D&D 5E Nerfing Great Weapon Master

[Mirtek]

and they did not pick the correct build.

The isssue is with there being THE correct build. There will always be a best build, but it's a difference whether the best and second best are apart by 5% or 25% power

The option are pretty simple disallow feats, disallow certain feat combinations, disallow certain feats, modify the feats or work your encounters around those feats. The answers are pretty simple it is all on the DM and his table to figure which course of action they want to take.

Unless you only play official games in Adventurers League

 

[Corwin]

The isssue is with there being THE correct build. There will always be a best build, but it's a difference whether the best and second best are apart by 5% or 25% power

What kind of power? Best at what? Just because you built to try and deal more damage, in a specific circumstance, doesn't make you better at everything. Other than doing more damage to low AC melee-ranged targets. But that's a pretty narrow window to declare winning D&D over, IMO. You certainly aren't "best" at the countless other things necessary in a D&D game. Is your broken GWF munchkin fighter showing off against the dragon flying around breathing on your party? Is he the "best" at convincing the orc horde to let you past through their lands to get to the temple you are in a hurry to reach? Of course not. Your character might suck at those other things. I guess we need to make sure we start a few threads* brainstorming how to improve your GWF because he's so gimped in various scenarios. Its just not fair.


[*Oops, too late. Already happening right now.]

 

[Tony Vargas]

The masses can be very, very wrong.

Hopefully the masses are wrong about D&D. ;P

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?

If you're hitting around 50/50 disadvantage is roughly equal to a -5, if you're hitting better than that, it's less of an equivalent penalty.

It'd be neater, because of the way adv/dis work, and you could pour on sources of disadvantage to shut it down, I suppose.
But it would still be compensated by Advantage, so the Barbarian in question would still be problematic, no?

He feels like the -5/+10 is necessary for the barbarian to function offensively; otherwise, they don't hit particularly harder than anyone else, they're just more accurate.

Anyone else can take GWM and cheese up advantage, though.

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?

Between TotM's mushy positioning and the Evoker special ability? Not that hard. They've come right out and said they made fireball a little more potent than it strictly should be. FWIW. I don't recall hearing a similar statement about GWM/SS but I suppose it could be the case. Just there to give the two-handers and archers an added boost to be best at DPR.

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

Because people really don't like balance, I guess?
Besides, it's an opportunity to insert a strawman vision 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.

If he has an enemy in front of him all day, every round, who's not fighting back. If you're spotting him that, you might as well assume the fireball is being tossed at enemies packed into 20' radius wicker spheres soaked in oil.

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

They're in versatility - they can do plenty of damage if they want to, but they're usually even better off doing something else, instead or as well...

 

[Corwin]

I remember playing in a campaign for a while at a FLGS last year. One of the players had a half-orc fighter with GWF and a greataxe. He loved to use the -5/+10 feature. Every time he missed narrowly, I would point out that he would have hit without the penalty. It became a running gag. Everyone started pointing it out. Even the DM got in on it. I don't think anyone at the table would say that the feat was broken. Maybe because the misses weren't under-emphasized while the hits glorified? I dunno. That's my impression looking back. Oh, sure. Don't get me wrong. He hit like a freight train. And his crits were insane (but most of that is half-orc, the weapon die size, and his fighting style contributing, not so much the static +10, IMO).

 

[Mirtek]

What kind of power? Best at what? Just because you built to try and deal more damage, in a specific circumstance, doesn't make you better at everything.

It's the one thing that most people want when creating a melee PC. Hitting monsters with a weapon to deal damage. Problem is that there is currently the one right way to do that and anyone who doesn't care for that particular way is doing way less damage than those who do. There aren't multiple way to specialize in whacking things that are more or less equal, but one that vastly outperforms all others. If I want to be a barbarian just smashing monsters with my weapon, I'll better take GWM.

You certainly aren't "best" at the countless other things necessary in a D&D game.

That proves that you do not get the issue at all. The problem is that people who want to do X do not like being locked into the one best way to do X or being much less effective.

Your answer is "I like Y, who cares about there only being one choice to be good at X?"

Your character might suck at those other things.

