Strength based TWF with high sustained damage

[Paladin777]

In my current gaming group I've played a dedicated blaster (evocation wizard), a tempest cleric (great weapon fighter/blaster hybrid), a dex S&B fighter (halfling samurai, was a lot of fun), and most recently, an archer (a ranger). Lately I've been thinking that I want to try a two-weapon fighting character. More specifically, a strength based one. Since the. I've done a little bit of theorycrafting. Before anyone even comments about other styles being better, I want to say that the concept of a str-based dual wielder is here to stay, so please keep the comments within that paradigm. Alternative builds suggestions within the concept are welcome though.

Another thing, I'm not going for perfect optimization. I'm just looking for 'very effective.'

Race:
Since I really want to wield two larger weapons (more specifically: longswords), I would need the two-weapon fighting feat. However, I do understand that picking that feat over an ASI is... underwhelming. Plus, I'd have to wait until 4 level. As such, I was thinking that going variant human would be the way to go.

Class:
I was thinking that a barbarian would fit the bill best because it doesn't ever natively get more than 2 attacks per round (as opposed to the fighter), and has a native per-hit bonus to attacks with raging. Our group tends to be very liberal with the long rests so I'll be raging the vast majority of the time. In addition, aside from the first turn of raging, it can be built in such a way that keeps bonus actions free without gimping its effectiveness. I like playing defender type characters so I figured the Ancestral Guardians subclass might be fun for both he mechanics and for RP'ing. I also figured a 3 lvl dip into fighter (maybe 4 for the ASI) would give enough goodies to make up for what is lost on the back end. Our campaigns never make it past lvl 14 or so anyway, so capstones aren't a consideration.

Ability scores:
Str 15(16)-9
Con 15(16)-9
Dex 14-7
Int 8-0
Wis 10-2
Cha 8-0
The TWF feat and unarmored defense puts his AC at a respectable 16 at first level, though I can be persuaded to build in a manner that doesn't use unarmored defense (the first iteration had 14 con, 12 dex, 12 wis and 12 cha and took insight as the human bonus feat. I've obviously since abandoned that in favor of a more optimized spread)

The progression:
Most of our campaigns start at level one, so I figured I'd have my first or second level be the first fighter level for the fighting style (which is arguably the biggest deal in the first few levels anyway). I know that would bump back the second attack by a level, but I think having the fighting style for levels 1 or 2-4 trumps getting the second attack only one level earlier. After Barbarian lvl 5 or 6 (for a consistent use of my reaction with Spirit Shield) I'd take the next 2/3 lvls of fighter (depending on how much I want the ASI) and continue as a barbarian from there on out.

With this build I don't lose any opportunity cost for using the bonus action for the off-hand attack, and after running the numbers it actually out damages GWF (without GWM, more on that in a moment) throughout its entire career.

After running the numbers (I won't bore you with them), the break-even point between GWF and TWF when the GWF is using GWM is when you need a 9 to hit normally (assuming using reckless assault or some similar way of obtaining advantage. The break even point is a 5 to-hit normally, and TWF is favored when the to-hit is any higher). GWF does an average of 26.49 damage over it's two attacks and TWF does and average of 26.41 damage over its three. As the enemy gets harder to hit the advantage goes to TWF. In addition, the TWF doesn't necessarily need to use reckless assault in order to hit fairly reliably if surrounded.

About polearm master: yes, adding polearm master to the GWF will put damage either of the other builds, but then you're really starting to eat into your limited ASI's. Plus you need to wait for a good while before your build starts to really come online. The TWF barb is fully online at level 2 (and mostly online at level one regardless of whether you start as a fighter or barbarian.)

TL;DR: I think I found one of the few non-rogue builds where TWF actually shines for longer than through Levels 1-4!

[ZRN]

Most of our campaigns start at level one, so I figured I'd have my first or second level be the first fighter level for the fighting style (which is arguably the biggest deal in the first few levels anyway). I know that would bump back the second attack by a level, but I think having the fighting style for levels 1 or 2-4 trumps getting the second attack only one level earlier.

I kind of doubt this. The fighting style give you +3 damage when you hit with your bonus-action attack. Given that you won't always use your bonus action to attack (e.g. when you start your rage) and you won't always hit when you do, this is, what, 1-2 points of damage per round? Compare a fighter1/barbX to a straight barbarian level by level, and look what the fighter1/barb is missing:

Level 2: +1-2 damage per round, but no reckless attack
Level 3: +1-2 damage per round, but no primal path
Level 4: +1-2 damage per round, but no ASI
Level 5: +1-2 damage per round, but no second attack

I'd say at a minimum you should be level 5 or 6 in barbarian before you start dipping fighter.



After running the numbers (I won't bore you with them), the break-even point between GWF and TWF when the GWF is using GWM is when you need a 9 to hit normally. GWF does an average of 26.49 damage over it's two attacks and TWF does and average of 26.41 damage over its three. As the enemy gets harder to hit the advantage goes to TWF. In addition, the TWF doesn't necessarily need to use reckless assault in order to hit fairly reliably if surrounded.

I think you might want to bore us with the numbers here - are you saying that a greatweapon barbarian using reckless assault and -5 to hit/+10 to damage does about the same damage as a TWF barbarian using reckless assault against an enemy you need a 9 to hit? That seems wrong to me but I'm too lazy to check it.

