April Sage Advice

[Millstone85]

http://dnd.wizards.com/articles/features/rules-answers-april-2016

I am half a month late but I couldn't find a thread on this.

They answered my question regarding Pact of the Blade! Well, probably not just mine, especially since I only asked about the shape. I am disappointed but not surprised to get this confirmation that a magic weapon made into a pact weapon always keeps its original shape. I am pleased and surprised to learn that a magic ranged weapon can be made into a pact weapon. I thought they had just forgotten to write "melee" again.

[JumboWheat01]

It's quite possible they looked at Eldritch Blast and thought "yeah, no reason to make a note about Pact of the Blade and ranged weapons, they'll all probably just Eldritch Blast at range anyway."

Which, I don't see why you wouldn't do, and keep your Pact weapon as a melee weapon to deal with times where you're stuck in melee range, which would give you disadvantage on your Eldritch Blast roll.


I do, however, find it interesting the way they say Moonbeam and similar things work. Hurling foes into it for free extra damage does sound interesting.

[Regitnui]

The clarification for the SCAG cantrips is great. Now it's definitive that you're casting a spell by making a melee attack, not casting a spell on a melee attack.

[Submortimer]

The clarification regarding moonbeam is interesting. Previously, the conceit was that moving into the area of effect had to be entirely voluntary for the spell to hit; now, you can fling a creature into an area (such as with the shove action or Repelling blast) and they are still effected. I still don't see how, logically, a creature can be affected when forcibly moved into the area and NOT affected when the area is forcibly moved onto them (and will continue to rule it that way), but logic has never been D&D's strong suit.

[Tanarii]

On GWF and 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. <snip>, although the potential for that is minimal compared to the likelihood that numerous rerolls would bog the game down."

This is terrible logic. Now my players have to figure out which of the handful of dice they just rolled came from the weapon and which from other affects. Or roll them separately. THAT slows down the game. If they reroll any 1-2, they look at the pile of dice just rolled for damage, grab the 1-2 dice, and reroll them all in one go. Fast and simple.

[pwykersotz]

The clarification regarding moonbeam is interesting. Previously, the conceit was that moving into the area of effect had to be entirely voluntary for the spell to hit; now, you can fling a creature into an area (such as with the shove action or Repelling blast) and they are still effected. I still don't see how, logically, a creature can be affected when forcibly moved into the area and NOT affected when the area is forcibly moved onto them (and will continue to rule it that way), but logic has never been D&D's strong suit.

I like that it lets you push a team-mate out of the beam before their turn begins. Very thematic.

[Tanarii]

The clarification for the SCAG cantrips is great. Now it's definitive that you're casting a spell by making a melee attack, not casting a spell on a melee attack.I don't think you're casting a spell by making a melee attack. To me that implies melee attack leads to spell, which is just as wrong as melee attack with spell added on top.

You're casting a spell, which requires that you to make a melee attack as part of the casting. The spell leads to (and requires) a melee attack.

[JumboWheat01]

I don't think you're casting a spell by making a melee attack. To me that implies melee attack leads to spell, which is just as wrong as melee attack with spell added on top.

You're casting a spell, which requires that you to make a melee attack as part of the casting. The spell leads to (and requires) a melee attack.

So it's like saying it's a spell with a somatic component and a material component, the material being "a melee weapon."

[hymer]

Now my players have to figure out which of the handful of dice they just rolled came from the weapon and which from other affects.

We usually handle these things by having designated dice. E.g. the ones with numbers on them are the greatsword damage, while the yatzy dice are the rest.

Aren't paladin smites d8s anyway?

[Arkhios]

On GWF and 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. <snip>, although the potential for that is minimal compared to the likelihood that numerous rerolls would bog the game down."

This is terrible logic. Now my players have to figure out which of the handful of dice they just rolled came from the weapon and which from other affects. Or roll them separately. THAT slows down the game. If they reroll any 1-2, they look at the pile of dice just rolled for damage, grab the 1-2 dice, and reroll them all in one go. Fast and simple.

You have to consider the fact, that Great Weapon Fighting Style is supposed to be roughly equal in power with, say Dueling Fighting Style, which only adds a +2 to the whole damage roll. I find it fairly clear why it only affects the weapon's damage dice instead of every damage dice. Might not be the most simple way to do it, but frankly with a greatsword + Divine Smite, if you roll 1 or 2 with a d6 and a d8, you'll have to be blind and oblivious of the size and shape differences of the two dice if you were to mistakenly reroll the 1's or 2's on a d8, when the weapon itself uses two d6's, right?

