is Treatmonk right about fighters and barbarians doing more damage in the ua?

[samcifer]

I haven't found anyone else talking about this in clear terms, but according to his most recent y-tube vids, barbarians and fighters in the 5th playtest will be able to do more damage than the ones in 5e. As someone who barely passed math(s), could someone explain his reasoning in more mundane terms and either prove him right or show how he is wrong?

Thanks in advance from a complete idiot at math(s). :P

[Dr.Samurai]

Is he assuming feats or no feats? What was his reasoning?

[Psyren]

Some redditors checked the math in more detail here. (https://www.reddit.com/r/onednd/comments/1325w79/martials_will_be_dishing_out_the_damage_the/)

One conclusion Treantmonk drew, which the redditors share, is that people have gotten into a habit of undervaluing 1/turn free damage, which the 1DnD martials are full of (e.g. new GWM, new Charger*, new Frenzy etc.) The reality is that 1/turn damage makes a bigger difference than people think. Another conclusion is that with more of the 1DnD feats being half-feats, martials - especially Fighters - can squeeze in more of them without impacting their primary ability. The weapon mastery properties do a decent amount of work as well, particularly on Fighter who doesn't have as easy a source of constant advantage as the barbarian does. Lastly, melee is shaping up to be better than ranged due to the SS nerf.

Here is their graph, with the bright red line representing a 5e Battlemaster using XBE and SS:

https://i.imgur.com/awafoMH.png

*not assumed on every attack I believe

[Damon_Tor]

He's relying on a very dubious interpretation of the fighter's ability to swap mastery properties: on the fighter he's retroactively applying the damage-on-miss effect of one of the properties to every miss despite the intent of the rules being clear that you're supposed to choose your mastery before the attack hits or misses.

On the barbarian his builds for both is a berserker with PAM despite that subclass having its own built-in bonus-action attack in 5e but not 5.5. So yeah obviously the 5.5 version will deal more damage, he's basically comparing a barbarian without a subclass to one that has one.

He is also, on both classes, assuming cleave is usable 50% of the time, which any acid splash user knows is wildly overestimating how regularly enemies stand within 5 feet of one another. And because he's including the cleave damage, it's important to note that the damage he is reporting is NOT single target damage.

EDIT: That doesn't mean he's wrong in the binary "5.5 martials out-damage their 5e counterparts" but I think he's wrong when he estimates their damage at nearly 50% higher.

[Rukelnikov]

I'm under the impression the DPR is increased across the board for martials, the thing is comparing them in a vacuum is not really telling much. If "character average DPR" in 5e at a given level was 10, and the Fighters best builds were 20, then those builds were dealing twice the avg DRP, if in 5.5 the character average DPR is 15 and the best Fighters builds are doing 25 DPR, they are only 66% above the average. Thus while nominaly they are doing mare damage than in 5e, taking everything into account, they are actually dealing less damage than in 5e, since their damage in relation wih the rest of the characters is less than it used to.

Thus, we won't know until we have a bigger picture. Taking a guess, their at will damage will be better than casters at will damage, and comparably the same as it is in 5e vs resource spending damage of casters, and martials amongst themselves will still be in more or less the same relation, except for maybe the off turn sneak attacking rogue builds, but I fully expect a new Rogue UA, so, I'd say lets wait a bit more, focus on ideas being presented instead of the fine math, which can generally be adjusted to fit more desirble numbers.


Some redditors checked the math in more detail here. (https://www.reddit.com/r/onednd/comments/1325w79/martials_will_be_dishing_out_the_damage_the/)

One conclusion Treantmonk drew, which the redditors share, is that people have gotten into a habit of undervaluing 1/turn free damage, which the 1DnD martials are full of (e.g. new GWM, new Charger*, new Frenzy etc.) The reality is that 1/turn damage makes a bigger difference than people think. Another conclusion is that with more of the 1DnD feats being half-feats, martials - especially Fighters - can squeeze in more of them without impacting their primary ability. The weapon mastery properties do a decent amount of work as well, particularly on Fighter who doesn't have as easy a source of constant advantage as the barbarian does. Lastly, melee is shaping up to be better than ranged due to the SS nerf.

Here is their graph, with the bright red line representing a 5e Battlemaster using XBE and SS:

https://i.imgur.com/awafoMH.png

*not assumed on every attack I believe

There's something very strange in that graph, which is 5e Fighter getting a major DPR bump at lvl 18, which mkaes no sense, since the only change at that level is the maneuver dice going from 10 to 12, I think maybe they are using 5e's XBE and SS on top of 5.5s Fighter chassis, which is not as useful as a comparison point IMO. I'm also not sure if Fighter means no subclass or if it means Champion, same for Barbarians.


He's relying on a very dubious interpretation of the fighter's ability to swap mastery properties: on the fighter he's retroactively applying the damage-on-miss effect of one of the properties to every miss despite the intent of the rules being clear that you're supposed to choose your mastery before the attack hits or misses.

On the barbarian his builds for both is a berserker with PAM despite that subclass having its own built-in bonus-action attack in 5e but not 5.5. So yeah obviously the 5.5 version will deal more damage, he's basically comparing a barbarian without a subclass to one that has one.

He is also, on both classes, assuming cleave is usable 50% of the time, which any acid splash user knows is wildly overestimating how regularly enemies stand within 5 feet of one another. And because he's including the cleave damage, it's important to note that the damage he is reporting is NOT single target damage.

EDIT: That doesn't mean he's wrong in the binary "5.5 martials out-damage their 5e counterparts" but I think he's wrong when he estimates their damage at nearly 50% higher.

The 53 barbarian doesn't have PAM in his build it has GWM, it is using a Halberd, cause he wanted to compare it with his 2 fighter builds. Still, while I thought the fighter comparison was mostly fair, in the case of the Barbarian both builds seemed dubious, he gave 5e Barbarian Sentinel, which he didn't include in the DPR comparison, but he gave new Barbarian Savage Attacker, which, while not very impactful he DID include in the DPR math, so why not give Savage attacker to both to make the numbers more similar, or Sentinel to both, if the idea is that while not included makes for a better character? IDK, there were a couple more things I remember felt dubious from his barbs comparison, but I'd have to go over it again to check.

[Dr.Samurai]

He's relying on a very dubious interpretation of the fighter's ability to swap mastery properties: on the fighter he's retroactively applying the damage-on-miss effect of one of the properties to every miss despite the intent of the rules being clear that you're supposed to choose your mastery before the attack hits or misses.
Yeah, the wording can be cleaned up, but I agree with you:


whenever you make an attack
roll against a target with that kind of weapon,
you decide which of the two properties applies
to that attack. You make this decision before the
attack hits or misses.
Pretty clear, you make the choice when you attack, before the hit or miss is called.

For example, you could apply the Push and
Topple properties to Longswords, and whenever
you hit a target with a Longsword, you decide
which of those properties to use against the
target.
This says you decide whenever you hit, which makes it less clear. I imagine you'd have to choose before you hit, when you're making the attack.

On the barbarian his builds for both is a berserker with PAM despite that subclass having its own built-in bonus-action attack in 5e but not 5.5. So yeah obviously the 5.5 version will deal more damage, he's basically comparing a barbarian without a subclass to one that has one.
I can't imagine how the UA barbarian is out-damaging a 5.0 GWM berserker with everything we've seen so far.

He is also, on both classes, assuming cleave is usable 50% of the time, which any acid splash user knows is wildly overestimating how regularly enemies stand within 5 feet of one another. And because he's including the cleave damage, it's important to note that the damage he is reporting is NOT single target damage.
Cleave is great and will definitely result in increased damage per turn. But this is an extremely generous assumption. I don't know if TreantMonk is one of those guys that says enemies will avoid the frontline and move around the martial to get to the l33t casters in the back, but if so, seems incongruous with the idea that the martial will routinely have two targets to attack half the time.

EDIT: That doesn't mean he's wrong in the binary "5.5 martials out-damage their 5e counterparts" but I think he's wrong when he estimates their damage at nearly 50% higher.
I find it a bit irritating to have these claims being made as they rely on some questionable assumptions.

It's possible the UA martials deal more damage. I'm not really seeing it. And if you want to get so into it as to assume Graze can be called on every single miss, don't forget that the barbarian has a new use case for Rage, and if you're using Rage out of combat on skills, there's going to be times you have less Rages for actual combat, which will lower your DPR. Current barbarian doesn't have that problem. Their Rage is always contributing to their damage. (And if you don't use Rage on Primal Knowledge then.. congrats, you've lost some features for a feature you don't use.)

EDIT: OP, which video are you referencing?

[Amechra]

(And if you don't use Rage on Primal Knowledge then.. congrats, you've lost some features for a feature you don't use.)

Legitimate question (because I know you're a Barbarian Enjoyer) — do you tend to always use all of your Rages every day, and would that still be the case if they were new!Rage (10x duration, can extend with a bonus action)?

[Dr.Samurai]

Legitimate question (because I know you're a Barbarian Enjoyer) — do you tend to always use all of your Rages every day, and would that still be the case if they were new!Rage (10x duration, can extend with a bonus action)?
It's a good point. At lower levels, yeah, I usually use all of them. By the time I have 4 uses at level 6, it's not a guarantee that I will use all of them, but it still happens.

Extending it to 10 minutes can help, but generally we don't have back to back encounters like that. However, I think that's been skewed a bit by the modules we're in. The last couple of years we've just been running modules. In Avernus, we didn't have back to back encounters, so 10 minutes would not really make a difference. In Against the Giants, 10 minutes would make a big difference, as we are slogging through and often end one encounter to enter into another one almost immediately. So I'd definitely get more mileage out of the new Rage (though I should point out I'm playing a fighter in that game lol, but I can tell a 10 minute Rage would be awesome).

[Mastikator]

EDIT: OP, which video are you referencing?

I believe he's talking about these videos
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jYwYeIdsi2U fighter
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ra4IA1sgKb8 barbarian

[Psyren]

I can't imagine how the UA barbarian is out-damaging a 5.0 GWM berserker with everything we've seen so far.

On top of the bonus action attack and the lossless damage bonus they provide, PAM + GWM on the UA barbarian are adding +2 to their strength. You also get another lossless damage bonus from Frenzy.

[samcifer]

Yeah, the wording can be cleaned up, but I agree with you:

Pretty clear, you make the choice when you attack, before the hit or miss is called.

This says you decide whenever you hit, which makes it less clear. I imagine you'd have to choose before you hit, when you're making the attack.

I can't imagine how the UA barbarian is out-damaging a 5.0 GWM berserker with everything we've seen so far.

Cleave is great and will definitely result in increased damage per turn. But this is an extremely generous assumption. I don't know if TreantMonk is one of those guys that says enemies will avoid the frontline and move around the martial to get to the l33t casters in the back, but if so, seems incongruous with the idea that the martial will routinely have two targets to attack half the time.

I find it a bit irritating to have these claims being made as they rely on some questionable assumptions.

It's possible the UA martials deal more damage. I'm not really seeing it. And if you want to get so into it as to assume Graze can be called on every single miss, don't forget that the barbarian has a new use case for Rage, and if you're using Rage out of combat on skills, there's going to be times you have less Rages for actual combat, which will lower your DPR. Current barbarian doesn't have that problem. Their Rage is always contributing to their damage. (And if you don't use Rage on Primal Knowledge then.. congrats, you've lost some features for a feature you don't use.)

EDIT: OP, which video are you referencing?

This one for the fighter class changes:

https://youtu.be/jYwYeIdsi2U

And this one for barbarian changes:

https://youtu.be/ra4IA1sgKb8

Sorry, I'm at work and can't monitor this thread much today to answer questions.

[Dr.Samurai]

The 53 barbarian doesn't have PAM in his build it has GWM, it is using a Halberd, cause he wanted to compare it with his 2 fighter builds. Still, while I thought the fighter comparison was mostly fair, in the case of the Barbarian both builds seemed dubious, he gave 5e Barbarian Sentinel, which he didn't include in the DPR comparison, but he gave new Barbarian Savage Attacker, which, while not very impactful he DID include in the DPR math, so why not give Savage attacker to both to make the numbers more similar, or Sentinel to both, if the idea is that while not included makes for a better character? IDK, there were a couple more things I remember felt dubious from his barbs comparison, but I'd have to go over it again to check.
Yeah, it does seem... a little sloppy maybe?

But having just watched it, I do think the damage is higher for UA barbarians.

At level 13 (the level of comparison), the UA berserker is adding 10 damage from Frenzy and 5 damage from GWM. That's half of the power attack potential on 3 attacks, but you only have to land 1 hit. So you're doing half the damage of traditional Power Attack, with no penalty to attack, and only having to hit 1 time, instead of 3 times.

Even if we go by damage on a hit, the UA berserker comes out ahead on 1 attack hitting, and 2 attacks hitting. The 5.0 Berserker only comes out ahead if all 3 of its attacks hit.

However the UA berserker also has Retaliation at this level, so it's making even more attacks (and Cleave against other enemies).

It's a strange level to make the comparison, denying the old barbarian Retaliation, and getting more damage out of GWM and Frenzy for the new barbarian. I thought TreantMonk caps his reviews at level 10 because the majority of play happens before then.

Still, it seems they're shifting the damage to one big attack on your turn, and then little basic attacks around it, as opposed to multiple chonky attacks on a turn. The former will result in more damage most of the time, but I like the feel of the latter.

I'm also not sure how this changes the weapon meta much. So... instead of a polearm heavy weapon, we're going for a polearm heavy weapon with Cleave? Okay, cool change lol.

Thanks for providing the links Samcifer and Mastikator (Mastikator your sig is on point!) :smallbiggrin:

[Gignere]

Yeah, it does seem... a little sloppy maybe?

But having just watched it, I do think the damage is higher for UA barbarians.

At level 13 (the level of comparison), the UA berserker is adding 10 damage from Frenzy and 5 damage from GWM. That's half of the power attack potential on 3 attacks, but you only have to land 1 hit. So you're doing half the damage of traditional Power Attack, with no penalty to attack, and only having to hit 1 time, instead of 3 times.

Even if we go by damage on a hit, the UA berserker comes out ahead on 1 attack hitting, and 2 attacks hitting. The 5.0 Berserker only comes out ahead if all 3 of its attacks hit.

However the UA berserker also has Retaliation at this level, so it's making even more attacks (and Cleave against other enemies).

It's a strange level to make the comparison, denying the old barbarian Retaliation, and getting more damage out of GWM and Frenzy for the new barbarian. I thought TreantMonk caps his reviews at level 10 because the majority of play happens before then.

Still, it seems they're shifting the damage to one big attack on your turn, and then little basic attacks around it, as opposed to multiple chonky attacks on a turn. The former will result in more damage most of the time, but I like the feel of the latter.

I'm also not sure how this changes the weapon meta much. So... instead of a polearm heavy weapon, we're going for a polearm heavy weapon with Cleave? Okay, cool change lol.

Thanks for providing the links Samcifer and Mastikator (Mastikator your sig is on point!) :smallbiggrin:

It’s not just one big attack it’s more like the first attack that lands will result in a big hit. Whether it’s the first or third attack of the round. It is a great way to make martial classes damage more consistent.

[Unoriginal]

I thought TreantMonk caps his reviews at level 10 because the majority of play happens before then.

Never expect consistency to get between TreantMonk and the point he feels like making.

[Damon_Tor]

There's something very strange in that graph, which is 5e Fighter getting a major DPR bump at lvl 18, which mkaes no sense, since the only change at that level is the maneuver dice going from 10 to 12, I think maybe they are using 5e's XBE and SS on top of 5.5s Fighter chassis, which is not as useful as a comparison point IMO. I'm also not sure if Fighter means no subclass or if it means Champion, same for Barbarians.

Keep in mind that for a SS archery build, a battlemaster is using his maneuver dice to turn misses into hits with almost all of his superiority dice. So yeah, the upgrade from a d10 to a d12 is actually kind of huge for them.

[Rukelnikov]

Keep in mind that for a SS archery build, a battlemaster is using his maneuver dice to turn misses into hits with almost all of his superiority dice. So yeah, the upgrade from a d10 to a d12 is actually kind of huge for them.

Even then, its an avg of +1 to hit on attacks when you would have used the maneuver, so about 5% the damage of an attack. And if you look at the graph, the increase is pretty much the same as it is for 5.5s Fighters, so I still think what's being shown there is a 5.5 Figther chasis, with 5.0 SS and XBE, and who knows what else they put in the mix.

[Dr.Samurai]

It is a great way to make martial classes damage more consistent.
If you want consistency, add the damage on all attacks :smallbiggrin:.

It's fine.

You still have to use a certain weapon, and you still need a feat (or 2 in this case). And you get about 8 more damage a turn, 12 if you use a cleave weapon. And you have to wait until this level for that boost.

If we just take a level 5 version of this (when you get Extra Attack):

Old Barbarian
6.5+4+10+2 = 22.5
Chance to hit = 58%
14.35 per attack

Round 1 = 28.7
Round 2 = 43.05

New Barbarian w/PAM, Savage Attacker (can't grab GWM yet)
5.5+4+2 = 11.5
Chance to hit = 84%
10.76 per attack

2.5+4+2 = 8.5
Chance to hit = 84%
7.19 per attack

Round 1 = 21.52
Round 2 = 28.71 + 1.61 + 6.972 = 37.292 (3 attacks+savage attacker+frenzy damage) If you include Cleave, then it's 41.79.

So at this level, the UA berserker has a feat advantage and a weapon mastery advantage and is still falling behind the old berserker.

If we go by damage on a hit, it looks like:

Old Barbarian
1. 22.5
2. 22.5
3. 22.5

New Barbarian
1. 18.5 (frenzy)
2. 11.5
3. 8.5

At level 8 the new barbarian gets +3 damage from GWM (and 20 strength but old barbarian gets 20 strength too). So the new barbarian comes about even with the old I'm guessing.

At level 9 the new barbarian probably passes ahead with the increase in GWM damage and Frenzy dice. But at this point most campaigns are over.

[Hurrashane]

Still, it seems they're shifting the damage to one big attack on your turn, and then little basic attacks around it, as opposed to multiple chonky attacks on a turn. The former will result in more damage most of the time, but I like the feel of the latter.



Hopefully then we'll get a lot more attack replacers. If a barbarian is dealing the lion's share of their damage on one hit Tavern Brawler for damage and shove/grapple attempts seems a lot more enticing. A battle master that can do big damage with one attack then allow an ally to do an off turn big damage attack would be better than them swinging twice alone.

I really can't wait to see the other Subclasses, monks, and other changes. Right now it's like trying to guess the shape of One D&D by looking through a keyhole.

[Dr.Samurai]

Hopefully then we'll get a lot more attack replacers. If a barbarian is dealing the lion's share of their damage on one hit Tavern Brawler for damage and shove/grapple attempts seems a lot more enticing. A battle master that can do big damage with one attack then allow an ally to do an off turn big damage attack would be better than them swinging twice alone.

I really can't wait to see the other Subclasses, monks, and other changes. Right now it's like trying to guess the shape of One D&D by looking through a keyhole.
Interesting point, and agreed!

[SharkForce]

If you want consistency, add the damage on all attacks :smallbiggrin:.



I'm not going to make any statements on whether or not you should *like* the 1/round additional damage model, but if you're trying to make damage more consistent, 1/round on the first hit added damage is far more effective than adding less damage on all attacks.

By making it 1/round triggered on the first attack that hits, you can say with a high level of confidence that this particular portion of damage goes through. It makes it much less likely that you'll have a huge spike in damage just because all attacks hit, while also making it unlikely for your damage to drop below a certain point simply because it is highly probable that at least one attack will hit.

You'll still have peaks and troughs in your chart of damage per round, but they'll be much smaller peaks and troughs than if you graphed a smaller amount of damage on every hit.

[Witty Username]

It's a strange level to make the comparison, denying the old barbarian Retaliation, and getting more damage out of GWM and Frenzy for the new barbarian. I thought TreantMonk caps his reviews at level 10 because the majority of play happens before then.


It depends, level 11 is what he was doing for subclass and class rankings. The idea being if they got nothing before level 11, it wouldn't be worth much in general between either the low likelihood of high level games, or the suffering in low level ones waiting to "get good later".
As for builds, he covers 1-20, with the most emphasis on the level the build is most interesting. With personal preference in the 6-9, range but will adjust for things like his invisibility archer or tempest wizard builds as it just takes awhile to assemble the pieces. And he personally hates builds that are bad or stressful in the 1-5 range. So if you need 8+ levels to get good, in his mind you need to have a plan about what you are doing in the meantime, like with invisibility archer, he used a bard, sorcerer mix (greater invisibility + extra attack, and a sorcerer dip for quicken spell) but the first 10 levels or so are a control-support caster, do give the player at least something while they assemble the pieces).
A pretty good example of that thinking is his "Arcane trickster" build (illusionist wizard, with a rogue dip) took rogue at 1, but went to wizard 17 before the second level of rogue, because 2 levels behind on spellcasting as a dedicated spellcaster is ick in tier 2 and 3.

[Hytheter]

There's something very strange in that graph, which is 5e Fighter getting a major DPR bump at lvl 18, which mkaes no sense, since the only change at that level is the maneuver dice going from 10 to 12

Maybe he mixed up the level at which the second action surge comes online? There should be a bump at 17 for that reason, but it's flat from 16.

[Hael]

I was not able to replicate many of these numbers, and I think Treantmonks math has problematic assumptions.

We don't really have the number for spells, so we don't know for instance how the bladelock scales. But just for context, an optimized hexblade at lvl 20 hits for 93 dpr (more if he uses a summon instead of spirit shroud) and 115 dpr (more if he uses a summon and/or his pet) with curse up, which will be >50% of battles, and i haven't factored in eldritch smite (which we can expect to use at least once per battle).

This bladelock hits for ~30, but thats likely b/c he isnt using any spells (no foresight at 17+, no long term concentration), but of course being a half caster precludes us from using spells in dpr analysis b/c now the resource isn't guaranteed. Still, thats a 400% reduction in damage output, which is a *significant* nerf.

A Zealot barbarian in 5e with PAM/GWM and 24 str (no other minor damage boosting feats) will hit AC19 with about 81 dpr, which is about in line with the 5.5 berzerker at 20. That math looks ok to me. I actually think the 5.5 barbarian might have some minor advantages over the leveling phase due to the +1 str on many of his feats.

The big question mark is the fighter. A full resource burning lvl 20 SS/CBE battlemaster in 5.0 is going to be about in the 90-110 dpr range over the course of a day depending on assumptions (how many fights, how to measure precision attack, duration of fights, AC distribution etc) and that looks roughly in line with what we have here.

However, I don't buy Treantmonks reading of weaponmaster. I also think any optimized fighter in 5.5 will be avoiding taking damage masteries, and will instead be going for the far more optimized CC components (the slow, or topple). When you do that, the damage output plummets into something closer to the Rogues dpr output (depending on assumptions about how many fights per SR and duration of fights etc).

[Amechra]

It's a good point. At lower levels, yeah, I usually use all of them. By the time I have 4 uses at level 6, it's not a guarantee that I will use all of them, but it still happens.

That matches pretty closely with my experience with the Barbarian too, though I've definitely played in some games where there were some days where I had some leftover rages even in Tier 1. I feel like what they're going for with Primal Knowledge is that it's effectively a way of "soaking up" the extra rage uses you get at higher levels (culminating in Rage Resurgence at 17th level, which makes it so that Rage is effectively an out-of-combat resource).

One thing that I think oftentimes gets missed in forum discussions (which tends to focus heavily on individual rounds) is how additional uses of features can recontextualize those features. A classic example is the 2014 Monk — they get a "secret" damage boost at the start of Tier 3 because that's roughly the point where you have enough Ki to use Flurry of Blows every round instead of Martial Arts, meaning your "spike" damage is now your "at-will" damage.

If you apply this principle to Primal Knowledge (and assume, say, 3-4 major fights per long rest), you get scaling that looks kinda like:

Tier 1: The skill bonuses are honestly more of a pre/post combat buff than anything else — if you know that a fight's imminent, raging early to get Advantage on Strength (Perception) checks can be pretty useful.
Tier 2: You have 0-1 out-of-combat Rages, and eventually get Indomitable Might, which makes Rage a hilariously good (if rather narrow) tool for a skill monkey.
Tier 3: You're up to 1-2 out-of-combat Rages — you can safely fly off the handle to do something without worrying about running dry in a fight.
Tier 4: Rage Resurgence means that you now effectively have 6 out-of-combat Rages — you can effectively spam Primal Knowledge.

It's wonky as heck, with Tier 3 barely improving it at all and Tier 4 suddenly giving you a massive spike in uses, but eh — it scales. At least you get Indomitable Might at a reasonable level now, and not, you know, Tier 4.

I really hope that at least one of the new Barbarian subclasses adds more skills to the Primal Knowledge list — I could see Ancestral Guardian getting History, for example.


I also think any optimized fighter in 5.5 will be avoiding taking damage masteries

I dunno about that — both Cleave and Graze have some definite utility to them beyond just boosting damage (Cleave helps deal with groups of enemies, while Graze guarantees that your attack will do something).

[Kane0]

Graze is going to be amazing in Tier 1

[Rukelnikov]

I think both Cleave and Graze will likely be very useful for specific builds that either do stuff on-hit or on-damage, moreso Graze since the on damage part will be guaranteed.

[tokek]

I want to add in another observation that comes from 5e play and running a few numbers on the UA myself: the UA martials are much less vulnerable to having a bad fight.

The -5/+10 feats are very swingy but more crucially any optimised build is depending on advantage to land those attacks. If the martial gets hit by a debuff or is fighting in unfavourable conditions such as smoke/fog that does not work.

This might be a minority of the encounters but it’s the important minority. Characters should be surviving at least 95% of their encounters anyway - but it’s that 5% that makes the long term difference. Winning big 19 times then dying is still losing.

I have always felt that the averages over value those power feats because in the encounter that might kill your character they might be useless. They are at their most awesome when you were going to win anyway.

The UA martials don’t see this big drop-off in power when their supporting tricks are negated. Their power drops off far more gently.

[tokek]

Graze is going to be amazing in Tier 1

Graze is situationally awesome.

Facing an invisible enemy? Grab your great sword and start swinging - you are bound to do something with every swing.

Enemy concentrating on a spell? Grab that great sword again and swing, its a guaranteed concentration check per swing.

I don't think its what you will choose to use all the time but having a Graze weapon is having a fantastic tool for certain jobs. Its never bad and sometimes its great.

[Moxxmix]

It's a strange level to make the comparison, denying the old barbarian Retaliation, and getting more damage out of GWM and Frenzy for the new barbarian. I thought TreantMonk caps his reviews at level 10 because the majority of play happens before then.
I think he chose that level because that's when fighters get their Weapon Adept feature, and he wanted to use two weapon masteries (Cleave and Graze).

He chose the same for barbarian to keep things even, although doing it at 14 would probably be more fair for comparing to PHB barbarian. Going to level 14 would only add 1 point to the UA crit damage bonus, which would be insignificant for this type of comparison. But leaving out Retaliation doesn't affect things too much, so... (I think. I should probably run numbers on it just to be sure.)


I ran my own numbers on a barbarian at level 13 using a +1 weapon and 65% base acc, and got a bunch of DPR results. I used halberd first, for the sake of similarity to Treantmonk's, and then also tried the glaive for the Graze mastery. Cleave is done with both 0% activation rate and 40% activation rate, to see what sort of range its benefit can provide.

The first set is grouped, and the second set is sorted. "Full" means all of PAM, GWM, Charger, and Savage Attacker feats. Otherwise just the listed feats are used.

The "Frenzy" label for the PHB build assumes Reckless Attack is also being used. The "Reckless" label for playtest builds automatically includes Frenzy damage.



PHB:
PHB, PAM, plain: 27.68
PHB, PAM, Reckless: 38.18
PHB, GWM, plain: 21.67
PHB, GWM, Reckless: 36.61
PHB, GWM, Frenzy: 50.25
PAM + GWM, plain: 28.576
PAM + GWM, reckless: 48.215

Playtest:
PAM Only:
Halberd, no Cleave: 28.950
Halberd, Reckless, no Cleave: 51.134
Halberd, 40% Cleave: 31.666
Halberd, Reckless, 40% Cleave: 55.182

Glaive: 34.200
Glaive, Reckless: 52.948

GWM Only:
Halberd, no Cleave: 25.690
Halberd, Reckless, no Cleave: 44.524
Halberd, 40% Cleave: 28.408
Halberd, Reckless, 40% Cleave: 48.572

Glaive: 29.180
Glaive, Reckless: 45.718

PAM+GWM:
Halberd, no Cleave: 33.940
Halberd, Reckless, no Cleave: 56.124
Halberd, 40% Cleave: 36.658
Halberd, Reckless, 40% Cleave: 60.172

Glaive: 39.180
Glaive, Reckless: 57.928

PAM+GWM+Charger+Savage Attacker:
Halberd, no Cleave: 38.363
Halberd, Reckless, no Cleave: 61.708
Halberd, 40% Cleave: 41.081
Halberd, Reckless, 40% Cleave: 65.756

Glaive: 43.603
Glaive, Reckless: 63.512




Playtest, Full, Halberd, Reckless, 40% Cleave 65.756
Playtest, Full, Glaive, Reckless 63.512
Playtest, Full, Halberd, Reckless, no Cleave 61.708
Playtest, PAM+GWM, Halberd, Reckless, 40% Cleave 60.172
Playtest, PAM+GWM, Glaive, Reckless 57.928
Playtest, PAM+GWM, Halberd, Reckless, no Cleave 56.124
Playtest, PAM Only, Halberd, Reckless, 40% Cleave 55.182
Playtest, PAM Only, Glaive, Reckless 52.948
Playtest, PAM Only, Halberd, Reckless, no Cleave 51.134
PHB, GWM, frenzy 50.250
Playtest, GWM Only, Halberd, Reckless, 40% Cleave 48.572
PHB, PAM + GWM, reckless: 48.215
Playtest, GWM Only, Glaive, Reckless 45.718
Playtest, GWM Only, Halberd, Reckless, no Cleave 44.524
Playtest, Full, Glaive 43.603
Playtest, Full, Halberd, 40% Cleave 41.081
Playtest, PAM+GWM, Glaive 39.180
Playtest, Full, Halberd, no Cleave 38.363
PHB, PAM, reckless 38.180
Playtest, PAM+GWM, Halberd, 40% Cleave 36.658
PHB, GWM, reckless 36.610
Playtest, PAM Only, Glaive 34.200
Playtest, PAM+GWM, Halberd, no Cleave 33.940
Playtest, PAM Only, Halberd, 40% Cleave 31.666
Playtest, GWM Only, Glaive 29.180
Playtest, PAM Only, Halberd, no Cleave 28.950
PHB, PAM + GWM, plain: 28.576
Playtest, GWM Only, Halberd, 40% Cleave 28.408
PHB, PAM, plain 27.680
Playtest, GWM Only, Halberd, no Cleave 25.690
PHB, GWM, plain 21.670


The playtest version using nothing but PAM with either a glaive (with Graze) or a halberd (no Cleave) using Reckless Attack is enough to beat out the Frenzy PHB barbarian, and the playtest still has other things it can add on top of that.


Raw data used to calculate the various totals:


PHB Barbarian, halberd +1:


Acc: 65% acc, 5% crit
Reckless: 87.75% acc, 9.75% crit
GWM: 40% acc / 64% acc
Choice of PAM or GWM
Att: 5.5 (base) + 1 (weapon) + 5 (str) + 3 (rage) = 14.5 * 65% = 9.425 + 5% * 5.5 * 2 = 9.975
Reckless: 14.5 * 87.75% = 12.72375 + 9.75% * 5.5 * 2 = 13.80
PAM Att: 2.5 (base) + 1 (weapon) + 5 (str) + 3 (rage) = 11.5 * 65% = 7.475 + 5% * 2.5 * 2 = 7.725
Reckless PAM: 11.5 * 87.75% = 10.09125 + 9.75% * 2.5 * 2 = 10.58
GWM Att: 5.5 (base) + 1 (weapon) + 5 (str) + 3 (rage) + 10 (GWM) = 24.5 * 40% = 9.8 + 5% * 5.5 * 2 = 10.35
Reckless GWM: 24.5 * 64% = 15.68 + 9.75% * 5.5 * 2 = 16.75
Frenzy: 5.5 (base) + 1 (weapon) + 5 (str) + 3 (rage) = 14.5 * 65% = 9.425 + 5% * 5.5 * 2 = 9.975
Reckless Frenzy GWM: 24.5 * 64% = 15.68 + 9.75% * 5.5 * 2 = 16.75
GWM Bonus: 5.5 (base) + 1 (weapon) + 5 (str) + 3 (rage) = 14.5 * 65% = 9.425 + 5% * 5.5 * 2 = 9.975
Reckless GWM Bonus: 24.5 * 64% = 15.68 + 9.75% * 5.5 * 2 = 16.75
GWM PAM: 2.5 (base) + 1 (weapon) + 5 (str) + 3 (rage) + 10 = 21.5 * 40% = 8.6 + 5% * 2.5 * 2 = 8.85
Reckless GWM PAM: 21.5 * 64% = 13.76 + 9.75% * 2.5 * 2 = 14.248


Playtest Barbarian, halberd +1:


Acc: 65% acc, 5% crit
Reckless: 87.75% acc, 9.75% crit
Frenzy: 3d6 (10.5)
Crit: +13
PAM, GWM, Charger, Savage Attacker
Att: 5.5 (base) + 1 (weapon) + 5 (str) + 3 (rage) = 14.5 * 65% = 9.425 + 5% * (5.5 + 13) = 10.35
Reckless: 14.5 * 87.75% = 12.72375 + 9.75% * (5.5 + 13) = 14.5275
PAM Att: 2.5 (base) + 1 (weapon) + 5 (str) + 3 (rage) = 11.5 * 65% = 7.475 + 5% * (2.5 + 13) = 8.25
Reckless PAM: 11.5 * 87.75% = 10.09125 + 9.75% * (2.5 + 13) = 11.60
Cleave Att: 5.5 (base) + 1 (weapon) + 3 (rage) = 9.5 * 65% = 6.175 + 5% * (5.5 + 13) = 7.1
Reckless Cleave: 9.5 * 87.75% = 8.33625 + 9.75% * (5.5 + 13) = 10.14
GWM: 5 * 99.8% = 4.99
Frenzy: 10.5 * 99.8% = 10.479
Savage: (7.15 - 5.5) * 87.75% + (3.13 - 2.5) * 7.96% = 1.498
Reckless Savage: (7.15 - 5.5) * 98.5% + (3.13 - 2.5) * 1.32% = 1.634
Charge: 4.5 * 65% = 2.925
Reckless Charge: 4.5 * 87.75% = 3.95


Playtest Barbarian, glaive +1:


Acc: 65% acc, 5% crit
Reckless: 87.75% acc, 9.75% crit
Frenzy: 3d6 (10.5)
Crit: +13
PAM, GWM, Charger, Savage Attacker
Att: 5.5 (base) + 1 (weapon) + 5 (str) + 3 (rage) = 14.5 * 65% = 9.425 + 5% * (5.5 + 13) = 10.35 + 5 (graze) * 35% = 12.1
Reckless: 14.5 * 87.75% = 12.72375 + 9.75% * (5.5 + 13) = 14.5275 + 5 (graze) * 12.25% = 15.14
PAM Att: 2.5 (base) + 1 (weapon) + 5 (str) + 3 (rage) = 11.5 * 65% = 7.475 + 5% * (2.5 + 13) = 8.25 + 5 (graze) * 35% = 10
Reckless PAM: 11.5 * 87.75% = 10.09125 + 9.75% * (2.5 + 13) = 11.60 + 5 (graze) * 12.25% = 12.21
GWM: 5 * 99.6% = 4.98
Frenzy: 10.5 * 99.6% = 10.458
Savage: (7.15 - 5.5) * 87.75% + (3.13 - 2.5) * 7.96% = 1.498
Reckless Savage: (7.15 - 5.5) * 98.5% + (3.13 - 2.5) * 1.32% = 1.634
Charge: 4.5 * 65% = 2.925
Reckless Charge: 4.5 * 87.75% = 3.95

[Woggle]

I just want to point out that Treantmonk didn't use any reactions for any of the builds, so level 14 vs 13 for the Berserker comparison is mostly moot. Obviously the old Berserker gets a bit more from its retaliation due to GWM's -5/+10, but it's not nearly as big a difference as the new one getting retaliation and the old not.

[Gignere]

I just want to point out that Treantmonk didn't use any reactions for any of the builds, so level 14 vs 13 for the Berserker comparison is mostly moot. Obviously the old Berserker gets a bit more from its retaliation due to GWM's -5/+10, but it's not nearly as big a difference as the new one getting retaliation and the old not.

Might actually be a DPR loss relative to 1 D&D retaliation if you use GWM on retaliation because reckless only applies on your turn not offturn without advantage GWM doesn’t add a lot of DPR and can be negative to your DPR.

[Dr.Samurai]

So, to answer the OP, his analysis is done at level 13. Based on my own maths, I don't think his analysis holds true in tiers 1 and 2. By the end of tier 2 the UA berserker may catch up (or even surpass by a few points), but for the the vast majority of games, because according to their own data WotC says most games don't go beyond level 7, the current PHB berserker does more damage.

So switch to the new edition and convince your DM to start at level 13 :smallwink:.

EDIT - Lost track of convos across threads:


I'm not going to make any statements on whether or not you should *like* the 1/round additional damage model, but if you're trying to make damage more consistent, 1/round on the first hit added damage is far more effective than adding less damage on all attacks.

By making it 1/round triggered on the first attack that hits, you can say with a high level of confidence that this particular portion of damage goes through. It makes it much less likely that you'll have a huge spike in damage just because all attacks hit, while also making it unlikely for your damage to drop below a certain point simply because it is highly probable that at least one attack will hit.

You'll still have peaks and troughs in your chart of damage per round, but they'll be much smaller peaks and troughs than if you graphed a smaller amount of damage on every hit.
I meant just add the +d6 Frenzy dice on every attack. You'll consistently deal more damage.

I don't like the idea of my first attack resulting in significant overkill because I can't control when I apply my +dice of damage. So my big attack gets wasted on a weaker enemy, and then I engage a new enemy with normal basic attacks. I'm not looking at it from "did I deal more damage for the whole turn" but rather on each attack. With GWM, at least all of your attacks can deal the same damage, so if you overkill an enemy, you're still dealing Power Attack damage on your next attacks. With this new 1/turn stuff, it's your first attack, and then the rest of your attacks are the little pokes.

That matches pretty closely with my experience with the Barbarian too, though I've definitely played in some games where there were some days where I had some leftover rages even in Tier 1. I feel like what they're going for with Primal Knowledge is that it's effectively a way of "soaking up" the extra rage uses you get at higher levels (culminating in Rage Resurgence at 17th level, which makes it so that Rage is effectively an out-of-combat resource).

One thing that I think oftentimes gets missed in forum discussions (which tends to focus heavily on individual rounds) is how additional uses of features can recontextualize those features. A classic example is the 2014 Monk — they get a "secret" damage boost at the start of Tier 3 because that's roughly the point where you have enough Ki to use Flurry of Blows every round instead of Martial Arts, meaning your "spike" damage is now your "at-will" damage.

If you apply this principle to Primal Knowledge (and assume, say, 3-4 major fights per long rest), you get scaling that looks kinda like:

Tier 1: The skill bonuses are honestly more of a pre/post combat buff than anything else — if you know that a fight's imminent, raging early to get Advantage on Strength (Perception) checks can be pretty useful.
Tier 2: You have 0-1 out-of-combat Rages, and eventually get Indomitable Might, which makes Rage a hilariously good (if rather narrow) tool for a skill monkey.
Tier 3: You're up to 1-2 out-of-combat Rages — you can safely fly off the handle to do something without worrying about running dry in a fight.
Tier 4: Rage Resurgence means that you now effectively have 6 out-of-combat Rages — you can effectively spam Primal Knowledge.

It's wonky as heck, with Tier 3 barely improving it at all and Tier 4 suddenly giving you a massive spike in uses, but eh — it scales. At least you get Indomitable Might at a reasonable level now, and not, you know, Tier 4.

I really hope that at least one of the new Barbarian subclasses adds more skills to the Primal Knowledge list — I could see Ancestral Guardian getting History, for example.

Yeah, that looks interesting.

But, for me, I don't like the guessing game that comes with resource expenditure. I find it really bothersome. So wondering if I will have leftover rages or not, and guessing I will so using Primal Knowledge only to discover there are more combat encounters, is not really fun for me. Obviously plenty of people like using resources (they do cool things), so I'm being careful to say this is just my own personal preference and part of the reason I like barbarians (since they're down to 1 resource mostly, Rage) and why I don't like tying Primal Knowledge to its uses.

Also, like in the damage comparison, you're really seeing the benefits in the higher levels of gameplay that very few people get to play in. I worry that people will see improvements on the barbarian that are really QoL improvements or obvious improvements (thrown weapons, Reckless Attack, removing Exhaustion) and will just think "Ok, barbarian is good now" and just not demand more. For me, this isn't really enough to stamp this as the new and improved barbarian. Primal Knowledge is an interesting idea, and I like what it can do. But I'm not sold yet on its resource use. It remains to be seen what the 10 minute duration will allow for in our games.

[MisterD]

I haven't found anyone else talking about this in clear terms, but according to his most recent y-tube vids, barbarians and fighters in the 5th playtest will be able to do more damage than the ones in 5e. As someone who barely passed math(s), could someone explain his reasoning in more mundane terms and either prove him right or show how he is wrong?

Thanks in advance from a complete idiot at math(s). :P

He is assuming that the character with cleave is hitting 2 targets instead of one. To do a real apple to apple comparison. have both character attack just one target. How is the math on that.

[Dr.Samurai]

He is assuming that the character with cleave is hitting 2 targets instead of one. To do a real apple to apple comparison. have both character attack just one target. How is the math on that.
IIRC, Cleave adds 4.5 to the total DPR. He says it’s not a big deal, but it amounts to roughly 1/3 of the damage advantage the UA has over the old barbarian. Without, the lead is roughly 7-8 damage points instead of 12.

[Moxxmix]

EDIT: I made a mistake in the original calculations, leaving Frenzy damage in the playtest numbers when Reckless Attack was not active. Those numbers have now been corrected.

Levels 1-3 are patchy, and kinda suck for everyone. I figure levels 4 and 5 are the best low-level comparison. 4 gives you your first ASI/feat, and 5 gives you extra attack. I'll just do level 4 here, as the comparison process is quite long.

I'll start with standard array for stats, though with slightly different final stat sets because of the changes to feats in the playtest, as well as the different stats provided for the variant human.

Standard array: 15/14/13/8/12/10

PHB:
16(17) Str, 14 Dex, 14 Con, 8 Int, 12 Wis, 10 Cha

Playtest:
17 Str, 14 Dex, 14 Con, 8 Int, 12 Wis, 10 Cha

At level 1, all stat mods are the same between the builds. At level 4, the playtest will have 18 Str from one of the feats, while the PHB will have a choice between 18 Str and a feat. The playtest will take the two-weapon fighting style for that build. Otherwise the 1st level feat is assumed to not be relevant to DPR.


Weapons: No magic bonus
Base Acc: 60% at 16/17 Str, 65% at 18 Str
Advantage Acc: 84% at 16/17 Str, 87.75% at 18 Str
Crit Rate: 5%
Advantage Crit Rate: 9.75%
Rage: Always assumed on
Subclass: Berserker


Level 4


PHB, non-variant human
ASI: +2 Str
Weapon: Greataxe (1d12)
Att: 6.5 (weapon) + 4 (str) + 2 (rage) = 12.5 * 65% (acc) = 8.125 + 5% (crit) * 6.5 = 8.45
Reckless Att: 6.5 (weapon) + 4 (str) + 2 (rage) = 12.5 * 87.75% (acc) = 10.969 + 9.75% (crit) * 6.5 = 11.603

Base DPR: Att = 8.45
Reckless DPR: Reckless Att = 11.603
Frenzy DPR: Att + Att (frenzy) = 8.45 + 8.45 = 16.9
Frenzy Reckless DPR: Reckless Att + Reckless Att (frenzy) = 11.603 + 11.603 = 23.206

ASI: Polearm Master
Weapon: Glaive (1d10)
Att: 5.5 (weapon) + 3 (str) + 2 (rage) = 10.5 * 60% (acc) = 6.3 + 5% (crit) * 5.5 = 6.575
Reckless Att: 5.5 (weapon) + 3 (str) + 2 (rage) = 10.5 * 84% (acc) = 8.82 + 9.75% (crit) * 5.5 = 9.356
PAM Att: 2.5 (weapon) + 3 (str) + 2 (rage) = 7.5 * 60% (acc) = 4.5 + 5% (crit) * 2.5 = 4.625
Reckless PAM Att: 2.5 (weapon) + 3 (str) + 2 (rage) = 7.5 * 84% (acc) = 6.3 + 5% (crit) * 2.5 = 6.425

Base DPR: Att + PAM Att = 6.575 + 4.625 = 11.2
Reckless DPR: Reckless Att + Reckless PAM Att = 9.356 + 6.425 = 15.781
Frenzy DPR: Att + Att (frenzy) = 6.575 + 6.575 = 13.15
Frenzy Reckless DPR: Reckless Att + Reckless Att (frenzy) = 9.356 + 9.356 = 18.712

ASI: Great Weapon Master
Weapon: Greataxe (1d12)
Att: 6.5 (weapon) + 3 (str) + 2 (rage) = 11.5 * 60% (acc) = 6.9 + 5% (crit) * 6.5 = 7.225
Reckless Att: 6.5 (weapon) + 3 (str) + 2 (rage) = 11.5 * 84% (acc) = 9.66 + 9.75% (crit) * 6.5 = 10.294
GWM Att: 6.5 (weapon) + 3 (str) + 2 (rage) + 10 (GWM) = 21.5 * 35% (acc) = 7.525 + 5% (crit) * 6.5 = 7.85
GWM Reckless Att: 6.5 (weapon) + 3 (str) + 2 (rage) + 10 (GWM) = 21.5 * 57.75% (acc) = 12.416 + 9.75% (crit) * 6.5 = 13.05

Base DPR: Att + 5% (GWM) Att = 7.225 + 0.361 = 7.586
Reckless DPR: Reckless Att + 9.75% (GWM) Att = 10.294 + 1.004 = 11.298
GWM DPR: GWM Att + 5% (GWM) GWM Att = 7.85 + 0.393 = 8.243
Reckless GWM DPR: GWM Reckless Att + 9.75% (GWM) GWM Reckless Att = 13.05 + 1.272 = 14.322
Frenzy DPR: GWM Att + GWM Att (frenzy) = 7.85 + 7.85 = 15.7
Frenzy Reckless DPR: GWM Reckless Att + GWM Reckless Att (frenzy) = 13.05 + 13.05 = 26.1

PHB, variant human
ASI: Polearm Master + Great Weapon Master
Weapon: Glaive (1d10)
Att: 5.5 (weapon) + 3 (str) + 2 (rage) = 10.5 * 60% (acc) = 6.3 + 5% (crit) * 5.5 = 6.575
Reckless Att: 5.5 (weapon) + 3 (str) + 2 (rage) = 10.5 * 84% (acc) = 8.82 + 9.75% (crit) * 5.5 = 9.356
GWM Att: 5.5 (weapon) + 3 (str) + 2 (rage) + 10 (GWM) = 20.5 * 35% (acc) = 7.175 + 5% (crit) * 5.5 = 7.45
GWM Reckless Att: 5.5 (weapon) + 3 (str) + 2 (rage) + 10 (GWM) = 20.5 * 57.75% (acc) = 11.839 + 9.75% (crit) * 5.5 = 12.375
GWM PAM Att: 2.5 (weapon) + 3 (str) + 2 (rage) + 10 (GWM) = 17.5 * 35% (acc) = 6.125 + 5% (crit) * 2.5 = 6.25
GWM PAM Reckless Att: 2.5 (weapon) + 3 (str) + 2 (rage) + 10 (GWM) = 17.5 * 57.75% (acc) = 10.106 + 9.75% (crit) * 2.5 = 10.35

Base DPR: GWM Att + 95% * GWM PAM Att + 5% * GWM Att = 7.45 + 5.9375 + 0.3725 = 13.76
Reckless DPR: Reckless GWM Att + 90.25% * Reckless GWM PAM Att + 9.75% * Reckless GWM Att = 12.375 + 10.35 + 1.207 = 23.932
Frenzy not used



PHB Summary:
With Frenzy:
GWM Reckless = 26.100
Str Reckless = 23.206
PAM Reckless = 18.712
Str = 16.90
GWM = 15.70
PAM = 13.15

Without Frenzy:
PAM+GWM Reck = 23.932
PAM Reckless = 15.781
GWM Reckless = 14.322
Str Reckless = 11.603
PAM+GWM = 13.760
PAM = 11.200
Str = 8.450
GWM = 8.243

If using Frenzy, it's a small tossup between +2 Str and GWM, depending on Reckless Attack.

