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...)
I understand what the point was, don't worry, the lovely thing about games like D&D is when there are these weird interactions and was pointing it out. That said, GWF is hardly a benefit to two-handed weapons either, so it's a moot point, it only really benefits two weapons to any noticeable degree, with no other two handed specific fighting style then it is most easily compared to Duelling which also is essentially a damage per hit increase and adds far more and not because Duelling is an alternative for two-handed weapons.
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...)
Right. Game balance and game design involve more than simply crunching damage modifiers
The fact that some people can't conceive of factors that aren't easily quantifiable, or reject those factors as meaningless because they aren't quantifiable, is really not my problem
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 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...)
Right. Game balance and game design involve more than simply crunching damage modifiers
The fact that some people can't conceive of factors that aren't easily quantifiable, or reject those factors as meaningless because they aren't quantifiable, is really not my problem
It's still kinda quantifiable.
Compare the DPR of a Longsword with Dueling (necessitates single handed use) and a Greatsword with GWF.
Yes, the single-handed Longsword can be paired with a Shield, but the Greatsword will get better DPR. And the Greatsword's DPR can be increased further with the GWM feat. (And the Longsword will need to go in a less-DPR-focused direction for a Feat.) The tradeoffs seem...fine?
Then compare with a Glaive, Halberd, or Pike with GWF and Polearm Master... Meanwhile, Lance+Dueling+PolearmMaster will also be nice, but ultra-specialized. More tradeoffs.
EDIT: I could kinda summarize the point of this thread as "GWF is a trap option, but only for Versatile weapons."* And I don't mind that it can be used with Versatile weapons if you already have it.
EDIT EDIT: * and only because Dueling makes two-handing a Versatile weapon into a trap.
Right. Game balance and game design involve more than simply crunching damage modifiers
Game balance, when dealing with features that have no effect beyond making the numbers bigger, is about crunching those numbers.
It's true that the different fighting styles apply to different weapon choices that are themselves not entirely balanced, but that's a separate issue.
No, it's really not
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)
Right. Game balance and game design involve more than simply crunching damage modifiers
Game balance, when dealing with features that have no effect beyond making the numbers bigger, is about crunching those numbers.
It's true that the different fighting styles apply to different weapon choices that are themselves not entirely balanced, but that's a separate issue.
Game balance does not involve evaluating specific sets of features in isolation unless they function in isolation.
The question is never "how do the fighting style feats compare to each other", it's "how do the entire clusters of weapon styles compare". (Where the clusters include fighting styles, 4th-level feats, weapon masteries, and the weapons themselves. (And really, you have to evaluate them both for fighter types who get the full set, and non fighters who don't, although the fighters' evaluation gets priority.))
Looking just at the fighting style-weapon combos, and without crunching numbers, it looks like the bigger damage bonuses correlate with the less-damaging weapons, creating a rough balance. In terms of game balance, this is a good thing, as it means that players can pick whichever weapon style that floats their boat, and they won't feel like they're losing out because the character they envision is a swift dual-wielding orc, or a burly greataxe wielding elf.
A far more relevant criticism is that a style feat is boring, or doesn't feel good in play, or has too much handling time. Because those are more important criticisms that affect far more people's play experiences than "averages slightly less damage". (But is likely out of scope of this discussion.)
Edit: And, of course, some styles allow options like shields, so, for balance, shouldn't give you as much damage.
Game balance does not involve evaluating specific sets of features in isolation unless they function in isolation.
There are two problems with using the damaging fighting styles to balance weapon choices
There are fighting styles that don't do damage. If you make one of them a reasonable choice compared to, say, dueling, it's going to be just straight up the superior choice for great weapon fighting. If you make it a reasonable choice compared to GWF, it's a terrible choice compared to dueling. To give an example, defense fighting style, on a level 1 fighter with chainmail, typically boosts survivability against low CR enemies (average attack bonus +4) by 12%, which increases to 17% with a shield. This is decently competitive with the 10% damage increase from GWF, but it's dramatically inferior to the 27% bonus for dueling fighting style or the 30% bonus for two weapon fighting style.
