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

[Daztur]

Great Weapon Master feat still leaves 2-handers as the go to for damage.

Sharpshooter doesn't add damage anymore.

Yes, exactly. It's clunky game design (and a "tax") but not necessarily unbalanced if a mechanical widget that gives a bigger buff to Option A than Option B if Option A is otherwise weaker than Option B.

Is sword and board otherwise weaker enough than GW to need a better fighting style to balance things out? Haven't digested the numbers well enough to tell...

 

[mellored]

Yes, exactly. It's clunky game design (and a "tax") but not necessarily unbalanced

Backwards compatible has added some clunks.

 

[Ulorian - Agent of Chaos]

what?!?!?
I must have missed last 25 years of playing D&D then.

I have seen dozens of players playing spellcasters, myself included, and be paralyzed with making decisions of what spells to use in what situation.

And I have seen fair share of BM fighters(and variant rangers/paladins without spells) and no one took more than couple of seconds to use a maneuver. Myself included.

I don't think deciding which spell to cast is more complex than choosing a battlemaster maneouvre.

what?!?!?
I must have missed last 25 years of playing D&D then.

I have seen dozens of players playing spellcasters, myself included, and be paralyzed with making decisions of what spells to use in what situation.

And I have seen fair share of BM fighters(and variant rangers/paladins without spells) and no one took more than couple of seconds to use a maneuver. Myself included.

But I don’t think anyone so far has been talking about the fictional power of a wizard versus a fighter; what I’ve seen in the thread is a position that playing a wizard is complex and playing a fighter is not complex, and it’s been unfortunately phrased as smart vs dumb. I’m just saying in my experience, playing a wizard is not appreciably harder for new players than playing some of the martial subclasses. Yes, there are some very basic subclasses for folks who really need a gradual learning curve but that on the whole, putting spellcasters in a box for only advanced players doesn’t hold up to what I’ve seen at the table.

@TiQuinn put it more clearly than I did.

 

[Minigiant]

But I don’t think anyone so far has been talking about the fictional power of a wizard versus a fighter; what I’ve seen in the thread is a position that playing a wizard is complex and playing a fighter is not complex, and it’s been unfortunately phrased as smart vs dumb. I’m just saying in my experience, playing a wizard is not appreciably harder for new players than playing some of the martial subclasses. Yes, there are some very basic subclasses for folks who really need a gradual learning curve but that on the whole, putting spellcasters in a box for only advanced players doesn’t hold up to what I’ve seen at the table.

It's less smart versus dumb and more new versus veteran.

Fighter has traditionally been pushed as the class to give to new players.

Because of this fighter traditionally in many editions are given bad mechanics that couldn't feel good under an assumption that the new player will not know that the mechanic is bad as known as it feels good

Spell casting classes on never given the same mentality in design and thus they're never outright designed for with trap options for new players.
If it happens it's typically an accident.

 

[TiQuinn]

what?!?!?
I must have missed last 25 years of playing D&D then.

I have seen dozens of players playing spellcasters, myself included, and be paralyzed with making decisions of what spells to use in what situation.

And I have seen fair share of BM fighters(and variant rangers/paladins without spells) and no one took more than couple of seconds to use a maneuver. Myself included.

The answer is Fireball.

Always Fireball.

 

[Horwath]

The answer is Fireball.

Always Fireball.

that is always the answer!

but sure, you can make no-brainer wizard.

take few defense spells:
Mage armor, shield, absorb elements,

few mobility and utility:
misty step, invisibility, fly, dimension door, improved invisibility, teleport,

rest is just damage, damage, damage.

 

[Tales and Chronicles]

that is always the answer!
View attachment 378219

but sure, you can make no-brainer wizard.

take few defense spells:
Mage armor, shield, absorb elements,

few mobility and utility:
misty step, invisibility, fly, dimension door, improved invisibility, teleport,

rest is just damage, damage, damage.

Honestly, since I cut my D&D teeth on BG1-2, this is my favorite kind on mage: web, charm x, haste, invisibility and then, fireball, fireball, fireball!

 

[g00se99994]

I hate re-roll mechanics and I am happy that part of this change is that they removed it.
even if FS is possibly weaker for it.

I would remove every single re-roll from the game. It just slows things down.

Re-roll any d20 feature? add +/- 5 to the check. Done. Lucky, Silvery barbs, fighters saves, anything.

I've heard of some tables doing this. Advantage is +4, disadvantage is -4.

 

[g00se99994]

I think the original intent in 5e was to intentionally make duelling stronger than many other fighting styles in order to balance out sword and board being otherwise relatively weak. Even with dueling being a strong fighting style in 5e it rarely made sense to take it (except for spear and board paladins and a few other exceptions) as sword and board couldn't compete with GWM or SS even with a strong fighting style.

But now with feats and weapon mastery etc. in 5.5e shifting stuff around this doesn't seem to apply anymore.

i'd just combine them so that sword and board and 2h uses the same fighting style.

 

[Horwath]

I've heard of some tables doing this. Advantage is +4, disadvantage is -4.

I have no problem with adv/disadv if it's determined before the roll.

it's the after that bugs me.
and I would give lucky and similar effects +/-5