Goal: Balance between decent damage, peel, and survivability
Starting Stats: 16 str, 13 dex, 16 con...
Feats: GWM, PAM, Slasher, Sentinel, Tough
Rough Rationale: GWM and PAM are generally considered OP, Slasher is ok, but the +1 ALSO gets DEX to the magic 14, Sentinel is just useful, and Tough is essentially worth 4 CON points in HP (vs. a single API of 2 in CON --- yes, the non-HP bonuses are lost).
Initially I was looking at GWM, PAM, and Slasher...with +4 to strength for the other two "skill ups".
Well it depends... and unless you build a 20 lvl char to play a one off... you will get the feel of the character as you play your campaing, and decide what you need at every ASI/Feat Level.
Any optimizer will cringe at not getting STR to 20 (and most anybody here will tell you to do that as a priority), because the numerical bonus its all-around good for every situation, but not necessary every time ( STR augments your dmg, bonus to hit, STR ST, and bonus on certain skills and Carrying capacity). ASIs on CON can upgrade your HP, Con ST, HD healing, and unless you use Armor (half plate i pressume) your AC. Tough does give you more HP per lvl, but doesnt improve in other areas, for example, so its a choice.
Feats on their part offer options not normally available anywhere (there are class/subclass features or spells that work essentially as Feats), so they are really appealing.
My advice. See how the character party and dynamics are during play, and then decide which feats and which ASIs you take when... not every planned build stays that way 100% of the time, many things vary from subclass choice, party composition, table playing style, DM playing style and campaing, so take that into account.
Other than being stuck with set stats for saves purposes I believe it is doable. One note, just based on your feats, you are limited to the Glaive and the Halberd (both have reach, are heavy, and do slash damage)
Just food for thought, If I was doing the same idea for a build, I would pick Piercer instead of Slasher ( Reroll those 1s for damage, and the third bullet point is basically an extra Brutal critical, but would limit me to the Pike, but would also help out more ranged options) as I see Barbarians as burst damage specialists and less on the control side.
I also like Aberrant Dragonmark on my Barbarians. I might replace Sentinel (although the PAM+Sent combo is strong) with a focus on defending my squishes with rotation casting of Mage Armor. The cantrip and up to +10 THP are just bonus.
There are a number of other good feats that offer a +1 to dex, like Resilient or Skill Expert. Also Resilient will do more to keep you alive than Tough will. At 20th level it just takes two breath weapon attacks from an Ancient Brass Dragon to avoid more damage then the hp gained from Toughness.
Without knowing more about your build I would probably recommend PAM, +2 Str, GWM, Sentinel, +2 Str.
So you know what subclass you were going to go with?
Other than being stuck with set stats for saves purposes I believe it is doable....CUT for brevity
I had to SUPER fast create this character. When I found out someone else was playing a cleric, I quick shifted to barb, for party balance...and I am not much of a barb player. As such, I made some stat allocation mistakes. The DM let me do some very minor adjustments. Now my DEX is 14. As such, I can readjust to:
GWM, PAM, Resilient:WIS, Sentinel --- and lucky, slasher, or tough depending on saves, peel, or hp needs.
Resilient is the key difference. This gets me from 11 to 12 on WIS and ALSO WIS proficiency. This CLEARLY shores up the biggest weakness on the character (the second "core weakness" being psychic damage, which is a MUCH more niche problem to deal with).
As per my above posts, if someone can show me where a +2 to strength is in better than any of those, and I will get REAL interested. I have seen some arguments, but the math does not work (UNLESS Jkrentzien's advice above needs to be adhered to...which would mean the DM is doing stuff I have not seen...and not really every heard of...before).
I am pretty convinced that [STR 20] < [STR 16 + two feats]...due mostly to math (combined with a little "logic/common sense"). In general, for a barb, it seems that the feats are better when considering both 1) general utility and 2) multiple "more common contextual usability/utility issues". To be a bit flippant about it (for emphasis, not because the following is strictly "true"), "you can have +2 to hit OR two feats that do a A LOT, LOT more in many, many ways". Certainly that is a massive oversimplification, but I think it bears out (and not even very closely) when all the complexities are unpacked.
To be clear, the previous paragraph seems to hold mathematically "true" MOST of the time. There are exceptions, but they seem to be few. Further, not only do the exceptions seem to be few, but they also seem to have much lower impact. In short, 1) the feats seems to have have a much larger and more reliable impact compared to the ASIs, and 2) when the ASIs are better, it is almost always a borderline upgrade/case. Thus the old pithy aphorism "the exception(s) prove(s) the rule". As far as I can tell at this point (and I am willing to change this overarching stance if data dictates), an "optimizer that cringes" at not hitting STR=20 may not be too adept at theorycrafting an optimized character.
OR, alternatively, there is something the math misses (i.e., the variables included in the analysis are faulty to a point wherein the analysis is wrong).
I am attempting to exploring the possibility of ORs I have missed herein. I am not trying to push a claim inflexibly. BUT, it is a claim (not mine...totally stolen) that maths out "the best" from everything I can figure (i.e., what I can validate from reading through others' number crunching). I think you hit most of the key dialectics between ASI and Feats. The question (or maybe challenge is), "Can anyone show that taking more ASIs is overarchingly (or even in most contextual situations) equal or better to taking a feat?". I have not seen it...if it exists, I really wanna see it!!!
Regarding your CON and STR "additional benefits" (i.e., NOT the HP increases and NOT the Hit/Damage/Armor increases)...yes...100%. This is a core thing people invoke in favor of taking ASIs. However, even after combining these ASI additional benefits with the HP/hit/damage/armor increases, ASIs still fall far short of adding impact compared to the feats (again math...unless you can show otherwise via math). From what I can see, most of the people who "take the side of ASI" usually look like they are scrambling to "win the argument". They put things up like (paraphrasing) "IF conditions 1, 2, 3, 4, 5... are in play, THEN ASIs are better"...
AND they are usually right in relation to certain relatively specific contexts they conjure...
AND those contexts usually (always?) are sort of, IMO, "kinda dumb".
Occasionally (see your "advice" section) the conditions MIGHT align in a way that makes ASIs better. I have never seen such a situation. Hell, I have never even HEARD of all the necessary conditions coming together like that. That just means the exceptions in this case proves the rule (IMO). AND it also means, watch for the times the exceptions occur so adaptation can occur.
Further, in those conjured, contrived situations, the API advantage is usually negligible. Here is another vast overstatement/oversimplification:
---Feats=10 vs. ASI=5 in most situations. HOWEVER, in some situations (which are very rare, or maybe even nonexistent) Feats=4 and ASI=5.
I am not claiming the ASIs are not good. They clearly are good. But that is not the question. The question is "Do ASIs outstrip feats in most situations that you will encounter?" Again the argument can be mathematically shown that at times the ASIs COULD better...but most of the time (and perhaps in ALL situations that 99.9% of us will experience), they are worse.
I think your last advice is always true. I already thought the same (and adjust). Still, you never know what others know (e.g., that we already agreed before you asked), which makes that comment valuable. It allows you to know my current stance (and vice versa). You now know we (already) had a shared space...and so do I.
That said, I am theorycrafting...which is different from your advice. I know how to make a glass cannon in video games I play...which let's me "backward optimize" from 100% damage optimization to 100-X% damage wherein X equals losing damage for more survivability/utility/etc. Knowing the theoretical informs the practical (and vice versa...but theoretical--> practical is the start, rather than the end, for me). So I am trying to figure that out here (except the 100% is not necessarily JUST damage...it is more complex here).
Thanks for the input. If you have more to say, I would love to hear it! :) + <3
Without knowing more about your build I would probably recommend PAM, +2 Str, GWM, Sentinel, +2 Str
Totem subclass. Was considering Zealot and the...one that protects my party with ancient spirits.
See above responses...some things changed. TL;DR --- No need for +1 to DEX (which frees up a feat to take Resilient, thus shoring up the massive WIS weaknesses)...and the projected feats are now GWM, PAM, Resilient:WIS, Sentinel --- and lucky, slasher, or tough depending on saves, peel, or hp needs.
