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

[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/...309299712?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.