Crunch kinda sucks. Maybe if you’re a stats major or some sort of megalomaniac who can only draw confidence from BIG FRICKING NUMBERS, this sort of thing appeals to you. It all seems pretty dry to me. The least interesting aspect of any given rule system has got to be the math. The excitement of rolling dice will always be there, and that isn’t the problem. The problem comes from dealing with five or six separate modifiers (including purely temporary, conditional ones) that are theoretically dictated to us through books. That the entire Skill Challenge mechanic has been steadily patched since 2008 without really hitting a sweet spot convinces me even more that the whole thing completely falls apart without imaginative play and storytelling.

So, let’s talk about crunch.

I’ve read quite a few blogs lately that have debated the relative merits of Essentials classes versus their vanilla 4e counterparts (and, for reference, you will never see Essentials referred to here by any other imagined name). At issue are simplified mechanics and potential decrease in damage output. I am writing this as no expert; instead, what I would like to do is approach similar classes from both product lines and see how they stack up purely in terms of potential damage output.

One note: I am not a fan of pregenerated ability arrays. I let my PCs use them in my last campaign, but never again will I be doing so. This DM is a 4d6 man, and he’ll be one until Gary tells him to stop. For argument’s sake, I’ll simply say that the theoretical player happened to roll up an 18 and two 16s for their primary stats.

Barbarian VS. Slayer

The Barbarian class returned to D&D in the second Player’s Handbook. She is listed as a primal striker. Unlike a majority of strikes, barbs add 6 hit points per level instead 5; a barbarian will gain 30 hit points in five levels compared to the rogue’s 25. Their base hp is 15+CON, and the begin with a +2 to Fortitude. They begin with only light armor proficiencies and are not proficient with ranged weapons. In a day, a barb will be able to spend 8+CON healing surges. Their trained skills list reflects the sort of crazed survivalist that the primal power source favors.

The Slayer, premiered in Heroes of the Fallen Lands, starts with an identical 15+CON hit points, gains 6 per level, and receives a +2 to Fortitude.  They begin with proficiencies in all armor types except plate, proficiency with all melee and ranged weapons, and have a class skills list that reflects more of a thuggish background (Streetwise is an interesting choice in terms of potential backgrounds). The other primary difference is the 9+CON healing surge total.

This is all to say that, in so far as crunch is concerned, a level 1 Barbarian and a level 1 Slayer are going to feel nearly identical. The flavor is different (and players will hopefully rise to the occasion of fleshing out these characters to be separate people), but the numbers will line up nicely. I don’t want to overdo this comparison, so I will only compare abilities at levels 1 and 5 to save time.

The Barbarian starts with two at-wills; let’s take Devastating Strike. Assuming that we dumped our 18 into strength, took the Feral Might build options and used a greataxe for the attack, the to-hit bonus on this would be +6 and the max potential damage would be 24 (1d12+1d8+4[STR]), or an average of 16 (there’s also a penalty in the form of a +2 to attacks against the characters for a turn afterward). At level 5, the character could theoretically expend a Rage Strike on the same attack and pull off a +8 to hit before feats (4[STR]+2[Proficiency]+2[half-level]) and deal a potential 48 damage with an at-will ability! That’s a little crazy, and is somewhat tempered by the average that would hover closer to 29 (3d12+1d8+4[STR]). It would also mean she would be done with rage abilities that day, which would probably make this particular attack inadvisable.

A level one Striker gains inherent bonuses to attacks and damage out of the gate; DEX is added to damage, and a static +1 to all attacks. She also gains stances instead of at-wills. Assuming that the Slayer in question is also using a greataxe, has assumed the Battle Wrath stance, and uses her 1/encounter Power Strike ability, she would have a to-hit bonus of +7 (4[STR]+2[Proficiency]+1[Weapon Talent class feature]) and a maximum potential damage of 33 (1d12+4[STR]+1d12[Power Strike]+3[DEX]+2[Battle Wrath]). The average damage will be 23, versus 16 for the similar Barbarian attack…it is worth noting, however, that after this strike the Slayer will be stuck pulling basic melee attacks with damage of around 16, and a ceiling of 21. At level five, the same attack would be a +9 to-hit with a maximum of 35 damage (2d12[Attack+Power Strike]+4[STR]+2[stance]+5[2+DEX]), with an average of 25. She could also pull this off twice in one battle.

Barbarian At-Will
Attack Bonus (levels 1, 5): +6/+8
Damage (levels 1, 5): 16/24, 29/48 (average first, max second)

Slayer At-Will
Attack Bonus (levels 1, 5): +7/+9
Damage (levels 1, 5): 23/33, 25/35

What emerges makes sense mechanically. Essentials products strive to replicate something of the old-school feel that martial-type characters had by basing their combat mechanics on basic melee attacks. The only way to make that competitive with their vanilla 4e counterparts is to make their damage more consistently high on average, and to rely less on conditional bonuses. Rolling 2d12 is a lot safer bet than rolling 3d12+1d8; the question is would you “let it ride” on the Barbarian or put your money in the bank with the Slayer? Higher potential damage is no clear indicator that it will be consistent. The Slayer, insofar as I care, also has the added advantage of practically zero power cards.

Alright, no more crunch tonight. Which would you take? The ballistic striker Barbarian, or the consistent (but nevertheless battle-crazed) Slayer?