5e GWF and Divine Smite

[VertDeLion]

Some of you may recognize me from my previous posts about the trainwreck of a D&D campaign I'm a part of. I've managed to clean most of it up, but our paladin is having trouble...not cheating.

One thing that has been brought to question is the interaction between the fighting style Great Weapon Fighting [When you roll a 1 or 2 on a damage die for an attack you make with a melee weapon that you are wielding with two hands, you can reroll the die and must use the new roll. The weapon must have the two-handed or versatile property for you to gain this benefit] and the Paladin ability Divine Smite [Starting at 2nd level, when you hit a creature with a melee weapon attack, you can expend one spell slot to deal radiant damage to the target, in addition to the weapon's damage. The extra damage is 2d8 for a 1st level spell slot, plus 1d8 for each spell slot higher than 1st, to a maximum of 5d8]

First part of the question: Does GWF allow you to reroll 1's and 2's on Divine Smite damage
Second part: Can you reroll ALL 1's or 2's or just one die?

I've seen this question posed on several other forums and discussions but no clear cut answer as to yes or no.

[Gastronomie]

There's no "official ruling" as far as I know (perhaps there was a Sage Advice or something, but if a DM needs to refer to Sage Advice to issue rulings in his game, the players are the wrong guys here), but my answer as a DM will be that it can re-roll multiple dice involved with the weapon itself, but not Smite, Hex, and stuff along those lines.

[Waazraath]

Some of you may recognize me from my previous posts about the trainwreck of a D&D campaign I'm a part of. I've managed to clean most of it up, but our paladin is having trouble...not cheating.

One thing that has been brought to question is the interaction between the fighting style Great Weapon Fighting [When you roll a 1 or 2 on a damage die for an attack you make with a melee weapon that you are wielding with two hands, you can reroll the die and must use the new roll. The weapon must have the two-handed or versatile property for you to gain this benefit] and the Paladin ability Divine Smite [Starting at 2nd level, when you hit a creature with a melee weapon attack, you can expend one spell slot to deal radiant damage to the target, in addition to the weapon's damage. The extra damage is 2d8 for a 1st level spell slot, plus 1d8 for each spell slot higher than 1st, to a maximum of 5d8]

First part of the question: Does GWF allow you to reroll 1's and 2's on Divine Smite damage
Second part: Can you reroll ALL 1's or 2's or just one die?

I've seen this question posed on several other forums and discussions but no clear cut answer as to yes or no.

Question 1: no. I think it was also clarified in a tweet from the designers that GWF was only about the weapon damage (that is, the damage of the weapon, without other dice added). General consensus in most discussions I've seen is though that it wouldn't be unreasonable to allow it to work as well on other dice, since GWF is otherwise weaker then other fighting styles. But that would be a house rule.
Question 2: only one, the ability mentions this specificly ('reroll a die', singular, not plural)

[Gastronomie]

In short: TBH it's fine either way, it's still far from broken. Just make sure that whatever you rule, the players don't start whining about it, because that's a good sign you should go DM a different group.

But, an overly inflexible DM is also a bad one, so try to listen to what they wanna do as much as possible - unless it's gonna get the other players frustrated.

[Lombra]

RAW you can reroll only one damage dice of your choice among those rolled for the weapon, not bonus dices from buffs. But you can reroll the bonus one from a critical damage.

[Kryx]

There's no "official ruling" as far as I know (perhaps there was a Sage Advice or something, but if a DM needs to refer to Sage Advice to issue rulings in his game, the players are the wrong guys here)
Sage advice is a valid resource.

There was a ruling:


If you use Great Weapon Fighting with a feature like Divine Smite or a spell like hex, do you get to reroll any 1 or 2 you roll for the extra damage? The Great Weapon Fighting feature—which is shared by fighters and paladins—is meant to benefit only the damage roll of the weapon used with the feature. For example, if you use a greatsword with the feature, you can reroll any 1 or 2 you roll on the weapon’s 2d6. If you’re a paladin and use Divine Smite with the greatsword, Great Weapon Fighting doesn’t let you reroll a 1 or 2 that you roll for the damage of Divine Smite.

The main purpose of this limitation is to prevent the tedium of excessive rerolls. Many of the limits in the game are aimed at inhibiting slowdowns. Having no limit would also leave the door open for Great Weapon Fighting to grant more of a damage boost than we intended, although the potential for that is minimal compared to the likelihood that numerous rerolls would bog the game down.

[Giant2005]

Your question is extremely timely. It was answered in this month's sage advice column (http://dnd.wizards.com/articles/features/rules-answers-april-2016)

[Gastronomie]

Sage advice is a valid resource.It's not forced - only something for when a newbie DM isn't sure what to do (still better than nothing). I believe that in TRPGs, the rules and rulings can be screwed at any time by the DM, if it will make stuff more interesting.

Of course it's up to the DM to stick with all Sage Advice, though - not like I have the right to stop that. Just, you know, saying "Sage Advice said so" or "Giantip said so" to every problem that occurs in-game is sorta… I wouldn't do it, at least.

[Giant2005]

Of course it's up to the DM to stick with all Sage Advice, though - not like I have the right to stop that. Just, you know, saying "Sage Advice said so" or "Giantip said so" to every problem that occurs in-game is sorta… I wouldn't do it, at least.

I sure would! Using a neutral resource is certainly a much better idea than yelling at each other until one side backs down. That is pretty much entirely why mediation exists in the first place.

[Eldamar]

This exact question came up in my last Sunday game. I ruled no, GWF doesn't allow rerolls on smite. GWF affects weapon damage. Smite is an additional source of magical damage you add after the weapon damage. If my paladin had a magical greatsword that did an additional d6 of fire damage, I wouldn't allow him to reroll that d6 for fire damage either. It's a different source of damage, in my eyes, from the weapon itself.

[NewDM]

It's not forced - only something for when a newbie DM isn't sure what to do (still better than nothing). I believe that in TRPGs, the rules and rulings can be screwed at any time by the DM, if it will make stuff more interesting.

Of course it's up to the DM to stick with all Sage Advice, though - not like I have the right to stop that. Just, you know, saying "Sage Advice said so" or "Giantip said so" to every problem that occurs in-game is sorta… I wouldn't do it, at least.

Sage Advice is the official rules answers of the company that made D&D 5e. Short of direct errata you can't get a more official ruling.

[Skylivedk]

I allowed it for three reasons:
1. It's how I read the ability.
2. IIRC, Kryx's math showed it was not far from overpowered.
3. RaF: it feels super badass for the player.

I don't care much for the different tweets, nor sage's advice. I remain unimpressed by previous rulings and calls. Apparently, actually doing the math isn't a thing they do too often.

[Kryx]

Each group can choose how they value Sage Advice.


2. IIRC, Kryx's math showed it was not far from overpowered.
Indeed it's not overpowered in the normal cases (Smite or BM dice).

I went a different route with balance by getting rid of -5/+10, +2 on dueling (now +1).

[VertDeLion]

Thank you all for your quick replies, you all are a great help :3

[Gastronomie]

I sure would! Using a neutral resource is certainly a much better idea than yelling at each other until one side backs down. That is pretty much entirely why mediation exists in the first place.Ehhhh, the players actually don't have the right to yell at the DM. If it works for you that's fine, but I "personally" prefer the rules to be more flexible, errata'ing whenever required to suit the needs of the players.

Sage Advice is the official rules answers of the company that made D&D 5e. Short of direct errata you can't get a more official ruling.Still not "forced". The DM's authority exceeds that of the company, if it makes the game more fun (not that the DM should rebel against Sage Advice whenever possible, but just saying).

[Firechanter]

Actually!
- The designers' statements on the matter contradict each other. Mearls says Yes, Crawford says No.

- strictly RAW by PHB is very simple and straightforward: it applies to _all damage dice_. Not "a single die", not "weapon damage die" and not "single weapon damage die". Compare to the Half-Orc racial feature for comparison.
So, YES, RAW it applies to all weapon dice and all bonus dice. You get to reroll each die that shows a 1 or 2 _once_, however; so you can't keep rerolling until no more 1s or 2s lie on the table.

- I see absolutely no reason to handle it any differently. Crawford's main "argument" is "to not slow down gameplay". How long does it really take to throw one or two dice into a dice cup? --> Nonsense. If anything, allowing only weapon die rerolls can _bog down_ gameplay if for instance you have a Flame Tongue Greatsword but have to roll weapon and fire damage separately just so you don't get the benefit of an "illicit" extra +0,4 damage.

- Also, GWF _needs_ the "full rerolls" to be worthwhile at all. Without it, the damage advantage of GWF over Dueling would be a measly 1,8 points (or even only 1,4dmg if you allow only one reroll), and for that you're supposed to give up +2 to +5 AC from Shields? That would be a horrible, horrible deal.

So, in short, the rules say you get to reroll any damage die with GWF, and you should stick to that. I rest my case.

[Kryx]

As has been discussed many times and by the designers themselves:
Mearls tweets how he feels about his games, and has even offered different responses to the same question months apart.
Crawford gives RAW or RAI answers.

[Firechanter]

Crawford's advice is bad, and he should feel bad.

[Feuerphoenix]

At least for me, GWF looks pretty bad, if you cancel rerolling non weapon DDs. There is almost no reason anymore picking a great weapon if you loose 2-5 AC, and it has to compede with dueling.

The only weapon that is worth taking then, is a greatsword and a maul. Any other two Hand weapon will benefit more from +1AC (PM excluded, if you want to reroll the d4). I would let reroll each.

[Fighting_Ferret]

One could argue that being listed under weapon styles would automatically lead to it applying to the weapon damage only. I also think that dueling should be re-written to either explicitly state shields are allowed or not.

[sxmedicus]

Unfortunately Great weapon fighting and for that matter Savage attacker only affect the weapons damage dice and no more per Sage advice

[Feuerphoenix]

Shield =!= weapon. It isn't even in the weapon's table. For me, there is no problem.

[Fighting_Ferret]

Why is it unfortunate that GWF only applies to the weapon damage... a greatsword user will still like that feature.

I know that a shield isn't on the weapon table... but why call it dueling... one could theoretically duel with any assortment of weapons... the name itself implies a one on one fight with a prescribed set of weapons... why not call it one-handed style. That name takes any confusion form the native language and simply tells you what it does. Instead of including wording like with no other weapons...

[BiPolar]

This is the direct quote for the ruling:


The Great Weapon Fighting feature—which is shared by fighters and paladins—is meant to benefit only the damage roll of the weapon used with the feature. For example, if you use a greatsword with the feature, you can reroll any 1 or 2 you roll on the weapon’s 2d6. If you’re a paladin and use Divine Smite with the greatsword, Great Weapon Fighting doesn’t let you reroll a 1 or 2 that you roll for the damage of Divine Smite.

The main purpose of this limitation is to prevent the tedium of excessive rerolls. Many of the limits in the game are aimed at inhibiting slowdowns. Having no limit would also leave the door open for Great Weapon Fighting to grant more of a damage boost than we intended, although the potential for that is minimal compared to the likelihood that numerous rerolls would bog the game down.

You'll notice that their reasoning is "prevent the tedium of excessive rerolls." It's not that they didn't want the divine smite die (or any other die) to reroll, they just thought it would slow down the game. If you don't agree and/or care about possibly "bogging the game down" then go for it. Just make sure you and your paladin are happy and understand why a ruling at your table is a ruling at your table. But based on the Rules Answers, it doesn't seem like it would break anything, just maybe slow it down to a pace you don't like.

My table likes rolling, and rerolling the 1s and 2s takes all of 15 seconds. But more importantly, it's fun.

