Damage Benchmarks

[Magikeeper]

So, I've been creating a 5E Ozodrin over in the homebrew section. Although looking at various threads, reading books, etc have helped a lot with regards to the conversion I feel damage is an area where my lack of experience actually playing 5E might be a big issue.

How much damage, on average, are your PCs actually doing? At low levels? At mid levels? At high levels? Also, how are they dealing that damage?

I care about both at-will and per-short-rest attacks and abilities. I am less concerned about per-long-rest abilities, as the Ozdorin doesn't have any damaging abilities like that.

---

Also, what other benchmarks exist that might not be obvious to someone that has read the rules but hasn't actually played with them?

[TrollCapAmerica]

So, I've been creating a 5E Ozodrin over in the homebrew section. Although looking at various threads, reading books, etc have helped a lot with regards to the conversion I feel damage is an area where my lack of experience actually playing 5E might be a big issue.

How much damage, on average, are your PCs actually doing? At low levels? At mid levels? At high levels? Also, how are they dealing that damage?

I care about both at-will and per-short-rest attacks and abilities. I am less concerned about per-long-rest abilities, as the Ozdorin doesn't have any damaging abilities like that.

---

Also, what other benchmarks exist that might not be obvious to someone that has read the rules but hasn't actually played with them?

Tiefling lv8 Warlock Fiend/Tome is routinely doing about 25-30 damage a round with my EB thanks to Hex+Agonizing blast and knocking back.The knockback is such a butt saver its hard to properly state.Take away Hex and that damage drops to 20

When I need big damage I try Hex+Scorching Ray doing a possible 15D6 av 45.Not bad but I dont find it great compared to EB unless I NEED Fire damage for some reason

Fireball [9D6] has been doing decent against mooks but even then I barely wiped out a rampaging horde of Shadows by rolling really good and having a stupidly high save DC thanks my +2 Rod of the pact Keeper.Between resistance and saving throws I might have moderately signed a bunch of Shadows that then drained my party to death

Wall of Fire is nice if you can impede the enemy significantly force them to walk through it or EB them back into the wall again.Coordination with the party can make it very useful but it can be walked around surprisingly easily and the damage sucks ofr such a high level spell if they only get one taste of it

Im finding im often better off spamming EB using Banishment on big targets and saving my spell slots fr Misty Step if anything gets uncomfortably close.Ive heard damage is much better in this edition than in 3.5 but honestly with the low level HP inflation and increased danger of mooks its not really THAT much better overall its just not as terrible an option

[SharkForce]

you may find this (https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1Jy_EoOrlar_M6W_jsmJVJuXog1ULIT4SKINSiyHqaCQ/edit#gid=1473051734) to be a useful resource.

i'm not 100% certain, but i think you can thank kryx for it...

[ImSAMazing]

So, I've been creating a 5E Ozodrin over in the homebrew section. Although looking at various threads, reading books, etc have helped a lot with regards to the conversion I feel damage is an area where my lack of experience actually playing 5E might be a big issue.

How much damage, on average, are your PCs actually doing? At low levels? At mid levels? At high levels? Also, how are they dealing that damage?

I care about both at-will and per-short-rest attacks and abilities. I am less concerned about per-long-rest abilities, as the Ozdorin doesn't have any damaging abilities like that.

---

Also, what other benchmarks exist that might not be obvious to someone that has read the rules but hasn't actually played with them?

Low-level, most characters deal 1d8+3 damage on a hit, 1d10 if characters use a cantrip(at-will). Warlocks can spend more spell slots then a Wizard/Sorcerer, because he regains his each short rest. He does get less spell slots.

Mid-level(5-11), most characters deal 2d8+8 damage on a hit, 2d10-3d10 if the characters use a cantrip. Warlocks blast much and deal extra damage with his 1d6 extra damage by Hex.

High-level(12-20), most characters deal 3d8+8 or more damage on a hit, 4d10 if the characters use a cantrip. Characters can do massive things like reverse gravity or insta kill creatures under 100 HP...

[Kryx]

you may find this (https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1Jy_EoOrlar_M6W_jsmJVJuXog1ULIT4SKINSiyHqaCQ/edit#gid=1473051734) to be a useful resource.

i'm not 100% certain, but i think you can thank kryx for it...
Indeed. I'm glad others find it helpful!

It is meant as a general power gauge of DPR. Some things like Rage and Action surge are included to show the power level during that burst as well.
Keep in mind there is a houserule there to keep the DPR of some things in line - the TWF Fighter, TWF Rogue, and Monk all get a second bonus attack at 11.

Even with that:

TWF Fighter is still signficantly behind GWM and Polearm
Rogue is in the mid-lower tier.
Monk is the lowest DPR for nearly his whole career (not by a ton, just slightly which is made up with his tankiness and utility)

The normal versions are also shown on the individual pages.

There are also some guesstimates made that vary based on DM

AC scale
GWM Chance to Kill
Opportunity Attack Chance



Let me know if you guys see any errors.

[SharkForce]

Indeed. I'm glad others find it helpful!

It is meant as a general power gauge of DPR. Some things like Rage and Action surge are included to show the power level during that burst as well.
Keep in mind there is a houserule there to keep the DPR of some things in line - the TWF Fighter, TWF Rogue, and Monk all get a second bonus attack at 11.

Even with that:

TWF Fighter is still signficantly behind GWM and Polearm
Rogue is in the mid-lower tier.
Monk is the lowest DPR for nearly his whole career (not by a ton, just slightly which is made up with his tankiness and utility)

The normal versions are also shown on the individual pages.

There are also some guesstimates made that vary based on DM

AC scale
GWM Chance to Kill
Opportunity Attack Chance



Let me know if you guys see any errors.

huh. might be better to show some of those things without the houserules as well, if that isn't a huge effort...

(i do find it a bit surprising that the monk would be that far behind in damage... they don't have a lot of damage boosts, but they do get those extra attacks...)

[Ramshack]

huh. might be better to show some of those things without the houserules as well, if that isn't a huge effort...

(i do find it a bit surprising that the monk would be that far behind in damage... they don't have a lot of damage boosts, but they do get those extra attacks...)

Someone want to explain to me how the cleric is so competitive. I don't see it...

Also where are the Wizards are the Twinned or Quickened Sorcerers throwing out multiple spells per round?

[Kryx]

huh. might be better to show some of those things without the houserules as well, if that isn't a huge effort...
They are there:

The normal versions are also shown on the individual pages.




