Barbarians: Dual wield or 2-handed weaponry?

[ChaseC311]

So I've been yearning to play a barbarian lately, but I've been debating on whether he should dual wield a shield and another weapon of choice, or if he should just ditch the shield altogether and get with the standard 2-handed axe. Which one would be more viable? The barbarian in question is a Wildhunt shifter Zealot barbarian. I just want to know of it'd be better to have a more defensive or offensive approach in battle, as the barbarian seems to fit either role well on the frontlines due to the class abilities.

[Crucius]

So, every 1 point in AC is ~5% more defenses, but on a barbarian, due to rage damage resistance, that is more like 2.5% extra defenses (and only against attack rolls). Furthermore, due to reckless attack giving enemies advantage on your ass, the extra AC is worth even less.

So if you can up your damage with more than 5% it is worth replacing the shield in my opinion. Which it always is: 1d8 (longsword) vs 2d6 (greatsword) on average is 9.5 vs 12 damage (assuming Str 16 and including rage damage), which is ~25% extra damage. Two weapon fighting is similar (due to rage damage being applied to every attack): 9.5 vs 14 damage (dual wielding handaxes, assuming no extra attack feature yet). Dual wielding has the added benefit of allowing more chances to land A hit that applies zealot damage bonuses.

You can always still carry a shield in your inventory, nothing wrong with that. Maybe a specific combat requires you to be more defensive, and then you at least have that option (provided you don't do reckless things :P).

[J-H]

Nothing says you have to Reckless Attack, though. If you're not going 2 weapon/GWM and suffering a -5 penalty to hit, it may not be needed.

A shield-wielding Barb with spear and PAM gets 3-4 attacks per round at level 5 (Attack/Extra Attack/PAM + OA against anything moving into range). That's a lot of chances to hit. At high levels, with mundane gear and physical stats maxed, a shield-wearing Barb 20 has AC 24, and with magic stuff, that could easily be up to AC 27-29ish.
I like playing characters who are hard to hit and hard to kill.

[ChaseC311]

Also, because I'm a wildhunt shifter: When shifted, enemies within 30 feet of me cant have advantage on attack rolls against me when im shifted, so it minimizes the risk reckless attack brings.

[Naanomi]

Depends on the Barbarian obviously... frenzy and Battlerager (and some totems) already have built in uses for bonus action so would favor two-handed weapons... ancestral guardian (and some storm heralds) probably wants either a shield or reach... leaving Zealots or Totem to really consider a second weapon a viable option. Of course, most Barbarians are strong enough to just carry half a dozen options and switch to what feels best in the moment anyways

[CTurbo]

Barbarians work best with big 2 handed weapons IMO due to feat support like GWM and/or PAM. Attacking with advantage all the time helps land those big -5/+10 GWM attacks for extreme damage.

However, Barbarians do make great two weapon fighters which is what I think about when I read "dual wield" since they can add their rage damage to their off-hand attack with or without the TWF style. The Dual Wielder feat is a bit weak although not completely terrible.

Sword and Board is ok for any melee character. It's kind of the safe option. Shield Master is an ok feat although I find it over-rated.

As mentioned above, you could carry a shield for when you really need to extra +2 AC.

[Yakmala]

I really want dual wielding to be good in 5e, but it simply does not compare to PAM.

The only class where I wholeheartedly recommend dual wielding is a Rogue, because they are normally stuck with only one chance to land their big damage sneak attack, so having a second chance to land it as a Bonus action is super helpful.

[thereaper]

What levels will you play at?

Assuming you start with 16 Str and boost it every chance you get, start raging on your first turn, shift on your second turn, attack every turn, all your attacks hit, and the combat lasts three turns, here's your damage output:


Level
Greatsword
Two Shortswords but no shifting
Two Shortswords


1
36
36.5
31


4
39
39.5
34


5
78
68
62.5


7
84
77
71.5


8
90
86.5
80.5



Divide those numbers by 3 to get your DPR. This does not include bonus Zealot damage.

