Great Weapon Mastery: How to -5/+10 Like a Pro

[Desamir]

Great Weapon Mastery
How to -5/+10 Like a Pro

NOTE: I posted this on /r/dndnext some time ago, and thought I'd repost it here to help out my GitP brethren.

Great Weapon Master is one of the keystones of dealing effective damage in 5e. However, unlike most optimization options, there's a right time and a wrong time to use GWM. I've seen some tables (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?373572-GWM-Reference-Table) that guide the aspiring great weapon master in using the feat properly, but in my opinion there's a simpler way to figure it out. Using the mysticism of middle school algebra, I came up with the following formula.

The Formula (https://i.imgur.com/zEQKq6w.png)
https://i.imgur.com/zEQKq6w.png

Plug in your attack bonus and your damage (without GWM), and the formula gives you a number called the maximum AC threshold. If your target's AC is less than this number, then power attack. If it's greater than this number, then attack normally.

Attack bonus is whatever you add to your d20 roll to see if you hit, i.e. strength or dex plus proficiency, plus any other bonuses (not including the -5 from GWM).

Damage is your average damage, based on your weapon damage dice and your ability modifier, plus any other bonuses (not including the +10 from GWM).

You only need to calculate this once, and update it when your attack bonus or damage changes. Afterwards you just pay attention to your target's AC. It's worth calculating again for some common buffs, like Bless or Divine Favor, so you know what to do when you are buffed up.

The nice thing is, since the formula is so simple, you can adjust it in your head. Did you get a +1 bonus to your attack roll? Max AC threshold increases by 1. +2 bonus to damage? Max AC threshold decreases by 1.

Example


My 4th level Paladin's attack bonus is +6
With my greatsword, the damage is 2d6+4, which is an average damage of 11. However, since I have the Great Weapon Fighting style, this increases to 12.33
Plugging 6 and 12.33 into the formula, I get a max AC threshold of 15.835. If my target's AC is 15 or less, I should power attack
My party Cleric likes to cast Bless, which bumps my attack bonus up to 8.5 (on average) resulting in a max AC threshold of 18.335. If I'm Blessed, I should power attack if the target's AC is 18 or less


FAQ

How do I find out my target's AC? Technically, you don't need to know its exact AC--you just need to know if it's below a certain number. You can find that out by attacking it a few times. If my Paladin rolled a 13 and hit, then I know it's safe to power attack.

Should I always follow this formula? Although the formula tells you what will result in the highest damage on average, you still need to use your best judgment. Is the DM describing the target as almost dead? Attack normally. Do you really need to hit them to get your smite spell to work? Attack normally. Need to deal reliable damage instead of swingy spikes? Attack normally.

What about advantage/disadvantage? As a rule of thumb, always power attack if you have advantage, and never power attack if you have disadvantage. If you want an exact AC threshold for advantage, use this formula (http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=x+%3C+0.5*%282*y+%2B+sqrt%28z%5E2%2B10*z%2B1600 %29+-+z+-+8%29+where+y+%3D+5+and+z+%3D+8) and replace y with your attack bonus and z with your average damage.

What about Elven Accuracy? Same deal as advantage. If you want an exact AC threshold for Elven Accuracy, use this formula (http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=solve+%5B1-(0.05*(x-y-1))%5E3%5D*z+%3C+%5B1-(0.05*(x-(y-5)-1))%5E3%5D*(z%2B10)+for+x) and replace y with your attack bonus and z with your average damage.

What about sneak attack? If you have a single attack on your turn, add your sneak attack to your damage and calculate as usual. If you have two attacks (e.g. two-weapon fighting, crossbow expert, multiclassing), calculate your AC threshold with and without sneak attack, and then use that information to decide when to -5/+10, treating each attack separately.

Does this work for Sharpshooter too? Yes! You'll notice that the max AC for archery is pretty high compared to great weapons. This is because archery tends towards high accuracy (archery fighting style) and low damage (bows and crossbows), so it's almost always advantageous to -5/+10.

How do I calculate average damage of a die? Take the minimum value of the die, add it to the maximum value, and divide by 2. For example, a d6 has an average value of (1+6)/2 = 3.5, and 2d6 is 2*3.5 = 7. If you have rerolls (Great Weapon Fighting style), see here (http://rpg.stackexchange.com/questions/47172/how-much-damage-does-great-weapon-fighting-add-on-average).

How does brutal critical affect the formula? In short, it doesn't, because crits in general don't interact with power attack.
Crits modify your damage per round, but they modify it equally for both sides of the equation.

Remember that the formula is derived from this inequality (http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=solve+%5B1-0.05*%28x-y-1%29%5D*z+%3C+%5B1-0.05*%28x-%28y-5%29-1%29%5D*%28z%2B10%29+for+x), which is simply a comparison of damage per round without GWM and with GWM. In words, that inequality means:

DPR without GWM < DPR with GWM
Where DPR is "damage per round with x attack bonus, y enemy AC, and z average damage." If you solve that inequality for x, you will get a formula for all values of x where your DPR with GWM is higher, in terms of y and z. That's how you arrive at the formula in the OP.

Now let's add crits into the inequality.

What does a crit do? On a roll of 20, you get additional damage dice. The actual amount of extra damage is irrelevant, as you'll see in a second, but let's assume we're using a greatsword, so an extra 2d6 crit damage (or 7 extra damage on average).

That's a 5% chance to deal an extra 7 damage, so you add +0.05*7 to each side of the inequality, which of course cancels itself out, leaving you with the same formula.

TL;DR: Because crits in 5e only double damage dice, and not static modifiers, they add the exact same amount of DPR with or without GWM and thus don't affect the formula.
How did you calculate this? I plugged a DPR inequality into the venerable Wolfram Alpha (http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=solve+%5B1-0.05*%28x-y-1%29%5D*z+%3C+%5B1-0.05*%28x-%28y-5%29-1%29%5D*%28z%2B10%29+for+x), and it simplified it to the formula you see above.

[Theodoxus]

How does the damage possibly affect your to hit (and thus determine when to PA?) I mean, how can using a great sword vs a dagger (if a dagger were heavy and two handed - I know how GWM works) affect when to use it?

Can you explain in layman's terms why this formula works, when on the surface it appears arbitrary?

On the other hand, is there a significant damage range with heavy weapons? I'm AFB, but I can only remember 1d10, 1d12 and 2d6 for heavy... though I suppose Sharpshooter is a better example, having 1d6 Hand vs 1d10 Heavy xbow variance...

[Tanarii]

So for a maxed Warlock Pact Blade (2 attacks, 4-5 each in Str/Cha) with +Str/Cha to damage (3d6+8-10 = 18.5-21.5) and a bonus from +8-+11, you'd be looking at Max AC of 15-17?

Interesting. I'd always looked on GWM as a wasted feat for a warlock, since the bonuses are so damn high. But a level 12 warlock could easily be fighting things with an AC in that range. Less common as you go up in level from there, of course.

edit: I crunched the numbers myself, and it seems to match the way I do them just fine once I stick it in an inequality and solve for AC. I was just getting focused on the avg damage per hit for a 'typical' AC ... a classic DPR mistake.

[Tenmujiin]

How does the damage possibly affect your to hit (and thus determine when to PA?) I mean, how can using a great sword vs a dagger (if a dagger were heavy and two handed - I know how GWM works) affect when to use it?

Can you explain in layman's terms why this formula works, when on the surface it appears arbitrary?

On the other hand, is there a significant damage range with heavy weapons? I'm AFB, but I can only remember 1d10, 1d12 and 2d6 for heavy... though I suppose Sharpshooter is a better example, having 1d6 Hand vs 1d10 Heavy xbow variance...

Don't forget any extra damage from things like magic weapons, smite, hex/mark etc.

Basically the more damage you do per attack the less the +10 damage matters and the more the -5 attack bonus matters.

