D&D 5E Truly Understanding the Martials & Casters discussion (+)

[Gammadoodler]

The absurd strength, speed, and ability to take and dish out damage are the real roadblocks to superheros in 5e. Bounded accuracy is swallowed whole like a planet in Galactus' crosshairs. How much damage does a thrown wagon do? How do you represent the Flash's super-speed? Hell, a bigger problem is that super powers are generally speaking not limited use, while all the cool stuff wizards do is.

There is certainly some range as it relates to superpowers and the upper limits are really high. The advantage of using superheroes is that they are frequently operating in a more narratively equivalent environment to D&D than your average John McLane or Dwayne Johnson character. So they generally serve as better models for "How powerful should a dude have to be to fight a dragon hand to hand instead of hiding from it?"

 

[Maxperson]

@Maxperson

Thanks! I don't really see that as a counterargument.

Ice Storm is 4th level and Synaptic Static is 5th. Without fireball or lightning bolt, and many on that list are immune/resistant to electricity as well, the number of slots that can be devoted to combat drops. And again, the more combat spells you use, the less you are being the out of combat guru that wizards are supposed to be.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

Man, there's been a hell of a lot of people asserting that either @FrogReaver or I will be super dishonest or disingenuous about this process we're working through. Good to know people think so highly of our character and integrity...

Seriously guys, I genuinely want to make something actually informative. I'm pretty hurt by the accusation that I would intentionally seek out something like:

My guess is that the whireroom will be something like four flying adamantine golems throwing rocks from difficult terrain below for the Fighter against 50 goblins squeezed in a cage for the wizard to avoid anything like that.

Do you all truly think me so willing to warp things just to suit my interests? I am genuinely approaching this with the intent of concession if (for example only; FR may desire a different target) the Fighter ends up doing more than double the damage I can dish out over the course of the day.

Yes, I think combats should sometimes include hordes of smaller opponents. Unlike what @Maxperson has said, the designers have explicitly told us that there should be longevity to creatures, that orc soldiers who were scary scary big dudes when you were a level 1 babby have become foot soldiers and cannon fodder by the time you're a level 11 powerhouse. But no, I do not intend to ignore things like the chance of failing saving throws (FrogReaver and I agreed on numbers for this earlier for that very reason), and I am absolutely going to consider resistances and such, otherwise I would never have mentioned taking Elemental Adept!

So...maybe cool it on the hurtful accusations?

@EzekielRaiden

one other question I thought of is the reaction attack from PAM. What are your thoughts around that? I’m kind of thinking 1 attack per encounter or 1 attack every other encounter?

Will address this and some other things when I am more awake (took a nap earlier and need to get back into an effective headspace.)

I'm asking why you have not.

If you truly need someone to skewer for it, blame me. I did ask for a few days to deal with some personal issues, so if the thread has failed to meet your standards of rigor due to the time taken, I am at fault.

 

[Maxperson]

Man, there's been a hell of a lot of people asserting that either @FrogReaver or I will be super dishonest or disingenuous about this process we're working through. Good to know people think so highly of our character and integrity...

Seriously guys, I genuinely want to make something actually informative. I'm pretty hurt by the accusation that I would intentionally seek out something like:



Do you all truly think me so willing to warp things just to suit my interests? I am genuinely approaching this with the intent of concession if (for example only; FR may desire a different target) the Fighter ends up doing more than double the damage I can dish out over the course of the day.

Yes, I think combats should sometimes include hordes of smaller opponents. Unlike what @Maxperson has said, the designers have explicitly told us that there should be longevity to creatures, that orc soldiers who were scary scary big dudes when you were a level 1 babby have become foot soldiers and cannon fodder by the time you're a level 11 powerhouse. But no, I do not intend to ignore things like the chance of failing saving throws (FrogReaver and I agreed on numbers for this earlier for that very reason), and I am absolutely going to consider resistances and such, otherwise I would never have mentioned taking Elemental Adept!

If you're assuming feats, the exercise fails. Many groups don't use them and they are not a default rule. Adding optional rules is like adding house rules. It's a rule that is at your table, but will not be at many other tables.

 

[Minigiant]

The absurd strength, speed, and ability to take and dish out damage are the real roadblocks to superheros in 5e. Bounded accuracy is swallowed whole like a planet in Galactus' crosshairs. How much damage does a thrown wagon do? How do you represent the Flash's super-speed? Hell, a bigger problem is that super powers are generally speaking not limited use, while all the cool stuff wizards do is.

People allow some leeway with super strength. Spiderman is very strong but somehow powers can punch people without pasting them.

I think if you just don't get toFlash, Superman, and Juggernaut, you could be fine.

There is certainly some range as it relates to superpowers and the upper limits are really high. The advantage of using superheroes is that they are frequently operating in a more narratively equivalent environment to D&D than your average John McLane or Dwayne Johnson character. So they generally serve as better models for "How powerful should a dude have to be to fight a dragon hand to hand instead of hiding from it?"

I think the low-medium levels of superheroic might could be usable. Strong as a Stong Giant. Fast as a Royal Eladrin. Tough as a Iron Golem.

 

[FrogReaver]

If you're assuming feats, the exercise fails. Many groups don't use them and they are not a default rule. Adding optional rules is like adding house rules. It's a rule that is at your table, but will not be at many other tables.

IMO, the difference between the wizard with feats and without is pretty negligible (outside concentration boosts).

Many tables play with feats so it's a reasonable assumption to include them. But that doesn't mean it would not be a reasonable assumption if they weren't included. It kind of seems like you are pushing for the only reasonable set of assumptions to be the ones that matches your playstyle. I just really don't think that's a good way to approach this exercise. The moment everyone starts doing that then we might as well pack up, because no ones assumptions are ever going to perfectly align and so we will just spend the rest of the thread fighting about which assumptions to use.

I firmly believe that your set of assumptions are reasonable, but I think the set Ezekiel and I are working out are reasonable as well and hopefully when we put this together it will be a better starting point than any single persons assumptions when it comes to exploring the question of Fighter damage vs Wizard damage. But as I keep noting it's at best a good starting point.

 

[Maxperson]

IMO, the difference between the wizard with feats and without is pretty negligible (outside concentration).

Given resistances and immunities that are extremely prevalent at mid and high levels, the energy substitution feat is pretty darned good.

Many tables play with feats so it's a reasonable assumption to include them.

And many more don't, so it isn't. You might as well include popular house rules as well, since many tables play with those.

If you're trying to get a true comparison of class design, you need to limit yourself to default rules and assumptions. No multiclass, no feats and no magic items.

But that doesn't mean it would not be a reasonable assumption if they weren't included. It kind of seems like you are pushing for the only reasonable set of assumptions to be the ones that matches your playstyle.

Nope!

My playstyle includes feats, multiclassing and magic items. Those just aren't default game assumptions in combat, so they shouldn't be used in a class comparison.

I just really don't think that's a good way to approach this exercise. The moment everyone starts doing that then we might as well pack up, because no ones assumptions are ever going to perfectly align and so we will just spend the rest of the thread fighting about which assumptions to use.

Just agree to the default. That's easy. It's when you start adding in optional rules that things really get wonky, especially since it destroys any chance you had at comparing the design of two different classes.

 

[FrogReaver]

Given resistances and immunities that are extremely prevalent at mid and high levels, the energy substitution feat is pretty darned good.

And many more don't, so it isn't. You might as well include popular house rules as well, since many tables play with those.

If you're trying to get a true comparison of class design, you need to limit yourself to default rules and assumptions. No multiclass, no feats and no magic items.

Nope!

My playstyle includes feats, multiclassing and magic items. Those just aren't default game assumptions in combat, so they shouldn't be used in a class comparison.

Just agree to the default. That's easy. It's when you start adding in optional rules that things really get wonky, especially since it destroys any chance you had at comparing the design of two different classes.

Serious question. Why should knowing how the classes stack up against each other based on 'non-optional rules' be more important than knowing how the classes stack up against each other based on 'optional rules'?

Especially considering that neither you, me nor Ezekiel plays under the 'non-optional rules'.

 

[DND_Reborn]

Why should knowing how the classes stack up against each other based on 'non-optional rules' be more important than knowing how the classes stack up against each other based on 'optional rules'?

Maybe because non-optional rules is the default design the classes were initially balanced around?

Adding optional rules and variants could result in skewing one class more than another?

 

[FrogReaver]

Will address this and some other things when I am more awake (took a nap earlier and need to get back into an effective headspace.)

Sounds good. No rush on my side. Just some excitement as I think we are close to having most things worked out.

If you truly need someone to skewer for it, blame me. I did ask for a few days to deal with some personal issues, so if the thread has failed to meet your standards of rigor due to the time taken, I am at fault.

Just confirming that this was to someone else. Sometimes it's hard to tell whether something is directed at you since blocks prevent you from seeing others quote them as well.