At level 1 (16 attack stat, no magic weapon, target ac 12)
Longbow w/o Archery: 13d8+36 (94.5) per 20 attacks. With Archery, add 2d8+6 (+15.9%)
Longsword w/o Dueling: 13d8+36 (94.5) per 20 attacks. With Dueling, add +24 (+24.4%)
Greatsword w/o GWF: 26d6+36 (127) per 20 attacks. With GWF, add 17.3 (+13.6%)
Two Shortswords w/o TWF: 26d6+36 (127) per 20 rounds. With TWF, add 60 (+47.2%)
So yes, of the offensive options GWF is by far the worst. TWF loses a lot of its potency once you have multiple attacks (because it's once per round, not once per attack) or other significant uses for bonus actions, which makes it a bit of a trap option (it's good in tier 1, mediocre in tier 2, and should be retrained to get rid of by tier 3). Archery has the best level scaling because damage per hit scales faster than hit chance, and thus a bonus to hit chance is proportionately better at high levels.
Allowing GWF to apply to bonus damage dice (i.e. ignore SAC) makes it somewhat more competitive in tier 2, but weapon choices in general could use a bit of a balance pass.
All of these fails to take into account the simple fact of, do you want to increase your damage with a two hander with your fighting style? Than take GWF. I'll take a 13% average damage boost vs having an AC of 19 instead of 18 because that reroll chance is going to come up far more often than 1 more AC stopping a blow. If you can get your hands on a weapon that adds extra damage like a flame tongue or a frostbrand GWF just gets better.
At level 1 (16 attack stat, no magic weapon, target ac 12)
Longbow w/o Archery: 13d8+36 (94.5) per 20 attacks. With Archery, add 2d8+6 (+15.9%)
Longsword w/o Dueling: 13d8+36 (94.5) per 20 attacks. With Dueling, add +24 (+24.4%)
Greatsword w/o GWF: 26d6+36 (127) per 20 attacks. With GWF, add 17.3 (+13.6%)
Two Shortswords w/o TWF: 26d6+36 (127) per 20 rounds. With TWF, add 60 (+47.2%)
So yes, of the offensive options GWF is by far the worst. TWF loses a lot of its potency once you have multiple attacks (because it's once per round, not once per attack) or other significant uses for bonus actions, which makes it a bit of a trap option (it's good in tier 1, mediocre in tier 2, and should be retrained to get rid of by tier 3). Archery has the best level scaling because damage per hit scales faster than hit chance, and thus a bonus to hit chance is proportionately better at high levels.
Allowing GWF to apply to bonus damage dice (i.e. ignore SAC) makes it somewhat more competitive in tier 2, but weapon choices in general could use a bit of a balance pass.
All of these fails to take into account the simple fact of, do you want to increase your damage with a two hander with your fighting style? Than take GWF. I'll take a 13% average damage boost vs having an AC of 19 instead of 18 because that reroll chance is going to come up far more often than 1 more AC stopping a blow. If you can get your hands on a weapon that adds extra damage like a flame tongue or a frostbrand GWF just gets better.
The main counterpoint here is that 13% averages out to nearly nothing in the grand scheme ESPECIALLY in late game.
The magic weapon thing is a bit of a stretch as you are basically gambling on getting such an item and it puts pressure on the DM to give it to you since it would really be the only way to make it worth it in the grand scheme.
Blind-Fighting, Defense, or even thrown weapon would likely be a better pick for you over GWF at this point. Hell even Superior Technique with Trip Attack is a much better option for Fighter as it gives you a source of ADV (prone enemy).
Overall you have to compare it with the value you get from your alternatives and in that light GWF is basically a never pick.
Careful. Someone who thinks AC 19 is less than 13% better than AC 18 hasn't actually done any of the relevant math. I suppose a bigger first clue is someone rounding 13.6% to 13%.
For example, against a commoner, AC 18->19 means going from getting hit 25% of the time to getting hit 20% of the time, which depending on how you look at it is either you getting hit 20% less often or you being 25% more durable against said attacks (these are equivalent statements). Either way it's a lot better than 13%. AC has *increasing* returns, and +1 to AC is always better than +1 to damage. GWF is worth at most +1.5 damage (on a greatsword). Hard pass.
Careful. Someone who thinks AC 19 is less than 13% better than AC 18 hasn't actually done any of the relevant math
I'd also note that it's only 13% at level 1. It's down to 11.4% by typical level 5 (18 stat, +1 weapon) and 9.9% sometime in tier 3 (20 stat, +2 weapon).
Careful. Someone who thinks AC 19 is less than 13% better than AC 18 hasn't actually done any of the relevant math
I'd also note that it's only 13% at level 1. It's down to 11.4% by typical level 5 (18 stat, +1 weapon) and 9.9% sometime in tier 3 (20 stat, +2 weapon).
Yeah dueling outperforms it so much for its respective build that its crazy to think they considered it "even" at all.
So IDK if this will have any relevant to the convo but generally the way I rule it is the damage die will auto hit a min of 3, you’ll get one chance at the re roll but other than that the min for the RAW damage is 3.
IDK but I mean if you’re gonna specialize in a weapon you’re gonna know how to make it hurt.
Edit: that is to say the min RAW for attack with any 6, both PC and NPC
So IDK if this will have any relevant to the convo but generally the way I rule it is the damage die will auto hit a min of 3, you’ll get one chance at the re roll but other than that the min for the RAW damage is 3.
IDK but I mean if you’re gonna specialize in a weapon you’re gonna know how to make it hurt.
Ive thought about how I would do it a few times and have settled on 1.5x STR mod (rounded down) instead of just STR mod per swing.
This adds +1 then +2 then +3 with STR increase and if you go Barb and go full level 20 you get +5 which feels good to me
Careful. Someone who thinks AC 19 is less than 13% better than AC 18 hasn't actually done any of the relevant math. I suppose a bigger first clue is someone rounding 13.6% to 13%.
For example, against a commoner, AC 18->19 means going from getting hit 25% of the time to getting hit 20% of the time, which depending on how you look at it is either you getting hit 20% less often or you being 25% more durable against said attacks (these are equivalent statements). Either way it's a lot better than 13%. AC has *increasing* returns, and +1 to AC is always better than +1 to damage. GWF is worth at most +1.5 damage (on a greatsword). Hard pass.
This may be a hot take but as someone who took a paladin from 1 to 20 with GWF: one of the reasons I chose it instead of something else was so as to not make my AC *too high* because I was the party tank.
That kind of sounds backwards but the reasoning goes like this. Sure, I could have used a longsword and shield instead. But, if you are the tank and you have impossible to hit AC, the (intelligent) enemies will seek out the easier to hit, squishier members of your party instead. So as tank, the idea is to put out a decent amount of damage so you are a threat, and then make use of your generous hit point pool by taking the occasional hit so as to ensure your opponents keep their attention focused on you.
Of course, all of this depends on how your DM plays, and this is definitely metagaming. But without a proper in-game taunt mechanism in 5e it's the best you can do. There's not really taunt mechanism in DnD (yes, things like compelled duel do come close).
Definitely a more elegant solution to the question for sure, my thinking on this is based on the house rules my group tends to play with armor resistances/immunities which will often force the attacker to think about the type of attack the make: swing or thrust, which is ruled as an attack against half/three quarters cover depending as well as a min damage threshold against concussion or fracture of underlying limb.
To give a simple example: you ‘swing’ with a great sword against an opponent in full plate is an attack against the flat ac but the defender will be completely immune to your hit unless you swing harder than say 12dmg b4 magic mods (steel won’t cut through steel)-at which point the ruling is situational. You will still get any magic effects but your physical hit is null.
So IDK if this will have any relevant to the convo but generally the way I rule it is the damage die will auto hit a min of 3, you’ll get one chance at the re roll but other than that the min for the RAW damage is 3.
IDK but I mean if you’re gonna specialize in a weapon you’re gonna know how to make it hurt.
Ive thought about how I would do it a few times and have settled on 1.5x STR mod (rounded down) instead of just STR mod per swing.
This adds +1 then +2 then +3 with STR increase and if you go Barb and go full level 20 you get +5 which feels good to me
Read bottom first, sry I’m dyslexic so I’ve spent most of my life avoiding chat rooms because of typing, lol 😝
That's not a more elegant solution, that's just an unnecessary penalty against playing a melee character.
Okay I’m def not explaining this properly. A character in full plate will have immunity to the slashing Damage of a great sword but not the great axe due to nature of the weapons. However let’s say I’m making a thrust aimed to slip between the plate of opportunity. That would be an attack against half cover but if successful you have circumvented the armor a are making an attack at full strength. Going for the eyes would be an attack on 3/4 to make but if clear the half cover mark then the attack will land but scored as stated in my earlier post.
So yes, use your hammers and axes on plate and use the sword for leathers and elegant defense.
Yes, I get what you're aiming for. The problem is that it just adds a bunch of extra modifiers to combat. Under 2nd Edition and previous rules, there were similar modifiers based on the type of weapon you were wielding vs the type of armor your target was wearing. They got dropped because all they did was slow down combat. They weren't popular.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Find your own truth, choose your enemies carefully, and never deal with a dragon.
"Canon" is what's factual to D&D lore. "Cannon" is what you're going to be shot with if you keep getting the word wrong.
Yes, I get what you're aiming for. The problem is that it just adds a bunch of extra modifiers to combat. Under 2nd Edition and previous rules, there were similar modifiers based on the type of weapon you were wielding vs the type of armor your target was wearing. They got dropped because all they did was slow down combat. They weren't popular.
yeah, no, I remember them kinda (I’m over 30yrs old, lol) totally Understandable, I wish my friend had an online version of the rules set he came up with, that way I could link but (at least in my opinion) it feels like a good balance between 2&5e rules set for combats as well as the spell castings for 3.5.
Edit: after giving it some thought idk what he means by the 3.5e spell castings but it’s what he says so that’s what I’m going with, I stick to slashing and bashing anyway, lol
So rare as to not really consider it to be honest.
Well... this really isn't that rare. If you're rolling a great sword's damage, 2d6, you'll roll a 1 or 2 on at least one of the dice 56% of time time. That die will re-roll a 6 17% of time. At least higher than a 2 66% of the time. Turning a 1 into a 6 is somewhat rare, but turning a 1 or 2 into something better is actually going to be quite common for the great sword.
So rare as to not really consider it to be honest.
Well... this really isn't that rare. If you're rolling a great sword's damage, 2d6, you'll roll a 1 or 2 on at least one of the dice 56% of time time. That die will re-roll a 6 17% of time. At least higher than a 2 66% of the time. Turning a 1 into a 6 is somewhat rare, but turning a 1 or 2 into something better is actually going to be quite common for the great sword.
I meant two 1s to two 6s.
But overall it's like 1 damage so it's still not really worth it imo. But it could be to others.
How would average damage be affected if you could choose which die result to use, instead of being forced to use the second result? I'm assuming it would increase, but by how much?
All of these fails to take into account the simple fact of, do you want to increase your damage with a two hander with your fighting style? Than take GWF. I'll take a 13% average damage boost vs having an AC of 19 instead of 18 because that reroll chance is going to come up far more often than 1 more AC stopping a blow. If you can get your hands on a weapon that adds extra damage like a flame tongue or a frostbrand GWF just gets better.
This answers everything.
DMBumble
The main counterpoint here is that 13% averages out to nearly nothing in the grand scheme ESPECIALLY in late game.
The magic weapon thing is a bit of a stretch as you are basically gambling on getting such an item and it puts pressure on the DM to give it to you since it would really be the only way to make it worth it in the grand scheme.
Blind-Fighting, Defense, or even thrown weapon would likely be a better pick for you over GWF at this point. Hell even Superior Technique with Trip Attack is a much better option for Fighter as it gives you a source of ADV (prone enemy).
Overall you have to compare it with the value you get from your alternatives and in that light GWF is basically a never pick.
Careful. Someone who thinks AC 19 is less than 13% better than AC 18 hasn't actually done any of the relevant math. I suppose a bigger first clue is someone rounding 13.6% to 13%.
For example, against a commoner, AC 18->19 means going from getting hit 25% of the time to getting hit 20% of the time, which depending on how you look at it is either you getting hit 20% less often or you being 25% more durable against said attacks (these are equivalent statements). Either way it's a lot better than 13%. AC has *increasing* returns, and +1 to AC is always better than +1 to damage. GWF is worth at most +1.5 damage (on a greatsword). Hard pass.
I'd also note that it's only 13% at level 1. It's down to 11.4% by typical level 5 (18 stat, +1 weapon) and 9.9% sometime in tier 3 (20 stat, +2 weapon).
