D&D 5E Great Weapon Master

[Diamabel]

That is like saying "Putting your life savings into the Lotto has the potential to be a great investment" It is horrible advice, completely misleading, and ignores the reality of probability.

I am NOT assuming anything about the math, or the reality of probability. I simply pointed out that the maximum damage output of GWM is far greater than without it.

 

[Cernor]

I am NOT assuming anything about the math, or the reality of probability. I simply pointed out that the maximum damage output of GWM is far greater than without it.

Which is a meaningless point, because GWM gives an explicit increase to damage. If the theoretical maximum of damage isn't higher with an ability that increases damage than without it, then you've broken mathematics... So why bother saying it in the first place?

 

[Diamabel]

Which is a meaningless point, because GWM gives an explicit increase to damage. If the theoretical maximum of damage isn't higher with an ability that increases damage than without it, then you've broken mathematics... So why bother saying it in the first place?

Let me rephrase: I was pointing out just how much greater the potential damage of GWM is.

 

[Coredump]

Two weapon fighting does appear historically- Rapier and dagger, case of rapiers, sword and dagger, etc.

Case was very rare... and all of those are limited to a pretty narrow slice of history, and even then would have fared very poorly against most other forms or anyone wearing armor.

High spike damage is really what I was getting at. Every hit using GWM automatically generates an extra 10 damage. Getting 7 attacks in a round and hitting on 5 of those 7 will generate an extra 50 damage above and beyond what you would normally be capable of dealing with the same amount of hits.

But again, that isn't how it happens. If you get 7 attacks, you will get 5 hits, or you can use GWM and get only 3 hits. Thats the point, you 'system' completely ignores the fact that GWM leads to fewer hits.

 

[Coredump]

Let me rephrase: I was pointing out just how much greater the potential damage of GWM is.

And as I said, it is completely misleading because it ignores the reality of probability.

 

[Diamabel]

Case was very rare... and all of those are limited to a pretty narrow slice of history, and even then would have fared very poorly against most other forms or anyone wearing armor.


But again, that isn't how it happens. If you get 7 attacks, you will get 5 hits, or you can use GWM and get only 3 hits. Thats the point, you 'system' completely ignores the fact that GWM leads to fewer hits.

Irrelevant. You are also ignoring the much more common sword/dagger and rapier/dagger, which were quite common - not as battlefield combinations, but as systems of unarmoured defense.

What "system"? It's entirely possible to hit on 5/7 USING GWM... it's less statistically likely than not using GWM.. but still very possible.

 

[Psikerlord#]

I agree. People will 'feel' how they feel. I am running a human archer with SS, and was simply kicking butt in an adventure a while back. People 'felt' I was a bit OP.... then I explained to them that we were fighting AC8 zombies, so the -5/+10 was useful. I explained to them that the -5 to hit becomes a bigger deal when the AC goes higher, I also pointed out some of the misses caused by the -5, and that I skipped using it against higher AC targets because it would have been detrimental.

They understood, accepted it, and we moved forward. The now call the feat Zombie Killer because it works well against low AC and not so well against higher AC.

If your players are unable to internalize the reality, and insist that their feelings and first impressions are more important than the *actual* balance and results....I assert the problem is with your players and not the feat. If they thought Barbarians were OP, would you nerf them too?


NO! This is just false. Bless does not 'negate' the GWM penalty, it just changes the numbers.
Normally:
GWM means you need to roll 15 instead of 10
Someone casts Bless and gets a 4:
GWM means you need to roll an 11 instead of a 6.

In *both* cases the -5 from GWM means you hit less often....

The only time it can be "negated", is if you only need a 2 to hit and *then* cast bless.

Adv negates the penalty, bless & anything else you might have (magic weapon, high rolled stats, whatever) is just gravy.

 

[Psikerlord#]

And as I said, it is completely misleading because it ignores the reality of probability.

It works both ways. Looking only at the statistical average only gives part of the story. Maximum output is another aspect to be considered. Looking at just one or the other is less reliable than considering both. Then add in your intraparty balance, your DM preference for certain kinds of high AC or low AC monsters or minions, etc etc. In the end it is a judgment call. But what is certain is that the -5/+10 is not a core, intractable concept the game relies on. It is easily removed, for no signficant loss. On the other hand you might find there is much to gain.

 

[Thyrwyn]

For those that feel the need to include the maximum damage out put possible, because it supposedly relevant, I would like to pose this counter argument:

Taking GWF, GWM, and Polearm Master are wasted style and feat choices because it is possible to take 7 attacks in one round and still do zero damage. In fact, you will do so roughly 8 times out of every 10,000 turns, which is millions of times more likely than the chance of you doing the maximum amount of damage.

Just sayin'.

 

[Coredump]

Irrelevant. You are also ignoring the much more common sword/dagger and rapier/dagger, which were quite common - not as battlefield combinations, but as systems of unarmoured defense.

I know it was done, and it is doable in DnD. Historically it was *inferior* to greatsword or sword and shield... especially when used against armor. The *only* reason it was usable was because all of the opponents were also using rapiers, and no one was using armor.

I found it ironic that Celtavian kept going on an on about how things were 'historically' but still wanted two weapon to be just as effective as greatsword or sword and shield.

What "system"? It's entirely possible to hit on 5/7 USING GWM... it's less statistically likely than not using GWM.. but still very possible.

Any comparison that assumes you hit with GWM just as often as without it, is misleading and next to useless. The reason GWM balances is *because* it will hit less often.

(I think I meant 'analysis' instead of 'system')