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.
Well, yeah. That is how it works according to the rules. The person you were responding to clarified that that's how it works.
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.
Pretty sure it is- otherwise they would have said something more like “when you take the attack action with a weapon that has the Light property, you may treat a melee weapon that does not have the Two-Handed property as if it has the Light property this turn”. They explicitly made basic TWF a part of the Light property, and while Dual Wielder checks for Light, it does not modify the property, it just describes another Bonus Action you can take after using a Light weapon during the Attack Action.
Pretty sure it is- otherwise they would have said something more like “when you take the attack action with a weapon that has the Light property, you may treat a melee weapon that does not have the Two-Handed property as if it has the Light property this turn”. They explicitly made basic TWF a part of the Light property, and while Dual Wielder checks for Light, it does not modify the property, it just describes another Bonus Action you can take after using a Light weapon during the Attack Action.
You greatly overestimate the editing prowess of the D&D team. Anything that only functions with weapon juggling is probably not intended.
Pretty sure it is- otherwise they would have said something more like “when you take the attack action with a weapon that has the Light property, you may treat a melee weapon that does not have the Two-Handed property as if it has the Light property this turn”. They explicitly made basic TWF a part of the Light property, and while Dual Wielder checks for Light, it does not modify the property, it just describes another Bonus Action you can take after using a Light weapon during the Attack Action.
You greatly overestimate the editing prowess of the D&D team. Anything that only functions with weapon juggling is probably not intended.
Pretty sure you don't need to use weapon juggling for this. Also, define "weapon juggling". Are you referring to stowing one weapon and drawing another, as is very clearly allowed?
Pretty sure you don't need to use weapon juggling for this. Also, define "weapon juggling". Are you referring to stowing one weapon and drawing another, as is very clearly allowed?
It does "need" juggling if you want that single Dual Wielder Bonus Action attack to use a d8 weapon instead of d6 or whatever (just consistently wielding two Scimitars). For a whole, whopping +1 DPR.
Or, if you think the whole attack/nick/dual attack sequence can be done with only one weapon at a time (extra questionable), and you use the overly-generous "can stow one and draw another each attack" interpretation of the Dual Wielder feat, then you can use the Dueling Fighting Style, which may work out to exactly the same DPR boost as TWF in that combination (at least at some levels). And if you're a Champion or willing to burn an extra feat, you can stack TWF with Dueling... But all that is way more questionable than getting to stack a Nick attack with a Dual Wielder attack.
(Again, in a thread ostensibly about GWF, it's like Dueling is always the culprit.)
If you think an entire additional attack (in combination with Nick) is "hot garbage", then there's not much point in arguing with your opinions on game balance.
(If you think it doesn't give an additional attack, well, you're wrong, but that argument is out of scope here, and I'm also very tired of it.)
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.
Evaluating GWF from a design standpoint requires answering a number of questions, very few about damage.
What is the design objective of the weapon-type fighting styles?
If it's to bring all the weapon types into approximate equivalence for 1st-level fighter types (which does appear to be the case), does it succeed at that?
Do players like it?
Is it so necessary that players with that weapon style won't consider the non-weapon styles, or so minor that they'll always take a non-weapon?
Now that last one is probably true for GWF, for people who make their decisions based on DPR. But that's a minority of players. And you have a case that it's not that great, but you consistently oversell it, partly because you discard the "do players like it?" consideration. (I don't know if they do, but I can believe it. Rolling bad on your big weapon hit feels bad.)
But, if first-level parity is the goal, any new GWF has to be fairly ineffective, because the big weapons do the most damage.
Once you get out of the first-level design space, it gets way more complicated. Their design goal does not appear to be "keep all the styles balanced in damage output", nor should it be. Great weapons are about dishing out the most damage, two-weapon is about lots of little attacks, polearm master is about tactical control of the space around you, etc. And then there's weapon masteries in the mix, etc.
It does "need" juggling if you want that single Dual Wielder Bonus Action attack to use a d8 weapon instead of d6 or whatever (just consistently wielding two Scimitars). For a whole, whopping +1 DPR.
