1h weapon + Dueling vs. 2h weapon + GWM

[HotCarlos]

Hi all,
First time poster and relatively amateur D&D player. I was looking for some insight regarding weapon options for a horizon walker ranger I'm building. Thematically, I love the idea of a 2h-wielding teleporter once I hit 11, coupled with GWM. However I also like to try and optimize as much as I can, and from some various threads I've read it seems many favor going a 1hander + shield with the Dueling stance, as it seems to have comparable damage over the course of a fight with the added bonus of +2 AC.

Is this an accurate assessment? Am I underestimating GWM? I was a little disappointed since one would think wielding a 2h would provide more damage at the expense of protection. Is there something I'm missing that makes GWM better?

Thank you!

[stoutstien]

GWM is a pretty lackluster style outside of special cases like the double bladed scimitar.

Nothing wrong with HW with a big two hand weapon with GWF. The difference in the end is only a few points of damage one way or the other. Could be defense style instead and be a little tougher.

[Damon_Tor]

Dueling style boosts a one handed weapon up to the sam level of damage as a two-handed weapon without a fighting style, but a greatsword with the great weapon fighting style boosts that damage beyond that level. And it's important to note that duelists static +2 doesn't increase, but the great weapon style applies to the bonus damage you get from crits, including the extra dice you get from being a half orc or barbarian levels. It applies to any extra dice your weapon gets from a magic property like flame tongue.

[Teaguethebean]

I imagine we are talking about the great weapon fighting style and not great weapon master. In that case the damage of the styles is pretty similar. A longsword with dueling does on average 4.5+2+str while the great sword does on average 7+1.36+str so the great sword does about 2 more damage on avg but the real damage comes from the Great Weapon Master feat adding on 10 damage at the cost of -5 to hit along with the potential bonus action strikes if you down a foe or land a crit. In closing the dueling style helps a longsword keep up in damage but when great weapon master comes into play the damage is extremely different with 20 more damage a turn if you can make certain to hit.

[Tanarii]

GWM almost always outpaces Dueling for damage if you can get Advantage. Otherwise it needs to be a somewhat lower AC enemy, especially once you start adding in additional damage (Hunters Mark typically).

Defensive style offsets the lack of a shield.

Edit: if you want to understand GWM math, read this thread: http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?472938-Great-Weapon-Mastery-How-to-5-10-Like-a-Pro


I imagine we are talking about the great weapon fighting style and not great weapon master. Horizon Walker, so Ranger, which means GWF style is not available. So OP probably meant GWM like they posted.

[HotCarlos]

Yes, sorry for the confusion, was talking about the feat Great Weapon Master. I'd be taking the +1 AC fighting style if using a 2hander

[CheddarChampion]

The lower your enemy's AC, the better GWM is. (But there's opportunity cost of getting the feat vs Str+2.)

For reference, the "Should I power attack?" calculation is:
If AC is 16+(to-hit-bonus)-(average damage/2) then it's a wash. Below that AC -5/+10 is better dpr, above is worse.

Since longsword + dueling style has comparable damage to a greatsword without the GW style, you can more or less compare how good it would be to have GWM vs Dueling (at a level where you have the same Str).

Example: level 9 V. Human
16+9-((2d6+5)/2)=19
18 AC or below, GWM is better dpr
20 AC or above, dueling (or no -5/+10) is better dpr


1. Only medium armor proficiency (consider the heavily armored feat)
2. You need 13 Dex & 13 Wis to multiclass into/out of ranger -causing hefty MAD

[Tanarii]

The lower your enemy's AC, the better GWM is. (But there's opportunity cost of getting the feat vs Str+2.)

For reference, the "Should I power attack?" calculation is:
If AC is 16+(to-hit-bonus)-(average damage/2) then it's a wash. Below that AC -5/+10 is better dpr, above is worse.

Since longsword + dueling style has comparable damage to a greatsword without the GW style, you can more or less compare how good it would be to have GWM vs Dueling (at a level where you have the same Str).

Example: level 9 V. Human
16+9-((2d6+5)/2)=19
18 AC or below, GWM is better dpr
20 AC or above, dueling (or no -5/+10) is better dprDont forget Hunters Mark is usually lowering the target AC by 3.5/2 for a ranger. (Or conversely, you're forgoing that and using your bonus action, concentration, and spell slot for something else.)



1. Only medium armor proficiency (consider the heavily armored feat)
2. You need 13 Dex & 13 Wis to multiclass into/out of ranger -causing hefty MADPretty sure most Str based ranger I've seen prioritized Str/Con/Dex to 14/Wis/Int/Cha. With a preference for starting with Str 16/Dex 14/Con 14 if possible. (Easier with PB than standard array of course, but still requires at least a +1 Str.)

[stoutstien]

Dont forget Hunters Mark is usually lowering the target AC by 3.5/2 for a ranger. (Or conversely, you're forgoing that and using your bonus action, concentration, and spell slot for something else.)

Pretty sure most Str based ranger I've seen prioritized Str/Con/Dex to 14/Wis/Int/Cha. With a preference for starting with Str 16/Dex 14/Con 14 if possible. (Easier with PB than standard array of course, but still requires at least a +1 Str.)

How is hunters mark effecting AC?

[Tanarii]

How is hunters mark effecting AC?
The more base damage you do, the lower target AC for using the -5 to hit in return for +10 damage. Because the penalty to hit affects the DPR of all the damage.

[Damon_Tor]

How is hunters mark effecting AC?

It's not. What they're saying is that Hunter's mark adds more damage to a hit, which makes the -5 to hit penalty of GWM more significant, and mathematically changes the target AC at which you should be using GWM.. IF the target has 14 AC or above and you've got your Hunter's Mark on them you should NOT take the -5 hit penalty because that is the point at which the reduced odds of a hit are no longer counterbalanced by the chance of dealing more damage.

For whatever reason, the 5e "char-op" crowd doesn't seem to like to account for the chance to hit a target, they always like to assume the target will always be hit. I'm not sure why, but it's led to this situation, where GWM and SS are seen as these OP god-feats, when the reality is they often aren't worth more than +2 to your attack stat unless you've got something to reliably increase your accuracy.

[Tanarii]

I'm not sure why, but it's led to this situation, where GWM and SS are seen as these OP god-feats, when the reality is they often aren't worth more than +2 to your attack stat unless you've got something to reliably increase your accuracy.
IMO broken as soon as you get a reliable source of advantage. In other words, Barbarian.

[stoutstien]

The more base damage you do, the lower target AC for using the -5 to hit in return for +10 damage. Because the penalty to hit affects the DPR of all the damage.

Got ya. It shifts the threshold of what you could loss on a miss with GWM -/+ attack.

[CheddarChampion]

Y'know, I forgot to mention the chance of getting a bonus attack with GWM.
Depending on the build and your strategies, it may come into play often or rarely.

(But Planar Warrior and Hunter's Mark also use your bonus action, so there's competition. Perhaps if you're attacking a handful of lower HP foes it is better than extra damage to a single target...)