5E Fallacies

[Oscredwin]

It seems like a lot (but not all) of the issues with 5E are issues from people assuming that the fact that something hasn't been perfectly solved means that it's still just as big an issue.

Caster Supremacy: In 3.X and earlier editions, a high level caster was just a beast relative to other classes, and a 1st level wizard in 3.5 who could control his own pacing was more powerful than multiple higher level characters. In 5E high level characters seem like they can all play in the same adventure (you still want your fighter attacking the big bad at level 20 because no 9th level spell hits quite that hard). That basically solves the problem, so no one is forced out of the game for picking a class that becomes useless.

Low magic/No magic: As far as I can see, the developers built a game where a magic free character and a fully equipped character could both fight in the same encounter (although the first one might need a magic weapon buff). It turns out that it's possible to fall of the d20 (so a 1 would be an auto success or a 20 would be an auto failure just by the numbers) but it's really hard. That looks like bounded accuracy working, where a +1 really matters and all the characters can have a real chance of success on any challenge that will come at them in an adventure. A belt of giant strength doesn't break the "carefully tuned balance" of 5E, it makes you powerful enough to feel like you're as strong as a giant without letting you hit automatically.

Perfect Defence: This one isn't about over learning the lessons of 3.X, but about underlearning them. A character who has an amazing defence that can't be shared with the party (think a druid at the problem levels or an at-will flyer) is only a bit more useful than a normal character. Those abilities just don't matter very much. You're playing in a party of 4, if your perfect defence is needed, the other three are dead and that is a bigger deal than danger to yourself, and if it's not that bad then the perfect defence isn't more important than an abjurer's shield.

[Rallicus]

I wouldn't call them fallacies.

They're judgments/opinions based on the information provided. Whether or not they actually hold merit is up to debate, as it's a lot of white room theorycrafting rather than examples of actual play.


Caster Supremacy

The argument for caster supremacy isn't based on damage; it's based on the number of options that a caster has as opposed to a martial.

In that regard, yes, there's a definite gap between casters and martials. Casters most certainly have supremacy when it comes to options.


Low magic/No magic

Don't necessarily disagree.


Perfect Defence

Pretending like the Onion Druid HP soak or the Ara-whatchamacallit's level 1 fly ability isn't game breaking is just silly.

Onion Druid is a little less severe, as it ultimately relies on the DM focusing all monster attacks on the druid. Which isn't viable outside of an MMO.

However, the birdman's fly ability is downright game breaking. A DM will ultimately avoid outside encounters with large/medium/small enemies, especially if birdbrain is a martial with good STR, because grappling, flying up and then dropping the enemies is pretty much instant-gib at low levels.

I don't see how insta-killing stuff is somehow detrimental to the party? In fact, I'm not sure I understand your argument at all.

[TrexPushups]

I wouldn't call them fallacies.

They're judgments/opinions based on the information provided. Whether or not they actually hold merit is up to debate, as it's a lot of white room theorycrafting rather than examples of actual play.



The argument for caster supremacy isn't based on damage; it's based on the number of options that a caster has as opposed to a martial.

In that regard, yes, there's a definite gap between casters and martials. Casters most certainly have supremacy when it comes to options.



Don't necessarily disagree.



Pretending like the Onion Druid HP soak or the Ara-whatchamacallit's level 1 fly ability isn't game breaking is just silly.

Onion Druid is a little less severe, as it ultimately relies on the DM focusing all monster attacks on the druid. Which isn't viable outside of an MMO.

However, the birdman's fly ability is downright game breaking. A DM will ultimately avoid outside encounters with large/medium/small enemies, especially if birdbrain is a martial with good STR, because grappling, flying up and then dropping the enemies is pretty much instant-gib at low levels.

I don't see how insta-killing stuff is somehow detrimental to the party? In fact, I'm not sure I understand your argument at all.

Or the DM could issue a ruling like Mike Mearls would that you can only carry a creature of a size smaller than you into the air and you have disadvantage on the roll to grapple them.

That should bring back outdoor encounters. Or at least go a long way to doing so.

[Ralanr]

That should bring back outdoor encounters. Or at least go a long way to doing so.

You mean the rules assume you're fighting indoors/in a dungeon. I know it's in the name and all, but it's not like we're fighting dragons in every round.

[Kurald Galain]

It seems like a lot (but not all) of the issues with 5E are issues from people assuming that the fact that something hasn't been perfectly solved means that it's still just as big an issue.

Those aren't fallacies, though.

The most common fallacies in 5E are the Stormwind Fallacy and the Oberoni Fallacy - which should not be surprising because they are the most common fallacies for any edition of D&D.

[SharkForce]

- you could have the fighter hitting the BBEG. or, you know, you could have a bunch of summoned minions which collectively are pretty close in effectiveness with the proper use of spells. DPR is handy to have around, but a caster can summon DPR while a melee is going to be hard-pressed to duplicate all the caster's utility.

- you appear to be discussing bounded accuracy rather than low magic. and frankly, having all these little bonuses that can be stacked is *exactly* what breaks bounded accuracy. how bad of a thing that is to you is up for debate, but whether or not it happens is not. when you can get +6 from proficiency, +9 from attribute, +3 from weapon, and be at +18 to hit at a level where the average AC is 19, yes you have broken bounded accuracy. that would not be the case if there was no +3 weapon and no str 29 item available. when you then consider that this is with core only (and does not include possible bonuses from core; a devotion paladin can add charisma to hit once per short rest iirc as an example), with the implication that there will probably be more options later, that is bad. when you consider that a warlock can potentially get +7 to spell DC from items and then stack 5 charisma tomes to make their DC 31 when expected value is 19, and most people will at best have +11 on their good saves (never mind their non-proficient or off-stat saves), you have once again broken bounded accuracy (and imo, this one is more serious because casters can do far more terrifying things with extremely reliable save DCs than a warrior can do with extremely reliable attack rolls).

personally, i'd have to say that if the system was not balanced under the assumption that casters can make a maxed-out character need a 20 to save against their spells, then that should not become the case, even if it is super-rare (and while the far more likely scenario is, say, DC 21-22, maybe up to 24ish, that still causes problems especially when your weak saves can be targeted). it may not be likely to happen. but the point is that it simply should not happen, period. the potential for game-breaking save DCs simply should not be present, whether it is likely to be reached or not.

- that's fine if you can't be the only available target, but sometimes you can pretty much be the only option for someone to attack. and at that point, it does actually create problems. the problems may not be insurmountable, but they are certainly present.

these aren't really fallacies, for the most part.

[Chronos]

Not only are casters still superior to mundanes, but they've given up on pretending otherwise. It used to be, casters were good at some things, and mundanes were good at others. Casters ended up superior because the things they were good at were much more useful than the things mundanes were good at, but mundanes still had things to do. Now, casters and mundanes are both equally mediocre at what mundanes used to do, but casters can also do a bunch of other things. What casters do now is less powerful than what they used to do, but now they have what mundanes do on top of that. Sure, you have fewer spell slots now... But what does that matter, when you can do as much damage as a mundane by using a cantrip?

[Ralanr]

But what does that matter, when you can do as much damage as a mundane by using a cantrip?

Not to start a forum fight or anything, but I have to ask. Are there tournaments where people pit PC's against other PC's. Or are people just competitive towards their allies for sh*t's and giggles? I can understand optimizing so you don't die easily and I've voiced my dislike of super powerful castors compared to the mundane guys hitting people with metal and wood. But it's a team game last I checked.

Hell I hear less competition from Magic and Pokemon. Then again I'm not actively on forums for those so I'm probably missing a lot.

[Knaight]

Not to start a forum fight or anything, but I have to ask. Are there tournaments where people pit PC's against other PC's. Or are people just competitive towards their allies for sh*t's and giggles? I can understand optimizing so you don't die easily and I've voiced my dislike of super powerful castors compared to the mundane guys hitting people with metal and wood. But it's a team game last I checked.

There are two main portions to D&D. One of these is in embracing the role of a character, their decision making, etc. The other is in overcoming challenges, using the resources you have. Said resources are highly character dependent, and people get annoyed when their set of resources is inferior for every situation. It being a team game doesn't change that.

[Ralanr]

There are two main portions to D&D. One of these is in embracing the role of a character, their decision making, etc. The other is in overcoming challenges, using the resources you have. Said resources are highly character dependent, and people get annoyed when their set of resources is inferior for every situation. It being a team game doesn't change that.

Fair point. I'm usually of the mindset, "Less options, more creativity" which is probably why I don't play spell castors often. That and I don't want to track all those spells.

[Knaight]

Fair point. I'm usually of the mindset, "Less options, more creativity" which is probably why I don't play spell castors often. That and I don't want to track all those spells.

Having more options hardly cuts those off. I'm not fond of playing casters in general, and rarely do it even in systems where I'm not dealing with tracking a bunch of spell slots, but it's a pronounced difference that can get old. It comes down to the differences between characters too. In Bunnies and burrows, nobody has a great many effective tools, but it means nobody is overshadowed. In Exalted, everybody is carting around ludicrous stuff beyond the D&D level, and there's still a good chance that nobody is overshadowed (though everyone is in the unfortunate position of having to deal with the Exalted mechanics). It's when the tools available are vastly different between players that things start getting old. Maybe this is spells, maybe this is huge piles of cash, maybe it's minions. There are a lot of things that can throw the game off a bit.

[coredump]

-
- you appear to be discussing bounded accuracy rather than low magic. and frankly, having all these little bonuses that can be stacked is *exactly* what breaks bounded accuracy. how bad of a thing that is to you is up for debate, but whether or not it happens is not. when you can get +6 from proficiency, +9 from attribute, +3 from weapon, and be at +18 to hit at a level where the average AC is 19, yes you have broken bounded accuracy. Sorry, but no way. You do realize that Giant Belts are not some class ability that you automatically get... right? Yes, if you 'just happen' to find the exact *Legendary* magic item you want, *and* just the right very rare magic item you want... then yes it plays havoc with some of the basic assumptions of the game. If you dual wield the Sword of Kas and the Axe of Dwarvish Lords... it also messes with the game assumptions.


when you consider that a warlock can potentially get +7 to spell DC from items and then stack 5 charisma tomes to make their DC 31 when expected value is 19, and most people will at best have +11 on their good saves (never mind their non-proficient or off-stat saves), you have once again broken bounded accuracy (and imo, this one is more serious because casters can do far more terrifying things with extremely reliable save DCs than a warrior can do with extremely reliable attack rolls). Now its just getting funny... You are assuming a game where you not only get *5* Very Rare items, but you get 5 of the *exact same* Very Rare item... and the *exact ones* you really really want. If that is the game you are playing, the designers are not the ones at fault.

[Ralanr]

Personally I actually find spells to be damaging to creative solutions. Yes you can use a spell creatively, but it also makes a shortcut to things you can do with mundane work (there are probably massive examples that prove me wrong. Like the Wish spell) and, to me, makes the accomplishment less satisfying. I feel more accomplished that I had my character scale a building based on his acrobatics and athletics skills than having them just float up with a fly spell.

The argument that bugged me with wizards is the whole, "They showcase hard work and dedication to their craft can accomplish great things" or something along those lines. I get how it's stereotypical wish fulfillment for the stereotypical 70's D&D nerd who got beat up by all the jocks (I'm not calling anyone out or anything. I truly hope no one takes the stereotype I just said as a personal attack. Logically I don't think people will cause it's bull****). But hard work and determination ain't just about smarts. I bet the acrobatic guy spent the same number of hours practicing their moves as the smart kids did studying their books. If you wanna argue natural talent, remember that natural talent can be both mental and physical. It's also a game where you describe what the hell your character does, which seems to be the same level of difficulty with mundane and magic (actually mundane might be harder).

I'm probably getting off track. Spells are pretty awesome, people like the crazy stuff they can do with spells. But I feel it's more satisfying to crazy stuff with mundane abilities and have it work, like pushing a statue onto a dragon's head to kill it. Magic can also be a massive lifesaver in certain situations, not gonna ignore that. Though from a story telling viewpoint, I feel it's perfectly reasonable to pit someone against a challenge that they cannot solve their normal ways (like being stuck in an antimagic zone or something equivalent for mundane martials), but a friend of mine hates this story tool.

Side note: I actually hope they don't increase the spell list for awhile. I think the list is fine as is (I'm sure a lot of people will say otherwise) and I don't think we need more spells that work as shortcuts to certain situations.

That's my only complaint to spells in general. But I'm probably WAAAAY off topic (so much that I forgot the topic. I'm a lightweight so I'm not fully thinking straight. The lines weaving slightly, but not enough for anything terrible...except driving, of course.)

[Ralanr]

Sorry, but no way. You do realize that Giant Belts are not some class ability that you automatically get... right? Yes, if you 'just happen' to find the exact *Legendary* magic item you want, *and* just the right very rare magic item you want... then yes it plays havoc with some of the basic assumptions of the game. If you dual wield the Sword of Kas and the Axe of Dwarvish Lords... it also messes with the game assumptions.

Now its just getting funny... You are assuming a game where you not only get *5* Very Rare items, but you get 5 of the *exact same* Very Rare item... and the *exact ones* you really really want. If that is the game you are playing, the designers are not the ones at fault.

That's a really good point! People should probably stop putting in magic items when they make scenarios/situations for examples in 5e, since 5e is on a "Magic items are optional" basis.

Anyone that brings up the creatures with nonmagical weapon resistance, remember this. It can still die to your mundane weapon, it just takes longer.

[TrexPushups]

That's a really good point! People should probably stop putting in magic items when they make scenarios/situations for examples in 5e, since 5e is on a "Magic items are optional" basis.

Anyone that brings up the creatures with nonmagical weapon resistance, remember this. It can still die to your mundane weapon, it just takes longer.

Or if you really worry about breaking the math the weapon is magical but not +x. Or use different monster.

[JNAProductions]

There's also a lot of magical weapons that aren't +1. Weapons of Warning, for instance, are useful, fun, annoying to the DM, and don't affect bounded accuracy at all.

[SharkForce]

yes, it's unlikely to get that perfect storm of items. no, it isn't impossible, and the principle remains. right now you need to get a bunch of ridiculously improbable stuff, with a small number of sourcebooks out. but when you allow some things to bend it a bit, that leaves room for more. more spells that give small bonuses to various things. more items that boost certain checks or rolls. more things that improve an attribute, just a little bit.

the simple fact is, they very carefully balanced the system on bounded accuracy. a lot of really good items breaks it a lot (by taking what is intended to be somewhere between 50-75% accuracy and making it 95% accuracy), but even just one or two items breaks it a bit. especially at the outer edges (and particularly more so because of advantage/disadvantage being easier to generate as you go up levels and have more tools), a simple +1 makes a big difference.

the difference between being hit on a 19 or 20 and being hit on a 20 only is that you get hit half as often. that 1 point boost of AC when you're just on the edge is huge. give an enemy disadvantage on their check and suddenly you've cut their chance to hit to 1/4. and believe me, those 1 or 2 points on the edge make a *massive* difference in feel. it's like doubling your hit points when you get that last point of AC (or quadrupling if you can force disadvantage). which is just plain bonkers.

it gets particularly bad with save DCs, because while it is very common for a creature to have one good defence (which makes it easy to prevent a large portion of what martials do) it is very *un*common to have all good defences, and spell DCs are where you can at least actually hope to be able to target pretty much any defence you care to name. what's more, a failed defence on an attack roll typically results in damage; you're likely to need to accumulate several attack rolls to finish off a challenging enemy, at a bare minimum (if they average 15 damage and you're hitting a target with 200 HP, you'd need 13 on average).

monsters are generally balanced around the assumption that at high levels, they will face DC 19 saves. bump that up by just 1-2 points, and it makes a fairly moderate difference in their good saves (which they probably have something like +9 to +11 in, sometimes more, sometimes less), but makes a gigantic difference in their bad saves (where they may very well have something like +1 to +3). going from throwing around DC 19 saves to DC 31 saves is just plain ridiculous for everyone... but if you can force a dex save on a target with bad dex and no proficiency with a DC of only 21 (that is, getting either a robe of the archmagi or a staff of the magi or a pact rod +2) you've cut their chance to save to 1/3. hold person (or monster) will last three times as long (on average) against creatures with a bad will save. a mass suggestion goes from hitting almost everyone in a weak-minded group (but leaving one or two suspicious people to try and work around their friends' sudden change in behaviour) to controlling all targets most of the time.

it *sounds* really small, but giving out just *one* of those DC-boosters can change things dramatically, especially against enemies with a weak defence that you can target (which is to say, most enemies).

i have absolutely no problem with magic items that don't break bounded accuracy (or which do so in very limited situations, for example a +3 to hit liches or something like that is totally fine as a weapon forged specifically to defeat a powerful lich, not because it doesn't bork bounded accuracy for that one scenario but because the impact is so limited).

i can point to the extreme end of things to show how it can ultimately break the system (though mostly that's not applicable... yet. just wait for when wizards starts publishing more stuff that gives small boosts. because once you've allowed it once, it gets a lot harder to say no the next time). but the less extreme end breaks things, too, just not quite as much. they put a lot of work into balancing the game around bounded accuracy. it boggles the mind why they even included +3 swords at all when quite frankly a +0 flametongue is far more interesting than even a +10 sword (never mind the fiasco that is AC if you can get your hands on both a magical shield and magical armour, especially if you have someone around who can buff AC further). there are plenty of cool and interesting items that don't break bounded accuracy at all, i have to admit. those are good items to have. i'm glad that we can have them. but if you're going to build a system with very specific assumptions, why on earth would you include items that bend or break those assumptions when that part of those items don't really add anything interesting or unique?

