The final word on DPR, feats and class balance

[5ekyu]

What's your view as to the number of concealed knives a knife-thrower can carry, draw and throw?

If a typical 5e combat last 4 rounds, and the fighter takes an action surge as well, that's 5 knives needed to make it through on combat (before we get to any bonus action posibilities). Do you think a character can have five concealed knives on his/her person?

In any event, I'm happy to hear all your warstories about D&D characters assassinating their powerful enemies with a single concelaed knife.

Its amazing how easy it must be to invent claims or request stories on things not ever claimed.

Is themus the OMMI version of "have you stopped cheating on your wife" type argumentation.

It is so very convincing.

As for how many knives can be concealed, it should go without saying that it will vary by character and situation.

Common examples in a variety of source materials for the genre would suggest boots, sleeves, small of back and neck as likely hiding places for small stright blades for use thrown or stab-stab.

But, turn it into carrying in a basket of baked goods, a dozen roses, and that number can go up.

The great axe is a tad more difficult.

But, you also seem to be assuming all thrown , well that makes sense since assumption to support desired conclusion seems the hallmark of the white room excel analysis methodology.

But, hey, all this is moot, right... Since it was already decreed from on high the bandolier would be used.

In white rooms that is, i guess.

 

[Warpiglet]

And if DPR were King, the fighter would be King, or at least still Lord @9th or Baronet or something...

That's pretty fair, really. In 2nd, the fighter got a big boost in damage if they (ab)used specialization correctly, while some spells got damage caps, and each edition has loosened the limitations on casters (more spells, at-will spells, concentration check to avoid interruption, removing interruption entirely, easier handling of components, etc, etc... by 4e there were virtually no meaningful limitations on casting, ranged/area spells provoked just like ranged attacks was the main one - in 5e, that's gone - and don't start on 'Concentration' so some spells have a duration of 'concentration,' just like some 1e spells did, and much like 4e 'sustain' spells but without an action required to do so, just, if they'd be broken in 5e, you get a roll to keep 'em going, anyway).

The wizard has been both those, and a major damage-dealer, and pretty near whatever else it wanted, through much of D&D's history. 4e tried to constrain the wizard to 'controller,' but even that was a muddy, double-dipped role that included area blasting, battlefield control (walls, zones &c), and direct 'hard' control - /and/ free access to the utility kit of Rituals.

AC, hps, & DPR are all part of the same race-to-0-hps of simplistic combat analysis. And, yes, DPR is the biggest baddest variable in that calculation (well, really attacks/round is). That doesn't make it King, the local petty robber-Baron, perhaps, whom the actual King (magic) can dispatch at a moment's notice. ;P

Seriously, though, the point is that the swing you can get in DPR with weapon, style & feat choices is a lot more significant than the +1 hp/level for having a d10 instead of d8 or the +1 AC from a shield.

It's just math.
/Very simple/ math. ;|


What? Like Combat Expertise?

OK. If we take this analysis at face value we are hearing that AC and hit points matter. Maybe not as much in combat as DPR, but they matter.

Let me throw this out there. What about DISADVANTAGE?! Many of the spells that "force" fighters to take feats to keep up will be at disadvantage to hit. If you do not take feats as a caster, isn't THIS a balancing factor?

In 1e you would be unwise to travel as an M-U without fighters or at least retainers!

In the current game the damage that spellcasters do are often predicated on cover from a hard target OR Warcaster, etc.

The argument in the OP is that you MUST take feats to catch up. I am arguing feats are the reason you are believing that sorcerers etc. are so potent on their own to begin with. If you drop feats the high AC, high HP fighter with at will damage that cannot be mitigated with disadvantage by mere proximity to foes is very valuable, has a niche and does not fall short of the cantrip wielder.

Rather, like 1e AD&D, the spell caster has a important relationship with the fighter and such that you will be twinning fire bolt and hoping one hits instead of assuming they both hit without the cover of a fighter.

 

[5ekyu]

Perhaps it was not directly stated. However, much of the OP is saying it is extremely important. I just looked again.

Also there are numerous supporting arguments pushing the notion that the linkage between higher dwa turns into faster kills with the solid implication that leads to success... Unless we are to believe this is arguing for these feats and high dpr being a losing strategy

But i just used dwa for damage. when attacking because what "dpr".is easy to confuse with is say the difference between the damage per round in white room vs sack of hit points *or* in overly simplistic non-tactical slugfests as (where no loses due to easy counters or common circumstances are figured) vs say adpe or actual damage per encounter where the rounds you dont get the boost or dont get to attack etc is a factor.

 

[Tony Vargas]

OK. If we take this analysis at face value we are hearing that AC and hit points matter. Maybe not as much in combat as DPR, but they matter.

Let me throw this out there. What about DISADVANTAGE?!

In the kind of simplistic analysis in question, the assumption would probably be that Advantage is so easy to get, that Disadvantage would be canceled out.

Many of the spells that "force" fighters to take feats to keep up will be at disadvantage to hit. If you do not take feats as a caster, isn't THIS a balancing factor?

You mean cantrip? No spell should ever be cast 'at disadvantage,' if you'd have disadvantage, force a save, instead.
I suppose the SS has to be concerned about Disadvantage from an adjacent enemy - the ones that reach him alive, anyway... so, to Keep It Stupidly Simplistic, run SS vs Caster DPR.

In 1e you would be unwise to travel as an M-U without fighters or at least retainers!

In 1e, yes, at low level, especially. 2e also, though even in 1e & 2e, the 'need' for the fighter waned as the MU got his own henchpersons, Golems, or whatever... (and, to be fair, Fighters like Robilar acquired their own MU henches).
3.x/PF/4e/5e, not s'much. Wizards have gotten less limited/vulnerable and more durable/versatile as the game evolved.

The argument in the OP is that you MUST take feats to catch up. I am arguing feats are the reason you are believing that sorcerers etc. are so potent on their own to begin with.

The high DPR caster builds in question were based on MCing, not feats. Thus the idea the feats were 'needed' to stay ahead - and staying ahead, of course, is needed to compensate for the greater versatility of casters, in the first place, since there /is/ more to it than DPR...

 

[5ekyu]

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.

You know, in some games, there are times when you need to conceal weapons and times when you dont.

In the former, the ability to conceal 3-6 of your primary weapons which can work for melee or range is a very good thing. Those are rarely however white rooms against sacks of hp bound up in excel sheets.

In the latter, non-hidden bandoliers can give you,more freedom with your uses.

But we know from prior posts the latter are the cases apparently that some games or analysis may only ever consider since bandoliers *will* be carried.

 

[Oofta]

And if DPR were King, the fighter would be King, or at least still Lord @9th or Baronet or something...

I'm not sure whether or not there is a big difference between the styles on anything other than a spreadsheet in the campaigns I've been involved with. But even if there is (and I'm not saying there's not) I don't think it's a big issue. One person's huge difference is another person's negligible 2% increase in average damage that doesn't really matter in the long run.

In addition, everything is a tradeoff. Take an ASI or heavy armor master, sentinel or something else that makes sense to your PC. Maybe you've been facing things that require reflex saves and you take Resistance and Shield Master.

It's overly simplistic to boil this argument down one or two numbers. While I know that's all some people care about (and there's nothing wrong with that), it's not for many people. For people that care, there will always be 1 or 2 builds that on paper are optimal. For those that don't care, this is just one more boring argument that never, ever ends.

 

[Tony Vargas]

It is interesting to read some of the different takes on this thread. It would be interesting to know how some posters would summarize the OP position in three or four lines. It seems clear to me.

"Play Pathfinder?"

OK, seriously, though, something like: "5e's pretty good, but it needs more feats to support weapon styles other than two-handers & archery, and the monsters need to be way lots more challenging, 'cause it's just not up to our l33t skillz."

...I'm sorry, I tried to be serious, but it was too hard.
I need a 'Take Thread Seriously' feat... or a higher Deceit check.

The only outlier is a forge cleric who takes spells and has scavenged splint in order to have a fabulous AC.

"...takes spells...?" Huh? As opposed to giving them?

... oh, preps spells & uses slots to maximize his AC...

Unless they just hate the system and want to return to an earlier one...in which case it would be great if those books were still around (I would part with mine for cheap as an aside!).

PF's still being published & PF2's in the works, so it's not for lack of popular D&D-alternatives with moar options.

Is that the final word?

The Final Word is a broadsword.

 

[Wiseblood]

There's way too many threads and retreads about this subject.

Let me once and for all state the beef about all of this.

In the beginning there is the fighting man, doing 1d8+5 with his sword once per round (and more often at higher levels).

This is the baseline I feel monsters are built for.

This is also my ideal game. No matter your archetype, you will deal comparable damage. If you give up a shield, you gain an appropriate damage bonus. This might be upping the damage die to d12 (which really is 2 less AC for 2 more damage). It might mean slightly more than that. It does not mean upping your damage maximum by 10 and getting pretty frequent bonus attacks.

If you are a frail combatant you are compensated. Either by getting relatively few big-punch actions (ie spells), or getting more damage (to explain why the party lets in a weak chain; ie rogues)

Fighting with a sickle, two clubs, a halberd... it's mostly a fashion statement. Sure historically better weapons could give you a slight nod, but not so much that players feel they have to stick with only a few weapons. If a "good" weapon gives you a point extra damage over a "cool" weapon, that's enough to flag real life. Much more than that, and you're asking cool concepts to sacrifice basic utility just for show.

---

Problem #1 is, any group of reasonably experienced D&D gamers create characters with MUCH more damage than that.

The 5th edition PHB is MUCH more generous with various goodies that allow PCs to run circles around monsters and play with them.

Problem #2 is, there exists far too many archetypes that can't do much more damage than that.

Problem #1 means that in any game with feats, multiclassing and magic items monsters (especially at high levels) stop working as listed, requiring DMs to tweak them or outright replace them. I'm sick and tired of not being able to just pull out a stock monster and use it as-is with zero prep, just because my players aren't newbie carebears that are content with not using the options in the PHB!

Problem #2 means that loads of cool archetypes gets thrown by the wayside simply because it is no fun to be half as effective as the other guy, and some notion of "realism" told the designers only some archetypes get to be effective. Guy with greatsword, okay. Gal with throwing knives, fuggedaboudit.

---

The deep flaws does not end there.

Even if we say "no feats" the problems do not disappear.

Warlocks and Sorcerers can do MUCH more damage (than 1d8+5 per attack, and one attack per tier).

I'm not talking about area attacks or save-or-suck spells. Those are, after all, quite limited in numbers.

I'm talking about Eldritch Blast. (For instance, limit Agonizing Blast to 30 ft!) I'm talking about twinned Fire Bolt.

A Dragon Sorcerer isn't that much more frail (and definitely not nearly as frail as a land druid or wizard or lore bard), and can twin Fire Bolt all day, converting most of her considerable spell slots into sorcery points for metamagic (and keeping some slots for Shield etc).

At HUGE ranges.

---

The despairing realization is that feats are NEEDED for martials to keep up.

I would never play a regular fighter in a feat-less game, when I could do just as much or even more damage with cantrip classes.

The problem with "feats are needed" is of course that this leaves a lot of archetypes in the dust.

For example, there is NO feat to up the damage of Rogues. Only greatweapons, polearms, and for some reason hand crossbows.

I would much more prefer it if EVERY high level fighter dealt frightening amounts of damage, even when they attack you with a spoon.

And, in order for monster stat blocks to keep working, that "frightening damage" was not significantly more than 1d12+5 per attack.

---

Saying "no feats in my game" doesn't work, not unless you ban cantrips too.

You can't just nerf feats like GWM, since that does nothing for the cantrips.

I'm getting the impression the whole edition is helplessly lopsided and that there is no easy fix

I'm getting the sinking feeling that in order to achieve a balanced edition, most if not all of the below is needed:

* nerf or re-price feats
(The other option, adding feats for underutilized concepts does not work since the maximum DPR is far too high for the Monster Manual as it is. If a greatsword no longer does MUCH more damage than throwing axes or a spear maybe these options will actually see use by DPR-sensitive players)
* nerf cantrips (with or without feats). Thankfully this is only warlock blast and sorcerer twinning, afaik.
* nerf ranged attacks more than melee ones. Thrown attacks can be treated as melee ones.
* start player characters with lower scores
(PCs vastly outcompete monsters on ability/skill checks including save DCs)
I'm thinking replacing the "elite array" (old terminology for 15, 14, 13, 12, 10, 8) with the "non-elite" one: 13, 12, 11, 10, 9, 8 (and if rolling; straight 3d6).
If the distance to 20 becomes greater, feats become more expensive.
By lowering each attribute by one on average, this means lowering hit points by 10 at level 10. Also good.
* regulate long rests ie remove the players' power to decide for themselves when and where to rest; in order to reinstate the challenge level of the game. (Since the alternative is to always consider a challenging fight in isolation)

It's a tall order.

All of this is a natural extention of the arms race in D&D. For PC's it is about more power and a byproduct is more survivability. For DM's it is about story and challenge.

Player 1: I need more HP, Bigger bonuses, inexhaustable spell load, and alpha strike circumstances need to be more frequent and/or easier to bring online.

Player 2: x,y and z monster ability is too lethal, nerf it. Poison, petrification, death magic isn't fair, nerf it.

Player 3: gaining levels takes too long

Player 4: I want more classes, and races

Designer: okay.

DM: I need a challenge rating system. These PC's are stupid tough and there is an invisible tipping point.

Designer : this should be good enough. It's your game if you don't like it change it.

Me: Hmmm.....

That's what I think, but I could be wrong.

 

[Sacrosanct]

Is there any actual analysis done that says average encounters last 4 rounds, or is that just pulling guesswork out of the air based on anecdotal experience only? It certainly isn't my experience.

Also, you can hide a lot of knives. A lot. Throwing knives aren't built like a typical dagger. They are thin, and stackable. You can have three throwing knives stacked on top of each other and take up as much space as one typical knife. So that's 3 per sleeve and 3 per boot, plus a couple under a belt, tucked in a tunic, whatever. Really, it should be a moot point in terms of this discussion about how many you can hide, especially if that "combat lasts 4 rounds" claim is accurate in any way.

 

[Satyrn]

Is there any actual analysis done that says average encounters last 4 rounds, or is that just pulling guesswork out of the air based on anecdotal experience only? It certainly isn't my experience.

I don't actually track this sort of thing in my sessions, but I know it's rare we have a fight last more than 10 rounds (we've had a few, though) and I'd say that most of the rest last at least 4 rounds.

I'd guess the average length at my table winds up at 6.something rounds.