What do you think of barbarians without the great weapon master feat? (beast)

[Rfkannen]

There seem to be a lot of people who think that the path of the beast barbarian is a trap option because you can't take great weapon master with its weapons.

While every barbarian I have ever played with has taken great weapon master, I don't really like the idea that all barbarians NEED to, after all theres lots of barbarian characters in fiction that use smaller weapons, and there are paths like the path of the beast which thematically would make it weird.

What do you think? Do all barbarians need the great weapon master feat? Is the Beast bararian a lot weaker than other options because you can't take great weapon master? If a great weapon totem barbarian and a beast barbarian were in the same party together, how do you think each would compare?

[Unoriginal]

Barbarians are awesome, thematic and fun, if you like that kind of gameplay. There is nothing making them require GWM to be great.



Do all barbarians need the great weapon master feat?

No.



Is the Beast bararian a lot weaker than other options because you can't take great weapon master?

You can take it, though. Beast Barbarians have nothing that prevents them from using that feat. Heck the tail can help compensate the effect GWM has on a Barbarian's AC.


If a great weapon totem barbarian and a beast barbarian were in the same party together, how do you think each would compare?

Mostly depends on who plays them, what they are beside being Barbarians, how they're played, how the campaign goes, and the dice randomness.



A difference in white-room-theorycrafted DPR is far from enough to make a subclass not worthwhile.

[Amechra]

I ran some numbers, and a Clawbarian is actually pretty on-par with a GWM Barbarian who uses a greataxe. So if you're at the kind of table where that's what a "GWM Barbarian" looks like, it's fine. If "GWM" is shorthand for "PAM+GWM with a glaive", then it isn't.

EDIT: I've found that a lot of the people who say that the Barbarian needs GWM are conflating "the best possible choice" with "the only reasonable choice", which is an issue when the best possible choice is basically a mechanical exploit? It's kinda like saying that blasting sucks because it doesn't deal as much damage as dragging a creature through a Spike Growth over and over again.

[Zanthy1]

I am currently playing a Ancestral Guardian Barb and our DM said that we could change to anything in the newly released book, and the Beast does look appealing. With that said, I personally don't like the GWM feat because it seems bland to me, and think the flavor of the other two is much better. In fact, the Beast getting essentially 3 attacks at level 5 is pretty awesome and could make up a lot of the missing damage. Honestly the versatility of the Beast is just really neat in my mind.

[RogueJK]

In fact, the Beast getting essentially 3 attacks at level 5 is pretty awesome and could make up a lot of the missing damage.

Lizardfolk Clawbarian could also get an additional attack once per short rest with Hungry Jaws, since Claw's additional attack doesn't use up your Bonus Action like something such as Polearm Master or Two Weapon Fighting does.

[Makorel]

Lizardfolk Clawbarian could also get an additional attack once per short rest with Hungry Jaws, since Claw's additional attack doesn't use up your Bonus Action like something such as Polearm Master or Two Weapon Fighting does.

Couldn't you just use the claw in your opposite hand for a bonus action attack?

[RogueJK]

Couldn't you just use the claw in your opposite hand for a bonus action attack?

Likely not, but your DM may allow it.

RAW, Two Weapon Fighting requires attacking with two light melee weapons that you're holding in each hand.

Natural weapons and unarmed strikes are not "light" weapons. Plus it's debatable whether they would qualify as "melee weapons you're holding in a hand". (I would rule that they are not, RAW.)

Even though the Dual Wielder feat removes the Light requirement, eliminating one hurdle, it still references "melee weapons that are being wielded". So that one's possibly a little bit more arguable, if you were to invest in the feat.

Your DM may rule otherwise.

[Darthnazrael]

Claws are not Light weapons, so you can't dual wield them without the Dual Wielder feat, which is even less useful here. But the claw feature only requires one of your initial attacks to be a claw attack in order to gain another claw attack. With extra attack, nothing stops you from making one of the attacks with a better one-handed weapon.

[HappyDaze]

The Shifter (Longtooth) can add in a bonus action bite (after a bonus action to rage and another bonus action to shift).

[RogueJK]

A Beast Barbarian could also make good use of grappling, since you'd have free hand(s) yet could still attack with your natural weapons.

Even a Clawbarian could do it, and still get their extra attack, if they aren't wielding a Shield.

Clawbarian with Extra Attack...
Round 1: Bonus Action Rage then Advantaged Grapple+Claw+Claw
Round 2: Advantaged Shove+Advantaged Claw+Advantaged Claw
Round 3+: 3x Advantaged Claws

I think I smell a Lizardfolk Grappleclawbarian with the Skill Expert (Athletics) feat in my future.

[Yakmala]

I probably play Barbarians more than any other class and I'm very interested in the Beast Barbarian, though I think I'll be focusing on the Tail option for the AC boost via reaction.

As for GWM, it's certainly helpful for increasing damage output. But it's not a requirement for all Barbarian builds. I have two Barbarians that don't make use of it.

One is a spear and shield PAM Wolf Totem that is in a party with mostly other melee characters. I wade in, skip reckless attack to keep my AC high and do my damage, but my main goal is to position myself to give all of the other melee folks in the party advantage against as many targets as possible.

The other is a Glaive wielding PAM/Mobile/Sentinel Bugbear Ancestral Guardian who's job is to frustrate the heck out of the toughest opponent in any encounter. And they do their job exceptionally well.

Both of these characters could benefit from GWM somewhere down the line, but it's not essential for the roles they play in combat.

[MrCharlie]

I just wanted to emphasize that GWM and Sharpshooter and such are never required, they are just incredibly strong. Arguably, polearm master is more generically powerful for Barbarians, even. The only time they start seeming required is at high Barbarian levels, when your lack of meaningful damage features becomes painful, and even then only if your DM doesen't toss you something big and scary looking to swing with.

[SirDidymus]

It's not the beast subclass (although I'd have chosen it if it was around) but I've played a halfling barbarian up through 12th level. I've gotten by fine without GWM.

[werescythe]

I'm thinking of making a Tail Barbarian, which might seem weird but oh well.

[Sepaulchre]

I don't *think* anything is stopping you from using a greataxe for one attack with PAM/GWM and then making two claw attacks.

The two-handed property only applies when you attack with a weapon.

EDIT: Nope. PAM doesn't work.

[MagneticKitty]

I'm currently playing the UA version of the beast barbarian in a campaign. We started at level 3 and now we are level 10.
I've not played a barbarian before (except maybe in a one shot? can't remember)
I don't feel under powered without GWM. Mostly my ability to tank by healing, and my ability to deal magic damage before we had magic weapons was nice. I took mobile at level 4 and resilient wisdom at lv 8. The climbing feature has been really great for me. Some of my favorite highlights have been running on the ceiling while carrying an enemy, and fighting while standing on a wall to occupy the space above an ally. I think this is the barbarian class you play if you really wanted a viable strength monk.

I've used all three natural weapons options, but I think Bite is my favorite.
I'm playing a simic hybrid with acid breath and gliding wings, reflavored to be a half dragon named Sharyu; when he rages he takes on more dragon features. He looks humanish in main form with horns and scaly patches. and he looks near dragonborn like when raging, but with a tail.

[CTurbo]

I've played many NON-GWM Barbs so I'd definitely say that GWM in not needed to be a fun/effective Barb.

My favorite Barb was a Goliath Bear Totem grappler Barb. This character was specifically optimized to NOT do group leading damage, but was still fun and effective. I think the Beast Bard would be an amazing grappler for obvious reasons, and I've added it to my short list of characters to play.

I've also played a TFW Barb that was a lot of fun, and I never felt like I was down on DPR to the other characters.

I've even played a Halfling Berserker Barb that used a Light Hammer and took the Mobile feat.

I'm the guy that's played a Barbarian with Bard levels.
I'm the guy that's played a Barbarian with Cleric levels.
I'm the guy that played a straight classed Barbarian with Skilled, Ritual Caster, and Res(Wis) as my 3 feats.

GWM is not mandatory for all Barbs.

[Dork_Forge]

It's a really nice, versayile option, it opens up within the same subclass:

-A DPR Barbarian (Claws)

-An AC tank Barbarian (Tail +a shield)

-A hp based tank (Bite, though probably the weakest of the niches)


The notion that a Barbarian needs to have GWM at all let alone with PAM is nonsense, you don't need to be doing the most damage possible to be useful, especially if the point of your build isn't to do a lot of damage to begin with.