[Chronos]

Creatures with resistance to nonmagical weapons still die eventually. Creatures with immunity to nonmagical weapons don't.

As for the class balance thing, it can be fun to be BMX Bandit. It can be fun to team up with Angel Summoner. But both at once, isn't much fun.

[Ralanr]

Creatures with resistance to nonmagical weapons still die eventually. Creatures with immunity to nonmagical weapons don't.

As for the class balance thing, it can be fun to be BMX Bandit. It can be fun to team up with Angel Summoner. But both at once, isn't much fun.

Honestly the problem with the BMX Bandit is that he stuck with the BMX schtick, never once did he try to adapt or change based on the situation. I don't mean in extreme manners mind you, but it feels like legs would be easier to use in tight spaces. Or summon a hoard of angels, that works too. Though if that's the answer to every problem then the DM is doing a poor job challenging the players.

Which creatures have immunity to nonmagical weapons? I know some have immunity to a certain type of damaging from nonmagical weapons (I think slimes are immune to slashing. AFB). Plus there are a lot of creatures with magic resistance.

And why would your DM set you up against something you cannot hope to damage? If they expect you to win then it's probably not through hacking at it. Though that's subjective and it depends on how much of a roleplayer you are.

[SharkForce]

Honestly the problem with the BMX Bandit is that he stuck with the BMX schtick, never once did he try to adapt or change based on the situation. I don't mean in extreme manners mind you, but it feels like legs would be easier to use in tight spaces. Or summon a hoard of angels, that works too. Though if that's the answer to every problem then the DM is doing a poor job challenging the players.

Which creatures have immunity to nonmagical weapons? I know some have immunity to a certain type of damaging from nonmagical weapons (I think slimes are immune to slashing. AFB). Plus there are a lot of creatures with magic resistance.

And why would your DM set you up against something you cannot hope to damage? If they expect you to win then it's probably not through hacking at it. Though that's subjective and it depends on how much of a roleplayer you are.

i believe the point of Angel Summoner & BMX Bandit is that there are not a lot of situations that *can't* be solved by a horde of angels.

on the plus side, 5th edition is certainly *less* ridiculous than any flavour of 3.x (though if you include 3rd party material, pathfinder is probably catching up somewhat, though the original core classes are still untouched). it still has some work to do (and imo the only way it can do it without going full 4th edition is to boost what non-casters can do at higher levels), but it's definitely an improvement over 3.x (it's actually worse than 4th edition in terms of balance, but that's mostly because 4th edition kneecapped casters to the point where they didn't feel like D&D casters any more).

[Ralanr]

i believe the point of Angel Summoner & BMX Bandit is that there are not a lot of situations that *can't* be solved by a horde of angels.


Oh I know. I was talking about the character of the Bandit, not the short. If you can summon a hoard of Angels to solve the problem, then I guess you summon the hoard of angels. Doesn't look like he had a limit on that ability, unlike castors and their spell slots.

[Maxilian]

However, the birdman's fly ability is downright game breaking. A DM will ultimately avoid outside encounters with large/medium/small enemies, especially if birdbrain is a martial with good STR, because grappling, flying up and then dropping the enemies is pretty much instant-gib at low levels.

I don't see how insta-killing stuff is somehow detrimental to the party? In fact, I'm not sure I understand your argument at all.

I don't think you can really grab someone and fly with them (i mean, you can't fly if you're using Heavy armor, so it would make sense that you won't be able to fly if try to pull someone up that is heavier than your normal heavy armor)

Note: I would say that these could only be done with small creatures (maybe if you use enlarge in yourself, you could grab a bigger creature)

[silveralen]

Having more options hardly cuts those off. I'm not fond of playing casters in general, and rarely do it even in systems where I'm not dealing with tracking a bunch of spell slots, but it's a pronounced difference that can get old. It comes down to the differences between characters too. In Bunnies and burrows, nobody has a great many effective tools, but it means nobody is overshadowed. In Exalted, everybody is carting around ludicrous stuff beyond the D&D level, and there's still a good chance that nobody is overshadowed (though everyone is in the unfortunate position of having to deal with the Exalted mechanics). It's when the tools available are vastly different between players that things start getting old. Maybe this is spells, maybe this is huge piles of cash, maybe it's minions. There are a lot of things that can throw the game off a bit.

Of course, a character in exalted who is non magical has fewer options. Because magic options still exist and taking them doesn't permantly lock you out of any abilities, while defining your character as non magical locks him out of certain abilities.

A character defined by their lack of access to something will be more limited due to the very definition used. This will always be true, and isn't a solvable problem for any game besides creating duplicate options for every concept (4e). Even then you have technically fewer options. Or you could go the shadowrun route and have certain abilities lock you out of others, though even then it merely makes it harder to combine them typically, rather than acting as a hard stop.

TL;DR A caster has more options than a non caster because any ability a caster gains access to leaves them a caster conceptually, while the inverse doesn't work. It's not a system thing but the very basics of the definitions used.

[TrexPushups]

I don't think you can really grab someone and fly with them (i mean, you can't fly if you're using Heavy armor, so it would make sense that you won't be able to fly if try to pull someone up that is heavier than your normal heavy armor)

Note: I would say that these could only be done with small creatures (maybe if you use enlarge in yourself, you could grab a bigger creature)

Mike Mearls already offered a ruling that solves the issue nicely.

A DM just has to use it.

1 can only pick up and fly with smaller creatures
2 the other creature gets advantage on their grapple check to prevent this

And your done. Now you just have to worry about archery or spells. But honestly you can just attack the ground pounders.

[SharkForce]

Of course, a character in exalted who is non magical has fewer options. Because magic options still exist and taking them doesn't permantly lock you out of any abilities, while defining your character as non magical locks him out of certain abilities.

A character defined by their lack of access to something will be more limited due to the very definition used. This will always be true, and isn't a solvable problem for any game besides creating duplicate options for every concept (4e). Even then you have technically fewer options. Or you could go the shadowrun route and have certain abilities lock you out of others, though even then it merely makes it harder to combine them typically, rather than acting as a hard stop.

TL;DR A caster has more options than a non caster because any ability a caster gains access to leaves them a caster conceptually, while the inverse doesn't work. It's not a system thing but the very basics of the definitions used.

not necessarily. you just have to give more options to the non-magical people also. a wizard can (theoretically) pump strength, be proficient in athletics, and grapple. a wizard can't also be a fighter, however, so if you made a high level battlemaster maneuver where you shove all enemies within your reach while dealing regular (or even improved) weapon damage, or allow barbarians to basically have an attack that literally cleaves someone in half (ie a save or die) at high levels, these would be options available to non-casters but not available to casters.

you may or may not be able to create as many options, still, but as a bare minimum you can at least come up with a lot more options, if only at higher levels (as i've noted before, low levels there isn't a huge problem because casters haven't really ramped up yet).

[Maxilian]

Mike Mearls already offered a ruling that solves the issue nicely.

A DM just has to use it.

1 can only pick up and fly with smaller creatures
2 the other creature gets advantage on their grapple check to prevent this

And your done. Now you just have to worry about archery or spells. But honestly you can just attack the ground pounders.

Oh thanks for the info, but those that apply to all creatures or just Arakkocras? (for example a lvl 9 Barbarian could grab someone of their size and "fly" with them?)

[TrexPushups]

Oh thanks for the info, but those that apply to all creatures or just Arakkocras? (for example a lvl 9 Barbarian could grab someone of their size and "fly" with them?)

Sure provided they have a fly speed via spell or whatever.

[1337 b4k4]

Having more options hardly cuts those off.

While I get (and generally agree) with your underlying point, it's worth nothing that having more options CAN cut off your other non-spelled out options. As a really simple example, consider the D&D cleric's dilemma. A cleric can do almost everything a fighter can, and a lot of wizard like spell casting too. But clerics also have the additional option of healing party members. The existence of that single option has for many people, spoiled the idea of playing the cleric because it means the cleric round by round decision tree looks something like this:

If The Party is Wounded and I Have Spell Slots or Other Resources that can be Used to Heal
then Heal the Party
otherwise do Something Else but Stay Close and don't waste Resources that could be Used to Heal

By giving the cleric additional options, they are cut off (by social pressure and game pressure) from choosing to do other things with their action each round. Similarly I can't imagine too many parties that would put up with a wizard who never cast spells or only ever took utility spells or only used spells for utility purposes and never used their fireball for anything other than lighting camp fires. A cleric heals, a wizard casts spells. A fighter on the other hand, if they never wanted to pick up a sword, or they only ever grappled or they focused entirely on defense or whatever else (barring 3.x's "you must have this many feats to ride, else you might as well hit it with your stick" problem) would be far more widely tolerated, in my experience.

[Doug Lampert]

Creatures with resistance to nonmagical weapons still die eventually. Creatures with immunity to nonmagical weapons don't.

As for the class balance thing, it can be fun to be BMX Bandit. It can be fun to team up with Angel Summoner. But both at once, isn't much fun.

Actually, playing the sidekick can be fine. Try Ars Magica, Grogs are almost always popular to play, and often people's "favorite character".

A grog gets fewer skill points than anyone else, fewer and more restricted advantages, and less freedom of choice, he's not even the sidekick, he's a MOOK, the companions are the sidekicks.

You can quite literally make another character who is globally superior in every way to a grog. But why bother?

Thing is, Ars Magica tells you going in, "This is a magus, this is a sidekick, this is a mook, you can play any of them", pick the one to go on this adventure who'd logically WANT to go on this adventure or be ordered to go on this adventure.


While I get (and generally agree) with your underlying point, it's worth nothing that having more options CAN cut off your other non-spelled out options. As a really simple example, consider the D&D cleric's dilemma. A cleric can do almost everything a fighter can, and a lot of wizard like spell casting too. But clerics also have the additional option of healing party members. The existence of that single option has for many people, spoiled the idea of playing the cleric because it means the cleric round by round decision tree looks something like this:

If The Party is Wounded and I Have Spell Slots or Other Resources that can be Used to Heal
then Heal the Party
otherwise do Something Else but Stay Close and don't waste Resources that could be Used to Heal

Or there's the standard solution used by groups I'm in. "My Cleric is granted powers by his deity to SMITE THE ENEMY, and will do so. He is not a healbot. If you want a healbot make your own character be the healbot."

4th edition is the only edition I've played with a healbot in over 40 years of D&D. Even in OD&D back in the mid 70's we knew that was stupid (and the cleric didn't get any spells at level 1, so that obviously wasn't his main job, and there were no cure spells anyway of spell levels 2 or 3 IIRC, so again, obviously not his main job). Note that I have played a healbot in Runequest, the setting made it interesting. But in D&D? Why? A cleric isn't a non-combatant and most of his spells are for combat.

Smiting the enemy is a sufficient contribution to the party, if you claim it is not, I will point at the fighter and laugh my head off. Just CHOOSE not to cripple yourself by CHOOSING not to be crippled.

It really is that easy. Anytime someone says caster X MUST cast spell Y or reserve slots for Z, what I hear is, "Casters are totally necessary for success, and we have too few casters to the extent that it's crippling our combat ability. Let's ditch the useless mundanes so we don't need to worry about that." Because if shortage of spells for utility and healing is ACTUALLY weakening your casters, then what are your non-casters contributing that makes up for their total failure to help with these seemingly more important than combat things? (And these things must be of at least comparable importance to combat, you're worried about wasting spells in combat you could use for these things.)

[kaoskonfety]

Actually, playing the sidekick can be fine. Try Ars Magica, Grogs are almost always popular to play, and often people's "favorite character".

A grog gets fewer skill points than anyone else, fewer and more restricted advantages, and less freedom of choice, he's not even the sidekick, he's a MOOK, the companions are the sidekicks.

You can quite literally make another character who is globally superior in every way to a grog. But why bother?

Thing is, Ars Magica tells you going in, "This is a magus, this is a sidekick, this is a mook, you can play any of them", pick the one to go on this adventure who'd logically WANT to go on this adventure or be ordered to go on this adventure.


Grogs are superior to all other characters in Ars Magica in one respect.
What is that?
They are better at dying!

Seriously, spectacularly, touchingly, dramatically, horrifically, honourably - they got it ALL covered.
Totally OP. Never leave the tower without a Grog per non-Grog. For all you dying needs.

Ars Magica is lovely because it teaches one clear lesson that D&D utterly fails at by default: "Play Balance" (whatever that means) amongst the party is not necessary for fun. Over half the time you are playing a dude who has just been told (ordered really - in addition to kinda sucking you are also a peon answering to everyone else, disobedience is punishable by "whatever Merlin wants to do to you") to slow the troll down so the magus can kill it (or flee, fleeing is common). You, a man in boiled leather armor, holding a reinforced barrel lid and a wood ax, are not expected to live against the 9' tall steely skinned troll with talons like knives - but hey, 3 square meals a day, all the ale you can brew (you may even be a bit drunk right now actually), the wizards actually leave the tower with you like once a year at most and the Duke cannot come hang you for all the horse thieving so... CHARGE!

[silveralen]

not necessarily. you just have to give more options to the non-magical people also. a wizard can (theoretically) pump strength, be proficient in athletics, and grapple. a wizard can't also be a fighter, however, so if you made a high level battlemaster maneuver where you shove all enemies within your reach while dealing regular (or even improved) weapon damage, or allow barbarians to basically have an attack that literally cleaves someone in half (ie a save or die) at high levels, these would be options available to non-casters but not available to casters.

you may or may not be able to create as many options, still, but as a bare minimum you can at least come up with a lot more options, if only at higher levels (as i've noted before, low levels there isn't a huge problem because casters haven't really ramped up yet).

But those options will still be, to some degree, available to casters. Unless multiclassing is removed. It may not be an amazing choice in some cases, but it still maintains an issue with number of options available compareitively.

[SharkForce]

sure, but since multiclassing comes at a cost, i'm comfortable with casters having access to cool non-caster tricks... as long as they make an appropriate investment (ie levels), which comes at the cost of not getting as many cool caster tricks.

but the first step here is that non-casters need to have cool non-caster tricks. preferrably ones that come online at later levels because that's when non-casters need the help more, and because that means it won't be a trivial 2-level dip for the caster to get the best tricks.

right now the only tricks that non-casters tend to get are "more at-will damage" and "being a bit harder to kill", and unfortunately, at higher levels, you can summon at-will damage (possibly for up to a year), and you don't care all that much if they die and need replacing anyways in many cases. and even then, depending on what class an level we're discussing, casters can have those tricks baked right into the class (moon druid can be quite hard to kill in elemental form, and valor bards, warlocks, and especially sorcerers with warlock splashes, can deal plenty of damage if built right).

[archaeo]

right now the only tricks that non-casters tend to get are "more at-will damage" and "being a bit harder to kill",

An incomplete list of non-caster non-damage non-defense "high"-level tricks:

Totem Barbarian abilities
Primal Champion
Indomitable Might
Remarkable Athlete
Know Your Enemy
Tongue of Sun and Moon
Timeless Body
Empty Body
Reliable Talent
Infiltration Expertise
Impostor


But this isn't a very good way to judge a class. What matters far more is the collection of abilities you have, the holistic PC, instead of judging each class by their features at each given level.


and unfortunately, at higher levels, you can summon at-will damage (possibly for up to a year), and you don't care all that much if they die and need replacing anyways in many cases.

At lot of that "at-will" damage isn't really at will; you have to either a) prepare it ahead of time or b) deal with the fact that losing concentration will be extremely dangerous if not outright deadly. A Fighter doesn't disappear or turn hostile when the Wizard gets smacked in the face.

[SharkForce]

neither does a horde of zombies and skeletons, or a simulacrum, or the subject of a planar binding or ally spell, or the result of a true polymorph spell or an awakening spell, or possibly some others that i've left off (mass suggestion stretched out to a year is a bit more iffy, but could potentially result in minions as well, for example). not all of those are equally controllable or expendable, certainly, but there are ways to create useful minions that can deal plenty of damage (collectively, if not individually) without need for concentration checks.

and on a side note, some of those abilities you listed are definitely not things i would classify as being not defensive. they have additional uses as well, but that doesn't make them not defensive.

