D&D 5E When -5/+10 starts becoming Very Reliable?

[Prism]

Have a level 17 spellcaster put foresight on you and see what happens Spellcasters can often get in more damage via buffing the fighter types than dealing direct damage themselves.

Well our wizard wouldn't do anything as reckless as casting their only 9th level spell (foresight) at the beginning of the day (and hence doesn't take it), but lets just assume they did cast it for the final fight then it makes a difference of about 5 points of damage per attack with my character when using GMW. Not worth the spell in that case. It might do 60 - 80 points of damage over the fight (i'm assuming we have a cleric also casting bless). Not bad but not good enough for a 9th level spell. We typically use 9th level spells for gate and wish not some extra damage

As I said earlier, advantage does make this feat decent but its not that easy to come by for a fighter. A 17th level spell, using an attack to knock prone, invisibility (pretty useless at this level).

 

[Zardnaar]

Well our wizard wouldn't do anything as reckless as casting their only 9th level spell (foresight) at the beginning of the day (and hence doesn't take it), but lets just assume they did cast it for the final fight then it makes a difference of about 5 points of damage per attack with my character when using GMW. Not worth the spell in that case. It might do 60 - 80 points of damage over the fight (i'm assuming we have a cleric also casting bless). Not bad but not good enough for a 9th level spell. We typically use 9th level spells for gate and wish not some extra damage

As I said earlier, advantage does make this feat decent but its not that easy to come by for a fighter. A 17th level spell, using an attack to knock prone, invisibility (pretty useless at this level).

Foresight lasts for 24 hours. It will deal more damage combined with GWM/SS than any other level 9 spell and provide advantage on everything else. Greater Invisibility also does the trick, and any spell that causes blindness, paralyzation, stun, or any effect that knocks someone prone.

 

[Prism]

Foresight lasts for 24 hours. It will deal more damage combined with GWM/SS than any other level 9 spell and provide advantage on everything else. Greater Invisibility also does the trick, and any spell that causes blindness, paralyzation, stun, or any effect that knocks someone prone.

It lasts for 8 hours so needs casting that morning, and I'm quite sure it would indirectly do a load of damage during the day not even considering the defensive benefits. However casting your only 9th level spell before you even start out is very risky. We find that at this level purely dealing damage is rarely the way to complete a hard adventure. In the last two adventures we did we needed to use gate to actually get to the combat encounter. Our DM also tends to make use of enemy spell casters with access to dispel magic so relying on buffs is also risky for that reason

Its been a long time since we encountered something without blind sense or truesight so invisibility and blindness is out too.

Anyway, my point really is that GMW without advantage is just OK, even accounting for constant bless. Advantage is not trivial to get reliably - even at 17th level - unless you are a barbarian. Sharpshooter makes a bow wielder do as much damage as a greatsword wielder. I don't have a problem with that as a DM as that means fewer fighters to get through on the way to the wizard and cleric.

 

[Zardnaar]

It lasts for 8 hours so needs casting that morning, and I'm quite sure it would indirectly do a load of damage during the day not even considering the defensive benefits. However casting your only 9th level spell before you even start out is very risky. We find that at this level purely dealing damage is rarely the way to complete a hard adventure. In the last two adventures we did we needed to use gate to actually get to the combat encounter. Our DM also tends to make use of enemy spell casters with access to dispel magic so relying on buffs is also risky for that reason

Its been a long time since we encountered something without blind sense or truesight so invisibility and blindness is out too.

Anyway, my point really is that GMW without advantage is just OK, even accounting for constant bless. Advantage is not trivial to get reliably - even at 17th level - unless you are a barbarian. Sharpshooter makes a bow wielder do as much damage as a greatsword wielder. I don't have a problem with that as a DM as that means fewer fighters to get through on the way to the wizard and cleric.

Sounds like you have discovered the hard way fighters are not actually that good at fighting. I would be hard pressed to recommend one over a barbarian or Paladin.