Someone want to explain to me how the cleric is so competitive. I don't see it...
There is another thread on the first page that talks about this. Take it there, don't pollute this one. :P


Also where are the Wizards are the Twinned or Quickened Sorcerers throwing out multiple spells per round?
I actually do have one for Sorcs and Wizards to show how Sorcs don't do more damage over a day vs Wizards (never got around to doing shorter amount of rounds) https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1H1SxsntIaK1IIHwJmR_6aUnUtZE6yWlP4vPzHQLE7Ak

[SharkForce]

Someone want to explain to me how the cleric is so competitive. I don't see it...

Also where are the Wizards are the Twinned or Quickened Sorcerers throwing out multiple spells per round?

at a guess, spirit guardians and spirit weapon for the cleric. probably in higher level spell slots. so, bear in mind, the cleric is at that point very much focusing on damage per round, and most likely has few spell slots for other things.

wizards are far below. their damage per round is awful. but then, that's not the point of a wizard, is it?

twinned and quickened sorcerers are most likely assuming twinned firebolt for a cantrip, and quickened sorcerers are most likely using two cantrips in a round (with the second one potentially being twinned as well). note that at low levels, neither strategy is particularly sustainable, but at high levels it gets a lot more realistic.

[Ramshack]

at a guess, spirit guardians and spirit weapon for the cleric. probably in higher level spell slots. so, bear in mind, the cleric is at that point very much focusing on damage per round, and most likely has few spell slots for other things.

wizards are far below. their damage per round is awful. but then, that's not the point of a wizard, is it?

twinned and quickened sorcerers are most likely assuming twinned firebolt for a cantrip, and quickened sorcerers are most likely using two cantrips in a round (with the second one potentially being twinned as well). note that at low levels, neither strategy is particularly sustainable, but at high levels it gets a lot more realistic.

I'll check out the chart, but I don't want to derail the thread. That said, I'll just add the sorcerer I play has never wasted a sorcery point quickening a cantrip. 2 Scorching Rays, 2 Fireballs, 2 Disintigrates. Much more effective use of your points ;)

[Kryx]

I'll just add the sorcerer I play has never wasted a sorcery point quickening a cantrip. 2 Scorching Rays, 2 Fireballs, 2 Disintigrates. Much more effective use of your points ;)
You can't twin Scorching Ray or Fireball. Plus Scorching Ray isn't as good as Aganazzar’s Scorcher.

[Ramshack]

You can't twin Scorching Ray or Fireball. Plus Scorching Ray isn't as good as Aganazzar’s Scorcher.

You are correct but you can quicken them. Change cast time to a bonus action then cast another with your action.

[GiantOctopodes]

You are correct but you can quicken them. Change cast time to a bonus action then cast another with your action.

You can indeed quicken them, but sadly cannot then cast a second one.



A spell cast with a bonus action is especially swift. You must use a bonus action on your turn to cast the spell, provided that you haven’t already taken a bonus action this turn. You can’t cast another spell during the same turn, except for a cantrip with a casting time of 1 action.


So you get to have your action free for *something*, whether an attack, a cantrip, use an object, or whatever else, but no quickening and casting non-cantrip spells twice. Ironically that's why it's super bad to use quicken spell if you have Action Surge, since you would in that instance *remove* your ability to cast it twice (using your action and then the Action Surge action) due to the wording of the rule in question.

[Ramshack]

You can indeed quicken them, but sadly cannot then cast a second one.



So you get to have your action free for *something*, whether an attack, a cantrip, use an object, or whatever else, but no quickening and casting non-cantrip spells twice. Ironically that's why it's super bad to use quicken spell if you have Action Surge, since you would in that instance *remove* your ability to cast it twice (using your action and then the Action Surge action) due to the wording of the rule in question.

I'll have to check this out. I run a campaign and play in 2 others DMd by 2 other people and all 3 of us allow you to cast a spell as an action and another with a bonus action. Cure Light wounds and Healing Word go ahead. Quicken a Spell Go ahead cast another. I don't really understand the thought process behind limiting your spells per actions. If you have the available spells and actions go nuts lol.

Looks like all 3 of my campaigns are using a house rule unknowingly.

[Kryx]

I'll have to check this out. I run a campaign and play in 2 others DMd by 2 other people and all 3 of us allow you to cast a spell as an action and another with a bonus action. Cure Light wounds and Healing Word go ahead. Quicken a Spell Go ahead cast another. I don't really understand the thought process behind limiting your spells per actions. If you have the available spells and actions go nuts lol.

Looks like all 3 of my campaigns are using a house rule unknowingly.
Yup. No Bonus and Action level spells unless one of them is a cantrip. The reasoning is balance. Spellcasters are significantly more power when you can do an action twice or an action + bonus action.


On the topic of Action Surge: I think it's a garbage ruling to allow EK's to cast better than Sorcs (2 action spells). I houserule that it doesn't work.

[Ramshack]

Yup. No Bonus and Action level spells unless one of them is a cantrip. The reasoning is balance. Spellcasters are significantly more power when you can do an action twice or an action + bonus action.


On the topic of Action Surge: I think it's a garbage ruling to allow EK's to cast better than Sorcs (2 action spells). I houserule that it doesn't work.

I don't see it as a problem really, all three, action economy, spell slots and sorcery points are all a matter of resource management, and using those resources quickly to overcome a challenge is a choice, sure it's a powerful option in the short term, but burns through those resources so they wont be available later. I'll discuss it with our friends, we may just decide to keep the status quo

[GiantOctopodes]

Yup. No Bonus and Action level spells unless one of them is a cantrip. The reasoning is balance. Spellcasters are significantly more power when you can do an action twice or an action + bonus action.


On the topic of Action Surge: I think it's a garbage ruling to allow EK's to cast better than Sorcs (2 action spells). I houserule that it doesn't work.

Yeah, I think it's odd that Divine Smite escaped that balance mechanic, and exists as the sole way to consistently blow through hordes of spell slots at a time (resulting in absurd nova damage, too). I cannot fathom why Sneak Attack, spells, and action surge are all once per round but Divine Smite is once per attack, other than a presumption that multiclassing doesn't exist.

In terms of Action Surge, I hardly think the EK with his max (1!) 4th level slot and once per short rest (admittedly, two per short rest at 17, but at that point you have serious concerns with the number of slots available to pull off this trick) slightly-better-than-quicken Action Surge is going to give the Sorcerer a run for his money in the casting department. Still, your point is taken.


