Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Chaosmancer" data-source="post: 9012825" data-attributes="member: 6801228">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.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.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.... 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.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!"</blockquote>

Verification