It also doesn't count OAs or being able to have a free hand to pull levers and such.

[loki_ragnarock]

It also doesn't count OAs or being able to have a free hand to pull levers and such.

Buuut it also doesn't take into account how useful thrown weapons are for maintaining rage in the face of slippery enemies, none of which are two handed, to my knowledge.

No model is perfect.

[Fnissalot]

I like dual-wielding as well as sword and board. +2AC is a lot, and it helps making barbarians crazy tanks if need be. I would start considering a great axe at 9, or earlier if I had a half-orc

[Edea]

2-handed, mostly because I'm too busy prioritizing Str, Con, and Wis to really pay much additional attention to Dex.

Also, I...generally -want- enemies targeting me with attacks as a barbarian, or at least have the option to make that a more attractive scenario. I am sitting on a mountainous Con and d12 hit dice. Reckless Attack setting attack advantage against me for one turn feels more like a feature than a detriment, because now enemies have a reason to go after the guy who can actually take it instead of Squishyhat McBookpants.

[bid]

It also doesn't count OAs or being able to have a free hand to pull levers and such.

Buuut it also doesn't take into account how useful thrown weapons are for maintaining rage in the face of slippery enemies, none of which are two handed, to my knowledge.
"and such" includes using your free hand to throw a handaxe.

[BloodSnake'sCha]

For me it is GreatAxe for strong enemies, dual handaxe for weak enemies.

Handaxe give you an extra chance to proc your extra damage and they are likely to fall from one hit.

Greataxe gives you better crits at high levels or if you are a half orc.

I only played a zealot barbarian.

[Fnissalot]

What levels will you play at?

Assuming you start with 16 Str and boost it every chance you get, start raging on your first turn, shift on your second turn, attack every turn, all your attacks hit, and the combat lasts three turns, here's your damage output:


Level
Greatsword
Two Shortswords but no shifting
Two Shortswords


1
36
36.5
31


4
39
39.5
34


5
78
68
62.5


7
84
77
71.5


8
90
86.5
80.5



Divide those numbers by 3 to get your DPR. This does not include bonus Zealot damage.
Unsure about the damage increase on level 7 and 8? I get it to 78/68/62.5 on 7 and 84/74/68.5 on 8. 7 is no damage increase for barb or am I missing something?

Accounting for zealot damage based on AC :) Not taking advantage or criticals into account. Damage in 3 turns of combat.



Level
vs AC
Greatsword
Two Shortswords but no shifting
Two Shortswords


3
15
20.93
22.88
19.54


4
15
27.75
30.75
26.63


5
16
51.38
47.75
44.31


8
16
64.14
60.31
56.45


10
17
69.84
67.33
62.81


19
19
82.71
82.19
76.67


20
19
105.74
103.99
98.04



That said, if the fight lasts 10 turns at level 5, the damage on average only differs by .4 per turn in favor of the two-hander. This decreases to .3 by level 8 and dual wielder surpasses it by .17 by level 10 as both the rage damage and divine fury increases by 9 and 10 separately. At level 20, it is 1.5 in favor of dual wielding.

While I haven't accounted for criticals, Brutal critical improves greataxes but unless the enemy has a high AC, greatswords are still better as a two-hander. As described here: https://leinadrengaw.wordpress.com/tag/two-handed-weapons-and-brutal-critical/ greataxes are only worth it if you need to roll 18 to hit with +1die or needing to roll 12 to hit once you have +3 dice from your brutal critical. At 20 levels barbarian, that is against an AC of 25. Even so, if you are considering criticals, it would push it further in favor of two-handers over dualwielding.edit:(did some math on it, the first +1die on a critical benefits greatswords over dual wielding, but from the second, the extra attack is better as it is an extra chance to crit) Advantage should also push in favor of two-handers.