[Paladin777]

You misunderstand. Without GWM the TWF will *always* outdamage the GWF when factoring in rage damage bonus and adding the ability modifier for the fighting style. 3d8+18 (assuming 18 str) is greater than 4d6+12. Since they need the same to-hit, factoring simple average damage with all hits is acceptable.

I'll display the mathhammer when I get home.

[Omni-Centrist]

In my current gaming group I've played a dedicated blaster (evocation wizard), a tempest cleric (great weapon fighter/blaster hybrid), a dex S&B fighter (halfling samurai, was a lot of fun), and most recently, an archer (a ranger). Lately I've been thinking that I want to try a two-weapon fighting character. More specifically, a strength based one. Since the. I've done a little bit of theorycrafting. Before anyone even comments about other styles being better, I want to say that the concept of a str-based dual wielder is here to stay, so please keep the comments within that paradigm. Alternative builds suggestions within the concept are welcome though.

Another thing, I'm not going for perfect optimization. I'm just looking for 'very effective.'

Race:
Since I really want to wield two larger weapons (more specifically: longswords), I would need the two-weapon fighting feat. However, I do understand that picking that feat over an ASI is... underwhelming. Plus, I'd have to wait until 4 level. As such, I was thinking that going variant human would be the way to go.

Class:
I was thinking that a barbarian would fit the bill best because it doesn't ever natively get more than 2 attacks per round (as opposed to the fighter), and has a native per-hit bonus to attacks with raging. Our group tends to be very liberal with the long rests so I'll be raging the vast majority of the time. In addition, aside from the first turn of raging, it can be built in such a way that keeps bonus actions free without gimping its effectiveness. I like playing defender type characters so I figured the Ancestral Guardians subclass might be fun for both he mechanics and for RP'ing. I also figured a 3 lvl dip into fighter (maybe 4 for the ASI) would give enough goodies to make up for what is lost on the back end. Our campaigns never make it past lvl 14 or so anyway, so capstones aren't a consideration.

Ability scores:
Str 15(16)-9
Con 15(16)-9
Dex 14-7
Int 8-0
Wis 10-2
Cha 8-0
The TWF feat and unarmored defense puts his AC at a respectable 16 at first level, though I can be persuaded to build in a manner that doesn't use unarmored defense (the first iteration had 14 con, 12 dex, 12 wis and 12 cha and took insight as the human bonus feat. I've obviously since abandoned that in favor of a more optimized spread)

The progression:
Most of our campaigns start at level one, so I figured I'd have my first or second level be the first fighter level for the fighting style (which is arguably the biggest deal in the first few levels anyway). I know that would bump back the second attack by a level, but I think having the fighting style for levels 1 or 2-4 trumps getting the second attack only one level earlier. After Barbarian lvl 5 or 6 (for a consistent use of my reaction with Spirit Shield) I'd take the next 2/3 lvls of fighter (depending on how much I want the ASI) and continue as a barbarian from there on out.

With this build I don't lose any opportunity cost for using the bonus action for the off-hand attack, and after running the numbers it actually out damages GWF (without GWM, more on that in a moment) throughout its entire career.

After running the numbers (I won't bore you with them), the break-even point between GWF and TWF when the GWF is using GWM is when you need a 9 to hit normally (assuming using reckless assault or some similar way of obtaining advantage. The break even point is a 5 to-hit normally, and TWF is favored when the to-hit is any higher). GWF does an average of 26.49 damage over it's two attacks and TWF does and average of 26.41 damage over its three. As the enemy gets harder to hit the advantage goes to TWF. In addition, the TWF doesn't necessarily need to use reckless assault in order to hit fairly reliably if surrounded.

About polearm master: yes, adding polearm master to the GWF will put damage either of the other builds, but then you're really starting to eat into your limited ASI's. Plus you need to wait for a good while before your build starts to really come online. The TWF barb is fully online at level 2 (and mostly online at level one regardless of whether you start as a fighter or barbarian.)

TL;DR: I think I found one of the few non-rogue builds where TWF actually shines for longer than through Levels 1-4!

What about Double Bladed Scimitar? It works similarly to PAM but doesnt require a feat. You could do Half Elf for a 17 in STR and a 16 in Dex and a 14 in Con for a starting AC of 15. I build a Half Elf Assassin Beast Barbarian using this and the Revenant Feat to get 18 StR and +1 AC

[Paladin777]

What about Double Bladed Scimitar? It works similarly to PAM but doesnt require a feat. You could do Half Elf for a 17 in STR and a 16 in Dex and a 14 in Con for a starting AC of 15. I build a Half Elf Assassin Beast Barbarian using this and the Revenant Feat to get 18 StR and +1 AC

Not a bad idea, but aesthetically I think double weapons look dumb (personal preference). In addition, I have a hard time justifying how impractical walking around with one of those things would be (realistically speaking). A normal polearm can at least be used as a walking stick.

Also, how are you get 17 strength for being a half elf. I thought the pre-racial cap is 15.

[Biffoniacus_Furiou]

Also, how are you get 17 strength for being a half elf. I thought the pre-racial cap is 15.

