The final word on DPR, feats and class balance

[pemerton]

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!

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.

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

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