2024 Great Weapon Fighting style: a 1 or 2 on damage die becomes a 3
The 2d6 (greatsword and maul) vs. 1d12 (greataxe) damage dice makes this feat very inconsistent between different weapons.
For a greatsword or maul this style adds an average of 1 point of damage per attack (half as much as a Dueling).
For a greataxe this adds an average of 0.25 damage per attack (1/8 as much as Dueling).
At least in the 2014 rules you could reroll the die, which was slightly better, although less consistent.
Two-handed weapon fighting is one of the most restrictive fighting styles and I think should come with the feat that offers the largest damage boost!
I think that the dueling and two-weapon fighting benefits should be swapped. Dueling should provide more consistent damage (a 1 or 2 becomes a 3) and two-handed weapons should just deal more damage (+2 damage).
GWF is a terrible fighting style due to how underpowered it is, I agree. Personally I think the +2 of Duelling, while functionally strong, is the most boring fighting style, archery fighting style at +2 attack is also kind of boring but mechanically makes more sense due to how cover affects ranged attacks.
So I'd drop GWF and Duelling at a minimum. Archery Fighting style also stacks too well with Sharpshooter...
I'd change duelling to make Versatile weapons always use their versatile damage die when held one handed and once per turn you can reroll a 1 on a roll of a versatile weapon's damage die. Using the versatile damage die was an idea played with in UA for a mastery property but I think it'd work better as a fighting style.
I'd change Great Weapon Fighting to adding an additional weapon damage die if you beat a creatures AC by 10* or critical hit it, this damage die does not damage from a critical hit.
I'd change Archery fighting style to half the AC penalty for cover (half to 1AC, three-quarters to 2AC) to ranged attacks which becomes +1 attack if the user additionally has the sharpshooter feat.
*yes, I know what system I took inspiration for the concept from... before anybody mentions it.
Of course people will disagree with me on these, I just think these would be a bit more interesting and a bit more balanced than what we currently have.
This said, I have always thought that fighting styles were a bit lackluster in what they added and as feats, more so now.
I think you're misunderstanding what these fighting styles are meant to do; they're not intended to create differences between the weapon types, they're intended to level the playing field. Great Weapon Fighting doesn't meaningfully increase DPR because it doesn't need to meaningfully increase DPR; Greatsword wielders are already doing the highest weapon DPR in the game. Single-weapon users are doing the least, even with Dueling; the fact that single weapon users have to take Dueling and two-weapon users have to take Two-Weapon Fighting to even keep up with Greatsword users does not indicate that Greatsword users need more damage. Giving them reliability--taking away the possibility of that dreaded snake eyes roll--is a very nice quality of life improvement that keeps all types of weapon users relatively close in terms of DPR. This is the intended design outcome; this is also probably why they removed the called shot features of the Sharpshooter and Great Weapon Master feats.
The actual problem here is that the Greataxe is basically a trap as a weapon choice. It was already worse than the Greatsword in all but the nichest circumstance, being poorly supported by Great Weapon Fighting is just a kick in the teeth.
EDIT: I had actually forgotten what the new Great Weapon Master does, so I went and checked. GWM users are going to be out-damaging single-weapon users by about 26% per round at level 5, and the gap only gets bigger. I really would not worry about Dueling users stealing your spotlight; they might as well be playing a different class by the time you get to Tier 3.
Heavy weapons are already the strongest; they don't need to be even stronger, especially not with the new GWM feat and mastery properties like Cleave, Graze and Topple. The nice thing about Dueling is that it lets one-handed weapons play catch up.
The benefit of GWF with single dice weapons is consistency. Rolling a 1 or 2 can cost you a kill, and if you're using Cleave, you don't have your ability modifier to raise your minimum damage on that attack.
I think GWF was altered to avoid redundancy with Savage Attacker. SA is better for the Great Axe than GWF, whereas GWF works fairly well for the Great Sword and Maul. If you’re predominantly using a Great Axe, you might prefer Defence or Blind Fighting as your fighting style.
