Let's face it. Dual wielders are absolutely awesome but apparently to do damage you have to be a battle master GWM. Why is this so? Are any subclasses good for dual wielding? What are your dual wielding fighter builds? I'd really like to know your opinions.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
When you thought you knew about spellcasting - you played a warlock
Why are most bard colleges a pain to type? I mean bard college of valor, compare to champion or evoker. Same goes for sacred oaths: paladin oath of devotion. That's even worse.
I don't think WoCE were very creative with the rogue and ranger subclass titles. I mean ranger archeotype? Roguish archeotype? Bro! Fighters are better but still is somewhat unsatisfying compare to a monastatic tradition or sacred oath.
Use multiple damage types, and the Feats (Crusher, Slasher, Piercer) that go with them. This usually allows you to control the battlefield a little more consistently. With your Bonus Action shored up, focus in taking Features to give you reactions or shore up your weaknesses somehow.
Champion, Psi Warrior and PDK for this work well because they don’t have Subclass Features that will constantly compete for that Bonus Action. Champions work well because they get the extra Fighting Style and the C/S/P Feats give them something to do on their turn, Psi Warrior works well to add up the damage after an enemy is knocked prone by Telekinetic Thrust, and PDK abilities all reside within their existing Class Features.
Feats like Sentinel or Mage Slayer will shore up your Reactions and you’ll be fully capable at level 4 (or earlier with V. Human). Or focus on something else entirely 🙂
Fighting Style like Interception does the same (great for a dual-wielding Champion).
Dual Wielder allows you to swap out weapons quickly to maximize your C/S/P Feats when you need them.
When I build a character I build for Action Economy first and foremost - I always find a way to enable every Feature I have as much as possible. Damage output is often irrelevant when it comes down to deciding whether a class is fun. Besides, the statistical difference between GWM and no-GWM is often not as large as you think. Whereas having fun maximizing your actions every round, applying deleterious effects, moving them around, and using your Subclass Features each round is a lot of fun!
It's quite good actually. Especially if playing a small race. The thing is, it uses a bonus action, at higher levels you will find you need that bonus attack for a lot of different things and the extra attack will often seem like the less optimal choice. So in other words it's not the optimal choice and that's why people don't like it.
But if you use feats, and you should, then Polearm Master also give you a bonus attack and much more. And since you are then probably using a Heavy weapon you might as well pick up Great Weapon Master (this feat will surprisingly often also give you a bonus action attack) and suddenly you are doing a lot more damage.
So if you are only playing to level 10ish, don't use feats or are a small race, it can be quite good, sometimes, especially at earlier levels. A dual wielding halfling Fighter/Rogue is quite deadly, even if you don't end up using your offhand attack all the time.
There are long threads debating how to fix dual wielding; it's definitely not just a fighter issue. My personal fix is an edit to the Dual Wielder feat - instead of removing the light keyword requirement, it allows the TWF attack to be made as a part of the Attack action in order to free up your bonus action for other things. This is more impactful for rangers and rogues than fighters though, and generally focuses on adding utility instead of damage since you take a hit not using d8s. You will never catch up to GWM versus low AC enemies, but you're better against high AC.
Dual Wielders are actually the most damaging Fighters from levels 1 to 4. Just at level 5 once you get a second attack that DPR starts failing behind, but not that much.
Dual Wielders are actually the most damaging Fighters from levels 1 to 4. Just at level 5 once you get a second attack that DPR starts failing behind, but not that much.
That is true.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
When you thought you knew about spellcasting - you played a warlock
Why are most bard colleges a pain to type? I mean bard college of valor, compare to champion or evoker. Same goes for sacred oaths: paladin oath of devotion. That's even worse.
I don't think WoCE were very creative with the rogue and ranger subclass titles. I mean ranger archeotype? Roguish archeotype? Bro! Fighters are better but still is somewhat unsatisfying compare to a monastatic tradition or sacred oath.
And even after level 5, the gap is not that big until you start factoring things like Sharpshooter or Great Weapon Master. But then literally everything will lag behind those two, specially if they are coupled with CBE or PAM.
