D&D 5E Current take on GWM/SS

[iserith]

I understand what you're saying, but not every DM has the time, energy, or ability to create encounters like that.

I'm really looking forward to running PoTA as my next adventure and *not* having to do hours upon hours of prep each week - yes there will be some. I'm not really planning on modifying each and every encounter in the module to make sure that it makes up for a GMW/SS Fighters ability to chew through the entire book with ease, and I wouldn't do that either. I'd just ban/modify the feats.

I'm lucky though, all my players have agreed not to use those combinations anyway. Self policing like you mentioned earlier. Not all players are like that though.

The three pillar perspective only works if your players value all pillars equally. In my experience that is not the case. Most players, it seems to me, (i) weigh combat as the most important pillar, and (ii) weigh damage as the most valuable combat factor.

I think you both underscore my point here: It's not the game that has a design flaw. It's the players who don't share the spotlight well and DMs that don't present the opportunity for all three pillars upon which the game is designed. D&D 5e isn't a boardgame or tactical simulator where game balance is a huge priority. It's a roleplaying game and in such a game it's spotlight that matters most - being able to contribute to the emergent story more or less equally. When it's played as such with all the assumptions the the Basic Rules tell us to have, it works just fine.

 

[Psikerlord#]

I think you both underscore my point here: It's not the game that has a design flaw. It's the players who don't share the spotlight well and DMs that don't present the opportunity for all three pillars upon which the game is designed. D&D 5e isn't a boardgame or tactical simulator where game balance is a huge priority. It's a roleplaying game and in such a game it's spotlight that matters most - being able to contribute to the emergent story more or less equally. When it's played as such with all the assumptions the the Basic Rules tell us to have, it works just fine.

But there is no assumption that the pillars are equal. Or are meant to be shared equally in spotlight time. The table is supposed to tailor their game to their preferences. If they like lots of combat, the feats are a problem. It is not a solution (or not a satisfactory one) to say, then do more social/exploration. The table isn't interested in that, you have to better balance the combat pillar instead.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

Crossbow Expert would be fine without Sharpshooter. Polearm Master would be fine without GWM. It's the other way around as I see it.

Yes. They just don´t work well together, as the hand crossbow and the quaterstaff are both low base damage weapons. 1d6+3 is just 6 damage on average, -5/+10 is too much there. Even the longbow does too low damage for -5/+10. Especially with archery style, your damage increases too much.

I liked the plytest version, where you just rolled damage a second time. That makes everything a lot more controllable. half chance to hit, double damage seems fine for me. Reducing hose feats to -3/+6 is an option, as well as - half proficiency bonus/+ proficiency bonus

 

[Coredump]

Before we get carried away about how overpowered and game breaking this feat is.... lets review some of the "facts" presented.

Our party used the following. Bard would cast bless. Action Surging battlemaster would sit on his Battlemaster Dice to use precision for those attacks he missed.

Let's say attack sequences looks something like this.

1. Wizard casts fly on GWM fighter.

2. Fighter flies in to dragon. Uses Action Surge. He has a +1 sword and is 11th level. Adult Dragon AC is 18. He gets +4 prof. +4 str. +1 sword +1d4 with bless.

Hit roll: +11 without GWM Dam: 2d6+5 for 12 average damage.
Hit roll: +6 with GWM. Dam: 2d6+15 for 22 average damage

Against an AC of 18.
Average percentage to hit without GWM: 65%
Average percentage to hit with GWM: 40%

So average damage against AC 18 without GWM with 3 attacks per round equaling two hits: 24 points
So average damage against AC 18 with GWM with 3 attacks per round equaling 1 hit: 22 points

Okay, a few problems already.
1) You skipped GWF, which changes the damage to 13.33 and 23.33
1a) You didn't account for damage from crits
2) You miscalculated the percentages, should be 70% and 45%
3) You did some pretty arbitrary estimating there....

Taking GWF into account, using the correct hit percentage, and using actual calculations instead of estimations.... we get
Damage per round from 3 attacks (no GWM): 29.2
Damage per round from 3 attacks using GWM: 32.7

So far GWM is not even close to being a problem. (A whopping 12% boost)
It should also be noted, that next level, when Str bumps to 20, the benefit from GWM gets *smaller*

Now incorporate the nova attack blowing Battlemaster Dice adding 1d8 to each attack roll that misses and having a bardic inspiration dice as well, an average bonus to hit 4.5.

Damage without GWM: 36 points
Damage with GWM three hits: 66 points.

