D&D 5E Nerfing Great Weapon Master

[Fanaelialae]

Sure.

But if you don't mind, I still look forward to crunching the numbers on the previous scenario first

After all, the suggestion to replace -5 with disadvantage is a prominent one in the thread, and I am curious to see what it does to the use case scenario that really wrecks GWM balance.

Thx

Sure. I was under the impression that the disadvantage approach had already been shown to be less penalizing than -5.

Edit
After catching up on this thread, I see now that you were referring to the elimination of the probability curve. While that's all well and fine, I don't think it will be sufficient to rein in power attack in your games. At that point it is a normal attack roll, since your PCs always have advantage. You're going to see significantly less misses because the AC is effectively 5 points lower than is the case for the standard feat.

 

[Tony Vargas]

about fast combats... as a rational explanation of the game's softness, I give you a point.

But as a justification for the game's softness*, I vehemently disagree.
*) not saying you use it as such

I guess I kinda did. ::sorry::

We can't have level 20 fights end just as quick as a fight against wandering goblins, or the entire game becomes a joke imo.
Of course, I'd much rather have challenging combats than fast ones. And in the case of end-of-level bosses, a fast combat is an outright failure.

Fast combat isn't a priority that much appealed to me, either, especially as the game expects 6-8 combats, so you're still spending a lot of time on that pillar. One option, without particularly changing rules, especially player-facing rules, is just to dial up the challenge. Have 3-4 much larger (superior numbers will tell in 5e), more complex, more challenging combats per day, with a short rest after each one. If those combats are twice as many rounds as normal, the ratio of short-rest-recharge:long-rest-recharge:at-will resource usage should be comparable, and what baseline expected balance among the classes there is on that basis, therefor, retained.

Of course, it's a DM-doing-all-the-heavy-lifting solution, but that's the flipside of Empowerment.

 

[Bacon Bits]

It's not just opinions, it's actions. One hypothetical group maybe has a SS or GWM in it, and they dominate in straightforward race-to-0-hps combats, but the DM brings in enough other situations and challenges that each other PC also has his time in the sun. The DM did something to fix the problem - he may not even have recognized the problem, specifically, maybe he just noticed that some PCs were doing a lot and some others were doing less, and put more situations that called for the latter to do stuff in their way.

And what if the group or the DM primarily enjoys "race-to-0-hps combats"? What if the module essentially only features race-to-0-hp encounters? It's not like dungeon crawl modules magically went away when 5e was published.

Are people who enjoy playing this way just not supposed to play the game? Are they not supposed to play with optional rules because, God forbid, they change them to their liking? People are supposed to completely alter their entire table, their entire DM style, their entire campaign around optional rules that they want to use because one of them of many makes them unhappy? Why is it superior to fix the issue by warping the entire game around one rule instead of just changing the rule that appears to be causing problems? The Player's Handbook is not a suicide pact!


I mean, we have people here saying things like this:

"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.""

Which is just explicitly saying, "You're playing D&D wrong and it's your fault." How is that not offensively condescending? "Gee, if you could DM your way out of a wet paper bag you wouldn't have this problem." I mean, seriously? No. That's not fair. Stop gatekeeping my DM style. Stop gatekeeping my campaigns. Stop gatekeeping my house rules. Stop gatekeeping my table.

 

[Tony Vargas]

And what if the group or the DM primarily enjoys "race-to-0-hps combats"?

They may well all be playing characters 'optimized' for that sort of play, I suppose.

What if the module essentially only features race-to-0-hp encounters?

Well then, they might notice the issue.

It's not like dungeon crawl modules magically went away when 5e was published.

It's more like they magically came back. But, then, everything in 5e happens magically. ;P

Are people who enjoy playing this way just not supposed to play the game? Are they not supposed to play with optional rules because, God forbid, they change them to their liking?

They're supposed to play the game, pick & choose options, and change them up how they like. "They" in this case being Empowered DMs, of course.

Why is it superior to fix the issue by warping the entire game around one rule instead of just changing the rule that appears to be causing problems?

It's not. Either approach is valid. One sure sounds like more work, though.

I mean, we have people here saying things like ....

Yeah, unpleasant, that. Doesn't bear repeating.

