What am I missing about the Champion archetype?

[JFahy]

While I'm generally happy with the balancing of goodies such as racial bonuses
and cleric domains, the fighter archetypes Champion and Battle Master strike me
as pretty out of whack.

Champion gets a passive damage buff, and nothing else until four levels
later. BM gets to pick three nifty abilities - oh, and have a proficiency while you're
at it.

At level 7, the Champion gets +2 to physical stat checks that they aren't
already proficient with (so, to Dex saves, which is nice, but not to Con saves,
which would have been pretty great). While that's happening the BM
is getting another die, two more abilities - oh, and have Know Your Enemy
while you're at it.

When I first read those two, I thought maybe crits were profoundly different
in this version and that would draw the Champ even, or there might be a feat
for "When you score a critical hit awesomeness ensues" but those didn't pan out.

I liked the idea of Survivor, but is it enough to even up the two archetypes?
(Would it be enough for those of you who routinely play into the high teens?
My group never has and maybe never will.)


[Edit: I'm going to do some Excel stuff to see just how much the crit buff
helps the Champion. It's not a 1.10/1.05=4.8% increase unless you were
attacking something unmissable. Maybe it's better than I realize.]

[akaddk]

The point of it is to be a vanilla fighter that is easy to play for the types of people that want that.

[Totema]

It's for the newbies folks that don't want to worry about complicated options when they play. Yeah it's static, and boring, and probably way worse than either of their other options, but those folks are happy with this option anyway.

[CyberThread]

What everyone else said, it is the default "easy" button, that every game should have as an option for those that wish to use it for stuff.

[JFahy]

Fair enough. Just wondering if it had some potential I hadn't twigged to.

Thanks!

[obryn]

What everyone else said, it is the default "easy" button, that every game should have as an option for those that wish to use it for stuff.
Ideally, though, an easy option shouldn't be this bad.

[akaddk]

Ideally, though, an easy option shouldn't be this bad.

"Bad" is subjective. It's actually a very good class, mathematically speaking.

[Angelalex242]

Before you say Champion is bad, run it in a fight against battle master with equal stats and equipment on both sides at various checkpoint levels. Run about 20 fights. Unless things are oddly lopsided, it's probably balanced.

[JFahy]

I still made the spreadsheet. Here's some data in case anybody's curious.

The champion's damage delta from Improved Critical is sensitive to the
target's AC. For easy-to-hit targets, the rarity of crits means they don't
make much of a difference. For need-to-roll-19 targets, a regular fighter
would crit on half his hits while the Champion crits on all of them. For
need-to-roll-20 targets, Improved Critical confers no benefit because
the would-be crits on 19 are misses.

It also depends on how much of your damage comes from bonuses
(which aren't doubled) versus damage dice (which are).

Numbers in the table are the percent increase in damage for somebody
with Improved Critical versus somebody without.




Rabble (hit on 7)
Grunts (hit on 11)
Tough (hit on 14)
Elite (hit on 17)
Brutal (hit on 19)


Longsword, 16 str
4%
6%
8%
13%
23%


Greatsword, 16 str
5%
7%
9%
15%
26%


Longbow
7%
9%
13%
20%
33%


Longsword +2, 16 str
3%
5%
6%
11%
19%


Greatsword +5, 20 str
3%
4%
6%
9%
17%



...so Champions with Improved Critical are only slightly better at mowing
minions, but they do noticeably better than the base fighter at tearing
down heavily-armored targets. The effect is diluted by lots of static
damage, but it's always on the order of 10-20% against tough stuff.

[Prophet_of_Io]

It's certainly got less flair than battle master and less options but Champion is also the only way to get a larger critical hit range.

Half-Orc Champion with Great Weapon Master feat with maybe a 3 level dip into Rogue for Assassin could be a popular build.

[1of3]

What am I missing about the Champion archetype?

You may have missed that Remarkable Athlete works on Initiative Checks. ;)

Those are Dexterity checks even though they are not governed by a skill or tool. Therefore the only things that work are the Champion's Remarkable Athlete and the Bard's Jack of all Trades.

[TheOOB]

Ideally, though, an easy option shouldn't be this bad.

Passive numerical bonuses can get quite powerful, so I think the idea may have been to keep the bonuses minor so no player feels like that have to play to "boring" archtype in order to be powerful. A player who wants a simple fighter can have it, but no one will ever need to take it for power reasons. An increase to damage, accuracy, or AC that other fighters do not have could create a situation where non champion fighters could not effectively fight certain foes(in theory).

Further, while not actually that powerful, improved critical feels powerful, which for an enjoyment standpoint I think is almost as important, and any feats/abilities that make crits better will stack with improved critical nicely. Also the bonus to init is better than I thought it was.

I still agree Champion is underpowered, but Champion Fighter is still a fine character and fulfills a needed roll.

[rlc]

Yeah, it's an okay subclass. It's not supposed to amaze you and it doesn't.

[Palegreenpants]

I'm actually quite pleased with the Champion. It is a very nice thing to multiclass into, especially for Rogues.

[HorridElemental]

Half orc champion fighter is nice.

