GWM better for Sword and Shield Fighters/Paladins/Barbarians?

[Frogreaver]

Let's work out the answer to this question.

In terms of damage is GWM better for a sword and shield character than a +2 Str? I believe it will be better but want to get everyone's perspectives.

[Pex]

Those who want to use a shield care about their AC more than damage. To use great weapon master is to not use the shield. Shield users may not be doing as much damage as great weapon master users, but they can do decent enough it's worth the trade for them for the +2 AC. Therefore, great weapon master is not better because it goes against their whole reason for wanting to use a shield. Whether it's better to use great weapon master over shield use overall as a game concept, that preference is up to the individual's opinion not objective fact.

[Unoriginal]

Let's work out the answer to this question.

In terms of damage is GWM better for a sword and shield character than a +2 Str? I believe it will be better but want to get everyone's perspectives.

How would a Sword & Shield character benefit from Great Weapon Master?


Those who want to use a shield care about their AC more than damage. To use great weapon master is to not use the shield. Shield users may not be doing as much damage as great weapon master users, but they can do decent enough it's worth the trade for them for the +2 AC. Therefore, great weapon master is not better because it goes against their whole reason for wanting to use a shield. Whether it's better to use great weapon master over shield use overall as a game concept, that preference is up to the individual's opinion not objective fact.

Indeed. +2 to STR seems unambiguously better than GWM if you are using a shield.

[Frogreaver]

How would a Sword & Shield character benefit from Great Weapon Master?

One bullet point says:
During your turn, if you drop a creature’s hit points to zero or land a critical hit with any melee weapon, you can make an additional attack roll as a bonus action.


Those who want to use a shield care about their AC more than damage. To use great weapon master is to not use the shield. Shield users may not be doing as much damage as great weapon master users, but they can do decent enough it's worth the trade for them for the +2 AC. Therefore, great weapon master is not better because it goes against their whole reason for wanting to use a shield. Whether it's better to use great weapon master over shield use overall as a game concept, that preference is up to the individual's opinion not objective fact.

You don't need to use a great weapon to benefit from GWM. You just don't get the -5/+10 benefit.

[stoutstien]

Last time I did the math it usually took 4-12 kills or criticals for the GWM bonus action to catch up to the ASI increase. This is assuming no action economy conflicts.

So the question is what you decide is your proc rate is going to be to determine which is better.

[Frogreaver]

Last time I did the math it usually took 4-12 kills or criticals for the GWM bonus action to catch up to the ASI increase. This is assuming no action economy conflicts.

So the question is what you decide is your proc rate is going to be to determine which is better.

Starting off we could ask, how many rounds per kill for a sword and shield fighter/paladin/barbarian. I'd suggest 4, but I could see 3-5 easily.

[Unoriginal]

One bullet point says:
During your turn, if you drop a creature’s hit points to zero or land a critical hit with any melee weapon, you can make an additional attack roll as a bonus action.

So you might deal 1d8+STR mod damage, if you have your bonus action to spend, if you successfully hit with your attack, and in that situation that happens a bit more than 5% of the time the combatant rolls an attack.

Imagining the character has 16 STR, that means 1d8+3, averaging to 7.5 damages, or 750 damages for 100 successful hits.

If we take only the critical hit factor, but assuming the bonus attack hits every time, that would mean 37.5 additional damages for every 100 successful hits, or 787.5 damages for 100 successful hits.

Let's imagine the character got +2 to STR instead of the fear. That means +1 to the damage. That means 100 additional damages for every 100 successful hits, or 850 damages for 100 successful hits

Now:

-The GWM bonus action attack will likely trigger somewhat more than 5% of the time, since killing an enemy do trigger it too, but there is no way to calculate what % of hits are killing blows, let alone killing blows that don't end the fight (as if the GWM-having combatant kills the last foe, the bonus action attack won't happen).

-Unlike in the calculation above, the bonus action attack will not hit every time, and the chance of doing more damages by rolling another critical hit isn't enough to offset that.

-Increasing your STR improves your to-hit chances too, meaning that a character with 18 STR will have an easier time landing those 100 successful hits than the 16-STR-with-GWM character.


Starting off we could ask, how many rounds per kill for a sword and shield fighter/paladin/barbarian. I'd suggest 4, but I could see 3-5 easily.

That's impossible to say, there are too many factors.

Some examples:

-The HPs of the enemies is widely variable.

-The AC of the enemies is widely variable.

-The enemies may have resistances, immunities, or other ways to avoid weapon damage.

-In a group combat, The GWM-PC might not be the one landing the killing blow.

-The GWM-PC might land the killing blow, but then have no target for the bonus action melee attack.

[stoutstien]

Hmm now I'm determined to make it work. To the scrap paper pile!

[RogueJK]

Imagining the character has 16 STR, that means 1d8+3, averaging to 7.5 damages, or 750 damages for 100 successful hits.

If we take only the critical hit factor, but assuming the bonus attack hits every time, that would mean 37.5 additional damages for every 100 successful hits, or 787.5 damages for 100 successful hits.

Let's imagine the character got +2 to STR instead of the fear. That means +1 to the damage. That means 100 additional damages for every 100 successful hits, or 850 damages for 100 successful hits

Now:

-The GWM bonus action attack will likely trigger somewhat more than 5% of the time, since killing an enemy do trigger it too, but there is no way to calculate what % of hits are killing blows, let alone killing blows that don't end the fight (as if the GWM-having combatant kills the last foe, the bonus action attack won't happen).

-Unlike in the calculation above, the bonus action attack will not hit every time, and the chance of doing more damages by rolling another critical hit isn't enough to offset that.

-Increasing your STR improves your to-hit chances too, meaning that a character with 18 STR will have an easier time landing those 100 successful hits than the 16-STR-with-GWM character.


To add to this, another thing to consider is that +2 STR is also +1 to STR saving throws and checks. So you'd also have a better chance of being able to land those 100 successful hits by successfully avoiding STR save/check enemy effects that cause you to be restrained/pushed/proned/etc.

It's tough to attach a hard number to that factor in damage output calculations, because you can't exactly calculate how often a STR save/check will come up, but it's definitely another tick in the Plus Column for +2 STR over just GWM's occasional bonus attack.


Altogether, I think it's apparent that GWM isn't worth it on a non-Heavy weapon user, compared to +2 STR.

[AttilatheYeon]

If you have an Animated Shield, yes.

[J-H]

I've seen GWM combined with sword and board on a barbarian, but it was because he had an artifact short sword. He made use of the crit/reduce to 0 at least once a fight, I think. It's probably not optimal but it's still useful.

[Unoriginal]

I've seen GWM combined with sword and board on a barbarian, but it was because he had an artifact short sword. He made use of the crit/reduce to 0 at least once a fight, I think. It's probably not optimal but it's still useful.

More useful than a +2 to STR, though?

[Pex]

You don't need to use a great weapon to benefit from GWM. You just don't get the -5/+10 benefit.

It's still player preference. +2 ST means always on +1 to hit and damage and use your bonus action for anything else, such as a class feature. Otherwise it's only 5% chance plus an unknown pot luck who gets the killing blow chance to dedicate your bonus action for an extra attack. Meanwhile, the two-handed heavy weapon users who do take the feat aren't taking the feat for the slight chance of a bonus action attack. They are taking the feat for the extra damage.

If the shield user is determined to take a feat instead of +2 ST there are more efficient feats to take for the option.

[DarknessEternal]

The feat you're looking for even better than what you've described is Dual Wielder.

Sure, 1 AC lower, but bonus attack every round.

[Tanarii]

I've seen GWM combined with sword and board on a barbarian, but it was because he had an artifact short sword. He made use of the crit/reduce to 0 at least once a fight, I think. It's probably not optimal but it's still useful.Barbarians usually have 9.75% chance of crit per attack, since they get advantage on every attack. So even with 3 round fights, at 2 attacks per round, that's hardly surprising.

The DPR increase is easy enough to calculate for a Barbarian if we ignore the 'drop to 0' part. It's ~18.5% chance per round.

Crit GWM = 18.5%*(single attack DPR)
vs
+2 Str = 20%*(single attack DPR) + flat 0.2

[J-H]

More useful than a +2 to STR, though?

I believe his STR was already maxed. Due to player absence, the artifact has moved to another character, and he's back to wielding big weapons now.

[Speely]

The feat you're looking for even better than what you've described is Dual Wielder.

Sure, 1 AC lower, but bonus attack every round.

To be fair, the OP was asking about GWM vs a Str ASI, not vs other feats. That said, Dual Wielder doesn't just lower the AC by 1 here, it also doesn't add a bonus attack. That's already an option for anyone holding two hurty things. It just adds another +1 (average) damage to each attack taken for someone wielding two weapons.

That aside, I think +2 Str is better than GWM for a sword and board user. The Str bonus will apply in more situations than GWM when wielding a weapon with one hand. Better accuracy (aka damage,) better saves, better Athletics checks.

[Frogreaver]

That's impossible to say, there are too many factors.

Some examples:

-The HPs of the enemies is widely variable.

-The AC of the enemies is widely variable.

-The enemies may have resistances, immunities, or other ways to avoid weapon damage.


These factors are generally applicable to any damage discussion. What is the purpose of bringing them up specifically for this one?

[Witty Username]

One bullet point says:
During your turn, if you drop a creature’s hit points to zero or land a critical hit with any melee weapon, you can make an additional attack roll as a bonus action.


I think if that is the goal you are better off with PAM either way as the bonus action attack is more consistent.

[strangebloke]

On a shielded barbarian who's using reckless attack, yes. Otherwise it depends on proc rate and action economy. Paladins, rangers, and many fighters already have uses for their BAs.

Well in reality the proc rate matters regardless

[Frogreaver]

I think if that is the goal you are better off with PAM either way as the bonus action attack is more consistent.

Maybe but not really the question I’m asking.


On a shielded barbarian who's using reckless attack, yes. Otherwise it depends on proc rate and action economy. Paladins, rangers, and many fighters already have uses for their BAs.

Well in reality the proc rate matters regardless

I suppose an interesting question would be what price rate is needed to break even.

I think it’s around 35% of rounds. Though that % includes crits and kills.

[Hytheter]

If you don't have advantage or an enhanced crit rate, GWM is an extra attack 1/20 of the time, plus whenever you reduce a target to zero HP.

Getting a +1 on your attack bonus turns a miss into a hit 1/20 of the time, plus adds +1 damage to all the attacks that do hit and doesn't rely on your bonus action.

So it comes down to whether you have reliable advantage or an increased crit rate and the frequency of reducing enemies to zero HP versus +1 damage on every hit and whether you need bonus action.

But that's only when you're comparing GWM to +2 Strength. Polearm Master is probably better than both since its BA is unconditional and it gives you reaction attacks as well.

