# The final word on DPR, feats and class balance



## CapnZapp (Jun 2, 2018)

There's way too many threads and retreads about this subject. 

Let me once and for all state the beef about all of this.

In the beginning there is the fighting man, doing 1d8+5 with his sword once per round (and more often at higher levels).

This is the baseline I feel monsters are built for.

This is also my ideal game. No matter your archetype, you will deal comparable damage. If you give up a shield, you gain an appropriate damage bonus. This might be upping the damage die to d12 (which really is 2 less AC for 2 more damage). It might mean slightly more than that.  It does _not_ mean upping your damage maximum by 10 and getting pretty frequent bonus attacks.

If you are a frail combatant you are compensated. Either by getting relatively few big-punch actions (ie spells), or getting more damage (to explain why the party lets in a weak chain; ie rogues)

Fighting with a sickle, two clubs, a halberd... it's mostly a fashion statement. Sure historically better weapons could give you a slight nod, but not so much that players feel they have to stick with only a few weapons. If a "good" weapon gives you a point extra damage over a "cool" weapon, that's enough to flag real life. Much more than that, and you're asking cool concepts to sacrifice basic utility just for show.

---

Problem #1 is, any group of reasonably experienced D&D gamers create characters with MUCH more damage than that.

The 5th edition PHB is MUCH more generous with various goodies that allow PCs to run circles around monsters and play with them.

Problem #2 is, there exists far too many archetypes that can't do much more damage than that.

Problem #1 means that in any game with feats, multiclassing and magic items monsters (especially at high levels) stop working as listed, requiring DMs to tweak them or outright replace them. I'm sick and tired of not being able to just pull out a stock monster and use it as-is with zero prep, just because my players aren't newbie carebears that are content with not using the options in the PHB!

Problem #2 means that loads of cool archetypes gets thrown by the wayside simply because it is no fun to be half as effective as the other guy, and some notion of "realism" told the designers only some archetypes get to be effective. Guy with greatsword, okay. Gal with throwing knives, fuggedaboudit.

---

The deep flaws does not end there.

Even if we say "no feats" the problems do not disappear. 

Warlocks and Sorcerers can do MUCH more damage (than 1d8+5 per attack, and one attack per tier). 

I'm not talking about area attacks or save-or-suck spells. Those are, after all, quite limited in numbers.

I'm talking about Eldritch Blast. (For instance, limit Agonizing Blast to 30 ft!) I'm talking about twinned Fire Bolt. 

A Dragon Sorcerer isn't that much more frail (and definitely not nearly as frail as a land druid or wizard or lore bard), and can twin Fire Bolt all day, converting most of her considerable spell slots into sorcery points for metamagic (and keeping some slots for Shield etc).

At HUGE ranges. 

---

The despairing realization is that feats are NEEDED for martials to keep up. 

I would never play a regular fighter in a feat-less game, when I could do just as much or even more damage with cantrip classes.

The problem with "feats are needed" is of course that this leaves a lot of archetypes in the dust. 

For example, there is NO feat to up the damage of Rogues. Only greatweapons, polearms, and for some reason hand crossbows. 

I would much more prefer it if EVERY high level fighter dealt frightening amounts of damage, even when they attack you with a spoon.

And, in order for monster stat blocks to keep working, that "frightening damage" was not significantly more than 1d12+5 per attack.

---

Saying "no feats in my game" doesn't work, not unless you ban cantrips too.

You can't just nerf feats like GWM, since that does nothing for the cantrips.

I'm getting the impression the whole edition is helplessly lopsided and that there is no easy fix 

I'm getting the sinking feeling that in order to achieve a balanced edition, most if not all of the below is needed:

* nerf or re-price feats
(The other option, adding feats for underutilized concepts does not work since the maximum DPR is far too high for the Monster Manual as it is. If a greatsword no longer does MUCH more damage than throwing axes or a spear maybe these options will actually see use by DPR-sensitive players)
* nerf cantrips (with or without feats). Thankfully this is only warlock blast and sorcerer twinning, afaik.
* nerf ranged attacks more than melee ones. Thrown attacks can be treated as melee ones.
* start player characters with lower scores
(PCs vastly outcompete monsters on ability/skill checks including save DCs)
I'm thinking replacing the "elite array" (old terminology for 15, 14, 13, 12, 10, 8) with the "non-elite" one: 13, 12, 11, 10, 9, 8 (and if rolling; straight 3d6). 
If the distance to 20 becomes greater, feats become more expensive.
By lowering each attribute by one on average, this means lowering hit points by 10 at level 10. Also good.
* regulate long rests ie remove the players' power to decide for themselves when and where to rest; in order to reinstate the challenge level of the game. (Since the alternative is to always consider a challenging fight in isolation)

It's a tall order.


----------



## Caliban (Jun 2, 2018)

Yup, that's why everyone got fed up with it and stopped playing 5e within a year or two of its release.


----------



## AmerginLiath (Jun 2, 2018)

No, in the beginning was the fighting man, doing 1d6 damage (regardless of weapon). Differences in weapon damage and bonuses to damage from strength came in later supplements. If you’re going to have a pretense of authority, do your research.


----------



## Paul Farquhar (Jun 2, 2018)

Mature players _can_ work out how to create high DPS characters, but choose not too, as they like to do things other than smash hp piñatas.

That's why the average age of players is higher for 5e than for other editions.


But there are plenty of other RPG systems available, no one is forcing you to play 5e.


----------



## DEFCON 1 (Jun 2, 2018)

You complain and complain and complain and yet you keep playing.

Methinks he dost protest too much.

And also  [MENTION=12731]CapnZapp[/MENTION] let's get real here for a second... this is BY NO MEANS the "final word" on the subject... because you couldn't stop complaining about this on ENWorld even if you wanted to.  There is nothing "final" about any of your statements, because you're going to make the same exact points in some other thread tomorrow.  And on Monday.  And next week.  And next year.  Because you can't help yourself.

You have this platonic ideal in your head for this imaginary game that you and your min-maxing friends can play in every possible combination where every number is equal to every other-- everyone is min-maxed insanely powerfully at high levels and yet the foes are just as powerful so that you as the DM don't have to do any work.  Any "balancing factors" that come out of characters that aren't "combat-related" are removed so that every possible archetype is balanced in combat against every other character archetype-- whether or not the archetypes are meant for combat or not.

Game doesn't exist.  Will never exist.  And you know this.  And yet can't help continually complaining about it.  And thus we respond.  Again and again and again.  Because quite frankly (at least in my case) it's enjoyable to type out just how ridiculous you always sound with your incessant repetitive babbling about this fantasy fantasy game you keep thinking is out there for you.

Like Sisyphus pushing that boulder up the hill... you keep throwing out ideas on how this min-maxed fantasy D&D could come into existance if only WotC would listen... and with each product and UA that comes out, the boulder goes rolling back down the hill.


----------



## Umbran (Jun 2, 2018)

DEFCON 1 said:


> You complain and complain and complain and yet you keep playing.
> 
> Methinks he dost protest too much.
> 
> And also  [MENTION=12731]CapnZapp[/MENTION] let's get real here for a second... this is BY NO MEANS the "final word" on the subject... because you couldn't stop complaining about this on ENWorld even if you wanted to.  There is nothing "final" about any of your statements, because you're going to make the same exact points in some other thread tomorrow.  And on Monday.  And next week.  And next year.  Because you can't help yourself.






Dude.  Don't make it personal.  Address the logic of the post, not the person of the poster.  Thanks.


----------



## FlyingChihuahua (Jun 2, 2018)

When you get perfect balance, you get a boring game.

Street Fighter 1 is perfectly balanced. Who has played that?


----------



## Umbran (Jun 2, 2018)

FlyingChihuahua said:


> When you get perfect balance, you get a boring game.




Right.  So, chess and go are boring games.  Gotcha.  We should let the millions of people who play them know that they're actually bored, no?

(Sorry for the snark, but the statement was a little out there.)


----------



## FlyingChihuahua (Jun 2, 2018)

Umbran said:


> Right.  So, chess and go are boring games.  Gotcha.  We should let the millions of people who play them know that they're actually bored, no?
> 
> (Sorry for the snark, but the statement was a little out there.)




Do you want to have my honest opinion?

I understand the point, but you're kinda comparing apples to oranges there. If people could choose what the pieces in chess could do, and how much each person could have, you'd have more of a point. D&D is different from chess because there is a lot more choices to it. Making every single one of those choices balanced against each other would just result in everything becoming the same and a lot of the fun will be taken out of the game.


----------



## cmad1977 (Jun 2, 2018)

As usual: wrong. 
Worse yet: boring


----------



## Goblyn (Jun 2, 2018)

To be fair, a lot of people do find those games quite boring. Note that that in no way means a game is bad or wanting. I think the real crux of the issue is that TTRPGs are too complex for one to strive for mathematical 'balance' and have any reasonable expectation of success.


----------



## Sacrosanct (Jun 2, 2018)

AmerginLiath said:


> No, in the beginning was the fighting man, doing 1d6 damage (regardless of weapon). Differences in weapon damage and bonuses to damage from strength came in later supplements. If you’re going to have a pretense of authority, do your research.





That was my immediate thought when reading it as well. My second thought was “another thread of him incessantly complaining about the game”. I await the “I love 5e, but I should be able to constructively criticize can’t i?” Response.   I don’t buy it of course, because his feedback has not only never been positive, but it’s been outright offensive and attacking designers and fans of the game for being lazy and apologists. 

I don’t get it, to be honest. If you hate something so much, why do you keep talking about it?  For the attention?  Because there aren’t nearly as many posters on the forums of games you think are great so you want the biggest audience?


----------



## Patrick McGill (Jun 2, 2018)

I highly doubt this will be the final word. All the RPG forums would shut down without this frankly tangential side of the games, wherein experts white room a million possibilities that hardly ever happen at a real table.

I play a lot of martial characters. I've played a champion without feats. I have never felt like I was holding the group back or wasn't holding my own. I had, in fact, had a lot of amazing moments of fun and was quite often the killing blow on many monsters. Now, I didn't measure the DPR of the group. I didn't record every attack and try to figure out if someone was doing more damage in a session on average than other folks. I didn't need to, though, because there didn't seem to be a problem. We weren't min maxers or optimisers by any means, but we did put our ability scores where they were most needed for the class and build.

I have also played a Cavalier with a shield and a lance on horseback and it was a super amount of fun. Charging and just crushing an enemy with a lance crit, and not having to sacrifice my shield AC bonus to wield a d12 weapon was delicious.

As has been repeated here and everywhere when you start to white room and go by the numbers without accounting for the near endless contexts and circumstances I think makes issues seem a lot bigger than they ever will be at the table.

And that's (not) my final word on the subject.


----------



## Sword of Spirit (Jun 2, 2018)

@_*CapnZapp*_ is right. While I may not share his pessimism, I can find no fault with his observations.


----------



## Dausuul (Jun 2, 2018)

Umbran said:


> Right.  So, chess and go are boring games.  Gotcha.  We should let the millions of people who play them know that they're actually bored, no?
> 
> (Sorry for the snark, but the statement was a little out there.)




Chess is not perfectly balanced. White wins around 55% of the time, due to the advantage of moving first.

Perfect balance is very difficult to achieve.


----------



## Tony Vargas (Jun 2, 2018)

CapnZapp said:


> I'm getting the impression the whole edition is helplessly lopsided and that there is no easy fix



 Welcome to D&D.



CapnZapp said:


> I'm getting the sinking feeling that in order to achieve a balanced edition, most if not all of the below is needed:
> * nerf or re-price feats
> * nerf cantrips (with or without feats).
> * nerf ranged attacks more than melee ones. Thrown attacks can be treated as melee ones.
> ...



 Any incremental improvement to 5e is a tall order.  It's an evergreen core edition - any change, even small changes, even changes strictly for the better, threaten that and could get the edition war rolling again.  Brand image is everything and 5e has salvaged D&D's image.  No longer is it crazy nerds flaming eachother in forums, it's happy nerds rolling dice on youtube.  



Paul Farquhar said:


> the average age of players is higher for 5e than for other editions.



Where did you find that factoid?  (Or is it one of the 80% of statistics that are just made up to get a point across?)

It's plausible on one hand:  5e is clearly attracting returning players from the fad years, who are in their 40s & 50s.
It's implausible OTOH:  5e is attracting an new generation of players, who tend to be quite a bit younger - born this millennium, even.


----------



## UngeheuerLich (Jun 2, 2018)

Only thing worth mentioning:
limiting agonizing blast to 30ft.

I went ahead and limited every ranged damage bonus to 30ft. Helps a lot for balancing and goes both ways.


----------



## FlyingChihuahua (Jun 2, 2018)

Dausuul said:


> Chess is not perfectly balanced. White wins around 55% of the time, due to the advantage of moving first.
> 
> Perfect balance is very difficult to achieve.




Yep. Basically any game with a choice that means something to the game will be imbalanced.


----------



## Umbran (Jun 2, 2018)

FlyingChihuahua said:


> I understand the point, but you're kinda comparing apples to oranges there.




Yes and no.  And the important bit is in the phrase a couple of sentences onwards: "the fun taken out of the game".

Here is the point.  There is no "THE fun".  Fun is *NOT SINGULAR*.  There are bundles of different types of fun, and some of them are, alas, mutually exclusive.  Chess isn't chess if the sides are not perfectly balanced, because the fun is in your play, not in the power of the pieces.  

So, there are choices to be made in game design, and no choices are going to be perfect for everyone.  Start from there - that the game is going to have to be a compromise, and you can then have a more cogent discussion about what compromises should be made, and why, rather than start from an uncompromising position that doesn't really admit any room for discussion.

Flat imperatives of "No, this *cannot* be done" or "Yes, this *must* be done exactly this way" are conversation enders, not starters.


----------



## TwoSix (Jun 2, 2018)

1)  Remove Agonizing Blast.  Any other feature that gives +stat mod to cantrips (like Dragon Sorcerers) is modified to not do that, 1st level spells +only.  Remove Booming Blade/Greenflame Blade.  Cantrip damage scales with class level, not character level.  Casters should fall back on at-will damage as a last resort.  If the Elf Wizard does better damage with their long bow than with Fire Bolt, that's awesome.

2)  Remove any feat that favors using one weapon type or style over another.  (Polearm Master, Sharpshooter, Crossbow Expert, Great Weapon Master, Dual Wielder.)  Martials should be versatile.  If you want a fighter that's a master of one weapon, roleplay him that way.  (Weapon Specialization has been problematic since BECMI).  

3)  Give fighters, paladins, and rangers access to every fighting style at level 1 or 2, respectively.  Makes them versatile, and gives them a baseline superiority in weapon attacks to non-warriors.  Give Barbarians Dueling, Dual Wielding, and Great Weapon Fighter fighting styles at level 2.  Give champion fighters something at level 10 to compensate.  Everyone will want to dip Fighter 1, but considering Fighters are the Honda Civic of D&D, I don't see that as a problem.

There.  Damage scaled down to a better baseline, and martials exceed casters easily in baseline capability.  Make some new feats and spells, and maybe some new magic items, to balance to taste.


----------



## FlyingChihuahua (Jun 2, 2018)

TwoSix said:


> 1)  Remove Agonizing Blast.  Any other feature that gives +stat mod to cantrips (like Dragon Sorcerers) is modified to not do that, 1st level spells +only.  Remove Booming Blade/Greenflame Blade.  Cantrip damage scales with class level, not character level.  Casters should fall back on at-will damage as a last resort.  If the Elf Wizard does better damage with their long bow than with Fire Bolt, that's awesome.
> 
> 2)  Remove any feat that favors using one weapon type or style over another.  (Polearm Master, Sharpshooter, Crossbow Expert, Great Weapon Master, Dual Wielder.)  Martials should be versatile.  If you want a fighter that's a master of one weapon, roleplay him that way.  (Weapon Specialization has been problematic since BECMI).
> 
> ...




That sounds great.

In fact, why spellcasters get special toys that the martials don't? Martials should have equal access to spell-like abilities the equate to anything that a spell can do. In fact, let's go even farther for balance. Everything now does the same amount of damage. Perfectly balanced, as all things should be.


----------



## TwoSix (Jun 2, 2018)

FlyingChihuahua said:


> That sounds great.
> 
> In fact, why spellcasters get special toys that the martials don't? Martials should have equal access to spell-like abilities the equate to anything that a spell can do. In fact, let's go even farther for balance. Everything now does the same amount of damage. Perfectly balanced, as all things should be.



I feel like you're slightly exaggerating here.  It's a slight nerf overall to everyone's at-will damage in the name of opening up more concepts.


----------



## Caliban (Jun 2, 2018)

TwoSix said:


> 1)  Remove Agonizing Blast.  Any other feature that gives +stat mod to cantrips (like Dragon Sorcerers) is modified to not do that, 1st level spells +only.  Remove Booming Blade/Greenflame Blade.  Cantrip damage scales with class level, not character level.  Casters should fall back on at-will damage as a last resort.  If the Elf Wizard does better damage with their long bow than with Fire Bolt, that's awesome.




Ugh, no thanks.



> 2)  Remove any feat that favors using one weapon type or style over another.  (Polearm Master, Sharpshooter, Crossbow Expert, Great Weapon Master, Dual Wielder.)  Martials should be versatile.  If you want a fighter that's a master of one weapon, roleplay him that way.  (Weapon Specialization has been problematic since BECMI).




Ugh, no thanks. 



> 3)  Give fighters, paladins, and rangers access to every fighting style at level 1 or 2, respectively.  Makes them versatile, and gives them a baseline superiority in weapon attacks to non-warriors.  Give Barbarians Dueling, Dual Wielding, and Great Weapon Fighter fighting styles at level 2.  Give champion fighters something at level 10 to compensate.  Everyone will want to dip Fighter 1, but considering Fighters are the Honda Civic of D&D, I don't see that as a problem.
> 
> There.  Damage scaled down to a better baseline, and martials exceed casters easily in baseline capability.  Make some new feats and spells, and maybe some new magic items, to balance to taste.




Appreciate the effort, but no thank you.  That just makes everyone generically competent at the same things with no real differentiation other than "martial" or "magic".  

Blegh.


----------



## TwoSix (Jun 2, 2018)

Caliban said:


> Appreciate the effort, but no thank you.  That just makes everyone generically competent at the same things with no real differentiation other than "martial" or "magic".
> Blegh.



I find your "blegh" rather unconvincing.

Edit:  To expand further, my simple conceit is that weapon choice should be a tactical consideration, not a character build one.  A fighter should feel comfortable switching from a bow, to drawing a greatsword, and then switching to a pair of handaxes in a battle.  

And dampening magical at-will damage contrasts them more strongly with martials, it doesn't homogenize them.  It helps to emphasize at-wills with control or debuff elements, rather than raw damage.


----------



## Satyrn (Jun 2, 2018)

TwoSix said:


> I find your "blegh" rather unconvincing.




What about "ugh" - should I use that next time I want to convince you its your turn to oty- . . . danggit, I don't know where I'm actually going with this joke. 

So, uh . . .


----------



## 5ekyu (Jun 2, 2018)

I find it interesting that in spite of all the final words on critcal flaws and how bad the game is that so many people run canpaign session after campaign session werk after week.

Its alnost like some of them dont get upset over stiff and just play without worrying if adding a few extra bad guys at level this or level that is against somrone elses idea of an ideal game? 

I bet there are even games run out there where gms dont use the cr calculator sustem at all and just throw together adversaries drawn from the campaign logic and their experience with their group.


----------



## Caliban (Jun 2, 2018)

TwoSix said:


> I find your "blegh" rather unconvincing.
> 
> Edit:  To expand further, my simple conceit is that weapon choice should be a tactical consideration, not a character build one.  A fighter should feel comfortable switching from a bow, to drawing a greatsword, and then switching to a pair of handaxes in a battle.
> 
> And dampening magical at-will damage contrasts them more strongly with martials, it doesn't homogenize them.  It helps to emphasize at-wills with control or debuff elements, rather than raw damage.




I find your arguments unconvincing. Just because you say it, doesn't make it true.   I honestly found every one of your suggestions unappealing.  So to sum up...."blegh".


----------



## bedir than (Jun 2, 2018)

Not only should everyone do the same damage in a round, everyone should be able to do it at the same range, to the same area of effect while being the same race with the same stats with the same class. That way things are perfectly balanced.


----------



## ccs (Jun 2, 2018)

[MENTION=12731]CapnZapp[/MENTION], check your calendar.  You're either a bit late or a lot early for April Fools.


----------



## TwoSix (Jun 2, 2018)

Caliban said:


> I find your arguments unconvincing. Just because you say it, doesn't make it true.   I honestly found every one of your suggestions unappealing.  So to sum up...."blegh".



That's fine.  I stated my aesthetic considerations, and a possible way to achieve them.  If you have other considerations you find more appealing, that's entirely your prerogative.


----------



## Tony Vargas (Jun 2, 2018)

Caliban said:


> That just makes everyone generically competent at the same things with no real differentiation other than "martial" or "magic".



 The suggestion to reduce at-will caster damage just increases the difference between casters & non-casters. 



5ekyu said:


> I find it interesting that in spite of all the final words on critcal flaws and how bad the game is that so many people run canpaign session after campaign session week after week.



 Human nature's funny, that way.  The accepted way to do something can be just terrible - let's treat anemia by bleeding the patient; let's use explosives to power our vehicles; let's pump invisible poisonous gasses into our homes; let's resolve legal disputes with trial by ordeal - but it doesn't stop people, often for many generations.



Umbran said:


> > When you get perfect balance, you get a boring game.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



 Balance is a quality that opens up more ways to play a game, chess & go have tremendous depth of play in spite of relative simplicity because so many moves & strategies can be viable.  
That can be intimidating or challenging or even overwhelming, but it's unlikely to be boring, unless you simply refuse to engage it.  
Imbalance, once you've identified the one (or few) viable choice(s), OTOH, can get pretty boring.



Dausuul said:


> Chess is not perfectly balanced. White wins around 55% of the time, due to the advantage of moving first.
> Perfect balance is very difficult to achieve.



 Very difficult or impossible as perfection may be, it doesn't invalidate excellence nor excuse mediocrity.



bedir than said:


> Not only should everyone do the same damage in a round, everyone should be able to do it at the same range, to the same area of effect while being the same race with the same stats with the same class. That way things are perfectly balanced.



 That's a complete absence of balance at chargen.  With no choices, there's nothing to balance anything else against.


----------



## Caliban (Jun 2, 2018)

Tony Vargas said:


> The suggestion to reduce at-will caster damage just increases the difference between casters & non-casters.




Yes, I acknowledged that - caster or non-caster becomes the only real difference between characters.   All casters are pretty much the same, all non-casters are pretty much the same.


----------



## Tony Vargas (Jun 2, 2018)

Caliban said:


> Yes, I acknowledged that - caster or non-caster becomes the only real difference between characters.   All casters are pretty much the same, all non-casters are pretty much the same.



OK, I get that observation - except for the 'becomes' part.  ;P

Seriously, though, I didn't notice where Two-Six was changing the features, spell lists, and casting sub-systems that make 5e casters distinct from eachother, just trimming a few that resulted in high at-will DPR.


----------



## TwoSix (Jun 2, 2018)

Caliban said:


> Yes, I acknowledged that - caster or non-caster becomes the only real difference between characters.   All casters are pretty much the same, all non-casters are pretty much the same.



So a 4th level CG high elf arcane archer fighter with the Actor feat, and a NE half-orc champion fighter with the Tough feat are pretty much equivalent? But if we subtract some extra fighting styles and give them Sharpshooter and Great Weapon Master feat instead (with the same -5/+10 mechanism), we've added a whole host of distinctiveness?

That example does help me to understand why we have divergent views on my suggested houserules, so I do appreciate the candor.


----------



## FlyingChihuahua (Jun 3, 2018)

Caliban said:


> Yes, I acknowledged that - caster or non-caster becomes the only real difference between characters.   All casters are pretty much the same, all non-casters are pretty much the same.




You'll excuse me if that sounds boring as hell.


----------



## MoonSong (Jun 3, 2018)

Umbran said:


> Right.  So, chess and go are boring games.  Gotcha.  We should let the millions of people who play them know that they're actually bored, no?
> 
> (Sorry for the snark, but the statement was a little out there.)




Actually, as far as I remember, chess is unbalanced. White has an advantage over Black that -while meaningless at low skill games- clearly shows up at high -grandmaster high- ability levels where every single move counts.

Speaking of that, I have a problem with chess. I'm kind of at the higher end of average skill, but I'm still average. So any actual serious player can trash the floor with me, but odds are any random person will grow frustrated playing with me. I've even tried to deliberately pay less attention to give my opponents a better chance, but turns out that boys feel like I'm cherry tapping them so they get frustrated even more quickly. So I've basically ran out of people to play with.


----------



## Sacrosanct (Jun 3, 2018)

Interesting observation. The people demanding many more options to increase player choice, and always harping on lack of meaningful choice, are also the ones demanding every PC be balanced against every other PC in all situations and scenarios. Every PC has to be just as good in combat, and interaction, and exploration, and resolving out of combat challenges as every other PC. DPR has to be the same. 

So is that really choice if the end result is exactly the same?  I don’t think so. I think the only choice is what you’ve written down on your character sheet, but it doesn’t matter what you chose because you have the same chances as everyone else in all things.   It doesn’t matter if you chose a fighter if they are balanced with the rogue and wizard to overcome out of combat challenges (fighters need out of combat stuff!)  It doesn’t matter if you chose to play a rogue if you have the same staying power and survability in combat as the fighter (rogues need to do the same DPR as fighters!). We’ve all heard the arguments. 

I think it’s a bit of cognitive dissonance.  Demand more choice but also demand everything be balanced rendering that choice moot.


----------



## Warpiglet (Jun 3, 2018)

I guess I am wondering how I could have played this game for decades without realizing how poor my taste is.  I feel ashamed.

I spent a sizable portion of my youth playing AD&D which was really poorly balanced.  And now?  We rediscover our youthful adventures with AD&D and all we have to show for it is ostensibly poor taste, hours of fun, tales fondly recounted, high fives and some of the most fun we have ever had.

Now I know how mistaken we have all been and appreciate the insight.  If we only make everything mathmateically identical, we will have fun the right way!


----------



## Swarmkeeper (Jun 3, 2018)

Warpiglet said:


> If we only make everything mathmateically identical, we will have fun the right way!




Karma police
Arrest this man
He talks in maths
He buzzes like a stirge
He's like a detoothed otyugh


----------



## Krachek (Jun 3, 2018)

D&D 
Damage & Damage.


----------



## Tony Vargas (Jun 3, 2018)

Warpiglet said:


> we will have fun the right way!



There is no right way to have fun...

...but there are oh-so-many wrong ways...


----------



## 5ekyu (Jun 3, 2018)

"Human nature's funny, that way. The accepted way to do something can be just terrible "

As a direct response to an observation about how many people run games all the time in spite of other people gripes about the game, this paeticular response is illuminating.


----------



## Warpiglet (Jun 3, 2018)

Tony Vargas said:


> There is no right way to have fun...
> 
> ...but there are oh-so-many wrong ways...




Those sound mutually exclusive.  Isn't that interesting?

I genuinely disliked 4e.  Does that mean that was the wrong way to have fun?  Many would disagree.  Or 8 people...but you get the point.

The tenor of the OP is saying this 5e is so lopsided as to be "not fun."  I disagree on the "not fun" portion.

It seems to be a value statement. I don't like the metric.  I am OK with Bob the champion being able to do more damage than Waldo.  Waldo can do disguise self and silent image.  I would argue Waldo might do more in some sessions than Bob.  Then I read this thread and see that fo some people it comes down to symmetry in all facets of the game.

I reject the usefulness of comparing apples to watermelons to steaks.


----------



## OB1 (Jun 3, 2018)

For a perfectly balanced game, see tic-tac-toe.  Two people who understand the game will always end with a tie. Perfectly balanced, and so no reason to play once you understand it.


----------



## Bacon Bits (Jun 3, 2018)

I'd say that my experience is that -- with the significant exception of Agonizing Blast -- martial characters tend to be far more damaging than the casters even without feats.  Sure, there's always big spells like _fireball_ that have extremely high damage ceilings, but for the vast majority of the game there aren't very many of those each day and even when there are you can't use them all that often.  I mean, sure, 8d6 is a lot of damage, but 2d6+5 is almost 4d6 damage, and 1d8+5 is almost 3d6 damage.  Even when cantrips scale at +1 die and rarely get ability bonus to damage, they don't keep up because Extra Attack exists.

The only abilities that I've noticed which cause a problematic amount of damage are the -5/+10 feats for martial characters and Agonizing Blast for Warlocks.  I'm not evaluating Draconic Sorcerer because nobody has played a Sorcerer yet (the spell list is too narrow... people pick either Wizard, Warlock or Bard).  When I DM our group, I change Agonizing Blast to only deal it's bonus damage to one target, and I replace the -5/+10 abilities with other abilities.


----------



## Seramus (Jun 3, 2018)

Wait. *Final Word*?
I'm going to hold you to this.


----------



## Tony Vargas (Jun 3, 2018)

Warpiglet said:


> Those sound mutually exclusive.  Isn't that interesting?



 It's interesting that you'd think it sounds contradictory.

There's no right way to have fun, or, perhaps I should have said no one right way.  You can follow, precisely, the way someone else had fun, and there's no guarantee it'll be fun for you.  Fun's subjective, that way.

But there are many things one might find fun that are wrong in some way, or simply a bad idea.  No matter how much fun amateur vivisection may be, for instance, it's wrong to mutilate your neighbor's cat.



> The tenor of the OP is saying this 5e is so lopsided as to be "not fun."  I disagree on the "not fun" portion.



 So you disagree only with the subjective portion?

Fair nuff.


----------



## Warpiglet (Jun 3, 2018)

Tony Vargas said:


> It's interesting that you'd think it sounds contradictory.
> 
> There's no right way to have fun, or, perhaps I should have said no one right way.  You can follow, precisely, the way someone else had fun, and there's no guarantee it'll be fun for you.  Fun's subjective, that way.
> 
> ...




I play the game to solve problems, make decisions, create characters/stories, experience drama/humor/excitement watch events unfold and to socialize.

None of these are predicated on perfect balance in all endeavors.  I am fine with some feats classes and skills being better in particular ways.


----------



## hawkeyefan (Jun 3, 2018)

If players always choose a character build focused solely around damage output and combat performance and little else, then I can see why some folks call for balance as a solution, despite balance having its own drawbacks that it would bring.

If feats are a problem, then don’t use them. Stop thinking of them as options and start thinking of them as Cheats. The ones that seem to be a problem are those that lack any kind of thematic meaning other than “I hit really hard with this weapon”. All they are is an excuse to add damage and make the player feel “more effective” in combat. 

There is no challenge involved in this.

Tell your players that if they want to challenge themselves....if they want to see howgood they can play rather than how good a feat is at adding damage...then play without the feats. Take the training wheels off.

Then maybe over time your players will become the kinds of players who can see such options in a book and not feel the need to take them. They’ll have moved past this “damage is everything” mindset and have started spreading their focus a bit.

And then maybe as a result you can become the kind of DM who will realize that the game doesn’t need a drastic overhaul just to fix the very specific problem of one gaming group.

And then, perhaps at long last...it would indeed be the final word.


----------



## Umbran (Jun 3, 2018)

MoonSong said:


> Actually, as far as I remember, chess is unbalanced. White has an advantage over Black that -while meaningless at low skill games- clearly shows up at high -grandmaster high- ability levels where every single move counts.




It isn't that simple, and whether that advantage actually exists, or is mainly psychological, is debated.  It is one of those "common knowledge" things that isn't actually proven, as chess is not yet a solved game.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First-move_advantage_in_chess


----------



## Tony Vargas (Jun 3, 2018)

5ekyu said:


> "Human nature's funny, that way. The accepted way to do something can be just terrible "
> 
> As a direct response to an observation about how many people run games all the time in spite of other people gripes about the game, this paeticular response is illuminating.




It's just an illustration of the logical fallacy of appealing to tradition or common practice.  It's not that always playing the same imbalanced game the same unfair way is necessarily injurious to all or even some involved, let alone ethically bankrupt or morally repugnant, it's merely not proof that the game is already perfect.


----------



## cmad1977 (Jun 3, 2018)

I don’t take seriously the input of anyone who is overwhelmed by GWM or SS feats.


----------



## Dausuul (Jun 3, 2018)

MoonSong said:


> Speaking of that, I have a problem with chess. I'm kind of at the higher end of average skill, but I'm still average. So any actual serious player can trash the floor with me, but odds are any random person will grow frustrated playing with me. I've even tried to deliberately pay less attention to give my opponents a better chance, but turns out that boys feel like I'm cherry tapping them so they get frustrated even more quickly. So I've basically ran out of people to play with.




I have a college buddy I visit in Texas every year, and we always play a couple of chess games; it's become a tradition. We're pretty well matched.

Sometimes I think about going out and improving my chess game. I'm sure that I could get significantly better with just a moderate amount of study. But then those games wouldn't be well matched any more, and I'd have lessened my enjoyment of them for the sake of building up a skill that benefits me not at all.

Sometimes there is value in *not* getting better.


----------



## The Crimson Binome (Jun 3, 2018)

FlyingChihuahua said:


> Yep. Basically any game with a choice that means something to the game will be imbalanced.



Not only that, but the degree of imbalance is directly proportional to the number of meaningful choices. It's the main thing that a class-and-level system (like D&D) has over a point-based system (like GURPS), is that most of the variables are tied to a small handful of decision points, so there's very little you can do to break the power curve.


----------



## FlyingChihuahua (Jun 3, 2018)

Saelorn said:


> Not only that, but the degree of imbalance is directly proportional to the number of meaningful choices. It's the main thing that a class-and-level system (like D&D) has over a point-based system (like GURPS), is that most of the variables are tied to a small handful of decision points, so there's very little you can do to break the power curve.




Yeah, and honestly? There is nothing wrong with imbalance, as long as the game is fun. (I'm reminded of this Web DM video.)

I'm beginning to realize that Zapp might like playing 4e instead. That's fine, go play 4e, it's pretty good from the game standpoint, and it generally leaves the roleplaying stuff to be decided by the players, which can be either a plus or a minus, depending. Just please stop jumping in on everything and saying "Actually the way you're playing the game is wrong, if you don't make a Sharpshooter/Crossbow Expert Battlemaster then you are actively dragging down everyone else in the group".


----------



## darius0 (Jun 3, 2018)

I am just trying to figure out how a sorcerer can twin fire bolt all the time. It does still take a sorcery point right?


----------



## silentdante (Jun 3, 2018)

hello, this is the first time i have seen this argument as i dont frequent the forums, mostly the news part of the website. but honestly as fresh eyes on this supposed last word, it just sounds like you might not have a very good DM for you. i understand you think DM's might need to tweak monsters to deal with certain feats or power levels of PC builds, but to me that is the whole point of being a DM. now sure a DM who buys the published adventures and runs them straight with no input from themselves might run into trouble with certain PC's i give you that. 

for me, and a lot of people i have gamed with over many years, the DM is not just the storyteller and NPC runner, they are the balance, they are the architects of fun. you have a group who min/max's and "abuses" GWM and SS, the whole point that you have a HUMAN running the game and not some math computer or such, is that humans can design and create scenario's equally challenging to the player. 

now if you want a game system that did all that for you and was "balanced" then you wouldnt have a human DM, because when you introduce humans to any situation, by default it becomes un-perfect. sure 2+2 will always be 4, except when a human decides it isnt. meaning a DM can create a world where 2+2=5. i know this is a silly example, but i am basically saying that if you feel the game you play in or run is unbalanced, you have the tools to fix it. you dont have to ban any skills feats powers or anything. if you think magic PC's are too powerful because of cantrips after they have run out of spell slots, the warrior is still going strong. maybe monsters fear magic people and concentrate on them, maybe you run more encounters in a day so the magic user has nothing but those cantrips to rely on. (3 eldritch blasts at 1d10+5 is equaled out to the fighter attacking 3 times, and because of his weapon focus gets +10 damage. kind of equal to me). these are only a small few of many examples of how to deal with PC's. so many tools for a DM to run the game STILL within the rules and yet present challenge. 

now if your "final word" really just boils down to, "without DM input the game is unbalanced, fight me" then i would agree with you 100%. unfortunately i have been part of super min/max games where the DM equally challenged us, and in mostly RP PC games where the DM has equally challenged us outside of combat. so i honestly suggest you find a new DM who fits your play-style and understands, or if you are the DM, stop being so lazy.  

i'll go back to lurking the news now, but wanted to share my 2cp.


----------



## Eubani (Jun 3, 2018)

I wish more effort with the weapon based feats was spent on making lesser used weapons more appealing and on the non combat front there was more sideways growth.


----------



## Mistwell (Jun 3, 2018)

Why are all of you still replying to this thread? The final word was already given in the first post. Lock the thread already, it was over the moment it started!


----------



## Zardnaar (Jun 3, 2018)

Note the Op is one of the hardcore 4E fans hence why he is basically trolling.

Nevertheless there is a disparity in power for a few feats relative to the other feats. Those are the -5/+10 feats and warcaster/resilient con perhaps the healer feats are the worst example.


----------



## Seramus (Jun 3, 2018)

Zardnaar said:


> Note the Op is one of the hardcore 4E fans hence why he is basically trolling.



Speaking as a hardcore 4E Fan, never blame the majority for the outbursts of the vocal minority.

Which is good advice in any walk of life. =D


----------



## Krachek (Jun 3, 2018)

At level 11, without feat a dragon sorcerer deals 3d10 +5 damage with fire bolt. Avg 21.5.
A fighter with great sword deals 6d6 + 15 + Fighting style for avg of 39.

Twinning fire bolt is not really efficient to get down monster. You’re still doing only 21.5 on the primary target.
If you want to be really efficient you need to use quicken, for double cost of sorcery point.
And still you’re only dealing 4 more points of damage than the fighter, and spending sorcery point like hell.
If the fighter use manoeuver or action surge he can make burst that outshine you. 

A sorcerer 11 has 10 + 47 available sorcery points per day. 
28 quicken spells. Enough to fuel 5 or 6 encounters.
Spending all its magic to be just a bit more efficient than the fighter,
Is the dragon sorcerer really broken?


----------



## 5ekyu (Jun 3, 2018)

Tony Vargas said:


> It's just an illustration of the logical fallacy of appealing to tradition or common practice.  It's not that always playing the same imbalanced game the same unfair way is necessarily injurious to all or even some involved, let alone ethically bankrupt or morally repugnant, it's merely not proof that the game is already perfect.




So you felt the need to make a post to disprove  the game as already perfect? Who made such a claim?

Did anyone in this thread?


----------



## 5ekyu (Jun 3, 2018)

Dausuul said:


> I have a college buddy I visit in Texas every year, and we always play a couple of chess games; it's become a tradition. We're pretty well matched.
> 
> Sometimes I think about going out and improving my chess game. I'm sure that I could get significantly better with just a moderate amount of study. But then those games wouldn't be well matched any more, and I'd have lessened my enjoyment of them for the sake of building up a skill that benefits me not at all.
> 
> Sometimes there is value in *not* getting better.




as an aside since go was mentioned earlier - go includes komi to offset the first move advantage - varies by rules - and also mebraces fairly well a decent handicapping system that enables players of different strengths to play and both be challenged - within certain extremes.


----------



## Krachek (Jun 3, 2018)

A more problematic case is the sorcerer 9 / warlock 2.
With eldritch blast + agonizing blast + hex + quicken spell
He got 
6d10 + 6d6 + 30 for avg 84.
25 times per day.


----------



## Krachek (Jun 3, 2018)

An honorable mention is the Paladin 6 / sorcerer 5 who can use
Two attack with great sword 2d6 + 10 avg 26 
+ enough smite to fuel one big combats, and one honest combat.
5d8 4 Times
4d8 3 Times
3d8 3 Times
2d8 4 Times.
The best smiting round can be
26 + 10d8 for 61 and you can add +7 if he use hunter mark. 68.
This is still under the fighter with action surge who can deals 39 x 2 for 78.

This Paladin is better with short adventure day, otherwise he get tired soon.


----------



## Zardnaar (Jun 3, 2018)

Krachek said:


> An honorable mention is the Paladin 6 / sorcerer 5 who can use
> Two attack with great sword 2d6 + 10 avg 26
> + enough smite to fuel one big combats, and one honest combat.
> 5d8 4 Times
> ...




Takes a while to get going the Sorlock is decent from level 3 or so.


----------



## Krachek (Jun 3, 2018)

So the optimization control can be:
Nerf SS and GWM by changing  the -5/+10  with +1 str or dex.
Tie eldritch blast multi beam to warlock level.


----------



## Krachek (Jun 3, 2018)

Zardnaar said:


> Takes a while to get going the Sorlock is decent from level 3 or so.




I agree the sorcadin is somewhere overrated.


----------



## Umbran (Jun 3, 2018)

Zardnaar said:


> Note the Op is one of the hardcore 4E fans hence why he is basically trolling.





I already gave one warning to not make it personal in this thread.   "He likes something I don't like, so he's a troll," is not an acceptable approach on these boards. If you cannot have a discussion about a topic while treating the people in it with respect, you should not be in the discussion.  

So, the question you want to ask yourself is whether you can moderate yourself, or are we going to have to remove you from the thread.  

This goes for everyone - two warnings to the thread is sufficient.  Expect the next violation of civility to earn you a quick trip out of the discussion without warning.


----------



## TwoSix (Jun 3, 2018)

Warpiglet said:


> It seems to be a value statement. I don't like the metric.  I am OK with Bob the champion being able to do more damage than Waldo.  Waldo can do disguise self and silent image.  I would argue Waldo might do more in some sessions than Bob.  Then I read this thread and see that fo some people it comes down to symmetry in all facets of the game.



That isn't the argument, though.  The argument is that Pete the Greatsword Fighter shouldn't do 40% more damage than Bob the Dual Handaxe Fighter, just because he's using a Greatsword.


----------



## Sacrosanct (Jun 3, 2018)

Krachek, you do realize that there are a lot more spells other than direct damage, right?  So it’s fundamentslly flawed to compare one class as overall weaker than another when you’re only looking at DPR of a standard attack when one class can do a whole lot more in other game affecting abilities that the other can’t.


----------



## AtomicPope (Jun 3, 2018)

The game is not just about "damage."  You can "kill" monsters without ever doing any damage.  Banishment comes to mind.  Elementals have a low Charisma and will be "killed" by failing a save.  Feeblemind will "kill" a spell caster.  Forcewall "kills" group tactics.  Stun and paralysis conditions shut down monsters.

I'm currently playing an Enchanter.  My damage is pretty much nil.  However, I cast Hold Monster and watch our Rogue do 60 damage with one attack.


----------



## Warpiglet (Jun 3, 2018)

AtomicPope said:


> The game is not just about "damage."  You can "kill" monsters without ever doing any damage.  Banishment comes to mind.  Elementals have a low Charisma and will be "killed" by failing a save.  Feeblemind will "kill" a spell caster.  Forcewall "kills" group tactics.  Stun and paralysis conditions shut down monsters.
> 
> I'm currently playing an Enchanter.  My damage is pretty much nil.  However, I cast Hold Monster and watch our Rogue do 60 damage with one attack.



 Is forcecage ever better than 70 damage?  Yes.

Do SMART enemies refuse to be bags of static hit points?  Yes.

It's really meant to be a team game where people are good at things, not necessarily the exact same things.


----------



## Sacrosanct (Jun 3, 2018)

Warpiglet said:


> Is forcecage ever better than 70 damage?  Yes.
> 
> Do SMART enemies refuse to be bags of static hit points?  Yes.
> 
> It's really meant to be a team game where people are good at things, not necessarily the exact same things.




I've seen a player use a single charm person spell to neutralize an entire bandit stronghold.  Make the right person your friend, and amazing what you can make happen.


----------



## Satyrn (Jun 3, 2018)

Sacrosanct said:


> I've seen a player use a single charm person spell to neutralize an entire bandit stronghold.  Make the right person your friend, and amazing what you can make happen.




I've done that! I think it was a werewolf den, instead of bandits, though.

Didn't even need to use a spell. I was just a paladin with a winning smile, and a smarmy politician's fake promises.


----------



## Krachek (Jun 3, 2018)

Sacrosanct said:


> Krachek, you do realize that there are a lot more spells other than direct damage, right?  So it’s fundamentslly flawed to compare one class as overall weaker than another when you’re only looking at DPR of a standard attack when one class can do a whole lot more in other game affecting abilities that the other can’t.



Of course. None damage spell is another aspect of the game. It can help a lot, and save the party often.
But with legendary resitançe and spell resitance you need a way to do reliable damage. 
A hold monster can be more valuable than the 2 and a half quicken firebolt you can do instead.
But the sorlock can repeat 80 points of damage for multiple rounds. 
It is hard to compete this even with 5 or 6 th level spell.


----------



## Mistwell (Jun 3, 2018)

Sacrosanct said:


> I've seen a player use a single charm person spell to neutralize an entire bandit stronghold.  Make the right person your friend, and amazing what you can make happen.




The OP's perspective, from another recent thread, is that "Damage is King".


----------



## bedir than (Jun 3, 2018)

Krachek said:


> Of course. None damage spell is another aspect of the game. It can help a lot, and save the party often.
> But with legendary resitançe and spell resitance you need a way to do reliable damage.
> A hold monster can be more valuable than the 2 and a half quicken firebolt you can do instead.
> But the sorlock can repeat 80 points of damage for multiple rounds.
> It is hard to compete this even with 5 or 6 th level spell.




Legendary Resistance, Spell Resistance, Damage Immunities can all apply to damaging spells too.


----------



## Sacrosanct (Jun 3, 2018)

Mistwell said:


> The OP's perspective, from another recent thread, is that "Damage is King".




It’s like the rally car driver who says speed is king until they come to their first curve.


----------



## Shadowdweller00 (Jun 3, 2018)

Umbran said:


> This goes for everyone - two warnings to the thread is sufficient.  Expect the next violation of civility to earn you a quick trip out of the discussion without warning.



Awwww, man.  What am I going to do with all this popcorn now?


----------



## Warpiglet (Jun 3, 2018)

Sacrosanct said:


> I've seen a player use a single charm person spell to neutralize an entire bandit stronghold.  Make the right person your friend, and amazing what you can make happen.




No disrespect to the OP...at all.  But emergent play is really illuminating in this regard.  When you use spells or sneak past a threat you do not need to fight, you see the value of other abilities vis a vis MOAR damage.

I am not discounting martial or damage prowess but think thI OP is overlooking other factors.  Sometimes it is better to fly, disguise self, sneak, pick a lock or disappear than stab.  

Frankly if the OP would drop SS or GWM from games he might find his criticisms overblown entirely.


----------



## TwoSix (Jun 3, 2018)

Warpiglet said:


> Frankly if the OP would drop SS or GWM from games he might find his criticisms overblown entirely.



While true, the main issue for the OP is that his primary concern is changing the metagame environment in which we all discuss these issues.  Fixing his own game isn't really the priority.


----------



## Warpiglet (Jun 3, 2018)

TwoSix said:


> While true, the main issue for the OP is that his primary concern is changing the metagame environment in which we all discuss these issues.  Fixing his own game isn't really the priority.




Uh...but we like our game.

As an aside is all of this about the inclusion of optional rules (hint, hint)?


----------



## TwoSix (Jun 4, 2018)

Warpiglet said:


> Uh...but we like our game.
> 
> As an aside is all of this about the inclusion of optional rules (hint, hint)?




Got me.  You could ask him, I guess, but this WAS the final word.


----------



## Tony Vargas (Jun 4, 2018)

5ekyu said:


> So you felt the need to make a post to disprove  the game as already perfect? Who made such a claim?
> Did anyone in this thread?



 Well, I'm guessing you didn't actually mean to make that claim when you said:



5ekyu said:


> I find it interesting that in spite of all the final words on critcal flaws and how bad the game is that so many people run canpaign session after campaign session werk after week.



... but, that's really the only way to take it.  You present the continued play of the game by many people as proof that not only Zapp's observations of imperfection in the system are false, but that, by implication, any/all other criticisms must also be dismissed.

It's fallacious reasoning.

It's not necessarily a wrong conclusion, though, not technically  - I'm not trying to 'prove imperfection' (I don't think it's really necessary, but it's not what I'm doing), but if you did want to support it, you'll need something stronger than a classic fallacy.  

I'm glad to hear that's not what you were going for, though.



TwoSix said:


> Got me.  You could ask him, I guess, but this WAS the final word.



 I don't think there can be a final word while there's denial - and I think the title was chosen caustically, because of that.  

But, if we'd just nod and go "Yeah, Zapp, that's true, here's what we did to fix it..."

(...personally, I don't use feats or MCing, for instance, so no GWM/SS or SorLocks to distort DPR curves at my table.)

... then maybe, he'd give it a rest.  Or not, it really seems like his goal is to browbeat WotC into 'fixing' the system.  They're not going to - systems don't sell, well, not _good_ systems, anyway.


----------



## Tony Vargas (Jun 4, 2018)

OB1 said:


> For a perfectly balanced game, see tic-tac-toe.  Two people who understand the game will always end with a tie. Perfectly balanced, and so no reason to play once you understand it.



 I have to wonder  what your definition of balance is.  As Moonsong & others pointed out, Chess is _not quite perfectly_ balanced, because white has an advantage in going first, in a game with, potentially, a great many moves between that first one and victory and much potential for depth of play that can shift momentum to black.  Tic-tac-toe, OTOH, is very short game - 9 turns maximum, 5 of them going to X - so the advantage of X, going first, is much greater.  That, alone, renders it imbalanced (really, unfair, more than imbalanced, which can be addressed by playing an even number of games until one player wins more than the other - good luck with that).

Now, the definition of balance I've seen that seems to work best for RPGs goes something like this:  a game is better-balanced the more choices it presents to players that are both meaningful and viable.

Tic-tac-toe presents X with 9 initial choices, obviously.  However, 6 of them are meaningless: it doesn't matter which corner or side you place your X in, the game's potential results set will be the same, regardless (there's nothing special about the top/bottom/left/right of the grid, it could be rotated with no effect on play).  There's three meaningful choices for X:  center, corner, or side.  One of those, choosing a side square, is decidedly inferior to the others, the choice of corner square is clearly the best (again, it's a solved game, so we know that X starting in a corner & playing optimally leaves O only two paths to stalemate, both of which start with the center square).  On his first move, O would seem to have 8 choices, but, if X has played corner & is playing optimally, has only one viable choice: center, the others result in certain victory for X.  

If X is playing optimally, O can force a draw by playing optimally, but, if O makes one mistake, X can force a win.  OTOH, if O is playing optimally, X must make two mistakes to allow O a chance at victory.

Not remotely balanced, sorry.

But, it does illustrate why imbalance is bad for games, including RPGs.  It's really the same as the issues D&D has had with 'class Tiers' and 'must-have feats' and '5MWDs' and "the greatsword is strictly superior to the greataxe because 0.5 DPR" and the like, just with D&D (thankfully) having a thick insulation of complexity to keep it from being entirely solved in the sense tic-tac-toe has been.


----------



## AmerginLiath (Jun 4, 2018)

It strikes me that the problem here, and in most of these discussions, is that RPGS over forty-plus years have interacted with multiple generations of players and multiple ge erations of gaming zeitgeist (both on the table and off it), so different people have vastly divergent ideas over where the refereeing of RPGs should be done — is the concern simply internal consistency on a given table or does a rule set have to cover as many considerations as possible in a product sold and played globally. The argument has certain similarities to the debate in professional sports over electronic strike zones versus umpires and the increased use of insta t replay (and going to the stadium or league booths versus relying on initial referee call). As we grow more connected in terms of communication and information, the sense of which authority to appeal to broadens among many (that many are coming to RPGs from broadened systems like MMORPGs rather than the local basement table nowadays has an impact here).

On the question of whether balance is good or bad in RPGs, I side with it being irrelevant in of itself. Some games are defined by balance and structured accordingly. 4e is a good of that, is as much as the design of different classes was kept so deliberately consistent for that very purpose. For the sake of tactical game, it was a brilliant system, but many found it limited it what it could create. By comparison, approaching other editions of D&D from a strictly balance perspective resulted in this odd catechism of builds and tiers by those trying to impose a different order than there often was (3.x indeed played very strongly into the concept of defining rulesets rather than allowing the referee to make judgement calls, which made for an expansive system in a specifically mathematical sense).

Maybe it’s a matter of coming to 1st edition as a child and understanding by necessity that it was a toolset (because I couldn’t figure out Weapon Speeds and AC modifiers by Weapon), but I remain with the idea “play how you want, but don’t take it so seriously; every edition is awesome in its own way because it tried something new and fiddled with something it thought didn’t — so feel free to do the same in your game because life’s too short to argue about looting goblins.” In terms of complex rules and spreadsheet-like balance, I always remember the sage advice that Kevin Siembieda (creator of Rifts and other overly-complex Palladium RPGs) gave to some friends playing with him at a con: “I can never remember all those complex rules I wrote, so I usually just roll a die. If it’s high, you succeed; if it’s low, you didn’t; if it’s in the middle, eh, I roll again!” A d20 can be “balance” enough.


----------



## Tony Vargas (Jun 4, 2018)

AmerginLiath said:


> On the question of whether balance is good or bad in RPGs, I side with it being irrelevant in of itself.



 Necessary but not sufficient, is how I'd see it, at worst.  Games need to be balanced to avoid being terrible, non-functional, or boring (like tic-tac-toe, above), but they can still be all three, in spite of being balanced.  
The greater the depth and scope the game attempts, the more important balance becomes to keep all those elements meaningful & viable, and thus more than just window-dressing for a storyteller's backdrop or chaff for system masters to winnow away.  

