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.
If you're using a Greataxe (1d12), your average damage is6.5 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. +2 AC in exchange for 1 (or 2, with Action Surge) less average damage per round at 20th level.
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, GWFstill 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.
Yeah, the Greataxe sucks. It always has; 1d12 is just mathematically worse than 2d6 in terms of expected return. I genuinely have no idea why they didn't fix it in 5.5, but they didn't. Solution: don't use a Greataxe. They probably shouldn't put weapons in the book that are just flatly worse than other weapons in the same category, but this is not a problem with Great Weapon Fighting-- which works fine on the Greatsword and the Maul--it's a problem with the Greataxe.
As for "what if I don't want to take Great Weapon Mastery?" then you're building your character badly and deserve to do less damage than someone who isn't. This also applies to using a Greataxe when you are clearly capable of doing the math that indicates it's worse than Greatsword or Maul. You can't build your character badly on purpose and then expect to have the same outcomes as somebody who read the same book as you did and made better choices.
Correct me if I am interpreting this wrong, but the Great Weapon Fighting Style states that when attacking, you may treat any roll if 1 or two on a damage die as a 3, but it doesn't specifically state that die must be the weapons damage. So, a Berserker could use that style for the 2-6 bonus d6 they get once per round. Or ANY barbarian if appropriate level could apply it to Brutal Strike bonus damage. If so, it doesn't seem so lackluster, but it depends on class and subclass.
Correct me if I am interpreting this wrong, but the Great Weapon Fighting Style states that when attacking, you may treat any roll if 1 or two on a damage die as a 3, but it doesn't specifically state that die must be the weapons damage. So, a Berserker could use that style for the 2-6 bonus d6 they get once per round. Or ANY barbarian if appropriate level could apply it to Brutal Strike bonus damage. If so, it doesn't seem so lackluster, but it depends on class and subclass.
Nothing exists in a vacuum in this game.
Good point:
“When you roll damage for an attack you make with a Melee weapon that you are holding with two hands, you can treat any 1 or 2 on a damage die as a 3. The weapon must have the Two-Handed or Versatile property to gain this benefit.”
As written, would also work with e.g. Divine Smite or with the additional damage of True Strike at higher levels.
Correct me if I am interpreting this wrong, but the Great Weapon Fighting Style states that when attacking, you may treat any roll if 1 or two on a damage die as a 3, but it doesn't specifically state that die must be the weapons damage. So, a Berserker could use that style for the 2-6 bonus d6 they get once per round. Or ANY barbarian if appropriate level could apply it to Brutal Strike bonus damage. If so, it doesn't seem so lackluster, but it depends on class and subclass.
Well, barbarians don't have fighting style; of the classes that do, it's probably most relevant to paladins, but it's still not a particular big bonus.
Correct me if I am interpreting this wrong, but the Great Weapon Fighting Style states that when attacking, you may treat any roll if 1 or two on a damage die as a 3, but it doesn't specifically state that die must be the weapons damage. So, a Berserker could use that style for the 2-6 bonus d6 they get once per round. Or ANY barbarian if appropriate level could apply it to Brutal Strike bonus damage. If so, it doesn't seem so lackluster, but it depends on class and subclass.
Well, barbarians don't have fighting style; of the classes that do, it's probably most relevant to paladins, but it's still not a particular big bonus.
Not big, but it scales up when rolling more damage dice, unlike Duelling, which just gives the flat +2. With a Great Sword, a critical hit brings the extra damage up to equal that of Duelling and any bonus dice on top of that will surpass it. A critical hit with a Great Sword and level 1 Divine Smite would benefit from an extra 3.5 damage. To be honest, not amazing damage, but mitigating the moments when you roll abysmally is the bigger benefit.
