D&D 5E Tempest Cleric seems VERY strong

[Caliban]

 

[CapnZapp]

I just addressed this concern. Any analysis of damage per attack has to establish chance to hit, and as this is highly varied from game to game, any such analysis is inherently limited or flawed. When you attack over 70 times in a row with GWM and never miss due to advantage, AC of enemies, ally bonuses, etc..., that is a free 10 damage per strike, essentially. When you miss by 5 or less on 25% of your attacks, there is a huge impact on your expected average damage.

And being honest, I did one of the most meaningful studies on GWM and found that it is SIGNIFICANTLY overrated, even for powerful PCs. Why? It really only matters if using the feat reduces the amount of resources a party uses up in a battle. Sometimes getting the benefit of the feat will not reduce the number of attacks required to fell an enemy. Even if it does delay it, the enemy might still fall before the PCs lose more hps or use more abilities that are limited. If the PCs use at will abilities, the fact that the monster may get an extra turn may not matter if the monster misses on an attack or a PC makes a save. Even when the DPR is increased by 6 per strike, that may not be a meaningful change.

Man, I don't even know where to begin.

This might just be one of the most bizarre posts I've read here lately.

I feel it is in my best interests to say nothing.

Good luck with your gaming, JG!

 

[jgsugden]

Man, I don't even know where to begin.

Perhaps with considering that there might be truth in what I'm saying even if it is different than your current views. Just CONSIDERING it.

People fret over a lot of math in this game when at the end of the day, 19.34 vs 16.32 DPR often doesn't change anything meaningful. If there are two paths and both result in the PCs reaching the exact same result, it doesn't matter which path they take. If the PCs would have ended up at the end of a combat with the same damage taken and resources used if they'd had the fighter with the GWM in the combat or the fighter that took the +2 strength, then it doesn't really matter which version of the fighter they had in the party.

... I feel it is in my best interests to say nothing.

Another valid, and for you - novel, approach.

Good luck with your gaming, JG!

Thank you.

 

[Sacrosanct]

Another valid, and for you - novel, approach..

He said the same thing to me earlier today and then promptly quoted me two more times. Dunno, maybe you'll have better luck than me.

But really, and I suspect you'll agree with this, ignoring half of the effects a feat does (imparting a penalty) to focus on the base damage only is a bad way to try to analyze something because you could add a million damage to the base damage, but what matters is the actual full equation that goes into combat resolution during the game. A million bonus damage means zero if you don't hit with it. So yes, that feat add 10 damage to any attacks that hit with a qualified weapon, but "that hits" is the key part there. You also take a pretty hefty penalty in doing so. So, as you (and others) have said, when you do the actual math, the effect isn't that terribly much of a difference. Better? Yes, as a feat should be. But it's simply not accurate to say the feat grants a +10 bonus to every attack. Only attacks that hit. Which will be fewer due to that penalty.

 

[Shadowdweller00]

And I'm saying that once you hit, you hit.

Everybody just ignores "excessive hittage"!!!!!!!!!!

This is mathematically illiterate. You're flat out wrong here, guy.

 

[Bardbarian]

Not really sure how the majority of this thread became a GWM war but here is my 2cp. GWM has a greater benefit the less damage you deal per attack and the greater number of attacks one has. This is why Crossbow Master builds benefit from it the most at the expense of an additional feat but it si still very worth it. The -5 hit penalty is a greater risk the more damage you do on a single attack. I have yet to see any sane rogue use Sharp Shooter unless they had a means of at least one additional attack. The more damage you do and the fewer attacks one has, the less value the feat has because the damage is an all or nothing proposition. While GWM is a strong feat and I do believe it borders on the realm of broken, I would not remove it from the game. It simply provides a very clear method for a player tho enjoys dealing high damage to achieve that part of their fun. For every GWM fighter out there, I can think of a half dozen other builds which can do comparable damage or trade damage for some other measure of sucess. As a control type player I tend to deal far less damage but in exchange ensure those dealing damage are in the optimal situation to use their abilities. This is how I have fun and the presence of GWM/SS makes my contribution even more impactful.

