I often think, in conversations like this, people overlook the fun factor. It’s a game for having fun, not a math problem to be solved. And when you roll and you get a 1 or 2, but get to say “but for me, that’s a 3.” It’s fun. It feels good. It’s a little boost and makes your character feel stronger, and let the player have a little smile. If it’s more fun than other styles it going to come down to personal preference, of course. But relying solely on math to judge a feature is missing something.
I classify that as "annoying", not "fun" -- it combines being mechanically weak with requiring extra mental effort to actually use and giving you a fairly lame outcome (how often do you cheer about rolling a 3?)
I mean, that’s really a bare minimum of mental effort, isn’t it? There are countless things in the game which are far more complex. We’re not exactly doing calculus here. But, if you find that annoying, that’s fine, I respect your opinion. And, you didn’t roll a 3. You rolled a 1 and got to count it as 3 times higher. Or a 2 you count as half again more. But if that’s not fun for you, that’s cool. Not everything is going to work for everyone. Others may like the idea that their minimum damage is higher. It makes you feel like your character is really strong, even if the mathematical difference is negligible. There’s this little moment of, Ha, I’m better than that.
It’s mechanically about even with Dueling on 2d6 weapons in terms of dpr adjustment. Average is slightly below, but has about twice the potential boost on a given roll.
Um... no, it isn't. For every d6, it's a 1/6 chance to add +2, and a 1/6 chance to add +1, for a total of +3/6 per d6, or +1 damage on 2d6. Dueling is +2 damage.
Yes, that would be why I said “about”, as in “close but not identical”. The 1 point of damage difference is not significant.
It is literally double the DPR increase of Duelling over Great Weapon Fighting, the definition of significant here appears to be based on opinion, I would not suggest a +100%, or doubling of a number is generally "not significant".
I would also say that Duelling has a consistency bonus over GWF, because Duelling will always add damage on applicable hits whereas GWF does not, overall GWF is lackluster, it increases a subpar value to a subpar value and it's only validation is that it sucks just a bit less on 2d6 heavy weapons.
It’s mechanically about even with Dueling on 2d6 weapons in terms of dpr adjustment. Average is slightly below, but has about twice the potential boost on a given roll.
Um... no, it isn't. For every d6, it's a 1/6 chance to add +2, and a 1/6 chance to add +1, for a total of +3/6 per d6, or +1 damage on 2d6. Dueling is +2 damage.
Yes, that would be why I said “about”, as in “close but not identical”. The 1 point of damage difference is not significant.
If 1 point of damage difference is not significant, then neither is the bonus granted by the great weapon fighting style.
I’d had made it something different, like i.e. allow to reroll a critical miss once per combat or something like that. Changing 1-2 by 3 for weapon damage dice is really useless and not fun at all IMO. Others are more consistent as you get a fixed bonus instead something conditional to roll 1-2 for a so weak improvement.
It is literally double the DPR increase of Duelling over Great Weapon Fighting, the definition of significant here appears to be based on opinion, I would not suggest a +100%, or doubling of a number is generally "not significant"
LOLOLOLOL. This is why the saying is "lies, damn lies, and statistics"
I've never given a damn about DPR in building a character and never will, but even if you do, how can you possibly argue that a one-point difference in damage bonus is in any way significant, when you're averaging double-digit damage per hit? C'mon now
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Active characters:
Carric Aquissar, elven wannabe artist in his deconstructionist period (Archfey warlock) Lan Kidogo, mapach archaeologist and treasure hunter (Knowledge cleric) Mardan Ferres, elven private investigator obsessed with that one unsolved murder (Assassin rogue) Xhekhetiel, halfling survivor of a Betrayer Gods cult (Runechild sorcerer/fighter)
I've never given a damn about DPR in building a character and never will, but even if you do, how can you possibly argue that a one-point difference in damage bonus is in any way significant, when you're averaging double-digit damage per hit? C'mon now
The comparison is fighting styles to each other. How can you claim one fighting style being twice as good as another fighting style is irrelevant?
