I want to playtest and rebalance the Unearthed Arcana Things

[BRKNdevil]

In a few weeks i'll finally graduate with a bachelors and finally have somewhat more time to do something other then deprive myself of sleep. So I want to playtest some of the things in unearthed arcana and rebalance the things suggested in terms of relative power to the things in the player's handbook. I was wondering how i should go about this. I figure that i should probably run 3 ish encounters at 5, 10, 15, and 20 in a party of 4 with a party of both player's handbook characters and unearthed arcana characters. I was wondering if anyone was interested and what other standardizations i should make to get as decent of a idea for power balance.

The reason i'm doing this is because using just the statistics on paper doesn't seem to be working as a way to gauge actual ability of a character concept.

[AmbientRaven]

To test things having one instance is a poor data set. You would want to run the encounters 10-20 times and record the results, so that you have an average data set to work with for better accuracy

[Shining Wrath]

Yes, larger sample sets lead to more accurate results.

And whatever you do, you will find the Swashbuckler's Toujours l'Audace unbalanced. What on Krynn were they thinking?

[Malifice]

And whatever you do, you will find the Swashbuckler's Toujours l'Audace unbalanced. What on Krynn were they thinking?

What?

How on earth is it unbalanced? Sneak attack is trivially easy to get in 5th edition. All you need is a buddy threatening the same creature or gaining advantage somehow (and there are plenty of ways to get that).

Im not seeing it.

A Swashbuckler rogue at that level deals 1d8+2d6+Dex, the same as a Battlemaster fighter with a Greatsword (who also gets to knock the creature down, frighten it or whatever). The Fighter also has action surge, a fighting style and second wind (and likely a higher AC and more HP) but misses cunning action and expertise.

Im not seeing it. If you ran the numbers in a PvP fight, I would have my money comfortably on the Fighter.

[-Jynx-]

What?

How on earth is it unbalanced? Sneak attack is trivially easy to get in 5th edition. All you need is a buddy threatening the same creature or gaining advantage somehow (and there are plenty of ways to get that).

Im not seeing it.

A Swashbuckler rogue at that level deals 1d8+2d6+Dex, the same as a Battlemaster fighter with a Greatsword (who also gets to knock the creature down, frighten it or whatever). The Fighter also has action surge, a fighting style and second wind (and likely a higher AC and more HP) but misses cunning action and expertise.

Im not seeing it. If you ran the numbers in a PvP fight, I would have my money comfortably on the Fighter.

Very much this. Also to the OP, if you need help play testing or you intend on doing so in the forums, I'd be more than willing to give a hand!

[Malifice]

And whatever you do, you will find the Swashbuckler's Toujours l'Audace unbalanced. What on Krynn were they thinking?

Here is the maths for you too mate, if you dont believe me: Lets compare (optimal races, standard array, no feats):

Half Orc BM Fighter
S 16, D 13, C 16, I 8, W 12, Ch 10
Splint mail, Great axe, x Javelins, bad attitude
Action Surge, Second Wind, Fighting style (protection), Manouvers: Menacing attack, Precision attack, Pushing attack (4d8)
AC 18, HP 31, Init +1
Attk: Greataxe +5, 1d12+3

Halfling SB Rogue
S 8, D 17, C14, I 10, W 12, Ch 14
Rapier, Studded leather, shorbow and ammo, The One True Ring (really a wedding band but he likes to show off)
Expertise, Cunning action, Audacity, Sneak attack +2d6
AC: 15, HP 24, Init +5
Attk: Rapier +5, 1d8+3

By my reckoning in a stand up fight, the Fighter wins comfortably.

Rogue tends to swing first due to higher initiative and has a 40% chance to deal 14.5 damage (around 6 DPR on average). This DPR remains constant.

The Fighter decides to save his Action Surge and swings back at the Rogue (spamming a sup dice to force a Str save on the little guy or knocking him prone) with a 55% hit chance, dealing 14 dam (or around 8 damage on average).

You can follow the maths from here on in, but the Swashbuckler dies on round 3 if he keeps this up. By which time the Fighter has taken 18 damage (13 HP remaining), still has 1 superiority die, Action surge AND second wind (1d10+3 HP) up his sleeve.

****, he can use a bonus action at any time to simply heal 8-9 HP damage on average. If the Fighter bothered to go Nova on round 1 with action surge, the Halfling would be close to death on round 1, and wouldnt make it past round 2, leaving the bonus action second wind fighter with hardly a scratch on him.

Criticals from both are equally deadly (Rogue 4d6+2d8+3 = 26 v Fighter 3d12+2d8+3 = 31.5) with the Fighter a chance to one shot kill the Rogue on a crit far more than the Rogue has in return.

Im really not seeing it.

I mean, maybe if the Fighter had already blown superiority dice, action surge and second wind, but that's no different to saying the fighter was badly wounded (down on other resources) or something.

[SharkForce]

Here is the maths for you too mate, if you dont believe me: Lets compare (optimal races, standard array, no feats):

Half Orc BM Fighter
S 16, D 13, C 16, I 8, W 12, Ch 10
Splint mail, Great axe, x Javelins, bad attitude
Action Surge, Second Wind, Fighting style (protection), Manouvers: Menacing attack, Precision attack, Pushing attack (4d8)
AC 18, HP 31, Init +1
Attk: Greataxe +5, 1d12+3

Halfling SB Rogue
S 8, D 17, C14, I 10, W 12, Ch 14
Rapier, Studded leather, shorbow and ammo, The One True Ring (really a wedding band but he likes to show off)
Expertise, Cunning action, Audacity, Sneak attack +2d6
AC: 15, HP 24, Init +5
Attk: Rapier +5, 1d8+3

By my reckoning in a stand up fight, the Fighter wins comfortably.

Rogue tends to swing first due to higher initiative and has a 40% chance to deal 14.5 damage (around 6 DPR on average). This DPR remains constant.

The Fighter decides to save his Action Surge and swings back at the Rogue (spamming a sup dice to force a Str save on the little guy or knocking him prone) with a 55% hit chance, dealing 14 dam (or around 8 damage on average).

You can follow the maths from here on in, but the Swashbuckler dies on round 3 if he keeps this up. By which time the Fighter has taken 18 damage (13 HP remaining), still has 1 superiority die, Action surge AND second wind (1d10+3 HP) up his sleeve.

****, he can use a bonus action at any time to simply heal 8-9 HP damage on average. If the Fighter bothered to go Nova on round 1 with action surge, the Halfling would be close to death on round 1, and wouldnt make it past round 2, leaving the bonus action second wind fighter with hardly a scratch on him.

Criticals from both are equally deadly (Rogue 4d6+2d8+3 = 26 v Fighter 3d12+2d8+3 = 31.5) with the Fighter a chance to one shot kill the Rogue on a crit far more than the Rogue has in return.

Im really not seeing it.

I mean, maybe if the Fighter had already blown superiority dice, action surge and second wind, but that's no different to saying the fighter was badly wounded (down on other resources) or something.

why isn't the rogue using an off-hand weapon?

(not saying the ability is OP, i think it's pretty much fine... but i do find it odd that the rogue isn't doing everything possible to deliver that all-important sneak attack damage).

[Shining Wrath]

What?

How on earth is it unbalanced? Sneak attack is trivially easy to get in 5th edition. All you need is a buddy threatening the same creature or gaining advantage somehow (and there are plenty of ways to get that).

Im not seeing it.

A Swashbuckler rogue at that level deals 1d8+2d6+Dex, the same as a Battlemaster fighter with a Greatsword (who also gets to knock the creature down, frighten it or whatever). The Fighter also has action surge, a fighting style and second wind (and likely a higher AC and more HP) but misses cunning action and expertise.

Im not seeing it. If you ran the numbers in a PvP fight, I would have my money comfortably on the Fighter.

It makes Sneak Attack always on unless there is Disadvantage for some reason. Effectively, you now have a Rogue archetype that automatically gets (level/2) D6 added to one attack per round. Combine Swashbuckler with Assassin, get massive damage from your first attack every time.

[Shining Wrath]

Here is the maths for you too mate, if you dont believe me: Lets compare (optimal races, standard array, no feats):

Half Orc BM Fighter
S 16, D 13, C 16, I 8, W 12, Ch 10
Splint mail, Great axe, x Javelins, bad attitude
Action Surge, Second Wind, Fighting style (protection), Manouvers: Menacing attack, Precision attack, Pushing attack (4d8)
AC 18, HP 31, Init +1
Attk: Greataxe +5, 1d12+3

Halfling SB Rogue
S 8, D 17, C14, I 10, W 12, Ch 14
Rapier, Studded leather, shorbow and ammo, The One True Ring (really a wedding band but he likes to show off)
Expertise, Cunning action, Audacity, Sneak attack +2d6
AC: 15, HP 24, Init +5
Attk: Rapier +5, 1d8+3

By my reckoning in a stand up fight, the Fighter wins comfortably.

Rogue tends to swing first due to higher initiative and has a 40% chance to deal 14.5 damage (around 6 DPR on average). This DPR remains constant.

The Fighter decides to save his Action Surge and swings back at the Rogue (spamming a sup dice to force a Str save on the little guy or knocking him prone) with a 55% hit chance, dealing 14 dam (or around 8 damage on average).

You can follow the maths from here on in, but the Swashbuckler dies on round 3 if he keeps this up. By which time the Fighter has taken 18 damage (13 HP remaining), still has 1 superiority die, Action surge AND second wind (1d10+3 HP) up his sleeve.

