According to the sage advice it is only for the weapon.
Oh! That’s interesting… the FS looked fine to me by the RAW so I never thought of researching that.
Looking at the source SAs, however, rather than this curated/edited Q&A on DDB, we see that Mearls went back and forth over the years saying yes it rerolls anything, no it doesn’t. I already hear the mindvoice of forum-goers saying "yes but Mearls doesn’t know what he’s talking about so who cares!" to which I would respond "Crawford has little else going for him besides the argument of authority…" but oh well. To those playing by the RAW, the GWF FS is just fine exactly as it’s written…
BTW, looking at the DDB version of the ruling, it adds more confusion than clarity. The RAW reading of the DDB ruling says that damage from a spell would not be affected, but that the weapon’s damage would, which means that critical hit damage and vicious/flaming weapons damage would be. Why make the rule application more intricate? There could be arguments in favor of this inctricacy, e.g., anybody can benefit from a magic item, but not everyone can have the same class features or spells; but that argument has holes since crit range is increased by class features more often than by magic item properties…
Moreover, it is quite telling to me that Crawford’s SA ruling predates 2024, and that this particular FS was tweaked in 2024, but only to change the damage mechanic from reroll to minimum (arguably good to streamline play, though it’s unfortunately a nerf in terms of average damage). Importantly, while the designers clearly knew that people had questions on the wording about which sources of damage are affected, they chose to leave it as is (possibly because the nerf from reroll to minimum is counterbalanced by letting the mechanic apply to all rolls). This I think means that the RAW 2024 wording supercedes the pre-2024 SA. It wouldn’t be the first time the DDB implementation of the rules carries mistakes, so I would simply disregard that FAQ.
If it did apply to all extra dice, like Hunter's Mark and Divine Smite, then that just means that the Fighter gets left behind.
Well, there seems to be an underlying assumption here that the game is balanced to begin with, but it’s not. Changes to relative balance are not inherently problematic, as long as we look into whether the end result is overall "not bad", or perhaps even "less bad" if we’re lucky
Looking into this particular case:
- The Ranger is widely considered as the weaker martial class (especially beyond tier 1) so there should be no concern in giving them a boost.
- The Fighter is often considered among the strongest martial classes, so not giving it a boost should not be that big of a deal either. In reality though, it does get a boost from the RAW reading of the rules (i.e., ignoring the SA nerf). Why? Because the various Fighter subclasses all have ways to benefit from GWF: the Champion’s improved crit range, the EK’s magic, the BM’s Superiority Die, the Psi Warrior’s Energy Die.
- The Paladin’s Smite and Divine Favor might be considered the biggest beneficiary of the RAW reading, but the reality is that a pure Pal has very few slots, so ultimately it’s not that big of a deal. A Sorcadin or Bardin, who can upcast way beyond the Paladin’s intended design is another story, though I would argue that is a symptom of those combos being iffy, more than a deep issue with GWF.
- Other combos we may want to look at would be a gish with maximally upcasted CME. Those builds typically go the TWF route to proc the CME rider on more attacks. Making GWF competitive with TWF is a good thing. Is CME too strong? Maybe, but that is not a reason to nerf the RAW GWF simply to avoid making it catch up with TWF.
- More generally, the issue when comparing Dueling with GWF is not the damage comparison. The real issue is that the weapon’s base damage becomes irrelevant in higher tiers of play, while flat bonuses to hit and to AC remain strong throughout the game due to bounded accuracy. Since Dueling allows wielding a Shield, it is inherently stronger than GWF, even if both FS gave an equal +2 damage. So the RAW GWF giving a greater damage increase in later tiers of play as more riders accumulate is actually very good design (regardless of whether Crawford gets in his own way with clumsy improvised rulings after the fact).
I have four main concerns with the existing version of Great Weapon Fighting style:
1. It is very tricky to calculate the overall benefit thereof.
Only an issue for some (not all) theory crafters. Most players don’t care and are happy with "getting a feel" for what the effect is, regardless of the math.
2. It slows down combat by conditionally modifying the roll.
Valid opinion, though if that is a real issue, then let’s eliminate all similar abilities (Savage Attacker, Portent, Silvery Barbs, etc). BTW, the RAW reading is simpler to adjudicate than SA’s nerf (any of the dices are affected is easier than "my greatsword’s base damage are the blue dies, my Hunter’s Mark is the red die, so let me be careful to apply the ability conditionally and hope I’m not colorblind").
3. It is inferior to Dueling fighting style.
But not due to damage, rather due to Shield compatibility. The RAW GWF is a bit more competitive at least due to affecting riders.
4. The benefit for d10 and d12 damage weapons is significantly less than for a 2d6 damage weapon.
Sure, there are mathematical artifacts. Whether those artifacts are a big deal or not is a bit subjective. If it is, maybe the game should be further simplified to make all weapons deal a single die of damage. Or perhaps even deal a single "hit" (and each "hit point" should represent the actual number or hits you can withstand, rather than some abstract semi-fluid quantity of "damage" from a variable amount of variably-damaging attacks). We can simplify the game all we want, and it could be fine to do so, but not automatically better…
GWF style is so "great" that I haven't seen it being taken in 12 years. Any version of it.
I’ve used it on my Halberd and Greatsword wielding Ranger with Hunter’s Mark, and it was very fun. No issues with it. Just because your tables have been shy with it doesn’t mean it’s bad.
Indeed, and that’s why it’s important to stick to the RAW rules for GWF. The SA nerf is inappropriate.
I think dueling weapon style was originally intended to be for someone using a one-handed weapon with no shield, but once they realized how it worked post-publication of 5E, the designers left it as is as it was not broken.
I think so too. I am disappointed that there is not a single FS which is good for a "normal Bladesinger" concept (i.e., one single-handed weapon, one empty hand); that character can take Dueling but they get less benefit than someone else who does so while wielding a Shield.
