how would you compare classes to see who is most effective?

[NewDM]

So how would you compare classes to see which is the most effective class?

My ideas (some adapted from other threads) would include breaking each class down into a list of subclasses so you would compare:


Totem Barbarian
Berserker Barbarian
Lore Bard
Valor Bard
Knowledge Cleric
Life Cleric
Light Cleric
Nature Cleric
Tempest Cleric
Trickery Cleric
War Cleric
Land Druid
Moon Druid
Champion Fighter
Battle Master Fighter
Eldritch Knight Fighter
Open Hand Monk
Shadow Monk
Element Monk
Devotion Paladin
Ancient Paladin
Vengeance Paladin
Hunter Ranger
Beast Ranger
Thief Rogue
Assassin Rogue
Arcane Rogue
Dragon Sorcerer
Wild Sorcerer
Arch Fey Warlock
Fiend Warlock
Old One Warlock
Abjuration Wizard
Conjuration Wizard
Divination Wizard
Enchantment Wizard
Evocation Wizard
Illusion Wizard
Necromancy Wizard
Transmutation Wizard


Then we would need to pair them against average monsters of their level. Once we do that we can see how they fare. According to the MM most common statistics at level 20 are:

AC 20
HP 310

So one creature with those statistics or five CR 10 creatures.
Average stats for CR 10 are:

AC 18
HP 155

Any excess damage from an attack over the hit points of the creature would be ignored.

The test would be which single class can take out the most enemies the fastest.

[PoeticDwarf]

You must see in and out of combat to see really how effective. I'd suggest something as with the original tier list. 3 situations and see who could do most

For in combat. Not on several levels one standard monsters. There is way more than DPR.

I rated all classes once. Moon druid got 1023. Valor Bard 1021. Lore bard 1005. Average was around fighter/warlock/paladin about 800. Monk, barbarian and rogue below it. Ranger was at 700 (BM) and 740 (Hunter). Could give you alle (sub)class numbers if you want to

[Nifft]

The test would be which single class can take out the most enemies the fastest.
Anyone with a big area attack (Wizard, Sorcerer, etc.) wins this if you use a large number of tightly-packed enemies with HP below their top spell's average damage.

Therefore tactical concerns like the foe's relative positions matter greatly, but that sort of thing isn't specified in the question.

Overall I don't think you're asking a meaningful question.

[bid]

Overall I don't think you're asking a meaningful question.
This.

A god wizard does very little damage and improves party effectiveness way more than an extra barbarian.

And even if you were to create a party of 4 losers, you could have way more fun with the right DM.

[Specter]

Obviously, measuring only damage is pointless. If any attempt at this is to be tried, it should be according to how the game structure was planned: combat, social and exploration ranked.

[pwykersotz]

The spellcasting classes would also need to have standardized spell lists for use to control Schrodinger's Wizard.

Also, damage is but one test of effectiveness. I propose an open-ended system of analyzing a single element at a time against each subclass. So that list might contain

Damage
Lockdown
Mobility
Obstacle Avoidance
etc

Then there's the main problem of analyzing damage alone. Is it Ranged? Melee? Typed? Single target? Dual target? AoE? Does it have riders?

Then how do you rate different types of lockdown? Which is more valuable, forcecage or paralysis?

This is a very complex calculation.

[R.Shackleford]

The problems is that you have too many classes that don't have the same base assumptions when they were designed.

Martials get damage and a rely on the DM to allow them to do other things.

Casters get a lot of options and get to tell the DM what they will do.

Both have chances for failure and both have chances for success. But they are built fundamentally different.

Say a cat is stuck in a really large tree and the players want to get it out. The Fighter will say "I'm going to climb the tree" and it's up to the DM to decide if the Fighter *can* climb the tree and then call for An ability check. The wizard will just cast "fly" and tell the DM that they will move up and grab the cat.

Even if the DM then says "it's very windy, you may have trouble flying" the wizard can still perform the fly without asking permission.

The only thing a character can do without permission is class features. When you don't have class features that let you *do stuff* then you will fall behind the ones that do. The Rogue may need to ask to be able to use a skill but they don't need to ask to use Cunning Action.