[Lollerabe]

Why it's unfortunate? Math.

If it only applies to the 2d6 it's a horrible feature, it adds 1,3damg more than not having it and it never scales.

So the paladin with defense style and a flametounge greatsword with 18 strength that uses a lvl 2 smite deals = 4d6(14 avg damg) + 3d8 (13,5 avg damg) plus 4 = 31,5 avg damg.
The same paladin with GWF only applying to his greatsword deals 2d6 (8,3 avg damg rerolls on 1 & 2s) plus 2d6 (7, flametounge) plus 3d8 (13,5) plus 4 = 32,8 avg damg. The first paladin however has 19 ac instead of 18.
You see where I'm going with this - GWF becomes a horrible choice if it dosent work on additives, saying otherwise is ignoring math.

[Fighting_Ferret]

Protection is a horrible feature, but they added it...

The quote from Sage Advise says that the other purpose of the limit (aside from the loss of time) is to prevent GWF from dealing more damage then intended.

[BiPolar]

The quote from Sage Advise says that the other purpose of the limit (aside from the loss of time) is to prevent GWF from dealing more damage then intended.

Yes, the second part:

Having no limit would also leave the door open for Great Weapon Fighting to grant more of a damage boost than we intended, although the potential for that is minimal compared to the likelihood that numerous rerolls would bog the game down.

That second part is only a small concern about the possibility(although you still only reroll them once.) that the damage might become more than intended, but you also could have rolled no 1s and 2s and the damage is the damage.

The emphasize twice the rerolling and game getting bogged down, so to me that is really their concern and not the damage.

[Lombra]

To me it just doesn't make sense for a fighting style to influence magic stuff. I mean it is supposed to be used for martial classes, so it should apply to the martial aspect of the PC, not the magic one.

[BiPolar]

To me it just doesn't make sense for a fighting style to influence magic stuff. I mean it is supposed to be used for martial classes, so it should apply to the martial aspect of the PC, not the magic one.

And that's entirely your call! But for those who do want to allow it, I wouldn't worry about it 'breaking' anything as that really wasn't the primary concern of the designers.

[Lollerabe]

And that's my point if it's only intended to add 1,3 damg and never scale then it's really really bad.

Put it like this: an d8 has an avg damg of 4,5
a d8 with GWF has an avg damg of 5,25

So a lvl 4 smite that crits (10d8) deals (10 x 4,5) = 45 avg damg without GWF or 10 x 5,25 = 52,5 avg damg with GWF.

So 7,5 more damg and that's a best case scenario (a whole bunch of additives) by allowing GWF to work as by raw.

That's definitely not breaking anything. The 'bogging down' time argument seems more valid, but I personally love rerolls so.. Yeah.

Edit: Lombra say GWF works on all dice and I got a maul that deals +2d6 Fire damg and a spoon that deals 2d6 Fire damg, in my opinion it makes sense that the maul deals more fire damg on average (because of GWF) due to maul having a way bigger surface area. GWF thus enhances that effect but never allows it to exceed the 12 damg. In short it makes sure that the big bad weapons also deals more elemental damg fx.

[Lombra]

Off-topic: instead of re-rolling the damage on 1s and 2s, why not re-rolling the roll to hit on the same values? It would make the great weapon user feel effective with it's weapon without making it OP.

[BiPolar]

And that's my point if it's only intended to add 1,3 damg and never scale then it's really really bad.

Put it like this: an d8 has an avg damg of 4,5
a d8 with GWF has an avg damg of 5,25

So a lvl 4 smite that crits (10d8) deals (10 x 4,5) = 45 avg damg without GWF or 10 x 5,25 = 52,5 avg damg with GWF.

So 7,5 more damg and that's a best case scenario (a whole bunch of additives) by allowing GWF to work as by raw.

That's definitely not breaking anything. The 'bogging down' time argument seems more valid, but I personally love rerolls so.. Yeah.

Exactly, and it's why the mention "bogging down" twice and only suggest that opening up the other damage rolls to reroll "MIGHT" open the door to more damage than intended. However, just as easily someone can yahtzee it and roll all max values. Rerolling a a 1/2 is just one reroll. You up your damage chances a bit, but definitely not OP. If it was, then too much damage would have been the primary reason for the ruling.

Ultimately, I wouldn't worry about it. Don't want the rerolls? Don't use them. Want to use them? Feel free and don't worry about it. The designers don't seem to be.

[Rysto]

GWF synergizes with two of the best martial feats: GWM and PM. Personally I'm not worried if it's a little weak by itself, given that it sets up some really powerful builds. And GWF still offers better overall DPR than other options.

[Lollerabe]

GWF has nothing to do with GWM or PAM, one can easily take defense style and GWM, the existence of GWM dosent affect the math I've just shown.

Saying GWF should be bad because GWM is good is a horrible argument.

[Firechanter]

Considering that feats are an optional rule, and further considering that at least among the online community, exactly those feats are often discussed to be nerfed per houserule, nerfing the foundation of GWF is rather counterproductive.

"Not more damage boost than intended", so their _intention_ was for GWF to be crap?

Pay heed to Lollerabe's calculations. Rerolling everything is far from broken.

Of course, if you're saying that GWF should only allow (a) weapon die reroll and Dueling should not allow using a shield, then essentially you're saying that the only Fighting Style worth taking at all is Archery.

[Gtdead]

The reason there is no clear answer for this is because it's counterintuitive for anyone reading the ability descriptions (which is a problem with the wording as usual), and second because rerolls are boring.
The simple truth is that either way, GWF has a minimal bearing in Paladin's dpr, unless your guy thinks he can smite 3 times/turn consistently or something. Greatsword is the worst weapon for a Paladin to use. It offers the least dpr while prohibiting the use of shields, doesn't work with PAM (which is the real winner here), and makes people think that they have to use GWF while Defense is the superior style by far.

Also it's not that Dueling is better, it's that Quarterstaff is cheesy. It's the Quarterstaff that can be wielded with a shield, grants pam's bonus attack and gets a bonus from duelist. Otherwise they wouldn't bother with rerolling smites, they would just say "hey, how about we scrap GWF and make Dueling work for both 1h and 2h weapons? Who wants the complicated balance change when there is a much simpler one?

A paladin without PAM (especially) at lvl 11 does CONSIDERABLY less dpr than one with. My suggestion would be to normalize all these fighting styles with weapons and pam, and let it work for everything. After all it's obviously not that well thought out, and sage advice does more bad than good when instead of considering the math, they talk about preventing excessive rolls slowing down the game. We certainly don't need them to remind us how boring is rerolling, we need them to comment on the actual balance.

[Fighting_Ferret]

But archery is limited by ammunition... whereas a melee attack isn't (yes, you can throw some melee weapons...not the point, and yes you can find half of your expanded ammunition after each combat, if you have a minute to search the battlefield).

The most damaging archery weapon is a 1d10 and can fire once without a feat... the second is tied at a 1d8, one of which has the same limitation, the other doesn't. If the average combat lasted 3 rounds and you had fired 6 arrows(2 attacks), you have used roughly 1/6 (18%) of your ammunition (20 arrows/bolts per quiver). Oh another limitation... without the feat, enemies get cover if engaged by an ally in between you and the target, or anything is in between you and the target. The +2 from archery negates that half cover penalty.

Yes arrows/bolts are relatively cheap, yes you can carry more than 20 at any time, and yes, your DM may even hand wave away tracking ammunition entirely and/or cover rules because it is a pain. But the rules are written as is to deal with all of that.

If you don't want to use the rules as written, as a DM, then go for it... that is your right/choice/prerogative. But every ranking of the weapon style has GWF and Dueling as the best 2, archery is up there if you want to use ranged. Defensive is usually seen as not worth as much as to hit/damage, dual wielding has the ability to add the most damage, but as the style is limited to 1 bonus action attack, it is not favored, and protection is usually laughed of the list.

[Lollerabe]

Who the hell rates GWF higher than archery and defensive, additive rerolls or not?

[Wymmerdann]

Honestly, the RAW seems so painstakingly clear in the player's handbook, in that it should apply because the text calls out "damage die for an attack you make" rather than "weapon die" or "weapon damage", that I wouldn't have looked for a rules clarification if the nay-sayers weren't so quick to pull it out. The smite is no less part of the attack than the weapon and the justifications offered against it seem so half-baked* that it looks pretty cut and dried to me. I'd encourage those who disagree to take a read of the Divine Smite ability, which carries this description "deals radiant damage to the target...in addition to the weapon's damage" [rather than in addition to the attack's damage].

In regards to sage advice...I feel like we need to draw a hard line between actual errata and "authoritative" rules interpretation.

If the designers want to issue an errata or reprinting, that's their prerogative, but I frankly don't put much stock in what I take to be a poor interpretation of their own ruleset. As designers their authority should be seen as legislative, not judicial. As designers, their adjudications are going to err on the side of "safety" or the downplaying of powerful [or, as we have here, simply unanticipated] combinations, because they feel that's necessary to protect the integrity of 5E's brand, as a safe and bounded system [and indeed, their own professional credibility as designers of that system]. That leads to inconsistent or irrational interpretations of the ruleset that make it difficult to establish internal consistency in a game that has done remarkably well at instilling it in some components [bounded accuracy generally] and poorly in others [skills, the specificity in language around attack, damage types]. It's pretty much the same reason why we have a separate legislature and judiciary IRL: good judges need to be in a position to admit when the writers dun-goofed, and apply the logical consequences. If the legislature [writers] want to come back for another swing with published material, that's fine, that's what amendments are for, but I don't like this waffle about important people saying that the rules are saying things they clearly are not.



*[laborious rerolls, really? Are D8's somehow slower to reroll than D6's?]

[Fighting_Ferret]

My only argument for not re-rolling smite damage is this... smite is applied after the hit is confirmed, which means you will never have an opportunity cost or lost resource. Every die that gets a chance at re-rolling is just trying to outdo someone without that feature, or mitigating a poor roll on damage to bring it closer to surpassing the average damage... which isn't really a super issue, it just means that paladins with GWF are better at smiting then those without it... which seems wrong. You are basically saying that any damage dice rolled by said paladin, has a version of lucky or advantage if a condition is met... the example of the flametongue greatsword and a 2nd level smite could result in no dice being re-rolled (in which case you are probably doing average or better damage) up to 7 dice being re-rolled (with the possibility of no improvement, but more likely bringing damage up to average).

I agree with you that it isn't overpowered, just an unfair advantage that other classes/styles don't have, as they don't roll so many dice for their damage.

[VertDeLion]

The clarification on this issue is much appreciated. The problem is, as I said, our paladin is a bit of a cheater.
The Sage's Advice and your own opinions helped quite a bit, so I'll be stating this to the GM. However, I just recently got a gander at his sheet (GM approved before I could review it) And found out he was procting Great Weapon Fighting and Greater Weapon Mastery while wielding a versatile warhammer in one hand and a shield in the other, so GWF and GWM shouldn't even be triggering. He attacks his own teammates and doesn't consider himself an oathbreaker, and thinks he can Misty Step into the air and strike at our sorceress who is flying in the same action. I'm currently discussing these issues with the GM and calling him out on his bull**** damage.

[BiPolar]

The clarification on this issue is much appreciated. The problem is, as I said, our paladin is a bit of a cheater.
The Sage's Advice and your own opinions helped quite a bit, so I'll be stating this to the GM. However, I just recently got a gander at his sheet (GM approved before I could review it) And found out he was procting Great Weapon Fighting and Greater Weapon Mastery while wielding a versatile warhammer in one hand and a shield in the other, so GWF and GWM shouldn't even be triggering. He attacks his own teammates and doesn't consider himself an oathbreaker, and thinks he can Misty Step into the air and strike at our sorceress who is flying in the same action. I'm currently discussing these issues with the GM and calling him out on his bull**** damage.

Oof yeah. The issue of divine smite rerolls is nothing compared to what you're dealing with :) In order to get Great weapon bonuses, ya gotta be holding it and using it with two hands. And yes, as long as he is within 60' of said sorceress, he can misty step and attack her. And then he falls down.

[Fighting_Ferret]

100% totally agree with BiPolar.

[uraniumrooster]

Is there any precedent for treating additional damage dice as being separate from base weapon damage? When you score a critical hit, additional damage dice from Hex, Hunter's Mark, Smite, Sneak Attack, etc, are all treated as coming from the same source and get rolled twice, same as the weapon damage. Using a different approach for GWF seems inconsistent to me.

[Lollerabe]

It is super inconsistent, according to RAW smites are allowed to be rerolled, im in agreement with Wymmerdann maybe even tipping towards 'f*** sage advice' entirely.

The people that I first saw saying 'GWF dosent work on additives' usually proceeded with saying 'if it did it would be super imba' when presented with the actual math they jumped into the 'but the wording..' boat.

Either way I keep writing in these GWF rerolls threads and I'm not saying anything new at this point.

So to the OP: I've shown you the numbers, do with that as you please. As long as you and your table are having as awesome of a time as I am with this game - more power to you!

P.s yeah the paladin in your party is just cheating all over, the GWF feature has very little to do with that. He is using his warhammer as a 1d10 weapon while wielding a shield and claiming he has acces to both GWM features? That's a pleb/munchkin if I ever saw one. He is not confused by the rules - he's actively trying to break them, while playing what is widely considered a super strong class. Screw him.

[VertDeLion]

Oof yeah. The issue of divine smite rerolls is nothing compared to what you're dealing with :) In order to get Great weapon bonuses, ya gotta be holding it and using it with two hands. And yes, as long as he is within 60' of said sorceress, he can misty step and attack her. And then he falls down.

Hold up, so he can Misty Step into the air and stay suspended long enough to complete an attack before dropping?

[BiPolar]

Hold up, so he can Misty Step into the air and stay suspended long enough to complete an attack before dropping?

It doesn't say he can't. I'd hold that he basically blinks out appears, attacks, and falls. Movement and attacks are separated in 5e, so there really is nothing to say he can't do it. He'd just end up taking falling damage.

[Foxhound438]

Is there any precedent for treating additional damage dice as being separate from base weapon damage? When you score a critical hit, additional damage dice from Hex, Hunter's Mark, Smite, Sneak Attack, etc, are all treated as coming from the same source and get rolled twice, same as the weapon damage. Using a different approach for GWF seems inconsistent to me.

the confusion comes from the example in the book of how to do a critical hit, where it reminds you as part of an example to roll extra damage twice (because it's part of the attack's damage). GWF doesn't have any example next to it so in some people's heads the words stop mattering and they think the style doesn't apply to all the attack's damage dice, even though the ability literally says any of the attack's damage dice.


(snip)
*[laborious rerolls, really? Are D8's somehow slower to reroll than D6's?]

QFT the whole thing, the end note there being chief. it actually takes longer to roll 2 separate times to differentiate damage sources than it is to pick up the whole pile of 1/2 dice and throw them all a second time.



And yet another thread of "sage advice says so" vs "no one IRL knows or cares about what sage advice says". This is truly a topic of who's dad can beat up the other's, and I'm still partaking in it... good job, self.

[Lollerabe]

My dad is like super strong though..

[Rysto]

So, I'm reversing my position. I've re-read the GWM description and compared it to the Critical Hit section, and the wording is basically identical. So it is quite difficult to justify doubling smite dice on a crit but not rerolling smite dice on 1s and 2s. And upon re-running the math, it doesn't make GWF or GWM overpowered options (actually, after Improved Divine Smite kicks in, the -5/+10 ability of GWM becomes nearly worthless).

My only real objection is that the biggest benefactor of this interpretation is PAM, which really doesn't need any more help on the Paladin. But that's something that could dealt with in other ways.

[uraniumrooster]

This is truly a topic of who's dad can beat up the other's, and I'm still partaking in it... good job, self.


My dad is like super strong though..

Hold up. My dad has GWF, does he get to reroll extra damage dice?

[LordVonDerp]

First part of the question: Does GWF allow you to reroll 1's and 2's on Divine Smite damage
Second part: Can you reroll ALL 1's or 2's or just one die?

I've seen this question posed on several other forums and discussions but no clear cut answer as to yes or no.

Officially it's all weapon dice, including smite.

[RickAllison]

For the Sage Advice debate, it seems to me that the officially released bits (the compendium, the articles on the website, etc.) should hold more weight than the tweets. So regardless of whether the actual tweeting is given weight, those sources should at least be considered.

This is coming from someone who has stopped even tagging Mearls anymore. The guy just seems to make rulings based on his mood rather than the rules. Crawford and Perkins are still game in my book.

Edit: Also, the tweets from Crawford can actually be considered official rulings. Not all of his tweets are probably as such, but he is allowed to make them through his SA tweets.

[Foxhound438]

My only real objection is that the biggest benefactor of this interpretation is PAM, which really doesn't need any more help on the Paladin. But that's something that could dealt with in other ways.

you end up with only marginally better damage than the qstaff + shield + dueling + pam builds. 2 hands should do more damage than one, since you obviously lose out on 2AC.

[Foxhound438]

For the Sage Advice debate, it seems to me that the officially released bits (the compendium, the articles on the website, etc.) should hold more weight than the tweets. So regardless of whether the actual tweeting is given weight, those sources should at least be considered.


certainly more than tweets, but less than the books. Reason being, a person going solely off the book when building a character wouldn't generally have knowledge of the rules interpretation found in sage advice, and would be making a character based on the rules in the book.

[Rysto]

you end up with only marginally better damage than the qstaff + shield + dueling + pam builds. 2 hands should do more damage than one, since you obviously lose out on 2AC.

Yes, that is silly. Why on earth does PAM not require a two-handed attack to take effect? I dislike this feat the more I learn about it.

[RickAllison]

certainly more than tweets, but less than the books. Reason being, a person going solely off the book when building a character wouldn't generally have knowledge of the rules interpretation found in sage advice, and would be making a character based on the rules in the book.

Oh absolutely. The way I see it is as follows:
1) PHB
2) DMG and MM
3) EEPC and SCAG
4) The official adventures
5) Official articles and SA compendium
6) JC tweets that aren't prefaced with clauses like "As a DM"
7) Chris Perkins (and maybe other SA people)
8) RPG StackExchange
9) GitP
10) Reddit and ENWorld
...
Really Low) Mearls.

Probably missed something, and 3 and 4 are pretty much interchangeable to me. After 6, it is more just because they are convenient and useful.

[Malifice]

Protection is a horrible feature, but they added it...

Protection is the best F/S there is (up there with archery).

Disadvantage is immense. Its effectively +5 to an adjacent creatures AC as a reaction.

[Pex]

I've been doing it with my Paladin since that's how I thought it worked. It hasn't been a problem. It has effectively increased my damage, naturally, but the DM likes it. He sees that as doing my part in combat significantly.

[Foxhound438]

Oh absolutely. The way I see it is as follows:
1) PHB
2) DMG and MM
3) EEPC and SCAG
4) The official adventures
5) Official articles and SA compendium
6) JC tweets that aren't prefaced with clauses like "As a DM"
7) Chris Perkins (and maybe other SA people)
8) RPG StackExchange
9) GitP
10) Reddit and ENWorld
...
Really Low) Mearls.

Probably missed something, and 3 and 4 are pretty much interchangeable to me. After 6, it is more just because they are convenient and useful.

i'd throw in PHB/MM/DMG eratta somewhere in the 2-4 range, since older PHB's don't have the revisions and newer ones do. Kind of has a similar problem as SA, but newer copies of the books (are supposed to) have the revised info.

[RickAllison]

i'd throw in PHB/MM/DMG eratta somewhere in the 2-4 range, since older PHB's don't have the revisions and newer ones do. Kind of has a similar problem as SA, but newer copies of the books (are supposed to) have the revised info.

I thought about it, but I decided it was redundant. Errata is already coupled in because it is merely a list of corrections. Yes, older editions lack it, but that is the curse of having an old edition. A scholar citing a scientific work need be mindful that the work is up-to-date, and a DM has no excuse when the document is that readily available, free of charge.

That being said, I have had to correct my DM several times about the errata because I'm the only one in the group with the newer editions of the books...

[djreynolds]

It is weapon only. Same for the EK who is using booming blade and a great sword, its just the weapon.

Yes it is fun to reroll, but what about the fighter without magic, it has to be balanced. Otherwise everyone, as they do anyhow, will just play a paladin.

Same argument has been made about savage attacker and sneak attack, the answer is no. Its weapon damage.

[Firechanter]

Well, to be fair, the Champion Fighter is the ONLY archetype with GWF access that does not benefit from RAW rerolls. But that's not the fault of the GWF style, it's the fault of making the Champion plain-ass boring and as bland as can be. Instead of nerfing 5 other archetypes that do have access to some bonus damage, rather make the Champion more interesting.

Besides, it's par of the course that some fighting styles make more sense for some classes / archetypes than for others. So the Champion doesn't get any bonus dice -- so what, let him pick any of the other styles then. If you want to wield Greatswords and be effective, don't be a Champion. As simple as that.

[djreynolds]

Well, to be fair, the Champion Fighter is the ONLY archetype with GWF access that does not benefit from RAW rerolls. But that's not the fault of the GWF style, it's the fault of making the Champion plain-ass boring and as bland as can be. Instead of nerfing 5 other archetypes that do have access to some bonus damage, rather make the Champion more interesting.

Besides, it's par of the course that some fighting styles make more sense for some classes / archetypes than for others. So the Champion doesn't get any bonus dice -- so what, let him pick any of the other styles then. If you want to wield Greatswords and be effective, don't be a Champion. As simple as that.

Too true.

As long as the table is in accordance, go for it. The battlemaster ain't complaining. And if the mystic warrior can get a hold of it, GWS, he'll like it as well.

[Arial Black]

Stuff does what the words say they do. The author's intent might be interesting, and even help with interpreting ambiguous wording, but just because an individual reader doesn't grokk a sentence doesn't mean that it is ambiguous.

Savage Attacker only applies to weapon damage. How do we know? Because that's what the words say:-

"Once per turn when you roll damage for a melee weapon attack, you can reroll the weapon's damage dice and use either total."

GWF applies to all damage dice that are rolled as a direct consequence of that successful attack roll. So it would apply to the poison damage if that poison damage is simply additional damage, but would not apply to any poison damage that might come after failing a save after being hit by the poisoned weapon.

How do we know? Because that's what the words of GWF say:-

"When you roll a 1 or 2 on a damage die for an attack you make with a melee weapon you are wielding with two hands..."

It applies to any and all damage dice (that roll 1 or 2) that are part of that attack. In 5E 'attack'='attack roll'.

Compare critical hits:-

"Roll all of the attack's damage dice twice and add them together."

...but...what about extra damage dice, like from Sneak Attack or Divine Smite or hex or...anything that adds extra damage dice...?

"If the attack involves other damage dice, such as from the rogue's Sneak Attack feature, you roll those dice twice as well."

So the rules say that the damage dice of the 'attack' include all damage dice involved, not just the dice from the weapon itself.

