The final word on DPR, feats and class balance

[Eubani]

I wish the spell lists for casters were more defined and thematic entailing such things as to what the magic type could and could not do. More and more spells get added to spell lists over every edition and there just leaves them over loaded with utility. This is the imbalance that I worry about over the years as it effects not just between classes but in the adventures themselves. A good example is Wizard spell lists which has often been described as everything except healing (even that ground got covered by several spells over the editions). A character (and a type of caster) can be just as defined by what it cannot do as by what it can but it seems that already comprehensive spell lists keep growing and holes get plugged. Many people think shrug magic can and should be able to do anything but A. That is boring and kills challenge and B. Not in an individual spell list it should not.

 

[Ancalagon]

I wish the spell lists for casters were more defined and thematic entailing such things as to what the magic type could and could not do. More and more spells get added to spell lists over every edition and there just leaves them over loaded with utility. This is the imbalance that I worry about over the years as it effects not just between classes but in the adventures themselves. A good example is Wizard spell lists which has often been described as everything except healing (even that ground got covered by several spells over the editions). A character (and a type of caster) can be just as defined by what it cannot do as by what it can but it seems that already comprehensive spell lists keep growing and holes get plugged. Many people think shrug magic can and should be able to do anything but A. That is boring and kills challenge and B. Not in an individual spell list it should not.

I am, as a GM, much more fond of the way warhammer frpg (2nd ed) dealt with this aspect: a spell-caster had a few generic spells, and then each type of caster (priest of God X, wizard of the blue school) had a narrow spell list that was very thematic. It stopped the "I can solve any problem!" swiss army knife thing that some casters have going on...

 

[Tony Vargas]

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.

Sounds like a better fix for SS than for GWM. I suppose in a sense we're dealing with this mess because the first few attempts at a GWM bennie were shot down in the playtest. One was STR mod damage on a "miss" (a D&D miss can represent 'not penetrating armor,' so the GWM is good at hitting hard/square enough that it batters you a bit in spite of that), it was both a trivial damage boost in the final analysis, and wildly controversial in a way it wasn't when it was the Reaping Strike fighter at-will (when there was no way of mechanically drawing a line between intolerable-DoaM and mathematically-identical yet sacred-DoaSS). Another was re-rolling '1's which also proved trivial, and was given to GW/style/. Ultimately, the -5/+10 evoked 3e Power Attack, so made the cut. It just, inevitably, brought in the same issues as power attack. ::shrug::

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.

Not sure Sorcerers deserve a nerf, exactly.

I wish the spell lists for casters were more defined and thematic entailing such things as to what the magic type could and could not do. More and more spells get added to spell lists over every edition and there just leaves them over loaded with utility.

To be fair, 5e's slow pace of release has so far held out against the historical tendency towards ballooning spell lists.

 

[TwoSix]

Not sure Sorcerers deserve a nerf, exactly.

Not particularly, no. Doing illustrations on sorcerers is more indicative of the more extreme example of the sorlock than anything.

 

[Psikerlord#]

Worry not CapnZapp. WFRP 4e is almost here. Hopefully it'll be better than 5e.

 

[dco]

1) Agonizing blast IS unlimited.

2) As I showed above, sorcerers get enough sorcerer points to sustain them even through a 6 encounter day of 5 combat rounds each, if they're so inclined.

3) The argument isn't about casters, the argument is specifically about warlocks and sorcerers.

1- Yes, and the fighting style and a lot of other class features in the game. You should compare cantrips against weapon attacks for unlimited attack resources, if you are going to compare all the class do it against all the other class.
2- At level 20? Why would the sorcerer want to lose their best spells?
3- Yes, but other classes also have class features.

 

[TwoSix]

1- Yes, and the fighting style and a lot of other class features in the game. You should compare cantrips against weapon attacks for unlimited attack resources, if you are going to compare all the class do it against all the other class.
2- At level 20? Why would the sorcerer want to lose their best spells?
3- Yes, but other classes also have class features.

I feel as though your thesis is roughly the same as Sacrosanct's, and I feel like I've already engaged with it.

 

[Tony Vargas]

1 You should compare cantrips against weapon attacks for unlimited attack resources, if you are going to compare all the class do it against all the other class.
2- At level 20? Why would the sorcerer want to lose their best spells?
3- Yes, but other classes also have class features.

1- comes out even worse for the poor fighter. DPR is his thing, the class's features are overwhelmingly committed to or readily put into DPR, if he can't compete there (and, worse case, he's generally just being matched, not shown up), what chance does he have when those pesky non-combat pillars come up?
2 - They wouldn't want to, unless, for some reason, grinding out high DPR for 6 encounters that day seemed as good or better than casting the high-level spells they know. Admittedly, even with the Sorcerer's limited spells known, that might never happen - but the premise of the fighter being balanced with the sorcerer (never mind the Tier 1 casters) is that it /does/ happen, regularly.
3 - All classes are just varied collections of class features. When comparing two or three classes, the existence of other classes doesn't really make a huge difference, unless there's some synergies being taken into consideration, of course.

 

[Ovinomancer]

1- comes out even worse for the poor fighter. DPR is his thing, the class's features are overwhelmingly committed to or readily put into DPR, if he can't compete there (and, worse case, he's generally just being matched, not shown up), what chance does he have when those pesky non-combat pillars come up?
2 - They wouldn't want to, unless, for some reason, grinding out high DPR for 6 encounters that day seemed as good or better than casting the high-level spells they know. Admittedly, even with the Sorcerer's limited spells known, that might never happen - but the premise of the fighter being balanced with the sorcerer (never mind the Tier 1 casters) is that it /does/ happen, regularly.
3 - All classes are just varied collections of class features. When comparing two or three classes, the existence of other classes doesn't really make a huge difference, unless there's some synergies being taken into consideration, of course.

This follows a "DPR is king!" line, though. The fighter also has high AC, (mich) higher hp, and higher defenses in other areas (like grappling). The role of fighter is not just "be best at DPR," although good to very good at DPR is baked in.

 

[Tony Vargas]

This follows a "DPR is king!" line, though.

No, just no.

The DPR is King line goes:
"Fighters, Barbarians, & Paladins are so awesome! Why does anyone play anything else?" "Hey, Warlocks & Rogues are pretty good too...
... you can tweak a Sorcerer to be awesome, also." "Don't sell my wizard short, if I line up a few enemies in an area, bam, DPR through the roof!"
"Man, you gotta love this game..."

Zap's grousing aside, DPR and it's close equivalents, like hp/healing resources, are the more visible, more nearly-balanceable tip of the D&D iceberg, precisely because they are so easily calculated. If only DPR /were/ King, designing & running the game would be so much simpler! ;P

The fighter also has high AC, (mich) higher hp, and higher defenses in other areas (like grappling). The role of fighter is not just "be best at DPR," although good to very good at DPR is baked in.

The fighter's concept was articulated as "Best* at Fighting (with weapons)," and it's most dramatic class features - Extra Attack & Action Surge, both deliver on that via multi-attacking for relatively high DPR. It is, as we've both pointed out, baked in.
AC? hps? Plenty of classes meet or beat the Fighter, there. 'Other defenses?" The fighter has the same two save proficiencies, one important, one not so much, as most classes. The only significant, uniquely fighter feature that's not directly about DPR is Second Wind, and while it starts out pretty nice it doesn't scale fast enough to remain that significant for too long. Besides, hp & AC are just part of the DPR-dominated race to zero hps model of D&D, anyway. And that's only 1/3rd the story - the Combat Pillar - and not even nearly all of that.











* 'Best' in the 'best you can buy,' sense that no one else is provably /better/, not in the sense of being better than anyone else, necessarily.