Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="clearstream" data-source="post: 8447788" data-attributes="member: 71699">In another thread (on monks) I mentioned some analysis I'd recently done on class progression, relating to how they increase their DPR. It may be of general interest so I will post it here.<ol> <li data-xf-list-type="ol">All classes have step increases in DPR at 5th and 11th level. There are no exceptions.</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ol">The design intent appears to be roughly they do 1x their base attack in tier 1, 2x in tier 2, and 3x in tier 3.</li> </ol>The interesting part is how different classes achieve this. There are three kinds of scaling<ul> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">Some classes get another attack (fighters, warlocks using EB)</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">Other classes get another die per attack (paladins, most casters in their cantrips, rogue sneak attack)</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">A few get a sub-class feature that boosts their DPR expectation (monk, ranger)</li> </ul>That can be simplified to two approaches - either A) get another attack, or B) get more damage on your attacks. Fighters are A, monks are B. That gives the designers the ability to create some fundamental diversity in approaches to combat.My view is that the use of sub-classes to boost DPR expectation is on the one hand quite interesting, while on the other hand noticeably problematic. As an example of how it can be interesting, compare the ranger Volley, Stalker's Flurry, Distant Strike, and Fey Reinforcements. These are all imaginative ways to add to DPR expectation. They're also a good example of how sub-class features can be underwhelming, or at least uneven. For further comparison, monks gain part of their 11th level DPR step in their martial die, and the other part in their sub-class feature.What makes this even further interesting is that I noticed that at certain steps where other classes scaled offense, one or two - like ranger - gained something defensive. I suspect that the consistent undervaluing of defenses in theorycrafting probably leads to some underestimation of these classes' effectiveness in play.In the end, I found that calculating the value of the barbarian hit die in ASIs, and then using that to assess the total value of features in each tier, showed a very intentional approach to the design. Some classes stand out as front loaded, others gain more as they go along. Diversity seemed consciously designed in. One can also see how - for the usual campaign (capping out at low-tier-3) - multiclassing is imbalanced. No real surprise. If there is enough interest I can tidy up my spreadsheet and post the progression structure as I analysed it.[EDIT I'd like to draw attention to my posts from the bottom of page 4, which concretely develop this investigation.]</blockquote>

Verification