D&D 5E Buffing up Greatweapon fighting style a little

[Lord Twig]

Offense is always effective, but defense is only as effective as the amount of firepower aimed your way. If you're an untouchable tower of steel on the battlefield, smart monsters will look for ways to bypass you and go after the squishy guy throwing fireballs instead. When that happens, your high AC does nobody any good; what your fellow PCs need from you is damage output.

This argument always seemed a little disingenuous to me. Sure, if you are not doing any damage then, yes, you can be ignored. But that is almost never the case. If you rush past the front line to go after the back ranks you are leaving your back open to the big guy with a sword that will kill you. You are essentially committing suicide to inflict maximum damage before you die. Is that really what your NPCs would do? Or is it a tactic that a game master uses because the individual pieces have no value?

If the bandits, orcs, goblins, or whatever has even the slightest sense of self preservation, they will leave an escape route. If they can't take out the big armored guy then taking out the wizard in the back will do them no good, they will still be dead. Now demons or undead might be a different story, and that's fun for the different challenge that they present to the PCs. But you shouldn't have all opponents disregard their own lives just to inflict a bit more attrition on the PC's resources.

 

[Corwin]

This argument always seemed a little disingenuous to me. Sure, if you are not doing any damage then, yes, you can be ignored. But that is almost never the case. If you rush past the front line to go after the back ranks you are leaving your back open to the big guy with a sword that will kill you.

If you are using the flanking and/or facing optional rules, then sure. But then the tank has the same weakness and the monsters should be hitting him in the back as well.

 

[MrHotter]

This is illustrated by Versatile weapons themselves; a longsword (for example) does more damage when you use it in two hands than when you use it in one hand. This makes sense.

But with a PC who has both the 1H and 2H Fighting Styles, suddenly he does more damage using it in 1H than when he uses it in 2H. This does not make sense!

Why does that not make sense? Someone trained as a duelist who can do more damage when using the weapon as they are trained to use it should make sense. A rogue does more damage with a dagger than they do with a maul, and that makes sense in the game as well.

Unless you are a small race you are not going to be using a longsword as your great weapon anyway, so any re-balancing of fighting styles should not be using the worse case examples. It's not like we bring up darts when we want to say that the archery fighting style is fine.

 

[Lord Twig]

If you are using the flanking and/or facing optional rules, then sure. But then the tank has the same weakness and the monsters should be hitting him in the back as well.

I'm not using the flanking or facing rules. So let me rephrase...

The bad guys are disregarding their own lives to rush past a big armored guy with a sword, possibly drawing Opportunity Attacks, so that they can be surrounded by the PCs in a desperate bid to take down a hopefully less difficult to hit PC in the back. Thus enabling the PCs to dog-pile on them and removing any possible escape. Basically a suicide charge.

If some of them don't rush past the tank PC to engage him "from behind", then so much the better! He is not being ignored and has successfully drawn some of the heat off the back ranks. Which is what he was supposed to do in the first place!

 

[Dausuul]

I'm not using the flanking or facing rules. So let me rephrase...

The bad guys are disregarding their own lives to rush past a big armored guy with a sword, possibly drawing Opportunity Attacks, so that they can be surrounded by the PCs in a desperate bid to take down a hopefully less difficult to hit PC in the back.

"Surrounded?" By maybe three PCs? (I assume at least one caster in the group--who is presumably the one getting targeted.)

In tight quarters, sure, a tanky fighter can block a corridor and make it very hard for the bad guys to get past. But combat often does not take place in tight quarters. There's no reason to charge through the fighter's reach when you can just divert a few feet to go around. Plus, bad guys with bows can make any wizard's life hell.

Defense is not useless. But it's not as good as offense, all else being equal.

 

[Arial Black]

Why does that not make sense? Someone trained as a duelist who can do more damage when using the weapon as they are trained to use it should make sense. A rogue does more damage with a dagger than they do with a maul, and that makes sense in the game as well.

Permit me to clarify; 'What Makes Sense':-

* no Fighting Styles: using a longsword (or other versatile weapon) in 2H does more damage than when you use that weapon in 1H

* 2H Fighting Style only: 2H does more damage than 1H

* 1H Fighting Style only: this is what you were talking about and what you thought I was talking about; it's okay if you do more damage using it 1H here, because you are specially trained in 1H use but, crucially, not specially trained in 2H use

* trained in both 1H AND 2H Fighting Styles: this is what I was actually talking about! It makes sense that, being equally specially trained in both 1H and 2H use, then 2H does more damage than 1H

It does not make sense that a versatile weapon does more damage used 1H than when used 2H if you are specially trained in both 1H and 2H Fighting Styles, and yet that is what the current styles lead to.

