D&D 5E When to turn on Great Weapon Master

[Arial Black]

yes.....2nd paragraph and last paragraph of my original post adress that...

Shoak, you've done an excellent job on the maths. Well done, and thank you.

There are some who, fresh from another thread (Are GWM and SS overpowered?), who take your maths as if you were saying that the maths is the only thing that needs to be considered in play. They react this way because there are those on the other thread who are presenting similar maths to 'prove' that these feats are overpowered while deliberately ignoring the other factors that limit their usefulness, factors that the maths cannot replicate.

Such as the fact that getting an extra +10 damage is never worth the -5 penalty if you would kill the enemy with a single blow even without the +10. Every opponent, no matter its healthy HP total, is expected to be whittled down to fewer and fewer HPs, so the idea that your target may only have 5 HP remaining is not some incredibly rare circumstance.

But you never claimed what those guys in the other thread are claiming: that the maths is the be-all and end-all of our consideration of when to use the -5/+10. What you are saying is that it is useful to know these breakpoints, and that if you want to know, then the maths should be solid.

Is that fair?

 

[shoak1]

Shoak, you've done an excellent job on the maths. Well done, and thank you.

There are some who, fresh from another thread (Are GWM and SS overpowered?), who take your maths as if you were saying that the maths is the only thing that needs to be considered in play. They react this way because there are those on the other thread who are presenting similar maths to 'prove' that these feats are overpowered while deliberately ignoring the other factors that limit their usefulness, factors that the maths cannot replicate.

Such as the fact that getting an extra +10 damage is never worth the -5 penalty if you would kill the enemy with a single blow even without the +10. Every opponent, no matter its healthy HP total, is expected to be whittled down to fewer and fewer HPs, so the idea that your target may only have 5 HP remaining is not some incredibly rare circumstance.

But you never claimed what those guys in the other thread are claiming: that the maths is the be-all and end-all of our consideration of when to use the -5/+10. What you are saying is that it is useful to know these breakpoints, and that if you want to know, then the maths should be solid.

Is that fair?

Absolutely correct assessment of my intent, and thanks. I'm gonna edit my original post a bit to make that a bit clearer.

And btw I was a critic of GWM (as I am w/most of the 5e feats) UNTIL I did the math and was surprised. It's actually fairly balanced compared to taking the +2 STR buff. But none of the guys I normally support in their rants against 5e feats wanted to hear it....

 

[UngeheuerLich]

yes.....2nd paragraph and last paragraph of my original post adress that...

Oops. Yes. That one i have to admit. I shot over the goal. What I still miss is the aknowledgement that if you use it you are gambling more or less.

I try it one last time: When you are investing in a fond, you have to asses the value increase on average. You also have a volatility rating (variance).
If you invest short term, it is a lot safer to invest in a not so volatile fond which on average increases less in value. If you incest in a high profit high volatile fond it is a gamble. If you invest long term, you can safely invest in volatile fonds since they go up and down a lot but on average increase more than the safer fond.
What does all that have to do with GWM? Even if your magic number says you will increase your average damage it may still not the best decision to use GWM.
It is good to know the math behind. Good job on that part, but I still miss the aknowledgement that an average increase of 0.5 damage per round may not varant the use of GWM. So the number may be 6 or 7 or 9 or 10 depending on the situation and how much you are willing to gamble. Or wven how much you need to gamble. Sometimes it does not matter how much damage you do. Any hit will be ok to contribute your victory. Sometimes it does not matter if you hit for 10 hp or not at all, but 20 hp hits will turn the tide. Then throw all math over board and risk it.

 

[shoak1]

Oops. Yes. That one i have to admit. I shot over the goal. What I still miss is the aknowledgement that if you use it you are gambling more or less.

I try it one last time: When you are investing in a fond, you have to asses the value increase on average. You also have a volatility rating (variance).
If you invest short term, it is a lot safer to invest in a not so volatile fond which on average increases less in value. If you incest in a high profit high volatile fond it is a gamble. If you invest long term, you can safely invest in volatile fonds since they go up and down a lot but on average increase more than the safer fond.
What does all that have to do with GWM? Even if your magic number says you will increase your average damage it may still not the best decision to use GWM.
It is good to know the math behind. Good job on that part, but I still miss the aknowledgement that an average increase of 0.5 damage per round may not varant the use of GWM. So the number may be 6 or 7 or 9 or 10 depending on the situation and how much you are willing to gamble. Or wven how much you need to gamble. Sometimes it does not matter how much damage you do. Any hit will be ok to contribute your victory. Sometimes it does not matter if you hit for 10 hp or not at all, but 20 hp hits will turn the tide. Then throw all math over board and risk it.

