|
7 months ago ::
Nov 17, 2012 - 10:25AM
#1
|
Date Joined:
Sep 20, 2004
|
Assuming an 80% hit rate (which seems about par for the course for a fighter/monk with a 20 in their primary stat) at level 10: Monks First Attack: 1d6+5 (average 8.5) (critical 11+6d6—average 32): Damage statistically dealt per attack—7.975 Each Flurry Attack: 1d10 (average 5.5) (critical 10 + 6d6—average 31): Damage statistically dealt per attack— 5.675 Monks damage statistically dealt per round: 25 Fighter At-Will Attack (great sword): 2d6+5 (average 12) (critical 17+6d6—average 38): Damage statistically dealt per attack—10.9 Fighter At-Will Attack (longsword): 1d8+5 (average 9.5) (critical 13+6d6—average 34): Damage statistically dealt per attack—8.825 Damage Add from Deadly Strike per Round: 3d10 (average 16.5) (critical 30) Damage statistically added with two attacks in a round: 17.15625 Damage statistically added with one attack in a round: 13.875 Fighter damage (with greatsword) statistically dealt per round without a second attack: 24.775
Fighter damage (with longsword) statistically dealt per round without a second attack: 22.7 Fighter damage (with greatsword) statistically dealt per round with a second attack: 38.95625
Fighter damage (with longsword) statistically dealt per round with a second attack: 34.80625 Summation, the fighter’s second attack causes a drastic imbalance between other martial classes at the moment. But, based on my number crunching, without that second attack a fighter does not compare favorably to the spellcasting classes. My conclusion: every level at which a fighter gets a second attack, other martial classes must gain some mechanic which also boosts their DPR in some shape or form. For example, if the monk got one free use of FoB per turn then I think things would even out. That only puts its damage at 30.675, but it has enough nice, unique, features that I would still want to play one when it is stacked against a fighter. Some playtesting would be required to double check that, but it puts things in the ballpark I would be happy with.
|
|
|
|
7 months ago ::
Nov 17, 2012 - 10:28AM
#2
|
Date Joined:
Oct 16, 2008
|
What would the math look like with the fighter using a longsword and shield? I feel that is more common than a greatsword weilding fighter, who obviously should be dishing out tons of damage
|
|
|
|
7 months ago ::
Nov 17, 2012 - 10:44AM
#3
|
Date Joined:
Sep 20, 2004
|
I added that information to the original thread for you. It doesn't change my conclusions.
|
|
|
|
7 months ago ::
Nov 17, 2012 - 7:33PM
#4
|
Date Joined:
Aug 18, 2007
|
I could be a missing something here, but I'm just not seeing a big problem. Conceptually, I feel like people should be able to say, "Good thing Jimmy rolled up a fighter. Those last combats would have been tragic without him." To me, these numbers do just that: they support the fighter's schtick.
Maybe further review might show that the damage gap will need to be closed a little, but not much, I say. This seems in fitting with what role a fighter is expected to fill.
|
|
|
|
7 months ago ::
Nov 17, 2012 - 7:52PM
#5
|
Date Joined:
Sep 30, 2006
|
I could be a missing something here, but I'm just not seeing a big problem. Conceptually, I feel like people should be able to say, "Good thing Jimmy rolled up a fighter. Those last combats would have been tragic without him." To me, these numbers do just that: they support the fighter's schtick.
Maybe further review might show that the damage gap will need to be closed a little, but not much, I say. This seems in fitting with what role a fighter is expected to fill.
i don't have a problem with the fighter being a really well-rounded class that focuses on damage, but the fighter shouldn't so much better that you get things like "Damnit Jimmy, why couldn't you have just made a fighter?"
the rogue, the monk, and all the rest of the martial classes need at least something that they're better than the fighter at. it doesn't have to be damage, but it does have to be meaningful enough that you can justify playing them.
|
|
|
|
7 months ago ::
Nov 17, 2012 - 8:37PM
#6
|
Date Joined:
May 29, 2012
|
I could be a missing something here, but I'm just not seeing a big problem. Conceptually, I feel like people should be able to say, "Good thing Jimmy rolled up a fighter. Those last combats would have been tragic without him." To me, these numbers do just that: they support the fighter's schtick.
Maybe further review might show that the damage gap will need to be closed a little, but not much, I say. This seems in fitting with what role a fighter is expected to fill.
