(Polearm Master / Sentinel) Vs (Great Weapon Master /abilty score Str)

[Shakart]

First of all, i dont speak english, so apology my language.

I'm going to start playing a campaign with barbarian semi-orc lvl 6 (16 Str, 16 Cons, 14 Dex, 10 Int, 10 Wis, 8 Char), would go the way of warrior totem because I want to be a tank, but what I need to decide is how damage. The 2 options in which I am in doubt are:

1 - Go with a helberd and Polearm Master lvl 4 / Sentinel lvl 8 feats
2- Go with a Greataxe and GWM lvl 4 / Ability score Str

They are two different ways to fight but I would like to know what you think, pros and cons: D

[AgentPaper]

Basically this is a choice between a greatsword and a halberd (maul and glaive are fine too of course).

The greatsword will deal more damage at first, and uses less stat boosts so you'll have an extra ABI. The feat itself is good, but not amazing, and unless you fight lots of weak stuff, I'd suggest maxing out strength first.

The halberd does more damage once you get the feat for the bonus action, and let's you control the field even without sentinel. However this build is feat-heavy and I wouldn't suggest picking up both feats right away. Polearm master is worth picking up asap, but hold on sentinel until you max strength or you'll fall behind. You may find it unnecessary anyways.

If you're not married to the idea of a half orc, consider playing a variant human for the extra feat. That would make the halberd build deal more damage from level 1 and let you pick up sentinel 4 levels earlier than normal.

[MaxWilson]

First of all, i dont speak english, so apology my language.

I'm going to start playing a campaign with barbarian semi-orc lvl 6 (16 Str, 16 Cons, 14 Dex, 10 Int, 10 Wis, 8 Char), would go the way of warrior totem because I want to be a tank, but what I need to decide is how damage. The 2 options in which I am in doubt are:

1 - Go with a helberd and Polearm Master lvl 4 / Sentinel lvl 8 feats
2- Go with a Greataxe and GWM lvl 4 / Ability score Str

They are two different ways to fight but I would like to know what you think, pros and cons: D

Edit: I apologize, I forgot you don't speak native English, and my writing below is quite complicated. You might want to skip to the conclusion. Please ask if anything is unclear.

Here's a simplistic analysis that neglects Reckless Attacks:

Variant 1 is +6 to hit for 2x 1d10 + 3, and 1d4 +3, and sometimes an extra 1d10 + 3 per hit, plus an extra 2d10 on a crit. Total expected damage per round is (27 - TargetAC)/20 * (23.5 or sometimes 32) + (2 or 3 * 11/20 + 5/20). Assuming I haven't messed up on my math, against AC 13 you'll do 24.3 damage per round if you get to use your reaction attack, against AC 18 you'll do 16.3. At level 8 you'll do the same damage but will take less damage due to the Sentinel stop.

Variant 2 is +6 to hit for 2x 1d12 + 3, and sometimes an extra 1d12 + 3, plus 2d12 on a crit. I'm not sure how to compute the bonus attack frequency but let's compute bounds on it: at minimum you will get a bonus attack 10% of your rounds (for crits on tough solo enemies) and at maximum you will get one on every single round (killing a kobold with every blow). Total expected damage per round for solo enemies ((27 - TargetAC)/20 * 9.5) + 13/20) * 2.1, for weak groups of enemies it's no more than ((27 - TargetAC)/20 * 9.5) + 13/20) * 3. Power attacking adds 10 damage at a cost of -5 to-hit, so from ((22 - TargetAC)/20 * 19.5) + 13/20) * 2.1 to ((22 - TargetAC)/20 * 19.5) + 13/20) * 3.

With variant 2, that means that against AC 13 you'll do from 15.33 to 21.9 points of damage per turn without power attacking (depending on how many kills you score) and from 19.8 to 28.3 when power attacking, so you should power attack. Against AC 18 you'll do from 10.3 to 14.8 points of damage without power attack (depending) and from 9.6 to 13.65 with power attack, so you should not power attack.

At level 8 you add +2 Strength, so vs. AC that's 17.9 to 25.6 points of damage without power attack and 22.9 to 32.7 with power attack. Against AC 18 that's 12.4 to 17.7 without power attack, 12.1 to 17.3 with power attack, so it doesn't really matter if you power attack or not.

Conclusion:
Variant 1 gives about 15 damage/round against heavily-armored enemies, about 25 damage/round against lightly armored ones. It provides more safety at level 8.
Variant 2 gives from 10 to 14 damage/round against heavily-armored enemies, about 15 to 30 damage/round against lightly armored ones. At level 8 those numbers go up slightly.

It looks to me as if Variant 1 is likely to do competitive damage against all but the most lightly-armored swarms of enemies and to be safer as well. Check my assumptions though to see if they match your expectations for the enemies you'll face: in particular my conclusion assumes that Variant 1 will always get to use his reaction attack (won't be the case if someone manages to get in his face). Reckless attack will result in more crits and more kills, both of which should skew the analysis towards Variant 2, but it was too complicated to analyze right now so I didn't--the above is complicated enough! Be very aware therefore that I'm only giving you half an analysis.

HTH.

[MustacheFart]

I can make it real simple.

It depends on the other players. If other people are playing melee characters and your DM will be attacking them as well then go Sentinel right away. Before, Polearm Master. You'll thank me for it later. An entire extra attack per turn will trump a lot at the early levels.


I have played a Half Orc barbarian to see that the above is true. I am still playing a half orc barbarian for that matter.

[Daishain]

I can make it real simple.

It depends on the other players. If other people are playing melee characters and your DM will be attacking them as well then go Sentinel right away. Before, Polearm Master. You'll thank me for it later. An entire extra attack per turn will trump a lot at the early levels.
I don't know, my polearm master paladin has been getting plenty of extra attacks with his bardiche. Sentinel in my experience is only slightly more likely to let you trigger that reaction, and I find myself wanting to stop someone from entering my zone more often than trying to prevent someone leaving it.

Of course, if going for a weapon master type character, one that changes weapons types quite often, sentinel is much more appropriate.

[MustacheFart]

I don't know, my polearm master paladin has been getting plenty of extra attacks with his bardiche. Sentinel in my experience is only slightly more likely to let you trigger that reaction, and I find myself wanting to stop someone from entering my zone more often than trying to prevent someone leaving it.

Of course, if going for a weapon master type character, one that changes weapons types quite often, sentinel is much more appropriate.

No, no no. Note how I mentioned the part about "If other players are playing melee characters and your DM will be attacking them." Sentinel also gives you a free attack when an enemy ignores you over someone else. This was the primary reason I stated that I would choose sentinel. Players often tend to group up so that's a huge benefit.

The preventing disengage is nice but that's icing on the cake for it's other ability.

[MaxWilson]

No, no no. Note how I mentioned the part about "If other players are playing melee characters and your DM will be attacking them." Sentinel also gives you a free attack when an enemy ignores you over someone else. This was the primary reason I stated that I would choose sentinel. Players often tend to group up so that's a huge benefit.

The preventing disengage is nice but that's icing on the cake for it's other ability.

But Polearm Master gives you that same reaction attack, only you don't have to wait for them to attack somebody, they just have to approach. Plus you get the 1d4 + STR bonus attack. Offensively, Polearm Master is superior to Sentinel.

[MustacheFart]

But Polearm Master gives you that same reaction attack, only you don't have to wait for them to attack somebody, they just have to approach. Plus you get the 1d4 + STR bonus attack. Offensively, Polearm Master is superior to Sentinel.

Except for the fact that polearm master essentially only works once per enemy. Better hope you drop him with that reaction attack when he enters your reach. With Sentinel you can keep getting reaction attacks each turn that he ignores you. In a party with more than one melee character (very realistic) in which multiple enemies are thrown at you at once (also very realistic), sentinel is going to mean far more reaction attacks, period. Even with 10' reach not every enemy is automatically going to enter your reach. Remember that they have to enter your reach. It doesn't activate if you enter theirs. It's a lot more likely that enemies will attack a comrade rather than enter your reach. This is just because DMs typical share the love.

Also it is worth noting that Polearm Master requires a reach weapon while sentinel does not. Unless of course you go the whole quarterstaff cheese route but the OP mentioned Halberd I believe so that's moot. Anyway, this is a huge deal. 10' reach carries with it a significant disdvantage in that it gives your enemies a very sizeable area in which to move about freely. They don't have to worry about provoking from you at 5' anymore. They can move around 10' in all directions.

Since sentinel doesn't require a reach weapon you will end up with more reaction attacks; specifically, more AoOs since enemies can't disengage from you, and you're capable of wielding a shield for +2 AC.

Because of all of that I think it's far too presumptuous to say Polearm Master = superior to Sentinel. I maintain my point that both are good but it depends on other factors as to which is better.

[MaxWilson]

Because of all of that I think it's far too presumptuous to say Polearm Master = superior to Sentinel. I maintain my point that both are good but it depends on other factors as to which is better.

You make some good points. I don't personally find them persuasive enough[1] to change the offensive rating of Sentinel (although it is pretty good defensively), but what matters isn't my subjective rating of "superior" vs. "inferior" but that the OP has heard all the arguments and can make his own decision based on how his combats tend to play out. So, thank you for raising those points.

[1] My objections are threefold: 1.) the enemy can avoid your Sentinel attacks simply by attacking you instead of someone else, 2.) if you're the point guy, every single melee monster has to eventually enter your reach (triggering an opportunity attack) in order to attack anyone else, so you get plenty of reaction attacks, 3.) you're neglecting the bonus 1d4 + STR attack. Objections #1 and #2 are situational, and apparently you play in games where neither is a factor--maybe you fight solo enemies in company with other melee dudes who have lower AC than you--but #3 is always true.

[Easy_Lee]

The extra attack and opportunity attack from polearm master are stronger offensive tools than sentinel unless you are in a situation where friendlies within your reach are often attacked.

If you have a shield-wall in your party, take sentinel and stand behind him, preferably in a doorway. Every time something tries to hit him in melee, you get a sentinel AOO.
If you have a bear druid in your party, take mounted combabtant, ride the druid, and have him take sentinel. When mobs try to hit him, they hit you instead at your choice due to MC. He then gets a sentinel AOO

The correct choice depends on party composition and build. I'd personally want both as soon as possible. For that reason, I think variant human is the overall superior race for polearm masters, especially barbarians who are more stats-dependent anyway.

[MustacheFart]

You make some good points. I don't personally find them persuasive enough[1] to change the offensive rating of Sentinel (although it is pretty good defensively), but what matters isn't my subjective rating of "superior" vs. "inferior" but that the OP has heard all the arguments and can make his own decision based on how his combats tend to play out. So, thank you for raising those points.

[1] My objections are threefold: 1.) the enemy can avoid your Sentinel attacks simply by attacking you instead of someone else, 2.) if you're the point guy, every single melee monster has to eventually enter your reach (triggering an opportunity attack) in order to attack anyone else, so you get plenty of reaction attacks, 3.) you're neglecting the bonus 1d4 + STR attack. Objections #1 and #2 are situational, and apparently you play in games where neither is a factor--maybe you fight solo enemies in company with other melee dudes who have lower AC than you--but #3 is always true.

I'm going to respond to your end three points:

1) If the enemy attacks you instead of someone else in order to avoid the sentinel then that is exactly what the OP is asking for. He said he wants to be a tank. You do know that being a tank requires taking the attacks before anything else, right? That's another point for Sentinel.

2) No they don't. Not every adventure involves going down a narrow hallway in a dungeon. You could have encounters completely out in the open in which there are 6-10 enemies. Not all of them are going to automatically face off against you by there choice. My point stands here.

3) I didn't neglect it. It's a benefit of Polearm Master for sure. However, since the OP stated he wanted to be a tank I suggested Sentinel over that.


The extra attack and opportunity attack from polearm master are stronger offensive tools than sentinel unless you are in a situation where friendlies within your reach are often attacked.

If you have a shield-wall in your party, take sentinel and stand behind him, preferably in a doorway. Every time something tries to hit him in melee, you get a sentinel AOO.
If you have a bear druid in your party, take mounted combabtant, ride the druid, and have him take sentinel. When mobs try to hit him, they hit you instead at your choice due to MC. He then gets a sentinel AOO

The correct choice depends on party composition and build. I'd personally want both as soon as possible. For that reason, I think variant human is the overall superior race for polearm masters, especially barbarians who are more stats-dependent anyway.

I bolded the above parts that I find hilarious. I find them hilarious because you state them, almost perfectly parroting what I said, as if you didn't realize I've already said all of that. DID ANYONE READ MY POST?

I stated very clearly (with a non-english speaker in mind) that it depends on party makeup and how your DM distributes damage. If you have other players who will be in melee and your DM will be attacking them then sentinel WILL edge out Polearm Master. It will especially edge out Polearm Master if you're looking to be a tank which the OP said he was.

I am all for well-informing the OP but let's do so without half-truths. The fact is, at lower levels pretty much everyone gets attacked and regularly. Because of this sentinel will fair better in usefulness. If you're wanting to be a tank then even more so as most DMs WILL start attacking you then in order to avoid the extra attack from Sentinel.

I've actually playtested both with different DMs. Unless you're going to be doing nothing but a cramped dungeon crawl and purely want offense, then Sentinel is much better.

[MaxWilson]

Thanks for stating your counter-argument, Mustache. You make some good points. I hope that helps the OP make up his mind.

[Easy_Lee]

I bolded the above parts that I find hilarious. I find them hilarious because you state them, almost perfectly parroting what I said, as if you didn't realize I've already said all of that. DID ANYONE READ MY POST?


If someone says the same thing as you, it's because they agree with you. I posted that from mobile, and I wasn't replying to something you said, but to the OP. You'll have to forgive me for not taking the time to carefully go through the thread and quote anyone who agrees with me, from my phone.