Not true at level 4 with a +3 score modifier, arguable at level 8 with a +4. Agree to disagree I guess, landing attacks on the rounds you make them is more important than debatably having decimal points in your favor over 5 rounds of combat or whatever assumptions you’re making for T2 GWM with less than 20 strength.
Another benefit to battle masters: in general damage at the start of an encounter is higher value than at the end (because a dead monster stops doing damage for the rest of the encounter, and preventing damage from a monster for 4 rounds is better than preventing it for 1), and the battle master can choose when they're cool instead of relying on the dice coming up 19.
Not true at level 4 with a +3 score modifier, arguable at level 8 with a +4. Agree to disagree I guess, landing attacks on the rounds you make them is more important than debatably having decimal points in your favor over 5 rounds of combat or whatever assumptions you’re making for T2 GWM with less than 20 strength.
Another benefit to battle masters: in general damage at the start of an encounter is higher value than at the end (because a dead monster stops doing damage for the rest of the encounter, and preventing damage from a monster for 4 rounds is better than preventing it for 1), and the battle master can choose when they're cool instead of relying on the dice coming up 19.
Yeah that's the power of the precision die....
You get in the hits/damage on your time not the die's
I found my mistake. I did not factor that on the BONUS action attack, you can also crit. And also, I did not calculate the +4 strength bonus into it (brain fart)
FACTORS:
Strength: 18
Weapon: Greatsword
No. of Attacks: 2
Chance to Crit (on your turn) with Improved Critical: 19%
Chance to Crit without Improved Critical: 9.75%
With GWM NOT applying +10 - 5
Chance to hit 60% (Nat 9 or better on the die)
Average Damage per attack with Improved Critical: 11.7 (factoring in crits)
That's usually impossible, for your expected damage after accuracy to be higher than before accuracy. 11 going to 11.7 is sus, and usually wrong, as it is here. The expected damage under these conditions is .6*4+.7*7 = 7.3 per attack. That's why I listed the original total output as 14.6.
Average Damage per attack without Improved Critical: 11.35 (factoring in crits)
.6*4+.65*7=6.95 (half of 13.9, and 7.3-0.35)
Bonus Action Damage Per Turn with Improved Critical: 11.7 x 0.19 = 2.223
7.3*0.19 = 1.387
Bonus Action Damage Per Turn without Improved Critical: 11.35 x .0975 = 1.106625
6.95*.0975 = 0.677625
VALUE ADDED TO BONUS ACTION ATTACK: 1.116 PER TURN
0.709375 damage added to the bonus action attack alone.
Next: Improved Critical adds 0.35 additional damage per attack x 2 attacks = 0.7 damage.
Yes, this is correct.
1.116 + .70 = 1.816
TOTAL VALUE ADDED FROM IMPROVED CRITICAL (UNDER THE SPECIFIED CONDITIONS): 1.816 extra damage PER TURN.
To the extent that GWM is a feat almost always taken at level 12 (or SHOULD be) by all but Fighters, it’s ignorable.
Yawn.
Only if you're bad at math. If you're never going to take GWM, fine. If you are going to take it, you should take it by level 6 at the latest (depending on party role and statline, you may need PAM or +1/+1 more). It's better than +2 Strength, by a lot.
Not true at level 4 with a +3 score modifier, arguable at level 8 with a +4.
It's true at level 4 if you have advantage, since advantage outweighs the -5 penalty. It's still true at level 8 regardless of advantage thanks to Extra Attack raising the odds of a bonus attack to 9.75%.
Agree to disagree I guess, landing attacks on the rounds you make them is more important than debatably having decimal points in your favor over 5 rounds of combat or whatever assumptions you’re making for T2 GWM with less than 20 strength.
There's obviously a point where hitting harder or getting a random extra hit outweighs missing more often, and that's reflected in the expected value. But there's no point arguing about the numbers if the response is "I don't trust statistics, I just go with my gut."
That's usually impossible, for your expected damage after accuracy to be higher than before accuracy. 11 going to 11.7 is sus, and usually wrong, as it is here. The expected damage under these conditions is .6*4+.7*7 = 7.3 per attack. That's why I listed the original total output as 14.6.
