Balancing Poor PHB Feats by Making Them Half Feats

[dmhelp]

Any feedback on if some of these feats would be too good (or if some of them still suck and need a further increase)?

• Half feats (except Elven Accuracy and Resilient) don't have restrictions on which abilities you add +1 to (e.g. you can take Moderately Armored with +1 charisma)
• Half feats (except Elven Accuracy and Resilient) may be picked two for one without an ability increase (e.g. you may take Moderately Armored with Weapon Master as one feat but you don't increase any of your abilities)
• Now included as half feats: Charger, Dungeon Delver, Grappler, Linguist, Martial Adept, Medium Armor Master, Savage Attacker, Skilled
• Linguist - learn 6 languages instead of 3
• Weapon Master - gives proficiency with all simple and martial weapons

Updated after discussion.

[Talyn]

Maybe Linguist can be three languages, and then +1 to INT, WIS or CHA?

[Lunali]

I don't think you should make a feat into a half feat just because it isn't often appropriate for a character to take. The change should only be made if characters are unlikely to take the feat even when it is appropriate for them. With that in mind, medium armor master and skilled are both feats that get taken when appropriate already, they just aren't usually appropriate.

[Eldariel]

I don't think you should make a feat into a half feat just because it isn't often appropriate for a character to take. The change should only be made if characters are unlikely to take the feat even when it is appropriate for them. With that in mind, medium armor master and skilled are both feats that get taken when appropriate already, they just aren't usually appropriate.

I disagree WRT Medium Armor Master. It's just generally not worth it comparatively even for characters who would be in the market for the effect: e.g. Lucky is often going to simply achieve a greater increase in tankiness as is Tough. And both of those do other stuff too when it's more useful than AC (Tough protects against save-or-X and automatic damage effects, power words and the like while Lucky does whatever you damn well please). Moderately Armored is +3 AC for characters interested in picking it and it's still a half-feat; Medium Armor Master is a full feat that's at best +2 to AC (and often not even that - you need 16 Dex and access to Half-Plate). If it gave +1 to Dex, there'd be a slightly larger number of characters who could use it potentially. It'd still be a big investment but at the very least worth considering if you have an uneven Dex and aren't an Elf.

[Pex]

I think the so called weaker feats would be taken more if you separate feat taking from costing an ASI. Let players get both, an ASI and a feat. They don't have to be gained at the same level. No doubt you'll have players take +2 ST and Great Weapon Master or +2 DX and Sharpshooter, but they would take those feats anyway. Let them. That's their fun, and there's absolutely nothing wrong with that. If they do it for every character they play forever and ever, still let them and there's absolutely nothing wrong with that. However, there are players who take Great Weapon Master for one character but not for another. There are players who would never take it. For those players separating Feats from ASI would give them the fun they crave for the lesser feats without gimping their class abilities. This will make PCs a bit more powerful overall than the standard quo if you're bothered by the standard quo enough to want to make a change at all. Whether it's too powerful mileage can vary. But ask yourself - does +2 IN and Linguist bother you just as much as +2 DX and Sharpshooter?

[Man_Over_Game]

The real-life goal of developers buffing and nerfing content is to manipulate your players into playing the game the way it was intended.

That sounds like a bad thing, but it could mean the difference of a player needing to play for 10 hours to get the best gear, or 100 hours, and implementing it correctly generally means more fun on the behalf of the player (in this example, getting 10x more time to play the game).


I've always had a huge complaint about the regularly-used feats, such as GWM, PAM, SS, CBM, Lucky, etc., as they are neither niche nor do they come with any kind of risk. They are almost a guaranteed boon that allows you to do exactly the same friggin' thing you were already going to do. As a result, they don't really add anything to the game, it's just a way to spend the chance of making your character more colorful or diverse into a very bland form of power creep.

"You could have been interesting, but instead you're powerful", and that statement just feels completely stupid. I wouldn't be so crass about it, but we do already have an option for "feat choice for generic and risk-free power creep", called an ASI.

My thought on Skilled is that it encourages a more niche choice at the expense of less people picking GWM/PAM/SS/CBE/Lucky.

