D&D 5E Nerfing Great Weapon Master

[Tony Vargas]

No, it really is not a decent analogy at all, Tony. His analogy is crafted to suggest the individual components of the combination that breaks GWM are roughly equal.

I didn't get that from it, at all. For one thing, one of those components is Advantage, a pervasive mechanic and among the best-received of those adopted by 5e.

It's all deeply and profoundly wrong.

More true than you mean it to be.

also object strongly to the notion that, in essence, boils down to "as soon as balancing becomes hard and not trivial, its okay for WotC to dump all the hard work in the laps of DMs"

Well, it was OK for TSR for 20+ years, and that is the period 5e intentionally hearkens back to. Really, that's just a negative spin on DM Empowerment.

The fact is that +10 is the bleedingly obvious culprit here, and fixing it not that hard: all the complicated analysis has already been done, right in this and other threads! If you don't want to get fancy (and I'm sure WotC wouldn't want to), replace it with +1 Str and be done with it.

I'd prefer not to see it dumped officially - seeing it optional in the feat section seems enough of a concession. Having it errata'd is probably too much to ask, so Xeviat's original topic - how to fix it, mechanically, in his game - seems like a worthy one.

In a combination with all of those things, it's no longer the fighter doing that additional +10 damage. If the fighter is relying on other classes to enable him to reliably do that damage.

In the OP, it was a Barbarian, not a fighter, and he was not relying on other party members to gain Advantage to compensate for the -5.

It's supposed to model a challenge being easier, not harder, that's why it's a feat.

Not what I was talking about. Lack of threading strikes again.

Disparity is going to happen in any game where you aren't all making boring clones of one another. Disparity is okay.

Ookay then, if you want to call imbalance 'disparity' so you can feel good about liking it, and Zapp want's to call imbalanced things 'broken' so he can feel good about complaining about them, fine. You guys just do that and continue your bickering.

If it's broken for you, there are many ways to fix the issue.

And if you find it's "not broken for you," you've already used one or more of 'em. ;P

Seriously, you and Zapp (and not just the two of you) are hung up on quibbling over language and finger-pointing. You want to blame him for playing wrong (and thus affirm your superiority to him), he wants to blame the optional sub-system that lets him play in something more like the 3.x style, for giving results more like you'd get from 3.x (and thus affirm his his superiority to the designers).

I want blame myself for trying to talk sense to either of you.

Xeviat just wanted to discuss a how to mod a feat. ...

The version that replaces power attack for +1 strength?
I find that version of the feat both less interesting and anemic from a design standpoint.

The +5/-10 is the 5e answer to Power Attack, and it'd be nice to have an answer to Power Attack in 5e. So cutting the mechanic rather than fixing it would seem less desirable, to me.

I think that if you actually did the math on that combo, you'd find that the other elements add quite a bit of DPR themselves. Because until you run up against the limit on accuracy (only miss on a natural 1 plus advantage/rerolls) every increase to accuracy corresponds with an increase to DPR.

Sources of advantage are non-stacking, so not that problematic. BA makes the game very sensitive to any attack bonus, though, so, yeah, Bless, for instance, is also pretty suspicious. Similarly, the scaling of weapon-users being primarily via Extra Attack makes the system very sensitive to damage bonuses.

One point I've seen a few times from those in favor of GWM and SS as they are, is that it's meant to quickly kill off enemies with lower AC and hit points.

They certainly align with the fast combat goal of 5e.

So how about this instead of -5/+10: Whenever you hit and deal damage with a melee attack with a heavy weapon (or with an attack from a ranged weapon in SS' case), if the creature's remaining hit points after you deal the damage are equal to or less than your level, it is reduced to 0 hit points.

That's interesting, it builds in some per-attack scaling, which is nice for weapon-users, but doesn't let it stack vs one foe. That limits abuse, but it also limits usefulness when a campaign doesn't much go for 'mook' combats.

One issue I see is not that the feat does too much damage, per se - lots of DPR is the main thing some sub-classes get, and big DPR numbers support fast combat - but that there's just the two feats that bring just the two combat styles up to that DPR standard. More/better feats for the combat styles might be a way of 'balancing' GWM/SS.

I'm leaning toward going for -prof to hit/+ 2x prof to damage. The math is the same, but it's less of a damage spike in the beginning.

Well, that's scaling, anyway, and it's more reminiscent of the original Power Attack.

While I like the simplicity of Disadvantage, I'm mostly convinced it's not the best.

Agreed. Part of the issue is that the penalty is static, -5, while Advantage compensates differently for that penalty, depending on the base chance to hit...

Hmm... what if, instead of a penalty, you lost bonuses. When you power attack, you lose all bonuses to hit except those from Strength (DEX for SS) and magic weapons, and cannot roll a second die for Advantage.
In return, you get 2* prof bonus to damage. Since you're limited to one bonus to hit, other bonuses can't be stacked up to compensate for the loss of Prof.

 

[OB1]

Your argument reads as if "when they change things that is the right decision and when they don't change things that is the right decision too". In other words, if you truly believe WotC can make no faults regardless of evidence put forth, why even discuss this with you?

I can see how it may have read that way. What I meant to convey was that regardless of my opinion or your opinion or even my facts or your facts, WotC is going to base it's decisions on the feedback of the community as a whole. Unlike the Ranger, the community has not consistently told WotC that GWM and SS are an issue, and therefore it has not been changed. In fact, the feedback has generally told WotC that the feats are working as they intended.

