Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="clearstream" data-source="post: 8455690" data-attributes="member: 71699">So the next slice is offence - how a character contributes to DPR. Again, the yardstick is an ASI. Half an ASI is 1pt, a whole ASI is 2pts, and a double ASI is 4pts. Here is the table -[ATTACH=full]146643[/ATTACH]Notice the brighter red text<ul style="margin-left: 20px"> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">On my first pass, it seemed to me that all classes follow the same steps - 5th and 11th - so that DPR in tier 2 is a meaningful step up from tier 1, and tier 3 is a meaningful step up from tier 2; and that is mostly true (10/12 classes)</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">One exception is the rogue - whose constantly scaling sneak attack lands them in the same place, but without pronounced steps at the tier thresholds</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">The other is the barbarian - whose intent seems to be that they deliver their DPR by fighting on relentlessly through damage - notice how little they invest in offence compared with sustain; their ability to sustain allows them to make choices in regard to weapons and feats that other martials might do less well with</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">For two classes - monk and ranger - this table fails to really explain their step in DPR at 11th; the reason why will become clearer later</li> </ul>As I've several times noted, there are two fundamental approaches to DPR<ul> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">Some classes increase their DPR by increasing their number of attacks - barbarian, fighter, monk, paladin, ranger, warlock</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">Others increase their DPR by increasing their damage per attack - bard, cleric, druid, rogue, sorcerer, wizard</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">A few switch their approach, increasing number of attacks at 5th, and damage per attack at 11th - monk, paladin, maybe ranger</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">The designers seem to consciously lean into diversity so that some classes get to make a choice - bards are an example - more on that later</li> </ul>There are two facets that I didn't capture, and perhaps should have. One is crowd control - effects that temporarily change how a creature participates in the fight. On the whole, control either adds sustain (controlled creatures don't attack) or offence (controlled creatures deal damage to one another). Another is buffing - effects that boost ally sustain or offence. Controls and buffs give characters a choice about how they want to approach a combat. Full casters - especially wizards - enjoy the greatest amount of such choice. Perhaps they should have their own table - control/buffs.Finally, on investment into offence<ul> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">Barbarian, fighter and rogue invest remarkably little directly into offence - 14-16pts</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">The full casters, having put less into sustain, invest greatly here - 42-52pts</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">In the middle are monks, paladins, rangers and warlocks - 28-36pts</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">Remember that all points are not equivalent: a few mechanically well-aligned features can have more impact in play than a plethora of poorly-aligned features; that's easily seen if you picture a character with 100 offensive features, of which they can use only one per turn...</li> </ul>Two posts to go, and then it might be possible to stitch it all together.</blockquote>

Verification