D&D 5E The impact of ASIs

[James Gasik]

Ta
Taken alone, yes, that single +1 does not mean a lot.
And just to make thing straight, I am the one claiming that the sweet 16 so many claim to be the end that justify all floating ASI is simply putting rubber masks on the races. BUT.
Couple it with advantage and GWM or SS and that silly +1 along with a bless spell might (or should I say does) now represents on a sure hit more than 11 points of additional damage. I have a barb/battle master that does regularly 25+ damage per attacks. With three attacks under haste and an action surge, we look at a whopping 125 to 150 damage on targets with AC 15 or less. Yes, I'll get to attack him with advantage, if his target survive...

So +1 can be inconsequential, or can make quite a big change. It depends whether or not you have an optimizer.

Great Weapon Master is an odd duck. Mathematically speaking, it doesn't seem particularly worth it.

I mean, let's look at a Fighter with a +5 to hit vs. AC 12. He only misses 30% of the time. If his average damage is 10, that's 7 per turn on average.

Throw in GWM, and now he misses 55% of the time. Even though his average damage is now 20, because of that miss chance, his damage per turn only goes up to 9.

Even with Bless, that average damage becomes 8.25 vs. 10.5. But people swear by it, and DM's hate GWM because when it does hit, the damage seems far more impressive in the short run than it really would be in the long run.

Of course, this is all theorycraft- AC's are variable, but thanks to bounded accuracy, are rarely going to rise too high on opponents, and advantage is fairly easy to gain if you're looking for it. After all, if I'm doing 10 damage a hit, and I increase my hit percentage by 25, that's only another 2.5 damage a hit.

Trading that 25% chance to hit for 10 more damage seems like the better deal, even if your miss chance is 25% greater, no matter what the actual damage calculation would be on paper-

75% chance to hit with 10 damage is only 7.5, while 50% chance to hit with 20 still pulls ahead at 10. It's a much smaller boost to damage than people think it is, obviously, but when you do hit, it 'feels' like you're breaking the system a lot more than you really are.

 

[Bill Zebub]

Great Weapon Master is an odd duck. Mathematically speaking, it doesn't seem particularly worth it.

I mean, let's look at a Fighter with a +5 to hit vs. AC 12. He only misses 30% of the time. If his average damage is 10, that's 7 per turn on average.

Throw in GWM, and now he misses 55% of the time. Even though his average damage is now 20, because of that miss chance, his damage per turn only goes up to 9.

Even with Bless, that average damage becomes 8.25 vs. 10.5. But people swear by it, and DM's hate GWM because when it does hit, the damage seems far more impressive in the short run than it really would be in the long run.

Of course, this is all theorycraft- AC's are variable, but thanks to bounded accuracy, are rarely going to rise too high on opponents, and advantage is fairly easy to gain if you're looking for it. After all, if I'm doing 10 damage a hit, and I increase my hit percentage by 25, that's only another 2.5 damage a hit.

Trading that 25% chance to hit for 10 more damage seems like the better deal, even if your miss chance is 25% greater, no matter what the actual damage calculation would be on paper-

75% chance to hit with 10 damage is only 7.5, while 50% chance to hit with 20 still pulls ahead at 10. It's a much smaller boost to damage than people think it is, obviously, but when you do hit, it 'feels' like you're breaking the system a lot more than you really are.

GWM shines (that is, the -5/+10 part) when you also have advantage, and I think a common strategy is to use group synergy to frequently have advantage.

Honestly my favorite part of GWM is the bonus attack, not for the theorycrafting but for the satisfaction of getting that extra attack. On the few occasions I've taken GWM I rarely use the -5/+10.

 

[billd91]

I prefer the old days when stats were not that important. Now everyone grubs for that extra +1.

People did then too. Cheated shamelessly at character generation. Knights of the Dinner Table even lampooned it back in the 1990s when Bob and Dave "witnessed" each others die rolls to get stellar stats, even rolling through hundreds of character builds to do so.

The difference is that D&D since 3e has made higher stats achievable by leveling up, meaning you don't need to roll them (or pick them from an array, or even, ugh, point buy) at the highest level to eventually get there.

 

[Warpiglet-7]

GWM shines (that is, the -5/+10 part) when you also have advantage, and I think a common strategy is to use group synergy to frequently have advantage.

Honestly my favorite part of GWM is the bonus attack, not for the theorycrafting but for the satisfaction of getting that extra attack. On the few occasions I've taken GWM I rarely use the -5/+10.

I believe that the extra attack does not require a heavy weapon so if you don’t care for the -5+10 business it still has some value.

Hammer and shield would qualify I believe.

If you took sentinel gwm and ? You could be poised for an additional attack in a few different ways.

 

[DarkCrisis]

People did then too. Cheated shamelessly at character generation. Knights of the Dinner Table even lampooned it back in the 1990s when Bob and Dave "witnessed" each others die rolls to get stellar stats, even rolling through hundreds of character builds to do so.

The difference is that D&D since 3e has made higher stats achievable by leveling up, meaning you don't need to roll them (or pick them from an array, or even, ugh, point buy) at the highest level to eventually get there.

Cheating a roll is different from grubbing for +1s.

When you saw no positive or negative bonuses until you got to a 6 or 16 (15?) is much different than oh I just need to get my 11 to a 12 to get a +1!

