D&D (2024) The math of the GWF Fighting Style and why its as good as a +1 (and possibly better than defense)

Asisreo

Patron Badass
(This is about the 2024 version of GWF)

I'm sure many immediate reactions to the title would be "What is this poster talking about? The calculations have been done ad nauseam and its clear that GWF doesn't hold up to snuff." And while I too was under the impression that the math was solid and undeniable, I recently wondered about the assumptions behind the theory that was used to come up with this conclusion.

To start, let's review how averages work in probability when you have dice rolls. In order to calculate a dice roll, we can use the formula A = k+1/2 where A is the dice average and k is the highest possible roll on that dice. This average is also referred to as the "Expected Value" because we expect all of the values to equal this number given a large enough number of samples in a population. None of this is new under the sun, and if you were ever interested in the math behind D&D, this is one of the first concepts you encounter. Using this concept, we can easily visualize the difference between, say, a 1d4 and a 1d6, that being a +1 average expected value. The same is seen if you were to compare a 1d4 to 1d4+1. But I want to highlight that these two things are not the same. And to highlight it more greatly, let's say there's one warrior with a regular greatsword that does 2d6, then we'll say there's a warrior with a magic greatsword that does 2d6+1 damage (no accuracy bonus, in order to keep it neglible). The magic warrior obviously does +1 average damage, again, that's to be expected. But let's say he trades it in and for a greatsword that does 2d8 damage. The damage difference is not +1, rather it's +2. We can easily calculate this: The regular greatsword is 2 * (6+1/2) = 7, where the magic greatsword is 2 * (8+1/2) = 9.

Now, clearly the difference from 1d6 to 1d8 is 1 damage, yet that difference was doubled because we have two dice. These averages actually add up, which might be counterintuitive because we expect rolling more dice only to reinforce the original expected value. But we do not actually care about expected value, we care about damage. And because we're totaling the result, the expected value of each die is totaled as well. To frame it a different way, think about the +1 greatsword. In the total dice rolled, you see a +1 bonus, but if you actually calculate the bonus for each die you get a +.5 bonus each. Now, you may have just noticed, but the same thing happens when you use GWF. The dice itself changes to have an average similar to if you simply added +0.5 to expected value.

In essence, GWF actually gives you the equivalent of +1 damage per attack when you take it. It's just a roundabout way to give it. Now, I do want to clear up that GWF is still worse on 1d10 and 1d12 weapons, and it still is worse than the 2014 version which does +1.32 extra damage per attack. But it is not merely a +0.5 average increase on a greatsword, its a +1 increase. And +1 damage tends to be more respected among players and, in my opinion, can actually be a worthwhile feature for those wanting to maxmize damage as you'd already want to use a great sword if you're going for optimal damage as a martial.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

FrogReaver

As long as i get to be the frog
(This is about the 2024 version of GWF)

I'm sure many immediate reactions to the title would be "What is this poster talking about? The calculations have been done ad nauseam and its clear that GWF doesn't hold up to snuff." And while I too was under the impression that the math was solid and undeniable, I recently wondered about the assumptions behind the theory that was used to come up with this conclusion.

To start, let's review how averages work in probability when you have dice rolls. In order to calculate a dice roll, we can use the formula A = k+1/2 where A is the dice average and k is the highest possible roll on that dice. This average is also referred to as the "Expected Value" because we expect all of the values to equal this number given a large enough number of samples in a population. None of this is new under the sun, and if you were ever interested in the math behind D&D, this is one of the first concepts you encounter. Using this concept, we can easily visualize the difference between, say, a 1d4 and a 1d6, that being a +1 average expected value. The same is seen if you were to compare a 1d4 to 1d4+1. But I want to highlight that these two things are not the same. And to highlight it more greatly, let's say there's one warrior with a regular greatsword that does 2d6, then we'll say there's a warrior with a magic greatsword that does 2d6+1 damage (no accuracy bonus, in order to keep it neglible). The magic warrior obviously does +1 average damage, again, that's to be expected. But let's say he trades it in and for a greatsword that does 2d8 damage. The damage difference is not +1, rather it's +2. We can easily calculate this: The regular greatsword is 2 * (6+1/2) = 7, where the magic greatsword is 2 * (8+1/2) = 9.