I've never given a damn about DPR in building a character and never will, but even if you do, how can you possibly argue that a one-point difference in damage bonus is in any way significant, when you're averaging double-digit damage per hit? C'mon now
The comparison is fighting styles to each other. How can you claim one fighting style being twice as good as another fighting style is irrelevant?
Because the effect that style being "twice as good" in the modifier it gives is negligible. It sounds pithy, but the reality is that within the performance curve fighting styles exist on, is misleading to say that a fighting style that only brings weapon performance up to the other's pre-fighting style output is actually twice as good in practice.
It is literally double the DPR increase of Duelling over Great Weapon Fighting, the definition of significant here appears to be based on opinion, I would not suggest a +100%, or doubling of a number is generally "not significant"
LOLOLOLOL. This is why the saying is "lies, damn lies, and statistics"
I've never given a damn about DPR in building a character and never will, but even if you do, how can you possibly argue that a one-point difference in damage bonus is in any way significant, when you're averaging double-digit damage per hit? C'mon now
I can argue it because D&D is based off of a certain amount of both vertical and horizontal progression, where GWF falls behind on vertical progression and has no horizontal progression. You can say you don't care about it, but you do not speak for everybody and some people like options to actually be balanced, which is often why horizontal progression is better than vertical.
I've never given a damn about DPR in building a character and never will, but even if you do, how can you possibly argue that a one-point difference in damage bonus is in any way significant, when you're averaging double-digit damage per hit? C'mon now
The comparison is fighting styles to each other. How can you claim one fighting style being twice as good as another fighting style is irrelevant?
Because the effect that style being "twice as good" in the modifier it gives is negligible. It sounds pithy, but the reality is that within the performance curve fighting styles exist on, is misleading to say that a fighting style that only brings weapon performance up to the other's pre-fighting style output is actually twice as good in practice.
The other way to intrepret your statement here is that fighting styles don't matter and so let's can em, I mean if fighting styles are negligible then what pray tell is even the point of them?
Again, I'd say they do have a point, they do have an impact but GWF is less impactful then others. a +2 to each melee hit for a level 9 paladin using Spirit Shroud on a +1 longsword would be around an improvement of just over a 13% DPR (2 / ( 1d8 Weapon Die + 1d8 Spirit Shroud + 5 STR +1 enchantment )) per hit.
Meanwhile GWF on that a +1 greatsword would an improvement of 4.2% DPR (.75 / (2d6 weapon + 1d8 spirit shroud +5STR +1 enchantment)) per hit and that is before even considering GWM which would make it a 3.4% increase in DPR. Since numbers in D&D generally are low, an increase of +1 can be significant and an increase of +2 can be very significant. After all, people worry about getting +5 attribute modifiers early because of how impactful they become on the game, even if that same attribute started at a +3. So I do not buy your argument that these numbers are insignificant because they are small, other than HP (and perhaps AC), most numbers in D&D rarely go above a 20 and are small yet it does not stop them being impactful.
After all, people worry about getting +5 attribute modifiers early because of how impactful they become on the game, even if that same attribute started at a +3. So I do not buy your argument that these numbers are insignificant
Because improving an ability score improves multiple things -- to-hit bonuses, saving throws, etc. -- not just damage
These are the sort of arguments that undermine your case, not bolster it
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Active characters:
Carric Aquissar, elven wannabe artist in his deconstructionist period (Archfey warlock) Lan Kidogo, mapach archaeologist and treasure hunter (Knowledge cleric) Mardan Ferres, elven private investigator obsessed with that one unsolved murder (Assassin rogue) Xhekhetiel, halfling survivor of a Betrayer Gods cult (Runechild sorcerer/fighter)
After all, people worry about getting +5 attribute modifiers early because of how impactful they become on the game, even if that same attribute started at a +3. So I do not buy your argument that these numbers are insignificant
Because improving an ability score improves multiple things -- to-hit bonuses, saving throws, etc. -- not just damage
These are the sort of arguments that undermine your case, not bolster it
No it bolsters my point, because again, the argument is not about how many things it affects, it is the magnitude.
