Parmandur
Book-Friend
So they'll have the Dualist fighting style, better AC, and still be making more hits and capable of using decent ranged weapons. Still better at fighting, still able to outlast the Rage in endurance.
False truisms in 5th edition
So they'll have the Dualist fighting style, better AC, and still be making more hits and capable of using decent ranged weapons. Still better at fighting, still able to outlast the Rage in endurance.
Ratskinner
Adventurer
I think, IME, that all the issues* that the OP brings up are simply encounter/campaign design (possibly DM) issues. I did several levels with a lot of encounters full of physical obstacles that required athletics checks**...my players openly discussed how STR(Athletics) was the most important Ability(skill) in the game. Ranged combat and Dex or speed-focused builds are easily limited with obstacles(walls, etc.) or tight spaces; and the same Athletics features and enemies that move quickly. Features that grant full cover aren't exactly difficult to add, either. All these things help to up the general difficulty of the combat side of the game as well.
I mean, if all your encounters take place on an open featureless plain/plane, then I think these issues are more prominent (I saw them in such encounters as well). But that's hardly surprising, is it? I'm often left wondering if the DMs that inspire these threads are really putting in the effort in their adjudication or encounter design. (Which seems quite at odds with the "optimization" attitude in general, what with throwing around words like "competitive" all the time.) I mean, if you want to up the importance of something in the game, all you have to do is design it or adjudicate it so that that thing is more important. What is "optimal" for 5e is in the hands of the DM, not the designers, IME.***
*except the Wizard one...I don't know anyone who feels negatively about wizards from actual play. I've seen wizards that take the role of Mr. Utility Knife and wizards that take the role of Mr. Destructo and they both work well enough to be satisfying. There is way more to being an effective combatant or character than DPR.
**Water features to leap over, ridges to climb, etc.
***With the glaring exception of the variable recharge times of different classes. The goofy "adventuring day" assumptions demand the DM deal with them somehow to reign in one class or the other. Keep the party away from long rests and watch the paladin turn into a shadow of the fighter, fail to put in enough encounters between long rests and the fighter lives in the shadow of the paladin. There are other 5e design decisions that I disagree with, this is the one that I simply cannot fathom and call "broken."
I mean, if all your encounters take place on an open featureless plain/plane, then I think these issues are more prominent (I saw them in such encounters as well). But that's hardly surprising, is it? I'm often left wondering if the DMs that inspire these threads are really putting in the effort in their adjudication or encounter design. (Which seems quite at odds with the "optimization" attitude in general, what with throwing around words like "competitive" all the time.) I mean, if you want to up the importance of something in the game, all you have to do is design it or adjudicate it so that that thing is more important. What is "optimal" for 5e is in the hands of the DM, not the designers, IME.***
*except the Wizard one...I don't know anyone who feels negatively about wizards from actual play. I've seen wizards that take the role of Mr. Utility Knife and wizards that take the role of Mr. Destructo and they both work well enough to be satisfying. There is way more to being an effective combatant or character than DPR.
**Water features to leap over, ridges to climb, etc.
***With the glaring exception of the variable recharge times of different classes. The goofy "adventuring day" assumptions demand the DM deal with them somehow to reign in one class or the other. Keep the party away from long rests and watch the paladin turn into a shadow of the fighter, fail to put in enough encounters between long rests and the fighter lives in the shadow of the paladin. There are other 5e design decisions that I disagree with, this is the one that I simply cannot fathom and call "broken."
MechaPilot
Explorer
Can you come over and tell my player he's doing it wrong; that he can't have a +1 AC from the Defensive fighting style because it makes him a worse fighter than the barbarian? The player made the choices he did because he wanted to have the least possible chance of getting hit by attacks and the least possible chance of failing the majority of saving throws. He wanted maximum survivability out of his "fighter," and he should forever be ashamed.
[SBLOCK]Look, and I'm putting this out there to anyone who disagrees with me about the barbarian being a better fighter than the fighter; have your own opinion. You're absolutely welcome to it. If your opinion is borne out in your play experiences, that's great. It's not reflected in mine. I have a game where the barbarian is a better fighter than both the champion and the eldritch knight. That doesn't mean that I or my players are doing anything wrong anymore than it means my experiences invalidate yours.
To those who say that feats are the problem, not the class, you're welcome to that opinion as well. However, it's my firm belief that if I disallowed feats at my table the player of the champion would pump his ASIs into Dex & Wis to try as hard as possible to achieve the same goals he's working toward with the resilience feats. And maybe that would make him a worse fighter than the barbarian. Maybe a fighter who aims for survivability is just a bad fighter, and the player should feel bad about the character he wanted to make and play.
