fighting style for PAM - GWF or Defense

[da newt]

For a lvl 1 V human fighter PAM, is the damage increase of GWF (reroll 1 & 2) or defensive (+1 to AC) the better pick?

I assume there is math that tells you exactly how much of an advantage each provides.

[Contrast]

Bit of a curve ball - I have a paladin who took advantage of the fact thats spears now apply for PAM and uses spear and shield who picked up Dueling style.

More on topic - personally I'd be inclined to go for GWF just because its fun to not do minimum damage.

[Lunali]

There is math that shows the benefits of each, but there's no way to compare them directly. Any given party is going to have a different distribution of attacks, both incoming and outgoing, so there's no way to tell exactly how a defensive buff compares to an offensive one.

[jaappleton]

Defense, by a mile, if using a 2h weapon like a glaive.

Dueling if using a shield with your weapon.

Never GWM.

[MaxWilson]

For a lvl 1 V human fighter PAM, is the damage increase of GWF (reroll 1 & 2) or defensive (+1 to AC) the better pick?

I assume there is math that tells you exactly how much of an advantage each provides.

GWF will increase the average damage on 1d10 from 5.5 to 6.3, and the 1d4 bonus attack goes from 2.5 to 3.0. It doesn't affect static mods like +Str or +magic, so overall it winds up boosting your damage output by something like 7%.

In the best case scenario, Defense will cut the number of times you're hit by 75%. In the more common case it may cut the amount of damage you take by anywhere between 10% and 40%.

I want to say "it depends on what monsters your DM uses, and whether they like single big creatures or many medium creatures", since many medium favors Defense more than single big. But GWF is so marginal that it's actually really hard to come up with scenarios where you'd prefer GWF over defense. Maybe in a very spellcaster-heavy campaign where most of the monsters you meet cast Fireballs at you, so that AC is basically irrelevant--but who would ever run a campaign like that?

In all probability Defense will be a stronger pick for you, but it's hard to predict how much stronger without knowing more about your DM's adventures.

[BloodSnake'sCha]

If you plan on getting extra damage dices then GWF.
Stuff like BB, SA, Smite, Flame tongue (polearm varient if you do stuff like that in your table) and more.

I think it is not as good on a polearm as on a greatsword (1 dice vs 2 dices).

Defense is always good and will help you be more protected without a shield.

[da newt]

Thanks.

BTW - the shield spear combo is mechanically no different from the shield quarterstaff combo, right?

[Rara1212]

If you plan on getting extra damage dices then GWF.
Stuff like BB, SA, Smite, Flame tongue (polearm varient if you do stuff like that in your table) and more.

I think it is not as good on a polearm as on a greatsword (1 dice vs 2 dices).

Defense is always good and will help you be more protected without a shield.

Sadly GWF has been clarified to not work with any other dice than the weapons damage dice. So no re-rolling any extra damage. Unless your DM doesn't care about that ruling of course.

[Neoh]

Well, why don't you test it out? Grab your dice and roll, reroll on a 1 and a 2 and see how much of a difference it makes after a few tries.
It feels good rerolling a 1 into a 9, but how many times do you roll 1/2?

See, that's the problem with GWF, first, you have to hit the target, then you have to roll either a 1 or a 2 for it to have an effect, while Defense is a permanent buff to your character.

GWF utility is dependent on the number of damage dices you roll each turn, so a level 20 Fighter with a Greatsword could roll 8d6 in a single turn (double with Action Surge), giving it more value since it increases the chances you will roll 1s and 2s. Another problem though, you might reroll a 1 into a 1, gaining absolutely no benefit from your feature.
So yeah, I think the average damage you gain is between 0.7 to 1.5 damage depending on the weapon used.

Ofc Defense won't make much of a difference against an Ancient Red Dragon, but you don't fight a +17 to hit ennemy every day.

[BloodSnake'sCha]

Sadly GWF has been clarified to not work with any other dice than the weapons damage dice. So no re-rolling any extra damage. Unless your DM doesn't care about that ruling of course.

I can't find it in any of the recent Errata, where do you take it from?

[Degwerks]

Thanks.

BTW - the shield spear combo is mechanically no different from the shield quarterstaff combo, right?

No difference between the two, other than the damage type and you can always throw the spear if you have to.

[McSkrag]

Defense, by a mile, if using a 2h weapon like a glaive.

