D&D 5E Current take on GWM/SS

[Coredump]

Actual play experience > unreliable probability based DPR.

Anecdotal memories << Provable mathematically sound comparisons

Besides, this **WAS** an "Actual Play Experience.... Celtavian said this battle really happened, and the results would be a 25% boost.

The Paladin was a theoretical construct....created by Celtavian (IOW, not me) Its not like I was cherry picking anything here.ly

 

[Coredump]

Against AC18 as well. Even at level 16 it's quite common to fight things with much less AC than that. Heck the entire premise of 5e is you are meant to fight low level creatures all through the game.

This, boys and girls, is a textbook example of "Lets Move the Goalposts"

I remind you, this was *NOT* my example. This was the "proof" that Celtavian provided to show us all how bad it can be. And now when it has been shown to be a sham....based on amazingly lousy and misleading "math".... you want to pretend like it was never meant to show the 'real problem' I notice you never said anything when everyone was believing the hype......

Second, the entire complaint revolved around taking out the BBEG in a nova attack.... how many AC 14 BBEGs do you come across at level 16?

It's easy to see how these feats can easily add up to 2:1 to even 3:1 damaged and those of us that have bothered to add up the real game data are getting those numbers.

Of course it is 'easy'.... if you just make up arbitrary numbers and pass them off as "math". As I said earlier, I have never...never... seen anyone provide a situation that would lead to such numbers. I have created such situations, but it relies on all sorts of unlikely variables.
But hey, if it is so "easy".... please help out all of us uninformed unwashed masses..... present away...

A Paladin who benefits from GMW the least against AC18 proves absolutely nothing about all those feats.

He doesn't "benefit" the least, it makes him do *less* damage, it *reduces* what damage he can do. And that is with Advantage!
But lets be clear.... Even against AC 14 (is that low enough for you?) and even assuming he still has Advantage... that still leads to less than a 10% damage boost.

Celtavian: Look how bad it is, look I will prove it
DaveDash: Yeah, see... that shows how bad it is
Coredump: Um...that shows really really bad math
Dave Dash: Well...those were stupid examples anyway
Coredump: Um...Wut? Kinda convenient, no?

 

[Coredump]

Yeah...this is typical. Someone presents a 'proof', I show just how bad their math is, they start getting defensive and insulting.....often claiming it wasn't a proof, it was a 'real example'.....

They've been presented multiple times. Sorry my math was loose this time. I'm getting tired of presenting them.

So your solution is to just make up numbers instead?

The only problems are players like you continuing to ignore the data offered by players like Dave Dash and myself in real game situations. Your white room math means absolutely nothing compared to my real data.

Real Data?? You did not offer 'data', you offered some random assumptions and tried to pass them off as "proof"
You then made further bad assumptions about how a Paladin "would work"... is that also "real data"?

Did you seriously include crits? I don't even bother with them they happen so rarely in fights with a finite number of rounds. Not even worth calculating since they happen only on a 20 and are negligible extra damage for anyone but a paladin, who can chose to smite when he knows the hit is a crit.

Of course I included crits.... that is what you do when not simply making up numbers....

It's way more than 12% in real play. This is pure dragon dung.

Um...sure. Can you give us an example of 'real play' then? Because the one you gave would lead to a 12% boost from GWM, and a 25% boost from GWM+Precision Attack. Unless of course, you include 'lucky rolls' as part of your 'real data'

You mean like actual numbers like dice rolls in the game? I've seen those. Way more than your math represents. That's why I assumed they all hit. When I'm actually running it, the usually hit five out of six attacks.

Okay, while you try and re-write history, lets review: According to *your* numbers, there was a 45% chance to hit with GWM. Which grows to a 67.5% chance to hit with GWM+Precision Strike. And while you are "actually running", that 67% chance means they will hit "5 out of 6 times"

DO you see a problem here yet?? Lets continue...

So your 'real data' shows that 67% chance succeeds 83% of the time....so for your 'real data', you would say it hits *every single time*

Now do you see the problem with your 'real data'??

You don't have to be really nice. With variable die 10s in finite combat situations, you get a lot of variation which is extraordinarily hard to account for. Your white room math doesn't mirror it very well. Get back to me when you have hard data in a group focusing on maximizing the feat with recorded damage. Should be easy for you to run using designed encounters.

