D&D 5E Nerfing Great Weapon Master

Xeviat said:

Today, I had an idea that I was curious about. What if, instead of GWM being -5 to hit for +10 damage, it was Disadvantage for +10 damage (with the caveat that you cannot use it while you have disadvantage). Or would that take away the fun image of someone "power attacking" while blinded because they might as well swing for the fences?

Click to expand...

Because the way it's written, you can have a -5 + disadvantage, which is a very significant penalty.

To me, the reason a reckless attack or rage is effective is because most people who are in the midst of a life-and-death melee combat are as concerned about not being hit as they are hitting the other guy. When somebody shows total disregard for their own safety it can be both terrifying and effective - if they don't get killed in the process. However, the rules don't really simulate the defensive portion of combat, and the way rage + reckless attack works is that the barbarian is probably taking relatively normal damage (advantage to hit him, so enemies hit more frequently, but half damage).

Great Weapon Fighter isn't any different than the Sharpshooter (which you may or may not consider overpowered), but when combined with a rage/reckless attack combination, it's pretty deadly.

However, if I'm on that battlefield? As soon as somebody starts going berserk like that, I'm getting out of there. Disengage then run - use ranged weapons, or live to fight another day. Sure, the barbarian can follow - but I only have to be faster than at least one of my allies. If everybody gets out of reach, the the barbarian ends their rage too, even better. But until then, with the RAW anyway, you have advantage on ranged attacks, including spells that have a ranged attack mechanic, against him. And again, if I'm on that battlefield, and somebody puts themselves above their allies as a primary threat, then that's who I'm targeting - and instructing my allies to target.

Whether this directly addresses your concerns, I don't know.

If you wanted to simplify it, the idea of disadvantage on the attack sounds good, although I probably wouldn't include the rule that you can't use it while you have disadvantage. The reason being, it's not a precise, measured attack, it's just putting more power into the swing. So that's OK. And instead of +10, maybe double damage? The potential for more damage exists, (especially with a critical), but on average it would be less than +10. Essentially you're trading disadvantage for a critical.

I will point out that from 3rd-level and higher, a rogue's sneak attack outpaces the damage of a raging, reckless barbarian with GWF. And a rogue can stack Sharp Shooter on top of their sneak attack. Also, the designers have noted that it's assumed the rogue will get their sneak attack almost every turn.

Bacon Bits said:

?No, that only works if the minimum roll to hit is an odd number. If you need an even number to hit, then you're off.

For example, say you need to roll a 12 or better to hit AC 20. If you roll a separate die, you have a 50% chance of turning any hit into a miss. If you use the value of the d20, then you have 5 values that are hits that remain a hit (12, 14, 16, 18, 20) and only 4 values that are hits that turn into a miss (13, 15, 17, 19). So only 4 in 9 hits can turn into a miss, which is fewer than 50%.

It also doesn't work if the character is a Champion Fighter since they have an ability that lets them crit on a 19.

The real problem with 50% miss chance is the fact that it's not obvious that it gets progressively worse the more base damage you deal.

Click to expand...

That's why I said AROUND 50%. Depending on the AC it might be 50% or 45%, but for that slight peculiarity you gain not having to make an extra roll. That's a win in my book. As for the champion, just let it work if the odd number is a crit.

It's also true of power attack, that it isn't obvious (to many) that it gets progressively worse the higher your base damage is.

Eubani said:

It seems the spellcasters Supremacy League has it's underwear in a bunch again,

Click to expand...

I thought the freedom of robes was part of the appeal of membership? Kinda like regimentals.

;|

how dare martial characters have something that lets them pull ahead in one place with risk of getting nothing.

Click to expand...

Meh, it's 'pulling ahead' of other weapon-using DPR classes. And, optimal use of the feat requires being buffed by a friendly caster, anyway.

CapnZapp said:

I still don't immediately see how you arrive at "Disadvantage would make the feat more powerful". Perhaps you can walk me through it.

Click to expand...

Xeviat's variant is something like Disadvantage instead of -5 to get the +10; can't use if you already have disadvantage.

It looks like dco's analysis is of the first part, Disadvantage vs -5. He seems to conclude that accepting Disadvantage is as good or better than accepting a -5, whether you have Advantage to mitigate it, or not. That's consistent with past analysis of Adv/Dis which show them about equivalent to +/- 5 when the chance to hit is 50/50, and less the more you deviate from 50/50 in either direction.

AFAICT, dco did not try to account for being unable to use the option if you already have disadvantage - something the DM could hammer you with if he wanted to, kinda like the 3.5 DM constantly putting enemies, obstacles, and/or difficult terrain in the way of charge builds. It also doesn't take into account how it might affect synergies with class abilities and other combos.

CapnZapp said:

Thank you for responding, though you are certainly not very clear. Let me see if I can decode your message.

The first line seems like the result you need to roll to hit, yes? The probability for which you list under "Normal"?

Then the -5 line, which is the probability of Normal-5?

Then the Advantage-5 line, which is the probability of -5 but with advantage?

Then you compare this with Normal but with disadvantage, no?

I still don't immediately see how you arrive at "Disadvantage would make the feat more powerful". Perhaps you can walk me through it.

Click to expand...

The first line is what you need to get, in the first case at least 5, the second line using disadvantage, the third line rolling normal with a -5 modifier, the fourth line advantage+disadvantage or -5 with +5 modifier in the case of paladin = normal roll, the last line advantage with a -5 modifier.
For example in the first case:
- You have 64% of possibilities to roll a 5 or more with disadvantage, if you add advantage 80%
- You have a 55% of possibilities to roll a 5 or more with a -5 modifier included, if you add advantage 79.5%
In any case you can use this page:
http://anydice.com
Use:
"output 1d20" and click at least
"output [highest 1 of 2d20]" and click at least
You won't see a +5 (25% difference) between the two, it's close for a 10 and near values but then it goes down. +5 bonus is always better than advantage. It also lets higher results, from 6 to 25.
With disadvantage and -5 it is the same, one goes from -4 to 15, the other from 1-20. You can see it with:
"output [highest 1 of 2d20] - 5"

In practical play, assume the disadvantage is cancelled by an advantage. Using the feat as written, it is almost never used without advantage, so it would be unreasonable to assume it will ever be used with actual disadvantage.

Click to expand...

And then you would have 30% to get 15 or more using advantage and disadvantage (15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20), and a 9.75% to roll a 20 with advantage (20-5=15)

Also assume the character stands ready with some ability to augment a bad roll, such as Bardic Inspiration, or more reasonably, the character's own Precision Strike superiority dice. ...
...Back to the disadvantage proposal. Once you no longer can achieve actual advantage, as opposed to merely negating disadvantage, you will burn through your superiority dice much faster and Lucky is no longer nearly as attractive. And you need these to truly abuse the feat.

I have not done the calculations to back up this hunch, though.

My point is that once you see the whole minmaxing picture, perhaps you are hurt more by the lack of advantage than your initial numbers suggest, @dco?

Click to expand...

It doesn't matter, bless, bard inspiration adds the same average to both versions, the base is the same.
With luck it is better to have the best d20 of 2 rolls than roll 3 dice choose the best and substract 5, but the second part has more choices for criticals. 14.26 to roll a 20 with 3 dice (advantage+luck) and get 15, 51% to roll 15 or more with (advantage-disadvantage) and luck, 9.75% of a 20.

CapnZapp said:

I still don't immediately see how you arrive at "Disadvantage would make the feat more powerful". Perhaps you can walk me through it.

Click to expand...

Disadvantage is generally stated to be equal to -5, but mathematically that's incorrect.

See here: http://andrewgelman.com/2014/07/12/dnd-5e-advantage-disadvantage-probability/ or here: http://onlinedungeonmaster.com/2012/05/24/advantage-and-disadvantage-in-dd-next-the-math/ among many other places.

In general, the +5/-5 for advantage/disadvantage is in the middle of the curve. The closer you get to the ends the curve you get, the less of a bonus of penalty it imposes.

The math that [MENTION=6780269]dco[/MENTION] posted was to show you that when you're trying to hit an AC of less than 5, then you hit 64% of the time with disadvantage, but only 55% of the time with a -5 penalty.

On the other end, when the target is an AC 15 or higher, disadvantage hits 9% of the time, but with a -1 penalty you only hit 5% of the time (when you roll a 20).

This is assuming no other modifiers to the roll, of course. But basically it's an acknowledgement that disadvantage is only -5 when your target number is around 10 or 11. Otherwise it's less of a penalty than -5.

