D&D 5E As a DM [..] GWM are overpowered? (cont'd actual calculations)

[CapnZapp]

The original thread got so crowded, I figured I would get a cleaner discussion by breaking out into a new thread.

Here's an actual example of a character using a greatweapon with and without GWM, and with +2 Strength respectively.

Before the choice point: Strength +3, To hit +6, Base damage 3+2d6=10

After the choice point:
A. Strength +4, To hit +7, Base damage 11
B. Strength +3, To hit +6, Base damage 10 or 20

Versus AC 18:
A. Hit probability 50% (needs to roll 11) = expected damage 11x0,5=5,5
B. Hit probability 45% (needs to roll 12) so does not use feat
Actual hit probability 45% x 10 = expected damage 10x0,45=4,5

Winner A by one point (much as expected)

Versus AC 12:
A. Hit probability 80% (needs to roll 5) = expected damage 11x0,8=8,8
B. Hit probability 75% (needs to roll 6) so uses the feat
Actual hit probability 50% x 20 = expected damage 10

Winner B by not much more than one point.

So far the feat seems balanced or underpowered even.

But this does not take into consideration the numerous ways of boosting your GWM usage.

So let's compute vs AC 12 with advantage, shall we?

Versus AC 12 with advantage:
A. Hit probability 96% (needs to roll 5 once) = expected damage 11x0,96=10,56
B. Hit probability 9375% (needs to roll 6 once) so uses the feat
Actual hit probability 75% x 20 = expected damage 15

Winner B by four and a half point, or over +40% damage.

Before we move over to conclusions, I'm posting this so you can check so I haven't made a mistake, or suggest why another set of comparison points would improve the analysis.

We're still in the phase where we discuss the validity and correctness of the actual data.

As I write above, I encourage everybody to chime in what they think.

Then we move over to the phase where start drawing actual conclusions.

 

[Yunru]

It doesn't account for how advantage is being generated. Most sources of advantage require you to use your actions to do things other than attack, lowering your overall dpr.

 

[CapnZapp]

It doesn't account for how advantage is being generated. Most sources of advantage require you to use your actions to do things other than attack, lowering your overall dpr.

Thank you. Do keep in mind that some sources of advantage might well cost actions but that you can take those actions before the combat, thus lowering or negating the actual impact on dpr.

But point taken. How do you propose we take this into account? One suggestion would be to wait until later. After all, it is only if we arrive at the feat being overpowered it is necessary to discuss the issue. Another would be to roughly assume, say, a five round fight, and (also roughly) assume you spent one round setting things up (thus cutting the benefit by 1/5th). What do you say?

And do you have any other thoughts on the example to be used?

 

[Yunru]

The average combat is supposed to last around 4 turns, so I guess a 4 turn average could be taken. But then we have to whiteroom against blocks of tofu.

It might just be easiest to take an example team through a published adventure and document how they do.

We'd need two fighters (one with SS, one without) and a cleric (so that it can be tested with Bless too), leaving a spot empty.

 

[Leatherhead]

What class and level is this character supposed to be?

 

[mellored]

It doesn't account for how advantage is being generated. Most sources of advantage require you to use your actions to do things other than attack, lowering your overall dpr.

Agreed. Even a cleric who cast bless is not going to be using the action to cast sacred flame.
And even pre-casting means he's 1 slot less for something else (foresight vs meteor swarm).


Also, creatures with 12 AC could have 5 HP. So using GWM won't actually do more damage.

 

[shoak1]

I'll repeat my response from the other thread to you in this thread (if that makes sense:

OK - so first, it seems now we agree on what I said earlier, which is that at best (vs AC 12, with advantage, and against a low AC mob) you only get about a 4 average damage increase w/GWM.

As for the 40% increase, I think to be fair, that is misleading. First because any damage buff at a low level when expressed as a +x% is going to sound OP (OMG! my mage just got a +1 dagger and his dps went up 100% - yay!!! sic). How about when you are 20 STR w/a +2 weapon and your avg dmg.is 14? Now its 28%.

And baddies' AC and hp go up in somewhat proportionate patterns. So if the AC is as low as you mention, there hp are going to be lower and your "bigger chunk" damage is more likely to produce overkill. Now I know overkill can be mitigated by cleave to some extent, but it is merely mitigated a bit, not eliminated as a soak to avg damage.

Examples:
vs Orcs w/AC 13 and 15 hp, you win - no likely overkill and low AC - also GWM allows you to 1 shot him, and cleave lets you get a second whack maybe - perfect opponent
vs ANKYLOSAURUS w/AC15 and 68 hp - overkill is a dicey affair, and AC weakens GWM's effectiveness
vs Will-o-wisp w/AC 19 and 22 hp, overkill is an issue, and the high AC means GWM=suck
vs Ghoul w/AC12 and 22 hp, overkill is an issue, but low AC helps GWM
vs Hill giant w/AC 13 and 105 hp, no real overkill problem here vs this big bag of hp, and low AC makes this a good target of GWM

Also, as had been said previously, many feats, powers and spells are more deadly in combinations. You have Advantage in your example, something very effective as a combo w/a lot of feats and powers. I think in the case of SS/archery its a bit more clearly low hanging min-max fruit, but GWM is a bit harder to make that argument for. I would argue there are hundreds of other equivalently deadly combos, both for players and DMs.

 

[AaronOfBarbaria]

All math showing what a combination of different possible character traits and abilities can do is irrelevant in determining if something is "over-powered" until we establish an agreed upon acceptable margin by which characters or features working in concert can increase performance - because we can't know if something is actually "over" that threshold until we establish said threshold.

 

[shoak1]

All math showing what a combination of different possible character traits and abilities can do is irrelevant in determining if something is "over-powered" until we establish an agreed upon acceptable margin by which characters or features working in concert can increase performance - because we can't know if something is actually "over" that threshold until we establish said threshold.

bah...I disagree...there's plenty of useful analysis that can be done without isolating out every single variable. It's done effectively in real life all the time (such as in my previously cited estimated mpg example).

 

[AaronOfBarbaria]

bah...I disagree...there's plenty of useful analysis that can be done without isolating out every single variable.

I'm not saying there isn't.

I'm saying that we can't answer "how much is too much?" if we don't first the answer "how much is enough?"

It has been useful analysis to see what other game elements enhance the performance of certain feats - but because there is no agreed upon threshold above which something becomes "over-powered", the analysis hasn't been able to tell us whether those feats are, or aren't.