• Resources are back! Use the menu in the main navbar. If you own a resource, please check it for formatting, icons, etc.

WotC A tweak for the Battlemaster fighter

dave2008

Adventurer
Hey @dave2008, I played around a bit with your spreadsheet; did a little bit of refactoring, and tried to incorporate some more details (e.g. colossus slayer damage once per turn, taking into account the chance of at least one hit, and the chance that the attack you use it on is a crit, as well as an attempt to account for distracting strike and whirlwind strike). Here's my take

Edit: Fixed the link
Hmm. I'm not sure I'm following some of your changes. I added colossus slayer once per turn + reactions, but I did it differently on my new spreadsheet. Here are a few questions:
  1. I am not understanding why you increase the ranges attacks per turn up to 2.6?
  2. How did you determined the hit %/turn?
  3. How did you determine 20% AO and how does it relate to Reactions/ Combat.
  4. How did you determine .8 reactions per combat. I was giving 33% per round for reactions.
  5. What is Avg. Adj >2?
  6. What is ally base damage?

Here is my updated version. It includes everything I think, but we are getting very different results.
 

Esker

Exploree
Hmm. I'm not sure I'm following some of your changes.
Yeah, sorry, I intended to post it with some more documentation, but had to leave for dinner. Sorry for the cryptic bits.

  • I am not understanding why you increase the ranges attacks per turn up to 2.6?
  • What is Avg. Adj >2?
The 2.6 is arbitrary but the increase is due to Whirlwind Attack. I pulled some proportions out of thin air to estimate how often the ranger could get more than two enemies adjacent to them, since in that case they get as many attacks as there are enemies they can reach. I put in 1/8 of the time for 3 enemies, 1/20th each for 4 and 5, 1/40th for 6, etc. Taking the average number of adjacent enemies over 2 based on these arbitrary numbers gave an extra 0.6 attacks on average.

*How did you determined the hit %/turn?
This is the proportion of the time the attacker hits at least once. Since colossus slayer is something you can use once per turn but declare it after you hit, in order to figure out how much damage to expect from it, you need to know what proportion of the time it gets triggered. To be really precise you also need to know how many crit dice you roll due to that feature. This is the most complicated formula in the spreadsheet: I assume you use it on the first hit on your turn, which may or may not be a crit. So the chance that you get a crit on the attack when you use colossus slayer, if you have two attacks, is p(crit on 1st) + p(miss on 1st) *p(crit on 2nd) + p(miss on 1st) * p(miss on 2nd) * p(crit on 3rd).

I'm realizing that I didn't integrate this at all with whirlwind strike, so colossus slayer crit damage assumes the ranger only ever does two attacks. But it's going to be a tiny difference from the reality.

  • How did you determine 20% AO and how does it relate to Reactions/ Combat.
  • How did you determine .8 reactions per combat. I was giving 33% per round for reactions.
The chance of an AoO is just an arbitrary parameter. I thought 1 in 3 rounds seemed high. But that's just my subjective sense. Reactions/Combat is the number of reaction attacks made per combat, as you had it: it's just the chance of an AoO times the number of rounds in a combat.

* What is ally base damage?
This is just the average damage your next ally will do with their first attack, not counting their ability modifier (since that's level specific). I just put in a lowball estimate of 3.5 assuming an ally using a d6 weapon with no fighting style. Realistically you're probably using a different maneuver if the beneficiary of your distracting strike would be blowing it on such a crappy attack. If there's a rogue going after you it could be much much higher.
 

dave2008

Adventurer
Yeah, sorry, I intended to post it with some more documentation, but had to leave for dinner. Sorry for the cryptic bits.



The 2.6 is arbitrary but the increase is due to Whirlwind Attack. I pulled some proportions out of thin air to estimate how often the ranger could get more than two enemies adjacent to them, since in that case they get as many attacks as there are enemies they can reach. I put in 1/8 of the time for 3 enemies, 1/20th each for 4 and 5, 1/40th for 6, etc. Taking the average number of adjacent enemies over 2 based on these arbitrary numbers gave an extra 0.6 attacks on average.



