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

[Arial Black]

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)?

Why not?

Because we don't agree with your assessment.

You present your conclusion as if it were The Truth, when it is mere opinion.

You present maths which, while accurate in itself, does not reflect the full story. You take into account factors that make the feat 'better' (such as ways to increase the attack chance) while willfully ignoring factors that make the feat 'worse' (like overkill, unreliability, choosing this feat means that you didn't choose a different feat or +2 Str, that every feat, not just this one, is supposed to make you better than if you didn't have it ), yet still advance your maths as 'proof' that the feat is overpowered.

Instead of realising that your 'opinion' is just that, and that other people have another opinion, you assume that anyone who disagrees with you hasn't thought it through, or is naive.

Let's start another thread, where we 'prove' that taking +2 Str is mathematically better than not having +2 Str. This would mathematically 'prove' that taking +2 Str is overpowered!

 

[shoak1]

Why not?

Because we don't agree with your assessment.

You present your conclusion as if it were The Truth, when it is mere opinion.

You present maths which, while accurate in itself, does not reflect the full story. You take into account factors that make the feat 'better' (such as ways to increase the attack chance) while willfully ignoring factors that make the feat 'worse' (like overkill, unreliability, choosing this feat means that you didn't choose a different feat or +2 Str, that every feat, not just this one, is supposed to make you better than if you didn't have it ), yet still advance your maths as 'proof' that the feat is overpowered.

Instead of realising that your 'opinion' is just that, and that other people have another opinion, you assume that anyone who disagrees with you hasn't thought it through, or is naive.

Let's start another thread, where we 'prove' that taking +2 Str is mathematically better than not having +2 Str. This would mathematically 'prove' that taking +2 Str is overpowered!

I partially disagree - I still don't think overkill and unreliability are major concerns to the use of GWM given the bag of hp that most monsters are in 5e - they are certainly things to take note of, but not major mitigating factors. In the case of the balance of this feat, I think what Capn Zapp is not fully considering is that even if you mitigate the -5 penalty, you don't gain +10 damage per swing. You gain +x% (x being the chance to hit after all modifiers, not likely even with mitigation to be better than 75%) of 10 damage, weighed against -25% chance of your base damage (possibly as much as 15 with bonuses). So in the most likely best case scenario, the feat only grants you net +3 or +4 average damage per swing.

And then THAT total is what you would compare to something else you can take like +2 STR (which essentially gives you about +2 average damage per swing plus some other benefits).

In other words you never gain +10 average damage per swing - you only gain +(your chance to hit)% of +10. And you can never actually "mitigate" the -5 penalty until you get into auto-hit territory - until then there is always the drag of the -25% of your base damage.

I would term GWM "low hanging fruit for the min-maxers" (in Capn Zapp's words) only in the full context of the gross inadequacy of the feat list itself, combined with the 20 STR limitation.

 

[CapnZapp]

You take into account factors that make the feat 'better' (such as ways to increase the attack chance) while willfully ignoring factors that make the feat 'worse' (like overkill, unreliability, choosing this feat means that you didn't choose a different feat or +2 Str, that every feat, not just this one, is supposed to make you better than if you didn't have it ), yet still advance your maths as 'proof' that the feat is overpowered.

Stop accusing me of not taking account of overkill, reliability and opportunity costs. Not to mention the truly ridiculous accusation I can't even understand what feats are for.

It only means you can't counter my argument, and instead goes after my credibility and my person.

That's a textbook ad hominem attack if I ever saw one. You're just embarrassing yourself at this point, Arial.

 

[CapnZapp]

I would term GWM "low hanging fruit for the min-maxers" (in Capn Zapp's words) only in the full context of the gross inadequacy of the feat list itself, combined with the 20 STR limitation.

On the other hand, the "full context" is all that matters to me.

I have never said the feat is overpowered in isolation.

My entire point is that the point of failure here is something completely understandable: namely the designer's inability to fully comprehend the ease with which a proficient minmaxer can utilize the feat, given the "full context" of the entire game.

And this has happened many many times before. So the real problem isn't even that this was not fully comprehended. After all, that is generally a very difficult insight to arrive at.

No, the real issue here is how flippantly the game offers a +10 per attack damage bonus at all. The designers should really have known better than that.

Their thought process really should have gone something like this:

- "Okay so isn't +10 too much?"
- "Well, I can't see how. The -5 part ensures you can only use it against the easiest targets."
- "I can't find a way to abuse it either..."
- "But just to be safe. Even though we can't find a way, probably the internet will, since they have repeatedly found things to abuse we didn't think to be abusable in the past"
- "I agree. +10 sounds like a cool benefit, but it's too risky. We'd better find something else."

 

[MarkB]

Their thought process really should have gone something like this:

- "Okay so isn't +10 too much?"
- "Well, I can't see how. The -5 part ensures you can only use it against the easiest targets."
- "I can't find a way to abuse it either..."
- "But just to be safe. Even though we can't find a way, probably the internet will, since they have repeatedly found things to abuse we didn't think to be abusable in the past"
- "I agree. +10 sounds like a cool benefit, but it's too risky. We'd better find something else."

So, they have a feature that they don't consider abusable, and can't think of a way to abuse, and yet they should remove it just in case there's a possibility that someone else might find a way to abuse it? If they applied that logic, they'd have to remove every single feat, spell, magic item and class feature in the game.

 

[Quartz]

1) This formula assumes you do 15 avg damage per attack (not counting the GWM +10).

From where are you getting the 15 damage? That's max damage for a Str 16 PC with a greataxe or 2H sword. You'd be better off basing your calculations around average damage - 10 damage. I've re-run the numbers and GWM is balanced against an ordinary attack if you need to roll an 11+ to hit (without GWM) at Str 16, 10+ to hit at Str 20, and 9+ for the Str 24 Barbarian. With Advantage the breakpoint is 13+ at Str 16 and 11+ at Str 24.

 

[CapnZapp]

So, they have a feature that they don't consider abusable, and can't think of a way to abuse, and yet they should remove it just in case there's a possibility that someone else might find a way to abuse it? If they applied that logic, they'd have to remove every single feat, spell, magic item and class feature in the game.

No.

They should have realized that +10 to damage for an attack is too much.

Put it this way:

Is a clean +10 to damage (no restrictions) unbalancing to you? (I'm going to go ahead and assume yes, since otherwise we have nothing to discuss)

Then, as a designer you'd better make sure any restrictions and conditions you impose are truly incircumventable.

This is what has failed here.

There are plenty of examples of where the designers have visibly gone to some lengths to ensure an ability or feature can't easily be abused.

Unfortunately, this is not one of those cases.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

Yes, his assumption is a bit high. For a barbarian with a maul, 18 Str and rage bonus it might actually be quite close actually at level 8: 7+4+3 = 14.

And I do like his break point, because the risk you take not to hit is ok. With 10 average damage and Hitting on 11+ you then need a 16 to hit. Highly volatile and risky and often enough not worth it.

You should really have bless and or advantage to use that feat regularly. Otherwise you are a gambler in a favourable game... but still a gambler.

edit: breakpoint 13+ means after -5 you need an 18+ to hit. That means 15% chance or about 1 in 6. So you really want to roll 2 times on a d6 and only do damage if a 1 is rolled?

 

[shoak1]

On the other hand, the "full context" is all that matters to me.

I have never said the feat is overpowered in isolation.

My entire point is that the point of failure here is something completely understandable: namely the designer's inability to fully comprehend the ease with which a proficient minmaxer can utilize the feat, given the "full context" of the entire game.

And this has happened many many times before. So the real problem isn't even that this was not fully comprehended. After all, that is generally a very difficult insight to arrive at.

No, the real issue here is how flippantly the game offers a +10 per attack damage bonus at all. The designers should really have known better than that.

Their thought process really should have gone something like this:

- "Okay so isn't +10 too much?"
- "Well, I can't see how. The -5 part ensures you can only use it against the easiest targets."
- "I can't find a way to abuse it either..."
- "But just to be safe. Even though we can't find a way, probably the internet will, since they have repeatedly found things to abuse we didn't think to be abusable in the past"
- "I agree. +10 sounds like a cool benefit, but it's too risky. We'd better find something else."

Look CapnZapp, I line up w/you 90% on the feat issue, and would love to be proven wrong - but I think you are wrong on this. So please ponder, evaluate, and respond directly to this point and tell me what I am missing:
Except in EXTREME situations, there will always be 5 pips on the d20 that miss BECAUSE GWM is turned on - they might be DIFFERENT pips when you are buffed, but they are still misses directly as a result of turning GWM on. That means that regardless of buffs, you ALWAYS lose 25% of your standard average damage EVERY TIME you utilize this feat - BUFFS OR NO BUFFS. AND - you never gain more than your chance to hit x10 extra damage to begin with. The idea that buff mitigation somehow changes this is therefore, unless I am missing something, a fallacy.

Together, this means that on average, regardless of buffs, GWM gives you a maximum of +4 average damage, and even that is situational - namely when you are facing low ACs - otherwise it can be much lower or even more harmful to average damage.

 

[Ashrym]

There's an error in the basic premise that gets back to overkill as a limiter. Potential DPR is never realized unless it actually reduces the number of rounds ending combat or killing / defeating a creature.

It doesn't matter if a person does a theoretical ~20 DPR on an ogre via -5/+10 needing a 5 normally vs ~12 without because the fights don't have enough actual attacks going on for the law of large numbers to come into play and theoretical DPR is trumped by real DPR. Real DPR is capped by monster hp and overkill is lost.

IE. If it takes the party 3 rounds to drop 3 ogres the party DPR is 59 regardless of probability. In order for the feat to increase DPR it would need to decrease the number of rounds of combat regardless of an increase weapon damage even if the law of large numbers had an opportunity to take place. If the fighter adds 8 damage (needing around a 5 to hit per above) each round that 24 extra damage isn't enough that it encompasses one Ogre's worth of hit points and the party is likely still going to need 3 rounds to drop 3 Ogres for no real DPR increase.

Theoretical DPR increase from the feat is situational and largely an illusion based on an average that doesn't have a large enough sampling to be realized.