Yeah, the Greataxe sucks. It always has; 1d12 is just mathematically worse than 2d6 in terms of expected return. I genuinely have no idea why they didn't fix it in 5.5, but they didn't. Solution: don't use a Greataxe. They probably shouldn't put weapons in the book that are just flatly worse than other weapons in the same category, but this is not a problem with Great Weapon Fighting-- which works fine on the Greatsword and the Maul--it's a problem with the Greataxe.
As for "what if I don't want to take Great Weapon Mastery?" then you're building your character badly and deserve to do less damage than someone who isn't. This also applies to using a Greataxe when you are clearly capable of doing the math that indicates it's worse than Greatsword or Maul. You can't build your character badly on purpose and then expect to have the same outcomes as somebody who read the same book as you did and made better choices.
I mostly agree with the second argument, although I genuinely think that the game should not put players in the position of making obviously worse choices than others. I agree that GWM is a must go in terms of optimization, but choosing a weapon over another should just be a matter of taste. And if anything, taking GWM only makes GWF even more insignificant, because why would I bother with a +0.25 damage on my rolls when I already add my proficiency bonus...
In my games, I simply make the Greataxe's damage 2d6, without changing anything else. I mean, why should I be penalized for choosing a Greataxe over a Greatsword?
Alternatively, one could do the exact opposite (as they do The Lord of the Rings Roleplaying, for example): make the Greatsword and the Maul deal 1d12 damage instead of 2d6, but then also make the Great Weapon Fighting let you treat any roll of 4 or less on a weapon damage die as a 5. This bumps the average damage of a d12 from 6.5 to 7.33: now that's 0.83 damage per hit more than a character with a Battleaxe and Dueling, not a huge improvement but still better than a 0.25 (also, a minimum damage roll of 5 is hefty).
Given a Paladin is going to smite, what once every 4 to 7 attacks with a greatsword... it's still quiet a weak bonus, it would also work with divine favour, spirit shroud and holy weapon but even with that, it's very lackluster damage compared to Duelling and is still relying on using a greatsword or maul over say a greataxe, the 1d12 weapons are so far behind it isn't even funny.
What’s funny is how much emphasis people put on the marginal difference between 2d6 and 1d12. Yes, by the theoretical numbers one has a slight edge in dpr. In reality, I doubt most players notice the difference in play.
I think it affects players psychologically more than you might think, and that's where the feat comes in. 2d6 having a higher floor (and a curve around 7) makes it feel better, even if it's just one point. GWF does the same thing: it increases the floor, which, while not mechanically all that big, makes damage rolls feel a lot less sucky when you roll low. To some players playing into a theme, that may be enough.
What’s funny is how much emphasis people put on the marginal difference between 2d6 and 1d12. Yes, by the theoretical numbers one has a slight edge in dpr. In reality, I doubt most players notice the difference in play.
The differences aren't that small, given a 2d6 weapon already does 0.5 more average DPR per hit, adding another 1 average DPR over that means that a Greatsword would do 8 DPR vs the 6.75DPR of a Great Axe, If you're a fighter performing an attack with a +4 strength modifier at level 5, that is 12 DPR vs 10.75, meaning a Greatsword is doing almost 12% more damage. Add on top of that, that the greatsword is a more consistent weapon and great weapon fighting moves the minimum roll from a 2 too a 6, it's a significant advantage.
I'd wager anyone using a greataxe in 2024 either wants to Cleave or likes the possibility of being able to roll high numbers. The flip side of the greatsword's consistency is that you won't be seeing a 12 very often either.
And yes, I don't think the psychological/emotional component should be underestimated here. The 2014 Champion was well-liked just because it'd give you a crit once in a blue moon. I got a lot of pushback when I criticized it.
What’s funny is how much emphasis people put on the marginal difference between 2d6 and 1d12. Yes, by the theoretical numbers one has a slight edge in dpr. In reality, I doubt most players notice the difference in play.
The differences aren't that small, given a 2d6 weapon already does 0.5 more average DPR per hit, adding another 1 average DPR over that means that a Greatsword would do 8 DPR vs the 6.75DPR of a Great Axe, If you're a fighter performing an attack with a +4 strength modifier at level 5, that is 12 DPR vs 10.75, meaning a Greatsword is doing almost 12% more damage. Add on top of that, that the greatsword is a more consistent weapon and great weapon fighting moves the minimum roll from a 2 too a 6, it's a significant advantage.
I think the point is that most people don't think about their DPR at all.
Also, while 12% is a non-trivial difference on paper, in real terms, it's, like, one point. Unless one is trying to squeeze as much damage as possible out of their build, that's just not a big deal. Style and vibes are usually way more important when choosing one's weapon. (And also what magic items the DM gives you.)
I'd wager anyone using a greataxe in 2024 either wants to Cleave or likes the possibility of being able to roll high numbers. The flip side of the greatsword's consistency is that you won't be seeing a 12 very often either.
And yes, I don't think the psychological/emotional component should be underestimated here. The 2014 Champion was well-liked just because it'd give you a crit once in a blue moon. I got a lot of pushback when I criticized it.
Cleave being better than Graze is about the only thing saving Greataxe in 2024, more so for Barbarian since you can still apply your rage damage on a cleave but cleave and graze are both situational in use. Graze being for when you miss (which when you have advantage becomes rarely ever) and Graze for when you've got two hostile creatures in the right place to use it (which is why I prefer Halberd for Graze over Greataxe, since easier to meet that requirement).
Champion's crit chance is great when stacked with advantage but that needs multiclassing and not wanting to opening that discussion too much...
The discussion is still regarding GWF tho and how for Greataxe it's such a small boost that it's kind of a joke and defense and blind fighting are just straight up better options. Blind Fighting is situational but where it comes up, it is impactful. 1AC is more impactful than a 0.25 average damage increase per hit.
I mostly agree with the second argument, although I genuinely think that the game should not put players in the position of making obviously worse choices than others. I agree that GWM is a must go in terms of optimization, but choosing a weapon over another should just be a matter of taste. And if anything, taking GWM only makes GWF even more insignificant, because why would I bother with a +0.25 damage on my rolls when I already add my proficiency bonus...
In my games, I simply make the Greataxe's damage 2d6, without changing anything else. I mean, why should I be penalized for choosing a Greataxe over a Greatsword?
Alternatively, one could do the exact opposite (as they do The Lord of the Rings Roleplaying, for example): make the Greatsword and the Maul deal 1d12 damage instead of 2d6, but then also make the Great Weapon Fighting let you treat any roll of 4 or less on a weapon damage die as a 5. This bumps the average damage of a d12 from 6.5 to 7.33: now that's 0.83 damage per hit more than a character with a Battleaxe and Dueling, not a huge improvement but still better than a 0.25 (also, a minimum damage roll of 5 is hefty).
My broader point here is that this is, in fact, a conversation about DPR, and as such the Greataxe shouldn't even factor. You can use Dueling on a Dagger, but nobody is using that math in this discussion when they talk about Dueling. They're not even using the math for a Shortsword, which a Dueling user might more reasonably use, because of course in a conversation about DPR you're only talking about the optimal case. So Greataxe is (and to a lesser degree Glaive and Halberd are) a distraction when comparing GWF to Dueling; it's unreasonable to compare Dueling's best-case to GWF's worst and expect that to mean anything. Comparing best-case to best-case, it's clear that GWF is doing fine; it doesn't add as much damage as Dueling because Greatsword users are already dealing plenty of damage and don't really need the help.
I would be fine with the alternative GWF proposed here, but I also wouldn't hold my breath. We have the version we have, and it's really just Greataxe that suffers for it. If you're hellbent on using a d12 weapon, then yeah, probably don't use GWF. There are other good options for you to take. Those options don't increase your damage, but if we're talking about a d12 weapon we're already outside the optimal DPR conversation, so I really don't see what the problem is.
