5e Fighting style comparison without feats?


4th Edition


I've seen a bunch of dpr calculations and analysis for different fighting style with feats - sharpshooter and GWM are always on the top. But what about analysis without feats? How does dual wielding compare to two-handed weapons without feats? And so on for the rest of the fighting styles?


Anecdotal evidence at best, but my half-orc fighter was funfunfun with great weapon fighting and a greatsword. Great weapon fighting and savage attacks made her unbelievable on crits, and with GWF and a 2d6 two hander, she does consistently high damage on regular hits.

I also play a half-elf duelist fighter whose crits are nothing special at all, but gets +6 to one handed finesse damage on every single hit. When he hit level four (his current level) I opted not to take a feat in favor of a Dex increase, specifically because I wanted his damage with a short sword to consistently outpace that of joe average with a greatsword.

No, he and my half-orc aren't dating. I don't know why you'd even ask that. :P


Typically, duel wielding is a viable option at low levels, with no real difference in damage from other options. But as you increase in level, GWM and SS significantly out perform dual Wielder. But I'm curious how TWF compares to THF and Archery when you don't have feats.

And I don't have the time to do the analysis right now - so I was hoping that someone else already did. :)

RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

I did NOT do the math, but our party has a ranger archer, a rogue switch-hitter (rapier & bow), a half-orc barbarian with Savage Weapon, and a two-weapon fighting eldritch knight fighter.

The ranger does the most consistent damage, because Horde Breaker and hunter's mark, the barbarian does the most brutal crits (x4 from race and class (level 12)), although the rogue isn't too far behind (14d6+5 with sneak attack crits?), and the fighter has the nastiest nova (7 attacks a round when using Action Surge, 6 with a flame tongue that does an extra +2d6 per hit (12d6 without crits).

My cleric does 2d8+7 due to 8th level cleric ability and Belt of Frost Giant Strength and magic warhammer.

The wizard does wizard damage. :-P

The barbarian uses a greatclub of speed, and might do a lot more damage with a greataxe, but he likes the extra attack.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Playing through Rise of the Runelords (1st-17th), Curse of the Crimson Throne (1st-20th), Council of Thieves (1st-20th) and most of Carrion Crown (1st-13th so far), we've messed around with a lot of builds.

We also implemented a house-rule nerf on both Sharpshooter and Great Weapon Master: Rather than -5 to hit for +10 damage, they instead merely add +2 damage (no penalty to hit). We found the feats still worth it, but not the gamebreakers they are currently (sharpshooter + cunning action and expertise on stealth = crazy. As is GWM + Recklessness).

Archery: Archery is one of those things that is very effective in the game, as it permits a keep-out-of-reach combat style that helps even the odds against hard hitting monsters. Our archers consistently performed brilliantly in every campaign. Getting a massive +2 to hit makes it all the better.

Defence: It's +1 AC. I've never seen anyone take this except when they multiclass and wind up with extra fighting styles (e.g. fighter/ranger). It's... okay, I guess? Works best on characters already high on AC to push them into the game-breaking "Can't Be Hit" range.

Dueling: Consistently good damage, and works particularly well with rangers with Horde Breaker, sword-and-board fighters/paladins and multiclassed monks. Crits aren't too impressive, making it not so hot for barbarians or champion fighters. This was a favourite for a lot of characters, and probably the most common fighting style.

Great Weapon Fighting: We've used this a few times. All told the reroll is a nifty ability to avoid the "I crit you for less than my average normal damage!" effect that we seem to be cursed with. On the whole fighting with a big two-hander is pretty effective, without being grotesquely more damage (ala Pathfinder/3.5). Half-Orcs blending Horde-breaker Ranger and Champion Paladin get very funny with their greatswords.

Protection: We've used this now and then... but honestly it's the one we've seen the least effect in game from, partly because it only applies against a single attack by an enemy, and partly because as luck would have it, the attack wouldn't have hit in the first place. In theory its awesome. In practice... it's merely "okay" in our experience.

