PAM - shield and staff/spear vs glaive

[da newt]

I've seen a few posts suggesting shield and spear PAM builds, but I can't wrap my head around why you'd go that way over the glaive / halberd version primarily because the loss of GWM damage (and reach) seems to really cripple DPR, and greatly reduce the effectiveness of Sentinel.

I understand that the shield & spear PAM can be better than sword and shield in many ways (the bonus butt stroke and OA when entering or exiting melee range), but I can't see it being on par with the traditional PAM.

Am I missing something?

[nickl_2000]

Assuming no magic:
2 Extra AC
Dueling fighting style
Simple weapons
Usable by small creatures
Don’t have to take GWM


I’m sure there are others as well, but that’s what I have.

[Zhorn]

spear throw for those emergency ranged attacks

[BloodSnake'sCha]

spear throw for those emergency ranged attacks

A master thrower is a fighter that specialise in disarming himself, but a master thrower have more then one weapon.

I hope you have a place for a few extra spears.

[Sparky McDibben]

I hope you have a place for a few extra spears.

Quiver of Ehlonna, baby!

Feats like PAM and GWM are sometimes called "feat taxes" because they are a cost to get your build online. Being able to reduce the number of feats, then, makes the build viable with lower stats and/or from earlier levels. It's an opportunity cost thing.

[Contrast]

...primarily because the loss of GWM damage (and reach) seems to really cripple DPR, and greatly reduce the effectiveness of Sentinel.

I did it on a paladin because I wanted the defence, paladins have a bit more pressure to use ASIs for stat increases and I can already turn on pretty decent damage at will.

I'm also considering picking up Shield Master at some point in the future to fully round out the ancient paladins habit of going 'screw you that's ineffective against me' but only once I've capped out strength and boosted charisma a bit.


Also if I'm being honest I kinda just liked the imagery of a guy with a spear and a shield.

[Yunru]

I've seen a few posts suggesting shield and spear PAM builds, but I can't wrap my head around why you'd go that way over the glaive / halberd version primarily because the loss of GWM damage (and reach) seems to really cripple DPR, and greatly reduce the effectiveness of Sentinel.

I understand that the shield & spear PAM can be better than sword and shield in many ways (the bonus butt stroke and OA when entering or exiting melee range), but I can't see it being on par with the traditional PAM.

Am I missing something?
GWM adds on average about 3 points, only 1 more than Dueling (GWF adds a laughably small amount).

So 1 damage per hit for not needing a feat, so an ASI boosting damage and accuracy by 1.

[Zhorn]

Also if I'm being honest I kinda just liked the imagery of a guy with a spear and a shield.

Which is the best way to go about character creation. Optimisation is great and all, but flavour for enjoyment and personal appeal gives you characters you enjoy more in the long run.

[Tanarii]

Because you don't start with three feats? Have to take them in some kind of order.

That's 8 levels for a variant human, typically somewhere between 14 and 28 sessions of play, assuming 1 adventuring day per session. For a non-variant human that's level 12, or 23 to 45 sessions. Getting there takes a bit of time.

Of course YMMV.
- Maybe your group can power level you to some degree (AL).
- Maybe your DM originally misread the rule on XP and awarded it by encounter difficulty adjusted XP instead of total creature XP, and keeps doing it because it 'makes sense' and also continuity. *raises own hand*
- Maybe your table does combats much faster than the apparent community standard, and in a single 3-4 session you can do another half or so of an adventuring day.
- Maybe your DM uses the Leveling Without XP rules (incorrectly colloquially known as milestones on these boards). AFAICT DMs doing the latter almost universally advance PCs even faster than 5e's already lightning fast XP advancement.

[sithlordnergal]

I've seen a few posts suggesting shield and spear PAM builds, but I can't wrap my head around why you'd go that way over the glaive / halberd version primarily because the loss of GWM damage (and reach) seems to really cripple DPR, and greatly reduce the effectiveness of Sentinel.

I understand that the shield & spear PAM can be better than sword and shield in many ways (the bonus butt stroke and OA when entering or exiting melee range), but I can't see it being on par with the traditional PAM.

Am I missing something?

While I do consider spear PAM builds to be subpar, I prefer staff PAM builds over reach weapons primarily because I prefer the defense.The loss of GWM doesn't actually cripple DPR as much as you might think, and I actually tend to ignore two handed weapons in favor of a shield. There are also certain things you can pull off with a staff PAM build that make it downright nuts. Shillelagh is the best example, turning your d6 staff into a lovely d8 weapon that you can still use with PAM. Not to mention there are far more magical staffs then there are magical polearms in the DMG, so if you get your hands on one with Shillelagh and PAM you'll still have a d8 weapon that can be used with PAM while gaining all the benefits of carrying that staff.

[Tanarii]

The loss of GWM doesn't actually cripple DPR as much as you might think,
Isn't it something like a 30-40% boost by level 5? I'll have to see if I can find Kryx's damage analysis worksheets. I may be thinking of a Raging Reckless GWM PAM build or something.

[sithlordnergal]

Isn't it something like a 30-40% boost by level 5? I'll have to see if I can find Kryx's damage analysis worksheets. I may be thinking of a Raging Reckless GWM PAM build or something.

To be honest, I'm not really sure...If there is a massive DPS disparity then it hasn't been enough to notice it when I've been with builds who do use PAM with reach weapons. =o Either way, I find the loss of being able to use a shield, which is +2 to +5 AC respectivly depending on if you have a magic shield or not, to be too high of cost. Plus being able to use PAM and Shillelgah with a good magical staff is just too much fun. Especially if you happen to find a Staff of Power in AL. You become a beast of sorts, what with its +2 to attacks, damage, saves, AC and spell attacks while also letting you add 1d6 Force damage to every hit X3

[Tanarii]

Well simple math, which isn't always the best way to judge, says it's roughly about a 36% DPR increase at level 5, without advantage.

.60*((5.5+3)*2+(2.5+3)) ~= 13.5 DPR
.35*((5.5+3)*2+(2.5+3)+30) = 18.375 DPR

Edit: note you have to be a variant human to have both PAM and GWM at level 5. Also it means have a Str of 16.

In fact that's generally worth noting to the OP. A full GWM/PAM/Sentinel combination means PC's Str stays at 16 until level 16 if not a Variant Human, and 12 for a Vuman. Unless of course you're a Fighter, then your minimum to raise Str becomes 8 for a Vuman and 12 for everyone else.

[Yunru]

Well simple math, which isn't always the best way to judge, says it's roughly about a 36% DPR increase at level 5, without advantage.

.60*((5.5+3)*2+(2.5+3)) ~= 13.5 DPR
.35*((5.5+3)*2+(2.5+3)+30) = 18.375 DPR

Edit: note you have to be a variant human to have both PAM and GWM at level 5. Also it means have a Str of 16.

In fact that's generally worth noting to the OP. A full GWM/PAM/Sentinel combination means PC's Str stays at 16 until level 16 if not a Variant Human, and 12 for a Vuman. Unless of course you're a Fighter, then your minimum to raise Str becomes 8 for a Vuman and 12 for everyone else.

But what about when you account for the change in Fighting Style and taking +2 stat over GWM?

0.65*((5.5+6)*2+(2.5+6)) = 20.475 DPR
0.35*((5.5+13)*2+(2.5+13)) = 18.375 DPR

[Tanarii]

But what about when you account for the change in Fighting Style and taking +2 stat over GWM?

0.65*((5.5+6)*2+(2.5+6)) = 20.475 DPR
0.35*((5.5+13)*2+(2.5+13)) = 18.375 DPR
Probably reasonable to assume a fighting style, since we're likely not comparing a barbarian, but rather a fighter or paladin, given S&B is the comparison. And good point on the ASI, both on damage & hit rate. but with GWF the second becomes:
0.35*((6.3+13)*2+(3+13)) = 19.11 DPR

Which is still lower. Looks like advantage or a very low AC is a necessary component. Good correction.