My point with "not just opinions, action" was that there's a lot of tables out there that avoid or fix any given issue for themselves, that doesn't mean the issue doesn't exist, nor that it is purely subjective or a matter of opinion - it just means that they're not suffering from it.

 

[Corwin]

My point with "not just opinions, action" was that there's a lot of tables out there that avoid or fix any given issue for themselves, that doesn't mean the issue doesn't exist, nor that it is purely subjective or a matter of opinion - it just means that they're not suffering from it.

"Avoid" or "fix", huh? That appears to be an incomplete list of possible reasons for why the table isn't experiencing an issue with what someone else might perceive as a problem.

 

[Caliban]

If you think it's a problem, house rule it. If you don't think it's a problem...then it's not a problem.

 

[Fanaelialae]

I've never seen a 50% miss calculated this way. If there's a 50% miss, I just roll a separate miss check. Back in the AD&D days it would have been d%, but nowadays I'd just grab a die and do even/odd on a separate die. In other words, a 50% miss chance.

Which is fine. I've done it that way too. However, I do prefer this way. I find it is significantly faster at the table and works great, provided you don't mind that sometimes that 50% is actually 45% (I don't sweat the difference).

 

[Fanaelialae]

The more I think about it, the more I like the whole no-advantage idea from a story perspective. I'll balance it with no-disadvantage. Change the penalty/bonus to -2/+5 (because I still want my math-challenged players to be able to use it without it being to their detriment). Basically, your swings are so wild that it doesn't matter whether you're blind or your opponent is prone. When you hit, you hit hard.

 

[OB1]

Might I suggested that the feat is actually a trap option? The damage from the feat is not necessary for facing level appropriate challenges by a skilled player, and therefore is overkill. One would be better off spending the ASI on something else to overcome challenges that good gameplay might not overcome (such as shoring up weak saves in areas where save or suck could potentially take even a 20th level character out of a fight in one round).

On the flip side, it can be good to take if the rest of the party has below average DPR either because of build or combat strategy. In fact, in one of the games I'm playing, we have a Goliath Barbarian with GWM specifically because all of the other PCs are below optimal DPR builds, and therefore need the damage by him to stay even.

This, I think is what WotC intended for the feat (as well as SS) and why they won't change it. It is meant to be better than other choices, while also completely unnecessary to take.

In answer to the OP, if you want it to be more equal, make it -5/+8 and allow it to be used with any non finesse martial weapon. It's still good to help chew through low AC/ moderate HP minions while not overshadowing others on High AC/ High HP BBEGs.

 

[Geeknamese]

Might I suggested that the feat is actually a trap option? The damage from the feat is not necessary for facing level appropriate challenges by a skilled player, and therefore is overkill. One would be better off spending the ASI on something else to overcome challenges that good gameplay might not overcome (such as shoring up weak saves in areas where save or suck could potentially take even a 20th level character out of a fight in one round).

On the flip side, it can be good to take if the rest of the party has below average DPR either because of build or combat strategy. In fact, in one of the games I'm playing, we have a Goliath Barbarian with GWM specifically because all of the other PCs are below optimal DPR builds, and therefore need the damage by him to stay even.

This, I think is what WotC intended for the feat (as well as SS) and why they won't change it. It is meant to be better than other choices, while also completely unnecessary to take.

In answer to the OP, if you want it to be more equal, make it -5/+8 and allow it to be used with any non finesse martial weapon. It's still good to help chew through low AC/ moderate HP minions while not overshadowing others on High AC/ High HP BBEGs.

This. It's a cooperative team game. The martial's role could be to deal damage for that group so GWM may make sense. But in a different group, the martial may be needed to protect the squishies so he is not less effective being the tank with Protection Style or Sentinel or whatever it may be. That does not make the fighter any less effective unless the only measurement of effectiveness in your games is max DPR.

I mostly DM but when I do get to play, when the martial shines with GWM, I'm cheering them on for helping to end the battle quickly, or for helping to realize the effectiveness of my buffing spells on them, for saving my hide, for helping me use less healing resources, for helping move the story along. It's never about DPR envy. A good DM makes sure the spotlight is shared in all areas of the game/story.


Sent from my iPhone using EN World mobile app