D&D 5E Great Weapon Master

[pemerton]

the sword and shield person will always, always, take less damage meaning they are less likely to be taken out of the fight or become combat ineffective at any point.

<snip>

Basically this entire thread has been about doing the straight up math without consideration to any actual in game practical situations. I would consider these other factors like how often you are hit and how much damage you take along with how often you are dropped to zero and how many spells have to be burned to keep each individual warrior in the fight.

I'm sympathetic to the first sentence I've quoted, but not so much the bit after the snip. You're not presenting an alternative to doing the maths; you're just pointing out more maths that is relevant!

After all, average number of rounds vs a given enemy without dropping to zero is just another calculation, that depends on the PC's AC (higher for sword-and-shield) and hit points and the enemy's chance to hit and average damage.

 

[Coredump]

There are lots of ways to improve your chance to hit. Advantage is the big one, but there's Bless, Precision Attack (Battle Master), Bardic Inspiration, Archery style (if ranged), etc.

There are lots of ways to get extra attacks. There's the Extra Attack feature, TWF, Martial Arts, Polearm Master, Crossbow Expert, Haste, Barbarian Frenzy, etc. Also, GWM can give you extra attacks fairly often by itself.

There are a few ways to increase your damage by a point or two. Dueling, GWF, Crusader's Mantle, etc.

There's nothing that comes close to GWM's and Sharpshooter's +10 to damage on weapon attacks.

I am sorry, but that is just plain wrong. The goal of all of these abilities/spells/etc is to do more damage. The reason you cast Bless is to hit more and do more damage. As shown in the above example, switching from halberd to greatsword does *more* than just 'come close' to the benefits from GWM. Pole arm master is a *much* better for dealing damage.

Now, to be fair, there are situations where GWM will outshine either of those, but also situations where using the -5/+10 will do *less* damage. The use if GWM is *very* situational.

For massive effective damage, you want all of those components -- you want lots of attacks that deal lots of damage, and you want those attacks to land. It's true that you could fix the problem by removing all sources of attack bonuses instead so that GWM's attack penalty was an appropriate balancing factor, but Advantage is so ingrained into the system that that's really not feasible.
GWM and Sharpshooter stand out because they're the only component of putting together the massive damage combo that's not fundamental to the game.

Then you are not trying.
Make bless +1d2, or only effects 2 people, or 1 person.
PAM extra attack doesn't get Str modifier, or is at disadvantage
etc.


The point is, unlike most other bonuses, GWM has an inherent drawback to balance it, which also makes it situational. You mention Dueling and GWF, they get to work on *every* situation with no drawbacks. Same with Hunters Mark, Hex, etc. Crusaders Mantle not only works with no drawbacks, it effects everyone around you too.

People seem to get blinded by the +10, and don't realize the impact of the -5....

(Luckily, the designers understood the math....)

 

[Taronkov]

You're not presenting an alternative to doing the maths; you're just pointing out more maths that is relevant!

After all, average number of rounds vs a given enemy without dropping to zero is just another calculation, that depends on the PC's AC (higher for sword-and-shield) and hit points and the enemy's chance to hit and average damage.

I don't present an alternative way because I wouldn't even know where to begin for it. The game isn't about doing math if, it was a straight number crunch we could sit down with a book on algebra and have a nice night of long division problems(I swear it's sarcasm). I'm not sure you could actually work out all those variables in any sort of coherent manner. I mean sure sit there with two fighters same stat block except feats and weapons, factored in with against a range of opponents, but you would then need a range of opponents with varying AC's and attacks. Different numbers to see who's more efficient at what point and when it actually becomes more beneficial to do one over the other. It is fair beyond the level of math I would ever put into the game. Maybe some people really do care just about the straight math to it and the adventure and preferences don't matter. I find that truly hard to believe though. Through gameplay having done a GWM Paladin I don't think I would have rated myself more effective than the sword and shield fighter with his shield feat/style(can't remember which gave him the - give an enemy disadvantage ability), because his ability to cover me, especially at earlier levels was a huge contributing factor to my ability to stay in the fight and do damage. I guess the difference is just a matter of preference. I'll stay out of the hypothetical math and stick to actual gameplay personally. Seems to be the more interesting side of the game to me anyway.

 

[Coredump]

The making of Great Weapon Fighting far superior to every other form of fighting along with archery much like 3E is tiresome. I do not like being pigeon-holed so that to be a highly effective warrior, I have to pick fighting styles that are demonstrably inferior by a vast margin in real life for the primary type of fighting D&D is engaged in, on top of being mechanically inferior in the game. As I've said many times, you would think that every ancient warrior was wielding either a two-handed weapon or a bow the way D&D does combat. That is not even remotely the case.

Well.. bows *were* deadly on the battlefield. Their drawback is cavalry, and otherwise getting over run.

But the main issue is not with weapon effectiveness, it is that 'historically' fighters could not heal to full overnight. HIstorically, it hurt like hell to get hit several times even if you didn't die. Historically, getting hit tended to greatly impact your ability to fight, or move, or eat... historically you did not operate the same at 1hp as you did at 80hp. Thus historically, the emphasis was on staying alive and not taking damage, secondary was killing the other guy.

I would like to see other styles hold up better as you level than the pure damage style of Great Weapon fighting and archery. They don't because Sharpshooter and Great Weapon Master are vastly superior feats that can only be taken by great weapon users or ranged attackers. It puts fighting styles like defensive fighting and dueling on an inferior level, thus limiting anyone taking those styles for any reason other than role-play purposes.