Yourself and the Ace of Rogues are basically arguing that a +1 increase to damage per hit is insignificant but yet you won't say the same thing for an attribute modifier because a +1 here is significant. Yes it affects more things but it is still at the end of the day a SIGNIFICANT increase. On most D20 rolls that is a 5% improvement which is lower than the damage per hit increase of the Duelling feat on attacks for the vast majority of attacks, more so in Tier 1 & Tier 2.
So how is a 5% increase significant while a greater increase is not? And no, it affects more isn't really an answer, Duelling will affect the vast majority of damage rolls that a character with the Duelling Fighting style will EVER make. The answer is that both the +1 Attribute and a +1 increase in damage per hit, are in fact significant on the performance of that character in combat. Strength mostly does DPR and will mostly add around the same DPR as the duelling feat in the early game, strength saving throws aren't exactly the most common, perhaps to escape grapples but with athletics as the only skill it's not occurring all that often and past 15 (which strength based characters would normally start with a 16 or 17) it's not going to affect your AC or armor in any meaningful way and yet people would still recommend strength based characters to at some point get that +5 strength. Why? Because D&D has both Vertical and Horizontal progression and characters need both as the game progresses, else wise you end out with characters falling behind or other characters getting ahead too much that some characters get no spot light while others get all of it.
You can continue to argue against this but ultimately I must disagree with you, I have repeatedly put in the numbers and work on this thread and have shown my working out meanwhile your "rebuttal" is little more than your feelings and not really based on anything meaningful. You can continue to bring opinions but I have to continue to be analytical in this discussion and that'll never sway people that in fact do think about the numbers and things like character/class balance/game design. You have already stated you don't care about DPR, which really shows how seriously your argument here should be taken.
But ultimately, if you don't care about DPR, why even partake in discussion here? You're basically admitting you don't really care about class balance or game design when you say that? You're free to not care about DPR but then if you're going to weigh into a discussion where DPR does matter, you're going to give an opinion that isn't going to meaningfully add anything.
Yourself and the Ace of Rogues are basically arguing that a +1 increase to damage per hit is insignificant but yet you won't say the same thing for an attribute modifier because a +1 here is significant.
It's almost like they're different things, and get judged differently as a result
I really think you need to take a step back here and figure out exactly what it is you think you're arguing for, if you can't see how getting +1 damage and a bunch of other bonuses might be more significant than just +1 damage
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Active characters:
Carric Aquissar, elven wannabe artist in his deconstructionist period (Archfey warlock) Lan Kidogo, mapach archaeologist and treasure hunter (Knowledge cleric) Mardan Ferres, elven private investigator obsessed with that one unsolved murder (Assassin rogue) Xhekhetiel, halfling survivor of a Betrayer Gods cult (Runechild sorcerer/fighter)
You're basically admitting you don't really care about class balance or game design when you say that?
Yeah, and we're done
The fact that I don't value the same things you do doesn't mean I don't care about balance or game design. What an absurd thing to say
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Active characters:
Carric Aquissar, elven wannabe artist in his deconstructionist period (Archfey warlock) Lan Kidogo, mapach archaeologist and treasure hunter (Knowledge cleric) Mardan Ferres, elven private investigator obsessed with that one unsolved murder (Assassin rogue) Xhekhetiel, halfling survivor of a Betrayer Gods cult (Runechild sorcerer/fighter)
It is literally double the DPR increase of Duelling over Great Weapon Fighting, the definition of significant here appears to be based on opinion, I would not suggest a +100%, or doubling of a number is generally "not significant"
LOLOLOLOL. This is why the saying is "lies, damn lies, and statistics"
I've never given a damn about DPR in building a character and never will, but even if you do, how can you possibly argue that a one-point difference in damage bonus is in any way significant, when you're averaging double-digit damage per hit? C'mon now
You said you don't care about DPR, how can you say you both care about game balance and ignore issues like DPR? I am not asking you too care but if you're gunna come in and laugh at other people AND then get upset when you escalated it by literally laughing at somebody else for something they do care about, then perhaps you should consider more carefully what you say, before you say it.