Now is when everything falls apart.... Somehow you decided that using Precision Attack meant that *every GWM* attack hit...??? Wut?? You somehow jumped from 22pts to 66 pts....??

Lets try using real numbers and see what actually happens.

Lets be really nice and assume a +5 from Precision Attack (more on this later). Even with that the damage goes to...
3 attacks without GWM: 39.3
3 attacks with GWM: 50.3

So your "80%" turns out to be more like 28%. And that assumes a +5 from Precision Attack.... which brings us to the second problem.
Precision attack only gives a 4.5 bonus if you use it *every* time you miss by 8 or less. And no one does that. In reality, people tend to save them for more reliable results. So if they miss by 3-4 or less the spend the die, not when they miss by 7. Otherwise you tend to 'waste' more of the dice and they are a limited resource.

For someone playing it safer, and only using it if miss by 3, that comes out to a 2.6 bonus, (we will still use +3 because of you rounding down Bless). Damage now becomes"

3 attacks without GWM: 35.3
3 attacks with GWM: 43.3

Now that damage bonus is just under 23% (for completeness sake.... if using Precision on a 5 or less, the damage bonus is just over 25%)


So here we have close to a 'worst case scenario'. An 11th level fighter, with precision strike, with a bard casting bless, with a magic weapon....and we get a boost of about 25%.... for as long as the Battle master dice hold out.
More importantly, that means his Nova attack, with Action Surge, does an extra 20ish pts of damage on round 1. Which against that Adult Dragon is a whopping 10% of total Hit points.

So.... why is this such a horribly overpowered feat....???

The smiting paladin is more theory-crafting since he did not have GWM. A 3rd level spell with greater divine smite does 5d8 smite damage. With longsword that is 2d6+5 plus 5d8 for an average 39 point hit. GWM adds +10 damage. It's around a possible 26% increase in damage for a smiting paladin. Not quite as bad as the fighter. Given the paladin has two vows that completely eliminate the -5 penalty, he probably hits more often than the fighter in single target situations.

You seem to keep ignoring that the more damage a fighter can do, the worse GWM performs, it means that -5 has a larger negative effect. There is no such thing as 'eliminating' the -5 penalty, until the AC is 3 lower than the attack bonus, it will still have an effect.

Lets say the Paladin is willing to Smite with a 3rd level spell on every hit. Assuming the same stats as the fighter, but no magical weapon, we have a +10 attack, so needs an 8 to hit. Lets assume a Vengeance using his Vow, so with Advantage

So the Paly is doing almost 35pts per hit,

2 attacks without GWM: 67.1 hp
2 attacks With GWM: 63.4 hp

Yes, the Paladin will do *LESS* damage on average by using the -5/+10 trade off. So no, not a "26% boost", more like a 7% Drop.


So, again, I have to ask.... what is so scary about this feat...??

 

[UngeheuerLich]

the standard great weapon master is fine. When you add bonus attacks that do low damage, there is a problem. Sharpshooter is the bigger offender as your Base damage is lower. Also fighting with the long bow is already very strong.

 

[Psikerlord#]

Before we get carried away about how overpowered and game breaking this feat is.... lets review some of the "facts" presented.




Okay, a few problems already.
1) You skipped GWF, which changes the damage to 13.33 and 23.33
1a) You didn't account for damage from crits
2) You miscalculated the percentages, should be 70% and 45%
3) You did some pretty arbitrary estimating there....

Taking GWF into account, using the correct hit percentage, and using actual calculations instead of estimations.... we get
Damage per round from 3 attacks (no GWM): 29.2
Damage per round from 3 attacks using GWM: 32.7

So far GWM is not even close to being a problem. (A whopping 12% boost)
It should also be noted, that next level, when Str bumps to 20, the benefit from GWM gets *smaller*



Now is when everything falls apart.... Somehow you decided that using Precision Attack meant that *every GWM* attack hit...??? Wut?? You somehow jumped from 22pts to 66 pts....??

Lets try using real numbers and see what actually happens.

Lets be really nice and assume a +5 from Precision Attack (more on this later). Even with that the damage goes to...
3 attacks without GWM: 39.3
3 attacks with GWM: 50.3

So your "80%" turns out to be more like 28%. And that assumes a +5 from Precision Attack.... which brings us to the second problem.
Precision attack only gives a 4.5 bonus if you use it *every* time you miss by 8 or less. And no one does that. In reality, people tend to save them for more reliable results. So if they miss by 3-4 or less the spend the die, not when they miss by 7. Otherwise you tend to 'waste' more of the dice and they are a limited resource.

For someone playing it safer, and only using it if miss by 3, that comes out to a 2.6 bonus, (we will still use +3 because of you rounding down Bless). Damage now becomes"

3 attacks without GWM: 35.3
3 attacks with GWM: 43.3

Now that damage bonus is just under 23% (for completeness sake.... if using Precision on a 5 or less, the damage bonus is just over 25%)


So here we have close to a 'worst case scenario'. An 11th level fighter, with precision strike, with a bard casting bless, with a magic weapon....and we get a boost of about 25%.... for as long as the Battle master dice hold out.
More importantly, that means his Nova attack, with Action Surge, does an extra 20ish pts of damage on round 1. Which against that Adult Dragon is a whopping 10% of total Hit points.

So.... why is this such a horribly overpowered feat....???


You seem to keep ignoring that the more damage a fighter can do, the worse GWM performs, it means that -5 has a larger negative effect. There is no such thing as 'eliminating' the -5 penalty, until the AC is 3 lower than the attack bonus, it will still have an effect.

Lets say the Paladin is willing to Smite with a 3rd level spell on every hit. Assuming the same stats as the fighter, but no magical weapon, we have a +10 attack, so needs an 8 to hit. Lets assume a Vengeance using his Vow, so with Advantage

So the Paly is doing almost 35pts per hit,

2 attacks without GWM: 67.1 hp
2 attacks With GWM: 63.4 hp

Yes, the Paladin will do *LESS* damage on average by using the -5/+10 trade off. So no, not a "26% boost", more like a 7% Drop.


So, again, I have to ask.... what is so scary about this feat...??

Actual play experience > unreliable probability based DPR.

 

[DaveDash]

Actual play experience > unreliable probability based DPR.

Against AC18 as well. Even at level 16 it's quite common to fight things with much less AC than that. Heck the entire premise of 5e is you are meant to fight low level creatures all through the game.

It's easy to see how these feats can easily add up to 2:1 to even 3:1 damaged and those of us that have bothered to add up the real game data are getting those numbers.

A Paladin who benefits from GMW the least against AC18 proves absolutely nothing about all those feats.

 

[Celtavian]

Before we get carried away about how overpowered and game breaking this feat is.... lets review some of the "facts" presented.

They've been presented multiple times. Sorry my math was loose this time. I'm getting tired of presenting them.

Okay, a few problems already.

The only problems are players like you continuing to ignore the data offered by players like Dave Dash and myself in real game situations. Your white room math means absolutely nothing compared to my real data.

Did you seriously include crits? I don't even bother with them they happen so rarely in fights with a finite number of rounds. Not even worth calculating since they happen only on a 20 and are negligible extra damage for anyone but a paladin, who can chose to smite when he knows the hit is a crit.

So far GWM is not even close to being a problem. (A whopping 12% boost)

It's way more than 12% in real play. This is pure dragon dung.

Now is when everything falls apart.... Somehow you decided that using Precision Attack meant that *every GWM* attack hit...??? Wut?? You somehow jumped from 22pts to 66 pts....??

Lets try using real numbers and see what actually happens.

You mean like actual numbers like dice rolls in the game? I've seen those. Way more than your math represents. That's why I assumed they all hit. When I'm actually running it, the usually hit five out of six attacks.

Lets be really nice and assume a +5 from Precision Attack (more on this later). Even with that the damage goes to...

You don't have to be really nice. With variable die 10s in finite combat situations, you get a lot of variation which is extraordinarily hard to account for. Your white room math doesn't mirror it very well. Get back to me when you have hard data in a group focusing on maximizing the feat with recorded damage. Should be easy for you to run using designed encounters.

So your "80%" turns out to be more like 28%. And that assumes a +5 from Precision Attack.... which brings us to the second problem.
Precision attack only gives a 4.5 bonus if you use it *every* time you miss by 8 or less. And no one does that. In reality, people tend to save them for more reliable results. So if they miss by 3-4 or less the spend the die, not when they miss by 7. Otherwise you tend to 'waste' more of the dice and they are a limited resource.

Over 100s of combats? Did you miss the data Dave posted?

So here we have close to a 'worst case scenario'.

You're not even close to a worst case scenario, most likely because you have near zero real game experience with these things.

You seem to keep ignoring that the more damage a fighter can do, the worse GWM performs, it means that -5 has a larger negative effect. There is no such thing as 'eliminating' the -5 penalty, until the AC is 3 lower than the attack bonus, it will still have an effect.

No. I don't ignore it. I've stated it myself.

So, again, I have to ask.... what is so scary about this feat...??