But it's been said repeatedly in this thread that +1 DPR is a really, really, really big deal
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 does "need" juggling if you want that single Dual Wielder Bonus Action attack to use a d8 weapon instead of d6 or whatever (just consistently wielding two Scimitars).
The entire point of the feat is to allow using non-light weapons. The entire rules section on two weapon fighting is a train wreck, it's just that (unlike stealth, where the intent isn't clear) the intent is reasonably clear (you're supposed to wield two weapons in two hands), it's just that the game mechanics don't match up with the intent.
Evaluating GWF from a design standpoint requires answering a number of questions, very few about damage.
What is the design objective of the weapon-type fighting styles?
If it's to bring all the weapon types into approximate equivalence for 1st-level fighter types (which does appear to be the case), does it succeed at that?
Do players like it?
Is it so necessary that players with that weapon style won't consider the non-weapon styles, or so minor that they'll always take a non-weapon?
Now that last one is probably true for GWF, for people who make their decisions based on DPR. But that's a minority of players. And you have a case that it's not that great, but you consistently oversell it, partly because you discard the "do players like it?" consideration. (I don't know if they do, but I can believe it. Rolling bad on your big weapon hit feels bad.)
But, if first-level parity is the goal, any new GWF has to be fairly ineffective, because the big weapons do the most damage.
Once you get out of the first-level design space, it gets way more complicated. Their design goal does not appear to be "keep all the styles balanced in damage output", nor should it be. Great weapons are about dishing out the most damage, two-weapon is about lots of little attacks, polearm master is about tactical control of the space around you, etc. And then there's weapon masteries in the mix, etc.
Do players like it will only come down to Surveys and as far as I know we don't have survey results for that.
As for the Design standpoint, we already have seen other failures of design, just saying GWF might have intended design, it doesn't mean it's good or shouldn't be changed. There aren't many people liking the odd design of Ranger, and those that even question the design of Paladin. There is one thing to design something but there is another thing to determine if it succeed or failed and I will say, as far as I can see, GWF is a failure.
You can say there might be more in the Design of it but neither myself or yourself are actually privy to that information from WotC which just makes this all one giant moot point. What we can do instead is say what we find to be good and what we find to be bad and as multiple people have said in here, they find GWF too be bad and to be underwhelming. That is about the best as the consumers that we can get and why giving feedback is important, so the designers can review what actually didn't sit well in the end or what did.
Ultimately there will always be some players that enjoy something and others that don't but in cases like this, there really are easy to calculate numbers to show how underwhelming this feat generally is.
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
No need. What I mean is think that character is the only one you are going to have, and if dies you restart at level 1 with a new character. That is a long-term character in a real, old-school and hardcore role-playing way. Would you get GWF for your character? Because I read "aesthetic" then is exactly what I am saying, disposable characters, who cares what happens to them. So something that is only an option for disposable characters shows its value just by that way.
At the moment we put aesthetics on the discussion it kicks out the balance (or even the utility in this case) topic completely.
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
No need. What I mean is think that character is the only one you are going to have, and if dies you restart at level 1 with a new character. That is a long-term character in a real, old-school and hardcore role-playing way. Would you get GWF for your character?
Yes, if it fit the character concept
Again, your experience seems to be a very narrow one
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)
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
No need. What I mean is think that character is the only one you are going to have, and if dies you restart at level 1 with a new character. That is a long-term character in a real, old-school and hardcore role-playing way. Would you get GWF for your character? Because I read "aesthetic" then is exactly what I am saying, disposable characters, who cares what happens to them. So something that is only an option for disposable characters shows its value just by that way.
At the moment we put aesthetics on the discussion it kicks out the balance (or even the utility in this case) topic completely.
Aesthetics, theme, whim -- these are the primary basis of character-building decisions for the vast majority of players.
And they are no less disposable than the one you may have built to optimize DPS. (Given that any work put in is more on the storytelling level, I'd argue they're less disposable than one where the work was solely done for optimization. But, of course, one can do both.)
D&D is not that hard. Most games are not ones where tiny margins of DPS make the difference between character life or death. Nor should they be. Most people don't find that sort of game fun. (Also, most people bring replacement characters in at or near party level -- again, because of fun.)
