D&D (2024) Greatweapon fighting style? Is this another joke? Did everyone at WotC failed elementary school math classes?

[g00se99994]

Now, we all know that GWF style was THE weakest in 2014, but not they made it even worse.
That really takes effort.

We know that they didn't test anything really, we have the awful:

D&D (2024) - Conjure Minor Elementals

I don't get how you can be working on this 5.5 edition for 2 years and create a spell this OP. If you gave one person the job to handle spells, is it crazy to think you could tweak every spell in the game and have time to spare? You could consult on every spell with each head of creation of X...

www.enworld.org

Conjure elemental cheese factory going on,

before GWF did +1,33 damage boost on greatsword(7->8,333) and +0,833 on greataxe(6,5->7,333).

But now with the mechanics of treating damage rolls of 1&2 as 3, it will give:
Greatsword: +1 damage, 7->8
Greataxe: +0,25 damage. 6,5->6,75


I really do not see those 1st level fighters lining up to take this fighting style...

can we get a ripoff from Dueling style and just add +3 damage with all melee 2Handed weapon attacks? Maybe +4 for Heavy 2Handed melee attacks?

Edit:
I have found one case where this FS is better than 2014, I'm sure they didn't mean to take that into account but I will take anything I can get from it:

https://www.dndbeyond.com/equipment/59-double-bladed-scimitar

2014 damage: 6 + 3(bonus attack)
2024 damage: 6,5 + 3,25(bonus attack)
Enjoy the buff!
Technically, it also buffs Bonus attack from PAM, heheh.

yup, another perfect example of just braindead design.

 

[Will Brandiman]

The fighting style is about raising your floor. It may not seem powerful in a white room, but I suspect it's pretty good in actual play.

A 1st level great weapon master with a Great Sword is now doing a range of 9-15 damage per hit instead of 5-15. And remember that on a crit, the min is now 18 instead of 10. If you are going to be using a Great Sword anyhow (maybe because of a specific mastery) why wouldn't you want this fighting style?

Completely agree with this. The fighting style is about reliability and simplicity, not power. Pick up a greatsword, take GWF and, at 4th, take GWM and you are going to do steady, reliable damage. You will be doing a minimum of 12 damage on a hit and 4 on a miss with a bonus action attack on a crit or if you drop someone. That might not be spectacular but it's reliable and some people will enjoy that.

 

[g00se99994]

Great Weapon Fighting should be the 3e rule

Add half your STR modifier to damage (rounded up, minimum+1).

simple, scales and is nothing to sneeze at. I like it.

 

[Minigiant]

yup, another perfect example of just braindead design.

No

It's design for people who want to play as if braindead.

 

[mellored]

I get the idea, but I have an upper limit on how many dice I want to roll.
And that limit is 4-5 dice. rest is average out.
And I like the reliable +prof bonus to damage

With a maul and the feat, your at 3 dice. Battlemaster or Hunter's Mark is 4.

Rolling 4-5 dice puts you in the ballpark of Dualist.

Unless you think people will regularly have a flame tongue great sword

 

[g00se99994]

Completely agree with this. The fighting style is about reliability and simplicity, not power. Pick up a greatsword, take GWF and, at 4th, take GWM and you are going to do steady, reliable damage. You will be doing a minimum of 12 damage on a hit and 4 on a miss with a bonus action attack on a crit or if you drop someone. That might not be spectacular but it's reliable and some people will enjoy that.

I see it as a design fail if you give a bump for greatsword and mauls and all the single die heavy weapons get half the benefit. Like this stuff is so obvious and can be pointed out in minutes of banter online it's pretty hilarious.

 

[Reef]

Completely agree with this. The fighting style is about reliability and simplicity, not power. Pick up a greatsword, take GWF and, at 4th, take GWM and you are going to do steady, reliable damage. You will be doing a minimum of 12 damage on a hit and 4 on a miss with a bonus action attack on a crit or if you drop someone. That might not be spectacular but it's reliable and some people will enjoy that.

Yeah, very much this. I’ll admit it may not be as mathematically advantageous as some options, but I think it’s very much balanced by its reliability. It’s balanced by the feel, which I know is probably anathema to the people who enjoy minute white board analysis. Big numbers don’t always mean big fun.

And it’s always a little disheartening to see straight forward fighters or feats like this referred to as the ‘dumb’ option. I love playing fighters, and have played both the simpler options and the ones with more tactical choices, and enjoyed them all. I’m more than ‘not dumb’ enough to play more complicated classes, but I enjoy not always having to.

 

[g00se99994]

Yeah, very much this. I’ll admit it may not be as mathematically advantageous as some options, but I think it’s very much balanced by its reliability. It’s balanced by the feel, which I know is probably anathema to the people who enjoy minute white board analysis. Big numbers don’t always mean big fun.

And it’s always a little disheartening to see straight forward fighters or feats like this as the ‘dumb’ option. I love playing fighters, and have played both the simpler options and the ones with more tactical choices, and enjoyed them all. I’m more than ‘not dumb’ enough to play more complicated classes, but I enjoy not always having to.

I would argue you can have a game with simpler vs more tactical choices and still have a strong benefit either way. Dueling and defense for example are both excellent choices and extremely simple.

 

[Reef]

I would argue you can have a game with simpler vs more tactical choices and still have a strong benefit either way. Dueling and defense for example are both excellent choices and extremely simple.

Well the gripe about complexity was more about the comments complaining about ‘dumb fighters’.

This style actually isn’t super simple..a flat bonus like Duelling or Defence, as you say, would be simpler. I’m more arguing that the lack of mathematical oomph of this is balanced by the feel of it. Some players (myself included) will happily trade higher potential numbers for more reliable ones. It feels better, and there are character concepts where that fits better.

 

[Greg Benage]

Well the gripe about complexity was more about the comments complaining about ‘dumb fighters’.

This style actually isn’t super simple..a flat bonus like Duelling or Defence, as you say, would be simpler. I’m more arguing that the lack of mathematical oomph of this is balanced by the feel of it. Some players (myself included) will happily trade higher potential numbers for more reliable ones. It feels better, and there are character concepts where that fits better.

This all makes sense, but how would some more mathematical balance diminish the feeling of reliability? In addition to being simple, Dueling also feels pretty reliable!

Anyway, if they really mean ANY damage dice this time, the style will probably feel pretty good in play because there seems to be a lot of "extra" damage dice in this version of the game. The more and smaller damage dice you're rolling, the better it will feel. If it's a mechanic that feels good to the casual player who just wants to hit things hard with a big sword and let's the optimizers build to squeeze as much value from it as possible, it might even be pretty good game design.