OB1
Jedi Master
Yes, if I'm reading this right then -5/+7 is basically even without advantage and very good (but not insane) bonus when you do have it.
D&D 5E Nerfing Great Weapon Master
- Status
Yes, if I'm reading this right then -5/+7 is basically even without advantage and very good (but not insane) bonus when you do have it.
Correct. With those numbers someone could tune it to the point where it didn't give them heartburn. If 14 DPR in the best circumstances is the difference between very good and insane otherwise someone could probably get away with -5/+6 which would be ever so slighty worse in neutral situations and good in the best situations.
CapnZapp
Legend
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.
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.
Tony Vargas
Legend
[sblock=noise]
signal
P with n >1, though maybe only fractionally...
For instance, if instead of an attack penalty, the GWM option used an attack action to make a single all-or-nothing attack... that'd fit the idea of an all-out Power Attack, and eliminate the force-multiplier issue. The attack could still be /big/, though, multiple weapon dice, and the +10 or some similarly large bonus, such that the average damage wasn't behind taking the usual set of extra attacks, but the very high single-attack damage could blow through resistance or be particularly valuable any time a damage threshold mattered... or do something, like knock prone (bludgeoning) if you it a certain damage threshold...
...hm... similarly, the SS option, instead of a -5 could apply only to the first attack you make that turn, and only against, say, an enemy that hadn't moved on his last turn. So, you're aiming, see? Makes sense, no? Or it could work just like the above GWM 'fix,' it's one carefully aimed attack /instead/ of the usual Extra attacks, but doing multiple weapon-dice. Conserves ammo, punches through resistance, etc... maybe does something on a damage threshold (different from GWM, or based on damage type...)
Yeah, yeah, it's imbalanced. Acknowledged.
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]
signal
I'm kinda like'n -P/+
P with n >1, though maybe only fractionally...Or that it gives that bonus to multiple attacks in a round.
For instance, if instead of an attack penalty, the GWM option used an attack action to make a single all-or-nothing attack... that'd fit the idea of an all-out Power Attack, and eliminate the force-multiplier issue. The attack could still be /big/, though, multiple weapon dice, and the +10 or some similarly large bonus, such that the average damage wasn't behind taking the usual set of extra attacks, but the very high single-attack damage could blow through resistance or be particularly valuable any time a damage threshold mattered... or do something, like knock prone (bludgeoning) if you it a certain damage threshold...
...hm... similarly, the SS option, instead of a -5 could apply only to the first attack you make that turn, and only against, say, an enemy that hadn't moved on his last turn. So, you're aiming, see? Makes sense, no? Or it could work just like the above GWM 'fix,' it's one carefully aimed attack /instead/ of the usual Extra attacks, but doing multiple weapon-dice. Conserves ammo, punches through resistance, etc... maybe does something on a damage threshold (different from GWM, or based on damage type...)
Last edited:
OB1
Jedi Master
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
OB1
Jedi Master
[sblock=noise]
I'm kinda like -P/+
How about -P/+(P+2)
-2/+4
-3/+5
-4/+6
-5/+7
-6/+8
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.
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.
Maxperson
Morkus from Orkus
I disagree. When I say it's not a problem for everyone, it does not at all sound like I'm saying that numerical imbalances do not exist. It sounds like I'm saying that whether it's a problem or not is completely subjective and that it will only be a problem for those who dislike that particular imbalance.
Holy Mother of Absurd Arguments Batman! That's one of the most ludicrous responses I've seen on this forum. Well done! It's hard to top a lot of them.
No. Every time I say those things it in no way, shape or form implies they he's done something wrong. Rather, it says straight out that we have different ways of viewing things and nothing more. It's not a judgment value on whether he's playing right or wrong, but only a judgment on his claims that something is universally broken. Of the two of us, he's the only one here arguing that the other side must feel and act a certain way. My statement here is further strengthened by my advice for him to just change it. If I was engaging in this mythical One True Way you've just accused me of, I wouldn't have offered that advice, but rather told him to suck it up.
Up until now I've viewed you as one of the more reasonable posters here. After this last statement that's no longer the case. I can't see how anyone reasonable could come up with something so ridiculous.
Last edited:
Flamestrike
Legend
Do any Extra Attacks take the -5 but not receive the +10, or are they just normal?
Hey! I recognize that from AD&D specialization!
Did S&B actually get some kind of feat perk?
Degree-of-success mechanics have gotten proposed here and there over the decades (they've even seen the inside of rulebooks, I think). I can't recall any of them working really well. But, I'm not doin' the math on it, either, though I feel like it might well reduce average damage.
Only the attack that you toggle the feat on for gets the -5.
Sword and board got a minor increase thanks to buffing of the shield master feat.
- Status
Similar Threads
