D&D 5E Nerfing Great Weapon Master

[dco]

The real issue is the +10 damage.

It effectively gives the character Strength 40.

That simply can't be allowed to remain; it destroys the fundamental assumptions of the game.

Sent from my C6603 using EN World mobile app

In the case of this feat the extra attack is also powerful and another badly designed feature, the berserker already has a bonus attack. I don't know why but this game is full of small holes, it's like TWF for the ranger, or the dueling and GWF styles, they could have called duelling offense and apply it to all weapons, now we have that versatile is a waste of time for people with duelling, 2d6 far better than 1d12 with GWF, etc.
Luckily feats are optional, no need for homebrews.

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.

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

A berserker 3 attacks, a fighter 2-5 attacks, you can add buffs like haste, bless, etc, class features as precision attack, trip, etc, debuffs to enemies...

 

[Fanaelialae]

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)

I take it you never played a Monty Haul game in previous editions then? Or a game of 3.x where the players spent a week poring through every splatbook on the shelf to build brain breaking individual combos? I assure you, based on my own experiences with older editions, that 5e is not the first edition of D&D that can be utterly broken given the right circumstances. It's simply that it breaks differently (Monty Haul is a non-issue thanks to attunement, but a party that builds itself to support the Sharpshooters can completely ignore the penalty).

 

[Prism]

Under fairly optimal* conditions for the barbarian this feat equates to about 5 extra points of damage per hit, or 10 per round. I'm not sure what game that breaks but its certainly not ours.

*Assuming average AC, reckless attack, bless spell, Str 20

I don't believe GWM is a problem at all. Sharp shooter I have a few more issues with in theory (nobody in our group uses it much) but that's due to other combos and issues rather than the +10 damage part.

 

[Yunru]

The only problem I have with GWM (and SS) is that it's too divergent from regular damage (note: not average damage).

For that reason I tend to use -3/+6. It's still sizable damage, enough to remember, but not enough to be as fight-ending. Meanwhile the decrease in accuracy loss means it's more memorable, so win win.

It also means that those not using it don't feel as left out.

 

[Corwin]

No he doesn't.

Define, "no".

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?"

Considering the feat in question does zero to increase your damage under numerous circumstances, I'd say your definition leaves us all wanting. I suggest taking a step back and evaluate whatever point it is you think you are trying to make. Because right now it is tragically flawed.

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

Any of the others...

And please, no apples-to-oranges comparisons. Remember, it's damage we're discussing.

Ha. Now who's changing the subject?

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.

Your aberrant playstyle, where you to even play 5e, is not indicative of the way the devs intended 5e to be played. Sure, it *can* be played strictly as a combat engine for running gladiator match style battles, one after another. And there's nothing wrong with that. But the devs have made it quite clear there are three pillars of play. All three important and intended to be engaged. Changing things as drastically as your math intends requires you to accept the unintended consequences your choice has wrought.

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.

Now who's not providing evidence. Those numbers are intentionally misleading, at the least, outright falsehoods more likely. You see, I've actually played a great deal of 5e. Unlike some who only theorycraft to complain about a game they don't even like. You can't fool me with slight-of-hand math or white-room Schrodinger scenarios. D&D doesn't play that way at the table. Sorry, no. Your argument is invalid.

 

[Corwin]

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

Not quite. Ironically, my argument was in countering the Chicken Littles' claiming the feat is clearly broken and flawed and must be corrected. Which is obviously not true, because plenty of game groups have no problem with it. I'd appreciate not having my argument re-purposed or misapplied further. Thanks.

 

[dco]

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.

Where are the statistics?
It's curious because the developers were the first people with issues when they did this part of the rules optional.

 

[Mistwell]

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

I think it's fine. In my experience with both AL and private games, and also in extensively reading here and three other message boards, overall I have not found this feat to dominate as much as you say it does. In fact overall I find more people who say it's boring and they would never choose it, than I do people who express interest in it (and even among those who express interest, many still don't choose it).

I have seen more sword & board builds, archery builds, two weapon builds, and grappler builds, than I have great weapon builds. And even among the great weapon builds, I see more polearm builds that ignore this feat until much later in their development than I do builds that focus on this feat early.

So based on that experience, I think the feat is fine.

But I also think, if you find it's not functioning well in your games, it's not too hard to alter it or even discard it. I'm happy to talk about suggestions on how to alter it if that's your interest?

 

[Mistwell]

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.

OK fair point. I don't know for sure. I strongly suspect there is no groundswell of support for all weapons doing the same damage, but I can't think of anything that actually measured if that's the case.

And for what it is worth, I think I would have been fine with it. I really quite enjoyed Kirin Robinson's Old School Hack game, which did function as you described and let people call their weapon whatever they wanted, and simply categorized it as light, heavy, etc.. (with each having an advantage in a specific type of situation).

But, I just suspect people in general might have been grumpy about it. OD&D started with all weapons doing a d6 I seem to recall, but since then the variation in weapons and their distinct damage dice seems to be a pretty important marker for D&D fans.

But maybe not. I suppose too late to find out for this edition at least.

 

[cmad1977]

I couldn't play in a game where the DM couldn't handle a simple feat like GWM. If something like that is 'game breaking' you've a pretty fragile game.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk