No, I think there's lots of room for questions. It's a new way to look at the problem. I probably didn't explain it perfectly clearly.
However, if you're asking what the fighter builds compared are, that's both discussed and then very clear stat line are provided that answer the question.
Well, this is literally wrong because I did answer multiple questions, from you, about these posts. The second to last was if I included the extra attack from GWM. As I had explicitly discussed this, I both answered your question in the affirmative and pointed you to the post. Your second question, however, was about a clearly answered issue in the same post you both quoted and were pointed to in the previous response. At that point it became clear that you either didn't read even at the skim level (the builds are line separated and have STR in capital letters) or you'd forgotten and would rather make me repeat the information rather than refresh your understanding. Neither are jobs I will do.
I believe that you did not -- the questions you asked prior to the one on GWM and the builds indicated that you didn't grasp the core set of assumptions, nor did you read the part about the frequency assumption where I explicitly discussed how I arrived at 6 by taking the assumption you provided in an earlier response. If I was unwilling to discuss, how did that discussion take place?
No, acceptable answers are not to do extra work because you're asking a question clearly answered in a post you had quoted not two posts prior. Again, if you're not going to be bothered, I'm not on the hook to spoonfeed you. You can click back as easily as I. I've already provided the information. And, had you looked for it the first time I pointed back to my post rather than start this pointless whinging about how I'm not spoonfeeding you, then you'd have had to scroll up about 4-5 posts to find the post where you quoted my post to begin with. I mean, if it were pages prior, or not part of the immediate back and forth we were already having, you might have a point. As it is, you've decided that it's your hill to die on that you cannot be bothered to find basic information clearly presented in a post you yourself had just quoted. At that level of response, I'm perfectly happy telling you to find the information yourself.
I think you are the one dying on a hill. I asked 1 yes or no question. It shouldn't have turned into whatever this is even if that information was clearly in one of your previous posts. It should have been a quick yes or no and move on. Why you stubbed up on that one question I will never know. The only reason I can assume is that you felt the question was in bad faith, but let me assure you - it was not.
Now, that said I agree there's a point when someone is making unreasonable demands on another and you don't need to engage with those demands - but a single yes or no question doesn't cross that line - especially when someone is telling you they want to understand your position better.
I think going around and around on this isn't beneficial for us or the forum and so let's drop it. I know nothing you have said is going to convince me that someone refusing to answer a single yes or no question like the one I asked was justified. I doubt I'm going to convince you that it wasn't. I doubt anyone else wants to hear anymore about it. So let's agree to disagree?
In the meantime, that post shows that the difference GWM makes is around 4 DPR, almost all of which comes from the extra attack ability. This shows that the effective portion of GWM isn't the power attack option, but the extra attack. This largely upends the usual discussion about GWM and DPR, leaving only the extra attack viable from that analysis.
Sure, I'm willing to jump in and start discussing from this point
So there's 3 portions of GWM
1. -5/+10
2. Bonus action attack on a crit
3. Bonus action attack when you kill in an enemy.
Point 2 alone is about a 10% increase in DPR for a 2 attack fighter. Of note is that point 3 is ignored in nearly all GWM DPR discussions. Then there's the overkill part of the discussion.
(Note: I'm thinking through the problem here and you probably have already calculated some of these values)
So we need to establish what the DPR overkill effect is without GWM
We need need to establish what the DPR is with each portion of the feat both with and without overkill
The also need to factor in any diminishing returns or increasing returns when combining the parts of the feat together (also with overkill)
If I understand you correctly you are taking the -5/+10 part of the feat and applying all overkill damage towards that portion of the feat and then applying the bonus action attack on kill portion independently. Please correct me if I am wrong.
I am suggesting we apply overkill against the bonus action when you kill an enemy part of the feat. Overkill and that effect both happen at the same time and that effect more than offsets overkill and also provide some extra damage. In which case overkill doesn't impact GWM because it has a point never factored into DPR discussions that actually more than fully negates it.
I guess it would matter if your looking at a GWM fighter that uses -5/+10 and one that has the feat but doesn't. That's another part of the reason I was trying to establish what you were talking about.
