Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Kupursk" data-source="post: 7562461" data-attributes="member: 6986037">That was my overall assessment as well. So it's more or less confirmed. Some people mentioned other stuff like magic items or magic buffs, but I didn't want to count that sort of stuff. Although a high level fighter will probably benefit from some of that, there is no way of telling which magic effects and all the possibilities they incur. Neither 2e not 5e assumes you'll have magic items by default, so I thought checking out the baseline numbers were more appropriate. I realise that other abilities like increased critical chance and etc, do raise the average damage a tad, but comparatively speaking I think this is offset by the 2e Fighter almost never missing an attack at higher levels, whereas the 5e will probably miss considerably more. Which leads back to both probably having the same approximate &quot;absolute&quot; numbers in terms of damage. The discrepancy, I suppose, comes when you compare HP numbers and what 1d8+7 (for example) means in each system.* A troll in 2e had an average of 33 HP, while in 5e he has 84 HP.* The Balor in 2e had an average of 59 HP, while in 5e he has a whooping 262 HP!!Anyways... The point was not really to compare which is better, I just wanted to have a sense of what the average numbers should be in 5e. As a DM I often have to improvise random NPCs that weren't planned and thus don't have their full character sheets at hand. So it's good to know what to expect at different levels, that sort of stuff.Apparently getting advantage + &quot;power attack&quot; (either ranged or two-handed) is more or less mandatory at some point to deal enough damage as a warrior-type to keep up with the HP of monsters. Which is... sad... I guess. That sort of feat should be optional and not almost mandatory since it looks you into only a few specific &quot;builds&quot; to be able to deal good damage.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Kupursk, post: 7562461, member: 6986037"] That was my overall assessment as well. So it's more or less confirmed. Some people mentioned other stuff like magic items or magic buffs, but I didn't want to count that sort of stuff. Although a high level fighter will probably benefit from [I]some[/I] of that, there is no way of telling which magic effects and all the possibilities they incur. Neither 2e not 5e [I]assumes[/I] you'll have magic items by default, so I thought checking out the baseline numbers were more appropriate. I realise that other abilities like increased critical chance and etc, do raise the average damage a tad, but comparatively speaking I think this is offset by the 2e Fighter almost never missing an attack at higher levels, whereas the 5e will probably miss considerably more. Which leads back to both probably having the same approximate "absolute" numbers in terms of damage. The discrepancy, I suppose, comes when you compare HP numbers and what 1d8+7 (for example) means in each system. * A troll in 2e had an average of 33 HP, while in 5e he has 84 HP. * The Balor in 2e had an average of 59 HP, while in 5e he has a whooping 262 HP!! Anyways... The point was not really to compare which is better, I just wanted to have a sense of what the average numbers should be in 5e. As a DM I often have to improvise random NPCs that weren't planned and thus don't have their full character sheets at hand. So it's good to know what to expect at different levels, that sort of stuff. Apparently getting advantage + "power attack" (either ranged or two-handed) is more or less mandatory at some point to deal enough damage as a warrior-type to keep up with the HP of monsters. Which is... sad... I guess. That sort of feat should be optional and not almost mandatory since it looks you into only a few specific "builds" to be able to deal good damage. [/QUOTE]

Verification