Kerrec, you are correct to point out people can make mathematical errors. But the thing is, you haven't found any errors. You haven't even done any calculations yourself (that I have seen). All you've been doing is entering numbers into someone else's algorithm.
I'm not perfect, so I'm very receptive to being corrected.
Well, you haven't looked then. I made a huge post full of math and your reply was, "too complicated".
Anyway, the calculator is very well documented. You can go look at HIS math and find fault that would invalidate using it. Documentation HERE.
Kerrec, you are correct to point out people can make mathematical errors. But the thing is, you haven't found any errors. You haven't even done any calculations yourself (that I have seen). All you've been doing is entering numbers into someone else's algorithm.
I'm not perfect, so I'm very receptive to being corrected.
Well, you haven't looked then. I made a huge post full of math and your reply was, "too complicated".
Anyway, the calculator is very well documented. You can go look at HIS math and find fault that would invalidate using it. Documentation HERE.
Are you referring to the spreadsheet you posted? That did not contain equations, it contained claimed numbers. And you're being blatantly dishonest right now. I never said the math was too complicated, I said it's impossible for you (or anyone) to calculate the average damage per attack for the Battle Master, because nobody could possibly have all of the necessary data points.
The formula's (that you copied and pasted off the web) in the document you just now posted are quite simple.
Are you referring to the spreadsheet you posted? That did not contain equations, it contained claimed numbers. And you're being blatantly dishonest right now. I never said the math was too complicated, I said it's impossible for you (or anyone) to calculate the average damage per attack for the Battle Master, because nobody could possibly have all of the necessary data points.
Well, you can compute the damage per attack, and you can compute the expected additional damage per superiority die spent (and expected rate of spend) based on varying policies for how to spend dice, but you'll get a much more complex matrix than anything you can do with the Champion.
Are you referring to the spreadsheet you posted? That did not contain equations, it contained claimed numbers. And you're being blatantly dishonest right now. I never said the math was too complicated, I said it's impossible for you (or anyone) to calculate the average damage per attack for the Battle Master, because nobody could possibly have all of the necessary data points.
Well, you can compute the damage per attack, and you can compute the expected additional damage per superiority die spent (and expected rate of spend) based on varying policies for how to spend dice, but you'll get a much more complex matrix than anything you can do with the Champion.
You can calculate certain damage in a vacuum, or you can make a giant number of assumptions and calculate that. But to get the true average damage per attack (over the course of a campaign, or even a session) there are too many variables and it's different for everyone. How many attacks are made over the course of a campaign? How many short and long rests did they get? Which combat maneuvers did they pick? If precision attack was one of them, how often was it used, what was the success rate, and what was the mean damage that resulted? Etc.
Well we did point out earlier that remarkable athlete increases expected damage by boosting initiative. Level 7 it’s about a 3.3% damage increase, and at level 13 it goes up to about a 4.95% increase.
once stated it becomes largely ignored though. Still not enough to make it super competitive, but it does have an effect on gameplay.
Well we did point out earlier that remarkable athlete increases expected damage by boosting initiative. Level 7 it’s about a 3.3% damage increase, and at level 13 it goes up to about a 4.95% increase.
once stated it becomes largely ignored though. Still not enough to make it super competitive, but it does have an effect on gameplay.
At level 7 the Champion gets a +2 to initiative rolls. How did you calculate this amounts to a +3.3% damage increase?
At level 7 the Champion gets a +2 to initiative rolls. How did you calculate this amounts to a +3.3% damage increase?
Going first is basically an extra action, and +2 is a 10%, so it's a bonus of (number of extra actions granted) / (average length of combat). Which, depending on your assumptions, is generally going to be in the 2-3% range.
At level 7 the Champion gets a +2 to initiative rolls. How did you calculate this amounts to a +3.3% damage increase?
Going first is basically an extra action, and +2 is a 10%, so it's a bonus of (number of extra actions granted) / (average length of combat). Which, depending on your assumptions, is generally going to be in the 2-3% range.
There's way too many variables to calculate something like that. 3.3% is a really precise number, and then you said "something in the 2-3% range." I'm not trying to be argumentative (though I can be to fault, admittedly). But what equation did you use to come up with that? Like, how often will that bump you from going 4th to instead going 3rd? How does having 5 PC's and 10 enemies affect the damage output verses 3 PC's and 1 enemy? How many rounds does a fight go?
I agree that improving your initiative is helpful, but also if the wrong person goes first it can mess things up. A blaster or someone with AOE effects going first can often help everyone, for example.
Action surge and first round damage increases that usually aren’t replicated later in battle do change the numbers a bit, but being able to take that action surge quicker can have a dramatic effect on the rest of that combat.
focusing that damage on a creature before it has a chance to react potentially takes away its ability to have a turn at all, as it could just get killed out right.
the first turns in combat seem to be the most impactful, as they set the pace for the rest of the encounter.
battlemaster can just expend a die fir ambush now though if they’d like. That does take away from its superiority die for outright damage on hits later.
In general it's better to have your damage front-loaded, which is something both class and monster design ignores. This favors classes with consumable resources (Samurai is pretty much built for first round novas).
This is something many forget. If you go first in initiative, and kill all the bad guys in your first turn, it doesn't matter what damage you would do on subsequent turns or what damage anyone else can do: The fight is over.
It's something I was taught when learning Martial Arts: If you are sure there is going to be a fight, get the first punch in. It may end the fight there and then, and it may be your only opportunity. If you wait for them to hit you first, you may never get the chance to fight back.
Kerrec, you are correct to point out people can make mathematical errors. But the thing is, you haven't found any errors. You haven't even done any calculations yourself (that I have seen). All you've been doing is entering numbers into someone else's algorithm.
I'm not perfect, so I'm very receptive to being corrected.
Well, you haven't looked then. I made a huge post full of math and your reply was, "too complicated".
Anyway, the calculator is very well documented. You can go look at HIS math and find fault that would invalidate using it. Documentation HERE.
Are you referring to the spreadsheet you posted? That did not contain equations, it contained claimed numbers. And you're being blatantly dishonest right now. I never said the math was too complicated, I said it's impossible for you (or anyone) to calculate the average damage per attack for the Battle Master, because nobody could possibly have all of the necessary data points.
The formula's (that you copied and pasted off the web) in the document you just now posted are quite simple.
You're mixing me up with Brewsky. So no, I'm not being dishonest at all. I will own up to my mistakes, just like you claim you will if someone finds errors in your math.
I was convinced that the calculator was using an assumption that hurt the Champion DPR numbers. But I wrote a small script in Google Sheets to run 1 million attacks and calculate the average, and that calculator tracks perfectly with the results I got. So that calculator is a much better tool to illustrate the points we're all trying to make because it is extensively documented and uses math that has been peer reviewed (there's a link to a thread that discusses the calculator in the calculator itself) and it provides a way to display the results VISUALLY, which anyone can interpret, not just math nerds.
My objection here is to the use of bad. Can a couple of points fewer of average DPR really be described as bad? If that fighter chose to take a rapier instead of a longsword, would that make it a bad build?
Champion is likely not the optimal subclass. It is possible that it's a good subclass, even in terms of DPR, compared to someone who plays a BM badly, making other choices which reduce their DPR. Unless, of course, you are trying to say that only the very best, most optimal build is good and everything else is bad.
PS yes, I know you clarified the area you were discussing in the OP. However, I still disagree that it is bad, it's just not quite as good as a well-played BM.
My objection here is to the use of bad. Can a couple of points fewer of average DPR really be described as bad? If that fighter chose to take a rapier instead of a longsword, would that make it a bad build?
Champion is likely not the optimal subclass. It is possible that it's a good subclass, even in terms of DPR, compared to someone who plays a BM badly, making other choices which reduce their DPR. Unless, of course, you are trying to say that only the very best, most optimal build is good and everything else is bad.
PS yes, I know you clarified the area you were discussing in the OP. However, I still disagree that it is bad, it's just not quite as good as a well-played BM.
But what does Champion really add? Remarkable Athlete stands out, and that isn't even that great.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
A fool pulls the leaves. A brute chops the trunk. A sage digs the roots.
Improved critical. It may not, mathematically, give as much DPR as BM's traits can, but it isn't far enough behind to be labelled bad (even by the OPs own figures) and critting is fun.
Improved critical. It may not, mathematically, give as much DPR as BM's traits can, but it isn't far enough behind to be labelled bad (even by the OPs own figures) and critting is fun.
At high level, it's... adequate (level 20 champion gives 8x as many crits as level 3; level 20 bm goes from 4d8(18) to 6d12(39) which is only a 2.17x multiplier), but before level 15 it's just straight up bad.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
"Your math is a bit off, it's a 14.26% chance to crit"
Hence the prefix c. for circa and the note about approximations. I'm an engineer, approximations rule :)
Touché 😉
Well, you haven't looked then. I made a huge post full of math and your reply was, "too complicated".
Anyway, the calculator is very well documented. You can go look at HIS math and find fault that would invalidate using it. Documentation HERE.
Are you referring to the spreadsheet you posted? That did not contain equations, it contained claimed numbers. And you're being blatantly dishonest right now. I never said the math was too complicated, I said it's impossible for you (or anyone) to calculate the average damage per attack for the Battle Master, because nobody could possibly have all of the necessary data points.
The formula's (that you copied and pasted off the web) in the document you just now posted are quite simple.
Well, you can compute the damage per attack, and you can compute the expected additional damage per superiority die spent (and expected rate of spend) based on varying policies for how to spend dice, but you'll get a much more complex matrix than anything you can do with the Champion.
You can calculate certain damage in a vacuum, or you can make a giant number of assumptions and calculate that. But to get the true average damage per attack (over the course of a campaign, or even a session) there are too many variables and it's different for everyone. How many attacks are made over the course of a campaign? How many short and long rests did they get? Which combat maneuvers did they pick? If precision attack was one of them, how often was it used, what was the success rate, and what was the mean damage that resulted? Etc.
Well we did point out earlier that remarkable athlete increases expected damage by boosting initiative. Level 7 it’s about a 3.3% damage increase, and at level 13 it goes up to about a 4.95% increase.
once stated it becomes largely ignored though. Still not enough to make it super competitive, but it does have an effect on gameplay.
At level 7 the Champion gets a +2 to initiative rolls. How did you calculate this amounts to a +3.3% damage increase?
Going first is basically an extra action, and +2 is a 10%, so it's a bonus of (number of extra actions granted) / (average length of combat). Which, depending on your assumptions, is generally going to be in the 2-3% range.
There's way too many variables to calculate something like that. 3.3% is a really precise number, and then you said "something in the 2-3% range." I'm not trying to be argumentative (though I can be to fault, admittedly). But what equation did you use to come up with that? Like, how often will that bump you from going 4th to instead going 3rd? How does having 5 PC's and 10 enemies affect the damage output verses 3 PC's and 1 enemy? How many rounds does a fight go?
I agree that improving your initiative is helpful, but also if the wrong person goes first it can mess things up. A blaster or someone with AOE effects going first can often help everyone, for example.
3.3% is the normalized standard 3 round combat. The benefit is usually less because of action surge.
Action surge and first round damage increases that usually aren’t replicated later in battle do change the numbers a bit, but being able to take that action surge quicker can have a dramatic effect on the rest of that combat.
focusing that damage on a creature before it has a chance to react potentially takes away its ability to have a turn at all, as it could just get killed out right.
the first turns in combat seem to be the most impactful, as they set the pace for the rest of the encounter.
battlemaster can just expend a die fir ambush now though if they’d like. That does take away from its superiority die for outright damage on hits later.
In general it's better to have your damage front-loaded, which is something both class and monster design ignores. This favors classes with consumable resources (Samurai is pretty much built for first round novas).
This is something many forget. If you go first in initiative, and kill all the bad guys in your first turn, it doesn't matter what damage you would do on subsequent turns or what damage anyone else can do: The fight is over.
It's something I was taught when learning Martial Arts: If you are sure there is going to be a fight, get the first punch in. It may end the fight there and then, and it may be your only opportunity. If you wait for them to hit you first, you may never get the chance to fight back.
You're mixing me up with Brewsky. So no, I'm not being dishonest at all. I will own up to my mistakes, just like you claim you will if someone finds errors in your math.
I was convinced that the calculator was using an assumption that hurt the Champion DPR numbers. But I wrote a small script in Google Sheets to run 1 million attacks and calculate the average, and that calculator tracks perfectly with the results I got. So that calculator is a much better tool to illustrate the points we're all trying to make because it is extensively documented and uses math that has been peer reviewed (there's a link to a thread that discusses the calculator in the calculator itself) and it provides a way to display the results VISUALLY, which anyone can interpret, not just math nerds.
Well since you weren’t being dishonest, in which post did I ever say anyone’s math is“too complicated”? What exactly is your counter argument, anyway?
What are some common Champion builds, levels, and versus AC that you think Champion adds more than a minuscule amount of damage?
My objection here is to the use of bad. Can a couple of points fewer of average DPR really be described as bad? If that fighter chose to take a rapier instead of a longsword, would that make it a bad build?
Champion is likely not the optimal subclass. It is possible that it's a good subclass, even in terms of DPR, compared to someone who plays a BM badly, making other choices which reduce their DPR. Unless, of course, you are trying to say that only the very best, most optimal build is good and everything else is bad.
PS yes, I know you clarified the area you were discussing in the OP. However, I still disagree that it is bad, it's just not quite as good as a well-played BM.
But what does Champion really add? Remarkable Athlete stands out, and that isn't even that great.
A fool pulls the leaves. A brute chops the trunk. A sage digs the roots.
My Improved Lineage System
Improved critical. It may not, mathematically, give as much DPR as BM's traits can, but it isn't far enough behind to be labelled bad (even by the OPs own figures) and critting is fun.
At high level, it's... adequate (level 20 champion gives 8x as many crits as level 3; level 20 bm goes from 4d8(18) to 6d12(39) which is only a 2.17x multiplier), but before level 15 it's just straight up bad.