Not sure which I will take first, but I will wait for WIS issues to be come consistently problematic before taking Resilient (maybe 3rd feat). PAM will be 4th or 8th. Which means GWM or Sentinel will be really late...which negates a decent amount of utility they would provide.
As of now, I am leaning (in order): PAM, Sentinel, GWM, Resilient, dealer's choice.
That said, I think your comments were spot on.
Slasher was primarily to slow down enemies so they could not get to my party. Some offense there, but the defense was the core reason. I felt is was the weakest option, but still more valuable than an ASI. At this point, however, the +1 is wasted (again see above responses). Lucky or Tough will probably be in (and slasher almost definitely out). Plus, Sentinel + PAM should probably be PLENTY enough to ignore Slasher now.
You hit on another key thing I was thinking through with Tough...is the 40 hp (at lvl 20 that is) enough to be worth it. Your comment about the dragon damage is exactly the type of stuff I have been considering. THAT said, tough provides the HP of two+2 CON ASIs. That hits at core issue of the OP (also see my LONGER reply post above). If 40 hp (tough) is not "worth", then 20 hp (a full ASI in CON) is obv. worse.
That said, people HAVE argued that the "additional benefits" are great enough to warrant a +2 CON ASI or ASIs...which, mathematically, does not hold to an equivalent amount of feats. As such, IMO (i.e., math), ASI CON is pretty much never worth (unless you have a weird situation that pretty much never will, and maybe never HAS, come up). As such keeping my CON at 16 is preferable to using ASI(s) to bump it to 18 or 20.
The key exception I could ID would be adding +1 to CON and +1 to another stat because they both are upping to the next even number (and going from a +1 to a +2 in both stats). But to me, that does not "really" qualify as CON stacking (and the situation should have been avoided at character selection if at all possible).
So we are pretty much in agreement except for the piece I didn't cut above. And we MIGHT even agree there (if there is some subclass/build issue I need to consider). But here is the piece I would like to hear a reply to.
Why take +2 to a STR ASI over a feat...EVER!!!! Not trying to be provocative. I think the math is just CLEARLY on the side of the feats.
I think your recommended build is "safe"...but the feats are just as safe...but better better. BUT that is why I am posting. Am I wrong? If so, how so?
Without knowing more about your build I would probably recommend PAM, +2 Str, GWM, Sentinel, +2 Str
CUT for brevity...
I think your recommended build is "safe"...but the feats are just as safe...but better better. BUT that is why I am posting. Am I wrong? If so, how so?
Hope you respond!!!! <3
The reason I put the +2 Strength, and arguably PAM, ahead of GWM is due to risk management reasons. Against an enemy of CR equal to your level with a normal AC (or lower) GWM will yield better damage on average than +2 Strength. However the particularly dangerous encounters are typically against an enemy with higher CR than your level and possibly higher than normal AC for their CR, and in this scenario GWM generally performs worse than +2 Strength. But this is a matter of personal preference and I am not much of a fan of the feast or famine play experience that is GWM.
I think you would appreciate seeing the math I use when analyzing feats like GWM or PAM so I will share an example. Lets consider two 8th level Barbarians that started off with 16 Strength. One raised their Strength to 20, and the other took PAM and GWM. Lets see how they do against a CR 8 enemy with a 16 AC when attacking recklessly:
2 glaive attacks((hit chance)(average damage on hit) + (crit chance)(average bonus damage on crit)) + (chance for at least one crit)(GWM BA attack) + (chance of no crits)(PAM BA attack) 2((1 - 0.7^2)(5.5 + 3 + 2 + 10) + (1 - 0.95^2)(5.5)) + (1 - 0.95^4)((1 - 0.7^2)(5.5 + 3 + 2 + 10) + (1 - 0.95^2)(5.5)) + (0.95^4)((1 - 0.7^2)(2.5 + 3 + 2 + 10) + (1 - 0.95^2)(2.5)) = ~31.49 DPR
It might seem odd I am using the miss/no crit chance and subtracting that from 1 but it is just simpler to express the chance of at least one success out of N die rolls this way. If anyone has any questions please ask!