[archaeo]

neither does a horde of zombies and skeletons, or a simulacrum, or the subject of a planar binding or ally spell, or the result of a true polymorph spell or an awakening spell, or possibly some others that i've left off (mass suggestion stretched out to a year is a bit more iffy, but could potentially result in minions as well, for example). not all of those are equally controllable or expendable, certainly, but there are ways to create useful minions that can deal plenty of damage (collectively, if not individually) without need for concentration checks.

Zombies and skeletons require daily maintenance to retain control and probably can't follow complicated orders. Simulacra are expensive and time-consuming to create. Planar binding is wrapped in any number of complications and requirements; it's more or less a spell that depends on a friendly DM. True Polymorph is a level 9 concentration spell, etc., etc.

This isn't to say that you couldn't have a party of clever casters hiding behind a bunch of summoned meat shields; it would probably be a cool campaign. I just don't think it's meaningfully better than using spell slots on other things and relying on a player meat shield.


and on a side note, some of those abilities you listed are definitely not things i would classify as being not defensive. they have additional uses as well, but that doesn't make them not defensive.

Fair enough.

I tend to think that Barbarian and Fighter were both designed to appeal to those who really only want to be good at combat, maybe with a smattering of other skills, while those looking for non-combat, non-magical utility will be happier playing a Rogue. Nothing wrong with that, as long as you can accept asymmetrical balance along certain axes in D&D.

[SharkForce]

skeletons require maintenance. zombies only require maintenance until you can cast finger of death. and in either case, it's still concentration-free control of your minions. simulacra are expensive until you get wish, but even before then are probably worth it since you can't buy anything useful anyways. planar binding really doesn't have that many requirements. get a creature of a certain type, perform the ritual (which will typically require a magic circle first), and you get a minion. true polymorph requires concentration for one hour, after which you have a creature of up to CR 9 which by default is favourably disposed towards you.

and i have no problem with certain classes being designed to be good at combat. my problem is that while they fulfill that role at lower levels, they really don't at higher levels nearly as well. when a caster can sling around a beam of 6d6 damage plus blindness for 10 rounds, or nuke a small village from a mile away, or control huge areas, it's hard to consider a fighter or barbarian to be the master of combat when they're really only good at one aspect of it, and not even by a very large margin (warlocks come pretty close, and various non-caster builds almost match them in at-will DPR. sometimes exceeding in certain areas; a ranger will do better in ranged AOE, a paladin gets ridiculous novas, etc).

the simple fact of the matter is that a high level caster can likely target several defenses at any given time, can likely inflict several different unpleasant status conditions at any given time, and can probably target anything from a single enemy to all enemies in an area to simply hitting an entire area, while also having the option to deal significant damage (although in single-target damage, you probably still want someone with a weapon. or a horde of summoned or created minions, as noted above) in a variety of flavours (some of those abilities will overlap; a sunbeam spell, for example, targets reflex saves, in an area, deals radiant damage, and blinds enemies, and thus fills several of those categories).

so really, there is a caster vs non-caster divide. it's not as bad as it was in 3.x, and it certainly isn't equal across all classes; a warlock or sorcerer has fewer options than most casters, and a monk or rogue has more options than most non-casters (to the point where some people have played around with considering monks to be casters), and of course some classes sort of split the difference (paladins and rangers being half-casters, eldritch knights and arcane tricksters being 1/3 casters). now, some things i just don't see reasonably handing out to certain classes; a fighter should probably never get, say, dominate monster as an option. on the other hand, it's pretty easy to imagine a barbarian being able to do something like you might expect from a ring of the ram, or for a fighter to slash across an entire group of enemies with a greatsword or something.

honestly, at some point, i feel like they should just stop considering them non-magical. i'm not talking about making them spellcasters, by any means... more like supernatural abilities. davy crockett was supposedly able to ride a lightning bolt, for example. john henry was able to outlast a machine. stuff that isn't powered by the items they find, but by their training or sheer force of will or similar. more abilities like the totem barbarian's ability to fly when raging, or the champion fighter's regeneration. magical abilities, but definitely not spellcasting (well, AT and EK can keep theirs, but i'd want to add other abilities). and i want them to have a bunch of options to choose from, so that one person can make a fighter that is a skilled leader and tactician, while another can make a fighter like the lancers from final fantasy, and another can make a fighter that is practically immune to pain, and so on. heck, i'm even happy to have a variety of options that can be handwaved away as not even being magical, for those that want them (quite frankly, the ability to shrug off a hundred-pound boulder like it was nothing - which even a high-level wizard can do with ease - is far beyond what any nonmagical person could ever hope to do, so the stuff i want them to be able to do would still be frankly supernatural, just not overtly so).

[aspekt]

Okay my fundamental problem here is apparently with an approach to DMng. It seems as if it's being suggested that DMs use *every* item or option in the RAW. When did not being a responsible and thoughtful DM become a thing?

DnD rules have always made it possible to create a game of overpowered godkillers or a game of frequent player death. And you could do it all within RAW.

That's because a certain amount of presumed interaction and thoughtfulness is placed on the table as a whole, but specifically on the DM.

I am not asserting that a game cannot have faulty mechanics. But when many of the arguments are based on something like magic item accrual I have to wonder if the problem isn't at home and not in the rules.

[NotALurker]

It seems like a lot (but not all) of the issues with 5E are issues from people assuming that the fact that something hasn't been perfectly solved means that it's still just as big an issue.

Caster Supremacy: In 3.X and earlier editions, a high level caster was just a beast relative to other classes, and a 1st level wizard in 3.5 who could control his own pacing was more powerful than multiple higher level characters. In 5E high level characters seem like they can all play in the same adventure (you still want your fighter attacking the big bad at level 20 because no 9th level spell hits quite that hard). That basically solves the problem, so no one is forced out of the game for picking a class that becomes useless.

Low magic/No magic: As far as I can see, the developers built a game where a magic free character and a fully equipped character could both fight in the same encounter (although the first one might need a magic weapon buff). It turns out that it's possible to fall of the d20 (so a 1 would be an auto success or a 20 would be an auto failure just by the numbers) but it's really hard. That looks like bounded accuracy working, where a +1 really matters and all the characters can have a real chance of success on any challenge that will come at them in an adventure. A belt of giant strength doesn't break the "carefully tuned balance" of 5E, it makes you powerful enough to feel like you're as strong as a giant without letting you hit automatically.

Perfect Defence: This one isn't about over learning the lessons of 3.X, but about underlearning them. A character who has an amazing defence that can't be shared with the party (think a druid at the problem levels or an at-will flyer) is only a bit more useful than a normal character. Those abilities just don't matter very much. You're playing in a party of 4, if your perfect defence is needed, the other three are dead and that is a bigger deal than danger to yourself, and if it's not that bad then the perfect defence isn't more important than an abjurer's shield.

metor swarm will do more damage as one action then a fighter will for the whole fight. also if a caster is doing damage at that level he is gimping helpself. you use save or dies or save or loses. the only reason to care about damage is if you are attacking alot of enemies all of whole are a real threat and you lack a good save or lose for them.

also nothing about 5e is "carefully tuned"


There are two main portions to D&D. One of these is in embracing the role of a character, their decision making, etc. The other is in overcoming challenges, using the resources you have. Said resources are highly character dependent, and people get annoyed when their set of resources is inferior for every situation. It being a team game doesn't change that.

personally my problem is that if makes tieing your backstory to your character very hard.

for example there is no way to make a bad-ass magic hating fighter who is known for being a mage-slayer. I could CALL myself that but I have no way of backing it up.


Sorry, but no way. You do realize that Giant Belts are not some class ability that you automatically get... right? Yes, if you 'just happen' to find the exact *Legendary* magic item you want, *and* just the right very rare magic item you want... then yes it plays havoc with some of the basic assumptions of the game. If you dual wield the Sword of Kas and the Axe of Dwarvish Lords... it also messes with the game assumptions.

Now its just getting funny... You are assuming a game where you not only get *5* Very Rare items, but you get 5 of the *exact same* Very Rare item... and the *exact ones* you really really want. If that is the game you are playing, the designers are not the ones at fault.

its part of the rules, being optional does not mean its ok for them to not make it work.


(it's actually worse than 4th edition in terms of balance, but that's mostly because 4th edition kneecapped casters to the point where they didn't feel like D&D casters any more).

to you.


While I get (and generally agree) with your underlying point, it's worth nothing that having more options CAN cut off your other non-spelled out options. As a really simple example, consider the D&D cleric's dilemma. A cleric can do almost everything a fighter can, and a lot of wizard like spell casting too. But clerics also have the additional option of healing party members. The existence of that single option has for many people, spoiled the idea of playing the cleric because it means the cleric round by round decision tree looks something like this:

If The Party is Wounded and I Have Spell Slots or Other Resources that can be Used to Heal
then Heal the Party
otherwise do Something Else but Stay Close and don't waste Resources that could be Used to Heal

By giving the cleric additional options, they are cut off (by social pressure and game pressure) from choosing to do other things with their action each round. Similarly I can't imagine too many parties that would put up with a wizard who never cast spells or only ever took utility spells or only used spells for utility purposes and never used their fireball for anything other than lighting camp fires. A cleric heals, a wizard casts spells. A fighter on the other hand, if they never wanted to pick up a sword, or they only ever grappled or they focused entirely on defense or whatever else (barring 3.x's "you must have this many feats to ride, else you might as well hit it with your stick" problem) would be far more widely tolerated, in my experience.

all they need to do to fix that is make healing an action that does not compete with attacking. maybe provide a way to heal that does not use spell slots.

easy to fix but they have not done that.

[SharkForce]

Okay my fundamental problem here is apparently with an approach to DMng. It seems as if it's being suggested that DMs use *every* item or option in the RAW. When did not being a responsible and thoughtful DM become a thing?

DnD rules have always made it possible to create a game of overpowered godkillers or a game of frequent player death. And you could do it all within RAW.

That's because a certain amount of presumed interaction and thoughtfulness is placed on the table as a whole, but specifically on the DM.

I am not asserting that a game cannot have faulty mechanics. But when many of the arguments are based on something like magic item accrual I have to wonder if the problem isn't at home and not in the rules.

again, getting all of those items is an extreme case. it *still* breaks (to varying degrees) if you allow *any* DC-boosting items for casters. why bother publishing items that are pretty much guaranteed to be a problem if they ever get used?

the material available, optional or otherwise, should not cause problems. otherwise, why is it being published? why should we be expected to pay for bad material?

[aspekt]

again, getting all of those items is an extreme case. it *still* breaks (to varying degrees) if you allow *any* DC-boosting items for casters. why bother publishing items that are pretty much guaranteed to be a problem if they ever get used?

the material available, optional or otherwise, should not cause problems. otherwise, why is it being published? why should we be expected to pay for bad material?

As I pointed out because it needs to cater to different styles of play. In middleschool we loved our overpowered, godslaying games. There is still a large enough age span in the customer base of D&D that it pays to have options.

And option means option. Just because it's an option that would break the game for you doesn't mean it won't cause squeals of delight from a table of 11 year olds.

[SharkForce]

then they should note how those options change things. someone who hasn't seen what a massive difference a simple +2 DC can make won't be expecting to see extremely reliable hold person spells come into play when nothing else in the game provides any context to suggest that it would be any different from getting a bit of extra fire damage per hit.

i know it makes a huge difference because i used to play DDO and you could see a massive difference when enemies need a 20 to save compared to when they need only 18, mostly because saves happened a lot more often in that game (when you hit half a dozen enemies with a hold monster spell and they make a new save every couple of seconds, it really accentuates the difference). most people haven't had that experience to recognize just how powerful a seemingly small +2 DC is. it isn't immediately obvious to casual inspection. it is as game-changing as if you introduced a weapon that just straight up doubled all damage a character deals. probably more so, in many cases, since it can double to triple the average duration of many disables. and there is absolutely nothing about it to suggest that it will have that effect. nothing that says "oh, by the way, if you let the wizard have this item, hold person goes from locking down 1-2 targets long enough for the melees to slaughter to being able to hold 3-4 targets long enough for that to happen". and that's kind of an important thing to know before putting that item into your game.

[calebrus]

most people haven't had that experience to recognize just how powerful a seemingly small +2 DC is. it isn't immediately obvious to casual inspection.

Tell that to people complaining that +6 to proficiency bonus isn't enough for skills to even make you "decent" at a skill.
That's 3x what you consider "game-changing" to bounded accuracy.

[SharkForce]

Tell that to people complaining that +6 to proficiency bonus isn't enough for skills to even make you "decent" at a skill.
That's 3x what you consider "game-changing" to bounded accuracy.

it is game-changing for saves. i have no idea what it will do for skills, because 90% of what skills is completely undefined.

perhaps most importantly though, skill checks generally speaking don't have remotely the same impact you can expect from a failed save against a disabling spell, and you rarely get to choose what defense (if any) your opponent will be using.

there's a reason i'm focusing on spell DC boosters, and not nearly as much on +3 weapons. a +3 weapon is a great thing that will enhance your DPR, but you'll still need a few rounds to really make a difference anyways, and you almost always target AC with it whether you want to or not. a web on the right targets can shut an enemy down for the entire fight, and if it isn't the right saving throw you can throw a hypnotic pattern, or a banishment, or an illusion, etc.

[Talakeal]

Tell that to people complaining that +6 to proficiency bonus isn't enough for skills to even make you "decent" at a skill.
That's 3x what you consider "game-changing" to bounded accuracy.

There is slight difference.

Skills are to effect change in the environment, saves are to preserve the status quo.

If you need a 20 to save that will mean the spell will go off 95% of the time.

If you need a 20 on a skill check that means your skill did nothing 95% of the time.

[calebrus]

There is slight difference.

Not really. +2 to a roll under bounded accuracy is +10%
+10% is +10% is +10%.
To claim that it is somehow more important for one aspect of bounded accuracy is inaccurate. Bounded accuracy means that +2 is +10% effectiveness, no matter the purpose of the roll.

[SharkForce]

Not really. +2 to a roll under bounded accuracy is +10%
+10% is +10% is +10%.
To claim that it is somehow more important for one aspect of bounded accuracy is inaccurate. Bounded accuracy means that +2 is +10% effectiveness, no matter the purpose of the roll.

it really is not that simple.

let's say you hit normally 60% of the time. +2 to hit is making you hit 70% of the time. a 10% increase would be 66%; that +2 to hit is more like hitting 15% more often (to be exact, you're hitting 7/6 as often, or 116.6 repeating). the lower your chance to hit was in the first place, and the larger the bonus, the more the increase.

if you only hit on a 3, for example, that +2 to hit is making you go from 3/20 to 5/20. you are now hitting 5/3 as often, or about 167% more representing a 67% increase in accuracy.

put it on the flip side where you've got a +1 to your saving throw and need to hit DC 19 to avoid being paralyzed. you go from a 3/20 chance to a 1/20 chance. you've just lost about 67% of your chance to save. likewise, if you can get your AC up to the point where enemies rarely hit you, each point of AC represents not a 5% decrease in how often you would have been hit, but rather so much more (though it's a bit harder to model damage taken because of how criticals work).

if you can find some way to stack advantage or disadvantage in your favour, it becomes even more impactful. a 1/20 chance is 1/400, while a 3/20 is close to 1/40, or about 10 times the probability.

and that is why an apparently small bonus can make a very large difference.

(it is also worth noting that because saving throws can so readily be targeted at a weak defence by a spellcaster, you're starting off much closer to the edge of the d20 than the middle assuming maxed attributes).

[calebrus]

It's not +10% of what your current chances are. It's +10%.... period.
60% (+10%) doesn't become 66%, it becomes 70%
You're trying to make it far more complicated than it is.

All I'm saying is that an additional +2 is just as relevant for one aspect of the system as it is for another. People that claim a +2 is relevant for one roll, but not for another, are either deluding themselves or they don't understand bounded accuracy.
Taking a -2 to a roll or adding +2 to AC (for example for cover from ranged attacks) is mathematically exactly the same as raising a DC by 2. You are 10% less likely to succeed.

[NotALurker]

As I pointed out because it needs to cater to different styles of play. In middleschool we loved our overpowered, godslaying games. There is still a large enough age span in the customer base of D&D that it pays to have options.

And option means option. Just because it's an option that would break the game for you doesn't mean it won't cause squeals of delight from a table of 11 year olds.

anyone can make options that break the game, the reason to pay for the options is if they will not while being useful and awsome.


Not really. +2 to a roll under bounded accuracy is +10%
+10% is +10% is +10%.
To claim that it is somehow more important for one aspect of bounded accuracy is inaccurate. Bounded accuracy means that +2 is +10% effectiveness, no matter the purpose of the roll.

if you need to roll a 10 normally on a save then having to roll a 12 instead is not a big deal, if you have to roll a 18 and instead have to roll a 20 IS a big deal, you now only save 1/3 as often.

the higher the target number goes the more important each increase is.

[calebrus]

if you need to roll a 10 normally on a save then having to roll a 12 instead is not a big deal, if you have to roll a 18 and instead have to roll a 20 IS a big deal, you now only save 1/3 as often.

the higher the target number goes the more important each increase is.

In the first example, you went from 55% to 45% That's 10% less likely to happen than it was previously.
In your second example you went from 15% to 5%. That's 10% less likely to happen than it was previously.

The only difference is in your perception. The actual math scales on a 1 to 1 basis, no matter the target number.
A +2 to a DC 10 and a +2 to a DC 18 are mathematically identical in every single respect. They are no different mathematically. Each +2 is exactly as relevant as a similar +2 to a different roll. It doesn't make a certain +2 relevant while another +2 remains irrelevant. That makes one of them more dramatic, while the other is less dramatic, but both are equally relevant.
The single difference is in your perception.

[NotALurker]

In the first example, you went from 55% to 45% That's 10% less likely to happen than it was previously.
In your second example you went from 15% to 5%. That's 10% less likely to happen than it was previously.

The only difference is in your perception. The actual math scales on a 1 to 1 basis, no matter the target number.
A +2 to a DC 10 and a +2 to a DC 18 are mathematically identical in every single respect. They are no different mathematically. Each +2 is exactly as relevant as a similar +2 to a different roll. It doesn't make a certain +2 relevant while another +2 remains irrelevant. That makes one of them more dramatic, while the other is less dramatic, but both are equally relevant.
The single difference is in your perception.

you really need to do more research.

no it is not, if my target number is 18 and it changes to 19 then I now have only a 2/3 chance to hit as I did before, if it was 19 and it becomes 20 then I how have only 1/2 the chance to hit it as I did before.

the higher the target number the more important every plus. needing to roll a 2 vs 3 is not a big change only a few percent difference, needing to roll a 19 v 20 IS a big deal because you have twice the chance to roll a 19 or 20 as just a 20.

[SharkForce]

each +1 is not equally relevant at all. the difference between saving on an 18 and saving on a 20 is that CC will frequently last 1/3 the amount of time in the former case. seriously, it sounds really small, but in actual practice, it's an extremely large difference. i know it sounds completely ridiculous. i thought it was completely ridiculous myself until i saw the difference played out. but when you actually get to see it in play, it makes all the difference in the world. i've seen wizards with a DC two points higher than mine shut down fights like they weren't even happening when the best i could hope for with a save DC a mere two points lower was to reduce the amount of chaos a group of enemies were causing. i've been the primary healer for a guy that had a mere 2 extra points of AC on a boss where normally i'm spamming everything i've got to keep the tank alive, and seen it go from a tough job to every now and then overhealing the target because i was bored out of my mind and he got hit once in a 5 minute fight. i was expecting a miserable time because he was a warforged and my heals were going to be half as effective (or worse compared to someone with the right abilities), and instead of needing to throw every scrap of healing that i could instead i pretty much could've kept him alive with a single wand. if i had some sort of long-lasting gradual heal i probably could've cast it on him and then walked away.

those small changes in difficulty represent massive increases in effectiveness at the high end of the spectrum. they're pretty minor in the middle of the d20, but dang, you get to the edge of the d20 and it's like night and day having that extra little bit.

[calebrus]

those small changes in difficulty represent massive increases in effectiveness at the high end of the spectrum. they're pretty minor in the middle of the d20, but dang, you get to the edge of the d20 and it's like night and day having that extra little bit.

But the overall statistical change is 10%.
We're not talking about the statistical change in relation to your personal chances, we're talking about the statistical change relative to the probability of it happening.
10% is 10% is 10%.
The only difference between them is from your personal viewpoint.
That means that the only difference between them is one of perception.

[SharkForce]

But the overall statistical change is 10%.
We're not talking about the statistical change in relation to your personal chances, we're talking about the statistical change relative to the probability of it happening.
10% is 10% is 10%.
The only difference between them is from your personal viewpoint.
That means that the only difference between them is one of perception.

there is a much bigger difference than that. both numbers are true, but one of them properly expresses what you can do with the number, while the other makes it sound like it's always equally impactful.

there is an extremely large difference between what you can do with 85% effective and 95% effective. it isn't even close to being equal to the difference between what you can do at 50% effective vs 60% effective (basically no change). a hold person spell at 50% chance to fail can be expected to last 2 rounds on average. at 60%, you're looking at closer to 2.5 on average. at 85%, you're looking at about 6.3 repeating rounds. at 95%, you're looking at ~20 rounds on average.

and that is why no, it is not the same thing, and no, it isn't just a difference in perception. it is a difference in what you can reasonably expect to do with those DCs.

[calebrus]

You're looking at it comparatively in relation to your ease. That makes it subjective.
The objective difficulty has increased or decreased by 10%.
The fact that you are using a subjective measure means that it's about perception. If you look at it objectively, every +1 is exactly as relevant as any other +1.
The subjective difficulty varies dependent upon your personal success rate, but the objective difficulty (the likelihood of the event occurring at all) varies by 5% per +/-1, regardless of your personal subjective view of the magnitude of ease is factored in.

If you need a 19 normally, and need a 20 in one particular case, then your personal subjective viewpoint is that it is 50% harder to do than it normally is.
But objectively, the success rate has only decreased by 5%.

[NotALurker]

You're looking at it comparatively in relation to your ease. That makes it subjective.
The objective difficulty has increased or decreased by 10%.
The fact that you are using a subjective measure means that it's about perception. If you look at it objectively, every +1 is exactly as relevant as any other +1.
The subjective difficulty varies dependent upon your personal success rate, but the objective difficulty (the likelihood of the event occurring at all) varies by 5% per +/-1, regardless of your personal subjective view of the magnitude of ease is factored in.

If you need a 19 normally, and need a 20 in one particular case, then your personal subjective viewpoint is that it is 50% harder to do than it normally is.
But objectively, the success rate has only decreased by 5%.

you...do not seam to understand but subjective means. if something is shown objectively with math it is not subjective.

the things you do with a hold person that lasts 6 rounds on average, and the way it effects a fight is much much different then if on average it only lasts 2 rounds.

[calebrus]

Look at it this way:
If you normally need to roll an 20 to succeed, and a +2 bonus now means you need to roll an 18, you are now 3x as likely to succeed as you would under normal circumstances. I get that this is what you are saying.
Yes, you are 3x as likely to succeed.
Your personal success rate is 300% of what is was before.

But the probability that the event occurs only changes by 10%. Not by 300%. It is 300% more likely than it was, yes, but only in relation to the previous chance.
The statistical likelihood has not increased 300%. It has only increased by 10%.

[NotALurker]

Look at it this way:
If you normally need to roll an 20 to succeed, and a +2 bonus now means you need to roll an 18, you are now 3x as likely to succeed as you would under normal circumstances. I get that this is what you are saying.
Yes, you are 3x as likely to succeed.
Your personal success rate is 300% of what is was before.

But the probability that the event occurs only changes by 10%. Not by 300%. It is 300% more likely than it was, yes, but only in relation to the previous chance.
The statistical likelihood has not increased 300%. It has only increased by 10%.

the 300% is what matters when looking at the value of the +2 not the 20%.

[calebrus]

the 300% is what matters when looking at the value of the +2 not the 20%.

No, the 300% only changes your *perception* of the increase. It makes the +2 more dramatic than 10% in relation to your normal success rate. It does not make the +2 more dramatic than 10% in relation to the overall probability of the event occurring.
It increases the subjective magnitude of the bonus, but not the objective magnitude of the bonus.
It changes your perception, and nothing more. Mathematically, they are identical.

[Talakeal]

There is a difference between "Percentage" and "Percentage Points", the two terms should not be used interchangeably as there is a very real difference.

Going from needing a 20 to needing an 18 is a 200 percent increase.
Going from needing a 20 to needing an 18 is a 10% increase in percentage points.

They are both relevant, but which is more relevant depends on your sample size. In a small sample (such as a single roll) percentage points are more important. In a large sample (such as every roll taken over the course of a combat) percentage is more important.

For example, if I and my opponent both need a 20 to hit and I receive a +2 bonus, there is only a 10% chance it will affect that hit. However, if I have a persistent +2 bonus that lasts the entire fight, meaning I need an 18 and he needs a 20, I am three times as likely to win. Try running a simulation with a large sample size if you don't believe me.


Now, onto my other point; +2 in one situation is very different than +2 in another situation.

On the other hand, if both my opponent and I hit on a 4 naturally, then a +2 fight long bonus isn't that big a deal. It is still bigger than 10%, but far less than the three times as likely to win as we were in the situation where we needed a 20.

Now then, if we are looking at difficult for simple skill tasks, it is not the chance of success we are looking at, but the chance of failure. If, for example, we have a +11 skill bonus, and are going for a moderate difficulty of 15, we need to roll a 4 or better, or a 15% failure rate. In this situation a +2 means we now only fail on 1 one, with a 5% failure rate. In this case we are three times less likely to fail, which if you want a competent and consistent character, which is what most people like for moderate challenges in the skills they are focused in, and thus makes a much bigger deal.

Also, of course, what the bonus applies to matters a lot. For example, a +2 bonus to attack is a lot more useful than a +2 bonus to basket weaving. If you have a floating +2 bonus to save, and are hit by two spells, one that kills you and the other that only makes you halve your speed for a turn, then you are obviously going to apply the +2 to the former rather than the latter all other things being equal.

And finally, when you push something off the chart you get weirdness. For example, if you need a nat 20, or only fail on a nat 1, a +2 bonus might be entirely meaningless. Furthermore, if you give a monster an aura that says "At the start of each turn any character within 100 meters must roll a dice. On a 1 or a 2 you drop dead." Now, this is only a 10% increase (above the usual 0%) to for a given character to drop dead on any given round. But, given both how often it will be rolled (every character on every round) and the consequences (death) this 10% increase is now a huge deal and turns the encounter into a deathtrap.

[Strill]

While I get (and generally agree) with your underlying point, it's worth nothing that having more options CAN cut off your other non-spelled out options. As a really simple example, consider the D&D cleric's dilemma. A cleric can do almost everything a fighter can, and a lot of wizard like spell casting too. But clerics also have the additional option of healing party members. The existence of that single option has for many people, spoiled the idea of playing the cleric because it means the cleric round by round decision tree looks something like this:

If The Party is Wounded and I Have Spell Slots or Other Resources that can be Used to Heal
then Heal the Party
otherwise do Something Else but Stay Close and don't waste Resources that could be Used to Heal

By giving the cleric additional options, they are cut off (by social pressure and game pressure) from choosing to do other things with their action each round. Similarly I can't imagine too many parties that would put up with a wizard who never cast spells or only ever took utility spells or only used spells for utility purposes and never used their fireball for anything other than lighting camp fires. A cleric heals, a wizard casts spells. A fighter on the other hand, if they never wanted to pick up a sword, or they only ever grappled or they focused entirely on defense or whatever else (barring 3.x's "you must have this many feats to ride, else you might as well hit it with your stick" problem) would be far more widely tolerated, in my experience.

Healing in combat is a universally terrible tactical decision unless you're bringing characters back into the fight. You should focus on killing or disabling enemy threats first and foremost. Wasting your heals in combat means the enemy has more turns to damage your party, and you have no spell slots left over to bring back fallen party members when you need them.

[SharkForce]

No, the 300% only changes your *perception* of the increase. It makes the +2 more dramatic than 10% in relation to your normal success rate. It does not make the +2 more dramatic than 10% in relation to the overall probability of the event occurring.
It increases the subjective magnitude of the bonus, but not the objective magnitude of the bonus.
It changes your perception, and nothing more. Mathematically, they are identical.

except that it is more than your perception of it. if i cast hold person on 5 targets and know they only get free on a 20, that has a much different impact on the fight than if i do the same thing with them getting free on an 18. with 18+ roughly one of them will break free (or not be affected in the first place) on average per turn. with 20+ we've got 4 rounds of free time on average before even one gets free, which is a pretty huge difference. one of them *might* break free on round 1 (or resist in the first place), but it's substantially less probable than it would be if you had a DC 18 save.

it is not just perception. it is important information, the proper understanding of which will let you make better decisions. each +1 is not worth the same amount. the point of DC that takes you from 19 to 20 is much more valuable than the point that takes you from 10 to 11. they are not even remotely equivalent. the difference between DC 10 and DC 11 in terms of what you can do with it is extremely minor. the difference between DC 19 and DC 20, in contrast, is quite substantial in terms of expectations, especially if you look at it over the course of several rolls.

[calebrus]

the point of DC that takes you from 19 to 20 is much more valuable than the point that takes you from 10 to 11

No, it isn't. Each of those change the probability by 5%. No more, no less. Neither is more valuable than the other.

[NotALurker]

Healing in combat is a universally terrible tactical decision unless you're bringing characters back into the fight. You should focus on killing or disabling enemy threats first and foremost. Wasting your heals in combat means the enemy has more turns to damage your party, and you have no spell slots left over to bring back fallen party members when you need them.

this.

in any 3.x game the only reason to heal in combat is if the party will die if you don't (say only the wizard has a chance to kill the big bad and he just went down) or if the heal is for a very large amount (say a heal spell). otherwise its not worth the action.


No, it isn't. Each of those change the probability by 5%. No more, no less. Neither is more valuable than the other.

so you would not vary your action whatsoever if the average length of your hold person was 4 rounds or 1? you do not think it would make the slightest difference in the game?

[JNAProductions]

No, it isn't. Each of those change the probability by 5%. No more, no less. Neither is more valuable than the other.

Calebrus, hypothetical question-which is worse?

Having to roll a 19 to hit, and then taking a -1 penalty on attack rolls?
Or needing a 12 to hit and taking a -1 penalty?

Don't overthink it, because overthinking it leads to weird logical chains that seem right but are fallacious. Just go with your gut, since this is a situation where it's probably right. (If you do need the logical, mathematical proof, people smarter and more eloquent than I summed it up nicely above.)

[SharkForce]

No, it isn't. Each of those change the probability by 5%. No more, no less. Neither is more valuable than the other.

the difference in reliability between DC 19 and DC 20 is quite large. the difference in reliability between DC 10 and DC 11 is quite small. the value in going from 19 to 20 is therefore large, because it changes what you can do with your spells. the value in going from 10 to 11 is quite small, because while you are more likely to land spells, you can't *rely* on landing spells in the same way.

[calebrus]

The change is one of preference. It's one of strategy. It's one of perception.
But it is not a difference in value.
It can subjectively make a difference, but it makes zero objective difference.

[NotALurker]

The change is one of preference. It's one of strategy. It's one of perception.
But it is not a difference in value.
It can subjectively make a difference, but it makes zero objective difference.

that is not what subjective means.

objectively, mathematically (as has been shown) a +1 at 19 is more important then the one you got at 10.

when dealing with spells like hold person what matters is the average length of time the targets will be held, an average length of 4 rounds is very different then 1 or 2. THAT is why it matters.

[calebrus]

that is not what subjective means.

objectively, mathematically (as has been shown) a +1 at 19 is more important then the one you got at 10.

when dealing with spells like hold person what matters is the average length of time the targets will be held, an average length of 4 rounds is very different then 1 or 2. THAT is why it matters.

That is exactly what subjective means.

sub·jec·tive
səbˈjektiv/
adjective
adjective: subjective
1. based on or influenced by personal feelings, tastes, or opinions.

The difference between 19 and 20 on a d20 is 5%.
The difference between 10 and 11 on a d20 is 5%.
A +1 is equivalent to a 5% value, no matter what the target number begins as.
You perceive the value as higher at either end of the d20 to be worth more because it raises your perceived chances of succeeding. But in actuality it raises those chances by 5%, no matter what.
So the subjective value increases, while the objective value remains the same.

[JNAProductions]

It raises reliability objectively.

A 1/20 chance of failure is twice as reliably successful as a 2/20.
A 10/20 chance of failure is only 111.1 repeating % as reliably successful.

(10/20)/(9/20)=1.111111111...
(2/20)/(1/20)=2

[NotALurker]

That is exactly what subjective means.

sub·jec·tive
səbˈjektiv/
adjective
adjective: subjective
1. based on or influenced by personal feelings, tastes, or opinions.

The difference between 19 and 20 on a d20 is 5%.
The difference between 10 and 11 on a d20 is 5%.
A +1 is equivalent to a 5% value, no matter what the target number begins as.
You perceive the value as higher at either end of the d20 to be worth more because it raises your perceived chances of succeeding. But in actuality it raises those chances by 5%, no matter what.
So the subjective value increases, while the objective value remains the same.

I am using math to show that one is better then the other, how is that a personal feeling?

if the average length of hold person at
DC 10: 1.2R
DC 11: 1.3R
DC 19: 3R
DC 20: 4R

then gaining a +1 at DC10 would give my only .1 longer hold persons on average, if I was at DC19 then I would gain 1 whole round.

so again HOW is .1=1?