****, he can use a bonus action at any time to simply heal 8-9 HP damage on average. If the Fighter bothered to go Nova on round 1 with action surge, the Halfling would be close to death on round 1, and wouldnt make it past round 2, leaving the bonus action second wind fighter with hardly a scratch on him.

Criticals from both are equally deadly (Rogue 4d6+2d8+3 = 26 v Fighter 3d12+2d8+3 = 31.5) with the Fighter a chance to one shot kill the Rogue on a crit far more than the Rogue has in return.

Im really not seeing it.

I mean, maybe if the Fighter had already blown superiority dice, action surge and second wind, but that's no different to saying the fighter was badly wounded (down on other resources) or something.

I'm not comparing Swashbuckler DPR with Fighter DPR, I'm comparing Swashbuckler to other Roguish archetypes.

Fighters are supposed to beat Rogues handily in DPR, because Rogues are supposed to have greater out of combat utility with stealth and traps and locks and so on. If the Rogue is catching up on damage, AND has Expertise and more skills and so on, we can have imbalance even if Fighters are still slightly ahead at the in-combat stuff. My games aren't just combat.

[CNagy]

It makes Sneak Attack always on unless there is Disadvantage for some reason. Effectively, you now have a Rogue archetype that automatically gets (level/2) D6 added to one attack per round. Combine Swashbuckler with Assassin, get massive damage from your first attack every time.

No need for an Assbuckler, conditions where Assassinate can trigger already allow the Assassin to add Sneak Attack damage, due to Advantage.

[BRKNdevil]

I'm going to go ahead and say that none of the character classes where made to do pvp at any point. So I won't be testing that. What i was trying to do is to have a 3 encounter session with 2 fights and one non fight that would be a standard of testing for multiple groups to see how well they play. Then people can post there results and draw there conclusions from a mass of results from multiple groups. The main thing i wanna hash out is a standard system of encounters so that everyone is playing the same thing and more variables can be removed. Other things that i should do is determine whether or not there should be mixed groups of unearthed arcana ideas with phb classes and compare how well they work. The information of greatest interest is how unearthed arcana subclasses compare to the phb and dmg subclasses and if they are of a comparable level of strength.

As it stands though, the sorcerer's subclasses in the unearthed arcana supplements seem a lot stronger then the phb subclasses and i'm more wondering if it is the phb subclasses that need more work instead of the other way around. This is due to a lot of comments saying that they find the sorcerer weak in comparison to the other full casters. However, none of these comments are backed with actual in game experiences.

[Malifice]

It makes Sneak Attack always on unless there is Disadvantage for some reason. Effectively, you now have a Rogue archetype that automatically gets (level/2) D6 added to one attack per round.

They're getting that every round they target a creature that is threatened by an ally anyway.

Which is every single round in my games.


Combine Swashbuckler with Assassin, get massive damage from your first attack every time.

You cant combine those two archetypes! Theyre both Rogue archetypes, you get one or the other.


I'm not comparing Swashbuckler DPR with Fighter DPR, I'm comparing Swashbuckler to other Roguish archetypes.

The only difference is they no longer need to fight the same guy the Fighter is swinging at. The DPR stays exactly the same.

It effectively makes the Swashbuckler capable of fighting with a comparable DPR to the Fighter while alone, and not side by side with the Fighter. Rather than the party Fighter and Rogue spiking on the same target, the hits get split between two targets.

And in solo fights, there is no difference at all.


Fighters are supposed to beat Rogues handily in DPR, because Rogues are supposed to have greater out of combat utility with stealth and traps and locks and so on. If the Rogue is catching up on damage, AND has Expertise and more skills and so on, we can have imbalance even if Fighters are still slightly ahead at the in-combat stuff. My games aren't just combat.

The DPR doest change, it just allows the Rogue to target that DPR on someone that isnt engaged with the Fighter.

And there is more to it that DPR. In a toe to toe fight (as shown) the Fighter smashes the Swashbuckler inside of three rounds, even taking into account the Rogue going first, the Fighter not using Action Surge or Second Wind, and still having a superiority dice left over.

It lets the Rogue fight at about 60 percent of the Fighter (albeit for longer). The Fighter has (on average) assuming only 2 short rests per day 5d10+15 pool of healing compared to the Rogues 3d8+6, starts with 25 percent more HP, and has an AC 3 higher.

Seriously; it just adds to the options a Rogue can emply sneak attack slightly, by placing himself into a mano-a-mano situation.

In play it would rarely be noticable aside from encouraging a Rogue to attack a creature solo.

[-Jynx-]

As it stands though, the sorcerer's subclasses in the unearthed arcana supplements seem a lot stronger then the phb subclasses and i'm more wondering if it is the phb subclasses that need more work instead of the other way around. This is due to a lot of comments saying that they find the sorcerer weak in comparison to the other full casters. However, none of these comments are backed with actual in game experiences.

