D&D 5E Great Weapon Master

[Celtavian]

Well.. bows *were* deadly on the battlefield. Their drawback is cavalry, and otherwise getting over run.

Lets look at that...

Same situation as before
Lvl 12 GWF GWM 20 Str greatsword fighting a Djinni (no action surge)
Average dmg 29.3 hp

Lets look at
Lvl 12 Dueliing Sheild Master 20 Str battleaxe fighting a Djinni (no action surge)
Average dmg: 28.8

So when you say "vastly superior" and other styles are "inferior" except for role playing.... you seem really concerned about a 1.7% drop.

Once again you are not taking into account the type of ability loading a marital character will do when using Great Weapon Mastery, which will spike damage in the most important fights.

You're attempt to show minor differences is ridiculous. I watch the fighter at the table save all his superiority dice and get all his big buffs in end game fights causing the combination of Great Weapon Fighting and Great Weapon Mastery to spike substantially above the other fighting styles, which are incapable of doing so.

Here you are one again showing that Great Weapon Fighting with Great Weapon Mastery does more damage than dueling with the -5 penalty. All you're doing with this math is proving my point. If dueling does less without all the special abilities that get used in big fights, it does substantially less once those abilities are used to spike damage and hit chances.

Oh... and there is a 66% chance that the Djinni is prone, which means a *huge* increase in damage from any other melee attacks.... probably make up for that .5 hp of damage difference pretty fast...

Did you just write this? Imagine the djinni prone from the dueling master, then hit by the Great Weapon Master as well. I bet that .5 difference will grow far, far larger pretty quick.

You go on and on about 'historical' fighting... and now you want two weapon fighting to be viable??

Sure. Miyamato Musashi was known for his ability to wield two swords. He beat a lot of opponents with that style. Because if you could truly master two-weapon fighting, an extremely difficult style to master, you could kill a lot of opponents in the type of single or small unit combat you see in this game.

You continue to post mathematical probabilities that do not begin to show what is happening in the game. Your math assumes a continuous set of circumstances that does not reflect play. I do not try to refute your mathematical calculations because it would require a time commitment I don't feel like investing.

I don't feel like creating some table that takes into account factors like bless, potions, magical weapons, prone targets, other party members providing advantage on an attack, faerie fire, reckless ability, superiority to boost hit rolls or provide advantage, invisibility, or other abilities that are used in fights that boost the effectiveness of Great Weapon Fighting and Great Weapon Mastery in a manner that cannot be matched save by archery. You continue to post mathematical analysis absent all these factors in an attempt to convince us that there is a marginal difference between fighting styles.

Yet the math that matters is what we see when a battle has ended against a Legendary or powerful creature that looks like this:

Legendary Creature: 201 hit points.
Damage output:
Great Weapon Fighter using Great Weapon Master: 100 points of damage
Paladin Defensive Fighter: 50 damage
Wizard: 30 points
Bard: 11


We're seeing the Great Weapon Fighter doing 50% or more of the damage output due to all his abilities combining. You don't seem to want accept this because your mathematical analysis is "proof for you", even though it does not in take into account the multitude of factors that prove your analysis wrong. No one cares what a fighting style does over 200 hits. What matters is how it is used in play. Fighters use their superiority dice often to boost its effectiveness in a manner those without it cannot. They ask for and receive the time for a short rest to continue to use those dice to boost damage at least a few times per adventuring day. It makes a huge difference in damage output compared to other fighting styles. Your unwillingness to accept that actual play differs from volume analysis is undermining your argument.

So I'll give a scenario that I work with right now to provide information that will allow for an analysis of how GWM functions during play

Level 10 fighter. +1 sword. bless active. fly active. 6 Superiority dice. Precision, Feinting Attack available to him. 18 strength. Bardic inspiration available to him. Flying familiar capable of giving advantage to fighter for one attack per round.

AC of target 18. No means to boost AC for reaction or avoid attacks.

Analyyze the difference in damage given those parameters between a dueling fighter and a Great Weapon Master over four rounds, the relative length of a fight. This should produce a more accurate result. If you want to throw in two-weapon fighting, that would be helpful, though I believe Feinting Attack requires a bonus action to use which would eliminate the extra attack from Two-weapon fighting.

Here is the caveat:
The Great Weapon Master only uses Great Weapon Mastery when he has the best chance of hitting. When he does not have some kind of bonus to hit, he uses a normal hit roll. This is one of the major factors I don't see in your analysis. The Great Weapon Fighter need only use Great Weapon Mastery when the circumstances are ideal, not all the time. So he may Surge blowing all his superiority dice using Great Weapon Mastery, then not use it again unless he as advantage. So take into account that Great Weapon Master is only used under optimal conditions such as advantage or available Superiority Dice. Advantage is provided once per round by the flying familiar.