If you wanna play that way, go for it. Have fun. But it's not the norm, and it's not a superior way of playing.
It's also irrelevant to the question of if GWF is kind of crap, effectiveness-wise. It is. Could they have made something better, given their design goals? Unclear, not least because we can only speculate what those goals were. Is taking GWF a serious mistake, with significant impact on your combat effectiveness? No.
You are wrong. I am not talking about min-max or optimization, but survivavility, or usefulness. Indeed what I used is Rolemaster, a much deadlier system, and with long-term characters, if you die, restart with a new lvl 1 character. That shows you what really matters, survive. In fact this game has no concept of DPS, min-max, or the terrible "build" one (which I didn't head of it until these kind of games like D&D or PF, like if it was a Diablo game instead a RPG one).
I make characters more getting skills, instead only combat. When DM, it takes a lot of work to make it looks like a RPG as pre-made adventures are much likely going from combat to combat until finished. It is not easy to give life to that world using NPC description and motivations, environment, etc, and allowing players to do whatever they want using their skills. But characters focusing only in combat can notice notably how they are less useful out of it.
Even in this case of player type, I see GWF useless. Think this way, if you was the charcter, that if dies it's all over, would you get that style? Because what I can notice is that is a "fine" option because the drawback of "losing" doesn't matter at all.
So is not a matter of aesthetics, something you can only take to that degree when there is no drawback, but of usefulness. You can get aesthetics in many ways, GWF does not contributes at all for that, or I cannot see how it can. You can get your aesthetic just using great weapons, but getting something more useful than GWF even like unarmed combat for tavern brawls or defensive (you can continue using great weapons).
Well, yeah. That is how it works according to the rules. The person you were responding to clarified that that's how it works.
Pretty sure it is- otherwise they would have said something more like “when you take the attack action with a weapon that has the Light property, you may treat a melee weapon that does not have the Two-Handed property as if it has the Light property this turn”. They explicitly made basic TWF a part of the Light property, and while Dual Wielder checks for Light, it does not modify the property, it just describes another Bonus Action you can take after using a Light weapon during the Attack Action.
You greatly overestimate the editing prowess of the D&D team. Anything that only functions with weapon juggling is probably not intended.
Pretty sure you don't need to use weapon juggling for this. Also, define "weapon juggling". Are you referring to stowing one weapon and drawing another, as is very clearly allowed?
It does "need" juggling if you want that single Dual Wielder Bonus Action attack to use a d8 weapon instead of d6 or whatever (just consistently wielding two Scimitars). For a whole, whopping +1 DPR.
Or, if you think the whole attack/nick/dual attack sequence can be done with only one weapon at a time (extra questionable), and you use the overly-generous "can stow one and draw another each attack" interpretation of the Dual Wielder feat, then you can use the Dueling Fighting Style, which may work out to exactly the same DPR boost as TWF in that combination (at least at some levels). And if you're a Champion or willing to burn an extra feat, you can stack TWF with Dueling... But all that is way more questionable than getting to stack a Nick attack with a Dual Wielder attack.
(Again, in a thread ostensibly about GWF, it's like Dueling is always the culprit.)
If you think an entire additional attack (in combination with Nick) is "hot garbage", then there's not much point in arguing with your opinions on game balance.
(If you think it doesn't give an additional attack, well, you're wrong, but that argument is out of scope here, and I'm also very tired of it.)
Evaluating GWF from a design standpoint requires answering a number of questions, very few about damage.
Now that last one is probably true for GWF, for people who make their decisions based on DPR. But that's a minority of players. And you have a case that it's not that great, but you consistently oversell it, partly because you discard the "do players like it?" consideration. (I don't know if they do, but I can believe it. Rolling bad on your big weapon hit feels bad.)
But, if first-level parity is the goal, any new GWF has to be fairly ineffective, because the big weapons do the most damage.
Once you get out of the first-level design space, it gets way more complicated. Their design goal does not appear to be "keep all the styles balanced in damage output", nor should it be. Great weapons are about dishing out the most damage, two-weapon is about lots of little attacks, polearm master is about tactical control of the space around you, etc. And then there's weapon masteries in the mix, etc.
