D&D 5E When to turn on Great Weapon Master

[shoak1]

It is even more. It is not as easy as 1+1=2 but we are talking about statistics. The important thing to know about statistic is that you can only make good calculation if you have more than a single attack roll. The more rolls you do, the better your estimations. And all those estimations are only correct if over all those rolls the conditions don't change. And then we are back on the thing you pointed out.
If for example you only hit with a 16 or more, even if the average damage would increase over 10 rounds, it is still a gamble each round. It is betting to toll a 4 on a d4 and only deal damage if you roll it. Even with advantage that will result in a lot of tounds where you don't hit.
And each round it is the same chance.
If you think your chance to hit increases if you didn't hit for a while that is gamer's fallacy.
So you point is important. You never stand toe to toe with an enemy and just trade hits. At least at our tables.

Again all you do is point out fantasy scenarios. Who would even consider turning on GWM needing a 16? If you want to make a point, give a real-world non-extreme example that illustrates the 50% of the equation I am "missing".

It seems you are more focused on making a statistics point than you are in actually examining the validity of THIS particular use of statistics. I know about how not hitting for a while doesn't change the odds on the next roll - but I don't contend that if you haven't hit in a while that you are "due" and therefore should turn GWM on.....so why bring it up? Yes, I know about reliability, but we are talking about a group of heroes fighting over several rounds - so what does it have to do with THIS discussion?

 

[shoak1]

Yep. Math isn't subjective, but a pretty big chuck of RPG combat certainly is because it involves people who make decisions. Last time I checked, people don't play D&D in a computer arena where there are no other factors involved. And anytime you involve subjectivity into an equation, the WHOLE equation becomes subjective.

Absolutely wrong. Imagine you are buying a car and are looking at comparative mpg for the vehicles. Do you throw out the whole estimation/comparison because
1) OMG! What if I use the a/c - that would totally change the mpg!!!!
2) Well just because the average car of that model gets x mpg doesn't mean MINE will!
3) It's only HALF the equation - what is the standard deviation and reliability of their estimation?
4) What if I attach a unicorn to the back of my car and cast HASTE on it? So much for your "average mpg" lol!!!

Your arguments are missing the forest because your looking at the trees guys. Jump down off the esoteric podium and realize there is value in establishing a target number for GWM based on extra damage vs decreased likelihood of a hit.

 

[shoak1]

Yep. Math isn't subjective, but a pretty big chuck of RPG combat certainly is because it involves people who make decisions. Last time I checked, people don't play D&D in a computer arena where there are no other factors involved. And anytime you involve subjectivity into an equation, the WHOLE equation becomes subjective.

Absolutely wrong. Imagine you are buying a car and are looking at comparative mpg for the vehicles. Do you throw out the whole estimation/comparison because

1) OMG! What if I use the a/c - that would totally change the mpg!!!!
2) Well just because the average car of that model gets x mpg doesn't mean MINE will!
3) It's only HALF the equation - what is the standard deviation and reliability of their estimation?
4) What if I attach a unicorn to the back of my car and cast HASTE on it? So much for your "average mpg" lol!!!
5) Driving involves real world people making real world decisions - what if I drive w/my foot on the break all day?

Your arguments are missing the forest because your looking too closely at the trees guys. Jump down off the esoteric podium and realize there is value in establishing a target number for GWM based on extra damage vs decreased likelihood of a hit. Just like there is value in estimated mpg for vehicles.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

Again all you do is point out fantasy scenarios. Who would even consider turning on GWM needing a 16? If you want to make a point, give a real-world non-extreme example that illustrates the 50% of the equation I am "missing".

It seems you are more focused on making a statistics point than you are in actually examining the validity of THIS particular use of statistics. I know about how not hitting for a while doesn't change the odds on the next roll - but I don't contend that if you haven't hit in a while that you are "due" and therefore should turn GWM on.....so why bring it up? Yes, I know about reliability, but we are talking about a group of heroes fighting over several rounds - so what does it have to do with THIS discussion?

