D&D 5E Nerfing Great Weapon Master

[CapnZapp]

[MENTION=12731]CapnZapp[/MENTION] I think my biggest issue with your positions is that you appear to be contending two different and mutually exclusive ones.

On the one hand, you've repeatedly argued this is a problem with the game itself, regardless of class and feats. That the game itself has some fundamental assumptions which fall apart when anyone, regardless of class and feats, does too much damage at once. And that the edition AS A WHOLE is less challenging than any other edition, is too soft, that you cannot just beef up encounters but must wholesale replace encounters from scratch, and that it wrecks verisimilitude when one character (any character, with any feats) can suddenly do 25 points damage in a single "regular" hit, because this means you can't use damage thresholds and hardness in this edition.

None of those arguments are necessarily about martial characters or the Great Weapon Master feat. They all apply equally to things like Warlocks agonizing blast, or the fact that a wizard can cast fireball twice every encounter for 6+ encounters a day, or any of a number of combinations I am sure we can come up with. The premise is that IF you can do X amount of damage (you specified 25 points in a single hit) THEN the game breaks, regardless of the class or feat being used to do this. And I think we all agree there is more than simply the GWM feat that fits this definition – lots of things can reach that damage threshold in this game on a regular basis for a single hit, and not just this feat, and you previously acknowledged that the game in general hands out far too generous bonuses for it's own good.

We take all those arguments as a critique of the fundamental assumptions of the game in general. We can call this ARGUMENT A (The game is "too soft" in general). And yes I can provide quotes from you to back up every thing I just said.

[sblock]











[/sblock]

But then we get to ARGUMENT B: This is just about martial characters and this one feat, and any other conversation or comparison is an irrelevant distraction.

Here you argue we should not compare balance issues between two types of classes, but that balance is asking if feature X is better than feature Y and we shouldn't be concerned with the "world" and monsters and NPCs at all. That this is not about casters vs martials but is only about martials vs martials.

[sblock]







[/sblock]

These are mutually exclusive arguments. Argument A conflicts directly with Argument B.

It's either a fundamental issue of the game that dealing X damage in a single hit (regardless of class type, whether it is a caster or a martial, and regardless of feat, whether it is Agonizing Blast or Great Weapon Master, and regardless of the type of hit, whether it is a great sword or a fireball) breaks the game because this means encounters become so weak you have to completely remake them and you cannot use damage thresholds and hardness and verisimilitude is wrecked and overall the game is just too soft. If this is the problem, then the conversation should be about this more universal issue with the game rather than just one feat, because we'd end up playing whack-a-mole on dozens of aspects of the game to actually address this more fundamental issue with the game.

OR

It's only about internally measuring martials versus martials, and this one feat, and it's not about fundamental assumptions of the game relative to anyone who does X amount of damage in one hit, it's only relevant if someone with this feat does that X amount of damage in one hit because the measurement is relative to that same character choosing something else. In which case, were you just wrong when you were earlier saying this is a more universal problem with the game and the game works just fine except for this feat despite what you were saying earlier?

That doesn't fly. It's not a consistent position. Pick one of those two to arguements. Because otherwise your position becomes a moving target. If we address this one feat you can just say we're not addressing the more universal issue, and if we address the more universal issue you will say we're distracting from the topic of this one feat. You have to pick one of those, and explain why you're ejecting the other one.

Whoa. I guess I should be flattered. That is a very impressive wall of text.

First off, I become hopeful when you say this is your biggest issue with my arguments. Perchance, if I can clear this seemingly insurmountable dichtomy, you will agree with me on the actual questions!

You say I claim the game is too soft in general and that this is a problem. For any new readers, let me clarify this is based on the assumption you as a gamer will use the tools provided; that is: feats, multiclassing and magic items. I don't buy the rationale "the game is not designed for optional subsystems; that's on DMs to fix" for several reasons. But even disregarding that issue, 5th edition is to me much more generous in giving get out of jail and second chance freebies than any previous edition: abilities that allow the player to essentially go "I didn't miss". At the same time, 5th edition is to me much more stingy in giving monsters special abilities, magic tricks and other tools to survive, shape and more about on the battlefield than in any recent edition. These three tendencies (a baseline not taking into account even core systems; more capable heroes; less capable monsters) combine to devastating effect, where encounter guidelines become entirely useless faster than I can remember from any previous edition.

