D&D 5E Nerfing Great Weapon Master

[Xeviat]

I love these recurring threads. People are totally chill with a 3rd level Fireball that could hit 20-odd creatures for 8d6 but flip their when a character willing to risk life and limb in melee hits hard.

1) I think fireball does too much damage. By the DMG's own guidelines, it's doing single target damage. Maybe because it's harder to avoid your allies?

2) Why does "perfect balance is impossible" end up being used to shut down any discussion of balance?

3) Fireball is twice a day when it first shows up. 8d6 is 28 damage. Hitting two enemies is a fair assumption. A barbarian with GWM and a greatsword could be doing 21 (2d6+4) with two attacks, and a likely bonus attack from the cleave. All day, every round.

Besides, caster strengths don't seem to be in damage.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Xeviat]

Its out of whack with those assumptions though. Look at class functions like the hunter bonus damage, +2 damage off the duelist fighting style, the clerics bonus dice of damage at level 8. Even spells as class features hunters quarry and hex.

What if it was tied to proficiency? -Proficiency to hit, gain +prof*2. I'm sure I've seen that suggestion. It would be +4-6 damage through the common levels, and get it out of the area where a 21 damage hit oneshots things.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[jgsugden]

The reasons why GWM and Fireball are as they are has been discussed by the developers. They do what they do for a reason. Fireball, as an iconic spell, is better than other spells in terms of the power curve. GWM, makes a difference versus low AC enemies, but that -5/+10 doesn't actually change anything subtantial in a lot of typical combats.

 

[Prakriti]

The best way to "fix" GWM is to stop using feats. They are an optional rule, after all. Personally, I started enjoying the game so much more after I stopped playing with feats and multiclassing.

 

[Mistwell]

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.

So tell me, how is it a spellcaster can essentially disable a single foe most rounds without it being "broken for a number of reasons, frankly don't know how it got through playtesting" but a fighter doing +10 damage to a single foe most rounds is broken? And then tell me how, in your experience playing games with this feat, your games broke? And I don't mean in theory, I mean in practice.

 

[The Crimson Binome]

So tell me, how is it a spellcaster can essentially disable a single foe most rounds without it being "broken for a number of reasons, frankly don't know how it got through playtesting" but a fighter doing +10 damage to a single foe most rounds is broken?

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.

 

[Mistwell]

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.

Wow, really? Just glancing at the low level spells from Wizards, I have seen every one of these spells disable a foe, or multple foes, for multiple rounds. Each has effectively killed the foes due to the debuffing effect being so disabling that it was basically a mop-up job to kill or capture them due to the spell: Sleep, Tasha's Hideous Laughter, Blindness/Deafness, Crown of Madness, Hold Person, Ray of Enfeeblement, Web, Fear, Hypnotic Pattern, Banishment, Confusion, Wall of Fire.

A wizard of most levels can cast one of these almost every round. I have never heard anyone say it breaks the game that they take out one or more foes quite often with these spells. And yet, doing +10 damage from the fighter breaks the game? I think that's theorycrafting that doesn't happen in practice. But I am open to hearing stories from people who found this feat actually broke their game in a way more than on paper as an idea.

 

[The Crimson Binome]

Wow, really? Just glancing at the low level spells from Wizards, I have seen every one of these spells disable a foe, or multple foes, for multiple rounds.

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.

 

[Blue]

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?

In every single case, disadvantage is equal or less of a penalty then -5. So this would be a large buff to the power the the GWM feat.

 

[guachi]

The OP has two threads up - Nerfing Great Weapon Mastery and Buff the Champion Fighter.

How about this: Buff the Champion Fighter by not Nerfing Great Weapon Mastery (or Sharpshooter) when the feat is taken by a Champion Fighter.