[Jenckes]

Barbarian/Fighter [Champion] = most single target damage in the game.

Did you remember that the Champion get's a second fighting style? You could build a protective defensive champion, or a great-weapon and archer build. Champion is the only subclass of fighter to get that, otherwise you have to multiclass at least 2 lvls of Ranger or Paladin. If you can give your max crit range fighter advantage his crit chance gets up to 27.75%, which is pretty respectable.

I think Champions are stupid simple, but they're a thing. It's alright.

[Falka]

Actually I think that the easy option shouldn't be as straight-fowardly powerful compared to others available. Because then, why would I pick the more complex option if both give me a similar result?

The Champion can be boring for some and a bit weak for many compared to what the EK and the BM can do. Well, he's supposed to fit the archetype of a muscleman Olympic hero, an athletic character with great survivability. He's not a tactical option, so it's pretty much obvious that he shouldn't get access to such abilities. Neither he can wield magic.

As much as I found 4e to be a great game, I think people get bored really fast with all that "democracy power balance" thing since it kinda forces people to be artificially gimped for others to shine.

Nobody would study magic if it only allowed for a PC to get exactly the same results than if he had magic or formal training. If people don't want to "think" too much and just stab things, they should get just as much as "stab and slash" tactic get them through.

[obryn]

Actually I think that the easy option shouldn't be as straight-fowardly powerful compared to others available. Because then, why would I pick the more complex option if both give me a similar result?
Because you want to play a more complex option rather than a simple one, basically. Both are valid ways to want to play the game, and the simple options shouldn't need to be weaker.

[HorridElemental]

Because you want to play a more complex option rather than a simple one, basically. Both are valid ways to want to play the game, and the simple options shouldn't need to be weaker.

Definitely this, I'm sure an easy yet effectively strong champion homebrew will show up soon.

How about a champion that gets a new saving throw proficiency (player choice) each time they get a subclass up grade or something like that? Add in some other abilities and I see the Fighter Champion being a prime choice.

[Sartharina]

First off - Fighters are already proficient with Constitution saves, so Remarkable Athlete doesn't need to affect those.

Champion also grants a second Fighting Style, allowing a fighter to either diversify their combat ability (Taking Duelist+Archer for an effective switch-hitter build, or Protection and Duelist for damage on top of their shielding if duelist applies to shield users, and Defensive with anything for extra AC.)
Because you want to play a more complex option rather than a simple one, basically. Both are valid ways to want to play the game, and the simple options shouldn't need to be weaker.

The problem is when you have to put in extra effort just to Break Even in performance.

[Falka]

Because you want to play a more complex option rather than a simple one, basically. Both are valid ways to want to play the game, and the simple options shouldn't need to be weaker.

Weaker in which sense? That the BM can play around with action economy? That the Eldritch Knight can throw a Fireball?

As long as each archetype can do the things they are designed for, it doesn't matter whether the Champion is worse at DPS than the Eldritch Knight, or if he can do less stuff than the BM.

You can't have it all. Being strong, easy and versatile is what I would call a broken option. With the benefit of choosing between different options available comes tactical thinking. It's not fair, from both a design standpoint and player satisfaction, to allow a class to effectively use the same tactic and make it at least or more effective to most situations.

Champions are in no way a "trap option" like many claim. They simply aren't the best because they are supposed to be the "simple Fighter option" and so, they have a limited skillset and mostly passive benefits that do not encourage tactical play. The only way that they would become at least equally strong than a BM and an Eldritch Knight comes through making those passive benefits so strong so that "I stab the enemy to death" becomes the best course of action possible since that's the only real thing the Champion is good at.

EK gains a more "evoker" skillset, allowing him to gain AoE and fight hordes of monsters, while the BM gains a secondary supportish role for his team. The Champion is basically ye old "come at me bro" 1vs1 Fighter guy.

[HorridElemental]

I kinda like the idea of Champion getting Con mod to all saves, a la Paladin... Make it where it doesn't stack with the Paladin and you can have a pretty nifty feature.

[Atmosfear]

Before you say Champion is bad, run it in a fight against battle master with equal stats and equipment on both sides at various checkpoint levels. Run about 20 fights. Unless things are oddly lopsided, it's probably balanced.

Champion is supposed to be the Striker subclass (I'm convinced there is no Fighter Tank), and it's just not a very good striker. Battle Master is supposed to be the Leader subclass, and it's not a very good leader, but it's better at its role than Champion is.

The Battle Master is supposed to be debuffing enemies, granting attacks to party members, and generally controlling the battlefield. He's the party fighter. Putting him toe to toe against the subtype that's built to fight toe to toe is matching strength against weakness, and the Champion still doesn't win convincingly.

I assume the Champion was built for the Basic Rules, and tossed into the PHB without much consideration for continuity. It's a splash class.

[Yorrin]

Champion is supposed to be the Striker subclass (I'm convinced there is no Fighter Tank), and it's just not a very good striker. Battle Master is supposed to be the Leader subclass, and it's not a very good leader, but it's better at its role than Champion is.