RPGs often try for tremendous scope and have the potential for great depth of play by their very natures.  Balance is thus critically important to deliver on that.  If the game doesn't provide it, the players have to, by some sort of informal agreement or voluntary restraint (as in Freestyle RP), or the DM has to impose it by fiat (as in classic D&D or 5e).  Otherwise, so much of that potential depth & scope is lost.  What's left might still be pretty significant, though:  put a group of equally-capable powergamers together to play 3.x/PF, and there's still a lot of game left for them to use, it's not just X-in-the-corner, O-in-the-center, every time.  ;P


----------



## Paul Farquhar (Jun 4, 2018)

Balance is A): Impossible

and

B) Undesirable

Gandalf is not "balanced" with Bilbo Baggins.


----------



## Tony Vargas (Jun 4, 2018)

Paul Farquhar said:


> Gandalf is not "balanced" with Bilbo Baggins.



 That Bilbo was such a DM's pet, way OP...


----------



## hawkeyefan (Jun 4, 2018)

Tony Vargas said:


> Necessary but not sufficient, is how I'd see it, at worst.  Games need to be balanced to avoid being terrible, non-functional, or boring (like tic-tac-toe, above), but they can still be all three, in spite of being balanced.
> The greater the depth and scope the game attempts, the more important balance becomes to keep all those elements meaningful & viable, and thus more than just window-dressing for a storyteller's backdrop or chaff for system masters to winnow away.
> 
> RPGs often try for tremendous scope and have the potential for great depth of play by their very natures.  Balance is thus critically important to deliver on that.  If the game doesn't provide it, the players have to, by some sort of informal agreement or voluntary restraint (as in Freestyle RP), or the DM has to impose it by fiat (as in classic D&D or 5e).  Otherwise, so much of that potential depth & scope is lost.  What's left might still be pretty significant, though:  put a group of equally-capable powergamers together to play 3.x/PF, and there's still a lot of game left for them to use, it's not just X-in-the-corner, O-in-the-center, every time.  ;P




I feel like this may be more true of competitive games....chess and tic-tac-toe being examples that were mentioned....but in a collaborative game such as most RPGs, I don't think it's quite as necessary as all that. 

Of course, it all depends on what you mean by balance....there are a lot of ways we could apply the term to an RPG and to D&D in particular. But given the OP and the way this conversation has gone, I look at it as a game not having "clearly superior options" in the form of feats or class combinations.

And I think that's clearly not the case. Sure, a feat like Great Weapon Master may be seen by some as a clearly superior option, and a player who doesn't select it is not being "optimal". But that's only when combat efficacy is the only goal. 

For those who aren't as concerned with combat efficacy, or at least for whom it's not the sole concern, such balance is far less important, and certainly not a necessity. This is the fundamental flaw with CapnZapp's premise; it's an issue for his game (and certainly some others', too), but that doesn't mean that the game needs to be revised. It means he and his players should revise the way they play the game....either by house ruling to achieve the desired outcome, or by shifting their focus a bit, and maybe playing the game a bit differently than they always have. 

If you want to apply the term balance more loosely....perhaps as "most of the existing options will appeal to someone"....then sure, balance is required. Because the goal is fun, so as long as all the players are enjoying themselves, then the game is balanced.


----------



## Gadget (Jun 4, 2018)

I find it interesting that rather than argue the OP's logic & proposals, we get a lot of hand waving and philosophical "perfect balance is impossible" and "who wants balance anyway?" type of arguments.  I'm not convinced a Sorc with twinned Firebolt is over the top (or if it is, not by much).  I think things like sorlocks and sorcadins are kind of ridiculous and don't really give them much credence. The real question here is how much balance is really needed?  Why even have levels? Many will have different answers. 

I like 5e and think they did a great job, by and large, of stepping back from the edge of system mastery & complexity while largely capturing the 'feel' of D&D.  That does not mean that it is not without flaws and couldn't be improved; especially after a few years in the wild.  For instance, I think a lot of the spells could be better designed, yet I acknowledge that they paired down the worst of the 3.x excesses.  I see nothing wrong with the assertion that feats tend to favor one or two specific weapons over others and caster at-wills threaten martial's damage niche in non-feat games.  I'm not convinced on every aspect, but I can see the argument.  

This takes nothing away from the fact that charm person cleaned out a whole bandit hideout for you that one time; indeed it validates that experience.  The Sorcerer/Wizard/Bard/Warlock/AK/AT (or some touch of the previous mentioned) was using a leveled spell resource to solve a problem in an interesting way and had no need of high dpr at-will cantrip to 'blast' his/her way through the encounter.


----------



## Lanefan (Jun 4, 2018)

Krachek said:


> A more problematic case is the sorcerer 9 / warlock 2. ...





> An honorable mention is the Paladin 6 / sorcerer 5 ...



Maybe one possible solution is to ban multiclassing outright?


----------



## Tony Vargas (Jun 4, 2018)

hawkeyefan said:


> I feel like this may be more true of competitive games....chess and tic-tac-toe being examples that were mentioned....but in a collaborative game such as most RPGs, I don't think it's quite as necessary as all that.



 Fairness is certainly an important aspect of competitive games.  Chess may not be perfectly balanced, and tic-tac-toe very badly so, because of the advantage of going first, but in a tournament you play multiple games, so each plays white some of the time, and it's reasonably fair.

In a cooperative game, fairness a bit less important, because you just need to be fair to the cooperative unit, as a whole (and, really, it doesn't even need to be /that/ fair, if you're 'playing against the game,' the game's not going to get it's feelings hurt - and, D&D is probably an example of that, as well, it tends to favor the players).  But, balance becomes _even more important,_ because you're not trying to provide meaningful/viable choices to just one player, but to multiple players all trying to contribute to a single goal, _as individuals_.  



> Of course, it all depends on what you mean by balance....there are a lot of ways we could apply the term to an RPG and to D&D in particular. But given the OP and the way this conversation has gone, I look at it as a game not having "clearly superior options" in the form of feats or class combinations.



 Feats and classes (and combinations thereof) are choices, yes.  It wouldn't be /just/ that, but they're examples the OP directly referenced, he's also indirectly looking at spell choice and such, too, I'm sure...

...as far as that goes, the question is whether those choices are 'balanced' - by my preferred definition, are they all meaningful & viable - and if they're not, are there a few OP culprits that can be eliminated or nerfed so they stop obviating other choices.  My personal conclusion is that the inclusion of feats & MCing simply isn't worth it, but one could go through and selectively ban/nerf/buff various feats to address the issues Zapp & others have found, rather than just toss them all out as a unit...



Lanefan said:


> Maybe one possible solution is to ban multiclassing outright?



 Ding!  Feats & Multi-classing are both explicitly optional in the PH, to begin with, you just decline to opt into them!  It's not even as ringing a condemnation as 'banning,' you just choose not to deal with the added complexity, and the problem vanishes.

(To, Zapp would point out, be replaces by the problem of DPR weapon-users being overshadowed, but no solution is perfect...)





hawkeyefan said:


> And I think that's clearly not the case. Sure, a feat like Great Weapon Master may be seen by some as a clearly superior option, and a player who doesn't select it is not being "optimal". But that's only when combat efficacy is the only goal.



 Or if combat efficacy is a class's primary meaningful/viable contribution.  Zapp isn't worried that a Druid with GWM is going to outshine a knife-throwing wizard, he's concerned with the Fighter with SS out-shining the TWFighter or the S&B fighter or what-ever, and, if he doesn't allow the feats, also with the more DPR-oriented classes like the fighter not shining sufficiently, at all.  
It's a legitimate concern, but probably not one best addressed by extensively re-writing already-optional rules, IMHO.



> This is the fundamental flaw with CapnZapp's premise; it's an issue for his game (and certainly some others', too), but that doesn't mean that the game needs to be revised.



Revising 5e isn't even really on the table, it's not designed or structured to be errata'd into a better game as it goes, it's designed as a common starting point that will be customized to varying degrees by each DM who uses it.  Any revision of the game could pull the rug out from under some of those customization efforts - and they may well constitute a great deal of effort, indeed.  Each revision also creates a schism in the experience of the game before and after the revision, not like edition schisms, obviously, but why risk it...



> If you want to apply the term balance more loosely....perhaps as "most of the existing options will appeal to someone"....then sure, balance is required. Because the goal is fun, so as long as all the players are enjoying themselves, then the game is balanced.



 Not s'much, no.  Imbalanced games generally have a balanced sub-set, once the chaff is winnowed away.  Such may or may not be enough to constitute a worthwhile game.  A solved game, like tic-tac-toe, for instance, not really.  A vastly more complex game like D&D, though, even when you have eliminated the 'trap' and 'chaff' options probably has a fair amount left.  If it's enough for a given group, they can have fun with it.  

If the imbalances aren't all winnowed away, then the 'system master,' who can leverage those imbalances is going to have just that much more fun, too, until everyone else has gotten wise...  ;>


Maybe, in the end, though, it's only an aesthetic/value judgement that a game should even try to set as few traps and leave as little chaff on the floor as possible?


----------



## 5ekyu (Jun 4, 2018)

Tony Vargas said:


> Well, I'm guessing you didn't actually mean to make that claim when you said:
> 
> ... but, that's really the only way to take it.  You present the continued play of the game by many people as proof that not only Zapp's observations of imperfection in the system are false, but that, by implication, any/all other criticisms must also be dismissed.
> 
> ...




First, your posts shuffle and jive aside, nothing i said implied or claimed or anything close to the idea that the game as is is perfect. Not one bit. 

Most sentient beings can recognize there is a wide gap between the extremes of "perfect" and "hopeless" and i think its not all that controversial to suggest that a great many games played every day help to support that conclusion.

it seems however that often those with agendas tend to thrive when the extremes are the glasses through which they see the "position."

As for the somewhat difficult to connect to part about how you see something about that somehow adding up to dismissing all criticisms - again not said, not claimed, not implied - maybe you should have kept reading to the few sentecnes you cut out of the post you quoted... so you could see some contexxt...

"Its alnost like some of them dont get upset over stiff and just play without worrying if adding a few extra bad guys at level this or level that is against somrone elses idea of an ideal game? 
I bet there are even games run out there where gms dont use the cr calculator sustem at all and just throw together adversaries drawn from the campaign logic and their experience with their group."

You may note there references to games in actual play adjusting  - not at all a sign of things a "perfect " thing would require. But sure, keeping that part of the post would not have supported your revisionary take on it so, i get it.

But, even tho to you this was somehow a condemnation of the criticism... it wasn't. it was a challenge of sorts to the "concluisions" and the exaggeration of the impact of the problem with words like "hopeless" and the more extreme positions on fixes needed etc... 

If instead of "hopelessly lopsided" for instance it has been "more lopsided that it needs to be" or "more lopsided than i like" it would have been a little different sort of conclusion and presentation - one more conducive to the focus on the criticisms, as opposed to the conclusions.

Planting one's flag in the extreme doesn't in my experience help one's position to be on solid footing... any more than inventing "dismiss all criticism" for other's positions does.

But, it is illustrative and informative, so thanks for that!


----------



## Krachek (Jun 4, 2018)

Lanefan said:


> Maybe one possible solution is to ban multiclassing outright?




I prefer the scalpel rather than the hammer, but I admit I would enjoy no MC for paladin.
Otherwise I prefer nerfing two feats and the  quicken eldritch blast, rather than scrap all the MC.


----------



## Mistwell (Jun 4, 2018)

I feel like the real issues thread like these tend to run into is the focus on Damage Per Round to begin with. I feel like it's very similar to the early days of tracking professional basketball statistics.

DPR is basically Points Per Game. It's the most simple, basic level of evaluation for an individual character/player. It does not take into account a massive amount of the game. In basketball, it would ignore how often you miss, rebound, steal, assist, block, and even more advanced concepts like your value over replacement player, reduced offense from the person you're guarding, wins produced while you are on the court, and all sorts of elements.

And for years those more "advanced" statistics were ignored in basketball because they were more difficult to obtain data on, and more difficult to interpret. Everyone knew what Points Per Game meant and how to get that number (you look at the score board) but very few knew how to obtain further information or how to read that data. 

It seems to me D&D is sort of still stuck in that early statistical read on the efficiency of a character. If  your goal is "experience points" or "treasure" or "survival" then "casting charm person on the chieftain of a tribe which avoids combat and gets the party XP and treasure similar to if they would have gotten if they had killed the entire tribe" should have high value. But if DPR is the only thing you assess, it has zero value unless your charm person spell caused extra damage to be dealt. 

Just because it's hard to come up with some more advanced assessments of efficiency doesn't mean it shouldn't be attempted. Isn't it time we had some stats that measured "avoided getting hit with X amount of damage avoided" or "prevented harm by avoiding an encounter with X amount of draining of resources" or "reduced the risk of death of a PC"?


----------



## Tony Vargas (Jun 4, 2018)

5ekyu said:


> Most sentient beings can recognize there is a wide gap between the extremes of "perfect" and "hopeless" and i think its not all that controversial to suggest that a great many games played every day help to support that conclusion.



 That'd've been a clearer way of putting it.  Acknowledge that, yes, Cap'n Zapp found a flaw in the 5e diamond, but opine that it's still pretty shiny, and with the right setting, can be just as beautiful as he'd like it to be...



> If instead of "hopelessly lopsided" for instance it has been "more lopsided that it needs to be" or "more lopsided than i like" it would have been a little different sort of conclusion and presentation - one more conducive to the focus on the criticisms, as opposed to the conclusions.



Yep, and, to be fair, I think he has had some pre-final words on the subject that were maybe not that extreme, and the 'final word' is as much about the community as the game.

But, to be equally fair to those shouting him down every time:  he does seem fixated on getting the game to change, rather than changing the game at his table.


----------



## FlyingChihuahua (Jun 4, 2018)

Mistwell said:


> I feel like the real issues thread like these tend to run into is the focus on Damage Per Round to begin with. I feel like it's very similar to the early days of tracking professional basketball statistics.
> 
> DPR is basically Points Per Game. It's the most simple, basic level of evaluation for an individual character/player. It does not take into account a massive amount of the game. In basketball, it would ignore how often you miss, rebound, steal, assist, block, and even more advanced concepts like your value over replacement player, reduced offense from the person you're guarding, wins produced while you are on the court, and all sorts of elements.
> 
> ...




Good points.

However, there is one important question to be asked in this analysis. How will people be able to brag about these sorts of things?


----------



## the Jester (Jun 5, 2018)

Tony Vargas said:


> That'd've been a clearer way of putting it.  Acknowledge that, yes, Cap'n Zapp found a flaw in the 5e diamond, but opine that it's still pretty shiny, and with the right setting, can be just as beautiful as he'd like it to be...




Except that not everyone agrees that he has found a flaw at all. Not to say that 5e is flawless- no game is- but what he points to as a flaw seems just fine in my considerable 5e experience.


----------



## Tony Vargas (Jun 5, 2018)

the Jester said:


> Except that not everyone agrees that he has found a flaw at all.



 In that particular exchange I was responding to someone who apparently did, just found it easy enough to deal with. 







> Not to say that 5e is flawless- no game is- but what he points to as a flaw seems just fine in my considerable 5e experience.



 So you've had considerable experience with parties where one all-about-the-DPR champion fighter went the TWF route and feels like a schmuck compared to the GWM or SS or whatever, and you have been just fine with that (suck it up, Cuisinart boy, this ain't 2e anymore!)?  
I can't say I don't entirely empathize (TWF had it coming when 3.0 nerfed it, and still does, & will as long as a certain drow is running around with two scimitars, anyway). 
Or you've had considerable experience with 5e that did not include any of the elements Zapp was grousing about ever actually coming up in those combinations?  
Between the levels I typically run for AL, and the choice not to use feats or MCing when I don't, I have also neatly avoided the issue.

OTOH, it's not like he's making anything up:  each of those elements is in the game, and the math adds up.  And, I suppose the point is a flaw in the game (what's between the covers), not in our campaigns (nor even in Zapp's necessarily).


----------



## 5ekyu (Jun 5, 2018)

Mistwell said:


> I feel like the real issues thread like these tend to run into is the focus on Damage Per Round to begin with. I feel like it's very similar to the early days of tracking professional basketball statistics.
> 
> DPR is basically Points Per Game. It's the most simple, basic level of evaluation for an individual character/player. It does not take into account a massive amount of the game. In basketball, it would ignore how often you miss, rebound, steal, assist, block, and even more advanced concepts like your value over replacement player, reduced offense from the person you're guarding, wins produced while you are on the court, and all sorts of elements.
> 
> ...




i agree that DPR is highly overrated by some... just because a metric is easy to determine once you make all sorts of assumptions does not make it relevant. 

As i commented in a few posts on a few threads in my experience DPR is not a good indicator at all of overall success or failure.

Even when one focuses on DAMAGE ONLY a few rounds disabling a key foe or giving a high producer disadvantage can do a lot more for your success failure than dumping your concentration slots onto buffing a GWM guy for a few more points per attack - if for no other reason than thats a curing turn the cleric can turn to offense or more control.

But that doesn't plug into excel spreadsheets in white rooms as easy for some in the  the OMMI crowd. (Optimizer-Min-Mix-Idealists)


----------



## Tony Vargas (Jun 5, 2018)

5ekyu said:


> i agree that DPR is highly overrated by some... just because a metric is easy to determine



 I've said this may times, myself.  DPR is easy to calculate, it's low-hanging poison fruit on the balance tree.  The temptation not only to base balance on DPR, but to do so with undue precision ("oh! there's a one-half hp average DPR difference between these two weapons - no on will ever take the weaker one!"), seems to be overwhelming sometimes, especially on line.

In the mean time, there's a lot more to the game, even to combat, than DPR.  OK, yes, DPR (and focus fire) is pretty important in combat, given D&D's use of hps, and the fact that enemies' threat is not degraded by attacks until they hit 0, so it's not like it isn't a meaningful consideration.  But other things, like versatility, can be extremely potent, too, and while not that hard to measure in the abstract (20 options is more than 2, options that can be recustomized daily are more versatile than those that are locked in, etc), it's very hard to quantify them in a way that can then be plugged into a convenient formula and compared to DPR.  So balance often settles for rough DPR parity, and not a whole lot more.  Because it's only 'rough' it can look imbalanced when it's just hard to analyze.

And, I didn't get the impression Zapp was unaware of that, since part of his concern was that fighters leaned so heavily on DPR specifically to balance all the other advantages of other classes, that they 'needed' the feats.  If it were all just DPR, that wouldn't be an issue (for him), dropping the feats would do it.


----------



## the Jester (Jun 5, 2018)

Tony Vargas said:


> So you've had considerable experience with parties where one all-about-the-DPR champion fighter went the TWF route and feels like a schmuck compared to the GWM or SS or whatever, and you have been just fine with that (suck it up, Cuisinart boy, this ain't 2e anymore!)?




Well- I've seen the TWF guy in the same party as a sharpshooter, yet the TWF guy seemed to be just fine. (Playing a PH ranger, no less!) Somehow, even without the bonus damage, he felt like he contributed just fine.

I haven't actually had the sorlock thing in my game, but I run games with mixed level parties, and even the low level guys who are with the sharpshooting/GWFing pcs manage to feel like they are contributing to the group. The bottom line is that pcs in my campaign seem to measure themselves against their adventures, rather than against their adventuring buddies.




Tony Vargas said:


> OTOH, it's not like he's making anything up:  each of those elements is in the game, and the math adds up.  And, I suppose the point is a flaw in the game (what's between the covers), not in our campaigns (nor even in Zapp's necessarily).




Sure, but the assumptions people are making when adding the math is aren't universally true- specifically, I don't believe that DPR is the be-all and end-all of the game. I suppose if the DM only awards xp for monsters slain or defeated in combat, rather than for challenges overcome, it shifts the emphasis further toward "DPR is king", but that's not every game. 

Given that the things he is pointing at- multiclassing and feats- are explicitly optional rules to begin with, I really do think this is something of a mountain-from-molehill discussion. Don't like that -5/+10? Just don't use feats, or at least those particular ones. Don't like the sorlock's damage output? Don't allow multiclassing. It really seems like a simple solution to me, just like "don't use the flanking optional rule" is a great solution to "the optional flanking rule makes it too easy to gain advantage."


----------



## Saeviomagy (Jun 5, 2018)

the Jester said:


> Well- I've seen the TWF guy in the same party as a sharpshooter, yet the TWF guy seemed to be just fine. (Playing a PH ranger, no less!) Somehow, even without the bonus damage, he felt like he contributed just fine.



Sketchy info here, so hard to work out what you actually saw. For starters, it looks like you've got a fighter vs a ranger? That basically means you have a fairly ideal comparison - the ranger has more versatility than a fighter, the fighter is doing more damage. Now, if that was the ONLY way that these two characters could have been built, fine.


> Sure, but the assumptions people are making when adding the math is aren't universally true- specifically, I don't believe that DPR is the be-all and end-all of the game. I suppose if the DM only awards xp for monsters slain or defeated in combat, rather than for challenges overcome, it shifts the emphasis further toward "DPR is king", but that's not every game.



One of the examples in the op is a sorceror vs a fighter. The sorceror has the _option_ to spend all of his sorcery resources on more damage, but he's by no means _required_ to do so. The fighter has no option to deal less damage over the day in order to solve problems (well, he does - potentially that action from action surge might do something - but it's not likely to be the same impact as a spell). Similarly for a warlock vs a fighter.

Now your next argument is probably going to be something along the lines of "what a character does isn't dependent on it's built in capabilities". Which is basically the argument that the rules don't matter at all.


----------



## pemerton (Jun 5, 2018)

FlyingChihuahua said:


> Yep. Basically any game with a choice that means something to the game will be imbalanced.



Why?Eg how is backgammon imbalanced?

And just sticking to RPGs, how is HeroQuest revised imbalanced?


----------



## pemerton (Jun 5, 2018)

A lot of commentary on this thread seems a bit tangential to [MENTION=12731]CapnZapp[/MENTION]'s point. The OP does not say that  every choice should be balanced with every other - eg that a wizards PC should benefit just as much by pushing STR to 13 as pushing INT to 20.

Nor does the OP say that every choice should be identical. D&D has a complex mix of systems - to hit, dmage, defence, action economy, etc - and that's only combat - and CapnZapp clearly recognises that there can be tradeoffs between them.

The OP is complaining that the game has some dominant strategies that crowed out other archetypes (eg thorowing knives). That may or myay not be true, but that complaint is not what posters seem to be addressing.


----------



## Flexor the Mighty! (Jun 5, 2018)

I'm not hung up on balance much but I have to agree with CZ on a few issues there.  I just quit playing 5e and started running a rule-set that worked better for me though.  Of course its replete with its own issues.


----------



## Oofta (Jun 5, 2018)

I pretty much ignore CapnZapp's threads because they're pretty much the same: 5E is broken for one reason or another.  But I thought I throw in my 2 coppers for his two primary beefs.



CapnZapp said:


> Problem #1 means that in any game with feats, multiclassing and magic items monsters (especially at high levels) stop working as listed, requiring DMs to tweak them or outright replace them. I'm sick and tired of not being able to just pull out a stock monster and use it as-is with zero prep, just because my players aren't newbie carebears that are content with not using the options in the PHB!




What else could be expected?  The DM needs to adjust difficulty level for their group.  In what edition was this not the case?  I use stock monsters all the time.  For one group I'll throw a few more at them or use slightly better tactics.  It's simple.



CapnZapp said:


> Problem #2 means that loads of cool archetypes gets thrown by the wayside simply because it is no fun to be half as effective as the other guy, and some notion of "realism" told the designers only some archetypes get to be effective. Guy with greatsword, okay. Gal with throwing knives, fuggedaboudit.




I also agree that there are a handful of _perceived_ optimal builds.  Want to reward that dagger thrower?  Set up scenarios where openly carrying large weapons is forbidden or difficult.  Or let thrown weapons count as ranged weapons for purposes sharp shooter.  Or just don't worry about it.  A longbow should probably be more dangerous than daggers.

On the other hand I disagree that, for example, GWM is _always_ better than two-weapon fighting.  It varies by level and average target ACs, and support received by other characters.  In many cases GWM will be better then TWF by a point or two if it really matters. But people that crunch numbers IMHO also tend to over-emphasize the difference.    In my personal experience (which may not match anyone else's) the difference between the different fighting styles is so small most people won't notice.

I have more of a problem with sharp shooter. It feels like a feat tax for ranged weapon attackers.  

But the fact that 5E has a few warts doesn't really bother me; I don't see the issues in real play.  It would be interesting to see analysis from DnDBeyond, but other than that I don't know if there's any way of knowing how skewed the builds are.   I and my friends will continue building characters that sound fun even if they do fall a few points behind the curve.


----------



## Tony Vargas (Jun 5, 2018)

Saeviomagy said:


> . Which is basically the argument that the rules don't matter at all.



 And thats not as bad an argument as it would have been 8 or 12 years ago.  Between the hardening of the rule of RAW with 3.5, and the dismantling of 4e with Essentials, rules were pretty well codified and the DM who didn't like them was obliged to put on his designer hat and fix them - a daunting prospect.  Now the rules - if you can pin them down at all - are subordinate to DM rulings, if not, from behind the shield of the screen, whim. 

The RAW can still be discussed as CapnZapp often tries to do, but it's relevance isn't what it was.


----------



## pemerton (Jun 5, 2018)

Oofta said:


> Want to reward that dagger thrower?  Set up scenarios where openly carrying large weapons is forbidden or difficult.



That's one way. But I don't think it's the way that [MENTION=12731]CapnZapp[/MENTION] is interested in. Introducing social constraints of the sort you describe can be used to "reward" or "punish" any build of any sort, as the GM chooses.

Whereas I think CapnZapp has in mind a knife thrower who has the same sort of chance of contributing to victory in combat in a standard module/AP as does a hand crossbow specialists or a great weapon fighter.



Oofta said:


> Or just don't worry about it.  A longbow should probably be more dangerous than daggers.



If someone wants an archetype to be mechanically viable (under fairly understandable, even if not shared, assumptions about what "viability" means), then it doesn't help them to tell them not to want it!



Oofta said:


> Or let thrown weapons count as ranged weapons for purposes sharp shooter.



Whereas I think this is the sort of answer that actually speaks to the OP's concerns. What sorts of tweaks to 5e will resolve the issues raised? 



Oofta said:


> In many cases GWM will be better then TWF by a point or two if it really matters. But people that crunch numbers IMHO also tend to over-emphasize the difference.    In my personal experience (which may not match anyone else's) the difference between the different fighting styles is so small most people won't notice.
> 
> <snip>
> 
> I and my friends will continue building characters that sound fun even if they do fall a few points behind the curve.



This makes me wonder: is it a virtue that there is that one-or-two-point gap? Or is it an inevitable side effect that in principle would be avoided, but in practice is going to crop up in any rule set?

I'm not sure about you (Oofta) - but some posters in this thread seem to be saying that it is a virtue - that it would be _undesirable_ for the system to not include that gap. For my own part, I don't understand that view. I don't see what the damage gap between those two strategies for dealing damage adds to the game.

(If the answer is that the gap is, in fact, balanced by other considerations - eg action economy (though in this particular case I think that runs the other way) - or that once there are magic weapons there is less of a gap because the dual wielder gets to deploy two bonus weapons - then in fact, in the sense the OP cares about, there _is_ no gap. I'm asking the above question on the assumption that the gap in mechanical effectiveness is a real one.)


----------



## Aldarc (Jun 5, 2018)

Mistwell said:


> I feel like the real issues thread like these tend to run into is the focus on Damage Per Round to begin with. I feel like it's very similar to the early days of tracking professional basketball statistics.



I wish I could give you 1 XP for your post and an additional 1 XP for your use of a basketball analogy. 



pemerton said:


> The OP is complaining that the game has some dominant strategies that crowed out other archetypes (eg thorowing knives). That may or myay not be true, but that complaint is not what posters seem to be addressing.



To rephrase the sentiment in terms of a supers game, it seems that you are saying that the culture of 5e (potentially) cultivates character creation strategies that encourage players to build Thors, Iron Men, Hulks, and Dr. Stranges while discouraging Hawkeyes and Black Widows.


----------



## Zardnaar (Jun 5, 2018)

5ekyu said:


> i agree that DPR is highly overrated by some... just because a metric is easy to determine once you make all sorts of assumptions does not make it relevant.
> 
> As i commented in a few posts on a few threads in my experience DPR is not a good indicator at all of overall success or failure.
> 
> ...




 The DPR of the base classes is fine. I dont care that a ranger has less DPR than a Barbarian (hunter ranger might win IDK) but its close enough.

 I think the problem is the disparity between the other feats and the -5/+10 part which in effect once you cheese it is more like -1  or -2 /+10 in a game with low ACs. I have seen it cheesed out to the point they hit AC 20 reliably with the -5 part all because an adventure had a +2 item in it, throw in bless, advantage and a bard dice. 

 I saw all of this in action 2014, early 2015 at the latest and have seen a low level Sorlock played but she stopped playing it as spamming EB is kinda boring even when compared to a champion fighter who can use things like second wind and action surge tactically.


----------



## 5ekyu (Jun 5, 2018)

"For my own part, I don't understand that view. I don't see what the damage gap between those two strategies for dealing damage adds to the game."

For me i can express why i am not anywhere close to the OMMI position on the virtues of eliminating that 2-3 point white room excel sheet disparity.

It comes from two places, neighbors i would suggest.

1 The actual play value of these things result in a lot more circumstantial variance based on setting, table expectations etc... Just because DPR is easy to calculate doesnt mean it is meaningful enough to make fundamental changes to a game. Conflicts are not only winable and losable by DPR. This isnt some MMO with DPR tests and sudden death clocks that kick in at 33% health on the boss. A far bigger variance in TTRPG comes from the adversaries and scenario and campaign design than assumptive variances on DPR dependent on a laundry list of conditionals.

2 Everytime i have seen games get focused in on "damage math parity" to the extremes being pointed at and sniffed around, it lead them down a path to flavorlessness. In order to create parity sufficient enough for the idealists, you end up (typically) having to cut out elements and complexities which are "too" circumstantial, "too" not fitsble into easy assumptions, etc. A lot of the language used in this argument here seems very similar to if not identical to the same idealist language applied to systems thst are already broken down to flavorless building blocks but where even then its not ideal enough for the crowd.

In short, its never " close enough" for those staking out the more extreme positions on balance by math instead of balancability and playability.

Dont think thats the direction being put forth?

Go look at threads where say feats acquisition is broken into feat points earned by level and each feat given its perfect cost assessed by whatever sense of "what matters most" trips the particular OMMI posters triggers today.


----------



## pemerton (Jun 5, 2018)

A number of posters have pointed out ways in which spell casters can contribute to the game otherwise than by dealing damage. That is true - in fact, I would have thought it is quite uncontroversial (even if someone thinks damage is _better_, still it's obvious that charming a bandit king contributes to the game).

But that doesn't respond at all to the OP's concerns that fighters and other damage-dealer types get crowded out in a non-feat game by sorcerers, and in a feat game get channelled into a handful of optimal builds (optimal because of the feat support).



hawkeyefan said:


> a feat like Great Weapon Master may be seen by some as a clearly superior option, and a player who doesn't select it is not being "optimal". But that's only when combat efficacy is the only goal.
> 
> For those who aren't as concerned with combat efficacy, or at least for whom it's not the sole concern, such balance is far less important, and certainly not a necessity.



This seems to miss the points that, at least for me, were the heart of the OP.

You are correct that, if a player doesn't care about damage, then the fact that a two-handed sword is better than knife-fighting is neither here nor there. But the player who _does_ care about damage can't easily realise that goal playing a knife-fighter. This is the OP's "Problem #2".

The "further flaw" that the OP identifies is that, even if we put feats to one side, the knife fighter is in serious danger of being eclipsed by the warlock or sorcerer, who can do the same sort of ranged damage as a knife fighter, or even better, while also having the flexibility benefits of being a D&D spell caster.

It seems to me that there are two main responses to these points (other than agreeing, as eg [MENTION=205]TwoSix[/MENTION] seems to). One is to dispute their mechanical foundations eg to show that, in fact, the rules support a knife fighter whose mechanical effectiveness is comparable to a greatsword wielder, a warlock, a sorcerer, etc. I don't think anyone in this thread has tried this in a serious fashion. (I feel that showing that the sorcerer has enough spell points for "only" 5 or 6 powered-up encounters is proving the OP's point rather than refuting it!)

The other is to show that _it shouldn't matter to the player of the knife fighter_, who _wants to do meaningful amounts of damage, that his/her typical expected damage is less than that of other fairly standard builds.

I don't think this second response is hopeless, but I think it needs to be tackled head-on. Simply telling that player that s/he's wrong to want to do meaningful amounts of damage doesn't count. [MENTION=996]Tony Vargas[/MENTION] is coming closest, I think (with his empasis on "GM empowerment").

As someone who is mostly a spectator in this thread, I'm finding the failure to fully engage with the OP's claims a bit frustrating, as the second response in particular has the prospect of being quite interesting in bringing out some deep considerations in RPG play and RPG design.

EDIT: I wrote the above before reading [MENTION=23716]Gadget[/MENTION]'s post. I read that post as making a point at least somewhat similar to mine._


----------



## Oofta (Jun 5, 2018)

pemerton said:


> That's one way. But I don't think it's the way that  [MENTION=12731]CapnZapp[/MENTION] is interested in. Introducing social constraints of the sort you describe can be used to "reward" or "punish" any build of any sort, as the GM chooses.
> 
> Whereas I think CapnZapp has in mind a knife thrower who has the same sort of chance of contributing to victory in combat in a standard module/AP as does a hand crossbow specialists or a great weapon fighter.
> 
> ...




Concerning dagger throwers, I have a couple of issues.  First, not every option has to be optimal in terms of DPR.  The advantage the dagger thrower should have is flexibility in melee vs short distance range and ability to hide weapons.  Why should they be DPR equivalent to every other option?  I may like the idea of wielding a wet noodle as my weapon, doesn't mean there has to be a wet noodle build that's optimal.

But if you go two-weapon fighting and daggers you get a bonus attack whether ranged or melee while having weapons that are easily concealed.  May not matter for every campaign or every player. But there are reasons soldiers carry rifles into combat not revolvers.  Or do you think if we had a modern D&D they should be made somehow comparable so that they're "balanced"?

For hand-crossbows, you have to have a free hand to load your crossbow.  A generous DM may ignore that rule, allow a bandoleer of loaded crossbows (fire, drop, load, fire pull out next one) or they may not.  Once again, depends on campaign.  Personally I do think hand crossbows are little more than toys and IMHO should go back to doing 1 HP of damage and be poison delivery mechanisms. But it's a minor issue I ignore because some people have fun with it.

I do not think it's a virtue that there's a one-or-two point gap, I just think it's an overblown issue that has always been there in all editions.  It's futile to complain about stuff like this for a few reasons.  First, it's mostly in the eye of the beholder.  Second, it's going to vary on a game by game basis.  Hitting a lot of high AC targets who target people with the lowest AC first?  That GWM doesn't look so great.  Third, [MENTION=12731]CapnZapp[/MENTION] is pining for the impossible.  It's not feasible to have a game as complex as D&D be completely balanced or to have as many options as it does and expect one set of encounter building guidelines that will work for all groups.  He's asking for something that has never existed and will never exist.  Add an option to increase the damage of dagger throwers?  If the math shows that dagger throwers are now half a point better under ideal circumstances, it will now become the "go to" build and some people will consider it broken.

I think 5E does a better job of balancing different builds and features than previous editions (ignoring 4E because it's approach was so different).  In addition, I, and many others have given the OP many, many suggestions on many, many threads on how to address his problems.  He doesn't accept them because they're not "official".  Or he just likes to throw the same stupid complaint out every few weeks to see what kind of response he'll get.  Not sure.


----------



## pemerton (Jun 5, 2018)

Aldarc said:


> pemerton said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



I don't think the superhero metaphor really helps.

What I think the OP is saying is that - when it comes to building a damage-oriented character - the game has dominant strategies (eg great weapon, hand crossbow) that crowd out others (eg knife throwing).

This claim may or may not be true - on its face it seems plausible to me, at least at a table which plays with a reasonable degree of mechanical deftness - but in any event it doesn't seem to address it to eg point out that casters have many interesting and potentially useful non-damage dealing options.


----------



## Sadras (Jun 5, 2018)

MoonSong said:


> Speaking of that, I have a problem with chess. I'm kind of at the higher end of average skill, but I'm still average. So any actual serious player can trash the floor with me, but odds are any random person will grow frustrated playing with me. I've even tried to deliberately pay less attention to give my opponents a better chance, but turns out that boys feel like I'm cherry tapping them so they get frustrated even more quickly. So I've basically ran out of people to play with.




I suspect that might be a common issue with games that rely predominantly or solely on skill. Could be wrong, but that is my initial take on this.


----------



## pemerton (Jun 5, 2018)

5ekyu said:


> i can express why i am not anywhere close to the OMMI position on the virtues of eliminating that 2-3 point white room excel sheet disparity.
> 
> It comes from two places, neighbors i would suggest.
> 
> 1 The actual play value of these things result in a lot more circumstantial variance based on setting, table expectations etc... Just because DPR is easy to calculate doesnt mean it is meaningful enough to make fundamental changes to a game. Conflicts are not only winable and losable by DPR.



This doesn't seem to be an argument in favour of the gap. It's an argument that it doesn't matter, isn't it?



5ekyu said:


> Everytime i have seen games get focused in on "damage math parity" to the extremes being pointed at and sniffed around, it lead them down a path to flavorlessness.
> 
> <snip>
> 
> A lot of the language used in this argument here seems very similar to if not identical to the same idealist language applied to systems thst are already broken down to flavorless building blocks but where even then its not ideal enough for the crowd.



This also doesn't seem to be an argument in favour of the gap. Rather, it seems to be an argument that it can't be elminated.

Btw, what "flavourless" games do you have in mind?



5ekyu said:


> In order to create parity sufficient enough for the idealists, you end up (typically) having to cut out elements and complexities which are "too" circumstantial, "too" not fitsble into easy assumptions, etc.



I don't know what elements and complexiities you have in mind, partly because I'm not sure what RPGs you have in mind.

I don't think flavour depends on mechanical intricacies, does it?


----------



## Krachek (Jun 5, 2018)

We talk of balance in a game where ability scores are rolled. It is the first option presented and the iconic one.
Meaning a character can start with 18, 18,10,10,10,10 while the other start with 14,14,10,10,10,10.
Right from the start balance is broken.


----------



## pemerton (Jun 5, 2018)

Oofta said:


> It's not feasible to have a game as complex as D&D be completely balanced



But clearly it's feasible to have it be more or less balanced. Eg if Agonising Blast is OP, it is possible for it to be different from what it actually is.

(2nd ed AD&D introduced damage caps on spells like Fireball that weren't part of 1st ed AD&D. Presumably this was an attempt to increase balance.)



Oofta said:


> Concerning dagger throwers, I have a couple of issues.  First, not every option has to be optimal in terms of DPR.  The advantage the dagger thrower should have is flexibility in melee vs short distance range and ability to hide weapons.



Hiding weapons is probably a marginal thing, especially as a knife thrower is (premsuably) going to be wearing bandoliers full of knives. The issue of range was expressly discussed in the OP, and I also noted it in my post. I think the OP contention is that, even when range is factored in as a consideration, knife throwing is not particularly viable.



Oofta said:


> Why should they be DPR equivalent to every other option?  I may like the idea of wielding a wet noodle as my weapon, doesn't mean there has to be a wet noodle build that's optimal.
> 
> <snip>
> 
> there are reasons soldiers carry rifles into combat not revolvers.  Or do you think if we had a modern D&D they should be made somehow comparable so that they're "balanced"?



The relative inutility of a thrown knife in D&D, compared to other options, is itself a function of the hit point system and the damage system. Anyway, I think it is better for a fantasy RPG to support a wide range of recognisable archetypes. A modern heroic adventure game should be similar. From memory, Modesty Blaise's offsider Willie is pretty handy with a thrown knife.


----------



## pemerton (Jun 5, 2018)

Krachek said:


> We talk of balance in a game where ability scores are rolled. It is the first option presented and the iconic one.
> Meaning a character can start with 18, 18,10,10,10,10 while the other start with 14,14,10,10,10,10.
> Right from the start balance is broken.



_Balance_ can mean _an equal chance at doing well_. Rolling ability scores can be one form of this, although generally this sort of balance assumes there will be replays. Rolling dice for stats is probably better for one-offs or short campaigns than long, multi-year sagas.


----------



## Horwath (Jun 5, 2018)

While I agree that there are some feats that are better than average, there are more that are worse than average.

Also OP figured out that people that are more skilled in a game get higher performance in the game. Who would have guessed that?

There must be difference between classes or there should be classless sistem.

Also, if DMs find that the players are going through the monsters like butter just increase number by 50% or 100%. Don't tweak, don't bash your head what monsters could be applied here and there also(but that is a sign of a very good DM, who likes to give real challenge). Just multiply the number by certain percentage.


Also run away from rolling stats. OFC that a 20 str/dex character at 4th level with GWM/SS will wreck everything. Because he has +2 attack/damage extra that he should not have yet.


----------



## Rossbert (Jun 5, 2018)

I keep seeing these and wondering if the problem is in the expectations of HOW a person contributes.  I saw a bit debate about shield master in another thread where the argument was it was useless due to how bonus action timing works.  It seemed to me that the shield specific features were giving a strong hint that that particular fighting style was for support and not your own damage potential (helping allies avoid attacks and knocking enemies down or moving them after your attacks).  

If you judge a support/positioning/defense feat against an offensive one in terms of damage of course it will come out short.  That the damage feats add damage shouldn't be a surprise to anyone, it is their purpose.  Other combat styles or feats add other options beyond damage, what is valuable depends on your game and personality.  I once heard someone complain that actor was overpowered due to the nature of the campaign (high intrigue).

I wonder if another part of the trap feeling comes from taking archetypes that work better mechanically for another class and shoehorning them in another just because you can.  A knife thrower is generally a poor choice for a fighter but is a much more interesting choice for a rogue or a monk.  Come to think of it, rogues also have a lot to gain from wielding two weapons as well...

I might have a new character.


----------



## Paul Farquhar (Jun 5, 2018)

Kensai is the way to go for a knife thrower.


----------



## Sacrosanct (Jun 5, 2018)

For a thread about the last word, there keeps being more posts to it. 

Crap, now I'm part of the problem...


----------



## Oofta (Jun 5, 2018)

pemerton said:


> But clearly it's feasible to have it be more or less balanced. Eg if Agonising Blast is OP, it is possible for it to be different from what it actually is.
> 
> (2nd ed AD&D introduced damage caps on spells like Fireball that weren't part of 1st ed AD&D. Presumably this was an attempt to increase balance.)
> 
> ...




You seem rather stuck on this knife thrower for some reason I don't get.  I've played several campaigns where there was a "no large weapon" in the city rule.  I'll agree that it's not the best option for damage.  It shouldn't be and I don't care.  A thrown knife does a lot less damage than an arrow from a longbow.  

But it's also easy to come close: let sharp shooter work for thrown weapons, use two weapon fighting style to throw a dagger as a bonus action every round.  If you want a custom knife thrower work with your DM for a special feat or build, but there's such a minimal call for it don't expect to ever get official support.

As far as agonizing blast, it lets you add your charisma bonus to your eldritch blast.  Which puts it on par with every other class or option that adds an ability mod (strength, dex for weapon users, int for evokers, wisdom for druid's shillelagh off the top of my head),to damage.  Again, I don't see the issue.

[EDIT] Just to be clear, I don't think 5E is perfect.  I also don't think it, or any game with similar feel and range of options could be.  In some ways 4E was "more balanced" but then you also had things like rogues with spells powers that did impossible things like Cloud of Daggers.  If that appeals to you, play 4E.  For me I'd rather have a game that relies less on making sure every class has similar powers justified with different fluff text.


----------



## Flexor the Mighty! (Jun 5, 2018)

On the knife issue, personally I don't want a system where the knife man in a puffy shirt is just as effective in straight up combat as a guy in plate with a longsword.  To me that's silly.  Of course there may be situations where the puffy shirt and knife are more effective or appropriate.


----------



## Sacrosanct (Jun 5, 2018)

Flexor the Mighty! said:


> On the knife issue, personally I don't want a system where the knife man in a puffy shirt is just as effective in straight up combat as a guy in plate with a longsword.  To me that's silly.  Of course there may be situations where the puffy shirt and knife are more effective or appropriate.




If a guy in a puffy shirt with knives is just as effective in straight up combat as a guy in plate with a sword, then no one ever wear plate and use a sword.  In discussions like this, it seems everyone always ignores the environment and what's going on in the game.  And they ignore encumbrance.  If the knife is just as good, then don't ever wear plate mail and be able to move further, faster, and carry more.  No longer worry about things like oppressive heat or people casting spells on you like heat metal.  The game is much more than a DPR comparison.  Everything has benefits and drawbacks. 

So to your point, a guy in a puffy shirt with knives would be more appropriate in any environment where stealth is a factor, or you're in a swamp and need to swim, or any other number of scenarios that frequently come up in a game.  But to make them just as effective in vanilla combat makes it not only silly, but too good when compared with the drawbacks faced when wearing plate and using a sword


----------



## hawkeyefan (Jun 5, 2018)

pemerton said:


> A number of posters have pointed out ways in which spell casters can contribute to the game otherwise than by dealing damage. That is true - in fact, I would have thought it is quite uncontroversial (even if someone thinks damage is _better_, still it's obvious that charming a bandit king contributes to the game).
> 
> But that doesn't respond at all to the OP's concerns that fighters and other damage-dealer types get crowded out in a non-feat game by sorcerers, and in a feat game get channelled into a handful of optimal builds (optimal because of the feat support).
> 
> ...



_

I understood his points just fine. I simply disagree that any action at the level he wants is required to correct the issues. 

I think he should certainly address these points for his game. He and his players should decide how best to address the concerns they have. This could be in a variety of methods.....removing feats is one example I gave. They could also set damage by class rather than weapon....make fighters do a base 1d12 damage, and sorcerers do 1d6. This would help narrow the gap, and also make something like a knife fighter more viable from a damage perspective. 

I expect that, as he said in the OP, there would need to be more than one "correction" made in order for him to be satisfied. 

I don't disagree with his assessment that the points he brought up are issues....I simply think they are issues for HIS game, not THE game. His concerns matter very little to my game. My players are not as concerned with DPR maximization and cross class combinations designed solely for combat efficacy. His are. He needs to fix this issue for his game. I don't think anyone would say he shouldn't. 

But instead of presenting an analysis of HIS game, he presents it as an analysis of THE game. 

Now, I understand that the design choices for the game play a part here. By no means do I think the game is flawless. However, when I find something that's a flaw for my game, I address it in my game. I discuss with my players, and we figure out a way to houserule it, and we tweak the houserule until it works in a way we like. I don't expect the game to change to suit my specific needs. I don't assume that because something is an issue for my group, that it must be for all, many, or even some others. 

I mentioned removing feats in my initial post because I think that's a first step for him and his group. The feats that cause issues for them are boring and unimaginative. Great Weapon Master doesn't add anything to the concept of a Fighter or Barbarian that isn't already there. The only reason to take it is to increase the amount of damage the character can do. It adds nothing to the character thematically, and adds little mechanically (a slight tactical decision of taking the -5 to add 10 damage). These feats are selected only for the damage increase. I think that sums up the issue right there....HIS game has one goal when it comes to character build. 

So I think that needs to change. Players should select Feats....and classes and spells and any other option....for reasons other then DPR._


----------



## TwoSix (Jun 5, 2018)

pemerton said:


> It seems to me that there are two main responses to these points (other than agreeing, as eg [MENTION=205]TwoSix[/MENTION] seems to). One is to dispute their mechanical foundations eg to show that, in fact, the rules support a knife fighter whose mechanical effectiveness is comparable to a greatsword wielder, a warlock, a sorcerer, etc. I don't think anyone in this thread has tried this in a serious fashion. (I feel that showing that the sorcerer has enough spell points for "only" 5 or 6 powered-up encounters is proving the OP's point rather than refuting it!)



I do agree overall with the OP.  My only point of contention with his premise is that I think trying to get community buy-in, or WotC buy-in, to the overall idea that these concepts should be addressed on a wider basis than any one table is a fool's errand.  That constant push to do so is why the OP gets so many other posters here riled up.


----------



## Warpiglet (Jun 5, 2018)

I think there is value in having some choices be less powerful.  Granted this is a fantasy game, but how many individuals on a battlefield ran around throwing daggers?  Correct, probably none. Many knights had a dagger for finishing a kill.  A rogue doing sneak attack damage is another matter and rules increase damage in this case substantially.

At a certain point it becomes absurd.  Why shouldn't my unarmored peasant with a dagger do as much damage and be as hard to hit as a knight in chain with shield and longsword?  Some limitations and differences are there for some sense of a model, however loose it may be.  The idea that I imagine a really fast peasant with a dagger is fine.  However, some level of absurdity might not be fun for others.  As an aside, I can do something like with with a monk.  Again, if you look you can find some mechanics for almost anything if you look to changing theme.

Why should sorcerers do more with cantrips than a knight with a sword?  They generally don't.  If there is a case where they do, they ARE sorcerers with magic and it cannot be much different without feats.  If they are twinning etc. they are using a resource.  (In fact, without adding dragon sorcerer bonus it would be soundly in favor of a fighter even a sword and board one).  Save Warlock with EB, we also see resistance to fire, poison etc. fairly often and a magic longsword (even +1) suddenly holds its own big time.

I think again, we come down to feats.  Feats are totally optional.  What is more, a DM could EASILY limit which feats are available.  You know the main concerns here: GWM and SS.  

Even here I wonder at which level are they out of hand?  Is it at level 11 with three attacks?  Now we see it is high level fighters only that we are super concerned with...and why should a fighter not have SOMETHING?  Afterall, number of attacks is their thing.  

Or if players don't like disparity of this sort agree to not take this feat for a fighter.  Or agree not to go out of your way to give advantage to a fighter.  

I appreciate the OPs concern with balance.  I don't like any one character running the show.  But while a fighter is GWMing monster's heads off, what is the 11th level wizard doing?

Look this goes way back.  What did 1e AD&D theives really do?  THEIR JOB.  We knew then that they could never stand up to a fighter one on one.  And neither could a cleric.  (Well especially since most fighters I came across had exceptional strength).  What we lacked in restraint as kids is available to us as adults.  

In short, how big of a difference in damage is there without GWM and SS?  I think the OP has inflated the disparity and the solutions are too severe with easier ones being overlooked.  

In a game with no feats, standard array etc., how poor is the balance?  Are we only talking about DPR or impact on the story?  In the latter case, see if less damage with a cantrip is much of an issue when the you stand at the gates of a fortress.  What are you going to do, batter the door down with a greatsword?  Disguise self, charm, friends, thieves tools...these things matter.

If our only concern is going toe to toe in an arena, there is definitely a problem...less so with the rules and more so with that game.

I suppose the same could be said for a dungeon full of locks and traps without the means to deal with them...


----------



## 5ekyu (Jun 5, 2018)

pemerton said:


> This doesn't seem to be an argument in favour of the gap. It's an argument that it doesn't matter, isn't it?
> 
> This also doesn't seem to be an argument in favour of the gap. Rather, it seems to be an argument that it can't be elminated.
> 
> ...



"I don't think flavour depends on mechanical intricacies, does it?"

It depends on what you choose to define as flavor. 

A lack of flavor can be felt if differences in weapons are homogenized down to equalize dpr over less trackable aspects.

Daggers and dual-wielding gives you always a melee weapon in hand and ranged weapon in hand and that creates options that double crossbows do not and greataxes do not. But, have we seen that codified into the how knife fighter sux dpr discussion in a dpr countable way? Nope... The dpr difference is "a problem" and one of the strategies dismissed by those focusing "on damage" in spite of the case that the daggers give you the possibility of more attacks depending on circumstances - or at least better attacks in some.

Difference that are harder to quantify tend to get less inclusion when games become more focused on quantifying balance by damage. 

The "no absolutes" position is a symptom of that. 

Fewer meaningful and thematic differences cost flavor but at the same time make quantification and oversimplification on misleading indicators like dpr  easier.

And i will pass on the invite to system wars. If you dont share the observation or have a different perspective on it, thats fine.


----------



## 5ekyu (Jun 5, 2018)

pemerton said:


> But clearly it's feasible to have it be more or less balanced. Eg if Agonising Blast is OP, it is possible for it to be different from what it actually is.
> 
> (2nd ed AD&D introduced damage caps on spells like Fireball that weren't part of 1st ed AD&D. Presumably this was an attempt to increase balance.)
> 
> ...



Cited as example of how dismissed less quantifiable differences are when the focus on balance enters the nartow OMMI world of dpr etc, even thematics differences.

" Hiding weapons is probably a marginal thing,"


----------



## 5ekyu (Jun 5, 2018)

Flexor the Mighty! said:


> On the knife issue, personally I don't want a system where the knife man in a puffy shirt is just as effective in straight up combat as a guy in plate with a longsword.  To me that's silly.  Of course there may be situations where the puffy shirt and knife are more effective or appropriate.



Exactly... I ascribe to a balance vision that emphasizes equilibrium over equality. It pretty much dismisses the notion some have of how equal all the damage options should be.

Equilibrium is when over a variety of circumstances and encounters over a campaign, no two things need to be equal in any one area but overall everyone contributes to success more or less equally over time. 

So, whether your contribution is dpr, is supporting party members, is reducing enemy actions, etc etc etc should drive for different approaches and not every choice has to be equal to the others .

