D&D 5E (2014) Do most striker builds weaken a party?

[EzekielRaiden]

I think a decent portion of it is simply that people have the perfectly natural assumption that, when combat IS joined (because it WILL be joined, now and then), classes which were designed to be "squishier" will provide attendant benefits in some other combat-centric area. And some classes do in fact follow that pattern, particularly Wizards, and to a lesser but still meaningful extent casting-focused Druids (e.g. Land-type) and Clerics (e.g. Light, Knowledge, etc.)

But some just flat don't. Wizards has chosen a different model, one that requires people to approach things with a different and IMO not quite as natural set of assumptions. Specifically, we have a design where it is considered perfectly appropriate to have roleplay- or style-dependent benefits (like scouting or socializing) in exchange for losing significantly less style-dependent benefits, and where the difference in combat between a damage-specialized "squishy" character and a splitting-the-difference "tanky bruiser" character is almost undetectable until very high levels. When combined with the significant probability of deaths in the earliest levels (I in fact actually should have lost a character to a merely "hard" fight at level 2, and only kept it because the DM and my fellow players were exceedingly gracious; we only averted a near-TPK because of a lucky death save crit), this leads to some significant expectation whiplash for a fair number of players. 5e, generally speaking, requires a much more mercenary attitude, and in that sense is very, very much "old school" in mindset. A fight you haven't specifically made slanted in your favor is a fight you have a non-negligible chance to die in at any level, and particularly level 1 or 2.

All that can really be said is: in 5e, the exchange rate for defense to offense is not anywhere near parity, and massively favors defense as far as class features are concerned. (Feats, which are not a class feature, generally tend to be kinder to offense than defense...but almost purely for "warrior"-type classes, so the "skirmisher" types are still not in a great position comparatively speaking.) This is a natural consequence of Bounded Accuracy (when attack remains low, but pretty much all damage scales up very quickly, each point of extra defense is a more valuable investment*), and is too deeply hardwired into 5e's design to be changed without a massive overhaul.

*Though humorously, the key offense-related feats GWM and SS invert this relationship: they add so much damage to each attack, being nearly as good as an extra max-damage roll, that when combined with the multiple-attacks-per-action effect, it's totally worth giving up some of your precious attack bonus. You hit less often, but because you make so many attacks per fight, most of them will hit, and hit like a truck when you do.

 

[The Crimson Binome]

All that can really be said is: in 5e, the exchange rate for defense to offense is not anywhere near parity, and massively favors defense as far as class features are concerned.

It sounds like you're only looking at the numbers, which convey less than half of the story. In trading defense for offense, your damage doesn't go up by much, but your ability to project that damage across the battlefield increases significantly. The most basic decision point is just with a shield - +2 AC is huge, but there's no real way to get a decent ranged attack while doing so. Likewise, barbarians are very tough, but their special abilities don't work with a bow.

If you want to go defensive, then the non-numerical trade-off is that you might spend the first round of combat just moving into position, and occasionally you won't have a target within reach. Much more often, you'll want to attack a specific target that is further away (probably a squishier target, at that), but you'll have to settle for attacking their tank instead.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

It sounds like you're only looking at the numbers, which convey less than half of the story. In trading defense for offense, your damage doesn't go up by much, but your ability to project that damage across the battlefield increases significantly. The most basic decision point is just with a shield - +2 AC is huge, but there's no real way to get a decent ranged attack while doing so. Likewise, barbarians are very tough, but their special abilities don't work with a bow.

If you want to go defensive, then the non-numerical trade-off is that you might spend the first round of combat just moving into position, and occasionally you won't have a target within reach. Much more often, you'll want to attack a specific target that is further away (probably a squishier target, at that), but you'll have to settle for attacking their tank instead.

I fundamentally disagree. Unless fights typically start so far apart that it takes more than a full move to reach an enemy, melee is at little to no disadvantage. And at the lowest levels, few creatures are flinging magic around, making that not particularly relevant either. I am not at all speaking white-room here, I'm talking purely from my experience with fights in 5e, which have all been at low levels.

And there's literally not a single thing preventing any of the "warrior" classes from being high Dex and having a bow, or having high Strength and carrying some javelins, which I have very recently, that is within the past two months or so, been assured is a perfectly cromulent ranged offense. (I could be misremembering, but I feel like even you yourself were saying that!)

 

[mellored]

Yeah, but the issue is that PCs vary hugely in durability, while not varying much in damage output. A 5e tank may have the same DPR as a 5e striker. If my Polearm Master, Greatweapon Master Barbarian does not have great DPR, I shall be very disappointed.

Let's compare.

Level 11
S&B tank fighter (protective style, resilience, defensive duelist) does 1d8+3 * 3 = 22.5 * 50% = 12.25
2 handed barb (PM, GWM reckeless) does 1d10+3+3+10 * 2 + 1d4 +3+3+10 = 61.5 * 43.75% = 26.90625
warlock with hex and 20 Cha does 1d10+5+1d6 * 3 = 42 * 60% = 25.2


Barbarian is doing 220% more damage. Not including PM reaction attacks.
Warlock is doing 205% more damage. Not including other spells.
Fighter doesn't include action surge, or battlemaster dice/EK spells.


Crits not included either, but they favor the barb a bit.

 

[The Crimson Binome]

I fundamentally disagree. Unless fights typically start so far apart that it takes more than a full move to reach an enemy, melee is at little to no disadvantage. And at the lowest levels, few creatures are flinging magic around, making that not particularly relevant either. I am not at all speaking white-room here, I'm talking purely from my experience with fights in 5e, which have all been at low levels.

A "full move" is around 30 feet, and short range for a bow is 80 or 150. I guess it wouldn't matter if you're doing a lot of small-room fighting, but my experience puts encounter distance much closer to 150 (which is also the range on Fireball). It's entirely possible that the game of Dungeons & Dragons works better within the confines of a dungeon.

And there's literally not a single thing preventing any of the "warrior" classes from being high Dex and having a bow, or having high Strength and carrying some javelins, which I have very recently, that is within the past two months or so, been assured is a perfectly cromulent ranged offense. (I could be misremembering, but I feel like even you yourself were saying that!)

There's opportunity cost. A high-Strength warrior who invests heavily in Dex, instead of Con, will have fewer HP and be more likely to die. High-Strength warriors can, and in my experience do, make great use of javelins. However, javelins have a short range of 30 feet, and incur Disadvantage to the attack roll out to 120 feet; your chance of actually hitting anything drops precipitously beyond 30 feet, and even if the target is nearby, you'll have Disadvantage if you try to make a ranged attack while you're already engaged in melee.

Most javelins, from what I've seen, are thrown by the melee characters on their way into the fight. I'm also being generous with my interpretation of the object-interaction rules, so they can make use of Extra Attack, but even then they suffer from range (and from not owning a supply of magical javelins).

For contrast, the (elf) monk owns a magical longbow, and makes excellent use of it whenever the target is beyond reach. For a character that is already invested in Dex, like a monk or ranger or rogue, it's trivial to switch back and forth between melee and range -- with the trade-off being that they are quite a bit squishier than the Strength-based characters with their shields and Hit Points.

 

[Gimul]

After rolling up characters for a new campaign the other day we ended up with two tanky charaters with respectable damage output (myself as a battlemaster/abjurer and a paladin), backed up by two glass cannons, a warlock and a ranger with a bow.

It occurred to me that while the ranger will likely be doing a bit more damage than I, it wasn't by much, and since he wouldn't be in the fray, his survivability wasn't a matter of resilience, but rather based on essentially telling foes to attack me and the paladin instead.

While a similar thing could be said about the warlock, he will at least be bringing more potent spellcasting to the table compared to the ranger for greater versatility. Overall I feel as though for a glass cannon to be a viable asset to a party, it either needs to inflict considerably more damage than a tank character, or it needs to offer versatility to help the party out in a variety of situations. Strikers such as the rogue and the ranger feel like they avoid taking their fair share of the aggro from enemies, deal out average damage themselves in return, and don't offer a great deal of party support capabilities to make up for this.

What do you guys think?

You are viewing defenses and hp as individual resources; but discussing tactics at a "party" level. Tactics can (and should) vary wildly based on party composition. While the ranger and warlock are leaving you and the paladin to draw aggro; you and the paladin might be removing stealth based tactics from the table.

Generally it's good for the high AC or HP targets to draw aggro (especially if they have damage reduction); as it means overall party damage is usually reduced and damage is being taken by those with the largest hp pools. This is especially true for parties utilizing in-combat healing.

 

[Gimul]

A "full move" is around 30 feet, and short range for a bow is 80 or 150. I guess it wouldn't matter if you're doing a lot of small-room fighting, but my experience puts encounter distance much closer to 150 (which is also the range on Fireball). It's entirely possible that the game of Dungeons & Dragons works better within the confines of a dungeon.

There's opportunity cost. A high-Strength warrior who invests heavily in Dex, instead of Con, will have fewer HP and be more likely to die. High-Strength warriors can, and in my experience do, make great use of javelins. However, javelins have a short range of 30 feet, and incur Disadvantage to the attack roll out to 120 feet; your chance of actually hitting anything drops precipitously beyond 30 feet, and even if the target is nearby, you'll have Disadvantage if you try to make a ranged attack while you're already engaged in melee.

Most javelins, from what I've seen, are thrown by the melee characters on their way into the fight. I'm also being generous with my interpretation of the object-interaction rules, so they can make use of Extra Attack, but even then they suffer from range (and from not owning a supply of magical javelins).

For contrast, the (elf) monk owns a magical longbow, and makes excellent use of it whenever the target is beyond reach. For a character that is already invested in Dex, like a monk or ranger or rogue, it's trivial to switch back and forth between melee and range -- with the trade-off being that they are quite a bit squishier than the Strength-based characters with their shields and Hit Points.

I would be surprised if a 150' or even 80' encounter range is typical. Any urban, woodland, or underdark setting is likely to favor a < 60' typical encounter range. Desert and plains/grassland settings might allow for a longer range assuming very aggressive rules of engagement.

 

[Bradley Hindman]

I would be surprised if a 150' or even 80' encounter range is typical. Any urban, woodland, or underdark setting is likely to favor a < 60' typical encounter range. Desert and plains/grassland settings might allow for a longer range assuming very aggressive rules of engagement.

You may very well be right about urban or underdark encounters. But, any woodland that doesn't allow anyone to see further that 60 feet on a regular basis is more of a thicket. In many forests in the Western US (my primary experience) the biggest impediment to seeing far isn't necessarily the trees, its the folds in the terrain and the rocks. In old-growth deciduous forests the undergrowth dies out and the encounter distance might require several move actions to cover. On open terrain without tall corn growing everywhere, the sighting distance could very well a mile or more (once again depending on the topography). My players are paranoid sorts and if they see a potential enemy 200 feet away, they aren't going to let that enemy approach to within 60 feet before the parlay begins.

So in the games I run (which tend to lack dungeons) encounter distances are often beyond effective javelin range.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

So in the games I run (which tend to lack dungeons) encounter distances are often beyond effective javelin range.

You'll have to pardon me for not really expecting games that intentionally avoid dungeons to be highly representative of Dungeons and Dragons.

Snark aside: 100% of the 5e combats I've participated in, across two campaigns, have been in dungeon and/or urban environments. Eschewing dungeons, caverns (that is, "natural" dungeon environments), and cities seems like a pretty substantial change. And even beyond that, I have rarely experienced a combat that began with more than 60' between the closest combatants in any game. That's a huge area--I find it difficult to buy that it's being used by anyone other than TotM players. And if you're already using TotM, movement and distance are handwaved anyway, making it impossible to meaningfully distinguish between the range of a javelin and a longbow.

 

[The Crimson Binome]

And if you're already using TotM, movement and distance are handwaved anyway, making it impossible to meaningfully distinguish between the range of a javelin and a longbow.

TotM doesn't mean distance is handwaved. It just means that you don't manually track everything down to five-foot precision and draw it out, because everyone can keep a close-enough image in their heads. I assure you that there is still a huge distance between effective javelin ranged and effective longbow range.

Er, at least, that's the way we always do TotM around here. I guess you could just not care about ranges, but at that point, it's arguable whether you're even playing the same game anymore.