[Zhorn]

I'm looking forwards to trying this subclass out.
My DM's ruling the Dual Wielder will allow for claws to qualify for TWF, so I'll be swinging for 4 claw attacks by lv5 while raging, which should be fun :smallamused:

Intending to pair this up with Fighting Initiate Two-Weapon Fighting Style and Slasher.

[Dork_Forge]

I'm looking forwards to trying this subclass out.
My DM's ruling the Dual Wielder will allow for claws to qualify for TWF, so I'll be swinging for 4 claw attacks by lv5 while raging, which should be fun :smallamused:

Intending to pair this up with Fighting Initiate Two-Weapon Fighting Style and Slasher.

Ooft now that would be brutal! What race are you thinking of for it? V. Human to help with the feats?

[Zhorn]

Goblin actually. I know I could min-max it and get some seriously nutty output with it, but I'm doing a theme build instead, making a riff on Stitch just for fun.

[Dork_Forge]

Goblin actually. I know I could min-max it and get some seriously nutty output with it, but I'm doing a theme build instead, making a riff on Stitch just for fun.

I always knew that adorable little blighter unnerved me for good reason!

Sounds like a really fun character build (and still pretty good mechanically) I hope you enjoy it :)

[bendking]

If you're strictly optimizing for the best possible DPR then PAM+GWM is, unfortunately, the only option, which is what makes the Beast a trap (again, if going for DPR). IMO.
It also happens that one of the only things Barbarians are good at is dealing damage, so not optimizing your Barbarian for damage will, in most cases, mean you're not optimizing at all.
Edge cases include Grappler builds, which don't use their attacks as their main source of damage and thus don't need GWM+PAM to be optimal.

Can your Barbarian be viable without GWM+PAM? Probably, though it would depend on your table's optimization levle.
Would it be optimal? Probably not*.

*Unless you're going for a Grappler/Throwing Weapon build, in which case GWM+PAM would, of course, be far from optimal. However, I suspect most people build their Barbarian as a more straight-forward damaged dealer, in which case GWM+PAM is the best option.
Here's an example (https://forums.giantitp.com/showsinglepost.php?p=23917496&postcount=103) of a build that doesn't require GWM+PAM.

EDIT: I myself have made a Grappler Beast build, which is actually a niche in which the Beast excels at. That is to say, I don't think the Beast is 100% of the time a trap. But DPR-wise there is no doubt in my mind that the Beast is a trap option.

[Tanarii]

I don't know anything about new subclasses.

But existing Barbarians don't need GWM. They're just giving up significant DOR if they don't. On the order of 25% IIRC.

[clash]

I would argue sentinel is the feat a barbarian needs the most. Barbarians are not designed to deal the most damage but rather take the most hits. I am going to pick up a feat that helps me tank better as a barbarian before I grab one that lets me deal more damage every time. If you want the "optimal barbarian" as people put it make sure you can get people to target you. Otherwise if you're not the one getting hit why not just play a fighter?

[stoutstien]

I don't know anything about new subclasses.

But existing Barbarians don't need GWM. They're just giving up significant DOR if they don't. On the order of 25% IIRC.

The issue is 25% isn't that much for barbs due to having a pretty low damage ceiling to begin with. Good substantial and high minimum damage they have in spades but trying to eck out max damage on barbarian just seems like a waste.
Any sort of bonus action attack is a big jump but GWM barely edges out +2 str unless everyone they face has <12 AC until you have 18 or higher strength.

[Dork_Forge]

If you're strictly optimizing for the best possible DPR then PAM+GWM is, unfortunately, the only option, which is what makes the Beast a trap (again, if going for DPR). IMO.
It also happens that one of the only things Barbarians are good at is dealing damage, so not optimizing your Barbarian for damage will, in most cases, mean you're not optimizing at all.
Edge cases include Grappler builds, which don't use their attacks as their main source of damage and thus don't need GWM+PAM to be optimal.

Can your Barbarian be viable without GWM+PAM? Probably, though it would depend on your table's optimization levle.
Would it be optimal? Probably not*.

*Unless you're going for a Grappler/Throwing Weapon build, in which case GWM+PAM would, of course, be far from optimal. However, I suspect most people build their Barbarian as a more straight-forward damaged dealer, in which case GWM+PAM is the best option.
Here's an example (https://forums.giantitp.com/showsinglepost.php?p=23917496&postcount=103) of a build that doesn't require GWM+PAM.

EDIT: I myself have made a Grappler Beast build, which is actually a niche in which the Beast excels at. That is to say, I don't think the Beast is 100% of the time a trap. But DPR-wise there is no doubt in my mind that the Beast is a trap option.

Arguably the thing that Barbarian is best at to begin with is tanking damage, not dealing it (hence Rage resistance and being the only d12 hit die class). You certainly can optimise for DPR, but that's far from the only way to optimise a Barbarian to be effective in a game (Bearbarians, Ancestral Guardian and so on) and in that arena the Beast offers up the best option for AC tanking we have so far on a Barbarian as well as giving a built in option for DPR that is pretty comparable with PAM/GWM without eating a bunch of feats to get there.

[cutlery]

Apropos of little: I’d like GWM and PAM/CBE/SS a lot more if they were on a restricted fighter list of feats.

[Emongnome777]

Played an 8th level halfling beast (UA) barbarian for a one-shot (2 characters, other was a rogue 4 / warlock 4). Like many here, I leaned into grappling. He didn't carry weapons, so I took Tavern Brawler so his unarmed strikes did some damage when he wasn't raging. Played him like a "little furry ball of hate". Was grappling a spellcaster and she forced me to move 15' off a boat... and I took her with me (I think we ruled that right). Good times. Also climbed onto a black dragon (DMG rules on climbing onto bigger creatures), but had to let go when it dove underwater.

Damage wasn't great, but it was lots of fun. I kinda liked the path as I could build it without feeling like I "should've" went GWM. GWM is great for barbarians, sure. But they can be lots of fun without it. YMMV

[bendking]

Arguably the thing that Barbarian is best at to begin with is tanking damage, not dealing it (hence Rage resistance and being the only d12 hit die class). You certainly can optimise for DPR, but that's far from the only way to optimise a Barbarian to be effective in a game (Bearbarians, Ancestral Guardian and so on) and in that arena the Beast offers up the best option for AC tanking we have so far on a Barbarian as well as giving a built in option for DPR that is pretty comparable with PAM/GWM without eating a bunch of feats to get there.
Emphasis mine.

First off, building an Ancestral Guardian and Bearbarians isn't mutually exclusive to getting GWM + PAM, so I'm not sure what your point there is.
Secondly, the damage it really isn't that comparable. Even comparing a Totem Barbarian (with no extra damage in his kit) to a Beast Barbarian using one of his attacks with a Greataxe and an additional two with Claws, the difference is substantial.
Human Bearbarian 11 (GWM, PAM), 18 STR- 47 DPR.
Orc/Whatever Beast 11, 20 STR - 34 DPR.

That's a 38% DPR difference, which in my book is very substantial.
(Calculations are made vs AC 15. Of course, the higher the AC, the lower the % difference will be.)

I do agree that tanking damage is one of those things that Barbarians are good at, but tanking damage isn't worth much if you're not a threat in the first place. And again, getting better DPR with these feats isn't mutually exclusive to being a good tank. The opposite is true, in fact, since you need to have either good DPR or some other way of making enemies attack you (Ancestral Barbarian is actually great at that) on top of just being tanky.
Plus, taking PAM and GWM doesn't have a high opportunity cost. The only things you're losing out on are the benefits of a higher STR since these feats give better DPR.

Like I said, some builds don't require PAM+GWM to be optimal (i.e. grapple builds), but I would argue that most do.

EDIT: I want to stress that I'm not a fan of PAM+GWM being the best choice for most builds. I feel like Barbarians are really rail-roaded into one specific playstyle because of their existence. I'm merely working with what the system offers.

[Segev]

Is a "Claw" an unarmed strike (or a monk weapon)? What about a Bite or Tail? There could be some interesting synergy with Monk, here. Monks get a bonus action unarmed strike if they make an Attack action that uses an unarmed strike or monk weapon on their turn. Or two unarmed strikes as a bonus action if they take any Attack action at all and spend a ki point.

For those interested in grappling, this means they need to either have Extra Attack and use a monk weapon or unarmed strike to trigger the bonus action, or spend a ki point.

