• 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

Quartz

Explorer
For TWF simply reduce the fighter's base DPR by 2 per round per attack (i.e. 6 for the base 3 attacks to 12 for four base attacks, a reaction, and a bonus action) ) and a further 1 for the reduced die of the off-hand weapon.

For PAM, the die is d10 for the base attacks and d4 for the bonus attack

Here's the table for PAM, without considering criticals:

Code:
Class    Base Attacks    Damage die    Stat Bonus    Reaction Attack    Bonus attack    Bonus die    Style    P(Hit)    Total damage        Notes
Fighter    3    5.5    5    5.5    2.5    0    0    0.6    29.7        Polearm 1d10 +1d4 - no GWM
Paladin    2    5.5    5    5.5    2.5    4.5    0    0.6    34.2        Bonus radiant damage
Ranger    2    5.5    5    5.5    2.5    3.5    0    0.6    31.8        Assumes Hunter's Mark active
Barbarian    2    5.5    5    5.5    2.5    3    0    0.84    34.44        Assumes Rage active
ENWorld isn't allowing me to attack a graphic for some reason, but you can see that the 11th level Battlemaster does less damage than any other class. At 20th level the Fighter's DPR increases to 36 and the Barbarian's to 41.6 (Str 24).

Actually, with PAM you can now use the spear so spear + shield and thus duellist is valid:

Code:
Class    Base Attacks    Damage die    Stat Bonus    Reaction Attack    Bonus attack    Bonus die    Style    P(Hit)    Total damage        Notes
Fighter    3    3.5    5    5.5    2.5    0    2    0.6    32.1        Spear 1d6 +1d4 - Duellist style
Paladin    2    3.5    5    5.5    2.5    4.5    2    0.6    36.6        Bonus radiant damage
Ranger    2    3.5    5    5.5    2.5    3.5    2    0.6    34.2        Assumes Hunter's Mark active
Barbarian    2    3.5    5    5.5    2.5    3    0    0.84    31.08        Assumes Rage active
At 20th level the Battlemaster Fighter does 38.4 damage and the Barbarian 37.8 (assuming Str 24).

You can see that the BM fighter is simply outclassed at 11th level upwards.
 

FrogReaver

Adventurer
For TWF simply reduce the fighter's base DPR by 2 per round per attack (i.e. 6 for the base 3 attacks to 12 for four base attacks, a reaction, and a bonus action) ) and a further 1 for the reduced die of the off-hand weapon.

For PAM, the die is d10 for the base attacks and d4 for the bonus attack

Here's the table for PAM, without considering criticals:

Code:
Class    Base Attacks    Damage die    Stat Bonus    Reaction Attack    Bonus attack    Bonus die    Style    P(Hit)    Total damage        Notes
Fighter    3    5.5    5    5.5    2.5    0    0    0.6    29.7        Polearm 1d10 +1d4 - no GWM
Paladin    2    5.5    5    5.5    2.5    4.5    0    0.6    34.2        Bonus radiant damage
Ranger    2    5.5    5    5.5    2.5    3.5    0    0.6    31.8        Assumes Hunter's Mark active
Barbarian    2    5.5    5    5.5    2.5    3    0    0.84    34.44        Assumes Rage active
ENWorld isn't allowing me to attack a graphic for some reason, but you can see that the 11th level Battlemaster does less damage than any other class. At 20th level the Fighter's DPR increases to 36 and the Barbarian's to 41.6 (Str 24).

Actually, with PAM you can now use the spear so spear + shield and thus duellist is valid:

Code:
Class    Base Attacks    Damage die    Stat Bonus    Reaction Attack    Bonus attack    Bonus die    Style    P(Hit)    Total damage        Notes
Fighter    3    3.5    5    5.5    2.5    0    2    0.6    32.1        Spear 1d6 +1d4 - Duellist style
Paladin    2    3.5    5    5.5    2.5    4.5    2    0.6    36.6        Bonus radiant damage
Ranger    2    3.5    5    5.5    2.5    3.5    2    0.6    34.2        Assumes Hunter's Mark active
Barbarian    2    3.5    5    5.5    2.5    3    0    0.84    31.08        Assumes Rage active
At 20th level the Battlemaster Fighter does 38.4 damage and the Barbarian 37.8 (assuming Str 24).