Translation: When you have an anecdote to challenge my anecdote....then we can talk about 'real data'.

I do want to admit, however, that I made a mistake and calculated the Maneuver dice as D8's instead of D10s. I can redo the math, but it won't change much.

Over 100s of combats? Did you miss the data Dave posted?

Dave did not post 'data', Dave posted 'numbers'. Data would include things like what level they were, attribute scores, feats, target ACs....stuff like that.
Since we now have evidence that you will both play fast and loose with your claims.... a list of 'numbers' just doesn't prove anything.

You're not even close to a worst case scenario, most likely because you have near zero real game experience with these things.

Yay, more defensive attacks.... and dude.... it was *YOUR* scenario. Your brought it up to 'prove' how bad it was.

I can't believe I have to list this garbage again:
1. It overshadows TWF making it a gimp option.
2. It allows a huge damage spike on single target monsters rendering fights against them trivial when a party focuses on maximizing feats.

Everything overshadows TWF...
And you keep saying "huge damage spike".... I don't think you are using that correctly....

You've been informed of the problem multiple times. You keep up this insistence that the white room averages you present are the norm. They are not. It doesn't work the way your BS math just tried to illustrate. Fights are done in small finite situations, not over hundreds of rounds. They are done in highly focused environments with a heavy level of focus on maximizing the feats.

God this gets funny...
Yes, you have 'informed me'..... congrats. Lots of people have 'informed' me lots of things...yet when I ask for something more substantial than your random opinion.... I get "your BS math" instead.

Yes, Fights are small and finite, which means when that GWM guy misses, its a big deal. Yes, in your games, a 67% chance means they hit *every time*, but that doesn't happen for the rest of us.

Dave and I have already illustrated how numerous, easily available variables affect GWM and Sharpshooter over the course of battles conducted over 3 to 5 rounds. There's always a guy like you on every one of these threads attempting to white room the math with the assumption that fights occur over 100s or rounds. They don't. I have seen the fighter with Precision and bless active hit on five out of six attacks nearly every battle using GWM.

And there is always a guy like you claiming that a 67% chance always hits 5 out of 6 times.... or conveniently ignoring the times when it only hit 4 times, or 3 times.

I'm not even trying to do the math for an optimized round because there are way too many variables such as the following:

1. AC of creature.
2. Buffs on PC using GWF or Sharpshooter.
3. Actions of other party members like familiars granting advantage.
4. Magic items being used.
5. Visibility.
7. Hit points of target which determines how many rounds the GWF or Sharpshooter needs to focus fire to destroy them.
8. Spells on target such as hold person or faerie fire.
9. Use of Inspiration.

If you don't do math, then stop putting up math 'proofs'. If your only assertion is that you 'just know' and that you will deign to 'inform' everyone.... then fine. You are allowed to make stuff up and use anecdotal data all you want.
But, I *can* factor in almost all of those variables.

Its not my fault if you refuse to even try....

 

[Coredump]

@Celtavian time for some more data I reckon, how about you? Ah the joys of dice rolls logged in roll20. Let's see shall we.
.

Hey, data is good.

Unfortunately there isn't enough info yet. If you could supply it I would appreciate it. I realize you will not have all of this, or at least not in detail. But the more you can supply the better. Thanks.

What level were they?
What was their Dex?
Any other feats?
Did they always attack the same creatures?
What was the AC of the creatures they did attack?

Round 4:
Archer (Crossbow Expert) [27, 23, 30, 30]: 70 damage.

Not familiar with Roll20. I assume that is 4 attacks? Their attack rolls were 27,23,30,30? Do we know which ones were hits? The 70 damage is just the total damage from the attacks that did hit?

Thanks

 

[Ashkelon]

If you need an actual mathematical model for the damage comparison, just look here.

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1cZGd7HwD1dWSzYqVx4PQqw9dl9YYzKxRv7YJtOojkDE/edit?usp=sharing

1) Some things to note: GWM is almost always worthwhile to use for fighters and barbarians.
2) The bonus action attack on a crit alone makes this feat worthwhile for most PCs.
3) If you can get advantage easily or have a cleric with bless, the damage output from this feat spikes dramatically.
4) Even at the highest levels of AC in the game, using this feat will typically produce greater DPR than not using it, making its use a non choice.
5) When combined with polearm master or crossbow expert, GWM/SS can put out absurd levels of damage per round.