The issue isn't so much that the subclasses for sorcerer are weaker, but Wild Magic requires the DM more than the player taking part of the fun and specialization out of your hands. That just leaves draconic as your only real option. Stormborn and Favored Soul help add diversity to Sorcerer generation but I don't think one clearly outshines another (each has their merits, and in certain campaigns may shine more than another).


As far as swashbuckler goes I'm 100% behind Malifice in regards to sneak attacking. Rogues (any one that values being useful in combat) would simply just be glued at the hip to another melee class in combat to gain Sneak attack every turn anyways. This archetype just eliminates that giving the rogue the ability to solo/tank certain monsters during an encounter and frees up their moving/positioning options during combat. It doesn't make them any stronger (i.e. it's not adding damage, they're getting sneak attack damage anyways being next to their buddy).

[eleazzaar]

In a toe to toe fight (as shown) the Fighter smashes the Swashbuckler inside of three rounds, even taking into account the Rogue going first, the Fighter not using Action Surge or Second Wind, and still having a superiority dice left over.

But even a Swashbuckler rogue has better things to do than a toe-to-toe fight, doesn't he? He can attack, use his fancy-footwork to nullify AoO, use cunning action to dash + move to get out of range, and quite plausibly (depending on the area and obstacles) have some rounds where he lands an attack and the fighter doesn't.

I'm not saying the SB is overpowered (I don't know), but a toe-to-toe measure may be much simpler, but isn't neccesarily very indicative of how a class performs in game, especially a mobile one like the rogue.

[BRKNdevil]

But even a Swashbuckler rogue has better things to do than a toe-to-toe fight, doesn't he? He can attack, use his fancy-footwork to nullify AoO, use cunning action to dash + move to get out of range, and quite plausibly (depending on the area and obstacles) have some rounds where he lands an attack and the fighter doesn't.

I'm not saying the SB is overpowered (I don't know), but a toe-to-toe measure may be much simpler, but isn't neccesarily very indicative of how a class performs in game, especially a mobile one like the rogue.

So then, perhaps i should have a 4 party team with a UA subclass, a PHB subclass, a Healer, and something to fill the things not covered in order to test the different subclasses in UA?

[HoarsHalberd]

Your straight fight values are off Malifice, as nobody would use a single rapier with a swashbuckler when they could twf.

DPR goes to
2*0.40(1d6+3) + 0.64(2d6)=9.68 Average DPR

vs
1*0.55(2d6+1d8+3) = 7.97 DPR

The damage difference isn't huge but it takes 3-4 rounds for the fighter to kill the rogue on average. with the rogue winning on average if the fight goes to the fourth round because of initiative. If the fight is over by the third round the fighter takes 29 damage on average. The closeness of this fight means it is incredibly swingy and that the action surge should be used by the fighter to try and get an early win as there is a good chance of accidental death.

However I do agree the swashbuckler build isn't unbalanced. You just chose the level closest to fighter's power to demonstrate it. At level 5 it's less even.

[BRKNdevil]

CAN WE PLEASE STOP WITH THE AVERAGE PVP STATS OF PC VS PC?! That is not what i care about, and according to wotc former commentary, neither is it theirs. all i care about is how each of the UA subclasses measure up to subclasses found in current official documents such as the EE expansion, the PHB, and the DMG. This topic has gone way off course and feels like a bunch of nerds checking whose metaphorical **** is larger.


So, how about my former suggestions in order to compare the balance of the different subclasses?

[LordVonDerp]

It makes Sneak Attack always on unless there is Disadvantage for some reason. Effectively, you now have a Rogue archetype that automatically gets (level/2) D6 added to one attack per round. Combine Swashbuckler with Assassin, get massive damage from your first attack every time.

It makes sneak attack always on, unless your not in melee or already had sneak attack anyway. Which you probably will.
Also how do you get two different rogue styles?

[-Jynx-]

CAN WE PLEASE STOP WITH THE AVERAGE PVP STATS OF PC VS PC?! That is not what i care about, and according to wotc former commentary, neither is it theirs. all i care about is how each of the UA subclasses measure up to subclasses found in current official documents such as the EE expansion, the PHB, and the DMG. This topic has gone way off course and feels like a bunch of nerds checking whose metaphorical **** is larger.


So, how about my former suggestions in order to compare the balance of the different subclasses?

You should realize however that an arbitrary fight between two PCs that are just swinging at each other (not factoring in stealth or anything like that) is actually a great way to test its power against another class.

PvP happens to an extent in most campaigns. Do your PCs never fight other humanoids? Do none of your humanoids have classes? If not why not? Regardless Malifices example details how a rogue swashbuckler which is built as more of a melee skirmisher does not outshine traditional melee combatants like the fighter. It doesn't suddenly parse more damage because of its less restricted sneak attack nor does it suddenly create a power creep.