[calebrus]

Question: How many times does a +1 have an actual affect on the outcome of the roll?
Answer: Exactly 5% of the time. No more. No less. It doesn't matter whether the target number is 1 or 4 or 10 or 13 or 19. A +1 will have an affect on the outcome of that roll exactly 5% of the time.

[Icewraith]

Question: How many times does a +1 have an actual affect on the outcome of the roll?
Answer: Exactly 5% of the time. No more. No less. It doesn't matter whether the target number is 1 or 4 or 10 or 13 or 19. A +1 will have an affect on the outcome of that roll exactly 5% of the time.

This is fallacious, because it doesn't account for the situation.

If a player needs to hit DC 25 with a +3 bonus, a +1 additional bonus has no effect on the outcome of the roll, because the player still only succeeds on a natural 20.

If a player has a +11 bonus to hit and needs to hit AC 10, a +1 additional to-hit has no effect on the outcome of the roll, because the player still only fails on a natural 1.

You seem to be focused on the outcome of single rolls, while the whole point of the conversation is how increasing or decreasing a bonus by 1 affects the reliability of an ability over a period of time. Specifically, if you can get your DC high enough to the point that the DM needs a 19 on the die to avoid the effect, and can get an additional +1 to the DC, you double the effectiveness of your spells.

Even though the probability on the single roll has only changed 5%, the DM will on average need to roll twice as many saving throws before making one.

[calebrus]

You seem to be focused on the outcome of single rolls, while the whole point of the conversation is how increasing or decreasing a bonus by 1 affects the reliability of an ability over a period of time.

I am focused on the outcome of individual rolls. And that's the right place to focus, because each roll is an individual event. Even when considering it over a period of time, each of those rolls made over that period of time is an individual event.
And that +1 will affect the outcome of that individual roll exactly 5% of the time, no matter what the target number is.

[JNAProductions]

Okay, different tact.

D&D 5E is not a computer. It is a game, that players play. So, if it truly is subjective and not objective, it still matters. It matters to the players, and they're the ones who make the dice matter. Even if it's silly mindgames, it still matters.

(I'm siding with the math here, though. It does matter.)

[Strill]

Question: How many times does a +1 have an actual affect on the outcome of the roll?
Answer: Exactly 5% of the time. No more. No less. It doesn't matter whether the target number is 1 or 4 or 10 or 13 or 19. A +1 will have an affect on the outcome of that roll exactly 5% of the time.

Why should I care about that? In order for your analysis to be meaningful, you have to connect your numbers to end-results. NotALurker has shown mathematically that the final point of Spell DC has a disproportionate effect on the overall performance of Hold Person. This is an objective proof of his argument.

Right now you're refusing to even acknowledge an objective mathematical proof, and are instead simply repeating yourself, as though that somehow makes you more correct. If you're not going to even engage in discourse, then you're just trolling.

[SharkForce]

I am focused on the outcome of individual rolls. And that's the right place to focus, because each roll is an individual event. Even when considering it over a period of time, each of those rolls made over that period of time is an individual event.
And that +1 will affect the outcome of that individual roll exactly 5% of the time, no matter what the target number is.

then you are focusing on the wrong thing. you can't see the forest for the trees.

pull back and look at it from the big picture. there's a world of difference between hitting all targets with a CC effect and being likely to have them all controlled for long enough to kill or incapacitate each of them, and CCing only half of the targets with half of the controlled targets breaking free each round. the former is a useful effect that might let you deal with one or two enemies freely, while the latter pretty much ends the fight entirely.

[calebrus]

If you're not going to even engage in discourse, then you're just trolling.

And that's my cue to leave. Have fun pretending that 5% is more than 5%, because once the insults start slinging I'm through.

[Sindeloke]

Playground debates always eventually remind me of this reddit comment (http://www.reddit.com/r/IWantToLearn/comments/27r44b/iwtl_how_to_make_my_mom_friend_understand_antivac/ci3lxqb).

Jumping back a few pages...



and i have no problem with certain classes being designed to be good at combat. my problem is that while they fulfill that role at lower levels, they really don't at higher levels nearly as well. when a caster can sling around a beam of 6d6 damage plus blindness for 10 rounds, or nuke a small village from a mile away, or control huge areas, it's hard to consider a fighter or barbarian to be the master of combat when they're really only good at one aspect of it, and not even by a very large margin (warlocks come pretty close, and various non-caster builds almost match them in at-will DPR. sometimes exceeding in certain areas; a ranger will do better in ranged AOE, a paladin gets ridiculous novas, etc).

the simple fact of the matter is that a high level caster can likely target several defenses at any given time, can likely inflict several different unpleasant status conditions at any given time, and can probably target anything from a single enemy to all enemies in an area to simply hitting an entire area, while also having the option to deal significant damage (although in single-target damage, you probably still want someone with a weapon. or a horde of summoned or created minions, as noted above) in a variety of flavours (some of those abilities will overlap; a sunbeam spell, for example, targets reflex saves, in an area, deals radiant damage, and blinds enemies, and thus fills several of those categories).

so really, there is a caster vs non-caster divide. it's not as bad as it was in 3.x, and it certainly isn't equal across all classes; a warlock or sorcerer has fewer options than most casters, and a monk or rogue has more options than most non-casters (to the point where some people have played around with considering monks to be casters), and of course some classes sort of split the difference (paladins and rangers being half-casters, eldritch knights and arcane tricksters being 1/3 casters). now, some things i just don't see reasonably handing out to certain classes; a fighter should probably never get, say, dominate monster as an option. on the other hand, it's pretty easy to imagine a barbarian being able to do something like you might expect from a ring of the ram, or for a fighter to slash across an entire group of enemies with a greatsword or something.

Perhaps it's a natural consequence of playing a lot of WoW and SWTOR and Dragon Age, but it's seemed weird to me for a while now that AoE is the sole domain of casters. I mean, typically RPGs have some roguelike classes who are great at single-target damage, and some warrior-esque classes who are great at AoE damage, and some caster classes who have potent single-target damage, and some caster classes who are great at AoE damage. D&D has roguelike DPS who are great at single-target damage (monks, rogues) and warrior-esque classes who are great at single-target damage (paladins, fighters, rangers, barbarians) and casters who have potent single-target damage (warlocks, some sorc builds) and casters who have potent AoE damage (wizards, other sorc builds, probably either druids or clerics but I haven't seen them in action yet).

When you're a warrior in an RPG and your AoE damage is "I can hit three or four different guys who are adjacent to me for 5% of their expected health if I beat the game's most reliably strong defense!" it's a pretty sad day. I mean I guess rangers can hit a bunch of guys in a tight cluster for 5% if they beat their reliably strong defense.

(Yes, I'm exaggerating, but seriously, these guys are competing with a potential daily Meteor Swarm.)

Anyway I guess what I'm saying is if rogues could slap some potent debuffs on their sneak attacks the way monks can put potent debuffs on their fists, and fighters/pallies/barbarians had some serious high-level AoE options to clear crowds before they get to the boss, that would probably go a long way toward making them feel like they're not straight-up less useful in combat than a caster (whether or not that perception is true in either case).

[SharkForce]

we've already demonstrated, repeatedly, how it is more important objectively. going from needing a 19 to needing a 20 doubles the average duration of spells that give a save every round, and cuts to 1/2 the average number of remaining enemies in disables cast on a group (or, in other words, you're not giving proper credit to how much the difficulty increases when you double the number of enemies; the encounter building rules in the DMG go over that subject, but the short version is that it is more than twice as challenging). you are focused too much on how it affects an individual roll, and as a result are ignoring how it plays out over a series of rolls. you are looking at the impact on a single creature in a single round. that's all very well and good, but it is clouding your understanding of the difference it makes to an encounter.

it sounds like it should not be any more important than any other +1. but it is. it makes all the difference in the world in terms of what you can accomplish.

here, i'll give you a scenario that might help show what i mean.

a level 20 fighter is up against a group of 20 skeletons across a chasm from him. no cover is available, and the character is in full plate, has a shield, and has +1 AC from a combat style. each round, all the skeletons fire arrows at this fighter, against AC 21 with their +3 to hit. on average, 17 will miss, 2 will get a normal hit, and one will score a critical hit. this fighter will, on average, take (4d6 + 9) 23 damage each round until the skeletons run out of arrows.

now, let's change the situation. we'll give him +1 plate mail. now, 19 skeletons miss and only 1 hits for an average of 16.5 damage. that is 16.5/23 = (approximately) 71.7% as much damage. from a single +1 bonus. definitely far more than 5%, and in this case it's even skewed a bit because a 20 is a critical hit that deals double damage (if it was +1 adamantine plate, he would have taken ~66.7% as much damage).

now, let's compare to another character, for the sake of argument we'll give this character 15 AC (maybe it's a druid with barkskin up or something). this character can expect 11 skeletons to miss, 8 skeletons to score regular hits, and 1 skeleton to critically hit, for a total of (10d6 + 27) 62 damage. obviously, our theoretical character is wishing he had even "just" an AC of 21.

if we increase the AC by 1 somehow, this theoretical character would instead take only (9d6 + 24) 55.5 damage per round on average. 55.5/62 is ~89.5% as much damage, which is still more than 5% less damage, but definitely not as much of an improvement as our AC 21 fighter got by going to AC 22.

in each case, we'll assume our targets have a total of 200 HP (for the sake of argument, this will include available healing sources). in our first scenario, the fighter with no magical armour will last 8 rounds and die during the 9th, while the same fighter with +1 plate would last 12 rounds and die during the 13th.


in our second scenario, the character with AC 15 will last on average 3 rounds and die on the 4th, while the character with AC 16 will... also last 3 rounds and die on the 4th (but requiring an extra few attacks to be fired, presumably). practically speaking, in this scenario the character received no meaningful benefit whatsoever from the +1 to AC. the character did not last any longer than the character without the extra +1 bonus. if we were to extend the HP slightly to hit a point that favours the +1 AC character more (223 HP), it would still only be 1 extra round, and only happens at all because we pick a specific data point that favours this character (it is far more likely to get no significant difference; it goes right back to both dying on the same turn as soon as we go up to 249 HP, for example).

the +1 AC is simply far more valuable to the fighter with higher AC. the next point of AC would be even slightly more significant, reducing the damage down to (10/16.5) ~60% of what one lower point of AC would take. both are on the d20, but the one who is almost off the d20 gains more ability to survive from the same +1 to AC than the one who was more towards the middle.

[Talakeal]

we've already demonstrated, repeatedly, how it is more important objectively. going from needing a 19 to needing a 20 doubles the average duration of spells that give a save every round, and cuts to 1/2 the average number of remaining enemies in disables cast on a group (or, in other words, you're not giving proper credit to how much the difficulty increases when you double the number of enemies; the encounter building rules in the DMG go over that subject, but the short version is that it is more than twice as challenging). you are focused too much on how it affects an individual roll, and as a result are ignoring how it plays out over a series of rolls. you are looking at the impact on a single creature in a single round. that's all very well and good, but it is clouding your understanding of the difference it makes to an encounter.

it sounds like it should not be any more important than any other +1. but it is. it makes all the difference in the world in terms of what you can accomplish.

here, i'll give you a scenario that might help show what i mean.

a level 20 fighter is up against a group of 20 skeletons across a chasm from him. no cover is available, and the character is in full plate, has a shield, and has +1 AC from a combat style. each round, all the skeletons fire arrows at this fighter, against AC 21 with their +3 to hit. on average, 17 will miss, 2 will get a normal hit, and one will score a critical hit. this fighter will, on average, take (4d6 + 9) 23 damage each round until the skeletons run out of arrows.

now, let's change the situation. we'll give him +1 plate mail. now, 19 skeletons miss and only 1 hits for an average of 16.5 damage. that is 16.5/23 = (approximately) 71.7% as much damage. from a single +1 bonus. definitely far more than 5%, and in this case it's even skewed a bit because a 20 is a critical hit that deals double damage (if it was +1 adamantine plate, he would have taken ~66.7% as much damage).

now, let's compare to another character, for the sake of argument we'll give this character 15 AC (maybe it's a druid with barkskin up or something). this character can expect 11 skeletons to miss, 8 skeletons to score regular hits, and 1 skeleton to critically hit, for a total of (10d6 + 27) 62 damage. obviously, our theoretical character is wishing he had even "just" an AC of 21.

if we increase the AC by 1 somehow, this theoretical character would instead take only (9d6 + 24) 55.5 damage per round on average. 55.5/62 is ~89.5% as much damage, which is still more than 5% less damage, but definitely not as much of an improvement as our AC 21 fighter got by going to AC 22.

in each case, we'll assume our targets have a total of 200 HP (for the sake of argument, this will include available healing sources). in our first scenario, the fighter with no magical armour will last 8 rounds and die during the 9th, while the same fighter with +1 plate would last 12 rounds and die during the 13th.


in our second scenario, the character with AC 15 will last on average 3 rounds and die on the 4th, while the character with AC 16 will... also last 3 rounds and die on the 4th (but requiring an extra few attacks to be fired, presumably). practically speaking, in this scenario the character received no meaningful benefit whatsoever from the +1 to AC. the character did not last any longer than the character without the extra +1 bonus. if we were to extend the HP slightly to hit a point that favours the +1 AC character more (223 HP), it would still only be 1 extra round, and only happens at all because we pick a specific data point that favours this character (it is far more likely to get no significant difference; it goes right back to both dying on the same turn as soon as we go up to 249 HP, for example).

the +1 AC is simply far more valuable to the fighter with higher AC. the next point of AC would be even slightly more significant, reducing the damage down to (10/16.5) ~60% of what one lower point of AC would take. both are on the d20, but the one who is almost off the d20 gains more ability to survive from the same +1 to AC than the one who was more towards the middle.

I am pretty sure everyone in the thread agrees on this.

Calebrus is, however, refusing to look at any scenario in which you use more than one roll, and in the case of a single roll* a +1 bonus will, in fact, only matter 5% of the time.

This has very little bearing on the actual game and is mostly academic however, as the percentage change in success / failure rate is all that matters over the long rung rather than the chance of any single role in almost every situation I can think of.

And of course, it still ignores my initial point which is saying that not all bonuses are created equal and that a +1 to some thins matters a heck of a lot more than others.


*Assuming your DC isn't so high or low you need a natural 1 or 20 to fail or succeed respectively

[Doug Lampert]

Grogs are superior to all other characters in Ars Magica in one respect.
What is that?
They are better at dying!

Seriously, spectacularly, touchingly, dramatically, horrifically, honourably - they got it ALL covered.
Totally OP. Never leave the tower without a Grog per non-Grog. For all you dying needs.

Ars Magica is lovely because it teaches one clear lesson that D&D utterly fails at by default: "Play Balance" (whatever that means) amongst the party is not necessary for fun. Over half the time you are playing a dude who has just been told (ordered really - in addition to kinda sucking you are also a peon answering to everyone else, disobedience is punishable by "whatever Merlin wants to do to you") to slow the troll down so the magus can kill it (or flee, fleeing is common). You, a man in boiled leather armor, holding a reinforced barrel lid and a wood ax, are not expected to live against the 9' tall steely skinned troll with talons like knives - but hey, 3 square meals a day, all the ale you can brew (you may even be a bit drunk right now actually), the wizards actually leave the tower with you like once a year at most and the Duke cannot come hang you for all the horse thieving so... CHARGE!

But the problem with using this lesson in D&D is that a bunch of stuff that makes it work in Ars Magica doesn't carry over.

Ars Magica shows you that interparty balance isn't needed for fun, IF YOU DESIGN THE GAME ACCORDINGLY.

Why do I give this guy a share of the loot? What?! Are you crazy? Why would I give a grog a share of the vis? He can't use it, and he's a minion.

Why is this guy considered my equal? What?! You are crazy? Who considers him that?

What if I don't want to play a replaceable mook? Well, that's why you have both a companion and a magus as characters also.

Why don't the mages dominate play? Because if you've got so many mages going on this mission that you expect that they can dominate the adventure/carry the entire load, then MY MAGUS is staying in his tower and getting some useful study in rather than wasting his time in the field. I'll take my companion instead. Meanwhile grogs and companions have adventuring as their best advancement method.

Note that Ars Magica has no particularly useful summons spells, magic resistance is the most common "magical" power, magical healing has real costs, and a single wizard can't really afford to be good at everything, specialization is king.

A magus wants someone to hide behind, even though you can build a pretty good "tank" magus if you try. You WANT those grogs there and their presence makes sense even though they are far weaker. The D&D 5th question: "So why doesn't my party consist of a Bard, a Wizard, a Cleric, a Druid, and a Paladin" just doesn't arise. You have maguses and other guys, and no one pretends they are even approximately equal. To quote another player when a large expedition in a game with 17 players was being attacked by a large number of mundanes, "Why should I worry, we have them outnumbered five to nothing." One guess as to the number of mages present.