 

[Prism]

Sounds like you have discovered the hard way fighters are not actually that good at fighting. I would be hard pressed to recommend one over a barbarian or Paladin.

Not made my mind up about barbarians yet - they look decent. There is a 4th level one with GMW in the campaign I am running and he deals the damage and is hard to take down. He doesn't do much else though. I think I would be quite happy if it turns out the barbarian does most raw damage

Yeah paladins seem strong and can apply their various damage bonuses and spell effects at the proper time. However they do all that without GMW typically as hitting is all important and their weapon damage is naturally higher. Doesn't that mean GMW is a fighters way of trying to keep up? (unsuccessfully)

 

[CapnZapp]

Youre supposed to defeat them easily, expending around 10-15 percent of party resources in the attempt.

That looks like the very definition of boring.

But.

The baseline is: why are you defending the 6-8 encounter day? Why are you not content with saying "it works for me"?

Look, WotC have chosen a baseline that simply does not work (well) for many groups. By this I mean: it doesn't slot easily into the adventuring days that happen naturally (for that group). Hence the complaints.

Why are you so insistent on taking your personal experience and interpreting that as "it works well for everybody, except those of you who play it wrong".

It means that what you're saying is: "you know the way you've been playing D&D for all these years? Yeah, you're doing it wrong. Change your style to mine, and everything will work dandy!"

At least that's how you come across as.

You could be saying "it works for me and my playing style, but I feel for the ones of you it doesn't work as well for. Shame WotC didn't include enough tools to make it work for your playing styles".

But you aren't.

 

[Flamestrike]

That looks like the very definition of boring.

But.

The baseline is: why are you defending the 6-8 encounter day? Why are you not content with saying "it works for me"?

Look, WotC have chosen a baseline that simply does not work (well) for many groups. By this I mean: it doesn't slot easily into the adventuring days that happen naturally (for that group). Hence the complaints.

Why are you so insistent on taking your personal experience and interpreting that as "it works well for everybody, except those of you who play it wrong".

It means that what you're saying is: "you know the way you've been playing D&D for all these years? Yeah, you're doing it wrong. Change your style to mine, and everything will work dandy!"

At least that's how you come across as.

You could be saying "it works for me and my playing style, but I feel for the ones of you it doesn't work as well for. Shame WotC didn't include enough tools to make it work for your playing styles".

But you aren't.

If it doesnt work for you, and you're not having any problems with encounter difficulty (medium-hard encounters are challenging), and class balance (fighters and paladins plus warlocks and wizards are balancing out and turning out in equal frequency to each other) then yeah, ignore it man. Its not a rule (and you could ignore it if it was anyway) it's a guideline - the point at which the classes and encounter building rules are balanced around.

If it isnt balancing, and you are ignoring the recomendations, there is nothing wrong with playing a game where long rest classes dominate short rest classes if thats what youre into.

The argument is simply that this is the balancing point for classes and encounters. No-one is saying you have to follow it. Maybe you prefer the game less balanced, or maybe the balance issues arent an issue at your table (likely if everyone is playing long rest dependent classes - but be wary of conformation bias - perhaps everyone leans towards long rest dependent classes because you dont enforce the rest meta, and if you did, those short rest dependent classes would see more play)

Its just whenever you hear someone complain that paladins, casters and barbarians are OP and fighters (particularly the champion), warlocks and the monk are sucky by comparison (or that medium-hard encounters are too easy), or that encounters are too easy in 5E, I find that non policing of the AD is 99/100 the reason why. Thats my only point mate; shorter ADs are invariably a causative factor whenever either issue is raised.

As for 'WOTC didnt give me the tools for a slower number of encounters per AD' I give you the longer rest variant. Its perfect for campaigns that feature 0-3 encounters per day.

By the way, I think we got off on the wrong foot. Im sorry if I sounded hostile before, and I'd like to offer an apology.

 

[pemerton]

Take a strength 20 fighter with Great Weapon Fighting and Great Weapons Master using a greatsword and with a Bless spell running. Against an AC of 17 they will do on average 10 points of damage per attack without the feat and 12 when using it. Given their three attacks that makes a sum total of 6 points of damage a round.

