D&D 5E Nerfing Great Weapon Master

[Leatherhead]

The real problem has always been people misinterpreting feats as a plug-and-play optional rule.

And to fix that:

Have you considered making "Power Attack" a default character option for all of the weapon using classes?

Something like a -3/+6 attack option, perhaps starting at level 5, would do wonders for "equalizing" weapon options in terms of DPR opportunities.

 

[CapnZapp]

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.

Yes and of course.

But how does that matter, when the issue is that people fighting with three-pronged forks do much more damage than double-edged spoons?

That is, a martial character can either take the feat, or do substandard damage.

That is simply bad design; as if dealing damage is a specialization only a small subset of martials are interested in.

Sent from my C6603 using EN World mobile app

 

[Psikerlord#]

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

yes i totally agree with you, I dont think we're at odds on this

 

[CapnZapp]

snip

Sorry but you keep trying to change the subject. Unlike some others that doesn't fly with me.

So now your entire defense is characterizing my group as dome kind of extreme minmaxer, a group neither you nor WotC needs to care about.

And regardless, the edition is not a failure, so WotC doesn't need to improve their game?

Okay. That's weak.

But it's also even more attempts to shift the discussion.

What do YOU think, Mistwell?

Are you okay with how optimizing for damage is funneled through a SINGLE feat (well, two)?

Because I'm not. I believe the current design of GWM/CE is a failure and a trap, and that it will keep wrecking games until WotC dies something about it.

Now, Mistwell: what is YOUR response to this?

Please, don't answer with what you believe WotC will want to do or not do. They aren't posting in this thread - you are.


Sent from my C6603 using EN World mobile app

 

[CapnZapp]

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.




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.

You are still evading.

The "theory" that needs discussing is the numerical comparison between builds.

That other people does not focus on efficiency is a poor argument in favor of keeping the current imbalance.

We still need to nail down what your opinion is, so we can decide whether to keep persuading you or to write you off.

The discussion isn't a jury with WotC as judge, jury and executioner. The discussion is about feats. If YOU can present a coherent argument for the current design, do so.

Otherwise I find your attempts at changing the issue irrelevant.


Sent from my C6603 using EN World mobile app

 

[CapnZapp]

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.

But as long as you maintain there is no bigger issue than what "just house-rule it" fixes, we will keep insisting you explain yourself.

If the only reason you feel it's fine as-is is, say, WotCs financial records, or the number of new gamers drawn to the game, then say that.

Sent from my C6603 using EN World mobile app

 

[CapnZapp]

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.

8. It wrecks verisimilitude when one character can suddenly do 25 damage in a single regular hit.

It means you can't use damage thresholds and hardness in this edition.

Sent from my C6603 using EN World mobile app

 

[CapnZapp]

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.

A thousand thanks, Saelorn!

Sent from my C6603 using EN World mobile app

 

[Mirtek]

Yeah, see that's not a position that would please nearly as many people as this version of D&D pleases.

Would it? The same had been predicted about having all classes gain the same attack bonus progression. Was even cited as one of the bad things in 4e, yet 5e retained it and it's well loved now.

 

[Zardnaar]

I liek the appeals to 5E being popular AFAIK it has still sold less than AD&D and the 3E family and they had their flaws.

5E is good in other ways there are a few things in it though that don't work that well and the -5/+10 feats are some for them. Don't put magical hand crossbows and polearms into the game, the only way the PCs are gonna get one if they are in an adventure. Magical bows and axes/swords are a bit more common but still rare.

Dexterity is OP in Basic 5E, with feats its a bit less so in melee, still OP in ranged combat and versatility.

3E family sold north of 1 million+ PHB using Mistwells logic we could just stick with 3E. Its not something to say "screw this I am not playing 5E" and SS+GWM are not the most broken feat in the game.