Dueling if using a shield with your weapon.

Never GWM.

Yep. Gotta agree with this one.

Having +1 AC is going to be a lot more helpful than doing a little extra damage.

You do zero damage if you're on the ground bleeding out.

[Rara1212]

I can't find it in any of the recent Errata, where do you take it from?

https://dnd.wizards.com/articles/features/rules-answers-april-2016

Okay, it's not an errata, just Sage Advice.
Is it only JC's twitter messages that aren't official anymore or Sage Advice aswell? I can't remember

[Trandir]

Ok I crunched some numbers an here is what I got: your usual halberd or glaive has 1d10 damage and GWF adds a wopping 0.8 to your average attack damage increasing the usual 5.5+Str to 6.3+Str and the "pommel strike" that uses 1d4 increases his damage by 0.5 so you'd get an average of 3+Str with each hit.

Defense makes enemies 5% harder to hit you, but that could change in usefulness depending how far you go and how many enemies you face.


So I'd say pick dueling and use spear, so the regular attack average is 5.5+Str and the pommel average is 4.5+Str, and shield, 1 more AC than two hands combat with defense.

[Contrast]

In the best case scenario, Defense will cut the number of times you're hit by 75%. In the more common case it may cut the amount of damage you take by anywhere between 10% and 40%.

Can you explain these numbers? They don't seem right to me.

Optimal case is they're hitting you on 19s and 20s which you reduce to 20s only so a max of 50% reduction in hits, not 75%. Quickly crunching the maths makes it look like under 10% is way more likely to be accurate than 10-40%. I'm definitely open to being shown that my maths is wrong so would appreciate you showing your working :smallbiggrin:


I can't find it in any of the recent Errata, where do you take it from?

Its in the Sage Advice Compendium (https://media.wizards.com/2019/dnd/downloads/SA-Compendium.pdf).

Edit - ninja'd.

[BullHorn]

I would go with Defense because as a melee character I care more about staying alive on the front-line, let all those spellcasters and archers take care of the damage.

[MaxWilson]

Can you explain these numbers? They don't seem right to me.

Optimal case is they're hitting you on 19s and 20s which you reduce to 20s only so a max of 50% reduction in hits, not 75%. Quickly crunching the maths makes it look like under 10% is way more likely to be accurate than 10-40%. I'm definitely open to being shown that my maths is wrong so would appreciate you showing your working :smallbiggrin:

It's not so much about the math in this case as the tactics. You're forgetting about disadvantage and ways to impose it.

+1 to AC has the biggest marginal value when you're also imposing disadvantage on the enemy due to grapple/prone or spells like Blur, especially against enemies that hit hard but with low accuracy (e.g. hobgoblins). If I've got Blur up, hobgoblins will hit me through plate + shield 16 times in 400, but they'll hit me through plate + shield + Defense style only 9 times in 400.

The more defense you also have, the more that extra +1 is worth, so whether you're getting closer to -10% or -40% damage taken depends on PC tactics and on how the DM writes adventures (dozens of hobgoblins, or just one fire giant and a flameskull?), but my point was that you'll never achieve -75% in practice even though it's the theoretical limit.

[BloodSnake'sCha]

https://dnd.wizards.com/articles/features/rules-answers-april-2016

Okay, it's not an errata, just Sage Advice.
Is it only JC's twitter messages that aren't official anymore or Sage Advice aswell? I can't remember

So it is not the rules.
The default should be the written rules, any difference are table related.
Online you should follow the written rules because there is no DM to rule differently.

For example:
In my table book will fly if someone will try to justify this sage advice as it contradic the written rule.

[MaxWilson]

So it is not the rules.
The default should be the written rules, any difference are table related.
Online you should follow the written rules because there is no DM to rule differently.

For example:
In my table book will fly if someone will try to justify this sage advice as it contradic the written rule.

FWIW, the written rule is itself controversial. I don't read it as applying to smite damage, because that isn't weapon damage. Clearly you disagree. Ultimately it's the DM's call.

[Neoh]

So it is not the rules.
The default should be the written rules, any difference are table related.
Online you should follow the written rules because there is no DM to rule differently.

For example:
In my table book will fly if someone will try to justify this sage advice as it contradic the written rule.