OK - got your point now, and I agree with you, but with 2 caveats:
1). I think that the term "gamble" might be a bit severe - maybe saying "less safe" would make me feel more comfortable.
2) We are talking generally about 5-10 rolls in a combat, assuming L5+ (before which I would not take it) so I think it would only situationally be "less safe" (such as if your hit bestows a stun or something else because of a buff).

That said, I think I will edit my original post to incorporate your point.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

OK - got your point now, and I agree with you, but with 2 caveats:
1). I think that the term "gamble" might be a bit severe - maybe saying "less safe" would make me feel more comfortable.
2) We are talking generally about 5-10 rolls in a combat, assuming L5+ (before which I would not take it) so I think it would only situationally be "less safe" (such as if your hit bestows a stun or something else because of a buff).

Ok. Lets call it a day. Thank you for the discussion.

 

[shoak1]

Likewise, thanks for the input

 

[Arial Black]

OK - got your point now, and I agree with you, but with 2 caveats:
1). I think that the term "gamble" might be a bit severe - maybe saying "less safe" would make me feel more comfortable.
2) We are talking generally about 5-10 rolls in a combat, assuming L5+ (before which I would not take it) so I think it would only situationally be "less safe" (such as if your hit bestows a stun or something else because of a buff).

That said, I think I will edit my original post to incorporate your point.

Actually, I would take the feat at 1st level; not for the -5/+10, but for the cleave. Most baddies at that level can only take one or two hits, so that bonus action attack will come quite frequently, and this could double your attacks.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

Actually, I would take the feat at 1st level; not for the -5/+10, but for the cleave. Most baddies at that level can only take one or two hits, so that bonus action attack will come quite frequently, and this could double your attacks.

I think we now have a thread with general good ideas how to use the feat and a fair assessment of it.
The one thing I would rule out is using the feat in the butt end of the polearm feat and require a bonus action to aim with the sharpshooter feat.

 

[CapnZapp]

Now that the discussion on that seems to be winding down, let me just add a few pointers for future reference (when posters read this thread):

This thread is actually only about a fairly trivial point, namely when to use the -5+10 part. A lot of words, but still, not terribly difficult math.

The real issue is how often you can expect to get to turn on the feat.

The feat's defenders seem to labor under the impression this doesn't happen too often. And that the corner cases where you do use it (and use it correctly) still doesn't provide the expected benefit (because the monster died, letting hp go to waste, for example).

They do not realize that this mechanism (the -5+10) part is the centrepiece of every minmaxer's build. It's a source of much more damage than anything else available to a martial character.

And, the cutoff point (the AC number where the -5+10 part provides a statistical benefit and so makes you turn it on) is rather higher - given good play - than many of those defenders realize.

Or, sadly, want to realize. Because they insist each game element should be evaluated in isolation, which is a naive stance every minmaxer immediately moves on from.

Something as innocous as Bless giving +1d4 is, by itself, a cool buff. But combined with GWM it almost singlehandedly wrecks the intended balance of the feat.

So is Bless overpowered, broken or unbalanced. Not especially. Is GWM overpowered, broken or unbalanced? By itself, again, no not especially so.

But Bless does become unbalanced when its bonus is applied to reducing or negating the to-hit penalty of GWM. Yes!

Does this now mean Bless is at fault? No. It would be absurd to try to remove all the ways you can get bonuses to your to-hit. Remove Bless and the GWM player will simply use the Bard dice. Or his own Reckless advantage. Or any other effect that reduces or negates the -5 part so that the AC cutoff point is lowered to make the feat an unprecedented source of extra damage, so much so that the game is hurt by it. You simply can't get that kind of damage unless you choose a weapon compatible with either GWM or Sharpshooter, which is bad for choice.

Back to Bless. Why target Bless when the real culprit is the feat. If you remove Bless or any single other source of to hit bonuses, the problem remains.

But if you remove the feat, there is no longer anything to base your damage build upon. It is the feat that is the source, not those other things that I call the enablers. They just enable the feat, they're not broken in their own regard.

Instead of bending backwards not to have to accept the feat is outright abusable, why not remove the feat (or replace the -5+10 part with a half-feat such as +1 Str etc)?