That as a group you may better contribute with lower average damage but more reliable damage, because chances are that every hit counts. The combat may be over after 2 rounds and you may have dealt no damage at all. And needing a 16 is not too far fetched. On first level your to hit is +5 if you use point buy or standard array and a synergising race. Lets take human and take GWM as first level feat.
AC 16 is not too unrealistic for AC. And if you do average 10 damage without the feat and 20 with the feat which is exactly the damage output of a great sword, then you only hit with a 16 when using the -5/+10 part.
Your turing point is a fantasy point, only usable under certain conditions. I have seen more thourough calculations. Your advise is not bad. You said with 8 or better to hit you should turn it on. then you now need a 13 to hit. Without advantage that is still a 5 or 6 on a d6 to deal damage. That is not actually gret when without using the feat you hit about on a 3-6 on a d6. That is cutting your chance to hit by about 1/2. If you think that gamble is worth it, by all means, do it. But it may be a bad idea often enough.

Although I really must admit, your decision point is better than a lot that I have seen.

 

[Sacrosanct]

Absolutely wrong. Imagine you are buying a car and are looking at comparative mpg for the vehicles. Do you throw out the whole estimation/comparison because

1) OMG! What if I use the a/c - that would totally change the mpg!!!!
2) Well just because the average car of that model gets x mpg doesn't mean MINE will!
3) It's only HALF the equation - what is the standard deviation and reliability of their estimation?
4) What if I attach a unicorn to the back of my car and cast HASTE on it? So much for your "average mpg" lol!!!
5) Driving involves real world people making real world decisions - what if I drive w/my foot on the break all day?

Your arguments are missing the forest because your looking too closely at the trees guys. Jump down off the esoteric podium and realize there is value in establishing a target number for GWM based on extra damage vs decreased likelihood of a hit. Just like there is value in estimated mpg for vehicles.

No, not absolutely wrong. And bad analogy. It is objectively true that when you throw in subjective factors into a decision making process, the entire process becomes subjective. Why? Because your objective math is either completely utilized, partially utilized, or completely ignored. You can never get the same result predictably because it changes on subjective factors.

I'm not saying math is worthless. It's a factor for sure. But you seem to be arguing it's the most important, or only important factor to use. Tabletop D&D is not a computer simulation of a battle with no other factors.

For example, maybe you as the player decide to use GWF when your math doesn't support it because you need to take the risk to kill that enemy as quickly as possible because there's something else going on (the wizard getting eaten, a party member down an failing death saves, etc)

Or maybe your holding a defensive point, and your job is to hold back the enemy as long as possible, so you wouldn't want to use GWF even if the odds were in it's favor because the big slow monster in front of you is taking up space the other monsters behind it want to move through

Or maybe there are terrain features in play where monsters are located in positions where you'd either want to use, or not use, GWF

There are a near infinite amount of factors that go into a player making a decision, and it's fool's folly to act like math is the end all/be all for the choice.

 

[shoak1]

No, not absolutely wrong. And bad analogy. It is objectively true that when you throw in subjective factors into a decision making process, the entire process becomes subjective. Why? Because your objective math is either completely utilized, partially utilized, or completely ignored. You can never get the same result predictably because it changes on subjective factors.

I'm not saying math is worthless. It's a factor for sure. But you seem to be arguing it's the most important, or only important factor to use. Tabletop D&D is not a computer simulation of a battle with no other factors.

For example, maybe you as the player decide to use GWF when your math doesn't support it because you need to take the risk to kill that enemy as quickly as possible because there's something else going on (the wizard getting eaten, a party member down an failing death saves, etc)

Or maybe your holding a defensive point, and your job is to hold back the enemy as long as possible, so you wouldn't want to use GWF even if the odds were in it's favor because the big slow monster in front of you is taking up space the other monsters behind it want to move through

Or maybe there are terrain features in play where monsters are located in positions where you'd either want to use, or not use, GWF

There are a near infinite amount of factors that go into a player making a decision, and it's fool's folly to act like math is the end all/be all for the choice.

