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.
Fighter with a Greataxe would do roughly 3+1d12 damage on a hit, That would be 10.5 average damage per hit. With what you propose for GWF, you'd increase a 1 or 2 to 3, a 10 to 30, an 11 to 33 and a 12 to 32 (honestly tho, this is clearly wrong). This means the results of GWF become (3+3+3+4+5+6+7+8+9+30+33+33)/12 or an average 12 (an increase of 5.5 per hit), add on the strength modifier of +3, that is 15 average per hit. The fact you can then critical, score 2 11s or 12s should already spell out this is clearly wrong, that would be a +66 to the damage roll, at level 1.
At level 1 that is a ludicrous amount but since everybody but you agrees that the writing is specifying the face value of the die and not an individual numerals within the value. The actual damage per hit of GWF would be (3+3+3+4+5+6+7+8+9+10+11+12)/12=6.75 or an increase of .25 over the expected 6.5 of a Greataxe without GWF. This is the true number and the reason GWF is basically trash tier, only usable with Greatsword and Maul.
EDIT: I actually devised a formula for a spreadsheet to figure out how much damage a weapon does GWF, since it's quiet simple:
WMD(Weapon Maximum Damage)=#Die * DieSize
WADR(weaponAverageDieRoll)=(#of DIE+WMD)/2
Result=WADR+(3*#Die)/DieSize
You can then compare the WMD to the Result to see how much GWF actually added and you get the following table. Just double improvement for critical hits.
Die
# die
DieSize
maximum
Average
GWF
Improvement
1d4
1
4
4
2.5
3.25
0.75
1d6
1
6
6
3.5
4.00
0.50
1d8
1
8
8
4.5
4.88
0.38
1d10
1
10
10
5.5
5.80
0.30
1d12
1
12
12
6.5
6.75
0.25
2d6
2
6
12
7
8.00
1.00
This is how it actually works and why I maintain the GWF is just a bad feat. Outside of 2d6 it's terrible. We don't need to worry about 1d4 or 1d6 but this was taken from a larger table doing other stuff. 1d8 AFAIK is the lowest die of using two hands, Spear for example would go to 1d8 when held with two hands.
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.
Sorry dude, but it’s talking about actual 1,2 rolls on a dice . Not the actual digit. They would specifically say any digit on a dice, not a roll of 1 or 2 which is specifically about the actual dice roll.
I really, really wish that worked. It just... Doesn't. I'm sorry sir.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
I'm just your everyday dungeon master. Ignore that jar full of souls. And those bones in the corner are just props, don't worry. I'm definitely NOT a lich. Definitely.
Yes, I like beholders. Yes, I curated an exquisite personality for commoner #2864. Yes, my catchphrase is "are you sure?"
Unless you read a 4 and a 5 as 45 (or 54) instead of 9 your argument has no valid basis. If you do then I guess it is consistent at your table and enjoy.
Yes.
Greataxe = 6.5
(2+1[1&2to3]+2+1[second digit of11&12to3]+20*3[10&11&12-+20])/12 = 66/12 = 5.5
Str. = +3
6.5+5.5+3=15
Rogue:
2.5+3(attack)+2.5(light weapon attack) + 3.5(sneak attack) = 11.5
There is no custom lineage in the 2024 rules, and that is also assuming the rogue can sneak attack.
Yes, and you also missed the point.
Fighter with a Greataxe would do roughly 3+1d12 damage on a hit, That would be 10.5 average damage per hit. With what you propose for GWF, you'd increase a 1 or 2 to 3, a 10 to 30, an 11 to 33 and a 12 to 32 (honestly tho, this is clearly wrong). This means the results of GWF become (3+3+3+4+5+6+7+8+9+30+33+33)/12 or an average 12 (an increase of 5.5 per hit), add on the strength modifier of +3, that is 15 average per hit. The fact you can then critical, score 2 11s or 12s should already spell out this is clearly wrong, that would be a +66 to the damage roll, at level 1.
At level 1 that is a ludicrous amount but since everybody but you agrees that the writing is specifying the face value of the die and not an individual numerals within the value. The actual damage per hit of GWF would be (3+3+3+4+5+6+7+8+9+10+11+12)/12=6.75 or an increase of .25 over the expected 6.5 of a Greataxe without GWF. This is the true number and the reason GWF is basically trash tier, only usable with Greatsword and Maul.
EDIT: I actually devised a formula for a spreadsheet to figure out how much damage a weapon does GWF, since it's quiet simple:
WMD(Weapon Maximum Damage)=#Die * DieSize
WADR(weaponAverageDieRoll)=(#of DIE+WMD)/2
Result=WADR+(3*#Die)/DieSize
You can then compare the WMD to the Result to see how much GWF actually added and you get the following table. Just double improvement for critical hits.
This is how it actually works and why I maintain the GWF is just a bad feat. Outside of 2d6 it's terrible. We don't need to worry about 1d4 or 1d6 but this was taken from a larger table doing other stuff. 1d8 AFAIK is the lowest die of using two hands, Spear for example would go to 1d8 when held with two hands.
Sorry dude, but it’s talking about actual 1,2 rolls on a dice . Not the actual digit. They would specifically say any digit on a dice, not a roll of 1 or 2 which is specifically about the actual dice roll.
I really, really wish that worked. It just... Doesn't. I'm sorry sir.
I'm just your everyday dungeon master. Ignore that jar full of souls. And those bones in the corner are just props, don't worry. I'm definitely NOT a lich. Definitely.
Yes, I like beholders. Yes, I curated an exquisite personality for commoner #2864. Yes, my catchphrase is "are you sure?"
.-. .- -. -.. --- -- / -- --- .-. ... . / -.-. --- -.. . .-.-.-
Great weapon fighter is not very powerful. Realistically you are using a 1d12 weapon or a 2d6 weapon.
With a d12 your average damage goes from 6.5 to 6.75.
with 2d6 your average damage goes from 7 to 8.
under normal play you are unlikely to ever notice an increase in damage.
I’m not sure why you thought a ten becomes a 30, but it doesn’t.
Unless you read a 4 and a 5 as 45 (or 54) instead of 9 your argument has no valid basis. If you do then I guess it is consistent at your table and enjoy.
No one actually thinks that's the intent.
pronouns: he/she/they