It is pretty clear that PAM and GWM do better than simply raising Strength though in normal situations. But if the targets AC is 18 instead of 16 it is a different story. In this scenario the 20 Strength Barbarian is doing ~23.13 DPR and the PAM/GWM Barbarian is doing ~22.63 DPR using the -5/+10 trade off. It is still worth it for the PAM/GWM Barbarian to do so but only just, when making straight attacks they average ~21.64 DPR.
A few notes about the above example: first, I didn't model the affect of reaction attacks. Doing so requires making assumptions on how often they will come up that I feel are hard to justify so I simply left it out. This is worth pointing out because using this model to compare GWM to PAM will show GWM as the better option in normal situations, but this overlooks the fact that PAM gives another way to attack with your reaction. This model also ignores the BA attack GWM gives when you kill a creature. Doing so would require making more assumptions about the available targets beyond their AC and then you would also want to account for overkill damage. Finally, this only looks at one round of combat with all possible actions spent attacking. This is not always possible, particularly with the Barbarian needing to activate rage. When I have the time I like to calculate the expected damage of a multi-round encounter or even an adventuring day with a short rest if I need to account for short vs. long rest resources. If you really want to go all out you can put this all in a spreadsheet like Google Sheets and compare the difference in damage between two builds at multiple levels and against multiple ACs.
Ok, you apparently have it figured out, which is fine. Just remember that theorycrafting falls flat when it faces a real game, So be flexible with your build choices (as much as you can given the choices).
There is nothing wrong with the 5 Feat build in any character, they are all possible and fun (given the extra utility feats give over ASI, as you explained).
I too therycraft my builds, picking either ASI or the most important feats as early as I can, then leave the later choices "open" (I make a list of things). Even then it could change (an unexpexted multiclass, or taking resilient or similar module/chapter needed feat earlier).
In the end, ASIs just give you better accuracy at a task. It matters or not depending on encuenter, party, table play, DM... and how your dice are rolling.
The reason I put the +2 Strength, and arguably PAM, ahead of GWM is due to risk management reasons. CUT for brevity
Yep...all that post. I didn't double check your math (Yours or stolen? Either is fine but curious), because the overarching numbers generally seem in the right ballpark (or are just straight right) from all I have seen...
But there is more on both sides (and I assume you know most/all of it, since you already listed a few of them in that final paragraph). Still, I think cutting the analysis down to those simple pieces (which, again, I am used to) seems right. It is sorta like a video game where a weapon has damage stats. That stat is a core comparison point, but hardly tells you the character's final dps output.
One core piece that gets interesting are all the free advantage attacks...but I do not want to beat a dead horse here (you probably know about all that).
In the end, outside of certain situations (i.e., armor classes from about...oof i would have to go look...17 or so to whatever is miss everything except crits...maybe 23...I will go look later) GWM can get dicey (and it has been recommended to NOT invoke the -5/+10 in such fights). However, when you need a crit to hit (sans GWM), then GWM is actually good again.
And all of this stuff needs to contextuallyaccount for analyses of monsters that show such ACs occur for a relativelysmall amount of creatures...and it is more of an endgame problem.
Still, I feel you about feast/famine builds...and GWM is rough in that regard. I come from games where Hit>>>>>Crit...almost always, so GWM scares me. BUT, the math seems to work over STR (like 80% of the time...I will have to check that too...I cannot remember the exact number...but it is way better/higher than an ASI). I will take it....but...yea...hit issues suck.
And the other feats...well some are close in damage, some are worse in damage (but add other important things), and some HAVE no damage (we take the feats for other reasons). It is pretty easy to argue that the best 5-10 (just a wild ass guess on how many fit) are clearly better than an ASI in MOST situations...as you showed above.
Ok, you apparently have it figured out, which is fine. Just remember that theorycrafting falls flat when it faces a real game, So be flexible with your build choices (as much as you can given the choices). CUT for brevity...
I am not 100% convinced I have it figured out. I am convinced that I have yet to read a clear counterargument. Hence this thread to fish for such counters.