Part of this is the core rules and how martials have to play by the same rules as normal folks while casters get a class feature that lets them "break" those rules.

Martial wants to jump 30' up and grab the first limb? Nope, there is no way for the martial to ever break that rule. However a caster can just cast fly and float up there.

Casters get to go beyond normal. Martials are bound to "normal" well, up until late levels and those abilities don't stack up to the casters (yes attacking 4 times is totally equal to turning into an ancient dragon).

The only way for martials to go beyond normal is to become casters.

Also an issue I have is that there are many ways to deal damage and effects with spells but weapon attacks and maneuvers are watered down to just *weapon attack* as if attacking is such a general thing that specific attacks never and will never exist.

It would be like if all damaging spells were just one spell that did a type of damage based on the focus you were holding and you had to role play and ask for permission for the spell to do xyz.

So you do "magic attack" and it deals fire damage to one creature but to get it to be a cone or AoE you have to wait 6 or 12 levels. In order to do cold damage you need a different arcane focus and you cast the general *magic attack* spell.

Essentially the martials is still stuck in the mentality of 2e whereas the casters have been allowed to evolve and change over time.

[Coffee_Dragon]

Pairwise comparisons!

* Make some kind of web script

* That spits out a random pairing of (sub)classes

* And asks the user to rank them with respect to a randomly selected pillar

* As significantly better than, marginally better than, or equal

* Let a number of not particularly insane strangers at this for a while

* Math and/or statistics and/or arcane shenanigans

* Tier list!

* Maybe

[Shaofoo]

The problems is that you have too many classes that don't have the same base assumptions when they were designed.

Martials get damage and a rely on the DM to allow them to do other things.

Casters get a lot of options and get to tell the DM what they will do.

Both have chances for failure and both have chances for success. But they are built fundamentally different.

Say a cat is stuck in a really large tree and the players want to get it out. The Fighter will say "I'm going to climb the tree" and it's up to the DM to decide if the Fighter *can* climb the tree and then call for An ability check. The wizard will just cast "fly" and tell the DM that they will move up and grab the cat.

Even if the DM then says "it's very windy, you may have trouble flying" the wizard can still perform the fly without asking permission.

The only thing a character can do without permission is class features. When you don't have class features that let you *do stuff* then you will fall behind the ones that do. The Rogue may need to ask to be able to use a skill but they don't need to ask to use Cunning Action.

Part of this is the core rules and how martials have to play by the same rules as normal folks while casters get a class feature that lets them "break" those rules.

Martial wants to jump 30' up and grab the first limb? Nope, there is no way for the martial to ever break that rule. However a caster can just cast fly and float up there.

Casters get to go beyond normal. Martials are bound to "normal" well, up until late levels and those abilities don't stack up to the casters (yes attacking 4 times is totally equal to turning into an ancient dragon).

The only way for martials to go beyond normal is to become casters.

Also an issue I have is that there are many ways to deal damage and effects with spells but weapon attacks and maneuvers are watered down to just *weapon attack* as if attacking is such a general thing that specific attacks never and will never exist.

It would be like if all damaging spells were just one spell that did a type of damage based on the focus you were holding and you had to role play and ask for permission for the spell to do xyz.

So you do "magic attack" and it deals fire damage to one creature but to get it to be a cone or AoE you have to wait 6 or 12 levels. In order to do cold damage you need a different arcane focus and you cast the general *magic attack* spell.

Essentially the martials is still stuck in the mentality of 2e whereas the casters have been allowed to evolve and change over time.

While you are not wrong, your analysis does present a couple of critical flaws.

You are using a long rest resource to solve the problem while climbing is something that can be done at will without any sort of expenditure. While you are saying that the fighter might not even be able to climb the tree (a hard sell to say the least) a Wizard is not without risks and costs. Besides a 3rd level slot the Fly spell also requires Concentration which means that other Concentration spells can't be cast while he is flying and he is at risk for losing his Concentration as well. So the fierce winds might be enough to cause the Wizard to have to make Concentration checks to stay flying or crash into the ground.

