That's also not the information you're providing, though. If you wanted to know that, you'd calculate the difference of a fighter and caster from 5e and the difference of the same classes from OneD&D.
The information you're giving can't be used for comparison for the casters because you'd need to compare the caster's numerical changes as well.
You are correct that I only showed part of the information needed. I thought that was fairly obvious? Why would I need to calculate the difference between the 5e classes after all, it has been done to death. I can literally just google it.
And as for the numerical changes for the spellcasters, well, if you can figure out the numerical advantage of being able to permanently remove spell restrictions by level 9 and the ability to swap your entire spell list around with an hour's prep... I'd love to see it, because other than "holy crap!" I can't think of a way to put numbers to that.
10 minute short rests are also given for tables that want it, but that doesn't make it default. And we assume the defaults of the current system whenever we make way to compare it to another system. Unless you're saying when we compare 5e to 4e we should assume 10 minute short rests as though they're "encounter powers" just because that's an optional rule, despite what the standard rules of the 5e system says.
Yes, if I wanted to accurately compare the healing and resource recover of Hit Dice versus Healing Surges, I would assume 10 minute short rests, then note that many tables use hour long short rests. Why is that bad?
Also, what you're saying is no different than spells on a sorcerer. One may choose fireball, twinned spell, empowered spell, etc. While another might choose invisibility, subtle spell, etc.
Heck, the base fighter themselves have choices where they might prioritize something else besides damage. Like taking defense fighting style and equipping sword and board rather than a greatsword.
Yes, and?
If we're comparing damage, we have to assume they're doing what they can to maximize damage within their overall builds.
I think we're missing the obvious way to get the results that you want only because we imagine it to be hard and time-consuming.
No, we don't assume that. Note that no one has decided to use the Mordenkainen Presents species (which are valid to use as they have been stated to follow the same design philsophy) or the new Goliath, all of which have multiple options to add proficiecy bonus damage to the attacks.
I mean, if the new Goliath is in the PHB, then is would be "fair" to add the Goliath and their +prof mod fire damage to the OD&D version and then they outdamage the 5e version even more, because that option wasn't even available in the 2014 PHB. And such an analysis would be instantly flagged as misleading... so why wouldn't it still be misleading to compare two classes using two different versions of.... everything?
But rather than making characters that will never exist and grabbing data that really doesn't have a use-case outside of theorycrafting, how about we make the whole range of fully-built fighters on both systems and compare them to find the damage.
Because we don't need to?
Let's take that analysis I just did a little bit ago for the level 5 version of GWM. The OD&D version looked like this.
0.6x9.3x3 = 16.74
0.1x6.3x3 = 1.89
+3 added to a single attack in the set, once per turn (prof bonus at level)
Total for new 21.63 DPR
Now, let's say that I wanted to know what sort of difference the Battlemaster would make for this. Not in terms of utility, because things like push are very difficult to measure, but just in pure damage numbers. So, I can use Goading attack, as all it does for a rider is focus damage on me, and then add the damage. If I go nova and add three dice at 5th level, that would be 3d8, which is just an extra 4.5 per hit. It doesn't get increased on crits per the new rules so it would be.
0.6x13.8x3 = 24.84
0.1x6.3x3 = 1.89
+3 added to a single attack in the set, once per turn (prof bonus at level)
Total for new 29.73 DPR
So the nova for the Battlemaster is worth about 8 pts of DPR, though it should be noted that wipes a 5th level battlemaster out almost completely. I don't need to build an entirely different fighter with an entirely different species and entirely different feat choices... I can literally just look at the pieces and add or subtract them as needed.
Well, you're comparing damage since that's the only metric you've brought up. To me, its pretty obvious that if GWM is allowed to exist in your analysis, then it would be appropriate to add it into the discussion since it is the highest damage feat in the game that we know of.
You wouldn't really analyze the damage of fighters if you gave them both regular clubs.
Of course I would, the problem is that such an analysis is obvious. Two fighters with the same number of attacks, using the same weapon, with no ability to add more damage.... do the same damage. There are no differences between them.
This is why in my first analysis, the one where I was looking at fighter versus fighter, I really was only looking at cleave. Because I wanted the difference in the weapon mastery system, which is the only change that affects the fighter playstyle between the two classes.
The fighter's subclass is an option, so yes they have an option to crit at lower rolls. In fact, the champion doesn't have the option, they just get it.
But it is misleading. I could say that 5e wizard's have the option to wear heavy armor, and I could be technically correct (there are 4 ways to do it I can think of) but my phrasing implies something very different than the reality of the situation.
And what a wizard gets out of warcaster, as I said, has nothing to do with the fighter and their damage since a warcaster wizard affects neither even in comparison.
But the same thing making people claim I must account for Charger's bonus damage when comparing GWM to GWM is the exact same thing letting the wizard take warcaster and improve their spell casting DC. So those things are related.
It isn't about it being a lie, its about it being misleading, which it kinda is.
If you present that information as-is, you'll make it sound like playing a OneD&D fighter won't have any real damage increase. But when you account for feats and races and other system contexts, that isn't true at all.
If you saw an article that said "Elon Musk has less money in his bank than last year, only having $20,000 in his checking account, half of last year's total, not including his investments and savings," you'd probably think "this article is trying to clickbait me by withholding the important information that gives the proper context." Whether it was intentional or not, you'd recognize the case where the information given was misleading and could fool people just glancing at the information into thinking that something outside of reality is true, even if you don't explicitly say it.
And then, if someone said that their justification for publishing the article is that the audience should research it for themselves and it would be obvious, you'd probably blacklist that publication.
So tell me, in a massive post where I talked about how the feats were overrepresenting the damage, and how the species choice was unfair... how could someone have come away not knowing anything at all about the feats and species?
Doubly so, when my post was a response to the original idea of this increase in damage, and how it was an inaccurate view of the changes to the fighter class?
Yes, obviously if I was talking to someone with no idea about any of the changes to OD&D, I'd include the context. I'm not talking about throwing contextless numbers out, that is in fact what frustrated me so much with Mistwell's initial post. It claimed a 50% damage increase from the old fighter to the new fighter, and that all skills were improved by the ASI increases from the feats. But both claims turned out to be suspect. The damage increase was largely from the feats, not the fighter changes, and the ASI increases presented didn't go to ability scores for skills, but to strength for more damage. And in fact, the feats given to the fighter who had that increase in damage contribute nothing to skill checks, and only because Alert was free did it come up to try and make that claim. If given to the other fighter via the Strixhaven or Dragonlance rules, the old fighter would have superior checks according to the standard set.
But considering my post was a RESPONSE why must we assume that the information I presented would be presented without context? That makes no sense. I don't need to restate the context of a response every time I post.