They're not accounting for the hit rate in those numbers. That 11.7 is just the original 11 damage plus the 10% chance of adding 7 damage on a crit. But yeah they need to account for the chance of missing to do a fair comparison, otherwise the crits and underrepresented.
Only if you're bad at math. If you're never going to take GWM, fine. If you are going to take it, you should take it by level 6 at the latest (depending on party role and statline, you may need PAM or +1/+1 more). It's better than +2 Strength, by a lot.
It's actually relatively better at low levels, because a static +10 means more if you have lower base damage.
At level 1, vs AC 12 opponents, with great weapon fighting, +5/2d6+3 is 7.9 damage per attack, +0/2d6+13 is 9.6.
At level 15, vs AC 18 opponents, with a [Tooltip Not Found], +12/4d6+7 is 17.76 damage per attack, +7/4d6+17 is 16.83.
I found my mistake. I did not factor that on the BONUS action attack, you can also crit. And also, I did not calculate the +4 strength bonus into it (brain fart)
FACTORS:
Strength: 18
Weapon: Greatsword
No. of Attacks: 2
Chance to Crit (on your turn) with Improved Critical: 19%
Chance to Crit without Improved Critical: 9.75%
With GWM NOT applying +10 - 5
Chance to hit 60% (Nat 9 or better on the die)
Average Damage per attack with Improved Critical: 11.7 (factoring in crits)
That's usually impossible, for your expected damage after accuracy to be higher than before accuracy. 11 going to 11.7 is sus, and usually wrong, as it is here. The expected damage under these conditions is .6*4+.7*7 = 7.3 per attack. That's why I listed the original total output as 14.6.
Average Damage per attack without Improved Critical: 11.35 (factoring in crits)
.6*4+.65*7=6.95 (half of 13.9, and 7.3-0.35)
Bonus Action Damage Per Turn with Improved Critical: 11.7 x 0.19 = 2.223
7.3*0.19 = 1.387
Bonus Action Damage Per Turn without Improved Critical: 11.35 x .0975 = 1.106625
6.95*.0975 = 0.677625
VALUE ADDED TO BONUS ACTION ATTACK: 1.116 PER TURN
0.709375 damage added to the bonus action attack alone.
Next: Improved Critical adds 0.35 additional damage per attack x 2 attacks = 0.7 damage.
Yes, this is correct.
1.116 + .70 = 1.816
TOTAL VALUE ADDED FROM IMPROVED CRITICAL (UNDER THE SPECIFIED CONDITIONS): 1.816 extra damage PER TURN.
To the extent that GWM is a feat almost always taken at level 12 (or SHOULD be) by all but Fighters, it’s ignorable.
Yawn.
Only if you're bad at math. If you're never going to take GWM, fine. If you are going to take it, you should take it by level 6 at the latest (depending on party role and statline, you may need PAM or +1/+1 more). It's better than +2 Strength, by a lot.
"That's usually impossible, for your expected damage after accuracy to be higher than before accuracy. "
I don't even know what you mean by after or before "accuracy."
"11 going to 11.7 is sus, and usually wrong, as it is here."
Sus? Average damage per his with greatword is 7. Strength modifier is +4, that's a 11. So you agree with 11 I assume, correct? Okay, it will crit 10% of the time (with IC). Crit damage is 7. 10% of 7 is 0.7. That adds 0.7 to the total average damage = 11.7 average damage.
Before I waste my time addressing the rest, do you at least agree that you were wrong and I am right - that with 18 Strength + Improved Critical, the average damage of a hit with a greatsword is 11.7?
Before I waste my time addressing the rest, do you at least agree that you were wrong and I am right - that with 18 Strength + Improved Critical, the average damage of a hit with a greatsword is 11.7?
No. Average damage on a normal hit is 11, average on a critical hit is 18. Average damage on any hit is (crit damage bonus) * (crit chance) / (hit chance), which at 70% hit chance is 12 (it is generally more valuable to look at average per attack, not per hit).