 

[Celtavian]

Anecdotal memories << Provable mathematically sound comparisons

Besides, this **WAS** an "Actual Play Experience.... Celtavian said this battle really happened, and the results would be a 25% boost.

The Paladin was a theoretical construct....created by Celtavian (IOW, not me) Its not like I was cherry picking anything here.ly

Yet the results were not a 25% boost. They were in the 80 to 100% range. I had it recorded, but threw it out a long time ago.

Like I said, you don't have data. I was merely attempting to show how if you hit a lot, it is actually an 80% boost. The characters hit a lot. More than you calculated.

Your white room math means nothing to me. I already had recorded data that showed me what I needed to know.

 

[Celtavian]

Yeah...this is typical. Someone presents a 'proof', I show just how bad their math is, they start getting defensive and insulting.....often claiming it wasn't a proof, it was a 'real example'.....

So your solution is to just make up numbers instead?

Real Data?? You did not offer 'data', you offered some random assumptions and tried to pass them off as "proof"
You then made further bad assumptions about how a Paladin "would work"... is that also "real data"?

Of course I included crits.... that is what you do when not simply making up numbers....


Um...sure. Can you give us an example of 'real play' then? Because the one you gave would lead to a 12% boost from GWM, and a 25% boost from GWM+Precision Attack. Unless of course, you include 'lucky rolls' as part of your 'real data'




Okay, while you try and re-write history, lets review: According to *your* numbers, there was a 45% chance to hit with GWM. Which grows to a 67.5% chance to hit with GWM+Precision Strike. And while you are "actually running", that 67% chance means they will hit "5 out of 6 times"

DO you see a problem here yet?? Lets continue...

So your 'real data' shows that 67% chance succeeds 83% of the time....so for your 'real data', you would say it hits *every single time*

Now do you see the problem with your 'real data'??




Translation: When you have an anecdote to challenge my anecdote....then we can talk about 'real data'.

I do want to admit, however, that I made a mistake and calculated the Maneuver dice as D8's instead of D10s. I can redo the math, but it won't change much.


Dave did not post 'data', Dave posted 'numbers'. Data would include things like what level they were, attribute scores, feats, target ACs....stuff like that.
Since we now have evidence that you will both play fast and loose with your claims.... a list of 'numbers' just doesn't prove anything.





Yay, more defensive attacks.... and dude.... it was *YOUR* scenario. Your brought it up to 'prove' how bad it was.






Everything overshadows TWF...
And you keep saying "huge damage spike".... I don't think you are using that correctly....


God this gets funny...
Yes, you have 'informed me'..... congrats. Lots of people have 'informed' me lots of things...yet when I ask for something more substantial than your random opinion.... I get "your BS math" instead.

Yes, Fights are small and finite, which means when that GWM guy misses, its a big deal. Yes, in your games, a 67% chance means they hit *every time*, but that doesn't happen for the rest of us.



And there is always a guy like you claiming that a 67% chance always hits 5 out of 6 times.... or conveniently ignoring the times when it only hit 4 times, or 3 times.

If you don't do math, then stop putting up math 'proofs'. If your only assertion is that you 'just know' and that you will deign to 'inform' everyone.... then fine. You are allowed to make stuff up and use anecdotal data all you want.
But, I *can* factor in almost all of those variables.

Its not my fault if you refuse to even try....

It's not my fault you never bothered to record any real data. Sorry I didn't save it to post on the board for you. Get some real play experience with these feats in a group and record the numbers. Then get back to me.

I've already done this dance with others like you. You've been proven wrong by more than me. You've ignored all the math and data proving you wrong. How many of these threads do we have to do proving your analysis wrong before you admit it? All I know at this point is it won't me continuing the debate with you. I know how it works. I've recorded the numbers. I've seen it in use. I've explained why your white room math doesn't work. I've explained why you focus on the very base fact that a single attack with GWF does 80% more than one without. That single fact alone should be enough for a guy that really knows math to know that the easier it is to hit, the more damage you will add with the feat. The fact it does less damage the more you do is fairly irrelevant. You're always going to use this feat under optimal conditions. So it will always add damage. That's the part that is extremely difficult to model because it is highly situational. Until you take the time to model the use of the feats being used only under optimal conditions, never when it isn't optimal, I can't even take you seriously. Because that is how it was used in the campaign I was in. ALWAYS under optimal conditions and turned off, when not optimal.