I agree generally with what you are saying, but I would not characterize theorycrafting as "falling flat". Most times my theorycrafting needs no adjustment...and sometimes (as you note) it does. However, when it does need adjustment, I would generally say the adjustments are almost always "small" and are due to damage not being an issue (e.g., Resilient is reaaaaaaal good).
In the end, I would rather have an well delineated, optimized map from which to diverge than not. But, I think you will probably buy this paragraph anyways!
Well it depends... and unless you build a 20 lvl char to play a one off... you will get the feel of the character as you play your campaing, and decide what you need at every ASI/Feat Level.
Any optimizer will cringe at not getting STR to 20 (and most anybody here will tell you to do that as a priority), because the numerical bonus its all-around good for every situation, but not necessary every time ( STR augments your dmg, bonus to hit, STR ST, and bonus on certain skills and Carrying capacity).
ASIs on CON can upgrade your HP, Con ST, HD healing, and unless you use Armor (half plate i pressume) your AC. Tough does give you more HP per lvl, but doesnt improve in other areas, for example, so its a choice.
Feats on their part offer options not normally available anywhere (there are class/subclass features or spells that work essentially as Feats), so they are really appealing.
My advice.
See how the character party and dynamics are during play, and then decide which feats and which ASIs you take when... not every planned build stays that way 100% of the time, many things vary from subclass choice, party composition, table playing style, DM playing style and campaing, so take that into account.
Other than being stuck with set stats for saves purposes I believe it is doable. One note, just based on your feats, you are limited to the Glaive and the Halberd (both have reach, are heavy, and do slash damage)
Just food for thought, If I was doing the same idea for a build, I would pick Piercer instead of Slasher ( Reroll those 1s for damage, and the third bullet point is basically an extra Brutal critical, but would limit me to the Pike, but would also help out more ranged options) as I see Barbarians as burst damage specialists and less on the control side.
I also like Aberrant Dragonmark on my Barbarians. I might replace Sentinel (although the PAM+Sent combo is strong) with a focus on defending my squishes with rotation casting of Mage Armor. The cantrip and up to +10 THP are just bonus.
Quick question: why slasher?
There are a number of other good feats that offer a +1 to dex, like Resilient or Skill Expert. Also Resilient will do more to keep you alive than Tough will. At 20th level it just takes two breath weapon attacks from an Ancient Brass Dragon to avoid more damage then the hp gained from Toughness.
Without knowing more about your build I would probably recommend PAM, +2 Str, GWM, Sentinel, +2 Str.
So you know what subclass you were going to go with?
I had to SUPER fast create this character. When I found out someone else was playing a cleric, I quick shifted to barb, for party balance...and I am not much of a barb player. As such, I made some stat allocation mistakes. The DM let me do some very minor adjustments. Now my DEX is 14. As such, I can readjust to:
GWM, PAM, Resilient:WIS, Sentinel --- and lucky, slasher, or tough depending on saves, peel, or hp needs.
Resilient is the key difference. This gets me from 11 to 12 on WIS and ALSO WIS proficiency. This CLEARLY shores up the biggest weakness on the character (the second "core weakness" being psychic damage, which is a MUCH more niche problem to deal with).
As per my above posts, if someone can show me where a +2 to strength is in better than any of those, and I will get REAL interested. I have seen some arguments, but the math does not work (UNLESS Jkrentzien's advice above needs to be adhered to...which would mean the DM is doing stuff I have not seen...and not really every heard of...before).
I am with you though. Solid post!
Yes...most all of that. Except...
I am pretty convinced that [STR 20] < [STR 16 + two feats]...due mostly to math (combined with a little "logic/common sense"). In general, for a barb, it seems that the feats are better when considering both 1) general utility and 2) multiple "more common contextual usability/utility issues". To be a bit flippant about it (for emphasis, not because the following is strictly "true"), "you can have +2 to hit OR two feats that do a A LOT, LOT more in many, many ways". Certainly that is a massive oversimplification, but I think it bears out (and not even very closely) when all the complexities are unpacked.
