The final word on DPR, feats and class balance

[Krachek]

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]

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.)

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.

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]

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]

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]

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]

Kensai is the way to go for a knife thrower.

 

[Sacrosanct]

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

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

 

[Oofta]

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.)

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.

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.

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!]

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]

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