D&D 5E October 29th Playtest Class Changes

[Gorgoroth]

That's a decent compromise. You hit more often, in theory, though for slightly less damage, and occasionally hit twice for more damage.

Though one could also simply restrict TWF to light weapons (so they max at 1d6). So no longsword + dagger, but otherwise weapons function as statted. Two daggers, or two shortswords, or double weapons are still viable.

Yes, but what IS a light weapon? Is it just a non-heavy weapon? I read the equipment guide, and AFAICT it looks like there is no "light" weapon category or official designation. For example, in the finesse weapon section, it suggests they are "lighter"...but why are not basic weapons also potentially very light? or very heavy (a club).

Does not compute.

So even if someone were insane enough to try dual wielding with the rules as-is, you'd be still confused as to what to put in your offhand. Why did they remove the specialty for TWF? They said from the start that people would be allowed to specialize in a fighting style via a "specialty"...but no, they removed it entirely.

FAIL

Also, they didn't fix the weapon weights. (a throwing axe is ONE POUND, not SEVEN...jeeeeeeeez)

FAIL

And finally, bastard swords are the two-handers for halflings, and serve no purpose for most melee types, since they cannot be used one-handed!!! this is completely ludicrous. By definition, they were designed to be used with one or two hands. It's in the name, for x sake. Why would any fighter with the use of both hands chose a bastard sword over a greatsword? Ever...?

I'm losing faith in 5e guys. This is very much full of fail.

I played an AD&D evoker until 14th level, and as fun as researching spells was or getting a couple new slots, it was quite dull and little to look forward to. I had 49hp and retired the character out of frustration. If 5e is relegating casters back to "you cast spells and that's it", with nothing else to look forward to than maybe 10 spells per day at level 10, whyyyyy play this game? It seems ludicrously boring. I'm going to suggest to my gamer friends that things are looking bad for 5e.

I guess Wotc read all the accolades about the fighter CS dice options like Parry being fun and so on...and some Dilbert pointy-haired boss said : "they enjoy that, and it got overwhelmingly good reviews, so let's remove it!!!"

throw us a frikken bone here. Maybe design by committee is bad, but vetting by crowd sourcing can at least tell you if you're going in the right direction. Take heed Wotc, this is looking terrible! Glaring flaws are not being fixed, and stuff that worked well and was fun is now boringly lame.

Not interested in a wizard class that only gets an extra spell slot or two to look forward to each level.

 

[mlund]

The equipment section wasn't addressed in this pass. If that's a deal-breaker for anyone they aren't really up to speed on the play testing process.

Wizards get 3-4 new spells known and 1 more spell cast per day that is as powerful or more powerful than their most powerful spells prior. Oh, and their spells traditionally take up like 25% of the entire PHB. Some classes only get a new feature every 3 levels.

Seriously, it's like complaining you used to eat Lobster in front of people who used to wait in a bread line for your table scraps.

- Marty Lund

 

[pemerton]

A 10th level Fighter with a 16 or 17 Strength armed with a Greatsword deals 21.125 damage average per round using only Deadly Strike when attacking a Black Dragon. (232.375 total over 11 rounds)

0.3025*(13+6+15.5)+0.495*(6.5+3+15.5)= 21.125

The fighter actually does a bit more than that.

You've made a mistake in your addition - what you have there adds up to 22.81125.

But also, 3d10 averages to 16.5, not 15.5 - which adds another 0.7975 per round, for a total of 23.60875 per round.

As you note, the academic wizard who casts all his/her magic missiles in the same combat averages more damage. Depending on context, however, a wizard might be doing some spell-hoarding. If the wizard casts a 2nd, 3rd and 4th magic missile, plus two rays of frost (assuming a 5-round combat) average damage is 9*10 + 2*6.5, or 103 in total.

This is a bit less than the fighter's 5*23.60875, or 118.04375 in total, but not a heck of a lot less. And the wizard has a degree of versatility (particularly in the other pillars) that the fighter can't match.

The wizard also has options like Cloud Kill - assuming a 50/50 save chance (which is very generous, given the DC will probably be 17, assuming an 18 INT), average damage per round is 99/8, or nearly 12.5, per creature.

In other words, I agree with you that there is no compelling mathematical evidence that this packet's wizard is underpowered in combat (though Cone of Cold seems to be a mistake as printed).

 

[DonAdam]

How about something like the following for two-weapon fighting:

When attacking with advantage, if both attack rolls would hit you may add your off-hand weapon die to the damage dealt by your attack. (once per round?)

 

[Chris_Nightwing]

That's a decent compromise. You hit more often, in theory, though for slightly less damage, and occasionally hit twice for more damage.

Though one could also simply restrict TWF to light weapons (so they max at 1d6). So no longsword + dagger, but otherwise weapons function as statted. Two daggers, or two shortswords, or double weapons are still viable.

This seems attractive, but I don't think it works on paper. If you restrict TWF to light weapons or downgrade the damage dice, we're looking at 4.5 or 3.5 average damage per attack, you can then allow or disallow ability modifier on top of that. A 2H weapon is 6.5 average damage per attack, plus ability modifier. If you don't allow the ability modifier for TWF, its damage is much worse. If you do, then a high enough modifier makes it much better.

Consider +2 -> +5 Str modifiers, no ability mod allowed: TWF does 4.5/3.5, so if you hit twice you do 8, less than 6.5+2 from a 2-hander, definitely less than a 6.5+5 strong 2-hander. Even if you only hit on a 20, so that two attacks doubles your chances of one connecting, your average damage is 4.5 or 3.5 (basically 4) which is less than half 6.5+2. Maybe if you have riders that require hitting it becomes worth it.

Now allow ability modifiers, your damage jumps up to 6.5/5.5 or 9.5/8.5 for the super strong/dextrous. If you hit twice you out-damage the 2-hander (at 8.5 to 11.5). Unfortunately your increased chance to hit once means that you also out-damage the 2-hander with a high enough ability modifier.

To completely balance the two, I can only see restricting TWF to light weapons (max 1d6 damage) plus half ability modifier damage (screwing you a little with odd numbers), and then preferably making 2H weapons deal 2d6 damage. My preference lies in not giving two attacks though, offer something else (see an earlier post).

 

[Ultimatecalibur]

The fighter actually does a bit more than that.

You've made a mistake in your addition - what you have there adds up to 22.81125.

But also, 3d10 averages to 16.5, not 15.5 - which adds another 0.7975 per round, for a total of 23.60875 per round.

Thanks for the correction.

As you note, the academic wizard who casts all his/her magic missiles in the same combat averages more damage. Depending on context, however, a wizard might be doing some spell-hoarding. If the wizard casts a 2nd, 3rd and 4th magic missile, plus two rays of frost (assuming a 5-round combat) average damage is 9*10 + 2*6.5, or 103 in total.

Ray of Frost still requires a hit roll causing the average damage it causes to be closer to 3.25 for a total of 96.5 there.

If you want a theoretic best division, it probably would be something like this:

5th, 2nd, 2nd, RoF
5th, 3rd, 1st, RoF
5th, 3rd, 1st, RoF
4th, 4th, RoF, RoF

This is a bit less than the fighter's 5*23.60875, or 118.04375 in total, but not a heck of a lot less. And the wizard has a degree of versatility (particularly in the other pillars) that the fighter can't match.

If you figure the average number of rounds per combat to be 4 and 4 combats to occur in the standard day, you get a total damage inflicted of 377.74 for the Fighter and 366.25 for the Academic Wizard.

The wizard also has options like Cloud Kill - assuming a 50/50 save chance (which is very generous, given the DC will probably be 17, assuming an 18 INT), average damage per round is 99/8, or nearly 12.5, per creature.

I prefer to use stats of 16 or 17 as the standard, considering that is what the point-buy and array are limited to and most of the monsters ACs and Saving throws seem to be based on.

AoEs (and especially continuous effect AoEs like Cloud Kill) are tricky to calculate because average number of targets per area is one of the fuzziest numbers in existence. A flat 50 damage(5th level Magic Missile) is easier to showcase than trying to figure out the average number of times a Cloud Kill will inflict damage.

In other words, I agree with you that there is no compelling mathematical evidence that this packet's wizard is underpowered in combat (though Cone of Cold seems to be a mistake as printed).

Thank you.

Cone of Cold seems to be the victim of a formula that bases AoE spell damage on a number of targets per X square feet and factors in the benefit of turning kills into statues that block movement and LoS.

 

[pemerton]

Thanks for the correction.

<snip>

Thank you.

No worries. We need more mathematical analysis and less wailing and hand-wringing, in my view!

I prefer to use stats of 16 or 17 as the standard, considering that is what the point-buy and array are limited to and most of the monsters ACs and Saving throws seem to be based on.

I got to 18 based on 15 at start, +1 for class, +2 for levelling up to 10th.

Ray of Frost still requires a hit roll causing the average damage it causes to be closer to 3.25 for a total of 96.5 there.

Oops!

+4 for stat, +5 for level = +9 to hit. That hits AC 18 on a 9+, or 3/5. So I put average damage at 2*6.5*0.6 = 7.8, or another 1.3 on your 50/50 hit calculation.

you want a theoretic best division, it probably would be something like this

Good stuff. Presumably WotC can do the maths the same as us!

What the playtest now needs, I think, is some hint at how non-combat pillars are meant to work, so the ramifications of the wizard's need to balance spells between combat and the other pillars can be better understood.

 

[Manbearcat]

Reading through this thread, I have to say that this is the best thread of all of the playtest packet reviews thus far. Tremendous number of thorough, insightful and spot on posts by various users.

 

[Olgar Shiverstone]

To completely balance the two, I can only see restricting TWF to light weapons (max 1d6 damage) plus half ability modifier damage (screwing you a little with odd numbers), and then preferably making 2H weapons deal 2d6 damage. My preference lies in not giving two attacks though, offer something else (see an earlier post).

What about ... TWF gives you advantage on your attack. Choose either of your two weapons to roll damage if you hit.

Now you hit more often, but don't outclass a shield user in defense, or a 2H user in raw damage.