D&D 5E Observations

[CapnZapp]

Yeah, my concerns in this regard can be summed up with the following:

If you play a martial character, your job is to survive enemy contact ("tank") and output damage ("strike"). Once your build is at (or reasonably near) the top in these two essential areas, then roleplay and characterization enters the picture.

What this means is that roleplay and describing your PCs personality and appearance IS important.

As long as it doesn't cost you mechanical effiency.

Ideally, then, all of the below would be available as comparable builds:
* the charismatic swashbuckler, fighting with a rapier and a cape
* the honorable knight, fighting with a sword and a shield
* the gruff ranger, fighting with two scimitars
* the overbearing barbarian, fighting with a greataxe
* the laconic war veteran, fighting with a halberd
and so on, you get the picture

Now, without feats, I've gathered that the forums consider most or all of these options roughly comparable - in damage output at least.

But enter feats, and you'll observe two main things:
* since two-weapon fighting uses up your bonus action, the gruff ranger cannot take advantage of most combat feats (notably the "cleave" mechanism)
* there exists a few weapons that work with BOTH Great Weapon AND Polearm Master: reach heavy weapons.

Now, as I've discussed earlier, there seems to be two ways to combat survivability that overshadow all others: getting a stratospheric AC and getting significantly more HP.

In our analysis, this means that you have no business being a melee combatant unless you either 1) sport AC 20 or thereabouts (which means Full Plate) or 2) sport significantly more HP.

Note that 1) can obviously be achieved by a Fighter and not only by the Paladin class my player chose. But it is hard to pass up the wealth of survival tricks given to the Paladin for a player not frightened by system complexity. (Especially +Cha to saving throws!!). One concern about the high-AC tank build is that it is not unreasonable for the DM to have foes that find that they are unable to hit switch targets to the squishies; which severely undermines the concept (yes, I know about the Sentinel feat).

In regards to 2) we haven't yet explored taking the maximum-Con Durable build. However, the rules offer something that is probably even better: near universal damage reduction given by the Bear Barbarian. The reason damage reduction is better is of course because it DOUBLES the effectiveness of healing spells. And don't underestimate the psychological effect of having mediocre AC: it ensures foes will want to attack you instead of the squishies.

Back to my example builds:

It is, to my mind, exceedingly hard to justify playing "charismatic swashbuckler" or "gruff ranger" given that these archetypes can't fully make use of the feats given in the PHB and that they offer only HALF DURABILITY* compared to maximized-AC or maximized-HP builds. (One way of stating this would be: "what were the designers thinking of when they allowed AC 20+ builds and near-universal damage reduction builds in the same game where it's easy to end up with bard or ranger or "flamboyant fighter" stats)

*) my very rough estimation. If we can agree "AC 20 roughly means being hit half as often as AC 16" and "damage reduction means twice the hp", we should be able to agree to this estimate too.

I can't overstate my hopes that the Sword Coast book will contain more feats that:
1) specifically can't be used by a heavy weapon user
2) but can be used by "light" combatants like above
3) also: boosts spellcaster might - especially single target control spells feel a wee bit too nerfed in this edition. But damage too: it's somewhat disheartening to realize that your at-will cantrips do less than half the damage of a properly built fighter and that the only way you are able to compete is by getting above-average output of your top spells such as fireball....!

Barring that, I might have to ask my players to VOLUNTARILY abstain from damage reduction and full plate and the GWM/PM combo, just to be able to enjoy Out of the Abyss as a campaign with at least minimal challenge. (Without me having to significantly boost the foes that is).

In a world without these two build paths with the GWM, PM (and SS I guess) feats, spellcasters should also feel more appreciated.

 

[Azurewraith]

3) also: boosts spellcaster might - especially single target control spells feel a wee bit too nerfed in this edition. But damage too: it's somewhat disheartening to realize that your at-will cantrips do less than half the damage of a properly built fighter and that the only way you are able to compete is by getting above-average output of your top spells such as fireball....!

Read more: http://www.enworld.org/forum/showthread.php?467487-Observations/page7#ixzz3kTziZQWV

Inst that the point of spell casters though? or the balance rather is that they can do ridiculous things like meteor swarm and upscaled FBs but they run out of steam. Where as the martial guy does more consistent damage. Theres also the utility of teleporting and flying and becoming ethereal and dominating some ones mind to offset some damage

 

[Psikerlord#]

Yeah, my concerns in this regard can be summed up with the following:

If you play a martial character, your job is to survive enemy contact ("tank") and output damage ("strike"). Once your build is at (or reasonably near) the top in these two essential areas, then roleplay and characterization enters the picture.