[Yunru]

A slight tangent, but GWM is only roughly equivalent to an oversized weapon (which personally I find more fun thematically):
With advantage;
0.65*2*(13+4)= 22.1
(1-(0.65^2))*2*(6.5+13)= 22.5225
without;
(0.65^2)*2*17= 14.365
0.35*2*19.5= 13.65

[Zhorn]

I do love seeing those formulas pop out every now and then, not in pursuit of finding that most optimal build, but to show how some of the commonly perceived 'sub par' builds are actually closer than people give credit for.

https://i.imgur.com/l0KCxDZ.jpg

[Tanarii]

I do love seeing those formulas pop out every now and then, not in pursuit of finding that most optimal build, but to show how some of the commonly perceived 'sub par' builds are actually closer than people give credit for.

https://i.imgur.com/l0KCxDZ.jpg
Well the normal comparison would be greatsword GFT/GWM. Or Greataxe Reckless GWM for a barbarian.

I'm not surprised Shield & Spear Dueling PAM turns out to be OP. (And if it can beat out GWM/PAM, it's OP).

[Yunru]

Well the normal comparison would be greatsword GFT/GWM. Or Greataxe Reckless GWM for a barbarian.

I'm not surprised Shield & Spear Dueling PAM turns out to be OP. (And if it can beat out GWM/PAM, it's OP).

You've a broken metric then if that's your guidepost.

Rather than tie yourself down with the view that GWM must be broken, why not just accept it's an okay-but-not-amazing feat that adds roughly 1.5 damage over a straight ASI?

[Tanarii]

You've a broken metric then if that's your guidepost.

Rather than tie yourself down with the view that GWM must be broken, why not just accept it's an okay-but-not-amazing feat that adds roughly 1.5 damage over a straight ASI?
Because at the end of the day I've seen the full numbers, repeatedly by many people, including a very in depth analysis by Kryx, that prove to me it is broken. (The last part is IMO, the numbers are what they are based on a variety of assumption). My napkin math about comparing two specific builds at low level aside.

[Yunru]

Because at the end of the day I've seen the full numbers, repeatedly by many people, including a very in depth analysis by Kryx, that prove to me it is broken. (The last part is IMO, the numbers are what they are based on a variety of assumption). My napkin math about comparing two specific builds at low level aside.
And I've also personally run the numbers in full against every possible accuracy (https://www.enworld.org/threads/the-mechanical-impact-of-5-10.656313/). Do you know what the highest boost was over just a straight up +2 to your primary? Somewhere between +2 and +3 (for practical, non-zombie, ACs) .

[MaxWilson]

And I've also personally run the numbers in full against every possible accuracy (https://www.enworld.org/threads/the-mechanical-impact-of-5-10.656313/). Do you know what the highest boost was over just a straight up +2 to your primary? Somewhere between +2 and +3 (for practical, non-zombie, ACs) .

Considering that +2 to a stat is also a healthy boost, beating it out by +2 to +3 DPR is very worthwhile.

BTW I couldn't follow your chart with the Xs and Ys, although that may possibly be due to formatting issues on mobile. Doesn't matter though because I can do my own math.

The best thing about SS/GWM is that they increase the payoff for boosting accuracy via tactical tricks (prone advantage, Bless, Magic Weapon or Forge Cleric, Bardic Inspiration, Faerie Fire/Web advantage, etc.). Against e.g. an AC 13 Faerie Fired T Rex, a 5th level Str 16 PAM GWM fighter with a +1 Halberd does about 43 DPR (hitting on 11+ for d10+14 or d4+14), whereas a Str 18 PAM would do only about 28 DPR (hitting on 5+ for d10+5 or d4+5).

IMO it would be a shame to give that GWM up for an ASI. Tactics are fun.

[Keravath]

But what about when you account for the change in Fighting Style and taking +2 stat over GWM?

0.65*((5.5+6)*2+(2.5+6)) = 20.475 DPR
0.35*((5.5+13)*2+(2.5+13)) = 18.375 DPR

However, in that case the average weapon damage is 3.5 for a spear or quarterstaff and not the 5.5 for a glaive. The previous comparsion that was posted was for DPS for a glaive with and without GWM.

0.65*((3.5+6)*2+(2.5+6)) = 17.875DPR so not quite as high as a PAM/GWM build against this AC target but very competitive.

Against higher AC targets, the spear/quarterstaff comes out ahead (and the build always has a higher AC defensively due to the shield). Even if the target AC in the example is just one higher in this case the spear/quarterstaff will do more damage.

0.6 * 27.5 = 16.5 DPR
0.3 * 54.1 = 16.23 DPR (assuming GWF and GWM)

However, at higher levels, the stat difference evens out since both cap at 20. I think this is one of the reasons a paladin picks up improved divine smite at 11, it helps help the damage competitive.

In tier 3, assume average AC around 18 with +9 to hit. Have to roll a 9 to hit which is 60%. GWM makes this 35% :)

GWM/GWF damage on a fighter is 0.35*((6.3+15)*3+(3+5)) = 0.35 * (71.9) = 25.17. However, GWM also allows for a bonus action full weapon damage attack on a crit or kill (which increases the damage slightly over the base PAM option).

A level 11 paladin, spear+shield with dueling and improved divine smite is 0.6*((3.5+4.5+7)*2 + (2.5+4.5+7)) = 26.4

A paladin also has the option of casting divine favor in the first round which costs a potential damage of 14 but adds d4 of damage to every attack. 5 average in the first round and 7.5 each round after to the base damage. So if the combat lasts at least 3 rounds then the paladin will do more damage with divine favor than without. (of course he may have much better spells to concentrate on by level 11).

Anyway, the bottom line is that some one handed weapon builds can remain competitive with GWM/GWF in terms of expected total average damage.

[AdAstra]

Considering that +2 to a stat is also a healthy boost, beating it out by +2 to +3 DPR is very worthwhile.

BTW I couldn't follow your chart with the Xs and Ys, although that may possibly be due to formatting issues on mobile. Doesn't matter though because I can do my own math.

The best thing about SS/GWM is that they increase the payoff for boosting accuracy via tactical tricks (prone advantage, Bless, Magic Weapon or Forge Cleric, Bardic Inspiration, Faerie Fire/Web advantage, etc.). Against e.g. an AC 13 Faerie Fired T Rex, a 5th level Str 16 PAM GWM fighter with a +1 Halberd does about 43 DPR (hitting on 11+ for d10+14 or d4+14), whereas a Str 18 PAM would do only about 28 DPR (hitting on 5+ for d10+5 or d4+5).

IMO it would be a shame to give that GWM up for an ASI. Tactics are fun.

But, if an option is worthwhile while not being OP, doesn't that make it good from a game design perspective? You'd have to make a case for GWM being OP, not just "worthwhile". Yeah it's usually better than an ASI if you want raw damage, but it doesn't seem to be ruinously so, and an ASI offers more than just damage.

[BloodSnake'sCha]

But, if an option is worthwhile while not being OP, doesn't that make it good from a game design perspective? You'd have to make a case for GWM being OP, not just "worthwhile". Yeah it's usually better than an ASI if you want raw damage, but it doesn't seem to be ruinously so, and an ASI offers more than just damage.

There is a big difference, you can't increase your stats without stopping, there is a limit of 30(20 from ASI).

GWM let your break this limit and at early levels it have very high impact.

If think that the value drop at later levels(you no longer one shoot and damage at higher levels looks not important because everyone can do decent damage).

[MaxWilson]

But, if an option is worthwhile while not being OP, doesn't that make it good from a game design perspective? You'd have to make a case for GWM being OP, not just "worthwhile". Yeah it's usually better than an ASI if you want raw damage, but it doesn't seem to be ruinously so, and an ASI offers more than just damage.

Absolutely. GWM is good for the game (so good in fact that I offer -5/+5 to anyone with any weapon so they can have some of the same interesting decisions--GWM just increases it to -5/+10 to make it a better tradeoff). Sharpshooter is iffier but probably still helps prevent warlocks from rendering archers redundant. Besides, the real problem with ranged combat in 5E is not with Sharpshooter, it's with the ridiculously generous archery rules and to a lesser extent with the ridiculously permissive mounted combat rules, plus overly generous advantage for unseen attackers via Minor Illusion, heavy obscurement, etc. Plus short-ranged monster abilities throughout the whole MM, and low monster movement speeds. It's a perfect storm. Sharpshooter increases the payoff but archery would still be better than melee even without it.