As this is a game with with a human element of adaptability I don't really think it matters what individual damage is, a DM will oftne alter the statistics of an encounter to make it more fun and/or challenging. Ultimately for this reason the GWM/SS debate always falls apart because of table variance. Even playing the same adventure table A might fight BBEG1 alone in his bedroom while table B might encounter BBEG1 with 4 minions and a pet (insert suitable monster here) all waiting in ambush behind a fortified barricade. Thus leading to very different experieenced and accompanying math. The best thing to do is take all the theory work with a grain of salt because D&D is not an enclosed simulation with static variables but rather a bundle of chaos which we try to attribute some semblance of order to. Suffice to say GWM/SS can perhaps best be described as a series of suggestions rather than a hard mathematic formula.
For example, give a + for each of the following statements that are true and a - for each that is false
1: You have more than one attack
2: You have more than 2 attacks
3: Your average attack does less than 10 damage
4: you fight many enemies with more than 20 hp
5: You have advantage more than you do not
6: your enemies use natural armor rather than equipment
7: your enemies do not use magic to increase armor class
etc.

Using a series of questions like these (this is not by any means exaustive), one can decide if the feat is going to give them meaningful benefit. Each game might provide a different answer. Running a campaign against a tribe of orc barbarians who regularly grant advantage through reckless attack and wear little armor to offset the advantage GWM/SS would almost be a crime not to take. When Fighting the Hobgoblin empire however who are renowned for their use of heavy armor and shields in a Phalanx formation, it might be foolish to take the same feats.

 

[imdeadagain]

I'm sure someone is enjoying the argument that derailed the thread...

Back to the tempest cleric, I've played one through POTA, he started as a fighter then hit cleric, picked up magic initiate for booming blade which is pretty amazing at higher levels combined with divine strike, 3 times per short rest max damage with no save? I will take that.

Sleet storm is an amazing spell, came across a room full of ogres, one sleet storm later and it was ogres on ice, the party just sat outside the AOE and mopped up any ogres that made it to the edge.

It's a great class, I really enjoyed it and wouldn't hesitate to play one again. No he can't keep up DPR wise but he's very handy in a pinch. Oh and he didn't cast a healing spell till level 3 lol and seldom cast them after that!


Sent from my iPhone using EN World

 

[Ancalagon]

Well then, let's post some tables.

SCENARIO: Level 11 barbarian with a +2 great axe. With the feat, his strength will be 18. Without, it will be 20, so there is an opportunity cost to taking the feat. This is not a "Made up" example. This is an actual character used in play (Lal Qualandar, in the Al Qadim game that [MENTION=20323]Quickleaf[/MENTION] is running).

please stand by as I find a way to post the table.


edit: I believe it should be now visible in jpg mode. Please note that the table doesn't take into account critical hits. I readily admit that there is no "turn a near miss into a hit!" feature, but I'll also note that there is no easy way for this character to actually achieve this - he is not a battle master and there is no bard in the party either.

 

[Sacrosanct]

And that's not even considering the other benefits of choosing ASI over feat that may come into play, like saving throw bonuses, encumbrance, skill checks, etc.

 

[Caliban]

To be fair, I think CapnZapp believes that the GWM/Sharpshooter feats are overpowered when used in a party that actively tries to maximize them - i.e. when taking the -5 penalty, the character in question will usually have Advantage, Bless, Haste (for an extra attack), and possibly Bardic inspiration, the Luck feat, or is a Battlemaster.

It gets even worse if you have items like Belts of Giant Strength, Dex/Str tomes, or +3 weapons available.

If you are able to consistently maximize your chance of hitting, the -5 penalty becomes negligible at higher levels vs most of the creatures in the MM.

I just don't share CapnZapp's concerns because I believe that if you are allowing feats and/or being generous with magic items, then you should be boosting the monsters as well - higher AC's, more innate special abilities, or feats of their own. Besides, hitting for big damage is fun.