That's my thought on it too: What's generic needs to be weak, and what's niche needs to be strong.

Charger is harder and less consistent than PAM, and as a result deserves to actually be more powerful. Save PAM for those who want a more general-purpose power creep, but make Charger designed for those who want to take the world "power creep" to the next level. Now they're forced into taking riskier, more tactically challenging positions in order to get the massive amount of value of a particular feat.

Personally, for my games, I like my players to mix up the battlefield, use skills, and take risks. So, were it me doing the same, everything that does more of that is now a half-feat.



The question you gotta ask yourself is, could someone still reasonably ignore Charger/Skilled/Martial Adept/Etc. even after the buff? If the answer is "Yes", you made the right call.

[KorvinStarmast]

"You could have been interesting, but instead you're powerful",

But for some players, that is what is more interesting.

[TigerT20]

But for some players, that is what is more interesting.

That's why MOG called it stupid.

[Man_Over_Game]

But for some players, that is what is more interesting.

Sure, but that doesn't change then whether or not they're taking Charger or PAM. From a single player's perspective, optimizing for "The most powerful thing" doesn't really matter what it is to you, but it's also a multiplayer game.

Someone who picks the most powerful thing is still going to do that. But making it a question of "Well, I can do Charger but it's inconsistent, or I can do PAM but it's weaker", now means that:

• He has two options to choose from, instead of one. This means that another player with similar goals to yours might pick something different, encouraging diversity across players, or even across different campaigns (you might try Build B another time).
• His powergaming strategy now adds more interactivity, color, and theme to their character and their party (where something like PAM and GWM don't encourage anything more than the same attack buffs anyone can use on the player picking those feats).

A Win/Win. It only seems like a loss because we already have a trend of the most powerful feats in the game also being incredibly generic, but I doubt that people would have any problem if it wasn't like that from the start.

Which is generally why it's much better to buff effects than nerf them, as players get really butthurt about obvious nerfs, which is really just a side effect of natural human psyche.

We consider penalties/removal as more "valuable" than gains - gaining $500 is worth less than losing $400 - but the "why" is pretty complicated. Which is why you see the Champion being more popular than the Berserker, despite the math reflecting how wrong that should be.

[Willie the Duck]

I've always had a huge complaint about the regularly-used feats, such as GWM, PAM, SS, CBM, Lucky, etc., as they are neither niche nor do they come with any kind of risk. They are almost a guaranteed boon that allows you to do exactly the same friggin' thing you were already going to do. As a result, they don't really add anything to the game, it's just a way to spend the chance of making your character more colorful or diverse into a very bland form of power creep.

I certainly dislike that there are so many clearly-best options alongside a lot of feats that will almost never get taken except for flavor reasons (or at least not until a character-build is completed or the like). I thought WotC got enough flack over 3E's 'system mastery.'

This last campaign, I have experimented with the following: The change that I made was to take the bonus-action attack off of PAM and XBE and the -5/+10 off of GWM and SS (making each a half-feat in return). The -5/+10 got turned (also changed into -prof/+2*prof) into the 'power attack' action, and anyone can take it. The bonus action attack (I chose 1d4+mods as damage for simplicity, regardless of weapon) is something any martial can do. Thus far it has eliminated those as always-taken feats. It thus far hasn't broken anything, but it is unclear if it fixed anything.

I think the so called weaker feats would be taken more if you separate feat taking from costing an ASI. Let players get both, an ASI and a feat. They don't have to be gained at the same level. No doubt you'll have players take +2 ST and Great Weapon Master or +2 DX and Sharpshooter, but they would take those feats anyway. Let them. That's their fun, and there's absolutely nothing wrong with that. If they do it for every character they play forever and ever, still let them and there's absolutely nothing wrong with that. However, there are players who take Great Weapon Master for one character but not for another. There are players who would never take it. For those players separating Feats from ASI would give them the fun they crave for the lesser feats without gimping their class abilities. This will make PCs a bit more powerful overall than the standard quo if you're bothered by the standard quo enough to want to make a change at all. Whether it's too powerful mileage can vary. But ask yourself - does +2 IN and Linguist bother you just as much as +2 DX and Sharpshooter?

There would certainly be more feat-slots available to take them. However, I think they would still almost-always be taken only after all the martials took PAM/GWM or XBE/SS or whatnot and the casters took War Caster/resilient:con, and so forth. I don't know if that's a problem or not.

As to feats along with ASIs, I generally agree, which might surprise some, given my old school preferences. Yes, I like the option of not having to use feats in the game, and would like a system that would work without them, but honestly the horse has already left the barn on that one. Fighters don't get chosen in featless games, because feats are so necessary in keeping them competitive at higher level. Saying, "yeah, these are optional" doesn't help if you clearly balanced the inter-class balance on the martials having and using feats. Personally, I don't mind having a 16 in my primary stat for a long time to pick up those combat feats, but for those who do, yeah, they should have just included and ASI along with a feat, and made games without feats their own separate thing (possibly with some of the mods that Into the Unknown did to make featless fighters competitive).

[micahaphone]

I like to think of the weaker/flavorful feats as ripe quest rewards to be handed out by the DM. Now no one is being forced to give up GWM for Charger but maybe proving yourself champion in the gladiator pits earns you some tutoring or a magic item that gives you the Charger feat.

[KorvinStarmast]

Sure, but that doesn't change then whether or not they're taking Charger or PAM. From a single player's perspective, optimizing for "The most powerful thing" doesn't really matter what it is to you, but it's also a multiplayer game.

Indeed. I play a support character on a team. I discovered as I went through my spells that nearly all of them are concentration spells. (Warlock). As I just made level 8, I am probably going to take warcaster so that my concentration is disrupeted less often. In your opinon, am I committing this "most powerful thing" crime?

Which is why you see the Champion being more popular than the Berserker, despite the math reflecting how wrong that should be.

Fix that crappy exhaustion mechanic, and you'll see a change I think. (Specifically, what removes a level of exhaustion)

[Man_Over_Game]

Indeed. I play a support character on a team. I discovered as I went through my spells that nearly all of them are concentration spells. (Warlock). As I just made level 8, I am probably going to take warcaster so that my concentration is disrupeted less often. In your opinon, am I committing this "most powerful thing" crime?

I don't think there's anything wrong with a player choosing to pick that choice. I think the problem is with the choice itself, with the game itself. Players' gonna play, and them working hard to "win", whatever that means for them, is exactly what you'd want them to do. It's how they're able to win that becomes the problem.


Fact is, as a support mage, you don't really have many options. Improve your Concentration Check, get an unrelated Utility feat, get Inspiring Leader (I guess?) or improve your stats (which generally don't directly improve support spells). Without getting into a support caster's stat niche or something unrelated, your options are:

• Improve Concentration Checks Feat #1.
• Improve Concentration Checks Feat #2.
• Improve Concentration Checks ASI
• Improve unrelated spellcasting score ASI.

Or, basically:

• Get better Concentration Checks, with 1 of 3 flavors!
• Do something else that doesn't help your support casting.

So many choices.



It's never the fault of the player, it's the fault of the game for not really allowing much different. An illusion of choice, where the only way you get to count the dozens of options available is when your decision doesn't matter.

Maybe that's a gamestyle niche that the devs weren't really expecting players to consider much towards, but "Complex Martial", or "Use Skills in Combat" kinda seem as much more broad targets that WotC definitely missed for no real good reason. We had the opportunity, but instead the standard became 5 different methods of "generic power creep" that all solve the same problems and synergize with one another (encouraging more generic playstyles).

[KorvinStarmast]

Fact is, as a support mage, you don't really have many options. Improve your Concentration Check, get an unrelated Utility feat, get Inspiring Leader (I guess?) or improve your stats (which generally don't directly improve support spells).

Yes they do. My cha is 18. (I took Res Con with vHuman feat for two reasons: prof is con saves and another point in con to an even number for a few more HD) A cha of 20 has a +5 which means it is a bit harder to save versus my web, hold person, wall of fire, banishment, sickening radiance, etc.

[*]Improve Concentration Checks Feat #1.[*]Improve Concentration Checks Feat #2.[*]Improve Concentration Checks ASI[*]Improve unrelated spellcasting score ASI.