Dual Wielding starts to feeling lackluster because their unique feat is bad and the most effective route is to invest in ASI, probably DEX, that will give you not only damage and to hit, but also increase your AC, initiative and relevant skills.
But if your table is not hardcore optimized or you have a well balanced party, you can keep up as a dual wielder Fighter to higher levels and do really well in synergy with your party. More attacks means more clear chances to deploy some good battlemaster maneuvers and turn the tides of combat like goading strong enemies into attacking you instead of fragile allies or setting up distractions to give advantage to your Rogue friend.
The extra weapon of a dual wielder can be especially valuable when hacking into that paladin or other caster maintaining that bless or other spell.
A homebrew to buff dual-wielding could say that proficient use of a second weapon adds a point to AC. Something like this could come in at the same time as extra attack to keep a bit more balance with single weapon fighters.
Dual-wielding damage is competitive on it's own when compared to other base fighting styles, however on par damage isn't enough to justify why dual-wielders get a penalty while the other builds don't.
Dueling grants the ability to use a shield, 2-handed weapons have better crit & AoO damage & can still have free hand for stuff like casting spells, archery has benefit of range, and dual-wielders have to toss away their bonus action every turn.
Then it gets worse because GWM & SS exists. Then it gets even worse because PAM & CBE exists. (At least there's no +10/-5 feat for dueling I guess?)
Generally in a more non-optimized table it won't matter, because your damage is still competitive compared to GWF & Dueling fighting styles, and fighter's barely use their BA anyways, but when feats are considered dual-wielding tends to fall flat. Probably a few niche dual-wielding builds that make it more competitive, but it takes a lot more work compared to other fighting styles for way less effect.
Correct me if I'm wrong I haven't looked too much into martial stuff myself, I just lurk a lot and take mental notes of what I hear.
Edit: I guess you could argue GWFs also have a penalty in the form being forced into strength, but the GWM & PAM feats more than make up for that and with heavy armor it isn't too much of a downside. Also Hexblade. Or Battle Smith. Dual-wielders have no such option.
why not reflavor a GWM two-handed weapon user as a dual wielder? Your character now has the numerical power and melee capability of the meta, still lacks a shield, but now is communicated to everyone at the table as using two swords. Why not? One attack roll doesn't necessarily have to translate into one single attack. You can flavor an attack however you want, whether it's a flurry of slashes and cuts, or a single strike.
I once played a PAM/GWM user. But, I didn't want to play this character with a polearm in mind. What did I do? No, he's just got a really long, big two-handed sword. Nope, he's not making multiple attack rolls, he's swinging his big sword once, and all those attack rolls are simply the sum of the intensity of his swing.
So long as you're not breaking any rules or trying to cheese through mechanics with your reflavoring, you can do whatever you want and no one can say anything about it.
why not reflavor a GWM two-handed weapon user as a dual wielder? Your character now has the numerical power and melee capability of the meta, still lacks a shield, but now is communicated to everyone at the table as using two swords. Why not? One attack roll doesn't necessarily have to translate into one single attack. You can flavor an attack however you want, whether it's a flurry of slashes and cuts, or a single strike.
I once played a PAM/GWM user. But, I didn't want to play this character with a polearm in mind. What did I do? No, he's just got a really long, big two-handed sword. Nope, he's not making multiple attack rolls, he's swinging his big sword once, and all those attack rolls are simply the sum of the intensity of his swing.
So long as you're not breaking any rules or trying to cheese through mechanics with your reflavoring, you can do whatever you want and no one can say anything about it.
I like this approach...sorts out the math for you and you just say your 2d6 greatsword is actually two shortswords.
I think they are the best Two Weapon Fighters and I think GWM is overated. You can't match the damage from GWM it when it hits .... but it does not hit as much and when you factor that in the damage from GWM is not any better than TWF. A TWF Battlemaster is going to have more attacks and therefore more battlefield control options. You should start with a 17 Strength or Dexterity and take the piercer or slasher feat at 4th level.
A Ranger or Rogue 1-level dip works really well with this build to boost damage a bit. Running a 1d6 Sneak attack with 2-weapon fighting and shortswords will generally outrun a Greatsword and GWM in tier 1 and tier 2. Favored Foe and the +1d4 you get from it will be roughly equivalent.