Likewise, if you were to reroll a d8 while using the fighting style, it would be fairly simple as well. If you hit a normal hit, you can reroll only one d8. If you rolled a critical hit, you then reroll up to two d8's. Shouldn't be that hard...
(Note: there are two-handed and versatile weapons that deal only d8 when held in two hands.)

[Tanarii]

We usually handle these things by having designated dice. E.g. the ones with numbers on them are the greatsword damage, while the yatzy dice are the rest.

Aren't paladin smites d8s anyway?I don't see any way that's making things faster either.


You have to consider the fact, that Great Weapon Fighting Style is supposed to be roughly equal in power with, say Dueling Fighting Style, which only adds a +2 to the whole damage roll.This has nothing to do with making the game faster.

Edit: I don't think it's significantly slower, or a problem to do, or anything like that. I think it's a stupid backwards explanation/justification that is obviously wrong. Not bad. Wrong, as in not true. There's no need for JC to be trying to justify things with something that's clearly a false premise.

[Millstone85]

It's quite possible they looked at Eldritch Blast and thought "yeah, no reason to make a note about Pact of the Blade and ranged weapons, they'll all probably just Eldritch Blast at range anyway."

Which, I don't see why you wouldn't do, and keep your Pact weapon as a melee weapon to deal with times where you're stuck in melee range, which would give you disadvantage on your Eldritch Blast roll.Now that you mention it, I don't see any way this ranged pact weapon could outperform eldritch blast. All the feats and invocations in the book won't do it, and eldritch blast is cheaper too. Perhaps a DM could be convinced to homebrew a blaster +5 for this no-familiar no-spellbook build? Not that I have any plan to play such a warlock.

[brainface]

Um... Wouldn't crossbow master, the extra attack and cha to damage invocations and a handcrossbow outdamage eldritch blast? At certain level ranges at least

[JumboWheat01]

Um... Wouldn't crossbow master, the extra attack and cha to damage invocations and a handcrossbow outdamage eldritch blast? At certain level ranges at least

You'd still be stuck spending a round reloading them, since you need a hand free. And a hand crossbow does what, 1d6? Eldritch Blast does 1d10, the equivalent of a heavy crossbow. In fact, the only way to equal Eldritch Blast's at-will range damage would be to be a level 20 Fighter with Crossbow Master and a heavy crossbow.

And even then, the Fighter's going to run out of bolts eventually. The Warlock can continue blasting away with their Eldritch Blast as long as they want.

[Millstone85]

Um... Wouldn't crossbow master, the extra attack and cha to damage invocations and a handcrossbow outdamage eldritch blast? At certain level ranges at leastNot sure. I will try again...

hand crossbow + Crossbow Expert + Thirsting Blade [5th] + Lifedrinker [12th]
= 3*(1d6 + weapon bonus + Dex + Cha)

eldritch blast (at 11th) + Agonizing Blast
= 3*(1d10 + focus bonus + Cha)

That seems way too close, and eldritch blast only needs the one invocation.
And then eldritch blast gets a fourth beam at 17th level.

Edit: Is there any focus that gives a bonus to damage rolls in this edition? The "wand of the war mage" only gives a bonus to attack rolls. That might change things a bit.


You'd still be stuck spending a round reloading them, since you need a hand free.Crossbow Expert lets you ignore the loading property, though.

[brainface]

Blahblah math
let's assume starting at dex 16, charisma 16 due to drow or half elf

hand hexbower
4th: crossbow master
5th: thirsting blade
1d6+3*3 (avg. 19.5)
8th: +2 dex
12th: +2 dex, lifedrinker
1d6+8*3 (avg 34.5)
16, 19: +2 cha
@19: 1d6+10*3 (avg 40.5)

eldritch blastyman
4th: +2 cha
5th: agonizing blast
1d10+4*2 (avg. 19)
8th: +2 cha
(after this, eldritch blastyman runs out of pure damage increases, but has lots of utility/control options to pick that don't calculate into dpr)
@12th level: 1d10+5*3 (avg 31)
@17th level: 4d10+5*4 (avg 42)

elven hexbow
4th: sharpshooter
5th: thirsting blade
1d8+13*2 (averaging who knows, because +1 to hit is kind of bad.)
again, +4 dex in ASI and lifedrinker to:
12th:2d8+18*2 (really this is probably only decent by somehow avoiding sharpshooter's accuracy drawback)

Basically: it's way more complicated than just eldritch blasting, why aren't you playing a ranger, and you need feats, but I'd call it viable? In certain situations more damaging, even, and it's good to have the option if some fancy bow or crossbow drops. And yeah: I don't think dmg wands add to damage at all, so that's another point in favor of ranged weapons--the actual math probably depends greatly on what magic weapons/implements are available to a specific character. Hex wanting to use your bonus action is a point in eldritch blast's favor mind, and your spells want charisma--but if for some reason the bladelock finds a +3 hand crossbow that deals +1d6 extra fire damage on a hit, and they have a crossbow feat, that's going to be the better at will damage option by a good margin.

