D&D 5E Great Weapon Mastery - once more into the breach! (with math)

[Datalore]

Look, like I said, we are talking past each other. So. See ya later. Go do your homework.

 

[Yunru]

Look, like I said, we are talking past each other. So. See ya later. Go do your homework.

You see, this is my point.
You've made a claim, back it up.
But you won't. (Because you can't?)
Instead anyone who challenges that point "doesn't get it" or is "talking past you."

 

[Datalore]

I already supported my claim. You do not wish to see any value in my statements and instead use specious reasoning, vague statements, or poor insults to back up your "points." Your unwillingness to listen was evident when called my post spam. Why should I keep trying to speak with you? Like I said, we are talking past each other. Frankly, you were talking past me in your first post.

So, let's just drop it. I have a game to prepare for. Bye.

 

[Yunru]

Let's break this down.

I already supported my claim.

With what? The existence of a thread about a single feat? That supports your claim of "your better off with feats or multiclassing"?

and instead use specious reasoning, vague statements,

Specious reasoning such as "of all feats and multiclasses there's only about three that get talked about as degenerate, all of which are highly contested"?

or poor insults to back up your "points."

You mean such as "Enjoy your Polearm Master whatever or your Sentinel whatever". No no, the wuoted statement more accurately applies to yourself good sir.

Your unwillingness to listen was evident when called my post spam.

You mean when you repeated the same information rephrased without adding anything new? Yeah, that's a pretty accurate example of spam. I find it ironic you talk of an unwillingness to listen given any point you don't like your only response has basically been "yeah, whatever."

 

[Datalore]

Yeah, whatever

 

[Yunru]

Yeah, whatever

Thank you for the perfect example of what I'm on about.

 

[Ganymede81]

I have no clue why you guys are working from a chart of values when you can simply solve the system algebraically with a ratio.

That ratio is this: D/H = 30, where D is the average expected damage-per-hit before feat/stat bumps, and H is the the decimal chance to hit before feat/stat bumps. If the quotient is less than 30, GWM is better. If the quotient is greater than 30, +2 Str is better.

Y'all make things so complicated.

 

[FrogReaver]

I have no clue why you guys are working from a chart of values when you can simply solve the system algebraically with a ratio.

That ratio is this: D/H = 30, where D is the average expected damage-per-hit before feat/stat bumps, and H is the the decimal chance to hit before feat/stat bumps. If the quotient is less than 30, GWM is better. If the quotient is greater than 30, +2 Str is better.

Y'all make things so complicated.

Is your method able to tell us how much better?

 

[cbwjm]

I have no clue why you guys are working from a chart of values when you can simply solve the system algebraically with a ratio.

That ratio is this: D/H = 30, where D is the average expected damage-per-hit before feat/stat bumps, and H is the the decimal chance to hit before feat/stat bumps. If the quotient is less than 30, GWM is better. If the quotient is greater than 30, +2 Str is better.

Y'all make things so complicated.

Not all of us are clued up on algebra to the point where we would know to do this.

 

[FrogReaver]

It may be forgiving, but even if going non optimal, the use of feats and m/c still leads to a party with homogenized abilities and stale gameplay.

This is a common issue in classless systems which people wrongly assume will lead to more unique characters. Instead, you end up with characters that play very similarly.

The strength of class based systems is in setting limits on what a character can do to promote party diversity.

5e does a great job of allowing choices in chargen with archetypes and races. Those keep party members varied while giving them choice. If you add in m/c and feats, characters start to define themselves by low level dipped abilities or cheesy feats rather than by their class.

The best evidence of this is this thread. A huge debate over a single feat. This feat defines martial characters in some ways more than the bulk of their class abilities. Those who count themselves amongst the best martial characters are those whose class abilities synergize best with this one feat. But, ultimately, all martial characters using this will play pretty similarly.

If you take the feat away, all these characters will end up relying much more on their class abilities and this results in more dynamic play.

I agree with the general premise. Though, the same argument can be made about stats and weapon choice and so on and so forth.

I do agree that 5e has a few feats wrong but if it wasn't those feats it likely would have just been the next best feat we are having this discussion about.

I think 5e multiclassing is about right, though definitely not perfect (warlock dips exist and all). You typically sacrifice a lot even for a small dip in a class. It's hard to find anything that's a must have multiclass at any particular level unless we are talking about level 11+ and not expecting to play to level 20 or much past it.

I think feats are more problematic because of how they were designed. Stat bumps also have that same kind of issue IMO. Since class abilities aren't gated behind a group of abilities some better and some worse than another group of abilities instead you see the same kinds of characters choosing the same feats a lot because they deem them mechanically powerful for their goal.

In general I wouldn't say feats need removed. Perhaps ASI and feat choices should be a little more restricted than the total freedom we have now. That would solve the diversity problem you are talking about I think