To the OP, options are good. Even a GWM PAM can find it advantageous at times to switch to spear and shield mode, e.g. when venturing into Stirge territory, or against heavily-armored Duergar foes.

[Tanarii]

And I've also personally run the numbers in full against every possible accuracy (https://www.enworld.org/threads/the-mechanical-impact-of-5-10.656313/). Do you know what the highest boost was over just a straight up +2 to your primary? Somewhere between +2 and +3 (for practical, non-zombie, ACs) .
No. You haven't. Show it across an adventuring day (which means setting parameters for rounds per combat) for a Barbarian using reckless attack, a Battlemaster using Trip, or sacrificing one attack to Shove, then maybe you've got a start. Don't forget to account for Action Surge, Paladin Smites, etc.

What you've done is just slightly longer napkin math.

[Yunru]

No. You haven't. Show it across an adventuring day (which means setting parameters for rounds per combat) for a Barbarian using reckless attack, a Battlemaster using Trip, or sacrificing one attack to Shove, then maybe you've got a start. Don't forget to account for Action Surge, Paladin Smites, etc.

What you've done is just slightly longer napkin math.
You're talking absolute nonsense. Across an adventuring day? Sure, the numbers literally don't change.

You might as well try and say "You haven't done the work, ke=1/2mv^2 is just napkin maths, go check it across all impacts in a day."

And then you have the gall to say "add all these things to and pretend the resulting increase in damage isn't a result of those features."

We're done, goodbye.

[GlenSmash!]

Because you can meet or exceed gWM bonus damage with various riders like Hex, Hunter's Mark, Elemental Weapon, Arcane Weapon, Smite etc etc all without the penalty to accuracy.

Taking a minus 5 to hit even to get the +10 is not worth it when you might lose out on those riders unless you have an equally reliable way of boosting accuracy such as Reckless Attack.

For example right now I have a level 5 Zealot with GWM on my first hit in each round I can do 1d6+2 radiant damage, which doesn't seem like much compared to +10 but when you factor in that Radiant shuts down certain regenerations, and is rarely resisted I find it the more valuable of the 2. So until I land a hit with that radiant damage, I'm unlikely to use -5/+10. Once I have, I'm more free to do so.

[NaughtyTiger]

to point out a limit in the simple math comparison.

0.35 toHit assumes that you use the -5/+10 everytime, even if it is dumb.
if you need a 23 on the die to hit for +10 damage, you prolly aren't going to do it.
heck if you need an 18 you aren't gonna do it.

edit: if you need a 20 on the die with or without -5, then you are definitely gonna use it..

[da newt]

Thanks for all the feedback. Please keep it coming.

For the math, how do you get the 65% and 35% chances to hit?

Also for the staff w/ dueling, is the bonus +5 (+2 for dueling) or +6?

How does this change with reckless attack where ADV to every attack is an option? That's got to make GWM more impactful, right?

For those who are interested, I'll start a new thread with all the specifics of my character that prompted all this.

[NaughtyTiger]

Also for the staff w/ dueling, is the bonus +5 (+2 for dueling) or +6?


Assumption Level 5 - variant human, 16 str, shield and spear
PAM + GWM -> +3str +2 dueling
PAM + ASI -> +4str + 2 dueling

[Zhorn]

Assumption Level 5 - variant human, 16 str
PAM + GWM -> +3str +2 dueling + great weapon fighting
PAM + ASI -> +4str + 2 dueling

since dueling makes little sense with GWM

[NaughtyTiger]

since dueling makes little sense with GWM

ah, i forgot an assumption. shield and spear with PAM.... dueling.

[MaxWilson]

How does this change with reckless attack where ADV to every attack is an option? That's got to make GWM more impactful, right?

Yes. See post on previous page where I did the math assuming Faerie Fire to show ~40% higher damage with GWM than +2 Str against a T Rex. Reckless Attack would substitute for Faerie Fire.

Reckless Attack without GWM never feels right. Barbarians should be sloppy but not entirely hard, not be uber-precise. GWM makes that conversion between accuracy and damage happen.

