Menu
News
All News
Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
Pathfinder
Starfinder
Warhammer
2d20 System
Year Zero Engine
Industry News
Reviews
Dragon Reflections
Columns
Weekly Digests
Weekly News Digest
Freebies, Sales & Bundles
RPG Print News
RPG Crowdfunding News
Game Content
ENterplanetary DimENsions
Mythological Figures
Opinion
Worlds of Design
Peregrine's Next
RPG Evolution
Other Columns
From the Freelancing Frontline
Monster ENcyclopedia
WotC/TSR Alumni Look Back
4 Hours w/RSD (Ryan Dancey)
The Road to 3E (Jonathan Tweet)
Greenwood's Realms (Ed Greenwood)
Drawmij's TSR (Jim Ward)
Community
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Resources
Wiki
Pages
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Downloads
Latest reviews
Search resources
EN Publishing
Store
EN5ider
Adventures in ZEITGEIST
Awfully Cheerful Engine
What's OLD is NEW
Judge Dredd & The Worlds Of 2000AD
War of the Burning Sky
Level Up: Advanced 5E
Events & Releases
Upcoming Events
Private Events
Featured Events
Socials!
Twitch
YouTube
Facebook (EN Publishing)
Facebook (EN World)
Twitter
Instagram
TikTok
Podcast
Features
Top 5 RPGs Compiled Charts 2004-Present
Adventure Game Industry Market Research Summary (RPGs) V1.0
Ryan Dancey: Acquiring TSR
Q&A With Gary Gygax
D&D Rules FAQs
TSR, WotC, & Paizo: A Comparative History
D&D Pronunciation Guide
Million Dollar TTRPG Kickstarters
Tabletop RPG Podcast Hall of Fame
Eric Noah's Unofficial D&D 3rd Edition News
D&D in the Mainstream
D&D & RPG History
About Morrus
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
4/26 Playtest: The Fighter
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Chaosmancer" data-source="post: 9011858" data-attributes="member: 6801228"><p>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.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>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.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>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.</p><p></p><p>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. </p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>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. </p><p></p><p>Again, many of the changes he talked about that increased that damage have nothing to do with improving the fighter directly.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>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.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>"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. </p><p></p><p>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.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>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.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>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? </p><p></p><p>0.6x11.3x4 = 27.12</p><p>0.1x6.3x4 = 2.52</p><p>Total for old 29.64 DPR</p><p></p><p>0.6x11.3x4 = 27.12</p><p>0.4x5x4 = 8</p><p>0.1x6.3x4 = 2.52</p><p>Total for new 37.64 DPR</p><p></p><p>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. </p><p></p><p>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.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>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.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>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? </p><p></p><p>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? </p><p></p><p>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.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Chaosmancer, post: 9011858, member: 6801228"] 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. "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. 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. 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. 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. 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. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
4/26 Playtest: The Fighter
Top