Barbarian: 4 attacks at level 5

[nickl_2000]

Take Path of the Beast at level 3.

Round 1 bonus action draw a hand axe, rage, and attack 3 times with claws.

Round 2+ Draw a hand axe (or pick up one off the ground) so you have 2 hand axes, make an attack with a hand axe, use your bonus action to attack with the offhand axe. Free action the drop the axe. Make a 2nd attack with claws from Form of the Beast Claws, because you made an attack with claws get another free with claws.

Assuming all hits in round 2+ you get

3d6 + (4*3) + (2*3) = 26.5 damage
1d6 + 2 = 5.5

So at level 5 you are dealing an average of 32 damage per round if you hit every time. That is solid, solid damage for level 5. Any way to make this better without the dual fighting feat?

[rlc]

Nah, this doesn’t work. There’s already a whole thread that’s several pages long on why, but you don’t get to attack and then drop your weapon and make another attack, especially if you already used your free object interaction that round.

[J-H]

Take any path except Beast. Grab Polearm Master, a spear, and a shield.
You get two attacks with the attack action, and a bonus action attack with the butt of your spear (3APR). Added to that, you get to attack with your reaction whenever an enemy moves into range.
Add Sentinel, and you get the option to attack whenever enemies move out of range.

If you max Dex and Con, and keep the shield, you also end up with AC 24 (+5 dex, +2 shield, +7 con) when you hit level 20, with no magic gear, which is QUITE respectable. Add a +2 shield and Bracers of Defense and you could theoretically rock AC 28.
Reckless attack is an option, not mandatory.

[ATHATH]

Nah, this doesn’t work. There’s already a whole thread that’s several pages long on why, but you don’t get to attack and then drop your weapon and make another attack, especially if you already used your free object interaction that round.
Could you post a link to that thread?

[nickl_2000]

Nah, this doesn’t work. There’s already a whole thread that’s several pages long on why, but you don’t get to attack and then drop your weapon and make another attack, especially if you already used your free object interaction that round.


Could you post a link to that thread?

That would be nice. I would like to read through a few pages of it.

[KorvinStarmast]

Take any path except Barbarian. Grab Polearm Master, a spear, and a shield.
You get two attacks with the attack action, and a bonus action attack with the butt of your spear (3APR). Added to that, you get to attack with your reaction whenever an enemy moves into range.
Add Sentinel, and you get the option to attack whenever enemies move out of range.

If you max Dex and Con, and keep the shield, you also end up with AC 24 (+5 dex, +2 shield, +7 con) when you hit level 20, with no magic gear, which is QUITE respectable. Add a +2 shield and Bracers of Defense and you could theoretically rock AC 28. Reckless attack is an option, not mandatory. Golf clap. Except "take any path except ________" I think you meant "take any paty except Beasts" (???). All Barbarians have a path.

Also: I hadn't noticed that bracers of defense work with a shield if one is not wearing armor. But now that you mention it: cool! :smallbiggrin:

[J-H]

I'll fix that error, thanks for catching it.

Here's the thread discussing the topic. (https://forums.giantitp.com/showthread.php?626062-Beast-barbarian-and-BA-attacks)

[Zhorn]

Nah, this doesnÂ’t work. ThereÂ’s already a whole thread thatÂ’s several pages long on why, but you donÂ’t get to attack and then drop your weapon and make another attack, especially if you already used your free object interaction that round.
You can make it work, but the order of things needs to be precise.
I'll dig down into all the relevant rules and rulings for those wanting a breakdown of it. This isn't meant as an @you, rlc, just covering what I can as I've seen a few times people make sweeping comments on 'this doesn't work' in piecemeal back and forth exchanges without referencing what rule they are getting their 'it doesn't work' from, often finding they have based it off a table ruling their DM has given them and not from RAW or dev clarification. I'll be as thorough as I can, but will be all ears if you know a reference I've missed.

To start with we need an understanding of dropping vs picking up or drawing a weapon.
Picking up or drawing a weapon will consume your object interaction, while dropping something out of hand does not.

https://twitter.com/JeremyECrawford/status/584435399767883776
The intent is that letting go of something requires no appreciable effort. But picking it up does.
Next is the restriction on what can be done during your Action and between Attacks. The general rule is you cannot interrupt an action to insert something in the middle of it unless there is specific timing mentioned in the rule. This is usually used to explain why you cannot insert a Bonus Action in the middle of an Action if it's trigger is the Attack Action, but you can if the trigger was an Attack (that's another conversation, just setting up for context, now back on track).
The rules for Object Interactions do make such mentions of timing


Other Activity on Your Turn
...
You can also interact with one object or feature of the environment for free, during either your move or your action. For example, you could open a door during your move as you stride toward a foe, or you could draw your weapon as part of the same action you use to attack.
...

Interacting with Objects Around You
Here are a few examples of the sorts of thing you can do in tandem with your movement and action:
draw or sheathe a sword
...
pick up a dropped axe
...


Breaking Up Your Move
...
Moving between Attacks
If you take an action that includes more than one weapon attack, you can break up your movement even further by moving between those attacks.
...
So Object Interactions can be done in tandem with Actions and Movement, and Movement is allowed to occur between attacks.
As an Object Interaction on your turn, you can draw a weapon (or two at once if using the Dual Wielder feat) or pick up a (singular) dropped weapon between Attacks, as either part of the next Attack being made, or as a function of your allowed Movement between Attacks.

Next up is the order of what types of Attacks are being made and whether they are under the Action or Bonus Action.

Once on each of your turns when you attack with a claw using the Attack action, you can make one additional claw attack as part of the same action.
The Attacks using the claws from Form of the Beast make no requirement of using different hands for each attack, and so you can do all your claw Attacks in the Attack Action with the same hand if you wish (important if your Barbarian is a shield wielder). For our purposes we only want to make two claw Attacks, one with out initial Attack from the Attack Action, an the second from the triggered feature that allows for one addition claw attack as part of the same action using the same claw (Important, as at this point our opposite hand is currently holding a weapon).
Before we use the Extra Attack, we have a couple more things to be aware of.
First up is our base allowance of attacking with different weapons during the Attack Action

https://media.wizards.com/2020/dnd/downloads/SA-Compendium.pdf
Q: When you use Extra Attack, do you have to use the same weapon for all the attacks?
A: Extra Attack imposes no limitation on what you use for the attacks. You can use regular weapons, improvised weapons, unarmed strikes, or a combination of these options for the attacks.
Then there's the condition we want to trigger. As we're intending to use a Bonus Action attack, we must satisfy the requirements.

Two-Weapon Fighting
When you take the Attack action and attack with a light melee weapon that you're holding in one hand, you can use a bonus action to attack with a different light melee weapon that you're holding in the other hand.
So before we Attack with our weapon (having the light property assuming no Dual Wielder feat), we need to have one in each hand. As covered earlier we can draw or pick up as either part of Movement between Attacks, or as part of an Attack made with that weapon.
With a weapon now in each hand, we use the remaining Attack we have access to with Extra Attack, specifically using the most recently drawn/picked up weapon, and then follow it up with the Bonus Action allowed by meeting the conditions of Two-Weapon Fighting to Attack with the weapon we are holding in our opposite hand.

