D&D General Fixing the Great Weapon Fighting Style

[ECMO3]

No. It would not.
The +2 damage isn't just competing with the +2 damage from duelling fighting style, it is also competing against the +2 (or more) AC that using the duelling style also allows you to have.

But the weapon you are using is doing -2 damage or more to start with and you are far more limited on your actions and ranged weapons.

You do have a higher AC and that is a benefit to durability no doubt, but that higher AC is competing with being able to use better ranged weapons and have a free hand for a host of things in combat.

Wielding a shield severely limits your combat options. Enemies at long range - you can do nothing unless you have spells, enemies up above on something you need to climb, you need to take a round to unequip your shiled. You grab an enemy that is trying to run away and now your attack options are limited to unarmed strike .... that is the price you pay for higher AC.

 

[ECMO3]

Yeah, I’m not sure…

Certainly it is possible to play the game from levels 1 to 20 without ever getting any riders, but I wouldn’t assume it’s the norm…

I would say it is unheard of for a character with fighting styles not to have riders at 20th level.

There are 3 classes that get fighting styles, 2 of them have riders built into the class. The other one, Fighter, has riders on I believe every subclass except Banneret and that is before you consider species, feats or magic weapons that have riders.

 

[CreamCloud0]

Would it be OP if GWF just said ‘your rolled weapon damage (edit: of great weapons) cannot be less than the modifier of the stat used to make the attack, if it is below increase the damage to equal the modifier’

With a +5 STR this would mean the minimum damage you could do on a successful hit would be 10, (die=/>5 + 5str), so just, reliable damage.

 

[Marc Radle]

Out of curiosity, what specifically are ‘riders’?

I think I’m getting it from context, but I’ve never heard the word used before as a D&D term …

 

[Silam]

Out of curiosity, what specifically are ‘riders’?

I think I’m getting it from context, but I’ve never heard the word used before as a D&D term …

Riders are secondary effects that "ride" on some attack. In this context they are extra damage dies, but some people also use it for conditions (e.g., speed reduced, cannot heal, disadvantage on the next attack, etc) that would take effect if the attack lands.

It’s a theorycraft term, not an official D&D rules term, as far as I know.

 

[CreamCloud0]

Out of curiosity, what specifically are ‘riders’?

I think I’m getting it from context, but I’ve never heard the word used before as a D&D term …

My understanding of the term is an additional effect or trigger that relies on an attack to activate itself but which isn’t inherently part of the attack itself, such as the weapon masteries (or most of them) or hunter’s mark and hex.

Anyone correct me if I’m wrong.

 

[Tigris]

Riders are secondary effects that "ride" on some attack. In this context they are extra damage dies, but some people also use it for conditions (e.g., speed reduced, cannot heal, disadvantage on the next attack, etc) that would take effect if the attack lands.

It’s a theorycraft term, not an official D&D rules term, as far as I know.

Riders also make more sense as a term in D&D 4e where every attack did (more or less) normal damage, but had an effect on top. There extra damage as a rider was normally linked to another attribute or a condition (likr enemy moving). Passive increase of damage was normally not considered rider. (But conditional extra dice on a specific attack would).

My understanding of the term is an additional effect or trigger that relies on the weapon attack to activate itself but which isn’t technically part of the attack itself, such as the weapon masteries (or most of them) or hunter’s mark and hex.

Anyone correct me if I’m wrong.

Hm no. This is just hoe in 5e they ate added.

But riders in other editions/games sre normally part of the attack itself. 5e/ 5.24 just added them through other means like weapon mastery because it uses basic attacks for martials so there is no other way.

 

[Silam]

Riders also make more sense as a term in D&D 4e where every attack did (more or less) normal damage, but had an effect on top. There extra damage as a rider was normally linked to another attribute or a condition (likr enemy moving). Passive increase of damage was normally not considered rider. (But conditional extra dice on a specific attack would).

Oh yeah? I’ve only played 4e briefly so I didn’t pick up on these details. Was it actually called a "rider" in the rules or is that colloquial, as it is in 5e?

But riders in other editions/games sre normally part of the attack itself. 5e/ 5.24 just added them through other means like weapon mastery because it uses basic attacks for martials so there is no other way.

5e has both kinds, built-in and add-on riders, right? For example, most of the Wizard cantrips have some built-in riders (Shocking Grasp prevents opportunity attacks, Shivering Touch prevents healing, etc). Weapon Masteries might be considered built-into the weapon as well, though they require a class feature to activate them. Then there are a bunch of sources of riders that affect attacks with more or less restrictions, such as spells (HM, Hex, CME, etc), class features (Sneak Attack, Blessed Strikes, etc) and magic item properties (Vicious, Flaming, etc). Basically, it runs the gamut, and rider has become a pretty general term to encompass a wide range of mechanics.

 

[Tigris]

Oh yeah? I’ve only played 4e briefly so I didn’t pick up on these details. Was it actually called a "rider" in the rules or is that colloquial, as it is in 5e?

I just checked it was not in the official rules (at lwast could not find it in a fast search) but is a generally used term by the community to dicuss the secondary effect of abilities (which are always there).

5e has both kinds, built-in and add-on riders, right? For example, most of the Wizard cantrips have some built-in riders (Shocking Grasp prevents opportunity attacks, Shivering Touch prevents healing, etc). Weapon Masteries might be considered built-into the weapon as well, though they require a class feature to activate them. Then there are a bunch of sources of riders that affect attacks with more or less restrictions, such as spells (HM, Hex, CME, etc), class features (Sneak Attack, Blessed Strikes, etc) and magic item properties (Vicious, Flaming, etc). Basically, it runs the gamut, and rider has become a pretty general term to encompass a wide range of mechanics.

Well I would not consider sneak attack, weapon enchantments etc. as riders. These are just class features /extra damage which is built in.


Riders have to do with choice. You choose attack X over attack Y because of the rider which fits better.

Cantrips are riders for sure! This is the way they were (in most cases) built in in 4e. The weapon masteries for me are also riders, since (in theory) you can have different weapons and choose with which to attack. And they are added to kind of mirror the 4e martial at wills/ maneuvers.


Having hex etc. Also called riders for me really makes not much sense since it does not depends on the attack its just extra damage.


And in (non 5e) game discussions this is not what people consider riders.

 

[CreamCloud0]

What we need, is an entire new thread discussing what is and what makes a rider effect!

(Note: We do not need an entire new thread discussing what is and what makes a rider effect)