Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="JamesonCourage" data-source="post: 5862718" data-attributes="member: 6668292">It's not as bad as you might think. Let's compare a 25-point buy half-orc PC barbarian to a hill giant (HG=Hill Giant, for quick comparison):Well, there's only a 9 point HP difference, thanks to the rage mechanic. The barbarian deals, on average, 17.5 damage per hit, compared to the HG's 19 (18 vs. the PC barbarian), which is not nearly as massive compared to the PC as you might have thought. The barbarian has the same or better saves and initiative (very slightly), slower speed on foot, but has a horse. His attack bonus is the same. His AC is two less, but he can't be flanked (negating 2 AC, as we'll see below). His ranged attack is 1 less on the attack, but 3.5 less damage on a hit (just over 1% of the HP pool of the barbarian party when they aren't raging). Their skills are comparable, with a noticeable edge on Spot going to the HG, though the barbarians do have darkvision to the HG's low-light vision. If we assume that the HG is attacked by a party of 4 barbarians (as you implied might be the case with the quote: "Now a level 7 barbarian is an appropriate challenge for a party of 4 level 7 barbarians"):Let's assume that a barbarian in the party of 4 is built similarly to our PC barbarian. If, in the first round, the 4 PCs surround and flank the HG (+2 to attacks), they'll be attacking at +18, against an AC of 20 (only missing on a 1), so we'll assume 4 hits for 70 damage (rolling average). The HG goes down in round 2 at the latest (round 1 if they wait for him, 5 ft. step, and full attack). If things play out badly for the PCs and the Hill Giant hit 3 times (1 attack in the first round, 2 attacks on a full attack... that's if they wait for him and negate his AoO for reach with 5 ft. steps), he'll deal 54 damage. That's 17.0% of the 4 barbarian's total non-raging HP pool.Now, let's look at the same 4 barbarian's are attacking that PC barbarian (he's screwed):The barbarians surround and attack the PC barbarian, flanking him (though for no effect). They'll be attacking at +16 against an AC of 18 (only missing on a 1), so we'll assume 4 hits for 66 damage (thanks to damage reduction). The PC barbarian goes down in round 2 (or round 1 if they wait, step, full attack). If things go badly and the barbarian hit 3 times (1 attack in the first round, 2 attacks on a full attack), he'll deal 49.5 damage. That's 15.6% of the 4 barbarian's total non-raging HP pool.That's about a 1.4% difference. Yes, the HG is more effective, but it's not by a massive margin. Not even by a large margin. If both fights go well for the party of barbarians and they only get hit once (HG deals 18, barbarian deals 17.5), we're looking at a 0.15% difference in effectiveness (both deal about 5.5% of the party's non-raging HP pool). Still, it does show us something, as I'll note below.I think they would be seen as about the same to most parties.I don't think this is the case, but that's the real takeaway lesson here: CR can be misleading. You glanced at the two, said "it's not the same" based on previous experience with the CR system, when in reality this matchup is pretty similar.The CR system, while decent, could either be pretty on-target (like with this matchup), or it could be very misleading. We need a better system than what we had. As always, play what you like <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile    :)"  data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" /></blockquote>

Verification