Before I waste my time addressing the rest, do you at least agree that you were wrong and I am right - that with 18 Strength + Improved Critical, the average damage of a hit with a greatsword is 11.7?
No. Average damage on a normal hit is 11, average on a critical hit is 18. Average damage on any hit is (crit damage bonus) * (crit chance) / (hit chance), which at 70% hit chance is 12.
I worded that sloppily. The average additional damage is 7. 10% of the time it will do 7 additional damage on top of the normal damage. But now that I think about it, I thought about it wrong. That's 10% of attacks, not hits. Crit damage per attack is straight forward. But average crit damage per hit depends on the roll required to hit. If the target has really high AC and requires an 19 or 20 to hit, that would mean 100% of hits are criticals. So yeah that will throw the numbers off a bit.
In this case: Nat 9 required to hit, there's a 16 2/3% chance that a hit will be a crit (16.666...)% So, average damage on a hit is 12.1667
This doesn't affect average damage per turn, though. You would still calculate it (7 x percent chance to hit + 0.7) x number of attacks
I think PAM is a better bet at 4th level (or 1st level for v. human) for most STR builds. But I agree at 6th (for fighter) would be the latest I take GWM.
Correct, a spear with Dueling and the errata'd Polearm Master is pretty much the strongest all-around tier 1 fighter build. It does the most damage out of any level 1 build without advantage and is almost identical to GWF + GWM greatsword with advantage, while still having a shield. Do a Ctrl+F for "spear" in the Results tab. That's without taking the op attacks into consideration, too.
Its not a matter of distrusting statistics or going with my gut. Damage in round 1 is more valuable than that same amount of damage deferred to round 2, because combat is not just a race to total HP value for the opposing team, but also an act of grinding down their damage output by attrition. Doing 20 damage to the enemy team in round 2 is often substantially less valuable than doing 10 damage in round 1, and 10 damage in round 2. How much less valuable? Hard to quantify, especially in general terms. 1.2x as valuable? More?
Also, damage delivered across a couple of hits, is often more valuable than even a larger amount of damage delivered in a single hit, for the same reason. Doing 10 damage to Goblin A, and 10 damage to Goblin B, is often much more valuable than missing Goblin A and dealing 20 damage to Goblin B. How much more valuable? Hard to quantify, especially in general terms. Is doing 20 damage in 2 hits rather than 1 hit and 1 miss... 1.2x as valuable? More?
GENERALLY, its true-enough that damage in Round 1 pays dividends over damage in Round 2, that maximizing your to-hit rate is a more important priority than maximizing your damage per hit, even though a DPR calculation treats those as translateable. Your average 12 damage per hit * 60% expected accuracy, ~7 DPH is actually quite a bit more valuable (especially in low tiers) than your average 22 damage per hit * 35% expected accuracy, ~8 DPH. This isn't a question of distrusting statistics, or trusting guts, its a matter of experienced players knowing that damage is increasingly important the earlier and more reliably and more flexibly it can be delivered.
GWM in Tier 1 always screws up your ability to deliver damage early and flexibly, causing you to quite often miss attacks for the mere promise of an overkill hit in a later round. In Tier 2, unless you used your Fighter 6 feat to bring Str/Dex to 20, it will often be doing the same. PAM is much more valuable at level 8 than GWM is, because it PROMOTES hitting early and often rather than PENALIZING it, so considering that most GWM builds also take PAM... PAM goes at 8, and GWM at 12, even if GWM "on paper" has a bigger impact on DPR statistics over several rounds of combat.
The problem in this discussion is not a distrust of statistics, it's talking about combat like it's a mere equation. GWM is a paper tiger before Tier 3 for most classes, or level 8 at the earliest for a Fighter.
I think PAM is a better bet at 4th level (or 1st level for v. human) for most STR builds. But I agree at 6th (for fighter) would be the latest I take GWM.
Correct, a spear with Dueling and the errata'd Polearm Master is pretty much the strongest all-around tier 1 fighter build. It does the most damage out of any level 1 build without advantage and is almost identical to GWF + GWM greatsword with advantage, while still having a shield. Do a Ctrl+F for "spear" in the Results tab. That's without taking the op attacks into consideration, too.
