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

[Yunru]

Any competent team makes sure attacks are made with advantage, no matter what their builds are.

Since "getting advantage" more than pays for its own cost, let's not factor it into this discussion. You would use it anyway.

It certainly does not cost more when used with GWM than when used elsewhere.

Zapp

PS. If some of you reading this are at a lower level of player expertise where you aren't sure advantage is that good, and/or you are unsure on how to go about getting it on a consistent basis, I'm more than happy to provide advice, just as long as we take it in another thread

"Let's not consider this thing that goes against my arguement."

Yeah, okay. In ten years of play I have never once encountered teams going out of the way to provide advantage unless that's part of their build.

See, this is the problem. You make good points and then ruin your own argument by claiming all the counter points trivial when they're not. It's not that GWM/SS (especially good luck getting advantage on the latter) are that good, it's that you're wearing GWM-tinted glasses.

 

[Ancalagon]

I feel I have taken EVERY aspect of what you say here into account in my example.

Random observations:

* Attacking AC 16 with only a +4 bonus to hit... feels very first level. And at that level, even I don't pretend it's easy to come up with advantage with anything near a regular frequency. In fact, any time you need to roll a 12 to hit is a poor poster boy for this entire concept - using GWM in this case is probably just bad for you.

+4 bonus to hit because you just used GWM and took a -5 to hit... this is a likely scenario, not a "very first level".

* You are correct in your methodology for computing the benefit of Precision, but you seem to (again) not remember two things:
a) you don't HAVE to use Precision. If you need to roll 12 to hit, and you only roll 4, yes you need to roll an 8 on that 1d8. Which is a good reason to not do so! Just chalk that up as a miss, and save your Precision maneuver for later.

I stated that precision would only be used some of the time did I not? Only for a specific range of rolls.

b) you only use your Precision dice on "near misses". Not "far misses" (as in a) but also not on "actual hits". This greatly contribute to you burning through your maneuver dice FAR SLOWER than when you use them for damage (and statuses).

So are you saying that if you miss by 7 (so you need a 1 or 2 on the d8) you should not use the precision dice? That can be calculated - what would be the range? Miss by 4 or less?

 

[Ancalagon]

double post

 

[Hillsy7]

I could be wrong here, but this looks to me as yet another Averaging Fallacy. Just as you can arrive at numbers that "does not look all that bad" by averaging GWM DPR for a whole AC range (without remembering that the player doesn't use it when it makes your DPR worse) and/or calculate results for Precision assuming you use it whenever there's a chance of changing a miss into a hit (without remembering that the player doesn't use it when the Precision die is more likely to do nothing)...

My calculations assume literal use of SD for precision purposes (Namely that the player only ever uses SD when there is a 1-3 point difference in AC over 40 attacks (rough) between short rests), not average. Using simple algorithms, against a range of non-ridiculous ACs (12-20), and because of riposte, both any BM Fighter can turn 5-6 zero damage moments (Missing narrowly or being attacked and using riposte) into Full Damage moments (5-6 being number of SD and a very small fail chance).

Therefore, the uptick or benefit of precision to the BM Fighter is How many times they would normally encounter a zero damage situation and be able to change that (SD) Vs How many zero damage situations there are Vs total number of possibility attempts - No averages involved - simply known to-hit probability with no Precision, vs to probably full use of Precision at optimal times.

Simply put - if you make 40 attacks, miss ten, and can turn 6 of them into hits, you've improved your output for 30 to 36, or 20%. If you make 40 attacks, miss only 2, turn both of them to hits, then Riposte 4 times, you've gone from 38 to 44, or 15.7% (Plus a bit because of Riposte). Because all BM fighters can use Riposte or Precision (regardless of GWM or not), then situation uses are irrelevant as both sides can use them (if anything a GWM will burn through them faster because there's a chance they will miss by a correctable amount more often, that is more times than you have SD. This occurs around AC16).

Precision/Riposte usage between a GWM and non-GWM fighter is actually a pretty easy comparison, because the only thing you are changing is the units of Damage and probability to hit: Each fighter can use exactly the same criteria to change from zero damage to Full damage per SD, per short rest.

 

[FrogReaver]

Averaging is not a fallacy, it is a law.

A simple average is meaningless when a weighted average should be used. A weighted average should be used here but cannot be since each campaign will yield different weights for the exact ac's we are up against.

 

[Hillsy7]

A simple average is meaningless when a weighted average should be used. A weighted average should be used here but cannot be since each campaign will yield different weights for the exact ac's we are up against.

There's actually a tremendous amount of sliders involved here considering weighting. Resource economy (less resting), Player competence, Party make-up (Lots of support characters vs non-support), enemy AC, Flying enemies (no good for GWM), Enemy debuffs, GM combat competence.....and so on. Almost to the point I'd say that the argument is largely irrelevant because the variation in impact of these factors significantly overshadows the positive/negative differences between the two points being argued.......

Which is why D&D is so cool!

 

[FrogReaver]

+4 bonus to hit because you just used GWM and took a -5 to hit... this is a likely scenario, not a "very first level".