I think they are the best Two Weapon Fighters and I think GWM is overated. You can't match the damage from GWM it when it hits .... but it does not hit as much and when you factor that in the damage from GWM is not any better than TWF. A TWF Battlemaster is going to have more attacks and therefore more battlefield control options. You should start with a 17 Strength or Dexterity and take the piercer or slasher feat at 4th level.
A Ranger or Rogue 1-level dip works really well with this build to boost damage a bit. Running a 1d6 Sneak attack with 2-weapon fighting and shortswords will generally outrun a Greatsword and GWM in tier 1 and tier 2. Favored Foe and the +1d4 you get from it will be roughly equivalent.
Actually the DPR estimates include chances to hit when factoring damage. They also give it across a wide spectrum of AC's.
The lower AC range GWM dominates then TWF slowly catches up with higher AC's.
The other factor is that GWM also pairs with Polearm master so you are getting a BA attack with GWM damage which is where the TWF really falls apart.
I think they are the best Two Weapon Fighters and I think GWM is overated. You can't match the damage from GWM it when it hits .... but it does not hit as much and when you factor that in the damage from GWM is not any better than TWF. A TWF Battlemaster is going to have more attacks and therefore more battlefield control options. You should start with a 17 Strength or Dexterity and take the piercer or slasher feat at 4th level.
A Ranger or Rogue 1-level dip works really well with this build to boost damage a bit. Running a 1d6 Sneak attack with 2-weapon fighting and shortswords will generally outrun a Greatsword and GWM in tier 1 and tier 2. Favored Foe and the +1d4 you get from it will be roughly equivalent.
Actually the DPR estimates include chances to hit when factoring damage. They also give it across a wide spectrum of AC's.
The lower AC range GWM dominates then TWF slowly catches up with higher AC's.
The other factor is that GWM also pairs with Polearm master so you are getting a BA attack with GWM damage which is where the TWF really falls apart.
If you do the DPR estimates you need to account for the strength bonus too on both the hit roll and the damage roll. People say GWM is a -5 to attack, +10 to damage. In tier 1 and tier 2 though, it is actually -6 to attack and a +9 to damage, because your strength is 2 points lower because you took the feat instead of an ASI. PAM is another point lost in attack and damage and another 1.5 points lost using a D10 weapon.
When using both PAM and GWM you are at -7 to attack and +6.5 to damage when compared with someone using a Greatsword who took +4 in ASI on strength.
I am not saying that combo is not powerful, but to compare DPR accurately in teir 1 and tier 2 you need to consider this in the math and if you do that GWM+PAM is far less powerful then people say. It is an entirely different story in tier 3 when you have enough ASIs to get a 20 AND have those feats.
I think they are the best Two Weapon Fighters and I think GWM is overated. You can't match the damage from GWM it when it hits .... but it does not hit as much and when you factor that in the damage from GWM is not any better than TWF. A TWF Battlemaster is going to have more attacks and therefore more battlefield control options. You should start with a 17 Strength or Dexterity and take the piercer or slasher feat at 4th level.
A Ranger or Rogue 1-level dip works really well with this build to boost damage a bit. Running a 1d6 Sneak attack with 2-weapon fighting and shortswords will generally outrun a Greatsword and GWM in tier 1 and tier 2. Favored Foe and the +1d4 you get from it will be roughly equivalent.
Actually the DPR estimates include chances to hit when factoring damage. They also give it across a wide spectrum of AC's.
The lower AC range GWM dominates then TWF slowly catches up with higher AC's.
The other factor is that GWM also pairs with Polearm master so you are getting a BA attack with GWM damage which is where the TWF really falls apart.
If you do the DPR estimates you need to account for the strength bonus too on both the hit roll and the damage roll. People say GWM is a -5 to attack, +10 to damage. In tier 1 and tier 2 though, it is actually -6 to attack and a +9 to damage, because your strength is 2 points lower because you took the feat instead of an ASI. PAM is another point lost in attack and damage and another 1.5 points lost using a D10 weapon.