I don't see it as a problem really, both action economy and spells and sorcery points are all a matter of resource management, and using those resources quickly to overcome a challenge is a choice, sure it's a powerful option now, but burns through those resources so they wont be available later. I'll discuss it with our friends, we may just decide to keep the status quo

Keep in mind that the fewer encounters per day you have, the less of a drawback there is to blowing through resources quickly, and the more of an advantage you gain by doing so. You may be fine, if you're running 5+ encounters per long rest (the way the game is balanced). In the campaign I'm currently playing, and from what I've seen many other tables as well, it's more like 1-4 encounters per long rest, with an average of 2-3. In those scenarios, Wizards and Sorcerers can't burn through slots quickly enough to get through them all, at will powers take a Huge back seat, and suddenly abilities that let you burn through them quicker are unmitigated boosts to your effectiveness. So certainly, maybe not an issue for you, but hopefully you can see where such an issue would arise.

[Kryx]

I don't see it as a problem really, all three, action economy, spell slots and sorcery points are all a matter of resource management, and using those resources quickly to overcome a challenge is a choice, sure it's a powerful option in the short term, but burns through those resources so they wont be available later. I'll discuss it with our friends, we may just decide to keep the status quo
I agree that there should be consistency. That is why I say "if a sorc can't do it, then an EK can't either".

Removing the spell limits really changes the balance of the game. It may work for you if you want more powerful spellcasters. For others it widens the gap between top tier classes and lower tier classes.



Yeah, I think it's odd that Divine Smite escaped that balance mechanic, and exists as the sole way to consistently blow through hordes of spell slots at a time (resulting in absurd nova damage, too). I cannot fathom why Sneak Attack, spells, and action surge are all once per round but Divine Smite is once per attack, other than a presumption that multiclassing doesn't exist.
My only issue with Paladins is the ability to smite on a crit. A Paladin should have to declare before they roll to hit(not expended on a miss). I use that rule and it isn't as big of a concern.


In terms of Action Surge, I hardly think the EK with his max (1!) 4th level slot and once per short rest (admittedly, two per short rest at 17, but at that point you have serious concerns with the number of slots available to pull off this trick) slightly-better-than-quicken Action Surge is going to give the Sorcerer a run for his money in the casting department. Still, your point is taken.
Fireball + Fireball is pretty devastating. 4th level spells are still amazing. Besides the fluff that a 1/3 caster can cast more action spells than a full caster is preposterous imo.

[Ramshack]

Yeah, I think it's odd that Divine Smite escaped that balance mechanic, and exists as the sole way to consistently blow through hordes of spell slots at a time (resulting in absurd nova damage, too). I cannot fathom why Sneak Attack, spells, and action surge are all once per round but Divine Smite is once per attack, other than a presumption that multiclassing doesn't exist.

In terms of Action Surge, I hardly think the EK with his max (1!) 4th level slot and once per short rest (admittedly, two per short rest at 17, but at that point you have serious concerns with the number of slots available to pull off this trick) slightly-better-than-quicken Action Surge is going to give the Sorcerer a run for his money in the casting department. Still, your point is taken.



Keep in mind that the fewer encounters per day you have, the less of a drawback there is to blowing through resources quickly, and the more of an advantage you gain by doing so. You may be fine, if you're running 5+ encounters per long rest (the way the game is balanced). In the campaign I'm currently playing, and from what I've seen many other tables as well, it's more like 1-4 encounters per long rest, with an average of 2-3. In those scenarios, Wizards and Sorcerers can't burn through slots quickly enough to get through them all, at will powers take a Huge back seat, and suddenly abilities that let you burn through them quicker are unmitigated boosts to your effectiveness. So certainly, maybe not an issue for you, but hopefully you can see where such an issue would arise.

I can certainly see the counter point. It can be a huge issue in terms of power if you're averaging 1-2 encounters a day. However in my campaign, and in the campaigns I'm playing in we are actually are running 5-8 encounters a day, and sometimes more, and in some scenarios short rests are hard to come by or don't exist. But ultimately it's up to each DM to decide what works best for their campaign, play style and tables.

[Ramshack]

I agree that there should be consistency. That is why I say "if a sorc can't do it, then an EK can't either".

Removing the spell limits really changes the balance of the game. It may work for you if you want more powerful spellcasters. For others it widens the gap between top tier classes and lower tier classes.



I think Melee classes really are the damage powerhouses in this edition, with melee builds with damage potentials in the 100-200+ damage per round at late levels beating even 9th level spells in terms of pure damage potential. Even with high level spells, fighters and paladins can easily out damage full casters on a round by round basis. The power behind a full caster is their utility, and when a caster spends resources on dealing damage instead of that utility, they limit their potential with each spell cast. I think magic is special and unique. And if 1 a caster can occasionally do a few tricks to deal more damage than the melee classes then good, they are meant to be able to do a few amazing things a day, and do moderate damage the rest of the time.

[SharkForce]

I agree that there should be consistency. That is why I say "if a sorc can't do it, then an EK can't either".

Removing the spell limits really changes the balance of the game. It may work for you if you want more powerful spellcasters. For others it widens the gap between top tier classes and lower tier classes.

except that they aren't doing the same thing. one of them is getting an entire extra action, the other is not. you may as well argue that if a wizard can't do it, then a sorcerer can't do it; wizards can't quicken spells, therefore, neither can sorcerers.

but, since they're both different classes with different strengths, it doesn't have to be that way. sorcerers get vastly more awesome than the fighter, i think it's not too problematic to let the fighter have a tiny bit of awesome (and in fact, i'd rather the fighter get to have more awesome; the fighter/mages i remember used to be able to cast all chools, have as many spell slots as a regular wizard of their level, and were usually only a little bit behind the single class wizard in level, and weren't really a huge problem in terms of balance).


My only issue with Paladins is the ability to smite on a crit. A Paladin should have to declare before they roll to hit(not expended on a miss). I use that rule and it isn't as big of a concern.

meh. so what if the paladin gets good use out of smites when they get lucky on a roll. they're trading in what could be something like a free movement for a bunch of damage. both are useful at the right time, and frankly trading away that spell slot for more damage may seem like a good idea and then suddenly has a massive cost that makes you regret using the spell slot. frankly, you're still more likely to save those smites for something important, whether you've rolled a crit or not. and if you don't, well, you may have just traded in a game-changer for a bit of extra damage on mook number 3, and letting them get a better deal is fine because they just blew a very limited resources on a very unimportant target.


Fireball + Fireball is pretty devastating. 4th level spells are still amazing. Besides the fluff that a 1/3 caster can cast more action spells than a full caster is preposterous imo.

the sorcerer can still cast more spell levels, and meteor swarm in a single action is far more impressive than 2 fireballs in 2 actions. martials have few enough things they can do. i fail to see the point in taking away from those few things.

[Kryx]

I think Melee classes really are the damage powerhouses in this edition, with melee builds with damage potentials in the 100-200+ damage per round at late levels beating even 9th level spells in terms of pure damage potential.
No martial does 200 dpr. I think the action surging fighter is around 100 if memory serves correctly. He then falls back down to 60.

Melee is good, but a powerhouse is an overstatement. Just look at the several threads about caster martial disparity as of late.

[Magikeeper]

Lot of great stuff so far! It looks like my original damage amounts were much too low. The charts cover up some of the numbers in the google doc, though.

So, based on what I've been seeing here, if a class gave a PC access to a 2d8 + Ability modifier light melee weapon (like a claw) at level 6 would that be okay? Or would that result in massive damage when combined with other things all classes have access to? Ignoring, for a moment, that 2d8 damage is a lot for a "light" weapon. Assuming extra attack, but no other special aids. (so 2x attack and 1x no modifier TWF). Looking at the charts, that... seems reasonable?

Alternately, a 2d10 + ability modifier ranged attack (2x attack, 1x no modifier bonus) for a more damage-focused archetype?

Anyway, please continue with your discussions. People talking about damage so I could follow along and learn stuff is why I started the thread after all. :D

[Kryx]

@Shark:
An ek is a 1/3 caster. A 1/3 caster should not be able to bypass the casting restrictions.
To be fair the casting restrictions are some of the most poorly worded rules in the Phb. Maybe they were intentionally muddy to allow this case.
Either way it feels very wrong that the words are constructed in a way to disallow a Sorc quickening and casting as an action and then turning around and allowing something very similar from a fighter.

And this isn't a martial vs caster debate where we need to make sure the martial can compete. This is a 1/3 caster vs full caster debate where the 1/3 caster can bypass these poorly written spell limits while full casters can't.


Edit: sorry for derailing your thread op. Say the word and I'll stop with this debate.

[SharkForce]

except that it isn't about casting. it's about getting extra actions. the fact that the action can be used for casting is a mere side effect.

[Ramshack]

No martial does 200 dpr. I think the action surging fighter is around 100 if memory serves correctly. He then falls back down to 60.

Melee is good, but a powerhouse is an overstatement. Just look at the several threads about caster martial disparity as of late.

A fighter can get 60 DPR with just the bonus damage from their weapon modifier and great weapon mastery. To say nothing of actual weapon damage, magical properties, if they action surge for 4 more attacks. Use a bonus action to attack or have haste on.

With 0 optimization a straight 20th Fighter, Eldritch Knight with 20 Str a greatsword and the Great Weapon mastery feat can potentially do 20d6 + 150 Using Action Surge, Bonus Action to Attack and Haste twice per short rest. And 12d6 + 90 without action surge. With magical weapons, poisons, critical hits, this number can become much more obscene.

using the +2 legendary great sword from Horde of the Dragon Queen (+2 damage +2d6 necrotic) which you get at level 8 this. Can become 40d6 + 170 with action surge, Bonus action and haste.

Casters can't do anywhere near that.

I don't buy into power disparity between casters and melee, everyone at my tables hates the 5e casters with very limited spells per day and the spells they do cast end up doing less damage than our fighters.

Melee do higher sustained damage, casters bring burst potential and utility.

[Ramshack]

Using a mid level example. Let's go with level 11.

An 11th level fighter (no specific archetype) with a great sword and great weapon mastery, let's assume an 18 str at this level can do a sustained 8d6+ 56, with their 1 use of action surge that becomes 14d6 + 98. If we want to assume they have at least a +1 Great Sword of Flame (+1 damage, +1d6) now we are looking at a potential 21d6 + 105 with action surge or 12d6 + 60 without action surge EACH round.

The best single target damage spell at this level is Disintegrate which a sorcerer can cast ONCE is 10d6 +40

[SharkForce]

disintegrate isn't a spell you should be using for anything other than disintegrating stuff that can only be gotten rid of by disintegrating.

with that said, if you do use it for damage, against the right enemy you'll have an extremely high hit chance (DC as high as 19, potentially against a save as low as -1 even against the higher CR creatures), while your attacks with the greatsword using GWM will have a pretty lousy hit chance (around 50% or so) against anything with a halfway decent AC.

you cannot just spout damage numbers and ignore hit chance, and retain any validity in your analysis.

but yes, damage-dealing with high level spells is pretty crappy (with some specific exceptions that only apply to dealing with large groups of enemies).

it is recommended that those high level spell slots (and concentration, so you can feel free to keep dreaming about that haste spell, it probably isn't happening any time soon unless you're an eldritch knight and you're casting it on yourself) be used to deny, restrict, or reduce the effectiveness of enemy actions instead.

the basis for your amazing damage should also not be based around the assumption that you're going to have a legendary item if you expect it to be a valid comparison between classes, considering that fighters do not have a class ability to give them such an item.

[Ramshack]

disintegrate isn't a spell you should be using for anything other than disintegrating stuff that can only be gotten rid of by disintegrating.

with that said, if you do use it for damage, against the right enemy you'll have an extremely high hit chance (DC as high as 19, potentially against a save as low as -1 even against the higher CR creatures), while your attacks with the greatsword using GWM will have a pretty lousy hit chance (around 50% or so) against anything with a halfway decent AC.

you cannot just spout damage numbers and ignore hit chance, and retain any validity in your analysis.

but yes, damage-dealing with high level spells is pretty crappy (with some specific exceptions that only apply to dealing with large groups of enemies).

it is recommended that those high level spell slots (and concentration, so you can feel free to keep dreaming about that haste spell, it probably isn't happening any time soon unless you're an eldritch knight and you're casting it on yourself) be used to deny, restrict, or reduce the effectiveness of enemy actions instead.

the basis for your amazing damage should also not be based around the assumption that you're going to have a legendary item if you expect it to be a valid comparison between classes, considering that fighters do not have a class ability to give them such an item.

I using a great sword given out to all parties in the most popular pre-made adventure played. Was using it as an example as what kind of numbers are possible when using magical items, which is why I gave both number for having a magical weapon and not. My point was the POTENTIAL Damage each round is huge for melee and is much less so for Casters.

Spells aren't guranteed either there are saves to halve or negate all damage, and you still lose your spell, spells with attack rolls can miss too, and you still lose your spell. I'm using sheer damage potential on a round by round basis and casters are left far behind.

To that point, taking away disintegrate as a damage option only lowers the casters DPR potential. What an 11th level sorcerer is doing 3d8 +4 with firebolt as their at will damage? People should really be mad at the power disparity between casters and their superior melee bretheren. Haha

[SharkForce]

I using a great sword given out to all parties in the most popular pre-made adventure played. Was using it as an example as what kind of numbers are possible when using magical items, which is why I gave both number for having a magical weapon and not. My point was the POTENTIAL Damage each round is huge for melee and is much less so for Casters.

Spells aren't guranteed either there are saves to halve or negate all damage, and you still lose your spell, spells with attack rolls can miss too, and you still lose your spell. I'm using sheer damage potential on a round by round basis and casters are left far behind.

To that point, taking away disintegrate as a damage option only lowers the casters DPR potential. What an 11th level sorcerer is doing 3d8 +4 with firebolt as their at will damage? People should really be mad at the power disparity between casters and their superior melee bretheren. Haha

umm... firebolt does d10s, the sorcerer should easily have 20 cha by level 11, and by quickening one firebolt and twinning another, that goes up to 9d10 + 15 (if all they care about is damage, they can just convert spell slots to SP and shouldn't run out in a typical adventuring day too easily), which is pretty good when you factor in accuracy (specifically, if the fighter hits on a 13, the sorcerer will be hitting on a 8, or 162.5% more often, for example).

i don't think the sorcerer is hurting that much when it comes to easily sustainable damage at level 11, actually (they do come out looking pretty bad at low levels when they have a lot fewer spell slots though). not that i consider burning that many resources on damage to be generally particularly worthwhile, mind you, but if you're building a DPR sorcerer, that's basically what you do (well, actually, you also basically take 2-3 levels of warlock so you can use eldritch blast instead of firebolt for the quickened spell and the regenerating spell slots).

or, of course, the sorcerer can just come across a fight with a dozen mooks in a tight group, throw a single fireball for 8d6+5, with a save for half that against a surprisingly large number of enemies will be against a very weak save, and suddenly the sorcerer's first round damage was an average of 96d6+60, adjusted for saving throws (which will likely be more favourable than the fighter's damage adjusted for AC considering the fighter is taking a -5 on attack rolls while the sorcerer is not taking a -5 to save DC for all that damage).

[Ramshack]

umm... firebolt does d10s, the sorcerer should easily have 20 cha by level 11, and by quickening one firebolt and twinning another, that goes up to 9d10 + 15 (if all they care about is damage, they can just convert spell slots to SP and shouldn't run out in a typical adventuring day too easily), which is pretty good when you factor in accuracy (specifically, if the fighter hits on a 13, the sorcerer will be hitting on a 8, or 162.5% more often, for example).

i don't think the sorcerer is hurting that much when it comes to easily sustainable damage at level 11, actually (they do come out looking pretty bad at low levels when they have a lot fewer spell slots though). not that i consider burning that many resources on damage to be generally particularly worthwhile, mind you, but if you're building a DPR sorcerer, that's basically what you do (well, actually, you also basically take 2-3 levels of warlock so you can use eldritch blast instead of firebolt for the quickened spell and the regenerating spell slots).

or, of course, the sorcerer can just come across a fight with a dozen mooks in a tight group, throw a single fireball for 8d6+5, with a save for half that against a surprisingly large number of enemies will be against a very weak save, and suddenly the sorcerer's first round damage was an average of 96d6+60, adjusted for saving throws (which will likely be more favourable than the fighter's damage adjusted for AC considering the fighter is taking a -5 on attack rolls while the sorcerer is not taking a -5 to save DC for all that damage).

You correct sorry for the misinformation on Firebolt but yes all good point you've brought up.

[Person_Man]

Someone want to explain to me how the cleric is so competitive. I don't see it...

Spiritual Weapon (Bonus Action) + Spiritual Guardians (Action to activate, then Concentration) + any of the domains that helps your damage is basically the king of DPR in a long running battle, particularly if you can cast Spiritual Guardians before combat starts. But it requires that you keep Concentration up, and it uses limited spell slots (particularly if you want it to scale by using higher level slots), and its not particularly useful if combat doesn't last at least 4ish rounds, and a Cleric arguably has better things to do with its spells not directly related to damage.


Also, I would say that 5.5 to 55ish is a fair place to start for damage scaling for any homebrew, with the main damage spikes coming at level 5 and 11. Everything above that should require the use of limited resources and only be useful in specific situations (like the example above). In particular, full casters should have at-will dpr that is meaningfully lower then that of non-full casters.

[numerek]

Spiritual Weapon (Bonus Action) + Spiritual Guardians (Action to activate, then Concentration) + any of the domains that helps your damage is basically the king of DPR in a long running battle, particularly if you can cast Spiritual Guardians before combat starts. But it requires that you keep Concentration up, and it uses limited spell slots (particularly if you want it to scale by using higher level slots), and its not particularly useful if combat doesn't last at least 4ish rounds, and a Cleric arguably has better things to do with its spells not directly related to damage.

Which is why I came up with a multiclass that does take 15 levels to come online but conjuration school wizard gets to ignore damage for concentration for conjuration spells and spiritual guardians is a conjuration spell. If you allow favored soul you can also take the extend metamagic(earlier) with war domain supplying spiritual guardians and at level 15 you would have up to 320 minutes of spirtual guardians without damage concentration checks, plus you have some great low level spells that up survivability like shield and mirror image. at 6th level sorcerer you would even get extra attack which could increase damage significantly if you also took appropriate feats and your duration would go up to 640 minutes.
Yes I know you give up higher level spells. I suppose as a mono class you could just wish for permanent spiritual guardians or something even better.

[MeeposFire]

Yup. No Bonus and Action level spells unless one of them is a cantrip. The reasoning is balance. Spellcasters are significantly more power when you can do an action twice or an action + bonus action.


On the topic of Action Surge: I think it's a garbage ruling to allow EK's to cast better than Sorcs (2 action spells). I houserule that it doesn't work.

That is how I house rule it but that isn't how it actually works.

