D&D 5E Tempest Cleric seems VERY strong

Shadowdweller00

Adventurer
Thing about clerics and melee: Clerics are full casters. They SHOULDN'T be able to compete with the melee damage of dedicated martial characters. That said, melee cleric divine strike is far better than a ribbon ability....it keeps melee damage scaling at cantrip level (better if the cleric invests in SCAG melee cantrips). Having such an option available allows melee-competant clerics to take advantage of magic weapons and common circumstantial modifiers that enhance melee attacks (such the prone condition).
 

log in or register to remove this ad

jgsugden

Legend
I'm not going to dispute that a level 11 paladin is doing more damage than a cleric in melee... buuuut your comparison/numbers are a bit dodgy

1: The haste spell. Can paladin haste themselves? Otherwise this isn't a fair comparison
Vengeance paladins can... which is why I specified them.
2: Great weapon mastery does *not* give you a flat out +10 damage. It reduces your chances of hitting, so your effective damage bonus is far less than 10. Furthermore there is the opportunity cost of taking a feat instead of an ASI. Lastly feats are optional - this will not be possible in every game.
The impact of the -5 to hit changes drastically based upon whether you have advantage, the AC of the enemy, etc... A level 11 paladin taking the -5 with advantage hits most foes appropriate for their level most of the time.

There were a lot of things I did not factor in completely.

Per earlier polling, a high percentage of games use feats.
 

CapnZapp

Legend
2: Great weapon mastery does *not* give you a flat out +10 damage. It reduces your chances of hitting, so your effective damage bonus is far less than 10. Furthermore there is the opportunity cost of taking a feat instead of an ASI. Lastly feats are optional - this will not be possible in every game.
But will be possible in many games. Let's face it - what player interested in DPS and optimization plays without feats, eh?

Anyway. What GWM does is give you a flat bonus of +10 to your base damage. To all your attacks. Which means that the character best suited to benefiting from this is the character with:
* many attacks
* that each deal comparatively little damage

The paladin is not that character, nor is the rogue. They make too few attacks, and they are able to deliver great base damage on their own (which makes the -5 not worth it).

The character you should play when you pick GWM is the fighter. Preferably a fighter that you can count on making four attacks each round at around 10th level, increasing from there.

Then, back to the +10 part. That it increases your base damage is fact. No miss chance in the world can change this.

So all you need to do to break this feat is... to not miss. This is actually easier to accomplish than you might think, and certainly easier in practical play than all those whiteroom DPR calculations would suggest.

First off, you absolutely need Advantage. I don't care from where. You don't use the -5/+10 part without it. Monk Stun? Faerie Fire? Monster shoved prone? Don't care how. It's the first and most basic party strategy, to consistently be able to produce advantage against the foes you attack. A party focussing its attacks on the foes that give them advantage, and only that, is already playing at another level than the naive party where each member fights his own personal battle.

Put bluntly, if it becomes your turn, and there is no foe which grants you advantage, it is your job to create one for your friends. Otherwise you're doing it wrong.

Then you need a way to turn near-misses into hits. One simple suggestion is to play a Battlemaster and use Precision maneuvers. Remember, you only need to spend one of these when you experience a near-miss. (Then feel free to enter things like Bless or Bardic Inspiration into the scenario if you like).

If you roll a "2", chances are adding something like a d8 will still miss, so write that off as a true miss.

If you roll a "1", well, you took the Lucky feat (or played a Halfling), right?

All in all, you should find that the -5 part that whiteroomers calculate as, what, a 40% drop in actual damage is hilariously inaccurate, and severely underestimates the power of the feat.

More likely is that half your rounds against AC 18 or lower you will hit will all your attacks, and you will enjoy the full +40 damage boost. (And note the aggressive AC value cited. I bet you the WotC designers thought the feat only useful against really low values of AC even at high levels...)

Since there is nothing else in the game that comes even close to that number, GWM is patently broken. At least in the hands of a competent minmaxer.

Then there's the SS/CE combo, which is even more broken, but that's another story.

Point is: don't waste GWM on characters with few high-damage attacks. Of course you will feel like the feat isn't all that good. Just a tip.
 

Ancalagon

Dusty Dragon
[MENTION=12731]CapnZapp[/MENTION] we may have had this debate before, and I remind you that you cannot compare "base attack" vs "GWM+advantage+whatever". You have to compare "base attack + advantage + ASI" to "GWM+advantage". When you do the math*, GWM is still worth it, and I concur that it probably is OP, but it is nowhere near as good as adding +10 to all damage.

*Do the math right, as in with an excel sheet with several AC scenarios etc etc. Flat 40% is wrong too.
 

jgsugden

Legend
?..Anyway. What GWM does is give you a flat bonus of +10 to your base damage. To all your attacks. Which means that the character best suited to benefiting from this is the character with:
* many attacks
* that each deal comparatively little damage

The paladin is not that character, nor is the rogue. They make too few attacks, and they are able to deliver great base damage on their own (which makes the -5 not worth it)...
While the fighter benefits most from the feat, paladins, barbarians, and other classes with access to multi-attack with big weapons benefit a lot. Many of them are making four or five attacks every round in major battles by the time they hit 12th level. For example, I've got a dwarf barbarian with a giant strength belt and a ring of spell storing that spent feats on sentinel, great weapon master, and fellhanded. In important battles he gets haste from the ring, bonus action attacks from the great weapon master (or frenzy - suboptimal but fun), as well as reaction attacks from sentinel. As of 14th, he also makes reaction attacks when he is attacked.
 

Yunru

Banned
Banned
[MENTION=12731]CapnZapp[/MENTION] we may have had this debate before, and I remind you that you cannot compare "base attack" vs "GWM+advantage+whatever". You have to compare "base attack + advantage + ASI" to "GWM+advantage". When you do the math*, GWM is still worth it, and I concur that it probably is OP, but it is nowhere near as good as adding +10 to all damage.

*Do the math right, as in with an excel sheet with several AC scenarios etc etc. Flat 40% is wrong too.
Don't bother. Several of such tables have been provided and simply dismissed.
 

Sacrosanct

Legend
[MENTION=12731]CapnZapp[/MENTION] we may have had this debate before, and I remind you that you cannot compare "base attack" vs "GWM+advantage+whatever". You have to compare "base attack + advantage + ASI" to "GWM+advantage". When you do the math*, GWM is still worth it, and I concur that it probably is OP, but it is nowhere near as good as adding +10 to all damage.

*Do the math right, as in with an excel sheet with several AC scenarios etc etc. Flat 40% is wrong too.

Yep. While the text of the feat says "+10 damage", you can't ignore the penalty to hit. So saying you get a +10 damage to all attacks is really flawed when you take it into context. I'll skip the detailed charts, but it can be easily illustrated at such:

Regular attack: hit 50% of the time for 10 damage when you hit. So your average damage per attack is 5 points (50% hit rate * 10 damage)
GWM: hit % goes down to 40%, but damage is 20 when you hit. Average damage per attack is 8 points. So "per attack", GWM only increases damage by 3 points.

The only way GWM increases damage by 10 per attack is if you hit 100% in both cases.
 

CapnZapp

Legend
Don't bother. Several of such tables have been provided and simply dismissed.
I have never seen a calculation that does what Ancalagon suggests.

Everytime the would-be statician stops at advantage, if even that. Nobody has included the crucial ability to turn misses into hits. (Somewhere about here, the statician gets butt-hurt and tries to derail the discussion with the classic "but then it isn't GWM that's OP, it's the combination" chestnut)

If you can point me to a "table" where the two following scenarios are compared, I'd be much obliged:

Case A: Joe the fighter making attacks with advantage, probably looking to hit on a 6 or better (before the -5 penalty). Includes GWM and some way to turn a miss into a hit (such as the ability to add a d10 to the attack roll, after seeing the roll). Depending on your mood, add or subtract Bless and/or Lucky.

Case B: Jim is an exact copy of Joe except he didn't take GWM, instead taking something that isn't +2 to Strength.
 

CapnZapp

Legend
Yep. While the text of the feat says "+10 damage", you can't ignore the penalty to hit.
I am not ignoring the penalty to hit.

I am saying that the feat does something unheard of: it increases the base damage of your ordinary attack by +10. That's HUGE.

Now all you need is to find a way around the -5 to hit, and you're set. trivial example: with a +3 greataxe you're more than halfway there*. (I don't say this because it's easy to find greataxes, but to prove my point: which is don't introduce a way to change regular attacks from, say, 1d12+5 to 1d12+15. That's nearly double the base damage. It's disruptive as hell)

*) With the ranged alternative, you ARE fully there. The +2 from Archery weapon style is hole-in-head levels of design stupidity....

End result: much higher damage than through any other single mechanic.
 
Last edited:

Sacrosanct

Legend
Now all you need is to find a way around the -5 to hit, and you're set. trivial example: with a +3 greataxe you're more than halfway there*. .

No, you're not, because if you are going to use a level playing field (and you must to have any sort of credible analysis), the person without GWM also gets a +3 axe, so you're still -5 apart. You seem to be missing the fundamental concept of how average damage per attack works. Hit% matters in the equation, and is part of the feat description.
 
Last edited:

Remove ads

Top