Dagger guy should see more flexibility and more opportunities due to concealability, due to always being melee and ranged ready in thr primary attack mode, etc. 

Of course, this also gets to the key thing that dpr ommi misses - power or value is the intersection of need and capability. 

To me, more goals and fights that matter are won or lost thru control of the battle, control of the circumstances and getting thr fight on your terms than are on your dpr on paper  max being higher that the other side's.


----------



## Tony Vargas (Jun 5, 2018)

pemerton said:


> But clearly it's feasible to have it be more or less balanced. Eg if Agonising Blast is OP, it is possible for it to be different from what it actually is.



 It seem strange to actually have to say things like that, but I think "different from what it actually is" may be broadly & innately unacceptable on some level.

I mean, OT1H, everyone has always played D&D quite differently, but OTOH, everyone identifies as 'playing D&D' (particularly of the current edition), so what constitutes D&D is sort of an identity issue.   

OK, that's for the serious hard-core fans, for the casuals, though, a similar thing applies - a game that's stable in it's rules & identity is more approachable (no matter how complex or objectively 'bad' it may be), and putting a little time into learning enough of it to play doesn't seem like automatically-wasted effort, the way it might if it were constantly changing...
...continual improvement might be good in a great many things, but stability has it's value, too.



> 2nd ed AD&D introduced damage caps on spells like Fireball that weren't part of 1st ed AD&D. Presumably this was an attempt to increase balance.



 My observation would be that 1e, 3.0 and 4e were the editions most openly concerned with balance.  Balance in 1e was extremely complicated, valid only over a long campaign (possibly even involving multiple PCs per players), and heavily DM-mediated (as was every aspect of the classic game, of course), but there was a clear intention to deliver a balanced game and advice and cautions on doing so peppered the 1e DMG.

2e did not seem so concerned about balance, at least, it didn't mention it as much as Gygax did, IIRC.  While capping low-level spell damage might have helped overall (including class) balance some, I think, from the way 2e also beefed up monsters, it was probably mostly about keeping encounters from being one-shotted by a single character casting a single spell - also a balance issue, of course, but a more specific one not necessarily about overall balance... of course, I'm just speculating about the edition I'm least familiar with after BECMI & 0e...



> Hiding weapons is probably a marginal thing, especially as a knife thrower is (premsuably) going to be wearing bandoliers full of knives. The issue of range was expressly discussed in the OP, and I also noted it in my post. I think the OP contention is that, even when range is factored in as a consideration, knife throwing is not particularly viable.



 This is just an aside, but I did make a knife-thrower in 3e, and, yeah, he was pretty marginal in spite of being optimized to the hilt(pi) and very nicely modeling the concept, a 4e reprise of him was just OK on no great optimization effort (one of the MP2 ranger builds fit pretty well).  



> The relative inutility of a thrown knife in D&D, compared to other options, is itself a function of the hit point system and the damage system. Anyway, I think it is better for a fantasy RPG to support a wide range of recognisable archetypes. A modern heroic adventure game should be similar. From memory, Modesty Blaise's offsider Willie is pretty handy with a thrown knife.



 This is probably obscure, but the Geoffrey Holder character from '76's _The Swashbuckler_ is my iconic knife-throwing character.  



pemerton said:


> _Balance_ can mean _an equal chance at doing well_. Rolling ability scores can be one form of this, although generally this sort of balance assumes there will be replays. Rolling dice for stats is probably better for one-offs or short campaigns than long, multi-year sagas.



 The 1e balance-over-long-campaigns & many-characters, above, for instance.  'Fairness' would be a better way of describing it, IMHO.




Rossbert said:


> I wonder if another part of the trap feeling comes from taking archetypes that work better mechanically for another class and shoehorning them in another just because you can.  A knife thrower is generally a poor choice for a fighter but is a much more interesting choice for a rogue or a monk.  Come to think of it, rogues also have a lot to gain from wielding two weapons as well...



 The fighter is meant to be "best at fighting with weapons," daggers are weapons, it's not an unintuitive build to attempt if you want a combat-oriented knife-thrower, even if it is probably a mistake....



Flexor the Mighty! said:


> On the knife issue, personally I don't want a system where the knife man in a puffy shirt is just as effective in straight up combat as a guy in plate with a longsword.  To me that's silly.  Of course there may be situations where the puffy shirt and knife are more effective or appropriate.



 Not an issue that the OP was complaining about, I don't think, but they probably can be pretty close to equally effective - and both, the OP's point was, would be inferior to the guy with greatsword or longbow, with all the stops pulled out.



hawkeyefan said:


> I understood his points just fine. I simply disagree that any action at the level he wants is required to correct the issues.



 I sorta agree:  the kind of action he wants - official changes to the game - is pretty clearly off the table for the life of 5e (which may well be the foreseeable life of D&D).  They are 'required' to actually correct the issues, _with the game,_ tautologically enough, they are just not going to happen.  I think it's clear Zapp (& his players) can correct the issues they perceive in the context of their own game, he just seems to be tired of doing so, and/or chaffing under the restrictions that fixing-up/working-around the system's failings imposes.  

It's not an unreasonable thing to want, a balanced game that requires less sheer effort to keep running smoothly even with more experienced players having their wicked ways with it, it's just futile to want that from D&D, at least until something at least as apocalyptic as the edition war happens to cause WotC to wince & change course again.  (Sorry Zapp, you're just out in the cold on this one.)



> I don't disagree with his assessment that the points he brought up are issues....I simply think they are issues for HIS game, not THE game.



 No, they are definitely issues with the game, itself, they are, after all, issues with the RAW, which is, however pedantically, what the game /is/, the B&W collected between the covers, even as it's _not how the game is intended to be played._



> His concerns matter very little to my game. My players are not as concerned with DPR maximization and cross class combinations designed solely for combat efficacy. His are. He needs to fix this issue for his game. I don't think anyone would say he shouldn't.



 Frankly, most of the push-back he gets on the forum is prettymuch saying, implying, or in the spirit not of not caring or not having an issue but having no problem with him addressing the issue, but in the form of /not wanting the issue fixed under any circumstance, for anyone, ever/.  Which is bizarre, and probably an artifact of the medium, rather than what anyone's really trying to say.  Maybe it's just that any push-back in text, lacking the nuance of in-person communication, just comes off as confrontational or dismissive or whatever.  The medium is certainly very prone to long back-and-forth verbal(textual?) shoving matches.  



> I mentioned removing feats in my initial post because I think that's a first step for him and his group. The feats that cause issues for them are boring and unimaginative.



 It's not like he didn't seriously consider that option.  He feels, and he's not exactly off base, that without leveraging those feats, the fighter (at least), is not competitive with other classes, not in the sense of not doing the same DPR as them, but in the sense of not doing enough additional DPR to make up for the class's relative lack of utility in other areas.  (I don't agree, I don't see how the feats actually do make up the difference - no amount of DPR can, really.  DPR is an easy to measure, but clumsy factor, and, like its sole purpose of reducing an enemy to 0 hps, it's balance by walking towards a cliff, it makes no difference until you actually fall of the cliff, a character 'balanced' by high DPR is either under-contributing, or OP - and can even manage to be /both/.)



> Great Weapon Master doesn't add anything to the concept of a Fighter or Barbarian that isn't already there. The only reason to take it is to increase the amount of damage the character can do. It adds nothing to the character thematically, and adds little mechanically (a slight tactical decision of taking the -5 to add 10 damage).



 Well... then there's SS, which is an obvious pick for any would-be Robin Hood type, based on the name, alone, and while the -5/+10 won't win you any archery competitions, ignoring disadvantage at long range will probably help...



> So I think that needs to change. Players should select Feats....and classes and spells and any other option....for reasons other then DPR.



For more reasons than just DPR, sure.  If we discount DPR, entirely, we might as well retire the Fighter, Barbarian, & Rogue, at minimum.




TwoSix said:


> I do agree overall with the OP.  My only point of contention with his premise is that I think trying to get community buy-in, or WotC buy-in, to the overall idea that these concepts should be addressed on a wider basis than any one table is a fool's errand.  That constant push to do so is why the OP gets so many other posters here riled up.



Nod. The "make the game better" ship has sailed, gone over the horizon, been attacked by a kraken, sunk with all hands drowned/eaten, dragged to the bottom of a deep-sea trench and buried under millions of tons primeval sludge.  There are no bone-fragments of the long-dead horse left to lay the whip to.  



Warpiglet said:


> I think there is value in having some choices be less powerful.



 There can be.  Rewarding system mastery was a big positive for 3.x/PF, and that involved including metaphorical M:tG-style 'Timmeh Cards,' options that looked fun/cool/effective, but were significantly less powerful in actual play, while more obscure, unintuitive, or uninteresting seeming options could be combined to create something far more powerful.  That kind of value requires the choices in question be less powerful, but in a 'stealth' fashion that can provide learning experiences to the less experienced or more casual player - 'traps.'

Things being less powerful or less effective or more limited along some dimensions, but 'better' along others, also has definite value in adding diversity of choice and depth of play - but that sense of 'less powerful' constitutes /balance/.



> Granted this is a fantasy game, but how many individuals on a battlefield ran around throwing daggers?



 As many as ran around a battlefield unarmed using 'martial arts,' or casting spells - vanishingly few & short-lived.  ;P

But D&D doesn't model a battlefield - and least, not at all well.



> At a certain point it becomes absurd.  Why shouldn't my unarmored peasant with a dagger do as much damage and be as hard to hit as a knight in chain with shield and longsword?



 Because he's a peasant?   But, 'realistically,' you can kill someone instantly with a dagger - by accident.  There's nothing remotely realistic about D&D hps/AC/etc - yet we get realism-based arguments.  ::shrug::



> I appreciate the OPs concern with balance.  I don't like any one character running the show.  But while a fighter is GWMing monster's heads off, what is the 11th level wizard doing?



 Plenty.  Capp's thesis is that the optimized-to-the-wall GWM fighter is, in fact, balanced enough (for him) with the equally experienced wizard. 



> Look this goes way back.  What did 1e AD&D theives really do?



 Die.
Seriously, though, they misappropriated a lot of options from the fighter (and all other characters, really, but the fighter missed them the most, because it had so little going for it...).   



> In a game with no feats, standard array etc., how poor is the balance? Are we only talking about DPR or impact on the story?



 If we are talking DPR, balance without feats or MCing is fair-to-poor, depending on the nature of the combats that confront the PCs and the relative system mastery of the participants (and, of course, the whim of the DM).    If we're talking impact on the story?  Balance is non-existent until imposed by the DM.



> If our only concern is going toe to toe in an arena, there is definitely a problem...



 Not that big a one, really.  DPR is one of the more nearly-balanced things in the game, because it is so quantitative, if you do manage to reduce the challenges to little more than that, you can get the classes to more or less line up, the vaunted versatility of the Tier 1 set matters little, but they make it up with the occasional AE damage jackpot shoring up their overall DPR.



> I suppose the same could be said for a dungeon full of locks and traps ...



 Dungeons full of locks & traps and campaigns full of combat are both things that happen in D&D.


----------



## dco (Jun 5, 2018)

I think all core classes are well balanced if you don't count the ranger and avoid feats and multiclass.
Best cantrip is 1d10, not better than (d4-2d6)+5.


----------



## devincutler (Jun 5, 2018)

MoonSong said:


> Actually, as far as I remember, chess is unbalanced. White has an advantage over Black that -while meaningless at low skill games- clearly shows up at high -grandmaster high- ability levels where every single move counts.
> 
> Speaking of that, I have a problem with chess. I'm kind of at the higher end of average skill, but I'm still average. So any actual serious player can trash the floor with me, but odds are any random person will grow frustrated playing with me. I've even tried to deliberately pay less attention to give my opponents a better chance, but turns out that boys feel like I'm cherry tapping them so they get frustrated even more quickly. So I've basically ran out of people to play with.




Never heard the term "cherry tapping" before. So I looked it up. Interesting, though I was hoping for something a little more risque given the words "cherry" and "tapping".


----------



## Satyrn (Jun 5, 2018)

dco said:


> Best cantrip is 1d10, not better than (d4-2d6)+5.




Everybody forgets about my best friend, Poison Spray


----------



## devincutler (Jun 5, 2018)

Regarding knife throwing, I seem to recall the 2e Player's Option book having an option that made dart throwing fighters the most powerful fighters in the game. I assume that could be translated into a knife thrower.


----------



## Sacrosanct (Jun 5, 2018)

devincutler said:


> Regarding knife throwing, I seem to recall the 2e Player's Option book having an option that made dart throwing fighters the most powerful fighters in the game. I assume that could be translated into a knife thrower.




That was Unearthed Aracana in 1e, with weapon specialization.  And it was dumb.


----------



## Satyrn (Jun 5, 2018)

Sacrosanct said:


> That was Unearthed Aracana in 1e, with weapon specialization.  And it was dumb.




I was gonna joke that "yeah, that Players Option book was the 2e PHB."


----------



## Lanefan (Jun 5, 2018)

Sacrosanct said:


> That was Unearthed Aracana in 1e, with weapon specialization.  And it was dumb.



I have one of those in my game right now - a dart specialist with a girdle of giant strength.

It gets a bit crazy sometimes.


----------



## Zardnaar (Jun 5, 2018)

Lanefan said:


> I have one of those in my game right now - a dart specialist with a girdle of giant strength.
> 
> It gets a bit crazy sometimes.




Thats the combo.

 I last used it 2002 but it was WS+dart+ strength spell to get 18/00 strength. Being immune to non magical attacks shut the combo down for the most part as its unlikely you had 6+ magical darts.


----------



## Tony Vargas (Jun 5, 2018)

devincutler said:


> Regarding knife throwing, I seem to recall the 2e Player's Option book having an option that made dart throwing fighters the most powerful fighters in the game. I assume that could be translated into a knife thrower.



Yeah, but with RoF 2 instead of 3 before you started piling on, they wouldn't be /as/ broken as the deadly darter.  

(Thanks for reminding me of that one, BTW.)


----------



## devincutler (Jun 5, 2018)

Satyrn said:


> Everybody forgets about my best friend, Poison Spray




And Toll the Dead. But I was going to post this same response when I saw the poster said "best" not "most damaging". Poison spray is not the best cantrip despite its slightly higher damage for multiple reasons.


----------



## hawkeyefan (Jun 5, 2018)

Tony Vargas said:


> I sorta agree:  the kind of action he wants - official changes to the game - is pretty clearly off the table for the life of 5e (which may well be the foreseeable life of D&D).  They are 'required' to actually correct the issues, _with the game,_ tautologically enough, they are just not going to happen.  I think it's clear Zapp (& his players) can correct the issues they perceive in the context of their own game, he just seems to be tired of doing so, and/or chaffing under the restrictions that fixing-up/working-around the system's failings imposes.
> 
> It's not an unreasonable thing to want, a balanced game that requires less sheer effort to keep running smoothly even with more experienced players having their wicked ways with it, it's just futile to want that from D&D, at least until something at least as apocalyptic as the edition war happens to cause WotC to wince & change course again.  (Sorry Zapp, you're just out in the cold on this one.)




I don't know if he's actually implemented any of the possible solutions that people have offered to him about the problem. His posts acknowledge that he's heard such solutions, and he often tries to head people off at the pass before they're even brought up in discussion....but I've never read one of his threads where he says "We made this change to account for that problem, and then it caused X to happen...." 

So, I agree that his desire is not unreasonable. However, his seeming unwillingness to actually try and resolve some of the issues himself I would say borders on the unreasonable. Calling out the designers as having designed something incredibly flawed, but then not being willing to accept anyone else's solutions also seems a bit unreasonable....a bit paradoxical. 



Tony Vargas said:


> No, they are definitely issues with the game, itself, they are, after all, issues with the RAW, which is, however pedantically, what the game /is/, the B&W collected between the covers, even as it's _not how the game is intended to be played._




They are an issue with a mismatch of what a group expects of play and what the rules deliver. The game plays a part, yes....but if they played a game where combat was a rare thing, then they would not find the rules to be such a big issue. 




Tony Vargas said:


> Frankly, most of the push-back he gets on the forum is prettymuch saying, implying, or in the spirit not of not caring or not having an issue but having no problem with him addressing the issue, but in the form of /not wanting the issue fixed under any circumstance, for anyone, ever/.  Which is bizarre, and probably an artifact of the medium, rather than what anyone's really trying to say.  Maybe it's just that any push-back in text, lacking the nuance of in-person communication, just comes off as confrontational or dismissive or whatever.  The medium is certainly very prone to long back-and-forth verbal(textual?) shoving matches.




That first sentence....whoo, no idea what you're saying. 

I know that I probably come off a bit confrontational with him when I discuss this topic, but I think that's largely because he sets that tone. His posts are confrontational. But, I try to offer him advise that I think will help rather than simply telling him that his desire is wrong or bad. 



Tony Vargas said:


> It's not like he didn't seriously consider that option.  He feels, and he's not exactly off base, that without leveraging those feats, the fighter (at least), is not competitive with other classes, not in the sense of not doing the same DPR as them, but in the sense of not doing enough additional DPR to make up for the class's relative lack of utility in other areas.  (I don't agree, I don't see how the feats actually do make up the difference - no amount of DPR can, really.  DPR is an easy to measure, but clumsy factor, and, like its sole purpose of reducing an enemy to 0 hps, it's balance by walking towards a cliff, it makes no difference until you actually fall of the cliff, a character 'balanced' by high DPR is either under-contributing, or OP - and can even manage to be /both/.)
> 
> Well... then there's SS, which is an obvious pick for any would-be Robin Hood type, based on the name, alone, and while the -5/+10 won't win you any archery competitions, ignoring disadvantage at long range will probably help...




But if his group was not so beholden to DPR, then the Fighter would be free to take any number of other background and feat options that would allow him to contribute in ways other than DPR. 

I mean, it's pretty simple logic right there. 

As for the Sharpshooter/Robin Hood archetype....do you need the Sharpshooter feat to emulate Robin Hood? Yes, it's fitting....but woudln't just a Ranger or Fighter with the Archery Style be enough to get that vibe if the SS Feat didn't exist? This is my point about the -5/+10 feats....they're just unimaginative and exist solely to appeal to the DPR-is-all folks. They are not necessary to come up with any archetypal character. 



Tony Vargas said:


> For more reasons than just DPR, sure.  If we discount DPR, entirely, we might as well retire the Fighter, Barbarian, & Rogue, at minimum.




Now you're just being silly.


----------



## Tony Vargas (Jun 5, 2018)

hawkeyefan said:


> I don't know if he's actually implemented any of the possible solutions that people have offered to him about the problem. His posts acknowledge that he's heard such solutions, and he often tries to head people off at the pass before they're even brought up in discussion....



 Considered and discarded, is the impression I get.  Sure, he could just not use feats, but his players want the options, he wants the options out there, /and/ he feels that the feats are needed to balance the fighter with other classes - so the feats stay, and the problem of them imbalancing certain weapon-using builds remains to be solved _in some other way..._



> Calling out the designers as having designed something incredibly flawed, but then not being willing to accept anyone else's solutions also seems a bit unreasonable....a bit paradoxical.



 IDK, the design stays flawed even if some 3rd party comes up with a 'fix.'  Pointless, in the environment of 5e, probably, but not paradoxical.



> They are an issue with a mismatch of what a group expects of play and what the rules deliver. The game plays a part, yes....but if they played a game where combat was a rare thing, then they would not find the rules to be such a big issue.



 This I do find a little paradoxical.  If you never encounter a problem because you never had occasion to encounter it, piping up doesn't make a lot of sense.  I don't chime into discussion of violent crime in Chicago with the fact I've never been attacked in Chicago (leaving out the fact that I've never been anywhere near it), but I suppose some of the folks who jump on Zapp's thread /would/...  



> That first sentence....whoo, no idea what you're saying.



 That's a bad sentence, even by my standards.  Sorry.  ;(  

However people put it when they take a shot at Zapp's observations about the game, they seem to be pushing back against the very idea of it being changed.  Which is both unnecessary (the current design/marketing philosophy has little room for errata or incremental improvement of any kind), and, IDK, kinda petty.  



> But if his group was not so beholden to DPR, then the Fighter would be free to take any number of other background and feat options that would allow him to contribute in ways other than DPR.



 It's not "beholden to DPR," it's "High enough DPR can make up for lack of versatility."  Zapp's thesis, and it's fairly conventional, is that the fighter lacks versatility, but it's combat (mainly DPR) potential makes up for that.  Pushing back that he shouldn't focus on DPR is at best non-responsive.  



> As for the Sharpshooter/Robin Hood archetype....do you need the Sharpshooter feat to emulate Robin Hood? Yes, it's fitting....but woudln't just a Ranger or Fighter with the Archery Style be enough to get that vibe if the SS Feat didn't exist?



 I'd think so, but the point isn't do you 'need' it, the point is it /does/ support an archetype, and it's something a player would intuitively take even if he wasn't powergaming and the campaign didn't 'over value' DPR.  In fact, in that case, it might even turn out to be more disruptive to the campaign, since it probably means it's not running at a high level of optimization...



> This is my point about the -5/+10 feats....they're just unimaginative and exist solely to appeal to the DPR-is-all folks. They are not necessary to come up with any archetypal character.



 Obviously, they each do something other than -5/+10, and they have appeal to concept-driven folks, too.  Should my Robin Hood type be a "Sharpshooter?"  I don't even have to look it up, he's supposed to be splitting arrows, /of course/!  You can't dismiss game elements as having no other purpose than to appeal to pathological play styles just because they do appeal to pathological playstyles.  (Heck, you could dismiss the whole game that way!)
It's not some sort of B&W morality.


----------



## tglassy (Jun 6, 2018)

Totally didn’t read all the responses, but regarding the monster stats, just because a particular DM doesn’t play the monster like an intelligent being who would strategize just as effectively as the party, doesn’t mean the stat blocks need to be modified. Bad guys wouldn’t jump out at an ambush and stand there being gunned down by the party like enemy soldiers in an old Arnold Action movie. They’d move around. And have had a plan. And maybe lead the group into a bigger ambush. And actually play smart.


----------



## pemerton (Jun 6, 2018)

hawkeyefan said:


> I don't disagree with his assessment that the points he brought up are issues....I simply think they are issues for HIS game, not THE game.



What is THE game? What is a player going to talk about and drawn upon, except his/her experiences?



hawkeyefan said:


> I understood his points just fine. I simply disagree that any action at the level he wants is required to correct the issues.
> 
> <snip>
> 
> Players should select Feats....and classes and spells and any other option....for reasons other then DPR.



What is wrong with building a PC aimed at dealing damage? Or, to move from question to assertion: telling a player who says that (i) I'm interested in the damage-dealing aspect of the game, and (ii) the system produces some wonky results when I focus on that, that (i) was a mistake, seems unhelpful to me. The 5e system is one in which one of the widest range of choices allowed concerns damage (damage dice, damage adds, to hit adds, etc). It doesn't seem that strange for a player, in building a PC, to focus on those elements of the system.

Maybe it's just true that 5e - as published, at least - can't support a wide range of damage-dealing archeytpes once players apply a reasonable degree of mechanical expertise to that aspect of the game.



TwoSix said:


> I do agree overall with the OP.  My only point of contention with his premise is that I think trying to get community buy-in, or WotC buy-in, to the overall idea that these concepts should be addressed on a wider basis than any one table is a fool's errand.  That constant push to do so is why the OP gets so many other posters here riled up.



I take it as more-or-less self-evident that posting on these boards will have no effect on WotC's plans. But generating some sort of community discussion which focuses on actual analysis rather than irrelevant side-points hopefully isn't a complete fool's errand!

The OP boils down to three claims: a feats-included game, played with some mechanical deftness, will overshadow the MM monsters, putting more work on the GM; that same game will also see greatweapon and hand-crossbows as dominant damage-oriented strategies, crowding out other in-principal sensible archetypes; and dropping feats shifts the overshaowing problem elsewhere, to a couple of categories of cantrip-user.

I just don't see how anyone thinks it's a response to those points to talk about winning encounters by casting Charm Person, and telling players that damage-oriented builds are bad play.


----------



## pemerton (Jun 6, 2018)

Oofta said:


> You seem rather stuck on this knife thrower for some reason I don't get.



I'm just following the OP's lead.



Flexor the Mighty! said:


> On the knife issue, personally I don't want a system where the knife man in a puffy shirt is just as effective in straight up combat as a guy in plate with a longsword.  To me that's silly.





Oofta said:


> I'll agree that it's not the best option for damage.  It shouldn't be and I don't care.  A thrown knife does a lot less damage than an arrow from a longbow.





Rossbert said:


> II wonder if another part of the trap feeling comes from taking archetypes that work better mechanically for another class and shoehorning them in another just because you can.



I think the point about classes is an important one. Maybe the knife-thrower should be a rogue?

But this also creates tensions with Oofta's point. If it's true that a thrown knife does a lot less damage than an arrow from a longbow, then why - when a rogue uses a thrown knife - does it do so much _more_ damage than a fighter's longbow?

This is one of many reasons why I think discussion of viable archetypes isn't something that is helped by considerations of "realism".



Horwath said:


> There must be difference between classes or there should be classless sistem.



But this isn't a reason why (eg) warlocks should be better ranged-damage dealers than featless fighters, is it?



Oofta said:


> In some ways 4E was "more balanced" but then you also had things like rogues with spells powers that did impossible things like Cloud of Daggers.  If that appeals to you, play 4E.



In 4e, Cloud of Daggers is a wizard spell. Maybe you're thinking of Blinding Barrage? I'm not sure why it's particularly impossible (anymore than the other action heroic stuff that happens in D&D).


----------



## pemerton (Jun 6, 2018)

5ekyu said:


> A lack of flavor can be felt if differences in weapons are homogenized down to equalize dpr over less trackable aspects.
> 
> <snip>
> 
> Fewer meaningful and thematic differences cost flavor but at the same time make quantification and oversimplification on misleading indicators like dpr  easier.



Are difference in damage dice for weapons, or in feat support for weaon categories, key thematic differences?


5ekyu said:


> Cited as example of how dismissed less quantifiable differences are when the focus on balance enters the
> 
> nartow OMMI world of dpr etc, even thematics differences.
> 
> " Hiding weapons is probably a marginal thing,"



A knife thrower is going to be carrying many knives, probably in a bandolier. Those are not going to all be hidden.

Moreover, the OP is not complaining about the viability, or otherwise, of a knife-wielding assassin in a courtly intrigue game. It's clear, from having read many of the OP's posts in threads over the past few years, that the concern is about bog-standard dungeon-style, AP-style RPGing. Concealed weaponry is pretty marginal in those contexts.



5ekyu said:


> Dagger guy should see more flexibility and more opportunities due to concealability, due to always being melee and ranged ready in thr primary attack mode, etc.



This seems to invoke other system elements. For instance, in a system in which first strike is a big advantage (Rolemaster, Classic Traveller, arguably RuneQuest) then the sort of advantage you describe here is noticable. And I've seen RM knife-throwing characters who are quite viable.

In an attrition-based system like D&D, this sort of advantage is less signficant. Hence eg rogues have additional mechanics, like sneak attack, to make them viable in attrition-oriented combat.


----------



## pemerton (Jun 6, 2018)

Warpiglet said:


> I think there is value in having some choices be less powerful.  Granted this is a fantasy game, but how many individuals on a battlefield ran around throwing daggers?  Correct, probably none. Many knights had a dagger for finishing a kill.  A rogue doing sneak attack damage is another matter and rules increase damage in this case substantially.
> 
> <snip>
> 
> ...



I agree with [MENTION=996]Tony Vargas[/MENTION] that this is an odd combination of claims.

How many individuals on a battlefield ran around fighting dragons, armoured soldiers, etc using bare-handed martial arts? Yet 5e has monks, and you don't seem to have an issue with that. How many individuals on a battlefield defeated dragons, soldiers etc by stabbing them in the kidney while they were distracted fighting a knight? Yet not only does 5e have rogues with their sneak attack ability, but you seem to endorse that aspect of the game!

If we can have monks fighting dragons, and alley knife-fighters going toe-to-toe with giants and dragons, why can't we have knife-throwers? The limitations you are arguing for appear to be quite arbitrary. (And if you really didn't like the knife-thrower feat, couldn't you just ignore it?)



Warpiglet said:


> I wonder at which level are they out of hand?  Is it at level 11 with three attacks?  Now we see it is high level fighters only that we are super concerned with...and why should a fighter not have SOMETHING?  Afterall, number of attacks is their thing.



The OP is not complaining that high level fighters are overpowerd compared to other PCs. The complaint is that they are _underpowered_ unless they pick some of the high-powered feats (which limits viable archetypes), and that once they power up appropriately, the GM side material (monstly monsters) is underpowered.



Warpiglet said:


> Why should sorcerers do more with cantrips than a knight with a sword?  They generally don't.  If there is a case where they do, they ARE sorcerers with magic and it cannot be much different without feats.  If they are twinning etc. they are using a resource.



It's not a particularly hard-to-replenish resource. And the player of the fighter is using resources too - playing time at the table, action economy in the framework of resolution.

Upthread someone did the maths that shows that the sorcerer can keep up a stronger-than-a-fighter level of cantrip damage for "only" five to six encounters. I think that runs the OP's way rather than being a refutation!


----------



## Warpiglet (Jun 6, 2018)

pemerton said:


> I agree with [MENTION=996]Tony Vargas[/MENTION] that this is an odd combination of claims.
> 
> How many individuals on a battlefield ran around fighting dragons, armoured soldiers, etc using bare-handed martial arts? Yet 5e has monks, and you don't seem to have an issue with that. How many individuals on a battlefield defeated dragons, soldiers etc by stabbing them in the kidney while they were distracted fighting a knight? Yet not only does 5e have rogues with their sneak attack ability, but you seem to endorse that aspect of the game!
> 
> ...




This is a well thought out and reasoned post. I have one quibble that is significant however.  If we are fighting imaginary monsters, so it goes, how can we expect reality to be represented? 

The fact that we mostly have normal assumptions about gravity or use swords instead of spoons as weapons speaks volumes.  

In a what-if world, we assume people-with exceptions-breathe air, people fall down and knives leave (generally) smaller wounds than swords.  

Lastly, yes, sorcerers can do some damage with cantrips.  Do the math, someone, if so inclined.  At level 10, you can throw firebolt and twin or quicken it.  A fighter without gwm could do 2d6 +5 times two instead of 4d10, right? This excludes any fighting style bonus, magic weapon bonus any battlemaster bonus and any elevated crit chance.  What is more, the fighter likely has more hit points, better AC and better chance to avoid grapple.  This also excludes the action surge.  

Lastly, the fighter can do it at will all day.  I am not saying the gap is huge, but it is not clearly in sorcerer's favor.


----------



## pemerton (Jun 6, 2018)

Warpiglet said:


> This is a well thought out and reasoned post.



That's generous of you - thank you.



Warpiglet said:


> The fact that we mostly have normal assumptions about gravity or use swords instead of spoons as weapons speaks volumes.



The flipside to this is that we also have assumptions that defy all normal assumptions about gravity - eg dragons can fly, giants dan walk and run, etc.

I would say we have certain _tropes_. These include martial artists who are just as dangerous with their bare hands as a dragon is with its bite. I think there is room in those tropes for a deadly knife thrower. (I agree with you (I think) and some other posters that the fighter vs rogue thing complicates matters. But I also agree with [MENTION=996]Tony Vargas[/MENTION] that the fighter is advertised as the "weapon expert". The system has tensions that are a legacy of D&D class design from way back and aren't easily resolved. Light weapon fighting is one place where those tensions become quite evident.)



Warpiglet said:


> Lastly, the fighter can do it at will all day.  I am not saying the gap is huge, but it is not clearly in sorcerer's favor.



I agree the "do it all day" doesn't run the sorcerer's way, but if the sorcerer can keep it up for five or six combat encounters then I would call that a draw. I think the advantages of  "do it all day" tends to be exaggerated, as the real constraints are around hp recovery, table time and session planning, etc.

(To put it in a more tendentious way: "do it all day" is white room theorising!)


----------



## TwoSix (Jun 6, 2018)

pemerton said:


> I take it as more-or-less self-evident that posting on these boards will have no effect on WotC's plans. But generating some sort of community discussion which focuses on actual analysis rather than irrelevant side-points hopefully isn't a complete fool's errand!



No, but it's an awful lot of chaff for relatively little wheat, and then it turns out you have celiac disease anyway. 



pemerton said:


> The OP boils down to three claims: a feats-included game, played with some mechanical deftness, will overshadow the MM monsters, putting more work on the GM; that same game will also see greatweapon and hand-crossbows as dominant damage-oriented strategies, crowding out other in-principal sensible archetypes; and dropping feats shifts the overshaowing problem elsewhere, to a couple of categories of cantrip-user.
> 
> I just don't see how anyone thinks it's a response to those points to talk about winning encounters by casting Charm Person, and telling players that damage-oriented builds are bad play.



Well, both sides (all sides, really, there's more than 2 camps here) have some truth to them, which is usually what drives these kinds of conversations on and on (and on).  You might compare it to worldbuilding. 

There was a previous poster in this thread (@Mistwell, I think?) who pointed out that we simply lack the ability to codify the value of utility in any analytical fashion, so online comparisons tend to gravitate towards what we CAN measure, which is damage potential.  I think people are right to point out that there are so many factors involved in resolving encounters that the damage potential of any one character is a relatively small factor; and positing it as something of gamebreaking relevance is a bit of an exaggeration outside of the most combat oriented games.

That being said, damage potential might not be the most important factor, but it isn't nothing.  Most characters do get into combat, and for a lot of classes, they spend the majority of the combat rolling attacks with their weapon.  And when you can select a higher damage weapon build for no measurable opportunity cost, why wouldn't you?  I mean, I don't see anyone advocating for wearing padded over studded leather, or chain over plate. "It's just for the flavor, don't worry about your Armor Class!"  The correct way to refute the OP's point would be to try to measure the value of what the character is giving up to gain their high damage build.  "Yes, you do 30% more damage, but the Actor feat will allow you to bypass at least 25% of social encounters, which make up 45% of our game!"  

The ideal compromise would be, of course, simply adopting my modest proposal from way back in the beginning of the thread as a community standard.  But, you know, "blegh".


----------



## Tony Vargas (Jun 6, 2018)

Warpiglet said:


> The fact that we mostly have normal assumptions about gravity



 From what height can people normally fall without risk if death or debilitating long-term injury?

How tall can a humanoid be without severe, debilitating health problems, under normal assumptions about gravity?

How large can a winged creature be while being able to fly (not just glide/soar) under normal assumptions about gravity.

How large can an arthropod grow, under normal assumptions about gravity?

Mostly?  No, about the only D&D assumption about gravity & our relationship with it that's remotely normal is jumping distances...
... and even 20th level Experts in Athetics won't be winning a lot of long jump medals.



> use swords instead of spoons as weapons speaks volumes.



 My classic-AD&D _Bohemian Ear-Spoon_ disagrees!


----------



## Warpiglet (Jun 6, 2018)

pemerton said:


> That's generous of you - thank you.
> 
> The flipside to this is that we also have assumptions that defy all normal assumptions about gravity - eg dragons can fly, giants dan walk and run, etc.
> 
> ...




OK.  Yes we are all white room theorizing. 

But if the sorcerer uses all of their resources to do close to what a fighter does for five encounters, and the fighter has more HP and better AC and slightly does more damage, I am not seeing the problem.  Sounds fairly "balanced" for those demanding such.  (Shrug).  Just had not been a proble for us to date.


----------



## pemerton (Jun 6, 2018)

TwoSix said:


> I don't see anyone advocating for wearing padded over studded leather, or chain over plate. "It's just for the flavor, don't worry about your Armor Class!"



That's a particularly nice point in a post with many good ones.


----------



## TwoSix (Jun 6, 2018)

Warpiglet said:


> Lastly, yes, sorcerers can do some damage with cantrips.  Do the math, someone, if so inclined.  At level 10, you can throw firebolt and twin or quicken it.  A fighter without gwm could do 2d6 +5 times two instead of 4d10, right? This excludes any fighting style bonus, magic weapon bonus any battlemaster bonus and any elevated crit chance.  What is more, the fighter likely has more hit points, better AC and better chance to avoid grapple.  This also excludes the action surge.
> 
> Lastly, the fighter can do it at will all day.  I am not saying the gap is huge, but it is not clearly in sorcerer's favor.



Generally, you'll do that calculation assuming a dragon sorcerer, so that twin firebolt is doing 4d10+10.  That's an average 32 damage, compared to the GW fighter's 24.  You are correct that action surge rounds will be stronger, and GWF style will raise that average by 2.66, and a champion's 19-20 crit range adds another 0.7. 

The magic weapon is a little more nebulous...it favors the fighter, since the game tends to give out magic weapons, but I feel like a cantrip using player might get something from a generous DM.  

So yes, the sorcerer is only slightly ahead on damage, lacks somewhat in the HP department, and falls behind when the fighter spends some resources, especially action surge and superiority dice.  She's also restricted to doing damage to two targets.  So, overall I'd say the fighter is just a bit better than the sorcerer.  Of course, I am neglecting the minor fact the sorcerer can also _turn into a T-Rex, fly, make illusory duplicates of themselves, teleport, and do 150+ damage in a round with a fireball._ 

And that's not even considering a warlock dip.


----------



## Warpiglet (Jun 6, 2018)

TwoSix said:


> Generally, you'll do that calculation assuming a dragon sorcerer, so that twin firebolt is doing 4d10+10.  That's an average 32 damage, compared to the GW fighter's 24.  You are correct that action surge rounds will be stronger, and GWF style will raise that average by 2.66, and a champion's 19-20 crit range adds another 0.7.
> 
> The magic weapon is a little more nebulous...it favors the fighter, since the game tends to give out magic weapons, but I feel like a cantrip using player might get something from a generous DM.
> 
> ...




Let's not move the goalposts 

A fighter can also mulriclass and if you use all your spells to upcast at will damage you don't have a lot of spells left.

Let's stick with fighter and sorcerer level 5 or 8 or something...


----------



## TwoSix (Jun 6, 2018)

Warpiglet said:


> Let's not move the goalposts
> 
> A fighter can also mulriclass and if you use all your spells to upcast at will damage you don't have a lot of spells left.
> 
> Let's stick with fighter and sorcerer level 5 or 8 or something...



Sure.  And I'll concede several points.  Outside of warlocks (especially) and sorcerers, I don't think at-will damage for casters is that problematic.  Clerics get +Wis to damage, but not till level 8 and they don't have a great selection of cantrips, and can't twin or anything.  (Maybe death clerics with Toll the Dead?  I should look at that.)

As a benchmark, I think casters should be doing about 50-60% of the at-will damage of a martial.  Warlocks should be a little better, since they aren't full casters.


----------



## Tony Vargas (Jun 6, 2018)

Warpiglet said:


> if you use all your spells to upcast at will damage you don't have a lot of spells left.
> Let's stick with fighter and sorcerer level 5 or 8 or something...



 Nod, so we already have a sorcerer that can do crazy damage for the hypothetical low end of a 6-encounter day by blowing everything on the task, while the fighter does much the same on encounter 7 & 8.

Not that 6-8 combat  encounters is the norm, exactly, but it's the intention.  On a shorter day the sorc has slots to spare for whatever other uses his lowest-of-the-full-casters spells known offers... while the fighter can go swing his sword at a post to keep in shape.

On days with more non-combat encounters, the fighters sword stays in it's sheath, and the Sorcerer, while surely overshadowed by the wizard in that department, can use his slots for something else - that's the whole 'there's more than DPR' thing:  yes, there is, and it takes versatility.


----------



## Warpiglet (Jun 6, 2018)

All good thoughts. 

The fact that there is a debate at all is a good sign.

Let's get really concrete.  Let us say level 11 fighter and sorcerer is the comparison.  No feats--I assume.

20 in main attributes...comparing at will damage vs at will plus resources for sorcerer.

Fighter does 2d6+5 times three.  Sorcerer (dragon?  Fire?) does 3d10+5.  If we start burning spell points, we might double some rounds for sorcerer for equivalent of 1st level slots.

For fighter, let us assume at least +1 weapon and action surge would add three attacks for each use!  

Outside of EB and sorlocks, should we at least acknowledge resistance or vulnerability to fire?

A final question: how close is the combat?  If melee range, the sorcerer is at disadvantage!  Additionally, the sorcerer should have fewer hit points and a lower AC. While hitting less there is some waste of resources.

If the sorcerer says: "I would not be that close!" My question is "who is your shield?"  If it is fighter, we see some differentiation of roles, which is classic.

In my final analysis, I think they each have strengths and are not equivalent but have a good impact on encounters.  The sorcerer DOES NOT fare as well in close combat sans feats.  I don't think it is even too close to call which is one of the OP's original arguments.

Now if we get fancy, multiclass, use feats etc, yeah.  The fighter has to pull out he big guns to try and math up in a predictable fashion (i.e. GWM).  But then again, a DM could say no sorlock quickened agonizing blast EB 'cause reasons.

Which archetype is murdered with this single limitation?  None save optimization lord of movie and film  or rather open play game tables in your local FLGS.


----------



## hawkeyefan (Jun 6, 2018)

Tony Vargas said:


> Considered and discarded, is the impression I get.  Sure, he could just not use feats, but his players want the options, he wants the options out there, /and/ he feels that the feats are needed to balance the fighter with other classes - so the feats stay, and the problem of them imbalancing certain weapon-using builds remains to be solved _in some other way..._




Sure. I said that it would likely take several corrections for him to get what he wants, which he said himself in the OP. Having base damage determined by class rather than by weapon or cantrip could possibly work, or be one piece of the puzzle. Simply scaling the problem cantrips a bit would seem to be another. 

But I’ll also stand by my initial assessment that he and his players stop seeing these overpowered feats and cantrips as being options. Instead think of them as cheats. Or as putting the game on eady mode. 

Again, I don’t think this alone will solve the problem...but I think a shift in expectation would likely help them. 

What would you suggest they do?



Tony Vargas said:


> IDK, the design stays flawed even if some 3rd party comes up with a 'fix.'  Pointless, in the environment of 5e, probably, but not paradoxical.




It is a bit. He’s very critical of the design choices, but dismisses input from anyone else. It’s odd. 



Tony Vargas said:


> This I do find a little paradoxical.  If you never encounter a problem because you never had occasion to encounter it, piping up doesn't make a lot of sense.  I don't chime into discussion of violent crime in Chicago with the fact I've never been attacked in Chicago (leaving out the fact that I've never been anywhere near it), but I suppose some of the folks who jump on Zapp's thread /would/...




Oh you play 5E? For some reason I didn’t think you did.

Never had occasion? I didn’t say a game without combat. I said a game with less combat. 

Would the combat oriented feats be more important in a game with more combat or a game with less? Seems simple.



Tony Vargas said:


> That's a bad sentence, even by my standards.  Sorry.  ;(
> 
> However people put it when they take a shot at Zapp's observations about the game, they seem to be pushing back against the very idea of it being changed.  Which is both unnecessary (the current design/marketing philosophy has little room for errata or incremental improvement of any kind), and, IDK, kinda petty.




Ah, so I can’t “take a shot” at his charged posts, but you can casually take a shot at those who disagree? 

Mostly, when it comes to this topic, I think he has some points, but I think the way he makes those points can be needlessly inflammatory and that the assumptions he makes about what his points mean are not nearly as universal as he seems to think. 



Tony Vargas said:


> It's not "beholden to DPR," it's "High enough DPR can make up for lack of versatility."  Zapp's thesis, and it's fairly conventional, is that the fighter lacks versatility, but it's combat (mainly DPR) potential makes up for that.  Pushing back that he shouldn't focus on DPR is at best non-responsive.




I disagree. Everything he posts indicates that DPR is by far the major focus of his game. Which is fine, if that’s what he and his players want. However, I think they may be playing the wrong game...or the wrong edition...if that’s what they prefer.



Tony Vargas said:


> I'd think so, but the point isn't do you 'need' it, the point is it /does/ support an archetype, and it's something a player would intuitively take even if he wasn't powergaming and the campaign didn't 'over value' DPR.  In fact, in that case, it might even turn out to be more disruptive to the campaign, since it probably means it's not running at a high level of optimization...
> 
> Obviously, they each do something other than -5/+10, and they have appeal to concept-driven folks, too.  Should my Robin Hood type be a "Sharpshooter?"  I don't even have to look it up, he's supposed to be splitting arrows, /of course/!  You can't dismiss game elements as having no other purpose than to appeal to pathological play styles just because they do appeal to pathological playstyles.  (Heck, you could dismiss the whole game that way!)
> It's not some sort of B&W morality.




I’ll grant that Sharpshooter has something for it beyond the increased damage. But still....being good with a weapon is kind of baked into the idea of a Fighter, no? Weapon Style choice, or in the past Weapon Specialization, grant benefits to a specific weapon for the character, and each Fighter (or other martial class for 5E) can choose what option he’d like. Having Feats that cause the character to be even more gooder with the weapon seems off, to me. I think those Feats are flawed. I don’t think they really add anything to a character concept that character class doesn’t already cover. 

They exist as holdovers from previous editions. More damage and more attacks. If the flaws were strong enough that I felt they were a problem for my game, I’d likely discuss it with my players and houserule some kind of solution. I wouldn’t assume that everyone else had the same problems with these feats, and that the only solution would be to have a 5.5 or “Advanced Options” book. I’d realize that my issue with those feats...or cantrips or class features or spells or whatever....were my issues, and that if I was not willing to fix the problem, then it would remain a problem.


----------



## hawkeyefan (Jun 6, 2018)

pemerton said:


> What is THE game? What is a player going to talk about and drawn upon, except his/her experiences?




The game as written. Of course we all discuss from our experiences. Zapp assumes his experiences are universal, and that because something is a problem for him and his group, it must be reaolved at the source. Errata, a new edition, an updated PHB of some kind...these are the solutions he demands.

I prefer he fix the issue with his game rather than have WotC issue new rules. I like the rules as they are, flawed as they may be. 



pemerton said:


> What is wrong with building a PC aimed at dealing damage? Or, to move from question to assertion: telling a player who says that (i) I'm interested in the damage-dealing aspect of the game, and (ii) the system produces some wonky results when I focus on that, that (i) was a mistake, seems unhelpful to me. The 5e system is one in which one of the widest range of choices allowed concerns damage (damage dice, damage adds, to hit adds, etc). It doesn't seem that strange for a player, in building a PC, to focus on those elements of the system.




I don’t think playing the game with a mind toward combat efficacy is bad in and of itself....I try to make characters who are effective when I play. However, when a game is concerned solely with combat efficacy to the exclusion of all else, then issues are bound to come up. 



pemerton said:


> Maybe it's just true that 5e - as published, at least - can't support a wide range of damage-dealing archeytpes once players apply a reasonable degree of mechanical expertise to that aspect of the game.




Well this is where it gets murky because there is no easy metric beyond DPR. See the previous comments on the knife thrower. Several of the advantages of wielding daggers are situational and subject to the DM giving them any attention. Personally, I think such a character concept can be realized, just not as a pure Fighter....but even if it can’t, if a player wants to play that concept, why not work with the DM to make a viable version? Design a Feat for it...there are a few ways to do it. 

The game may not support that build as written, but the game does support customization. 




pemerton said:


> I take it as more-or-less self-evident that posting on these boards will have no effect on WotC's plans. But generating some sort of community discussion which focuses on actual analysis rather than irrelevant side-points hopefully isn't a complete fool's errand!
> 
> The OP boils down to three claims: a feats-included game, played with some mechanical deftness, will overshadow the MM monsters, putting more work on the GM; that same game will also see greatweapon and hand-crossbows as dominant damage-oriented strategies, crowding out other in-principal sensible archetypes; and dropping feats shifts the overshaowing problem elsewhere, to a couple of categories of cantrip-user.
> 
> I just don't see how anyone thinks it's a response to those points to talk about winning encounters by casting Charm Person, and telling players that damage-oriented builds are bad play.




Context. The Charm Person example was given in response to points made about the importance of DPR, not directly to the OP as you are imlying. And I didn’t say that damage oriented builds are bad play. I said play that is solely focused on damage output will have some issues that need to be addressed....which I think is exactly the point made in the OP, actually.


----------



## Tony Vargas (Jun 6, 2018)

hawkeyefan said:


> What would you suggest they do?



 I don't think they need any advice, they're an experienced group putting in the work to get what they want out if it.  They just seem to be dissatisfied with how much that is, compared to what they got out of 3.x/PF.



> Oh you play 5E? For some reason I didn’t think you did.



 Run, almost never a player.



> Never had occasion? I didn’t say a game without combat. I said a game with less combat.



 'Occasion' as in running up against the same issues.



> Ah, so I can’t “take a shot” at his charged posts, but you can casually take a shot at those who disagree?



 Hey, as long as you admit It... ; )



> Mostly, when it comes to this topic, I think he has some points, but I think the way he makes those points can be needlessly inflammatory and that the assumptions he makes about what his points mean are not nearly as universal as he seems to think.



 The game is what it is.  Differing opinions don't change that...
...DMs do.



> I disagree. Everything he posts indicates that DPR is by far the major focus of his game. Which is fine, if that’s what he and his players want



 Then they'd have no problem.

.







> However, I think they may be playing the wrong game...or the wrong edition...if that’s what they prefer.



 Too easy a dismissal for what 5e's meant to be, IMHO.



> I’ll grant that Sharpshooter has something for it beyond the increased damage. But still....being good with a weapon is kind of baked into the idea of a Fighter, no?



 Yep, but turn on feats, now there's more.



> Having Feats that cause the character to be even more gooder with the weapon seems off, to me. I think those Feats are flawed. I don’t think they really add anything to a character concept that character class doesn’t already cover. They exist as holdovers from previous editions. More damage and more attacks



Evoking the classic game is a major point of 5e, after all.

It's not like, ultimately, it's a "5e Problem," it's a D&D problem.


----------



## pemerton (Jun 6, 2018)

hawkeyefan said:


> The Charm Person example was given in response to points made about the importance of DPR, not directly to the OP as you are imlying.



Here is one of the Charm Person posts (post 80-something upthread):



> I feel like the real issues thread like these tend to run into is the focus on Damage Per Round to begin with. I feel like it's very similar to the early days of tracking professional basketball statistics.
> 
> DPR is basically Points Per Game. It's the most simple, basic level of evaluation for an individual character/player. It does not take into account a massive amount of the game. In basketball, it would ignore how often you miss, rebound, steal, assist, block, and even more advanced concepts like your value over replacement player, reduced offense from the person you're guarding, wins produced while you are on the court, and all sorts of elements.
> 
> ...



This seems to be a response to the OP ("threads like these"). But the OP isn't a complaint that Charm Person is useless. (Maybe the OP believes this - I don't know. But it is not asserted in this thread.)


----------



## UngeheuerLich (Jun 6, 2018)

I recently created a knife throwing halfling fighter which originated in 3.5.
He was seriously unoptimized but more than effective. Good AC and rogue skills allowed him to play much more than his role. He started fighter and eventually multiclassed to rogue and master thrower.
In 5e it is quite easy to have an effective guy. The trick is battlemaster with duelling style and rogue thief to use fast hands to be able to throw 2 daggers with your attack action. Dual wielder and using 2 daggers also works.
Battlemaster will give everything you need to be a pain in the ass for your enemy along with cunning action.

Edit: you won't be damage king. But you will be able to easily play your character efficiently.
You have single attribute dependancy and good inititative. You will bring out of combat abilities that are useful. You are durable.

If you want to really deal damage, swap daggers with darts. Take archery fighting style. Take sharpshooter. Be a ranger hunter multiclass for hunter's mark and colossus slayer. (Note that you have con saving throw proficiencies).


----------



## Oofta (Jun 6, 2018)

pemerton said:


> I'm just following the OP's lead.
> 
> 
> 
> ...




If you want a knife-throwing character, it probably should be a rogue.  You can always use a bonus action to throw that second dagger if you miss with the first. It may not even be a bad build if you have a way to get opportunity or other attacks outside of your normal turn on a regular basis.  

However, the long-bow wielding rogue will do more damage on their turn than the knife thrower because long bows do more damage.  In a more realistic game, a long bow should do significantly more damage, but that's one of the (many) compromises D&D makes.

As far as 4E, Blinding Barrage (thanks for the correction) was one of those powers that always struck our group as something simply impossible to do outside of an anime cartoon or superhero comic genre.  I'm not saying it's good or bad, but PCs in 4E that were supposedly not using supernatural powers did things all the time that would look out of place in an action movie.  Non-supernatural PCs in 5E (and basically all non-4E versions of D&D) push what is possible, but at least what they do is a close facsimile.  I don't have a problem with wizards casting spells or barbarians getting a boost from their totem because those things are explicitly supernatural.

I don't want to get into a 4E vs 5E discussion, just saying that the only way I see you getting a dagger-based build would be some niche that had supernatural abilities of some sort that could only be done with daggers.


----------



## UngeheuerLich (Jun 6, 2018)

We need level 12 for 2 ASI and sharp shooter.

Darts have an attack bonus of +6 for 1d4+15 damage.
Feinting attack for advantage. And 1d8 more damage.
Hunters mark +1d6
Colossus slayer and sneak attack +2d6 and +1d8 once per turn.

So against an enemy with low AC you can easily do 62.5 points of damage.

If you are less willing to gamble you could be an elf and take elven accuracy and use daggers. You can be a hexblade warlock instead of ranger and just use a dagger and curse and hex.
That makes 1d4+11 damage with crit at 19 and 20. You only need to be level 1 warlock 3
4 rogue and 5 fighter.
You still have to go dex as main stat but that is ok.
You deal 2d4+22+2d8+2d6 +2d6 SA damage with lowest of 3d20 + 9
That should hit most of the time. So your average damage is 50 damage. Slightly lower than the other build but I did not calculate hit chances for target AC. Probably comparable.
Now the trick is you can use riposte to get another hit with sneak attack in.
So that's probably it. The first build is pure phb. The second one is using all materials.
And that are just two builds out of the head without looking up or precalculating. Maybe paladin instead of fighter might be better or skipping fighter altogether focussing on blade warlock.


