Menu
News
All News
Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
Pathfinder
Starfinder
Warhammer
2d20 System
Year Zero Engine
Industry News
Reviews
Dragon Reflections
Columns
Weekly Digests
Weekly News Digest
Freebies, Sales & Bundles
RPG Print News
RPG Crowdfunding News
Game Content
ENterplanetary DimENsions
Mythological Figures
Opinion
Worlds of Design
Peregrine's Next
RPG Evolution
Other Columns
From the Freelancing Frontline
Monster ENcyclopedia
WotC/TSR Alumni Look Back
4 Hours w/RSD (Ryan Dancey)
The Road to 3E (Jonathan Tweet)
Greenwood's Realms (Ed Greenwood)
Drawmij's TSR (Jim Ward)
Community
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Resources
Wiki
Pages
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Downloads
Latest reviews
Search resources
EN Publishing
Store
EN5ider
Adventures in ZEITGEIST
Awfully Cheerful Engine
What's OLD is NEW
Judge Dredd & The Worlds Of 2000AD
War of the Burning Sky
Level Up: Advanced 5E
Events & Releases
Upcoming Events
Private Events
Featured Events
Socials!
Twitch
YouTube
Facebook (EN Publishing)
Facebook (EN World)
Twitter
Instagram
TikTok
Podcast
Features
Top 5 RPGs Compiled Charts 2004-Present
Adventure Game Industry Market Research Summary (RPGs) V1.0
Ryan Dancey: Acquiring TSR
Q&A With Gary Gygax
D&D Rules FAQs
TSR, WotC, & Paizo: A Comparative History
D&D Pronunciation Guide
Million Dollar TTRPG Kickstarters
Tabletop RPG Podcast Hall of Fame
Eric Noah's Unofficial D&D 3rd Edition News
D&D in the Mainstream
D&D & RPG History
About Morrus
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
December 1st UA Spell changes
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Chaosmancer" data-source="post: 8863226" data-attributes="member: 6801228"><p>Citation Needed.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>Yes they did. Explicitly.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>How applicable is Turn Undead in an adventuring day not featuring undead?</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>So I have to analyze every single fighting style to be able to decide if Fighters can heal as much as Clerics? Can't just do one, and assume each style is balanced against the others, I need to do a separate analysis for all of them. </p><p></p><p>I call BS. That is just a smokescreen to demand I shut up because I haven't hit an arbitrary amount of work.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>You did agree. Right here.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>So, I will take this as an admission that the inclusion of feats is what ACTUALLY balances things, and that healing is too weak.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>Save against what? I don't NEED to use monsters that rely on saves. Again, you make assertions that my analysis is bad because I MUST include something that I am actually not required to use. Sure, maybe I will use things that use saves, maybe I won't. But that doesn't speak to anything beyond the ability to remake a save being good.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>This is why I get so immensely angry talking to you. Did you even read what I said? Obviously not. If you had read what I had written then talking about Samurai and Battle Masters would be obviously stupid. </p><p></p><p>Try this. Read what I write. Take your time. Because this is like the 10th time in this thread alone that you have done this.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>So, once more, your own claim of ANY team being balanced against ANY team is useless drivel. Because now you are backpedaling and saying that I am talking nonsense comparing these two teams. </p><p></p><p>It seems like, in reality, you meant "Any team of properly balanced characters with relevant and powerful abilities is balanced against any other team of properly balanced characters with relevant and powerful abilities". Because, hell, even just saying that the Champion is the "weakest" subclass means that a team with a Champion is weaker and not balanced against a team with a Battlemaster. You have already introduced a scale, you just refuse to acknowledge it.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>How is a spell they don't cast and may have not even prepared relevant?</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>Are those numbers different for each person? Or are they the same and their opinions about those numbers different? Cause it turns out, that is an ENTIRELY different argument.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>Oh, thank you Maxperson. I wasn't sure if I read things from the book meant they were correct until you stated they were. That was sarcasm.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>What math am I missing? You keep asserting, but not providing concrete examples just "you need to analyze EVERYTHING". Turns out, that since healing only interacts with HP, and therefore only with combat, I don't need to analyze whether or not Reliable Talent on persuasion is balanced against it. Because they don't interact within the same pillar. Sure, a CLASS can be balanced between three pillars, but an ABILITY or a SPELL likely isn't. You could do 1 million damage, but that doesn't mean anything to the social pillar.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>You are violating definitions: "<em>Occam's razor is a principle of theory construction or evaluation according to which, other things equal, explanations that posit fewer entities, or fewer kinds of entities, are to be preferred to explanations that posit more. <strong>It is sometimes misleadingly characterized as a general recommendation of simpler explanations over more complex ones.</strong></em>" </p><p></p><p>Also, you are still arguing in complete ignorance of or ignoring Ceteris Paribus. You want me to devote resources to something unnamed, undefined, and potentially nonexistent just because it might happen. But you have, yet again, never proven that a group of players WON'T choose to save their slots for combat and instead take the long way around obstacles.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>So, no evidence yet again. Tell me, how often does "Trust me, it just does" work for you? Especially as you accuse the other side of just relying on their feelings?</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>I am not using the champion. As stated. Multiple times. </p><p></p><p>You keep reading assumptions into my posts, while not reading my actual posts. I have already stated I didn't use subclasses.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>Interesting point. Let me consider something, you imagine dishing out more damage ends the fight sooner. And this would be better for the fighter. Yet, the Clerics are dishing out more damage per round. </p><p></p><p>At the same time, with less healing available, don't you think that the 10% increase in hits on Team Fighter makes them more vulnerable?</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>While the Cleric still had more resources to burn on increasing the gap yet again. And, as demonstrated at the end of my last post, it doesn't seem to matter.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>Except that the design of healing spells shows you are wrong. Cure Wounds is a terrible whack-a-mole resource. It wouldn't exist in the same category as Healing Word if the design intention of healing spells was whack-a-mole.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p><em><em>sigh</em></em></p><p></p><p>Really? Let's take a look. </p><p></p><p>We previously established the Cleric in the first three fights dealing 139.5 damage per fight. For two fights that is 279.</p><p></p><p>Fighter with a Greatsword, Great Weapon Fighting style is about +1 damage per attack, so that is 6d6+18 or 39 damage per round. That is 117 damage per fight or 234 damage, which is 45 damage less. Even if I account for Action Surge that is only another 39 damage, still keeping the fighter lower damage than the clerics. </p><p></p><p>So, if the Fighter is dropping enemies quickly enough to avoid needing as much healing, then the clerics are doing it EVEN FASTER. </p><p></p><p>Now, you'll want to insist that this is completely unfair unless I give the fighter Great Weapon Master. However, you have to remember that the -5 to hit lowers accuracy and lowers the ability for the fighter to deliver that damage. Meanwhile, part of the cleric damage is a save vs half damage, which never misses. Additionally, getting the feat means either the Fighter lowers their strength or lowers their con for less hp.</p><p></p><p>So, I'll need to do a completely different analysis here. I'll multiply the damage by 0.6 for a 60% hit rate. This will necessarily mean I'll have to assume the same for the Spirit Guardians which is innaccurate as it UNDERESTIMATES the cleric damage by assuming 0 damage when Spirit Guardians "misses".</p><p></p><p>279*0.6 = 167.40 for clerics. </p><p></p><p>However, for the Greatsword that is a multiplier of 0.35. Adding in the damage from GWM that gives us</p><p></p><p>414*0.35 = 144.9</p><p></p><p>STILL less than the cleric which is being UNDERESTIMATED by this analysis. </p><p></p><p>Now, I'll bet you'll want to say that the Fighter won't be using it all the time, they'll only use it in times that it "matters" or some other excuse. But frankly, the problem here is you keep assuming an answer, then insisting you are correct. Instead, look at the numbers. Then, if you disagree, prove it.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Chaosmancer, post: 8863226, member: 6801228"] Citation Needed. Yes they did. Explicitly. How applicable is Turn Undead in an adventuring day not featuring undead? So I have to analyze every single fighting style to be able to decide if Fighters can heal as much as Clerics? Can't just do one, and assume each style is balanced against the others, I need to do a separate analysis for all of them. I call BS. That is just a smokescreen to demand I shut up because I haven't hit an arbitrary amount of work. You did agree. Right here. So, I will take this as an admission that the inclusion of feats is what ACTUALLY balances things, and that healing is too weak. Save against what? I don't NEED to use monsters that rely on saves. Again, you make assertions that my analysis is bad because I MUST include something that I am actually not required to use. Sure, maybe I will use things that use saves, maybe I won't. But that doesn't speak to anything beyond the ability to remake a save being good. This is why I get so immensely angry talking to you. Did you even read what I said? Obviously not. If you had read what I had written then talking about Samurai and Battle Masters would be obviously stupid. Try this. Read what I write. Take your time. Because