There are three feats that the vast majority of Dungeon Masters consider broken, according to this survey by Think DM.
One of them is Lucky, the only feat to get banned on my table and one which I discussed previously on this blog (and which in turn generated scores of conflicting comments, with many people rushing to its defense. I’ll let you read their reasons yourselves). Another is Sharp Shooter, which perhaps I’ll talk about another time. The third, and today’s topic, is Great Weapon Master.
It’s an interesting feat for sure… the Player’s Handbook states:
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:
- On your turn, when you score a critical hit with a melee weapon or reduce a creature to 0 hit points with one, you can make one melee weapon attack as a bonus action.
- Before you make a melee attack with a heavy weapon that you are proficient with, you can choose to take a -5 penalty to the attack roll. If the attack hits, you add +10 to the attack’s damage.
The concept is simple. You’re a big brave brute who has sacrificed a shield (and an ability modifier to take this feat), in order to do maximum possible damage with each swing of your blade.
The first of the two benefits raises few eyebrows… critical hits are pretty rare after all, as is reducing a creature to zero hit points.
The second benefit is where the controversy comes in. An additional 10 damage is massive. If you consider a greatsword does on average 7 damage, it’s kind of crazy that there’s a feat that allows you to do another 143% of that damage as part of the same attack. Everything hinges on that -5 modifier… but in a game of low ACs and high bonuses to hit, not to mention various potential ways to get advantage on your attacks, is that enough of a penalty to justify that huge damage haul?
Ready to do serious damage…
Some Maths…
I’m not going to go super nerdy on this one… this is Hipsters & Dragons remember! I’ve got some art house movies to watch with a locally brewed IPA later tonight (ok, the next episode of Vikings, with some cheap Spanish wine…), but let’s do some simplified sums. I’m doing this on the fly… in other words I haven’t drawn a definitive conclusion about the feat myself yet. Plus the maths might be shoddy, so stay sharp.
Taking a 5th level fighter as an example, let’s see how much damage he does using this feat in three rounds of combat against an opponent with AC 15, versus how much he does without using it. Let’s say he’s got 18 Strength, and a +1 sword by now. His name is Ted.
For simplicity sake I will discount how critical hits effect the maths, and assume there is no advantage on these rolls for now.
Without the feat (5th level fighter)
Ted has a to hit bonus of +8, meaning he needs a 7 to hit AC 15 (70% chance). He does 2d6 +5 damage per hit (12) and has 6 attacks in three rounds. Therefore he does 0.7 x 12 x 6 = 50.4 damage in total.
With the feat (5th level fighter)
With his -5 penalty, Ted now has only a +3 bonus, meaning he needs a 12 to hit (45%). He does 2d6 + 15 damage per hit (22) times the 6 attacks. Therefore he does 0.45 x 22 x 6 = 59.4 damage total.
Hmmmm, it’s not too strong. Just 9 hit points difference, and if you chose to increase your Strength by 2, instead of choosing this feat, you would have dealt an extra 4.5 hit points in those six attacks. That said, I feel that the damage outputs should be closer, if not even. With outputs like this it just means you will opt to use the power nearly every time, and reliably come out on top…
Anyway let’s run the same example with a 10th level fighter, and assume this time that Ted has advantage on his attack rolls for one of the three rounds. Being 10th level, Ted now has a +2 sword.
Without the feat (10th level fighter)
Ted has to a hit bonus of +10, meaning he needs a 5 to hit AC 15 (80% chance), with advantage 96% chance. He does 2d6 + 6 (13) per hit. So in two rounds he does 0.8 x 13 x 4 = 41.6, and in the final round 0.96 x 13 x 2 = 24.96. So a grand total = 66.56 damage
With the feat (10th level fighter)
With his -5 penalty, Ted now has a hit bonus of +5, meaning he needs a 10 to hit AC 15 (55% chance), and with advantage (79.75%). He does 2d6 +16 (23) per hit. So in two rounds he does 0.55 x 23 x 4 = 50.6, and in the final round 0.7975 x 23 x 2 = 36.685. So a grand total = 87.285 damage.
Ok now I’m beginning to see what people are complaining about. That’s pretty big gains over just three rounds. This feat is definitely going to start unbalancing the game at higher levels, especially if it’s being paired with other skills like the barbarian’s reckless attack feature to get advantage more frequently.
In general I like the concept… take a risk, and get a reward… I probably wouldn’t go far to say the feat is broken, but with 5th edition’s low AC monsters and its frequently employed advantage mechanic, the risk / reward dynamic doesn’t feel quite right, and it does come over as overpowered.
Hipster’s Fix
The first part of the feat works just fine in my experience, and is especially fun when mopping up low level mooks in a fight. I am happy to leave that well alone. As for the second part, here are my suggestions…
Option 1
The simplest way to fix the problematic part of this feat would be to keep the same risk, but reduce the reward. In general the flat 10 extra damage doesn’t sit well with me. It’s too dull, and too guaranteed, and it doesn’t scale on a critical (annoying from a player’s perspective!). So I would simply substitute the +10, for 2d6 extra damage, which is a) more fun and b) a bit less powerful, ie. more balanced.