To be clear, the previous paragraph seems to hold mathematically "true" MOST of the time. There are exceptions, but they seem to be few. Further, not only do the exceptions seem to be few, but they also seem to have much lower impact. In short, 1) the feats seems to have have a much larger and more reliable impact compared to the ASIs, and 2) when the ASIs are better, it is almost always a borderline upgrade/case. Thus the old pithy aphorism "the exception(s) prove(s) the rule". As far as I can tell at this point (and I am willing to change this overarching stance if data dictates), an "optimizer that cringes" at not hitting STR=20 may not be too adept at theorycrafting an optimized character.
OR, alternatively, there is something the math misses (i.e., the variables included in the analysis are faulty to a point wherein the analysis is wrong).
I am attempting to exploring the possibility of ORs I have missed herein. I am not trying to push a claim inflexibly. BUT, it is a claim (not mine...totally stolen) that maths out "the best" from everything I can figure (i.e., what I can validate from reading through others' number crunching). I think you hit most of the key dialectics between ASI and Feats. The question (or maybe challenge is), "Can anyone show that taking more ASIs is overarchingly (or even in most contextual situations) equal or better to taking a feat?". I have not seen it...if it exists, I really wanna see it!!!
Regarding your CON and STR "additional benefits" (i.e., NOT the HP increases and NOT the Hit/Damage/Armor increases)...yes...100%. This is a core thing people invoke in favor of taking ASIs. However, even after combining these ASI additional benefits with the HP/hit/damage/armor increases, ASIs still fall far short of adding impact compared to the feats (again math...unless you can show otherwise via math). From what I can see, most of the people who "take the side of ASI" usually look like they are scrambling to "win the argument". They put things up like (paraphrasing) "IF conditions 1, 2, 3, 4, 5... are in play, THEN ASIs are better"...
AND they are usually right in relation to certain relatively specific contexts they conjure...
AND those contexts usually (always?) are sort of, IMO, "kinda dumb".
Occasionally (see your "advice" section) the conditions MIGHT align in a way that makes ASIs better. I have never seen such a situation. Hell, I have never even HEARD of all the necessary conditions coming together like that. That just means the exceptions in this case proves the rule (IMO). AND it also means, watch for the times the exceptions occur so adaptation can occur.
Further, in those conjured, contrived situations, the API advantage is usually negligible. Here is another vast overstatement/oversimplification:
---Feats=10 vs. ASI=5 in most situations. HOWEVER, in some situations (which are very rare, or maybe even nonexistent) Feats=4 and ASI=5.
I am not claiming the ASIs are not good. They clearly are good. But that is not the question. The question is "Do ASIs outstrip feats in most situations that you will encounter?" Again the argument can be mathematically shown that at times the ASIs COULD better...but most of the time (and perhaps in ALL situations that 99.9% of us will experience), they are worse.
I think your last advice is always true. I already thought the same (and adjust). Still, you never know what others know (e.g., that we already agreed before you asked), which makes that comment valuable. It allows you to know my current stance (and vice versa). You now know we (already) had a shared space...and so do I.
That said, I am theorycrafting...which is different from your advice. I know how to make a glass cannon in video games I play...which let's me "backward optimize" from 100% damage optimization to 100-X% damage wherein X equals losing damage for more survivability/utility/etc. Knowing the theoretical informs the practical (and vice versa...but theoretical--> practical is the start, rather than the end, for me). So I am trying to figure that out here (except the 100% is not necessarily JUST damage...it is more complex here).
Thanks for the input. If you have more to say, I would love to hear it! :) + <3
Totem subclass. Was considering Zealot and the...one that protects my party with ancient spirits.
See above responses...some things changed. TL;DR --- No need for +1 to DEX (which frees up a feat to take Resilient, thus shoring up the massive WIS weaknesses)...and the projected feats are now GWM, PAM, Resilient:WIS, Sentinel --- and lucky, slasher, or tough depending on saves, peel, or hp needs.
Not sure which I will take first, but I will wait for WIS issues to be come consistently problematic before taking Resilient (maybe 3rd feat). PAM will be 4th or 8th. Which means GWM or Sentinel will be really late...which negates a decent amount of utility they would provide.
