The math of GWM/SS

[FrogReaver]

Two quick things.

The OP's analysis is somewhat white-room, but as he focuses on the actual die roll required, it can take additional bonuses into consideration. The primary aspect that was ignored (as almost always is during these discussions) is the actual amount of damage required. If using GWM allows you to kill something in 2 hits instead of 3, then the benefit is useful, but if the actual amount of hits required doesn't change, then it's not (this makes it hard to figure out, as most DMs do not tell the players how many HP each enemy has). The post, however, was not an analysis of the power of the feats, but merely the mathematical determination on when you gain the greatest statistical benefit for using it, similar to the equations for Power Attack back in 3E.

Secondly, I see GWM and SS in use all the time, both as a player and a DM. Even with players utilizing Powergamer strategy to maximize the benefit, I still just don't see it as OP. I believe that it is powerful (top of the curve tbh), but I consider the resources used to maximize it and accept that as part of the cost. If your issue with is Powergamers, well they've existed in every edition, but IME in 5E the difference between the average character and a powergamed character really isn't as large as it's been in every other edition I've played (everything but OD&D).

Damage has a range. Instead of talking about 2 hit kills and 3 hit kills instead it’s more likely both variations can kill in 2 or 3 hits depending on the damage rolls etc

 

[FlyingChihuahua]

Oh goody, let's beat this dead horse again....

There has to be a reason why 5E is popular, and it's not because it's good, only [insert preferred edition/game here] is good.

It must be because you can minmax and optimize in it.

 

[5ekyu]

Without looking at your numbers specifically, I find that this type of analyses are usually misleading, grossly underestimating what a minmaxer can do with the -5/+10 mechanism, thus severely underestimating the power of these feats.

In short: these feats are completely broken but white-room analysis generally doesn't see it.

Again, I haven't looked at this particular set of numbers. But I can ask you all - do they crunch the numbers for the following scenario? (If so I will be impressed, no other similar analysis have even come close, and I will happily admit that my previous statements then do not apply in this specific case But I am not holding my breath, the math gets complicated, much more so than most white-room analysts are prepared to deal with.)

Case in point (and please excuse any mistakes with details; I'm doing this from memory here): Battlemaster Fighter using a -5/+10 feat in conjunction with advantage, possibly a bonus such as Bless, and the Precision maneuver.

Obviously no serious analysis would make the error of computing average damage without taking into account that using GWM/SS is voluntary. Lots of flawed efforts add in the negative impact of using -5 when enemy AC is too high - I am assuming this is not the case here.

You should then use Precision to turn near-misses into hits. Rolls of perhaps 1 thru 5 will be left alone (accepted as misses), with advantage this happens much less often than 25%.

You will find two things: a) the miss rate is really low, despite -5 b) you don't use nearly as many superiority dice as for other maneuvers (you don't need to spend a superiority die on a hit or a clear miss, only near misses)

This makes you come close to the full potential of +10 damage per attack, and good sustainability of the tactic (you can expect to use it for a large portion of the day's important battles).

If this poster's analysis shows that GWM/SS grants between +30 and +50 damage at medium- to high levels for a properly minmaxed character, congratulations - that matches my actual play experience.

It also proves beyond a shadow of a doubt that these feats are completely broken in expert hands. Nothing else in the game comes close to granting you a potential +10 damage, and the -5 can be played around, as shown. WotC's designers must be less than expert, or they would have caught and stopped this.


Have a nice day.
Zapp

PS. If you have any questions, there are very many and very long threads about the subject. Every piece of data you might require is there. DS

Zappos

This analysis does not speak at all to the OP or not issue.

You point out that use of these is voluntary and by that one presumes it wont be used in certain circumstances. This provides the math for determining those circumstances.

As for whether bless, battlemaster and rainbow sprite pop bonuses are taken into account- yes - in that variable there called attack bonus. It makes no assumptions about what the AB is from just uses the expected AB and the expected damage to figure out the results of "up to what AC is it good."

Does it count damage outputs of 50? Again, variable of damage can be filled with whatever assumptions you wish.

So, you can fold all your assumptions of attack bonus and damage for divinely inspired minmaxers into this formula and it works fine... all it is doing is representing the opposing forces of increasing output on a hit and lowering the chances of a hit.