this is like the 10th time in this thread alone that you have done this. So, once more, your own claim of ANY team being balanced against ANY team is useless drivel. Because now you are backpedaling and saying that I am talking nonsense comparing these two teams. It seems like, in reality, you meant "Any team of properly balanced characters with relevant and powerful abilities is balanced against any other team of properly balanced characters with relevant and powerful abilities". Because, hell, even just saying that the Champion is the "weakest" subclass means that a team with a Champion is weaker and not balanced against a team with a Battlemaster. You have already introduced a scale, you just refuse to acknowledge it. How is a spell they don't cast and may have not even prepared relevant? Are those numbers different for each person? Or are they the same and their opinions about those numbers different? Cause it turns out, that is an ENTIRELY different argument. Oh, thank you Maxperson. I wasn't sure if I read things from the book meant they were correct until you stated they were. That was sarcasm. What math am I missing? You keep asserting, but not providing concrete examples just "you need to analyze EVERYTHING". Turns out, that since healing only interacts with HP, and therefore only with combat, I don't need to analyze whether or not Reliable Talent on persuasion is balanced against it. Because they don't interact within the same pillar. Sure, a CLASS can be balanced between three pillars, but an ABILITY or a SPELL likely isn't. You could do 1 million damage, but that doesn't mean anything to the social pillar. You are violating definitions: "[I]Occam's razor is a principle of theory construction or evaluation according to which, other things equal, explanations that posit fewer entities, or fewer kinds of entities, are to be preferred to explanations that posit more. [B]It is sometimes misleadingly characterized as a general recommendation of simpler explanations over more complex ones.[/B][/I]" Also, you are still arguing in complete ignorance of or ignoring Ceteris Paribus. You want me to devote resources to something unnamed, undefined, and potentially nonexistent just because it might happen. But you have, yet again, never proven that a group of players WON'T choose to save their slots for combat and instead take the long way around obstacles. So, no evidence yet again. Tell me, how often does "Trust me, it just does" work for you? Especially as you accuse the other side of just relying on their feelings? I am not using the champion. As stated. Multiple times. You keep reading assumptions into my posts, while not reading my actual posts. I have already stated I didn't use subclasses. Interesting point. Let me consider something, you imagine dishing out more damage ends the fight sooner. And this would be better for the fighter. Yet, the Clerics are dishing out more damage per round. At the same time, with less healing available, don't you think that the 10% increase in hits on Team Fighter makes them more vulnerable? While the Cleric still had more resources to burn on increasing the gap yet again. And, as demonstrated at the end of my last post, it doesn't seem to matter. Except that the design of healing spells shows you are wrong. Cure Wounds is a terrible whack-a-mole resource. It wouldn't exist in the same category as Healing Word if the design intention of healing spells was whack-a-mole. [I][I]sigh[/I][/I] Really? Let's take a look. We previously established the Cleric in the first three fights dealing 139.5 damage per fight. For two fights that is 279. Fighter with a Greatsword, Great Weapon Fighting style is about +1 damage per attack, so that is 6d6+18 or 39 damage per round. That is 117 damage per fight or 234 damage, which is 45 damage less. Even if I account for Action Surge that is only another 39 damage, still keeping the fighter lower damage than the clerics. So, if the Fighter is dropping enemies quickly enough to avoid needing as much healing, then the clerics are doing it EVEN FASTER. Now, you'll want to insist that this is completely unfair unless I give the fighter Great Weapon Master. However, you have to remember that the -5 to hit lowers accuracy and lowers the ability for the fighter to deliver that damage. Meanwhile, part of the cleric damage is a save vs half damage, which never misses. Additionally, getting the feat means either the Fighter lowers their strength or lowers their con for less hp. So, I'll need to do a completely different analysis here. I'll multiply the damage by 0.6 for a 60% hit rate. This will necessarily mean I'll have to assume the same for the Spirit Guardians which is innaccurate as it UNDERESTIMATES the cleric damage by assuming 0 damage when Spirit Guardians "misses". 279*0.6 = 167.40 for clerics. However, for the Greatsword that is a multiplier of 0.35. Adding in the damage from GWM that gives us 414*0.35 = 144.9 STILL less than the cleric which is being UNDERESTIMATED by this analysis. Now, I'll bet you'll want to say that the Fighter won't be using it all the time, they'll only use it in times that it "matters" or some other excuse. But frankly, the problem here is you keep assuming an answer, then insisting you are correct. Instead, look at the numbers. Then, if you disagree, prove it. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
December 1st UA Spell changes
Top