Do you really think anyone read my post and thought "Gosh, no matter what special condition is present, I always must turn off GWM unless my target to hit number is 9 or less."? Really? Did I need to add a whole bunch of asterisks and disclaimers at the bottom? Are you the guy that feels safer with the electrical chord having that little tag attached to it that says "Do not eat or consume this chord, you may be electrocuted." ???

I provided the break even point for when the decreased chance to hit becomes more detrimental than the gain one gets from the increased damage. How is that not helpful?

There are a lot of people who don't know when its more harmful to their average damage to have it on vs having it off. It seems like you don't want them to have any guidance. Or alternatively you want the guidance to be so complicated with special conditions and exceptions that they dont use said guidance and do knucklehead moves like changing their TH # to 18 from 13 because they think it will help them do more damage..... Again I say you are unaware of the forest because you're staring too closely at the trees.

 

[shoak1]

Your turning point is a fantasy point, only usable under certain conditions. I have seen more thourough calculations. Your advise is not bad. You said with 8 or better to hit you should turn it on. then you now need a 13 to hit. Without advantage that is still a 5 or 6 on a d6 to deal damage. That is not actually gret when without using the feat you hit about on a 3-6 on a d6. That is cutting your chance to hit by about 1/2. If you think that gamble is worth it, by all means, do it. But it may be a bad idea often enough.

You just illustrated yourself why it is the break even point, in laymans terms (I showed the actual math behind it in my original post). You are cutting your chances to hit by 50% but doing double damage. Its mostly a wash, with a bit of an edge for GWM ON.

Most people do not instinctively know this #. They might think they will do more damage w/GWM on when they need a 12 TH - so they cripple themselves by needing to roll a 17 now..... If you were at their table, would you not advise them it was not a sound idea? This math will help them understand their target number. Should they completely ignore every other factor in their game? Of course not, but I haven't ever argued that.

 

[Sacrosanct]

Again I say you are unaware of the forest because you're staring too closely at the trees.

You keep saying this. I don't think it means what you think it means.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

You just illustrated yourself why it is the break even point, in laymans terms (I showed the actual math behind it in my original post). You are cutting your chances to hit by 50% but doing double damage. Its mostly a wash, with a bit of an edge for GWM ON.

Most people do not instinctively know this #. They might think they will do more damage w/GWM on when they need a 12 TH - so they cripple themselves by needing to roll a 17 now..... If you were at their table, would you not advise them it was not a sound idea? This math will help them understand their target number. Should they completely ignore every other factor in their game? Of course not, but I haven't ever argued that.

You know that the turning point changes when the average damage you deal increases? Your turning point is only correct for a certain assumed average damage value. And still that turning point may net you an average damage increase and still be a bad idea. It would generally better to advise only using the -5/+10 only when you would hit on a 5. As I said: even advantage does not help you a lot if you still only hit with a 13. It may well prolong a fight if you miss. Since you don't generally know how much hp an enemy has and you have allies that might do a better job hitting, you may have better just attacked normally.
The net worth of attacking with -5/+10 increases when you do more attacks and attack with advantage so you have a good chance of connecting once at least. If you do, you have done your job well and every extra hit is a bonus.
A barbarian level 5 should use -5/+10 quite frequently. Your turning point seems well there.
Your chance to connect at least once is 1-(1-0.4)^4=0.874. Your chance to hit twice is 40%
A single attack with advantage connects with 64% chance, which is worth a gamble. 2 Attacks without advantage is not always worth it, since your chance to hit twice is only 16% and it is generally better to deal damage reliably in smaller chunks. On the other hand your chance to hit twice when you need an 8 to hit is also only 35% so the gamble may still be worth it if you are sure the enemy has still a lot of hp.

 

[shoak1]

You know that the turning point changes when the average damage you deal increases? Your turning point is only correct for a certain assumed average damage value.

yes.....2nd paragraph and last paragraph of my original post adress that...