I can't believe I have to list this garbage again:
1. It overshadows TWF making it a gimp option.
2. It allows a huge damage spike on single target monsters rendering fights against them trivial when a party focuses on maximizing feats.

You've been informed of the problem multiple times. You keep up this insistence that the white room averages you present are the norm. They are not. It doesn't work the way your BS math just tried to illustrate. Fights are done in small finite situations, not over hundreds of rounds. They are done in highly focused environments with a heavy level of focus on maximizing the feats.

Dave and I have already illustrated how numerous, easily available variables affect GWM and Sharpshooter over the course of battles conducted over 3 to 5 rounds. There's always a guy like you on every one of these threads attempting to white room the math with the assumption that fights occur over 100s or rounds. They don't. I have seen the fighter with Precision and bless active hit on five out of six attacks nearly every battle using GWM.

Get back to me when you have real game data in a group optimizing for the feat in a variety of combat encounters. Otherwise, your white room math means about nothing. When I post this math analysis, I post the damage potential per hit. I'm not even trying to do the math for an optimized round because there are way too many variables such as the following:

1. AC of creature.
2. Buffs on PC using GWF or Sharpshooter.
3. Actions of other party members like familiars granting advantage.
4. Magic items being used.
5. Visibility.
7. Hit points of target which determines how many rounds the GWF or Sharpshooter needs to focus fire to destroy them.
8. Spells on target such as hold person or faerie fire.
9. Use of Inspiration.

Too many variables to calculate anything but average damage per hit. Which makes each hit about potentially 80% higher using GWM. How many of those will actually hit the target is dependent on the other variables. In my experience as a DM, the GWM fighter was hitting 5 out of 6 times on average.

Until I see you listing actual data from play, I'm going to ignore this white room math garbage that tries to portray things in a fashion that doesn't mirror the data I and a few others have collected.

 

[Celtavian]

the standard great weapon master is fine. When you add bonus attacks that do low damage, there is a problem. Sharpshooter is the bigger offender as your Base damage is lower. Also fighting with the long bow is already very strong.

I pretty much agree.

You can short-circuit a GWF far easier than a Sharpshooter. I generally feel bad doing it. A guy that spends one of his precious feats on GWF wants to hit things real hard. He's not thinking it's creating problems for the DM. He's thinking he's having fun hitting things real hard. When I shut it down with mobility enemies with caster support shutting down his fly spell or grappling him or disarming him, he gets the wounded puppy look I don't care for as a DM. I like my players to have fun playing the concepts they enjoy. So when I see something like this, I want to tone it down so it is something I don't mind the player using. Basically, something I don't feel I have to build encounters to short-circuit the ability, so my enemies are more viable threats.

I make changes to enhance my ability to make the game fun. A feat like Sharpshooter or GWF creates an on-off scenario. Either you're making your fights so the PC can't use the feats or you're allowing them to work. When the PC can't use them, he feels like he wasted a resource purchasing the feat. When he can use them, he pretty much rips apart the encounter. It's real hard to walk the line on encounter creation with feats like Sharpshooter and GWF that operate in such a fashion.

 

[Celtavian]

I think you both underscore my point here: It's not the game that has a design flaw. It's the players who don't share the spotlight well and DMs that don't present the opportunity for all three pillars upon which the game is designed. D&D 5e isn't a boardgame or tactical simulator where game balance is a huge priority. It's a roleplaying game and in such a game it's spotlight that matters most - being able to contribute to the emergent story more or less equally. When it's played as such with all the assumptions the the Basic Rules tell us to have, it works just fine.

These kinds of problematic rules have slipped by in every game system ever made. It was much worse in 3E/Pathfinder. It existed all the way back to the days when TSR released the Unearthed Arcana and the barbarian and cavalier class (especially when combined with Paladin) or TWF created problems in balance causing players to choose these options over others to optimize their combat effectiveness. Are you attempting to make the claim that the game designers do not create game rules that create systemic problems of various kinds? That players and DMs are the ones at fault for problems in the game system when intelligent players choose optimal options that the game designers have made available and DMs don't design every encounter to counter these problems?

When it's played as such with all the assumptions the the Basic Rules tell us to have, it works just fine.

I do not find it works just fine. I found it to work quite poorly in many circumstances in the past, especially so in 3E/Pathfinder. I worked very hard to tailor the story to highlight each player. It took a tremendous amount of work and rule modification because the game designers allowed a great many problem rules into the game. Not being able to acknowledge when game designers insert problem mechanics is an odd stance by anyone that has played RPGs for a long time.