Great Weapon Fighting seems sub-par. What am I missing?

[rudy]

So, Great Weapon Fighting Style.

1d12 without it averages to 6.5 damage.
1d12 with it averages to 7.33333 damage; 0.833 more per attack.
2d6 with it averages to 7 damage.
2d6 with it averages to 8.3333 damage. 1.333 more per attack.

This damage increase is kind of sad compared to the other possible feats; doubly so if we allow the Unearthed Arcana fighting styles.

I can certainly see taking it if you're doing a two-handed weapon anyway, but that's because the only vanilla alternative is +1 AC. Yet people seem really into this style based on what I've read, so I figure there must be some aspect I'm not understanding. Help me out?

[Ruslan]

I can certainly see taking it if you're doing a two-handed weapon anywayYou answered your own question.

People use a two-hander because it makes for the best DPR. Then, same people take GWF style because ... what else are you going to take with a two-hander?

[JakOfAllTirades]

I think it looks (slightly) better when you factor in the extra damage dice for critical hits.

And if you're a Barbarian with 1MC/Fighter and the GWF style, Brutal Critical makes this even better.

Aside from that, I'm not so sure.

[Cybren]

It's pretty good if you're adding extra damage from things like smite. And if you are using a two handed weapon the only other fighting style you would want is defense, which is nice but not that impressive.

[rudy]

People use a two-hander because it makes for the best DPR. Then, same people take GWF style because ... what else are you going to take with a two-hander?
That makes logical sense, it's just that from what I've seen people say it is a "great" fighting style, when it's really just your only real option for DPR with a two-hander.


I think it looks (slightly) better when you factor in the extra damage dice for critical hits.
That's true.


It's pretty good if you're adding extra damage from things like smite.
It seemed obvious to me when I first read it that it was only intended to be the damage from the weapon itself, which Sage Advice confirmed. Now, if you tend to ignore those rulings, then I'll grant it actually becomes pretty good for Paladin builds.

[Cybren]

That makes logical sense, it's just that from what I've seen people say it is a "great" fighting style, when it's really just your only real option for DPR with a two-hander.


That's true.


It seemed obvious to me when I first read it that it was only intended to be the damage from the weapon itself, which Sage Advice confirmed. Now, if you tend to ignore those rulings, then I'll grant it actually becomes pretty good for Paladin builds.

I think that particular ruling was a reversal of an earlier twitter ruling one of the devs made, but either way they state in the ruling itself that the reasoning behind it not applying to smite is to prevent game slowdown from rerolls, not concerns over damage.

[Zman]

It's pretty good if you're adding extra damage from things like smite. And if you are using a two handed weapon the only other fighting style you would want is defense, which is nice but not that impressive.

It does not work with Smite Damage. It was been confirmed RAI by the devs which you can take or leave and yes there is some remaining confusion over that. Now, when you read it it is fairly clear what it is talking about as it reads damage die dealt by a weapon. Smite is additional damage not sourced from the weapon. Only applying to weapon damage dice is the logical conclusions. Applying to Smite doesn't fly at my table, and I'm not sure it works at that many tables.



@Rudy. It is a subpar option especially compared to Dueling and worse it doesn't not equally benefit the different Two Handed weapons equally, 1.33 for 2d6, .833 for d12, .8 for d10 etc. What I use in my fixes is allowing them to reroll any dice, so if they reroll below average they end up with 1.5 for 2d6, 1.5 for d12, 1.25 for d10, and all those get ~7% better when crits are factored in which in absolute terms isn't far off Dueling's +2, albeit quite a bit lower in relative terms but that is a factor of Dueling's starting subpar damage.

[ClintACK]

That makes logical sense, it's just that from what I've seen people say it is a "great" fighting style, when it's really just your only real option for DPR with a two-hander.]

Perhaps you're thinking (or the people you've heard are thinking) about Great Weapon Master, the feat for fighting with Great Weapons. GWM *is* a great feat (especially combined with things like Reckless Attack).

[rudy]

Perhaps you're thinking (or the people you've heard are thinking) about Great Weapon Master, the feat for fighting with Great Weapons. GWM *is* a great feat (especially combined with things like Reckless Attack).
You know, that might have been it. It's completely believable that I could have confused the two.

[famousringo]

Seems like an obvious design choice to prevent optimization from going too far. You're already optimizing damage by going for a two-hander, and the designers don't want you to get too far ahead of the one-handers. Especially as the damage gets multiplied through extra attacks, bonus attacks, haste attacks, opportunity attacks, crits, accuracy boosts, and anything else that's slipped my mind.

So your choice: Keep optimizing for damage at diminishing returns, or round out your character and enjoy possibly a more substantial bonus in Defensive Style.

[Saeviomage]

I think that particular ruling was a reversal of an earlier twitter ruling one of the devs made, but either way they state in the ruling itself that the reasoning behind it not applying to smite is to prevent game slowdown from rerolls, not concerns over damage.

Yeah, apparently the devs have one die between them or something, so it's a real hassle to have to roll more than one at a time...

[Kryx]

When comparing the fighting styles this is the result I came to:
GWF adds about 7% more DPR over defensive.
TWF adds about 12% more DPR over defensive.
Dueling adds about 16% more DPR over defensive.

GWF is low in comparison to the other options, yes.

With my houserules I end up with:
GWF adds about 9% more DPR over defensive.
TWF adds about 10% more DPR over defensive.
Dueling adds about 9% more DPR over defensive.

See DPR of Classes (https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1d-9xDdath8kX_v7Rpts9JFIJwIG3X0-dDUtfax14NT0/edit#gid=2025852255) for the math.

[Mandragola]

It's fine. Two handers do the most damage. The fighting style works on crits, which none of the others do.

For greataxes the difference is bigger than it seems at first. It turns a very swingy weapon into something far more consistent, which is often the difference between killing a monster and not doing so. It's not about the average, it's about turning a fail into a success - sometimes.

I'm clear on smite damage not getting the rerolls but what about hunter's Mark? That doesn't add radiant (or whatever) damage. It makes the weapon do an extra d6.

[Cybren]

It does not work with Smite Damage. It was been confirmed RAI by the devs which you can take or leave and yes there is some remaining confusion over that. Now, when you read it it is fairly clear what it is talking about as it reads damage die dealt by a weapon. Smite is additional damage not sourced from the weapon. Only applying to weapon damage dice is the logical conclusions. Applying to Smite doesn't fly at my table, and I'm not sure it works at that many tables.

The wording of the ability refers to the damage dice of the attack, not the weapon, just like critical hits. You can take or leave letting GWF reroll smite damage, but the ability as you read it does not refer to the damage die dealt by a weapon.

[Kryx]

The wording has been debated 100s of times now. The RAI is clear that it doesn't apply. As always GMs are free to have it work however they'd like.

However treating GWF as applying on things like smite and BM dice doesn't fix the issue as it applies dis-proportionally on different builds.

[treecko]

Despite how the fighting style doesn't really increase damage, it certainty feels good. Nothing is worse than getting in a huge swing of your great axe then getting a 1. From a strength standpoint, people use greatswords/axes for the feat great weapon master, and this fighting style just happens to be the best for that play style.

[Zalabim]

When comparing the fighting styles this is the result I came to:
GWF adds about 7% more DPR over defensive.
TWF adds about 12% more DPR over defensive.
Dueling adds about 16% more DPR over defensive.

GWF is low in comparison to the other options, yes.

With my houserules I end up with:
GWF adds about 9% more DPR over defensive.
TWF adds about 10% more DPR over defensive.
Dueling adds about 9% more DPR over defensive.

See DPR of Classes (https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1d-9xDdath8kX_v7Rpts9JFIJwIG3X0-dDUtfax14NT0/edit#gid=2025852255) for the math.

I wonder if we can add a time to live comparison in there too. If GWM/PM is AC X, DW is AC X+1, and SM is AC X+2, the time to live benefit of defensive style over the relevant offensive style will also be unequal. Maybe there's a trend.

[Zman]

The wording of the ability refers to the damage dice of the attack, not the weapon, just like critical hits. You can take or leave letting GWF reroll smite damage, but the ability as you read it does not refer to the damage die dealt by a weapon.

And given the choice of reading it the way the Devs obviously intended,mor in an abusive gamey way, I'll choose the former. They reference damage dice of a weapon attack, it was poor writing on their part. Play it however you wish, but present it as a two sided argument that RAI is clearly on the less abusive side.

[Zman]

When comparing the fighting styles this is the result I came to:
GWF adds about 7% more DPR over defensive.
TWF adds about 12% more DPR over defensive.
Dueling adds about 16% more DPR over defensive.

GWF is low in comparison to the other options, yes.

With my houserules I end up with:
GWF adds about 9% more DPR over defensive.
TWF adds about 10% more DPR over defensive.
Dueling adds about 9% more DPR over defensive.

See DPR of Classes (https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1d-9xDdath8kX_v7Rpts9JFIJwIG3X0-dDUtfax14NT0/edit#gid=2025852255) for the math.

I do t believe presenting their damage increase in relative terms is right, absolute damage increases or proportional to a baseline damage can be more useable for balance in this particular case.

[Kryx]

@Zalabim The numbers compare a GWF vs a Defensive build so comparing time to live isn't relevant to the fighting style comparison, but is relevant to the overall build choice comparison. Each point of AC in general means you get hit 10% less (with diminishing returns).



I do t believe presenting their damage increase in relative terms is right, absolute damage increases or proportional to a baseline damage can be more useable for balance in this particular case.
Relative is chosen because the other option (defensive) increases their defense by a relative amount (10%).

Each build will inherently compare "I'll be hit 10% less vs I'll do X% more damage". That X should be around 10 for every build imo.

[Zalabim]

@Zalabim The numbers compare a GWF vs a Defensive build so comparing time to live isn't relevant to the fighting style comparison, but is relevant to the overall build choice comparison. Each point of AC in general means you get hit 10% less (with diminishing returns).

If the GWM gets hit 50% of the time with GWF then they get hit 45% of the time with Defensive. That is 90% as often, or 10% less hits.

If the SM gets hit 40% of the time (because it has a shield and +2 AC over the GWM already) with Duelist then they get hit 35% of the time with Defensive. That is 87.5% as often, or 12.5% less hits.

Hypothetical numbers to display the relationship. That is not identical. Additional AC has ascending returns, solely with respect to attacks against AC and assuming the character is still getting attacked the same number of times.

[Kryx]

You're right that the difference in advantage for shield is different.

The problem is the scale changes quite a bit over the levels
At level 1 we're comparing AC 16 vs AC 18 on a fighter. NPC to hit is +3.
GWF: 35% chance to be hit. Defensive: 30% chance to be hit. 16.6% less damage.
S&B: 25% chance to be hit. Defensive: 20% chance to be hit. 25% less damage.

At level 11 we're comparing AC 18 vs AC 20 on a fighter. NPC to hit is +8.
GWF: 50% chance to be hit. Defensive: 45% chance to be hit. 11.1% less damage.
S&B: 40% chance to be hit. Defensive: 35% chance to be hit. 14.2% less damage.

At level 20 we're comparing AC 18 vs AC 20 on a fighter. NPC to hit is +1.
GWF: 65% chance to be hit. Defensive: 60% chance to be hit. 8.3% less damage.
S&B: 55% chance to be hit. Defensive: 50% chance to be hit. 10% less damage.


Probably best to compare them over the levels like I do with the offensive options. The summary of which is that S&B's offensive option should be worth a bit more than GWF, but the current 7% vs 16% is not representative of the tradeoff.

[Mandragola]

Whether it's ascending or diminishing returns, it's actually a reduction in damage taken by exactly the same amount (of damage taken, rather than as a percentage) every time your AC goes up by 1. If 20 attacks come in, with attack rolls of 1-20, each doing 10 damage, then every time your AC goes up by 1 you take 10 less damage from those attacks.

[Kryx]

I averaged it out: DPR of Classes (https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1d-9xDdath8kX_v7Rpts9JFIJwIG3X0-dDUtfax14NT0/edit#gid=582756521)

Non shield builds are about 11% while shield builds are 14%. RAW GWF is rather short and Fighter Dueling is rather high.


EDIT: Also added basic archery via longbow. RAW is double the value of defensive (as a result of +hit and sharpshooter). Without -5/+10 (houserules) it's within the expected amount.

[Zman]

Relative is chosen because the other option (defensive) increases their defense by a relative amount (10%).

Each build will inherently compare "I'll be hit 10% less vs I'll do X% more damage". That X should be around 10 for every build imo.

But, that isn't quite a viable comparison as defense is not a constant. Because a base style does more damage it kills things faster making defense less valuable. So adding 10% damage instead of 10% defense for a Great Weapon is not the same as adding 10% Damage instead of 10% Defense for a Duelist. Because, you are comparing them to defense and treating it as a constant in which it is not, defense is itself relative and dependent on damage output. The lower your damage output the more valuable defense is and the greater the damage increase needs to be to be consistent with the same trade off for a higher damage dealing class.

For instance if higher damage means you often kill a creature with one hit instead of two, or two instead of three that is effectively 50% or 33% less damage incoming from a single enemy that needs to be aggregated over the combat. Higher base offense is in of itself a defense characteristic. A 10% increase in damage over 10% increase in defense is not a set balanced equation when looking at styles with differing base damages and a lower damage style will need a higher damage boost to be worth the opportunity cost in added defense over a higher damage base style. As higher base damage function as a defense statistic in its own right it alters the balance point of that equation.

[Kryx]

The lower your damage output the more valuable defense is and the greater the damage increase needs to be to be consistent with the same trade off for a higher damage dealing class.
In a 1 on 1 duel what you say is true: enemies will die quicker with more DPR. In a team battle with 4-5 people your damage typically will account for 20-30% which has a much less impact on how fast things die.
In a team fight I'm not seeing how you would compare a fighting style besides to the lack of fighting style or another fighting style (in this case defensive).

Not to mention DMs will often account for more damage by increasing the number of monsters or adding more HP.

[Haldir]

@Rudy. It is a subpar option especially compared to Dueling and worse it doesn't not equally benefit the different Two Handed weapons equally, 1.33 for 2d6, .833 for d12, .8 for d10 etc. What I use in my fixes is allowing them to reroll any dice, so if they reroll below average they end up with 1.5 for 2d6, 1.5 for d12, 1.25 for d10, and all those get ~7% better when crits are factored in which in absolute terms isn't far off Dueling's +2, albeit quite a bit lower in relative terms but that is a factor of Dueling's starting subpar damage.

This begs the question, however, isn't the original math slightly more balanced, given that GWM is available to 2H and nothing of similar magnitude is available to duelists? Shouldn't 1H fighting deal less damage?

[Zman]

In a 1 on 1 duel what you say is true: enemies will die quicker with more DPR. In a team battle with 4-5 people your damage typically will account for 20-30% which has a much less impact on how fast things die.
In a team fight I'm not seeing how you would compare a fighting style besides to the lack of fighting style or another fighting style (in this case defensive).

Not to mention DMs will often account for more damage by increasing the number of monsters or adding more HP.

a 1v1 or successive 1v1s make it easier to calculate the defensive bonus of additional damage. But, in a group encounter it still exists, it is just difference, the defensive boost provided by additional damage is spread out to more or effectively all members of the party. So, the added damage boost still has a defensive benefit that is not directly comparable, but that benefit is spread out and becomes incredibly difficult to calculate. This is why I insist +10% Damage vs +10% defense is not a constant when measuring effectiveness, and is dependent on baseline damage with the equations moving from undervalueing defense in low base damage builds to undervalueing offense in high base damage builds.

We also can't discount that often encounters are a series of 1v1, or 2v1 or 2v2 combats that make it easier to see this dichotomy in play. Incredibly difficult to quantify, but it exists and should be factored into balance in some way that +10% damage for Dueling is not equivalent to +10% damage for GWF, it is almost by default in the range of >+10% Dueling is equivalent to <+10% for GWF. I am inclined to think that the baseline +7% vs +16% isn't as far off as it appears and +9% vs +9% isn't as balanced as it appears. I believe my changes making it, using your math, ~=11% for GWF vs +16% for Dueling to be a better balance point only because we "know" that +9% vs +9% can't be balanced. I am arguing that a +1.5(~1.6 after Crits) damage increase from GWF in my fix is more balanced with an absolute increase of +2 Damage from Dueling despite a larger absolute and relative increase in damage, and this is because of the underlying base damage and reducing Dueling to the point of +1 Damage where it offers a lower absolute and equal relative boost to damage is underpowered as that doesn't account for the inherent discrepancy between benefits from the added damage. I mean we are already comparing the extra damage from using a Two handed weapon to the +2 AC of being able to use a shield and calling it balanced, how can we not account for base damage styles damage when looking at added damage and deem an equal relative increase balanced? Already we are calling the ~2.7 damage bonus from a Greatsword equivalent to the +2 AC of a Shield, how do we not then maintain that kind of complex relationship when looking at the absolute, relative, and balanced impact of the fighting styles. Using +2.5 Damage = +2AC we can show that +1 Damage from your modified Dueling vs +1 AC for Defensive probably is underpowered, and as we are looking at a +1 AC being more impactful due to the shield and higher base AC it is likely worth more than the +1.35 it would average out. Is +2 Damage that far out of line when our reference balance point for increased damage tell us it has to be higher than +1.35 damage?


DM fiat of increasing monsters or HP doesn't matter for this balance discussion, what matters is the worth of the Fighting styles and their balance compared to each other.


This begs the question, however, isn't the original math slightly more balanced, given that GWM is available to 2H and nothing of similar magnitude is available to duelists? Shouldn't 1H fighting deal less damage?

Dueling still does less damage than GWF, actually dueling deals less damage than non GWF two handed weapon fighting. See the above discussion between me and Kryx where I argue that the relative boost to damage needs to be larger for Dueling than GWF to maintain balance between the fighting styles.

[Kryx]

DPR is a standard in D&D. I use it, you use it, everyone uses it. The comparison I've made uses DPR to compare the two options (fighting style vs no fighting style). It also uses hit chance to then determine the benefit in defense. It then compares those values to see if the tradeoff is worth it.
If you have a better way to model the effectiveness of a fighting style then please do share the extensive math. At which point the forum will pick it apart because you'll have to make tens of assumptions in how a combat plays out which will be different in every game, encounter, group composition, etc.

Above you've wrote a crazy amount of information. If you wish to have a discussion you'll have to be far more concise and to the point (and/or add formatting).

[Tanarii]

Quickest fix is to change Dueling so it only works when the other hand doesn't have a weapon or a shield in it.

[Cybren]

Quickest fix is to change Dueling so it only works when the other hand doesn't have a weapon or a shield in it.

If you do that i wonder if it would be too much to let protection work on yourself. To be honest, when I first read dueling I had assumed you had to have a free hand (because the classic hollywood iconography of a 'duelist' is usually someone armed just with a smallsword)

[Kryx]

Duelist word be totally fine for 1 handed sword and no shield. It's a poor build path.

I don't think it's a bad option to give S&B an offensive option. Duelist is just a bit too strong. +1 damage is more balanced, at least in my rules. RAW perhaps it needs something minor like reroll 1 - I'd have to check.

Protection on yourself is too strong. High AC and 1/turn disadvantage is too much. Defense already exists as the defensive option.

[Cybren]

Protection on yourself is too strong. High AC and 1/turn disadvantage is too much. Defense already exists as the defensive option.

Well, it certainly seems that way on paper, but I feel it would be something that isn't necessary as obvious in play, given you only have one reaction per round.

[Specter]

Currently playing a half-orc fighter with a greataxe, and I can tell you GWF saved my butt many times turning those 1s into 11s, especially on crits.

[Cybren]

Currently playing a half-orc fighter with a greataxe, and I can tell you GWF saved my butt many times turning those 1s into 11s, especially on crits.

That's something people doing hard number crunching overlook- abilities don't have to be 100% equal to each other, because different kinds of players value different things from abilities.

[MaxWilson]

That's something people doing hard number crunching overlook- abilities don't have to be 100% equal to each other, because different kinds of players value different things from abilities.

Yes. "Optimizing" first requires you to understand: "optimal with respect to what?"

There is no global optimum for fun.

[Foxhound438]

two things jump immidiately to mind:

1: the fun factor. It's a lot more engaging as a player to re-roll a one and get a 7 or 8 point damage increase. Far more fun than "does 18 hit you? oh, barely miss".

2: aside from the slight increase in average damage, it shifts your curve upwards. Basically you're a lot less likely to have a dud hit.



As for smite/elemental weapon/hex/whatever else damage dice, that topic has for as long as i've been here been a pretty fervent battle between RAI fans and RAW fans. Every table I've been to allows it, mostly because it's not that big of a deal. When the attack is already hitting for 27 on average, the extra .67 damage from re-rolling the third d6 in the pile is small fish. A paladin inking out an extra 1.5 points of damage from is spell slot (that already averages 9) is not at all game breaking when you compare it to the always-on advantage barbarian with great weapon master and resistance to all the damage in 90% of encounters.

[Tanarii]

If you do that i wonder if it would be too much to let protection work on yourself. To be honest, when I first read dueling I had assumed you had to have a free hand (because the classic hollywood iconography of a 'duelist' is usually someone armed just with a smallsword)I thought that at first two, which is why I'm biased towards this fix. But like Kryx, I'd probably find using Protection Fighting Style on yourself to be too strong for a Fighting Style.

Do you think Protection FS is too weak as well? I mean, I agree it's generally less useful that Dueling as it stands. But if Dueling weren't an S&B option, but rather an S-only option, does Protection need a bump to be comparable to he other styles? IMO at that point the Fighting Styles are balanced as Features.

I still don't think the actual use of fighting techniques would necessarily be balanced, ie when actually used with all applicable Features, Feats, Magic Items etc. But I feel like the FS Feature would be, although obviously it doesn't stand alone.

[Cybren]

I think protection, like some other abilities (whirlwind attack) is easier to use when you aren't using grid combat.

[Tanarii]

I think protection, like some other abilities (whirlwind attack) is easier to use when you aren't using grid combat.
I thought that was the default assumption for 5e? At least, that's the way the rules read to me. Especially with a special DMG call-out for specifically how to run the game on a battle-mat.

[Cybren]

I thought that was the default assumption for 5e? At least, that's the way the rules read to me. Especially with a special DMG call-out for specifically how to run the game on a battle-mat.

it is the default assumption, but I think the average person that frequents a D&D forum probably is also the sort of player that would tend to use a grid. There was a thread a while back where someone asked "who plays on a grid" and it seemed the average person was Pro-Grid.

[MaxWilson]

two things jump immidiately to mind:

1: the fun factor. It's a lot more engaging as a player to re-roll a one and get a 7 or 8 point damage increase. Far more fun than "does 18 hit you? oh, barely miss".

Well, I mean, that depends on the player. You probably mean that "it's a lot more engaging [for me] as a player" to have that experience.

For me, well, I barely even notice the individual hits/misses. Frankly they bore me. I'm more interested in the decisions and high-level events like whether e.g. that Fire Giant there hanging back and plinking from range behind cover vs. trying to punt me over a cliff. For players like me, rolling dice is the most boring part of the whole game. I care about capabilities, tactics, and means.

And that applies when I'm DMing as well as playing, and it shows in the kinds of scenarios I design. If the players are fighting pirates today, I want there to be something interesting about the pirates, whether it's the fact that two of them have crossbows and are going to shoot at backline squishies just out of sheer bloodthirst, or that they are carrying jugs of oil and will light them on fire underneath heavily-armored guys instead of attacking them, or the fact that these pirates like to play dead when hit (Deception vs. Insight contest to detect that they're not really at zero HP).

And apparently you're the exact opposite. That's okay. No playstyle is universal.

[Zman]

DPR is a standard in D&D. I use it, you use it, everyone uses it. The comparison I've made uses DPR to compare the two options (fighting style vs no fighting style). It also uses hit chance to then determine the benefit in defense. It then compares those values to see if the tradeoff is worth it.
If you have a better way to model the effectiveness of a fighting style then please do share the extensive math. At which point the forum will pick it apart because you'll have to make tens of assumptions in how a combat plays out which will be different in every game, encounter, group composition, etc.

Above you've wrote a crazy amount of information. If you wish to have a discussion you'll have to be far more concise and to the point (and/or add formatting).

DPR is a standard concept, and yes we all use it. I am sorry my last post was a bit disjointed, I had little time and it came out as more of a stream of consciousness which I didn't have time to read through it and make it intelligible. I'm not saying I have a model to perfectly demonstrate the effectiveness of fighting styles, but I am saying I can do well enough to show that the assumptions that power your modeling are erroneous and leading to the wrong conclusions. I will do my best to be concise and clear in this post as I have a good half hour or so to get it right.

Lets compare stock Sword and Board's Defense vs Dueling option. Assuming Starting Strength of 16, and a base to hit rate of 65%(standard).

Longsword(5.1 average damage) with net +2 AC vs Greatsword(6.9 average damage).

Neither of us have challenged the worth of a shield or of a Greatsword, the assumption I'm making is that we feel this situation is balanced in a Shield's +2 AC is balanced against the extra damage that a Greatsword provides. Alternatively, we can compare dual shortswords(6.9 average damage) vs the +2 from the shield. I make the assumption this is our starting balance point that is written into the core of the game and neither of us have attempted to change it.

+2AC = 1.8 Damage increase from 5.1 or 35.3% increase in damage.
+2 AC =~+20% Defense( Assume 50% chance to hit, reduce to 40%)
+20% Increase in Defense = +35.3% Damage

AC Damage Coefficient(ACDC) = 1AC = .9 damage or +17.6% Damage Increase from stock longsword.

Now, given this situation we can look at the relative worth of the Fighting styles, or more specifically calculate the worth of Dueling for a Sword and Board Fighter.

Sword and Board-Defense
Defense +1 AC = +12.5% increase in Defense(from 40% to 35%) = 1.25 ACDC
Dueling = +1.3 Damage per round = 25.5% increase in Damage over base Longsword
1.25 ACDC= 22%increase or 1.12 Damage Per round over Base Longsword.
Dueling = 1.44 ACDC

Defense on a Sword and Board Fighter is worth a 1.12 DPR(1.25ACDC) from a Stock Longsword and stock Dueling provides a 1.3 DPR(ACDC 1.44) increase.

Your proposed houserule of valuing Dueling at +1 Damage per hit, or .65 DPR(.72 ACDC) is only valued at 58% the worth of Defense for S&B and is under valued. Stock Dueling, which I support maintaining is valued at 116% the worth of Defense. Not perfect, but much closer when using ACDC to gauge the worth of the two styles.

Now that we have established the worth of Defense and Duelist for the Sword and Board fighter, we can look at the worth of Defense and GWF for a Great Weapon Fighter.

Greatsword = 6.9 DPR
Greataxe = 6.5 DPR
Halberd = 5.8 DPR
Stock GWF Greatsword = 7.8 DPR
Stock GWF Greataxe = 7.1 DPR
Stock GWF Halberd = 6.4 DPR
GWF on Greatsword = .9 DPR or 13% increase over Stock Greatsword Fighter
GWF on Greataxe = .6 DPR or 9.2% increase over Stock Greataxe Fighter
GWF on Halberd = .6 DPR or 10.3% increase over Stock Halberd Fighter

Defense +1 AC = +10% increase in Defense(from 50% to 45%) = 1.0 ACDC
ACDC = 1AC = .9 damage or +17.6% Damage Increase from stock longsword.
GWF on Greatsword or .9 DPR = 1.0 ACDC
GWF on Greataxe = .6 DPR = .67 ACDC
GWF on Halberd = .6 DPR = .67 ACDC

Here, we can see that GWF is only worth the same as Defense on a Greatsword and is worth significantly less on other Great Weapons.

My House Rule increases these to
Greatsword = 6.9 DPR
Greataxe = 6.5 DPR
Halberd = 5.8 DPR
Zman's GWF Greatsword = 7.9 DPR
Zman's GWF Greataxe = 7.6 DPR
Zman's GWF Halberd = 6.7 DPR
Zman's GWF on Greatsword = 1.0 DPR or 14.5% increase over Stock Greatsword Fighter
Zman's GWF on Greataxe = 1.1 DPR or 16.9% increase over Stock Greataxe Fighter
Zman's GWF on Halberd = .9 DPR or 15.5% increase over Stock Halberd Fighter


Defense +1 AC = +10% increase in Defense(from 50% to 45%) = 1.0 ACDC
ACDC = 1AC = .9 damage or +17.6% Damage Increase from stock longsword.
Zman's GWF on Greatsword or 1.0 DPR = 1.11 ACDC
GWF on Greataxe = 1.1 DPR = 1.22 ACDC
GWF on Halberd = .9 DPR = 1.0 ACDC


Defense on a Great Weapon is worth .9 Damage and Stock GWF is worth .9 DPR(1.0ACDC) with a Greatsword and .6 DPR(.67ACDC) on a Greataxe or Halberd. Using my Houserules GWF is worth 1.0 DPR(1.11ACDC), 1.1 DPR(1.22ACDC), and .9 DPR(ACDC). But, as I showed above Dueling is slightly overvalued as well when compared to S&B Duelings worth.


Now we've established the worth of Defense for a Great Weapon Fighter we can compare them all together using my trusty ACDC(AC Damage Coefficient). Essentially due to AC scaling Defense is not worth the same for a Sword and Board Fighter as it is for a Great Weapon Fighter, but we can use the damage vs AC of Sword and Board to Great Weapon to calculate how much the damage boost and AC boost is worth for each using the ACDC as a standard of comparison.

Sword and Board Fighter
Defense = 1.25 ACDC
Dueling(Stock, Zman's, +2 Damage) = 1.44 ACDC(115% S&B Defense)
Dueling(Kryx's, +1 Damage) = .72 ACDC(58% S&B Defense)


Great Weapon Fighter
Defense = 1.00 ACDC
Stock GWF Greatsword = 1.0 ACDC(100% GWF Defense)
Stock GWF Greataxe = .67 ACDC(67% GWF Defense)
Stock GWF Halberd = .67 ACDC(67% GWF Defense)
Stock Average 78% GWF Defense
Zman's GWF Greatsword = 1.11 ACDC(111% GWF Defense)
Zman's GWF Greataxe = 1.22 ACDC(122% GWF Defense)
Zman's GWF Halberd = 1.0 ACDC(100% GWF Defense)
Zman's Average 111% GWF Defense

Using ACDC to compare Dueling vs GWF vs Defense is more effective then using relative percentage damage increase. Using ACDC we find that using an absolute damage increase is more effective than using relative percentage damage increases. If we were to compare relative increases in damage(at 1st level) we would end up with +25.5% for Dueling and only +13% for GWF Greatsword, +9.2% for Greataxe, and +10.2% for Halberd, this would lead us to believe that Dueling was over twice as good as GWF, but this isn't the case we find the gap much smaller with the biggest problem areas being how much non Greatsword weapons suffer from stock GWF. The relative increase in damage was less important than the absolute increses in damage and even less important than that absolute damage increase factored against a coefficient that accounts for different in Defense's value between the builds. Defense, despite being +1 AC, is not a constant, its value is derived from the starting relative AC of the build and S&B builds have a Defense Fighting Style that is more valuable then a GWF's Defense Fighting Style. Given the differences in worth of Defense, the corresponding fighting styles need to be balanced in worth around their corresponding Defense Fighting Style.


That certainly wasn't short, but I did what I could with the time available to codify my thoughts and show how to balance the Fighting Styles using as much concrete information as possible with as few assumptions as possible.

[Vogonjeltz]

The wording of the ability refers to the damage dice of the attack, not the weapon, just like critical hits. You can take or leave letting GWF reroll smite damage, but the ability as you read it does not refer to the damage die dealt by a weapon.

"on a damage die for an attack you make with a melee weapon that you are wielding with two hands"

Smite damage dice don't fulfill the requirement of being from a melee weapon wielding in two hands...nor for that matter are smite dice even part of the attack per se, the ability can be activated off a hit, but it's not intrinsically part of an attack.

[Cybren]

"on a damage die for an attack you make with a melee weapon that you are wielding with two hands"

Smite damage dice don't fulfill the requirement of being from a melee weapon wielding in two hands...nor for that matter are smite dice even part of the attack per se, the ability can be activated off a hit, but it's not intrinsically part of an attack.

The dice are part of the attack in the same way that sneak attack damage are part of the attack. Without ruling that they are, smite dice wouldn't be doubled on a crit.

[Klorox]

From an optimization viewpoint, rudy is right: GWF fighting style is a bit sub-par, unless you find other ways to maximize it (for instance, I'm currently playing a half orc champion with 2 levels of barbarian; with the increased frequency of crits from the champion class and reckless attack, plus the extra die I can reroll from brutal critical, it's a good fighting style).