When you make a book with so many rules you're bound to make some errors and have some bad wording and you can't release a new book every time there's ONE anomaly found just to correct it, I mean, it was published in 2014 and 5 years later we still find some rules that are interpreted wrongly.

If you want to abuse the game by only taking into account what's strictly written in the very first book, well, that's your choice.
But I damn sure don't want to see a Wizard doing a few hundreds damage with Magic Missile just because it's worded poorly.

Rules and corrections are made to keep some kind of balance in the game, you wanna tip that balance that's your choice.

[BloodSnake'sCha]

When you make a book with so many rules you're bound to make some errors and have some bad wording and you can't release a new book every time there's ONE anomaly found just to correct it, I mean, it was published in 2014 and 5 years later we still find some rules that are interpreted wrongly.

If you want to abuse the game by only taking into account what's strictly written in the very first book, well, that's your choice.
But I damn sure don't want to see a Wizard doing a few hundreds damage with Magic Missile just because it's worded poorly.

Rules and corrections are made to keep some kind of balance in the game, you wanna tip that balance that's your choice.

There are Erratas, they fix the rules there.
And if I remember right (AFB) the DMG tells you to change the rules that you see not fitting the game.

But I will not engage in an online forum with my house rules, I will do so with the written rules unless the discussion is with noted house rules in effect (I have some problems with wording this, I hope it is easy to understand).


FWIW, the written rule is itself controversial. I don't read it as applying to smite damage, because that isn't weapon damage. Clearly you disagree. Ultimately it's the DM's call.

What about SA and Flame tongue?
What about crit extra dice?

I can understand a reasoning about smite as it worded like this:
"..., in addition to the weapon's damage."

(Which make the fact that GWF is an option for paladins look stupid in my opinion).

[MaxWilson]

There are Erratas, they fix the rules there.
And if I remember right (AFB) the DMG tells you to change the rules that you see not fitting the game.

But I will not engage in an online forum with my house rules, I will do so with the written rules unless the discussion is with noted house rules in effect (I have some problems with wording this, I hope it is easy to understand).

What about SA and Flame tongue?
What about crit extra dice?

I can understand a reasoning about smite as it worded like this:
"..., in addition to the weapon's damage."

(Which make the fact that GWF is an option for paladins look stupid in my opinion).

SA = Sneak Attack... I'd allow that as it is conceptually part of the weapon damage, and GWF specifies that it applies to "a damage die for an attack that you make with a melee weapon that you are wielding with two hands", so Sneak Attack would qualify, if you somehow found yourself wielding a two-handed Finesse weapon.

Crit extra dice, yes, of course.

Flame Tongue also sounds reasonable--it is part of the weapon's base damage.

But smites, no. That's an additional special ability, triggered after you hit and do damage with the weapon. It's not part of the weapon attack and not one of the damage dice to which GWF refers.

[CheddarChampion]

Ok I crunched some numbers an here is what I got: your usual halberd or glaive has 1d10 damage and GWF adds a wopping 0.8 to your average attack damage increasing the usual 5.5+Str to 6.3+Str and the "pommel strike" that uses 1d4 increases his damage by 0.5 so you'd get an average of 3+Str with each hit.

For the curious, rerolling 1's increase the average of a die according to this equation:
(die size -2)/die size.
Do a d4 is (4-2)/4 = 2/4 = 0.5 on average.
d6 = 4/6
d8 = 6/8
Etc.

[JackPhoenix]

Thanks.

BTW - the shield spear combo is mechanically no different from the shield quarterstaff combo, right?

Well, it's piercing instead of bludgeoning damage. Bludgeoning is slightly better damage type, if you can get magic weapon, which matters for things like skeletons (vulnerable to bludgeoning) and flameskulls (resistant to piercing).

[sithlordnergal]

Thanks.

BTW - the shield spear combo is mechanically no different from the shield quarterstaff combo, right?

Literally there is no difference outside of the damage type and the spear being a weaker weapon over all compared to the quarterstaff. Personally I never saw the big issue with the quarterstaff/shield combo.

But then again I am running a Paladin/Druid/Sorcerer with PAM, Shillelgah, a Staff of Power, +3 Shield, and +2 Stone Plate in AL. So I may be a bit biased.

[CNagy]

What about SA and Flame tongue?
What about crit extra dice?

Are there any Finesse Two-handed or Versatile melee weapons? I can't recall any; Sneak Attack might be completely incompatible with it. Flametongue should be compatible, because it is the weapon itself dealing extra damage (i.e. the damage calculation of a Flametongue Longsword held in two hands changes from 1d10 to 1d10+2d6 when activated.) For Critical Hits, it works for the dice that are already applicable to GWF.

[Yunru]

Are there any Finesse Two-handed or Versatile melee weapons?

Sun blades and certain Moon blades.

[Tanarii]

So it is not the rules.

Sage Advice Compendium tells you the official interpretation when there are one or more ways to interpret the way the rule is written.

What it is not supposed to do is change the way the rule is written, the text of the rule. That's what errata is for.

[AdAstra]

Literally there is no difference outside of the damage type and the spear being a weaker weapon over all compared to the quarterstaff. Personally I never saw the big issue with the quarterstaff/shield combo.

But then again I am running a Paladin/Druid/Sorcerer with PAM, Shillelgah, a Staff of Power, +3 Shield, and +2 Stone Plate in AL. So I may be a bit biased.

I’m not sure where you’re getting the idea of the spear being weaker. They do the same damage, the spear can be thrown, and the damage type differences are situational if they come up at all. Obviously a spear isn’t compatible with Shillelagh, but the weapon itself is, if anything, stronger.

[sithlordnergal]

I’m not sure where you’re getting the idea of the spear being weaker. They do the same damage, the spear can be thrown, and the damage type differences are situational if they come up at all. Obviously a spear isn’t compatible with Shillelagh, but the weapon itself is, if anything, stronger.

The main reason I find the Spear is weaker is because it can't work with Shillegah and magical spears tend to be weaker then magical staffs. A Staff of the Woodlands, Staff of Fire, or Staff of Frost is generally better then a +3 Spear or a Backbiter Spear simply because you get bonuses from holding the staff along with the spells the staff has.

If you play without magic items, then the Spear is a bit better, but even then a Shillelagh PAM is a bit better then a normal spear.

[BloodSnake'sCha]

Sage Advice Compendium tells you the official interpretation when there are one or more ways to interpret the way the rule is written.

What it is not supposed to do is change the way the rule is written, the text of the rule. That's what errata is for.

I have marked the word that is problematic for me.

You can't assume which interpretation a table is using, you can write the rule as you understand it. It should be obvious that what someone write is what he know/understand.


Are there any Finesse Two-handed or Versatile melee weapons? I can't recall any; Sneak Attack might be completely incompatible with it. Flametongue should be compatible, because it is the weapon itself dealing extra damage (i.e. the damage calculation of a Flametongue Longsword held in two hands changes from 1d10 to 1d10+2d6 when activated.) For Critical Hits, it works for the dice that are already applicable to GWF.

Dual scimitar from the top of my head.

[Tanarii]

I have marked the word that is problematic for me.

You can't assume which interpretation a table is using, I'm not. I'm just pointing out which one is the official WotC interpretation, per them.

Official rulings on how to interpret rules are made here in the Sage Advice Compendium by the game’s lead rules de- signer, Jeremy Crawford (@JeremyECrawford on Twitter).

Whether or not a given table uses the official interpretation, their own interpretation, or for that matter a house rule that completely re-writes the text, is unrelated.

[AdAstra]

The main reason I find the Spear is weaker is because it can't work with Shillegah and magical spears tend to be weaker then magical staffs. A Staff of the Woodlands, Staff of Fire, or Staff of Frost is generally better then a +3 Spear or a Backbiter Spear simply because you get bonuses from holding the staff along with the spells the staff has.

If you play without magic items, then the Spear is a bit better, but even then a Shillelagh PAM is a bit better then a normal spear.

All of those magic staves have class restrictions that, while not crippling, will make them unavailable to many builds. Shillelagh is only useful for people who have a suitable casting stat (Wis or Cha with Pact of the Tome), and sacrifices a bonus action (and thus an attack) for +1 damage on average and magic damage. In addition, the Frost and Fire staves don't offer any bonus to attack rolls. The spellcasting is great, but they don't improve your melee except for the magic damage.

The Striking and Power Staves, however, are excellent for melee characters (though Power also has class reqs). I think the power of magic staves is somewhat inflated due to the utter lack of magical spears in the DMG. The ones in adventures are usually cursed or character restricted as well. The Blood Spear is amazing if you're chosen, though.