D&D 5E Nerfing Great Weapon Master

[CapnZapp]

This thread isn't about WotC fixing GWM. No offense, but that's almost certainly a pipe dream based on what WotC has said to date. Last I checked the OP was about house ruling power attack.

The only people that have brought up the likelyhood (or lack thereof) WotC will address GWM are the people that try to derail the discussion, presumably because they do not wish to concede they are wrong about the feat not being a problem.

You claimed the 5e can be broken to a degree that no other edition of D&D has before (you may as well throw normal encounters out and start from scratch if you want to challenge such a party). I was responding that, in fact, previous editions could be broken to such an extent. IMO, 3.x could be broken to a far worse degree than anything we've seen in 5e. Breaking 5e typically involves party cooperation. In 3.x, you could outclass the rest of the party all by your lonesome. Don't get me wrong, 3.x was groundbreaking and 5e wouldn't be what it is without 3e. But it had it's own issues.

No I did not.

You confuse two things:

1) 5e is very balanced. Its remaining balance bugbears stand out all the more because of it. -5/+10 is one of them.
2) 5e consistently fails to provide a challenge unless you toss out its own guidelines.
This has nothing to do with what we here call balance. Balance in a "is feature X balanced" type discussions concern itself with internal balance: within the character and within the party. Essentially: is X better than Y? This generally does not concern the "world" and its monsters and NPCs at all.

 

[CapnZapp]

The claim being fronted, that I was specifically responding to, was that GWM is a must-have feat. Period. Full stop. My argument, that you just quoted, is a perfectly valid counter to that. If groups manage to play just fine without it, it can't possible be "must-have". I'm surprised that's a controversial statement, truth be told. But you don't agree, I get it. But please quit trying ham-handed ad hominem style tactic. Its rather low behavior, IMO.

The only thing here that is low, is your quality of argument, Corwin.

Nobody is claiming GWM is a must-have feat according to your preposterous definition.

You define "must have" as in "can't play without". Then you proceed to point out that players play without it, and so you dismiss the entire argument against its balance.

That is ridiculous. By your reasoning, no game feature can ever be wrong.

That, Sir, is the complete opposite of "perfectly valid" in my opinion.

---

Again, the fact some groups does not care about damage (and that my damage dealer does about the same job as yours), is utterly irrelevant to discussions about whether some related feature works or is broken.

Also, if a player doesn't mind a broken feat, I find it likely he won't mind a fixed feat either, so in any case, it's a poor argument against fixing it.

 

[CapnZapp]

Wow, really? My post was the first claim on the subject and others are simply showing me where I'm wrong? No, I don't think you have the right of it.

I'd just like to point out that this is yet another occurrence where a poster tries to steer away the discussion from the matter at hand, and onto personal issues where it becomes impossible to tell right from wrong.

I wouldn't bite if I were you [MENTION=6777737]Bacon Bits[/MENTION]. My advice is that whenever the discussion suddenly focuses on "me" and "you", it's time to get back on track.

 

[Corwin]

I'd just like to point out that this is yet another occurrence where a poster tries to steer away the discussion from the matter at hand...

...says the poster continuing to try to steer away the discussion from the matter at hand. Ironic.

 

[CapnZapp]

"end-all-be-all must-have" sounds like a more extreme case of "overpowered." Sounds like, but it's in the context of weapon-based DPR, and the community has a track record of putting disproportionate importance on so much as a half-point of average damage. So... IDK.

By the numbers, GWM/SS builds deliver more DPR than comparable (feat-using, optimized) builds centered around other combat styles. That's not in dispute. What is in dispute is whether it matters enough to fix it by: a) emphasizing other aspects of play as you run so that the high-DPR PCs get only their fair share of the spotlight, b) simply not using feats, c) banning those specific feat, d) changing those feats to better fit your table's preferences, e) adding feats to give comparable support to other combat styles, f) demand that WotC fix it for you, or whether you should just ignore it or, y'know, leverage it.

I think the fact that every 5e D&D game played doesn't crumble because of GWM/SS is evidence, not that the numbers are deceiving us, nor merely that there are a lot of games where no one takes those feats, but, rather, that a-through-e (and especially a, IMHO - oh, and not caring, I left out just plain not caring, that's popular, too, I think) are happening a lot as a matter of course, as Empowered DMs run their games in good faith and with the intent of making them fun for their players.

(Also, there are plenty of other things that could cause a game to crumble before/instead-of GWM/SS. Just say'n, it may be the most susceptible to analysis/'mathematical-proof,' little balance problem in 5e, but it's not nearly the only nor even the worst one that DMs are successfully coping with.)

