D&D 5E Nerfing Great Weapon Master
- Thread starter Xeviat
- Start date
- Status
Bacon Bits
Hero
The arguments I've seen made and defended in this thread include:
- People have suggested altering encounters or altering monster statistics in order to deal with the effects of the feat. That's certainly true and technically works. However, if you're running a module because you don't have time to build encounters, it isn't really feasible. It's also a little bit like letting a player take the Observant feat and then increasing the DC of all passive perception checks by 5 in response. It doesn't devalue the feat; it just makes it the new baseline. On the other hand, if you're not running a module, it's a fair assumption that you're already building encounters of the type that you and your table prefer. In that case, the argument is basically telling someone they're playing D&D wrong. In either case, the only reason to suggest such a thing is because one believes that modifying the rest of the campaign is significantly preferable to modifying the feat. How do we know that? Because modifying a feat is orders of magnitude less complicated.
- People have suggested the solution is to not use feats at all because they're optional. That certainly solves the problem. However, it's throwing the baby out with the bathwater for those who want to use optional rules, since there are 40+ feats in the PHB and most of them do not include a -5/+10 mechanic. Furthermore, it also doesn't really help with an existing campaign. Given that, the only reason to take this approach is because one believes that not using any feats at all is preferable to modifying the feat. In other words, that it's better to not use a rule at all rather than to modify any of it.
- People have suggested that the feat has never been a problem in their campaigns. I think that on it's face that's pretty clearly a direct argument for not modifying the feat at all. It's stating outright that it's not a problem, with the obvious conclusion that it shouldn't be modified. It's certainly possible to have a group have a problem with any game mechanic and another group not have a problem with a game mechanic, even if we assume that playgroups on both sides have equivalent and high system mastery, because different campaigns have different play styles; the division of the three pillars is often wildly different between different play groups. The real problem with this assertion is that on it's own it's just unhelpful. It's like telling a man who broke his leg while riding a horse that you've ridden the horse before and not broken your leg. It's begging the question.
So, yes, people have repeatedly argued to not modify the feat.
That assumes a perfect assessment from all people. Everyone who has played with the feat has assessed it correctly? What about differences between campaigns? Different campaigns will have differently designed encounters and differently designed challenges.
We noticed the problem with GWM while playing Out of the Abyss under a DM who likes to run a large number of plain, straightforward, deadly combats. We noticed the problem with Sharpshooter in a short side campaign that featured a fairly high amount of combat. However, in a Curse of Strahd campaign we normally alternate OotA with, the DM focuses on exploration and roleplaying much more than combat, and nobody has even considered taking GWM or Sharpshooter. Does that mean we shouldn't consider the feat broken in Out of the Abyss?
Whether or not something is absolutely, universally broken is such an impossible standard that it's irrelevant to the entire topic of whether or not it should be altered.
What if I told you that in 3.x we had several campaigns that were consistently dominated by non-spellcasters. (This is actually true, BTW.) Would that mean that the general assessment that Wizards, Clerics, and Druids were wildly more powerful than all the other classes was factually incorrect, or would you be suspicious that we weren't assessing the game on the same playing field?
Do you find these two quotes, from your one post, to be at all at odds? Even a little? Just curious.
Because if he's running OotA (a published adventure), yet has decided to repeatedly run a preferred type of encounter*, that is in turn leading to your problems, how is it that a published adventure can be the cause of the problem?
Agreed. I wonder why people keep trying to do it?
[*BTW, I've played through that entire adventure. It's not, as far as I experienced, full of "a large number of plain, straightforward, deadly combats". In case that comes up next...]
nswanson27
First Post
Not sure if this has been mentioned yet, but one point of fact regarding power balance with GWM is that you are melee without a shield to use it. Haven't seen this point acknowledged, and is not insignificant.
OB1
Jedi Master
[MENTION=6777737]Bacon Bits[/MENTION] Why aren't suggestions for altering playstyle just as valid as suggestions for altering the feat? No one is saying you have to do either, but by making those types of suggestions someone may be exposed to a new idea to make their game better.
Nerfing can happen by changing the feat or changing the the game the feat is in. I'd say there are plenty of examples of both of these in this thread, with dozens of good choices for how to change the feat directly and a few for how to change your game.
Nerfing can happen by changing the feat or changing the the game the feat is in. I'd say there are plenty of examples of both of these in this thread, with dozens of good choices for how to change the feat directly and a few for how to change your game.
Cap'n Kobold
Hero
If their game is robust enough for those numbers not to unbalance anything, then that impacts the overall balance of the feat. If the numbers are different because the base assumptions used to generate them are different than those at your table, then that also affects the overall balance of the feat.
Again, no one is claiming that this feat, or that feat, or spell X, or class A etc is balanced at your table. We're just refuting the claim that its unbalanced at all tables.