Claw (extra Claw attack) plus ki point for 2 unarmed strikes is 4 attacks per round at level 5 (Barbarian 3, Monk 2), vs. 3 attacks per round for Barbarian 5. If you go Barb 5 Monk 2, that's a minimum of claw, claw, unarmed strike, bonus action unarmed strike, and could be claw, claw, unarmed strike, bonus action +2 unarmed strikes with a ki point.

Rapidly getting up into full attack territory from 3.5!

[stoutstien]

Is a "Claw" an unarmed strike (or a monk weapon)? What about a Bite or Tail? There could be some interesting synergy with Monk, here. Monks get a bonus action unarmed strike if they make an Attack action that uses an unarmed strike or monk weapon on their turn. Or two unarmed strikes as a bonus action if they take any Attack action at all and spend a ki point.

For those interested in grappling, this means they need to either have Extra Attack and use a monk weapon or unarmed strike to trigger the bonus action, or spend a ki point.

Claw (extra Claw attack) plus ki point for 2 unarmed strikes is 4 attacks per round at level 5 (Barbarian 3, Monk 2), vs. 3 attacks per round for Barbarian 5. If you go Barb 5 Monk 2, that's a minimum of claw, claw, unarmed strike, bonus action unarmed strike, and could be claw, claw, unarmed strike, bonus action +2 unarmed strikes with a ki point.

Rapidly getting up into full attack territory from 3.5!

Beast options are all considered simple weapons.

[Dork_Forge]

Emphasis mine.

You may have missed some formatting, I don't see any emphasis on the quote?


First off, building an Ancestral Guardian and Bearbarians isn't mutually exclusive to getting GWM + PAM, so I'm not sure what your point there is.

My point was that they are subclasses clearly no intended to be damage centric.


Secondly, the damage it really isn't that comparable. Even comparing a Totem Barbarian (with no extra damage in his kit) to a Beast Barbarian using one of his attacks with a Greataxe and an additional two with Claws, the difference is substantial.
Human Bearbarian 11 (GWM, PAM), 18 STR- 47 DPR.
Orc/Whatever Beast 11, 20 STR - 34 DPR.

That's a 38% DPR difference, which in my book is very substantial.
(Calculations are made vs AC 15. Of course, the higher the AC, the lower the % difference will be.)

I think you chose a sweet point of comparison here, you chose where the PAM/GWM get's an accuracy bump but also what feels like a pretty low end AC to be hitting at level 8. I also assume that since you mention PAM that this is on a round 2+ situation, since Rage competes with the PAM attack, that feels like a wonky comparison so:

-What does round 1 damage look like?
-What does more of an average look like?
-How do things look on average if you take a V.Human Beast with the Dual Wielder feat?
-How different are things one level earlier when the GWM/PAM only has a +3 Str to work with?

And of course as already mentioned the comparison falls massively against higher AC opponents (which can have knock on effects, like hitting similar DPRs due to Reckless to make up for accuracy, but then the Beast taking far less hits to achieve a similar thing)


I do agree that tanking damage is one of those things that Barbarians are good at, but tanking damage isn't worth much if you're not a threat in the first place. And again, getting better DPR with these feats isn't mutually exclusive to being a good tank. The opposite is true, in fact, since you need to have either good DPR or some other way of making enemies attack you (Ancestral Barbarian is actually great at that) on top of just being tanky.

Very table dependent, a lot of the time ime monsters will attack whatever is in range and hitting them, higher Str means more reliable hits and the Beast puts out more than respectable DPR to keep attention.


Plus, taking PAM and GWM doesn't have a high opportunity cost. The only things you're losing out on are the benefits of a higher STR since these feats give better DPR.

Grabbing two feats in 5e will always be a significant cost.


Like I said, some builds don't require PAM+GWM to be optimal (i.e. grapple builds), but I would argue that most do.

Or builds that want to hit reliably or have a decent-good AC?


EDIT: I want to stress that I'm not a fan of PAM+GWM being the best choice for most builds. I feel like Barbarians are really rail-roaded into one specific playstyle because of their existence. I'm merely working with what the system offers.

The system offers a lot more than just PAM/GWM, especially now we have the Tasha's feats and subclasses.

[Zhorn]

Is a "Claw" an unarmed strike (or a monk weapon)? What about a Bite or Tail?
As stoutstien touched on, the Form of the Beast feature refers to then as
"Until the rage ends, you manifest a natural weapon. It counts as a simple melee weapon for you, and you add your Strength modifier to the attack and damage rolls when you attack with it, as normal."
with no mention of unarmed strikes.
Which I think is fine. As long as your DM isn't being overly strict of the TWF thing, picking up Dual Wielder at lv4 makes for 4 Claw attacks at lv5 with a pure barb as mentioned earlier.
I'm keen to see what some grappler builds are going to get out of this, both with and beyond what Awrysight is covering in the other thread (though that is a barb/monk multiclass)

[LudicSavant]

Beast options are all considered simple weapons.

But are they considered a 'weapon you're wielding in one hand'?

[RogueJK]

But are they considered a 'weapon you're wielding in one hand'?

That's up to your DM, as it's not explicitly stated. (Whereas them not being Light and not being Unarmed Strikes are both explicitly clear.)

I'd say the answer is no as far as RAW, because bite or tail isn't in your hand, and claw is your hand but isn't a separate weapon that you're wielding. But I also don't think it would be game-breaking for a DM to allow someone to dual wield claws if they're willing to spend the feat to avoid the "not Light" factor plus forego the use of a shield, in exchange for being able to spend their Bonus Action to get one more claw strike. TWF is kinda underpowered as it is.

[LudicSavant]

With any given character who gets lots of attacks, generally what you want is some way to get per-hit damage bonuses on those attacks in order to push your DPR. The issue is that an awful lot of the ways to do that depend on wielding an actual weapon (it doesn't just need to count as a weapon, it needs to be 'wielded in your hand'), or concentrating on a spell, or just straight up having a magic weapon.

Also, since it apparently is one of the few natural weapons that doesn't have a 'can be used as an unarmed strike' wording, it evidently doesn't work with Tavern Brawler.

[bendking]

You may have missed some formatting, I don't see any emphasis on the quote?



My point was that they are subclasses clearly no intended to be damage centric.



I think you chose a sweet point of comparison here, you chose where the PAM/GWM get's an accuracy bump but also what feels like a pretty low end AC to be hitting at level 8. I also assume that since you mention PAM that this is on a round 2+ situation, since Rage competes with the PAM attack, that feels like a wonky comparison so:

-What does round 1 damage look like?
-What does more of an average look like?
-How do things look on average if you take a V.Human Beast with the Dual Wielder feat?
-How different are things one level earlier when the GWM/PAM only has a +3 Str to work with?

And of course as already mentioned the comparison falls massively against higher AC opponents (which can have knock on effects, like hitting similar DPRs due to Reckless to make up for accuracy, but then the Beast taking far less hits to achieve a similar thing)



Very table dependent, a lot of the time ime monsters will attack whatever is in range and hitting them, higher Str means more reliable hits and the Beast puts out more than respectable DPR to keep attention.



Grabbing two feats in 5e will always be a significant cost.



Or builds that want to hit reliably or have a decent-good AC?



The system offers a lot more than just PAM/GWM, especially now we have the Tasha's feats and subclasses.

I'm not really interested in laying out all of the calculations here, but for the sake of discussion, vs 17 AC, the GWM+PAM Bearbarian would still have 21% more damage, which is still highly significant.
And yes, I did write round 2+ damage in here, which is somewhat of an oversight. Round 1 DPR on GWM+PAM would be 33, which is as much as the Beast would get on round 1 anyway.

I was not aware you could use Dual Wielding with the Claws, are you sure about that? If that is possible then that would actually even the playing field DPR-wise.

If your DM just attacks whoever is in sight, then sure, you don't need anything to tank besides having high HP. I'm assuming high-op tables also have DMs who play tactically.

What I argued regarding the feats is that you probably would have taken +4 STR instead of them anyway and because those 2 feats give better DPR than maxing STR, then the opportunity cost is only losing out on the other advantages of STR.

I'm not sure what the point of talking about "reliability" is when the numbers clearly state the DPR is higher. The reliability is already calculated into the numbers - the DPR, on average, is higher with one strategy rather than the next. Why is 'reliability' important in light of this?

