D&D 5E Great Weapon Mastery - once more into the breach! (with math)

[Ganymede81]

Is your method able to tell us how much better?

Yeah, though if you want to find the actual HP difference as opposed to a relative percentage, you have to plug your variables into the underived form and find the difference: H(D + 9) - D(H + 0.3)

Positive means GWM does the difference more in damage, and negative means +2 Str does the difference more in damage.

There might be a way to do it by comparing your quotient to 30 in some way, but it currently eludes me.

 

[dropbear8mybaby]

So yes [MENTION=6863518]dropbear8mybaby[/MENTION] , this is a *fair* comparison. These are real characters, and they had to make a choice between strength 20 and feats.

No, you're arbitrarily choosing where to draw a line that unfairly biases the data in favour of your argument. It's more than possible to have a character with 20 Str and GWM. You're choosing to make it so that it's one or the other and stating that as if it's a fact that should be used as a fair basis of comparison even though you admit that it's using a subjective notion, i.e. "real" characters.

Hate to tell you this but what you consider a real character isn't the be all and end all of what gets played at a table.

This is why objective evaluation of abilities uses optimised and 20th-level characters. It levels the playing field rather than limiting selection criteria to subjective evaluations of what is and isn't "fair and balanced".

 

[Ancalagon]

No, you're arbitrarily choosing where to draw a line that unfairly biases the data in favour of your argument. It's more than possible to have a character with 20 Str and GWM. You're choosing to make it so that it's one or the other and stating that as if it's a fact that should be used as a fair basis of comparison even though you admit that it's using a subjective notion, i.e. "real" characters.

Hate to tell you this but what you consider a real character isn't the be all and end all of what gets played at a table.

This is why objective evaluation of abilities uses optimised and 20th-level characters. It levels the playing field rather than limiting selection criteria to subjective evaluations of what is and isn't "fair and balanced".

Picking a 20th level character is just as arbitrary. The majority of people *don't* play at level 20. And even if you do, it's only a small part of the campaign. You could almost say that what happens there is irrelevant.

Listen, it's pretty simple:

1: If you take GWM, you are not taking something else. That something else could be another feat. Or it could be as simple as +2 strength. But it's *something*. When trying to evaluate, you have to take that absence into account.

2: Many people have said "oh the - 5 penalty to hit can easily be circumvented by doing X Y Z so it essentially IS+10 to damage!". But they don't take into account that characters who don't have GWM can also benefit from X Y Z.

Of course taking GWM is going to boost your damage. It's what the feat is supposed to do. I never denied that. I'm just pointing out that it's not as OP as some people think it is.

 

[dropbear8mybaby]

Picking a 20th level character is just as arbitrary. The majority of people *don't* play at level 20. And even if you do, it's only a small part of the campaign. You could almost say that what happens there is irrelevant.

No, it's not, because it's the only means of determining balance objectively. Every other method requires drawing a subjective line between what does and doesn't apply, case in point, what you're doing. You're choosing to favour your own argument, all the while claiming to be fair and the be all and end all of the argument.

If you can't see that, then there's really no point in arguing with you. You win, because you set the goal posts wherever you want and won't listen to any reason why the should be set in a neutral position. Congratulations on winning a one-sided argument, in that case.

 

[Yunru]

No, it's not, because it's the only means of determining balance objectively. Every other method requires drawing a subjective line between what does and doesn't apply, case in point, what you're doing. You're choosing to favour your own argument, all the while claiming to be fair and the be all and end all of the argument.

If you can't see that, then there's really no point in arguing with you. You win, because you set the goal posts wherever you want and won't listen to any reason why the should be set in a neutral position. Congratulations on winning a one-sided argument, in that case.

If you can't see the flaw in this visit an optician.

You're doing just what you claim he is.
Drawing a subjective line between what does and doesn't apply.
Anything before level 20? Doesn't apply by your standards.
You're excluding 95% of levels. The range where GWF costs you an ASI bump only excludes about 40% of levels. And if we weight that according to levels played, the numbers are further against you.