Ars Magica you've started with an admission that "these characters are weaker, I can still adventure with them, and those other characters are my minions, of course I can adventure with my own minions". Giving everyone an allegedly equal power level so having a fighter means having one less full caster (like a second cleric instead) and everyone expects an equal say and equal share of the loot. That pretty well requires that the characters be of at least approximately the same power level.

[Finieous]

You have to put this in terms an adventurer can understand.

Imagine that you own an adventuring company (call it Acquisitions Inc.) and you add a new intern to the team. In Scenario A, the intern increases your company's net profit from 3% to 4%. In Scenario B, the intern increases your company's net profit from 10% to 11%. Which of these is true?

1 - The addition of the intern in Scenario A had a larger impact on your company's profitability.
2 - The addition of the intern in Scenario B had a larger impact on your company's profitability.
3 - The intern hires had the same impact on your company's profitability.

Answer: (1) is correct. In both scenarios, your company's net profits increased by one percentage point. However, in Scenario A, your net profits increased by 33% (one percentage point is 33% of 3%); in Scenario B, your net profits increased by 10% (one percentage point is 10% of 10%). The intern in Scenario A is much more valuable to your adventuring company. Plus he's funny and used to be on Star Trek.

[Chronos]

To put it in simplest terms: If your character dies because he's weaker, then what do you do? Either you sit out for the rest of the session (which isn't much fun), or you switch to playing another character (in which case the balancing factor for the weak class is "can be easily replaced").

[Mandragola]

The way I look at this probability stuff is to take average damage done, or "how long does it take to kill the monster?" The absolute amount of damage increase may not be different, but as it's different as a proportion of the amount I was going to do, it is a far more significant help.

You should do stuff that increases your average damage and decreases the time the monster takes to die, so it doesn't keep hitting you. If you double your chance to hit from 5% to 10% you increase your damage done by 100% and reduce the duration of the fight by 50%.

If you can be bothered, look at some maths for Great Weapon Mastery. If the AC you need to hit is low then you can use GWM all the time. If the AC is high then you shouldn't use it, as the chance of hitting is less. Now in theory that -5 to hit represents the same 25%, regardless of whether I started out hitting on a 4 or a 12. But actually if you say GWM roughly doubles the damage done with a hit (2d6+3 at the start) then the point where you shouldn't use it is when you need to roll an 11+. It's acceptable to lower your chance to hit by 50% if you increase your damage by at least 100%.If you needed a 12 to hit in the first place that becomes a 17, which is more than a 50% reduction in your chance to hit so you shouldn't do it.

[hawklost]

To put it in simplest terms: If your character dies because he's weaker, then what do you do? Either you sit out for the rest of the session (which isn't much fun), or you switch to playing another character (in which case the balancing factor for the weak class is "can be easily replaced").

Funny, most of the DMs I have dealt will allow the dead player to take control of some of the monsters in battles. It can be quite fun to try to destroy the party you worked so hard just a short while ago to keep up and since you play slightly differently than your DM, the players don't always predict your tactics as well.

[Chronos]

Huh, this is the first I've ever heard of that idea. It sounds like it has the potential to be... amusing.

[Gwendol]

The way I look at this probability stuff is to take average damage done, or "how long does it take to kill the monster?" The absolute amount of damage increase may not be different, but as it's different as a proportion of the amount I was going to do, it is a far more significant help.

Agreed, and that is pretty close to how I use Power Attack in 3.5

Because of the flat distribution of the d20, the way saves and DC scale etc, there are differences in how much a +1 impacts the results. The corner case will always be when the AC gets close to the attack bonus +20 range since increasing the AC further will eventually have zero effect on the outcome.

[Mara]

It is really interesting seeing people talk from 4e, 3.5, and Pathfinder perspectives. I'm familiar with all three editions but the one I have delved the deepest on mechanically is PF.

What is considered caster/martial disparity in 5e is absolutely laughable compared to PF. In PF, not only do casters have more meaningful options, casters are better at hitting things, tanking damage, skills, dealing damage, smacking things with pointy skills, moving in heavy armor and so on and so on. Rogues are essentially worthless. Many 3/4 casters are just better skill monkeys without spells and do more damage without spells. Casters are not just dominant to martials, their non-spell class features end up being way better. The only non-caster that even begins to hold her own is the Barbarian (a particular build too). 5e martials can grapple and shove reliably (which the notion of that at levels 10+ in PF is laughable with the way CMD scales). They can also hit things without being dolled up by their caster buddies in magical items. The lack of a "full attack" means martials are not designed around doing there maximum output only at the very end of encounters. (A full attack in high level optimized PF was basically the end to any encounter, consequently enemies would just prevent full attacks by moving 10ft+). I also like how every fighter is basically a social fop in 5e. (+11 to a skill at max? pffff Party faces in PF could start at level 1 with +15 in a social skill if they really felt like it). Comparatively the 8 cha fighter is never so bad at social skills that they are encourage to just not talk less the GM look at the massive difference in values and decides that you just mouth farted to the King. (Fighter rolls 5, Bard rolls 54 compared to the 5e Fighter rolls 5, Rogue rolls 24)

From a 4e perspective, I can see how 5e just steps on a lot of toes. "What do you mean casters begin to alter the fabric of reality, while my Fighter just hits things more?"
The stigma 4e puts on "at-will damage" is rather amusing from a PF perspective. Almost like if you can't spike damage per day or per encounter then what you do must be worthless.

[SharkForce]

the disparity is certainly much smaller than 3.x or pathfinder.

that does not mean it isn't present at all.

and the difference isn't anything to do with damage. if it were, the disparity would be in favour of non-casters for the most part, and the sorcerer and warlock would be the strongest, not the weakest, of the casters.

the difference is that at high levels, casters can do amazing things, some of which can even end encounters on their own... things that they could never have dreamed of doing at level 1 or even at level 9, when they were approximately equal to the non-casters... and the non-casters mostly just do the same thing they did, except a little bit better or more often.

a level 20 fighter gets an extra attack. a level 20 druid gets a floating pool of nigh-limitless amount of HP that comes with tons of utility attached on top of being able to cast spells that can CC enemies in a huge area or summon powerful minions or create droughts that can bring nations to their knees.

even within combat, the non-casters fall behind. a mass suggestion spell cast by a high level caster can flat-out end an encounter if you target an enemy's weak saves, on top of making the monsters in that encounter go do something the caster wants done for the next year. a simulacrum of the warrior could be made, gaining every ability the warrior has with the only drawback being lower HP. or, alternately, they could not waste the spell and instead create a copy of themselves or another caster and gain a massive amount of control both in and out of combat. they can't necessarily instawin every encounter, but they absolutely can make a huge difference in most encounters, and sometimes they do pretty much instawin the encounter because of how saves scale (DC goes up with level, your saving throw only goes up if it's one that you're proficient in... by the time proficiency is maxed, spell DCs are 19 for anything that cares to invest, saving throws are made at +0 for monsters that have a low attribute and no proficiency, meaning they only have a 10% chance to make it).

now, fewer caster resources, combined with fewer ways to boost save DCs to unreasonable levels (they do still exist, mind you, there just aren't as many) mean that the problem is certainly reduced. it is extremely unlikely to ever reach the point where a proficient target with a good attribute will need a 20 to save (possible, but really really unlikely). it is harder to brute force everything. it is absolutely better in that regard than 3.x was. but the problem is still there. it just isn't as big.

[silveralen]

Huh, this is the first I've ever heard of that idea. It sounds like it has the potential to be... amusing.

Really? That's what my tables often did at least until the end of the session (or a chance to work a new character in appeared, if character creation was fast/people had backups). That or they took over/acted out NPCs or the like.

[kaoskonfety]

But the problem with using this lesson in D&D is that a bunch of stuff that makes it work in Ars Magica doesn't carry over.

Ars Magica shows you that interparty balance isn't needed for fun, IF YOU DESIGN THE GAME ACCORDINGLY.

Why do I give this guy a share of the loot? What?! Are you crazy? Why would I give a grog a share of the vis? He can't use it, and he's a minion.

Why is this guy considered my equal? What?! You are crazy? Who considers him that?

What if I don't want to play a replaceable mook? Well, that's why you have both a companion and a magus as characters also.

Why don't the mages dominate play? Because if you've got so many mages going on this mission that you expect that they can dominate the adventure/carry the entire load, then MY MAGUS is staying in his tower and getting some useful study in rather than wasting his time in the field. I'll take my companion instead. Meanwhile grogs and companions have adventuring as their best advancement method.

Note that Ars Magica has no particularly useful summons spells, magic resistance is the most common "magical" power, magical healing has real costs, and a single wizard can't really afford to be good at everything, specialization is king.

A magus wants someone to hide behind, even though you can build a pretty good "tank" magus if you try. You WANT those grogs there and their presence makes sense even though they are far weaker. The D&D 5th question: "So why doesn't my party consist of a Bard, a Wizard, a Cleric, a Druid, and a Paladin" just doesn't arise. You have maguses and other guys, and no one pretends they are even approximately equal. To quote another player when a large expedition in a game with 17 players was being attacked by a large number of mundanes, "Why should I worry, we have them outnumbered five to nothing." One guess as to the number of mages present.

Ars Magica you've started with an admission that "these characters are weaker, I can still adventure with them, and those other characters are my minions, of course I can adventure with my own minions". Giving everyone an allegedly equal power level so having a fighter means having one less full caster (like a second cleric instead) and everyone expects an equal say and equal share of the loot. That pretty well requires that the characters be of at least approximately the same power level.

Party imbalance works fine - I'd argue its not the game design but player expectations that make it an issue. Its the endless debates I've seen about which class is "Best" and which is "Worst" with the expectation the answer matters. It only matters if you decide it does. *edit - I'm not sure but I cannot recall anything in the 5th edition (or any) book saying the PC's are of, or are expected to be of, roughly equal power?

I've transplanted Ars Magica troope play into both Exalted and D&D with zero issue (actually its bloody brilliant on Exalted, but oh well). The D&D party I'd been running for 3 years hit level 15 - top of the game, in the "top 50 sentient bad arses in the world" and I ran out of "setting reasonable week by week" stuff to challenge them with. So we switched them to "long term goal PC's" (over throwing the Mad Priest in the North, sealing the porthole to hell, stopping the pesky demi-gods curse they unleashed (the Tarrasque), managing the thieves guilds and the like) and started a stack of new scrub PC's and some NPC class goobers to go do the parties busy work. Same adventure formula (a home base, one level 15 doom PC, 1-2 second to fifth level adventurers, 2 or 3 adepts experts and warriors expected per adventure) but D&D. It worked to keep us all entertained. I may be crazy but I'm pretty sure thats the goal?

I've seen several significant level variance (level 1-8 specifically) parties work beautify. Do I make this as my standard in D&D? No. Its more work encounter design wise. But it works fine. It works better in 5th than in any of the old editions if anything.

Regarding the magi in the mentioned ars magica game being unfazed by a confrontation with a bunch of "mundanes" - I'd need to know more, but as it appears I'd argue its likely the DM or the party was doing something wrong. Yes we can slaughter them all - EASILY. Hell a combat focused companion with a bow can wipe out a small village in a few minutes, let alone a magi who can set the whole valley on fire (at character generation). But the powers that be both in and out of the order frown on magi killing people in large number - its bad for your rep, True Faith can mess you up and the wizards of Europe are stupidly out numbered by said mortals. Mortals that naturally distrust and hate you as a core mechanical effect. Mortals who literally have God on their side. In a system where any damage roll can kill you outright and any wound can render you bed ridden.

The mechanics don't constrain you, the setting does.

I'm really not sure what you point about summoning, healing and specialization is about? I have seen a "generallist Magi" but his goal was to be good enough at all the arts to train apprentices from day one and just churn out a linage (and you know a few back up pre-generated Magi pc's doesn't hurt) - and he got some crazy potent lab work done due to it. "Lab grad student slave labour" is a thing in the setting that works really well.

[TrexPushups]

Party imbalance works fine - I'd argue its not the game design but player expectations that make it an issue. Its the endless debates I've seen about which class is "Best" and which is "Worst" with the expectation the answer matters. It only matters if you decide it does. *edit - I'm not sure but I cannot recall anything in the 5th edition (or any) book saying the PC's are of, or are expected to be of, roughly equal power?

I've transplanted Ars Magica troope play into both Exalted and D&D with zero issue (actually its bloody brilliant on Exalted, but oh well). The D&D party I'd been running for 3 years hit level 15 - top of the game, in the "top 50 sentient bad arses in the world" and I ran out of "setting reasonable week by week" stuff to challenge them with. So we switched them to "long term goal PC's" (over throwing the Mad Priest in the North, sealing the porthole to hell, stopping the pesky demi-gods curse they unleashed (the Tarrasque), managing the thieves guilds and the like) and started a stack of new scrub PC's and some NPC class goobers to go do the parties busy work. Same adventure formula (a home base, one level 15 doom PC, 1-2 second to fifth level adventurers, 2 or 3 adepts experts and warriors expected per adventure) but D&D. It worked to keep us all entertained. I may be crazy but I'm pretty sure thats the goal?

I've seen several significant level variance (level 1-8 specifically) parties work beautify. Do I make this as my standard in D&D? No. Its more work encounter design wise. But it works fine. It works better in 5th than in any of the old editions if anything.

Regarding the magi in the mentioned ars magica game being unfazed by a confrontation with a bunch of "mundanes" - I'd need to know more, but as it appears I'd argue its likely the DM or the party was doing something wrong. Yes we can slaughter them all - EASILY. Hell a combat focused companion with a bow can wipe out a small village in a few minutes, let alone a magi who can set the whole valley on fire (at character generation). But the powers that be both in and out of the order frown on magi killing people in large number - its bad for your rep, True Faith can mess you up and the wizards of Europe are stupidly out numbered by said mortals. Mortals that naturally distrust and hate you as a core mechanical effect. Mortals who literally have God on their side. In a system where any damage roll can kill you outright and any wound can render you bed ridden.

The mechanics don't constrain you, the setting does.

I'm really not sure what you point about summoning, healing and specialization is about? I have seen a "generallist Magi" but his goal was to be good enough at all the arts to train apprentices from day one and just churn out a linage (and you know a few back up pre-generated Magi pc's doesn't hurt) - and he got some crazy potent lab work done due to it. "Lab grad student slave labour" is a thing in the setting that works really well.


That sounds awesome.

[silveralen]

the difference is that at high levels, casters can do amazing things, some of which can even end encounters on their own... things that they could never have dreamed of doing at level 1 or even at level 9, when they were approximately equal to the non-casters... and the non-casters mostly just do the same thing they did, except a little bit better or more often.

What's interesting to me is that casting meteor swarm once a day is seen as doing something new, despite being able to cast fireball and burning hands at previous levels (or use actual mini meteors). What is mass suggestion but a scaled up suggestion? A cleric can stabilize a dieing person with a cantrip, then heal them, then bring them back from the dead shortly after they die, then later basically bring them back whenever.

It is always just doing the same thing except better or more often. Now, if you think the scale of growth differs between them at higher levels that's one thing, but what you described is exactly how all classes grow.


a level 20 fighter gets an extra attack. a level 20 druid gets a floating pool of nigh-limitless amount of HP that comes with tons of utility attached on top of being able to cast spells that can CC enemies in a huge area or summon powerful minions or create droughts that can bring nations to their knees.

Well first off, you just compared fighter's level 20 feature to druid's features at 2, 4 and 8 (for shifting utility), 18 (for casting while shifted), 20 (for infinite shifts), the moon druid lvl 2 feature (for shifting as a bonus action, the only way to possibly have that pool of HP be particularly large or refreshed quickly), and all the spells they gained for the last 20 levels. You compared a single feature of a class to the majority of another class.

Let's compare everything fighter gains over 20 levels to a wizard being able to cast two level 3 spells per short rest (their capstone). Then fighter looks OP as all heck.

I'm not even arguing about the issue right now, I'm just saying the comparison you made is a perfect example of the sort of fallacy this thread is talking about.


even within combat, the non-casters fall behind. a mass suggestion spell cast by a high level caster can flat-out end an encounter if you target an enemy's weak saves, on top of making the monsters in that encounter go do something the caster wants done for the next year. a simulacrum of the warrior could be made, gaining every ability the warrior has with the only drawback being lower HP. or, alternately, they could not waste the spell and instead create a copy of themselves or another caster and gain a massive amount of control both in and out of combat. they can't necessarily instawin every encounter, but they absolutely can make a huge difference in most encounters, and sometimes they do pretty much instawin the encounter because of how saves scale (DC goes up with level, your saving throw only goes up if it's one that you're proficient in... by the time proficiency is maxed, spell DCs are 19 for anything that cares to invest, saving throws are made at +0 for monsters that have a low attribute and no proficiency, meaning they only have a 10% chance to make it).

