D&D 5E Proficiency Bonus, Fighters & Damage

[TwoSix]

I'm not following the math provided, but generally monks are a bit underpowered.

For example, let's say I have standard array of stats and two 8th level PCs: Battlemaster Fighter with GWM and a 20 strength and a dexterity 20 monk. They are each going to have a long rest, fight 3 encounters, take a short rest and fight 3 more encounters before their next long rest. Each combat is 4 rounds.

Well, that was why I said "especially if you're not using GWM/SS".

Actually, I blame those two feats for making monks be underappreciated. (Well, that and the general blah that is Elements Monk.) In a featless game, monks are powerhouses.

 

[FrogReaver]

Battle Master is +18 damage per short rest at 3rd level (and that's using the simple maneuvers that are easier to quantify). At that same level, the paladin has 3 1st level slots for divine smite, or +27 damage per day. Battle Masters actually have too much damage.

Champion is behind at 3rd and only catches up if you minmax for crits hard.

When I look at classes, the GWM Fighter and the Duelist Fighter make for really nice Damage benchmarks.

Short rests might be doing you in if you're not getting 2 a day.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I know that's our standard but I think 2 short rests per day is actually too many and 1 per day is too few. I think short rests classes balance best somewhere inbetween. Maybe 1.5 short rests per day

 

[Sunseeker]

How about making all your attacks in one roll?

i.e.
Super-strike (replaces action surge): Once per short rest, when you hit, you can deal double damage.
Increases to twice per short rest at 17(?).

Mega-attack (replaces multi-attack): When you hit, you deal double damage. A super-mega-strike would deal 4x as much damage. (4d6+10 is more damage than the rogues 5d6+4)
At level 11, this increases to triple the damage. A super-mega-strike would deal 6x as much damage. (6d6+15 is more than rogues 7d6+5)
At level 20, this is quadruple the damage. A super-mega-strike would deal 8x as much damage. (8d6+20 is more than rogues 11d6+5)


The extra advantage of on-hit super-strike makes up for the loss of multi-attack and how you now suck against a horde of kobolds, as well as the versatility of double dashing or something. Otherwise, it's the same average damage as the base fighter.

But not for battlemasters (precision strike would be too much).

I had a similar houserule mostly to cut back on lots of attack rolling.

"Fighter Smite" When you use your Attack Action, you may give up all (it's all or nothing) additional attacks you could make and instead gain a +1 to hit and a 1d*weapon*+1 to damage per attack sacrificed.

So a fighter with 3 attacks would get +2 to hit and +2d*weapon*+2dmg. Etc...

I had a couple players use this for expediency and flavor (the big strike vs the lots of regular strikes). You're actually missing out on a lot if you have a high damage modifier, but you're trading that for a more reliable average damage. It's a significant benefit to the Battlemaster though, as they'll be able to retain the use of their Maneuvers for longer. But Battlemaster is arguably the coolest Fighter Subclass (IMO) so I don't have a problem with that.

Since this was the "expediency" houserules, crits were auto-max damage as well.

I also gave Monks the same option, sadly, noone played One Punch Man.

 

[Lucas Blackstone]

I may have missed someone pointing it out already, but there is a plus side to a higher number of attacks that do less damage. There is less wasted damage usually. If an enemy is at 15 hit points remaining, doing 15 or 20 and having another attack to use on another enemy is actually better then doing 25 to that same enemy and not having another attack to start on a new foe.

 

[FrogReaver]

I may have missed someone pointing it out already, but there is a plus side to a higher number of attacks that do less damage. There is less wasted damage usually. If an enemy is at 15 hit points remaining, doing 15 or 20 and having another attack to use on another enemy is actually better then doing 25 to that same enemy and not having another attack to start on a new foe.

"Wasted" damage is a terrible metric to judge anything buy.

The reason: Sometimes you waste more damage and kill an enemy a round earlier or you don't waste as much damage but kill an enemy a round later.

But you are right that multiple attacks is a benefit in its own right!

 

[Lucas Blackstone]

"Wasted" damage is a terrible metric to judge anything buy.

The reason: Sometimes you waste more damage and kill an enemy a round earlier or you don't waste as much damage but kill an enemy a round later.

But you are right that multiple attacks is a benefit in its own right!

In my experience the difference in damage between multiple more lower damage attacks and less but higher damage attacks isn't in favor of the higher damage attacks because the higher damage attacks don't usually outclass the lower damage attacks by enough. This isn't even including feats, or support from party members with area damage, which makes more attacks even better in my eyes.

I didn't mean to make it sound like that more attacks with lower damage will always be better, but I do believe most of the time they are.

 

[Xeviat]

I know that's our standard but I think 2 short rests per day is actually too many and 1 per day is too few. I think short rests classes balance best somewhere inbetween. Maybe 1.5 short rests per day

But two short rests are needed to balance Warlock spellcasting against wizards.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[FrogReaver]

But two short rests are needed to balance Warlock spellcasting against wizards.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I'd love to know how that sentiment was derived. At level 1 it's true. At level 2 it only takes 1 short rest. At level 3, a warlock with 2 short rests gets 6 level 2 spell slots. A wizard gets 3 and 4 level 1.

So far it sounds to me like a warlock needs between 1 and 2 short rests per day and its trending towards being less at least for the lower levels. Keep in mind warlocks also have invocations that can cast mage armor or false life and even then you can't directly look at spell slots to compare.

So given all that, I think 1.5 is a better estimate than 2.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

Maybe I would allow everyone to either trade 5 to hit vs 5 on damage or take the proficiency bonus on damage instead of attack.
That way gwm is not totally overpowered or necessary as everyone has a limited option of trading accuracy for damage which mainly speeds up fights vs really low armor targets.

 

[Sunseeker]

But two short rests are needed to balance Warlock spellcasting against wizards.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Shoulda just stuck with Encounter and Daily powers.