[Witty Username]

Maybe but not really the question I’m asking.
Ah, I am used to sword&shield being used in a weapon&shield context, not necessarily asking for sword specificly.
Retract comment.

Hm, let's get technical and bring out the goblins, if GWM doesn't beat out +2 str in the goblin game, it probably isn't worth it at all.

Goblin out of book has an HP of 7.
Assuming a 16 str, dueling, two attacks because 5th level something and GWM let us calculate the chance for a bonus attack an get an average damage estimate and compare it to 18 str.

AC 15, +5 will hit on a 10 so, 55% hit chance for 1d8+4(avg 8.5).
So
30.25%, 2 hits, a goblin will die, math has spoken.
49.5 % 1 hit, a goblin might die on a 4, so 5/8 chance of a kill or 62.5%
20.25% 2 misses, no damage, no bonus attack

So our chance of a bonus attack is
30.25% + (49.5% × 62.5%) = 30.9375%

Now damage average on that attack
.55 × 8.5 = 4.675
After it's chance to occur
About
1.45 rounded up

And the full total
4.675 +4.675 +1.45 = 10.8 avg damage

And 18 strength
(60% ×9.5) + (60% × 9.5) or .6 × 19 = 11.4 avg damage.

In possibly the best case scenario for GWM, +2 str wins on damage.

Edit: math error, 6/8 chance to kill instead of 5/8, goblin dies on a 3 not 4.
Let's try to patch this
1/8 = 12.5 %
12.5 %× 49.5% = 6.2% rounded up
6.2% times 4.675 = .29 average damage increase.

So new calculation,
GWM about 11.1
Vs str +2 11.4
Str still wins. Oops on the math.

[Tanarii]

In possibly the best case scenario for GWM, +2 str wins on damage.
While I agree, there's also a chance that a GWM S&B fighter will kill 3 goblins in one round.
I'd have to look at the numbers for the relative chance at killing 2.

Of course, a level 5 Fighter vs goblins is probably facing 14-15 of them, popping in and out of cover firing short bows, with 3 allies on their side. Getting in position to kill even 2 in one round may be a challenge, depending on the scenario. :smallamused:

[Frogreaver]

Ah, I am used to sword&shield being used in a weapon&shield context, not necessarily asking for sword specificly.
Retract comment.

Hm, let's get technical and bring out the goblins, if GWM doesn't beat out +2 str in the goblin game, it probably isn't worth it at all.

Goblin out of book has an HP of 7.
Assuming a 16 str, dueling, two attacks because 5th level something and GWM let us calculate the chance for a bonus attack an get an average damage estimate and compare it to 18 str.

Okay.


AC 15, +5 will hit on a 10 so, 55% hit chance for 1d8+4(avg 8.5).

A level 5 Fighter with 16 str will have a +6 attack. With the dueling style he will do 1d8+3+2 = 9.5 avg damage.


So
30.25%, 2 hits, a goblin will die, math has spoken.
49.5 % 1 hit, a goblin might die on a 4, so 5/8 chance of a kill or 62.5%
20.25% 2 misses, no damage, no bonus attack

So our chance of a bonus attack is
30.25% + (49.5% × 62.5%) = 30.9375%

Using the uncorrected numbers above

You incorrectly computed the chance for a bonus action attack here. The chance you kill at least 1 uninjured goblin comes out to 61.1875% (no crits factored in). **You never added the 30.25%.

You are only looking at the chance of killing an undamaged goblin. There's a 49.5% * 37.5% = 18.5625% chance that a goblin is injured from a previous turn and will die in 1 hit on the next round. (Of course having allies in the mix might change that but it's the best we can do so far with your framework.)

There is also a 9.75% crit chance that needs factored in.

In short, your math was incorrect.


Now damage average on that attack
.55 × 8.5 = 4.675
After it's chance to occur
About
1.45 rounded up

And the full total
4.675 +4.675 +1.45 = 10.8 avg damage

And 18 strength
(60% ×9.5) + (60% × 9.5) or .6 × 19 = 11.4 avg damage.

In possibly the best case scenario for GWM, +2 str wins on damage.

Edit: math error, 6/8 chance to kill instead of 5/8, goblin dies on a 3 not 4.
Let's try to patch this
1/8 = 12.5 %
12.5 %× 49.5% = 6.2% rounded up
6.2% times 4.675 = .29 average damage increase.

So new calculation,
GWM about 11.1
Vs str +2 11.4
Str still wins. Oops on the math.

Using the correct calcs the GWM + Sword and Shield Fighter comes out ahead vs Goblins as should have been predicted.

EDIT: Figured it best to post numbers.

36% chance for 2 hits = dead goblin
48% chance for 1 hit = 7/8 chance for dead goblin (with +5 damage bonus it only takes a roll of 2 to hit).
16% chance for 0 hit = uninjured goblin

36% * 100% + 48% * 7/8 = 78%

Factoring in crit chance to proc puts that to 80.125% chance to proc the bonus action attack. The damage bonus from GWM then is 80.125% * 9.5 * .6 = 4.57. Turns out factoring in the chance the goblin is already injured isn't actually needed to prove that GWM is much better vs goblins than +2 Str. (Of course this result should have been expected and isn't surprising).

[Witty Username]

While I agree, there's also a chance that a GWM S&B fighter will kill 3 goblins in one round.
I'd have to look at the numbers for the relative chance at killing 2.

Of course, a level 5 Fighter vs goblins is probably facing 14-15 of them, popping in and out of cover firing short bows, with 3 allies on their side. Getting in position to kill even 2 in one round may be a challenge, depending on the scenario. :smallamused:

(.55 × .75) ^ 3 about or 7%, slightly more likely than rolling a 20.

Note with +2 str
Your chances of killing 2 goblins will be higher before taking into account the bonus attack and 1 more consistent
(.6 × .875) = 52.5%
^2 = 27.6% rounded up

It can happen but I wouldn't recommend build choices because of it, but it sounds like we argee, I just wanted to do more math.

[Tanarii]

(.55 × .75) ^ 3 about or 7%, slightly more likely than rolling a 20.

Note with +2 str
Your chances of killing 2 goblins will be higher before taking into account the bonus attack and 1 more consistent
(.6 × .875) = 52.5%
^2 = 27.6% rounded up

It can happen but I wouldn't recommend build choices because of it, but it sounds like we argee, I just wanted to do more math.
In the case of GWM S&B, the chance of 2 (or more) kills is base (.55*.75)^2 plus the one hit kills other misses chance (2*.45*.55*.75+2*.55*.25*.55*.75) times chance bonus attack kills (.55*.75)

So
(.55*.75)^2 + (2*.45*.55*.75 + 2*.55*.25*.55*.75)*(.55*.75) = 37%.
That's almost 10% higher. For this particular contrived scenario.

Conversely the chance of one or more kills should be considerably higher for +2 Str ASI.

[stoutstien]

I think if that is the goal you are better off with PAM either way as the bonus action attack is more consistent.

The angle I'm currently working on is a dex based BB build looking to fill a mostly free bonus action or something like a beast barb looking to capitalize on claw.

[Unoriginal]

These factors are generally applicable to any damage discussion. What is the purpose of bringing them up specifically for this one?

Because you can calculate the theorerical damage a character does when they hit with justthe character sheet, while the actual results of the attack depend on the target's statblock.

You can say "when they hit, this PC deals on average 21 damages, but you can't say "on average, this PC takes threeturns to kill their foe" without first defining what the foe is, and then it'll only be an assertion for this particular matcheup.

A character with GWM who deals 7.5 damages on average will on average get the kill on a Goblin in one hit, while it would take them close to 30 hits to get the kill on a Marid (assuming a magic weapon) if they're fighting solo. And not fighting solo means someone else may get the kill.

So, it is impossible to estimate how many kills the GWM PC will get.

[da newt]

Somewhere in the calculations there ought to be something to account for the chance that the PC gains a BA attack by killing a foe but cannot target another foe because they can't reach them this turn (or there are none left).

I'd think if you faced hoards often or attack with ADV regularly (reckless) or have an expanded crit range (champ) and don't have a better BA option, then GWM is a viable option, otherwise +2 ST seems superior (unless PAM is an option).

[Frogreaver]

Somewhere in the calculations there ought to be something to account for the chance that the PC gains a BA attack by killing a foe but cannot target another foe because they can't reach them this turn (or there are none left).

A similar phenomenon occurs for all melee characters. They kill an enemy, can they reach another one next turn. An even more similar phenomenon happens to multi attackers. They kill an enemy on their first attack, can they reach an enemy for their 2nd or 3rd attack.

Why is it that just for this particular character it's insisted this phenomenon be accounted for somehow?


I'd think if you faced hoards often or attack with ADV regularly (reckless) or have an expanded crit range (champ) and don't have a better BA option, then GWM is a viable option, otherwise +2 ST seems superior (unless PAM is an option).

Have you even attempted to set reasonable assumptions and crunch the numbers? If not how can you say +2 ST seems superior?


Because you can calculate the theorerical damage a character does when they hit with justthe character sheet, while the actual results of the attack depend on the target's statblock.

You can say "when they hit, this PC deals on average 21 damages, but you can't say "on average, this PC takes threeturns to kill their foe" without first defining what the foe is, and then it'll only be an assertion for this particular matcheup.

Most damage discussions say a characters DPR is X. They do this by making assumptions like the average AC a character faces is 16 (although we know that's not the case in every campaign) and so they can compute the chance to hit component of DPR using that average. It seems that's the same principle at play in estimating the average turns to kill a foe for a PC. So why do you treat average target AC and average turns to kill differently?


A character with GWM who deals 7.5 damages on average will on average get the kill on a Goblin in one hit, while it would take them close to 30 hits to get the kill on a Marid (assuming a magic weapon) if they're fighting solo. And not fighting solo means someone else may get the kill.

Sometimes you face AC 11. Sometimes AC 20. Why don't I hear this same kind of assertion toward all DPR discussions?


So, it is impossible to estimate how many kills the GWM PC will get.

No harder than it is to estimate the average AC a character will face which we do all the time in DPR discussions.

[Unoriginal]

A similar phenomenon occurs for all melee characters. They kill an enemy, can they reach another one next turn. An even more similar phenomenon happens to multi attackers. They kill an enemy on their first attack, can they reach an enemy for their 2nd or 3rd attack.

Why is it that just for this particular character it's insisted this phenomenon be accounted for somehow?

Because the first part of GWM triggers when you get a crit OR kill an opponent. Therefore how often you can kill an opponent is a factor.

A character with two attacks may sometime not have a target for their second attack. But a character with the GWM feat will have a bonus attack if they remove one of the potential targets off the field, meaning that the trigger condition makes "not having a target" more likely.





Most damage discussions say a characters DPR is X. They do this by making assumptions like the average AC a character faces is 16 (although we know that's not the case in every campaign) and so they can compute the chance to hit component of DPR using that average.

This is a practice that should be discouraged.


So why do you treat average target AC and average turns to kill differently?

Because they are different.

To kill a foe, you not only need to hit their AC, you need to hit their AC a number of time that is highly variable.

If you're calculating how many kills you will have against Goblins, and how many kills you'll have against another creature with the same AC but different HPsyou'll have a whole different result.

And that's ignoring the factors of how kills are shared in the PC group, compared to DPR which can be calculated individually.



Sometimes you face AC 11. Sometimes AC 20. Why don't I hear this same kind of assertion toward all DPR discussions?

Because I am not in most of those threads, maybe.

[QUOTE]
No harder than it is to estimate the average AC a character will face which we do all the time in DPR discussions.

Much harder. Again, a NPC with AC 18 can have 4HPs as they can have 300.

[Pex]

Somewhere in the calculations there ought to be something to account for the chance that the PC gains a BA attack by killing a foe but cannot target another foe because they can't reach them this turn (or there are none left).

I'd think if you faced hoards often or attack with ADV regularly (reckless) or have an expanded crit range (champ) and don't have a better BA option, then GWM is a viable option, otherwise +2 ST seems superior (unless PAM is an option).

The shield user has +2 better AC. That matters. While it is true killing something faster means you aren't attacked, you could lose initiative and be attacked first. How often you are hit matters for healing resources. There could be multiple attackers, including range. I maintain math is irrelevant, and it's about player preference.

However, there is a point in favor of the shield user taking Great Weapon Master that's not about math but versatility. Depending on combat circumstances the shield user for whatever reason might not care about his AC, take out his spare heavy weapon, and benefit the -5/+10. Fighting a giant for example. The giant is likely to hit the PC anyway despite the shield, but with the giant's relatively low AC and lots of hit points going two-handed for the -5/+10 is probably the better option. Some people might care about having this option available.

[Witty Username]

Why is it that just for this particular character it's insisted this phenomenon be accounted for somehow?

It isn't just here, so much, this line of reasoning comes up with horde breaker Ranger for example.
Killing an enemy and following to the next is vital foe the bonus action attack to function, so it warrants more of the discussion. As does horde breaker as enemies in close proximity is a nessasary condition.



Have you even attempted to set reasonable assumptions and crunch the numbers? If not how can you say +2 ST seems superior?

Well, at least my reasoning is the slanted room, we can see a suggested scenario where GWM is likely to come up consistently and use that. And if GWM fails to deliver in that case then we can more reasonably generally apply +2 str as superior.

This is the case of my goblins, and enemy where the bonus Action attack is likely to be the norm rather than the exception. And in a white-room with favorable terrain to the Fighter, we can say if GWM doesn't do well here, it is unlikely to do well anywhere.

[solidork]

However, there is a point in favor of the shield user taking Great Weapon Master that's not about math but versatility. Depending on combat circumstances the shield user for whatever reason might not care about his AC, take out his spare heavy weapon, and benefit the -5/+10. Fighting a giant for example. The giant is likely to hit the PC anyway despite the shield, but with the giant's relatively low AC and lots of hit points going two-handed for the -5/+10 is probably the better option. Some people might care about having this option available.

This. It's especially true if you're not taking Dueling or GWM fighting style - having a heavy reach weapon in your arsenal is just good sense, and getting at least -some- benefit even if you're playing defensively with sword and shield is kinda nice.

[Unoriginal]

I would argue that a versatile character isn't a Sword & Shield character.

"Sword & Shield character" implies specialization, to me.

[Tanarii]

However, there is a point in favor of the shield user taking Great Weapon Master that's not about math but versatility. Depending on combat circumstances the shield user for whatever reason might not care about his AC, take out his spare heavy weapon, and benefit the -5/+10. Fighting a giant for example. The giant is likely to hit the PC anyway despite the shield, but with the giant's relatively low AC and lots of hit points going two-handed for the -5/+10 is probably the better option. Some people might care about having this option available.
This route leads to using GWM all the time. Because once you discover you have a hammer, everything starts to look like a nail. :smallamused:

Edit: Of course my experience is more Barbarians in one shots and AL with GWM that bring a shield & back up weapon "just in case" and then never use it. But they already were looking at everything as a nail to be hammered, not the other way around.

[strangebloke]

Str still wins. Oops on the math.

Good start, but there's a pretty impactful math error in here.


So our chance of a bonus attack is
30.25% + (49.5% × 62.5%) = 30.9375%

You forgot to add the 30.25% back in. :smalltongue: This error gets carried through when you try to patch it later. So the actual chance of killing a goblin is

30.25% + (49.5% × 75%) = 67.375% (intuitively, this makes sense; a level 5 fighter should have better than a 30% chance of killing a goblin in one turn)

Just for fun, we can also account for crits. Fortunately its pretty easy to add this into your calculation, since its basically a 1/11 chance of proc in the 1-hit scenario, rolled before the 6/8 chance of kill on a normal hit. So [1-(10/11)*(2/8)]= 77.27% chance of bonus attack in the 1 hit scenario.

30.25% + (49.5% × 77.27%) = ~68.5%

~68.5% chance of bonus attack times expected damage of bonus attack (4.675) yields approximately 3.2 damage. So our final comparison is:

GWM: 12.55
+STR: 11.4

Now, as you say, this is a slanted comparison, and the gap isn't that wide. There are more slanted comparisons you could do, kobolds or giant centipedes or something, but that's beside the point, which is that if you're fighting a troll, GWM is inarguably worse than +2 str.

To get back to my initial point, a raging reckless barbarian with S&B does a lot better here. They have the same 75% chance of killing a goblin on 1 hit, but their attacks are way more likely to hit to begin with so without crits the splits look like:
2 hits 70.56%
1 hit: 26.88%
0 hits: 2.56%

70.56% + (26.88% × 75%) = ~90.7%

So for the barbarian the calc is more like
GWM: (8.5)*84%*2.9=~20.7
+STR: (9.5)*87.75*2=~16.67

And this is before considering the improved crit chance reckless gives you! GWM still isn't going to be better against a troll, but it is going to be better in a wider range of scenarios, potentially against hobgoblins or even orcs.

[Witty Username]

Good start, but there's a pretty impactful math error in here.



You forgot to add the 30.25% back in. :smalltongue: This error gets carried through when you try to patch it later. So the actual chance of killing a goblin is

30.25% + (49.5% × 75%) = 67.375% (intuitively, this makes sense; a level 5 fighter should have better than a 30% chance of killing a goblin in one turn)

Just for fun, we can also account for crits. Fortunately its pretty easy to add this into your calculation, since its basically a 1/11 chance of proc in the 1-hit scenario, rolled before the 6/8 chance of kill on a normal hit. So [1-(10/11)*(2/8)]= 77.27% chance of bonus attack in the 1 hit scenario.

30.25% + (49.5% × 77.27%) = ~68.5%

~68.5% chance of bonus attack times expected damage of bonus attack (4.675) yields approximately 3.2 damage. So our final comparison is:

GWM: 12.55
+STR: 11.4

Now, as you say, this is a slanted comparison, and the gap isn't that wide. There are more slanted comparisons you could do, kobolds or giant centipedes or something, but that's beside the point, which is that if you're fighting a troll, GWM is inarguably worse than +2 str.

To get back to my initial point, a raging reckless barbarian with S&B does a lot better here. They have the same 75% chance of killing a goblin on 1 hit, but their attacks are way more likely to hit to begin with so without crits the splits look like:
2 hits 70.56%
1 hit: 26.88%
0 hits: 2.56%

70.56% + (26.88% × 75%) = ~90.7%

So for the barbarian the calc is more like
GWM: (8.5)*84%*2.9=~20.7
+STR: (9.5)*87.75*2=~16.67

And this is before considering the improved crit chance reckless gives you! GWM still isn't going to be better against a troll, but it is going to be better in a wider range of scenarios, potentially against hobgoblins or even orcs.

Oof, thanks for the catch, sigh. In my haste I also missed that I only used +1 for dueling instead of plus 2. Am going to practice some math with paper for a bit, clearly I need to stave off some brain rot.

[strangebloke]

Oof, thanks for the catch, sigh. In my haste I also missed that I only used +1 for dueling instead of plus 2. Am going to practice some math with paper for a bit, clearly I need to stave off some brain rot.

Happens to everyone, don't feel bad about it.

[Sigreid]

One bullet point says:
During your turn, if you drop a creature’s hit points to zero or land a critical hit with any melee weapon, you can make an additional attack roll as a bonus action.



You don't need to use a great weapon to benefit from GWM. You just don't get the -5/+10 benefit.

There are lots of ways to get a bonus action attack that don't cost you a feat for just that on a sporadic basis.

[Unoriginal]

There are lots of ways to get a bonus action attack that don't cost you a feat for just that on a sporadic basis.

Which of those options work with a shield, if you don't mind me asking?

[solidork]

Which of those options work with a shield, if you don't mind me asking?

Polearm Master with a spear or quarterstaff.*

*I will never use a shield and quarterstaff because I can't imagine any way to fight like that which does not look ridiculous or seem ineffective.

Edit: I see you were asking for -without- a feat, my bad.

[strangebloke]

There are lots of ways to get a bonus action attack that don't cost you a feat for just that on a sporadic basis.

its not a practical question, its more of a "underline how busted GWM is."


...Then realize that SS and CBE are better.

[Jervis]

You're better off using a spear and shield with PAM

[Frogreaver]

Good start, but there's a pretty impactful math error in here.



You forgot to add the 30.25% back in. :smalltongue: This error gets carried through when you try to patch it later. So the actual chance of killing a goblin is

30.25% + (49.5% × 75%) = 67.375% (intuitively, this makes sense; a level 5 fighter should have better than a 30% chance of killing a goblin in one turn)

Just for fun, we can also account for crits. Fortunately its pretty easy to add this into your calculation, since its basically a 1/11 chance of proc in the 1-hit scenario, rolled before the 6/8 chance of kill on a normal hit. So [1-(10/11)*(2/8)]= 77.27% chance of bonus attack in the 1 hit scenario.

30.25% + (49.5% × 77.27%) = ~68.5%

~68.5% chance of bonus attack times expected damage of bonus attack (4.675) yields approximately 3.2 damage. So our final comparison is:

GWM: 12.55
+STR: 11.4

Now, as you say, this is a slanted comparison, and the gap isn't that wide. There are more slanted comparisons you could do, kobolds or giant centipedes or something, but that's beside the point, which is that if you're fighting a troll, GWM is inarguably worse than +2 str.

To get back to my initial point, a raging reckless barbarian with S&B does a lot better here. They have the same 75% chance of killing a goblin on 1 hit, but their attacks are way more likely to hit to begin with so without crits the splits look like:
2 hits 70.56%
1 hit: 26.88%
0 hits: 2.56%

70.56% + (26.88% × 75%) = ~90.7%

So for the barbarian the calc is more like
GWM: (8.5)*84%*2.9=~20.7
+STR: (9.5)*87.75*2=~16.67

And this is before considering the improved crit chance reckless gives you! GWM still isn't going to be better against a troll, but it is going to be better in a wider range of scenarios, potentially against hobgoblins or even orcs.

