Let me explain. Here is the text: “When you roll damage for an attack you make with a Melee weapon that you are holding with two hands, you can treat any 1 or 2 on a damage die as a 3. The weapon must have the Two-Handed or Versatile property to gain this benefit.”
So, 1 becomes 3, 2 becomes 3, 10 becomes 30, 11 becomes 33, 12 becomes 33? It says any 1 or 2 becomes a 3. So the numbers 10, 11, and 12 contain the digits 1 and 2, and it says “any”.
So Shillelagh turns a quarterstaff into 1d10 or 1d12 at a certain level. Level 11-16 GWF Druids and GWF wizards and any GWF spellcaster with Shillelagh can, using their spellcasting stat, land 30-33 damage 25% of the time, without using resources?
Or any GWF build with a battleaxe can do the same?
The language in GWF is very similar to Elemental Adept, and EA treats all 1s as 2s. So 10, 11 and 12 become 20, 21, and 22.
Elemental Adept: “Choose one of the following damage types: Acid, Cold, Fire, Lightning, or Thunder. Spells you cast ignore Resistance to damage of the chosen type. In addition, when you roll damage for a spell you cast that deals damage of that type, you can treat any 1 on a damage die as a 2.”
So, 1 becomes 3, 2 becomes 3, 10 becomes 30, 11 becomes 33, 12 becomes 33? It says any 1 or 2 becomes a 3. So the numbers 10, 11, and 12 contain the digits 1 and 2, and it says “any”.
This is very much not what it means, and with all due respect, I think you probably know that. The new Dungeon Master's Guide has a whole section on why this sort of bad-faith reading of the rules should be discouraged.
So, 1 becomes 3, 2 becomes 3, 10 becomes 30, 11 becomes 33, 12 becomes 33? It says any 1 or 2 becomes a 3. So the numbers 10, 11, and 12 contain the digits 1 and 2, and it says “any”.
This is very much not what it means, and with all due respect, I think you probably know that. The new Dungeon Master's Guide has a whole section on why this sort of bad-faith reading of the rules should be discouraged.
This isn’t a bad faith reading of the rules. My understanding of Elemental Adept which uses similar language is that when you select fire and your fire bolt d10 lands on 10 it turns into a 20. That is always how I interpret EA.
The language in GWF is almost identical to EA.
So I’m asking if GWF is OP based on this rule in the text.
So, 1 becomes 3, 2 becomes 3, 10 becomes 30, 11 becomes 33, 12 becomes 33? It says any 1 or 2 becomes a 3. So the numbers 10, 11, and 12 contain the digits 1 and 2, and it says “any”.
This is very much not what it means, and with all due respect, I think you probably know that. The new Dungeon Master's Guide has a whole section on why this sort of bad-faith reading of the rules should be discouraged.
This isn’t a bad faith reading of the rules. My understanding of Elemental Adept which uses similar language is that when you select fire and your fire bolt d10 lands on 10 it turns into a 20. That is always how I interpret EA.
The language in GWF is almost identical to EA.
So I’m asking if GWF is OP based on this rule in the text.
Do you truly, genuinely believe that the intent of Great Weapon Fighting — a feat some characters can access right from level 1 — is to add twenty or more damage to a damage roll? Do you honestly think that's what they intended when they wrote that?
When you roll a d12, and somebody asks you what you rolled, do you say "a 1 and a 0", or do you say "ten"?
If the former, you are very unusual, and the rules were not written to accommodate your particular quirk, but the more common usage.
If the latter, then you didn't roll a 1.
Numbers are conceptual entities, not merely the typographical elements used to represent them.
RAW, it says any 1 or 2 on the die not “when you roll a value of 1 or a 2.” It has nothing to do with how I say it out loud. Any 1 or 2 is a 3, so 10 becomes 30.
Additionally, it makes sense that some two handed weapons would have these occasional mighty blows. That’s the trade off of not having a second weapon or a shield. In combat, occasionally a Great Battleaxe just cuts somebody in half and the fight is over. Its not graceful. But its just brutal. To my knowledge, the Great Battleaxe is the only weapon that gets this full treatment, except with Shillelagh or monk weapons get that high.
Both mentioned game elements refer to the value you get per die, not the total damage score.
Sure. Which is why 10 becomes 30, 11 becomes 33 and 12 becomes 33. (((In theory.)))
Sorry, but no. That's wrong.
EDIT: the thread's title is "Lets Argue... OP?", but honestly, I don't want to argue about something that would obviously be highly overpowered if your interpretation were allowed.
Let me explain. Here is the text: “When you roll damage for an attack you make with a Melee weapon that you are holding with two hands, you can treat any 1 or 2 on a damage die as a 3. The weapon must have the Two-Handed or Versatile property to gain this benefit.”
When it says any 1 or 2 on a damage die, it is addressing multiple damage die, not the numbers 10, 11, 12, etc. That is to say, it is clearly saying when the damage die shows 1 or 2, not when a number contains a 1 or 2, it'd be more specific if that were the case and it isn't. This matter for weapons with multiple damage die or when scoring a critical hit where you double the amount of damage die.
As it stands, GWF is a trash tier feat, I'd say one of the worst in the game. Now GWM (what I thought this thread was really going to be about), that is a potentially OP'ed feat.
When you roll a d12, and somebody asks you what you rolled, do you say "a 1 and a 0", or do you say "ten"?
If the former, you are very unusual, and the rules were not written to accommodate your particular quirk, but the more common usage.
If the latter, then you didn't roll a 1.
Numbers are conceptual entities, not merely the typographical elements used to represent them.
RAW, it says any 1 or 2 on the die not “when you roll a value of 1 or a 2.” It has nothing to do with how I say it out loud. Any 1 or 2 is a 3, so 10 becomes 30.
Again, numbers are concepts, not their digits. There is no one on the die. There is a ten. It happens to be represented here as the digits 1 and 0. If I had a die labeled in hexadecimal, because I'm a nerd, it would say "A", but it would still be a ten. If I had a die labeled in Roman numerals, it would say "X", but it's still a ten. And the roll of "I" would still get adjusted to "III", even though there's no "1" in sight.
If they actually wanted to refer to the digits, they would have to use the term explicitly, because when we refer to "1" in most contexts, we mean the number one, not the digit "1".
Both mentioned game elements refer to the value you get per die, not the total damage score.
Sure. Which is why 10 becomes 30, 11 becomes 33 and 12 becomes 33. (((In theory.)))
Sorry, but no. That's wrong.
EDIT: the thread's title is "Lets Argue... OP?", but honestly, I don't want to argue about something that would obviously be highly overpowered if your interpretation were allowed.
Think of it like a WW2 code machine. Every letter stands for another letter. So 1s and 2s are the digit 3. The intent is not to make the worse attacks slightly better, but to make the top roll Top Gun. Most weapons do not get double digit dice. But the Greataxe is….. GREAT.
To interpret it as just numbers in isolation is not how it reads.
25% chance of just outright brutality. Sure, it is available at Level 1. Yes, a dwarf with a Greataxe can one shot a goblin 25% of the time. I’ve seen Lord of the Rings, logic holds.
When you roll a d12, and somebody asks you what you rolled, do you say "a 1 and a 0", or do you say "ten"?
If the former, you are very unusual, and the rules were not written to accommodate your particular quirk, but the more common usage.
If the latter, then you didn't roll a 1.
Numbers are conceptual entities, not merely the typographical elements used to represent them.
RAW, it says any 1 or 2 on the die not “when you roll a value of 1 or a 2.” It has nothing to do with how I say it out loud. Any 1 or 2 is a 3, so 10 becomes 30.
Again, numbers are concepts, not their digits. There is no one on the die. There is a ten. It happens to be represented here as the digits 1 and 0. If I had a die labeled in hexadecimal, because I'm a nerd, it would say "A", but it would still be a ten. If I had a die labeled in Roman numerals, it would say "X", but it's still a ten. And the roll of "I" would still get adjusted to "III", even though there's no "1" in sight.