The Battle Master is supposed to be debuffing enemies, granting attacks to party members, and generally controlling the battlefield. He's the party fighter. Putting him toe to toe against the subtype that's built to fight toe to toe is matching strength against weakness, and the Champion still doesn't win convincingly.

I assume the Champion was built for the Basic Rules, and tossed into the PHB without much consideration for continuity. It's a splash class.

Except for the part where Striker/Leader/Defender/Controller is not formally a part of the game anymore. So none of the classes were designed with those roles in mind.

Champion is supposed to be the "no bookkeeping" class. That's about it. And I like it for that. It fills the role pretty well.

[Atmosfear]

Except for the part where Striker/Leader/Defender/Controller is not formally a part of the game anymore. So none of the classes were designed with those roles in mind.

Champion is supposed to be the "no bookkeeping" class. That's about it. And I like it for that. It fills the role pretty well.


Except for the part where Striker/Leader/Defender/Controller is not formally a part of the game anymore.


formally

And yet...

[Lokiare]

To really be good at its job it needs to out do other classes. It needs at least 1 more attack and infinite critical hits:

Critical Strike
You are a master of weapons and when you strike a vital location, you know exactly how to take advantage of it.
Effect: When you roll critical hit, continue to reroll the attack roll until you no longer roll a critical hit. Add one damage dice per critical hit roll you made to your damage roll.

[Sartharina]

From what I've heard, it outdoes the Barbarian in damage alone. The champion's a good "Big Numbers" class thanks to improved crits, two combat styles, regeneration, and its weird little Athlete ability. It's simple but versatile.

The Battlemaster, on the other hand, is more complex, and can be somewhat more flexible - but also more rigid, with the limitations on maneuvers and restricted maneuver dice (And what the heck is with the cripplingly low recovery rate?)

[Jenckes]

To really be good at its job it needs to out do other classes. It needs at least 1 more attack and infinite critical hits:

Critical Strike
You are a master of weapons and when you strike a vital location, you know exactly how to take advantage of it.
Effect: When you roll critical hit, continue to reroll the attack roll until you no longer roll a critical hit. Add one damage dice per critical hit roll you made to your damage roll.

Figuring out the damage you just added is either the most basic form of calculus or a series problem. Either way it's not going to add more than 1 damage to your average damage per hit. It already outdoes the other classes. It doesn't outdo a multiclass character that relies on majority of the levels being champion, but it does outdo the other classes.

Though I suppose it does sound like a fun mechanic to roll out for a class that is easy to be bored with, while not really changing game balance much at all.

*Edit, my bad. Missed the "needs at least one more attack." That would definitely change game balance. Once again, I don't know of a single class that out-damages the champion. Eldritch knight with haste, but there are some decent arguments as to why that's not much better.

[Lokiare]

Figuring out the damage you just added is either the most basic form of calculus or a series problem. Either way it's not going to add more than 1 damage to your average damage per hit. It already outdoes the other classes. It doesn't outdo a multiclass character that relies on majority of the levels being champion, but it does outdo the other classes.

Though I suppose it does sound like a fun mechanic to roll out for a class that is easy to be bored with, while not really changing game balance much at all.

*Edit, my bad. Missed the "needs at least one more attack." That would definitely change game balance. Once again, I don't know of a single class that out-damages the champion. Eldritch knight with haste, but there are some decent arguments as to why that's not much better.

http://anydice.com/program/43ec

Attack +11 (+5 str +6 prof)
damage 2d6(weapon)+5(str) reroll 1's and 2's
versus AC 16
On a critical add 1d6 and then reroll attack and repeat.
capped at 3 consecutive critical rolls

Results: 14.77 damage per round average.


Opposed to:

http://anydice.com/program/43ed

Attack +11 (+5 str +6 prof)
damage 2d6(weapon)+5(str) reroll 1's and 2's
versus AC 16

Results: 10.12 damage per round average.

I would call that a nice boost and you can go much higher if you get more than 3 consecutive critical rolls.

[Falka]

http://anydice.com/program/43ec

Attack +11 (+5 str +6 prof)
damage 2d6(weapon)+5(str) reroll 1's and 2's
versus AC 16
On a critical add 1d6 and then reroll attack and repeat.
capped at 3 consecutive critical rolls

Results: 14.77 damage per round average.


Opposed to:

http://anydice.com/program/43ed

Attack +11 (+5 str +6 prof)
damage 2d6(weapon)+5(str) reroll 1's and 2's
versus AC 16

Results: 10.12 damage per round average.

I would call that a nice boost and you can go much higher if you get more than 3 consecutive critical rolls.

Champions can dish a lot more damage than that. You completely set out of the equation an important feat that helps Fighters increase their damage output: GW Mastery. It can add +10 flat damage to an attack at the cost of a -5 pen to attack rolls.

[Lokiare]

Champions can dish a lot more damage than that. You completely set out of the equation an important feat that helps Fighters increase their damage output: GW Mastery. It can add +10 flat damage to an attack at the cost of a -5 pen to attack rolls.