In addition, by using a numerical penalty, there are potential situations where you can have disadvantage and the -5 penalty. RAW, that can't happen with reckless attack, but it does take away the advantage so it still an additional penalty.

Another irony of the D&D combat system is that once you need to roll a natural 20 in order to hit at all, none of the other penalties aside from disadvantage matter. Disadvantage is the only way, RAW, that you can miss on a natural 20. So if the target is an AC of 20+, then disadvantage is worse than a -5 penalty.

Which means, as written, any hit by a GWF or Sharpshooter should always benefit from the +10 damage.

Bacon Bits said:

The point I was making was if you make it worse than +10 then you shouldn't make it worse than +7. Previously in the thread, people were talking about making it -5/+5 or -proficiency/+proficiency. Both of those schemes are never worth it because +1 to hit is worth more than +1 damage. -5/+7 makes it only worth it against very low ACs (13-14 or less or so).

As far as having to be worth an ASI, -5/+10 doesn't have to carry the full weight of the feat because it's not the only function of the feat. Furthermore, there are several feats that aren't worth an ASI, even when they include half an ASI. Linguist? Lightly Armored? Durable? Actor?

No, that only works if the minimum roll to hit is an odd number. If you need an even number to hit, then you're off.

For example, say you need to roll a 12 or better to hit AC 20. If you roll a separate die, you have a 50% chance of turning any hit into a miss. If you use the value of the d20, then you have 5 values that are hits that remain a hit (12, 14, 16, 18, 20) and only 4 values that are hits that turn into a miss (13, 15, 17, 19). So only 4 in 9 hits can turn into a miss, which is fewer than 50%.

It also doesn't work if the character is a Champion Fighter since they have an ability that lets them crit on a 19.

The real problem with 50% miss chance is the fact that it's not obvious that it gets progressively worse the more base damage you deal.

Click to expand...

I've never seen a 50% miss calculated this way. If there's a 50% miss, I just roll a separate miss check. Back in the AD&D days it would have been d%, but nowadays I'd just grab a die and do even/odd on a separate die. In other words, a 50% miss chance.

[MENTION=12731]CapnZapp[/MENTION] I think my biggest issue with your positions is that you appear to be contending two different and mutually exclusive ones.

On the one hand, you've repeatedly argued this is a problem with the game itself, regardless of class and feats. That the game itself has some fundamental assumptions which fall apart when anyone, regardless of class and feats, does too much damage at once. And that the edition AS A WHOLE is less challenging than any other edition, is too soft, that you cannot just beef up encounters but must wholesale replace encounters from scratch, and that it wrecks verisimilitude when one character (any character, with any feats) can suddenly do 25 points damage in a single "regular" hit, because this means you can't use damage thresholds and hardness in this edition.

None of those arguments are necessarily about martial characters or the Great Weapon Master feat. They all apply equally to things like Warlocks agonizing blast, or the fact that a wizard can cast fireball twice every encounter for 6+ encounters a day, or any of a number of combinations I am sure we can come up with. The premise is that IF you can do X amount of damage (you specified 25 points in a single hit) THEN the game breaks, regardless of the class or feat being used to do this. And I think we all agree there is more than simply the GWM feat that fits this definition – lots of things can reach that damage threshold in this game on a regular basis for a single hit, and not just this feat, and you previously acknowledged that the game in general hands out far too generous bonuses for it's own good.

We take all those arguments as a critique of the fundamental assumptions of the game in general. We can call this ARGUMENT A (The game is "too soft" in general). And yes I can provide quotes from you to back up every thing I just said.

[sblock]

CapnZapp said:

The real issue is the +10 damage.

It effectively gives the character Strength 40.

That simply can't be allowed to remain; it destroys the fundamental assumptions of the game.

Click to expand...

CapnZapp said:

When I had this discussion the last time, that was brought up into the discussion [Agonizing Blast for Warlocks at 5th level].

There is no easy fix. The game simply hands out far too generous bonuses for its own good.

There is no single simple tweak. The game simply fails to account for optimal play.

Click to expand...

CapnZapp said:

even if it somehow couldn't be abused, it would still be bad to include a feat that grants PCs the power to dish out damage like Strength 40 monsters.

Click to expand...

CapnZapp said:

This is deeply wrong. 5th edition is noticeably weaker and less challenging than any other edition of the game I've encountered. It is so very soft that it becomes a problem, since no longer is it enough to just beef up encounters to make them provide enough challenge.

