The final word on DPR, feats and class balance

[Krachek]

To me the fighter and the sorcerer I described are enough balanced to let players have fun.
There are other cases more problematic for DM who wants a fair and just table.
But a balanced game is not the only style of play.
Some players are very addict to gimmicks, combo and sheninigans.
D&D is one of the rare game that allow to apply the rules differently at each table, in order to satisfied the mood of the Dm and the players.
I feel sad for the OP that leave no space for rules adaptations. It encourages to have one perfect set of rules that fits for every one.

 

[FrogReaver]

Right. So, chess and go are boring games. Gotcha. We should let the millions of people who play them know that they're actually bored, no?

(Sorry for the snark, but the statement was a little out there.)

Chess is not perfectly balanced. One player goes first and one second and that difference creates imbalance and advantage.

 

[Oofta]

It's not an assumption, it's an assertion in the OP. I think the OP has in mind a fighter. The build you describe includes a significant rogue component. Is it a bad thing that it's hard to build a damage-effective knife-throwing fighter? I don't have a view on this. (4e makes it hard to do build a damage-effective ranged-weapon fighter, and a lot of people complained about that. My view was that maybe they should build rangers instead. Some found that a satisfactory answer; others didn't.)

The build I did was mostly rogue, but I think it's OK that in order to make an effective knife thrower it may not be a fighter. I don't think fighter needs to cover all bases. Even then, I could personally see building a dual-weapon fighter that throws things until they close in to melee. Two weapon fighting may not keep up with GWM in some aspects but how much that matters is a personal preference.

 

[Mistwell]

Check the date stamps: I discovered that other thread after reading this one, and posting that maybe you're responding to some other thread.

Having read some of that thread, my point remains: pointing out that Charm Person can be a strong strategy for a caster tells us nothing about (i) the role of fighters, or (ii) whether fighters without feats are underpowered, or (iii) whether fighters are better off focusing on damage or on defence. All it does is point out another reason why some non-fighter classes are potentially quite strong.

The point of that line of the conversation was to establish the point that DPR is not the goal of the game, because other things can help end encounters as well as damage depending on the circumstance. Once you establish that as fact, then we can talk about the value of the fighter options not taken because of the options taken to focus on damage. We were establishing opportunity costs.

For example, when someone says they are taking the +2 to attack with ranged weapon option for fighter to make up for the -5 from the feat, we can now talk about the value of losing out on Defense Dueling, Protection, Two weapon fighting, etc..

And once he says he is using all his battle master superiority dice on precision attack to make up for the -5 from the feat, we can now talk about the value of losing out on Goading Attack, Maneuvering Attack, Menacing Attack, Parry, Pushing Attacking, Trip Attack, etc..

And once he says he is focusing on damage, and takes sharp shooter (sometimes at first level even), then we can talk about the value of losing out on all those other feats with that feat slot too.

And once he says the rest of the party is helping out the fighter to do more damage by casting spells to grant the fighter advantage like faerie fire (which the OP did in fact say recently) then we can talk about the value of losing out on all those other spells that spell caster could have cast that round with that spell slot...like charm person, etc..

You can't figure out the role of the fighter and whether fighters are better off focusing on something other than just offense until you at least start out with a simple explanation for why non-damaging strategies might be better in this game depending on the circumstance in general, which the charm person example served well. But if you don't like charm person because you can't get past that it was a spellcaster example to establish that non-damaging strategies can be more helpful sometimes in this game, I can very easily craft an example which involves moving a foe, which fighters can do in a variety of ways.

 

[Warpiglet]

In a single sentence: if you don't use feats, fighters get overshadowed by the damage-dealing abilities of some cantrip-users; if you does use feats, a couple of dominant archetypes (GW, SS) crowd out the rest.

Quite a way upthread someone offered up some sorcerer numbers. I can't remember who it was, and haven't gone back for a search, but here are some quick numbers of my own:

A 6th level Dragon Sorcerer has 6 SP + 19 spell levels (4, 3, 2) for 25 SPs total. That's enough for 25 twinned cantrips, or about 6 combat's worth. Fire Bolt does 2d10+4 (assuming an 18 stat). So that's 4d10+8, or 30 damage, spread across two targets, per round, prior to factoring in the chance to hit.

