D&D 5E Great Weapon Master

[Celtavian]

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).

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

If two-handed weapons were that effective, don't you think all the ancient warriors of quality would have used them in single combat or small skirmish combat? I think they should have tacked something on like an initiative or to hit penalty for heavy weapons to show their lack of maneuverability in skirmish fighting.

 

[Staffan]

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 think the reason is simpler: high damage ends fights.

One of the complaints about 4e was that all fights were long, drawn-out affairs full of status effects flying left and right, partially because monster defenses scaling poorly with attack bonuses (a monster 10 levels higher would have defenses 10 points higher, but the PC would have gotten +7.5 to hit from level, better magic item, and higher stats - the addition of the Expertise feats helped, but didn't counter it entirely), and partially because hit points were so inflated compared to damage. Since Wizards don't know the meaning of "moderation" we instead got a system that favors high damage, because that way the fights end after three rounds or so.

 

[Ahrimon]

If two-handed weapons were that effective, don't you think all the ancient warriors of quality would have used them in single combat or small skirmish combat? I think they should have tacked something on like an initiative or to hit penalty for heavy weapons to show their lack of maneuverability in skirmish fighting.

If real life had had hit points I think you would have seen a lot more 2h weapons used throughout history. Conversely, if characters died from one or two hits you would see a lot more shields being used. This whole subject is an artifact of the HP system IMO.

 

[Diamabel]

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

If two-handed weapons were that effective, don't you think all the ancient warriors of quality would have used them in single combat or small skirmish combat? I think they should have tacked something on like an initiative or to hit penalty for heavy weapons to show their lack of maneuverability in skirmish fighting.

The use or non use of two handed weapons had a lot more to do with the armour of the day than any perceived shortcoming of the weapon itself. Simply put.. you used weapons appropriate for what you were fighting against (and with.

Here is George Silver's take on the hierarchy of weapons:
"The short staff or half pike, forest bill, partisan, or glaive, or such like weapons of perfect length, have the advantage against the battle axe, the halberd, the black bill, the two handed sword, the sword and target, and are too hard for two swords and daggers, or two rapier and poniards with gauntlets, and for the long staff and morris pike."

Note that this is directed towards single combat.

 

[Coredump]

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.

I agree. People will 'feel' how they feel. I am running a human archer with SS, and was simply kicking butt in an adventure a while back. People 'felt' I was a bit OP.... then I explained to them that we were fighting AC8 zombies, so the -5/+10 was useful. I explained to them that the -5 to hit becomes a bigger deal when the AC goes higher, I also pointed out some of the misses caused by the -5, and that I skipped using it against higher AC targets because it would have been detrimental.

They understood, accepted it, and we moved forward. The now call the feat Zombie Killer because it works well against low AC and not so well against higher AC.

If your players are unable to internalize the reality, and insist that their feelings and first impressions are more important than the *actual* balance and results....I assert the problem is with your players and not the feat. If they thought Barbarians were OP, would you nerf them too?

It "feels" like too much damage when the -5 is easily negated (as it typically is).

NO! This is just false. Bless does not 'negate' the GWM penalty, it just changes the numbers.
Normally:
GWM means you need to roll 15 instead of 10
Someone casts Bless and gets a 4:
GWM means you need to roll an 11 instead of a 6.

In *both* cases the -5 from GWM means you hit less often....

The only time it can be "negated", is if you only need a 2 to hit and *then* cast bless.

 

[Taronkov]

Something people seem to forget when bringing up how powerful GWM is against a sword and shield combo is that yes you are doing more damage. Congratulations, you have a bigger weapon with more mass. It should do more damage. That said 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. They are going to use up less of the healers spells on being kept on that front line. So in many cases I expect to see them actually dealing out roughly the same amounts of damage unless you are in a game that is never an actual threat to the players. At which point that's a different issue entirely. If the difference between the sword and shield and the GWM fighter is the GWM gets knocked out for a couple rounds and the other stays in the fight swinging guess who's actually doing more damage?

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. More spells that have to be used for healing the less effective you make the caster at dealing out their own damage. I think these considerations would be far more telling than simply mathematical averages.

 

[Diamabel]

Something people seem to forget when bringing up how powerful GWM is against a sword and shield combo is that yes you are doing more damage. Congratulations, you have a bigger weapon with more mass. It should do more damage. That said 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. They are going to use up less of the healers spells on being kept on that front line. So in many cases I expect to see them actually dealing out roughly the same amounts of damage unless you are in a game that is never an actual threat to the players. At which point that's a different issue entirely. If the difference between the sword and shield and the GWM fighter is the GWM gets knocked out for a couple rounds and the other stays in the fight swinging guess who's actually doing more damage?

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. More spells that have to be used for healing the less effective you make the caster at dealing out their own damage. I think these considerations would be far more telling than simply mathematical averages.

Dead enemies do zero damage. Killing them sooner is a form of mitigation

 

[Coredump]

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.

GWF helps in *all* situations, Bless helps in all situations, etc. GWM only helps for certain AC and below...

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)

This is just.... not right....

The +10 from GWM is balanced by the -5 to hit, which you have decided to completely ignore in your 'analysis'... lets look at your example from a more likely scenario.
Lvl 12 20 Str GWF action surge halberd +9 to hit, fighting a CR11 Djinni AC17 (No GWM, no PAM)
Average Dmg: 46.0 hp

Now lets add GWM
Average Dmg: 53.0 hp Not bad, an increase of 15.3%

Okay, instead of using GWM, lets just switch from Halberd to Greatsword:
Average Dmg: 54.5 hp. An increase of 18.5%

So now, lets forget GWM and GS, and look at PAM
Average Dmg: 52.1 hp. Only an increase of 13.2%. BUT... for every other non-Action-surge round, it is an increase of *26.4%* Much better than either GS or GWM

So if GWM needs to be nerfed, so do great swords, and PAM *really* needs to be nerfed..


"But wait Coredump, what if I am already using Greatsword, then surely GWM is broken then"

Lets look
From above attacking with GS
Average damage: 54.5 hp
Now with GS *and* GWM
Average damage: 58.5 So an increase of 7.3%


The belief that GWM contributes "41%" of the damage is.... just not right.

 

[Taronkov]

Dead enemies do zero damage. Killing them sooner is a form of mitigation

I don't dispute that in any capacity. I"m just saying that I think without an actual way to calculate the other factors that are applicable just saying style(x) do more damage that style is a poor representation of actual gameplay. It's not a straight number crunch in reality, it's dynamic and fluid and there are more things to consider than simple damage potential.

 

[Diamabel]

GWF helps in *all* situations, Bless helps in all situations, etc. GWM only helps for certain AC and below...

This is just.... not right....

The +10 from GWM is balanced by the -5 to hit, which you have decided to completely ignore in your 'analysis'... lets look at your example from a more likely scenario.
Lvl 12 20 Str GWF action surge halberd +9 to hit, fighting a CR11 Djinni AC17 (No GWM, no PAM)
Average Dmg: 46.0 hp

Now lets add GWM
Average Dmg: 53.0 hp Not bad, an increase of 15.3%

Okay, instead of using GWM, lets just switch from Halberd to Greatsword:
Average Dmg: 54.5 hp. An increase of 18.5%

So now, lets forget GWM and GS, and look at PAM
Average Dmg: 52.1 hp. Only an increase of 13.2%. BUT... for every other non-Action-surge round, it is an increase of *26.4%* Much better than either GS or GWM

So if GWM needs to be nerfed, so do great swords, and PAM *really* needs to be nerfed..


"But wait Coredump, what if I am already using Greatsword, then surely GWM is broken then"

Lets look
From above attacking with GS
Average damage: 54.5 hp
Now with GS *and* GWM
Average damage: 58.5 So an increase of 7.3%


The belief that GWM contributes "41%" of the damage is.... just not right.

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.