This is why comparison between classes are fruitless, we are trying to use a standardized test when the classes are not standard at all. How well can a wizard fare if he was without spell slots or in an antimagic field? You say that Wizards can dictate the DM but this is dependent on a limited resource that not only the DM has the power to control (say make long rest a week long) but can also add specific counters to spell as well.

But sure if you can nova every encounter without care about the next one then Wizards are still the best but because you are using a single situation as the metric of basis and you are basically ignoring future impacts. It'd be like saying you can earn $100000 taking a payday loan as opposed to $1 in interest in a bank account so the payday loan is better without accounting the massive interests you will gain as a result.

[Gtdead]

Lately I use excel to determine mechanical effectiveness by pitting my builds against the strongest monster of equal CR per level that I can find. I create formulas to simulate abitilies and spells, advantage and disadvantage. If it can kill the monster faster than the monster can, either by superior dpr or outlasting it through defense, then it passes. Of course this doesn't take tactics into account, just tells me if the build is mechanically sound and can deal with increasing ac and health pools, overcoming debuffs and how many resources I have to spend to win.

From there on, I rate the class according to performance and versatility. For example, if it can solo the ancient red dragon and is a high level caster, it gets an A+. If it can overkill the red dragon but that's all it can do, it gets significantly less.

It's a work in progress though.

[SharkForce]

*sigh*

I really wish people would stop acting like vulnerability to anti-magic fields is a significant weakness.

yes, wizards perform poorly in an anti-magic field. but seeing as how those are exceptionally difficult to make, and in fact only come from other people who are just as heavily dependent on magic themselves, it doesn't come into play as a major weakness in regular play. if your only counter to something is to take it away entirely, you're just proving how powerful that thing is.

wizards have limitations in 5e. that was done quite well by the devs. but practically speaking, antimagic fields are not a noteworthy one. nobody is going to realistically blow millions of GP to spam antimagic fields all over the place.

[NewDM]

While you are not wrong, your analysis does present a couple of critical flaws.

You are using a long rest resource to solve the problem while climbing is something that can be done at will without any sort of expenditure. While you are saying that the fighter might not even be able to climb the tree (a hard sell to say the least) a Wizard is not without risks and costs. Besides a 3rd level slot the Fly spell also requires Concentration which means that other Concentration spells can't be cast while he is flying and he is at risk for losing his Concentration as well. So the fierce winds might be enough to cause the Wizard to have to make Concentration checks to stay flying or crash into the ground.

This is why comparison between classes are fruitless, we are trying to use a standardized test when the classes are not standard at all. How well can a wizard fare if he was without spell slots or in an antimagic field? You say that Wizards can dictate the DM but this is dependent on a limited resource that not only the DM has the power to control (say make long rest a week long) but can also add specific counters to spell as well.

But sure if you can nova every encounter without care about the next one then Wizards are still the best but because you are using a single situation as the metric of basis and you are basically ignoring future impacts. It'd be like saying you can earn $100000 taking a payday loan as opposed to $1 in interest in a bank account so the payday loan is better without accounting the massive interests you will gain as a result.

The main problem is that using the rules in the books for encounter size (XP budgets) and number (6-8) casters end up with plenty of spell slots by mid level to cast multiple spells per encounter, some spells have durations that last hour(s) (like false life), combined with ritual casting and Arcane Recovery they get pretty powerful. Throw in metamagic from Sorcerer that can extend spell durations into days and you end up with tier 1 and 2 casters.

[Vogonjeltz]

While you are not wrong, your analysis does present a couple of critical flaws.

You are using a long rest resource to solve the problem while climbing is something that can be done at will without any sort of expenditure. While you are saying that the fighter might not even be able to climb the tree (a hard sell to say the least) a Wizard is not without risks and costs. Besides a 3rd level slot the Fly spell also requires Concentration which means that other Concentration spells can't be cast while he is flying and he is at risk for losing his Concentration as well. So the fierce winds might be enough to cause the Wizard to have to make Concentration checks to stay flying or crash into the ground.

