D&D 5E The Fighter Extra Feat Fallacy

[FrogReaver]

Well at least this suggestion is better than looking at overkill damage...

Here's the problem with looking at "damage that matters". Any given character capable of killing a monster will do exactly the same amount of damage that matters. It's just how fast they are doing it. If you try to instead look at damage that matters per round then DPR overtakes the calculation and accounts for a very large proportion of it. Thus higher DPR is a great predictor of damage that matters on a per round basis. Thus, unless we are looking at specific or contrived examples and leaving out all the ones in favor of higher DPR then all we need to do to reasonably approximate who is doing the most samage that matters is to look at DPR.

These mathematical exercises are largely meaningless. This is why the designers do actual playtests. Extra damage is meaningless if the monster has 1hp left. People are often dazzled by the total numbers on the dice but the wow factor is meaningless most of the time. Do some playtests counting only the damage that matters. Fighters perform extremely well.

I do think there should be superior manoeuvres though that scale with level.

 

[smbakeresq]

These mathematical exercises are largely meaningless. This is why the designers do actual playtests. Extra damage is meaningless if the monster has 1hp left. People are often dazzled by the total numbers on the dice but the wow factor is meaningless most of the time. Do some playtests counting only the damage that matters. Fighters perform extremely well.

I do think there should be superior manoeuvres though that scale with level.

I am going to run some this weekend a fighter with all Champion stuff added to the case class and BM as the subclass to see how it works. Its mostly an outdoors adventure (SKT going through the North) so it might affect the utility. I have always let the players use the BM feature for sizing up the opponent as taking 1 minute for the first time you see a creature, and then an action or bonus action or no action as appropriate to find out more info in subsequent encounters. It actually is effective doing it that way since the PC will then interact with you more trying to find out more info which is always good for the player.


As far as maneuvers yeah. And more balanced maneuvers so there is an actual choice. Precision attack and Riposte are just far superior to the others that they just get picked all the time, whereas things like Commanders Strike (so action in-efficient that it never used) or Rally (a bonus action and Superiority die to give some temp HP?) are just bad.


That's why you see a bunch of UA stuff for the fighter, almost all of which is pretty good.

 

[Pauln6]

Well at least this suggestion is better than looking at overkill damage...

Here's the problem with looking at "damage that matters". Any given character capable of killing a monster will do exactly the same amount of damage that matters. It's just how fast they are doing it. If you try to instead look at damage that matters per round then DPR overtakes the calculation and accounts for a very large proportion of it. Thus higher DPR is a great predictor of damage that matters on a per round basis. Thus, unless we are looking at specific or contrived examples and leaving out all the ones in favor of higher DPR then all we need to do to reasonably approximate who is doing the most samage that matters is to look at DPR.

The types of encounter and frequency determine who performs best. Minions vs big bads. Daily spells vs at wills etc. But the game has to be balanced across different styles of play.

I've decided to give battlemasters an extra manoeuvre (chosen from a third party supplement) and an extra SD per tier. I'm quite taken with the notion of superior manoeuvres more akin to 4e powers that cost 2SD but there need be no change to the class since it just requires new manoeuvres with level requirements.

 

[FrogReaver]

The types of encounter and frequency determine who performs best. Minions vs big bads. Daily spells vs at wills etc. But the game has to be balanced across different styles of play.

I've decided to give battlemasters an extra manoeuvre (chosen from a third party supplement) and an extra SD per tier. I'm quite taken with the notion of superior manoeuvres more akin to 4e powers that cost 2SD but there need be no change to the class since it just requires new manoeuvres with level requirements.

Even on days that have the number and types of encounters that should favor the ranger or paladin an optimized fighter still comes out ahead.

 

[Tony Vargas]

You didn't read carefully. It's 2-3 DPR if you assume the ranger has a perfect day.

Six encounters & two short rests is the pacing at which we supposedly have the best shot at balancing encounters, seems a neutral choice. Consider a 3-4 encounter day with no short rest, for instance, or an 8-encounter day with 6 short rests...

