Menu
News
All News
Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
Pathfinder
Starfinder
Warhammer
2d20 System
Year Zero Engine
Industry News
Reviews
Dragon Reflections
Columns
Weekly Digests
Weekly News Digest
Freebies, Sales & Bundles
RPG Print News
RPG Crowdfunding News
Game Content
ENterplanetary DimENsions
Mythological Figures
Opinion
Worlds of Design
Peregrine's Next
RPG Evolution
Other Columns
From the Freelancing Frontline
Monster ENcyclopedia
WotC/TSR Alumni Look Back
4 Hours w/RSD (Ryan Dancey)
The Road to 3E (Jonathan Tweet)
Greenwood's Realms (Ed Greenwood)
Drawmij's TSR (Jim Ward)
Community
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Resources
Wiki
Pages
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Downloads
Latest reviews
Search resources
EN Publishing
Store
EN5ider
Adventures in ZEITGEIST
Awfully Cheerful Engine
What's OLD is NEW
Judge Dredd & The Worlds Of 2000AD
War of the Burning Sky
Level Up: Advanced 5E
Events & Releases
Upcoming Events
Private Events
Featured Events
Socials!
Twitch
YouTube
Facebook (EN Publishing)
Facebook (EN World)
Twitter
Instagram
TikTok
Podcast
Features
Top 5 RPGs Compiled Charts 2004-Present
Adventure Game Industry Market Research Summary (RPGs) V1.0
Ryan Dancey: Acquiring TSR
Q&A With Gary Gygax
D&D Rules FAQs
TSR, WotC, & Paizo: A Comparative History
D&D Pronunciation Guide
Million Dollar TTRPG Kickstarters
Tabletop RPG Podcast Hall of Fame
Eric Noah's Unofficial D&D 3rd Edition News
D&D in the Mainstream
D&D & RPG History
About Morrus
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
The
VOIDRUNNER'S CODEX
is LIVE! Explore new worlds, fight oppressive empires, fend off fearsome aliens, and wield deadly psionics with this comprehensive boxed set expansion for 5E and A5E!
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
The final word on DPR, feats and class balance
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="pemerton" data-source="post: 7439182" data-attributes="member: 42582"><p>I can't second guess your experiences (for obvious reasons!), but I am faithfully reporting what Mearls said. I have tried to find links but have failed to Google up an archive of his Legends & Lore columns - maybe they all got deleted when the WotC site changed?</p><p></p><p>He said that sales of the Essentials Red Box were good, but that retention was low.</p><p></p><p>I don't get that first sentence of yours. D&D is a mechanically complex game (anyone who thinks that 5e is "lite" needs to play some genuinely mechanics-light games!) and has a lot of places where it is possible to make choices that are better or worse from the mechanical point of view.</p><p></p><p>For instance, if a player's lowish-level PC comes up against a heavily-armoured hobgoblin and is not buffed in some way, and the player uses the -5/+10 from GWM, then that player is probably making a bad choice, as the drop in the chance to hit will burden the expected damage more than the +10 boosts it. Part of learning to be a good player is learning both (i) the maths, and (ii) interpretation of the ingame elements, such as that hobgoblins tend to have high ACs, especially if described as heavily armoured.</p><p></p><p>When that player, or others in the group, then have the idea of pouring buffs onto that PC to offset the -5 and thereby get the benefit of the +10, the group <em>should</em> feel that they have made a good decision and improved their play. That's a good part of what the play of a mechanically intricate game like D&D is about! (Which has nothing to do with it being a MMO or boardgame. But it has mechanics, quite elaborate ones as far as combat is concerned.)</p><p></p><p>Designing a system so that new players are able to have that sort of experience seems to me to be a serious design goal which can be done better or worse. The problem, which I think you agree with, is that it is hard to meet that design goal while <em>also</em> meeting the goal of not having the game break in the hands of hardcore wargamers, who will see the implications of the maths, of PC synergies, etc straight away and adopt a systematic approach to maximising their output.</p><p></p><p>I don't know. And I don't know enough to speculate. It seems to me that the most typical (not necessarily dominant, but it seems to me most numerous) ENworld poster, who is an experienced RPGer, is less of a wargame-type player and more of a GM-curated experience type player. For those players the issues that the OP is complaining about won't arise, provided the GM is doing a half-decent job.</p><p></p><p>Yes. Action economy is also part of the same analysis. Whether or not one agrees with the OP's conclusions in respect of these matters, there's clearly been no ignoring of them.</p><p></p><p></p><p>In a single sentence: if you don't use feats, fighters get overshadowed by the damage-dealing abilities of some cantrip-users; if you does use feats, a couple of dominant archetypes (GW, SS) crowd out the rest.