clearstream
(He, Him)
Okay I'll try to summarise where we are. My fundamental criticism is that a design that allows Wizards to seriously compete with or overshadow martials at melee is egregious.
Assertion 1: BS is a problem because it melee tanks better than martials. Issue: martials, not Wizards, should be the best tanks.
Assertion 2: BS is a problem because using the standard character generation method, the needed stats aren't rare... they're common. Issue: the game should be balanced around the standard rules, not optional rules.
Assertion 3: BS is a problem because they're still doing all the wizardry they might desire - no lost wizard levels, all or most of their higher level slots open. Issue: BS is so efficient that their party ends up with more spell-slots free, not less.
Assertion 4: Straight levels in Wizard continues to be the bar for power in 5th edition so it is egregious to give them the means to also melee! Issue: overshadowing is bad, overshadowing by moving your most powerful class into another classes role is egregious.
Assertion 5: BS is a problem because GFB and BB - not overpowered in themselves - scale with level so push BS to equal melee martials for melee damage. Issue: if BS tanking better than martials is egregious, doing that while dealing solid damage would be ludicrous.
Assertion 1 - tanking test case
After considering factors like initiative, damage dealing, damage taken and using probability distribution functions and playtests, we found that giants don't see their fifth turn. Dying in successive rounds. We used playtests in Fantasy Grounds and probability distribution functions in Excel to analyse the scenario. Regarding the PDFs, we must keep in mind elements that diverged from the playtests - 1) PDFs assume giants spend their whole time pounding the tank, every encounter, 2) PDFs assume the giants never attempt to move away, so things like BB extra damage and Sentinel never trigger. Finally, note that each giant wins initiative on about 1:4 occasions.
I feel the case to consider is the >50% point in the PDF, where on half of their adventuring days they take at least this many hits. We could consider the >90% point representing nearly every adventuring day, but from experience the 50/50 case is often telling. For BS that = 9 hits for 170 damage (includes 1 rock that hits prior to buffing). They can Shield 5 of these leaving 3 hits for 55 damage, easily managed by two Channel Divinity casts (which may as well be used since they recover per short rest). For Champion = 26 hits dealing 484 damage (includes 1 rock). Again choosing the >50% point, it is likely BS loses one Blur per day to a hit. If that is on round 4 it won't need to be recast, if on round 2 or 3 it will be.
A 6th Cleric can Cure perhaps 220 damage to a single character per day so Champion typically dies, while BS typically lives. Further, BS' Cleric usually ends the day with their 3rd level casts still available, while usually BS ends the day with all, or all bar one, of their 3rd level casts still available.
So far, Assertion 1 is sustained. @Ovinomancer suggests looking at EK, but we can see that EK won't beat BS until at least level 13, when they can maintain Blur all day. They can never cast enough Shields for that spell alone to matter.
For me, the reasonable next step is to lodge Assertion 1 as sustained for the time being, and move onto Assertion 3 i.e. create a scenario where BS needs to out-Wizard another Wizard. (Assertion 2 is sustained by maths: parties using the standard method typically will have one or more PCs with the needed arrays.)
@Mort can you propose a scenario for testing BS versus another Wizard? So that no one accuses me of cherry-picking down the line!
Assertion 1: BS is a problem because it melee tanks better than martials. Issue: martials, not Wizards, should be the best tanks.
Assertion 2: BS is a problem because using the standard character generation method, the needed stats aren't rare... they're common. Issue: the game should be balanced around the standard rules, not optional rules.
Assertion 3: BS is a problem because they're still doing all the wizardry they might desire - no lost wizard levels, all or most of their higher level slots open. Issue: BS is so efficient that their party ends up with more spell-slots free, not less.
Assertion 4: Straight levels in Wizard continues to be the bar for power in 5th edition so it is egregious to give them the means to also melee! Issue: overshadowing is bad, overshadowing by moving your most powerful class into another classes role is egregious.
Assertion 5: BS is a problem because GFB and BB - not overpowered in themselves - scale with level so push BS to equal melee martials for melee damage. Issue: if BS tanking better than martials is egregious, doing that while dealing solid damage would be ludicrous.
Assertion 1 - tanking test case
- 6th level characters
- 4x hard encounter + at least 1 short rest = an adventuring day
- BS ability scores 16, 15, 13, 12, 10, 9 becoming 9, 18, 13, 18, 12, 10 at level 4. HP 32 (7+5*5)
- BS preps for day with Mage Armor
- BS preps in first round of combat with Bladesong (bonus action) and Blur (2nd level)
- Competing tank is a Champion with plate, shield and Defense fighting style*
- Both parties have a Cleric
- @Mort proposed 2 Hill Giants - these are a good stress test because they have higher than typical attack bonuses and enough damage to kill BS with a critical
- For some reason people rejected casting defensive buffs in round one of combat, so we only did that on team-BS (I believe team-Champion might do better by using round one to buff, too); Cleric casts Warding Bond on BS in this encounter, so that even (the rare) critical hits can't kill BS
After considering factors like initiative, damage dealing, damage taken and using probability distribution functions and playtests, we found that giants don't see their fifth turn. Dying in successive rounds. We used playtests in Fantasy Grounds and probability distribution functions in Excel to analyse the scenario. Regarding the PDFs, we must keep in mind elements that diverged from the playtests - 1) PDFs assume giants spend their whole time pounding the tank, every encounter, 2) PDFs assume the giants never attempt to move away, so things like BB extra damage and Sentinel never trigger. Finally, note that each giant wins initiative on about 1:4 occasions.
I feel the case to consider is the >50% point in the PDF, where on half of their adventuring days they take at least this many hits. We could consider the >90% point representing nearly every adventuring day, but from experience the 50/50 case is often telling. For BS that = 9 hits for 170 damage (includes 1 rock that hits prior to buffing). They can Shield 5 of these leaving 3 hits for 55 damage, easily managed by two Channel Divinity casts (which may as well be used since they recover per short rest). For Champion = 26 hits dealing 484 damage (includes 1 rock). Again choosing the >50% point, it is likely BS loses one Blur per day to a hit. If that is on round 4 it won't need to be recast, if on round 2 or 3 it will be.
A 6th Cleric can Cure perhaps 220 damage to a single character per day so Champion typically dies, while BS typically lives. Further, BS' Cleric usually ends the day with their 3rd level casts still available, while usually BS ends the day with all, or all bar one, of their 3rd level casts still available.
So far, Assertion 1 is sustained. @Ovinomancer suggests looking at EK, but we can see that EK won't beat BS until at least level 13, when they can maintain Blur all day. They can never cast enough Shields for that spell alone to matter.
For me, the reasonable next step is to lodge Assertion 1 as sustained for the time being, and move onto Assertion 3 i.e. create a scenario where BS needs to out-Wizard another Wizard. (Assertion 2 is sustained by maths: parties using the standard method typically will have one or more PCs with the needed arrays.)
@Mort can you propose a scenario for testing BS versus another Wizard? So that no one accuses me of cherry-picking down the line!
Last edited: