Hi everyone, longtime lurker here.
As a DM I was a bit dissapointed with the new GWF ability. First, I think its too fiddly. I like to keep combat fast, and rerolling dice is a pain. Second, as has been pointed out in another thread, it increases the gap between Greatswords and Greataxes.
What if instead of rerolling 1s and 2s, any damage dice always did at least half the maximum. So for example, if I roll a d12, any result of 5 or less counts as a 6. If I roll 2d6, then a roll of 1 or 2 on either dice counts as a 3.
I feel this has some nice properties. First of all, it looks really good to a player. It means they'll never have a dissapointing damage roll.
Second, the math works out very well. Crunching the numbers, this moves a Greataxe to an average damage of 7.75 and a Greatsword to an average of 8. In other words, the Greataxe is slightly better, and the Greatsword slightly worse than under the current rule.
Lagueppe wrote:
It also might open up feats. We don't know that until we see the PHB. I'll personally leave it as is, for the moment...I do like how it makes great weapon attacks 'brutal' like the 4e special weapon property. But you are right, RAW, it really favors the 2d6 great sword over the 1d12 great axe.
I'm hoping for a feat that lets GWF's hit more than one adjacent opponent, or do some DoaM to further balance them with casters.
Another easy fix is to just make greataxes 2d6 like mauls and great swords...
Lagueppe wrote:
Lagueppe wrote:
Orzel wrote:
1) The new GWF ability was implemented to avoid the highly controversial "Damage on a Miss" mechanic.
2) This ability is similar to the 4e Brutal mechanic.
3) It's really easy and fun to re-roll damage dice! Rolling a 1 or 2 is always pretty disappointing. Now the player can say, "darn, only rolled a 2....wait a minute! I can re-roll it yay!" You don't have to count or do any math. If it's a 1 or 2, you reroll. Simple as that.
4) Bonus points to this ability for helping with the Critical Hit Damage. Imagine rolling 4d6 for your Critical Hit with a Greatsword! All of those potential 1's and 2's on the d6 can be rolled over. You're practically guaranteed to get at LEAST one or two 6's in there.
I agree about faster combat resolution, but I don't think rerolling is going to really gunk up the system or anything.
I dislike rerolling weapon damage myself. Probably due to the player I had who took forever to roll out 3[W] damage with the brutal 2 property in 4E.
The bigger issue is that it lets you reroll any damage dice, including sneak attack, slayer's momentum etc.
Yes, I also noticed that great weapon fighting was not a great option for a great weapon fighter. If you are using a 2 handed sword (greatsword), your expected damage per d6 goes from 3.5 to 4.17 (rounding to 2 digits), so your expected damage only goes from 7 to 8.32 (rounding to 2 digits), That is less that +2 to damage. Compare that with the duelist option that gives you +2 damage. Now consider that a duelist gets to use a shield...
For a great axe (1d12), your expected damage goes from 6.5 to 7.34 (rounding to 2 digits), less than +1 to damage.
FFSAA wrote:
seti wrote:
Ramzour wrote:
The only reason I can see for making the great weapon fighter option give you less than +1 to damage is that the designer was thinking that greatweapon fighters are supposed to be big, strong, dumb guys that like to roll a bunch of dice, but who don't actually do the math.
Paraxis wrote:
I'll probably put DoaM back in. I was thinking just for GWF, but honestly, probably everywhere.
GWF does feel like it needs something tho. So maybe just there. I don't know.
Ramzour wrote:
Paraxis wrote:
I'd vote for getting +1.5 Str.
During the playtest I said that the only fighting style that I didn't think was boring was Protection. Even with the new GWF style I stand by that assessment; it also raises my hackles that protection now requires a shield instead of a weapon or shield.
I'll probably just invent my own versions of the fighting styles.
I think the fix for the awful metagameyness of DoaM is great.
People complaining about having to roll another dice once every few throws - I guess you guys could complain about the necessity to use a look up chart for the chances of teleportation being wrong, or about every rule not being hyperlinked...
... it 'wastes' a second or two a handful of times per combat encounter AT MOST.
As for those who want to re-introduce DoaM 'because' of this rule - don't think you are fooling anyone with that little bit of misdirection as to your real reasons, we all know what they really are... 
Wow, did not expect all this feedback. Thanks everyone!
mestewart3 wrote:
Ramzour wrote:
Lagueppe wrote:
I still think the solution to DoaM is having a feat for it. A feat geared towards great weapon fighters.
That way, people who hate it never need use it, and people who like it can take the feat. Problem solved, IMO.
I also hope there's a GWF related feat that allows one to hit multiple foes, further down the road, ie: as a great weapon focused fighter levels up. Fighters and barbarians who love the big weapons should have the options to build a crazy great weapon fighter over their 20 levels. I bet there's lots of great weapon people out there who'd love to have a group of feats that allow them to eventually do DoaM, make 'burst' attacks when surrounded, and generally hear the lamentations of their enemies' women.
It is a classic fantasy trope, after all.
PS: On giving it more thought, I think it might be best to make the great sword, great axe, and maul 1d12. a) it'd level the playing field with them, b) as someone said above, the d12 needs love, c) then no weapon would roll two damage dice with just a 'regular' hit.
seti wrote:
seti wrote: