The search function is just awful, so I need some help. I'm looking for some of the posts about Great Weapon Master or Sharpshooter that show the ol' -5/+10 shtick is actually quite balanced. I know that some math doods did some major calculations on it. Maybe Bloodscythe or Coredump00? Mellored? I think the threads in which those posts appeared were on the first page fairly recently.
Much obliged if you can throw me a link if you know where those posts are.
iserith wrote:
This thread? http://community.wizards.com/forum/dungeon-master-help/threads/4172796
I think the more complex maths is of little relevance. What matters more is how the table feels the -5/+10 feats affects their play experience. The bonus 10 damage isnt necessary, it is not built into the game, so it is easily swapped for +1 stat.
Psikerlord wrote:
Wel i am not a math expert but do like to fool around with http://anydice.com/
lets take a character +5 to hit ( +2 prof +3 strength) and dealing 1d12+3 damage using a greataxe and making one attack.
lets try him against a AC 15 target.
DPR of 5.225 : normal attack chance to hit 55% 9. 5 avarage damage
DPR of 7.576 : attack with advantage chance to hit 79.75% 9. 5 avarage damage
DPR of 5.85 : normal attack using feat chance to hit 30% 19.5 avarage damage
DPR of 9.945: advantage attack using feat chance to hit 51% 19.5 avarage damage
Let's pimp out a level 1 Archer vs AC 15:
Normally he'd hit for 1d8+3, with a +7 to hit. That's 7.5*.65 dpr.
With Sharpshooter he'd deal 1d8+13, with a +2 to hit. That's 17.5*.4 dpr. Still a good deal. The problem is it platues, and I can't spell.
At level 20, vs an AC of 21:
An archer could do 1d8+5, with a +13 to hit, for 9.5*.65 damage per attack.
With Sharpshooter it's 1d8+15, +8 to hit. 19.5*.4 damage per attack. It's about +1-2 dpa for some with the Archery fighting style.
Note: All maths estimates only.
I have a high level Paladin in my group with GMW and it's not a problem. I've seen him do insane damage but it's balanced in the fact it's not always worth it.
I have ran a game at level 17 however, and I've seen a Fighter with Sharpshooter, Crossbow Expert, Bless, and Foresight absolutely tear apart all monsters in the game as written (except the Tarrasque - I've never ran that guy) and totally eclipse all other party members throughout the adventuring work day. He can do this from range or melee, and has very little weaknesses.
To me, when one party member can totally eclipse all other party members, and trivialize most of the content in the monsters manual, that is not balanced.
So from what I have seen, in some circumstances these feats can be fine, such as the Paladin scenario, but in other situations these feats are the core issue that completely breaks bounded accuracy at the upper levels of the game. I doubt the maths fully accounts for this later scenario.
DaveDash wrote:
Yunru wrote:
paulstrait wrote:
Psikerlord wrote:
iserith wrote:
Cyber-Dave wrote:
Taking Sharpshooter and Crossbow Expert means taking a second feat instead of an ability increase. The difference then between a crossbow and other bows is dealing and average of 1 more point of damage (1d8 instead of 1d6 damage), but getting a +2 to Dexterity is actually more powerful, as you again have an increase of 1 point of damage, but also gain +5% to hit the target, which iteslf increases the archer's DPR. So, ignoring whether you're trying to shoot while within 5 feet of an oponent or what happens to your initiative and AC, there's really not much difference.
+5 Str and GWF style = 13.33 damage (5% =0.666)
vs
vs +4 Str, GWF, and GWM feat. = 22.33 damage. (5% = 1.116)
Break point = hit on a 12.4 or better.
Sharp shooter, with archery style
+5 Dex = 9.5 damage (5% = 0.475)
vs
+4 dex and feat = 18.5 damage (5% = 0.925)
Break point = hit on a 8.27 or better.
By themselves, they are fine. It let's you kill weak foes faster, but not hard foes (comperable to an AoE).
It's really only when combined with bless/magic weapons/advantage that things get bad.
iserith wrote:
DaveDash wrote:
iserith wrote:
Cyber-Dave wrote:
1eejit wrote:
For those advocating once per round...
One successful use per round? Because what if it is used on the first of several attacks and it misses? Is that's it? That sounds a bit trapish to me. A character with multiple attacks is basically playing a crapshoot on when to trigger it.
Cuz, isn't this fair?...
Fighter: I'll use GWM and take the -5 to hit.
DM: The monster's AC is 15. Go for it.
Fighter: [rolls a modified 11] Bummer. Miss. But I have 2 more attacks. I'll do it again.
Fighter: [rolls a modified 14] Dang it! Missed again. The feat is killing me. Oh well, one last try. Might as well give it one more shot.
Fighter: [rolls a modified 17] Finally! Hrmmm, that +10 damage is gonna help here, but I missed twice trying to get it...
1eejit wrote:
Cyber-Dave wrote:
If "abusing" the game is making things not fun, then maybe try not abusing the game?
Personally, I don't care how much damage PCs can do. Reducing monsters to 0 hit points is only part of what my game is about.
mellored wrote:
ChrisCarlson wrote:
FFSAA wrote:
mellored wrote:
mellored wrote:
I have an entire spreadsheet that compares not taking GWM and putting points into strength instead, taking GWM and using the -5/+10 feature, and taking GWM and not using the feature. What I haven't done is compared not taking GWM and taking something else instead.
I've also done the same for sharpshooter. Basically, the higher your attack bonus, so basically higher levels, and the lower the AC the better GWM and SS are. For a fighter, especially, as he gets feats sooner GWM and SS eventually get to the point where the -5/+10 feature is always better - at least versus not taking the feat and putting points into strength.
If you want, I can give you the numbers I have with the caveat that accounting for the extra bonus attack feature of GWM is a bit tricky. You can imagine, given that the higher your attack bonus the better the -5/+10 feature is that SS + archery is better against more AC values. It's one thing to say the feat is "better" vs. some AC and another to see it does all of .1 more points of damage so that "better" isn't meaningfully different.
To give an idea of what you are competing with, simply adding 2 to your strength or dexterity will increase your average damage overall by about 20% at level 4.
Part of the problem also extends to a lack of options. Some fighters and rogues with their extra Feat/ABIs will elect to increase Intelligence or maybe even Wisdom! But others will just sit back and say, "Well, I mean, I might as well just take GWM/SS at this point..." Once more options hit the table, it'll be less of a given! Let's hope the elemental thing coming out in March(ish?) will give us more feats!
FFSAA wrote:
FFSAA wrote:
I always thought that bounded Accuracy was more: "1 Orc is a threat. Now 10 Orcs are a threat. Now 100 Orcs are a threat" because they can still hit you (unlike 4E where you either had to make them minions or give them certain items, tactics, or boosts). Basically, just because you level up doesn't mean that goblins and kobolds can't hit you any more. Sure they have the same HP and damage, but they still present an obstacle (of sorts)
In the same vein, 1000 Peasants can kill a dragon. Yeah 95% will die in the process, but hey! They can still hit 15-ish percent of the time! That's what Bounded Accuracy is, to me. NOT "my attack is too high!" but rather, I always saw it as "this person's attack is TOO LOW"
Brock_Landers wrote:
Brock_Landers wrote:
Timborama wrote:
FFSAA wrote:
Cyber-Dave wrote:
Tempest_Stormwind wrote:
Brock_Landers wrote:
Those feats are not balanced. They cause significant problems with high level optimization. Here is a spreadsheet that shows the analysis of those feats on DPR for various classes across different levels and using different AC values.
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1cZGd7HwD1dWSzYqVx4PQqw9dl9YYzKxRv7YJtOojkDE/edit?usp=sharing
By themself, they add a decent amount of damage per round, probably within tolerance for the power of a feat. But the real issue is how they combine with various other features. For example, bonus action attacks benefit greatly from the -5 to hit for +10 damage. This is especially noticeable with these feats in conjunction with Crossbow Expert or Polearm Master. Even the bonus attack on a critical hit from Great Weapon Master increases a fighter's DPR by almost 10%, ignoring the other feature of the feat entirely.