[/SBLOCK]
mortwatcher
Explorer
not to harp too much on this, but shouldn't the 18-20 mean 15% crit chance, and thus using your formula be 67.5 total, 3.375 per swing and 0.45 difference (almost double of what you have)
not that is really makes up to the extra damage die anyway
Ash Mantle
Adventurer
But don't you get it? If you don't play a character that's only an effective combatant or with only DPR in mind then you're clearly playing it wrong!
/sarcasm
MechaPilot
Explorer
You are correct. I presented it wrong because I was initially planning to do all three scenarios (crit on 20, crit on 19-20, and crit on 18-20) but changed my mind at the last minute and deleted the wrong block of text.
Ovinomancer
No flips for you!
Really? I've run STK, so I'm familiar eith hiw fire giants are presented at that level. If you're talking about the one set encounter at that level, we both the giants were set dressing for the encounter. The random encounters are similarly windiw dressing, although you could start a fight there.
So, yeah, if your fighting fire giants instead of "encountering" them, that's either 9n the players forcing a fight, or the DM altering things (which I noted). And, finally, a single fire giant is a hard encounter for 4 6th level characters. Two is trip-deadly, but, IIRC, the random encounters were singlets.
Ovinomancer
No flips for you!
Sure. Has the champion achieved their goals, though? Their goal was to be a turtle, so are they? If so, then it's working. You should not compare the "focused on damage" barbarian to the "focused on defense" fighter on the basis of damage output alone.
Flip the question: how often does the barbarian get hit and fail saves compared to the fighter? Why aren't you complaining about how much easier it is to hit the barbarian than the fighter?
I know posters have been making recommendations to improve the fighter's dpr, but that's because it's the metric [MENTION=82779]MechaPilot[/MENTION] introduced.But don't you get it? If you don't play a character that's only an effective combatant or with only DPR in mind then you're clearly playing it wrong!
/sarcasm
Maxperson
Morkus from Orkus
This is how I feel about optimization. If you are having fun with it, have at it. For myself, I'm not going to gimp myself that way.
I'm glad that I don't care about the game math, because game isn't balanced around the optimized PC. It's balanced around the non-optimized PC. That means that since the DM for the optimized players is going to have to increase the challenge of the monsters to compensate for the increased DPR, I am getting the exact same experience in combat that the optimizers do. I am experiencing easy fights, moderate fights and challenging fights, and having lots of fun. In addition, I am experiencing the social and exploration pillars the same as they do, and in all likelihood I'm doing better at those since optimizers tend to optimize only for combat, leaving themselves weaker in the other areas.
Where are the optimizers gimping themselves you might ask? In PC choices. There are only a relatively few PC "builds" that are optimal. That means that the optimizer has highly limited himself in the number of character choices he has, where I have not done that. My choices include not only all the non-optimal "builds," but the optimal ones as well. I'd much rather have fun with the full range of PCs available to me, than just playing a few optimal "builds" over and over again.
I'm glad that I don't care about the game math, because game isn't balanced around the optimized PC. It's balanced around the non-optimized PC. That means that since the DM for the optimized players is going to have to increase the challenge of the monsters to compensate for the increased DPR, I am getting the exact same experience in combat that the optimizers do. I am experiencing easy fights, moderate fights and challenging fights, and having lots of fun. In addition, I am experiencing the social and exploration pillars the same as they do, and in all likelihood I'm doing better at those since optimizers tend to optimize only for combat, leaving themselves weaker in the other areas.
Where are the optimizers gimping themselves you might ask? In PC choices. There are only a relatively few PC "builds" that are optimal. That means that the optimizer has highly limited himself in the number of character choices he has, where I have not done that. My choices include not only all the non-optimal "builds," but the optimal ones as well. I'd much rather have fun with the full range of PCs available to me, than just playing a few optimal "builds" over and over again.
I think this is starting to get a bit... overwrought.
Comparisons like this need to be made apples-to-apples. If you have a player with a fighter that has made sub-optimal choices, you probably shouldn't be comparing it to someone with another class who has made more optimal choices, and coming to the conclusion that the fighter, as a class, is a worse fighter than other classes. Unless you are expecting them to make the class better at fighting in a way that is bulletproof to all player choices, then this can happen.
This should not be about criticizing the player for the choices they've made. Merely about pointing out the difference is not about the class. If anyone here is trying to rag on the player for this... please stop now.
