D&D 5E Nerfing Great Weapon Master

[Mistwell]

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

This hasn't proven out in practice. It was fine theory when the game was just first being released, but it's been out for years, this feat isn't dominating builds, LOTS of other feat enjoy just as much popularity as this feat, so it's at this point a theory that was not proved out. It's now, definitively, false.

Now that doesn't mean in some individual games DMs might feel they have an issue with it. And in those games, it's easy to houserule it. But, there's no raging issue in AL games for example with this feat - no vast reports of serious imbalances and games not functioning right.

The feat, in the general public, seems to have survived just fine through that issue. And that really is the important measure for this topic - does it seem to be working in practice? And the answer appears to be yes. If you disagree, show me the objective widespread evidence of a problem.

then there's a good chance that you'll end up disappointed when you can see what the great-weapon fighter can do.

That didn't happen. People make lots of two weapon fighters. That concept is doing just fine, is represented well in build guides and discussions of peoples characters, it's not suffering in the way you predicted it would.

 

[The Crimson Binome]

This hasn't proven out in practice. It was fine theory when the game was just first being released, but it's been out for years, this feat isn't dominating builds, LOTS of other feat enjoy just as much popularity as this feat, so it's at this point a theory that was not proved out. It's now, definitively, false.

Empirically speaking, it has completely wrecked games. Maybe not all games. Maybe not AL games (which I couldn't possibly care less about). But actual games that real people have played in, under certain combinations of factors which are not uncommon, it is definitively true that this feat has wrecked balance and made the game less fun.

To deny that this feat is a problem (in some games) would be to deny the lived experiences of other people.

 

[TwoSix]

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.

This is true. Weapons using different damage dice is much of a D&Dism to abandon.

 

[Tony Vargas]

Or, if you'd rather: the same reason

Reason? singular? But there are so many! Including, but not limited to:

in 3.5e people played anything other than full caster + prestige classes

(I assume you meant Tier 1 full caster.)

• To be able to say that you did.
• Your DM's list of allowed PrCs does not include any with full caster-level progression.
• Lack of sufficient system mastery to recognize the superiority of Tier 1 classes.
• Lack of sufficient player skill to use a Tier 1 class effectively.
• Sufficiently superior system mastery (relative to anyone at your table playing a Tier 1 class) to make a build of a lower-Tier class competitive in the context of that campaign.
• Willingness to accept a starkly inferior character in order to build to a concept rather than optimize for effectiveness.
• Desire to play a starkly inferior character to prove yourself a 'real roleplayer.'

the same reason in [classic] 4e that people played classes other than Fighter, Ranger, Warlord, and Wizard

• Wanting to play a Cleric
• Wanting to play a Paladin
• Wanting to play a Warlock
• Wanting to play a Swordmage
• Wanting to play a Avenger
• Wanting to play a Barbarian
• Wanting to play a Druid
• Wanting to play a Invoker
• Wanting to play a Shaman
• Wanting to play a Warden
• Wanting to play a Artificer
• Wanting to play a Ardent
• Wanting to play a Battlemind
• Wanting to play a Monk
• Wanting to play a Psion
• Wanting to play a hybrid of one of the above
• Wanting to play an Assassin and not caring if your character is a bit sub-par
• Wanting to play a Seeker and not caring if your character is a bit sub-par
• Wanting to play a Rune Priest and not caring if your character is a bit sub-par

and didn't take tax feats.

• Your DM banned them. (Best reason, by far, and not a bad idea at all.)
• You put it off for 2 more levels because some other feat was just that little bit more vital to your build/concept.
• Complete lack of system mastery and unwillingness to listen to basic advice.

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

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.

Wot? No trigonometry either? ;(

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.

Heh. I like it just for that.

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."

Sounds pretty good. It really invites the PC with it to engage at extreme range, though, doesn't it? Have you had issues with that PC wanting to start fights other PCs can't even participate in?

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,

What's up with the spear getting no respect?

 

[Mistwell]

Empirically speaking, it has completely wrecked games. Maybe not all games. Maybe not AL games (which I couldn't possibly care less about).

Well then why does this discussion continue once you don't care about AL games? Just house rule it! Most people seem to have no issues with it, but if you do that's OK, just fix it.

 

[jodyjohnson]

My reasons for changing GWM and SS are not entirely related to the damage potential.

1. Certain feats are dominating the mindshare (GWM, PAM, SS, and CE). They did not have to be the 'best' feats. Others could have been the best. I just prefer a little more variety in the characters at the table. In addition I prefer to not offer the double dip GWM/PAM and SS/CE combo. That level of overspecialization is at odds with my preference for more broad characters (characters that have options rather than 'go to' abilities).

2. The explanation in the fiction is what those archetypes should be doing anyway. Great weapons get swung hard. Highly accurate marksmen shoot for the vital spots. During the playtest they tried to sell High stat and High proficiency (level) is being an expert in the narrative. The feats add to that - you need stat, prof, and feat. (I also think this didn't gain traction in the skill/ability check arena as characters are only competent if they get double prof with a max ability instead of a high ability or proficiency being enough).

3. The mechanic creates an opportunity for 'communication' issues (sometimes these look like cheating). A player optioned penalty combined with casual resolution order adds a potential for misunderstandings that I'd prefer not to have. Normally outside of the -5/+10 mechanic I don't need to be a stickler about declaring actions precisely before rolling to hit.

4. The DM can 'fix' it with enemy selection. Whether ROI analysis by the player or DM, I feel like it is an unwelcome complication. Why consciously 'nerf' it in play rather than setting it out in the open before character creation?

5. I like the idea of low HP/high AC skirmishers and low AC/high HP brutes. The huge bonus tosses this by making brutes drop faster than skirmishers. Some monsters should be slugfests without having to account for a SS or GWM in the party.

6. Melee style or ranged weapon style imbalances. I like thrown weapons, two weapon style, single weapon style, in addition to sniper at 600' feat style and all offense/ all the time style.

7. (Definitely a minority opinion) It has a tendency to align with 'HP as partially meat' style which is at odds with my preference that 'HP are plot or hero points'. The language lends towards these strikes causing more grievous wounds or hits to specific locations when within the hit point recovery default they are just as easy to recover.

 

[Bacon Bits]

[snip]

I'm sorry, I feel like you're on the inflection point for Poe's Law. Corwin's argument was basically that the existence of playgroups that don't find -5/+10 overpowered is proof that it isn't. That implies that no player would ever chose a mechanically inferior option given a fair chance; let alone that all players would necessarily care about the imbalance. My point was that that was clearly not the case because there were 3.5e and 4e players that played with less mechanically superior options, so they either didn't know (which doesn't seem likely) or they didn't care.

What is your point?

It really invites the PC with it to engage at extreme range, though, doesn't it? Have you had issues with that PC wanting to start fights other PCs can't even participate in?

I think it's mostly been used to fire at flying enemies and to take down fleeing enemies. If the enemy takes fire at long range like this, typically they just take full cover or total concealment.

 

[Lanliss]

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?

But that is all covered by proficiency. A wizard swinging a sword and getting a lucky hit could be as deadly as a fighter, who is much more likely to hit. It doesn't make sense, to me, that a sword automatically becomes mathematically less deadly when a different person holds it. Same sword, same sharpness and metal, yet it loses half of it's killing power when a wiz holds it? I much prefer the proficiency limitation, which means that a wizard is simply less likely to hit with such a weapon, but can still try it in a desperate pinch.

 

[Tony Vargas]

Corwin's argument was basically that the existence of playgroups that don't find -5/+10 overpowered is proof that it isn't.

Well, when you put it that way, it's nonsense, sure.
George Burns living to be a hundred while puffing on cigars doesn't prove that cigarettes don't cause cancer.

That implies that no player would ever chose a mechanically inferior option given a fair chance; let alone that all players would necessarily care about the imbalance. My point was that that was clearly not the case because there were 3.5e players that played with less mechanically superior options, so they either didn't know (which doesn't seem likely) or they didn't care.

Or they did know and did care, but liked it. It's a reasonable example because 3.5, between having intentional rewards for system mastery (and trap options) intentionally built into it, and just having oodles more material available, was clearly even more imbalanced than 5e could be argued to be on its worst day.

But that is all covered by proficiency. A wizard swinging a sword and getting a lucky hit could be as deadly as a fighter, who is much more likely to hit. It doesn't make sense, to me, that a sword automatically becomes mathematically less deadly when a different person holds it. Same sword, same sharpness and metal, yet it loses half of it's killing power when a wiz holds it?

I am pretty lenient on "realism" in my games, but this just sounds weird.

There's really no realism to lose. A dagger can kill a human being every bit as dead as a sword. It only takes so many inches of steel to reach a human heart or artery, everything beyond that isn't doing more lethal/physical damage, it's just making the weapon more dangerous in other ways - reach advantage, momentum, leverage, etc, etc, especially in the hands of someone who knows what they're doing - but as far as damage goes, dead is dead, and a dagger can kill you. If every weapon a wizard picks up does a d4 in his hands, that weapon is every bit as deadly as a dagger, which is a positively lethal weapon, capable of ending a human life in one thrust. That some humans unrealistically have 10 (or, indeed, any) hps, doesn't change that.

 

[The Crimson Binome]

Well then why does this discussion continue once you don't care about AL games? Just house rule it! Most people seem to have no issues with it, but if you do that's OK, just fix it.

Because that's the premise of this thread!

Step 1: Agree that there is a problem.
Step 2: Debate whether the proposed solution actually solves the problem.

Step 1 should be a given, since it's the premise, and this thread wouldn't exist if nobody thought the premise was worth discussing. If you go into a thread that discusses how to address a particular problem, then it's counter-productive to suggest that the problem isn't real or doesn't matter.