Another, and much larger problem, is the availablity of advantage or other bonuses to attack rolls. Faerie fire, bless, knocking enemies prone, hold person/monster, reckless attack, archery fighting style, and the high liklihood of receiving a +3 weapon by level 11+ makes the penalty for using GWM or SS become almost nonexistent. When you have such combinations of abilities happening in a party, the effect of GWM/SS become amplified significantly, making it deal far more damage than should be possible for a single feat. For example, a fighter attacking with advantage and using GWM gets a 50% increase in DPR while a fighter attacking with advantage and not using GWM only gets a 30% increase in DPR. This problem isnt actually addressed in my damage comparison, but it is the much larger issue.
FFSAA wrote:
DaveDash wrote:
Brock_Landers wrote:
DaveDash wrote:
Lawolf wrote:
mellored wrote:
There's typically a return on investment with any feat... GWM and sharpshooter have pretty good returns. Mathematically, they have sweet spots: If you can only hit on a natural 20, a reduction of -5 to your hit is no penalty at all. The feat simply boosts the damage with no downside. Also, if you're almost guaranteed to hit, only missing on a 1, reducing your hit by -5 to increase your damage yields some nice damage increase, especially factoring in stacking bonuses, especially if the -5 penalty isn't a true -5 penalty due to possibly having an unmodified chance to hit greater than 95%. If your bonuses create some overflow, like you basically hit on any roll from -3 to 20, the -5 penalty only reduces your hit chance by 5% instead of 25%.
If however, you have a lower chance to hit, say 50%, then the added -5 to hit, or -25% to hit, begins to eat away at your hit rate so drastically that the damage increase gained from GWM approaches a value equal to or even worse than the +1 dmaage gained from taking +2 to str instead of the feat. At some point though, due to maximum str being set to 20, a character may not be able to increase str any further, and the feat is a very solid option when that's the case.
The feat is truly amazing, and when combined with bonus attacks, advantage, and magical enhancements, it is easy to see why it and sharpshooter produce extremely high damage output. Of course, the character using GWM has to sacrifice defense to use a two-handed weapon. The loss of a shield helps to balance the characters (but doesn't actually fully balance them out), especially if characters acquire magical shields. It's the primary reason I rule that you need a free hand to load a hand crossbow. Allowing a character to wield a one-handed hand crossbow, a shield AND benefit from crossbow expert and sharpshooter produces a character that doesn't have to sacrifice defense, so they reap every benefit without any sacrifice.
When characters work very well together, providing advantage to one another, blessing, and other such combat bonuses, GWM and sharpshooter really start to become unbalanced and overpowered. But characters should be able to become more than the sum of their parts. It fosters teamwork.
The problem with both feats is with a fighter who min/maxes, takes the feat, maybe gains access to bless through magical items or another feat, and reaches their capstone... 4 attacks, action surge, magical bonuses... it becomes too much. But how do you limit its power without limiting its power for characters that don't min/max or optimize for damage output?
Maybe rules for exhaustion to limit the number of times it can be used per fight. Or an escalating penalty to hit as it's used. The first time it has a -1 to -4 to hit... but each use per encounter becomes harder to land. Maybe each use reduces all of your attacks chances to hit.
It hasn't become an issue at my table because I haven't had a player even try using the -5 penalty for a +10 damage. The players usually just take it so they can cleave. Then they notice that since they're not always the one dropping the enemy to 0 hp, or there isn't always another enemy when they do, the ability doesn't trigger as often as they hoped.
DaveDash wrote:
Bloodscythe wrote:
DaveDash wrote:
Bloodscythe wrote:
If ammo ruules are enforced my PCs just buy several thousand arrows or whatever.
Zardnaar wrote:
Yunru wrote:
Zardnaar wrote:
AaronOfBarbaria wrote:
JohnLynch wrote:
AaronOfBarbaria wrote:
GWM isn't as bad as sharpshooter because
1: they already deal high damage, making loss of accuracy less apealing.
2: archery style, which makes bonus damage more apealing.
3: more overlap with polearm master, since you waste a good chunk of your feat with overlapping bonus actions. where as sharp shooter and crossbow expertise are more compatible.
Cyber-Dave wrote:
Tempest_Stormwind wrote:
Bless is used commonly because it is common if any cleric or paladin is in the group. It's not really a given, but at higher levels it's easy to have with either of those 2 classes. Advantage is easy to have too. I don't think either should really be a given, however, although adding them is useful in comparisons because it demonstrates a method of group optimization and teamwork.
What I think people forget is that we're talking about spending 2 feats, specifying a fighting style that's only available to 2 classes (either fighter and paladin, or fighter and ranger), adding the (limited) resources of at least one other class that is also limited to specific classes (cleric, paladin, possibly bard), likely adding a 3rd class for advantage, and spending actions and concentration as opportunity costs for these effects. We start aligning too many stars for something that some people say to be a feat issue. Using examples of foresight doesn't strike me as gamebreaking for a couple of feats.
Concentration to enable a bonus to hit is concentration lost to another effect them might be more beneficial.
The DPR averages aren't even true numbers. The damage tends to be more swingy because of the lowered accuracy. This means there is a lack of control on applying damage when it's required and it also creates more lost damage to overkill. Statistically, the average damage in adding fighting styles to 2 feats to spells and additional class support is significantly higher but those statistics don't measure those opportunity costs or time factors in the swinginess (short combats as opposed to law of large numbers). When someone attacks 8-12 times in a combat with low accuracy the percentages (ie out of 100 attacks) can be very misleading due to a small sample that is not representative of those statistics.
It's certainly not an issue until high level when both feats and attack attribute are capped (about 4 ASI's) so 12th level at the earliest for variant humans who haven't multiclassed (more stars to align). By then there might be enough spells to last the day but there's still no measurement to compare against what wasn't gained, like additional hit points or AC or non-combat feats and ability score bonuses because those other ability scores did not go up.
In theory, some players might see an issue. I do not see it in theory or in practice, tbh.
Tempest_Stormwind wrote:
Yunru wrote:
DaveDash wrote:
Psikerlord wrote:
Human variant fighter has both feats and 20 dex by level 8 off point buy, level 6 with a good roll. Before that, he's already fairly dominant at range with SS.
Gwf is great, but the vast majority of what it buys you works against large groups of weak enemies, where the casters are still blowing you away due to aoe. And obviously it only works if you can get into melee, and you have to sacrifice your second hand, which could be a shield, arcane focus, second weapon, grapple. sS/Ce is similar except without any of the drawbacks.
Eggnogfool wrote:
AaronOfBarbaria wrote:
Eggnogfool wrote:
Eggnogfool wrote:
Bloodscythe wrote:
Eggnogfool wrote:
In whiterooms, you are always the exactly perfect character class with the exact right ability/spell/feat available to get the job done. Duh.
Monk is if not just as effective, then almost as effect as a Moon Druid at low levels. As is a Variant Human with Polearm Master or Crossbow Expert.
Yunru wrote:
Yunru wrote:
Bloodsycthe - my house rules for those two feats are the following: Crossbow Expert does NOT provide you with the ability to fire into melee without disadvantage, and Sharpshooter does NOT ignore cover.
This makes them more situational and actually requires the player to use their brain a bit in combat.
GWM I don't have an issue with.
My personal favorite fix to GWM and Sharpshooter is to replace -5 to hit for +10 damage with this:
When you make an attack, if you do not already suffer from disadvantage, you may impose disadvantage on your attack roll. If you do and your attack hits, you may roll your weapon dice one additional time.
This serves to help limit both the power and frequency of usage of the damage ability. It makes using -5 to hit for +10 damage much less powerful when combined with many weaker attacks such as d6 damage from hand crossbows and the d4 damage from Polearm Master. Imposing disadvantage on your own attacks makes critical hits far less likely, and increases the chance for a nat 1 which means the attack is a complete whif. Getting rid of the -5 attack roll penalty and replacing it with disadvantage makes combat math easier as well.
Lawolf wrote:
Lawolf: Hmm yeah adding a weapon dice makes much more sense and will reduce the effectiveness of this feat with hand crossbows. I like that.
It's basically disadvantage for a crit.
I still think the absurdity of allowing a ranged combatant to be just as effective in melee as ranged also needs to be addressed though.
