In Level Up: Advanced Fifth Edition, we’re creating new incarnations of the 5e character classes. Before we build our new classes from the ground up, we need… a teardown of the originals to see how they work!
Our design goal is to produce characters of approximately the same power level as the ones in the Players Handbook. We’ll need to do some math to figure out the targets we’re shooting for. Before we crunch the numbers, though, let's talk about what we mean by power level.
World Power Level
First, let me say that we're quite happy to expand characters’ abilities when it comes to the social and exploration pillars of the game. Some classes need more expansion than others. Currently, the wizard has dozens of exploration spells: scrying, teleportation, Jump, Find Traps, and many more. The bard has the social pillar covered, with Friends, Glibness, charms of all kinds, and the Expertise class feature which allows her to double her proficiency bonus. The rogue has Expertise but can't compete with the bard's spell tricks. A good roleplayer can do a lot with a fighter, but the class features don't do a lot of the heavy lifting.
We aim for each character class, including the non-spellcasters, to gain unique, powerful non-combat mechanical elements that let them do things that no other class can do. Let the spellcasters be jealous for once.
Combat Power Level
When I talk in this article about preserving the game's current power level, what I really mean is that a party of Level Up characters won't overperform or underperform a standard D&D party in combat. That means that you can play any D&D adventure, official or third party, and get the level of combat challenge that its designers intended.
Most of a class's combat statistics are pretty easy to figure out: How many hit points can we expect a fighter to have at level 10? What's a monk's typical Armor Class at level 3? Harder to calculate, but no less important, is this: how much damage can a character dish out at a given level? Without that piece of information, we can't really balance the classes' combat effectiveness.
There are so many variables in calculating damage that completely answering this question may be impossible. But we've got to start somewhere.
Let’s start with some assumptions.
1. I'll benchmark each character of level X against an enemy monster of CR X. Without some sort of class-granted accuracy bonus, each character hits 60% of the time. (Character attack bonus and monster Armor Class tend to increase at roughly the same rate.) If a class feature grants extra accuracy or advantage, that needs to be factored that into their average damage per round. (A mere +1 bonus to hit can result in an 8% damage boost!)
2. I assume that every area attack hits two monsters.
3. I average a character's damage over the first three rounds of combat.
4. For my benchmarks, I built Players Handbook-only characters, and I leaned towards the simplest subclass available. When presented with a class option, I chose the bigger-damage option. For instance, I built a Great Weapon fighter instead of a Protection build. I didn’t use feats, since I’d like this test to focus on class damage, not on feat effectiveness.
Before we start crunching numbers, we have an important decision to make. Which fight shall we simulate: an easy battle in which the party is conserving their resources, or an all-out assault where the wizards are using their highest spell slots, the fighter is using Action Surge, and the paladin is smiting everything that moves?
Why not both? Some classes can go nova, throwing down a lot of damage in a big fight, and some classes do steady damage throughout multiple fights. We need to be able to account for both of these strengths. So for each of the classes I surveyed, I charted their "no-resources" damage (using only infinitely-repeatable attacks they can perform at will) and their "nova" damage (using up every spell slot and class feature in order to maximize the amount of damage that they can deal).
To start, I charted the four "basic" D&D classes: the fighter, wizard, cleric, and rogue, plus two more I was interested in: the paladin, which I've heard is overpowered in combat, and the ranger, about which I've heard the reverse.
Here's my chart, on which I track average damage per round for the six classes for levels one through twenty. The solid lines represent maximum nova damage, and the dotted lines represent at-will damage. The rogue only has one damage line, because it really has no limited nova powers.
The first thing that jumps out at me is that most of the classes fall into one of two categories: high-nova/low-at will, or medium-nova/medium-at-will. The evoker wizard and life cleric can really lay down a lot of damage in a boss fight, but when they're not burning spell slots they plink away with low-damage cantrips. Meanwhile, the champion fighter is right down the strike zone on every pitch. It's always producing around the same amount of damage.
Overall, I like the design of these classes. If it was me, I'd differentiate cleric a bit more by having it do more at-will damage and less nova damage than the wizard, but that's just a minor quibble.
The next thing I notice is that people are right about the paladin and ranger. The nova paladin puts out almost twice as much damage as the nova ranger (and my ranger is trying hard, using bonus action spells every turn and Conjure Volley when it becomes available). And the paladin doesn't give up much to the ranger in any other category to make up for all that extra damage. The paladin's at-will damage is only a hair under the ranger's. The paladin has better armor, the same hit points and better healing abilities.
I know I'm cherry-picking a bit here since I've chosen classes I know to be badly balanced against each other, and I'm compounding this by sticking to the Players Handbook ranger when I know there are higher-damage options in Xanathar's Guide. Nevertheless, it's good to get a sense of what the combat-effectiveness extremes look like.