When you bear in mind that most characters using Great Weapon Master feat will also have selected the Greater Weapon Fighting Style that allows you to reroll 1s and 2s, then the average damage is actually 8.33 (not 7), so only slightly nerfed from 10. Especially as between 5 and 10% of the time (ie. when you get critical hits) you will be doing 16.67, which will bring the average up some more.
Option 2
Another way of approaching a fix, would be to say, you can only land these killer +10 blows when you have advantage on the attack roll. Only when you’ve snuck up on your opponent unseen, or they’re rolling about prone on the floor, do you have the time to put your full force into the blow and have any hope of hitting. This means you don’t get to use it so often, but when you do, it tends to pay off big.
Option 3
A third idea I had would be to simply say… whenever you have advantage on a melee attack roll with a heavy weapon you deal an extra 1d6 damage. No penalty to hit. Simple and situational, this saves on any maths and also indecision that sometimes accompanies this feat (“shall I take the penalty or not? Erm, err.”) which can eat up valuable game time.
Option 4
Just thought of a fourth option. You could make dealing the extra damage reliant on a using a bonus action as well. This seems to have some logic… such a powerful blow might take a little extra time to work up to, as you adjust your stance and wind up for the kill. This is perhaps the best way to keep GWM on the table as written, but preventing it from getting out of hand, as it would limit its use to once per turn. This same solution works well for limiting the burst damage of divine smite. Hmmm, it does however screw with the first part of the feat, whereby you get to make a free melee attack as a bonus action, if you kill / crit a creature. You could however give extra attack as a free action on those occasions.
Option 5
A simply fix you might like has arrived in the comments section.
There you go! How have you got on with Great Weapon Master feat on your table? Have you come up with a fix that works for you? Please comment below, and feel free to pull me up on my tired, probably incorrect maths, obvious things I forgot to take into consideration and anything else. Just keep it polite, as you normally do.
Oh by the way, did you check these 5e magic weapons I homebrewed? They are free for use in your game.
Cmag
This analysis is so incredibly poor that I question the validity of this article. For starters, the control (without feat) does not get the bonus damage from two strength (as you previously assumed would be taken instead of the feat.) You’re comparing an 18 str fighter without the feat to an 18 STR fighter with the feat. Of course if strength is constant the character with the feat will do more damage!
Another reason this analysis is skewed, is that the estimated party level has gone from 5 to 10, and yet the armor class of the enemy remains constant. At level 10 an AC of 15 is really low, meaning the target is either weak and below the minimum level for exp threshold, or a caster caught with their pants down. In fact the dungeon masters guide says a 10 CR monster averages 17 AC (pg 274). You need to adjust the armor class to the average of monsters likely to be faced by a level 10 party, ideally also using the average for level 5 in that test group (which was indeed 15). An appropriate AC would yield a much more reasonable comparison due to realistic defensive statistics at that level. Additionally, you’ve randomly given advantage one turn at level 10, but not at 5. This doesn’t really make sense when comparing it to the level 5 results for the reported scalability problem (which is what you’re really trying to show).
Here I’ll do it quickly:
Ted 20 STR without feat:
Ted has to a hit bonus of +11, meaning he needs a 6 to hit AC 17 (75% chance). He does 2d6 + 7 (14) per hit. So in three rounds he does 0.75 x 14 x 6 = 63.
Ted 18 Str with feat:
Ted has to a hit bonus of +5, meaning he needs a 12 to hit AC 17 (45% chance). He does 2D6 +16 (23) per hit. So in Three rounds he does .45*23*6 = 62.1. Without advantage, Ted’s expected DPR is worse at 18 Strength with the feat. With that last round advantage the numbers are in the feat’s favor, 68.25 for Ted 20 STR no feat, to 73.485 with the feat, but that is about a 8% increase in expected value, and as I’ll explain that is at an additional cost.
I also disagree with the notion that the expected outcome between this feat and taking two strength should be the same on a conceptual level, nevermind that with appropriate AC for higher levels the GWM has lower expected damage. This feat provides a higher variance but more damaging option, at the expense of two strength. Those strength points are significantly more versatile. For starters, they’re used outside of calculating damage. The additional strength provides a higher modifier on checks and skills that are STR based that this feat does not. A character who took the attribute points is also more versatile in combat options, as they can carry a single arm weapon and shield with them and switch while that would be inefficient for a GWM character. That extra 2 AC from a shield may come in handy and the one armed weapon is still benefited by +2 STR. Finally why in goodness’ name is this considered a problem when there’s Polearm Master that gives a bonus attack each round and creates 10 foot reach. It’s nuts.