It's much more likely to me they tweaked it to speed things up. If you use it with a 2d6 weapon there's more than a 50% chance you'll have to reroll at least 1 die, and that's going to happen every single attack. It's also much simpler to work out the expected value of the new version without advanced knowledge of probabilities.
OK, let's forget about the flawed greataxe for now.
I disagree with the "one-handed weapon users need to catch up on damage" argument because they can use shields.
Getting an AC boost is hard to come by. +2 armor is "very rare" - the same rarity as a +3 weapon (+3 to hit AND +3 damage). So yeah I think 2-handed weapons should provide at least 3 damage more than one-handed weapons.
longsword: 1d8 = 4.5 average damage
greatsword: 2d6 = 7 damage
On their own there's a 2.5 damage difference so I would say they should get similar boosts from the fighting style feats.
Also, 2d6 is much more consistent than 1d8, the lowest you can roll on 2d6 is 2 and the "dreaded snake eyes" only happens once for every 36 rolls. So I don't see that two-handed weapons need to be "more consistent".
I think the style feats are bad In general...tbh 5th edition is do dumbed down , little personality in the characters compared to 3.5...however on point and being a irl weapons expert they need to redo them or remove them, allow another feat choice
Duelist should be about versatility , cause that's why you wield 1 weapon, it can strike grab, defend , fient and most importantly ..grip the weapon as well or another or a shield
Duelist should be about adaptation and provide a mechanic to be others but different
( Wielding 2h ups the damage diice 1 step and add 1.5x str, grabbing an off hand grants and off hand attack but no mod , grabbing a shield adds shield bonus to attack roll, as you'd use the shield to set up the attack not defend yourself)
Great weapons is intimidation and effect..an incoming claymore is akin to a missle...it's get out of the aoe or obliteration.
( Great weapons attack target square and adjacent, hit = full miss = 1/2) and double strength bonus
Dual wield is all about tricking the enemy to not realize how disadvantageous it is against 1 weapon
Bonus action off hand deals no damage grants advantage for attack action as well as +1damage and grants ±1 to ac,
Sword and board is do chose aggressive or defensive , with defensive granting something like disengage or and dodge as bonus actions ..best way to put it into the rules and offensive have it similar to dual wield just better , but shield bash to add advantage to main hand
They are all so underwhelming ..the feats all are..5th edition is, so few options ..everyone's gonna be the same ..no avoiding it...it requires heavy homebrew imo
I disagree with the "one-handed weapon users need to catch up on damage" argument because they can use shields. Getting an AC boost is hard to come by.
It's not that hard as long as you're not looking for a permanent bonus (which also goes for attack and damage rolls.) Shield, Shield of Faith, Blade Ward, and Bane are all entry-level ways to raise AC (or lower attack rolls, which is mathematically equivalent.) Also, you can't AC your way to victory. You do need to kill the thing that's trying to kill you sooner or later.
Between their innately higher damage dice, Great Weapon Master adding PB to damage, the high potential for bonus attacks (Haste, GWM's Hew feature, Polearm Master's reaction and bonus action attacks, Cleave), Fighters getting Two Extra Attacks and Action Surge, heavy weapon users absolutely do not need additional help. The 2024 rules already took away the -5 attack/+10 damage feature of GWM and Sharpshooter because it was too strong, and the PB damage bonus from GWM already gets you 30-40% of the way to that +10 damage per hit before you even factor in Cleave or Graze.
Yeah, single weapon users get a shield, two-weapon users get target flexibility, and greatsword users get to lead the damage charts. That's how this works. A +2 AC boost is nothing to sneeze at, sure, but to be clear the single weapon users actually do not catch up to the greatsword users in DPR.
Over 2 hits, a single-weapon user with Dueling and +4 STR deals an average of 9 + 8 + 4, for 21 total.
