D&D 5E Treantmonk's Guide to Wizards 5e

[clearstream]

@Treantmonklvl20

You might have seen above that I acknowledge that with shorter adventuring days, the BS balance leans strongly away from melee and toward God-Wizard. With shorter adventuring days, the high value I put on sustain becomes irrelevant.

Out of interest, here are my first-pass estimates for our Level 5 Cleric versus our Level 5 melee BS, taking into account resource expenditure. Assumed are 4 encounters with 1 short rest per "day". Not included yet are attacks back, which is a factor due to the Concentration on Spirit Guardians.

Level 5 Cleric using Spirit Guardians (2 casts), Spiritual Weapon (3 casts), Sacred Flame (unlimited) = sustains 14 damage per round. That is because Guardians is available only half the time, and Weapon is available only three-quarters of the time. AC is 19 (Half-plate + Shield).

Level 5 Bladesinger using Blur (3+1 casts), Booming Blade (unlimited), Shield (4 casts) = sustains 12 damage per round. Foe is assumed to always Disengage. AC is 20 (Mage Armor + 7) or 25 (hardly ever needed), foe has Disadvantage on attacks.

As you can see, Bladesinger in this case still has their 3rd level spells unused. Cleric probably casts out all their 1st-level spells on healing. Cleric damage will come down once Concentration interruptions are factored in, it might be Cleric even drops to dying quite often. I'll look at that later.

My guess is that we have divergent views because I am estimating over a day while I think you are estimating over a single pristine encounter. I concede that the way the game is often run, that's what players are experiencing. That's not what the guidelines suggest of course, but it's the reality at many tables.

 

[Treantmonklvl20]

My guess is that we have divergent views because I am estimating over a day while I think you are estimating over a single pristine encounter. I concede that the way the game is often run, that's what players are experiencing. That's not what the guidelines suggest of course, but it's the reality at many tables.

You are not the first (nor I suspect the last) person to suggest to me that 6-8 encounters per day with 2 short rests is the "standard" and we should evaluate abilties on that standard.

However, pg 85 of DMG isn't telling you what every adventuring day is supposed to look like (adventuring days should look like many different things), but instead to give you an idea of what is intended to be survivable. 6-8 easy to mid difficulty encounters with 2 short rests is intended to be a survivable challenge for most parties. That's it.

The belief that this means that one single difficult encounter in a day is, to use your words, "If a DM is allowing a single-encounter work-day they're distorting the game balance" does not lead me to believe you have a strong grasp on the variety that D&D tends to provide.

I have run HotDQ and OotA, and although I can't speak to all official D&D adventure paths, I can tell you in those two, in order of frequency, would be:
1) A single very tough encounter between long rests
2) Several easy encounters followed by a mid to high difficulty encounter at the end, all jammed together with no rests inbetween
3) A few mid level encounters with optional short rests in between

There are of course other scenarios, but these 3 would be the most common.

For the record, a single Spirit Guardians would get you through the first 2 of those 3. (15 minute duration)

So I don't really accept your analysis that assumes several encounters with a separate casting required for every encounter. Duration matters. 1 minute duration and 15 minutes duration are not equivalent game wise.

P.S. - there are some assumptions you make in earlier posts I have some issues with:

Okay, so we will say that foe always chooses Disengage.

Why would we say that? I certainly didn't. I would say (and I think this should be obvious), that a foe will generally choose to avoid provoking attacks of opportunity OR giving up actions. This means, a foe that is in melee will tend to either: 1) stay put or 2) move in a way that doesn't leave the threatened area. How is that not plainly obvious?

Of course there are obvious exceptions, but they are exceptions, not the norm. Some factor that creates the need for the opponent to either provoke an attack of opportunity or give up an action to disengage. Without such a factor, the only reasonable assumption is that the foe will do neither.

Furthermore, I am assuming that the average foe does not know about the secondary damage of Booming Blade. Once that becomes apparent, I would think the average foe would avoid moving if it is reasonable to do so if hit with the attack again. Once again, I don't think I'm reaching here. This seems pretty plain to me.

Given you allow BS no Attacks of Opportunity

I never said that, nor did I imply that.