I find it worthwhile and rewarding to discuss ways to house rule things where my preference doesn't align with WotC and the community and to work with others on fixing their issues within their own games. Through these discussions, I often find insight and new ideas that can help me to become a better DM and a better Player. It doesn't matter to me if WotC messed something up, got something wrong, or whether they fix it or don't. I worry about making myself a better gamer, and hope my thoughts and insights help others accomplish the same.

So, that's why I've offered three solutions to the GWM problem expressed in the OP. To review.

1. Ignore the issue, if someone takes it, they want to be better at combat, and that's fine, you can work to challenge them in other areas.
2. Change the feat to -5/+8, just enough of a nerf to bring it in line with other feats, not so bad as to make it worthless to take.
3. Experiment with lower starting array's for your players to increase the overall difficulty of the game and to lessen the impact of GWM

None of those require intervention by WotC.

 

[Gladius Legis]

That's interesting, it builds in some per-attack scaling, which is nice for weapon-users, but doesn't let it stack vs one foe. That limits abuse, but it also limits usefulness when a campaign doesn't much go for 'mook' combats.

Sure, but even against enemies with greater HP, or bosses, it's not entirely useless. A higher "0 point" as it were can still kick in every once in a while for the kill.

Plus any of my revisions to the feat would still retain its bonus-action attack on a crit, also useful against boss enemies.

 

[Tony Vargas]

Plus any of my revisions to the feat would still retain its bonus-action attack on a crit, also useful against boss enemies.

Sure, which is more likely to be lost to positioning issues vs mooks than vs a higher hp enemy.

 

[evileeyore]

We would much rather you agreed the feat needs errata...

No doubt you want that, but why should someone agree with you when you are so egregiously incorrect?

 

[Fanaelialae]

One point I've seen a few times from those in favor of GWM and SS as they are, is that it's meant to quickly kill off enemies with lower AC and hit points.

So how about this instead of -5/+10: Whenever you hit and deal damage with a melee attack with a heavy weapon (or with an attack from a ranged weapon in SS' case), if the creature's remaining hit points after you deal the damage are equal to or less than your level, it is reduced to 0 hit points.

There we go. The feat becomes perfect for killing mooks (and you don't even need to take a penalty to hit to do so), but your damage is brought back in line with everyone else when bringing down bigger game. And it scales with level so it's not too strong early.

I like this idea. I'm not entirely convinced level is sufficient though. Seems a bit low. Maybe if it were twice your level?

 

[Gladius Legis]

I like this idea. I'm not entirely convinced level is sufficient though. Seems a bit low. Maybe if it were twice your level?

2x level would be too strong at later levels. Compare an at-will benefit having the kill threshold of 40 HP at Lv. 20 to, say, the Paladin's Banishing Smite (50 HP) or Power Word Kill (100 HP, and a 9th level spell).

I think 5 + level could work though. Would make it even stronger than 2x level at the lowest levels, but would still be reasonable at higher levels.

 

[Maxperson]

In the OP, it was a Barbarian, not a fighter, and he was not relying on other party members to gain Advantage to compensate for the -5.

In the OP the barbarian had a 35% miss chance against an AC of 15. That drops to 50% against an AC of 18. Not broken.

Ookay then, if you want to call imbalance 'disparity' so you can feel good about liking it, and Zapp want's to call imbalanced things 'broken' so he can feel good about complaining about them, fine. You guys just do that and continue your bickering.

Imbalance is not inherently bad. Call it imbalance. Call it disparity. So the freak what. It's not a bad thing unless you get upset by it.

And if you find it's "not broken for you," you've already used one or more of 'em. ;P

Eh, no. I can just not care if a fighter type does well. ::shrug:: As I said above, imbalance/disparity is not a bad thing unless it upsets you. It doesn't upset me.

Seriously, you and Zapp (and not just the two of you) are hung up on quibbling over language and finger-pointing. You want to blame him for playing wrong (and thus affirm your superiority to him), he wants to blame the optional sub-system that lets him play in something more like the 3.x style, for giving results more like you'd get from 3.x (and thus affirm his his superiority to the designers).

Where have I blamed him for playing wrong? Quote it. I've simply said that it's not objectively broken for everyone like he claims and that he should just fix it for his game.

 

[Caliban]

To be brutally frank, consider sparing us your sympathies.

We would much rather you agreed the feat needs errata, or at the very least stayed silent.

In other words: you aren't really helping. You might think you are, but you really aren't.

Thank you,
Zapp

Yeah, you aren't really helping either. You might think you are, but you really aren't.

 

[Flamestrike]

I dont have a huge issue with these suckers in my games, but I do feel they sideline sword and board too much. Sharpshooter was particularly problematic (with archery providing +2 to hit, and range)

Ive nerfed them down to the -5/+10 only being allowed 1/ attack action on your turn (thus action surging fighters get to do it twice).

I further nerfed Sharpshooter (and Spell sniper) to reduce cover by one step (3/4 becomes half, and half is ignored).

Archery style got totally revamped too. Instead of +2 to hit, it now does this:

'On the first round of combat, if you are not surprised, you may make a ranged weapon attack against a creature you can see at any point during that creatures turn as a reaction. This shot must occur before the start of your first turn. You must have a loaded ranged weapon in your hands to use this ability.'

Effectively, if you're packing a loaded Xbow or a nocked bow, you get to always be able to shoot the charging Orc before he gets to you.. and it also grants you an extra shot before your 1st turn on many turns.

Then I tacked on Weapon specialization as a feat to compensate.

Now all F/S are pretty much equal.