D&D 5E Nerfing Great Weapon Master

[CapnZapp]

So you immediately theorycrafted about it without actually trying it out. Which is what I suspected.

Trying what out?

I have playtested GWM and CE comprehensively, and it is thoroughly unbalanced. If you minmax it, that is.

But that's not what I'm talking about here - 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. Or, in the words of Mirtek: "as if the greatsword [and only the greatsword] would deal 2d12 and crit on 19-20"

 

[CapnZapp]

We have used it with
Bless
Bard dice
Rogue: Mastermind granting advantage
Barbarian advantage getting
Paladin avenger focus
Greater Invisability
Any debuff granting advantage (hold person)

The big problem is a PC going nuts with it vs other martial types who did not take it do not. Apparently the average AC of the MM is 14.5, I have seen it used reliably up to AC 18. Hell the 1st AP for 5E has a +2 weapon in it.

Ayep.

 

[CapnZapp]

vengeance paladin with this feat, used his paladin adv power and/or bless to negate the penalty, did more damage than the rest of the party. Game folded as a result. later played another game with vengeance paladin, modified the feat, no issues.

So you agree the feat doesn't work right out of the box? Thanks.

The fact you made it work with a houserule is of course not a reason for WotC not to fix it for everybody.

Regards

 

[Gladius Legis]

I've had success changing the hit/damage trade to -2/+4. Similar DPR boost without any buffs or advantage, and since the variance is less it's useful in more battles. On the other hand, it also prevents the extreme damage cases -5/+10 is capable of with advantage and buffs.

 

[schnee]

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.

I've heard that since 4.x came out, it's dishonest then, and it's dishonest now.

All day every round only works if the fighter has infinite hit points.

Fighters being front-liners get hit. A lot. They can no more do that feat 'all day every day' than a monster can cast an innate magical effect 'all day every day'. Because they will die. Quickly.

Oh, that's not even mentioning if they even get if off. Can we talk about being, Held or Entangled, or Slowed, or Webbed, or...?

 

[CapnZapp]

IIRC from our previous discussions, your group likes to not only optimize their characters but rather optimize the party itself. The game isn't calibrated for that.

Yes - many of the stunts my players pull off doesn't seem to be that impressive on their own - but as enablers for other party members they're excellent.

Monk Stun is perhaps the best example. The Monk hasn't killed that many monsters by himself. But the player is more than happy by his contribution.

But I need to talk about a serious issue: "The game isn't calibrated for that."

On the surface of things, this is not only completely true, but also as it should be - expected even. No edition of D&D (its monsters, adventures etc) has been or should be geared towards the optimal party.

But this statement is easily relativized: Since the game shouldn't be calibrated for "that", everything is okay and nothing needs to change.

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 enought 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)

 

[Mirtek]

Funny I have someone straight fighter has maxed main stat (we do rolled stats), polearm + gmw and the way every one acts on this boards you think they just steam roll my fights but nope because it is all about encounter building. He looks great against a big single mob but when I start adding multiple mobs with about 40 HP's haha the evocation wizard makes them look weak or the cleric/scorer were he can max lighting damage once per long rest and he drops chain lighting with that yea talk about making the melee feel weak.

But that's the case of different classes each getting their turn to shine. The issue is with the GWM melee guy and the non-GWM melee guy in the same party with the former outshining the later at every turn.

 

[CapnZapp]

So again, do wizards feel the same pressure if they don't choose fireball? All you're describing is the high end of the power scale, not brokeness. Remove the high end, and you just get another high end to replace it. There is always a high end, unless it's a game like 4e where they flatten everything in the name of balance.

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.

 

[Tony Vargas]

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

In 5e, the strong argument for "we don't have to make any effort at balance" hinges on "who's we, kemosabe?"

Because 5e is the DM Empowerment edition, 'we' as DMs do have to make an effort at balancing our games, at our tables, for our players, in the context of our campaigns - which means what it takes to achieve balance may be quite different for each of us.

OTOH, if Mike Mearls were to tweet: "we don't have to make any effort at balance," with 'we' clearly referring to game designers, he could use the same DM-Empowerment argument as a strong justification for feeling that way. Same goes for anyone doing design work, including when 'we' (Empowered 5e DMs) go ahead and author formal variants, like nerfing a feat or banning a class or whatever...

It's not about martials vs. magicans, but about martials who actually dislike GWM but feel preassured into using it anyway since it just outperforms any other option. It's not about being overshadowed by the wizard, but by your fellow fighter who took the feat when you did not.

That suggests a solution: distinct but similarly-potent (and situational) feats for the other fighting styles.

 

[CapnZapp]

This argument is so old. So very old. Nobody is going to change their spots. However, the following are known truths about the -5/+10 elements of GWM:

1.) The design of GWM was intentional.
2.) It functions as the designers intended. You can wail on low AC enemies, but attacking so recklessly against high AC enemies is less efficient, if not inefficient.
3.) Damage per strike (or per round) is not a great tool by itself for evaluating the efficacy of this feature of the feat as it does not account for overkill, loss of 'on hit' benefits when you miss, etc...
4.) The designers see no need to change it.

"Truths" - please.

You can be sure the devs did not foresee the depths to which GWM can be abused. It's not like WotC have never made a balancing error before...

You describe the intent of the design, but you completely disregard all the posts which state how this design isn't achieved.

But where you are egregiously wrong is when you claim "nobody is going to change". Let me tell you that when I first brought up this issue (and saw others do it), we were met with compact disbelief.

As more and more gamers play the game and become better at charop, we see more and more acceptance of how unbalanced GWM/CE is.