</p><p></p><p>Quite a way upthread someone offered up some sorcerer numbers. I can't remember who it was, and haven't gone back for a search, but here are some quick numbers of my own:</p><p></p><p>A 6th level Dragon Sorcerer has 6 SP + 19 spell levels (4, 3, 2) for 25 SPs total. That's enough for 25 twinned cantrips, or about 6 combat's worth. Fire Bolt does 2d10+4 (assuming an 18 stat). So that's 4d10+8, or 30 damage, spread across two targets, per round, prior to factoring in the chance to hit.</p><p></p><p>The featless fighter of the same level gets 2 attacks for (say) 2d6+6 (20 stat, +1 weapon). That's 4d6+12, or 26 damage, per round. But it can be focused. Factoring in GWF style takes it from 3.5 to 25/6 per die, or 100/6 +12 = not quite 29 per round. Assuming every 2 encounters yields a long rest, and 4 rounds per encounter then 1 in 8 rounds has an Action Surge, which is another +3.5-ish damage for 32 to 33 expected damage. The fighter's chance to hit is also better than the sorcerers (+1 weapon, +1 stat for +9 rather than +7) - against AC 15, that is a 75% rather than 65% chance to hit, which is about another +6 to hit, for around 38 damage.</p><p></p><p>(If there's other stuff I'm missing, please point it out. I haven't factored in criticals, which favour the fighter, especially if a Champion.)</p><p></p><p>The fighter is about 25% ahead in damage by my maths. The fighter will also have better AC (17 or 18 at least, I'd assume, compared to 13+ DEX for 15 or so for the sorcerer). And hp at d10 rather than d6+1, plus second wind. But the fighter will be in melee, and so will have more need of these things!</p><p></p><p>The sorcerer is at range, and so doesn't have to close. This boosts damage per encounter. The sorcerer is at range, and so is more likely to suffer cover penalties. This reduces damage. I haven't tried to factor those things in.</p><p></p><p>The sorcerer has the option, at any point up to the last couple of rounds, to stop doing damage and instead use some other spell. That is a flexibility the fighter can't match. How much is it worth? I don't know, and there's probably no table-invariant measure, but surely quite a bit!</p><p></p><p>Anyway, writing that up prompted me to search back and find the post upthread that I mentioned above. Here it is:</p><p></p><p>To answer Krachek's question, I don't know if it's broken but it seems pretty strong: matching the fighter's melee damage output with quickened cantrips, and still having the option to stop doing that at any time and use its spells for other stuff instead.</p><p></p><p>Right, so this is getting into the sort of discussion I suggested upthread: can the claim that the fighter's main contribution is DPR be contested?</p><p></p><p>In my AD&D experience, the role of the fighter changed with level. At low and even mid levels, the fighter was a bold warrior who led the attack, cut down foes, and supported the MUs. But name level or thereabouts, the MUs dominated combat and the role of the fighters was to provide the sort of defence you describe, and to mop up whatever was left over after the spell assaults. I think different players have different reactions to that sort of change of role.</p><p></p><p>Anyway, if a fighter player can embrace that approach to the class, having a sorcerer compete in DPR <em>while shielded by the fighter</em> may not be a problem at that table.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="pemerton, post: 7439182, member: 42582"] I can't second guess your experiences (for obvious reasons!), but I am faithfully reporting what Mearls said. I have tried to find links but have failed to Google up an archive of his Legends & Lore columns - maybe they all got deleted when the WotC site changed? He said that sales of the Essentials Red Box were good, but that retention was low. I don't get that first sentence of yours. D&D is a mechanically complex game (anyone who thinks that 5e is "lite" needs to play some genuinely mechanics-light games!) and has a lot of places where it is possible to make choices that are better or worse from the mechanical point of view. For instance, if a player's lowish-level PC comes up against a heavily-armoured hobgoblin and is not buffed in some way, and the player uses the -5/+10 from GWM, then that player is probably making a bad choice, as the drop in the chance to hit will burden the expected damage more than the +10 boosts it. Part of learning to be a good player is learning both (i) the maths, and (ii) interpretation of the ingame elements, such as that hobgoblins tend to have high ACs, especially if described as heavily armoured. When that player, or others in the group, then have the idea of pouring buffs onto that PC to offset the -5 and thereby get the benefit of the +10, the group [I]should[/I] feel that they have made a good decision and improved their play. That's a good part of what the play of a mechanically intricate game like D&D is about! (Which has nothing to do with it being a MMO or boardgame. But it has mechanics, quite elaborate ones as far as combat is concerned.) Designing a system so that new players are able to have that sort of experience seems to me to be a serious design goal which can be done better or worse. The problem, which I think you agree with, is that it is hard to meet that design goal while [I]also[/I] meeting the goal of not having the game break in the hands of hardcore wargamers, who will see the implications of the maths, of PC synergies, etc straight away and adopt a systematic approach to maximising their output. I don't know. And I don't know enough to speculate. It seems to me that the most typical (not necessarily dominant, but it seems to me most numerous) ENworld poster, who is an experienced RPGer, is less of a wargame-type player and more of a GM-curated experience type player. For those players the issues that the OP is complaining about won't arise, provided the GM is doing a half-decent job. Yes. Action economy is also part of the same analysis. Whether or not one agrees with the OP's conclusions in respect of these matters, there's clearly been no ignoring of them. In a single sentence: if you don't use feats, fighters get overshadowed by the damage-dealing abilities of some cantrip-users; if you does use feats, a couple of dominant archetypes (GW, SS) crowd out the rest. Quite a way upthread someone offered up some sorcerer numbers. I can't remember who it was, and haven't gone back for a search, but here are some quick numbers of my own: A 6th level Dragon Sorcerer has 6 SP + 19 spell levels (4, 3, 2) for 25 SPs total. That's enough for 25 twinned cantrips, or about 6 combat's worth. Fire Bolt does 2d10+4 (assuming an 18 stat). So that's 4d10+8, or 30 damage, spread across two targets, per round, prior to factoring in the chance to hit. The featless fighter of the same level gets 2 attacks for (say) 2d6+6 (20 stat, +1 weapon). That's 4d6+12, or 26 damage, per round. But it can be focused. Factoring in GWF style takes it from 3.5 to 25/6 per die, or 100/6 +12 = not quite 29 per round. Assuming every 2 encounters yields a long rest, and 4 rounds per encounter then 1 in 8 rounds has an Action Surge, which is another +3.5-ish damage for 32 to 33 expected damage. The fighter's chance to hit is also better than the sorcerers (+1 weapon, +1 stat for +9 rather than +7) - against AC 15, that is a 75% rather than 65% chance to hit, which is about another +6 to hit, for around 38 damage. (If there's other stuff I'm missing, please point it out. I haven't factored in criticals, which favour the fighter, especially if a Champion.) The fighter is about 25% ahead in damage by my maths. The fighter will also have better AC (17 or 18 at least, I'd assume, compared to 13+ DEX for 15 or so for the sorcerer). And hp at d10 rather than d6+1, plus second wind. But the fighter will be in melee, and so will have more need of these things! The sorcerer is at range, and so doesn't have to close. This boosts damage per encounter. The sorcerer is at range, and so is more likely to suffer cover penalties. This reduces damage. I haven't tried to factor those things in. The sorcerer has the option, at any point up to the last couple of rounds, to stop doing damage and instead use some other spell. That is a flexibility the fighter can't match. How much is it worth? I don't know, and there's probably no table-invariant measure, but surely quite a bit! Anyway, writing that up prompted me to search back and find the post upthread that I mentioned above. Here it is: To answer Krachek's question, I don't know if it's broken but it seems pretty strong: matching the fighter's melee damage output with quickened cantrips, and still having the option to stop doing that at any time and use its spells for other stuff instead. Right, so this is getting into the sort of discussion I suggested upthread: can the claim that the fighter's main contribution is DPR be contested? In my AD&D experience, the role of the fighter changed with level. At low and even mid levels, the fighter was a bold warrior who led the attack, cut down foes, and supported the MUs. But name level or thereabouts, the MUs dominated combat and the role of the fighters was to provide the sort of defence you describe, and to mop up whatever was left over after the spell assaults. I think different players have different reactions to that sort of change of role. Anyway, if a fighter player can embrace that approach to the class, having a sorcerer compete in DPR [I]while shielded by the fighter[/I] may not be a problem at that table. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
The final word on DPR, feats and class balance
Top