Two-Weapon Fighting: In theory this is the highest damage output at low levels (i.e. before 5th) for a fighter or ranger... but the problem is two-fold;

    First, it scales very poorly.
    Second, it has a heavier action economy than all other combat styles, as it consumes your bonus action.

In theory a ranger is better off TWF due to the extra attack giving more damage from hunter's mark, but in practice they need to keep using their bonus action to shift hunter's mark to a new target rather than making offhand attacks - at least 1 round in 3, in my experience - so wind up taking a loss in overall damage output compared to Dueling. Similar deal with multiclass rogues, bards and barbarians - when you have a use for your bonus action already.

Probably the most effective use of TWF is not the ranger or fighter, but the paladin... who don't get it on their list by default =(


Thanks for the analysis Raynulf.

I saw this post earlier today on GitP about Defense and Protection (Link):

Ruslan wrote:

Let's compare Protection with Defense. And let's ignore for a second the fact that Defense helps you while Protection helps someone else. Let's talk about it in general terms of reducing the enemy's DPR. Let's also make a sweeping and possibly inaccurate assumption that half of all attacks are normally hits. We can generalize for different ACs later.

Defense gives you flat +1 AC. Therefore, there's a 5% chance on a per-attack-basis that Defense will change what otherwise would have been a hit into a miss. This ability works always, with no resource investment other than picking the style. Assuming the enemy would hit on 50% of its attacks, now it hits on 45%, and you have effectively reduced the enemy's DPR by 10%.

Protection gives an enemy Disadvantage once per round. Assuming the enemy would hit on 50% of its attacks, it now only hits 25% of the time, and you have effectively lowered its DPR by half. On low levels, when enemies have most often just one attack, this is nothing short of amazing.

However, Protection only applies to one attack. If the enemy attacks 3/round (let's say, something with claw-claw-byte, or just three goblins with one attack each), you're only reducing its DPR by 16.6%. In the general case of suffering N attacks, you've reduced the enemy's DPR by 50/N%.

In fact, as long as you're suffering less than 5 enemy attacks per round, Protection is strictly better than Defense in terms of lowering an enemy DPR. So while it's true that Protection is getting worse as you face more powerful enemies (with more attacks per round), it still provides solid benefits for a very long time.

I think the two biggest strikes against Protection are (a) forcing you into S&B, thus preventing all the Polearm Master and GWM goodies and (b) the use of your Reaction, thus competing with other options. People like options. And seems like most people think the options that Protection takes away outweigh the ones it grants, and that's all there is to it.

RPG Superstar Season 9 Top 16

I've been in two games with Protection users. It's been pretty great in play. Getting other reactions usually costs a feat, and it's true that they might be better, but they also come with that opportunity cost.


My group found twf to cost too much in the fact it used the bonus action (it wasn't tried long enough IMO).
Defence is popular with the guy who always goes high AC for his fighters
Duelist for everyone else.

Sorry now going largely ot here..

Wow Raynulf that's a lot of gaming! - how often do you play?

I was thinking of
-allowing the two weapon fighting style as an option to a paladin - why is it best for them?
-making gwm into cleave by making it useable by any weapon - thoughts?

Does anyone have a good ranged feat that doesn't give the ss bonus, remove all range or cover penalties, or allow ranged attacks while in melee without penalty?


For me, the great strength of the different fighting styles comes back to the strength inherent from a system utilising bounded accuracy - there are differences between them and probably a 'best choice' in any given circumstance (ie If you're not using the cleave rules, I think the TWF option shines when fighting lots and lots of low hit point minions, personally). However, those differences are marginal - if you take the suboptimal choice you can still meaningfully contribute.

It's worth bearing in mind that the 'mega-damage' options are not that much better when analysed in terms of number of rounds to kill an enemy. If your DPR is 20 vs 15 and you're fighting a 60 hp enemy you'll kill it one round quicker, but 19 vs 15 both take four rounds - there's enough variance that it's often not going to matter at all from a practical standpoint. The big damage dealers 'waste' more hit points of damage by taking the creature unnecessarily negative. Paladin smite damage and rogue sneak attack damage suffers from this also - they appear to be doing incredible amounts of damage, especially when criticals come into play, but it is quite often a resource spent for no practical gain (ie the BBEG dies on the same round it would have anyway).