You also say I claim a feat like GWM is problematic because of martials vs martials, not about casters vs martials. What I mean by that is that you can discuss wizard vs fighter balance, but please don't do that specifically for GWM. The main problem with GWM is that you get "martials with the feat" and "martials without the feat" and they differ too much in doing a primary job: dealing damage. It means the difference between picking up a knife and wielding a greataxe is no longer around half again as much damage (d12+5 is 1,5x d4+5) but something significantly larger (d12+13 is 2,5x d4+5).

Both of these claims are correct. Yet, I see no conflict between them.

I reserve the right to discuss a feat like GWM in isolation without bringing in every other issue of the game because otherwise we will never reach any conclusions. For instance, I have heard the argument GWM is needed or martials fall way behind casters. This only makes my head hurt. Even if we assume martials are behind casters, relying on a single feat is not a good solution. (Upping the baseline damage would be). The point is: our discussion about GWM is and should remain independent from any discussion about casters vs martials. That's what I mean when I want us to focus on two identical characters except one with the feat vs one without (with another feat or the ASI): martial vs martial.

You are right in that the issues are somewhat related on the grander level. Remove GWM; martial damage drops, soft game becomes less soft. But again, let's keep these two issues wholly separate. It is certainly not that the game's softness hinges on GWM, though it would obviously help to nerf it. But now we're nerfing it for irrelevant reasons! We should not nerf GWM because the game is too soft; we should nerf GWM because it is too good and reduces choice. Then, we discuss the softness issue separately.


All that remains is to address the fact you claim I am taking two mutually exclusive positions. Perhaps because you conflate the latter position with when I spoke about single-hit weapon damage and verisimilitude? "dealing X damage in a single hit" is not a general issue for me. Apologies if you were led to believe so. I certainly am not concerned about single-attack damage in general (such as from Fireball) - I was talking about how you can't design a chain or manacles to break on taking 20 points of damage from a single hit (=Hardness 20) in a game where power attack/GWM exists, because either the chain breaks easily (if you have the feat) or not (if you don't).

I'll stop right here to give you a chance to respond, since it appears we have a misunderstanding.

 

[Corwin]

ARE YOU A SORCERER?!? I see you countered his wall o' text with a twinned wall o' text of your own!!!

 

[CapnZapp]

[MENTION=6778044]Ilbranteloth[/MENTION], [MENTION=996]Tony Vargas[/MENTION] and [MENTION=6780269]dco[/MENTION]: Thanks for your replies.

I guess I owe y'all an apology - I didn't mean to appear undecided on the question of disadvantage compared to −5: I know disadvantage is a penalty that varies from −1 to −5 so obviously disadvantage can only be better.

The reason I asked (but apparently failed to carry across) is that in the actual playtested scenario, players heavily rely on having advantage to wring the most out of the feat.

And so I was wondering what the removal of advantage does to the analysis. (Imposing disadvantage doesn't mean the feat will get used with actual disadvantage; it means the feat can now never be used with advantage).

So I didn't mean to ask the basic question of whether disadvantage or −5 is preferable. We've already established that the analysis at this basic stage (applying advantage to the raw feat), the feat still looks fairly reasonable, because the miss chance seems decently high. And so the conclusion is that the feat isn't too badly overpowered.

Now, as I have explained, a minmaxer does not stop there. He uses the fact that with advantage misses will generally be close calls (the probability that you will miss by a single point is greater than the probability of missing by two points, and so forth), and that abilities such as Precision Strike allow you to turn misses into hits. Not to mention that abilities that allow you "free" rerolls of ones become comparably significant in this case.

Note that this relies on the probability characteristics of advantage rather than the straight line probability of a single d20 roll.

Now then. I wonder how switching the feat away from −5 over to disadvantage; that is, the removal of the advantage probability curve, impacts real life feat usage?

And so my rephrased question becomes: How will [the improvement due to disadvantage being better than −5] balance visavi [the removed opportunity to leverage the the probability characteristics of advantage using Precision Strike (Inspiration et al)]?

Best regards,
Z

 

[Tony Vargas]

the game is too soft in general and that this is a problem. For any new readers, let me clarify this is based on the assumption you as a gamer will use the tools provided; that is: feats, multiclassing and magic items. I don't buy the rationale "the game is not designed for optional subsystems; that's on DMs to fix" for several reasons. But even disregarding that issue

If the game is going to present on|off options instead of one-from-column-A options, it's going to have to balance (if at all) in one possible state, and /be balanced/ by the DM flipping on options in the state he ends up creating.

Supposedly, the game balances with no options opted into, and 6-8 encounter days.

