D&D 5E Nerfing Great Weapon Master

[cmad1977]

The game works right out of the box. Or shrink wrap. Whatever.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Yunru]

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

 

[Fanaelialae]

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.

 

[OB1]

If there was a single feat that "shored up" your weak saves, you're right - everyone would take that instead.

Calling it a trap option because adventures doesn't feature enough challenge is entirely backwards to me. If the adventures doesn't challenge players, that's a huge bug and certainly not a feature. Let's not start treating the edition's carebearian nature as a good thing.

Sure there can be campaigns with doesn't feature combat heavily, and there the feat might be less useful. But in published adventures there are a lot of monsters to be killed, and saying "you don't need to be particularly good at killing to succeed" is the ultimate resignation to me.

What game would D&D be if you could kill its monsters on autopilot? Why would you even waste your time dungeonbashing if there isn't even the illusion of challenge and possible defeat?!

No - a 40% damage increase is and needs to be a huge deal. In fact, my entire argument is that it is too huge a deal, and that the game would be much better off if it was reined in. Both in combat-heavy campaigns and obviously also in your social/exploratory campaigns. In campaigns where it sees a lot of use, and in campaigns where it is never taken. In all campaigns, in other words.

Most of Quantum Physics feels backwards to me, but that doesn't mean that it's not right.

If you as a player don't need to take GWM or SS to successfully complete combat challenges, and you take it anyway, you are wasting a ASI.

Even in a campaign where the ONLY meaningful challenge is in combat, if you are ignoring your vulnerability to your non proficient saving throws, sooner or later you are going to get locked down and killed.

The edition is balanced out of the box for the casual player. It expects advanced players to have an advanced DM who can tweak appropriately. It is essentially Uncharted, not Dark Souls. Guess which of those games sells more copies, even as the other is revered by gamers as the perfect answer to the carebearian challenge of most modern games?

And the game I play in with the Barbarian is combat heavy. It's also Social and Exploration Heavy. For combat, we routinely hit our level appropriate Daily XP budget over the course of 2-8 encounters (yet almost always 18-24 total rounds) But because we don't go gonzo on our character sheets, the DM has the ease of being able to design these by the book, rather than her having to tweak everything. And she can challenge us in the Social and Exploration pillar because we haven't nerfed ourselves there.

Now, what I wouldn't mind would be WotC to provide an official tweak for those good players who want to up the challenge. I'm going to be testing out with TftYP a couple of difficulty settings for my players to choose from before each chapter when they build their characters.

Hard - Starting Array of 13, 12, 11, 10, 8, 8
Legacy - Roll 3d6 in order
Legendary - Starting Array of 11, 10, 9, 8, 8, 6

That's an interesting spin on It! CapnZapp & his crew seem to be caught in it, and thus find the game 'too soft.'

I am absolutely convinced that WotC put these kind of traps into this edition because they learned that the only way to win the power gamer war is not to play. This edition emphasizes real choice in character design. If you want to be an overpowered combat monster, you can. Most importantly, you can take whatever you want without fear that you are going to nerf yourself out of relevancy in any pillar, provided you use the standard array or point buy to start with and put your highest stat in your combat ability (as per the directions of the game).

 

[Tony Vargas]

The edition is balanced out of the box for the casual player.

The encounter guidelines, maybe assume that every option won't be turned on, magic items won't be factored in, and system-mastery won't be rampant.

At the same time, though, a casual player will most likely be walking in at 1st level, and that's where encounters can be the swingiest, and TPKs just sorta happen.

Maybe it's designed with casual players, but a decent DM, or something? IDK.

OTOH, it was a goal of 5e to appeal to fans of each past edition....

I am absolutely convinced that WotC put these kind of traps into this edition because they learned that the only way to win the power gamer war is not to play. This edition emphasizes real choice in character design.

I doubt it's anything that grandiose. Certainly, I don't recall anything like that floated as a goal during the playtest.

Feats in 5e, while 'bigger' than those in past editions, still evoke the edition that introduced them 3e. So does 5e Multi-classing. Both are optional. Turn on both options and the game has significantly more pronounced rewards for system mastery, and the regular encounter guidelines become 'too easy.' Looks to me like those options are there to let DMs who are (or are running for) 3e fans to customize the game to be closer to their preferences. JMHO.

Most importantly, you can take whatever you want without fear that you are going to nerf yourself out of relevancy in any pillar.

If you define relevancy as "thanks to BA, even though you're at -1, you might be the one who succeeds at this important check." I guess that was important enough to implement BA, though, so worth mentioning. I don't find it 5e's strongest suit, personally (that'd be DM Empowerment, I probably don't even need to mention).