Additional issue I noted in my previous reply regarding the math issues.

The attack bonus was incorrectly calculated. The damage bonus was also incorrectly calculated. Both should have been higher, which would have resulted in an even greater chance to proc the bonus action attack vs goblins.


Well, at least my reasoning is the slanted room, we can see a suggested scenario where GWM is likely to come up consistently and use that. And if GWM fails to deliver in that case then we can more reasonably generally apply +2 str as superior.

This is the case of my goblins, and enemy where the bonus Action attack is likely to be the norm rather than the exception. And in a white-room with favorable terrain to the Fighter, we can say if GWM doesn't do well here, it is unlikely to do well anywhere.

I agree with the logic, but the premise is false. GWM was superior to +2 Str vs Goblins. Not sure how you missed my reply about your math earlier, but strangebloke made similar points just above this post and you agreed.

[Witty Username]

Sorry about that, I think I was responding to Tanarii post at the time, and noticed a completely different math error doing that.

Overall, my instinct is it might work out for enemies that can be killed with a single non crit. So for so about 15 hp, beyond that the bonus attack is relying on crits to function which means it will be difficult to rely on.

Still checking numbers.

[Frogreaver]

Sorry about that, I think I was responding to Tanarii post at the time, and noticed a completely different math error doing that.

Overall, my instinct is it might work out for enemies that can be killed with a single non crit. So for so about 15 hp, beyond that the bonus attack is relying on crits to function which means it will be difficult to rely on.

Still checking numbers.

IME most encounters tend to last 3-4 rounds.

If there's an encounter vs 4 NPC's then each NPC should die in about a round of focus fire. That means there's 4 enemies that die. If all characters were identical then each would have an equal chance of killing each enemy. With 4 enemies vs 4 PC's that would result in the fighter on average killing 1 enemy per combat. 3/4 of the time he won't kill the final enemy so he has a 75% chance of killing an enemy in such an encounter where another enemy is still present to be bonus action attacked. While this doesn't address all considerations, it seems like a reasonable framework to use as a starting point, no?

**(Ignoring for the moment that multi attackers suffer the same fate when they kill an enemy on any attack before their last and no DPR is discounted from them for that occurrence).

[Witty Username]

You can apply calculations for low health enemies to higher HP scenarios, if you have good awareness of the damage that has been done.
This reasoning can be applied with party damage, as practically speaking enemies will have less health.

But, this will depend alot on party composition. The easiest thing to say is that +2 str is almost always useful, even if it isn't alot, but that still alot of variables we have difficulty taking account for.

[Frogreaver]

You can apply calculations for low health enemies to higher HP scenarios, if you have good awareness of the damage that has been done.
This reasoning can be applied with party damage, as practically speaking enemies will have less health.

I don't think that provides any meaningful insights.


But, this will depend alot on party composition. The easiest thing to say is that +2 str is almost always useful, even if it isn't alot, but that still alot of variables we have difficulty taking account for.

Sure, but we can come up with reasonable estimates for any variable that matters.

[Sigreid]

Which of those options work with a shield, if you don't mind me asking?

In addition to Polearm Master that was mentioned, There's a variety of subclass features that do it. If I remember right, Cavalier, Samurai and Rune Knight all have bonus action things. Though I'm not looking at the book right now.

[bid]

Let's work out the answer to this question.

In terms of damage is GWM better for a sword and shield character than a +2 Str? I believe it will be better but want to get everyone's perspectives.
Back of the envelope:

Str+2 is +1 hit or another 5% that will make damage
Str+2 is roughly 10% extra over the ~10 base damage.
So you have roughly 3 sets of 5% damage for Str+2, which is worth about 4 attack rolls at 65% hit.

If you get 2 BA attack every 5-rounds fight, you are clearly ahead.
Which should happen when your party of 4 characters encounters 8 creatures.
Do you often kill 2 creatures per combat?

[Frogreaver]

Back of the envelope:

Str+2 is +1 hit or another 5% that will make damage
Str+2 is roughly 10% extra over the ~10 base damage.
So you have roughly 3 sets of 5% damage for Str+2, which is worth about 4 attack rolls at 65% hit.

If you get 2 BA attack every 5-rounds fight, you are clearly ahead.
Which should happen when your party of 4 characters encounters 8 creatures.
Do you often kill 2 creatures per combat?

2 BA attacks out of 5 rounds is 40% proc rate. That's reasonably close to my estimated 35% proc rate for break even.

I'd note that the proc rate required for break even includes crits as well. A 2 attack character has a 9.75% chance to crit at least once on a turn.

Thus assuming extra attack, Somewhere between a kill rate of 25% and 30% seems reasonable as the break even point. That's somewhere between 1 kill out of every 4 rounds and 1 kill out of every 3.33 rounds.

So while I agree 2 kills every 5 rounds isn't likely. I do believe 1 kill every 4 rounds is reasonable.

[RSP]

Curious about this: does increasing single hit damage, but only having the single attack make it more or less worthwhile?

For example, would a single attack character using SB with GFB (just assume that’s allowed), make GWM more or less useful, compared to the Barb?

The damage goes up to 3d8+mod, and let’s assume Advantage from Dark or Dim lighting conditions, to even out from Reckless.

The higher damage, I’m assuming, makes a kill shot more likely, but you only get one of them. The BA attack, if gotten would be more worthwhile (though no GFB add on).

Just curious if this makes a situation where GWM is more effective (than the Barb situation).

[Thunderous Mojo]

If one wants to prioritize the first bullet point of Greater Weapon Master, it seems best to pair it with Hold Person or other abilities that cause Paralysis.

Why wait for ‘Luck’ to trigger the bonus action attack?

[strangebloke]

If one wants to prioritize the first bullet point of Greater Weapon Master, it seems best to pair it with Hold Person or other abilities that cause Paralysis.

Why wait for ‘Luck’ to trigger the bonus action attack?

Or an assassin.

[da newt]

Quote Originally Posted by da newt View Post
Somewhere in the calculations there ought to be something to account for the chance that the PC gains a BA attack by killing a foe but cannot target another foe because they can't reach them this turn (or there are none left).

A similar phenomenon occurs for all melee characters. They kill an enemy, can they reach another one next turn. An even more similar phenomenon happens to multi attackers. They kill an enemy on their first attack, can they reach an enemy for their 2nd or 3rd attack.

Why is it that just for this particular character it's insisted this phenomenon be accounted for somehow?

- The extra attack provided by GWM only adds value if you can proc it AND land it too. In order to compare the value of the extras attack to +2 ST this should be accounted for. If you kill a foe about 1 in 4 rounds (an assumption) but some % of the time when you do its the last guy standing or there are no other foes within your remaining movement range, then the proc-ed extra attack has zero added value (or if you proc an extra attack and miss, but this should be accounted for in the average damage being reduced by the chance to hit vs foe AC). If we assumed that 1 out of 4 times you killed a foe he was the last guy or you can't get to another foe, then your extra attack value decreases.

I don't know if it's normal, but in my experience we face one big badie or few at least as often as we face a hoard of bad guys that significantly outnumber the PCs.



BTW - for the goblin calculations don't you have to account for the % of kills that are crits so you don't double count those procs?

[Pex]

Quote Originally Posted by da newt View Post
Somewhere in the calculations there ought to be something to account for the chance that the PC gains a BA attack by killing a foe but cannot target another foe because they can't reach them this turn (or there are none left).

A similar phenomenon occurs for all melee characters. They kill an enemy, can they reach another one next turn. An even more similar phenomenon happens to multi attackers. They kill an enemy on their first attack, can they reach an enemy for their 2nd or 3rd attack.

Why is it that just for this particular character it's insisted this phenomenon be accounted for somehow?

- The extra attack provided by GWM only adds value if you can proc it AND land it too. In order to compare the value of the extras attack to +2 ST this should be accounted for. If you kill a foe about 1 in 4 rounds (an assumption) but some % of the time when you do its the last guy standing or there are no other foes within your remaining movement range, then the proc-ed extra attack has zero added value (or if you proc an extra attack and miss, but this should be accounted for in the average damage being reduced by the chance to hit vs foe AC). If we assumed that 1 out of 4 times you killed a foe he was the last guy or you can't get to another foe, then your extra attack value decreases.

I don't know if it's normal, but in my experience we face one big badie or few at least as often as we face a hoard of bad guys that significantly outnumber the PCs.



BTW - for the goblin calculations don't you have to account for the % of kills that are crits so you don't double count those procs?

The comparison is also apples and oranges. A warrior gets Extra Attack just for existing. He doesn't have to choose it over something else. Therefore, whether his second attack can happen or not due to existing enemies doesn't matter. The warrior did not miss out on another option for not getting a second attack because there was no other option. However, in this case the player is choosing great weapon master over +2 ST. It's a choice to be made; therefore, the effects of the feat matter. The player is already accepting not benefiting -5/+10. His intention of getting the feat is to get the bonus action attack so how often he gets that bonus action attack matters. He gets it by crit or killing a foe. How often he gets to kill a foe and benefit a bonus action attack is relevant information to make the choice of taking the feat because he could have had +2 ST instead.

[bid]

So while I agree 2 kills every 5 rounds isn't likely. I do believe 1 kill every 4 rounds is reasonable.
For me, straying away from optimum is a handicap you accept because you gain something intangible out of it.
I don't think GWM is better here, but the handicap is negligible. Managing to kill 3 targets in a round is a worthy goal.

[strangebloke]

For me, straying away from optimum is a handicap you accept because you gain something intangible out of it.
I don't think GWM is better here, but the handicap is negligible. Managing to kill 3 targets in a round is a worthy goal.

This is the correct attitude yeah. The cleave affect of GWM is good when its relevant. Nautrally this won't be all the time, but it allows you to build a character around a concept. And being good at something specific is (imo) more fun than being an almighty generalist.

Now with that said, this discussion is sort of silly. It's pretty obvious that even if you're only considering the cleave effect, a greatsword would be better, both because its higher damage on the BA, and higher damage to set up the BA. But the thread topic understanding how good the cleave effect is in situations where it comes up.

A hunter ranger with GWM and zephyr strike is pretty frequently going to drop four creatures in a single round in melee. And yes, a ranged character can do this way more easily but its still cool.

[Frogreaver]

- The extra attack provided by GWM only adds value if you can proc it AND land it too.

I agree.


In order to compare the value of the extras attack to +2 ST this should be accounted for. If you kill a foe about 1 in 4 rounds (an assumption) but some % of the time when you do its the last guy standing or there are no other foes within your remaining movement range, then the proc-ed extra attack has zero added value (or if you proc an extra attack and miss, but this should be accounted for in the average damage being reduced by the chance to hit vs foe AC).