Without Frenzy, PAM wins.



Playtest
Feat: PAM
Weapon: Glaive (Graze)
Att: 5.5 (weapon) + 4 (str) + 2 (rage) = 11.5 * 65% (acc) + 4 * 35% (graze) = 8.875 + 5% (crit) * 5.5 = 9.15
Reckless Att: 5.5 (weapon) + 4 (str) + 2 (rage) = 11.5 * 87.75% (acc) + 4 * 12.25% (graze) = 10.581 + 9.75% (crit) * 5.5 = 11.117
PAM Att: 2.5 (weapon) + 4 (str) + 2 (rage) = 8.5 * 65% (acc) + 4 * 35% (graze) = 6.925 + 5% (crit) * 2.5 = 7.05
Reckless PAM Att: 2.5 (weapon) + 4 (str) + 2 (rage) = 8.5 * 87.75% (acc) + 4 * 12.25% (graze) = 7.94875 + 9.75% (crit) * 2.5 = 8.193
Frenzy: 7 * 98.5% (hit at least once) = 6.895

Base DPR: Att + PAM Att = 9.15 + 7.05 = 16.2
Reckless Base DPR: Reckless Att + Reckless PAM Att + Frenzy = 11.117 + 8.193 + 6.895 = 26.205

Feat: GWM
Weapon: Greataxe (Cleave)
Att: 6.5 (weapon) + 4 (str) + 2 (rage) = 12.5 * 65% (acc) = 8.125 + 5% (crit) * 6.5 = 8.45
Reckless Att: 6.5 (weapon) + 4 (str) + 2 (rage) = 12.5 * 87.75% (acc) = 10.969 + 9.75% (crit) * 6.5 = 11.603
Cleave: 6.5 (weapon) + 2 (rage) = 8.5 * 65% (acc) + 4 * 35% (graze) = 8.875 + 5% (crit) * 6.5 = 9.15
Reckless Cleave: 6.5 (weapon) + 2 (rage) = 8.5 * 87.75% (acc) + 4 * 12.25% (graze) = 10.581 + 9.75% (crit) * 6.5 = 11.117
Frenzy: 7 * 87.75% (hit at least once) = 6.143
GWM: 2 * 65% (hit at least once) = 1.3
Reckless GWM: 2 * 87.75% (hit at least once) = 1.755

Base DPR, no cleave: Att + GWM + 5% (GWM crit) * Att = 8.45 + 1.3 + 0.423 = 10.173
Reckless DPR, no cleave: Reckless Att + Frenzy + Reckless GWM + 9.75% (GWM crit) * Reckless Att = 11.603 + 6.143 + 1.755 + 1.131 = 20.632
Base DPR, 40% cleave: Att + GWM + 40% * Cleave + 5% (GWM crit) * Att = 8.45 + 1.3 + 3.66 + 0.423 = 13.833
Reckless DPR, 40% cleave: Reckless Att + Frenzy + Reckless GWM + 40% * Cleave + 9.75% (GWM crit) * Reckless Att = 11.603 + 6.143 + 1.755 + 4.447 + 1.131 = 25.079

Weapon: Greatsword (Graze)
Att: 7 (weapon) + 4 (str) + 2 (rage) = 13 * 65% (acc) + 4 * 35% (graze) = 9.85 + 5% (crit) * 7 = 10.2
Reckless Att: 7 (weapon) + 4 (str) + 2 (rage) = 13 * 87.75% (acc) + 4 * 12.25% (graze) = 11.898 + 9.75% (crit) * 7 = 12.58
Frenzy: 7 * 87.75% (hit at least once) = 6.143
GWM: 2 * 65% (hit at least once) = 1.3
Reckless GWM: 2 * 87.75% (hit at least once) = 1.755

Base DPR: Att + GWM + 5% (GWM crit) * Att = 10.2 + 1.3 + 0.493 = 11.993
Reckless DPR: Reckless Att + Frenzy + Reckless GWM + 9.75% (GWM crit) * Reckless Att = 12.58 + 6.143 + 1.755 + 1.227 = 21.705

Weapons: Handaxe (Vex) / Scimitar (Nick) (No TWF)
H Att: 3.5 (handaxe) + 4 (str) + 2 (rage) = 9.5 * 65% (acc) = 6.175 + 5% (crit) * 3.5 = 6.35
S Att: 3.5 (scimitar) + 2 (rage) = 5.5 * 73% (acc) = 4.015 + 8.1% (crit) * 3.5 = 4.298
Reckless H Att: 3.5 (handaxe) + 4 (str) + 2 (rage) = 9.5 * 87.75% (acc) = 8.336 + 9.75% (crit) * 3.5 = 8.678
Reckless S Att: 3.5 (scimitar) + 2 (rage) = 5.5 * 87.75% (acc) = 4.826 + 9.75% (crit) * 3.5 = 5.168
Frenzy: 7 * 98.5% (hit at least once) = 6.895

Base DPR: H Att + S Att + GWM + GWM Crit = 6.35 + 4.298 + 5%*6.35 + 7.7%*4.298 = 11.296
Reckless DPR: Reckless H Att + Reckless S Att + Frenzy + Reckless GWM Crit = 8.678 + 5.1675 + 6.895 + 9.75%*8.678 + 8.8%*5.168 = 22.041

Weapons: Handaxe (Vex) / Scimitar (Nick) (TWF)
H Att: 3.5 (handaxe) + 4 (str) + 2 (rage) = 9.5 * 65% (acc) = 6.175 + 5% (crit) * 3.5 = 6.35
S Att: 3.5 (scimitar) + 4 (str) + 2 (rage) = 9.5 * 73% (acc) = 6.935 + 8.1% (crit) * 3.5 = 7.219
Reckless H Att: 3.5 (handaxe) + 4 (str) + 2 (rage) = 9.5 * 87.75% (acc) = 8.336 + 9.75% (crit) * 3.5 = 8.678
Reckless S Att: 3.5 (scimitar) + 4 (str) + 2 (rage) = 9.5 * 87.75% (acc) = 8.336 + 9.75% (crit) * 3.5 = 8.678
Frenzy: 7 * 98.5% (hit at least once) = 6.895

Base DPR: H Att + S Att + GWM + GWM Crit = 6.35 + 7.219 + 5%*6.35 + 7.7%*7.219 = 14.442
Reckless DPR: Reckless H Att + Reckless S Att + Frenzy + Reckless GWM Crit = 8.678 + 8.678 + 6.895 + 9.75%*8.678 + 8.8%*8.678 = 25.861


Feat: Dual Wielder
Weapons: Morningstar (Sap) | Longsword (Flex) / Scimitar (Nick)
L Att: 5.5 (longsword) + 4 (str) + 2 (rage) = 11.5 * 65% (acc) = 7.475 + 5% (crit) * 5.5 = 7.75
M Att: 4.5 (morningstar) + 4 (str) + 2 (rage) = 10.5 * 65% (acc) = 6.825 + 5% (crit) * 4.5 = 7.05
S Att: 3.5 (scimitar) + 4 (str) + 2 (rage) = 9.5 * 65% (acc) = 6.175 + 5% (crit) * 3.5 = 6.35
Reckless L Att: 5.5 (longsword) + 4 (str) + 2 (rage) = 11.5 * 87.75% (acc) = 10.091 + 9.75% (crit) * 5.5 = 10.628
Reckless M Att: 4.5 (morningstar) + 4 (str) + 2 (rage) = 10.5 * 87.75% (acc) = 9.214 + 9.75% (crit) * 4.5 = 9.653
Reckless S Att: 3.5 (scimitar) + 4 (str) + 2 (rage) = 9.5 * 87.75% (acc) = 8.336 + 9.75% (crit) * 3.5 = 8.678
Frenzy: 7 * 98.5% (hit at least once) = 6.895

Morningstar/Scimitar:
Base DPR: M Att + S Att = 7.05 + 6.35 = 13.4
Reckless DPR: Reckless M Att + Reckless S Att + Frenzy = 9.653 + 8.678 + 6.895 = 25.226
Longsword/Scimitar:
Base DPR: L Att + S Att = 7.75 + 6.35 = 14.1
Reckless DPR: Reckless L Att + Reckless S Att + Frenzy = 10.628 + 8.678 + 6.895 = 26.201


Playtest Summary:
With Reckless:
PAM, Glaive: 26.205
DW, Longsword/Scimitar: 26.201
GWM, Handaxe/Scimitar, TWF: 25.861
DW, Morningstar/Scimitar: 25.226
GWM, Greataxe, 40% cleave: 25.079
GWM, Handaxe/Scimitar, no TWF: 22.041
GWM, Greatsword: 21.705
GWM, Greataxe, no cleave: 20.632

Without Reckless:
PAM, Glaive: 16.200
GWM, Handaxe/Scimitar, TWF: 14.442
DW, Longsword/Scimitar: 14.100
GWM, Greataxe, 40% cleave: 13.833
DW, Morningstar/Scimitar: 13.400
GWM, Greatsword: 11.993
GWM, Handaxe/Scimitar, no TWF: 11.296
GWM, Greataxe, no cleave: 10.173

PAM takes the first spot, but surprisingly the dual wielding options holds their own. Sap is a non-damage mastery made more for defense. A battleaxe would do the same damage, but add Topple options. And the handaxe uses Vex for a chance at getting advantage for the scimitar if you're not using Reckless Attack.

The GWM build with Cleave manages OK, but without Cleave it's in a much weaker spot. If there's no opportunity for Cleave, you'll want to swap weapons. Dual wielding even without TWF fighting style is one of your better options, since the GWM bonus action attack on a crit does not need a heavy weapon. If you get TWF, it's a solid competitor.

Almost everything beats the non-Frenzy PHB builds even with Reckless Attack, and most non-Reckless scenarios favor the playtest even with Frenzy. The top Reckless playtest builds are on par with the top Frenzy PHB build, but because of the limitations on PHB Frenzy, it's a somewhat imbalanced comparison. However if we treat the PHB Frenzy as the intended damage target, we're right on that mark.

Also, the damage spread in the playtest is much tighter than the PHB builds. All of them feel like viable options, compared to the PHB where there definitely feels like there are certain preferred options.

As such, the suggestion that Frenzy apply to every hit, rather than only once per turn, would significantly undermine that balance. Options that had one attack would be about 3-6 DPR behind options that had 2 attacks. And since those options are already behind, they'd be treated as completely nonviable.

[Witty Username]

So, in short, UA barbarian is about on par with PHB berserker using frenzy, but doesn't need to contract polio to do so?

[Moxxmix]

So, in short, UA barbarian is about on par with PHB berserker using frenzy, but doesn't need to contract polio to do so?

Pretty much. It also has good options among all of GWM, PAM, and DW feat choices, whereas the PHB version mostly leaned on two-handed GWM.

[Dr.Samurai]

It’s difficult to read the code on my phone but to be clear, you’re assuming no feat at level 1 correct? Because PHB variant human Berserker can have PAM and GWM running by level 4, something UA Berserker can’t do because of level requirements on feats.

[Mastikator]

It’s difficult to read the code on my phone but to be clear, you’re assuming no feat at level 1 correct? Because PHB variant human Berserker can have PAM and GWM running by level 4, something UA Berserker can’t do because of level requirements on feats.

An UA human barbarian with dual wielding and fighting style: two weapon (plus an extra feat at level 1, maybe tough?) would be able to rage and use their offhand on the same turn. A 2014 barbarian has to wait until round 2 to use frenzy/PAM.
In a 2 round combat that is a 50% DPR contribution from their weaponized bonus action.

An UA human barb berzerker at level 4 would rage then use two attacks. 1d10 (longsword with flex) + str + rage, then 1d6 (scimitar with nick) + str + rage, then if either hit +2d6

It would also have higher strength using point buy. Buy up to 15, add +2 from background and +1 from dual wielder is 18 at level 4. A 2014 using point buy would add +1 from variant human and nothing from PAM or GWM, so it's only 16 STR. So let's compare

UA human barb at level 4: +7 to hit two attacks: 1d10+6, 1d6+6, if either hit +2d6 (which is very likely with reckless). Against AC 14 (65% chance to hit, 87% with reckless) 18.4, +2d6 with 95% either hits 6.69 = 25.12
2014 human barb at level 4 with PAM and GWM: +6 to hit, one attack 1d10+5. Against AC 14 is 60% chance to hit 84% with reckless. 8.8 DPR. IF they use GWM it is +1 to hit 1d10+15. 35% chance to hit without reckless, 57.7% to hit with. 11.68 DRP.

Even if we double the 2014 version's damage on round 2 their DPR would be ~23 which still falls short of the UA. An AC of 14 is not high at level 4, it's medium. Yes you can throw in a cleric who casts bless, but that applies to the UA barb as well who will still come out ahead. The new barbarian deals more damage and doesn't need to rely on power attacks.

[Dr.Samurai]

Thank you Mastikator.

So if we do that analysis one level later, at 5, it becomes:

UA Barbarian: 35.12
2014 Barbarian: 35.48

Notes:

1. UA has advantage because it can deal that damage in turn 1, PAM/Frenzy has to wait until turn 2 (though a 2 turn combat seems rather fast)
2. More attacks (either per turn as in Extra Attack or off-turn attacks) will favor 2014 because you can add the +10 damage to it

What I like:

1. You can deal more or same damage with a different weapon type.

What I don't like:

1. You still have to lock in feats to do this. I'm not really sure what the intent of this design is. I get the intent of the Frenzy bonus damage (it's basically Zealot damage and works with any weapon set). I don't get requiring feats to do damage with your weapons. How is this not more of the same of what we have now?

Which leads to another thought... should we expect that all martial subclasses will add bonus damage?

[Mastikator]

So at 5th level an UA barbarian is 0.3 damage behind peak efficiency of a 2014 barbarian, but has 10 more HP (since I picked tough for my other 1st level feat). Or has any other 1st level feat, like magic initiate or skilled or whatever is good.

Honestly I think that's good, a UA barb is no longer required to pick GWM or PAM, I didn't for my theorycraft and it still held up IMO. You have way more freedom to build however you like and it can still work, barbarians would no longer be required to use greatswords/greataxes.

[Aimeryan]

Not commenting on the Barbarian since I haven't seen the clip and are not as familiar with them in any case.

For the Fighter there are several issues with Chris' analysis, but they mostly boil down to:

Chance to hit being too low at 60%, or 35% with GWM/SS. This is a high AC enemy (relative to level) against a completely unoptimised Fighter setup. Many things add to the chance to hit from Advantage, to Bless, to magic weapons, to Archery FS, etc. Furthermore, any fight with multiple opponents would be expected to have lower ACs - potentially vastly lower. The low chance to hit massively devalues GWM/SS, while highly upvaluing Graze.
Cleave is overestimated. In a turn based game it is exceptionally easy to not stand next to someone at the end of your turn. The 50% chance is highly optimistic, with my own expectation being closer to 10%. This will likely mean this damage Mastery will not see much play, with Fighters opting for Push or something else that has more impact.
A single level point is being used, which is pretty considerable given that the 5e Fighter is able to get PAM at level 1 while the D&Done Fighter is stuck waiting until 4. The Weapon Adept feature Chris is using is also not in play until level 13.


My take is essentially this: unoptimised Fighter setups at high level will fare better for damage in D&Done than 5e. That is about it. They will still be taking PAM and GWM (as Chris did), or XBE and SS. They will still be better off multiclassing. They are no more interesting with Weapon Masteries due to always being on before 13 (no consideration needed), and after 13 will likely be super obvious which of the two to use at any time. At least the -5/+10 required some analysis of the enemy's AC.

[Gignere]

Not commenting on the Barbarian since I haven't seen the clip and are not as familiar with them in any case.

For the Fighter there are several issues with Chris' analysis, but they mostly boil down to:

Chance to hit being too low at 60%, or 35% with GWM/SS. This is a high AC enemy (relative to level) against a completely unoptimised Fighter setup. Many things add to the chance to hit from Advantage, to Bless, to magic weapons, to Archery FS, etc. Furthermore, any fight with multiple opponents would be expected to have lower ACs - potentially vastly lower. The low chance to hit massively devalues GWM/SS, while highly upvaluing Graze.
Cleave is overestimated. In a turn based game it is exceptionally easy to not stand next to someone at the end of your turn. The 50% chance is highly optimistic, with my own expectation being closer to 10%. This will likely mean this damage Mastery will not see much play, with Fighters opting for Push or something else that has more impact.
A single level point is being used, which is pretty considerable given that the 5e Fighter is able to get PAM at level 1 while the D&Done Fighter is stuck waiting until 4. The Weapon Adept feature Chris is using is also not in play until level 13.


My take is essentially this: unoptimised Fighter setups at high level will fare better in D&Done than 5e. That is about it.

My experience in actual game play enemies standing adjacent one another happens more than 10% especially if your team helps with funneling the enemies into the tanks/melee.

[Aimeryan]

My experience in actual game play enemies standing adjacent one another happens more than 10% especially if your team helps with funneling the enemies into the tanks/melee.

That is largely because there is no reason not to since there is no cleave. Fireball will hit you regardless. Basically, in a world in which cleave IS a thing then creatures are going to react appropriately (especially natural pack creatures). Sure, there will be encounters like two Brown Bears who are not intelligent and don't naturally hunt in packs that you can expect wont think twice about standing next to each other if they come from the same direction and head to the same target, which is why it will happen at times.

Funneling enemies would pretty much require a two space chokepoint for this. One space wont work, three or more wont work. Its something to consider, but common?

[Hurrashane]

My experience in actual game play enemies standing adjacent one another happens more than 10% especially if your team helps with funneling the enemies into the tanks/melee.

Gets even easier now if you or party members have push weapons. Push a foe towards another foe, switch weapons/masteries and cleave

[Moxxmix]

It’s difficult to read the code on my phone but to be clear, you’re assuming no feat at level 1 correct? Because PHB variant human Berserker can have PAM and GWM running by level 4, something UA Berserker can’t do because of level requirements on feats.
I had not included the variant human in my calculations, even though I had started to think about it, due to just not wanting to make assumptions about the race used. But you're right, it should be there. I've run the calculations and updated the post.

For the PAM+GWM calculation, I assumed you always used PAM and never used Frenzy, otherwise why even pick up PAM? (Or just use the GWM results for Frenzy, since it amounts to the same thing.) It saves you the exhaustion, and puts the DPR values in the lower- to mid-range of the Frenzy DPR results. It's a clear best choice among the PHB builds if you want to avoid using Frenzy, but it's middling compared to the playtest builds.

I also did not factor in the issue of not being able to use the bonus action attack on the first turn of Rage. This includes: Frenzy attack, PAM attack, GWM crit attack, and the offhand attack of two-weapon fighting when not using a Nick weapon.

This affects the PHB barbarian the most, when using Frenzy, and then any PAM build next. The crit bonus attacks are rare enough that the small reduction shouldn't hurt much, but will have a small effect on any GWM build. It won't affect the TWF results of the playtest builds since I always used a Nick weapon for the offhand. Since barbarian has 3 weapon masteries at level 4, it can use two for the TWF options and the third for either a backup or the heavy GWM weapon.

[tokek]

Not commenting on the Barbarian since I haven't seen the clip and are not as familiar with them in any case.

For the Fighter there are several issues with Chris' analysis, but they mostly boil down to:

Chance to hit being too low at 60%, or 35% with GWM/SS. This is a high AC enemy (relative to level) against a completely unoptimised Fighter setup. Many things add to the chance to hit from Advantage, to Bless, to magic weapons, to Archery FS, etc. Furthermore, any fight with multiple opponents would be expected to have lower ACs - potentially vastly lower. The low chance to hit massively devalues GWM/SS, while highly upvaluing Graze.
Cleave is overestimated. In a turn based game it is exceptionally easy to not stand next to someone at the end of your turn. The 50% chance is highly optimistic, with my own expectation being closer to 10%. This will likely mean this damage Mastery will not see much play, with Fighters opting for Push or something else that has more impact.
A single level point is being used, which is pretty considerable given that the 5e Fighter is able to get PAM at level 1 while the D&Done Fighter is stuck waiting until 4. The Weapon Adept feature Chris is using is also not in play until level 13.


My take is essentially this: unoptimised Fighter setups at high level will fare better for damage in D&Done than 5e. That is about it. They will still be taking PAM and GWM (as Chris did), or XBE and SS. They will still be better off multiclassing. They are no more interesting with Weapon Masteries due to always being on before 13 (no consideration needed), and after 13 will likely be super obvious which of the two to use at any time. At least the -5/+10 required some analysis of the enemy's AC.

We all play different games with different assumptions

In most of my games you would want push/telekinesis effects to get opponents bunched up that often

But in most of my games you should expect your adv/whatever tricks to be cancelled out somehow about 25% of the time. Those are the times that your 5e GWM is a bit of a liability.

Also as I find the game is a bit higher powered with all the post-PHB stuff around along with multi-classing and feats available I use higher CR monsters so that AC is pretty reasonable to me. I absolutely do not limit CR to baseline DMG level, I would barely ever challenge them if I did when they are not playing baseline PHB characters.

[Unoriginal]

I wonder if the martial-like NPCs will have access to the effects of Weapon Mastery.

My guess is "nope".

[Moxxmix]

Cleave is overestimated. In a turn based game it is exceptionally easy to not stand next to someone at the end of your turn. The 50% chance is highly optimistic, with my own expectation being closer to 10%. This will likely mean this damage Mastery will not see much play, with Fighters opting for Push or something else that has more impact.

My experience in actual game play enemies standing adjacent one another happens more than 10% especially if your team helps with funneling the enemies into the tanks/melee.
It also depends on if you use flanking rules.

With flanking, you'll have a very high probability of two enemies being on opposite sides of you. And, while they are both within your reach, they are not within 5' of each other, which means you can't use Cleave. That seems like the tactical option that is most likely to render Cleave useless, without even actively trying to adjust your tactics against the Cleave weapon specifically.

For my own calculations, I ran data on both 0% Cleave and 40% Cleave. For example, if you're fighting one big boss enemy, Cleave is intrinsically useless. Based on the range of values I'm seeing, I'm guessing it's been tuned with an expected use rate of about 20%.

Also, while the level 4 results put using GWM with a greatsword (Graze) near the bottom of the pack, my level 5 results (not posted yet) put that combo near the top. You're really not hurting yourself no matter what build you go for (although handaxe/scimitar without the TWF fighting style is a bit on the weaker side).

[Mastikator]

I wonder if the martial-like NPCs will have access to the effects of Weapon Mastery.

My guess is "nope".

They generally have other stuff. Bugbears add extra dice on weapons, hobgoblins have pseudo-sneak attack for example. Minotaurs and trolls have natural weapons. I mean the idea that people are so used to player character abilities AND are so strategically savvy that they'll avoid being 5 feet from each other is a bit ridiculous. Especially when a few monsters like wolves have pack tactics. Cleave is a great anti-wolf spray for the fighter's utility belt :smallcool:

[ZRN]

My take is essentially this: unoptimised Fighter setups at high level will fare better for damage in D&Done than 5e. That is about it. They will still be taking PAM and GWM (as Chris did), or XBE and SS.

The change is that previously, there was a really big gap in DPR between PAM/GWM and XBE/SS fighters and any other option. Now that there's less of a gap (e.g. TWF can keep up in damage) and those individual feats do less, there's a lot more room to optimize for something other than raw damage.


They are no more interesting with Weapon Masteries due to always being on before 13 (no consideration needed), and after 13 will likely be super obvious which of the two to use at any time.

I still think you should get an additional choice per attack (rather than replacing the old mastery) at level 7 and get to choose from any applicable mastery per attack at level 13, but even as is, it's worth noting there's a difference between "giving you an explicit choice to make" and "making combat deeper." For example, if you have a Push weapon, you're still figuring out who to push, where to push them, etc. And of course any fighter who isn't armed with enough different weapons to use up all his masteries is playing suboptimally, so you DO have per-round options from level 1 even with the current system.

[Gignere]

Gets even easier now if you or party members have push weapons. Push a foe towards another foe, switch weapons/masteries and cleave

Even now my party uses thorn whip, push EBs to accomplish the exact same thing.

[Moxxmix]

OK, the level 5 comparison numbers.

Weapons: No magic bonus
Base Acc: 60% at 16/17 Str, 65% at 18 Str
Advantage Acc: 84% at 16/17 Str, 87.75% at 18 Str
Crit Rate: 5%
Advantage Crit Rate: 9.75%
Rage: Always assumed on
Subclass: Berserker


Level 5


PHB, non-variant human
ASI: +2 Str
Weapon: Greataxe (1d12)
Att: 6.5 (weapon) + 4 (str) + 2 (rage) = 12.5 * 65% (acc) = 8.125 + 5% (crit) * 6.5 = 8.45
Reckless Att: 6.5 (weapon) + 4 (str) + 2 (rage) = 12.5 * 87.75% (acc) = 10.969 + 9.75% (crit) * 6.5 = 11.603

Base DPR: Att + Att = 8.45 + 8.45 = 16.9
Reckless DPR: Reckless Att + Reckless Att = 11.603 + 11.603 = 23.206
Frenzy DPR: Att + Att + Att (frenzy) = 8.45 + 8.45 + 8.45 = 25.35
Frenzy Reckless DPR: Reckless Att + Reckless Att + Reckless Att (frenzy) = 11.603 + 11.603 + 11.603 = 34.809

ASI: Polearm Master
Weapon: Glaive (1d10)
Att: 5.5 (weapon) + 3 (str) + 2 (rage) = 10.5 * 60% (acc) = 6.3 + 5% (crit) * 5.5 = 6.575
Reckless Att: 5.5 (weapon) + 3 (str) + 2 (rage) = 10.5 * 84% (acc) = 8.82 + 9.75% (crit) * 5.5 = 9.356
PAM Att: 2.5 (weapon) + 3 (str) + 2 (rage) = 7.5 * 60% (acc) = 4.5 + 5% (crit) * 2.5 = 4.625
Reckless PAM Att: 2.5 (weapon) + 3 (str) + 2 (rage) = 7.5 * 84% (acc) = 6.3 + 5% (crit) * 2.5 = 6.425

Base DPR: Att + Att + PAM Att = 6.575 + 6.575 + 4.625 = 17.775
Reckless DPR: Reckless Att + Reckless Att + Reckless PAM Att = 9.356 + 9.356 + 6.425 = 25.137
Frenzy DPR: Att + Att + Att (frenzy) = 6.575 + 6.575 + 6.575 = 19.725
Frenzy Reckless DPR: Reckless Att + Reckless Att + Reckless Att (frenzy) = 9.356 + 9.356 + 9.356 = 28.068

ASI: Great Weapon Master
Weapon: Greataxe (1d12)
Att: 6.5 (weapon) + 3 (str) + 2 (rage) = 11.5 * 60% (acc) = 6.9 + 5% (crit) * 6.5 = 7.225
Reckless Att: 6.5 (weapon) + 3 (str) + 2 (rage) = 11.5 * 84% (acc) = 9.66 + 9.75% (crit) * 6.5 = 10.294
GWM Att: 6.5 (weapon) + 3 (str) + 2 (rage) + 10 (GWM) = 21.5 * 35% (acc) = 7.525 + 5% (crit) * 6.5 = 7.85
GWM Reckless Att: 6.5 (weapon) + 3 (str) + 2 (rage) + 10 (GWM) = 21.5 * 57.75% (acc) = 12.416 + 9.75% (crit) * 6.5 = 13.05

Base DPR: Att + Att + 5% (GWM) Att = 7.225 + 7.225 + 0.361 = 14.811
Reckless DPR: Reckless Att + Reckless Att + 9.75% (GWM) Att = 10.294 + 10.294 + 1.004 = 21.592
GWM DPR: GWM Att + GWM Att + 5% (GWM) GWM Att = 7.85 + 7.85 + 0.393 = 8.243
Reckless GWM DPR: GWM Reckless Att + GWM Reckless Att + 9.75% (GWM) GWM Reckless Att = 13.05 + 13.05 + 1.272 = 27.372
Frenzy DPR: GWM Att + GWM Att + GWM Att (frenzy) = 7.85 + 7.85 + 7.85 = 23.55
Frenzy Reckless DPR: GWM Reckless Att + GWM Reckless Att + GWM Reckless Att (frenzy) = 13.05 + 13.05 + 13.05 = 39.15

PHB, variant human
ASI: Polearm Master + Great Weapon Master
Weapon: Glaive (1d10)
Att: 5.5 (weapon) + 3 (str) + 2 (rage) = 10.5 * 60% (acc) = 6.3 + 5% (crit) * 5.5 = 6.575
Reckless Att: 5.5 (weapon) + 3 (str) + 2 (rage) = 10.5 * 84% (acc) = 8.82 + 9.75% (crit) * 5.5 = 9.356
GWM Att: 5.5 (weapon) + 3 (str) + 2 (rage) + 10 (GWM) = 20.5 * 35% (acc) = 7.175 + 5% (crit) * 5.5 = 7.45
GWM Reckless Att: 5.5 (weapon) + 3 (str) + 2 (rage) + 10 (GWM) = 20.5 * 57.75% (acc) = 11.839 + 9.75% (crit) * 5.5 = 12.375
GWM PAM Att: 2.5 (weapon) + 3 (str) + 2 (rage) + 10 (GWM) = 17.5 * 35% (acc) = 6.125 + 5% (crit) * 2.5 = 6.25
GWM PAM Reckless Att: 2.5 (weapon) + 3 (str) + 2 (rage) + 10 (GWM) = 17.5 * 57.75% (acc) = 10.106 + 9.75% (crit) * 2.5 = 10.35

Base DPR: GWM Att + GWM Att + 90.25% * GWM PAM Att + 9.75% * GWM Att = 7.45 + 7.45 + 5.641 + 0.726 = 21.267
Reckless DPR: Reckless GWM Att + Reckless GWM Att + 81.45% * Reckless GWM PAM Att + 18.55% * Reckless GWM Att = 12.375 + 12.375 + 8.430 + 2.296 = 35.476
Frenzy not used


PHB Summary:
With Frenzy:
GWM Reckless = 39.150
Str Reckless = 34.809
PAM Reckless = 28.068
Str = 25.350
GWM = 23.550
PAM = 19.725

Without Frenzy:
PAM+GWM Reck = 35.476
GWM Reckless = 27.372
PAM Reckless = 25.137
Str Reckless = 23.206
PAM+GWM = 21.267
PAM = 17.775
Str = 16.900
GWM = 16.093

PAM+GWM is a clear winner when not using Frenzy. If you're not playing a variant human, it's a closer call.



Playtest
Feat: PAM
Weapon: Glaive (Graze)
Att: 5.5 (weapon) + 4 (str) + 2 (rage) = 11.5 * 65% (acc) + 4 * 35% (graze) = 8.875 + 5% (crit) * 5.5 = 9.15
Reckless Att: 5.5 (weapon) + 4 (str) + 2 (rage) = 11.5 * 87.75% (acc) + 4 * 12.25% (graze) = 10.581 + 9.75% (crit) * 5.5 = 11.117
PAM Att: 2.5 (weapon) + 4 (str) + 2 (rage) = 8.5 * 65% (acc) + 4 * 35% (graze) = 6.925 + 5% (crit) * 2.5 = 7.05
Reckless PAM Att: 2.5 (weapon) + 4 (str) + 2 (rage) = 8.5 * 87.75% (acc) + 4 * 12.25% (graze) = 7.949 + 9.75% (crit) * 2.5 = 8.193
Frenzy: 7 * 99.8% (hit at least once) = 6.99

Base DPR: Att + Att + PAM Att = 9.15 + 9.15 + 7.05 = 25.35
Reckless Base DPR: Reckless Att + Reckless Att + Reckless PAM Att + Frenzy = 11.117 + 11.117 + 8.193 + 6.99 = 37.417

Feat: GWM
Weapon: Greataxe (Cleave)
Att: 6.5 (weapon) + 4 (str) + 2 (rage) = 12.5 * 65% (acc) = 8.125 + 5% (crit) * 6.5 = 8.45
Reckless Att: 6.5 (weapon) + 4 (str) + 2 (rage) = 12.5 * 87.75% (acc) = 10.969 + 9.75% (crit) * 6.5 = 11.603
Cleave: 6.5 (weapon) + 2 (rage) = 8.5 * 65% (acc) = 5.525 + 5% (crit) * 6.5 = 5.85
Reckless Cleave: 6.5 (weapon) + 2 (rage) = 8.5 * 87.75% (acc) = 7.459 + 9.75% (crit) * 6.5 = 8.093
Frenzy: 7 * 98.5% (hit at least once) = 6.895
GWM: 3 * 87.75% (hit at least once) = 2.633
Reckless GWM: 3 * 98.5% (hit at least once) = 2.955

Base DPR, no cleave: Att + Att + GWM + 5% (GWM crit) * Att = 8.45 + 8.45 + 2.633 + 0.423 = 19.956
Reckless DPR, no cleave: Reckless Att + Reckless Att + Frenzy + Reckless GWM + 9.75% (GWM crit) * Reckless Att = 11.603 + 11.603 + 6.895 + 2.955 + 1.131 = 34.187
Base DPR, 40% cleave: Att + Att + GWM + 40% * Cleave + 5% (GWM crit) * Att = 8.45 + 8.45 + 2.633 + 2.34 + 0.423 = 22.296
Reckless DPR, 40% cleave: Reckless Att + Reckless Att + Frenzy + Reckless GWM + 40% * Cleave + 9.75% (GWM crit) * Reckless Att = 11.603 + 11.603 + 6.895 + 2.955 + 3.237 + 1.131 = 37.424

Weapon: Greatsword (Graze)
Att: 7 (weapon) + 4 (str) + 2 (rage) = 13 * 65% (acc) + 4 * 35% (graze) = 9.85 + 5% (crit) * 7 = 10.2
Reckless Att: 7 (weapon) + 4 (str) + 2 (rage) = 13 * 87.75% (acc) + 4 * 12.25% (graze) = 11.8975 + 9.75% (crit) * 7 = 12.58
Frenzy: 7 * 98.5% (hit at least once) = 6.895
GWM: 3 * 87.75% (hit at least once) = 2.633
Reckless GWM: 3 * 98.5% (hit at least once) = 2.955

Base DPR: Att + Att + GWM + 5% (GWM crit) * Att = 10.2 + 10.2 + 2.633 + 0.51 = 23.543
Reckless DPR: Reckless Att + Reckless Att + Frenzy + Reckless GWM + 9.75% (GWM crit) * Reckless Att = 12.58 + 12.58 + 6.895 + 2.955 + 1.227 = 36.237

Weapons: Handaxe (Vex) / Scimitar (Nick) (No TWF)
H Att: 3.5 (handaxe) + 4 (str) + 2 (rage) = 9.5 * 65% (acc) = 6.175 + 5% (crit) * 3.5 = 6.35
H Att 2: 3.5 (handaxe) + 4 (str) + 2 (rage) = 9.5 * 79.8% (acc) = 7.581 + 8.09% (crit) * 3.5 = 7.864
S Att: 3.5 (scimitar) + 2 (rage) = 5.5 * 83.2% (acc) = 4.576 + 8.79% (crit) * 3.5 = 4.884
S Att 2: 3.5 (scimitar) + 2 (rage) = 5.5 * 65% (acc) = 3.575 + 5% (crit) * 3.5 = 3.75
Reckless H Att: 3.5 (handaxe) + 4 (str) + 2 (rage) = 9.5 * 87.75% (acc) = 8.336 + 9.75% (crit) * 3.5 = 8.678
Reckless S Att: 3.5 (scimitar) + 2 (rage) = 5.5 * 87.75% (acc) = 4.826 + 9.75% (crit) * 3.5 = 5.168
Frenzy: 7 * 99.8% (hit at least once) = 6.986

Base DPR: H Att + H Att 2 + S Att + GWM + GWM Crits(H,H,S) = 6.35 + 7.864 + 4.884 + 5%*7.864 + 7.69%*7.864 + 7.71%*3.75 = 20.385
Reckless DPR: Reckless H Att + Reckless H Att + Reckless S Att + Frenzy + Reckless GWM Crits(H,H,S) = 8.678 + 8.678 + 5.168 + 6.895 + 9.75%*8.678 + 8.8%*8.678 + 8.0%*5.168 = 31.533

Weapons: Handaxe (Vex) / Scimitar (Nick) (TWF)
H Att: 3.5 (handaxe) + 4 (str) + 2 (rage) = 9.5 * 65% (acc) = 6.175 + 5% (crit) * 3.5 = 6.35
H Att 2: 3.5 (handaxe) + 4 (str) + 2 (rage) = 9.5 * 79.8% (acc) = 7.581 + 8.09% (crit) * 3.5 = 7.864
S Att: 3.5 (scimitar) + 4 (str) + 2 (rage) = 9.5 * 83.2% (acc) = 7.904 + 8.79% (crit) * 3.5 = 8.212
S Att 2: 3.5 (scimitar) + 4 (str) + 2 (rage) = 9.5 * 65% (acc) = 6.175 + 5% (crit) * 3.5 = 6.35
Reckless H Att: 3.5 (handaxe) + 4 (str) + 2 (rage) = 9.5 * 87.75% (acc) = 8.336 + 9.75% (crit) * 3.5 = 8.678
Reckless S Att: 3.5 (scimitar) + 4 (str) + 2 (rage) = 9.5 * 87.75% (acc) = 8.336 + 9.75% (crit) * 3.5 = 8.678
Frenzy: 7 * 99.8% (hit at least once) = 6.986

Base DPR: H Att + H Att 2 + S Att + GWM + GWM Crits(H,H,S) = 6.35 + 7.864 + 8.212 + 5%*7.864 + 7.69%*7.864 + 7.71%*6.35 = 23.914
Reckless DPR: Reckless H Att + Reckless H Att + Reckless S Att + Frenzy + Reckless GWM Crits(H,H,S) = 8.678 + 8.678 + 8.678 + 6.986 + 9.75%*8.678 + 8.8%*8.678 + 8.0%*8.678 = 35.324

Feat: Dual Wielder
Weapons: Morningstar (Sap) | Longsword (Flex) / Scimitar (Nick)
L Att: 5.5 (longsword) + 4 (str) + 2 (rage) = 11.5 * 65% (acc) = 7.475 + 5% (crit) * 5.5 = 7.75
M Att: 4.5 (morningstar) + 4 (str) + 2 (rage) = 10.5 * 65% (acc) = 6.825 + 5% (crit) * 4.5 = 7.05
S Att: 3.5 (scimitar) + 4 (str) + 2 (rage) = 9.5 * 65% (acc) = 6.175 + 5% (crit) * 3.5 = 6.35
Reckless L Att: 5.5 (longsword) + 4 (str) + 2 (rage) = 11.5 * 87.75% (acc) = 10.091 + 9.75% (crit) * 5.5 = 10.628
Reckless M Att: 4.5 (morningstar) + 4 (str) + 2 (rage) = 10.5 * 87.75% (acc) = 9.214 + 9.75% (crit) * 4.5 = 9.653
Reckless S Att: 3.5 (scimitar) + 4 (str) + 2 (rage) = 9.5 * 87.75% (acc) = 8.336 + 9.75% (crit) * 3.5 = 8.678
Frenzy: 7 * 99.8% (hit at least once) = 6.986

Morningstar/Scimitar:
Base DPR: M Att + M Att + S Att = 7.05 + 7.05 + 6.35 = 20.45
Reckless DPR: Reckless M Att + Reckless M Att + Reckless S Att + Frenzy = 9.653 + 9.653 + 8.678 + 6.986 = 34.97
Longsword/Scimitar:
Base DPR: L Att + L Att + S Att = 7.75 + 7.75 + 6.35 = 21.85
Reckless DPR: Reckless L Att + Reckless L Att + Reckless S Att + Frenzy = 10.628 + 10.628 + 8.678 + 6.986 = 36.92


Playtest Summary:
With Reckless:
GWM, Greataxe, 40% cleave: 37.424
PAM, Glaive: 37.417
DW, Longsword/Scimitar: 36.920
GWM, Greatsword: 36.237
GWM, Handaxe/Scimitar, TWF: 35.324
DW, Morningstar/Scimitar: 34.970
GWM, Greataxe, no cleave: 34.187
GWM, Handaxe/Scimitar, no TWF: 31.533

Without Reckless:
PAM, Glaive: 25.350
GWM, Handaxe/Scimitar, TWF: 23.914
GWM, Greatsword: 23.543
GWM, Greataxe, 40% cleave: 22.296
DW, Longsword/Scimitar: 21.850
DW, Morningstar/Scimitar: 20.450
GWM, Handaxe/Scimitar, no TWF: 20.385
GWM, Greataxe, no cleave: 19.956

The PHB's non-Frenzy PAM+GWM numbers were at about 21 without Reckless Attack, and 35 with it. That puts that solidly in the middle of all the playtest numbers. Which, from the other direction, means all the playtest options are on a level comparable to the PHB's clear winning option.

Without using Reckless, PAM has a slight lead. When using Reckless, TWF without the TWF fighting style is weaker than the other choices. That's about all that really stands out. All the rest are such that it's very easy to go with personal preference rather than worrying that a non-optimized build will be vastly inferior to the "best" option.

Also, compared to the level 4 comparison, GWM with a greatsword (Graze) is solidly competitive. At level 4 it was on the weaker side of things.

When Cleave wasn't useful with GWM, I looked at both a Graze weapon and a TWF alternative while still using the feat. Despite the TWF not getting all of the benefits of the GWM feat, it held up pretty well. As long as you have the TWF fighting style, it still does at level 5, too. Without the fighting style it's a little on the weaker side, but despite that, it's still competitive with the PHB damage options.

I will say it's a pain calculating the effects of Vex on the TWF build that uses the handaxe, and I could see it being annoying in play, particularly when you add in the GWM bonus attack on a crit.

[Dr.Samurai]

I had not included the variant human in my calculations, even though I had started to think about it, due to just not wanting to make assumptions about the race used. But you're right, it should be there. I've run the calculations and updated the post.
Thank you Moxxmix, between you and Mastikator, I find this a lot more helpful than the youtube video.

For the PAM+GWM calculation, I assumed you always used PAM and never used Frenzy, otherwise why even pick up PAM?
There is some redundancy, however PAM also gives you a reaction attack. And it also lets you make bonus action attacks when you're not raging.

So say you pick up PAM at level 1, you're likely getting additional attacks whenever an enemy closes the distance with you. That's DPR that isn't included in these calculations and would very likely surpass TWF.

Then, you can choose between having the benefits of Rage or not, but you always have a bonus action attack.

One thing we haven't discussed is that the bonus damage from Frenzy can only be used while Raging, while the bonus damage from 2014 GWM can be used all the time and on multiple attacks. An irony of these changes is that the common complaint that "barbarians are worse fighters when they're not raging" is reinforced with the UA barbarian, because less of their damage is coming from feats, and more is coming from subclass features. So without Rage/Frenzy, you're only dealing the +prof from the new "and improved" GWM. Whereas the 2014 barbarian is throwing +10 damage around like it's going out of style (because I guess it is).

UA barbarian can Cleave or use Nick without raging, so I'm guessing the difference might not be that large. But I think if we factor in Polearm Master reaction attacks starting at level 1, plus still dealing GWM damage when you're not Raging, the numbers are more in favor for the 2014 barbarian at lower tiers. But the big advantage for UA barbarian is that they can deal better damage with more weapon types.

[Moxxmix]

Thank you Moxxmix, between you and Mastikator, I find this a lot more helpful than the youtube video.
Glad you're finding it useful.


For the PAM+GWM calculation, I assumed you always used PAM and never used Frenzy, otherwise why even pick up PAM?
There is some redundancy, however PAM also gives you a reaction attack. And it also lets you make bonus action attacks when you're not raging.

So say you pick up PAM at level 1, you're likely getting additional attacks whenever an enemy closes the distance with you. That's DPR that isn't included in these calculations and would very likely surpass TWF.

Then, you can choose between having the benefits of Rage or not, but you always have a bonus action attack.
All correct, and yes, there's reasons for PAM outside of Rage. My little sarcastic remark was more about the choice between the PAM bonus action attack and the one gained from Frenzy. Half the point of PAM is to get the extra attack without the exhaustion tax of Frenzy, so obviously you wouldn't be using the Frenzy bonus attack.


One thing we haven't discussed is that the bonus damage from Frenzy can only be used while Raging, while the bonus damage from 2014 GWM can be used all the time and on multiple attacks. An irony of these changes is that the common complaint that "barbarians are worse fighters when they're not raging" is reinforced with the UA barbarian, because less of their damage is coming from feats, and more is coming from subclass features. So without Rage/Frenzy, you're only dealing the +prof from the new "and improved" GWM. Whereas the 2014 barbarian is throwing +10 damage around like it's going out of style (because I guess it is).
To be clear, both the PHB and playtest berserkers require Rage to be up to use Frenzy, so those are directly comparable, and separate from the GWM bonus damage.


UA barbarian can Cleave or use Nick without raging, so I'm guessing the difference might not be that large. But I think if we factor in Polearm Master reaction attacks starting at level 1, plus still dealing GWM damage when you're not Raging, the numbers are more in favor for the 2014 barbarian at lower tiers. But the big advantage for UA barbarian is that they can deal better damage with more weapon types.
The one polearm barbarian I had was always disappointed in how rarely he got to use the PAM opportunity attack. This largely rested on him rushing towards the enemy to start the fight, which meant there was no chance for the opportunity attack to trigger, unless another wave of enemies approached. Given the number of players at the table, and thus the number of targets the enemies could choose from, this rarely happened. (Usual caveat for anecdotes, obviously.)

[Dr.Samurai]

To be clear, both the PHB and playtest berserkers require Rage to be up to use Frenzy, so those are directly comparable, and separate from the GWM bonus damage.
Of course.

My point is that you don't need Rage to use GWM, which is the major source of damage for 2014 barbarian. In the UA, GWM damage has been reduced not only in the amount but also in the frequency.

A 2014 berserker that is out of Rages is still dealing +10 damage on every power attack that lands. A UA berserker that is out of Rages is only dealing +3 damage 1/turn (GWM).

So if we consider a total adventuring day, then the UA berserker is maybe coming out ahead in combats where they rage, but the 2014 is definitely coming out ahead in combats without rage. If we include reaction attacks for PAM, then I suspect the 2014 berserker is ahead always.

It's just important to me that we understand what "UA barbarians and fighters deal more damage" actually means.


The one polearm barbarian I had was always disappointed in how rarely he got to use the PAM opportunity attack. This largely rested on him rushing towards the enemy to start the fight, which meant there was no chance for the opportunity attack to trigger, unless another wave of enemies approached. Given the number of players at the table, and thus the number of targets the enemies could choose from, this rarely happened. (Usual caveat for anecdotes, obviously.)
Well, my anecdote is different lol. My PAM barbarian got the attack frequently.

To not include PAM reaction attack is to assume that the barbarian always reaches every enemy he will fight on his turn, and no enemy will move adjacent to him. That seems... highly unlikely. Against enemies with Reach, you may find it an issue. But I often find enemies moving adjacent to me, even if I reach an enemy on turn 1.

If we can include a percentage for Cleave, we should be able to include one for PAM. Otherwise, this comparison is heavily skewed toward the UA barbarian, who can't grab PAM at level 1, and has to choose between PAM and GWM at level 4. You said the first 3 levels suck for both, but if the PHB barbarian has Action Attack, Bonus Action Attack, and sometimes Reaction Attack, I'd say levels 1-3 look pretty good.

[Moxxmix]

Of course.

My point is that you don't need Rage to use GWM, which is the major source of damage for 2014 barbarian. In the UA, GWM damage has been reduced not only in the amount but also in the frequency.

A 2014 berserker that is out of Rages is still dealing +10 damage on every power attack that lands. A UA berserker that is out of Rages is only dealing +3 damage 1/turn (GWM).

So if we consider a total adventuring day, then the UA berserker is maybe coming out ahead in combats where they rage, but the 2014 is definitely coming out ahead in combats without rage. If we include reaction attacks for PAM, then I suspect the 2014 berserker is ahead always.

It's just important to me that we understand what "UA barbarians and fighters deal more damage" actually means.

Well, let's look at a level 5 barbarian without Rage.