(Though I imagine in every actual play situation the bladelocks going to, you know, swing a melee weapon because that's why they're playing this character. ^^)

[Gtdead]

Lock with CE and SS is pretty good. Even better as a fighter 1/lock x, with archery and darkness.

[Foxhound438]

You have to consider the fact, that Great Weapon Fighting Style is supposed to be roughly equal in power with, say Dueling Fighting Style, which only adds a +2 to the whole damage roll.

why? should you not be able to do more damage with a weapon in two hands? the weapon dice only method improves a great weapon fighter's damage by 1.33 per hit at the very absolute best, meaning the loss of 2 AC from not getting a shield makes dueling style's flat 2 damage per hit vastly more powerful in the end.

[Firechanter]

Ladies and Gentlemen,


On GWF and 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. <snip>, although the potential for that is minimal compared to the likelihood that numerous rerolls would bog the game down."

This is terrible logic. Now my players have to figure out which of the handful of dice they just rolled came from the weapon and which from other affects. Or roll them separately. THAT slows down the game. If they reroll any 1-2, they look at the pile of dice just rolled for damage, grab the 1-2 dice, and reroll them all in one go. Fast and simple.

We've already had an entire thread about that issue:
http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?486153-5e-GWF-and-Divine-Smite

You will find that all the arguments have already been presented there.
And your players don't have to do anything; if you find that ruling as hare-brained, illogical, outrageously idiotic and counterproductive as I do, simply ignore it and keep rerolling everything.

Basically Foxhound sums it up: GWF _needs_ full rerolls to be in any way viable compared to Dueling.

[Arkhios]

Because, in allowing to reroll everything the whole fighting style creates a ridiculous loophole which only paladins can abuse. The very same class which already is incredibly powerful. Why does it _need_ any more steroids?

[NewDM]

The clarification regarding moonbeam is interesting. Previously, the conceit was that moving into the area of effect had to be entirely voluntary for the spell to hit; now, you can fling a creature into an area (such as with the shove action or Repelling blast) and they are still effected. I still don't see how, logically, a creature can be affected when forcibly moved into the area and NOT affected when the area is forcibly moved onto them (and will continue to rule it that way), but logic has never been D&D's strong suit.

This is done for multiple reasons:

1. Balance - The spell is overpowered if it hits more than once per round.
2. Effect - Moonbeam is like a laser or sun through a magnifying glass, it takes time to build up to enough to deal actual damage.
3. Previous Edition Shenanigans - In previous editions area damage spells that had a duration other than instantaneous would be cheesed by allowing players to move enemies in and out of the spells effect multiple times per round. They learned in 4e how to prevent this. The damage is only triggered when they start their round in the effect or on first moving into the effect during a round.

[Arial Black]

Because, in allowing to reroll everything the whole fighting style creates a ridiculous loophole which only paladins can abuse. The very same class which already is incredibly powerful. Why does it _need_ any more steroids?

Off the top of my head: fighters get access to GWF at 1st, and can 'abuse' superiority dice from level 3.

Without the ability to do what the style says it can do (reroll ALL dice that are 1 or 2 in that attack), then using a longsword in one hand using the duelling fighting style does more damage than using the same longsword in two hands with GWF. That's wrong, even before you realise that the 1H guy gets to use a shield or a second weapon.

So the paladin (or battlemaster) gets to make GWF more efficient by using up resources(!) such as spell slots or superiority dice? Sounds like excellent game design to me!

[NewDM]

Off the top of my head: fighters get access to GWF at 1st, and can 'abuse' superiority dice from level 3.

Without the ability to do what the style says it can do (reroll ALL dice that are 1 or 2 in that attack), then using a longsword in one hand using the duelling fighting style does more damage than using the same longsword in two hands with GWF. That's wrong, even before you realise that the 1H guy gets to use a shield or a second weapon.

So the paladin (or battlemaster) gets to make GWF more efficient by using up resources(!) such as spell slots or superiority dice? Sounds like excellent game design to me!

They can use a shield but not a second weapon as per the Dueling Fighting Style text.

[Arial Black]

They can use a shield but not a second weapon as per the Dueling Fighting Style text.

Well...yes and no.

You don't get the +2 from duellist style if you have a weapon in your off hand, but you can start your round holding a single (light) weapon, attack with it getting the +2 bonus, then draw and throw a light off hand weapon.

Just multiclass any two from fighter, paladin and ranger and you can have both styles by 3rd level, and add your Str or Dex bonus to the off-hand weapon's damage.

[NewDM]

Well...yes and no.

You don't get the +2 from duellist style if you have a weapon in your off hand, but you can start your round holding a single (light) weapon, attack with it getting the +2 bonus, then draw and throw a light off hand weapon.

Just multiclass any two from fighter, paladin and ranger and you can have both styles by 3rd level, and add your Str or Dex bonus to the off-hand weapon's damage.

You can't two weapon fight unless you have a weapon in each hand.

[GoodbyeSoberDay]

Ironically, when I GM, I house rule that GWF's benefit is just +2 damage like Dueling, because I actually care about game speed.

[Arial Black]

You can't two weapon fight unless you have a weapon in each hand.

The rule is that if you use the attack action and attack with a light weapon in one hand, then you may attack with a different light weapon held in the other hand as a bonus action.

There is absolutely no rule that requires the off-hand weapon to actually be held in the off-hand at the moment when the attack with the main weapon is made.

[SharkForce]

The rule is that if you use the attack action and attack with a light weapon in one hand, then you may attack with a different light weapon held in the other hand as a bonus action.

There is absolutely no rule that requires the off-hand weapon to actually be held in the off-hand at the moment when the attack with the main weapon is made.

alternately, you can always throw first.

[Arkhios]

Off the top of my head: fighters get access to GWF at 1st, and can 'abuse' superiority dice from level 3.

Without the ability to do what the style says it can do (reroll ALL dice that are 1 or 2 in that attack), then using a longsword in one hand using the duelling fighting style does more damage than using the same longsword in two hands with GWF. That's wrong, even before you realise that the 1H guy gets to use a shield or a second weapon.

So the paladin (or battlemaster) gets to make GWF more efficient by using up resources(!) such as spell slots or superiority dice? Sounds like excellent game design to me!

A single superiority die (max. 1d12 at level 17; avg. 6,5) is not equal to single Divine Smite (min. 2d8 at level 2; avg. 9).

The issue I see with it, is that Divine Smite is already much more powerful than any other options in its stead. Not allowing reroll for all dice would at least yield equal benefit for everyone who gained the Fighting Style, no matter the class and their features and/or how much they can use them in a day.
Allowing rerolls for all dice a Divine Smite would break the game worse than Superiority dice ever could.

Rerolling a die can yield a lot higher damage output than a single +2 added after the dice have been rolled. Propabilities be damned for all I care. With a greatsword or maul for instance, 1-2 rerolled can turn out as 6 with a single die. Unless you play the game with only average damage "rolls", the possible difference in damage would outshine a total of +2 already with only one die, and there are two of them with said weapons.

Frankly put, 1.33-whatever on paper Does Not Matter when rolling the actual (factual) dice the damage increase could be a lot more than 2 depending how the dice roll. Since the dice don't care about propabilities, then why should the players?

Between Dueling and Great Weapon Fighting, it's a trade: Do you want a solid +2 or more fluid but likewise more potential outcome?
Rerolling one or two dice (or up to 4 if you use a 2d6 weapon and roll a crit) instead of all of them doesn't slow down the game at all.

[Zalabim]

Ladies and Gentlemen,



We've already had an entire thread about that issue:
http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?486153-5e-GWF-and-Divine-Smite

You will find that all the arguments have already been presented there.
And your players don't have to do anything; if you find that ruling as hare-brained, illogical, outrageously idiotic and counterproductive as I do, simply ignore it and keep rerolling everything.

Basically Foxhound sums it up: GWF _needs_ full rerolls to be in any way viable compared to Dueling.

I get that's your opinion, but the numbers didn't back you up. Each fighting style doesn't need to do the same thing. Each style, Duelist and GWF, has to compete with Defensive style, rather than each other.


Off the top of my head: fighters get access to GWF at 1st, and can 'abuse' superiority dice from level 3.

