D&D 5E Great weapon master vs +2 strength?

[Ancalagon]

Hello

So I'm making this high level barbarian (11). He doesn't have great stats, so to get the great weapon master feat, he will have to sacrifice 20 strength. I tried to calculate the math and it's a bit... complicated. It depends on the enemy AC and if he has advantage or not (which is easy for a barbarian to get).

I will note that these estimates do not take into account critical damage, but they do not take into account auto-miss on a 1 either. The character has a +2 great axe, and is assumed to be raging. Average raw damage (16.5 or 25.5... it's a 9 difference, not 10 because of the strength difference) is multiplied by the % to hit chance. In the "difference" columns, a positive number indicates that the feat leads to higher damage on average.



Without advantage, unless the character is hitting very poorly defended characters, the feat is not worth it. With advantage however, the question is less clear. As mentioned, barbarians can easily gain advantage by attacking recklessly, but this makes them more vulnerable in return.

I will note that the "hit someone else if critical or kill" effect of the feat is not a factor in this decision, as the character already has that power as a subclass feature (it's a playtest).

My gut feeling is to go without the feat as I enjoy the notion of maximum brawn, but after doing the math I'm a bit unsure...

 

[CapnZapp]

Based on your notions I'd day go for "maximum brawn" and don't worry about the math.

But your suspicions are correct: GWM is off the charts good when utilized by a team of minmaxers, quite unbalancedly so.

Sent from my C6603 using EN World mobile app

 

[Azurewraith]

Personally I would take the feat there is no reason not to to reckless attack for advantage, yes that's oversimplified. The damage reduction rage grants can off set your lower AC due to being reckless(I'm treating advantage as +/- 5) in exchange you get + 10 damage

20str is just a +1 to hit and damage which you don't really need as the +2 axe putting you ahead of the curve. The +1 to skills is negligible imo as your no skill monkey and can rage for advantage if you really need to make that str check.

I am slightly biased as I believe the best way to conserve HP is to kill things before they can kill back.

 

[Shiroiken]

IME, most barbarians only use Reckless Attack when they are raging, because this mitigates the incoming damage. Since you already have part of the Feat from your playtest class feature, the Feat becomes somewhat less viable.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

I would make my decision based on 3 things:

-How do you want to shine? Killing trash mobs fast and easy to clear the path vs the high priority target (feat)
Or do you want to be the one standing face to face with the big enemy (no feat)
- do you like gambling (feat) or not (no feat)
- what does the party expect of you. Paladin in the group? Take the feat. Wizard in the group that likes throwing fireballs? Don't.

 

[CapnZapp]

Simple spreadsheets invariably fail to show the true power of the -5/+10 mechanism, since they don't take minmaxing into account.

Since you already have part of the Feat from your playtest class feature, the Feat becomes somewhat less viable.

What playtest?

 

[Zardnaar]

Its one of 4 ir 5 feats outright better than a stat buff. You also get the cleave part of the feat.

 

[Satyrn]

.


What playtest?

Read the OP.

 

[Bawylie]

You already have half the benefit of the feat by virtue of a subclass. Forgo the feat, take the Strength.


-Brad

 

[jgsugden]

If you want to optimize damage, you'Re playing a guessing game with the DM. If he uses high AC monsters, Str is better. If the ACs are more diverse, the feat gives you higher damage. However, if you go with the one that seems like more fun to you, you will not go wrong.