D&D 5E A tweak for the Battlemaster fighter

[Esker]

Made another fix to the smite calculation. I was undercounting smite damage on crits.

 

[Esker]

Currently reworking things to add Hex. Don't download for now.

Edit: Okay, done with that bit.

 

[Mistwell]

Excuse me?! I have always argued in good faith.

No, you have not. You were telling everyone "NO FEATS" For half the thread, and it turned out you were using feats for the Ranger as their only way to get a bonus action attacks/reaction attacks (or else you were confused about how their concentration was already being taken and couldn't be used to cast spells for those things at the same time - which you also never admitted hence bad faith there too). When confronted with this, you never dealt with what had happened - you just hand waived it like it hadn't just happened. That's called bad faith.

I mean your behavior has been patently absurd. You were CORRECTING people when they brought up fighter feats, and scolding them for using feats when you had said no feats, and all along you were using feats for the ranger to give them extra attacks (bonus/reaction).

If that's not bad faith, nothing is. Deal with what happened first if you want people to do anything other than laugh at you. Admit you badly screwed that up, explain why, and explain what you're now using in terms of feats and other stuff to get these "bonus action attack and reaction attack every single round". Or even 50% of the time.

 

[Quartz]

I disagree. You presented a paradigm: dueling style, no feats + hunter's mark. We made spreadsheets. They disagreed with you assumption / analysis. You said - what about bonus actions. We said the ranger doesn't get any.

No I didn't. I included Bonus Actions right from the start. Go on, look back.

We said the ranger doesn't get any. You said yes they do - look at pole arm master.

Again, no I didn't. Someone said they couldn't think of how a PC could get Bonus Actions and I listed two: TWF and PAM. That PAM is excluded by my OP is irrelevant; the aim is to concentrate on the figures, not the background or the how. Your own spreadsheets prove my point by mandating the use of Action Surge for damage when Action Surge is not always available and has many other uses. And similarly with Smite damage for the Paladin, BTW.

 

[Mistwell]

No I didn't. I included Bonus Actions right from the start. Go on, look back.



Again, no I didn't. Someone said they couldn't think of how a PC could get Bonus Actions and I listed two: TWF and PAM. That PAM is excluded by my OP is irrelevant; the aim is to concentrate on the figures, not the background or the how. Your own spreadsheets prove my point by mandating the use of Action Surge for damage when Action Surge is not always available and has many other uses. And similarly with Smite damage for the Paladin, BTW.

Oh for the love of... your original scenario COULD NOT USE TWF OR PAM BECAUSE YOU SAID DUELING AND NO FEATS! So WHAT could you have been using to give them a bonus action attack every round in your original scenario? We're over 200 posts in now, and the mystery ability still hasn't been revealed. This is what people mean when they say you're arguing in bad faith - there was NOTHING you were using to get that bonus action. It doesn't exist for that original scenario.

That PAM is excluded by my OP is irrelevant; the aim is to concentrate on the figures, not the background or the how.

This is also absurd. Of course "how you got there" is relevant. You could just add +100 damage to all Ranger attacks and say "how I got there is irrelevant" if that were the case. If a scenario you propose is LITERALLY IMPOSSIBLY UNDER THE RULES that is friggen "relevant" to whether the rules are unbalanced! And you were CORRECTING people when they tried to use feats for the fighter - which is an ability they get that no other class gets (extra feats). You tried to force a "no feats" rule on the thread when you were the one using feats!

 

[dave2008]

No I didn't. I included Bonus Actions right from the start. Go on, look back.

@Mistwell responded quicker and better than I could.

 

[Mistwell]

Just so we don't forget how we got here:

First post:

No feats.

People mention fighters get extra feats and:

I specified no feats so as to keep things simple.

Paul mentions, "but hey, that nerfs fighters:

However you wash it, "No feats" is a de facto fighter nerf.

And:

Agreed.

So we were all clear on this. Quartz said NO FEATS.

Method Quartz was using when calculating bonus actions for Rangers that whole time (and he embedded it in the spreadsheet in the base damage as if it was automatic)? Right, a feat for the ranger.

Bad. Faith.

 

[Esker]

Bad. Faith.

Quartz's bad faith has been clear for a long time now. Since at least (post #76):

You're arguing in such bad faith I don't personally see the point of continuing to engage with the content. Though I admire Dave's continued patience and courteous demeanor nonetheless.

I think the analysis the rest of us are doing is still interesting, but it seems to me the discourse would be improved if everyone just stopped responding to him.

 

[Esker]

Ok, added Magic Initiate: Hex to my spreadsheet, and moved Ranger's Hunter's Mark to that section instead of treating it as an always on ability, since the mechanics are largely the same apart from being able to cast it more than once / with higher level slots.

 

[Cap'n Kobold]

Your own spreadsheets prove my point by mandating the use of Action Surge for damage when Action Surge is not always available and has many other uses. And similarly with Smite damage for the Paladin, BTW.

Don't the figures that you have been using for the Ranger include use of spells like Hunter's Mark? How is that different?