I'll be happy to hear about better/equivalent strategies than PAM/GWM. I've already conceded that grappling doesn't need it, is there anything else?
And again, the new subclasses aren't mutually exclusive with this strategy, so I'm not sure how that is relevant.

[Unoriginal]

I'm not really interested in laying out all of the calculations here, but for the sake of discussion, vs 17 AC, the GWM+PAM Bearbarian would still have 21% more damage, which is still highly significant.
And yes, I did write round 2+ damage in here, which is somewhat of an oversight. Round 1 DPR on GWM+PAM would be 33, which is as much as the Beast would get on round 1 anyway.

I was not aware you could use Dual Wielding with the Claws, are you sure about that? If that is possible then that would actually even the playing field DPR-wise.

If your DM just attacks whoever is in sight, then sure, you don't need anything to tank besides having high HP. I'm assuming high-op tables also have DMs who play tactically.

What I argued regarding the feats is that you probably would have taken +4 STR instead of them anyway and because those 2 feats give better DPR than maxing STR, then the opportunity cost is only losing out on the other advantages of STR.

I'm not sure what the point of talking about "reliability" is when the numbers clearly state the DPR is higher. The reliability is already calculated into the numbers - the DPR, on average, is higher with one strategy rather than the next. Why is 'reliability' important in light of this?

I'll be happy to hear about better/equivalent strategies than PAM/GWM. I've already conceded that grappling doesn't need it, is there anything else?
And again, the new subclasses aren't mutually exclusive with this strategy, so I'm not sure how that is relevant.

So just to be clear, it seems to me you're claiming that a GWM+PAM Bearbarian (at lvl 8?) with 16 in STR deals 21% more damage than a Bearbarian (at lvl 8?)with 20 STR against AC 17.

Do I understand your point correctly?

[bendking]

So just to be clear, it seems to me you're claiming that a GWM+PAM Bearbarian (at lvl 8?) with 16 in STR deals 21% more damage than a Bearbarian (at lvl 8?)with 20 STR against AC 17.

Do I understand your point correctly?

No, I've already explained in a previous post the exact stats, you're welcome to read them.

[stoutstien]

So in the best case spending 2 ASI on GWM/Pam feats nets ~13 damage more a round. Doesn't sound optimized IMO.

[Gignere]

I think people also underestimate the additional movement types of the Beast barbarian. Which may not always apply but when you need it, it can be crucial.

One time our party barbarian couldn’t even begin to hit a beholder until he used a potion of spider climb spent two turns running up the walls and ceiling then drop on the beholder and grappled it and started recklessly attacking it with a one handed weapon. 30 feet in the air it was so epic. In that situation GWM wouldn’t have mattered at all.

With Beast you don’t even need to waste the action on quaffing a potion, and your DPR wouldn’t suffer at all while grappling.

[Awrysight]

Emphasis mine.

First off, building an Ancestral Guardian and Bearbarians isn't mutually exclusive to getting GWM + PAM, so I'm not sure what your point there is.
Secondly, the damage it really isn't that comparable. Even comparing a Totem Barbarian (with no extra damage in his kit) to a Beast Barbarian using one of his attacks with a Greataxe and an additional two with Claws, the difference is substantial.
Human Bearbarian 11 (GWM, PAM), 18 STR- 47 DPR.
Orc/Whatever Beast 11, 20 STR - 34 DPR.

That's a 38% DPR difference, which in my book is very substantial.
(Calculations are made vs AC 15. Of course, the higher the AC, the lower the % difference will be.)

I do agree that tanking damage is one of those things that Barbarians are good at, but tanking damage isn't worth much if you're not a threat in the first place. And again, getting better DPR with these feats isn't mutually exclusive to being a good tank. The opposite is true, in fact, since you need to have either good DPR or some other way of making enemies attack you (Ancestral Barbarian is actually great at that) on top of just being tanky.
Plus, taking PAM and GWM doesn't have a high opportunity cost. The only things you're losing out on are the benefits of a higher STR since these feats give better DPR.

Like I said, some builds don't require PAM+GWM to be optimal (i.e. grapple builds), but I would argue that most do.

EDIT: I want to stress that I'm not a fan of PAM+GWM being the best choice for most builds. I feel like Barbarians are really rail-roaded into one specific playstyle because of their existence. I'm merely working with what the system offers.

Butting in this discussion, the average AC for CR11 is, iirc, 18, which gives an average DPR of:

Human Bearbarian 11 (GWM, PAM), 18 STR - 18.175 base, 32.11625 with advantage
whatever Beast 11, 20 STR - 20.025 base, 29.56125 with advantage
whatever Beast 10, fighter 1 (TWF, DW), 18 STR - 22.4 base, 34.23 with advantage
whatever Beast 10, monk 1, 20 STR - 26.05 base, 38.4225 with advantage

I provided three simple builds for the beast barbarian, with the first being the most defensive (19 AC with half plate and shield), the second between the first and the PAM+GWM barbarian (18 AC with half plate and dual wielder) and the third with, admitedly, ****ty defenses (14-15 AC with unarmored defense depending on your stats).
With this, we can see that they have pretty comparable damage against challenging opponents, and if you go full offence, the Beast's damage becomes significantly better. Where PAM+GWM really shines is against low-AC targets, and if they ever get disadvantage they're toast.

[bendking]

So in the best case spending 2 ASI on GWM/Pam feats nets ~13 damage more a round. Doesn't sound optimized IMO.
What is better than 21-38% more DPR?
I'm genuinely curious.

[RogueJK]

Also, since it apparently is one of the few natural weapons that doesn't have a 'can be used as an unarmed strike' wording, it evidently doesn't work with Tavern Brawler.

Or the Unarmed fighting style. Or Monk Martial Arts/Flurry.

Considering how explicit they were that the Beast Barbarian's natural weapons are specifically simple melee weapons, as opposed to unarmed strikes, I can only assume that this was a very intentional design choice, to head off abuse.

Otherwise, for example, a Beast Barbarian/Monk could have achieved 4x-5x attacks every round at a relatively low level, stepping on the high level Fighter's shtick.

[stoutstien]

What is better than 21-38% more DPR?
I'm genuinely curious.

Seeing how that 38% is roughly worth a single great sword attack at the cost of every opportunity to do other stuff than subtracting HP from a practically endless pool while simultaneously tying up every action on said attacks? Laterally anything. Optimizing for damage will never solve problems the party would likely solve anyways at the cost of not having tools for anything that isn't a race to zero.

[bendking]

Butting in this discussion, the average AC for CR11 is, iirc, 18, which gives an average DPR of:

Human Bearbarian 11 (GWM, PAM), 18 STR - 18.175 base, 32.11625 with advantage
whatever Beast 11, 20 STR - 20.025 base, 29.56125 with advantage
whatever Beast 10, fighter 1 (TWF, DW), 18 STR - 22.4 base, 34.23 with advantage
whatever Beast 10, monk 1, 20 STR - 26.05 base, 38.4225 with advantage

I provided three simple builds for the beast barbarian, with the first being the most defensive (19 AC with half plate and shield), the second between the first and the PAM+GWM barbarian (18 AC with half plate and dual wielder) and the third with, admitedly, ****ty defenses (14-15 AC with unarmored defense depending on your stats).
With this, we can see that they have pretty comparable damage against challenging opponents, and if you go full offence, the Beast's damage becomes significantly better. Where PAM+GWM really shines is against low-AC targets, and if they ever get disadvantage they're toast.

Thank you for the detailed numbers.
Mine are a bit different vs 18 AC (I don't bother with non-reckless):
Whatever Beast 11, 20 STR - 31.02
Human Beast 10, Fighter 1 (TWF, DW), 20 STR - 41.96
Human Bearbarian 11 (GWM, PAM), 18 STR - 35.28
Human Bearbarian 10, Fighter 1 (GWM, PAM, GWF), 18 STR - 36.71
Human Zealot 11 (GWM, PAM) - 43.3
Human Zealot 10, Fighter 1 (GWM, PAM, GWF) - 45.5

I didn't include the Monk example becaues the AC seems like too much of a sacrifice.

Now, I'm assuming that in the TWF example you are using a Longsword in your off-hand, is that correct?
I must admit, I did not think about using a Longsword in the off-hand with Dual Wielder for the Beast. This does change things and means the Beast is better than the Bearbarian at DPR, which might not be a big deal since Bearbarian doesn't have any damage feats.

That said, to reach the DPR that you can reach (~42) you are using the Path of the Beast as a damage centric subclass, since you're comitted to the Claws.
You'll notice I included Zealot DPR, because at that point, isn't this Beast just a worse Zealot?

And as you said, the lower the AC the higher the DPR difference in favor of Zealot, and the higher it is the more in favor of the Beast it is. Against an AC of 16, the Zealot reaches 52.28, while the beast reaches 45. They only even out at AC 20, in which they both reach 37.7 DPR.
This means the Zealot has the higher DPR for the vast majority of enemies, and significantly higher DPR from AC 16 and below. Plus, it's not uncommon to fight low AC monsters, because thanks to bounded accuracy an encounter can still be very challenging with a bunch of low CR monsters with an AC of 16 and even lower.

My conclusion:
While the beast does surpass Bearbarian DPR using Dual Wielding (nice catch!), he is still sub-optimal in terms of DPR.
However, I am now convinced that he is not as bad as I originally thought, so thank you for that.


Seeing how that 38% is roughly worth a single great sword attack at the cost of every opportunity to do other stuff than subtracting HP from a practically endless pool while simultaneously tying up every action on said attacks? Laterally anything. Optimizing for damage will never solve problems the party would likely solve anyways at the cost of not having tools for anything that isn't a race to zero.
Like what? What feats would you take instead of GWM+PAM that would enable you this supposed endless pool of opportunities?

[Tanarii]

The issue is 25% isn't that much for barbs due to having a pretty low damage ceiling to begin with.
With feats, Barbarians are among the highest DPR martials.

Its important to distinguish between DPR and DPH. There are others that can lay out more damage per hit, or potential hits per round. But reckless attack makes Barbarians far more likely to consistenly hit. Which, given we're talking about GWM, is fantastic.

[stoutstien]

With feats, Barbarians are among the highest DPR martials.

Its important to distinguish between DPR and DPH. There are others that can lay out more damage per hit, or potential hits per round. But reckless attack makes Barbarians far more likely to consistenly hit. Which, given we're talking about GWM, is fantastic.
Eh. Reckless is one of those things that I think get over emphasize when talking about barbarians. Used haphazardly can lead to spending turns recovering and repositioning and advantage isn't hard to achieve. while it's nice to think that barbarians have constant advantage with regards to advantage, they aren't alone. I'm not saying that building a barbarian that does high damage is impossible I just can't see it being worth the cost.
Samurai comes to mind as an option that gets more out of GWM and at a less cost with more ASI to throw around. I am not in position to do any scratch math but I'm pretty confident that they can consistently out perform the high damage barbarian at less risk.after lv 10 they probably can do it more frequently as well.

Side note: reckless comes cheap for multi-classing. Barbarian always seems to me as something you can snipe most of the power from with a few levels.

Side side note: I'm always confused when someone uses Martial as a state of comparison. What classes are excluded/included here?

After years of running 5e I would safely say a barbarian with a shield and focused on being a general pain for the enemy is a much bigger threat than one that one running around with a polearm.

[Awrysight]

Thank you for the detailed numbers.
Mine are a bit different vs 18 AC (I don't bother with non-reckless):
Whatever Beast 11, 20 STR - 31.02
Human Beast 10, Fighter 1 (TWF, DW), 20 STR - 41.96
Human Bearbarian 11 (GWM, PAM), 18 STR - 35.28
Human Bearbarian 10, Fighter 1 (GWM, PAM, GWF), 18 STR - 36.71
Human Zealot 11 (GWM, PAM) - 43.3
Human Zealot 10, Fighter 1 (GWM, PAM, GWF) - 45.5

I didn't include the Monk example becaues the AC seems like too much of a sacrifice.
It seems my numbers are actually for 19 AC. Oh, well...
I wouldn't be so quick to dismiss the monk. If you go up to monk 4 and grab mobile, you become an amazing skirmisher, with the ability to run in, deal your full damage, and run out in the same turn, which, granted, changes your role significantly, but can also be very effective while minimizing the disadvantages of the low AC. And I haven't even gone into the shenanigans you can do with grappling. :smallbiggrin:

Also, I think it's worth it to discuss situations without advantage, since that's the result you get when you reckless when you'd normally have disadvantage, which is something that happens fairly frequently.


Now, I'm assuming that in the TWF example you are using a Longsword in your off-hand, is that correct?
I must admit, I did not think about using a Longsword in the off-hand with Dual Wielder for the Beast. This does change things and means the Beast is better than the Bearbarian at DPR, which might not be a big deal since Bearbarian doesn't have any damage feats.

That said, to reach the DPR that you can reach (~42) you are using the Path of the Beast as a damage centric subclass, since you're comitted to the Claws.
You'll notice I included Zealot DPR, because at that point, isn't this Beast just a worse Zealot?

And as you said, the lower the AC the higher the DPR difference in favor of Zealot, and the higher it is the more in favor of the Beast it is. Against an AC of 16, the Zealot reaches 52.28, while the beast reaches 45. They only even out at AC 20, in which they both reach 37.7 DPR.
This means the Zealot has the higher DPR for the vast majority of enemies, and significantly higher DPR from AC 16 and below. Plus, it's not uncommon to fight low AC monsters, because thanks to bounded accuracy an encounter can still be very challenging with a bunch of low CR monsters with an AC of 16 and even lower.

My conclusion:
While the beast does surpass Bearbarian DPR using Dual Wielding (nice catch!), he is still sub-optimal in terms of DPR.
However, I am now convinced that he is not as bad as I originally thought, so thank you for that.
Well, I never claimed that beast had the absolute best DPR, so I'm glad we can agree that it's pretty decent, and at least it wouldn't be out of place in an optimized party.
Overall, when you combine it's advantage against high AC opponents and it's advantages with grappling, I'd say the beast barbarian is best suited to deal with the big bad enemy, rather than with swarms of minions.


With any given character who gets lots of attacks, generally what you want is some way to get per-hit damage bonuses on those attacks in order to push your DPR. The issue is that an awful lot of the ways to do that depend on wielding an actual weapon (it doesn't just need to count as a weapon, it needs to be 'wielded in your hand'), or concentrating on a spell, or just straight up having a magic weapon.

Also, since it apparently is one of the few natural weapons that doesn't have a 'can be used as an unarmed strike' wording, it evidently doesn't work with Tavern Brawler.
It's a bit late to reply to this one, but whatever.
What you said about stacking per-hit damage is true, but the beast barbarian just so happens to get the best one that doesn't rely on the conditions you mentioned automatically: the extra rage damage, which may not seem like much, but with the high hit chance barbarians get from the easily accessed advantage, it becomes quite significant.

[Tanarii]

Eh. Reckless is one of those things that I think get over emphasize when talking about barbarians. Used haphazardly can lead to spending turns recovering and repositioning and advantage isn't hard to achieve. while it's nice to think that barbarians have constant advantage with regards to advantage, they aren't alone. I'm not saying that building a barbarian that does high damage is impossible I just can't see it being worth the cost.
Samurai comes to mind as an option that gets more out of GWM and at a less cost with more ASI to throw around. I am not in position to do any scratch math but I'm pretty confident that they can consistently out perform the high damage barbarian at less risk.after lv 10 they probably can do it more frequently as well. My experience is Reckless should be almost always used. Thats in a campaign where parties are often outnumbered too.

All the numbers I've seen were pre-Xan, so I cant speak to Samurai in terms of rigorous analysis. Also, i may be remembering GWM+PAM keeping Barbs consistently at top of the Martial pack, not just GWM.

Those numbers were by Kryx, and across an adventuring day btw. He made some assumptions I wouldnt have, like higher CR enemies so on average higher ACs for determing DPR, which depends on hit rate. Barbs do better there, but conversely lower CR enemies have lower to hit, so its safer to use Reckless.


Side note: reckless comes cheap for multi-classing. Barbarian always seems to me as something you can snipe most of the power from with a few levels.Fair point.


Side side note: I'm always confused when someone uses Martial as a state of comparison. What classes are excluded/included here?Good point. I use martial to mean the 6 not-full-caster classes. Barbarian, Fighter, Monk, Paladin, Ranger, Rogue.

[Unoriginal]

Good point. I use martial to mean the 6 not-full-caster classes. Barbarian, Fighter, Monk, Paladin, Ranger, Rogue.

Among those, where would yousay that the Barbarian with feat stands in term of DPR?

[Tanarii]

Among those, where would yousay that the Barbarian with feat stands in term of DPR?
It and fight are top, across an adventuring day, with both PAM and GWM.

Otoh I'd have to go look again to see where it stands with just GWM. Having thought abaout my off the cuff response some more.

[LudicSavant]

My experience is Reckless should be almost always used. Thats in a campaign where parties are often outnumbered too.

All the numbers I've seen were pre-Xan, so I cant speak to Samurai in terms of rigorous analysis. Also, i may be remembering GWM+PAM keeping Barbs consistently at top of the Martial pack, not just GWM.

Those numbers were by Kryx, and across an adventuring day btw. He made some assumptions I wouldnt have, like higher CR enemies so on average higher ACs for determing DPR, which depends on hit rate. Barbs do better there, but conversely lower CR enemies have lower to hit, so its safer to use Reckless.

Fair point.

Good point. I use martial to mean the 6 not-full-caster classes. Barbarian, Fighter, Monk, Paladin, Ranger, Rogue.

I'd be cautious about drawing too many conclusions from Kryx's spreadsheet, for a few reasons.

1) He didn't really optimize much. For example, attack + Fire Bolt is not representative of a decent Eldritch Knight player's damage output.
2) He basically just left out variables if he thought they were too complex... the result of which is that 'simple' classes ended up looking stronger than they were relative to 'complex' classes.
3) His sheet has many variables that are guessed, not calculated.

[MrCharlie]

With any given character who gets lots of attacks, generally what you want is some way to get per-hit damage bonuses on those attacks in order to push your DPR. The issue is that an awful lot of the ways to do that depend on wielding an actual weapon (it doesn't just need to count as a weapon, it needs to be 'wielded in your hand'), or concentrating on a spell, or just straight up having a magic weapon.

Also, since it apparently is one of the few natural weapons that doesn't have a 'can be used as an unarmed strike' wording, it evidently doesn't work with Tavern Brawler.
There are a couple of method that do work, mostly sourced in other party members-Holy Weapon and Elemental Weapon should both apply to the natural weapons, although actually applying them might be a pain in practice as the weapon only exists during rage.

In general I feel that path of the beast has the same issues a lot of archetypes do, and several printed in this book do-they don't play ball with published content in regards to spells and magic items. That in no way stops a DM on your side, but it stonewalls a player whose DM isn't. I don't feel this is a real problem because the DM should be willing to meet you halfway, but I recognize that the ideal is often far from practiced.

[LudicSavant]

There are a couple of method that do work, mostly sourced in other party members-Holy Weapon and Elemental Weapon should both apply to the natural weapons, although actually applying them might be a pain in practice as the weapon only exists during rage. Yeah. The problem just being that the duration would be shortened to the duration of the Rage.

[stoutstien]

I'd be careful about drawing too many conclusions from Kryx's spreadsheet, for a few reasons.

1) He didn't really optimize much. For example, attack + Fire Bolt is not representative of a decent Eldritch Knight player's damage output.
2) He basically just left out variables if he thought they were too complex... the result of which is that 'simple' classes ended up looking stronger than they were relative to 'complex' classes.
3) His sheet has many variables that are guessed, not calculated.

I was just thinking this. Looking at barbarians it is easy to fall for all kinds of confirmation biases because they are the simplest class to calculate damage for in a simulation setting.

[Unoriginal]

That in no way stops a DM on your side, but it stonewalls a player whose DM isn't. I don't feel this is a real problem because the DM should be willing to meet you halfway, but I recognize that the ideal is often far from practiced.

If the DM is not on your side, you can't accomplish anything in-game.

[Mr Adventurer]

I play two barbarians with sword and board, and am in another game with one who switches between two handing his battleaxe. We do fine.

I'm actually really interested in the Tail. +1d8 AC as a reaction is pretty cool, and it combos with different weapons too since it doesn't transform your hands.

[Gignere]

I play two barbarians with sword and board, and am in another game with one who switches between two handing his battleaxe. We do fine.

I'm actually really interested in the Tail. +1d8 AC as a reaction is pretty cool, and it combos with different weapons too since it doesn't transform your hands.

Yeah the tail option can combo really well with GWM + PAM too.

I don’t see why you can’t combo claws with GWM + PAm either.

[bendking]

Yeah the tail option can combo really well with GWM + PAM too.

I don’t see why you can’t combo claws with GWM + PAm either.

I don't think the tail combos well with GWM + PAM, because you would replace a GWM attack with a tail attack.
Claws, however, do combo well with GWM + PAM because they replace a GWM attack with two Claw attacks.

I do agree GWM + PAM can be combo'd with Claws, and it would actually give you a somewhat higher DPR (~5 more vs 15 AC) than DW + TWF, but I find DW + TWF to be more compelling since it keeps both your arms free for grappling.

[Mr Adventurer]

I don't think the tail combos well with GWM + PAM, because you would replace a GWM attack with a tail attack.


You get the other benefit of Tail.

[bendking]

You get the other benefit of Tail.
Ah, if you use it purely for tanking then yes, it works great. However, if you resign to using just the Tail, then wouldn't it be better to simply take Bear Totem Barbarian?

[Gignere]

Ah, if you use it purely for tanking then yes, it works great. However, if you resign to using just the Tail, then wouldn't it be better to simply take Bear Totem Barbarian?

No not really Bear is great against all other damage type that’s not BPS but does nothing more against BPS that other barbs get anyway.

So tail would be better if you aren’t getting hit by non BPS damage compared to Bear.

[bendking]

No not really Bear is great against all other damage type that’s not BPS but does nothing more against BPS that other barbs get anyway.

So tail would be better if you aren’t getting hit by non BPS damage compared to Bear.
I understand. Personally, I would prefer to get resistance to almost all damage types to getting a +1d8 to AC on reaction.

[astral]

Personally I'm a fan of dual-wielder barbarians simply because they're one of the few martial classes that can actually pull off dual wielding. And you can still do great damage while also compensating for the lack of a shield with that +1 AC. I would dip into fighter once for the fighting style, though.

[Zhorn]

I would dip into fighter once for the fighting style, though.
And for people not wanting to give up on the Barbarian capstone, the Fighting Initiate feat is a good option now available to grab the fighting style.

[solidork]

It was a weird homebrew experiment, but I got my DM to let me have a magic item that would give a weapon the Finesse property at the expense of removing the Heavy property so I could sneak attack on my Barbarian/Rogue Polearm Master. It was fun and not broken at all - TONS of very interesting combat decisions every round, choosing between trying to get a reaction attack, use uncanny dodge, figuring out if I could get a reaction sneak attack (hard to do with a 10ft reach), etc.

[Gignere]

It was a weird homebrew experiment, but I got my DM to let me have a magic item that would give a weapon the Finesse property at the expense of removing the Heavy property so I could sneak attack on my Barbarian/Rogue Polearm Master. It was fun and not broken at all - TONS of very interesting combat decisions every round, choosing between trying to get a reaction attack, use uncanny dodge, figuring out if I could get a reaction sneak attack (hard to do with a 10ft reach), etc.

10 feet reach makes it much easier to get reaction attacks, especially with PAM. Not sure what you mean by this, in 5e reach weapons can hit at both 5 and 10ft spaces should make reaction attacks much easier than a 5ft reach.

[Quietus]

10 feet reach makes it much easier to get reaction attacks, especially with PAM. Not sure what you mean by this, in 5e reach weapons can hit at both 5 and 10ft spaces should make reaction attacks much easier than a 5ft reach.

Unfortunately incorrect. You get an opportunity attack "when a Hostile creature that you can see moves out of your reach." If you have 10 foot reach, they have to leave that region.

[Gignere]

Unfortunately incorrect. You get an opportunity attack "when a Hostile creature that you can see moves out of your reach." If you have 10 foot reach, they have to leave that region.

I know this but with PAM you get an attack as they are entering your reach. Which happens way more than leaving your reach. With 10 feet it really limits how enemies can maneuver to avoid an AOO at least in my experience PAM and reach usually gets 2x the reaction attacks relative to just 5 ft reach.

[Segev]

Personally I'm a fan of dual-wielder barbarians simply because they're one of the few martial classes that can actually pull off dual wielding. And you can still do great damage while also compensating for the lack of a shield with that +1 AC. I would dip into fighter once for the fighting style, though.

Does anything prevent a Barbarian from using Ki while in a rage? If not, then a 2-level monk dip for Flurry of Blows might be worthwhile to get more attacks with the Rage Damage bonus.

[Dork_Forge]

Does anything prevent a Barbarian from using Ki while in a rage? If not, then a 2-level monk dip for Flurry of Blows might be worthwhile to get more attacks with the Rage Damage bonus.

There's nothing stopping a Barbarian using Monk abilities (as long as they aren't ones that cast spells), the only real barrier is the MADness and the nature of Ki scaling.

[Hytheter]

It'd be hard to finagle the right stats but the idea of Claw Claw Claw -> Flurry does sound fun. I even have access to a homebrew monk subclass that allows a conditional third flurry attack for some serious multiattacking.

[Quietus]

I know this but with PAM you get an attack as they are entering your reach. Which happens way more than leaving your reach. With 10 feet it really limits how enemies can maneuver to avoid an AOO at least in my experience PAM and reach usually gets 2x the reaction attacks relative to just 5 ft reach.

PAM makes it easier, yes. But the reach weapon on its own doesn't necessarily have so much to do with it. If you're using a reach weapon, then opponents can move around within that range without provoking AoO - even if you have PAM. You'd need Sentinel to stop that.


It'd be hard to finagle the right stats but the idea of Claw Claw Claw -> Flurry does sound fun. I even have access to a homebrew monk subclass that allows a conditional third flurry attack for some serious multiattacking.

That would definitely work when using flurry of blows. However, do be aware that this only works when spending Ki to flurry; in order to use your normal, single bonus action attack, you have to attack with an unarmed strike or a monk weapon. The Beast claws are explicitly something else.

[Hytheter]

That would definitely work when using flurry of blows. However, do be aware that this only works when spending Ki to flurry; in order to use your normal, single bonus action attack, you have to attack with an unarmed strike or a monk weapon. The Beast claws are explicitly something else.

On the contrary, beast weapons are explicitly simple weapons, and simple weapons are considered monk weapons.

Relevant text:

"Your practice of martial arts gives you mastery of combat styles that use unarmed strikes and monk weapons, which are shortswords and any simple melee weapons that don't have the two-handed or heavy property."

"When you enter your rage, you can transform, revealing the bestial power within you. Until the rage ends, you manifest a natural weapon. It counts as a simple melee weapon for you"

[bendking]

On the contrary, beast weapons are explicitly simple weapons, and simple weapons are considered monk weapons.

Relevant text:

"Your practice of martial arts gives you mastery of combat styles that use unarmed strikes and monk weapons, which are shortswords and any simple melee weapons that don't have the two-handed or heavy property."

"When you enter your rage, you can transform, revealing the bestial power within you. Until the rage ends, you manifest a natural weapon. It counts as a simple melee weapon for you"

The main issue is that Martial Arts requires you to be wearing no armor, which is a pretty big hit to your AC compared to a Dual Wielder build (15 vs 18).
It would probably better to just take Dual Wielder and dip Fighter for TWF to get both a higher AC and bigger damage die (1d4 vs 1d6).

However, if you're interested in going all-in on Monk after 5/6 levels in Beast, then it might be worth it for the DPR Flurry of Blows will get you. Probably not, though. And your Stunning Strike DC will probably be really low as well.
Personally, I would stick to either a DW + TWF build or a GWM + PAM build.

[Segev]

The main issue is that Martial Arts requires you to be wearing no armor, which is a pretty big hit to your AC compared to a Dual Wielder build (15 vs 18).
It would probably better to just take Dual Wielder and dip Fighter for TWF to get both a higher AC and bigger damage die (1d4 vs 1d6).

However, if you're interested in going all-in on Monk after 5/6 levels in Beast, then it might be worth it for the DPR Flurry of Blows will get you. Probably not, though. And your Stunning Strike DC will probably be really low as well.
Personally, I would stick to either a DW + TWF build or a GWM + PAM build.
I mean, as a monkbarian, you have two options for unarmored AC: Dex+Wis or Dex+Con.

So you could get a decent AC even without armor.

Since claws count as simple weapons, couldn’t you also be using the dual wielding feat that improves AC?

[bendking]

I mean, as a monkbarian, you have two options for unarmored AC: Dex+Wis or Dex+Con.

So you could get a decent AC even without armor.

Since claws count as simple weapons, couldn’t you also be using the dual wielding feat that improves AC?

I know, 15 = 10 + 3 (CON) + 2 (DEX). I wouldn't level WIS in place of CON, though.
And I believe I mentioned Dual Wielder feat and that it improves your AC, though perhaps that wasn't clear enough. DW stands for Dual Wielder. And 18 = 15 (Half-plate) + 2 (DEX) + 1 (DW).
18 is a lot higher than 15 which is why I said a Dual Wielder dip is probably better than a Monk dip.

[Zhorn]

If you really want to pile on those attacks per round, might as well throw in 2 levels of fighter for Action Surge for some more Claw attacks.
Though I'd agree it is getting a little too mad.
Fighter 11 Barb 6 would probably be more feasible going down the TWF route.
Attack Action for 3 attacks + one free Claw, Action Surge for another 3 attacks (no free claw, once per turn), then Bonus Action for a TWF attack.
Again though, to get this you're going into high enough levels that a pure Fighter is only a few levels off doing a similar routine with GWF with 2 rounds worth of nova.
*shrug*
Overall I like the pure Beast Barb's attacks with claws for the low level access.

[Dork_Forge]

If you really want to pile on those attacks per round, might as well throw in 2 levels of fighter for Action Surge for some more Claw attacks.
Though I'd agree it is getting a little too mad.
Fighter 11 Barb 6 would probably be more feasible going down the TWF route.
Attack Action for 3 attacks + one free Claw, Action Surge for another 3 attacks (no free claw, once per turn), then Bonus Action for a TWF attack.
Again though, to get this you're going into high enough levels that a pure Fighter is only a few levels off doing a similar routine with GWF with 2 rounds worth of nova.
*shrug*
Overall I like the pure Beast Barb's attacks with claws for the low level access.

The claws are a really nice option, it's a pretty interesting subclass and one I might actually play.

If we're talking multiclassing (more than a level or two) then I'd probably go for Ranger (Gloomstalker) over Figher:

-Still pick up TWF
-Get Wis+Dex+advantage on initiative
-Get an additional claw attack at the start of every combat (with additional d8 rider)
-Rage specifically calls out concentrating on spells, so it's possible you might actually get some use out of Favored Enemy
-Basically never get stuck out of range of ground troops again (first round speed of 75ft without dashing)
-Out of combat utility

[bendking]

If you really want to pile on those attacks per round, might as well throw in 2 levels of fighter for Action Surge for some more Claw attacks.
Though I'd agree it is getting a little too mad.
Fighter 11 Barb 6 would probably be more feasible going down the TWF route.
Attack Action for 3 attacks + one free Claw, Action Surge for another 3 attacks (no free claw, once per turn), then Bonus Action for a TWF attack.
Again though, to get this you're going into high enough levels that a pure Fighter is only a few levels off doing a similar routine with GWF with 2 rounds worth of nova.
*shrug*
Overall I like the pure Beast Barb's attacks with claws for the low level access.


The claws are a really nice option, it's a pretty interesting subclass and one I might actually play.

If we're talking multiclassing (more than a level or two) then I'd probably go for Ranger (Gloomstalker) over Figher:

-Still pick up TWF
-Get Wis+Dex+advantage on initiative
-Get an additional claw attack at the start of every combat (with additional d8 rider)
-Rage specifically calls out concentrating on spells, so it's possible you might actually get some use out of Favored Enemy
-Basically never get stuck out of range of ground troops again (first round speed of 75ft without dashing)
-Out of combat utility

Why not both?
Race: Variant Human (Dual Wielder)
Progression: Beast 6 --> Battlemaster 4 --> Gloom Stalker 4
ASIs: +2 STR @4, +2 STR @10, Resilient (WIS) @14
Fighting Style: Two-Weapon Fighting @7, Blind Fighting @12

Note: If you're going to be playing 1-6, you should start with a single level of Fighter. It would delay Extra Attack slightly but give you more damage on the prior levels.

Battlemaster is all-around great and gets you Action Surge which is amazing from a DPR perspective.
Gloomstalker would be a nice top-off for the reasons Dork_Forge mentioned, and Blind Fighting is a great bonus Fighting Style at that level.