But it's been said repeatedly in this thread that +1 DPR is a really, really, really big deal
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 entire point of the feat is to allow using non-light weapons. The entire rules section on two weapon fighting is a train wreck, it's just that (unlike stealth, where the intent isn't clear) the intent is reasonably clear (you're supposed to wield two weapons in two hands), it's just that the game mechanics don't match up with the intent.
Do players like it will only come down to Surveys and as far as I know we don't have survey results for that.
As for the Design standpoint, we already have seen other failures of design, just saying GWF might have intended design, it doesn't mean it's good or shouldn't be changed. There aren't many people liking the odd design of Ranger, and those that even question the design of Paladin. There is one thing to design something but there is another thing to determine if it succeed or failed and I will say, as far as I can see, GWF is a failure.
You can say there might be more in the Design of it but neither myself or yourself are actually privy to that information from WotC which just makes this all one giant moot point. What we can do instead is say what we find to be good and what we find to be bad and as multiple people have said in here, they find GWF too be bad and to be underwhelming. That is about the best as the consumers that we can get and why giving feedback is important, so the designers can review what actually didn't sit well in the end or what did.
Ultimately there will always be some players that enjoy something and others that don't but in cases like this, there really are easy to calculate numbers to show how underwhelming this feat generally is.
No need. What I mean is think that character is the only one you are going to have, and if dies you restart at level 1 with a new character. That is a long-term character in a real, old-school and hardcore role-playing way. Would you get GWF for your character? Because I read "aesthetic" then is exactly what I am saying, disposable characters, who cares what happens to them. So something that is only an option for disposable characters shows its value just by that way.
At the moment we put aesthetics on the discussion it kicks out the balance (or even the utility in this case) topic completely.
Yes, if it fit the character concept
Again, your experience seems to be a very narrow one
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)
Aesthetics, theme, whim -- these are the primary basis of character-building decisions for the vast majority of players.
And they are no less disposable than the one you may have built to optimize DPS. (Given that any work put in is more on the storytelling level, I'd argue they're less disposable than one where the work was solely done for optimization. But, of course, one can do both.)
D&D is not that hard. Most games are not ones where tiny margins of DPS make the difference between character life or death. Nor should they be. Most people don't find that sort of game fun. (Also, most people bring replacement characters in at or near party level -- again, because of fun.)
If you wanna play that way, go for it. Have fun. But it's not the norm, and it's not a superior way of playing.
It's also irrelevant to the question of if GWF is kind of crap, effectiveness-wise. It is. Could they have made something better, given their design goals? Unclear, not least because we can only speculate what those goals were. Is taking GWF a serious mistake, with significant impact on your combat effectiveness? No.
Also, GWF is the optimal DPS choice, for a fighting style, if you are planning to focus on Heavy/Two-Handed melee weapons.
You are wrong. I am not talking about min-max or optimization, but survivavility, or usefulness. Indeed what I used is Rolemaster, a much deadlier system, and with long-term characters, if you die, restart with a new lvl 1 character. That shows you what really matters, survive. In fact this game has no concept of DPS, min-max, or the terrible "build" one (which I didn't head of it until these kind of games like D&D or PF, like if it was a Diablo game instead a RPG one).
I make characters more getting skills, instead only combat. When DM, it takes a lot of work to make it looks like a RPG as pre-made adventures are much likely going from combat to combat until finished. It is not easy to give life to that world using NPC description and motivations, environment, etc, and allowing players to do whatever they want using their skills. But characters focusing only in combat can notice notably how they are less useful out of it.
Even in this case of player type, I see GWF useless. Think this way, if you was the charcter, that if dies it's all over, would you get that style? Because what I can notice is that is a "fine" option because the drawback of "losing" doesn't matter at all.
So is not a matter of aesthetics, something you can only take to that degree when there is no drawback, but of usefulness. You can get aesthetics in many ways, GWF does not contributes at all for that, or I cannot see how it can. You can get your aesthetic just using great weapons, but getting something more useful than GWF even like unarmed combat for tavern brawls or defensive (you can continue using great weapons).