D&D 5E Nerfing Great Weapon Master

[dco]

* The best possible additional damage from this feat in a turn would be 90 damage...
As opposed to smites for the paladin, meteor storm for a wizard, eldritch blast shenanigans for the Warlock, turning a sea of undead for the cleric, magic shenanigans for the sorcerer, and taunting someone to death for the bard. SS and GWM are part of what make ranged and melee fighters awesome, but that hasn't made our paladin, sorcerer, TWF fighter, bard, wizard, cleric, or monk any less awesome.

Maximum damage comes from 8 attacks from fighter, 1 from haste, 1 extra attack from the feat, 1 riposte. 110+weapon damage+STR+ Magical damage from weapon+ possible critical damage from the extra attack.
The paladin will be also more powerful with the feat, 1 extra attack using smite can mean: 10+weapon damage+STR+Magical damage from weapon and spells+ 6-7d8 radiant. It could also be a lucky critical.
With their 2 usual attacks you can add a max of 20, and using sacred weapon the paladin can nullify the -5 from the feat.

Now with a fighter and a paladin in a group we are talking about a potential 350-500 more damage in the first 2 rounds of combat, in my opinion that's game changing and as a DM you need to accomodate all that extra damage or let them play a game with easy difficulty.

I can say most people I know prefer the game below the last tier of levels and in this edition last levels aren't much slower, most classes have the same number of attacks and can cast the same number of spells per round as they did on lvl 5. Food for thoughts.

 

[CapnZapp]

So, we do know exactly how the GWM feat works, and the -5/+10 portion of it which seems to be what everyone's hung up on, is easily analyzed for it's affect on DPR. So the 'universal' fact is not in dispute, just the opinion of whether that effect is too much (or tool little, or Goldilocks 'just-right'), and whether a given DM wants to change that.

And how good it would be if that was true.

I hope you agree when I say the analysis is far from easy, which one simplistic whiteroom calculation after another shows. At least I have not yet seen anything close to what practical play experience has shown me: that the +10 part can consistently be applied to even as high as AC 18 during nova rounds, which translates to +40 damage every round on average (talking about character levels in the early teens here)

Not by the barbarian - after all, getting advantage is the easy part and Barbarians can never utilize the feat half as well as a Fighter. Instead we should be talking about Battlemaster Fighters using Precision Strike.

That doesn't mean such "easy analysis" can't be done (for instance, calculating the probability of having to spend a superiority die to avoid missing). Just that I haven't seen it yet. Apparently the level of system mastery here at ENWorld is not yet at the level needed.

The sad part is that even so, a sentence like "the 'universal' fact is not in dispute" is still demonstrably false, as this very thread attests.

 

[Zardnaar]

Maximum damage comes from 8 attacks from fighter, 1 from haste, 1 extra attack from the feat, 1 riposte. 110+weapon damage+STR+ Magical damage from weapon+ possible critical damage from the extra attack.
The paladin will be also more powerful with the feat, 1 extra attack using smite can mean: 10+weapon damage+STR+Magical damage from weapon and spells+ 6-7d8 radiant. It could also be a lucky critical.
With their 2 usual attacks you can add a max of 20, and using sacred weapon the paladin can nullify the -5 from the feat.

Now with a fighter and a paladin in a group we are talking about a potential 350-500 more damage in the first 2 rounds of combat, in my opinion that's game changing and as a DM you need to accomodate all that extra damage or let them play a game with easy difficulty.

I can say most people I know prefer the game below the last tier of levels and in this edition last levels aren't much slower, most classes have the same number of attacks and can cast the same number of spells per round as they did on lvl 5. Food for thoughts.

Most of that damage he listed is not even impressive, Some things are good but are daily.

The uber damage dealers this edition are the Eldritch blast spamming Sorlock MC build and the -5/+10 feats.

Wizards are almost wasting their time trying to deal a lot of damage, let he warlocks, sorcerers and martial types worry about it. The Invoker for example doesn't even compare that well to the light cleric.

The only thing keeping spellcaster around in 5E IMHO is the crappy save system so save or suck type spells are almost back to 3.0 levels of absurdness. Fire ball is decent at level 5 for a few levels but hit point inflation in 5E means most DD spells are less useful than they were in say 2E.

Buffing the martials and/or using spells with interesting saves like charisma ones are a better idea. If you are casting a fireball you are probably doing it wrong.

 

[Fanaelialae]

It feels like you're just clinging to alternative facts at this point.

Honestly, I would no longer be surprised if I presented you with two identical feats, one strictly twice as good as the other, and you would still claim the game is all good, there are no problems, and besides, people can just house-rule if there's things they don't like.

You have been presented with overwhelming analysis the feat provides unparalleled damage when utilized correctly. That some martial builds are simply excluded. That monsters can't keep up.

Not acknowledging the feat is a singular source of disruption and wholly bad for the game is impossible if you stick with the facts.

But you choose to not respond to any poster making an argument you don't care to meet, probably because you have no case.

When your own bad-faith and illogical arguments are called out, you don't respond or even acknowledge them.

At every turn, you try to twist the discussion into becoming about person rather than fact. You several times take umbrage at what people say, apparently hoping they will be mired in personal back and forth where you know you can't lose.

Also, I have personally yet to see a single example where you post on another agenda (such as actually playing the game, or finding something in the rules you want to improve) than defending the PHB, never backing down a single inch.

At this point: what reason would you say there is for me to not dismiss your views as a complete apologist, Corwin?

