D&D 5E Tempest Cleric seems VERY strong

[CapnZapp]

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.

I'm sure you agree that anytime you get accused of "missing the fundamental concept of how average damage per attack works" you'd leave that discussion, right?

Bye.

Sent from my C6603 using EN World mobile app

 

[Sacrosanct]

Hit% is a fundamental concept of how to calculate average damage (It's also part of the feat description). And you either are missing it (charitable interpretation), or are just ignoring it (the least charitable interpretation). It wasn't meant to be an insult. Not sure how else I could have worded it.

 

[Yunru]

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

Ah yes, dismissing valid complaints about your statement and then ignoring it. Just like I was saying.

 

[jgsugden]

Hit% is a fundamental concept of how to calculate average damage (It's also part of the feat description). And you either are missing it (charitable interpretation), or are just ignoring it (the least charitable interpretation). It wasn't meant to be an insult. Not sure how else I could have worded it.

To be fair, it depends upon how you define damage. Damage per attack, or damage per hit. We often look at DPR in terms of damage per attack, but the problem with that is that the chance to hit will have a lot of impacting variables that change considerably between games, character situations, etc... If a campaign uses the alternate 'flank = advantage' rules, advantage on most attacks can be assumed. If you don't, advantage may be rare. Also, the typical AC (and hp total) of enemies has to be factored into the equation - if you're fighting though an army of AC 18 hobgoblins, AC 15 trolls or AC 13 Orcs makes a huge difference. After all, you can't deal 30 damage to an enemy with only 7 hps.

As an example, I run a dwarven barbarian 14 / fighter 4 in one game. He consistently attacks at least 4 times per round and deals at least 25 damage per hit. He had a run of over 70 attacks in a row where he did not miss, even though he has NEVER attacked without using Great Weapon Master for -5/+10 (if it was possible to attack with it). There are just too many factors making sure he hits (reckless attacks, bard bonuses, rerolls, etc... ) For him, that feat is essentially 10 free damage per strike. Another PC, a fighter I played up to 9th level, had GWM from 1st level on, but often did not use it because enemies in that campaign were just too high in the AC department (the majority of the foes we faced were4 heavily armored). The impacts of that feat on damage for both of those characters was drastically different.

Regardless, Tempest Clerics usually don't get Haste attacks, often do not get reaction attacks (investing in mechanics that compete with the reaction ability you get at level 1 is not something many priests do), and only rarely get bonus action attacks - meaning that they generally get GWM damage bonuses on only the one strike they do. As they have an 8th level mechanic that bumps damage up for them, but only if they hit, the cost of using GWM is relatively higher than for a fighter without that bonus damage. Accordingly, although it is not a no-brainer, Tempest Clerics may find GWM to be an unwise investment.

 

[Sacrosanct]

I think when looking at something like GWM, you must be looking at average damage per attack, because the feat doesn't just give you a +10 bonus to damage. It also give you a penalty to hit. Therefore, you must factor that when evaluating the feat. It's part of the core formula. If you ignore that and say it adds a +10 bonus to damage on attacks (which is doesn't since not every attack hits), then you're not evaluating the feat accurately.

You could say, "It adds a +10 damage bonus to every attack that hits.", but that also misses the context of the entire feat, because it doesn't address the attack penalty part that makes those misses more frequent over a normal attack.

 

[jgsugden]

I think when looking at something like GWM, you must be looking at average damage per attack, because the feat doesn't just give you a +10 bonus to damage. It also give you a penalty to hit. Therefore, you must factor that when evaluating the feat. It's part of the core formula. If you ignore that and say it adds a +10 bonus to damage on attacks (which is doesn't since not every attack hits), then you're not evaluating the feat accurately.

You could say, "It adds a +10 damage bonus to every attack that hits.", but that also misses the context of the entire feat, because it doesn't address the attack penalty part that makes those misses more frequent over a normal attack.