Tasha's race customization lets you put the +2 on whatever stat you want.


What about a Mountain Dwarf, trade all of your racial weapon/armor proficiencies for tool proficiencies (Tasha's again), dual-wield axes, and flavor him like a Slayer from Warhammer (https://warhammerfantasy.fandom.com/wiki/Slayers)?

[Lavaeolus]

Not a bad idea, but aesthetically I think double weapons look dumb. In addition, I have a hard time justifying how impractical around with one of those things would be (realistically speaking).

Also, how are you get 17 strength for being a half elf. I thought the pre-racial cap is 15.

Might be using the optional rules for swapping racial ability boosts around (introduced in Tasha's Cauldron of Everything).

If your table isn't using the Tasha's rules, of course, that's not an option. You can always ask your DM if in doubt.

[TriciaOso]

I kind of doubt this. The fighting style give you +3 damage when you hit with your bonus-action attack. Given that you won't always use your bonus action to attack (e.g. when you start your rage) and you won't always hit when you do, this is, what, 1-2 points of damage per round? Compare a fighter1/barbX to a straight barbarian level by level, and look what the fighter1/barb is missing:

Level 2: +1-2 damage per round, but no reckless attack
Level 3: +1-2 damage per round, but no primal path
Level 4: +1-2 damage per round, but no ASI
Level 5: +1-2 damage per round, but no second attack

I'd say at a minimum you should be level 5 or 6 in barbarian before you start dipping fighter.

I agree with this.

You could also get TWF through Fighting Initiate instead of a level dip and save Dual Wielder for Lvl 4. I get the impulse to have bigger weapons, but if you're going from a d6 to a d8, consider that's worth an average of 1 point on each attack, vs. 3 points on your bonus attack. You've got to factor in you don't get that bonus attack on your first round, sure, but if the combat lasts 2-3 rounds... of course if you want the other Fighter 1 perks it's different.

Plus, the bonus damage from STR is guaranteed as long as you hit, not a die roll.

[Frogreaver]

You misunderstand. Without GWM the TWF will *always* outdamage the GWF when factoring in rage damage bonus and adding the ability modifier for the fighting style. 3d8+18 (assuming 18 str) is greater than 4d6+12. Since they need the same to-hit, factoring simple average damage with all hits is acceptable.

I'll display the mathhammer when I get home.

I see a few issues with that comparison.

1. The delay due to the single level of fighter needed for the TWF but not the GWF

2. Lost damage on turn 1 due to bonus action. There will be catch-up involved for the TWF.

3. Ignoring the bonus action due to crit/kill for GWM feat.

Also, have you considered a dual wield Battlemaster specializing in trip attack?

Or a dual wield Paladin focused on smiting?

Or a dual wield hunter ranger that focuses spell slots on things like pass without trace?

[Paladin777]

I'm going to be honest: even if my table does use Tashas race customization rules, I'm not going to. I kind of hate them… badly... Way more than I probably should.

Using the human bonus feat for, combat I nitiate, however, definitely has merit. I'm going to have to think about that one for a bit.

[Paladin777]

I see a few issues with that comparison.

1. The delay due to the single level of fighter needed for the TWF but not the GWF

2. Lost damage on turn 1 due to bonus action. There will be catch-up involved for the TWF.

3. Ignoring the bonus action due to crit/kill for GWM feat.

Also, have you considered a dual wield Battlemaster specializing in trip attack?

Or a dual wield Paladin focused on smiting?

Or a dual wield hunter ranger that focuses spell slots on things like pass without trace?

Fair enough on those points on the comparison. Regardless though, that doesn't mean that the two weapon fighting will perform poorly, or even slightly subpar. It just might not be quite as powerful I suppose. Definitely powerful enough for me. I like accuracy and reliability and the two weapon fighting has that in spades

I am currently playing a Ranger and don't really feel like playing another one.

I have strongly considered the paladin, but I tend to prefer steady versus burst damage. again, that's just a personal preference. That's probably also why I like the idea of reckless attacking three moderately powerful attacks her turn starting at level 6.

Well I'm sure it's very powerful, battle master has never excited me when I looked at it.

I understand that great weapon master is very powerful, but the -5 to hit is just too hard a pill to swallow for me. I just tend to roll too low for that gamble to be worth it for me.

[ZRN]

You misunderstand. Without GWM the TWF will *always* outdamage the GWF when factoring in rage damage bonus and adding the ability modifier for the fighting style. 3d8+18 (assuming 18 str) is greater than 4d6+12. Since they need the same to-hit, factoring simple average damage with all hits is acceptable.

I'll display the mathhammer when I get home.

No, I get the math without GWM. I was questioning the math WITH GWM. I just did the math really quick, though, and I get the same: when you have +7 to hit, the TWF user will do more damage on average when the enemy has 16 AC or more. (The break-even point is actually the same whether or not the greatweapon barbarian is using the GWF style.)

This leaves out a few big factors, of course: first, the bonus-action attack you get sometimes from GWM. Second, the bonus you'd get either by not taking fighter levels or by taking a more useful fighting style than TWF or GWF. (GWF is such a piddly bonus to damage that even something like defense is probably better, but with unarmed and blind-fighting available, there are definitely better options out there.)

[ZRN]

I understand that great weapon master is very powerful, but the -5 to hit is just too hard a pill to swallow for me. I just tend to roll too low for that gamble to be worth it for me.

I think the issue is that GWM has just SUCH a good synergy with Reckless Attack that it's hard to overlook when building a barbarian. Any other melee class has a harder time getting advantage/bonuses to attack (except maybe battlemaster with precise attack), and therefore mathematically stacks up better when comparing TWF to GWM.

[Paladin777]

I think the issue is that GWM has just SUCH a good synergy with Reckless Attack that it's hard to overlook when building a barbarian. Any other melee class has a harder time getting advantage/bonuses to attack (except maybe battlemaster with precise attack), and therefore mathematically stacks up better when comparing TWF to GWM.

I understand that. There is indeed great synergy between great weapon master in any class that can produce its own advantage reliably (see vengeance paladin for another example). However, for classes that cannot it's really not very good, And the math really does support this. While I've never taken it, I have been at the table top with others who have and I was never impressed with it.

[stoutstien]

Twf barbarians work just fine but I wouldn't invest into it past grabbing two weapons and pumping your str. The style is a solid boost but the dip would only be worth it of you take it to 3 for action surge and BM dice. Even then I would be hard pressed to take twf style over defense or interception. Reckless means I want AC or having a solid reaction to maximize the party's EHP is worth a lot more than 3-7 extra damage starting the second round if everything goes well.
As for the feat it doesn't beat pushing attack modifier up and once it is maxed I might take it but faces strong competition with res: Wis, slash/crush, or alert. If I rolled well then maybe.

If you want to maximize twf damage you need Rider effects like BM dice, favor for, or smite. Assuming you are getting as many rests as planning for why not go pally? You have spells and smiles you can stack up to regularly have higher sustainable damage then the barb and have the ability to spike it. Oath of watcher could be one of the bigger party buffers on top of damage.

[Paladin777]

Twf barbarians work just fine but I wouldn't invest into it past grabbing two weapons and pumping your str. The style is a solid boost but the dip would only be worth it of you take it to 3 for action surge and BM dice. Even then I would be hard pressed to take twf style over defense or interception. Reckless means I want AC or having a solid reaction to maximize the party's EHP is worth a lot more than 3-7 extra damage starting the second round if everything goes well.
As for the feat it doesn't beat pushing attack modifier up and once it is maxed I might take it but faces strong competition with res: Wis, slash/crush, or alert. If I rolled well then maybe.

If you want to maximize twf damage you need Rider effects like BM dice, favor for, or smite.

I already intended on taking three levels of fighter, just not more than one out of the gate. I was planning on going champion for the synergy between reckless attack and 19-20 critical's. My Crits might not be as spectacular as a great weapon barbarians, but they would happen often.

As far as the feet is concerned, I was planning on using my human bonus feat instead of a regular asi.

Interception is a great fighting style. I just think that without much competing for the bonus action the reliable (reckless attack) 3,4 and eventually 5 extra damage a turn isn't anything to sneeze at either. It's gobs better than GWF, and even manages to outdamage dueling on a class that doesn't get more than one extra attack.

Also, I would argue that reckless means that AC increases have diminished returns on a barbarian when compared to a paladin or fighter.

[Frogreaver]

Fair enough on those points on the comparison. Regardless though, that doesn't mean that the two weapon fighting will perform poorly, or even slightly subpar. It just might not be quite as powerful I suppose. Definitely powerful enough for me. I like accuracy and reliability and the two weapon fighting has that in spades

I am currently playing a Ranger and don't really feel like playing another one.

I have strongly considered the paladin, but I tend to prefer steady versus burst damage. again, that's just a personal preference. That's probably also why I like the idea of reckless attacking three moderately powerful attacks her turn starting at level 6.

Well I'm sure it's very powerful, battle master has never excited me when I looked at it.

I understand that great weapon master is very powerful, but the -5 to hit is just too hard a pill to swallow for me. I just tend to roll too low for that gamble to be worth it for me.

Sounds like your mind is already rather made up as you’ve ruled out virtually every other class that can Str TWF well. Are you as sure about the barbarian subclass?

[quindraco]

Dual wielder adds +1 damage per attack you make and +1 AC relative to twf without it. While that's not great for a feat, it means you're far better with the defense fighting style than twf - +3-5 to only your bonus action attack's damage is not nearly as good as a second +1 to AC.

Thrown and dueling styles also work very well with two-weapon fighting, but not so well with the dual-wielder feat at all, since there aren't any 1d8 thrown weapons, unless your DM is willing to upgrade tridents to have a reason to exist. Thrown also won't work with most barbarian abilities.

Not for nothing, dual wielding also cripples your OA damage, making you a worse tank.

[stoutstien]

I already intended on taking three levels of fighter, just not more than one out of the gate. I was planning on going champion for the synergy between reckless attack and 19-20 critical's. My Crits might not be as spectacular as a great weapon barbarians, but they would happen often.

As far as the feet is concerned, I was planning on using my human bonus feat instead of a regular asi.

Interception is a great fighting style. I just think that without much competing for the bonus action the reliable (reckless attack) 3,4 and eventually 5 extra damage a turn isn't anything to sneeze at either. It's gobs better than GWF, and even manages to outdamage dueling on a class that doesn't get more than one extra attack.