Now for sustainability each round, we need our starting and ending condition to always be the same.
Assuming no feats, start each round with a light melee weapon in each hand (also assuming you are already raging at this point with claws)

Step 1: Free actionless drop one weapon
Step 2: Attack Action with claw
Step 3: Free claw as part of the same action
Step 4: Object interaction pick up dropped weapon
Step 5: Extra Attack with that picked up weapon
Step 6: Bonus Action off hand attack with Two-Weapon Fighting
With our end state now matching our starting state.
4 Attacks with a level 5 Path of the Beast Barbarian, all 100% RAW compliant and supported without feats

[bendking]

Or, you know, take PAM + GWM.
The Beast DPR is respectable, but still doesn't reach the levels of the tried and true PAM + GWM.
Still, it's useful for a grappling build. Especially the Claws.

[Zhorn]

Or, you know, take PAM + GWM.
The Beast DPR is respectable, but still doesn't reach the levels of the tried and true PAM + GWM.
Still, it's useful for a grappling build. Especially the Claws.
Not going to dispute the PAM + GWM build's position as king of DPR, but it is worth mentioning that the gap in damage isn't as big as it was prior to the Tasha's subclass release, once accuracy is accounted for.
Also of note is the investment cost to get there, requiring two feats. So outside of getting a feat at 1st level, PAM + GWM build doesn't come online till 8th level, 3 levels later than this.

As a high level build, an optimized PAM + GWM Barbarian will hold onto that high damage potential with an iron fist. But for standard play where not everyone is running about with maxed stats, full feat loadouts, and are in level ranges of the single digits, these other builds are very competitive for the cost it take to obtain them.

[Ghost Nappa]

If you max Dex and Con, and keep the shield, you also end up with AC 24 (+5 dex, +2 shield, +7 con) when you hit level 20, with no magic gear, which is QUITE respectable. Add a +2 shield and Bracers of Defense and you could theoretically rock AC 28.
Reckless attack is an option, not mandatory.
Also: I hadn't noticed that bracers of defense work with a shield if one is not wearing armor. But now that you mention it: cool! :smallbiggrin:

They don't. They explicitly reference not having a shield for applying their bonus.


While wearing these bracers, you gain a +2 bonus to AC if you are wearing no armor and using no shield. Emphasis mine.

[Amechra]

The annoying part about all of this is that the only thing stopping you from two-weapon fighting with just your claws once you have the Dual Wielder feat is that the two-weapon fighting rules explicitly refer to holding weapons.

[Zhorn]

The annoying part about all of this is that the only thing stopping you from two-weapon fighting with just your claws once you have the Dual Wielder feat is that the two-weapon fighting rules explicitly refer to holding weapons.
If someone really wants to be technical about the precise wording then it goes both ways.
The wording of Two-Weapon Fighting's general rule

Two-Weapon Fighting
When you take the Attack action and attack with a light melee weapon that you're holding in one hand, you can use a bonus action to attack with a different light melee weapon that you're holding in the other hand.

Where as the wording of Dual wielder's specific rule

Dual Wielder
You can use two-weapon fighting even when the one-handed melee weapons you are wielding aren't light.
If you take Dual Wielder, you use the wording of the specific rule over the wording of the general rule, in which case 'wielding' claws is a viable use of language that doesn't depend on 'holding'.

I'd still say check with your DM and don't take it as a given, but again; leaning on precise technical wording of RAW has to be applied across the board, not just on some rules and not others.

[bendking]

Not going to dispute the PAM + GWM build's position as king of DPR, but it is worth mentioning that the gap in damage isn't as big as it was prior to the Tasha's subclass release, once accuracy is accounted for.
Also of note is the investment cost to get there, requiring two feats. So outside of getting a feat at 1st level, PAM + GWM build doesn't come online till 8th level, 3 levels later than this.

As a high level build, an optimized PAM + GWM Barbarian will hold onto that high damage potential with an iron fist. But for standard play where not everyone is running about with maxed stats, full feat loadouts, and are in level ranges of the single digits, these other builds are very competitive for the cost it take to obtain them.

Sure, if you're not optimizing, Beast is competitive, but look at my signature.

If you're optimizing you are most likely taking Custom Lineage/V.Human, in which case the PAM + GWM combo comes online at 4, and thus is only weaker for 1 level, which is level 3, and is then better for the rest of the game.

I'm not saying Beast is useless, but it's only place in optimization is a Grappling build if you intend to focus on the Claws.

QUOTE=Amechra;24915829]The annoying part about all of this is that the only thing stopping you from two-weapon fighting with just your claws once you have the Dual Wielder feat is that the two-weapon fighting rules explicitly refer to holding weapons.[/QUOTE]

I would still allow it, personally.

[Amechra]

I'd still allow it, too, since it's not like making four 1d6+Str+Rage Bonus attacks is broken or anything, and the image of TWFing with handaxes or whatever and then dropping them when your rage overtakes you is pretty sweet.

The annoyance is that there's room for the DM to say no, even with the more permissive "wield" wording. Especially since you "already" get the TWF off-hand attack. Why are you so greedy, Amechra? Why are you trying to break my game with TWF power?

[sophontteks]

It is not just a random freak incident with wording, the guy who designed beast barbarian was aware of the wording and didn't intend for it to work (he was the one explaining why in sage afaik).

Wielding, as a synonym for holding, doesn't really change things. I understand that the word has a second meaning "to wield great power" for example, but we can tell from the context, where holding was already used in another description, that we are still talking about weapons being held. They are using the words synonymously.

The designers aren't lawyers, so they haven't written this book with the irrefutable precision of a book of law. When it comes to bonus action use with the attack action prerequisite even JC just recommends you house rule on a more case by case basis. It simply wasn't written well. It isn't written like a law book because the book isn't law, the DM is.

I certainly wish the authors went through the effort to have more consistent and concrete wording, so it's clear when we are deviating from the rules, and so we don't have three threads on the same topic arguing about a vague description.

But, I don't think we should sweat it either. If it's not RAW, it just means "talk to your DM first." I think it is worth discussing the viability of this houserule, so DMs could refer to this and determine how strong it would be if they allowed it.

[bendking]

I'd still allow it, too, since it's not like making four 1d6+Str+Rage Bonus attacks is broken or anything, and the image of TWFing with handaxes or whatever and then dropping them when your rage overtakes you is pretty sweet.

The annoyance is that there's room for the DM to say no, even with the more permissive "wield" wording. Especially since you "already" get the TWF off-hand attack. Why are you so greedy, Amechra? Why are you trying to break my game with TWF power?

Just tell the DM "OK, then I'll just take PAM + GWM instead which is completely RAW and better".

[Hairfish]

Just tell the DM "OK, then I'll just take PAM + GWM instead which is completely RAW and better".

And also costs 2 feats, while consuming your reaction.

[Damon_Tor]

Not going to dispute the PAM + GWM build's position as king of DPR, but it is worth mentioning that the gap in damage isn't as big as it was prior to the Tasha's subclass release, once accuracy is accounted for.

This is very important: GWM is only good against low AC enemies. It helps to reliably turn 2-hit minions into 1-hit minions, which isn't irrelevant, but IMO, most people who want high DPR are thinking in terms to killing the Big Bad in fewer rounds, not clearing mooks (which is done much more efficiently by a spellcaster anyway). Since the Big Bad almost always has high AC (and/or the Shield spell) GWM is often a trap feat. SS is a little less cut and dry, because Elven Accuracy and Archery Style help push back the point at which a target's AC make the feat not worth using, and because the ability to ignore long and range and 1/2-3/4 cover is worthwhile in itself.

[bendking]

And also costs 2 feats, while consuming your reaction.

Huh? You don't have to use the reaction from PAM, although I can't see why you wouldn't. The Barbarian doesn't exactly have a plethora of reactions.

And I know it costs 2 feats, I take that into account when I say it's better.
Also, the Claws build takes 1 feat (Dual Wielder) and a 1 level Fighter dip for TWF and even then has lower DPR.

[Quietus]

Huh? You don't have to use the reaction from PAM, although I can't see why you wouldn't. The Barbarian doesn't exactly have a plethora of reactions.

And I know it costs 2 feats, I take that into account when I say it's better.
Also, the Claws build takes 1 feat (Dual Wielder) and a 1 level Fighter dip for TWF and even then has lower DPR.

Remember, you don't have to take the one level dip. You could spend a second feat, for Martial Adept!

[Sol0botmate]

Remember, you don't have to take the one level dip. You could spend a second feat, for Martial Adept!

Still weak. If I have to spend two feats, one at Dual Wielding and one at Martial Adept - then I would definitely prefert to take PAM + GWM or even just GWM and +2 STR instead.

Also Dual Wield feat only works with natural weapons if DM will RAI it that way. But holding weapons definitely means that you should have weapons that can be hold in hands.

There are just way better ways to build Barbarian.

[bendking]

Remember, you don't have to take the one level dip. You could spend a second feat, for Martial Adept!

Unfortunately that's an even worse option.

[Dork_Forge]

Huh? You don't have to use the reaction from PAM, although I can't see why you wouldn't. The Barbarian doesn't exactly have a plethora of reactions.

And I know it costs 2 feats, I take that into account when I say it's better.
Also, the Claws build takes 1 feat (Dual Wielder) and a 1 level Fighter dip for TWF and even then has lower DPR.

Numbers for any of this?

[Sol0botmate]

The Dual Wielder feat changes the requirements slightly and specifies:

wielding a separate melee weapon. one handed melee weapons you are wielding aren’t light. You can draw or stow two one-handed weapons when you would normally be able to draw or stow only one

None of those seems to me like natural weapons. Sure, DM can rule it otherwise, but I don't think it works RAW. When we make builds here we try to follow RAW to avoid situation when you show up at session with build from this forum that requires specific rulling or homebrew and DM is like "no, we do it RAW" and whole build goes to bin.

Wanna attack 3 times? Just take PAM and do it while wielding shield and get 4th attack from time to time from reaction. Way more efficient when it comes to investment and there is no RAI involved. It just works.

[Dork_Forge]

The Dual Wielder feat changes the requirements slightly and specifies:

wielding a separate melee weapon. one handed melee weapons you are wielding aren’t light. You can draw or stow two one-handed weapons when you would normally be able to draw or stow only one

None of those seems to me like natural weapons. Sure, DM can rule it otherwise, but I don't think it works RAW. When we make builds here we try to follow RAW to avoid situation when you show up at session with build from this forum that requires specific rulling or homebrew and DM is like "no, we do it RAW" and whole build goes to bin.

Wanna attack 3 times? Just take PAM and do it while wielding shield and get 4th attack from time to time from reaction. Way more efficient when it comes to investment and there is no RAI involved. It just works.

Isn't the wording on the Beast Barbarian different to normal natural weapons? Looking at the Minotaur and Centaur it says 'natural melee weapons which you can make unarmed strikes with' whereas the Beast path specifically calls them out as counting as simple melee weapons.

[Sol0botmate]

Isn't the wording on the Beast Barbarian different to normal natural weapons? Looking at the Minotaur and Centaur it says 'natural melee weapons which you can make unarmed strikes with' whereas the Beast path specifically calls them out as counting as simple melee weapons.

Up to DM interpretation.

[Amechra]

The Dual Wielder feat changes the requirements slightly and specifies:

wielding a separate melee weapon. one handed melee weapons you are wielding aren’t light. You can draw or stow two one-handed weapons when you would normally be able to draw or stow only one

None of those seems to me like natural weapons. Sure, DM can rule it otherwise, but I don't think it works RAW. When we make builds here we try to follow RAW to avoid situation when you show up at session with build from this forum that requires specific rulling or homebrew and DM is like "no, we do it RAW" and whole build goes to bin.

Wanna attack 3 times? Just take PAM and do it while wielding shield and get 4th attack from time to time from reaction. Way more efficient when it comes to investment and there is no RAI involved. It just works.

The Beast Barbarian weapons are one-handed melee weapons, since they're explicitly simple weapons that are neither light nor two-handed. You just happen to not be wielding them.

Also PAM is an utter mistake of a feat, and I actively refuse to take it.

[Zhorn]

Also, the Claws build takes 1 feat (Dual Wielder) and a 1 level Fighter dip for TWF and even then has lower DPR.
Dual Wielder is only needed if going for a pure claw build. OP began this thread on weaving the claw attacks in with TWF with weapons (dodging the whole 'in hand' debate), which can net you up to four attacks (two claws, and two light weapon attacks) at 5th level without feats or dips, while using any race. The damage stays VERY competitive.

Now yes, a variant human or custom lineage can have their two feats by that level, but if you afford that to one build you should give the same courtesy to the one you are comparing it to also. For every feat/ASI spent by one build, the other build gets the same opportunity.


Numbers for any of this?
NOTE: Dork_Forge caught an error, recalculation in progress (numbers will still be close to these, not drastically different)
NOTE 2: got to this post (https://forums.giantitp.com/showthread.php?626494-Barbarian-4-attacks-at-level-5&p=24917505#post24917505) for the updated version
Keeping it simple we'll use the tried and true variant human with the standard array, so both builds start with a 15+1=16 STR

Sticking to light weapons, we won't bother with the Dual Wielder feat, but for our variant human feat we will take Fighting Initiate for the Two-Weapon Fighting style, and the 4th level ASI will be used on a +2 to STR, putting it a little ahead in stats over GWM+PAM at that low level. Note that the opportunity cost/expenditure is the same for both builds at this point.

So stating with just base attacks, assuming all hit (rage active)

GWM+PAM with 16 STR using a Glaive for two 1d10 (5.5) attacks and a 1d4 (2.5) attack
2*(5.5 +3 +2) + 1*(2.5 +3 +2) ≈ 30.5 DPR (range: 18 to 39)

TWF+Claws with 18 STR making two claw attacks and two hand axe attacks, all four 1d6 (3.5)
4*(3.5 +4 +2) ≈ 38 DPR (range: 28 to 48)

The size of the damage dice is of little importance here as the slightly bumped modifier plus rage damage gets a whopping amount of value with the additional attack the TWF+claw build gets.
This was one of the main strengths PAM had over most other combat choices the Barbarian had pre-Tasha's, and vs regular TWF it had the bigger two handed weapon damage die also to stay ahead. But with Tasha's bringing in the Path of Beast allowing for an additional attack, that gap shrinks considerably, and at low levels is potentially better. Also worth noting that the earlier build comparisons required a multiclass dip to acces the fighting style, which did swing the math more in GWM+PAM's favor, but having those accessible via feat does mean those old comparisons need to be re-evaluated (at high levels as well as the lower tiers since the capstone doesn't need to be sacrificed either).