You can see that the BM fighter is simply outclassed at 11th level upwards.
So we are using feats and TWF now?

I wonder what prompted this change...
 
Last edited:

Mort

Community Supporter
And you're still wrong: the Battlemaster Fighter is still an inferior combatant.

You have to be careful when you set parameters, game play isn't in a vacuum.

One of your big sources of damage is the bonus action attack from polearm master. This means your going with a strength based ranger - that's fine but it has ripple effects.

Namely, you have to worry much more about AC in combat than the fighter. You don't get heavy armor, so can't dump stat dex. This is a big deal, the fighter can have an 18-21 AC with an 8 dex. The ranger can have a 17-19 only if Dex is 14 plus, otherwise it's 15-17 or worse (if you dumped dex you're sitting with a 14-16 AC in melee)

What do you sacrifice, Con? For a front liner reliant on concentration? Unlikely. But if you do, good luck keeping hunters mark up.
 

Esker

Exploree
You have to be careful when you set parameters, game play isn't in a vacuum.
Welcome to the absurd party. Good points, but don't bother; Quartz has shown repeatedly that he isn't interested in any kind of apples to apples comparison (or, for that matter, even an accurate apples-to-buckets-of-nails comparison, since he's apparently assuming the PAM ranger can cast and move HM without ever actually using a bonus action). The evidence flows from the conclusion in these parts.
 

dave2008

Adventurer
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.
Your wrong. There may be errors in my spreadsheet (but I don't think so), but it shows that the fighter is about equal with the ranger. Your revisions to the spreadsheet where completely off base. Whether the fighter or ranger is better a 11th is determined by the dials you adjust (rounds/ combat; combats/day; short rest/day). Which makes perfect sense. For the way my group normally plays (3-4 combats w/ 2-3 short rests & 3-5 round per combat) the fighter is does more damage. It will be different for other groups.

FYI, I was able recover my updated spreadsheet. If I get time I will post it over the weekend.

Using TWF insteead of Duelling actually makes the Battlemaster worse off.
That may be, but in the OP you said duelling fighting style so that is what we went with. That was the parameter that you set.

I guess you forgot Polearm Mastery.
You said no feats. Also polearm mastery bonus is very situational and is not usable with the dueling style. So it doesn't apply. It really seems like you are not arguing in good faith here. I didn't think I would have to say:

"how do you get a bonus action attack compatible with the parameters that you set, i.e. dueling fighting style, no feats, & hunters mark."

I thought it was implied. The fact that you came back with polearm mastery is a pretty clear indicator of the fact that you don't get the bonus action damage you thought you did, and that really throws your analysis for a loop.

You have been very careful in not mentioning the Paladin.
Not really, I just don't want to take the time to figure it out (I have already spent way to much time on this). It is also my understanding that they are pretty good at damage. Look I don't care if the paladin, ranger, fighter, wizard, or rouge does more damage. It doesn't bother me one way or the other. I just want to get to the truth. And I am pretty sure I have:

The fighter and ranger are pretty balanced in the damage department. Which one does more damage is dependent on how you play the game. That is what my spreadsheet tells, and it seems to corroborate my own experiences and what I have heard from others.
 
Last edited:

dave2008

Adventurer
Class Base Attacks Damage die Stat Bonus Reaction Attack Bonus attack Bonus die Style P(Hit) Total damage Notes
Fighter 3 3.5 5 5.5 2.5 0 2 0.6 32.1 Spear 1d6 +1d4 - Duellist style
Paladin 2 3.5 5 5.5 2.5 4.5 2 0.6 36.6 Bonus radiant damage
Ranger 2 3.5 5 5.5 2.5 3.5 2 0.6 34.2 Assumes Hunter's Mark active
Barbarian 2 3.5 5 5.5 2.5 3 0 0.84 31.08 Assumes Rage active
[/code]
Look, I simply don't trust your analysis anymore. I have been nothing but nice and transparent about this process, but you keep changing things and cherry picking things to meet your goals instead analysis to discover the truth.

