D&D 5E Nerfing Great Weapon Master

[dco]

I reached that conclusion because if it's not broken or abusable for even one person, then it's an absolute fact that it's not universally broken or abusable. I'm not the only one who it's not broken or abusable for, but even it I was, I am sufficient for him to be factually wrong.

That is non sense, people can be wrong.

Presumably if something was indeed "universally broken", then its brokenness or abusability would be a universal issue. Rather than just an issue for some groups and not others.

No one is saying that people aren't allowed to hold subjective opinions. No one is saying that the feat, or any other aspect of the game, isn't an issue at some tables.
But the claim that something is a system-wide issue, and thus affects everyone is outside the remit of the OP, and pointing out the existence of groups that don't have an issue with it is relevant to that claim.

Balance is not measured by people not caring or not having an issue, numbers have been presented, the only explanation I'm getting from some groups of people is "I don't care, it is ok, it works well for me", an opinion based on who knows what, and if they don't have any problem I'm not sure what is the purpose of deviating the attention insistently in this thread.

 

[Corwin]

That is non sense, people can be wrong.

Might that include people such as you and Zapp, as an example? Just curious about your thoughts on that possibility.

Balance is not measured by people not caring or not having an issue, numbers have been presented.

And yet, the devs know the numbers as well and find the range within the expectations of the system. In fact, their desires for it are clear. So perhaps it isn't the numbers that are wrong, but your expectations of what they should be, vs. what they are intended to be?

 

[Maxperson]

That is non sense, people can be wrong.

I can not be wrong on this, since "broken" and "abusable" are subjective terms here. It's not possible for me to be wrong about this feat, since it is not a problem in the slightest for me.

 

[GameOgre]

Not broken at all for our table either.

The Barbarian who uses it isn't even on of our the top damage dealers.

This edition is MADE for things to SEEM overpowered but those things just don't add up to BE OVERPOWERED.

Or looking at it from another view....Yes it's overpowered but no more overpowered than hundreds of other abilities.

Without these feats some class's would fall too far behind the curve damage wise. Now maybe you could argue that class balance shouldn't depend on a few key feats but that inst what you are arguing.

Now I can say this"early on before everyone at our table explored the different class's and builds for them, I had the same opinion.

I thought the feat was broken and even house ruled it away. Then once we saw that it indeed was not broken but allowed some class's to stay competitive with others we quickly changed it back.

I would say if you see it as a issue house rule it. You just might find yourself house ruling it back sooner than you think but when is that a issue? Do what you think works for your game!

For our table, it aint broke.

 

[Ilbranteloth]

For whatever reason, I continue to be surprised by those who toil so vigorously to convert 5e into 3e and/or 4e. Maybe my surprise is a result of my being so baffled as to their reasoning for trying? I mean, its not like they can't just use those editions' books to play the game they clearly prefer, right?

That's OK. I'm busy converting it into AD&D...

 

[Corwin]

That's OK. I'm busy converting it into AD&D...

At least you have a lot less work ahead of you than those other guys...

 

[Ilbranteloth]

I reached that conclusion because if it's not broken or abusable for even one person, then it's an absolute fact that it's not universally broken or abusable. I'm not the only one who it's not broken or abusable for, but even it I was, I am sufficient for him to be factually wrong.

But in this context I think that if it's considered broken by a majority, or perhaps overwhelming majority, is a better measure than one person against all of the rest.

Having said that, I also agree that in the context of this ability, I don't think that a majority have found it broken, much less an overwhelming majority. But it is one that I see crop up in a lot of different forums, etc. so at the very least I'll agree it's more challenging of a feat than most others for DMs to manage.

Just because I have a problem with something, doesn't mean it's a problem for the majority of others. Likewise, just because I don't have a problem with it, doesn't mean there isn't really a problem.

To put it a different way, the only people that can set a threshold for "broken" or "not broken" is WotC. If their criteria is one person. Than you are factually correct. But if their criteria is 51%, then you are factually incorrect. Others may disagree with their assessment, but since they've provided at least two new attempts at the ranger, they seem to be willing to consider re-addressing things that the community as a whole (whatever number that is) feels is broken.

Or, since I also work with manufacturers - If your assembly line produced only 1 success with every 99 failures, you'd be out of business.

 

[Ashkelon]

I think that the trend from the recent UA should have been the default in regards to feats. That is to say that all feats should have a +1 ability boost and some other features. If this were the case, feats like sharpshooter, great weapon master, and polearm master could have their most egregious abilities replaced with +1 to an appropriate ability. These feats would be much more in line with other feats with this change implemented.

There is however one exception. Barbarian damage falls off compared to other melee classes at levels 11+ if they do not have access to a "power attack" like feature. That however is relatively easy to fix. Give barbarians a class feature that is equivalent to -5 to attack rolls for +10 to damage with two handed weapons or -5/+5 with one handed ones.

 

[dco]

Might that include people such as you and Zapp, as an example? Just curious about your thoughts on that possibility.

And yet, the devs know the numbers as well and find the range within the expectations of the system. In fact, their desires for it are clear. So perhaps it isn't the numbers that are wrong, but your expectations of what they should be, vs. what they are intended to be?

I've explained my position previously, a potential of hundred more of damage per round can break the balance of the game. A party potentially doing 2x more attack at low lvls also can break the balance of the game. An extra attack is very powerful, the feat not only gives that but an option to double the acerage damage of a hit.
Now I would like to read something to defend that it is balanced and not broken instead of the "I don't have a problem" which to me is as interesting for balancing purposes as a fart.
And yet the devs made the feats explicitly optional contrary to 99% of the rules.

I can not be wrong on this, since "broken" and "abusable" are subjective terms here. It's not possible for me to be wrong about this feat, since it is not a problem in the slightest for me.

And instead of a discusion about how to balance the damn feat for people who has a problem with it we have to read uncountable times it works perfectly because of the awful reasoning that it works perfectly for you and other people?
And the discusion keeps coming to the same off topic, I'm starting to think people love trolling threads.

 

[Corwin]

I've explained my position previously, a potential of hundred more of damage per round can break the balance of the game.

Wow! A hundred more damage per round?!? Holy cow! Yeah, I totally agree! That's broken AF!!!!

A party potentially doing 2x more attack at low lvls also can break the balance of the game.

A whole party doubling their attacks?!? Oh noes! That's scary! Yeah, I totally agree! That's broken as all heck!!!!

An extra attack is very powerful...

Oh god, yes. It totally is. Always. Regardless of context or efficacy.

...the feat not only gives that but an option to double the a[v]erage damage of a hit.

It doubles average damage?!? OMG, I had no idea! Then yeah, I totally agree! That's broken for days!!!!

And yet the devs made the feats explicitly optional contrary to 99% of the rules.

Yeah. It's exactly as optional as Linguist. Another broken feat. Good thing they are both eqully optional, amIright?

And instead of a discusion about how to balance the damn feat for people who has a problem with it we have to read uncountable times it works perfectly because of the awful reasoning that it works perfectly for you and other people?

A side conversion that would likely not have bloomed had folks such as yourself not taken the thread off topic, in the first place, with claims that the feat is objectively broken for everyone. Ownership can be a sour fruit, can't it?

And the discusion keeps coming to the same off topic, I'm starting to think people love trolling threads.

I'd love to hear your opinion on how much you believe your post here contributes to the OP's topic...