Um, that's not an average fighter day. That's the absolute best fighter day - 2 short rests and a long adventuring day. Shorter days, or longer single fights will advantage the others.

Wouldn't the fighter do even better relative to the Ranger &c in a very 'long' day, like the 8-enounter one, above? Action Surge every fight, long-duration daily spells in only a fraction of them?

The only way the fighter pulls ahead is if he Precision Strikes every single chance he can, and takes nothing but combat focused feats.

Sure, and he's all-in, it's not like he can prepare different feats or maneuvers each day or use CS dice out of combat...

One question though, why do people think that things like the +5/-10 feats are best with fighters?

The per-attack damage bonus synergizes with Action Surge.

 

[Hussar]

It's funny that Commander's Strike is called out as a bad choice.

In a group with a rogue, it's probably the single most devastating option you can take. Why turn a fighter's miss into a hit when you can double up on sneak attack with an extra die tossed in for benefit? There is no single hit a fighter can do that will come anywhere near what a single hit from a rogue will do.

Or a Paladin I suppose. Even the ranger is probably doing more in a single hit than the fighter can do, depending on situation.

We found Commander's Strike to be absolutely devastating.

 

[FrogReaver]

It's funny that Commander's Strike is called out as a bad choice.

In a group with a rogue, it's probably the single most devastating option you can take. Why turn a fighter's miss into a hit when you can double up on sneak attack with an extra die tossed in for benefit? There is no single hit a fighter can do that will come anywhere near what a single hit from a rogue will do.

Or a Paladin I suppose. Even the ranger is probably doing more in a single hit than the fighter can do, depending on situation.

We found Commander's Strike to be absolutely devastating.

Yep. It's always said that if a higher level rogue is in the party then commanders strike is definitely good. I'm not sure what level rogue you need to make it better than a fighter with the -5/+10 feats and precision. But it's good.

 

[Bardbarian]

Well, the hit needs to be better than two attacks from the fighter at the cost of an attack and the bonus action attack. Additionally if the rogue has a means of reaction attacks which many have learned to do by now, then that adds an even higher bar to justifying the use of CS. Still a good option but it will likely need to be 5-7 levels of rogue minimum to equal the opportunity lost from using the option in the first place. what it does do is add some flexibility in the attack. If the fighter is engaged with a low priority target and the rogue is fighting a high priority. the fighter can sacrifice his own personal dps while distracting a target and add to the focused tactics on the priority target.

 

[FrogReaver]

Well, the hit needs to be better than two attacks from the fighter at the cost of an attack and the bonus action attack. Additionally if the rogue has a means of reaction attacks which many have learned to do by now, then that adds an even higher bar to justifying the use of CS. Still a good option but it will likely need to be 5-7 levels of rogue minimum to equal the opportunity lost from using the option in the first place. what it does do is add some flexibility in the attack. If the fighter is engaged with a low priority target and the rogue is fighting a high priority. the fighter can sacrifice his own personal dps while distracting a target and add to the focused tactics on the priority target.

Commander's strikes opportunity cost is an attack, a bonus action attack and taking away a dice from precision attack. For an optimized fighter I think that is going to be a very high bar to clear. It's going to take a very high level rogue IMO.

 

[Mort]

Commander's strikes opportunity cost is an attack, a bonus action attack and taking away a dice from precision attack. For an optimized fighter I think that is going to be a very high bar to clear. It's going to take a very high level rogue IMO.

I don't think the bar is that high:

The Rogue gets advantage so more likely to hit than the fighter using precision attack and GWM or SS.

The die isn't taken away so much transfered to damage, a good use of it. With this even a 3rd level Rogue is matching the damage GWM or SS can do. Once the Rogue hits 5th, he's exceeding that damage.

The bonus action is spent, which may or may not impact the fighter, based on build. Even that once the sneak attack is 5th level+ is likely worth it. Allowing a mid-high level Rogue to sneak attack twice in a round is pretty hefty.



Sent from my SM-G930V using EN World mobile app