I fully agree here. I'd just add that this same thing is true of extra attack when you kill the enemy before your final attack. Extra attack was of no added value in that situation - provided it was the final enemy or you can't move close enough to any others. Agreed?


If we assumed that 1 out of 4 times you killed a foe he was the last guy or you can't get to another foe, then your extra attack value decreases.

I'm good with that assumption.


I don't know if it's normal, but in my experience we face one big badie or few at least as often as we face a hoard of bad guys that significantly outnumber the PCs.

Sure. And that's part of why I chose 4 enemies as the average case. Some scenarios you will face 1 enemy. Some you will face 8. 4 seems like a reasonable average). Obviously the bonus action attack only procs against 1 enemy when you crit. But against 8 enemies you have a good chance of killing more than 1 enemy during the encounter.


BTW - for the goblin calculations don't you have to account for the % of kills that are crits so you don't double count those procs?

I did. That's why it only increased the probability from 78% to ~80% after I added in crits.

[heavyfuel]

One bullet point says:
During your turn, if you drop a creature’s hit points to zero or land a critical hit with any melee weapon, you can make an additional attack roll as a bonus action.


I would never, ever, on any character, take GWM only because of the first bullet point.

The ASI would be better spent on quite literally anything else. +2 Str/Dex or PAM if you want more damage; Res (Wis), Alert, or Lucky for defense; any of the many spellcasting feats if you want utility.

The first bullet point is almost a ribbon.

[Frogreaver]

I would never, ever, on any character, take GWM only because of the first bullet point.

The ASI would be better spent on quite literally anything else. +2 Str/Dex or PAM if you want more damage; Res (Wis), Alert, or Lucky for defense; any of the many spellcasting feats if you want utility.

The first bullet point is almost a ribbon.

The question was about it vs +2 str for sword and shield. You’ve made the assertion that +2 str is better but offered no supporting evidence.

[heavyfuel]

The question was about it vs +2 str for sword and shield. You’ve made the assertion that +2 str is better but offered no supporting evidence.

My supporting evidence/argument:

Not every damage is created equal. Single target damage is stronger than spread out damage 99% of the time. Case in point, imagine there was a 3rd level spell called "Fiery Disintegrate" that dealt 32d6 Fire damage on failed Dex save to a creature within 150ft. This spell would be insanely overpowered, still, people don't think Fireball is insanely overpowered, despite the fact that Fireball probably deals more damage overall (especially because it's save for half instead of save negate)

Dealing some extra damage to a target other than whoever you're focusing isn't ideal because you don't get to diminish the enemy's team action economy. Additionally, not every time you crit/down and an enemy will you have another enemy nearby to damage.

Compare 3 builds, all at level 6. One has Longsword+GWM, one has Spear+PAM, and the other has Longsword+2 Str. All builds wear a Shield, have a +1 weapon, and are against an AC 16 target(s)

GWM build deals 2*(1d8+Str) to main target, and - very occasionally - 1d8+Str to a secondary target. Let's be extremely generous and say that this attack to a secondary target happens 20% of rounds (you still have to hit the attack). You're dealing, 12.8 damage to the main target + 1.28 damage per round to a secondary target (6.4*20%)

PAM build deals 18.85 damage to main target, or you can split for 11.4 damage to the main target + 7.45 BA attack to a secondary target. And this completely disregards PAM's second bullet point.

+2 Build deals 15.15 damage, plus you get better Str skills, checks, and saves.

GWM without the -5/+10 is just laughably bad. It's bad enough that if a player were to take it, I'd advise against it. If they insisted, I'd make a "Cleave" feat that allows for the same GWM BA attack, but is a half-feat. It is that terrible an option.

[strangebloke]

snip

I mean your "extremely generous" case is literally the absolute baseline for a S&B barbarian using reckless attack. Well, your min proc chance is actually 18% on two reckless attacks not 20%, but whatever. Assuming a 60% hit rate, 18%*(1d8+3+2)*84%=1.44. +2 STR for contrast raises your base damage from two attacks from 2*84%*(1d8+3+2)=15.96 to 2*87%*(1d8+4+2)=18.27 or a 2.3 increase approximately. That's single target damage btw.

That means that a raging reckless S&B barbarian only needs something like a 15% proc rate off kills per turn to equal +2 strength.

Witty, frog and I have done the math for an actual generous case (goblins) and the proc chance there is over 90%. That's not even the most generous case possible, kobolds or giant rats would be way easier to proc on, and this is still using a longsword as outlined by op.

Now its obvious that as you get to heavier monsters like trolls, this isn't going to work as well, but that was never in dispute. Similarly I don't think anyone disagree with saying that PAM is better in almost every case.

[heavyfuel]

That means that a raging reckless S&B barbarian only needs something like a 15% proc rate off kills per turn to equal +2 strength.

See my point about spread out damage vs single target damage.

Also, if you're Reckless Attacking all the time, why even bother with a Shield? It seems like the the worse of both worlds, where you deal way less damage than someone with a Heavy weapon, but also have way less effective HP than someone with no shield, but not using RA. (haven't ran the numbers, but that's my gut instinct)

[strangebloke]

See my point about spread out damage vs single target damage.

Also, if you're Reckless Attacking all the time, why even bother with a Shield? It seems like the the worse of both worlds, where you deal way less damage than someone with a Heavy weapon, but also have way less effective HP than someone with no shield, but not using RA. (haven't ran the numbers, but that's my gut instinct)

I mean, factoring in crits its pretty close against even a single target. Single target damage is better if the damage amount is kept the same, but in this case the single target damage is similar and you also have a potentially large upside against groups of enemies.

Nobody is saying this is a good strategy, BTW. I don't think so anyway. It's obvious that even the cleave portion of GWM, works better for a greatsword. But I also think calling it a 'ribbon' is wrong. You could maybe make it a half-feat but it would be a really good half-feat.

[stoutstien]

See my point about spread out damage vs single target damage.

Also, if you're Reckless Attacking all the time, why even bother with a Shield? It seems like the the worse of both worlds, where you deal way less damage than someone with a Heavy weapon, but also have way less effective HP than someone with no shield, but not using RA. (haven't ran the numbers, but that's my gut instinct)

Reckless attack works better the higher your armor class not the other way around. Going from 17 to 19 AC in tiers 1 and 2 can add 30-40%more EHP for the barbarian. That means they can effectively recklessly attack more often with or without rage.

That means in reference to somebody using just the bonus action portion of the great weapon Master feat it could potentially be more useful than just bumping their strength modifier up. A lot of it's going to come down to the table details like how deadly the cost runs, the range of encounters count, how the DM handles NPCs reaction to the barb RAs and/or rage, and party make up. It is still better for 2hd weapons but for what it's worth it does work.

[Frogreaver]

See my point about spread out damage vs single target damage.

Also, if you're Reckless Attacking all the time, why even bother with a Shield? It seems like the the worse of both worlds, where you deal way less damage than someone with a Heavy weapon, but also have way less effective HP than someone with no shield, but not using RA. (haven't ran the numbers, but that's my gut instinct)

I can’t craft a larger response but the notion that GWM bonus action attack is most comparable to aoe damage instead of single target damage is flawed. The only time it procs is when your target is dead meaning you could no longer direct damage at that target anyways.

[Pex]

See my point about spread out damage vs single target damage.

Also, if you're Reckless Attacking all the time, why even bother with a Shield? It seems like the the worse of both worlds, where you deal way less damage than someone with a Heavy weapon, but also have way less effective HP than someone with no shield, but not using RA. (haven't ran the numbers, but that's my gut instinct)

In my case I cared about AC even with reckless attack. I did not want to be hit all the time. It was my job to be in the monster's face, but that doesn't mean I want it to hurt me every round. Also a factor I had Shield Master and DM said I could bonus action shove before the attack, so often I didn't need to reckless attack for advantage. I would later multiclass for more offensive power, but I was a happy barbarian for 8 levels. A cool bonus was eventually killing a displacer beast then getting a cloak out of it. It nullified reckless attack disadvantage so getting advantage on my attack while my enemy only had a normal attack gave more value to my AC.

[heavyfuel]

Reckless attack works better the higher your armor class not the other way around. Going from 17 to 19 AC in tiers 1 and 2 can add 30-40%more EHP for the barbarian. That means they can effectively recklessly attack more often with or without rage.


I'm not disputing this. More AC will always mean fewer attacks hitting you, even of they are made with advantage.

My point is that, compared to Greatsword and no RA, using a Shield+RA will give you both lower DPR and lower survivability.

For example, a 6th level non raging Barbarian with 14 Dex, 14 Con, Half-plate, 69 HP vs a bunch of Barbed Devils (AC 15, +5 to hit, 7.33 damage per hit)

When using GWM, Greatsword, and not using RA, he has an average DPR of 20.5. He also needs to be attacked 21 times to go down (assuming averages for the Devils).

When using a Shield, Longsword, and RA, the avg DPR is 18.17. He needs to be attacked 17 times to go down. The worst of both worlds

In some circumstances (like Raging for extra damage, and with a subclass that adds more damage), the Sword and Board Bard gains a slight edge in DPR, but they'll still be more squishy.


The only time it procs is when your target is dead meaning you could no longer direct damage at that target anyways.

It also procs on Crits, which is Strangebloke's entire point.

[strangebloke]

It also procs on Crits, which is Strangebloke's entire point.

In either case, the damage being split between two targets doesn't matter. Splitting damage is less good than single target DPR because you don't kill anything, and thus deny no actions on the following turn. But with GWM if you're getting a proc you're critting (no split damage) or you're killing something (still denying an enemy's action) so the split damage argument doesn't matter.

[heavyfuel]

But with GWM if you're getting a proc you're critting (no split damage) or you're killing something (still denying an enemy's action) so the split damage argument doesn't matter.

It matters because of opportunity cost. Getting GWM costs you +2 Str or PAM, and any additional damage GWM+Shield gets you is split damage instead of single target damage.

Were GWM's Cleave free (instead of costing you an ASI), you'd be correct.

[strangebloke]

It matters because of opportunity cost. Getting GWM costs you +2 Str or PAM, and any additional damage GWM+Shield gets you is split damage instead of single target damage.

Were GWM's Cleave free (instead of costing you an ASI), you'd be correct.

Except we've kind of proven there are situations where GWM does pretty much strictly improve your impact on the battlefield.

Regardless, calling this cleave effect a ribbon is wrong.

[arnin77]

I think I’d rather just do +2 Str than GWM for sword and board. If it’s about the BA attack then I’d probably go PAM so that I have it guaranteed. If it’s about a sword specifically then Str ASI always gives +1 to hit, dmg, save and athletics. GWM would give +0 to hit,dmg,saves and athletics to sometimes get an additional attack… I guess I prefer what’s boring and reliable? Maybe pick up Shield Master later for the BA economy and Dex saves?

