Two-Hand Tanking Fighting Style - Math help needed

[Oramac]

Sword and Board tanking is boring. So I decided to come up with a Fighting Style that favors Two-Handed Great weapons.

Great Weapon Defense: You've studied the art of avoiding attacks using a Great Weapon. While wielding a Great Weapon and no other weapons or shields, you gain a +2 bonus to AC, and take a -2 penalty on damage dealt with your Great Weapon.

Basically, this gives you the same AC as if you had a shield, but effectively reduces the Great Weapon by one damage die (2d6 becomes 2d4; 1d12 becomes 1d10).

[TheTeaMustFlow]

Great Weapon Defense: You've studied the art of avoiding attacks using a Great Weapon. While wielding a Great Weapon and no other weapons or shields, you gain a +2 bonus to AC, and take a -2 penalty on damage dealt with your Great Weapon.

Basically, this gives you the same AC as if you had a shield, but effectively reduces the Great Weapon by one damage die (2d6 becomes 2d4; 1d12 becomes 1d10).

No it doesn't, it reduces it by two damage die.

Maths:
Average Result of a d12 = 6.5
Average Result of a d10 = 5.5
Average Result of a d8 = 4.5
Average Result of a d12-2 = 6.5-2 = 4.5

[Oramac]

No it doesn't, it reduces it by two damage die.

Maths:
Average Result of a d12 = 6.5
Average Result of a d10 = 5.5
Average Result of a d8 = 4.5
Average Result of a d12-2 = 6.5-2 = 4.5

Crap! See, that's why I ask people to double check my math. :P

So it should probably only be a -1 penalty to damage as trade for the +2AC.

[PoeticDwarf]

You think sword and board is boring maybe, but I see two issues.

1: you could just take both GWM as champion or paladin/fighter.
2: This is just new sword and broad. Shield +sword gives 6.5dmg and +2AC with dueling and this gives 6dmg and +2AC with the beast weapons. So it doesn't add much

Just take protection. That's all

[Oramac]

1: you could just take both GWM as champion or paladin/fighter.

Damn. I didn't think of GWM. Good point.

2: This is just new sword and broad. Shield +sword gives 6.5dmg and +2AC with dueling and this gives 6dmg and +2AC with the beast weapons. So it doesn't add much

The idea wasn't to add anything in particular. It was to give a new option for people who get bored using a shield to tank. The damage reduction was there to try to offset the higher damage of a Great Weapon versus a one-handed weapon. If the damage reduction is unnecessary, the Style would be considerably simpler to write.

[Steampunkette]

How about moving away from bounded numbers and playing with something cool, but costly?

Fighting Style: Heavy Weapon Defense
When wielding a two handed, heavy, or versatile weapon in both hands you may expend your bonus action to gain resistance to weapon attacks.

By using an opportunity cost you avoid GWM and PM cheese, and give the player the choice of offense or defense with the big weapon. You could modify it to nomadic weapons, melee weapons, or other options, too. It also isn't terribly attractive to Barb dips or barbs with fighter dips except as a use when not raging ability.

[Oramac]

How about moving away from bounded numbers and playing with something cool, but costly?

Fighting Style: Heavy Weapon Defense
When wielding a two handed, heavy, or versatile weapon in both hands you may expend your bonus action to gain resistance to weapon attacks.

By using an opportunity cost you avoid GWM and PM cheese, and give the player the choice of offense or defense with the big weapon. You could modify it to nomadic weapons, melee weapons, or other options, too. It also isn't terribly attractive to Barb dips or barbs with fighter dips except as a use when not raging ability.

I like it. Though it still presents the problem of getting hit more than a character with a shield, all else being equal.

A little background on why I'm thinking about this: I've been playing a GWF Oath of Vengeance Paladin in one of my games, which is great, but being the only heavy armor wearing character, and one that deals the most burst damage, I've become the de facto tank of the group.

