Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.
Rocket your D&D 5E and Level Up: Advanced 5E games into space! Alpha Star Magazine Is Launching... Right Now!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Ovinomancer" data-source="post: 8066130" data-attributes="member: 16814">No, I think there's lots of room for questions.  It's a new way to look at the problem.  I probably didn't explain it perfectly clearly.However, if you're asking what the fighter builds compared are, that's both discussed and then very clear stat line are provided that answer the question.Well, this is literally wrong because I did answer multiple questions, from you, about these posts.  The second to last was if I included the extra attack from GWM.  As I had explicitly discussed this, I both answered your question in the affirmative and pointed you to the post.  Your second question, however, was about a clearly answered issue in the same post you both quoted and were pointed to in the previous response.  At that point it became clear that you either didn't read even at the skim level (the builds are line separated and have STR in capital letters) or you'd forgotten and would rather make me repeat the information rather than refresh your understanding.  Neither are jobs I will do.I believe that you did not -- the questions you asked prior to the one on GWM and the builds indicated that you didn't grasp the core set of assumptions, nor did you read the part about the frequency assumption where I explicitly discussed how I arrived at 6 by taking the assumption you provided in an earlier response.  If I was unwilling to discuss, how did that discussion take place?No, acceptable answers are not to do extra work because you're asking a question clearly answered in a post you had quoted not two posts prior.  Again, if you're not going to be bothered, I'm not on the hook to spoonfeed you.  You can click back as easily as I.  I've already provided the information.  And, had you looked for it the first time I pointed back to my post rather than start this pointless whinging about how I'm not spoonfeeding you, then you'd have had to scroll up about 4-5 posts to find the post where you quoted my post to begin with.  I mean, if it were pages prior, or not part of the immediate back and forth we were already having, you might have a point.  As it is, you've decided that it's your hill to die on that you cannot be bothered to find basic information clearly presented in a post you yourself had just quoted.  At that level of response, I'm perfectly happy telling you to find the information yourself.In the meantime, that post shows that the difference GWM makes is around 4 DPR, almost all of which comes from the extra attack ability.  This shows that the effective portion of GWM isn't the power attack option, but the extra attack.  This largely upends the usual discussion about GWM and DPR, leaving only the extra attack viable from that analysis.</blockquote>

Verification