The real takeaway here is that GWM is situationally better than +2 Strength when the enemy is lightly armored, incapacitated, you can consistently generate advantage, or have a to hit bonus from something like Oath of Devotion Paladin’s sacred weapon. Otherwise at appropriate enemy AC it actually scales poorly as you level (which makes sense right, the 10 damage is a flat modifier). Have you done the analysis with your proposed results? I would never take any of your propositions over 2 STR. This isn’t broken, and to be honest I don’t think it’s actually very good. Especially when STR provides better skills/saves, versatility and pole arm master is another option which gives you free attacks from level one and scales well.
duncan
Thanks for the detailed comment and analysis Cmag, even if you failed your diplomacy check with the opening gambit.
Regarding AC, tougher monsters in 5e are generally tougher because they have more HP and abilities than because they have a higher AC in my experience. Also a 10th level fighter doesn’t necessarily fight CR10 monsters, as often as simply higher numbers of lower CR monsters. Again in my experience.
I didn’t want to break down millions of examples with and without advantage etc., just wanted to glance at some situations regarding why most players think this feat is broken, as per this survey:
https://thinkdm.org/2018/01/13/feat-strength-tiers/
Your analysis shows it’s not that good, even bad, against high AC monsters. On the other hand if we do one more piece of analysis, we are going to see another picture maybe.
Imagine Ted with advantage in every round, even against a high AC.
Ted 20 STR without feat:
Ted has to a hit bonus of +11, meaning he needs a 6 to hit AC 17 (93.75% chance with advantage). He does 2d6 + 7 (14) per hit. So in three rounds he does 0.9375 x 14 x 6 = 78.75 damage.
Ted 18 Str with feat:
Ted has to a hit bonus of +5, meaning he needs a 12 to hit AC 17 (69.75% chance). He does 2D6 +16 (23) per hit. So in Three rounds he does 0.6975x23x6 = 96.255 damage.
There are a tonne of ways to get advantage in 5e. Obviously if Ted were actually a barbarian he can get it any time he wants to use the Reckless Attack ability, which pairs a bit too well with this feat IMHO. Or if Ted had a barbarian buddy who followed the totem of the wolf, he would be getting advantage pretty much every round. Or if he had a buddy with Shieldmaster feat he would also be getting advantage in many rounds.
So perhaps the conclusion is that situationally the feat can be too strong, and many players have found ways to pair it with other abilities in a way that unbalances the game. I don’t really like the idea that a feat can increase your maximum damage output by 10 times the number of attacks you have. Also the potential bonus action attack can happen nearly every round against low level foes / a horde, so the damage output rises again.
Polearm Master is a great feat. As a DM, I wouldn’t let the bonus action attack have a range of 10 feet.
Joseph
Isn’t that the point of feats? to have a specialty is very useful in certain specific situations? If the players often find themselves in extended encounters with large groups of mooks, then how is it unbalanced for them to as a team to make the decision of using feats to specifically deal with mooks instead of using class resources (especially when players shouldn’t be expected to know when they can recover said resources). In practice, unless you’re waging war against an entity, those situations are typically few and far between. Even if these situations turn out to be common, in context, it will most often result in them enduring the attrition until they fight the one in charge of the horde. Also just having a mage or two that can shut down barbarians (enchantment and illusion mages especially) or just use banish, then you can tactically cripple the party synergy for at least one turn.
I would have to criticize both your insistence that feats excelling in situations that they’re specifically designed for are unbalanced because of the aforementioned reasons. I’d also heavily criticize your need to justify how “unbalanced” the feat is by quantifying how powerful it can be. This isn’t a videogame that you’re trying to beat or win in, but a pen and paper RPG; your players are setting goals for their characters and you are setting up obstacles within the boundaries of your world’s and fairness’ sakes. If you are aware of how powerful it can be on paper, then so is WotC and they likely have provided you with the resources to respond (tweak the Deathpact angel and have them or a reskin nanny your hoard, use flying creatures, or just not use hoards) or even to make your own (have you players make the decision to have to go through choke points,and take advantage of that. In sieges, castle gates often used large cauldrons of boiling oil on the infantry that broke through the gate). unless that +10 can be used literally anywhere, on any class at no reasonably tangible cost (which is only applicable to barbarians (kinda (if you have a fighter (if they decide to dedicate their feat for you (and your enemies have low ac anyway (and you have nothing between you and your target(s) (yes I’m aware you might’ve found this condescending))))))) it’s not unbalanced, you need to adapt as a DM.
TL;DR: If you have the time and effort to try and rebalance a feat. you should probably spend the effort to figure out the limits of the feat first. Your argument implies the dm either can’t or shouldn’t do that much in the first place. What if you ARE, in fact, a novice dm? Feats as a whole are optional in the first place, and like multiclassing, you shouldn’t use those mechanics if you aren’t comfortable in your ability to adapt to player problem-solving skills (Keen mind needs you to be near literally on top of your notes at any given moment, I’d set that as the bar to what feats are capable of).
jayro
Bonus points for correct indentation
Deimos
I think two-handed weapons is the worst choice without a feat.
Deimos
The worst fighting style is for two-handed weapons. Really insignificant bonus to damage compared to sword and board at higher levels, but +2 AC from shield means a lot. There is simply zero point in taking big weapon besides roleplaying.