Also, I would argue that reckless means that AC increases have diminished returns on a barbarian when compared to a paladin or fighter.
- the irony of crits is the damage boost from them are so pitiful that even for barbarians they aren't worth it. Once again you need more dice to make them shine. The math on just weapon damage for them is just blah. Rolling a 19 would hit anything anyways so an extra d6-d8 isn't worth a subclass.

-even with the V human feat the TWF feat is still lagging behind a half feat that is practically +1 damage and attack. I would rate alert higher for increasing a twf uses damage dealt and reduction of damage taking.

-reckless attacking...well recklessly will equal a dead barbarian without a way to cancel the incoming damage.

- the easiest way to counter that spike is AC. It's a common misconceptions that barbarians don't want AC. They really want it because it makes RA useable longer and makes rage's resistance more effective.

[Ganryu]

Personally, I say Paladins. You're crit fishing as a paladin, which means you want more hits, and you want to add damage die onto your attacks. Improved smite does that. You care alot less about your primary damage from a weapon than other classes, sans rogue, yet benefit from more attacks, unlike every other class in that category.

You can no longer cast your smite spells, but, well, who cares? I never use those while doing a main paladin anyways.

Hell, you can get some nice flavoring by pretending to be a rogue/ranger. Dual wield daggers, and see how long until someone realizes you're actually a paladin.

[Paladin777]

- the irony of crits is the damage boost from them are so pitiful that even for barbarians they aren't worth it. Once again you need more dice to make them shine. The math on just weapon damage for them is just blah. Rolling a 19 would hit anything anyways so an extra d6-d8 isn't worth a subclass.

-even with the V human feat the TWF feat is still lagging behind a half feat that is practically +1 damage and attack. I would rate alert higher for increasing a twf uses damage dealt and reduction of damage taking.

-reckless attacking...well recklessly will equal a dead barbarian without a way to cancel the incoming damage.

- the easiest way to counter that spike is AC. It's a common misconceptions that barbarians don't want AC. They really want it because it makes RA useable longer and makes rage's resistance more effective.

Umm, in one breath you say that TWF isn't worth it, then in the next you recommend pumping AC (which TWF gives you). Which is it?

[bid]

The TWF feat and unarmored defense puts his AC at a respectable 16 at first level, though I can be persuaded to build in a manner that doesn't use unarmored defense (the first iteration had 14 con, 12 dex, 12 wis and 12 cha and took insight as the human bonus feat. I've obviously since abandoned that in favor of a more optimized spread)
Unarmored defense is a trap. You need Con20 to match half-plate.


I already intended on taking three levels of fighter, just not more than one out of the gate. I was planning on going champion for the synergy between reckless attack and 19-20 critical's. My Crits might not be as spectacular as a great weapon barbarians, but they would happen often.
Improved critical is... another trap.
Since you'll have short days, you'll never ever roll 19 often enough to come close to 4 precision strike SD from BM.
Even on days optimized for champion dippers, you need 2 extra dice on crit (i.e. half-orc or brutal critical).


Playing a shizu slice'n'dice is a fine concept. Don't let anti-optimization kill it.



Umm, in one breath you say that TWF isn't worth it, then in the next you recommend pumping AC (which TWF gives you). Which is it?
Dual wielder is a feat that improves AC. TWF is BA attack for light weapon. TWF-style is the +3 damage you get with offhand.

[stoutstien]

Umm, in one breath you say that TWF isn't worth it, then in the next you recommend pumping AC (which TWF gives you). Which is it?

It's about opportunity costs. The twf feat is questionable in comparison to just about anything else where the fighting style is pretty meh so the +1 AC is a higher return than a little damage once per round.

[Paladin777]

It's about opportunity costs. The twf feat is questionable in comparison to just about anything else where the fighting style is pretty meh so the +1 AC is a higher return than a little damage once per round.

But the TWF feat gives you both more damage and more AC.

[Frogreaver]

It's about opportunity costs. The twf feat is questionable in comparison to just about anything else where the fighting style is pretty meh so the +1 AC is a higher return than a little damage once per round.

I don’t agree with you on the defensive style being better than twf style. I’d take the TWF style over defensive style.

Though I wouldn’t take a feat for either.

I would take the dual wielder feat as a variant human feat. I’d take the dex otherwise.

[Biffoniacus_Furiou]

The more I consider this (TWF Str Barb), the more I think you don't really need to spend any feats on it at all. You can use scimitars, shortswords, or handaxes instead of longswords or battleaxes.

Dual-Wielder gets you +1 AC and +1 average damage per attack. You're better off with either +2 Str (+1 attack and damage, saves) or +2 Con (+1 AC, +1 hp/level, saves) or even +2 Dex (+1 AC, +1 initiative, saves) or something like Resilient: Wis or Lucky or Slasher or Piercer.

Two-Weapon Fighting style adds Str to your offhand attacks. Not worth spending a feat on Fighting Initiate unless you're getting thrown style or something equally impactful. If you reasonably expect to reach 20th level, Barbarian 20 is actually pretty good and better than having taken a Fighter dip for this.