Sorry for cutting through the grand and verbose verbiage, but if I were to put a specific question to you:

Assuming GWM adds 40 extra damage that isn't achievable any other way (other than Sharpshooter of course), what do you think, Tony?

---

By the way, I have to call you out on a phrase like "putting disproportionate importance on so much as a half-point of average damage". This is belittling the issue, put simply.

Phrases like "every 5e D&D game played doesn't crumble" and "it's not nearly the only nor even the worst one" are relativizing. But in reality these things have nothing in common, and the problem isn't going away. If you feel the issue isn't big enough to matter then please don't hide behind a veneer of neutrality and instead say so outright. Thanks.

 

[CapnZapp]

...says the poster continuing to try to steer away the discussion from the matter at hand. Ironic.

If you don't wish to discuss the actual feat, then perhaps you could respond to my evaluation of your (lack of) quality argumentation?

 

[Zardnaar]

Since feats are explicitly optional, I'd have to assume standard damage is that possible without feats, at all.

Optimizing damage, perhaps, may be assumed to have limited appeal, and, for whatever reason, they decided that, with optional feats in play, the optimal path for that would two-handed weapons and archery, with other combat styles getting other feats on different paths...

...except, obviously, not all other combat styles. :shrug:

That sounds like hyperbole, to me. A couple of imbalanced feats aren't wrecking games, poor DMing and problem players can wreck games, a couple of imbalanced feats, at worst, just narrow the scope of play where they apply - once everyone at the table has caught onto them, anyway.

IDK what numbers you think you have to remotely back that up. WotC is in the habbit of saying their stuff is selling well pretty consistently, but this time around they've even used language that at least implies it's sold better than other editions since the fad (sure, there's room for equivocation, they may be talking units of a given book or $$$-not-adjusted-for-inflation or whatever to get there, but it's something).

Wait, you're adding 3.0, 3.5 & PF PH sales guestimates /together/, aren't you?

What's more 'optimal,' as a game, the game that breaks when you add an OP feat to it, or the one that doesn't?

While you're not wrong by the numbers, the numbers just matter less than the DM.

I'm a bit amazed WotC has even published errata for 5e. The philosophy that the published rules are only a starting point kinda excuses them from any need to be flawless, or even continuously improved through official channels. DMs will provide the improvements.

Can't argue with that. The classic game could break pretty dramatically, too, if the DM dropped the wrong magic items - heck, it would 'break' (have imbalances among the PCs) to more than the degree GWM/SS breaks 5e, just naturally, even by design, just in different directions at different levels. At low level, the non-/demi- human multiclass PCs would be broken; post weapon-specialization/TWFing, fighters would dish huge damage through mid levels; high level was the domain of single-class casters. And the classic game didn't even have encounter-building guidelines, that was a 3.0 innovation.

3.0 and 3.5. Adding in Pathfinder brings 3E family up to 1.1 to 1.4 million depending on who you want to believe. 1E is in the 1 to 1.5 million range along with the Basic red box.

Last I saw Mearls had claimed the had outsold wotc editions individually but nor 2E for example which is at 750k apparently.

Getting excited about Amazon sales in one thing but they were tracked here a couple of years back and it imlied they were selling about 30 or 40k a year there which is still goodcombined with the initial burst of sales where you can make some good guesses based on figures from ICV2.

5E is doing well by any metric but we do not know if wotc is using units sold profit or revenue for example. The would have to be breaking 50 million a year in sales compared with the gilden age adjusted for inflation. Without inflation adjustments they have probably beaten virtually all the other editions. Beating 4E and 3.5 us not hard beating 3.0would b impressive or 3.0 +3.5.

Without knowing what metrics they used we dob't know. They claimed 4E did well right up to pulling the plug.

Ballpark figures if they are selling close to 3.0 or 2E but running things better than TSR they would be doing well rekative for D&D things.

I'mconvinced theyare selling faster than 2E just not beating its lifetime sales. I don't think sales would be impacted if the power attack parts of the feat were +1 str as the extra attack cleave part is still good.

 

[Xeviat]

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.

I'd do -5/+5, or -prof/+prof as I'm strongly considering now.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[schnee]

Or, have it scale like a cantrip.

-2/+4 - 1st
-3/+6 - 5th
-4/+8 - 11th
-5/+10 -17th

 

[Lanliss]

Or, have it scale like a cantrip.

-2/+4 - 1st
-3/+6 - 5th
-4/+8 - 11th
-5/+10 -17th

That would be roughly equal to the -Prof/+prof a few have suggested.