DaveDash wrote:
Nah. I have a fundamental problem with making ranged effective in melee, and vice versa.
It limits overall tactical choice and renders entire styles of battle redundant.
Ranged attackers should never ever be as good in melee as they are at ranged combat in any tactical game system ever.
Feats are not a big deal for Fighters to pick up either.
If you want that at your table? Great, but just make sure you add in a feat that allows melee to shoot lightning bolts out their eyes too.
DaveDash wrote:
Cyber-Dave wrote:
Depends what Fighter you pick. Eldritch Knight has plenty of interesting options and can become powerful late game.
Ranged also has the inherent built in advantage that they generally don't have to get up in monsters faces to do damage, and can pop in and out of full cover to attack, and can attack mobile and flying creatures.
The LAST thing the game needs is for them to basically have a way of taking away their only downside.
I play a lot of tactical wargames, CRPG and otherwise, and no system allows for ranged combatants to so easily bypass their main weakness.
It's just bad game design, which becomes apparent later on when poor melee characters are about as useless as tits on a bull in anything but a cramped dungeon.
I want my players to actually use team tactics and thought, and not have one character equipped with a laser rifle that works just as well up close as it does from 600ft away.
DaveDash wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
Bloodscythe wrote:
Bloodscythe wrote:
DaveDash wrote:
mellored wrote:
Oriet wrote:
Sword_of_Spirit wrote:
mellored wrote:
Bloodscythe wrote:
DaveDash wrote:
mellored wrote:
mellored wrote:
mellored wrote:
Sword_of_Spirit wrote:
DaveDash wrote:
DaveDash wrote:
DaveDash wrote:
Bloodscythe wrote:
Lawolf wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
Lawolf wrote:
AaronOfBarbaria wrote:
Coredump00 wrote:
Coredump00 wrote:
Pompadour64 wrote:
Basically you want (where X is accuracy times by 20 (or the highest number on which you miss) and Y is average damage):
XY=(X-5)(Y+10)
Expand that and you get:
XY=XY+10X-5Y-50
Now cancel:
0=10X-5Y-50
Cancel some more:
0=2X-Y-10
So basically, if the your average damage is equal to twice your accuracy minus ten (Y=2X-10), you break even.
Likewise, if your accuracy is equal to half your average damage plus 5 (X=(Y/2)+5), you break even.
This can, of course, be plotted:
sweet 
Thank you all. The formula I was trying to put together was trying to account for stuff like different weapon damage, advantage, magical weapons, bless, etc. but I was probably overcomplicating it.
You just do the formula based on accuracy. Accuracy itself is based on modifiers and enemy AC, so already accounts for advantage etc.
Bloodscythe wrote:
Um... not quite.
Your concept was good, but you made two mistakes when setting up the equation. It took me awhle to grok the errors. I knew the slope was wrong from looking at it, but you approached it from the opposite direction did, so it took awhile to find them both.
First, since you set X=the highest number on which you miss. That means that using GWM/SS will *add* 5 to that number, not subtract. If you normally miss on a 10, using SS means you will miss on a 15; not 5.
Second, the highest number you miss on is *not* your accuracy....its kind of the opposite. If you miss on a 5, that means your accuracy is 75%, not 25%. As the 'highest number you miss' goes up, accuracy will go *down*, not up.
If you combine those two concepts, the math gets a bit more convoluted, but still comes to a simple Y= -2X + 30
My guess is you used X=10 to check and/or calculate the formula; which gives the same Y either way. But this way has the correct slope and works for the other numbers also.
Yunru wrote:
Yunru wrote:
Lawolf wrote:
Yunru wrote:
Here is how the graph should look, (assuming I link it correctly...)
Graph for Highest Miss by Normal Damage
Coredump00 wrote:
Coredump00 wrote:
If I'm understanding this correctly, the graph should look like this?
Actually, I'm pretty sure that's wrong. Been too long since I had to really deal with plotting lines.
Yunru wrote:
Okay, using the link provided by Coredump00 and fiddling with the display settings, I get this:
Should've just done this from the start instead of trying to remake it in OpenOffice Calc.
Oriet wrote:
Oriet wrote: