D&D 5E Nerfing Great Weapon Master

[Gadget]

I find the arguments about the balance of this feat weak at best. There are simply too many ways to mitigate the -5 penalty for clever/min-max players. Arguments about the Mystic Theurge are spurious at best. I was on the boards during the Mystic Theurge Kerfuffle, and yes, there was some concern initially over the balance. But "the masses" quickly realized that missing out on higher level spells more than made up for the breadth of lower level spells gained in most cases. 5e, and these feats, have been out for quite a while now, and this has seen quite a bit of play. The arguments for GWM seem to be "If you use it poorly (ignoring all the ways to mitigate the penalty) against high AC opponents (of which there seems to be few of because 'players enjoy hitting') you can miss a lot. And 'look at casters, they're ...'.

 

[Mistwell]

Even if they did, it's just one of many spells for them. Going GWM on the other hand is dominating your action for the majority of the time. If wizards only had one level 3 spells and were forced to cast firebally 3/4 of their spellcasting or become overshadowed by the other PCs, it would be a problem.

Wait, let me see if I understand your argument here. You're arguing Fighters have too few options relative to Wizards, and to address this we should...remove one of their options?

Fighters are not forced to use GWM, and in fact there are tons of other feats fighters can and do choose from. Fighters are not becoming overshadowed by anyone, with or without this feat, and neither are wizards, and yet both have access to the high end of the power scale for their perspective classes.

Exactly, there will always be a high end option, the important factor is how much better this is than the second and/or third best options. If it's just 5% better than the 2nd and 10% better than the third it's not as much a problem as when it easily leaves #2 far behind. Flattening everything is a good thing, as it allows more diverse choices without being unable to hold a candle to the best choice

No, flattening is not a good thing. It led to a large number of people saying that they felt the game was delivering too much of the same thing over and over, regardless of the name of the power. Now that might not be a good objection on paper, but realistically that was an objection that came up so often that there was in fact something that happened to the feel of the game for a material number of people. If you want to play a game where the math is flatter, there are games out there to choose from which deliver that experience. But nothing you do to 5e will make it a genuinely flat-math type game, and it's fairly pointless to make the attempt. You'd need to re-write the entire underpinnings of the structure of the game, and you might as well just play another game at that point.

 

[Mistwell]

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"

You said your group dismissed it on reading it. And if you remove the abuse aspect, why would it be inherently bad to include this? We already know it's not a feat that's so good that every fighter chooses it, so what exactly is your objection beyond the abuse aspect you claim?

Ayep.

You just "ayeped" a guy who, in his post prior to that, disagreed with you (directly - I quoted your words to him) that it breaks the game and agreed the game can in fact handle it. They've moved on from using it he said.

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)

You and one other user here have expressed this position repeatedly. And the other thing you have in common with that other user is you've mentioned (both of you, repeatedly) how deeply optimized the parties are that you play with, and how much you emphasize combat in your games. That's not a bash. I see nothing inherently wrong with that style of play.

And yet, look around. This is the version of the game that is succeeding beyond wildest expectations. It's blowing away sales records that had held for decades. It's revitalized the entire industry according to objective reports. And yet your experience is everything is just weaker and too easy and not challenging. An experience you share with one other user who also tends to play with your same style choices concerning high optimization and high level of combat focus.

OK. So we can deduce from this that this version of the game is highly appealing to an overwhelming majority of consumers of D&D, and yet not as highly appealing to a smaller segment of play styles which is high optimization, combat focused.

Why not play a version of the game that better meets your play style, rather than ranting about how this version has some tremendous game-breaking failure to challenge people when almost nobody is experiencing the thing you're experiencing with this game because they have a different play style preference? Why beat your head against a wall that isn't bringing you the kind of enjoyment you prefer from these games? I mean, the math is not going to get flatter, and high optimization with combat focus isn't going to get better, the more you play it. Right? As others have said, this is not an issue that WOTC sees as a problem or intends to fix, and it's not getting a genuine quantity of complaints in the surveys and feedback they get to persuade them it's an issue they should address.