When using both PAM and GWM you are at -7 to attack and +6.5 to damage when compared with someone using a Greatsword who took +4 in ASI on strength.
I am not saying that combo is not powerful, but to compare DPR accurately in teir 1 and tier 2 you need to consider this in the math and if you do that GWM+PAM is far less powerful then people say. It is an entirely different story in tier 3 when you have enough ASIs to get a 20 AND have those feats.
Zealot for example gets at will adv which effectively removes the -5 penalty for most of the AC average you see at T1 and T2.
I think you mean samurai
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
When you thought you knew about spellcasting - you played a warlock
Why are most bard colleges a pain to type? I mean bard college of valor, compare to champion or evoker. Same goes for sacred oaths: paladin oath of devotion. That's even worse.
I don't think WoCE were very creative with the rogue and ranger subclass titles. I mean ranger archeotype? Roguish archeotype? Bro! Fighters are better but still is somewhat unsatisfying compare to a monastatic tradition or sacred oath.
Look under level 5 Barbarian for example. It lists +5/-10 as +2 attack modifier. It is not +2 because that character only has a +6 to hit normally (+3 strength, +3 proficiency) because he took the GWM feat instead of an ASI. It should say a +1 on the attack modifier with -5/+10. Likewise the damage modifier is not a +16, it is a +15 (+3 strength, +2 rage, +10).
A 5th level Barbarian who took the ASI instread of GWM does have a base +7 attack and +6 damage, but the GWM Barbarian doesn't.
It is not just the GWM that is wrong, all the classes with feats are wrong.
Look under level 5 Barbarian for example. It lists +5/-10 as +2 attack modifier. It is not +2 because that character only has a +6 to hit normally (+3 strength, +3 proficiency) because he took the GWM feat instead of an ASI. It should say a +1 on the attack modifier with -5/+10. Likewise the damage modifier is not a +16, it is a +15 (+3 strength, +2 rage, +10).
A 5th level Barbarian who took the ASI instread of GWM does have a base +7 attack and +6 damage, but the GWM Barbarian doesn't.
It is not just the GWM that is wrong, all the classes with feats are wrong.
They are using v human.... So they get GWM at level one....
So they get the ASI.... It's right.
Even if you pick another race it's firmly in favor of GWM despite that +1 difference...
Look under level 5 Barbarian for example. It lists +5/-10 as +2 attack modifier. It is not +2 because that character only has a +6 to hit normally (+3 strength, +3 proficiency) because he took the GWM feat instead of an ASI. It should say a +1 on the attack modifier with -5/+10. Likewise the damage modifier is not a +16, it is a +15 (+3 strength, +2 rage, +10).
A 5th level Barbarian who took the ASI instread of GWM does have a base +7 attack and +6 damage, but the GWM Barbarian doesn't.
It is not just the GWM that is wrong, all the classes with feats are wrong.
They are using v human.... So they get GWM at level one....
So they get the ASI.... It's right.
Even if you pick another race it's firmly in favor of GWM despite that +1 difference...
He talks about Drow in the writeup.
In any case if it is V.Human than it is that race only, and I will point out that you could be a custom and start with an 18 strength AND Slasher or Piercer feat so it is still off.
If you do the math the GWM is not as big a deal as people make it out to be.
1. A 5th level fighter swinging a greatsword with GWM, GWF and 16 strength is doing 16 DPR against a 15AC opponent using -5/+10.
2. A raging Barbarian with 16 strength GWM doing it reckless is doing 27 against a 15 AC using +5/-10.
3. A Fighter using TWF, short swords with an 18 strength, piercer and TWF fighting style is doing 16 DPR vs a 15 AC opponent.
4. A raging Barbarian wielding 2 shortswords with no fighting style, 18 strength and piercer and using reckless is doing 22DPR vs a 15 AC opponent.
5. A Fighter with a 18 strength using Thrown Weapon Fighting style and throwing 3 hand axes a turn (extra attack plus bonus action) is doing 16 DPR against a 15AC.
6. A Fighter with a 16 strength using both Thrown Weapon fighting style and Two Weapon Fighting style from a feat is doing 16 DPR against a 15AC foe.
