D&D 5E Could SCAG be power creep?

[Z. H. Darkstar]

Bladelocks are still awesome in the warbearian variant: Barbarian 3/Bladelock 5+ with Polearm Master and GWM. That out-damages SCAG cantrips by a mile. Very MAD though.

There are always going to be outliers that avoid obsolescence when new material comes out. However, Bladelocks as a whole took a hefty blow with the SCAG release. There isn't much reason to be a straight Bladelock when a Paladin 2/Tomelock 3/Fire Draconic Sorc 6 can be just as effective and more versatile than a Fiend Bladelock 12, the ideal straight Bladelock, all at 1 level lower. The Bladelock may have 2 more ASIs and 1 more attack than the P/W/S, but the P/W/S has comparable DPR, freedom to choose whatever Patron they want, and actual healing instead of a reliance on situationally acquired THP. Add in Metamagic and Font of Sorcery/Pact Magic cheese (4 sorcery points recovered per short rest by converting your 2 2nd level pact slots) to the equation and the scale tips considerably in favor of the P/W/S.

 

[Pauper]

Its actualy weaker than TWF. Its certainly not an' exploit'.

Assume target AC of 16. Attack bonus of +5. Sneak attack +3d6. Cantrip damage +1d8. Rough maths:

• Rogue with cantrip has a 50 percent chance to hit, dealing (1d8+dex) + (3d6) + (1d8) damage. 50 percent of around 35 damage = around 12.5 DPR
• Rogue with TWF has a 75 percent chance to hit dealing (ignoring off hand damage) (1d6+dex) + (3d6) damag or around 20 damage or around 15 DPR.

The TWF rogue comes out ahead in DPR.

Note that the 'rough maths' ignores the 25% chance that the TWF rogue hits with both attacks -- though you can't do your Sneak Attack damage twice, the damage with the second attack pushes the DPR even further in the TWF rogue's favor.

Assume target AC of 21. Attack bonus +11, Sneak attack +10d6. Cantrip damage +3d8.

• Rogue with cantrip = (50/4d8+5+10d6) around 30 DPR.
• Rogue with TWF = (75/11d6+5) or around 33 DPR.

TWF rogue wins out again.

And again, a 25% chance of hitting with both attacks. Let's not forget that rolling two attacks per round also doubles your chance of getting a crit, though admittedly, a crit on a non-sneak-attack isn't as impressive, the possibility of critting with the second attack after missing with the first attack also confirms that the TWF rogue will get more sneak attack crits, further increasing the DPR distance.

For the cost of a bonus action to TWF (and saving yourself a feat in the process) your DPR with TWF on a rogue is equal or often better than it is with GFB or BB. The advantage of the cantrips on a rogue is not an increase in damage (it actually tends to go down); it lies in saving you the bonus action that TWF'ing costs you to use cunning action, or the extra damage dealt to a secondary target with GFB or the move + attack + cunning action withdraw extra damage with BB (which is situational).

Which, in fairness, are legitimate options -- using Cunning Action to Dash (after hitting with the attack that prevents the enemy from taking an attack of opportunity) is a good way to increase the swashbuckler's defense in most encounters. An unconscious or dead character's DPR is zero, after all. Still, your point is well-taken.

--
Pauper

 

[TwoSix]

Note that the 'rough maths' ignores the 25% chance that the TWF rogue hits with both attacks -- though you can't do your Sneak Attack damage twice, the damage with the second attack pushes the DPR even further in the TWF rogue's favor.

My own math puts the cantrip at doing 11.25 DPR, and TWF at 12.88 DPR. (Assuming Dex 16, 5th level, targeting an enemy of AC 17 (50% hit chance), ignoring crit). The difference narrows as hit chance increases to about even at AC 11 (80% hit chance). TWF is better overall, for a straight rogue, by about 1, but does have to be weighed against the opportunity cost of losing your bonus action and the loss of a shield.

 

[Ganymede81]

My own math puts the cantrip at doing 11.25 DPR, and TWF at 12.88 DPR. (Assuming Dex 16, 5th level, targeting an enemy of AC 17 (50% hit chance), ignoring crit).