IMHO Great Weapon Master just balances it
Sill
There are plenty of reasons to take 2 handed weapons. They do more damage, so if you are lucky enough to have a designated healer it’s preferable in some ways. Also if you’re a paladin or cleric with sanctuary, that’s a defensive option that negates AC where you would prefer your hands not occupy defensive options but would prefer an offensive one. Your options are two handing your weapon or having two weapons.
A great sword with the great weapon fighter style is the highest damaging melee weapon when you don’t crit or use bonus actions, and a great ax has the highest damage die, which is huge when you are a champion or barbarian who crits more often and has more powerful crits. And barbarians that spam reckless attack have the highest damage with any weapon so if you wanted to be the numbers and a melee fighter, great weapon fighter barbarian with a great axe just does the most damage. Also every weapon with reach beside the whip is two handed, and if your defense is covered by clerics and you need more damage in your team, the dilemma is should i be a duel wielder with the duel wield feat and fighting style, or a great weapon fighter with great weapon fighting.
If your a barbarian, or a paladin you cant get the duel wielder fighting style and using a two-handed weapon is stronger than duel wielding even if you have the duel wielder feat.
If you are a fighter, a duel wielding fighting style falls out of favor when you get extra attacks. If you have 4 attacks in your turn with action surge at level 5, and one with your off hand, two light weapons attacking 5 times is 5d6 but a greatsword attacking 4 times is 8d6 with rerolling 1 and 2s. At the first level, the two-weapon fighting style does more damage than great weapon fighting but both the fighting style and the play style slowly favor great weapon fighting as the highest damage melee fighter and that’s not EVEN including that by going great weapon over two-weapon fighting you will be able to use your bonus action for something other than trying to approach the damage output of great weapon fighting.
So great weapon fighting is superior to two-weapon fighting for all the martial classes except for ranger and rogue. Ranger sucks and rogue won’t get the feat for improving damage output with duel wielding because they need finesse weapons. .
Two weapon fighting IS the best way for a melee character to do damage, and it is preferable to a shield if you have a defensive option like sanctuary that does not scale with AC, or if you are wearing full plate armor or are a dex constitution barbarian and a +2 to AC isn’t that much, or if your DM bestows a non-shield magic item to improve AC like a clock of protection. In such cases the damage output of great weapon fighting over sword and board improves by a much larger proportion than even a magical shield could hope to.
Also, if you aren’t using a great sword or great ax, you can still get reach on a two-handed weapon. And do some crazy shit with polearm mastery or sentinel. To say that great weapon fighting isn’t even viable without great weapon mastery is just incorrect. Reducing the damage I take by 5% without a shield to double my damage output with the right fighting style and the right weapon isn’t something to scoff at. And that’s not even with the feat that quadruples your damage output.
Sometimes, your party needs a min-maxed melee damage dealer more than you need a shield and fighting with a two handed weapon is plenty powerful even without this feat, and this feat is the highest damaging feat in the game especially with how often advantage is given to melee fighters, which is what makes this feat so much more powerful than sharpshooter, where disadvantage is given to bow users a lot.
Richard Cromwell
I tend to agree that GWM is OP and I’m puzzled by people who don’t see it. Are there any front-line fighters who don’t take it?
I think in my group I’ll limit GWM to one attack per turn at the most, same with Sharpshooter (which already has so many bonuses stacked on it it’s ridiculous). Of course, you can always just throw tougher and tougher enemies at the party to compensate, but part of the problem is that maybe not every party member is min/maxed so much. Those other players are going to feel useless in combat.
Just my two cents. Thank you for sharing your ideas!
Frederick Dale Coen
There are two front-line fighters in my campaign, and two in the campaign I play in. None of them have GWM. Duellist (fighter), Sentinel (barbarian), Magic Initiate (fighter “failed paladin), and Shield Master (fighter) are the feats that they chose. (We’re low level, so only 1 feat; most took attribute boost at level 4.) So that’s “0%” in our sample set.
Ned
There’s no point crying over an “overpowered” melee character without some consideration for how they stack up to clerics and wizards.
All you’re really doing is imposing your outrage on your players and taking away options for their characters.
duncan
I don’t think melee characters are overpowered, I think this feat is not balanced vs. other melee options, or at least it stacks too well with certain other abilities. There are also a bunch of spells that just skew the norm, and I have tackled a few of them already on the blog (Hypnotic Pattern, Banishment and Fireball), and I have a pet peeve against Divine Smite. In general 5e likes bit shiny mega damage, but I don’t… reason being if you don’t take / have those mega damage abilities a lot of other abilities / options just seem pointless. And that does more to take away player options. In fact, by reducing the power of the OP’ed stuff my goal is to give players more options, by making previously sub-optimal options as useful as previously OP’ed ones.
Donald Keith Darcy
I think the most plausible nerf would be to say that you can only do this ability once per round, like the Rogue’s sneak attack. It makes sense, as putting all of one’s weight into a single, mighty blow can leave one off-balance and out of position. You might recover quickly enough to attack again, but definitely not to put the same kind of power behind it.
duncan
Hard to argue with that! Once a fighter gets three attacks and uses action surge, it can get a bit silly and immersion breaking to imagine time slowing down enough for them to land six almighty blows in one round!
