-
NOW LIVE! Into the Woods--new character species, eerie monsters, and haunting villains to populate the woodlands of your D&D games.
D&D 5E Great Weapon Mastery - once more into the breach! (with math)
- Thread starter Ancalagon
- Start date
Ganymede81
First Post
I'ma need more than that.
Ganymede81
First Post
Yeah, that's factored in already.
That's why in the formula GWM does a net 9 more damage, while +2 Str does a net +0.3 to hit, because it accounts for the native +1/+1 for the ASI. D/H = 30 has this rolled in.
D/H = 40 is the formula you use if you have GWM but are deciding whether or not to go for the -5/+10.
FrogReaver
The most respectful and polite poster ever
Ah, there's the formula I think I remembered. Anyways, would it not be better to solve that formula for D or for H? I guess it doesn't really matter...
Anyways, the reason most of us end up using a table is because each time we make a change we don't have to go recalculate a new formula and some of your formulas could be hard to calculate (such as the advantage one and even then it may not reduce nicely enough to really be usable).
If I want to factor in advantage I just copy and paste the table and rewrite the chance to hit formula to incorporate advantage and then compare to the original. If I want to factor in precision attack or anything else then I do the same kind of thing. Also does your formula easily handle the effects of critical hits? My table method does. How many formulas would you need to write up and solve for in order to take into account all these things in various combinations? All I need to do is keep my table and copy and paste it then modify one line in it and cascade those changes down. I'll give you that the initial table is a bit of setup but it handles pretty much every effect thrown at it very easily. It's easy to compare all the tables to each other. It's easy to get both an absolute and percentage difference in damage. Does your formula method have that kind of expansion? In other words, is it really better and more robust than what we are doing with tables?
Ganymede81
First Post
This isn't "my formula." This is just regular math, the exact same kind of math that a spreadsheet uses to calculate values.
So yes, any combat scenario you can fathom can be made into a formula; you're still just dealing with different damages and different hit chances.
FrogReaver
The most respectful and polite poster ever
Apparently that point went wayyy over your head this time.
FrogReaver
The most respectful and polite poster ever
[MENTION=6812267]Ganymede81[/MENTION]
I have two challenges for you.
1. Solve for formula with advantage factored in for both the GWM and the non-GWM.
2. There is another notion that was present in this thread at one point in time. The notion that superiority dice for damage would be better than precision attack for daily DPR. Given that a very good estimate for precision attack is that it gives around +15% chance to hit for an adventuring day can your method tell us if that or using the superiority dice for damage is better. Please assume a total daily allotment of 18 different d12 superiority dice for this exercise. My tables can solve this easily. Can your algebraic equations?
I have two challenges for you.
1. Solve for formula with advantage factored in for both the GWM and the non-GWM.
2. There is another notion that was present in this thread at one point in time. The notion that superiority dice for damage would be better than precision attack for daily DPR. Given that a very good estimate for precision attack is that it gives around +15% chance to hit for an adventuring day can your method tell us if that or using the superiority dice for damage is better. Please assume a total daily allotment of 18 different d12 superiority dice for this exercise. My tables can solve this easily. Can your algebraic equations?
Ganymede81
First Post
You're asking me how to find the probability of missing twice in a row? That's the essence of advantage, and it is not exotic math. You just wedge 1-(1-[hit chance])^2 in there, or [hit chance]^2 for disadvantage.
You're talking about the exact same concept we've been talking about for a while now: at what point does a boost to damage outshine a boost to hit? The same math is involved.
It is still H(D + [damage boost]) = D(H + [hit chance boost])
But anyways, you're being unnervingly defensive here; I never specifically called you out in any way so I don't know why you're directing all these responses to me. This interaction we are having is no longer fun, and you're starting to creep me out.
FrogReaver
The most respectful and polite poster ever
1. If it's not that difficult then do it. I'm sitting here trying to decouple the nasty two variable binomial that adding in advantage led to and it's just not happening. I'm good at algebra but unless I made a silly mistake this thing is a mess and isn't worth trying when I already have an alternative method.
2. You made the claim that your method was soo much better and we were basically foolish for using tables instead of your method to solve the problem. I'm explaining why that is wrong but you apparently want no part in defending that little outburst...