And no, I do not believe everybody needs to care about DPR, however you've been very staunch against the people that do and you've basically been disrespectful against the people who do care about DPR because there is room for both types of people. So no, what I say is not absurd, it is only reflecting the absurdity of your own messages against you.
Yourself and the Ace of Rogues are basically arguing that a +1 increase to damage per hit is insignificant but yet you won't say the same thing for an attribute modifier because a +1 here is significant.
It's almost like they're different things, and get judged differently as a result
I really think you need to take a step back here and figure out exactly what it is you think you're arguing for, if you can't see how getting +1 damage and a bunch of other bonuses might be more significant than just +1 damage
This is just a non-argument, it's just your opinion over what matters and what does not. At the end of the day, saying that a +1 does matter and that another +1 doesn't matter is an illogical point, your argument is that the differences between fighting styles is insignificant and yet the statistics simply do not back-up that claim. A +1 too damage is still a +1 too damage. The thing with something like damage is numbers add-up and when certain numbers are smaller then it adds up too less, which is significant when considering how the game scales, right now Great Weapons are still in a good place because of Great Weapon Master but the Great Weapon Fighting Style remains a poor choice as it's impact on the game is both less significant than other fighting styles while also being inconsistent, on the vast majority of heavy weapons it has less than a +1 damage per hit impact.
I am not asking you to care about this, just don't put down other people's arguments for the people that in fact do care. Respect is not given, it is earned and you came in and basically put down other people's arguments without consideration. So if you're done, you're done but I was not the one that came in laughed at some body else point and then downplayed it, what is important to you is important too you but it does not give you the right to downplay the things that do matter to other people and to some people, DPR is an important part of class balance. So just because DPR isn't important too you, doesn't mean that DPR doesn't matter. In this case Duelling and GWF are basically Horizontal Progression and that Horizontal Progression directly impacts, DPR/Damage per hit meaning discussions of DPR are relevant here.
Finally, you can minimize the argument by saying it's just a +1 or that it affects less things than an attribute modifier to deflect away from what the actual argument was but neither of these things are anything else but your own opinions and there is no numbers backing you up. You can fling your opinion around as much as you want but it'll never make your opinion right.
EDIT: Personally I think both Duelling and GWF should be changed, they are both boring and GWF is further underwhelming. Fighting Styles are a mixture of Vertical and Horizontal progression but GWF barely hits either and Duelling is just a boring +2 on damage, but that is still impactful, I personally would have liked something with a bit more flavour.
At the end of the day, saying that a +1 does matter and that another +1 doesn't matter is an illogical point
+1 hit point -- doesn't matter +1 level -- does matter
You are completely lost in your own argument
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Active characters:
Carric Aquissar, elven wannabe artist in his deconstructionist period (Archfey warlock) Lan Kidogo, mapach archaeologist and treasure hunter (Knowledge cleric) Mardan Ferres, elven private investigator obsessed with that one unsolved murder (Assassin rogue) Xhekhetiel, halfling survivor of a Betrayer Gods cult (Runechild sorcerer/fighter)
At the end of the day, saying that a +1 does matter and that another +1 doesn't matter is an illogical point
+1 hit point -- doesn't matter +1 level -- does matter
You are completely lost in your own argument
If you offer me +1 hit point, I'll still take it, you can say that +1 level is worth more than +1HP but that doesn't mean people are going to stop taking the +1HP or that +1HP is meaningless. If you get hit and taken down to 1HP, it made a difference and I have had encounters where my character got taken down to 1HP, it happens and it still was meaningful and impactful because I had that remaining HP. And this is why you don't have an argument, your argument is that 1HP doesn't matter because 1 Level is worth more, but that is a fallacy since people would still take the +1HP anyway as it doesn't cost anything else.
