D&D 5E Tempest Cleric seems VERY strong

[CapnZapp]

Well then, let's post some tables.

SCENARIO: Level 11 barbarian with a +2 great axe. With the feat, his strength will be 18. Without, it will be 20, so there is an opportunity cost to taking the feat. This is not a "Made up" example. This is an actual character used in play (Lal Qualandar, in the Al Qadim game that [MENTION=20323]Quickleaf[/MENTION] is running).

please stand by as I find a way to post the table.
View attachment 87078

edit: I believe it should be now visible in jpg mode. Please note that the table doesn't take into account critical hits. I readily admit that there is no "turn a near miss into a hit!" feature, but I'll also note that there is no easy way for this character to actually achieve this - he is not a battle master and there is no bard in the party either.

Okay I'm at my computer now... but I really don't know what to say. "Cool character, bro" perhaps?

I'm afraid that if you want to make a case that GWM isn't "all that", you need to create a character that uses the feat in an optimal way (or close to it, anyway), yet derives not so much benefit that we can call the feat overpowered.

The argument isn't "the feat is overpowered to Greenhorn Sue or Average Joe", after all. The argument is that "for a player knowing what he's doing, the -5/+10 mechanism is too abusable, too strong. Since there aren't any alternate means to similar amounts of damage, this leads to every damage-focussed martial PC looking the same, which reduces variability and choice. The feat needs to be removed."

Feel free to make a new attempt where the character we're trying to study is a Battlemaster Fighter with the Precision Maneuver (and the Lucky and GWM feats) and that the monster has Fairie Fire applied to it*.
*) you could equally well say the monster is prone, or that it his monk-stunned, or anything else granting us advantage really

As for the monster's AC, let's begin at a soft AC 15. We can easily redo the calculations at AC 18 later. We won't assume any magical bonuses at this point.

 

[Sacrosanct]

Just wanted to remind you you're quoting yourself at this point, Sacrosanct.

If you have an actual question for me, could I ask that you restate it so we don't have to jump back through multiple quotes? Thank you.

No question. Just an observation that you keep telling people you aren't going to respond to them anymore, then immediately start quoting them again.

As my grandpa used to always say, "Sh** or get off the pot."

 

[Yunru]

What? No. I said:

To which you replied the following, as if you were that statician:



Again: the analysis hasn't even started. Each time I dismiss a calculation, telling the statician to take BOTH advantage and bard inspiration (etc) into account, the discussion gets derailed into butthurtness.

All you're doing at this point Yunru is proving my point - that no naysayer is capable of taking the analysis to the level where I'm at, the level where you clearly see GWM as abusable-as-heck.

Now if you would excuse me, I have more important things to do.

Right there. You even quote it.
"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"

It doesn't matter if you've started the analysis or not - the analysis is pointless because your ommiting anything that doesn't support your argument.

Such as the cost of getting those boosts that you trivialize. Such as Bless. Bless takes an action to cast, costing an action's worth of damage which must be subtracted. But nope, that's off topic enough to be "derailing".

 

[jgsugden]

That's too generic of an answer for me.

I think we'd better go our separate ways. I don't think your conclusions have any bearing on people like me.

Have a nice day.

Right, anything that does not match your initial conclusion is useless to you.

I agree that we should go our separate ways. Let's both add each other to our ignore lists.

 

[CapnZapp]

Right, anything that does not match your initial conclusion is useless to you.

Actually, your stance, that damage increases lack value because they *might* not change anything. And also how you use that stance specifically against a single feat. And not all the other ways to add points of damage.

It's... It's... completely baffling. That's all I'm prepared to say concerning on this subject.




Sent from my C6603 using EN World mobile app

 

[CapnZapp]

Right there. You even quote it.
"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"

It doesn't matter if you've started the analysis or not - the analysis is pointless because your ommiting anything that doesn't support your argument.

Such as the cost of getting those boosts that you trivialize. Such as Bless. Bless takes an action to cast, costing an action's worth of damage which must be subtracted. But nope, that's off topic enough to be "derailing".

