Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="saviirkad" data-source="post: 9890751" data-attributes="member: 7054355">I don't think there ultimately is a combat metric to measure, because we are discussing a game with both hard and soft features that can be engaged with in various measures that incorporate both to different degrees. An analysis based on hard metrics will always exclude too much of the game to give valuable insight, even within the scope the metrics are pulled from.I want to be clear that I don't think your math is wrong, I just think that its results have no impactful meaning beyond itself. If all one is doing is abiding by some sense of curiosity to see which of these separate dice rolls have a greater average total than the other, the math is right within its scope and curiosity is sated. But if the results are to be used in any way outside of that, up to and including validating the statement of "combat is abysmal," then its value in my opinion plummets to zero.Can specific support or control features be added to the math and change the result of that math? Yes. I did name a few examples (commander's strike, heroism, bardic inspiration). Would it add value? I don't think so. If anything, what it suggests is that if you want to maximize just those metrics within just this comparison, then the answer is both. You want to play either the fighter-bard or the barbarian opposite the other.</blockquote>