D&D 5E (2024) The Versatile STR Fighter: Melee with a Real Ranged Option

[Minigiant]

On GW Fighting Style:
I think it's better than most realize for Greatswords and Mauls. Probably overall on par with defensive in those circumstances.

No its bad.

On 2d6, its only going from a 7 average to 8 average.

On a unofficial 2d4 weapon, its decent. 5 to 6.5.

 

[W'rkncacnter]

No its bad.

On 2d6, its only going from a 7 average to 8 average.

i was gonna say on attacks with a lot of damage dice (e.g. smites) the reroll potential can be pretty good, and then i remembered this was 2024 and checked if it was changed and, lo and behold, the reroll is now just a floor of 3. ow.

 

[FrogReaver]

No its bad.

On 2d6, its only going from a 7 average to 8 average.

That's the average damage math, but that doesn't show it's bad.

The correct comparison is:
Defensive Style prevents 1 hit per 20 attacks
GWF adds ~1 damage per attack

The question is simply:
Does +1 damage per attack cause even 1 enemy to die a turn earlier on average over the same timeframe the Fighter takes 20 attacks?

If yes, the two styles are comparable. If no, Defensive is better.

That’s what marginal value actually means - you compare how many enemy actions each bonus removes, not how big the number looks in isolation.

 

[Minigiant]

i was gonna say on attacks with a lot of damage dice (e.g. smites) the reroll potential can be pretty good, and then i remembered this was 2024 and checked if it was changed and, lo and behold, the reroll is now just a floor of 3. ow.

The reroll is bad still. Just better for all dice but d4s.

GWF is only good it you have tons of little bonus dice. Like a UA Brute Fighter who can cast HM.

That's the average damage math, but that doesn't show it's bad.

The correct comparison is:
Defensive Style prevents 1 hit per 20 attacks
GWF adds ~1 damage per attack

The question is simply:
Does +1 damage per attack cause even 1 enemy to die a turn earlier on average over the same timeframe the Fighter takes 20 attacks?

If yes, the two styles are comparable. If no, Defensive is better.

That’s what marginal value actually means - you compare how many enemy actions each bonus removes, not how big the number looks in isolation.

I wasnt doing a comparison.

Personally, I think both fighting styles are bad.

GWF barely increases GW damage.
Defensive only gives 5% more defense.

Archery increases a GW Fighter's DPR by 10%. The extra damage at range likely prevents more damage with 5.5e easy weapon swapping.

 

[FrogReaver]

I wasnt doing a comparison.

Personally, I think both fighting styles are bad.

GWF barely increases GW damage.
Defensive only gives 5% more defense.

Archery increases a GW Fighter's DPR by 10%. The extra damage at range likely prevents more damage with 5.5e easy weapon swapping.

Well the post you replied to said GWF was "probably overall on par with defensive in those circumstances".
You replied with GWF "it's bad".

If your actual point is that both Defensive and GWF are bad, that’s fine - but then replying "GWF is bad" to a post saying "these two are comparable" is a strange way to communicate that.

My point was specifically about the relative value between GWF and Defensive styles. Whether you think both are weak overall doesn’t change the math on that comparison.

 

[W'rkncacnter]

The reroll is bad still. Just better for all dice but d4s.

GWF is only good it you have tons of little bonus dice. Like a UA Brute Fighter who can cast HM.

that's...what i said...?