If they actually wanted to refer to the digits, they would have to use the term explicitly, because when we refer to "1" in most contexts, we mean the number one, not the digit "1".
They in fact did refer to individual digits when they stated: “any 1 or 2 on any damage die” instead of “whenever you roll a value of 1 or 2 on any damage die.”
Think of it like a code machine, rather than a math problem. It doesn’t make sense to think of it mathematically, because it is a logic sentence “If any 1 or 2, the replace with 3”. 1 does not equal 3 and 2 does not equal 3 in a math interpretation unless you treat it like a function, but it is not worded like a function. It is a logic sentence, and codebreaker logic must be applied.
So, 1 becomes 3, 2 becomes 3, 10 becomes 30, 11 becomes 33, 12 becomes 33? It says any 1 or 2 becomes a 3. So the numbers 10, 11, and 12 contain the digits 1 and 2, and it says “any”.
This is very much not what it means, and with all due respect, I think you probably know that. The new Dungeon Master's Guide has a whole section on why this sort of bad-faith reading of the rules should be discouraged.
This isn’t a bad faith reading of the rules. My understanding of Elemental Adept which uses similar language is that when you select fire and your fire bolt d10 lands on 10 it turns into a 20. That is always how I interpret EA.
The language in GWF is almost identical to EA.
So I’m asking if GWF is OP based on this rule in the text.
Do you truly, genuinely believe that the intent of Great Weapon Fighting — a feat some characters can access right from level 1 — is to add twenty or more damage to a damage roll? Do you honestly think that's what they intended when they wrote that?
Yes I do think its what was intended. Because it gives a bonus with only certain weapons and only 25% of the time with greataxes and only 10% of the time with d10 two handed weapons. It is equivalent to saying something like “roll a d4, and if the d4 rolls a 4, add 20 damage” but only if you can’t wear a shield, use both hands, no second weapon, have a feat, and are in melee range.
Literally everyone thinks that a simple 1 or 2 becoming a 3 is a completely pointless bonus, and Wizards of the Coast would have to be committed to making bad product to endorse that reading of the phrase “Great Weapon Fighting.” A dainty lad could do more than 3 damage if he just dropped the axe on somebody. Why embrace weakness, rather than awesomeness?
By default, when someone says (or types) 1, it means "number 1". To mean "digit 1" it needs to be said more explicitly. Basically, if it can be interpreted as "number 1", then it means "number 1". In order to mean digit 1, it needs to written in a way where it cannot be interpreted as "number 1". I'm sure everyone has noticed this, where in order to avoid misunderstandings someone has to carefully word it if they mean a digit, whereas they don't need to be careful if they mean a number.
So getting to my point, "any 1, or 2 on a damage die" can be interpreted as "any number 1, or number 2 on a damage die", so by the rules that everyone is following, it means the numbers, rather than the digits. Now I've seen the argument that if they meant the numbers, they should have written something like "any value of 1, or 2 on a damage die", but that would mean that they have to be more explicit if they meant the numbers, which is expecting the opposite rule in this instance.
When your interpretation of a rule is very clearly, obviously overpowered and there is another simpler non-overpowered interpretation that everybody else agrees with, then your interpretation is very clearly, obviously wrong.
The features GWF and EA are both obviously referring to the value rolled, not each individual digit on the die. Thinking otherwise is just bad faith trying to game the system.
Do you truly, genuinely believe that the intent of Great Weapon Fighting — a feat some characters can access right from level 1 — is to add twenty or more damage to a damage roll? Do you honestly think that's what they intended when they wrote that?
Yes I do think its what was intended. Because it gives a bonus with only certain weapons and only 25% of the time with greataxes and only 10% of the time with d10 two handed weapons. It is equivalent to saying something like “roll a d4, and if the d4 rolls a 4, add 20 damage” but only if you can’t wear a shield, use both hands, no second weapon, have a feat, and are in melee range.
Literally everyone thinks that a simple 1 or 2 becoming a 3 is a completely pointless bonus, and Wizards of the Coast would have to be committed to making bad product to endorse that reading of the phrase “Great Weapon Fighting.” A dainty lad could do more than 3 damage if he just dropped the axe on somebody. Why embrace weakness, rather than awesomeness?