STR bonus +5. Prof bonus (level 12) +4. Bless +2.5. Total +11.5 to hit.

Damage 2d6 with GWF +5 for STR. Expected value per die is 4 and a sixth, for overall expected damage output of 13 and a third per hit.

Vs AC 17 without feat: Hit on 5.5 or better, ie 15.5 in 20, for expected damage of 10 and a third.

Vs AC 17 with feat: Hit on a 10.5 or better, ie 10.5 in 20, for expected damage of 12.25.

That's actually a little less than +2 to damage.

Vs AC 14 without feat: Hit on 2.5 or better, ie 18.5 in 20, for expected damage of 12 and a third.

Vs AC 14 with feat: Hit on a 7.5 or better, ie 13.5 in 20, for expected damage of 15.75.

That's more than +3 to damage.

How common is AC 17 compared to AC 14? And how common is a +1 weapon (which, in effect, makes the comparison one of AC 18 vs AC 15)?

I can see the design logic of the feat: make a big impact in play (everyone notices +10 to damage!).

But I can equally see the balance issues. A bonus to the relevant stat, or a flat damage bonus (say +2, which has tradition behind it from the old weapon specialisation days), might be more balanced even if less exciting.

 

[Prism]

How common is AC 17 compared to AC 14? And how common is a +1 weapon (which, in effect, makes the comparison one of AC 18 vs AC 15)?

Hard to say about the AC really though if we look at the CR equivalent (ish) Genies get AC17/18, Dragons are about AC18, a storm giant is AC16, stone golem AC18, demons and devils AC17/18. So I would say GMW is good to clear out the minions (ala 4e style!) but not all that against the tough stuff. And as a DM I am happy to let the players plough through the fodder - that's the fun bit.

I just find it odd that GWM is roughly equivalent to a simple +1 weapon but nobody ever seems to complain that that's overpowered

I can see the design logic of the feat: make a big impact in play (everyone notices +10 to damage!).

But I can equally see the balance issues. A bonus to the relevant stat, or a flat damage bonus (say +2, which has tradition behind it from the old weapon specialisation days), might be more balanced even if less exciting.

I think its like you say, the fun factor. Hitting big or missing wildly can be fun. Giving a flat +2 or +3 damage is about the same in power, but even though more effective against the tough stuff and less against the lower level stuff its a bit dull

 

[Flamestrike]

STR bonus +5. Prof bonus (level 12) +4. Bless +2.5. Total +11.5 to hit.

Damage 2d6 with GWF +5 for STR. Expected value per die is 4 and a sixth, for overall expected damage output of 13 and a third per hit.

Vs AC 17 without feat: Hit on 5.5 or better, ie 15.5 in 20, for expected damage of 10 and a third.

Vs AC 17 with feat: Hit on a 10.5 or better, ie 10.5 in 20, for expected damage of 12.25.

That's actually a little less than +2 to damage.

Vs AC 14 without feat: Hit on 2.5 or better, ie 18.5 in 20, for expected damage of 12 and a third.

Vs AC 14 with feat: Hit on a 7.5 or better, ie 13.5 in 20, for expected damage of 15.75.

That's more than +3 to damage.

How common is AC 17 compared to AC 14? And how common is a +1 weapon (which, in effect, makes the comparison one of AC 18 vs AC 15)?

I can see the design logic of the feat: make a big impact in play (everyone notices +10 to damage!).

But I can equally see the balance issues. A bonus to the relevant stat, or a flat damage bonus (say +2, which has tradition behind it from the old weapon specialisation days), might be more balanced even if less exciting.

Run the numbers again, giving the non GWM fighter +1 to hit and damage (the opportunity cost for the GWM feat).

Also; when you factor in magic weapon damage, it gets even less attractive an option (just like it becomes a less attractive option for rogues with sharpshooter - youd rather land a sneak attack of +10d6 than risk missing with a sneak attack +10d6+10