This is the proportion of the time the attacker hits at least once. Since colossus slayer is something you can use once per turn but declare it after you hit, in order to figure out how much damage to expect from it, you need to know what proportion of the time it gets triggered. To be really precise you also need to know how many crit dice you roll due to that feature. This is the most complicated formula in the spreadsheet: I assume you use it on the first hit on your turn, which may or may not be a crit. So the chance that you get a crit on the attack when you use colossus slayer, if you have two attacks, is p(crit on 1st) + p(miss on 1st) *p(crit on 2nd) + p(miss on 1st) * p(miss on 2nd) * p(crit on 3rd).

I'm realizing that I didn't integrate this at all with whirlwind strike, so colossus slayer crit damage assumes the ranger only ever does two attacks. But it's going to be a tiny difference from the reality.



The chance of an AoO is just an arbitrary parameter. I thought 1 in 3 rounds seemed high. But that's just my subjective sense. Reactions/Combat is the number of reaction attacks made per combat, as you had it: it's just the chance of an AoO times the number of rounds in a combat.



This is just the average damage your next ally will do with their first attack, not counting their ability modifier (since that's level specific). I just put in a lowball estimate of 3.5 assuming an ally using a d6 weapon with no fighting style. Realistically you're probably using a different maneuver if the beneficiary of your distracting strike would be blowing it on such a crappy attack. If there's a rogue going after you it could be much much higher.
Thanks for the clarification. At some point I will review in more detail but I am pretty confident with my updated spreadsheet (added to me edit previous posts). What is interesting is the small details can make a big difference.
 

Esker

Exploree
Thanks for the clarification. At some point I will review in more detail but I am pretty confident with my updated spreadsheet (added to me edit previous posts). What is interesting is the small details can make a big difference.
I'm not seeing the link to your updated version.

Note that I also change the combats/day to 6 and increased rounds/combat to 4. I think 3 is probably more realistic, but I was curious to see what would happen if the combats were a bit longer (but not 8 rounds; that's completely implausible as a daily average in my experience)
 

dave2008

Adventurer
I'm not seeing the link to your updated version.
Yep, there is something seriousy wrong with the flash drive I was working on. The only item left in the folder is the screenshot I took. The excel document and all the other folders and a ton of material I was working is just gone. I've got bigger problems at the moment, but IF I get this figureD out I will post the updated spreadsheet.

Note that I also change the combats/day to 6 and increased rounds/combat to 4. I think 3 is probably more realistic, but I was curious to see what would happen if the combats were a bit longer (but not 8 rounds; that's completely implausible as a daily average in my experience)
Ya, I looked at several different combat and day length scenarios. I went with 8/2 and 3 round per combat because that is supposedly the paradigm for 5e. Personally we tend to do about 3-4 combats at 3+/- rounds.
 

Paul Farquhar

Adventurer
No. Because it is a 1 round surge. As such I discount it for the same reason I discount Paladin smites.
That reason being, your agenda is to try and prove battlemasters are underpowered and justify the massive buff you propose in the original post.
 
Last edited:

dave2008

Adventurer
An attack on a bonus action can come from multiple sources. Which source is not relevant.
@Quartz
I want to explain why everyone is asking for you to provide the source of the bonus action. Hopefully then you can understand why we need your help understanding your position. So here I go:
  1. Bonus Actions: "You can take a Bonus Action only when a Special ability, spell, or other feature of the game states that you can do something as a Bonus Action. You otherwise don’t have a Bonus Action to take. " So you do not normally get a bonus action, it has to be granted to you. That is important. There has to be a source that grants you the bonus action.
  2. One source of bonus actions available to the ranger is two-weapon fighting. However, in the OP you stated you are using the Dueling Fighting Style: "When you are wielding a melee weapon in one hand and no other Weapons, you gain a +2 bonus to Damage Rolls with that weapon. " So this doesn't allow a second weapon and thus no off-hand damage from a bonus action.
  3. Another source available to the ranger is bonus actions spells. However, in the OP you stated that Hunter's Mark is always on. Hunter's Mark is a concentration spell and all other ranger bonus action spells are also concentration spells. So if you use one, you have to drop Hunter's Mark, a major source of damage for this build. Not to mention loosing a bonus action every time you need to mark another creature.
  4. The only other method I can think for a ranger to get bonus action attacks is from a 3rd party (teammate or magic item) to be the source. However, if this is the case, it would also equally apply to the fighter. The battle master can put all of his/her maneuver resources into reactions and free up all there bonus actions for this 3rd party source. Thus, it would be a wash (or nearly so, the more combats and rounds make it more likely it would be a wash).
Does that explain our issue? The major sources of bonus action damage are not available to the build in the OP that we have been using. Furthermore, the remaining available sources of bonus action damage are equally available to the ranger and the fighter making it a wash. So, if you have another reason why the ranger, and only the ranger, should get bonus action damage in this comparison, please let us know.

Thank you for your time and help!
 

Quartz

Explorer
That reason being, your agenda is to try and prove battlemasters are underpowered and justify the massive buff you propose in the original post.
Ah, the dreaded 'agenna' tactic. I believe I have proved that the Battlemaster is indeed underpowered. The spreadsheets provided to counter my case actually prove it.


One source of bonus actions available to the ranger is two-weapon fighting. However, in the OP you stated you are using the Dueling Fighting Style:
Using TWF insteead of Duelling actually makes the Battlemaster worse off.

The only other method I can think for a ranger to get bonus action attacks
I guess you forgot Polearm Mastery.

Furthermore, the remaining available sources of bonus action damage are equally available to the ranger and the fighter making it a wash.
You have been very careful in not mentioning the Paladin.
 

Garthanos

Arcadian Knight
Ya, I looked at several different combat and day length scenarios. I went with 8/2 and 3 round per combat because that is supposedly the paradigm for 5e. Personally we tend to do about 3-4 combats at 3+/- rounds.
I know people who have Tolkien pacing... a fight maybe once a week. (sometimes 3 times a day once a week)
 
Last edited:

Esker

Exploree
So let me get this straight. Your comparison is a hunter with feats against a S&B Battlemaster with no feats now? From the OP...
The field is completely littered with cherries and the goalposts are nowhere to be found (though there are a lot of holes in the ground from all the places they've been).
 

Esker

Exploree
All snark aside, it's clear what's happening here, right? Quartz probably started out innocently enough including things that were the easiest to calculate, which is reasonable enough. But then when it was pointed out that that first approximation was badly biased against the fighter, instead of gracefully acknowledging the fact, he tried to draw some ad hoc lines that he thought would rescue his case. By the time several people pointed out that those lines were, again, badly biased, he'd wrapped up his ego in the conversation, and so he started flailing desperately to try to salvage a piece of it by engineering an even more contrived combination of parameters that provides some semblance of support for his initial claim.

It's the internet; we've all been there from time to time. No judgment. But it's time to give it a rest.
 

Ashrym

Explorer
It's the internet; we've all been there from time to time. No judgment. But it's time to give it a rest.
But now I want to see the damage comparison of a beast master archer with no feats compared to a battle master archer with feats, lol. ;-)
 

Ashrym

Explorer
that gave a bonus attack; I supplied an answer.

You said you couldn't think of anything else
The answer isn't relevant to the premise and I asked for the source of the bonus action used in the premise.

A bonus action that does not exist does no damage.

Actually, using the Duelling style biases it in favour of the fighter.
I would like to see your comparisons to other styles. I'm open to changing my opinion.
 

FrogReaver

Adventurer
The answer isn't relevant to the premise and I asked for the source of the bonus action used in the premise.

A bonus action that does not exist does no damage.


I would like to see your comparisons to other styles. I'm open to changing my opinion.
One of the first styles I calculated was ranger dual wielding vs fighter using duelist. The complaint at that time was to use duelist as the ranger does better with it. He was right but the difference as tiny.

Alternatively the difference between the fighter dual wielding and using duelist is large
 
Last edited:

Advertisement

Top