Using the Basic Rules PDF, it looks like Great Weapon Fighting style will be generally more damage than Two Weapon Fighting (and strictly more damage than Duelist). However, with enough bonus damage, Two Weapon Fighting pulls ahead, so I wanted to list some of those break points. Specifically, at low levels, Two Weapon Fighting can produce more damage.
(Note that the Haste spell and Action Surge favor Great Weapon Fighting.)
Attacks Bonus Damage Needed for
per Attack Action TWF >= GWF (ability, magic, feat, etc.)
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1 + 2
2 + 7 (roughly equal at +6)
3 +11 (equal)
4 +16
5 (haste) +21
8 (action surge) +36
9 (haste + surge) +40 (equal)
This bonus could include relevant ability score bonus, magic weapon bonus, and possibly more.
GWF adds slightly less (like +1.6, if i'm remembering right) damage then dualist.
But yes, TWF doesn't keep up. At last not without items/buffs/ect..
It will be interesting to see what the TWF feat gives you.
mellored wrote:
GWFer will still out-damage the duelist... using a greatsword, GWF does 8.33 + bonuses, using a longsword duelist does 6.5+bonuses.
2Chlorobutanal wrote:
GWF adds +1.333, no?
(For 1d6, you have a 2/3 chance to roll a 3-6, with an average of 4.5, and a 1/3 chance to reroll, with an average of 3.5. Together that averages 4.166, you get two of them for 8.333. Normal damage averages 7.)
GWF is +0.833 for the greataxe, and +0.80 for a glaive.
Yeah. I think he's comparing the strength of the bonuses granted by the features in a vacuum.
Great Weapon Fighting style (with a greatsword, best case) gives all your attacks essentially +1.333 damage (multiplied on crits).
Duelist style gives all attacks +2 (not multiplied on crits).
Two Weapon Fighting style gives +0 to +5 damage, once a turn (not multiplied on crits).
However, given the action choices and weapons involved, it means more to compare the total function of the styles, I think.
Using a greatsword with the fighting style will outdamage longsword with duelist (as it should, since you can technically use a shield with duelist).
Two-weapon fighting can potentially outdamage both a duelist and a great weapon fighter with enough static bonuses to your damage, but this seems unfeasible in Basic Rules.
By the way, the formula I got to compare the damage of a greatsword against two shortswords (using combat styles) was:
When d >= 4.833a - 3.5, two short swords will roughly equal or outdamage a greatsword (not accounting for critical hits)
where d is your bonus damage and a is the number of times you can attack in one turn (without off-hand attacks).
jaelis wrote:
mellored wrote:
I have a Wood Elf with a 20 Dex, Dueling Style a Rapier, Studded Leather and a Shield. HIs to hit bonus at 1st level is +7, higher than most, his damage is 1d8+7 (so 8-15 damage range), and his AC is 19. I'd rather have that consistency than a GWF getting stuck with a 1 or 2 on his re-roll, even with the modified Brutal that style grants him.
mellored wrote:
It seems to me that dueling fighting style is overpowered if a shield is allowed. Without a shield it's a little weaker than the other styles to start--but at high enough levels it seems to outshine TWF in damage potential.
Am I off-base here, or are others going to be houseruling "no shield allowed"?
Sword_of_Spirit wrote:
I'm looking at weapons that the styles apply to as well as the benefits of the style itself.
So if I'm seeing it right, an 11th level dueling fighter would look like this:
(4.5 (longsword or rapier) + 2 (dueling) + 5 (ability)) x 3 = 34.5 average damage
A TWF's average would look like this:
(3.5 (shortsword or scimitar) + 5 (ability)) x 4 = 34
So it appears to me that dueling is beating TWF by level 11, all other things equal. Of course, if the TWF has two magic weapons, or a spell effect, etc, they win. With an action surge the duelist wins.
Seems close enough that adding a +2 AC for a shield is really skewing things in the direction of dueling style. But again, I'm not the math analysis guy, so just wondering if I'm alone in this one. Comparing dueling with a shield to GWF with a greataxe, it's hardly worth the axe. Greatsword will give you +2 damage over dueling, but how does +2 damage compare to +2 AC in 5e?
