The final word on DPR, feats and class balance

[Ovinomancer]

No, just no.

The DPR is King line goes:
"Fighters, Barbarians, & Paladins are so awesome! Why does anyone play anything else?" "Hey, Warlocks & Rogues are pretty good too...
... you can tweak a Sorcerer to be awesome, also." "Don't sell my wizard short, if I line up a few enemies in an area, bam, DPR through the roof!"
"Man, you gotta love this game..."

Zap's grousing aside, DPR and it's close equivalents, like hp/healing resources, are the more visible, more nearly-balanceable tip of the D&D iceberg, precisely because they are so easily calculated. If only DPR /were/ King, designing & running the game would be so much simpler! ;P

The fighter's concept was articulated as "Best* at Fighting (with weapons)," and it's most dramatic class features - Extra Attack & Action Surge, both deliver on that via multi-attacking for relatively high DPR. It is, as we've both pointed out, baked in.
AC? hps? Plenty of classes meet or beat the Fighter, there. 'Other defenses?" The fighter has the same two save proficiencies, one important, one not so much, as most classes. The only significant, uniquely fighter feature that's not directly about DPR is Second Wind, and while it starts out pretty nice it doesn't scale fast enough to remain that significant for too long. Besides, hp & AC are just part of the DPR-dominated race to zero hps model of D&D, anyway. And that's only 1/3rd the story - the Combat Pillar - and not even nearly all of that.











* 'Best' in the 'best you can buy,' sense that no one else is provably /better/, not in the sense of being better than anyone else, necessarily.

No, the line is only considering DPR when making comparisons.

 

[Tony Vargas]

No, the line is only considering DPR when making comparisons.

When making comparisons /of DPR/, you, of course, compare DPR. It's just Apples to Apples. That doesn't imply DPR is king, it's just making a valid comparison of that one factor. You can then look at other things and make judgements about overall class balance, if you like, but those data points are harder to pin down.

But, it's not like there are DPR Tiers. ;P

 

[Zardnaar]

1- Yes, and the fighting style and a lot of other class features in the game. You should compare cantrips against weapon attacks for unlimited attack resources, if you are going to compare all the class do it against all the other class.
2- At level 20? Why would the sorcerer want to lose their best spells?
3- Yes, but other classes also have class features.

Its more the mid levels. A Sorlock can more or less quicken Agonizing Blast around the mid levels for most if not all of the day. IN effect it becomes their best spell most of the time and they have the optin of dropping a fireball or whatever.

If your DPR is hihg enough fights are often 1-2 rounds instead of 3 and I think most tables use less than the 6-8 assumptions. Even if you do the RAW 6-8 encounters the encounters are so easy dealing lots of single target damage is really good as RAW do not really support hordes of critters anyway with 2-6 critters being more the norm.

The Sorlock is also fine not quickening agonising blast its just one optiuon that tend to put it over the top. Functionally its almost at will action surging by the mid levels. At higher levels you can easily do 24 rounds a day (3 rounds, 8 encounters).

The Paladin/Sorcerer is mostly theory crafting the Sorlock is playable level 1 (as a single classed PC of course) a it weak level 2, becomes good at level 3 and gets better from there. Once you start dealing 1d10+1d6+5 6 times a round for 75%+ of the combats you're kinda golden.

 

[Oofta]

Its more the mid levels. A Sorlock can more or less quicken Agonizing Blast around the mid levels for most if not all of the day. IN effect it becomes their best spell most of the time and they have the optin of dropping a fireball or whatever.

If your DPR is hihg enough fights are often 1-2 rounds instead of 3 and I think most tables use less than the 6-8 assumptions. Even if you do the RAW 6-8 encounters the encounters are so easy dealing lots of single target damage is really good as RAW do not really support hordes of critters anyway with 2-6 critters being more the norm.

The Sorlock is also fine not quickening agonising blast its just one optiuon that tend to put it over the top. Functionally its almost at will action surging by the mid levels. At higher levels you can easily do 24 rounds a day (3 rounds, 8 encounters).

The Paladin/Sorcerer is mostly theory crafting the Sorlock is playable level 1 (as a single classed PC of course) a it weak level 2, becomes good at level 3 and gets better from there. Once you start dealing 1d10+1d6+5 6 times a round for 75%+ of the combats you're kinda golden.

Combat is as easy or as difficult as the DM wants and (hopefully) set at a level that the players will enjoy. Power level is always relative, the DM can always send a second, third or fourth wave.

So this whole theory of certain builds "breaking" D&D IMHO is silly. If it starts affecting party dynamics that one PC is significantly more powerful than everyone else (it's not going to be an issue for all groups) then deal with it. Ban something, boost something else, there's a lots of ways of achieving the goal.

But if all encounters are cakewalks and the players want more challenge, that's on the DM.

 

[Ovinomancer]

When making comparisons /of DPR/, you, of course, compare DPR. It's just Apples to Apples. That doesn't imply DPR is king, it's just making a valid comparison of that one factor. You can then look at other things and make judgements about overall class balance, if you like, but those data points are harder to pin down.

But, it's not like there are DPR Tiers. ;P

You've moved the pea. The post I quoted was taking about how sorc's only best fighters or of they were dumping resources far more useful in other ways. The wish you responded to by trying to have the sirc DPR came while they ate it in all the ornery pillars, too. Your core argument being that DPR is the fighter's job but they were being beat by the white room sorc (I strongly believed the cantrip focused sorcerer doesn't appear in the wild) and so lost they're mojo. You which I relief only if DPR is king, because once you look at the full fighter, there's lots of other features there that enable DPR not available to the sorcerer.

 

[Zardnaar]

Combat is as easy or as difficult as the DM wants and (hopefully) set at a level that the players will enjoy. Power level is always relative, the DM can always send a second, third or fourth wave.

So this whole theory of certain builds "breaking" D&D IMHO is silly. If it starts affecting party dynamics that one PC is significantly more powerful than everyone else (it's not going to be an issue for all groups) then deal with it. Ban something, boost something else, there's a lots of ways of achieving the goal.

But if all encounters are cakewalks and the players want more challenge, that's on the DM.

That is kind of what upended 3E and it leads to an arms race between the DM and the players. Making encounters tougher also leads to more exp handed out so PCs level up faster, and get more powerful quicker.

Not helped by the fact most xp in 5E comes from combat encounters. In AD&D and BECMI for example you could ramp the monster up but xp came more from treasure so it worked better than say 5E. Of course if you ramped up the treasure as well you will have the same problem as 5E. You get 25 xp for a kobold and level up at 1000 xp (7xp and 2000 xp for a fighter in 2E IIRC).

Generally leads to an arms race rocket tag type game that creates more work for the DM than addressing the underlying causes. PCs min/max a bit to much DM cranks up the encounters so PCs min max even more etc etc etc. More options more things go wrong (feats+ easy access to magic items+ easy MCing+ frontloaded classes etc).

 

[Caliban]

That is kind of what upended 3E and it leads to an arms race between the DM and the players. Making encounters tougher also leads to more exp handed out so PCs level up faster, and get more powerful quicker.

Not helped by the fact most xp in 5E comes from combat encounters. In AD&D and BECMI for example you could ramp the monster up but xp came more from treasure so it worked better than say 5E. Of course if you ramped up the treasure as well you will have the same problem as 5E. YOu get 25 xp for a kobold and level up at 1000 xp (7xp and 2000 xp for a fighter in 2E IIRC).

Generally leads to an arms race rocket tag type game that creates more work for the DM than addressing the underlying causes. PCs min/max a bit to much DM cranks up the encounters so PCs min max even more etc etc etc.

My solution to that is to not use XP. I make encounters as easy or as crazy as I feel appropriate, then periodically tell the players that their PC's have leveled up. No complaints so far.

 

[Zardnaar]

My solution to that is to not use XP. I make encounters as easy or as crazy as I feel appropriate, then periodically tell the players that their PC's have leveled up. No complaints so far.

Houserule though which is more or less a plaster over the cracks and doesn't address the orignal problem.

Not that I'm opposed to houserules at all, I think I do something similar now (not using xp).

 

[SkidAce]

That is kind of what upended 3E and it leads to an arms race between the DM and the players. Making encounters tougher also leads to more exp handed out so PCs level up faster, and get more powerful quicker.

This can be somewhat ameliorated by using milestone leveling and/or story exp.

 

[Oofta]

That is kind of what upended 3E and it leads to an arms race between the DM and the players. Making encounters tougher also leads to more exp handed out so PCs level up faster, and get more powerful quicker.

Not helped by the fact most xp in 5E comes from combat encounters. In AD&D and BECMI for example you could ramp the monster up but xp came more from treasure so it worked better than say 5E. Of course if you ramped up the treasure as well you will have the same problem as 5E. YOu get 25 xp for a kobold and level up at 1000 xp (7xp and 2000 xp for a fighter in 2E IIRC).

Generally leads to an arms race rocket tag type game that creates more work for the DM than addressing the underlying causes. PCs min/max a bit to much DM cranks up the encounters so PCs min max even more etc etc etc.

I've never hit the issue. Making combats more difficult normally just takes better tactics, monsters that take advantage of environment, fight intelligently and don't attack in fireball formation, etc. In addition the DM decides how much XP to grant, I always discuss with my players how quickly they want to advance. The DM also has final say on optional rules, items and build options.

D&D shouldn't ever escalate to an arms race. If you feel like it is, work with your players to tone it down to something that works for everyone.

P.S. this advice is for anyone else reading this thread. No offense Z, but I know where you stand.