Lets look at that...

Same situation as before
Lvl 12 GWF GWM 20 Str greatsword fighting a Djinni (no action surge)
Average dmg 29.3 hp

Lets look at
Lvl 12 Dueliing Sheild Master 20 Str battleaxe fighting a Djinni (no action surge)
Average dmg: 28.8

So when you say "vastly superior" and other styles are "inferior" except for role playing.... you seem really concerned about a 1.7% drop.

Oh... and there is a 66% chance that the Djinni is prone, which means a *huge* increase in damage from any other melee attacks.... probably make up for that .5 hp of damage difference pretty fast...

I find it annoying that they take such pains to limit fighting styles like two-weapon fighting, .

You go on and on about 'historical' fighting... and now you want two weapon fighting to be viable??

 

[pemerton]

There is a reason I said potential. This was not a hard analysis of how it regularly performs, only of what is *possible*. Emphasis really gets lost in text.

OK, but "possibilities" that will almost never be realised aren't very relevant even to understanding the feel of something.

The likelihood of maximum damage rolling 7d10 and 1d4 is one in 40 million; and that's before you factor in the chance of hitting. Le't call that 2 in 3: 2/3 ^ 8 = approx 1/25. That takes the likelihood to around 1 in a billion.

Assuming 50 sessions a year, with 10 rounds of combat per session, you would expect to see that result once in 2 million years of play. If there are a million or so groups playing 5e around the world then some players somewhere will probably see the result you describe, or may even have seen it already, but most never will.

I think the more day-to-day perception of this feat will be high spike damage. The fact that there are also misses will not be factored in by the typical observer, as missing is not a salient (and hence not as memorable) as higher-than-typical spiking.

 

[Bayonet]

I don't think it's bad for the game at all. In fact, I might invoke the dreaded "feature, not bug."

Heavy-weapon fighters are supposed to be the hardest hitters in the game, on a general basis. Rogues can outstrip them in certain situations, as can spell-chuckers. Both of those are more situational, but the character types are also more versatile.

Someone has to be fastest. Someone has to have the most hit points. And someone has to hit hardest. If you want to hit hardest, it's not unreasonable to have to mechanically build a character around that concept.

Sure, it can be taken too far. But both personal experience and the math as it's been spelled out are enough to convince me that these feats, while possibly pushing the limits, aren't actually guilty of that.

I agree with this here. A character who dedicated his life to fighting, specialized in using the biggest and most damaging weapons possible, and frequently forgoes a lot of finesse in order to hit as hard as he possibly can, IS going to do a lot of damage.

A bat-wielding Sammy Sosa probably wouldn't land a lot of hits in a fencing match, but the ones he does are going to do a lot of damage.

 

[Coredump]

12.7% better than Great Weapon Fighting without and how much more compared to Defensive Fighting and Dueling?
.

Dueling gives +2 to every hit, with *no* counter balancing disadvantage. It is always going to benefit you... GWM will sometimes benefit, and sometimes not. Dueling also lets you use a shield, which helps you stay alive longer

Defensive fighting is defensive, not offensive... I have no idea why you think a defensive fighting style should give you an equivalent damage compared to an offensive Feat.

 

[Coredump]

There is a reason I said potential. This was not a hard analysis of how it regularly performs, only of what is *possible*. Emphasis really gets lost in text.

That is like saying "Putting your life savings into the Lotto has the potential to be a great investment" It is horrible advice, completely misleading, and ignores the reality of probability.

 

[Coredump]

I'm not sure you could actually work out all those variables in any sort of coherent manner. I mean sure sit there with two fighters same stat block except feats and weapons, factored in with against a range of opponents, but you would then need a range of opponents with varying AC's and attacks.

To a decent extent, I have done that. Just for attacking, I haven't bothered with the bad guys hitting back.... that would be even more involved then I have already been.... But yeah, for offense I can quickly to comparisons for different PCs against just about every AC out there.

[/quote] Through gameplay having done a GWM Paladin I don't think I would have rated myself more effective than the sword and shield fighter with his shield feat/style(can't remember which gave him the - give an enemy disadvantage ability), because his ability to cover me, especially at earlier levels was a huge contributing factor to my ability to stay in the fight and do damage. I guess the difference is just a matter of preference. I'll stay out of the hypothetical math and stick to actual gameplay personally. Seems to be the more interesting side of the game to me anyway.[/QUOTE]I agree, I ended up doing the math because people keep insisting on making claims based on they assumptions of what the math is.... so I try and show them they are often mistaken.

 

[Diamabel]

Well.. bows *were* deadly on the battlefield. Their drawback is cavalry, and otherwise getting over run.


You go on and on about 'historical' fighting... and now you want two weapon fighting to be viable??

Two weapon fighting does appear historically- Rapier and dagger, case of rapiers, sword and dagger, etc.

OK, but "possibilities" that will almost never be realised aren't very relevant even to understanding the feel of something.

I think the more day-to-day perception of this feat will be high spike damage. The fact that there are also misses will not be factored in by the typical observer, as missing is not a salient (and hence not as memorable) as higher-than-typical spiking.

High spike damage is really what I was getting at. Every hit using GWM automatically generates an extra 10 damage. Getting 7 attacks in a round and hitting on 5 of those 7 will generate an extra 50 damage above and beyond what you would normally be capable of dealing with the same amount of hits.