GWM: Greatsword, no Rage, PHB
GWM Reckless Att: 7 (weapon) + 3 (str) + 10 = 20 * 57.75% (acc) = 11.55 + 9.75% (crit) * 7 = 12.233
GWM: Glaive, no Rage, PHB
GWM Reckless Att: 5.5 (weapon) + 3 (str) + 10 = 18.5 * 57.75% (acc) = 10.684 + 9.75% (crit) * 5.5 = 11.22
PAM Reckless Att: 2.5 (weapon) + 3 (str) + 10 = 15.5 * 57.75% (acc) = 8.95125 + 9.75% (crit) * 2.5 = 9.195
GWM: Greatsword, no Rage, playtest
GWM Reckless Att: 7 (weapon) + 4 (str) = 11 * 87.75% (acc) + 4 * 12.25% (graze) = 10.143 + 9.75% (crit) * 7 = 10.825
GWM: 3 * 98.5% = 2.955

PHB GWM: Att + Att + 9.75% * Att = 12.233 + 12.233 + 1.193 = 25.659
PHB PAM+: Att + Att + 90.25% * Pam Att + 9.75% * Att = 11.22 + 11.22 + 8.298 + 1.094 = 31.832
UA GWM: Att + Att + 9.75% * Att + GWM = 10.825 + 10.825 + 1.055 + 2.955 = 25.66


Summary:

Total PHB w/PAM: 31.832
Total UA: 25.660
Total PHB: 25.659

The PHB version with only GWM is basically identical to the UA version. If you get PAM+GWM, the PHB is well ahead (about 24%). The UA version catches up to the PAM+GWM version when raging by adding Frenzy damage. PAM reaction attacks are complicated to consider.

So yes, a non-Raging barbarian with PAM+GWM (thus, specifically a variant human) is much stronger in the PHB than in the playtest. Any other race ends up basically identical.

This may be potentially compensated for by the longer duration of Rage in the playtest, which could allow the playtest barbarian to have Rage active in more fights than the PHB version.

[ZRN]

Well, let's look at a level 5 barbarian without Rage.


GWM: Greatsword, no Rage, PHB
GWM Reckless Att: 7 (weapon) + 3 (str) + 10 = 20 * 57.75% (acc) = 11.55 + 9.75% (crit) * 7 = 12.233
GWM: Glaive, no Rage, PHB
GWM Reckless Att: 5.5 (weapon) + 3 (str) + 10 = 18.5 * 57.75% (acc) = 10.684 + 9.75% (crit) * 5.5 = 11.22
PAM Reckless Att: 2.5 (weapon) + 3 (str) + 10 = 15.5 * 57.75% (acc) = 8.95125 + 9.75% (crit) * 2.5 = 9.195
GWM: Greatsword, no Rage, playtest
GWM Reckless Att: 7 (weapon) + 4 (str) = 11 * 87.75% (acc) + 4 * 12.25% (graze) = 10.143 + 9.75% (crit) * 7 = 10.825
GWM: 3 * 98.5% = 2.955

PHB GWM: Att + Att + 9.75% * Att = 12.233 + 12.233 + 1.193 = 25.659
PHB PAM+: Att + Att + 90.25% * Pam Att + 9.75% * Att = 11.22 + 11.22 + 8.298 + 1.094 = 31.832
UA GWM: Att + Att + 9.75% * Att + GWM = 10.825 + 10.825 + 1.055 + 2.955 = 25.66


Summary:

Total PHB w/PAM: 31.832
Total UA: 25.660
Total PHB: 25.659

The PHB version with only GWM is basically identical to the UA version. If you get PAM+GWM, the PHB is well ahead (about 24%). The UA version catches up to the PAM+GWM version when raging by adding Frenzy damage. PAM reaction attacks are complicated to consider.

So yes, a non-Raging barbarian with PAM+GWM (thus, specifically a variant human) is much stronger in the PHB than in the playtest. Any other race ends up basically identical.

This may be potentially compensated for by the longer duration of Rage in the playtest, which could allow the playtest barbarian to have Rage active in more fights than the PHB version.

Honestly, I'd say "a specific race using a specific type of weapon with a specific feat combo is way more powerful than everything else at that level" is a BAD thing, and it's good that the playtest is getting rid of it.

That's kind of the overall impression here, I'd say: fighters and barbarians can now optimize for DPR to get similar damage to what they had in the previous version, but they now also have a lot more viable ways to get in that range, and they can more easily make incremental tradeoffs for more defense, control, etc. instead. One thing that almost all the optimizers have said when crunching these numbers is that the best masteries aren't the ones that optimize your DPR.

[Dr.Samurai]

(thus, specifically a variant human)
Right, which is a big IF, but in line with current optimization and with TreantMonk's comparisons.

Let's go in a different direction, because I think I'm warming up to some of this (it really helps to have all the other PDFs open as well lol).

UA Level 14 Human Berserker (using Pike)
Human Feat - Savage Attacker
Background Feat - Tough or Skilled or even Tavern Brawler, I don't know...

Level 4 Feat - Charger

Level 8 Feat - Polearm Master

Level 12 Feat - Great Weapon Master

Turn 1
Bonus Action - Rage
Action - Attack
Attack 1 = 1d10+5+5+3+3d6, Push Target 10ft
Move 10ft to Target
Attack 2 = 1d10+5+3+1d8

Turn 2
Action - Attack
Attack 1 = 1d10+5+5+3+3d6, Push Target 10ft
Move 10ft to Target
Attack 2 = 1d10+5+3+1d8
Bonus Action - Attack
Attack 3 = 1d4+5+3

Don't know if this is good damage or not but thought it was an interesting build. Reminds me a little of Ajax from Troy (even though it uses a Pike and I don't think he did a lot of pushing lol).

Another thought...

UA Level 5 Human Berserker
Human Feat - Tavern Brawler
Background Feat - Fighting Style - Dueling (PLEASE GIVE BARBARIANS A FIGHTING STYLE!!!)
Level 4 Feat - Grappler

Turn 1
Bonus Action - Rage
Action - Attack
Attack 1 - Unarmed Strike - 1d4+4+2+2d6, Grapple Opponent (DC = 15)
Attack 2 w/Advantage - Longsword (Flex) - 1d10+4+2

Then just keep attacking with Advantage. The only issue here is they've changed Grapple to allow the monster to roll an escape attempt at the end of each of its turns, and it's a saving throw so martials can no longer dominate with awesome Athletics checks.

EDIT: If you switch that Longsword to a Battleaxe, then you can Attack 1 - Topple, Attack 2 - Grapple instead. You'll still get Advantage so long as they're Prone, and so will everyone else even a turn after they save (since they can't stand until they're next turn).

[Woggle]

Then just keep attacking with Advantage. The only issue here is they've changed Grapple to allow the monster to roll an escape attempt at the end of each of its turns, and it's a saving throw so martials can no longer dominate with awesome Athletics checks.


Looks like they switched back to requiring an action to escape from a grapple:

"Escape. While Grappled, you can use your action to make a Strength (Athletics) or Dexterity (Acrobatics) check against the grapple’s escape DC, ending the condition on yourself on a success. The condition also ends if the grappler has the Incapacitated condition or if the distance between you and the grappler exceeds the grapple’s range."

Still vs your DC, rather than an opposed skill check though. EDIT Doesn't look like you can benefit from expertise (Athletics), for example. Or advantage for that matter.

[Moxxmix]

Let's go in a different direction, because I think I'm warming up to some of this (it really helps to have all the other PDFs open as well lol).

UA Level 14 Human Berserker (using Pike)
Human Feat - Savage Attacker
Background Feat - Tough or Skilled or even Tavern Brawler, I don't know...

Level 4 Feat - Charger

Level 8 Feat - Polearm Master

Level 12 Feat - Great Weapon Master
Yeah, a Push build with Charger looks surprisingly fun. It also makes it easy to get the PAM reaction attacks, since your last attack can push the enemy out far enough that they'll have to then enter your reach to attack again. (Unless they decide to just run.)

PHB Charger was such a horrible feat that I didn't want to consider it originally, but the new version is pretty decent.


Another thought...

UA Level 5 Human Berserker
Human Feat - Tavern Brawler
Background Feat - Fighting Style - Dueling (PLEASE GIVE BARBARIANS A FIGHTING STYLE!!!)
Level 4 Feat - Grappler
I'd love to make a pure brawler character. I'm even tempted to dip into monk for Martial Arts to get the offhand attack, though I'd prefer if it was part of a fighting style or the Grappler feat.

And barbarian fighting styles, yes please. I'd probably limit the in-class choices to: Blind Fighting, Dueling, Great Weapon Fighting, Two Weapon Fighting, and Unarmed Fighting.


Then just keep attacking with Advantage. The only issue here is they've changed Grapple to allow the monster to roll an escape attempt at the end of each of its turns, and it's a saving throw so martials can no longer dominate with awesome Athletics checks.
Yeah, making it a save simplifies some things (only one roll instead of two), and avoids the rogue or bard with expertise becoming the best possible grappler.

I'm not sure what combination of things I'd want, because I still want it to be balanced, and it's hard to figure out what makes what other things obsolete, but I certainly want something like this to be possible. Also, a "weapon mastery" for unarmed strikes. Maybe Sap or Push.

[Aimeryan]

Since we do have the option to request change at this point, would anyone be against the -5/+10 being baked into the appropriate fighting styles (GWF/Archery)? Maybe even instead of the current functions? Maybe even an option to remove up to proficiency mod from attack roll, adding double the amount removed to the damage roll?

I feel like making the game more interesting and providing options seems worthwhile, rather than taking them away.

[PhoenixPhyre]

Since we do have the option to request change at this point, would anyone be against the -5/+10 being baked into the appropriate fighting styles (GWF/Archery)? Maybe even instead of the current functions? Maybe even an option to remove up to proficiency mod from attack roll, adding double the amount removed to the damage roll?

I feel like making the game more interesting and providing options seems worthwhile, rather than taking them away.

I'd prefer to bake them into the classes at an appropriate level (like 5+). Because fighting styles are too easy to poach. And if you do it as class features, you can broaden them as appropriate--barbarians can power attack with a spoon!. Etc.

[Dr.Samurai]

Looks like they switched back to requiring an action to escape from a grapple:


Still vs your DC, rather than an opposed skill check though. EDIT Doesn't look like you can benefit from expertise (Athletics), for example. Or advantage for that matter.
Thank you Woggle; just when I've opened all the PDFs and think I've caught up lol.

So an interesting compromise. The original change I didn't like because it removed the action denial and hard set the DC.

This is better, as the enemy now has to use their action to escape, which makes the Grapple more impactful.

Yeah, a Push build with Charger looks surprisingly fun. It also makes it easy to get the PAM reaction attacks, since your last attack can push the enemy out far enough that they'll have to then enter your reach to attack again. (Unless they decide to just run.)

PHB Charger was such a horrible feat that I didn't want to consider it originally, but the new version is pretty decent.
Lol, I currently have the Charger feat on my fighter and like it so far. It doesn't come up often, but, especially for encounters that start outside of movement speed but within Dash speed, it lets me get an attack in on turn 1. And the +5 damage combined with GWM's +10 means I'm probably hitting for ~27 damage (~34 vs giants, of which there are plenty). Alternatively, if the monk can reach the enemy, I can Shove to knock them prone and set him up for his flurry.

It's not a powerhouse feat or anything, but I've gotten use out of it in this module. Honestly, I wish I would have had it in our last module (Avernus), as combats routinely started at great distances.


I'd love to make a pure brawler character. I'm even tempted to dip into monk for Martial Arts to get the offhand attack, though I'd prefer if it was part of a fighting style or the Grappler feat.
I am currently playing a monk and this is the build I'm going for; versatile weapon in one hand, free hand for grappling/martial arts in the other.

Since we do have the option to request change at this point, would anyone be against the -5/+10 being baked into the appropriate fighting styles (GWF/Archery)? Maybe even instead of the current functions? Maybe even an option to remove up to proficiency mod from attack roll, adding double the amount removed to the damage roll?

I feel like making the game more interesting and providing options seems worthwhile, rather than taking them away.
I wouldn't mind this, but I think people would argue it's too much damage. EDIT: And also what PP said!

My issue is that the current design is limiting choices; GWM is now flat damage on first attack, instead of something you can choose to do/Frenzy similarly is a flat damage on first attack, whereas previously it allowed you to take any action you want and still attack as a bonus action (a lot more choice)/Frenzy also now requires Reckless Attack, so if you already have Advantage on your attack from something else, you still have to impose the Advantage to hit you.

I'm not really a fan of any of this. It really takes the interesting bits of playing a martial away, from a group of classes that are already struggling in that department.

[Mastikator]

Since we do have the option to request change at this point, would anyone be against the -5/+10 being baked into the appropriate fighting styles (GWF/Archery)? Maybe even instead of the current functions? Maybe even an option to remove up to proficiency mod from attack roll, adding double the amount removed to the damage roll?

I feel like making the game more interesting and providing options seems worthwhile, rather than taking them away.

I have a house rule that anyone making an attack action can reduce their to hit equal to proficiency bonus and add double that in damage. A -2/+4 is more sensible IMO levels 1-4, and -3/+6 levels 5-8, etc.
No feat or anything required, just the attack action.

[Witty Username]

Since we do have the option to request change at this point, would anyone be against the -5/+10 being baked into the appropriate fighting styles (GWF/Archery)? Maybe even instead of the current functions? Maybe even an option to remove up to proficiency mod from attack roll, adding double the amount removed to the damage roll?


I personally wouldn't be against it being just part of the combat rules. Build into either the attack action or making an attack.

[samcifer]

So what I'm getting is that at lower levels, playtest 5 barb and fighter do less damage than the phb versions? The loss of the -5/+10 feats seems to hurt damage levels quite a bit, imo, but again, I'm terrible at math, so idk for sure or not.

[Dr.Samurai]

So what I'm getting is that at lower levels, playtest 5 barb and fighter do less damage than the phb versions? The loss of the -5/+10 feats seems to hurt damage levels quite a bit, imo, but again, I'm terrible at math, so idk for sure or not.
There's a lot to consider.

My calculations were just based on the gold standard PAM/GWM build, because that's what TreantMonk was comparing.

But others ran it against all weapon types, and it seems like, while PAM/GWM is still doing more damage (especially if you consider reaction attacks) at lower levels, the UA barbarian just allows more weapon types to do good damage as well. And then the UA version catches up and surpasses in tier 2 with the GWM build. And, at least for barbarian, the Berserker gets Retaliation 10 levels earlier, which is huge.

The UA version does look interesting when you pair Weapon Mastery with feats and Fighting Styles. But I prefer being able to deliver multiple strong attacks instead of relying on one big attack.

I checked with my group to see if they want to playtest any of this, but their interest seems pretty muted.

[Moxxmix]

So what I'm getting is that at lower levels, playtest 5 barb and fighter do less damage than the phb versions? The loss of the -5/+10 feats seems to hurt damage levels quite a bit, imo, but again, I'm terrible at math, so idk for sure or not.

When not raging, the PHB variant human barbarian (PAM+GWM) does a lot better than the playtest. For other races, it's basically a tie.

When raging, the PHB barbarian using Frenzy (getting exhaustion) is a small bit better (39 vs 37) than the playtest.

When raging without using PHB Frenzy, the variant human (PAM+GWM) is middling compared to the playtest build options, and all other races are significantly worse. A playtest barbarian using a handaxe+scimitar without Two Weapon Fighting (the worst option calculated) is still decently better than any non-variant human from the PHB.

So the floor has been significantly raised, with lots of viable builds and no particular bias among races, while the outlier of the variant human (particularly when not raging) got removed. Instead of one build being great and the rest being suck, it's now all builds being quite good.

[Moxxmix]

Level 1!

How do things look at level 1? Are things balanced, or is there a preferred weapon option before people start getting notable abilities at levels 2 and 3? (EG: Reckless Attack, Action Surge, Cunning Action, subclasses, etc)

I'll assume Str, regardless of Str or Dex build, and assume a standard array starting at 17 Str in anticipation of the level 4 feat.

I'll include fighting styles, since those are available as level 1 feats. However I won't assume they'll always be chosen.

Barbarian and fighter start with 2-3 weapon masteries. I'm going to speculate that non-warrior martials will start with 1 weapon mastery, and progress at the same rate (+1 at level 4, another +1 at level 10). As such, the goal is to find a good single starting weapon.

Base accuracy: 60%
Base crit rate: 5%
Adv accuracy: 84%
Adv crit rate: 9.75%
Vex accuracy: 71% (assumes 3 attacks per enemy)
Vex Crit Rate: 7% (assumes 3 attacks per enemy)



Greatsword (Graze) [2d6]
Base: 7 (weapon) + 3 (Str) = 10 * 60% + 3 * 40% (graze) = 7.2 + 5% * 3.5 = 7.375
Rage: 7 (weapon) + 3 (Str) + 2 (rage) = 12 * 60% + 3 * 40% (graze) = 8.4 + 5% * 3.5 = 8.575
FS:GWF: 8.33 (weapon) + 3 (Str) = 11.33 * 60% + 3 * 40% (graze) = 8 + 5% * 3.5 = 8.175

Greataxe (Cleave) [1d12]
No Cleave:
Base: 6.5 (weapon) + 3 (Str) = 9.5 * 60% = 5.7 + 5% * 6.5 = 6.025
Rage: 6.5 (weapon) + 3 (Str) + 2 (rage) = 11.5 * 60% = 6.9 + 5% * 6.5 = 7.225
FS:GWF: 7.33 (weapon) + 3 (Str) = 10.33 * 60% = 6.2 + 5% * 6.5 = 6.525
40% Cleave:
Base Cleave: 6.5 (weapon) * 60% = 3.9 + 5% * 6.5 = 4.225
Rage Cleave: 6.5 (weapon) + 2 (rage) = 8.5 * 60% = 5.1 + 5% * 6.5 = 5.425
FS:GWF Cleave: 7.33 (weapon) * 60% = 4.398 + 5% * 6.5 = 4.723
Base: 6.5 (weapon) + 3 (Str) = 9.5 * 60% = 5.7 + 5% * 6.5 = 6.025 + 40% (opp) * 60% (trigger) * 4.225 (cleave) = 7.039
Rage: 6.5 (weapon) + 3 (Str) + 2 (rage) = 11.5 * 60% = 6.9 + 5% * 6.5 = 7.225 + 40% (opp) * 60% (trigger) * 5.425 (cleave) = 8.527
FS:GWF: 7.33 (weapon) + 3 (Str) = 10.33 * 60% = 6.2 + 5% * 6.5 = 6.525 + 40% (opp) * 60% (trigger) * 4.723 (cleave) = 7.659

Longsword/Shield (Flex) [1d10]
Base: 5.5 (weapon) + 3 (Str) = 8.5 * 60% = 5.1 + 5% * 5.5 = 5.375
Rage: 5.5 (weapon) + 3 (Str) + 2 (rage) = 10.5 * 60% = 6.3 + 5% * 5.5 = 6.575
FS:Duel: 7.5 (weapon) + 3 (Str) = 10.5 * 60% = 6.3 + 5% * 5.5 = 6.575

Morningstar/Shield (Sap) [1d8]
Base: 4.5 (weapon) + 3 (Str) = 7.5 * 60% = 4.5 + 5% * 4.5 = 4.725
Rage: 4.5 (weapon) + 3 (Str) + 2 (rage) = 9.5 * 60% = 5.7 + 5% * 4.5 = 5.925
FS:Duel: 6.5 (weapon) + 3 (Str) = 9.5 * 60% = 5.7 + 5% * 4.5 = 5.925

Rapier (Vex) [1d8]
Base: 4.5 (weapon) + 3 (Str) = 7.5 * 71% = 5.325 + 7% * 4.5 = 5.64
Rage: 4.5 (weapon) + 3 (Str) + 2 (rage) = 9.5 * 71% = 6.745 + 7% * 4.5 = 7.06
FS:Duel: 6.5 (weapon) + 3 (Str) = 9.5 * 71% = 6.745 + 7% * 4.5 = 7.06

Shortsword/Shortsword (Vex) [1d6/1d6]
Base: 3.5 (weapon) + 3 (Str) = 6.5 * 71% = 4.615 + 7% * 3.5 = 4.86
Rage: 3.5 (weapon) + 3 (Str) + 2 (rage) = 8.5 * 71% = 6.035 + 7% * 3.5 = 6.28
Offhand: 3.5 (weapon) = 3.5 * 71% = 2.485 + 7% * 3.5 = 2.73
Rage Offhand: 3.5 (weapon) + 2 (rage) = 5.5 * 71% = 3.905 + 7% * 3.5 = 4.15

Base: Base + Offhand = 4.86 + 2.73 = 7.59
Rage: Rage + Rage Offhand = 6.28 + 4.15 = 10.43
FS:TWF: Base + Base = 4.86 + 4.86 = 9.72


Base Options:
Shortsword/Shortsword = 7.590
Greatsword = 7.375
Greataxe (40% cleave) = 7.039
Greataxe (no cleave) = 6.025
Rapier = 5.640
Longsword/Shield = 5.375
Morningstar/Shield = 4.725

Rage Options:
Shortsword/Short+FS:TWF = 12.560
Shortsword/Shortsword = 10.430
Greatsword = 8.575
Greataxe (40% cleave) = 8.527
Greataxe (no cleave) = 7.225
Rapier = 7.060
Longsword/Shield = 6.575
Morningstar/Shield = 5.925

Fighting Style Options:
Shortsword/Shortsword = 9.720
Greatsword = 8.175
Greataxe (40% cleave) = 7.659
Rapier = 7.060
Longsword/Shield = 6.575
Greataxe (no cleave) = 6.525
Morningstar/Shield = 5.925


Dual-wielding shortswords is a clear top choice, though the greatsword is on par when not counting Rage or Fighting Styles. The greataxe can work if you can get a decent amount of Cleave chances. Rapier is middling, and of course the longsword/shield and morningstar/shield builds are more focused on defense. I'd say each of them are decent options for their purpose.

Level 2 will change all this, of course. Reckless Attack mitigates the value of the shortsword's Vex property, while the rogue may want to switch to daggers to free up the bonus action slot. The fighter's Action Surge is going to be more valuable with a large weapon than using dual-wielding (or maybe swap to a scimitar for Nick, though that reduces the value of Vex). Etc. So don't rely on this for more than literally just level 1.

The only thing I'd consider a bad option is the greataxe if you don't have any Cleave targets, and you got the GWF fighting style. And if you're considering longsword/shield, you'd probably be better off with a rapier/shield (more offense) or a morningstar/shield (more defense).

[Aimeryan]

Pack Tactics made a good response video to this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NUsmZexopL4

The raising on the floor (i.e., when not optimised) arguably helps newer players, although 5e is already super forgiving here. The lowering of the ceiling (since raising accuracy and number of attacks doesn't push things in the same way they do for -5/+10) hurts martials in comparison to casters, however. Furthermore, the loss of -5/+10 hurts martials when it comes to multiple opponents, who typically have lower ACs (sometimes greatly so) - which is an area martials aleady hurt even more on when it compares to casters.

Even if you don't really see the ceilings being lower (remember, accuracy increases like Advantage, Bless, Emboldening Bond, etc. are not being taken into consideration here and could be), the fact that martials are not getting extra things outside of this is itself a problem - especially when the casters are. Its like not getting a pay rise when there is inflation; in real terms you lose out.

I also find the loss of an option to consider in combat (-5/+10) compared to something that is always-on (Mastery) is itself very disappointing. I see no need to remove the option, especially when the very feats being discussed are still being used in the comparisons (so, that Feat tax sure is gone, eh?).

[Psyren]

Pack Tactics concluded the 1DnD damage is indeed higher, just not by as much as TM did. For SS ranged builds it's lower, since new SS sucks, but I think most of us gave them feedback on that so we'll have to see if they change it.



I also find the loss of an option to consider in combat (-5/+10) compared to something that is always-on (Mastery) is itself very disappointing. I see no need to remove the option, especially when the very feats being discussed are still being used in the comparisons (so, that Feat tax sure is gone, eh?).

Feats should be better than not using feats though. What they changed is (a) reducing the gulf between a build that uses these feats vs. one that just goes for blanket ASIs, and (b) making all of them half-feats so that you can continue to progress your character more generally while you're also giving them these specific capabilities.

[Aimeryan]

Pack Tactics concluded the 1DnD damage is indeed higher, just not by as much as TM did. For SS ranged builds it's lower, since new SS sucks, but I think most of us gave them feedback on that so we'll have to see if they change it.

It is only higher baseline, and only against single targets at higher levels. When other factors come into play then tend to favour -5/+10 because they can increase accuracy (or lower enemy AC which does the same thing). Hence why the floor is raised but the ceiling is lowered.