Let's see how the math comes out.

 

[Psikerlord#]

sorry deleted!

 

[DaveDash]

Then you are not paying attention, and are choosing to be willfully ignorant. I have shown you the math on several occasions, and you are refusing to acknowledge it because it goes against how you 'feel' it should be.

And the +10 is *not* 'always on' because in many situations using GWM does *LESS* damage than not using it. The -5 to hit is a big deal.... adv and bless and magic sword and prof bonus etc... those are 'always on', and those will also apply to PAM and SM etc.

Look, I don't care if you guys don't use it, I don't care if you nerf magic to only 1 spell a day because you think it is more fun that way. I only care when you refuse to acknowledge the reality of how it effects the actual gameplay. Using GWM means you are more likely to do bigger damage, and more likely to do NO damage, which is why we use the 'average' all of the time.

Except that AC increases at a slower rate compared with attack bonus, which means that GWM becomes better as you level up than attacking normally.

Also the way the game is designed is you generally face a mix of large low CR with mid/high CR, which means the GWM gets even better over time, since the AC of creatures you fight stay quite low compared to your attack bonus. As example a "Hard" encounter (real game example) for a level 14 party is 2xCR5 and 1xCR8, which will generally have an AC of 15-17.

Note - I don't think this feat is OP, the damage doesn't come out way higher (unlike sharpshooter / xbow expert), but it DOES come out better by ~5 per round, and that spikes up the more buffs/levels/items you give the Fighter.

 

[Coredump]

You've shown no such thing with your maths. The averaging process involved is vague and highly unreliable, being based on an assortment of whiteroom assumptions. And indeed, as you conceded, the averaging process ignores the higher max damage potential the -5/+10 enables.

Your maths is not as reliable as my in play experience. I largely ignore it because it is a mistake to give it much weight. If you prefer to rely on your maths, by all means do so.

Okay, so the shorter version of your post is "I don't agree because I don't believe Math is real". There is nothing 'vague' about the maths involved, the game design and balance is based largely on the exact same math I am doing. You like to use the term "whiteroom" as if it just magically makes you right.... sorry, but if you need an 11 to hit, you have the same chance of hitting as missing... there is no 'whiteroom vagueness'.

The averaging process *does* take into account the chance of a higher output, it also takes into account the greater chance of NO damage output; that is why it is considered the 'average' of *all* the damage output.


And lets get something straight... these are not *MY* examples..... just about every example I have used, as come from one of you trying to show how GWM is 'broken'. I take *YOUR* example and actually do the math to show the reality, instead of whatever assumptions you guys make.

The Greatsword with GWF will do more damage than the halberd.... that is simply a fact. It does not matter how you 'feel' it will work, it does not matter if you want to decry 'whiteroom' about it. All it means is you refuse to accept it because you don't want to accept it.

 

[Coredump]

in what I'd consider typical situations.

I'll use a 5th-level barbarian with a greatsword as an example, using Reckless Attack. It's true that Advantage helps out GWM a lot, but it's not that hard to get. A barbarian with Reckless Attack is a simple way to get it that's built directly into the class; fighters and such would need to work with the rest of their party more.

You kind of 'hand wave' the issue of getting advantage, as if its trivial, Barbarian is about the only situation where you can be assured of getting it on a regular basis. (Except warlock I suppose) But lets look at it...

I'll have the barbarian fighting a Troll; AC 15 is above average for enemies in the barbarian's level range, hurting GWM a bit in the comparison.

The base barbarian's average damage per round is 20.67 (2 attacks hitting on an 8 for 2d6+4 damage, with Advantage).

So, I assume 18 Str? with Rage that would be 2d6+6; +7 to hit against AC 15 2 attks
average dmg: 24.2 (I assumed Rage and took into account criticals)

Now we give the barbarian the Polearm Master feat (assume he's a variant human so he doesn't have to sacrifice strength for it). His average damage per round increases to 23.69 (3 attacks hitting on an 8 with Advantage, two for 1d10+4 and one for 1d4+4), an increase of 15%.

First is, you made a math error, you should have gotten about 26.59
Average dmg: 31.9 An increase of 31.8%

Then we give him GWM instead of Polearm Master, and he makes all attacks at -5/+10. His average damage per round becomes 28.25 (2 attacks hitting on a 13 for 2d6+14 damage, with Advantage), an increase of 37%.

So now you need 13 to hit, with advantage
average damage: 30.8 An increase of 30.8%


So, even in the example that you created.... PAM produces more damage.