Changing the AC will change those numbers and the GWM characters will surge ahead at lower ACs but fall behind at higher ACs.
Let's face it. Dual wielders are absolutely awesome but apparently to do damage you have to be a battle master GWM. Why is this so? Are any subclasses good for dual wielding? What are your dual wielding fighter builds? I'd really like to know your opinions.
When you thought you knew about spellcasting - you played a warlock
Why are most bard colleges a pain to type? I mean bard college of valor, compare to champion or evoker. Same goes for sacred oaths: paladin oath of devotion. That's even worse.
I don't think WoCE were very creative with the rogue and ranger subclass titles. I mean ranger archeotype? Roguish archeotype? Bro! Fighters are better but still is somewhat unsatisfying compare to a monastatic tradition or sacred oath.
Use multiple damage types, and the Feats (Crusher, Slasher, Piercer) that go with them. This usually allows you to control the battlefield a little more consistently. With your Bonus Action shored up, focus in taking Features to give you reactions or shore up your weaknesses somehow.
Champion, Psi Warrior and PDK for this work well because they don’t have Subclass Features that will constantly compete for that Bonus Action. Champions work well because they get the extra Fighting Style and the C/S/P Feats give them something to do on their turn, Psi Warrior works well to add up the damage after an enemy is knocked prone by Telekinetic Thrust, and PDK abilities all reside within their existing Class Features.
Feats like Sentinel or Mage Slayer will shore up your Reactions and you’ll be fully capable at level 4 (or earlier with V. Human). Or focus on something else entirely 🙂
Fighting Style like Interception does the same (great for a dual-wielding Champion).
Dual Wielder allows you to swap out weapons quickly to maximize your C/S/P Feats when you need them.
When I build a character I build for Action Economy first and foremost - I always find a way to enable every Feature I have as much as possible. Damage output is often irrelevant when it comes down to deciding whether a class is fun. Besides, the statistical difference between GWM and no-GWM is often not as large as you think. Whereas having fun maximizing your actions every round, applying deleterious effects, moving them around, and using your Subclass Features each round is a lot of fun!
It's quite good actually. Especially if playing a small race. The thing is, it uses a bonus action, at higher levels you will find you need that bonus attack for a lot of different things and the extra attack will often seem like the less optimal choice. So in other words it's not the optimal choice and that's why people don't like it.
But if you use feats, and you should, then Polearm Master also give you a bonus attack and much more. And since you are then probably using a Heavy weapon you might as well pick up Great Weapon Master (this feat will surprisingly often also give you a bonus action attack) and suddenly you are doing a lot more damage.
So if you are only playing to level 10ish, don't use feats or are a small race, it can be quite good, sometimes, especially at earlier levels. A dual wielding halfling Fighter/Rogue is quite deadly, even if you don't end up using your offhand attack all the time.
There are long threads debating how to fix dual wielding; it's definitely not just a fighter issue. My personal fix is an edit to the Dual Wielder feat - instead of removing the light keyword requirement, it allows the TWF attack to be made as a part of the Attack action in order to free up your bonus action for other things. This is more impactful for rangers and rogues than fighters though, and generally focuses on adding utility instead of damage since you take a hit not using d8s. You will never catch up to GWM versus low AC enemies, but you're better against high AC.
My homebrew subclasses (full list here)
(Artificer) Swordmage | Glasswright | (Barbarian) Path of the Savage Embrace
(Bard) College of Dance | (Fighter) Warlord | Cannoneer
(Monk) Way of the Elements | (Ranger) Blade Dancer
(Rogue) DaggerMaster | Inquisitor | (Sorcerer) Riftwalker | Spellfist
(Warlock) The Swarm
Dual Wielders are actually the most damaging Fighters from levels 1 to 4. Just at level 5 once you get a second attack that DPR starts failing behind, but not that much.
That is true.
When you thought you knew about spellcasting - you played a warlock
Why are most bard colleges a pain to type? I mean bard college of valor, compare to champion or evoker. Same goes for sacred oaths: paladin oath of devotion. That's even worse.
I don't think WoCE were very creative with the rogue and ranger subclass titles. I mean ranger archeotype? Roguish archeotype? Bro! Fighters are better but still is somewhat unsatisfying compare to a monastatic tradition or sacred oath.
And even after level 5, the gap is not that big until you start factoring things like Sharpshooter or Great Weapon Master. But then literally everything will lag behind those two, specially if they are coupled with CBE or PAM.
Dual Wielding starts to feeling lackluster because their unique feat is bad and the most effective route is to invest in ASI, probably DEX, that will give you not only damage and to hit, but also increase your AC, initiative and relevant skills.
But if your table is not hardcore optimized or you have a well balanced party, you can keep up as a dual wielder Fighter to higher levels and do really well in synergy with your party. More attacks means more clear chances to deploy some good battlemaster maneuvers and turn the tides of combat like goading strong enemies into attacking you instead of fragile allies or setting up distractions to give advantage to your Rogue friend.
The extra weapon of a dual wielder can be especially valuable when hacking into that paladin or other caster maintaining that bless or other spell.
A homebrew to buff dual-wielding could say that proficient use of a second weapon adds a point to AC. Something like this could come in at the same time as extra attack to keep a bit more balance with single weapon fighters.
Dual-wielding damage is competitive on it's own when compared to other base fighting styles, however on par damage isn't enough to justify why dual-wielders get a penalty while the other builds don't.
Dueling grants the ability to use a shield, 2-handed weapons have better crit & AoO damage & can still have free hand for stuff like casting spells, archery has benefit of range, and dual-wielders have to toss away their bonus action every turn.
Then it gets worse because GWM & SS exists. Then it gets even worse because PAM & CBE exists. (At least there's no +10/-5 feat for dueling I guess?)
Generally in a more non-optimized table it won't matter, because your damage is still competitive compared to GWF & Dueling fighting styles, and fighter's barely use their BA anyways, but when feats are considered dual-wielding tends to fall flat. Probably a few niche dual-wielding builds that make it more competitive, but it takes a lot more work compared to other fighting styles for way less effect.
Correct me if I'm wrong I haven't looked too much into martial stuff myself, I just lurk a lot and take mental notes of what I hear.
Edit: I guess you could argue GWFs also have a penalty in the form being forced into strength, but the GWM & PAM feats more than make up for that and with heavy armor it isn't too much of a downside. Also Hexblade. Or Battle Smith. Dual-wielders have no such option.
if I edit a message, most of the time it's because of grammar. The rest of the time I'll put "Edit:" at the bottom.
Here's a thought:
why not reflavor a GWM two-handed weapon user as a dual wielder? Your character now has the numerical power and melee capability of the meta, still lacks a shield, but now is communicated to everyone at the table as using two swords. Why not? One attack roll doesn't necessarily have to translate into one single attack. You can flavor an attack however you want, whether it's a flurry of slashes and cuts, or a single strike.
I once played a PAM/GWM user. But, I didn't want to play this character with a polearm in mind. What did I do? No, he's just got a really long, big two-handed sword. Nope, he's not making multiple attack rolls, he's swinging his big sword once, and all those attack rolls are simply the sum of the intensity of his swing.
So long as you're not breaking any rules or trying to cheese through mechanics with your reflavoring, you can do whatever you want and no one can say anything about it.
I like this approach...sorts out the math for you and you just say your 2d6 greatsword is actually two shortswords.
I think they are the best Two Weapon Fighters and I think GWM is overated. You can't match the damage from GWM it when it hits .... but it does not hit as much and when you factor that in the damage from GWM is not any better than TWF. A TWF Battlemaster is going to have more attacks and therefore more battlefield control options. You should start with a 17 Strength or Dexterity and take the piercer or slasher feat at 4th level.
A Ranger or Rogue 1-level dip works really well with this build to boost damage a bit. Running a 1d6 Sneak attack with 2-weapon fighting and shortswords will generally outrun a Greatsword and GWM in tier 1 and tier 2. Favored Foe and the +1d4 you get from it will be roughly equivalent.
Actually the DPR estimates include chances to hit when factoring damage. They also give it across a wide spectrum of AC's.