Uh... just at a glance, that looks like it will reduce their damage not increase it. Let me check:

Increases the average to 12.62 on a normal attack. http://anydice.com/program/43ee

Increases the average to 20.27 on an infinite critical. http://anydice.com/program/43f0

[Jenckes]

http://anydice.com/program/43ec

Attack +11 (+5 str +6 prof)
damage 2d6(weapon)+5(str) reroll 1's and 2's
versus AC 16
On a critical add 1d6 and then reroll attack and repeat.
capped at 3 consecutive critical rolls

Results: 14.77 damage per round average.


Opposed to:

http://anydice.com/program/43ed

Attack +11 (+5 str +6 prof)
damage 2d6(weapon)+5(str) reroll 1's and 2's
versus AC 16

Results: 10.12 damage per round average.

I would call that a nice boost and you can go much higher if you get more than 3 consecutive critical rolls.

I'm unfamiliar with Anydice. I believe those results unlikely unless I misunderstood the basis of your mechanic. As I understand it you've got to roll a 18-20 to get your original hit which crits as normal, then crit again to deal any bonus damage. Here's the math by hand: Versus AC 16 with +11 to the attack.

.65(8.333+5)+.15(16.666+5) = 11.916 is average expected damage as is. 5-17 hits normally (12/20) while 18-20 crits (3/20) with a big fat zero for 1-4.

With your addition 0.65 (8.333+5)+(0.15-0.15^2) (16.666+5)+(0.15^2-0.15^3) (24.999+5)+(0.15^3-0.15^4) (33.333+5) = 12.112

I went ahead and added all the weapon dice. Because why not. The second round of criticals only deals another 8.333 but you multiply that by 2 percent, the next round of criticals is only mulitplied by 2ish/10ths of a percent. Thanks for capping it at three, the system definitely converges but with how little calculus I remember I'd really be pushing wolfram alphas ability to understand my bumbling text as a calculation.

*Edit: Curiosity killed the cat. Allowing for infinitely additive criticals you would deal an extra .22058 damage per hit. Here's the math on the average damage you can expect from a critical with this ability sum_(n=2)^infinity (0.15^n-0.15^(n+1)) (8.333 (n+1)+5) = 0.708064. Subtract .15(21.666) from that and you get your added damage.

[Lokiare]

I'm unfamiliar with Anydice. I believe those results unlikely unless I misunderstood the basis of your mechanic. As I understand it you've got to roll a 18-20 to get your original hit which crits as normal, then crit again to deal any bonus damage. Here's the math by hand: Versus AC 16 with +11 to the attack.

.65(8.333+5)+.15(16.666+5) = 11.916 is average expected damage as is. 5-17 hits normally (12/20) while 18-20 crits (3/20) with a big fat zero for 1-4.

With your addition 0.65 (8.333+5)+(0.15-0.15^2) (16.666+5)+(0.15^2-0.15^3) (24.999+5)+(0.15^3-0.15^4) (33.333+5) = 12.112

I went ahead and added all the weapon dice. Because why not. The second round of criticals only deals another 8.333 but you multiply that by 2 percent, the next round of criticals is only mulitplied by 2ish/10ths of a percent. Thanks for capping it at three, the system definitely converges but with how little calculus I remember I'd really be pushing wolfram alphas ability to understand my bumbling text as a calculation.

*Edit: Curiosity killed the cat. Allowing for infinitely additive criticals you would deal an extra .22058 damage per hit. Here's the math on the average damage you can expect from a critical with this ability sum_(n=2)^infinity (0.15^n-0.15^(n+1)) (8.333 (n+1)+5) = 0.708064. Subtract .15(21.666) from that and you get your added damage.

Actually my numbers are off a Little. I didn't count the damage dice separately so it should be higher.

[Morty]

Champions can dish a lot more damage than that. You completely set out of the equation an important feat that helps Fighters increase their damage output: GW Mastery. It can add +10 flat damage to an attack at the cost of a -5 pen to attack rolls.

If I were to actually run a 5e game, I'd definitely give one such feat to every weapon-user character. Probably at the level when they get to pick their weapon style, or a level later.

As far as the Battlemaster being unimpressive, I suspected it might happen because it needs to be somewhat in line with the rather sad Champion sub-class.

[HorridElemental]

If I were to actually run a 5e game, I'd definitely give one such feat to every weapon-user character. Probably at the level when they get to pick their weapon style, or a level later.

As far as the Battlemaster being unimpressive, I suspected it might happen because it needs to be somewhat in line with the rather sad Champion sub-class.

And we get the same problem as what we got in 3e.

Non casters are balanced with each other and casters are balanced with each other but never shall the two meet.

Once people start homebrewing non-casters to keep up with casters people started whining about how they were "unrealistic", " anime-ish", or "unbalanced".

This is a slippery slope that needs to be fixed NOW or we will have the crap storm that plauged 3.P.

[Falka]

There's no need to homebrew. Just play a Human or let PC's take the feat at level 4.

In my game I just gave a feat to everyone as an incentive to write a good backstory (yes, my players are a bit lazy).

What is equal cannot be an advantage.

[Morty]

Giving people a feat they otherwise wouldn't get is a houserule, if a minor one. The point is that they shouldn't have to spend a feat on it, so I'd just give it to them for free as part of simply being proficient with that style.

[obryn]

And we get the same problem as what we got in 3e.

Non casters are balanced with each other and casters are balanced with each other but never shall the two meet.

Once people start homebrewing non-casters to keep up with casters people started whining about how they were "unrealistic", " anime-ish", or "unbalanced".

This is a slippery slope that needs to be fixed NOW or we will have the crap storm that plauged 3.P.
Oh hey, some folks figured out some neato stuff now that the PHB is out.

(1) At 17th level, a Bard or Wizard can turn all the party members permanently into CR17 Adult Red Dragons.
(2) If you have the PHB, check out Contagion. Especially Slimy Doom.

[akaddk]

Oh hey, some folks figured out some neato stuff now that the PHB is out.

(1) At 17th level, a Bard or Wizard can turn all the party members permanently into CR17 Adult Red Dragons.
(2) If you have the PHB, check out Contagion. Especially Slimy Doom.

This explains the (previously) eternal question.

Which came first, the wizard or the dragon?

[Falka]

Giving people a feat they otherwise wouldn't get is a houserule, if a minor one. The point is that they shouldn't have to spend a feat on it, so I'd just give it to them for free as part of simply being proficient with that style.

I just said there are ways for characters to get Feats early on, then I mentioned what I've did in my table.

The difference between what I've done and what you've proposed is that you're basically giving a free advantage to mundane players. It's not really fair for the Wizard guy, especially at low levels. You shouldn't punish people for picking a class. It's much better to give everyone a free Feat if you think some need it to work.

And yes, I do think you should spend a Feat to get a good advantage (+10 to damage early on is a big advantage, considering that it's quite easy to overcome the +5 penalty through Bless / Frenzy mechanics / Bardic Inspiration / True Strike , etc.

There is no Feat that gives spellcasters +5 to their spells damage or anything like that.

[Morty]

If it's that much of a problem, giving spell-casters a free pick of a feat that fits their magic style is fine by me too. Because it's not a question of power.

[Jenckes]

Actually my numbers are off a Little. I didn't count the damage dice separately so it should be higher.

I showed you my work in hopes that you could clear up my understanding of the rule you're arguing the game needs for champions to function, take a harder look at how you delivered this statistics program to your dice rolling program, or show me how I've messed up this math problem.

If: the champion needs a an 18-20 to crit, and your mechanic adds weapon dice as normal for the first crit and allows the PC to keep rolling until the PC doesn't roll a crit and add another set of weapon dice per crit

Then: you can calculate average expected damage of a critical by summing the expression [(.15^n)-(.15^[n+1])](Weapon Dice*(n+1)+flat damage bonus) where n starts at 1 and goes to infinity. They system converges giving you an actual number (that is around 3.something). You compare that to how normal crits work and you get that rolling for additional crits after the first one, assuming you stop if you fail to get a crit, and you'll find you can only do about .2 more damage a hit.

The system converges rather quickly. Please tell me what I failed to understand from your rule, or show me where my math is wrong (which is totally possible). It's really only relevant to look at the first few iterations of crits as the last ones occur so rarely. In that way it's not a hard problem to do by hand. The good news is WolframAlpha is really smart, so the harder version of the problem still has a very accessible answer.

[Sartharina]

If I were to actually run a 5e game, I'd definitely give one such feat to every weapon-user character. Probably at the level when they get to pick their weapon style, or a level laterThis is overkill and unnecessary. The Champion and martial characters are not weak, and everyone's freaking out about nothing. I expect Fighters are expected to take a weapon-specializing feat at level 6.

[Morty]

This is overkill and unnecessary. The Champion and martial characters are not weak, and everyone's freaking out about nothing. I expect Fighters are expected to take a weapon-specializing feat at level 6.


If it's that much of a problem, giving spell-casters a free pick of a feat that fits their magic style is fine by me too. Because it's not a question of power.

Bolded the important part.

[obryn]

Bolded the important part.
It kinda is though.

From another board...


Contagion
5th-level necromancy
Casting Time: 1 action
Range: Touch
Component: V, S
Duration: 7 days

Your touch inflicts disease. Make a melee spell attack against a creature within your reach. On a hit, you afflict the creature with a disease of your choice from any of the ones described below. At the end of each of the target’s turns, it must make a Constitution saving throw. After failing three of these saving throws, the disease’s effects last for the duration, and the creature stops making these saves. After succeeding on three of these saving throws, the creature recovers from the disease, and the spell ends. Since this spell induces a natural disease in its target, any effect that removes a disease or otherwise ameliorates a disease’s effects apply to it.

Blinding Sickness: Pain grips the creature’s mind, and its eyes turn milky white. The creature has disadvantage on Wisdom checks and Wisdom saving throws and is blinded.

Filth Fever: A raging fever sweeps through the creature’s body. The creature has disadvantage on Strength checks, Strength saving throws, and attack rolls that use Strength.

Flesh Rot: The creature’s flesh decays. The creature has disadvantage on Charisma checks and vulnerability to all damage.

Mindfire: The creature’s mind becomes feverish. The creature has disadvantage on Intelligence checks and Intelligence saving throws, and the creature behaves as if under the effects of the confusion spell during combat.

Seizure: The creature is overcome with shaking. The creature has disadvantage on Dexterity checks, Dexterity saving throws, and attack rolls that use Dexterity.

Slimy Doom: The creature begins to bleed uncontrollably. The creature has disadvantage on Constitution checks and Constitution saving throws. In addition, whenever the creature takes damage, it is stunned until the end of its next turn.

So after a Touch attack your target needs to start making Constitution saves and suffers from the disease until they succeed 3 of them. They have disadvantage on Con saves. Oh and any time they're hit, they're stunned.

This is a Level 5 spell.

[Cibulan]

It kinda is though.

From another board...



So after a Touch attack your target needs to start making Constitution saves and suffers from the disease until they succeed 3 of them. They have disadvantage on Con saves. Oh and any time they're hit, they're stunned.

This is a Level 5 spell.As a person who likes playing healers, I'm very happy to see such a thing. It makes a cleric type useful/needed for the party. It's 5th level spell so around like 9ish when a party may face it and in my experience by that level in other editions the cleric's role as healer as been made redundant by rings of regeneration, CLW sticks, etc.

The spell reinforces the idea of a team of specialists instead of a collection of alpha-strikers.

[Morty]

It kinda is though.

From another board...



So after a Touch attack your target needs to start making Constitution saves and suffers from the disease until they succeed 3 of them. They have disadvantage on Con saves. Oh and any time they're hit, they're stunned.

This is a Level 5 spell.

Maybe so, but it's not like a free feat is going to change much in those terms. It's mostly so that people don't need to pay feats for what should be a basic function.

[Sartharina]

Maybe so, but it's not like a free feat is going to change much in those terms. It's mostly so that people don't need to pay feats for what should be a basic function.

Gaining advantage on saves and free proficiency is not 'Basic function'. Nor are the weapon mastery feats. "Basic Function" is the damage die and special qualities of the weapon, not the extra mastery Feats give.

[Naanomi]

Any good use for an additional fighting style? It could be used to expand versatility I guess, but I'd guess most people would end up trying to combine them. <Anything> + Defense for AC; Dueling + Protection for sword + board; and maybe... Archery + Two-Weapon Fighting for a throwing weapon specialist?

[Lokiare]

I'm unfamiliar with Anydice. I believe those results unlikely unless I misunderstood the basis of your mechanic. As I understand it you've got to roll a 18-20 to get your original hit which crits as normal, then crit again to deal any bonus damage. Here's the math by hand: Versus AC 16 with +11 to the attack.

.65(8.333+5)+.15(16.666+5) = 11.916 is average expected damage as is. 5-17 hits normally (12/20) while 18-20 crits (3/20) with a big fat zero for 1-4.

With your addition 0.65 (8.333+5)+(0.15-0.15^2) (16.666+5)+(0.15^2-0.15^3) (24.999+5)+(0.15^3-0.15^4) (33.333+5) = 12.112

I went ahead and added all the weapon dice. Because why not. The second round of criticals only deals another 8.333 but you multiply that by 2 percent, the next round of criticals is only mulitplied by 2ish/10ths of a percent. Thanks for capping it at three, the system definitely converges but with how little calculus I remember I'd really be pushing wolfram alphas ability to understand my bumbling text as a calculation.

*Edit: Curiosity killed the cat. Allowing for infinitely additive criticals you would deal an extra .22058 damage per hit. Here's the math on the average damage you can expect from a critical with this ability sum_(n=2)^infinity (0.15^n-0.15^(n+1)) (8.333 (n+1)+5) = 0.708064. Subtract .15(21.666) from that and you get your added damage.

After looking over my anydice calculations it looks like they are dealing extra normal damage if they don't crit on the second roll. Let me fix that: http://anydice.com/program/4406
Here is the updated normal calculation without the infinite critical: http://anydice.com/program/4407

Normal: 11.29
Infinite Crit: 15.92

Even with these changes I'm still getting a substantial amount more than you are. Do you mind linking the wolfram alpha page you are pulling these from?

Also I'm not seeing 13.33 in your calculations which is the average amount that a 2d6+5 reroll 1's and 2's will give you before multiplying for percent hit and crit chance. Critical with that would be 17.5: http://anydice.com/program/4408

[Jenckes]

After looking over my anydice calculations it looks like they are dealing extra normal damage if they don't crit on the second roll. Let me fix that: http://anydice.com/program/4406
Here is the updated normal calculation without the infinite critical: http://anydice.com/program/4407

Normal: 11.29
Infinite Crit: 15.92

Even with these changes I'm still getting a substantial amount more than you are. Do you mind linking the wolfram alpha page you are pulling these from?

Also I'm not seeing 13.33 in your calculations which is the average amount that a 2d6+5 reroll 1's and 2's will give you before multiplying for percent hit and crit chance. Critical with that would be 17.5: http://anydice.com/program/4408

I'm using 8.33 which is weapon dice damage. I actually talked this over with a math friend and we found a few different ways of solving the problem that end up with the same exact answer.

The easiest way to understand this series is to only look at critical hits, since that's the only thing that will change. So first you have that you will crit 15% of the time. So for the first crit you have that .15(8.33). That's the amount you will add on to normal damage. It's just the easiest way to look at it. For you second crit you have .15^2(8.33*2).

It's not quite that simple since now you're are counting a part of your original critical twice in the expected value. Not that it matters all that much. To account for this you use the expression .15-(.15^2) and multiply that by your 8.33. Then for the second set of criticals you have .15^2(8.33) and you would add that. Except for that two won't really be correct, you need to account for the .15 of that will acount for your third critical.

If we use an expression that works for all of the infinite possible crits we'll have an expression [(.15^n)-(.15^[n+1])]8.333n . That n is the number of criticals and 8.333*n shows the amount of additional damage you can expect from the given number of criticals. We then tell wolfram alpha to sum the series from n = 1 to infinity.
http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=the+sum+of+the+series+%5B%28.15%5En%29-%28.15%5E%5Bn%2B1%5D%29%5D8.333n+from+n+%3D+1+to+i nfinity . That's the equation with the answer of 1.47053. That's the amount of average expected damage that a critical using your method will add. Now normal crits adds .15*8.33 = 1.2495. The difference is .22103.

That means that the added mechanic adds .22103 average damage per hit.

[Lokiare]

I'm using 8.33 which is weapon dice damage. I actually talked this over with a math friend and we found a few different ways of solving the problem that end up with the same exact answer.

The easiest way to understand this series is to only look at critical hits, since that's the only thing that will change. So first you have that you will crit 15% of the time. So for the first crit you have that .15(8.33). That's the amount you will add on to normal damage. It's just the easiest way to look at it. For you second crit you have .15^2(8.33*2).

It's not quite that simple since now you're are counting a part of your original critical twice in the expected value. Not that it matters all that much. To account for this you use the expression .15-(.15^2) and multiply that by your 8.33. Then for the second set of criticals you have .15^2(8.33) and you would add that. Except for that two won't really be correct, you need to account for the .15 of that will acount for your third critical.

If we use an expression that works for all of the infinite possible crits we'll have an expression [(.15^n)-(.15^[n+1])]8.333n . That n is the number of criticals and 8.333*n shows the amount of additional damage you can expect from the given number of criticals. We then tell wolfram alpha to sum the series from n = 1 to infinity.
http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=the+sum+of+the+series+%5B%28.15%5En%29-%28.15%5E%5Bn%2B1%5D%29%5D8.333n+from+n+%3D+1+to+i nfinity . That's the equation with the answer of 1.47053. That's the amount of average expected damage that a critical using your method will add. Now normal crits adds .15*8.33 = 1.2495. The difference is .22103.

That means that the added mechanic adds .22103 average damage per hit.

Well if you are using 8.33 instead of 13.33 then there is the problem. I'm counting in rerolling 1s and 2s which raises the value.

[Jenckes]

I thought you were just adding another iteration of weapon damage, not the +5 strength modifier.

2d6 rerolling 1's and 2's average 8.3 repeating. To find that just replace the 1 and 2 with 3.5. (3.5+3.5+3+4+5+6)/2 = 4.1666 . . . Answer x2 equals average damage from 2d6 with reroll. 8.33 . . .

"Critical Strike
You are a master of weapons and when you strike a vital location, you know exactly how to take advantage of it.
Effect: When you roll critical hit, continue to reroll the attack roll until you no longer roll a critical hit. Add one damage dice per critical hit roll you made to your damage roll."

You are just talking damage dice, so it's 8.33333 . . . not 13.333 . . .

[Lokiare]

I thought you were just adding another iteration of weapon damage, not the +5 strength modifier.

2d6 rerolling 1's and 2's average 8.3 repeating. To find that just replace the 1 and 2 with 3.5. (3.5+3.5+3+4+5+6)/2 = 4.1666 . . . Answer x2 equals average damage from 2d6 with reroll. 8.33 . . .

"Critical Strike
You are a master of weapons and when you strike a vital location, you know exactly how to take advantage of it.
Effect: When you roll critical hit, continue to reroll the attack roll until you no longer roll a critical hit. Add one damage dice per critical hit roll you made to your damage roll."

You are just talking damage dice, so it's 8.33333 . . . not 13.333 . . .

Yes, but the base damage is reroll 1's and 2's. The proper way to do that math is:

33.33% chance of rerolling. 66.66% chance of getting 4-6. So to further break it down each value on the dice has a 16.6_% chance of getting hit. So for a normal dice we have:

16.6_% * 1 = 0.166
16.6_% * 2 = 0.332
16.6_% * 3 = 0.498
16.6_% * 4 = 0.664
16.6_% * 5 = 0.83
16.6_% * 6 = 0.996
Total = 3.486 (due to my rounding it should be infinitely closer to 3.5)

16.6_% = 16.6% * ((16.6% * 1) + (16.6% * 2) + (16.6% * 3) + (16.6% * 4) + (16.6% * 5) + (16.6% * 6)) = 0.581
16.6_% = 16.6% * ((16.6% * 1) + (16.6% * 2) + (16.6% * 3) + (16.6% * 4) + (16.6% * 5) + (16.6% * 6)) = 0.581
16.6_% * 3 = 0.498
16.6_% * 4 = 0.664
16.6_% * 5 = 0.83
16.6_% * 6 = 0.996
Total = 4.15

normal 2d6+5 = 4.15 + 4.15 + 5 = 13.3
critical 3d6+5 = 4.15 + 4.15 + 4.15 + 5 = 17.45

Once we have that we can do the math for damage against AC 16 using +11 to attack and 18-20 critical hits:

AC 16 is a 80% hit chance (because we hit when the total is 16 not just 17). 15% of that is critical so we have 65% normal hit and 15% critical:

hit 65% * 13.3 = 8.645; crit 15% * 17.45 = 2.6175; total = 11.2625 (approx. there is a lot of rounding going into this)

Now the chance of getting a second crit by rolling 1d20 is 0.15 * 0.15 = 0.0225 which adds 4.15 * 0.0225 = 0.093375 to the damage total for each hit;

The chance of getting a third crit is 0.15 * 0.15 * 0.15 = 0.01400625 * 4.15 = 0.0581259375 added damage;

If we stop there the new total is 11.4140009375 approx. because of rounding. Now if the value added shrinks enough in each iteration we can calculate to a reasonable approximation of infinity, but going 3 rolls in is plenty because the damage added would take 100's of attacks to equal even a one point increase.

[Jenckes]

First off, I'm glad our answers are finally in the same order of magnitude.


Yes, but the base damage is reroll 1's and 2's. The proper way to do that math is:

33.33% chance of rerolling. 66.66% chance of getting 4-6. So to further break it down each value on the dice has a 16.6_% chance of getting hit. So for a normal dice we have:

16.6_% * 1 = 0.166
16.6_% * 2 = 0.332
16.6_% * 3 = 0.498
16.6_% * 4 = 0.664
16.6_% * 5 = 0.83
16.6_% * 6 = 0.996
Total = 3.486 (due to my rounding it should be infinitely closer to 3.5)

16.6_% = 16.6% * ((16.6% * 1) + (16.6% * 2) + (16.6% * 3) + (16.6% * 4) + (16.6% * 5) + (16.6% * 6)) = 0.581
16.6_% = 16.6% * ((16.6% * 1) + (16.6% * 2) + (16.6% * 3) + (16.6% * 4) + (16.6% * 5) + (16.6% * 6)) = 0.581
16.6_% * 3 = 0.498
16.6_% * 4 = 0.664
16.6_% * 5 = 0.83
16.6_% * 6 = 0.996
Total = 4.15



That's only the proper way to do the math if you are a fan of rounding errors. You'll notice you got 4.15 as your average for one dice and I got 4.16666 . . .

One easy way to find the average of something without calculating expected value of each roll is to sum each possible outcome together and divide by the number of possible outcomes. You can do this if the probability of getting any one thing all has equal chances.

Hence adding 3.5+3.5 in the place of adding 1 and 2 a simple way of saying, "When I get a 1 or a 2 on my first roll I'm going to roll again." 3.5 being the average on a d6 (and easy way to find this is [1+2+3+4+5+6]/6=3.5). So I have replaced 1 and 2 with the average on a d6, that we will be rolling to replace the original rolled value.

Hence (3.5+3.5+3+4+5+6)/6 = 4.1666 . . . That would be the exact value, where as your value includes some rounding along the way. But this doesn't really matter much at all.

When you get a critical hit, under normal rules, you reroll all of the attack's dice. Not just one. The only thing that makes it so you just roll one more dice is a half-orc racial trait. So my math for the amount of damage a standard crit adds to expect value of damage an attack gives is correct at .15*8.33. . . .

If you are just adding 4.1666 . . . repeating with your new crit ability and adding one more d6 to each additional crit instead of 2d6 would yield approximately 1/2 of the value I gave earlier (or .11 damage per hit). I say approximately because now you have to find the first value by hand and then do the sum of n=2 to infinity using 4.16666n instead blah blah blah. It should be somewhere between .11 and .22.

The problem with the math you just did is that you're effectively counting the top 15% of each iteration of crits twice. If you add up all the percents you're mulitplying damage by you'll get a value greater that 100%. Probably somewhere around 103%. This is the basis for why we're getting different numbers (at this point, earlier I don't know what anyDice was doing). This is why when you calculate damage using your new ability you need to use .15^n-.15^(n+1). This ensures that each value of each summation is not including the following value of n.

I have checked this work in an exhaustive fashion. The value .22 of additional expected damage is correct even if you add both d6 to each attack. If you're just rerolling one dice the value would obviously be less than .22. As I said earlier, this mechanic effectively does nothing. It's fun and could be added to the game without changing balance. That's kind of cool in and of itself. I enjoyed it as a good probability question, but there's no need to estimate what infinite rerolls would do. It's a definable system that converges at a given number.