Gorkdork
Ever tried Kendo? Common misconception is that huge telegraphed attacks hit harder. It’s not true. Fast attacks can hit as hard if not harder. And if we really talk damage, speed and precision (which fighter training reflects) are most effective options.
Cenit V
Hello
I’m kind of a new player to 5e and don’t really have to much experience on rol games (also my english is not so polish)
was wondering how you get that +8 on atack roll
was looking more information about this feat. since I think it is a very good option for my Hexblade Warlock. mostly because the first benefits don’t seem so bad in conbination with the hex curse which give me crits on 19s and 20s and Thirsting Blade
recently I learn more about dual wapon figth, and now this feat . seem not as good since I think I may find more reliable damage boost on a spell like Shadow Blade and have that feat free for other many other tempting options like Defensive duelist to get a Ac bonus tht grown with my lv or many other good feats.
I think it is a powerfull option but only if you can take full advantage of it, also it have some big cost, like using both of your hands and a feat you could be using for something more versatil like Lucky hah, yes I say the same, I would bann that no brain boring feat (I must take a look to your article about that feat)
option 4 you provide seem more powerfull to me , since the fist benefit don’t require to use a heavy weapon that mean I can use my bonus action to atack with a secondary weapon and if I get a crit with any of my 3 atacks I would be able to use that extra action for one more ? I think it may be more broken for a different reasons
I see you may find many atacks with this feat immersion breaking, but I may think on a conbat style where my character make multiple spins with the weapon in a fashion way (since hexblade use charisma) and balancing his onw weight with the weapon like a monk with a pole
Sill
It’s only really problematic when you have advantage. 3 Attacks with advantage and great weapon fighting improve the DPS by waaay more than 3 attacks of someone who improved their strength instead. The chance to hit is so unaffected when you have advantage your DPS can be up to quadruple. I know i would not allow this feat if i am using the flanking rule set as listed as an optional rule, but I would if I made it work like cover with a +2 to attack on flank and +5 when surrounded.
Or you could make it not work when you have advantage. The larger than strength damage increase is made up for not always having that increase, and the on advantage insane damage increase is gone. The problem is, that doesn’t make since with every source of advantage.
I like to picture it like a verticle downward executioners axe style attack. All it need do to miss, is side step. But that seems like the exact attack you could do on someone who is prone. Or just glowing. Also with the right math it could be possible to DECREASE your damage when your drow casts feary fire.
So i thought, maybe instead of a -5 it just gives disadvantage. I told this house rule to a barbarian with a great sword and he just got even more ridiculous than normal by giving himself advantage every turn so it’s just a +10 to damage. I like the idea of it costing a bonus action though. That might change it to something you only use when you do have advantage, because when you don’t you have better bonus actions.
The damage increase is too huge to not be a resource.
duncan
Hi Sill
Sorry never got back to you on this. Yes the feat combining with advantage is what pushes it towards being OP’ed.
I guess the problem with enforcing disadvantage instead of a -5 to attack is that disadvantage doesn’t stack. So if you had disadvantage already from another source and this feat you would be able to use the feat with no cost.
Harold Cunningham
You don’t take in the defense trade off. Yes, the Great Weapon fighter does more damage but loses 2 points of armor class without the shield. A fighter taking the Dueling ability will get +2 to damage on his hits and will get hit less than the Great Weapon Fighter. The trade off seems ok.
duncan
If you take into account the defensive trade off the feat gets MORE powerful.
Why?
Because by doing roughly twice as much damage as a sword and board, I kill enemies twice as fast and therefore face half as many enemy attacks.
Exception might be when fighting a horde (although the feat’s bonus action attack is great for hordes), or facing a tonne of archers, but generally speaking you will take less damage fighting with this style than any other, by virtue of wrapping up fights quicker.
The best form of defense is to attack, as they rightly say.
Jingle Jammer
– Proficiency to Attack/+ Proficiency to Damage x2
Still high damage to keep the maxers happy, scales so you don’t one shot everything early levels. If still unsatisfactory, then just add proficiency x1 to damage.
In general though I wish this feat would just be errata’d out of existence. It was a bad design to begin with (huge static numbers) that went against the so called design philsophy of the designers, and it single handedly obsoletes most other feats. I’d be willing to bet more than 75% of all fighters have taken this feat.
duncan
Interesting fix, and one I’d definitely consider.
I do agree, that huge static damage seems completely at odds with the rest of 5e (except of course the even more OP’ed sharp shooter!).
I don’t think it should be written out of the game though, just amended, or restricted in usage. Feats like this are important to help martial classes not become complete sideshows to casters.
G
I’m sorry, but really theres no reason to do any of this. Melee characters are always better in early game, but by mid game any caster is just flat out better. You’re trying to compare a 5th level fighter to a 10th lvl fighter. It’s just wrong. The real question is, does this give them the ability to out dps the casters? No? Then it’s fine.
