FrogReaver
As long as i get to be the frog
Why?Treantmonk's baseline is very unrealistic.
Having hex up all the time is rather unrealistic.
Why?Treantmonk's baseline is very unrealistic.
Having hex up all the time is rather unrealistic.
GMW I've seen used with... mediocre effect. Sure, +10 dmg, but these attacks don't always land, even with advantage. Meanwhile my sword and board is doing 1d8+9 reliably...Some are, some are not. Armor of Agathys if you can upcast it to 4th level or higher is very good, as is the new Gem Dragon feat. The shield spell is also very good.
If you are going to be in melee often, I would say all three of those are generally better investments than GWM in tier 2+. Generally defensive options get batter at higher levels where offensive options do not.
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.GMW I've seen used with... mediocre effect. Sure, +10 dmg, but these attacks don't always land, even with advantage. Meanwhile my sword and board is doing 1d8+9 reliably...
It is a concentration spell. A low level one. Usually you have better things to concentrate on which is more helpful than a few extra points of damage.Why?
No, that's not what I am saying. Whiteroom analysis does not appropriately value defensive options. I can also see where difficulties lie.So you agree that the 'whiteroom analysis' is appropriately valuing defensive options - it's just that you wish defensive options were designed differently?
'You can at least do this with this level 1 spell, but often you'll find better spells to you use with your slots whose impact is going to be much higher than +1d6 damage per attack' - seems like a fine baseline to me even if the player sometimes chooses to use a better spell.It is a concentration spell. A low level one. Usually you have better things to concentrate on which is more helpful than a few extra points of damage.
Shadow of moil for instance is much better. Summon abberation also comes to mind.
At 3rd level there is also hypnotic pattern
Agreed! It applies to each bolt of eldritch blast, and has a long duration and can be transferred to new targets, which gets good value from the warlock's limited number of spell slots. It scales well into late tier 2, then in or by tier 3 I see our warlocks start to replace it with other options. The cursed ability score can also play into effects applied by other party members.'You can at least do this with this level 1 spell, but often you'll find better spells to you use with your slots whose impact is going to be much higher than +1d6 damage per attack' - seems like a fine baseline to me even if the player sometimes chooses to use a better spell.
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.No, that's not what I am saying. Whiteroom analysis does not appropriately value defensive options. I can also see where difficulties lie.
The problem put simply is that where decrementing life to zero equals victory, then on surface any amount of avoiding decrementing life cannot bring victory nearer. Designers have to think in terms of increased efficiency, losing the race less quickly, and creative use and utility. It is often difficult for players to calculate the true value of a defense at the table, so defenses you see most often used are those that fit well into the action-economy.
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.Blur is an example of increased efficiency. I observe that it is hardly ever considered, yet casting it can save a great many more casts on healing spells. Counterspell is a great example of a defense that is widely used, because it readily fits into the action-economy.
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.Another is the defense fighting style, which is often taken and certainly one of the top few fighting styles for value.
Gift of the Gem Dragon?
It doesn't actually prevent damage - 2d8 damage and push 10' isn't horrible, but I wouldn't call it great.
Shield is quite good and scales well with level.
Not much experience with Armor of Agathys.
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 DP attack (2.6 DPR) including your bonus action attacks.If not, sure, GWM can actually be detrimental to DPR.
But if properly built around and utilized - it's huge.
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.
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 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.
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.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.
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.
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.
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).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.
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.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.
Sure, but - to my taste - these broad, always-on defenses are the least interesting.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.
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.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 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.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.
A true Scotsman is a noble gentleman.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.
The two strongest fighting styles are archery and defense. Dueling is third. However, you will consistently see the damage overrated.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.
Yep, that’s the formula.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.
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.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.
Sure. That’s why you use the formula to limit the randomness.In many battles, the odds are in the PCs' favor. Increasing randomness increases chances of PC failing/dying.
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.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.
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.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.
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.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.
Using the formula does not reduce the variation, it only calculates the mean damage. It does not account for the shape of the distribution.Sure. That’s why you use the formula to limit the randomness.
Ah, ok I see what you’re saying. Yes, that is accurate.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.
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.