I like the 'different but near-enough' approach - it means I can build my fighter to be whatever takes my fancy, easily pick a mechanical effect which suits that image and not stress too much about whether it's the 'best'. It probably isn't but in the long run it's not going to matter terribly that I've made a second or third rate choice.


Without feats...I have no idea. I've always played with people who allow or use feats, and really no idea how it would run without feats.


If you give TWF a +10 damage or +1d10 damage if both weapons hit the damage evens out for high levels built into the current TWF feat. As is, it's only for hunter's mark/hex users and not great for them without juggling (longsword/rapier; draw/sheath offhand frequently). That's the best "DPR math" based house rule I have seen.

As for best fighting style for combat, the rerolling is the obvious winner with 2d6 weapons even if they don't get the biggest punch in crits. Nearly guaranteed average or better damage is a big effect. Even archery is designed to compensate for cover until you get Sharpshooter.

Mariner is probably my favorite fighting style, and it's in UA but I'd really like to see more utility styles like that or protection. My ranger in OotA being able to swim and climb saved his life multiple times.


Werecorpse wrote:
Wow Raynulf that's a lot of gaming! - how often do you play?

We were doing 3-4 games a week, with me and the other GM alternating each book (e.g. they ran Burnt Offerings, then I ran Edge of Anarchy, then they ran Skinsaw etc), as it gave us a break to do some prep for the next book. The manic pace has largely petered off for various reasons, and currently we're on hiatus before finishing off Carrion Crown and getting into a couple of new campaigns.

But... yeah. It was a rather large amount of table-time :)

Werecorpse wrote:

I was thinking of

-allowing the two weapon fighting style as an option to a paladin - why is it best for them?

Well, each class gets their damage in different ways, and each has different uses for their Bonus Action;

Fighter: Increases damage at higher levels by getting a third (and eventually fourth) attack, whereas everyone else stops at only a single Extra Attack. This is cool... but scales poorly for TWF as it doesn't give you extra offhand attacks. So an 11th level Str 20 fighter is looking at 4 x 1d6+5 (34 avg) with TWF, or 3 x 2d6+5 (40 avg, considering the reroll) with a greatsword, or 3 x 1d8+7 (34.5 avg) with a dueling longsword. You're using your offhand and bonus action each round to deal less damage than the other two options - all told, not a good deal.

Ranger: The Ranger has two issues with the TWF route. First off, hunter's mark is a staple of their capacity do deal damage, but it consumes a bonus action to cast, and a bonus action to switch it to a new target, which clashes with the need to use a bonus action to make offhand attacks. Secondly the Hunter archetype offers additional attacks - one at 3rd level with Horde Breaker, and then Whirlwind Attack at higher levels - this is similar to the Fighter issue, only worse.

Paladin: The Paladin doesn't get a ton of extra attacks - their damage boost at higher levels comes instead from getting Improved Divine Smite which adds +1d8 radiant damage to all attacks. They also have less uses for their bonus actions than Rangers do - divine favour is a bonus action to cast, but otherwise requires no further actions. TWF would then let a paladin get a third attack a round to add in their +1d8 Radiant damage, and potentially burn spell slots smiting with for even higher burst damage.

Werecorpse wrote:
-making gwm into cleave by making it useable by any weapon - thoughts?

The Cleave portion of the feat already works with any weapon. It's only the Power Attack portion that is restricted :)


Paladins also require landing a hit, sot he bonus action use to try and land a hit when you miss is HUGE. However, it's pretty much universally better to use a polearm with Polearm Mastery.

Community / Forums / Gamer Life / Gaming / D&D / 4th Edition / 5e Fighting style comparison without feats? All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.
Recent threads in 4th Edition