Bill DeAngelo
Even if it does “give them the ability to out-DPS the casters” it is still fine. The casters have way more tools in their kit besides direct single-target damage, martials *should* be able to put up big numbers with their attacks since it is where they are supposed to excel.
Hoezay
I’ve run d&d games for a long time and ran 5e since release. I run games for varied groups, both new and veteran players. Min maxers always pick SS and GWM in almost every situation, even the newer players see the value in reducing your chance to hit by a paltry 5 to deal 10 additional damage (which is close to rolling a d20). Some long-time players actively avoid those feats to not follow the trend (their words not mine).
I reply to you to talk about late game damage. Even with aoe spells, a barbarian or fighter with GWM has matched the damage of casters in my games. More often then not, casters don’t spam fireball, they cast slow, hold person, and buff spells which take up their turns, and sometimes they deal less damage then the barb or fighter. My games run, on average, from 3rd to 15th level.
This is from my experience, but I believe the argument is that if a melee class picks anything that isn’t GWM… or even a ranged class picks anything that isn’t SS, you’re gimping your character. And this is the flawed design with the two feats. Once you know how much more powerful the feats are compared to the other options, it is discouraging to pick anything else in general.
I don’t agree the feat should be removed, as it fits a niche, but the power should be pulled back, not to outright nerf the feat because it’s too strong but because it’s most likely to be chosen by a martial class over any other option.
Some might argue you should just buff the other martial options to make them more appealing, but that’s one facet of power creep in games. And buffing everything else is a bad way to balance a game, instead of nerfing the one problem.
Peter
The problem with nerfing GWM/SS is that smart casters are on an absolute different levels from martials. Sure, martials can do damage, but they have no win buttons. Casters have win buttons. Lots of them. A level 5 caster can just cast fly and yeet out if the opponents have no ranged options. Conjure Animals, Web, Hypnotic Pattern, Greater Invisibility, Hold X, they can just win fights. Other spells can end social encounters or simply do tasks that martials cannot. What can martials do that casters can’t? Yet, we want them to be equal in damage. Martials should be better at fighting because casters are better at basically everything else. Buff other feat options to make different kinds of martials viable. Buff shield master so that they can use their shield to deflect fireballs. Buff mage slayer to stop spells. Buff grappler to make grapples actually useful. Buff charger so that it pays off past Tier 1. Martial feats need to be buffed because a lot of them are just bad.
Rick Coen
I don’t like power creep, which your “buff the other feats” suggestion clearly is. Make everything else as effective (or cool) as GWM or PAM or SS. On the other hand, I can’t disagree with everything you said about martial/caster disparity.
Right up until tonight’s battle with cryptid statues that were 100% immune to magic, and to nonmagical weapons. My 8th level sorcerer couldn’t harm them at all – even my backup martial weapon (a +1 nonmagical mastercraft crossbow with poisoned bolts) couldn’t hurt it. My only option was to cast Haste on a martial, and then stay out of the way. Meanwhile, the barbarian could drop one in two or three hits; he could do it consistently in two hits with GWM… but he frequently missed with that -5 penalty against their 18 AC!
Andy
I appreciate the analysis, but there are a lot of assumptions being made. First, the ability scores. Not every fighter is going to get the uber score of an 18. Right now I have a 7th level fighter with a strength of 15, and that’s after a 2 point bump at level 4. This makes that -5 penalty significantly harder to swallow and greatly reduces the effectiveness of the feat. The distributed abilities in the phb list the highest score as a 15, so you shouldn’t assume exceptional stats as the basis for the analysis. The accompanying damage for such a low ability score is also problematic, and GWM is a way to offset a low ability score that would otherwise eat up a lot of ability score bumps for mediocre benefit over the course of the character’s life.
Magic items are another assumption. Again, my entire party doesn’t have a +1 weapon to its name. This is from a standard adventure module, and magic weapons are on the rare side in 5th edition. So where your 5th level fighter has a +8 to attack, and only needs a 7 to hit a 15, my 7th level fighter only has a +5, and needs a 10, significantly lower odds to hit the target. Add the -5 onto that, and I would now need a roll of 15.
The Great Weapon Master feat is broken when the attack bonus, through magic weapon bonuses and high ability scores, is excessively high, making it a guaranteed hit for the attacking character. I wouldn’t even count bonuses through spells or other limited abilities since these are limited in their number of uses. But if the Str 20 fighter with the +2 greatsword has GWM, then it definitely would appear broken because there’s really no cost to the fighter in exchange for the extra damage.
But as some of the other commenters have pointed out, the higher CR monsters also get much higher hit point values, so GWM is another way to unleash more damage. I have yet to use GWM, much, so I can’t attest to its brokenness, much, but when you factor in the damage of the rogue’s sneak attack, the high damage of single target spells, GWM might actually be necessary to balance the scales.
duncan
Hi Andy
Thanks for the comment. Well at 5th level with standard starting stats, you’d expect 16 strength most probably (assuming that you took GWM at 4th level, instead of an extra 2 strength), so yes that’s something to consider. I slightly skewed hte maths , which makes the feat look a bit better than it is.
I think your conclusion that the feat ‘breaks’ in conjunction with large to hit modifiers is about right.
These days I find the feat inelegant and time consuming (since every attack provokes a decision as to whehter or not to use it) as much as OP’ed.
Klaus Æ. Mogensen
One thing to consider that evens the damage a bit: In a killing blow, half the damage you do will be wasted, on average. The enemy may have anywhere from 1 hit point left, or you might just do enough damage to kill him, or anywhere in between.
Let’s look at Ted (Str 18, +8 to hit, 2d6 + 5 damage) against an enemy with AC 15 and 30 hit points.
Without -5/+10, he needs ca. 3 strikes to kill, which requires 3/.7 = 4.3 attacks on average. On the last strike, his effective damage is halved to 6. Average effective damage per attack then is (12+12+6)/4.3 = 7.0.
With -5/+10, he only needs to strikes to kill, dealing half damage on the second strike, or 22+11 = 33 (in fact, in the specific case, three more damage will be wasted, but on average, half the kill-strike damage will be lost). Chance to hit is 45%, so 4.4 attacks are needed for this. Average damage per attack is 33/4.4 = 7.5.
Now the difference between the two attack modes is very small. As damage bonuses grow, the difference will decline. Against creatures with very many hit points, the -5/+10 may be a good idea; against creatures without all that many hit points, it will be wasteful. Also note that in this example, extra attacks from kills will be more or less the same; actually favoring the non-modified attack mode slightly.
The greatest asset of Great Weapon Master probably is the flexibility: If you know or suspect that your foe has many hit points, but low AC, go for the -5/+10. Otherwise, go for straight attacks.
Also compare to Polearm Master, which allows an extra attack every round for a bonus action, not just when you kill/crit. Though the damage per hit is smaller, you hit more often. Dual Wielder also allows a bonus attack every round, though with even less damage (unless you have two-weapon fighting style). In turn, you get +1 AC and can also draw and throw two throwing weapons every round, where the two other feats limit you to one.
duncan
Hi Klaus
Good analysis, I didn’t think about that, and interesting to see how close the performance of Ted is with and without the feat when you consider wasted damage.
I agree that the feat’s strength partly lies in its flexibility… but that incurs a problem at the table too. Players constantly have to debate whether to use it or not. Wasting valuable game time.
Polearm Master is probably a better feat overall… and I think also slightly overpowered, but at least it doesn’t waste time on the table, as you’re always going to use your bonus action attack without having to think about the odds.
Of course, if you use a glaive, for example, you can combine both feats, and there’s nothing in the rules to stop you using the -5/+10 when you attack with the butt of the polearm.
Cheers!
Rich
This doesn’t help with the decision making problem but in my own house rules I’ve completely redone the feats in order to balance them better. My answer to GWM is Power Attack, where you can give yourself a penalty of up to your proficiency bonus (-2 at 1st level) to do your proficiency bonus extra damage if your weapon is one-handed or twice your proficiency bonus extra damage if your weapon is two-handed. It scales much better with character level and allows the feat to work with any weapon but with an edge to two-handed weapons. This rule works well for my group.
duncan
Hi Rich
I’ve seen the -proficiency bonus to hit/+ double proficiency bonus to damage formula a few times, and it looks good. Def. better than RAW for me.
But the solution I’m looking for now is based around taking away a decision for every attack (during supposedly fast paced combat) and just having a fixed situational damage bonus for those that take GWM.
Interesting that you let players do it with a one handed weapon too for a simple -bonus/+bonus trade off. Do they need the feat for that? And is your ‘Power Attack’ an actual feat (to replace GWM), or an always available option for everyone?
Cheers!
d
Rich
Hi Duncan,
They have to take the feat, Power Attack, to get the advantage. But I have a pretty extensive set of house rules for feats… it’s a little off-topic but the gist of it is this…
– Most feats are about half as powerful as before. (The intent was to let some of the “weaker” feats such as Actor actually become more viable, while separating out the feats that are like double feats, like Great Weapon Master basically being both Power Attack and Cleave from 3e / Pathfinder.)
– Feats are worth 1 ability score improvement (+1) not 2 (+2).
– Instead of an ASI of +2 at 4th level, 8th level, etc., my players get a +1 every level, so they can choose a (half-powered) feat or get +1 to an ability score every level.
– I do require a simple point buy for character creation.
Anyway, that’s my answer to the feats being, in my opinion, unbalanced. It’s worked for my group at least… you can take more feats but they’re not as powerful, so it’s not like your whole character is built around this one feat. Works for us. 🙂
Daniel Mattos
I am perfectly happy with the feat
duncan
Out of interest, are you speaking as a player, or as a DM?
Eli
I am fine with the feat. From my experience, it isn’t used all the time due to the massive -5 to hit penalty. That is equivalent to disadvantage, while also being able to have disadvantage on the attack.
If you miss with even one attack it cuts down on your damage potential for the entire turn, and even if you hit with a GWM strike on your next attack you are only making up for your miss.
