D&D 5E Is it better to prevent or inflict damage? (psi warrior, battle master, others)

[Ancalagon]

Damage is irrelevant when craftsmen in your fledgling barony complain your tax collector charged them double, and your investigation yields that he skimmed a few coins in the past, gave breaks to a few poor folk who had a bad harvest before winter, and made up the difference with what he perceived as the richest people in town. The tax collector thought he was doing right by the people, which is what he emulated your party's leadership doing, but if you fail to act, you won't have anyone to build your Temple (which you promised you would to the Church since they loaned you a significant amount of resources to found your town).

I digress. This is a thread about combat, and in D&D, a good offense is the best defense. It's been that way since Day 1, but really, it shouldn't have one iota of impact on what you play.

your message here is "don't focus only on the mechanics, think roleplay and problem solving" and I completely agree with you. But I already had a "let me tell you about my character" thread

 

[Shiroiken]

For the psi's warrior's example, the damage is 1d6+int bonus (then climbs to 1d8 etc) so it's the equivalent of an attack, but not a particularly strong one.

Battlemaster is different, because parry dice is + stat, while the extra damage dice is only one dice ... but it usually carries a "rider" effect, like knocking people prone.

The Psi Warrior can also get such a rider, for free, but only at level 7. At that point, the amount of damage prevented becomes a bit less significant, while trying to knock or move enemies for free as part of an attack and extra damage looks more like a better deal.

In the case of the psi warrior, it really depends on ability scores. If they have only a mediocre Int (+1 or +2), then it's about the equivalent to a cantrip (1d8-1d10), making it worth it levels 3-4. Once you get to level 5, however, it's going to fall behind most cantrips and still be weaker than most attacks. Optimal determination is going to be based on the value of the group's average damage per attack, using it for offensive if it's only a point or three less than a regular attack, or defense if it's more than that. If the DM lets the players know enemy HP, then you can figure if the odds of the extra damage causing a kill, allowing even better optimization.

Riders throw things off, since the benefit of the rider is going to be situational. I've seen a battlemaster use intimidating strike on an already feared enemy, simply for the extra damage. Good riders can make or break an encounter though, making the damage much less important. For example, vicious mockery's disadvantage against a single brute (like an ogre) is far more important than the d4 damage, since it almost negates the enemy's one attack.

 

[Umbran]

So it's unclear to me if one is clearly better than the other, or if it's situational, or roughly equivalent.

Any time you ask "Is X better than Y?" it pays to realize that is only half the question.

The full question is, "Is X better than Y for achieving <purpose>?"

Why are you in this fight? Who are you fighting? What are your goals? In Murdurhobo D&D, you are in the fight to kill all the enemies and take their stuff.. So, yes, there's going to be a bias toward spending resources to kill the enemy.

But, what if your goal isn't to kill the enemy? What if you want to pluck the Eye of Argon from the statue's face, with a side goal of trying to not kill too many people? Then, the answer will be different.

 

[Kurotowa]

Why are you in this fight? Who are you fighting? What are your goals? In Murdurhobo D&D, you are in the fight to kill all the enemies and take their stuff.. So, yes, there's going to be a bias toward spending resources to kill the enemy.

Here's another one to ask. How tactically clever does your DM run the NPCs? Some DMs will have bandits and beasts throw themselves at the big dangerous looking warrior taking point, and others will have then skirmish around the flanks and try to gank the squishies. Damage prevention becomes a lot more valuable in the latter case.

 

[cmad1977]

This answer is:
Yes.

 

[Ancalagon]

Artillerist Artificers are amazing at it, honestly.

Drop down a protection cannon and use your bonus action to make it pulse every turn for 1d8+int Temp HP every turn for an hour. Or keep it on your person, however you prefer to handle it.

You can keep the whole party bathed in a lovely glow of Temp HP!

So, y'know. It's gonna depend on the class, really. Some are great at it, some are okay at it. Some of them are better at last minute saves, like the Psionic Knight.

This is an aside, but have you been in a party with a twilight cleric? OMG the temp hp... with a radius of 30 feet and not having to use concentration it's phenomenal. The artillerist has to give up the pew pew cannon, the twilight cleric gets it almost for free...

 

[Steampunkette]

This is an aside, but have you been in a party with a twilight cleric? OMG the temp hp... with a radius of 30 feet and not having to use concentration it's phenomenal. The artillerist has to give up the pew pew cannon, the twilight cleric gets it almost for free...

Well... I mean... It's 1d6+Wis or 1d8+Int, one minute versus one hour, and once per short rest for Clerics or once per day (plus once per spell slot) for Artificers.

So just make an Artificer with 1 level of Warlock and it's practically the same!

It does mean you'll be using your bonus action every turn on that little cannon, but it also doesn't use concentration.

The on-top benefit for clerics is the Charm/Fear ending which is just -lovely-.

I dunno. I feel like they're really close. Though the Cleric wins out on overall flexibility of spellcasting compared to an Artificer, obviously. Plus armor and stuff and spells without concentration and with concentration to stack on top of it.

 

[Weiley31]

“The best damage you can inflict is to be cold and to withhold your affection. That’s the damage that lasts a lifetime.” My parents, probably.

So that's why you don't like Bards!!!

 

[Snarf Zagyg]

So that's why you don't like Bards!!!

Did you hear about the horrible tragedy at the College of the Bards? There was a terrible fire that burned down their library.... they lost all of their books.

Spoiler

The true catastrophe was that 1/3 of them hadn't even been colored in yet.

 

[Ancalagon]

Well... I mean... It's 1d6+Wis or 1d8+Int, one minute versus one hour, and once per short rest for Clerics or once per day (plus once per spell slot) for Artificers.

So just make an Artificer with 1 level of Warlock and it's practically the same!

It does mean you'll be using your bonus action every turn on that little cannon, but it also doesn't use concentration.

The on-top benefit for clerics is the Charm/Fear ending which is just -lovely-.

I dunno. I feel like they're really close. Though the Cleric wins out on overall flexibility of spellcasting compared to an Artificer, obviously. Plus armor and stuff and spells without concentration and with concentration to stack on top of it.

the real difference is range. The cleric is 30 foot radius, not 10. And as you mentioned, the charm/fear ender...

We played an adventure with a cleric and a shepherd druid - ie a "summoner" - those summoned creatures got really tough.