It would be pretty funny to say to a DM:
“I crit so I get a bonus action attack”
“But you’re sword and board…”
“Yeah I know - oh I crit again, GWM for the win!”

[Angelalex242]

Paladins would like this more if smites 'followed through' when 'Cleave' activated. Paladins who get to keep all their smite dice on the attack against the next opponent are happy Paladins.

[Frogreaver]

Paladins would like this more if smites 'followed through' when 'Cleave' activated. Paladins who get to keep all their smite dice on the attack against the next opponent are happy Paladins.

IMO. Smites are a great mechanic for getting kills to proc the GWM bonus action attack.

[Angelalex242]

Sure...but the follow up won't mean much if the damage doesn't follow through.

[stoutstien]

Sure...but the follow up won't mean much if the damage doesn't follow through.
Well you can always smite the secondary target as well.

[Angelalex242]

You only have so many spell slots. A 'follow through' smite keeps all your dice from the original damage...as if your 'cleave' attack was a single swing of your sword that simply continued to the next foe.

[Frogreaver]

I'm not disputing this. More AC will always mean fewer attacks hitting you, even of they are made with advantage.

My point is that, compared to Greatsword and no RA, using a Shield+RA will give you both lower DPR and lower survivability.

For example, a 6th level non raging Barbarian with 14 Dex, 14 Con, Half-plate, 69 HP vs a bunch of Barbed Devils (AC 15, +5 to hit, 7.33 damage per hit)

When using GWM, Greatsword, and not using RA, he has an average DPR of 20.5. He also needs to be attacked 21 times to go down (assuming averages for the Devils).

When using a Shield, Longsword, and RA, the avg DPR is 18.17. He needs to be attacked 17 times to go down. The worst of both worlds

In some circumstances (like Raging for extra damage, and with a subclass that adds more damage), the Sword and Board Bard gains a slight edge in DPR, but they'll still be more squishy.

IÂ’m not getting anywhere near ur dpr numbers.



It also procs on Crits, which is Strangebloke's entire point.

Strangeblock just explained my point much better than I could.

[stoutstien]

You only have so many spell slots. A 'follow through' smite keeps all your dice from the original damage...as if your 'cleave' attack was a single swing of your sword that simply continued to the next foe.

Maybe but more damage isn't exactly something the class needs.

If I was trying to maximize the bonus action portion of GWM I'd look at a hunter/barbarian combo. You'd get advantage, tons of situational attacks, some spells to generate advantage when you don't want to RA, and both classes tend to drop off around the mid point.
Hunter Ranger 11/wild magic barb 9 would be fun. Call them bonk and shout it everytime you proc the bonus attack.

[Frogreaver]

You only have so many spell slots. A 'follow through' smite keeps all your dice from the original damage...as if your 'cleave' attack was a single swing of your sword that simply continued to the next foe.

That would make a cool smite spell.

[heavyfuel]

Regardless, calling this cleave effect a ribbon is wrong.

Good thing I never did so. I said it was almost a ribbon (or something to that effect), although that might've been too generous. You're worsening your character by taking it instead of the "stardard" choice, which would be +2 Str.


IÂ’m not getting anywhere near ur dpr numbers.

I used Ludic's DPR calculator, fwitw

[Frogreaver]

Good thing I never did so. I said it was almost a ribbon (or something to that effect), although that might've been too generous. You're worsening your character by taking it instead of the "stardard" choice, which would be +2 Str.



I used Ludic's DPR calculator, fwitw

When I use Ludic's Calculator I get:
GWM+Greatsword+no RA = 16.9 DPR
GWM(no -5/+10) + Longsword + RA = 18.4 DPR

[strangebloke]

thought of a case where GWM might be worth it for the cleave effect alone.

My wife's high level moon/druid barbarian recently got the ability to turn into a Quetzalcoatlus. That form deals 3d6 (bite)+ 3d6 (dive) + 2(STR) + 2 (rage) +1d6+3 (one-time radiant damage). She can attack like this twice per turn and she can attack recklessly. With such big, accurate attacks, the chances of her getting a kill or a crit are pretty high, and the weapon damage on the bonus attack is high enough to justify taking the feat.

Particularly when, you know. You can't take almost any other feat or ASI to improve the damage output. Well other than piercer and Sentinel.

This applies to some extent to basically all wildshape forms.

[RSP]

thought of a case where GWM might be worth it for the cleave effect alone.

My wife's high level moon/druid barbarian recently got the ability to turn into a Quetzalcoatlus. That form deals 3d6 (bite)+ 3d6 (dive) + 2(STR) + 2 (rage) +1d6+3 (one-time radiant damage). She can attack like this twice per turn and she can attack recklessly. With such big, accurate attacks, the chances of her getting a kill or a crit are pretty high, and the weapon damage on the bonus attack is high enough to justify taking the feat.

Particularly when, you know. You can't take almost any other feat or ASI to improve the damage output. Well other than piercer and Sentinel.

This applies to some extent to basically all wildshape forms.

Unfortunately, I don’t think natural attacks or other “monster” attacks are covered by GWM, as it specifies “with a melee weapon”.

“On your turn, when you score a critical hit with a melee weapon or reduce a creature to 0 hit points with one, you can make one melee weapon attack as a bonus action.”

Earlier in the thread, I had asked if larger damage on melee weapon attacks would increase the viability of GWM. I had proposed SB as it’s more damage than a long sword, and has pretty easily achieved Advantage.

I imagine the more damage the extra weapon attack from GWM would do, the more it becomes feasible to take rather than a +2 to attack stat; but I don’t know what that threshold is.

[Witty Username]

Real quick, I was pondering how this works out with 3 attack attack lines, but my first thought was fighter 11. Would it be fair to say that is beyond the scope of the argument, as fighter would likely have both GWM and str 20 by that point?

[Frogreaver]

Real quick, I was pondering how this works out with 3 attack attack lines, but my first thought was fighter 11. Would it be fair to say that is beyond the scope of the argument, as fighter would likely have both GWM and str 20 by that point?

A level 11 Fighter is guaranted a level 4,6 and 8 ASI. GWM, +2 Str, Resilient Wis would still be a solid pick. So I don't think we can say having GWM and +4 str is guaranteed. Probably by level 16 but not necessarily this early.

[strangebloke]

Unfortunately, I don’t think natural attacks or other “monster” attacks are covered by GWM, as it specifies “with a melee weapon”.

“On your turn, when you score a critical hit with a melee weapon or reduce a creature to 0 hit points with one, you can make one melee weapon attack as a bonus action.”

Earlier in the thread, I had asked if larger damage on melee weapon attacks would increase the viability of GWM. I had proposed SB as it’s more damage than a long sword, and has pretty easily achieved Advantage.

I imagine the more damage the extra weapon attack from GWM would do, the more it becomes feasible to take rather than a +2 to attack stat; but I don’t know what that threshold is.

Natural weapons are weapons.

https://twitter.com/JeremyECrawford/status/1031663351309299712?s=20

So yea, this works.

As to "when is GWM's second line as good as an ASI" it comes down to three considerations

can you improve your primary attack stat? (wildshape, maxed str/dex, gauntlets of ogre power)
do you have competing uses for your bonus action?
What proc rate do you need to offset an ASI with a BA attack, and how often will that occur.


If the first is true, GWM is obviously good from a DPR perspective, if not necessarily 'good' in isolation. If the second is true GWM's cleave is simply worse. The third point is the complicated bit, but with a little work you can get something like a general solution.

[DMG] = [expected damage of 1 hit]
[ACC] = [average hit chance]
[PROC] = [cleave proc chance]

In a situation where cleave is as good as an ASI, the following equation will be true

[ACC]*[DMG]*2 + [PROC]*[ACC]*[DMG] = [ACC+.05]*[DMG+1]*2

We can solve for proc rate pretty easily

[PROC] = ([ACC+.05]*[DMG+1]*2) / ([ACC]*[DMG]) - 2

So with a basic 65% hit rate, this gives us the following relationship between damage and required-proc-rate-to-break-even

10 36.9%
20 26.1%
30 22.5%

So the damage of the single attack matters a lot, with cleave (unsurprisingly) favoring high damage attacks. It also goes without saying, but a low accuracy attack makes the cleave effect look a lot worse. Assuming a 10 damage attack, here's the relationship between accuracy and required-proc-rate-to-break-even:

65% 36.9%
45% 44.4%
25% 64%

So a reckless attacking barbarian/moon druid is pretty ideal here, since it meets criteria 1, misses criteria 2, and also has really high single weapon damage and high accuracy. When a single attack (such as the mentioned Quetzalcoatlus) might deal something like 30 damage depending on various factors, and the accuracy is usually going to be in the ~84% range because of reckless, your required cleave proc rate to break even with an ASI (which you can't take anyway) is like 18.8%, which you get from reckless attack crit chance alone.

[RSP]

Natural weapons are weapons.


SA seems to agree. I always assumed they were in the same category as unarmed strikes, but I guess not. Good to know!

[Witty Username]

SA seems to agree. I always assumed they were in the same category as unarmed strikes, but I guess not. Good to know!

I think it depends on the source, I am pretty sure some, like path of the beast do, but I think Tabaxi simply raise the damage of unarmed strikes. Not a yes/no but more a double check with the wording of whatever thing you want to use.

[strangebloke]

There are three kinds of weapons
Simple
Martial
Natural

Unarmed strikes are not weapons. Some natural weapons (tortle claws) say that they also can be used for unarmed strikes, changing the damage die.

This particular rule unfortunately kills a lot of fun potential combos like flurry of hoof.

[RSP]

Interesting question then becomes:

If natural weapons are weapons, can PCs take high damage natural weapons off a defeated monster and wield them?

For instance: the aforementioned Quetzalcoatlus. Could someone remove its natural weapon beak and have a 3d6+Str weapon (most likely lacking proficiency)?

[strangebloke]

Interesting question then becomes:

If natural weapons are weapons, can PCs take high damage natural weapons off a defeated monster and wield them?

For instance: the aforementioned Quetzalcoatlus. Could someone remove its natural weapon beak and have a 3d6+Str weapon (most likely lacking proficiency)?

Lacking proficiency, and also at disadvantage because these are generally oversized weapons we're talking about. Quetzalcoatlus is a huge creature with a huge beak - IRL about seven feet long. (note that this fits with the 1 die per size category rule as well, though admittedly not all natural weapons follow this)

But my ruling would be... no. In previous editions, a natural weapon by definition was part of the creature making the attack, and if the creature is absent/dead, the weapon effectively doesn't exist. Intuitively this makes sense. While grabbing a seven-foot-long skull and bashing people with it makes some sense, other natural weapons include things like tentacles or the constrict effect on a giant snake. Even something like bear claws, or an alligator's bite.... how are you pulling that off that?