His example is no different than say: Your fighter and rogue stand in front of a large wall. Both now need to swing at the wall until they knock it down, who does so first? By the given information we can see that the fighter most likely does so first or comes very close with the rogue. This details one aspect (and a very important aspect) of class damage per turn and per combat. But I assume you already know all of this of course... considering you want to gauge this sort of thing.

[RenaldoS]

NPCs are not started up in the same manner as PCs in this edition. They use their own rules and often have much better defense than a PC with similar offense would have. Thus calculating PVP statistics is silly as the game is meant to be PC vs NPC, not PC vs PC.

[BRKNdevil]

NPCs are not started up in the same manner as PCs in this edition. They use their own rules and often have much better defense than a PC with similar offense would have. Thus calculating PVP statistics is silly as the game is meant to be PC vs NPC, not PC vs PC.

yay! someone gets it! And no pc vs pc isn't the best way to do it unless your trying to see who can run at something harder in a smooth plain field. Good for war, not for roleplaying. I want to assess how people handle encounters and no that doesn't mean just pc vs npc in a combat scenario. I'm thinking a social/urban, combat, and trap filled encounter system for the different tiers of play while limiting the party to 4 players. I still am having issues with how i should do a side by side comparison.

[murph04]

Toujours isn't broken in my mind, just seems kind of pointless. As many have pointed out a good rogue will be getting sneak attack every turn anyway, so it seems like a concept that wasn't thought through. I love the concept of a rogue that excels in one-on-one combat, but this isn't necessarily the way to do it. Maybe you add your charisma bonus to the attack or something so that there is incentive to use this method over having an ally present

Panache on the other hand is horribly broken. Whenever I have abilities that dictate enemy actions I prefer it out a tactical need to rather than simply being compelled to.
I'd offer this alternative: "Enemy has disadvantage on attack rolls against all enemies except for you. The effect ends when they successfully strike you or you end the effect. You may have only one target subjected to panache at a time." The concept being that you have targeted one for for your verbal abuse, making one-liners and whatnot. The disadvantage comes from their frustration and distraction at your comments till they finally single you out to shut you up once and for all

[eleazzaar]

In a few weeks i'll finally graduate with a bachelors and finally have somewhat more time to do something other then deprive myself of sleep. So I want to playtest some of the things in unearthed arcana and rebalance the things suggested in terms of relative power to the things in the player's handbook. I was wondering how i should go about this. I figure that i should probably run 3 ish encounters at 5, 10, 15, and 20 in a party of 4 with a party of both player's handbook characters and unearthed arcana characters. I was wondering if anyone was interested and what other standardizations i should make to get as decent of a idea for power balance.

I dunno-- what exactly do you want to discover? And how much time do you want to spend?

To me what would be important to me is how the players of PHB races and classes feel about UA races and classes— while in an actual game. Is the UA stuff overshaddowing the PHB stuff, and making them feel useless? Or is the opposite true?

I'd probably run the UA content in concert with it's closest PHB equilavent. For instance put a storm sorcerer in a PHB party with a dragon-blood sorcerer, that way you can compare side to side. Have a brief survey after every session, asking which PC was most important to victory etc.

A more informal test would be to run a whole campaign with players into optimization, allowing some of the players to choose either a UA race or class. Level ups would be more rapid, and you would just see if the UA stuff stood out or not.

Several weeks ago i'd be interested, but at the moment, i have 3 PbP games going, which is plenty.

[Shining Wrath]

Toujours isn't broken in my mind, just seems kind of pointless. As many have pointed out a good rogue will be getting sneak attack every turn anyway, so it seems like a concept that wasn't thought through. I love the concept of a rogue that excels in one-on-one combat, but this isn't necessarily the way to do it. Maybe you add your charisma bonus to the attack or something so that there is incentive to use this method over having an ally present

Panache on the other hand is horribly broken. Whenever I have abilities that dictate enemy actions I prefer it out a tactical need to rather than simply being compelled to.
I'd offer this alternative: "Enemy has disadvantage on attack rolls against all enemies except for you. The effect ends when they successfully strike you or you end the effect. You may have only one target subjected to panache at a time." The concept being that you have targeted one for for your verbal abuse, making one-liners and whatnot. The disadvantage comes from their frustration and distraction at your comments till they finally single you out to shut you up once and for all

I like your fix for Panache.

[-Jynx-]

NPCs are not started up in the same manner as PCs in this edition. They use their own rules and often have much better defense than a PC with similar offense would have. Thus calculating PVP statistics is silly as the game is meant to be PC vs NPC, not PC vs PC.

Okay, sure. I don't fully agree, based on some npcs even in HotDQ but sure lets say you're right. How does that change the math of the fighters dps vs the rogue? The end result would be roughly the same in who downs the npc first rather than each other. You're splitting hairs when the overall point was that the broadened sneak attack doesn't make for an overwhelming change in damage per round.