That's a pretty darn cool scene, too. That 300 Spartan vibe. I might build a Barbarian with theme sometime.
Its not a matter of distrusting statistics or going with my gut. Damage in round 1 is more valuable than that same amount of damage deferred to round 2, because combat is not just a race to total HP value for the opposing team, but also an act of grinding down their damage output by attrition. Doing 20 damage to the enemy team in round 2 is often substantially less valuable than doing 10 damage in round 1, and 10 damage in round 2. How much less valuable? Hard to quantify, especially in general terms. 1.2x as valuable? More?
Also, damage delivered across a couple of hits, is often more valuable than even a larger amount of damage delivered in a single hit, for the same reason. Doing 10 damage to Goblin A, and 10 damage to Goblin B, is often much more valuable than missing Goblin A and dealing 20 damage to Goblin B. How much more valuable? Hard to quantify, especially in general terms. Is doing 20 damage in 2 attacks rather than 1... 1.2x as valuable? More?
GENERALLY, its true-enough that damage in Round 1 pays dividends over damage in Round 2, that maximizing your to-hit rate is a more important priority than maximizing your damage per hit, even though a DPR calculation treats those as translateable. Your average 12 damage per hit * 60% expected accuracy, ~7 DPH is actually quite a bit more valuable (especially in low tiers) than your average 22 damage per hit * 35% expected accuracy, ~8 DPH. This isn't a question of distrusting statistics, or trusting guts, its a matter of experienced players knowing that damage is increasingly important the earlier and more reliably and more flexibly it can be delivered.
GWM in Tier 1 always screws up your ability to deliver damage early and flexibly, causing you to quite often miss attacks for the mere promise of an overkill hit in a later round. In Tier 2, unless you used your Fighter 6 feat to bring Str/Dex to 20, it will often be doing the same. PAM is much more valuable at level 8 than GWM is, because it PROMOTES hitting early and often rather than PENALIZING it, so considering that most GWM builds also take PAM... PAM goes at 8, and GWM at 12, even if GWM "on paper" has a bigger impact on DPR statistics over several rounds of combat.
The problem in this discussion is not a distrust of statistics, it's talking about combat like it's a mere equation. GWM is a paper tiger before Tier 3 for most classes, or level 8 at the earliest for a Fighter.
The only way this would be true is if Goblin B only had, (for example) 10 hit points and the rest of the damage was wasted.
Let's say you have 5 enemies, each with 20 hit points. Now let's say you did 19 hit points of damage to all five, a total of 95 damage. How many are still attacking your group? ALL FIVE. That 95 damage can kill 4 of the five, and leave the last one wounded. It's almost always beneficial to gain up on the enemies one at a time, moving on to the next as they die. Prioritize the targets, for example, if there are any glass cannons, kill them first.
Its not a matter of distrusting statistics or going with my gut. Damage in round 1 is more valuable than that same amount of damage deferred to round 2, because combat is not just a race to total HP value for the opposing team, but also an act of grinding down their damage output by attrition. Doing 20 damage to the enemy team in round 2 is often substantially less valuable than doing 10 damage in round 1, and 10 damage in round 2. How much less valuable? Hard to quantify, especially in general terms. 1.2x as valuable? More?
Ok, but 30 damage in round 2 is better than 10 and 10 if overkill isn't a concern. No one's advocating for doing a GWM trade that merely breaks even. If you're using GWM's -5/+10 it's because it's the better deal.
Also, damage delivered across a couple of hits, is often more valuable than even a larger amount of damage delivered in a single hit, for the same reason. Doing 10 damage to Goblin A, and 10 damage to Goblin B, is often much more valuable than missing Goblin A and dealing 20 damage to Goblin B. How much more valuable? Hard to quantify, especially in general terms. Is doing 20 damage in 2 hits rather than 1 hit and 1 miss... 1.2x as valuable? More?
Huh? Focus fire on one enemy is almost always the better strategy. You know what's better than finishing the round with 2 live goblins? Finishing it with 1 live goblin and then smacking the other one as a bonus action thanks to GWM.
GENERALLY, its true-enough that damage in Round 1 pays dividends over damage in Round 2, that maximizing your to-hit rate is a more important priority than maximizing your damage per hit, even though a DPR calculation treats those as translateable. Your average 12 damage per hit * 60% expected accuracy, ~7 DPH is actually quite a bit more valuable (especially in low tiers) than your average 22 damage per hit * 35% expected accuracy, ~8 DPH. This isn't a question of distrusting statistics, or trusting guts, its a matter of experienced players knowing that damage is increasingly important the earlier and more reliably and more flexibly it can be delivered.
That's why I keep bringing up advantage.
GWM in Tier 1 always screws up your ability to deliver damage early and flexibly, causing you to quite often miss attacks for the mere promise of an overkill hit in a later round. In Tier 2, unless you used your Fighter 6 feat to bring Str/Dex to 20, it will often be doing the same. PAM is much more valuable at level 8 than GWM is, because it PROMOTES hitting early and often rather than PENALIZING it, so considering that most GWM builds also take PAM... PAM goes at 8, and GWM at 12, even if GWM "on paper" has a bigger impact on DPR statistics over several rounds of combat. The problem in this discussion is not a distrust of statistics, it's talking about combat like it's a mere equation. GWM is a paper tiger before Tier 3 for most classes, or level 8 at the earliest for a Fighter.
Yes, PAM first is the better move if you're going to take both. My point is there's absolutely no reason to delay either feat. If both feats are already ahead of taking the ASI without taking opportunity attacks and bonus attacks from kills into account, both feats obviously perform even better in real world scenarios. If those feats are on the table, the smart thing to do is take them at the earliest possible opportunity.
Damage done in excess of a monster's HP total is damage that you didn't actually do anywhere but on paper, and deserve no credit for. You have a whole team of allies who are doing chips and drips of damage all over the place, storming in with a 20 damage swing in the second round in Tier 1 at the cost of missing your 10 damage swing in Round 1 is almost always inefficient, unless you're fighting the boss.
10 damage to goblin A, and then another 10 damage to goblin A if needed or to goblin B if not needed, is obviously what I meant. Don't strawman me, you know that overkill is bad.
GWM in Tier 1 always screws up your ability to deliver damage early and flexibly, causing you to quite often miss attacks for the mere promise of an overkill hit in a later round.
You can always only use it for the bonus action attacks. Against low hit point chaff, they'll trigger really reliably.
The threshold is pretty low, though. Sure, 20 damage against a Bandit is overkill, but 10 damage means it's going to need another attack to get put down.
Ah well. 5E isn't a competitive game, and if y'all out there building suboptimal Tier 1 fighters with GWM (or even PAM) while still nursing a 17 str... that's an issue between you, your party, and the enemies you're leaving on the table I suppose. "Get your attack stat to 20" is boring and obvious advice for a reason, because there's pretty much never an excuse not to (unless you've got a build that consistently attacks with advantage, like a Barbarian, in which case you can fudge that rule a little if needed to pull off a thematic Stupid Player Trick, but would still probably be better off just eating your wheaties and building like you ought to).
Damage done in excess of a monster's HP total is damage that you didn't actually do anywhere but on paper, and deserve no credit for. You have a whole team of allies who are doing chips and drips of damage all over the place, storming in with a 20 damage swing in the second round in Tier 1 at the cost of missing your 10 damage swing in Round 1 is almost always inefficient, unless you're fighting the boss.
As you said, you have a whole team of allies, so even if everyone's gambling on big hits, someone's going to hit.
10 damage to goblin A, and then another 10 damage to goblin A if needed or to goblin B if not needed, is obviously what I meant. Don't strawman me, you know that overkill is bad.
If 20 damage is bad because it sometimes overkills, 10 damage is bad because it sometimes underkills.
All else being equal you want to have more damage, not less. And GWM turns overkills into an extra hit, so...
Ah well. 5E isn't a competitive game, and if y'all out there building suboptimal Tier 1 fighters with GWM (or even PAM) while still nursing a 17 str... that's an issue between you, your party, and the enemies you're leaving on the table I suppose. "Get your attack stat to 20" is boring and obvious advice for a reason, because there's pretty much never an excuse not to (unless you've got a build that consistently attacks with advantage, like a Barbarian, in which case you can fudge that rule a little if needed to pull off a thematic Stupid Player Trick, but would still probably be better off just eating your wheaties and building like you ought to).
There is no universe where an ASI beats PAM or GWM. I'm going to make this really simple. One one side you have:
A 1 in 20 chance to turn what would've been a miss into a hit.
+1 damage
On the other you have either:
A 20 in 20 chance to make an extra attack with your bonus action, with full modifier and Dueling bonus to your damage
Free opportunity attacks when enemies move next to you.
Or...
A 1 in 20 chance to get another attack when you score a critical.
Another chance to get an extra attack when you finish something off.
The ability to turn advantage into a much bigger damage gain than just +1.
Come on dude. They're not even comparable. Picking PAM in tier 1 almost doubles your damage per round even if you ignore the op attacks. The feats are so good I consider them broken precisely because they're so outrageously superior to picking the ASI.
Highly depends on AC.
You would be right with AC 18+
Another benefit to battle masters: in general damage at the start of an encounter is higher value than at the end (because a dead monster stops doing damage for the rest of the encounter, and preventing damage from a monster for 4 rounds is better than preventing it for 1), and the battle master can choose when they're cool instead of relying on the dice coming up 19.
Yeah that's the power of the precision die....
You get in the hits/damage on your time not the die's
That's usually impossible, for your expected damage after accuracy to be higher than before accuracy. 11 going to 11.7 is sus, and usually wrong, as it is here. The expected damage under these conditions is .6*4+.7*7 = 7.3 per attack. That's why I listed the original total output as 14.6.
.6*4+.65*7=6.95 (half of 13.9, and 7.3-0.35)
7.3*0.19 = 1.387
6.95*.0975 = 0.677625
0.709375 damage added to the bonus action attack alone.
Yes, this is correct.
This is not. Correct is 1.409375.
Only if you're bad at math. If you're never going to take GWM, fine. If you are going to take it, you should take it by level 6 at the latest (depending on party role and statline, you may need PAM or +1/+1 more). It's better than +2 Strength, by a lot.
It's true at level 4 if you have advantage, since advantage outweighs the -5 penalty. It's still true at level 8 regardless of advantage thanks to Extra Attack raising the odds of a bonus attack to 9.75%.
There's obviously a point where hitting harder or getting a random extra hit outweighs missing more often, and that's reflected in the expected value. But there's no point arguing about the numbers if the response is "I don't trust statistics, I just go with my gut."
They're not accounting for the hit rate in those numbers. That 11.7 is just the original 11 damage plus the 10% chance of adding 7 damage on a crit. But yeah they need to account for the chance of missing to do a fair comparison, otherwise the crits and underrepresented.
The Forum Infestation (TM)
I think PAM is a better bet at 4th level (or 1st level for v. human) for most STR builds.
But I agree at 6th (for fighter) would be the latest I take GWM.
It's actually relatively better at low levels, because a static +10 means more if you have lower base damage.
At level 1, vs AC 12 opponents, with great weapon fighting, +5/2d6+3 is 7.9 damage per attack, +0/2d6+13 is 9.6.
At level 15, vs AC 18 opponents, with a [Tooltip Not Found], +12/4d6+7 is 17.76 damage per attack, +7/4d6+17 is 16.83.
Extreme case of course.
"That's usually impossible, for your expected damage after accuracy to be higher than before accuracy. "
I don't even know what you mean by after or before "accuracy."
"11 going to 11.7 is sus, and usually wrong, as it is here."
Sus? Average damage per his with greatword is 7. Strength modifier is +4, that's a 11. So you agree with 11 I assume, correct? Okay, it will crit 10% of the time (with IC). Crit damage is 7. 10% of 7 is 0.7. That adds 0.7 to the total average damage = 11.7 average damage.
Before I waste my time addressing the rest, do you at least agree that you were wrong and I am right - that with 18 Strength + Improved Critical, the average damage of a hit with a greatsword is 11.7?
No. Average damage on a normal hit is 11, average on a critical hit is 18. Average damage on any hit is (crit damage bonus) * (crit chance) / (hit chance), which at 70% hit chance is 12 (it is generally more valuable to look at average per attack, not per hit).
I worded that sloppily. The average additional damage is 7. 10% of the time it will do 7 additional damage on top of the normal damage. But now that I think about it, I thought about it wrong. That's 10% of attacks, not hits. Crit damage per attack is straight forward. But average crit damage per hit depends on the roll required to hit. If the target has really high AC and requires an 19 or 20 to hit, that would mean 100% of hits are criticals. So yeah that will throw the numbers off a bit.
In this case: Nat 9 required to hit, there's a 16 2/3% chance that a hit will be a crit (16.666...)% So, average damage on a hit is 12.1667
This doesn't affect average damage per turn, though. You would still calculate it (7 x percent chance to hit + 0.7) x number of attacks
Correct, a spear with Dueling and the errata'd Polearm Master is pretty much the strongest all-around tier 1 fighter build. It does the most damage out of any level 1 build without advantage and is almost identical to GWF + GWM greatsword with advantage, while still having a shield. Do a Ctrl+F for "spear" in the Results tab. That's without taking the op attacks into consideration, too.
The Forum Infestation (TM)
Okay let me redo this just to be sure. 18 STR, Greatsword, Improved Critical, No +10/-5, Nat 9 needed to hit:
Average damage per attack not factoring critical hits: (7 + 4) x 0.60 = 6.6
Improved Critical Average added crit damage per attack: (7 x 0.10) = 0.7
Normal Average added crit damage per attack: (7 x 0.35) = 0.35
Add the two together:
Normal Average Damage Per Attack = 6.95. Multiplied by 2 attacks = 13.9
Improved Critical Average Damage Per Attack = 7.30 Multiplied by 2 attacks = 14.6
The above should be correct, NOT factoring in the GWM bonus attack.
Average damage per turn just from the possible GWM bonus action Attack
Normal chance to crit at least once on two attacks: 9.75%
Improved critical chance to crit at least once on two attacks: 19%
Normal: 6.95 x 0.0975 = 0.677625
Improved Critical: 7.3 x 0.19 = 1.387
Add them to their two main attack total:
Improved Critical: 14.6 + 1.387 = 15.987
Normal: 13.9 + 0.677625 = 14.577625
DIFFERENCE: 1.409375 Damage Per Round
Its not a matter of distrusting statistics or going with my gut. Damage in round 1 is more valuable than that same amount of damage deferred to round 2, because combat is not just a race to total HP value for the opposing team, but also an act of grinding down their damage output by attrition. Doing 20 damage to the enemy team in round 2 is often substantially less valuable than doing 10 damage in round 1, and 10 damage in round 2. How much less valuable? Hard to quantify, especially in general terms. 1.2x as valuable? More?
Also, damage delivered across a couple of hits, is often more valuable than even a larger amount of damage delivered in a single hit, for the same reason. Doing 10 damage to Goblin A, and 10 damage to Goblin B, is often much more valuable than missing Goblin A and dealing 20 damage to Goblin B. How much more valuable? Hard to quantify, especially in general terms. Is doing 20 damage in 2 hits rather than 1 hit and 1 miss... 1.2x as valuable? More?
GENERALLY, its true-enough that damage in Round 1 pays dividends over damage in Round 2, that maximizing your to-hit rate is a more important priority than maximizing your damage per hit, even though a DPR calculation treats those as translateable. Your average 12 damage per hit * 60% expected accuracy, ~7 DPH is actually quite a bit more valuable (especially in low tiers) than your average 22 damage per hit * 35% expected accuracy, ~8 DPH. This isn't a question of distrusting statistics, or trusting guts, its a matter of experienced players knowing that damage is increasingly important the earlier and more reliably and more flexibly it can be delivered.
GWM in Tier 1 always screws up your ability to deliver damage early and flexibly, causing you to quite often miss attacks for the mere promise of an overkill hit in a later round. In Tier 2, unless you used your Fighter 6 feat to bring Str/Dex to 20, it will often be doing the same. PAM is much more valuable at level 8 than GWM is, because it PROMOTES hitting early and often rather than PENALIZING it, so considering that most GWM builds also take PAM... PAM goes at 8, and GWM at 12, even if GWM "on paper" has a bigger impact on DPR statistics over several rounds of combat.
The problem in this discussion is not a distrust of statistics, it's talking about combat like it's a mere equation. GWM is a paper tiger before Tier 3 for most classes, or level 8 at the earliest for a Fighter.
dndbeyond.com forum tags
I'm going to make this way harder than it needs to be.
That's a pretty darn cool scene, too. That 300 Spartan vibe. I might build a Barbarian with theme sometime.
The only way this would be true is if Goblin B only had, (for example) 10 hit points and the rest of the damage was wasted.
Let's say you have 5 enemies, each with 20 hit points. Now let's say you did 19 hit points of damage to all five, a total of 95 damage. How many are still attacking your group? ALL FIVE. That 95 damage can kill 4 of the five, and leave the last one wounded. It's almost always beneficial to gain up on the enemies one at a time, moving on to the next as they die. Prioritize the targets, for example, if there are any glass cannons, kill them first.
Ok, but 30 damage in round 2 is better than 10 and 10 if overkill isn't a concern. No one's advocating for doing a GWM trade that merely breaks even. If you're using GWM's -5/+10 it's because it's the better deal.
Huh? Focus fire on one enemy is almost always the better strategy. You know what's better than finishing the round with 2 live goblins? Finishing it with 1 live goblin and then smacking the other one as a bonus action thanks to GWM.
That's why I keep bringing up advantage.
Yes, PAM first is the better move if you're going to take both. My point is there's absolutely no reason to delay either feat. If both feats are already ahead of taking the ASI without taking opportunity attacks and bonus attacks from kills into account, both feats obviously perform even better in real world scenarios. If those feats are on the table, the smart thing to do is take them at the earliest possible opportunity.
The Forum Infestation (TM)
Damage done in excess of a monster's HP total is damage that you didn't actually do anywhere but on paper, and deserve no credit for. You have a whole team of allies who are doing chips and drips of damage all over the place, storming in with a 20 damage swing in the second round in Tier 1 at the cost of missing your 10 damage swing in Round 1 is almost always inefficient, unless you're fighting the boss.
10 damage to goblin A, and then another 10 damage to goblin A if needed or to goblin B if not needed, is obviously what I meant. Don't strawman me, you know that overkill is bad.
dndbeyond.com forum tags
I'm going to make this way harder than it needs to be.
You can always only use it for the bonus action attacks. Against low hit point chaff, they'll trigger really reliably.
The threshold is pretty low, though. Sure, 20 damage against a Bandit is overkill, but 10 damage means it's going to need another attack to get put down.
Ah well. 5E isn't a competitive game, and if y'all out there building suboptimal Tier 1 fighters with GWM (or even PAM) while still nursing a 17 str... that's an issue between you, your party, and the enemies you're leaving on the table I suppose. "Get your attack stat to 20" is boring and obvious advice for a reason, because there's pretty much never an excuse not to (unless you've got a build that consistently attacks with advantage, like a Barbarian, in which case you can fudge that rule a little if needed to pull off a thematic Stupid Player Trick, but would still probably be better off just eating your wheaties and building like you ought to).
dndbeyond.com forum tags
I'm going to make this way harder than it needs to be.
As you said, you have a whole team of allies, so even if everyone's gambling on big hits, someone's going to hit.
If 20 damage is bad because it sometimes overkills, 10 damage is bad because it sometimes underkills.
All else being equal you want to have more damage, not less. And GWM turns overkills into an extra hit, so...
There is no universe where an ASI beats PAM or GWM. I'm going to make this really simple. One one side you have:
On the other you have either:
Or...
Come on dude. They're not even comparable. Picking PAM in tier 1 almost doubles your damage per round even if you ignore the op attacks. The feats are so good I consider them broken precisely because they're so outrageously superior to picking the ASI.
The Forum Infestation (TM)