As does the other melee guy without GWM. Except that he also suck in comparision to me at the one thing both of us should be doing about equally good. We're both one trick ponies, we both wanted to be one trick ponies, but we had liked to each have a different version of the one trick leading to a comparable performance.

 

[Corwin]

It's the one thing that most people want when creating a melee PC. Hitting monsters with a weapon to deal damage. Problem is that there is currently the one right way to do that and anyone who doesn't care for that particular way is doing way less damage than those who do. There aren't multiple way to specialize in whacking things that are more or less equal, but one that vastly outperforms all others. If I want to be a barbarian just smashing monsters with my weapon, I'll better take GWM.

"Vastly". Uh, no. Nice try though.

That proves that you do not get the issue at all. The problem is that people who want to do X do not like being locked into the one best way to do X or being much less effective.

Nice. And that proves you don't get my point.

Your answer is "I like Y, who cares about there only being one choice to be good at X?"

You are going to have to define "good at" first. Because from the sound of it, I don't think you grasp what "good at" actually means. At least, WRT 5e and its benchmarks and tolerances. If GWF is the end-all-be-all must-have, how is it possible there can be groups playing 5e--without the feat--managing to do just fine?

As does the other melee guy without GWM.

Nope. He got to take something too. Instead of GWF. He probably took something to give him options during those other times when your GWF fighter is sucking in a non-optimal-for-him situations...

Except that he also suck in comparision to me at the one thing both of us should be doing about equally good. We're both one trick ponies, we both wanted to be one trick ponies, but we had liked to each have a different version of the one trick leading to a comparable performance.

This is false.

 

[CapnZapp]

I remember playing in a campaign for a while at a FLGS last year. One of the players had a half-orc fighter with GWF and a greataxe. He loved to use the -5/+10 feature. Every time he missed narrowly, I would point out that he would have hit without the penalty. It became a running gag. Everyone started pointing it out. Even the DM got in on it. I don't think anyone at the table would say that the feat was broken. Maybe because the misses weren't under-emphasized while the hits glorified? I dunno. That's my impression looking back. Oh, sure. Don't get me wrong. He hit like a freight train. And his crits were insane (but most of that is half-orc, the weapon die size, and his fighting style contributing, not so much the static +10, IMO).

Try playing with a player who knows what he's doing the next time.

Your view of the feat might change.

 

[Capn Charlie]

Try playing with a player who knows what he's doing the next time.

Your view of the feat might change.

Very much this. In the hands of the skilled, these feats are far too powerful. The problem isn't choosing to allow feats in general, or MC, it is just particularly this feat (and sharpshooting). I nerfed off the -5/+10 and didn't look back, everything has been fine since.

 

[CapnZapp]

You are going to have to define "good at" first.

No he doesn't.

Please don't change the subject. The subject isn't "what level of performance is acceptable". The subject is "do you find it acceptable that one and only one feat significantly increases your damage output beyond what is achievable without it?"

Nope. He got to take something too. Instead of GWF. He probably took something to give him options during those other times when your GWF fighter is sucking in a non-optimal-for-him situations...

Sure. Please back this up with specific examples of alternate feats, though.

And please, no apples-to-oranges comparisons. Remember, it's damage we're discussing. The fact that the Actor feat, for example, gives players great satisfaction is a non-argument in this discussion: it has very little to do with whether GWM gives a reasonable or unreasonable damage boost.

And by unreasonable, I mean an average close to 40 extra damage per round during crucial nova rounds, and I mean that you only miss even ACs as high as 15 to 18 when you roll two very bad rolls (in the 2-5 range) - despite this I've assumed a 20% miss rate to arrive at my +40 dmg number.

 

[Tony Vargas]

And please, no apples-to-oranges comparisons. Remember, it's damage we're discussing. The fact that the Actor feat, for example, gives players great satisfaction is a non-argument in this discussion: it has very little to do with whether GWM gives a reasonable or unreasonable damage boost.

DPR is terribly easy to measure, of course. But, even for a weapon-user, there may be other factors. I'd argue that a feat that enhances a combat style should be counted as apples-to-apples comparison to GWM, even if it does something more/other than boost DPR...
...Sentinel, for instance, is a nice complement to the S&B Protection style.