Actually the big omission so far is actual use data on the combination I've outlined.

I claim this makes the average damage increase come much closer to the theoretical base damage than anyone so far has been ready to admit.

Regarding the *use* of those "enablers" as we could call them:
* it seems nobody is complaining about the advantage. That's something I guess.
* regarding the Bardic Inspiration (or Precision Maneuver etc) it obviously makes it nova numbers. But how often do you actually have to use up an enabler? That's an interesting tidbit we'll never learn unless we actually get some data.

My talk about base damage was meant to explain that these enablers are generally uncontroversial on their own. Why? Because generally they enable only a regular hit. (Bard's got it better since he can make sure a Sneak Attack hits) Now, however, we *double* their latent potential.

In the end it boils down to this: any time you see a Fighter dishing out +40 damage in a round despite missing one attack, you too will start flailing around for the banhammer.

There simply isn't anything else like it. The only thing that made GWM fly under the radar was how relatively complicated the math is.

The combo was too deeply buried. Much like the infamous Sorlock, I'd imagine. WotC aren't infallible.

Had there been half a dozen other ways to add +40 DPR to your nova rounds, this wouldn't be anything special.

But nothing suggests that was intended or desired. Everything suggests it is unbalanced as it overshadows other damage builds.

Sent from my C6603 using EN World mobile app

 

[Ganymede81]

How about we just eliminate all feats that give extra attacks and damage? That works for me.

 

[Ancalagon]

Ok. So let's dig up another PC then - we aren't going to use made up examples (baring the fact that all PCs are made up...) but one that was intended for play. Alas, Rodrigo di Castalone never saw play, but he exists. He was meant as a rapier fighter however, but whatever, out with the rapier, in with the greatsword, out with the dex, in with the strenght. As requested, he does not have a magical weapon (interestingly, Rodrigo was obsessed about finding a magical blade...)

Rodrigo is level 7. Featless Rodrigo has 20 strength, while GWM Rodrigo has strength 18 - there is an opportunity cost here. So let's do this in steps (easier to manage attachments), and first compare Featless Rodrigo damage vs GWM Rodrigo without any special maneuvers. To make my life easier, I've used a smaller spread of AC values, but it's still illustrative.

As you can see, it's *okay-ish*, at best. The lack of magical weapon is really telling here. But precision should help here! Stay tune for the results of that.

P.S. please note that this once again ignores critical hits

 

[Ancalagon]

So for this next table I calculate the impact of using a precision battlemaster maneuvre on an attack done with GWM. And it looks like [MENTION=12731]CapnZapp[/MENTION] is correct, it *realllly* makes a big difference:



BUT if we stop here, we will make a very common error that CapnZapp is making - we are not comparing the same things! Featless Rodrigo, does he too not have maneuvers! Oh snap! Stay tuned for more data!

 

[Ancalagon]

Here we are, the final countdown.

So featless Rodrigo whent "wait a minute, I have maneuvers too! Ha-ya!". But instead of using precision - he already is pretty good at hitting - he decided to use a maneuver that gives him *damage*. And well... suddenly GWM isn't so awesome anymore. I mean it's still decent, but it's not that stark.



It's also worth noting that several of the damaging maneuvers only have to be declared when you hit - so there is no chance of a "wasted" maneuver dice. A precision maneuver may fail (ie you need 3 more to hit but you roll a 2 on your d8). Furthermore, several of the damaging maneuvers also can impose negative conditions on the target - fear, being tripped etc.

At this point someone may say "but what if GWM Rodrigo uses precision and damaging maneuvers!" OR a bard inspiration, the luck feat etc etc etc. Sure. But you always have to compare that to featless Rodrigo *also* using more maneuvers, bard juice etc etc etc. And that is THE FREAKING ELEMENT that seems to be always missing from these analysis - we need to compare like with like. First people were comparing base attacks to GWM + advantage. I showed that if both had advantage, the difference wasn't so great. Then other bonuses got piled on - but again, if you compare PROPERLY it's not such a big difference.