A caster can end an encounter with mass suggestion,but it so incredibly unlikely to be that simple. It might trivialize the encounter quite a bit, but the same could be said of an action surging fighter. Simulacrum (cast through wish, the only way to make it useful), is the tip top of what they can possibly do and the actual abilities they gain are badly worded (it can't heal or gain spells via rest but other abilities aren't explicitly mentioned in this regard, a major oversight of the RAW I fully admit).

A high level fighter should be making a huge impact in every combat as well. The fact he has short rest/at will abilities primarily means the wizard can peak higher, but the fighter has more spikes.

[Wartex1]

What's interesting to me is that casting meteor swarm once a day is seen as doing something new, despite being able to cast fireball and burning hands at previous levels (or use actual mini meteors). What is mass suggestion but a scaled up suggestion? A cleric can stabilize a dieing person with a cantrip, then heal them, then bring them back from the dead shortly after they die, then later basically bring them back whenever.

It is always just doing the same thing except better or more often. Now, if you think the scale of growth differs between them at higher levels that's one thing, but what you described is exactly how all classes grow.

This post has now inspired me to make either a full caster or half-caster that only learns buff/debuff spells, not being able to dish out any damage directly with spells.

[silveralen]

This post has now inspired me to make either a full caster or half-caster that only learns buff/debuff spells, not being able to dish out any damage directly with spells.

Why did my post do that? I'm confused.

I mean, that's still the same thing within this context. Greater invisibility and enhance attribute later give way to things like foresight. Alter self becomes polymorph which gives way to true polymorph/shapechange. So did you simply not think of it like this before?

[SharkForce]

casters do get to do their old tricks better, like replacing fireball with meteor swarm. they also get to do new tricks, too. that's the problem. they can turn a pile of scrap metal into a brand-new suit of armour. they can transform a rock into a powerful ally. they can summon or control more powerful creatures that they could never have hoped to summon or control before, no matter how well they rolled.

if the fighter was still using shove, but could shove 3 people at once, or could shove someone so hard they couldn't get back up the next round, or could even just shove someone 15 feet instead of 5, i'd say they were adding new tricks to their shove. things that no level 1 fighter could do, no matter how well they roll. but they can't do that. they just shove someone exactly like they did at level 1, just with a higher modifier and more attacks to do it with. a wizard's mass suggestion, on the other hand, does not require concentration, can last for up to a year, and can target 12 creatures... each of which alone represents something a regular suggestion spell will never do. they haven't just gotten better at something they already could do (although they've done that too; their DC is higher on a suggestion). they've learned to do something new that no level 3 wizard could hope to accomplish. if you ask a level 3 wizard to suggest to 12 people that they should work for you for a year, the answer is not "oh, that's going to be very difficult", it is "oh, that's going to be absolutely impossible". if you ask a level 1 fighter to shove a CR 23 mutated bear off a cliff it's standing next to, well, that's going to be very difficult... but he could do it. he wouldn't get as many attempts as a level 20 fighter, and he wouldn't have as high of a modifier as a level 20 fighter, but it just might happen.

[Wartex1]

Why did my post do that? I'm confused.

I mean, that's still the same thing within this context. Greater invisibility and enhance attribute later give way to things like foresight. Alter self becomes polymorph which gives way to true polymorph/shapechange. So did you simply not think of it like this before?

Well, my idea was mainly to counter the "Just getting better versions of previous spells" idea by having each spell, regardless of level, have a unique effect.

I'd probably have to go half-caster because of running out of spell ideas.

[Malifice]

The change is one of preference. It's one of strategy. It's one of perception.
But it is not a difference in value.
It can subjectively make a difference, but it makes zero objective difference.

Yes it is. Youre wrong. From a purely mathmatical, probability logic basis.


The difference between 19 and 20 on a d20 is 5%.
The difference between 10 and 11 on a d20 is 5%.
A +1 is equivalent to a 5% value, no matter what the target number begins as.

Google the 'monty hall problem'. Prepare to have your mind blown.

[silveralen]

casters do get to do their old tricks better, like replacing fireball with meteor swarm. they also get to do new tricks, too. that's the problem. they can turn a pile of scrap metal into a brand-new suit of armour. they can transform a rock into a powerful ally. they can summon or control more powerful creatures that they could never have hoped to summon or control before, no matter how well they rolled.

if the fighter was still using shove, but could shove 3 people at once, or could shove someone so hard they couldn't get back up the next round, or could even just shove someone 15 feet instead of 5, i'd say they were adding new tricks to their shove. things that no level 1 fighter could do, no matter how well they roll. but they can't do that. they just shove someone exactly like they did at level 1, just with a higher modifier and more attacks to do it with. a wizard's mass suggestion, on the other hand, does not require concentration, can last for up to a year, and can target 12 creatures... each of which alone represents something a regular suggestion spell will never do. they haven't just gotten better at something they already could do (although they've done that too; their DC is higher on a suggestion). they've learned to do something new that no level 3 wizard could hope to accomplish. if you ask a level 3 wizard to suggest to 12 people that they should work for you for a year, the answer is not "oh, that's going to be very difficult", it is "oh, that's going to be absolutely impossible". if you ask a level 1 fighter to shove a CR 23 mutated bear off a cliff it's standing next to, well, that's going to be very difficult... but he could do it. he wouldn't get as many attempts as a level 20 fighter, and he wouldn't have as high of a modifier as a level 20 fighter, but it just might happen.

Again, you are just talking about things they could always do to more limited degrees. Being able to summon a more powerful ally or create one form rock is simply a more powerful variation on being able to summon weaker animals or elemental creatures. Destroying armor, in the sense of reducing protection or actual physical destruction? They have had things like shatter, heat metal, or or blindess/faerie fire to perform variations on that. It's just an improved version.

Well, guess what? At level 1 a fighter can shove someone five feet. At level 3, a fighter can shove someone 10 feet while still making an attack (BM). At level 5, a fighter could shove someone 15-20 feet using two attacks, or shove two people 5-10. Which continues scaling based on how many attacks they have and how often they can use superiority dice (or action surge come to think of it).

To continue your example, if the bear was 15 ft from the edge of the cliff and it needed to go over the cliff this turn, no the lvl 1 fighter couldn't. By level 3 he could, but he would have to action surge and use a superiority dice. By level five they only need to use a dice or action surge, not both. By level 11 they can do it with no resources requires.

These are short rest/at will abilities so the change in scale is less pronounced because the ability can be used more often. You can make a case that the actual ratios are wrong, but they both scale in the same fashion.

[druid91]

Not only are casters still superior to mundanes, but they've given up on pretending otherwise. It used to be, casters were good at some things, and mundanes were good at others. Casters ended up superior because the things they were good at were much more useful than the things mundanes were good at, but mundanes still had things to do. Now, casters and mundanes are both equally mediocre at what mundanes used to do, but casters can also do a bunch of other things. What casters do now is less powerful than what they used to do, but now they have what mundanes do on top of that. Sure, you have fewer spell slots now... But what does that matter, when you can do as much damage as a mundane by using a cantrip?

Ha. Funny.

In our present game, you kinda need the unlimited use cantrips to not be completely useless. They are nowhere NEAR as much damage as a mundane puts out.

I as the wizard, throw a firebolt and do 1d10 fire damage.

Our fighter on the other hand, swings his sword and does enough damage to kill not one but two enemies. In a single attack.

[charcoalninja]

Healing in combat is a universally terrible tactical decision unless you're bringing characters back into the fight. You should focus on killing or disabling enemy threats first and foremost. Wasting your heals in combat means the enemy has more turns to damage your party, and you have no spell slots left over to bring back fallen party members when you need them.

Which is something I HATE. 4e made in combat healing fun, awesome, and POWERFUL. Aparantly we decided that was a bad playstyle to have...

[silveralen]

Which is something I HATE. 4e made in combat healing fun, awesome, and POWERFUL. Aparantly we decided that was a bad playstyle to have...

It only worked due to the lenght of combats in 4e, and the healing merely made them last even longer. Given that they wanted faster combat in 5e, healing in combat except in dire circumstances had to go.

Considering that 5e's faster paced combat is one of the things a lot of people routinely praise about the edition, it seems like it was a pretty decent call.

[kaoskonfety]

Yes it is. Youre wrong. From a purely mathmatical, probability logic basis.



Google the 'monty hall problem'. Prepare to have your mind blown.

The Monty Hall problem supports his 5% argument. Also he tapped out of the thread a while back.

Choose a number on the die as the threshold for success. You are +1 replacing "choosing correctly" in the monty hall problem.

In the array of possibilities the result is either a success or a failure. This +1, your "guess" that the +1 will matter, matters exactly 5% of the time. No matter what number on the die is the threshold (assuming no automatic failure/success or other oddities "off the dieroll" mechanics).

Oh it increases the percentage of rolls you succeed or fail on *relative to not having the +1* a variant amount. So a +1 when you need a 20 "doubles your odds!"

But the adjustment matters just 5% of the time - the odds the +1 "guessed" right.

For an example in extremes do you feel "doubling your odds" at the lottery by giving you a +1 on your 1 in many billions gives you a significant increase in your odds of winning? Well ya, now its 2 in many billions... oh wait. That's a 100% increase in my odds to win - and I don't care. It will matter exactly "one increment of a very massive amount"

[charcoalninja]

It only worked due to the lenght of combats in 4e, and the healing merely made them last even longer. Given that they wanted faster combat in 5e, healing in combat except in dire circumstances had to go.

Considering that 5e's faster paced combat is one of the things a lot of people routinely praise about the edition, it seems like it was a pretty decent call.

However in combat healing still exists, and players are still going to spend actions on those spells because they hope to help their allies in battle to not die, and there's even entire subclasses devoted to it (life cleric). So since the options exist, and are expected to be used, those players are going to use their actions on them anyway and not spend their time killing people because they want to buff and heall; it makes no sense to structure the game as a glorified bait and switch and make in combat healing suck as terribly as it does.

[SharkForce]

the difference is that we're not talking about some massive amount. we're talking about a fairly small amount. when you need a 20 to make a save, it is a huge difference. it sounds no larger than the difference between 10 and 11, but it is a huge difference in reliability.

[silveralen]

However in combat healing still exists, and players are still going to spend actions on those spells because they hope to help their allies in battle to not die, and there's even entire subclasses devoted to it (life cleric). So since the options exist, and are expected to be used, those players are going to use their actions on them anyway and not spend their time killing people because they want to buff and heall; it makes no sense to structure the game as a glorified bait and switch and make in combat healing suck as terribly as it does.

I mean... maybe I'm giving too much credit, but isn't the idea that killing enemies prevents damage, so healing should only be done when needed not the moment some takes damage fairly obvious?

The life cleric literally buffs your weapon damage. So that should help hint. Also, BA healing spells exist to boot, and buffs are often worth the time spent.

So I guess I'm not sure I see the complaint. Spamming healing spells is bad, but using them when teammates are weak is good. Buffing isn't needed for every fight, but can often be worth the time in harder battles.

[kaoskonfety]

the difference is that we're not talking about some massive amount. we're talking about a fairly small amount. when you need a 20 to make a save, it is a huge difference. it sounds no larger than the difference between 10 and 11, but it is a huge difference in reliability.

ok - a D4 "save"

Say only a 4 succeeds - add a +1 - doubling my odds - 1 in 4 times matters, 25% of the time it matters

Say a 3 or a 4 succeeds - add a +1, 33% increase in my relative odds - 1 in 4 times it matters, 25% of the time it matters.

I recommend people step away from multiplication and your preconceptions and go back to addition and re-learn how to count - this is NOT an attack - my Finite Math teacher all those misty years ago started his 12th grade class with addressing the collected 17 and 18 year olds (who were also in his calculus class..) with "Today I'm going to show you how to count, none of you know how, you have all been doing it wrong.".

It was a good class.

[Malifice]

he tapped out of the thread a while back.

No he didnt.


For an example in extremes do you feel "doubling your odds" at the lottery by giving you a +1 on your 1 in many billions gives you a significant increase in your odds of winning? Well ya, now its 2 in many billions... oh wait. That's a 100% increase in my odds to win - and I don't care. It will matter exactly "one increment of a very massive amount"

Youre wrong. Its been pointed out to you why, but you seem to be one of those dudes that cant accept it when youre wrong.

A +1 chance (when you need to roll a 20 to save) doubles your chances of success. You now save on a 19 OR a 20.

A +1 chance to save (when you need a 2+) doesnt affect the roll at all. If you already needed a 3+ then it only adds just under 5 percent to your chances of success.

Its counterintuitive, but its correct. Run a computer simulation if you dont believe me. Im not going to argue it with you.

[silveralen]

Okay, let's look at it another way. How long can you keep someone pinned in place with hold person:

Base needs to roll a 10 to save, with +1 that's 11. So the hold person spell keeps them held at least one turn 50% of the time, two turns 25% of the time, and three turns 12.5% of the time. WIth an increased DC, 55%, 30.25, and 16.6 %. That's a change of 5%, 5%, and 4%.

Now go with 19 and 20. 90%, 81%, 72.9% vs .95%, 90.25% and 85.7%. That's an increase of 5%, 9%, and 13%.

So yes, +1 can matter more or less for consecutive saves at least, which is a decent portion. The same goes for multiple targets. If you want three enemies to fail there save, a +1 might not help much on a 50/50 shot. It helps a lot on a 2/20 shot.

[Malifice]

So yes, +1 can matter more or less for consecutive saves at least, which is a decent portion.

+1 also doesnt matter at all once you need a 21+ to make the save or will only fail it on a 0 or worse.

[silveralen]

+1 also doesnt matter at all once you need a 21+ to make the save or will only fail it on a 0 or worse.

Well... yes obviously. I'm trying not to feel insulted by the fact you felt you needed to point that out to me.

[kaoskonfety]

No he didnt.



Youre wrong. Its been pointed out to you why, but you seem to be one of those dudes that cant accept it when youre wrong.

A +1 chance (when you need to roll a 20 to save) doubles your chances of success. You now save on a 19 OR a 20.

A +1 chance to save (when you need a 2+) doesnt affect the roll at all. If you already needed a 3+ then it only adds just under 5 percent to your chances of success.

Its counterintuitive, but its correct. Run a computer simulation if you dont believe me. Im not going to argue it with you.

Reviewing, I'm very confused what the exact point of contention *IS* now.

The +1 on the d20 at 20 target number to succeed doubles you odds, this +1 affects 5% of rolls bringing your "actual chance" to 10% - do we agree?

You are talking about the change in the odds of success at *TASK* with and without the bonus, I'm talking about the odds the +1 (specifically) affecting the result?

[SharkForce]

Reviewing, I'm very confused what the exact point of contention *IS* now.

The +1 on the d20 at 20 target number to succeed doubles you odds, this +1 affects 5% of rolls bringing your "actual chance" to 10% - do we agree?

You are talking about the change in the odds of success at *TASK* with and without the bonus, I'm talking about the odds the +1 (specifically) affecting the result?

as I said earlier, both statistics are correct. the difference is that one of those statistics does a poor job of explaining how much of a difference the +1 makes. in both cases, the +1 makes a difference 5% of the time. in one of those instances, it is a 100% increase in how often you will succeed, however, while in the other it's comparatively small, where you will succeed 10% more often.

it isn't a huge deal on an individual roll. but it is a huge deal when considered over many rolls. the hold person spell is a great way to demonstrate that, because you can target several people and each one gets to make a save every round. and there is a world of difference between 2 enemies being free as compared to 1 or 0. the reliability increase is massive. your ability to take advantage of multiple enemies being paralyzed is dramatically increased by increasing the save DC from 19 to 20 for enemies that have +0 to their roll.

if it was going from one in a million to two in a million, no big deal. but it isn't. it's going from one in twenty to two in twenty, or one in ten... if you've held 5 targets and it takes one round per target for everyone to kill them off, there's a fairly good chance one will break free by the second round for one in ten (meaning you probably have to deal with that one, possibly taking away from your ability to focus on the remaining paralyzed ones), with a second breaking free on average by the last round... whereas with 1/20, you're looking at a fairly good chance of none of them getting free before you've killed them all. in both cases, you've made a huge difference, but in the latter, you've basically just won the encounter.

[MrStabby]

Personally I like things like healing word (stylistically if not specifically the spell). It isnt that you heal instead of doing damage but that you heal as well as doing damage but using a bonus action. Add in some healing as a reaction or whatever and you can potentially have much more interesting turns than popping a big heal spell to keep people in the fight.

[Icewraith]

Personally I like things like healing word (stylistically if not specifically the spell). It isnt that you heal instead of doing damage but that you heal as well as doing damage but using a bonus action. Add in some healing as a reaction or whatever and you can potentially have much more interesting turns than popping a big heal spell to keep people in the fight.

It sort of depends on the fights you're running. The 1/turn spell limit makes the value of a Cleric's aoe heal skyrocket in comparison to Healing Word, in fights with things like dragons that tend to two-shot characters on a failed saving throw. You use it in the same situations you'd use Healing word, only you don't do your Cantrip or standard attack or whatever, and you also heal a reasonable chunk of damage from other party members on top of bringing anyone currently making death saves into the positives and back on their feet.