Without the ability to do what the style says it can do (reroll ALL dice that are 1 or 2 in that attack), then using a longsword in one hand using the duelling fighting style does more damage than using the same longsword in two hands with GWF. That's wrong, even before you realise that the 1H guy gets to use a shield or a second weapon.

So the paladin (or battlemaster) gets to make GWF more efficient by using up resources(!) such as spell slots or superiority dice? Sounds like excellent game design to me!

Allowing rerolls on smite's dice makes the GWF-style better for paladins than for fighters. That's more wrong, and doesn't even fix the longsword issue (an issue that is less than 0.1 damage per attack). If I have to pick one way or the other, I'll pick the one that leaves fighters getting the most benefit from any fighting style as less wrong.


Ironically, when I GM, I house rule that GWF's benefit is just +2 damage like Dueling, because I actually care about game speed.

This does make a lot of sense, even if it isn't as exciting. I get why GWF style doesn't increase average damage by the same amount as dueling, though.

[NewDM]

The rule is that if you use the attack action and attack with a light weapon in one hand, then you may attack with a different light weapon held in the other hand as a bonus action.

There is absolutely no rule that requires the off-hand weapon to actually be held in the off-hand at the moment when the attack with the main weapon is made.

Actually its pretty clear. The word "held" indicates it must be in the other hand.


alternately, you can always throw first.

That actually works. Because both weapons are held in the hands when the attack is made, but your light duelist weapon would be on the bonus action and lose the ability mod to damage.

[Firechanter]

The numbers totally back me up. 1.8pts of damage are not worth 2-5 points of AC.

[RulesJD]

The numbers totally back me up. 1.8pts of damage are not worth 2-5 points of AC.

Bull.

If you aren't going to analyze the fighting styles in isolation (you're considering AC as well), then you have to consider that GWF style also lets a user take the GWM feat, which then bumps it welllll over your 2 points of AC.

[Once a Fool]

A single superiority die (max. 1d12 at level 17; avg. 6,5) is not equal to single Divine Smite (min. 2d8 at level 2; avg. 9).

The issue I see with it, is that Divine Smite is already much more powerful than any other options in its stead. Not allowing reroll for all dice would at least yield equal benefit for everyone who gained the Fighting Style, no matter the class and their features and/or how much they can use them in a day.
Allowing rerolls for all dice a Divine Smite would break the game worse than Superiority dice ever could.

Rerolling a die can yield a lot higher damage output than a single +2 added after the dice have been rolled. Propabilities be damned for all I care. With a greatsword or maul for instance, 1-2 rerolled can turn out as 6 with a single die. Unless you play the game with only average damage "rolls", the possible difference in damage would outshine a total of +2 already with only one die, and there are two of them with said weapons.

Frankly put, 1.33-whatever on paper Does Not Matter when rolling the actual (factual) dice the damage increase could be a lot more than 2 depending how the dice roll. Since the dice don't care about propabilities, then why should the players?

Between Dueling and Great Weapon Fighting, it's a trade: Do you want a solid +2 or more fluid but likewise more potential outcome?
Rerolling one or two dice (or up to 4 if you use a 2d6 weapon and roll a crit) instead of all of them doesn't slow down the game at all.

1d8 + 2 is exactly mathematically equivalent to 1d10 with all 1s and 2s always rerolled (instead of only those that appear in the first roll). If GWF worked the same way as brutal weapons did in 4e (including only rerolling 1s on 2d6 weapons), dueling style and GWF would be equivalent. The way GWF works as of now, GWF is always worse (Until feats pick up the slack, at any rate. And even then, a versatile weapon will always be better with dueling than GWF.).

[Zalabim]

The numbers totally back me up. 1.8pts of damage are not worth 2-5 points of AC.

Average damage for a Champion Fighter with 20 Str, a Longsword, and Dueling style against average AC such that there's a 65% chance to hit: 8.15 per attack after 15. 7.925 per attack after 3. 7.7 per attack with a different subpath.

Average damage for a Champion Fighter with 20 Str, a Greatsword, and Great Weapon Fighting style against average AC such that there's a 65% chance to hit: 9.916~ per attack after 15. 9.5 per attack after 3. 9.083~ per attack with a different subpath.

That's up to 121.7% of the one handed weapon's damage for a champion, down to 118% of the one handed weapon's damage for everyone else. That's the equivalent to going from getting hit 56% of the time to getting hit 46% of the time to take 21.7% more damage, or going from 65.5% to 55.5% for taking 18% more damage.

