That is not what [MENTION=2629]jgsugden[/MENTION] was getting at. Just because your personal opinion is new, does not mean you brought something new to the topic. Nor does it mean your newly formed opinion is in the majority, while we are at it.
D&D 5E Nerfing Great Weapon Master
- Status
Tony Vargas
Legend
[sblock='noise']
When you deny that there's a 'problem' it sounds like you're denying that the numeric imbalances in question exist (which sounds absurd, as they're factual and quantitative), when, really, you're expressing an opinion that those imbalances are unimportant or even a preference for imbalanced systems over balanced ones.
Those are not unusual opinions among D&Ders - D&D has not been very well balanced for the vast majority of its history, it's hard to care about balance /and/ keep playing & caring about D&D (but not impossible!). It certainly illustrates how pointless it would be for WotC to try to balance 5e in any meaningful sense - as if the edition war didn't already do that.
That's blaming him, and it's the same kind of OneTrueWayism that you accuse him of, as well. That's the crux of the going-no-where disagreement between you two: irreconcilable TrueWays.
The 'fix' for an issue like this can be quite different for each table. But, that fix can even be coming to terms with the issue and accepting it as just part of the feel of the game, or even leveraging it to the benefit of the campaign.
Zapp would clearly like a universal, mechanical, fix, but that's at odds with the idea that 5e D&D rules are merely a starting point. Where that starting point may be is not so important it's worth issuing errata and spawning alternate 'versions' of the game, which makes it present, however slightly, a less consistent face as a brand. It's a matter of presenting the best possible brand image, rather than the best possible system. [/quote]
The board does that for you for each topic, so do a search, note the # of the last post, add 'em up - shouldn't be hard. Go for it.
There are some very powerful arguments that it is in a number of senses, but you are free to hold the opinion that imbalance is not bad or even that it's good - it can certainly be leveraged in specific ways that may be desirable to some.
When you deny that there's a 'problem' it sounds like you're denying that the numeric imbalances in question exist (which sounds absurd, as they're factual and quantitative), when, really, you're expressing an opinion that those imbalances are unimportant or even a preference for imbalanced systems over balanced ones.
Those are not unusual opinions among D&Ders - D&D has not been very well balanced for the vast majority of its history, it's hard to care about balance /and/ keep playing & caring about D&D (but not impossible!). It certainly illustrates how pointless it would be for WotC to try to balance 5e in any meaningful sense - as if the edition war didn't already do that.
Every time you say it's not broken in your game, not universally broken, or only requires a fix in his game, you're implying that he's done something wrong, and you're doing it right. Because if the issue /isn't/ the mechanic, and exists for some DMs and not others, than the issue /must/ be with the DMs who are experiencing it.
That's blaming him, and it's the same kind of OneTrueWayism that you accuse him of, as well. That's the crux of the going-no-where disagreement between you two: irreconcilable TrueWays.
As you've admitted, above, it is 'objectively broken' (in the sense of numerically imbalanced, not in the sense of non-functional) for everyone, but you just like it that way. A valid, and, in the context of D&D, arguably normative, opinion to hold.
Taken alone, we could agree on this. 5e is meant to be modular (even if it's technically not literally so) and customizable by the DM, so it's up to the DM to decide how (and whether) to balance it.
The 'fix' for an issue like this can be quite different for each table. But, that fix can even be coming to terms with the issue and accepting it as just part of the feel of the game, or even leveraging it to the benefit of the campaign.
Zapp would clearly like a universal, mechanical, fix, but that's at odds with the idea that 5e D&D rules are merely a starting point. Where that starting point may be is not so important it's worth issuing errata and spawning alternate 'versions' of the game, which makes it present, however slightly, a less consistent face as a brand. It's a matter of presenting the best possible brand image, rather than the best possible system. [/quote]
It's not like that's an unusual ability in D&D. Anytime you cast fireball at a packed group of opponents, you're boosting your damage when it really matters, for instance. It's a pretty big chunk of the resource-management focus of the game.
That you aren't always stupidly powerful compared to non-feat martials should not be used as an argument against the fact you *can* and *will be* stupidly powerful when you decide you need to.
It's not utterly irrelevant, it speaks to how to fix the feat. If the feat is allowing weapon-users to approach the high-impact resource management of other classes, and the problem is some weapon users are left behind, then boosting them would make sense. If the feat is pushing some weapon-users ahead of everyone, then it needs to be nerfed - which is what Xaviat had already settled on in his OP.
[/sblock]
signal:
Do any Extra Attacks take the -5 but not receive the +10, or are they just normal?