Yeah dueling outperforms it so much for its respective build that its crazy to think they considered it "even" at all.
So IDK if this will have any relevant to the convo but generally the way I rule it is the damage die will auto hit a min of 3, you’ll get one chance at the re roll but other than that the min for the RAW damage is 3.
IDK but I mean if you’re gonna specialize in a weapon you’re gonna know how to make it hurt.
Edit: that is to say the min RAW for attack with any 6, both PC and NPC
Ive thought about how I would do it a few times and have settled on 1.5x STR mod (rounded down) instead of just STR mod per swing.
This adds +1 then +2 then +3 with STR increase and if you go Barb and go full level 20 you get +5 which feels good to me
This may be a hot take but as someone who took a paladin from 1 to 20 with GWF: one of the reasons I chose it instead of something else was so as to not make my AC *too high* because I was the party tank.
That kind of sounds backwards but the reasoning goes like this. Sure, I could have used a longsword and shield instead. But, if you are the tank and you have impossible to hit AC, the (intelligent) enemies will seek out the easier to hit, squishier members of your party instead. So as tank, the idea is to put out a decent amount of damage so you are a threat, and then make use of your generous hit point pool by taking the occasional hit so as to ensure your opponents keep their attention focused on you.
Of course, all of this depends on how your DM plays, and this is definitely metagaming. But without a proper in-game taunt mechanism in 5e it's the best you can do. There's not really taunt mechanism in DnD (yes, things like compelled duel do come close).
That's not a more elegant solution, that's just an unnecessary penalty against playing a melee character.
Find your own truth, choose your enemies carefully, and never deal with a dragon.
"Canon" is what's factual to D&D lore. "Cannon" is what you're going to be shot with if you keep getting the word wrong.
Read bottom first, sry I’m dyslexic so I’ve spent most of my life avoiding chat rooms because of typing, lol 😝
Okay I’m def not explaining this properly.
A character in full plate will have immunity to the slashing Damage of a great sword but not the great axe due to nature of the weapons. However let’s say I’m making a thrust aimed to slip between the plate of opportunity. That would be an attack against half cover but if successful you have circumvented the armor a are making an attack at full strength. Going for the eyes would be an attack on 3/4 to make but if clear the half cover mark then the attack will land but scored as stated in my earlier post.
So yes, use your hammers and axes on plate and use the sword for leathers and elegant defense.
Yes, I get what you're aiming for. The problem is that it just adds a bunch of extra modifiers to combat. Under 2nd Edition and previous rules, there were similar modifiers based on the type of weapon you were wielding vs the type of armor your target was wearing. They got dropped because all they did was slow down combat. They weren't popular.
Find your own truth, choose your enemies carefully, and never deal with a dragon.
"Canon" is what's factual to D&D lore. "Cannon" is what you're going to be shot with if you keep getting the word wrong.
yeah, no, I remember them kinda (I’m over 30yrs old, lol) totally Understandable, I wish my friend had an online version of the rules set he came up with, that way I could link but (at least in my opinion) it feels like a good balance between 2&5e rules set for combats as well as the spell castings for 3.5.
Edit: after giving it some thought idk what he means by the 3.5e spell castings but it’s what he says so that’s what I’m going with, I stick to slashing and bashing anyway, lol
I know where you comming from with this idea.
But.
*rerols 1 nad 1 to 6 and 6*
So rare as to not really consider it to be honest.
Well... this really isn't that rare. If you're rolling a great sword's damage, 2d6, you'll roll a 1 or 2 on at least one of the dice 56% of time time. That die will re-roll a 6 17% of time. At least higher than a 2 66% of the time. Turning a 1 into a 6 is somewhat rare, but turning a 1 or 2 into something better is actually going to be quite common for the great sword.
I meant two 1s to two 6s.
But overall it's like 1 damage so it's still not really worth it imo. But it could be to others.
How would average damage be affected if you could choose which die result to use, instead of being forced to use the second result? I'm assuming it would increase, but by how much?
It would be a negligible value.
Find your own truth, choose your enemies carefully, and never deal with a dragon.
"Canon" is what's factual to D&D lore. "Cannon" is what you're going to be shot with if you keep getting the word wrong.