I don't mind tanking, but losing the +2AC of a shield simply because I want to play with a Heavy Weapon means I've taken more than my fair share of dirt naps. It seemed like sacrificing some weapon damage to gain the AC bonus would allow the same "tankiness" without losing the flavor of using a Heavy Weapon.

[Steampunkette]

Hit 20% more often, take 50% less damage from all attacks. Pretty swank.

Unless your AC is up to the point where you're at exponential mitigation growth. When the enemy needs a 15 or higher to hit you, the relative number of hits grows and each point of AC becomes more important..

Still. I'd suggest trying resistance on for size. The comparative mitigation values favor it, especially if you can spike your AC with it.

[Final Hyena]

Sword and Board tanking is boring. So I decided to come up with a Fighting Style that favors Two-Handed Great weapons.

You dislike sword and board, but want to have its Defence so tried to reskin THF to statistically be the same as sword and board? Why is this not just as boring to you?

Fighting Style: Heavy Weapon Defense
When wielding a two handed, heavy, or versatile weapon in both hands you may expend your bonus action to gain resistance to weapon attacks.

Now this is more the ticket, it gives your fighter the defence in a different way, although my first instinct is that it's too strong. Although are creatures natural attacks considered weapon attacks?

[Oramac]

You dislike sword and board, but want to have its Defence so tried to reskin THF to statistically be the same as sword and board? Why is this not just as boring to you?

It's not the mechanics that bore me. It's that every single "tanky" class requires a shield. Fighter with high AC? SnB. Protection Fighting Style? SnB. Barbarian that's hard to hit? SnB.

Basically, it's the RP aspect of it. When I play a martial character (other than a rogue/monk type), I favor two-handed weapons. I enjoy the flavor far more than some guy with a shield. But in order to play the flavor I like, I'm mechanically less effective at soaking/avoiding damage. Which is bad if I'm the only tank-capable melee in the group.

Now this is more the ticket, it gives your fighter the defence in a different way, although my first instinct is that it's too strong. Although are creatures natural attacks considered weapon attacks?

I'm pretty sure they are, though I'm AFB and could be wrong. It could just be changed to "non-spell attacks" or something like that.

Though it occurs to me that putting resistance on a Fighting Style makes is largely worthless for any Barbarian, since they already get resistance during Rage.

[Final Hyena]

I'm pretty sure they are, though I'm AFB and could be wrong. It could just be changed to "non-spell attacks" or something like that.

If you have a bonus action to take half damage (except from spells), firstly as a fighter do you use your bonus action for anything but second wind? So that means you will pretty much always have it up. So is getting half damage against weapons the most common damage type balanced against the equivalent of +1 ac or +2 dmg. I don't think it's a close competition at all, but that's based on quick head maths, and the assumption that natural attacks are weapon attacks.

Edit;

It's not the mechanics that bore me. It's that every single "tanky" class requires a shield. Fighter with high AC? SnB. Protection Fighting Style? SnB. Barbarian that's hard to hit? SnB.

have you considered monk, they have decent ac and with ki can dodge as a bonus (basically +5 ac).

[Oramac]

If you have a bonus action to take half damage (except from spells), firstly as a fighter do you use your bonus action for anything but second wind? So that means you will pretty much always have it up. So is getting half damage against weapons the most common damage type balanced against the equivalent of +1 ac or +2 dmg. I don't think it's a close competition at all, but that's based on quick head maths, and the assumption that natural attacks are weapon attacks.

It's mainly the difference between damage avoided and damage reduced. Reducing damage is great, but you're still getting hit. With a higher AC, you avoid some hits entirely, so I'd say they're roughly equal. Though I admit I'm no statistician, and haven't done the math to back that up.

have you considered monk, they have decent ac and with ki can dodge as a bonus (basically +5 ac).

True, but to get more than 2 ki points I'd basically just have to play a single-class Monk, and honestly I don't care for the unarmed fighting style. To be fair though, it is worth looking into.

[Final Hyena]

It's mainly the difference between damage avoided and damage reduced. Reducing damage is great, but you're still getting hit. With a higher AC, you avoid some hits entirely, so I'd say they're roughly equal. Though I admit I'm no statistician, and haven't done the math to back that up.

+1 ac means you are being hit 1 less time every 20 dice rolls
so the damage decrease is (average damage)*(1/20)
Lets take a basic guy at level 1 who does 5 average damage on a hit
times by 5% and you get an average decrease of 0.25 damage every swing

Now lets look at that same basic mook
he normally gets 5 damage a hit, which reduced becomes 2.5
How often does he hit? lets assume level 1 THF has 16 ac
He hits on a 12-20, which is 9 times out of 20
(9/20)*(2.5)=1.125

Now this maths is done at level 1 against a very basic enemy and when you up scale to tougher enemies it only benefits the damage resistance as it scales better. If we look at the brown bear.
+5 to hit and 19 damage (merging the two attacks into one for ease)

The fighter with +1 ac gets (1/20)*19=0.95

The fighter with resistance is hit on a 11-20 so (10/20)*(19/2)=4.75

However this maths is sketchy it shows who gains more from their bonus, but not necessaries who actually takes more damage on average, so lets do that.
Bear again +5 with 19 dmg

+1 ac has 17ac
gets hit on 12-20
takes 19 damage
(9/20)*19=8.55 a turn on average

resistance has 16ac
gets hit on 11-20
takes 9.5 damage
(10/20)*9.5=4.75

As you can see the resistance is much better, and this isn't even factoring in that the resistance reduces that extra crit damage.

Edit;
For fairness lets also do that with the mook
+4 to hit and 5 damage

+1 ac has 17ac
gets hit on 13-20
takes 5 damage
(8/20)*5=2

resistance has 16 ac
gets hit on 12-20
takes 2.5 damage
(9/20)*2.5=1.125

As you can see even when damage is low the resistance is still stopping more damage.

[Oramac]

+1 ac means you are being hit 1 less time every 20 dice rolls
so the damage decrease is (average damage)*(1/20)
Lets take a basic guy at level 1 who does 5 average damage on a hit
times by 5% and you get an average decrease of 0.25 damage every swing

Now lets look at that same basic mook
he normally gets 5 damage a hit, which reduced becomes 2.5
How often does he hit? lets assume level 1 THF has 16 ac
He hits on a 12-20, which is 9 times out of 20
(9/20)*(2.5)=1.125

Now this maths is done at level 1 against a very basic enemy and when you up scale to tougher enemies it only benefits the damage resistance as it scales better. If we look at the brown bear.
+5 to hit and 19 damage (merging the two attacks into one for ease)

The fighter with +1 ac gets (1/20)*19=0.95

The fighter with resistance is hit on a 11-20 so (10/20)*(19/2)=4.75

However this maths is sketchy it shows who gains more from their bonus, but not necessaries who actually takes more damage on average, so lets do that.
Bear again +5 with 19 dmg

+1 ac has 17ac
gets hit on 12-20
takes 19 damage
(9/20)*19=8.55 a turn on average

resistance has 16ac
gets hit on 11-20
takes 9.5 damage
(10/20)*9.5=4.75

As you can see the resistance is much better, and this isn't even factoring in that the resistance reduces that extra crit damage.

Edit;
For fairness lets also do that with the mook
+4 to hit and 5 damage

+1 ac has 17ac
gets hit on 13-20
takes 5 damage
(8/20)*5=2

resistance has 16 ac
gets hit on 12-20
takes 2.5 damage
(9/20)*2.5=1.125

As you can see even when damage is low the resistance is still stopping more damage.

And this is why I asked for math help! You've convinced me.

Many thanks!

[Final Hyena]

And this is why I asked for math help! You've convinced me.

Many thanks!

You're welcome, but do consider this is testing it against the +1 ac style, I personally believe that to be weaker than most of the others.
Not only that but there was no consideration as to how often enemies use magic attack rolls.