D&D 5E Great Weapon Fighting Style *Fix*

[DND_Reborn]

Let's be honest: Great Weapon Fighting Style sort of sucks.

The effective bonus to damage is a paltry amount and make the style hardly worth taking as it is written.
d10 => 6.3 average, 0.8 increase
d12 => 7.33 average, 0.83 increase
2d6 => 8.33 average, 1.33 increase

Considering the trade-off of either a worse AC (no shield) or losing an additional attack (no bonus action TWF attack), why would anyone bother? Every Great Weapon Fighter-type I've made I end up choosing Defense Style for the +1 to AC instead of GWF style! When you put it side-by-side with Dueling, for example, your damage increase is only decent for 2d6 weapons (8.33 GWF vs. 6.5 for d8+2 dueling), and that comes at the loss of the +2 AC bonus for a shield.

Am I missing something? Is it somehow "worth it" that I've overlooked? Frankly, I am just not seeing much of a benefit, especially if you are using a d10 weapon (reach weapons).

Spoiler: Fix

I've been considering a few options for fixes:
1. If you roll half the maximum on the die or lower, reroll the die. (e.g. roll 1-5 on d10 means reroll)
d10 => 6.75 average, 1.25 increase
d12 => 8.00 average, 1.50 increase
2d6 => 8.50 average, 1.50 increase

This yields a better increase overall, and keeps the "big weapons" (d12 and 2d6) at equal increases. It isn't quite the +2 damage for dueling, but an improvement.

2. You make damage rolls with advantage. (i.e. on 2d6, you would roll two sets of 2d6)
d10 => 7.15 average, 1.65 increase
d12 => 8.49 average, 1.99 increase
2d6 => 8.94 average, 1.94 increase

Obviously this gives a much better increase than RAW, and nearly matches Dueling's +2 bonus, but I am worried this is almost too much?

3. If you roll below average, the roll is treated as average. (e.g. a roll of 1-4 on d10 becomes 5; 1-2 on d6 becomes 3).
d10 => 6.50 average, 1.00 increase, minimum 5
d12 => 7.75 average, 1.25 increase minimum 6
2d6 => 8.00 average, 1.00 increase minimum 6

While the increase (on average) isn't as much, it has the benefit of raising the floor from 1 to 5 or 6, which is pretty nice in a way.

What do you think of those 3 options?

 

[tetrasodium]

Let's be honest: Great Weapon Fighting Style sort of sucks.

The effective bonus to damage is a paltry amount and make the style hardly worth taking as it is written.
d10 => 6.3 average, 0.8 increase
d12 => 7.33 average, 0.83 increase
2d6 => 8.33 average, 1.33 increase

Considering the trade-off of either a worse AC (no shield) or losing an additional attack (no bonus action TWF attack), why would anyone bother? Every Great Weapon Fighter-type I've made I end up choosing Defense Style for the +1 to AC instead of GWF style! When you put it side-by-side with Dueling, for example, your damage increase is only decent for 2d6 weapons (8.33 GWF vs. 6.5 for d8+2 dueling), and that comes at the loss of the +2 AC bonus for a shield.

Am I missing something? Is it somehow "worth it" that I've overlooked? Frankly, I am just not seeing much of a benefit, especially if you are using a d10 weapon (reach weapons).

Spoiler: Fix

I've been considering a few options for fixes:
1. If you roll half the maximum on the die or lower, reroll the die. (e.g. roll 1-5 on d10 means reroll)
d10 => 6.75 average, 1.25 increase
d12 => 8.00 average, 1.50 increase
2d6 => 8.50 average, 1.50 increase

This yields a better increase overall, and keeps the "big weapons" (d12 and 2d6) at equal increases. It isn't quite the +2 damage for dueling, but an improvement.

2. You make damage rolls with advantage. (i.e. on 2d6, you would roll two sets of 2d6)
d10 => 7.15 average, 1.65 increase
d12 => 8.49 average, 1.99 increase
2d6 => 8.94 average, 1.94 increase

Obviously this gives a much better increase than RAW, and nearly matches Dueling's +2 bonus, but I am worried this is almost too much?