Edited: wrong numbers lvl 19

[bid]

FGreataxe gives you better crits at high levels or if you are a half orc.
If you miss 9 times, hit 10 times and crit once...
- mace hit does 7 vs greataxe 6.5, or +5 overall
- mace crit does 10.5 vs greataxe 13, or -2.5 overall

Brutal 1 or half-orc doubles up the damage penalty and cancels the difference in that case. Since targets are easier to hit, you need some recklessness to make crits happen more often than that.

Greataxe pulls ahead once you have 2 steps of brutal/half-orc. But a 2.5 difference over 80 damage is negligible, you might as well follow your concept.

[thereaper]

I believe when I ran the numbers I concluded that greatsword exceeded the greataxe for half-orc barbarians until 9th level, at which point both could be argued as competitive choices (the greataxe having slightly higher dpr, and the greatsword having greater consistency).

[Tanarii]

I believe when I ran the numbers I concluded that greatsword exceeded the greataxe for half-orc barbarians until 9th level, at which point both could be argued as competitive choices (the greataxe having slightly higher dpr, and the greatsword having greater consistency).
Barbarians do D*74.25%+C*9.75% due to advantage on their attacks. That assumes 69% base hit rate.

The static bonuses are a wash so you can discount them.

GS = 5.1975 + 1.70625 = 6.90375
GA = 4.82625 + 1.90125 = 6.7275

So looks like you're right, on average.

Of course, that doesn't account for variability. GS is more consistent, it will trend strongly to the average. GA has equal chances across the die, so it'll do 12 or 2 as often as it does 7.

[stoutstien]

Also, because I'm a wildhunt shifter: When shifted, enemies within 30 feet of me cant have advantage on attack rolls against me when im shifted, so it minimizes the risk reckless attack brings.

Usually I'd the difference between twf and 2hd barbarians isn't enough to worry about so it doesn't matter but having to rage and potentially shift means you won't see a ba attack until the 3 round when you go all out. So in the end it doesn't matter.

[Fnissalot]

Usually I'd the difference between twf and 2hd barbarians isn't enough to worry about so it doesn't matter but having to rage and potentially shift means you won't see a ba attack until the 3 round when you go all out. So in the end it doesn't matter.

I would probably save the shifting until I had taken some damage and started worrying about staying up. The shifter bonus action is a much more defensive tool than an offensive one so I would save it until I felt I need it.

[stoutstien]

I would probably save the shifting until I had taken some damage and started worrying about staying up. The shifter bonus action is a much more defensive tool than an offensive one so I would save it until I felt I need it.

In that case grab some handaxes and go to work. You can keep a big axe strapped to your back to pull out when you need it.

[CheddarChampion]

Unsure about the damage increase on level 7 and 8? I get it to 78/68/62.5 on 7 and 84/74/68.5 on 8. 7 is no damage increase for barb or am I missing something?

At 7, bonus rage damage goes up to +3.

[Fnissalot]

At 7, bonus rage damage goes up to +3.

Doesn't it do so at 9?

[CheddarChampion]

Doesn't it do so at 9?

Oops.

You're right, I'll edit my chart. Thanks for correcting me!

Edit: I'm on mobile, the delete post button is not far from the form where you specify why your post was edited.


What levels will you play at?

Assuming you start with 16 Str and boost it every chance you get, start raging on your first turn, shift on your second turn, attack every turn, all your attacks hit, and the combat lasts three turns, here's your damage output:


Level
Greatsword
Two Shortswords but no shifting
Two Shortswords


1
36
36.5
31


4
39
39.5
34


5
78
68
62.5


8
84
77
71.5


9
90
86.5
80.5



Divide those numbers by 3 to get your DPR. This does not include bonus Zealot damage.

[LudicSavant]

So, every 1 point in AC is ~5% more defenses

The benefit of AC actually scales in a rather steep nonlinear fashion. If crits didn't exist, the curve would look like this:
https://i.postimg.cc/MTvcMjvC/Arcane-Trickster5save-HP.png

Crits change this curve a little bit, but the curve retains its general shape (and we can't reasonably include them on the chart because *how* they change the curve is monster-specific).