The featless fighter of the same level gets 2 attacks for (say) 2d6+6 (20 stat, +1 weapon). That's 4d6+12, or 26 damage, per round. But it can be focused. Factoring in GWF style takes it from 3.5 to 25/6 per die, or 100/6 +12 = not quite 29 per round. Assuming every 2 encounters yields a long rest, and 4 rounds per encounter then 1 in 8 rounds has an Action Surge, which is another +3.5-ish damage for 32 to 33 expected damage. The fighter's chance to hit is also better than the sorcerers (+1 weapon, +1 stat for +9 rather than +7) - against AC 15, that is a 75% rather than 65% chance to hit, which is about another +6 to hit, for around 38 damage.

(If there's other stuff I'm missing, please point it out. I haven't factored in criticals, which favour the fighter, especially if a Champion.)

The fighter is about 25% ahead in damage by my maths. The fighter will also have better AC (17 or 18 at least, I'd assume, compared to 13+ DEX for 15 or so for the sorcerer). And hp at d10 rather than d6+1, plus second wind. But the fighter will be in melee, and so will have more need of these things!

The sorcerer is at range, and so doesn't have to close. This boosts damage per encounter. The sorcerer is at range, and so is more likely to suffer cover penalties. This reduces damage. I haven't tried to factor those things in.

The sorcerer has the option, at any point up to the last couple of rounds, to stop doing damage and instead use some other spell. That is a flexibility the fighter can't match. How much is it worth? I don't know, and there's probably no table-invariant measure, but surely quite a bit!

Anyway, writing that up prompted me to search back and find the post upthread that I mentioned above. Here it is:

To answer Krachek's question, I don't know if it's broken but it seems pretty strong: matching the fighter's melee damage output with quickened cantrips, and still having the option to stop doing that at any time and use its spells for other stuff instead.

Right, so this is getting into the sort of discussion I suggested upthread: can the claim that the fighter's main contribution is DPR be contested?

In my AD&D experience, the role of the fighter changed with level. At low and even mid levels, the fighter was a bold warrior who led the attack, cut down foes, and supported the MUs. But name level or thereabouts, the MUs dominated combat and the role of the fighters was to provide the sort of defence you describe, and to mop up whatever was left over after the spell assaults. I think different players have different reactions to that sort of change of role.

Anyway, if a fighter player can embrace that approach to the class, having a sorcerer compete in DPR while shielded by the fighter may not be a problem at that table.

The first part that I quoted here was in response to the OP. I think you are correct that this is a good summary of the OP position.

Secondly, the rest of this post is really good analysis. It is actually fair. Bottom line is that if certain spellcasters want to, they can dish as much damage as a fighter and switch tactics later if they want. Sans feats, a fighter can serve as muscle to keep the artillery safely firing away.

(I also note, though some may overlook the point, that the fighter is often stronger and better able to shove, grapple and NOT be shoved grappled or moved with training in athletics. Holding a bridge can make this clear, but I digress).

Yes, I am fine with doing similar damage while being more resistant with better AC, HPs, physical strength and so forth. If you don't want to swing a sword and grapple orcs, a spellcaster may be more your speed. Let's not pretend this is not an important function! It is not without flavor or RP possibilities! You are not and effete sideliner!

This is without feats. I would argue that the complaints about SS and GWM are the main culprits.

I will offer a solution for those that want true differentiation of roles and the viability of other builds but it is a two parter!

Not only should we drop GWM and SS if we are bothered by their damage superiority, but also drop Resilient CON and Warcaster. What complaints are left? We don't like quickened Agonizing Eldritch blast?

IF you are bothered by these things, drop these four feats and agonizing eldritch blast. Done. OP says it would be hard to restore any semblance of parity and I am skeptical of this even as I am skeptical that everything has to be equivalent for characters to impact the game, the narrative and success.

Also note that concerns about monsters being "too easy" also is addressed with these few tweaks. Consider this: with a real possibility of being at disadvantage to hit with ranged spells and flurries of blessed, surging GWM attacks no longer and issue, things change quite a bit.

One thing that I now am pretty convinced about is that if we get rid of GWM and SS, we should also get rid of warcaster and Resilient Con (though sorcerers will have an advantage here, as would multiclassed casters).

 

[the Jester]

One of the examples in the op is a sorceror vs a fighter. The sorceror has the option to spend all of his sorcery resources on more damage, but he's by no means required to do so. The fighter has no option to deal less damage over the day in order to solve problems (well, he does - potentially that action from action surge might do something - but it's not likely to be the same impact as a spell). Similarly for a warlock vs a fighter.

There's definitely truth to the idea that spellcasters can impact the game in ways non-spellcasters can't. That's the whole idea behind magic, right? But that's not a bad thing, in my opinion. Some people don't want to be flying and shooting magic zaps at their enemies, they want to cut them to pieces or smash them to bits. Nothing wrong with that.

Now your next argument is probably going to be something along the lines of "what a character does isn't dependent on it's built in capabilities". Which is basically the argument that the rules don't matter at all.

Well- first of all, of course what a character does is dependent on its capabilities to a great extent. But the (or at least a) whole point of rpgs is that a creative player can stretch beyond the boundaries of what's written on the sheet. Nowhere on a fighter's character sheet does it have a number for rolling a boulder off the edge of a cliff at an enemy camp, for instance.

More importantly, though, the fact is that there are lots of players who enjoy playing gritty warriors or sneaky thieves without spells. If it works for the players who enjoy that style of character, I'm not sure what there is to fix.

And personally, I love playing wizards, but I also love playing fighters. And I do think 5e is a tactical enough game, and the 5e fighter has a wide enough set of abilities, that fighters (and other noncasters) are enjoyable, impact the way the game plays both in and out of combat (but maybe that's because I have creative players), and lend themselves to a fighter-player's preferences.

 

[TwoSix]

Not only should we drop GWM and SS if we are bothered by their damage superiority, but also drop Resilient CON and Warcaster. What complaints are left? We don't like quickened Agonizing Eldritch blast?

IF you are bothered by these things, drop these four feats and agonizing eldritch blast. Done. OP says it would be hard to restore any semblance of parity and I am skeptical of this even as I am skeptical that everything has to be equivalent for characters to impact the game, the narrative and success.

Man, that's a really good solution! If only someone had thought of that earlier, we wouldn't have to go through all this "blegh" discussion.

 

[Sacrosanct]

Once again, it seems like a lot of people are forgetting that a fighter's ability to attack is infinite, and a caster's ability to cast spells is very much limited. That's critically important, and should not keep being ignored. In real gaming sessions, PCs don't recharge all of their resources after every encounter.

*Edit* In fact, that's the whole point of a caster since the beginning of D&D. Give them more power, but limit them in many other ways as an offset. # of spells slots, spell points, # of prepared spells, etc. It is fundamentally flawed to compare the power of one class over the other in a single arena style combat. The game isn't played that way, and is played over the course of an entire adventuring day. So it makes no sense to me why people keep ignoring the entire point of the class design requirement from the outset.

 

[Warpiglet]

Once again, it seems like a lot of people are forgetting that a fighter's ability to attack is infinite, and a caster's ability to cast spells is very much limited. That's critically important, and should not keep being ignored. In real gaming sessions, PCs don't recharge all of their resources after every encounter.

*Edit* In fact, that's the whole point of a caster since the beginning of D&D. Give them more power, but limit them in many other ways as an offset. # of spells slots, spell points, # of prepared spells, etc. It is fundamentally flawed to compare the power of one class over the other in a single arena style combat. The game isn't played that way, and is played over the course of an entire adventuring day. So it makes no sense to me why people keep ignoring the entire point of the class design requirement from the outset.

Without muscle, how many groups would run around a dungeon? I think what was said earlier has some truth. DPR is the only thing that perspective is particularity focused on without taking into account how it is done.

 

[TwoSix]

Well- first of all, of course what a character does is dependent on its capabilities to a great extent. But the (or at least a) whole point of rpgs is that a creative player can stretch beyond the boundaries of what's written on the sheet. Nowhere on a fighter's character sheet does it have a number for rolling a boulder off the edge of a cliff at an enemy camp, for instance.

Let's not rehash the "creativity" canard here, suffice it to say that any creative idea the fighter player thinks of could be done just as well by the sorcerer player, unless it specifically leverages Strength or Dexterity checks. Creativity and class balance are completely orthogonal to each other.

Personally, I don't think there's a wide degree of difference in effectiveness between casters and martials (certainly compared to 3.5), but that's primarily a function of spells being lower powered, the number of spell slots being diminished, and the concentration mechanic. I only get concerned when I see a build like a sorcerer or a warlock that can spend their resources to do at-will damage roughly equal to a martial, OR spend those resources to do something else entirely. Being able to do (A or B) is always better than just being able to do A.

My desired end point would be that martials do more damage than casters with any weapon they choose to feature. Adding more feats for different weapon styles, or removing those feats and the problematic cantrip boosters are both possible solutions.