And if you truly believe that Duelling or GWF are insignificant then you should be on the position that they should be gotten rid of/replaced since they don't do anything, by your argument.
The fact that I don't value the same things you do doesn't mean I don't care about balance or game design. What an absurd thing to say
The dueling, great weapon, and two weapon fighting styles don't do anything except increase damage. As such, the only way to compare them for balance is based on damage, and based on damage, great weapon fighting is just much worse than the other two.
The fact that I don't value the same things you do doesn't mean I don't care about balance or game design. What an absurd thing to say
The dueling, great weapon, and two weapon fighting styles don't do anything except increase damage. As such, the only way to compare them for balance is based on damage, and based on damage, great weapon fighting is just much worse than the other two.
If your character concept involves a two-handed weapon, Dueling and TWF are useless to you. I reject your entire premise, sorry
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Active characters:
Carric Aquissar, elven wannabe artist in his deconstructionist period (Archfey warlock) Lan Kidogo, mapach archaeologist and treasure hunter (Knowledge cleric) Mardan Ferres, elven private investigator obsessed with that one unsolved murder (Assassin rogue) Xhekhetiel, halfling survivor of a Betrayer Gods cult (Runechild sorcerer/fighter)
The fact that I don't value the same things you do doesn't mean I don't care about balance or game design. What an absurd thing to say
The dueling, great weapon, and two weapon fighting styles don't do anything except increase damage. As such, the only way to compare them for balance is based on damage, and based on damage, great weapon fighting is just much worse than the other two.
If your character concept involves a two-handed weapon, Dueling and TWF are useless to you. I reject your entire premise, sorry
This is in fact incorrect, a mounted combat build using a lance (which is normally two-handed) you can benefit from Dueling as the two-handed property does not apply while mounted but it still has that property. silly little exceptions aside, you rejecting the premise is a meaningless gesture, this isn't adding anything it's just you being contrarian for no real reason and dragging out the conversation in a negative direction.
The fact that I don't value the same things you do doesn't mean I don't care about balance or game design. What an absurd thing to say
The dueling, great weapon, and two weapon fighting styles don't do anything except increase damage. As such, the only way to compare them for balance is based on damage, and based on damage, great weapon fighting is just much worse than the other two.
If your character concept involves a two-handed weapon, Dueling and TWF are useless to you. I reject your entire premise, sorry
This is in fact incorrect, a mounted combat build using a lance (which is normally two-handed) you can benefit from Dueling as the two-handed property does not apply while mounted but it still has that property. silly little exceptions aside, you rejecting the premise is a meaningless gesture, this isn't adding anything it's just you being contrarian for no real reason and dragging out the conversation in a negative direction.
I assume the point was that, for a character fighting with Heavy weapons, usually, Dueling and TWF are not useful choices for them, so they aren't really "competing" with GWF in the game balance department. (Except for the case of a mounted combatent fighting with a Lance, I guess...)
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
It sounds more dramatic, but the practical effect of the difference is minimal.
I mean, that’s really a bare minimum of mental effort, isn’t it? There are countless things in the game which are far more complex. We’re not exactly doing calculus here. But, if you find that annoying, that’s fine, I respect your opinion.
And, you didn’t roll a 3. You rolled a 1 and got to count it as 3 times higher. Or a 2 you count as half again more.
But if that’s not fun for you, that’s cool. Not everything is going to work for everyone. Others may like the idea that their minimum damage is higher. It makes you feel like your character is really strong, even if the mathematical difference is negligible. There’s this little moment of, Ha, I’m better than that.