Let me bottom line this so it's very clear what I'm saying: if we're going to talk about optimal DPR, let's talk about optimal DPR. If we're not talking about optimal DPR, what are we doing quibbling over fractional average damage?
1AC is more impactful than a 0.25 average damage increase per hit.
I think a claim like this they really needs to be given with the assumptions that went into it. Players have access to more healing than ever (1st level spells gained an extra die, Long Rests recover all Hit Dice, Lay on Hands is a Bonus Action now, Clerics can use Channel Divinity to heal, Prayer of Healing can just magic up a short rest, anyone with the Healer feat can let other players burn through Hit Dice outside of a rest.) Unless the DM exhausts all of the party's resources in a single day, or they run an extremely lethal encounter, +1 AC may not make any difference at all. But even that comes with caveats. If we're talking about an Eldritch Knight that likes to use concentration spells then every hit has potentially disastrous consequences. That player might be willing to give up 2 or 3 damage per hit to keep their spell going.
And I think we should talk about that damage increase with a little more nuance than "it's just 0.25 average damage." We don't get to choose averages when playing the game. If a monster has 4 HP left, a d12 has a 2/3 chance to kill it. A die that only rolls 1 or 12 only has a 50% chance to overkill and 50% chance to barely make any progress. Both dice have the same average. (I know the {1, 12} die doesn't exist IRL, but GWF also creates imaginary dice with weird distributions.)
The fact that GWF gives you a +2 when you roll a 1 matters, because that's when you need more damage the most. If you've already rolled a 12, you probably don't need another 0.25 damage even if the game tracked fractions. The lower your damage, the harder it is to get a KO on that hit; and the higher your damage, the more of an additional increase you need to reduce the monster's lifespan by another hit (e.g. if you're doing 20 damage a pop to a monster with 100 HP, you only need 5 more to turn a 5HKO into a 4HKO. If you're doing 50 damage, you need another 50 to turn a 2HKO into a 1HKO.)
I think a claim like this they really needs to be given with the assumptions that went into it. Players have access to more healing than ever (1st level spells gained an extra die, Long Rests recover all Hit Dice, Lay on Hands is a Bonus Action now, Clerics can use Channel Divinity to heal, Prayer of Healing can just magic up a short rest, anyone with the Healer feat can let other players burn through Hit Dice outside of a rest.) Unless the DM exhausts all of the party's resources in a single day, or they run an extremely lethal encounter, +1 AC may not make any difference at all.
In any normal difficulty encounter, neither +0.25 dpr nor +1 AC makes any difference other than minor changes in resource expenditure. In a fight with a real chance of losing, the +1 AC matters more.
1AC is more impactful than a 0.25 average damage increase per hit.
I think a claim like this they really needs to be given with the assumptions that went into it. Players have access to more healing than ever (1st level spells gained an extra die, Long Rests recover all Hit Dice, Lay on Hands is a Bonus Action now, Clerics can use Channel Divinity to heal, Prayer of Healing can just magic up a short rest, anyone with the Healer feat can let other players burn through Hit Dice outside of a rest.) Unless the DM exhausts all of the party's resources in a single day, or they run an extremely lethal encounter, +1 AC may not make any difference at all. But even that comes with caveats. If we're talking about an Eldritch Knight that likes to use concentration spells then every hit has potentially disastrous consequences. That player might be willing to give up 2 or 3 damage per hit to keep their spell going.
And I think we should talk about that damage increase with a little more nuance than "it's just 0.25 average damage." We don't get to choose averages when playing the game. If a monster has 4 HP left, a d12 has a 2/3 chance to kill it. A die that only rolls 1 or 12 only has a 50% chance to overkill and 50% chance to barely make any progress. Both dice have the same average. (I know the {1, 12} die doesn't exist IRL, but GWF also creates imaginary dice with weird distributions.)