I see it mostly on Barbarians since they can easily get advantage with Reckless Attack, in exchange for advantage against themselves for an entire round.
Going off of standard array, the highest Attack bonus you would get at level 5 would be a +7. GWM would knock that down to effectively a +2.
You shouldn’t look at magic items when evaluating the balance of a feature or ability, since magic items throw balance out the window. Simpler magic items have a noticeable effect on gameplay, and the effects get considerably more noticeable the higher you go on the rarity scale. The Vorpal Sword is a great example of imbalance.
Advantage is another aspect that the DM has nearly complete control over. Few class features give advantage, and when they do they are limited (the Samurai Fighter’s Fighting Spirit), require a skill challenge (the Hide or Shove actions), or have a penalty (Reckless Attack).
All of that, plus you are spending an ASI on the feat.
Jojo
Everyone says that this is overpowered, but it really just makes melee characters good at the one thing they’re meant to be good at: Killing baddies 1v1. Looking at the math for a 10th level GWM fighter, sure they may approach 100 HP of damage over three rounds, but was anyone looking at the 5th level wizard who took out a whole crowd of undead, dealing 250+ damage with a single fireball? Melee fighters will never ever be OP, simply due to the existence of spell casters
Nick
You forget one major consideration in taking the +2 STR – you get a better save and possibly better skills. Moreover, you are not confined to the Great Weapons. Moreover, you’ve assumed an 18 STR which you may not have because you took the Great Weapons Master feat. The choice is much harder than you might think.
duncan
Hi Nick
You’re right. I think I mention that in the post, or maybe I forgot and it’s been brought up in the comments.
I think if dealing damage is your goal you’ll do significantly more taking this feat than +1 strength. One thing that seems to get lost when people do the maths on the damage output is that you never have to use the feat. You can just use it when you have advantage or some other bonus, or you are fighting creatures with low ACs… by judicious use of the feat, you can put up much higher numbers. Also that bonus attack from the feat comes up more often that you might think, which adds to your damage output considerably.
Is the feat wildly overpowered? No…
Is it ugly and unbalancing… yes. The mega damage it can do makes normal hits feel petty and insignificant (there are other flashy 5e damage dealers that are guilty of this too).
I’m actually think I’ve finally resolved how this feat should work in a really simple way, and will publish soon
cheers
Peter
With respect to feats in general, Sharpshooter, Sentinel, War Caster, Magic Initiate, Polearm Master, Fey Touched, Crossbow Expert and Lucky are all in that class of power in their best forms. As a result, I don’t think that a player who takes GWM, even in its most optimized form, has an advantage over almost any other of the optimized builds, for martials or otherwise.
Also, important to note that adding dice makes the problem worse because since you are adding the dice before the hit is resolved, if you crit, you double damage. This reminds me that if you add in crits, this makes this math a little less favorable towards GWM.
Overall, optimal builds with GWM are definitely high tier, but I wouldn’t even say that they are top tier in terms of damage output, especially considering at high ACs, it becomes straight up not worth it to use.
Mitchell
I combined these approaches and came up with this fun hybrid for the second part of the feat
– Once per attack action, before you make a melee attack with a heavy weapon that you are proficient with, you can choose to take a -5 penalty to the attack roll. If the attack hits, you add 2d6 to the attack’s damage.
Figured I’d limit it to once per turn unless they use action surge they can do it twice and I like the 2d6 rather than +10. Great article!
Frederick Dale Coen
Making it 2d6 vs. +10 has two effects. First, it lowers the overall damage – which might be your intent – and occasionally makes the player really upset: “I took a -5 to hit for 2 lousy points of damage???”
Second, it encourages crit-fisher builds. 2d6+10 with a greatsword, on a crit, is 4d6+10 [24]. 2d6+2d6 on a crit is 8d6 [28]… only 4 points better than RAW, but 7 better than your reduced average. IS that game-breaking, 5% of the time? probably not. Just pointing it out.
0bsu
GWM and Sharpshooter are not overpowered and do not need these “fixes” of yours. I am saying that both as a DM and a player. 5e is already colloquially known as D&D – Spellcaster Edition. Because past lvl 5 martial classes get outshined by virtually every full caster class.
GWM and Sharpshooter are literally the only ways for fighters, rangers, and other martial classes besides the Paladin to stay remotely relevant to the almighty Wizard, who can wipe out hordes of enemies with a lvl 3 spell, and transform allies into powerful creatures with a lvl 4 spell, along with a million of different other ways they could use their magic for combat, control, and utilitarian spells. These feats allow martials to do one thing to stay relevant, and that thing being single-target damage. By offering these ‘fixes’ you only help reinforce spellcaster supremacy and drive martials further up into the gutter. Thanks a lot, btw.
To all of the people who commented here and complained about these feats, I say this: If you cannot design an encounter that cannot simply be mauled to death by incredibly inaccurate strikes, then you’re impotent as a DM. And if you are worried about these two styles eclipsing others – the solution is to buff the latter, not nerf the former. Anything else would further reinforce spellcaster supremacy.
Dixi.