D&D 5E Classes, and the structure of DPR

[Mort]

IMO. The problem is that in a team based game, high defense can be avoided by targeting lower defense allies. That is - defense only works as a tactic if the whole group matches (or nearly so, your investment). You need something that incentivizes enemies to attack your high defense character or the defense is basically worthless. For a caster that incentive might be casting a strong concentration spell. For a melee character it might be grappling the BBEG.

Because of the above the defensive traits that are highly valued are the ones that can prevent you from being disabled in combat (Resilient Wis for better wisdom saves) - which does tend to get recommended by whiteroomers.

Right, in a team game (which, generally, D&D is) defense takes on a bit of a different meaning. It's not about individual defense but about making sure the party members best able to take damage/effects are the ones being targeted.

So for ex. spells such as Compelled Duel are excellent because 1. They actually make enemies reconsider targets 2. They're a bonus action, so allow the caster to do something else too.

And for fighting styles IMO interception and protection have a bit more value than defense, because the two former actually take damage away from targets you don't want taking it.

Too many people think "tank" means difficult to hit. But that's not it, a tank that's overly difficult to hit can't do its job effectively because enemies won't bother targeting it.

Blur requires an action, only affects yourself, and enemies can choose to not target you after it's up (limited incentive to attack you vs someone else). Blur may end up preventing no damage (or more), does prevent you from concentrating on anything else, and requires a resource.

Contrast with Healing which leaves your concentration slot open, often just requires a bonus action, can target anyone in the party, and the slot isn't spent till it's actually needed (meaning it's never cast for no affect). *And that's before we get into whack-a-mole healing.

That's why Feats like inspiring leader and abilities like the twilight aura are so good. Preemptive of any fight and provide great HP with very little effort during combat. This also ties right into the group defense goal, vs. Individual.

That's why Blur isn't valued highly.

Most valuations of defensive options are highly DM dependent and depend mostly on how the DM runs enemies in combat. Do they always target the turtle tank. Are they never willing to take OA's to engage another target. Etc. But if given a particular set of enemy tactical assumptions the right whiteroom handles defensive abilities just fine.


My takeaway from defensive style is different. Characters that go sword and shield tend to take duelist because it gives 'enough' damage and defensive style gives little defense. Characters that go Great Weapons tend to go defensive style because the damage from GWF style isn't deemed high enough compared to the +1 AC they can get. Maybe players should value the damage vs the defense differently but I happen to think they've already correctly figured it out.

Defense is a "good enough" style if there isn't a better one. IMO, if Tasha's is allowed most people who would take Defense would take Blind Fighting instead. More situational, but just SO MUCH better. Heck, I'd consider taking Blind Fighting over Dueling depending on campaign.

 

[Ancalagon]

There’s a simple formula to determine when the -5 to hit +10 damage increases your average damage based on the number you need to roll on the die to land a hit. Obviously you won’t always know your target’s AC, but generally you can get a close enough estimate to know when to use the option and when not to to maximize average damage output.

On paper, it’s good, but far from overpowered, if you know when to use it and when not to. But in practice it can definitely pull ahead if you frequently encounter low-AC enemies and/or have a reliable way to gain advantage. And of course the Archery fighting style makes Sharpshooter a lot stronger.

The simple formula I know is AC = 16 + H - D/2, H = + to hit, D = average damage of an attack (without the +10 from GWM/SS) and AC is the "break even" point - if the foe's AC is lower than what the formulae tells you, it is worth it to use GWM/SS, if it's higher, you are better off attacking without it.

A consequence of using GWM/SS I have noted is that even in cases where it's clearly increasing damage, it's a lot less reliable. So if you have a bit of luck, you can do massive bursts of damage... but if the dice grows cold, your damage can plummet for a round or three, and that can be really clutch/disastrous.

In many battles, the odds are in the PCs' favor. Increasing randomness increases chances of PC failing/dying.

 

[Ancalagon]

A quick note on the "avoiding the hard to hit target". This may be true, but often it is not obvious whom these are - and depending on the foe's roll, may not be obvious for a round or 2. If you roll a 17 and you don't hit, you KNOW the target has a high AC. But if you rolled a 3...

 

[ECMO3]

IMO. The problem is that in a team based game, high defense can be avoided by targeting lower defense allies. That is - defense only works as a tactic if the whole group matches (or nearly so, your investment). You need something that incentivizes enemies to attack your high defense character or the defense is basically worthless. For a caster that incentive might be casting a strong concentration spell. For a melee character it might be grappling the BBEG.

But this is always true. Usually those using defense should be the easiest for the enemy to attack or should be the obvious guys the enemy will want to attack due to positioning or some other reason.

Blur requires an action, only affects yourself, and enemies can choose to not target you after it's up (limited incentive to attack you vs someone else). Blur may end up preventing no damage (or more), does prevent you from concentrating on anything else, and requires a resource.

I will point out that in order to win they will eventually need to target you. You are right though they will go after others and smart enemies being played by smart DMs will even avoid making AOs on you, preferring not to waste a reaction.

But that in itself is something you can use to your advantage. Casting blur on yourself so you can relatively safely move at will is a legitimate tactic.

Contrast with Healing which leaves your concentration slot open, often just requires a bonus action, can target anyone in the party, and the slot isn't spent till it's actually needed (meaning it's never cast for no affect). *And that's before we get into whack-a-mole healing.

If you have a high AC (20+) blur is going to save a ton of damage, you are going to need a spell like heal which requires a 6th level slot to be equivalent. This is also balanced by the fact that you can't use healing spells in advance, yes that means you don't waste a spell, but it also means you lose an action (or bonus action) in combat and it could be needed when you can't use it because of turn order, movement or a host of other reasons.

The big question on in combat healing comes with how a DM treats downed enemies. Usually when someone goes down in games I DM, most enemies try to focus on that downed character and kill him before he can get back up. A lot of DMs. including most of those I play with will focus on standing characters. This has a huge effect on healing in combat, if you go down against multiple enemies, or enemies with multi-attack there is a good chance you are going to die before you can get healed.

I think a more appropriate comparison to blur is false life, because you can benefit from it before you take damage. Again you are going to have to cast it at 6th level or higher to get the kind of hps you will "save" from using blur, but it does not use concentration. One thing I have done as a bladesinger is use mirror image and upcast false life while I concentrate on protection from good and evil that I cast on another character (typically a Monk or Barbarian). This puts a very strong defense on two caharacters on the front line and PGE eliminates the advantage against the Barb caused by reckless attack. I also upcast false life on them occasionally as well.

I have seen blur used with high AC and shield to make it so characters can't be hit without a double 20.

My takeaway from defensive style is different. Characters that go sword and shield tend to take duelist because it gives 'enough' damage and defensive style gives little defense. Characters that go Great Weapons tend to go defensive style because the damage from GWF style isn't deemed high enough compared to the +1 AC they can get. Maybe players should value the damage vs the defense differently but I happen to think they've already correctly figured it out.

The guys I see play GWM (actually only 1 guy) usually takes GWF. His play style is offense and he will will even go with a chain shirt so he can sneak without disadvantage (enabling more offense).

It is fun, although as you alluded to, I could whiteroom his build and point out how mathematically terrible it is (and he could to) but that is how he likes to play, and when he does action surge and manages to hit with all 5 attacks plus GWM plus battlemaster dice it is pretty awesome.

 

[clearstream]

IMO. The problem is that in a team based game, high defense can be avoided by targeting lower defense allies. That is - defense only works as a tactic if the whole group matches (or nearly so, your investment). You need something that incentivizes enemies to attack your high defense character or the defense is basically worthless. For a caster that incentive might be casting a strong concentration spell. For a melee character it might be grappling the BBEG.

That's very true. As a DM I assume intelligent or cunning creatures - with experience of combat and whose lives depend on it - will circumvent the heavily armoured defensive types. Another example of the difficulties of designing effective defensive features.

Because of the above the defensive traits that are highly valued are the ones that can prevent you from being disabled in combat (Resilient Wis for better wisdom saves) - which does tend to get recommended by whiteroomers.

Sure, but - to my taste - these broad, always-on defenses are the least interesting.

Blur requires an action, only affects yourself, and enemies can choose to not target you after it's up (limited incentive to attack you vs someone else). Blur may end up preventing no damage (or more), does prevent you from concentrating on anything else, and requires a resource.

Were you inclined, you might investigate via probability distribution functions the efficacy of blur in conjunction with decent armor. Yes, it uses a resource. It frees up more resources, however.

Contrast with Healing which leaves your concentration slot open, often just requires a bonus action, can target anyone in the party, and the slot isn't spent till it's actually needed (meaning it's never cast for no affect). *And that's before we get into whack-a-mole healing.

That's why Blur isn't valued highly.

I know the arguments about blur. I've analysed the spell and seen it in play. It's not good in all cases, but I cannot agree about healing being better. The argument does depend on specifics to each group, however. If it is inconsequential to cast multiple healing spells to recover from damage that could have been avoided - for example, for groups that use a more lenient RAI for rests - then blur will be worse.

Most valuations of defensive options are highly DM dependent and depend mostly on how the DM runs enemies in combat. Do they always target the turtle tank. Are they never willing to take OA's to engage another target. Etc. But if given a particular set of enemy tactical assumptions the right whiteroom handles defensive abilities just fine.

A true Scotsman is a noble gentleman.

My takeaway from defensive style is different. Characters that go sword and shield tend to take duelist because it gives 'enough' damage and defensive style gives little defense. Characters that go Great Weapons tend to go defensive style because the damage from GWF style isn't deemed high enough compared to the +1 AC they can get. Maybe players should value the damage vs the defense differently but I happen to think they've already correctly figured it out.

The two strongest fighting styles are archery and defense. Dueling is third. However, you will consistently see the damage overrated.

 

[Charlaquin]

The simple formula I know is AC = 16 + H - D/2, H = + to hit, D = average damage of an attack (without the +10 from GWM/SS) and AC is the "break even" point - if the foe's AC is lower than what the formulae tells you, it is worth it to use GWM/SS, if it's higher, you are better off attacking without it.

Yep, that’s the formula.

A consequence of using GWM/SS I have noted is that even in cases where it's clearly increasing damage, it's a lot less reliable. So if you have a bit of luck, you can do massive bursts of damage... but if the dice grows cold, your damage can plummet for a round or three, and that can be really clutch/disastrous.

If you believe in “hot” and “cold” dice this might be a meaningful concern, but over time your average damage will approach the expected value, which makes consistently using GWM or SS when they improve your expected damage and not using it when it won’t an overall positive value proposition.

In many battles, the odds are in the PCs' favor. Increasing randomness increases chances of PC failing/dying.

Sure. That’s why you use the formula to limit the randomness.

 

[ECMO3]

Right, in a team game (which, generally, D&D is) defense takes on a bit of a different meaning. It's not about individual defense but about making sure the party members best able to take damage/effects are the ones being targeted.

So for ex. spells such as Compelled Duel are excellent because 1. They actually make enemies reconsider targets 2. They're a bonus action, so allow the caster to do something else too.

I don't find a difference here. Compelled duel gives disadvantage against everyone except you (if they fail a save), blur gives a disadvantage against you (unless they have truesight). Both require concentration.

It depends on exactly who you want them to attack and what the situation is. If you don't want them attacking you (or more importantly making OAs on you) then it is useless to cast compelled duel.

And for fighting styles IMO interception and protection have a bit more value than defense, because the two former actually take damage away from targets you don't want taking it.

Too many people think "tank" means difficult to hit. But that's not it, a tank that's overly difficult to hit can't do its job effectively because enemies won't bother targeting it.

Movement provides penalties to targeting too, through OAs and action cost. It may sound great: I will avoid attacking the guy weaving in and out of your formation but that comes at a non-zero cost.

The whole idea of a tank is to make it easy to "target" and difficult to "down". Whether they accomplish that through AC, damage reduction or hps is not really relevant. Certainly enemies would like to target someone and you make the tank easier to target.

As you said this is a team game and the rest of your party should be working on that too. Guy dashes past the high AC tank to get to the wizard, well he just wasted an action to dash and the wizard can hit him with a cantrip and misty step to make him waste another if he tries it again next turn. Meanwhile he got attacked (or a spell cast at him) when he caused an AO and left the "tank" without disengaging.

That's why Feats like inspiring leader and abilities like the twilight aura are so good. Preemptive of any fight and provide great HP with very little effort during combat. This also ties right into the group defense goal, vs. Individual.

Defense is a "good enough" style if there isn't a better one. IMO, if Tasha's is allowed most people who would take Defense would take Blind Fighting instead. More situational, but just SO MUCH better. Heck, I'd consider taking Blind Fighting over Dueling depending on campaign.

I rarely take any of the styles mentioned here. The most common styles I personally take are Druidic Warrior when playing a ranger and Superior Technique when playing something else.

Also IME twilight sanctuary has been far less sucessfull in play than it seems on paper and far less workable in most fights than it sounds. I have had twilight clerics in 3 games and only one time has it been a game-changer. That is when we were fighting a host of enemies including 4 harpies, Slaads and a water elemental. What made it great was ending the charms, not the hps. In the same group we actually had our 6th level wizard outright die in an earlier fight while TS was up (he was outside the 30 feet and was attacked by a hidden enemy), That is the only time someone in that particular group died. In the other two groups the cleric who used it outright died while it was up, again the only deaths we have had in those groups. The positioning and losing it because of incapacitation are always problematic and make it somewhat conditional. It is high cost too, as it uses your action and your channel divinity which is equivalent to half your PB in spell slots.

 

[ECMO3]

Sure. That’s why you use the formula to limit the randomness.

Using the formula does not reduce the variation, it only calculates the mean damage. It does not account for the shape of the distribution.

His point is if you use it yor standard deviation is larger, meaning your chance of doing very low damage (and therefore losing the battle) is higher even though your overall average damage is higher. This is true regardless of whether or not you use the formula. The only time it would not be true is if your overall chance of winning the battle is lower than 50%.

The reverse is true too. If you are in a fight you are probably going to lose, increasing the variation and potential for high "fight saving" damage will increase your chance of winning even if the formula says you should not use it.

To illustrate this, you are the last man standing, you have 1 hp, it is your turn and you need to roll a 19 normally to hit the enemy. You have 1 attack left and he has 30hps and he needs a 10 to hit you. You are probably going to lose this fight regardless, and the formula tells you don't use GWM, but you have a "better" chance of winning the fight if you do use it.

 

[Charlaquin]

Using the formula does not reduce the variation, it only calculates the mean damage. It does not account for the shape of the distribution.

His point is if you use it yor standard deviation is larger, meaning your chance of doing very low damage (and therefore losing the battle) is higher even though your overall average damage is higher. This is true regardless of whether or not you use the formula. The only time it would not be true is if your overall chance of winning the battle is lower than 50%.

The reverse is true too. If you are in a fight you are probably going to lose, increasing the variation and potential for high "fight saving" damage will increase your chance of winning even if the formula says you should not use it.

To illustrate this, you are the last man standing, you have 1 hp, it is your turn and you need to roll a 19 normally to hit the enemy. You have 1 attack left and he has 30hps and he needs a 10 to hit you. You are probably going to lose this fight regardless, and the formula tells you don't use GWM, but you have a "better" chance of winning the fight if you do use it.

Ah, ok I see what you’re saying. Yes, that is accurate.

 

[Mort]

It is not as big as everyone thinks. Using a greatsword against a 15 AC foe with 2 attacks a turn, a 16 Strength, GWM will do less than 1 point DPR (0.26 in actually) compared to someone who took an ASI in strength. That also is using your BA to make an extra attack every time you roll a crit with one of your attacks. If you don't use your bonus action you do less in damage than someone who took the ASI. If you compare it to taking another feat (which is more appropriate here) you are doing an extra 1.3 DPR.

To compare the others I mentioned:

GGD: does an average of 9 every time you use it, with a save for half (4.5). To make this comparison fair we will assume the chance of a save is 1 in 3. You can use it 3 times a day in tier 2 so it will still do on average 22.5 damage per day. So in terms of damage it is the equivalent of 17 attacks using GWM against a 15 AC foe plus the additional movement which is difficult to account for mathematically.

But your analysis is exactly my point, GWM NOT used properly /optimaly, isn't all that great. But your not using it optimally.

Change the fact pattern:

1. You said tier 2 so run it against AC 15 but with 18 or, more likely, 20 strength.

2. Assume the GWM utilizes advantage to its fullest. Say the DM allows flanking, or assume a vengeance paladin or (since D&D is a team game) assume a team member cast something like Fairie Fire on the bad guys. The GWM will get more out of advantage.

3. Forget the great sword and use a halberd and Polearm Master. Even if the fighter has an 18 strength vs. 20 strength, he'll be ahead in DPR, but regardless he'll have 20 STR by 8th level (still tier 2) and will be really ahead when properly utilizing advantage. Remember, he'll be getting 3 attacks and sometimes even 4 a round, and that's tier 2.

I've tried out the GWM, PAM fighter (with blind fighting style), he's an absolute beast.