And this assumes you are using reckless attack, without it, the PAM advantage gets *bigger*, and you don't get hit as often. RA means you are taking a lot more damage just to help GWM be almost as good as PAM.

Actually both feats are even stronger than that since they can both grant extra attacks -- Polearm Master via opportunity attacks and GWM on every crit or kill. I'd say the advantage goes even further towards GWM here because the extra attacks it grants hit much harder and can be taken with Advantage (at the time an enemy walks up to you and triggers an OA, you're unlikely to have Advantage and can't use Reckless Attack).

We are getting into some pretty subjective issues here.... but I would also say that you are more likely to get the PAM OAs than the GWM extra attacks, you are pretty much guaranteed someone is going to run into range, usually several times in a fight. Getting a GWM extra attack is not as certain.

Including the extra attacks, GWM is likely to be a 60%+ boost in damage vs. not having the feat, and I consider this a fairly reasonable and representative situation.

I have no idea how you jump to a 60% bonus.... and whatever the percentage is, its likely to be about the same as PAM, even using your own example.

And lets not forget, it is inherently better to get more hits for less damage, then to get fewer hits of high damage. (Assuming same total damage) Which is another advantage for PAM.

 

[Coredump]

Not to mention the math doesn't take into account that players save all their bonus abilities for the big encounters against the tough creatures. So you're going to see most of your action surging, raging, superiority dice, best buffs, and the like during the most important encounter, which is going to increase hit chances making GWM more valuable, especially when compared to other fighting styles given defensive or dueling styles have no way to boost damage output.

1) Why are you continually shocked that an offensive fighting style does more damage than a defensive fighting style....

2) I hate to break it to you, but Bless, action surge, etc *will* boost the damage output from Dueling, just like it boosts it for GWM. Dueling, however, is *always* beneficial, regardless of what boosts you have or what enemy you are fighting.

3) Yes, folks will save resources for the big fight.... thats kind of the point of the game design. But Dueling and PAM etc do not rely on resources to be useful. And most of the other boosts will increase damage out put more than GWM will.

 

[kerbarian]

So, I assume 18 Str? with Rage that would be 2d6+6; +7 to hit against AC 15 2 attks
average dmg: 24.2 (I assumed Rage and took into account criticals)

Yes to 18 str, but I didn't assume rage; I was looking at just the always-on abilities. I'll go through my math in more detail, since you're apparently getting a different result.

For the base case:
Crit chance (CC) = 1 - 0.95^2 = 0.0975
Hit chance (HC) = 1 - 0.35^2 - CC = 0.78
Damage per attack (DPA) = HC * (2d6+4 = 11) + CC * (4d6+4 = 18) = 10.335
Damage per round = 2 * DPA = 20.67

With Polearm Master:
CC and HC are the same as above.
Damage per halberd attack (DPA1) = HC * (1d10+4 = 9.5) + CC * (2d10+4 = 15) = 8.8725
Damage per PAM attack (DPA2) = HC * (1d4+4 = 6.5) + CC * (2d4+4 = 9) = 5.9475
Damage per round = 2 * DPA1 + DPA2 = 23.6925

With GWM:
Crit chance (CC) = 1 - 0.95^2 = 0.0975
Hit chance (HC) = 1 - 0.6^2 - CC = 0.5425
Damage per attack (DPA) = HC * (2d6+14 = 21) + CC * (4d6+14 = 28) = 14.1225
Damage per round = 2 * DPA = 28.245

I have no idea how you jump to a 60% bonus.... and whatever the percentage is, its likely to be about the same as PAM, even using your own example.

Even only considering the bonus attacks from crits that GWM gives you, that's an 18.55% chance of an extra attack every round. That boosts damage per round in this scenario to 30.86, or a 49% increase from the base case.

In my experience, it's quite easy to get extra attacks from GWM almost every round. Since you're doing so much damage, you can just pick a target in the fight who you can easily finish off and get your bonus attack that way. You only need to get a kill (and corresponding extra attack) every five rounds to bump the total damage to 160% of the base case. With what I've seen in play, even assuming an extra attack (from crit or kill) every other round is quite conservative, and that would get you to 171% of the base case.

The other thing to consider about the extra attacks from GWM vs. PAM is that the GWM extra attacks are under the player's control while the PAM extra attacks are under the DM's control (have to be triggered by enemies).

 

[Psikerlord#]

Okay, so the shorter version of your post is "I don't agree because I don't believe Math is real". There is nothing 'vague' about the maths involved, the game design and balance is based largely on the exact same math I am doing. You like to use the term "whiteroom" as if it just magically makes you right.... sorry, but if you need an 11 to hit, you have the same chance of hitting as missing... there is no 'whiteroom vagueness'.

