D&D 5E Not Much Ado About Bless

[FrogReaver]

But we’re discussing bonuses to hit being broken. I agree that situation matters far more than just looking at the numbers.

And yup you need those fighter types there to let the casters do their job. My point wasn’t that wizards make fighters redundant.

My point was that boosting the fighter’s damage makes zero difference to balance in the long run because most of the damage the group is dealing will not be coming from the fighter types.

Going from dealing 30% of the group’s damage to 40% still means that your not dealing as much as the wizard. It just means that you might be saving the wizard a spell or two per day.

IOW no big deal.

Treating aoe damage as equivalent to multi attack damage is IMO one of the largest sins in D&D analysis. Ask yourself, is it better for the fighter to do 25 damage to 4 targets or is it better that he can apply that 25 damage to one enemy up to 4 times (enemy hp permitting).

 

[James Gasik]

Like in all discussions, it depends. If each enemy has 50 hit points, and the Wizard hits them all for 25, then it's going to make a Fighter who can do 25 to 4 targets twice as effective.

 

[Vaalingrade]

Treating aoe damage as equivalent to multi attack damage is IMO one of the largest sins in D&D analysis.

Aside from D&D analysis itself.

 

[FrogReaver]

Like in all discussions, it depends. If each enemy has 50 hit points, and the Wizard hits them all for 25, then it's going to make a Fighter who can do 25 to 4 targets twice as effective.

That still doesn’t take away the point that damage for damage multi attack damage in general is more valuable than aoe.

You seem to be arguing about the trees when it’s the forest that matters.

 

[James Gasik]

That still doesn’t take away the point that damage for damage multi attack damage in general is more valuable than aoe.

You seem to be arguing about the trees when it’s the forest that matters.

No argument, just pointing out that both kinds of damage can be valuable depending on the situation. A Wizard versus a pack of Goblins can be more valuable than a Fighter. A Fighter versus a Dragon can be more valuable than a Wizard.

What would be better, of course, is if the Fighter had access to abilities like Hordebreaker so they could pick and choose for those instances when you do 25 damage per hit, but only need 12.

 

[FrogReaver]

No argument, just pointing out that both kinds of damage can be valuable depending on the situation. A Wizard versus a pack of Goblins can be more valuable than a Fighter. A Fighter versus a Dragon can be more valuable than a Wizard.

Okay. But this has never been in dispute.

 

[thom_likes_gaming]

It's old news. Think I was the trendsetter with my "bless is broken thread" back in 2014. That was about two months after 5E landed we figured out the Great Weapon and sharpshooter feat combo very early.

Sorry for the OT, but what GWM and sharpshooter combo?

 

[Dausuul]

Sorry for the OT, but what GWM and sharpshooter combo?

I think Zardnaar meant combos using GWM or Sharpshooter; Reckless Attack + GWM, Crossbow Expert + Sharpshooter, etc.

As far as I know, there isn't a single combo that combines both of those feats. Although it isn't quite impossible. GWM requires you to "make a melee attack with a heavy weapon," and Sharpshooter requires you to "make an attack with a ranged weapon," so if you beat somebody over the head with a longbow, you could take -10/+20.

 

[Zardnaar]

Sorry for the OT, but what GWM and sharpshooter combo?

Bless+gwm or bless+archery style+sharpshooter.

We discovered this very early in the game but had a bard as well.

 

[Hussar]

Treating aoe damage as equivalent to multi attack damage is IMO one of the largest sins in D&D analysis. Ask yourself, is it better for the fighter to do 25 damage to 4 targets or is it better that he can apply that 25 damage to one enemy up to 4 times (enemy hp permitting).

Again, it's really, really going to depend on the table.

After all, as was mentioned, doing 25 damage to 4 targets sets up 4 potential deaths rather than 1 or 2 depending on how many HP the baddies have. Additionally, if your DM plays the monsters as intelligent, it's not unreasonable that 4 targets run away after all being damaged like that.

Or, ask yourself this. Which ends a fight faster - two fireballs or a fighter? And, as was mentioned, in any encounter where you have lots of smaller targets, rather than one big one, fireball is going to be far more effective.

So, yeah, you have to calculate total damage. In your example (and note, 25 damage/hit from a fighter is HUGE - we're talking GWF hitting every time to get that kind of average) if the enemies have 26 HP, you waste most of your damage plus 2 of your attacks. With fireball, I only need to make one action to deal the damage. There really isn't any wasted effort because the cost is so low.

For that fighter to do that, before 11th level anyway, he'd have to action surge and then attack 4 times, with two of his attacks mostly being wasted. An action he cannot repeat. The wizard drops a fireball, kills all four targets plus potentially more if they're in the area, and he can (after 5th level anyway) do it again and probably several more times before needing a rest.

Like I said, track the damage. Heck, even only track the actual damage - don't track any extra damage that goes over the monster's HP - and the wizard is so far ahead of the fighter that it doesn't matter how much you buff the fighter. At best that fully buffed fighter with GWF and a flaming sword is just equal to the damage that that wizard is doing. Which is what it's supposed to be. Fighters aren't supposed to be the primary damage dealers.