Now, clearly the difference from 1d6 to 1d8 is 1 damage, yet that difference was doubled because we have two dice. These averages actually add up, which might be counterintuitive because we expect rolling more dice only to reinforce the original expected value. But we do not actually care about expected value, we care about damage. And because we're totaling the result, the expected value of each die is totaled as well. To frame it a different way, think about the +1 greatsword. In the total dice rolled, you see a +1 bonus, but if you actually calculate the bonus for each die you get a +.5 bonus each. Now, you may have just noticed, but the same thing happens when you use GWF. The dice itself changes to have an average similar to if you simply added +0.5 to expected value.

In essence, GWF actually gives you the equivalent of +1 damage per attack when you take it. It's just a roundabout way to give it. Now, I do want to clear up that GWF is still worse on 1d10 and 1d12 weapons, and it still is worse than the 2014 version which does +1.32 extra damage per attack. But it is not merely a +0.5 average increase on a greatsword, its a +1 increase. And +1 damage tends to be more respected among players and, in my opinion, can actually be a worthwhile feature for those wanting to maxmize damage as you'd already want to use a great sword if you're going for optimal damage as a martial.
You’ve managed to turn a relatively simple concept into a hot mess. Your not technically wrong but your different perspectives obstruct rather than illuminate the ‘truth’.

New GWF provides the same dpr boost as +1 damage per great sword attack. That is all the high level context someone needs in order to understand the value of GWF. For those interested a math walkthrough might be really interesting.
 

Charlaquin

Goblin Queen (She/Her/Hers)
It’s very simple. (3+3+3+4+5+6)/6=4 and 4*2=8, so the expected damage per attack on a greatsword with Great Weapon Fighting is 8. Compared to the 7 without Great Weapon Fighting. So, +1 expected damage, compared to the +2 you get from Dueling or the +[Dex mod] or +[Str mod] from Two Weapon Fighting. Obviously, Great Weapon Fighting is the worst of these options by a wide margin.
 
Last edited:

Xeviat

Dungeon Mistress, she/her
Duelist and throwing weapon adds +2. 1d8+2 is 6.5, equal to 1d12 and very near 2d6.

2d6 changing 1s and 2s to 3 is average of (3, 3, 3, 4, 5, 6)*2, or 8, which is an increase of +1. It's (3, 3, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12), or 6.75 on a 1d12, which is an increase of 0.25.

+1 is less than +2. Granted, it's +1 on a higher amount.

Advantage on damage would be 2d6 from 7 to 8, and 1d12 from 6.5 to 8 if I'm doing it right. I might go for that (Savage Attacker needs to be changed too).
 

Asisreo

Patron Badass
It’s very simple. (3+3+3+4+5+6)/3=4 and 4*2=8, so the expected damage per attack on a greatsword with Great Weapon Fighting is 8. Compared to the 7 without Great Weapon Fighting. So, +1 expected damage, compared to the +2 you get from Dueling or the +[Dex mod] or +[Str mod] from Two Weapon Fighting. Obviously, Great Weapon Fighting is the worst of these options by a wide margin.
My counterargument is that you can't use Dueling or Two-Weapon fighting on a Two-handed build at all.

While yes, the bonus is the weakest, its also the only bonus for great weapon users, which are the strongest already in terms of damage.

So its less that GWF gives little benefit and more that the other fighting styles give greater benefits just to be in the same ballpark.

Its like saying that True Polymorph on Warlock is a bad mystic arcanum because Wish is usually so much better. Sure, I can concede that Wish would be better, but you can't take it as a warlock (unless you're a genie warlock) so it's not a fair comparison.

