Menu
News
All News
Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
Pathfinder
Starfinder
Warhammer
2d20 System
Year Zero Engine
Industry News
Reviews
Dragon Reflections
Columns
Weekly Digests
Weekly News Digest
Freebies, Sales & Bundles
RPG Print News
RPG Crowdfunding News
Game Content
ENterplanetary DimENsions
Mythological Figures
Opinion
Worlds of Design
Peregrine's Next
RPG Evolution
Other Columns
From the Freelancing Frontline
Monster ENcyclopedia
WotC/TSR Alumni Look Back
4 Hours w/RSD (Ryan Dancey)
The Road to 3E (Jonathan Tweet)
Greenwood's Realms (Ed Greenwood)
Drawmij's TSR (Jim Ward)
Community
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Resources
Wiki
Pages
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Downloads
Latest reviews
Search resources
EN Publishing
Store
EN5ider
Adventures in ZEITGEIST
Awfully Cheerful Engine
What's OLD is NEW
Judge Dredd & The Worlds Of 2000AD
War of the Burning Sky
Level Up: Advanced 5E
Events & Releases
Upcoming Events
Private Events
Featured Events
Socials!
Twitch
YouTube
Facebook (EN Publishing)
Facebook (EN World)
Twitter
Instagram
TikTok
Podcast
Features
Top 5 RPGs Compiled Charts 2004-Present
Adventure Game Industry Market Research Summary (RPGs) V1.0
Ryan Dancey: Acquiring TSR
Q&A With Gary Gygax
D&D Rules FAQs
TSR, WotC, & Paizo: A Comparative History
D&D Pronunciation Guide
Million Dollar TTRPG Kickstarters
Tabletop RPG Podcast Hall of Fame
Eric Noah's Unofficial D&D 3rd Edition News
D&D in the Mainstream
D&D & RPG History
About Morrus
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
Great Weapon Mastery - once more into the breach! (with math)
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="CapnZapp" data-source="post: 7199010" data-attributes="member: 12731"><p>Back at a real computer. Again thanks for this thread, A.</p><p></p><p>I too was annoyed few people were doing a proper analysis. All I ever saw was superficial calculations where people "found" that the -5 negated much of the damage increase (on average), except against low AC opponents. That in itself might not be so bad, except it triggered them to denounce the complaints against the feat as mistaken. "The feat isn't overpowered at all". </p><p></p><p>But that assumes a newbie approach. As with every game element, the proper evaluation is done at the extremes. Designing for the average case is easy, but it certainly is not good enough. Only by taking the extreme cases into (at least some account) will you have a shot at catching abusive combos. </p><p></p><p><a href="https://sugoru.com/2013/07/14/designing-for-the-extremes/" target="_blank">https://sugoru.com/2013/07/14/designing-for-the-extremes/</a></p><p><a href="http://www.open.edu/openlearn/science-maths-technology/engineering-and-technology/design-and-innovation/design/people-centred-designing/content-section-5" target="_blank">http://www.open.edu/openlearn/science-maths-technology/engineering-and-technology/design-and-innovation/design/people-centred-designing/content-section-5</a></p><p><a href="https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/story-why-you-should-design-average-pierre-austruy" target="_blank">https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/story-why-you-should-design-average-pierre-austruy</a></p><p><a href="https://www.pixelspoke.com/blog/design/designing-for-the-extremes/" target="_blank">https://www.pixelspoke.com/blog/design/designing-for-the-extremes/</a></p><p></p><p>This doesn't mean I'm advocating leaving the average user behind. Just the simple observation that a feat that works for the poweruser is also very likely to satisfy the average user. For instance, had GWM been properly designed in the first place, I'm sure very few of you would have cause for complaint. In other words, very few of you are really defending the current implementation of GWM. You're mostly <em>resisting the change in itself</em>.</p><p></p><p>But GWM only works for the average user. For the extreme user, it narrows the path to great DPS to such an extent you pretty much MUST get the feat, and you MUST use a compatible weapon. No longer does dual-wielding compete, for instance. </p><p></p><p>Compare to the featless game, where most if not all weapon combos remain "viable", meaning "not painfully removed from top-of-class DPS".</p><p></p><p>---</p><p></p><p>Anyway. </p><p></p><p>The deepest the analyses went was with the addition of advantage. But this too is not looking at the feat like a powergamer. </p><p></p><p>A powergamer notices that GWM allows something pretty unique: a +10 increase of the <strong>base damage</strong>, the average damage before you multiply with a hit probability.</p><p></p><p>If advantage can (roughly) be said to counteract the -5 part of the feat, the problem remains that the feat is only mathematically useful against low(ish) AC opponents. </p><p></p><p><strong>If only there were a way to effectively lower the AC even more...</strong></p><p></p><p>And, of course, a powergamer finds a way. Bardic Inspiration. Precision Maneuvers. There are more.</p><p></p><p>This work like this: you hit, you do nothing. You miss by a relatively small amount, you use this power to turn a miss into a hit. You miss by much (such as when you roll a 2), you accept that miss.</p><p></p><p>Superiority dice are balanced on the assumption the base damage is not high. In other words, the designers assume you don't have smite damage or sneak damage. But there's another way to increase the base damage - yes, GWM!</p><p></p><p>So while 1d8 to attack and 1d8 to damage is roughly similar for a base damage of, say, 1d10+5, it is certainly not for a base damage of 1d10+15. In this latter case, 1d8 to attack is better than 1d8 to damage.</p><p></p><p>And it is exactly this element that never before was analysed properly. You could of course listen to the play experience of me and others, where we tell you that each round where the Battlemaster Fighter deals all 40 damage on top of the expected difference between a GWM fighter and a sword'n'board fighter is an indication of a broken feat. But some doggedly insisted on a proper math example.