So many choices.

I considered both Inspiring Leader (I have a good cha and our party seems to like to fight and we have no cleric) and, when Max suggested it in my warlock question thread, Defensive Duelist began to look really good.
The idea is that I'd have fewer times to be hit and thus fewer Con saves to make (not a bad plan). I ended up with a +1 dagger so having that in one hand and grabbing a wand/focus to cast with the other works out well enough.

It's never the fault of the player, it's the fault of the game for not really allowing much different. An illusion of choice, where the only way you get to count the dozens of options available is when your decision doesn't matter.

I was also tempted to take Magic Initiate so that I could get two more cantrips on top of the bunch that I already have. I have become a bit cantrip happy what with the two bonus ones from Celestial and the three bonus ones from pact of tome. Two more and a level 1 spell like Shield (once per day) would likely fit my scheme ... or I grab bless, Toll the Dead, and maybe one other cleric cantrip ... It's a might temptation, but I have chosen to be not selfish and go for things that make me a better support.

In that respect is it really the game's fault if it was my own choice to optimize for "how do I help the party memberts succeed?"
(Yes, I am now and again a guidance-casting fool, when it comes to skill checks and I get an idea for what someone is trying to do).

[N810]

… Crazy idea ...

Since a normal feat is worth 2 ASI
Then a half feat is worth one ASI


What if instead of taking a normal half feat (1/2 ability+asi)

you could instead take two 1/2 feats (1/2 Ability+ 1/2 ability) ?

[Pex]

I certainly dislike that there are so many clearly-best options alongside a lot of feats that will almost never get taken except for flavor reasons (or at least not until a character-build is completed or the like). I thought WotC got enough flack over 3E's 'system mastery.'

This last campaign, I have experimented with the following: The change that I made was to take the bonus-action attack off of PAM and XBE and the -5/+10 off of GWM and SS (making each a half-feat in return). The -5/+10 got turned (also changed into -prof/+2*prof) into the 'power attack' action, and anyone can take it. The bonus action attack (I chose 1d4+mods as damage for simplicity, regardless of weapon) is something any martial can do. Thus far it has eliminated those as always-taken feats. It thus far hasn't broken anything, but it is unclear if it fixed anything.



There would certainly be more feat-slots available to take them. However, I think they would still almost-always be taken only after all the martials took PAM/GWM or XBE/SS or whatnot and the casters took War Caster/resilient:con, and so forth. I don't know if that's a problem or not.

As to feats along with ASIs, I generally agree, which might surprise some, given my old school preferences. Yes, I like the option of not having to use feats in the game, and would like a system that would work without them, but honestly the horse has already left the barn on that one. Fighters don't get chosen in featless games, because feats are so necessary in keeping them competitive at higher level. Saying, "yeah, these are optional" doesn't help if you clearly balanced the inter-class balance on the martials having and using feats. Personally, I don't mind having a 16 in my primary stat for a long time to pick up those combat feats, but for those who do, yeah, they should have just included and ASI along with a feat, and made games without feats their own separate thing (possibly with some of the mods that Into the Unknown did to make featless fighters competitive).

But then what's the goal? Is it to make players take Linguist or Skilled and not Great Weapon Master? Why should they? It's the attitude that taking Great Weapon Master or Sharp Shooter is something to be avoided that I don't like. Let the players who want them take them. That's their fun. Leave them be. Focus on why the players who would take Linguist or Skilled don't. I can understand and accept that whatever one does to make taking Linguist or Skilled more palatable doesn't inadvertently make taking Great Weapon Master or Sharp Shooter uberpowerful it ruins the game for you. I'm not married to my idea of completely separating ASI and Feats to allow everyone +2 ASI and Feat. If that it is too much for general you, ok, but people who do take Great Weapon Master or Sharp Shooter do not deserve to be punished for it.

That said I'm not saying those who nerf those Feats are punishing. I am speaking a bit facetiously. I do like idea of changing -5/+10 to -Proficiency/+2 * Proficiency. Rather, don't lament players who always take Great Weapon Master or Sharp Shooter will continue to do so. Be happy enough whatever change you make has other players take Linguist or Skilled.

