Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="B.T." data-source="post: 5925343" data-attributes="member: 84465">There's been a significant amount of grumping from the new school segment of the D&D population that the 5e playtest fighter is awful, terrible, completely unfun, and stupid. Now while I will quickly admit that I am not entirely satisfied with the fighter thus far, I am skeptical of how terrible the fighter truly is. In fact, I wager that the playtest fighter is a strong character who does what he is designed to do--be a heavy-damage melee combatant--the best out of all the classes. [removed sentence]. Let's discuss how the fighter differs from his 4e counterparts as a refutation for the complaints of his "awful" design before getting into the number crunching. • NO AT-WILL ATTACKS. Horrors upon horrors, the fighter must resort to a basic attack each round. This cannot be! [removed sentence] [removed sentence] [removed sentence] • NO ENCOUNTER/DAILIES. This isn't entirely true--at second level, you have two daily powers available--but let's discuss why this is. In 4e, encounters and dailies are primarily used to inflict status effects and extra damage. The current 5e design goals are to offer much simpler gameplay than 4e, avoiding stock effects (i.e., 2[W] + Strength + daze). Naturally, the fighter shown will be simple at first and then complexity will be layered atop this; the 5e developers have specifically said that they were designing the game this way. [removed sentence] • CRAPPY DAMAGE. As I already said, the other aforementioned function of encounters/dailies is bonus: this is not required. Unlike in 4e, where a first-level monster might have 30 goddamn hit points, the 5e playtest indicates a significantly reduced level of HP bloat. [removed sentence] Now, let's get into the actual math of the game. First off, I'm going to make some assumptions about how things play out. I will ignore the fighter's slayer theme because this is available to everyone in the game (as I understand it), so it is not a class feature of the fighter. I am pretending that the average monster has AC 15 (ACs in the playtest run the gamut from about 12 to 20, with the average monster in the 14-16 range). [removed sentence] And (naturally), I am assuming average damage rolled. Let's start with the basics. Greataxe (+6 vs. AC), 2d6+7 damage, no advantage: 5% chance of crit (19 damage), 55% chance of 14 damage. Damage per round: 8.65. Greataxe (+6 vs. AC), 2d6+7 damage, advantage: 9.75% chance of crit (19 damage), 74.25% chance of 14 damage. Damage per round: 12.248. Crossbow (+4 vs. AC), 1d8+5 damage, no advantage: 5% chance of crit (13 damage), 45% chance of 9.5 damage. Damage per round: 4.925. Crossbow (+4 vs. AC), 1d8+5 damage, advantage: 9.75% chance of crit (13 damage), 65.25% chance of 9.5 damage. Damage per round: 7.466. Now, onto the cleric. Again, I'm taking the best of both clerics because of the crying that the cleric is overpowered. Warhammer (+4 vs. AC), 1d10+2 damage, no advantage: 5% chance of crit (12 damage), 45% chance of 7.5 damage. Damage per round: 3.975. Warhammer (+4 vs. AC), 1d10+2 damage, advantage: 9.75% chance of crit (12 damage), 65.25% chance of 7.5 damage. Damage per round: 6.064. Radiant lance (+6 vs. AC), 1d8+4 damage, no advantage: 5% chance of crit (12 damage), 55% chance of 8.5 damage. Damage per round: 5.275 damage. Radiant lance (+6 vs. AC), 1d8+4 damage, advantage: 9.75% chance of crit (12 damage), 74.25% chance of 8.5 damage. Damage per round: 7.481. Overall, the fighter is significantly better than the cleric in the melee department (8.65 and 12.248 vs. 3.975 and 6.064), and he is slightly worse as a ranged combatant (4.925 and 7.466 vs. 5.275 and 7.481). Let's look at the spells available to cleric--at least, the ones causing the most buttdevastation, spiritual hammer and crusader's strike. Spiritual hammer (+6 vs. AC), 1d8 damage, no advantage: 5% chance of crit (8 damage), 55% chance of 4.5 damage. Damage per round: 2.875. (Pretty sure this one can't have advantage on it, so not going to bother.) Crusader's strike (+4 vs. AC), 1d10+1d6+2 damage, no advantage: 5% chance of crit (18 damage), 45% chance of 11 damage. Damage per round: 5.85. Crusader's strike (+4 vs. AC), 1d10+1d6+2 damage: 9.75% chance of crit (18 damage), 65.25% chance of 11 damage. Damage per round: 8.933. Now, unless my math is grossly off, the average damage a cleric with crusader's strike and spiritual hammer is going to do is 8.725 vs. 8.65. Thus, assuming a cleric expends two spell slots and letting him use the best of both the Pelor and Moradin builds, a cleric outdamages a fighter by less than a whole tenth of a point of damage. Discuss.</blockquote>

Verification