[stoutstien]

I don’t agree with you on the defensive style being better than twf style. I’d take the TWF style over defensive style.

Though I wouldn’t take a feat for either.

I would take the dual wielder feat as a variant human feat. I’d take the dex otherwise.

That one is a closer call but if the OP wants to balance damage and maintaining the concept of being the frontier that is drawing the bulk of the ire from enemies via AG i think the ac wins. If they were moving towards something like a twf zealot then I would agree with you.

[Paladin777]

Sounds like your mind is already rather made up as you’ve ruled out virtually every other class that can Str TWF well. Are you as sure about the barbarian subclass?

While I like the subclass, and it doesn't use bonus actions, I'm open to arguments for a different subclass (that doesn't use bonus actions anyway).

[stoutstien]

But the TWF feat gives you both more damage and more AC.

Compared to just having 1 higher str modifier the feat is actually a net loss in damage. So is 1 AC worth what ever you would get in it's place and the reduction in damage? I'm not saying never take it but at lv one it has a lot of competition.

[Paladin777]

That one is a closer call but if the OP wants to balance damage and maintaining the concept of being the frontier that is drawing the bulk of the ire from enemies via AG i think the ac wins. If they were moving towards something like a twf zealot then I would agree with you.

You might be able to convince me to go to Zealor, or something else…

[Frogreaver]

While I like the subclass, and it doesn't use bonus actions, I'm open to arguments for a different subclass (that doesn't use bonus actions anyway).

Zealot and wolf totem are really the only other contenders.

I think what they offer is fairly obvious.

I’m a bit worried about your survivability with as much aggro as the ancestral abilities and Reckless attack combined will cause toward you.

[Paladin777]

Compared to just having 1 higher str modifier the feat is actually a net loss in damage. So is 1 AC worth what ever you would get in it's place and the reduction in damage? I'm not saying never take it but at lv one it has a lot of competition.

My maximum strength for a human at first level is 16. A half feat will not bring it up to the next benchmark so your argument is actually kind of a moot point.

[Paladin777]

Zealot and wolf totem are really the only other contenders.

I think what they offer is fairly obvious.

I’m a bit worried about your survivability with as much aggro as the ancestral abilities and Reckless attack combined will cause toward you.

Doesn't wolf totem use bonus actions for knocking prone or something like that? If so, it's probably a bad fit. I'll take a closer look at zealot though for sure.

Edit: I looked at both the totem warrior and Zealot. Both are very worthy of consideration. I'll think about it.

[Biffoniacus_Furiou]

Totem isn't forced to pick the same animal at each instance. Getting Wolf at 3rd is generally best (give allies advantage), then Tiger at 6th for more skill proficiencies, then Eagle at 14th for flight.

Zealot is also fantastic, though.

[stoutstien]

My maximum strength for a human at first level is 16. A half feat will not bring it up to the next benchmark so your argument is actually kind of a moot point.

That's fair to a point. 18 is attainable as a PC option at lv 1.

As for zealot, it addresses a lot of the concerns with running a barb with the goal of using RA to generate adv. Cheaper death reversal when you get in too deep and saving throw failure protection. The extra damage also softens the loss of the attack due to rage ba.

[Paladin777]

That's fair to a point. 18 is attainable as a PC option at lv 1

Without using Tasha's race customization, how would you do that with 27 points of point buy with no more than a base 15 in any stat? (Outline from the players handbook)

[stoutstien]

Without using Tasha's race customization, how would you do that with 27 points of point buy with no more than a base 15 in any stat? (Outline from the players handbook)

Is Tasha off limits?

[Frogreaver]

I'm going to be honest: even if my table does use Tashas race customization rules, I'm not going to. I kind of hate them… badly... Way more than I probably should.

@stoutstien

[Paladin777]

@Frogreaver: thanks. It turns every race into. Blank slate and I kind of hate that. I have no problem with blank slates, but the idea that I could take the halfling, take away the dex bonus and replace it with a strength bonus is ridiculous. Sure, not all halfling are dexterous rogues, and some are quite strong, but they'll never be as strong by default as half orcs and that's the point of the modifiers! (For what it's worth, I think having ability scores cap at 20 pre-racial would have been a good idea during development)

The skill replacements make a bit more sense as those would be learned, I suppose, but the way it was done so open ended just makes the whole thing stink and feel lazy to me.

I think pathfinder did it better with a set of fixed traits you could use to replace certain other fixed traits.

[Frogreaver]

@Frogreaver: thanks. It turns every race into. Blank slate and I kind of hate that. I have no problem with blank slates, but the idea that I could take the halfling, take away the dex bonus and replace it with a strength bonus is ridiculous. Sure, not all halfling are dexterous rogues, and some are quite strong, but they'll never be as strong by default as half orcs and that's the point of the modifiers! (For what it's worth, I think having ability scores cap at 20 pre-racial would have been a good idea during development)

The skill replacements make a bit more sense as those would be learned, I suppose, but the way it was done so open ended just makes the whole thing stink and feel lazy to me.

I think pathfinder did it better with a set of fixed traits you could use to replace certain other fixed traits.

