The final word on DPR, feats and class balance

[hawkeyefan]

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).

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.

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]

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]

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]

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.

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

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?

"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]

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.

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]

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]

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.

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.

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....

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.

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.

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.

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]

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]

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]

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

Everybody forgets about my best friend, Poison Spray