WotC A tweak for the Battlemaster fighter

Mort

Community Supporter
Now you need to add into the spreadsheet the additional party damage that battlemasters set up by enabling sneak attack from rogue allies. One, two or three rogue allies should be sufficient.

.
.
.

;)
Or the fact that they can knock a target prone with their first attack and not only do damage, but do extra damage - and their next 2 attacks, plus that of all the allies that follow are at advantage. With the change to shield master, I think they're the only ones that can do this (without a feat and even then it would only be once a day for anyone else).
 

Mort

Community Supporter
Another thought:

Even if you accept, for the moment, that the ranger out damages the BM - he only does so with the inclusion of the reaction attack happening a significant portion of the time.

This reaction attack is from giantkiller, which only happens if the ranger is fighting large+ foes. If the ranger is fighting large+ foes (and has taken giantkiller) then isn't the ranger in his element, doing exactly what he trained for?

Shouldn't he absolutely be out damaging the fighter under such circumstances?

Edit: And if he isn't, shouldn't we actually be tweaking things toward the ranger to make sure that he does?
 

Esker

Explorer
Now you need to add into the spreadsheet the additional party damage that battlemasters set up by enabling sneak attack from rogue allies. One, two or three rogue allies should be sufficient.
Hah. It's true though, if there's a rogue ally, the Battlemaster gains a ton of value.

By the way, re: Paladins, a couple things.

One is that I'm assuming extremely efficient use of smites.

Two, it might be true that Paladins are the best one-handed damage-dealer, but the Battlemaster beats them when you put two-handed weapons and GWM on the table. At level 11, the Paladin has to forego an ASI to get PAM and GWM, and they actually do worse with GWM than with the ASI. But the Battlemaster can trade Hex for GWM, which boosts them above the Paladin, thanks to the impact of precision attack.

Actually even going to level 12 so the Paladin can have another feat w/o giving up a maxed attack stat, it looks like they're worse off with GWM than without, and the Battlemaster can get a familiar (which on that build is better than getting Hex if you assume 50% help). At that point the gap is pretty wide.

And depending on how often you think you'll get AoOs in melee, the CBE/SS archer may even be slightly better (if you think you get reaction attacks half the time they're not -- at least, not without figuring for cover or long range -- but if you think AoOs a quarter of the time is more realistic, they edge ahead slightly).

That said, the Paladin has so many other great abilities, chiefly the auras, and will have better uses for their spell slots than using all of them for smites, that I wouldn't necessarily be opposed to saying that they're stronger overall. (The ranger, by the way, has a reserve of unused spell slots in this analysis as well)
 

Esker

Explorer
Another thought:

Even if you accept, for the moment, that the ranger out damages the BM - he only does so with the inclusion of the reaction attack happening a significant portion of the time.

This reaction attack is from giantkiller, which only happens if the ranger is fighting large+ foes. If the ranger is fighting large+ foes (and has taken giantkiller) then isn't the ranger in his element, doing exactly what he trained for?

Shouldn't he absolutely be out damaging the fighter under such circumstances?

Edit: And if he isn't, shouldn't we actually be tweaking things toward the ranger to make sure that he does?
I don't think it's even true that the ranger out-damages the BM (at level 11) if you give them constant reaction attacks. Based on my spreadsheet at least, with the daily combats set as they are, plugging in 100% reaction attacks for the ranger and reduce the BM's reaction attacks to 25%, it only gets the ranger about a 5 point DPR edge over the battlemaster. But that includes colossus slayer, which is worth about... 5 points per round. And you don't get both colossus slayer and giant-killer.

So even assuming the giant-killer ranger is in their element fighting large foes all the time, they only pull even with the Battlemaster (though if you assume more and longer combats, they do get a lead).
 

Mort

Community Supporter
I don't think it's even true that the ranger out-damages the BM (at level 11) if you give them constant reaction attacks. Based on my spreadsheet at least, with the daily combats set as they are, plugging in 100% reaction attacks for the ranger and reduce the BM's reaction attacks to 25%, it only gets the ranger about a 5 point DPR edge over the battlemaster. But that includes colossus slayer, which is worth about... 5 points per round. And you don't get both colossus slayer and giant-killer.

So even assuming the giant-killer ranger is in their element fighting large foes all the time, they only pull even with the Battlemaster (though if you assume more and longer combats, they do get a lead).
I agree,

I was just pointing out that even if you accept the OPs initial assertion, you still probably shouldn't tweak the BM for more damage.
 

FrogReaver

Adventurer
There’s a few situations I can see the ranger out performing the battlemaster. 40 rounds of combat per day. 0-1 shirt rests per day

Heck even a shorter day with less short rests favors the ranger I think
 

Esker

Explorer
Just curious. What happens if you lower short rests to 1 per day
Doing this while leaving the rounds/combat and combats/day the same, and setting reaction % at 50, the duelist PAM builds (with the Battlemaster taking Hex) are very nearly even (I get 39.2 vs 38.7 DPR, favoring the Battlemaster).

Going up to 8 combats/day the ranger pulls ahead slightly (by about 1 DPR).
 

dave2008

Adventurer
Doing this while leaving the rounds/combat and combats/day the same, and setting reaction % at 50, the duelist PAM builds (with the Battlemaster taking Hex) are very nearly even (I get 39.2 vs 38.7 DPR, favoring the Battlemaster).

Going up to 8 combats/day the ranger pulls ahead slightly (by about 1 DPR).
Is that 8 combats with just one short rest?

Also, I haven't checked the math in your spreadsheet but are you are you accounting for N+1 availability of action surge and battle maneuvers (where N = # of short rest)?
 

Garthanos

Arcadian Knight
There are some very very off topic things about which huge population percentages are very wrong at this moment.... do not use ad populum argument its bad. I am pretty sure this is not one of those cases regardless. So there is that.
Galileo, I tell you! That's the most likely explanation, isn't it?
 

Esker

Explorer
There are some very very off topic things about which huge population percentages are very wrong at this moment.... do not use ad populum argument its bad. I am pretty sure this is not one of those cases regardless. So there is that.
Sometimes the minority turns out to be correct and the majority incorrect. When literally only one person holds a particular viewpoint and can't convince even one other person to back them up despite an extended open dialogue, it's technically possible that it's because literally everyone else is misguided, or has a vested interest in not seeing the truth, or there's a conspiracy against that one person. But it's sure not likely.

And that small possibility tends to be held up as a justification to undermine any possibility of normative consensus, or at least to convey the impression that "it's an open question", and thus to treat both sides as equally credible. Which rewards intellectual dishonesty more than it upholds principles of open debate.

At the very least, if you've not been able to convince literally anyone else of your position despite extended dialogue, it's time to reexamine your communication strategy.
 

Garthanos

Arcadian Knight
Sometimes the minority turns out to be correct and the majority incorrect. When literally only one person holds a particular viewpoint and can't convince even one other person to back them up despite an extended open dialogue, it's technically possible that it's because literally everyone else is misguided, or has a vested interest in not seeing the truth, or there's a conspiracy against that one person. But it's sure not likely.

And that small possibility tends to be held up as a justification to undermine any possibility of normative consensus, or at least to convey the impression that "it's an open question", and thus to treat both sides as equally credible. Which rewards intellectual dishonesty more than it upholds principles of open debate.

At the very least, if you've not been able to convince literally anyone else of your position despite extended dialogue, it's time to reexamine your communication strategy.
Oh at minimum communication technique should be examined in any argument (regardless of opposition , it is good for those who agree to agree because they understand) and it does depend on subject and how emotionally invested you are the more so the more reason to question your self because of our own biases and many other factors. Hopefully the realm of mathematics gets us closer to consensus because it's pretty tight. If you are a minority you need to show your work well. And be very explicit about assumptions
 

Quartz

Explorer
When literally only one person holds a particular viewpoint and can't convince even one other person to back them up despite an extended open dialogue, it's technically possible that it's because literally everyone else is misguided, or has a vested interest in not seeing the truth, or there's a conspiracy against that one person. But it's sure not likely.
Except of course, that everyone who thinks they are disputing my point is actually proving it. You have to use Action Surge for an attack to equalise matters. That's a bit of a problem when there are so many other uses for Action Surge.
 

Mistwell

Hero
Except of course, that everyone who thinks they are disputing my point is actually proving it. You have to use Action Surge for an attack to equalise matters. That's a bit of a problem when there are so many other uses for Action Surge.
1. There is this big elephant in the room which you're refusing to talk about. You're still refusing to talk about it, despite many people directly asking you about it. You're just plain ignoring them.

So I will try again. You said in your original post that feats were not allowed, that the ranger had a specific concentration spell up full time, and that both the fighter and ranger would use dueling. We're all clear on that, you've been specifically quoted on that, you've never said that was in error or a typo or anything, that's what happened.

And you also said the ranger was getting a bonus action attack every round. Which, under the scenario you set up, was impossible. It directly makes your numbers from that spreadsheet you wrote wrong, because it adds a meaningful amount of damage for the ranger which the ranger cannot get.

Address that issue. PLEASE address that issue. It's time.

2. There are SOOOOOO many other uses for the rangers concentration spell. Why does their concentration spell not fall under the flaw of "so many other uses" but Action Surge does?

3. Given fighters get more feats than the other classes you're comparing them to, and you were using the Polearm Master feat yourself for the ranger in your example, why can't we use feats for the Fighter in these examples?
 

Advertisement

Top