I think that the claims of "This is s system-wide issue and the feat must be removed from the game" have sparked a side discussion on that point alongside the discussion of suggestions for adjusting it that the OP might prefer to use.
I personally might have suggested that this portion of the feat simply grant a +10 damage, once per rest. - But this is similar enough to other suggestions.
D
dco
Guest
This is why I would prefer farts, they would stink less than your sarcasm, there would be more value in them.
An extra attack with a 2 handed weapon is very powerful in a game where a berserker for example gets one as a class feature at 3 lvl only usable with a rage and with the exhaustion penalty. The classes get a reliable attack at lvl 5-6, 11, 20., appart from that you have some class features or TWF. On average the players should kill an enemy in 1-2 rounds of combat, that could be an extra attack each 1-2 rounds.
2 handed weapons have a damage threshold of 1d8-2d6, the potential of 10 more damage is near the potential of 2x the average damage per attack. The drawback is -25% to hit, the party and the player have many ways and buffs to improve their accuracy, the damage curiously is only increased for some classes with spells like Hunter's mark to remain competitive. +1 STR can give you +5% to hit and STR saving throws, +1 damage, +1 to STR ability checks.
A battlemaster can hit 9 times per round at high level, more with this feat and buffs. That's a potential of 100+ damage. Not sure what kind of parties people see in their games, but I've played in one with a Barbarian using the feat and a wolf totem giving advantage to other guys, a champion with the feat, a paladin with the feat, the war cleric was already thinking on choosing the feat for laughs and an assasin that always killed the enemies of the barbarian. Sometimes we cleaned the room in the first round, big baddies as soon as my barbarian was there were dead but they didn't know it. At high levels it was going to be far more damage than the same party without the feat, and I say hundreds, people can make their own maths because you don't have to play to see where it was going, and can read the monster manual and see the HPs of monsters.
There was no balance there, increasing the difficulty of the encounters could be deadly if we got surprised.
Linguist? Tell that to the designer of the game or open a new thread for help balancing the feat.
I'm sure I'm not the one who derailed this, I'm only tired of reading always the same guys pivotating about the same thing without providing any numbers, or suggestions or anything, curiously you are present in most pages, so I'm not surprised. My contribution? Soon zero because this is a lost cause, at least I've presented my numbers instead of parroting is ok or not without any reasoning beyond "someone thinks the sun rotates around the earth so it is a fact", at this point I'm sure the only purpose is to derail the thread and waste everybody's time.
You'd think you'd be far more happy to have succeeded in converting an unenlightened rube, such as myself, than this. I mean, I've seen the light. Why aren't you excited about that? You've accomplished something no one has ever managed before around here. You've completely changed someone's opinion about something. Rejoice!
Yikes! That IS crazy. What were the devs thinking? It's bad enough a battlemaster can attacks 9 times every round. Presumably hitting with all of them, of course. But can make even more attacks than that every round with feats and buffs?! Heavens to Murgatroyd!
That's weird. Why would you ask me to crate a thread seeking help with something you think I don't believe needs doing? I confess you have me a bit turned around.
Mistwell
Crusty Old Meatwad (he/him)
Is it your honest belief there will come a time where everyone agrees with you on this topic?
Last edited:
Fanaelialae
Legend
In my case, I suggested increasing the AC of monsters by 3 (if you felt your players weren't being challenged enough due to the power attack combo). This is not a change that requires any real effort because it does not technically increase the CR of a monster (+1 to CR requires +4 to AC) and it requires only minimal skill with arithmetic to implement (which anyone who plays D&D should more than possess). I suggested this because this sort of modification can be easier than modifying the feat. With certain players, if you "nerf" a feat they like, they will complain. On the other hand, if you increase AC by 3, they're not likely to even notice unless they're the rare player who memorizes the MM (in which case, IMO, you have bigger problems than whether or not GWM is broken). Easy on the GM and invisible to the players.
The thing is, by definition, if all feats are optional then an individual feat is also optional. You just say, "Hey guys, in this campaign I am allowing all of the feats except for GWM, SS, and Linguist." Straight forward, simple and, as long as your players aren't the type to complain about such things, easy.
At least in my case, I accept that there are those who do have this issue. I think it is a slightly different issue than is posed in many analyses, because IMO it isn't a problem until you can regularly pair it with accuracy boosting abilities (and preferably a lot of them). Admittedly, I have argued against this being a universal issue as a result, because there are those who have claimed that it is a systemic issue and I disagree. IMO, if your players don't go out of the way to abuse the feat, the results it produces are perfectly reasonable. Additionally, it's a cool feat that speaks to a certain type of player (and I don't just mean players who like to optimize), so I don't feel that getting rid of the feat (or just getting rid of power attack) is a good universal fix.
- Status
Similar Threads