5e is the first edition where encounters must be wholesale replaced from scratch, and this is a huge failing of the edition.

(The reason is a double whammy: not only is monsters simplified beyond any reasonable limit and have lost essential survival tricks, but 5e characters are given a number of extra gimmies, lives and tricks far beyond that of any previous edition)

Click to expand...

CapnZapp said:

8. It wrecks verisimilitude when one character can suddenly do 25 damage in a single regular hit.

It means you can't use damage thresholds and hardness in this edition.

Click to expand...

[/sblock]

But then we get to ARGUMENT B: This is just about martial characters and this one feat, and any other conversation or comparison is an irrelevant distraction.

Here you argue we should not compare balance issues between two types of classes, but that balance is asking if feature X is better than feature Y and we shouldn't be concerned with the "world" and monsters and NPCs at all. That this is not about casters vs martials but is only about martials vs martials.

[sblock]

CapnZapp said:

I find "There's always a high end" an incredibly weak argument for "we don't have to make any effort at balance".

Again, forget about wizards and fireball. This is about one style of martial fighting completely outclassing other styles of martial fighting.

Click to expand...

CapnZapp said:

You confuse two things:

1) 5e is very balanced. Its remaining balance bugbears stand out all the more because of it. -5/+10 is one of them.
2) 5e consistently fails to provide a challenge unless you toss out its own guidelines.
This has nothing to do with what we here call balance. Balance in a "is feature X balanced" type discussions concern itself with internal balance: within the character and within the party. Essentially: is X better than Y? This generally does not concern the "world" and its monsters and NPCs at all.

Click to expand...

CapnZapp said:

It seems you have your arguments in a bunch again, since this is not the complaint.

This is not about casters vs martials. This is about martials vs martials.

One important job of a martial is to deal damage. This feat means only some fighting styles get a significant upgrade while others are left out.

But more generally, either the game is balanced for martial damage output without the feat (and the feat is severely overpowered) or with the feat (in which case it's a feat tax).

Adding a feat that can be exploited to deal +40 extra damage per round is just horrendously ill-advised.

Click to expand...

[/sblock]

These are mutually exclusive arguments. Argument A conflicts directly with Argument B.

It's either a fundamental issue of the game that dealing X damage in a single hit (regardless of class type, whether it is a caster or a martial, and regardless of feat, whether it is Agonizing Blast or Great Weapon Master, and regardless of the type of hit, whether it is a great sword or a fireball) breaks the game because this means encounters become so weak you have to completely remake them and you cannot use damage thresholds and hardness and verisimilitude is wrecked and overall the game is just too soft. If this is the problem, then the conversation should be about this more universal issue with the game rather than just one feat, because we'd end up playing whack-a-mole on dozens of aspects of the game to actually address this more fundamental issue with the game.

OR

It's only about internally measuring martials versus martials, and this one feat, and it's not about fundamental assumptions of the game relative to anyone who does X amount of damage in one hit, it's only relevant if someone with this feat does that X amount of damage in one hit because the measurement is relative to that same character choosing something else. In which case, were you just wrong when you were earlier saying this is a more universal problem with the game and the game works just fine except for this feat despite what you were saying earlier?

That doesn't fly. It's not a consistent position. Pick one of those two to arguements. Because otherwise your position becomes a moving target. If we address this one feat you can just say we're not addressing the more universal issue, and if we address the more universal issue you will say we're distracting from the topic of this one feat. You have to pick one of those, and explain why you're ejecting the other one.

Mistwell said:

<Mistwell dropping the mic.>

Click to expand...

Bravo, sir. Surgically delivered. An excellent read. I give it 5 out of 5 stars.

Ilbranteloth said:

I've never seen a 50% miss calculated this way. If there's a 50% miss, I just roll a separate miss check. Back in the AD&D days it would have been d%, but nowadays I'd just grab a die and do even/odd on a separate die. In other words, a 50% miss chance.

Click to expand...

You responded to the wrong person. [MENTION=53980]Fanaelialae[/MENTION] wanted to suggest an alternative to rolling a separate die, which I mentioned was a drawback to using a miss chance. I was pointing out that using the attack roll die doesn't actually give you a 50% miss chance in about half of the cases. Per the forum rules, I responded to both you and Fanaelialae in a single post.