D&D 5E Non-Scaling Class Specialties: Why Choose Them?

[spongebob1138]

So, I'm still learning D&D 5E, and I'm reading through the classes in the PHB again. As I do so, I'm asking myself what choices I would make if I were going to play a fighter, cleric, etc. This leads me to ask: what would be the reasoning for taking a non-scaling class specialty? Let's look at the fighter, for example. In looking at the choices in fighting style, there are some choices that give you an absolute, non-scaling benefit (like a +1 to AC with Defense, or a +2 to damage with Dueling). In the case of Dueling, +2 damage seems pretty impactful at lower levels, but when you've significantly increased in level, is that increase really going to be as beneficial as a fighting style that isn't so dependent on an absolute number? Other classes have similar options, so my question is intended to apply more broadly to them, too.

Please keep in mind, I am still new to this and not a tactician or well-versed on the mathematics of it all. Just honestly curious why a person would choose a specialty of this type.

 

[spongebob1138]

PS: I'm assuming that with bounded accuracy, these non-scaling benefits might not be as seemingly limited as they seem. Having not played higher level characters yet, perhaps I just don't have the proper context...

 

[Rocksome]

I'm playing a 12 level Warlock that just multi-classed into fighter. For most of my career I wore Plate Armour (through feats) so I had an 18 AC. I chose the defensive fighting style and even at my level the benefit is significant.

 

[keterys]

Benefits to d20 rolls don't need to scale. +1 AC is 5% less chance to be hit at all levels.

+2 damage is more useful at 1st than 4th level it's true, but it does scale with extra attacks which the fighter can get many of, so it's still relatively solid.

The TWF benefit is the most lop-sided though. Fantastic at 1st level and meh as you go higher. But that's TWF in general in this edition.

 

[Minigiant]

So, I'm still learning D&D 5E, and I'm reading through the classes in the PHB again. As I do so, I'm asking myself what choices I would make if I were going to play a fighter, cleric, etc. This leads me to ask: what would be the reasoning for taking a non-scaling class specialty? Let's look at the fighter, for example. In looking at the choices in fighting style, there are some choices that give you an absolute, non-scaling benefit (like a +1 to AC with Defense, or a +2 to damage with Dueling). In the case of Dueling, +2 damage seems pretty impactful at lower levels, but when you've significantly increased in level, is that increase really going to be as beneficial as a fighting style that isn't so dependent on an absolute number? Other classes have similar options, so my question is intended to apply more broadly to them, too.

Please keep in mind, I am still new to this and not a tactician or well-versed on the mathematics of it all. Just honestly curious why a person would choose a specialty of this type.

AC doesn't scales with level nor is there an assumed AC threshold at certain levels. So any AC increase is good.

Damage bonuses scale with extra attacks. That's why Dueling fighting style and spells like Hunter's Mark are valid at high levels.

 

[FormerlyHemlock]

So, I'm still learning D&D 5E, and I'm reading through the classes in the PHB again. As I do so, I'm asking myself what choices I would make if I were going to play a fighter, cleric, etc. This leads me to ask: what would be the reasoning for taking a non-scaling class specialty? Let's look at the fighter, for example. In looking at the choices in fighting style, there are some choices that give you an absolute, non-scaling benefit (like a +1 to AC with Defense, or a +2 to damage with Dueling). In the case of Dueling, +2 damage seems pretty impactful at lower levels, but when you've significantly increased in level, is that increase really going to be as beneficial as a fighting style that isn't so dependent on an absolute number? Other classes have similar options, so my question is intended to apply more broadly to them, too.

Please keep in mind, I am still new to this and not a tactician or well-versed on the mathematics of it all. Just honestly curious why a person would choose a specialty of this type.

A few points:

1.) Sometimes people make genuinely suboptimal choices, for reasons good or bad.

2.) Some people don't plan to play PCs beyond mid-levels, so scaling isn't as big a deal.

3.) Yes, bounded accuracy makes those bonuses much rarer and more important. +1 to AC is a big deal in a game where it's hard to get better than AC 21, especially if your DM is like me and intends to keep using large quantities of low-CR monsters as a staple throughout the whole campaign. Against a monster with +4 to hit, AC 20 => 21 is a solid 16% reduction in damage including crit effects, and for a character who's got Blur or similar up it is an even more solid 30% reduction in damage. (Against hobgoblins with Martial Advantage in play, a dodging AC 20 guy will take about 0.5 damage per hobgoblin per round; the dodging AC 21 guy will take 0.3.)

Similarly, Archery Style's +2, when combined with Sharpshooter, is a big deal in 5E.

4.) If you think Dueling isn't a great pick, I agree with you. It's a compromise which lets you do moderate damage while still using a shield, but I'd rather take Defense style or Archery, depending on whether I intended to specialize in Sharpshooting or not. Melee specialization just isn't that attractive in 5E.

 

[steeldragons]

You choose them for the same reason you choose anything else about your character...because it fits for the character you want to play.

Regardless of math or optimization, is it something/does it fit to your concept of this character? Does it make your character "better" in your eyes?

Now, before anyone wants to raise the "One True Wayism/Edition War" alarum, this applies to EVERYone! All powergamers and optimizers, as well.

If your [the general "you", not any one in particular] concept of what is a "better" character, in your eyes, is the one with the highest numbers and/or more powerful/optimized...so, obviously, for you, you might NOT choose something that doesn't scale. Because you don't want to. It does not "improve" your character in the way you prefer/want. And that's just fine, according to your playstyle.

I, obviously, come from a different style preference/perspective that puts more emphasis on the character's story and "in-world reality." So the fact something scales or not is really completely irrelevant to whether I want/see my character as this/that or not.

But the root of the answer to the question posed remains the same for anyone. You choose something because it fits the vision you have of the character you want/how you want your character to be. That's why you choose ANY option for your PC.

It is a matter of what you value/how you see your character that will sway your choices. That can include being a "tactician" or "being well-versed in the mathematics" as much or as little as you want it to.

 

[FormerlyHemlock]

Benefits to d20 rolls don't need to scale. +1 AC is 5% less chance to be hit at all levels.

This way of thinking is foreign to me. Generally the only time I would care about raw hit percentages is in large battles, where I'm choosing to bring large numbers of chaff troops or small numbers of elites. In that case, yes, raw percentage times number of troops indeed equals total DPR. But for a fixed number of PCs, damage ratios are usually more useful. If my AC is 21 and the enemy has +6 to hit (Minotaurs, Stygian Skeletons), he hits 6 times in 20. If I can boost my AC to 23 via Shield of Faith, he hits 4 times in 20. Neglecting crit effects and status effects (they roughly cancel each other out), in loss ratio terms that is similar to boosting my own damage output by 50%, and I did it with a single first level bonus action spell! On the other hand, against an adult red dragon with +14 to hit it is only equivalent to a 7% boost, even on the rounds where the dragon melees instead of using his breath weapon. It's the same raw percentage boost in both cases, but context makes it perform very differently.

Raw percentage doesn't matter very much.

 

[keterys]

This way of thinking is foreign to me.

And yet, in your example, your +2 to AC made a difference of exactly 2 hits +1 would have meant 1 hit. +3 would have meant 3 hits. All due to the magic of percentages.

You _can_ turn AC and hp and enemy damage into an effective # of turns, but that's actually very tricky. Heck, at that point you might want to also factor in advantage and disadvantage. Also, in my experience high AC characters tend to just get hit by other stuff (ex: dragon breaths) and low AC characters tend to get mobbed.

So, sticking with the basic concept of +1 AC changes "40% chance to be hit" to "35% chance to be hit" is really pretty solid. And it still applies across all levels, and gets the point across. 3e was full of stuff that scaled like mad, and it really screwed up people's expectations for bonuses. I ran into that with 4e as well. "Of course it needs to add stat to defenses. +9 to defenses at epic is fine!"

One caveat: if you focus like mad on AC, it's possible that +1 AC won't matter against a subset of your opponents. It'll still matter against many of them, and honestly if you've hit that point you should probably invest in something else for a bit for the sake of the game.

 

[FormerlyHemlock]

And yet, in your example, your +2 to AC made a difference of exactly 2 hits +1 would have meant 1 hit. +3 would have meant 3 hits. All due to the magic of percentages.

Where are you getting these absolute numbers from? I never said whether it was 3 Stygian Skeletons or 11. It could be the difference between 6 hits and 4 hits, or 60 hits and 40 hits.

You _can_ turn AC and hp and enemy damage into an effective # of turns, but that's actually very tricky. Heck, at that point you might want to also factor in advantage and disadvantage. Also, in my experience high AC characters tend to just get hit by other stuff (ex: dragon breaths) and low AC characters tend to get mobbed.

So, sticking with the basic concept of +1 AC changes "40% chance to be hit" to "35% chance to be hit" is really pretty solid.

You don't need to turn it into an effective number of turns--it is sufficient for many analyses to simply compute the effect on loss ratios, or even in some cases simply the reduction in damage taken. And computing relative damage reduction is easy! Your argument boils down to "computing advantage and disadvantage is too hard." I don't find it as difficult as you do, so I'll take the more-useful metric over the easy-to-compute metric every day of the week when it comes to computing things like "should I use my polearm or a shield against these foes", "should I Reckless Attack or not?" and "will Blur or Haste be more effective in this situation?"

And it still applies across all levels, and gets the point across. 3e was full of stuff that scaled like mad, and it really screwed up people's expectations for bonuses. I ran into that with 4e as well. "Of course it needs to add stat to defenses. +9 to defenses at epic is fine!"

One caveat: if you focus like mad on AC, it's possible that +1 AC won't matter against a subset of your opponents. It'll still matter against many of them, and honestly if you've hit that point you should probably invest in something else for a bit for the sake of the game.

It doesn't get the point across. Raw percentage bonus is a lossy metric which will lead you to make suboptimal decisions.