If JC meant something else then he should have written something else. As it stands, the wording is not ambiguous, and the fact that some people haven't wrapped their heads around it yet doesn't make the wording ambiguous.

[Fighting_Ferret]

Interestingly enough... every other additive damage bonus uses different wording than divine smite... critical hits, sneak attack, hex, hunter's mark, magical weapon damage all use the words "deals extra [x] damage on a successful hit."

Divine smite uses this wording; "When you hit a creature with a melee weapon attack, you can expend one paladin spell slot to deal radiant damage to the target, in addition to the weapon’s damage.

Interesting that they used a different choice of wording there, if they really meant them all to be handled the same way. Funny enough, searching through the PHB, in addition to is mostly used in the starting equipment section of every class to show that you get both class gear and background gear. It is also used a few times in spell descriptions when a spell does damage and also invokes a status affect (prone, frightened, etc...).

[LordVonDerp]

It is weapon only. Same for the EK who is using booming blade and a great sword, its just the weapon.

Yes it is fun to reroll, but what about the fighter without magic, it has to be balanced. Otherwise everyone, as they do anyhow, will just play a paladin.

Same argument has been made about savage attacker and sneak attack, the answer is no. Its weapon damage.

Smite is part of the weapon's damage.

[Wymmerdann]

Fighting Ferret, it's clear enough that Smite is indeed different from all of those examples, because you choose whether to use it after the role to hit [and indeed, as a Paladin player myself, I try to use it for critical hits for maximum payoff]. However, it's a far cry from demonstrating a difference in the wording to demonstrating that difference. The mechanic whereby a spell slot is expended as part of the attack, but a spell is not cast, is [as far as I'm aware] a unique affect, and so we shouldn't expect to see identical language. However, as Arial Black and others have done such a good job of showing us, the language consistently points us toward these affects [critical hits in particular] operating in the same way as GWF.

Lord Von Derp, I'm not sure it's necessary to conclude that the smite damage is weapon damage, but rather that it is damage from the attack made with the weapon. That might seem like a finicky detail, but I think it's the material point.

[Fighting_Ferret]

I was mostly referring to the usage of extra vs in addition to... it's saying the exact same thing...except that they got extra in everywhere else... it's almost like someone else wrote that statement. Excluding the authors explanation of intent, by saying they MOSTLY corrected their original to keep combat from stalling, that little bit about doing more damage then intended was obviously added to maintain the sense of balance of the system for sake of safety. Belittling the fact that instead of instantly recalling all of the already printed and sold books to issue errata, they instead/also issue their errata freely to those who may have already purchased those books.

Personally... I don't care which interpretation someone uses... it's a game and in the end it doesn't do anything to upset the balance of said game very much. This one weapon style grants a bonus to one class which has exactly one ability that can take advantage of it, and it doesn't try to remove the loss of a spell slot. There are far worse issues than that to take issue with. My faults are noted above. If the designer/author issue official errata for their product... it is ignored. That is my problem with the interpretation.

"Sage Advice is a monthly column that gives official clarifications of D&D rules."

Question: "If you use Great Weapon Fighting with a feature like Divine Smite or a spell like hex, do you get to reroll any 1 or 2 you roll for the extra damage?"

Official Ruling: "The Great Weapon Fighting feature—which is shared by fighters and paladins—is meant to benefit only the damage roll of the weapon used with the feature. For example, if you use a greatsword with the feature, you can reroll any 1 or 2 you roll on the weapon’s 2d6. If you’re a paladin and use Divine Smite with the greatsword, Great Weapon Fighting doesn’t let you reroll a 1 or 2 that you roll for the damage of Divine Smite."

There is no argument to be made there... they spelled it out... clear as day. Now they offered a reasoning behind the ruling, but their reasoning doen't change their ruling.

Reasoning: "The main purpose of this limitation is to prevent the tedium of excessive rerolls. Many of the limits in the game are aimed at inhibiting slowdowns. Having no limit would also leave the door open for Great Weapon Fighting to grant more of a damage boost than we intended, although the potential for that is minimal compared to the likelihood that numerous rerolls would bog the game down."

[Arial Black]

Reasoning: "The main purpose of this limitation is to prevent the tedium of excessive rerolls. Many of the limits in the game are aimed at inhibiting slowdowns.

So, my attack does 2d6 (greatsword in two hands) + 1d6 (hunter's mark) + 2d6 (Sneak Attack with a special greatsword which has the Finesse quality) + 6d8 (Smite, 4th level slot, versus undead) = 5d6+6d8+5.

Using GWF rerolling any and all dice that qualify, roll your dice, pick up the dice that roll 1 or 2, reroll those dice.

How is this preventing excessive, time-consuming rerolls? It is exactly as time-consuming no matter if you reroll one die or all dice.

Meanwhile, ruling that only the specific weapon dice can be rerolled requires you to know which specific dice belong to the greatsword. This is done by either rolling separately or by having different colour dice, EITHER of which is more complex/time-consuming than the other way, so JC's first objection doesn't make sense.


Having no limit would also leave the door open for Great Weapon Fighting to grant more of a damage boost than we intended, although the potential for that is minimal compared to the likelihood that numerous rerolls would bog the game down."

It's been shown many times that the more generous version is definitely not unbalanced, so making the GWF rerolls only apply to weapon damage dice is a pointless nerf.

Neither of JC's objections make sense, so there is no need to change the PHB wording to match JC's apparent intent here.

[Firechanter]

Exactly. The entire official reasoning is utter nonsense. It's like saying "You shouldn't drink coffee, because milk is bad for your teeth."

And concerning the size of the extra damage boost: if a Paladin of 9th level uses _all_ his slots to Smite, that's 23d8 per day, provided that there even _are_ enough combat rounds to connect enough hits.
The average damage boost of rerolling 1s and 2s on a d8 is 0,75 points per die.

So we are talking about _17 points_ of extra damage that this Mid-level Paladin will get out of RAW GWF. That's not even one Kuo-Toa (CR 1/4).

Does anyone _seriously_ believe that 17 "free" points of damage per day at level 9 are "unbalancing" or "too much"? oÔ

[Foxhound438]

Exactly. The entire official reasoning is utter nonsense. It's like saying "You shouldn't drink coffee, because milk is bad for your teeth."

And concerning the size of the extra damage boost: if a Paladin of 9th level uses _all_ his slots to Smite, that's 23d8 per day, provided that there even _are_ enough combat rounds to connect enough hits.
The average damage boost of rerolling 1s and 2s on a d8 is 0,75 points per die.

So we are talking about _17 points_ of extra damage that this Mid-level Paladin will get out of RAW GWF. That's not even one Kuo-Toa (CR 1/4).

Does anyone _seriously_ believe that 17 "free" points of damage per day at level 9 are "unbalancing" or "too much"? oÔ

just wait until they see how much "free" damage PAM+qstaff+dueling does in the same amount of time

[Malifice]

Well, to be fair, the Champion Fighter is the ONLY archetype with GWF access that does not benefit from RAW rerolls.

As he's more likely to get crits, and crits = extra weapon damage dice, he's actually more likely to benefit from the re rolls.

[Wymmerdann]

If the designer/author issue official errata for their product... it is ignored. That is my problem with the interpretation.


Ferret, the problem with Sage Advice is that it isn't Errata, it's an interpretation. I used the terms legislative and judicial in a previous post to try and get this across, but that probably wasn't particularly clear.

Errata doesn't need to be reasonable: it can change the wording of rules and the core text and puts something else there instead.

On the other hand, Sage Advice is explicitly less authoritative than a DM's interpretation or adjudication of the ruling, so as a prospective GM, I have no problem pointing out how internally inconsistent its ruling is, and deciding to reject it on those and other grounds. It's explicitly within the scope that Sage Advice gives itself that we reject it for the nonsense that it might happen to produce. I might reject textual errata for the same reason, but I'd accept that this would be homebrewing, rather than DM interpretation.

The Player's Handbook is pretty clear, as it's been laboriously demonstrated, that divine smite takes the rerolls from great weapon fighting. That's the most consistent, rational interpretation of the rules as published that I have been presented with. I don't [and obviously could not] demand that everyone jump on this bandwagon, and I accept that other, rational DM's may come to another conclusion. However, I think it's important to note that this conclusion is NOT "ignoring" errata. Arrogant as I undoubtedly am, I see it more like a court bench refusing to be swayed by the drunken ramblings of an Amicus Brief nobody asked for. Legislative intent is a construct, not an opinion. Judges don't haul members of a parliament in with a subpoena to get their opinion on the law that they intended to pass, they deduce it from the law [and perhaps the language of other, related laws]. They do this because the interpretation of a law, as made by a politician is worth less than that made by a judge, just as Sage Advice's is as relates to a DM. This is essentially the same process we've gone through on this thread: we've compared the wording of GWF and Smite to critical hits and other rules, and demonstrated that the highly similar language reflects an intent that they be handled in a highly similar way. This is the intention we've constructed, and manifests as both RAI and RAW. Frankly, this is substantially more thought than was apparent in the reasoning given by the sage advice response , which was essentially nonsense hokum, as you seem ready enough to admit.

All power to the soviets.

[Foxhound438]

All power to the soviets.

*takes off glasses* *shaking hand* *sweats intensely*

[djreynolds]

"Sage Advice is a monthly column that gives official clarifications of D&D rules."

Question: "If you use Great Weapon Fighting with a feature like Divine Smite or a spell like hex, do you get to reroll any 1 or 2 you roll for the extra damage?"

Official Ruling: "The Great Weapon Fighting feature—which is shared by fighters and paladins—is meant to benefit only the damage roll of the weapon used with the feature. For example, if you use a greatsword with the feature, you can reroll any 1 or 2 you roll on the weapon’s 2d6. If you’re a paladin and use Divine Smite with the greatsword, Great Weapon Fighting doesn’t let you reroll a 1 or 2 that you roll for the damage of Divine Smite."

Reasoning: "The main purpose of this limitation is to prevent the tedium of excessive rerolls. Many of the limits in the game are aimed at inhibiting slowdowns. Having no limit would also leave the door open for Great Weapon Fighting to grant more of a damage boost than we intended, although the potential for that is minimal compared to the likelihood that numerous rerolls would bog the game down."

If you do not want to have this in your game, here is your reason above.

If you do want this in your game, as long as everyone agrees at the table, its fine.

Nothing sucks more than watching someone with a great sword roll a 20 and whiff on damage. Have at it, because my wizard blew through all of his spells and is cowering in the back.

But it does open the door for paladins or rogues to use savage attacker if in melee.

Savage Attacker "Once per turn when you roll damage for a melee weapon attack, you can reroll the weapon's damage dice and use either total."

Great weapon fighting "When you roll a 1 or 2 on a damage die for an attack you make with a melee weapon that you are wielding with two hands, you can reroll the die and must use the new roll"

Do both work with smite? I would think both work, or neither one does?

What is the difference from a melee weapon attack and an attack made with a melee weapon?

This is the reason for Mr Crawford's ruling. A sneak attack made with a dagger, its all piercing. While a smite is say slashing and radiant damage.

Have fun, do as you wish. But the argument can go either way.

[Kryx]

So, my attack does 2d6 (greatsword in two hands) + 1d6 (hunter's mark) + 2d6 (Sneak Attack with a special greatsword which has the Finesse quality) + 6d8 (Smite, 4th level slot, versus undead) = 5d6+6d8+5.
Small correction: 1d8+4 = 5d8. And 5d8 is the maximum anyways
Adding GWF on top of that kind of build could definitely be considered a problem.

