Those design things don't include the hidden math. They just all fit. You could not for instance, complete invent a new ability and rate it without having a very good chance of getting it wrong. They would be very unlikely to get it wrong, because they have the hidden stuff.
So, when on page 274 when they show a chart that says a CR 7 monster should deal 45 to 50 damage per round, and then further on pages 277 and 278 they talk about how to split that damage, how to deal with things like aura. Heck, they directly give an equation for the first three rounds of combat.
All of that is inaccurate because they didn't give us the hidden math? What hidden math?
Or what about on pgs 283 to 284 where they talk about how to create spells, and they give a chart on spell damage per level, and then state that you can use that same chart for healing spells? Am I supposed to believe that they gave DMs false information that would be wrong because there is "hidden math" that they refused to share?
Better yet, how do you know that this is the wrong information and the real numbers are using hidden math you aren't allowed to see?
Fine. Since you want to be pedantic about it. Clerics have channel divinity and domain abilities. Fighters have fighting styles, feats(since you insist on optional rules being usable), indomitable, etc.
Not all Channel Divinities are applicable, I figured they would skew the results to only use the ones that were. After all, Turn Undead is either completely combat ending, or useless.
I've accounted for Fighting Styles, as would be obvious from my numbers.
The fighter team was specifically stated before my numbers to not use feats. You agree to that, no use calling foul now.
Indomitable only works on saves, it does nothing else. There is no indication that any saves were required to be made, so no indication that Indomitable would alter the results.
Ect isn't an ability. It is a way of saying "and on and on" but it is interesting you chose to use it there, because for the Fighter there is no "and on and on". They don't get any new abilities as a base class after indomitable.
I mention base class, and swing back to subclasses for clerics now, because yes, I didn't account for them. Doing so offers a wide range of different options. For Example, would you have been okay with me comparing a team of 4 twilight clerics to a team of Champion fighters? Therefore, it was easier and faster to use the theory of Ceteris Paribus in regards to subclasses.
Why not? Clerics have those.
Sure they have those, but my analysis only involved Spiritual Weapon and Spirit Guardians. I mean, you could argue their damage goes down if they use Hold Person and then get multiple crits on an unmoving and non-threat target, but that requires many additional levels of math that really weren't relevant.
3 action surges, since it's not hard to have at least 2 short rests.
Yes, I'm aware that over six fights, with two short rests, it would be three action surges. That's how "one round of combat" could equal "half of a combat". I had not considered the effect on Action surge, but if I counted it as a full combat, then by fight #6 the fighter could actually pull a small bit ahead.
If I've said something is too powerful, that's purely my opinion about how it works in my game. Not a fact. And people here have said that it works just fine and isn't overpowered in their games.
Having the opinion is fine. Change the healing spell for your game and be done with it, just like I nerf or ban things I think are too powerful or disrupt the campaign.
So... because I want to support my opinion with facts, demonstrating that there is a solid basis of reasoning behind my calls for changing the game.... that's bad? You don't like that I don't just say "I don't like this" and instead say "I don't like this, because it leads to this, and here is some math to show I'm not just making up a false problem?"
Well... tough naughty word? I like grounding my opinions in a basis of logic and facts, that is never going to change, and I don't care that you don't like it. After all, the opinion part of this is just "this is bad". It isn't an opinon that 1st level cure wounds takes an action and heals 1d8+spellcasting modifier. Nor is it an opinion that the healing increases by 1d8 per spell level over 1st. Just like it isn't an opinion that a wyvern's stinger does an average of 35 damage, nor an opinion that it can do that and bite for another average of 11 damage. It isn't an opinion that CR 6 means it should be faced by parties around level 6, and that therefore a full-caster who has prepared Cure Wounds has their highest slot as likely a 3rd level slot (4th if they are 7th, but CR 6 is targeted at level 6). It would therefore also not be an opinion that casting a 3rd level Cure wounds and healing 3d8+mod, or an average of 13.5+mod, is less than 35 damage. It is even less than the on a save version, which is 23 damage. And increasing it to 4th level slots still leaves 18+mod, which is still less than 35 and less than 23, assuming that a 7th level character doesn't have a 20 in their spellcasting stat.
The opinion comes in with "this disparity is bad". We can debate circles about that opinion. But I am basing that opinion in facts that demonstrate the disparity as also a fact.
That's horribly wrong. Just because you can suffer through something, taking lots of damage or having to go around obstacles, doesn't mean that clerics who can avoid issues aren't better at it.
I'll let you look at some of the fighter threads to see exactly how they lag in social and exploration.
What does that have to do with anything? You are completely misunderstanding the point.
The point is, if Fighters can get through it by going around the obstacle.... a cleric can just go around the obstacle. Sure, a cleric may have the potential to do something better, but that doesn't mean they are required to do so. Whatever Team Fighter is doing, Team Cleric can do the EXACT SAME THING, because fighters have nothing but skills and clever play to deal with social and exploration challenges. I'm not saying that clerics don't have options, I'm saying that part of having options is choosing to do what the fighter does.
No. I'm saying that some will be used, not that they are required. That's how players work. If there's a problem and they have a utility spell that will solve it, it will almost always be cast.
"Almost always" isn't "always". They can choose NOT to cast it. You insisting that I have to dedicate slots to doing something that someone MIGHT choose to do is inane. Especially since these seem to be schrondinger's problems, that only exist long enough to force cleric spell usage but then have no effect on team fighter.
I love how you ignores the "or" portion of that statement in order to twist my words into "dropping people to 0 hp every single fight."
I love how you can't see two sentences as tackling two different ideas. To break this down further and help you understand what you are reading.
No, most fights do not see [most combats see combatants go unconscious or very low in hit points]. If you are dropping people to 0 hp every single fight (Note here that I am addressing only half of your statement, not both halves), you have warped things. If you would like to prove that you aren't [warping things by dropping people to 0 hp every fight], provide evidence, not just empty assertions.
But sure, if you would instead like to prove that you just drop people to "very low hit points" every single fight instead of to zero, feel free. But somehow I get the feeling that you will continue to ignore my calls for you to actually back up your claims, like you have for the last dozen or so pages of this discussion.
The champion is not underpowered. It is the weakest of the fighter classes.
Okay, prove it. That's what I asked.
Battle Masters have more battle utility through their maneuvers and also deal more damage. I find it convenient that you went out of your way to say no feats and use the weakest fighter in order to try and show that clerics are better, and you didn't even really manage to do that.
Show me where I claimed the champion is what I was using? Also, while the battlemaster MIGHT do more damage and MIGHT have more utility, what about the Arcane Archer? The Cavelier? The Purple Dragon Knight? Even if you prove the Battle Master is stronger than the champion (facts not in evidence, you just stated it as true) that doesn't mean the champion is the weakest fighter.
But really, I see that this discussion is quickly reaching an end point, because you have trapped yourself. See below.
You don't need matching AC. The fighter is better off with a two handed weapon and great weapon master.
How are they better off? Also, you want me to have another disparity? Interesting choice.
I'm saying that if you get to use optional rules for the clerics, the fighters get to as well.
So, at a minimum, you have admitted that parties are not balanced if one group is using feats and the other isn't. Which is interesting. Because that means that if feats are allowed (and they often are) then using a 1-handed weapon that does 1d8+mod isn't balanced, it is actually behind. Notably, you pointed out that fighters are generally closer to balanced against spellcasters using two-handed weapons and getting a +10 damage. That's what them being "better off" would mean, right?
But, that means that a "balanced" at-will attack would be closer to 2d6+10+mod, averaging 17+mod. So then... healing doesn't actually restore a single balanced at-will attack, does it? 4.5+mod isn't even close to 17+mod. So, this seems to indicate that.... I am probably on to something with healing being too weak, because attacks of 1d8+mod are seen as too weak as well.
Behind by at least 22 hit points is not comparable.
It only helps in one fight out of the 6-8 for the adventuring day. Then they die.
Interesting. So, you admit Fighter's don't have enough healing. Just, flat out.
See, a cleric would have, on average, about 80 hp by level 11. A fighter being at least 22 point higher would place them at 102. But let's give you 120 hp and make it a 40 pt disparity, double what you claimed.
Those clerics each get +70 hp from Heal, which helps them in one fight. Then they die. That puts them at 150 hp.
However... isn't 150 hp HIGHER than the fighter's 120? Ah, but I forgot second wind, of course. That gives them and extra 1d10+11 or 16.5 hp. Which is 136.5.... and still lower than 150.
Additionally, you've just said :
You don't need matching AC. The fighter is better off with a two handed weapon and great weapon master.
Lower AC means the fighter is going to get hit more often, meaning they will take MORE damage than the clerics. Additionally, all the cleric abilities I had listed can work at range. Fighter's weapons can't. Which is potentially even more damage.
So if clerics are doomed to death with only 150 hp, how can fighter's possible survive with only 136.5? And remember, this is DOUBLE the hp disparity that YOU claimed. By your own claims, the fighters die by the second fight, especially if your claim that every fight ends with multiple combatants at low hp, because Fighter's can't heal to full between fight 1 and fight 2, but the clerics can.
You've trapped yourself with your own arguments. I don't even need to do anything any more. Because if Fighters can survive 6 combats with only Second Wind and Hit Dice, then Clerics should be able to do the same with Heal and Hit Dice. But if clerics can't, then fighters can't. And if fighters can't survive until fight number 6, then they can't pull ahead and match the damage output of clerics, because that requires "going all day" which you have just made clear you don't believe is actually possible.
I guess at this point, have fun arguing with yourself, because that's who you need to disprove at this point.