It doesn't work anyway. At level 1-3, two weapon fighting with 2WF (13 damage, 16 ac) is strictly better than great weapon fighting (11 damage, 16 ac). At level 4 we get some overpowered feats that only apply to great weapons, so the hierarchy is polearm mastery (16 dpr, or 17.05 with GWF) > two weapon with 2WF (15 dpr) > great weapon mastery (14 dpr with GWF). At level 5 extra attacks kick in, and the order is GWF+GWM (30) > GWF+PAM (26.35) > GWF (24) > 2WF (23.5) (this is ignoring the reaction attack granted by PAM, and the cleave attack granted by GWF).
What they should have done is better balanced the choices without fighting styles, and then made the fighting styles equal.
Would you rule that the extra damage done by the "Great Weapon Master" feat adding the characters proficiency bonus to damage also add to the damage done by the "Graze" weapon mastery? You are "technically" still hitting the opponent, and doing your attack ability modifier in damage, even though you missed your to-hit roll, so can the feat's added damage also still get added?
Heavy Weapon Mastery. When you hit a creature with a weapon that has the Heavy property as part of the Attack action on your turn, you can cause the weapon to deal extra damage to the target. The extra damage equals your Proficiency Bonus.
vs.
Graze: If your attack roll with this weapon misses a creature, you can deal damage to that creature equal to the ability modifier you used to make the attack roll. This damage is the same type dealt by the weapon, and the damage can be increased only by increasing the ability modifier.
Would you rule that the extra damage done by the "Great Weapon Master" feat adding the characters proficiency bonus to damage also add to the damage done by the "Graze" weapon mastery? You are "technically" still hitting the opponent, and doing your attack ability modifier in damage, even though you missed your to-hit roll, so can the feat's added damage also still get added?
Heavy Weapon Mastery. When you hit a creature with a weapon that has the Heavy property as part of the Attack action on your turn, you can cause the weapon to deal extra damage to the target. The extra damage equals your Proficiency Bonus.
vs.
Graze: If your attack roll with this weapon misses a creature, you can deal damage to that creature equal to the ability modifier you used to make the attack roll. This damage is the same type dealt by the weapon, and the damage can be increased only by increasing the ability modifier.
You are not hitting the enemy. Graze is "If your attack roll with this weapon misses a creature..."
Would you rule that the extra damage done by the "Great Weapon Master" feat adding the characters proficiency bonus to damage also add to the damage done by the "Graze" weapon mastery?
No. Graze is not a hit, graze allows doing damage on a miss, and thus does not trigger anything that depends on a hit. It also specifically disallows increasing this damage.
A far more relevant criticism is that a style feat is boring, or doesn't feel good in play, or has too much handling time. Because those are more important criticisms that affect far more people's play experiences than "averages slightly less damage". (But is likely out of scope of this discussion.)
That's the thing. Those factors shouldn't be outside the scope of the discussion
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)
Game balance does not involve evaluating specific sets of features in isolation unless they function in isolation.
There are two problems with using the damaging fighting styles to balance weapon choices
There are fighting styles that don't do damage. If you make one of them a reasonable choice compared to, say, dueling, it's going to be just straight up the superior choice for great weapon fighting. If you make it a reasonable choice compared to GWF, it's a terrible choice compared to dueling. To give an example, defense fighting style, on a level 1 fighter with chainmail, typically boosts survivability against low CR enemies (average attack bonus +4) by 12%, which increases to 17% with a shield. This is decently competitive with the 10% damage increase from GWF, but it's dramatically inferior to the 27% bonus for dueling fighting style or the 30% bonus for two weapon fighting style.
This is where the fact that, save perhaps for TWF, none of the styles do a heck of a lot of actual damage comes in. People are giving up a marginal amount of damage to get a marginal ability. They're giving up more damage if they're otherwise going for dueling, but it's still only two.
One of the things the fighting style feats do is put a flag on "this is how I want my character to fight". You take defense, you're expecting to tank. You take blindfighting, you're probably a scout. You take a weapon type, you fight with those weapons.
