The final word on DPR, feats and class balance

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.

Click to expand...

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.

Click to expand...

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.

Click to expand...

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.

Oofta said:

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

Click to expand...

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.

Click to expand...

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.

Click to expand...

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.

Click to expand...

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.

Click to expand...

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.

Click to expand...

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).

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.

Click to expand...

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,"

Click to expand...

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.

Click to expand...

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.

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>

Some limitations and differences are there for some sense of a model, however loose it may be.

<snip>

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.

Click to expand...

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.

Click to expand...

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.

Click to expand...

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!

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!

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?)

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.

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!

Click to expand...

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.

Warpiglet said:

This is a well thought out and reasoned post.

Click to expand...

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.

Click to expand...

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.

Click to expand...

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!)

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!

Click to expand...

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.

Click to expand...

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".

Warpiglet said:

The fact that we mostly have normal assumptions about gravity

Click to expand...

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.

Click to expand...

My classic-AD&D Bohemian Ear-Spoon disagrees!

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.

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.)

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!)

Click to expand...

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.

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!"

Click to expand...

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