The final word on DPR, feats and class balance

[AriochQ]

The main contribution of the fighter in D&D is defence (AKA tanking). This has always been the traditional role of the class. Wizard is the damage dealer.

In prior editions, this was the case. 5e Wizard is far better at Control than DPS, even with the inclusion of the concentration mechanic. The only place they really compete for DPS is AoE, but the lower level spells tend to do 'meh' damage and spell slots over 5 are almost never replenished, limiting how many times they can cast the really good AoE spells.

With a min/maxxed build, melee DPS is consistently high and uses very few resources. Specifically I am thinking of smiting pally's and sharpshooter hand crossbows.

The tanking role is usually either a very high AC character of almost any class, or a raging barbarian.

 

[Oofta]

Gee, didn't realize "DPR is King" is a trigger phrase!

What I was replying to was all those people who are dismissive of the increase to AC from dual wielder or using a shield. You know, that "other aspect" of a fighter. But saying "your AC will be lower" is met with "that doesn't matter" which then leads me to conclude that "DPR is King" but then I get "DPR IS NOT KING" which then means that AC does matter, but of course it doesn't only DPR matters but DPR is not king ...

Choose. Either DPR matters far more than AC which means that the DPR is King is a valid phrase or it's not. If it's not, then sword and board and dual weapon fighting are on equal if slightly different footing from GWM and we have no disagreement.

 

[Patrick McGill]

In prior editions, this was the case. 5e Wizard is far better at Control than DPS, even with the inclusion of the concentration mechanic. The only place they really compete for DPS is AoE, but the lower level spells tend to do 'meh' damage and spell slots over 5 are almost never replenished, limiting how many times they can cast the really good AoE spells.

With a min/maxxed build, melee DPS is consistently high and uses very few resources. Specifically I am thinking of smiting pally's and sharpshooter hand crossbows.

The tanking role is usually either a very high AC character of almost any class, or a raging barbarian.

That's been my experience as well. The optimisers I know, when not multiclassing, all use martials. Currently there's a gloom stalker in a game I'm playing in who's first turn nova outpaces my wizard almost every combat, because I'm trying to save slots and they don't have to. It's not multiclassed, the dude basically just has sharpshooter and that first turn is insane for them. This player regularly comes to the table with insane builds and almost all of them are some kind of fighter, rogue, or barbarian.

 

[Krachek]

25 pages.
The final word was not final at all!

 

[Oofta]

25 pages.
The final word was not final at all!

You misunderstood. [MENTION=12731]CapnZapp[/MENTION] has appointed himself as the authority and it was his final word. Obviously the rest of us are just misguided fools.

 

[TwoSix]

Gee, didn't realize "DPR is King" is a trigger phrase!

If you're going to reply, could you quote me next time? It's helpful to have notifications when you're in a bunch of threads.

Choose. Either DPR matters far more than AC which means that the DPR is King is a valid phrase or it's not. If it's not, then sword and board and dual weapon fighting are on equal if slightly different footing from GWM and we have no disagreement.

"DPR is a far more important build consideration than AC" is a good phrase. "DPR is King" is not.

That being said, building for AC is certainly feasible. If there was a feat that gave you +5 AC for -5 to hit, I would certainly also point out that feat as being problematic. At a functional level, I would point out that AC builds without some damage or control functions threaten to become irrelevant since enemies (particularly more intelligent ones) will simply avoid them to focus on the easier to hit targets. Being the only guy left standing after the fight is over because you can't be touched is kind of a pyrrhic victory.

And believe me, I wish we lived in a world where dual-wielding did similar damage to greatswords, or was a defensive/support build on par with sword-and-board. Sadly, it just isn't without some moderate house-ruling. Dual-wielding is still serving its penance for being too awesome in 2e.

 

[Dausuul]

"A knife thrower is going to be carrying many knives, probably in a bandolier. Those are not going to all be hidden."

Well, now we know why hidable knives arent a thing of merit or value in your games or in your white rooms.

If you're going to play a specialized knife thrower, unless you have magic knives that return to your hand, you're going to need a whole lot of knives. Say you have Extra Attack: Two regular throws, plus a bonus-action throw for dual wielding, is three per round. If the typical combat goes five rounds, that's fifteen knives! Concealing those on your person is not gonna be easy.

Now, if you are primarily a melee knife fighter, and occasionally throw your knives when you need a ranged attack, that's different. Even then, you probably want to carry at least five (enough for one full round of throwing, plus two so you can go back to stabbing next round), but that's a bit more reasonable to stow in your clothing somewhere.

 

[Oofta]

"DPR is a far more important build consideration than AC" is a good phrase. "DPR is King" is not.

I don't see why it makes a difference. As far as I'm concerned "DPR is King" is merely shorthand for "DPR is a far more important build consideration than AC".

I don't necessarily agree with either. I rarely see this problem in games I play and people that have (for example) sentinel feat would probably disagree that being a tank is a losing proposition. As stated above I had a lot of fun with my dual wielding rogue/fighter*.

I also think shooting for some hypothetical perfect balance is futile.

*Speaking of which, if I had to do it over again I probably take sentinel instead of sharp shooter. More chances to sneak attack? Yes please!

 

[TwoSix]

I don't see why it makes a difference. As far as I'm concerned "DPR is King" is merely shorthand for "DPR is a far more important build consideration than AC".

If you don't feel that "DPR is a far more important build consideration than AC" is a much more clear and precise phrase than "DPR is King", we're definitely at an impasse in communication. You do you, bro.

I don't necessarily agree with either. I rarely see this problem in games I play and people that have (for example) sentinel feat would probably disagree that being a tank is a losing proposition. As stated above I had a lot of fun with my dual wielding rogue/fighter*.

Well, sure, but that's because Sentinel isn't providing personal defense, it's providing threat and control to someone acting defensively. You know, like literally what I said in my last post.

Sentinel is absolutely a top-tier feat, especially for rogues. Sharpshooter isn't nearly as great for rogues because sneak attack strongly prioritizes landing hits. Getting a second sneak attack is way better than gambling for bigger hits.

I also think shooting for some hypothetical perfect balance is futile.

"Ah, but a man's reach should exceed his grasp, or what's the Seven Heavens for?"

 

[Sacrosanct]

It has that aspect as well, but I am going back to 1st edition, where the Magic User easily out-damaged all other classes (and out crowd-controlled most of them) in exchange for being extremely squishy and resource limited.

The wizard (which these days includes sorcerer and warlock) still out-damages other classes, but the margin is narrower, in exchange for not dying if a goblin sneezes on them.

I don't even know if they easily outdamaged other classes back in 1e. Maybe then they hit the teen levels, but not many made it that far. At 5th level, which too a bit of investment to get that high, you finally got your big damage spell: either fireball or lightning bolt. And that was only 5d6 damage at that point. And it was only one time per day. And that's assuming you passed your % to even learn it, and also assumes you weren't interrupted. That was a big thing in 1e: spell interruption. Every martial PC I saw carried around a bag of pebbles, just for that purpose. If the MU didn't go first, it was hard for them to even get a spell off because their AC was usually crappy as well and easy to hit with said handful of pebbles.

*edit* As an aside, and somewhat related, I could always tell the newer players of D&D, because when they played MUs, they always chose a spell like magic missile first. Sleep, and charm person were soooo much more valuable. To your point, crowd control was where 1e MUs really shined, and not damage like what people might assume by looking at higher level spells that did a crap ton of damage, like meteor swarm. iMO, I think the most powerful spell in 1e for it's level was stoneskin. "Spark!" still annoys me when I hear a DM say it