The fact that GWF gives you a +2 when you roll a 1 matters, because that's when you need more damage the most. If you've already rolled a 12, you probably don't need another 0.25 damage even if the game tracked fractions. The lower your damage, the harder it is to get a KO on that hit; and the higher your damage, the more of an additional increase you need to reduce the monster's lifespan by another hit (e.g. if you're doing 20 damage a pop to a monster with 100 HP, you only need 5 more to turn a 5HKO into a 4HKO. If you're doing 50 damage, you need another 50 to turn a 2HKO into a 1HKO.)
A 0.25 DPR increase on a 1d12 with +4 STR, is the difference between 10.5 and 10.75, or a below 2.5% damage increase.
If creatures have around 30% chance to hit a player, reducing that to a 25% chance is a decrease of around 14.3% to incoming damage from attacks, even decreasing a 45% chance to be hit to 40% is a 10% decrease of incoming damage from attacks. Personally the only buff I think Defense needs is that it should increase savings against damaging effects by +1. Even with all the increased healing 1AC just remains far more meaningful, having to burn less resources on healing is more resources for dealing damage and taking less damage also helps action economy since a character going down in battle is not a good state to be in.
The nuance of the 0.25 DPR increase is that it's so tiny it's not even worth thinking about, it is and will always be a completely skippable option that is simply going to always be less impactful than the +1 AC of Defense. Does Defense need a buff? yes, I said what buff it needs above but compared to GWF it at least looks like it can stand on it's own legs.
Some options within the same theme as GWF:
I like #2 because it's pretty consistent value and trims the advantage of 2d6 weapons.
Yeah, the Greataxe sucks. It always has; 1d12 is just mathematically worse than 2d6 in terms of expected return. I genuinely have no idea why they didn't fix it in 5.5, but they didn't. Solution: don't use a Greataxe. They probably shouldn't put weapons in the book that are just flatly worse than other weapons in the same category, but this is not a problem with Great Weapon Fighting-- which works fine on the Greatsword and the Maul--it's a problem with the Greataxe.
As for "what if I don't want to take Great Weapon Mastery?" then you're building your character badly and deserve to do less damage than someone who isn't. This also applies to using a Greataxe when you are clearly capable of doing the math that indicates it's worse than Greatsword or Maul. You can't build your character badly on purpose and then expect to have the same outcomes as somebody who read the same book as you did and made better choices.
Correct me if I am interpreting this wrong, but the Great Weapon Fighting Style states that when attacking, you may treat any roll if 1 or two on a damage die as a 3, but it doesn't specifically state that die must be the weapons damage. So, a Berserker could use that style for the 2-6 bonus d6 they get once per round. Or ANY barbarian if appropriate level could apply it to Brutal Strike bonus damage. If so, it doesn't seem so lackluster, but it depends on class and subclass.
Nothing exists in a vacuum in this game.
Good point:
“When you roll damage for an attack you make with a Melee weapon that you are holding with two hands, you can treat any 1 or 2 on a damage die as a 3. The weapon must have the Two-Handed or Versatile property to gain this benefit.”
As written, would also work with e.g. Divine Smite or with the additional damage of True Strike at higher levels.
Ooh, working with smites is nice. Gotta love when you roll low on one.
Well, barbarians don't have fighting style; of the classes that do, it's probably most relevant to paladins, but it's still not a particular big bonus.
Not big, but it scales up when rolling more damage dice, unlike Duelling, which just gives the flat +2. With a Great Sword, a critical hit brings the extra damage up to equal that of Duelling and any bonus dice on top of that will surpass it. A critical hit with a Great Sword and level 1 Divine Smite would benefit from an extra 3.5 damage. To be honest, not amazing damage, but mitigating the moments when you roll abysmally is the bigger benefit.
I mostly agree with the second argument, although I genuinely think that the game should not put players in the position of making obviously worse choices than others. I agree that GWM is a must go in terms of optimization, but choosing a weapon over another should just be a matter of taste. And if anything, taking GWM only makes GWF even more insignificant, because why would I bother with a +0.25 damage on my rolls when I already add my proficiency bonus...