This is more accurate.

The original math was a little high because, while it left off the potential off-hand damage, it over-counted the main-hand ability modifier to damage by having it apply 75% of the time, when it would only apply 50% of the time.

 

[ChrisCarlson]

OTOH you give up so much for MCing in 5E.

You need the stats (spreading your stats out among possible dump stats and often increasing MAD) and you delay class features and ASI increases and feats. This is a huge deal in play.

My experience with 5e has not indicated this need as strongly as you seem to think. ASIs are nice. Feats are cool. But unlike the last few editions, stat inflation is not necessary. Raising our stats isn't required to maintain viability. It just makes you better at things than you were before. That's what's great about BA. When you raise a stat, you are not keeping up with some artificially rising tide, you are just getting better.

5th, 11th and 17th level class features are pretty huge leaps in power for the classes also. 5th level in particular.

Although I think "huge" is a bit of an exaggeration, I basically agree here. MCing is an exchange of otherwise focused power increase for more flexibility/diversity. Which I think is the right way to handle it.

I've used MCing more than a few times already in 5e and approve of the way it manages to play out in practice.

 

[Flamestrike]

When I see a rogue use a cantrip to do nearly as much damage as a TWF rogue, and save the use of his bonus action in the process, I'd say that rogue gained so much for so little.

Huh? Its cost him a feat to do less average damage per round (but save his bonus action).

He could have just taken Mobile instead. Or bumped his Dex by +2 for +1 to hit, damage, AC, initative, dex saves and most his skills.

So a Rogue that takes magic initiate [wizard] for booming blade access, and forgoes +2 to Dex:

Gains: Frees up his bonus action

Loses: Average damage per round, -1 to hit, -1 to damage, -1 to AC, -1 to initiative, -1 to dex saves, -1 to stealth, acrobatics

How is that 'gaining so much for so little'?

 

[Ganymede81]

I think that ground was covered in page 5.

 

[Flamestrike]

Note that the 'rough maths' ignores the 25% chance that the TWF rogue hits with both attacks -- though you can't do your Sneak Attack damage twice, the damage with the second attack pushes the DPR even further in the TWF rogue's favor.

Yeah, my maths-fu is weak, but it gives a broad and rough look at the advantages of swinging twice over swinging once. Two chances to land a hit each round gives the rogue higher DPR than a single attack with the cantrip rider.

As you point out there are variables. Both attacks hitting ups DPR in favor of the TWF rogue, as does factoring in the opportunity cost (taking magic initiate for access to booming blade, means you didnt bump Dex by +2 for +1 to hit and damage (among other stuff) which also increases DPR. On the flip side, being able to (hit with booming blade) and then (move away) with your bonus action also situationally increases the cantrip DPR. There is also the issue with the giant 'boom' of the cantrip as well (which you may not want to have happen as a stealth monkey)

Still, Im not seeing it as an 'ZOMG take the cantrip its broken' option. Our TWF swashbuckler looked at it and just pumped his Dex by +2. He has a pair of +1 shortswords and a Dex of 18 at 7th level and is more than happy with two attacks per round at +8 over one booming blade attack at +7 (particularly seeing as a Swashbuckler he can withdraw ayway).

There isn't much reason to be a straight Bladelock when a Paladin 2/Tomelock 3/Fire Draconic Sorc 6 can be just as effective and more versatile than a Fiend Bladelock 12, the ideal straight Bladelock, all at 1 level lower. The Bladelock may have 2 more ASIs and 1 more attack than the P/W/S, but the P/W/S has comparable DPR, freedom to choose whatever Patron they want, and actual healing instead of a reliance on situationally acquired THP. Add in Metamagic and Font of Sorcery/Pact Magic cheese (4 sorcery points recovered per short rest by converting your 2 2nd level pact slots) to the equation and the scale tips considerably in favor of the P/W/S.

There is no cheese with converting pact magic slots into sorcery points. It's a perfectly valid option.

And as well as being 2 ASI/ Feats down on the straight bladelock, its also missing 4th, 5th, and 6th level spells which is a pretty big deal.

