Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="ClaytonCross" data-source="post: 8283901" data-attributes="member: 6880599">... so what is your point with this statement? ... This exercise is not about being fair or their would be no "best" and no point in doing it.  It would indeed look different at every level, but it would still not be "fair" at any level and their would always be a winner often different than the one level below or above because of the shift of features. However its reasonable to say most games will start at level 1 making it the most common level anyone can 100% achieve since characters some times die before level 2 and what data we do have confirms that many many players don't play above level 10. That has certainly been true at table I have played because many of GMs ended their campaigns around there because they round them to complicated and characters too powerful for their fun in disregard to player enjoyment. Adding to that every level adds complexity and requires more knowledge of class features combinations with less chance of characters that use them. The higher you go the less viable and relevant the conversation becomes because the chance of players bringing them to the table, surviving to that level, or being at the level of when they would be the paragon of defense/offense creates a massive diminishment in returns on the exercise.Wow... Two new winners. Awesome job.I am surprised no one else (including me) realized the same archer build could be used with a rogue.I am actually fairly happy to see a Warlock on the list. I went ahead and left the Forge Cleric as an Honorable mention because that is a super close run off but of course close only counts for horseshoes and hand grenades so the Warlock wins.Of course. I put that in the rules. I had a long thread discussion in the past about using percentages to hit and how they are actually no more accurate or less white room than this due to the 0 sum of a miss and that while the monster manual may average about AC15 for monsters that in no way reflects the monster(s) your GM chooses to run against you, or the reduction of actual damage from over kill.I choose to ignore misses because they are 0 damage and not variable between characters. I put a damage range to show possibility and an average for realistic expectations. The exercise however is for the highest possible damage which makes for a static clear goal no matter the enemy you fight or how many times you miss. It is the only solid/static metric in this conversation due to it being about a fluid game of random roles and variable enemies.For example:  In a level 1 encounter that lasts 10 turns,  it is completely possible for your Human Variant Great weapon Master to not be able to get to an enemy an enemy for 3 of the turns ( 0 damage x3), Have enemies killed by your heavy crossbow rogue holding his action on 2 turns (0 damage x2), The warlock misses 2 attacks vs a <a href="https://www.dndbeyond.com/monsters/hobgoblin" target="_blank">Hobgoblin</a> he is able to engage with its AC18 (0 damage x2). Roles a crit with a natural 20, roles max damage of 31 on the 11 HP hobgoblin (11 damage). Also one shots 2 Goblins with AC15 and HP 7 along the way (14 damage).   ... A 10 round damage total of 25 damage... with the potential of 310 damage, an expectation of 235 damage, but still possibly happy with 3 kills because the Warlock only had 11 hit point, got hit, healed, and hit again and is barely hanging on with 2 hit points, just glad to have survived the fight.So yes, its not true reflection of play, or fair, but it is still useful and more to the point a fun exercise. AC... is actually way more useful than damage (especially if your planning to play the party "tank") but people want to focus on damage to the conversation tends to get pulled there.</blockquote>

Verification