D&D 5E Nerfing Great Weapon Master

[CapnZapp]

Thing is it doesn't need nerfing. It's not overpowered. It need abuse-proofing. Or at worst abuse impact negation.

I more or less agree. IME, if the players don't go out of their way to abuse the feat, there is no issue.

I completely agree and hope WotC will do exactly this down the line.

 

[Fanaelialae]

Policing yourself as a player is exactly what I'm talking about. In a video game, if you choose to play on Narrative difficulty, you can't complain that the game is too easy, try Normal or Legendary instead. In 5e, this doesn't happen by a simple choice, but instead can be the result of choosing certain abilities for your character. That said, if the DM is game to ramp up difficulty and move the spotlight around, then the players can go as crazy as they want. Either method works, so once again, more choice in how you play!

The reason I think starting with a lower set of ability scores will make the game inherently more difficult, is that it puts tremendous pressure on making the best possible selection of every ability to overcome the initial handicap. If you start with an array of 11,10,9,8,8,6, you are going to have to make some serious decisions. If you're a Wizard, do you accept a 10 INT so that you can perhaps get a +1 to Con, and then select spells that don't require Spell Attacks or Saving Throws? If you are a fighter, is GWM really worth taking until perhaps your last ABI when you have finally gotten to a 20 STR and maybe a 14 Con? Were you better getting proficiency in the save that the 6 is in?

Once you have real and many weaknesses to work around, system mastery of ability choice becomes a much more complicated decision tree.

I think this is a really interesting observation, because I had noticed this about my own game play in 5e. I've made choices based on RP in 5e that I would have NEVER done back in my 3.x days (when it was all about making my next character more powerful than the last).

For example, in a recent campaign the DM rolled an extremely unlikely roll and Bahamut was summoned. He offered to turn us into dragons (straight boost, no penalties). Most of the rest of the party accepted, but I politely declined, because it wasn't something my character would have done (he believed himself to the pinnacle of perfection and you can't improve upon perfection).

I've been noticing myself do a lot of this sort of thing since I started playing 5e (and I like it) but I chalked it up to simply being older. I hadn't considered the possibility that 5e actually enables such behavior to such an extent.

 

[Tony Vargas]

I think this is a really interesting observation, because I had noticed this about my own game play in 5e. I've made choices based on RP in 5e that I would have NEVER done back in my 3.x days (when it was all about making my next character more powerful than the last).

That probably is in large part a shift in your personal attitude, but the game being 'easy' doesn't hurt - you're not punished for it as severely, you don't die or become useless or get overshadowed, you're just being out-performed by a wider margin. You kill the orc you're fighting with a few points to spare, Sir Critsalot overkills his by 30 points.

The original design is the published campaign books I have bought in order to not to have to come up with adventures and encounters from scratch.

Well, that's an issue, then...

Having to ditch them entirely and replace them with a completely different encounter - hell no...
Please don't try to paint this huge failure as something expected

It can't be too surprising, though. Published adventures being tuned to the low end of the expected PC power spectrum like that, I mean.

To me it seems people are only playing casual games, low-level games or both. The number of people that have tried the higher levels and have some measure for character building are very few. In fact, I can only name a single one - [MENTION=5834]Celtavian[/MENTION],

Yeah, I recall that. I'm surprised there aren't a lot more, really.

But, modules are kinda one-size-fits all, so if your size isn't that one, some alterations are in order. I don't see how that'd be avoidable under 5e. I mean, if APs were tuned to provide moderate challenges to high-level/high-system-mastery parties like yours or Celtavian's, wouldn't we be hearing about a lot of TPKs from the low-level/casual groups, instead?

It seems like, if you're going to run for 'more serious' players, you can't just pick up a module and save a lot of effort, you have to step up, too. It's not fair - DMing is hard enough even when you get full value from the tools available, but it'd be even more unfair to a less experienced DM trying to nerf a properly-challenging module down to something his casual-play group could handle.

 

[Geeknamese]

Anyone ever think they should exclude reach weapons from GWM? I can't imagine glaives, halberds or pikes hitting as hard as greatswords, mauls and greataxes. Never really liked the combo of GWM and PAM.


Sent from my iPhone using EN World mobile app

 

[Prism]

Our group doesn't optimize much at all, although we play combat pretty efficiently. What I don't really get is where this regular advantage comes from. Our characters rarely get it. Are people using grapple and shove to prone opponents? Or is it spell use? I get the barbarian example (which is where this thread started), but fighters can't easily generate their own can they? I think I'm missing something

 

[Yunru]

Personally I give disadvantage on the attack roll for advantage on the damage roll.

Mathmatically it's not good, but it feels good.

 

[CapnZapp]

You kill the orc you're fighting with a few points to spare, Sir Critsalot overkills his by 30 points.

I am going to take that smiley as indication you're not using that story to dismiss the concerns over GWM (and really, the concern is much more about SS/CE), since the experience I've had is as that the first fighter hits the orc without killing it while Sir DoesntDependOnCrits kills his orc, then kills a second orc.

---

The issue of softness has no bearing upon the discussion about -5/+10. This mechanism is severely broken regardless of whether you feel the game is challenging enough or not. The issue is that fighters either take it or are completely left behind in the damage-dealing department. The softness argument is in this context a smokescreen, yet another desperate attempt to not have to accept there are any faults in 5E that are severe enough WotC should be given a clear message they need to fix it.

The notion that damage output is unimportant to martial characters is preposterous in a heavy combat centric game like D&D. But sure, I can accept that some groups truly doesn't care about damage. But why oh WHY then defend GWM to the bitter end instead of simply accepting that more damage-focussed players are telling you it's broken and agreeing to fix it - since you won't care either way: damage not being important to you.