This is important for monk/moon druids for a few reasons. In the first case, natural weapons aren't (always) unarmed strikes, and thus don't work for flurry. You still can flurry, just not with bear claws. But the other question is if when you're a monk/bear, are you armed with natural weapons? Again, I'd say no. To be consistent in arguing that having a natural weapon means "being armed" you'd have to argue that tortles can't ever benefit from any martial arts features. Even though their natural weapons can be used for unarmed strikes, they're still natural weapons and no different in that respect from bear claws.

[RSP]

Lacking proficiency, and also at disadvantage because these are generally oversized weapons we're talking about. Quetzalcoatlus is a huge creature with a huge beak - IRL about seven feet long. (note that this fits with the 1 die per size category rule as well, though admittedly not all natural weapons follow this)

There wouldn’t be Disadvantage, RAW, because it isn’t listed as a Heavy weapon.

The issue becomes, if Natural Weapons are weapons, then they follow the rules for weapons. That is, if they cause Disadvantage because of their size, then they have the Heavy property: if they don’t have the Heavy property, then they don’t cause Disadvantage because of their size.

I understand a DM making a ruling or house rule regarding their use, but if “Natural Weapons=Weapons”, then they should be treated as weapons.

Interesting that this sub discussion started with “abilities that affect weapons affect natural weapons because they’re weapons” but has now turned to “…but they’re not really weapons.”

To me, they should either count as weapons, or not, but shouldn’t just arbitrarily be weapons in some cases and not others. The tweet you referenced, and the SA (“Are natural weapons considered weapons? Things designated as weapons by the rules, including natural weapons, are indeed weapons. In contrast, unarmed strikes are not weapons. They are something you do with an unarmed part of your body.”) both say they’re weapons.

Again, not attacking how you’d rule, just pointing out if the official answer is “they’re weapons”, then, in my opinion, they should count as weapons.

[x3n0n]

There wouldn’t be Disadvantage, RAW, because it isn’t listed as a Heavy weapon.

The issue becomes, if Natural Weapons are weapons, then they follow the rules for weapons. That is, if they cause Disadvantage because of their size, then they have the Heavy property: if they don’t have the Heavy property, then they don’t cause Disadvantage because of their size.

I understand a DM making a ruling or house rule regarding their use, but if “Natural Weapons=Weapons”, then they should be treated as weapons.

Interesting that this sub discussion started with “abilities that affect weapons affect natural weapons because they’re weapons” but has now turned to “…but they’re not really weapons.”

To me, they should either count as weapons, or not, but shouldn’t just arbitrarily be weapons in some cases and not others. The tweet you referenced, and the SA (“Are natural weapons considered weapons? Things designated as weapons by the rules, including natural weapons, are indeed weapons. In contrast, unarmed strikes are not weapons. They are something you do with an unarmed part of your body.”) both say they’re weapons.

Again, not attacking how you’d rule, just pointing out if the official answer is “they’re weapons”, then, in my opinion, they should count as weapons.

I doubt that this is RAW, but to me it looks like a "natural weapon" is "a weapon that is part of a creature's body and is 'wielded' by that creature".

As a DM, I'd rule that a natural weapon can only be wielded as defined in its stat block by the creature whose body it is attached to. If a natural weapon is "harvested" from a creature, it has become a new kind of entity, and by default I'd treat it with the improvised weapon guidelines (including the clause about letting the wielder propose existing weapons to which it is similar). In special cases, I might homebrew something on the spot, likely a nerfed version of the original.

[RSP]

I doubt that this is RAW, but to me it looks like a "natural weapon" is "a weapon that is part of a creature's body".

I think the issue is there is no RAW on what a natural weapon is, hence the SA Q&A.

My instinct is probably to just rule them as unarmed strikes for the purposes of how they function, but I’ve also never had a player who wanted a GWM Druid.

Officially, though, they seem to work as any other weapon would.

[Unoriginal]

Using parts of a corpse as a weapon sound like an Improvised Weapon situation, to me.

[strangebloke]

I think the issue is there is no RAW on what a natural weapon is, hence the SA Q&A.

My instinct is probably to just rule them as unarmed strikes for the purposes of how they function, but I’ve also never had a player who wanted a GWM Druid.

Officially, though, they seem to work as any other weapon would.

Page 278 of the DMG says

A creature has disadvantage on attack rolls with a weapon that is sized for a larger attacker. ...a weapon sized for a creature two or more sizes larger is too big for the creature to wield at all.
So unless you're an enlarged rune knight, you either can't wield or will have disadvantage when wielding a weapon "sized for" a huge creature like a giant elk or Quetzalcoatlus.

But beyond that, this RAW pretzel you're trying to make is fully half-baked. There's no RAW that says that all weapons can be dropped/exchanged/wielded. Weapons are not as a rule strictly fungible. All natural weapons I'm aware of are part of a creature's body, and killing/maiming the creature to take the natural weapon inherently involves damaging the natural weapon, possibly rendering it unusable. A Giant Constrictor Snake's "Constrict" is a natural weapon, but if you kill the snake, how much of the "weapon" can be said to be left in an undamaged form? The weapon is their muscles, which are now inert and lifeless!

Its functionally identical to hacking off the end of a polearm and trying to wield it as a sword. Though your DM might allow such a thing, by RAW, all you've done is broken the glaive, there's no rule that the blade at the end of a glaive can really be used as a longsword. And, if you're trying to use something as a weapon that isn't (currently) a weapon, that falls under improvised weapon rules.

Of course, you can still attack with natural weapons that are still attached to living creatures. Nothing stopping you from throwing a confused tiger at the enemy.

[RSP]

But beyond that, this RAW pretzel you're trying to make is fully half-baked.

There is no RAW on Natural Weapons that I’m aware of, so I’m not sure why you’re accusing me of doing anything with the RAW.

Only an official SA has been identified. But that states Natural Weapons are weapons, and, as such, the official answer is they behave as weapons.



Its functionally identical to hacking off the end of a polearm and trying to wield it as a sword.

{Scrubbed}

[Yakk]

Suppose a 50% hit chance. With +2 str your hit chance is 55%, and your crit chance remains 5%.

Assuming 16 strength, your damage before was 1d8+5; afterwards, it is 1d8+6.

DPH is 9.5 to 10.5. DPSwing before is 4.975 per swing. After it is 6 per swing.

For the bonus action extra swing to outdamage the +2 str case, you need to get a kill more often than every 5 swings (at every 5 swings, you are behind). And even then, your damage is somewhat back loaded.

Assuming enemies HP are uniform and random from 1 to their max HP as a simple model, your average damage per hit is (call it 10) including crits, and you get a hit every 2nd swing. You need every 2.5 hits to kill a foe to match +2 str damage. So I think, on foes under 25 HP, you might match the DPR of the +2 str choice? (also, assuming no use for bonus actions).

That damage will, however, be back loaded; it will tend to occur in the latter half of the fight. It will never help drop the first foe (who is the most dangerous).

That is just a guess. I could see making a simple simulation, or even a generating function to solve it.

[strangebloke]

There is no RAW on Natural Weapons that I’m aware of, so I’m not sure why you’re accusing me of doing anything with the RAW.

Only an official SA has been identified. But that states Natural Weapons are weapons, and, as such, the official answer is they behave as weapons.

There is no RAW on natural weapons, correct. There is also no RAW that says "absolutely anything that's a weapon can be wielded by a PC." In fact, there are rules saying that some weapons may be considered unsuitable for PCs (specifically Huge-sized weapons.) Arguing that "because this is a weapon a PC can use it by RAW" is thus unsupported.


{Scrub the post, scrub the quote}

That is a potential interpretation, but its not an absolute one. "Claw" could mean "literally anything that the word 'claw' could mean in english," but it could also mean "this specific living bear's claws." Given the absurdity of declawing a bear, putting the bones of the claw in a bag and then hit people with a small bag of claw-bones and dealing 2d6 damage, but having disadvantage because the small bag of bones is oversized...

...makes it pretty clear which is the most practical reading of the RAW here. A tiger's claws are not a bears claw, and the severed limb of a bear isn't the same thing as an attached, living limb. It might be used as an improvised natural weapon if your DM judges it to be sufficiently similar to the living bear's natural weapon, but that's a judgement call.

[RSP]

There is also no RAW that says "absolutely anything that's a weapon can be wielded by a PC." In fact, there are rules saying that some weapons may be considered unsuitable for PCs (specifically Huge-sized weapons.) Arguing that "because this is a weapon a PC can use it by RAW" is thus unsupported.

From the Basic Rules:

“Whether you’re striking with a melee weapon, firing a weapon at range, or making an attack roll as part of a spell, an attack has a simple structure.”

{Scrubbed}



That is a potential interpretation, but its not an absolute one. "Claw" could mean "literally anything that the word 'claw' could mean in english," but it could also mean "this specific living bear's claws." Given the absurdity of declawing a bear, putting the bones of the claw in a bag and then hit people with a small bag of claw-bones and dealing 2d6 damage, but having disadvantage because the small bag of bones is oversized...

...makes it pretty clear which is the most practical reading of the RAW here. A tiger's claws are not a bears claw, and the severed limb of a bear isn't the same thing as an attached, living limb. It might be used as an improvised natural weapon if your DM judges it to be sufficiently similar to the living bear's natural weapon, but that's a judgement call.

{Scrubbed}

[Yakk]

Suppose a 50% hit chance. With +2 str your hit chance is 55%, and your crit chance remains 5%.

Assuming 16 strength, your damage before was 1d8+5; afterwards, it is 1d8+6.

DPH is 9.5 to 10.5. DPSwing before is 4.975 per swing. After it is 6 per swing.

For the bonus action extra swing to outdamage the +2 str case, you need to get a kill more often than every 5 swings (at every 5 swings, you are behind). And even then, your damage is somewhat back loaded.

Assuming enemies HP are uniform and random from 1 to their max HP as a simple model, your average damage per hit is (call it 10) including crits, and you get a hit every 2nd swing. You need every 2.5 hits to kill a foe to match +2 str damage. So I think, on foes under 25 HP, you might match the DPR of the +2 str choice? (also, assuming no use for bonus actions).

That damage will, however, be back loaded; it will tend to occur in the latter half of the fight. It will never help drop the first foe (who is the most dangerous).

That is just a guess. I could see making a simple simulation, or even a generating function to solve it.
Oh yes, crits. That adds almost 0.05 bonus swings per hit, while removing 10% of hits (the crits) from 0 HP consideration.

Average DPH goes down to 9.5, you get 0.45 non-crit hits per swing, and you need 15% of non-crit attacks to generate an extra swing, so 1/3 of hits, or 29 HP or less foes to match damage output.

Still backloaded. And a bit worse as you get more attacks (as you only get 1 bonus attack per round).

[bid]

{Scrub the post, scrub the quote}
Are Natural Weapons transferable? No.

