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...?

 

[Charlaquin]

The concept
Build a STR‑primary, heavy‑armor, two‑handed Fighter who takes Great Weapon Master and the Archery Fighting Style, starting with 14 Dex. This creates a Fighter who is fully online in melee and has a real ranged damage mode without needing a Dex focus.

You get a legitimate ranged attack mode

• With 14 Dex and Archery Style:
• Attack bonus: +2 (Dex) +2 (Archery) + proficiency
  Damage: 1d8 + 2 (Dex) + proficiency (from 2024 GWM)
• This is real ranged DPR.

At level 5, your longbow attacks match a Dex dual‑wielder’s ranged accuracy
A Dex TWF build at level 5 typically attacks at:

• +4
• +3 proficiency
• no Archery bonus

Your damage bonus is higher thanks to GWM’s proficiency‑based rider.

Your defenses remain excellent
With heavy armor:

• You sit 1 AC above a Dex dual‑wielder
• You sit 1 AC below a STR melee specialist in plate + Defense Style
• You lose nothing meaningful in survivability

You don't sacrifice your melee identity
You’re still a full STR/GWM greatsword or maul Fighter:

• high STR
• Graze mastery
• heavy armor
• strong melee DPR
• no feat tax for ranged competence
• Your melee mode is untouched.

It works on virtually every subclass
This is a framework, not a specific build.

I’m real late to this party, but I kind of love this idea.

With Point Buy and any Background that can boost Strength, you could start at Str 17 and Dex 15, take GWM at 4 and HAM at 6 to eke out an extra +1 to Initiative and ranged attacks and damage with the build, while also expanding your armor options without sacrificing AC.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

The big difference between 3e and 5e is that the gap between the roleplay build, the popular decent powergame build, and high optimized build was bigger in 3e.

The 5e Cha Truestriking Elf Rogue is a high optimization build. However I doubt even more than 10% of the people who want to play Rogue desire playing a Cantrip spammed.

The STR/DEX greatsword/longbow fighter in 5e is not the tiptop of optimization but it is a strong versatile build with tons of roleplay options. It runs on 1 feat.

We are speaking of 3d6 damage at level 20.
Lower AC. Lower classical rogue skills. No way to dual wield. Which lowers the damage gap significantly.

So this whole optimizer thing is way overblown in 5e.
Good that people are doing the math. But even their conclusion is that every class is playable. Even when unoptimized.