Backwards compatibility is an anchor. You want to be BC with the adventures, but if they're not allowed to change anything at all that would cause one iota of disruption with the older rules there's no poin in the project at all. They're gonna break stuff, and that's fine. Besides, the Scimitar of Speed is a Very Rare magic item nobody ever gives/gets in their games whose sole effect beyond its numbers boost is "get 1x extra swing". That's hardly breaking the game.
Dual Wielder still has the benefit that all normal human beings with functioning arms have. I mean, how long do you need to train to pull two weapons out of sheathe simultaneously? Also, will it even be possible to dual wield longswords at all, or no creature in fantasy world can have this mythical power?
we have not seen the other weapon properties only the light so far.
wielding 2 light weapons gives you the extra attack included in the attack action.
maybe dual wielding 2 non light weapons would still require to use your bonus action to make the extra attack.
With shortswords joining daggers as finesse simple weapons, and the lightly armored feat, the companion for my High Elf Hexblade, a Rock Gnome War Wizard, is shaping up.
The changes to spellcasting, that you can only have spells of a given level equal to the number of spell slots you have of that level, and that everyone can ritual cast ritual spells, along with the ability of all casters to pick their spells each day, probably zeros out the nerfs/boosts.
I'm not sure how it's going to work with Warlocks. Perhaps they'll become a normal caster.
On the Dual Wielder feat, I think it should be noted how fighting with light weapons has changed.
"LIGHT [WEAPON PROPERTY] When you take the Attack Action on your turn and attack with a Light weapon in one hand, you can make one extra attack as part of the same Action. That extra attack must be made with a different Light weapon in the other hand, and you don’t add your Ability Modifier to the extra attack’s damage. You can make this extra attack only once on each of your turns"
I think this makes the dual weapon fighting still needing one light weapon make more sense because, if I read this right, you're not needing to use a bonus action anymore. This is just automatic.
Rogues getting to do two attempts for sneak attack and still being able to disengage afterwards. Rangers casting Hunters Mark and then making their primary AND offhand attacks.
With those rules in mind, having one of the weapons have to be light makes more sense.
The issue is that the Dual Wielder feat doesn't really do anything.
A typical Light weapon (the Shortsword let's say, since it's a Simple weapon now) has a damage die of 1d6. A typical weapon compatible with the Dual Wielder feat, wielded in one hand, has a damage die of 1d8. An entire one-point average damage boost. The feat gives you the same half-ASI as everything else, and it gives you the ability to...draw two weapons at once. Which every single DM I've ever seen, played with, watched, or heard of allows dual wielders to do already.
You are paying an entire feat to gain an average of a +1 to your damage and no other effects any other feat doesn't give you. There is no reason to take Dual Wielder unless you have an extremely potent non-Light magic weapon you're desperate to dual wield for whatever reason. The feat needs something back. Personally I favor the AC bonus, as getting half a shield's defensive properties seems appropriate for someone with more steel to defend themselves with, but it needs SOMETHING.
Backwards compatibility is an anchor. You want to be BC with the adventures, but if they're not allowed to change anything at all that would cause one iota of disruption with the older rules there's no point in the project at all. They're gonna break stuff, and that's fine. Besides, the Scimitar of Speed is a Very Rare magic item nobody ever gives/gets in their games whose sole effect beyond its numbers boost is "get 1x extra swing". That's hardly breaking the game.
Agreed, it was just a easy example of the cascade effect rule changes can have. We can now DW and do all those cool Bonus Action things, rather than having to choose between a extra attack & BA class abilities / spells / etc, or picking a different fighting style. I'm glad they made the style choices hot-swappable.
we have Level 1 feats, Level 4 feats, and Level 20 feats... yet... we still get feats at levels 8, 12, 16, and 19. kinda disappointed in the lack of use of the design space personally
There are other feats that come in at later levels, this is not all of the feats. Phased release of playtesting material, don't assume any one document has everything.
True enough but it would have been more reassuring if their had been some indication that Leveled Feats other than Level 1,4, and 20 were going to be a thing and not just a "hope" on the horizon. I have been through the iteration dance before (8 or 9 times depending on how you count Moldavey and Rulescylopedia) and it leaves me to think of an old phrase my grandpa used to say "Hope in one hand and $#!+ in the other; then tell me which fills up faster" The cynic in me says we have seen the full extent of the use of the design space. WotCs past history tells me my cynicism is not misplaced.
I honestly hope you are right and I am wrong on this point. But given that most of my cynical predictions over the last 10 years keep coming true I am not holding my breath.
If I am proven wrong in this by all means remind me of this post and I will publicly admit I was wrong.
Personally, I think power attack could just be a property of heavy weapons, the way two-weapon fighting is a property of light weapons. To make it scale better at lower levels, it should be -PB to attack, +2PB to damage. For example, at level 3, it would be -2 to attack, +4 to damage. As your character grows, so does the power of their mighty swing/bow prowess.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
How I'm posting based on text formatting: Mod Hat On - Mod Hat Off
I'd be willing to test that. I do think Power Attack is one of those things that tends to be more grief than it's worth, but I've also been playing in a campaign that's more-or-less been using the new Light rule for months now - our Eberron game allows you to fold the offhand strike from TWF into the Attack action, pretty much exactly identically to the 1DD Playtest rule (always nice when you've been playtesting the new content for months in advance, hueh), and it's been a very big deal that's massively enabled two-weapon characters like our rogue and my Dexy paladin. Like, for real - people are underestimating how strong this property is, we've had a few discussions about whether it's too potent after experimenting with it over several Tier 1 and beginning-of-Tier-2 combats. If this glow-up sticks, Heavy weapon users might end up feeling a little left out in the cold.
Dunno if you need double your proficiency bonus to damage, especially given how easy it generally is to overcome the accuracy penalty, but it'd be worth testing.
On the Dual Wielder feat, I think it should be noted how fighting with light weapons has changed.
"LIGHT [WEAPON PROPERTY] When you take the Attack Action on your turn and attack with a Light weapon in one hand, you can make one extra attack as part of the same Action. That extra attack must be made with a different Light weapon in the other hand, and you don’t add your Ability Modifier to the extra attack’s damage. You can make this extra attack only once on each of your turns"
I think this makes the dual weapon fighting still needing one light weapon make more sense because, if I read this right, you're not needing to use a bonus action anymore. This is just automatic.
Rogues getting to do two attempts for sneak attack and still being able to disengage afterwards. Rangers casting Hunters Mark and then making their primary AND offhand attacks.
With those rules in mind, having one of the weapons have to be light makes more sense.
But then how does one dual wield longswords? It is a thing that is possible in reality, but apparently in the world of DnD no creature has hands strong enough to wield two non-light weapons. Also, Yurei1453 is right - dual wielder feat gives a miniscule benefit. It's not even a +1 average damage to attacks - in fact, one of the two or three attacks is still done with the light weapon, so it's 0.5 average damage for rogues and 0.66 for rangers.
On the Dual Wielder feat, I think it should be noted how fighting with light weapons has changed.
"LIGHT [WEAPON PROPERTY] When you take the Attack Action on your turn and attack with a Light weapon in one hand, you can make one extra attack as part of the same Action. That extra attack must be made with a different Light weapon in the other hand, and you don’t add your Ability Modifier to the extra attack’s damage. You can make this extra attack only once on each of your turns"
I think this makes the dual weapon fighting still needing one light weapon make more sense because, if I read this right, you're not needing to use a bonus action anymore. This is just automatic.
Rogues getting to do two attempts for sneak attack and still being able to disengage afterwards. Rangers casting Hunters Mark and then making their primary AND offhand attacks.
With those rules in mind, having one of the weapons have to be light makes more sense.
The issue is that the Dual Wielder feat doesn't really do anything.
A typical Light weapon (the Shortsword let's say, since it's a Simple weapon now) has a damage die of 1d6. A typical weapon compatible with the Dual Wielder feat, wielded in one hand, has a damage die of 1d8. An entire one-point average damage boost. The feat gives you the same half-ASI as everything else, and it gives you the ability to...draw two weapons at once. Which every single DM I've ever seen, played with, watched, or heard of allows dual wielders to do already.
You are paying an entire feat to gain an average of a +1 to your damage and no other effects any other feat doesn't give you. There is no reason to take Dual Wielder unless you have an extremely potent non-Light magic weapon you're desperate to dual wield for whatever reason. The feat needs something back. Personally I favor the AC bonus, as getting half a shield's defensive properties seems appropriate for someone with more steel to defend themselves with, but it needs SOMETHING.
Note: Unless the Lance changes, you can technically still use the Dual Wielder feat with the Lance. You can't Dual Wield lances while on horseback like you used to, but while mounted you can have a lance in one hand and a Shortsword/Scimitar/Dagger/Handaxe in the other hand. And, going up from a d6 to a d12 is a pretty good damage boost (average increase of 3 damage per attack with your main weapon).
I'm guessing that the Lance is going to change, but until we see the UA with the full weapon changes (probably in the Warrior Class UA), this still works.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Please check out my homebrew, I would appreciate feedback:
I'd be willing to test that. I do think Power Attack is one of those things that tends to be more grief than it's worth, but I've also been playing in a campaign that's more-or-less been using the new Light rule for months now - our Eberron game allows you to fold the offhand strike from TWF into the Attack action, pretty much exactly identically to the 1DD Playtest rule (always nice when you've been playtesting the new content for months in advance, hueh), and it's been a very big deal that's massively enabled two-weapon characters like our rogue and my Dexy paladin. Like, for real - people are underestimating how strong this property is, we've had a few discussions about whether it's too potent after experimenting with it over several Tier 1 and beginning-of-Tier-2 combats. If this glow-up sticks, Heavy weapon users might end up feeling a little left out in the cold.
Dunno if you need double your proficiency bonus to damage, especially given how easy it generally is to overcome the accuracy penalty, but it'd be worth testing.
I believe JC mention that weapons will have different effects when the Warrior groups drop or something like that, I can't remember well. Maybe when we see those these feats will make more sense.
Don't know if someone notices but it seems they are making attack actions more realistic as not simply one attack or an action, they are making them more dynamic? or in tandem with other effects than just plan dmg or thing adding complexity to combat.
Just here to say very well done, articulate, and thorough post, Yurei:) I don't know how you can write 40+ paragraphs in one post about the new 1DD doc so quickly.
On the Dual Wielder feat, I think it should be noted how fighting with light weapons has changed.
"LIGHT [WEAPON PROPERTY] When you take the Attack Action on your turn and attack with a Light weapon in one hand, you can make one extra attack as part of the same Action. That extra attack must be made with a different Light weapon in the other hand, and you don’t add your Ability Modifier to the extra attack’s damage. You can make this extra attack only once on each of your turns"
I think this makes the dual weapon fighting still needing one light weapon make more sense because, if I read this right, you're not needing to use a bonus action anymore. This is just automatic.
Rogues getting to do two attempts for sneak attack and still being able to disengage afterwards. Rangers casting Hunters Mark and then making their primary AND offhand attacks.
With those rules in mind, having one of the weapons have to be light makes more sense.
But then how does one dual wield longswords? It is a thing that is possible in reality, but apparently in the world of DnD no creature has hands strong enough to wield two non-light weapons. Also, Yurei1453 is right - dual wielder feat gives a miniscule benefit. It's not even a +1 average damage to attacks - in fact, one of the two or three attacks is still done with the light weapon, so it's 0.5 average damage for rogues and 0.66 for rangers.
As of right now, with the 1DD rules. - you don’t! What I would like to see changed In light weapons is to allow the offhand attack with each attack action as I remember from 1e. To answer Yurei’s comment about it being only a +1 Damage you are getting - in one sense you are right it’s not huge but it’s also the chance for that +2 max damage and those +1s add up as fighters especially get more attacks. For rogues and bards that don’t (yet) get extra attacks dual wielder probably is worthless but for those with extra attacks it can be a boon ( although I sure wouldn’t complain if they added the +1AC back too). I did some basic calculations assuming just using the fighter and ranger and comparing against a fighter with the new great weapon fighting feat and a halberd and assuming a strength/dexterity of 20 and that all attacks hit:
Fighter - GWF: 4attacks so 4d12+20= 28+20= 48 HP (I’m assuming the GWF reroll shifts the average damage by +1)
Fighter. TWF 4 attacks and 4 offhand attacks: 4d8+4d6+20= 16+12+20= 48 HP
Fighter: TWF - 4 attacks and 1 offhand attack: 4d8+1d6+20 = 16+3+20 = 39 HP
Fighter TWF NO DW - 4 attacks and 4 offhand attacks: 8d6 +20 = 24+20= 44 HP
Fighter TWF NO DW: 4 attacks and 1 offhand attack: 5d6+20 = 15+20 = 35 HP
Ideally the fighter should be doing roughly comparable damage with either GWF or TWF but that only occurs if they get an offhand attack with each attack. Surprisingly the ranger actually outdoes the fighter for damage then and is still slightly superior to the fighter with the RAW fir light weapons . The change wouldn’t affect the bard or rogue ( or other classes) unless a subclass grants an extra attack and even then unless they get additional damage boosts like the ranger does they are unlikely to be truly competitive with the fighter and ranger ( and probably Paladin with their smites).
I do see an oddity I would suggest a change to in that Spell Sniper for some reason has the "Firing in Melee" effect for spells. Why? Are you sniping if you are 2 feet from the target? No!
I think that the Spell version of "Firing in Melee" should be in War Caster instead, given it IS the feat that incentivizes you to fight in melee as a caster - what with it's Attack of Opportunity Spells generally needing you to be in melee to trigger.
I would still give Spell Sniper something else instead, but yeah...
I do see an oddity I would suggest a change to in that Spell Sniper for some reason has the "Firing in Melee" effect for spells. Why? Are you sniping if you are 2 feet from the target? No!
I think that the Spell version of "Firing in Melee" should be in War Caster instead, given it IS the feat that incentivizes you to fight in melee as a caster - what with it's Attack of Opportunity Spells generally needing you to be in melee to trigger.
I would still give Spell Sniper something else instead, but yeah...
War caster is already strong enough and this was added to spell sniper because lots of people complained taking crossbow expert to get the disadvantage removed from 5 feet was odd and expensive. Spell sniper got a change on range and so this is meant to balance it as it's a slight nerf on longer distanced spells.
the new GWM feat is just... bad. Making it a half feat just waters it down a ton, an ability based on crits is terrible, we've established this with the barbarian, having it work when a monster hits 0 is a decent side opening but still restrictive as again.. YOU need to reduce it to 0 but than the extra attack isn't even free.. woof real bad. Than attack action based, once per turn prof based extra damage is bad, its 2-4 extra dmg that's just.. no
This feat went from one of the best in the game to one I wouldn't ever consider for a build, the best part of it is now the +1 to an attribute.
I get this stuff is playtest but give us stuff worth play testing, not feats anyone with some experience with the edition can tell you are bad. Sharpshooter lost it's damage rider as well but remains a far stronger feat overall than GWM
So. Savage Attacker vs all the fighting styles. How it looking?
Okay, but that mainly because most the fighting styles are trash. I'm for a feat with fighting style but they need to balance the fighting style benefits.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Good.
Backwards compatibility is an anchor. You want to be BC with the adventures, but if they're not allowed to change anything at all that would cause one iota of disruption with the older rules there's no poin in the project at all. They're gonna break stuff, and that's fine. Besides, the Scimitar of Speed is a Very Rare magic item nobody ever gives/gets in their games whose sole effect beyond its numbers boost is "get 1x extra swing". That's hardly breaking the game.
Please do not contact or message me.
we have not seen the other weapon properties only the light so far.
wielding 2 light weapons gives you the extra attack included in the attack action.
maybe dual wielding 2 non light weapons would still require to use your bonus action to make the extra attack.
With shortswords joining daggers as finesse simple weapons, and the lightly armored feat, the companion for my High Elf Hexblade, a Rock Gnome War Wizard, is shaping up.
The changes to spellcasting, that you can only have spells of a given level equal to the number of spell slots you have of that level, and that everyone can ritual cast ritual spells, along with the ability of all casters to pick their spells each day, probably zeros out the nerfs/boosts.
I'm not sure how it's going to work with Warlocks. Perhaps they'll become a normal caster.
The issue is that the Dual Wielder feat doesn't really do anything.
A typical Light weapon (the Shortsword let's say, since it's a Simple weapon now) has a damage die of 1d6. A typical weapon compatible with the Dual Wielder feat, wielded in one hand, has a damage die of 1d8. An entire one-point average damage boost. The feat gives you the same half-ASI as everything else, and it gives you the ability to...draw two weapons at once. Which every single DM I've ever seen, played with, watched, or heard of allows dual wielders to do already.
You are paying an entire feat to gain an average of a +1 to your damage and no other effects any other feat doesn't give you. There is no reason to take Dual Wielder unless you have an extremely potent non-Light magic weapon you're desperate to dual wield for whatever reason. The feat needs something back. Personally I favor the AC bonus, as getting half a shield's defensive properties seems appropriate for someone with more steel to defend themselves with, but it needs SOMETHING.
Please do not contact or message me.
Agreed, it was just a easy example of the cascade effect rule changes can have. We can now DW and do all those cool Bonus Action things, rather than having to choose between a extra attack & BA class abilities / spells / etc, or picking a different fighting style. I'm glad they made the style choices hot-swappable.
True enough but it would have been more reassuring if their had been some indication that Leveled Feats other than Level 1,4, and 20 were going to be a thing and not just a "hope" on the horizon.
I have been through the iteration dance before (8 or 9 times depending on how you count Moldavey and Rulescylopedia) and it leaves me to think of an old phrase my grandpa used to say "Hope in one hand and $#!+ in the other; then tell me which fills up faster"
The cynic in me says we have seen the full extent of the use of the design space.
WotCs past history tells me my cynicism is not misplaced.
I honestly hope you are right and I am wrong on this point.
But given that most of my cynical predictions over the last 10 years keep coming true I am not holding my breath.
If I am proven wrong in this by all means remind me of this post and I will publicly admit I was wrong.
Oh dear God I hope not. The fact that they have Pact Magic and Mystic Arcana instead of regular Spellcasting is what makes them so interesting.
Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting
Agreed!
DM mostly, Player occasionally | Session 0 form | He/Him/They/Them
EXTENDED SIGNATURE!
Doctor/Published Scholar/Science and Healthcare Advocate/Critter/Trekkie/Gandalf with a Glock
Try DDB free: Free Rules (2024), premade PCs, adventures, one shots, encounters, SC, homebrew, more
Answers: physical books, purchases, and subbing.
Check out my life-changing
-
View User Profile
-
View Posts
-
Send Message
ModeratorPersonally, I think power attack could just be a property of heavy weapons, the way two-weapon fighting is a property of light weapons. To make it scale better at lower levels, it should be -PB to attack, +2PB to damage. For example, at level 3, it would be -2 to attack, +4 to damage. As your character grows, so does the power of their mighty swing/bow prowess.
Homebrew Rules || Homebrew FAQ || Snippet Codes || Tooltips
DDB Guides & FAQs, Class Guides, Character Builds, Game Guides, Useful Websites, and WOTC Resources
I'd be willing to test that. I do think Power Attack is one of those things that tends to be more grief than it's worth, but I've also been playing in a campaign that's more-or-less been using the new Light rule for months now - our Eberron game allows you to fold the offhand strike from TWF into the Attack action, pretty much exactly identically to the 1DD Playtest rule (always nice when you've been playtesting the new content for months in advance, hueh), and it's been a very big deal that's massively enabled two-weapon characters like our rogue and my Dexy paladin. Like, for real - people are underestimating how strong this property is, we've had a few discussions about whether it's too potent after experimenting with it over several Tier 1 and beginning-of-Tier-2 combats. If this glow-up sticks, Heavy weapon users might end up feeling a little left out in the cold.
Dunno if you need double your proficiency bonus to damage, especially given how easy it generally is to overcome the accuracy penalty, but it'd be worth testing.
Please do not contact or message me.
But then how does one dual wield longswords? It is a thing that is possible in reality, but apparently in the world of DnD no creature has hands strong enough to wield two non-light weapons. Also, Yurei1453 is right - dual wielder feat gives a miniscule benefit. It's not even a +1 average damage to attacks - in fact, one of the two or three attacks is still done with the light weapon, so it's 0.5 average damage for rogues and 0.66 for rangers.
Note: Unless the Lance changes, you can technically still use the Dual Wielder feat with the Lance. You can't Dual Wield lances while on horseback like you used to, but while mounted you can have a lance in one hand and a Shortsword/Scimitar/Dagger/Handaxe in the other hand. And, going up from a d6 to a d12 is a pretty good damage boost (average increase of 3 damage per attack with your main weapon).
I'm guessing that the Lance is going to change, but until we see the UA with the full weapon changes (probably in the Warrior Class UA), this still works.
Please check out my homebrew, I would appreciate feedback:
Spells, Monsters, Subclasses, Races, Arcknight Class, Occultist Class, World, Enigmatic Esoterica forms
I believe JC mention that weapons will have different effects when the Warrior groups drop or something like that, I can't remember well. Maybe when we see those these feats will make more sense.
Don't know if someone notices but it seems they are making attack actions more realistic as not simply one attack or an action, they are making them more dynamic? or in tandem with other effects than just plan dmg or thing adding complexity to combat.
