D&D 5E Philosophy of Greataxe vs. Greatsword

[Willie the Duck]

So unless you’ve got some special mojo going (half-orc barbarians with savage attacks and brutal critical are the most common use case) you’re always better off going for the greatsword.

I think it is entirely possible that the design team made the greataxe as it was specifically for savage attacking brutal crit-ing half-orc barbarians. I mean, the lance was clearly designed specifically for 2wf halfling beastmasters and quarterstaves for shield-wielding polearm masters.

the whole table is a mess,
properties were handed out to some weapons not bothering taking anything in return, read damage die less, non universal thrown weapon range, treating versatile as an actual useful property.

I would say that 2d6 for martial 2Handed, Heavy weapon without any properties is too little, 2d8 would be better as we do not have one and a half STR mod as in 3E.

It's not so dire as sometime made out to be (ex. at first level the difference between 2d6+3 and 1d8+3 can matter), but it certainly seems that the reason to lean into* two-handed strength weapons is mostly for things in addition to what goes on on the weapon chart -- barbarian abilities which only apply with Strength, PAM, GWM, magic weapons distribution, etc.
*And you are strongly incentivized to do so. A generalist build who can switch-hit with any weapon they find who picks up no weapon-type-specific feats is decidedly unfavored.

 

[FrogReaver]

*And you are strongly incentivized to do so. A generalist build who can switch-hit with any weapon they find who picks up no weapon-type-specific feats is decidedly unfavored.

That depends mostly on how your GM runs magic items and whether you are high enough level to have maxed your stat and gotten the feats. I did some analysis a while back and the damage feats could be matched by a +2d6 weapon.

 

[Horwath]

I think it is entirely possible that the design team made the greataxe as it was specifically for savage attacking brutal crit-ing half-orc barbarians. I mean, the lance was clearly designed specifically for 2wf halfling beastmasters and quarterstaves for shield-wielding polearm masters.


It's not so dire as sometime made out to be (ex. at first level the difference between 2d6+3 and 1d8+3 can matter), but it certainly seems that the reason to lean into* two-handed strength weapons is mostly for things in addition to what goes on on the weapon chart -- barbarian abilities which only apply with Strength, PAM, GWM, magic weapons distribution, etc.
*And you are strongly incentivized to do so. A generalist build who can switch-hit with any weapon they find who picks up no weapon-type-specific feats is decidedly unfavored.

IMHO, PAM and GWM need little rework.

GWM: drop the "power attack" thing and make it a half feat with +1 STR or DEX. And have it work with any melee attack after crit or downing an enemy. Call the feat Cleave.

PAM: it should be split in two half feats:
1. PAM, +1 STR or DEX, when you fight with 2Handed reach weapon and you make an Attack Action, you can make one attack with opposite end as a Bonus Action for 1d4 damage(1d6 if it's heavy weapon).

2. Hold the line: +1 STR or DEX, you can make AoO of someone moves into or through your threat area, not just exiting.

 

[ECMO3]

the whole table is a mess,

properties were handed out to some weapons not bothering taking anything in return, read damage die less, non universal thrown weapon range, treating versatile as an actual useful property.

I would say that 2d6 for martial 2Handed, Heavy weapon without any properties is too little, 2d8 would be better as we do not have one and a half STR mod as in 3E.

I don't really see this problem and I think versatile is pretty cool on a Monk with a warhammer or longsword, or for that matter a bladesinger with a quarterstaff (for use when not in bladesong).

Certainly some weapons are better than others mechanically, but the benefit is rarely enough to make the others ont usable (except for blowgun).

I would be against a damage boost for greatswords. They are already at the top. I would prefer futher damage boosts come from things like spells (hex, hunters mark) or fantastic abilities (Giants might, dreadful strikes, Hexblade's curse)

 

[Laurefindel]

I’m also of the opinion that all 2d6 weapons deal 1d12, with great-weapon fighting style using a reroll mechanics increasing average damage by 1.5 (for an average around 8). Reserving 2d6 for large-sized « simple weapons ».

has anyone done maths on « reroll one damage die » on 2d6 vs 1d12?

