D&D 5E Current take on GWM/SS

[Minigiant]

Personally. I don't see the problem in play.

In the traditional party, you have the warrior guy, the skills guy, the healer, and the magic SFX guy. SWF and Archery only get out of hand in the hands of warriors who get multiple attacks.
Now if the warrior can go offensive or defensive. GWM and SS are both offensive.
The only other offensive style is Dual Wielding which is worse than GWM/SS after level 4.

So GWM and SS can only be a "problem" in parties with multiple offensive warriors and some are GWM/SS and others are DW. This is a rarity so I think the "problem" is overstated.

If you have:
Melee PC
Skills PC
Healer PC
Mage PC
Fifth Wheel PC

You only have a problem if your fifth wheel and main melee PC is a GWM/SS users. Or if you swap out someone else for another melee or archer (and I have no sympathy for those who skew their party roles)

A bigger problem is that Dual Weilders don't have a -5/+10 feat.

 

[DaveDash]

@Celtavian time for some more data I reckon, how about you? Ah the joys of dice rolls logged in roll20. Let's see shall we.

This next combat was a fight against a fire army platoon, assaulting one of their forts where they had an important prisoner captured. Fighting against fire themed creatures from hell hounds to fire giants.

In one corner we have an EK crossbow expert, in the other corner we have a longbow Champion/Sorcerer. Both have the same buffs on more or less (Bless and Haste). No magic items. Standard three attacks each (four for Crossbow Expert). Let's see how SS vs non-SS compares?

I'll even throw in the attack rolls. Bolds are crits. Damage is the actual damage done, based on hits.

Round 1.
Archer (Crossbow Expert) [25, 26, 31, 30]: 74 damage.
Archer (Longbow) [21, 32, 28, 26, 14, 24, 14 ]: 49 damage. (Action Surge).

Round 2.
Archer (Crossbow Expert) [30, 31, 26, 19]: 76 damage.
Archer (Longbow) [32, 32, 21, 16]: 28 damage.

Round 3:
Archer (Crossbow Expert) [19, 14, 26, 26]: 38 damage.
Archer (Longbow) [28, 30, 14, 30]: 29 damage.

Round 4:
Archer (Crossbow Expert) [27, 23, 30, 30]: 70 damage.
Archer (Longbow) [25, 24, 22, 15]: 25 damage.

Round 5:
Archer (Crossbow Expert) [24, 32, 24, 26]: 75 damage.
Archer (Longbow) [25, 30, 30, 30]: 47 damage.

Round 6:
Archer (Crossbow Expert) [23, 27, 28, 29]: 69 damage.
Archer (Longbow) [26, 24, 30, 17]: 40 damage.

Round 7:
Archer (Crossbow Expert) [24, 27, 22, 26, 30]: 89 damage. *Crossbow Expert now finally has haste, or always did and switched to hand crossbow. Not entirely sure based on the rolls.
Archer (Longbow) [29, 28, 18, 27]: 37 damage.

Round 8:
Archer (Crossbow Expert) [26, 23, 32, 24, 24]: 74 damage.
Archer (Longbow) [21, 26, 23, 28]: 34 damage.

Total (Crossbow Expert): 565 damage, and I didn't even see him Action Surge lol.
Total (Longbow): 289 damage.

Both these guys can hit AC16.5 on the roll of a 2 or more including bless. The Sharpshooter guy doesn't even have to worry about cover lol.

 

[Celtavian]

I logged all mine on paper. That is nice to have them on computer log.

 

[DaveDash]

I logged all mine on paper. That is nice to have them on computer log.

I do miss rolling real dice, but I like having logs of everything.

 

[Celtavian]

I do miss rolling real dice, but I like having logs of everything.

Dave, you have any logs of GWF? Or your players start avoiding the feat as well due to the problems with melee mobility?

 

[DaveDash]

Dave, you have any logs of GWF? Or your players start avoiding the feat as well due to the problems with melee mobility?

Yes, unfortunately my players started avoiding melee fighters due to problems with melee mobility way back when. We had a GWM Polearm Master Battlemaster who was pretty awesome... when he could get in range. I do have that fight we ran at level 12 against the Adult Red Dragon but again, 90% of that combat from the Fighter's POV was throwing javelins.

It's for this reason (mobility issues) that I don't have too much of a problem with GWM. I still don't think the game needs -5/+10 feats though.

In my current campaign the Paladin does have GMW, but it's stuff like Hold Person + Extra attack on a crit that makes him do crazy damage, as opposed to the -5/+10 mechanic. He also has a +3 Vorpal Greatsword and potions which throw things completely out of whack. I'm ok with it though because it's the last few levels of the game, and I build all my own monsters.
I am looking forward though to finishing this and running Princes where I don't have to spend hours building NPCs and monsters.

 

[Celtavian]

Yes, unfortunately my players started avoiding melee fighters due to problems with melee mobility way back when. We had a GMW Polearm Master Battlemaster who was pretty awesome... when he could get in range.

In my current campaign the Paladin does have GMW, but it's stuff like Hold Person + Extra attack on a crit that makes him do crazy damage, as opposed to the -5/+10 mechanic. He also has a +3 Vorpal Greatsword and potions which throw things completely out of whack.

I do have that fight we ran at level 12 against the Adult Red Dragon but again, 90% of that combat from the Fighter's POV was throwing javelins.

Paladins definitely don't benefit as much from GWM. Their smites are their main source of damage in big fights. They bring so much to the table, they don't care about taking down yard trash slower than the fighter. If a paladin player ever complained to a fighter, the fighter would give him the "STFU" glare.

I saw GWF shut down a ton, so it doesn't worry me near as much save that it overshadows TWF. I'm damn tired of TWF being this red-headed step child fighting style for players that "just like to role-play." TWF should be as effective at dealing damage as GWF considering they both give up the shield to do it. But for some reason, the designers have this "Never let TWF be prominent again" mentality dating back from the days of TWF supremacy in 2E (maybe 1E as well).

 

[DaveDash]

Paladins definitely don't benefit as much from GWM. Their smites are their main source of damage in big fights. They bring so much to the table, they don't care about taking down yard trash slower than the fighter. If a paladin player ever complained to a fighter, the fighter would give him the "STFU" glare.

I saw GWF shut down a ton, so it doesn't worry me near as much save that it overshadows TWF. I'm damn tired of TWF being this red-headed step child fighting style for players that "just like to role-play." TWF should be as effective at dealing damage as GWF considering they both give up the shield to do it. But for some reason, the designers have this "Never let TWF be prominent again" mentality dating back from the days of TWF supremacy in 2E (maybe 1E as well).

We might see a resurgence of TWF in the new upcoming adventure path... It features a classic TWF character...

But yeah, your point still remains valid in my mind. I'm not reading any posts about TWF Fighters on the forums, it's all GWM. Spell casters don't really have the ability to nova big damage either (without taking levels in Fighter lol), as a high level Sorcerer what I could do 1/day the Fighters could do 1/short rest, so it's hard playing the true glass cannon archtype.

 

[Minigiant]

I believe TWF and dual wielders were nerf to balance out Dex as a superstar and the face that TWF gets to use damage bonuses 3 times compared to Heavy weapons only getting 2.

That's another reason why I don't mind GWF and SS. They boost both strength users and dexterity users without making two weapon fighting a clear frontrunner.

If you are strength based and want damage, there's heavy weapons and optional Great Weapon Master.
If you are dexterity based and want damage, there is longbows and hand crowbows and optional Sharpshooter.

If you really want to dual wield, get and outside damage source via a spell or class feature.

 

[iserith]

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.

Which is my point. It ain't the feats - it's the group's approach to the game that is at odds with the game's design in some fashion. Forty-five percent of respondents have no issue with the feat as of the time of this post. I imagine that's because they play the game in a particular way that is more compatible with the game's assumptions.

Change or eliminate the feats, of course, if you don't want to change your approach.

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?

No, it's possible that game designers include mechanics that go against the base assumptions of the game. However, I do not find that to be the case with these feats. Reading the posts of those who find the feats flawed in some fashion, I get the impression that they are not playing the game with a balanced approach with regard to the three pillars and have players that have difficulty sharing the spotlight. Some also come from a 3e/4e background (games that I enjoyed) and have carried that mindset forward into D&D 5e when it's clearly a different game. It's not enough to make all the optimal choices. Those choices must also help the group achieve the goals of play in my view.

In any case, it's your game - change the feats if you have no other solution (or don't want to apply the solutions you do know of).