[strangebloke]

From the Basic Rules:

“Whether you’re striking with a melee weapon, firing a weapon at range, or making an attack roll as part of a spell, an attack has a simple structure.”

This says that using a weapon to hit someone is an attack.

This does not say that literally any weapon can be wielded by any NPC.

Moreover there is a specific line in the DMG, which I've already quoted, which says "You may want to rule that weapons sized for a creature two or more sizes larger than a PC cannot be wielded," indicating a general position of the rules that its up to the DM what may or may not be wieldable.

And you're steadfastly ignoring that "wielding" the "constrict" natural weapon of a dead snake is very, very silly. Insofar as 'constriction' is a thing, it ceases to be a thing when the snake dies.

[RSP]

This does not say that literally any weapon can be wielded by any NPC.

It’s says how weapons are used.

A DM can decide that an aged long sword, long out of use and in disrepair, no longer is functionally a long sword or even a “weapon”, and, therefore, can only be wielded as an improvised weapon. This is absolutely within the intended scope of the DM’s powers.

{Scrubbed}

[Yakk]

{Scrub the post, scrub the quote}
That isn't how 5e D&D works.

Feel free to continue playing 5e D&D your way, but expecting people to agree with how you play it is not a reasonable thing to expect.

{Scrubbed}

[RSP]

That isn't how 5e D&D works.

{Scrubbed}

[Yakk]

{Scrub the post, scrub the quote}
I'm not insulting you. I am describing how 5e works, and I am stating you are free to play whatever variant of D&D 5e you want to play.

5e isn't designed as a set of abstract rule components you connect together to determine what the game results are. This is explicitly not how 5e works.

In some games, the fact that you have a game unit called a "sword" that causes you do deal "+2 damage" has nothing to do with the fact your character has no hands, or their hands are already occupied by swords. The "sword" part of the game unit, unless it interacts with other defined game components, is nothing but a name. It has no impact on how the game works.

5e explicitly is not that game. The fact the sword is a sword, with all of its swordyness, is part of the sword game unit.

The fact that natural weapon -- claws -- are claws is part of the clawyness of the claws. A bunch of claws disconnected from a creature isn't the same as claws attached to a bear -- despite the lack of game components talking about now natural weapons of a bear are attached to the bear.

5e attempts to provide rules for common situations, and explicitly does not attempt to cover uncommon/strange situations. It delegates that to the dungeon master. Claws are typically part of a creature, so they cover how that works. They don't cover at all what happens when you remove the claws from the creature, kill the creature, turn the creature into an undead monster, or whatever else. That is not what 5e rules do.

Heck 5e doesn't cover what happens if you take a Solar's sword and swing it yourself. How many dice of damage a large creature does with a manufactured weapon isn't covered -- it is mentioned as guidelines in monster building, not as rules.

I enjoy playing both kinds of games; both games where you click together mechanical pieces and see how the game progresses, and games where you don't. And playing one of these kinds of games as the other is something you might enjoy, but you should be aware of why other people find it strange. And you should also be aware which kind of game 5e is.

I am not saying it is "badwrongfun" to play 5e as a set of mechanical rules, or playing settlers of Catan as an imagination game where that imagination impacts the game play. But it isn't the baseline.

[bid]

I agree with Yakk.
You keep pounding the table (https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/pound_the_table) with the word "weapon" while disregarding the qualifier "natural" as if it was fluff.

There wasn't been a single attempt at extending "natural weapon" beyond a part of your body.
All I heard was magicking out an improvised weapon because it used to be a jawbone.

Even a devil's advocate demands arguments of a certain caliber. There needs to be axioms that seem real over which you can posit your point, it can't be free-floating.

[RSP]

5e explicitly is not that game. The fact the sword is a sword, with all of its swordyness, is part of the sword game unit.


{Scrubbed}


You keep pounding the table with the word "weapon" while disregarding the qualifier "natural" as if it was fluff.
{Scrubbed}

[bid]

{Scrub the post, scrub the quote}
So "natural" is fluff, therefore a jawbone is "natural".
And natural weapons will remain "natural" when removed from their natural place.

People are arguing jawbones aren't natural weapon. No matter how much you say natural weapons are weapons, you aren't touching when/how they lose their "natural" qualifier.

Show us how a devil's advocate can build a case for "jawbones are natural weapons."

[Yakk]

{Scrub the post, scrub the quote}
Because you don't attack with claws by putting them in a bag and hitting someone with claws.

That isn't how claws work.

You don't attack someone with a bite by cutting a bears mouth out, then hitting them with it. Again, that is not how biting works.

You don't attack someone with a sword by grabbing the blade and hitting them with the hilt. This isn't how swords work.

I have explained that 5e isn't a "only the exact written rules matter" game. Asking me to quote the rules in response is irrelevant.

I might as well ask you to find me a clown eating a wombat in the D&D rules. It would be as relevant to your position as your question is to mine.

So: Please quote me the location where a clown eats a wombat in the D&D rules.

[strangebloke]

It’s says how weapons are used.

A DM can decide that an aged long sword, long out of use and in disrepair, no longer is functionally a long sword or even a “weapon”, and, therefore, can only be wielded as an improvised weapon. This is absolutely within the intended scope of the DM’s powers.

{Scrub the post, scrub the quote}

Edit: again, I find it odd you use this reasoning for “GWM works for Natural Weapons” but then disregard that they are, in fact weapons.

They are weapons. They can be used as weapons by the beasts on which statblocks they appear. There is no rule saying PCs can use any weapon. There are also no rules that these natural weapons retain their status as weapons after getting drained of blood and life.

For another example of this, I'll point to the Storm Giant Quintessant's lightning blade. This is a weapon sized for a huge creature that does 9d6 damage on a swing. Not only would this be unsuitable for medium sized PCs (per the DMG) its down to your DM whether this sword is a physical sword of frozen lightning that can be looted, or a magical effect generated spontaneously by the SGQ a la Shadow Blade.

[RSP]

They are weapons. They can be used as weapons by the beasts on which statblocks they appear. There is no rule saying PCs can use any weapon. There are also no rules that these natural weapons retain their status as weapons after getting drained of blood and life.

For another example of this, I'll point to the Storm Giant Quintessant's lightning blade. This is a weapon sized for a huge creature that does 9d6 damage on a swing. Not only would this be unsuitable for medium sized PCs (per the DMG) its down to your DM whether this sword is a physical sword of frozen lightning that can be looted, or a magical effect generated spontaneously by the SGQ a la Shadow Blade.

Your example is one where the DM would have to make a ruling that’s an exception to the normal rule of what weapons can do.

The DM can absolutely do this, but it proves the rule that weapons are weapons.

{Scrubbed}

[Yakk]

You haven't quoted the part of the D&D rules where a clown eats a wombat.

{Scrubbed}

[RSP]

You haven't quoted the part of the D&D rules where a clown eats a wombat.

{Scrub the post, scrub the quote}

I’m not sure what you’re point is here. NW are Weapons. DMs free to houserule otherwise. DMs are free to rule on a case-by-case basis otherwise. But the standing rule is they are weapons, and, therefore, should be treated as such.

[strangebloke]

Your example is one where the DM would have to make a ruling that’s an exception to the normal rule of what weapons can do.
What can weapons do? What inherent, rules-defined property of weapons are you referencing here? That they can be used for melee weapon attacks? Sure, but that says nothing, nothing about lootability.

[RSP]

What can weapons do? What inherent, rules-defined property of weapons are you referencing here? That they can be used for melee weapon attacks? Sure, but that says nothing, nothing about lootability.

{Scrubbed}

[strangebloke]

{Scrub the post, scrub the quote}

Yes, RSP, but weapon attacks made by whom? PCs? Again, the DMG says explicitly that it is not willing to make a firm statement about which weapons on monster statblocks are suitable for PCs. A Balor can use the weapon that is implied by the 'longsword' attack on the Balor Statblock to make weapon attacks, but a PC explicitly has to ask the DM to do the same thing.

"Weapons are used for weapon attacks" is true.

"All weapons can be used for weapon attacks by any creature" is not true.

[RSP]

"Weapons are used for weapon attacks" is true.

"All weapons can be used for weapon attacks by any creature" is not true.

{Scrubbed}

[Hytheter]

Ask any DM in the world if you can cut off a bear's face and use it as a weapon and they will laugh in your face. Come on, how is this even a discussion?

[RSP]

Ask any DM in the world if you can cut off a bear's face and use it as a weapon and they will laugh in your face. Come on, how is this even a discussion?

Because the design team made it a rule that it works.

[Yakk]

{Scrub the post, scrub the quote}
{Scrubbed}

[bid]

{Scrub the post, scrub the quote}
And still not a single word as to how natural weapons stay "natural" when pulled off their body.

The hat you gave him truly fits.

[strangebloke]

Yeah, I had a whole post about how rulings (DM making a judgement call in an ambiguous case) are not houserules (DM making a rule that applies at their table) and that DND as a system deliberately and explicitly codifies ambiguity into the system so that rulings can be made that suit the vibe of a given campaign, and how this is a clear example of that with statements such as "DM decides if an improvised weapon resembles a weapon closely enough to be used as that weapon" or "As a DM you may rule to not allow players to use weapons sized for creatures two size cats larger than them."

but its a waste of breath theres no one here to convince

[RSP]

"DM decides if an improvised weapon resembles a weapon closely enough to be used as that weapon"

{Scrubbed}



"As a DM you may rule to not allow players to use weapons sized for creatures two size cats larger than them."

{Scrubbed}

[ender241]

{Scrub the post, scrub the quote}

Is a rock a natural weapon? Why or why not?

[Yakk]

(Scrubbed}

[bid]

And still not a single word as to how natural weapons stay "natural" when pulled off their body.

The hat you gave him truly fits.


{Scrub the post, scrub the quote}
{Scrubbed}

[RSP]

{Scrub the post, scrub the quote}

{Scrubbed}

[ender241]

{Scrub the post, scrub the quote}

Curious about something: is a rock a natural weapon? Why or why not?

[bid]

{Scrub the post, scrub the quote}
You want them to cover up for you?

You keep on failing to make a statement about how a DM could accept that the natural extension of a monster's body somehow becomes a "natural weapon" in the hand of some hero.

The fact that you never managed to pull one out of anywhere... is your loss.
Everyone else has moved on with that conclusion.

[RSP]

You want them to cover up for you?

You keep on failing to make a statement about how a DM could accept that the natural extension of a monster's body somehow becomes a "natural weapon" in the hand of some hero.

{Scrubbed}

[bid]

And still not a single word as to how natural weapons stay "natural" when pulled off their body.


{Scrub the post, scrub the quote}
{Scrubbed}

[ender241]

{Scrubbed}

[RSP]

{Scrub the post, scrub the quote}
{Scrubbed}

[ender241]

{Scrub the post, scrub the quote}
{Scrubbed}

[truemane]

Metamagic Mod: thread closed.