D&D 5E Great Weapon Master

[FormerlyHemlock]

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).

Speak for yourself. Some of us do intuitively experience the statistical averaging. In fact, I would argue that if you can't do this, you're not really equipped to play tactical D&D effectively. People are talking about average damage in this thread because that's what we do on a round-by-round basis when assessing whether to use GWM or not, or when assessing whether to burn a spell slot this round to disable the enemy or to just heal the extra damage afterward, or almost any other tactical decision. It's not an Internet-only thing, it's part of our play experience.

 

[pemerton]

12.7% boost without any buffs. That is a huge boost without buffs.

To be honest, it doesn't seem that huge. It's +1 per 8 hp of damag dealt.

From my point of view, the objection to these sorts of abilities is that their effect on expected damage output can't be assessed without doing probability calculations that require knowing the target's AC, which is an abstract combat mechanic. It doesn't strike me as very true to the experience of playing a great weapon fighter, who is typically either a wild raging barbarian (who is hardly doing complex calculations in the course of attacking) or a skilled polearm or greatsword wielder who intuitively attacks in the most skilled manner possible (who shouldn't be required to take a gamble on self-gimping).

 

[kerbarian]

I find it interesting that people keep picking the -5/+10 to be the 'broken' part when they are using 4 or 5 abilities to crank up damage

Advantage and Bless and GWF and magic weapon and polearm master and GWM...... causes a lot of damage.... but be GWM's fault.

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.

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. You can't take away big bonuses to attack (because Advantage is deeply built in), you can't take away extra attacks (also deeply built into how weapon classes work), but there's no reason the game needs big bonuses to damage. You could fix the massive damage combo by just fixing a couple feats, and that's really the only way to fix it that wouldn't require major changes to the game.

As a side note, my personal experience with this is as playing a GWM Barbarian (so always having Advantage from Reckless Attack) up through 5th level. I don't think GWM and Sharpshooter are badly broken compared to previous editions, but I do think they'll moderately outshine any other damage dealers except in specific circumstances favoring another style (e.g. lots of enemies clustered up for a fireball). I think that's probably bad for the game, though it is nice to not have casters completely dominating things for once.

 

[Diamabel]

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.

I did this simply to point out the potential, not the average.

 

[Mouseferatu]

I don't think GWM and Sharpshooter are badly broken compared to previous editions, but I do think they'll moderately outshine any other damage dealers except in specific circumstances favoring another style (e.g. lots of enemies clustered up for a fireball). I think that's probably bad for the game, though it is nice to not have casters completely dominating things for once.

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.

 

[Psikerlord#]

Speak for yourself. Some of us do intuitively experience the statistical averaging. In fact, I would argue that if you can't do this, you're not really equipped to play tactical D&D effectively. People are talking about average damage in this thread because that's what we do on a round-by-round basis when assessing whether to use GWM or not, or when assessing whether to burn a spell slot this round to disable the enemy or to just heal the extra damage afterward, or almost any other tactical decision. It's not an Internet-only thing, it's part of our play experience.

I guess I do speak for myself. But what you are describing are simple tactics, worlds apart from the whiteroom averaging statistics used when analysing GWM on threads such as these. It's not the same thing.

 

[Thyrwyn]

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).

Regardless of how one experiences the game, it makes no sense to pass judgement on a mechanic based on how it "feels". Especially when you have access to actual data. Even more so when (in this case) the data doesn't even have to address the opportunity cost of not taking any of the other 20 or 30 feats that are available.

As a single example: Dueling Style, Shield Master, Resilient (Dexterity) is easily as effective a combination (especially for a Dex based Fighter), as GWF, GWM, Polearm Master.

 

[Psikerlord#]

Regardless of how one experiences the game, it makes no sense to pass judgement on a mechanic based on how it "feels". Especially when you have access to actual data. Even more so when (in this case) the data doesn't even have to address the opportunity cost of not taking any of the other 20 or 30 feats that are available.

As a single example: Dueling Style, Shield Master, Resilient (Dexterity) is easily as effective a combination (especially for a Dex based Fighter), as GWF, GWM, Polearm Master.

I will just say I disagree and leave it at that.

 

[Minsc]

He was a half-orc barbarian, I'm not sure if it was a racial ability or what (don't have my PHB handy) but he got an EXTRA damage die on crits already, so he'd do 6d6+15 at level 8. 2d6 for his normal maul damage, 2d6 for the crit via the standard rules and 2d6 from his racial ability. I didn't mean to infer I was tripling the bonuses, I only meant the actual die damage.

FYI: the half-orc ability adds one damage die on a crit, not double damage. So, with a maul that does 2d6, on a crit, the half-orc ability would add 1d6. If he were using a greataxe, the critical would add 1d12.

 

[Celtavian]

I find it interesting that people keep picking the -5/+10 to be the 'broken' part when they are using 4 or 5 abilities to crank up damage

Advantage and Bless and GWF and magic weapon and polearm master and GWM...... causes a lot of damage.... but be GWM's fault.

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.

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. Yet if anyone that actually knows much about ancient warfare were betting on a fight between a heavy weapon user and a one-handed dueler or a sword and shield fighter knows they would destroy the two-handed weapon user equal skill. The two-handed weapon is an inferior ancient weapon given far too much of an advantage in D&D games, probably because WotCs testing indicated that martial players love to swing big weapons for big damage.

I find it annoying that they take such pains to limit fighting styles like two-weapon fighting, yet give the huge advantage to archery and two-hander style. You would think they would find a better way to balance things. Instead they made the same popular 3E fighting styles the main power gamer fighting styles of 5E.