Gwf

[Gydian]

does the reroll on the damage dice extend to smites and the like?

[bid]

No.

It's a sage advice, so you can bend RAW the other way though.

[Vorpalchicken]

It does apply to crits and any damage coming directly from the weapon such as a flame tongue however.

My auto correct changed "tongue" to "coming." A little ahead of itself.

[PeteNutButter]

RAW yes.

Sage advice no.

So take your pick, or rather, ask your DM.

[Rukelnikov]

RAW: Debatable
RAI: No

Consider though, that the increase, while noticeable, is not game breaking in the least, its an average of 0.75 extra damage per smite die.

So a 10th level pally spending his full allotment of spells for the in smites will get an average extra of 18.75 damage (4*2 + 3*3 + 2*4 = 8+9+8 = 25*0.75)

Will it make a difference in a crit? Sure, lets compare said paladin's crit with a greatsword

Regular = 4d6 + 8d8 + Fixed = 4*4.166 + 8 * 4.5 + Fixed = 16.666 + 36 + Fixed ~= 53 + Fixed

GWF for smites = 4d6 + 8d8 + Fixed = 4*4.166 + 8 * 5.25 + Fixed = 16.666 + 42+ Fixed ~= 59 + Fixed

So, in a 50+ hit the difference is 6 damage (or a 10% increase) This is a lesser flat increase (and a MUCH smaller percentage) compared to what GWM gives (ofc GWM is a feat and imposes a penalty)

[Man_Over_Game]

RAW: Debatable
RAI: No

Consider though, that the increase, while noticeable, is not game breaking in the least, its an average of 0.75 extra damage per smite die.

So a 10th level pally spending his full allotment of spells for the in smites will get an average extra of 18.75 damage (4*2 + 3*3 + 2*4 = 8+9+8 = 25*0.75)

Will it make a difference in a crit? Sure, lets compare said paladin's crit with a greatsword

Regular = 4d6 + 8d8 + Fixed = 4*4.166 + 8 * 4.5 + Fixed = 16.666 + 36 + Fixed ~= 53 + Fixed

GWF for smites = 4d6 + 8d8 + Fixed = 4*4.166 + 8 * 5.25 + Fixed = 16.666 + 42+ Fixed ~= 59 + Fixed

So, in a 50+ hit the difference is 6 damage (or a 10% increase) This is a lesser flat increase (and a MUCH smaller percentage) compared to what GWM gives (ofc GWM is a feat and imposes a penalty)

Solid maths!

However, in the case of ambiguity, I always make it a habit to lean towards narrative creativity or balance. Mechanical creativity at my tables is something that needs to be addressed with the DM every time.

Narratively, it doesn't really make anything flashier or cooler than it already was. Balance-wise, two-handed weapons are already used a lot more often than the alternatives (being Sword-And-Board and Dual Wielding), so until those get a buff to make them equally as valid as two-handed weapons, I'd rule No.

[GlenSmash!]

I rule no. It gets weird when you have stuff like a Rogue/Fighter with GWF and a Sunblade in two hands re-rolling 1s and 2s from a bunch of sneak attack d6s.

But it's still neat for Flame Tongue extra damage.

[Petrocorus]

I rule yes.

For the sole reason that without that, the GMFS is basically useless. It gives you +1.33 on average on a greatsword, +0.83 on a halberd.
Not factoring the chances to hit.
I'll take a +1 in AC over this any day.

[Rukelnikov]

Solid maths!

However, in the case of ambiguity, I always make it a habit to lean towards narrative creativity or balance. Mechanical creativity at my tables is something that needs to be addressed with the DM every time.

Narratively, it doesn't really make anything flashier or cooler than it already was. Balance-wise, two-handed weapons are already used a lot more often than the alternatives (being Sword-And-Board and Dual Wielding), so until those get a buff to make them equally as valid as two-handed weapons, I'd rule No.

I completely agree, Paladin doesn't need a buff either.

[Petrocorus]

Narratively, it doesn't really make anything flashier or cooler than it already was. Balance-wise, two-handed weapons are already used a lot more often than the alternatives (being Sword-And-Board and Dual Wielding), so until those get a buff to make them equally as valid as two-handed weapons, I'd rule No.

I would agree, but the power of heavy weapons comes from the GWM and the PAM feats, not from GWFS which is a weaker bump than Dueling by itself.

And concerning Dual Wielding, we all know that both the FS and the feat are poorly designed.

[Mitsu]

No. Two Reasons:

First of all Divine Smite is NOT a weapon damage, it's additional damage.

"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"

That means when you hit with a weapon it deals it's own damage and in addition to that you get Smite damage. It not part of weapon damage as extra damage from magical effect that is inherit into weapon (like Holy Avenger 2k10 extra dmg to Fiends and Undeads).

Second reason is the amount of rerolls:

Let say that typical Vengeance Paladin do 3 attacks per turn: 1k10 + 5 + 1k8 + 5k8. let's say one crits for 2k10 + 5 + 2k8 +10k8.

Overall that is 4k10, 4k8 and 15k8 in one turn. That is overall 24 dices rolls. Plus 3-6 rolls on attack (if VoE is on). 27-30 rolls. Now add to that rerolls of all 1s and 2s. This would be nightmare. Not only rolling all of that, writing down on sheet of paper, adding it, but also rerolling and keeping tracks of all rerolls.

No imagine you can extend that to even 5 attacks per turn. That would break combat at table.

it also makes pretty much impossible for DM to check if player makes correct damage calculations. If he started to do that- that would make that turn even longer....

Also if we allow Smite rerolls: we are giving GWF something that is as strong as extra feat.

Imagine Feat:

"Crushing Smite"

Prerequisite: Paladin

You can reroll 1s and 2s on your Divine Smites, but you must use new roll.

Is it a worthy a feat for Paladins? Hell yeah. It would be awesome feat. Very strong for all Paladins.

Should that be for free in something as basic and Fighting Style? Hell no.

[Mitsu]

I would agree, but the power of heavy weapons comes from the GWM and the PAM feats, not from GWFS which is a weaker bump than Dueling by itself.

And concerning Dual Wielding, we all know that both the FS and the feat are poorly designed.

Yes but on the other hand Great Weapons have access to something like GWM.

And 1h weapons do not have access to anything like that. But Dueling style +2 dmg is a good style at least.

So in my opinion 2h having worse style, but also strong exclusive feat balances 1h weapons who do not have exclusive feat but have better style.



The only overpower thing in all of that is range combat. Archery + SS is most broken out of all 3. Having best style (+2 to accuracy, hello?) and exclusive feat as strong as GWM.

If you buff GWF, first buff 1h weapons.

[LudicSavant]

does the reroll on the damage dice extend to smites and the like?

RAW: Yes. It's about as clear in the RAW as it can be that the damage dice extend to smites and the like.
Sage Advice: No. Also you'll note that JC doesn't say that the text actually agrees with his ruling, he just says that his intent is different from what's in the book.

As for considering what you should do, balance-wise, just look up any of the threads about people comparing which fighting style they should take considering different rulings. The general answers seem to be "If Sage Advice version, do not take this fighting style as a Paladin, taking Dueling or Defense instead" and "If RAW version, which fighting style depends on your build, party composition, and priorities."

[Mitsu]

RAW: Yes.
Sage Advice: No.

For an idea of what you should do, balance-wise, just look up any of the threads about people comparing which fighting style they should take considering different rulings. The general answers seem to be "If Sage Advice version, do not take this fighting style as a Paladin" and "If RAW version, which fighting style depends on your build, party composition, and priorities."

Or instead of picking between underpower RAI and overpower RAW just do homebrew and give it +2 damage, same as Dueling. Done.

[Rukelnikov]

Imagine Feat:

"Crushing Smite"

Prerequisite: Paladin

You can reroll 1s and 2s on your Divine Smites, but you must use new roll.

Is it a worthy a feat for Paladins? Hell yeah. It would be awesome feat. Very strong for all Paladins.

Should that be for free in something as basic and Fighting Style? Hell no.

It's definitely not worthy, check the maths a couple posts above, that feat cant contend with GWM, PAM, or stat increases.

[LudicSavant]

Or instead of picking between underpower RAI and overpower RAW just do homebrew and give it +2 damage, same as Dueling. Done.

Why do you think the RAW is overpowered compared to Dueling?

[Mitsu]

It's definitely not worthy, check the maths a couple posts above, that feat cant contend with GWM, PAM, or stat increases.

I wouldn't say it can contend with GWM, PAM or Stat increase. There are many feats that can't. There is a reason most "optimization" threads evolve around PAM, GWM, Stats Increase, Elven Accuracy etc. There are always stronger feats than others.

But it's also not bad feat.

And definitely it's too strong for mere fighting style, which should be a medium boost to WEAPONS. Not abilities/spells.

Even by logic: Fighting styles are for WEAPONS, EQUIPMENT. No fighting style has direct influence for abilities/features/spells etc. GWF should also not.


Why do you think the RAW is overpowered compared to Dueling?

It's OP not in sheer numbers (though it can lead to nice damage gain one high levels) but because it does something that fighting styles were not suppose to do: it boost abilities/spells (if we treat Smite as either spell or ability).

Styles are mundane skills that character aquires to boost his proficiency/mastery of certain style: Dueling shows mastering 1h weapons, Two-Weapon Fighting mastering using other hand, Archery mastering accuracy of distance weapons etc.

But suddenly if character chose Great Weapon Fighting style: he also magically learnt how to boost his divine smites/spells while wielding 2h weapon.

What I am saying is: don't give one style something that it wasn't suppose to have vs other styles. Styles represent skill on wielding a type of weapon, no skill in boosting your magical/divine abilities.

So instead of making it ability booster, just give it +2 to damage or even accuracy to represent mundane skill of this style. Sure extra accuracy helps LANDING Smites, but do not affect them directly as Smites/Spells/Ability power/damage have NOTHING TO DO WITH YOUR ABILITY TO SKILLFULLY WIELD 2H WEAPONS.

[LudicSavant]

I wouldn't say it can contend with GWM, PAM or Stat increase. There are many feats that can't. There is a reason most "optimization" threads evolve around PAM, GWM, Stats Increase, Elven Accuracy etc. There are always stronger feats than others.

But it's also not bad feat.

And definitely it's too strong for mere fighting style, which should be a medium boost to WEAPONS. Not abilities/spells.

Even by logic: Fighting styles are for WEAPONS, EQUIPMENT. No fighting style has direct influence for abilities/features/spells etc. GWF should also not.

That's not true at all. For example, the Archery fighting style clearly helps you land abilities that augment your ranged attacks.

[Mitsu]

That's not true at all. For example, the Archery fighting style clearly helps you land abilities that augment your ranged attacks.

Yes, but it's mundane skill in nature. Help in landing spell/ability is not the same as directly affecting spell (it's damage, range, radius, effect). Read my edit above, since I answered your question there btw.

[PeteNutButter]

Yes, but it's mundane skill in nature. Help in landing spell/ability is not the same as directly affecting spell (it's damage, range, radius, effect). Read my edit above, since I answered your question there btw.

D&D is more abstract with it's attack and damage rolls. Damage in a large way is where you are hit as much as how hard you are hit. Finesse weapons demonstrate this point.

The fighting style can easily be seen as allowing you to better hit a spot that hurts more. You're better at positioning your greatsword or whatever to hit a better spot, thereby making anything else that hit in that spot--such as smite--also hurt more. I see no such barrier in the flavor or fluff of the feature that it can't help you better deliver the attack and its riders. IMO getting smote in the neck would have to hurt a lot more than the shoulder.

[LudicSavant]

Yes, but it's mundane skill in nature. Help in landing spell/ability is not the same as directly affecting spell (it's damage, range, radius, effect). Read my edit above, since I answered your question there btw.

I don't agree with the reasoning in your edit. It makes perfect sense that landing a cleaner hit with your greatsword would contribute to making your smite more damaging on average, independent of any increase in magical skill.


D&D is more abstract with it's attack and damage rolls. Damage in a large way is where you are hit as much as how hard you are hit. Finesse weapons demonstrate this point.

The fighting style can easily be seen as allowing you to better hit a spot that hurts more. You're better at positioning your greatsword or whatever to hit a better spot, thereby making anything else that hit in that spot--such as smite--also hurt more. I see no such barrier in the flavor or fluff of the feature that it can't help you better deliver the attack and its riders. IMO getting smote in the neck would have to hurt a lot more than the shoulder.

Ninja'd.

[Petrocorus]

Yes but on the other hand Great Weapons have access to something like GWM.

This is true. What i meant is that in a no-feat game, GMFS is not really worth it compared to other styles.



So in my opinion 2h having worse style, but also strong exclusive feat balances 1h weapons who do not have exclusive feat but have better style.

If you go S&B, the relevant feat is Shield Master, which improves both your tanking and your damages.

If you go TWF, well, the Dual Wielder supposedly improves your AC and your damages, but the whole style needs to be rewritten. The fighting styles doesn't give a boost but only alleviates a penalty that should not exist in the first place, and the feat is a lackluster compared to all other "styles" feat.



If you buff GWF, first buff 1h weapons.
So far, the best boost to 1H damages we've got were the SCAG cantrips.

[Mitsu]

I don't agree with the reasoning in your edit. It makes perfect sense that landing a cleaner hit with your greatsword would contribute to making your smite more damaging on average, independent of any increase in magical skill.

I kindly disagree. It makes perfect sense that landing a cleaner hit with greatsword would contribute to actually landing a Divine Smite. But what your skill on landing cleaner hits have to do with how much damage your spell does it beyond me. Then why does +2 damage from Duelist does not affect Smite dice damage? Landing stronger hit should make your smite more damaging, independent of any increase in magical skill.

I think we should agree to disagree. I see fighting styles as pure melee/mundane skills that should have nothing to do with directly affecting spells attributes.

At our table GWF is simple +2 to damage and there is no need for any debate or interpretation. It's clear and simple. As should weapon styles be.

If you'd like to make GWF different from Dueling and Archery, simple make it +1 to dmg and +1 to accuracy.

And we have clear styles:

1. Dueslist: +2 dmg to 1h
2. Archery: +2 to Accuracy with range weapons
3. Great Weapon Fighting: +1 to damage and +1 to accuracy.

Besides as Jeremy Crawford stated:

"The intent is that Great Weapon Fighting lets you reroll just the weapon's dice, not Smite dice and the like"

I believe that Lead rules designer of Dungeons & Dragons > RAW book > RAI.

And maybe wording in RAW is missleading but if Lead Rule Designer says their intent was to just roll weapon dice, then that is RAW as it's them who invented and wrote those rules. He didn't say it's his interpretation, but that it's what was the intent behind GWF. Clear situation for me.

[LudicSavant]

It makes perfect sense that landing a cleaner hit with greatsword would contribute to actually landing a Divine Smite. But what your skill on landing cleaner hits have to do with how much damage your spell does it beyond me.

If you can't see how landing cleaner hits can correspond to higher damage, then you're going to be really confused by abilities like Sneak Attack.

Anywho, it's just plain misleading to say you think something is "OP" because you dislike its flavor, rather than its power level.

[PeteNutButter]

I believe that Lead rules designer of Dungeons & Dragons > RAW book > RAI.

And maybe wording in RAW is missleading but if Lead Rule Designer says their intent was to just roll weapon dice, then that is RAW as it's them who invented and wrote those rules. He didn't say it's his interpretation, but that it's what was the intent behind GWF. Clear situation for me.

...You basically just defined away RAW as also being RAI. There's a reason we have these separate terms.

IMO a lot of the sage advice tweets are utter bonkers and make little to no sense within the scope of the rest of the rules.

[Helldin87]

The rules exist as a contract of sorts between PCs and the DM. Everyone is a player, because this is a game. If you find yourself asking RAI vs RAW questions I would challenge you to first ask:

Is it balanced? If I allow this does it break something else or make someone else so weak by comparison that its a non-choice?

Is it fun? If I allow this do other players feel marginalized at what they do well?

Paladins already have stupid amounts of single target DPR. They are super duper good at it. They are arguably the BEST at it. If you allow them reroll 1/2's does that break other classes? Maybe in that a power gap would grow larger, but not in such a way as it takes something someone else does well and takes it away from them.

Is it fun? Meh. I personally don't think so but that's 100% opinion.

As long as PCs and DM agree on the contract (rules) then everyone gets to have fun. When one side changes it or expects something without clarifying it then bad feelings and resentment follow and ruin the good vibes.

In my games where I DM I would not allow this and I would not expect it as a PC at another table.

[Mitsu]

If you can't see how landing cleaner hits can correspond to higher damage, then you're going to be really confused by abilities like Sneak Attack.

Anywho, it's just plain misleading to say you think something is "OP" because you dislike its flavor, rather than its power level.

According to Jeremy Sneak Attack also does not count to GWF, same as Hex, Hunter's Mark etc.

Only spells that directly inherent damage to the weapon like: Holy Weapon, Elemental Weapon etc. do count towards GWF reroll.

It's simple: inherent damage counts, additional damage does not. And Smite as per it's description is additional damage "expend one spell slot to deal radiant damage to the target, in addition to the weapon's damage"

Of course each to his own table, but official rulling by authors of the book is that intent was to count only weapon damage, no additional damage.

You can play as you want, but I think authors know what they meant to rule, even if spelling is missleading, which I admit is.


...You basically just defined away RAW as also being RAI. There's a reason we have these separate terms.

IMO a lot of the sage advice tweets are utter bonkers and make little to no sense within the scope of the rest of the rules.

I have not defined it. Let's say that people argue if hero of a book is arabic or afro-american. Book is not clear about it. Many fans theorize about it, there are proofs for both theories. Book as written is not clear.

Author of a book comes in during interview about it, let's say it's George Martin for the sake of example, and says "this hero is arabic".

It doesn't matter anymore that books are not clear and what were fans theories. Author has the last say in what was the intent, what is canon, what counts, what not. People may not agree with it, but since he is author and it's his work, he knows best what he did intend and what he did not.

Therefore I don't treat Jeremy words as RAI, but as simple explanation of RAW. Clarification. It's still RAW.

RAW was not clear- therefore we had/have two different approaches: count or does not.

That's where Author himself comes in and says: does not.

It's not RAI, it's just RAW clarification. It's still RAW. Author has last word when it comes to his creation.

Of course, again, anyone can play and RAI as he want. We are not bound by official rules. But official rulling is official rulling imo.

[LudicSavant]

According to Jeremy Sneak Attack also does not count to GWF, same as Hex, Hunter's Mark etc.

That has nothing to do with the point that was being made.

[Mitsu]

That has nothing to do with the point that was being made.

Ok, have it your way. As I said- each to his own. It's apples vs oranges here. Everyone can homebrew GWF as he want :). As long as DM and PCs are ok with that.

[PeteNutButter]

I have not defined it. Let's say that people argue if hero of a book is arabic or afro-american. Book is not clear about it. Many fans theorize about it, there are proofs for both theories. Book as written is not clear.

Author of a book comes in during interview about it, let's say it's George Martin for the sake of example, and says "this hero is arabic".

It doesn't matter anymore that books are not clear and what were fans theories. Author has the last say in what was the intent, what is canon, what counts, what not. People may not agree with it, but since he is author and it's his work, he knows best what he did intend and what he did not.

Are you familiar with the concept of "death of the author"? It's a very common approach these days when discussing literature. The concept is basically the only thing in any given text is what is in it. Whatever the author meant to convey is irrelevant. Granted that's just one way to approach a text, and probably a rather impractical way to approach a game text. I only bring it up because you used a literature example.



Therefore I don't treat Jeremy words as RAI, but as simple explanation of RAW. Clarification. It's still RAW.

RAW was not clear- therefore we had/have two different approaches: count or does not.

That's where Author himself comes in and says: does not.

It's not RAI, it's just RAW clarification. It's still RAW. Author has last word when it comes to his creation.

Of course, again, anyone can play and RAI as he want. We are not bound by official rules. But official rulling is official rulling imo.

RAW, aka Rules As Written, is a pretty clear statement that means the rules as they are written. I wouldn't think it'd need a definition, but somehow I feel like we are using different ones here. RAW is what is written in the book, as it is written. If it was written by the lead designer outside the book, I don't think that should qualify. For the course of this conversation, that is what I will mean by RAW. You're welcome to your own definition, though I don't see the value in defining away RAW. Do I need a new term to describe the rules as they are written in the book? To attempt steel-man your side of the debate, I'd try: "IMO RAI holds greater weight than the RAW. After all the English language is a fickle mistress that betrays you whenever it can, and the author intent is what should really matter, regardless of how the words fell on the page."

How's that sound? Would you agree with that statement?

Now the GWF is one of the few cases where the sage advice actually contradicts the RAW. It's very clear RAW that it doesn't specify weapon damage. I get that after the fact, they might realize they should have, that's fine. If I were playing at your table and you ruled that way, I'd have no disagreement on it. Nevertheless, it contradicts what's in the book. Personally, I'd prefer they just errata it, as they have with many other things. This is one Sage Advice where I don't disagree with the intent.

Perhaps if I explain my perspective, you might understand where I'm coming from on the RAW vs RAI point. Any good game book should have gone through extensive playtesting, and seen multiple rounds of edits. Classes didn't just go from head to page and stay that way. There was a series of edits after seeing them in play. JC was the lead designer, but not the only designer. Several people surely looked at it and approved of it before it went to print. This is why so much UA content is widely out of balance. It's playtest material which is essentially crowd-sourcing this process.

Whenever JC makes a ruling is he doing this extensive playtesting? Is he reading every class feature or spell that might be affected by his ruling and seeing how it might affect the game as a whole including things like class balance and game pacing? Or is he just firing off answers while scrolling through his phone on the can? I suspect it's somewhere in the middle, with maybe a smattering of both sometimes.

He's had to go back and change a few things, so clearly even he isn't sure about the intent all the time. I shouldn't even utter the feat that must not be spoken of, shield master.

Lastly there is something to be said for having book in hand and following it. I'm sure there are plenty groups out there that don't even know about the tweets. They just use the book, and what is in it RAW, maybe making house rules or rulings where they see fit.

[Mitsu]

snip

Valid points. However it's clear that GWF rises question about it's rulling. You don't look at it and "Ah! It's clear!". People scratch their heads about it since release of 5e.

Therefore if RAW is unclear- there is either room for RAI, or we can just ask author what he had in mind. Since it's clear there is no clear definition by RAW. Which why in the case when something is unclear there must be an authority that makes a decision what is official.

Think of it as of referee. Sometimes it not clear what happened on playing field. That is where referee is needed, to make decision, to clarify.

As for play testing. If their intention was that GWF should only apply to weapon damage, then it's clear that during playtesting simply nobody thought of using it on Smites. In my opinion (which is of course assumption)- they made GWF rulling and it was clear for them because they simply did not think that someone will think to connect that to Smites. A simple omission.

Jeremy might not have been the only one who was creating rules, but he was and is Lead rules designer. Same like in company you have directors, chiefs, CEOs etc. Sure they didn't do everything but they had at some point a final say in everything and if there is someone who needs to make some final decision/statement- it's a leader of said team. Because only then everyone see it as a final decision/statement.

What I try to say it is: if rules are unclear, if rules rise questions because wording is strange- there need to be an authority to state clearly what is official rulling. In case of RPGs- that has to be designers. As a final referee.

What DMs and PCs do at tables is irrelevant. Homebrew is normal thing. However when there is a question "X or Y?"- there can't be official rulling "both and neither". It has to be X or Y. Oficiall rullings must be clear. And that is what Jeremy did- he clarified that rule.

And I agree they should errata it finally so no more questions about official GWF rulling will rise. I don't know why it takes them so long.

[Gydian]

No. Two Reasons:

First of all Divine Smite is NOT a weapon damage, it's additional damage.

"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"


To me this covers that smites don't count.

What about sneak attack?

[MeeposFire]

Funny enough I do not think that allowing to work with things like smite is overpowered (in my experience it is pretty tame considering it only increases the average and not the maximum) but in my groups games we refuse to have it work with anything extra because we all hate the extra rolling of dice gimmick and if you let it work with all of that stuff it just drives us all nuts with all the rerolls especially since at times you get a lower roll that you have to keep which sucks. Yea over time it is better but between the potential low rolls and annoyance over rerolls we just chose not to go that way.

[Arcangel4774]

Author has last word when it comes to his creation.

You must pronounce gif "jif".

[Mitsu]

You must pronounce gif "jif".

Actually I pronounce it "g-i-f" as I am not english native speaker and it's natural that way in my language.

But thank you for your concern and for adding a very valid point to this discussion.

[Kadesh]

No. Two Reasons:

First of all Divine Smite is NOT a weapon damage, it's additional damage.

Neat houserule, but irrelevant.

[Mitsu]

Neat houserule, but irrelevant.

It's not houserule, it's in the Divine Smite description...

"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"

Divine Smite is added AFTER you hit the target. In addition to weapon damage. Meaning you have to first hit the target (where GWF applies because that is innitial hit with weapon damage dices rolls) to be able to add Smite to it. Same like Sneak attack.

But again, anyone can play as they want at table. If you allow Smite rerolls- good for you.


Funny enough I do not think that allowing to work with things like smite is overpowered (in my experience it is pretty tame considering it only increases the average and not the maximum) but in my groups games we refuse to have it work with anything extra because we all hate the extra rolling of dice gimmick and if you let it work with all of that stuff it just drives us all nuts with all the rerolls especially since at times you get a lower roll that you have to keep which sucks. Yea over time it is better but between the potential low rolls and annoyance over rerolls we just chose not to go that way.