[Dork_Forge]

Why not both?
Race: Variant Human (Dual Wielder)
Progression: Beast 6 --> Battlemaster 4 --> Gloom Stalker 4
ASIs: +2 STR @4, +2 STR @10, Resilient (WIS) @14
Fighting Style: Two-Weapon Fighting @7, Blind Fighting @12

Note: If you're going to be playing 1-6, you should start with a single level of Fighter. It would delay Extra Attack slightly but give you more damage on the prior levels.

Battlemaster is all-around great and gets you Action Surge which is amazing from a DPR perspective.
Gloomstalker would be a nice top-off for the reasons Dork_Forge mentioned, and Blind Fighting is a great bonus Fighting Style at that level.

I tend to naturally build lower so it's more practical, if you're going to 10+ then going into Fighter is a great choice (I'm not sure I'd choose Blind Fighting personally, maybe Defense or Superior Technique).

I think I'd leave the Fighter dip until later on as I don't like delaying the subclass if it can be helped (and whilst early damage will be higher with TWF, I'd rather grab the 2hp and get TWF later on when the fights are getting tougher).

[Quietus]

On the contrary, beast weapons are explicitly simple weapons, and simple weapons are considered monk weapons.

Relevant text:

"Your practice of martial arts gives you mastery of combat styles that use unarmed strikes and monk weapons, which are shortswords and any simple melee weapons that don't have the two-handed or heavy property."

"When you enter your rage, you can transform, revealing the bestial power within you. Until the rage ends, you manifest a natural weapon. It counts as a simple melee weapon for you"

Good catch, I stand corrected!


I mean, as a monkbarian, you have two options for unarmored AC: Dex+Wis or Dex+Con.

So you could get a decent AC even without armor.

Since claws count as simple weapons, couldn’t you also be using the dual wielding feat that improves AC?

I was pretty sure that there was a rule stating that you only get one of the two - you can only gain an ability with a given name, "Unarmored Defense" in this case, once. So you'd have to ensure that whichever AC calculation you wanted, you take that class first.

[Valmark]

Personally this is the first time I hear that someone thinks barbarians need GWM- I don't even like that feat and have yet to play a barbarian with it.

That said, the new subclass looks pretty cool and versatile- I know I'll be playing one hopefully soon-ish. In contrast, bearbarian has never particularly appealed to me.

Put side by side they are both tanks most of the time with bear probably more versatile in tanking and beast more versatile in general, I think.

[Zhorn]

I was pretty sure that there was a rule stating that you only get one of the two - you can only gain an ability with a given name, "Unarmored Defense" in this case, once. So you'd have to ensure that whichever AC calculation you wanted, you take that class first.
You have both versions, but you choose which one you are using.* They rule is you can't stack effects of the same name (which is more to do with spell effects).
It's like if you went Barb 5, then took Fighter 1 through 11, both have extra attack, and getting it from Barb first isn't blocking Fighter 11's extra attack (2) from kicking in.

*edit: I have been corrected

[Thunderous Mojo]

I mean, as a monkbarian, you have two options for unarmored AC: Dex+Wis or Dex+Con.

So you could get a decent AC even without armor.

Since claws count as simple weapons, couldn’t you also be using the dual wielding feat that improves AC?

Yep.

Also, the Barbarian armor formula includes: Dex+Con +Shield.
A lizardfolk character could opt to use: Base 13+Dex+Shield.

The nice thing about all these options, is that doffing a shield is only an Action, so one can access their monk abilities fairly quickly.

[Unoriginal]

Yep.

Also, the Barbarian armor formula includes: Dex+Con +Shield.
A lizardfolk character could opt to use: Base 13+Dex+Shield.

The nice thing about all these options, is that doffing a shield is only an Action, so one can access their monk abilities fairly quickly.

An Action is a huge cost, in most fights.

[Darzil]

If we're talking multiclassing (more than a level or two) then I'd probably go for Ranger (Gloomstalker) over Figher:
-Get Wis+Dex+advantage on initiative

I think that is only UA Revised Ranger that gets advantage on initiative, unless I am missing something, it is not in Players Handbook, Xanthar's or Tasha's.

[solidork]

10 feet reach makes it much easier to get reaction attacks, especially with PAM. Not sure what you mean by this, in 5e reach weapons can hit at both 5 and 10ft spaces should make reaction attacks much easier than a 5ft reach.

The tricky part is getting the Sneak Attack - they had to be 10ft away from me AND adjacent to an ally.

[Quietus]

You have both versions, but you choose which one you are using. They rule is you can't stack effects of the same name (which is more to do with spell effects).
It's like if you went Barb 5, then took Fighter 1 through 11, both have extra attack, and getting it from Barb first isn't blocking Fighter 11's extra attack (2) from kicking in.

Unfortunately, this is not the case. I've tracked down the rules reference, directly from the PHB :


If you already have the Unarmored Defense feature, you can't gain it again from another class.

[Dork_Forge]

I think that is only UA Revised Ranger that gets advantage on initiative, unless I am missing something, it is not in Players Handbook, Xanthar's or Tasha's.

Barbarians get advantage on initiative from Feral Instinct at 7th level, Ranger is just bringing the Wis boost to initiative here.

[Thunderous Mojo]

An Action is a huge cost, in most fights.

Of course it is. Sometimes the need to access your monk abilities is worth it.

For a Monk/Barb to work as a character, I think you have to embrace the multitude of overlapping options you have, and vary the usage of each to keep the DM on their toes.

[Zhorn]

Unfortunately, this is not the case. I've tracked down the rules reference, directly from the PHB :
Huh, there it is, I stand corrected.
Strange inclusion when all other forms of unarmored AC calculation are treated as 'you can choose'.
Doubly so when (to my knowledge) there's no mechanical way for them to stack, even if you had access to both, it's still just one-or-the-other.

[Zalabim]

Secondly, the damage it really isn't that comparable. Even comparing a Totem Barbarian (with no extra damage in his kit) to a Beast Barbarian using one of his attacks with a Greataxe and an additional two with Claws, the difference is substantial.
Human Bearbarian 11 (GWM, PAM), 18 STR- 47 DPR.
Orc/Whatever Beast 11, 20 STR - 34 DPR.

That's a 38% DPR difference, which in my book is very substantial.
(Calculations are made vs AC 15. Of course, the higher the AC, the lower the % difference will be.)

That's not the numbers I got doing the same comparison. I got this:
adv VS AC 15

Half Orc Beast with Greataxe
1d6+8 at +9 = 11.805 *2 = 23.61
1d12+8 at +9 = 15.495
39.105 (reaction does 11.85)

Not half orc Beast with Greatsword
1d6+8 at +9 = 11.46375 *2 = 22.9275
2d6+8 at +9 = 15.08625
38.01375 for not half-orc (reaction does 11.775)

PM/GWM V. Human
1d10+17 at +3 = 16.76625 *2 = 33.5325
1d4+17 at +3 = 14.08875
47.62125
3 round average 42.925 (reaction does 10.675)

PM/GWM Not V. Human
1d10+16 at +2 = 14.8325 *2 = 29.665
1d4+16 at +2 = 12.3275
41.9925
3 round average 37.8833 (reaction does 9.15)

adv VS AC 16

Half-Orc Beast with Greataxe
1d6+8 at +9 = 11.48875 *2 = 22.9775
1d12+8 at +9 = 15.09625
38.07375 (reaction does 11.125)

Not Half-Orc Beast with Greatsword
1d6+8 at +9 = 11.1475 *2 = 22.295
2d6+8 at +9 = 14.67375
36.96875 for not half-orc (reaction does 11.025)

PM/GWM V. Human
1d10+17 at +3 = 15.4725 *2 = 30.945
1d4+17 at +3 = 12.9675
43.9125
3 round average 39.59 (reaction does 9.55)

PM/GWM Not V. Human
1d10+16 at +2 = 13.48875 *2 = 26.9775
1d4+16 at +2 = 11.17125
38.14875
3 round average 34.425 (reaction does 8.075)

I'd have to use 5 rounds average and 100% reaction attacks for PM with 0% reaction attacks for the non-half-orc Beast to get a 37.6% increase in DPR. If I instead look at the non-racial specific comparison, the PM/GWM has to be getting reaction attacks on 1/3 or more of rounds just to keep up with the beast barbarian.

Edit: Isee I used ac16 but I don't see how lowering the AC is going to lower the beast barbarian damage
Edit 2: I took the time and fixed everything else.

[Evaar]

Isee I used ac16 but I don't see how lowering the AC is going to lower the beast barbarian damage

Lower AC is more advantageous to Great Weapon Master because of the hit penalty it uses.