Hey! I recognize that from AD&D specialization!Cool.
Did S&B actually get some kind of feat perk?
Degree-of-success mechanics have gotten proposed here and there over the decades (they've even seen the inside of rulebooks, I think). I can't recall any of them working really well. But, I'm not doin' the math on it, either, though I feel like it might well reduce average damage.
Last edited:
So I updated my spreadsheet in two ways:
1. I added in the damage spike for the increased criticals when rolling advantage. This added a couple DPR across the board.
2. I updated the chance of getting a bonus attack from GWM to be the sum of knocking down an enemy of the given CR plus the chance of rolling a critical. The chance of rolling a critical in a turn is 100%-percent to not roll a critical in any of the attacks (i.e. #attacks * chance of not rolling a critical hit). A regular fighter has a 5% chance of rolling at least one critical hit at level 1 and and about 19% at level 20. The chance of taking a creature to 0 hit points in a turn on its own is the DPR from just the regular attacks divided by the min hp from the expected CR of enemy. A level 20 GWM fighter against a CR 20 creature gets 35.2 DPR from its regular attacks. It will knock a CR 20 creature with 350 hit points down on about 10% of its turns. Taken together, the level 20 GWM fighter would get its bonus attack on about 28.4% (~10% + ~19%) of its turns against CR 20 creatures. With advantage on CR 1 creatures, even a level 11 GWM fighter gets its bonus attack basically 100% of the time. This change dropped the overall DPR for GWM when not advantage against CR 1 creatures but ensured always getting a bonus attack for certain situations. The percent of bonus attacks is not perfect, but I thought it was at least closer and offset the chances of the GWM fighter killing a foe damaged by someone else with the chance of someone else stealing the GWM fighter's kill.
I also included two suggested fixes for GWM in the following tables. The first replaces the -5/+10 with a +1 Str. The other replaces the -5/+10 with a -Prof/+Prof.
DPR for level 1 PCs:
Fighter 6.85
Champion 6.85
GWM Fighter 9.71
GWM Champion 9.71
GWM Fighter No 10 7.82
GWM Fighter ProfDmg 7.94
DPR for level 1 PCs with advantage:
Fighter 9.46
Champion 9.46
GWM Fighter 17.23
GWM Champion 17.23
GWM Fighter No10 11.55
GWM Fighter ProfDmg 12.63
DPR for level 20 PCs:
Fighter 32.6
Champion 35.4
GWM Fighter 39.2
GWM Champion 45.08
GWM Fighter No10 34.83
GWM Fighter ProfDmg 28.3
Keira no GWM 57.58
Keira w/ GWM 73.94
DPR for level 20 PCs with advantage:
Fighter 44.85
Champion 49.89
GWM Fighter 66.35
GWM Champion 78.28
GWM Fighter No10 49.95
GWM Fighter ProfDmg 49.33
Keira no GWM 73.66
Keira w/ GWM 118.13
DPR for level 20 PCs against CR 1 enemies:
Fighter 47
Champion 49.8
GWM Fighter 78.75
GWM Champion 82.25
GWM Fighter No10 56.73
GWM Fighter ProfDmg 58.38
Keira no GWM 67.06
Keira w/ GWM 118.43
DPR for level 20 PCs against CR 1 enemies with advantage:
Fighter 50.61
Champion 55.65
GWM Fighter 103.51
GWM Champion 109.81
GWM Fighter No10 63.26
GWM Fighter ProfDmg 82.39
Keira no GWM 76.03
Keira w/ GWM 146.33
Analysis
So going from levels 1-20 GWM (first number is level 1, second number is level 20):
Adds 3,7 DPR in normal circumstances against "average CR" foes. (or increase of 40%, 22%)
Adds 8,20 DPR against average CR with advantage. (or 90%, 45%)
Adds 3,31 DPR against average CR with advantage. (or 40%, 55%)
Adds 8,53 DPR against CR 1 foes with advantage. (or 90%, 105%)
As everyone knows, the power attack option from GWM provides the best DPR boost in favorable conditions and will still provide a good DPR boost if it is only used in favorable conditions with a regular attack used when conditions are not favorable (enemy AC higher than "average CR" or disadvantage). The DPR curve is not smooth. It has small increases when proficiency or ability score increases, and a big spike when an extra attack is added.