It doesn't work anyway. At level 1-3, two weapon fighting with 2WF (13 damage, 16 ac) is strictly better than great weapon fighting (11 damage, 16 ac). At level 4 we get some overpowered feats that only apply to great weapons, so the hierarchy is polearm mastery (16 dpr, or 17.05 with GWF) > two weapon with 2WF (15 dpr) > great weapon mastery (14 dpr with GWF). At level 5 extra attacks kick in, and the order is GWF+GWM (30) > GWF+PAM (26.35) > GWF (24) > 2WF (23.5) (this is ignoring the reaction attack granted by PAM, and the cleave attack granted by GWF).
And the TWF didn't take Dual Wielder because...? (Yes, obviously they're using it with Nick.)
(And if anyone wants to rehash that argument, take it to an appropriate thread.)
And yes, the numbers aren't exactly identical. But they're close. And close is sufficient for D&D's purposes. As of 5th, your TWF character is on par with the GWF character unless one of them takes their feat and the other doesn't. (Before the extra attacks, TWF is better, but it's front-loaded and falls away as base number of attacks increases. Of such things are interesting character advancement decisions made.)
And, of course, there are weapon masteries complicating calculations further. There's only a "clear best choice" if you go strictly on DPR numbers, and even then, it depends on your assumptions. (The blindfighting guy is going to out damage all of these, if they're fighting alongside a darkness/devil's sight warlock.)
What they should have done is better balanced the choices without fighting styles, and then made the fighting styles equal.
How?
Seriously, how do they do that, without just making the weapons all do the same damage, and then doing much the same to the styles? As soon as you include any kind of differentiation, or people play in a way that doesn't match the assumptions you made when balancing things, you get difference, and difference creates "optimum DPR" arguers.
And also the less difference they have between the weapons and styles, the less fun the game is.
A far more relevant criticism is that a style feat is boring, or doesn't feel good in play, or has too much handling time. Because those are more important criticisms that affect far more people's play experiences than "averages slightly less damage". (But is likely out of scope of this discussion.)
That's the thing. Those factors shouldn't be outside the scope of the discussion
When the discussion's all about DPR, aesthetic concerns are out of scope. And this thread has mostly gone hard on the DPR.
But you're not wrong if we're talking more general game design concerns. But boring is often simple, and simple has a lot of merit for something that will be applied often. Dueling is simple, but effective. GWF 2014 isn't boring, but it's way too fussy for what it gets you. GWF 2024 is simpler, but also more boring. But it probably feels good when it's used. Your crap damage roll becomes average.
Tradeoffs, tradeoffs everywhere. And many of them subjective.
Seriously, how do they do that, without just making the weapons all do the same damage, and then doing much the same to the styles?
It doesn't need to be perfectly balanced. Just better balanced.
For weapon and shield style, the problem is that in tier 1 a +2 AC is around a 20% durability increase, and going from 1d8+3 to 2d6+3 is a 33% damage increase (tier 2 is more complicated -- because there are magic shields, without any feats and the like, weapon and shield would outpace great weapons). So... give a small additional bonus to shield functionality, in some way that's mostly relevant at low level, such as a defensive reaction of some sort.
For two weapon style, just redesign how two weapon fighting works so it isn't just "+1 attack per turn", because that's automatically going to have different scaling. Instead, maybe something like
Two Weapon Fighting: if you are wielding two light weapons and miss with one of your weapons, you may repeat the attack with the other weapon.
Without any damage bonuses that's typically weaker than using a two handed weapon, but it's definitely something you can build to optimize (on a ranger it's just as good), and also it allows a dex build.
At that point, the fighting style feats can be normalized, and the mastery feats brought in line with their power level.
"Normalized" is pointless when you're not talking about symmetrical combat, because if everything gives identical results, there's no point in having a real array of choices based on weapon type.
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
But many others are much better. Cannot think in a sole player getting GWF if it was for a long-term character to play "for lifetime". For disposable characters, well who cares. That shows really the transcendence of the style.
"Normalized" is pointless when you're not talking about symmetrical combat, because if everything gives identical results, there's no point in having a real array of choices based on weapon type.
nobody is asking for identical results, people are asking for balanced results which is a vastly different thing but are using DPR comparisons to show how two options are clearly not balanced with each other.