If you want to compare it to a +3 shield, that fighter with a +3 greatsword does 13.483 damage per attack without champion's bonus critical chance, which is 175.1% of the one handed damage. That's like going from getting hit 58.3% of the time to getting hit 33.3% of the time to take 75.1% more damage.

It doesn't need to be better than it is for the fighter. It doesn't need to be better for the paladin than it is for the fighter.


1d8 + 2 is exactly mathematically equivalent to 1d10 with all 1s and 2s always rerolled (instead of only those that appear in the first roll). If GWF worked the same way as brutal weapons did in 4e (including only rerolling 1s on 2d6 weapons), dueling style and GWF would be equivalent. The way GWF works as of now, GWF is always worse (Until feats pick up the slack, at any rate. And even then, a versatile weapon will always be better with dueling than GWF.).

The weapon with the real damage die benefits from dealing a bit more extra damage on a critical hit. The average result is 6.5 to 6.3, but even hitting on a 2, the average damage of an attack works out to 6.4+(0.95*stat) to 6.3+(0.95*stat). The gap closes at a rate of .01 per 5% shift down in chance to hit and basically vanishes if you have any better than a 5% chance for a critical hit, like from advantage or Champion. It doesn't make a longsword a good choice for your two-handed weapon. Just being thorough.

[NewDM]

Bull.

If you aren't going to analyze the fighting styles in isolation (you're considering AC as well), then you have to consider that GWF style also lets a user take the GWM feat, which then bumps it welllll over your 2 points of AC.

First, it doesn't 'let you take the GWM' feat. You can take that feat whether you take GWF or not, and it is useful to take it even if you use a one handed weapon, in fact strangely the less damage you deal per attack, the better GWM is for you.

Second, if you take the damage that GWM does without GWF and then subtract that from the damage of GWM + GWF you'll get the actual increase which comes no where near being worth 2 AC points.

In another thread I evaluated the value of an AC point. You do this by getting the average damage the character is going to take over the course of a day and reduce it by 5% * number of AC points increased. What you end up with is a number over 10 by mid levels. So the difference between GWM and GWM + GWF has to be worth taking 20 or more points of damage, and the math just doesn't bear this out.

You could also go with survivability. How much more survivable are you if you have +2 AC compared to not having it? Maybe a round or two over the course of a whole day? How much quicker do battles end and how many rounds do you save by dealing an extra 1.33 damage (or whatever GWF brings to the table) at best that might be a single round.

No matter how you calculate it GWF is inferior to gaining +2 AC.

[mgshamster]

Bull.

If you aren't going to analyze the fighting styles in isolation (you're considering AC as well), then you have to consider that GWF style also lets a user take the GWM feat, which then bumps it welllll over your 2 points of AC.

1 point of AC is worth about 5% of the average damage your opponent can dish out (up until you need to roll a 20 to hit, after that there really isn't a difference).

Against a GWM, that's approximately 4.7 points of damage, which is a tad bit higher than the extra 1.8 damage GWF gives you. Even with the -5/+10, two points of AC is worth approximately the +10 damage. I did this type of analysis in my DW vs GWM thread a few weeks back.

It's rather difficult to compare, and a valid criticism of this type of analysis is that you aren't actually pitting the two classes together in a real game. So another way would be to look at the monster you're fighting, look at average damage vs damage taken, and see which has better survivability vs damage dealt. So you'd have to either average up all the monsters of a specific CR (like Kryx did, although I disagree with average, I think median and range would be better, but it's of little concern - it still serves its purpose), or pick a specific monster to compare.

[RulesJD]

1 point of AC is worth about 5% of the average damage your opponent can dish out (up until you need to roll a 20 to hit, after that there really isn't a difference).

Against a GWM, that's approximately 4.7 points of damage, which is a tad bit higher than the extra 1.8 damage GWF gives you. Even with the -5/+10, two points of AC is worth approximately the +10 damage. I did this type of analysis in my DW vs GWM thread a few weeks back.

It's rather difficult to compare, and a valid criticism of this type of analysis is that you aren't actually pitting the two classes together in a real game. So another way would be to look at the monster you're fighting, look at average damage vs damage taken, and see which has better survivability vs damage dealt. So you'd have to either average up all the monsters of a specific CR (like Kryx did, although I disagree with average, I think median and range would be better, but it's of little concern - it still serves its purpose), or pick a specific monster to compare.

Patently false given how much damage comes from Ability saves. Also, that is only true in a whiteroom scenario, not the actual game where Bless, Advantage, et al. to-hit apply. The classes that will be taking GWF (and consequently GWM if they are looking to min-max as we are), all have some method of increasing to-hit (Precision BM die, increased Crit range, Paladin Bless, Barbarian (multiclassed obviously) Reckless Attack, etc.).

No, 1 point of AC has no bearing on a damage value in a game where so much damage comes from Ability saves, and the to-hit can vary so widely based on abilities accessible to all characters that will be using them.

You can just end the discussion with "it's rather difficult to compare." That's literally the beginning and end of trying to compare +AC to +damage. Now, you can definitely compare Dueling to GWF/GWM. But as shown, that breaks down quickly because GWM really is just that strong.

[NewDM]

1 point of AC is worth about 5% of the average damage your opponent can dish out (up until you need to roll a 20 to hit, after that there really isn't a difference).

Against a GWM, that's approximately 4.7 points of damage, which is a tad bit higher than the extra 1.8 damage GWF gives you. Even with the -5/+10, two points of AC is worth approximately the +10 damage. I did this type of analysis in my DW vs GWM thread a few weeks back.

It's rather difficult to compare, and a valid criticism of this type of analysis is that you aren't actually pitting the two classes together in a real game. So another way would be to look at the monster you're fighting, look at average damage vs damage taken, and see which has better survivability vs damage dealt. So you'd have to either average up all the monsters of a specific CR (like Kryx did, although I disagree with average, I think median and range would be better, but it's of little concern - it still serves its purpose), or pick a specific monster to compare.

I already suggested this. Looks like someone isn't reading the thread.

[Firechanter]

Actually I'm pretty sure +1AC saves you a lit more than 5% of damage taken. Let's compare +2AC because it's easier.
Attack +7 vs AC18 = 50% Hit
Attack +7 vs AC20 = 40% Hit
If the monster does 20dmg per Hit, your suffered average decreases from 10 to 8. Which is _20%_, not 10. And the higher your AC gets, the more effective ans increase is - I believe you said that too.

[Gtdead]

Damage Done vs Damage Taken comparison is only relevant against a defined target.

For example, at lvl 1, against 4-5 kobolds, doing a white room analysis, going with a greatsword over shield+sword, the greatsword guy is more likely to win. (I've done the math, but the format is hard to post on the forum, since it's a turn by turn)
This happens because Greatsword is enough to do more than 5 dpr against kobold's AC. Which means that if he wins initiative, he will kill one kobold in the first turn and he will take less overall damage, while sword+shield does less than five, so he will take more damage for more rounds.

Same guy agaisnt 4 cultists will die a brutal death without shield.

Generally speaking, boosting AC is safer to boosting damage. But there are situations where both can shine.

[mgshamster]

Patently false given how much damage comes from Ability saves. Also, that is only true in a whiteroom scenario, not the actual game where Bless, Advantage, et al. to-hit apply. The classes that will be taking GWF (and consequently GWM if they are looking to min-max as we are), all have some method of increasing to-hit (Precision BM die, increased Crit range, Paladin Bless, Barbarian (multiclassed obviously) Reckless Attack, etc.).

No, 1 point of AC has no bearing on a damage value in a game where so much damage comes from Ability saves, and the to-hit can vary so widely based on abilities accessible to all characters that will be using them.

You can just end the discussion with "it's rather difficult to compare." That's literally the beginning and end of trying to compare +AC to +damage. Now, you can definitely compare Dueling to GWF/GWM. But as shown, that breaks down quickly because GWM really is just that strong.

Here's my math. (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?485600-GWM-vs-DW-Not-as-bad-as-you-might-suspect)

One way to evaluate the value of AC is to compare to damage avoided. There are two methods for doing that: 1) Direct comparison of the ability you want to compare by pitting them against each other, or 2) Side by side comparison against something else.

I believe Kryx has done #2. I've done #1. Both methods yield similar results. A point of AC is worth approximately 5% of the average damage taken, because it reduces DPR by 5% (only because of the function of a d20, which works in 5% increments, plus a little due to crits).

[RulesJD]

Here's my math. (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?485600-GWM-vs-DW-Not-as-bad-as-you-might-suspect)

One way to evaluate the value of AC is to compare to damage avoided. There are two methods for doing that: 1) Direct comparison of the ability you want to compare by pitting them against each other, or 2) Side by side comparison against something else.

I believe Kryx has done #2. I've done #1. Both methods yield similar results. A point of AC is worth approximately 5% of the average damage taken, because it reduces DPR by 5% (only because of the function of a d20, which works in 5% increments, plus a little due to crits).