To try to explain it intuitively, think about it like this:

If you go from 100% chance to be hit to 50%, you take twice as many of those hits on average to kill. If you go from 50% to 25%, that's another doubling. From 25% to 12.5%, another doubling. 12.5% to 6.25%, another doubling. Each point of AC is worth more effective hit points than the last.

The effect is especially dramatic when it comes to mook swarms; an army that might one-shot a Reckless Raging level 20 Barbarian might just bounce off a Blurred Eldritch Knight's Shield with a little 'ting' sound, having done nothing at all.

[Yakk]

This also means that if your AC isn't already good, investing in it is a mugs game.

And if your AC is great, investing it is awesome.

The downside is that 5e gets increasingly less bound to attack rolls as you gain levels, which is also when you can pile on AC boosts.

This is why many barbarians just dump AC.

[Bobthewizard]

This also means that if your AC isn't already good, investing in it is a mugs game.

And if your AC is great, investing it is awesome.


The benefit of AC actually scales in a rather steep nonlinear fashion. If crits didn't exist, the curve would look like this:

I agree with the curve, understand the math, and agree in a one-on-one game that is the right answer, but I've seen people use this chart to argue that the team should try to increase the AC for the character that already has a high AC. I think in a game with teammates, though, giving the +1 ring of protection to the S&B paladin might not be the best answer and you are better off shoring up defensive soft spots for the team, even if the math doesn't support as much benefit to the individual.

If the enemy is attacking your 20AC paladin, you've already won the fight. Whether it takes 5 rounds or 50 rounds to land enough hits to kill the paladin doesn't matter. But if you can prevent 10-20% of the hits on your bard and let them last just one round longer or keep concentration for one more round in one fight during the day, you might be better off there.

No matter who you give it to, if the enemy attacks that person, it has a 5% chance of turning a hit into a miss. So think about who gets hurt the most by a single hit.

Of course this depends on who is getting targeted too. If the DM lets the paladin be a wall, then yes, give it to the paladin. If they often have enemies get past your front line, then I'd shore up the back line even with the math above.

[Yakk]

Attunement slots are expensive.

If half of attacks go after the paladin, then that attunement slot blocks 2.5% of all incoming attacks.

If 10% of attacks go after the bard, then that attunement slot blocks 0.5% of all incoming attacks.

That bard might be better suited to have an instrument of the bards, or a staff of power (multiclass dip sorcerer), or staff of healing, or something else with that attunement slot.

This also can require you work at making the bard harder to attack and more attacks go after the paladin.

[Edea]

I find myself wondering how many times Reckless Attack has actually gotten a barbarian killed.

[greenstone]

My suggestion is do all three. Cary a big axe, a medium axe, several small axes, and a shield. Use whatever is best for the situation at hand.

Don't take any of the weapon feats, just get STR and CON (and then DEX) to 20. Alternatively, take a utility feat (for example Ritual Caster). Maybe Tough or Durable, but I wouldn't take Tough unless CON was already at 20.

Why do I suggest not picking weapon feats? Because if you have a feat, Great Weapon Master for example, you fall into the heuristic trap of always trying to use your great weapon, even when it is inappropriate.


Also, because I'm a wildhunt shifter: When shifted, enemies within 30 feet of me cant have advantage on attack rolls against me when im shifted, so it minimizes the risk reckless attack brings.

Uh, what? Am I missing a rule somewhere?

[Fnissalot]

My suggestion is do all three. Cary a big axe, a medium axe, several small axes, and a shield. Use whatever is best for the situation at hand.

Don't take any of the weapon feats, just get STR and CON (and then DEX) to 20. Alternatively, take a utility feat (for example Ritual Caster). Maybe Tough or Durable, but I wouldn't take Tough unless CON was already at 20.