I just addressed this concern. Any analysis of damage per attack has to establish chance to hit, and as this is highly varied from game to game, any such analysis is inherently limited or flawed. When you attack over 70 times in a row with GWM and never miss due to advantage, AC of enemies, ally bonuses, etc..., that is a free 10 damage per strike, essentially. When you miss by 5 or less on 25% of your attacks, there is a huge impact on your expected average damage.

And being honest, I did one of the most meaningful studies on GWM and found that it is SIGNIFICANTLY overrated, even for powerful PCs. Why? It really only matters if using the feat reduces the amount of resources a party uses up in a battle. Sometimes getting the benefit of the feat will not reduce the number of attacks required to fell an enemy. Even if it does delay it, the enemy might still fall before the PCs lose more hps or use more abilities that are limited. If the PCs use at will abilities, the fact that the monster may get an extra turn may not matter if the monster misses on an attack or a PC makes a save. Even when the DPR is increased by 6 per strike, that may not be a meaningful change.

 

[Sacrosanct]

I just addressed this concern. .

Oh, I know. I guess I was more reiterating what you said, rather than disagreeing. I think we're on the same page.

 

[CapnZapp]

Hit% is a fundamental concept of how to calculate average damage (It's also part of the feat description). And you either are missing it (charitable interpretation), or are just ignoring it (the least charitable interpretation). It wasn't meant to be an insult. Not sure how else I could have worded it.

Okay.

So did miss it? No. Did I ignore it? No.

I was talking about base damage. As in, a pure damage expression without taking hit probability into account.

Nearly doubling base damage is bad for a host of reasons.

Then, when we do add in hit probability, I would have you remember that I was talking about ways to negate/offset/minimize the -5 penalty.

Compared to the (much) lower base damage without the feat, it's not that you hit way more - it's that you don't have to work so hard to score your hits.

But you know what? With that high of a base damage, the extra work is worth it.

You could almost say Bardic Inspiration or Precision Attack (or whatever) is overpowered. With such a very high base damage, that is.

But that risks losing track of the real culprit: the feat. If you couldn't get so high base damage in the first place, we wouldn't discuss Bardic Inspiration now.

So the single thing this tactic relies on, is GWM. Remove that, and remove the abusive imbalance to the game.

 

[CapnZapp]

Ah yes, dismissing valid complaints about your statement and then ignoring it. Just like I was saying.

Hang on, I didn't know you were that statistician. There is no reason for you to feel targeted. You haven't even shown me your "tables"!

 

[CapnZapp]

I think when looking at something like GWM, you must be looking at average damage per attack, because the feat doesn't just give you a +10 bonus to damage. It also give you a penalty to hit. Therefore, you must factor that when evaluating the feat. It's part of the core formula. If you ignore that and say it adds a +10 bonus to damage on attacks (which is doesn't since not every attack hits), then you're not evaluating the feat accurately.

You could say, "It adds a +10 damage bonus to every attack that hits.", but that also misses the context of the entire feat, because it doesn't address the attack penalty part that makes those misses more frequent over a normal attack.

And I'm saying that once you hit, you hit.

Everybody just ignores "excessive hittage"!!!!!!!!!

Looking at some bleedin' simplistic average is child's play, goddangit!

Why don't you read. my. actual. words and put them into practice and see for yourself.

A -5 to hit means diddley squat if you hit anyway, and 5e offers several ways of doing just that!

You can't evaluate GWM in isolation. You must take the uncanny way players say "A miss. Don't think so!" into account, Sacrosanct.

In fact, all those abilities become much more valuable the higher the base damage.


That is why I call any calculation that just computes the average DPR not worth the pixels on the screen, unless it includes something like "Oh, I missed, but only barely - let's add 1d8 to my attack result and see if that doesn't help".


But I'm not holding my breath - I notice it's the same old group of naysayers that question my arguments, over and over again. What I would give for a fresh set of posters to discuss with!