3. If you roll below average, the roll is treated as average. (e.g. a roll of 1-4 on d10 becomes 5; 1-2 on d6 becomes 3).
d10 => 6.50 average, 1.00 increase, minimum 5
d12 => 7.75 average, 1.25 increase minimum 6
2d6 => 8.00 average, 1.00 increase minimum 6

While the increase (on average) isn't as much, it has the benefit of raising the floor from 1 to 5 or 6, which is pretty nice in a way.

What do you think of those 3 options?

We don't know what the new weapons will look like yet, instead of 2d6 a greatsword could be 3d4 or whatever

edit: I'd prefer if it was just a straight 1or 2=3 or something instead of the tiresome "lets all twiddle our thumbs & watch bob roll a few dice & redo math for each of his many attacks"

 

[cbwjm]

I think it would be better to make it a flat +2 damage (or something else more interesting) than the rerolls. It'd make it more worthwhile trading between 1 handed and 2 handed with a longsword, for instance.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

I think it would be better to make it a flat +2 damage (or something else more interesting) than the rerolls. It'd make it more worthwhile trading between 1 handed and 2 handed with a longsword, for instance.

And then just combine it with duelling style: +2 on melee weapon attack damage.

 

[Stoutstien]

Personally I make GWF +2 damage and duelist +1 attack.

 

[DND_Reborn]

We don't know what the new weapons will look like yet, instead of 2d6 a greatsword could be 3d4 or whatever

That would help with the greatsword and maul, but none of the other two-handed weapons. And I find rolling d4s annoying (the whole picking them up thing ).

edit: I'd prefer if it was just a straight 1or 2=3 or something instead of the tiresome "lets all twiddle our thumbs & watch bob roll a few dice & redo math for each of his many attacks"

That was why I added the third option about raising a low roll to half the die maximum. No rerolling necessary. Using a base 3 is too low, however.

Personally I make GWF +2 damage and duelist +1 attack.

I was actually thinking about going the other direction for a simpler GWF as well. Since you are using two-hands, you are more accurate with your strikes. I didn't include it in the OP since I was trying to keep the "better damage" concept.

 

[Baldurs_Underdark]

I chose it for my first character ever - ages ago when I was a newbie. I enjoyed it a lot to reroll the dice and when a one was rerolled and became a six, it was cheers around the table. I hadn't done any math on all the builds (still haven't btw), so I did not feel underpowered (in fact quite the opposite) and I had a great time.

Just giving a different perspective.

 

[Stoutstien]

I was actually thinking about going the other direction for a simpler GWF as well. Since you are using two-hands, you are more accurate with your strikes. I didn't include it in the OP since I was trying to keep the "better damage" concept.

I went back and forth with it and just ended up with the bigger weapons hit hard troupe. It's rare you have a player looking to utilize 2hd weapons anywhere close to realistic roots nor should they.

In currently play testing 1d4 in place of the +2. Little bit more damage on average and feels a heck of a lot better on crits.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

Personally I make GWF +2 damage and duelist +1 attack.

And with versatile weapons you can chose either? I'd like that.

It always hurts my brain that if you wield a verstaile weapon in two hands, that you downgrade your damage in 5e.

 

[DND_Reborn]

Just giving a different perspective.

Appreciated!

In currently play testing 1d4 in place of the +2. Little bit more damage on average and feels a heck of a lot better on crits.

I'm not a big fan of rolling more dice (especially d4s!). It is one reason I avoided the proficiency dice option over using a static bonus.

And with versatile weapons you can chose either? I'd like that.

It always hurts my brain that if you wield a verstaile weapon in two hands, that you downgrade your damage in 5e.

FWIW our Mod rule is a versatile weapon either gains increased damage OR you can gain a +1 on attack rolls. In addition, if you want to, when you go the increased damage route the weapon gains the heavy property, if you choose the +1 to attacks it gains the finesse property.

 

[tetrasodium]

That would help with the greatsword and maul, but none of the other two-handed weapons. And I find rolling d4s annoying (the whole picking them up thing ).


That was why I added the third option about raising a low roll to half the die maximum. No rerolling necessary. Using a base 3 is too low, however.


