-child of an unholy threesome of morningstar, bola, and nunchaku. The sort of weapon where, if you don't know exactly what you're doing, you'll probably kill yourself long before you could injure anybody else.

I'm picturing a trio of heavy spiked balls whirling around, but kept in dynamic balance, where small adjustments can get them to take radically different trajectories over the next few circuits. Or a lot of muscle to force them into your trajectory. Maybe with linkages like a kau sin ke rather than rope.

I'm not even going to try to stat that, but I love the thematic image. And it certainly sounds like Heavy and Finesse! And, obviously, the Thrown trait makes sense, too.

[Mastikator]

That's actually where my brain has been going while I read through the entire thread. I've been picturing some sort of exotic martial art weapon like the bastardized love-child of an unholy threesome of morningstar, bola, and nunchaku. The sort of weapon where, if you don't know exactly what you're doing, you'll probably kill yourself long before you could injure anybody else.

I'm picturing a trio of heavy spiked balls whirling around, but kept in dynamic balance, where small adjustments can get them to take radically different trajectories over the next few circuits. Or a lot of muscle to force them into your trajectory. Maybe with linkages like a kau sin ke rather than rope.

I'm not even going to try to stat that, but I love the thematic image. And it certainly sounds like Heavy and Finesse! And, obviously, the Thrown trait makes sense, too.

A flail? :smallconfused:

Yeah actually, a two handed flail is a heavy finesse weapon

[FrancisBean]

A flail? :smallconfused:

Yeah actually, a two handed flail is a heavy finesse weapon

Actually, I was picturing it without the handle, closer to a spiked bola, for the throwing option and to force keeping things in dynamic balance a little more. But it's the right direction.

[DwarfFighter]

I'd argue that they are mutually exclusive.

RAW, no.

RAI, I agree.

[langal]

Isn't GWM all about using the momentum of the weapon? It's a fighting style that only works with weapons that can generate a lot of momentum (like they weight a lot). It's not based on precision or quickness. Now I know a lot of people think Dex=Speed but that type of Speed does not mean swinging power. All your best power hitters in baseball are strong dudes. Using GWM means they would be using a really heavy bat and hitting for low averages because they are giving up timing and reaction to swing much harder. Ichiro or Ty Cobb would be your Dex hitters. Using a heavy bat and changing their stance, swinging earlier to pull the ball, etc. would hurt their average.

The power swinging/hitting style is just not a finesse based approach.

[Gtdead]

I don't think that the incompatibility of GWM and Dex is the intended design. I believe the intend was to make it unusable with weapon+shield style or Dual Wielding and the Dex incompatibility is a symptom which may or may not be balanced. After all GWM doesn't mention strength at all, which allows for the unique interaction with Hex Warrior. Technically you can homebrew a finessable great weapon and it will work with it. Also there is an interaction with guaranteed crits like Assassin 3/X which allows for a bonus action attack, that can be fairly anemic (i.e. Singleclassed Assassin) or fairly potent (i.e. Paladin 2/Sword's Bard X/Assassin 3 with upcasted shadowblade) even if it's limited.

As for the balancing question, I believe that DEX builds are strong enough by themselves to outshine GWM. To be perfectly honest, unless you are a Samurai/Battlemaster Fighter, a Vengeance Paladin or a Barbarian, there isn't much point to this feat. -5 is way too punishing, especially for classes that have riders on their attacks. It's not something I would pick on Rogue if it was applicable for example. Ranger could work past lvl 13 with Guardian of Nature perhaps but I don't see it as a worthwhile investment, especially when SS is the superior choice for powerattacking.

[Xervous]

Actually, I was picturing it without the handle, closer to a spiked bola, for the throwing option and to force keeping things in dynamic balance a little more. But it's the right direction.

Are we just reinventing the spiked chain?