Shorter days? Too easy. Magic items? Too easy. Feats & MCing? Too easy.

All that in the hands of system masters who cut their teeth on 3.5? "This game is way too soft!"

These three tendencies (a baseline not taking into account even core systems; more capable heroes; less capable monsters) combine to devastating effect, where encounter guidelines become entirely useless faster than I can remember from any previous edition.

They're just guidelines. You can color outside them if you need to.

But, it seems to me that maybe the point of that perfect storm of easy is not about making the game boring for hard-core system-masters nor even approachable for newbs, but, rather, about the strongly-asserted 'fast combat' goal. I mean, a combat ends with one side defeated, and a fast combat means that has to happen, well, fast, so there's less time for recovering from a bad die roll or few, the game thus needs to be tuned the way it is, to deliver on fast combats, without too many of them being in the form of "wow, all the PCs died so fast."

What I mean by that is that you can discuss wizard vs fighter balance, but please don't do that specifically for GWM. The main problem with GWM is that you get "martials with the feat" and "martials without the feat" and they differ too much in doing a primary job: dealing damage.

Whereas the problem with wizard v fighter /is/ that the fighter prettymuch just deals damage.

Both of these claims are correct. Yet, I see no conflict between them.

I can't say I see the blatant contradiction. A feat is an option you take with ASIs, it has to balance with ASIs & other feats - to the degree a game pushing DM Empowerment as hard as 5e needs to balance on it's own, at all, which is a pretty small degree, IMHO.

For instance, I have heard the argument GWM is needed or martials fall way behind casters. This only makes my head hurt. Even if we assume martials are behind casters, relying on a single feat is not a good solution.

How 'bout if every other combat style also had a feat as 'broken' as GWM to synergize with? Similar feats would thus be balanced, more fighter builds would become arguably-viable (if you buy the argument that GWM makes two-hander builds viable compared to casters, and SS does the same for archers, anyway).

Remove GWM; martial damage drops, soft game becomes less soft.

The game's just as soft in that case, it's just one fewer 'hard' build making it look soft, you'd have to get rid of all of them...

It just seems like trying to drag down PC combat ability across the board to make the game 'hard' again is an undertaking. It might be a lot easier (especially since you don't have to go around taking toys away from players) to just beef up the other side of the equation.

I certainly am not concerned about single-attack damage in general (such as from Fireball) - I was talking about how you can't design a chain or manacles to break on taking 20 points of damage from a single hit (=Hardness 20) in a game where power attack/GWM exists, because either the chain breaks easily (if you have the feat) or not (if you don't)

That does sound unrelated, or at least much more specific. ( An obvious solution would be to make a STR check to break chain - DC based on the chain and what you're using to break it - the poor Champion would even be able to benefit from Remarkable Athlete, since the roll clearly isn't Athletics... )

 

[CapnZapp]

ARE YOU A SORCERER?!? I see you countered his wall o' text with a twinned wall o' text of your own!!!

Oops, sorry. Must have been a Wild Surge

 

[Fanaelialae]

[MENTION=6778044]Ilbranteloth[/MENTION], [MENTION=996]Tony Vargas[/MENTION] and [MENTION=6780269]dco[/MENTION]: Thanks for your replies.

I guess I owe y'all an apology - I didn't mean to appear undecided on the question of disadvantage compared to −5: I know disadvantage is a penalty that varies from −1 to −5 so obviously disadvantage can only be better.

The reason I asked (but apparently failed to carry across) is that in the actual playtested scenario, players heavily rely on having advantage to wring the most out of the feat.

And so I was wondering what the removal of advantage does to the analysis. (Imposing disadvantage doesn't mean the feat will get used with actual disadvantage; it means the feat can now never be used with advantage).

So I didn't mean to ask the basic question of whether disadvantage or −5 is preferable. We've already established that the analysis at this basic stage (applying advantage to the raw feat), the feat still looks fairly reasonable, because the miss chance seems decently high. And so the conclusion is that the feat isn't too badly overpowered.

Now, as I have explained, a minmaxer does not stop there. He uses the fact that with advantage misses will generally be close calls (the probability that you will miss by a single point is greater than the probability of missing by two points, and so forth), and that abilities such as Precision Strike allow you to turn misses into hits. Not to mention that abilities that allow you "free" rerolls of ones become comparably significant in this case.

Note that this relies on the probability characteristics of advantage rather than the straight line probability of a single d20 roll.