----------



## TwoSix (Jun 6, 2018)

UngeheuerLich said:


> I recently created a knife throwing halfling fighter which originated in 3.5.
> He was seriously unoptimized but more than effective. Good AC and rogue skills allowed him to play much more than his role. He started fighter and eventually multiclassed to rogue and master thrower.
> In 5e it is quite easy to have an effective guy. The trick is battlemaster with duelling style and rogue thief to use fast hands to be able to throw 2 daggers with your attack action. Dual wielder and using 2 daggers also works.
> Battlemaster will give everything you need to be a pain in the ass for your enemy along with cunning action.
> ...




Dagger Expert

• You may draw a dagger as part of any attack with a dagger.

• Being within 5 feet of a hostile creature doesn’t impose disadvantage on your ranged attack rolls.

• When you use the Attack action and attack with a one-handed weapon, you can use a bonus action to attack with a dagger you are holding.


----------



## UngeheuerLich (Jun 6, 2018)

TwoSix said:


> Dagger Expert
> 
> • You may draw a dagger as part of any attack with a dagger.
> 
> ...




That is a fabulous though boring solution.

Edit: i think doubling point blank range would be nicer than removing disadvantage in melee. You could just stab with the dagger anyway.


----------



## pemerton (Jun 6, 2018)

Oofta said:


> Blinding Barrage (thanks for the correction) was one of those powers that always struck our group as something simply impossible to do outside of an anime cartoon or superhero comic genre.  I'm not saying it's good or bad, but PCs in 4E that were supposedly not using supernatural powers did things all the time that would look out of place in an action movie.



I guess I don't think it would be out of place, in an action movie, for a ninja to throw half-a-dozen knives or shurikens at everyone in a room (which is a rough approximation to the "blast 3" AoE of Blinding Barrage).

If it was Bullseye or Daredevil (neither of whom is magic) then it would be a single dagger or other object ricocheting from target to target!

I think that ability can also be used with a bow, which pushes thinks a bit further. But the six-second round is also a heuristic approximation rather than a metronomic natural law. (And in 5e as well, I think.)


----------



## Mistwell (Jun 6, 2018)

pemerton said:


> Here is one of the Charm Person posts (post 80-something upthread):
> 
> This seems to be a response to the OP ("threads like these"). But the OP isn't a complaint that Charm Person is useless. (Maybe the OP believes this - I don't know. But it is not asserted in this thread.)




The "threads like these" is the direction the threads tend to take, not the OP. Charm Person was brought up earlier in the thread as well by the way by someone else prior to my re-raising it. It's a long thread.


----------



## pemerton (Jun 6, 2018)

Mistwell said:


> The "threads like these" is the direction the threads tend to take, not the OP.



Fair enough.



Mistwell said:


> Charm Person was brought up earlier in the thread as well by the way by someone else prior to my re-raising it. It's a long thread.



But I still don't see how it bears upon the topic of the thread. How does the fact that (some, maybe all) casters have a high degree of flexibility and diverse capability in the way that the engage encounters, which makes their DPR a potentially secondary concern, help show that they're _not_ overshadowing featless fighters, at least in some cases (sorcerer and warlock were the two mentioned in the OP)?


----------



## UngeheuerLich (Jun 6, 2018)

I don't think sorcerers and warlocks outclass fighters. There is more than pure damage. Being able to focus on a single target is a main concern. So you need to quicken your cantrip as sorcerer and then you burn through sorcerypoints very very fast. A warlock that focusses on just deqling damage does not do a lot else. Concentration is an often overlooked issue. A battlemaster can and will do well enough. And if you look at theawesome defenses you will see a good package.


----------



## Sacrosanct (Jun 6, 2018)

Mistwell said:


> The "threads like these" is the direction the threads tend to take, not the OP. Charm Person was brought up earlier in the thread as well by the way by someone else prior to my re-raising it. It's a long thread.




I originally brought up the charm person not in response to the OP, but in response to someone comparing how much better/worse casters are compared to fighters based solely on DPR spells as a way to illustrate that a caster has other spells that aren't DPR, but can completely resolve an entire encounter just by itself, and therefore such comparisons are fundamentally flawed.


----------



## Mistwell (Jun 6, 2018)

pemerton said:


> Fair enough.
> 
> But I still don't see how it bears upon the topic of the thread. How does the fact that (some, maybe all) casters have a high degree of flexibility and diverse capability in the way that the engage encounters, which makes their DPR a potentially secondary concern, help show that they're _not_ overshadowing featless fighters, at least in some cases (sorcerer and warlock were the two mentioned in the OP)?




It was in reply to the numerous people who were claiming damage is king, that the focus should always be on damage per round, and that focusing on things outside of damage isn't helpful. Again...long thread. I get that you didn't read it all, but maybe catch up before replying to me again that you don't understand why I am talking about what quite a number of people in the thread are in fact talking about?


----------



## TwoSix (Jun 6, 2018)

UngeheuerLich said:


> That is a fabulous though boring solution.
> 
> Edit: i think doubling point blank range would be nicer than removing disadvantage in melee. You could just stab with the dagger anyway.



I'm always a fan of reskinning when possible.

And I left in the "no disadvantage" so you can run in, stab a guy, and then throw a dagger at someone else approaching.  More cinematic that way.


----------



## Oofta (Jun 6, 2018)

pemerton said:


> I guess I don't think it would be out of place, in an action movie, for a ninja to throw half-a-dozen knives or shurikens at everyone in a room (which is a rough approximation to the "blast 3" AoE of Blinding Barrage).
> 
> If it was Bullseye or Daredevil (neither of whom is magic) then it would be a single dagger or other object ricocheting from target to target!
> 
> I think that ability can also be used with a bow, which pushes thinks a bit further. But the six-second round is also a heuristic approximation rather than a metronomic natural law. (And in 5e as well, I think.)




I'm not a big fan of [insert name of extremist martial arts movies], but in movies like Crouching Tiger Hidden Dragon, the protagonists are obviously doing supernatural things.  

Even in fantasy movies like LOTR, Legoland Legolas did some things that stretched credulity but it was just barely possible.  Maybe.  When I think action movie logic I'm thinking more James Bond movies, not superhero movies.

Captain America that throws his shield and it bounces all over tarnation.  It's a superhero movie, and this is Steve Frickin' Rogers we're talking about so it gets a pass.  Same with DareDevil and Bullseye.  Superhero comic strips take things to the next level. Although if you're talking the Netflix version of DareDevil, I think blinding barrage would be out of place.

In any case, it's a judgement call.  Much like most people agree that the last Indiana Jones jumped the shark with the refrigerator scene, I think blinding barrage goes too far. YMMV.

The point of bringing up 4E is that there was significant effort to make different builds "balanced".  To me, and to a lot of people, it never felt like D&D.  There was probably a decent game in there if you could have sped up play at higher levels, but expecting 5E to do the same kind of balancing act while maintaining the feel of "classic" D&D is an impossible task.


----------



## Warpiglet (Jun 6, 2018)

UngeheuerLich said:


> I don't think sorcerers and warlocks outclass fighters. There is more than pure damage. Being able to focus on a single target is a main concern. So you need to quicken your cantrip as sorcerer and then you burn through sorcerypoints very very fast. A warlock that focusses on just deqling damage does not do a lot else. Concentration is an often overlooked issue. A battlemaster can and will do well enough. And if you look at theawesome defenses you will see a good package.




This is on target.  It is very convenient to forget that in the absence of warcaster and (for some classes) resilient-con, a spell caster would not want to be in melee.  This also means that they are not up armored without multiclassing, may use shield spells more (in absence of always up casting) and so forth.

I still believe fighters have a niche and an ability that matters (AC, HP, consistent damage without concentration checks) without feats.  

This in fact is more classic AD&D sfuff.  Sneeze on a caster and they lose their spell in progress!  Fighters were always important!

As a result, the OP concerns (from my perspective, of course) are a direct result of optional rules.  Everyone I know uses them, so maybe that is a moot point.  But finally, if the idea is that all fighters are forced to GWM it is because spellcaster are taking their goodies in fairly consistent fashion (e.g. warcaster, etc.).  

The criticism here is that some other characters fall behind unless they get in the arms race as it were.  

Following this, the question is what can be done and OP says "nothing will work."

I simply disagree (mostly with the problem) but also with the conclusion.  Simple limitations leaves a much more "balanced" game in terms of DPR even if that is desirable or the metric we even want to use!


----------



## Sacrosanct (Jun 6, 2018)

Oofta said:


> I'm not a big fan of [insert name of extremist martial arts movies], but in movies like Crouching Tiger Hidden Dragon, the protagonists are obviously doing supernatural things.
> 
> Even in fantasy movies like LOTR, Legoland Legolas did some things that stretched credulity but it was just barely possible.  Maybe.  When I think action movie logic I'm thinking more James Bond movies, not superhero movies.
> 
> ...





Some folks want to have their mundane PCs act like superheroes from the comics.  If only there was an RPG out there that emulated that...

I actually like playing that as well sometimes.  But I don't think D&D is the best medium for that.  D&D was originally designed to emulate sword and sorcery, not comic book super heroes.  That isn't to say that playing mundane PCs doing things like Captain American isn't a valid playstyle, I just think there are different RPGs that cater to that, so trying to make D&D into that isn't going to go over well.  Look at what happened to 4e when they tried it.

There's a core #1 rule in business: Never forget your brand identity.  You'd think businesses would learn by now, but changing the identity of your product rarely ever works out well, especially when there are other competitors already doing what you're shifting your product line to do.  Zune anyone?  There are only a few exceptions.  WoTC learned that the hard way by turning D&D into something that it never was (uber balance and every PC has super powers)


----------



## Flexor the Mighty! (Jun 6, 2018)

Tony Vargas said:


> From what height can people normally fall without risk if death or debilitating long-term injury?
> 
> How tall can a humanoid be without severe, debilitating health problems, under normal assumptions about gravity?
> 
> ...




My 5e monk always looks for the highest thing he can jump off of to deliver a flying head-butt.  75' is his high so far.  He's 5th level and at this point gravity just don't matter very much.  Once you get to a certain level of HP why take the stairs when you can jump off the tower?


----------



## Tony Vargas (Jun 6, 2018)

Oofta said:


> .  In a more realistic game, a long bow should do significantly more damage, but that's one of the (many) compromises D&D makes.



 In a more realistic game a knife in the back would kill far more often than an arrow at 200 yds.

In genre, neither will kill the hero, unless it's his time, and both will kill a mook just fine when the hero uses them.

Hit points are the compromise for better genre emulation and playability over realism.  Bigger weapons doing bigger damage is just intuitive. But smaller weapons doing far less max damage is unrealistic for any weapon that can kill.  ::shrug::

Ultimately, the level of realism in D&D, in general, is very, very low, while the level specific things are held to in discussions is much higher - sometimes even to the level if reality-isnt-real.



> PCs in 4E that were supposedly not using supernatural powers did things all the time that would look out of place in an action movie



 4e did 'Action movie' almost too well - better than it did fantasy.  The most reviled-as-magic of all fighter power, Come & Get It, straight out if any action movie where the hero inexplicably uses a melee weapon over a gun... 



> Non-supernatural PCs in 5E (and basically all non-4E versions of D&D) push what is possible,



 Rarely, outside of hps and, with 6 sec rounds, RoF, which breaks what's possible to pieces.
 OTOH, Sometimes they're even pushed in the wrong direction, there are many things a genre hero will do w/o magic that D&D has often resorted to spells or arbitrary special abilities, to model - or am I the only one who remembers Giants in the Earth...



Oofta said:


> The point of bringing up 4E is that there was significant effort to make different builds "balanced".  To me, and to a lot of people, it never felt like D&D.  ...but expecting 5E to do the same kind of balancing act while maintaining the feel of "classic" D&D is an impossible task.



Can't argue with that: the 'feel' of classic D&D_ is_ class imbalance.

But, I don't even think that's the imbalance at issue, here, caster supremacy isn't being challenged in this thread, mainly its the weight given to weapon choice, at bottom, that's triggered the OP...


----------



## hawkeyefan (Jun 6, 2018)

Tony Vargas said:


> I don't think they need any advice, they're an experienced group putting in the work to get what they want out if it.  They just seem to be dissatisfied with how much that is, compared to what they got out of 3.x/PF.




So how should they go about addressing that dissatisfaction? Do you think they need to go with the "tall order" Zapp mentioned in the OP? Do you share the concerns cited? Some, all?



Tony Vargas said:


> Run, almost never a player.
> 
> 'Occasion' as in running up against the same issues.




I've had the occasion to run into the same issues. I just don't think that those issues are nearly as meaningful for my game than for his. 

I'll ask again, because I'm curious for your answer but you edited it out: 
Would the combat oriented feats be more important in a game with more combat or a game with less?



Tony Vargas said:


> Hey, as long as you admit It... ; )




Meh, if you think that disagreeing with someone is taking a shot at them, then sure, I took a shot. 




Tony Vargas said:


> The game is what it is.  Differing opinions don't change that...
> ...DMs do.
> 
> Then they'd have no problem.




I don't think so. they want balance as it relates to DPR. That desire is the direct cause of their dissatisfaction. They have a problem because DPR is their main concern. 

If the players didn't worry about parity in the DPR area, then when the multiclassed warlock/sorcerer used his Exploitation Blast to do 846 points of damage in one round, the other players would simply say "wow, impressive" and there would be no issue. 



Tony Vargas said:


> . Too easy a dismissal for what 5e's meant to be, IMHO.




Not at all. I think they can solve the issue. I think the game is customizable enough to get the results they want. However, if they're not willing or able to seek solutions and try things out, then my follow up advice would be to try an edition or game that was more supportive of their desired playstyle. 





Tony Vargas said:


> Yep, but turn on feats, now there's more.




Sure, but you can always add more. You're missing my point. The Feat isn't necessary to create a Robin Hood type character. Not unless you thought such a character couldn't exist prior to 3E and the introduction of Feats. 

the -5/+10 aspects of those feats...and the ones that grant extra attacks, as well...don't really add anything to a character concept. I can make a Robin Hood type character without them. No one looks at a Robin Hood movie and thinks "wow he must have done +10 damage on that shot!" 

Now, to relate back to Zapp's OP....he feels that these feats are necessary because otherwise the Fighter and other martials may fall behind on DPR compared to certain casters. So, let's say that his group agreed to not play those cross class combos that resulted in the overpowered cantrips....if they did that, then the -5/+10 feats can go. 

Alternatively, instead of removing those Feats, you could simply grant anyone the ability to take -5 on an attack to grant +10 to damage. This would work for martials and for cantrip casters. 



Tony Vargas said:


> Evoking the classic game is a major point of 5e, after all.
> 
> It's not like, ultimately, it's a "5e Problem," it's a D&D problem.




Sure, I'd agree with you there. I just think that given the other design goals of scaling the numbers and bounded accuracy and the like that the -5/+10 bits are out of place. My guess on their inclusion is that they felt there would be backlash if there were not 3E style feats included. I remember looking over the Feat list when 5E first came out, and being kind of surprised with how much of a departure the feats seemed to be. Then I saw Great Weapon Master and I felt comforted. That was my reaction at the time....now I wish they had ditched them. Or maybe designed a feat that worked more like Weapon Specialization, where it can be selected by anyone, and they can choose the weapon they want to use it with.


----------



## Tony Vargas (Jun 6, 2018)

hawkeyefan said:


> So how should they go about addressing that dissatisfaction? Do you think they need to go with the "tall order" Zapp mentioned in the OP?



 I suspect they'll check out PF2, and go with that, or back to 3.x or something.
Which is sad, because 5e was s'posed't'be for everyone....  
;(



> Do you share the concerns cited? Some, all?



 Meh.  I don't use feats or MCing or Inspiration unless I have to, but that's as much convienence as 'concern.'  I acknowledge the issues, though, they're real enough, and they're hardly the only ones.  Depending on how you rule on the broad swaths of the rules that are ambiguous, the few that seem problematic 'As Written' can fade into the background or come to fore - and you can create/solve all sorts of other problems, too.  

In 3.5 or 4e I'd be more concerned about issues being dismissed, because the rules were more concrete and the game was supposed to work (a certain way), again, "As Written."  5e, DM Empowerment, Rulings over Rules - I still have to acknowledge a mechanical issue, and don't want to see one dismissed out of hand, but the game really exists more in the moment, at the table, not in the rulebook, nor even at chargen/level-up.  



> I'll ask again, because I'm curious for your answer



 If it wasn't a rhetorical question, it might as well be a tautology.

But, just as 5e assumes 6-8 encounters for it's balance point, because it gives classes different resource models, it also necessarily assumes a ratio among the pillars, because it gives classes different levels of competence within each, as well.  Really, there's a very narrow range of potential ways to play, if you want the game to balance, mechanically, on its own.  (I'd say 'without intervention' but sticking to that straight and narrow is, itself, intervention.)  



> . they want balance as it relates to DPR. That desire is the direct cause of their dissatisfaction. They have a problem because DPR is their main concern.



 They want DPR builds to balance with DPR builds, that's not the same thing as DPR being the main concern, or they'd be all over trying to boost DPR outside the weapon users who have little else to contribute.  Instead, the excess DPR of the feat-optimized fighter is viewed as merely rendering the class viable.



> Not at all. I think they can solve the issue. I think the game is customizable enough to get the results they want.



 Again, sounds like he has, but is unhappy with what doing so necessitates, in terms of ongoing effort.



> You're missing my point. The Feat isn't necessary to create a Robin Hood type character. Not unless you thought such a character couldn't exist prior to 3E and the introduction of Feats.



 Actually, that's not entirely unfair to say. Fighters were very generic until they lucked into a defining magic item, prior to 3e, and the lack of skills also hurt attempts at the Robin Hood (or almost any other) archetype.  Though weapon specialization obviously, let you be exceptional with a bow, it was about damage through RoF, primarily (+1 to hit won't win you many archery contests). 
SS at least gives you startling accuracy at long range & vs cover.

But 'necessary' is relative.  If the option is there, to be the best, you 'need' it.  One of the problem with pouring too many options into a list-based game, it creates incompetence in those who don't immediately snap up the relevant new options, when, before, they were as good as could be.   (Obviously that doesn't imply everyone should suck exactly the same at everything to 'avoid bloat' or anything, it's just a design consideration.)



> he feels that these feats are necessary because otherwise the Fighter and other martials may fall behind on DPR compared to certain casters.



 Don't stay far enough ahead in DPR to make up for caster versatility, anyway.



> Sure, I'd agree with you there. I just think that given the other design goals of scaling the numbers and bounded accuracy and the like that the -5/+10 bits are out of place.



The -5 actually fits neatly with BA:  without BA, it'd be too great a penalty at low level, and trivial at high.



> My guess on their inclusion is that they felt there would be backlash if there were not 3E style feats included.



 No question. Things were included, excluded, & designed to avoid another edition war, to evoke classic feel, promote DM Empowerment, and to seem accessible from a distance (not look intimidating on the shelf).  
Balance was never on the table - ironically, except for the easily-checked DPR.


----------



## Swarmkeeper (Jun 6, 2018)

I wonder if a big point is being glossed over here.  In a full campaign, let's say level 1 to 12 anyway, the fighter protects the wizard early on because... strong fighter squishy wizard.  If around level 9 (or whatever) the wizard then somehow is doling out more DPR and wiping out a bunch more foes in crowded encounters than the fighter, then the fighter can just say: "Thanks party friend - we sure have been through a lot together and I'm super glad I kept you alive when you were all, you know, squishy and stuff".  The wizard tips her pointy hat and nods knowingly to the fighter as the thief steals her pouch of fake platinum coins because... divination wizard saw that coming, too.  Now that's a part of the story of team growth that gets lost if every PC just marched to the samey DPR beat throughout dozens and dozens of sessions.


----------



## TwoSix (Jun 6, 2018)

DM Dave1 said:


> I wonder if a big point is being glossed over here.  In a full campaign, let's say level 1 to 12 anyway, the fighter protects the wizard early on because... strong fighter squishy wizard.  If around level 9 (or whatever) the wizard then somehow is doling out more DPR and wiping out a bunch more foes in crowded encounters than the fighter, then the fighter can just say: "Thanks party friend - we sure have been through a lot together and I'm super glad I kept you alive when you were all, you know, squishy and stuff".  The wizard tips her pointy hat and nods knowingly to the fighter as the thief steals her pouch of fake platinum coins because... divination wizard saw that coming, too.  Now that's a part of the story of team growth that gets lost if every PC just marched to the samey DPR beat throughout dozens and dozens of sessions.



That's because "balance over campaign" is something that was part of TSR-era D&D, but hasn't been brought forward into WotC-era D&D.  3e still had some remnants, but that was an atavism of the inherited class design more than an actual design intent.  Outside of people playing intentionally old-school style games, no one recommends making new people start at level 1, which is really a requirement to make "balance over campaign" function.  Otherwise you simply make the "strong at high level" class a replacement character once you get to those levels.  (And I'm speaking from experience, as I've done this intentionally in 3e.)


----------



## Oofta (Jun 6, 2018)

Tony Vargas said:


> In a more realistic game a knife in the back would kill far more often than an arrow at 200 yds.



I don't agree with the ranges for longbows in D&D; all I'm saying is that a knife in the back is less likely than a longbow at a reasonable distance.



Tony Vargas said:


> In genre, neither will kill the hero, unless it's his time, and both will kill a mook just fine when the hero uses them.



True, there is no armor as powerful as plot armor.



Tony Vargas said:


> Hit points are the compromise for better genre emulation and playability over realism.  Bigger weapons doing bigger damage is just intuitive. But smaller weapons doing far less max damage is unrealistic for any weapon that can kill.  ::shrug::
> 
> Ultimately, the level of realism in D&D, in general, is very, very low, while the level specific things are held to in discussions is much higher - sometimes even to the level if reality-isnt-real.




I think you're over-estimating the capacity of a knife to kill someone.  Nobody hunts deer with throwing knives and unless you get lucky a throwing knife probably wouldn't penetrate more than a few inches.  But regardless, a knife does 2.5 points per hit and a longbow does 4.5.  I think that's reasonable ... so not sure why you think there's a huge difference.




Tony Vargas said:


> 4e did 'Action movie' almost too well - better than it did fantasy.  The most reviled-as-magic of all fighter power, Come & Get It, straight out if any action movie where the hero inexplicably uses a melee weapon over a gun...



Yeah, this is just stupid "how do we justify melee characters in a world with guns" logic.  My wife and I groan every time we see it.  Certain shows _really_ abuse it (CW's Arrow for example).



Tony Vargas said:


> Rarely, outside of hps and, with 6 sec rounds, RoF, which breaks what's possible to pieces.
> OTOH, Sometimes they're even pushed in the wrong direction, there are many things a genre hero will do w/o magic that D&D has often resorted to spells or arbitrary special abilities, to model - or am I the only one who remembers Giants in the Earth...



You may be, I certainly don't.  I do remember certain Arnold S movies that were so over the top as to be groan-worthy.  I don't want a game that's groan worthy.  Or where someone can survive a nuclear blast in a refrigerator after being thrown a few miles.



Tony Vargas said:


> Can't argue with that: the 'feel' of classic D&D_ is_ class imbalance.
> 
> But, I don't even think that's the imbalance at issue, here, caster supremacy isn't being challenged in this thread, mainly its the weight given to weapon choice, at bottom, that's triggered the OP...




I don't necessarily disagree, I just haven't seen the issue in games I play.  If it really breaks the game for someone, it's easy to fix.

Which is my real issue with this argument.  Don't like GWM and SS?  Don't allow them.  Or use one of the many, many tweaks others have suggested. Think feats or multi-classing lead to overpowered combos?  Don't allow the optional rules.

D&D is a toolkit used to build a campaign.  I think too much blame is placed on the tools when it's really the use of those tools that's the source of the problem.


----------



## Satyrn (Jun 6, 2018)

devincutler said:


> And Toll the Dead. But I was going to post this same response when I saw the poster said "best" not "most damaging". Poison spray is not the best cantrip despite its slightly higher damage for multiple reasons.




Aye, its biggest drawback for me is that I don't get to roll a d20 when I use it. It kinda lowers the fun of it, but still, it's my druid's go-to "melee" because it fits his spider/snake wildshape focus better than any other cantrip. And if I my gnome battlemaster had lived just a little longer he'd have had the spell (and acid splash) to model his alchemy expertise.

It has actually been the best spell for my characters . . . despite kinda sucking in the field because nearly everything I fight is immune to poison.


----------



## jasper (Jun 6, 2018)

How we just drop weapon damage but use weapon damage but by class. does not matter the weapon type except for resistances 
Wizards and their type get 1d4
Clerics get 1d6
Rogues get 1d8
Fighters get 1d10. 
If your dirty dipping multiclasser you take the worse.


----------



## TwoSix (Jun 6, 2018)

jasper said:


> How we just drop weapon damage but use weapon damage but by class. does not matter the weapon type except for resistances
> Wizards and their type get 1d4
> Clerics get 1d6
> Rogues get 1d8
> ...



13th Age does this, it works quite well.


----------



## Satyrn (Jun 6, 2018)

Flexor the Mighty! said:


> My 5e monk always looks for the highest thing he can jump off of to deliver a flying head-butt.




Ah, the crazy days of ECW.


----------



## DonT (Jun 6, 2018)

jasper said:


> How we just drop weapon damage but use weapon damage but by class. does not matter the weapon type except for resistances
> Wizards and their type get 1d4
> Clerics get 1d6
> Rogues get 1d8
> ...




I would hate this.  I enjoy playing hobgoblin wizards who fight with mauls or githyanki wizards who fight with great swords.  If no wizard could do melee damage greater than 1d4, it would kill my interest in the game.


----------



## Warpiglet (Jun 6, 2018)

Oofta said:


> I don't agree with the ranges for longbows in D&D; all I'm saying is that a knife in the back is less likely than a longbow at a reasonable distance.
> 
> 
> True, there is no armor as powerful as plot armor.
> ...




Everything said here.  I replied with quote to reinforce how right I think this post is...

Especially the solutions and their simplicity...


----------



## Sacrosanct (Jun 6, 2018)

jasper said:


> How we just drop weapon damage but use weapon damage but by class. does not matter the weapon type except for resistances
> Wizards and their type get 1d4
> Clerics get 1d6
> Rogues get 1d8
> ...




My personal preference is to go back to universal damage for all weapons like it was in OD&D and B/X (variable was optional).  Then individual classes could get bonuses or even change the damage die type to reflect their expertise in the weapon.


----------



## Oofta (Jun 6, 2018)

jasper said:


> How we just drop weapon damage but use weapon damage but by class. does not matter the weapon type except for resistances
> Wizards and their type get 1d4
> Clerics get 1d6
> Rogues get 1d8
> ...




So make an even playing field by eliminating the value of all choices and trade-offs?  No thanks, that would be a different game and throwing the baby out with the bathwater.

Do what makes sense for your game, but that's over-simplified for me.


----------



## Warpiglet (Jun 6, 2018)

Oofta said:


> So make an even playing field by eliminating the value of all choices and trade-offs?  No thanks, that would be a different game and throwing the baby out with the bathwater.
> 
> Do what makes sense for your game, but that's over-simplified for me.




I want to respectfully agree with this.  Nothing against OP's playstyle.

I enjoy a number of strategy games.  Some are asymmetrical some are scenario driven but frequently we want balance.  This is not universally true though.  We often have had fun with Axis and Allies or War of the Ring with asymmetry in forces.

I am all in for immersion and challenge.  I think it is very telling that when posts talk about "spotlight" they often lose me.  I am having fun using the tools I have to overcome obstacles.  In the old days as I have often referenced, thieves kind of sucked.  But we still would play them because of the challenge and fun in advancing them.  Never did we avoid a cleric with a paltry mace (1-6+1) because it was less.  We played them because we wanted that _role_.  

There were big fights where turn undead was unleashed!  There were times where flamestrike fell to the earth but I don't think we sat and reckoned damage the way it is often done online at present.

If it comes down to all doing nearly the same thing but with a different name it is no longer the _roleplaying_ game for me.  Fortunately it never has to come to that--given the great editions we have that already bucked that trend. 

 But I can absolutely see the appeal of it for some people.  For me, it would be like playing a strategy game with its puzzles and traps and math problems/gambits. I like them when I play them.

That is good stuff....just not if it is the replacement for the D&D RPG my group loves.


----------



## Flexor the Mighty! (Jun 6, 2018)

TwoSix said:


> 13th Age does this, it works quite well.




I told my DM I approach 5e as a mix of wuxia and loony tunes, should have added in 90's wrestling.  I'm going retcon him as the original Hardy boy.


----------



## Satyrn (Jun 6, 2018)

Flexor the Mighty! said:


> I told my DM I approach 5e as a mix of wuxia and loony tunes, should have added in 90's wrestling.  I'm going retcon him as the original Hardy boy.




. . . I feel icky for it,  but I was picturing him as Chris Benoit.


----------



## 5ekyu (Jun 6, 2018)

pemerton said:


> Are difference in damage dice for weapons, or in feat support for weaon categories, key thematic differences?
> A knife thrower is going to be carrying many knives, probably in a bandolier. Those are not going to all be hidden.
> 
> Moreover, the OP is not complaining about the viability, or otherwise, of a knife-wielding assassin in a courtly intrigue game. It's clear, from having read many of the OP's posts in threads over the past few years, that the concern is about bog-standard dungeon-style, AP-style RPGing. Concealed weaponry is pretty marginal in those contexts.
> ...



"A knife thrower is going to be carrying many knives, probably in a bandolier. Those are not going to all be hidden."

Well, now we know why hidable knives arent a thing of merit or value in your games or in your white rooms.


----------



## Flexor the Mighty! (Jun 6, 2018)

Satyrn said:


> . . . I feel icky for it,  but I was picturing him as Chris Benoit.





I was a huge fan of Benoit, a true wrestling machine, but my monk is far too fat to be like him.  Horrible what happened with CB. I try not to hate him as I have no idea what goes though a brain that damaged from years of flying headbutts off the top rope and chairs to the skill.


----------



## 5ekyu (Jun 6, 2018)

jasper said:


> How we just drop weapon damage but use weapon damage but by class. does not matter the weapon type except for resistances
> Wizards and their type get 1d4
> Clerics get 1d6
> Rogues get 1d8
> ...



Its perfect for many cinematic and genre based games where two things take precedence over "reslity"

1 its the character that is the danger, not the weapon.

2 the choice of weapon is a stylistic and thematic character (cultural) or stylistic nod.

It can work quite well for rpgs where crunch and fiddlies are less in spotlight.


----------



## 5ekyu (Jun 6, 2018)

Satyrn said:


> Ah, the crazy days of ECW.



Perhaps but the earliest flying headbutt afficionado i saw was Harley Race, tho never higher than top rope that i saw.


----------



## Satyrn (Jun 6, 2018)

5ekyu said:


> Perhaps but the earliest flying headbutt afficionado i saw was Harley Race, tho never higher than top rope that i saw.




Aye. Picturing his monk leaping off a roof onto some poor schmuck 20 feet below him is what had me remembering ECW and the panic about copycat kids in their backyard.


----------



## Oofta (Jun 6, 2018)

5ekyu said:


> Its perfect for many cinematic and genre based games where two things take precedence over "reslity"
> 
> 1 its the character that is the danger, not the weapon.
> 
> ...




I enjoyed D&D back when all weapons did 1d6 damage, that doesn't mean that I want to continue to play that version of the game.

There are a lot of games with different goals, features and options.  That doesn't make them any better or worse than D&D, it just makes them different.

So in case it wasn't clear I don't mean any disrespect, I just think it's taking sledge hammer to something that needs a light sanding.  It might work, but it wouldn't be the same game.  I also think there would be more issues.  For example, why would any fighter not take a sword and shield if it doesn't make any difference to damage?  Then you have to decide what to do about feats, etc.

Of course, that's one of the great things about D&D.  Like this change and it works for your group?  You could still keep a lot of things from 5E.  I think it would be different from the game I play, but that's not an issue.


----------



## 5ekyu (Jun 6, 2018)

Oofta said:


> I enjoyed D&D back when all weapons did 1d6 damage, that doesn't mean that I want to continue to play that version of the game.
> 
> There are a lot of games with different goals, features and options.  That doesn't make them any better or worse than D&D, it just makes them different.
> 
> ...



Perhaps my comment was misunderstood... I dont consider dnd 5e to be an rpg that meets any of the criteria i listed for games where that change would be good or well suited to.

5e is a fiddly bits and details rpg... Not as much as some but still too much to imo make "character based dmg" a real coherent part of its make-up


----------



## Tony Vargas (Jun 6, 2018)

Oofta said:


> I don't agree with the ranges for longbows in D&D



 Yeah, should be 300 yds, to fit the myth of the English longbow.  
And SS makes you just as accurate at long range as point blank.  Which is lovely for the Robin Hood types, but there's no similar level of reality-pushing for most other weapon choices.



> all I'm saying is that a knife in the back is less likely than a longbow at a reasonable distance.



 "In the back" is probably unfair, on my part.



> I think you're over-estimating the capacity of a knife to kill someone.  Nobody hunts deer with throwing knives and unless you get lucky a throwing knife probably wouldn't penetrate more than a few inches.



 A thrown weapon hits harder than one held, because humans naturally pull back slightly when hitting something (it's instinctive, to avoid hurting yourself, martial artists try to train it away), a thrown knife can /easily/ penetrate human flesh to the hilt.  D&D daggers are like a foot long, all the vital organs in the human body are very much on it's menu.  Absolutely a lethal weapon.



> But regardless, a knife does 2.5 points per hit and a longbow does 4.5.  I think that's reasonable ... so not sure why you think there's a huge difference.



 I was thinking more Rogue vs SS.



> Yeah, this is just stupid "how do we justify melee characters in a world with guns" logic.  My wife and I groan every time we see it.  Certain shows _really_ abuse it (CW's Arrow for example).



 Heh.  Fantasy has a lower standard than /that/.  So groan at the movie (if you're not in a theatre), but hold 'em in at the gaming table, please!  



> You may be, I certainly don't.  I do remember certain Arnold S movies that were so over the top as to be groan-worthy.  I don't want a game that's groan worthy.  Or where someone can survive a nuclear blast in a refrigerator after being thrown a few miles.



 I want to say you shouldn't be playing FRPGs, at all, you should be playing Aftermath, or something with that level of realism - but, really, it's all so subjective, what seems like too much or too little - too RL-realistic for fantasy or too gonzo for gritty fantasy or whatever - is something groups need to work out for themselves.  

Systems should, ideally, be more concerned with mechanics that are workable/playable/balanced, and leave the descriptions and interpretations of the fiction as suggestions that can float.  5e does give the DM that latitude, so, as DM, you'd be w/in your rights to change what a given feat (or not opt into feats in the first place, still my preferred solution) or other game element represents in the fiction (along with any mechanical tweaks that may imply).  There might be some back-and-forth with a player trying to build to a given concept, but it seems like the kind of things DMs should be up for...



> True, there is no armor as powerful as plot armor.



 And hps have long done a surprisingly good job of modeling plot armor - even if it's never been clear that's what they're doing. ;|



> Which is my real issue with this argument.  Don't like GWM and SS?  Don't allow them. Think feats or multi-classing lead to overpowered combos?  Don't allow the optional rules.



 Much as I agree, those options were discarded as insufficient (throwing out feats would render fighters non-viable, throwing out MCing wouldn't allow the players the characters they wanted, etc - to the OP's standard, anyway) right in the first post.  



5ekyu said:


> Perhaps my comment was misunderstood... I dont consider dnd 5e to be an rpg that meets any of the criteria i listed for games where that change would be good or well suited to...5e is a fiddly bits and details rpg...



 It is, that.  And, much as weapons all doing the same damage would be an amusing reference the games' earliest days for those few who remember the pre-fad years, it wouldn't turn the "feels like D&D" litmus paper the right color for anyone else.



> Not as much as some but still too much to imo make "character based dmg" a real coherent part of its make-up



There's rather a lot of character-based damage, really - bonuses, SA dice, scaling cantrip damage, etc - but only as a component on top of other 'fiddly bit' damage sources & modifiers.


----------



## Oofta (Jun 7, 2018)

Tony Vargas said:


> Much as I agree, those options were discarded as insufficient (throwing out feats would render fighters non-viable, throwing out MCing wouldn't allow the players the characters they wanted, etc - to the OP's standard, anyway) right in the first post.




Which is why I have such a problem with Zapp's postings (and postings and postings followed up by more postings) on this topic.  Nothing will satisfy him other than a complete official rewrite of the rules that somehow miraculously has no "best" option.

It's not going to happen, and there is no perfect rule system. IMHO, 5E is better than previous editions (something I couldn't say about 4E after I'd played for a while) which is all we can ask for.  There is no way for any 1 game to satisfy every anonymous internet squeaky wheel.


----------



## Tony Vargas (Jun 7, 2018)

Oofta said:


> Which is why I have such a problem with Zapp's postings (and postings and postings followed up by more postings) on this topic.  Nothing will satisfy him other than a complete official rewrite of the rules that somehow miraculously has no "best" option.



 Nothing miraculous about balance, but even a modest errata is off the table, I think.  5e really does seem to be sticking to the 'evergreen' concept (in stark contrast to Essentials), with a slow pace of release, virtually no updates, and each supplement being more or less an independent thing that gets put out, and functionally 'forgotten' for purposes of developing the next.  
It's a strong strategy to create a stable brand identity as a foundation for growth into other media.  



> It's not going to happen, and there is no perfect rule system. IMHO, 5E is better than previous editions (something I couldn't say about 4E after I'd played for a while)



 There's no perfect rule system, but by the same token, every system can be improved.  5e's better at what it tries for.  I could say the same about 4e - it was a clearer, more consistent, better-balanced more new/casual-player-friendly RPG than any edition of D&D has even tried to be.  Note I didn't say "any /other/ edition of D&D," because that'd imply 4e was 'really D&D.'   Ultimately what 4e got wrong and 5e got right was being genuine to D&D, and that means being 'bad' in a lot of ways that D&Ders are just fine with...  

...with a very few exceptions, like the Cap'n.  

I feel we'd have less back-and-forth with his ilk if we just said, "yeah, that's a 'flaw,' but we're fine with it..."  maybe even going so far as, "in fact, if you 'fixed' it you'd ruin the game as D&D because..."



> There is no way for any 1 game to satisfy every anonymous internet squeaky wheel.



I suppose we should just be grateful there are so many fewer of them grinding their axes this time around.


----------



## pemerton (Jun 7, 2018)

Mistwell said:


> It was in reply to the numerous people who were claiming damage is king, that the focus should always be on damage per round, and that focusing on things outside of damage isn't helpful. Again...long thread. I get that you didn't read it all, but maybe catch up before replying to me again that you don't understand why I am talking about what quite a number of people in the thread are in fact talking about?



I've read the whole thread. No poster that I read said that "damage is king". (Sacrosanct has me blocked, but I doubt that he said that damage is king.)

About 70 posts in you posted the following:



Mistwell said:


> The OP's perspective, from another recent thread, is that "Damage is King".



So may be all this Charm Person stuff is a response to some other thread?


----------



## Tony Vargas (Jun 7, 2018)

pemerton said:


> I've read the whole thread. No poster that I read said that "damage is king".



With so many people saying it isn't, it's easy to assume someone has said it is...


----------



## pemerton (Jun 7, 2018)

5ekyu said:


> "A knife thrower is going to be carrying many knives, probably in a bandolier. Those are not going to all be hidden."
> 
> Well, now we know why hidable knives arent a thing of merit or value in your games or in your white rooms.



What's your view as to the number of concealed knives a knife-thrower can carry, draw and throw?

If a typical 5e combat last 4 rounds, and the fighter takes an action surge as well, that's 5 knives needed to make it through on combat (before we get to any bonus action posibilities). Do you think a character can have five concealed knives on his/her person?

In any event, I'm happy to hear all your warstories about D&D characters assassinating their powerful enemies with a single concelaed knife.


----------



## Warpiglet (Jun 7, 2018)

Tony Vargas said:


> With so many people saying it isn't, it's easy to assume someone has said it is...




Perhaps it was not directly stated.  However, much of the OP is saying it is extremely important.  I just looked again.


----------



## Tony Vargas (Jun 7, 2018)

pemerton said:


> What's your view as to the number of concealed knives a knife-thrower can carry, draw and throw?
> If a typical 5e combat last 4 rounds, and the fighter takes an action surge as well, that's 5 knives needed to make it through on combat (before we get to any bonus action posibilities). Do you think a character can have five concealed knives on his/her person?



 Not the nearly least plausible thing I've ever heard in the context of D&D.  



> In any event, I'm happy to hear all your warstories about D&D characters assassinating their powerful enemies with a single concelaed knife.



 This really happened.  We were tasked to assassinate an evil nobleman.  He was hanging out in a private bath, attended by half a dozen concubines and a pair of bad-ass female bodyguards.  Our Changeling Bard bluffs his way in shapechanged into a comely female form, carrying a magic sword that is invisible when drawn (so not a concealed knife, I admit), gets within striking distance of the target, and stabs him, fatally.  He was only 'powerful' in the political sense - a non-magical knife would have done for him.  The rest of us had to dash in and save the changeling (who had /nothing/ apart from the magic sword) from the bodyguards, who put up a vicious fight, but there you go.



Warpiglet said:


> Perhaps it was not directly stated.  However, much of the OP is saying it is extremely important.  I just looked again.



 Yeah, I did, too.  He seems really focused on the balance of the fighter class & it's weapon options, and on encounter balance.  All his 'fixes,' were they implemented, wouldn't begin to actually balance the game in the broader sense.  Though one - taking way the rest option from PCs, I guess going to the 13A model - would go further than all the others combined.


----------



## pemerton (Jun 7, 2018)

hawkeyefan said:


> they want balance as it relates to DPR. That desire is the direct cause of their dissatisfaction. They have a problem because DPR is their main concern.
> 
> If the players didn't worry about parity in the DPR area, then when the multiclassed warlock/sorcerer used his Exploitation Blast to do 846 points of damage in one round, the other players would simply say "wow, impressive" and there would be no issue.





Tony Vargas said:


> They want DPR builds to balance with DPR builds, that's not the same thing as DPR being the main concern, or they'd be all over trying to boost DPR outside the weapon users who have little else to contribute.  Instead, the excess DPR of the feat-optimized fighter is viewed as merely rendering the class viable.



Tony Vargas's post seems accurate to me.

But even suppose that the OP and the OP's group did have DPR as their main concern. _What would be wrong with that_? It's obvious that balance in damage dealt is an important design consideration for 5e (there's no other reason why the spells no longer have the canonical damage ranges, but rather have all these weird damage expressesion, like a fireball cast by a 5th level character doing 8d6 rather than 5d6). And probably no single rules element gets as much attention (in PC design, in resolution mechanics, in spells and items, in monster design) as the rules for action economy, attacking, saving throws and inflicting damage.

I read the Mythological Figures column every time it is posted. And every time it's just a combat stat block. King Arthur is a set of combat stats for a 19th level battlemaster/paladin. Lancelot is a combat stat block for a 13th level champion/paladin. The only person in those threads who offers up Ideals, Bonds and Flaws for these personalities (which at least might start to flesh them out as the mythological figures that they are) is me.

If so many people are playing D&D essentially as a type of wargame - for which there is a very long pedigree, going back to the classic game - then what is wrong with focusing on DPR?



hawkeyefan said:


> the -5/+10 aspects of those feats...and the ones that grant extra attacks, as well...don't really add anything to a character concept. I can make a Robin Hood type character without them. No one looks at a Robin Hood movie and thinks "wow he must have done +10 damage on that shot!"





Tony Vargas said:


> The -5 actually fits neatly with BA:  without BA, it'd be too great a penalty at low level, and trivial at high.



Here's my take on some aspects of the design challenge around -5/+10.

First - and contra the claim that "no one looks at Robin Hood and thinks that he must have done +10 damage" - there is an expectation that weapons can kill. That Robin Hood can take down a guard with a single arrow. That Conan can cleave an enemy in two with a blow from his axe. How to account for this in the context of a hp-based game? Allow those weapons the chance to get a damage add, which lifts their max damage to 20-odd, which is enough to kill an orc (hp 15) or a guard (hp 11) or a scout (hp 16).

(Other builds get different stuff: shield masters get to do protective stuff; fencers maybe get to be rogues?)

Second, the significance of the -5 to hit is incredibly variable. The OP regards it as just a speed bump on the way to optimisation. But somewhere out there a relatively new player is just now working out that, with a well-time buff from a friendly cleric or bard and manoeuvring for advantage, s/he can offset the -5 and get a real lift in damage output! For that new player, that's an enjoyable experience of learning to play the game better.

Is the game being designed for the OP, or for that new player? It's not easy to design for both, because building in scope for the new player to discover new tricks is at one and the same time building in break points for the player who can see and routinise those tricks on the basis of his/her experience.

This second half of this post ends up returing to the first half. It's possible to have a RPG in which mechanical tricks - playing with the dice and numbers - is not an important part of play. RPGs which aren't, and can't be, wargames. Those RPGs exist, and I probably have more familiarity with them than many ENworld posters, though not as much as some others.

But D&D is not one of those RPGs. It's chock full of opportunities for mechanical tricks - exploiting buffs, optimising action economy, finding clever ways to minimise damage taken, etc. The design doesn't just allow for that, it actively encourages it. So it's no mystery that some tables take this seriously. But it's hard to design a system of that sort that will be robust in the hands of both amateurs, who only stumble onto occasional tricks, get a buzz out of them, but don't systematically exploit them; and in the hands of "professionals" who systematically seek out those tricks and want to routinise them.

I was never a terribly good MtG player, but had friends who were national champions. Playing with them, and with their decks; compared to playing with random members of the University RPG club; was like apples and oranges. It wasn't the same game. D&D, on the other hand, is the same game - the OP is building PCs from the same build elements as the newcomer - and it's remarkable that it's as robust as it is across those differing sorts of play environments.


----------



## pemerton (Jun 7, 2018)

Tony Vargas said:


> This really happened.  We were tasked to assassinate an evil nobleman.  He was hanging out in a private bath, attended by half a dozen concubines and a pair of bad-ass female bodyguards.  Our Changeling Bard bluffs his way in shapechanged into a comely female form, carrying a magic sword that is invisible when drawn (so not a concealed knife, I admit), gets within striking distance of the target, and stabs him, fatally.  He was only 'powerful' in the political sense - a non-magical knife would have done for him.  The rest of us had to dash in and save the changeling (who had /nothing/ apart from the magic sword) from the bodyguards, who put up a vicious fight, but there you go.



Would you accept the assertion that this is atypical for D&D? (Given that a SRD guard has 11 hp, and a SRD mage has 40 hp, the number of potentates with 6 or fewer must be rather modest.)

An exception of course would be 4e, where a skill challenge to "minionise" the target would be de rigeur; but 5e doesn't have any minion rules (because they are unrealistic, and don't "feel" like D&D).


----------



## Tony Vargas (Jun 7, 2018)

pemerton said:


> It's obvious that balance in damage dealt is an important design consideration for 5e



 I was surprised, in the Mike Mearls Warlord stream, to see him use the spell damage table as the prime guide for balancing the sub-class.  DPR /is/ the easiest balance element to check, it makes sense to check it in playtest, because you know the fans'll be dissecting it.  



> I read the Mythological Figures column every time it is posted. And every time it's just a combat stat block.



 It's a stat block, that may be mostly combat, but that goes all the way back to Gods, Demi-Gods & Heroes!  It's just a D&D thang.




> But even suppose that the OP and the OP's group did have DPR as their main concern. _What would be wrong with that_? If so many people are playing D&D essentially as a type of wargame - for which there is a very long pedigree, going back to the classic game - then what is wrong with focusing on DPR?



 It leaves out two pillars and a host of combat considerations?  You end up with classes that contribute mostly DPR being strictly inferior to those that also do 'balanced' DPR and contribute in social & exploration, or have more versatility to do things other than DPR.



> Here's my take on some aspects of the design challenge around -5/+10.
> First - and contra the claim that "no one looks at Robin Hood and thinks that he must have done +10 damage" - there is an expectation that weapons can kill. That Robin Hood can take down a guard with a single arrow. That Conan can cleave an enemy in two with a blow from his axe. How to account for this in the context of a hp-based game?



 Without minions?  Moar damage, sure: 







> Allow those weapons the chance to get a damage add, which lifts their max damage to 20-odd, which is enough to kill an orc (hp 15) or a guard (hp 11) or a scout (hp 16).



 Another option would be to scale damage with level, like 13A or 5e cantrips already do.



> Is the game being designed for the OP, or for that new player?



 No.


----------



## Tony Vargas (Jun 7, 2018)

pemerton said:


> Would you accept the assertion that this is atypical for D&D? (Given that a SRD guard has 11 hp, and a SRD mage has 40 hp, the number of potentates with 6 or fewer must be rather modest.)



 Yes.



> An exception of course would be 4e, where a skill challenge to "minionise" the target would be de rigeur; but 5e doesn't have any minion rules (because they are unrealistic, and don't "feel" like D&D).



 You caught me:  that was a 4e session c2010.


----------



## pemerton (Jun 7, 2018)

Warpiglet said:


> Perhaps it was not directly stated.  However, much of the OP is saying it is extremely important.  I just looked again.



The OP is not about "DPR is king". (It neither affirms it, nor denies it.) It does take for granted that the main mechanical function of a fighter is to deal damage in combat. I don't think that's hugely controversial as a generalisation (a frequent criticism of 4e, after all, was that it had "fighters" whose main mechanical function was _not_ to deal damage in combat).

I've sblocked sections of the OP, then comment on them.
[sblock]







CapnZapp said:


> In the beginning there is the fighting man, doing 1d8+5 with his sword once per round (and more often at higher levels).
> 
> This is the baseline I feel monsters are built for.
> 
> ...



[/sblock]This is all about balance across combat archetypes. As a starting pont damage should be comparable. A small concession to weapon "realism" is OK, but mostly it's fashion. (So the contrast between d4 daggers and d12 axes is implicity criticised.) Frail combatants get various forms of spike damage to compensate (wizards, rogues, etc).

There is no mention that wizards and rogues might get Charm Person instead of damage, but that can easily be factored into the point being made. The focus, in any event, is on "the fighting man", who does not get those sorts of options.

[sblock]







CapnZapp said:


> Problem #1 is, any group of reasonably experienced D&D gamers create characters with MUCH more damage than that.
> 
> The 5th edition PHB is MUCH more generous with various goodies that allow PCs to run circles around monsters and play with them.
> 
> ...



[/sblock]Mechanically optimised PCs do much more than that "fighting man" baseline, which makes life hard for the GM wanting to use monsters out of the books.

[sblock]







CapnZapp said:


> Problem #2 is, there exists far too many archetypes that can't do much more damage than that.
> 
> <snip>
> 
> ...



[/sblock]Without feats, "martials" get overshadowed _in the damage dealing department_. Which is, ostensibly, their main schtick. To point out that they're also overshadowed in the versatility department (most fighters don't get regular access to Charm Person) is only to add insult to injury!

And even with feats, some archetypes (eg knife throwers, it is asserted) can't get out of those shadows, because there are no feats (it is asserted) to buff their damage.

The upshot (it is asserted) is that you can either use feats, causing (i) GM headaches in relation to monsters not keeping up and (ii) crowding out a whole lot of archetypes that should, in principle, be viable in a FRPG; or you can not use feats, leaving martial PCs overshadowed by casters _even on their home turf of dealing damage_.

Nowhere in that post is there an assertion that "DPR is king". There is a _premise_ that DPR is the main thing a martial PC brings to the table. Now maybe that's not true; but you can't show it's not true by talking about how great a Charm Person spell can be!


----------



## pemerton (Jun 7, 2018)

Tony, your slightly contrarian posting style has left me a bit confused on this occasion. I can't tell if you're agreeing with me or disagreeing.



Tony Vargas said:


> I was surprised, in the Mike Mearls Warlord stream, to see him use the spell damage table as the prime guide for balancing the sub-class.  DPR /is/ the easiest balance element to check, it makes sense to check it in playtest, because you know the fans'll be dissecting it.
> 
> <snip>
> 
> It [ie focusing on DPR] leaves out two pillars and a host of combat considerations?  You end up with classes that contribute mostly DPR being strictly inferior to those that also do 'balanced' DPR and contribute in social & exploration, or have more versatility to do things other than DPR.



I was talking about a play group focusing on DPR in their play of the game. Given how many tools the game gives them to play with in that particular arena; and given the long tradition of playing D&D as a wargame; I don't see how theycan be faulted for that.

Whereas you seem to be arguing that a designer focus on DPR leads to weak/ineffective classes (I am guessing you see the Champion and perhaps the Battlemaster as suffering from this). That may be true, but seems not to really bear on what I was saying.



Tony Vargas said:


> It's a stat block, that may be mostly combat, but that goes all the way back to Gods, Demi-Gods & Heroes!  It's just a D&D thang.



To an extent this seems to be agreeing with me.

But part of my point was that 5e has build elements - Ideals, Bonds, Flaws - that _could_ be in those stat blocks (alignment is there, after all) but are not. Why not? And given that they're not, I again ask how a play group can be faulted for similarly prioritising DPR in their engagment with the game.



Tony Vargas said:


> Another option would be to scale damage with level, like 13A or 5e cantrips already do.



Of course. But I'm taking it as a given that we're talking about 5e, which has already made some design choices that deliberately echo AD&D (no level scaling damage for weapon attacks; no minions; etc).



Tony Vargas said:


> No.



It's being designed neither for experienced players nor for new players? Than who? Edition warriors and PF players? But aren't many of them in the "experienced" camp. (Presumably the OP was a 3E/PF player before 5e. I know he doesn't like 4e.)


----------



## Oofta (Jun 7, 2018)

pemerton said:


> Without feats, "martials" get overshadowed _in the damage dealing department_. Which is, ostensibly, their main schtick. To point out that they're also overshadowed in the versatility department (most fighters don't get regular access to Charm Person) is only to add insult to injury!
> 
> And even with feats, some archetypes (eg knife throwers, it is asserted) can't get out of those shadows, because there are no feats (it is asserted) to buff their damage.
> 
> ...




Umm ... so martial characters suck because their DPR isn't high enough, but "DPR is king" is a false statement.  The exact phrase may not have been stated, but the DPR gain from GWM and SS is the focal point of this entire thread.

Whether I agree with the basic premise (I don't) this whole thread is affirming that to some people, DPR is king and having some variants average even a few points higher is a major issue.


----------



## Sacrosanct (Jun 7, 2018)

Oofta said:


> Umm ... so martial characters suck because their DPR isn't high enough, but "DPR is king" is a false statement.  The exact phrase may not have been stated, but the DPR gain from GWM and SS is the focal point of this entire thread.
> 
> Whether I agree with the basic premise (I don't) this whole thread is affirming that to some people, DPR is king and having some variants average even a few points higher is a major issue.




I also disagree with the statement that without feats, martials get out damaged in the damage dept. I suspect a lot of that comes down to play style. If you let the players rest often (where resources are regenerated), I can see where that would be a problem. But a key benefit of martials is that they can attack infinitely.  When the caster runs out of spells, it’s the fighter who keeps dealing out damage. 

I have no problems at all getting 6-8 encounters per day, and often even more. That’s because when I run the NPCs and monsters, they don’t go on pause between encounters. A party entering a dungeon or castle or fort that gets detected will have the monsters react accordingly. Rests are harder to come by when you can’t get a breather because the entire dungeon is looking for you.


----------



## Tony Vargas (Jun 7, 2018)

pemerton said:


> Tony, your slightly contrarian posting style has left me a bit confused on this occasion.



 thank you?



> I can't tell if you're agreeing with me or disagreeing.



 I'm not sure, either.



> It's being designed neither for experienced players nor for new players? Than who? Edition warriors and PF players? But aren't many of them in the "experienced" camp. (Presumably the OP was a 3E/PF player before 5e. I know he doesn't like 4e.)



The OP is just one example of an experienced player.

Logically, I think, the edition was designed /last & least/ for players who would have no viable alternative to switching to it - the camp of give-every-ed-a-chance fans & committed apologists on the wrong side of the edition war, and the supposed majority of fans who liked D&D, in general irrespective of edition (do they even have preferences to cater to?).  Potential new players were the next-least-catered to, there's really no knowing what they 'want,' anyway, and they have no awareness of any alternatives.  3.x/PF fans, already catered to lavishly by Paizo, were next-most-ignored, the effort to steal them back would have been monumental, and that's Zapp & co.  Then there's the OSR crowd, also already lavishly catered to by many offerings, but possibly more open to the siren call of the D&D name for it's own sake, if it's acceptably familiar - the game was, sorta, starting to be designed for them.  And, yes, there's the vocal minority on the winning side of the edition war, they had to be appeased, the game was designed very much /around/ them and their objections, to avoid triggering them, that's for them, sorta.  But, more so it's for the fans of 2e, who had yet to get a re-print, clone, or even much recognition or buzz around their first D&D.  When I heard the most glowing reviews of 5e at release, they very often likened it to 2e, "the best D&D since AD&D 2e!"  They were a prime, but not /the/ prime target.  The Holy Grail of any D&D ed was to bring back the returning player of the fad years, the millions who hadn't touched the game in decades, that's what Essentials & the Red Box tried so unsuccessfully to do, and had to have been a major design thrust of 5e.  But, IM(ns)HO, first & foremost, 5e was designed for the experienced, long-time DM who honed skills with the classic game, because, ultimately, that's your ambassador for the new edition, if there are great DMs running great games, the ed'll look better to everyone who gets to play with them.  

And, to wrap it around, creating buzz that "D&D was back" - back to it's old tricks, really, that the latest ed was faithful to the original, super-popular version - also had to be a selling point for the potential new player to /try/ it.  A seal of approval.  That appeal didn't require the game be in any way designed /for/ them, though, just that it create an image that was appealing.  It's been up to the DMs who run for those new players to retain them.


----------



## pemerton (Jun 7, 2018)

Oofta said:


> Umm ... so martial characters suck because their DPR isn't high enough, but "DPR is king" is a false statement.



The OP clearly starts from the premise that combat capability is the main thing that "martial" PCs bring to the table. That is not an assertion that DPR is king. (If someone said that buffing is the main thing a bard brings to the table, and then argued that bards are overshadowed by cleric buffing, would anyone suppose that that poster is saying that "buffing is king"?)

To repost myself:



pemerton said:


> Nowhere in that post is there an assertion that "DPR is king". There is a _premise_ that DPR is the main thing a martial PC brings to the table. Now maybe that's not true; but you can't show it's not true by talking about how great a Charm Person spell can be!


----------



## pemerton (Jun 7, 2018)

Tony Vargas said:


> Potential new players were the next-least-catered to, there's really no knowing what they 'want,' anyway, and they have no awareness of any alternatives.



I don't agree with this.

Mearls wrote a lot during the 5e design period about 4e's inability to retain new players: that lots of new players tried it, and had some fun with it, but didn't stick with it. He attributed this to various things, but the two I remember are (i) marketing complexity (the "wall of books" thing), and (ii) PC build complexituy (the number of choices needed to build a starting fighter character).

Between the data that Mearls' ruminations were based on, and informed common sense grounded in a deep experience of game design and game marketing, I think it is possible to identify things that new players look for in a game. And in the absence of either data or deep experience, I speculate that one of those things is a chance to make "good" play decisions. In MtG this means building a good deck, or playing a clever combo. A designer (I am assuming) wants to build these possibilities into the game. And I think it's hard to build a common framework that both provides those sorts of possibilities to a new player, while at the same time immunises the system against exploitation of those possibilities by an experienced player.

Of course some, even many, experienced players self-immunise in some fashion or other (rewrite the MM; make up new feats; ban feats and just don't build too many optimised warlocks or sorcerers; play only casters; etc). But I'm not surprised that there are some experienced players, like the OP, who are having the sorts of problems the OP reports.


----------



## Oofta (Jun 7, 2018)

pemerton said:


> The OP clearly starts from the premise that combat capability is the main thing that "martial" PCs bring to the table. That is not an assertion that DPR is king. (If someone said that buffing is the main thing a bard brings to the table, and then argued that bards are overshadowed by cleric buffing, would anyone suppose that that poster is saying that "buffing is king"?)
> 
> To repost myself:




The main premise is that many archetypes aren't effective because they don't do enough damage.  Most of this thread (and it's "sister" thread "What makes Great Weapon Master and Sharpshooter so good?" ) is arguing that some builds aren't "viable" because they don't keep up on damage.  Why else would there be arguments about whether or not a PC specializing in daggers can be viable?*

The fact that one out of 200+ posts says something about charm person doesn't change the other 99.5% of the comments.

*_for the record I think a rogue that uses throwing daggers could be a pretty cool build myself._


----------



## hawkeyefan (Jun 7, 2018)

pemerton said:


> If so many people are playing D&D essentially as a type of wargame - for which there is a very long pedigree, going back to the classic game - then what is wrong with focusing on DPR?




According to the OP, a whole bunch of things.


----------



## TwoSix (Jun 7, 2018)

Oofta said:


> The main premise is that many archetypes aren't effective because they don't do enough damage.  Most of this thread (and it's "sister" thread "What makes Great Weapon Master and Sharpshooter so good?" ) is arguing that some builds aren't "viable" because they don't keep up on damage.  Why else would there be arguments about whether or not a PC specializing in daggers can be viable?*



I think it's because the definition of "viable" is dependent on whether you're the type of player who builds their character towards a _function_, or towards a _concept._

The OP is the former ("I want to try playing a primary damage dealer this game, fighter, rogue, barbarian all would fit.  A knife thrower would be cool...yea, but there aren't really any good feats or subclasses for that concept, should probably go back to a ranged SS build."), and it sounds like you're the latter ("Hmm, I want to play a halfling knife thrower...rogue seems like it would fit, I like popping out of the shadows and throwing a knife in the monster's back.)  I, personally, am definitely in the former camp, so I have more sympathy than most for the OP's position.  Unlike the OP, though, I'm perfectly happy to homebrew or use something I found online that best fits my desired function (and I'm fortunate enough to have DMs who accommodate me.)


----------



## pemerton (Jun 7, 2018)

Oofta said:


> The main premise is that many archetypes aren't effective because they don't do enough damage.



And that's not a claim that DPR is king. It's a claim about the failure of those archetypes to contribute to play in their main dimension of (possible) contribution.

If someone (you? some other posters?) think that the main contribution a fighter makes to the game is _not_ damage, or some other combat function (like damage soaking or avoidance) that is at least commensurable with damage, then run the argument! I think it could be interesting.

But that potentially interesting argument isn't advanced by trying to rebut a claim (purely hypothetical in this thread) that DPR is more important than anything else.

(Katharine Kerr tackled this issue in an article in Dragon #95, whcn she tried to address the role of fighters in an extension to the XP system designed to reward non-dungeon-exploratory play. But I'm not sure here approach in the 1st ed AD&D context would still work in the 5e environment. Eg she assumed that a fighter would be the best in the party at intimidation. In 5e there's a good chance that's not true.)



TwoSix said:


> I think it's because the definition of "viable" is dependent on whether you're the type of player who builds their character towards a function, or towards a concept.



I see the heyday of the "concept:" approach as 2nd ed AD&D, although it certainly seems to be on he upswing at present, and I'm guessing quite a bit of PF play must focus on it also (hence a good part of the enthusiasm for the range of options (= concepts, in this context) that PF supports).

I know three main ways of approaching "concept" play.

One is the "indie" style, which, of D&D editions, only 4e embraced. This style gives the player resources (generic ones, or ones that are particular to his/her PC build) that enable the player to make mechanical choices that will realise the concept. Come and Get It is the best known example from 4e. The "through death's eyes" move in Dungeon World is another example ("Name an NPC who will die. The GM will make your vision come true.")

If the resources are very generic, this can become a free descriptor approach (like eg HeroQuest revised; and Cortex+ Heroic comes pretty close) where the descriptor is important for fictional positioning and narration of consequences, but has no bearing on prospects of success. (So eg being a knife fighter compared to an archer is relevant to permissible action declarations given context, but does not effect your likelihood of killing someone if an attack is declared.)

5e (like AD&D 2nd ed before it) eschews this approach for non-magic-users.

The second approach is how 2nd ed AD&D seemed to do it, and is what [MENTION=996]Tony Vargas[/MENTION] seems to have in mind when he talks about "GM empowerment". The GM manipulates framing, and possible outcomes, to ensure that the concept is realised. At the limits of this approach mechanics don't matter much, and the PC build is mostly a signal to the GM as to the desired manipulations.

This is the exact antithesis of the "indie" approach.

The third approach is the one that isn't working for the OP: you build your character according to concept, the GM applies the mechanics more-or-less at face value, and we find out whether or not your concept is mechanically viable. I think this can work in systems with a relatively high degree of "sim" in their DNA (eg RQ, RM, Burning Wheel) because those systems will try to reflect eg the fact that, in the real world, you can kill someone by stabbing them with a knife. In D&D, though, I think there is more scope for some concepts to be crowded out by eg the hp and damage dealing rules.

This is another way in which D&D continues to support wargaming - because (outside of 4e) when GMed in a more referee-like fashion it pushes towards "build for function" rather than "build for concept", and that is a very wargame-ish thing to do!


----------



## Kaine (Jun 7, 2018)

I haven't been to this site in nearly 14 years (see join date).  I decided to swing by and I find this thread.  Has the D&D community at large fallen so far?

Rule #1:  Have fun.
Rule #2:  The DM is final arbiter at the game table.

Every complaint that I deigned to read (I could not force myself to read past page 6) boils down to a failure of one of these two fundamental rules.  I simply cannot wrap my brain around the concept that a thread like this managed to make it past page 1 let alone page 24 and then to find out there are multiples of threads like these floating around.  As a DM of nearly 30 years allow me to impart some wisdom:

If your players are out of control, DM's fault.  If your party is plowing through content, DM's fault.  If your story is completely off kilter... DM's... fault.

I can think of exactly 0 reasonable scenarios/problems at the table that is not the DM's fault.  Giving birth or acts of god don't count.  The problem isn't 5e, the problem is the guy/gal running the table.

*THAT'S* the _"final word"_.

/peace


----------



## FrogReaver (Jun 7, 2018)

Kaine said:


> I haven't been to this site in nearly 14 years (see join date).  I decided to swing by and I find this thread.  Has the D&D community at large fallen so far?
> 
> Rule #1:  Have fun.
> Rule #2:  The DM is final arbiter at the game table.
> ...




lol


----------



## Oofta (Jun 7, 2018)

pemerton said:


> And that's not a claim that DPR is king. It's a claim about the failure of those archetypes to contribute to play in their main dimension of (possible) contribution.
> 
> If someone (you? some other posters?) think that the main contribution a fighter makes to the game is _not_ damage, or some other combat function (like damage soaking or avoidance) that is at least commensurable with damage, then run the argument! I think it could be interesting.



The main contribution of a fighter is damage, but DPR doesn't matter?  DPR is King is never even implicitly implied? I don't even know what you're trying to say any more.   

In addition, the basic assumption that a dagger thrower is not viable is fundamentally flawed in my personal experience.  My first D&D character that I played to 20th level did it (with tweaks, see below) and it was just fine.  A rogue/fighter with two-weapon and the dual wielder, he was flexible and could do melee or range.  I doubled my chance of getting sneak attack and did a little extra damage to boot.  Because of other party members I got in opportunity attacks now and then.  I had a blast and contributed damage as well as anyone else in the party barring the occasional meteor storm.

About those tweaks.  Because my PC was a dwarf, my DM let me use light and war hammers instead of daggers and rapiers and still get my sneak attack (he had higher strength than dex if it matters).

I did eventually (14th level I think?) take sharp shooter (again, with permission from my DM) and saw my damage increase pretty dramatically.  It also wasn't as much fun in many ways because I rarely went into melee again.  

Moral of the story?  As far as I'm concerned the dual dagger guy is fine, even without SS.  Want to do even more damage?  Talk to your DM about letting you use sharp shooter with daggers.  If you allow the feat into your game in the first place it doesn't hurt anything.


----------



## Aldarc (Jun 7, 2018)

TwoSix said:


> 13th Age does this, it works quite well.





5ekyu said:


> Its perfect for many cinematic and genre based games where two things take precedence over "reslity"
> 
> 1 its the character that is the danger, not the weapon.
> 
> ...



I believe that this is also how Dungeon World does it.


----------



## Paul Farquhar (Jun 7, 2018)

Oofta said:


> The main contribution of a fighter is damage, but DPR doesn't matter?




The main contribution of the fighter in D&D is defence (AKA tanking). This has always been the traditional role of the class. Wizard is the damage dealer.


----------



## Aldarc (Jun 7, 2018)

Paul Farquhar said:


> The main contribution of the fighter in D&D is defence (AKA tanking). This has always been the traditional role of the class. Wizard is the damage dealer.



I always thought of the wizard more as a battlefield controller and utility kit rather than damage dealer.


----------



## TwoSix (Jun 7, 2018)

Oofta said:


> The main contribution of a fighter is damage, but DPR doesn't matter?  DPR is King is never even implicitly implied? I don't even know what you're trying to say any more.



You realize there's a broad area between DPR doesn't matter, and DPR is king, right?  DPR is important.  For martial classes without spells, it's their single largest contribution.  But that doesn't mean DPR is king.  "DPR is king" would mean that only measurements of DPR would count towards measuring the effectiveness of a class.

And if that isn't what you think "DPR is king" means, that's because "DPR is king" is a ****ty statement that is begging to be misinterpreted.


----------



## Paul Farquhar (Jun 7, 2018)

Aldarc said:


> I always thought of the wizard more as a battlefield controller and utility kit rather than damage dealer.




It has that aspect as well, but I am going back to 1st edition, where the Magic User easily out-damaged all other classes (and out crowd-controlled most of them) in exchange for being extremely squishy and resource limited.

The wizard (which these days includes sorcerer and warlock) still out-damages other classes, but the margin is narrower, in exchange for not dying if a goblin sneezes on them.


----------



## AriochQ (Jun 7, 2018)

Paul Farquhar said:


> The main contribution of the fighter in D&D is defence (AKA tanking). This has always been the traditional role of the class. Wizard is the damage dealer.




In prior editions, this was the case.  5e Wizard is far better at Control than DPS, even with the inclusion of the concentration mechanic.  The only place they really compete for DPS is AoE, but the lower level spells tend to do 'meh' damage and spell slots over 5 are almost never replenished, limiting how many times they can cast the really good AoE spells.

With a min/maxxed build, melee DPS is consistently high and uses very few resources.  Specifically I am thinking of smiting pally's and sharpshooter hand crossbows.

The tanking role is usually either a very high AC character of almost any class, or a raging barbarian.


----------



## Oofta (Jun 7, 2018)

Gee, didn't realize "DPR is King" is a trigger phrase!  

What I was replying to was all those people who are dismissive of the increase to AC from dual wielder or using a shield.  You know, that "other aspect" of a fighter.  But saying "your AC will be lower" is met with "that doesn't matter" which then leads me to conclude that "DPR is King" but then I get "DPR IS NOT KING" which then means that AC _does_ matter, but of course it doesn't only DPR matters but DPR is not king ...

Choose.  Either DPR matters far more than AC which means that the DPR is King is a valid phrase or it's not.  If it's not, then sword and board and dual weapon fighting are on equal if slightly different footing from GWM and we have no disagreement.


----------



## Patrick McGill (Jun 7, 2018)

AriochQ said:


> In prior editions, this was the case.  5e Wizard is far better at Control than DPS, even with the inclusion of the concentration mechanic.  The only place they really compete for DPS is AoE, but the lower level spells tend to do 'meh' damage and spell slots over 5 are almost never replenished, limiting how many times they can cast the really good AoE spells.
> 
> With a min/maxxed build, melee DPS is consistently high and uses very few resources.  Specifically I am thinking of smiting pally's and sharpshooter hand crossbows.
> 
> The tanking role is usually either a very high AC character of almost any class, or a raging barbarian.




That's been my experience as well. The optimisers I know, when not multiclassing, all use martials. Currently there's a gloom stalker in a game I'm playing in who's first turn nova outpaces my wizard almost every combat, because I'm trying to save slots and they don't have to. It's not multiclassed, the dude basically just has sharpshooter and that first turn is insane for them. This player regularly comes to the table with insane builds and almost all of them are some kind of fighter, rogue, or barbarian.


----------



## Krachek (Jun 7, 2018)

25 pages.
The final word was not final at all!


----------



## Oofta (Jun 7, 2018)

Krachek said:


> 25 pages.
> The final word was not final at all!




You misunderstood.  [MENTION=12731]CapnZapp[/MENTION] has appointed himself as _the_ authority and it was _his_ final word. Obviously the rest of us are just misguided fools.


----------



## TwoSix (Jun 7, 2018)

Oofta said:


> Gee, didn't realize "DPR is King" is a trigger phrase!



If you're going to reply, could you quote me next time?  It's helpful to have notifications when you're in a bunch of threads.



Oofta said:


> Choose.  Either DPR matters far more than AC which means that the DPR is King is a valid phrase or it's not.  If it's not, then sword and board and dual weapon fighting are on equal if slightly different footing from GWM and we have no disagreement.



"DPR is a far more important build consideration than AC" is a good phrase.  "DPR is King" is not.  

That being said, building for AC is certainly feasible.  If there was a feat that gave you +5 AC for -5 to hit, I would certainly also point out that feat as being problematic.  At a functional level, I would point out that AC builds without some damage or control functions threaten to become irrelevant since enemies (particularly more intelligent ones) will simply avoid them to focus on the easier to hit targets.  Being the only guy left standing after the fight is over because you can't be touched is kind of a pyrrhic victory. 

And believe me, I wish we lived in a world where dual-wielding did similar damage to greatswords, or was a defensive/support build on par with sword-and-board.  Sadly, it just isn't without some moderate house-ruling.  Dual-wielding is still serving its penance for being too awesome in 2e.


----------



## Dausuul (Jun 7, 2018)

5ekyu said:


> "A knife thrower is going to be carrying many knives, probably in a bandolier. Those are not going to all be hidden."
> 
> Well, now we know why hidable knives arent a thing of merit or value in your games or in your white rooms.



If you're going to play a specialized knife thrower, unless you have magic knives that return to your hand, you're going to need a _whole lot_ of knives. Say you have Extra Attack: Two regular throws, plus a bonus-action throw for dual wielding, is three per round. If the typical combat goes five rounds, that's fifteen knives! Concealing those on your person is not gonna be easy.

Now, if you are primarily a melee knife fighter, and _occasionally_ throw your knives when you need a ranged attack, that's different. Even then, you probably want to carry at least five (enough for one full round of throwing, plus two so you can go back to stabbing next round), but that's a bit more reasonable to stow in your clothing somewhere.


----------



## Oofta (Jun 7, 2018)

TwoSix said:


> "DPR is a far more important build consideration than AC" is a good phrase.  "DPR is King" is not.




I don't see why it makes a difference.  As far as I'm concerned "DPR is King" is merely shorthand for "DPR is a far more important build consideration than AC".

I don't necessarily agree with either. I rarely see this problem in games I play and people that have (for example) sentinel feat would probably disagree that being a tank is a losing proposition.  As stated above I had a lot of fun with my dual wielding rogue/fighter*.

I also think shooting for some hypothetical perfect balance is futile.

*_Speaking of which, if I had to do it over again I probably take sentinel instead of sharp shooter.  More chances to sneak attack?  Yes please!_


----------



## TwoSix (Jun 7, 2018)

Oofta said:


> I don't see why it makes a difference.  As far as I'm concerned "DPR is King" is merely shorthand for "DPR is a far more important build consideration than AC".



If you don't feel that "DPR is a far more important build consideration than AC" is a much more clear and precise phrase than "DPR is King", we're definitely at an impasse in communication.  You do you, bro.



Oofta said:


> I don't necessarily agree with either. I rarely see this problem in games I play and people that have (for example) sentinel feat would probably disagree that being a tank is a losing proposition.  As stated above I had a lot of fun with my dual wielding rogue/fighter*.



Well, sure, but that's because Sentinel isn't providing personal defense, it's providing _threat and control_ to someone acting defensively.  You know, like literally what I said in my last post.

Sentinel is absolutely a top-tier feat, especially for rogues.  Sharpshooter isn't nearly as great for rogues because sneak attack strongly prioritizes landing hits.  Getting a second sneak attack is way better than gambling for bigger hits.



Oofta said:


> I also think shooting for some hypothetical perfect balance is futile.



"Ah, but a man's reach should exceed his grasp, or what's the Seven Heavens for?"


----------



## Sacrosanct (Jun 7, 2018)

Paul Farquhar said:


> It has that aspect as well, but I am going back to 1st edition, where the Magic User easily out-damaged all other classes (and out crowd-controlled most of them) in exchange for being extremely squishy and resource limited.
> 
> The wizard (which these days includes sorcerer and warlock) still out-damages other classes, but the margin is narrower, in exchange for not dying if a goblin sneezes on them.




I don't even know if they easily outdamaged other classes back in 1e.  Maybe then they hit the teen levels, but not many made it that far.  At 5th level, which too a bit of investment to get that high, you finally got your big damage spell: either fireball or lightning bolt.  And that was only 5d6 damage at that point.  And it was only one time per day.  And that's assuming you passed your % to even learn it, and also assumes you weren't interrupted.  That was a big thing in 1e: spell interruption.  Every martial PC I saw carried around a bag of pebbles, just for that purpose. If the MU didn't go first, it was hard for them to even get a spell off because their AC was usually crappy as well and easy to hit with said handful of pebbles.

*edit*  As an aside, and somewhat related, I could always tell the newer players of D&D, because when they played MUs, they always chose a spell like magic missile first.  Sleep, and charm person were soooo much more valuable.  To your point, crowd control was where 1e MUs really shined, and not damage like what people might assume by looking at higher level spells that did a crap ton of damage, like meteor swarm.  iMO, I think the most powerful spell in 1e for it's level was stoneskin.  "Spark!" still annoys me when I hear a DM say it


----------



## lowkey13 (Jun 7, 2018)

*Deleted by user*


----------



## Sacrosanct (Jun 7, 2018)

lowkey13 said:


> Labeling a post "The Final Word," is the internet equivalent of putting a "Kick Me" sign on your own back.
> 
> By the laws of the internet, even if you want to agree with the OP, you are duty-bound to disagree.




Well, he did make the post and then not post again in the thread, so...


----------



## TwoSix (Jun 7, 2018)

lowkey13 said:


> Labeling a post "The Final Word," is the internet equivalent of putting a "Kick Me" sign on your own back.
> 
> By the laws of the internet, even if you want to agree with the OP, you are duty-bound to disagree.



I disagree.


----------



## FrogReaver (Jun 7, 2018)

TwoSix said:


> I disagree.




Is that the final word?


----------



## TwoSix (Jun 7, 2018)

FrogReaver said:


> Is that the final word?



(fnord)


----------



## Warpiglet (Jun 7, 2018)

It is interesting to read some of the different takes on this thread.  It would be interesting to know how some posters would summarize the OP position in three or four lines.  It seems clear to me.

I generally disagree with the position while respecting the desire for every sort of character to have an impact.

Of note, the group is really the thing with DM as a lead.  A DM could say that the desire is to have a lot of cooperation and to tone down optimization to the extent that different kinds of characters.  There is a freedom in making something cool without being beholden to MOAR damage or whatever.

I am DMing a 5e campaign currently.  We're fourth level.  The only outlier is a forge cleric who takes spells and has scavenged splint in order to have a fabulous AC.  

I am still trying to figure out at which point GWM and SS are out of hand.  Is it by level five?  I don't think two attacks with these feats would be outrageous.  When do FIGHTERS get three?  11th?  

I would like to know what the concern really is about.  Is this about fighters of 11th level or higher with GWM or SS? 

You see, when we operationalize the problem and stop with generalizations, we can actually take a hard look at things.  I know I need to do a better job too.

When we are talking about spellcasters running away with the show are we talking about with or without disadvantage in melee range?  

If we are talking about sorcerers, what level are they gonzo with cantrips and metamagic?  It matters, I think.  When we say they can kick butt this way plus have utility, how many spells do they have left for utility after doing metamagic that matched a featless fighter?

If we get down to brass tacks, are those with balance concerns really just concerned about a few corner cases?  If so, the remedy for them would not be to throw out the whole system but much more localized.

Unless they just hate the system and want to return to an earlier one...in which case it would be great if those books were still around (I would part with mine for cheap as an aside!).


----------



## Oofta (Jun 7, 2018)

lowkey13 said:


> By the laws of the internet, even if you want to agree with the OP, you are duty-bound to disagree.




So if I post that "The Final Word is that paladin is an awful class", you would be duty-bound to disagree?  AWESOME!


----------



## lowkey13 (Jun 7, 2018)

*Deleted by user*


----------



## Oofta (Jun 7, 2018)

lowkey13 said:


> Yes, I would disagree. The Paladin is not just an awful class, it is the worst class, the class that other awful classes can look at and go, "Hey, at least we aren't that class."




Thanks for the clarification.  Hmmm ... I wonder how long a posting topic can be ...


----------



## Tony Vargas (Jun 7, 2018)

pemerton said:


> I don't agree with this.
> 
> Mearls wrote a lot during the 5e design period about 4e's inability to retain new players: that lots of new players tried it, and had some fun with it, but didn't stick with it.



 Not how I recall it, at all.  The fretting was over /attracting/ new players, not retaining them (which, IMX, 4e did startlingly well compared to every other edition I've ever run for new players), and, of course, moving books...

I've run a lot of introductory games over the decades, at conventions, and in organized play.  The flow of new players trying 4e for the first time wasn't exactly huge, 5e is huger, that way, for instance and 1e obviously was (while 2e was deadsville once M:tG dropped).  But, while in any other edition, a new player would show up, try the game, and never be seen again, at Encounter's they'd pretty consistently stay the season, often a second, and more often and much more quickly than I was accustomed to, step up and DM.  It was so dramatic and unexpected I find it hard to believe it was some aberration that kept happening from early 2010 up to the playtest.  
OTOH, 'new' players coming from prior eds would very often try it once and never be seen again.  I had one couple that stayed for a whole season before going to PF.  And one compared to dozens of newbies, old-timer who stuck it out the whole time.

But I can believe there were many potential players who never got as far as sitting down to that first session....



> He attributed this to various things, but the two I remember are (i) marketing complexity (the "wall of books" thing), and (ii) PC build complexituy (the number of choices needed to build a starting fighter character).



 Organized play used pregens, and when I'd run at cons I would, likewise.  Maybe that's why I saw 0 issues with 'build complexity.'  Or maybe it was that the old off-line CB was /so/ easy to get your digital mitts on (even once they went to on-line whole tables, even two tables at a time, would share one account).  

(Or, maybe it was that there really wasn't much of anything to building a 1st level character.  You choose a race & class, the class description tells you which stats to emphasize, recommends a few possible feats, you pick 2 of several at-wills, 1 of several encounters, 1 of several dailies, a few skills.  It's less complexity than building a 5e caster or half-caster, and significantly less than planning a viable 3.x build.  From there, each level you pick one or two things, and maybe change one thing)

But, the 'wall of books' was certainly a thing.  On occasions, someone would come in and ask about the books on the shelf, which were a solid shelf of D&D, and more than a few of PF, and after the involved explanation, just walk away.  

The run-up to Essentials included the same set of concerns - shelf-shock, rapid product cycling, lack of appeal to returning players, complexity of fighter builds, specifically, and offered similar solutions - and failed to make any impact that I noticed (it neither pulled in more people, nor retained more, IMX).  

And, of course, Mearls was reluctant to address the fact the product he tried to push was subject to constant, virulent, negativity, he'd euphemistically say "divide in the community" or "support for more play styles" or something...

...but, 5e /did/ take care of that issue, and is doing very well.  It did not meaningfully reduce build complexity (especially compared to Essentials), but it did reduce shelf-shock.

Another big difference I see is in retention.  5e doesn't retain and transition to DMing totally new players like 4e did, but it attracts & retains long-time & returning players extremely well.  People come in to AL, now, saying "I played in high school" or something, and they're still there two years later.  Amazing.  I though those folks were a wild-goose chase, that they'd never really been into the game (some aunt bought them the basic set and they never played it or something).  But, nope, the come-back finally came back.  Best thing that's happened to D&D in a very long time.



> I speculate that one of those things is a chance to make "good" play decisions. In MtG this means building a good deck, or playing a clever combo. A designer (I am assuming) wants to build these possibilities into the game. And I think it's hard to build a common framework that both provides those sorts of possibilities to a new player, while at the same time immunises the system against exploitation of those possibilities by an experienced player.



 IDK, that sound suspiciously like the "MMO" or 'board game like' play that's become downright pejorative.  But, yes, it /is/ hard to design a balanced game that's both easy to get into, and has great depth for the experienced player, and, no, it seems like 5e hasn't quite done it - it's been too busy threading a different needle:  the delicate act of acceptability to hard-core fans vs appeal to new (casual/mainstream) fans.



> But I'm not surprised that there are some experienced players, like the OP, who are having the sorts of problems the OP reports.



 I'd say it'd be fair to be surprised that there aren't many more.  Perhaps most of them are still playing PF?



TwoSix said:


> DPR is important.  For martial classes without spells, it's their single largest contribution.  But that doesn't mean DPR is king.  "DPR is king" would mean that only measurements of DPR would count towards measuring the effectiveness of a class.



 And if DPR were King, the fighter would be King, or at least still Lord @9th or Baronet or something... 



Paul Farquhar said:


> It has that aspect as well, but I am going back to 1st edition, where the Magic User easily out-damaged all other classes (and out crowd-controlled most of them) in exchange for being extremely squishy and resource limited.
> The wizard (which these days includes sorcerer and warlock) still out-damages other classes, but the margin is narrower, in exchange for not dying if a goblin sneezes on them.



 That's pretty fair, really.  In 2nd, the fighter got a big boost in damage if they (ab)used specialization correctly, while some spells got damage caps, and each edition has loosened the limitations on casters (more spells, at-will spells, concentration check to avoid interruption, removing interruption entirely, easier handling of components, etc, etc... by 4e there were virtually no meaningful limitations on casting, ranged/area spells provoked just like ranged attacks was the main one - in 5e, that's gone - and don't start on 'Concentration' so some spells have a duration of 'concentration,' just like some 1e spells did, and much like 4e 'sustain' spells but without an action required to do so, just, if they'd be broken in 5e, you get a roll to keep 'em going, anyway).



Aldarc said:


> I always thought of the wizard more as a battlefield controller and utility kit rather than damage dealer.



The wizard has been both those, and a major damage-dealer, and pretty near whatever else it wanted, through much of D&D's history.  4e tried to constrain the wizard to 'controller,' but even that was a muddy, double-dipped role that included area blasting, battlefield control (walls, zones &c), and direct 'hard' control - /and/ free access to the utility kit of Rituals. 



Oofta said:


> What I was replying to was all those people who are dismissive of the increase to AC from dual wielder or using a shield.  You know, that "other aspect" of a fighter.  But saying "your AC will be lower" is met with "that doesn't matter" which then leads me to conclude that "DPR is King" but then I get "DPR IS NOT KING" which then means that AC _does_ matter, but of course it doesn't only DPR matters but DPR is not king ...



  AC, hps, & DPR are all part of the same race-to-0-hps of simplistic combat analysis.  And, yes, DPR is the biggest baddest variable in that calculation (well, really attacks/round is).  That doesn't make it King, the local petty robber-Baron, perhaps, whom the actual King (magic) can dispatch at a moment's notice.  ;P

Seriously, though, the point is that the swing you can get in DPR with weapon, style & feat choices is a lot more significant than the +1 hp/level for having a d10 instead of d8 or the +1 AC from a shield.

It's just math.  
/Very simple/ math.  ;|




TwoSix said:


> That being said, building for AC is certainly feasible.  If there was a feat that gave you +5 AC for -5 to hit, I would certainly also point out that feat as being problematic.



What?  Like Combat Expertise?


----------



## 5ekyu (Jun 7, 2018)

pemerton said:


> What's your view as to the number of concealed knives a knife-thrower can carry, draw and throw?
> 
> If a typical 5e combat last 4 rounds, and the fighter takes an action surge as well, that's 5 knives needed to make it through on combat (before we get to any bonus action posibilities). Do you think a character can have five concealed knives on his/her person?
> 
> In any event, I'm happy to hear all your warstories about D&D characters assassinating their powerful enemies with a single concelaed knife.



Its amazing how easy it must be to invent claims or request stories on things not ever claimed.

Is themus the OMMI version of "have you stopped cheating on your wife" type argumentation.

It is so very convincing.

As for how many knives can be concealed, it should go without saying that it will vary by character and situation.

Common examples in a variety of source materials for the genre would suggest boots, sleeves, small of back and neck as likely hiding places for small stright blades for use thrown or stab-stab.

But, turn it into carrying in a basket of baked goods, a dozen roses, and that number can go up.

The great axe is a tad more difficult.

But, you also seem to be assuming all thrown , well that makes sense since assumption to support desired conclusion seems the hallmark of the white room excel analysis methodology.

But, hey, all this is moot, right... Since it was already decreed from on high the bandolier would be used.

In white rooms that is, i guess.


----------



## Warpiglet (Jun 7, 2018)

Tony Vargas said:


> And if DPR were King, the fighter would be King, or at least still Lord @9th or Baronet or something...
> 
> That's pretty fair, really.  In 2nd, the fighter got a big boost in damage if they (ab)used specialization correctly, while some spells got damage caps, and each edition has loosened the limitations on casters (more spells, at-will spells, concentration check to avoid interruption, removing interruption entirely, easier handling of components, etc, etc... by 4e there were virtually no meaningful limitations on casting, ranged/area spells provoked just like ranged attacks was the main one - in 5e, that's gone - and don't start on 'Concentration' so some spells have a duration of 'concentration,' just like some 1e spells did, and much like 4e 'sustain' spells but without an action required to do so, just, if they'd be broken in 5e, you get a roll to keep 'em going, anyway).
> 
> ...




OK.  If we take this analysis at face value we are hearing that AC and hit points matter.  Maybe not as much in combat as DPR, but they matter.

Let me throw this out there.  What about DISADVANTAGE?!  Many of the spells that "force" fighters to take feats to keep up will be at disadvantage to hit.  If you do not take feats as a caster, isn't THIS a balancing factor?

In 1e you would be unwise to travel as an M-U without fighters or at least retainers!

In the current game the damage that spellcasters do are often predicated on cover from a hard target OR Warcaster, etc.

The argument in the OP is that you MUST take feats to catch up.  I am arguing feats are the reason you are believing that sorcerers etc. are so potent on their own to begin with.  If you drop feats the high AC, high HP fighter with at will damage that cannot be mitigated with disadvantage by mere proximity to foes is very valuable, has a niche and does not fall short of the cantrip wielder.

Rather, like 1e AD&D, the spell caster has a important relationship with the fighter and such that you will be twinning fire bolt and hoping one hits instead of assuming they both hit without the cover of a fighter.


----------



## 5ekyu (Jun 7, 2018)

Warpiglet said:


> Perhaps it was not directly stated.  However, much of the OP is saying it is extremely important.  I just looked again.



Also there are numerous supporting arguments pushing the notion that the linkage between higher dwa turns into faster kills with the solid implication that leads to success... Unless we are to believe this is arguing for these feats and high dpr being a losing strategy

But i just used dwa for damage. when attacking because what "dpr".is easy to confuse with is say the difference between  the damage per round in white room vs sack of hit points *or* in overly simplistic non-tactical slugfests as (where no loses due to easy counters or common circumstances are figured) vs say adpe or actual damage per encounter where the rounds you dont get the boost or dont get to attack etc is a factor.


----------



## Tony Vargas (Jun 7, 2018)

Warpiglet said:


> OK.  If we take this analysis at face value we are hearing that AC and hit points matter.  Maybe not as much in combat as DPR, but they matter.
> 
> Let me throw this out there.  What about DISADVANTAGE?!



 In the kind of simplistic analysis in question, the assumption would probably be that Advantage is so easy to get, that Disadvantage would be canceled out.



> Many of the spells that "force" fighters to take feats to keep up will be at disadvantage to hit.  If you do not take feats as a caster, isn't THIS a balancing factor?



 You mean cantrip?  No spell should ever be cast 'at disadvantage,' if you'd have disadvantage, force a save, instead.  
I suppose the SS has to be concerned about Disadvantage from an adjacent enemy - the ones that reach him alive, anyway... so, to Keep It Stupidly Simplistic, run SS vs Caster DPR.



> In 1e you would be unwise to travel as an M-U without fighters or at least retainers!



 In 1e, yes, at low level, especially.  2e also, though even in 1e & 2e, the 'need' for the fighter waned as the MU got his own henchpersons, Golems, or whatever... (and, to be fair, Fighters like Robilar acquired their own MU henches).
3.x/PF/4e/5e, not s'much.  Wizards have gotten less limited/vulnerable and more durable/versatile as the game evolved.



> The argument in the OP is that you MUST take feats to catch up.  I am arguing feats are the reason you are believing that sorcerers etc. are so potent on their own to begin with.



 The high DPR caster builds in question were based on MCing, not feats.  Thus the idea the feats were 'needed' to stay ahead - and staying ahead, of course, is needed to compensate for the greater versatility of casters, in the first place, since there /is/ more to it than DPR...


----------



## 5ekyu (Jun 7, 2018)

Dausuul said:


> If you're going to play a specialized knife thrower, unless you have magic knives that return to your hand, you're going to need a _whole lot_ of knives. Say you have Extra Attack: Two regular throws, plus a bonus-action throw for dual wielding, is three per round. If the typical combat goes five rounds, that's fifteen knives! Concealing those on your person is not gonna be easy.
> 
> Now, if you are primarily a melee knife fighter, and _occasionally_ throw your knives when you need a ranged attack, that's different. Even then, you probably want to carry at least five (enough for one full round of throwing, plus two so you can go back to stabbing next round), but that's a bit more reasonable to stow in your clothing somewhere.



You know, in some games, there are times when you need to conceal weapons and times when you dont.

In the former, the ability to conceal 3-6 of your primary weapons which can work for melee or range is a very good thing. Those are rarely however white rooms against sacks of hp bound up in excel sheets.

In the latter, non-hidden bandoliers can give you,more freedom with your uses.

But we know from prior posts the latter are the cases apparently that some games or analysis may only ever consider since bandoliers *will* be carried.


----------



## Oofta (Jun 7, 2018)

Tony Vargas said:


> And if DPR were King, the fighter would be King, or at least still Lord @9th or Baronet or something...




I'm not sure whether or not there is a big difference between the styles on anything other than a spreadsheet in the campaigns I've been involved with.  But even if there is (and I'm not saying there's not) I don't think it's a big issue.  One person's _huge_ difference is another person's negligible 2% increase in average damage that doesn't really matter in the long run.  

In addition, everything is a tradeoff.  Take an ASI or heavy armor master, sentinel or something else that makes sense to your PC.  Maybe you've been facing things that require reflex saves and you take Resistance and Shield Master.  

It's overly simplistic to boil this argument down one or two numbers.  While I know that's all some people care about (and there's nothing wrong with that), it's not for many people.  For people that care, there will always be 1 or 2 builds that on paper are optimal.  For those that don't care, this is just one more boring argument that never, ever ends.


----------



## Tony Vargas (Jun 7, 2018)

Warpiglet said:


> It is interesting to read some of the different takes on this thread.  It would be interesting to know how some posters would summarize the OP position in three or four lines.  It seems clear to me.



 "Play Pathfinder?"

OK, seriously, though, something like:  "5e's pretty good, but it needs more feats to support weapon styles other than two-handers & archery, and the monsters need to be way lots more challenging, 'cause it's just not up to our l33t skillz."

...I'm sorry, I tried to be serious, but it was too hard.  
I need a 'Take Thread Seriously' feat... or a higher Deceit check.



> The only outlier is a forge cleric who takes spells and has scavenged splint in order to have a fabulous AC.



 "...takes spells...?" Huh?  As opposed to giving them?  

... oh, preps spells & uses slots to maximize his AC...   



> Unless they just hate the system and want to return to an earlier one...in which case it would be great if those books were still around (I would part with mine for cheap as an aside!).



PF's still being published & PF2's in the works, so it's not for lack of popular D&D-alternatives with moar options.




FrogReaver said:


> Is that the final word?



The Final Word is a broadsword.


----------



## Wiseblood (Jun 7, 2018)

CapnZapp said:


> There's way too many threads and retreads about this subject.
> 
> Let me once and for all state the beef about all of this.
> 
> ...




All of this is a natural extention of the arms race in D&D. For PC's it is about more power and a byproduct is more survivability. For DM's it is about story and challenge.

Player 1: I need more HP, Bigger bonuses, inexhaustable spell load, and alpha strike circumstances need to be more frequent and/or easier to bring online.

Player 2: x,y and z monster ability is too lethal, nerf it. Poison, petrification, death magic isn't fair, nerf it. 

Player 3: gaining levels takes too long

Player 4: I want more classes, and races

Designer: okay.

DM: I need a challenge rating system. These PC's are stupid tough and there is an invisible tipping point.

Designer : this should be good enough. It's your game if you don't like it change it.

Me: Hmmm.....

That's what I think, but I could be wrong.


----------



## Sacrosanct (Jun 7, 2018)

Is there any actual analysis done that says average encounters last 4 rounds, or is that just pulling guesswork out of the air based on anecdotal experience only?  It certainly isn't my experience.

Also, you can hide a lot of knives.  A lot.  Throwing knives aren't built like a typical dagger.  They are thin, and stackable.  You can have three throwing knives stacked on top of each other and take up as much space as one typical knife.  So that's 3 per sleeve and 3 per boot, plus a couple under a belt, tucked in a tunic, whatever.  Really, it should be a moot point in terms of this discussion about how many you can hide, especially if that "combat lasts 4 rounds" claim is accurate in any way.


----------



## Satyrn (Jun 7, 2018)

Sacrosanct said:


> Is there any actual analysis done that says average encounters last 4 rounds, or is that just pulling guesswork out of the air based on anecdotal experience only?  It certainly isn't my experience.



I don't actually track this sort of thing in my sessions, but I know it's rare we have a fight last more than 10 rounds (we've had a few, though) and I'd say that most of the rest last at least 4 rounds.

I'd guess the average length at my table winds up at 6.something rounds.


----------



## Warpiglet (Jun 7, 2018)

Tony Vargas said:


> In the kind of simplistic analysis in question, the assumption would probably be that Advantage is so easy to get, that Disadvantage would be canceled out.
> 
> You mean cantrip?  No spell should ever be cast 'at disadvantage,' if you'd have disadvantage, force a save, instead.
> I suppose the SS has to be concerned about Disadvantage from an adjacent enemy - the ones that reach him alive, anyway... so, to Keep It Stupidly Simplistic, run SS vs Caster DPR.
> ...




You make some good points.  I will address one in particular and suggest another consideration.

Yes, I am particularly talking about cantrips that are upcast since this was referenced in the OP.

IF we do not use them and the fighter uses at-will attacks instead of big punch spells or whatever, what is the rub?  The main complaint is that the sorcerer can do what featless fighter can do all day long but better.  If they are not using cantrips but spells, the utility of-at will attacks is clear and there is no problem.  I looked at available slots a moment ago.  There are only so many.

If we only used spells with saves to avoid disadvantage, we are probably getting rid of the main cantrip 'offenders' like eldritch blast/fire bolt and if we are using 1st level spells or higher, we are using spells that are supposed to net a great deal of utility for the caster oft cited in this thread.  Thereafter, we are again into finite resources or at-will cantrips.

A lot of interesting ideas in the thread.  I have tried to take a step back.  However, now more than before I believe feats are what is leading to the OP's main concerns--even if he says they do not.

He suggested that a sorcerer can essentially out-fighter a fighter if there are no feats.  Sure, if a fighter is guarding him!  If the sorcerer is not using at-will cantrips then he is burning resources which are supposed to represent versatility and big punch abilities.  They are finite.  And that is fine/working as intended.

In the meantime, even the featless fighter is attacking at-will without disruption.

My a priori assumption is that combat is not always neat and that anyone can be attacked.  If the sorcerer does as much damage as a fighter or is at least close with cantrips, the fighter still has identity and purpose in leading the way and soaking hits.


----------



## Tony Vargas (Jun 7, 2018)

Warpiglet said:


> You make some good points.  I will address one in particular and suggest another consideration.
> 
> Yes, I am particularly talking about cantrips that are upcast since this was referenced in the OP.



 Then the best comparison is to SS, which also takes disadvantage in melee, so it's a wash.

That or factor in the times the GWM can't reach enemies, thus as 0 DPR while the SS & caster's DPR continues to grind.  

::shrug::



> IF we do not use them and the fighter uses at-will attacks instead of big punch spells or whatever, what is the rub?



 I think the rub is that the option is even there.  The archer can fall back on a melee weapon to avoid disadvantage, at a significant drop in effectiveness, the caster can 'fall back' on a save-forcing spell, probably at an upgrade in effectiveness, but drop in resources - but both will likely try to avoid melee.  Both have their mobility & wits to help with that, one also has spells.  



> He suggested that a sorcerer can essentially out-fighter a fighter if there are no feats.  Sure, if a fighter is guarding him!  If the sorcerer is not using at-will cantrips then he is burning resources which are supposed to represent versatility and big punch abilities.  They are finite.  And that is fine/working as intended.
> In the meantime, even the featless fighter is attacking at-will without disruption.



 That reasoning falls apart as soon as you compare the ranged DPR archer apple to the ranged DPR sorcerer apple.  The archer can switch to a finesse weapon for a reduction in effectiveness, or seek compensatory advantage, or try to avoid or extricate himself from melee - all by prettymuch just using his wits or depending on an ally for help (like a melee type blocking).  The Sorcerer could switch to a cantrip that's not a ranged attack (those are few & obscure), or switch to melee and take such a major hit it's probably no worth it, or try any of the other things the archer could, or resort to a spell that doesn't use an attack roll or allows him to escape.  

(As it so often shakes out, the fighter's 'advantage' is in being theoretically bit less hosed when they're both backed into a corner of the absolute worst-case scenario.  Yippee, hope that comes up a lot so the fighter can 'shine!')



> A lot of interesting ideas in the thread.  I have tried to take a step back.  However, now more than before I believe feats are what is leading to the OP's main concerns--even if he says they do not.



 Nod, I just think he wants a different solution.  Simply not opting into feats removes all sorts of issues, not just some corner case DPR imbalances among already brokenly-high levels of DPR.  It makes the game more approachable, increases the likelihood higher level PCs will shore up their dump stats, etc, etc...
...if you're already opting into feats, though, you want moar options, moar player options, anyway, so the preferred solution when moar is too much moar is much, much moar moar - moar feats, moar DPR, and moar monsters with moar hps & moar DPR to provide moar challenge.

(OK, that was moar moar than was called for.)


----------



## hawkeyefan (Jun 7, 2018)

Sacrosanct said:


> Is there any actual analysis done that says average encounters last 4 rounds, or is that just pulling guesswork out of the air based on anecdotal experience only?  It certainly isn't my experience.
> 
> Also, you can hide a lot of knives.  A lot.  Throwing knives aren't built like a typical dagger.  They are thin, and stackable.  You can have three throwing knives stacked on top of each other and take up as much space as one typical knife.  So that's 3 per sleeve and 3 per boot, plus a couple under a belt, tucked in a tunic, whatever.  Really, it should be a moot point in terms of this discussion about how many you can hide, especially if that "combat lasts 4 rounds" claim is accurate in any way.




Or...anyone willing to accept a dagger throwing expert as being a viable approach to combat should probably also accept that a large number of daggers can be hidden on one's person. 

People claim to want the build's viability, and then actively work against the elements that make it viable. It's pretty funny.


----------



## Oofta (Jun 7, 2018)

hawkeyefan said:


> Or...anyone willing to accept a dagger throwing expert as being a viable approach to combat should probably also accept that a large number of daggers can be hidden on one's person.
> 
> People claim to want the build's viability, and then actively work against the elements that make it viable. It's pretty funny.




Nobody complains about the guy running around in plate armor carrying a greatsword, a couple of spare weapons, a dozen javelins, thousands of coins and miscellaneous gems, a tent, sleeping roll, 50 feet of rope, cook kit, several days worth of food, etc.  But more than a handful of throwing knives?  NEVER!


----------



## Mistwell (Jun 7, 2018)

For those wondering about the "DPR is King" issue with this thread, let me spell it out.

CapnZapp has made it a theme of his recent quotes. This thread is not posted in isolation. Indeed, the first sentence of the first post of this thread calls it out directly:



CapnZapp said:


> There's way too many threads and retreads about this subject.




Right there, at the top, he's referencing the other threads. So if people are confused where we're getting that CapNZapp is coming from that perspective, know that's what he's referring to, and what many of the rest of us are referring to. This thread is not living in a vacuum all alone. It's got existing context.

Now for that context, this was posted by CapNZapp I think just the day before he posted this thread:



CapnZapp said:


> AC is often good enough.
> 
> Damage is where the game is at.




Followed by:



CapnZapp said:


> The hard minmaxing fact remains: offense is the best defense. Removing the foe's hit points is the goal of combat. If you play a fighter or other martial your primary job is this and nothing but this...Everything else is just words.




Followed by:



CapnZapp said:


> And then you have the fundamental notion that offense means you get to choose (which enemy dies first). What defense means, is that the enemy is given the choice to ignore your greatest asset. In short: by skipping your impervious behemoth, they're attacking the weakest link.
> 
> So even before we go into specifics, _of course_ offense is going to carry the day! It's comparing Panzers to the Maginot line.
> 
> ...




And I know people like [MENTION=42582]pemerton[/MENTION] was aware of that thread and those posts, because he XP'ed them and replied to one of them.

And then we get a separate thread (this one) from CapNZapp for his "final word" on the DPR topic that he's been riffing off lately.

Get it now?


----------



## Sacrosanct (Jun 7, 2018)

Oofta said:


> Nobody complains about the guy running around in plate armor carrying a greatsword, a couple of spare weapons, a dozen javelins, thousands of coins and miscellaneous gems, a tent, sleeping roll, 50 feet of rope, cook kit, several days worth of food, etc.  But more than a handful of throwing knives?  NEVER!




It is one of those weird things, isn't it?  Like how no one ever thinks about the PC's packs when combat starts?  Does everyone drop them where they're at because it's almost impossible to run and fight while carrying it?  And if so, why doesn't the fireball that went off in the area do anything?  Or a non-intelligent monster end up taking off with it?  If the party has to flee, does everyone run back and grab their packs first no matter where they are on the battlemap?

Maybe it's like pooping.  One of those things that just isn't talked about in the game lol.


----------



## Tony Vargas (Jun 7, 2018)

hawkeyefan said:


> Or...anyone willing to accept a dagger throwing expert as being a viable approach to combat should probably also accept that a large number of daggers can be hidden on one's person.