In my games, I simply make the Greataxe's damage 2d6, without changing anything else. I mean, why should I be penalized for choosing a Greataxe over a Greatsword?
Alternatively, one could do the exact opposite (as they do The Lord of the Rings Roleplaying, for example): make the Greatsword and the Maul deal 1d12 damage instead of 2d6, but then also make the Great Weapon Fighting let you treat any roll of 4 or less on a weapon damage die as a 5. This bumps the average damage of a d12 from 6.5 to 7.33: now that's 0.83 damage per hit more than a character with a Battleaxe and Dueling, not a huge improvement but still better than a 0.25 (also, a minimum damage roll of 5 is hefty).
Given a Paladin is going to smite, what once every 4 to 7 attacks with a greatsword... it's still quiet a weak bonus, it would also work with divine favour, spirit shroud and holy weapon but even with that, it's very lackluster damage compared to Duelling and is still relying on using a greatsword or maul over say a greataxe, the 1d12 weapons are so far behind it isn't even funny.
What’s funny is how much emphasis people put on the marginal difference between 2d6 and 1d12. Yes, by the theoretical numbers one has a slight edge in dpr. In reality, I doubt most players notice the difference in play.
I think it affects players psychologically more than you might think, and that's where the feat comes in. 2d6 having a higher floor (and a curve around 7) makes it feel better, even if it's just one point. GWF does the same thing: it increases the floor, which, while not mechanically all that big, makes damage rolls feel a lot less sucky when you roll low. To some players playing into a theme, that may be enough.
The differences aren't that small, given a 2d6 weapon already does 0.5 more average DPR per hit, adding another 1 average DPR over that means that a Greatsword would do 8 DPR vs the 6.75DPR of a Great Axe, If you're a fighter performing an attack with a +4 strength modifier at level 5, that is 12 DPR vs 10.75, meaning a Greatsword is doing almost 12% more damage. Add on top of that, that the greatsword is a more consistent weapon and great weapon fighting moves the minimum roll from a 2 too a 6, it's a significant advantage.
I'd wager anyone using a greataxe in 2024 either wants to Cleave or likes the possibility of being able to roll high numbers. The flip side of the greatsword's consistency is that you won't be seeing a 12 very often either.
And yes, I don't think the psychological/emotional component should be underestimated here. The 2014 Champion was well-liked just because it'd give you a crit once in a blue moon. I got a lot of pushback when I criticized it.
The Forum Infestation (TM)
I think the point is that most people don't think about their DPR at all.
Also, while 12% is a non-trivial difference on paper, in real terms, it's, like, one point. Unless one is trying to squeeze as much damage as possible out of their build, that's just not a big deal. Style and vibes are usually way more important when choosing one's weapon. (And also what magic items the DM gives you.)
Cleave being better than Graze is about the only thing saving Greataxe in 2024, more so for Barbarian since you can still apply your rage damage on a cleave but cleave and graze are both situational in use. Graze being for when you miss (which when you have advantage becomes rarely ever) and Graze for when you've got two hostile creatures in the right place to use it (which is why I prefer Halberd for Graze over Greataxe, since easier to meet that requirement).
Champion's crit chance is great when stacked with advantage but that needs multiclassing and not wanting to opening that discussion too much...
The discussion is still regarding GWF tho and how for Greataxe it's such a small boost that it's kind of a joke and defense and blind fighting are just straight up better options. Blind Fighting is situational but where it comes up, it is impactful. 1AC is more impactful than a 0.25 average damage increase per hit.
My broader point here is that this is, in fact, a conversation about DPR, and as such the Greataxe shouldn't even factor. You can use Dueling on a Dagger, but nobody is using that math in this discussion when they talk about Dueling. They're not even using the math for a Shortsword, which a Dueling user might more reasonably use, because of course in a conversation about DPR you're only talking about the optimal case. So Greataxe is (and to a lesser degree Glaive and Halberd are) a distraction when comparing GWF to Dueling; it's unreasonable to compare Dueling's best-case to GWF's worst and expect that to mean anything. Comparing best-case to best-case, it's clear that GWF is doing fine; it doesn't add as much damage as Dueling because Greatsword users are already dealing plenty of damage and don't really need the help.