The last class I want to talk about here is the thief rogue. Since it doesn't have any nova capabilities, you can judge it as either an at-will or a nova attacker. As an at-will user, it's among the better ones, keeping pace with the champion fighter. But judged as a nova class, it's by far the worst. It gets left in the dust by the nova champion fighter. In fact, it gains a big edge over only one nova class—the ranger—and only at levels so high that they are seldom played.
It's worth noting that so far I've only graphed one subclass for each of the classes I've examined, and subclass can make a big difference. To illustrate that, here's the battlemaster fighter graphed onto the same chart.
The battlemaster is a much better nova subclass than the champion! It almost challenges the paladin for the melee damage-per-round crown. If we accept the fighter as the "right down the middle" class who always produces medium damage, this widens the strike zone a great deal.
So now that we've squinted at some charts, what conclusions can we draw for our character class redesigns?
Lesson 1: Character damage increases linearly with level.
It's a bumpy ride along the way, especially at the first level of each tier (5, 11, and 17), but on the whole, the classes I've graphed do somewhere around 5 + level damage when not using any resources, and somewhere around 5 + (3.5 x level) when they're going all out.
More work is needed here. These patterns need to be borne out with an examination of the rest of the classes and subclasses, more sets of different assumptions (what if character level doesn't equal opponent CR? What if area attacks hit 4 enemies?), and, of course, double checking the math.
Lesson 2: We should try to stay true to the AGGREGATE average damage numbers instead of maintaining each class's current Damage Per Round.
I don't think there's anything sacred about the paladin being the best nova melee class and the backstabbing rogue underperforming everybody. I'd be happy to adjust the damage outputs of the specific classes to better match peoples' story expectations.
D&D doesn't need to be perfectly balanced - it's not a pvp game - but there shouldn't be classes that are much stronger or weaker in combat. Most peoples’ D&D games feature a fair amount of combat, and everyone deserves to have fun during that chunk of their week.
Lesson 3: Damage isn’t dealt in a spreadsheet.
This isn’t something I learned from this graphing exercise, but it’s a reminder not to take it too seriously. The circumstances of every battle are different. And that’s vital to remember when we’re designing class combat features. Depending on the location and the opponents, each class should have a chance to shine.
Wizards should excel against big groups of weak foes clustered within fireball range. Clerics should wreck undead. Rogues should deal the most damage when attacking from ambush. As for the rest of the classes… that’s where you come in.
For the people who have stuck with me through this long post, I have some questions for you. I'd love it if you posted your answers in the comments.
Continue reading...
Our design goal is to produce characters of approximately the same power level as the ones in the Players Handbook. We’ll need to do some math to figure out the targets we’re shooting for. Before we crunch the numbers, though, let's talk about what we mean by power level.
World Power Level
First, let me say that we're quite happy to expand characters’ abilities when it comes to the social and exploration pillars of the game. Some classes need more expansion than others. Currently, the wizard has dozens of exploration spells: scrying, teleportation, Jump, Find Traps, and many more. The bard has the social pillar covered, with Friends, Glibness, charms of all kinds, and the Expertise class feature which allows her to double her proficiency bonus. The rogue has Expertise but can't compete with the bard's spell tricks. A good roleplayer can do a lot with a fighter, but the class features don't do a lot of the heavy lifting.
We aim for each character class, including the non-spellcasters, to gain unique, powerful non-combat mechanical elements that let them do things that no other class can do. Let the spellcasters be jealous for once.
Combat Power Level
When I talk in this article about preserving the game's current power level, what I really mean is that a party of Level Up characters won't overperform or underperform a standard D&D party in combat. That means that you can play any D&D adventure, official or third party, and get the level of combat challenge that its designers intended.
Most of a class's combat statistics are pretty easy to figure out: How many hit points can we expect a fighter to have at level 10? What's a monk's typical Armor Class at level 3? Harder to calculate, but no less important, is this: how much damage can a character dish out at a given level? Without that piece of information, we can't really balance the classes' combat effectiveness.
There are so many variables in calculating damage that completely answering this question may be impossible. But we've got to start somewhere.
Let’s start with some assumptions.
1. I'll benchmark each character of level X against an enemy monster of CR X. Without some sort of class-granted accuracy bonus, each character hits 60% of the time. (Character attack bonus and monster Armor Class tend to increase at roughly the same rate.) If a class feature grants extra accuracy or advantage, that needs to be factored that into their average damage per round. (A mere +1 bonus to hit can result in an 8% damage boost!)
2. I assume that every area attack hits two monsters.
3. I average a character's damage over the first three rounds of combat.
4. For my benchmarks, I built Players Handbook-only characters, and I leaned towards the simplest subclass available. When presented with a class option, I chose the bigger-damage option. For instance, I built a Great Weapon fighter instead of a Protection build. I didn’t use feats, since I’d like this test to focus on class damage, not on feat effectiveness.
Before we start crunching numbers, we have an important decision to make. Which fight shall we simulate: an easy battle in which the party is conserving their resources, or an all-out assault where the wizards are using their highest spell slots, the fighter is using Action Surge, and the paladin is smiting everything that moves?
Why not both? Some classes can go nova, throwing down a lot of damage in a big fight, and some classes do steady damage throughout multiple fights. We need to be able to account for both of these strengths. So for each of the classes I surveyed, I charted their "no-resources" damage (using only infinitely-repeatable attacks they can perform at will) and their "nova" damage (using up every spell slot and class feature in order to maximize the amount of damage that they can deal).
To start, I charted the four "basic" D&D classes: the fighter, wizard, cleric, and rogue, plus two more I was interested in: the paladin, which I've heard is overpowered in combat, and the ranger, about which I've heard the reverse.
Here's my chart, on which I track average damage per round for the six classes for levels one through twenty. The solid lines represent maximum nova damage, and the dotted lines represent at-will damage. The rogue only has one damage line, because it really has no limited nova powers.
The first thing that jumps out at me is that most of the classes fall into one of two categories: high-nova/low-at will, or medium-nova/medium-at-will. The evoker wizard and life cleric can really lay down a lot of damage in a boss fight, but when they're not burning spell slots they plink away with low-damage cantrips. Meanwhile, the champion fighter is right down the strike zone on every pitch. It's always producing around the same amount of damage.
Overall, I like the design of these classes. If it was me, I'd differentiate cleric a bit more by having it do more at-will damage and less nova damage than the wizard, but that's just a minor quibble.
The next thing I notice is that people are right about the paladin and ranger. The nova paladin puts out almost twice as much damage as the nova ranger (and my ranger is trying hard, using bonus action spells every turn and Conjure Volley when it becomes available). And the paladin doesn't give up much to the ranger in any other category to make up for all that extra damage. The paladin's at-will damage is only a hair under the ranger's. The paladin has better armor, the same hit points and better healing abilities.
I know I'm cherry-picking a bit here since I've chosen classes I know to be badly balanced against each other, and I'm compounding this by sticking to the Players Handbook ranger when I know there are higher-damage options in Xanathar's Guide. Nevertheless, it's good to get a sense of what the combat-effectiveness extremes look like.
The last class I want to talk about here is the thief rogue. Since it doesn't have any nova capabilities, you can judge it as either an at-will or a nova attacker. As an at-will user, it's among the better ones, keeping pace with the champion fighter. But judged as a nova class, it's by far the worst. It gets left in the dust by the nova champion fighter. In fact, it gains a big edge over only one nova class—the ranger—and only at levels so high that they are seldom played.
It's worth noting that so far I've only graphed one subclass for each of the classes I've examined, and subclass can make a big difference. To illustrate that, here's the battlemaster fighter graphed onto the same chart.
The battlemaster is a much better nova subclass than the champion! It almost challenges the paladin for the melee damage-per-round crown. If we accept the fighter as the "right down the middle" class who always produces medium damage, this widens the strike zone a great deal.
So now that we've squinted at some charts, what conclusions can we draw for our character class redesigns?
Lesson 1: Character damage increases linearly with level.
It's a bumpy ride along the way, especially at the first level of each tier (5, 11, and 17), but on the whole, the classes I've graphed do somewhere around 5 + level damage when not using any resources, and somewhere around 5 + (3.5 x level) when they're going all out.
More work is needed here. These patterns need to be borne out with an examination of the rest of the classes and subclasses, more sets of different assumptions (what if character level doesn't equal opponent CR? What if area attacks hit 4 enemies?), and, of course, double checking the math.
Lesson 2: We should try to stay true to the AGGREGATE average damage numbers instead of maintaining each class's current Damage Per Round.
I don't think there's anything sacred about the paladin being the best nova melee class and the backstabbing rogue underperforming everybody. I'd be happy to adjust the damage outputs of the specific classes to better match peoples' story expectations.
D&D doesn't need to be perfectly balanced - it's not a pvp game - but there shouldn't be classes that are much stronger or weaker in combat. Most peoples’ D&D games feature a fair amount of combat, and everyone deserves to have fun during that chunk of their week.
Lesson 3: Damage isn’t dealt in a spreadsheet.
This isn’t something I learned from this graphing exercise, but it’s a reminder not to take it too seriously. The circumstances of every battle are different. And that’s vital to remember when we’re designing class combat features. Depending on the location and the opponents, each class should have a chance to shine.
Wizards should excel against big groups of weak foes clustered within fireball range. Clerics should wreck undead. Rogues should deal the most damage when attacking from ambush. As for the rest of the classes… that’s where you come in.
For the people who have stuck with me through this long post, I have some questions for you. I'd love it if you posted your answers in the comments.
- For each character class (or for a few classes that you have opinions about), what are the combat circumstances in which you'd expect them to excel?
- Am I overthinking this? Does combat damage matter to you?
Continue reading...