In a properly balanced game those words should NEVER be spoken. A different class should be able to bring about equally favorable results albeit by very different means. Nobody should ever feel that an encounter was only accomplished because a specific class was present.
|
|
|
|
7 months ago ::
Nov 17, 2012 - 8:55PM
#7
|
Date Joined:
Dec 21, 2011
|
I'm starting to fear that the optimal party is a party comprised completely of fighters. If they can use bows, do melee damage using a cleave attack and deadly strike, and parry, they will be pretty tough to beat with their damage potential, higher HP and higher AC. Their only weakness would really be vs. wisdom or dex saves (unless they are dex build fighters), but even there, they are only affected 10-20% more than a PC with higher wisdom or dex.
Generally, I don't like to base playing a PC on combat optimization, but this will be an issue for some. Are there really that many incentives to play a rogue, wizard, cleric or monk (other than roleplaying)?
Cyber-Dave, from all of your calculations on all classes so far, do you think that all classes other than fighter need something that they can do once or twice an encounter that would become a "damage spike/striker" type of attack? Spells that spike (once in a while) for both Wizards and Clerics....sneak attack that spikes once in a while....monk's flurry of blows that will spike...once in a while. If I could deliver one or two really nice attacks per combat (or take control of an enemy with a spell, or stun, blind, or control groups), and if I had other abilities I could bring to exploration and interaction. I'd give up the consistancy of the fighter's dps (along with his bonus hit points and high AC).
|
|
|
|
7 months ago ::
Nov 17, 2012 - 9:02PM
#8
|
Date Joined:
Jul 17, 2010
|
Illusionist Wizards are balls to the wall awesome due to their DC bump, and the at-will minor illusions that combine audio and visual elements, assuming their user is creative, and the DM doesn't cheat and respects these illusions when his critters fail their disbelief checks.
Other than that, Dex specced longbow Fighters with Improved Initiative and Bushwhacker's are pretty much master race.
|
|
|
|
7 months ago ::
Nov 17, 2012 - 9:08PM
#9
|
Date Joined:
Sep 30, 2006
|
i actually think something like this is a step in the right direction for the design of martial classes in 5e.
|
|
|
|
7 months ago ::
Nov 18, 2012 - 5:41AM
#10
|
Date Joined:
Jun 22, 2012
|
Assuming an 80% hit rate (which seems about par for the course for a fighter/monk with a 20 in their primary stat) at level 10:
Monks First Attack: 1d6+5 (average 8.5) (critical 11+6d6—average 32): Damage statistically dealt per attack—7.975
Each Flurry Attack: 1d10 (average 5.5) (critical 10 + 6d6—average 31): Damage statistically dealt per attack— 5.675
Monks damage statistically dealt per round: 25
Fighter At-Will Attack (great sword): 2d6+5 (average 12) (critical 17+6d6—average 38): Damage statistically dealt per attack—10.9
Fighter At-Will Attack (longsword): 1d8+5 (average 9.5) (critical 13+6d6—average 34): Damage statistically dealt per attack—8.825
Damage Add from Deadly Strike per Round: 3d10 (average 16.5) (critical 30)
Damage statistically added with two attacks in a round: 17.15625
Damage statistically added with one attack in a round: 13.875
Fighter damage (with greatsword) statistically dealt per round without a second attack: 24.775
Fighter damage (with longsword) statistically dealt per round without a second attack: 22.7
Fighter damage (with greatsword) statistically dealt per round with a second attack: 38.95625
Fighter damage (with longsword) statistically dealt per round with a second attack: 34.80625
Summation, the fighter’s second attack causes a drastic imbalance between other martial classes at the moment. But, based on my number crunching, without that second attack a fighter does not compare favorably to the spellcasting classes. My conclusion: every level at which a fighter gets a second attack, other martial classes must gain some mechanic which also boosts their DPR in some shape or form. For example, if the monk got one free use of FoB per turn then I think things would even out. That only puts its damage at 30.675, but it has enough nice, unique, features that I would still want to play one when it is stacked against a fighter. Some playtesting would be required to double check that, but it puts things in the ballpark I would be happy with.
well sure, when you add all 3d10 each round it out damages easily... you are rolling 3d10.
but more realistically, the fighter may have used one or two of these for a parry attempt
calculate it like that
|
|
|
