D&D 5E Fighting Style Balance: Offense vs. Defense

[Xeviat]

Hi everyone. I've been fiddling with some things, but I realized that I'm not 100% sure of my own starting assumptions in one specific area of game balance. In an earlier thread discussing the balance between different Fighting Styles, I am not sure where the theoretical balance point should be between offense and defense. I'm not going to look at specific numbers here, and perfect balance may not be attainable, but I'd like to know where everyone's thoughts lay.

Imagine we have identical characters fighting each other, except one is armed with a longsword and a shield and one is armed with a greatsword (and both have applicable fighting styles, or no fighting styles). Who should win? Initially, I'd say I'd want there to be as close to a 50/50 shot for either.

But, D&D is balanced more around Player vs the challenges of the world (PvE, not PvP, to borrow the MMO terms). A character geared for defense is going to try to maximize the number of enemies that attack them, to extend the benefits of their defense to the whole party; likewise, a character geared for offense is going to try to avoid engaging multiple opponents to minimize the vulnerability of their low defense.

Basically, it comes down to this: When comparing the two characters against each other, where should the balance point lay? Should the greatsword wielder deal more "DPR" against the shield bearer because they're more vulnerable to attacks from multiple enemies? Or should the greatsword wielder deal less "DPR" against the shield bearer because their increased damage against static ACs is going to lead to suffering less attacks over all since they disable their opponents faster?

Hitting perfect balance isn't possible. There are too many variables. I've been playing with the math to see how things go, but I need a whole table to track two characters against multiple ACs and with various damage bonuses (representing growing Str and Magic mods). Ideally, things should be as close to balanced at the +5 mod point because that's where the majority of the game is going to be (20 mod, or 18 mod and +1 weapons).

Thankfully, most players don't think that much. A 3% difference in damage doesn't matter to them. This is more theoretical. I'm curious what you value.

 

[CapnZapp]

The thing is that the game isn't all that hard, so you don't really need that much defense.

Especially if you optimize on offense, and particularly ranged offense, since then the monsters melt away before they can even test that supposedly poor defense...

Nerf ranged attacks and give monsters abilities to overcome battlefield control spells, so the players feel they are actually threatened by monster melee, and maybe, just maybe, you will see a grater focus on defense... ☺

Sent from my C6603 using EN World mobile app

 

[Blue]

But, D&D is balanced more around Player vs the challenges of the world (PvE, not PvP, to borrow the MMO terms).

I'd like to make a small change to this that has a big impact on how I look at it: D&D is balanced more around Group vs the challenges of the world.

So for me, it should lean toward fighting styles that reward teamwork. So if we were rebalancing the PHB fighting styles, I'd want Protection to edge out the rest, as it's the only one that the focus is on group play.

Edge out, not beat hands-down. The others should be compelling choices, and the selfless one should be a bit better so that it doesn't automatically lose out in many cases to "the ones that make my character (directly) more powerful".

I'd love to see more teamwork based fighting styles, including ones that helps the character as long as he's helping others - it doesn't need to be boost-others-only, just group oriented much like sneak attack just needs an ally or the barbarian's various wolf totems.

 

[schnee]

The one problem with defense being stronger is it can lead to really long, dragged-out games. Missing too often is boring and a downer.

D&D 5E is biased towards more hitting. That's why ACs are low, HPs are decent, and characters have more pervasive healing so they feel safer about mixing it up.

It seems that 'party balance' thing you talk about is also a thing with spells; Concentration means you can't have one caster control for all possible dangers, so it generally nerfs one kind of attack (or attacker) and forces the rest of the party to chip in to handle the rest.

 

[Blue]

To give an example that is likely too powerful, would Protection style be among the three top taken if it read:

PROTECTION
When a creature in your reach attacks an adjacent ally they have disadvantage on the attack. If you are wearing a shield, you may use your reaction to also apply this when a creature outside your reach attacks an adjacent ally, applying to all of the attacks from the creature this turn.

In other words, without spending an action you protect adjacent allies from foes in your reach (much less range) without a shield, and you can still do what the style does now against further foes with a shield and your reaction, and it counts against all of their attack sequence.

 

[Warbringer]

Offense - better game play, more excitement.

Strange as it seems, the best defensive optimization in D&D is hit point opitimization

 

[FrogReaver]

Offense - better game play, more excitement.

Strange as it seems, the best defensive optimization in D&D is hit point opitimization

I disagree. With all the healing anything that mitigates dms is better. Like ac.

 

[Shiroiken]

As close as possible is best, but a slight preference to offense speeds the game up. IMO, many players currently don't value defense much, with only a handful of characters ever using a shield or taking the Defense fighting style. Great weapon fighting and two weapon fighting are considered more "fun," since you feel like you're doing more, even though making attacks miss is the equivalent of healing damage.

 

[Ancalagon]

The thing with defence I have noted is either put a bit of effort into it, or go all out. Going from AC 14 to 15 is not a big deal (although still nice). But going from 19 to 20 is. A single point of AC gives you more benefits when said AC is already high...

Sent from my SM-G930W8 using EN World mobile app

 

[Warbringer]

I disagree. With all the healing anything that mitigates dms is better. Like ac.

Exactly. The game has a different resource mechanic for ensuring that go get to stay in the hitting game.

Goal: It falls down before i do. So resource trade is damage to zero on each end, as there is no penalty for mostly dead. Players can control the pace of resources tied to gameplay (daily resources like healing dice and healing), but can't in combat, therefor they should maximize in round damage output, as they have access post combat to a resource the monster doesn't.

Failing that argument: more fun