7 -> 8.33.
3.5 -> 4.166666
7 -> 8.33
22.5 -> 26.25

1 additive isn't a huge problem, but multiple additives definitely starts making GWF better than other options.

[uraniumrooster]

If you do not want to have this in your game, here is your reason above.

If you do want this in your game, as long as everyone agrees at the table, its fine.

Nothing sucks more than watching someone with a great sword roll a 20 and whiff on damage. Have at it, because my wizard blew through all of his spells and is cowering in the back.

But it does open the door for paladins or rogues to use savage attacker if in melee.

Savage Attacker "Once per turn when you roll damage for a melee weapon attack, you can reroll the weapon's damage dice and use either total."

Great weapon fighting "When you roll a 1 or 2 on a damage die for an attack you make with a melee weapon that you are wielding with two hands, you can reroll the die and must use the new roll"

Do both work with smite? I would think both work, or neither one does?

What is the difference from a melee weapon attack and an attack made with a melee weapon?

This is the reason for Mr Crawford's ruling. A sneak attack made with a dagger, its all piercing. While a smite is say slashing and radiant damage.

Have fun, do as you wish. But the argument can go either way.

The difference I see is actually in the phrase that specifies which dice you can re-roll.

Savage attacker: "Once per turn when you roll damage...you can reroll the weapon's damage dice..."

GWF: "When you roll a 1 or a 2 on a damage die... you can reroll the die..."

Both share similar phrases specifying that the damage must come from a melee weapon attack (and GWF has the further caveat that it must be a 2-handed melee weapon attack), but GWF's phrasing regarding which die you can reroll doesn't specify weapon damage, while Savage Attacker does.

I would also say that, since the language of GWF doesn't specify "once per turn", you can use it any time you roll a 1 or a 2 on a damage die for an attack made with a 2-handed melee weapon, as many times as you want. Meaning, if you roll damage (for an attack made with a 2-handed melee weapon), and roll multiple 1s, you can reroll both of them, and each counts as a separate use of the GWF feature.

Edit: Obviously, that's just looking at the RAW language. I agree with the other posters here... if you don't want it at your table, there's an official ruling against it, so you don't need any more justification than that. If you don't see a problem with it at your table, then let the rerolls roll!

[djreynolds]

I hear you.

a melee weapon attack or an attack made with a melee weapon. Very similar. I'm not a lawyer.

Like I said a rogue's SA damage is the same as the weapons, in terms of slashing, piercing, etc.

A paladin's is weapon and radiant.

I say both work, or neither. I'm guessing this why Mr Crawford says no.

I don't care I'm just dropping a fireball anyhow or shield bashing someone.

[Fighting_Ferret]

My point, again, is that there is an OFFICIAL rule that some people don't agree with... houserule however you want... but... telling everyone that the official rule is wrong, is your opinion, which you are entitled to, argue as you see fit. Sure your DM/table can change/ignore any rules that you want or play any way you like... it is agreed upon by your group.

I've seen several arguments that the damage doesn't improve all that much... if that is the case then why argue for 17 points of damage so fervently? Railing against a ruling that in effect changes nothing/very little. Another argument was that someone rolls a 20 with a greatsword and does pitiful damage... the same logic applies to any weapon... should we allow everyone to reroll 1s and 2s, perhaps on crits only?

If the paladin used as an exapmle crits... they get to double all the dice that were rolled, so thats 11 dice all rolled twice(22), that can reroll 1s and 2's... hmm given the whole .75 per die(.56 for the d6s)... well that's 14 points of damage increase on average... in one hit, not all day... the more dice you roll the more valuable GWF becomes, if you can reroll all the dice some of the time.

Archery and Dueling don't have the same problem... dueling increases you damage by 2 per hit, but is limited by the number of hits... the most damage that could be garnered out of dueling in 1 round is 20, and that is by a level 20 fighter, that managed to hit all 10 attacks that they are capable of making with certain weapon configurations... 2x a day. Archery helps with the hit, and by itself keeps ranged weapons viable and doesn't do anything to add bonus damage (except with sharpshooter feat).

I'm not arguing for the extra rerolls or to remove them... I've stated before I don't care... my argument is in the fact that there is an official ruling, and for whatever reasons someone has, they ignore it, say it doesn't exist, is wrong, whatever... it exists...you might not like it, hell you may not USE it, but it is there, it is official, and when people are asking for advise on how something works... it should probably be the defacto answer.

[Arial Black]

If you do not want to have this in your game, here is your reason above.

If you do want this in your game, as long as everyone agrees at the table, its fine.

Nothing sucks more than watching someone with a great sword roll a 20 and whiff on damage. Have at it, because my wizard blew through all of his spells and is cowering in the back.

But it does open the door for paladins or rogues to use savage attacker if in melee.

Savage Attacker "Once per turn when you roll damage for a melee weapon attack, you can reroll the weapon's damage dice and use either total."

Great weapon fighting "When you roll a 1 or 2 on a damage die for an attack you make with a melee weapon that you are wielding with two hands, you can reroll the die and must use the new roll"

Do both work with smite? I would think both work, or neither one does?

What is the difference from a melee weapon attack and an attack made with a melee weapon?

This is the reason for Mr Crawford's ruling. A sneak attack made with a dagger, its all piercing. While a smite is say slashing and radiant damage.

Have fun, do as you wish. But the argument can go either way.

The difference is not the 'melee weapon attack/attack with a melee weapon' part in this case.

The difference is that Savage Attacker specifies 'the weapons's damage dice' while GWF specifies 'a damage die for an attack'.

[Arial Black]

Small correction: 1d8+4 = 5d8. And 5d8 is the maximum anyways

I did specify an undead target.

Divine Smite does 1d8, plus 1d8 per slot level (max lvl 4), plus 1d8 if the target is undead, which equals six d8.

[Kryx]

Ah, missed that.

Either way the overarching message is the same:

1 additive isn't a huge problem, but multiple additives definitely starts making GWF better than other options.

[Firechanter]

1 additive isn't a huge problem, but multiple additives definitely starts making GWF better than other options.

Better for dealing damage, yes. As it should be. That's exactly what GWF is supposed to do and there's nothing wrong with that. For that, you are sacrificing 2-5 points of AC, depending on level and playstyle. In 5E, that's huge -- in the extreme, it can be the difference between getting hit on a 16-20 or only on a 20.

If we assume a moderate number, like +3 AC, and compare that to typical monster Attack values, the ratio of damage dealt/taken is in fact favourable for the Dueler:
Monster To Hit: +7
Sample GWF AC: 19
Sample Dueler AC: 22
That means that the GWFer will be hit by 45% of attacks and the Dueler just by 30% of attacks. In other words, the GWFer takes almost 50% more damage than the Dueler; not considering the very real possibility that the GWFer will be a primary target and thus draw more attacks than the Dueler.

[Foxhound438]

Savage Attacker "Once per turn when you roll damage for a melee weapon attack, you can reroll the weapon's damage dice and use either total."

Great weapon fighting "When you roll a 1 or 2 on a damage die for an attack you make with a melee weapon that you are wielding with two hands, you can reroll the die and must use the new roll"



this kind of speaks for itself. Red added by me.

[Foxhound438]

Small correction: 1d8+4 = 5d8. And 5d8 is the maximum anyways
Adding GWF on top of that kind of build could definitely be considered a problem.

7 -> 8.33.
3.5 -> 4.166666
7 -> 8.33
22.5 -> 26.25

1 additive isn't a huge problem, but multiple additives definitely starts making GWF better than other options.

how is less than 4 damage a huge problem, especially when you blow a 4th level spell slot to get there?

[KorvinStarmast]

I sure would! Using a neutral resource is certainly a much better idea than yelling at each other until one side backs down. That is pretty much entirely why mediation exists in the first place. People who yell at me when I DM are gone.
It's really that simple.
There are a lot of reasons for that, but we do this stuff for fun.
Yelling contests?
No, not fun, and I for one don't need that kind of aggravation.

[LordVonDerp]

This is the reason for Mr Crawford's ruling. A sneak attack made with a dagger, its all piercing. While a smite is say slashing and radiant damage.



A flaming great sword does slashing and fire, yet you still get to reroll all the dice.

[Drackolus]

The argument could go either way, and sage advice's main point of bogging down play is silly. I suppose that, with 2d6, you won't get a 1 every swing, but it happens more often if you add more dice, especially elemental weapon. But how much time does it take to reroll 1-2? 1 second to see, 1 to pick up, and 2 to roll? I don't think it's a problem, especially when casting a spell pretty much always takes way more time than that. And it shouldn't crowd out options. Of course, if I'm a draconic palasorc with gfb and searing smite, that becomes a huge amount of damage for one slot. Still, for what it's worth, I side with "it feels great and doesn't break anything."

[Saggo]

how is less than 4 damage a huge problem, especially when you blow a 4th level spell slot to get there?

Be careful when undervaluing small numbers. 26.25 is 17% more damage than 22.5. That's a lot, especially this edition.

[Serket]

When I first saw the notion that it might be used on Smites and things I thought that was silly. I still do, but "silly" isn't the important thing.

Having done the arithmetic, I'm convinced that if it couldn't be used on those, or if the character couldn't take some effect like a smite, then it would be a pointless option.

And the RAW supported the idea, drawing no distinction and all.

So now I think I have less respect for Sage Advice. :smallfrown:

Conclusion: do as you will, but if you're going to say "no" after somebody built a character assuming "yes" (because that's what the rulebook says), you really ought to offer them a rebuild.

[Kryx]

Be careful when undervaluing small numbers. 26.25 is 17% more damage than 22.5. That's a lot, especially this edition.
Exactly.

And it's not less than 4. It's 1.33+0.666666+1.33+3.75 = 7.0766666.

Quick & dirty math:
7 + 3.5 + 7 + 22.5 = 40 * .65 = 26 DPR
8.33 + 4.166666 + 8.33 + 26.25 = 47.0766666 * .65 = 30.6 DPR.

30.6/26 = 117%. Or a 17% DPR increase for a fighting style.

And that's ignoring all the class features - things like improved divine smite, normal divine smite, etc. Topple all of those on and it's more.


The RAW valuation of a fighting style is around 5-12%. This is true for Dueling vs Def and GWF vs Def.

[Firechanter]

*points to AC calculations again*

Dueling gives a better than 17% break in Damage Taken compared to GWF, even after factoring in that fights take more rounds.

[Xetheral]

I've seen several arguments that the damage doesn't improve all that much... if that is the case then why argue for 17 points of damage so fervently? Railing against a ruling that in effect changes nothing/very little.

Because that 17 damage represents a huge fraction of the value provided by GWF as its written in the book. Accordingly, it disproportionately affects the value of selecting GWF as a fighting style.

People aren't arguing that without the 17 damage they won't do enough damage in total. They're arguing that without that 17 damage there isn't any reason to pick the feature in the first place. Accordingly, it is perfectly consistent to simultaneously argue that the 17 damage isn't that much and also that it is necessary.


If the paladin used as an exapmle crits... they get to double all the dice that were rolled, so thats 11 dice all rolled twice(22), that can reroll 1s and 2's... hmm given the whole .75 per die(.56 for the d6s)... well that's 14 points of damage increase on average... in one hit, not all day... the more dice you roll the more valuable GWF becomes, if you can reroll all the dice some of the time.

The 11-dice single attack example was a fringe edge-case (a rogue/paladin build, using concentration, using a homebrewed weapon, versus an undead target), even before you added in the stipulation that it crit.

[Foxhound438]

And it's not less than 4. It's 1.33+0.666666+1.33+3.75 = 7.0766666.


the change in damage from applying fs to smite is 5*0.75. 3.75.

[Saggo]

*points to AC calculations again*

Dueling gives a better than 17% break in Damage Taken compared to GWF, even after factoring in that fights take more rounds.

That's a comparison of builds, not a comparison of Fighting Styles. Sword & Board takes less damage than a 2-hander regardless of Fighting Style. A valid comparison of Styles across builds will only compare the effects before and after the style is applied, i.e 20 AC vs 21 AC (Plate, Shield vs Plate, Shield, Defense) and 18 AC vs 19 AC (Plate vs Plate, Defense), or DPR before Duelist vs DPR after and DPR before GWF vs DPR after, etc.

The other valid comparison will keep the same weapon, armor, and classes and only change the Style, i.e. Great Sword, Plate, Paladin with GWF vs Defense, or Long Sword, Plate, Shield, Paladin with Duelist vs Defense, etc.

[Firechanter]

That doesn't make any sense at all. oÔ There are two Fighting Styles, one allowing you to use a shield and one... not. Just comparing DPR and ignoring everything else is pointless, and if you do it to "prove" one style is too powerful it's actually dishonest.

[Saggo]

That doesn't make any sense at all. oÔ There are two Fighting Styles, one allowing you to use a shield and one... not. Just comparing DPR and ignoring everything else is pointless, and if you do it to "prove" one style is too powerful it's actually dishonest.

Sword & Board takes less damage than a 2-hander regardless of Fighting Style. There are also multiple styles that work with multiple weapons and/or shields. Comparing the AC of S&B+Duelist/Defense vs GS+GWF tells us nothing of how the styles improved those builds.

[Firechanter]

Yes it does!
Look at an entire sample combat. For simplicity's sake, a duel between various PCs and a typical monster. Look at how much damage is dealt and taken, how long the fight will last, and how many HP each PC retains once the monster is dead. You can totally see a difference.

[Ketiara]

I've managed to clean most of it up, but our paladin is having trouble...not cheating.


One important note is that It doesnt sound like your paladin is cheating, he has read the rules one way, or at least read them different than you.

If you decide to allow him to continue to reroll divine smite, and reroll every 1's and 2's (though only each dice once) then let him keep his setup.

If you rule that its only the 2d6 that can be rerolled, then I would allow him to change his build.

[Lollerabe]

You didn't read the issue at hand then.

The paladin in his party is using a shield while using his hammer versatile (1d10) in one hand AND using GWF rerolls AND using GWM.

Though the GWM cleave would work with a one handed weapon the rest is blatantly cheating.

[djreynolds]

Play the games as you want.

We play at our table only weapons, nothing else benefits from GWF per Mr. Crawford, I though it was a tweet but it might have been in an errata.

But we used to play that divine smite worked with GWF.

Just as long as your table agrees it is fine, and just know some tables will not and thus Mr. Crawford's ruling supports that.

Is it a big deal, it could change 1's to 8's. Or change 2's to 1's.

That's really it, so my advice is before showing up at an Adventurer's League game, ask on that particular table's ruling on GWF and smite and cantrips, etc.

[Firechanter]

Here are some numbers for very simple baseline cases, comparing 2 PCs at level 9, each with 2 rare MIs. One be a Flame Tongue Longsword/Greatsword (so we can look at reroll effects right away), the other a +1 Plate for the GWFer and a +2 Shield for the Dueler. Assuming Str 20 for each.
Oh and we should look at a lower-CRed monster so we can justify ignoring Long Rest resources. Let's assume a generic CR6 as per DMG. So the cornerstone stats are:

GWF: 2x Attack +9, Dmg 4d6+5 (avg 21,6), AC 19, HP 76
Duel: 2x Attack +9, Dmg 1d8+2d6+7 (avg 18,5), AC 22, HP 76
Nerf-GWF would be Dmg 2d6(R)+2d6(NR)+5 = 20,3 -- a measly 1,8 pts better than the Dueler

Monster: Attack +6, Dmg 40, AC 15, HP 150

--> Hit Chance PCs 75%; Monster vs GWF 40%, Monster vs Dueler 25%
---> Monster DPR: 16 vs GWF; 10 vs Dueler
--> PC DPR: GWF 30,24; Dueler 25,9
[ignoring crits to keep things simple]

Let's also assume that the PCs win Initiative and therefore don't take damage in the round they kill the monster. Assuming statistical rolls.

Therefore:
It takes the GWFer 5 rounds to kill the monster. He takes 64dmg, and comes out of the fight with 12HP.
It takes the Dueler 6 rounds to kill the monster. He takes 50dmg, and comes out of the fight with 26HP.

Note that if the GWFer didn't win Ini, he'd _lose_ the fight unless he had some extra resources to butter in.
Also, if he didn't get RAW rerolls, he'd statistically take one round longer - a round he doesn't have because he runs out of HP. So he loses, monster wins.

In practice, both PCs would be able to shorten the fight by expending resources; such as Action Surge for the Fighter (-1 round each) or Smiting or whatever. But the overall picture remains the same: the Dueler may need a bit longer, but will still come out ahead with more HP remaining in the end.

You can also rerun the fight with various amounts of resources spent. For instance, if both PCs had a Shield of Faith, the GWFer would take just 48 damage, and the Dueler just 30 damage over the fight. Also note that this setup _already_ is skewed in favour of the GWFer because he can benefit from extra damage rerolls every round, not just when expending resources. With any weapon without bonus dice, it would look even worse for the GWFer.

Conclusion:
Even _with_ full rerolls, GWF is noticeably inferior to Dueling against opponents that target AC.
With nerfed GWF, the fighting style becomes entirely unattractive.

[djreynolds]

Does this include smite damage?

And the rerolls of smite damage?

Otherwise excellent work.

And I'm sure shield master could make the skew even bigger.

[Firechanter]

No, this doesn't include any resources so far.
If you factor in Smite damage, the important thing to note is that it doesn't get multiplied by Hit chance, since you only call it after you connect. Ideally, you do so when you score a Crit, which this model also doesn't factor in at this point.

Assuming you channel a Level 2 Smite on a Crit, or 2 level 2 Smites on regular hits, the GWFer adds 31,5dmg and the Dueler adds 27dmg. So that would reduce the combat duration by one round each, but not two rounds. However, a Crit also adds another 4d6 of damage, so another +14 or +16,6 respectively. _Might_ be just enough for the GWFer to shave off another round.
A level 3 Smite would be unwise in this situation -- instead, use the slot for Haste if you have it - which will speed up the fight and reduce your damage taken per round -- or use Aura of Vitality to recharge your HP to 100%. This is assuming that our PC has Resilient (Con) and doesn't lose Concentration.

It also doesn't account for GWM, but I just ran the numbers: in this setup, GWM isn't worth it and will actually lower your output unless you get Advantage. Conversely, Shield Master certainly would help by providing advantage at least on some attacks, and you lose absolutely nothing if it doesn't work.

[Kryx]

Conclusion:
Even _with_ full rerolls, GWF is noticeably inferior to Dueling against opponents that target AC.
With nerfed GWF, the fighting style becomes entirely unattractive.
Now compare Dueling or fully buffed GWF vs TWF to see the unbalance.

The issue here is Dueling, not GWF.


Side note: By my numbers of exact same builds using resources for Paladin with buffed GWF was worth 17% while dueling was worth 12% more DPR. For Fighter Dueling was 20 and GWF was less - I forget exactly how much.

[Firechanter]

Either way, if Dueling is too strong, nerfing GWF is counterproductive, n'est-ce pas?

[Saggo]

Therefore:
It takes the GWFer 5 rounds to kill the monster. He takes 64dmg, and comes out of the fight with 12HP.
It takes the Dueler 6 rounds to kill the monster. He takes 50dmg, and comes out of the fight with 26HP.
Well, again, that doesn't tell us anything about much the Fighting Style improved the builds. It only tells us that a 2-Hander build kills faster and a Sword & Shield build takes less damage, with no way to measure how much of that results were affected by the weapons and armors and how much by the style itself.

If you had run the sample combat both and without GWF and Duelist and compared the resulting differences, then that would tell us how much the styles improved the lethality and survivability of each build. But as it currently stands you're comparing full builds, not the styles. It would make your conclusions stronger.

[Fighting_Ferret]

I agree with dueling being nerfed, as it shouldn't be able to benefit from the shield in the other hand. Then the other options fall into place, but it is also an official rule and would have to be house-ruled to work that way.

[Firechanter]

Nah, that won't work either. If the off-hand had to be empty, there'd be no reason to take _that_.

[Fighting_Ferret]

Damage... GWF is for strength based damage... Dueling is for dexterity based damage...

[Firechanter]

That's simply not what it's intended for. Dueling is _made_ for Sword&Board.
And I'm pretty sure TWF yields more damage than Dueling with a finesse weapon.

[coredump]

I think people are missing some of the reasoning for why GWF was meant to be 'only' weapon dice.

Great weapons already tend to do a lot of damage and have access to even better damage dealing feats. Its not just a matter of comparing percentages, its a matter of total hit points.

Look at Tavern Brawler, it lets you go from 1 hp of damage to 1D4, thats a **250%** increase (on average)
Heck, even with a 14 Str its a **50%** increase in damage. For those of you obsessing about percentages, that should make Tavern Brawler one of the best feats in the book.

But its not.

Because while going from 1 to 2.5 gives an impressive % change.... it still takes forever to do a decent amount of damage.

Yes, Dueling gives a pretty good boost to damage percentage-wise.... but largely because you were not doing all that much to begin with. In comparison, the guy with a GS using GWM and/or PAM is doing a lot of damage, and so increasing that even further *should* be harder. (Yes, Shield Master will help, but not as much)

Its like point buy, going from 13-14 costs 2 points. For the same 2 points, you can go from 10-12. *100%* more improvement!

This edition has worked pretty darn hard to make sure you can't 'stack' your way to an over powered character.... this is just one more way. Great Weapons already get some ways to greatly boost damage..... they did't want to 'stack' even more on top of that.

[Fighting_Ferret]

Looking at average numbers with just the fighting styles... I'd agree with you. Without riders and just weapon damage... the styles are where they should be.

So if the styles are balanced with anywhere from 1 to 4 attacks, what then is knocking them out of balance?

[coredump]

Here are some numbers for very simple baseline cases, comparing 2 PCs at level 9, each with 2 rare MIs. One be a Flame Tongue Longsword/Greatsword (so we can look at reroll effects right away), the .

You have (I believe unintentionally) skewed the comparison.

The *reason* GWF gives less damage is because Great Weapon fighters already do so much more damage than S/Sh fighters.
In your example, you A) ignored GWM and PAM and B) gave them both +2D6 weapons which greatly mitigates the inherent advantage Great Weapon fighters have (Their much higher damage output)

Try it again, but this time use GWM and SM, and give each a +2 weapon instead of a Flame Tongue.... you will get very different results.

[Firechanter]

Yes, I intentionally skewed the experiment in favour of GWF, because this thread is not about GWM, and not about PAM, but about rerolling bonus dice. I have shown that GWF is not overpowered even if you get rerollable bonus dice on every single attack. GWM is irrelevant in this context.

And for that matter, it is also irrelevant what the results would be without fighting styles. If you want to calculate them, by all means, go ahead, it's not rocket science. I say we are comparing classes that _get_ Fighting styles and therefore only need to find out if any of these is more powerful than the others.

[Fighting_Ferret]

Math, assuming +3 from relevant ability modifier and a non-magical weapon with no further damage coming from any other source and the listed weapon style listed (no feats)

Fighting Style| Damage Die of Weapon | Number of Attacks| Average Damage per Round (assuming everything hits)
1 Attack
TWF | d6 | 1 | 13 - 2*(1d6+3) *uses bonus action*
GWF | d6 | 2 | 11.3 - 2d6+3+1.3
GWF | d10 | 1 | 9.8 - 1d10+3+1.3
Dueling | d8 | 1| 9.5 - 1d8+2+3
Archery |d8 | 1 | 7.5 - 1d8+3
Archery |d10 | 1 | 8.5 - 1d10+3
None | d8 | 1 | 7.5 - 1d8+3
None | d6 | 1 | 6.5 - 1d6+3

OK math can be followed hopefully, so here are the numbers only for the next 3 attacks
TWF|19.5|26|32.5
GWF|22.6|33.9|45.2
GWF|19.6|29.4|39.2
Duel|19|28.5|38
Arcb|15|22.5|30
Arcx|17|25.5|34 *cannot actually fire multiple times w/o a feat*
Non8|7.5|15|22.5|30
Non6|6.5|13|19.5|26

Dueling, given that dueling is a match for two weapon fighting, it makes sense to me to limit the shield.
GWF seems to be the best damage regardless of weapon use, with the greatsword and maul really shining.
Two Weapon Fighting is already hamstrung by burning your bonus action every turn, if you want the extra attack.
Archery with a +2 to hit is fine.
Defense getting AC over Damage is fine.

Base Damage being 7.5 per attack, meaning every single weapon style, other than protection, gives the user an advantage over the non-weapon style classes.

[Firechanter]

I don't get that leap you're doing with "next 3 attacks". TWF needs a lot less time to deliver three attacks. At low levels, 1,5 rounds instead of 3 rounds. After level 5, 1 round instead of 1.5 rounds. But at higher levels, the static bonuses will get higher.

Alright, alright, I'll run the numbers again for level 9, this time Str or Dex 18, no feats, and again 2 rare items: +2 weapons, +2 shield, +1 armour, as it makes most sense (so two +2 weapons for TWF).

Attack +10
GWF: 2x 2d6+6 = 28,6
Duel: 2x 1d8+8 = 25
TWF: 3x 1d6+6 = 28,5 (uses Bonus action)

Again, the problem is that the damage is reasonably close together, but the AC varies wildly:
GWF AC19
Duel AC22
TWF AC16 (Studded Leather) or AC17 (Half Plate) or AC18 (Plate)

So yeah, I agree, TWF sucks, even before dominant strategies like PAM come into play. No better damage than GWF, but higher action cost and lower AC. That's just a bad deal. If we were to plug in these values into a duel vs a single monster as demonstrated above, the TWFer would logically come out even worse than the GWFer. Well, nothing new here.

Defense style is a bit tricker to evaluate because it can be used with Heavy weapons as well as S&B. Personally I believe in maximizing strengths, so I'd probably use Defense with S&B for maximum AC.
Oh and I didn't take Archery into account; well that would require us to compare actual DPR vs a certain AC again. I cba to do that now, but it's not really difficult.

[Giant2005]

Alright, alright, I'll run the numbers again for level 9, this time Str or Dex 18, no feats, and again 2 rare items

You are better off going with a single, uncommon magic item - that is what someone of that level should have in a high magic campaign at that level (DMG page 38).

[Firechanter]

No. This is what someone who _starts_ play at this level should get. (Actually, wasn't it 2 Uncommons? Not that it matters.)
If the party finds as many treasure hoards as recommended in the DMG, each character should have more and better equipment.
I chose 2 rares because that allows us to compare characters with equally valuable, useful gear.

[Giant2005]

I chose 2 rares because that allows us to compare characters with equally valuable, useful gear.

From an outside perspective, it looks like you chose two rares because you wanted to exploit a quirk of the system (somehow considering the +1 AC from armor is equal to +2 AC from a shield) in order to make the GWF user seem more disadvantaged.

[Firechanter]

Au contraire. It's called the smallest common denominator.
It's not my fault that magic armour is rarer than anything. Being Uncommon, +1 Shields drop pretty easily (we found several of them just by random drops) whereas it's impossible to improve a GWFer's AC without at least a Rare item. But if I'd given the Dueler a +1 Shield and nothing to the GWFer, people would complain just the same.

[djreynolds]

Because the language of 5E is sometimes vague, you can interpret these rules as you see fit.

Play the game as you see fit.

I do not know really how powerful S&B is vs GWF or vs TWF because the game is very team dependent. If you have a barbarian in your party soaking up vast amounts of damage or granting you advantage, GWF is going to be very powerful. If you have a rogue in melee with you, S&B is very powerful.

The difference for me is a fighter is more team dependent than a paladin is.

The paladin is powerful really no matter what style he/she selects and IMO is the best tank/striker available with or without feats as smiting and spells and class features can enhance you.

[Giant2005]

Au contraire. It's called the smallest common denominator.

But it's not the smallest common denominator. The smallest common denominator would be giving them both the same stuff- rather than take the obvious route (that makes a better standard of testing due to less erroneous variables) of giving them both +1 armors; you instead chose to add in a completely unrelated factor.
Considering that you already rejected the idea of including an unrelated factor that benefits the GWF (polearm fighter), it seems very telling that you chose to include an unrelated factor that benefits the duelist (access to a more beneficial magical item).
More than that though, adding that unnecessary X-factor obscures things to the point where comparisons are far less meaningful. The duelist might walk around with more AC, but the GWF guy has +1 to all of his saves due to his cloak/ring of protection (yes if you want to give the duelist a stronger-than-baseline magic item, the GWF guy gets one too). A strong argument could be made for +1 to all of your saves being far more valuable than +3 to your AC. Then again, we aren't really talking about the fighting styles at all - we are talking about magic items (the variable that you seem insistent is included).

[Firechanter]

I know that these forums tend to make comparisons at "level 20, no magic items", but this is simply not reflective of the game as it actually experienced at the tables. All I try to do is create a testbed that is at least close to what you might see in actual play.
'sides, you can very easily take my first model and plug in numbers without - or fewer - MIs. Then Dueling's AC advantage would shrink to 2 points. I still am convinced that this does not reflect actual play, but for the sake of the argument:

Monster (Attack +6) Hit chance 45% vs GWF (AC18), 35% vs Dueling (AC20);
Monster Damage - what did we say? - 40 per round?
--> GWFer takes 18dmg, Dueler takes 14dmg per round.

So the GWFer takes ~28% more damage, while dishing out only ~17% more than the Dueler. It's a pyrrhic victory, if not a losing battle.


A strong argument could be made for +1 to all of your saves being far more valuable than +3 to your AC.

That may well be so. Honestly I simply didn't think about Rings/Cloaks of Protection. Yes they are very nice, if you can spare the attunement slot, and generally make more sense than a +1 Armour (unless you go up against icky mobs like rust monsters or black puddings).
But that doesn't affect the conclusion of my previous model, in which I stated that GWF is strictly inferior against opponents that _target AC_. Indeed things may look differently if you go up against enemies that target saves -- then of course AC is irrelevant, and more damage = shorter fights = less risk of botching your saves = better.
In an ideal world, they are balanced.

[Zalabim]

The RAI are perfectly clear from Sage Advice. The RAW has critical hits:
"When you score a critical hit, you get to roll extra dice for the attack's damage against the target. Roll all of the attack's damage dice twice and add them together. Then add any relevant modifiers as normal. To speed up play, you can roll all the damage dice at once.
For example, if you score a critical hit with a dagger, roll 2d4 for the damage, rather than 1d4, and then add your relevant ability modifier. If the attack involves other damage dice, such as from the rogue's Sneak Attack feature, you roll those dice twice as well."

To be compared with the GWF-style:
"When you roll a 1 or 2 on a damage die for an attack you make with a melee weapon that you are wielding with two hands, you can reroll the die and must use the new roll, even if the new roll is a 1 or a 2. The weapon must have the two-handed or versatile property for you to gain its benefit."

So there's support for the RAI that you only double the other damage dice on a critical hit because it explicitly says you do.


So, my attack does 2d6 (greatsword in two hands) + 1d6 (hunter's mark) + 2d6 (Sneak Attack with a special greatsword which has the Finesse quality) + 6d8 (Smite, 4th level slot, versus undead) = 5d6+6d8+5.

Meanwhile, ruling that only the specific weapon dice can be rerolled requires you to know which specific dice belong to the greatsword. This is done by either rolling separately or by having different colour dice, EITHER of which is more complex/time-consuming than the other way, so JC's first objection doesn't make sense.

You already need to know which damage is from which source when they have different types and conditions attached. If you're rolling 2d20 and 5d6+6d8 it helps to know which is the main attack die and which one is advantage/disadvantage, which is the weapon damage type and which is sneak attack's conditional damage, and which of the d8's is radiant and which is thunder or fire. In case the attack gets redirected, it'd help to know which is the Hunter's Mark damage that's target specific. It's really just one more case where you need to be able to differentiate dice, rather than the only case.



Exactly.

And it's not less than 4. It's 1.33+0.666666+1.33+3.75 = 7.0766666.

Quick & dirty math:
7 + 3.5 + 7 + 22.5 = 40 * .65 = 26 DPR
8.33 + 4.166666 + 8.33 + 26.25 = 47.0766666 * .65 = 30.6 DPR.

30.6/26 = 117%. Or a 17% DPR increase for a fighting style.

And that's ignoring all the class features - things like improved divine smite, normal divine smite, etc. Topple all of those on and it's more.

The RAW valuation of a fighting style is around 5-12%. This is true for Dueling vs Def and GWF vs Def.

Compared with dueling/not dueling, which is
4.5+3.5+7+22.5=37.5 * .65 = 24.375
4.5+2+3.5+7+22.5=39.5 *.65 = 25.675
To use similarly quick and dirty numbers.

With RAI, the gap between TH and OH styles for a paladin shrinks with the fighting styles, as it does for fighters. This is too obvious of a result to be accidental.

With GWF-rerolling smite damage dice, the gap between TH and OH styles for a paladin can grow with the fighting styles. It would also close some of the potential gap between GWF fighter and GWF paladin damage, meaning the fighting style would be better for the hybrid class than for the primary source class. These both look like unwanted results even if the absolute damage doesn't reach game-breaking levels.


Yes it does!
Look at an entire sample combat. For simplicity's sake, a duel between various PCs and a typical monster. Look at how much damage is dealt and taken, how long the fight will last, and how many HP each PC retains once the monster is dead. You can totally see a difference.

In the case of a one on one duel, the S&B, or defensive, style needs to be better, because the game isn't always one on one duels. The defensive option has to be better because players more often tend towards the offensive options in the first place and because a fighter or paladin can plan to use their weapon every turn but can not plan to use their AC every turn.

[Firechanter]

Hardly anybody can plan on using anything every turn. If you ever had a bunch of goblins attacking a village, you'll know how easily any melee character is reduced to nigh-uselessness.

[Arial Black]

You already need to know which damage is from which source when they have different types and conditions attached. If you're rolling 2d20 and 5d6+6d8 it helps to know which is the main attack die and which one is advantage/disadvantage

Why do you need to know which d20 is the 'real' one and which the 'advantage/disadvantage' one? This is not the rule. When you have adv/disadv, you roll 2d20 and choose the highest/lowest. Neither d20 is the 'real' d20 or 'adv/disadv' d20. RAW, you cannot first roll the d20, and then after seeing what it rolled decide to use your Inspiration to give yourself adv and roll a second d20. You must decide to use your inspiration before you roll the d20 at all. You then just roll 2d20 and choose the highest; those two d20s are identical.


which is the weapon damage type and which is sneak attack's conditional damage, and which of the d8's is radiant and which is thunder or fire. In case the attack gets redirected, it'd help to know which is the Hunter's Mark damage that's target specific.