[BRKNdevil]

I dunno-- what exactly do you want to discover? And how much time do you want to spend?

To me what would be important to me is how the players of PHB races and classes feel about UA races and classes— while in an actual game. Is the UA stuff overshaddowing the PHB stuff, and making them feel useless? Or is the opposite true?

I'd probably run the UA content in concert with it's closest PHB equilavent. For instance put a storm sorcerer in a PHB party with a dragon-blood sorcerer, that way you can compare side to side. Have a brief survey after every session, asking which PC was most important to victory etc.

A more informal test would be to run a whole campaign with players into optimization, allowing some of the players to choose either a UA race or class. Level ups would be more rapid, and you would just see if the UA stuff stood out or not.

Several weeks ago i'd be interested, but at the moment, i have 3 PbP games going, which is plenty.

I think I was more going to the first suggestion but don't really have the time to do the second. So i'm probably going to go with the first half of your post


I like your fix for Panache.

Issues happen though if someone else uses panache. I think it would be fine if the effect was more inline with compelled duel from the paladin's spell list


Okay, sure. I don't fully agree, based on some npcs even in HotDQ but sure lets say you're right. How does that change the math of the fighters dps vs the rogue? The end result would be roughly the same in who downs the npc first rather than each other. You're splitting hairs when the overall point was that the broadened sneak attack doesn't make for an overwhelming change in damage per round.

because the dps is the least important factor now, this isn't 4e where it is super focused on the mechanical aspects and more making sure that one player also playing a class but a different subclass is feeling super outclassed in multiple instances or causing the one dude from ruling every sort of encounter.

[-Jynx-]

because the dps is the least important factor now, this isn't 4e where it is super focused on the mechanical aspects and more making sure that one player also playing a class but a different subclass is feeling super outclassed in multiple instances or causing the one dude from ruling every sort of encounter.

One subclass out-ruling others would indeed have a lot to do with damage... especially in the case of sneak attack. Hence its comparison to other jobs. In-fact I would say its more UNFAIR to compare say the thief subclass to the swashbuckler subclass based on what I'm assuming you're trying to figure out.

I say that because swashbuckler is clearly more focused on melee, tanking/soloing based on its sneak attack and panache.

Thief on the other hand has more utility in fast hands, second story work and supreme sneak. Comparing the two would be like comparing apples and oranges. You may like apple juice more, I may prefer orange juice.

Arcane trickster's splash of magic and assassins burst damage all act differently than swashbuckler does which is more consistent dpr damage. That being said if you're running ENCOUNTERS ONLY where ONLY BATTLE-SPECIFIC ASPECTS are being taken into consideration when comparing swashbuckler, you're better off comparing it to something like fighter, barbarian, or monk all of which center on the principals that swashbuckler is attempting to.

[Shining Wrath]

One subclass out-ruling others would indeed have a lot to do with damage... especially in the case of sneak attack. Hence its comparison to other jobs. In-fact I would say its more UNFAIR to compare say the thief subclass to the swashbuckler subclass based on what I'm assuming you're trying to figure out.

I say that because swashbuckler is clearly more focused on melee, tanking/soloing based on its sneak attack and panache.

Thief on the other hand has more utility in fast hands, second story work and supreme sneak. Comparing the two would be like comparing apples and oranges. You may like apple juice more, I may prefer orange juice.

Arcane trickster's splash of magic and assassins burst damage all act differently than swashbuckler does which is more consistent dpr damage. That being said if you're running ENCOUNTERS ONLY where ONLY BATTLE-SPECIFIC ASPECTS are being taken into consideration when comparing swashbuckler, you're better off comparing it to something like fighter, barbarian, or monk all of which center on the principals that swashbuckler is attempting to.

Balance between classes and archetypes, then, is campaign specific, for in some campaigns the ability to do fast hands and second story work is unimportant, while in others it will be more important than sneak attack.

[BRKNdevil]

Which is why i'm suggesting that the three testing encounters be based on combat, social/urban, trap/combat and probably all in one session so that we can test the burst vs the long game ideas. The trap/combat thing is because traps outside of combat can be pretty easy to get around unless they are overcomplicated multistage instances

[-Jynx-]

Which is why i'm suggesting that the three testing encounters be based on combat, social/urban, trap/combat and probably all in one session so that we can test the burst vs the long game ideas. The trap/combat thing is because traps outside of combat can be pretty easy to get around unless they are overcomplicated multistage instances

If you plan on testing those things then yes I can see testing the archetypes usefulness against one another but again since each is good at one type of thing over the others, how you play the class, and the campaign itself are the biggest factors rather than arbitrary results you get in three different stand-alone trails.