 And people who won't accept the dagger throwing expert as an equally-viable approach to combat ('because realism?' - or because there's no knifemaster feat, whatever) are fine with an implausibly large number of daggers hidden about one's person as one walks around the city where the guy with the greatsword (or greatwhatever) would be arrested.  (And never mind magic.)

Anytime realism/v-tude/plausibility/situational/subjective stuff comes into it, we get these seeming-contradictions - double-(if not multiple)-standards - while the mechanics are still just sitting there, in B&W (or, in the case of 5e, in all their natural-language ambiguity), unchanged by all the mental gymnastics.


----------



## Sacrosanct (Jun 7, 2018)

Mistwell said:


> For those wondering about the "DPR is King" issue with this thread, let me spell it out.
> 
> CapnZapp has made it a theme of his recent quotes. This thread is not posted in isolation. Indeed, the first sentence of the first post of this thread calls it out directly:
> 
> ...




I'll be honest. I never agreed with the hard line "DPR is king" or comments like, "The hard minmaxing fact remains: offense is the best defense. Removing the foe's hit points is the goal of combat. If you play a fighter or other martial your primary job is this and nothing but this...Everything else is just words." anyway.

It's not true.  Often, yes, but often, no it's not. For one, a fighter's job is whatever you want it to be, which can be damage dealer, but can also be tank.  A tank role is not uncommon to the gaming community, and it's job is very much not "do as much damage and nothing but damage."

Secondly, that statement is only true if you reset all your resources after every encounter.  And as we all know, that doesn't happen.  To put it in simple terms:

If you have 20 HP and do 5 hp of damage every round, and your opponent has 20 HP and does 5 hp every round and you always win initiative, then:

scenario 1:
you increase your damage by 3, so it takes you 3 rounds to kill your opponent, suffering 10 hp yourself (since it only gets you twice because your third attack goes before it's third attack.).  You end the battle with 10 HP remaining

scenario 2:
you reduce the damage it inflicts by 3.  So it takes you 4 rounds to kill your opponent, and it is able to hit you 3 times for 6 total points.  It takes an extra round, but you end the encounter with 14 HP;


Obviously defense is the better option here.  I've made this argument every time I see or hear someone say offense is always the best no questions.  because it's not.  And I wish people would stop making it.


*For an added bonus, "removing the foe's HP is the goal of combat" is also not true, and speaks volumes of the narrow point of view one has making that argument.  The point of combat is to overcome your opponents as unscathed as possible.  Many times that's removing their HP.  Many times it's taking them out in other ways, like sleep, or control, or whatever.  And other times it's bypassing the encounter completely. 

The root of the problem as I see it, is that people making those sorts of arguments view D&D like a computerized combat sim, where it's just one set of math against another, and are either unable, or unwilling, to realize how in a game limited only by imagination, there are other ways D&D is played.


----------



## hawkeyefan (Jun 7, 2018)

Tony Vargas said:


> And people who won't accept the dagger throwing expert as an equally-viable approach to combat (because realism) are fine with an implausibly large number of daggers hidden about one's person as one walks around the city where the guy with the greatsword (or greatwhatever) would be arrested.  (And never mind magic.)




I think there's another group....the one that's fine with the concept of a knife throwing PC who's also able to hide enough knives on his person to still remain effective when he needs to appear unarmed.


----------



## Sacrosanct (Jun 7, 2018)

hawkeyefan said:


> I think there's another group....the one that's fine with the concept of a knife throwing PC who's also able to hide enough knives on his person to still remain effective when he needs to appear unarmed.




First I think Tony needs to define what "implausibly large number of throwing daggers" is.  4?  6?  As I've already illustrated, it's easy to hide a dozen or more on your person easily.  And has there ever been anyone argue that they should be able to hide MORE than a dozen?  Or is his argument based on a strawman premise?


----------



## Oofta (Jun 7, 2018)

Tony Vargas said:


> And people who won't accept the dagger throwing expert as an equally-viable approach to combat (because realism) are fine with an implausibly large number of daggers hidden about one's person as one walks around the city where the guy with the greatsword (or greatwhatever) would be arrested.  (And never mind magic.)
> 
> Anytime realism/v-tude/plausibility/situational/subjective stuff comes into it, we get these seeming-contradictions - double-(if not multiple)-standards - while the mechanics are still just sitting there, in B&W (or, in the case of 5e, in all their natural-language ambiguity), unchanged by all the mental gymnastics.




Isn't it kind of like the restrictions for US air flight?  You can bring as many 3.4 oz containers as you want as long as they fit in a quart sized bag.  Oh, and you can bring an empty quart sized container.  But try to bring on a full 12 oz drink?  Time to call security!


----------



## Mistwell (Jun 7, 2018)

I think my very first posted attempt at 5e optimization was a dagger thrower. 

I don't think it worked out though, as I don't think daggers count as a ranged weapon (though I still think they should). But it was very early days of 5e.


----------



## 5ekyu (Jun 8, 2018)

Oofta said:


> Nobody complains about the guy running around in plate armor carrying a greatsword, a couple of spare weapons, a dozen javelins, thousands of coins and miscellaneous gems, a tent, sleeping roll, 50 feet of rope, cook kit, several days worth of food, etc.  But more than a handful of throwing knives?  NEVER!



To be fair, part of the number of dsggers was in response to concealing small weapons as opposed to greataxes etc.

I may have missed it but i dont think it has been arguing against carrying dagger knives when loaded for bear.


----------



## Sadras (Jun 8, 2018)

If I had to play a PC knife thrower he would be modelled after Danny Trejo from Desperado except he'd be a little taller (guy is only 1.67m).  Custom-designed knives and moustache would be a must.


----------



## pemerton (Jun 8, 2018)

Dausuul said:


> If you're going to play a specialized knife thrower, unless you have magic knives that return to your hand, you're going to need a _whole lot_ of knives. Say you have Extra Attack: Two regular throws, plus a bonus-action throw for dual wielding, is three per round. If the typical combat goes five rounds, that's fifteen knives! Concealing those on your person is not gonna be easy.



I already posted something along these lines. In my case, apparently it's a sign of being an out-of-touch white room theorist.

I was going to engage in some white room speculation that you must be a white room theorist too; but then I read a post (presumably sent by someone sitting in a room of a different colour?) that confirmed my speculation in a completely non-white room fashion!


----------



## pemerton (Jun 8, 2018)

Oofta said:


> What I was replying to was all those people who are dismissive of the increase to AC from dual wielder or using a shield.



Here is the OP on that particular point:



CapnZapp said:


> If you give up a shield, you gain an appropriate damage bonus. This might be upping the damage die to d12 (which really is 2 less AC for 2 more damage). It might mean slightly more than that.  It does _not_ mean upping your damage maximum by 10 and getting pretty frequent bonus attacks.



The OP is not dismissing the increase to AC from using a shield. The claim is that using a shield leads to a drop in DPR disproportionate to the benefit gained. (Maybe that claim is wrong. Maybe the Shield Mastery feat makes up for it. But that is a completely different argument from the claim that the OP is dismissive of increases to AC.)



Oofta said:


> The main contribution of a fighter is damage, but DPR doesn't matter?  DPR is King is never even implicitly implied? I don't even know what you're trying to say any more.



Here is a description of the main contribution of clerics to the game, from Gygax's PHB (pp 18, 20):

Clerics principally function as supportive, although they have some offensive spell power and are able to use armor and weapons effectively. . . .

The cleric serves to fortify, protect, and revitalize. The cleric also has a limited number of attack spells . . .

In addition, the cleric has the ability to wear armor, carry effective weaponry, and engage in hand-to-hand (melee) combat with a reasonable chance of success.

Another important attribute of the cleric is the ability to turn away (or actually command into service) the undead and less powerful demons and devils.​
This is a statement of class function. It presupposes that support, by way of fortification, protection, and revitalisation; that attacking (both by spell and weapon); and that turning away supernatural evils; are all meaningful contributions to the game. But it does not assert, imply, or presuppose, that these functions are _king_. The same book describes other classes which make different contributions.

4e D&D also talks about class functions. For instance, the description of a ranger (PHB, p 103) says that "You concentrate on either ranged attacks or two-weapon melee fighting to deal a lot of damage to one enemy at a time. Your attacks rely on speed and mobility, since you prefer to use hit-and-run tactics whenever possible."

This doesn't assume that damage dealing, or speed and mobility, are king. The book describes other classes whose contributions to play differ from the ranger's.

Similarly, to state that - in 5e - the main contribution a fighter makes to play is damage, is not to assume, presuppose, imply or assert that DPR is king. It's to make a statement about a particular class.



Oofta said:


> In addition, the basic assumption that a dagger thrower is not viable is fundamentally flawed in my personal experience.  My first D&D character that I played to 20th level did it (with tweaks, see below) and it was just fine.  A rogue/fighter with two-weapon and the dual wielder, he was flexible and could do melee or range.  I doubled my chance of getting sneak attack and did a little extra damage to boot.  Because of other party members I got in opportunity attacks now and then.  I had a blast and contributed damage as well as anyone else in the party barring the occasional meteor storm.



It's not an assumption, it's an assertion in the OP. I think the OP has in mind a fighter. The build you describe includes a significant rogue component. Is it a bad thing that it's hard to build a damage-effective knife-throwing fighter? I don't have a view on this. (4e makes it hard to do build a damage-effective ranged-weapon fighter, and a lot of people complained about that. My view was that maybe they should build rangers instead. Some found that a satisfactory answer; others didn't.)


----------



## pemerton (Jun 8, 2018)

Tony Vargas said:


> Not how I recall it, at all.  The fretting was over /attracting/ new players, not retaining them (which, IMX, 4e did startlingly well compared to every other edition I've ever run for new players), and, of course, moving books...
> 
> I've run a lot of introductory games over the decades, at conventions, and in organized play.
> 
> ...



I can't second guess your experiences (for obvious reasons!), but I am faithfully reporting what Mearls said. I have tried to find links but have failed to Google up an archive of his Legends & Lore columns - maybe they all got deleted when the WotC site changed?

He said that sales of the Essentials Red Box were good, but that retention was low.



Tony Vargas said:


> pemerton said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



I don't get that first sentence of yours. D&D is a mechanically complex game (anyone who thinks that 5e is "lite" needs to play some genuinely mechanics-light games!) and has a lot of places where it is possible to make choices that are better or worse from the mechanical point of view.

For instance, if a player's lowish-level PC comes up against a heavily-armoured hobgoblin and is not buffed in some way, and the player uses the -5/+10 from GWM, then that player is probably making a bad choice, as the drop in the chance to hit will burden the expected damage more than the +10 boosts it. Part of learning to be a good player is learning both (i) the maths, and (ii) interpretation of the ingame elements, such as that hobgoblins tend to have high ACs, especially if described as heavily armoured.

When that player, or others in the group, then have the idea of pouring buffs onto that PC to offset the -5 and thereby get the benefit of the +10, the group _should_ feel that they have made a good decision and improved their play. That's a good part of what the play of a mechanically intricate game like D&D is about! (Which has nothing to do with it being a MMO or boardgame. But it has mechanics, quite elaborate ones as far as combat is concerned.)

Designing a system so that new players are able to have that sort of experience seems to me to be a serious design goal which can be done better or worse. The problem, which I think you agree with, is that it is hard to meet that design goal while _also_ meeting the goal of not having the game break in the hands of hardcore wargamers, who will see the implications of the maths, of PC synergies, etc straight away and adopt a systematic approach to maximising their output.



Tony Vargas said:


> I'd say it'd be fair to be surprised that there aren't many more.  Perhaps most of them are still playing PF?



I don't know. And I don't know enough to speculate. It seems to me that the most typical (not necessarily dominant, but it seems to me most numerous) ENworld poster, who is an experienced RPGer, is less of a wargame-type player and more of a GM-curated experience type player. For those players the issues that the OP is complaining about won't arise, provided the GM is doing a half-decent job.



Tony Vargas said:


> AC, hps, & DPR are all part of the same race-to-0-hps of simplistic combat analysis.  And, yes, DPR is the biggest baddest variable in that calculation (well, really attacks/round is).



Yes. Action economy is also part of the same analysis. Whether or not one agrees with the OP's conclusions in respect of these matters, there's clearly been no ignoring of them.



Warpiglet said:


> It is interesting to read some of the different takes on this thread.  It would be interesting to know how some posters would summarize the OP position in three or four lines.  It seems clear to me.





pemerton said:


> The OP is not complaining that high level fighters are overpowerd compared to other PCs. The complaint is that they are _underpowered_ unless they pick some of the high-powered feats (which limits viable archetypes), and that once they power up appropriately, the GM side material (monstly monsters) is underpowered.





pemerton said:


> How does the fact that (some, maybe all) casters have a high degree of flexibility and diverse capability in the way that the engage encounters, which makes their DPR a potentially secondary concern, help show that they're _not_ overshadowing featless fighters, at least in some cases (sorcerer and warlock were the two mentioned in the OP)?



In a single sentence: if you don't use feats, fighters get overshadowed by the damage-dealing abilities of some cantrip-users; if you does use feats, a couple of dominant archetypes (GW, SS) crowd out the rest.



Warpiglet said:


> I am still trying to figure out at which point GWM and SS are out of hand.  Is it by level five?  I don't think two attacks with these feats would be outrageous.  When do FIGHTERS get three?  11th?
> 
> I would like to know what the concern really is about.  Is this about fighters of 11th level or higher with GWM or SS?
> 
> ...



Quite a way upthread someone offered up some sorcerer numbers. I can't remember who it was, and haven't gone back for a search, but here are some quick numbers of my own:

A 6th level Dragon Sorcerer has 6 SP + 19 spell levels (4, 3, 2) for 25 SPs total. That's enough for 25 twinned cantrips, or about 6 combat's worth. Fire Bolt does 2d10+4 (assuming an 18 stat). So that's 4d10+8, or 30 damage, spread across two targets, per round, prior to factoring in the chance to hit.

The featless fighter of the same level gets 2 attacks for (say) 2d6+6 (20 stat, +1 weapon). That's 4d6+12, or 26 damage, per round. But it can be focused. Factoring in GWF style takes it from 3.5 to 25/6 per die, or 100/6 +12 = not quite 29 per round. Assuming every 2 encounters yields a long rest, and 4 rounds per encounter then 1 in 8 rounds has an Action Surge, which is another +3.5-ish damage for 32 to 33 expected damage. The fighter's chance to hit is also better than the sorcerers (+1 weapon, +1 stat for +9 rather than +7) - against AC 15, that is a 75% rather than 65% chance to hit, which is about another +6 to hit, for around 38 damage.

(If there's other stuff I'm missing, please point it out. I haven't factored in criticals, which favour the fighter, especially if a Champion.)

The fighter is about 25% ahead in damage by my maths. The fighter will also have better AC (17 or 18 at least, I'd assume, compared to 13+ DEX for 15 or so for the sorcerer). And hp at d10 rather than d6+1, plus second wind. But the fighter will be in melee, and so will have more need of these things!

The sorcerer is at range, and so doesn't have to close. This boosts damage per encounter. The sorcerer is at range, and so is more likely to suffer cover penalties. This reduces damage. I haven't tried to factor those things in.

The sorcerer has the option, at any point up to the last couple of rounds, to stop doing damage and instead use some other spell. That is a flexibility the fighter can't match. How much is it worth? I don't know, and there's probably no table-invariant measure, but surely quite a bit!

Anyway, writing that up prompted me to search back and find the post upthread that I mentioned above. Here it is:



Krachek said:


> At level 11, without feat a dragon sorcerer deals 3d10 +5 damage with fire bolt. Avg 21.5.
> A fighter with great sword deals 6d6 + 15 + Fighting style for avg of 39.
> 
> Twinning fire bolt is not really efficient to get down monster. You’re still doing only 21.5 on the primary target.
> ...



To answer Krachek's question, I don't know if it's broken but it seems pretty strong: matching the fighter's melee damage output with quickened cantrips, and still having the option to stop doing that at any time and use its spells for other stuff instead.



Warpiglet said:


> If you drop feats the high AC, high HP fighter with at will damage that cannot be mitigated with disadvantage by mere proximity to foes is very valuable, has a niche and does not fall short of the cantrip wielder.
> 
> Rather, like 1e AD&D, the spell caster has a important relationship with the fighter and such that you will be twinning fire bolt and hoping one hits instead of assuming they both hit without the cover of a fighter.



Right, so this is getting into the sort of discussion I suggested upthread: can the claim that the fighter's main contribution is DPR be contested?

In my AD&D experience, the role of the fighter changed with level. At low and even mid levels, the fighter was a bold warrior who led the attack, cut down foes, and supported the MUs. But name level or thereabouts, the MUs dominated combat and the role of the fighters was to provide the sort of defence you describe, and to mop up whatever was left over after the spell assaults. I think different players have different reactions to that sort of change of role.

Anyway, if a fighter player can embrace that approach to the class, having a sorcerer compete in DPR _while shielded by the fighter_ may not be a problem at that table.


----------



## Zardnaar (Jun 8, 2018)

TLDR happy with 5E class balance. Not to happy with some feats vs others though.


----------



## pemerton (Jun 8, 2018)

Mistwell said:


> I know people like [MENTION=42582]pemerton[/MENTION] was aware of that thread and those posts, because he XP'ed them and replied to one of them.



Check the date stamps: I discovered that other thread _after_ reading this one, and posting that maybe you're responding to some other thread.

Having read some of that thread, my point remains: pointing out that Charm Person can be a strong strategy for a caster tells us nothing about (i) the role of fighters, or (ii) whether fighters without feats are underpowered, or (iii) whether fighters are better off focusing on damage or on defence. All it does is point out another reason why some non-fighter classes are potentially quite strong.


----------



## UngeheuerLich (Jun 8, 2018)

pemerton said:


> Here is the OP on that particular point:
> 
> ​
> The OP is not dismissing the increase to AC from using a shield. The claim is that using a shield leads to a drop in DPR disproportionate to the benefit gained. (Maybe that claim is wrong. Maybe the Shield Mastery feat makes up for it. But that is a completely different argument from the claim that the OP is dismissive of increases to AC.)
> ...




I am really not sure if a plain fighter should be the perfect match for a dagger fighter. The class is flexible, but main weapon dagger rather belongs to the rogue (or the monk if you like).
Two dagger rogue does not sound all that bad. And then I'd just say that a fighter can make a lot out of two daggers if it happens that other options are barred.
3d4+15 damage at level 6 is possible with a few d8s added over the course of the first rounds. While not the greatest damage ever, it easily beats 2d10 of standard cantrip users and even warlocks are behind with their 2d10+8 damage (hex and battlemaster dice are on short rest recharge and chances are good that concentration is broken with 3-5 attacks against the warlock. The most annoying spell against the fighter would be armor of agathys since you only take away very few points of damage at a time.


----------



## Krachek (Jun 8, 2018)

To me the fighter and the sorcerer I described are enough balanced to let players have fun.
There are other cases more problematic for DM who wants a fair and just table.
But a balanced game is not the only style of play.
Some players are very addict to gimmicks, combo and sheninigans.
D&D is one of the rare game that allow to apply the rules differently at each table, in order to satisfied the mood of the Dm and the players.
I feel sad for the OP that leave no space for rules adaptations. It encourages to have one perfect set of rules that fits for every one.


----------



## FrogReaver (Jun 8, 2018)

Umbran said:


> Right.  So, chess and go are boring games.  Gotcha.  We should let the millions of people who play them know that they're actually bored, no?
> 
> (Sorry for the snark, but the statement was a little out there.)




Chess is not perfectly balanced. One player goes first and one second and that difference creates imbalance and advantage.


----------



## Oofta (Jun 8, 2018)

pemerton said:


> It's not an assumption, it's an assertion in the OP. I think the OP has in mind a fighter. The build you describe includes a significant rogue component. Is it a bad thing that it's hard to build a damage-effective knife-throwing fighter? I don't have a view on this. (4e makes it hard to do build a damage-effective ranged-weapon fighter, and a lot of people complained about that. My view was that maybe they should build rangers instead. Some found that a satisfactory answer; others didn't.)




The build I did was mostly rogue, but I think it's OK that in order to make an effective knife thrower it may not be a fighter.  I don't think fighter needs to cover all bases.  Even then, I could personally see building a dual-weapon fighter that throws things until they close in to melee.  Two weapon fighting may not keep up with GWM in some aspects but how much that matters is a personal preference.


----------



## Mistwell (Jun 8, 2018)

pemerton said:


> Check the date stamps: I discovered that other thread _after_ reading this one, and posting that maybe you're responding to some other thread.
> 
> Having read some of that thread, my point remains: pointing out that Charm Person can be a strong strategy for a caster tells us nothing about (i) the role of fighters, or (ii) whether fighters without feats are underpowered, or (iii) whether fighters are better off focusing on damage or on defence. All it does is point out another reason why some non-fighter classes are potentially quite strong.




The point of that line of the conversation was to establish the point that DPR is not the goal of the game, because other things can help end encounters as well as damage depending on the circumstance. Once you establish that as fact, then we can talk about the value of the fighter options not taken because of the options taken to focus on damage.  We were establishing opportunity costs. 

For example, when someone says they are taking the +2 to attack with ranged weapon option for fighter to make up for the -5 from the feat, we can now talk about the value of losing out on Defense Dueling, Protection, Two weapon fighting, etc.. 

And once he says he is using all his battle master superiority dice on precision attack to make up for the -5 from the feat, we can now talk about the value of losing out on Goading Attack, Maneuvering Attack, Menacing Attack, Parry, Pushing Attacking, Trip Attack, etc.. 

And once he says he is focusing on damage, and takes sharp shooter (sometimes at first level even), then we can talk about the value of losing out on all those other feats with that feat slot too.

And once he says the rest of the party is helping out the fighter to do more damage by casting spells to grant the fighter advantage like faerie fire (which the OP did in fact say recently) then we can talk about the value of losing out on all those other spells that spell caster could have cast that round with that spell slot...like charm person, etc..

You can't figure out the role of the fighter and whether fighters are better off focusing on something other than just offense until you at least start out with a simple explanation for why non-damaging strategies might be better in this game depending on the circumstance in general, which the charm person example served well. But if you don't like charm person because you can't get past that it was a spellcaster example to establish that non-damaging strategies can be more helpful sometimes in this game, I can very easily craft an example which involves moving a foe, which fighters can do in a variety of ways.


----------



## Warpiglet (Jun 8, 2018)

pemerton said:


> In a single sentence: if you don't use feats, fighters get overshadowed by the damage-dealing abilities of some cantrip-users; if you does use feats, a couple of dominant archetypes (GW, SS) crowd out the rest.
> 
> Quite a way upthread someone offered up some sorcerer numbers. I can't remember who it was, and haven't gone back for a search, but here are some quick numbers of my own:
> 
> ...




The first part that I quoted here was in response to the OP.  I think you are correct that this is a good summary of the OP position.

Secondly, the rest of this post is really good analysis.  It is actually fair.  Bottom line is that if certain spellcasters want to, they can dish as much damage as a fighter and switch tactics later if they want.  Sans feats, a fighter can serve as muscle to keep the artillery safely firing away.

(I also note, though some may overlook the point, that the fighter is often stronger and better able to shove, grapple and NOT be shoved grappled or moved with training in athletics.  Holding a bridge can make this clear, but I digress).

Yes, I am fine with doing similar damage while being more resistant with better AC, HPs, physical strength and so forth.  If you don't want to swing a sword and grapple orcs, a spellcaster may be more your speed.  Let's not pretend this is not an important function!  It is not without flavor or RP possibilities!  You are not and effete sideliner!

This is without feats.  I would argue that the complaints about SS and GWM are the main culprits.  

I will offer a solution for those that want true differentiation of roles and the viability of other builds but it is a two parter!

Not only should we drop GWM and SS if we are bothered by their damage superiority, but also drop Resilient CON and Warcaster.  What complaints are left?  We don't like quickened Agonizing Eldritch blast?  

IF you are bothered by these things, drop these four feats and agonizing eldritch blast.  Done.  OP says it would be hard to restore any semblance of parity and I am skeptical of this even as I am skeptical that everything has to be equivalent for characters to impact the game, the narrative and success.

Also note that concerns about monsters being "too easy" also is addressed with these few tweaks.  Consider this: with a real possibility of being at disadvantage to hit with ranged spells and flurries of blessed, surging GWM attacks no longer and issue, things change quite a bit.  

One thing that I now am pretty convinced about is that if we get rid of GWM and SS, we should also get rid of warcaster and Resilient Con (though sorcerers will have an advantage here, as would multiclassed casters).


----------



## the Jester (Jun 8, 2018)

Saeviomagy said:


> One of the examples in the op is a sorceror vs a fighter. The sorceror has the _option_ to spend all of his sorcery resources on more damage, but he's by no means _required_ to do so. The fighter has no option to deal less damage over the day in order to solve problems (well, he does - potentially that action from action surge might do something - but it's not likely to be the same impact as a spell). Similarly for a warlock vs a fighter.




There's definitely truth to the idea that spellcasters can impact the game in ways non-spellcasters can't. That's the whole idea behind magic, right? But that's not a bad thing, in my opinion. Some people don't want to be flying and shooting magic zaps at their enemies, they want to cut them to pieces or smash them to bits. Nothing wrong with that.



Saeviomagy said:


> Now your next argument is probably going to be something along the lines of "what a character does isn't dependent on it's built in capabilities". Which is basically the argument that the rules don't matter at all.




Well- first of all, of course what a character does is dependent on its capabilities to a great extent. But the (or at least a) whole point of rpgs is that a creative player can stretch beyond the boundaries of what's written on the sheet. Nowhere on a fighter's character sheet does it have a number for rolling a boulder off the edge of a cliff at an enemy camp, for instance. 

More importantly, though, the fact is that there are lots of players who enjoy playing gritty warriors or sneaky thieves without spells. If it works for the players who enjoy that style of character, I'm not sure what there is to fix.

And personally, I love playing wizards, but I also love playing fighters. And I do think 5e is a tactical enough game, and the 5e fighter has a wide enough set of abilities, that fighters (and other noncasters) are enjoyable, impact the way the game plays both in and out of combat (but maybe that's because I have creative players), and lend themselves to a fighter-player's preferences.


----------



## TwoSix (Jun 8, 2018)

Warpiglet said:


> Not only should we drop GWM and SS if we are bothered by their damage superiority, but also drop Resilient CON and Warcaster.  What complaints are left?  We don't like quickened Agonizing Eldritch blast?
> 
> IF you are bothered by these things, drop these four feats and agonizing eldritch blast.  Done.  OP says it would be hard to restore any semblance of parity and I am skeptical of this even as I am skeptical that everything has to be equivalent for characters to impact the game, the narrative and success.



Man, that's a really good solution!  If only someone had thought of that earlier, we wouldn't have to go through all this "blegh" discussion.


----------



## Sacrosanct (Jun 8, 2018)

Once again, it seems like a lot of people are forgetting that a fighter's ability to attack is infinite, and a caster's ability to cast spells is very much limited.  That's critically important, and should not keep being ignored.  In real gaming sessions, PCs don't recharge all of their resources after every encounter.

*Edit*  In fact, that's the _whole point_ of a caster since the beginning of D&D.  Give them more power, but limit them in many other ways as an offset.  # of spells slots, spell points, # of prepared spells, etc.  It is fundamentally flawed to compare the power of one class over the other in a single arena style combat.  The game isn't played that way, and is played over the course of an entire adventuring day.  So it makes no sense to me why people keep ignoring the entire point of the class design requirement from the outset.


----------



## Warpiglet (Jun 8, 2018)

Sacrosanct said:


> Once again, it seems like a lot of people are forgetting that a fighter's ability to attack is infinite, and a caster's ability to cast spells is very much limited.  That's critically important, and should not keep being ignored.  In real gaming sessions, PCs don't recharge all of their resources after every encounter.
> 
> *Edit*  In fact, that's the _whole point_ of a caster since the beginning of D&D.  Give them more power, but limit them in many other ways as an offset.  # of spells slots, spell points, # of prepared spells, etc.  It is fundamentally flawed to compare the power of one class over the other in a single arena style combat.  The game isn't played that way, and is played over the course of an entire adventuring day.  So it makes no sense to me why people keep ignoring the entire point of the class design requirement from the outset.




Without muscle, how many groups would run around a dungeon?  I think what was said earlier has some truth.  DPR is the only thing that perspective is particularity focused on without taking into account how it is done.


----------



## TwoSix (Jun 8, 2018)

the Jester said:


> Well- first of all, of course what a character does is dependent on its capabilities to a great extent. But the (or at least a) whole point of rpgs is that a creative player can stretch beyond the boundaries of what's written on the sheet. Nowhere on a fighter's character sheet does it have a number for rolling a boulder off the edge of a cliff at an enemy camp, for instance.



Let's not rehash the "creativity" canard here, suffice it to say that any creative idea the fighter player thinks of could be done just as well by the sorcerer player, unless it specifically leverages Strength or Dexterity checks.  Creativity and class balance are completely orthogonal to each other.

Personally, I don't think there's a wide degree of difference in effectiveness between casters and martials (certainly compared to 3.5), but that's primarily a function of spells being lower powered, the number of spell slots being diminished, and the concentration mechanic.  I only get concerned when I see a build like a sorcerer or a warlock that can spend their resources to do at-will damage roughly equal to a martial, OR spend those resources to do something else entirely.  Being able to do (A or B) is always better than just being able to do A.

My desired end point would be that martials do more damage than casters with any weapon they choose to feature.  Adding more feats for different weapon styles, or removing those feats and the problematic cantrip boosters are both possible solutions.


----------



## Sacrosanct (Jun 8, 2018)

Warpiglet said:


> Without muscle, how many groups would run around a dungeon?  I think what was said earlier has some truth.  DPR is the only thing that perspective is particularity focused on without taking into account how it is done.




True.  It's one of the reasons why I put only so much faith into white room comparisons.  Rarely does it reflect actual game play.

Oh!  And thanks for the XP!  That put me in 2nd place over Morrus, and behind only Gary Gygax himself, and with less than 5000 posts myself.  I win an award!!!!     Or maybe not lol.  What can I say, my entire life is around the validation I get from an internet forum and the opinion of random strangers


----------



## Tony Vargas (Jun 8, 2018)

Krachek said:


> But a balanced game is not the only style of play. Some players are very addict to gimmicks, combo and sheninigans.



   When system-masters engage an imbalanced system, they ignore trap choices, gravitate to best choices, and create a de-facto 'balanced' meta-game from the viable sub-set of the imbalanced one.  When novices engage an imbalanced game, they either accidentally hit upon a balanced sub-set of it, or the game crashes and burns.


> D&D is one of the rare game that allow to apply the rules differently at each table, in order to satisfied the mood of the Dm and the players.



 Literally every game is subject to rule interpretations & house rules.  D&D isn't even rare in admitting that.  It is not even, among RPGs, terribly unusual in presenting itself in a way that demands it.  Rather, 3.x/PF/4e/E communities were unusual in valuing 'RaW' so highly.



the Jester said:


> There's definitely truth to the idea that spellcasters can impact the game in ways non-spellcasters can't. That's the whole idea behind magic, right?



 Is it?  Is "magic" a gamist construct with the intent of giving some players more, more meaningful, and higher-impact decisions than others, most of the time?

Or is magic a fantasy bit?  A marker of the genre that hearkens back to ancient pre-scientific beliefs, myths, & legends?



> But that's not a bad thing, in my opinion. Some people don't want to be flying and shooting magic zaps at their enemies, they want to cut them to pieces or smash them to bits. Nothing wrong with that.



 It's a meaningful difference in character concept, and one that, sorta, reflects genre (not many heroes in myth/legend flew around magically zapping their enemies, while a lot dueled them with weapons or wrestled them - or, quite often, followed some sage advice to defeat them in a less direct way), so if the choice is presented, either option would need to viable in the context of the expected range of play for the game...



> Well- first of all, of course what a character does is dependent on its capabilities to a great extent. But the (or at least a) whole point of rpgs is that a creative player can stretch beyond the boundaries of what's written on the sheet. Nowhere on a fighter's character sheet does it have a number for rolling a boulder off the edge of a cliff at an enemy camp, for instance.



 "Hey, let's camp under this cliff with huge boulders on top of it!"  "Sounds cool, I never bought that 'seize the high ground' maxim, anyway, and I don't feel like climbing..."  
::fighter gets creative::
"...OK, after having boulders rolled down on us, we're going to camp on /top/ of the cliff..."
::mage gets creative ::
"...ack!  Boulders are raining out of the sky!" "I told you that 'high ground' thing was useless..."



> More importantly, though, the fact is that there are lots of players who enjoy playing gritty warriors or sneaky thieves without spells. If it works for the players who enjoy that style of character, I'm not sure what there is to fix.



 Yep, the fighter is the stand-out, most popular class in D&D, and always has been, in spite of being the stand-out least-versatile, most-consistently-overshadowed class (though frequently challenged in the latter by the Thief/Rogue and various one-offs).  So there's no need to make it balanced, because people will keep playing it until they learn better, it's just part of the whole right of passage from newb to grognard.



pemerton said:


> I can't second guess your experiences (for obvious reasons!),



 Though my experiences with new players are extensive, and cover much of the game's history, they are /geographically/ very limited, just to the South & East Bay portions of the greater SF Bay Area. 







> but I am faithfully reporting what Mearls said. I have tried to find links but have failed to Google up an archive of his Legends & Lore columns - maybe they all got deleted when the WotC site changed?



 They were, yes, I've run into the same problem, sometimes you can dig one up on the wayback machine.
Mike's L&Ls were often diplomatic to the point of being obscure.  But I may (as usual) be making a point badly.  He certainly did go on about new players, but the thrust of those comments were about making the game 'simpler' (and 5e is simpler only if you consider 'more like the classic game' to be simpler, which is likely how many of us who have been at it for a long time perceive it, since the classic game is /familiar/, which feels simple, to us), and in going back and trying to re-capture what made the game welcoming to new players at the height of the fad (though he'd never acknowledge it had been a fad, of course), which, of course, is really just doubling down on making the game appeal to long-time & returning players. 
Ultimately, the 5e design does little to make it accessible to new players who try it, but it goes a long way towards making it less intimidating, and the toxic aspects of the environment surrounding it have all but disappeared.  IMHO/X, 5e acts more like classic D&D with regard to new players, it doesn't maximize retention, overall, but it does keep new & existing fans in accord when it comes to the vision of the game & its identity.  (I hope I put that diplomatically enough without making it too obscure.)



> He said that sales of the Essentials Red Box were good, but that retention was low.



 The Red Box was a package specifically designed to entice returning players to buy it, with contents that were all but calculated to utterly repel them - and probably weren't as great for genuinely-new players as they might've been.  Of course it was a disaster.  5e learned from that mistake, and provided contents that would seem familiar to those returning players, be reasonably acceptable to most existing ones (with a very few outliers like CapnZapp, here), and a package/shelf-presence that wouldn't intimidate new players.  



> D&D is a mechanically complex game (anyone who thinks that 5e is "lite" needs to play some genuinely mechanics-light games!) and has a lot of places where it is possible to make choices that are better or worse from the mechanical point of view.



 To stay on the above point a moment longer: yes, 5e is a decidedly complex game, the exact opposite of what it, it's lead designer, and it's most ardent fans present it as - and that complexity is bad for new/casual-player retention.  And, yes, there are definitely many choices that are mechanically better or worse, the root of the issue in this thread is that some are better or worse in strict way, when a balanced way might have been more desirable.  



> For instance, if a player's lowish-level PC comes up against a heavily-armoured hobgoblin and is not buffed in some way, and the player uses the -5/+10 from GWM, then that player is probably making a bad choice, as the drop in the chance to hit will burden the expected damage more than the +10 boosts it. Part of learning to be a good player is learning both (i) the maths, and (ii) interpretation of the ingame elements, such as that hobgoblins tend to have high ACs, especially if described as heavily armoured.



 Yep, he's "acquiring players skill" to use a Gygaxian phrase, in a 3.x system-mastery context.     If the need to do that drives him crazy, he may well be out of the hobby, if it appeals, he's fitting in.



> When that player, or others in the group, then have the idea of pouring buffs onto that PC to offset the -5 and thereby get the benefit of the +10, the group _should_ feel that they have made a good decision and improved their play. That's a good part of what the play of a mechanically intricate game like D&D is about! (Which has nothing to do with it being a MMO or boardgame. But it has mechanics, quite elaborate ones as far as combat is concerned.)



 IDK, it seems like exactly the kind of cooperative 'tactical play' that earns those attacks.  



> Designing a system so that new players are able to have that sort of experience seems to me to be a serious design goal which can be done better or worse. The problem, which I think you agree with, is that it is hard to meet that design goal while _also_ meeting the goal of not having the game break in the hands of hardcore wargamers, who will see the implications of the maths, of PC synergies, etc straight away and adopt a systematic approach to maximising their output.



 Yes, I agree.  I might go a bit further and suggest that providing that experience to the new player, is quite likely to, with a few iterations, train him to adopt the ethos of the 'hardcore' D&Der.



> I don't know. And I don't know enough to speculate. It seems to me that the most typical (not necessarily dominant, but it seems to me most numerous) ENworld poster, who is an experienced RPGer, is less of a wargame-type player and more of a GM-curated experience type player. For those players the issues that the OP is complaining about won't arise, provided the GM is doing a half-decent job.



 Well, D&Der, rather than wargamer or _G_M-curated-experience-player.  We're heavily _D_Ms, here.  



> Yes. Action economy is also part of the same analysis. Whether or not one agrees with the OP's conclusions in respect of these matters, there's clearly been no ignoring of them.  In a single sentence: if you don't use feats, fighters get overshadowed by the damage-dealing abilities of some cantrip-users; if you does use feats, a couple of dominant archetypes (GW, SS) crowd out the rest.



 I don't think 'overshadowed by cantrip DPR' is quite fair.  The fighter needs to dominate in DPR, because so much of the class's design is hard-coded to that contribution, leaving it little versatility to contribute elsewhere (outside of DPR, the fighter can contribute as a blocker, if the DM abets him, and outside of combat, it can 'warm body' contribute in areas others have neglected completely, and that's about it).  Even in the worst case, the fighter grinding away with big damage won't be overshadowed by comparable big damage from some optimized cantrip build, rather, he'll be sharing the spotlight the only times he has a reasonable chance of actively claiming it, while still being overshadowed everywhere else.

(Personally, I don't buy that being a DPR-savant is enough to balance any class, mechanically.  There's just no magic DPR number that's balanced.  There's a tipping point, and as you get near it, you'll either be overpowered or overshadowed, depending on how things tip in the campaign, but you'll /never/ be balanced.)



> Anyway, if a fighter player can embrace that approach to the class, having a sorcerer compete in DPR _while shielded by the fighter_ may not be a problem at that table.



The 5e fighter is not much for shielding anybody.  It has +1hp/level, heavy armor (which can also get by playing a particular race, and AC isn't exactly impossible to come by without it), and nothing much to make it 'sticky' (because that'd be 'MMO like aggro' and that bridge was burned).



> The sorcerer has the option, at any point up to the last couple of rounds, to stop doing damage and instead use some other spell. That is a flexibility the fighter can't match. How much is it worth? I don't know, and there's probably no table-invariant measure, but surely quite a bit!



 Nod.  D&D 5e classes have, strictly, slightly different hp potentials, slightly different AC/save potentials, significantly different maximum DPR potentials, profoundly different resource-management ranges, and vastly different levels of versatility/flexibility.   They're meant to be mechanically balanced by the first three, and situationally balanced by the DM exerting pressure on the last two.  

The upshot it the game can only be played in a narrow band if class balance is to be enforced, and, similarly, if played outside that small functional zone, can be played with only a sub-set of the choices presented to the players remaining viable.

Zap runs his game outside the 'zone,' and is lamenting those obviated choices.  
In essence, he's opened the panel that says "no user serviceable parts within, opening this panel voids your warranty," then sent the box in for a warranty repair.


----------



## TwoSix (Jun 8, 2018)

Sacrosanct said:


> Oh!  And thanks for the XP!  That put me in 2nd place over Morrus, and behind only Gary Gygax himself, and with less than 5000 posts myself.  I win an award!!!!     Or maybe not lol.  What can I say, my entire life is around the validation I get from an internet forum and the opinion of random strangers



Congrats!  I tend to only whore myself out for Laugh points, but not nearly as shamelessly as [MENTION=6799753]lowkey13[/MENTION].


----------



## Sacrosanct (Jun 8, 2018)

TwoSix said:


> Congrats!  I tend to only whore myself out for Laugh points, but not nearly as shamelessly as [MENTION=6799753]lowkey13[/MENTION].




I actually signed up to be a silver subscriber a few days ago, just to get the ability that when I award XP or laugh, it's worth 5 points instead of 1.  It's my way of giving back


----------



## Sacrosanct (Jun 8, 2018)

Here is what I was getting at earlier about why single combat comparisons are bad, and we have to factor in the entire adventuring day.  This is just a rough example to illustrate the point.  I'm sure someone could probably min/max a bit better, but I think this is a pretty typical comparison.  Since most adventuring is done between levels 5 and 10, I went in the middle with a 7th level PC.  No feats.  Assuming 18 in max stat.  I did two types of battle master fighters, a sword and board, and a great weapon versus a sorcerer focusing only on damage spells.

NOTE: fireball is an AoE spell, and when you factor in an average of 3 targets in the AoE of each spell, the average damage goes way up--about to that of the GW fighter.  So you may ask the question: "Ok, so the sorcerer is doing the overall same damage as the fighter, but the sorcerer also can choose to use those spells for something else."  Fair question.  My answer would be, "Yes, but then they aren't doing nearly the same damage as the fighter, and if they do choose to do the same average damage as the fighter, they still don't have the AC or HP of the fighter.

The results are pretty clear: If you have short adventuring days and/or allow lots of rests, a class like the sorcerer will seem overpowered.  But based on 6-8 encounters a day with 4-5 rounds of combat in each encounter, then it levels off.  And if the adventuring day is longer or if combat lasts longer, then the fighter quickly is the superior option.


----------



## TwoSix (Jun 8, 2018)

Sacrosanct said:


> Here is what I was getting at earlier about why single combat comparisons are bad, and we have to factor in the entire adventuring day.  This is just a rough example to illustrate the point.  I'm sure someone could probably min/max a bit better, but I think this is a pretty typical comparison.  Since most adventuring is done between levels 5 and 10, I went in the middle with a 7th level PC.  No feats.  Assuming 18 in max stat.  I did two types of battle master fighters, a sword and board, and a great weapon versus a sorcerer focusing only on damage spells.



1)  You have the sorcerer casting magic missile, and yet your spreadsheet is assuming a 100% hit rate, thus distorting the overall damage ratio.  Either apply a hit rate adjustment, or don't use spells with accuracy adjustments.

2)  You can't twin fireball.

3)  You only have scorching ray doing 10.5 damage, should be 21 (3 x 2d6 average).

4)  Don't cast fireball on 3 targets, unless they're high priority targets that'll probably drop from your >90% damage roll.  (22 damage, or 26 damage if you're a 18 Cha dragon sorcerer).  Realistically, wait until there are 4 or 5 targets.  (The most I ever caught was 10, which was awesome.  Granted, I played a dragon sorcerer for 2 years, from level 5 up until level 16, so I had opportunities.)

5)  Using your assumptions (100% hit rate, 30 rounds), using nothing but twin fire bolt on an 18 Cha dragon sorcerer, I come up with 900 damage.  30 average damage (2 x 2d10+4), for 30 rounds.  7 base sorcery points, + 4x1 for 1st level spells, 3x2 for 2nd level spells, 3x3 for 3rd level spells, and 1x4 for 4th level spells equals exactly 30 sorcery points, so they can keep it up pretty easily.  

Obviously, a good sorcerer won't do that, you hang back and cast when you see a high leverage or desperate situation, and firebolt/twin firebolt otherwise.  There's no reason to make the sword swinger feel bad.


----------



## Satyrn (Jun 8, 2018)

Sacrosanct said:


> True.  It's one of the reasons why I put only so much faith into white room comparisons.  Rarely does it reflect actual game play.
> 
> Oh!  And thanks for the XP!  That put me in 2nd place over Morrus, and behind only Gary Gygax himself, and with less than 5000 posts myself.  I win an award!!!!     Or maybe not lol.  What can I say, my entire life is around the validation I get from an internet forum and the opinion of random strangers



#2 is nice. Silver is rather pretty (if you keep it polished).

But I'm a gorgeous golden #1! in the only category that matters (because it's the only category I'm topping . . . well, and I believe it helps foster a more pleasant community)


----------



## Gadget (Jun 8, 2018)

Sacrosanct said:


> Once again, it seems like a lot of people are forgetting that a fighter's ability to attack is infinite, and a caster's ability to cast spells is very much limited.  That's critically important, and should not keep being ignored.  In real gaming sessions, PCs don't recharge all of their resources after every encounter.
> 
> *Edit*  In fact, that's the _whole point_ of a caster since the beginning of D&D.  Give them more power, but limit them in many other ways as an offset.  # of spells slots, spell points, # of prepared spells, etc.  It is fundamentally flawed to compare the power of one class over the other in a single arena style combat.  The game isn't played that way, and is played over the course of an entire adventuring day.  So it makes no sense to me why people keep ignoring the entire point of the class design requirement from the outset.




Once again, I feel the need to point out that this is not particularly addressing the issue with regard to the OP.  Yes, casters are 'balanced' on the idea of limited resources compared to the martial's so called infinite attacks; we all get that.  The point of the OP (which I'm not sure if I agree with) is that certain cantrip wielding casters can match or overshadow said (featless) fighters in the damage department, assuming competent or optimized play.  And cantrips are, like the fighter's attacks, theoretically 'infinite' in supply.  True, some of said cantrip users must use a limited resource (sorcery points) to accomplish such, but at some point (Zeno's paradox notwithstanding), close enough becomes good enough for the majority of games.  Few of us indeed have infinite encounters in our games.  Many on these boards (and not just the so called "DPR is King" crowd) have posted how difficult it is to for them to reach the "standard" six-to-eight encounters a day benchmark.  

I feel like you're arguing against a point that hasn't been made with this post.


----------



## TwoSix (Jun 8, 2018)

Satyrn said:


> #2 is nice. Silver is rather pretty (if you keep it polished).
> 
> But I'm a gorgeous golden #1! in the only category that matters (because it's the only category I'm topping . . . well, and I believe it helps foster a more pleasant community)



Aww, and I just thought you liked me specifically.


----------



## Sacrosanct (Jun 8, 2018)

Gadget said:


> Once again, I feel the need to point out that this is not particularly addressing the issue with regard to the OP.  Yes, casters are 'balanced' on the idea of limited resources compared to the martial's so called infinite attacks; we all get that.




If _everyone _gets that, then why do people keep making the argument that casters are too powerful damage comparison wise when their argument depends on limited resources (spell slots, points, etc) but they always treat those resources as unlimited like a basic fighter's attack is?


----------



## Warpiglet (Jun 8, 2018)

Sacrosanct said:


> True.  It's one of the reasons why I put only so much faith into white room comparisons.  Rarely does it reflect actual game play.
> 
> Oh!  And thanks for the XP!  That put me in 2nd place over Morrus, and behind only Gary Gygax himself, and with less than 5000 posts myself.  I win an award!!!!     Or maybe not lol.  What can I say, my entire life is around the validation I get from an internet forum and the opinion of random strangers




My pleasure and congrats!  It is fitting as you are one of my favorite posters.  

Its OK to be excited about thumbs up from a stranger...it balances out all the times we get mad at them on a forum!  

Like some others even a few I do not always agree with (some on this thread) I appreciate well thought out posts that make me evaluate my game in new ways.


----------



## Gadget (Jun 8, 2018)

Sacrosanct said:


> If _everyone _gets that, then why do people keep making the argument that casters are too powerful damage comparison wise when their argument depends on limited resources (spell slots, points, etc) but they always treat those resources as unlimited like a basic fighter's attack is?




Are you like only reading the first sentence of every post?  This is not the same old "Casters rock, martials sux" argument.  Cantrips are just as infinite as a fighter's attacks, last I checked.   Warlocks don't have to spend a finite resource to really make their cantrips cook.  It has been argued that Sorcerers, at a modest level, can burn through a whole lot of Sorcery points in a day if they so choose by sacrificing spell slots.  I'm not sure that presents the problem the OP describes, but I can see that at some point good enough gets the job done as well as infinite in most situations.  It seems you're ignoring the finer points of this particular thread to continue an age old argument of fighter vs magic user.

But hey, I just saved a bundle on my car insurance, so it's all good.


----------



## Sacrosanct (Jun 8, 2018)

Gadget said:


> Are you like only reading the first sentence of every post?  This is not the same old "Casters rock, martials sux" argument.  Cantrips are just as infinite as a fighter's attacks, last I checked.   Warlocks don't have to spend a finite resource to really make their cantrips cook.  It has been argued that Sorcerers, at a modest level, can burn through a whole lot of Sorcery points in a day if they so choose by sacrificing spell slots.  I'm not sure that presents the problem the OP describes, but I can see that at some point good enough gets the job done as well as infinite in most situations.  It seems you're ignoring the finer points of this particular thread to continue an age old argument of fighter vs magic user.
> 
> But hey, I just saved a bundle on my car insurance, so it's all good.




Maybe instead of accusing me of not reading, and saying "everyone gets it", you need to go back and reread this thread.  Because people have made arguments you're saying isn't being made.


----------



## TwoSix (Jun 8, 2018)

Sacrosanct said:


> If _everyone _gets that, then why do people keep making the argument that casters are too powerful damage comparison wise when their argument depends on limited resources (spell slots, points, etc) but they always treat those resources as unlimited like a basic fighter's attack is?



1)  Agonizing blast IS unlimited.

2)  As I showed above, sorcerers get enough sorcerer points to sustain them even through a 6 encounter day of 5 combat rounds each, if they're so inclined.

3)  The argument isn't about _casters,_ the argument is specifically about warlocks and sorcerers.


----------



## Krachek (Jun 8, 2018)

Sacrosanct said:


> Here is what I was getting at earlier about why single combat comparisons are bad, and we have to factor in the entire adventuring day.  This is just a rough example to illustrate the point.  I'm sure someone could probably min/max a bit better, but I think this is a pretty typical comparison.  Since most adventuring is done between levels 5 and 10, I went in the middle with a 7th level PC.  No feats.  Assuming 18 in max stat.  I did two types of battle master fighters, a sword and board, and a great weapon versus a sorcerer focusing only on damage spells.
> 
> NOTE: fireball is an AoE spell, and when you factor in an average of 3 targets in the AoE of each spell, the average damage goes way up--about to that of the GW fighter.  So you may ask the question: "Ok, so the sorcerer is doing the overall same damage as the fighter, but the sorcerer also can choose to use those spells for something else."  Fair question.  My answer would be, "Yes, but then they aren't doing nearly the same damage as the fighter, and if they do choose to do the same average damage as the fighter, they still don't have the AC or HP of the fighter.
> 
> ...




Dragon Sorcerer can do more damage.
2 fireball well placed 75 damage, for 150
3 scorching ray 25 damage. For 75
7 twin firebolt for 210
18 firebolt for 270
700 damage and still 4 level 1 slot and 1 level 4 for utility.


----------



## Tony Vargas (Jun 8, 2018)

Gadget said:


> This is not the same old "Casters rock, martials sux" argument.



 I believe it was 'rule' and 'drool,' respectively.  But, I mean, that argument was back when fighters & casters had completely different resource sets and only theoretically balanced at some hypothetical number of encounters/day, and, now fighters & casters have completely different resource sets and only theoretically balance at 6-8 encounters/day, so it's _like, totally* different_!  








* you probably won't get this in-joke, but it helps if you say "totally" with a Valley Girl accent.


----------



## Gadget (Jun 8, 2018)

Sacrosanct said:


> Maybe instead of accusing me of not reading, and saying "everyone gets it", you need to go back and reread this thread.  Because people have made arguments you're saying isn't being made.




Maybe I have missed something, heaven knows this thread is long enough, but I have not seen this thread being about fighters vs magic users to which you seemed to be responding.  Please enlighten me.


----------



## TwoSix (Jun 9, 2018)

Gadget said:


> Maybe I have missed something, heaven knows this thread is long enough, but I have not seen this thread being about fighters vs magic users to which you seemed to be responding.  Please enlighten me.



We've had better threads on that topic over the years anyway.  There was a 3.5 version that broke 2000 posts.  That was fun.


----------



## Oofta (Jun 9, 2018)

TwoSix said:


> We've had better threads on that topic over the years anyway.  There was a 3.5 version that broke 2000 posts.  That was fun.




Is that a challenge?


----------



## TwoSix (Jun 9, 2018)

Oofta said:


> Is that a challenge?



I'm game.

Warlocks are broken, prove me wrong!


----------



## pemerton (Jun 9, 2018)

Warpiglet said:


> The first part that I quoted here was in response to the OP.  I think you are correct that this is a good summary of the OP position.
> 
> Secondly, the rest of this post is really good analysis.  It is actually fair.



Thanks!



Warpiglet said:


> Bottom line is that if certain spellcasters want to, they can dish as much damage as a fighter and switch tactics later if they want.  Sans feats, a fighter can serve as muscle to keep the artillery safely firing away.
> 
> (I also note, though some may overlook the point, that the fighter is often stronger and better able to shove, grapple and NOT be shoved grappled or moved with training in athletics.  Holding a bridge can make this clear, but I digress).
> 
> Yes, I am fine with doing similar damage while being more resistant with better AC, HPs, physical strength and so forth.  If you don't want to swing a sword and grapple orcs, a spellcaster may be more your speed.  Let's not pretend this is not an important function!  It is not without flavor or RP possibilities!  You are not and effete sideliner!