 

[Horwath]

I don't really see this problem and I think versatile is pretty cool on a Monk with a warhammer or longsword, or for that matter a bladesinger with a quarterstaff (for use when not in bladesong).

Certainly some weapons are better than others mechanically, but the benefit is rarely enough to make the others ont usable (except for blowgun).

I would be against a damage boost for greatswords. They are already at the top. I would prefer futher damage boosts come from things like spells (hex, hunters mark) or fantastic abilities (Giants might, dreadful strikes, Hexblade's curse)

Using versatile weapon in 2Hands means no dual wielding or not using a shield.
Do not bring monk into this as it is worst class, and it would actually be good balance if monks could use greatswords.

Bladesinger without bladesinging going into melee is suicide by proxy. Also 99.9% of bladesingers will use rapier/shortsword not longsword.

 

[ECMO3]

IMHO, PAM and GWM need little rework.

GWM: drop the "power attack" thing and make it a half feat with +1 STR or DEX. And have it work with any melee attack after crit or downing an enemy. Call the feat Cleave.

PAM: it should be split in two half feats:
1. PAM, +1 STR or DEX, when you fight with 2Handed reach weapon and you make an Attack Action, you can make one attack with opposite end as a Bonus Action for 1d4 damage(1d6 if it's heavy weapon).

2. Hold the line: +1 STR or DEX, you can make AoO of someone moves into or through your threat area, not just exiting.

GWM would suck if you made this change. It would go from being a good feat (although not nearly the best) to being garbage.

The first PAM would be a little underpowered compared to other feats. The second one would be ok but could be easily abused by a character with a whip and sentinel. This would increase the relative power of Rogues (which is ok) and wizards (which is not).

I think both of these are pretty good as they are and there is a huge penalty in taking both of them as you give up 4 ASIs

 

[Laurefindel]

I don't really see this problem and I think versatile is pretty cool on a Monk with a warhammer or longsword.

Except only they kenzei can use them without loosing many monk benefits, making them pretty niche (one subclass of one character class)

versatile would be more interesting paired with a system where losing a shield is a possibility, or where shields are not always effective. Not that I think this would be a worthwhile addition to D&D, but it would give versatile weapon a better raison-d’être

 

[Horwath]

GWM would suck if you made this change. It would go from being a good feat (although not nearly the best) to being garbage.

The first PAM would be a little underpowered compared to other feats. The second one would be ok but could be easily abused by a character with a whip and sentinel. This would increase the relative power of Rogues (which is ok) and wizards (which is not).

I think both of these are pretty good as they are and there is a huge penalty in taking both of them as you give up 4 ASIs

Yes, I can see hordes of 8th level wizards taking Sentinel+Hold the line instead of Con saves, Fey touched, Shadow touched, Telekinetic, Alert, Warcaster...

 

[Stalker0]

To make the math a little easier let's compare a d12 to a d13 weapon. That's the same 0.5 damage difference. Both are linear so the math behind both is alot easier.

After 2 hits the d12 weapon will do 13+(10 mod) = 23 average damage and the d13 weapon will do 14 + (10 mod) = 24 average damage. Now consider an enemy with 35 hp. The d12 weapon (assuming the previous hits were average damage) will only have a 50% chance of killing the enemy on the next hit. The d13 weapon will have a 61.5% chance of doing the same.

Looking at it through this lens sure makes .5 average damage sound alot more important.

*Also, randomness is usually not in the PC's favor as they tend to be expected to win.

But to represent true results, we would need to factor in another critical piece:

1) critical hits
2) the odds that the player will encounter both a creature with 35 hp, and whose hp will not change over the course of 3 attacks.

so while yes in this circumstance it will be 11.5%, when that multiplied by the % chance a player will deal with that specific scenario it becomes much much smaller.