As of now, I am leaning (in order): PAM, Sentinel, GWM, Resilient, dealer's choice.
That said, I think your comments were spot on.
Slasher was primarily to slow down enemies so they could not get to my party. Some offense there, but the defense was the core reason. I felt is was the weakest option, but still more valuable than an ASI. At this point, however, the +1 is wasted (again see above responses). Lucky or Tough will probably be in (and slasher almost definitely out). Plus, Sentinel + PAM should probably be PLENTY enough to ignore Slasher now.
You hit on another key thing I was thinking through with Tough...is the 40 hp (at lvl 20 that is) enough to be worth it. Your comment about the dragon damage is exactly the type of stuff I have been considering. THAT said, tough provides the HP of two +2 CON ASIs. That hits at core issue of the OP (also see my LONGER reply post above). If 40 hp (tough) is not "worth", then 20 hp (a full ASI in CON) is obv. worse.
That said, people HAVE argued that the "additional benefits" are great enough to warrant a +2 CON ASI or ASIs...which, mathematically, does not hold to an equivalent amount of feats. As such, IMO (i.e., math), ASI CON is pretty much never worth (unless you have a weird situation that pretty much never will, and maybe never HAS, come up). As such keeping my CON at 16 is preferable to using ASI(s) to bump it to 18 or 20.
The key exception I could ID would be adding +1 to CON and +1 to another stat because they both are upping to the next even number (and going from a +1 to a +2 in both stats). But to me, that does not "really" qualify as CON stacking (and the situation should have been avoided at character selection if at all possible).
So we are pretty much in agreement except for the piece I didn't cut above. And we MIGHT even agree there (if there is some subclass/build issue I need to consider). But here is the piece I would like to hear a reply to.
Why take +2 to a STR ASI over a feat...EVER!!!! Not trying to be provocative. I think the math is just CLEARLY on the side of the feats.
I think your recommended build is "safe"...but the feats are just as safe...but better better. BUT that is why I am posting. Am I wrong? If so, how so?
Hope you respond!!!! <3
The reason I put the +2 Strength, and arguably PAM, ahead of GWM is due to risk management reasons. Against an enemy of CR equal to your level with a normal AC (or lower) GWM will yield better damage on average than +2 Strength. However the particularly dangerous encounters are typically against an enemy with higher CR than your level and possibly higher than normal AC for their CR, and in this scenario GWM generally performs worse than +2 Strength. But this is a matter of personal preference and I am not much of a fan of the feast or famine play experience that is GWM.
I think you would appreciate seeing the math I use when analyzing feats like GWM or PAM so I will share an example. Lets consider two 8th level Barbarians that started off with 16 Strength. One raised their Strength to 20, and the other took PAM and GWM. Lets see how they do against a CR 8 enemy with a 16 AC when attacking recklessly:
20 Strength Barb:
2 greatsword attacks((hit chance)(average damage on hit) + (crit chance)(average bonus damage on crit))
2((1 - 0.35^2)(7 + 5 + 2) + (1 - 0.95^2)(3.5)) = ~25.25 DPR
PAM+GWM Barb:
2 glaive attacks((hit chance)(average damage on hit) + (crit chance)(average bonus damage on crit)) + (chance for at least one crit)(GWM BA attack) + (chance of no crits)(PAM BA attack)
2((1 - 0.7^2)(5.5 + 3 + 2 + 10) + (1 - 0.95^2)(5.5)) + (1 - 0.95^4)((1 - 0.7^2)(5.5 + 3 + 2 + 10) + (1 - 0.95^2)(5.5)) + (0.95^4)((1 - 0.7^2)(2.5 + 3 + 2 + 10) + (1 - 0.95^2)(2.5)) = ~31.49 DPR
It might seem odd I am using the miss/no crit chance and subtracting that from 1 but it is just simpler to express the chance of at least one success out of N die rolls this way. If anyone has any questions please ask!