My intention with the previous posting and analysis was not to suggest that GWM is only good against CR 1 enemies with advantage. Rather, it was to say that "this is about as good as it gets." With the most advantageous situation possible, the PC is going to hit on 90% of its attacks and get its bonus attack on essentially every turn, resulting in doing about double the damage of an equivalent PC with everything the same except the feat. Even against higher CR enemies with the help of lucky, precision strike, bless, and other bonuses to hit, the bonus in damage will essentially not go past 50 and a bit for a level 20 fighter. This also compares the GWM fighter against a fighter who has nothing. A fighter that has other damage options not available to a heavy weapon fighter will cut down the gap a bit.
Nova
Looking at a nova situation of level 20, CR 1 foes (or boosts to help the PC hit), advantage, and action surge, the fighter does 101 damage on average and the GWM fighter does 186 or about 85% more damage for something that can be done twice per short rest (only once per short rest until level 17).
Suggested solutions
Looking at the two suggested solutions, replacing -5/+10 with +1 Str means that the entire feat hinges on getting the bonus attack. The +1 part of the feat actually is neutral or negative to the PC taking the feat unless it is taken at level 1. Most heavy weapon fighters will have an even Strength score unless they roll a high odd number. A few point buy or standard array people might also take a 15 or 17 in Strength. For these people the +1 is neutral or slightly helpful. There isn't anything stopping someone from splitting an ASI across Strength and another ability score (especially for a fighter). Half the feat is wasted for anyone already at a 20 Strength. For everyone else who has an even strength score less than 20, they take the feat and put off reaching a 20 (which they already would do with the regular feat, but now they do not get the power attack portion of the feat to balance out the wait for 20 Strength). Now that the feat hinges on getting the bonus attack, they are doing an additional 2 DPR at level 1 and 13 DPR at level 20 under the most favorable conditions. Under "normal", unboosted circumstances, the increase is 1 or 2 DPR.
The suggested nerf of -Proficiency to hit/+Proficiency to damage does more damage than an equivalent PC if conditions are favorable. In the best circumstances it may do another 60% damage for the fighter. However, if the situation is "normal" (creatures of same CR as PC level, no advantage, etc.) the increase in DPR is only 3 at level 1, breaks even at level 10, and actually gets worse than a PC without the feat after that. More than normal a PC with the modified feat must only use it when the situation is highly favorable.
Another 2cp
So hopefully this analysis was helpful for people. It shows the impacts of a few suggested options for GWM, and it also shows about where the feat tops out in terms of improvement for a fighter. Dealing with GWM requires having an expectation of what it will do, deciding if that works in your game, and changing things in the feat or your encounters if necessary.
Personally, I have had a half-orc GWM GWF Champion with a Defender longsword in my game for over a year. The first time she did over 100 damage in a round was eye opening. So was the first time she hit 200 damage in a round with foresight and action surge. She regularly does 75-100 DPR, and I know that I either need to add an extra creature to some encounters, have the creatures use better teamwork, or add a few more hp. For my table, the feat is fine as is, and everyone still feels like they contribute.
EDIT: I added in the stats for Keira, the Half-Orc GWM GWF Champion with a +3 Defender in versions with and without GWM. She is fairly optimized for GWM with the extra critical chance, extra critical die, reroll 1's and 2's, and +3 to hit and damage. With action Surge under perfect conditions, she hits 146 DPR without GWM and 256 with it. A couple interesting things when looking at the various GWM scenarios (basic fighter, Champion, Keira):
* Without GWM, her average damage tops out at around 75 DPR if she has advantage regardless of the creature she fights (at least from CR 1 to 20).
* The more to hit and damage optimization a PC has, the less GWM increases DPR by percentage. The damage still increases, but slightly less.
* Level 1 PCs see about a 40% DPR increase.
* Level 20 PCs see about a 25% DPR increase without help.
* Level 20 PCs see about a 85% to 100% DPR increase under perfect conditions.
1. I added in the damage spike for the increased criticals when rolling advantage. This added a couple DPR across the board.
2. I updated the chance of getting a bonus attack from GWM to be the sum of knocking down an enemy of the given CR plus the chance of rolling a critical. The chance of rolling a critical in a turn is 100%-percent to not roll a critical in any of the attacks (i.e. #attacks * chance of not rolling a critical hit). A regular fighter has a 5% chance of rolling at least one critical hit at level 1 and and about 19% at level 20. The chance of taking a creature to 0 hit points in a turn on its own is the DPR from just the regular attacks divided by the min hp from the expected CR of enemy. A level 20 GWM fighter against a CR 20 creature gets 35.2 DPR from its regular attacks. It will knock a CR 20 creature with 350 hit points down on about 10% of its turns. Taken together, the level 20 GWM fighter would get its bonus attack on about 28.4% (~10% + ~19%) of its turns against CR 20 creatures. With advantage on CR 1 creatures, even a level 11 GWM fighter gets its bonus attack basically 100% of the time. This change dropped the overall DPR for GWM when not advantage against CR 1 creatures but ensured always getting a bonus attack for certain situations. The percent of bonus attacks is not perfect, but I thought it was at least closer and offset the chances of the GWM fighter killing a foe damaged by someone else with the chance of someone else stealing the GWM fighter's kill.