A greatsword user with the same stats deals 14 + 8, for 22 total, beating the Dueling user before even applying a fighting style. With GWF, that'll increase to 16 + 8 for 24 average damage. Now you may not feel like a 9% increase in average damage is worth 2 AC, but I submit to you this: maybe you just don't like great weapons that much.
It's also worth pointing out that while there's only a 1-in-36 chance to roll two 1s on 2d6, there's an 8-in-36 chance (about 22%) to roll a total lower than 6. That's fairly common! And while I didn't say the greatsword "needed" more consistency, I did say it was nice and I stand by that. It's nice.
We can go a step further and look at the way Great Weapon Master affects this spread. Sure, it's a feat, but if you're using a heavy weapon there's no reason not to take it, and single weapon users have no equivalent. Adding in your proficiency bonus to every hit with a heavy weapon absolutely skyrockets your damage, and does so in a way no other weapon type can keep up with.
At 5th level, when Extra Attack first becomes available, an optimized Dueling Fighter who took an ASI at level 4 will deal, over two attacks, 9 + 10 + 4, for 23 total.
A Great Weapon Fighting + Master Fighter with 2 less Strength will deal 16 + 8 + 6, for a total of 30. But it gets worse.
At level 11, when these guys get their third attack, the Dueling user goes to to 13.5 + 15 + 6, for 34.5 total. The GWM user gets 24 + 12 + 12, for 48. It gets worse.
At 20, with four attacks each, our Duelist is now dealing 18 + 20 + 8, for 46 total (less than the GWM at 11). The GWM, assuming they somehow still have not taken an ASI in Strength, is dealing 32 + 16 + 24, for an absolutely titanic 72 average damage. But hey, the Dueling user gets a shield.
So basically what I'm saying is heavy weapon users are gonna be fine, I wouldn't worry about it too much.
(Two-weapon Fighters at 20 are doing something like 46.5 on average with 20 in their attacking stat and a feat... Somebody should probably go check on those guys and make sure they're okay)
As the op said, the problem with the Great Weapon Fighting style is that mathematically it simply does not hold up with any weapon other than a Greatsword or a Maul.
If you're using a Greataxe (1d12), your average damage is 6.5 plus your Str modifier. With Great Weapon Fighting style, your average damage increases to a mere 6.75 plus your Str modifier. That's a flimsy +0.25 damage per hit. At 20th level (!), it means a +1 (0.25 x 4 attacks) damage per round, or +2 damage if you're also using Action Surge. Not much, right?
Compare with using a Battleaxe (1d8), which is a one-handed weapon and thus lets you use a shield (+2 AC). Your average damage is 4.5 plus your Str modifier. With Dueling, it increases to 6.5 plus your Str modifier: only 0.25 damage less per hit compared to a Greataxe, and you're getting a +2 to your AC in exchange for that.
Now why on earth would I use a Greataxe with Great Weapon Fighting when I can get almost the same damage output with a Battleaxe with Dueling while also using a shield??
Now, I see someone mentioning Great Weapon Mastery as a sort of balancing factor. Except that it isn't. Yes, it's a powerful Feat. But that certainly doesn't redeem Great Weapon Fighting. With or without GWM, GWF still has almost zero impact on my character's damage output. And what if I don't want to take GWM? Why should I fall behind other players for NOT taking a Feat that makes my choice viable when it otherwise wouldn't? If GWM adds my proficiency bonus to damage (+2 to +6 per hit), what's another 0.25 from GWF?
Personally, if I'm using a Greataxe, I would rather take Defense style instead. But that would make me still less powerful than a character with a Battleaxe, a shield, and the Dueling fighting style: same damage output, 1 less AC.
The problem isn't that great weapons aren't functional in D&D 2024 -- great weapon mastery is excellent. The problem is that different fighting styles should be more or less equal in value, and GWF is clearly inferior to blind fighting or defense (the other fighting styles that work with great weapons).
