D&D 5E A tweak for the Battlemaster fighter

[Quartz]

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.

 

[Ashrym]

I guess you forgot Polearm Mastery.

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...

Here's a typical table for higher-level PCs using the Duelling style. No feats.

 

[Garthanos]

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)

 

[Esker]

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]

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]

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. ;-)

 

[Quartz]

So let me get this straight.

that gave a bonus attack; I supplied an answer.

You said you couldn't think of anything else

But then when it was pointed out that that first approximation was badly biased against the fighter

Actually, using the Duelling style biases it in favour of the fighter.

 

[Ashrym]

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]

This thread is unbelievable

 

[FrogReaver]

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