 

[Barolo]

I have no clue why you guys are working from a chart of values when you can simply solve the system algebraically with a ratio.

That ratio is this: D/H = 30, where D is the average expected damage-per-hit before feat/stat bumps, and H is the the decimal chance to hit before feat/stat bumps. If the quotient is less than 30, GWM is better. If the quotient is greater than 30, +2 Str is better.

Y'all make things so complicated.

Can you help me out with your math? I think I did not understand it. Let's say I have a D of 10 and H is 0.5. This results in a ratio of 20. If I take GWM and use it, D goes to 20 but H drops to 0.25, right? And in both cases, average damage would be 5. But taking the ABI would raise D to 11 and H to 0.55, also raising average damage to 6.05, and the conclusion I get is not aligned to yours.

Actually, by fixing D at 10 and varying H from 0.3 to 0.95 (so to avoid saturation) and checking the results for which GWM or ABI would be better, then fixing H at 0.75 and varying D from 5 to 20 and doing the same check, I was not able to define a single ratio to be the break even. In the first case, the tie would occur at a ratio around 16, while in the latter, it was 14.

 

[FrogReaver]

Can you help me out with your math? I think I did not understand it. Let's say I have a D of 10 and H is 0.5. This results in a ratio of 20. If I take GWM and use it, D goes to 20 but H drops to 0.25, right? And in both cases, average damage would be 5. But taking the ABI would raise D to 11 and H to 0.55, also raising average damage to 6.05, and the conclusion I get is not aligned to yours.

Actually, by fixing D at 10 and varying H from 0.3 to 0.95 (so to avoid saturation) and checking the results for which GWM or ABI would be better, then fixing H at 0.75 and varying D from 5 to 20 and doing the same check, I was not able to define a single ratio to be the break even. In the first case, the tie would occur at a ratio around 16, while in the latter, it was 14.

I think his equation was to originally solve the issue of using gwm -5/+10 or not using it all other things being equal. I think he is misapplying his technique to this discussion..

 

[Ganymede81]

Can you help me out with your math?

When you calculate D and H, remember to do it in a way that accounts for the baselines before differentiation via feat/ASI. In other words, do it before the ASI applies its net +0.3 to hit and before the Feat applies its net +9 to damage. You shouldn't be subtracting anything (though you could rewrite the formula and resolve to find your new ratio, but it'll be significantly uglier).

I really should have explained it better: D and H don't represent the values as if the feat/ASI don't exist. They represent the values that D and H have in common before the feat/ASI differentiate them.

Actually, by fixing D at 10 and varying H from 0.3 to 0.95 (so to avoid saturation) and checking the results for which GWM or ABI would be better, then fixing H at 0.75 and varying D from 5 to 20 and doing the same check, I was not able to define a single ratio to be the break even.

That's because, under the scenario you created, the break-even points would be between the increments used (integers for damage, and 1/20ths for hitting).

You can solve it this way in order to find the break even point for different values without using guess-and-check brute force: 10/H = 30 and D/0.75 = 30. They get you break-evens at H=0.33333 and D=22.5, respectively.

 

[Satyrn]

I think it will only add to your experience since there is less of a chance of a player taking a character option that will screw up the balance and unique character choices your party has fostered.

This confuses me. How do we make those unique character choices if we drop the feats and multiclassing we used to make those unique character choices?

 

[Satyrn]

I have no clue why you guys are working from a chart of values when you can simply solve the system algebraically with a ratio.

That ratio is this: D/H = 30, where D is the average expected damage-per-hit before feat/stat bumps, and H is the the decimal chance to hit before feat/stat bumps. If the quotient is less than 30, GWM is better. If the quotient is greater than 30, +2 Str is better.

Y'all make things so complicated.

This confuses me too. It looks like witchcraft.