Frankly there doesn’t seem to be any way to make it a “good” option, since apparently the only thing that makes a weapon style good is increasing damage, and clearly great weapons are already on the far right of the design’s bell curve. They’ve already got the best base damage and masteries along with reach options, dueling just helps one-handed weapons bridge the gap. Look at it this way: great weapon users have the least pressure to take their weapon fighting style and can diversify their build without feeling like they’re missing out on significant DPR.
Frankly there doesn’t seem to be any way to make it a “good” option.
Well, you can do it by moving features that are currently elements of GWM and/or PAM into weapon mastery, those feats are strong enough that they could absorb a small nerf.
The problem is that different fighting styles should be more or less equal in value, and GWF is clearly inferior to blind fighting or defense (the other fighting styles that work with great weapons).
Seems strange to decry GWF for not doing enough but then give Defense a pass. It's only going to make a difference on 5% of all straight rolls. If the enemy has Disadvantage against you, it's less than that (one die has to land exactly on your AC and the other has to not be lower.)
I'll also point out that GWF pairs well with the Pole Strike from Polearm Master. It's going to raise your damage by 2 25% of the time and by 1 another 25% of the time.
Seems strange to decry GWF for not doing enough but then give Defense a pass.
+1 AC is better than +1 damage per hit (best case for GWF, when used on a two-handed sword or maul; it's a lot worse for d12 or d10 weapons). Not saying defense is outstanding, it isn't, but it's easily better than GWF.
The value of +1 AC depends on how hard you were going to get hit and whether there's any other consequences from getting hit. It matters a lot more if you're regularly concentrating on spells as an Eldritch Knight or if getting touched at all is going to inflict some nasty condition on you.
The value +1 damage depends on whether that number changes any outcome in the fight (i.e. results in an earlier KO for someone else, results in you getting the KO and benefiting from Hew, changes the DC in a concentration saving throw.)
Also, crushing the effects down to "your damage goes up by X% (where X is small)" might be a handy mental model, but it's not reality. It's a simplification. The outcomes of turns are usually discrete. Either the enemy is left standing or it's not. There is no difference between 1 HP and 2 HP, but the difference between 0 and 1 is vast.
The problem is that different fighting styles should be more or less equal in value, and GWF is clearly inferior to blind fighting or defense (the other fighting styles that work with great weapons).
Seems strange to decry GWF for not doing enough but then give Defense a pass. It's only going to make a difference on 5% of all straight rolls. If the enemy has Disadvantage against you, it's less than that (one die has to land exactly on your AC and the other has to not be lower.)
I'll also point out that GWF pairs well with the Pole Strike from Polearm Master. It's going to raise your damage by 2 25% of the time and by 1 another 25% of the time.
That is still pretty lackluster, 50% of the time it does nothing, so average that all together, it's a .75 damage increase per pole strike hit, which is crazily low compared too how much damage Duelling adds. For a D6 gwf adds an average .5 (so 1 damage for Greatsword or Maul), for a D8 it adds .375 damage, for a D10 it adds .3 and for a D12? .25.
Or another way to put this, Why would I bother with GWF on a greataxe which does an average 6.75+STR damage when Duelling on a one-handed longsword does 6.5+STR average damage and you get to use a shield on top? Obviously Great Weapon Master and the cleave weapon mastery matters in this but just want to highlight how insignificant the GWF feat really is. If you're not using Greatsword or Maul but using any other 2 handed weapon, you're straight up better selecting Blind Fighting or Defense. A +1 AC increase is far more meaningful then a +0.25 average DPR per hit increase.
Instead, if sticking to how GWF works, it should have scaled too damage die.
a 1d4 should scale a 1 to a 2 (.25 average damage increase)
a 1d6 should scale a 1 or 2 to a 3 (.5 average damage increase, for a 2d6, 1 average damage increase)
a 1d8 should scale a 1, 2 or 3 to a 4 (.75 average damage increase)
a 1d10 should scale a 1, 2, 3 or 4 to a 5 (1 average increase)
a 1d12 should scale a 1,2,3,4 or 5 to a 6 (1.25 damage increase)
Alternatively it could have rounded all damage die up to half the average of the weapon damage die (which gives each a slightly higher damage increase. a 1d8 would get a 1 average damage increase while a 1d12 or a 2d6 would get a 1.5 average damage increase.
2024 Great Weapon Fighting style: a 1 or 2 on damage die becomes a 3
The 2d6 (greatsword and maul) vs. 1d12 (greataxe) damage dice makes this feat very inconsistent between different weapons.
For a greatsword or maul this style adds an average of 1 point of damage per attack (half as much as a Dueling).
For a greataxe this adds an average of 0.25 damage per attack (1/8 as much as Dueling).
At least in the 2014 rules you could reroll the die, which was slightly better, although less consistent.
Two-handed weapon fighting is one of the most restrictive fighting styles and I think should come with the feat that offers the largest damage boost!
I think that the dueling and two-weapon fighting benefits should be swapped. Dueling should provide more consistent damage (a 1 or 2 becomes a 3) and two-handed weapons should just deal more damage (+2 damage).
GWF is a terrible fighting style due to how underpowered it is, I agree. Personally I think the +2 of Duelling, while functionally strong, is the most boring fighting style, archery fighting style at +2 attack is also kind of boring but mechanically makes more sense due to how cover affects ranged attacks.
So I'd drop GWF and Duelling at a minimum. Archery Fighting style also stacks too well with Sharpshooter...
I'd change duelling to make Versatile weapons always use their versatile damage die when held one handed and once per turn you can reroll a 1 on a roll of a versatile weapon's damage die. Using the versatile damage die was an idea played with in UA for a mastery property but I think it'd work better as a fighting style.
I'd change Great Weapon Fighting to adding an additional weapon damage die if you beat a creatures AC by 10* or critical hit it, this damage die does not damage from a critical hit.
I'd change Archery fighting style to half the AC penalty for cover (half to 1AC, three-quarters to 2AC) to ranged attacks which becomes +1 attack if the user additionally has the sharpshooter feat.
*yes, I know what system I took inspiration for the concept from... before anybody mentions it.
Of course people will disagree with me on these, I just think these would be a bit more interesting and a bit more balanced than what we currently have.
This said, I have always thought that fighting styles were a bit lackluster in what they added and as feats, more so now.
I think you're misunderstanding what these fighting styles are meant to do; they're not intended to create differences between the weapon types, they're intended to level the playing field. Great Weapon Fighting doesn't meaningfully increase DPR because it doesn't need to meaningfully increase DPR; Greatsword wielders are already doing the highest weapon DPR in the game. Single-weapon users are doing the least, even with Dueling; the fact that single weapon users have to take Dueling and two-weapon users have to take Two-Weapon Fighting to even keep up with Greatsword users does not indicate that Greatsword users need more damage. Giving them reliability--taking away the possibility of that dreaded snake eyes roll--is a very nice quality of life improvement that keeps all types of weapon users relatively close in terms of DPR. This is the intended design outcome; this is also probably why they removed the called shot features of the Sharpshooter and Great Weapon Master feats.
The actual problem here is that the Greataxe is basically a trap as a weapon choice. It was already worse than the Greatsword in all but the nichest circumstance, being poorly supported by Great Weapon Fighting is just a kick in the teeth.
EDIT: I had actually forgotten what the new Great Weapon Master does, so I went and checked. GWM users are going to be out-damaging single-weapon users by about 26% per round at level 5, and the gap only gets bigger. I really would not worry about Dueling users stealing your spotlight; they might as well be playing a different class by the time you get to Tier 3.
Heavy weapons are already the strongest; they don't need to be even stronger, especially not with the new GWM feat and mastery properties like Cleave, Graze and Topple. The nice thing about Dueling is that it lets one-handed weapons play catch up.
The benefit of GWF with single dice weapons is consistency. Rolling a 1 or 2 can cost you a kill, and if you're using Cleave, you don't have your ability modifier to raise your minimum damage on that attack.
