Response to CapnZapp's query
So let me ask you directly about the use cases which you omitted:
- what about Drizzt and Zorro & Co, Hemlock. I still haven't got your opinion on how feats leave some weapons in the dust.
- the Monster Manual. Given everything else equal, wouldn't you prefer characters have 30 DPR instead of 60 DPR?
I thought I'd addressed Drizzt and Zorro already, in this post:
Those goals can be satisfied by just improving other fighting styles. Consider a hypothetical case where Dueling gives you double damage dice, TWF style allows you to attack with your off-hand weapon (at no attribute bonus to damage, and with no bonus action cost) every time you attack with your main weapon, and GWM grants +5 to hit.
In such a universe, (1) will be satisfied (I haven't done the math but I have a pretty good intuition that says none of them are double the damage of ranged), and (2) will be satisfied because range now lags other damage-focused options in damage output, and (3) is satisfied because fighters are stronger than ever. (All of these options scale with number of attacks, so Fighters benefit more than Rangers or Paladins.)
You might have other goals like (d) Fighters must become weaker, not stronger, as a result of the re-balancing; but if you don't, improving the weak options is the easiest way to satisfy (a)-(c).
Now Drizz't gets to make six attacks per round at 11th level (three with +Dex to damage, three without using his off-hand weapon), and Zorro likewise gets to make three rapier attacks and three whipcracks. (The whip attacks will probably be better-spent on Disarm attempts than damage attempts.) That's enough to make Crossbow Expert Sharpshooters look pretty sad* by comparison, except that they still have the intrinsic advantages of range such as getting to attack on rounds while Zorro is busy Dashing, and not being turned to stone by Medusas.
* Well, not the whips so much, since that's only a Fighting Style. But if Crossbow Expert Sharpshooter with Archery and Magic Crossbow +1 And Advantage From Faerie Fire is doing
75 DPR at 20th level vs. AC 20, then Zorro the Dual Wielder Magic Initiate with Two Weapon Fighting and Advantage From Faerie Fire and two Rapiers +1 and Hex is doing
104 DPR at 20th level, plus he still has his bonus action free and his AC is one point higher. If he gets a bonus action set of attacks from GWM then his DPR is
130. Or he could go more defensive and take Defensive Duelist, or whatever he wants.
If you wanted to boost feats instead of fighting styles, eh, six of one/half a dozen of the other. That part isn't worth arguing over--just do the one that fits better for your playstyle.
=====================================
RE: MM, there are definite issues with the MM but they're not really related to monster HP totals. Besides, as I pointed out already, the baseline party damage doesn't budge much from PHB rules unless you happen to have an all-offensive-Fighter party, in which case they
deserve to do 200% of a normal party's damage since they've sacrificed so much else from spells to mobility to defense to healing.
MM issues tend to be related more to:
(1) boringness of monsters,
(2) combat-centric stat blocks (no Organization/Number Appearing or Favored Terrain/Climate or Treasure Type or Diet or Habits or Frequency or...),
(3) absurdly short and predictable ranges on monster special abilities that make monsters easy to "solve" with plain old SOP tactics,
(4) boringness of resistances/vulnerabilities (imagine if vampires took triple damage from bone or wooden weapons and half damage from metal or stone weapons, and devils were vulnerable to silver while demons were vulnerable to cold iron),
(5) the fact that even monsters with potentially interesting tactical options force you to infer them (hmmm, this Grung monster has a leaping ability and missile weapons and stealth and the shamans can cast Spike Growth--they probably like to bait PCs into chasing them into Spike Growth, then the Shaman casts Plant Growth to trap the PCs there even more while all the Grungs throw poisoned daggers),
(6) boringness of lore... if you want an interesting monster you pretty much have to either steal it from other sources
like this one or create it out of whole cloth. It would be a huge improvement if the MM even just had three or four rumors (alleged factoids, possibly contradictory) about each monster. But no, they spend half their space on listing combat stats and the other half on cliched vagaries.
MM_Orcs said:
Orcs gather in tribes that exert their dominance and satisfy their bloodlust by plundering villages, devouring or driving off roaming herds, and slaying any humanoids that stand against them. After savaging a settlement, orcs pick it clean of wealth and items usable in their own lands. They set the remains of villages and camps ablaze, then retreat whence they came, their bloodlust satisfied.
I mean, really? What did that tell me that I wouldn't have assumed anyway from watching Lord of the Rings? Compare that with these juicy rumors:
http://hackslashmaster.blogspot.com/2013/09/on-ecology-of-orc.html said:
Orcs are what happens when teen mothers drink during pregnancy in a fantasy world
Orcs are not a separate race, but instead all elves wearing masks!
Orcs are the reflection of man from a once distant dimension merged with ours. Neither can achieve their potential while the other exists, and this is knowledge only the orcs have. Killing humans is a deeply spiritual duty for even an Orc, even if it's not something they [speak of] often.
They are simply angry over centuries of bigotry
Try and tell me that those four lies(?) don't spark more fun adventure ideas than the MM entry. What about a rural village filled with people who actually
believe lie #2 about elves in masks, and consequently hate elves for atrocities committed by orcs? Who do you think might have been planting those rumors and why? (Maybe a demon?) Or what if in
this campaign, it's actually true, in whole or in part? What if elves sometimes do dress up like orcs in order to commit atrocities? What if the players are attacked by orcs who try to steal their treasure, but when they examine the corpses very closely, they turn out to be elves in masks--a sort of elvish Klu Klux Klan? What then? The story doesn't quite write itself but it's going somewhere that the MM isn't.
The MM is not evocative, and not inspiring.
(7) Combat stats are exceedingly easy to fix. If all the PCs have 60 DPR and I was expecting 30, and it's important to me that the players' choices not be allowed to alter my planned adventure (bad idea BTW), I can just include sqrt(2) times more monsters. 41% more monsters doing 41% more damage per round for 41% longer will inflict
1.41 * 1.41 ~= 2 times the casualties/resource expenditure on the PCs. (This is exactly why minions are strong.) But remember, I don't recommend doing this in the first place. Instead of the DM setting up scenes for PCs to interact with, I prefer to telegraph danger and let players choose their own desired level of risk-to-reward. I don't have to
predict how tough the players are going to be; I merely have to be somewhat
predictable, a la "You're now deep on level X of the dungeon." Then throw in enough unknowable variables (for the players--"what's in the locked sarcophagus?") on top and gambles for unknown stakes (to the players--"the giant is shaking his dice and gesturing encouragingly to you to sit down and play with him, but you can't understand a word he says except that it somehow involves Sarah") to make it fun for me to run.
Add that all up and you'll see why, out of all the things that concern me about the MM, the DPR of a theoretically-optimal all-offensively-oriented-Fighter party ranks very low on my list.
(that is, the PC that makes the kill gets the XP)
