D&D 5E Battlemaster: 18th level feature

[FormerlyHemlock]

You're right. The nova Trickster gets 9 attacks over2 rounds vs the Battlemaster's 16. GMW is a factor because you can't sneak attack with a two hander. I still don't think the Battlemaster is lacking when compared to the multiclass.

Oh, that's what you meant by mentioning GWM. The battletrickster I had in mind is a Sharpshooter archer so I hadn't thought about the sneak attack/heavy weapon anti-synergy. Yes, I agree that the battletrickster is much less attractive in melee because of the GWM problem.

The following remarks relate to archers and not melee warriors:

If we count each sneak attack as approximately like an extra attack (although it is in fact more valuable than that when you do the math), the nova Trickster is getting 7 attacks on round 1 and 4 on round 2, while the full Battlemaster is getting 8 on round 1 and 8 on round 2. The battletrickster's nova is about 10% weaker on round 1, and 50% weaker on round 2. Consider as well that 2N attacks for a battlemaster are not twice as valuable as N attacks, because the battlemaster only has 5-6 superiority dice to enhance his attacks with (5 d10s for battletrickster, 6 d12s for battlemaster--and both of them have the same DC on their maneuvers like Trip where the die size hardly matters at all).

There is no denying that the full battlemaster has a stronger nova than the battletrickster--we both agree on that. But to me it looks like a pretty mild spike in peak nova, not worth what it costs you. Remember that the battletrickster has a higher round-by-round DPR after nova is done, and he has better tricks like +12 to +17 on Athletics for pushing enemies into Walls of Fire, etc. YMMV obviously. I just wish the Battlemaster got something more worthwhile at levels 18-19 like the Champion and Eldritch Knight do.

 

[El Mahdi]

I didn't see much content to address--it was just a rant.

And your OP - the very premise of the thread - is different how?

Yeah, we're done here.

Goodbye.

 

[FormerlyHemlock]

If you want something to make it a bit more exciting, I'd recommend removing the size limitations on the relevant maneuvers, and coming up with improvements for any of other underperforming maneuvers at some point.

Hmmm, that's a cool idea. E.g. at level 15 you can Trip Huge Creatures, and at level 18 you can Trip Gargantuan. That would be something to get excited about. I might steal that idea as a house rule someday.

 

[Fanaelialae]

Oh, that's what you meant by mentioning GWM. The battletrickster I had in mind is a Sharpshooter archer so I hadn't thought about the sneak attack/heavy weapon anti-synergy. Yes, I agree that the battletrickster is much less attractive in melee because of the GWM problem.

The following remarks relate to archers and not melee warriors:

If we count each sneak attack as approximately like an extra attack (although it is in fact more valuable than that when you do the math), the nova Trickster is getting 7 attacks on round 1 and 4 on round 2, while the full Battlemaster is getting 8 on round 1 and 8 on round 2. The battletrickster's nova is about 10% weaker on round 1, and 50% weaker on round 2. Consider as well that 2N attacks for a battlemaster are not twice as valuable as N attacks, because the battlemaster only has 5-6 superiority dice to enhance his attacks with (5 d10s for battletrickster, 6 d12s for battlemaster--and both of them have the same DC on their maneuvers like Trip where the die size hardly matters at all).

There is no denying that the full battlemaster has a stronger nova than the battletrickster--we both agree on that. But to me it looks like a pretty mild spike in peak nova, not worth what it costs you. Remember that the battletrickster has a higher round-by-round DPR after nova is done, and he has better tricks like +12 to +17 on Athletics for pushing enemies into Walls of Fire, etc. YMMV obviously. I just wish the Battlemaster got something more worthwhile at levels 18-19 like the Champion and Eldritch Knight do.

Fair enough. I have a player in my campaign who is playing a battlemaster and he's the party's main tank, so I was thinking about it from that perspective. Archers are phenomenal for damage but they're generally ineffective as tanks (I suppose you might be able to use Crossbow Expert to make it work, but I've yet to see it attempted).

However, if you're playing an archer, then you're opting out of one of the most potent offensive maneuvers there is (Riposte), because it requires a melee weapon. So the Battlemaster is actually getting an additional attack every round (assuming the enemy misses, but odds are that at least one attack a round will miss if the fighter is taking a significant number of attacks, which is likely to be true for a tank). Between that and his fourth attack, he more than makes up for the sneak attack damage (2d12 + 10 vs 4d6), even assuming that you can get sneak attack every round (not necessarily true). By which I mean that there's probably someone you can target for sneak attack, but if the party needs you to take out the mage in the back line because no one else can reach him then your only chance to sneak is to hide. If there's not enough cover to hide in then you forgo sneak attack.

I don't deny that the Arcane Trickster multiclass is good, I simply don't think that the full Battlemaster is bad by comparison.

 

[FormerlyHemlock]

Fair enough. I have a player in my campaign who is playing a battlemaster and he's the party's main tank, so I was thinking about it from that perspective. Archers are phenomenal for damage but they're generally ineffective as tanks (I suppose you might be able to use Crossbow Expert to make it work, but I've yet to see it attempted).

However, if you're playing an archer, then you're opting out of one of the most potent offensive maneuvers there is (Riposte), because it requires a melee weapon. So the Battlemaster is actually getting an additional attack every round (assuming the enemy misses, but odds are that at least one attack a round will miss if the fighter is taking a significant number of attacks, which is likely to be true for a tank). Between that and his fourth attack, he more than makes up for the sneak attack damage (2d12 + 10 vs 4d6), even assuming that you can get sneak attack every round (not necessarily true). By which I mean that there's probably someone you can target for sneak attack, but if the party needs you to take out the mage in the back line because no one else can reach him then your only chance to sneak is to hide. If there's not enough cover to hide in then you forgo sneak attack.

I don't deny that the Arcane Trickster multiclass is good, I simply don't think that the full Battlemaster is bad by comparison.

Hold on--it's not the Battlemaster per se who is getting Ripose every round, it is the melee Battlemaster. The archer wouldn't get it even if he were pure battlemaster 20. Or at least, he wouldn't get it at range, but if he were for some reason tanking on the front lines with a rapier, he'd rapidly discover that d8+4d6+5+d10 is actually a better Riposte than the battlemaster 20's presumed 2d6+5+d12, or 2d6+15+d12 if he power attacks. Riposte actually loses utility for the pure battlemaster relative to the battletrickster--although granted, the archer battletrickster is not specialized for melee and so will be coming from behind before Riposte is taken into account.

The main function of a tank as I see it isn't damage, it's survivability while you hold a strongpoint against enemies while your allies kill kill. From this perspective, Riposte actually isn't a very good tank ability at all because once you've used your reaction to Riposte, there is nothing at all to prevent the enemy from bypassing you and hitting the squishies behind you--and if they were going to hit the squishies anyway, then Riposte was useless (you would have gotten an opportunity attack anyway). Many enemies won't do that for various reasons of course. But even against those foes, it's hard to argue that having one option (Riposte for 18 points of damage) is superior to having multiple options (Riposte for 28 points of damage, or Shield for +5 to AC, or Cunning Action for half damage against this attack).

BTW, if "take out a mage on the back line is your criteria", that's a job for an archer anyway, not a tank. The tank won't get to Riposte the mage, and he'll take a bunch of opportunity attacks getting to the back line, since he doesn't have Cunning Action or anything , so he'll end up doing maybe 10% more damage than the archer on his nova while taking say 30 or 40 points of damage to himself, compared to zero for the archer.

Well, de gustibus non disputandum est. Thanks for the discussion, it was useful.

 

[Zalabim]

Most of the value to sticking with battle master comes from the extra attack and the extra action surge, and whether the character can leverage an extra ASI. The result for similar characters is that the Battle Master does more damage by the end of the day (8-15%), while the Trickster has more utility with extra skill bonuses, spells, and defense from Uncanny Dodge.

My napkin
[sblock]Rapier+Shield
11.5*.65+4.5*.05=7.7*3+14.1=37.2
14.1
31*.65+24*.05=21.35
744+21.35*5+23.1=106.75+767.1=873.85+2SR=1133.55
Greatsword+GWM
23.33*.4+8.33*.05=9.75*4=39+.1855*9.75=40.81
30.66*.4+15.66*.05=13.05
20.66*.65+15.66*.05=14.212
816.2+78+14.212*6=894.2+85.272=979.472+2SR=1306.016
Crossbow+Sharpshooter
18.5*.5+3.5*.05=9.425*3=28.275+BA+12.95=50.65
1013+28.275+27.5=1068.775+2SR=1180.325

*4=37.7+BA=47.125
942.5+75.4+39=1056.9+2SR=1285.7[/sblock]

 

[Warmaster Horus]

Battlemaster is more front loaded than the other two. And don't diss the power of the d12...

 

[FormerlyHemlock]

Most of the value to sticking with battle master comes from the extra attack and the extra action surge, and whether the character can leverage an extra ASI. The result for similar characters is that the Battle Master does more damage by the end of the day (8-15%), while the Trickster has more utility with extra skill bonuses, spells, and defense from Uncanny Dodge.

My napkin
[sblock]Rapier+Shield
11.5*.65+4.5*.05=7.7*3+14.1=37.2
14.1
31*.65+24*.05=21.35
744+21.35*5+23.1=106.75+767.1=873.85+2SR=1133.55
Greatsword+GWM
23.33*.4+8.33*.05=9.75*4=39+.1855*9.75=40.81
30.66*.4+15.66*.05=13.05
20.66*.65+15.66*.05=14.212
816.2+78+14.212*6=894.2+85.272=979.472+2SR=1306.016
Crossbow+Sharpshooter
18.5*.5+3.5*.05=9.425*3=28.275+BA+12.95=50.65
1013+28.275+27.5=1068.775+2SR=1180.325

*4=37.7+BA=47.125
942.5+75.4+39=1056.9+2SR=1285.7[/sblock]

Could you unpack your notation and assumptions above? It looks for instance like you might be assuming AC 18 on everything, if so why? And I can't locate the Sneak Attack term in the sharpshooter/crossbow entry. Where is it? And are you computing burst or average damage? I just can't read the notation.

 

[Zalabim]

AC 19, actually, because that's listed as "normal" for challenge 20 creatures. I always work from 65% base accuracy for bulk math because that's how the table scales, and it gives me a middling reference point. Actual encounters will be with creatures of varying CR, and varying AC within their CR anyway, but AC rarely gets higher than 21 or 22 on any opponent in this case, and actual PCs might have a magic item or ally that gives them some bonus to hit to offset those. Higher AC favors higher base accuracy, lower AC favors the lower base accuracy examples. I think if the AC were any higher, the GWM power attack wouldn't be useful in this example, though I'm still counting the ~18% total chance to get at least one crit for a bonus attack.

The SA damage in the crossbow example is the 12.95, though it's about 14.5 on the turn action surge is used. That number is chance to land any attack at all, plus .05 for possible crit.

The big numbers are assuming 20 rounds of combat in a day, and SR is short rests, so the final number includes two refreshes of such abilities. There should be enough info there if someone wants to play with different rounds and rests per day values.

The Greatsword without GWM totaled 1200 like this, for a featless comparison. Both melee examples could benefit from shoving the opponent prone before attacking, though that depends on their relative size. The Trickster can shove with shield master, and the BM can shove with the extra attack or trip with a maneuver, though it's more time consuming to tell you which is better, and it's still just an estimate.

The totals are really very close, but if something gives the GWM user advantage that damage will really jump.

This is how I waste my nights at work.

 

[FormerlyHemlock]

Then if I am reading your numbers correctly, it looks like you are giving the battletrickster only three attacks per round. Are you indeed excluding the bonus attack from crossbow expert, and if so why?

Or is that what BA indicates? If so, why is the "*4" guy at the bottom getting a full +10 damage from BA when the GWM battletrickster only gets +2? Is that for Polearm Master?

I'll try to show my own math later when I'm off Tapatalk.