What makes Great Weapon Master and Sharpshooter so good?

[Ovinomancer]

Doing the math, a fighter of level 1 or 2 (so no archetypes to worry about) with GWM/GWF kills hobgoblins faster than one with TWF/TWF (feat and fighting style). It's close, but the GWM/GWF guy wins. He also beats the dual-wielder in killing goblins.

I'll come up with more specific math shortly.

I did that math, too. I got that GWM not power attacking vs Hobgoblins is a tad shy of 3% more effective (SEE EDIT 2). I don't think you'd notice it at the table at all. A power attacking GWM is about 3% worse, and again, I don't think you'd notice.

Vs Goblins, a power attacking GWM is about 25% less effective than a TWF, but a non power attacking GWM is about 15% more effective than the TWF at killing goblins.

This is a bit of a tricky comparison, and for simplicity I treated foes as either 100% healthy or 100% dead, so no carryover damage.

Method:
1. Determine likelihood of normal hit.
2. Determine likelihood of a normal hit killing foe.
3. Determine likelihood of critical hit killing foe.

For GMW:
4. Multiply 1X2 above and add to .05 x 3. This is the chance for the first swing to kill a foe.
5. Add the result of 4 to the square of 4. This is the chance that the first swing kills plus the chance the bonus swing kills.

For TWF:
6. Multiply 1 and 2 above and add to .05 time 3. This is the chance that a single hit in a round kills a foe.
7. Square 1. This is the chance that both attacks normally hit.
8. Multiply 1 times 0.05. This is the chance that one attack hits and one attack crits.
9. Square 0.05. This is the chance both attacks crit.
10. Determine the odds that damage from 7, 8, and 9 kill a foe. Multiply times their respective hit chances. Add together.
11. Add 10 to 6. This is the sum of the possible outcomes for both attacks to kill a foe.

Hmm. Just realized I failed to add in the chances for TWF to kill a foe with each attack. That will plus TWF up a bit, but not much.

EDIT: I was wrong, it brings TWF vs goblins into parity with GWM no power attack. This is due to the better than even chance to kill a goblin with 1d8+3. It does do very little with hobgoblins.

EDIT2: I also just realized I didn't account for GWF. That's makes GWM no power attack about 10% better than TWF vs hobgoblins and the same with goblins. Which makes sense, as GWF is about a 10% increase in damage output for 2d6 weapons (this actually varies based on flat bonus).

 

[guachi]

I gave up trying to account for hits that don't kill in a formula. I ended up running a program of 50 rounds attacking a goblin or a hobgoblin.

The results after 300 round is that TWF is slightly ahead. Initial calculations made it look the opposite, but so far it's TWF in the lead by about 5%. Though I will say the random trials are highly variable.

I suspect something like zombies are the best case scenario for GWM and maybe an ogre.

EDIT: Just to be clear, the only part of GWM that's really doing anything is the extra attack on dropping a foe to zero hp. Power attack is not used and critical hits have a miniscule effect versus goblins (.05%) and about 1% versus hobgoblins.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

My favorite version of Cleave is that surplus damage after dropping a foe can be applied to another enemy within reach. It's not quite as useful against small groups of large enemies, but it's great against large groups of chumps, and it doesn't require any extra dice to be rolled.

There is an optional rule in the DMG that allows exactly this if you take a foe from full damage to 0.

 

[CapnZapp]

The non-GWM fighter could also use those same tools to increase their hit and damage potential. Two weapon fighters would probably mow down the goblins at 1st level just about as quickly, while always getting a bonus attack and have a better chance of taking out that hobgoblin that shows up with their 18 AC.

Nobody is arguing that GWM is a bad feat. But there is a lot of hyperbole and exaggeration about how overpowered it is and that all other build pale in comparison to the overwhelming might of the all-powerful GWM. That if you play a fighter, the only viable options are GWM and SS and every other build is for losers. That DMs with PCs that have those feats can't set up encounters that can be a challenge.

Goblins have 7 hit points. ANY attack will kill them (since you need to roll a 1 on top of your +5 from ability to not to). They are hardly representative of monster enemies.

In fact, goblins are so inappropriate as example critters, I call it out: using them to play up the benefits of TWF is grossly mischaracterizing the relative worth of the various play styles. Anyone that does should simply not be trusted. Yes, a TWF fighter is a good goblin killer, but that does not matter in the least. The overwhelming majority of 5E monsters have much more hp than you can remove with a simple 1d8+5 attack.