It is literally double the DPR increase of Duelling over Great Weapon Fighting, the definition of significant here appears to be based on opinion, I would not suggest a +100%, or doubling of a number is generally "not significant".
I would also say that Duelling has a consistency bonus over GWF, because Duelling will always add damage on applicable hits whereas GWF does not, overall GWF is lackluster, it increases a subpar value to a subpar value and it's only validation is that it sucks just a bit less on 2d6 heavy weapons.
If 1 point of damage difference is not significant, then neither is the bonus granted by the great weapon fighting style.
I’d had made it something different, like i.e. allow to reroll a critical miss once per combat or something like that. Changing 1-2 by 3 for weapon damage dice is really useless and not fun at all IMO. Others are more consistent as you get a fixed bonus instead something conditional to roll 1-2 for a so weak improvement.
LOLOLOLOL. This is why the saying is "lies, damn lies, and statistics"
I've never given a damn about DPR in building a character and never will, but even if you do, how can you possibly argue that a one-point difference in damage bonus is in any way significant, when you're averaging double-digit damage per hit? C'mon now
Active characters:
Carric Aquissar, elven wannabe artist in his deconstructionist period (Archfey warlock)
Lan Kidogo, mapach archaeologist and treasure hunter (Knowledge cleric)
Mardan Ferres, elven private investigator obsessed with that one unsolved murder (Assassin rogue)
Xhekhetiel, halfling survivor of a Betrayer Gods cult (Runechild sorcerer/fighter)
The comparison is fighting styles to each other. How can you claim one fighting style being twice as good as another fighting style is irrelevant?
Because the effect that style being "twice as good" in the modifier it gives is negligible. It sounds pithy, but the reality is that within the performance curve fighting styles exist on, is misleading to say that a fighting style that only brings weapon performance up to the other's pre-fighting style output is actually twice as good in practice.
I can argue it because D&D is based off of a certain amount of both vertical and horizontal progression, where GWF falls behind on vertical progression and has no horizontal progression. You can say you don't care about it, but you do not speak for everybody and some people like options to actually be balanced, which is often why horizontal progression is better than vertical.
The other way to intrepret your statement here is that fighting styles don't matter and so let's can em, I mean if fighting styles are negligible then what pray tell is even the point of them?
Again, I'd say they do have a point, they do have an impact but GWF is less impactful then others. a +2 to each melee hit for a level 9 paladin using Spirit Shroud on a +1 longsword would be around an improvement of just over a 13% DPR (2 / ( 1d8 Weapon Die + 1d8 Spirit Shroud + 5 STR +1 enchantment )) per hit.
Meanwhile GWF on that a +1 greatsword would an improvement of 4.2% DPR (.75 / (2d6 weapon + 1d8 spirit shroud +5STR +1 enchantment)) per hit and that is before even considering GWM which would make it a 3.4% increase in DPR. Since numbers in D&D generally are low, an increase of +1 can be significant and an increase of +2 can be very significant. After all, people worry about getting +5 attribute modifiers early because of how impactful they become on the game, even if that same attribute started at a +3. So I do not buy your argument that these numbers are insignificant because they are small, other than HP (and perhaps AC), most numbers in D&D rarely go above a 20 and are small yet it does not stop them being impactful.
Because improving an ability score improves multiple things -- to-hit bonuses, saving throws, etc. -- not just damage
These are the sort of arguments that undermine your case, not bolster it
Active characters:
Carric Aquissar, elven wannabe artist in his deconstructionist period (Archfey warlock)
Lan Kidogo, mapach archaeologist and treasure hunter (Knowledge cleric)
Mardan Ferres, elven private investigator obsessed with that one unsolved murder (Assassin rogue)
Xhekhetiel, halfling survivor of a Betrayer Gods cult (Runechild sorcerer/fighter)
No it bolsters my point, because again, the argument is not about how many things it affects, it is the magnitude.
Yourself and the Ace of Rogues are basically arguing that a +1 increase to damage per hit is insignificant but yet you won't say the same thing for an attribute modifier because a +1 here is significant. Yes it affects more things but it is still at the end of the day a SIGNIFICANT increase. On most D20 rolls that is a 5% improvement which is lower than the damage per hit increase of the Duelling feat on attacks for the vast majority of attacks, more so in Tier 1 & Tier 2.
So how is a 5% increase significant while a greater increase is not? And no, it affects more isn't really an answer, Duelling will affect the vast majority of damage rolls that a character with the Duelling Fighting style will EVER make. The answer is that both the +1 Attribute and a +1 increase in damage per hit, are in fact significant on the performance of that character in combat. Strength mostly does DPR and will mostly add around the same DPR as the duelling feat in the early game, strength saving throws aren't exactly the most common, perhaps to escape grapples but with athletics as the only skill it's not occurring all that often and past 15 (which strength based characters would normally start with a 16 or 17) it's not going to affect your AC or armor in any meaningful way and yet people would still recommend strength based characters to at some point get that +5 strength. Why? Because D&D has both Vertical and Horizontal progression and characters need both as the game progresses, else wise you end out with characters falling behind or other characters getting ahead too much that some characters get no spot light while others get all of it.
You can continue to argue against this but ultimately I must disagree with you, I have repeatedly put in the numbers and work on this thread and have shown my working out meanwhile your "rebuttal" is little more than your feelings and not really based on anything meaningful. You can continue to bring opinions but I have to continue to be analytical in this discussion and that'll never sway people that in fact do think about the numbers and things like character/class balance/game design. You have already stated you don't care about DPR, which really shows how seriously your argument here should be taken.
But ultimately, if you don't care about DPR, why even partake in discussion here? You're basically admitting you don't really care about class balance or game design when you say that? You're free to not care about DPR but then if you're going to weigh into a discussion where DPR does matter, you're going to give an opinion that isn't going to meaningfully add anything.
It's almost like they're different things, and get judged differently as a result
I really think you need to take a step back here and figure out exactly what it is you think you're arguing for, if you can't see how getting +1 damage and a bunch of other bonuses might be more significant than just +1 damage
Active characters:
Carric Aquissar, elven wannabe artist in his deconstructionist period (Archfey warlock)
Lan Kidogo, mapach archaeologist and treasure hunter (Knowledge cleric)
Mardan Ferres, elven private investigator obsessed with that one unsolved murder (Assassin rogue)
Xhekhetiel, halfling survivor of a Betrayer Gods cult (Runechild sorcerer/fighter)
Yeah, and we're done
The fact that I don't value the same things you do doesn't mean I don't care about balance or game design. What an absurd thing to say
Active characters:
Carric Aquissar, elven wannabe artist in his deconstructionist period (Archfey warlock)
Lan Kidogo, mapach archaeologist and treasure hunter (Knowledge cleric)
Mardan Ferres, elven private investigator obsessed with that one unsolved murder (Assassin rogue)
Xhekhetiel, halfling survivor of a Betrayer Gods cult (Runechild sorcerer/fighter)
You said you don't care about DPR, how can you say you both care about game balance and ignore issues like DPR? I am not asking you too care but if you're gunna come in and laugh at other people AND then get upset when you escalated it by literally laughing at somebody else for something they do care about, then perhaps you should consider more carefully what you say, before you say it.
And no, I do not believe everybody needs to care about DPR, however you've been very staunch against the people that do and you've basically been disrespectful against the people who do care about DPR because there is room for both types of people. So no, what I say is not absurd, it is only reflecting the absurdity of your own messages against you.
This is just a non-argument, it's just your opinion over what matters and what does not. At the end of the day, saying that a +1 does matter and that another +1 doesn't matter is an illogical point, your argument is that the differences between fighting styles is insignificant and yet the statistics simply do not back-up that claim. A +1 too damage is still a +1 too damage. The thing with something like damage is numbers add-up and when certain numbers are smaller then it adds up too less, which is significant when considering how the game scales, right now Great Weapons are still in a good place because of Great Weapon Master but the Great Weapon Fighting Style remains a poor choice as it's impact on the game is both less significant than other fighting styles while also being inconsistent, on the vast majority of heavy weapons it has less than a +1 damage per hit impact.
I am not asking you to care about this, just don't put down other people's arguments for the people that in fact do care. Respect is not given, it is earned and you came in and basically put down other people's arguments without consideration. So if you're done, you're done but I was not the one that came in laughed at some body else point and then downplayed it, what is important to you is important too you but it does not give you the right to downplay the things that do matter to other people and to some people, DPR is an important part of class balance. So just because DPR isn't important too you, doesn't mean that DPR doesn't matter. In this case Duelling and GWF are basically Horizontal Progression and that Horizontal Progression directly impacts, DPR/Damage per hit meaning discussions of DPR are relevant here.
Finally, you can minimize the argument by saying it's just a +1 or that it affects less things than an attribute modifier to deflect away from what the actual argument was but neither of these things are anything else but your own opinions and there is no numbers backing you up. You can fling your opinion around as much as you want but it'll never make your opinion right.
EDIT: Personally I think both Duelling and GWF should be changed, they are both boring and GWF is further underwhelming. Fighting Styles are a mixture of Vertical and Horizontal progression but GWF barely hits either and Duelling is just a boring +2 on damage, but that is still impactful, I personally would have liked something with a bit more flavour.
+1 hit point -- doesn't matter
+1 level -- does matter
You are completely lost in your own argument
Active characters:
Carric Aquissar, elven wannabe artist in his deconstructionist period (Archfey warlock)
Lan Kidogo, mapach archaeologist and treasure hunter (Knowledge cleric)
Mardan Ferres, elven private investigator obsessed with that one unsolved murder (Assassin rogue)
Xhekhetiel, halfling survivor of a Betrayer Gods cult (Runechild sorcerer/fighter)
If you offer me +1 hit point, I'll still take it, you can say that +1 level is worth more than +1HP but that doesn't mean people are going to stop taking the +1HP or that +1HP is meaningless. If you get hit and taken down to 1HP, it made a difference and I have had encounters where my character got taken down to 1HP, it happens and it still was meaningful and impactful because I had that remaining HP. And this is why you don't have an argument, your argument is that 1HP doesn't matter because 1 Level is worth more, but that is a fallacy since people would still take the +1HP anyway as it doesn't cost anything else.
And if you truly believe that Duelling or GWF are insignificant then you should be on the position that they should be gotten rid of/replaced since they don't do anything, by your argument.
The dueling, great weapon, and two weapon fighting styles don't do anything except increase damage. As such, the only way to compare them for balance is based on damage, and based on damage, great weapon fighting is just much worse than the other two.
If your character concept involves a two-handed weapon, Dueling and TWF are useless to you. I reject your entire premise, sorry
Active characters:
Carric Aquissar, elven wannabe artist in his deconstructionist period (Archfey warlock)
Lan Kidogo, mapach archaeologist and treasure hunter (Knowledge cleric)
Mardan Ferres, elven private investigator obsessed with that one unsolved murder (Assassin rogue)
Xhekhetiel, halfling survivor of a Betrayer Gods cult (Runechild sorcerer/fighter)
This is in fact incorrect, a mounted combat build using a lance (which is normally two-handed) you can benefit from Dueling as the two-handed property does not apply while mounted but it still has that property. silly little exceptions aside, you rejecting the premise is a meaningless gesture, this isn't adding anything it's just you being contrarian for no real reason and dragging out the conversation in a negative direction.
I assume the point was that, for a character fighting with Heavy weapons, usually, Dueling and TWF are not useful choices for them, so they aren't really "competing" with GWF in the game balance department. (Except for the case of a mounted combatent fighting with a Lance, I guess...)