The averaging process *does* take into account the chance of a higher output, it also takes into account the greater chance of NO damage output; that is why it is considered the 'average' of *all* the damage output.


And lets get something straight... these are not *MY* examples..... just about every example I have used, as come from one of you trying to show how GWM is 'broken'. I take *YOUR* example and actually do the math to show the reality, instead of whatever assumptions you guys make.

The Greatsword with GWF will do more damage than the halberd.... that is simply a fact. It does not matter how you 'feel' it will work, it does not matter if you want to decry 'whiteroom' about it. All it means is you refuse to accept it because you don't want to accept it.

You refuse to acknowledge the limitations of the statistical averaging technique you employ, undermining any marginal persuasive effect the calculations might have otherwise had. "DPR facts" are anything but. They are simple probability calculations based on so many assumptions that their usefulness in assessing balance at the table is marginal at best, and misleading at worst. The maths, such as it is, is only one pointer to bear in mind. My argument is simply that a table is better off playing the game, and getting a "feel" for what is OP, based on their play experience. You disagree. We agree to disagree.

 

[Celtavian]

1) Why are you continually shocked that an offensive fighting style does more damage than a defensive fighting style....

Shocked? Are you not paying attention? I'm not shocked at all. I'm disappointed that GWF and Archery are again the two optimal fighting styles of 5E as they were in 3E.

I'm saying GWM creates a situation where if you want to be optimal, you choose it over the other options because they are inferior to the style because the other style offers no options to boost damage. I don't like being forced to choose an inferior fighting style like dueling (not a defensive style) because it is so far behind GW fighting. The +2 damage barely makes up the difference for rolling 2d6 versus 1d8. The fact that GWF allows you to reroll 1s and 2s creates an even larger gap.

Or do you consider dueling a defensive style?

2) I hate to break it to you, but Bless, action surge, etc *will* boost the damage output from Dueling, just like it boosts it for GWM. Dueling, however, is *always* beneficial, regardless of what boosts you have or what enemy you are fighting.

Do the math in the most important fight. Let's see where they come out.

3) Yes, folks will save resources for the big fight.... thats kind of the point of the game design. But Dueling and PAM etc do not rely on resources to be useful. And most of the other boosts will increase damage out put more than GWM will.

A feat like GWM shines brighter than dueling style because it allows a higher damage rate when "saving resources", the standard method of play in D&D.

You don't want to do the math do you? You don't want to show how much better GWM is than any feat available to a dueling or defensive fighter. You want to look at the feat by itself rather than how it is used in game circumstances. Great Weapon fighting is clearly a better fighting style for the fights that matter than any of the other styles. It shows up all the time in our fights by percentage of damage done. GWF is a force multiplier that other fighting styles cannot match when used in conjunction with other force multipliers like action surge, superiority dice, and the like.

That has been my argument the entire time. That during actual play in the manner that GWF is used makes it a power gamer feat because it is superior to the damage output of other fighting styles. Dueling or defensive fighting cannot match it. The GWF feat is the reason why. You don't want to admit this for some reason. You're instead acting as though the GWF player uses it all the time and not under optimal conditions. You're completely disregarding intelligent use of GWF that optimizes its advantages and minimizes its disadvantages. You're disregarding that when doing this over time it leads to GWF being a superior feat to other feats available to the other fighting styles. You keep on thinking it averages out, while I continue to watch players outclass dueling and defensive fighters by large margins of damage because of the feat disparity. It is even worse with Sharpshooter. This kind of game design leads to the usual power gaming choices that create a feeling of inferiority in players that make suboptimal choices like dueling or defensive fighting because of the inequality created by a single feat they cannot use.

I'm done discussing this. You are intellectually disingenuous in your defense of GWF. I can only surmise that you enjoy using the feat in the manner of a power game and would like to prevent any future reductions in its power.

 

[Staffan]

I'm saying GWM creates a situation where if you want to be optimal, you choose it over the other options because they are inferior to the style because the other style offers no options to boost damage. I don't like being forced to choose an inferior fighting style like dueling (not a defensive style) because it is so far behind GW fighting. The +2 damage barely makes up the difference for rolling 2d6 versus 1d8. The fact that GWF allows you to reroll 1s and 2s creates an even larger gap.

Or do you consider dueling a defensive style?

I consider dueling a "balanced" style. You get both the AC bonus of a shield (but not the additional +1 of the Defense style or the tanking of the Protection style) and a bit of additional damage (but not as much as Great Weapon Fighting).