I was actually thinking about going the other direction for a simpler GWF as well. Since you are using two-hands, you are more accurate with your strikes. I didn't include it in the OP since I was trying to keep the "better damage" concept.

No I think that solution could be applied to them in the new weapon tables too. Move the simple weapons to the small pool wide variance damage like one[d8/d10/d12] & the martial weapons getting multiple dice or even multiple dice divided by N Most weapons cap out at 12 (I'm not aware if any d20 or 2d12weapons). That kind of range opens up things like 3d4 (3-12), 2d6 (2-12), 3d6/2(3-9), 4d4 (4-16), 1d6+1d4 (2-10), 1d8+1d4 (2-12), 1d8+1d6 (2-14).

 

[DND_Reborn]

No I think that solution could be applied to them in the new weapon tables too.

It could be but that is a lot more work than I want to do just to fix the GWF style.

 

[tetrasodium]

It could be but that is a lot more work than I want to do just to fix the GWF style.

Two different things

 

[Stoutstien]

And with versatile weapons you can chose either? I'd like that.

It always hurts my brain that if you wield a verstaile weapon in two hands, that you downgrade your damage in 5e.

Versatile has its own style that allows them to don/doff shields and other action based equipment options as a reaction and when they make attacks with a versatile weapon using two hands the damage die is increased by one size.

For completeness:
Twf- only one of the weapons needs the light tag and +1 AC while welding separate weapons in each hand.

Protection - as written but defense gets rolled into it .

Thrown weapon- no disadvantage at long range and +1 damage with thrown weapons.

Blind fighting - same as before but ranger/fighter only.( Monks get this or unarmed for free at lv 5)

Interception - as written but scaling changed to be less powerful at low levels but more impactful later (just a flat three times Prof bonus)

Unarmed- +1 damage with unarmed strikes.being being prone doesn't cause disadvantage on unarmed attacks.

 

[Smythe the Bard]

I find rolling d4s annoying (the whole picking them up thing ).

That's why you get d4s that are dodecahedrons. The extra d4 idea is interesting however; not a big as rolling damage with advantage a bit more random than a flat bonus. Or just make it if X result is even add 4, if X is odd add 2. X= dice roll, total or what ever.

Maybe adding something other than straight damage; increased crit range? maybe a bonus stun attack (striking with the hilt), or a chance to disarm again non heavy/thw?

 

[Jaeger]

I'd keep it as simple as possible.

Roll Advantage for damage.

Done as part of the damage roll, and less mathy as you are just looking for the bigger number.

Quick and clean during actual play, and gives the PC a tangible benefit.

 

[Clint_L]

The best part of great weapon fighting is when a player rerolls...and winds up doing less damage. Which can and occasionally does happen. Yeah, it's a garbage fighting style. There was a discussion of ideas to improve it over in the OneD&D sub-forum.

 

[Horwath]

prof bonus to damage with 2Handed melee weapons. Maybe even 2×prof bonus to damage.

Hmm...

Dueling; prof bonus to damage rolls
GWF: 2×prof bonus to damage
Archery: prof bonus to damage
TWF: adds ability mod to off hand attacks. Adds second off-hand attack in you have Extra attack.
Defense: damage reduction in proficient armor equal to prof bonus. Now we can remove Heavy armor mastery feat. Or not, having 2×prof bonus DR for heavy armor could be it's main selling point. Then just remove medium armor as a category. Increase DR by 1 if you are using a shield that you are proficient with it.

 

[DND_Reborn]

I'm not looking to re-write all the fighting styles, just to make GWF style balanced with the others.

 

[GreyLord]

Same as Great Weapon Master.

In general, unless you are almost guaranteed to hit the monster anyways, using this feat can be a losing proposition from what I see. If you have a 50/50 chance of hitting and you reduce it to 25/75 chance of hitting vs. missing, it's not a good trade-off.

HOWEVER, it is made for those who want to SMASH. They want to hit things as hard as they can and do as much damage as they can. They hate the low numbers.

Granted, great weapon mastery does a LOT more damage if you have a stronger/better hit percentage, but it is all about doing the maximum damage possible.