D&D 5E (2014) Classes, and the structure of DPR

[clearstream]

In general, classes get a damage increase, some though get a defensive increase. Barbarians don't get any additional DPR at level 11, however, they have a chance to keep fighting if dropped to 0 at level 11 with relentless rage instead.

Artificers gain spell storing item, which could be used for offensive spells but doesn't have to be.

While many classes do gain an offensive boost, some gain a defensive one which do not provide a DPR increase.

Exactly, that's why I think it is best to think of this as the baseline or reference-structure. And - crediting other respondents - it is very important to call out that there is diversity. Think about it like this

1. The tiers are meaningful in 5E. Tier 2 characters will see a step (or steppy) increase in mechanical power over tier 1 characters. And tier 3 over tier 2, etc.
2. The simplest place that is visible is in fighter extra attack and warlock eldritch blast.
3. Each class has been consciously designed to have its own approach, but the approaches can be simplified to - A) I attack many times, B) I attack fewer times but do more damage, C) I attack and also defend. Fighters are A. Rogues are B. Rangers are C. Note that 'defend' is where you see even more diversity because it often spills over into explore (e.g. ability to hide).
4. This simplifies the task of design as it means a designer knows the approach a class is using, and they know how much power to build into its features at each level. You can observe this most easily I think in the designs for sub-classes such as fey wanderer, if you compare its features to other more straightforward classes.

The designers introduce enormous variation as offsets from those backbones, but the intents always ring through. Look at every ranger 11th level feature from PHB, XGE and TCoE and compare those to every fighter 11th level feature. Cost the barbarian d12 HD in ASIs, and consider that against the value of spell slots and spell levels. You will see underlying skeleton bringing cohesion everywhere!

 

[Quartz]

In another thread (on monks) I mentioned some analysis I'd recently done on class progression, relating to how they increase their DPR.

Do remember to count Reactions and Bonus Actions.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

Treantmonk's baseline is very unrealistic.
Having hex up all the time is rather unrealistic.

 

[Charlaquin]

Treantmonk's baseline is very unrealistic.
Having hex up all the time is rather unrealistic.

I mean, that’s the difference between on-paper analysis and actual play. Most of the assumptions that go into DPR calculations don’t hold up in actual play. The point is to understand the underlying structures of the design, not to accurately model gameplay.

 

[clearstream]

Treantmonk's baseline is very unrealistic.
Having hex up all the time is rather unrealistic.

Agreed. What I believe is the biggest gap is in evaluating defence. Whiteroom analyses generally assign zero value to defence. That can be partly justified by the argument that the best defence brings you no closer to winning, against which is that it can defer losing... and often has broader applicability outside of combat.

 

[FrogReaver]

Agreed. What I believe is the biggest gap is in evaluating defence. Whiteroom analyses generally assign zero value to defence. That can be partly justified by the argument that the best defence brings you no closer to winning, against which is that it can defer losing... and often has broader applicability outside of combat.

IMO. The defensive options compared to investment cost generally aren't very good.

 

[clearstream]

IMO. The defensive options compared to investment cost generally aren't very good.

A problem facing designers is that if defenses are really good, combat takes an undesirably large number of rounds to resolve. If attacks aren't better than defenses, combat never resolves!

To me the best examples are defenses that fit well with the action-economy, and are either narrow or conditional. I kind of dislike the defense fighting style because it is simply always good. I prefer the 11th level monster slayer ranger or open hand monk features.

 

[ECMO3]

IMO. The defensive options compared to investment cost generally aren't very good.

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.

 

[Mort]

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.

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.

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.

Not if the player knows how to build around and utilize GWM properly.

If not, sure, GWM can actually be detrimental to DPR.

But if properly built around and utilized - it's huge.

 

[FrogReaver]

A problem facing designers is that if defenses are really good, combat takes an undesirably large number of rounds to resolve. If attacks aren't better than defenses, combat never resolves!

So you agree that the 'whiteroom analysis' is appropriately valuing defensive options - it's just that you wish defensive options were designed differently?