Game balance does not involve evaluating specific sets of features in isolation unless they function in isolation.
The question is never "how do the fighting style feats compare to each other", it's "how do the entire clusters of weapon styles compare". (Where the clusters include fighting styles, 4th-level feats, weapon masteries, and the weapons themselves. (And really, you have to evaluate them both for fighter types who get the full set, and non fighters who don't, although the fighters' evaluation gets priority.))
While I would say there is a fair argument here, this is also an argument based on factors that can simply change over time, Great Weapon Master is too good a feat, and Nick is too good a mastery to the point that metas have already been made around both. Now I'll continue to point out that Nick becomes less valuable as you level-up while GWM only gets stronger but clearly there is more than just the fighting styles that need adjustment. Since if an option becomes too good, it becomes almost required too take it while if an option becomes too weak then it's almost pointless to take and when using two handed heavy melee weapons, GWF can essentially be ignored and GWM is basically required.
So to say GWF would be justified because GWM gives too much is ignoring that GWM really needs to be reduced and I do believe that it does. Thus we still do need to consider how good things are in isolation too. however I am not going to drag on or recommend how GWM should be re-adjusted as this is a conversation on GWF and GWF really does not add much to two-handed weapons, it questionably adds some value to Greatsword and Maul but that is only 2 of the 8 two-handed melee weapons in the game. Let's additionally remember a Greataxe only gets an average 0.25 DPR increase from GWF, and for the two-handed polearms a measly .3 average DPR. It really is the case that if you're going for the two-handed weapons, just take Blind Fighting, Defense or Interception, these options all do more both in isolation and out of isolation.
Cannot think in a sole player getting GWF if it was for a long-term character to play "for lifetime".
You need to play with a wider mix of people then
Heck, I've considered multiclassing into fighter with the warlock I'm currently playing, and grabbing GWF would be part of the package -- his whole aesthetic is about smashing things, and his main Pact weapon is a big cartoonish maul
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)
Correcting your math to include Dual Wielder: Assuming 100% hit rate, 18 dex/str, ignoring crits, and ignoring any weapon mastery other than nick, at level 4: 3.5+4=7.5, 2.5+4=6.5, 3.5+4=7.5. total = 21.5. At level 5 you get another attack, bringing you to 29, which is second best.
Correcting your math to include Dual Wielder: Assuming 100% hit rate, 18 dex/str, ignoring crits, and ignoring any weapon mastery other than nick, at level 4: 3.5+4=7.5, 2.5+4=6.5, 3.5+4=7.5. total = 21.5. At level 5 you get another attack, bringing you to 29, which is second best.
Oh, you're assuming dual wielder gives you an extra attack in addition to the normal extra attack from a light weapon. Which is probably not intended behavior but, well, until sage advice addresses the issue, inconclusive and definitely makes the feat better.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
I understand what the point was, don't worry, the lovely thing about games like D&D is when there are these weird interactions and was pointing it out. That said, GWF is hardly a benefit to two-handed weapons either, so it's a moot point, it only really benefits two weapons to any noticeable degree, with no other two handed specific fighting style then it is most easily compared to Duelling which also is essentially a damage per hit increase and adds far more and not because Duelling is an alternative for two-handed weapons.
Right. Game balance and game design involve more than simply crunching damage modifiers
The fact that some people can't conceive of factors that aren't easily quantifiable, or reject those factors as meaningless because they aren't quantifiable, is really not my problem
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's still kinda quantifiable.
Compare the DPR of a Longsword with Dueling (necessitates single handed use) and a Greatsword with GWF.
Yes, the single-handed Longsword can be paired with a Shield, but the Greatsword will get better DPR. And the Greatsword's DPR can be increased further with the GWM feat. (And the Longsword will need to go in a less-DPR-focused direction for a Feat.) The tradeoffs seem...fine?
Then compare with a Glaive, Halberd, or Pike with GWF and Polearm Master... Meanwhile, Lance+Dueling+PolearmMaster will also be nice, but ultra-specialized. More tradeoffs.
EDIT: I could kinda summarize the point of this thread as "GWF is a trap option, but only for Versatile weapons."* And I don't mind that it can be used with Versatile weapons if you already have it.
EDIT EDIT: * and only because Dueling makes two-handing a Versatile weapon into a trap.
Game balance, when dealing with features that have no effect beyond making the numbers bigger, is about crunching those numbers.
It's true that the different fighting styles apply to different weapon choices that are themselves not entirely balanced, but that's a separate issue.
No, it's really not
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)
Game balance does not involve evaluating specific sets of features in isolation unless they function in isolation.
The question is never "how do the fighting style feats compare to each other", it's "how do the entire clusters of weapon styles compare". (Where the clusters include fighting styles, 4th-level feats, weapon masteries, and the weapons themselves. (And really, you have to evaluate them both for fighter types who get the full set, and non fighters who don't, although the fighters' evaluation gets priority.))
Looking just at the fighting style-weapon combos, and without crunching numbers, it looks like the bigger damage bonuses correlate with the less-damaging weapons, creating a rough balance. In terms of game balance, this is a good thing, as it means that players can pick whichever weapon style that floats their boat, and they won't feel like they're losing out because the character they envision is a swift dual-wielding orc, or a burly greataxe wielding elf.
A far more relevant criticism is that a style feat is boring, or doesn't feel good in play, or has too much handling time. Because those are more important criticisms that affect far more people's play experiences than "averages slightly less damage". (But is likely out of scope of this discussion.)
Edit: And, of course, some styles allow options like shields, so, for balance, shouldn't give you as much damage.
There are two problems with using the damaging fighting styles to balance weapon choices
What they should have done is better balanced the choices without fighting styles, and then made the fighting styles equal.
Would you rule that the extra damage done by the "Great Weapon Master" feat adding the characters proficiency bonus to damage also add to the damage done by the "Graze" weapon mastery? You are "technically" still hitting the opponent, and doing your attack ability modifier in damage, even though you missed your to-hit roll, so can the feat's added damage also still get added?
Heavy Weapon Mastery. When you hit a creature with a weapon that has the Heavy property as part of the Attack action on your turn, you can cause the weapon to deal extra damage to the target. The extra damage equals your Proficiency Bonus.
vs.
Graze: If your attack roll with this weapon misses a creature, you can deal damage to that creature equal to the ability modifier you used to make the attack roll. This damage is the same type dealt by the weapon, and the damage can be increased only by increasing the ability modifier.
You are not hitting the enemy. Graze is "If your attack roll with this weapon misses a creature..."
No. Graze is not a hit, graze allows doing damage on a miss, and thus does not trigger anything that depends on a hit. It also specifically disallows increasing this damage.
That's the thing. Those factors shouldn't be outside the scope of the discussion
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 where the fact that, save perhaps for TWF, none of the styles do a heck of a lot of actual damage comes in. People are giving up a marginal amount of damage to get a marginal ability. They're giving up more damage if they're otherwise going for dueling, but it's still only two.
One of the things the fighting style feats do is put a flag on "this is how I want my character to fight". You take defense, you're expecting to tank. You take blindfighting, you're probably a scout. You take a weapon type, you fight with those weapons.
And the TWF didn't take Dual Wielder because...? (Yes, obviously they're using it with Nick.)
(And if anyone wants to rehash that argument, take it to an appropriate thread.)
And yes, the numbers aren't exactly identical. But they're close. And close is sufficient for D&D's purposes. As of 5th, your TWF character is on par with the GWF character unless one of them takes their feat and the other doesn't. (Before the extra attacks, TWF is better, but it's front-loaded and falls away as base number of attacks increases. Of such things are interesting character advancement decisions made.)
And, of course, there are weapon masteries complicating calculations further. There's only a "clear best choice" if you go strictly on DPR numbers, and even then, it depends on your assumptions. (The blindfighting guy is going to out damage all of these, if they're fighting alongside a darkness/devil's sight warlock.)
How?
Seriously, how do they do that, without just making the weapons all do the same damage, and then doing much the same to the styles? As soon as you include any kind of differentiation, or people play in a way that doesn't match the assumptions you made when balancing things, you get difference, and difference creates "optimum DPR" arguers.
And also the less difference they have between the weapons and styles, the less fun the game is.
When the discussion's all about DPR, aesthetic concerns are out of scope. And this thread has mostly gone hard on the DPR.
But you're not wrong if we're talking more general game design concerns. But boring is often simple, and simple has a lot of merit for something that will be applied often. Dueling is simple, but effective. GWF 2014 isn't boring, but it's way too fussy for what it gets you. GWF 2024 is simpler, but also more boring. But it probably feels good when it's used. Your crap damage roll becomes average.
Tradeoffs, tradeoffs everywhere. And many of them subjective.
Because the feat is hot garbage?
It doesn't need to be perfectly balanced. Just better balanced.
For weapon and shield style, the problem is that in tier 1 a +2 AC is around a 20% durability increase, and going from 1d8+3 to 2d6+3 is a 33% damage increase (tier 2 is more complicated -- because there are magic shields, without any feats and the like, weapon and shield would outpace great weapons). So... give a small additional bonus to shield functionality, in some way that's mostly relevant at low level, such as a defensive reaction of some sort.
For two weapon style, just redesign how two weapon fighting works so it isn't just "+1 attack per turn", because that's automatically going to have different scaling. Instead, maybe something like
Without any damage bonuses that's typically weaker than using a two handed weapon, but it's definitely something you can build to optimize (on a ranger it's just as good), and also it allows a dex build.
At that point, the fighting style feats can be normalized, and the mastery feats brought in line with their power level.
"Normalized" is pointless when you're not talking about symmetrical combat, because if everything gives identical results, there's no point in having a real array of choices based on weapon type.
But many others are much better. Cannot think in a sole player getting GWF if it was for a long-term character to play "for lifetime". For disposable characters, well who cares. That shows really the transcendence of the style.
nobody is asking for identical results, people are asking for balanced results which is a vastly different thing but are using DPR comparisons to show how two options are clearly not balanced with each other.
While I would say there is a fair argument here, this is also an argument based on factors that can simply change over time, Great Weapon Master is too good a feat, and Nick is too good a mastery to the point that metas have already been made around both. Now I'll continue to point out that Nick becomes less valuable as you level-up while GWM only gets stronger but clearly there is more than just the fighting styles that need adjustment. Since if an option becomes too good, it becomes almost required too take it while if an option becomes too weak then it's almost pointless to take and when using two handed heavy melee weapons, GWF can essentially be ignored and GWM is basically required.
So to say GWF would be justified because GWM gives too much is ignoring that GWM really needs to be reduced and I do believe that it does. Thus we still do need to consider how good things are in isolation too. however I am not going to drag on or recommend how GWM should be re-adjusted as this is a conversation on GWF and GWF really does not add much to two-handed weapons, it questionably adds some value to Greatsword and Maul but that is only 2 of the 8 two-handed melee weapons in the game. Let's additionally remember a Greataxe only gets an average 0.25 DPR increase from GWF, and for the two-handed polearms a measly .3 average DPR. It really is the case that if you're going for the two-handed weapons, just take Blind Fighting, Defense or Interception, these options all do more both in isolation and out of isolation.
You need to play with a wider mix of people then
Heck, I've considered multiclassing into fighter with the warlock I'm currently playing, and grabbing GWF would be part of the package -- his whole aesthetic is about smashing things, and his main Pact weapon is a big cartoonish maul
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)
Correcting your math to include Dual Wielder: Assuming 100% hit rate, 18 dex/str, ignoring crits, and ignoring any weapon mastery other than nick, at level 4: 3.5+4=7.5, 2.5+4=6.5, 3.5+4=7.5. total = 21.5. At level 5 you get another attack, bringing you to 29, which is second best.
Oh, you're assuming dual wielder gives you an extra attack in addition to the normal extra attack from a light weapon. Which is probably not intended behavior but, well, until sage advice addresses the issue, inconclusive and definitely makes the feat better.