The final word on DPR, feats and class balance

[Warpiglet]

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.

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, 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 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...

You make some good points. I will address one in particular and suggest another consideration.

Yes, I am particularly talking about cantrips that are upcast since this was referenced in the OP.

IF we do not use them and the fighter uses at-will attacks instead of big punch spells or whatever, what is the rub? The main complaint is that the sorcerer can do what featless fighter can do all day long but better. If they are not using cantrips but spells, the utility of-at will attacks is clear and there is no problem. I looked at available slots a moment ago. There are only so many.

If we only used spells with saves to avoid disadvantage, we are probably getting rid of the main cantrip 'offenders' like eldritch blast/fire bolt and if we are using 1st level spells or higher, we are using spells that are supposed to net a great deal of utility for the caster oft cited in this thread. Thereafter, we are again into finite resources or at-will cantrips.

A lot of interesting ideas in the thread. I have tried to take a step back. However, now more than before I believe feats are what is leading to the OP's main concerns--even if he says they do not.

He suggested that a sorcerer can essentially out-fighter a fighter if there are no feats. Sure, if a fighter is guarding him! If the sorcerer is not using at-will cantrips then he is burning resources which are supposed to represent versatility and big punch abilities. They are finite. And that is fine/working as intended.

In the meantime, even the featless fighter is attacking at-will without disruption.

My a priori assumption is that combat is not always neat and that anyone can be attacked. If the sorcerer does as much damage as a fighter or is at least close with cantrips, the fighter still has identity and purpose in leading the way and soaking hits.

 

[Tony Vargas]

You make some good points. I will address one in particular and suggest another consideration.

Yes, I am particularly talking about cantrips that are upcast since this was referenced in the OP.

Then the best comparison is to SS, which also takes disadvantage in melee, so it's a wash.

That or factor in the times the GWM can't reach enemies, thus as 0 DPR while the SS & caster's DPR continues to grind.

::shrug::

IF we do not use them and the fighter uses at-will attacks instead of big punch spells or whatever, what is the rub?

I think the rub is that the option is even there. The archer can fall back on a melee weapon to avoid disadvantage, at a significant drop in effectiveness, the caster can 'fall back' on a save-forcing spell, probably at an upgrade in effectiveness, but drop in resources - but both will likely try to avoid melee. Both have their mobility & wits to help with that, one also has spells.

He suggested that a sorcerer can essentially out-fighter a fighter if there are no feats. Sure, if a fighter is guarding him! If the sorcerer is not using at-will cantrips then he is burning resources which are supposed to represent versatility and big punch abilities. They are finite. And that is fine/working as intended.
In the meantime, even the featless fighter is attacking at-will without disruption.

That reasoning falls apart as soon as you compare the ranged DPR archer apple to the ranged DPR sorcerer apple. The archer can switch to a finesse weapon for a reduction in effectiveness, or seek compensatory advantage, or try to avoid or extricate himself from melee - all by prettymuch just using his wits or depending on an ally for help (like a melee type blocking). The Sorcerer could switch to a cantrip that's not a ranged attack (those are few & obscure), or switch to melee and take such a major hit it's probably no worth it, or try any of the other things the archer could, or resort to a spell that doesn't use an attack roll or allows him to escape.

(As it so often shakes out, the fighter's 'advantage' is in being theoretically bit less hosed when they're both backed into a corner of the absolute worst-case scenario. Yippee, hope that comes up a lot so the fighter can 'shine!')

A lot of interesting ideas in the thread. I have tried to take a step back. However, now more than before I believe feats are what is leading to the OP's main concerns--even if he says they do not.

Nod, I just think he wants a different solution. Simply not opting into feats removes all sorts of issues, not just some corner case DPR imbalances among already brokenly-high levels of DPR. It makes the game more approachable, increases the likelihood higher level PCs will shore up their dump stats, etc, etc...
...if you're already opting into feats, though, you want moar options, moar player options, anyway, so the preferred solution when moar is too much moar is much, much moar moar - moar feats, moar DPR, and moar monsters with moar hps & moar DPR to provide moar challenge.

(OK, that was moar moar than was called for.)

 

[hawkeyefan]

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.

Or...anyone willing to accept a dagger throwing expert as being a viable approach to combat should probably also accept that a large number of daggers can be hidden on one's person.

People claim to want the build's viability, and then actively work against the elements that make it viable. It's pretty funny.

 

[Oofta]

Or...anyone willing to accept a dagger throwing expert as being a viable approach to combat should probably also accept that a large number of daggers can be hidden on one's person.

People claim to want the build's viability, and then actively work against the elements that make it viable. It's pretty funny.

Nobody complains about the guy running around in plate armor carrying a greatsword, a couple of spare weapons, a dozen javelins, thousands of coins and miscellaneous gems, a tent, sleeping roll, 50 feet of rope, cook kit, several days worth of food, etc. But more than a handful of throwing knives? NEVER!

 

[Mistwell]

For those wondering about the "DPR is King" issue with this thread, let me spell it out.

CapnZapp has made it a theme of his recent quotes. This thread is not posted in isolation. Indeed, the first sentence of the first post of this thread calls it out directly:

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

Right there, at the top, he's referencing the other threads. So if people are confused where we're getting that CapNZapp is coming from that perspective, know that's what he's referring to, and what many of the rest of us are referring to. This thread is not living in a vacuum all alone. It's got existing context.

Now for that context, this was posted by CapNZapp I think just the day before he posted this thread:

AC is often good enough.

Damage is where the game is at.

Followed by:

The hard minmaxing fact remains: offense is the best defense. Removing the foe's hit points is the goal of combat. If you play a fighter or other martial your primary job is this and nothing but this...Everything else is just words.

Followed by:

And then you have the fundamental notion that offense means you get to choose (which enemy dies first). What defense means, is that the enemy is given the choice to ignore your greatest asset. In short: by skipping your impervious behemoth, they're attacking the weakest link.

So even before we go into specifics, of course offense is going to carry the day! It's comparing Panzers to the Maginot line.

Now, if D&D had offered a robust aggro system then I could have seen a point. If defensive tanks were given the power to control the actions of enemies. But it doesn't. It just does not. (There is experiments with token abilities but nothing that really approximates the power of the World of Warcraft Warrior main battle tank)...
And I really am having trouble taking the detractors seriously. If offense meant that you got perhaps one point of attack value or two points of damage for a point of defense, then again: maybe you do have a point.

And I know people like [MENTION=42582]pemerton[/MENTION] was aware of that thread and those posts, because he XP'ed them and replied to one of them.

And then we get a separate thread (this one) from CapNZapp for his "final word" on the DPR topic that he's been riffing off lately.

Get it now?

 

[Sacrosanct]

Nobody complains about the guy running around in plate armor carrying a greatsword, a couple of spare weapons, a dozen javelins, thousands of coins and miscellaneous gems, a tent, sleeping roll, 50 feet of rope, cook kit, several days worth of food, etc. But more than a handful of throwing knives? NEVER!

It is one of those weird things, isn't it? Like how no one ever thinks about the PC's packs when combat starts? Does everyone drop them where they're at because it's almost impossible to run and fight while carrying it? And if so, why doesn't the fireball that went off in the area do anything? Or a non-intelligent monster end up taking off with it? If the party has to flee, does everyone run back and grab their packs first no matter where they are on the battlemap?

Maybe it's like pooping. One of those things that just isn't talked about in the game lol.

 

[Tony Vargas]

Or...anyone willing to accept a dagger throwing expert as being a viable approach to combat should probably also accept that a large number of daggers can be hidden on one's person.

And people who won't accept the dagger throwing expert as an equally-viable approach to combat ('because realism?' - or because there's no knifemaster feat, whatever) are fine with an implausibly large number of daggers hidden about one's person as one walks around the city where the guy with the greatsword (or greatwhatever) would be arrested. (And never mind magic.)

Anytime realism/v-tude/plausibility/situational/subjective stuff comes into it, we get these seeming-contradictions - double-(if not multiple)-standards - while the mechanics are still just sitting there, in B&W (or, in the case of 5e, in all their natural-language ambiguity), unchanged by all the mental gymnastics.

 

[Sacrosanct]

For those wondering about the "DPR is King" issue with this thread, let me spell it out.

CapnZapp has made it a theme of his recent quotes. This thread is not posted in isolation. Indeed, the first sentence of the first post of this thread calls it out directly:



Right there, at the top, he's referencing the other threads. So if people are confused where we're getting that CapNZapp is coming from that perspective, know that's what he's referring to, and what many of the rest of us are referring to. This thread is not living in a vacuum all alone. It's got existing context.

Now for that context, this was posted by CapNZapp I think just the day before he posted this thread:



Followed by:



And then we get a separate thread (this one) from CapNZapp for his "final word" on the DPR topic that he's been riffing off lately.

Get it now?

I'll be honest. I never agreed with the hard line "DPR is king" or comments like, "The hard minmaxing fact remains: offense is the best defense. Removing the foe's hit points is the goal of combat. If you play a fighter or other martial your primary job is this and nothing but this...Everything else is just words." anyway.

It's not true. Often, yes, but often, no it's not. For one, a fighter's job is whatever you want it to be, which can be damage dealer, but can also be tank. A tank role is not uncommon to the gaming community, and it's job is very much not "do as much damage and nothing but damage."

Secondly, that statement is only true if you reset all your resources after every encounter. And as we all know, that doesn't happen. To put it in simple terms:

If you have 20 HP and do 5 hp of damage every round, and your opponent has 20 HP and does 5 hp every round and you always win initiative, then:

scenario 1:
you increase your damage by 3, so it takes you 3 rounds to kill your opponent, suffering 10 hp yourself (since it only gets you twice because your third attack goes before it's third attack.). You end the battle with 10 HP remaining

scenario 2:
you reduce the damage it inflicts by 3. So it takes you 4 rounds to kill your opponent, and it is able to hit you 3 times for 6 total points. It takes an extra round, but you end the encounter with 14 HP;


Obviously defense is the better option here. I've made this argument every time I see or hear someone say offense is always the best no questions. because it's not. And I wish people would stop making it.


*For an added bonus, "removing the foe's HP is the goal of combat" is also not true, and speaks volumes of the narrow point of view one has making that argument. The point of combat is to overcome your opponents as unscathed as possible. Many times that's removing their HP. Many times it's taking them out in other ways, like sleep, or control, or whatever. And other times it's bypassing the encounter completely.

The root of the problem as I see it, is that people making those sorts of arguments view D&D like a computerized combat sim, where it's just one set of math against another, and are either unable, or unwilling, to realize how in a game limited only by imagination, there are other ways D&D is played.

 

[hawkeyefan]

And people who won't accept the dagger throwing expert as an equally-viable approach to combat (because realism) are fine with an implausibly large number of daggers hidden about one's person as one walks around the city where the guy with the greatsword (or greatwhatever) would be arrested. (And never mind magic.)

I think there's another group....the one that's fine with the concept of a knife throwing PC who's also able to hide enough knives on his person to still remain effective when he needs to appear unarmed.

 

[Sacrosanct]

I think there's another group....the one that's fine with the concept of a knife throwing PC who's also able to hide enough knives on his person to still remain effective when he needs to appear unarmed.

First I think Tony needs to define what "implausibly large number of throwing daggers" is. 4? 6? As I've already illustrated, it's easy to hide a dozen or more on your person easily. And has there ever been anyone argue that they should be able to hide MORE than a dozen? Or is his argument based on a strawman premise?