I said that creatures provoking attacks of opportunity was uncommon. I suggested that something that was uncommon was probably not worth in-detail analysis.

That said, feel free to re-do the analysis with a dex boost instead. Personally, I would still go with Warcaster for the ability to maintain concentration spells if nothing else.

Before I can provide you my estimates which take into account expendable resources, can you answer my question

You didn't exactly wait for my answer did you? When I'm working, I'm not on Enworld. You could have saved yourself a lot of effort only to have me have to post now saying that I have to reject your analysis because you assumed my answer rather than waiting for it.

 

[clearstream]

However, pg 85 of DMG isn't telling you what every adventuring day is supposed to look like (adventuring days should look like many different things), but instead to give you an idea of what is intended to be survivable. 6-8 easy to mid difficulty encounters with 2 short rests is intended to be a survivable challenge for most parties. That's it.

Actually, I didn't argue for 6-8. I asked you what you thought? The Adventuring Day XP table guides to about 4 medium to hard encounters per adventuring day. It chimes with the sessions per level guidelines later in the book. It is a curious reading of those sections to come away without the understanding that multiple encounters between long-rests is intended.

The belief that this means that one single difficult encounter in a day is, to use your words, "If a DM is allowing a single-encounter work-day they're distorting the game balance" does not lead me to believe you have a strong grasp on the variety that D&D tends to provide.

That is a surprising ad-hominem. There have been threads and threads of analysis on the impact of single-encounter work-days on the mechanics. The occasional single-encounter day works fine, but if it becomes the norm then that distorts the game balance. That doesn't mean your game won't be fun, but some abilities will be much stronger, and others weaker. Warlock versus Wizard spell casting for instance. The game gets more interesting - and varied - when we push the number of encounters between rests upwards.

Why would we say that? I certainly didn't. I would say (and I think this should be obvious), that a foe will generally choose to avoid provoking attacks of opportunity OR giving up actions. This means, a foe that is in melee will tend to either: 1) stay put or 2) move in a way that doesn't leave the threatened area. How is that not plainly obvious?

Of course there are obvious exceptions, but they are exceptions, not the norm. Some factor that creates the need for the opponent to either provoke an attack of opportunity or give up an action to disengage. Without such a factor, the only reasonable assumption is that the foe will do neither.

Furthermore, I am assuming that the average foe does not know about the secondary damage of Booming Blade. Once that becomes apparent, I would think the average foe would avoid moving if it is reasonable to do so if hit with the attack again. Once again, I don't think I'm reaching here. This seems pretty plain to me.

Holy hedging. You've dodged and weaved between claiming BS's allies die because foe can ignore BS (how is foe avoiding BB and AoO?), to claiming foe avoids moving (how does foe reach allies?), to claiming that even if foe does move they won't trigger an AoE because they'll Disengage (how does foe get to make attacks?), to now claiming that foe will be able to move in such a way that it doesn't even leave the threatened area (why do BS' allies keep staying so conveniently nearby for that to work?) There doesn't seem to be any clear picture that you can accept of what foe actually does do: foe is sometimes a particle, sometimes a wave, never found with a specific position or direction.

I never said that, nor did I imply that.

Not including any damage for an AoO implies that you are not conceding BS any AoOs. That's not a stretch.

I said that creatures provoking attacks of opportunity was uncommon. I suggested that something that was uncommon was probably not worth in-detail analysis.

That said, feel free to re-do the analysis with a dex boost instead. Personally, I would still go with Warcaster for the ability to maintain concentration spells if nothing else.

Warcaster is good, but not at level 4, and especially not if you believe AoO's will be too uncommon to show up on a damage estimate. As you know, the Concentration boost isn't needed, and the +1 to AC, attack, damage, initiative and skills has a significant impact at this point in BS' career. As for AoO being uncommon - foe must choose

A) Stay and fight. It's not hitting BS, and it is being hit. Tanking mission accomplished.
B) Disengage. It takes the BB secondary and BS follows it up. It loses its attacks that turn.
C) Move. It takes the BB secondary and an AoO, and BS follows it up. It gets one turn of attacks against an ally.
D) Move around BS so as to find itself next to BS' ally without leaving BS' reach. Requires a cooperative ally!?

What I could do is create a weighting for each choice, and distribute across choices. That would lock down the effective damage. I could then create the resultant PDF for attacks back. I'd continue to use a four-encounter day, with a weighting for Cleric occasionally being able to port Guardians across two encounters, which will be more than off-set by Cleric losing Concentration upon being hit.

Do you accept that those parameters are fair?

If you can't, that's fine - your experience of D&D and understanding of what makes the game varied and exciting evidently differs from mine. I'd rather then thank you for the debate and leave it there.

 

[Treantmonklvl20]

Actually, I didn't argue for 6-8. I asked you what you thought?

I owe you an apology. I thought you were trying to tell me that there was some kind of designer intention for multiple encounters between long rests, but you were honestly interested in my opinion. I am embarrassed and hope you can accept my apology.

It is a curious reading of those sections to come away without the understanding that multiple encounters between long-rests is intended.

Oh.

That is a surprising ad-hominem.

Here's how an ad-hominem works:
1) You make a claim
2) I attack you instead of addressing the claim
3) therefore the claim is false.

Here's what happened:
1) You made a claim
2) I provided examples showing the claim was not true
3) You being unaware of those examples made me question your experience

Not an ad-hominem. Now, see, if I had suggested you didn't know what an ad-hominem works off the bat, rather than providing the specifics of how you had mistaken what I said for an ad-hominem, THAT would be an ad-hominem.

The game gets more interesting - and varied - when we push the number of encounters between rests upwards.

I would argue the game is more interesting when we vary the number of encounters so the players don't know what to expect, but it's irrelevant. The facts are that official campaign paths for 5e involve many single encounter days. If the designers intended otherwise, then their intentions became irrelevant with their own product.

Holy hedging. You've dodged and weaved

I don't think so, but I will address your claims individually.

claiming BS's allies die because foe can ignore BS (how is foe avoiding BB and AoO?)

I actually don't remember making the claim that the BS's allies will all die because the foe can ignore the BS. If I did, it was an exaggeration, to tell you the reason for the exaggeration, I would need the quote and context.

My actual non-exaggerated claim is that a non multiclass BS does not contribute effectively to the team effort when using a rapier, even moreso if he/she is concentrating on blur, which puts greater responsibility on other party members to pick up the slack in damage output. The BS's failure to contribute effectively does not necessarily mean anyone else will die, it depends how effective the other party members are and how challenging the encounters.

to claiming foe avoids moving (how does foe reach allies?)

No, my claim was that a foe will tend to avoid attacks of opportunity or giving up actions for disengage unless there is a factor that creates a need to do these things. Choosing to attack one of the BS's allies may or may not be one of those factors, but there are enough variables in combat to make it difficult to determine without specifics in terms of locations of everyone on the battlefield, who the enemy is, how many of them there are, etc.

Assuming a foe will avoid harming itself without there being any incentive to do so is not "hedging", or is my assumption that there will not always be that incentive that you consider "hedging". I really have no idea where you are coming from here. This seems really obvious to me.

to claiming that even if foe does move they won't trigger an AoE because they'll Disengage

You kept repeating a false claim that if an opponent moves, they provoke an attack of opportunity when this conversation began.

I provided disengage as an example of how an opponent can move without provoking an attack of opportunity, of course, it is not the only example, yet you've latched onto this as if it was my claim that opponents use disengage every time they move.

They don't.

Most movement doesn't provoke attacks of opportunity at all.

There are of course obvious exceptions.

Sometimes those exceptions involve an attack of opportunity.

Sometimes those exceptions involve disengaging to avoid that attack of opportunity.

Tactical movement in combat has nuance.

I have NEVER claimed that an opponent ALWAYS moves in any specific way.

If you think I've said otherwise, one of us is wrong.

If I am wrong, show me the quote.

If you can't find the quote, it is because you are mischaracterizing my position.

Please stop.

Hopefully this is clear as glass this time.

to now claiming that foe will be able to move in such a way that it doesn't even leave the threatened area

Are you seriously telling me this is odd to you? I really don't even know how to respond.

I'm going to have to ask for some help from any other posters who read this: How unusual is it for an opponent to move in combat in a way that doesn't provoke an attack of opportunity (or require a disengage? I mean like moving within a threatened area without leaving it. Am I the only one that find this happens reasonably frequently? Or is vonklaude the only one who finds this is a very unusual circumstance? Is it somewhere in the middle? Please respond.

(why do BS' allies keep staying so conveniently nearby for that to work?)

Clearly just to refute your arguments. Definitely not walls, or marching order, or ambush, or any other countless reasons. Only to refute you. Don't get in a sarcasm contest with me.

There doesn't seem to be any clear picture that you can accept of what foe actually does do: foe is sometimes a particle, sometimes a wave, never found with a specific position or direction.

There are many different types of battles, with many different positions, situations and factors. I understand that kind of nuance makes it difficult for you to make universal claims, but that doesn't change that combats aren't all uniform. Why that is equivalent to quantum electromagnetic particles in complexity for you I cannot answer.

Not including any damage for an AoO implies that you are not conceding BS any AoOs. That's not a stretch.

Of course it is a stretch, and not a small one either. There are all kinds of variables I did not include, that does not mean I do not think they are possible, or ever relevant, it merely means I don't consider them the NORM. Should I also include a comparison where the foe has cover? If I don't, does that mean I am denying the possiblity that a foe will ever have cover?

Feel free to do comparisons including any variables you wish, simply understand that in the case of an attack of opportunity, I think in most rounds, in most combats, that variable will not occur. That does not mean I don't think it ever occurs.

Warcaster is good, but not at level 4, and especially not if you believe AoO's will be too uncommon to show up on a damage estimate. As you know, the Concentration boost isn't needed, and the +1 to AC, attack, damage, initiative and skills has a significant impact at this point in BS' career.

Saying the concentration boost isn't needed is something that needs clarification. The Wizard does not have Constitution save proficiency. A Bladesinger is not likely to have an overly high constitution (tertiary ability score), there is an Int boost when Bladesong is up, which is a very necessary patch to a significant vulnerability, but I don't see it as 100% reliable. Consider our 5th level Bladesinger: Int 16, Con 13 - that's a total +4 on a save that has a minimum DC of 10, and you are confident of that without advantage? I wouldn't be, that's a 30% fail possiblity on DC10.

That said, I agree with you that the Dex boost has a lot going for it, and is also a reasonable choice at this level. Warcaster can always come later (or resilient)

As for AoO being uncommon - foe must choose
A) Stay and fight. It's not hitting BS, and it is being hit. Tanking mission accomplished.

Depends how it fights. BS has low HP and not great saving throws.
A.1: It might simply be drop BS after taking minimal damage and then move on to other opponent, tanking mission failure

B) Disengage. It takes the BB secondary and BS follows it up. It loses its attacks that turn.

Again, there are additional possibilities you are ignoring
B.1: Opponent uses an ability like cunning action or nimble escape to disengage as a bonus action and keeps it's action

C) Move. It takes the BB secondary and an AoO, and BS follows it up. It gets one turn of attacks against an ally.

Yes, I grant you this is one of many possibilities

D) Move around BS so as to find itself next to BS' ally without leaving BS' reach. Requires a cooperative ally!?

Does not necessarily require a co-operative ally, though I provided multiple examples earlier this post, you can simply look at those
E) Uses an ability like Misty Step to move to another opponent
F) Simply switches to another opponent already adjacent
etc.

I'm not adding additional possibilities to suggest that any of those possibilities are MORE likely than the possibilities you've listed, I've added them to show that your list is not comprehensive. I have undoubtedly missed possibilities as well.

What I could do is create a weighting for each choice, and distribute across choices.

Feel free

I'd continue to use a four-encounter day, with a weighting for Cleric occasionally being able to port Guardians across two encounters, which will be more than off-set by Cleric losing Concentration upon being hit.

Looking at our level 5 cleric, he's got con 14 (+2) and warcaster. On a DC con save, that's an 84% chance of success on a 10, and the CL is going to have a pretty impressive AC too (assuming half plate and shield), not going to be a huge factor I would think.

The 4 encounter day is OK for one example.

Do you accept that those parameters are fair?

That would depend on how the various possibilities were weighted.

 

[gyor]

This guide is going to need updating to reflect the Warmage, New Spells, Racial Feats, and any potentially cool mutliclass combos.

 

[Treantmonklvl20]

This guide is going to need updating to reflect the Warmage, New Spells, Racial Feats, and any potentially cool mutliclass combos.

That is my intention, though don't expect it on day 1. Going to need some time to read, and let everything sink in. Looking forward to it!

 

[clearstream]

You are not the first (nor I suspect the last) person to suggest to me that 6-8 encounters per day with 2 short rests is the "standard" and we should evaluate abilties on that standard.

I owe you an apology. I thought you were trying to tell me that there was some kind of designer intention for multiple encounters between long rests, but you were honestly interested in my opinion. I am embarrassed and hope you can accept my apology.

Apology accepted. I did not tell you 6-8 encounters is the "standard". You changed the words "6-8 encounters" to "multiple encounters".

Not an ad-hominem. Now, see, if I had suggested you didn't know what an ad-hominem works off the bat, rather than providing the specifics of how you had mistaken what I said for an ad-hominem, THAT would be an ad-hominem.

I see. You believe that so long as you address the argument, you can ignore also attacking the character or capabilities of the person you're having the discussion with? I guess you are saying that you did not denigrate me in the form of rebuttal, but only to be insulting. I mistook it as an attempt to call into question the capabilities of your debating partner in order to make their arguments appear less convincing.

The 4 encounter day is OK for one example.

That would depend on how the various possibilities were weighted.

No doubt. I'll set up an estimate over the day. I can see that to make my case I have to make visible the consequence of defences and efficiency. Right now we're saying something like damage = value. My case is that value = damage + defences + efficiency.

 

[Mephista]

Huh. I wonder if I should update my old warlock guide, it's so far out of date....

 

[clearstream]

@Treantmonklvl20 Here is the first-pass PDF for their sustain rates - Bladesinger, Cleric and Barbarian.

This is of course only indicative although I would resist a mindset that demands every possible nuance to be included in the PDF, while being content to judge based on single-pristine-encounter estimates.



The value under E is the proportion of days of that type that will have that outcome. It's easiest to visualise a set of 10 such days, and understand that by the end of that set, those outcomes will have been experienced that many times. The value under "sustain" is the point at which that character has consumed all available resources and is dying. Look at the "damage" column to see how frequently that point is reached. There are two PDFs for each character, the second is to show the critical damage, which should be added to the first.

• Bladesinger is casting 3 Shields so we need to step back up the E column to find the actual damage. As you can see, Bladesinger takes 12 or less damage about 76% of the time, and 45 or less damage about 90% of the time. Remembering that Bladesinger is Shielding attacks that would hit, they end up keeping concentration at the 0 or 1 hit rate.
• Cleric is dying about 98% of the time. The "conc" column shows their probability of maintaining concentration with that many hits, but it isn't quite right yet as those hits are spread over 4 encounters: my guess is Cleric is losing concentration about half the time on a per encounter basis.
• Barbarian is shown also. As you can see, even with resistance, due to Reckless Attacking Barbarian dies about 100% of the time.

At this point the estimate assumes one foe makes a Multiattack on the character every round of every encounter. That's too high so I need to look at our other assumptions and bring this into alignment. Illustratively, if we reduce attacks back to happen at half the rate, Barbarian who chooses always-Reckless is still dying on 80% of such days.

What I will do next is converge the PDF and damage-over-day assumptions to estimate factors such as how many attacks back Barbarian negates by killing foe before they can make them. It might then still be necessary to assume Barbarian does not choose always-Reckless. Obviously foe's attacks back are irrelevant to Bladesinger at this CR range: they'd need much stronger melee opponents before they'd feel pressed. I'm not sure how to help Cleric: ideas are welcome.

 

[clearstream]

Huh. I wonder if I should update my old warlock guide, it's so far out of date....

Do it! I have two Warlocks in my OOTA campaign and would value an up to date guide! (One Fey+Chain, one Fiend+Book.)