So they did in fact errata actual mechanics.
Just not the right ones.
Not surprised. Wizards is playing is safe with their profits and don't want to rock the boat by actually improving their product at the risk of some forum angst. But now instead they issue a document with 90% minor phrasing issues that nobody complained about (which they should do anyway), and 10% is nerfing stuff that didn't need nerfing while not nerfing stuff that does.
It's 4e all over again, except in slow motion. 1/year errata, I've lost confidence in their ability to do the right thing. If they're going by survey satisfaction data, I wonder how many people complained that twin spell was too powerful, compared with some actually overpowered things like polearm master stacking with GWM and giving free dual wielding + twf fighting style too.
I was looking over the list of things that benefit from each additional poleram attack I get (Including OAs and free hits from crits and kills due to GWM), and the list is pretty long. Sacred Weapon, Magic Weapon, GWM's +10, improved smite (+1d8 damage on each attack, including the bonus attack). I guess I should thank them that my character is now going to be a multi-attacking blending machine. It's just sad that my next melee character will probably gravitate towards polearms as well. And the one after that.
If you want to make a damaging character in 5e, you needn't look further than polearms. Period. No matter what the melee class, polearm aka spiked chain is the answer.