 

[OB1]

Feats in 5e, while 'bigger' than those in past editions, still evoke the edition that introduced them 3e. So does 5e Multi-classing. Both are optional. Turn on both options and the game has significantly more pronounced rewards for system mastery, and the regular encounter guidelines become 'too easy.'

I think this really hits the nail on the head.

I would just also add that having both on still allows for choice. In the game with the Barbarian I play a Gnome Wild Sorcerer Feylock with 14 Cha at 11th level and who took tavern brawler because he's constantly getting into bar fights. And I still hold my own in combat. I was able to make those choices because of the default difficulty setting of the game, and I appreciate that I don't have to have a certain build, or to only pick certain things, to be decent.

On the flip side, if you really want to challenge your own system mastery, it's more interesting to do so by starting with a lower set of ability scores. If you start with the 11, 10, 9, 8, 8, 6 that I'm defining as Legendary difficulty, it's not just that you have some negatives, it's that each of your class level and ABI choices becomes much more critical to your success, because the cushion has been taken away.

Of course, the difficulty level assumptions I'm making is just white room now, I'm looking forward to seeing it's effect on play.

As to relevancy, I define it as being able to overcome level appropriate challenges. Because of the strength of class features, almost any configuration of the optional choices will allow a player who took the standard array to be relevant.

As to this being a goal during the play test, I sort of put it in the same category as magic items. That is, magic items were designed specifically to give players a permanent bump in real power. Some feats do the same thing. The difference is the feats are chosen by the player, so they can essentially give themselves a real bump, because the power of those feats isn't considered necessary for the baseline challenge of the game. This leads to increased player choice. And, yes, it means that those looking to do so can and will "break" the system, but that's being done by the choice of the player. Does that make sense?

 

[Tony Vargas]

I think this really hits the nail on the head.

I would just also add that having both on still allows for choice.

Opens up more choice, I'd think...
On the flip side, if you really want to challenge your own system mastery, it's more interesting to do so by starting with a lower set of ability scores.[/quote] I don't really see it, that's just smaller numbers. Now, taking something notoriously sub-optimal, and flogging into shape...

As to relevancy, I define it as being able to overcome level appropriate challenges.

In the default 'easy mode?'

And, yes, it means that those looking to do so can and will "break" the system, but that's being done by the choice of the player. Does that make sense?

Yes. It's interesting, because some of it was couched in the kind of language you usually see in support of balance-is-a-good-thing ideals, but is really more in support of, IDK, 'the game doesn't need to be hard?'

The way I usually dismiss balance concerns in the context of 5e is that the DM will adjust things to maintain spotlight balance. One PC is too weak, buff him up with a magic item. Another PC's abilities aren't relevant, introduce more situations where they are. Not 'fix the game' but keep the campaign varied and the PCs involved and rotating through that spotlight. Yeah, that's putting balance on the DM's back, but he's Empowered.

Leaving the game 'easy' even when a PC might get decidedly OP, OTOH, means the imbalance is really just hitting that PC, it's not that he's overshadowing everyone - they're still doing fine, it's that he's focusing on something he doesn't need - he's only hurting himself. Thus, balance becomes something the each players should be policing for themselves. Not sure how many players would catch onto that, but it's a cool insight.

 

[OB1]

Thus, balance becomes something the each players should be policing for themselves. Not sure how many players would catch onto that, but it's a cool insight.

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.

 

[LapBandit]

In my new games I'll be doing two things with Great Weapons: Turning the 1.33 bonus of Great Weapon Fighting Style into a flat +3 or 4 and removing the -5/+10 from Great Weapon Master while turning the Cleave portion into a half-feat (costs 1 ASI).

 

[CapnZapp]

But, to entirely re-design your encounters, you'd've had to have already designed all of them. I know DMing styles vary, but I don't expect it's typical to design every encounter you'll ever run, then re-design all of them when you notice the game is 'softer' than you expected. You have to design encounters, anyway, and it's not like the existing guidelines are a huge help in the first place. Doesn't seem like an unreasonable approach, to design encounters to fit the play style & system mastery of your players and evoke the tone you want in your campaign, seems like business as usual, really.

What are you talking about here....?

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.

Tweaking them to suit my players party - fine.

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, not that bad with sweeping relativizing language.

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], and his campaign crashed and burned because the game's unprecedented lack of challenge. In fact, if it wasn't for his thread and heads-up, mine would probably do too, since now I was prepared the included encounters could be used for jack shi t.