D&D 5E Nerfing Great Weapon Master

[Blue]

The -5/+10 mechanic is broken for a number of reasons, frankly dont know how it got through playtesting. Best solution is to make GWM a "half feat", delete the -5/+10 part and replace with +1 Str.

For a meaning of "best" that means "very unlike the original feat so it doesn't fill the original design space and we need to come up with another feat to do so".

Actually, add in "and is underpowered compared to other feats".

On reconsideration, I thing the word you are looking for is "sub-par". Spending a feat to get half the ASI (and it's still STR focused so it doesn't even open it up to finesse or others) to get "on a crit or kill get a bonus action attack" is pretty weak. It's like "best", but actually reflective of the suggested change to GWM.

 

[Blue]

I can count on one hand the number of times I've seen a spellcaster disable a foe entirely with a single spell. It is not something that happens every round, or even most rounds.

Our bard has been taking out multiple foes a combat with Hypnotic Pattern since he got the spell. Lots of brutes have average or poor Wisdom and it's not their trained save.

As we go up in levels it's getting more effective, since his DC is going up and their non-trained Wisdom save is not.

 

[pming]

Hiya!

The way we fixed GWM in our game was this:

Step 1: No feats.
Step 2: ...psych!...there is no step 2 because the problem was solved at Step 1.



I'm serious though. You know that old comedy adage It's funny...because it's true!? Well, we found out the same thing. We tried no feats the first couple sessions we ever played because we wanted a feel for the game as we learned it. Then we opened the flood gates to "if it's optional, we'll try it". Feats immediately started to give us..."trouble". We persevered for a year or so with them, and they just weren't getting any better. In the end, we found that Feats were producing very cookie-cutter characters. If you were a barbarian, you took GWM as soon as possible. If you were a Fighter or Cleric, Heavy Armor Master. If you were a Ranger (Hunter) or Rogue, Crossbow Expert and/or Sharpshooter. There were other feats that 'fit' other classes almost as well...and these classes were almost forced to take them. It's like having a billionaire offer you "Any car in the world, for free, as long as it doesn't cost more than $5 million". How many people are going to say "Cool! I've always wanted a Smart Car!"?...or is everyone going to say "Cool! Lambo/Bugatti/RollsRoyce/etc"? Yeah...thought so.

TL;DR Don't use Feats (or Multi-Classing for that matter).

^_^

Paul L. Ming

 

[Blue]

In my experience, enemies basically come in two varieties: the ones that you can handle with no problem, so they aren't worth spending a spell slot on; and the ones that are so strong, they'll probably make the save anyway such that trying to disable them is just a waste of time and spell slots.

In 5e, monsters usually only have two trained saves. If they have high ability scores that don't line up with their saves, maybe you can add in a 3rd or in a few rare cases a fourth. That still leaves 1/3 of the saves really low, and your DC just keeps growing as your proficiency and you casting ability score gets higher.

With 6 sizes out there, it's really easy to tailor to hit foes in poor saves. Hypnotic Pattern, Web, Banishment, ugh, I could go on - every save has spells to charm, or give restrained, or otherwise trivialize an opponent.

As a matter of fact, the premise that more powerful monsters are harder to effect is not just wrong, but actively false in that the exact opposite happens. In truth, you save DC increases with proficiency and you also increase your casting ability score. While an untrained save won't move. A 10 Wisdom CR 1/2 without training in Wisdom saves will have a +0 - and so will a CR 10 creature. But since your DC kept going up in that same time, more powerful monsters actually fail saves more often then at lower levels.

 

[Mistwell]

In my experience, enemies basically come in two varieties: the ones that you can handle with no problem, so they aren't worth spending a spell slot on; and the ones that are so strong, they'll probably make the save anyway such that trying to disable them is just a waste of time and spell slots.

The spells that I actually see being cast are usually area-effect damage spells, and utility or buff spells. Casting a Fly spell on the fighter is significantly more reliable than trying to Hold the monster.

They will make their save vs the Wizard's DC about as often as the fighter will miss their AC with a -5 to attack, and less so over time. If you find they are always making their saves, they you'd likely find the fighter is missing their swings as well. Save DCs grow with ability score and proficiency, while foes ability scores for saves do not grow at the same rate, and spells can be chosen to target the ability scores that are lower on creatures based on their type.

I suspect you find wizards are choosing other spells in your games because wizards just have so many options for types of spells to choose from competing for their limited resources. Fighters don't have as many options. But the wizard is just as capable of dropping and disabling foes with their spells as a fighter with GWM, about as often, if they want to - and with more versatility while doing it.