Why do I suggest not picking weapon feats? Because if you have a feat, Great Weapon Master for example, you fall into the heuristic trap of always trying to use your great weapon, even when it is inappropriate.



Uh, what? Am I missing a rule somewhere?

The wild hunt subrace of the shifter race in the eberron book. It's bonus to shifting is that you cancel out advantages on attacks against you.

[LudicSavant]

I agree with the curve, understand the math, and agree in a one-on-one game that is the right answer, but I've seen people use this chart to argue that the team should try to increase the AC for the character that already has a high AC. I think in a game with teammates, though, giving the +1 ring of protection to the S&B paladin might not be the best answer and you are better off shoring up defensive soft spots for the team, even if the math doesn't support as much benefit to the individual.

Ah, the old "Who do I give the +1 AC ring to?" conundrum. It's probably not the simple answer someone wants to hear, but the answer to "should I give it to the S&B Paladin" is "well, it depends."

The issue here is that we have competing pressures, and we need to solve for equilibrium between them (similar to the concept of a Nash Equilibrium). You basically have to balance the equations of benefit to an individual's effective HP vs. enemy decision-making. A few general principles:

1) Rational enemies will place their attacks wherever they feel they will get the most value for said attacks (this is generally determined by balancing 'how dangerous/high priority the opponent is/appears to be' with 'how many resources it takes/appears to take to remove them').

2) The 'stickier' you are, and the harder it is to target the squishy, the higher you can raise your defenses over that of your teammates before it ceases to be a better investment for you than them. Likewise, the higher your defenses are, the more aggressively you can position and leverage your stickiness / ability to intercept damage. This is basically the core dynamic that makes tanks work (but 'turtles' not work).

So for example, if an ally is very sticky (say, an Arcana Cleric with Spirit Guardians and a deadly Warcaster OA) you can really pump their AC before it actually becomes worth it for an enemy to pay the price of switching targets. On the flip side, if an ally is basically a turtle you can just walk around for free, their defenses are worth little more than the party's most vulnerable link.

3) The lower your AC, the less "effective hp" you gain from each +1 AC. If you're only getting +1 effective hp vs someone else getting +20, the enemy needs to attack the person getting only +1 effective hp much more often for it to be better to give them the +1 AC. After all, if more damage is mitigated on the high AC guy, it frees up other resources (like healing, control, etc) to protect the person with the low AC, who might benefit more from those other kinds of defense.

So should the S&B Paladin get the ring? Well, you have to answer a few questions.
- How difficult or costly is it for Team Monster to beeline past the Paladin and attack the squishy? How "sticky" is the Paladin and how kitey is the squishy?
- How much benefit (in terms of effective HP) will the squishy get from it?
- Is that benefit greater than the benefit of the Paladin being able to position more aggressively, and get healed less?

It's basically a balancing act between effective gain for the individual vs. how easy it is for Team Monster to choose to target someone else. You want to solve for (or at least estimate) the equilibrium between those competing pressures, and hand out the +1 AC ring accordingly.

[animewatcha]

Also, because I'm a wildhunt shifter: When shifted, enemies within 30 feet of me cant have advantage on attack rolls against me when im shifted, so it minimizes the risk reckless attack brings.

Where is this from? Wildhunt shifter racial is mainly tracking an individual...

[LudicSavant]

Where is this from? Wildhunt shifter racial is mainly tracking an individual...

It's right there in the description of the race.


While shifted, you have advantage on Wisdom checks, and no creature within 30 feet of you can make an attack roll with advantage against you, unless you're incapacitated.

[animewatcha]

Forgive me. When I was googling, some websites have the shifters as the first eberron book. Not the later book that revised warforged. Also, not everyone owns all the books.

[Edea]

Forgive me. When I was googling, some websites have the shifters as the first eberron book. Not the later book that revised warforged. Also, not everyone owns all the books.

No need to apologize; the first few official hits for wildhunt shifter on Google are for the 2018 UA version, which is just advantage on Wisdom checks.

