D&D 5E Great Weapon Master
- Thread starter Grimstaff
- Start date
Psikerlord#
Explorer
It's the easy enablers (bless and adv via flanking, which you can have all battle every battle) that make it a bit OP, yes. Other enablers on top of that are gravy (high rolled stats, magic weapons, and so on)
But my point is, Bless and Adv give a much bigger boost to damage output than GWM does.... yet those are 'fine' and people think GWM is broken.
Heck, in many cases GWF gives more of just a bit less than GWM, but no one thinks thats over powered....
FormerlyHemlock
Hero
Except that advantage for flanking is very much an optional rule. IMO a bad optional rule because it makes most other tactical choices meaningless. If advantage is binary, why wouldn't you just take the easiest source of advantage (flanking) instead of harder ones (lighting manipulation, grapple/push, Faerie Fire, etc.)?
This. Agree 100%.
in a vacuum, GWM is ok.. the problem comes in with scaling. It simply scales extraordinarily well with all of those enablers and extra attacks, and allows for the *potential* of ridiculous turns. GWF increases consistency, but GWM can push the damage far higher.
Assuming no magical weapons and all attacks hit, no crits: Fighter, level 12, 20 str, polearm master, GWM, haste, action surge - 7(1d10+15)(weapon)+(1d4+15)(bonus attack)= 194 potential damage, 80 of which is from GWM (41% increase)
Psikerlord#
Explorer
I also agree. We tried flanking, the melee game became too easy, and we stopped using it.
You have the math with the fighter hitting all the time and rolling max damage on every single attack, why would you do that?
Your hypothetical fighter has a +9 to hit normally and only a +4 if taking the -5/+10 option.
A good solo fight for a 12th level fighter would be something like a stone giant or maybe another fighter, so what let's say AC 17 sounds reasonable. With advantage you only hit 64% of the time, without a 40% chance to hit on each attack.
Psikerlord#
Explorer
Even assuming this kind of statistical averaging is correct, it's of little to no relevance in assessing whether a table likes or dislikes the -5/+10 mechanic. Because we dont experience the game from a statistical averaging perspective. The play experience is on a round to round basis, and players notice when some PCs are doing +10 potential maximum damage, and others arent. On a round to round basis, there is a massive difference between a PC doing d8+4 damage per hit, and 2d6+14 damage per hit. It "feels" like too much damage when the -5 is easily negated (as it typically is).
Thyrwyn
Explorer
Said fighter against AC 17 with Advantage would do 7*(6.3+15)*.64+(3+15)*.64 or 106.94 pts of damage.
Without Advantage, he would do 7*(6.3+15)*..4+(3+15)*.64 or 66.4 pts of damage.
If fighter was armed with Longsword & Shield, had Dueling, Shield Master, and Savage Attacker
With Advantage, he would do 7*(5.8+7)*.88 or 78.5 pts of damage and would have his bonus attack left (with which he could have given himself Advantage)
Without Advantage, he would do 7*(5.8+7)*.65 or 58.24 pts.
GWM means a difference of ~8 pts/round without Advantage. Since the Shield Master can give himself Advantage, he can actually out-damage the GWM, and he has a higher AC, and improved Dex saves, etc....
Without Advantage, he would do 7*(6.3+15)*..4+(3+15)*.64 or 66.4 pts of damage.
If fighter was armed with Longsword & Shield, had Dueling, Shield Master, and Savage Attacker
With Advantage, he would do 7*(5.8+7)*.88 or 78.5 pts of damage and would have his bonus attack left (with which he could have given himself Advantage)
Without Advantage, he would do 7*(5.8+7)*.65 or 58.24 pts.
GWM means a difference of ~8 pts/round without Advantage. Since the Shield Master can give himself Advantage, he can actually out-damage the GWM, and he has a higher AC, and improved Dex saves, etc....
