aramis erak
Legend
I've already accounted for that in my thinking. It's not going to make the math work out the way you think unless the DM is picking nought but lower AC foes...
D&D 5E Current take on GWM/SS
- Thread starter CapnZapp
- Start date
I've already accounted for that in my thinking. It's not going to make the math work out the way you think unless the DM is picking nought but lower AC foes...
It did work out the way I think in a WotC designed module and using monsters out of the Monster Manual. This whole "if the DM makes the ACs higher than those the designers use" thinking does not make the ability balanced. It means you can balance it yourself by building better monsters. I've never argued against that. Building stronger monsters is an alternate method for balancing the feats working from the back end.
If you're still focusing on DPR absent hit points of target, your analysis is moot. It doesn't matter if over 50 rounds the damage equals out. It only matters what you can do in two to three round bursts in fights that matter. The creature's don't have enough hit points to last longer against a party. The GWM and Sharpshooter aren't soloing the creature. They're doing the damage in a huge burst that allows them to take a much larger share of hit points in a shorter time leading to creature death.
Last edited:
aramis erak
Legend
I'm focused on Average Damage per Attack and whether the feat is significantly better than taking instead a +1 to attribute. It isn't. It doesn't generate more significant increases than raising the attribute would, except in cases where it's not of that much importance - low AC (and generally low threat) Opponents. And the attribute generates more consistent increases in damage.
You've been all "5E is broken" in almost every thread. It ain't. You're play of it is. Your grasp of statistics also appears to be, and you've suffering from a grievous case of selection bias.
You're trading "Will probably hit and do some damage" for "may hit and do lots, but equally as likely to miss and do absolutely nothing"... and it's not worth it at low to mid levels.
But if you want to continue in your delusion, fine... the math doesn't support your claims. Nor does my experience. And I've been running AL games mostly - since start of season 1.
Yeah, Season 1 was poor opponent choices - but it also showed that the low threat foes are still threats, when present in sufficient number. And it was written before the MM was finished, or the DMG.
Psikerlord#
Explorer
Only looking at average damage is a big mistake imo.
There is a certain amount of truth to what you say here. When one looks at the math for a 4th level Strength based PC with Str 16 and great weapon specialization, the DPR for +1/+1 is better at higher ACs than the DPR for -5/+10 (including the GWM extra attack for criticals).
Code:
AC, DPR +1/+1, DPR -5/+10, extra GWM DPR for downed foe (if critical did not happen)
10 10.90 12.76 0.58
11 10.28 11.64 0.53
12 9.67 10.52 0.48
13 9.05 9.40 0.43
14 8.43 8.28 0.37
15 7.82 7.16 0.32
16 7.20 6.04 0.27
17 6.58 4.92 0.22
18 5.97 3.80 0.17
19 5.35 2.68 0.12
20 4.73 1.56 0.07When one looks at this math straight up, AC 14 is more or less the break even point. +1/+1 does better at AC 15 and higher, -5/+10 does better at AC 13 and lower. AC 14 has a very slight edge towards using +1/+1, but it really depends on the situation.
However, this is a bit misleading.
A +1 magic weapon increases the break even point to almost AC 15 (it's not exactly a full move on the chart due to the extra damage).
Bless increases the break even point to above AC 16 (i.e. better to use -5/+10 at AC 16, better to use +1/+1 at AC 17).
Advantage increases the break even point to almost AC 19.
This is at level 4 when PCs have +2 proficiency to hit. Just going to level 5 moves the break even point to AC 15.
A +1 magic weapon at level 5 means that the break even point is almost AC 16. At level 5, PCs do not fight a lot of AC 17 and higher foes, and when they do, it's not too hard to get advantage or bonuses due to spells, Feinting, conditions, etc.
And, the melee PC is not required to used the -5/+10. Comparing the +1/+1 DPR with the DPR for having GWM without the -5/+10 (i.e. +0/+0 and using the critical extra attack feature only) at level 4 yields:
Code:
AC, DPR +1/+1, DPR GWM +0/+0, extra GWM DPR for downed foe (if critical did not happen)
10 10.90 11.45 0.45
11 10.28 10.80 0.42
12 9.67 10.15 0.40
13 9.05 9.50 0.37
14 8.43 8.86 0.34
15 7.82 8.21 0.32
16 7.20 7.56 0.29
17 6.58 6.91 0.26
18 5.97 6.27 0.24
19 5.35 5.62 0.21
20 4.73 4.97 0.18Straight up, getting the extra attack for a critical does more DPR than +1/+1. So obviously, the feat is more potent than +1/+1. Sure, +1/+1 does not use a bonus action once in a while and it gives a +1 to Athletics and Str saving throws, but this is white noise. The feat is obviously better without even using the -5/+10. And it is better at level 4/5 right out of the box. Eventually, most melee PCs will take the +1/+1 so at higher levels, a GWM PC with Str 20 is basically superior than a different feat PC with Str 20. No other feats give this level of leverage. With increases to "to hit", AC not keeping pace with proficiency, multiple attacks per round, and many more/better PC abilities/spells at higher levels, this only gets better and better.