"Looking at the Fighter, without an archetype but with fighting style, at 20th level, he should have"

That's about as far as I needed to get. Your comparison is heavily flawed and, yet again, isn't applicable. Champion Fighter will be critting more often, which means more bonus attacks/hits for GWM, which raises its DPR. BM Fighter has the Precision maneuver which raises its chance to hit significantly, again pulling GWM ahead. Eldritch Knight will have Haste, giving another free attack which is another chance to crit/hit, as well as having Find Familiar to generate advantage for at least 1 hit. Additionally, can shove on the first attack to generate Advantage, which with Advantage GWM pulls away from DW VERY quickly.

That was how wrong you were for merely skipping a completely obvious factor of the game. Now take into account Paladin Bless and/or +5 to hit or short rest Advantage on two of the archetypes, Barbarian Reckless Attack, and right away GWM, again, flies ahead of DW.

And, since this is about GWF vs DW, GWF also pulls away when you start critting more. Champion Fighter/Reckless Barbarian/Find Familiar + Haste EK will all have greater chances to crit, thus pushing the damage increase from GWF higher than both of you are calculating.

You'll also notice that nothing in the Sage Advice addresses when a weapon has a damage rider (Hazirawn/Flametongue being the prime examples). Being that the damage is "always on" so to speak, is that weapon damage? Fairly clearly yes, yet again adding more damage for GWF, especially at higher levels as those sorts of items come online.

Also, I've yet to see a "damage reduction" calculation that had any incorporation of Ability Save damage, which obviously (sans Shield Master) AC has nothing to do with. So applying a flat 5% damage value is completely baseless.

[mgshamster]

"Looking at the Fighter, without an archetype but with fighting style, at 20th level, he should have"

That's about as far as I needed to get. Your comparison is heavily flawed and, yet again, isn't applicable. Champion Fighter will be critting more often, which means more bonus attacks/hits for GWM, which raises its DPR. BM Fighter has the Precision maneuver which raises its chance to hit significantly, again pulling GWM ahead. Eldritch Knight will have Haste, giving another free attack which is another chance to crit/hit, as well as having Find Familiar to generate advantage for at least 1 hit. Additionally, can shove on the first attack to generate Advantage, which with Advantage GWM pulls away from DW VERY quickly.

That was how wrong you were for merely skipping a completely obvious factor of the game. Now take into account Paladin Bless and/or +5 to hit or short rest Advantage on two of the archetypes, Barbarian Reckless Attack, and right away GWM, again, flies ahead of DW.

And, since this is about GWF vs DW, GWF also pulls away when you start critting more. Champion Fighter/Reckless Barbarian/Find Familiar + Haste EK will all have greater chances to crit, thus pushing the damage increase from GWF higher than both of you are calculating.

You'll also notice that nothing in the Sage Advice addresses when a weapon has a damage rider (Hazirawn/Flametongue being the prime examples). Being that the damage is "always on" so to speak, is that weapon damage? Fairly clearly yes, yet again adding more damage for GWF, especially at higher levels as those sorts of items come online.

Also, I've yet to see a "damage reduction" calculation that had any incorporation of Ability Save damage, which obviously (sans Shield Master) AC has nothing to do with. So applying a flat 5% damage value is completely baseless.

Good analysis requires minimizing the variables.

But, thanks for the deep analysis of how wrong I am based on an assumption. Since you didn't read it, yet felt it necessary to spend several paragraphs telling me I'm wrong, I'm not really sure what to say. "Don't be an ass" seems like a good response, so I'll go with that.

Telling people that you're not going to read what they wrote and then telling them their wrong is very assholish behavior.

When you're done being a jerk, maybe we can have a civil conversation about it. Until then, the anger in your response suggests that you're having a bad day right now, so I hope your day gets better and you can relax a bit.

[RulesJD]

Good analysis requires minimizing the variables.

But, thanks for the deep analysis of how wrong I am based on an assumption. Since you didn't read it, yet felt it necessary to spend several paragraphs telling me I'm wrong, I'm not really sure what to say. "Don't be an ass" seems like a good response, so I'll go with that.

Telling people that you're not going to read what they wrote and then telling them their wrong is very assholish behavior.

When you're done being a jerk, maybe we can have a civil conversation about it. Until then, the anger in your response suggests that you're having a bad day right now, so I hope your day gets better and you can relax a bit.

"That's about as far as I needed to get."

Implies that's as far as I needed to get to realize your analysis was baseless. Not that I didn't read the rest.

[Roland St. Jude]

Sheriff: Locked for review.