I'm glad my character is a champion though, as I'll be able to add in defense as well in a couple of levels.

[mgshamster]

When comparing the fighting styles this is the result I came to:
GWF adds about 7% more DPR over defensive.
TWF adds about 12% more DPR over defensive.
Dueling adds about 16% more DPR over defensive.

GWF is low in comparison to the other options, yes.

With my houserules I end up with:
GWF adds about 9% more DPR over defensive.
TWF adds about 10% more DPR over defensive.
Dueling adds about 9% more DPR over defensive.

See DPR of Classes (https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1d-9xDdath8kX_v7Rpts9JFIJwIG3X0-dDUtfax14NT0/edit#gid=2025852255) for the math.

Does that take into account the relative increase of damage of the weapons for the different styles? GWF may add less of a percent of damage, but the typical weapon used with GWF does more damage than the typical weapon for Duelist.

(Sorry if this seems like it can be obviously answered from your charts - that document is difficult to read on my phone).

[Zman]

Does that take into account the relative increase of damage of the weapons for the different styles? GWF may add less of a percent of damage, but the typical weapon used with GWF does more damage than the typical weapon for Duelist.

(Sorry if this seems like it can be obviously answered from your charts - that document is difficult to read on my phone).

Yes, this is a big point of contention between Kryx and myself, he is using relative increases in damage using the base damage of the style as the point of reference, where I use either absolute damage, or as my large post above shows a more complicated method of calculating a constant that allows the Fighting a Styles to be properly compared that shows GWM is actually not as poorly balanced against S&B Dueling and that his fix for Dueling is substantially underpowered.

If you use his method his fixes look balanced, if you use my method mine(and mostly stock) looks balanced, when we use our to look at each other's they look imbalanced.

[Vogonjeltz]

The dice are part of the attack in the same way that sneak attack damage are part of the attack. Without ruling that they are, smite dice wouldn't be doubled on a crit.

196 has to go out of its way to explain that other dice, such as Sneak Attack dice, get to be re-rolled as well if they happen with the attack.

Its stating that they're other dice, not the attack dice, but they still get re-rolled even though one would normally think that they would not.

An exception had to be made, and was.

[Cybren]

196 has to go out of its way to explain that other dice, such as Sneak Attack dice, get to be re-rolled as well if they happen with the attack.

Its stating that they're other dice, not the attack dice, but they still get re-rolled even though one would normally think that they would not.

An exception had to be made, and was.
Sneak attack is specifically mentioned as an example, not an exception. In the course of that it mentions the damage dice as part of the attack, as smite damage is, and as great weapon fighting requires. take or leave great weapon fighting working with smite but outside of the sage advice there's no reason to believe it wouldn't.

[Vogonjeltz]

Sneak attack is specifically mentioned as an example, not an exception. In the course of that it mentions the damage dice as part of the attack, as smite damage is, and as great weapon fighting requires. take or leave great weapon fighting working with smite but outside of the sage advice there's no reason to believe it wouldn't.

Well, the exact language is "If the attack involves other damage dice, such as from the rogue's Sneak Attack feature"

Now, that's distinguishing the attack from any "other damage dice". So, given that I agree that Smite is included in the exception carved out with sneak attack as the example, however in so doing it makes it clear that such bonus dice are not, strictly speaking, part and parcel of the attack. They trigger off it, they can double when it crits, but they don't count for anything else that benefits the attack's damage dice (is there anything?)

Knowing the intent, I'm not sure why they even needed to include the words "for an attack" in there, but instead could have pared the ability down to: "When you roll a 1 or 2 on a damage die for a melee weapon that you are wielding with two hands...".

Would that be sufficient clarification do you think? I don't think it carries any unintended consequences, and it might be worth submitting for errata.

[Cybren]

Well, the exact language is "If the attack involves other damage dice, such as from the rogue's Sneak Attack feature"

Now, that's distinguishing the attack from any "other damage dice". So, given that I agree that Smite is included in the exception carved out with sneak attack as the example, however in so doing it makes it clear that such bonus dice are not, strictly speaking, part and parcel of the attack. They trigger off it, they can double when it crits, but they don't count for anything else that benefits the attack's damage dice (is there anything?)


I mean, to me, that language clearly establishes that the damage dice are part of the attack. They are included, while being "other damage dice".


Knowing the intent, I'm not sure why they even needed to include the words "for an attack" in there, but instead could have pared the ability down to: "When you roll a 1 or 2 on a damage die for a melee weapon that you are wielding with two hands...".

Would that be sufficient clarification do you think? I don't think it carries any unintended consequences, and it might be worth submitting for errata.

My guess is they didn't catch it originally, and don't think it's super unbalanced. The language of the sage advice ruling almost directly invites DMs to choose to rule otherwise, as it makes its primary objection one of dice rolling and not damage potential.