When speaking on a theoretical basis it is useful to think of the extremes.
Last edited:
-
The VOIDRUNNER'S CODEX is coming! Explore new worlds, fight oppressive empires, fend off fearsome aliens, and wield deadly psionics with this comprehensive boxed set expansion for 5E and A5E!
Battlerager....Overpowered?
- Thread starter Stalker0
- Start date
Plane Sailing
Astral Admin - Mwahahaha!
This is true, but it is also important to consider the middle range too; I was speaking up for the forgotten non-extremes
Cheers
WalterKovacs
First Post
On the Dwarf getting 11 temp HP at 15th level:
Assuming 22 Con [meaning he started at 18 probably]
He gets 6 for battlerager vigor. With Dwarf Stoneblood he gets to add an extra half his con modifier, making it 9. Improved Vigor would add another 2 at paragon tier, so that makes it 11 temp HP each time you get hit. An invigorating keyword power would only give you 8 temp HP each time.
On temp HP never stacking: The idea of allowing temp HP from the keyworded powers to stack is because if you constantly have temp HP from the normal ability, there would be no incentive if taking invigarating powers which give the same ammount and thus would rarely stack over the temp hp from battlerager vigor. There is only one way to make something invigorating, and that is an epic tier feat that applies to a single encounter attack power ... of which none give a fighter temporary hit points.
Other note: There is another feat at paragon tier, but this one applies to the damage bonus from battlerager vigor, not temp hp.
Assuming 22 Con [meaning he started at 18 probably]
He gets 6 for battlerager vigor. With Dwarf Stoneblood he gets to add an extra half his con modifier, making it 9. Improved Vigor would add another 2 at paragon tier, so that makes it 11 temp HP each time you get hit. An invigorating keyword power would only give you 8 temp HP each time.
On temp HP never stacking: The idea of allowing temp HP from the keyworded powers to stack is because if you constantly have temp HP from the normal ability, there would be no incentive if taking invigarating powers which give the same ammount and thus would rarely stack over the temp hp from battlerager vigor. There is only one way to make something invigorating, and that is an epic tier feat that applies to a single encounter attack power ... of which none give a fighter temporary hit points.
Other note: There is another feat at paragon tier, but this one applies to the damage bonus from battlerager vigor, not temp hp.
two
First Post
DFF Rate
Well that's not really the case. Everyone is glad when they hit. Just the hammer guys don't might AS MUCH when they miss.
Also, this is a very complicated question, because "in real life" there is the tricky business of "overkill."
Yea the sword does more damage, but how much of the time is it wasted, i.e. it kills the bad guy but a miss by the hammer guy (while doing less damage) also is enough to kill it? Or simply a hit by the hammer guy was enough too? In which case doing more damage like the sword can is "overkill" i.e. not needed, useless.
The time that more damage really matters in a fight is when it ends the fight sooner, i.e. you get a kill faster than the slightly-lower-damage guy.
So you need to look for times when the sword hit did enough damage (in aggregate including previous higher-damage hits) to drop the foe faster than the hammer guy would.
This is really hard to say and the only way to get a clear answer I think would be to run a simulation, like 10,000 fights vs. various enemies, and see which one really did better in the "drop foe faster" category.
You don't really care about damage after all, you care about dropping the enemy faster. They are related, but not in a straight-forward way (if you do 2x as much damage as another guy, I suspect your DFF rate will be more than 2x as much as the lower damage guy, probably sometimes like 3 or 3.5). When the damage output is very close (difference of +1 to +4)... I wonder.
My gut tells me that if you run a simulation vs. various types of opponents (high ac, moderate, low, lots of HP, few, etc.) there won't be a significant difference in "DFF" rate, i.e. "drop foe faster" rate.
But I can't say. My Excel-fu is, like, weak dude.
We'll just have to agree to disagree. I'd rather not have a character whose goal it is to shout "yay! I missed again!"
Well that's not really the case. Everyone is glad when they hit. Just the hammer guys don't might AS MUCH when they miss.
Also, this is a very complicated question, because "in real life" there is the tricky business of "overkill."
Yea the sword does more damage, but how much of the time is it wasted, i.e. it kills the bad guy but a miss by the hammer guy (while doing less damage) also is enough to kill it? Or simply a hit by the hammer guy was enough too? In which case doing more damage like the sword can is "overkill" i.e. not needed, useless.
The time that more damage really matters in a fight is when it ends the fight sooner, i.e. you get a kill faster than the slightly-lower-damage guy.
So you need to look for times when the sword hit did enough damage (in aggregate including previous higher-damage hits) to drop the foe faster than the hammer guy would.
This is really hard to say and the only way to get a clear answer I think would be to run a simulation, like 10,000 fights vs. various enemies, and see which one really did better in the "drop foe faster" category.
You don't really care about damage after all, you care about dropping the enemy faster. They are related, but not in a straight-forward way (if you do 2x as much damage as another guy, I suspect your DFF rate will be more than 2x as much as the lower damage guy, probably sometimes like 3 or 3.5). When the damage output is very close (difference of +1 to +4)... I wonder.
My gut tells me that if you run a simulation vs. various types of opponents (high ac, moderate, low, lots of HP, few, etc.) there won't be a significant difference in "DFF" rate, i.e. "drop foe faster" rate.
But I can't say. My Excel-fu is, like, weak dude.
James McMurray
First Post
We'll just have to agree to disagree.
The title of the thread asks us to examine whether the Battlerager is "overpowered." To honestly examine that issue you have to at least consider optimal builds. Additional, most of the preceding arguments about the power level of the Battlerager lean heavily on applying optimal stat choices, feat choices, and race choices to produce the most extreme examples possible.
Which has what relevance to the discussion as to whether or not the Battlerager is overpowered?
- Marty Lund
two
First Post
I don't disagree or agree with you really. I was saying that I really don't know and don't have the programming chops to find out.
I'm ignorant.
Lord Zardoz
Explorer
The relevance is subtle, but there. Basically, it is possible for something to be overpowered, but to not be a substantial problem in practice.
As an example, the 3.0 Haste spell and 3.0 Harm spell were overpowered (well, ok, outright broken). To have a significant and detrimental effect, all that had to happen was for them to show up in play on a regular basis. A more relevant example would be the 3.0 / 3.5 Cleric. There were a number of ways to optimize that class to make it the most combat effective build, and they did not take a whole lot of effort. Just cast a handfull of Buff spells and you could outfight the fighter.
Back to the topic at hand, its one thing if you can prove to an acceptable degree that the Battle Rager is broken when you assume the use of the Temp HP with the most optimal choice of both Feats and Powers combined with the optimal allocation of stats and using a particular weapon. It may be overpowered and better enough than the rest of the options to be a real problem when it shows up. But in practice, it probably will not hit that many games.
But if the BattleRager option is that much better than every other fighter build option, and all that has to be done to get the benefit is to choose BattleRager, than we have a real problem.
So on that note, does anyone here really think that BattleRager fighter is really that much better than any other fighter build option?
END COMMUNICATION
Nail
First Post
<Tangent Alert!>
In the games I play in, "optimization" is often talked about, but infrequently practiced. I think that's mostly because "optimization" takes a level of PC focus that most people find un-fun to play. That is, an optimized PC choice - discussed on the boards - is too narrow to play in a Real Game(tm). (Pssst: Don't tell my DM I said that!)
...so when talking about "Is this Overpowered?", it might be quite appropriate to consider "Will the optimized choices that lead this to be overpowered ever be used by a PC in my game?"
It's a legitimate tact, though only on a game-by-game basis.
I think for a con heavy fighter (your typical hammer fighter), its definately the best option.
For other fighter builds, it would depend on your con overall, at what point of con bonus does the battlerager ability become better than the +1 to attack rolls....+1, +2, +3?
Similar Threads