[5eNeedsDarksun]

Medium Armor Master is niche, but it's not underpowered. For some characters (largely clerics) in Medium Armor who aren't going to attack physically much it's decent. It provides AC 18, 2 better while using Stealth than any other viable option. Some characters aren't ever going to get near 20 Dex and light armor for AC 17.
Yes there is some debate on this on another thread, but it's clearly good enough as is that some players are using it. Adding an ASI to it would make it OP for some characters.

[rlc]

… Crazy idea ...

Since a normal feat is worth 2 ASI
Then a half feat is worth one ASI


What if instead of taking a normal half feat (1/2 ability+asi)

you could instead take two 1/2 feats (1/2 Ability+ 1/2 ability) ?

That's what op said he started doing

[Eldariel]

Medium Armor Master is niche, but it's not underpowered. For some characters (largely clerics) in Medium Armor who aren't going to attack physically much it's decent. It provides AC 18, 2 better while using Stealth than any other viable option. Some characters aren't ever going to get near 20 Dex and light armor for AC 17.
Yes there is some debate on this on another thread, but it's clearly good enough as is that some players are using it. Adding an ASI to it would make it OP for some characters.

Moderately Armored is +3 AC and +1 Ability Score on some characters. It's still not an autopick even on those (Rogue, Bard, Bladesinger, Ranger, etc.). If +3 AC straight-up plus half-ASI isn't an autopick, +2 AC and half-feat would never be as well. Fact is, feats are incredibly expensive and you have to deal with not taking Alert or Lucky or Res:X every time you take a feat. So it has to be better than those options, or at least close enough to be competitive. In that light, +2 AC (or +1 for light armor types with 20 Dex) and half-ASI would still be far from autotaking the feat even if they were in the market for that effect.

[x3n0n]

Moderately Armored is +3 AC and +1 Ability Score on some characters. It's still not an autopick even on those (Rogue, Bard, Bladesinger, Ranger, etc.). If +3 AC straight-up plus half-ASI isn't an autopick, +2 AC and half-feat would never be as well. Fact is, feats are incredibly expensive and you have to deal with not taking Alert or Lucky or Res:X every time you take a feat. So it has to be better than those options, or at least close enough to be competitive. In that light, +2 AC (or +1 for light armor types with 20 Dex) and half-ASI would still be far from autotaking the feat even if they were in the market for that effect.

I agree with the general point highlighted in bold and its application to Medium Armor Master in specific.

Just a nit: for Dex-primary characters (like the ones you mentioned above), Moderately Armored can offer a significant short-term AC bump, but many of them are going to get to Dex 20, at which point studded leather wins, eventually degrading the feat to just a half-ASI. That amplifies your bolded point: I would feel bad "wasting" a precious ASI on something that will lose value as a result of decisions I expect to make later.

For Dex-tertiary characters (like casters with light armor proficiency), I feel that Moderately Armored is underrated in general. I know it wasn't even on my radar as being worthwhile until I saw some of LudicSavant's effective builds.

[Willie the Duck]

But then what's the goal? Is it to make players take Linguist or Skilled and not Great Weapon Master? Why should they? It's the attitude that taking Great Weapon Master or Sharp Shooter is something to be avoided that I don't like.

The goal (my goal) is to make there not be always-taken feats. I don't know if there's any one real 'purpose' to feats as a mechanical item, but the closest I can figure is "optional, modular rules 'feature' (like 'class feature' or 'racial feature,' but non-specific) that a player can take for their character to fit a specific concept." That seems to break down if feats that are always taken or never taken. If every fighter needs* to take GWM or SS (for the -5/+10) to keep up at high levels, why not just give them the -5/+10 (after all, we're already talking about adjusting power levels, if we're suggesting getting ASIs and feats) and save the feat concept for things that are genuinely optional. Those people that really want a sniper character conception to take my new half-feat Sharpshooter for the cover-bonus-elimination and no-long-range-penalty, but not feel required to if they don't (they can instead take Skilled or Linguist if it fits their character concept better, without feeling like they've utterly hamstrung themselves).
*and yes, this is not strictly true, cue cavalcade of exceptions.