I also feel compeled to mention those feats are completely broken with the -5/+10 being worth almost as much as the ASI before you even factor in the powerful second benifits (bonus attack on crit/kill and ignore cover) and synergy with x-bow expert and polearm master (also two of the most powerful feats before synergies). Nice formulas though.

[Tanarii]

How does the damage possibly affect your to hit (and thus determine when to PA?) I mean, how can using a great sword vs a dagger (if a dagger were heavy and two handed - I know how GWM works) affect when to use it?Because the minus 25% chance to hit (-5 penalty) applies to the base damage of the weapon.

The higher your base damage before GWM penalty, the more than -5 hurts. Be it from base weapon die, or bonus damage from another source (such as Hex or Thirsting Blade for a Warlock).

[Lonely Tylenol]

How does the damage possibly affect your to hit (and thus determine when to PA?) I mean, how can using a great sword vs a dagger (if a dagger were heavy and two handed - I know how GWM works) affect when to use it?

The reason you subtract "average damage without Power Attack" for the formula is to account for the opportunity cost of missing your attack because of Power Attack. The higher your base damage is before the +10, the higher the damage loss is for missing, and the less likely you are to use Power Attack optimally in certain situations. As a result, higher base damage drops the effective AC where Power Attack is optimal.


On the other hand, is there a significant damage range with heavy weapons? I'm AFB, but I can only remember 1d10, 1d12 and 2d6 for heavy... though I suppose Sharpshooter is a better example, having 1d6 Hand vs 1d10 Heavy xbow variance...

The variation based on weapon, in either case, is never greater than two, but other factors might influence your damage output for that attack, like, "do I have Sneak Attack (for Sharpshooters)?" Rage damage, special weapon bonuses, etc. might also be important for determining attack and damage here. It's worth noting that while a +1 weapon cancels itself out (being both +1 to hit and damage), Bracers of Archery (to hit) and Giant Slayer (to damage), for example, do not.

[Desamir]

It's worth noting that while a +1 weapon cancels itself out (being both +1 to hit and damage), Bracers of Archery (to hit) and Giant Slayer (to damage), for example, do not.

Mostly right. Since +1 attack increases the threshold by 1 and +1 damage decreases it by 0.5, a +1 weapon ends up increasing the threshold by a net 0.5. In the example I give in the OP, that's enough to bump a 15 to a 16.

[Lonely Tylenol]

Mostly right. Since +1 attack increases the threshold by 1 and +1 damage decreases it by 0.5, a +1 weapon ends up increasing the threshold by a net 0.5. In the example I give in the OP, that's enough to bump a 15 to a 16.

Right. Wasn't looking at the formula when I said that and forgot. Sorry.

[Desamir]

So for a maxed Warlock Pact Blade (2 attacks, 4-5 each in Str/Cha) with +Str/Cha to damage (3d6+8-10 = 18.5-21.5) and a bonus from +8-+11, you'd be looking at Max AC of 15-17?

Interesting. I'd always looked on GWM as a wasted feat for a warlock, since the bonuses are so damn high. But a level 12 warlock could easily be fighting things with an AC in that range. Less common as you go up in level from there, of course.

edit: I crunched the numbers myself, and it seems to match the way I do them just fine once I stick it in an inequality and solve for AC. I was just getting focused on the avg damage per hit for a 'typical' AC ... a classic DPR mistake.

Pretty much. With +4 Strength/Charisma at 12th level, the max AC threshold is 14. With max stats and proficiency, the threshold is 16 (17 with a +1 or +2 weapon, 18 with a +3 weapon).

[Ruslan]

Having Advantage lowers the Max AC by quite a lot. Which is why GWM is such a great feat for Barbarians, who can gain Advantage at will. If you or your party happens to have other ways of giving Advantage (Faerie Fire, Paladin of Vengeance, hiding, invisibility), the -5/+10 feats become even better.

[unwise]

Thanks for the analysis Desamir.

My group limits -5/+10 skills to being -proficiency/+proficiency. This means that at low levels when they are more likely to break intended damage outputs, they are only -2/+4. So far everybody has liked the limitation and people still go for those feats.

[Desamir]

Thanks for the analysis Desamir.

My group limits -5/+10 skills to being -proficiency/+proficiency. This means that at low levels when they are more likely to break intended damage outputs, they are only -2/+4. So far everybody has liked the limitation and people still go for those feats.

Interesting limitation. Let's see how it plays out using the same analysis.


-2/+4: max AC = attack bonus - damage/2 + 19 (math (http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=solve+%5B1-0.05*%28x-y-1%29%5D*z+%3C+%5B1-0.05*%28x-%28y-2%29-1%29%5D*%28z%2B4%29+for+x))

-3/+6: max AC = attack bonus - damage/2 + 18 (math (http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=solve+%5B1-0.05*%28x-y-1%29%5D*z+%3C+%5B1-0.05*%28x-%28y-3%29-1%29%5D*%28z%2B6%29+for+x))

-4/+8: max AC = attack bonus - damage/2 + 17 (math (http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=solve+%5B1-0.05*%28x-y-1%29%5D*z+%3C+%5B1-0.05*%28x-%28y-4%29-1%29%5D*%28z%2B8%29+for+x))

-5/+10: max AC = attack bonus - damage/2 + 16 (math (http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=solve+%5B1-0.05*%28x-y-1%29%5D*z+%3C+%5B1-0.05*%28x-%28y-5%29-1%29%5D*%28z%2B10%29+for+x))

That's... rather unexpected. From this point of view, it looks like -2/+4 is actually better than -5/+10--the max AC threshold is 3 points higher! Using the Paladin from my OP, with -2/+4 he should power attack against AC 18 or less. (At level 4, that's practically everybody.) But that doesn't tell the whole story, because we still have to see which version grants more DPR. Comparing -2/+4 to -5/+10, again using the 4th level Paladin from the OP, yields the following graph (http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=graph+%5B1-0.05*%28x-%286-2%29-1%29%5D*%2812.33%2B4%29+vs+%5B1-0.05*%28x-%286-5%29-1%29%5D*%2812.33%2B10%29+for+7%3Cx%3C20):
http://i.imgur.com/BO1kxld.png

The left axis is DPR, the bottom axis is target AC, the blue line is -2/+4, and the red line is -5/+10. Per the graph, against AC 13 and below, -5/+10 is best. Against AC 14-18, -2/+4 is best. Against AC 19+, normal attacking is best. Remember, this is a calculation for the specific 4th level Paladin in the OP, who has +4 Str, a Greatsword, and the Great Weapon Fighting Style, and these numbers will be different for other characters.

In summary, it looks like -2/+4 isn't exactly a straight nerf to the feat; it just weakens it against low AC (12-13) creatures, while making it stronger against mid and high AC creatures.

[Malifice]

I also feel compeled to mention those feats are completely broken with the -5/+10 being worth almost as much as the ASI before you even factor in the powerful second benifits (bonus attack on crit/kill and ignore cover) and synergy with x-bow expert and polearm master (also two of the most powerful feats before synergies).

Actually the above formula clearly shows that youre often better off not using the -5/+10 for DPR.

I hardly call that broken. Situational yes, broken no.

[Tanarii]

Actually the above formula clearly shows that youre often better off not using the -5/+10 for DPR.

I hardly call that broken. Situational yes, broken no.'Only' using it at against AC 18 or lower (with a Bless up) at level 6 is hardly situational.

[Malifice]

'Only' using it at against AC 18 or lower (with a Bless up) at level 6 is hardly situational.

Bless pre cast, PC's at level 6, and vs a specific AC range (with no disadvantage to the attack), using a heavy weapon, in melee, is not situational? Thats very situational. Optimal even.

Dont get me wrong, with buffs and situational stuff (like advantage) against low - medium AC foes its a good feat. But its not in any way reliable, and it remains situational.

[Desamir]

'Only' using it at against AC 18 or lower (with a Bless up) at level 6 is hardly situational.
If you are referring to the example in the OP, that's a level 4 Paladin. At level 6, it bumps to AC 16 (19 with bless).

[Malifice]

If you are referring to the example in the OP, that's a level 4 Paladin. At level 6, it bumps to AC 16 (19 with bless).

Using vengance for advantage or devotion for sacred weapon?

We talking about the feat in isolation, or how it works better with buffs from multiple sources?

[Desamir]

Using vengance for advantage or devotion for sacred weapon?

We talking about the feat in isolation, or how it works better with buffs from multiple sources?

At level 4, AC 15 is with no buffs; AC 18 is with Bless. At level 6, the +3 proficiency brings it to AC 16 with no buffs, or AC 19 with bless.

With advantage only (e.g. Vow of Enmity), it bumps up to AC 17 at level 4, or AC 18 at level 6.

[Malifice]

At level 4, AC 15 is with no buffs; AC 18 is with Bless. At level 6, the +3 proficiency brings it to AC 16 with no buffs, or AC 19 with bless.

With advantage only (e.g. Vow of Enmity), it bumps up to AC 17 at level 4, or AC 18 at level 6.

What about with disadvantage? Or low HP Mooks or badly wounded goes where it doesn't matter? Or if your cleric is out of bless spell (or you don't have a cleric, or he's concentrating on something else?).

Don't get me wrong - when buffed to the wazoo and with advantage it's great. The lower the AC the better.

It's certainly not broken though.

Also - opportunity cost. You could have instead bumped Str by +2. Every time you fail a Str check or save by 1, or miss your target AC by 1, talk to me.

[Tanarii]

Don't get me wrong - when buffed to the wazoo and with advantage it's great. The lower the AC the better.his formula shows that with a bog-standard situation, no disadvantage and bless up, it's good against AC 18 or lower at level 4. That's effective always-on at that level, without advantage or 'buffed up the wazoo'.

For Sharpshooter it's even more drastic, since your base damage is much lower than a two handed weapon, and your hit bonus is even higher if Archery Style.

Edit: I think -5/+10 is broken, but not because it's broken on its own. Rather because it's sorta-broken and synergies too well with other sorta-broken elements. Mainly Reckless Attack or Prone for advantage. Bless hadn't occurred to me before but it should have, as its close to broken on its own.

[Desamir]

What about with disadvantage? Or low HP Mooks or badly wounded goes where it doesn't matter? Or if your cleric is out of bless spell (or you don't have a cleric, or he's concentrating on something else?).

Don't get me wrong - when buffed to the wazoo and with advantage it's great. The lower the AC the better.

It's certainly not broken though.

Also - opportunity cost. You could have instead bumped Str by +2. Every time you fail a Str check or save by 1, or miss your target AC by 1, talk to me.

Couple things worth noting:

A Paladin can cast Bless himself (and usually will, since it is the optimal use of a 1st level slot).
The "cleave" feature of the feat works well against low-HP or badly-wounded targets.


his formula shows that with a bog-standard situation, no disadvantage and bless up, it's good against AC 18 or lower at level 4. That's effective always-on at that level, without advantage or 'buffed up the wazoo'.

For Sharpshooter it's even more drastic, since your base damage is much lower than a two handed weapon, and your hit bonus is even higher if Archery Style.

Assuming a 5th level fighter with Sharpshooter, a +8 attack bonus (+3 stat, +3 proficiency, +2 archery style) and a longbow (1d8+3 damage, 7.5 average). That results in a max AC of 20.25, which encompasses all enemies CR20 and lower (except for the Ancient Green Dragon). Using Sharpshooter against an AC 15 enemy results in a DPR increase from 10.5 to 15.75, a 50% increase.

[Malifice]

Couple things worth noting:

A Paladin can cast Bless himself (and usually will, since it is the optimal use of a 1st level slot).
The "cleave" feature of the feat works well against low-HP or badly-wounded targets.



Assuming a 5th level fighter with Sharpshooter, a +8 attack bonus (+3 stat, +3 proficiency, +2 archery style) and a longbow (1d8+3 damage, 7.5 average). That results in a max AC of 20.25, which encompasses all enemies CR20 and lower (except for the Ancient Green Dragon). Using Sharpshooter against an AC 15 enemy results in a DPR increase from 10.5 to 15.75, a 50% increase.

Awesome. Run the numbers again, this time taking into account if the archer (instead of sharshooter) bumped Dex by +2 for a +1 to hit and damage 'always on'. And then also factor in the plus 1 to initiative, AC, dex saves and skills etc.

Subtract all damage you take when your AC gets hit by 1 from the damage you deal. Every time you fail a dex save by 1. Every time you miss by 1 etc.

The fears are situational AND they carry an opportunity cost. You need to factor in both to see a true value of the feat. These maths only factor in the former.

[Tanarii]

Malafice, your crusade to defend the -5/+10 feats is getting out of hand. You're attacking people whom are only interested in crunching the numbers with your counter-arguments.

Edit: for clarity, I don't mean me. I mean desamir. You're welcome to attack me as much as you like with counter-arguments. :p

[Malifice]

Malafice, your crusade to defend the -5/+10 feats is getting out of hand. You're attacking people whom are only interested in crunching the numbers with your counter-arguments.

Edit: for clarity, I don't mean me. I mean desamir. You're welcome to attack me as much as you like with counter-arguments. :p

Dude how are you reading my posts as attacking anyone? I'm just saying the feats are balanced taking into account the situational nature of them and the opportunity cost.

There ain't any attack there!

[Desamir]

Awesome. Run the numbers again, this time taking into account if the archer (instead of sharshooter) bumped Dex by +2 for a +1 to hit and damage 'always on'. And then also factor in the plus 1 to initiative, AC, dex saves and skills etc.

Subtract all damage you take when your AC gets hit by 1 from the damage you deal. Every time you fail a dex save by 1. Every time you miss by 1 etc.

The fears are situational AND they carry an opportunity cost. You need to factor in both to see a true value of the feat. These maths only factor in the former.

With +2 Dex from an ASI, a +9 attack bonus and 1d8+4 damage results in 12.75 DPR. From this new baseline, the previous Sharpshooter calculation (15.75) yields a 26% damage increase.

Some considerations:

If the target has half-cover (e.g. shooting over an ally), which reduces the baseline DPR to 11.05 but does not affect Sharpshooter DPR, we yield a 43% damage increase from Sharpshooter instead.
If the target has three-quarters cover, which reduces the baseline DPR to 8.5, we yield an 85% damage increase from Sharpshooter instead.

[Finieous]

his formula shows that with a bog-standard situation, no disadvantage and bless up, it's good against AC 18 or lower at level 4. That's effective always-on at that level, without advantage or 'buffed up the wazoo'.


That seems like a loose definition of "good." What's he getting in that situation, less than +0.2 DPR? Anyway, this doesn't need to become another thread about whether -5/+10 is "broken" or not.

[Malifice]

With +2 Dex from an ASI, a +9 attack bonus and 1d8+4 damage results in 12.75 DPR. From this new baseline, the previous Sharpshooter calculation (15.75) yields a 26% damage increase.

Some considerations:

If the target has half-cover (e.g. shooting over an ally), which reduces the baseline DPR to 11.05 but does not affect Sharpshooter DPR, we yield a 43% damage increase from Sharpshooter instead.
If the target has three-quarters cover, which reduces the baseline DPR to 8.5, we yield an 85% damage increase from Sharpshooter instead.


Now subtract from that increase of DPR, the extra damage taken by the character with an AC and Dex save of 1 less. Also, factor in the problems involved with losing initiative checks to monsters (and being forced into melee) and failing dex based skill checks by 1.

More than accounts for the slight increase in damage in specific situations and vs a range of AC's.

[djreynolds]

I think the discussion can be skewed because not everyone is "forced" to use the standard array. And really, most of us are looking at least level 8 fighter till we have a maxed strength and can select GWM. Maybe a human variant will risk taking it a level 1 instead of heavy armor master. Maybe you have a 6 man party who has a cleric or a wolf totem barbarian, maybe you have a paladin with plate armor who is not having to cast shield of faith and can cast bless. There are a lot of variables.

[Malifice]

A lot of peeps still think 'dex based fighters are boss' and OTOH we also have threads where peeps complain about GWM being OP.

Let the martials who want to be strength based hard hitters with big heavy sharp swords be strength based hard hitters with big heavy sharp swords.

Breaks nothing other than giving a situational damage spike (at opportunity cost). Let the barbarians have their toys.

[djreynolds]

A lot of peeps still think 'dex based fighters are boss' and OTOH we also have threads where peeps complain about GWM being OP.

Let the martials who want to be strength based hard hitters with big heavy sharp swords be strength based hard hitters with big heavy sharp swords.

Breaks nothing other than giving a situational damage spike (at opportunity cost). Let the barbarians have their toys.

The only dex based fighter worth it, is an armored rogue. Otherwise, you are stuck at 3 or 4 attacks for base damage. GWM was created to allow a melee fighter to keep up with the wizard dropping fireballs. So many enemy are resistant to slashing damage anyhow.

My advice is to have the DM stop sending in goblins, we just had out butts hand to us by hobgoblins in half plate and then some demon I can't spell. My fighter did what he was best at, took hits and let the cleric and wizard go to town. Actually during the fight, I had to give up attacks to shove prone the hobgoblins. They are tough.

[Malifice]

The only dex based fighter worth it, is an armored rogue. Otherwise, you are stuck at 3 or 4 attacks for base damage. GWM was created to allow a melee fighter to keep up with the wizard dropping fireballs. So many enemy are resistant to slashing damage anyhow.

My advice is to have the DM stop sending in goblins, we just had out butts hand to us by hobgoblins in half plate and then some demon I can't spell. My fighter did what he was best at, took hits and let the cleric and wizard go to town. Actually during the fight, I had to give up attacks to shove prone the hobgoblins. They are tough.

Like I said, I have a GWM barbarian and a swashbuckler. Both 6th. The Barbarian has a higher roof for his damage, but the Rogue (who just spammed dex and uses TWF) is much more reliable and not that far behind.

[djreynolds]

Like I said, I have a GWM barbarian and a swashbuckler. Both 6th. The Barbarian has a higher roof for his damage, but the Rogue (who just spammed dex and uses TWF) is much more reliable and not that far behind.

I'm not convinced GWM is OP. And DMs should tailor the game to the players. When a person designs an adventure, yeah you are 4 6th level guys, who used the standard array? Not a group of supermen or superwomen, who's lowest stat is a 13.

Adjust the difficulty level to the party playing. If that paladin is killing everything, goblin archers will force him to pull out the shield and war hammer.

Our DM just had us fight a Storoper, a stone roper, my rogue loves clerics, who would've thought the druid's moon beam was that awesome. No GWM with this guy.

Also, question, for blank resistant enemies, does the extra damage from GWM represent say all slashing, or slashing from the sword and bludgeoning from the +10 damage, or is it all that weapon used.

[Tenmujiin]

Also, question, for blank resistant enemies, does the extra damage from GWM represent say all slashing, or slashing from the sword and bludgeoning from the +10 damage, or is it all that weapon used.

Well our options are: weapon type, untyped and whatever the DM feels like.

Whatever the DM feels like (your example of bludgeoning) is probably the worst choice as there is not consistancy or precident, it does offer flexibility based on description of the attack but if you really want that you can just make the whole attack the new damage type.

Untyped offers more power to an already powerful feat but can be reasonably assumed from the rules.

Weapon damage type makes the most logical sense (at least to me) and is also probably the most balanced choice while also fitting the rules barely worse than untyped.

Personally I'd go with weapon type but untyped is a reasonable interpration of RaW.


Edit: as to GWM and sharpshooter being OP, I don't see how there is a counter arguement, feats are supposed to be slightly mechanically weaker than an ASI in return for flavor and versitility. -5/+10 is mechanically stronger than a strength bump unless your DM is changing the design of his enemies completely (monsters tend towards low AC) to counter it rather than bringing it in line with other options.

Compared to a dex bump it is debatable wether the -5/+10 is worth it but then the feat comes with ignoring the main disadvantage of range compared to mele (cover).

In summary, the -5/+10 is roughly as good as a dex ASI gaining damage for init, AC and skills and MUCH stronger than a strength ASI (more DPR or less DPR, which one would you choose?) and then the feats also come with aditional bonuses.

Edit 2: I'd like to clarify that my problem with the feats isn't even that they break the math of the game (which they do but that can be accounted for in encounter building) its that they make dual crossbows, polearms and longbows (for bards/rangers with level 4(?) spells) the only even slightly optimised weapons and dwarf the other options by such margin that anyone using said other options in a game with an optimised character will feel weak.

[Desamir]

Well our options are: weapon type, untyped and whatever the DM feels like.

Whatever the DM feels like (your example of bludgeoning) is probably the worst choice as there is not consistancy or precident, it does offer flexibility based on description of the attack but if you really want that you can just make the whole attack the new damage type.

Untyped offers more power to an already powerful feat but can be reasonably assumed from the rules.

Weapon damage type makes the most logical sense (at least to me) and is also probably the most balanced choice while also fitting the rules barely worse than untyped.

Personally I'd go with weapon type but untyped is a reasonable interpration of RaW.

To my knowledge, there is no such thing as untyped damage in 5e. Extra damage without a listed type takes on the damage type of the attack that triggered it. Confirmed by Jeremy Crawford here (http://www.sageadvice.eu/2015/09/09/sneak-attack-damage-type/).

[Tenmujiin]

To my knowledge, there is no such thing as untyped damage in 5e. Extra damage without a listed type takes on the damage type of the attack that triggered it. Confirmed by Jeremy Crawford here (http://www.sageadvice.eu/2015/09/09/sneak-attack-damage-type/).

Even easier. I was just going off my memory not finding supporting rules in the book.

[Lonely Tylenol]

Now subtract from that increase of DPR, the extra damage taken by the character with an AC and Dex save of 1 less. Also, factor in the problems involved with losing initiative checks to monsters (and being forced into melee) and failing dex based skill checks by 1.

More than accounts for the slight increase in damage in specific situations and vs a range of AC's.

Damage which doesn't kill you doesn't matter. Also, none of this stuff matters for DPR calculations.

I'm not really sure why you're arguing this point with Desamir and repeatedly shifting the goalposts with him. His post was never about "when is GWM better than a straight +2 ABI?"; it was "if you have GWM, when is it better for DPR purposes to use it?"

[djreynolds]

If you are a strength based warrior, without a shield and without smites, you must take this feat. A bladesinger with maxed dex and int is doing similar damage and can drop fireballs. The rogue can drop a sneak attack for up to 10d6. A paladin can smite for 5d8. It is the only way to keep up with damage. It is not OP, anyone with heavy weapon should take this. At higher levels you will need this. Trust me, your damage at 4th doesn't really change at all. You weapon damage stays the same, your strength is 20, that's it. The bad guys get more and more hit points. Even with GWM at level 16, you are in need.

[Kane0]

http://i.imgur.com/rGbHg5h.png

Okay, so my fighter buddy is a level 13 Champion with a 20 Str and GWM using a +2 Maul. That should mean his top AC to use it on would be +12 attack bonus - 0.5(3.5+3.5+5+2 ) +16 = 21, correct?
Sounds good, shame we fight so many enemies with AC 24+ though. The price you pay for a high level, high magic game I suppose.

How did you end up with the +16 part though, out of curiosity?

[Tanarii]

Okay, so my fighter buddy is a level 13 Champion with a 20 Str and GWM using a +2 Maul. That should mean his top AC to use it on would be +12 attack bonus - 0.5(3.5+3.5+5+2 ) +16 = 21, correct?does he have GWF too? If so, 12 - (1/2)*(8.33+5+2) + 16.
Rounding down, still AC 21 or less. Just trying to be precise.



Sounds good, shame we fight so many enemies with AC 24+ though.Wow. Home brew? That's like 6 points higher than the average expected for level-appropriate CRs.

[MaxWilson]

Wow. Home brew? That's like 6 points higher than the average expected for level-appropriate CRs.

There is no "average expected" really. Most monsters do not have matching offensive and defensive CRs; and the DM openly encourages you to give monsters whatever AC you want and just tweak the HP/CR appropriately afterward.

AC 24 sounds like some kind of crab-men, or giant insect, with impossibly tough shells. Legitimate though.

P.S. And of course there's always demons, such as Mezzoloths, who cast Darkness and then see in the dark at you. Their effective AC is around 24.

[Tanarii]

There is no "average expected" really. Most monsters do not have matching offensive and defensive CRs; and the DM openly encourages you to give monsters whatever AC you want and just tweak the HP/CR appropriately afterward.Yes, but the CR adjustment is 1 per two points, so you're talking about +3 adjustment to the defensive CR for that. Or more assuming he isn't always fighting solos, or deadly battles. So either things with pisspoor offense, or much lower hit points.

Apparently I need to take a more detailed look at how the MM creature stats breakdown relative to CR and the DMG table.

[MaxWilson]

Yes, but the CR adjustment is 1 per two points, so you're talking about +3 adjustment to the defensive CR for that. Or more assuming he isn't always fighting solos, or deadly battles. So either things with ------- offense, or much lower hit points.

Apparently I need to take a more detailed look at how the MM creature stats breakdown relative to CR and the DMG table.

Tweaking HP usually the easiest way of compensating for changes to other stats, in my experience. E.g. I want Pit Fiends to have regeneration, like they did in AD&D, so I'll give them 10 HP/round regen and just deduct 30 HP from their total.

If I were making AC 24 ant/crab-things, I'd probably give them medium-low HP and take the rest of the difference out of their offensive CR, most likely by reducing their to-hit instead of their damage. Big dumb slow bruisers who pack a wallop when they do hit. Make sure to build specialized variants who entangle things at a distance; and of course all of them get burrowing speeds. Sounds like something orcs would have created during the Unhuman Wars actually...

Monster: Witchlight Marauder II Variant B(1) (monstrosity)
Large crab-thing, ambush predator, reproduces rapidly given sufficient food
Movement: 30', can burrow through dirt at 20', leaving an unstable tunnel behind it
Naturally blind, tremorsense 60'
Str 20 Dex 10 Con 20 Int 2 Wis 10 Cha 8
HD: 8d10+40 (84)
AC: 24
Attacks: Both crab-pincers shoot out like gigantic harpoons and latch onto prey, dragging it back to the grinding mandibles for ingestion and digestion. 2 melee attacks with reach 30', +3 for 2d10+5 damage each. Target is grappled and restrained on a hit (Constrict DC 15, like a constrictor snake) and is then reeled 15' per round closer to the monster (as a Reel bonus action, like a roper). Mandibles have a 5' range and attack at +2 for 7d10+5 damage, cannot multiattack with pincers.
Effective AC: 25 (24 + Constrict attack)
Defensive CR: 7 (1 for HP +6 for AC)
Offensive CR: 3 (4 for damage - 1 for low to-hit)
Total CR: 5

Note: IIRC Earth Elementals have a 7/3 Defensive/Offensive split as well, so this monster isn't even unusual. Edit: I recall incorrectly. Their offensive CR is 5 due to high to-hit bonus. Now I'm puzzled why they are only CR 5.

[Walnut]

Okay, so my fighter buddy is a level 13 Champion with a 20 Str and GWM using a +2 Maul. That should mean his top AC to use it on would be +12 attack bonus - 0.5(3.5+3.5+5+2 ) +16 = 21, correct?
Sounds good, shame we fight so many enemies with AC 24+ though. The price you pay for a high level, high magic game I suppose.
The feat is still nice though, unless your fighter buddy has lots of uses for his bonus action. With 3 attacks with 19-20 crit, that is 27.1% chance of bonus action attack (9% additional damage).

And it still offers the other benefits when you get advantage.

[Vogonjeltz]

Great Weapon Mastery is one of the keystones of dealing effective damage in 5e. However, unlike most optimization options, there's a right time and a wrong time to use GWM. I've seen some tables that guide the aspiring great weapon master in using the feat properly, but in my opinion there's a simpler way to figure it out. Using the mysticism of middle school algebra, I have come up with the following formula.

You've only accounted for the lower threshold, not the point at which the damage loss from additional misses is off-set by the fact that you would have missed anyway on the upper end of ACs.


Running the numbers, it would appear using Sharpshooter is virtually always better than not using it.

Example:
For a longbow user, the average damage is increased by sharpshooter so long as the adjusted ACs do not reside in the range of 14-17 (15-17 with adv, 10-19 with dis). Because proficiency is required, the actual ACs would be 16-19; 17-19 with adv, 12-21 with dis.

For a +3 magic longbow user with max deterity, the ranges are actually better, with adjusted ACs of 10-19, 12-19 adv, 2-19 dis (actual AC would be: 20-29, adv 22-29, dis 12-29)

The key point being that, almost always, to hit scales up with damage increases. For a level 20 character with archery style, +5 dex mod and a +3 longbow, for anything with an AC of 26 or below, it would be better to use Sharpshooter than not. If I am recalling correctly, that means there are no enemies it would be worse to use Sharpshooter on.

Note: This does not apply to rogues because of sneak attack dice.

Also, calculations change for Champion with GWM because they have an increased crit range and GWM grants a bonus attack on crit.

[Kane0]

does he have GWF too? If so, 12 - (1/2)*(8.33+5+2) + 16.
Rounding down, still AC 21 or less. Just trying to be precise.

Wow. Home brew? That's like 6 points higher than the average expected for level-appropriate CRs.

Yes GWF and Defense with his second champion style.



AC 24 sounds like some kind of crab-men, or giant insect, with impossibly tough shells. Legitimate though.


Definitely homebrew, and hard/deadly fights as well. We've got to the point where killing ancient dragons (A black specifically, he took a Rod of Absorbtion I want) is the *more preferable* fight than the DM's Arthas-esque antagonist or his necromantic legions.
Might be the tactics and pacing more than the challenge itself, we have a lot of one or two encounter adventuring days in favorable conditions. Hopefully the upcoming finale will feature more attrition and home field advantage to provide a challenge rather than just more numbers to whittle away at.

[Desamir]

http://i.imgur.com/rGbHg5h.png

Okay, so my fighter buddy is a level 13 Champion with a 20 Str and GWM using a +2 Maul. That should mean his top AC to use it on would be +12 attack bonus - 0.5(3.5+3.5+5+2 ) +16 = 21, correct?
Sounds good, shame we fight so many enemies with AC 24+ though. The price you pay for a high level, high magic game I suppose.

How did you end up with the +16 part though, out of curiosity?

With GWF style, your max AC is 20: 12 - (8.33+5+2)/2 = 20.335, rounded down.

The +16 comes from simplifying the following inequality:

z[1-0.05(x-y-1)] < (z+10)[1-0.05(x-(y-5)-1)]
The left side of the inequality is a damage-per-round (DPR) calculation for attacking normally with y attack bonus and z damage against a target with an AC of x. The right side of the inequality is the same DPR calculation, except with power attack (hence y-5 and z+10).

If you solve that inequality for x, you end up with x = y - z/2 + 16. In other words, it doesn't really have any special significance, it's just a "magic number" constant that comes out of the DPR inequality.

[Malifice]

Tweaking HP usually the easiest way of compensating for changes to other stats, in my experience. E.g. I want Pit Fiends to have regeneration, like they did in AD&D, so I'll give them 10 HP/round regen and just deduct 30 HP from their total.

If I were making AC 24 ant/crab-things, I'd probably give them medium-low HP and take the rest of the difference out of their offensive CR, most likely by reducing their to-hit instead of their damage. Big dumb slow bruisers who pack a wallop when they do hit. Make sure to build specialized variants who entangle things at a distance; and of course all of them get burrowing speeds. Sounds like something orcs would have created during the Unhuman Wars actually...

Monster: Withlight Marauder II Variant B(1) (monstrosity)
Large crab-thing, ambush predator, reproduces rapidly given sufficient food
Movement: 30', can burrow through dirt at 20', leaving an unstable tunnel behind it
Naturally blind, tremorsense 60'
Str 20 Dex 10 Con 20 Int 2 Wis 10 Cha 8
HD: 8d10+40 (84)
AC: 24
Attacks: Both crab-pincers shoot out like gigantic harpoons and latch onto prey, dragging it back to the grinding mandibles for ingestion and digestion. 2 melee attacks with reach 30', +3 for 2d10+5 damage each. Target is grappled and restrained on a hit (Constrict DC 15, like a constrictor snake) and is then reeled 15' per round closer to the monster (as a Reel bonus action, like a roper). Mandibles have a 5' range and attack at +2 for 7d10+5 damage, cannot multiattack with pincers.
Effective AC: 25 (24 + Constrict attack)
Defensive CR: 7 (1 for HP +6 for AC)
Offensive CR: 3 (4 for damage - 1 for low to-hit)
Total CR: 5

Note: IIRC Earth Elementals have a 7/3 Defensive/Offensive split as well, so this monster isn't even unusual. Edit: I recall incorrectly. Their offensive CR is 5 due to high to-hit bonus. Now I'm puzzled why they are only CR 5.

That critter is NOT a CR5 man. AC 24, multiattack with 30' reach and a 7D10 damage bite?

Thats just a character killer (barring a lucky save or suck seing as it doesnt have any saves).

[MaxWilson]

That critter is NOT a CR5 man. AC 24, multiattack with 30' reach and a 7D10 damage bite?

I think you mean *or* a 7d10 damage bite. I explicitly called out that the bite is not part of the multi-attack.

And it is in fact a CR 5, both by DMG rules (I even showed my math) and in practice. Not even a particularly difficult one. Just keep it occupied with an AC 23 Paladin (AC 21 + Shield of Faith) who grapples it and then Dodges on following rounds while everyone else kills it to death with ranged weapons (while Blessed). Look past the numbers to the reality underneath.

Read the DMG monster construction guidelines sometime. Apparently they will surprise you.

[djreynolds]

GWM is not OP, at low levels if you rolled crazy stats it is powerful. But with the stat cap, it balances out at higher levels and lets everyone keep up with damage.

[Malifice]

I think you mean *or* a 7d10 damage bite. I explicitly called out that the bite is not part of the multi-attack.

And it is in fact a CR 5, both by DMG rules and in practice. Not even a particularly difficult one. Just keep it occupied with a dodging AC 23 Paladin (AC 21 + Shield of Faith) while everyone else kills it to death with ranged weapons (while Blessed). Look past the numbers to the reality underneath.

Read the DMG monster construction guidelines sometime. Apparently they will surprise you.

I have read them and they're an art not a science. That monster is NOT a CR5. Even leaving aside the fact it has 30' reach and multi Attack (and an AC of 24) anyone near it (within 5') is at risk of a 7d10+5 damage bite attack.

That's 42 points of damage. 80 on a crit. Enough to insta kill any 5th level PC it hits.

A single CR 5 is supposed to be a reasonable challenge for around 5 x 4th level PCs.

This thing would just win.

[MaxWilson]

I have read them and they're an art not a science. That monster is NOT a CR5. Even leaving aside the fact it has 30' reach and multi Attack (and an AC of 24) anyone near it (within 5') is at risk of a 7d10+5 damage bite attack.

That's 42 points of damage. 80 on a crit. Enough to insta kill any 5th level PC it hits.

A single CR 5 is supposed to be a reasonable challenge for around 5 x 4th level PCs.

This thing would just win.

Something's wrong with your tactics then. Both test combats I've run resulted in it dying messily without inflicting a single HP of damage on the test party PCs.

Also, your math is wrong. 80 HP of damage won't insta-kill a typical 5th level warrior-type PC at full health. That will take between 88 and 98 HP of damage, depending on Con, or 220 HP if he's a Barbearian. Add another 18 HP if someone in the party is an Inspiring Leader, or 36 HP for a Barbearian.

[Malifice]

Something's wrong with your tactics then. Both test combats I've run resulted in it dying messily without inflicting a single HP of damage on the test party PCs.

Also, your math is wrong. 80 HP of damage won't insta-kill a typical 5th level warrior-type PC at full health. That will take between 88 and 98 HP of damage, depending on Con, or 220 HP if he's a Barbearian.

Whatever man. Your critter is OP as heck. 30' reach, multiattack, a bite for 7d10+5 damage, AC 24 and constrict (and grab). Compare that to every other CR 5 monster in the game and nothing else comes close.

A CR 5 creature (1800 xp) is a medium (1250 -1874 xp) encounter for 5 x 4th level PCs. That critter is deadly to those PC's, even assuming they are fully healed and at max resources (which odds are, they wont be).

[MaxWilson]

Whatever man. Your critter is OP as heck. 30' reach, multiattack, a bite for 7d10+5 damage, AC 24 and constrict (and grab). Compare that to every other CR 5 monster in the game and nothing else comes close.

A CR 5 creature (1800 xp) is a medium (1250 -1874 xp) encounter for 5 x 4th level PCs. That critter is deadly to those PC's, even assuming they are fully healed and at max resources (which odds are, they wont be).

If you can't deal with this thing, even knowing its complete stats, I'd hate to see what happens when you meet something genuinely dangerous, like 5E Shadows, drow, or goblins.

[djreynolds]

But this is about GWM, not my rogue getting his *ss handed to himself on a silver platter because he rushed in on hobgoblins and got his butt kicked.

I believe in teamwork, you might like my rogue shoving your adversaries, so you can kill it. Its like baseball, I like to load the bases for the big hitters and then they return the favor.

If you have a great weapon and two or three attacks, you can lose one to shove and its okay if you have to do this. My champion does it a lot if he is using his great sword. Advantage is where this GWM is really kicked into overdrive, obviously, having a wolf totem barbarian is great, or rogue shield master is quiet nice.

There is a really good guide on the forum about how to get advantage, good read.

[Malifice]

If you can't deal with this thing, even knowing its complete stats, I'd hate to see what happens when you meet something genuinely dangerous, like 5E Shadows, drow, or goblins.

Im not saying its invincible brother; I just feel that in light of its stats that it is totally OP for a CR 5. It could quite easily TPK a party of that level.

Lets agree to disagree.

[Lonely Tylenol]

I can see why the creature is low CR - after all, it does not pose a plausible threat if nothing ever lands. That said, I don't understand *why* its to-hit is so low - its attacks are obviously Strength-based (because of the +5 to damage), which should incur a +5 to-hit before even looking at proficiency. The Strength bonus doesn't factor into its to-hit, even though it does for damage, which is odd. Even if the attack rolls were both Dexterity-based, they have uneven to-hit bonuses for some reason, as if something other than proficiency bonus is dictating their to-hit which isn't their attack stat.

These monsters may fit within the CR guidelines, and be balanced (albeit swingy) for a 5th-level party at a table (especially in the context of the Combat-as-War games MaxWilson tends to enjoy), but it is not internally consistent as the rules go.

[MaxWilson]

I can see why the creature is low CR - after all, it does not pose a plausible threat if nothing ever lands. That said, I don't understand *why* its to-hit is so low - its attacks are obviously Strength-based (because of the +5 to damage), which should incur a +5 to-hit before even looking at proficiency. The Strength bonus doesn't factor into its to-hit, even though it does for damage, which is odd. Even if the attack rolls were both Dexterity-based, they have uneven to-hit bonuses for some reason, as if something other than proficiency bonus is dictating their to-hit which isn't their attack stat.

These monsters may fit within the CR guidelines, and be balanced (albeit swingy) for a 5th-level party at a table (especially in the context of the Combat-as-War games MaxWilson tends to enjoy), but it is not internally consistent as the rules go.

Hmmm, good point. I was thinking in terms of "clumsy, but strong once they actually hit you," but you're right that D&D 5E doesn't actually encourage you to separate things out that way. I wanted the pincer attack to-hit to be based off of Dex, but it wouldn't make sense for the damage to be based off of Dex. For the mandibles I wanted something that is basically just a garbage disposal. I suppose the 5E way of doing that would be to make it a Dex saving throw with DC 12 instead of an attack at +2.

[PoeticDwarf]

If my paladin rolls a 13 and...

This is still metagaming, you know OOC what you rolled not IC...

[twas_Brillig]

If my paladin rolls a 13 and...

This is still metagaming, you know OOC what you rolled not IC...

Not saying that table knowledge has to equal character knowledge, but in character you'd still know a strong hit bounced off the dragon's scales like nothing, that plate armor is better than chain, that the guy in the black pajamas is dodging the expert fencer like it's nothing. So there's still an element of OOC numerical reasoning no matter what, but arguably that's to substitute for IC analysis.

[Desamir]

If my paladin rolls a 13 and...

This is still metagaming, you know OOC what you rolled not IC...

If your character is literally a master of great weapons, you can assume he would know whether he should slash precisely or swing recklessly in any given situation. The only way we can represent that in game is by knowing your own limits (attack bonus and damage) and observing your opponent's ability to defend (AC). Numbers are a concrete representation of abstract concepts; ignoring them entirely is one way to play, but not the only way.

[Ruslan]

The Formula
http://i.imgur.com/rGbHg5h.png


This is very good, but couple of exceptions on the higher end of AC, (ab)using the fact that a natural 20 is always a hit:
- If you only hit on a 20, you should always Power Attack anyway.
- If you only hit on 19+, you should Power Attack if and only if your normal damage is 10 or less.

[OldTrees1]

This is very good, but couple of exceptions on the higher end of AC, (ab)using the fact that a natural 20 is always a hit:
- If you only hit on a 20, you should always Power Attack anyway.
- If you only hit on 19+, you should Power Attack if and only if your normal damage is 10 or less.

If I did the math correctly, the exceptions are THAC <= 1 and THAC >= 16 due to the -5 attack hurting less due to Nat 1s and Nat 20s.

[Doug Lampert]

With GWF style, your max AC is 20: 12 - (8.33+5+2)/2 = 20.335, rounded down.

The +16 comes from simplifying the following inequality:

The left side of the inequality is a damage-per-round (DPR) calculation for attacking normally with y attack bonus and z damage against a target with an AC of x. The right side of the inequality is the same DPR calculation, except with power attack (hence y-5 and z+10).

If you solve that inequality for x, you end up with x = y - z/2 + 16. In other words, it doesn't really have any special significance, it's just a "magic number" constant that comes out of the DPR inequality.

Another way to look at it:

Suppose you do 10 damage normally. Then -5/+10 breaks even for DPR when it costs half your hits (and you probably shouldn't use it, overkill is bad and randomness favors team monster both say at equal DPR go for the more reliable/accurate damage).

But cutting your chance to hit in half happens when you normally hit on an 11 (50% drops to 25%).

Then look at the formula, it has to give 11 more than the attack bonus for 10 damage, and that happens when the constant term is 16.

Thus given that the rest of the formula is correct the number 16 has to be 16.

[Desamir]

You've only accounted for the lower threshold, not the point at which the damage loss from additional misses is off-set by the fact that you would have missed anyway on the upper end of ACs.

This would occur in the following situations:


You can only hit normally on a 20.
You can only hit normally on a 19+, and your average damage is less than 10 (http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=solve+%5B0.10%5D*z+%3C+%5B0.05%5D*%28z%2B10%29+ for+z).

These situations are fairly unlikely, since they require tanked Strength, no weapon proficiency, or fighting very high (25+) AC monsters at low levels.


The key point being that, almost always, to hit scales up with damage increases. For a level 20 character with archery style, +5 dex mod and a +3 longbow, for anything with an AC of 26 or below, it would be better to use Sharpshooter than not. If I am recalling correctly, that means there are no enemies it would be worse to use Sharpshooter on.

Technically AC 25 (25.75 or less), but you've got the right idea. The highest monster AC in the game is 25.


Note: This does not apply to rogues because of sneak attack dice.

Also, calculations change for Champion with GWM because they have an increased crit range and GWM grants a bonus attack on crit.

Sneak attack doesn't change anything, you just add the sneak attack damage to your average damage.

The "crit" part of increased crit range is actually a wash. Critting adds the same amount of damage with or without -5/+10. However, it does auto-hit, which adds more exceptions to the formula.

For a Champion with a 19-20 crit range, you should -5/+10 under the following situations:


You can only hit normally on a 19+.
You can only hit normally on an 18+, and your average damage is less than 20 (http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=solve+%5B0.15%5D*z+%3C+%5B0.10%5D*%28z%2B10%29+ for+z).
You can only hit normally on a 17+, and your average damage is less than 10 (http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=solve+%5B0.20%5D*z+%3C+%5B0.10%5D*%28z%2B10%29+ for+z).

For a Champion with an 18-20 crit range, you should -5/+10 under the following situations:


You can only hit normally on an 18+.
You can only hit normally on a 17+, and your average damage is less than 30 (http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=solve+%5B0.20%5D*z+%3C+%5B0.15%5D*%28z%2B10%29+ for+z).
You can only hit normally on a 16+, and your average damage is less than 15 (http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=solve+%5B0.25%5D*z+%3C+%5B0.15%5D*%28z%2B10%29+ for+z).

Most of the above requires fighting AC 25 monsters at low levels (unlikely).

[Skylivedk]

This would occur in the following situations:
With a single attack, sneak attack uses the regular formula; just add it to your average damage. With two attacks (e.g. two-weapon fighting, Crossbow Expert, multiclassing), the formula becomes [I'm new so I can't post the link - look at OP] more complicated[/URL]. I'll edit this into the OP.


Why use the new formula? You can choose to use -5 / +10 on each individual attack right? So, the decision making process goes something like this:

First attack: I use the standard formula (including SA)
Second attack: I use the standard formula (and include SA if I missed on the first attack and exclude it, if the first attack actually did hit)


Or am I missing something super obvious?

[djreynolds]

You must find ways to gain advantage. Shoving someone prone, maneuvers, class features, team work, team work. At lower levels, I have given up my only attack as a rogue to tackle someone and the paladin and barbarian cleaned up.

This and sharp shooter are needed. Any way to gain advantage, or spells such as bless, or the devotion paladins ability to add charisma to his weapon for a minute, etc.

And there is a negative to this, the higher AC opponents you face and higher CR, the higher their to hit is. And the -2 AC for not having a shield could be painful. Reckless attack is reckless.

[Desamir]

Why use the new formula? You can choose to use -5 / +10 on each individual attack right? So, the decision making process goes something like this:

First attack: I use the standard formula (including SA)
Second attack: I use the standard formula (and include SA if I missed on the first attack and exclude it, if the first attack actually did hit)


Or am I missing something super obvious?

Great point. There's no need for a different formula--I'll edit the OP to match.

[BrusLi]

Anyone knows how to calculate the probabilities if you have Elven Accuracy,which allows you to re-roll one of the advantage dices once,making it triple advantage(xanatar's guide to everything) and/or if you have LUCKY feat?

[Sivashor]

Anyone knows how to calculate the probabilities if you have Elven Accuracy,which allows you to re-roll one of the advantage dices once,making it triple advantage(xanatar's guide to everything) and/or if you have LUCKY feat?

I was wondering that myself. I followed the Wolfram Alpha link on Desamir's post near the top of this thread, and then I edited it to reflect Elven Accuracy. However, I'm terrible at math and have no idea if this is correct:

wolframalpha.com/input/?i=x+%3C+0.5*(3*y+%2B+sqrt(z%5E3%2B10*z%2B1600)+-+z+-+8)+where+y+%3D+5+and+z+%3D+8

(Replace y with your attack bonus and z with your average damage.)

The Maximum ACs that this formula spits out are consistent with what I would expect, but we need somewhere like Desamir to confirm the correctness of this formula.

(I can't post hyperlinks yet because I'm a new member.)

[Sivashor]

I was wondering that myself. I followed the Wolfram Alpha link on Desamir's post near the top of this thread, and then I edited it to reflect Elven Accuracy. However, I'm terrible at math and have no idea if this is correct:

wolframalpha.com/input/?i=x+%3C+0.5*(3*y+%2B+sqrt(z%5E3%2B10*z%2B1600)+-+z+-+8)+where+y+%3D+5+and+z+%3D+8

(Replace y with your attack bonus and z with your average damage.)

The Maximum ACs that this formula spits out are consistent with what I would expect, but we need somewhere like Desamir to confirm the correctness of this formula.

(I can't post hyperlinks yet because I'm a new member.)

Actually, I highly doubt that this formula is correct, because the Maximum AC that I get taking into account additional sneak attack damage is HIGHER than without sneak attack damage, when the opposite must be true...

[Desamir]

Since Elven Accuracy is effectively rolling 3d20 and taking the highest, Wolfram Alpha can crunch a formula for us. The result is pretty ugly, so you're better off plugging in your stats and letting it do the calculation for you.

Here is the Wolfram Alpha formula for max AC with Elven Accuracy (http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=solve+%5B1-(0.05*(x-y-1))%5E3%5D*z+%3C+%5B1-(0.05*(x-(y-5)-1))%5E3%5D*(z%2B10)+for+x). Replace y and z with your attack bonus and average damage respectively.

If it spits out a result with a ton of radicals and fractions, click the "Approximate form" button above the result and it'll reduce it to a decimal.

I haven't tested this very extensively, so let me know if you see odd results.

[Klorox]

Well done!

[Spiritchaser]

I made a quick table of maximum damage values at which GWM/SS should be used when arracking with elven accuracy.

The table assumes 3 attack rolls are made and the best is chosen. No consideration is given to critical hits or crit range

The first column lists the attack roll which would be required to hit (this combines AC and to hit bonus for simplicity). The roll before and after the -5 are listed.

The second column lists the maximum average damage an attack can do both with and without the +10 before it is preferable to drop the -5+10. Data is appended at the last whole number for simplicity and clarity. The next whole number is best without the feat.


Required Roll : Max Damage
5/10 : 109/119
6/11 : 80/90
7/12 : 59/69
8/13 : 45/55
9/14 : 34/44
10/15 : 26/36
11/16 : 19/29
12/17 : 14/24
13/18 : 9/19
14/19 : 5/15
15/20 : 2/12

I did this quickly in excel, it’s certainly not as thorough as the analytical solution, but it may be more accessible. Please let me know if you find any issues.

[Sivashor]

Since Elven Accuracy is effectively rolling 3d20 and taking the highest, Wolfram Alpha can crunch a formula for us. The result is pretty ugly, so you're better off plugging in your stats and letting it do the calculation for you.

Here is the URL....

Fantastic! Thank you!

[Sivashor]

Since Elven Accuracy is effectively rolling 3d20 and taking the highest, Wolfram Alpha can crunch a formula for us. The result is pretty ugly, so you're better off plugging in your stats and letting it do the calculation for you.

[...]

If it spits out a result with a ton of radicals and fractions, click the "Approximate form" button above the result and it'll reduce it to a decimal.

I haven't tested this very extensively, so let me know if you see odd results.

When attack bonus is 8 and average damage is 22 (rogue's assassinate crit on surprise) I get an odd result where x is less than -25.

[Desamir]

When attack bonus is 8 and average damage is 22 (rogue's assassinate crit on surprise) I get an odd result where x is less than -25.

Whenever Wolfram Alpha spits out multiple answers, usually the positive solution is the valid one. For those numbers, I get three solutions (http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=solve+%5B1-(0.05*(x-8-1))%5E3%5D*22+%3C+%5B1-(0.05*(x-(8-5)-1))%5E3%5D*(22%2B10)+for+x): x < -25.8629, x > -13.7284, and x < 18.5914. The last one (18) is the correct AC threshold.

[Arkhios]

Aaaand this, here, is an excellent example of splitting hairs!

[Skylivedk]

Am I the only one not being able to see the formula?

[GlenSmash!]

Am I the only one not being able to see the formula?

I can see it.

solve [1-(0.05*(x-y-1))^3]*z < [1-(0.05*(x-(y-5)-1))^3]*(z+10) for x

[Desamir]

Am I the only one not being able to see the formula?

Should be fixed now.

[samcifer]

i was able to start with 18 Strength and 20 Charisma, so I went Oath of Devotion paladin, which completely counters the -5 to hit on my fallen aasimar,

[LudicSavant]

Bless is not equivalent to a +2.5 to your attack bonus.

It's a popular misconception, but a misconception nonetheless. The reason is because there are a few probabilistic nuances that affect to-hit rolls that don't affect damage rolls (for which the "average the die and treat it as a damage modifier" logic happens to work).

Without going into too much detail, here's a simple example of why it's different:

Enemy has AC 26.
Case A: Attack bonus 3 + 2.5: You hit only on a 20. Your chance to hit is 5%.
Case B: Attack bonus 3 + Bless: You hit on 25% of your 19s (4s on Bless), and on 20s. Your chance to hit is 6.25%.

Here's another example:

Enemy has AC 11
Case A: Attack bonus 7 + 2.5: You miss only on a 1. Your chance to hit is 95%.
Case B: Attack bonus is 7 + Bless: You miss on a 1 or 25% of your 2s (1s on Bless). Your hit chance is 93.75%.

[BrusLi]

I have been wondering, when it comes to DMG calculation, for example....
If I have zealot barb with his feature 1d6+ 1/2 barb lvl and rage, do I calculate all of that into the DMG part of equation ??
Or lets say I have and Scourge AAsimar on top of that, should I add aura DMG as well? @_@'

[OverLordOcelot]

One problem with these sorts of analyses is that average damage isn't that great of a metric. It doesn't take into account the granularity of enemy health pools or the limited number of rounds of combat. If an enemy summons a pack of wolves (13 HP), using a -5/+10 ability at lower levels moves you from typically needing two hits to kill one to one-shotting them on every hit. Pair that with the bonus attack from GWM when you down an enemy, and you're probably going to kill them a lot quicker using power attack than not - but average damage won't capture that. Similarly, if you're a sharpshooter/crossbow master using a hand crossbow to fight 20HP enemies (do doing D6+3 base damage), you're generally going to take them down a lot faster doing a -5/+10 on the first hit but a regular attack on the second, because most of the +10 on the second hit is just wasted damage.

To go to extremes, if you had a -50/+250 ability, plugging that into a similar formula examining average damage would say you should always use it because you'd have a much higher average damage, but in practice it would be pretty lame - most fights you'd just miss a lot, once in a while you'd hit for crazy, one-shot or near one-shot levels of damage, and you'd feel completely useless fighting a swarm of zombies with it on. Average damage doesn't capture that with a 1/20 chance to hit at all, you're going to spend most fights with the enemies dead before you get a hit, or that with a +250 damage you're going to be wasting a lot of that 'average' on anything but the toughest opponents.

IMO the reason -5/+10 gets so bothersome is that, especially at low levels, it's a feast or famine thing, and the average calculators don't show that. If I roll well in a two round fight and get 4 hits on 6 shots with my crossbow/sharpshooter, that's 66 damage, which kills one or two CR1 creatures by myself (dire wolf is 37, giant octopus is 52 for example). Meanwhile with the -5 I could easily get a few low rolls and do absolutely nothing in 6 shots, in which case I may as well not even be there. It's generally better for the game if a player does 'pretty good' most of the time, instead of 'overpowered' one day and 'worthless' the next.

[LibraryOgre]

The Mod Wonder: Ironically, Great Weapon Mastery can help do enough damage to kill the products of necromancy.