Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.
Rocket your D&D 5E and Level Up: Advanced 5E games into space! Alpha Star Magazine Is Launching... Right Now!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Manbearcat" data-source="post: 6008093" data-attributes="member: 6696971">I'm sorry you don't like the format. I was basically advising of (i) my format to test the new materials and that it was successful in giving me desired, specific information, (ii) general resultant insight derived from the tests on strategic resource disparity and how to potentially address it, (iii) specific resultant insight derived from the tests on the tactical (in)coherency and (in)effectiveness of each of the fighter builds and how to address incoherency and ineffectiveness. I didn't feel that warranted multiple threads. Its just a thread about a different approach to testing this iteration of playtest materials and how to get to a coherent, effective product.   I understand that there are people that believe that the Fighter shouldn't have any built-in strategic resources and that it should be purely vanilla for "starters" or people who want a "bland" class. I disagree with this design approach. There are plenty of ways to give the Fighter strategic resources that fit with generic archetype. The generic archetype of the Fighter would be someone with some form of martial background whereby they came about their skills through an industrious, hard-working approach. It is someone who has been formally trained and likely started with other fundamental, more mundane, martial tasks to derive their physical prowess. (i) Physical laborers (of which would be predominant in the implied setting) would likely hold a Fighter in good esteem merely by way of shared experience and values. There may be a semblance of awe. (ii) A Fighter may have spent much of his life on the untamed frontier or on the borderlands. (iii) A fighter may have honed his martial background at sea in the navy or in the militia. (iv) A fighter may have grown up in the streets or as a highwayman, etc. Now these all appear to look like Backgrounds (and some are). The thing is that the Rogue, Wizard and Cleric all have built in stories that both encapsulate the marriage of their formal training and career path and give them strategic resources that reflect that formal training while still getting a background to further focus or diversify their strategic side. A Fighter could easily be granted something akin to the Rogue's Knack or a Scheme that marries their general formal training to their career/class and gives them strategic resources. Off the top of my head for i - iv: (i) The Fighter can use his ability modifier or + 3 (whichever is higher) on skill checks and ability checks when interacting with the common man or physical laborers and can expect a small discount on most dry goods and services. (ii) While in the wild, the Fighter's minimum roll is 10 when using a skill check or an ability check to attempt to forage/hunt for fresh water and food, find shelter against the elements, and to identify/avoid dens/barrows of deadly creatures. (iii) The Fighter has extensive service, rank and complementary medals while serving in an acclaimed military branch or a militia. The Fighter can use his ability modifier or + 3 (whichever is higher) on skill checks and ability checks when interacting with military or militia (near or far) and can expect remedial accomodations (bunk, supplies) and possibly physical assistance from a few, free able-bodies when in dire need. (iv) The Fighter's minimum roll is 10 when using a skill check or an ability check to attempt to discern territorial signs of gangs/bandits, when code language is used and its rough meaning, and the rank and file of agents. The Fighter can detect an ambush from a mile away and has Advantage on Initiative when gangs/bandits attempt to waylay him in a tavern, an alley, or a trade-road.  These would nto be game-breaking in any way, would mesh with the Fighter's inherent formal training and give them the ability to functionally interact in out of combat, strategic scenarios by deploying resources.   - I did a series of 3 tests with 3 different rosters composed of 4, level 5, characters.  - The race of all of the "PCs" was human and the class roster was the same (Fighter/Archer, Melee Cleric of Moradin with same spell-load, Wizard with same spell-load) except I changed out a Protector, a Slayer, and a Duelist for the 4th spot. I gave all the Fighters the Toughness series of Feats. - I repeated this series of 3 tests 5 times to get 15 total tests for each roster. The tests were as follows: Test 1 - 8 enemies (6 "minions/mooks", 2 "standard") in a forest with blocking terrain interspersed (trees). The total number of HPs for the creatures was somewhere around 175 HPs.Test 2 - 4 enemies (3 "standard guards" and 1 "leader") in a ruined throne room with steps (difficult terrain) a small hazard and the throne as blocking terrain. Again, the total HPs was somewhere around 175 HPs.Test 3 - Finally I did 2 enemies (1 "boss" with 1 "standard guard") in a cave lair with a few pit hazards, stalagmites as blocking terrain and rubble as difficult terrain. The HPs here were again somewhere around 175 HPs. - I generated a series of d20s, d12s, d10s, d8s, d6s, d4s and used them (from top to bottom) for each character and used them round to round and test to test (starting over at the beginning of each new combat).  - The HPs for the Fighters were all the same (Dex or Str primary with Con secondary). The Slayer and Duelist and Archer had the same AC (they likely wouldn't have been the same at this point...the Slayer probably should have been 1 better until a few levels where they would have evened out due to gear. However, I just went with this as it seemed reasonable enough). The Protector's AC was 2 better. - Given that the Slayer and the Duelist both clearly fill the same niche (striker/defender hybrid) but are supposed to do it by way of different themes (berserker versus skirmisher), I wanted to see where they matched up offensively and tactically. My hypothesis was that the Slayer would out-do the Duelist by a fair margin in terms of effectiveness as the static mean damage of the Duelist is already ~ 54 % of the Slayer due to weapon dice disparity. They share "Jab" so they can both use it to gain damage on "Move", "Withdraw" and "Dodge" actions as needed. The differences are the built-in damage die, and the trade-off of shift and tumble for two extra damage options (minion stomper and straight damage additive when fighting multiple adjacent enemies and felling them), and the inherent advantage within the Action Economy that the Slayer's extra damage options should provide. Given my extensive play with how tactical mobility affects "skirmish combat" and how it must be coupled with status effects, action denial or other features to provide advantage within the Action Economy, I knew that only in the most rare of corner cases would Shift or Tumble be useful (typically with a considerable number of enemies, enemies with reach or bottleneck scenarios due to numbers or blocking terrain...which is why I used varying battlegrounds and numbers) and that that intangible bonus would not provide much tangible impact to the Action Economy equation. I knew how useful (and roughly how often it would trigger) Glancing Blow (accelerating as the number of attacks go up) would be and how useful Cleave would be (accelerating as the number of enemies or AC target to hit goes up) as a tangible benefit in the derivation of the Action Economy equation. Advantage was clearly to the Slayer in single target damage and in multi-target damage (while being roughly equal in survivability by level 7 - 8...but I provided them equal AC at level 5) and thus within the Action Economy...but by how much? I don't have the spreadsheet with me at work but I remember the percentages per combat offhand: Combat A - Duelist damage was ~ 50 % of the Slayer's damage. Both Glancing Blow and Cleave were heavy here.Combat B - Duelist damage was ~ 43 % of the Slayer's damage. Both Glancing Blow and Cleave were heavy here (Cleave was most potent in this scenario).Combat C - Duelist damage was roughly 52 % of the Slayer's damage. Cleave came into play one time within the multiple scenarios of this fight due to the "brute guard" being felled by the other characters. Glancing Blow came into play multiple times here for a marginal boost. One last thing of note. This is NET DAMAGE and not GROSS DAMAGE (damage heaped on after the target has lost all HPs was not calculated). Due to the higher max damage potential of the Slayer, the build lost a lot of top end, gross damage (and should be expected to do so in normal play when fighting a lot of low HP creatures) after felling enemies. If GROSS DAMAGE was used, the disparity would have been worse. The Action Economy advantage (driven by disparity of single target damage and multi-target damage and no functional Action Economy advantage to Tumble or Shift) of the Slayer over the Duelist was large. Fights were over a good round, and change, earlier on average.  I did not test those classes so I only commented on what I tested. There may very well be issues there as well.</blockquote>

Verification