 

[Zardnaar]

There has to be a reason why 5E is popular, and it's not because it's good, only [insert preferred edition/game here] is good.

It must be because you can minmax and optimize in it.

5E is a good edition but I doubt its because of how good those 2 feats are.

5E has a few warts, I think the ease of running it is the biggest point in its favor. A lot of the warts also won't crop up in a lot of games as the casual players don't know and the hard core players don't always powergame. We used the -5/+10 feats a lot when 5E came out but the monsters are so weak its usually overkill and as long as you don't take the potato feats or potato combinations or deliberately undermine your character its all good.

Not actually playing 5E atm but 90% of that is due to other stuff, the remaining 10% is maybe we over did it.

 

[CapnZapp]

Zappos

This analysis does not speak at all to the OP or not issue.

You point out that use of these is voluntary and by that one presumes it wont be used in certain circumstances. This provides the math for determining those circumstances.

As for whether bless, battlemaster and rainbow sprite pop bonuses are taken into account- yes - in that variable there called attack bonus. It makes no assumptions about what the AB is from just uses the expected AB and the expected damage to figure out the results of "up to what AC is it good."

Does it count damage outputs of 50? Again, variable of damage can be filled with whatever assumptions you wish.

So, you can fold all your assumptions of attack bonus and damage for divinely inspired minmaxers into this formula and it works fine... all it is doing is representing the opposing forces of increasing output on a hit and lowering the chances of a hit.

I don't understand what you are saying. (assuming you by "Zappos" are referring to me)

I specifically stated I haven't read the specific analysis and then proceeded to explain why it's easy to fail.

You don't seem to be talking about the feats and if they're broken (they are). You seem to be talking about whether this particular analysis is broken and that's fine - let me just reiterate I am not saying it is (or is not).

Thank you

 

[5ekyu]

I don't understand what you are saying. (assuming you by "Zappos" are referring to me)

I specifically stated I haven't read the specific analysis and then proceeded to explain why it's easy to fail.

You don't seem to be talking about the feats and if they're broken (they are). You seem to be talking about whether this particular analysis is broken and that's fine - let me just reiterate I am not saying it is (or is not).

Thank you

In your post you asked explicitly

"Again, I haven't looked at this particular set of numbers. But I can ask you all - do they crunch the numbers for the following scenario? "

Its possible you forgot you asked that? After all, it doesn't necessarily serve the dogma to ask questions.

You then laid out a battle master with bless etc.

The answer is "YES" whatever the source of the values for "attack bonus" and "damage" are they can be plugged into this formula.

You went off on how you find "this type of analyses are usually misleading," without actually taking a moment to notice the post wasn't about or offering a math solution for whether or not they were OP. it was just expressing the mathematical calculation for determining (based on the goal of most expected damage overall) for the very issue you raise in your own post - that when its not a good trade off the feated character can choose not to use it.

Literally, his calculation is about how to determine whether to use the feat or not - not whether to take the feat or not.

 

[CapnZapp]

His post spends significant space crunching numbers on GWM, but with no indication he's crunching the case where GWM is actually good. This makes me worry someone will take his number as proof GWM is alright.

And no, you don't get to say his post uses the case (one of them at least) where GWM really shows its true colors. There's a huge difference between theoretically being able to have numbers "plugged into this formula" and actually doing it.

But I think we're done here. I am happy I have provided an illustrative overview of the problem area that complements the OP for any interested readers. Have a nice day.

 

[5ekyu]

His post spends significant space crunching numbers on GWM, but with no indication he's crunching the case where GWM is actually good. This makes me worry someone will take his number as proof GWM is alright.

And no, you don't get to say his post uses the case (one of them at least) where GWM really shows its true colors. There's a huge difference between theoretically being able to have numbers "plugged into this formula" and actually doing it.

But I think we're done here. I am happy I have provided an illustrative overview of the problem area that complements the OP for any interested readers. Have a nice day.

Hilarious.
Wonderful post.
Highly illustrative.
Thanks.

 

[CapnZapp]

Sure, no prob

 

[Yunru]

There's a huge difference between theoretically being able to have numbers "plugged into this formula" and actually doing it.

... No there isn't. It's literally nothing more complicated than addition. A four year old could do it. Hell, a four year old could teach it.