That being said it is really hard to follow your table (because of how it is displayed); however, I think I get it. But it really leaves a lot of things out of the discussion and makes odd choices. Like I said, I just can't trust you anymore. I was hoping to have an honest discussion, but you just seem to want to prove a point instead of looking at the information objectively. I'm sorry, I think I'm done.
 

dave2008

Adventurer
And you're still wrong: the Battlemaster Fighter is still an inferior combatant.
To be clear, Frogreaver has repeatedly said the ranger does do more damage and you are saying his is wrong?!

Or, are you saying his statement that you changed the parameters to TWF and using feats from dueling style and no feats is wrong? It is like you aren't even really reading the posts.
 

FrogReaver

Adventurer
To be clear, Frogreaver has repeatedly said the ranger does do more damage and you are saying his is wrong?!

Or, are you saying his statement that you changed the parameters to TWF and using feats from dueling style and no feats is wrong? It is like you aren't even really reading the posts.
To be clear, Frogreaver has repeatedly said the ranger does do more damage and you are saying his is wrong?!

Or, are you saying his statement that you changed the parameters to TWF and using feats from dueling style and no feats is wrong? It is like you aren't even really reading the posts.
I’ve said till level 11 the ranger does more (a little more( but that the fighter has lots of effects and the damage now which still make him better imo). After level 11 it’s the fighter who doesn’t more damage.
 

dave2008

Adventurer
I’ve said till level 11 the ranger does more (a little more( but that the fighter has lots of effects and the damage now which still make him better imo). After level 11 it’s the fighter who does more damage.
OK, that is what I'm seeing in general as well (though there are scenarios where the ranger does more damage. When you get a lot more combats & rounds per short rest than what I typically see).

FYI, corrected that for you.
 

dave2008

Adventurer
I'm not seeing the link to your updated version.
The link is working now it is in post #: 104

FYI, I like the organization of your spreadsheet better (with relevant dials off to the side), but I don't want to put any more time into another update.
 

Ashrym

Explorer
I'm not seeing the duelist S&B rangers and fighters giving rangers an advantage at any levels. I took hunter's mark out of the lower levels because it's a melee build, no feats, and no CON save prof to avoid losing it. Assumed 4 encounters at 3 rounds for tier 1, 6 encounters at 3 rounds for tier 2, and 8 encounters at 3 rounds for tiers 3 and 4; and 2 short rests per day.

I added in daily hunter's mark damage at lower levels as bonus daily damage, assumed it could be maintained indefinitely at higher levels (11th+ but I still think that's generous), and added in foe slayer at 20th. Without the fighter surge damage the ranger is ahead at lower levels, but not total damage once the surge damage is divided out per round. I fudged the crit calcs as not significant given the results without them.

It looks to me like the only way to pull this off is to assume an unrealistic use of hunter's mark as always there. Adding it back in I came up with marginal benefits for rangers up to 11th level when fighters take over. That seems in line with @dave2008 and @FrogReaver.

@dave2008 -- your spreadsheet should reflect higher accuracy at 6th level for fighters relative to rangers from the bonus ASI. It's not that big of an increase but it's there.
 

Esker

Exploree
@dave2008 @FrogReaver @Mort @Mistwell

I made a shiny new spreadsheet here. I added Paladin Smites, sneak attack, and toggles for feats, and coded in a lot of stuff so that you can just change what's in the yellow, and everything else should automatically populate. It looks for exact string matches in the fields for class, subclass and fighting style (enter one of Dueling, TWF, GWF, Archery, or none; I think case-sensitive), and looks for the word 'yes' in the feat fields.

Enjoy! There are almost certainly typos, so would love it if you found them! (Though some of the formulas are excessively complex)

If the results are right or very nearly right, it demonstrates an impressive degree of balance across the martial classes at level 11 with a standard number of combats, rests, and lengths of combat. It turns out that distracting strike is worth more than GWM, if you compare the Champion with PAM and GWM to the Battlemaster PAM using spear and shield.
 

Paul Farquhar

Adventurer
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.
I have no doubt you very sincerely believe that, and no arguments presented here will shake that belief. That's how humans think: they decide what they believe first, then look for evidence to support that belief. The hardest skill for a scientist to learn is how to let go of a hypothesis, because they have so much of themselves invested in it. Possibly the most famous example was Fred Hoyle, who jumped through all kinds of convoluted hoops in order to tray and justify his continued belief in a steady state universe, despite all evidence to the contrary.
Using TWF insteead of Duelling actually makes the Battlemaster worse off.



I guess you forgot Polearm Mastery.
No one "forgot" Polearm Mastery. Youre initial parameter was: NO FEATS. Once you start allowing feats, fighters leap well ahead of rangers, since they get three more of those than rangers do. They could even use Magic Adept to pick up Hex, which gives them the equal of Hunter's Mark.

As for Polearm Mastery, that doesn't play nice with Duelling. Whilst RAW you could use a staff one-handed, it is then a d6 weapon instead of d8, cancelling out half of the +2.

You have been very careful in not mentioning the Paladin.
Paladins have been mentioned several times. If you want to try and argue that paladins are overpowered, then you might have a case.

But I'm sure I am wasting my breath - no argument I or anyone else can present will shake your faith.
 
Last edited:

dave2008

Adventurer
@dave2008 @FrogReaver @Mort @Mistwell

I made a shiny new spreadsheet here. I added Paladin Smites, sneak attack, and toggles for feats, and coded in a lot of stuff so that you can just change what's in the yellow, and everything else should automatically populate. It looks for exact string matches in the fields for class, subclass and fighting style (enter one of Dueling, TWF, GWF, Archery, or none; I think case-sensitive), and looks for the word 'yes' in the feat fields.

Enjoy! There are almost certainly typos, so would love it if you found them! (Though some of the formulas are excessively complex)

If the results are right or very nearly right, it demonstrates an impressive degree of balance across the martial classes at level 11 with a standard number of combats, rests, and lengths of combat. It turns out that distracting strike is worth more than GWM, if you compare the Champion with PAM and GWM to the Battlemaster PAM using spear and shield.
Cool! I will take a look at it and thanks for the time and help!

PS What is PAM?
 

dave2008

Adventurer
@dave2008 @FrogReaver @Mort @Mistwell

I made a shiny new spreadsheet here. I added Paladin Smites, sneak attack, and toggles for feats, and coded in a lot of stuff so that you can just change what's in the yellow, and everything else should automatically populate. It looks for exact string matches in the fields for class, subclass and fighting style (enter one of Dueling, TWF, GWF, Archery, or none; I think case-sensitive), and looks for the word 'yes' in the feat fields.

Enjoy! There are almost certainly typos, so would love it if you found them! (Though some of the formulas are excessively complex)

If the results are right or very nearly right, it demonstrates an impressive degree of balance across the martial classes at level 11 with a standard number of combats, rests, and lengths of combat. It turns out that distracting strike is worth more than GWM, if you compare the Champion with PAM and GWM to the Battlemaster PAM using spear and shield.
That is quite a spreadsheet - it is going to take some time to digest. PS can you provide a link to download so that we can play around with it?
 

dave2008

Adventurer
@dave2008 @FrogReaver @Mort @Mistwell

I made a shiny new spreadsheet here. I added Paladin Smites, sneak attack, and toggles for feats, and coded in a lot of stuff so that you can just change what's in the yellow, and everything else should automatically populate. It looks for exact string matches in the fields for class, subclass and fighting style (enter one of Dueling, TWF, GWF, Archery, or none; I think case-sensitive), and looks for the word 'yes' in the feat fields.

Enjoy! There are almost certainly typos, so would love it if you found them! (Though some of the formulas are excessively complex)

If the results are right or very nearly right, it demonstrates an impressive degree of balance across the martial classes at level 11 with a standard number of combats, rests, and lengths of combat. It turns out that distracting strike is worth more than GWM, if you compare the Champion with PAM and GWM to the Battlemaster PAM using spear and shield.
Actually what are PAM; CBE; EA; & SS? Heck, any change you could add a legend?
 

Advertisement

Top