The shoving etc is a good point, although in some campaigns might be a little bit boutique - so probably a bit table-variable.



Warpiglet said:


> Not only should we drop GWM and SS if we are bothered by their damage superiority, but also drop Resilient CON and Warcaster.  What complaints are left?  We don't like quickened Agonizing Eldritch blast?
> 
> IF you are bothered by these things, drop these four feats and agonizing eldritch blast.  Done.



I think this is close to [MENTION=205]TwoSix[/MENTION] upthread.


----------



## Eubani (Jun 9, 2018)

Is it just me or should Hunters Mark, Eldritch Blast and Hex be class features instead of spells? I have no issue in what they mechanically BUT what they do that I do have a problem with is reduce actual choice.


----------



## pemerton (Jun 9, 2018)

TwoSix said:


> Man, that's a really good solution!  If only someone had thought of that earlier, we wouldn't have to go through all this "blegh" discussion.



So I'm reading and replying in order, and so came to this after posting my reply to [MENTION=6689161]Warpiglet[/MENTION]. I didn't follow our link but think, but I think I know where it goes to!


----------



## pemerton (Jun 9, 2018)

Gadget said:


> Maybe I have missed something, heaven knows this thread is long enough, but I have not seen this thread being about fighters vs magic users to which you seemed to be responding.



Right. There are a few posters in this thread who seem to be arguing some other point, from some other thread, but not actually engaging with the OP's claims.


----------



## Tony Vargas (Jun 9, 2018)

Eubani said:


> Is it just me or should Hunters Mark, Eldritch Blast and Hex be class features instead of spells? .




Depending on the design philosophy, sure, if you want just anyone to up and play an effective Warlock or ranger w/o getting to feel like they figured something out...


----------



## Ovinomancer (Jun 9, 2018)

It seems to me that the problems here are basically 2-fold:  GWM and SS outpace other martial options and also that certain caster combinations can also outpace martial contributions.  To deal with this, I propose the following simple fixes:

For GWM and SS, judicious adding of the word 'OR'.  For GWM:

When you make an attack with a heavy weapon on your turn, your may:

1. gain a bonus action attack with same heavy weapon if you reduce an enemy to 0 hitpoints with your attack or if your attack is a critical hit.

OR

2. take a -5 to hit and add 10 damage to your attack.

You may not benefit from both abilities in the same turn.

For SS:

Put an OR between each ability -- you can make an attack ignoring cover OR make an attack ignoring long range OR make an attack with -5/+10.


For casters, the real issue seems to revolve around metamagic (I don't find the warlock to be a problem, they pay for increased damage by way of limited spellcasting).  So the fix there is:  metamagic cannot be applied to cantrips.  I also find this thematic in that cantrips are meant to be the basic, easiest, and ingrained versions of magic -- magic reflexes, as it were.  Limiting metamagic to leveled spells doesn't reduce their utility very much and further increases the chances you'll seem something other than twin and quicken in builds.

Done, balanced, minimal changes.


----------



## Sacrosanct (Jun 9, 2018)

Gadget said:


> Maybe I have missed something, heaven knows this thread is long enough, but I have not seen this thread being about fighters vs magic users to which you seemed to be responding.  Please enlighten me.




Saeviomagy made a post about the sorcerer and warlock using abilities that are limited to out damage the fighter, as did the OP.  Sorcery points are not unlimited.  A martial's attacks are.  Therefore, a sorcerer cannot do as much damage as a fighter on an continuing basis.  Even if a sorcerer spends every single spell point and spell slot on twinned firebolts, they are just keeping up with the GW fighter _without feats_, and as soon as round 30 of the day is past (for a 7th level sorcerer, a lower level will run out MUCH faster), that damage output of the sorcerer drops off a cliff while the fighter keeps going.  That's my point.  It's a critical factor that folks in this thread (Saeviomagy and CapnZapp specifically, and I'm sure others) never factor in when they make arguments about how a caster is OP compared to a fighter.  That chart I had only went to 30 rounds based on an assumption that each encounter only lasts 4-5 rounds, which I've actually rarely seen.  Most encounters are at least a few more rounds than that unless they are easy encounters.  So I suspect there are more than 30 rounds of combat per adventuring day in a typical dungeon delve unless you're the type of table that lets your players take rests whenever they want.

Seriously, I bet 90% of the complaints about how certain classes are OP would be resolved if DMs didn't let players take rests whenever they felt like it, but ran the monsters like intelligent beings that would normally react once they found out a party of hostiles were in their immediate area instead of patiently waiting in their encounter area to be discovered by the PCs.  I've seen a common theme: most people complaining about things like the OP, treat the game like a computer game, where as long as you don't enter aggro space, you can throw a freaking party right next to them and the monsters will never react.  No wonder why classes that regen resources will seem more powerful than fighters then.  On the other side, people who say the fighter is invaluable are those that have DMs who run the monsters like living creatures, who will actively leave their area to hunt down the PCs once they are discovered, or they will organize a lair defense, etc etc, which results in fewer opportunities to rest, and while the casters are out of points, it's the fighters who keep dealing out the damage on a regular basis.


----------



## Warpiglet (Jun 9, 2018)

pemerton said:


> Thanks!
> 
> The shoving etc is a good point, although in some campaigns might be a little bit boutique - so probably a bit table-variable.
> 
> I think this is close to [MENTION=205]TwoSix[/MENTION] upthread.




We have some similar ideas apparently!  Great minds?  But in seriousness there are some differences in recommendations too.

Another simple one would be to see weapon choices as nearly equivalent and simply give GWM bonus damage/ability to any weapon combo if the damage difference bothers you.  That is VERY parsimonious.


----------



## 5ekyu (Jun 9, 2018)

Warpiglet said:


> We have some similar ideas apparently!  Great minds?  But in seriousness there are some differences in recommendations too.
> 
> Another simple one would be to see weapon choices as nearly equivalent and simply give GWM bonus damage/ability to any weapon combo if the damage difference bothers you.  That is VERY parsimonious.



But would you then also give offsetting feats to let GWF builds gain the shield master options while wielding their great axe?

Not saying goid or bad but if the position is "we should equalize the dpr feat options across all weapon combos" shouldnt that also apply to other thematic choices?

Then we get to armor types, instead of limiting the damage reduction to heavy armor, let there be light, medium and heavy versions of each of the armor mastery.

Soon, those kinds of choices wont be meaningfully different much at all and we can have great dart master and light armor that reduces damage from great clubs.


----------



## Warpiglet (Jun 9, 2018)

5ekyu said:


> But would you then also give offsetting feats to let GWF builds gain the shield master options while wielding their great axe?
> 
> Not saying goid or bad but if the position is "we should equalize the dpr feat options across all weapon combos" shouldnt that also apply to other thematic choices?
> 
> ...



 Frankly I would not do it.  Like you say, then great weapon fighter do less.  If you were concerned you could do something to add damage in a smaller measure...

But again this is for those concerned with dpr balance which is not a priority for me


----------



## Eubani (Jun 10, 2018)

I wish the spell lists for casters were more defined and thematic entailing such things as to what the magic type could and could not do. More and more spells get added to spell lists over every edition and there just leaves them over loaded with utility. This is the imbalance that I worry about over the years as it effects not just between classes but in the adventures themselves. A good example is Wizard spell lists which has often been described as everything except healing (even that ground got covered by several spells over the editions). A character (and a type of caster) can be just as defined by what it cannot do as by what it can but it seems that already comprehensive spell lists keep growing and holes get plugged. Many people think shrug magic can and should be able to do anything but A. That is boring and kills challenge and B. Not in an individual spell list it should not.


----------



## Ancalagon (Jun 10, 2018)

Eubani said:


> I wish the spell lists for casters were more defined and thematic entailing such things as to what the magic type could and could not do. More and more spells get added to spell lists over every edition and there just leaves them over loaded with utility. This is the imbalance that I worry about over the years as it effects not just between classes but in the adventures themselves. A good example is Wizard spell lists which has often been described as everything except healing (even that ground got covered by several spells over the editions). A character (and a type of caster) can be just as defined by what it cannot do as by what it can but it seems that already comprehensive spell lists keep growing and holes get plugged. Many people think shrug magic can and should be able to do anything but A. That is boring and kills challenge and B. Not in an individual spell list it should not.




I am, as a GM, much more fond of the way warhammer frpg (2nd ed) dealt with this aspect:  a spell-caster had a few generic spells, and then each type of caster (priest of God X, wizard of the blue school) had a narrow spell list that was very thematic.  It stopped the "I can solve any problem!" swiss army knife thing that some casters have going on...


----------



## Tony Vargas (Jun 11, 2018)

Ovinomancer said:


> To deal with this, I propose the following simple fixes:
> 
> For GWM and SS, judicious adding of the word 'OR'.  For GWM:
> 
> ...



 Sounds like a better fix for SS than for GWM.  I suppose in a sense we're dealing with this mess because the first few attempts at a GWM bennie were shot down in the playtest.  One was STR mod damage on a "miss" (a D&D miss can represent 'not penetrating armor,' so the GWM is good at hitting hard/square enough that it batters you a bit in spite of that), it was both a trivial damage boost in the final analysis, and wildly controversial in a way it wasn't when it was the Reaping Strike fighter at-will (when there was no way of mechanically drawing a line between intolerable-DoaM and mathematically-identical yet sacred-DoaSS).  Another was re-rolling '1's which also proved trivial, and was given to GW/style/.  Ultimately, the -5/+10 evoked 3e Power Attack, so made the cut.  It just, inevitably, brought in the same issues as power attack.  ::shrug::



> For casters, the real issue seems to revolve around metamagic (I don't find the warlock to be a problem, they pay for increased damage by way of limited spellcasting).  So the fix there is:  metamagic cannot be applied to cantrips.



 Not sure Sorcerers deserve a nerf, exactly.



Eubani said:


> I wish the spell lists for casters were more defined and thematic entailing such things as to what the magic type could and could not do. More and more spells get added to spell lists over every edition and there just leaves them over loaded with utility.



To be fair, 5e's slow pace of release has so far held out against the historical tendency towards ballooning spell lists.


----------



## TwoSix (Jun 11, 2018)

Tony Vargas said:


> Not sure Sorcerers deserve a nerf, exactly.



Not particularly, no.  Doing illustrations on sorcerers is more indicative of the more extreme example of the sorlock than anything.


----------



## Psikerlord# (Jun 12, 2018)

Worry not CapnZapp. WFRP 4e is almost here. Hopefully it'll be better than 5e.


----------



## dco (Jun 12, 2018)

TwoSix said:


> 1)  Agonizing blast IS unlimited.
> 
> 2)  As I showed above, sorcerers get enough sorcerer points to sustain them even through a 6 encounter day of 5 combat rounds each, if they're so inclined.
> 
> 3)  The argument isn't about _casters,_ the argument is specifically about warlocks and sorcerers.



1- Yes, and the fighting style and a lot of other class features in the game. You should compare cantrips against weapon attacks for unlimited attack resources, if you are going to compare all the class do it against all the other class.
2- At level 20? Why would the sorcerer want to lose their best spells?
3- Yes, but other classes also have class features.


----------



## TwoSix (Jun 13, 2018)

dco said:


> 1- Yes, and the fighting style and a lot of other class features in the game. You should compare cantrips against weapon attacks for unlimited attack resources, if you are going to compare all the class do it against all the other class.
> 2- At level 20? Why would the sorcerer want to lose their best spells?
> 3- Yes, but other classes also have class features.



I feel as though your thesis is roughly the same as Sacrosanct's, and I feel like I've already engaged with it.


----------



## Tony Vargas (Jun 13, 2018)

dco said:


> 1 You should compare cantrips against weapon attacks for unlimited attack resources, if you are going to compare all the class do it against all the other class.
> 2- At level 20? Why would the sorcerer want to lose their best spells?
> 3- Yes, but other classes also have class features.



 1- comes out even worse for the poor fighter.  DPR is his thing, the class's features are overwhelmingly committed to or readily put into DPR, if he can't compete there (and, worse case, he's generally just being matched, not shown up), what chance does he have when those pesky non-combat pillars come up?
2 - They wouldn't want to, unless, for some reason, grinding out high DPR for 6 encounters that day seemed as good or better than casting the high-level spells they know.  Admittedly, even with the Sorcerer's limited spells known, that might never happen - but the premise of the fighter being balanced with the sorcerer (never mind the Tier 1 casters) is that it /does/ happen, regularly. 
3 - All classes are just varied collections of class features.  When comparing two or three classes, the existence of other classes doesn't really make a huge difference, unless there's some synergies being taken into consideration, of course.


----------



## Ovinomancer (Jun 13, 2018)

Tony Vargas said:


> 1- comes out even worse for the poor fighter.  DPR is his thing, the class's features are overwhelmingly committed to or readily put into DPR, if he can't compete there (and, worse case, he's generally just being matched, not shown up), what chance does he have when those pesky non-combat pillars come up?
> 2 - They wouldn't want to, unless, for some reason, grinding out high DPR for 6 encounters that day seemed as good or better than casting the high-level spells they know.  Admittedly, even with the Sorcerer's limited spells known, that might never happen - but the premise of the fighter being balanced with the sorcerer (never mind the Tier 1 casters) is that it /does/ happen, regularly.
> 3 - All classes are just varied collections of class features.  When comparing two or three classes, the existence of other classes doesn't really make a huge difference, unless there's some synergies being taken into consideration, of course.



This follows a "DPR is king!" line, though.  The fighter also has high AC, (mich) higher hp, and higher defenses in other areas (like grappling).  The role of fighter is not just "be best at DPR," although good to very good at DPR is baked in.


----------



## Tony Vargas (Jun 13, 2018)

Ovinomancer said:


> This follows a "DPR is king!" line, though.



No, just no. 

The DPR is King line goes:
"Fighters, Barbarians, & Paladins are so awesome!  Why does anyone play anything else?"  "Hey, Warlocks & Rogues are pretty good too...
... you can tweak a Sorcerer to be awesome, also." "Don't sell my wizard short, if I line up a few enemies in an area, bam, DPR through the roof!"   
"Man, you gotta love this game..."

Zap's grousing aside, DPR and it's close equivalents, like hp/healing resources, are the more visible, more nearly-balanceable tip of the D&D iceberg, precisely because they are so easily calculated.  If only DPR /were/ King, designing & running the game would be so much simpler!  ;P



> The fighter also has high AC, (mich) higher hp, and higher defenses in other areas (like grappling). The role of fighter is not just "be best at DPR," although good to very good at DPR is baked in.



 The fighter's concept was articulated as "Best* at Fighting (with weapons)," and it's most dramatic class features - Extra Attack & Action Surge, both deliver on that via multi-attacking for relatively high DPR.  It is, as we've both pointed out, baked in.  
AC?  hps?  Plenty of classes meet or beat the Fighter, there.   'Other defenses?" The fighter has the same two save proficiencies, one important, one not so much, as most classes.    The only significant, uniquely fighter feature that's not directly about DPR is Second Wind, and while it starts out pretty nice it doesn't scale fast enough to remain that significant for too long.  Besides, hp & AC are just part of the DPR-dominated race to zero hps model of D&D, anyway.  And that's only 1/3rd the story - the Combat Pillar - and not even nearly all of that.











* 'Best' in the 'best you can buy,' sense that no one else is provably /better/, not in the sense of being better than anyone else, necessarily.


----------



## Ovinomancer (Jun 13, 2018)

Tony Vargas said:


> No, just no.
> 
> The DPR is King line goes:
> "Fighters, Barbarians, & Paladins are so awesome!  Why does anyone play anything else?"  "Hey, Warlocks & Rogues are pretty good too...
> ...



No, the line is only considering DPR when making comparisons.


----------



## Tony Vargas (Jun 14, 2018)

Ovinomancer said:


> No, the line is only considering DPR when making comparisons.



 When making comparisons /of DPR/, you, of course, compare DPR.  It's just Apples to Apples.  That doesn't imply DPR is king, it's just making a valid comparison of that one factor.  You can then look at other things and make judgements about overall class balance, if you like, but those data points are harder to pin down.

But, it's not like there are DPR Tiers.  ;P


----------



## Zardnaar (Jun 14, 2018)

dco said:


> 1- Yes, and the fighting style and a lot of other class features in the game. You should compare cantrips against weapon attacks for unlimited attack resources, if you are going to compare all the class do it against all the other class.
> 2- At level 20? Why would the sorcerer want to lose their best spells?
> 3- Yes, but other classes also have class features.




Its more the mid levels. A Sorlock can more or less quicken Agonizing Blast around the mid levels for most if not all of the day. IN effect it becomes their best spell most of the time and they have the optin of dropping a fireball or whatever.

 If your DPR is hihg enough fights are often 1-2 rounds instead of 3 and I think most tables use less than the 6-8 assumptions. Even if you do the RAW 6-8 encounters the encounters are so easy dealing lots of single target damage is really good as RAW do not really support hordes of critters anyway with 2-6 critters being more the norm. 

 The Sorlock is also fine not quickening agonising blast its just one optiuon that tend to put it over the top. Functionally its almost at will action surging by the mid levels. At higher levels you can easily do 24 rounds a day (3 rounds, 8 encounters).

 The Paladin/Sorcerer is mostly theory crafting the Sorlock is playable level 1 (as a single classed PC of course) a it weak level 2, becomes good at level 3 and gets better from there. Once you start dealing 1d10+1d6+5 6 times a round for 75%+ of the combats you're kinda golden.


----------



## Oofta (Jun 14, 2018)

Zardnaar said:


> Its more the mid levels. A Sorlock can more or less quicken Agonizing Blast around the mid levels for most if not all of the day. IN effect it becomes their best spell most of the time and they have the optin of dropping a fireball or whatever.
> 
> If your DPR is hihg enough fights are often 1-2 rounds instead of 3 and I think most tables use less than the 6-8 assumptions. Even if you do the RAW 6-8 encounters the encounters are so easy dealing lots of single target damage is really good as RAW do not really support hordes of critters anyway with 2-6 critters being more the norm.
> 
> ...




Combat is as easy or as difficult as the DM wants and (hopefully) set at a level that the players will enjoy.  Power level is _always_ relative, the DM can always send a second, third or fourth wave.

So this whole theory of certain builds "breaking" D&D IMHO is silly.  _If_ it starts affecting party dynamics that one PC is significantly more powerful than everyone else (it's not going to be an issue for all groups) then deal with it.  Ban something, boost something else, there's a lots of ways of achieving the goal.

But if all encounters are cakewalks and the players want more challenge, that's on the DM.


----------



## Ovinomancer (Jun 14, 2018)

Tony Vargas said:


> When making comparisons /of DPR/, you, of course, compare DPR.  It's just Apples to Apples.  That doesn't imply DPR is king, it's just making a valid comparison of that one factor.  You can then look at other things and make judgements about overall class balance, if you like, but those data points are harder to pin down.
> 
> But, it's not like there are DPR Tiers.  ;P



You've moved the pea.  The post I quoted was taking about how sorc's only best fighters or of they were dumping resources far more useful in other ways.  The wish you responded to by trying to have the sirc DPR came while they ate it in all the ornery pillars, too.  Your core argument being that DPR is the fighter's job but they were being beat by the white room sorc (I strongly believed the cantrip focused sorcerer doesn't appear in the wild) and so lost they're mojo.  You which I relief only if DPR is king, because once you look at the full fighter, there's lots of other features there that enable DPR not available to the sorcerer.


----------



## Zardnaar (Jun 14, 2018)

Oofta said:


> Combat is as easy or as difficult as the DM wants and (hopefully) set at a level that the players will enjoy.  Power level is _always_ relative, the DM can always send a second, third or fourth wave.
> 
> So this whole theory of certain builds "breaking" D&D IMHO is silly.  _If_ it starts affecting party dynamics that one PC is significantly more powerful than everyone else (it's not going to be an issue for all groups) then deal with it.  Ban something, boost something else, there's a lots of ways of achieving the goal.
> 
> But if all encounters are cakewalks and the players want more challenge, that's on the DM.




 That is kind of what upended 3E and it leads to an arms race between the DM and the players. Making encounters tougher also leads to more exp handed out so PCs level up faster, and get more powerful quicker. 

 Not helped by the fact most xp in 5E comes from combat encounters. In AD&D and BECMI for example you could ramp the monster up but xp came more from treasure so it worked better than say 5E.  Of course if you ramped up the treasure as well you will have the same problem as 5E. You get 25 xp for a kobold and level up at 1000 xp (7xp and 2000 xp for a fighter in 2E IIRC).

 Generally leads to an arms race rocket tag type game that creates more work for the DM than addressing the underlying causes. PCs min/max a bit to much DM cranks up the encounters so PCs min max even more etc etc etc. More options more things go wrong (feats+ easy access to magic items+ easy MCing+ frontloaded classes etc).


----------



## Caliban (Jun 14, 2018)

Zardnaar said:


> That is kind of what upended 3E and it leads to an arms race between the DM and the players. Making encounters tougher also leads to more exp handed out so PCs level up faster, and get more powerful quicker.
> 
> Not helped by the fact most xp in 5E comes from combat encounters. In AD&D and BECMI for example you could ramp the monster up but xp came more from treasure so it worked better than say 5E.  Of course if you ramped up the treasure as well you will have the same problem as 5E. YOu get 25 xp for a kobold and level up at 1000 xp (7xp and 2000 xp for a fighter in 2E IIRC).
> 
> Generally leads to an arms race rocket tag type game that creates more work for the DM than addressing the underlying causes. PCs min/max a bit to much DM cranks up the encounters so PCs min max even more etc etc etc.




My solution to that is to not use XP.   I make encounters as easy or as crazy as I feel appropriate, then periodically tell the players that their PC's have leveled up.  No complaints so far.


----------



## Zardnaar (Jun 14, 2018)

Caliban said:


> My solution to that is to not use XP.   I make encounters as easy or as crazy as I feel appropriate, then periodically tell the players that their PC's have leveled up.  No complaints so far.




 Houserule though which is more or less a plaster over the cracks and doesn't address the orignal problem.

 Not that I'm opposed to houserules at all, I think I do something similar now (not using xp).


----------



## SkidAce (Jun 14, 2018)

Zardnaar said:


> That is kind of what upended 3E and it leads to an arms race between the DM and the players. Making encounters tougher also leads to more exp handed out so PCs level up faster, and get more powerful quicker.




This can be somewhat ameliorated by using milestone leveling and/or story exp.


----------



## Oofta (Jun 14, 2018)

Zardnaar said:


> That is kind of what upended 3E and it leads to an arms race between the DM and the players. Making encounters tougher also leads to more exp handed out so PCs level up faster, and get more powerful quicker.
> 
> Not helped by the fact most xp in 5E comes from combat encounters. In AD&D and BECMI for example you could ramp the monster up but xp came more from treasure so it worked better than say 5E.  Of course if you ramped up the treasure as well you will have the same problem as 5E. YOu get 25 xp for a kobold and level up at 1000 xp (7xp and 2000 xp for a fighter in 2E IIRC).
> 
> Generally leads to an arms race rocket tag type game that creates more work for the DM than addressing the underlying causes. PCs min/max a bit to much DM cranks up the encounters so PCs min max even more etc etc etc.




I've never hit the issue.  Making combats more difficult normally just takes better tactics, monsters that take advantage of environment, fight intelligently and don't attack in fireball formation, etc.  In addition the DM decides how much XP to grant, I always discuss with my players how quickly they want to advance.  The DM also has final say on optional rules, items and build options.

D&D shouldn't ever escalate to an arms race.  If you feel like it is, work with your players to tone it down to something that works for everyone.

P.S. this advice is for anyone else reading this thread.  No offense Z, but I know where you stand.


----------



## Zardnaar (Jun 14, 2018)

Oofta said:


> I've never hit the issue.  Making combats more difficult normally just takes better tactics, monsters that take advantage of environment, fight intelligently and don't attack in fireball formation, etc.  In addition the DM decides how much XP to grant, I always discuss with my players how quickly they want to advance.  The DM also has final say on optional rules, items and build options.
> 
> D&D shouldn't ever escalate to an arms race.  If you feel like it is, work with your players to tone it down to something that works for everyone.
> 
> P.S. this advice is for anyone else reading this thread.  No offense Z, but I know where you stand.




None taken its more form what I have observed with other DMs (not me). Inexperienced DMs the game tends to spiral out of control as they cant deal with it or the arms races starts. Myself I can deal with it in other ways and often be subtle about it. 

 For example say I have 2 PCs using the -5/+10 feats, one uses a bow the other uses a greatsword. The 3rd PC might use a weapon finesse battlemaster. A flaming shortsword might turn up in treasure, the greatsword user is luck to find a +1 weapon while the bow user gets some magical arrows or a magical +0 bow that glows in the dark. Something like the elemental weapons in PotA can also drop with things like weapon finesse +2 spears. Throwing a chain shirt on an ogre and not giving out more xp for it is also something I would do. 

 Although to be fair I want a featless game now interestingly the players also seem to be coming to this realisation (5E is to easy, well how bout we don't use feats). That or we might alternate 5E with other D&D's/clones or other games. If I am playing in a new group I tone things down or just play whatever the party needs.


----------



## Tony Vargas (Jun 14, 2018)

Ovinomancer said:


> You've moved the pea.  The post I quoted was taking about how sorc's only best fighters or of they were dumping resources far more useful in other ways.



 I think "far more useful" sums it up.  If the Sorc bests the fighter in DPR by wasting far-more-useful-for-other-stuff resources on DPR, then, yeah, when - situationally, not philosophically - DPR grinding is all that matters, he 'wastes' those resources.  When it's not, he uses them, well, more usefully - he no longer beats the fighter at now-hypothetical DPR, but, in a situation where DPR is of secondary importance (if it matters at all).  

The closer DPR is to 'King,' the better that comparison looks for the fighter, FWTW.  Depending on the relative importance of DPR in the campaign, the fighter may need a larger advantage in it to make up for his relative lack of versatility.


----------



## Caliban (Jun 14, 2018)

Zardnaar said:


> Houserule though which is more or less a plaster over the cracks and doesn't address the orignal problem.




That's adorable.


----------



## Ovinomancer (Jun 14, 2018)

Tony Vargas said:


> I think "far more useful" sums it up.  If the Sorc bests the fighter in DPR by wasting far-more-useful-for-other-stuff resources on DPR, then, yeah, when - situationally, not philosophically - DPR grinding is all that matters, he 'wastes' those resources.  When it's not, he uses them, well, more usefully - he no longer beats the fighter at now-hypothetical DPR, but, in a situation where DPR is of secondary importance (if it matters at all).
> 
> The closer DPR is to 'King,' the better that comparison looks for the fighter, FWTW.  Depending on the relative importance of DPR in the campaign, the fighter may need a larger advantage in it to make up for his relative lack of versatility.




I can't follow your shifting arugments.  Just above, you said that comparing the fighter to the sorc in a pure DPR-off had the sorc showing the fighter up, which takes almost all of the sorc's resources to do.  Now, though, you're saying that the closer you get to a DPR-off, the better the fighter looks?!

You also say that when a sorcerer is using slots for other-than-DPR, this also shows up the fighter, but just above you poo-pooed fighter non-DPR contributions because they really didn't have any.  If that's the case, the Sorcerer using his slots in fields the fighter is already weak in (ad argumentum) doesn't really continue to show up the fighter, does it.

You seem more interested in preserving the conclusion that discussing the premises.  My argument is that in a holistic review, fighter does very well on DPR because it has the class features to stick in and deliver it consistently, while a few other class builds can, on paper, outgun the fighter, they do so by ignoring their own niche and abilities and so degrade the party ability to succeed in a rounded adventure setting.  A slavish focus on DPR would leave you twiddling your thumbs in much of my games and even, at times, find yourself frustrated in combat because the objective wouldn't be to reduce hitpoints as fast as possible.


----------



## Zardnaar (Jun 14, 2018)

Ovinomancer said:


> I can't follow your shifting arguments.  Just above, you said that comparing the fighter to the sorc in a pure DPR-off had the sorc showing the fighter up, which takes almost all of the sorc's resources to do.  Now, though, you're saying that the closer you get to a DPR-off, the better the fighter looks?!
> 
> You also say that when a sorcerer is using slots for other-than-DPR, this also shows up the fighter, but just above you poo-pooed fighter non-DPR contributions because they really didn't have any.  If that's the case, the Sorcerer using his slots in fields the fighter is already weak in (ad argumentum) doesn't really continue to show up the fighter, does it.
> 
> You seem more interested in preserving the conclusion that discussing the premises.  My argument is that in a holistic review, fighter does very well on DPR because it has the class features to stick in and deliver it consistently, while a few other class builds can, on paper, outgun the fighter, they do so by ignoring their own niche and abilities and so degrade the party ability to succeed in a rounded adventure setting.  A slavish focus on DPR would leave you twiddling your thumbs in much of my games and even, at times, find yourself frustrated in combat because the objective wouldn't be to reduce hitpoints as fast as possible.




A Sorlock that picked a few utiity spells and focused on EB spam would still be fine in games like yours and they would have access to 6 cantrips and you could do the EB spam thing and focus all of your known spells on non combat things.

 At that point you are basically playing an archer with spell utility but you would have the option of knowing a fireball or whatever as the occasion demands. A Dragon sorcerer has hit points equal to a fighter so you could play that instead of a fighter in the archer roll. You could have a wizard and a Sorlock in the same party no problem.

The classic party might be something like

Fighter
Cleric
Rogue (or Bard or Monk)
Wizard (or Warlock, Sorcerer, some clerics and Druid)

but you could also do it like this

Warrior
Support
Skirmisher
Artillery

 5E class roles are not that rigid by other editions standards. You probably want some amount of healing in a group but that could be a Paladin and a wizard with the healer feat vs a cleric. Sorlock can fit in the artillery role, be played as an archer, or skirmisher using spells like GFB and shield an deal something like Rogue level damage with Rogue level AC to boot and spells over skills for the skill monkey part. Difference is you would be sacrificing spell slots to quicken GFB over eldritch blast or using hex+ GFB or hex+GFB+ quicken GFB if you used the bonus action to move hex the previous turn. The skirmisher role is not critical in 5E anyway.

 I have seen Dragon sorcerers on the front line in the warrior role as well with the clerics being the artillery. Mountain Dwarf Sorcerer+ light cleric role reversal. instead of action surging you quicken haste or whatever.


----------



## Ovinomancer (Jun 14, 2018)

Zardnaar said:


> A Sorlock that picked a few utiity spells and focused on EB spam would still be fine in games like yours and they would have access to 6 cantrips and you could do the EB spam thing and focus all of your known spells on non combat things.
> 
> At that point you are basically playing an archer with spell utility but you would have the option of knowing a fireball or whatever as the occasion demands. A Dragon sorcerer has hit points equal to a fighter so you could play that instead of a fighter in the archer roll. You could have a wizard and a Sorlock in the same party no problem.
> 
> ...




Whoa, slow your roll, what level split are your talking with your sorlock and how the heck do your get d6+1+con = d10+con?  Ave rolls are 5+Con per level vs 6+Con per level with starting of 7 plus con vs 10 plus con.  By 10th, the difference in hitpoints is 52 sorcerer vs 64 for fighters, and fighters are more likely to prioritize CON and go with heavy armor while the Dragon Sorcerer is sitting at AC 13+DEX.  DEX is far more important to the sorcerer than to the Fighter.

As for the split, even a 2/X split just to dip EB plus agonizing sets the sorlock back 2 levels on spell level.  The fighter gets 3 attacks a round the same level the sorlock just gets their second ASI and 4th level spells.  For this, they get a few extra 1st level slots, a slightly better cantrip option that firebolt (which, as a dragon sorc, they get to add their CHA to anyway), and a few more hitpoints.  You can't twin an EB, so that option is out.  The dragon sorc, for your purposes, is really better off going straight sorc -- warlock really nets them nothing useful and slows down their spell progression.

To sum up, you have a sorcer with 58 hitpoints at 11th level getting EB for 3d10+15 (31.5) or twinned FB for 6d8+10 (37) and AC 13+DEX vs the Fighter at 71 hitpoints, AC 18, with a greatweapon doing 6d6+15 (40 - average on 6d6 with GWF is 25 instead of 21).  The fighter is ahead of even the spam best cast (twinned firebolt) and has the benefit of being able to do it all to 1 target and take hits better.  Oh, and also has a free ASI.  This is without ANY fighter subclass, of which most will increase the basic DPR calculation for the fighter, against the best case subclass for sorcerer.

Even in a narrow DPR race, the fighter's doing well without feats and using the worst of the fighting styles.

For sword and board, the fighter's at 3d8+21 or 34.5, which is comparable.  AC is 20, still has free ASI.  Going with a PAM GWF build, it's 3d10r2+15+d4+5 or 41 damage.  An archer is 3d8+15 x 110% (for the extra accuracy) or 31.35, which is the first below EB spam, but it's awful close.

I think you're making that build out to be far more than it is.  If you go warlock, which is a caster class that focuses on cantrip damage and limited other spellcasting, you're on par to slightly below.  If you go with Dragon Sorcerer and focus on cantrip damage, using your other spells to fuel twinning cantrips (bleh), then you can slightly outpace the fighter so long as you're okay with splitting the damage up between two creatures.  If that bothers you, ban metamagic from cantrips and the problem solves itself nicely. Or up the cost for cantrips from 1 sorcery point to 2.  Or accept that the player that wants to play a sorcerer and just spam twinned firebolts all day long is going to be slightly more effective as a baseline fighter.  I really don't see how that's a huge problem when they could be actually using their spells to do things rather than burning them to fuel twinned firebolts.  I'd honestly be much more upset about the boring character than the damage they do.


----------



## Zardnaar (Jun 14, 2018)

Ovinomancer said:


> Whoa, slow your roll, what level split are your talking with your sorlock and how the heck do your get d6+1+con = d10+con?  Ave rolls are 5+Con per level vs 6+Con per level with starting of 7 plus con vs 10 plus con.  By 10th, the difference in hitpoints is 52 sorcerer vs 64 for fighters, and fighters are more likely to prioritize CON and go with heavy armor while the Dragon Sorcerer is sitting at AC 13+DEX.  DEX is far more important to the sorcerer than to the Fighter.
> 
> As for the split, even a 2/X split just to dip EB plus agonizing sets the sorlock back 2 levels on spell level.  The fighter gets 3 attacks a round the same level the sorlock just gets their second ASI and 4th level spells.  For this, they get a few extra 1st level slots, a slightly better cantrip option that firebolt (which, as a dragon sorc, they get to add their CHA to anyway), and a few more hitpoints.  You can't twin an EB, so that option is out.  The dragon sorc, for your purposes, is really better off going straight sorc -- warlock really nets them nothing useful and slows down their spell progression.
> 
> ...




Dragon Sorcerers get +1 HP and get a d8 hit dice. Funtionally the same as a fighter, 5.5 average per level 9 vs 10 at level 1 so only slightly less. THe Sorlcock has less but doesn't generally go near the fornt line unless its a fiendpact one probably MCed ( eg Fighter 1/Warlock XYZ)

 The front line gish sorcerer I saw was a Mountain Dwarf in medium armor. AC 15 or 16 IIRC. Otherwise you use spells to up AC (haste, shield etc) or to impose disadvantage (greater invisibility). Had somethign like 18 or 20 strength, 16 charisma

 If you want to spam, cantrips all day by level 10 or so you can sacrifice spell slots to get sorcery points functionally quicken Eldritch Blast or Green Flame blade most of the time, by level 15 or so IIRC its functionally at will. You don't spam firebolt lol.

 The Sorlcok once they get 3 bolts from Eldritch blast can quicken it a lot more than a fighter can action surge, gives them 6 bolts, charsima to damage and bonus action hex casting as well which is good for boss fights (hex+ EB followed up with 2 EBs the following round). 

 And at higher levels you have 8 rays essentially at will + spell slots left over, each bolt is dealing at least 1d10+5 often 1d10+5+1d6 (hex).

 The hit point difference isn't that much either and can be negated via things like shield spells so you take less damage. Even the gish sorcerer is not better than say a fighter most of the time (nova it can be) but its close enough and you have other options that a fighter doesn't have. For example you don't have to sacrifice your spell slots to abuse GFB but you can haste yourself for example and quicken GFB which is decent damage even at level 6. In melee as a sorcerer. By level 8 you can do this most fights upcasting haste if you have to into level 4 slots or you can sacrifice spell slots to spam GFB. If you come across a ranged enough well you still have the option of fireball, lightning bolt, firebolt etc etc etc.


----------



## UngeheuerLich (Jun 14, 2018)

Zardnaar said:


> Dragon Sorcerers get +1 HP and get a d8 hit dice. Funtionally the same as a fighter, 5.5 average per level 9 vs 10 at level 1 so only slightly less. THe Sorlcock has less but doesn't generally go near the fornt line unless its a fiendpact one probably MCed ( eg Fighter 1/Warlock XYZ)
> 
> The front line gish sorcerer I saw was a Mountain Dwarf in medium armor. AC 15 or 16 IIRC. Otherwise you use spells to up AC (haste, shield etc) or to impose disadvantage (greater invisibility). Had somethign like 18 or 20 strength, 16 charisma
> 
> ...




Sorcerers got d6 last time i checked... maybe I have to look it up again. I do think the basich fighter is much more robust than the sorcerer. Heavy armor and shield is such a consistent base that you don't habe to worry. And with AC 20 and maybe HAM you won't go down easily.


----------



## dco (Jun 14, 2018)

TwoSix said:


> I feel as though your thesis is roughly the same as Sacrosanct's, and I feel like I've already engaged with it.



What can I say, if I see class using ideal conditions and most of his features to improve DPR compared against another class using normal attacks I think it is a worthless comparison.



Tony Vargas said:


> 1- comes out even worse for the poor fighter.  DPR is his thing, the class's features are overwhelmingly committed to or readily put into DPR, if he can't compete there (and, worse case, he's generally just being matched, not shown up), what chance does he have when those pesky non-combat pillars come up?
> 2 - They wouldn't want to, unless, for some reason, grinding out high DPR for 6 encounters that day seemed as good or better than casting the high-level spells they know.  Admittedly, even with the Sorcerer's limited spells known, that might never happen - but the premise of the fighter being balanced with the sorcerer (never mind the Tier 1 casters) is that it /does/ happen, regularly.
> 3 - All classes are just varied collections of class features.  When comparing two or three classes, the existence of other classes doesn't really make a huge difference, unless there's some synergies being taken into consideration, of course.



1- He can also have far more durability with improved AC, HPs, autoheals using a BA and better saving throws.
Not sure how a fighter deals less damage using action surge and their specific sub-class features.
2- It's not only about casting high level spells, you also have to defend yourself, when I played a sorcerer I burned a lot of slots on shield, blur, mirror image, etc. You also want your area spell, perhaps a teleportation spell, buffs...
3- Yes, but don't compare a sorcerer that can not be attacked fully buffed expending all their sorcery hit points, metamagic extra damage from class, etc to a fighter only using his normal attacks.



Zardnaar said:


> Its more the mid levels. A Sorlock can more or less quicken Agonizing Blast around the mid levels for most if not all of the day. IN effect it becomes their best spell most of the time and they have the optin of dropping a fireball or whatever.
> 
> If your DPR is hihg enough fights are often 1-2 rounds instead of 3 and I think most tables use less than the 6-8 assumptions. Even if you do the RAW 6-8 encounters the encounters are so easy dealing lots of single target damage is really good as RAW do not really support hordes of critters anyway with 2-6 critters being more the norm.
> 
> ...



If you allow multiclassing you can also be a fightlock, warter or whatever is called. Or a sorlockter and the fighter will be happily another part of your combos.


----------



## Zardnaar (Jun 14, 2018)

dco said:


> What can I say, if I see class using ideal conditions and most of his features to improve DPR compared against another class using normal attacks I think it is a worthless comparison.
> 
> 
> 1- He can also have far more durability with improved AC, HPs, autoheals using a BA and better saving throws.
> ...




We had a fighter 1/warlock xyz fiend pact. Iirc the player
named her creation the fiend blade. 

 Another mc build that works well at low levels. It's good but not as a usable as the Sorlock. Great tank though.


----------



## Sacrosanct (Jun 14, 2018)

3 things, possibly fairly minor.  A warlock gets d8, so HP is dependent on how you split your levels.  Also, a fighter will have more than just the extra ASI at level 12, as he or she is single class.  Multiclass gets ASI much slower.  So it would be 4 ASI to 2 ASI at that point.  And thirdly, does no one actually play the game up to level 10ish anymore?  Does everyone start in tier 3 now?  Let's say a level 15 sorlock is putting out more damage than a fighter for sake of argument.  What about all of those gaming sessions at lower levels when the fighter is clearly so much better.  That's one thing I've seen with multiclass in 5e.  You are almost always behind other characters until you get several levels under your belt, and that is a good chunk of gaming time.  Especially since most people only play PCs up to level 10-12 according to the last surveys, and all of the APs end around then as well.


----------



## Tanin Wulf (Jun 14, 2018)

Umbran said:


> Right.  So, chess and go are boring games.  Gotcha.  We should let the millions of people who play them know that they're actually bored, no?
> 
> (Sorry for the snark, but the statement was a little out there.)




(Very, VERY late to the party, so sorry if someone caught this already.)

Neither Chess nor Go are perfectly balanced games. First turn still has a hell of an advantage.


----------



## Tony Vargas (Jun 14, 2018)

Ovinomancer said:


> I can't follow your shifting arugments.  Just above, you said that comparing the fighter to the sorc in a pure DPR-off had the sorc showing the fighter up, which takes almost all of the sorc's resources to do.



 That's someone else's numbers, I'm leary (I expect they're actually closer to parity on a reasonable analysis) but I'll accept them for the sake of argument. 







> Now, though, you're saying that the closer you get to a DPR-off, the better the fighter looks?!



Yep.  The fighter is a very DPR-focused design, it's best features work best when devoted to delivering DPR, it'll put in it's best showing in such comparisons.  When that's not good enough, it's a very bad sign for the fighter.



> You also say that when a sorcerer is using slots for other-than-DPR, this also shows up the fighter, but just above you poo-pooed fighter non-DPR contributions because they really didn't have any.  If that's the case, the Sorcerer using his slots in fields the fighter is already weak in (ad argumentum) doesn't really continue to show up the fighter, does it.



 'Show up' by such a large margin the fighter's not even really in the running, sure.  If you want to compare classes over many dimensions of contribution rather than focusing on DPR-as-King, the fighter will loose a lot of such comparisons by very large margins, indeed (as will the Sorcerer to the Wizard or Bard, likely) - you're prettymuch back to shaking down the Class Tiers, with that kind of analysis.



> You seem more interested in preserving the conclusion that discussing the premises.



 There's a conclusion? 

Zapp's conclusion is that the fighter 'needs' GWM/SS.  

If DPR really were 'king' that'd be less likely the case, as mere parity in DPR would be all anyone needed - since versatility would be valued at nil, the only thing having other things to channel your resources to than DPR would be 'traps.'  The fighter would be downright dominant, and cutting GWM/SS would be a safe call.



> My argument is that in a holistic review, fighter does very well on DPR because it has the class features to stick in and deliver it consistently, while a few other class builds can, on paper, outgun the fighter, they do so by ignoring their own niche and abilities and so degrade the party ability to succeed in a rounded adventure setting.  A slavish focus on DPR would leave you twiddling your thumbs in much of my games and even, at times, find yourself frustrated in combat because the objective wouldn't be to reduce hitpoints as fast as possible.



Nod.  It's a straightforward balancing act.  The fighter has little to do outside of tanking away in combat and grinding out the DPR.  As long as he's better than that by some margin, it makes up for all the times he's 'twiddling his thumbs.'  The margin depends on the emphasis on combat over social/exploration, and, in combat, on DPR over other factors.  The more important DPR, the narrower the margin the fighter needs to balance - but, unless DPR really is King, he needs /some/ margin of advantage in that area.  The more 'holistic' and varied the campaign, the larger the advantage the fighter needs in combat to really shine bright enough when he has the opportunity to do so.  If you have weeks of painstaking exploration and cunning politicking, then, finally a battle one day, and grinding out DPR is the only thing that matters, that day, then more versatile classes can go all-in on that - the fighter /still/ has to beat them in that case, and not by a small margin, to seize his rare chance to shine.  

It's a delicate balancing act, really, and, while for the sake of argument, I'm willing to accept the theory and discuss it's implications (like "Fighters 'need' GWM/SS to get enough DPR to balance"), my personal opinion is that it never really works.  The DPR character is either irrelevant and overshadowed, or downright OP and game-wrecking.  There's a shifting DPR threshold and he's either on one side of it or another, it never actually balances.  It's just too specific, yet too critical, a contribution to use as a prime, let alone sole, balancing factor for a character, let alone a whole set of sub-classes.



dco said:


> 1- He can also have far more durability with improved AC, HPs, autoheals using a BA and better saving throws.



 'Meh' on all counts.  The hp advantage is 1/level.  AC can be cheesed up in a variety of ways.  IDK what BA has to do with healing, but Second Wind trails off in importance rapidly.  And 'better' saving throws?  The fighter is STR/CON, the sorcerer CON/CHA.  In both cases, CON is the more important save, and CON a second-priority stat, while the less-important save maps to the primary stat (setting aside the otherwise very effective DEX-fighter builds, like the Archery SS).  STR saves come up more often, but they're usually for comparatively minor effects, while CHA saves keep you from, for the major instance, being dominated (which, with a DPR build, is nice for your party).



> 2- It's not only about casting high level spells, you also have to defend yourself, when I played a sorcerer I burned a lot of slots on shield, blur, mirror image, etc. You also want your area spell, perhaps a teleportation spell, buffs...



 Yes, even the Sorcerer has considerable versatility.  He /can/ put a lot towards DPR, or he can put it towards defense or whatever else he knows a spell for... he can't compete with the Wizard, but he's got it all over the fighter, that way.


> Yes, but don't compare a sorcerer that can not be attacked fully buffed expending all their sorcery hit points, metamagic extra damage from class, etc to a fighter only using his normal attacks.



 No problem, compare that sorcerer to a SS fighter who can't be attack and is fully buffed and expending all his limited resources on DPR.  Fair's fair. 



> If you allow multiclassing you can also be a fightlock, warter or whatever is called.



 "Waste of time" I suspect.    But, sure, maybe a Champion/Berserker or something?  I mean, you are delaying or even losing extra attack by MCing out of fighter, and in a weapon-based DPR build that's not such a great idea, but MCing should certainly be open to both.


----------



## 5ekyu (Jun 14, 2018)

Tanin Wulf said:


> (Very, VERY late to the party, so sorry if someone caught this already.)
> 
> Neither Chess nor Go are perfectly balanced games. First turn still has a hell of an advantage.



Go play provides komi of values iirc 5.5-8 depending on setup and rules to address that move benefit... It also has well developed handicap structure to offset confirmed play experience diffs. 

Note At pro-dan levels, different rules.


----------



## Dausuul (Jun 14, 2018)

Sacrosanct said:


> And thirdly, does no one actually play the game up to level 10ish anymore?  Does everyone start in tier 3 now?  Let's say a level 15 sorlock is putting out more damage than a fighter for sake of argument.  What about all of those gaming sessions at lower levels when the fighter is clearly so much better.



That's the thing about the sorlock: It is built around a spell (_eldritch blast_) that scales with character level, and the crucial abilities (Agonizing Blast, Quicken Spell) only require 2 levels of warlock and 3 of sorcerer. When you hit 5th level, the combo comes online and you're good to go. Your ASIs are delayed by two levels, but that's all.

From 5th level onward, you have decent base damage output, similar to an archer: Two attacks per round for 1d10+stat. In addition, you can double your damage output for a round up to 7 times per day, and 1 additional time every short rest. And if you're willing to sacrifice some of those double damage rounds, you can even cast regular spells.

Then you start looking for synergies on top of that, favoring things that trigger on a per-hit or per-attack basis (so you get them twice on a regular _eldritch blast_ and four times when you Quicken). If you choose hexblade for your patron, you get Hexblade's Curse once per short rest for free. You can also learn the _hex_ spell, which gives you +1d6 damage per hit (at the cost of half a Quicken). You have a second invocation, which you can use for Repelling Blast and get some really nice battlefield control.

All of this is at 5th level, and is pretty respectable next to a conventional archer. As you level up, both your sorcery points and your pool of spell slots grow rapidly, which can fuel a whole lot of Quickened rounds and have room left over to cast some actual spells. (And if you really need to go all-out, you can Quicken a leveled spell and toss an _eldritch blast_ the same round.)


----------



## 5ekyu (Jun 14, 2018)

Btw side issue, i keep seeing references to teinned eldritch blast which (may be wrong) is not legal after it gets the ability to use two beams at 5th, right? 

Maybe this is jargon for quicken EB plus a regular EB?


----------



## Ovinomancer (Jun 14, 2018)

Zardnaar said:


> Dragon Sorcerers get +1 HP and get a d8 hit dice. Funtionally the same as a fighter, 5.5 average per level 9 vs 10 at level 1 so only slightly less. THe Sorlcock has less but doesn't generally go near the fornt line unless its a fiendpact one probably MCed ( eg Fighter 1/Warlock XYZ)



Sorcerers get d6 hit dice, not d8.



> The front line gish sorcerer I saw was a Mountain Dwarf in medium armor. AC 15 or 16 IIRC. Otherwise you use spells to up AC (haste, shield etc) or to impose disadvantage (greater invisibility). Had somethign like 18 or 20 strength, 16 charisma



That build isn't spamming EB for the win, though.  Also, rolled stats are their own problem.



> If you want to spam, cantrips all day by level 10 or so you can sacrifice spell slots to get sorcery points functionally quicken Eldritch Blast or Green Flame blade most of the time, by level 15 or so IIRC its functionally at will. You don't spam firebolt lol.



Oh, you're quickening at twice the cost?  It's a bit better for EB with agonizing that fighter can do without feats, but not much.

 The Sorlcok once they get 3 bolts from Eldritch blast can quicken it a lot more than a fighter can action surge, gives them 6 bolts, charsima to damage and bonus action hex casting as well which is good for boss fights (hex+ EB followed up with 2 EBs the following round). [/quote]
Why on Earth are they casting Hex?  

For awesome min-maxers, your Sorlock players make rookie mistakes.

So, this is a W2/S9 at 11th?  2 sorcery points per round, say 4 rounds a fight, 6 fights a day, that's 48 sorcery points.  You start with 9, you you need 39 more.  You'll burn, what, all of your 1, 2, 3, and 5th slots for that?  Leaving 3 4th level spells, sure, but you're completely spending your entire class budget for damage and you'll outpace the fighter sure enough, but I'm okay with that.  You have a one note boring character and exploited the glaring problem with agonizing blast.

If you don't like this, don't like metamagic work with cantrips.


 And at higher levels you have 8 rays essentially at will + spell slots left over, each bolt is dealing at least 1d10+5 often 1d10+5+1d6 (hex).



> The hit point difference isn't that much either and can be negated via things like shield spells so you take less damage. Even the gish sorcerer is not better than say a fighter most of the time (nova it can be) but its close enough and you have other options that a fighter doesn't have. For example you don't have to sacrifice your spell slots to abuse GFB but you can haste yourself for example and quicken GFB which is decent damage even at level 6. In melee as a sorcerer. By level 8 you can do this most fights upcasting haste if you have to into level 4 slots or you can sacrifice spell slots to spam GFB. If you come across a ranged enough well you still have the option of fireball, lightning bolt, firebolt etc etc etc.




The fighter can have shield as well with EK.  And they'll use it less.  You'll shield buff for AC18, he'll do it for AC 23.  And you keep saying you have options, but your build relies on beating the fighter by not using those options.  Every combat you have limits your options further because you're burning spells, and you have to preemptively burn those spells because you can't take time to do it in a fight (losing a round to convert doesn't keep up with the fighter, after all).  If you're going to stick to the point that this build beats out the fighter so badly, then you don't have much left for 'options'.  And, again, we're totally ignoring the fighter subclass in this comparison which may provide the fighter with lots of options that don't cost the fighter anything to have.  You can't have your cake and eat it by beating out the fighter in DPR and still claiming all of those resources as available options.


----------



## Ovinomancer (Jun 14, 2018)

Dausuul said:


> That's the thing about the sorlock: It is built around a spell (_eldritch blast_) that scales with character level, and the crucial abilities (Agonizing Blast, Quicken Spell) only require 2 levels of warlock and 3 of sorcerer. When you hit 5th level, the combo comes online and you're good to go. Your ASIs are delayed by two levels, but that's all.
> 
> From 5th level onward, you have decent base damage output, similar to an archer: Two attacks per round for 1d10+stat. In addition, you can double your damage output for a round up to 7 times per day, and 1 additional time every short rest. And if you're willing to sacrifice some of those double damage rounds, you can even cast regular spells.
> 
> ...




At 5th this build is still behind the archer.  The archer has a better stat and style for 15% increased hit chances and good base damage.   The archer is doing 16.1 damage a round against AC 15, you build is alternating 10.75 and 21.5 every other round (you quicken EB, next round you burn a spell to get the points back so you can quicken again -- you only have 3 sorcery points).  Your 2 round average is 15.425. 

And, again, this is ignoring fighter subclass, which can make a significant difference in fighter output.  Or a ranger, who, depending on subclass, will get nice damage bonuses and can tie anything you do with Hex with Mark.

This combo only really gets rolling after it can spam quickened EB 3 times in a row, so sorcerer level 6+ or character level 8+.  Even then, stat is +4, fighter is sitting at +5 with an extra ASI for goodness and you're still trashing your slots to power the combo.

As an aside, I've long ruled that Warlock spells don't mix with other class spells, so no burning Warlock slots for sorcery points or adding metamagic to warlock slots.  I may rule that your can only use Metamagic on Sorcerer list spells, as that seems like it would reduce the cheese of dipping Warlock for EB and Agonizing blast to a dumb move.