 

[Tony Vargas]

And yet, look around. This is the version of the game that is succeeding beyond wildest expectations.

To be fair, WotC has a record of saying the current version of the game is succeeding beyond expectations. Maybe they just like holding low expectations? ;P

It's revitalized the entire industry according to objective reports.

What objective reports? IcV2? They're talking 'hobby games,' that includes CCGs like Pokemon leading the charge, and boardgames in general that have been experiencing a renaissance in recent years.

D&D is doing well, but it's as likely that it's on the coattails of the boardgaming trend or otherwise a matter of market timing, as anything else. Heck, IMHO, more likely.

OK. So we can deduce from this that this version of the game is highly appealing to an overwhelming majority of consumers of D&D

We can resort to an ad populum argument, sure, but why bother?
The game can stand on it's own merits, I think.
If optimization-heavy table find it too easy, ratchet up the difficulty - or nerf the proud nails of the system that are contributing to the phenomenon.
DMs are well within their rights to do either or both.

And yet your experience is everything is just weaker and too easy and not challenging.

It's not an unprecedented experience, and it's consistent with the goal of fast combat, and the recommended 6-8 encounters/day. More, faster, easier combats. Just how 5e is designed.
OTOH, it's also designed to Empower DMs, so a DM who wants to seriously challenge his players certainly can.

Why not play a version of the game that better meets your play style

A version like 5e, which is meant to be for all past fans of D&D, regardless of style!

 

[Bacon Bits]

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?

Because not every group has the same goals in playing the game, nor every player, and different DMs run different encounters even when running identical modules. Some groups don't mind at all that the Fighter, Barbarian, or Paladin runs away with damage in melee combat, or that the Ranger and Warlock run away with ranged damage. That's perfectly fine to them because it's not what the game is about to them, or they're happy that those classes get to dominate combat (i.e., they enjoy the imbalance).

Or, if you'd rather: the same reason in 3.5e people played anything other than full caster + prestige classes; the same reason in [classic] 4e that people played classes other than Fighter, Ranger, Warlord, and Wizard and didn't take tax feats.

--------------------------------------

For my group, we don't like -5/+10 as a mechanic. It makes people at our table feel like they're not contributing to combat. Also, it makes people feel like they have to stop and do algebra in combat. It makes our tables less fun for the players and the DMs. However, we really enjoy feats because they give martial classes something to do with an ASI after level ~8. So, we changed the feats:

GWM: Eliminate the -5/+10 ability. Replace it with: "When you make a melee attack with a Heavy weapon and hit a creature of at least size Large or larger, you deal an additional 1d6 damage." I'm a fan of 1e/2e two handed swords dealing 3d6 damage. We haven't played with this enough to know if it should be limited to Huge and larger yet.

Sharpshooter: Eliminate the -5/+10 ability. Replace it with: "Your ranged weapon attacks have a new range category: Extreme range. The limit of extreme range is equal to double the weapon's long range. You have disadvantage on attack rolls made at extreme range." The range is not that much different than Spell Sniper. We haven't had a problem with cover in our games, so we haven't modified that at all, but I'm not opposed to changing it so 3/4 cover is instead 1/2 cover. We'd probably change Spell Sniper, too, if we did that.

There are other feat designs that we're not really fans of, but we haven't changed them because they haven't caused enough problems. Polearm Master's bonus attack, the lack of spear entirely, and the random inclusion of quarterstaff. Crossbow Expert's credibility-straining "ignore reload" ability. The fact that Resilient lacks a "you make take this feat multiple times" clause. The fact that Heavy Armor Master/Heavily Armored and Medium Armor Master/Moderately Armored aren't each 1 feat that says, "You gain ~this~ armor proficiency. If you are already proficient in ~this~ armor, instead gain +1 Str or +1 Dex to a max of 20." The fact that Lightly Armored exists. The fact that Durable and Tough aren't 1 feat, etc.

 

[Mirtek]

You're arguing Fighters have too few options relative to Wizards

No, I don't care about any fighter to wizard comparision. I care about fighter to fighter (or more general melee to melee) comparision and it sucks that one option so vastly outperforms any other option.

, and to address this we should...remove one of their options?

Tone it down until it's on the level of the others or bring more of the others up to it's level

Fighters are not forced to use GWM, and in fact there are tons of other feats fighters can and do choose from.

And will do a lot less damager for that

Fighters are not becoming overshadowed by anyone, with or without this feat,

In a party with a GWM melee guy and a none GWM melee guy it's really like this scene from Iron Man 1. Where Stark's bodyguard is having a tough fight with one of the evil henchmen and when he finally has him down turns around and sees Black Widow was finished 6 of those guyse in the same time without any scratch on her.

and yet both have access to the high end of the power scale for their perspective classes.

Such a narrow high end power scale is a a design flaw. The high end should consist of several competitive options

No, flattening is not a good thing. It led to a large number of people saying that they felt the game was delivering too much of the same thing over and over, regardless of the name of the power.

Which is a good thing. As would be getting rid of individual weapons and have damage being dealt of class. Then anyone could call it a mace or longsword or flail or whatever and all would be equal

 

[Lanliss]

Which is a good thing. As would be getting rid of individual weapons and have damage being dealt of class. Then anyone could call it a mace or longsword or flail or whatever and all would be equal

I see this recommendation come up a lot, and cannot wrap my head around it at all.

"I am a wizard, so this sword is physically less capable in my hands."

How does that make even a little sense? They already have proficiency and Class-relevant scores, so what else do you need to show that Wizards deal less damage with a sword? But, somehow deals the same damage with a war hammer that they can with a Staff, or dagger? I am pretty lenient on "realism" in my games, but this just sounds weird.

 

[The Crimson Binome]

Wait, let me see if I understand your argument here. You're arguing Fighters have too few options relative to Wizards, and to address this we should...remove one of their options?

Options which are vastly unbalanced are not meaningful options. In order for the choice to be meaningful, the options need to be comparable.

Look at Rifts, for example. They give you like half a dozen varieties of dragon that you can play, of which one is better than the rest in every way. If you have ten players each decide to make a dragon character, at least eight of them are going to go for the good one. And of those few who choose one of the others, at least some of them will have done so accidentally, because they failed to realize that the fire dragon (or poison dragon, depending on the edition) has a worse breath weapon than the good dragon; it's one of those traps that you can fall for if you come into the game with the expectation that things are fairly balanced.

If you come into 5E with the expectation that all melee-fighter concepts are equally supported, and you try to make a dual-wielder by taking all of the relevant feats and the fighting style and everything, then there's a good chance that you'll end up disappointed when you can see what the great-weapon fighter can do. Having the option to make an inferior character actually makes the game worse, since it increases the likelihood that you'll accidentally make a regrettable decision. Removing this feat actually increases the number of competitive options, since you no longer have one outlier that's wrecking the curve.

 

[TwoSix]

How does that make even a little sense? They already have proficiency and Class-relevant scores, so what else do you need to show that Wizards deal less damage with a sword? But, somehow deals the same damage with a war hammer that they can with a Staff, or dagger? I am pretty lenient on "realism" in my games, but this just sounds weird.

Well, if someone said "It makes sense that fighter can kill things faster with a sword than a wizard, even if they're equally strong, because the fighter is better trained with weapons", would you agree with that?

If someone decided to translate that into game mechanics by giving the fighter a +2 damage bonus to weapon attacks, would that make sense?

And if you realize you can change a +2 damage bonus into a different dice roll (for example, changing a 1d8 to a 1d12) but it's still the exact same bonus, math wise, that would still make sense, right?

 

[Mistwell]

Which is a good thing. As would be getting rid of individual weapons and have damage being dealt of class. Then anyone could call it a mace or longsword or flail or whatever and all would be equal

Yeah, see that's not a position that would please nearly as many people as this version of D&D pleases. There are lots of games that do that, but this game will never do that. So, if that's your preference, why pine for more flattening like that and just go play one of those games? Heck, like OD&D, which I believe did just that.