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: 9013060" data-attributes="member: 6801228">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. 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? Yes, and?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?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 = 16.740.1x6.3x3 = 1.89+3 added to a single attack in the set, once per turn (prof bonus at level)Total for new 21.63 DPRNow, 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 = 24.840.1x6.3x3 = 1.89+3 added to a single attack in the set, once per turn (prof bonus at level)Total for new 29.73 DPRSo 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. 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. 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. 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. 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.</blockquote>

Verification