[Bobthewizard]

It's basically a balancing act between effective gain for the individual vs. how easy it is for Team Monster to choose to target someone else. You want to solve for (or at least estimate) the equilibrium between those competing pressures, and hand out the +1 AC ring accordingly.

This is what I was trying to say, and what I think sometimes gets missed by others in your initial analysis. Thank you for a nice overview of the thought process.

[Chaosmancer]

If you want to go dual-wielding, I would almost recommend dropping a level or two into fighter (or see if your DM will let you take that new UA feat to get the style) because missing out on your off-hand damage is rough.

Personally, with all of the ideas suggested, I kind of like the Spear PAM fighter for the Zealot. Your main goal (as I understand it) with taking a wildhunt is to be harder to hit, so the shield fits that. (Also, if you were planning on being devoted to the Silver Flame [if this is an Eberron game] the spear fits their iconography)

That all said, compared to other barbarian builds, as a Zealot, you are already on the high end for damage. You will get to add a d6+1/2 level most rounds, which is between 5 and 13 points of extra damage. So even if you don't pick the best damage option, you will be hitting hard enough. So, pick which one interests you the most.

[stoutstien]

If you want to go dual-wielding, I would almost recommend dropping a level or two into fighter (or see if your DM will let you take that new UA feat to get the style) because missing out on your off-hand damage is rough.

Personally, with all of the ideas suggested, I kind of like the Spear PAM fighter for the Zealot. Your main goal (as I understand it) with taking a wildhunt is to be harder to hit, so the shield fits that. (Also, if you were planning on being devoted to the Silver Flame [if this is an Eberron game] the spear fits their iconography)

Eh. Barbarian already has a pretty strong push to jump off at certain points but even then the twf style isn't worth it. ~5 Damage once a round (minus any round you don't use your bonus action to attack) is nowhere as impactful as +1 AC. I could see taking it if you want to be the naked two weapon welding barbarian but that doesn't make it good.

[Warlush]

A shield-wielding Barb with spear and PAM gets 3-4 attacks per round at level 5 (Attack/Extra Attack/PAM + OA against anything moving into range). That's a lot of chances to hit. At high levels, with mundane gear and physical stats maxed, a shield-wearing Barb 20 has AC 24, and with magic stuff, that could easily be up to AC 27-29ish.
I like playing characters who are hard to hit and hard to kill.

This gets you all the benefits of both duel wielding and using a shield.

[Man_Over_Game]

So I've been yearning to play a barbarian lately, but I've been debating on whether he should dual wield a shield and another weapon of choice, or if he should just ditch the shield altogether and get with the standard 2-handed axe. Which one would be more viable? The barbarian in question is a Wildhunt shifter Zealot barbarian. I just want to know of it'd be better to have a more defensive or offensive approach in battle, as the barbarian seems to fit either role well on the frontlines due to the class abilities.

General rule of thumb is that TWF Barbarian is better for defense and on-hit builds (that is, you have features that activate on-hit), while big weapons focus more on dealing damage and generally already have some kind of built-in defensive feature.

This is because TWF builds don't need to utilize Reckless Attack to be accurate, and the Barbarian On-hit features don't require you to land every hit to be useful. Something that's more durable can afford to spam Reckless Attack despite the lowered defenses, since it already has a buff to its durability.

So Ancestral Guardian goes TWF, while Bear Totem goes GWM.

Zealot is an awkward hybrid, where it's both fine at taking damage (since it has death-mitigating effects), and it also has a once-per-turn on-hit effect.


It does just fine as either a damage-dealer, as a tank (with a shield), or something in the middle ground with two weapons. The only thing that matters would be what your party needs or what you want to play.

[N810]

Since Barbarians are proficient in all weapons all armor except heavy,
I prefer to have options, My last barb had:


maul
great sword
great axe
lance
javelins
throwing axes
throwing knives
short bow
short swords
shield
etc...