Now GWM boosts potential damage very easily, but at a penalty to accuracy, so we cannot use the assumption of all attacks hitting to compare to two.
The math also gets a little complicated as we have different AC breakpoints of where using GWM is a worth while trade-off of accuracy for power.

Maximum AC = attack bonus - (average damage/2) +16

At level 5 we'll use proficiency +2, for an attack bonus of +5

For the attack action with the 1d10 this give us
Maximum AC = 5 - (11.5/2) +16 = 15.25
For the bonus action with the 1d4 this give us
Maximum AC = 5 - (7.5/2) +16 = 17.25

This tells us that at
18 AC: don't use any GWM attacks
16-17 AC: only GWM on the ad4 bonus action attack
15 AC and lower: all attacks are GWM attacks

We'll run the number on 18, 16, and 15 AC for both builds

GWM+PAM build, no GWM attacks, two 1d10 attacks and one 1d4 attack
vs 18 AC
+5 attack bonus will land a hit on 13+ (40% hit rate)
(2*11.5 + 1*7.5) * 0.4 = 12.2 expected DPR

vs 16 AC
+5 attack bonus will land a hit on 11+ (50% hit rate)
(2*11.5 + 1*7.5) * 0.5 = 15.25 expected DPR

vs 15 AC
+5 attack bonus will land a hit on 10+ (55% hit rate)
(2*11.5 + 1*7.5) * 0.55 = 16.775 expected DPR


GWM+PAM build, two 1d10 attacks (without GWM) and one 1d4 attack (with GWM)
vs 18 AC
+5 attack bonus will land a hit on 13+ (40% hit rate)
+0 attack bonus will land a hit on 18+ (15% hit rate)
(2*11.5*0.4) + (1*17.5*0.15) = 11.825 expected DPR

vs 16 AC
+5 attack bonus will land a hit on 11+ (50% hit rate)
+0 attack bonus will land a hit on 16+ (25% hit rate)
(2*11.5*0.50) + (1*17.5*0.25) = 15.875 expected DPR

vs 15 AC
+5 attack bonus will land a hit on 10+ (55% hit rate)
+0 attack bonus will land a hit on 15+ (30% hit rate)
(2*11.5*0.55) + (1*17.5*0.30) = 17.9 expected DPR


GWM+PAM build, two 1d10 attacks (with GWM) and one 1d4 attack (with GWM)
vs 18 AC
+0 attack bonus will land a hit on 18+ (15% hit rate)
(2*21.5 + 1*17.5) * 0.15 = 9.075 expected DPR

vs 16 AC
+0 attack bonus will land a hit on 16+ (25% hit rate)
(2*21.5 + 1*17.5) * 0.25 = 15.125 expected DPR

vs 15 AC
+0 attack bonus will land a hit on 15+ (30% hit rate)
(2*21.5 + 1*17.5) * 0.3 = 18.15 expected DPR


Now for comparison
TWF+Claws build making four 1d6 attacks
vs 18 AC
+6 attack bonus will land a hit on 12+ (45% hit rate)
(4*9.5) * 0.45 = 17.1 expected DPR

vs 16 AC
+6 attack bonus will land a hit on 10+ (45% hit rate)
(4*9.5) * 0.55 = 20.9 expected DPR

vs 15 AC
+6 attack bonus will land a hit on 9+ (60% hit rate)
(4*9.5) * 0.60 = 22.8 expected DPR

Now from there you can add Reckless Attack and Critical Hits to the calculation (if someone wants to run the numbers for exact figures be my guest, but I'm short on time to do it myself just now), and they WILL favour the GWM+PAM build more than the TWF+Claw build, but don't pretend that only one build's numbers go up and the other's remain static. BOTH will benefit, just one not as much as the other.
This could potentially put the GWM+PAM ahead, as it is a significant increase in expected damage and overall potential damage, but the expected difference between the two builds would still be relatively close.

Also worth noting this isn't accounting for another Barbarian subclass feature, such as Devine fury from Path of the Zealot, which when added will help hold the GWM+PAM build ahead, but that has less than nothing to do with the GWM+PAM feats, and just an example of a strong subclass feature.

[J.C.]

What's the damage output of a Beast Barbarian compared to a Zealot Barbarian? Asking for an Arcana Cleric.

[Zhorn]

What's the damage output of a Beast Barbarian compared to a Zealot Barbarian? Asking for an Arcana Cleric.

noted, added disclaimer to my pervious post at the end of the math part

[J.C.]

Which Barbarian subclass goes best with Wizard 1 dip? I want a good grappler with lots of mobility.

Sorry for the strange request but I want that killy tanky barbarian wielding a Staff of the Magi of all things!

[Dork_Forge]

Dual Wielder is only needed if going for a pure claw build. OP began this thread on weaving the claw attacks in with TWF with weapons (dodging the whole 'in hand' debate), which can net you up to four attacks (two claws, and two light weapon attacks) at 5th level without feats or dips, while using any race. The damage stays VERY competitive.

Now yes, a variant human or custom lineage can have their two feats by that level, but if you afford that to one build you should give the same courtesy to the one you are comparing it to also. For every feat/ASI spent by one build, the other build gets the same opportunity.


Keeping it simple we'll use the tried and true variant human with the standard array, so both builds start with a 15+1=16 STR

Sticking to light weapons, we won't bother with the Dual Wielder feat, but for our variant human feat we will take Fighting Initiate for the Two-Weapon Fighting style, and the 4th level ASI will be used on a +2 to STR, putting it a little ahead in stats over GWM+PAM at that low level. Note that the opportunity cost/expenditure is the same for both builds at this point.

So stating with just base attacks, assuming all hit (rage active)

GWM+PAM with 16 STR using a Glaive for two 1d10 (5.5) attacks and a 1d4 (2.5) attack
2*(5.5 +3 +2) + 1*(2.5 +3 +2) ≈ 30.5 DPR (range: 18 to 39)

TWF+Claws with 18 STR making two claw attacks and two hand axe attacks, all four 1d6 (3.5)
4*(3.5 +4 +2) ≈ 38 DPR (range: 28 to 48)

The size of the damage dice is of little importance here as the slightly bumped modifier plus rage damage gets a whopping amount of value with the additional attack the TWF+claw build gets.
This was one of the main strengths PAM had over most other combat choices the Barbarian had pre-Tasha's, and vs regular TWF it had the bigger two handed weapon damage die also to stay ahead. But with Tasha's bringing in the Path of Beast allowing for an additional attack, that gap shrinks considerably, and at low levels is potentially better. Also worth noting that the earlier build comparisons required a multiclass dip to acces the fighting style, which did swing the math more in GWM+PAM's favor, but having those accessible via feat does mean those old comparisons need to be re-evaluated (at high levels as well as the lower tiers since the capstone doesn't need to be sacrificed either).

Now GWM boosts potential damage very easily, but at a penalty to accuracy, so we cannot use the assumption of all attacks hitting to compare to two.
The math also gets a little complicated as we have different AC breakpoints of where using GWM is a worth while trade-off of accuracy for power.

Maximum AC = attack bonus - (average damage/2) +16

At level 5 we'll use proficiency +2, for an attack bonus of +5

For the attack action with the 1d10 this give us
Maximum AC = 5 - (11.5/2) +16 = 15.25
For the bonus action with the 1d4 this give us
Maximum AC = 5 - (7.5/2) +16 = 17.25

This tells us that at
18 AC: don't use any GWM attacks
16-17 AC: only GWM on the ad4 bonus action attack
15 AC and lower: all attacks are GWM attacks

We'll run the number on 18, 16, and 15 AC for both builds

GWM+PAM build, no GWM attacks, two 1d10 attacks and one 1d4 attack
vs 18 AC
+5 attack bonus will land a hit on 13+ (40% hit rate)
(2*11.5 + 1*7.5) * 0.5 = 12.2 expected DPR

vs 16 AC
+5 attack bonus will land a hit on 11+ (50% hit rate)
(2*11.5 + 1*7.5) * 0.4 = 15.25 expected DPR

vs 15 AC
+5 attack bonus will land a hit on 10+ (55% hit rate)
(2*11.5 + 1*7.5) * 0.4 = 16.775 expected DPR


GWM+PAM build, two 1d10 attacks (without GWM) and one 1d4 attack (with GWM)
vs 18 AC
+5 attack bonus will land a hit on 13+ (40% hit rate)
+0 attack bonus will land a hit on 18+ (15% hit rate)
(2*11.5*0.4) + (1*17.5*0.15) = 11.825 expected DPR

vs 16 AC
+5 attack bonus will land a hit on 11+ (50% hit rate)
+0 attack bonus will land a hit on 16+ (25% hit rate)
(2*11.5*0.50) + (1*17.5*0.25) = 15.875 expected DPR

vs 15 AC
+5 attack bonus will land a hit on 10+ (55% hit rate)
+0 attack bonus will land a hit on 15+ (30% hit rate)
(2*11.5*0.55) + (1*17.5*0.30) = 17.9 expected DPR


GWM+PAM build, two 1d10 attacks (with GWM) and one 1d4 attack (with GWM)
vs 18 AC
+0 attack bonus will land a hit on 18+ (15% hit rate)
(2*21.5 + 1*17.5) * 0.15 = 9.075 expected DPR

vs 16 AC
+0 attack bonus will land a hit on 16+ (25% hit rate)
(2*21.5 + 1*17.5) * 0.25 = 15.125 expected DPR

vs 15 AC
+0 attack bonus will land a hit on 15+ (30% hit rate)
(2*21.5 + 1*17.5) * 0.3 = 18.15 expected DPR


Now for comparison
TWF+Claws build making four 1d6 attacks
vs 18 AC
+6 attack bonus will land a hit on 12+ (45% hit rate)
(4*9.5) * 0.45 = 17.1 expected DPR

vs 16 AC
+6 attack bonus will land a hit on 10+ (45% hit rate)
(4*9.5) * 0.55 = 20.9 expected DPR

vs 15 AC
+6 attack bonus will land a hit on 9+ (60% hit rate)
(4*9.5) * 0.60 = 22.8 expected DPR

Now from there you can add Reckless Attack and Critical Hits to the calculation (if someone wants to run the numbers for exact figures be my guest, but I'm short on time to do it myself just now), and they WILL favour the GWM+PAM build more than the TWF+Claw build, but don't pretend that only one build's numbers go up and the other's remain static. BOTH will benefit, just one not as much as the other.
This could potentially put the GWM+PAM ahead, as it is a significant increase in expected damage and overall potential damage, but the expected difference between the two builds would still be relatively close.

Also worth noting this isn't accounting for another Barbarian subclass feature, such as Devine fury from Path of the Zealot, which when added will help hold the GWM+PAM build ahead, but that has less than nothing to do with the GWM+PAM feats, and just an example of a strong subclass feature.

Thanks for taking the time to run the numbers and type all of that out!

I have no idea if it will change anything in either direction in a meaningful way, but for what it's worth you say that at level 5 prof will be +2 for a total attack bonus of +5, but 5th level is the prof increase, so it should be +3 and +6 respectively.

I had a feeling that it wouldn't be as straightforward as GWM+PAM win again! Especially when Rage damage and Str mods increase, closing the gap somewhat (anything that increases on a per hit basis would also favour the more attack options).

Probably not as exciting to some people since damage is the big draw, but the Dual Wielder version will also end up with a higher AC, allowing them to Reckless without as much relative penalty for doing so.

[Zhorn]

I have no idea if it will change anything in either direction in a meaningful way, but for what it's worth you say that at level 5 prof will be +2 for a total attack bonus of +5, but 5th level is the prof increase, so it should be +3 and +6 respectively.
Whoops, my goof, cheers for the catch. I'll go through and redo the calculations. It'll be a minor shift, nothing drastic. But a worth while correction.


I had a feeling that it wouldn't be as straightforward as GWM+PAM win again! Especially when Rage damage and Str mods increase, closing the gap somewhat (anything that increases on a per hit basis would also favour the more attack options).

Probably not as exciting to some people since damage is the big draw, but the Dual Wielder version will also end up with a higher AC, allowing them to Reckless without as much relative penalty for doing so.
It'll be worth something. Note that while Path of the Zealot gives a reasonable damage boost, Path of the Totem Warrior is still highly regarded for the defensive value of Bear Totem Spirit.

Anyway, I'll get onto writing out those numbers again.

[bendking]

Numbers for any of this?
I might post some later, bit busy now.


Dual Wielder is only needed if going for a pure claw build. OP began this thread on weaving the claw attacks in with TWF with weapons (dodging the whole 'in hand' debate), which can net you up to four attacks (two claws, and two light weapon attacks) at 5th level without feats or dips, while using any race. The damage stays VERY competitive.

Now yes, a variant human or custom lineage can have their two feats by that level, but if you afford that to one build you should give the same courtesy to the one you are comparing it to also. For every feat/ASI spent by one build, the other build gets the same opportunity.


NOTE: Dork_Forge caught an error, recalculation in progress (numbers will still be close to these, not drastically different)
Keeping it simple we'll use the tried and true variant human with the standard array, so both builds start with a 15+1=16 STR

Sticking to light weapons, we won't bother with the Dual Wielder feat, but for our variant human feat we will take Fighting Initiate for the Two-Weapon Fighting style, and the 4th level ASI will be used on a +2 to STR, putting it a little ahead in stats over GWM+PAM at that low level. Note that the opportunity cost/expenditure is the same for both builds at this point.

So stating with just base attacks, assuming all hit (rage active)

GWM+PAM with 16 STR using a Glaive for two 1d10 (5.5) attacks and a 1d4 (2.5) attack
2*(5.5 +3 +2) + 1*(2.5 +3 +2) ≈ 30.5 DPR (range: 18 to 39)

TWF+Claws with 18 STR making two claw attacks and two hand axe attacks, all four 1d6 (3.5)
4*(3.5 +4 +2) ≈ 38 DPR (range: 28 to 48)

The size of the damage dice is of little importance here as the slightly bumped modifier plus rage damage gets a whopping amount of value with the additional attack the TWF+claw build gets.
This was one of the main strengths PAM had over most other combat choices the Barbarian had pre-Tasha's, and vs regular TWF it had the bigger two handed weapon damage die also to stay ahead. But with Tasha's bringing in the Path of Beast allowing for an additional attack, that gap shrinks considerably, and at low levels is potentially better. Also worth noting that the earlier build comparisons required a multiclass dip to acces the fighting style, which did swing the math more in GWM+PAM's favor, but having those accessible via feat does mean those old comparisons need to be re-evaluated (at high levels as well as the lower tiers since the capstone doesn't need to be sacrificed either).

Now GWM boosts potential damage very easily, but at a penalty to accuracy, so we cannot use the assumption of all attacks hitting to compare to two.
The math also gets a little complicated as we have different AC breakpoints of where using GWM is a worth while trade-off of accuracy for power.

Maximum AC = attack bonus - (average damage/2) +16

At level 5 we'll use proficiency +2, for an attack bonus of +5

For the attack action with the 1d10 this give us
Maximum AC = 5 - (11.5/2) +16 = 15.25
For the bonus action with the 1d4 this give us
Maximum AC = 5 - (7.5/2) +16 = 17.25

This tells us that at
18 AC: don't use any GWM attacks
16-17 AC: only GWM on the ad4 bonus action attack
15 AC and lower: all attacks are GWM attacks

We'll run the number on 18, 16, and 15 AC for both builds

GWM+PAM build, no GWM attacks, two 1d10 attacks and one 1d4 attack
vs 18 AC
+5 attack bonus will land a hit on 13+ (40% hit rate)
(2*11.5 + 1*7.5) * 0.5 = 12.2 expected DPR

vs 16 AC
+5 attack bonus will land a hit on 11+ (50% hit rate)
(2*11.5 + 1*7.5) * 0.4 = 15.25 expected DPR

vs 15 AC
+5 attack bonus will land a hit on 10+ (55% hit rate)
(2*11.5 + 1*7.5) * 0.4 = 16.775 expected DPR


GWM+PAM build, two 1d10 attacks (without GWM) and one 1d4 attack (with GWM)
vs 18 AC
+5 attack bonus will land a hit on 13+ (40% hit rate)
+0 attack bonus will land a hit on 18+ (15% hit rate)
(2*11.5*0.4) + (1*17.5*0.15) = 11.825 expected DPR

vs 16 AC
+5 attack bonus will land a hit on 11+ (50% hit rate)
+0 attack bonus will land a hit on 16+ (25% hit rate)
(2*11.5*0.50) + (1*17.5*0.25) = 15.875 expected DPR

vs 15 AC
+5 attack bonus will land a hit on 10+ (55% hit rate)
+0 attack bonus will land a hit on 15+ (30% hit rate)
(2*11.5*0.55) + (1*17.5*0.30) = 17.9 expected DPR


GWM+PAM build, two 1d10 attacks (with GWM) and one 1d4 attack (with GWM)
vs 18 AC
+0 attack bonus will land a hit on 18+ (15% hit rate)
(2*21.5 + 1*17.5) * 0.15 = 9.075 expected DPR

vs 16 AC
+0 attack bonus will land a hit on 16+ (25% hit rate)
(2*21.5 + 1*17.5) * 0.25 = 15.125 expected DPR

vs 15 AC
+0 attack bonus will land a hit on 15+ (30% hit rate)
(2*21.5 + 1*17.5) * 0.3 = 18.15 expected DPR


Now for comparison
TWF+Claws build making four 1d6 attacks
vs 18 AC
+6 attack bonus will land a hit on 12+ (45% hit rate)
(4*9.5) * 0.45 = 17.1 expected DPR

vs 16 AC
+6 attack bonus will land a hit on 10+ (45% hit rate)
(4*9.5) * 0.55 = 20.9 expected DPR

vs 15 AC
+6 attack bonus will land a hit on 9+ (60% hit rate)
(4*9.5) * 0.60 = 22.8 expected DPR

Now from there you can add Reckless Attack and Critical Hits to the calculation (if someone wants to run the numbers for exact figures be my guest, but I'm short on time to do it myself just now), and they WILL favour the GWM+PAM build more than the TWF+Claw build, but don't pretend that only one build's numbers go up and the other's remain static. BOTH will benefit, just one not as much as the other.
This could potentially put the GWM+PAM ahead, as it is a significant increase in expected damage and overall potential damage, but the expected difference between the two builds would still be relatively close.

Also worth noting this isn't accounting for another Barbarian subclass feature, such as Devine fury from Path of the Zealot, which when added will help hold the GWM+PAM build ahead, but that has less than nothing to do with the GWM+PAM feats, and just an example of a strong subclass feature.

When you compare a Barbarian with no subclass to one that reinforces your argument, then it's not much of a surprise when the numbers are in your favor.

If you're going to take a subclass that gives bonus DPR to dual wielding it's more than fair to compare it to another subclass that gives bonus DPR to two-handed, like the Zealot, in which case PAM + GWM most certainly wins up to AC 18.

I will say it's not as simple as PAM + GWM is just better, since for high AC the Claws fair better.

[Zhorn]

When you compare a Barbarian with no subclass to one that reinforces your argument, then it's not much of a surprise when the numbers are in your favor.

If you're going to take a subclass that gives bonus DPR to dual wielding it's more than fair to compare it to another subclass that gives bonus DPR to two-handed, like the Zealot, in which case PAM + GWM most certainly wins up to AC 18.
Oh come on dude, I've admitted the your build does good damage (https://forums.giantitp.com/showthread.php?626494-Barbarian-4-attacks-at-level-5&p=24915664#post24915664), and even in that part you quoted from me I have a note at the bottom saying the Zealot damage will add more when accounted for.
The point of this whole thing was a rebuttal about the TWF+claws being significantly lower/worse, which when math'd out actually competes very strongly.
Pre-Tasha's a TWF Barbarian was less competitive on DPR, and as far as the power of any single hit a GWM is still in the lead, but it is outdated notion to still consider the DPR gap to be as big as it was in the past.


Recalculation with breakpoint AC shift

Maximum AC = attack bonus - (average damage/2) +16

At level 5 we'll use proficiency +3, for an attack bonus of +6

For the attack action with the 1d10 this give us
Maximum AC = 6 - (11.5/2) +16 = 16.25
For the bonus action with the 1d4 this give us
Maximum AC = 6 - (7.5/2) +16 = 18.25

This tells us that at
19+ AC: don't use any GWM attacks
17-18 AC: only GWM on the 1d4 bonus action attack
16 AC and lower: all attacks are GWM attacks

We'll re-run the number on 19, 18, and 16 AC for both builds

Now as for other subclass features you'd have in place of Path of the Beast, not all subclasses offer a DPR increase for their 3rd level feature. As such I won't go through them all, but I will touch on the gains from Path of the Zealot (often cited as the strongest for DPR), which at 5th level is ≈+5.5 per round (1d6 + half Barbarian level, first hit only), which will be multiplied by the cumulative probability of landing at least one hit of the three attacks being made by the GWM+PAM build and added to the total.

================================================== =================

GWM+PAM build, no GWM attacks, two 1d10 attacks and one 1d4 attack
vs 19 AC
+6 attack bonus will land a hit on 13+ (40% hit rate)
(2*11.5 + 1*7.5) * 0.40 = 12.2 expected DPR
+4.312 for Devine Fury (cumulative probability of 78.4%) = 16.512 total expected DPR

vs 18 AC
+6 attack bonus will land a hit on 12+ (45% hit rate)
(2*11.5 + 1*7.5) * 0.45 = 13.725 expected DPR
+4.585 for Devine Fury (cumulative probability of 83.3625%) = 18.31 total expected DPR

vs 16 AC
+6 attack bonus will land a hit on 10+ (55% hit rate)
(2*11.5 + 1*7.5) * 0.55 = 16.775 expected DPR
+4.999 for Devine Fury (cumulative probability of 90.8875%) = 21.774 total expected DPR

================================================== =================

GWM+PAM build, two 1d10 attacks (without GWM) and one 1d4 attack (with GWM)
Note: the cumulative probability of landing a hit when the chance of success is different for one of the trials has me a little thrown. I will be generous and work that part out as if all three attacks had the better probability, but in reality the value should be a bit lower.
vs 19 AC
+6 attack bonus will land a hit on 13+ (40% hit rate)
+1 attack bonus will land a hit on 18+ (15% hit rate)
(2*11.5*0.4) + (1*17.5*0.15) = 11.825 expected DPR
+4.312 for Devine Fury (cumulative probability of 78.4%) = 16.137 total expected DPR

vs 18 AC
+6 attack bonus will land a hit on 12+ (45% hit rate)
+1 attack bonus will land a hit on 17+ (20% hit rate)
(2*11.5*0.45) + (1*17.5*0.20) = 13.85 expected DPR
+4.585 for Devine Fury (cumulative probability of 83.3625%) = 18.435 total expected DPR

vs 16 AC
+6 attack bonus will land a hit on 10+ (55% hit rate)
+1 attack bonus will land a hit on 15+ (30% hit rate)
(2*11.5*0.55) + (1*17.5*0.30) = 17.9 expected DPR
+4.999 for Devine Fury (cumulative probability of 90.8875%) = 22.899 total expected DPR

================================================== =================

GWM+PAM build, two 1d10 attacks (with GWM) and one 1d4 attack (with GWM)
vs 19 AC
+1 attack bonus will land a hit on 18+ (15% hit rate)
(2*21.5 + 1*17.5) * 0.15 = 9.075 expected DPR
+2.122 for Devine Fury (cumulative probability of 38.5875%) = 11.197 total expected DPR

vs 18 AC
+1 attack bonus will land a hit on 17+ (20% hit rate)
(2*21.5 + 1*17.5) * 0.20 = 12.1 expected DPR
+2.684 for Devine Fury (cumulative probability of 48.8%) = 14.784 total expected DPR

vs 16 AC
+0 attack bonus will land a hit on 15+ (30% hit rate)
(2*21.5 + 1*17.5) * 0.3 = 18.15 expected DPR
+3.614 for Devine Fury (cumulative probability of 65.7%) = 21.763 total expected DPR

================================================== =================

Now for comparison
TWF+Claws build making four 1d6 attacks
vs 19 AC
+7 attack bonus will land a hit on 12+ (45% hit rate)
(4*9.5) * 0.45 = 17.1 expected DPR

vs 18 AC
+7 attack bonus will land a hit on 11+ (50% hit rate)
(4*9.5) * 0.50 = 19 expected DPR

vs 16 AC
+7 attack bonus will land a hit on 9+ (60% hit rate)
(4*9.5) * 0.60 = 22.8 expected DPR

[bendking]

Oh come on dude, I've admitted the your build does good damage (https://forums.giantitp.com/showthread.php?626494-Barbarian-4-attacks-at-level-5&p=24915664#post24915664), and even in that part you quoted from me I have a note at the bottom saying the Zealot damage will add more when accounted for.
The point of this whole thing was a rebuttal about the TWF+claws being significantly lower/worse, which when math'd out actually competes very strongly.
Pre-Tasha's a TWF Barbarian was less competitive on DPR, and as far as the power of any single hit a GWM is still in the lead, but it is outdated notion to still consider the DPR gap to be as big as it was in the past.


Recalculation with breakpoint AC shift

Maximum AC = attack bonus - (average damage/2) +16

At level 5 we'll use proficiency +3, for an attack bonus of +6

For the attack action with the 1d10 this give us
Maximum AC = 6 - (11.5/2) +16 = 16.25
For the bonus action with the 1d4 this give us
Maximum AC = 6 - (7.5/2) +16 = 18.25

This tells us that at
19+ AC: don't use any GWM attacks
17-18 AC: only GWM on the 1d4 bonus action attack
16 AC and lower: all attacks are GWM attacks

We'll re-run the number on 19, 18, and 16 AC for both builds

Now as for other subclass features you'd have in place of Path of the Beast, not all subclasses offer a DPR increase for their 3rd level feature. As such I won't go through them all, but I will touch on the gains from Path of the Zealot (often cited as the strongest for DPR), which at 5th level is ≈+5.5 per round (1d6 + half Barbarian level, first hit only), which will be multiplied by the cumulative probability of landing at least one hit of the three attacks being made by the GWM+PAM build and added to the total.

GWM+PAM build, no GWM attacks, two 1d10 attacks and one 1d4 attack
vs 19 AC
+6 attack bonus will land a hit on 13+ (40% hit rate)
(2*11.5 + 1*7.5) * 0.40 = 12.2 expected DPR
+4.312 for Devine Fury (cumulative probability of 78.4%) = 16.512 total expected DPR

vs 18 AC
+6 attack bonus will land a hit on 12+ (45% hit rate)
(2*11.5 + 1*7.5) * 0.45 = 13.725 expected DPR
+4.585 for Devine Fury (cumulative probability of 83.3625%) = 18.31 total expected DPR

vs 16 AC
+6 attack bonus will land a hit on 10+ (55% hit rate)
(2*11.5 + 1*7.5) * 0.55 = 16.775 expected DPR
+4.999 for Devine Fury (cumulative probability of 90.8875%) = 21.774 total expected DPR

GWM+PAM build, two 1d10 attacks (without GWM) and one 1d4 attack (with GWM)
Note: the cumulative probability of landing a hit when the chance of success is different for one of the trials has me a little thrown. I will be generous and work that part out as if all three attacks had the better probability, but in reality the value should be a bit lower.
vs 19 AC
+6 attack bonus will land a hit on 13+ (40% hit rate)
+1 attack bonus will land a hit on 18+ (15% hit rate)
(2*11.5*0.4) + (1*17.5*0.15) = 11.825 expected DPR
+4.312 for Devine Fury (cumulative probability of 78.4%) = 16.137 total expected DPR

vs 18 AC
+6 attack bonus will land a hit on 12+ (45% hit rate)
+1 attack bonus will land a hit on 17+ (20% hit rate)
(2*11.5*0.45) + (1*17.5*0.20) = 13.85 expected DPR
+4.585 for Devine Fury (cumulative probability of 83.3625%) = 18.435 total expected DPR

vs 16 AC
+6 attack bonus will land a hit on 10+ (55% hit rate)
+1 attack bonus will land a hit on 15+ (30% hit rate)
(2*11.5*0.55) + (1*17.5*0.30) = 17.9 expected DPR
+4.999 for Devine Fury (cumulative probability of 90.8875%) = 22.899 total expected DPR


GWM+PAM build, two 1d10 attacks (with GWM) and one 1d4 attack (with GWM)
vs 19 AC
+1 attack bonus will land a hit on 18+ (15% hit rate)
(2*21.5 + 1*17.5) * 0.15 = 9.075 expected DPR
+2.122 for Devine Fury (cumulative probability of 38.5875%) = 11.197 total expected DPR

vs 18 AC
+1 attack bonus will land a hit on 17+ (20% hit rate)
(2*21.5 + 1*17.5) * 0.20 = 12.1 expected DPR
+2.684 for Devine Fury (cumulative probability of 48.8%) = 14.784 total expected DPR

vs 16 AC
+0 attack bonus will land a hit on 15+ (30% hit rate)
(2*21.5 + 1*17.5) * 0.3 = 18.15 expected DPR
+3.614 for Devine Fury (cumulative probability of 65.7%) = 21.763 total expected DPR


Now for comparison
TWF+Claws build making four 1d6 attacks
vs 19 AC
+7 attack bonus will land a hit on 12+ (45% hit rate)
(4*9.5) * 0.45 = 17.1 expected DPR

vs 18 AC
+7 attack bonus will land a hit on 11+ (50% hit rate)
(4*9.5) * 0.50 = 19 expected DPR

vs 16 AC
+7 attack bonus will land a hit on 9+ (60% hit rate)
(4*9.5) * 0.60 = 22.8 expected DPR

I was, in fact, replying to what you said on the note at the bottom. Perhaps I should have quoted the exact line to clarify that, but I was on mobile and lazy.


Also worth noting this isn't accounting for another Barbarian subclass feature, such as Devine fury from Path of the Zealot, which when added will help hold the GWM+PAM build ahead, but that has less than nothing to do with the GWM+PAM feats, and just an example of a strong subclass feature.
Emphasis mine.

I simply disagree with this statement and was trying to explain why in my previous post. I'll elaborate further. Saying Divine Fury has nothing to do with GWM + PAM is like saying that Form of the Beast has less than nothing to do with Fighting Initiate: Two-Weapon Fighting. It's not true because if you're optimizing for DPR, you'll take Beast if you want to do it with dual-wielding and you'll take Zealot if you want to do it with two-handed, and of the two, two-handed Zealot is the better choice. Notably, if you're optimizing for grappling, Beast is better.

I definitely agree that dual-wielding is now more viable post-Tasha's and that the gap is not as big as it once was. I don't think I ever said otherwise.
In the end, we don't really disagree.

P.S. The gap between Zealot PAM + GWM is not insignificant, especially in T3 where Zealot continues scaling and catches up in STR to the Beast.

[Zhorn]

I get the impression you want to hammer home a point I already agreed to back in post #10 (https://forums.giantitp.com/showthread.php?626494-Barbarian-4-attacks-at-level-5&p=24915664#post24915664).

Yes, I agree with you.
High levels will favour a barbarian using heavy two-handed weapon.
Brutal Critical gets more mileage out of 1d12 weapons than it does out of 1d6 weapons.
GWM gets more mileage out of Reckless Attack than other feats do, especially once you have a solid attack bonus.
And as far as 3rd level Barbarian subclass features go, Divine Fury scales the most powerfully in those high levels when strictly discussing DPR.

But this thread wasn't about high levels.
This thread was talking about early tier play, specifically 5th level, and so when comparisons were made to using GWM+PAM, I compared it at the point of what the thread was aimed at.

Now I'll maintain a TWF+claw build will scale up nicely into those high tiers also and the gap wont increase as drastically as the gap would have in the past for comparing a high level TWF build to a GWM+PAM build, as that fourth attack is a pretty big deal, allowing for an extra helping of Rage Damage + Barbarian's high STR mod.

Now again, the POTENTIAL that the GWM+PAM has for high damage is significant. but for reliable output the TWF+claw build will keep up nicely as it doesn't need to sacrifice accuracy and has more chances to deal damage on its turn without relying on chance and external triggers. And in the long run, all things averaging out, that reliably will enable it to keep pace, still behind GWM+PAM, but not by a massive margin.

Any points you feel don't apply to your stance, view them as me also responding to others in the thread viewing TWF+claws in less than favourable terms.

[Sol0botmate]

Ok, numbers.

PAM Zealot vs Path of the Beast. Level 6 because Beast need 1 level dip in Fighter. All attacks with Reckless obviously.

*************************************************

Zealot, Level 6, PAM + Glaive, 18 STR

AC 18: 33 (42 if reaction attack included in that round)
AC 19: 32 (41 if reaction attack included in that round)
AC 17: 34 (43 if reaction attack included in that round)
AC 16: 35 (44 if reaction attack included in that round)

Please Note: Numbers above will get higher if Zealot plays to his strength and force reaction PAM attacks as much as possible, utilizing 10 feet range as shown in captions.

Zealot, Level 6, PAM + GWM, 16 STR

AC 16: 43.2 (52 if reaction attack included in that round)
AC 17:40 (49 if reaction attack included in that round)
AC 18:35 (45 if reaction attack included in that round)

Zealot level 12, 20 STR, PAM + GWM, Glave +1

AC 18:54 (64 if reaction attack included in that round)
AC 19:50 (60 if reaction attack included in that round)
AC 17:58 (68 if reaction attack included in that round)
AC 16: 62 (72 if reaction attack included in that round)

**************************************************

Path of The Beast level 5: 18 STR, Dual Wielder, 3 attacks with Claws, 1 attack with Hand Axe

AC 16: 33
AC 17: 31
AC 18: 29
AC 19: 27.87

Level 12, Same but with 20 STR, off hand hand-axe +1

AC 19: 36
AC 18: 39
AC 17: 41
AC 16: 42

******************************************

I did not include Brutal Criticals (forgot) on both at level 12 calculations, but obviously it would benefit Zealot more due to 1d10 weapon instead of 1d6 weapons.

Overall Path of The Beast has respectable DPR but Zealot scales better and magical +2, +3 Polearms will make gap bigger.

If pure DPR is your goal - Zealot is always best option.

[bendking]

I get the impression you want to hammer home a point I already agreed to back in post #10 (https://forums.giantitp.com/showthread.php?626494-Barbarian-4-attacks-at-level-5&p=24915664#post24915664).


As I said, I was expressing my disagreement about saying that Zealot has nothing to do with PAM + GWM. That's it.
I think we can end the discussion seeing as we agree on everything else.

[Zhorn]

As I said, I was expressing my disagreement about saying that Zealot has nothing to do with PAM + GWM. That's it.
I think we can end the discussion seeing as we agree on everything else.
That's fair. Thankyou for taking the time for the discussion.