I stated that precision would only be used some of the time did I not? Only for a specific range of rolls.


So are you saying that if you miss by 7 (so you need a 1 or 2 on the d8) you should not use the precision dice? That can be calculated - what would be the range? Miss by 4 or less?

For your last question it depends on your total number and size of superiority dice and your number of attacks and the number of combat rounds expected in a day. 4 or less is a good starting estimate though.

 

[Helldritch]

I can see CapnZapp point quite clearly. He is right and yet he is wrong.
His calculations are perfect. I have nothing to say about them save that I agree. Maybe I was not clear on that.

Only the first assumption is wrong. A pc can't have advantage all the time.
The white room does not take into account monsters reaction.
The white room does not take into account the loss of resources from previous encounters.
The white room does not take into account the different DM styles.

The "I got a gazzillion ways to get advantage" are all cancelled by one action: "The dodge action." Of course it won't work with only one creature but you will rarely see that. Especially now, that we know that in 5e, boss battle are simply too easy.

From what I have seen in over 15 different groups over the course of 5 years or so of 5ed, the "troublesome" feats come to the fore in a few situations.
-DM allow the 5 mwd. Characters are always at full capacity. The feat abuse door is now wide open.
-DM does not enforce the 4 to 6 encounters per day. Or the way he builds them allow too much resource economy which will allow the 5mwd.
-DM let the "monsters" stay static between the character's forays.

Yep I had had a problem with these feats in the first two groups, in the first few dungeons they did. I told myself what is wrong? I found solutions and put them into play. And all the other DM I knew that had problem with the feats are now applying my solutions. The solutions were to make sure the 5mwd would no longer exists.

With one group it was pretty obvious, the DM had asked me to check his gaming and find the wrong in what he was doing for he could not properly challenge the players without going over board and slay them outright with a challenge way too high for them.

It was a simple assault on a ruined tower with a dungeon in the basement. Players agreed to play it two times. Once with their DM and once with me.
1st attempt.
Total of 5 encounters. 4 of these were easy to moderate with one short rest between encounter 3 and 4. The last one was a boss with three henchmen. Resources are all gone with the first four, so the players go out, make camp. Needless to say that I saw a lot of nova. They get back in where the boss and his henchmen are there, waiting for the players as if nothing happened. Four or five round later, no more bad guys. End of the story.

2nd attempt I stepped in. Same encounters, monster's names are changed (and only the names) the map is a little different but the same principles apply.

After the 2nd encounter, the players want to take a short rest. I oblige them as it should be. After the third encounter, with orogs blocking the entryway and dodging the GWM while the hobgoblins are shooting arrows after arrows they want to rest again. The room 4 get the jump on them as they try to rest. I almost killed them. They get their rest (finally) but it transforms into a long one. They finaly come to the end boss room only to find it empty. The boss is gone with his henchmen along with any treasure that wasn't nailed down to the walls.

I agree to a third time. Players start to keep resources and don't go nova all the way as usual. I even see the barbarian dodging at one point. A short rest between fight 3 and 4. And get to the endgame boss with quite a few less resources than they expected. The battle is a long one, it lasts 12 or 13 rounds with a knight intercepting the GWM and he started to play the I dodge and I parry you with the poor player almost screaming how unfair it was. Meanwhile, the boss and his two other henchmen are engaging the other players. The rogue of the players goes down but he's not killed. When they finaly won, with the bosse's death at the hand of the rogue, the knight surendered... (he was almost dead anyways).

The players much prefered the last fight. They were proud of having won with much hardship.
A white room calculation would not have predict that outcome.
No it was not a battle master but a barbarian. They did not have the standard array but well rolled up characters. They were level 5.
But I saw the same scenari over and over again with the same results.

Yes these feats, left uncheck, can be quite the destroyers of fun and versatility of play. Yes they can be quite unbalanced. But a few simple change in style and they get back to where they are supposed to be. And if you do this, you'll start to see some changes in player tactics. Builds will start to diversify and you'll have fun again because players will surprise you.

As I said, these feat will be as unbalanced and disruptive as you let them to be.

 

[hejtmane]

I can see CapnZapp point quite clearly. He is right and yet he is wrong.
His calculations are perfect. I have nothing to say about them save that I agree. Maybe I was not clear on that.

Only the first assumption is wrong. A pc can't have advantage all the time.
The white room does not take into account monsters reaction.
The white room does not take into account the loss of resources from previous encounters.
The white room does not take into account the different DM styles.

The "I got a gazzillion ways to get advantage" are all cancelled by one action: "The dodge action." Of course it won't work with only one creature but you will rarely see that. Especially now, that we know that in 5e, boss battle are simply too easy.

From what I have see in over 15 different groups over the course of 5 years or so of 5ed, the "troublesome" feats come to the fore in a few situations.
-DM allow the 5 mwd. Characters are always at full capacity. The feat abuse door is now wide open.
-DM does not enforce the 4 to 6 encounters per day. Or the way he builds them allow too much resource economy which will allow the 5mwd.
-DM let the "monsters" stay static between the character's forays.

