GWM is good for low-AC, low-HP enemies. As it turns out, these are exactly the enemies you often face at low levels.
With a +3 in STR, a greatsword, and against an AC 12 enemy:
- A normal hit does 1d12+3 (9.5) damage and has a 70% chance of hitting, for expected damage of 6.65
- A normal hit with Advantage has a 91% chance of hitting, for expected damage of 8.65. 30% increase over normal
- A GWM hit does 1d12+3+10 (19.5) damage with a 45% chance of hitting, for expected damage of 8.78. 32% increase over normal
- A GWM hit with Advantage has a 70% chance of hitting, for expected damage of 13.65. 58% increase over a normal Advantage attack, and 55% better than a normal GWM attack
As shown, GWM (at normal) is roughly equivalent to having Advantage on enemies with relatively low ACs. GWM with Advantage is overwhelmingly superior: essentially double Advantage.
If we take a non-Variant-Human situation, you'll either take the feat or get an ASI at level 4. With a +4 in STR:
- A normal hit does 1d12+4 (10.5) damage and has a 75% chance of hitting, for expected damage of 7.88
- A normal hit with Advantage has a 94% chance of hitting, for expected damage of 9.87. 25% increase over normal
We see that GWM (with a +3 in STR) is still superior: +11% damage at Normal, and +38% damage at Advantage.
Also (but no less important), you have to consider damage break points. Dealing 1d12+3+10 damage is *vastly* more likely to kill an enemy than 1d12+3, which
a.) prevents that enemy from taking additional turns, significantly affecting the outcome of the fight
b.) procs GWM's BA attack
If 5e was balanced so that you're typically expected to have a 50% chance to hit (e.g., AC 16 enemies at level 1) then the math is much less favorable to GWM. Alas...
Last edited by mrfuji3; 22/06/22 04:43 AM.