It's true that some targets take more or less damage from particular damage types, but why do you need to know which d6 belonged to hunter's mark? If an affect redirects damage, it loses however many hit points the original target would take. Do you know of an effect where you need to know the hunter's mark d6 (which is specified as weapon damage) because of a change of target after the damage has already been rolled?

[Zalabim]

Some people roll their whole attack at the same time, rather than declare attack, wait for reactions, roll attack dice, wait for reactions, roll damage dice, wait for reactions. It's to save time, but it does require you to know which die is the main attack die and which one is only counted if there's (dis)advantage, and which damage die is for which source, rarely, and which die is from which type more often.

[djreynolds]

Some of you may recognize me from my previous posts about the trainwreck of a D&D campaign I'm a part of. I've managed to clean most of it up, but our paladin is having trouble...not cheating.

One thing that has been brought to question is the interaction between the fighting style Great Weapon Fighting [When you roll a 1 or 2 on a damage die for an attack you make with a melee weapon that you are wielding with two hands, you can reroll the die and must use the new roll. The weapon must have the two-handed or versatile property for you to gain this benefit] and the Paladin ability Divine Smite [Starting at 2nd level, when you hit a creature with a melee weapon attack, you can expend one spell slot to deal radiant damage to the target, in addition to the weapon's damage. The extra damage is 2d8 for a 1st level spell slot, plus 1d8 for each spell slot higher than 1st, to a maximum of 5d8]

First part of the question: Does GWF allow you to reroll 1's and 2's on Divine Smite damage
Second part: Can you reroll ALL 1's or 2's or just one die?

I've seen this question posed on several other forums and discussions but no clear cut answer as to yes or no.

I hope everyone has answered your question. RAW as written are vague on this.

Mr. Crawford's ruling says no, and its okay and keeps it fair for other classes, most notably the fighter, who has nothing else to re-roll other than his sword. And stops people from asking about savage attacker, hunter's mark, sneak attack, etc because you have opened the door for the discussion.

I don't really care otherwise at early level, mainly because a paladin has very few spell slots with which to cast smites with and have up and running spells such as bless or shield of faith and realistically are not grabbing feats as they are just trying to max out strength and charisma. While the fighter has a maxed strength at 6th level, and has 2 combat feats by 12 level.

The problem may come up at 8th to 12th level on when strength is maxed and the casting of bless to increase the chance to hit is no longer needed as much and magic weapons are more than likely available to the players.

As people have said you are only re-rolling the 1's and 2's and the average damage regained is 17% extra. So it may become a problem when the paladin has access to 3rd, 4th level spell slots.

Really, this is about other players getting jealous because of the paladin. In fact, until Mr Crawford's tweet, we played GWF and the smite together. Was it powerful? Yes. But the paladin could only do a few times in the fight, and now he has no shield and no shield of faith to augment his defense.

If you are playing with 1 long rest a day and 2-3 short rests and plenty of encounters, GWF and smite is not an issue. If you are playing 1-2 battles a day and then long resting, than its big deal as everyone will play a paladin.

[Arial Black]

Some people roll their whole attack at the same time, rather than declare attack, wait for reactions, roll attack dice, wait for reactions, roll damage dice, wait for reactions. It's to save time, but it does require you to know which die is the main attack die and which one is only counted if there's (dis)advantage, and which damage die is for which source, rarely, and which die is from which type more often.

I'm not quite wrapping my head around this.

Are you saying that you, in a single roll, roll 2d20 to attack AND all damage dice that may or may not apply, and then work out if you had adv/disadv later? And then adjudicate which damage dice apply and which don't apply later too?

How is this easier than knowing what dice to roll before you roll them, so you roll the correct number of dice in the first place?

How does your way prevent the foreknowledge of the result of those 2d20 from affecting your decision whether or not to burn your Inspiration on that roll?

[Zalabim]

I'm not quite wrapping my head around this.

Are you saying that you, in a single roll, roll 2d20 to attack AND all damage dice that may or may not apply, and then work out if you had adv/disadv later? And then adjudicate which damage dice apply and which don't apply later too?

Personally, I roll dice that are linked to a once-per-turn or resource expenditure effect separately, but I've seen others roll them all together for things like a TWF rogue's sneak attack that'll get used at the first opportunity.


How is this easier than knowing what dice to roll before you roll them, so you roll the correct number of dice in the first place?

It's faster than waiting for an answer. When you're already rolling through a program, I've found it easier to always roll the (dis)advantage die rather than decide separately for each roll.


How does your way prevent the foreknowledge of the result of those 2d20 from affecting your decision whether or not to burn your Inspiration on that roll?

It doesn't. If I want to use Inspiration, I know that before I roll. This is just to cut out waiting for anything the DM might interject with.

[Fighting_Ferret]

Really, this is about other players getting jealous because of the paladin. In fact, until Mr Crawford's tweet, we played GWF and the smite together. Was it powerful? Yes. But the paladin could only do a few times in the fight, and now he has no shield and no shield of faith to augment his defense.

If you are playing with 1 long rest a day and 2-3 short rests and plenty of encounters, GWF and smite is not an issue. If you are playing 1-2 battles a day and then long resting, than its big deal as everyone will play a paladin.


It isn't about jealousy... its about balance. The same issue you bring up here with the paladin's spell casting. He has to chose how to use his limited spell slots. Which also brings up another mechanical alignment... the warlock 2 dip, which allows the paladin to overcome this limited spell usage, by granting them 2 level 1 slots, which recharge on short rests, 2 invocations and a d12 at will ranged damage that is the least resisted damage type in the game [force]., which also scales with overall levels.

[vostyg]

Not sure what there is to discuss. Jeremy Crawford has told us how these two abilities are supposed to interact. Everything else is just sophistry and prevarication from players who aren't happy that their paladin characters got hit with the nerfbat. Paladins most certainly do not have a balance issue! It is one of the most powerful and versatile classes in the game and the ruling on Divine Smite doesn't change that.

[Professor Gnoll]

Not sure what there is to discuss. Jeremy Crawford has told us how these two abilities are supposed to interact. Everything else is just sophistry and prevarication from players who aren't happy that their paladin characters got hit with the nerfbat. Paladins most certainly do not have a balance issue! It is one of the most powerful and versatile classes in the game and the ruling on Divine Smite doesn't change that.
The thing is, not everyone takes Sage Advice as the be-all and end-all. In fact, a lot of people have a lot of resentment towards it in general.

[Serket]

And I'm pretty sure TWF yields more damage than Dueling with a finesse weapon.

It's situational. Depends how many attacks you have, and whether you can spend a bonus action.


I think people are missing some of the reasoning for why GWF was meant to be 'only' weapon dice.

I think the main problem with it being only weapon dice is that you have a choice. You can have +0.8 damage per swing* on a build that already has significant damage per swing, or you can have +1 AC. It doesn't seem like a hard choice to me. If I were building a GWF fighter I wouldn't bother with it, and if it's only on weapon dice I'm basically never taking it on any build. Which is not great design.

*from a D10 weapon. It's +(n-2)/n for each dice with n sides, so it could go up to 1.3(rec) for a 2d6 weapon. Woo.

Musing though, I suppose this is a good thing for me. I mean, if GWF no longer works for paladins, then it might actually get fixed, and then the fighters I'm more likely to play might actually use it.

[vostyg]

The thing is, not everyone takes Sage Advice as the be-all and end-all. In fact, a lot of people have a lot of resentment towards it in general.

With all due respect, that's just silly. Sage Advice provides rules clarifications from the guys who created the rules. They obviously could not predict which rules would be completely misinterpreted by players ahead of time. Sage Advice gives them a vehicle to correct the common misconceptions that arise in the community with respect to the rules of the game. Sure, you can choose to ignore them. Heck, you can choose to ignore anything about the rules if you don't like it. The rules are not poetry, however, and there is plenty of value to be derived from understanding the authors' intent. It carries weight because it represents the baseline from which all other things follow, including house rules. Houseruling from ignorance is far more apt to wreak havoc on your game than houseruling from a deep understanding of the rules as they were designed. I have seen this phenomenon often enough in my 40 years of playing tabletop RPGs to know that it's true.

[RickAllison]

With all due respect, that's just silly. Sage Advice provides rules clarifications from the guys who created the rules. They obviously could not predict which rules would be completely misinterpreted by players ahead of time. Sage Advice gives them a vehicle to correct the common misconceptions that arise in the community with respect to the rules of the game. Sure, you can choose to ignore them. Heck, you can choose to ignore anything about the rules if you don't like it. The rules are not poetry, however, and there is plenty of value to be derived from understanding the authors' intent. It carries weight because it represents the baseline from which all other things follow, including house rules. Houseruling from ignorance is far more apt to wreak havoc on your game than houseruling from a deep understanding of the rules as they were designed. I have seen this phenomenon often enough in my 40 years of playing tabletop RPGs to know that it's true.

I agree with you except where it comes to Mearls. That guy makes inconsistent rulings that sometimes fly in the face of what is actually in the books. I think we would see a significantly higher amount of credibility for Sage Advice if they took him off.

[vostyg]

I agree with you except where it comes to Mearls. That guy makes inconsistent rulings that sometimes fly in the face of what is actually in the books. I think we would see a significantly higher amount of credibility for Sage Advice if they took him off.

Mearls has often stated that his posts do not represent canon, and that Jeremy Crawford is the final arbiter of all things associated with the official rules of the game.

[RickAllison]

Mearls has often stated that his posts do not represent canon, and that Jeremy Crawford is the final arbiter of all things associated with the official rules of the game.

Indeed, but that doesn't change the fact that all those collections of the tweets like sageadvice.eu show his alongside JC's. For those who don't go deeper, it just looks like a conflicting mess, which dampens its Internet cred.

[vostyg]

Indeed, but that doesn't change the fact that all those collections of the tweets like sageadvice.eu show his alongside JC's. For those who don't go deeper, it just looks like a conflicting mess, which dampens its Internet cred.

Fair enough. The discerning Sage Advice reader knows to pay attention only to JC's posts. Mearls often prefaces his posts with phrases like "I'd allow it", which clue you into the fact that he is only voicing his opinions.

[R.Shackleford]

Protection is a horrible feature, but they added it...

No, it is not.

"Protection

When a creature you can see attacks a target other than you that is within 5 feet of you, you can use your reaction to impose disadvantage on the attack roll. You must be wielding a shield."

(from srd)

Protection is a fighting style that works well when you aren't focusing purely on damaging your enemies (because in 5e you don't need to optimize for damage, damaging classes do enough without mid to high optimization. Plus the entire team adds to damage quite well) and can work great in a party.

It gets better when more than one has it.

I've seen protection save quite a few butts, those sorcerers, rogues, monks, and wizards were absolutely loving it.

One of the reasons protection is awesome is that it can negate advantage and can be used against ANY attack.

It has a few drawbacks (must be able to see attacker, must be within 5' of ally) but these aren't all that weird of stipulations.

Saved my Fighter ally (8 Cha) from being Plane Shifted to the abyss once (we think it was the abyss but who knows). The enemy rolled a 20 and a 3 on the Melee Spell Attack. My Fighter 1/Swashbuckler Strogue 17 got The first pick of loot.

Planeshift is awesome but that melee spell attack at disadvantage can really take the wind out of the enemy's sails.

[Fighting_Ferret]

True... Protection is a good feature, if rather situational. I have yet to see a player at my tables take it. They are too focused on how much damage they can dish out.