GWM and SS create two tiers of martial characters. The ones that deal massive damage, and the ones that do not.

If you're happy doing significantly less damage than your ally, all is well, and this discussion is not for you. Of course, you should have no problem balancing the two since after all - damage is not important to you so you won't have any problems getting relatively more of it.

But if you're like many players, getting to be much less effective at your number one job (killing monsters) is not fun.

And if you have any sympathy for your fellow gamers you will agree these feats need fixing.

I am not accusing players who choose TWF to be losers. I WANT the rules to support TWFers and dagger throwers and spear chuckers. I am just being realistic when I say these concepts cannot compete in DPR which limits their attractiveness for far too many players, reducing variety for no good reason.

 

[Krachek]

The math's simple for the -5/+10 part. That's been solved years ago. That's not what I'm talking about. The question I'm dealing with is whether TWF/TWF is better than GWF/GWM killing lowly goblins and hobgoblins at level 1 or 2 where you'd never use the -5/+10 part because it's stupid to use it.

At level 1 with 16 in main stat, human variant.
Twf and dual wielded feat allows you +5 to hit 2d8+6 damage. Avg 15
Gwf and GWM give
+5 to hit 2d6+1+3. Avg 11. Assume +1 damage for gwf.

Vs AC 15, need 10 to hit.
0.55 x 15 8,25. Best option
0.55 x 11 6.05.
0.30 x 21 6.3 for -5/+10.

with advantage, assuming +5 if you need 10, and +4 if you need 15.
0.8 x 15 12
0.8 x 11 8.8
0.5 x 21 10.5 for -5/+10. Better, but still under twf. But if you kill the creature you get a bonus action attack. Doubling your damage per round.

for a combat vs goblin, gwf assuming kill out right , twf need roll 4 on d8 0.625. But even with gwf you can still miss the kill! And dont use -5/+10!
twf kill 0.64 goblin per round. 2x 0.625 x 0.55
Gwf kill 0.85 goblin per round. 0.55 + 0.55 x 0.55
On 10 rounds, gwf wins killing 8 goblin vs 6!

 

[Oofta]

Goblins have 7 hit points. ANY attack will kill them (since you need to roll a 1 on top of your +5 from ability to not to). They are hardly representative of monster enemies.

In fact, goblins are so inappropriate as example critters, I call it out: using them to play up the benefits of TWF is grossly mischaracterizing the relative worth of the various play styles. Anyone that does should simply not be trusted. Yes, a TWF fighter is a good goblin killer, but that does not matter in the least. The overwhelming majority of 5E monsters have much more hp than you can remove with a simple 1d8+5 attack.

GWM and SS create two tiers of martial characters. The ones that deal massive damage, and the ones that do not.

If you're happy doing significantly less damage than your ally, all is well, and this discussion is not for you. Of course, you should have no problem balancing the two since after all - damage is not important to you so you won't have any problems getting relatively more of it.

But if you're like many players, getting to be much less effective at your number one job (killing monsters) is not fun.

And if you have any sympathy for your fellow gamers you will agree these feats need fixing.

I am not accusing players who choose TWF to be losers. I WANT the rules to support TWFers and dagger throwers and spear chuckers. I am just being realistic when I say these concepts cannot compete in DPR which limits their attractiveness for far too many players, reducing variety for no good reason.

I wasn't the one who initially brought up goblins, I was responding to someone else. But I also think that the power of GWM is overstated, at least at the levels that most people attain. Maybe I'll fire up my version of a combat simulator later, it sounds like it's going to rain today anyway.

 

[Ovinomancer]

At level 1 with 16 in main stat, human variant.
Twf and dual wielded feat allows you +5 to hit 2d8+6 damage. Avg 15
Gwf and GWM give
+5 to hit 2d6+1+3. Avg 11. Assume +1 damage for gwf.

Vs AC 15, need 10 to hit.
0.55 x 15 8,25. Best option
0.55 x 11 6.05.
0.30 x 21 6.3 for -5/+10.

with advantage, assuming +5 if you need 10, and +4 if you need 15.
0.8 x 15 12
0.8 x 11 8.8
0.5 x 21 10.5 for -5/+10. Better, but still under twf. But if you kill the creature you get a bonus action attack. Doubling your damage per round.

for a combat vs goblin, gwf assuming kill out right , twf need roll 4 on d8 0.625. But even with gwf you can still miss the kill! And dont use -5/+10!
twf kill 0.64 goblin per round. 2x 0.625 x 0.55
Gwf kill 0.85 goblin per round. 0.55 + 0.55 x 0.55
On 10 rounds, gwf wins killing 8 goblin vs 6!

Your assumptions are offbase. The average damage on TWF isn't 15 unless both hit, and that chance isn't 2x.55. It's .55x.55, ie the chance the first hits times the chance the second hits. This incorrect assumption means your TWF calculations are off base. You need to find the chance that 1 attack out of 2 hits and kills (normal and crit) and then the chance of 1 normal hit and 1 crit, and then the chance of 2 normal hits, and then the chance of 2 normal crits. These are actually not small enough to not matter. The end result for TWF vs goblins is .86 goblins a round. GWM has similar errors, it's full GpR (goblin per round) with GWF is .95. Without GWF, it's statistically tied with TWF/TWS.

Also, advantage should never be assumed to be a flat increase. While at those two breakpoint and with the analysis you're running you aren't introducing too much error, in other analyses a flat bonus assumption will lead you astray.

 

[Ovinomancer]

I gave up trying to account for hits that don't kill in a formula. I ended up running a program of 50 rounds attacking a goblin or a hobgoblin.

The results after 300 round is that TWF is slightly ahead. Initial calculations made it look the opposite, but so far it's TWF in the lead by about 5%. Though I will say the random trials are highly variable.

I suspect something like zombies are the best case scenario for GWM and maybe an ogre.

EDIT: Just to be clear, the only part of GWM that's really doing anything is the extra attack on dropping a foe to zero hp. Power attack is not used and critical hits have a miniscule effect versus goblins (.05%) and about 1% versus hobgoblins.

So, zombies. 22 hitpoints. TWF has trouble with these if you're your looking at straight out kills, as TWF requires 2 hits for it to be possible. So you only have 2 normal hits, 1 crit 1 normal, and 2 crit cases to solve for.

2 normal hits is 2d8+6, or 2d8 needing a 16, so 0.016 chance of max damage roll.

1 normal 1 crit is 3d8+6. 3d8 needing a 16 or better is 0.316.

2 crit is 4d8+6 needing 16 or better or 0.701.

Hit chance for 2 hits vs AC 8 with +5 are:

2 normal .85x.85= .7225
1 normal 1 crit .85x.05 = .0425
2 crit = .05x.05 = .0025

Adding up its [0.016x0.7225] + [0.316 x 0.0425] + [0.701 x 0.0025] = 0.01156 + 0.001343 + 0.00175 = 0.0147. TWF is NOT doing a good job outright killing zombies.

GWF, on the other hand, is in it's perfect zone. -5/+10, need 13 or better to hit AC 8. Only considering a normal hit without a second attack or crit chance (because it wins right there), you have

Needs to roll 2d6+13 > 22 or 2d6 > 9. With GWF that's 0.494 chance. Multiple by chance of normal hit 0.35 and you get 0.173. That's already 10x greater than TWF. It get's lots worse adding crits and second attacks. Overall chance to kill a zombie is .272, or 18.5 time the 1 hit kill chance of TWF.

----------------

To me, the best fix for GWM is another OR. You can either get the cleaves OR power attack. If you cleave, you can't power attack same round, if you power attack, you can't cleave same round. Done.

 

[FrogReaver]

I gave up trying to account for hits that don't kill in a formula. I ended up running a program of 50 rounds attacking a goblin or a hobgoblin.

The results after 300 round is that TWF is slightly ahead. Initial calculations made it look the opposite, but so far it's TWF in the lead by about 5%. Though I will say the random trials are highly variable.

I suspect something like zombies are the best case scenario for GWM and maybe an ogre.

EDIT: Just to be clear, the only part of GWM that's really doing anything is the extra attack on dropping a foe to zero hp. Power attack is not used and critical hits have a miniscule effect versus goblins (.05%) and about 1% versus hobgoblins.

Did you factor in great weapon fighting style because it will significantly increase your chance of one shooting a goblin

 

[Ovinomancer]

Did you factor in great weapon fighting style because it will significantly increase your chance of one shooting a goblin

Yup. I was actually surprised at how much, but then, when I considered you're looking for a 4+ on 2d6, rerolling 1s and 2s is a noticable effect. The PDF for both is kind interesting.