D&D 5E Damage thread

[FrogReaver]

That shouldn't be fair. But that is how parties should work - together and not as a group of single damage dealers.

I didn't say anything about not working together. The definitely should work together. I'm talking about accounting. Some of the damage derived from a sorcerer hasting a barbarian should be attributed to the barbarian. Understand?

 

[FrogReaver]

Any analysis of only DPR is flawed because it ignores the fact that the wizard won't survive in combat without the tanks protecting it from melee attacks. If you assign a value of zero to that protection-role, then wizards gonna look much better than fighters...

1. If an enemy wants to attack the wizard, a single OA for 2d6+mod isn't much of a deterrent (low value not 0) - outside of a few specific builds and/or scenarios, tanks only work in 5e because of the good graces of the DM throwing monsters at them instead of the Wizard.
2. Most melee damage focused combatants don't have significantly higher AC and hp than a wizard using a defensive subclass like abjuration (and if you aren't damage focused then the wizard trounces in damage). If a wizard desires higher AC it's a single level Fighter/Hexblade/Cleric dip away. Also, a Wizard just having a good dex, mage armor and shielding with low level slots will average out to a higher AC than most damage dealing fighters even without the level dip.
3. Wizard can use Summon Fey (or one of the others) to Act as a Fighter if that is really needed.
4. Wizard's control capabilities typically help the protector role more than the protector role helps the wizard.

Don't get me wrong, I like martials and have played alot of them. My DM also has enemies tend to attack the melee character in it's face instead of taking the OA and attacking the wizard. So martials work great in my games. However, it's worth realizing it's not because of anything they do on their part. It's almost solely due to how the DM uses them. *That said I have played a few martials that could tank just fine and more actively keep enemies off their allies. Their OA's were actually threatening. They could grapple well. They had rage for damage resistance. They also had great mobility so enemies couldn't easily run away by them. That character was a Totem Barbarian/Swashbuckler Rogue. Though sadly, he wouldn't have won any damage contests - so bringing him up here seems a little off. But maybe it serves as a good illustration that creating a good 'tank' does mean you will be doing lower damage - which in relation to this discussion means the wizard can outdamage a good 'tank'.

 

[Fanaelialae]

Any analysis of only DPR is flawed because it ignores the fact that the wizard won't survive in combat without the tanks protecting it from melee attacks. If you assign a value of zero to that protection-role, then wizards gonna look much better than fighters...

There's some truth to that, but I take issue with the fact that typically melee cannot actually perform the role of defender. Usually, this is actually performative on the part of the DM, who opts to have the monsters focus on the frontline rather provoking a single (often meaningless) OA, and going after the casters.

By and large, the Sentinel feat is the only ability that martials have access to that affords good defender abilities, and that's assuming feats are even available in the campaign.

If frontline classes actually got abilities that allowed them to defend their allies (as opposed to the DM choosing to attack them so that they don't feel useless) then I would agree with you, but as it stands I don't.

 

[FrogReaver]

By and large, the Sentinel feat is the only ability that martials have access to that affords good defender abilities, and that's assuming feats are even available in the campaign.

Just wanted to add, that if a martial takes sentinel they almost surely tanked their actual damage dealing ability. Which is fine in the grand scheme of things, but when comparing wizard to martial damage, it gives the wizard a clear leg up.

 

[GMforPowergamers]

Any analysis of only DPR is flawed because it ignores the fact that the wizard won't survive in combat without the tanks protecting it from melee attacks.

why not? alsowhy can't said melee character be aa full caster like abard or cleric or hexblade?

If you assign a value of zero to that protection-role, then wizards gonna look much better than fighters...

without 4e mark fighters ma nobetter defenders then any other class

 

[GMforPowergamers]

By and large, the Sentinel feat is the only ability that martials have access to that affords good defender abilities, and that's assuming feats are even available in the campaign.

Just wanted to add, that if a martial takes sentinel they almost surely tanked their actual damage dealing ability. Which is fine in the grand scheme of things, but when comparing wizard to martial damage, it gives the wizard a clear leg up.

the best two defenders in the game are half casters... a paladin with divine challenge being 2nd, but the armor artificer with thunder gloves is the best... give one of them sentinel and you out perform the fighter in every way (as protecting party memebers).

If frontline classes actually got abilities that allowed them to defend their allies (as opposed to the DM choosing to attack them so that they don't feel useless) then I would agree with you, but as it stands I don't.

yeah one of the reasons I miss 4e roles. Swordmage, FIghter, Paliden, Battlemind, and Warden were amazing each played diffrent each had strengths and weaknesses and each had a variety of different options.

 

[Baldurs_Underdark]

There's some truth to that, but I take issue with the fact that typically melee cannot actually perform the role of defender. Usually, this is actually performative on the part of the DM, who opts to have the monsters focus on the frontline rather provoking a single (often meaningless) OA, and going after the casters.

By and large, the Sentinel feat is the only ability that martials have access to that affords good defender abilities, and that's assuming feats are even available in the campaign.

In open field you have a good point, and smart bad guys go around the tanks and kill the casters first - or use ranged weapons at the casters. But in windy dungeons (i.e. with narrow hallways) that is not so easy and one or a few tanks can effectively block access to the casters in the back.

Also, it's a mean DM that makes a pack of wolves or a wyvern that intelligent to attack casters first. They should just head for the first meat they can see, which should by all means be the martials in the front.

So, saying effectively the same, but changing the emphasis: Melee can perform the role of defender, except in the case of an open field combat and intelligent opponents.

 

[Fanaelialae]

In open field you have a good point, and smart bad guys go around the tanks and kill the casters first - or use ranged weapons at the casters. But in windy dungeons (i.e. with narrow hallways) that is not so easy and one or a few tanks can effectively block access to the casters in the back.

Also, it's a mean DM that makes a pack of wolves or a wyvern that intelligent to attack casters first. They should just head for the first meat they can see, which should by all means be the martials in the front.

So, saying effectively the same, but changing the emphasis: Melee can perform the role of defender, except in the case of an open field combat and intelligent opponents.

I guess we run fairly different styles of games. Even in dungeons, I often have the hallways interconnect. The denizens know the tunnels while (unless they've already explored the area) the PCs don't. So turtling like that is a good way to have your back line flanked.

But yeah, it can work if the terrain allows for it. More often than not, in my campaigns, it does not, because I generally like to set up my encounter areas to encourage the characters to move around. To me, standing in a doorway slugging it out with a monster while the party attacks from behind is about the most boring form a combat can take. YMMV

 

[GMforPowergamers]

Also, it's a mean DM that makes a pack of wolves or a wyvern that intelligent to attack casters first. They should just head for the first meat they can see, which should by all means be the martials in the front.

going back 8+ years we had a DM that made all animals try to retreat if blooded and always chose targets based on there intelligence... then one day mid wolf attack a wolf darted past our swordmage to our psion... and we said "shoot, that ain't no wolf"

 

[FrogReaver]

the best two defenders in the game are half casters... a paladin with divine challenge being 2nd, but the armor artificer with thunder gloves is the best... give one of them sentinel and you out perform the fighter in every way (as protecting party memebers).

I don't find compelled duel to be a particularly good tanking spell. I assume you mean that instead of divine challenge - a 4e ability?

1. It requires a save before it has any effect.
2. It prevents allies from harming the affected creature or you lose it's benefits.
3. I think you are overvaluing the ability to cause enemies disadvantage to attack rolls vs your allies.

I'd stick a Spirit Guardians Cleric up against either of your listed tanks. I'd stick a grappling rune knight up there as well. Also swashbuckler rogue with a single level dip into hexblade for shield, shield spell and booming blade makes for a great tank as well. But none of these are really ending up with optimized damage martial damage - which means compared to a wizard, the wizard is likely able to out damage them (though a cleric built and played right can do some fairly good single target damage (and once he gets summon celestial he can do really good single target when needed.

 

[FrogReaver]

I guess we run fairly different styles of games. Even in dungeons, I often have the hallways interconnect. The denizens know the tunnels while (unless they've already explored the area) the PCs don't. So turtling like that is a good way to have your back line flanked.

But yeah, it can work if the terrain allows for it. More often than not, in my campaigns, it does not, because I generally like to set up my encounter areas to encourage the characters to move around. To me, standing in a doorway slugging it out with a monster while the party attacks from behind is about the most boring form a combat can take. YMMV

An abjuration wizard with a single level dip into cleric or fighter can cast a flaming sphere and then take the dodge action each turn. The flaming sphere in a tight space is going to wreck team enemy and all enemies will have disadvantage against the wizard, who will have as much hp and abjuration shield as a typical fighter has HP, as much AC as a shield using fighter and can cast shield when needed.

I think a wizard focused on defense likely makes a better doorway/hallway blocker than the fighter, while providing an absolutely devasting effect for team enemy to deal with (and higher level wizards only tend to get better spells for that situation).

 

[Baldurs_Underdark]

I guess we run fairly different styles of games. Even in dungeons, I often have the hallways interconnect. The denizens know the tunnels while (unless they've already explored the area) the PCs don't. So turtling like that is a good way to have your back line flanked.

But yeah, it can work if the terrain allows for it. More often than not, in my campaigns, it does not, because I generally like to set up my encounter areas to encourage the characters to move around. To me, standing in a doorway slugging it out with a monster while the party attacks from behind is about the most boring form a combat can take. YMMV

I usually build my maps so that the melee fighter/barbarian have a possibility to be useful. And I will sacrifice a little immersion / realism to achieve this if needed, but that is often not necessary. Mansions or lairs often have a few entrances and a system of hallways and rooms that give plenty of dead ends, narrow doorways and other choke points. If the party acts like a good team they shouldn't get ambushed from the back.

Also, I will sometimes deliberately add some low-Int monsters to a fight in open field which the high-Int bad guys deliberately use as cannon fodder, and have those rush at the melee guys.

If the party will always be outflanked and outsmarted then strategic positioning is not much fun, and my PCs would all start to complain: The squishy Sorc for being attacked all the time and making (and failing) too many concentration checks, the fighter and barbarian for not being attacked enough, etc.

But of course I keep them sharp by not being nice all the time.

 

[Fanaelialae]

I usually build my maps so that the melee fighter/barbarian have a possibility to be useful. And I will sacrifice a little immersion / realism to achieve this if needed, but that is often not necessary. Mansions or lairs often have a few entrances and a system of hallways and rooms that give plenty of dead ends, narrow doorways and other choke points. If the party acts like a good team they shouldn't get ambushed from the back.

Also, I will sometimes deliberately add some low-Int monsters to a fight in open field which the high-Int bad guys deliberately use as cannon fodder, and have those rush at the melee guys.

If the party will always be outflanked and outsmarted then strategic positioning is not much fun, and my PCs would all start to complain: The squishy Sorc for being attacked all the time and making (and failing) too many concentration checks, the fighter and barbarian for not being attacked enough, etc.

But of course I keep them sharp by not being nice all the time.

Yeah, I achieve the same thing performatively. Enemies often (but not always) will attack the melee, even if it's not the most tactically optimal choice. I typically use more open (or interconnected) areas and try to include a few useful things on the field, to encourage characters to move to them and take advantage. These can include cover, concealment, damaging or hindering terrain, etc. I feel like it makes encounters more interesting and exciting when the participants have an incentive to move around.

Admittedly, it does make me miss the days of 4e, when the performative engagement wasn't necessary whatsoever, because defenders had effective tools built into their class to efficiently do their job.

Agreed on not being nice all the time.