But I agree, its otherwise perfectly viable option.

Why Tomelock? You are never gonna get more than 2nd level ritual spells in there. If its just for shillaliegh, I wouldnt bother. If youre running any of the AP's published youre gonna find a better magic weapon at some point. You'd get much more use out of the Chain familiar for mine.

Although I think "huge" is a bit of an exaggeration, I basically agree here. MCing is an exchange of otherwise focused power increase for more flexibility/diversity. Which I think is the right way to handle it.


I've used MCing more than a few times already in 5e and approve of the way it manages to play out in practice.

5th level in particular sees an almost exponential growth in class power.


Martials gain extra attack, doubling combat output. Rogues gain uncanny dodge, halving incoming damage 1/ round. Monks get the awesome stunning fist. Bards can use bardic inspiration per short rest instead of long rest. All casters gain access to 3rd level spells (fly, fireball, haste) and cantrips scale at this level.


Its a massive jump from 4th to 5th for mine.

 

[Shadowdweller00]

The one thing I dislike in SCAG (beyond flying core races, but those options are fairly minor) is the Swashbuckler. But it's an intense dislike. It seems like, on initially reading the swashbuckler, that the conditions for the Swashbuckler's sneak attack (no other creature within 5 feet of you) were intended to REPLACE the base rogue conditions for sneak attack (an ally within 5 feet of the target). Instead these conditions are ADDED OPTIONS to the base - meaning that a swashbuckler gets sneak attack without advantage when EITHER there is an ally within 5 feet of the enemy OR there is no other enemy within 5 feet of the swashbuckler. Coupled with the Fancy Footwork ability (which completely prevents any enemies the swashbuckler attacks from making attacks of opportunity against said Swashbuckler), there are functionally NO circumstances under which the Swashbuckler is ever denied Sneak Attack...or needs to pay particular tactical attention to setting it up. Or at the very least this becomes exceptionally rare.

I doubt this makes the Swashbuckler numerically overpowered as compared to say the Fighter or Paladin's damage...but it DISGUSTS me. The entire fun or point of a sneak attack mechanic is far as I'm concerned is to set up situations where clever tactics are rewarded.

 

[Flamestrike]

It seems like, on initially reading the swashbuckler, that the conditions for the Swashbuckler's sneak attack (no other creature within 5 feet of you) were intended to REPLACE the base rogue conditions for sneak attack (an ally within 5 feet of the target).

I didnt get that. Its either/ or.

Instead these conditions are ADDED OPTIONS to the base - meaning that a swashbuckler gets sneak attack without advantage when EITHER there is an ally within 5 feet of the enemy OR there is no other enemy within 5 feet of the swashbuckler. Coupled with the Fancy Footwork ability (which completely prevents any enemies the swashbuckler attacks from making attacks of opportunity against said Swashbuckler), there are functionally NO circumstances under which the Swashbuckler is ever denied Sneak Attack...or needs to pay particular tactical attention to setting it up. Or at the very least this becomes exceptionally rare.

Actually there are such situations. He doesnt get sneak attack when there are two or more enemies fighting him and him alone. If there are two (or more) enemies within 5 feet of you, you don't get sneak attack (unless you also have an ally nearby, and you target the same creature your ally is fighting).

He either needs to be mano-a-mano, or double teaming a critter with an ally (as usual). If he's not in one on one combat, or fighting with an ally, he doesnt get sneak attack.

So there is still some targeting and thought required. I find that our party swashbuckler gets sneak attack the 'standard' way most Rogues use around 95 percent of the time (he just double teams whatever the Barbarian is fighting).

Occasioanlly he'll peel off to 'one on one' a solo creature. If he gets outnumbered, then he'll cunning action withdraw to the Barbarian.

I doubt this makes the Swashbuckler numerically overpowered as compared to say the Fighter or Paladin's damage...but it DISGUSTS me.

Huh? How are you coming to this conclusion? Rogues get sneak attack every round as is (its trivially easy to get; you just target a critter that your ally is already attacking, or use cunning action to hide), and Rogue damage in no way is 'numerically OP' compared to a Fighter or Paladin.