I would like a confirmation on the duelist style rule. It strikes me as poorly worded. In spirit I would say it's intent was for it to be a "swashbuckler" style, in past generations of D&D that generally just meant just one weapon in one hand and nothing else in the other. However swashbucklers in reality did use shields(swashbuckler comes from the noise that was made when they would walk around and their bucklers would make a noise) or another weapon as a defensive item instead of an attacking one. So when you stack the wording of the rule up to real history a shield would be not out of context.
By the letter of the rule, it says "no weapon" as opposed to "free hand" or "empty hand." It seems odd that a shield fighter would have 3 possible styles to choose from (+1 AC, +2 damage, reaction to impose disadvantage on attacks vs adjacent allies), but maybe that is to offset the lower damage of a single 1-handed weapon.
If I were DM, I would have no problem letting a shield-user benefit from duelist style.
It looks like, by the way combat works, Fighters were not really intended to be two-weapon fighters, in which case it seems odd that they have it as a combat style.
Or you could take archery and throw your shield 
Well, the problem for me is that I want something that provides a reason to fight without something in the off-hand. Sure, someone can always simply choose to have their character not wield a shield even when the rules allow them to. But losing a +2 to AC to fit a character's visual style is unfair to the player. If the rule actually disallow shields, then someone can take Dueling fighting style and not feel like they are being overly punished.
Sword_of_Spirit wrote:
The standard argument is that fighting with only one hand is a genuine handicap, like fighting with your eyes closed. You can do it if you want to or have to, but there's no obvious reason for the rules to make it an effective option.
The big advantage of Duelist is you can be a fighter/mage (or cleric) and have the hand free for somantic components while still getting a damage boost.
I concur that historically speaking the Sword & Buckler man held a key role in close quarters combat from the Burgundian Wars through to the Thirty Years' War. This combo is well represented with the Dueling Style with the Shield's +2 AC bonus factored in.
Sword_of_Spirit wrote:
I tweeted mike to ask about the shield and dueslist question.
I actually prefer longsword and empty hand to rapier and empty hand (though I want both supported). You see it all the time in fantasy fiction of all sorts, from books to movies, to anime, to video games, etc. It just looks cool. D&D has only supported it (to my knowledge) in the 2e Complete Fighter's Handbook. I'm really hoping to see it supported in 5e.
Now, as has been said, there could very well be a feat for this. If so, that's fine--as long as it isn't limited to finesse weapons.
Some reasons I can see for a fighter to fight with one hand free:
1. Eldricht knight using the free hand for spells (also includes High Elf fighters with high Int and attack spells or Fighters/Wizards).
2. Fighters who really like to grapple when they fight.
3. Everyone else has darkvison, but the fighter still needs to carry a torch.
4. Really likes to interact with the environment.
For historical fencing I can only recall hearing about using one hand free in fencing when using sabres and similar, so notably later than the period inspiring D&D.
@mikemearls Hey Mike, if a fighter with the Duelist combat type uses a shield, does he still get his bonus? The text reads "no weapon". Thx - 16 Jul
@JJenks3 yes, believe so.
Shield is not part of the weapon class of items so it makes sense that you would still get the bonus. If they wanted you not to get it with a shield they would of had to specify open hand or not holding anything, etc
No harm in clarifying.
Never said there was.
One reason to fight with a hand free would be to make use of the grapple option. So a duelist could have weapon in one hand, other hand free. Aproach one enemy, grapple, drag them where you want, pummel with rest of attacks.
These all seem like fun and legitimate reasons to have an empty hand while fighting
Of course. But are they worth skipping out on a +2 AC entirely?
If I want to cast somatic spells or grapple people as part of some character concept, sure. I also think that freeing up my Cunning Action as a multiclass rogue is a pretty compelling reason. Taking about 20% more damage/attack-based special effects is just something to consider when examining the costs and benefits of an idea. There may well be other ways to get bonus AC from features or feats that replace a shield, or there could be force shield rings or dancing shields as magic items.
TWF also has the benefit of being able to spread out your attacks, which can mean less "overkill" or "wasted damage". Not sure if I missed someone already saying that...
2Chlorobutanal wrote: