D&D 5E Observations

[CapnZapp]

I understand your assumptions, but no.

Both spellcaster players chose their choices in order to get Fireball and more generally, kick ass personally. Neither player is much interested in sacrificing their own glory to let others shine.

The Barbarian procured advantage for GWM by himself, and the Paladin is loaded with self-buffs.

Sure Bardic Inspiration was nice, but hardly a game changer.

So the situation isn't like your theory.

Both martials outshone the casters mostly by themselves. They could not have done so without access to bonus attacks nearly every round.

The -5/+10 mechanism is just icing on this cake, the final straw that propels the barb into a definitely higher division of combat usefulness.

 

[Mephista]

I understand your assumptions, but no.

Both spellcaster players chose their choices in order to get Fireball and more generally, kick ass personally. Neither player is much interested in sacrificing their own glory to let others shine.

In which case, they picked their classes poorly. Neither the Cleric nor the Bard really kick ass on their own. The Lord Bard shines when buffing her allies and debuffing monsters so the monsters can't hurt said allies; her best control spells aren't meant to hurt. Calm Emotion and Enthrall are actually great combat preventers for more social games, Blindness/deafness as well as Hold-Person class magic and Hypnotic Pattern shuts down monsters with a failed save - at that point, the monster is all but dead. Command and Compulsion can force monsters to walk away from your melee warriors, prompting attacks of opertunity.

The Light Cleric is admittedly kinda sorcerer-like, but trades in spell recovery for Warding Flares, which functions a lot like the the Bard's Cutting Words feature, and Channel Divinity, a rather lackluster spell, gets damage bump later, and lacks the metamagic to boost attack spells upwards. Outside the Light Domain's spell list, there's not a lot of direct damage abilities, though Command/Hold Person class magic and the Spirit Weapon* class of spells are very effective for clerics, which should not be ignored.

* Spiritual Weapon, Spirit Guardian, Guardian of Faith, and Blade Barrier all count, and all highly effect coupled with Planar Ally, Conjure Celestial and Gate at high levels. Guardian of Faith, Spiritual Weapon, Planar Ally, and Planar Binding (Conjure Celestial/Gate) dont' use Concentration even!

Honestly, if its not deliberate, then its very possible that the players just don't know how to play the class. Both the Light and Lore can be very effective with the right style of play; it doesn't seem like they were using that style.

Sure Bardic Inspiration was nice, but hardly a game changer.

Bardic Inspiration is actually a game changer for GWM if they aren't consistantly hitting on their own. Cutting Words is very effective when trying to protect yourself against someone attacking a caster who doesn't want to drop a Concentrations spell as well. Its really good to add onto skill specialists (seems you didn't have anyone) as well, letting you be a bit more brash than not. They're quite effective if the playstyle allows it.

So the situation isn't like your theory.

Both martials outshone the casters mostly by themselves. They could not have done so without access to bonus attacks nearly every round.

The -5/+10 mechanism is just icing on this cake, the final straw that propels the barb into a definitely higher division of combat usefulness.

Well, its not quite a theory, more like an attempt to play devil's advocate. You said that the people were used to 3e optimization, so I assumed that they would have figured out that the cleric and bard weren't very strong controllers through damage dealing on their own. It appears that this is not the case. Perhaps they were used to caster domination of 3e, and carried that false assumption into 5e. There have been a lot of effort spared into making sure that the classes are balanced and the casters don't outdo the melee warriors in terms of pure damage. Now, pure damage is actually what melee warriors are specifically designed to excell at, while other classes have other roles they fill.

It just sounds like the Light and Lore weren't played to their full capacity. Now, I'm not there, but that's what it is increasingly sounding like here.

 

[CapnZapp]

I can't be bothered replying to your theorycrafting as long as it's so heavily lopsided against my observations.

If it makes you feel better to assume we are poor optimizers in order to discount my observations, rather than to face the possibility that the game offers no boost to spellcasters comparable to the way feats help martials, go right ahead.

 

[hawkeyefan]

I think that you're correct that the martial type characters tend to outshine the casters as far as damage output, and that there are feat options which only add to that.

I think that others are simply pointing out that damage output is not the sole focus of every character. So having the same damage output expectations for all classes just seems a bit odd.

It sounds to me like your players wanted casters that would be able to compare with optimized melee characters when it came to damage output, and now that you've seen it all in action, there's some disappointment. I can understand that...the players were hoping for one thing and got another.

So while I can understand it, I don't know if I'd agree that it's a flaw within the game, so much a flaw in expectations based on there being a learning curve for the new system.

 

[FormerlyHemlock]

I can't be bothered replying to your theorycrafting as long as it's so heavily lopsided against my observations.

If it makes you feel better to assume we are poor optimizers in order to discount my observations, rather than to face the possibility that the game offers no boost to spellcasters comparable to the way feats help martials, go right ahead.

From your reaction to Mephista it appears that you're not interested in ideas for optimizing Light Clerics and Lore Bards, because you believe that you are perfectly competent to optimize them yourselves.

I forget, what is it again that is your goal for this thread? Are you looking for examples of spellcasters who can compete, damage-wise, with your warriors? Or are you looking for ways warriors can compete with optimized warriors? I.e. is the spellcaster discussion a red herring and you just want to talk about the warriors?

 

[Azurewraith]

The more i mull this over and read more replies this is working as intended and wotc deliberately hamstrung caster damage for the in combat versatility they pack in the ability to control the battlefield. Where as in combat all martial can really do is hit stuff and grapple and in the grand scheme of things grapple isnt all that great.

 

[ExploderWizard]

I think that you're correct that the martial type characters tend to outshine the casters as far as damage output, and that there are feat options which only add to that.

I think that others are simply pointing out that damage output is not the sole focus of every character. So having the same damage output expectations for all classes just seems a bit odd.

It sounds to me like your players wanted casters that would be able to compare with optimized melee characters when it came to damage output, and now that you've seen it all in action, there's some disappointment. I can understand that...the players were hoping for one thing and got another.

So while I can understand it, I don't know if I'd agree that it's a flaw within the game, so much a flaw in expectations based on there being a learning curve for the new system.

Good summary.

I personally don't have a problem with melee fighters exceeding casters in pure sustained damage output. The versatility of casters for not only limited burst damage, but producing effects that martial characters cannot do at all kind of balances them out. I enjoy the fact that caster classes don't dominate in every aspect of play. They shouldn't and anyone frustrated at trying to find a way to make it so means WOTC did a fine job in the class balance department.

 

[FormerlyHemlock]

I think that you're correct that the martial type characters tend to outshine the casters as far as damage output, and that there are feat options which only add to that.

This is mostly true, but there are spellcasters who can compete on the same tier as the warriors, especially if they are willing to sully themselves with a splash of warrior class. For instance, a Fighter 2/Evoker 10 can output 119 points of guaranteed force damage once per long rest[1] (Magic Missile V + Action Surge), while rocking Constitution save proficiency, AC 26, and a slew of conjured mephits, animated undead, or animated objects for meat shields. The damage guarantee is important; an action-surging 12th-level Polearm Master GWM fighter may be theoretically capable of inflicting 158.25 DPR against an AC 0 foe (including both bonus action and reaction attack for a total of 8 attacks), but in reality, even against a low-AC tyrannosaur he does only 100.60 even if his bonus and reaction attacks trigger. (With advantage against the tyrranosaur he does beat the Evoker 142.05 to 119.) Against an AC 20 Iron Golem however, the tables are turned: the action surging fighter loses 43.20 to 119, or if he has advantage he merely loses 76.04 to 119. Even if the Evoker doesn't nova, he can blow a third-level spell slot for 42.5 damage, virtually matching the fighter's Action Surge.

(Once upon a time, Iron Golems were immune to Magic Missiles and almost all other spells. No more, in 5E. Le sigh.)

[1] Once per short rest if spell points are in use. Otherwise, on the second short rest he is reduced to Magic Missile V + Action Surged Magic Magic IV for only 110 points of damage (thanks to Arcane Recovery), and then Magic Missile IV x2 for 102.5 on the third short rest.

 

[FormerlyHemlock]

The more i mull this over and read more replies this is working as intended and wotc deliberately hamstrung caster damage for the in combat versatility they pack in the ability to control the battlefield. Where as in combat all martial can really do is hit stuff and grapple and in the grand scheme of things grapple isnt all that great.

I don't disagree about the grand scheme of things, but I must say: I love combats where grapple and push are interesting. One of my favorite uses for Repelling Blast comes in spelljamming combat: a warlock can potentially remove three enemies from the combat per turn by blasting them off the edge of the ship, onto the gravity plane. (Bardlock did this during a fight with a neogi deathspider's 20-odd umber hulks; it was effectively like doing 93 points of damage per hit. Of course, eventually they do come back, even if they need to shove off each other as reaction mass to generate velocity.)

P.S. On consideration, since Umber Hulks are Large creatures with a 5' reach, maybe I should have allowed the umber hulks a chance to climb back aboard the ship, forcing the bardlock to expend two pushes per umber hulk to get them out in empty space. But that's water under the bridge now.

 

[Mephista]

I can't be bothered replying to your theorycrafting as long as it's so heavily lopsided against my observations.

If it makes you feel better to assume we are poor optimizers in order to discount my observations, rather than to face the possibility that the game offers no boost to spellcasters comparable to the way feats help martials, go right ahead.

Defensive much? Not to mention that its in line with your observations, as flawed as they are? As for calling it theory craft when its been more than supported by both personal experience and the experience of others?

Yes, high HP or high AC are very good for tanks. They're tanks, that's what they do. However, you completely miss that there are other avenues of damage mitigation for those not playing a tank, and doesn't relegate them to the "junior leages." Yes, Great Weapon Mastery and Polearm Mastery are powerful. So are Crossbow Expert and Sharpshooter (which you didn't discuss), and Shield Mastery (you complained that sword-and-board was not worth using; it is). No, there aren't very good spellcaster feats, but many of us have found ways to play them to keep competative with a GWM Polarm, Crossbow Sharpshooter, and the other powerful martial feats.

Your observations, while accurate for the characters you're presented with, do not add up to your conclusions. You note that your players think that control spells are too heavily nerfed, and so fall back onto fireballing everything. Spells require a different mindset than in previous editions on how to use them. Your explanation doesn't mesh with how many others have experienced the game, which begs questions. The characters in question then tried to then focus on damage when your two example classes really don't excell at damage dealing, making it an unequal comparison in the first place. This is like trying to build a Dex-based two weapon fighting berzerker, and wondering why its performance is lackluster. Builds matter.

You then asked, "why include squishy spellcasters in the team at all?" And I challenged your assumptions, because they are flawed. You don't like it? Fine. But being dismissive of my claims doesn't change anything.