D&D 5E Consensus about two-weapon fighting?

[Zardnaar]

Yep it's debatable if fighters are any better at combat than say rangers and paladin's. If they are it's marginal and Paladin's and rangers do other stuff.

The white room theory craft fighter build is sharpshooter+hand crossbow expert. More level 11+ and assumes a magical hand crossbow which tend to be rare.

Airlock works from level one, fighter might be marginally ahead in damage level 6 and 7 or have +1 to hit and damage level 8.

Not such a great trade off for Paladin and Hunter ranger abilities.

 

[Gladius Legis]

No, but I see it in actual game play, not white room analysis. In actual game play, not every fighter is a carbon copy of the uber-damage build or something that gets min/maxers juices flowing. For fighters to be better, they have to better in general, which they certainly are not. I am not saying every fighter has to be better than every other battler, either, but should have an edge when it comes to combat and the only edge they have is limited in uses.

Fighter suck at fighting compared to what the other battlers can do. Ok, the don't suck, but they aren't any better either IME, although they should be--otherwise, what do they have to offer really?

Well, MY actual gameplay has Fighters consistently outdamaging Rogues. And I'm not even talking about GWM/SS Fighters. Nope. I'm talking good old sword-and-board, without any feats that directly help that fighting style.

The math agrees, too. And for the record, I'm sick of having math dismissed as "white room analysis." You just want to remove any objective and quantifiable evidence from the discussion, which is intellectually dishonest. You just want it as your anecdotal evidence vs. everyone else's because that's where it's easier for you to "win" the argument.

 

[Zardnaar]

White room analysis normally involves some high level theory craft build cherry picked for a certain level. If you have to pick level 14 or 17 with an example you have already list the argument IMHO.

Rogues don't out damage fighters much except maybe at certain levels or via help from others.

 

[5ekyu]

Well, MY actual gameplay has Fighters consistently outdamaging Rogues. And I'm not even talking about GWM/SS Fighters. Nope. I'm talking good old sword-and-board, without any feats that directly help that fighting style.

The math agrees, too. And for the record, I'm sick of having math dismissed as "white room analysis." You just want to remove any objective and quantifiable evidence from the discussion, which is intellectually dishonest. You just want it as your anecdotal evidence vs. everyone else's because that's where it's easier for you to "win" the argument.

"You just want to remove any objective and quantifiable evidence from the discussion, which is intellectually dishonest. "

Actually, intellectually dishonest is making a lot of assumptions that reflect only a small subset of the types of challenges, running repetitive sequences and then claimingnyour results as "objective".

The white room analysis tends to weed out anything not easily consistently quantifiable but in actual play a wide variety on non-quantifiable factors affect the outcomes greatly.

 

[Zardnaar]

White rooms useful for forums, but in typical games you don't tend to see the power builds in action.

Same as why 3E probably worked well most of the time. Just because you can do something doesn't mean you should.

Or know how to abuse it. Team work is a bit of a foreign concept with casuals and newbies so the rarely if ever buff each other or have things like battlemasters granting attacks to rogues.

Or fighters abusing hand crossbows plus sharpshooter at level 11+. Highest level game I've seen here is level 7 at the flgs and they have around a dozen games running.

My power build is a celestial warlock with healer feat. Playing a Sorlock would just ruin the game for the others so why do it?

 

[DND_Reborn]

Well, MY actual gameplay has Fighters consistently outdamaging Rogues. And I'm not even talking about GWM/SS Fighters. Nope. I'm talking good old sword-and-board, without any feats that directly help that fighting style.

The math agrees, too. And for the record, I'm sick of having math dismissed as "white room analysis." You just want to remove any objective and quantifiable evidence from the discussion, which is intellectually dishonest. You just want it as your anecdotal evidence vs. everyone else's because that's where it's easier for you to "win" the argument.

Well, if your experience differs then that is great for you and your table. At ours, we see fighters as being underpowered compared to the damage other battlers consistently do, so we've made house-rules to make them more palatable.

You might be sick of it but there is a reason for it as 5ekyu notes. So, YOUR math agrees due to whatever specific conditions you (or others) are examining. I am a great person to do white room analysis (master's degrees in both mathematics and statistics) but stopped doing it because it only examines certain conditions in game play and cannot accurately reflect the game experience as a whole.

Certain analysis is fine depending on just what you are looking to prove, but this argument is not one of them. Statistics of any kind can nearly always be slanted to what the user wants to "prove."

Finally, I am not out to "win" any argument. We're having a discussion and I am well aware that personal experience can differ. If you think fighters are the tops at fighting, then as I said, good for you.

"You just want to remove any objective and quantifiable evidence from the discussion, which is intellectually dishonest. "

Actually, intellectually dishonest is making a lot of assumptions that reflect only a small subset of the types of challenges, running repetitive sequences and then claiming your results as "objective".

The white room analysis tends to weed out anything not easily consistently quantifiable but in actual play a wide variety on non-quantifiable factors affect the outcomes greatly.

Yeah, which is why I don't bother doing it any more.

 

[Gladius Legis]

Actually, intellectually dishonest is making a lot of assumptions that reflect only a small subset of the types of challenges, running repetitive sequences and then claimingnyour results as "objective".

Care to point out specifically what "lot of assumptions" I'm making on something as basic as a Fighter's TYPICAL ATTACK ACTION? No? Then your words are empty platitudes.

The white room analysis tends to weed out anything not easily consistently quantifiable but in actual play a wide variety on non-quantifiable factors affect the outcomes greatly.

Again, talking about the damage of a Fighter's typical attack action. There aren't really any "non-quantifiable factors" that effect the Fighter's attack action's damage compared to anyone else. The Fighter makes his attacks. Simple miss/hit probability and damage averages. Something that gives the Fighter disadvantage on attacks is going to do the same to the Paladin or the Rogue. Your "non-quantifiable factors" really aren't relevant.

 

[Gladius Legis]

At ours, we see fighters as being underpowered compared to the damage other battlers consistently do

Based on what?

So, YOUR math agrees due to whatever specific conditions you (or others) are examining.

It's a Fighter executing his typical attack action. There are literally no other "specific conditions" to consider. Especially when comparing to other classes who would be affected the same (or worse in the case of the Rogue) by those same "specific conditions."

Certain analysis is fine depending on just what you are looking to prove, but this argument is not one of them.

This is a simple damage comparison between classes. Based on your assertions that Fighters don't deal as much damage as other classes, when that is in fact provably wrong. Yes, this argument absolutely is one of them.

 

[DND_Reborn]

Based on what?

Based on what we see in practice at our table. I thought that was evident.

It's a Fighter executing his typical attack action. There are literally no other "specific conditions" to consider. Especially when comparing to other classes who would be affected the same (or worse in the case of the Rogue) by those same "specific conditions."

This is a simple damage comparison between classes. Based on your assertions that Fighters don't deal as much damage as other classes, when that is in fact provably wrong. Yes, this argument absolutely is one of them.

Fine, here is a simple, general, analysis for you that proves my point.

Fighter takes Duelist Fighting Style and is a sword and board. They always attack in tandem, allowing the Rogue to use Sneak Attack every round (the Fighter gets Duelist on every attack of course). Both start with ability mods +3, but the Fighter boosts ASI at 4th and 6th, the Rogue at 4th and 8th. Assuming a hit probability of 60% (reasonable against most ACs regardless of tier). Both use generic d8 weapons, say long sword and rapier.

Note: these are not min/maxed DPR builds, but "standard" types for their classes.



The table shows the results. The Fighter does, on average by level, 1 hp less DPR (yellow) than the Rogue. For 12 of the 20 levels, the Rogue does more damage (red). The levels when the Fighter does more is because of the increase in the number of attacks. Then the Fighter's edge decreases as Sneak Attack improves, eventually losing out again to the Rogue.

This purposefully ignores archetype features, feats, etc. because once you include them, you are no longer looking at the base types.

Now, I will certainly acknowledge that if you give the Fighter a greatsword and Great Weapon Fighting style, the Fighter performs better 13 out of 20 levels with an average DPR increase of about 1.4 over the Rogue. But, again, 1.4 DPR over a base Rogue is hardly impressive and makes me feel like a Fighter is the king of weapon combat.

 

[FrogReaver]

[MENTION=6987520]dnd4vr[/MENTION] - your chart shows a level 1 rogue doing 11 damage but a fighter doing 9.5. The fighter with duelist style will only be .5 damage behind the rogue. Something is off in your numbers.