For fighting styles (in the 2024 PHB), your only compatible styles are Defense, Blind Fighting, and GWF. And only one gives any damage bonus whatsoever.
 

Xeviat

Dungeon Mistress, she/her
My counterargument is that you can't use Dueling or Two-Weapon fighting on a Two-handed build at all.

While yes, the bonus is the weakest, its also the only bonus for great weapon users, which are the strongest already in terms of damage.

So its less that GWF gives little benefit and more that the other fighting styles give greater benefits just to be in the same ballpark.

Its like saying that True Polymorph on Warlock is a bad mystic arcanum because Wish is usually so much better. Sure, I can concede that Wish would be better, but you can't take it as a warlock (unless you're a genie warlock) so it's not a fair comparison.

For fighting styles (in the 2024 PHB), your only compatible styles are Defense, Blind Fighting, and GWF. And only one gives any damage bonus whatsoever.
The problem is Duelist is 1d8+2 (6.5) damage and +2 AC from shield, while Great Weapon Fighting is 2d6* (8) with no shield AC. If the baseline was balanced at 4.5 with +2 AC vs 7, then why is the gap smaller with the styles?
 

FrogReaver

As long as i get to be the frog
The problem is Duelist is 1d8+2 (6.5) damage and +2 AC from shield, while Great Weapon Fighting is 2d6* (8) with no shield AC. If the baseline was balanced at 4.5 with +2 AC vs 7, then why is the gap smaller with the styles?
And then there’s great weapon master feat which is much better than shield master..
 

Stalker0

Legend
My counterargument is that you can't use Dueling or Two-Weapon fighting on a Two-handed build at all.

While yes, the bonus is the weakest, its also the only bonus for great weapon users, which are the strongest already in terms of damage.

...For fighting styles (in the 2024 PHB), your only compatible styles are Defense, Blind Fighting, and GWF. And only one gives any damage bonus whatsoever.
sure but why take a crappy damage bonus, when I can take a rock solid AC bonus? Its not like great weapon fighters don't take damage.
 

Bacon Bits

Legend
It’s very simple. (3+3+3+4+5+6)/3=4 and 4*2=8, so the expected damage per attack on a greatsword with Great Weapon Fighting is 8. Compared to the 7 without Great Weapon Fighting. So, +1 expected damage, compared to the +2 you get from Dueling or the +[Dex mod] or +[Str mod] from Two Weapon Fighting. Obviously, Great Weapon Fighting is the worst of these options by a wide margin.

Yup, and 2014's GWF let you reroll once, which meant a d6 had the values of 3.5, 3.5, 3, 4, 5, 6 => 25/6 = 4.1666.... That meant a 2d6 weapon dealt 8.333....

So 2025's GWF for a 2d6 weapon is an average damage of 8, meaning it's +1 damage. But 2014's GWF for a 2d6 weapon used to be an average of 8.333... or +1.333... damage. So it's worse on average, but it's got a higher floor.
 

OB1

Jedi Master
sure but why take a crappy damage bonus, when I can take a rock solid AC bonus? Its not like great weapon fighters don't take damage.
Because you want to lift the floor of your damage, ensuring a run of bad luck in any individual combat doesn't bring your DPR down in that encounter while still having the potential to do the highest damage of any weapon on any individual attack. It also ensures that a crit will never get the womp womp of all 1s, which for any build striving for crits will be a big benefit.

Yes that comes at a cost of -1 AC, but if you want the highest possible DPR for your martial character, GWF, GWM, and Cleave Graze on a Barbarian or Champion Fighter is the way to go. And besides, you should have plenty of HP to give up an extra hit against every 2-3 combats and make it through the day :)

Edited: Meant Graze instead of Cleave
 
Last edited:

Split the Hoard


Split the Hoard
Negotiate, demand, or steal the loot you desire!

A competitive card game for 2-5 players
Remove ads

Top