Nobody complains about those wizards however, because it's expected due to the magical nature of them. I am fine with that - what I am not fine with is then complaining that the fighter is somehow breaking the game by having the same or less effect on the same kinds of creatures because it's mundane in nature and it's easy to theorycraft the numbers but harder to theorycraft the numbers on the wizard save spells. Because they're not hit points - they're odds of completely disabled, which effectively is all their hit points at any level.

 

[Flamestrike]

In my next campaign I will be limiting GWM and SharpShooters (-5/+10) to 'once per attack action'.

I initially considered imposing a bonus action cost on it (it takes a bonus action to wind up or aim). Basically you use your bonus action to wind up or aim, and the next attack you make before the end of your turn gets -5/+10.

I felt that was overly harsh and instead limited it to once per attack action. Action surging fighters get to use it twice per turn.

I also further nerfed SharpShooter. It only ignores half cover and it treats three quarters cover as half cover.

I still don't know what to do with the archery fighting style. I'm considering changing it to allow a creature with the archery fighting style to fire a shot as a reaction with a loaded weapon, after initiative has been rolled, and before their first turn of the combat.

 

[Flamestrike]

Before anyone claims it unfairly nerfing martials, I will also be using the gritty rest variant.

It takes 10 days (One Faerun week) to recover spell slots.

 

[The Crimson Binome]

Our bard has been taking out multiple foes a combat with Hypnotic Pattern since he got the spell. Lots of brutes have average or poor Wisdom and it's not their trained save.

Hypnotic Pattern is good. One of the few times where I saw a single spell completely reshape the flow of battle, it was Hypnotic Pattern against a group of... cyclopses, maybe? There were five or six of them in a room, so even if one or two had saved, it still would have been useful. From what I recall, the fight opened with the wizard using that, and only one resisted, but the rest of the party was able to burn it down before it could do anything. The next round, none of the remaining ones had taken damage yet, so the party just got to take them down one at a time with no resistance.

In 5e, monsters usually only have two trained saves. If they have high ability scores that don't line up with their saves, maybe you can add in a 3rd or in a few rare cases a fourth. That still leaves 1/3 of the saves really low, and your DC just keeps growing as your proficiency and you casting ability score gets higher.

You might be thinking about PCs. Most PCs will only have 2-3 decent saves, or maybe one more if you're using feats. Monsters get legendary saves.

At least, any monster that you would want to incapacitate, if it would otherwise be capable of surviving for more than two rounds, it's going to have legendary saves. That is my experience.

 

[The Crimson Binome]

I suspect you find wizards are choosing other spells in your games because wizards just have so many options for types of spells to choose from competing for their limited resources. Fighters don't have as many options. But the wizard is just as capable of dropping and disabling foes with their spells as a fighter with GWM, about as often, if they want to - and with more versatility while doing it.

What's happening is, in the fights that really matter, nobody can land a spell that requires a save. Tough fights mean legendary enemies, and legendary enemies have legendary saves. Unless you have multiple spellcasters and you want to combine your efforts to try and eat through those saves, there's no point in even bothering. The only way to defeat them is by running through their HP, and Fighters completely outshine Wizards in that arena.

 

[Mistwell]

At least, any monster that you would want to incapacitate, if it would otherwise be capable of surviving for more than two rounds, it's going to have legendary saves. That is my experience.

Wait, what monster would you NOT want to incapacitate with your primary class ability? I have no idea how many legendary monsters you guys are fighting but I feel pretty confident most tables have seen the effect of, say, a Sleep spell on ordinary foes. And yes you'd want to incapacitate ordinary foes with your ordinary spell slots just as the fighter wants to hit ordinary foes for additional damage. I am not sure where you're coming from on this.

What's happening is, in the fights that really matter, nobody can land a spell that requires a save. Tough fights mean legendary enemies, and legendary enemies have legendary saves. Unless you have multiple spellcasters and you want to combine your efforts to try and eat through those saves, there's no point in even bothering. The only way to defeat them is by running through their HP, and Fighters completely outshine Wizards in that arena.

But legendary enemies are extremely rare. Wouldn't those be the very fights you'd be OK with the fighter doing +10 damage, given how they are often against foes with a massive number of hit points and/or healing or resistance to damage?

And yes, most parties have multiple spellcasters who combine their efforts when needed. But regardless, I am still unsure why you're talking about legendary creatures, which are by definition not common.