The Forum Infestation (TM)
I think GWF was altered to avoid redundancy with Savage Attacker. SA is better for the Great Axe than GWF, whereas GWF works fairly well for the Great Sword and Maul. If you’re predominantly using a Great Axe, you might prefer Defence or Blind Fighting as your fighting style.
It's much more likely to me they tweaked it to speed things up. If you use it with a 2d6 weapon there's more than a 50% chance you'll have to reroll at least 1 die, and that's going to happen every single attack. It's also much simpler to work out the expected value of the new version without advanced knowledge of probabilities.
The Forum Infestation (TM)
OK, let's forget about the flawed greataxe for now.
I disagree with the "one-handed weapon users need to catch up on damage" argument because they can use shields.
Getting an AC boost is hard to come by. +2 armor is "very rare" - the same rarity as a +3 weapon (+3 to hit AND +3 damage). So yeah I think 2-handed weapons should provide at least 3 damage more than one-handed weapons.
longsword: 1d8 = 4.5 average damage
greatsword: 2d6 = 7 damage
On their own there's a 2.5 damage difference so I would say they should get similar boosts from the fighting style feats.
Also, 2d6 is much more consistent than 1d8, the lowest you can roll on 2d6 is 2 and the "dreaded snake eyes" only happens once for every 36 rolls. So I don't see that two-handed weapons need to be "more consistent".
And yes, all this is just opinion.
I think the style feats are bad In general...tbh 5th edition is do dumbed down , little personality in the characters compared to 3.5...however on point and being a irl weapons expert they need to redo them or remove them, allow another feat choice
Duelist should be about versatility , cause that's why you wield 1 weapon, it can strike grab, defend , fient and most importantly ..grip the weapon as well or another or a shield
Duelist should be about adaptation and provide a mechanic to be others but different
( Wielding 2h ups the damage diice 1 step and add 1.5x str, grabbing an off hand grants and off hand attack but no mod , grabbing a shield adds shield bonus to attack roll, as you'd use the shield to set up the attack not defend yourself)
Great weapons is intimidation and effect..an incoming claymore is akin to a missle...it's get out of the aoe or obliteration.
( Great weapons attack target square and adjacent, hit = full miss = 1/2) and double strength bonus
Dual wield is all about tricking the enemy to not realize how disadvantageous it is against 1 weapon
Bonus action off hand deals no damage grants advantage for attack action as well as +1damage and grants ±1 to ac,
Sword and board is do chose aggressive or defensive , with defensive granting something like disengage or and dodge as bonus actions ..best way to put it into the rules and offensive have it similar to dual wield just better , but shield bash to add advantage to main hand
They are all so underwhelming ..the feats all are..5th edition is, so few options ..everyone's gonna be the same ..no avoiding it...it requires heavy homebrew imo
It's not that hard as long as you're not looking for a permanent bonus (which also goes for attack and damage rolls.) Shield, Shield of Faith, Blade Ward, and Bane are all entry-level ways to raise AC (or lower attack rolls, which is mathematically equivalent.) Also, you can't AC your way to victory. You do need to kill the thing that's trying to kill you sooner or later.
Between their innately higher damage dice, Great Weapon Master adding PB to damage, the high potential for bonus attacks (Haste, GWM's Hew feature, Polearm Master's reaction and bonus action attacks, Cleave), Fighters getting Two Extra Attacks and Action Surge, heavy weapon users absolutely do not need additional help. The 2024 rules already took away the -5 attack/+10 damage feature of GWM and Sharpshooter because it was too strong, and the PB damage bonus from GWM already gets you 30-40% of the way to that +10 damage per hit before you even factor in Cleave or Graze.
The Forum Infestation (TM)
Yeah, single weapon users get a shield, two-weapon users get target flexibility, and greatsword users get to lead the damage charts. That's how this works. A +2 AC boost is nothing to sneeze at, sure, but to be clear the single weapon users actually do not catch up to the greatsword users in DPR.
Over 2 hits, a single-weapon user with Dueling and +4 STR deals an average of 9 + 8 + 4, for 21 total.