 

[Fanaelialae]

I am going to take that smiley as indication you're not using that story to dismiss the concerns over GWM (and really, the concern is much more about SS/CE), since the experience I've had is as that the first fighter hits the orc without killing it while Sir DoesntDependOnCrits kills his orc, then kills a second orc.

---

The issue of softness has no bearing upon the discussion about -5/+10. This mechanism is severely broken regardless of whether you feel the game is challenging enough or not. The issue is that fighters either take it or are completely left behind in the damage-dealing department. The softness argument is in this context a smokescreen, yet another desperate attempt to not have to accept there are any faults in 5E that are severe enough WotC should be given a clear message they need to fix it.

The notion that damage output is unimportant to martial characters is preposterous in a heavy combat centric game like D&D. But sure, I can accept that some groups truly doesn't care about damage. But why oh WHY then defend GWM to the bitter end instead of simply accepting that more damage-focussed players are telling you it's broken and agreeing to fix it - since you won't care either way: damage not being important to you.

It's not broken in our games so we don't need to fix it.

You've already agreed that WotC doesn't maintain a presence here, so I'm not sure what our agreement buys you.

I fully support your right to house rule these and am happy to engage with you on the best way to go about it. But I'm going to house rule for my own game, not yours, because my needs are different than yours (as I've mentioned, balancing the feats for players of varying mathematical aptitude).

 

[OB1]

The issue of softness has no bearing upon the discussion about -5/+10. This mechanism is severely broken regardless of whether you feel the game is challenging enough or not. The issue is that fighters either take it or are completely left behind in the damage-dealing department. The softness argument is in this context a smokescreen, yet another desperate attempt to not have to accept there are any faults in 5E that are severe enough WotC should be given a clear message they need to fix it.

The notion that damage output is unimportant to martial characters is preposterous in a heavy combat centric game like D&D. But sure, I can accept that some groups truly doesn't care about damage. But why oh WHY then defend GWM to the bitter end instead of simply accepting that more damage-focussed players are telling you it's broken and agreeing to fix it - since you won't care either way: damage not being important to you.

It's not that I don't care about damage or think it is unimportant, it's that I understand that damage isn't the only metric for determining surviability in a combat centric game like D&D. Focusing only on damage is like a race car mechanic who focuses only on speed. I doesn't matter if you are faster than everyone else on the track if you can't make a turn at high speed or have to pit an extra time during the race because you burn through so much fuel.

GWM, SS, CE and PM are all designed to be above the power curve while also being completely unnecessary to take to play the game. It is an intentional design decision by WotC. You can disagree with that all you want, just like I disagree that the Ranger class needs fixing and that Beast Masters aren't fun to play, but at the end of the day, WotC is going to give new Ranger options because enough people complained about it and won't be changing GWM because most people like it.

 

[Tony Vargas]

It's not broken in our games so we don't need to fix it.

If you don't mind that it's broken (or, for that matter, revel in it), you don't need to fix it in your games.

GWM, SS, CE and PM are all designed to be above the power curve while also being completely unnecessary to take to play the game. It is an intentional design decision by WotC.

Interesting as the overkill/'trap' insight is, I doubt it's a design intention - but we can't know unless they come out and admit it (the way Monty Cook came out and admitted that 3e was designed to reward system mastery, for instance, or the way Mike has done with regards to the Firball spell). My guess is that the feats are there to feel more like 3.x (which, y'know, rewarded system mastery, so, yeah, maybe they're less balanced and some are ahead of the curve - but not as 'traps,' as callbacks to 3.x feel), but that's all it is, a guess.

I am going to take that smiley as indication you're not using that story to dismiss the concerns over GWM.

Of course not, it's not proof there's no issue, nor a solution, per se. Rather, it's a legitimate style or attitude under which the issue isn't too important - there might be conscious 'player restraint' involved (The two best & longest 3e campaigns I've been in featured a lot of that), or it might flow naturally from the table's prefernces.

The issue of softness has no bearing upon the discussion about -5/+10.

Sure it does - the experience of the game as lacking challenge is.a manifestation of such imbalances aligning 'high' across the group (ironically making the intra-party dynamic 'balanced').

This mechanism is severely broken regardless of whether you feel the game is challenging enough or not.

It may be OP compared to taking an ASI or a lot of other feats, it may be crucial balance in another sense, as a component of a build that lets a class be competitive when it otherwise might not be. So maybe just plain broken, maybe intentionally so, to balance with other brokenness, or maybe intentionally so to feel enough like power builds in past editions? :shrug: Like all feats, though, it's optional - and opting into feats makes 5e more like 3e - with more customization options, and greater rewards for system mastery.

The issue is that fighters either take it or are completely left behind in the damage-dealing department. The softness argument is in this context a smokescreen, yet another desperate attempt to not have to accept there are any faults in 5E

There are lots of faults in 5e, obviously.

that are severe enough WotC should be given a clear message they need to fix it.

Maybe not so much. 5e isn't sold as a neatly-balanced game to just play as-is, it's a starting point to create the campaign (and, in essence, system) you want. The message is already there in that feats are opt-in optional. Like MCing.

The notion that damage output is unimportant to martial characters is preposterous

Depending on how you use 'martial,' I guess. There are 5 arguably-martial sub-classes that are mainly about DPR, the two fighter sub-classes, in particular. Obviously, DPR is important to them, it's their best contribution to the party's success, and the only one likely to stand out at all consistently.