[BRKNdevil]

If you plan on testing those things then yes I can see testing the archetypes usefulness against one another but again since each is good at one type of thing over the others, how you play the class, and the campaign itself are the biggest factors rather than arbitrary results you get in three different stand-alone trails.

which is why it would be good to draw an analysis out of the multiple iterations of a playthrough with multiple groups. I just want to set up something that can be used as a standard of testing so that these things can be analyzed. I would be putting down experiences of the playthrough and then analyze the results then draw conclusions from multiple playthroughs to draw an aggregated result. I am an engineering student and drawing conclusions from something that isn't always a uniform subject and can be affected by multiple conditions is my thing. Usually, my conclusions end up being how it can be tested further and suggestions on improvements that would then be reviewed.

[LordVonDerp]

Panache on the other hand is horribly broken. Whenever I have abilities that dictate enemy actions I prefer it out a tactical need to rather than simply being compelled to.
I'd offer this alternative: "Enemy has disadvantage on attack rolls against all enemies except for you. The effect ends when they successfully strike you or you end the effect. You may have only one target subjected to panache at a time." The concept being that you have targeted one for for your verbal abuse, making one-liners and whatnot. The disadvantage comes from their frustration and distraction at your comments till they finally single you out to shut you up once and for all
that might be alright if you knock it down from an action to a bonus action.
otherwise the lack of duration would be a real problem.

[BRKNdevil]

can we please move the supposed fixes to a subclass and theory-craft to a class that probably none of you have run to a new thread of your own making?

[Chaosvii7]

NPCs are not started up in the same manner as PCs in this edition. They use their own rules and often have much better defense than a PC with similar offense would have.

This has not, never has been, and never will be true or consistent among the edition, as well as most editions. A PC can be statted with a monster stat block as well as a monster is, down to CR and expected experience gains for killing it. It's an intended feature of the game; Otherwise there'd have been designed to not be compatible. But since at least 3rd edition they've wanted the monsters to be mechanically similar to PCs in that they are all an amalgam of statistics designed around the core of the system math. Even within the MM, if you broke every monster apart and compared it to the monster creation rules in the DMG you'd find that for their CRs there's no assured math that keeps everything in line - some monsters are wildly overpowered for their CR and some will be ridiculously weak when standing up to others of their kind, or to PCs of a like level, or vice versa. There's a thin layer of perfect imbalance, but most of it just stems from the fact that at the end of the day the storytelling potential of a monster isn't tied to their numbers, and D&D is a game all about storytelling.

Also, there actually is a section in the DMG all about adding class levels to NPCs and monsters, in case you missed it.

[Malifice]

Your straight fight values are off Malifice, as nobody would use a single rapier with a swashbuckler when they could twf.

DPR goes to
2*0.40(1d6+3) + 0.64(2d6)=9.68 Average DPR

vs
1*0.55(2d6+1d8+3) = 7.97 DPR

The damage difference isn't huge but it takes 3-4 rounds for the fighter to kill the rogue on average. with the rogue winning on average if the fight goes to the fourth round because of initiative. If the fight is over by the third round the fighter takes 29 damage on average. The closeness of this fight means it is incredibly swingy and that the action surge should be used by the fighter to try and get an early win as there is a good chance of accidental death.

However I do agree the swashbuckler build isn't unbalanced. You just chose the level closest to fighter's power to demonstrate it. At level 5 it's less even.

Those numbers are off. You're granting the Rogue Dex mod on damage on the second attack. Arguably it also doesn't factor in precise strike (which turns a lot of misses into hits) while reducing overall damage.

On that note, I would love to see a mathematical comparison between the DPR of a GWM fighter spamming precise strike as against a GWM fighter spamming (say) menacing attack. The extra +1d8 to hit (4.5 on average) virtually cancels out the -5 from GWM, figuring in to a roughly 10 point damage surge over the standard superiority die's 4.5.

Fairly sure that equates to (vs AC 15, greatsword, GWM feat):

1*0.55(2d6+1d8+3) = 7.97 DPR with menacing strike
1*0.525(2d6+13) = 10.5 DPR with precise strike

So higher than the Rogue.

Although I am probably off with the percentage of scoring a hit. The GWM Fighter with maneuvers gets to swing using the feat and trigger the menacing attack on a hit (25 percent of the time v AC 15) and then spam precise strike on slightly 29 percent of the remaining variable results (4.5/14). My maths-fu may be off but it looks like:

Attack roll/ damage/ average
20 (4d6+2d8+13) = 36 (critical hit + menacing)
15-19 (2d6+1d8+13) 24.5 (hit+ menacing)
10.5-14 (2d6+13) 20 (miss + precise converting to a hit)
1-13 (0) (miss)

The correct formula should then be: [36+(5*24.5)+(4.5*20)]/20.

I spit out a DPR of 12.425 for a GWM fighter with menacing + precise vs AC 15. It probably nudges the 14-15 DPR mark with great weapon fighting style. Double that on Action surge.