The lower AC range GWM dominates then TWF slowly catches up with higher AC's.
The other factor is that GWM also pairs with Polearm master so you are getting a BA attack with GWM damage which is where the TWF really falls apart.
If you do the DPR estimates you need to account for the strength bonus too on both the hit roll and the damage roll. People say GWM is a -5 to attack, +10 to damage. In tier 1 and tier 2 though, it is actually -6 to attack and a +9 to damage, because your strength is 2 points lower because you took the feat instead of an ASI. PAM is another point lost in attack and damage and another 1.5 points lost using a D10 weapon.
When using both PAM and GWM you are at -7 to attack and +6.5 to damage when compared with someone using a Greatsword who took +4 in ASI on strength.
I am not saying that combo is not powerful, but to compare DPR accurately in teir 1 and tier 2 you need to consider this in the math and if you do that GWM+PAM is far less powerful then people say. It is an entirely different story in tier 3 when you have enough ASIs to get a 20 AND have those feats.
Math here:
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1sVbgG1No5PMMz4QbBnS4d0xSEPT0whP84J3iB2X_Mjk/edit?usp=drivesdk
Overall it's pretty dependent on subclass....
Zealot for example gets at will adv which effectively removes the -5 penalty for most of the AC average you see at T1 and T2.
Battlemaster gets precision die which also offsets.
Overall they are the ones that are much higher than twf
Edit: more sources using only the fighting Styles:
https://rpg.stackexchange.com/questions/44241/which-fighter-twf-fighter-vs-great-weapon-fighter-is-better-optimized-for-dea
I think you mean samurai
When you thought you knew about spellcasting - you played a warlock
Why are most bard colleges a pain to type? I mean bard college of valor, compare to champion or evoker. Same goes for sacred oaths: paladin oath of devotion. That's even worse.
I don't think WoCE were very creative with the rogue and ranger subclass titles. I mean ranger archeotype? Roguish archeotype? Bro! Fighters are better but still is somewhat unsatisfying compare to a monastatic tradition or sacred oath.
Nope.... Reckless attack my dudes
That math is wrong.
Look under level 5 Barbarian for example. It lists +5/-10 as +2 attack modifier. It is not +2 because that character only has a +6 to hit normally (+3 strength, +3 proficiency) because he took the GWM feat instead of an ASI. It should say a +1 on the attack modifier with -5/+10. Likewise the damage modifier is not a +16, it is a +15 (+3 strength, +2 rage, +10).
A 5th level Barbarian who took the ASI instread of GWM does have a base +7 attack and +6 damage, but the GWM Barbarian doesn't.
It is not just the GWM that is wrong, all the classes with feats are wrong.
They are using v human.... So they get GWM at level one....
So they get the ASI.... It's right.
Even if you pick another race it's firmly in favor of GWM despite that +1 difference...
He talks about Drow in the writeup.
In any case if it is V.Human than it is that race only, and I will point out that you could be a custom and start with an 18 strength AND Slasher or Piercer feat so it is still off.
If you do the math the GWM is not as big a deal as people make it out to be.
1. A 5th level fighter swinging a greatsword with GWM, GWF and 16 strength is doing 16 DPR against a 15AC opponent using -5/+10.
2. A raging Barbarian with 16 strength GWM doing it reckless is doing 27 against a 15 AC using +5/-10.
3. A Fighter using TWF, short swords with an 18 strength, piercer and TWF fighting style is doing 16 DPR vs a 15 AC opponent.
4. A raging Barbarian wielding 2 shortswords with no fighting style, 18 strength and piercer and using reckless is doing 22DPR vs a 15 AC opponent.
5. A Fighter with a 18 strength using Thrown Weapon Fighting style and throwing 3 hand axes a turn (extra attack plus bonus action) is doing 16 DPR against a 15AC.
6. A Fighter with a 16 strength using both Thrown Weapon fighting style and Two Weapon Fighting style from a feat is doing 16 DPR against a 15AC foe.
Changing the AC will change those numbers and the GWM characters will surge ahead at lower ACs but fall behind at higher ACs.