</p><p></p><p>And so... this thread. I'll go look for your final analysis post now Ancalagon.</p><p></p><p>Just a few FAQ's.</p><p></p><p>"There's no such problem in my game". Great. But we're not discussing your game. This discussion postulates that the GWM feat is broken and that WotC should replace it for everybody in the next printing of the Player's Handbook.</p><p></p><p>"White room nonsense". If you don't like math analysis, then let me tell you my players have conclusively shown the feat to be abusible. Either trust me or trust the math.</p><p></p><p>"The designers wouldn't make a mistake". BWAH-HA-HAA</p><p></p><p>"It isn't big enough of a problem for me wanting a change." Great. But if the feat WAS fixed, you would very likely not have a problem with that version either, so let's settle on something that works for both of us!</p><p></p><p>"I resist change and am reflexively conservative" Thank you for being so honest and forthcoming. But your stance never leads to progress, so excuse me if I ignore you. Thank you.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="CapnZapp, post: 7199010, member: 12731"] Back at a real computer. Again thanks for this thread, A. I too was annoyed few people were doing a proper analysis. All I ever saw was superficial calculations where people "found" that the -5 negated much of the damage increase (on average), except against low AC opponents. That in itself might not be so bad, except it triggered them to denounce the complaints against the feat as mistaken. "The feat isn't overpowered at all". But that assumes a newbie approach. As with every game element, the proper evaluation is done at the extremes. Designing for the average case is easy, but it certainly is not good enough. Only by taking the extreme cases into (at least some account) will you have a shot at catching abusive combos. [url]https://sugoru.com/2013/07/14/designing-for-the-extremes/[/url] [url]http://www.open.edu/openlearn/science-maths-technology/engineering-and-technology/design-and-innovation/design/people-centred-designing/content-section-5[/url] [url]https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/story-why-you-should-design-average-pierre-austruy[/url] [url]https://www.pixelspoke.com/blog/design/designing-for-the-extremes/[/url] This doesn't mean I'm advocating leaving the average user behind. Just the simple observation that a feat that works for the poweruser is also very likely to satisfy the average user. For instance, had GWM been properly designed in the first place, I'm sure very few of you would have cause for complaint. In other words, very few of you are really defending the current implementation of GWM. You're mostly [I]resisting the change in itself[/I]. But GWM only works for the average user. For the extreme user, it narrows the path to great DPS to such an extent you pretty much MUST get the feat, and you MUST use a compatible weapon. No longer does dual-wielding compete, for instance. Compare to the featless game, where most if not all weapon combos remain "viable", meaning "not painfully removed from top-of-class DPS". --- Anyway. The deepest the analyses went was with the addition of advantage. But this too is not looking at the feat like a powergamer. A powergamer notices that GWM allows something pretty unique: a +10 increase of the [B]base damage[/B], the average damage before you multiply with a hit probability. If advantage can (roughly) be said to counteract the -5 part of the feat, the problem remains that the feat is only mathematically useful against low(ish) AC opponents. [B]If only there were a way to effectively lower the AC even more...[/B] And, of course, a powergamer finds a way. Bardic Inspiration. Precision Maneuvers. There are more. This work like this: you hit, you do nothing. You miss by a relatively small amount, you use this power to turn a miss into a hit. You miss by much (such as when you roll a 2), you accept that miss. Superiority dice are balanced on the assumption the base damage is not high. In other words, the designers assume you don't have smite damage or sneak damage. But there's another way to increase the base damage - yes, GWM! So while 1d8 to attack and 1d8 to damage is roughly similar for a base damage of, say, 1d10+5, it is certainly not for a base damage of 1d10+15. In this latter case, 1d8 to attack is better than 1d8 to damage. And it is exactly this element that never before was analysed properly. You could of course listen to the play experience of me and others, where we tell you that each round where the Battlemaster Fighter deals all 40 damage on top of the expected difference between a GWM fighter and a sword'n'board fighter is an indication of a broken feat. But some doggedly insisted on a proper math example. And so... this thread. I'll go look for your final analysis post now Ancalagon. Just a few FAQ's. "There's no such problem in my game". Great. But we're not discussing your game. This discussion postulates that the GWM feat is broken and that WotC should replace it for everybody in the next printing of the Player's Handbook. "White room nonsense". If you don't like math analysis, then let me tell you my players have conclusively shown the feat to be abusible. Either trust me or trust the math. "The designers wouldn't make a mistake". BWAH-HA-HAA "It isn't big enough of a problem for me wanting a change." Great. But if the feat WAS fixed, you would very likely not have a problem with that version either, so let's settle on something that works for both of us! "I resist change and am reflexively conservative" Thank you for being so honest and forthcoming. But your stance never leads to progress, so excuse me if I ignore you. Thank you. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
Great Weapon Mastery - once more into the breach! (with math)
Top