Glad to hear that your martials are doing 15 damage on a hit at level 1.
So, 1 becomes 3, 2 becomes 3, 10 becomes 30, 11 becomes 33, 12 becomes 33? It says any 1 or 2 becomes a 3. So the numbers 10, 11, and 12 contain the digits 1 and 2, and it says “any”.
This is very much not what it means, and with all due respect, I think you probably know that. The new Dungeon Master's Guide has a whole section on why this sort of bad-faith reading of the rules should be discouraged.
This isn’t a bad faith reading of the rules. My understanding of Elemental Adept which uses similar language is that when you select fire and your fire bolt d10 lands on 10 it turns into a 20. That is always how I interpret EA.
The language in GWF is almost identical to EA.
So I’m asking if GWF is OP based on this rule in the text.
Do you truly, genuinely believe that the intent of Great Weapon Fighting — a feat some characters can access right from level 1 — is to add twenty or more damage to a damage roll? Do you honestly think that's what they intended when they wrote that?
Yes I do think its what was intended. Because it gives a bonus with only certain weapons and only 25% of the time with greataxes and only 10% of the time with d10 two handed weapons. It is equivalent to saying something like “roll a d4, and if the d4 rolls a 4, add 20 damage” but only if you can’t wear a shield, use both hands, no second weapon, have a feat, and are in melee range.
Literally everyone thinks that a simple 1 or 2 becoming a 3 is a completely pointless bonus, and Wizards of the Coast would have to be committed to making bad product to endorse that reading of the phrase “Great Weapon Fighting.” A dainty lad could do more than 3 damage if he just dropped the axe on somebody. Why embrace weakness, rather than awesomeness?
You're confusing "what the rules are" with "what I think the rules should be". I agree that Great Weapon Fighting isn't a particularly good feat and should be better. If you want to use this interpretation of yours as a house rule, go for it.
Do you truly, genuinely believe that the intent of Great Weapon Fighting — a feat some characters can access right from level 1 — is to add twenty or more damage to a damage roll? Do you honestly think that's what they intended when they wrote that?
Yes I do think its what was intended. Because it gives a bonus with only certain weapons and only 25% of the time with greataxes and only 10% of the time with d10 two handed weapons. It is equivalent to saying something like “roll a d4, and if the d4 rolls a 4, add 20 damage” but only if you can’t wear a shield, use both hands, no second weapon, have a feat, and are in melee range.
Literally everyone thinks that a simple 1 or 2 becoming a 3 is a completely pointless bonus, and Wizards of the Coast would have to be committed to making bad product to endorse that reading of the phrase “Great Weapon Fighting.” A dainty lad could do more than 3 damage if he just dropped the axe on somebody. Why embrace weakness, rather than awesomeness?
Glad to hear that your martials are doing 15 damage on a hit at level 1.
Its a very specific build. I think at level 1 it is only fighters who take Great Weapon Fighting and have a Greataxe. It is only 25% of attacks that they land.
Compare that to a generic Level 1 Rogue with two daggers and nick, and Hex from Fey Touched if they are custom lineage. Each round, its a potential 2d4+3d6 at level one. Without using reactions its averaging 15.5 per turn assuming Hex, advantage, and hit.
My crude math says a generic GWF fighter will average 9.5 across 4 rounds with a Greataxe, and you can increase it to 13 with hex.
In Tier 1 it does less damage than rogues. And thats only assuming they take both GWF and wield a great axe.
Is my math wrong?
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Is 2024 Great Weapon Fighting OP?
Let me explain. Here is the text: “When you roll damage for an attack you make with a Melee weapon that you are holding with two hands, you can treat any 1 or 2 on a damage die as a 3. The weapon must have the Two-Handed or Versatile property to gain this benefit.”
So, 1 becomes 3, 2 becomes 3, 10 becomes 30, 11 becomes 33, 12 becomes 33? It says any 1 or 2 becomes a 3. So the numbers 10, 11, and 12 contain the digits 1 and 2, and it says “any”.
So Shillelagh turns a quarterstaff into 1d10 or 1d12 at a certain level. Level 11-16 GWF Druids and GWF wizards and any GWF spellcaster with Shillelagh can, using their spellcasting stat, land 30-33 damage 25% of the time, without using resources?
Or any GWF build with a battleaxe can do the same?
The language in GWF is very similar to Elemental Adept, and EA treats all 1s as 2s. So 10, 11 and 12 become 20, 21, and 22.
Elemental Adept: “Choose one of the following damage types: Acid, Cold, Fire, Lightning, or Thunder. Spells you cast ignore Resistance to damage of the chosen type. In addition, when you roll damage for a spell you cast that deals damage of that type, you can treat any 1 on a damage die as a 2.”
“Any” means any. Yes? So why not?
Both mentioned game elements refer to the value you get per die, not the total damage score.
This is very much not what it means, and with all due respect, I think you probably know that. The new Dungeon Master's Guide has a whole section on why this sort of bad-faith reading of the rules should be discouraged.
pronouns: he/she/they
This isn’t a bad faith reading of the rules. My understanding of Elemental Adept which uses similar language is that when you select fire and your fire bolt d10 lands on 10 it turns into a 20. That is always how I interpret EA.
The language in GWF is almost identical to EA.
So I’m asking if GWF is OP based on this rule in the text.
-
View User Profile
-
View Posts
-
Send Message
ModeratorThat is not how Elemental Adept works either.
1 becomes 3
2 becomes 3
And every other number rolled stays the same. 10 is 10. 11 is 11. Etc.
That is also how Elemental Adept works, except capping at 2 instead of 3.
The ability does not apply to digits, but the whole number.
Homebrew Rules || Homebrew FAQ || Snippet Codes || Tooltips
DDB Guides & FAQs, Class Guides, Character Builds, Game Guides, Useful Websites, and WOTC Resources
Do you truly, genuinely believe that the intent of Great Weapon Fighting — a feat some characters can access right from level 1 — is to add twenty or more damage to a damage roll? Do you honestly think that's what they intended when they wrote that?
pronouns: he/she/they
Let's put it this way:
When you roll a d12, and somebody asks you what you rolled, do you say "a 1 and a 0", or do you say "ten"?
If the former, you are very unusual, and the rules were not written to accommodate your particular quirk, but the more common usage.
If the latter, then you didn't roll a 1.
Numbers are conceptual entities, not merely the typographical elements used to represent them.
Sure. Which is why 10 becomes 30, 11 becomes 33 and 12 becomes 33. (((In theory.)))
RAW, it says any 1 or 2 on the die not “when you roll a value of 1 or a 2.” It has nothing to do with how I say it out loud. Any 1 or 2 is a 3, so 10 becomes 30.
Additionally, it makes sense that some two handed weapons would have these occasional mighty blows. That’s the trade off of not having a second weapon or a shield. In combat, occasionally a Great Battleaxe just cuts somebody in half and the fight is over. Its not graceful. But its just brutal. To my knowledge, the Great Battleaxe is the only weapon that gets this full treatment, except with Shillelagh or monk weapons get that high.
Sorry, but no. That's wrong.
EDIT: the thread's title is "Lets Argue... OP?", but honestly, I don't want to argue about something that would obviously be highly overpowered if your interpretation were allowed.
When it says any 1 or 2 on a damage die, it is addressing multiple damage die, not the numbers 10, 11, 12, etc. That is to say, it is clearly saying when the damage die shows 1 or 2, not when a number contains a 1 or 2, it'd be more specific if that were the case and it isn't. This matter for weapons with multiple damage die or when scoring a critical hit where you double the amount of damage die.
As it stands, GWF is a trash tier feat, I'd say one of the worst in the game. Now GWM (what I thought this thread was really going to be about), that is a potentially OP'ed feat.