Yea. I'm with you on the Tasha's race rules. I don't really like them either but not so much because halfling PCs can be as strong as halforc PCs. It's more because all it did was create more optimized races for certain character concepts - which is essentially a larger penalty for anyone that wanted to lean somewhat into a races 'naturally good attributes' on a non stat aligned race/class concept.

Personally I like non-scaling ASI's or ASI's that scale as part of class features at different rates depending on the class. I'm not really a big fan of how pathfinder 2 did them either.

[Kane0]

If you're looking at Barbarian, I second Ancestral or Zealot to keep your Bonus Action as available as possible in order to use it on TWF (aside from starting Rage). Ancestral emphasises tanking (both making you a target and protecting allies), Zealot emphasises damage output and not rerolling character when you get swarmed or fail a particularly important save.
If you want to focus on the STR thing I would say Half-Orc is a good choice for Ancestral and Goliath good for Zealot.

Rage bonus damage offsets the lack of fighting style but you can also easily multiclass into fighter to pick it up. Honestly after Barb 7 or so the benefits really start to drop off and going over to Fighter is probably a good idea, unless you're super keen on brutal critical or the capstone?
Fighting style, action surge, some good subclass options (Battlemaster is the most common choice but Psi warrior is also a totally valid choice without cluttering up your bonus actions like Rune Knight, Cavalier or Samurai would), extra ASIs and even a third attack at the high end is all solid stuff and even if Second Wind costs your BA it can be effectively worth double the HP when you're raging thanks to resistance and can also just be used out of combat if you can't short rest (or want to preserve your Hit Dice).

Dual Wielder is obviously going to be a feat you want, even if it isn't the most optimal of all options. +1 AC and upgrading from small axes/hammers/swords to medium ones is important, especially if your DM starts throwing magic weapons at you and you're not sure what those are going to be.
Maxxing STR and CON is another priority, but also consider an extra fighting style via Fighting Initiate, Martial Adept if you're not going battlemaster or Crusher/Piercer/Slasher (you can even pick up two of them thanks to having two weapons). Some utility/defense with Resilient, Tough, etc. are also very solid options.

[Biffoniacus_Furiou]

Even if you don't use the Tasha's ability score customization, is there any reason you wouldn't use it to swap redundant racial weapon/armor proficiencies for tool proficiencies?

[Paladin777]

Even if you don't use the Tasha's ability score customization, is there any reason you wouldn't use it to swap redundant racial weapon/armor proficiencies for tool proficiencies?

While I don't really have too much of an issue with the idea of swapping one form of training for another, in regards to everyone suggesting dwarf: it would be a fine choice, but I've played small races for the last few years and I kinda want to play a big tall beefcake for a change of pace anyway (Yeah, I know dwarves are beefy, but they're still short! I did consider it though). I played a half-orc 3 campaigns ago too (tempest cleric. That was fun! Maximized Shatter FTW!).

Goliath could be fun though... *goes to look up goliaths*

[stoutstien]

@Frogreaver: thanks. It turns every race into. Blank slate and I kind of hate that. I have no problem with blank slates, but the idea that I could take the halfling, take away the dex bonus and replace it with a strength bonus is ridiculous. Sure, not all halfling are dexterous rogues, and some are quite strong, but they'll never be as strong by default as half orcs and that's the point of the modifiers! (For what it's worth, I think having ability scores cap at 20 pre-racial would have been a good idea during development)

The skill replacements make a bit more sense as those would be learned, I suppose, but the way it was done so open ended just makes the whole thing stink and feel lazy to me.

I think pathfinder did it better with a set of fixed traits you could use to replace certain other fixed traits.

Mea culpa. I completely missed that post. Though +1/+1,feat and a skill compared to +2, feat, and DV or a skill is an odd place to draw the line as far as a blank canvas goes.

It makes the twf easier to take at lv 1 but you would need to make sure you have both weapons out as often as possible to gain the AC boost. That would interfere with the usual strategy of using the L sword two handed to start out with a free hand walking around and a damage die increase the first round when you rage. Just a different option to think about.

Overall I would consider either zealot or totem for a TWF build just for the increased survivability.

**If your DM is open to a little homebrewing allowing barbarians to enter rage as part of an attack rather than a bonus action is the single largest quality of play change that can be made. It alleviates a lot of the frustration and it's not like the classes in danger of being too powerful.**

[Paladin777]

I hadn't fully read the 'build your own race' part when I posted that. I don't mind true 'blank slates' like the custom lineage, I just don't like that they made you able to cherry pick the best racial traits (like a gnome's resistance to spells or halfling's Lucky) and combine it with the best racial ability modifiers for any given class.

In regard to using the custom lineage for this particular build, I'm not really interested in any of the half feats that bump strength , and I'd rather start the game with 16/16 str/con with the feat I actually want (a combo that will net me more hit points in the long run and an net +2 AC anyway) than 18/15 str/con with a feat that I'm 'meh' about.

[Frogreaver]

I hadn't fully read the 'build your own race' part when I posted that. I don't mind true 'blank slates' like the custom lineage, I just don't like that they made you able to cherry pick the best racial traits (like a gnome's resistance to spells or halfling's Lucky) and combine it with the best racial ability modifiers for any given class.

In regard to using the custom lineage for this particular build, I'm not really interested in any of the half feats that bump strength , and I'd rather start the game with 16/16 str/con with the feat I actually want (a combo that will net me more hit points in the long run and an net +2 AC anyway) than 18/15 str/con with a feat that I'm 'meh' about.

Do you know how much more of your party is going to be melee?

[Paladin777]

Not yet. Through sheer coincidence we tend to have a 60/40-ish melee/caster ratio in most of our games. Many times we've got casters that dabble in melee like druids, clerics, or hexblade warlocks.

[Frogreaver]

Not yet. Through sheer coincidence we tend to have a 60/40-ish melee/caster ratio in most of our games. Many times we've got casters that dabble in melee like druids, clerics, or hexblade warlocks.

The more I think about this the more I think zealot is the way to go.

I feel like the ancestral barbarian abilities while very good don’t go along as well with the reckless attacking barbarian theme. IMO, When you are drawing the aggro from the ancestral barbarian level 3 ability it’s probably best not to reckless attack that often.

[Paladin777]

Mea culpa. I completely missed that post. Though +1/+1,feat and a skill compared to +2, feat, and DV or a skill is an odd place to draw the line as far as a blank canvas goes.

It makes the twf easier to take at lv 1 but you would need to make sure you have both weapons out as often as possible to gain the AC boost. That would interfere with the usual strategy of using the L sword two handed to start out with a free hand walking around and a damage die increase the first round when you rage. Just a different option to think about.

Overall I would consider either zealot or totem for a TWF build just for the increased survivability.

**If your DM is open to a little homebrewing allowing barbarians to enter rage as part of an attack rather than a bonus action is the single largest quality of play change that can be made. It alleviates a lot of the frustration and it's not like the classes in danger of being too powerful.**

In regards to two-handing the longsword first turn: I think losing on average 1 point of damage (two once extra attack is obtained) is worth +1 AC for one turn.

As far as the subclass goes... you've got me thinking and I haven't come up with an answer yet... one of the neat things about not having to rely on GWM for damage output is that I don't *have* to RA to maintain good damage most of the time. That would definitely boost survivability. Either totem or Zealot would probably work thematically too. It's kind of an steampunk-ish airship pirate campaign and a superstitious sailor would probably work nicely. The ancestor guardians path fit nicely thematically too, but fair enough on me probably drawing enough fire as is. The extra damage from Zealot never hurts, nor would resistance/everything! XD

I think making that decision when it comes up is probably best in all honesty.

[stoutstien]

After pondering on this for a few I think if I had to make a twf barbarian with the feat I would do something like:
V human
15
14
16
8
12
8
Feat slasher
Go barbarian(zealot) 1-6 grabbing the twf feat at Lv 4. then jump over to fighter and finish up with it. Battle Master would be the optimal pick but champion could work if I didn't want to think much and just feed my slasher proc rate.

It would have a little bit behind with str but with slasher you could afford to RA more often turning crits into both a offensive and defensive feature.

[Paladin777]

Unfortunately, natural 20's tend to be things that other people roll, not me. I think I can count the number of attack roll Crits I've rolled on one hand in the last few years (and the last couple years I played a samurai from levels 1-15. That was a lot of attacks at advantage too.)! Unfortunately, I'm simply not that lucky so its not worth it for me to take any feats who's main benefit proc's on a crit (unless you're trying to run away, reducing an enemy's speed by 10 is a ribbon at best). It's just not worth it to me. It might be worth taking at level 9 though for the ftr (champion) 4 ASI as I would have the 19-20 + at-will advantage on attacks, but that would probably be the only condition I'd take an feat like that.

I like the half-feat idea (to bump Str or Con to 15 and get wis to 12 like you suggested) though, and since this is an airship (think early final fantasy type of literal flying ship) game under a fantastic and creative DM that would definitely make use of skills (sometimes our sessions don't even have combat), I might take Athletic or Skill Focus (expertise on either perception or Athletics) at lvl 1. I think either of those would be more useful far more often. I also love having skills.

[Paladin777]

Sorry to necro a bit, and I thank everyone who contributed to the conversation, but I have officially settled on the build for the campaign and it's a lot different than I imagined it to be. First, I'm going to say that I am well aware that it's a bit sub-optimal, but the idea slapped me in the face and I couldn't get rid of it, nor did I want too! As far as table effectiveness goes, it should be 'good enough' and an absolute blast to play at our table (we love craziness)!

I'd post a picture of the hero forge design if I were able to do so.

Name: Alice
Race: Minotaur
Class: barbarian
BG: Entertainer
Skills: acrobatics (BG), performance (BG), persuasion (race), athletics (class), perception (class), intimidate (class: will obtain at level 3)
Other proficiencies: violin, dancing, singing

Weapons of choice: axe and sword starting with the light varieties, but getting the one-handed type when I eventually take dual wielder. The feat certainly isn't worth it on Dex builds, but on a Str build I think it's worth it, especially when you've got reckless attack to shore up the lower accuracy from not taking an ASI.

Str 14(16)
Con 13(14)
Dex 14
Int 8
Wis 9
Cha 14

It's a charming Minotaur! 😝 I ran it by my DM and he loves the idea! He's the kind of DM that will reward good and unusual role playing too, so that will probably also help shore up some of the non-optimization going on.