[Blood of Gaea]

There's a few reasons I can think of to do this.

1. You have one or more abilities that only work out to 5 ft, say a combination of Booming Blade and Warcaster.
2. You're more focused on increasing your defenses, perhaps your roll is a tank who draws attacks through various abilitie.
3. You could take Prodigy instead of GWM, and use your attacks to shove enemies prone, following up with 1 or more attacks with advantage, including your bonus action attack.
4. Without some reasonably reliable way to boost your accuracy, GWM isn't such a massive boost in DPR against high AC enemies, and if you have an AoE heavy teammate, putting damage into soft targets simply might not be your problem.
5. You can't resonably use heavy weapons.
6. You simply prefer the aesthetic.
7. Your build in some way requires a shield.

[Gignere]

Without some sort of bonus or easy way to get advantage PAM + dueling, with shield and spear is actually better expected DPR and AC.

However, PAM + GWM is DPR king for melee if you have reliable bonus to hit, like bless, battlemaster maneuvers, raging or some combination of them. GWM just scales a lot with advantage of bonus to hit.

[MaxWilson]

Without some sort of bonus or easy way to get advantage PAM + dueling, with shield and spear is actually better expected DPR and AC.

However, PAM + GWM is DPR king for melee if you have reliable bonus to hit, like bless, battlemaster maneuvers, raging or some combination of them. GWM just scales a lot with advantage of bonus to hit.

Implication: GWM is particularly impactful in parties that are good at teamwork. If you've got a druid who loves knocking prone with summoned wolves, or grappling them in Giant Octopus form, you'll get mileage out of GWM. If you're the lone front line tank for a Fireball-happy Evoker and an archer Scout, maybe spear and shield PAM is a better configuration for you, especially at low levels.

[Tanarii]

For the math, how do you get the 65% and 35% chances to hit?
60% to 65% is he assumed average hit rate for someone who puts in an ASI about level 8 and 16, based on around or abour CR-2 per the DMG. I prefer 60% myself.

It's very much a simple math assumption though. Monsters can have quite a variation in AC especially at lower levels.

[NaughtyTiger]

For the math, how do you get the 65% and 35% chances to hit?

i use 55% as my baseline.

if you have +0 modifier then you should have a 55% chance to hit something with a 10AC.
10-20 on the die is a hit

subtract 5 from the roll for the same modifier;
15-20 on the die is a hit, so 30% chance to hit.

however, the DMG(?) suggested that you should hit about 60% of the time, so folks add modifiers until they get 60% for a basic attack.

[Keravath]

i use 55% as my baseline.

if you have +0 modifier then you should have a 55% chance to hit something with a 10AC.
10-20 on the die is a hit

subtract 5 from the roll for the same modifier;
15-20 on the die is a hit, so 30% chance to hit.

however, the DMG(?) suggested that you should hit about 60% of the time, so folks add modifiers until they get 60% for a basic attack.

I think the 60% comes from the idea that average target AC and to hit bonus go up in tandem until at least early tier 3 or so (and later depending on magic and party synergies or the lack of them).

In tier 1, typical to hit bonus is +4 to +5 and the average target AC is 13 to 14 which gives roughly a 9 to hit which is a 60% hit chance.

Early tier 2, the AC goes up to 14->16 and to hit is +5 to +7 (depending on the use of ASI at level 4)

Later tier 2, average AC might be 15 to 18 and to hit is +6 to +9 (again depending on ASI at level 8) ... +9 is +5 stat and +4 proficiency which is the max until 13th level (excluding magic)

Through tier 3 and 4, AC might rise to 16 to 22 or so and to hit into the +8 to +11 range (again exclusive of magic and with a wider range depending on party make up and builds). Advantage counts for +3 to almost +5 depending on the AC, bless is an extra +2.5 on average, magical weapons are typically +1 to +3.

Anyway, in all these cases, a required average to hit roll in the 8-12 range is pretty typical which is where the 60% hit rate (chance to hit when a 9 or more is needed) comes from.

If you are fighting a dragon with 22 AC with a +2 sword at 16th level you will have a +12 to hit which translates to a hit on 10+.