Let the players who want them take them. That's their fun.

That is literally my point. Let the people that want to take the conceptual feat of sharp shooter or great weapon master do so, without everyone without said interest do something else with their feats, without feeling that they've killed the long term viability of their character.

Focus on why the players who would take Linguist or Skilled don't.

It is my supposition that they don't because they feel required to take PAM/GWM/SS/XBE to keep up.

I can understand and accept that whatever one does to make taking Linguist or Skilled more palatable doesn't inadvertently make taking Great Weapon Master or Sharp Shooter uberpowerful it ruins the game for you.

I do not follow. Can you explain your meaning? Nothing ruins the game for me. I am suggesting feats to make them relatively similar in desirability, nothing more or less. I'm not sure what you've read into my statements, but they seem to be miles away from what I think I said.

I'm not married to my idea of completely separating ASI and Feats to allow everyone +2 ASI and Feat. If that it is too much for general you, ok, but people who do take Great Weapon Master or Sharp Shooter do not deserve to be punished for it.

Good lord, I am not punishing anyone. I am giving every martial a boost, and compensating those who used to get it as part of a feat choice by turning their feat into a half-feat (and thus +1 to a stat). How is that not beneficent?

[Man_Over_Game]

Good lord, I am not punishing anyone. I am giving every martial a boost, and compensating those who used to get it as part of a feat choice by turning their feat into a half-feat (and thus +1 to a stat). How is that not beneficent?

I think some people made the mistake that, when we said "Balance", they heard "Nerf".

There are two sides to a scale, guys. Buffing the Champion doesn't make the Battlemaster any worse, does it?

[N810]

That's what op said he started doing

Kind of, But I am suggesting expanding the selection to all half feats.

[Man_Over_Game]

Kind of, But I am suggesting expanding the selection to all half feats.

That is a pretty strong buff to half-feats. Not that I mind, I find them generally lackluster and picked last over "full feats", I just think that it will change how the meta at a table works (depending on what's considered a half-feat at your table).

For example, you might see someone take Actor and Linguist at your table with the same feat combo. Most of the combat-specific feats are full-feats, so it's a direct buff for using feats for utility.

Personally, I think it's a great change. Feats, to me, should be used for adding color and theme to a character, while ASIs (and generic power buffs, like PAM) should be used for those that want combat efficiency. Most half-feats fall under that first category, while the +1 point falls in the second, and I don't really see a problem with it considering that those who want the combat bonus can still get it. This would mean that those who don't want it now aren't forced to.

[heavyfuel]

I think this is actually a fine idea.

Some feats I'd add to the pile are Mage Slayer (which is completely worthless) by allowing a +1 to any score, and - pause for effect - Great Weapon Master, allowing +1 to Str.

GWM is actually a pretty bad feat when compared with +2 Str. The -5/+10 is only barely worth it over Dueling style if you have advantage, and the Cleaving aspect is nice, but it eats your Bonus Action and it requires you to be outnumbered, so not super worth it either.

What I do with Dual Wielder is that I always allow non-light weapons in one hand, and Dual Wielder allows them in both hands and is a half-feat for +1 Str (no +1 to Dex)

[Man_Over_Game]

I think this is actually a fine idea.GWM is actually a pretty bad feat when compared with +2 Str. The -5/+10 is only barely worth it over Dueling style if you have advantage, and the Cleaving aspect is nice, but it eats your Bonus Action and it requires you to be outnumbered, so not super worth it either.

GWM, on average, adds about +2 damage per attack the -5/+10 is applied to, and with Advantage that ramps up to +5.

This is based on a character with a normal attack damage of 10, and needing a 7 or more to hit. The higher roll you need to hit, or the more damage you deal per attack, the less value GWM gives you. This is why Sharpshooter's -5/+10 is terrible on a Rogue, since their base damage is already so high (and they're risking that value by increasing their chance to miss).

If you need about an 11 to hit, GWM/SS is about on-par with a normal attack.

[Ovarwa]

Hi,

If you're turning some Feats into Half-Feats, I recommend also allowing two of these lesser feats to be taken together, rather than just one with a +1 stat increase.

Options then become:

Normal Stat Increase
Normal Good Feat
Marginal Feat with +1 Stat Increase
2 Marginal Feats

The reason for this is to promote flavorful feat use. A character in need of a 20 will go for full ASIs until 20, and then look for other things to do. At that point, all those flavorful but lesser feats that come with an unneeded stat boost are still not that attractive. Also unattractive is reaching 20 the slow way, with only half-feats.

At level 12, a character looks the same whether he did Stat+2/Stat+2/DoubleFeat or Stat+2/Feat+Stat/Feat+Stat.

Anyway,

Ken

[heavyfuel]

GWM, on average, adds about +2 damage per attack the -5/+10 is applied to, and with Advantage that ramps up to +5.

This is based on a character with a normal attack damage of 10, and needing a 7 or more to hit. The higher roll you need to hit, or the more damage you deal per attack, the less value GWM gives you. This is why Sharpshooter's -5/+10 is terrible on a Rogue, since their base damage is already so high (and they're risking that value by increasing their chance to miss).

If you need about an 11 to hit, GWM/SS is about on-par with a normal attack.

I just made some calculations. A level 4 Fighter with 16 Str, a Greataxe, GWF style, and GWM vs a level 4 Fighter with 18 Str, a Greataxe and GWF style.

Both trying to hit AC 16.

Fighter 1's DPR is 5.9 normally, 5.7 using GWM. Lower than regular attacking.
Fighter 2's DPR is 7.

If they both have advantage, then it is as such:

Fighter 1's DPR is 8 normally, and 9.7 using GWM.
Fighter 2's DPR is 9.3

As such, GWM is only worth it from a DPR perspective if you can have advantage on about 70% of attacks, which unlikely, to say the least. Barbarians can get advantage reliably, but it does come with a considerable cost and is further offsef by the fact that they don't get to apply Rage damage to attacks they miss due to GWM.

[Willie the Duck]

The strategic logic of GWM is to make getting advantage (or a plus to hit) not be uncommon. Samurai, darkness/devil's sight hexblades, battlemasters with precise maneuver, archery fighting style if we expand the discussion to Sharpshooter as well. Or, for that matter, having a caster in the party who knows bless or faerie fire. Yes yes that is bringing another character into the equation, but the point stands, if you have such a party member, the GWM/SS character has the ability to more-greatly capitalize upon the benefits they offer.

Yes, in isolation GWM is not everything and a bag of chips, but things rarely exist in isolation.

[Aimeryan]

I just made some calculations. A level 4 Fighter with 16 Str, a Greataxe, GWF style, and GWM vs a level 4 Fighter with 18 Str, a Greataxe and GWF style.

Both trying to hit AC 16.

Fighter 1's DPR is 5.9 normally, 5.7 using GWM. Lower than regular attacking.
Fighter 2's DPR is 7.

If they both have advantage, then it is as such:

Fighter 1's DPR is 8 normally, and 9.7 using GWM.
Fighter 2's DPR is 9.3

As such, GWM is only worth it from a DPR perspective if you can have advantage on about 70% of attacks, which unlikely, to say the least. Barbarians can get advantage reliably, but it does come with a considerable cost and is further offsef by the fact that they don't get to apply Rage damage to attacks they miss due to GWM.

Several points, here;

1. You have taken the worse level for GWM to compare against, here; one more level would get an extra +1 to hit (Proficiency), another level gets another ASI for again another +1 to hit. This is important because the chance to hit is what influences the strength of GWM.
2. You have chosen the worse Fighting Style for GWM to compare against, here; GWF increases average damage, while another Fighting Style, like Defence, would not. Further to this, you chose the Greataxe (two chances for GWF) rather than the Greatsword or other 2H weapon.
3. You have chosen the near worse AC for GWM to compare against, here; AC 16 is reached by a bare few monsters in the SRD at CR4 - the mean is under 14, and a good number are around 12. See below chart, taken from here:

When this is all taken into account you can see how much your chosen variables skew the analysis. Try, instead: Level 6 (ASI + Feat vs ASI + ASI), Defence Style, AC 15 - see how that fares.