Not bad for level 3 with a Strength of 16.

In regards to non-PvP, pit the same two characters in a mano-a-mano against an Ogre (a reasonable challenge for a single 3rd level character).

[BRKNdevil]

we done with the averaged out stat warfare and pulled our pants back up?

So basically, I'm thinking a combat encounter, a social/urban encounter, and a trap/puzzle encounter at each of the different levels of play for a single iteration. The settings will be built to 2 of the class in question with one subclass from unearthed arcana and the other from phb/dmg/eehb and all the only race available is human to remove one more factor from causing a simple enough comparison. No feats are allowed to remove one more thing that can make comparisons harder. The sets of equipment will be starting equipment and from there on modified by the rules given in the dmg for higher levels of play on the high fantasy level.

Does anyone have any glaring issues with these ideas? The issues have to be unrelated to the subclasses and only to the method of which they are being tested.

[SharkForce]

will there be other party members as well?

[BRKNdevil]

I'm thinking one healer and one other person that would fill in the empty slot as well, or perhaps a 2nd person with a subclass from phb so that more classes can be compared side by side

[BRKNdevil]

Ok, so as for combat encounter at level 4 I'm suggesting a night encounter on the following map against an orog, an Eye of Gruumsh, and a regular Orc with the above determined characters around the pot. Everywhere off the road is considered rough terrain, rocks giving half cover and no advantage for standing on top of them.

http://www.blackengorge.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2011/06/road-3squares.jpg

The Social encounter is getting past a gate with contraband and at worst devolving into an easy to medium encounter against Human Thugs x5
On a map that still needs to be determined

Finally a Dungeon esc area with a Medium to Hard Encounter and traps. I'm thinking Kobolds
Also on a map that needs to be determined. but it should probably be small as well

Reminder, this is suppose to test the classes at level 4 and level appropriate encounter level for an average group.

The next test should probably be around level 9 and 10 with a similar setup.
The map and encounter should be standardized in order to ensure the lowest amount of variables

after that test, another around 15-16 (in a vastly different environment) and finally at level 20 (probably against a dragon then talking to another) this is mainly to see if different subclasses have a much greater advantage in a wide variety of situations

[Chronos]

A few points about playtesting:

1: Make sure that there's attrition in some form. If every encounter is the only encounter of the day, then classes with limited-use resources (spells, superiority dice, ki points, whatever) are going to outperform classes with a steady output (Sneak Attack, expanded crit range, good cantrips, etc.). Those are balanced around the possibility that you might have more combats in a day than you expect, or you might get your rest interrupted by an encounter, and so on.

2: Make sure that the challenges are hard enough that the party sometimes fails, or at least takes casualties. There's very little difference between winning handily and winning with the loss of a bunch of HP, but there's a huge difference between nobody dying and somebody dying. If one party ends up taking more damage per combat but still winning, there's not a big balance problem, you just need more potions. But if one party ends up dying more often than another, then those two parties aren't balanced against each other.

3: Make sure to test at multiple levels, as things can change drastically with level. I would recommend using the start of the "tiers", levels 1, 5, 11, and 17. Alternately, if you're wondering about one specific archetype, compare it versus one of the standard archetypes, and do it at the levels where they get their archetype abilities.

[BRKNdevil]

A few points about playtesting:

1: Make sure that there's attrition in some form. If every encounter is the only encounter of the day, then classes with limited-use resources (spells, superiority dice, ki points, whatever) are going to outperform classes with a steady output (Sneak Attack, expanded crit range, good cantrips, etc.). Those are balanced around the possibility that you might have more combats in a day than you expect, or you might get your rest interrupted by an encounter, and so on.

So your saying that i should have 3 combat encounters (deadly, hard, medium in that order) along with social and urban encounters (1-2) and a trap encounter to see how the classes play out? And I already am trying to figure out how to make each of the situations at the different tiers of play are widely different from each other.



2: Make sure that the challenges are hard enough that the party sometimes fails, or at least takes casualties. There's very little difference between winning handily and winning with the loss of a bunch of HP, but there's a huge difference between nobody dying and somebody dying. If one party ends up taking more damage per combat but still winning, there's not a big balance problem, you just need more potions. But if one party ends up dying more often than another, then those two parties aren't balanced against each other.

That goes back to my first response of having the different combat levels. should that also apply to the different social and urban encounters?



3: Make sure to test at multiple levels, as things can change drastically with level. I would recommend using the start of the "tiers", levels 1, 5, 11, and 17. Alternately, if you're wondering about one specific archetype, compare it versus one of the standard archetypes, and do it at the levels where they get their archetype abilities.

I already chose to do that, but on the high end of each tier as shown in the dmg. so i have but down 4 (right before the next tier), 9 or 10 ( haven't figured which one due to ability boosts some classes get at 10), 15-16 (for same reason), and 20(at the classes peak)