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

[Datalore]

A Tempest Cleric and a Dragon Sorcerer both take Elemental Affinity (Adept?), and yet they play completely different.

A Death Cleric takes Magic Initiate (Cleric), and plays very differently from the Fighter who did the same.

A two-weapon Ranger takes Dual Wielder, and is different from the dagger-throwing Rogue that does likewise.

The Shield Master stabby Rogue is a different beast from the Shield Master swishy Fighter.

Hell, the Great Weapon Master Battle Master who calculates every attack is different to the Great Weapon Master Barbarian who roars and recklessly charges forth.

I could go on?

I don't say that they don't play differently but they share more in common after taking these feats than they did before. They were more interesting and unique prior to having those feats since they were defined by a more disparate set of abilities. The rogue and swishy fighter were far more different without shield master than they are with it.

That's just part of the issue. The other part is that m/c and feats can also lead to more powerful characters and some marginalized classes. If you are ok with that, go for it. As a DM, I don't have the time or inclination to deal with that problems introduced by these optional rules. Seeing as they take more away from the game than they add to the game, I think it's hilarious folks are getting into the mental gymnastics of getting into a 20+ page thread complete with charts and algebra just to determine if it's OP or useless. In both cases, it's bad. So just get rid of it.

 

[Satyrn]

Aye....spotted that waaaay too late. Awful schoolboy error

I'll happily eat 3d10 algebra damage....

Far less painful than logarithmic damage.

 

[Hillsy7]

DH-0.25D+10H-2.5 > DH+0.05D+H+0.05
Goes to:
9H-0.2D-2.55 > 0

Though that simplifies to 9H-0.3D-2.55......I think the strikethrough obscured the negative....

 

[Yunru]

Though that simplifies to 9H-0.3D-2.55......I think the strikethrough obscured the negative....

Yes, yes it did. Damn formatting

 

[hejtmane]

I don't say that they don't play differently but they share more in common after taking these feats than they did before. They were more interesting and unique prior to having those feats since they were defined by a more disparate set of abilities. The rogue and swishy fighter were far more different without shield master than they are with it.

That's just part of the issue. The other part is that m/c and feats can also lead to more powerful characters and some marginalized classes. If you are ok with that, go for it. As a DM, I don't have the time or inclination to deal with that problems introduced by these optional rules. Seeing as they take more away from the game than they add to the game, I think it's hilarious folks are getting into the mental gymnastics of getting into a 20+ page thread complete with charts and algebra just to determine if it's OP or useless. In both cases, it's bad. So just get rid of it.

That is the rub for some of us it does not propuse a problem for others it does; people want it removed or changed in the offcials rules. Which is not going to happen no matter how much they talk about it because for most people it is not an issue so the chocies are clear a do not allow feats or b disalow certian feats or combnation. There is a group that is not happy and want it removed from the offical 5e or modified.

What ever I allow feats and multi classing and have no issues in my custom campaigns.

 

[Ganymede81]

Though that simplifies to 9H-0.3D-2.55......I think the strikethrough obscured the negative....

Which, once cleaned up, becomes this: (D + 8.5)/H < 30

Bear in mind, that this equation defines D and H before application of the feat/ASI.

I defined D and H as the baseline in common between the feat/ASI (add one to your damage and subtract 0.25 from your chance to hit) because it simplifies without a constant and is much neater: D/H < 30

They'll both still work in telling you which is better with any given values of D and H, though, and the size of the quotient will still illustrate how much better (though it isn't linear).

 

[Yunru]

Which, once cleaned up, becomes this: (D + 8.5)/H < 30

Bear in mind, that this equation defines D and H before application of the feat/ASI.

I defined D and H as the baseline in common between the feat/ASI (add one to your damage and subtract 0.25 from your chance to hit) because it simplifies without a constant and is much neater: D/H < 30

They'll both still work in telling you which is better with any given values of D and H, though, and the size of the quotient will still illustrate how much better (though it isn't linear).

And you've lost me.

9H-0.3D-2.55 > 0 is a statement you can't divide through on, no? Because it's an inequality, not an equality.

Thankfully the break even point is (sorta) what we're after, and that is an equality.

9H-0.3D-2.55=0
Which goes to:
(D + 8.5)/H = 30

I guess from there you can determine which way round to put the inequality.

Huh. I guess this post was pointless.

 

[Ganymede81]

You can still multiply/divide in inequalities, just remember to reverse the inequality sign if you multiply/divide by a negative number. In my case, I divided both sides by 0.3 (it looks like you did that, too). That's allowed.

 

[guachi]

If this equation about having GWM and choosing to use the -5/+10 portion or choosing whether to take the feat at all?

 

[Ganymede81]

If this equation about having GWM and choosing to use the -5/+10 portion or choosing whether to take the feat at all?

It is the latter.

If you instead want to decide when it is good to use the -5/+10 portion or not, you can use this equation instead: D/H = 40.

To summarize, there are more instances when using the -5/+10 portion is better than there are instances where GWM is better than an ASI. This is because the ASI gives you a flat +1/+1 while foregoing the -5/+10 does not.