Sent from my C6603 using EN World mobile app

Sorry, but I have to disagree whole heartedly. For starters, if someone in the thread provided a mathematical proof that GWM breaks the game, I missed it. While I believe you when you say that it is causing problems in your game, that's a far cry from showing it is systemic.

The evidence I've seen has been primarily anecdotal, with plenty to support both sides of the fence.

 

[CapnZapp]

Disadvantage would make the feat more powerful:

>=5:
Disadvantage --> 64%
-5 --> 55%
Normal --> 80%
Advantage-5 --> 79.75%

>=10
Disadvantage --> 30.25%
-5 --> 30%
Normal --> 55%
Advantage-5 --> 51%

>=15, 15 max using the -5
Disadvantage --> 9%
-5 --> 5%
Normal --> 30%
Advantage-5 --> 9.75%

Thank you for responding, though you are certainly not very clear. Let me see if I can decode your message.

The first line seems like the result you need to roll to hit, yes? The probability for which you list under "Normal"?

Then the -5 line, which is the probability of Normal-5?

Then the Advantage-5 line, which is the probability of -5 but with advantage?

Then you compare this with Normal but with disadvantage, no?

I still don't immediately see how you arrive at "Disadvantage would make the feat more powerful". Perhaps you can walk me through it.

---

In practical play, assume the disadvantage is cancelled by an advantage. Using the feat as written, it is almost never used without advantage, so it would be unreasonable to assume it will ever be used with actual disadvantage.

---

Also assume the character stands ready with some ability to augment a bad roll, such as Bardic Inspiration, or more reasonably, the character's own Precision Strike superiority dice.

Practical play has shown us that with advantage, the probability of rolling so low that you miss is small. This means the risk of having to use up your superiority dice to turn a miss into a hit is also small. Also, the risk of using up a superiority dice and still miss is small if you are close to hitting.

Finally, Lucky helps considerably when perhaps only a roll of 1-4 will be deemed bad enough that you will accept a miss (and not spend a superiority dice). It cuts down misses by a whopping 25%. If only 1 or 2 is such a bad result, misses are reduced by 50%!

Anyway, the probability of rolling 2, 3, or 4 on advantage is certainly less than 20%, which is what I charitably use as the assumed miss chance when I arrive at my figure of +40 bonus damage per round on average.

---

Back to the disadvantage proposal. Once you no longer can achieve actual advantage, as opposed to merely negating disadvantage, you will burn through your superiority dice much faster and Lucky is no longer nearly as attractive. And you need these to truly abuse the feat.

I have not done the calculations to back up this hunch, though.

My point is that once you see the whole minmaxing picture, perhaps you are hurt more by the lack of advantage than your initial numbers suggest, [MENTION=6780269]dco[/MENTION]?

 

[Corwin]

This is not about casters vs martials. This is about martials vs martials.

...he says in the face of the post, just two above his, where someone pointed out exactly why this is exactly right, yet somehow the opposite of the agenda he's pushing...

Adding a feat that can be exploited to deal +40 extra damage per round is just horrendously ill-advised.

You should totally get yourself onto the WotC Advisory Board so you can bring this alternative fact to their attention!

 

[cmad1977]

Is the issue that DMs can't handle the damage this feat deals or that other players 'might feel upstaged' by the feat.
If it's the former the issue doesn't lie with the feat. If it's the latter, the issue doesn't lie with the feat.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Corwin]

I have not done the calculations to back up this hunch, though.

At least you are being honest there. I can respect that.

 

[Sword of Spirit]

Like you I looked at the math in a vacuum, and it seems quite well balanced.

Like you, I realized that Reckless Attack ruins that balance.

One of the suggestions I've heard before is to just replace the -5/+10 portion of the feat with a +1 Strength. It should still be a pretty good feat that way.

 

[Bacon Bits]

Then you're doing it wrong.
A feat isn't supposed to have you spend an ASI for something that's almost always a bad idea to use.
Heck, by that logic if we're looking for improvements to almost always be a bad idea, why not have proficiency scale backwards and spellcasters to lose slots as they level?

The point I was making was if you make it worse than +10 then you shouldn't make it worse than +7. Previously in the thread, people were talking about making it -5/+5 or -proficiency/+proficiency. Both of those schemes are never worth it because +1 to hit is worth more than +1 damage. -5/+7 makes it only worth it against very low ACs (13-14 or less or so).

As far as having to be worth an ASI, -5/+10 doesn't have to carry the full weight of the feat because it's not the only function of the feat. Furthermore, there are several feats that aren't worth an ASI, even when they include half an ASI. Linguist? Lightly Armored? Durable? Actor?

I don't think a flat 50% miss is a good idea, but wanted to point out that it's easy to implement if you're okay with it being around 50%. Simply make a natural odd roll on the d20 a miss. No extra dice required.

No, that only works if the minimum roll to hit is an odd number. If you need an even number to hit, then you're off.

For example, say you need to roll a 12 or better to hit AC 20. If you roll a separate die, you have a 50% chance of turning any hit into a miss. If you use the value of the d20, then you have 5 values that are hits that remain a hit (12, 14, 16, 18, 20) and only 4 values that are hits that turn into a miss (13, 15, 17, 19). So only 4 in 9 hits can turn into a miss, which is fewer than 50%.

It also doesn't work if the character is a Champion Fighter since they have an ability that lets them crit on a 19.

The real problem with 50% miss chance is the fact that it's not obvious that it gets progressively worse the more base damage you deal.