D&D (2024) Playtest 6 Survey is Open

[Chaosmancer]

I think one of the things overlooked by the paladin v. monk comparison going on here is the adventuring day. There are 6-8 encounters in an adventuring day and if combats average around 4 rounds(I've seen 3-5 being normal), then you're looing at 24-32 rounds of combat an adventuring day.

That 9th level paladin and his dozen smites is going to have 12-24 rounds of combat where he simply doesn't have a smite to give. If he uses them up early, that's several combats where he doesn't smite at all. Meanwhile the monk with a couple short rests can flurry every single round of every fight. He does less damage, but is the slow and stead turtle(less per round over more rounds), rather than the speedy rabbit(a lot of damage in a few rounds). Further, since the paladin is doing much more in a single punch, he's much more likely to simply waste his smite doing 28 damage to something with 9 hit points left, so his fewer smites could be wasted despite being used to deal damage.

That's not to say that I don't think that the monk needs more help to bring it up to par, but just that I don't think it's quite as far behind as some of the other folks here.

As I showed here https://www.enworld.org/threads/playtest-6-survey-is-open.698851/post-9077832 this is missing some fundamental points.

For example, Paladin smites are worth more. You need to flurry four times to have the same impact as a single 1st level divine smite. So, with the paladin being able to easily smite 10 times the Monk would need to Flurry 40 times to have a similar impact. With 32 rounds of combat MAX in your assumption, they don't even have enough rounds of combat to do so.

And this assumes 8 fights, which we know most tables DO NOT have. It doesn't matter how slow and steady you go, if the finish line occurs BEFORE you can catch up. And since your average of 4 rounds is taking us into 10 combats per day, that becomes unsustainable. And that is assuming every divine smite is a 1st level spell, when they are mostly stronger than that.

And as the levels increase, the paladin gets more spell slots. By 19th level, the paladin can smite 16 times, meaning the monk needs 64 rounds of combat, or 16 fights PER DAY to catch up. Which is absurdly unrealistic.

 

[Chaosmancer]

No. By my logic buying a lottery ticket can be a meaningful choice if it turns out that you've won a million dollars and that random chance just changed your life in a VERY MEANINGFUL way. No choice to buy the lotter ticket = no meaningful change in life. The choice had meaning, even if the buyer didn't know it at the time.

Meaningful consequences = meaningful choice, because those particular consequences couldn't have happened without that choice. The consequences didn't happen in isolation.

You are wrong. You are conflating gambling with meaningful decision-making, which is just absurd. The choice to gamble CAN be meaningful, but the less information you have, the less of an informed decision you are making, and the less meaningful your choice is.

If someone walked up to you and asked "One or Two?" Your answer cannot be a meaningful choice, even if the person is planning on shooting you if you say one and giving you a million dollars if you say two. It is no different from that same person walking up to you, flipping a coin, and deciding from that. Your decision is made without the knowledge of the situation, so it is just blind luck and guesswork. Not a meaningful DECISION.

 

[Maxperson]

As I showed here https://www.enworld.org/threads/playtest-6-survey-is-open.698851/post-9077832 this is missing some fundamental points.

For example, Paladin smites are worth more. You need to flurry four times to have the same impact as a single 1st level divine smite. So, with the paladin being able to easily smite 10 times the Monk would need to Flurry 40 times to have a similar impact. With 32 rounds of combat MAX in your assumption, they don't even have enough rounds of combat to do so.

So if a paladin uses a 4d8 smite to deal 22 damage to a creature with 1 hit point left, that's not a wasted smite? Because from where I stand the monk doing his damage to that creature is exactly as useful. The monk doesn't have to work to gain that 21 points of wasted damage to catch the paladin, because it was wasted and not useful.

You can't assume that every paladin smite is going to be maximally useful. There's going to be significant waste due to the much higher damage.

And this assumes 8 fights, which we know most tables DO NOT have.

This is utterly irrelevant to WotC class design. They, foolishly in my opinion, balanced the game around 6-8 encounters in the adventuring day, so that's the lense we have to use when figuring out class damage comparisons like we are doing here.

That tables run them differently isn't really useful. It will magnify problems, but that's really the table's fault for not running the game as designed.

And as the levels increase, the paladin gets more spell slots. By 19th level, the paladin can smite 16 times, meaning the monk needs 64 rounds of combat, or 16 fights PER DAY to catch up. Which is absurdly unrealistic.

While I love high level play, according to WotC who you seem to believe every word from, almost no tables go past 8th or 9th level.

And of course that doesn't take all the wasted damage into account. The monk wastes far less damage and doesn't need to catch up with the paladin's overkill.