It is pretty clear that PAM and GWM do better than simply raising Strength though in normal situations. But if the targets AC is 18 instead of 16 it is a different story. In this scenario the 20 Strength Barbarian is doing ~23.13 DPR and the PAM/GWM Barbarian is doing ~22.63 DPR using the -5/+10 trade off. It is still worth it for the PAM/GWM Barbarian to do so but only just, when making straight attacks they average ~21.64 DPR.
A few notes about the above example: first, I didn't model the affect of reaction attacks. Doing so requires making assumptions on how often they will come up that I feel are hard to justify so I simply left it out. This is worth pointing out because using this model to compare GWM to PAM will show GWM as the better option in normal situations, but this overlooks the fact that PAM gives another way to attack with your reaction. This model also ignores the BA attack GWM gives when you kill a creature. Doing so would require making more assumptions about the available targets beyond their AC and then you would also want to account for overkill damage. Finally, this only looks at one round of combat with all possible actions spent attacking. This is not always possible, particularly with the Barbarian needing to activate rage. When I have the time I like to calculate the expected damage of a multi-round encounter or even an adventuring day with a short rest if I need to account for short vs. long rest resources. If you really want to go all out you can put this all in a spreadsheet like Google Sheets and compare the difference in damage between two builds at multiple levels and against multiple ACs.
Ok, you apparently have it figured out, which is fine. Just remember that theorycrafting falls flat when it faces a real game, So be flexible with your build choices (as much as you can given the choices).
There is nothing wrong with the 5 Feat build in any character, they are all possible and fun (given the extra utility feats give over ASI, as you explained).
I too therycraft my builds, picking either ASI or the most important feats as early as I can, then leave the later choices "open" (I make a list of things). Even then it could change (an unexpexted multiclass, or taking resilient or similar module/chapter needed feat earlier).
In the end, ASIs just give you better accuracy at a task. It matters or not depending on encuenter, party, table play, DM... and how your dice are rolling.
Hope you have fun!
Yep...all that post. I didn't double check your math (Yours or stolen? Either is fine but curious), because the overarching numbers generally seem in the right ballpark (or are just straight right) from all I have seen...
But there is more on both sides (and I assume you know most/all of it, since you already listed a few of them in that final paragraph). Still, I think cutting the analysis down to those simple pieces (which, again, I am used to) seems right. It is sorta like a video game where a weapon has damage stats. That stat is a core comparison point, but hardly tells you the character's final dps output.
One core piece that gets interesting are all the free advantage attacks...but I do not want to beat a dead horse here (you probably know about all that).
In the end, outside of certain situations (i.e., armor classes from about...oof i would have to go look...17 or so to whatever is miss everything except crits...maybe 23...I will go look later) GWM can get dicey (and it has been recommended to NOT invoke the -5/+10 in such fights). However, when you need a crit to hit (sans GWM), then GWM is actually good again.
And all of this stuff needs to contextuallyaccount for analyses of monsters that show such ACs occur for a relatively small amount of creatures...and it is more of an endgame problem.
Still, I feel you about feast/famine builds...and GWM is rough in that regard. I come from games where Hit>>>>>Crit...almost always, so GWM scares me. BUT, the math seems to work over STR (like 80% of the time...I will have to check that too...I cannot remember the exact number...but it is way better/higher than an ASI). I will take it....but...yea...hit issues suck.
And the other feats...well some are close in damage, some are worse in damage (but add other important things), and some HAVE no damage (we take the feats for other reasons). It is pretty easy to argue that the best 5-10 (just a wild ass guess on how many fit) are clearly better than an ASI in MOST situations...as you showed above.
I am not 100% convinced I have it figured out. I am convinced that I have yet to read a clear counterargument. Hence this thread to fish for such counters.
I agree generally with what you are saying, but I would not characterize theorycrafting as "falling flat". Most times my theorycrafting needs no adjustment...and sometimes (as you note) it does. However, when it does need adjustment, I would generally say the adjustments are almost always "small" and are due to damage not being an issue (e.g., Resilient is reaaaaaaal good).
In the end, I would rather have an well delineated, optimized map from which to diverge than not. But, I think you will probably buy this paragraph anyways!