D&D 5E A tweak for the Battlemaster fighter

[dave2008]

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)?

 

[Esker]

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)?

Yes to both

 

[Garthanos]

Or technically all 9 potentially being wrong

That doesn't stop all nine not appreciating my point.

 

[Esker]

Or technically all 9 potentially being wrong

Galileo, I tell you! That's the most likely explanation, isn't it?

 

[Garthanos]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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?

 

[FrogReaver]

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.

LOL