 

[MrHotter]

Permit me to clarify; 'What Makes Sense':-

* no Fighting Styles: using a longsword (or other versatile weapon) in 2H does more damage than when you use that weapon in 1H

* 2H Fighting Style only: 2H does more damage than 1H

* 1H Fighting Style only: this is what you were talking about and what you thought I was talking about; it's okay if you do more damage using it 1H here, because you are specially trained in 1H use but, crucially, not specially trained in 2H use

* trained in both 1H AND 2H Fighting Styles: this is what I was actually talking about! It makes sense that, being equally specially trained in both 1H and 2H use, then 2H does more damage than 1H

It does not make sense that a versatile weapon does more damage used 1H than when used 2H if you are specially trained in both 1H and 2H Fighting Styles, and yet that is what the current styles lead to.

Ok, now I see what you are saying. I would agree that someone trained in the dueling style and the great weapon fighter style should keep a longsword in one handed fighting and should go with actual two handed weapons when they want to maximize damage over protection.

Each fighting style has different benefits. The one that makes the most sense is the two weapon fighting style. If a group has issues with the other styles and power balance they could just change it to be +2 damage for archery, great weapon and duelist styles.

Personally I don't see a problem with the way the styles are now. Great weapon fighters are not hurting for damage and I'm not seeing a reason for them to be jealous of the +2 damage for one handed weapon users. Since the restriction on holding a shield with the duelist style was removed during the play test, it looks like the rules developers decided that the dueling style was the one that needed a boost to make it appealing.

 

[Arial Black]

Ok, now I see what you are saying. I would agree that someone trained in the dueling style and the great weapon fighter style should keep a longsword in one handed fighting and should go with actual two handed weapons when they want to maximize damage over protection.

Each fighting style has different benefits. The one that makes the most sense is the two weapon fighting style. If a group has issues with the other styles and power balance they could just change it to be +2 damage for archery, great weapon and duelist styles.

Personally I don't see a problem with the way the styles are now. Great weapon fighters are not hurting for damage and I'm not seeing a reason for them to be jealous of the +2 damage for one handed weapon users. Since the restriction on holding a shield with the duelist style was removed during the play test, it looks like the rules developers decided that the dueling style was the one that needed a boost to make it appealing.

I'm a 1st level paladin, and my main baddy-botherer is my trusty longsword, passed down from my father, who bought it from a shop.

If I use it in 1H, it does 1d8 (4.5) damage. If I use it in 2H, it does 1d10 (5.5) damage.

So when I use it in 2H, it does more damage then when I use it 1H. This makes sense. It also gives me a valid choice to make: do I want to use a shield, or do I want to drop my shield and do more damage?

Later, I chose a Fighting Style at 2nd level, then at 3rd I multi-classed to fighter and got another Fighting Style. So at level 3 I have both Styles: Dueling AND GWF.

My expectation is that, being equally skilled in both 1H and 2H use, then the relationship stays the same. 2H will still do more damage than 1H, and I have a choice to make about that shield.

But wait! 1H it does 1d8+2 (6.5). 2H it does 1d10, re-roll 1 or 2 (6.3). It does more damage in 1H!

It doesn't make sense. It takes away any valid choice re: shield use.

They should have kept the restriction against shields in the Dueling style, and consciously intended the GWF re-roll about ALL damage dice being re-rolled. It would still leave the versatile weapon conundrum I just described, but it would have a niche.

That way, the four ways of fighting (two-hander, single-hander, sword & board, two-weapon) would each have a Fighting Style and those Styles would be mutually exclusive.

When I first read the 5E PHB, I made the assumption that the Styles as written did just that. Now I find that you can use a shield with Dueling as well as the Protection Style. Some are even claiming that the rules allow sword & boarders to TWF (they are wrong)!

So, I houseruled the restriction against shields with Dueling Style. Now all four ways of fighting have their own, mutually exclusive Style.

 

[Corwin]

You *can* use a longsword in both hands to gain the benefit of your GWM feat. That doesn't mean you are using the *best* tool for the job. If you are really good at using big swords, you are best serving getting a big sword. Grab a greatsword and see your superior training start to really shine.

 

[Arial Black]

You *can* use a longsword in both hands to gain the benefit of your GWM feat. That doesn't mean you are using the *best* tool for the job. If you are really good at using big swords, you are best serving getting a big sword. Grab a greatsword and see your superior training start to really shine.

That doesn't address the absurdity of the same versatile weapon suddenly doing less damage in 2H than it does in 1H when you have both styles.

Nor does it mitigate the fact that GWF is objectively worse than Dueling Style (since the only thing each Style does is 'increase damage'). Each Style should be different but equal, so that we get a meaningful choice.

Although it's hard to effectively compare things like damage versus AC or 'giving disadvantage to one incoming attack', the two styles in question are directly comparable because they each increase damage.

The only (slight) mitigation is that, RAW but not RAI, GWF lets you re-roll Sneak Attack, Divine Smite, Hex, whatever extra dice too. That's a pretty narrow niche all told; you have to find a build where extra damage dice are common enough that GWF becomes worth it.

For example, GWF requires a two-handed or versatile weapon, while Sneak Attack requires a ranged weapon or a finesse weapon. So this build relies on finding a Sunblade or a Moonblade; pretty niche!