D&D 5E I think Wizards balances classes using damage on a single target nova over 3 rounds.

[fluffybunbunkittens]

The setting are very primitive pre-Renaissance worlds with very limited technology.

This is the wrong thread for this, but any setting with mass-produced ball bearings (available in every corner store) is unlikely to be low tech.

 

[W'rkncacnter]

The setting are very primitive pre-Renaissance worlds with very limited technology.

pre-Renaissance
full plate and rapiers

pick one and only one

 

[ECMO3]

pick one and only one

Both Full Plate armor and Rapiers were developed in the late middle ages, although the exact definition of a Rapier is subject to some debate.

The poster above does have a point about ball bearings, although the "Ball Bearings" sold in a D&D shop are not really ball bearing but rather just the balls without the races, it is not a bag of 1000 bearings. Actual bearings using rolling balls would be the modern era (19th centurry). The balls themselves could have conceivably been built by a Davinci rolling mill, but although he designed it, he was not ever known to have actually built one, and it would have been renaissance before they were in common use.

In any case even Renaissance is primitive compared to modern technology or the things Magic can do in D&D. I mean it is a world that has not yet invented trains, light bulbs or in most cases non-Magical gunpowder, but Wizards can fly and teleport and even at the lowest levels can create light without fire.

 

[Hussar]

I really wish you'd replaced the simplified with... Clearly communicated? Consistently structured?

They are massively simplified compared to 5e and especially 3e though. No caster levels right off the bat simplifies a rather large swath of monsters. A 5e monster with 5 or 6 caster levels has fifteen or twenty different options in a given round, with maybe two or three actually being viable and the rest being chaff.

I think 5e monsters could be dramatically simplified and I HOPE they drop most caster levels from monsters.

 

[Charlaquin]

What about AoEs? Thats simple! They ignore them...

Why? Because they value above all else Actual Power, not potential(crawford goes into this here.)

They do not view AoE's power as Actual power because.

1. Their might not be multiple targets in a fight
2. Even if they are around, they might not be anywhere near each other position-wise(such as flanking, cross formations, Frontline/Backline, or just being separated, all common scenarios.)

This leads to AoEs not being quite as counted for at all, the only time they seem to consider it for spell damage is when the radius of the spell is comically huge. And as for big swarm situations, AoE is always good there no matter how they slice it, and nerfing it to account for something not even guaranteed, which leads it to it feeling bad, so they rather it feels good there.

So, I don’t remember where I heard this, but I’m 90% sure that, at least for the purposes of monster CR, what they do is assume AoE abilities always hit two targets, figuring you can never guarantee you’ll be able to hit multiple targets, but you’ll also never use your AoEs if you can’t hit at least two targets with them. So, two is the bare minimum, and they use that as the baseline for combat math, accepting that some encounters you’ll be able to hit 3+ targets and perform above the baseline, but other encounters you just won’t see an opportunity to use your AoEs at all, so it should kinda balance out overall.

Assuming I am remembering this correctly, and assuming you’re correct about how they look at class balance, I would guess this applies to PCs too. I’d recommend taking a look at a few AoE spells and seeing how they stack up in your analysis if you assume they always hit two targets.

 

[Charlaquin]

Excellent work.

This makes some things that were previously baffling now have a kind of sense. I just deeply, deeply disagree with...both the model they've chosen and several of the assumptions they have employed within that model.

Also, I don't think it's 100% true to say they've ignored AoE. There are distinct damage expressions for AoE spells vs single-target. But it definitely seems that they've balanced around single-target damage, they've just got some formula or tool used to cash out what the "if this were a single-target spell, what would it do?" information.

As per my above post, I’m pretty sure they assume AoEs hit two targets, regardless of the size and shape of the AoE.

 

[Charlaquin]

The problem is, between complexity and simplicity, you have the sweet spot called "depth."

I think the better way to look at it is that complexity is the cost of depth. Anything you do to make the game deeper will also necessarily make it more complex. But, some designs are more complexity-cost-efficient than others. A good designer budgets their complexity carefully, and uses it to squeeze the most depth they can out of the game, given the constraints of their complexity budget.

 

[Charlaquin]

Most AOE powers should be assumed to hit at least 2 targets, since you otherwise would use a single- target ability. Increase to 3 if it's a huge AOE or avoids harming allies.

I’m pretty sure they assume you always hit exactly two targets.

 

[FallenRX]

So, I don’t remember where I heard this, but I’m 90% sure that, at least for the purposes of monster CR, what they do is assume AoE abilities always hit two targets, figuring you can never guarantee you’ll be able to hit multiple targets, but you’ll also never use your AoEs if you can’t hit at least two targets with them. So, two is the bare minimum, and they use that as the baseline for combat math, accepting that some encounters you’ll be able to hit 3+ targets and perform above the baseline, but other encounters you just won’t see an opportunity to use your AoEs at all, so it should kinda balance out overall.

Assuming I am remembering this correctly, and assuming you’re correct about how they look at class balance, I would guess this applies to PCs too. I’d recommend taking a look at a few AoE spells and seeing how they stack up in your analysis if you assume they always hit two targets.

They assume that for monsters but not PC's because a monster is always fighting more then 1 player, but a player is not fighting more then one monster.

 

[Charlaquin]

They assume that for monsters but not PC's because a monster is always fighting more then 1 player, but a player is not fighting more then one monster.

Are you sure? The logic is still sound - PCs aren’t always fighting more than one monster, but they often are, and the cases when they’re not help balance out the cases where it’s possible to hit more than the expected 2 targets. I mean, if you’ve done the math and it looks like they’re not making that assumption for PCs, I can’t really argue with that. But it would make a lot of sense, especially if they’re otherwise balancing PCs the same way they balance monsters.