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.

[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.

(.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).