I would be fine with the alternative GWF proposed here, but I also wouldn't hold my breath. We have the version we have, and it's really just Greataxe that suffers for it. If you're hellbent on using a d12 weapon, then yeah, probably don't use GWF. There are other good options for you to take. Those options don't increase your damage, but if we're talking about a d12 weapon we're already outside the optimal DPR conversation, so I really don't see what the problem is.
Let me bottom line this so it's very clear what I'm saying: if we're going to talk about optimal DPR, let's talk about optimal DPR. If we're not talking about optimal DPR, what are we doing quibbling over fractional average damage?
Cleave is also good for Battle Masters. Maneuvers don't particularly care what kind of attack they're being used on.
I think a claim like this they really needs to be given with the assumptions that went into it. Players have access to more healing than ever (1st level spells gained an extra die, Long Rests recover all Hit Dice, Lay on Hands is a Bonus Action now, Clerics can use Channel Divinity to heal, Prayer of Healing can just magic up a short rest, anyone with the Healer feat can let other players burn through Hit Dice outside of a rest.) Unless the DM exhausts all of the party's resources in a single day, or they run an extremely lethal encounter, +1 AC may not make any difference at all. But even that comes with caveats. If we're talking about an Eldritch Knight that likes to use concentration spells then every hit has potentially disastrous consequences. That player might be willing to give up 2 or 3 damage per hit to keep their spell going.
And I think we should talk about that damage increase with a little more nuance than "it's just 0.25 average damage." We don't get to choose averages when playing the game. If a monster has 4 HP left, a d12 has a 2/3 chance to kill it. A die that only rolls 1 or 12 only has a 50% chance to overkill and 50% chance to barely make any progress. Both dice have the same average. (I know the {1, 12} die doesn't exist IRL, but GWF also creates imaginary dice with weird distributions.)
The fact that GWF gives you a +2 when you roll a 1 matters, because that's when you need more damage the most. If you've already rolled a 12, you probably don't need another 0.25 damage even if the game tracked fractions. The lower your damage, the harder it is to get a KO on that hit; and the higher your damage, the more of an additional increase you need to reduce the monster's lifespan by another hit (e.g. if you're doing 20 damage a pop to a monster with 100 HP, you only need 5 more to turn a 5HKO into a 4HKO. If you're doing 50 damage, you need another 50 to turn a 2HKO into a 1HKO.)
The Forum Infestation (TM)
In any normal difficulty encounter, neither +0.25 dpr nor +1 AC makes any difference other than minor changes in resource expenditure. In a fight with a real chance of losing, the +1 AC matters more.
i miss the days when people would just make cool characters and jsut have fun instead of worrying about statics of damage output.
A 0.25 DPR increase on a 1d12 with +4 STR, is the difference between 10.5 and 10.75, or a below 2.5% damage increase.
If creatures have around 30% chance to hit a player, reducing that to a 25% chance is a decrease of around 14.3% to incoming damage from attacks, even decreasing a 45% chance to be hit to 40% is a 10% decrease of incoming damage from attacks. Personally the only buff I think Defense needs is that it should increase savings against damaging effects by +1. Even with all the increased healing 1AC just remains far more meaningful, having to burn less resources on healing is more resources for dealing damage and taking less damage also helps action economy since a character going down in battle is not a good state to be in.
The nuance of the 0.25 DPR increase is that it's so tiny it's not even worth thinking about, it is and will always be a completely skippable option that is simply going to always be less impactful than the +1 AC of Defense. Does Defense need a buff? yes, I said what buff it needs above but compared to GWF it at least looks like it can stand on it's own legs.