If you cast a bonus action spell and it is a cantrip then your action based spell must also be a cantrip. It is kind of dumb that way but that is the rule. I dislike this rule because it casues the order of which you cast the spells to drastically change your rounds power and punishes you for using a naturally occuring bonus action cantrip like shillelagh (which if you cast forces you to cast a cantrip for your action whereas if you cast an action cantrip you could cast a bonus action spell. One way has a spell and a cantirp the other forces you to use two cantrip which seems weird to me).

Also it is important to note that while action surge does allow you to cast two action spells in a round it does not change the bonus action rule. So if you cast a bonus action spell both your action and your action surge action must both be cantrips if you use them to cast spells.

[Kryx]

An 11th level fighter (no specific archetype) with a great sword and great weapon mastery, let's assume an 18 str at this level can do a sustained 8d6+ 56, with their 1 use of action surge that becomes 14d6 + 98. If we want to assume they have at least a +1 Great Sword of Flame (+1 damage, +1d6) now we are looking at a potential 21d6 + 105 with action surge or 12d6 + 60 without action surge EACH round.
At level 11 the fighter has 3 attacks, not 4. And his damage would be 6d6+12 if all hit, not 8d6. Assuming all hit is a bad metric. You also can't just assume GMW gives you another hit - it has a chance(I estimate it to be around 39%). Also assuming magical items is entirely campaign dependent. 5e expects none, the rest is a bonus to both casters and martials.
I've actually calculated DPR for a GMW Fighter at 11 - it's about 38.1, or 71.1 while action surging.

A Fireball that hits 2 targets would do more. Hit more targets and it's significantly more. Compare that DPR with my Wizard vs Sorc Calc (https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1H1SxsntIaK1IIHwJmR_6aUnUtZE6yWlP4vPzHQLE7Ak/) and you'll see that the Wizard at 11 can do the following average damage (1 number per round): 168, 138, 138, 123, 123, 123, 112, 112, 112, 112, 112 and then he drops down to doing much less.
And that is assuming he only does damage. With CC spells he can remove some enemies from the encounter outright.



That is how I house rule it but that isn't how it actually works.
I was generalizing the rules as I was on mobile. I should've known this was people's favorite thing to nitpick. :P


it casues the order of which you cast the spells to drastically change your rounds power.
This is not true. Order doesn't matter:
https://twitter.com/JeremyECrawford/status/502551591539720192

If you've already cast a spell of 1st level or higher on your turn, you can't cast a bonus action spell on that turn.


Also it is important to note that while action surge does allow you to cast two action spells in a round it does not change the bonus action rule. So if you cast a bonus action spell both your action and your action surge action must both be cantrips if you use them to cast spells.
The rule has horrible usage in this case. You can cast 2 normal action spells as long as you don't cast a bonus action spell. This is why the wording of the bonus action spell is quite bad imo.

[Ramshack]

Kryx

Re: Damage Benchmarks
Quote Originally Posted by Ramshack View Post
An 11th level fighter (no specific archetype) with a great sword and great weapon mastery, let's assume an 18 str at this level can do a sustained 8d6+ 56, with their 1 use of action surge that becomes 14d6 + 98. If we want to assume they have at least a +1 Great Sword of Flame (+1 damage, +1d6) now we are looking at a potential 21d6 + 105 with action surge or 12d6 + 60 without action surge EACH round.
At level 11 the fighter has 3 attacks, not 4. And his damage would be 6d6+12 if all hit, not 8d6. Assuming all hit is a bad metric. You also can't just assume GMW gives you another hit - it has a chance(I estimate it to be around 39%). Also assuming magical items is entirely campaign dependent. 5e expects none, the rest is a bonus to both casters and martials.
I've actually calculated DPR for a GMW Fighter at 11 - it's about 38.1, or 71.1 while action surging.

A Fireball that hits 2 targets would do more. Hit more targets and it's significantly more. Compare that DPR with my Wizard vs Sorc Calc and you'll see that the Wizard at 11 can do the following average damage (1 number per round): 168, 138, 138, 123, 123, 123, 112, 112, 112, 112, 112 and then he drops down to doing much less.
And that is assuming he only does damage. With CC spells he can remove some enemies from the encounter outright.

You're also assuming their are multiple targets and that none make their save etc, fireballs can also hurt your own allies etc. It's impossible to calculate the math off of each scenario. Yes sometimes Fireball will be better, sometimes it wont be. That's why I look at pure damage potential numbers off of a single target and martial characters destroy casters in this metric, and even if casters can stay competitive for a few rounds using all of their resources they quickly fall off as resources depletes.

And this is okay by me. I think it works well. I think Martial characters should be the sustained DPR power houses and that casters should have the ability to on occasion do something much more impressive. Keep in mind this whole tangent didn't start as a discussion on martial and caster balance but as a DPR discussion. My only point in all of this is that Melee characters can average much more than the 50-60 DPR quoted by someone earlier in the discussion, they infact can average much more. That was my only point lol.

[SharkForce]

You're also assuming their are multiple targets and that none make their save etc, fireballs can also hurt your own allies etc. It's impossible to calculate the math off of each scenario. Yes sometimes Fireball will be better, sometimes it wont be. That's why I look at pure damage potential numbers off of a single target and martial characters destroy casters in this metric, and even if casters can stay competitive for a few rounds using all of their resources they quickly fall off as resources depletes.

And this is okay by me. I think it works well. I think Martial characters should be the sustained DPR power houses and that casters should have the ability to on occasion do something much more impressive. Keep in mind this whole tangent didn't start as a discussion on martial and caster balance but as a DPR discussion. My only point in all of this is that Melee characters can average much more than the 50-60 DPR quoted by someone earlier in the discussion, they infact can average much more. That was my only point lol.

actually, i'm pretty sure he's accounting for saves. just for the sake of argument, if we assume a 50% save rate on average (which is quite generous, at that point we're assuming the creature is both proficienct and has a pretty good dex score when many creatures have neither), you're going to do 32 from that sorcerer's fireball, 16 on a successful save. so, total average of 48 (between two targets). which is more than 38.1 by a fair bit.

and of course, that assumes the target makes their save 50% of the time, which is unlikely, and that you're blowing fireball on only two targets, which is unlikely. the fact that fireball still does half damage on a miss makes a big difference.

your "damage potential" calculations are ridiculous. cut them in half, and it's a heck of a lot more accurate, because you've probably got a 50% chance to hit when you're using GWM unless they've got spectacularly bad AC or you always have advantage somehow.

nobody is going to have "average damage" equal to your calculations. those numbers may be accurately calculated, but they are meaningless because the formulas you are using are the wrong formulas.

i really wish they spent more time in math class these days teaching people how to recognize what math you should be doing, rather than just checking to see if you can do the calculations. the ability to reliably add, subtract, divide, multiply, factor in order of operations, etc is available in equal measure to anyone with a calculater. it would be much more valuable to have people understand how to apply those formulas, as this thread is showing very clearly.

