What makes Great Weapon Master and Sharpshooter so good?

[FrogReaver]

@UngeheuerLuch



This is the info for when you are raging and using Beserker ability for both setups. Below are the numbers for raging and no beserker.

**Note GWM -5/+10 is only being used against AC's where it is beneficial to. Otherwise the attack is made without that and without +2 Str

My conclusion is that the Beserker ability when active makes both options be virtually equal (too close to call a winner), howerver, when the beserker ability is not active then GWM looks to be better IMO.

I made a small mistake on the chart below by not including the GWM extra attack with non -5/+10 GWM attacks that occur against higher AC's. I have fixed it in the quote below.

I've got an initial barrage of data if I can just figure out how to nicely post it.

[TABLE="width: 500"]
[TR]
[TD]AC[/TD]
[TD]GWM version[/TD]
[TD]+2 Str version[/TD]
[TD]%DPR of GWM/+2 Str[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]11[/TD]
[TD]20.21[/TD]
[TD]13.49[/TD]
[TD]1.5[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]12[/TD]
[TD]19.09[/TD]
[TD]13.27[/TD]
[TD]1.44[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]13[/TD]
[TD]17.85[/TD]
[TD]12.99[/TD]
[TD]1.37[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]14[/TD]
[TD]16.49[/TD]
[TD]12.64[/TD]
[TD]1.30[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]15[/TD]
[TD]15.02[/TD]
[TD]12.24[/TD]
[TD]1.23[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]16[/TD]
[TD]13.43[/TD]
[TD]11.77[/TD]
[TD]1.14[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]17[/TD]
[TD]11.71[/TD]
[TD]11.24[/TD]
[TD]1.04[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]18[/TD]
[TD]10.19[/TD]
[TD]10.64[/TD]
[TD].96[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]19[/TD]
[TD]9.47[/TD]
[TD]9.88[/TD]
[TD].95[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]20[/TD]
[TD]8.68[/TD]
[TD]9.27[/TD]
[TD].94[/TD]
[/TR]
[/TABLE]


This is with Crits included and the crit portion of GWM included. The GWM column includes calculations for using the better of -5/+10 and not using it against the specific target AC. Both columns include rage damage bonus and reckless attack.

I have the numbers for Both with Beserker but it will take a bit to get them posted.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

@UngeheuerLuch

View attachment 98293

This is the info for when you are raging and using Beserker ability for both setups. Below are the numbers for raging and no beserker.

**Note GWM -5/+10 is only being used against AC's where it is beneficial to. Otherwise the attack is made without that and without +2 Str

My conclusion is that the Beserker ability when active makes both options be virtually equal (too close to call a winner), howerver, when the beserker ability is not active then GWM looks to be better IMO.

I made a small mistake on the chart below by not including the GWM extra attack with non -5/+10 GWM attacks that occur against higher AC's. I have fixed it in the quote below.

Thank you.
My conclusion matches yours.

Something to add:
If you have GWM reckless attacking is a necessity.
The first round of rage has no bonus attacks
You can use a shield if you are not settled on gwm. But even a gwm can cleave with a one handed weapon. (A significant feature of the feat which is often neglected.
+2 str helps with javelins.
+2 helps with grappling and athletics in general
AC greater than 16 makes the feat less useful

So the feat is quite useful but at least at that point the best you can hope for is a 50% increase in damage and you are still risking not to hit at all, even against lower AC targets and that is not always worth risking.

 

[Sadras]

Ok. That is something and I can feel with you. Just something to think about: Is it really overpowered or just good use of resources and feels maybe stronger as it is.
Some things to remember:
Reaction used for shield means no OA
Is he protected vs spells that might render him stunned or paralyzed.
Is the sorcerer protected vs attacks that break his concentration which leaves the fighter disabled for a turn? Yes he is partially because the standard DC 10 is easily done. Paralizing the sorcerer should work fine though.
What spells could the sorcerer have used instead of granting the fighter an extra attack.
What maneuver could the fighter have used instead of precision attack.
How much damage would the fighter do without the feat. 30 instead of 20 is less impressive than 20 vs 10.

All good points.

So. Everything together: good use of resources and team play or just killing the fun?

I feel it requires a little more work from me to ensure that the above combination does not diminish the fun at the table (including my fun). I think some thought should be given to DMs who have had little to no experience when having to deal with such a tactical combo.

 

[guachi]

Did you factor in great weapon fighting style because it will significantly increase your chance of one shooting a goblin

Yup. Simple level one fighter with the appropriate feat and style. If you run random trials fighting five goblins (yes, the level 1 dude will be dead. Whatever.), after 50 random trials with 250 goblins giving their lives for science GWF came out just ahead of TWF. It was close enough I'd actually call it a tie. GWF was 3% better.

Fighting 3 hobgoblins took both GWF and TWF a little longer and GWF was barely ahead after 50 trials. Like .5% ahead. Despite hobgoblins being much harder for the TWF fighter to one-shot, only doing so with max damage, the lower hit chance and lower one-shot chance for the GWF fighter means fewer bonus action attacks.

Against 3 zombies, the GWF fighter dominated after 50 trials with the TWF guy taking 50% longer (or the GWF figher taking 33% less shorter. Whatever). The GWM guy could actually do his power attack and one-shot zombies and inflict so much damage they couldn't make the save. There were a few cases the GWF fighter took out 3 zombies in 3 straight hits. The TWF fighter, while hitting on a 3 or higher, suffered from doing so little damage the saves were easy to make. I did this as it's probably best case low-level scenario for the GWF guy.

I was actually surprised at the results as goblin fighting at level one should be a place where the TWF guy shines. But, nope. The TWF guy would probably do better against a single foe with higher AC and higher HP like a hobgoblin leader where the GWF guy only gets an extra attack on a crit.

You're right, though. The GWF style is a beast against goblins and hobgoblins. I think in all 50 trials against 250 goblins there was exactly one time where the GWF guy didn't one-shot the goblin. The actual chance is about 1% not to one-shot.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

The TWF should have +1 AC so against 250 goblins he will take about 12 hits less. So he has some advantage. I'd be honest here: twf feat is not that strong.

 

[Coroc]

[MENTION=6775031]Saelorn[/MENTION] "Not necessarily true, since it's possible to have a Con save bonus high enough that most concentration checks are automatic."

And now your GWM not only requires his cleric Buddy to cast bless for him, but also that the cleric has taken warcaster and invested in Con

 

[Li Shenron]

So because a 20th level maxed-out character has +10 damage bonus against a monster with a low-level AC, we should worry and ban the feat since level 1?

Besides, we gotta stop this negative mentality that the game has to be competitive among the players. If my friend is playing an archer in the same group and is dropping goblins left and right, this actually benefits me as well. Am I doing less damage than the archer? Who cares, I have tons of other things to do to 'shine', unless the only thing I am capable/interested of doing in the whole game is just damage, and if that's the case then I should pick that feat too.

Some people are just obsessed by having a smaller dpr

 

[The Crimson Binome]

And now your GWM not only requires his cleric Buddy to cast bless for him, but also that the cleric has taken warcaster and invested in Con

It only requires a +9 bonus for most concentration saves to be automatic, and the Bless spell itself provides +1d4 to that. You are not describing an unusual situation at all.

 

[Sadras]

Do you mean the optional flanking rules form the DMG?

Yes.

I hate how trivially easy it makes it to get Advantage. So much that I'd never use them as written. I'm curious to see what you've come up with

Keep in mind party size and composition are different from table to table and my issue was less the GWM but the high AC of the character. I wanted to make mobs surrounding the character more threatening. I'm not really satisfied with this solution but this is what we currently use and this mainly because we predominantly play ToM. Even when we do use a grid, we stick to the below table.

1 opponent - normal
2 opponents - Lesser Advantage (+2 on attack roll)
3 opponents* - Advantage (per PHB)
4 opponents* - Advantage (per PHB)
5 opponents* - Greater Advantage (Advantage +2)
6 opponents* - Greater Advantage (Advantage +2)
7 opponents* - Greater Advantage (Advantage +2)
8 opponents* - Greater Advantage+ (Advantage +2, and every hit converts into a critical hit)

* Advantage only allowed if the environment allows for the target to be surrounded, otherwise the 3rd+ opponent only gains Lesser Advantage.

EDIT: It bolsters low-level enemy combatants with their +2 to +4 attack bonuses, ensuring their relevance for longer throughout the campaign.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

So because a 20th level maxed-out character has +10 damage bonus against a monster with a low-level AC, we should worry and ban the feat since level 1?

Besides, we gotta stop this negative mentality that the game has to be competitive among the players. If my friend is playing an archer in the same group and is dropping goblins left and right, this actually benefits me as well. Am I doing less damage than the archer? Who cares, I have tons of other things to do to 'shine', unless the only thing I am capable/interested of doing in the whole game is just damage, and if that's the case then I should pick that feat too.

Some people are just obsessed by having a smaller dpr

I am not sure why you were referring to that post and accuse me of wanting to ban that feat... I am totally against that. Neither do I think, that intergroup competition is good for the game. I do however believe, that a class that can´t contribute at all is underpowered... yet to have to see such a case.

Edit: I don´t even find my post where I said that...

Edit2: It is because It was not my post and you addressed the quote to the wrong person and I´d like you to correct that post. Thank you.