I don't know, is it? What value does that information bring? What are we supposed to do with that information?
And if you really needed to know, wouldn't it be better to compare the OneD&D fighter with their subclass features vs without? Jumping from one edition to the next isn't a reliable way to know the power ratio between a class and subclass since subtle differences within the system could change a lot. We've barely seen monster designs so if the average AC or HP of monsters change then the whole comparison falls apart.
If you want to see how much the fighter has improved, then you need to look at where they were, then look at where they are. And the Champion is perhaps the WORST subclass to attempt to evaluate how much the fighter subclass matters, because it is intentionally not given any abilities that require activation or really do anything complex. It is all just raw numbers. All they have for DPR is an improved critical range and 1 per fight advantage. If I use that as my baseline, then when we get a fighter with spellcasting, well, then things would be heavily skewed.
As for what we can do with the information, we can consider if the amount of DPR increase and the survivability increases from Indomitable and Unconquerable bridge the gap that was between the old fighter and the old casters. Then we can conisder the massive boost the sorcerer and wizard received. There is actually a lot you can use information for. That is why it is useful.
If it was meant to allow featless games, it wouldn't be a feat itself. In fact, its inclusion means the opposite: that they're leaning heavily into the madatory nature of feats.
Crawford literally said in the video that the feat debuted in that it was for those tables that want featless games, as a compromise.
But. again, even if feats are mandatory, feats are a choice. There is nothing stopping a fighter from taking Grappler, Speedster, Resilient, and Mage slayer instead of Great Weapon Master, Polearm Master, Charger, and Sentinel. Trying to analyze the fighter based heavily on feat choice does not give an accurate picture.
But we're not comparing different classes in the same system, we're comparing the same class in different systems. We have to analyze in the context of these separate system. We can choose the same race but, for example, if the human in OneD&D gets darkvision but the 5e one doesn't, that's a perfectlt fine mode of comparison.
But also, we're analyzing damage.
Sure, it would be a perfectly fine comparison IF I WAS COMPARING THE HUMANS FROM THOSE SYSTEMS. But if I'm comparing say, the rogue, stating that the OD&D rogue is superior because I picked human and one has darkvision and the other doesn't has actually not told me anything about the Rogue.
And again, to go back to the source of this debate. In Treantmonk's recent Barbarian video, he flat out stated what his goal was. His goal was to see if the loss of the -5/+10 mechanic had hurt the damage potential of the classes. That was his goal. That is NOT my goal. I don't care over much about that feat, and even if I did, it was rather trivial to just analyze the feat itself to see what difference that made. MY goal was to compare the differences between the class. Sort of like homebrewing it. If you homebrew the fighter class, and want to compare it, you compare it to the non-homebrewed version.
No, but those feat choices are synergistic with the class features.
A fighter has martial weapon proficiency, four extra attacks, and an option to crit with lower attack rolls. Some feats have synergy with just those three abilities, like the Charger or GWM feat. So while a wizard can take Charger, its important to realize the wizard probably isn't going to extract the benefits from it as much as a fighter would.
...
Yes, obviously the wizard isn't going to get much benefit out of charger. But they might get a lot of benefit out of Warcaster, which was also improved in the same manner. And again, you just can't help but mix the class and subclass like they are identical. The Fighter does not have the option to crit with lower attack rolls. The Champion does. When we get literally every single other subclass, none of them will have that ability.
But that's not your thesis and its not what the data supports. What you're saying is that everyone in the same system is getting a buff. Okay, cool. But what does that have to do with how much the fighter itself has increased in damage?
Because we're looking at damage so far. Whether or not the wizard gets more utility or versatility in combat isn't part of the discussion.
Plus, the information you're giving could be misleading. If you tell a player that the base fighter only has a 17% damage increase, they'll probably think that playing a fighter in OneD&D isn't going to change their damage noticeable. But in-play, they'd be doing about 50% more damage, which is counter-intuitive to what you're trying to say.
Which is why I wouldn't lie to them and say the fighter only has a 17% damage increase. I'd tell them that Weapon Masteries have only added about a 17% increase to fighter damage, and that is the only appreciable DPR difference between the 5e fighter and the OD&D fighter without feats.
And they won't ask "do feats increase damage" because... of course they do. No one is going to look at Charger, which used to be "when you dash, you can make a bonus action attack" and now is "if you move 10 ft in a line, you get a +1d8 to your damage roll, and you can dash double the distance" and not realize it has been improved.
And if they wanted to know, "okay, if I put all this together, what happens" then we could do that. I'm not against doing that in that context. But you have to be presenting the information clearly, and accurately. Not just throwing it all in the pot and saying "IT'S BETTER! MATH PROVES IT!"