I still cannot understand why some people can't (or I'm again sorry to say: won't) see this easy connection. I don't have a problem internalizing that WotC made a mistake. So what they didn't think things through. It's not the first time the minmaxers find stuff that the design team missed. It's not the end of the world. I still love 5th edition. I just would have loved it more if it didn't provide such low-hanging fruit for the minmaxers.

Instead of squabbling whether the feat really can be abused (it can) why not present an united front towards MMearls and the other designers, making them understand the feat will need an overhaul sooner or later.

 

[shoak1]

Now that the discussion on that seems to be winding down, let me just add a few pointers for future reference (when posters read this thread):

This thread is actually only about a fairly trivial point, namely when to use the -5+10 part. A lot of words, but still, not terribly difficult math.

The real issue is how often you can expect to get to turn on the feat.

The feat's defenders seem to labor under the impression this doesn't happen too often. And that the corner cases where you do use it (and use it correctly) still doesn't provide the expected benefit (because the monster died, letting hp go to waste, for example).

They do not realize that this mechanism (the -5+10) part is the centrepiece of every minmaxer's build. It's a source of much more damage than anything else available to a martial character.

And, the cutoff point (the AC number where the -5+10 part provides a statistical benefit and so makes you turn it on) is rather higher - given good play - than many of those defenders realize.

Or, sadly, want to realize. Because they insist each game element should be evaluated in isolation, which is a naive stance every minmaxer immediately moves on from.

Something as innocous as Bless giving +1d4 is, by itself, a cool buff. But combined with GWM it almost singlehandedly wrecks the intended balance of the feat.

So is Bless overpowered, broken or unbalanced. Not especially. Is GWM overpowered, broken or unbalanced? By itself, again, no not especially so.

But Bless does become unbalanced when its bonus is applied to reducing or negating the to-hit penalty of GWM. Yes!

Does this now mean Bless is at fault? No. It would be absurd to try to remove all the ways you can get bonuses to your to-hit. Remove Bless and the GWM player will simply use the Bard dice. Or his own Reckless advantage. Or any other effect that reduces or negates the -5 part so that the AC cutoff point is lowered to make the feat an unprecedented source of extra damage, so much so that the game is hurt by it. You simply can't get that kind of damage unless you choose a weapon compatible with either GWM or Sharpshooter, which is bad for choice.

Back to Bless. Why target Bless when the real culprit is the feat. If you remove Bless or any single other source of to hit bonuses, the problem remains.

But if you remove the feat, there is no longer anything to base your damage build upon. It is the feat that is the source, not those other things that I call the enablers. They just enable the feat, they're not broken in their own regard.

Instead of bending backwards not to have to accept the feat is outright abusable, why not remove the feat (or replace the -5+10 part with a half-feat such as +1 Str etc)?

I still cannot understand why some people can't (or I'm again sorry to say: won't) see this easy connection. I don't have a problem internalizing that WotC made a mistake. So what they didn't think things through. It's not the first time the minmaxers find stuff that the design team missed. It's not the end of the world. I still love 5th edition. I just would have loved it more if it didn't provide such low-hanging fruit for the minmaxers.

Instead of squabbling whether the feat really can be abused (it can) why not present an united front towards MMearls and the other designers, making them understand the feat will need an overhaul sooner or later.

I agree at least that the feats are indeed a hot mess. They are presented in an afterthought-optional-"here's-some crap to replace those feats you miss from 3.5" format. In general they are not balanced against each other or the +2 to an attribute otherwise available. They are an assortment of odd offerings for a variety of playstyles, something to be snacked upon but far less than a full meal for any one play style.

Unfortunately, non-min-maxers who relish in the "the game can be anything you want it to just change it as you see fit" RPGish attitude have overrun D and D (or at least this forum). They seem to outnumber those of us with a more Gamist philosophy (again, at least in this forum) by at least a 6-1 margin. They relish in the diversity of playstyles at different tables and see any problems therefore as INTERNAL to the individual table and - this is a key point - fixable internally by the individual table via house rule. So there are no REAL problems with the game to those with this philosophy - balance becomes subjective, and therefore to push any balance issue too far makes them feel you are not respectful of the utopian diversity they see as symbolic of D and D. You are seen then as just a pushy combat-obsessed balance-freak.

IMO that is why any balance issue is so hotly contested here. Post anything about imbalance (oops, I forgot the obligatory politically correct "percieved" there) and you get hit w/a plethora of "it's only your table or play style that has the problem" posts, along w/a deluge of "therefore why don't you just house rule it, DUH!!!" responses, and a smattering of half- hearted attempts to refute your logic, which then inevitably revert to one of the other 2 types of responses when their logic fails them.