This is also very very relevant. I don't know how many people tried Smite rerolls on higher tiers, where suddenly party Fighter rolls 4-5 times a turn, Paladins roll 3 times (even up to 5 if they are Hasted Vengeance Paladins) with magic weapon that have even some minor 1k6 additional effect, plus IDS, plus weapon dmg roll, plus smite + let's say Divine Favour. Suddenly everyone at table can go grab coffee, while Paladin player grab note, calculator, pen and will roll around 8 rolls per attack (let's say he attacks 4 times), cirrting once, doubling rolls. Suddenly he rolls 40 dices, and now he can reroll every 1 and 2....

I mean, I am kind of old-fashioned and I believe in "less rolls- more fun" which is already hard in dice-heavy system like DnD. Now adding even more rolls to that.... come on, that is serious immersion breaking pause every turn in combat for whole table....

[ProsecutorGodot]

It's not houserule, it's in the Divine Smite description...

"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"

Divine Smite is added AFTER you hit the target. In addition to weapon damage. Meaning you have to first hit the target (where GWF applies because that is innitial hit with weapon damage dices rolls) to be able to add Smite to it. Same like Sneak attack.

But again, anyone can play as they want at table. If you allow Smite rerolls- good for you.

The problem is that "in addition to the weapon's damage" fits the criteria GWF sets of "damage die of an attack you make with a melee weapon". There are no written rules that say the damage happens after your weapon's damage dice are rolled, the Making an Attack and Damage rules in the PHB tell us that all the applicable damage would be rolled at once, so strict RAW says that it's the weapons damage die.

The wording that would support your ruling would be something along the lines of "When you hit a creature with a melee weapon attack, you can expend one spell slot. If you do so, the target suffers the attack's normal effects and takes Xd8 radiant damage. (insert spell slot scaling here)" this would clear up the confusion between "Weapon Damage" and "Smite Damage".

Your ruling would fall under a house rule because it makes assumptions that aren't written in the rules. There's nothing wrong with that, the game is more enjoyable in my opinion when you tweak it to suit your table rather than adhere to the RAW as if it was an ironclad gospel.

I personally am of the opinion that GWF doesn't need any nerfs, it doesn't feel like an overwhelming advantage and the statistics provided on the first page show that it really isn't one.

EDIT: Thinking further into it, GWF as written doesn't really even care that it's the weapons damage dice. "damage die of an attack you make with a melee weapon" doesn't specify the weapons damage die to begin with, just damage die that are rolled as a result of attacking with the melee weapon. Reading it this way means that my proposed wording for Divine Smite doesn't change the interaction either.

[Kadesh]

It's not houserule, it's in the Divine Smite description...

"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"

Divine Smite is added AFTER you hit the target. In addition to weapon damage. Meaning you have to first hit the target (where GWF applies because that is innitial hit with weapon damage dices rolls) to be able to add Smite to it. Same like Sneak attack.

But again, anyone can play as they want at table. If you allow Smite rerolls- good for you.



This is also very very relevant. I don't know how many people tried Smite rerolls on higher tiers, where suddenly party Fighter rolls 4-5 times a turn, Paladins roll 3 times (even up to 5 if they are Hasted Vengeance Paladins) with magic weapon that have even some minor 1k6 additional effect, plus IDS, plus weapon dmg roll, plus smite + let's say Divine Favour. Suddenly everyone at table can go grab coffee, while Paladin player grab note, calculator, pen and will roll around 8 rolls per attack (let's say he attacks 4 times), cirrting once, doubling rolls. Suddenly he rolls 40 dices, and now he can reroll every 1 and 2....

I mean, I am kind of old-fashioned and I believe in "less rolls- more fun" which is already hard in dice-heavy system like DnD. Now adding even more rolls to that.... come on, that is serious immersion breaking pause every turn in combat for whole table....

But Great Weapon Fighting doesn't care about where the damage comes from? You're making houserules here. I agree, it doesn't make sense to me, which is where the confusion comes from, but not because it's badly written (other than the rule not doing what was apparently intended as shown by Sage Advice).

[Skylivedk]

RAW: yes
RAI according to Crawford: no
Balance: yes (it's a horrible fight style if riders aren't affected).

[Skylivedk]

.

Imagine Feat:

"Crushing Smite"

Prerequisite: Paladin

You can reroll 1s and 2s on your Divine Smites, but you must use new roll.

Is it a worthy a feat for Paladins? Hell yeah. It would be awesome feat. Very strong for all Paladins.

Eh no. Would never ever take it. It's a horrible feat. You need to be math blind to take it. Definition of trap almost, giving Savage Attacker a run for its money.

[Mith]

I'm surprised people are so against the number of dice rolled even with 4 attacks. There are ways to expedite the maths that doesn't involve "everyone going for a coffee". Personally, I probably would prefer all rolls below X are treated as X (with X depending on the damage dice), but that's just because even if it is balanced the same, I like the feel of it as an improvement of character combat.

It should be noted that re-roll mechanics do not leave you worst off than not rolling. It may leave you in the same boat, but it's not too terrible otherwise.

[Mitsu]

But Great Weapon Fighting doesn't care about where the damage comes from? You're making houserules here. I agree, it doesn't make sense to me, which is where the confusion comes from, but not because it's badly written (other than the rule not doing what was apparently intended as shown by Sage Advice).

It's not houserule imo if confirmed by authors that it was intend this way. I tweeted to Jeremy btw and asked him why GWF is still not errata'ed. I hope they finally errata it so no more RAI will be asked.

Imo it was just bad wording:

"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"

In my opinion (which goes with what Jeremy said) they used "attack with melee weapon" instead of more precisce "weapon damage" and they used "the die" which of course was suppose to represent a weapon-only die (because it doesn't say "any die"), but apparently (like many people mocked it here) english is kind of double edge-sword if you don't say it precisely (which I agree as in my language it would be impossible to mix meaning like this) and suddenly it's not clear what is supposed to mean.

The intent was there, but execution was poor :D

[Petrocorus]

(which I agree as in my language it would be impossible to mix meaning like this)

Out of curiosity, what is your language?

[Kadesh]

It's not houserule imo if confirmed by authors that it was intend this way. I tweeted to Jeremy btw and asked him why GWF is still not errata'ed. I hope they finally errata it so no more RAI will be asked.

Imo it was just bad wording:

"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"

In my opinion (which goes with what Jeremy said) they used "attack with melee weapon" instead of more precisce "weapon damage" and they used "the die" which of course was suppose to represent a weapon-only die (because it doesn't say "any die"), but apparently (like many people mocked it here) english is kind of double edge-sword if you don't say it precisely (which I agree as in my language it would be impossible to mix meaning like this) and suddenly it's not clear what is supposed to mean.

The intent was there, but execution was poor :D

Their intentions do not match their words, but the words say whst the words say.

[Mitsu]

Out of curiosity, what is your language?

Polish.

But post needs to have 10 words, so there it is :)

[Mitsu]

Their intentions do not match their words, but the words say whst the words say.

Yeah, well, anyone can make mistake. That is why we have Sage advice to clarify rules when wording is poor. All the editors in the world can't make perfect text/wording each time.

[Skylivedk]

I have a hard time taking Sage Advice as gospel. This example is one of them. The different stances on Shield Master is another one. Especially, because they ended up with a super boring interpretation.

My new approach is to look at their RAI, check what my players find fun and discuss balance with the 1-3 players in my group that I find to have a good grasp of mechanics. Having played since the release of 5e, we're more than fine house ruling what doesn't fit our style of play (so everything from reworking the rest system to adding a range of new attacks to monsters, especially the hp blobs, redesigning feats and subclasses, etc.)

As for the campaign where I'm not playing with houserules, I just avoid the vanilla traps/ask about DM's interpretation to identify them. With the latest tweets, I know if, it translates into me making certain choices as a player:
- no GWF if riders couldn't be rerolled
- no dual wield outside rogues and blade singers
- no frenzy barbarians
- no Shield Master
- no champion
- no pure class ranger
- no 4e monk

[Mitsu]

snip

I fully agree that people should house rule generally everything to have fun. We play to have fun, RAW is just baseline.

But OP asked what is official rulling.

And this whole thread proofs that GWF need to finally get errata.

[Petrocorus]

- no Shield Master

I don't get what's the problem with Shield Master?

[LudicSavant]

I don't get what's the problem with Shield Master?

The most controversial tweet in all of 5e happened to it, overturning years of precedent on how the rule worked.

[Skylivedk]

I fully agree that people should house rule generally everything to have fun. We play to have fun, RAW is just baseline.

But OP asked what is official rulling.

And this whole thread proofs that GWF need to finally get errata.

From the POV of clarity, yes. From a (mathematical) balance point of view, if you only reroll the weapon table damage dice, it's a horrible use of your fighting style choice.

They ought to utterly rewrite it. When it's close to being balanced (what I and others refers to RAW) it is way better for one martial (the Paladin) than the others and can consume way too much table time.

End result is that it's either weak or a time stealer. Bad design IMO :)

[Rukelnikov]

From the POV of clarity, yes. From a (mathematical) balance point of view, if you only reroll the weapon table damage dice, it's a horrible use of your fighting style choice.

They ought to utterly rewrite it. When it's close to being balanced (what I and others refers to RAW) it is way better for one martial (the Paladin) than the others and can consume way too much table time.

End result is that it's either weak or a time stealer. Bad design IMO :)

Second time I see you saying this, would you care as to explain why is it so "horribly balanced"?

[Mitsu]

The most controversial tweet in all of 5e happened to it, overturning years of precedent on how the rule worked.

I personally (since I never used it) don't understand the controversial about Shield Master feat. Description of feat says:

"If you take the Attack action on your turn, you can use a bonus action to try to shove a creature within 5 feet of you with your shield"

It says that you can use bonus action to shove only if you take attack action in your turn. Meaning you have to first do attack action to be able to do shove bonus action. "If you take XX, you can use YY".

I am not sure what is controversial about it, unless they already errated it and I am quoting errated rule for this feat. But if not- it seems kind of obvious to me.

[ProsecutorGodot]

I personally (since I never used it) don't understand the controversial about Shield Master feat. Description of feat says:

"If you take the Attack action on your turn, you can use a bonus action to try to shove a creature within 5 feet of you with your shield"

It says that you can use bonus action to shove only if you take attack action in your turn. Meaning you have to first do attack action to be able to do shove bonus action. "If you take XX, you can use YY".

I am not sure what is controversial about it, unless they already errated it and I am quoting errated rule for this feat. But if not- it seems kind of obvious to me.

The point of contention is because the timing was never specified in the written rules. Prior to the new (notably contradicting a precedent JC set himself) clarification, it was assumed and accepted that you could before your attacks as part of the attack action as well as between your attacks. Reading it by RAW. you met the condition for a bonus action shove so long as your action on that turn was the attack action. Some call it the "Permission Slip Model".

The newest clarification has not only explained that using the bonus action shove before your attacks is not allowed but using it during is also not allowed because apparently the Attack Action and all attacks made as part happen in such a way that there is no "taking" the attack action at all, it just happens.

I personally think it's fine either way, however, the previous precedent was overturned suddenly for very little reason other than it was "cheese".

There is also the issue that if this ever does find it's way into an official errata it would negatively impact many shield based character builds in AL.

Here's a thread where the discussion was done to death (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?558521-JC-Update-on-bonus-actions), if you'd like to try and understand all the sides of the issue. It definitely gave me some perspective on it.

[Mitsu]

The point of contention is because the timing was never specified in the written rules. Prior to the new (notably contradicting a precedent JC set himself) clarification, it was assumed and accepted that you could before your attacks as part of the attack action as well as between your attacks. Reading it by RAW. you met the condition for a bonus action shove so long as your action on that turn was the attack action. Some call it the "Permission Slip Model".

The newest clarification has not only explained that using the bonus action shove before your attacks is not allowed but using it during is also not allowed because apparently the Attack Action and all attacks made as part happen in such a way that there is no "taking" the attack action at all, it just happens.

I personally think it's fine either way, however, the previous precedent was overturned suddenly for very little reason other than it was "cheese".

There is also the issue that if this ever does find it's way into an official errata it would negatively impact many shield based character builds in AL.

Here's a thread where the discussion was done to death (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?558521-JC-Update-on-bonus-actions), if you'd like to try and understand all the sides of the issue. It definitely gave me some perspective on it.

Maybe I don't try to read into every rule and grammar in book, but I always thought that extra attacks are part of Action Attack, even Action Surge shows that. So taking Action Attack meaning burning your action attack in this turn- making one or all of your extra attacks, but you can't do attack, something, extra attacks because it seems like you make Action, something, Action.

But that is off-topic so I will shut up :D. Thanks for link, I will definitely read that today!

[Skylivedk]

I fully agree that people should house rule generally everything to have fun. We play to have fun, RAW is just baseline.

But OP asked what is official rulling.

And this whole thread proofs that GWF need to finally get errata.


Second time I see you saying this, would you care as to explain why is it so "horribly balanced"?

In short, it provides less damage than dueling (1,33 for greatswords and 0,83 for greataxes vs 2 with no variance; and players ought to be generally inclined to pick stability) and it does so at the cost of game time. https://rpg.stackexchange.com/questions/47172/how-much-damage-does-great-weapon-fighting-add-on-average

It also does so for the fighting style that is supposedly the most focused on offense.

It is still within bounded accuracy, so pardon the hyperbole. You can of course still have fun while playing with it.

But let's check the other extreme: The "horror scenario" of a 5d8 reroll. It's worth 4,25 dmg or 8,5 dmg on a crit. I'd happily let my players have those moments of shine and glee considering that they have willingly sacrificed substantial chunks of health ever since they picked GWF over Defense.

[LudicSavant]

I personally (since I never used it) don't understand the controversial about Shield Master feat. Description of feat says:

"If you take the Attack action on your turn, you can use a bonus action to try to shove a creature within 5 feet of you with your shield"

It says that you can use bonus action to shove only if you take attack action in your turn. Meaning you have to first do attack action to be able to do shove bonus action. "If you take XX, you can use YY".

I am not sure what is controversial about it, unless they already errated it and I am quoting errated rule for this feat. But if not- it seems kind of obvious to me.

There are several reasons that the ruling is controversial. I'll try to sum up some of the main ones.

1) "If" does not necessarily mean "after." This is not just a nuance of the English language, but also a well-established precedent in 5e, both in the rulebooks themselves and in designer comments preceding this particular Tweet. For example, the rules for breaking up movement between attacks says "if you take an Action that includes more than one weapon attack" you can do it.

If the wording "if you take X Action" really meant "after you complete X action, Extra Attacks and all" as the tweet claims it does, then this entire section of the rules would be rendered self-contradictory and you wouldn't be able to move between attacks.

2) JC made a complaint about Shield Master's balance prior to making the tweet. Then he comes out with a new rule that nerfs Shield Master that overturns years of precedent, including precedent from himself. Then he says it's a "clarification" rather than a change, and even more that "it's not about Shield Master." (https://www.sageadvice.eu/2018/05/31/shield-master-should-follow-something-more-akin-to-the-annoying-bonus-spell-general-rule/)

People were quick to call him out on this.

3) JC's change does not appear to improve balance. JC's complaint about the balance of Shield Master said you shouldn't be able to shove->attack->attack. But other feats (such as Crossbow Expert and Polearm Master, which were often considered to already be stronger) already let you do that.

Contrast the case of Shield Master with Polearm Master, for instance.

Case 1: You have Extra Attack and Shield Master (pre-nerf)
- You have the option to Shove, followed by 2 attacks. (Bonus action shove -> Attack -> Extra Attack)

Case 2: You have Extra Attack and PAM (current)
- You have the option to Shove, followed by 2 attacks. (Shove replaces first attack -> Extra Attack -> Bonus action attack)

And of course you can wield a shield while using PAM, too (the ability to do this was even increased by the recent errata, adding the spear to the list of PAM options).

Case 3: You have Extra Attack and Shield Master (post-nerf)
- You have the option to take 2 attacks, followed by a Shove.

This is significantly less effective, because A) you don't get Advantage on your own attacks, and B) if you're in a situation where landing a shove is very important, then you don't have the ability to try to shove again after failing the bonus action shove, and C) you are more reliant on initiative order for the usefulness of your ability (e.g. if the enemy goes right after you, your shove doesn't confer Advantage to anyone), and D) you can't use popular tactics like shove prone -> grapple, other than by using your Attack action to shove at the start of your turn (and therefore not using the feat's shove).

4) JC's change does not appear to make the system more elegant. It seems weird that a level 20 Fighter has to complete all 4 of their attacks before they can bonus action shove, while someone with Haste can make 1 attack, shove, then make the rest of their attacks (because Haste's attack is a separate Action).

[Rukelnikov]

In short, it provides less damage than dueling (1,33 for greatswords and 0,83 for greataxes vs 2 with no variance; and players ought to be generally inclined to pick stability) and it does so at the cost of game time. https://rpg.stackexchange.com/questions/47172/how-much-damage-does-great-weapon-fighting-add-on-average

It also does so for the fighting style that is supposedly the most focused on offense.

Exactly, it gives 66% the damage bonus of Dueling style (133% on crits), coupled with 2-handeds already dealing better damage than 1-handeds I don't see how's it "not even close o being balanced".

[Mitsu]

Case 3: You have Extra Attack and Shield Master (post-nerf)
- You have the option to take 2 attacks, followed by a Shove.

This is significantly less effective, because A) you don't get Advantage on your own attacks, and B) if you're in a situation where landing a shove is very important, then you don't have the ability to try to shove again after failing the bonus action shove, and C) you are more reliant on initiative order for the usefulness of your ability (e.g. if the enemy goes right after you, your shove doesn't confer Advantage to anyone).

4) JC's change does not appear to make the system more elegant. It seems weird that a level 20 Fighter has to complete all 4 of their attacks before they can bonus action shove, while someone with Haste can make 1 attack, shove, then make the rest of their attacks (because Haste's attack is a separate Action).

I hear you. But on the other hand- to get advantage vs one target for free (I mean even if target succeed you can repeat it every turn) is kind of imo little too strong. For example to get advantage otherwise it requires a specific spells that do specific CC effects, which requires appropriate level, burns resources per day or short rest (like Hold Person, Entangle, Vow of Enmity, Darkness + Devilsight combo etc.) and if target succeed (apart from VoE) you just lost your resource. But with Shove it just seems way to easy to repeat that every turn as SnB martial does not have anything better to do with his bonus action anyway unless he also took PAM.

Even Moon Druid when he shapes into forms that have prone of every attack sacrefice:
1. One of his shapes per short rest
2. Has fixed DC on it and can't boost it
3. Has much lower DPR and dmg than optimized Fighter with pre-nerf Shield Master

It's just too strong to spam shove without any concern for free advantage when it hits. Imo it makes sense that it should be more of set-up for rest of the team than private advantage generating tool for fighter. Want advantage for free vs one target- take Vengeance Paladin. I agree with nerf. Even Wild Shapes with prone usually prone and can't do anything about target, just set it for allies. Same should be with defensive trait like Shield Master.

From what see Shield Master was suppose to be defensive feat as opposed to PAM, GWM, SS that are offensive. Getting yourself free advantage for nothing is imo pretty offensive.

While I agree with wording, I also agree with "nerf". Advantage should not be easy or free or being able to repeat it every turn without burning any resource "until it's in".

So I now understand why some people are upset, but I agree with Jeremy here.

Just my opinion.

[Corran]

Very well said LudicSavant (about shield master). Especially 3B. I'll go back and read your post one more time now, as it provides me with some moral satisfaction.

[Skylivedk]

Exactly, it gives 66% the damage bonus of Dueling style (133% on crits), coupled with 2-handeds already dealing better damage than 1-handeds I don't see how's it "not even close o being balanced".

Because 2-handers are supposed to do the most damage. They don't bring anything else to the table. Their fighting style shouldn't buff them LESS than the style also offering +2 AC.

Greataxe average dmg = 6,5. With GWF = 7,33

Longsword average dmg = 4,5. With dueling = 6,5.

Crits are only 5%, so you can change that 66,666666 to 67%. Woohoo!! Aka horrible. Don't be fooled by the outliers of crits. It's like all the posts you see where people recommend greataxes for barbarians due to brutal critical. Kwikmaffs will show you it's mechanically inferior.



Even Moon Druid when he shapes into forms that have prone of every attack sacrefice:
1. One of his shapes per short rest
2. Has fixed DC on it and can't boost it
3. Has much lower DPR and dmg than optimized Fighter with pre-nerf Shield Master

*SNIP*

While I agree with wording, I also agree with "nerf". Advantage should not be easy or free or being able to repeat it every turn without burning any resource "until it's in".

So I now understand why some people are upset, but I agree with Jeremy here.

Just my opinion.

A bonus action is not free. Very much not so on a bunch of classes (smite spells, rage, rogue actions, second wind, cavalier's Mark, hex, baleful curse, Hunter's Mark, etc).

It's furthermore not free because you paid a feat for it. Which the moon druid didn't. Instead he got it on top of big bag of temp hp and being a full caster with one of the best spell lists who could, without a feat, do full ability modifier multi attacks before anyone else. So yeah... The fighter jet is slower at driving than the Ferrari. It's also a fighter jet.

If the bonus action could be delayed to synergise with other players, it would be slightly better. In its current form, it:

A) encourages hardcore metagaming of the initiative order
B) makes no flavour sense whatsoever. In my very early teens, I did some rough LARPing. Opening with a shield bash was pretty damn effective. That was also true fifteen years later when I tried historical martial arts.

[Pex]

From the POV of clarity, yes. From a (mathematical) balance point of view, if you only reroll the weapon table damage dice, it's a horrible use of your fighting style choice.

They ought to utterly rewrite it. When it's close to being balanced (what I and others refers to RAW) it is way better for one martial (the Paladin) than the others and can consume way too much table time.

End result is that it's either weak or a time stealer. Bad design IMO :)

No one in my group minds how long it takes for my paladin to reroll the dice. It takes a couple of seconds. I don't see the gnashing teeth big deal of it.

[Skylivedk]

No one in my group minds how long it takes for my paladin to reroll the dice. It takes a couple of seconds. I don't see the gnashing teeth big deal of it.

Neither did we. But he also rerolled everything and everybody thought it was cool and a deserved moment of spotlight as holy wrath smited the evil doers. Also, rolling 1 or 2 dice take us as long as five or ten.

... We have a lot of dice.

[Ganymede]

My sympathies go out to the original poster, whose rule question was answered in the very first reply but was followed up with three pages of contradictory chatter.

[Mitsu]

was followed up with three pages of contradictory chatter.

First time on any "forum" ? ;)

[Pex]

My sympathies go out to the original poster, whose rule question was answered in the very first reply but was followed up with three pages of contradictory chatter.

Welcome to the internet.

[Rukelnikov]

Because 2-handers are supposed to do the most damage. They don't bring anything else to the table. Their fighting style shouldn't buff them LESS than the style also offering +2 AC.

Greataxe average dmg = 6,5. With GWF = 7,33

Longsword average dmg = 4,5. With dueling = 6,5.

Crits are only 5%, so you can change that 66,666666 to 67%. Woohoo!! Aka horrible. Don't be fooled by the outliers of crits. It's like all the posts you see where people recommend greataxes for barbarians due to brutal critical. Kwikmaffs will show you it's mechanically inferior.



A bonus action is not free. Very much not so on a bunch of classes (smite spells, rage, rogue actions, second wind, cavalier's Mark, hex, baleful curse, Hunter's Mark, etc).

It's furthermore not free because you paid a feat for it. Which the moon druid didn't. Instead he got it on top of big bag of temp hp and being a full caster with one of the best spell lists who could, without a feat, do full ability modifier multi attacks before anyone else. So yeah... The fighter jet is slower at driving than the Ferrari. It's also a fighter jet.

If the bonus action could be delayed to synergise with other players, it would be slightly better. In its current form, it:

A) encourages hardcore metagaming of the initiative order
B) makes no flavour sense whatsoever. In my very early teens, I did some rough LARPing. Opening with a shield bash was pretty damn effective. That was also true fifteen years later when I tried historical martial arts.

I generally use a script I did in python to calculate avg damage, against AC range of 10-16, lvl 1 ftr using a greatsword with style gets a bonus damage from style of about 1, Dueling gets about 1.4. The fact remains that with or without style, 2 handeds are the most damaging weapons in the game.

And btw a 20th level elven barbarian with EA, against AC ranges of 16-22 does around a 3.5% more damage with a greataxe than with a greatsword, if said barbarian dipped 3 levels of ftr for champion and style, the difference is about 6% (the advantage for the greataxe, keeps increasing the higher the ACs). Crits pay if you build for them.

attMod = 5
critRange = 1
dicePerAttack = 1

averageHitDamage = 10
averageCritDamage = 17

ACRange = range(10, 17)

for targetAC in ACRange:

critChance = 1 - pow((float(20 - critRange)/20), dicePerAttack)
missChance = pow(float(min(max(targetAC - 1 - attMod, 1), 19))/20, dicePerAttack)
hitChance = 1 - critChance - missChance

hitDamage = hitChance * averageHitDamage
critDamage = critChance * averageCritDamage
averageAttackDamage = hitDamage + critDamage

print averageAttackDamage

[Skylivedk]

I generally use a script I did in python to calculate avg damage, against AC range of 10-16, lvl 1 ftr using a greatsword with style gets a bonus damage from style of about 1, Dueling gets about 1.4. The fact remains that with or without style, 2 handeds are the most damaging weapons in the game.

And btw a 20th level elven barbarian with EA, against AC ranges of 16-22 does around a 3.5% more damage with a greataxe than with a greatsword, if said barbarian dipped 3 levels of ftr for champion and style, the difference is about 6% (the advantage for the greataxe, keeps increasing the higher the ACs). Crits pay if you build for them.

attMod = 5
critRange = 1
dicePerAttack = 1

averageHitDamage = 10
averageCritDamage = 17

ACRange = range(10, 17)

for targetAC in ACRange:

critChance = 1 - pow((float(20 - critRange)/20), dicePerAttack)
missChance = pow(float(min(max(targetAC - 1 - attMod, 1), 19))/20, dicePerAttack)
hitChance = 1 - critChance - missChance

hitDamage = hitChance * averageHitDamage
critDamage = critChance * averageCritDamage
averageAttackDamage = hitDamage + critDamage

print averageAttackDamage

A) You seem to miss my point. My own napkin calculations showed the 2hander to give the most damage as well. Being the most damaging doesn't matter much if the difference is negligible and the investment/alternative cost is big.

B) this might be personal preference, but I don't really judge builds for their level 20 capacity. I've yet to see them in play and they often neglect that you've been worse at your core features for a long long time. Also Elven accuracy doesn't work with strength, so your build is strictly worse with the feat and without it, you're back to my point :)

either way, greataxe Vs greatsword is super off topic (but I do appreciate you indirectly validating what I wrote), and I think OP has more than enough (probably more like an overload of) information to make his own call. I've laid out my reasons for allowing the reroll of riders quite clearly with math that's very easy to scale to the appropriate level alongside my source. YMMV, have fun.

[Rukelnikov]

A) You seem to miss my point. My own napkin calculations showed the 2hander to give the most damage as well. Being the most damaging doesn't matter much if the difference is negligible and the investment/alternative cost is big.

B) this might be personal preference, but I don't really judge builds for their level 20 capacity. I've yet to see them in play and they often neglect that you've been worse at your core features for a long long time. Also Elven accuracy doesn't work with strength, so your build is strictly worse with the feat and without it, you're back to my point :)

either way, greataxe Vs greatsword is super off topic (but I do appreciate you indirectly validating what I wrote), and I think OP has more than enough (probably more like an overload of) information to make his own call. I've laid out my reasons for allowing the reroll of riders quite clearly with math that's very easy to scale to the appropriate level alongside my source. YMMV, have fun.

Guess that elf will have to dip Hexblade instead of Ftr (and become half-elf maybe?), and keep the greataxe ahead of the greatsword.

I dunno at which point greataxe overtakes the greatsword tbh, but my guess is once 19-20 and trivantage are on play its already ahead or dead even, that happens at lvl 7.

Nope this makes no sense Gaxe requires brutal crit to come ahead, so it would be by lvl 12, a bit late, but if you are starting a campaign at those levels its pays off.

[Skylivedk]

Guess that elf will have to dip Hexblade instead of Ftr (and become half-elf maybe?), and keep the greataxe ahead of the greatsword.

I dunno at which point greataxe overtakes the greatsword tbh, but my guess is once 19-20 and trivantage are on play its already ahead or dead even, that happens at lvl 7.

Nope this makes no sense Gaxe requires brutal crit to come ahead, so it would be by lvl 12, a bit late, but if you are starting a campaign at those levels its pays off.

Still won't work. Reckless is strength only and so is the the damage from rage. Sorry to come off as arrogant/dismissive, but try:
A) checking if your builds are legal
B) comparing them to what another character with similar point buy/rolled stats could have. There's probably a bunch of case far from standard point buy I've neglected.
C) include two level appropriate encounters pr short rest.
D) do another thread if you are no longer on topic on GWF.

[Rukelnikov]

Still won't work. Reckless is strength only and so is the the damage from rage. Sorry to come off as arrogant/dismissive, but try:
A) checking if your builds are legal

My first build IS legal and still beats the greatsword, just dont make use of EA, greataxe still comes ahead, by 1% less than before.


B) comparing them to what another character with similar point buy/rolled stats could have. There's probably a bunch of case far from standard point buy I've neglected.
Moving goalposts

C) include two level appropriate encounters pr short rest.

Moving goalposts

D) do another thread if you are no longer on topic on GWF.
Are you a mod?

Btw, try to bring some kind of mathemathical proof before making baseless claims like you do ;)

[Skylivedk]

My first build IS legal and still beats the greatsword, just dont make use of EA, greataxe still comes ahead, by 1% less than before.


Moving goalposts

Moving goalposts

Are you a mod?

Btw, try to bring some kind of mathemathical proof before making baseless claims like you do ;)

Sorry OP for a big part of my answer (all of the second part) taking the bait and hijacking the thread with the Greatsword and Greataxe answer in the following.

I showed my point about GWF in the long long ago. I've not moved any goal posts. I've claimed that:


GWF without rerolling riders is weak.
I've shown my math supporting that and which arguments underpin it. I can summarise: less damage pr swing than dueling for a fightstyle supporting a build that is focused on damage (source: https://rpg.stackexchange.com/questions/47172/how-much-damage-does-great-weapon-fighting-add-on-average). I used the simplified metric of damage pr. swing because it was a simple argument to be made.

Greatsword is a better choice for Barbarians than Greataxe.
It's a bit of a blanket statement, granted. There's probably edge cases and tipping points I ignored.

Didn't do the math there, it's easy though. The threshold is the .5 extra damage pr. swing from the greatsword. Pr. swing is a bad metric. I know that - see more below

With 5% Crit:
Brutal Critical's (1): ((6,5*5%) - (3,5*5%)) = 0,15 = NOT WORTH IT
Brutal Critical's (2): ((2*6,5*5%) - (2*3,5*5%)) = 0,3 = NOT WORTH IT
Brutal Critical's (3): ((3*6,5*5%) - (3*3,5*5%)) = 0,45 = NOT WORTH IT

Now, I know I'm not being meticulous enough. To be that, I should run Monte Carlo simulations and have level appropriate encounters, etc. (like PhoenixPyre and Kryx usually do). Pardon that. My conference call didn't give me enough waste time to do it. If you have some cool Python coding done already please go ahead.

With a 3 level investment in Champion, the greataxe is worth it from your Brutal Crit (2) with a 0,6 passing the threshold. That's at level 16 at the earliest. In return you lose a path feature, persistent rage and delay your ASI. You get something quite cool in return of course: namely Action Surge for better nova.

Still, IMO the ASI alone would make it not worth it (again). I didn't do the math with GWF. Feel free.

Didn't check your math without EA - the EA build was clearly not legal, so I don't know what you mean by your first build. You mean the Champion Build that is 4 STR and 4 Con behind on level 20? What is your metric? Pr. swing, max damage, pr. round, pr. encounter, pr. adventuring day? I'd go for adventuring day myself since that's what the game is supposedly built for. In other words, I don't know which goal posts you were aiming for, so I don't know when you felt they were moved.

No point in doing comparisons of damage pr. swing/dpr/etc. if one build gets free feats/class levels and the other one doesn't. My original post only showed the pr. swing damage, because it was enough for the point being made then. As you can see, main points still stand. You might cherry pick your cases and start with 18 STR pre-racials in which case the cost of the ASI is obviously lessened. I didn't write my assumptions (Standard Point Buy), because it's so rooted in me. M'bad.

I'm not a mod, but I understand why people are annoyed with thread derailing. I've had happen to me a couple of times (most annoyingly when looking for alternatives to wildshape).

[Rukelnikov]

Sorry OP for a big part of my answer (all of the second part) taking the bait and hijacking the thread with the Greatsword and Greataxe answer in the following.

I showed my point about GWF in the long long ago. I've not moved any goal posts. I've claimed that:

GWF without rerolling riders is weak.
I've shown my math supporting that and which arguments underpin it. I can summarise: less damage pr swing than dueling for a fightstyle supporting a build that is focused on damage (source: https://rpg.stackexchange.com/questions/47172/how-much-damage-does-great-weapon-fighting-add-on-average). I used the simplified metric of damage pr. swing because it was a simple argument to be made.

You showed it's weaker than Dueling, not that it is weak, it increases damage about a 70% of what dueling does, thats it.


Greatsword is a better choice for Barbarians than Greataxe.
It's a bit of a blanket statement, granted. There's probably edge cases and tipping points I ignored.

Didn't do the math there, it's easy though. The threshold is the .5 extra damage pr. swing from the greatsword. Pr. swing is a bad metric. I know that - see more below

I actually think its the logical one to use for this case, we are using the same build just swapping weapons. Its the one I used btw.



With 5% Crit:
Brutal Critical's (1): ((6,5*5%) - (3,5*5%)) = 0,15 = NOT WORTH IT
Brutal Critical's (2): ((2*6,5*5%) - (2*3,5*5%)) = 0,3 = NOT WORTH IT
Brutal Critical's (3): ((3*6,5*5%) - (3*3,5*5%)) = 0,45 = NOT WORTH IT

Now, I know I'm not being meticulous enough. To be that, I should run Monte Carlo simulations and have level appropriate encounters, etc. (like PhoenixPyre and Kryx usually do). Pardon that. My conference call didn't give me enough waste time to do it. If you have some cool Python coding done already please go ahead.

With a 3 level investment in Champion, the greataxe is worth it from your Brutal Crit (2) with a 0,6 passing the threshold. That's at level 16 at the earliest. In return you lose a path feature, persistent rage and delay your ASI. You get something quite cool in return of course: namely Action Surge for better nova.

Still, IMO the ASI alone would make it not worth it (again). I didn't do the math with GWF. Feel free.

You don't really need actual enemies to test this, we are just testing the same build with 2 different weapons that differ only in damage dice. What we need though is level appropiate AC, I think 16-22 is an appropiate range.

Tbh, I did it on the fly yesterday night, (and apparently without thinking too much), thw GWF style benefits the Gsword more than the Gaxe, even with brutal critical 3 into the mix, so a straight barbarian gets even more of a bang out of a greataxe, just critting on a 20.

Im gonna go for the simplest proof I can think of:

Take a straight barbarian, with nothing fancy.

The gsword beats the gaxe by .5 damage every hit, the gaxe beats the gsword by 8 damage every crit (7*3.5 = 24.5, 5*6.5 = 32.5)
This means that gaxe needs to crit once every 16 (8/0.5) hits or less to get equal or more damage than gsword.
1 crit every 16 hits or less, means requiring 4 or more on the dice roll to hit the enemy.
Against level appropiate enemies, even attacking at +13 (ie: not using GWM), you will, more than likely, need more than a 4 on the dice to hit

This is a 4 lines proof that the greataxe deals more damage per swing than the gsword, when just taking the attack action.

If we factor "most likely scenario", the barbarian will have advantage on his attack.
Advantage means .0975 chance to crit, no matter our attack bonus or enemy AC, our chance to hit will never be 16 times this, since that would add up to more than 100% (0.975 * 16 = 1.56)

With or without advantage, with o without GWM, a barbarian deals more damage per swing with a gaxe.

The combat style though, evens the playground a lot, making it so you need to crit every 7.5 hits to come ahead (taking BC3 into account).

So, this means WotC did a good job, a Figther gets more damage by using gsword, and a Barbarian get more damage by using a gaxe, and so system encourages fluff.


Didn't check your math without EA - the EA build was clearly not legal, so I don't know what you mean by your first build. You mean the Champion Build that is 4 STR and 4 Con behind on level 20? What is your metric? Pr. swing, max damage, pr. round, pr. encounter, pr. adventuring day? I'd go for adventuring day myself since that's what the game is supposedly built for. In other words, I don't know which goal posts you were aiming for, so I don't know when you felt they were moved.

The EA build is legal, having the feat doesn't force you to use it. Trivantage isn't required for the Gaxe to outdamage the Gsword per swing, but it would have widened the gap. Its a total waste of a feat though.

Adventuring day is not a viable metric, since it can vary from table to table, in the same table from story to story, and in the same story from day to day.

Damage test is against an infinite HP dummy with a set AC.

EDIT: To add to this, the more you try to model a "real case" scenario, the more you will end up with things like Aura of Protection being a higher incerase in damage than Brutal Critical or maybe even GWM or PAM, since being able to act is a huge increase on DPR over not being able to act. But when you are on that terrain, you are not calcing damage anymore.


No point in doing comparisons of damage pr. swing/dpr/etc. if one build gets free feats/class levels and the other one doesn't. My original post only showed the pr. swing damage, because it was enough for the point being made then. As you can see, main points still stand. You might cherry pick your cases and start with 18 STR pre-racials in which case the cost of the ASI is obviously lessened. I didn't write my assumptions (Standard Point Buy), because it's so rooted in me. M'bad.

But its not, I also did my calcs per swing, 27 point buy, 20th level, since thats the standard.


I'm not a mod, but I understand why people are annoyed with thread derailing. I've had happen to me a couple of times (most annoyingly when looking for alternatives to wildshape).



Its a thread about GWF and we are discussing two of the most common GWs, I don't think its that off topic tbh.

[Vekon]

No, because this game doesn't need more dice being rolled and further slowing down a combat.

[Skylivedk]

You showed it's weaker than Dueling, not that it is weak, it increases damage about a 70% of what dueling does, thats it.

But its not, I also did my calcs per swing, 27 point buy, 20th level, since thats the standard.

Its a thread about GWF and we are discussing two of the most common GWs, I don't think its that off topic tbh.

My entire post just got deleted before posting :( ... In short;
A) you find the fighting style for two handers to be ok when it's worse than the one for one handers. To me, it's horrible. Don't think we'll agree there

B) you use level 20 as a yard stick. I've played since 5e's release and haven't seen a level 20 character except on forums and NPC's. I use 3- 13/16. I even showed greataxe to become better myself at certain points so that's about as surprising as a red nose on a clown.

C) maybe I'm tired, but you find across as factitious about EA. Either you remembered the UA version or you forgot it didn't work with strength like with the hexblade. Drop it and move on. Trees that don't bend and all that

I'm out of the discussion. I wanted to show that allowing riders on GWF isn't OP and of anything still doesn't bring it up to par with the others AND show a common bias where outliers make people overreact to something that's not very powerful: be it smite or brutal critical dice. I think I did both fairly well. In both cases it's a minority of play cases where the powerful looking case is actually (overly) powerful (as in you wouldn't want a feat doing what GWF does RAW only for smite damage and stay away from greataxes in your crit build until 13+ or so).

[Arial Black]

You showed it's weaker than Dueling, not that it is weak, it increases damage about a 70% of what dueling does, thats it.

The problem is not merely that Duelling is a better fighting style feature than GWF, mechanically adding more damage. The problem is that it changes the idea that using a weapon in two hands does MORE damage than using the SAME weapon in one hand (intuitive), to a user with BOTH fighting styles now doing LESS damage two-handed than using the SAME weapon one-handed, which is absurd!

The maths:-

* longsword, 1H damage = d8 = 4.5
* longsword, 2H damage = d10 = 5.5

2H wins. Obviously it does, because the other way would be absurd!

Now, the user has BOTH Duelling AND GWF:-

* longsword, 1H damage = d8+2 = 6.5
* longsword, 2h damage = d10, re-roll 1 or 2 (once only) = 6.3

1H wins! Absurd!

This is why the 'fix' is to use GWF as written: re-roll any die delivered by that ATTACK. The same rule as for critical hits. The wording is all about the damage dice of the ATTACK, like crits, and NOT worded like Savage Attacker, which references the damage dice of the WEAPON.

[Rukelnikov]

The problem is not merely that Duelling is a better fighting style feature than GWF, mechanically adding more damage. The problem is that it changes the idea that using a weapon in two hands does MORE damage than using the SAME weapon in one hand (intuitive), to a user with BOTH fighting styles now doing LESS damage two-handed than using the SAME weapon one-handed, which is absurd!

The maths:-

* longsword, 1H damage = d8 = 4.5
* longsword, 2H damage = d10 = 5.5

2H wins. Obviously it does, because the other way would be absurd!

Now, the user has BOTH Duelling AND GWF:-

* longsword, 1H damage = d8+2 = 6.5
* longsword, 2h damage = d10, re-roll 1 or 2 (once only) = 6.3

1H wins! Absurd!

This is why the 'fix' is to use GWF as written: re-roll any die delivered by that ATTACK. The same rule as for critical hits. The wording is all about the damage dice of the ATTACK, like crits, and NOT worded like Savage Attacker, which references the damage dice of the WEAPON.

That is pretty counter-intuitive indeed, weilding the sword 2-handed makes the attack less damaging.

However the "fix" doesn't really fix it, your example case would still be there :S

[Pex]

That is pretty counter-intuitive indeed, weilding the sword 2-handed makes the attack less damaging.

However the "fix" doesn't really fix it, your example case would still be there :S

Technically true, but the idea is the player is relying on the extra dice he gets from whereever to reroll those 1s and 2s so that's where the greater damage potential is. The paladin doesn't care dueling style does more average damage by weapon alone when he can reroll his smite d8s.