D&D (2024) Playtest 6 Survey is Open

[Parmandur]

I disagree but we have had this out before and we are not going to convince each other.

My contention is that the 6 to 8 encounters is contradicted by the math of the relevant tables that are presented in constructing the adventuring day. I would contend that 6 to 8 encounters are the outer limit of the adventuring day and that nothing significant breaks with fewer encounters or lessor encounters.

I mean, the DMG states as much.

The closer that the limit gets pushed, the more the resource usage of the different Classes will balance out. The game isn't broken at a lower pace, but long rest Classes won't be as challenged.

 

[UngainlyTitan]

I mean, the DMG states as much.

The closer that the limit gets pushed, the more the resource usage of the different Classes will balance out. The game isn't broken at a lower pace, but long rest Classes won't be as challenged.

I mostly agree but I think that if one pays attention to the expected XP per day budget and the encounter guidlines one can get a reasonable balance.

 

[Parmandur]

I mostly agree but I think that if one pays attention to the expected XP per day budget and the encounter guidlines one can get a reasonable balance.

It's a loose balance system. But anytime I hear "Monks or Warlocks are underpowered! Wizards are overpowered!"...gotta check the XP charts, folks.

 

[UngainlyTitan]

It's a loose balance system. But anytime I hear "Monks or Warlocks are underpowered! Wizards are overpowered!"...gotta check the XP charts, folks.

Oh! I do think that monks are underpowered but I would not say the same of warlocks. Although warlocks have issues, that I appreciate more watching a new player with a warlock.
Wizards are powerful and the most versatile.

 

[FitzTheRuke]

I think these things are all true, but by degrees, which is why they are argued about so much:

1) Monks are underpowered.
2) Warlocks are not underpowered but they've got other issues.
3) Wizards are powerful and versatile. Probably the most powerful and versatile, but it depends what level we're talking about.
4) 6-8 Encounters Per Day is too many.
5) You can, and probably do, use 3-5 Encounters Per Day by making the encounters more difficult.

All of the above can bother or not bother you; they can be (and are) argued about how big an issue they are; AND no one quite agrees on how to fix them (or if they need fixing). I doubt very many people think that the opposite of them is true, though.

 

[Chaosmancer]

How are there only 16 rounds of combat in 6-8 four round fights? That's 24-32 rounds of combat. Remember, the official game balance is the adventuring day, so this entire discussion about class balance must revolve around that balance.

That's because I didn't say it was a day with 6 to 8 four round fights. I said it was 16 rounds of combat. So, can you stop trying to alter the premise? Seriously, this is your third attempt to say my numbers are wrong simply because you didn't read what I wrote to understand the numbers I was using, and keep trying to insist your numbers are the only acceptable numbers that can exist.

Because, here is a fun fact. The game is balanced around 6 to 8 ENCOUNTERS. Not 6 to 8 FIGHTS. Combat is not the only possible encounter. Traps are encounters as well. So even in a 6 encounter day... you can absolutely have four fights, and two non-fight encounters. This is literally a known fact, so I don't understand why it would confuse you so much.

6-8, so we'll say 7 fights since that's in the middle. Fights average 3-5 rounds, so we say 4 rounds. The fighter is getting I guess 10 smites total for the 28 rounds of combat. The monk gets 28 rounds of his ability. Since the paladin only gets 10(with that 2nd level ability) smites, that's NOT 16 rounds. That's 10 rounds. So the monk gets an additional 18 rounds, not 12.

28 rounds of combat minus 16 rounds of combat equals twelve rounds of combat. Yes, if you change that to 28 rounds of combat minus 10 rounds of combat that would equal eighteen rounds of combat. But that not only requires the paladin only having 10 rounds of combat, which wasn't my claim, or the assumption that I ever claimed the paladin smote 16 times, which I never did.

Seriously, go back. Reread my post. At this point you are arguing against the shadows you have conjured from your own assumptions, and nothing I have stated.

I never said 40. I said he can't know how many hit points something has left, so there will be overkill and more of it than the monk who doesn't have such a large spike of damage. You simply cannot assume that 100% of the paladin smite damage is going to be useful. If you do, you are automatically incorrect in your assessment.

I know you never said 40%. I said 40%, when I showed how much damage the paladin would have to lose for the Monk in 16 rounds of combat (with the paladin getting 10 rounds of smites) to deal more damage than the Paladin. You never disputed my number, and in fact you have simply claimed that the amount of damage lost is greater than 0%. If the paladin only loses 15% of their damage to overkill? They do more damage than the monk. 33%? They do more damage than the monk.

I don't need to assume 100% of the smite damage is 100% useful. I just need to assume 70% of it is useful, and the paladin outperforms the monk. Or 80% or 90% or 95%. So, unless you can prove that the paladin is only 60% effective with their smite damage.... you are just whistling into the wind. Because it doesn't matter than a small percent of the damage is lost when the gap is so large.

Quote them saying that 2024 will be backwards compatible with the 2014 classes? That's common knowledge man. The only way that's possible is if they keep the adventuring day that the entire edition of 5e is balanced around.

If they redesign the game from the ground up in order to get rid of the adventuring day, and the playtest packets show us that the are not doing that, then backwards compatibility isn't possible.

Backwards compatibility is perfectly in line with not assuming 6 to 8 encounters per day. Especially since many resources have gained or lost different recovery rates.

Your claim that backwards compatibility proves that they have not altered the balance is laughable in the face of the actual changes to balance already presented. Unless you think paladins always received three channel divinities and recovered one per short rest? Or that Warlocks received a daily spell allotment?

 

[FrogReaver]

On Monk vs Paladin Damage

Compared to a Basic Paladin using Divine Smite (maxing str, etc) a Monks damage is perfectly fine as long as he gets 1 short rest. It's actually better if he gets 2.

Where a Paladin outperforms the Monk is in the feat department. A feat like PAM significantly boosts a Paladins damage output - especially when taken via variant human or any of the other races that can take a feat at level 1 now. Monks don't compete well with that. But simple max str, offensive style and divine smite. Definitely!

I mean we can do a basic comparison (I'm just going to assume 1 short rest). I'll even stick to using the level 9 comparison mentioned earlier even though level 9 is a much better level for Paladins than it is for Monks. I'll assume the standard 60% to hit. And since 16 rounds were mentioned I'll use that as well.

Monk does (4.5+5)x2 versatile staff and an additional (3.5+5) from bonus action attack. He's also going to spend all ki on flurry and since we assumed 1 short rest the monk has enough ki to flurry every round, with a couple to spare. That's another (3.5+5) per round. Combined that means the monk does 21.6 DPR.

I'll assume Paladin is Greatsword with style (I actually prefer sword and shield for the Paladin but since this is about damage...)
(8.33 + 5)x2 over 16 rounds. Divine Smite adds an additional 112.5. The Paladin does 23 DPR.

That's only a whopping 6% higher than the monk at one of the best levels for Paladins in this comparison. Pick level 8 and the Monk is doing 4% more damage than the Smiting Paladin.

Also note in this comparison the Monk has quite a few benefits that don't show up in whiteroom DPR calculations but do improve damage in real scenarios. 15ft extra move speed (along with the ability to bonus action dash) means the monk can close movement gaps to deal damage in places where the Paladin can't.

Also important to note that even if we modified the adventuring day to be 8 rounds and 1 short rest that the Monk still holds his own assuming he flurry of blows and stunning strikes every round. For quick math I assume stunning strike will make about 50% of the monks attacks have advantage. Paladin comes out 7% higher DPR, but that's also without stunning strikes grant of advantage to any allies factored in.

It's almost like absent feat or multiclassing shenanigans that short rest and long rest classes are actually pretty balanced.

 

[Maxperson]

That's because I didn't say it was a day with 6 to 8 four round fights. I said it was 16 rounds of combat. So, can you stop trying to alter the premise? Seriously, this is your third attempt to say my numbers are wrong simply because you didn't read what I wrote to understand the numbers I was using, and keep trying to insist your numbers are the only acceptable numbers that can exist.

So your argument is that I should use a ridiculous premise that has nothing to do with how classes are balanced to show that paladins beat the snot off of monks?

Sorry. Not going to do that. I'm going to argue class balance around, you know, what classes are actually balanced around. So that means 6-8 encounters in the adventuring day.

If the best you can do is try to dodge what they actually balance classes around in an effort to show a cherry picked number of rounds, then there's not much to discuss. I can just discount what you are saying because it has no bearing on the reality of 5e class balance.

Because, here is a fun fact. The game is balanced around 6 to 8 ENCOUNTERS. Not 6 to 8 FIGHTS. Combat is not the only possible encounter. Traps are encounters as well. So even in a 6 encounter day... you can absolutely have four fights, and two non-fight encounters. This is literally a known fact, so I don't understand why it would confuse you so much.

Can those encounters be all fights or not? If yes, then the classes need to be balanced around that many fights. Hint: They can be all fights.

28 rounds of combat minus 16 rounds of combat equals twelve rounds of combat. Yes, if you change that to 28 rounds of combat minus 10 rounds of combat that would equal eighteen rounds of combat. But that not only requires the paladin only having 10 rounds of combat, which wasn't my claim...

That is patently false. The paladin can indeed have 28 rounds of combat. He can only smite in 10 of them, gimping himself for the majority of rounds if he uses all of his smites early.

28 rounds is the average number of rounds in an adventuring day that is all combats, which is fairly common.

I know you never said 40%. I said 40%, when I showed how much damage the paladin would have to lose for the Monk in 16 rounds of combat (with the paladin getting 10 rounds of smites) to deal more damage than the Paladin. You never disputed my number, and in fact you have simply claimed that the amount of damage lost is greater than 0%. If the paladin only loses 15% of their damage to overkill? They do more damage than the monk. 33%? They do more damage than the monk.

So the 40% number isn't relevant. How much would he have to lose over 28 rounds? THAT'S the magic number.

Your claim that backwards compatibility proves that they have not altered the balance is laughable in the face of the actual changes to balance already presented. Unless you think paladins always received three channel divinities and recovered one per short rest? Or that Warlocks received a daily spell allotment?

There have been no changes to the adventuring day. None. The little bits around the edges that they've altered don't change that fact.

 

[Mistwell]

Boy that took forever to fill out. They should have broken this one up a bit more.

 

[Azzy]

Boy that took forever to fill out. They should have broken this one up a bit more.

Yeah, it was a bit of a chore and I didn't feel like I could do each class in as much detail as I wanted.