D&D 5E Level 11+: How do the Warriors compare?

[Xeviat]

I must have missed that bit, as well?

Extra Attack is problematic, but it's also potentially quite powerful, and the fighter, the poster boy for 5e Extra Attack, depends on being 'best' at fighting (with weapons), via Extra Attack & Action surge, to balance being marginal outside of combat.

Let's take my Fighter alt, because I know it's balanced against he PHB fighter against a single target. Let's say level 5. Instead of having Extra Attack, they get +1W for being 5th level AND they get +1 to hit and +2 to damage. Also, Duelist is changed to +2 damage per weapon die so it scales properly.

Against a single target, with an 18 Str, the fighter has +8 to hit and 2d8+10 damage. Core, the fighter has +7 to hit and 1d8+6 x2. So mine hits more often, core hits for more damage.

Against two targets, my fighter can sacrifice one damage die to attack two targets. They now attack for +8 and 1d8+8 to two targets, while core would be +7 and 1d8+6.

Mine would also have "combat maneuvers", like cantrips, to learn things like trips and such to add to maneuvers for sacrificing damage dice or other elements.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Xeviat]

Ok - firstly well done for posting your homebrewing methodology the right way. Namely, "I don't like this", rather than "This is clearly bad and broken and WHY DIDN'T WotC ASK ME TO DESIGN 5TH EDITION?! WHYYYY!!!!!"....so much kudos there!

Thanks. I try.

I've got some questions that may seem facetious but aren't meant that way.

1) Have you played much 4th Edition? I'm guessing so because you used the [W] syntax. What you are doing is literally turning 5th edition basic attacks into 4th edition style at-wills. Which is fine, but it does beg the question why you've switched to 5th edition. Just because 4th Ed isn't the newest edition, doesn't make your preference for it Bad or Wrong.

4th is bloated. I like 5E's spells and class structure better. I like the 12-14 core classes of 5E over the dozens of classes of 4th. The amount of work to bring what I like of 5th into 4th is a lot smaller than what it would take to bring what I like of 5th into 4th (combining classes, consolidating powers ...).

2) Do you understand the design decisions that have gone into extra attack and cantrips (not just with each other, but compared to the old 3.5 BAB system)? The choices made mean that cantrips and extra attacks (mostly) work in specific design ways so they have a different feel over and above just the maths. Spell cantrips tend to have much swingier damage (4d8 on a hit) compared melee attacks, that not only have multiple attack rolls (flattening out damage average) but have a much higher baseline because of modifier damage. This makes melee attacks and cantrips feel different, while DPR-wise being balanced.

Cantrip attackers often get an ability bonus rider, and other nifty things (evoked gets +Int and damage on a save, Warlock gets +cha to each ray). Since most classes other than the Fighter, monk, and beast master Ranger are only making 2 attacks tops, I don't think the feel would change that much. The gains in better opportunity attacks and better multiclass progression are a good trade to me.

3) Are you playing in a game where cantrips are used much more than spells other than at the lower levels (before cantrip progression and extra attack)? Most of my experience is that cantrips are a last resort once you're out of spells (want to conserve a couple) and you don't want to pick up a Crossbow (a la 3.5). That's why they are built like mini-spells (swingy all dice damage and no mods with no damage on a miss/save rather than half). So in a combat of 5 rounds, you're probably casting 3 spells and a couple of cantrips. They are hardly the core structure of the caster class, and shouldn't really be considered the pinnacle of game design. (NB: because of static damage, swinging a long sword at level 5 with 18 STR gives you 17 damage average per turn. A level 17 ray of frost does 18 average - this is to keep a melee character on par with a spellcasters bigger spells).

The casters in my games seem to use their cantrips a lot. The EK rushed to get the feat that lets you use a cantrip as an opportunity Attack even.

I don't think WotC did a bad job. I do think they fixed spellcaster multiclassing in 5th but somehow "broke" warrior multiclassing, when it was the other way around in 3E. By adding damage scaling to weapon attacks, the progression for even 1/1 multiclassers would be a lot more smooth, and players wouldn't have to rush to 5th level quite as fast if their character idea really warranted lower level multiclassing (I know I'm itching to play a Rogue 3/Paladin X inspired by the 3 Musketeers next time I get a chance to play).

Thank you for your thoughtful post.



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Tony Vargas]

. I do think they fixed spellcaster multiclassing in 5th but somehow "broke" warrior multiclassing, when it was the other way around in 3E.

That is true, and perplexing. The same goes for ASIs/feats, by tying it to class instead of character level, they introduced break points that restrict and punish MCing.

Those are among the reasons I don't bother with MCing ...

By adding damage scaling to weapon attacks, the progression for even 1/1 multiclassers would be a lot more smooth, and players wouldn't have to rush to 5th level quite as fast

it does seem pretty reasonable, though I'd be interested in maneuvers and not sure about converting damage dice to extra attacks...

.

 

[Xeviat]

The point of the thread wasn't to discuss the system I'm working on, though. It was to ask how some of the warriors perform against the Fighter and Rogue at the higher levels. Because these changes will be straight up buffs to many of them at 11th level, and most of them at 17th.

Another issue I have with Extra Attack is that it is worth quite a bit more than other abilities. Most things characters get at a level could be compared to a feat. ASIs are compared to a feat. Extra Attack as a feat would be way overpowered.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Xeviat]

That is true, and perplexing. The same goes for ASIs/feats, by tying it to class instead of character level, they introduced break points that restrict and punish MCing.

Those are among the reasons I don't bother with MCing ...

it does seem pretty reasonable, though I'd be interested in maneuvers and not sure about converting damage dice to extra attacks...

.

The extra attacks would be against multiple targets. I feel like it follows a similar progression to single vs multi-target spell damage. 3d10 (16.5) vs 3d6 (10.5) is about 66%. That lines up pretty well in making a 1 vs 2 fight even between the 1 using aoes or single target (longer to finish one off, but both go down at the sameish time). My above example of 2d8+10 vs 1d8+8 is 19 vs 12.5, which is about 66% too.

The maneuvers, though, I haven't worked on them too much, but I'd be stealing a lot from 4E at-wills. They'd be closer to cantrips in 5E, though, often giving up damage dice or ability bonus to damage to gain an effect. Simple things like slow, no reactions, prone ...


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[hastur_nz]

Well, the intention of the 5e rules that came out of the play-tests, is that fighter-types should all be interesting and balanced enough through all levels of play. Certainly when we were play testing it, there were a lot of changes to Fighters which at one point were even more OP.

I've not seen Monks or Rangers or Barbarians above about 10th level, but from memory Fighters and Paladins didn't feel overly powerful or weak compared to anyone else, which was certainly very difficult to achieve in 3.5 and prior. The only way they could be considered a bit over powerful in my 5e campaign that hit 20th+ was combos of spells, items, feats etc, but that's par for the course especially once 9th level spells come into play (e.g. get someone else to cast Foresight on your Paladin for crit-fishing). Monks, I've always thought they level off a bit even before 10th level, at least that's my recollection playing beside a couple, but personally I find people who play a Monk do so for their ability to 'do cool stuff' so don't care if their damage output is lower (and their stunning is a group power like some spells i.e. everyone benefits). Barbarians, well I've only seen one to about 5th level in 5e, it's a niche class for us.

We tend to have mostly "plain old Fighters" in 5e, because it's such a versatile class that works fine as written the way it is now.

 

[Tony Vargas]

Another issue I have with Extra Attack is that it is worth quite a bit more than other abilities.

Sure, it's very potent, particularly synergizing with Action Surge and whatever damage bonuses you can scrape together.

It could be considered more powerful for the fighter than for other classes that get it for that reason, perhaps why they've been quick to toss it out for even full casters?

So even if you come up with something - like an additional damage die, or a phantom die useabuseable only for maneuvers or something, it's not likely to synergize to the same degree..

 

[Hillsy7]

4th is bloated. I like 5E's spells and class structure better. I like the 12-14 core classes of 5E over the dozens of classes of 4th. The amount of work to bring what I like of 5th into 4th is a lot smaller than what it would take to bring what I like of 5th into 4th (combining classes, consolidating powers ...).

I would advise stating this up front. Not doing so risks people thinking you're not being honest and that you're engaging in edition wars via "collaborative debate".....namely "I want to change this because I see it as a problem, lets discuss" when underneath you really want to say 4e is better, lets remake 4e. In this instance, this is literally your intention for melee attacks and cantrips. That's completely fine, but trying to argue there's something "wrong" with 5e, when in fact all you want to do is bring in some function of 4e you like without breaking 5e, is going to start edition wars. When that happens, no one wins.

Cantrip attackers often get an ability bonus rider, and other nifty things (evoked gets +Int and damage on a save, Warlock gets +cha to each ray). Since most classes other than the Fighter, monk, and beast master Ranger are only making 2 attacks tops, I don't think the feel would change that much. The gains in better opportunity attacks and better multiclass progression are a good trade to me.

Using two examples which require specific cognitive choice (selecting a subclass for the Evoker, and not only selecting Eldrich blast as a cantrip, but then also choosing a specific invocation), is not justification enough for rewriting entirely how 4 core martial classes, plus War Cleric and Valour bard, deal with their 2nd attacks.

What is a perfectly reasonable justification is "I really liked the at-will power system for 4e and how it worked across all classes, and I want to replicate that in 5e to replace all main hand melee attacks". There's no value judgement, you can attach the rider "I think my players will prefer it" or "I want to do it for myself because it's fun/interesting", and most importantly you're not saying your way is "Better" (which by inference says another persons view is "wrong"). Your first post pretty much said that - and that's all the justification you need.

By defending you preference mechanically, you diminish your argument that "I want to do this, and I don't think everyone should do it".

The casters in my games seem to use their cantrips a lot. The EK rushed to get the feat that lets you use a cantrip as an opportunity Attack even.

That's fine (that's kinda what EKs do and a feat is designed in 5e to be heavy tax, hence why fighters get them because that's what fighters do) - though I would take pains to check with your martial class players (or players who might want to play martial characters in the future) they're ok with this, and understand the ramifications. I can foresee a lot of players who would be upset that they don't get a 2nd chance to hit on their turn after rolling a 1, or that they just feel like spell casters (i.e. 4th Ed's issue with "Fighter Casts Punch")

You may well have done this and they're all happy with it - just checking.

I don't think WotC did a bad job. I do think they fixed spellcaster multiclassing in 5th but somehow "broke" warrior multiclassing, when it was the other way around in 3E. By adding damage scaling to weapon attacks, the progression for even 1/1 multiclassers would be a lot more smooth, and players wouldn't have to rush to 5th level quite as fast if their character idea really warranted lower level multiclassing (I know I'm itching to play a Rogue 3/Paladin X inspired by the 3 Musketeers next time I get a chance to play).

Again - just try and keep a lid on the edition warring - you're insulting people like myself and probably that vast majority of players who don't feel warrior multiclassing is somehow "Broken".....what you are implying is that somehow we are stupid or mistaken when we quite like the way 5e has limited and streamlined multiclassing to make it much more focused, rather than the minmaxers wet dream 3.5e and pathfinder is. It's clearly not "Broken" as you say - it might not be to your taste (which is totally fine BTW), but it's not even remotely broken. There's a difference between a design CHOICE and a design OVERSIGHT. You want low-level multiclassing to be a penalty free, that's fine. WotC CHOSE to do things another way and plenty of people are happy about that.

Basically, saying "It's not fair that I have to take 5 levels of my initial martial class before I can multiclass otherwise I don't get an extra attack. It's stupid!" is the argument of a child. Saying "I would really like to design a way to multiclass martial characters that treats extra attack as something more similar to 3.5e BAB" is pretty hard to argue with. I *want* to do something, and my players are ok with it is bullet proof (very much like the argument "I really want to have Chicken Cassoulet tonight")

So right now, personally, my advice would be to rewrite the initial post and be as transparent as possible about what you are trying to do (namely create D&D 4.8 with mostly 5e but with 4e at-will power cards), and what you want from posters (it seems mostly you want validation - I'd say your players are going to be better placed to supply that than an internet forum). That way, you're more likely to get the feedback you want, less likely to have people (like me) pointing out that 5e is deliberately made this way (as you've said, you know and accept this), and people will be more likely to help you identify potential areas of design oversight (while detractors have less space into which to insert an edition war disguised as something else)

For instance - Does magic item additional damage scale with weapon damage? Barbarians now do 50% more damage with a 2[W] attack on average with a 50/50 chance to hit (2d12+STR+Rage, half on a miss) factoring in the +1 - was this intentional?

Personally, I like 4e and 5e just as much as each other, for differing reasons, and don't see the burning need to try and combine the two. If you want to, go for it, I just think you'll get a bit mroe traction and engagement if you are a little more up front about it.....

 

[Tony Vargas]

I would advise stating this up front. Not doing so risks people thinking you're not being honest and that you're engaging in edition wars via "collaborative debate".....namely "I want to change this because I see it as a problem, lets discuss" when underneath you really want to say 4e is better, lets remake 4e.

One of the goals articulated early in the Next playtest was to be able to play 5e in the 'styles' of past editions. If you liked 4e, and want a more 4e feel out of 5e, you should not have to approach that as a hidden agenda for fear being told to bugger off and play 4e because 5e's not for you.

5e comes with a strong TSR-era feel, throw in feats & MCing and you get a note of 3.x on the finish. If you want even more of either, the DMG has various 'modules' to help with that. 4e bits are there, but they're burried deep and don't accomplish the same things, and the supposed options to bring out more of a 4e experience simply fail to do so.

That said, 3.x fans coming here, looking to tweak the game more to their liking /also/ get wrongly told off for it.

In this instance, this is literally your intention for melee attacks and cantrips.

Actually, the way he's harmonizing melee attack and cantrip progression is not much like it was in 4e. Damage scaling wasn't that dramatic, across the board, in 4e at-wills. At /epic/ you got a second [W] with your at-will. Damage scaling in 5e is much faster and more dramatic than in any prior edition, but especially 4e, because it's doing most of the 'heavy lifting' in providing a feeling of advancement in spite of BA. The way it's done with cantrips & SA, though, is very different from the way it's done with other weapon attacks. Weapon attacks scaling via extra attacks is more 'old school,' while the fast linear scaling of cantrips is distinctly 5e. Adding dice of damage to melee attacks instead of adding extra attacks was done in the Next Playtest. What Xeviat is proposing is actually closer to some of the playtest modules than to 4e.

That's completely fine, but trying to argue there's something "wrong" with 5e, when in fact all you want to do is bring in some function of 4e you like without breaking 5e, is going to start edition wars. When that happens, no one wins.

To the extent that you view 5e as a final product, meant to be played 'as is,' take-it-or-leave-it, there are a tremendous number of things very wrong with it.
They all go away when you view it, instead, as a starting point from which to run the game you want to run.

Again - just try and keep a lid on the edition warring - you're insulting people like myself and probably that vast majority of players who don't feel warrior multiclassing is somehow "Broken".....what you are implying is that somehow we are stupid or mistaken when we quite like the way 5e has limited and streamlined multiclassing to make it much more focused, rather than the minmaxers wet dream 3.5e and pathfinder is.

Not remotely what's going on. 5e is /not/ perfect. 3.x MCing suffered from caster/caster MCs combining very inefficiently and being sub-optimal, even non-viable. 5e /fixed/ that. It then turned around, and broke the way ASIs and Extra Attack combined, making it very inefficient & suboptimal, in much the same way that caster/casters were in 3.x - that's not edition warring, it's just, well, little weird, really.

But, MCing is optional, as such, whether to use it is a ball firmly in the DM's court - and he can do whatever he wants to that ball before tossing it to the players. If the players don't like the DM's version, fine, no ball for them.

or that they just feel like spell casters (i.e. 4th Ed's issue with "Fighter Casts Punch")

Now that's edition warring.

Fighters in 4e did not cast spells.
Fighters in 5e /do/ cast spells, and it's OK.

Personally, I like 4e and 5e just as much as each other, for differing reasons, and don't see the burning need to try and combine the two. If you want to, go for it, I just think you'll get a bit mroe traction and engagement if you are a little more up front about it.....

There's some very cool stuff in 4e & 5e - and 13A - that each could be improved by 'porting to the other. 'Cause none of 'em are perfect.

 

[Saeviomagy]

Let's take my Fighter alt, because I know it's balanced against he PHB fighter against a single target. Let's say level 5. Instead of having Extra Attack, they get +1W for being 5th level AND they get +1 to hit and +2 to damage. Also, Duelist is changed to +2 damage per weapon die so it scales properly.

Against a single target, with an 18 Str, the fighter has +8 to hit and 2d8+10 damage. Core, the fighter has +7 to hit and 1d8+6 x2. So mine hits more often, core hits for more damage.

So... balanced as long as you assume that 1 hit = 2 damage, which has it's own problems, but close enough.

Against two targets, my fighter can sacrifice one damage die to attack two targets. They now attack for +8 and 1d8+8 to two targets, while core would be +7 and 1d8+6.

Right! That's what I was missing. My understanding would be that the fighter would take his pool of dice, subtract one for doing multiattack, and then assign each of the remaining dice to different foes.

What you actually mean is "remove 1 die from the attack, add 1 target to the attack", right? Or even just "assign your [w] dice between as many targets as you want, add modifier once to each target".

Mine would also have "combat maneuvers", like cantrips, to learn things like trips and such to add to maneuvers for sacrificing damage dice or other elements.

So 2[w]+modifier becomes 1[w]+modifier+trip with the right cantrip? That seems like you're worse off than the stock fighter who doesn't need a cantrip, but sacrifices slightly more damage.

Oh, incidentally, how does this all impact opportunity attacks? Are they assumed to be the full multi-[w] version, or are they a single [w]?