I also included two suggested fixes for GWM in the following tables. The first replaces the -5/+10 with a +1 Str. The other replaces the -5/+10 with a -Prof/+Prof.
DPR for level 1 PCs:
Fighter 6.85
Champion 6.85
GWM Fighter 9.71
GWM Champion 9.71
GWM Fighter No 10 7.82
GWM Fighter ProfDmg 7.94
DPR for level 1 PCs with advantage:
Fighter 9.46
Champion 9.46
GWM Fighter 17.23
GWM Champion 17.23
GWM Fighter No10 11.55
GWM Fighter ProfDmg 12.63
DPR for level 20 PCs:
Fighter 32.6
Champion 35.4
GWM Fighter 39.2
GWM Champion 45.08
GWM Fighter No10 34.83
GWM Fighter ProfDmg 28.3
Keira no GWM 57.58
Keira w/ GWM 73.94
DPR for level 20 PCs with advantage:
Fighter 44.85
Champion 49.89
GWM Fighter 66.35
GWM Champion 78.28
GWM Fighter No10 49.95
GWM Fighter ProfDmg 49.33
Keira no GWM 73.66
Keira w/ GWM 118.13
DPR for level 20 PCs against CR 1 enemies:
Fighter 47
Champion 49.8
GWM Fighter 78.75
GWM Champion 82.25
GWM Fighter No10 56.73
GWM Fighter ProfDmg 58.38
Keira no GWM 67.06
Keira w/ GWM 118.43
DPR for level 20 PCs against CR 1 enemies with advantage:
Fighter 50.61
Champion 55.65
GWM Fighter 103.51
GWM Champion 109.81
GWM Fighter No10 63.26
GWM Fighter ProfDmg 82.39
Keira no GWM 76.03
Keira w/ GWM 146.33
Analysis
So going from levels 1-20 GWM (first number is level 1, second number is level 20):
Adds 3,7 DPR in normal circumstances against "average CR" foes. (or increase of 40%, 22%)
Adds 8,20 DPR against average CR with advantage. (or 90%, 45%)
Adds 3,31 DPR against average CR with advantage. (or 40%, 55%)
Adds 8,53 DPR against CR 1 foes with advantage. (or 90%, 105%)
As everyone knows, the power attack option from GWM provides the best DPR boost in favorable conditions and will still provide a good DPR boost if it is only used in favorable conditions with a regular attack used when conditions are not favorable (enemy AC higher than "average CR" or disadvantage). The DPR curve is not smooth. It has small increases when proficiency or ability score increases, and a big spike when an extra attack is added.
My intention with the previous posting and analysis was not to suggest that GWM is only good against CR 1 enemies with advantage. Rather, it was to say that "this is about as good as it gets." With the most advantageous situation possible, the PC is going to hit on 90% of its attacks and get its bonus attack on essentially every turn, resulting in doing about double the damage of an equivalent PC with everything the same except the feat. Even against higher CR enemies with the help of lucky, precision strike, bless, and other bonuses to hit, the bonus in damage will essentially not go past 50 and a bit for a level 20 fighter. This also compares the GWM fighter against a fighter who has nothing. A fighter that has other damage options not available to a heavy weapon fighter will cut down the gap a bit.
Nova
Looking at a nova situation of level 20, CR 1 foes (or boosts to help the PC hit), advantage, and action surge, the fighter does 101 damage on average and the GWM fighter does 186 or about 85% more damage for something that can be done twice per short rest (only once per short rest until level 17).
Suggested solutions
Looking at the two suggested solutions, replacing -5/+10 with +1 Str means that the entire feat hinges on getting the bonus attack. The +1 part of the feat actually is neutral or negative to the PC taking the feat unless it is taken at level 1. Most heavy weapon fighters will have an even Strength score unless they roll a high odd number. A few point buy or standard array people might also take a 15 or 17 in Strength. For these people the +1 is neutral or slightly helpful. There isn't anything stopping someone from splitting an ASI across Strength and another ability score (especially for a fighter). Half the feat is wasted for anyone already at a 20 Strength. For everyone else who has an even strength score less than 20, they take the feat and put off reaching a 20 (which they already would do with the regular feat, but now they do not get the power attack portion of the feat to balance out the wait for 20 Strength). Now that the feat hinges on getting the bonus attack, they are doing an additional 2 DPR at level 1 and 13 DPR at level 20 under the most favorable conditions. Under "normal", unboosted circumstances, the increase is 1 or 2 DPR.