A greatsword user with the same stats deals 14 + 8, for 22 total, beating the Dueling user before even applying a fighting style. With GWF, that'll increase to 16 + 8 for 24 average damage. Now you may not feel like a 9% increase in average damage is worth 2 AC, but I submit to you this: maybe you just don't like great weapons that much.
It's also worth pointing out that while there's only a 1-in-36 chance to roll two 1s on 2d6, there's an 8-in-36 chance (about 22%) to roll a total lower than 6. That's fairly common! And while I didn't say the greatsword "needed" more consistency, I did say it was nice and I stand by that. It's nice.
We can go a step further and look at the way Great Weapon Master affects this spread. Sure, it's a feat, but if you're using a heavy weapon there's no reason not to take it, and single weapon users have no equivalent. Adding in your proficiency bonus to every hit with a heavy weapon absolutely skyrockets your damage, and does so in a way no other weapon type can keep up with.
At 5th level, when Extra Attack first becomes available, an optimized Dueling Fighter who took an ASI at level 4 will deal, over two attacks, 9 + 10 + 4, for 23 total.
A Great Weapon Fighting + Master Fighter with 2 less Strength will deal 16 + 8 + 6, for a total of 30. But it gets worse.
At level 11, when these guys get their third attack, the Dueling user goes to to 13.5 + 15 + 6, for 34.5 total. The GWM user gets 24 + 12 + 12, for 48. It gets worse.
At 20, with four attacks each, our Duelist is now dealing 18 + 20 + 8, for 46 total (less than the GWM at 11). The GWM, assuming they somehow still have not taken an ASI in Strength, is dealing 32 + 16 + 24, for an absolutely titanic 72 average damage. But hey, the Dueling user gets a shield.
So basically what I'm saying is heavy weapon users are gonna be fine, I wouldn't worry about it too much.
(Two-weapon Fighters at 20 are doing something like 46.5 on average with 20 in their attacking stat and a feat... Somebody should probably go check on those guys and make sure they're okay)
I actually like the change. Much more balanced.
As the op said, the problem with the Great Weapon Fighting style is that mathematically it simply does not hold up with any weapon other than a Greatsword or a Maul.
If you're using a Greataxe (1d12), your average damage is 6.5 plus your Str modifier. With Great Weapon Fighting style, your average damage increases to a mere 6.75 plus your Str modifier. That's a flimsy +0.25 damage per hit. At 20th level (!), it means a +1 (0.25 x 4 attacks) damage per round, or +2 damage if you're also using Action Surge. Not much, right?
Compare with using a Battleaxe (1d8), which is a one-handed weapon and thus lets you use a shield (+2 AC). Your average damage is 4.5 plus your Str modifier. With Dueling, it increases to 6.5 plus your Str modifier: only 0.25 damage less per hit compared to a Greataxe, and you're getting a +2 to your AC in exchange for that.
Now why on earth would I use a Greataxe with Great Weapon Fighting when I can get almost the same damage output with a Battleaxe with Dueling while also using a shield??
Now, I see someone mentioning Great Weapon Mastery as a sort of balancing factor. Except that it isn't. Yes, it's a powerful Feat. But that certainly doesn't redeem Great Weapon Fighting. With or without GWM, GWF still has almost zero impact on my character's damage output. And what if I don't want to take GWM? Why should I fall behind other players for NOT taking a Feat that makes my choice viable when it otherwise wouldn't? If GWM adds my proficiency bonus to damage (+2 to +6 per hit), what's another 0.25 from GWF?
Personally, if I'm using a Greataxe, I would rather take Defense style instead. But that would make me still less powerful than a character with a Battleaxe, a shield, and the Dueling fighting style: same damage output, 1 less AC.
You can't Cleave with a Battleaxe or Greataxe, and GWF helps Greataxes be more consistent, since 1d12 is more likely to roll 1 or 2 than 2d6 is.