The synergy of using the -5/+10 at optimal times and for multiple attacks per round combined with buffs is what makes the feat unbalanced. Not the straight up math comparison of +1/+1 vs. -5/+10. Your point is basically moot. It ignores the realities of when the -5/+10 will be used.
Hussar
Legend
"Only looking at" is a big mistake no matter what you are "only looking at".
Indeed. I'll take the +2 for the Superstat Dexterity for the other bonuses and uses over the -5/+10 feats.
And the heavy weapon warrior will throw a lot of handaxes/javelins/spears making +2 Strength is nice.
So again it comes down to how your group plays and what kind of game the DM runs.
I haven't stated 5E is broken. I did not say that in any thread. Guys like you keep putting that down, yet that is your translation of any criticism of 5E GWM and Sharpshooter. Stop attributing it to me. I have explained extensively my problem with the feats and their effect on the game.
Yes. The math does support my claim. It's been proven by multiple people. No a stat doesn't equal it save over perhaps over a very long period of time. That is not how D&D battles run. You keep leaving out hit points of the creature and the fact fights are done in a certain number of rounds that creates finite set points in a statistical analysis, not DPR which occurs over a very long period of time. I very much understand how statistics works. That is why I don't focus on DPR. That number is obtained assuming hundreds of rounds of battle, not in spurts like D&D battles run.
I don't generate a statistical model for you because it is not worth my time. It is not as easy as the ones posted on these threads because I have stated many, many, many times the variations are immense and involve a lot of factors other than AC, attack roll, and the like. There are so many party variations, monster variations, and circumstantial variations as to make it impossible to show using a simple DPR analysis. That is what you keep using and it is inaccurate.
To toss your pathetic word back at you, if you want to keep your delusion going that it doesn't vastly boost damage in real game fights, have at it. Your groups are obviously different than mine. I have recorded data to support my claim.
Last, doesn't Adventurer's League end at level 12? Barely past the halfway point? Have you bothered to record data in a group using GWM in an optimal manner? Or are your groups jumping in and fighting as a group of individuals rather than a team? I'd love to see the circumstances you've deemed make these feats equal to a stat point.
Your statistical analysis looks at the feat absent party buffs? Are you serious? Sure, the feat looks fine with no buffs. It's abuse doesn't become apparently until the party starts focusing on maximizing the feat. Your math is never going to change the fact that the feat is gets better as the party focuses on its use. I'm going to wait. If you don't ever have problems with it, good for you.
I'll continue in these types of threads to list my experience with the feats as well as what I believe are the problems DMs and players should look out for. I'd appreciate that folks like you stop assuming I somehow said "5E is broken" because of these feats. I see them as one imbalanced, exploitable option in an otherwise very balanced game. DMs should keep an eye on the feats at their tables.
Last edited:
CapnZapp
Legend
Aramis, I would like you to do your math taking two additional concerns in mind:
1) The GWM fighter will have at least a +4 buff to attack (whether from a buff spell, class feature or other matters little)
2) The mathematical average disregards the fact you can CHOOSE not to use -5/+10. Please take this into account by assuming the GWM fighter to use +0/+0 above the AC breaking point (say AC 14 theoretical unbuffed, AC 18 practical play).
Thank you.
As for your take on Celtavian, I kind of understand. His frequent posts about dragons got a bit obsessive. But do mind his point: it isn't the whole of 5e that is broken, only the -5/+10 feats...
I look forward to your calculations!
Best regards,
Zapp
The first WotC released module had a ton of dragon fights. They were the only fights that were challenging past level 8 against our party. GWM wiped out lesser creatures even faster. The few other types of creatures we fought like the guy with the artifact mask and the prophet riding the green dragon lasted a round or two. We completely slaughtered them as written in the module without taking any damage of note. Even the demons we fought we slaughtered with the GWM using GWM at will . A bunch of nycaloths and a bunch of mezzoloths. The only creature near as tough as dragons in the MM is Empyreans?
Yeah. I focused heavily on dragons because that is what we fought. Anything less than dragons was even less of a challenge. Maybe it was a poorly designed module. I don't know.
Similar Threads