Honestly, the problem here is the poorly done wording of Agonizing Blast and Sage Advice choosing to rule each beam as a separate instance of EB.


----------



## Ovinomancer (Jun 14, 2018)

Tony Vargas said:


> That's someone else's numbers, I'm leary (I expect they're actually closer to parity on a reasonable analysis) but I'll accept them for the sake of argument.




You burned your first quote just to say that you agree you made that argument?  Seems a poor use, Tony.


----------



## Tony Vargas (Jun 14, 2018)

Ovinomancer said:


> Seems a poor use, Tony.



 Agreed.  

*plonk*


----------



## Zardnaar (Jun 14, 2018)

Ovinomancer said:


> At 5th this build is still behind the archer.  The archer has a better stat and style for 15% increased hit chances and good base damage.   The archer is doing 16.1 damage a round against AC 15, you build is alternating 10.75 and 21.5 every other round (you quicken EB, next round you burn a spell to get the points back so you can quicken again -- you only have 3 sorcery points).  Your 2 round average is 15.425.
> 
> And, again, this is ignoring fighter subclass, which can make a significant difference in fighter output.  Or a ranger, who, depending on subclass, will get nice damage bonuses and can tie anything you do with Hex with Mark.
> 
> ...




Brainfart on the sorcerer HD thing.

 I'm saying the Sorlock though at higher levels is very competitive in terms of damge at higher levels it wins and you still have the option of doing other stuff, in practice you are not quickening beams all of the time. 


Even at lower levels though with hex 1d10+charisma+ 1d6 is not bad damage and you get an extra beam at 5th level. 


 Boring? perhaps but you have options and it helps to think of your character as an archer and not as a spellcaster. Eldritch blast spam doesn't seem that much more boring than say being an archer. 

 The Sorlock is decent from level 3 on and becomes very good at higher levels. You can still drop a fireball if needed or a hypnotic pattern. 1d10+4+1d6 twice a round is competitive with a fighters 1d8+4 twice a round with +2 to hit level 5. Its also force and magic damage as well. The fighter can action surge say 3 times a day, the sorcerer can sacrifice a level 1 and 2 slot and quicken 3/day with the option to nova and sometimes you don't get 2 short rests.

 The Sorlock (3 Sorc/2warlock) is dealing more damage than the fighter and still has 3 1st level spells, a 2nd level spell and 6 1st level warlock spells to use (assuming 2/short rests) and has 5 more cantrips as well. Its another 11 sorcerer points available (lets call it 8 you probably want 3 hexes) so you can quicken EB an extra 4 times.

 The Sorlock is dealing more damage, has more options. This changes with the sharpshooter feat true but base damage is in the Sorlocks favor . At level 5. And it keeps getting better, your higher level Sorlock can quicken way more than the fighter can action surge, even at level 5 you can easily do it 7 times per day the fighter needs 6 short rests to do that. 

 The main point is we heave a spellcaster who is dealing more damage than the fighter at will and has other options and feats are also optional, sharpshooter is required.


----------



## Dausuul (Jun 14, 2018)

Ovinomancer said:


> At 5th this build is still behind the archer.  The archer has a better stat and style for 15% increased hit chances and good base damage.   The archer is doing 16.1 damage a round against AC 15, you build is alternating 10.75 and 21.5 every other round (you quicken EB, next round you burn a spell to get the points back so you can quicken again -- you only have 3 sorcery points).  Your 2 round average is 15.425.



The sorlock is behind at 5th, but not much behind. Your math is off:

Archer:
+9 to hit (+3 prof, +4 Dex, +2 style) = 75% chance to hit AC 15
1d8+4 damage = average 8.5
Two attacks = 8.5 x 2 x 0.75 = 12.75

Sorlock:
+6 to hit (+3 prof, +3 Cha) = 60% chance to hit AC 15
1d10+3 damage = average 8.5
Two attacks = 8.5 x 2 x 0.6 = 10.2

The sorlock can then use _hex_ for an extra d6 damage per attack in most combats, Hexblade's Curse every other fight, and burn their sorcerer spell slots on Quicken Spell. The archer, on the other hand, can Action Surge every other fight, and use battlemaster maneuvers for extra damage.

All told, the archer probably still comes out ahead, but the point is they are not wide apart. This is not a build where you suck for 14 levels and become a god at 15, it's a build where you start reasonably effective, then get better over time.



Ovinomancer said:


> Honestly, the problem here is the poorly done wording of Agonizing Blast and Sage Advice choosing to rule each beam as a separate instance of EB.



No, the problem is _eldritch blast_ being a spell in the first place. EB working on each beam is necessary; the regular (single-classed, non-bladelock) warlock is all but unplayable otherwise. But making it a cantrip opens the door to all kinds of silly tricks. It should be a warlock class feature, or folded into Agonizing Blast. Then the extra attacks would come with warlock level, like every other class's extra attacks.


----------



## Ovinomancer (Jun 14, 2018)

Dausuul said:


> The sorlock is behind at 5th, but not much behind. Your math is off:
> 
> Archer:
> +9 to hit (+3 prof, +4 Dex, +2 style) = 75% chance to hit AC 15
> ...




The math isn't off, my spreadsheet is built to account for crits.


----------



## Dausuul (Jun 14, 2018)

Ovinomancer said:


> The math isn't off, my spreadsheet is built to account for crits.



Crits are worth +0.45 DPR to the archer and +0.55 to the sorlock (one die of bonus damage on 1/20 attack rolls, times two attacks).

So, factoring in crits, your number for the sorlock is correct, but you still haven't explained where the archer is getting the other 2.9 DPR from.


----------



## Ovinomancer (Jun 14, 2018)

Tony Vargas said:


> Agreed.
> 
> *plonk*



I've asked you repeatedly as respectfully to stop the sentence-by-sentence fisking of my posts and you've repeatedly chosen not to, so I adopted (and clearly informed you of) the policy of only responding to the first quote when you do so.  Don't act like the affronted party, here.


----------



## Zardnaar (Jun 15, 2018)

Dausuul said:


> The sorlock is behind at 5th, but not much behind. Your math is off:
> 
> Archer:
> +9 to hit (+3 prof, +4 Dex, +2 style) = 75% chance to hit AC 15
> ...




Your math is also off, the Sorlock can have 18 charisma at 5 just like the archer having 18 dex. The archer may also not be a fighter but at level 6 the fighter will have +3 to hit over the Sorlock.

 Sharpshooter can put the archer over the top but the Sorlock still has more options (like fireball) and at higher levels can sustain 6 or 8 attacks a round. As you said the Sorlock doesn't suck and it starts at very low level (3 its a bit meh level 2,).

 Generally the Sorlock is better IMHO from the mid levels even if the fighter in a white room is slightly better at DPM as the archer is stuck spamming arrows the Sorlock has other options and not much is resistant or immune to force damage vs piercing damage that may or my not be magical.


----------



## Dausuul (Jun 15, 2018)

Zardnaar said:


> Your math is also off, the Sorlock can have 18 charisma at 5 just like the archer having 18 dex.



Yes, the sorlock can have 18 Cha at level 5... but the sorlock can't have 18 Cha _and_ Agonizing Blast _and_ Quicken Spell. Pick two out of three. I chose Agonizing Blast and Quicken Spell.

(Also note that if you want both 18 Cha and Agonizing Blast by level 5, you have to put 4 levels in warlock. From what I've seen, most sorlock builds don't go that deep on the warlock side.)


----------



## Krachek (Jun 15, 2018)

Dausuul said:


> Yes, the sorlock can have 18 Cha at level 5... but the sorlock can't have 18 Cha _and_ Agonizing Blast _and_ Quicken Spell. Pick two out of three. I chose Agonizing Blast and Quicken Spell.




MC are always present at their top. But in fact there is long dull phase in their progression.
A sorcerer 3 / warlock 2 won’t have fireball until two other levels.
He will also but one level late for ASI.

If you want to reduce optimizing effects you need to see the whole picture.
If you review the different optimizing guides you find 5 main tools : SS, GWM, Sorcerers twin and quicken, Warlock agonizing blast, and Paladin smite.
Just nerfing one won’t help.


----------



## Zardnaar (Jun 15, 2018)

Dausuul said:


> Yes, the sorlock can have 18 Cha at level 5... but the sorlock can't have 18 Cha _and_ Agonizing Blast _and_ Quicken Spell. Pick two out of three. I chose Agonizing Blast and Quicken Spell.
> 
> (Also note that if you want both 18 Cha and Agonizing Blast by level 5, you have to put 4 levels in warlock. From what I've seen, most sorlock builds don't go that deep on the warlock side.)




Good point I had a brain fart, the sorlock will have 18 cha at level 6. I brainfarted over a single class warlock derp derp.


----------



## Carlsen Chris (Jun 15, 2018)

Umbran said:


> Right.  So, chess and go are boring games.  Gotcha.  We should let the millions of people who play them know that they're actually bored, no?
> 
> (Sorry for the snark, but the statement was a little out there.)




You've never heard that white has an advantage in chess, I guess.  Black has the advantage in Go.


----------



## 5ekyu (Jun 15, 2018)

Carlsen Chris said:


> You've never heard that white has an advantage in chess, I guess.  Black has the advantage in Go.



Just because i am tired of seeing this but...

Is it your proposition, or the proposition of the umpteen before you on this thread, that **the reason chess is interesting** to those who like it and not dull or boring is the imbalance caused by the first move then? 

Because thats what the post you are challenging with this "first move imbalnce" epiphany was challenging - that an equal challenge game would be dull or boring.

If chess gave black a offsetting "extra move on move 12" to even out the tempo advantage white had. And that resulted in relative 50/50 results between equal players at top tier - would that mean chess was boring? Would moves 1-11 be fun then the game shift into dull unplayable land?

In go, they use komi to equalize the outcomes to a degree - to offset the tempo edge - but hinestly having played games with komi and without i did not see any major  "boring" chants from the fans during komi games.and chants of "this is awesome" during the non-komi ones.

For the vast majority of player who play chess and go (and monopoly and risk and settlers of catan and Frag and Munchkin Fantasy i suppose) the skill levels of both players are not so perfect as to make the biggest determinant of win-liss-draw or fun-boring lay at the feet of that first move.

The premise that a game that is nalanced is boring is so far an unsupported one, but, since it is in fact little more than a statement of preference or likes - its not provable.

What would imo be boring or dull would be a game where choices did not matter - where no matter the combo of choices between foes - the sum total result was the same - which is one form of static, dead equality that i suggest wad the nominal imagining behind the "dull" position.

Man, i should not post right after waking.


----------



## smbakeresq (Jun 15, 2018)

The “balance” issue is there, but good DMing can change that.  What I do is this:

First change critical hit rule to max damage dice and then whatever you rolled.  So that d8+5 critical hit is 8+d8 +5.  Players like it since you can’t crap out on the rare critical hit.

Second, this helps you as DM because monsters have generally more attacks then players but less actions.   The monsters will get more crits in so the game is more “swingy” and thus exciting.  The Frost Giant critical hit becomes 36+3d12+7, players notice.  This rule closes a lot of DPM problems between monsters and players, but played still get better action economy.

Third, play monsters according to their cunning.  Orcs will try to horde you, but they are experienced enough at combat for 1/2 of them to use the help action to give the other half advantage.  They will try to prone you.  

Trolls know they regenerate normal damage so will ignore the fighter hitting them with a non-flaming sword, take the opportunity attack, and grapple the robe wearing magic user hurting them with fire bolts.

Dragons have immense knowledge and longevity and allies, they simply won’t be surprised by PCs when in their lair at all unless it’s something like invisible, silenced and ethereal entrance.  Of course to get to them there will be minions, and the green dragon will understand it’s poison breath will not hurt the party as they will have some poison mitigation, so it will have other damage types prepared for the party.

Kobolds know they are small and most adventurers are not so it’s warrens will be filled with various small tunnels for them to escape to.

As a DM use any tactic that doesn’t railroad the party.  The only time to railroad the party is to have them captured alive and then they wake up in a cell or pit and have to fight their way out.  See old module A4.


----------



## Tanin Wulf (Jun 15, 2018)

5ekyu said:


> Is it your proposition, or the proposition of the umpteen before you on this thread, that **the reason chess is interesting** to those who like it and not dull or boring is the imbalance caused by the first move then?
> 
> Because thats what the post you are challenging with this "first move imbalnce" epiphany was challenging - that an equal challenge game would be dull or boring.




My point, in making my comment, was actually, "There's no such thing as a perfectly balanced game," not, "the imbalances are what make it interesting." Although... you could make an argument for that in the sense of the closer a game with a finite set of moves or play space gets to being perfectly balanced, the easier it is to turn it into a solved game. But even solved games can be interesting when the metagame becomes about reading your opponent rather than playing than playing the perfect game. That is... the "game" is actually the metagame, not the board and pieces.

I don't think D&D can be a solved game because it doesn't have a finite set of moves nor a finite board to work with.

So my attempt to bring up the first move epiphany (and I know your comment was not aimed at me, but since I brought it up also, recently), wasn't challenging that a perfectly balanced game would be dull or boring. It was challenging that such a game even exists in the first place.


----------



## Tony Vargas (Jun 15, 2018)

Tanin Wulf said:


> Although... you could make an argument for that in the sense of the closer a game with a finite set of moves or play space gets to being perfectly balanced, the easier it is to turn it into a solved game.



What sort of balance /removes/ possibilities? 

When you have an imbalance in a game of the sort we're always whingeing about around here - that is, when the game presents choices and one of those choices is a terrible 'trap' choice or one of them is strictly better than all the others - it /removes/ possibilities, because everyone who sees the imbalance takes the best choice, every time.  That does push the game closer to being 'solved.'  Really, 'solved' and 'completely imbalanced' would be nigh-synonymous.



> I don't think D&D can be a solved game because it doesn't have a finite set of moves nor a finite board to work with.



 Optimization is analogous to solving a sub-set of the game, most often the character-generation metagame.  There's a finite set of choices in building a character.  Pretty large, in some eds, but finite.


----------



## The Crimson Binome (Jun 15, 2018)

smbakeresq said:


> Third, play monsters according to their cunning.  Orcs will try to horde you, but they are experienced enough at combat for 1/2 of them to use the help action to give the other half advantage.



If orcs were experienced at combat, then they would know to never use the Help action, unless they couldn't otherwise make their own attack. It's always preferable for them to make two attacks, rather than making one attack at advantage.

In a mixed group of orcs and ogres, though, the orcs might know well enough that they should Help their ogre allies.


----------



## Carlsen Chris (Jun 16, 2018)

5ekyu said:


> Just because i am tired of seeing this but...
> 
> Is it your proposition, or the proposition of the umpteen before you on this thread, that **the reason chess is interesting** to those who like it and not dull or boring is the imbalance caused by the first move then?
> 
> ...



Do you believe chess is a perfectly balanced game?  Y/N
Do you believe go is a perfectly balanced game?  Y/N


----------



## 5ekyu (Jun 16, 2018)

Carlsen Chris said:


> Do you believe chess is a perfectly balanced game?  Y/N
> Do you believe go is a perfectly balanced game?  Y/N



What does that have to do with any relevant topic?

Define perfectly balanced.


----------



## DonT (Jun 16, 2018)

TwoSix said:


> (fnord)




There's something about this post that makes me feel uneasy, but I can't quite put my finger on what it is.


----------



## FrogReaver (Jun 16, 2018)

Infiniteness does not preclude a solution. We add infinite sums to finite numbers all the time.


----------



## Umbran (Jun 16, 2018)

Tanin Wulf said:


> My point, in making my comment, was actually, "There's no such thing as a perfectly balanced game,"




Um, note that this is not factually correct.  

Rock-Paper-Scissors is a perfectly balanced game.  It does happen to be exceedingly dull, such that we don't play it as a game, but use it as a randomization method, but the point is still made.

Tic-Tac-Toe is a playable game, and perfectly balanced.  It is also a solved game, such that no matter who starts, the game can *always* be forced into a draw.

The card game of poker is perfectly balanced - the odds are the same for everyone.  


Now, two of  these games are exceedingly simple - but that is what allows us to *know* they are perfectly balanced.  When a game reaches sufficient complexity, it becomes difficult or impossible to know whether it is perfectly balanced.  Chess is an example here - nobody has proven, in a mathematical sense, that there's a first-move advantage.  It is only seen empirically, and the effect is not large.  My competition-chess friends note to me that there's some argument as to whether the advantage is technical, or merely psychological.  We can't *know* for sure, because the game has too many possible plays to analyze fully.

This is not to say that any edition of D&D has ever been secretly perfectly balanced, and we didn't know it because ti si too complicated.  I just don't think this discussion has a need for false absolutes.

It may help for me to pitch the idea that there may be an RPG that *is* perfectly balanced, in terms of all PCs being of equivalent power - FATE Accelerated.

If we do not consider it perfectly balanced, I think it reveals the ways in which no RPG really can be.


----------



## 5ekyu (Jun 16, 2018)

Umbran said:


> Um, note that this is not factually correct.
> 
> Rock-Paper-Scissors is a perfectly balanced game.  It does happen to be exceedingly dull, such that we don't play it as a game, but use it as a randomization method, but the point is still made.
> 
> ...



Agree on a number of points.

Its traditional wisdom that in competitive chess white should play for win and black for draw (parabis ceteris) and it seems obvious that "teaching" would produce results that validate it.

Of i wete going to discuss "perfectly balanced" rpgs or even "quite balanced" rpgs i would veer way away from any crunch type gaming and head to places like Screentime where the "currency" is basically "effectiveness" and all (vast majority at least) of everything else is just narrative legos. (My barbarian with axe is put of currency so the demon is a blob monster that is immune to axes and who likes how barbarians smell.)

The more a system tries to add crunch, imx, the narrower and narrower a subset of its actual games in play that crunch serves to balance well and reflect/serve well.


----------



## Ovinomancer (Jun 16, 2018)

Dausuul said:


> Crits are worth +0.45 DPR to the archer and +0.55 to the sorlock (one die of bonus damage on 1/20 attack rolls, times two attacks).
> 
> So, factoring in crits, your number for the sorlock is correct, but you still haven't explained where the archer is getting the other 2.9 DPR from.




Sorry it took so long to get back to this, but I haven't been able to get to my PC and post the last few days -- phone only.  And, you're right, I had fat fingered an entry for damage, apparently, as when I put it in again I get your numbers -- I was 2.9 high.  Good catch.


----------



## pemerton (Jun 17, 2018)

Some posters seem to be arguing that a sorcerer is not comparable at DPR than a fighter because it is better off spending spell resources doing other more interesting stuff. I don't follow that argument. If a sorcerer can match, or come close to matching, a featless fighter in DPR, _and_ is better off doing other more interesting stuff leaving the DPR to the fighter, that seems to show that a sorcerer is just _better_.

I understand the argument that a sorcerer (or archer) needs a melee fighter for defence, which gives the fighter a distinctive support role. But I don't understand this other argument.


----------



## Tony Vargas (Jun 17, 2018)

5ekyu said:


> Define perfectly balanced.



 Interestingly, it's those who decry any attempt to improve balance who seem more inclined to bring up 'perfect balance.'  

"Perfect balance is impossible!"  (so stop trying to improve balance)

"Perfect balance would be boring!"  (So don't worry if you wreck what balance you have, it'll be more fun!)

"Of course, we admit that the game isn't perfectly balanced..." (...so we don't have to acknowledge how profoundly imbalanced it is.)

... there may be no limit to the constructs of illogic that can be used to defend imbalance.  

Part of the problem is that, in the context of our hobby there's imbalance that's intuitive & easy to spot - strict superiority (a choice is better than all alternatives, in all ways) - but, as a definition, it's too absolute to be of use.  All it takes is one improbably situational advantage to put a plus in the inferior column or one trivial limitation for a minus in the other and it's not strict, anymore, it can be 'balanced' if those tiny differences are hammered hard & often enough.

We need a better definition. The best I've heard, for balance in the context of RPGs*, is that *balance is the maximizing of player choices, while keeping those choices both meaningful & viable.*


Perfect balance would thus be infinite choices, none of which are anywhere near being traps or must-haves, but each of which is meaningfully different and can lead, with capable play, to desirable outcomes, or, with mistakes & bad luck, undesirable ones. The universe of outcomes, in such a game, might also need to be infinite.

So, yeah, impossible to achieve.  But that also just means that improvement is always possible.








* though, of course it wasn't originated in our tiny industry.


----------



## Tony Vargas (Jun 17, 2018)

pemerton said:


> . If a sorcerer can match, or come close to matching, a featless fighter in DPR, _and_ is better off doing other more interesting stuff leaving the DPR to the fighter, that seems to show that a sorcerer is just _better_.



 Sure, the Sorcerer, the most lack-lustre of the 5e full casters, flirts with strict superiority to the fighter, the premier ('best' at fighting, with weapons) 5e non-caster.  Not exactly a shocker, and not exactly strict (strict being a very easy bar to avoid), but still, a terrible defense of the sorcerers specific DPR build and fighters perennial lack if versatility.  



> I understand the argument that a sorcerer (or archer) needs a melee fighter for defence, which gives the fighter a distinctive support role.



It's essentially a (social) class style argument about (character) class.  The fighter should know his place and offer himself as a target as he grinds out DPR in melee, so his betters may take the decisive actions that swing the battle.  The Sorcerer should know his place and not go out 'slumming' in the DPR ghetto, it's just not seemly.


----------



## 5ekyu (Jun 17, 2018)

Tony Vargas said:


> Interestingly, it's those who decry any attempt to improve balance who seem more inclined to bring up 'perfect balance.'
> 
> "Perfect balance is impossible!"  (so stop trying to improve balance)
> 
> ...



Interesting...

Re perfect balance - thats why when i was asked if certain games were perfectly balanced i asked what the definition was before answering. Its not an absolute objectibe quality.

As gor your pet choice of definition, i give it a D+ because while it sounds good its slightly deceptive - as its "about" balance in the sense of weighing off flexibility vs restrictive almost like crunch vs light but its use in a thread like this more looks at balance in terms of impact and output..

My arguments for or against most discusdions of balance, the points raised, is that they tend to leave out way to much needed info and draw way to many unfounded conclusions - the vast najority of time due to faith in myopic tunnel vision analysis. 

The more "the analysis" puts focus on single element single outcome single situation type analysis the less relevance it has to the broader outcomes in play.

I guarantee you, my pcs did more dpr and more overall damage in Tuesday night's continuation of the semi-final fight that nade up the bulk of  their session... And i am equally sure they did not come out of it thinking they won - given one of theirs us now captive and in the process of being "fed" to the "children."


----------



## Tony Vargas (Jun 17, 2018)

5ekyu said:


> Interesting...
> 
> Re perfect balance - thats why when i was asked if certain games were perfectly balanced i asked what the definition was before answering. Its not an absolute objectibe quality.



 Apparently, its an objectionable quality.  

Seriously, though, balance is a quality that games have, and, while it may be difficult to analyze in more complex games (its closely related to acquiring system mastery, that way), it is not entirely opaque.

*Balance is the maximizing of player choices, while keeping those choices both meaningful & viable.*


> it sounds good its slightly deceptive - as its "about" balance in the sense of weighing off flexibility vs restrictive almost like crunch vs light but its use in a thread like this more looks at balance in terms of impact and output..



 Impact & output factor into viability, it's part if the story.  
Proving balance is hard, but detecting imbalance, less so.  If a choice is non-viable, it's not contributing to balance, for instance, whether it's meaningful or not is moot.

And, no it's not about weighing flexible vs restrictive, indirectly maybe, avoiding the restrictive and keeping flexibility 'real.'



> The more "the analysis" puts focus on single element single outcome single situation type analysis the less relevance it has to the broader outcomes in play.



 Analysis can legitimately involve breaking down complex systems into less complex subsystems, dimensions, or elements.


----------



## 5ekyu (Jun 17, 2018)

Tony Vargas said:


> Apparently, its an objectionable quality.
> 
> Seriously, though, balance is a quality that games have, and, while it may be difficult to analyze in more complex games (its closely related to acquiring system mastery, that way), it is not entirely opaque.
> 
> ...



A couple points... In reverse order... 
Some analysis can serve an overall analysis by micro zooming on on individual elements but it can also harm the large analysis if it paint a cockeyed picture.

An egregious example would be focusing on damage but ignoring hit chance.

Thats why larger system tests in actual play conditions are better.

About not being about weighing flex vs restrictive... You listed maximizing the choices you have etc  options which seems to be about flexibility but added while blah blah is met seems restrictive.

As for "not viable" i feel that is as useful for the minmaxer position as perfect balance is for the other side and used for the same purpose.

What is viable?

If your top best output choice as a martial is 50. Then you have two 43s Then a half dozen at 35 then plenty in the 20-30 where is the not viable line drawn?

For some, that gap between 50 and 43 is "not viable" from the highest dpr blah blah crowd. (I know 53 is higher, just making up ratios. For others, its likely between the 43 bunch and 35 etc.

As in **outside of minmaxing** viable does not mean "best or close to it" but means enough to get the job done and i suggest that in 5e most any even,moderately straightforward build that is not crippled by contrary choices is "viable".

I do agree that imbalance or the appearance of imbalance is easier to spot and to imagine. Its gets moreso.

But, for RPGs the reason i am not willing to see high degree of "provable numerical balance" used as a constraint on design is that you cannot really see balance without locking in and cutting out the heart of the RPG.

In a video game, where the designer controls the challenges, they have locked in "need" to plug their "balance capabilities" into. 

In a TTRPG each and every campaign is very different, each party is different and so the things on the need side are not static.

Question... How important is the cleric's dpr in a party of four  with one cleric and no other source of healing?

How important is it in a party of four with three?

To me, the former is a situation ehere its likely many of the slots and actiins get spent on healing in tough fights.
In the latter, there is tons of healing potential so a lot more slots and actions will go to damage.

Thats just one of many aspects where we look for **balanceability** instead of equality. 

As i once described it most things need to have three situations that can be seen and will be seen in pkay without breaking setting.

1 case where its top end - best or close

2 case where its average aka - viable

3 case where it is sub par enough to make it very tough - something else carries the weight.

Ideally these can be different situations that can occur in the same encounter frequently.

The key is that as long as those breaks are big enough to impact outcomes - not just one excel sum - then you have balanceable. 

That means you dont need things so shackled to the math as some in the "balance by cpunting jelly beans" want and also requires less sacrifice.


----------



## Tony Vargas (Jun 18, 2018)

5ekyu said:


> A couple points... In reverse order...
> Some analysis can serve an overall analysis by micro zooming on on individual elements but it can also harm the large analysis if it paint a cockeyed picture.



 Doesn't eliminate analysis as a useful tool.  ...



> An egregious example would be focusing on damage but ignoring hit chance.
> 
> Thats why larger system tests in actual play conditions are better.



 That'd be testing playtesting, obviously, which is also helpful. Testing will find a problem, analysis will isolate the root cause, and point to possible solutions.



> About not being about weighing flex vs restrictive... You listed maximizing the choices you have etc  options which seems to be about flexibility but added while blah blah is met seems restrictive.



 What we have, here, is a failure to communucate...

So, games present players with choices.  The more choices at each choice point and the more choice points, the greater the potential depth of play.  

But just adding choices doesn't always help.  The classic example is the token in monopoly, you may like being the shoe, but it makes no difference in play.  That's not 'meaningful' - RPGs add nuance to 'meaningful,' though (that you 'want to play a shoe' might carry some weight). 
Another is the worthless choice - there's a variation of rock-paper-scissors that adds 'well' rock & scissors fall in the well, paper covers it - it obviates rock, so once both players realize that, the variation is back to three viable choices.



> What is viable?



 At absolute minimum, a viable choice must not have an alternative that is better than it in all ways.  Again, RPGs add a lot of nuance to that.  



> If your top best output choice as a martial is 50. Then you have two 43s Then a half dozen at 35 then plenty in the 20-30 where is the not viable line drawn?



 Depends on how much heavy lifting that DPR has to do, in context (of the system), and what, if anything the other alternatives have going for them.

For instance in the assumed 6-8 encounter day with 5rnd encounters, 1500-2000 vs 1290-1670 vs 1050-1400 vs 600-1200.  If for the sake of illustration, a profoundly simplified Mike Mearls style balancing of the games hypothetical full caster's slots, with cantrips filling in additional rounds, were equivalent to 1500-1650, then the 50 dpr martial balances at 6 encounters & is OP at 8, while the 43 dpr is below par at 6, but balanced at 8. 
But, on a off-label 4 round day, the martials throw down 1000, 835, 700, & 400-600, while the caster, down 10 rounds of very hypothetical 15 dpr cantrips, is at 1350.

So it's not just "is it balanced?" In an RPG it's also balanced for what sort of campaign?

And, again, theres nuance.  If you really like the style of a weapon that takes you down from 50 to 47.5 or 43 to 41.5, why not go for it? (Effing half-point on average differences.)

Of course, that's a D&Dish example, other games are less sensitive to day length.



> As in **outside of minmaxing** viable does not mean "best or close to it"



 Even on the OP board it doesn't mean that - optimization is a specialized exercise, it needs parameters.  Usually optimized for a specific thing.

In an absolute sense, 'not strictly inferior,' should be viable, keeping in mind that relatively minor and highly situational qualities can save you from strict inferiority.

 In an RPG, 'not consistently overshadowed in the scope of play' might be closer.  Though, you'll note, thats a higher bar.  

Balance is more important in an RPG, where play is ideally cooperative, and 'meaningful' can be independent of mechanics, than in the narrower scope of a  board/video and/or competitive game.



> and i suggest that in 5e most any even,moderately straightforward build that is not crippled by contrary choices is "viable".



 Depends on day length...  And pillar emphasis... 

And that gets into another aspect - balance can be robust, or fragile...



> In a TTRPG each and every campaign is very different, each party is different and so the things on the need side are not static.



 Exactly. D&D traditionally copes with that by balancing to particular play expectations - a dungeon crawl with other adventurers waiting in the wings to jump your claim, new monsters moving in every day, old ones leaving with their hoards, &c; or 6-8 encounter/2-3 short rest days - it hasn't always been clear about those expectations or successful, of course.

One ed's lack of success at balancing classes led to sorting classes into Tiers by the power that mattered most in the highly variable context of an RPG: Versatility.  Its still a useful tool to think about in 5e.  Fighters lack versatility, but are solid tanks, Tier 4. Sorcerers have a potent spell list and cast spontaneously, but limited spells known that are hard to change, Tier 2.  So, of course there's a corner case where the sorcerer can grind damage like the fighter, while in other scenarios going all in on some other spell.



> Thats just one of many aspects where we look for **balanceability** instead of equality.



 Its important to remember that balanced doesn't mean identical.  If all weapons do d6 (and no other qualities) theres no meaningful choice of weapon, if the wizard, sorcerer, and Psion all have the same slots, and identical spell lists, and trivial 'ribbon' class features, theres only one caster.  Add or change something, give weapons different die types, proficiency, grits, damage types; give casters completely different spell lists, etc, and you avoid that, and re-eintroduce some balance, if you do it well.


----------



## Tanin Wulf (Jun 18, 2018)

Tony Vargas said:


> Optimization is analogous to solving a sub-set of the game, most often the character-generation metagame.  There's a finite set of choices in building a character.  Pretty large, in some eds, but finite.




The reason why it's not a solved game at that point is because D&D has something the other games we're drawing comparisons to does not: the DM is changing the scenario. (Note this is not an appeal to Rule 0, it's an explanation of why it's not a solved game.)

Your hyper optimized setup can be stopped, dead in its tracks, by being the wrong solution to any number of problems that are all perfectly valid expressions of the rules and the game and don't require houserules... merely the proper setup and execution from the DM. That's why it can't be a solved game and why a sub-optimal solution doesn't remove choices.

(Noe that I'm not a fan of "traps" and would rather they not exist; I'm simply pointing out that this logic doesn't follow.)


----------



## Tanin Wulf (Jun 18, 2018)

Umbran said:


> Um, note that this is not factually correct.
> 
> Rock-Paper-Scissors is a perfectly balanced game.  It does happen to be exceedingly dull, such that we don't play it as a game, but use it as a randomization method, but the point is still made.




The game is about guessing what your opponent will do. The player with the better intuition will have an advantage (yes, "perfect balance" must incorporate player skill into its effects in order to achieve perfect balance and parity between players; it's part of why it doesn't exist). In this situation, only two completely blind opponents, or two perfectly randomized solutions can produce a truly balanced result... which is not a game. (This then also suggests that any perfectly balanced game isn't actually a game anymore... yet another reason why it doesn't exist.)

EDIT: This is what I would also consider the defining line between balanced, and "perfectly balanced." These games you list are, indeed, BALANCED, in as much as any game probably ever could be. 



> Tic-Tac-Toe is a playable game, and perfectly balanced.  It is also a solved game, such that no matter who starts, the game can *always* be forced into a draw.



 Yes, it can, but notice in the solution: first turn ALWAYS has the advantage in Tic-tac-toe.



> The card game of poker is perfectly balanced - the odds are the same for everyone.



 Poker isn't about the cards, my good poster!


----------



## Tony Vargas (Jun 18, 2018)

Tony Vargas said:


> *Balance is the maximizing of player choices, while keeping those choices both meaningful & viable.*



 For better or worse, that's the definition of balance I'll be using when I discuss it...



Tanin Wulf said:


> Yes, it can, but notice in the solution: first turn ALWAYS has the advantage in Tic-tac-toe.



Since it's a solved game, we can know exactly how (im)balanced Tic-tac-toe is.  It presents X with 9 initial choices, obviously. However, 6 of them are _meaningless_: it doesn't matter which corner or side you place your X in, the game's potential results set will be the same, regardless (there's nothing special about the top/bottom/left/right of the grid, it could be rotated with no effect on play). There's three meaningful choices for X: center, corner, or side. One of those, choosing a side square, is decidedly inferior to the others, the choice of corner square is clearly the best (again, it's a solved game, so we know that X starting in a corner & playing optimally leaves O only two paths to stalemate, both of which start with the center square). On his first move, O would seem to have 8 choices, but, if X has played corner & is playing optimally, has only one _viable_ choice: center, the others result in certain victory for X. 

 If X is playing optimally, O can force a draw by playing optimally, but, if O makes one mistake, X can force a win. OTOH, if O is playing optimally, X must make two mistakes to allow O a chance at victory.




> The game (rock-paper-scissors) is about guessing what your opponent will do. The player with the better intuition will have an advantage (yes, "perfect balance" must incorporate player skill into its effects in order to achieve perfect balance and parity between players; it's part of why it doesn't exist).



 That is a very impractical definition of balance, since it relies on factors outside the game, itself, and yeah, that kind of balance would be problematic to hard-code into a system.  However, many games do incorporate player ability to deliver /fairness/ (not balance, by the definition I prefer) - through various methods of handicapping.

Balance, however, as I see it, is about presenting players with choices, not about guaranteeing they make the right ones.  So it's perfectly plausible for the better player to 'win' a balanced game quite consistently.

That said, draughts isn't exactly a very balanced game.  It's devoid of trap or optimal choices, but, like utterly-imbalanced & solved tic-tac-toe, it presents a player with only 3 meaningful and viable choices.  It's just that, it presents only 3 choices, period, not 9, 2 of which are meaningful & viable, then 8, only one of which is viable (and thus none are really meaningful).  Arguably, there's no meaningful choice in draughts, either, so it fails that definition of balanced, entirely.

At that, I find myself tempted to do a very forge-like thing and create a completely unintuitive definition of 'imbalance' so I'm not going to.  ;|  

I'm going to leave it at neither game is an example of perfect, nor even of a non-trivial degree balance.  One is perfectly fair, but very limited in total number of choices it delivers to players, the other is clearly imbalanced & solved, both are pretty boring.



> Poker isn't about the cards, my good poster!



Again, like any competitive game it's more fair than it is balanced (I'm not deeply familiar, but the random aspect is presumably fair, but means players are presented with only a small sub-set of the game's possible choices with each hand - you can be dealt a 'bad hand,' too bad - I'd expect being dealer impacts 'balance' to some degree, etc).  And, like draughts, it's much more about playing your opponents than playing just the mechanics of the game, itself.




Tanin Wulf said:


> The reason why it's not a solved game at that point is because D&D has something the other games we're drawing comparisons to does not: the DM is changing the scenario. (Note this is not an appeal to Rule 0, it's an explanation of why it's not a solved game.)



 I didn't mean to imply that it was, just that the charop meta-game, was analogous to 'solving' a sub-set of the game.  Mainly in that there are sub-optimal & trap options that have been excluded from it.  FWIW.



> Your hyper optimized setup can be stopped, dead in its tracks, by being the wrong solution to any number of problems that are all perfectly valid expressions of the rules and the game and don't require houserules... merely the proper setup and execution from the DM. That's why it can't be a solved game and why a sub-optimal solution doesn't remove choices.



 A sufficiently 'sub-optimal' build can very easily be strictly inferior, not only less effective at what it can do, but able to do less in terms of flexibility as well as power.  If everyone has the same level of system mastery, that choice is de-facto removed from the chargen meta-game, if someone steps in the trap, his choices in play of the actual game are reduced.  
Just imbalance in action.  



> (Noe that I'm not a fan of "traps" and would rather they not exist; I'm simply pointing out that this logic doesn't follow.)



Agreed on traps.  I'm sorry I implied more than I intended in alluding to solved games...


----------



## Hussar (Jun 19, 2018)

I'm frankly baffled how anyone can think that fighters are the DPS king of the fighty types.  Every other class will outshine a fighter wihin its own niche.  Rangers out damage all but the most twinked out fighters at range, barbarians out damage the two weapon fighters, and a sword and board fighter can't hold a candle to a paladin.

So, the sorcerer is out DPRing the fighter?  Who cares?  So is everyone else.  Why shouldn't they get in on the action.


----------



## 5ekyu (Jun 19, 2018)

Tanin Wulf said:


> The reason why it's not a solved game at that point is because D&D has something the other games we're drawing comparisons to does not: the DM is changing the scenario. (Note this is not an appeal to Rule 0, it's an explanation of why it's not a solved game.)
> 
> Your hyper optimized setup can be stopped, dead in its tracks, by being the wrong solution to any number of problems that are all perfectly valid expressions of the rules and the game and don't require houserules... merely the proper setup and execution from the DM. That's why it can't be a solved game and why a sub-optimal solution doesn't remove choices.
> 
> (Noe that I'm not a fan of "traps" and would rather they not exist; I'm simply pointing out that this logic doesn't follow.)



Enemy throws fog cloud - no advantage possible - the -5+10 output goes south...

Just one for instance.


----------



## 5ekyu (Jun 19, 2018)

Tony Vargas said:


> Doesn't eliminate analysis as a useful tool.  ...
> 
> That'd be testing playtesting, obviously, which is also helpful. Testing will find a problem, analysis will isolate the root cause, and point to possible solutions.
> 
> ...



A few points - too much shuffle to go at in depth..

Back on the statement that your definition is bringing flexibility vs restrictive into "balance" and your disagreement...

"What we have, here, is a failure to communucate..."

Your definition ssys balance is maximizing the options that are both meaningful and viable.

So from that ot would seem you see a game with 20 meaningful and viable options as more balanced (a higher maximum of options) than say a game with only 5 such choices.

That seems to be including flexibility in the definition of balance to me. 

Is it not? 

Second, i would tend to see the viable definition you present here - boils down to "better in some ways" as similar to what my stated goal as far as rpg "target as far as balance" goes... "Balanceable in play" (tho again to me the setting and types od challenges is the big honking 800lb gorilla in this.)

As for your encounter a day math, sorry but again the focus on dpr and total output fails to be convincing at all to me.

Whether someone wins or loses, succeeds or fails etc in six encounters (even combat encounters) is not determined by or even in my experience sttongly correlated to the estimated dpr of their attacks. 

Thats because in those challenges the ability to do your white room sack of hit points output is a question with a plethora of trip wires.

Heavy armor guy or blurred grapples you, keeps hold, now you are unable to move, have just one guy to swing the axe at and - GWM 5/10 becomes useless. 

Hold person, haste, slow, a lot of blindness, prone, etc options... Even going prone vs an enemy sharpshooter... All those turn the focus on white room dpr estimates on their head and the more and more one gets to the levels used to do this analysis in the micro - the more that focus in micro becomes more corrupting because it cuts more out.

As for balanced does not mean equal - exactly - at leadt until one starts using analysis of the micro to then insist on things like getting dpr outputs across martial to be the same.

That is the trap of micro-equality - insisting on getting the very small sub-parts equal - it does lead one towards equality in the form of identical. 

The focus on "equilibrium" of the macro, the whole, allows stronger here but weaker there and puts "balanceability" at the front.

To me, the focus of rpg balance should center on showing and explaining when a is better than b, when c is better than a, etc.

As i have said, to me balance would be achieved if at the "big level option" each had uncommon circumstances where each option was  "best", uncommons where they were  "worst" and common cases where they were "average" - measured by contribution to success. That objective does not require micro-tuning outputs to within a few percentage points and can be directly tied in with "scenes in play" more than ever more excluding abstractions.


----------



## Tony Vargas (Jun 19, 2018)

5ekyu said:


> Your definition ssys balance is maximizing the options that are both meaningful and viable.
> 
> So from that ot would seem you see a game with 20 meaningful and viable options as more balanced (a higher maximum of options) than say a game with only 5 such choices.
> 
> That seems to be including flexibility in the definition of balance to me. Is it not?



 Not the way I'm used to 'flexibility' being used around here, which tends to be about the range of capabilities of the character, no.  I mean in terms of options presented to the player.  

A game like Hero, for instance, is super-flexible, in part because it presents a finite set of options that are mixed & re-skinned as a matter of course to model virtually anything, it wouldn't get credit for 'infinite balance' just because each choice is so wildly flexible.

But if all you mean by flexibility is "presenting more options," sure.  



> Second, i would tend to see the viable definition you present here - boils down to "better in some ways" as similar to what my stated goal as far as rpg "target as far as balance" goes... "Balanceable in play" (tho again to me the setting and types od challenges is the big honking 800lb gorilla in this.)



 I'd rather focused on balanced w/in the expected parameters of play.  If the expected parameters are extremely permissive, balance is harder, if they're narrow (6-8 encounter days) it's easier.  If a game is designed to narrow parameters, but in the field, gets used with broader ones, it's at best 'balanceable,' I suppose.



> As for your encounter a day math, sorry but again the focus on dpr and total output fails to be convincing at all to me.



 It was merely a hypothetical analysis along one dimension illustrating how viability could depend on factors outside the choices being compared, themselves.  



> WAs for balanced does not mean equal - exactly - at leadt until one starts using analysis of the micro to then insist on things like getting dpr outputs across martial to be the same.



Nod.  It defeats the purpose:  make two options identical, they're no longer meaningful alternatives to eachother.  OTOH, 'better in some ways' often needs to mean 'closely comparable in critical ways' (in D&D, with it's race-to-0-hps combat dynamic, DPR is particularly critical), while meaningfully different in others.  D&D happens to weight DPR pretty heavily, because merely 'wounding' an enemy does nothing.  It's just an artifact of the system.  A d20 game will be balanced more robustly if things like damage potential, bonuses relative to DCs, and resource pools are kept at a fairly close numeric parity - not because that's a desirable way to balance a system, but as a consequence of the most basic elements of the system - hps w/o any 'death spiral,' flat-distribution d20 resolution, etc...




> The focus on "equilibrium" of the macro, the whole, allows stronger here but weaker there and puts "balanceability" at the front.



 A problem with calibrating balance to the 'macro level' is that you end up with very limited options in how the game can be used.  Fragile balance that only works when your campaign conforms to the macro parameters it's calibrated against.  
When that balance is left out of the design phase, it's left to the GM to balance the game as he goes - and DMs have enough to do, already.  So 'balanceable,' sure, is a thing (essentially "Imbalanced: please fix or repair daily"), so is 'fragile' balance ("OK! It's balanced! DON'T Touch ANYTHING!") - they're neither great things, resulting in games that take constant intervention to keep playable, or can be played only within a limited scope - but it's better than giving up, entirely.


----------



## dco (Jun 29, 2018)

Tony Vargas said:


> 'Meh' on all counts.  The hp advantage is 1/level.  AC can be cheesed up in a variety of ways.  IDK what BA has to do with healing, but Second Wind trails off in importance rapidly.  And 'better' saving throws?  The fighter is STR/CON, the sorcerer CON/CHA.  In both cases, CON is the more important save, and CON a second-priority stat, while the less-important save maps to the primary stat (setting aside the otherwise very effective DEX-fighter builds, like the Archery SS).  STR saves come up more often, but they're usually for comparatively minor effects, while CHA saves keep you from, for the major instance, being dominated (which, with a DPR build, is nice for your party).



Meh for you and that meh doesn't change the reality. The fighter without subclasses has exactly 2HP more on average, Second wind means more HP, they can have more AC, more ability score improvements can mean better saves using feats or improved abilities, Indomitable means rerolls for 1-3 failed saves depending on your lvl, ...



> Yes, even the Sorcerer has considerable versatility.  He /can/ put a lot towards DPR, or he can put it towards defense or whatever else he knows a spell for... he can't compete with the Wizard, but he's got it all over the fighter, that way.



What versatility? A few spells outside the combat focus?
Build an EK and that versatility difference goes down. If people use feats the fighter could use the 2 extra for 6 more skills/tools with proficiency, that's versatility for me.



> No problem, compare that sorcerer to a SS fighter who can't be attack and is fully buffed and expending all his limited resources on DPR.  Fair's fair.



As I said in an ideal situation is better, it is also a worthless situation in most cases, if you are not attacked you are probably not going to lose and DPR means nothing.



> "Waste of time" I suspect.    But, sure, maybe a Champion/Berserker or something?  I mean, you are delaying or even losing extra attack by MCing out of fighter, and in a weapon-based DPR build that's not such a great idea, but MCing should certainly be open to both.



50% more rays if you use quickened spell once per short rest, if you want DPR...

--------------------------------



pemerton said:


> Some posters seem to be arguing that a sorcerer is not comparable at DPR than a fighter because it is better off spending spell resources doing other more interesting stuff. I don't follow that argument. If a sorcerer can match, or come close to matching, a featless fighter in DPR, _and_ is better off doing other more interesting stuff leaving the DPR to the fighter, that seems to show that a sorcerer is just _better_.
> 
> I understand the argument that a sorcerer (or archer) needs a melee fighter for defence, which gives the fighter a distinctive support role. But I don't understand this other argument.



It is a reality that classes are not only defined by DPR and that combat involves more things than DPR.
I've played a sorcerer and didn't need a fighter for defense.


----------



## pemerton (Jun 29, 2018)

dco said:


> It is a reality that classes are not only defined by DPR and that combat involves more things than DPR.
> I've played a sorcerer and didn't need a fighter for defense.



And how does this tend to show the viability of fighters? They're not needed for DPR. They're not needed to defend "squishies". So what distinctive capability does a fighter bring to the table?


----------



## Tony Vargas (Jun 29, 2018)

pemerton said:


> And how does this tend to show the viability of fighters? They're not needed for DPR. They're not needed to defend "squishies". So what distinctive capability does a fighter bring to the table?



 To step into the accostomed role of Devil's Advocate, yet again:


 They provide a simple 'training wheels' class for newbies to use, until they gain enough player skills to graduate to a more advanced class, on their way to magic-user (or some other Tier 1 caster starting with 3.0), As Gygax Intended.
 They enable rewards for system mastery by acting as a class version of a "Timmeh Card" with superficially good-looking numbers, and an attractive/familiar/relateable concept.
 They uphold the D&D tradition of having a fighter class that is good for nothing much but fighting (as the name implies).
 They are expendable.  Like redshirts, only tougher, so you don't have to replace them too often, though they are high-maintenance (less so in 5e as they have HD & second wind).
 They give the party someone to use fighter-only magic items.
 They slice, they dice, they make mountains of jullien fries!


----------



## Oofta (Jun 29, 2018)

pemerton said:


> And how does this tend to show the viability of fighters? They're not needed for DPR. They're not needed to defend "squishies". So what distinctive capability does a fighter bring to the table?




Tortoise, meet hare.  A fighter isn't the flashiest class, but round-in-round-out they do a decent amount of damage.  It will probably vary by campaign but in the campaigns I've been involved in we were never guaranteed a 15 minute work day.  So when the orcs are still pounding on the door and the wizard is down to cantrips, they're still slogging slaying away.

In addition, there's a fair amount of flexibility and utility depending on your build, especially if you allow feats.  Besides, even though I'm a veteran player (aka _old_) there are times when I just want to shut off my brain, swing a sword and eat some popcorn.  Fighters are great for that.


----------



## Tony Vargas (Jun 30, 2018)

Oofta said:


> Tortoise, meet hare.  A fighter isn't the flashiest class, but round-in-round-out they do a decent amount of damage.  It will probably vary by campaign but in the campaigns I've been involved in we were never guaranteed a 15 minute work day.  So when the orcs are still pounding on the door and the wizard is down to cantrips, they're still slogging slaying away.



That's always been the logic.  The caster makes his best contribution at the most important time, as the player judges it ("decides when to be awesome").  The fighter makes the same contribution, round after round, punctuated by the occassional crit ("awesome at random"), waiting for the day the party will be doing so badly that his DPR grinding will be appreciated... 

...and that passes for 'balance.'  




> In addition, there's a fair amount of flexibility and utility depending on your build, especially if you allow feats.



 I try not to allow feats if I can possibly avoid it (I have to, technically, when running AL, but I'll always offer pregens without 'em). ;|

But with or without feats, the fighter has the same flexibility & utility from his feats & backgrounds as anyone else with the same feat or background.  Sure, at 6th he has one /more/ feat, it's true - it's also used to explain why the fighter is OK for flexiblity & utility, /and/ why he's 'best at fighting,' and how he can cover a bad saves, and be OK in exploration, and OK in social...  each of those things may be true of some fighter, in some campaign, who used his one extra feat that way.  ;|



> Besides, even though I'm a veteran player (aka _old_) there are times when I just want to shut off my brain, swing a sword and eat some popcorn.  Fighters are great for that.



 Not untrue, but left unsaid is that they're very nearly the only such option, and not so great for most other things.


----------



## Smarmot (Jun 30, 2018)

Okay,  this is really long so I only read a fraction of this thread but this is the way I see things. 

Ancient red dragons have more than 88 hp these days so the fighters AND the warlocks need to do more damage. GWM and SS only really  start to become effective when players can increase their base accuracy enough to compensate (ie higher levels.) If the strikers aren't dealing butt loads of damage the combat is going to be a slog once you reach mid -high level.

Those orcs are supposed to be one shotted. The action surging high level fighter may indeed take down a tough opponent in  one round. Don't nerf anything unless you enjoy combats that last an entire session.


----------



## Ancalagon (Jul 1, 2018)

Hussar said:


> I'm frankly baffled how anyone can think that fighters are the DPS king of the fighty types.  Every other class will outshine a fighter wihin its own niche.  Rangers out damage all but the most twinked out fighters at range, barbarians out damage the two weapon fighters, and a sword and board fighter can't hold a candle to a paladin.
> 
> So, the sorcerer is out DPRing the fighter?  Who cares?  So is everyone else.  Why shouldn't they get in on the action.




Well, that changes once the fighter gets his third attack.

... buuut that's at level 11 and we know that the majority of play seems to be in the 4-10 range, so that really doesn't make it for me.


----------



## Arnwolf666 (Dec 11, 2018)

let me see. this past week:

1.) found the sword of destiny
2.) discovered the evil duke’s plans and turned his troops against him
3.) saved the princess
4.) turned out she was a doppleganger that tricked us into being sold to ilithids
5.) escaped from slavery from the mindflayers with the real princess
6.) negotiated safe passage from the beholders by telling them where the mindflayers
     were hiding and that we were going to stop them from secretly controlling
     a barony with dopplegangers
7.) turned out the duke was a good guy and replaced by a doppleganger too
8.) negotiated with a hag coven to fight dopplegangers. betrayed by coven
     they were helping rhe dopplegangers all along. although once they found
     out abour the mindflayers they switched back to our side (i think)
9.) crap the blue dragon wants his sword back. i found it in his lair fair and square. 

nope. i do not find d&d 5E boring.


----------



## CapnZapp (Dec 11, 2018)

Since you decided to use thread necromancy on this thread, let me remind everyone who did or did not call the game boring. Hint: it isn't me. 

So let me also take this opportunity to repost my initial post. Do note I don't mention say anything is "boring".


CapnZapp said:


> There's way too many threads and retreads about this subject.
> 
> Let me once and for all state the beef about all of this.
> 
> ...


----------



## Wiseblood (Dec 11, 2018)

I’m torn here. Most of the time I’m DMing. Cantrips are used often and they are good. I lose a sense that anyone ever needs to conserve power. If you do run out of spells one of two things happen. You either rest and get spells back or you continue blasting and only lag behind the fighter a little even though you got to outshine him in every fight so far. Then by your presence (or your request) you dictate the time to rest and begin the process of outshining over again.

I have run about half a dozen campaigns in 5e and seen exactly one fighter. 

I’m torn because as a player I would want to use cantrips often. I would use them because they are that good. That and there’s no real drain on resources.


----------



## Arnwolf666 (Dec 11, 2018)

wow. must have been late night dream surfing. no idea i necro’d a thread this old sorry.


----------



## Dausuul (Dec 11, 2018)

Arnwolf666 said:


> wow. must have been late night dream surfing. no idea i necro’d a thread this old sorry.



Don't feel bad, there's another thread on the front page right now that was just necroed from 2014.

But you get extra points for necroing a thread that was titled "The final word."


----------

