D&D 5E Nerfing Great Weapon Master

[Ilbranteloth]

Which is fine. I've done it that way too. However, I do prefer this way. I find it is significantly faster at the table and works great, provided you don't mind that sometimes that 50% is actually 45% (I don't sweat the difference).

Not saying it's a problem, just that I hadn't seen it before and it hadn't occurred to me.

 

[Tony Vargas]

"Avoid" or "fix", huh? That appears to be an incomplete list of possible reasons for why the table isn't experiencing an issue .

Wasn't meant as an exhaustive list, just two more examples.

 

[Maxperson]

My reply was to the OP who seemed to focus on the wrong half of the mechanism. It isn't the -5 that needs tweaking, it's the +10 that needs to be removed.

CapnZapp, designing feats that give a -5 to hit and no extra damage. I think I'll go with what the game gives.

 

[CapnZapp]

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.

Sure - I've seen that argument.

I guess my players avoid disadvantage entirely. Yes, it sticks out that in a certain situation you can get something for free, but remember: this only happens in a disadvantageous situation, which kind of implies it isn't a minmaxed scenario, which in turn implies you don't break the game that way.

 

[CapnZapp]

I guess I kinda did. ::sorry::

Fast combat isn't a priority that much appealed to me, either, especially as the game expects 6-8 combats, so you're still spending a lot of time on that pillar. One option, without particularly changing rules, especially player-facing rules, is just to dial up the challenge. Have 3-4 much larger (superior numbers will tell in 5e), more complex, more challenging combats per day, with a short rest after each one. If those combats are twice as many rounds as normal, the ratio of short-rest-recharge:long-rest-recharge:at-will resource usage should be comparable, and what baseline expected balance among the classes there is on that basis, therefor, retained.

Of course, it's a DM-doing-all-the-heavy-lifting solution, but that's the flipside of Empowerment.

Or, in other words, "entirely redesign your encounters".

It simply is not a suggestion I find serious. It's like saying there's nothing wrong with the all-terrain capabilities of a brand new sports car, just replace the wheels and the chassi of the car!

We really must stop using "empowerment" to justify "it doesn't do what it said on the tin" with "sure it does, if you just do it all yourself".

 

[CapnZapp]

Might I suggested that the feat is actually a trap option? The damage from the feat is not necessary for facing level appropriate challenges by a skilled player, and therefore is overkill. One would be better off spending the ASI on something else to overcome challenges that good gameplay might not overcome (such as shoring up weak saves in areas where save or suck could potentially take even a 20th level character out of a fight in one round).

On the flip side, it can be good to take if the rest of the party has below average DPR either because of build or combat strategy. In fact, in one of the games I'm playing, we have a Goliath Barbarian with GWM specifically because all of the other PCs are below optimal DPR builds, and therefore need the damage by him to stay even.

This, I think is what WotC intended for the feat (as well as SS) and why they won't change it. It is meant to be better than other choices, while also completely unnecessary to take.

In answer to the OP, if you want it to be more equal, make it -5/+8 and allow it to be used with any non finesse martial weapon. It's still good to help chew through low AC/ moderate HP minions while not overshadowing others on High AC/ High HP BBEGs.

If there was a single feat that "shored up" your weak saves, you're right - everyone would take that instead.

Calling it a trap option because adventures doesn't feature enough challenge is entirely backwards to me. If the adventures doesn't challenge players, that's a huge bug and certainly not a feature. Let's not start treating the edition's carebearian nature as a good thing.

Sure there can be campaigns with doesn't feature combat heavily, and there the feat might be less useful. But in published adventures there are a lot of monsters to be killed, and saying "you don't need to be particularly good at killing to succeed" is the ultimate resignation to me.

What game would D&D be if you could kill its monsters on autopilot? Why would you even waste your time dungeonbashing if there isn't even the illusion of challenge and possible defeat?!

No - a 40% damage increase is and needs to be a huge deal. In fact, my entire argument is that it is too huge a deal, and that the game would be much better off if it was reined in. Both in combat-heavy campaigns and obviously also in your social/exploratory campaigns. In campaigns where it sees a lot of use, and in campaigns where it is never taken. In all campaigns, in other words.

 

[dco]

Or, in other words, "entirely redesign your encounters".

It simply is not a suggestion I find serious. It's like saying there's nothing wrong with the all-terrain capabilities of a brand new sports car, just replace the wheels and the chassi of the car!

We really must stop using "empowerment" to justify "it doesn't do what it said on the tin" with "sure it does, if you just do it all yourself".