Now then. I wonder how switching the feat away from −5 over to disadvantage; that is, the removal of the advantage probability curve, impacts real life feat usage?

And so my rephrased question becomes: How will [the improvement due to disadvantage being better than −5] balance visavi [the removed opportunity to leverage the the probability characteristics of advantage using Precision Strike (Inspiration et al)]?

Best regards,
Z

Alright, I admit I didn't read all of that, but the advantage part caught my eye. If this is a problem for you, why not simply have power attack suppress advantage? As in, if you have advantage but use power attack, you still only roll 1d20. This is in addition to the -5 penalty, of course.

 

[CapnZapp]

[MENTION=996]Tony Vargas[/MENTION], well, you have a point about fast combats.

Not that fast combats necessarily have to mean easy combats.

But I do see the challenge in making combats fast and still avoid players suddenly dying with no chance to avoid.

Of course, I'd much rather have challenging combats than fast ones. And in the case of end-of-level bosses, a fast combat is an outright failure.

So as a rational explanation of the game's softness, I give you a point.

But as a justification for the game's softness*, I vehemently disagree. We can't have level 20 fights end just as quick as a fight against wandering goblins, or the entire game becomes a joke imo.

*) not saying you use it as such

 

[CapnZapp]

Alright, I admit I didn't read all of that, but the advantage part caught my eye. If this is a problem for you, why not simply have power attack suppress advantage? As in, if you have advantage but use power attack, you still only roll 1d20. This is in addition to the -5 penalty, of course.

Sure.

But if you don't mind, I still look forward to crunching the numbers on the previous scenario first

After all, the suggestion to replace -5 with disadvantage is a prominent one in the thread, and I am curious to see what it does to the use case scenario that really wrecks GWM balance.

Thx

 

[LapBandit]

If Dueling Fighting Style gives you +2 AC and +2 damage, perhaps Great Weapon Fighting Style should give you +4. I think that sounds about right.

 

[Ilbranteloth]

[MENTION=6778044]Ilbranteloth[/MENTION], [MENTION=996]Tony Vargas[/MENTION] and [MENTION=6780269]dco[/MENTION]: Thanks for your replies.

I guess I owe y'all an apology - I didn't mean to appear undecided on the question of disadvantage compared to −5: I know disadvantage is a penalty that varies from −1 to −5 so obviously disadvantage can only be better.

The reason I asked (but apparently failed to carry across) is that in the actual playtested scenario, players heavily rely on having advantage to wring the most out of the feat.

And so I was wondering what the removal of advantage does to the analysis. (Imposing disadvantage doesn't mean the feat will get used with actual disadvantage; it means the feat can now never be used with advantage).

So I didn't mean to ask the basic question of whether disadvantage or −5 is preferable. We've already established that the analysis at this basic stage (applying advantage to the raw feat), the feat still looks fairly reasonable, because the miss chance seems decently high. And so the conclusion is that the feat isn't too badly overpowered.

Now, as I have explained, a minmaxer does not stop there. He uses the fact that with advantage misses will generally be close calls (the probability that you will miss by a single point is greater than the probability of missing by two points, and so forth), and that abilities such as Precision Strike allow you to turn misses into hits. Not to mention that abilities that allow you "free" rerolls of ones become comparably significant in this case.

Note that this relies on the probability characteristics of advantage rather than the straight line probability of a single d20 roll.

Now then. I wonder how switching the feat away from −5 over to disadvantage; that is, the removal of the advantage probability curve, impacts real life feat usage?

And so my rephrased question becomes: How will [the improvement due to disadvantage being better than −5] balance visavi [the removed opportunity to leverage the the probability characteristics of advantage using Precision Strike (Inspiration et al)]?

Best regards,
Z

I don't have any players using GWF so I can't comment on that directly, but I do have a sharpshooter. It would absolutely change things quite a bit because there have been a number of times where they have had disadvantage.

More often than not, the archer didn't try for the extra damage when they had disadvantage, because they felt the extra -5 to hit would make the shot too difficult. Now, like most players, they equate disadvantage to a -5 penalty, so they were making the decision essentially thinking they had a -10 to hit. And that wasn't worth the +10 in damage.

But they still took the shot. So switching it to disadvantage, which doesn't stack, means they would have received the +10 damage bonus more frequently, since any time you already have disadvantage, you might as well add the extra damage.

The same situation as the "need a 20 to hit" applies. If they already have disadvantage on the shot, then any shot that has disadvantage will automatically be made with a +10 damage bonus, because there won't be any additional penalty.