D&D 5E Nerfing Great Weapon Master

[Fanaelialae]

Just throwing this out there, but for those of you who have an issue with power attack, what if it was unchanged except that on an odd d20 roll it only deals +5 damage. That would effectively reduce its DPR contribution by 25%. Haven't given it much thought as I'm about to go to sleep.

 

[Tony Vargas]

If the wizard was throwing out damage spells, then at least they'd be doing half damage with their spells. Their spells would be doing something. A Champion that fails to crit is more like a Diviner who forgets to use Portent.

Not critting all session long is not the same as missing all the time (though, of course, that, too, /could/ happen and to any fighter, not just the Champion). The Diviner analogy is... OK, I guess Portent is the Diviner's 'big thing,' but it's not like a Wizard doesn't have a lot of things to differentiate itself - 33 unique spells in the PH (the runner up has 17), for instance. A wizard who learned none of those spells, who chose only spells that granted saves (and none that could be cast as rituals), and who's targets always made their saves, that'd be starting to look a bit like the sad, critless Champion anecdote. Of course, the biggest difference is that the Champion's problem is just luck, the Wizard's failing is also in the player in that hypothetical.

 

[CapnZapp]

Once more, with feeling. The 'universal fact' I have been addressing specifically with the other poster, is that it is, in their eyes, a 'universal fact' that the feat is broken and needs to be changed.

It feels like you're just clinging to alternative facts at this point.

Honestly, I would no longer be surprised if I presented you with two identical feats, one strictly twice as good as the other, and you would still claim the game is all good, there are no problems, and besides, people can just house-rule if there's things they don't like.

You have been presented with overwhelming analysis the feat provides unparalleled damage when utilized correctly. That some martial builds are simply excluded. That monsters can't keep up.

Not acknowledging the feat is a singular source of disruption and wholly bad for the game is impossible if you stick with the facts.

But you choose to not respond to any poster making an argument you don't care to meet, probably because you have no case.

When your own bad-faith and illogical arguments are called out, you don't respond or even acknowledge them.

At every turn, you try to twist the discussion into becoming about person rather than fact. You several times take umbrage at what people say, apparently hoping they will be mired in personal back and forth where you know you can't lose.

Also, I have personally yet to see a single example where you post on another agenda (such as actually playing the game, or finding something in the rules you want to improve) than defending the PHB, never backing down a single inch.

At this point: what reason would you say there is for me to not dismiss your views as a complete apologist, Corwin?

Sent from my C6603 using EN World mobile app

 

[CapnZapp]

If you really don't like it just remove "power attack" part and add +1 str or GW fighting style to the feat instead.

Yes, that is certainly the most common working solution. WotC would be wise to consider it.

Sent from my C6603 using EN World mobile app

 

[Horwath]

Yes, that is certainly the most common working solution. WotC would be wise to consider it.

Sent from my C6603 using EN World mobile app

Same for Sharpshooter while we are at it.

+1 dex or archery style.

 

[The Hierophant]

New to the thread but I wanted to chip in. I am a long time D&D player relatively new to 5e. I'm playing a barbarian who took GWM at 4th level. Yes the combination of GWM and Reckless Attack is powerful. But I don't think it is too powerful.

People have already commented on casters and those comments are accurate.

The other martial combatants in our party are an assassin Rogue who can deal plenty of damage on a sneak attack and as a light foot halfling gets lots of opportunity to sneak attack. And a ranger who uses Hunter's Mark and Colossus Slayer.

Before I got GWM both were routinely dealing more damage than the barbarian. That doesn't seem right when the barbarian is more squarely focused on combat than either of the other two and has far fewer options (both in and out of combat). GWM has gone a long way to balance that out.

 

[Eubani]

It seems the spellcasters Supremacy League has it's underwear in a bunch again, how dare martial characters have something that lets them pull ahead in one place with risk of getting nothing.

 

[CapnZapp]

It seems the spellcasters Supremacy League has it's underwear in a bunch again, how dare martial characters have something that lets them pull ahead in one place with risk of getting nothing.

It seems you have your arguments in a bunch again, since this is not the complaint.

This is not about casters vs martials. This is about martials vs martials.

One important job of a martial is to deal damage. This feat means only some fighting styles get a significant upgrade while others are left out.

But more generally, either the game is balanced for martial damage output without the feat (and the feat is severely overpowered) or with the feat (in which case it's a feat tax).

Adding a feat that can be exploited to deal +40 extra damage per round is just horrendously ill-advised.

 

[CapnZapp]

New to the thread but I wanted to chip in. I am a long time D&D player relatively new to 5e. I'm playing a barbarian who took GWM at 4th level. Yes the combination of GWM and Reckless Attack is powerful. But I don't think it is too powerful.

People have already commented on casters and those comments are accurate.

The other martial combatants in our party are an assassin Rogue who can deal plenty of damage on a sneak attack and as a light foot halfling gets lots of opportunity to sneak attack. And a ranger who uses Hunter's Mark and Colossus Slayer.

Before I got GWM both were routinely dealing more damage than the barbarian. That doesn't seem right when the barbarian is more squarely focused on combat than either of the other two and has far fewer options (both in and out of combat). GWM has gone a long way to balance that out.

Hello and welcome to the thread. I can certainly see where you are coming from.

But the problem is this: your Rogue is giving up a lot of sturdiness and staying power, and still he only just outperforms martials. He is risking much more (with his worse AC and HP) for little benefit. If anything, the damage boost that GWM allows for should also be available for the Rogue to take.

And again: playing a damage dealer that doesn't take the feat becomes a hopeless endeavor, especially in a party where another damage dealer does. You will be hopelessly upstaged, and this reduces choice which reduces fun.

 

[Zardnaar]

New to the thread but I wanted to chip in. I am a long time D&D player relatively new to 5e. I'm playing a barbarian who took GWM at 4th level. Yes the combination of GWM and Reckless Attack is powerful. But I don't think it is too powerful.

People have already commented on casters and those comments are accurate.

The other martial combatants in our party are an assassin Rogue who can deal plenty of damage on a sneak attack and as a light foot halfling gets lots of opportunity to sneak attack. And a ranger who uses Hunter's Mark and Colossus Slayer.

Before I got GWM both were routinely dealing more damage than the barbarian. That doesn't seem right when the barbarian is more squarely focused on combat than either of the other two and has far fewer options (both in and out of combat). GWM has gone a long way to balance that out.

hunters mark, sharpshooter+ hordebreaker is even better. Another attack you can add +10 damage onto.