D&D 5E Truly Understanding the Martials & Casters discussion (+)

[FrogReaver]

For fun and per request I went ahead and calculated a level 11 Battlemaster Fighter with no magic weapon or feats. 20 str, GWF style, 2 short rests, 24 rounds of combat, Greatsword, assumes gets to use all superiority dice on brace/riposte. *60% chance to hit, Includes Crits.

Ability Breakdown	Single Use	Day
Attack Action	25.2​	605.8​
Action Surge	25.2​	75.7​
Riposte/Brace	12.0​	179.8​
	Total Damage	861.4​

 

[TheSword]

Feats must be high on the list of ‘most used’ optional rules. Important enough that they take up several pages in the books. If the exercise doesn’t include feats then it just leaves open the argument that ‘well none of this would apply if you included feats’ better to include them and run it without if you think it would provide a better result.

 

[TheSword]

My biggest concern with this modelling exercise (and I’ll say it now before I’m accused of being sore), is that it becomes about min-maxing. It tells you how one optimized character plays against another optimized character. While we all know there are far more terrifying optimized builds out there (I’m looking at you sorcadin) than either fighter or wizard.

What we really want to know is how does a typical fighter compare to a typical wizard. But I think we would only get this by looking at mass data in play like from D&D beyond or some such. I.e. ever going to happen.

To be clear in my questions/suggestions I don’t doubt @EzekielRaiden or @FrogReaver are acting in good faith. Just that this kind of modeling will have some flaws.

It will still be interesting though.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

Feats must be high on the list of ‘most used’ optional rules. Important enough that they take up several pages in the books. If the exercise doesn’t include feats then it just leaves open the argument that ‘well none of this would apply if you included feats’ better to include them and run it without if you think it would provide a better result.

Yep. And I would also assume that overwhelming majority of people who actually play high level games and care about this sort of balance in the first place use feats.

 

[Minigiant]

My biggest concern with this modelling exercise (and I’ll say it now before I’m accused of being sore), is that it becomes about min-maxing. It tells you how one optimized character plays against another optimized character. While we all know there are far more terrifying optimized builds out there (I’m looking at you sorcadin) than either fighter or wizard.

What we really want to know is how does a typical fighter compare to a typical wizard. But I think we would only get this by looking at mass data in play like from D&D beyond or some such. I.e. ever going to happen.

To be clear in my questions/suggestions I don’t doubt @EzekielRaiden or @FrogReaver are acting in good faith. Just that this kind of modeling will have some flaws.

It will still be interesting though.

At level 11, that is just one feat to the fighter as they max out.

Adding feats makes calculation of wizards easier as Elemental Adapt cuts out the need to adjust for resistance. Though they will only have 18 INT.

 

[Vaalingrade]

I'm all for normalizing ignoring the idea of feats being optional.

 

[DND_Reborn]

Feats are used in about 85-90% of games IIRC, but they are still optional. I don't know if 5E was designed for balance with them in use, but I would think maybe not.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Feats are used in about 85-90% of games IIRC, but they are still optional. I don't know if 5E was designed for balance with them in use, but I would think maybe not.

I think feats are an example of what was discussed above, that the devs play the game differently than many/most players. They may not use feats personally, but they are included because they are generally popular.

 

[Vaalingrade]

Feats are used in about 85-90% of games IIRC, but they are still optional. I don't know if 5E was designed for balance with them in use, but I would think maybe not.

Let's just face it: 5e wasn't designed for balance. It was designed for nostalgia and flat math.

That's why they made big, important parts of the game optional with little thought and then provided little to no support for them after the fact.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Let's just face it: 5e wasn't designed for balance. It was designed for nostalgia and flat math.

That's why they made big, important parts of the game optional with little thought and then provided little to no support for them after the fact.

I don't like that we're in agreement on this Vaalingrade, but we are.