The fighter in question just turned it off and did regular hits when not optimal losing no damage, gaining no damage. When optimal he unleashed it, boosting his damage by about 80%.

And we're done. Go back to one of the numerous thread that exist showing you how wrong you are.

 

[Celtavian]

This, boys and girls, is a textbook example of "Lets Move the Goalposts"

I remind you, this was *NOT* my example. This was the "proof" that Celtavian provided to show us all how bad it can be. And now when it has been shown to be a sham....based on amazingly lousy and misleading "math".... you want to pretend like it was never meant to show the 'real problem' I notice you never said anything when everyone was believing the hype......

Second, the entire complaint revolved around taking out the BBEG in a nova attack.... how many AC 14 BBEGs do you come across at level 16?

Of course it is 'easy'.... if you just make up arbitrary numbers and pass them off as "math". As I said earlier, I have never...never... seen anyone provide a situation that would lead to such numbers. I have created such situations, but it relies on all sorts of unlikely variables.
But hey, if it is so "easy".... please help out all of us uninformed unwashed masses..... present away...

He doesn't "benefit" the least, it makes him do *less* damage, it *reduces* what damage he can do. And that is with Advantage!
But lets be clear.... Even against AC 14 (is that low enough for you?) and even assuming he still has Advantage... that still leads to less than a 10% damage boost.

Celtavian: Look how bad it is, look I will prove it
DaveDash: Yeah, see... that shows how bad it is
Coredump: Um...that shows really really bad math
Dave Dash: Well...those were stupid examples anyway
Coredump: Um...Wut? Kinda convenient, no?

Did you really just write that? I can play your little game as well. Here's what was actually said since we're putting words in each other's mouths:

Celtavian: "Here's why the feats work the way they do. Because a single hit does about equal to two hits from a regular attack. A single hit is about 80% higher than a non-GWF hit. If a group focuses on using it under optimal conditions, it will do about 80% more damage."
Dave Dash: "Here's data from fights showing how it works under optimal conditions."
Coredump: "That's bad math. My math while using the feat all the time, never not using it, shows it's only 12%. That's if use it all the time with both of the characters using the same stuff. You know. All the time regardless of AC."
Celtavian: "It's impossible to model that with white room math given the vast number of situations. You can only show why a single hit is so far ahead of a non-GWF hits. You can show the immediate trade off and list some of the conditions that allow the tradeoff to work in favor the GWF."
Coredump; "My great math with no data shows 12%. I will put your words in quotation marks to show how bad the math is."
Dave: "Here is more actual data from play showing you the real numbers in play."
Celtavian: "Only focus on the difference in a single round of hits. The rest is too variable to calculate. The feat is only used under optimal conditions."
Coredump: "Bad "math."

Like I said, it doesn't work like your math shows it works. Been proven on multiple threads you appear to be ignoring. I can't continue a discussion with a guy that ignores what has already been clearly proven.

 

[LapBandit]

I think it's hilarious that CoreDump provides the math for his argument and those arguing the other way cherry pick anecdotes to attempt to build a foundation for their arguments. Rock on CoreDump!

 

[Coredump]

Yet the results were not a 25% boost. They were in the 80 to 100% range. I had it recorded, but threw it out a long time ago.

Like I said, you don't have data. I was merely attempting to show how if you hit a lot, it is actually an 80% boost. The characters hit a lot. More than you calculated.

So.... when PCs roll much better than average, they do more damage.... That sounds pretty self evident.

It is, of course, possible to have an encounter where the SS player does a lot better. That is why dice are called 'random', because other times they will do much worse than average. That is why "anecdotal data" is considered an oxymoron.

Last session I had a guy with a +7 to hit against AC 12, and miss 4 times in a row. See, now I have 'real data' that shows battleaxes just plain suck.