[Ramshack]

i really wish they spent more time in math class these days teaching people how to recognize what math you should be doing, rather than just checking to see if you can do the calculations. the ability to reliably add, subtract, divide, multiply, factor in order of operations, etc is available in equal measure to anyone with a calculater. it would be much more valuable to have people understand how to apply those formulas, as this thread is showing very clearly.

No need to take it there bud, it's been pretty cordial thus far. And for the record damage potential and DPR are two different numbers. My math was always over the potential damage in a round against a single target. Anyway I'm bowing out of the thread, if we can't even find common ground that Martial characters have a potential higher sustained damage over casters we wont agree on anything else related to Damage Potentials and DPR.

[SharkForce]

No need to take it there bud, it's been pretty cordial thus far. And for the record damage potential and DPR are two different numbers. My math was always over the potential damage in a round against a single target. Anyway I'm bowing out of the thread, if we can't even find common ground that Martial characters have a potential higher sustained damage over casters we wont agree on anything else related to Damage Potentials and DPR.

the point is that damage potential is a useless number. i understand what you're doing the math of. the problem is that it has absolutely no bearing on anything. it is about as useful in determining class balance as it would be if i were to start telling you the distance to various astronomical objects in light years. i might be providing accurate information, but it is not *useful* information in this discussion.

and that is what i mean when i say that i wish math classes spent more time teaching when to use a formula rather than just how to perform the calculations. damage potential tells me nothing. if i made a class that was identical to a fighter except that it could take a -50 to hit to gain +5 to damage (stacking with GWM or sharpshooter), the "damage potential" would be higher, but we certainly would not be getting an accurate picture of how valuable that class feature actually is or anything else related to actual combat by looking at "damage potential".

[Ramshack]

the point is that damage potential is a useless number. i understand what you're doing the math of. the problem is that it has absolutely no bearing on anything. it is about as useful in determining class balance as it would be if i were to start telling you the distance to various astronomical objects in light years. i might be providing accurate information, but it is not *useful* information in this discussion.

and that is what i mean when i say that i wish math classes spent more time teaching when to use a formula rather than just how to perform the calculations. damage potential tells me nothing. if i made a class that was identical to a fighter except that it could take a -50 to hit to gain +5 to damage (stacking with GWM or sharpshooter), the "damage potential" would be higher, but we certainly would not be getting an accurate picture of how valuable that class feature actually is or anything else related to actual combat by looking at "damage potential".

Thank you, I respect your opinion but cordially disagree with you. While certainly not that only metric that should be considered, it should still be considered.

Cheers mate :)

[Kryx]

actually, i'm pretty sure he's accounting for saves.
I did indeed account for saves - the math is on the google spreadsheet.

Though I am indeed expecting the fireball to not hit allies. That's super easy with an evocation wizard and less easy with a sorc and shape spell. Otherwise you just use your other damaging abilities that round and save the fireball for another big boom.
The other spells used are chain lightning and cone of cold.

These numbers do need to get updated after the ruling on Dragon Sorcs and Evocation Wizards and ability bonus though.


That's why I look at pure damage potential numbers off of a single target and martial characters destroy casters in this metric, and even if casters can stay competitive for a few rounds using all of their resources they quickly fall off as resources depletes.
For single target damage a martial will indeed usually reign supreme. Each role has their niche. Casters do indeed fall off after they can no longer hit multiple enemies.

I agree that this is perfectly acceptable paradigm.



Keep in mind this whole tangent didn't start as a discussion on martial and caster balance but as a DPR discussion. My only point in all of this is that Melee characters can average much more than the 50-60 DPR quoted by someone earlier in the discussion, they infact can average much more. That was my only point lol.
Again, that point is very wrong.
For the most part a martial at 11 is doing less than 50 DPR. As pointed out earlier the best DPR martial is doing ~45 (barbarian) and the Fighter is doing 38.1 with a spike up to 71 for action surge.
Nothing close to what a caster can burst at 11, but casters are bursty and martials are sustained.




and of course, that assumes the target makes their save 50% of the time, which is unlikely, and that you're blowing fireball on only two targets, which is unlikely. the fact that fireball still does half damage on a miss makes a big difference.
The difference is the Sorc vs Wiz isn't meant to be as real life as the DPR of Classes. It is meant to compare the two. However I do assume a 65% chance failure on saves and a 35% chance to succeed. Pretty close - it depends on the creature.
Save for half is indeed very very powerful. Much more powerful after I math'd it out.


your "damage potential" calculations are ridiculous. cut them in half, and it's a heck of a lot more accurate, because you've probably got a 50% chance to hit when you're using GWM unless they've got spectacularly bad AC or you always have advantage somehow.
GMW has a 45% chance to hit at 11. His math in other areas is not great (8d8+56 for example)



for the record damage potential and DPR are two different numbers. My math was always over the potential damage in a round against a single target.
Potential DPR is worthless. It ignores so many factors. GMW is a great example of how bad potential DPR is as you assume you're always hitting on an ability that makes you significantly less likely to hit.


if we can't even find common ground that Martial characters have a potential higher sustained damage over casters we wont agree on anything else related to Damage Potentials and DPR.
Martials do have great DPR - more than casters. Casters have burst. The issue here is you significantly bloated your numbers to make it seem like Martials have nearly 3-6x the amount of DPR they actually have.

[Ramshack]

I did indeed account for saves - the math is on the google spreadsheet.

Though I am indeed expecting the fireball to not hit allies. That's super easy with an evocation wizard and less easy with a sorc and shape spell. Otherwise you just use your other damaging abilities that round and save the fireball for another big boom.
The other spells used are chain lightning and cone of cold.


For single target damage a martial will indeed usually reign supreme. Each role has their niche. Casters do indeed fall off after they can no longer hit multiple enemies.

I agree that this is perfectly acceptable paradigm.



Again, that point is very wrong.
For the most part a martial at 11 is doing less than 50 DPR. As pointed out earlier the best DPR martial is doing ~45 (barbarian) and the Fighter is doing 38.1 with a spike up to 71 for action surge.
Nothing close to what a caster can burst at 11, but casters are bursty and martials are sustained.




