Kinda a jerk think to say, Chaosmancer. You start out that way and I am a lot less interested in whatever you have to say. Because I know you're going in bias, and have insulted me. Pretty poor manners there buddy. Nothing I said should get that kind of reaction from you.
Maybe I shouldn't blame you at all, and just assume you were bamboozled by Treantmonk, but I imagine you were able to analyze this at least as well as me, which really makes me wonder why you presented your post the way you did. Is it poor manners? Maybe, but I'm not insulting you. I'm saying the way you presented this video was misleading, as was the video itself.
Because it's the subclass we have for this playtest and I just lumped it all in because it's what we're working with. It's fair to say it doesn't apply to all the fighter but it's not fair to take the shot you took at the end there. Again, you seem way over the top aggressive for giving my impression of a video I watched once and telling people to watch it themselves. Take it way down a few notches there my man,
But you can't just lump it all together. That's the point. That would be like me saying "Barbarians deal an extra 2d6 to 4d6! This is so good!" and then confusing people who don't realize that that was only the Berserker who gets that. I'm sorry you think I'm being over the top aggressive, but this situation annoys me greatly to realize how misleading the information was.
I see no issues with this at all. We're comparing rules set to rules set. The fighter gains a lot of benefits from the new rules. It's fair to point that out. It absolutely is worthy of mention with the class analysis.
And again, the snark level on your final comment in that paragraph? Unnecessary. Three strikes, and we're barely into your post. Let's see if you get any better from here before I stop reading.
Okay, rule set to rule set. Why not use the dragonlance rules then to allow them to start with the same number of feats? And that snark? That was directed at Treantmonk. Get insulted on his behalf if you want, but I left a fairly similar remark on the video.
And this is my entire point here. If it is a change caused by changing the rules, then it isn't a change based on the class itself. And this matters. If we had all the weapons increased by a die size, would fighter damage go up? Sure, but that's not because we made the fighter more powerful, we made weapons more powerful, and all weapon users be they fighters or not got that increase. So presenting that as a fighter improvement alone? That's disingenuous. Straight up. If the fighter is more powerful because we made feats more powerful then everyone who gets feats got more powerful, which is EVERYONE.
It's fair because this is the new rules we're assessing and the fighter benefits from them. I have no idea why you want to assess them in isolation from the rest of the rules, and I'd bet you would have no issue assessing the spellcasting classes benefit from having just three broad spell pools now, which is a rules change and not a class change. Feats are the domain of the Fighter more than any class, it's absolutely relevant to assess this rules change which impacts them. If you're "frustrated" because you would do it different, I suggest you post your own analysis and do it different. I promise you, his audience thinks this is a fair way to do it.
I did do my own analysis later, but actually I would take it out depending on what I was looking at. "What are druids capable of"? Okay, I'd be fine mentioning they have Hunter's Mark now without needing a feat or multi-class. "Did the mechanical changes to the druid class make the druid more powerful?" Well... that has little to do with having access to hunter's mark. It would be important to differentiate what I'm talking about.
Again, many of the changes he talked about that increased that damage have nothing to do with improving the fighter directly.
Yes it's fair to ask his optimizer audience what they think about how the rule works before using it that way in his video. You seem upset about that, like he should have done something different? No idea why you'd think that.
I think it shows that he knew that was an assumption that was in debate. And he doesn't present it that way. He is an optimizer who has dealt with sage advice many times, he should be aware of this and make it clear in the video that his conclusion is based on this assumption, which may be wrong.
I absolutely disagree and a majority of people disagree with you on this. The ruling is based on other rulings that already exist in the game. Without clarification, the other rulings say it should be run the way he's assuming it is run.
"Without Clarification"? This is a playtest, we are clearly going to get clarification. Especially since many people are going to want it to work to always activate, and it is really clear to me that the designers don't want that. I mean, you charge an enemy and swing. You roll a 12 + 10... are you activating Graze or not? I'll even say it is a heavily armored humanoid with a shield.
Again, assuming graze always hits, always adds to the damage, skews his numbers. And the "you see the result, but decide before you know if it hits or misses" is rules language to create that uncertainty, it is creating chances to choose incorrectly. If this was the only thing he did? Probably wouldn't have made a big difference. But a little here, a little there, and those discrepancies add up.
Why, it isn't clearer in other parts of the rules which have similar triggering issues?
It is. It just doesn't usually matter for DPR if you need to choose to use something like bardic inspiration before knowing if it hits or not.
Yes, it's assessing an aspect of the new fighter. Why on earth wouldn't he assess it? You're saying he shouldn't assess a new part of the fighter because you what, think it's unfair or something? And it's OK if part of an assessment is self-evident. I once again have to ask, where are you going with this? It's like you're objecting to anyone doing an assessment.
No, that's not what I'm saying. If he was only looking at Graze? That would have been fine. But it wouldn't exactly have been ground breaking, would it?
0.6x11.3x4 = 27.12
0.1x6.3x4 = 2.52
Total for old 29.64 DPR
0.6x11.3x4 = 27.12
0.4x5x4 = 8
0.1x6.3x4 = 2.52
Total for new 37.64 DPR
About a 27% increase to DPR, which makes sense, because your minimum damage went from 0 to 20. If he did that analysis, no one would be shocked either, always dealing damage is better than sometimes dealing damage.
But if your assessment assumes perfect clairvoyant use of an ability, which is likely not intended.... well that isn't something someone who is SO influential should be presenting without making it explicit and showing the other side of it.
Other rules trigger just like this, that's where the ruling came from. Maybe they will clarify otherwise, but until that happens the reason he and others went with that ruling is based on prior rulings. Which showed it was RAI for those other rulings.
Yes, I know other rules work where you roll then decide what happens. I know. But you seem to not understand the actual content of my objection, because you are assuming that see the roll then decide means you are always correct and never choose incorrectly. THAT is the assumption I'm calling into question, just like I have called into question his assumption that cleave is a 50% chance of being capable of activating it.
Make a video and post it. After all you are dead set on absolutist comparisons, so to compare your analysis we're going to have to see it just like we saw it with Treantmonk.
Is that a fair approach? Yes, when a guy starts out with insults and rages about assumptions people are making because it's the best rules we have to determine how vague rules are supposed to work. It's definitely a fair approach.
I await your video and will appreciate you putting yourself out there like Treantmonk does. Hope you're up for the pubic criticism like you were so willing to dish out in such a rude manner.
Oh, was a new law passed? Are the only valid criticisms and analyses now done with $500 dollar video equipment? The fact I typed it out makes it immediately invalid because I can't afford to go out and purchase a home studio and record my face and voice?
Yeah, he puts himself out there. That doesn't make him immune to criticism or to being held to a higher standard, when he is so influential in the community. I notice you don't actually have any actual counterpoints to the points I raised. Don't you think that if he had used the same feats, and used the same character creation rules he would have had a different result?
Or how about this, if he had said directly "does a great weapon master fighter in this game do more or less damage than the same build in the original version?" and made it clear that was the point he was trying to make? Then I'd be less frustrated by this. It would be less egregious because that question was something some people were concerned with on losing the -5/+10 damage. But instead him, and you, have presented this as "the new fighter is 50% better than the old fighter at all things!" Which is not what his analysis showed. And am I being a little harsh with this? Yes. Because he is too influential, and his opinion holds too much weight for something like this not to have an effect on the survey results, based on a biased analysis of the class. And since it will lead to "this is good and fine" when I'm trying to push for things to go further, it is aggravating.