D&D 5E Nerfing Great Weapon Master

[Flamestrike]

Just tweaking the numbers does not get us anywhere. We're just sliding our setting on a scale - no matter what we choose the feat will always be a trap for newbies on one hand, and abusable for the powergamer on the other. Simultaneously.

Dial back the feat so it can't be abused even with pretty intricate minmaxing and we have a feat noone will take. Dial it back up so newbies aren't likely to be trapped by it, and we are right back at -5/+10.

The core of the problem is the feat applying an effect to every attack the character makes. It becomes a force multiplier; a stackable bonus. 5th edition is very stingy in handing those out, and for good reason. The rest of the game isn't set up to handle individual attacks that do d10+15 damage (from regular human heroes, not big monsters).

To actually solve the problem we need to abandon the idea that the feat gives a damage bonus altogether.

PS. Nothing wrong with damage bonuses, and bonuses in general. But that assumes they're small: in the +1 to +3 range.

Compare to some rare and highly desirable magic weapon that deals +2d6 damage. Big-ass damage bonuses are in the game! The difference is that the game would never think of giving this out without DM approval (in the implicit form: unless the DM likes the item, it will never be found by the characters).

If this feat was something special, like perhaps the Svirfneblin racial feat, or the way Wild Surges depend on DM approval, then my case against the feat would be much weaker; and the argument "just ban it if you don't like it" would have actual merit.

But as a common standard feat made available through a package deal (opting into feats), to all characters, and already at level 1...?

Deplorable.

The feat expressly requires DM approval. Feat are expressly optional rules.

Not that you need it with rule zero but anyway.

 

[CapnZapp]

.

Feats, though, /are/ optional, which means that if you can take GWM or SS (OK, outside of AL), the DM /has/ implicitly given his approval. And, no that list of feats is declared optional as a whole doesn't change that. A DM can examine all the feats before he opts in, and could ban specific feats if he so desired. So a DM allowing feats has given his tacit approval to the 'broken' ones. [/sblock])

You know what? I don't accept that.

You've just put the onus on individual DM's. You've just handwave away the difficulty in doing that.

Not to mention the fact *nobody should have to do it* - this is exactly the stuff we pay WotC to do for us.

It is *their* selection of feats. This is the core rulebook the PHB we're talking about, not some obscure splatbook aimed towards system-mastering experts.

But the worst thing is your readiness to join those who'd rather blame the DM for not excluding the feat, rather than the obvious conclusion of blaming WotC for including it!


Sent from my C6603 using EN World mobile app

 

[CapnZapp]

Not sure I follow your logic here Cap. In the below, a newbie is at worst getting the same +1 to damage they would by taking the ABI instead. Are you saying that the powergamer damage here is still to high? If so, and then to address your issue with it applying to every attack, I'd say bring it back to -5/+10 but allow the +10 to apply only to the first attack that hits per attack action. That said, I think the below is probably a good fix for 90% of those who have an issue with the feat.

-5/+7

Level 1 - 7 vs 8 vs 8 vs 10
Level 1 best case - 9 vs 13 vs 14 vs 17
Level 20 - 33 vs 28 vs 34 vs 39
Level 20 best case - 51 vs 82 vs 90 vs 104

My logic isn't addressing your proposal directly.

My point is that instead of obsessing whether +7 is right, or perhaps +6 or +9, we need to question the very core of the feat's design.

Adding a relatively large number (+10 is after all roughly a doubling of regular damage) is inherently not a sound design choice to make; not for a game feature that will be always on and avaliable to any character at any level.

Sent from my C6603 using EN World mobile app

 

[CapnZapp]

If you remove the -5/+10 part of the feat and replace with +1 to strength or dexterity then the remaining feat shouldn't be called GWM as it operates with any melee weapon.

And the feat that remains is great for a champion who crits more. Want to buff the champion fighter relative to other martial PCs? Change the GWM feat.

Yes that's true.

But would you believe it - we're still not at the point where everyone's aboard and we can start discussing the name change!

Sent from my C6603 using EN World mobile app

 

[CapnZapp]

The feat expressly requires DM approval. Feat are expressly optional rules.

Not that you need it with rule zero but anyway.

Again, I find the ease with which some of you dismiss the very natural inclination of DMs to assume the selection of items given by WotC is a good one deplorable.

I'm calling y'all out on this - DMs should not have to do more decision making than "feats, yes or no"

They should certainly not have to vet each and every feat; which is *exactly* what you are implying.

So stop it already with that argument! It's not a good enough excuse to let WotC off the hook!

Sent from my C6603 using EN World mobile app

 

[Yunru]

But would you believe it - we're still not at the point where everyone's aboard and we can start discussing the name change!

Because would you believe it - It's not a great idea! (And not the focus of the thread. Entirely different story if this was the "Make GWF into Cleave" thread.)

Cleave isn't worth a feat. It's not worth half a feat. At best it's half a half-feat.

"Increase you strength by 1.5. Additionally whenever you reduce a creature to 0 hp or score a critical hit, you may make another attack with your bonus action."? Ha!

 

[Caliban]

You know what? I don't accept that.

Your acceptance is not required. You aren't involved in my game, or in WOTC's decision making, despite your delusions to the contrary.

 

[Geeknamese]

Hmm...how about the number of GWM power attacks is limited by the bonus of your Con stat (min 1) per round. Takes a crapload of effort to swing like that and you can't do it indefinitely so limit by Con makes sense. Do the same for SS except key it off of Int bonus (min 1 attack). Int bonus makes sense because perhaps, SS is extra damage based of careful aim to vitals and Int governs your knowledge and memory of where vitals are. Plus, tired of people dumping Int anyways.


Sent from my iPhone using EN World mobile app

 

[Psikerlord#]

I would be perfectly content with:

Melee Weapon Master. Gain +1 Str or Dex. And the bonus action attack when crit or reduce target to zero hp. That's a cool, useful, balanced, damage buffing feat.

 

[Flamestrike]

Again, I find the ease with which some of you dismiss the very natural inclination of DMs to assume the selection of items given by WotC is a good one deplorable.

I'm calling y'all out on this - DMs should not have to do more decision making than "feats, yes or no"

They should certainly not have to vet each and every feat; which is *exactly* what you are implying.

So stop it already with that argument! It's not a good enough excuse to let WotC off the hook!

Sent from my C6603 using EN World mobile app

You're right; Dungeon Masters should just spent five years of their lives whingeing on forums about one particular feat.

If you don't like the feat, change it. Or leave it out of your games.

I am sick to death of hearing you whingeing about it every other week, while ignoring every single solution put you for fixing the problem.

Did you have a read of the house rules that I posted in the other thread? I tagged you in on them. They should fix most of your problems.