The suggested nerf of -Proficiency to hit/+Proficiency to damage does more damage than an equivalent PC if conditions are favorable. In the best circumstances it may do another 60% damage for the fighter. However, if the situation is "normal" (creatures of same CR as PC level, no advantage, etc.) the increase in DPR is only 3 at level 1, breaks even at level 10, and actually gets worse than a PC without the feat after that. More than normal a PC with the modified feat must only use it when the situation is highly favorable.
Another 2cp
So hopefully this analysis was helpful for people. It shows the impacts of a few suggested options for GWM, and it also shows about where the feat tops out in terms of improvement for a fighter. Dealing with GWM requires having an expectation of what it will do, deciding if that works in your game, and changing things in the feat or your encounters if necessary.
Personally, I have had a half-orc GWM GWF Champion with a Defender longsword in my game for over a year. The first time she did over 100 damage in a round was eye opening. So was the first time she hit 200 damage in a round with foresight and action surge. She regularly does 75-100 DPR, and I know that I either need to add an extra creature to some encounters, have the creatures use better teamwork, or add a few more hp. For my table, the feat is fine as is, and everyone still feels like they contribute.
EDIT: I added in the stats for Keira, the Half-Orc GWM GWF Champion with a +3 Defender in versions with and without GWM. She is fairly optimized for GWM with the extra critical chance, extra critical die, reroll 1's and 2's, and +3 to hit and damage. With action Surge under perfect conditions, she hits 146 DPR without GWM and 256 with it. A couple interesting things when looking at the various GWM scenarios (basic fighter, Champion, Keira):
* Without GWM, her average damage tops out at around 75 DPR if she has advantage regardless of the creature she fights (at least from CR 1 to 20).
* The more to hit and damage optimization a PC has, the less GWM increases DPR by percentage. The damage still increases, but slightly less.
* Level 1 PCs see about a 40% DPR increase.
* Level 20 PCs see about a 25% DPR increase without help.
* Level 20 PCs see about a 85% to 100% DPR increase under perfect conditions.
Last edited:
CapnZapp
Legend
Please don't try to dilute my message.
I was specifically talking about a GWM analysis and how you can hide it's impact behind averages.
Nobody is suggesting Fireball does 3.7d6 on average, including some rounds you cast it.
Viewed charitably, you state the obvious. Viewed less charitably, it's a case of relativizing: trying to normalize GWM as if it isn't an outlier in martial damage components.
Either way: no, the comparison is halting and misleading. Any analysis of GWM needs to highlight nova damage too; not just average damage.
Resource management is a thing yes. That does not mean those resources (precision strike superiority dice, for instance) were balanced for +10 damage.
They were balanced on the assumption one point of attack and damage is pretty much equal, and the various maneuvers do add the dice to attack or damage in various constellations.
But when one maneuver, precision strike, doesn't yield a regular hit, but one 10 points higher, balance is thrown off.
Regards
Zapp
PS. And before somebody suggests it: no, the fault doesn't lie with Precision Strike and nerfering that is the wrong way to go. The singular component at the heart of the imbalance is the +10 damage.
Sent from my C6603 using EN World mobile app
Shield Master is actually pretty cool.
*If you take the Attack action you can use your bonus action to Shove a creature within 5 feet of you with your shield.
*Add shield's AC bonus to a Dexterity saving throw for a spell or harmful effect that targets only you.
*Use your reaction as Evasion against an area of effect Dexterity saving throw.
Xeviat
Hero
How would things look if it was just -5 to hit/+5 to damage? On the surface, it seems like it could be useful in optimal situations (advantage, low AC enemies), but entirely non-optimal otherwise. That might be okay ...
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
It looks almost exactly like the GWM fighter ProfDmg option above. The DPR is within 1 or 2 from level 1 to 20 regardless of the situation. Which tells me that if you have a -X to hit/ +X damage the results will be about the same (at least if the numbers are in the proficiency range).
So why would people take the feat? For the Cleave? Polearm Master has that role covered.
1 accuracy > 1 damage
OB1
Jedi Master
Tormyr, interested in seeing how this would work out with the -5/+7 or -5/+8 variant that has been talked about if it's not to hard to adjust your spreadsheet for those values.
- Status
Similar Threads