 

[Helldritch]

Great Weapon Master is an odd duck. Mathematically speaking, it doesn't seem particularly worth it.

I mean, let's look at a Fighter with a +5 to hit vs. AC 12. He only misses 30% of the time. If his average damage is 10, that's 7 per turn on average.

Throw in GWM, and now he misses 55% of the time. Even though his average damage is now 20, because of that miss chance, his damage per turn only goes up to 9.

Even with Bless, that average damage becomes 8.25 vs. 10.5. But people swear by it, and DM's hate GWM because when it does hit, the damage seems far more impressive in the short run than it really would be in the long run.

Of course, this is all theorycraft- AC's are variable, but thanks to bounded accuracy, are rarely going to rise too high on opponents, and advantage is fairly easy to gain if you're looking for it. After all, if I'm doing 10 damage a hit, and I increase my hit percentage by 25, that's only another 2.5 damage a hit.

Trading that 25% chance to hit for 10 more damage seems like the better deal, even if your miss chance is 25% greater, no matter what the actual damage calculation would be on paper-

75% chance to hit with 10 damage is only 7.5, while 50% chance to hit with 20 still pulls ahead at 10. It's a much smaller boost to damage than people think it is, obviously, but when you do hit, it 'feels' like you're breaking the system a lot more than you really are.

The following is the truth behind GWM.

GWM shines (that is, the -5/+10 part) when you also have advantage, and I think a common strategy is to use group synergy to frequently have advantage.

Honestly my favorite part of GWM is the bonus attack, not for the theorycrafting but for the satisfaction of getting that extra attack. On the few occasions I've taken GWM I rarely use the -5/+10.

Because GWM will not be used if the chances to hit are below 60% once applied. (Or perceived as such).
I have a GWM barb/battle master and that guy wrecks anything below AC 15. He will give himself advantage, might be blessed and will hit his foes with a fairly good regularity. Enough to make it appear as if that little -5 was inconsequential. Just the extra attack can be a great boon to it too.

And its not like as if I can not handle the character. Quite the contrary. But at 20 strength, a +1 two handed sword and being blessed when the AC becomes a bit high means that even at -5 to hit, because of advantage it leaves our little barb/Bm with a total bonus equivalent of +10 +1d4 (or +13). Meaning that an AC 20 will be hit 65% of the time, might trigger a bonus action 5% on a simple roll (nat 20) and automatically if a foe gets downed. If hasted it means that this char can do up to (if everything hits) 7 x (2d6 average 9 as 1 and 2s are rerolled) + 16 dmg. So it is 7x 25 or 175 +9 dmg in a round on a single target if a crit landed (which when you throw 12d20 can happen relatively often). And in a few levels, that char will be 11th BM with 3 attacks, 4 hasted + (4 more on a surge) and so on...

 

[Bill Zebub]

I believe that the extra attack does not require a heavy weapon so if you don’t care for the -5+10 business it still has some value.

Hammer and shield would qualify I believe.

Yup.

If you took sentinel gwm and ? You could be poised for an additional attack in a few different ways.

One time I had GWM I was paired up with a barbarian with shield master. I spent a lot of time smacking prone targets.

 

[Charlaquin]

These also tend to be the feats that make people complain about feats!

Yeah, I generally think such complaints are overblown. The usual culprits for “overpowered” feats are, in my opinion, exactly the feats that are worth giving up an ASI for.

 

[Charlaquin]

Great Weapon Master is an odd duck. Mathematically speaking, it doesn't seem particularly worth it.

I mean, let's look at a Fighter with a +5 to hit vs. AC 12. He only misses 30% of the time. If his average damage is 10, that's 7 per turn on average.

Throw in GWM, and now he misses 55% of the time. Even though his average damage is now 20, because of that miss chance, his damage per turn only goes up to 9.

Even with Bless, that average damage becomes 8.25 vs. 10.5. But people swear by it, and DM's hate GWM because when it does hit, the damage seems far more impressive in the short run than it really would be in the long run.

Of course, this is all theorycraft- AC's are variable, but thanks to bounded accuracy, are rarely going to rise too high on opponents, and advantage is fairly easy to gain if you're looking for it. After all, if I'm doing 10 damage a hit, and I increase my hit percentage by 25, that's only another 2.5 damage a hit.

Trading that 25% chance to hit for 10 more damage seems like the better deal, even if your miss chance is 25% greater, no matter what the actual damage calculation would be on paper-

75% chance to hit with 10 damage is only 7.5, while 50% chance to hit with 20 still pulls ahead at 10. It's a much smaller boost to damage than people think it is, obviously, but when you do hit, it 'feels' like you're breaking the system a lot more than you really are.

The other thing is, you don’t have to (and shouldn’t) use the -5 to hit +10 damage on every attack. You want to use it when you know, or can at least reasonably assume, that it will be a net positive. Don’t bother with it when attacking swarms enemies that probably don’t have much HP, or heavily armored opponents that will probably be hard enough to hit even without that -5. Play smart, use it against enemies you expect to be relatively easy to hit but lots of health. Also, when you have advantage.

 

[ad_hoc]

Getting an ASI is like getting socks on Christmas; sure, you know those socks will be useful!

But c'mon. It's Christmas. Socks?

I love new sock day.