He did. But until that happens, we can do naught but speculate and work up ideas, ne?
Please do not contact or message me.
Just here to say very well done, articulate, and thorough post, Yurei:) I don't know how you can write 40+ paragraphs in one post about the new 1DD doc so quickly.
BoringBard's long and tedious posts somehow manage to enrapture audiences. How? Because he used Charm Person, the #1 bard spell!
He/him pronouns. Call me Bard. PROUD NERD!
Ever wanted to talk about your parties' worst mistakes? Do so HERE. What's your favorite class, why? Share & explain
HERE.As of right now, with the 1DD rules. - you don’t! What I would like to see changed In light weapons is to allow the offhand attack with each attack action as I remember from 1e. To answer Yurei’s comment about it being only a +1 Damage you are getting - in one sense you are right it’s not huge but it’s also the chance for that +2 max damage and those +1s add up as fighters especially get more attacks. For rogues and bards that don’t (yet) get extra attacks dual wielder probably is worthless but for those with extra attacks it can be a boon ( although I sure wouldn’t complain if they added the +1AC back too). I did some basic calculations assuming just using the fighter and ranger and comparing against a fighter with the new great weapon fighting feat and a halberd and assuming a strength/dexterity of 20 and that all attacks hit:
Fighter - GWF: 4attacks so 4d12+20= 28+20= 48 HP (I’m assuming the GWF reroll shifts the average damage by +1)
Fighter. TWF 4 attacks and 4 offhand attacks: 4d8+4d6+20= 16+12+20= 48 HP
Fighter: TWF - 4 attacks and 1 offhand attack: 4d8+1d6+20 = 16+3+20 = 39 HP
Fighter TWF NO DW - 4 attacks and 4 offhand attacks: 8d6 +20 = 24+20= 44 HP
Fighter TWF NO DW: 4 attacks and 1 offhand attack: 5d6+20 = 15+20 = 35 HP
Ranger TWF 2 attacks and 1 offhand + HM and HP: 2d8 + 1d6 + 1d8 + 3d6 + 20 = 8 + 3 + 4 + 9 +20 = 44 HP
Ranger TWF 2 attacks and 2 offhand attacks + HM & HP: 2d8 + 2d6 + 1d8 + 4d6 + 20 = 8+6+4+12+20= 50 HP
Ideally the fighter should be doing roughly comparable damage with either GWF or TWF but that only occurs if they get an offhand attack with each attack. Surprisingly the ranger actually outdoes the fighter for damage then and is still slightly superior to the fighter with the RAW fir light weapons . The change wouldn’t affect the bard or rogue ( or other classes) unless a subclass grants an extra attack and even then unless they get additional damage boosts like the ranger does they are unlikely to be truly competitive with the fighter and ranger ( and probably Paladin with their smites).
Wisea$$ DM and Player since 1979.
I do see an oddity I would suggest a change to in that Spell Sniper for some reason has the "Firing in Melee" effect for spells. Why? Are you sniping if you are 2 feet from the target? No!
I think that the Spell version of "Firing in Melee" should be in War Caster instead, given it IS the feat that incentivizes you to fight in melee as a caster - what with it's Attack of Opportunity Spells generally needing you to be in melee to trigger.
I would still give Spell Sniper something else instead, but yeah...
War caster is already strong enough and this was added to spell sniper because lots of people complained taking crossbow expert to get the disadvantage removed from 5 feet was odd and expensive. Spell sniper got a change on range and so this is meant to balance it as it's a slight nerf on longer distanced spells.
the new GWM feat is just... bad. Making it a half feat just waters it down a ton, an ability based on crits is terrible, we've established this with the barbarian, having it work when a monster hits 0 is a decent side opening but still restrictive as again.. YOU need to reduce it to 0 but than the extra attack isn't even free.. woof real bad. Than attack action based, once per turn prof based extra damage is bad, its 2-4 extra dmg that's just.. no
This feat went from one of the best in the game to one I wouldn't ever consider for a build, the best part of it is now the +1 to an attribute.
I get this stuff is playtest but give us stuff worth play testing, not feats anyone with some experience with the edition can tell you are bad. Sharpshooter lost it's damage rider as well but remains a far stronger feat overall than GWM
Okay, but that mainly because most the fighting styles are trash. I'm for a feat with fighting style but they need to balance the fighting style benefits.