D&D 5E Nerfing Great Weapon Master

[Tony Vargas]

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

Exactly.

You confuse two things:

1) 5e is very balanced.

That is a confusing statement.

2) 5e consistently fails to provide a challenge unless you toss out its own guidelines.

Especially since that's a symptom of imbalance.

So, yeah, confusion, indeed.

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.[/I]

Class balance or balance among other player-facing alternatives, may not directly concern the world (though, really, they do, because that's where you're going to be using those choices), but encounter balance does.
FWIW.

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

I think "not using feats wasn't such a bad call."
(Outside of AL, I've not opted into feats or MCing at my table since 5e dropped.)

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.

I was thinking, specifically, of the controversy over the 2d6 greatsword vs the 1d12 greatax- and, yeah, it deserves all the belittling it gets - and more generally of the excessive precision with which DPR is sometimes analyzed.
It's absurd. The game has balance issues that absolutely dwarf whether one weapon is fractionally better than another, or what combat style the optimal weapon-based-DPR build uses. They're just not all so amenable to quantitative analysis.

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.

Sure. GWM relative to other feats, builds that use it relative to those that can't, games that have issues with it relative to others that don't - 'sall relative.

But in reality these things have nothing in common, and the problem isn't going away.

I'm not suggesting the issue has gone away (nor that it's likely to - 'continuous improvement' doesn't seem like a big part of the 5e design philosophy), merely that it's being coped with successfully out in the wild. (And, though I'm not exactly hammering it, that there's nothing wrong with Xeviat discussing one possible way of doing so.)

 

[Fanaelialae]

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.


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.

You were the one that brought up WotC fixing GWM in our discussion, not me. I merely pointed out that it's not very realistic.

Reread what I wrote. Not once did I use the word balance. Would you like me to requote your own words from the original post I was responding to, because you're not talking about the same thing you originally were.

1 is true insofar that 5e is reasonably balanced. However, for me at least, GWM is not such an outlier that I would consider it unbalanced.

2 may be true for you but it is not a truth. 5e most certainly provides a challenge - for the level of skill it's calibrated for. Remember that newbie group I mentioned. The DM created the encounters by the book and we were very challenged. Again, if the game were calibrated for your group, this groip if newbies would have tpk'd on the first encounter.

 

[Bacon Bits]

"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.

I was trying to eliminate what I felt was obvious hyperbole.

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.)

Ok, I'll buy all that. I'll accept that a wide range of opinions exist, and it includes people who don't care, people who like it, etc.

However, some people do have problems in their games with it. Some people do want to ask others on this forum what they have done about it. People here who have done the same thing also want to discuss what they've done. I think it's very clear that OP is in your category (d) just by reading the first post. It's very clearly a question about a mechanical solution of modifying the feat. So, if you're not interested in the type of solution that the thread is about, what are you hoping to accomplish? It's like if someone posted a question about problems running an encounter from SKT and some insisted the encounter was perfectly written and he or she just needed to change his campaign to be like theirs. Or if someone was posting about using the Mystic and having problems with it, and someone insisted that psionics shouldn't be a part of D&D anyways and this is an example of why. It's missing the point, right?

I mean, okay, not to be a jerk, but if you'll forgive me I'll pick on you a bit for example's sake: Why are you in the thread? You're pretty vocal about how you don't play with feats at all. You shouldn't have a dog in the fight. However, some people want to change GWM and SS for their games because they do have a problem with it and that's their chosen solution. Would they want to hear that they just shouldn't use feats at all, or hear your opinion when you'll just retreat to saying you don't use feats at all if it's questioned? That's not a fair question, of course, and I apologize if it comes across as offensive because it's just meant to be a rhetorical device. But, do you understand what I'm saying, right? Why does it matter if other people change the game in a way you... didn't?

So, sure, varied opinions exist about what to do with GWM. Why are they all valid in this thread?

 

[Tony Vargas]

Ok, I'll buy all that. I'll accept that a wide range of opinions exist, and it includes people who don't care, people who like it, etc.

It's not just opinions, it's actions. One hypothetical group maybe has a SS or GWM in it, and they dominate in straightforward race-to-0-hps combats, but the DM brings in enough other situations and challenges that each other PC also has his time in the sun. The DM did something to fix the problem - he may not even have recognized the problem, specifically, maybe he just noticed that some PCs were doing a lot and some others were doing less, and put more situations that called for the latter to do stuff in their way.

However, some people do have problems in their games with it. Some people do want to ask others on this forum what they have done about it.

Nod. Don't see anything wrong with that. Well, it's 'wrong' that the problem is there for them to have rather than the game simply not having problems, I suppose - less than ideal, anyway.

I think it's very clear that OP is in your category (d) just by reading the first post. It's very clearly a question about a mechanical solution of modifying the feat. So, if you're not interested in the type of solution that the thread is about, what are you hoping to accomplish?

I already shared my ideas on the subject with the OP, some number of posts upstream of all this.

It's like if someone posted a question about problems running an encounter from SKT and some insisted the encounter was perfectly written and he or she just needed to change his campaign to be like theirs. Or if someone was posting about using the Mystic and having problems with it, and someone insisted that psionics shouldn't be a part of D&D anyways and this is an example of why. It's missing the point, right?

It's topic drift, and it's frustrating, yes.

I mean, okay, not to be a jerk, but if you'll forgive me I'll pick on you a bit for example's sake: Why are you in the thread?

No offense taken. I'm generally interested in gaming minutia like this. If an idea were good enough, I might even use it some time. And... well, these discussions go off on tangents about more basic ideas, like game balance, and I do tend to want to weigh in on those.

Why does it matter if other people change the game in a way you... didn't?

It doesn't matter, to me, directly. It matters to me a little, philosophically, that they be allowed to do so, though, especially when the current ed is so DM-empowering, and choosing which options to use, how to run your game, and what rules to mod or add is a big part of making the play experience better.

So, sure, varied opinions exist about what to do with GWM. Why are they all valid in this thread?

'Opinions' are too easy to dismiss as such. There are facts about the feat in question, they add up in certain ways, and there are different strategies for coping with the implications of said facts. We can hold what opinions we like about those things, of course, but they're there regardless.

 

[Zardnaar]

The combt styles are better without feats. With feats 4 or 5 of them are above the curve. If the feats were along the lines of sentinel and shield master ans the twf one its about right IMHO.

 

[Prism]

Your game isn't close to "optimal" then. That doesn't mean the feat isn't broken. Only that you don't break it.

Well no not optimal, because if it was then we wouldn't be discussing GWM since it pales compared to certain ranged options . However the reality is that one of our games has exactly that barbarian in it and its not been a problem at all. The player took the feat because it looked fun rather than worrying about how optimal it is, however the group also has a cleric and knows how to push the benefits when needed. And about 10 extra points of damage per round is about as optimal as it gets for a barbarian

The thing all the naysayers conveniently ignore (not saying you are part of that group; the rest of this post isn't directed at you or any individual poster) is that a solution that works for the optimized scenario works for the run of the mill scenario too.

That is, let's say a balanced solution would be to replace the -5/+10 part of the feat with +1 Str.

Would y'all miss the +10 damage if that was what the PHB said.

No.

These people try to make it out to be like only a small subset of gamers have issues. But if you won't have any issues with a fixed, balanced, feat (just as you don't have any issues with the original, broken, feat) then why not support the change, increase the quality of the game and the number of players who can use it without pesky houserules...?

Balanced? Slightly less damage? Sure. But OMG boring. The point of the feat is surely so that its fun. Removing the good bit makes this into a feat that very few will take. Our barbarian player likes the big hit/big miss aspect of it.

The +/- prof bonus house rule looks like it would work if it gives the appearance of better balance, even though when it actually matters I'm not sure it makes much difference

 

[Corwin]

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

If you don't wish to address the OP's topic, and instead want to continue to harp on how WotC needs to issue errata on the feat, or that WotC sucks, or whatever other un-useful complaining (hint: not the topics of this thread), then perhaps you could find someplace more appropriate to waive your banner?

 

[Xeviat]

So ... is the general thought that Disadvantage would make it too good against low AC opponents and better against high AC opponents? That it would be about equal at the medium ACs, but that's not where it's a problem?

My thought was to avoid stacking -5 to hit and Advantage. Would that not help rein it in?

Same goes for Sharp Shooter.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Tormyr]

We have a level 20 party that has a Half-Orc Champion Fighter with GWM, and a Defender greatsword. This lends plenty of situational customization with balancing the +3 between offense and defense. A couple of things I have noticed:

* GWM is much better with teamwork (foresight on the fighter is awesome).
* High-level combat ends more quickly (generally a good thing) but not instantaneously.
* The average round might have the fighter do an additional 40 damage.
* The best possible additional damage from this feat in a turn would be 90 damage.
* I have watched the fighter whiff for an entire turn because of the -5.
* The pretty much does nothing outside of combat, so a creature sacrifices the other pillars for this.

All in all, we have had no issues with it. This becomes a fighter's way to shine. As opposed to smites for the paladin, meteor storm for a wizard, eldritch blast shenanigans for the Warlock, turning a sea of undead for the cleric, magic shenanigans for the sorcerer, and taunting someone to death for the bard. SS and GWM are part of what make ranged and melee fighters awesome, but that hasn't made our paladin, sorcerer, TWF fighter, bard, wizard, cleric, or monk any less awesome.

 

[Tony Vargas]

So ... is the general thought that Disadvantage would make it too good against low AC opponents and better against high AC opponents? That it would be about equal at the medium ACs, but that's not where it's a problem?

I think something like that, yes. At a base chance to hit of 50/50, -5 to hit & Disadvantage are mathematically pretty close when it comes to final chance to hit. The more you deviate from 50/50 to start, the /better/ the feat gets using Disad instead of -5, I think (I haven't thought it through too carefully, but that's my impression from past analysis of Adv/Dis).

My thought was to avoid stacking -5 to hit and Advantage. Would that not help rein it in?

Maybe I'm missing something, but I don't think so. -5 to hit with Advantage vs Disadvantage countered by Advantage isn't hugely different, and the latter may actually be 'better' for the character using the feat.

OTOH, the rule that you can't use GWM when you have disadvantage (whether negated by Adv or not), would rein in the feat simply because you couldn't use it as often. It doesn't make much sense, though, IMHO.

Same goes for Sharp Shooter.

OTOH, but still IMHO, I think such a requirement would make sense on SS - though, I'm not sure the whole trade-accuracy-for-damage thing makes a lot of sense for sharp shooting in the first place.