The ranged being lowered will likely be favoured by players who dislike that ranged is currently stronger in damage than melee, however, it does hurt martials overall because ranged allows greater reliability and keeps martials safer which saves on resources. If martials lose effectiveness by not being in melee and casters do not, that is once again another disparity.

[Amechra]

while the rogue may want to switch to daggers to free up the bonus action slot

Unless they get Weapon Masteries natively the next time we see them... that unfortunately won't do anything for them.

[Moxxmix]

Unless they get Weapon Masteries natively the next time we see them... that unfortunately won't do anything for them.


When we revisit the Experts and Priests in future Unearthed Arcana articles, some of them will gain access to these special properties.

Presumably paladins, rangers, and rogues will get some access to weapon masteries. I'm assuming (for the purposes of these comparisons) they'll get 1/2/3 at levels 1/4/10, the way barbarians get 2/3/4 and fighters get 3/4/5.

That's also why I wanted to pick out single weapon options. Though the number of ways you could make use of that on rogue is more complicated than first appears.

[Psyren]

It is only higher baseline, and only against single targets at higher levels. When other factors come into play then tend to favour -5/+10 because they can increase accuracy (or lower enemy AC which does the same thing). Hence why the floor is raised but the ceiling is lowered.

External factors can raise AC / reduce accuracy too. Monsters can use cover and buffs, the martial can get poisoned or frightened or grappled or slowed etc. And in those cases, the old -5/+10 feats might even end up being completely useless, whereas the new ones are at least increasing your primary stat. I think considering it a wash is the more straightforward approach.


The ranged being lowered will likely be favoured by players who dislike that ranged is currently stronger in damage than melee, however, it does hurt martials overall because ranged allows greater reliability and keeps martials safer which saves on resources. If martials lose effectiveness by not being in melee and casters do not, that is once again another disparity.

To reiterate, I agree that the current version of Sharpshooter isn't acceptable. It should apply some kind of damage boost like GWM does, rather than merely mitigating cover.

But with that said, I do think that hand crossbows being the best melee weapon in the game was a complete misfire on 5e's part.

[Dr.Samurai]

Pack Tactics made a good response video to this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NUsmZexopL4

The raising on the floor (i.e., when not optimised) arguably helps newer players, although 5e is already super forgiving here. The lowering of the ceiling (since raising accuracy and number of attacks doesn't push things in the same way they do for -5/+10) hurts martials in comparison to casters, however. Furthermore, the loss of -5/+10 hurts martials when it comes to multiple opponents, who typically have lower ACs (sometimes greatly so) - which is an area martials aleady hurt even more on when it compares to casters.

Even if you don't really see the ceilings being lower (remember, accuracy increases like Advantage, Bless, Emboldening Bond, etc. are not being taken into consideration here and could be), the fact that martials are not getting extra things outside of this is itself a problem - especially when the casters are. Its like not getting a pay rise when there is inflation; in real terms you lose out.

I also find the loss of an option to consider in combat (-5/+10) compared to something that is always-on (Mastery) is itself very disappointing. I see no need to remove the option, especially when the very feats being discussed are still being used in the comparisons (so, that Feat tax sure is gone, eh?).
I haven't watched the video yet but will do so when I can.

I generally agree with your points here. I like that other weapons are in the running now, but I don't think martials were in a position where they needed things taken away from them.

It is only higher baseline, and only against single targets at higher levels. When other factors come into play then tend to favour -5/+10 because they can increase accuracy (or lower enemy AC which does the same thing). Hence why the floor is raised but the ceiling is lowered.

The ranged being lowered will likely be favoured by players who dislike that ranged is currently stronger in damage than melee, however, it does hurt martials overall because ranged allows greater reliability and keeps martials safer which saves on resources. If martials lose effectiveness by not being in melee and casters do not, that is once again another disparity.
Sharpshooter was way too much benefit in one single feat in my opinion.

Completely ignoring anything less than total cover, ignoring the Disadvantage on long range attacks, and also the Power Attack option just made this such a no brainer feat for anyone going range.

IMO, either change Archery, or change the ignoring cover part of Sharpshooter. Cover is a big deal for archers, and often completely ignored in conversations (see level 1 wizards are on a par with martials using light crossbows). Archery style helps offset it, but then Sharpshooter just completely ignores it and turns Archery style into a flat attack boost that is supposed to be out of place in Bounded Accuracy.

[ZRN]

Pack Tactics made a good response video to this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NUsmZexopL4

The raising on the floor (i.e., when not optimised) arguably helps newer players, although 5e is already super forgiving here. The lowering of the ceiling (since raising accuracy and number of attacks doesn't push things in the same way they do for -5/+10) hurts martials in comparison to casters, however. Furthermore, the loss of -5/+10 hurts martials when it comes to multiple opponents, who typically have lower ACs (sometimes greatly so) - which is an area martials aleady hurt even more on when it compares to casters.

Even if you don't really see the ceilings being lower (remember, accuracy increases like Advantage, Bless, Emboldening Bond, etc. are not being taken into consideration here and could be), the fact that martials are not getting extra things outside of this is itself a problem - especially when the casters are. Its like not getting a pay rise when there is inflation; in real terms you lose out.

I also find the loss of an option to consider in combat (-5/+10) compared to something that is always-on (Mastery) is itself very disappointing. I see no need to remove the option, especially when the very feats being discussed are still being used in the comparisons (so, that Feat tax sure is gone, eh?).

I think if your starting point for this playtest is, "I hope they fix the Big Problem of caster/martial disparity," they've been pretty clear that they don't consider this to be a real problem (the rogue class has the "highest satisfaction rating," etc.) and you're just setting yourself up for disappointment.

I think the relevance of Treantmonk's video is that he's trying to confirm the dev team's claim that the fighter/barbarian class buffs would make up for the loss of -5/+10 feats overall, and I think that they do (despite quibbles with Treantmonk's methodology and math).

[PhoenixPhyre]

Sharpshooter was way too much benefit in one single feat in my opinion.

Completely ignoring anything less than total cover, ignoring the Disadvantage on long range attacks, and also the Power Attack option just made this such a no brainer feat for anyone going range.

IMO, either change Archery, or change the ignoring cover part of Sharpshooter. Cover is a big deal for archers, and often completely ignored in conversations (see level 1 wizards are on a par with martials using light crossbows). Archery style helps offset it, but then Sharpshooter just completely ignores it and turns Archery style into a flat attack boost that is supposed to be out of place in Bounded Accuracy.

I agree with this. Especially about ignoring cover. The extra damage? Meh. Extra range? Rarely (in my experience) comes up for anyone other than hand crossbows. Basically (with Archery) 100% ignoring anything other than full cover? That's stupid bonkers.

[Dr.Samurai]

I think the relevance of Treantmonk's video is that he's trying to confirm the dev team's claim that the fighter/barbarian class buffs would make up for the loss of -5/+10 feats overall, and I think that they do (despite quibbles with Treantmonk's methodology and math).

I'm more convinced by the comparisons done here than TreantMonk's video, which is at level 13 and as such has all the damage feats you might want and a scaling damage feature as well. The vast majority of people won't reach those levels, so drawing that conclusion then will be irrelevant for most people.

At lower levels, the UA classes can't take damage feats until level 4 (but also you don't really want to be using GWM at these levels either I don't think). But you can still take Polearm Master, which is doubling and sometimes tripling your number of attacks in a round.

But I think the point seems to be that you can do good damage without worrying about what weapon you're using. I'm not sure to what degree that is true.

And every time you apply GWM's +10 damage to an attack (action attacks, bonus action attacks, reaction attacks) you're likely outpacing UA options.

The current meta requires specific builds to do peak damage, whereas the UA is more general. Sort of. It seems like you still need feats for TWF or THF. Need to really sit down with this and go over the comparisons.

[Psyren]

I think the fact that one specific race* can get PAM at level 1 in 5e is an indictment, not a vindication, of 5e feat design. Besides, at those levels, the OneD&D fighter can just take TWF fighting style and dual-wield instead and not be behind on attacks. They'll even be better off because they'll be benefiting from two masteries instead of one. Make the offhand a Nick weapon and they can even still use whatever BA racial they picked up by not being human, e.g. Draconic Cry or Fey Step.

*two with CL


I think if your starting point for this playtest is, "I hope they fix the Big Problem of caster/martial disparity," they've been pretty clear that they don't consider this to be a real problem (the rogue class has the "highest satisfaction rating," etc.) and you're just setting yourself up for disappointment.

I think the relevance of Treantmonk's video is that he's trying to confirm the dev team's claim that the fighter/barbarian class buffs would make up for the loss of -5/+10 feats overall, and I think that they do (despite quibbles with Treantmonk's methodology and math).

All of this

[Saelethil]

I personally wouldn't be against it being just part of the combat rules. Build into either the attack action or making an attack.

I’ve made “Forgo adding your PB to a melee attack roll and if the attack still hits you deal 2xPB additional damage.”
It’s worked well so far.

[ZRN]

I'm more convinced by the comparisons done here than TreantMonk's video, which is at level 13 and as such has all the damage feats you might want and a scaling damage feature as well. The vast majority of people won't reach those levels, so drawing that conclusion then will be irrelevant for most people.

At lower levels, the UA classes can't take damage feats until level 4 (but also you don't really want to be using GWM at these levels either I don't think). But you can still take Polearm Master, which is doubling and sometimes tripling your number of attacks in a round.

I agree with Psyren that the way certain feats were incredibly powerful at level 1 was a bug with variant humans in 5e, not a feature. I get that some people think that martials are SO bad in 5e, especially at later levels, that they DESERVE to be dealing twice as much damage from levels 1-3, but per my post above the devs don't agree that martials ARE bad in 5e, so this argument won't be very convincing to them.



But I think the point seems to be that you can do good damage without worrying about what weapon you're using. I'm not sure to what degree that is true.

More specifically, there are clearer and more balanced tradeoffs with other weapon options.

Example: sword+shield wasn't a BAD build in 5e, but you were definitely doing like half the damage of a PAM/GWM guy. Now, you're still doing LESS damage than a PAM guy, but the +2AC and other potential benefits of sword+shield are more meaningful.


And every time you apply GWM's +10 damage to an attack (action attacks, bonus action attacks, reaction attacks) you're likely outpacing UA options.

This claim is what Treantmonk and other math-crunchers are trying to validate. It looks like it's not really the case (at least with no magical weapons or buffs): even using PAM/GWM with every attack a 5e fighter isn't far ahead of a 1DND fighter who is also set up for damage. (Of course buffs like magical weapons and Bless change the equation, usually in favor of the 5e PAM/GWM guy.)


The current meta requires specific builds to do peak damage, whereas the UA is more general. Sort of. It seems like you still need feats for TWF or THF. Need to really sit down with this and go over the comparisons.

I think even in the UA specific builds will do a lot more damage - the difference is that the difference isn't SO stark.

[Dr.Samurai]

I get that some people think that martials are SO bad in 5e, especially at later levels, that they DESERVE to be dealing twice as much damage from levels 1-3, but per my post above the devs don't agree that martials ARE bad in 5e, so this argument won't be very convincing to them.
That's okay. I don't happen to agree with the devs, but their motives/beliefs are incidental to the claim of "does more damage than current martials".

A lot has changed, including the levels at which feats can be taken, what those feats do, what the weapons do with mastery.

The comparisons done previously make me think that the damage is better in the UA. But I also feel like we're not capturing everything.

More specifically, there are clearer and more balanced tradeoffs with other weapon options.

Example: sword+shield wasn't a BAD build in 5e, but you were definitely doing like half the damage of a PAM/GWM guy. Now, you're still doing LESS damage than a PAM guy, but the +2AC and other potential benefits of sword+shield are more meaningful.
"Wasn't bad" means here "practically the minimum damage you can deal", without reaching for a d4 weapon. I mean... it's just the default damage. And I don't think it's good. And I don't think it feels that great to play someone chipping away at enemy HP. Especially when the monsters are supposed to be getting buffed in 1D&D.

The trade-off angle doesn't really mean as much to me because I don't really care for these types of elements. When we're talking about heroic fantasy warriors, the difference between a shield and a two-handed sword shouldn't be, to me, +2 AC. Parrying is a thing with weapons. The shield should enable maneuvers, have its own masteries and interact with cover or AoEs, etc.

The "oooh you have a shield and you have a greatsword so there's a difference in ac" is boring. There's a lot of untapped potential for martials in D&D, so I'm less impressed with what they're going for. Which is far beyond the scope of this convo, but just explaining where I'm coming from.

This claim is what Treantmonk and other math-crunchers are trying to validate. It looks like it's not really the case (at least with no magical weapons or buffs): even using PAM/GWM with every attack a 5e fighter isn't far ahead of a 1DND fighter who is also set up for damage. (Of course buffs like magical weapons and Bless change the equation, usually in favor of the 5e PAM/GWM guy.)
I feel like I'm forgetting the points already made in this thread that demonstrated this to me, so forgive me for pushing back on this but...

New Berserker gets +2d6 1/turn. And with GWM gets +3 1/turn. The +10 from a single Power Attack matches that damage. A second attack will outpace that damage. An opportunity attack further. A bonus attack even more.

And magical weapons and buffs and Advantage are not rare.

I think even in the UA specific builds will do a lot more damage - the difference is that the difference isn't SO stark.
Right. And I think making the other weapons competitive is a good thing.

[Moxxmix]

So, I've been doing enough comparisons that I moved to using an Excel spreadsheet. Time to see if some images will load. (Fixed images)

Here's a look at a level 5 barbarian across a range of accuracy levels. Rage and Reckless Attack are used, though the accuracy values are before modification for either advantage or power attack.

There's playtest versions using PAM (Graze weapon) or GWM (Cleave at 25%), and PHB versions with either PAM, GWM, or both (variant human only).

https://i.imgur.com/Zx0WkEA.png

UA builds are very stable across accuracy levels, but old GWM varied greatly with accuracy. Old GWM caught up with UA PAM and GWM at 85%-95% accuracy levels. PHB PAM+GWM, however, dominates all the others once it gets past about 65% base accuracy.

At level 5, the PHB barbarian can get 65% accuracy against enemies of AC 14 or lower, which means it will cap at 85% accuracy. The UA can get 65% accuracy against AC 15 or lower, and cap at 90%, though anything above 75% hardly moves the needle.

Using Level Up's encounter building tables (because I trust them to be more reliable guidelines), a party of level 5 characters seems likely to encounter an AC 15 monster on the harder fights, AC 14 in more typical fights, and AC 13 and below as general trash mobs.

So a PHB character is likely to be at 60% accuracy for harder fights, 65% for typical fights, and 70%+ for the trash mobs. A UA build would be one notch higher, being at 65% for harder fights, 70% for typical fights, and 75%+ for trash mobs.

Add Bless in there for an extra 2-3 points, and the PHB build is in the 70%-85% range, which puts it 10% to 25% over the UA PAM build. On the other hand, the UA build doesn't actually gain much from Bless, so it opens up a concentration slot that the cleric might use on something else, such as Hold Person, Silence, Spirit Guardians, etc.

Here's things at level 8:

https://i.imgur.com/5TuG8zf.png

Everyone now has both PAM and GWM. The variant human also gets a +2 Str ASI. (I didn't change the labels on the non-variant human lines.)

Everyone is pretty much on par with each other in the 65%-70% accuracy range. PHB still pulls ahead if it can get extra sources of accuracy, such as Bless.

And here are things at level 12:

https://i.imgur.com/E1RVAua.png

UA takes a massive lead due to getting Charger, and Retaliation coming online at level 10. Plus Brutal Critical is better for the UA build than the PHB build at this point, but that's not a large effect.

Once more at level 14, so the PHB build can get Retaliation:

https://i.imgur.com/d1eMhNW.png

We see that the UA build is still generally ahead.

[ZRN]

So, I've been doing enough comparisons that I moved to using an Excel spreadsheet. Time to see if some images will load. (Fixed images)


Images worked for me! Thanks for doing the work - very useful data across a wider level range.

One thing to keep in mind reading these images is that, as Moxx points out in the post, the x axis refers to different ACs for the different builds here (because the UA guy has +1 to hit vs. the PHB guy, thanks to higher strength). That means that the UA isn't quite as good bad as the comparison looks here against the same target. It might be a bit clearer if the x axis was target AC.

EDIT: I said the opposite of what I meant. /shrug

[Moxxmix]

Images worked for me! Thanks for doing the work - very useful data across a wider level range.

One thing to keep in mind reading these images is that, as Moxx points out in the post, the x axis refers to different ACs for the different builds here (because the UA guy has +1 to hit vs. the PHB guy, thanks to higher strength). That means that the UA isn't quite as good as the comparison looks here against the same target. It might be a bit clearer if the x axis was target AC.

That's a good idea. I'll work on a new set of graphs set up like that.

[Mastikator]

And barbarian fighting styles, yes please. I'd probably limit the in-class choices to: Blind Fighting, Dueling, Great Weapon Fighting, Two Weapon Fighting, and Unarmed Fighting.


Eh barbarian can take fighting style feat at level 1 through 1st level feat. IMO barbarians are kinda frontloaded even in the UA, so maybe they could get that at level 11 or something.

[Moxxmix]

Level 3:

https://i.imgur.com/KhX9I9r.png

Just got their subclasses. Variant human has PAM. No one else has a damage feat. UA and variant human are pretty much on par with each other, while other PHB races are worse off.

Level 4:

https://i.imgur.com/hMnLtrK.png

Everyone gets their first feat (variant human gets his second). No extra attack yet, though. Variant human is only slightly ahead against the weakest opponents. Other PHB races are still worse off.

Level 5:

https://i.imgur.com/cbYVe0v.png

Variant human has PAM+GWM. Others have only the one feat listed. Extra attack gives a big boost to power attack builds, letting the variant human do the most damage against most typical targets around this level. Other races continue to suck.

Level 8:

https://i.imgur.com/0tploGG.png

Everyone has both PAM and GWM. Variant humans also got a Str ASI to reach 18 Str. Variant humans do notably better than UA builds against enemies with AC 13 or less. Other PHB races are only better than UA options against AC 11 or less.

Level 11:

https://i.imgur.com/AGvgivp.png

Everyone has Brutal Critical. UA has Retaliation. UA beats PHB across the board.

Level 12:

https://i.imgur.com/FJFvqp4.png

UA builds get Charger, and reach 20 Str. Variant human gets another Str ASI to reach 20 Str. Other PHB races get their first Str ASI to reach 18 Str. The gap widens a bit more.

Level 14:

https://i.imgur.com/i6V1ImQ.png

PHB gets Retaliation. Variant humans catch up for AC 15 or less. Other PHB races catch up for AC 13 or less.

Level 20:

https://i.imgur.com/3pvwb8N.png

Everyone has 24/25 Str. UA gets epic boon that boosts crits. I didn't add any new damage feats, aside from the Str ASI for the non-variant PHB builds. UA builds are crazy at this point.

[Moxxmix]

I should probably note that these are all done with a baseline +0 weapon. Increasing the + on the weapon will do more for the old GWM power attack than anything in the UA, so the gap will close some.

[Gignere]

I should probably note that these are all done with a baseline +0 weapon. Increasing the + on the weapon will do more for the old GWM power attack than anything in the UA, so the gap will close some.

However if you had the +3 dragon wrath weapon I think GWM becomes worse.

[Damon_Tor]

Jaded Prediction:
1. Martials deal 20% more damage or so.
2. Casters deal 30% more damage or so.
3. Monsters have around 30% more HP
4. "Martials got buffed!"

[Rukelnikov]

snip

Thanks, a very interesting post!

[Hael]

Jaded Prediction:
1. Martials deal 20% more damage or so.
2. Casters deal 30% more damage or so.
3. Monsters have around 30% more HP
4. "Martials got buffed!"

I think they are going to nerf caster damage by an enormous amount (the new crappy sorceror dmg spells are basically baseline damage for their lvl range).

Which would be par for the course, since I don’t think they know how to math.

[Aimeryan]

@Moxxmix (https://forums.giantitp.com/member.php?165282-Moxxmix) - Do you have similar graphs for Fighters, with chance to hit as X-Axis? The enemy AC is useful, however, most of the contention comes from the fact that accuracy buffs exist, which enemy AC alone doesn't count for (technically you can look at a lower AC to simulate it, but eh, easier as chance to hit directly).

One of the best Paladin spells is Bless (largely because Bless is great and the other spells Paladins get are not). We've had entire campaigns where the Paladin basically just keeps up Bless. If you do have a Peace Cleric, then Emboldening Bond is also in the mix pretty much as standard. Then there is Elven Advantage.

In any case, I think you have shown that before high levels that 5e PAM+GWM scales far better with accuracy and is easily higher than the UA equivalent. I don't want to presume Chris (Treatmonk) purposely chose the accuracy and level to showcase the UA version, but the video claim was 'better across the board' which I don't find valid.

[Gignere]

@Moxxmix (https://forums.giantitp.com/member.php?165282-Moxxmix) - Do you have similar graphs for Fighters, with chance to hit as X-Axis? The enemy AC is useful, however, most of the contention comes from the fact that accuracy buffs exist, which enemy AC alone doesn't count for (technically you can look at a lower AC to simulate it, but eh, easier as chance to hit directly).

One of the best Paladin spells is Bless (largely because Bless is great and the other spells Paladins get are not). We've had entire campaigns where the Paladin basically just keeps up Bless. If you do have a Peace Cleric, then Emboldening Bond is also in the mix pretty much as standard. Then there is Elven Advantage.

In any case, I think you have shown that before high levels that 5e PAM+GWM scales far better with accuracy and is easily higher than the UA equivalent. I don't want to presume Chris (Treatmonk) purposely chose the accuracy and level to showcase the UA version, but the video claim was 'better across the board' which I don't find valid.

Only two builds can mix PAM + GWM + EA and that’s the hexblade and battle smith. EA doesn’t work with strength attacks.

[Aimeryan]

Only two builds can mix PAM + GWM + EA and that’s the hexblade and battle smith. EA doesn’t work with strength attacks.

XBE + SS was the thought it this respect (we are more interested in this case with the -5/+10 mechanic than the specific Feats)

[Gignere]

XBE + SS was the thought it this respect (we are more interested in this case with the -5/+10 mechanic than the specific Feats)

One change they can make in 1D&D that would be a buff to martials but a nerf to -5 / + 10 builds is just have big / interesting damage riders on the magic items. Like make more weapons like Dragon Wrath weapons or even more extreme, like most magic weapons only give a +1 but adds damage dice. A great sword that does 5d6 a swing but only a +1 wouldn’t work as well with GWM.

[stoutstien]

One change they can make in 1D&D that would be a buff to martials but a nerf to -5 / + 10 builds is just have big / interesting damage riders on the magic items. Like make more weapons like Dragon Wrath weapons or even more extreme, like most magic weapons only give a +1 but adds damage dice. A great sword that does 5d6 a swing but only a +1 wouldn’t work as well with GWM.

It doesn't necessarily even need to be a lot of dice. A single d8 greatly changes the effectiveness of the -/+ portion of GWM/SS

[Gignere]

It doesn't necessarily even need to be a lot of dice. A single d8 greatly changes the effectiveness of the -/+ portion of GWM/SS

My point exactly get rid of the +2/+3 weapons and just have added damage or just interesting effects on hit. It would be massive buff to martials and a big buff over 5e GWM.

[Aimeryan]

It doesn't necessarily even need to be a lot of dice. A single d8 greatly changes the effectiveness of the -/+ portion of GWM/SS

To be clear, I don't think -5/+10 should always be a buff to any situation; the tradeoff is what makes it interesting -which is the problem with the Masteries, in my opinion.

The case being discussed here, though, is that if you put in the effort the ceiling with the 5e situation is higher - so D&Done is technically a nerf, even if there are situations where it does win out. Now, there is speculation that Spells may get nerfed, thus nerfing casters. However, from the current footing casters are getting buffed in D&Done while martials are getting nerfed (eh, maybe not Barbarian).

I am of the opinion that the -5/+10 mechanic need not be removed. It could change in one way or another if preferred to not be a Feat tax; i.e.:

A generic implementation that you are able to forgo your proficiency to the attack roll in return for double the amount lost added to the damage roll.
Fighting Style.
Replace the function of the Flex Mastery.

[stoutstien]

To be clear, I don't think -5/+10 should always be a buff to any situation; the tradeoff is what makes it interesting -which is the problem with the Masteries, in my opinion.

The case being discussed here, though, is that if you put in the effort the ceiling with the 5e situation is higher - so D&Done is technically a nerf, even if there are situations where it does win out. Now, there is speculation that Spells may get nerfed, thus nerfing casters. However, from the current footing casters are getting buffed in D&Done while martials are getting nerfed (eh, maybe not Barbarian).

I am of the opinion that the -5/+10 mechanic need not be removed. It could change in one way or another if preferred to not be a Feat tax; i.e.:

A generic implementation that you are able to forgo your proficiency to the attack roll in return for double the amount lost added to the damage roll.
Fighting Style.
Replace the function of the Flex Mastery.


I think I'm confused on how people are considering it a buff or a nerf prior to them releasing reference content. Sure they're saying that it's compatible with 5e adventure modules but those are loose tolerance anyways so they don't work well without a ton of data points.

Maths are fun though.

[Aimeryan]

I think I'm confused on how people are considering it a buff or a nerf prior to them releasing reference content. Sure they're saying that it's compatible with 5e adventure modules but those are loose tolerance anyways so they don't work well without a ton of data points.

Maths is fun though.

Relative to casters, rather than adventure content.

[stoutstien]

Relative to casters, rather than adventure content.

Ah that angle. Still think we don't have much to work with. The UA is sporadically released so it's hard to see much.

[Gignere]

Relative to casters, rather than adventure content.

Without much details on all the spells I don’t know how anyone can even come to this conclusion. Spells are the single biggest power budget for casters. They only released details on a few spells.

[Dr.Samurai]

@Moxxmix (https://forums.giantitp.com/member.php?165282-Moxxmix) - Do you have similar graphs for Fighters, with chance to hit as X-Axis? The enemy AC is useful, however, most of the contention comes from the fact that accuracy buffs exist, which enemy AC alone doesn't count for (technically you can look at a lower AC to simulate it, but eh, easier as chance to hit directly).

One of the best Paladin spells is Bless (largely because Bless is great and the other spells Paladins get are not). We've had entire campaigns where the Paladin basically just keeps up Bless. If you do have a Peace Cleric, then Emboldening Bond is also in the mix pretty much as standard. Then there is Elven Advantage.

In any case, I think you have shown that before high levels that 5e PAM+GWM scales far better with accuracy and is easily higher than the UA equivalent. I don't want to presume Chris (Treatmonk) purposely chose the accuracy and level to showcase the UA version, but the video claim was 'better across the board' which I don't find valid.
This has been my takeaway as well.

It just makes the claim imprecise. Better to say that other weapons can deal more damage in UA. But certainly you can't deal as much damage as you could before. Not by a long shot. And I think that's sort of easy to see given that you can only deal your special damages 1/turn, and only on your turn, as opposed to Power Attack working on every single attack.

The bit about accuracy is essentially suggesting that you're going to miss enough times to be worse off. And I don't think that's true. The game cares whether you hit or not, not whether you hit by a lot or by a little. DPR is imperfect for actually showing what happens in a game. And these feats wouldn't largely be considered "must haves" and worthy of nerfing if they didn't actually work to increase your damage so much.

With regards to how we know it's a nerf... for me it has nothing to do with casters; I haven't even looked at the new casters in any sort of detail. Rather, I I'm under the impression that monsters are going to get buffed (maybe I'm wrong about that, but I thought I read or heard that somewhere). Also, the fact that the ceiling has been lowered seems like a direct nerf. Because currently in 5E if you want to focus on damage, you go GWM, and/or PAM, or SS/CBE. If you want to deal really good damage, you're going for some of those feats/weapon types. In the UA, that seems to still be the case (at least for GWM and PAM) but it's less. Not sure how you avoid labeling that a nerf.

In the UA, if I go longsword and shield... I deal ~1 damage more than in 5E thanks to Flex? Then what? I grab Charger at level 4? For what, an extra 1d8 on the first turn of combat? Or do I grab Shield Master as well and Shove them and then attack each turn? So we're still feat-taxing the martials and forcing fighting styles on them?

Again, I have to sit down with this (and the reason I haven't is that my mother surprised me and is visiting for a month :smalleek::smallsmile: ) and go over everything but I'm not really seeing the major improvement. Dealing some damage on a miss is nice, but it's certainly not as nice as dealing big damage when you hit, which is far more impactful. Graze is good for DPR calculations, but it's not good for killing enemies (actually landing hits is).

The Berserker Frenzy damage is just Zealot Damage, so that's not new.

[Moxxmix]

@Moxxmix (https://forums.giantitp.com/member.php?165282-Moxxmix) - Do you have similar graphs for Fighters, with chance to hit as X-Axis? The enemy AC is useful, however, most of the contention comes from the fact that accuracy buffs exist, which enemy AC alone doesn't count for (technically you can look at a lower AC to simulate it, but eh, easier as chance to hit directly).

One of the best Paladin spells is Bless (largely because Bless is great and the other spells Paladins get are not). We've had entire campaigns where the Paladin basically just keeps up Bless. If you do have a Peace Cleric, then Emboldening Bond is also in the mix pretty much as standard. Then there is Elven Advantage.

In any case, I think you have shown that before high levels that 5e PAM+GWM scales far better with accuracy and is easily higher than the UA equivalent. I don't want to presume Chris (Treatmonk) purposely chose the accuracy and level to showcase the UA version, but the video claim was 'better across the board' which I don't find valid.

I don't have one for fighters yet, but I have the barbarian page decently polished up, so I'll be working on the fighter today.

Also, while I do like the accuracy axis in some respects, I think the AC axis works better because it includes the issue that different builds can have different base accuracy. So an AC 16 might represent a 60% hit rate for one build, and a 65% hit rate for another, and that difference is important to capture when trying to compare the lines on the graph with each other. Shifting perspective by, say, 1-4 AC for Bless is still easy enough to do.

As for Treantmonk, I certainly don't blame him for focusing on a single accuracy point. Without looking at a lot of accuracy points, it's not immediately obvious how much accuracy matters to the comparison, and doing the math manually (as I did in my first comparisons) is both easier to show to a viewer, and harder to do for multiple variable changes such as accuracy. You really need a spreadsheet to run the numbers for all those data points simultaneously, and then have it graphed to be able to understand the differences.

Of course, when you do that it's harder to explain the numbers to other people. For example, in a GWM+PAM build, bonus attack damage is calculated from a combination of lower-damage PAM attacks and higher damage crit-triggered GWM attacks, with the percentage contribution of each determined by the crit rate. If I just put a picture of the spreadsheet on the screen, how do you know what it means, or if I did the math correctly?

It depends on how you want to present things. Look at the numbers specifically, or just show the graphs and maybe put a link to the spreadsheet in a footnote. (Speaking of which, yes, I need to put my spreadsheet up on Google Docs or something. Probably do that after today's work and some cleanup.)

Treantmonk is obviously a numbers guy, and it can sometimes be hard to switch to a spreadsheet mentality when doing these types of analyses.

[ZRN]

Jaded Prediction:
1. Martials deal 20% more damage or so.
2. Casters deal 30% more damage or so.
3. Monsters have around 30% more HP
4. "Martials got buffed!"

I mean, we've seen their current draft of all the casters and I don't see a 30% damage increase anywhere. (A few other potentially broken/unnecessary buffs, sure, but not really to damage.)

If anything, they intentionally lowered the caster damage ceiling by getting rid of a few broken/unintended/overpowered abilities (Action Surge on spells, Twinned Spell, Hexblade's Curse).

Seems to me like the more realistic scenario is:

1. Martial damage "floor" goes up 50%
2. Martial damage "ceiling" goes up 0-10%
3. Caster damage "floor" goes up 20%
4. Caster damage "ceiling" goes down 10-25%
5. Casters get even more tricks and easier access to medium armor and shields

So for an "optimizer" group, martial damage is only up a tad, but at least martials have more varied options to get there, while caster damage is probably about the same because optimizers don't try to max out single-target DPS when they play a caster anyway.

For a "newbie" group, everybody's doing more damage because none of them knew about coffeelocks or PAM+GWM to begin with.

[Moxxmix]

OK, fighter page is ready. Here's a first comparison at level 5. Still trying to get a handle on what builds and levels to compare. If people have particular interest, let me know.

https://i.imgur.com/LBYkuOm.png

Note that the hand crossbow (dual-wielded with CBE) assumes permanent advantage. It's a Vex weapon, which means it's not actually permanent, but modeling Vex is a massive pain, so I went with the simpler approach.

If I take off advantage and give it power attack (ie: use the PHB Sharpshooter feat + CBE), it's stupidly strong, running 5-6 points higher than the PHB PAM+GWM build.

I also checked a simple archery setup with a longbow, but it was below the Sentinel longsword, so I dropped it for the time being.

If the longsword user picks up Shield Master instead, knocking an opponent prone would put your damage potential up near the glaive build while you have advantage.

I also checked a TWF build that picked up Dual Wielder and used a longsword/scimitar. It was basically identical to the scimitar/scimitar with the Charger feat.

EDIT: Actually, just realized I can have a second feat at level 5. Forgot that they moved it. Will have to see what other combos work out.

[Moxxmix]

Decided to check on the level 13 fighter that Treantmonk did, to corroborate numbers.

Found an error in Treantmonk's video: For the UA build, he assumes the PAM bonus attack each round uses a 1d10 weapon rather than the 1d4 it actually is. That's about a 2.5 DPR difference, which thus overstates his final total by that much. I also use an assumed Cleave rate of 25%, rather than Treatmonk's 50%.

With that, I end up with a playtest DPR of 46.2, vs Treantmonk's 50.4.

Also of note, the assumed 60% base hit rate converts to a target AC of 19. That's actually the expected AC of a fairly high-end mob at that level. Non-trash mobs of vaguely-appropriate level (CR9 to CR14) are more likely to be in the 16-17 AC range, or a 70%-75% accuracy rate. That narrows the gap a fair bit (or expands it, if advantage comes into play).

https://i.imgur.com/p0PDmSL.png

I have 6 builds here:

1) The morningstar/shield tank. It uses the Duelist fighting style (plus maybe Protection as the second style), and got feats like Sentinel and Shield Master which don't directly contribute to DPR. I assumed she'd use Shield Master to knock the enemy down on the first hit in order to have advantage on further attacks. This isn't a perfect model because you don't actually always get it to work, and it's not going to apply to the first hit either, but it works as an upper limit for the build.

2) The playtest polearm build, using basically Treantmonk's setup. Feats: PAM, GWM, Charger, and whatever 4th feat it wants, and GWF fighting style. It doesn't have advantage, but it matches or beats the PHB build (no advantage) at AC 14 or higher, and the PHB build (advantage) at AC 16 or higher.

3) A TWF build using rapier/shortsword, built using feats: Dual Wielder, Speedster, Charger, and Athlete, and uses the TWF fighting style. Because of Vex on both weapons, I set it to have advantage, even if it's not strictly up 100% of the time. It does pretty solid damage (halfway between the polearm build and the tanky build), and seems like a fun, active combatant.

4) An archery build. This time I went with a heavy crossbow and possibly a little cheating. GWM only requires a heavy weapon to activate its second feature, and doesn't require it to be a melee attack, so a heavy crossbow qualifies. Likewise, Charger doesn't require a melee attack after the 10' run, so it also works. A crossbow has the loading property, so you can only fire one shot from it per round, but you could swap to a longbow after that (downgrading from 1d10 to 1d8, though the spreadsheet doesn't handle that). It's kind of a goofy trick, and the damage is down at the level of the morningstar tank, so it's mostly just a curiosity.

5 & 6) The PHB PAM+GWM build. My total comes quite close to Treantmonk's when no advantage is available (32.4 vs 32.2, which can just be rounding errors). The last build grants advantage, but assumes you used one of your attacks to shove the target prone first, so it has advantage, but one less damaging attack for the round, which leaves it only somewhat better than attacking normally. Given that the shove attack won't always work, the actual performance will be between the two lines.

If you can get advantage another way, then the PHB is well ahead on anything below AC 18.

[Amechra]

Legitimate question: Is there a way that you can highlight the range of "likely" ACs for each chart? For example, the Level 5 chart goes down to AC 10, but I'm pretty sure that AC 10 is actually pretty uncommon as far as monsters go.

[Mastikator]

Doing a quick check on 5e tools....

CR 13 monsters seem to have between 16 - 19 AC, more often 17 and 18. 18 AC is a reasonable baseline at level 13.

CR 5 have many many more stat blocks, they range all from 9 to 20, but the vast majority have 13 to 16. So 14 is a reasonable baseline.

I'm not putting in any math on this. I don't think it makes sense to do an average on this, since monsters are unevenly used by DMs anyway, you're just way more likely to encounter and fight a troll (AC 15) than a unicorn (AC 12).

[PhoenixPhyre]

Doing a quick check on 5e tools....

CR 13 monsters seem to have between 16 - 19 AC, more often 17 and 18. 18 AC is a reasonable baseline at level 13.

CR 5 have many many more stat blocks, they range all from 9 to 20, but the vast majority have 13 to 16. So 14 is a reasonable baseline.

I'm not putting in any math on this. I don't think it makes sense to do an average on this, since monsters are unevenly used by DMs anyway, you're just way more likely to encounter and fight a troll (AC 15) than a unicorn (AC 12).

Agreed. AC 10 is rare at any but CR 0, and even there it's not the modal option.It's only within 1 standard deviation of the mean for like 3 CRs, and all of those are below CR 1 (0, 1/4, 1/2). And for CR 1/4 it's actually just at 1 Std deviation below the mean.

[Moxxmix]

Legitimate question: Is there a way that you can highlight the range of "likely" ACs for each chart? For example, the Level 5 chart goes down to AC 10, but I'm pretty sure that AC 10 is actually pretty uncommon as far as monsters go.

AC 10 'should' be as low as ACs go. That represents a creature with no armor and no Dex bonus. Technically it could go below that if you have a negative Dex bonus (EG: trash zombies, a couple oozes), but it seemed reasonable as a minimum for the graph. That way the graphs were easily compared to each other, rather than Excel auto-choosing a different range for each one.

As for highlighting a subsection of the graph, unfortunately I'm using Excel 2007, which doesn't have the ability to create combination charts. (It was added in Excel 2013.) Also, I can't seem to find a way to do it in Libre Office.

Sorry.

EDIT: Also also, I should probably rework how I construct the accuracy/AC axis. It may make things a bit more streamlined.

[Moxxmix]

Revised the level 5 and 13 comparisons. Cleaned up some stuff, and expanded the comparison range to cover all of AC 10 through AC 25. I think that will give a little better overview, and you won't see shifting graphs because the accuracy target keeps changing.

Boosts to accuracy, like Bless, just mean shifting the effective AC appropriately. For Bless, you'd drop between 1 and 4 AC points.

https://i.imgur.com/tm2XiiR.png

Level 5 gets a second feat, so the UA builds get a slight update. There's very little difference in the UA builds between AC 12 and AC 17.

You can also see where the PHB build bottoms out in accuracy, but you can also see that it hasn't reached its peak at the low end of AC.

If you look at the impact of something like Bless, you can see that if the target has a nominal AC of 15 (and thus the UA builds are well ahead of the PHB builds), Bless can take you down to somewhere around 12 AC, where pretty much everyone is doing the same average damage.

Also, if you go to level 6 (not pictured here) where the PHB picks up its second feat, and can thus catch up in Str, the PHB build shifts to matching the UA at AC 14, and thus would a substantial advantage if Bless took the effective AC down to 12.

And here's the level 13 chart again.

https://i.imgur.com/2em5FpZ.png

In this case you can see the UA PAM build hitting max accuracy against AC 12. Other UA builds are also hitting capped accuracy at low AC, though the curvy lines of this graph type can sometimes obscure that.

UA PAM getting Charger also helps it pull away from the other UA builds a bit. It also gained more from the increased crit rates at this level than the other builds.

[Rukelnikov]

snip

Thanks again for the effort you are putting in this!

However, looking at those graphs there's something that jumps to mind immediately, are you forcing GWM builds to always Power attack? The way in which they sink linearly makes me think you are forcing the -5/+10 even when its a DPR loss

[Moxxmix]

Thanks again for the effort you are putting in this!

However, looking at those graphs there's something that jumps to mind immediately, are you forcing GWM builds to always Power attack? The way in which they sink linearly makes me think you are forcing the -5/+10 even when its a DPR loss

I am, since that's sort of the point of the comparison, and why Treantmonk's video was problematic. You need to see the behavior across a wide range of accuracies to really understand each option's effect.

However you're right in that it would be good to see how the PHB build works when not using GWM's power attack. And this is actually rather interesting.

https://i.imgur.com/Cz2rCjc.png

The PHB build without using power attack is the orange line, now. You can see that power attack is the better option for anything below an AC of 20. That's likely why I didn't really think about including this variant, since pretty much all of my earlier manual comparisons were showing that including power attack was always an upgrade.

Anyway, without power attack, the PHB build is well below the UA build. It's actually down around the tank build (which only has 18 Str, rather than 20) at AC 18 or higher.

[Aimeryan]

Great analysis; many thanks. For PHB XBE + SS Archery I can essentially just go 2 AC less. Fairly easy to also add on Bless by removing 2 or 3 from the AC. Using any source of Advantage that doesn't take action economy is more difficult, however, I think just Archery and Bless pretty much show the strength of the -5/+10 when utilised. Especially considering that lower ACs are generally more likely to pop up than higher ones given single vs multiple enemy encounters.

Multiclassing is more difficult to analyse. Generally held true that martials are better off multiclassing in 5e. The UA Fighter wants to stay until at least 13, where as 5 or 6 was fine for 5e - although 11 or 12 was also an option.

For the UA calculations, were you going with 100% miss to Graze rate? I'm guessing you would Cleave if at all possible, Graze otherwise. However, it is possible to miss on a Cleave choice, without Graze then being able to help. Although, if you get to pick after dice are rolled then this chance is lowered.

[Moxxmix]

Great analysis; many thanks. For PHB XBE + SS Archery I can essentially just go 2 AC less. Fairly easy to also add on Bless by removing 2 or 3 from the AC. Using any source of Advantage that doesn't take action economy is more difficult, however, I think just Archery and Bless pretty much show the strength of the -5/+10 when utilised. Especially considering that lower ACs are generally more likely to pop up than higher ones given single vs multiple enemy encounters.

Multiclassing is more difficult to analyse. Generally held true that martials are better off multiclassing in 5e. The UA Fighter wants to stay until at least 13, where as 5 or 6 was fine for 5e - although 11 or 12 was also an option.

For the UA calculations, were you going with 100% miss to Graze rate? I'm guessing you would Cleave if at all possible, Graze otherwise. However, it is possible to miss on a Cleave choice, without Graze then being able to help. Although, if you get to pick after dice are rolled then this chance is lowered.

The spreadsheet does allow selecting the Archery fighting style, so that will be factored in with any archery builds I put together.

Yeah, UA fighter multiclassing out after 13 is kind of a hard sell, since you're giving up 2 feats to do so (fighter gets 3 more by level 20, but any multiclass would only get 1 more by level 7). Of course there may be other features you want instead, so it depends on the player.

In the spreadsheet, Graze cannot proc on a Cleave swing, but I assume you can always use it on a normal miss. In other words, you can choose the effect after the roll. Making it so that you have to choose before the roll makes the calculations a lot messier, and not something I want to deal with until the rule is clarified. Note that 2 out of the 3 readings of the rule favor this implementation, so I'm not too fussed over it.

[Dr.Samurai]

Hi Moxxmix, still doing god's work :smallcool:.

How are you factoring in Charger?

[Moxxmix]

Hi Moxxmix, still doing god's work :smallcool:.

How are you factoring in Charger?

It applies if you land the hit after you move at the target, so it multiplies the damage (4.5 for 1d8) by accuracy. It only applies to one hit, so multiple hits don't change that. And then it has a scaling factor for how often it can be used. Fighter defaults to 50%.

I had originally assumed 100% on a barbarian using it because it combined well with Retaliation and Reckless Attack. Reckless Attack only gives you advantage on your turn, and if you trigger an opportunity attack, Retaliation will get that bonus (as opposed to if you wait for the enemy to make its normal attack, you don't get advantage on Retaliation). Alternatively, use a Push weapon so you can always trigger it. Regardless, it's got the scaling factor now as well, so it can be tuned down to whatever seems appropriate.

A 50% usage rate means you're typically getting ~2.5 DPR out of it.


Also, here's the spreadsheet on Google Docs: link (https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/11emGV-oB2ijb9N1m2saXABs0iZhVLATb). Unfortunately the graph doesn't seem to be showing all the different configurations. You're probably better off downloading it to view locally.

[Mastikator]

Charger requires that you move 10 feet in a straight line. But it doesn't say you need to move in a straight line towards your target. It could actually apply to every round where you hit your target at least once. Just move in the following pattern until you hit.


^->
|X|
<-V

For 2 attacks you need to move 20 feet total around the target. If you got 3 then 30 feet.

I think it's safe to calculate that charger can be used nearly every single round.

[Dr.Samurai]

I think assuming a barbarian will trigger an OA each turn to get Charger damage, or a warrior is moving in circles around his enemy are both too generous in my eyes.

A weapon with the Push feature makes more sense, or pairing with some sort of Disengage feature (like current Mobile feat, which they nerfed in UA).

[Frogreaver]

Charger requires that you move 10 feet in a straight line. But it doesn't say you need to move in a straight line towards your target. It could actually apply to every round where you hit your target at least once. Just move in the following pattern until you hit.


^->
|X|
<-V

For 2 attacks you need to move 20 feet total around the target. If you got 3 then 30 feet.

I think it's safe to calculate that charger can be used nearly every single round.

Even if that were RAW legal, many DM's would disallow it.

[Kane0]

Or if you use hexes its also harder to circle someone in a straight line.

[Aimeryan]

More than likely they will require the 10ft be made either starting from 10ft away or be made in a straight line directly towards the target. It unlikely the circling method will remain viable.

[Gignere]

I think assuming a barbarian will trigger an OA each turn to get Charger damage, or a warrior is moving in circles around his enemy are both too generous in my eyes.

A weapon with the Push feature makes more sense, or pairing with some sort of Disengage feature (like current Mobile feat, which they nerfed in UA).

You don’t trigger the OA if you are spinning around the enemy every turn, never leaving his reach. It’s RAW to do so in the UA right now but I bet that gets cleaned up.

[Dr.Samurai]

You don’t trigger the OA if you are spinning around the enemy every turn, never leaving his reach. It’s RAW to do so in the UA right now but I bet that gets cleaned up.
They mentioned the barbarian moving away and triggering an OA. This allows the barbarian to use Retaliation with Reckless on it, and cover the 10ft for Charger.

[Gignere]

They mentioned the barbarian moving away and triggering an OA. This allows the barbarian to use Retaliation with Reckless on it, and cover the 10ft for Charger.

I think that’s a legit way of using it though. High risk high rewards is how I’ve always seen the berserker barbarian. Give an OA to gain charger and retaliation.

[Dr.Samurai]

I think that’s a legit way of using it though. High risk high rewards is how I’ve always seen the berserker barbarian. Give an OA to gain charger and retaliation.
It’s legit as in rules legal. I’m not sure we should assume it for these calculations though.

You’re not gaining Retaliation. You’re gaining Advantage on Retaliation, because presumably your enemy will trigger it on their turn anyway.

I’m not sure it’s worth taking an extra attack, even combined with Charger.

[Moxxmix]

At level 12 barbarian, against a mid-range target (AC 17, 65% base hit rate), going from 50% Charger to 100% is worth about 2.2 DPR, and going from basic to Reckless Retaliation is also worth about 2.2 DPR. This is out of 64 total DPR, so maybe a 7% gain in damage.

If the enemy is attacking you twice per round normally, giving it an OA is basically increasing damage taken by 50%. Probably not a good trade in most circumstances, but it's available as an option.

I am going to need to redo the spreadsheet to differentiate between on-turn and off-turn Retaliation, though.


EDIT: Double-checked with the proper on-turn/off-turn toggle, and yeah, going from 50% to 100% Charge with on-turn Retaliation is about 4 to 4.5 DPR.

Though now I think I might actually be undervaluing Retaliation. I'm basing the proc rate on the chance to hit the barbarian depending on whether Reckless is active or not, at 60% or 80% without/with Reckless. However multiple attacks is going to greatly increase the odds of getting hit, and the forced OA proc will increase that even more. And even that's assuming the barbarian has semi-decent AC to drop the base hit rate down that far.

So, given that Retaliation is a level 10+ feature, do you think it's safe to assume an enemy will get two attack attempts (three with OA) against the barbarian each round?

[Witty Username]

In any case, I think you have shown that before high levels that 5e PAM+GWM scales far better with accuracy and is easily higher than the UA equivalent. I don't want to presume Chris (Treatmonk) purposely chose the accuracy and level to showcase the UA version, but the video claim was 'better across the board' which I don't find valid.
Treantmonk uses 60% in all his videos (if it is raising its primary ability score at 4th and 8th, he will drop it a bit if it delays the primary in comparison to his baseline warlock, to represent the accuracy hit).

This is part of why him and Pack Tactics disagree on stuff, PT has switched to an assumed 75% baseline according to his last video.

[Moxxmix]

Treantmonk uses 60% in all his videos (if it is raising its primary ability score at 4th and 8th, he will drop it a bit if it delays the primary in comparison to his baseline warlock, to represent the accuracy hit).

This is part of why him and Pack Tactics disagree on stuff, PT has switched to an assumed 75% baseline according to his last video.

Yeah, and it's also why both of their analyses are misleading. While I'm proud of the work I've done with the spreadsheets, I didn't start off with them, instead making the same mistake in my first few posts of using a single assumed accuracy. Seeing the graphs really makes it a lot easier to understand the broader impact of the changes.

[Witty Username]

Even if that were RAW legal, many DM's would disallow it.

I think it depends,

The suround and destroy, feels cheesy, but does fit some super hero fantasy vibes (would I let a monk do it, I think it fits)

The drive-by, say charge perpendicular to the target, and hit it with at attack on the front and back of their reach for both chargers. I would say that actually feels pretty good I a one strike, two cuts kinda way.

YMMV, but it kinda fits high fantasy tropes we have in other media

[Moxxmix]

So, moving away from the VH+PAM+GWM stuff (because it's clearly broken, and needs to be removed in order for the combat system to be reasonably balanced), I wanted to look at how well some other basic builds work compared to the PHB.

Here's a chart for a very basic alternate build: a dwarf barbarian at 4th level who wants to dual-wield battleaxes.

https://i.imgur.com/QKYeTEQ.png

Both the PHB and UA need to get the Dual Wielder feat, though the PHB allows the use of battleaxes in both hands, while the UA requires that the second weapon still be light, so I used battleaxe/handaxe. (You could also use a scimitar instead of handaxe if you want to free up the bonus action, but that doesn't matter much for barbarian. I kept with the axe theme, and Vex is also useful later.)

The UA dual wield build picks up the TWF fighting style at level 1, and the UA greatsword build picks up the GWF fighting style at level 1.

Against AC 14, the PHB dual wield build is at 14 DPR, the greatsword build has 23, the UA dual wield build has 25, and the PAM build has 26.

The PAM build is still better, but only marginally. The TWF build fits right in between the PAM and GWM builds, getting close to twice the DPR of the PHB build.

This also doesn't account for the potential for Topple to proc from the battleaxe, which can boost the damage of other party members, increasing your total effective DPR.

As an extra data point, here's level 5 with extra attack:

https://i.imgur.com/2VQ0q4Z.png

The greatsword benefits more from the extra attack than the PAM or TWF builds do, allowing it to pull ahead. The DPRs at AC 14 are at 24 (PHB TWF), 36 (UA TWF), 38 (PAM) and 40 (GWM).

The gap with the other UA builds is still small (and likely overcome with Topple for the party), and the improvement over the PHB build is huge.


Back to level 4, worst case is being without Rage or Reckless Attack. That looks like this:

https://i.imgur.com/vo7fMMC.png

The UA TWF build loses out a fair bit compared to the two-handed builds because they're being propped up by Graze. However it's important to remember that the handaxe is a Vex weapon, which gives advantage to the next battleaxe attack you make, while the battleaxe is a Topple weapon, which, if it lands, gives advantage to both your handaxe and anyone else trying to melee that enemy.

If you put that advantage back in place (mimicked by putting Reckless Attack back on, even if you don't actually get that full benefit), the graph looks like this:

https://i.imgur.com/dxZzJ7f.png

So the TWF build pulls ahead, though the reality is more likely to have it falling between the glaive and the greatsword again, because advantage isn't going to be completely reliable.


In summary: While there are certainly some choices that are more optimal than others from a pure DPR standpoint, I definitely feel like the UA combat balance is far better than the PHB one.

[Moxxmix]

Another set of comparisons. Doing this at levels 5-6.

First, a barbarian using a shield:

https://i.imgur.com/o72rFt4.png

This compares a barbarian using a warhammer/shield combo with two-handed options in the UA, as well as the warhammer/shield setup in the PHB.

The UA warhammer/shield is pretty close to the PAM and GWM options, and far above the PHB version. The PHB version is low enough that you normally wouldn't even consider it when thinking about a barbarian build.

Note that level 5 is a significant upgrade for this build. Before extra attack, a weapon/shield combo is a fair bit weaker compared to the two-handed options. Despite that, it is still a pretty hefty impovement over the PHB.

Note that the UA warhammer build took the Dueling fighting style at level 1. The greataxe build took Great Weapon Fighting. The polearm didn't take a damage boost.


Next, another look at some fighter builds. This was done at level 6 so that both the UA and PHB get their second feat. The UA builds would look the same at level 5. The race is anything other than variant human, so that a third feat isn't messing up the comparison.

https://i.imgur.com/ApQoWlw.png

The PHB PAM+GWM build is shown for comparison.

All the UA builds are fairly clustered, ranging from a simple rapier/shield combo up to a PAM+GWM polearm build. Rapier/Shortsword is on par with dual hand crossbows. A PHB rapier/shield build is also shown as a comparison to the UA rapier/shield option, and also to show how massive the gap is between that and the PHB's PAM+GWM build.

Also note that the only UA build with two feats is the PAM+GWM build. Rapier/Shield has Shield Master, Rapier/Shortsword has Dual Wielder, and Crossbow/Crossbow has Crossbow Expert. A second damage feat for them (for example, Charger) would push them closer together with the PAM+GWM build. I just didn't add that because it didn't feel like it fit, and to show that even without going for that, these feel like reasonable choices relative to each other. There's plenty of room for other build paths.

[Mastikator]

More than likely they will require the 10ft be made either starting from 10ft away or be made in a straight line directly towards the target. It unlikely the circling method will remain viable.

Why are we using "what will be in the 2024 PHB" (or what UA RAW legal that DMs will still overrule) for calculating the DPR for the UA?

[ZRN]

Another set of comparisons. Doing this at levels 5-6.

First, a barbarian using a shield:

https://i.imgur.com/o72rFt4.png

This compares a barbarian using a warhammer/shield combo with two-handed options in the UA, as well as the warhammer/shield setup in the PHB.

The UA warhammer/shield is pretty close to the PAM and GWM options, and far above the PHB version. The PHB version is low enough that you normally wouldn't even consider it when thinking about a barbarian build.

Note that level 5 is a significant upgrade for this build. Before extra attack, a weapon/shield combo is a fair bit weaker compared to the two-handed options. Despite that, it is still a pretty hefty impovement over the PHB.

Note that the UA warhammer build took the Dueling fighting style at level 1. The greataxe build took Great Weapon Fighting. The polearm didn't take a damage boost.


Next, another look at some fighter builds. This was done at level 6 so that both the UA and PHB get their second feat. The UA builds would look the same at level 5. The race is anything other than variant human, so that a third feat isn't messing up the comparison.

https://i.imgur.com/ApQoWlw.png

The PHB PAM+GWM build is shown for comparison.

All the UA builds are fairly clustered, ranging from a simple rapier/shield combo up to a PAM+GWM polearm build. Rapier/Shortsword is on par with dual hand crossbows. A PHB rapier/shield build is also shown as a comparison to the UA rapier/shield option, and also to show how massive the gap is between that and the PHB's PAM+GWM build.

Also note that the only UA build with two feats is the PAM+GWM build. Rapier/Shield has Shield Master, Rapier/Shortsword has Dual Wielder, and Crossbow/Crossbow has Crossbow Expert. A second damage feat for them (for example, Charger) would push them closer together with the PAM+GWM build. I just didn't add that because it didn't feel like it fit, and to show that even without going for that, these feel like reasonable choices relative to each other. There's plenty of room for other build paths.

Thanks for continuing to expand on the line of comparisons here. These particular charts point to my favorite aspect of this play test. You’ll note that in e.g. the war hammer+shield example, in 5e an optimized PAM+GWM did about double the damage of a warhammer+shield. Now the shield guy is lower by a much more reasonable range, at least arguably commensurate with the other benefits he gets by carrying a shield.

[Aimeryan]

Why are we using "what will be in the 2024 PHB" (or what UA RAW legal that DMs will still overrule) for calculating the DPR for the UA?

I think you mean, 'why are we not using what is UA legal currently?' - correct?
Otherwise, if you really mean 'why are we using what is UA legal currently?' then the answer would be that its what we have to work with.

The answer to why we may choose to not use things that are currently legal in the UA, but highly suspicious of remaining so, is that we should both use them and not use them to see what shakes out if they get changed. The only question then is trying to figure out what is likely to change, which I personally expect Charger to fall under due to past experience with straight towards them wording for charging bonuses.

[Dr.Samurai]

What's informing the differences between PHB and UA versions of "weapon+shield" builds?

Is it being able to take Dueling Fighting Style at level 1 without Variant Human? Or increased accuracy in some way? It's not clear to me why such a massive difference.

[Moxxmix]

What's informing the differences between PHB and UA versions of "weapon+shield" builds?

Is it being able to take Dueling Fighting Style at level 1 without Variant Human? Or increased accuracy in some way? It's not clear to me why such a massive difference.

Mostly the Dueling fighting style on the barbarian side (fighter could have already gotten it), and partly the weapon mastery — either Flex for more straight damage (more useful for barbarian), or Vex for more advantage (more useful for fighter).

[Moxxmix]

So, I'm wading into the nightmare of trying to model Vex on a rogue.

I'm assuming rogue will get at least 1 weapon mastery, possibly 2 by level 4. I've attempted to put in a semi-proper model of Vex, and graphed a handful of builds.

There's no extra damage feat included on any of these, although the UA builds take a fighting style at level 1 (either TWF or Dueling).

https://i.imgur.com/b9SLOMQ.png

This assumes a 90% opportunity chance to use Sneak Attack.

This shows that going from shortsword/shortsword (Vex/Vex) to shortsword/scimitar (Vex/Nick) doesn't actually lose very much damage. One-handed rapier is a bit below those, but still decent. All of them are a decent bit above the PHB option.

Take this with a grain of salt, as the use of weapon masteries here is entirely speculative.

[Aimeryan]

So, I'm wading into the nightmare of trying to model Vex on a rogue.

I'm assuming rogue will get at least 1 weapon mastery, possibly 2 by level 4. I've attempted to put in a semi-proper model of Vex, and graphed a handful of builds.

There's no extra damage feat included on any of these, although the UA builds take a fighting style at level 1 (either TWF or Dueling).

[Snip]

Could you take a shot at Vex/Vex HXB/HXB Rogue?

Vex is one of those that looks a lot stronger than it is. It is also doubles down on success, while doing nothing to help when things don't go your way. However, in terms of resource conservation throughout the day it is likely one of the stronger Masteries.

[Frogreaver]

Can someone provide a summary of the masteries and what they do?

[Dr.Samurai]

I think a comparison without feats would be worthwhile, as the idea is that the big damage now comes from the class and features. (I will try to do this some time this week.)

@Frogreaver:

Graze - Deal damage on a miss (equal to Strength or Proficiency, don't remember which, damage can't increase)
Cleave - When you hit a creature, make another attack against a creature within reach that is also within 5ft of that creature, don't apply ability mod to this damage.
Vex - If you hit, get Advantage on next attack
Push - If you hit, push target up to 10ft (within 1 size of you)
Topple - Knock enemy prone on a hit, they make a Con save vs your DC
Sap - Target gets Disadvantage on next attack
Flex - Versatile weapons deal Versatile damage even in one hand
Slow - Reduce target speed by 10ft once per turn
Nick - TWF doesn't cost your bonus action

[Moxxmix]

Could you take a shot at Vex/Vex HXB/HXB Rogue?

Vex is one of those that looks a lot stronger than it is. It is also doubles down on success, while doing nothing to help when things don't go your way. However, in terms of resource conservation throughout the day it is likely one of the stronger Masteries.

By HXB, you mean... Hexblade? Hand Crossbow? I'm going to guess Hand Crossbow.

https://i.imgur.com/fQIGscW.png

The hand crossbow/hand crossbow build (replacing the PHB build in the previous graph) comes out on top, though that's partly because it's also getting a level 4 feat, Crossbow Expert, which gives it the equivalent of the TWF that the melee took while also allowing the Archery fighting style for another +2 accuracy.


Also, I wanted to do a comparison between Vex and pure advantage. The next graph shows the Vex builds as a percentage of damage that you'd get with a scenario where you have 100% advantage, to see how close those sets get to that ideal.

https://i.imgur.com/RHNIi7H.png

Melee Vex/Vex starts at 99% at AC 10, and gets 94% of true advantage against AC 16. Vex/Nick starts at 95% at AC 10, and gets 84% against AC 16. The Archery Vex/Vex is even closer, maintaining 96% of true advantage against AC 16.

All fall off more as AC continues to get higher, but at normal expected ACs at this level, they're pretty effective.

I also put a baseline shortsword/shortsword without any Vex (but still has TWF) as a comparison. The Vex/Nick gains are modest, but useful, while the Vex/Vex gains are pretty decent.

[Moxxmix]

Here's another comparison. I made a version of shortsword/shortsword that used Graze/Graze instead of Vex/Vex, just to see how much value those masteries have relative to each other in a spreadsheet that does Vex properly (instead of the cheat that I used when estimating it on barbarian).

https://i.imgur.com/0MHepti.png

It starts off at AC 10 doing the same damage as a shortsword/scimitar (Vex/Nick) combo, and is below the Vex/Vex combos. It matches the shortsword Vex/Vex build at AC 18. It matches the hand crossbow build with the Archery boost at AC 23.

So it's not as good as pure Vex at the low AC end, but does better than Vex/Nick as ACs increase, and eventually overtakes pure Vex when Vex isn't able to sustain advantage sufficiently often.

For reference, 18 AC is a 50% hit rate on these builds, which are done at level 5 (+7 to hit from 4 Dex and 3 Prof).

Also, I checked while reducing Sneak Attack damage to almost none (since damage additions like SA reduce the value of Graze), and the curves look basically the same, except the crossover point happens at AC 16 (shortsword) and AC 19 (crossbow). That's probably more indicative of how they'd compare in other classes.

Overall, the concerns that Vex greatly overshadows the other mastery options like Graze appear to be unfounded. They're performing at close to the same level, and the differences aren't enough that I'd consider one to be a "gimp" choice.

[Moxxmix]

And now a combo chart, looking at how the classes compare. I decided on level 11, as that's when fighter gets its third attack. Barbarian also gets Brutal Critical, and rogue goes up to 6d6 Sneak Attack, though neither of those are getting significant damage upgrades at this point.

Also, since it's before level 12, only the fighter has enough feats to reach 20 Str. The barbarian is at 19 Str, and the rogue is at 19 Dex.

https://i.imgur.com/TB723ax.png

The barbarian took PAM+GWM as his two feats, but did not take GWF fighting style at level 1. He's fighting with a glaive.

The rogue took TWF at level 1, and Speedster and Charger at levels 4 and 8. He's fighting with a shortsword/scimitar combo. It's less Vex damage, but Nick allows easy use of Cunning Action, which should at least allow plenty of Disengage to open up a chance at a Charge (either during this turn or next turn). I gave him a 90% Charge rate.

The fighter took PAM, GWM, and Sentinel. He also took GWF as a fighting style. His level 1 feat is open.

I also added an entry for the barbarian when Rage and Reckless Attack were down.

Note that there's no Retaliation included in the barbarian totals. However there's likewise no opportunity attacks included for the fighter (who's also using a PAM weapon, and has Sentinel), or opportunity attack Sneak Attacks for the rogue (even though they're not available for the current UA version).

While the Retaliation damage is a good chunk (about +8 DPR or so), I figured it wasn't fair to include those reaction attacks and not the others.

The barbarian and fighter builds were roughly the best setups I've found. The rogue is better off using the hand crossbow build at higher ACs (15+), but this is solid, and I liked the speed-focused build.


Overall, the barbarian is the strongest while Rage is up, but the weakest while Rage is down. A fair trade, especially with more uses for Rage competing with combat. If you're willing to use Reckless Attack while Rage is down, it bumps the curve up fairly close to the rogue.

Likewise, the fighter outdamages the rogue, while the rogue gets more non-damage benefits (better defense, skills, etc). Again, it feels justified.

I'm not feeling like things are out of line with expectations for the different classes. It's harder to say if the actual damage quantity is where it needs to be. Given the boosts in damage to be more in line with the old power attack builds, I suspect this is close to where WotC wants to set expectations of damage output. Or at least, the higher end of output, given the other options now available that aren't too much of a loss in damage potential.

[Gignere]

And now a combo chart, looking at how the classes compare. I decided on level 11, as that's when fighter gets its third attack. Barbarian also gets Brutal Critical, and rogue goes up to 6d6 Sneak Attack, though neither of those are getting significant damage upgrades at this point.

Also, since it's before level 12, only the fighter has enough feats to reach 20 Str. The barbarian is at 19 Str, and the rogue is at 19 Dex.

https://i.imgur.com/TB723ax.png

The barbarian took PAM+GWM as his two feats, but did not take GWF fighting style at level 1. He's fighting with a glaive.

The rogue took TWF at level 1, and Speedster and Charger at levels 4 and 8. He's fighting with a shortsword/scimitar combo. It's less Vex damage, but Nick allows easy use of Cunning Action, which should at least allow plenty of Disengage to open up a chance at a Charge (either during this turn or next turn). I gave him a 90% Charge rate.

The fighter took PAM, GWM, and Sentinel. He also took GWF as a fighting style. His level 1 feat is open.

I also added an entry for the barbarian when Rage and Reckless Attack were down.

Note that there's no Retaliation included in the barbarian totals. However there's likewise no opportunity attacks included for the fighter (who's also using a PAM weapon, and has Sentinel), or opportunity attack Sneak Attacks for the rogue (even though they're not available for the current UA version).

While the Retaliation damage is a good chunk (about +8 DPR or so), I figured it wasn't fair to include those reaction attacks and not the others.

The barbarian and fighter builds were roughly the best setups I've found. The rogue is better off using the hand crossbow build at higher ACs (15+), but this is solid, and I liked the speed-focused build.


Overall, the barbarian is the strongest while Rage is up, but the weakest while Rage is down. A fair trade, especially with more uses for Rage competing with combat. If you're willing to use Reckless Attack while Rage is down, it bumps the curve up fairly close to the rogue.

Likewise, the fighter outdamages the rogue, while the rogue gets more non-damage benefits (better defense, skills, etc). Again, it feels justified.

I'm not feeling like things are out of line with expectations for the different classes. It's harder to say if the actual damage quantity is where it needs to be. Given the boosts in damage to be more in line with the old power attack builds, I suspect this is close to where WotC wants to set expectations of damage output. Or at least, the higher end of output, given the other options now available that aren't too much of a loss in damage potential.

The problem is current UA rogue doesn’t natively get weapon mastery at all.

[Moxxmix]

The problem is current UA rogue doesn’t natively get weapon mastery at all.

The info we have suggests that it will, so it's reasonable to work from that assumption for the time being. If it doesn't, we can revisit the question.

[Aimeryan]

By HXB, you mean... Hexblade? Hand Crossbow? I'm going to guess Hand Crossbow.

The hand crossbow/hand crossbow build (replacing the PHB build in the previous graph) comes out on top, though that's partly because it's also getting a level 4 feat, Crossbow Expert, which gives it the equivalent of the TWF that the melee took while also allowing the Archery fighting style for another +2 accuracy.

[snip]

Great, thanks! I'll have to parse through it all later due to work commitments right now, just wanted to briefly say I was considering 'dual-wielding' Hand Crossbows using the Light mechanic (Bonus Action) rather than the XBE Feat per say. The new equip/sheath rules allow the interaction once per every attack, which means you can gain the benefits of dual-wielding while only having one weapon in hand at a time (which allows for loading due to the free hand). Not sure how that changes things in the first graph - not at all if I understand correctly, since you didn't take a feat on other builds to compensate anyhow?

[Moxxmix]

Great, thanks! I'll have to parse through it all later due to work commitments right now, just wanted to briefly say I was considering 'dual-wielding' Hand Crossbows using the Light mechanic (Bonus Action) rather than the XBE Feat per say. The new equip/sheath rules allow the interaction once per every attack, which means you can gain the benefits of dual-wielding while only having one weapon in hand at a time (which allows for loading due to the free hand). Not sure how that changes things in the first graph - not at all if I understand correctly, since you didn't take a feat on other builds to compensate anyhow?

I included Crossbow Expert for the ability to add Dex to the offhand attack while also taking the Archery fighting style for extra accuracy. Also, to get rid of the penalty for firing in melee.

You could just use the TWF fighting style and some other feat to raise Dex to 18, though it would just give you the same results as the shortsword/shortsword combo, while also having disadvantage with melee attacks. The other builds took some non-specified feat at level 4 to raise Dex to 18, but nothing that directly affected damage. (For example, Speedster.)

The loading mechanic benefit doesn't actually matter for rogues, since you don't get extra attack, and thus would only ever be able to fire once from any given crossbow each turn in the first place.

As for needing a free hand to load the ammunition... That part of the rules actually doesn't make sense when combined with the wording of the Crossbow Expert feat. That likely needs some clarification.

The single-weapon dual-wield exploit is clearly just that — an exploit. I fully expect that to have its language polished up, and it shouldn't be treated as a legitimate build option.

[Aimeryan]

I included Crossbow Expert for the ability to add Dex to the offhand attack while also taking the Archery fighting style for extra accuracy. Also, to get rid of the penalty for firing in melee.

You could just use the TWF fighting style and some other feat to raise Dex to 18, though it would just give you the same results as the shortsword/shortsword combo, while also having disadvantage with melee attacks. The other builds took some non-specified feat at level 4 to raise Dex to 18, but nothing that directly affected damage. (For example, Speedster.)

The loading mechanic benefit doesn't actually matter for rogues, since you don't get extra attack, and thus would only ever be able to fire once from any given crossbow each turn in the first place.

As for needing a free hand to load the ammunition... That part of the rules actually doesn't make sense when combined with the wording of the Crossbow Expert feat. That likely needs some clarification.

The single-weapon dual-wield exploit is clearly just that — an exploit. I fully expect that to have its language polished up, and it shouldn't be treated as a legitimate build option.

True, I meant the ammunition property, rather than the loading property - good catch. I agree the Light property should get fixed. However, as you mention, the XBE point would then need fixing in turn since you wouldn't be able load the ammunition. So, they either do consider the Light property weapon switching as legitimate OR they only want you getting the Light property extra attack once per combat.

How are we getting the Archery fighting style for the Rogue?

[Moxxmix]

True, I meant the ammunition property, rather than the loading property - good catch. I agree the Light property should get fixed. However, as you mention, the XBE point would then need fixing in turn since you wouldn't be able load the ammunition. So, they either do consider the Light property weapon switching as legitimate OR they only want you getting the Light property extra attack once per combat.

How are we getting the Archery fighting style for the Rogue?

The Archery fighting style is a level 1 feat, so you can take it as your background feat when creating the character. This also applies to other fighting styles, such as the Two Weapon Fighting I took for the other dual-wielding builds.

[Damon_Tor]

By HXB, you mean... Hexblade? Hand Crossbow? I'm going to guess Hand Crossbow.

https://i.imgur.com/fQIGscW.png

The hand crossbow/hand crossbow build (replacing the PHB build in the previous graph) comes out on top, though that's partly because it's also getting a level 4 feat, Crossbow Expert, which gives it the equivalent of the TWF that the melee took while also allowing the Archery fighting style for another +2 accuracy.

A TWF rogue can use darts and benefit from archery style.

[Moxxmix]

A TWF rogue can use darts and benefit from archery style.

The only way to get two fighting styles to start with is to pick human as a race, since they get another 1st level feat. Otherwise you'd have to trade the normal 4th level feat out level 4, which would mean giving up the +1 Dex that you want.

While it is possible, I tried to keep things as race-neutral as possible, so only one fighting style at most.

[ZRN]

If we're looking at rogues and rangers (and rather than randomly assuming they get weapon expertise for free at first level), probably the most concerning data point for me would be how much benefit they get from a one-level dip in fighter (weapon expertise AND fighting style).