Again, numbers are concepts, not their digits. There is no one on the die. There is a ten. It happens to be represented here as the digits 1 and 0. If I had a die labeled in hexadecimal, because I'm a nerd, it would say "A", but it would still be a ten. If I had a die labeled in Roman numerals, it would say "X", but it's still a ten. And the roll of "I" would still get adjusted to "III", even though there's no "1" in sight.
If they actually wanted to refer to the digits, they would have to use the term explicitly, because when we refer to "1" in most contexts, we mean the number one, not the digit "1".
Think of it like a WW2 code machine. Every letter stands for another letter. So 1s and 2s are the digit 3. The intent is not to make the worse attacks slightly better, but to make the top roll Top Gun. Most weapons do not get double digit dice. But the Greataxe is….. GREAT.
To interpret it as just numbers in isolation is not how it reads.
25% chance of just outright brutality. Sure, it is available at Level 1. Yes, a dwarf with a Greataxe can one shot a goblin 25% of the time. I’ve seen Lord of the Rings, logic holds.
They in fact did refer to individual digits when they stated: “any 1 or 2 on any damage die” instead of “whenever you roll a value of 1 or 2 on any damage die.”
Think of it like a code machine, rather than a math problem. It doesn’t make sense to think of it mathematically, because it is a logic sentence “If any 1 or 2, the replace with 3”. 1 does not equal 3 and 2 does not equal 3 in a math interpretation unless you treat it like a function, but it is not worded like a function. It is a logic sentence, and codebreaker logic must be applied.
Yes I do think its what was intended. Because it gives a bonus with only certain weapons and only 25% of the time with greataxes and only 10% of the time with d10 two handed weapons. It is equivalent to saying something like “roll a d4, and if the d4 rolls a 4, add 20 damage” but only if you can’t wear a shield, use both hands, no second weapon, have a feat, and are in melee range.
Literally everyone thinks that a simple 1 or 2 becoming a 3 is a completely pointless bonus, and Wizards of the Coast would have to be committed to making bad product to endorse that reading of the phrase “Great Weapon Fighting.” A dainty lad could do more than 3 damage if he just dropped the axe on somebody. Why embrace weakness, rather than awesomeness?
By default, when someone says (or types) 1, it means "number 1". To mean "digit 1" it needs to be said more explicitly. Basically, if it can be interpreted as "number 1", then it means "number 1". In order to mean digit 1, it needs to written in a way where it cannot be interpreted as "number 1". I'm sure everyone has noticed this, where in order to avoid misunderstandings someone has to carefully word it if they mean a digit, whereas they don't need to be careful if they mean a number.
So getting to my point, "any 1, or 2 on a damage die" can be interpreted as "any number 1, or number 2 on a damage die", so by the rules that everyone is following, it means the numbers, rather than the digits. Now I've seen the argument that if they meant the numbers, they should have written something like "any value of 1, or 2 on a damage die", but that would mean that they have to be more explicit if they meant the numbers, which is expecting the opposite rule in this instance.
When your interpretation of a rule is very clearly, obviously overpowered and there is another simpler non-overpowered interpretation that everybody else agrees with, then your interpretation is very clearly, obviously wrong.
The features GWF and EA are both obviously referring to the value rolled, not each individual digit on the die. Thinking otherwise is just bad faith trying to game the system.
Glad to hear that your martials are doing 15 damage on a hit at level 1.
You're confusing "what the rules are" with "what I think the rules should be". I agree that Great Weapon Fighting isn't a particularly good feat and should be better. If you want to use this interpretation of yours as a house rule, go for it.
pronouns: he/she/they
Its a very specific build. I think at level 1 it is only fighters who take Great Weapon Fighting and have a Greataxe. It is only 25% of attacks that they land.
Compare that to a generic Level 1 Rogue with two daggers and nick, and Hex from Fey Touched if they are custom lineage. Each round, its a potential 2d4+3d6 at level one. Without using reactions its averaging 15.5 per turn assuming Hex, advantage, and hit.
My crude math says a generic GWF fighter will average 9.5 across 4 rounds with a Greataxe, and you can increase it to 13 with hex.
In Tier 1 it does less damage than rogues. And thats only assuming they take both GWF and wield a great axe.
Is my math wrong?