Any proposed increase in damage output has be seen in the context of GWM existing because anyone taking one will likely take the other.
The Forum Infestation (TM)
The problem isn't that great weapons aren't functional in D&D 2024 -- great weapon mastery is excellent. The problem is that different fighting styles should be more or less equal in value, and GWF is clearly inferior to blind fighting or defense (the other fighting styles that work with great weapons).
Frankly there doesn’t seem to be any way to make it a “good” option, since apparently the only thing that makes a weapon style good is increasing damage, and clearly great weapons are already on the far right of the design’s bell curve. They’ve already got the best base damage and masteries along with reach options, dueling just helps one-handed weapons bridge the gap. Look at it this way: great weapon users have the least pressure to take their weapon fighting style and can diversify their build without feeling like they’re missing out on significant DPR.
Well, you can do it by moving features that are currently elements of GWM and/or PAM into weapon mastery, those feats are strong enough that they could absorb a small nerf.
Seems strange to decry GWF for not doing enough but then give Defense a pass. It's only going to make a difference on 5% of all straight rolls. If the enemy has Disadvantage against you, it's less than that (one die has to land exactly on your AC and the other has to not be lower.)
I'll also point out that GWF pairs well with the Pole Strike from Polearm Master. It's going to raise your damage by 2 25% of the time and by 1 another 25% of the time.
The Forum Infestation (TM)
+1 AC is better than +1 damage per hit (best case for GWF, when used on a two-handed sword or maul; it's a lot worse for d12 or d10 weapons). Not saying defense is outstanding, it isn't, but it's easily better than GWF.
It's literally an apples and oranges comparison.
The value of +1 AC depends on how hard you were going to get hit and whether there's any other consequences from getting hit. It matters a lot more if you're regularly concentrating on spells as an Eldritch Knight or if getting touched at all is going to inflict some nasty condition on you.
The value +1 damage depends on whether that number changes any outcome in the fight (i.e. results in an earlier KO for someone else, results in you getting the KO and benefiting from Hew, changes the DC in a concentration saving throw.)
Also, crushing the effects down to "your damage goes up by X% (where X is small)" might be a handy mental model, but it's not reality. It's a simplification. The outcomes of turns are usually discrete. Either the enemy is left standing or it's not. There is no difference between 1 HP and 2 HP, but the difference between 0 and 1 is vast.
The Forum Infestation (TM)
That is still pretty lackluster, 50% of the time it does nothing, so average that all together, it's a .75 damage increase per pole strike hit, which is crazily low compared too how much damage Duelling adds. For a D6 gwf adds an average .5 (so 1 damage for Greatsword or Maul), for a D8 it adds .375 damage, for a D10 it adds .3 and for a D12? .25.
Or another way to put this, Why would I bother with GWF on a greataxe which does an average 6.75+STR damage when Duelling on a one-handed longsword does 6.5+STR average damage and you get to use a shield on top? Obviously Great Weapon Master and the cleave weapon mastery matters in this but just want to highlight how insignificant the GWF feat really is. If you're not using Greatsword or Maul but using any other 2 handed weapon, you're straight up better selecting Blind Fighting or Defense. A +1 AC increase is far more meaningful then a +0.25 average DPR per hit increase.
Instead, if sticking to how GWF works, it should have scaled too damage die.
a 1d4 should scale a 1 to a 2 (.25 average damage increase)
a 1d6 should scale a 1 or 2 to a 3 (.5 average damage increase, for a 2d6, 1 average damage increase)
a 1d8 should scale a 1, 2 or 3 to a 4 (.75 average damage increase)
a 1d10 should scale a 1, 2, 3 or 4 to a 5 (1 average increase)
a 1d12 should scale a 1,2,3,4 or 5 to a 6 (1.25 damage increase)
Alternatively it could have rounded all damage die up to half the average of the weapon damage die (which gives each a slightly higher damage increase. a 1d8 would get a 1 average damage increase while a 1d12 or a 2d6 would get a 1.5 average damage increase.