It doesn't seem like that great a use of an action until you realize that on top of bringing a character back into the fight, the aoe heal also pushed most of the party's health back up to the point that succeeding their save against the next breath weapon attack will result in them surviving the attack, instead of KOing them anyways.

I don't know about you guys, but it seems like between legendary actions and simple geometry, it's really hard to come up with positioning that doesn't result in most of the party getting hit with a line breath weapon.

[kaoskonfety]

as I said earlier, both statistics are correct. the difference is that one of those statistics does a poor job of explaining how much of a difference the +1 makes. in both cases, the +1 makes a difference 5% of the time. in one of those instances, it is a 100% increase in how often you will succeed, however, while in the other it's comparatively small, where you will succeed 10% more often.

it isn't a huge deal on an individual roll. but it is a huge deal when considered over many rolls. the hold person spell is a great way to demonstrate that, because you can target several people and each one gets to make a save every round. and there is a world of difference between 2 enemies being free as compared to 1 or 0. the reliability increase is massive. your ability to take advantage of multiple enemies being paralyzed is dramatically increased by increasing the save DC from 19 to 20 for enemies that have +0 to their roll.

if it was going from one in a million to two in a million, no big deal. but it isn't. it's going from one in twenty to two in twenty, or one in ten... if you've held 5 targets and it takes one round per target for everyone to kill them off, there's a fairly good chance one will break free by the second round for one in ten (meaning you probably have to deal with that one, possibly taking away from your ability to focus on the remaining paralyzed ones), with a second breaking free on average by the last round... whereas with 1/20, you're looking at a fairly good chance of none of them getting free before you've killed them all. in both cases, you've made a huge difference, but in the latter, you've basically just won the encounter.

Yes, they could be seen as misleading. There just seems to be some strong disagreement on which is misleading.

I totally agree the more rolls there are the more the +1 will matter, but its because 5% of 1 is smaller than 5% of 200, not from some arcane calculus. I totally agree that at the upper and lower ends you "notice the +1 more" because the chance of success or failure drops the largest *relative* increments. You get into "almost certain success or failure" over several rolls.

Its the claim its complicated that bugs me the most I think. I have no more need to model this on a computer than to count to 20. I suspect this is also what was getting under Calebrus's skin.

[SharkForce]

if it isn't complicated, then why are people having a hard time understanding it?

in any event, you're talking about the impact on a single roll. that's nice and all, but I don't care about the impact on a roll. I care about the impact on the encounter. and having that +1 DC makes a hell of a lot more difference to the encounter at the end of the d20 than it does in the middle.

[charcoalninja]

I mean... maybe I'm giving too much credit, but isn't the idea that killing enemies prevents damage, so healing should only be done when needed not the moment some takes damage fairly obvious?

The life cleric literally buffs your weapon damage. So that should help hint. Also, BA healing spells exist to boot, and buffs are often worth the time spent.

So I guess I'm not sure I see the complaint. Spamming healing spells is bad, but using them when teammates are weak is good. Buffing isn't needed for every fight, but can often be worth the time in harder battles.

It doesn't have to be spamming heals, but rather spamming support abilities. For example. Sacred Flame in 4e delt a small amount of damage but gave one target within line of sight temporary hit points or a saving throw. That directly acts as damage mitigation and condition removal, which are pillars of the healer/support character idea. Right now if you want to play a character who uses everything they can to bolster and support your allies you have very limited options to make effective use of your actions. You can burn your concentration slot on Bless which is awesome, but then you're left with healing spells that heal a small fraction of the damage your allies can be expected to take, and have a painful range on them to boot. Cure wounds heals 1d8+spellcasting mod, while Inflict wounds starts at 3d10, it's extremely frustrating and a waste to take a very popular playstyle and reduce it to being a trap option just because.

As it stands now, barring cases where the initiative would allow the monsters to gang pound your party member, it is a far better use of your healing spellslots to only heal your allies after they've been reduced to 0, since it ensures that the overflow damage that is guarenteed to be vastly more than your single spell can heal, is ignored rather than having to heal through it all in an uphill battle.

For example. If my fighter takes 20 damage while he has 45 hp, I have to heal through 20 damage. If he takes 20 damage while at 5hp, I only have to heal through 5hp of damage as the other 15 he just took are wasted. This creates a ridiculous scenario of the healer not helping anyone until they're unconscious and wake a moling people just to be effective.

[Icewraith]

It doesn't have to be spamming heals, but rather spamming support abilities. For example. Sacred Flame in 4e delt a small amount of damage but gave one target within line of sight temporary hit points or a saving throw. That directly acts as damage mitigation and condition removal, which are pillars of the healer/support character idea. Right now if you want to play a character who uses everything they can to bolster and support your allies you have very limited options to make effective use of your actions. You can burn your concentration slot on Bless which is awesome, but then you're left with healing spells that heal a small fraction of the damage your allies can be expected to take, and have a painful range on them to boot. Cure wounds heals 1d8+spellcasting mod, while Inflict wounds starts at 3d10, it's extremely frustrating and a waste to take a very popular playstyle and reduce it to being a trap option just because.

As it stands now, barring cases where the initiative would allow the monsters to gang pound your party member, it is a far better use of your healing spellslots to only heal your allies after they've been reduced to 0, since it ensures that the overflow damage that is guarenteed to be vastly more than your single spell can heal, is ignored rather than having to heal through it all in an uphill battle.

For example. If my fighter takes 20 damage while he has 45 hp, I have to heal through 20 damage. If he takes 20 damage while at 5hp, I only have to heal through 5hp of damage as the other 15 he just took are wasted. This creates a ridiculous scenario of the healer not helping anyone until they're unconscious and wake a moling people just to be effective.

This isn't quite the full picture. There are four important points related to a character's HP. There's full, zero, current, and the damage threshold above which a character is unlikely to be KOed before their turn. Healing a character from zero to anything is effective because they potentially get their turn back. Healing a character from below the threshold to above the threshold is effective because you've granted them another turn. Healing a character from above the threshold to max isn't an effective use of spell slots, nor is healing a character from below the threshold to still below the threshold.

So, healing the fighter from 5 to ~21 (you usually don't know the exact amount of damage that's going to be kicked out in a round, which is why the threshold's value is murky, but no one should deny it exists) HP in the example would probably be a good use of spell slots, especially if you can hit other people with the same spell.

Edit: unless you're reasonably sure you can end the encounter with a spell of the same or lower level.

[TheDeadlyShoe]

I hate mmo-style healbots. It turns fights into a numbers game more than any other mechanic. and it turns 'play optimal' fights into a horrible circus of enemies chasing healers while damage chases enemies.

/ruined pvp in so many MMOs...

[Lord Raziere]

Party imbalance works fine - I'd argue its not the game design but player expectations that make it an issue. Its the endless debates I've seen about which class is "Best" and which is "Worst" with the expectation the answer matters. It only matters if you decide it does. *edit - I'm not sure but I cannot recall anything in the 5th edition (or any) book saying the PC's are of, or are expected to be of, roughly equal power?


Yes, but they never I recall them addressing that their power is unequal either. The default assumption of any player is that we're all equal in playing a game. If you don't point out that the games classes aren't an equal playing field- people are going to assume that they are equal, and treat them as such, just like how players in videogames are designed to be equal starting out.

Therefore, if the expectations of the players are wrong its because the game does not acknowledge that. The people writing it are not acknowledging that. and from that, three options emerge:

1. you can try and get the official game people to acknowledge this and thus correct it to point this out and adjust expectations or fix it to fit expectations. (doesn't seem to be working so far)
2. you can try and homebrew a class that meets expectations that you want. (doesn't seem to be working either, and even when it does, DM's are often leery of homebrew)
3. go find another game (which requires the player to adjust to completely different expectations in other areas they might not like just to fit another expectation, requires work to learn a new system, when they might just want DnD but with one change to fit a certain expectation)

so all options here to fix that, seem pretty difficult. and even if you homebrew a class to meet you expectations, the DM might have different expectations of the class and screw it up anyways, and so on and so forth, there are many good reasons why people don't do these options and just want one thing changed rather than trying to get their voices heard to developers that don't seem to be listening properly, have to find an entirely new game just for one little change or homebrew something that will take time to build, especially if your not good at homebrewing or mechanics.

sure I can adjust my expectations to the game, but those may not be the expectations I want to have in my game! sure, I can adjust my expectations of the Rogue so they are not as awesome as I first thought, but that doesn't mean I want to have that expectation or play it out.

[kaoskonfety]

Yes, but they never I recall them addressing that their power is unequal either. The default assumption of any player is that we're all equal in playing a game. If you don't point out that the games classes aren't an equal playing field- people are going to assume that they are equal, and treat them as such, just like how players in videogames are designed to be equal starting out.

Therefore, if the expectations of the players are wrong its because the game does not acknowledge that. The people writing it are not acknowledging that. and from that, three options emerge:

1. you can try and get the official game people to acknowledge this and thus correct it to point this out and adjust expectations or fix it to fit expectations. (doesn't seem to be working so far)
2. you can try and homebrew a class that meets expectations that you want. (doesn't seem to be working either, and even when it does, DM's are often leery of homebrew)
3. go find another game (which requires the player to adjust to completely different expectations in other areas they might not like just to fit another expectation, requires work to learn a new system, when they might just want DnD but with one change to fit a certain expectation)

so all options here to fix that, seem pretty difficult. and even if you homebrew a class to meet you expectations, the DM might have different expectations of the class and screw it up anyways, and so on and so forth, there are many good reasons why people don't do these options and just want one thing changed rather than trying to get their voices heard to developers that don't seem to be listening properly, have to find an entirely new game just for one little change or homebrew something that will take time to build, especially if your not good at homebrewing or mechanics.

sure I can adjust my expectations to the game, but those may not be the expectations I want to have in my game! sure, I can adjust my expectations of the Rogue so they are not as awesome as I first thought, but that doesn't mean I want to have that expectation or play it out.

Broad strokes I agree - they clearly have made an effort to line things up, combat power wise at least, a bit more and this to an extent on its own drives expectation. But I really can't think of any other table top RPG that the player base assumes or even attempts to drive towards "we are all roughly equally good at killing". Which appears to be the main measure I keep seeing at D&D discussion on "balance". Frankly I think they have come as close as you can expect given the diversity they are trying the get in.

As for the Players should all be equal - utter agreement, and "Players" includes the DM (storyteller, host, game master, narrator, sucker cleaning the dishes once the game ends). I think we will still split on if it is necessary for all the Characters to be equal.

To your options to fix it, a few thoughts/comments?
1) You will never get the game to "meet expectation" - there are frankly too many of us and we are all whiny little so-and-so's demanding the whole game fit "our vision". The developers cannot readily admit to any perceived imbalance as this is showing your jugular to the wolves, both the wolves who want it changed and the ones who want it to stay the same. Enough people demand balance they also cannot say they are not striving for it, there are more wolves. So we wind up where we see them now - careful statements, occasional nudging and a few new "totally optional options"
2) This is a table by table challenge we are not likely to correctly address here - I see nothing wrong with the game out of the box (its not a gift from the gods tho, not by a fair shot), others seriously object to large chunks of it. I have no objections to homebrew and will hear almost anything out (often in disbelief), others are all RAW all day.
3) I've found LOTS of games, in LOTS of formats. The only table top ones I've seen that are "fair" either have zero or near zero rules, utterly flat rules (limited to nil character variance) or such a labyrinth of rules it takes days to dig out of the tutorials. And the most fun I've had? A game where bringing up the rules (the broken, utterly unfair morass of mostly arbitrary rules) can be punishable by death. Don't worry though, you have 5 more clones...

[silveralen]

It doesn't have to be spamming heals, but rather spamming support abilities. For example. Sacred Flame in 4e delt a small amount of damage but gave one target within line of sight temporary hit points or a saving throw. That directly acts as damage mitigation and condition removal, which are pillars of the healer/support character idea. Right now if you want to play a character who uses everything they can to bolster and support your allies you have very limited options to make effective use of your actions. You can burn your concentration slot on Bless which is awesome, but then you're left with healing spells that heal a small fraction of the damage your allies can be expected to take, and have a painful range on them to boot. Cure wounds heals 1d8+spellcasting mod, while Inflict wounds starts at 3d10, it's extremely frustrating and a waste to take a very popular playstyle and reduce it to being a trap option just because.

Bard can play that way now. Viscous mockery for low damage+debuff, buffs/debuffs with slots, healing spells including bonus action healing.

Yes, you can't heal through all damage. You couldn't do that in 4e, that's why warlord was generally considered the best leader despite cleric being the best healer. It'd be awful if that wasn't true, it'd cause combat to drag and become tedious with everyone chasing down healers and focusing them as it was the only way to end combat in any time. It'd be miserable.

[Xetheral]

Viscous mockery

Note to self: include a gelatinous cube with bard levels as an antagonist in my next campaign. It will be terrifying.

[JAL_1138]

Note to self: include a gelatinous cube with bard levels as an antagonist in my next campaign. It will be terrifying.

Found this on RPG.net:

http://farm3.staticflickr.com/2474/4040168246_4b3b0ff2c8.jpg

[Xetheral]

Found this on RPG.net:

That is just so... perfect.

[charcoalninja]

Bard can play that way now. Viscous mockery for low damage+debuff, buffs/debuffs with slots, healing spells including bonus action healing.

Yes, you can't heal through all damage. You couldn't do that in 4e, that's why warlord was generally considered the best leader despite cleric being the best healer. It'd be awful if that wasn't true, it'd cause combat to drag and become tedious with everyone chasing down healers and focusing them as it was the only way to end combat in any time. It'd be miserable.

That's right I had forgotten about Vicious mockery, which is ridiculous because it's a staple of mine on my Tome Warlocks lol.

But I disagree completely on 4e healing. With many different leaders you could most certainly keep up with the damage output and since your efforts were resetting the monster's progress toward killing your party to 0 every time, it was incredibly gratifying. My Cleric/Paladin/Hospitaller in 4e was an incredible healer and when we played I felt like I really WAS the leader of the group because my actions and presence turned everyone else around me into unstoppable killing machines.

I will say that you've convinced me to do some more digging into seeing what sort of leaders I can build in the current 5e ruleset as there's obviously some spells and features I've overlooked. Finding a solid 4e healing character would make me VERY pleased indeed. If I can't have my Warlord, man I'd love to have my Lynchpin.

edit: Thinking it'd have to be some sort of crazy multiclassed combination in order to really shine. Cleric/Warlock is tempting because of Life Cleric features, and Fiend Warlock abilities being able to soak transfrerred damage via False Life at will, Dark One's Blessing and Warding Bond (think that's the name of the spell). Paladin 6/Life Cleric 11/Warlock 3? Would be nutty at high level perhaps, but lordy getting there. Taking Inspirational Leader (the temp hp on a short rest feat), Heavy Armour mastery, Healer, and maybe even magical Initiate for feats... don't know if I get that many... more investigation is certainly due.

[Knaight]

Found this on RPG.net:

http://farm3.staticflickr.com/2474/4040168246_4b3b0ff2c8.jpg

Good old Rusty and Co. The character is more rogue-like than bard-like though, as other glorious panels (e.g. it swinging from a grappling hook) indicate.

[JAL_1138]

Good old Rusty and Co. The character is more rogue-like than bard-like though, as other glorious panels (e.g. it swinging from a grappling hook) indicate.

Or the time it Sneak Attacked from above in an alleyway.

[Talakeal]

The Monty Hall problem supports his 5% argument. Also he tapped out of the thread a while back.

Choose a number on the die as the threshold for success. You are +1 replacing "choosing correctly" in the monty hall problem.

In the array of possibilities the result is either a success or a failure. This +1, your "guess" that the +1 will matter, matters exactly 5% of the time. No matter what number on the die is the threshold (assuming no automatic failure/success or other oddities "off the dieroll" mechanics).

Oh it increases the percentage of rolls you succeed or fail on *relative to not having the +1* a variant amount. So a +1 when you need a 20 "doubles your odds!"

But the adjustment matters just 5% of the time - the odds the +1 "guessed" right.

For an example in extremes do you feel "doubling your odds" at the lottery by giving you a +1 on your 1 in many billions gives you a significant increase in your odds of winning? Well ya, now its 2 in many billions... oh wait. That's a 100% increase in my odds to win - and I don't care. It will matter exactly "one increment of a very massive amount"

Right, we aren't talking about 1 out of millions or billions, we are talking about 1 out 20.

Also, even if it was 1,000,000 to 1 vs. 500,000 to one, if you were buying hundreds of thousands or millions of lottery tickets that actually would be significant.

I remember reading an article a few years back about how a state's lottery actually had favorable odds, but it was still incredibly unlikely to win, so a group of people pooled their money to buy tens of thousands of tickets and split the profits and won a significant amount as a result.