What this means is that roleplay and describing your PCs personality and appearance IS important.

As long as it doesn't cost you mechanical effiency.

Ideally, then, all of the below would be available as comparable builds:
* the charismatic swashbuckler, fighting with a rapier and a cape
* the honorable knight, fighting with a sword and a shield
* the gruff ranger, fighting with two scimitars
* the overbearing barbarian, fighting with a greataxe
* the laconic war veteran, fighting with a halberd
and so on, you get the picture

Now, without feats, I've gathered that the forums consider most or all of these options roughly comparable - in damage output at least.

But enter feats, and you'll observe two main things:
* since two-weapon fighting uses up your bonus action, the gruff ranger cannot take advantage of most combat feats (notably the "cleave" mechanism)
* there exists a few weapons that work with BOTH Great Weapon AND Polearm Master: reach heavy weapons.

Now, as I've discussed earlier, there seems to be two ways to combat survivability that overshadow all others: getting a stratospheric AC and getting significantly more HP.

In our analysis, this means that you have no business being a melee combatant unless you either 1) sport AC 20 or thereabouts (which means Full Plate) or 2) sport significantly more HP.

Note that 1) can obviously be achieved by a Fighter and not only by the Paladin class my player chose. But it is hard to pass up the wealth of survival tricks given to the Paladin for a player not frightened by system complexity. (Especially +Cha to saving throws!!). One concern about the high-AC tank build is that it is not unreasonable for the DM to have foes that find that they are unable to hit switch targets to the squishies; which severely undermines the concept (yes, I know about the Sentinel feat).

In regards to 2) we haven't yet explored taking the maximum-Con Durable build. However, the rules offer something that is probably even better: near universal damage reduction given by the Bear Barbarian. The reason damage reduction is better is of course because it DOUBLES the effectiveness of healing spells. And don't underestimate the psychological effect of having mediocre AC: it ensures foes will want to attack you instead of the squishies.

Back to my example builds:

It is, to my mind, exceedingly hard to justify playing "charismatic swashbuckler" or "gruff ranger" given that these archetypes can't fully make use of the feats given in the PHB and that they offer only HALF DURABILITY* compared to maximized-AC or maximized-HP builds. (One way of stating this would be: "what were the designers thinking of when they allowed AC 20+ builds and near-universal damage reduction builds in the same game where it's easy to end up with bard or ranger or "flamboyant fighter" stats)

*) my very rough estimation. If we can agree "AC 20 roughly means being hit half as often as AC 16" and "damage reduction means twice the hp", we should be able to agree to this estimate too.

I can't overstate my hopes that the Sword Coast book will contain more feats that:
1) specifically can't be used by a heavy weapon user
2) but can be used by "light" combatants like above
3) also: boosts spellcaster might - especially single target control spells feel a wee bit too nerfed in this edition. But damage too: it's somewhat disheartening to realize that your at-will cantrips do less than half the damage of a properly built fighter and that the only way you are able to compete is by getting above-average output of your top spells such as fireball....!

Barring that, I might have to ask my players to VOLUNTARILY abstain from damage reduction and full plate and the GWM/PM combo, just to be able to enjoy Out of the Abyss as a campaign with at least minimal challenge. (Without me having to significantly boost the foes that is).

In a world without these two build paths with the GWM, PM (and SS I guess) feats, spellcasters should also feel more appreciated.

Much is fixed by simply substituting the -5/+10 mechanic in GWM and SS with +1 stat. Try that. Worked well for us. We also deleted the bit in CE about not suffering disad when shooting whilst in melee.

 

[ExploderWizard]

Inst that the point of spell casters though? or the balance rather is that they can do ridiculous things like meteor swarm and upscaled FBs but they run out of steam. Where as the martial guy does more consistent damage. Theres also the utility of teleporting and flying and becoming ethereal and dominating some ones mind to offset some damage

That is how I see it. Magic can produce some effects that martial characters simply cannot do, that is why its magic. If you give casters the ability the churn out consistent damage equal to the martial types AND retain their ability to perform the cool utility and special effects spells, well we have seen that in action. It was 3E.

 

[Azurewraith]

That is how I see it. Magic can produce some effects that martial characters simply cannot do, that is why its magic. If you give casters the ability the churn out consistent damage equal to the martial types AND retain their ability to perform the cool utility and special effects spells, well we have seen that in action. It was 3E.

Oh 3e how I miss casting infinite fireballs from 300ft in tgr air with my readied dimension door to take me away

 

[Wolf118]

Yeah, but GWM is literally doing nothing for him. On rounds when he crits or downs someone, he gets... the same bonus action attack that he always gets from dual wielding.

He's multi-functional. He can use his twin rapiers, or pick up a great axe and be as effective. The point was that was HIS choice as a player, to be multi-functional. As opposed to my example of the player who focused on ranged attacks, this guy wanted to be effective with any melee weapon. Well, except polearms. He doesn't want PM. The point is player agency; let them pick the way they want to build their concept. It shouldn't matter what you think, as long as it's legal and acceptable to the table. Then work on magic items that will help them with their concept.

The ranged guy from my example earlier; he came up with a crossbow concept involving creating its own bolts. He and I worked on a crossbow variation of a sun sword which did radiant damage. We gave it a name, and he knows a little of the backstory. But there's more to its history, and one of the undead BBEG is very interested in removing that weapon from the world (kind of a reverse Fellowship of the Ring situation). And little does he know that the magic for creating those bolts has to come from somewhere...

 

[Ahrimon]

Players can easily get focused on a bit of a theme for their character. In my case I'm playing a dwarven war cleric and I wanted to go sheild and hammer. The DM dangled a very (VERY) nice magical greatsword in front of me, but I stuck with my non-magical hammer because it's how I saw my character. I have some ideas for a greatsword warrior that I would pass on a magical shield or 1h weapon.

Removing the -5/+10 would go a long way's towards not locking a character into a specific weapon. GWM would now basically be the cleave feat. SS would pretty much still be the sharpshooter but good for all ranged attacks. This leaves PM master as a the prime offender. I'm not sure what to do with that one. As far as GWM's cleave not being very good for a dual weilder, the Dual Weilder feat doesn't work for a sword and board player and the shield master feat isn't good for anyone without a shield. Part of feats is specialization so I don't know what could be done to make feats so generic that they work for any combat style choice. But at least modifying the -5/+10 part of the feats works for two of the three top offenders.

Last session our TWF fighter and moon druid were absent and we added a 2nd ranged rogue (assassin) and an invoker wizard and I have to say our capabilities weren't affected at all. The wizard tore stuff up with some lightning bolts and the assassin took out a few key enemies quickly. We don't have any enhancing/buffing/control characters, but the arcane trickster has used tasha's to great affect a few times.

 

[CapnZapp]

Inst that the point of spell casters though? or the balance rather is that they can do ridiculous things like meteor swarm and upscaled FBs but they run out of steam. Where as the martial guy does more consistent damage. Theres also the utility of teleporting and flying and becoming ethereal and dominating some ones mind to offset some damage

You're shifting the subject.

Of course the "point of spell casters" is to cast all those spells.

What the point of spell casters is not, however, is being given a 2d10 cantrip when the martials routinely dish out 30 damage.

Compared to an average fighter sporting AC 16-18 and dealing 1d10+5 damage with a longsword, a d10 cantrip looks reasonable.

But why would you play an average fighter when you can play one dealing almost 50% more damage?

And to arrive at the point: there is no way (that I have found) to boost spell damage by an comparable amount. Yes, a fireball catching a full squad of enemies without a single ally is still awesome, but that happens perhaps once.

Out of a workday of perhaps thirty combat rounds.

Don't read my posts as saying "spellcasters are bad". Compared to feat-less fighters and non-optimized fighters I believe they work great.

 

[Azurewraith]

You're shifting the subject.

Of course the "point of spell casters" is to cast all those spells.

What the point of spell casters is not, however, is being given a 2d10 cantrip when the martials routinely dish out 30 damage.

Compared to an average fighter sporting AC 16-18 and dealing 1d10+5 damage with a longsword, a d10 cantrip looks reasonable.

But why would you play an average fighter when you can play one dealing almost 50% more damage?

And to arrive at the point: there is no way (that I have found) to boost spell damage by an comparable amount. Yes, a fireball catching a full squad of enemies without a single ally is still awesome, but that happens perhaps once.

Out of a workday of perhaps thirty combat rounds.

Don't read my posts as saying "spellcasters are bad". Compared to feat-less fighters and non-optimized fighters I believe they work great.

Oh I didn't think you were saying spell casters are bad or meaning to shift subjects. I was trying to argue no not argue that sounds aggressive debate sounds a bit better is that a martials damge is that just static where as a caster can get significant spikes also they get all those utility spells that make certain things trivial.

 

[Wolf118]

Yeah, my concerns in this regard can be summed up with the following:

If you play a martial character, your job is to survive enemy contact ("tank") and output damage ("strike"). Once your build is at (or reasonably near) the top in these two essential areas, then roleplay and characterization enters the picture.

What this means is that roleplay and describing your PCs personality and appearance IS important.

As long as it doesn't cost you mechanical effiency.

Ideally, then, all of the below would be available as comparable builds:
* the charismatic swashbuckler, fighting with a rapier and a cape
* the honorable knight, fighting with a sword and a shield
* the gruff ranger, fighting with two scimitars
* the overbearing barbarian, fighting with a greataxe
* the laconic war veteran, fighting with a halberd
and so on, you get the picture

Now, without feats, I've gathered that the forums consider most or all of these options roughly comparable - in damage output at least.

But enter feats, and you'll observe two main things:
* since two-weapon fighting uses up your bonus action, the gruff ranger cannot take advantage of most combat feats (notably the "cleave" mechanism)
* there exists a few weapons that work with BOTH Great Weapon AND Polearm Master: reach heavy weapons.

Now, as I've discussed earlier, there seems to be two ways to combat survivability that overshadow all others: getting a stratospheric AC and getting significantly more HP.

In our analysis, this means that you have no business being a melee combatant unless you either 1) sport AC 20 or thereabouts (which means Full Plate) or 2) sport significantly more HP.

Note that 1) can obviously be achieved by a Fighter and not only by the Paladin class my player chose. But it is hard to pass up the wealth of survival tricks given to the Paladin for a player not frightened by system complexity. (Especially +Cha to saving throws!!). One concern about the high-AC tank build is that it is not unreasonable for the DM to have foes that find that they are unable to hit switch targets to the squishies; which severely undermines the concept (yes, I know about the Sentinel feat).

In regards to 2) we haven't yet explored taking the maximum-Con Durable build. However, the rules offer something that is probably even better: near universal damage reduction given by the Bear Barbarian. The reason damage reduction is better is of course because it DOUBLES the effectiveness of healing spells. And don't underestimate the psychological effect of having mediocre AC: it ensures foes will want to attack you instead of the squishies.

Back to my example builds:

It is, to my mind, exceedingly hard to justify playing "charismatic swashbuckler" or "gruff ranger" given that these archetypes can't fully make use of the feats given in the PHB and that they offer only HALF DURABILITY* compared to maximized-AC or maximized-HP builds. (One way of stating this would be: "what were the designers thinking of when they allowed AC 20+ builds and near-universal damage reduction builds in the same game where it's easy to end up with bard or ranger or "flamboyant fighter" stats)

*) my very rough estimation. If we can agree "AC 20 roughly means being hit half as often as AC 16" and "damage reduction means twice the hp", we should be able to agree to this estimate too.

In a world without these two build paths with the GWM, PM (and SS I guess) feats, spellcasters should also feel more appreciated.

Cap, I think you're overestimating the effects of GWM, SS, and PM in comparison to other feat and fighting style combos. Here are some examples:

* the charismatic swashbuckler, fighting with a rapier and a cape - Take the Defense or Dueling fighting style, and Defensive Duelist feat or the Mobile feat; Result is increased AC (either straight +1 or proficiency bonus), +2 to damage, and/or the ability to negate specific opportunity attacks; end result is a guy harder to hit
* the honorable knight, fighting with a sword and a shield - Take the Defense, Protection, or Dueling fighting style, and Heavy Armor Master feat. Result is +1 to AC or +2 to damage or protecting an ally, with DR 3; end result is a good front line fighter who can last longer and protect allies
* the gruff ranger, fighting with two scimitars - Take the 2W fighting style and Duel Wielder; Result is +1 AC, higher damage dice (d8 vs d6), extra attack

In our group, none of the players who have GWM or SS have ever used the -5/+10 option; they want more of a guaranteed hit. For that matter, when I play my half-orc greataxe fighter, I don't use it. It's too risky, unless I know I'm fighting something with a low AC. But even then, a missed attack is lost damage. Why would I sacrifice 25% off my to-hit for 10 points of damage, when I know 2 hits in a row with my greataxe does an average of 10 points (my character with an 18 Str)? I can achieve that 10 points with that second hit, which I know has a much better chance than a GWM-optioned swing.

Note that the duel-wielding ranger should be an effective damage dealer, given that 2W fighting allows adding a static bonus (and with a fighter that should be 3 or more) on that attack, and it gives him one more attack than the GWF style. 2 attacks with a d8+3 vs 1 attack with a d12+3; higher average and higher maximum goes to the 2W style.