Yep I had had a problem with these feats in the first two groups, in the first few dungeons they did. I told myself what is wrong? I found solutions and put them into play. And all the other DM I knew that had problem with the feats are now applying my solutions. The solutions were to make sure the 5mwd would no longer exists.

With one group it was pretty obvious, the DM had asked me to check his gaming and find the wrong in what he was doing for he could not properly challenge the players without going over board and slay them outright with a challenge way too high for them.

It was a simple assault on a ruined tower with a dungeon in the basement. Players agreed to play it two times. Once with their DM and once with me.
1st attempt.
Total of 5 encounters. 4 of these were easy to moderate with one short rest between encounter 3 and 4. The last one was a boss with three henchmen. Resources are all gone with the first four, so the players go out, make camp. Needless to say that I saw a lot of nova. They get back in where the boss and his henchmen are there, waiting for the players as if nothing happened. Four or five round later, no more bad guys. End of the story.

2nd attempt I stepped in. Same encounters, monster's names are changed (and only the names) the map is a little different but the same principles apply.

After the 2nd encounter, the players want to take a short rest. I oblige them as it should be. After the third encounter, with orogs blocking the entryway and dodging the GWM while the hobgoblins are shooting arrows after arrows they want to rest again. The room 4 get the jump on them as they try to rest. I almost killed them. They get their rest (finally) but it transforms into a long one. They finaly come to the end boss room only to find it empty. The boss is gone with his henchmen along with any treasure that wasn't nailed down to the walls.

I agree to a third time. Players start to keep resources and don't go nova all the way as usual. I even see the barbarian dodging at one point. A short rest between fight 3 and 4. And get to the endgame boss with quite a few less resources than they expected. The battle is a long one, it lasts 12 or 13 rounds with a knight intercepting the GWM and he started to play the I dodge and I parry you with the poor player almost screaming how unfair it was. Meanwhile, the boss and his two other henchmen are engaging the other players. The rogue of the players goes down but he's not killed. When they finaly won, with the bosse's death at the hand of the rogue, the knight surendered... (he was almost dead anyways).

The players much prefered the last fight. They were proud of having won with much hardship.
A white room calculation would not have predict that outcome.
No it was not a battle master but a barbarian. They did not have the standard array but well rolled up characters. They were level 5.
But I saw the same scenari over and over again with the same results.

Yes these feats, left uncheck, can be quite the destroyers of fun and versatility of play. Yes they can be quite unbalanced. But a few simple change in style and they get back to where they are supposed to be. And if you do this, you'll start to see some changes in player tactics. Builds will start to diversify and you'll have fun again because players will surprise you.

As I said, these feat will be as unbalanced and disruptive as you let them to be.

Funny how that works; I said the same thing many times on this form about encounter building and how to many DM play all monsters as stupid mindless creatures instead of using tactics. Generally we get beat up for telling them they are playing the game wrong. There are a group of people that want that feat removed from the game but funny thing is people wanted more feats aviliable in their polling not removal of a couple feats that some people want removed.

I am running a group and they have reached 18th level I run a custom campaign (Note for monsters I use the MM; Monster of the Day and I have Tome of Beast) any ways. Part of the campaigin is a leakage of Devils and Fiends into the material plane through portals and they are fighting the Parton of the Warlock for not handing over the artifact they were suppose to after they got it. I brought in LT level henchman and they have multi attack and can cast antimagic field. Talk about wrecking shop when I pile out enough of them and several are using antimagic field on them. Talk about changing the dynamics of a fight quickly that was a long battle they were fresh but burn so many resources because of the multi attack and antimagic field. Shield spell does not work magic user trying to get out of it opening up for opprutinity attacks yea needless to say they eventually won the day but it was close and they only killed like two of the mobs the rest disappeared in a get away that was the warning from the pateron.

 

[Helldritch]

Funny how that works; I said the same thing many times on this form about encounter building and how to many DM play all monsters as stupid mindless creatures instead of suing tatcis. Generally we get beat up for telling them they are playing the game wrong. There are a group of people that want that feat removed from the game but funny thing is people wanted more feats aviliable in their polling not removal of a couple feats that some people want removed.

I am running a group and they have reached 18th level I run a custom campaign (Note for monsters I usee the MM. Monster of the Day and I have tome of beast) any ways. Part of the campaigin is a leakage of Devils and Fiends into the material plane through portals and they are fighting the Parton of the Warlock for not handing over the artifact they were suppose to after they got it. I brought in LT level henchman and they have multi attack and can cast antimagic field. Talk about wrecking shop when I pile out enough of them and several are using antimagic field on them. Talk about changing the dynamics of a fight quickly that was a long battle they were fresh but burn so many resources because of the multi attack and antimagic field. Shield spell does not work magic user trying to get out of it opening up for opprutinity attacks yea needless to say they eventually won the day but it was close and they only kille dlike two of the mobs the rest disappeared in a get away that was the warning from the pateron.

That is the thing I like to hear. Actual gameplay example. 18th level is nothing to sneeze at. And yet, you can challenge your players. I am sure that they will remember this fight a lot longer than if they had just cruised it with ease.