 

[Mistwell]

Color me extremely skeptical. For years a ton of stuff didn't make it and suddenly almost everything for several years did, and in time to make it into books coming out very shortly after the UA.

I have not gotten that impression at all. Is there some review of this as a trend or just your instincts?

 

[Chaosmancer]

So if a paladin uses a 4d8 smite to deal 22 damage to a creature with 1 hit point left, that's not a wasted smite? Because from where I stand the monk doing his damage to that creature is exactly as useful. The monk doesn't have to work to gain that 21 points of wasted damage to catch the paladin, because it was wasted and not useful.

You can't assume that every paladin smite is going to be maximally useful. There's going to be significant waste due to the much higher damage.

And you can't assume any paladin is going to spend their highest level smite at the end of the fight, on an enemy on their last legs.

Yes, smite damage might possibly be wasted. But it might also NOT be wasted, and the paladin is dealing SO MUCH more damage than the monk that even if they waste some of it, they end up ahead. The fact that the monk wasted less damage doesn't really matter.

Again, we check the actual math. Both characters get the exact same number of combat rounds. Paladins in the party don't fight fewer battles than monks do. If we assume 16 rounds, and the paladin dealing about 29d8 extra damage in those 16 rounds, which averages to 130.5 then Monk ALSO only gets 16 rounds, and even if they get d10's, they are averaging only 114... assuming every single Flurry of Blows attack HITS. Which it won't. And paladins may waste damage by dealing too much, but Divine Smite NEVER misses. So, if you account for Flurry of blows missing 30% of the time (which is actually 10% higher of an accuracy rate than normally assumed), that is actually only 79.8 damage, meaning the paladin could waste 40 damage of smites and STILL be more than 10 pts HIGHER than the monk. To be lower than the monk damage they would need to waste AT LEAST 51 points of damage.

And do we honestly believe the Paladin is wasting nearly 40% of their damage? You don't often smite enemies on the last round of combat. You generally smite EARLY in the combat. And you certainly aren't wasting THAT much damage from overkill.

This is utterly irrelevant to WotC class design. They, foolishly in my opinion, balanced the game around 6-8 encounters in the adventuring day, so that's the lense we have to use when figuring out class damage comparisons like we are doing here.

That tables run them differently isn't really useful. It will magnify problems, but that's really the table's fault for not running the game as designed.

Hey, did you know that One DnD is working on different design assumptions? Maybe that should be something you consider when discussing One DnD classes. Just a thought.

While I love high level play, according to WotC who you seem to believe every word from, almost no tables go past 8th or 9th level.

And of course that doesn't take all the wasted damage into account. The monk wastes far less damage and doesn't need to catch up with the paladin's overkill.

So because most tables don't go past 9th level we should accept poor design and lack of balance at those levels? That seems like... a terrible idea and position to take that will only harm the health of the game in the long run. You are welcome to assume that high level play being horribly balanced is perfectly fine. I don't. I want a well-designed game at all levels.

 

[Kobold Stew]

That aged well!

3.5 weeks from now, I'm ready to gloat at my prognostication.
(Divination Wizard, level 2).

 

[Maxperson]

And you can't assume any paladin is going to spend their highest level smite at the end of the fight, on an enemy on their last legs.

Yes, smite damage might possibly be wasted. But it might also NOT be wasted, and the paladin is dealing SO MUCH more damage than the monk that even if they waste some of it, they end up ahead. The fact that the monk wasted less damage doesn't really matter.

Again, we check the actual math. Both characters get the exact same number of combat rounds. Paladins in the party don't fight fewer battles than monks do. If we assume 16 rounds, and the paladin dealing about 29d8 extra damage in those 16 rounds, which averages to 130.5 then Monk ALSO only gets 16 rounds, and even if they get d10's, they are averaging only 114... assuming every single Flurry of Blows attack HITS. Which it won't. And paladins may waste damage by dealing too much, but Divine Smite NEVER misses. So, if you account for Flurry of blows missing 30% of the time (which is actually 10% higher of an accuracy rate than normally assumed), that is actually only 79.8 damage, meaning the paladin could waste 40 damage of smites and STILL be more than 10 pts HIGHER than the monk. To be lower than the monk damage they would need to waste AT LEAST 51 points of damage.

And do we honestly believe the Paladin is wasting nearly 40% of their damage? You don't often smite enemies on the last round of combat. You generally smite EARLY in the combat. And you certainly aren't wasting THAT much damage from overkill.

What I believe is that you are moving the goal posts again. I'm not sure how the 9th level paladin is smiting 16 times with only 9 slots to use. That's 9 smites or 9 rounds. You're almost doubling the number of smites he gets for some odd reason. Also, 16 rounds is 4 of the 6-8 fights. So after that 16 rounds for the monk(9 for the paladin), the monk gets another 12 rounds where the paladin is swinging his blade normally with no smites at all.

As I said above, the monk needs help but it's not as one sided as you make it out to be.

Hey, did you know that One DnD is working on different design assumptions? Maybe that should be something you consider when discussing One DnD classes. Just a thought.

Those design assumptions do not include getting rid of the adventuring day. They quite literally can't. They would have to redesign the game from the ground up, completely blowing any chance of any backwards compatibility to smithereens. That means that any differences in their design assumptions must still include the adventuring day.

So because most tables don't go past 9th level we should accept poor design and lack of balance at those levels? That seems like... a terrible idea and position to take that will only harm the health of the game in the long run. You are welcome to assume that high level play being horribly balanced is perfectly fine. I don't. I want a well-designed game at all levels.

For the third time. The monk needs help, yes. It's just not as one sided as you are making it out to be.

 

[Maxperson]

I have not gotten that impression at all. Is there some review of this as a trend or just your instincts?

Let's see.

5-12-2020: Subclasses Revisited
1: Phantom: Ended up in Tasha's
2: The Genie: Ended up in Tasha's
3: Order of the Scribes: Ended up in Tasha's

7-13-2020: Feats
1: Artificer Initiate
2: Chef
3: Crusher
4: Eldritch Adept
5: Fey Touched
6: Fighting Initiate
7: Gunner
8: Metamagic Adept
9: Piercer
10: Poisoner
11: Practiced Expert
12: Shadow Touched
13: Shield Training
14: Slasher
15: Tandem Tactician
16: Tracker

13 out of 16 made it into Tasha's

08-24-2020: Subclasses Part 4

1: College of Spirits
2: The Undead

Both in Ravenloft

10-17-2020: Fighter, Ranger, Rogue
None of the three made it into a book that I know of.

20 out of 24 made it into books. Around 80%+ got 70%+ approval? I find that hard to believe. 70%+ approval is very hard to accomplish. The numbers are similar for the last few years as well. Too many UA items got 70%+ for me to believe that WotC kept to that metric.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

For the third time. The monk needs help, yes. It's just not as one sided as you are making it out to be.

As I noticed, you can't have differnetiated views about the monk. If you don't agree, he is hopelessly underpowered, it does not matter that you say he needs buffs. I tried to to say the same several times too. Does not get through.

I totally agree with you on this matter. I have seen monks up to level 10 in action. Until then, they perform reasonably well after level 2 or so. I think level 11 and up needs some help though. Defensive boosts are nice, but damage is lacking, as is feat support and magic item support.

 

[Mistwell]

Let's see.

5-12-2020: Subclasses Revisited
1: Phantom: Ended up in Tasha's
2: The Genie: Ended up in Tasha's
3: Order of the Scribes: Ended up in Tasha's

7-13-2020: Feats
1: Artificer Initiate
2: Chef
3: Crusher
4: Eldritch Adept
5: Fey Touched
6: Fighting Initiate
7: Gunner
8: Metamagic Adept
9: Piercer
10: Poisoner
11: Practiced Expert
12: Shadow Touched
13: Shield Training
14: Slasher
15: Tandem Tactician
16: Tracker

13 out of 16 made it into Tasha's

08-24-2020: Subclasses Part 4

1: College of Spirits
2: The Undead

Both in Ravenloft

10-17-2020: Fighter, Ranger, Rogue
None of the three made it into a book that I know of.

20 out of 24 made it into books. Around 80%+ got 70%+ approval? I find that hard to believe. 70%+ approval is very hard to accomplish. The numbers are similar for the last few years as well. Too many UA items got 70%+ for me to believe that WotC kept to that metric.

Did they all make it in exactly as written or changed due to survey feedback?

And yes I can absolutely imagine these relatively minor things getting 70%.

Keep in mind all of these are simply optional additions to the game, not fundamental changes to the existing rules that people had been playing with. So yeah, I think most people are happy with additional options for the game, whatever they are. If it turns out they're not your cup of tea you just don't end up choosing that new option but they didn't take away anything you already had, which is the real sticking point with these kinds of things.

That's also why they had issues coming up with a new Ranger and new Wildshape for Druid and such. Those were changing an existing rule, not just new options.

Can you show how they used 70% more stringently for optional rules between 2014 and now and then somehow got lax on it?