And it's not easy to redesign encounters. Players can have more attacks and more damage, for example a low lvl party with 2 players using the feat they could have up to 2 extra attacks, that's huge, but that's all, it's not guaranteed, no more hp, no more skills, class features, it's not equivalent to 2 more players. If you upgrade the encounter it can end very dangerous, more if they are ambushed and roll low initiative.
It also breaks the purpose, if you choose it to do more damage but you face tougher enemies there is no point for the feat, you would be better with another one or an ability upgrade.

 

[Ilbranteloth]

Sure - I've seen that argument.

I guess my players avoid disadvantage entirely. Yes, it sticks out that in a certain situation you can get something for free, but remember: this only happens in a disadvantageous situation, which kind of implies it isn't a minmaxed scenario, which in turn implies you don't break the game that way.

Well, you asked for in-game examples. Not only would the disadvantage approach allow you to essentially get the extra damage for free, but the poor circumstance no longer serves as a deterrent for using the ability anymore.

As I pointed out in my example, the archers usually chose not to try for the extra damage when they did have disadvantage. So that change in the rules has an effect not only on the math, but on the likelihood of using it that round.

And yes, my players like to avoid disadvantage as well. But their opponents seem intent on either finding an advantage for themselves, or imposing disadvantage on their enemies. More importantly, like any rule, it works both ways. So your PC might be hidden at the end of a dark hallway, giving the other archers disadvantage because they can't see you. More importantly, as a PC you've probably buffed up your AC as much as you could. So any archers that have that ability, or a similar one, would benefit too.

 

[Corwin]

Wasn't meant as an exhaustive list, just two more examples.

Two "cherry-picked" examples, more like. And that's unfortunate, for the honesty of the conversation, IMO. You definitely tried to paint a particular picture, suited to your opinion. Rather than a fair one.

 

[Tony Vargas]

Might I suggested that the feat is actually a trap option? The damage from the feat is not necessary for facing level appropriate challenges ...therefore is overkill.

That's an interesting spin on It! CapnZapp & his crew seem to be caught in it, and thus find the game 'too soft.'

Two "cherry-picked" examples, more like. And that's unfortunate, for the honesty of the conversation, IMO.

Two broad examples of what I was talking about - actions that head off any problem with the issue, rather than just whinge about it. Or deny it exists. Complaining that something's a problem & or denying that it is are opinions, sure, which we can share all day without accomplishing anything. Then there's actions that individual DMs can take to make the game their own. As simple as not opting into a sub-system you find an issue with, as routine as tailoring encounters to your players & campaign, or as complex as re-designing bits (or whole swaths) of the system.

At least, Xeviat was trying to do something - or talk about doing something - in the OP.

You definitely tried to paint a particular picture, suited to your opinion. Rather than a fair one.

I think my most relevant opinion to that bit of the thread would be: "If you don't like it, don't use it."

Or, in other words, "entirely redesign your encounters".

It simply is not a suggestion I find serious. It's like saying there's nothing wrong with the all-terrain capabilities of a brand new sports car, just replace the wheels and the chassi of the car!

Maybe it is a bit like that, except it's supposed to be a kit car in the first place.

But, to entirely re-design your encounters, you'd've had to have already designed all of them. I know DMing styles vary, but I don't expect it's typical to design every encounter you'll ever run, then re-design all of them when you notice the game is 'softer' than you expected. You have to design encounters, anyway, and it's not like the existing guidelines are a huge help in the first place. Doesn't seem like an unreasonable approach, to design encounters to fit the play style & system mastery of your players and evoke the tone you want in your campaign, seems like business as usual, really.

We really must stop using "empowerment" to justify "it doesn't do what it said on the tin" with "sure it does, if you just do it all yourself".

What it says on the tin is "D&D" and 'the DM just does what he wants with it' is how D&D worked for the first 25 years. So, yeah, it does what it says on the tin.

So, not only will I keep using 'DM Empowerment,' I'll keep capitalizing it. ;P

If there was a single feat that "shored up" your weak saves, you're right - everyone would take that instead.

That would rise to the level of a 'feat tax' since 4-out-of-6 weak saves aren't a great design feature to begin with, IMHO.

What game would D&D be if you could kill its monsters on autopilot?

Gauntlet?

Barbarian GWM w/Greatax, Elf Archer w/SS...

... all you'd need is a wizard that just tosses single-target fireballs and an S&B style that grants damage reduction (OK, and a magic sword that flicks blades of light at range)...