The difference is the Sorc vs Wiz isn't meant to be as real life as the DPR of Classes. It is meant to compare the two. However I do assume a 65% chance failure on saves and a 35% chance to succeed. Pretty close - it depends on the creature.
Save for half is indeed very very powerful. Much more powerful after I math'd it out.


GMW has a 45% chance to hit at 11. His math in other areas is not great (8d8+56 for example)



Potential DPR is worthless. It ignores so many factors. GMW is a great example of how bad potential DPR is as you assume you're always hitting on an ability that makes you significantly less likely to hit.


Martials do have great DPR - more than casters. Casters have burst. The issue here is you significantly bloated your numbers to make it seem like Martials have nearly 3-6x the amount of DPR they actually have.

Thank you, I respect your opinion but cordially disagree. Saying it doesn't matter what the damage potential is naive. While they wont do it every round. The potential is there for them to do that damage, every round, with no resources spent. The numbers aren't bloated if they are possible.

[Kryx]

Thank you, I respect your opinion but cordially disagree. Saying it doesn't matter what the damage potential is naive. While they wont do it every round. The potential is there for them to do that damage, every round, with no resources spent. The numbers aren't bloated if they are possible.
Every round is averaged out. That's the point of an average. What you're arguing for is to count the spikes (AKA variance). In which case the fighter would do great in some round and horribly miss in other rounds. In the end it all averages out to DPR.

The numbers are very bloated as you're using numbers assuming 4 individual events that have a 45% chance of happening have occurred. That's .45*.45*.45*.45 = 4.1% No one cares about what a fighter can do 4.1% of the time. They care about the normal - which is the average.

[MeeposFire]

At level 11 the fighter has 3 attacks, not 4. And his damage would be 6d6+12 if all hit, not 8d6. Assuming all hit is a bad metric. You also can't just assume GMW gives you another hit - it has a chance(I estimate it to be around 39%). Also assuming magical items is entirely campaign dependent. 5e expects none, the rest is a bonus to both casters and martials.
I've actually calculated DPR for a GMW Fighter at 11 - it's about 38.1, or 71.1 while action surging.

A Fireball that hits 2 targets would do more. Hit more targets and it's significantly more. Compare that DPR with my Wizard vs Sorc Calc (https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1H1SxsntIaK1IIHwJmR_6aUnUtZE6yWlP4vPzHQLE7Ak/) and you'll see that the Wizard at 11 can do the following average damage (1 number per round): 168, 138, 138, 123, 123, 123, 112, 112, 112, 112, 112 and then he drops down to doing much less.
And that is assuming he only does damage. With CC spells he can remove some enemies from the encounter outright.



I was generalizing the rules as I was on mobile. I should've known this was people's favorite thing to nitpick. :P


This is not true. Order doesn't matter:
https://twitter.com/JeremyECrawford/status/502551591539720192



The rule has horrible usage in this case. You can cast 2 normal action spells as long as you don't cast a bonus action spell. This is why the wording of the bonus action spell is quite bad imo.

When I was referencing the "order" of the spells I was referencing the order of using the cantrip. Use it as a bonus action spell you must use a cantrip as your action spell. If you use the non-cantirp as your bonus action spell you still get to use the cantrip. One forces two cantrips one allows for needing just one.

I was not referencing that other argument since it effectively eliminates the rule all together and since I did not want to start that fight for no reason.


That rule is bad IMO as well which is why I house rule it to a simpler rule of "In any turn that you are going to cast a bonus action spell and another spell using your action one of those spells must be a cantrip".

Also notice that the current rule would prevent you from using an immediate action spell on your turn if you cast a bonus action spell on your turn but mine does not.

[Kryx]

notice that the current rule would prevent you from using an immediate action spell on your turn if you cast a bonus action spell on your turn but mine does not.
Why shouldn't that be the case?

[MeeposFire]

Why shouldn't that be the case?

So you think it makes any sense what so ever that casting meteor swarm and shield in the same turn is fine but casting shillelagh and shield in the same turn is not?

[Kryx]

So you think it makes any sense what so ever that casting meteor swarm and shield in the same turn is fine but casting shillelagh and shield in the same turn is not?
No, no.

The rules don't allow for a reaction on the same turn as a bonus action. You said you houserule that out. My question is: why should a reaction on the same turn be allowed?

[MeeposFire]

No, no.

The rules don't allow for a reaction on the same turn as a bonus action. You said you houserule that out. My question is: why should a reaction on the same turn be allowed?

Because why is it that different?

A character could cast meteor swarm and shield in the same turn and there is no problem and that is fine to you but if it is shillelagh and shield then you think it is a problem? Do you think healing word should prevent a shield spell but cure wounds should not?

To me the rules seem to want to do what I wrote and what you wrote down initially in this thread, which is that you need to cast a cantrip as one of your spells if you are going to use a bonus action to cast a spell. My rule makes that nice and easy because you do not have to worry about which spell is cast with which action. Remember firebolt quicken fireball is legal but fireball quicken firebolt is not by RAW. Is that a good idea or a needless complication? My rule both are just as legal as the other.

Even with my rule you still need to cast a cantrip that turn if you want to use that immediate action spell. For instance if a character were to cast healing word and did not cast a cantrip using their action then the immediate action spell could not be cast that turn unless it happened to be a cantrip (which there are none currently but that could change at some point potentially).

[Kryx]

I agree that the RAW is awful. I think this is one of the poorly worded aspects of 5e.

But with your simplicity you've also changed what was intended. The normal rules prevent a bonus action spell and a reaction spell in the same turn. They may do it in a horribly convoluted way, but it still is restricted.

Normal Rules (ignoring order and simplifying the general meaning)

Action + Bonus = 1 has to be a cantrip
Bonus + Reaction = 1 has to be a cantrip
Action + Reaction = Both can be normal spells
Action + Bonus + Reaction = 2/3 have to be cantrip

Your rules "In any turn that you are going to cast a bonus action spell and another spell using your action one of those spells must be a cantrip".

Action + Bonus = 1 has to be a cantrip
Bonus + Reaction = Both can be normal spells
Action + Reaction = Both can be normal spells
Action + Bonus + Reaction = 1/3 has to be a cantrip

If we're going to change the rules then situation 2 and 3 should match imo. In your case you chose that Action + Reaction should be allowed and I think that is logical, but the implications for #4 are weird. I think the best option is indeed what you have, but the rule should be worded better to fully explain how that situation works out.