This is why comparison between classes are fruitless, we are trying to use a standardized test when the classes are not standard at all. How well can a wizard fare if he was without spell slots or in an antimagic field? You say that Wizards can dictate the DM but this is dependent on a limited resource that not only the DM has the power to control (say make long rest a week long) but can also add specific counters to spell as well.

But sure if you can nova every encounter without care about the next one then Wizards are still the best but because you are using a single situation as the metric of basis and you are basically ignoring future impacts. It'd be like saying you can earn $100000 taking a payday loan as opposed to $1 in interest in a bank account so the payday loan is better without accounting the massive interests you will gain as a result.

Well, he is wrong in that there are rules for climbing as clearly defined as for the fly spell. The DM is of course free to ignore any rule in the book. That doesn't tell us anything at all though.

[SharkForce]

oh, good grief. by and large, there are no tier 1 classes in 5e (barring a DM who is unevenly permissive). casters are good. at very high levels, probably quite a bit better than non-casters. but they're not tier 1. if you put a 5e caster up against the kinds of challenges a 3.x caster could handle, the 5e caster wouldn't even come close. they've got far fewer spells per day, save DCs don't get nearly as unmanageable, and while some spells don't require concentration, most of them do. spell durations are generally much lower as well, with a few exceptions, metamagic is limited to sorcerers (which means anyone else needs to multiclass to get it, and sorcerers certainly don't have the spell list, class features, or spells known to be tier 1), and perhaps more importantly the items that handed out free metamagic are gone, fighters are far more powerful than any summoned creature a caster could reliably get their hands on, and most of the really disruptive spells either no longer exist or have been severely reduced in power.

i mean, seriously, if you took even a 3.x sorcerer (relatively low down in terms of full spellcaster power what with much poorer prestige class support, reduced access to feats, worse crafting ability due to limited spells known, and of course not being able to choose from literally hundreds of spells by the time 3.x was really getting going), it would probably blow any 5e caster out of the water.

let's not be silly, here. there is definitely *some* difference in effectiveness across different classes in 5e. but there is nothing remotely approaching 3.x tier 1 classes.

[NewDM]

oh, good grief. by and large, there are no tier 1 classes in 5e (barring a DM who is unevenly permissive). casters are good. at very high levels, probably quite a bit better than non-casters. but they're not tier 1. if you put a 5e caster up against the kinds of challenges a 3.x caster could handle, the 5e caster wouldn't even come close. they've got far fewer spells per day, save DCs don't get nearly as unmanageable, and while some spells don't require concentration, most of them do. spell durations are generally much lower as well, with a few exceptions, metamagic is limited to sorcerers (which means anyone else needs to multiclass to get it, and sorcerers certainly don't have the spell list, class features, or spells known to be tier 1), and perhaps more importantly the items that handed out free metamagic are gone, fighters are far more powerful than any summoned creature a caster could reliably get their hands on, and most of the really disruptive spells either no longer exist or have been severely reduced in power.

i mean, seriously, if you took even a 3.x sorcerer (relatively low down in terms of full spellcaster power what with much poorer prestige class support, reduced access to feats, worse crafting ability due to limited spells known, and of course not being able to choose from literally hundreds of spells by the time 3.x was really getting going), it would probably blow any 5e caster out of the water.

let's not be silly, here. there is definitely *some* difference in effectiveness across different classes in 5e. but there is nothing remotely approaching 3.x tier 1 classes.

The tier list is relative power. It doesn't matter if they can't pull off the same shenanigans as in 3.x. The only thing that matters is they can pretty much do anything in the game (wish meets this requirement alone). They can alter the world (teleport, plane shift, creation, [true]polymorph, shape change, etc...etc...). They can do as well or better at those things than other classes. That's really all there is to a tier 1 class.

[Temperjoke]

What I don't get is why people seem to have an innate need to rate which class is the best, when all of them have moments that they are the best at.

[SharkForce]

The tier list is relative power. It doesn't matter if they can't pull off the same shenanigans as in 3.x. The only thing that matters is they can pretty much do anything in the game (wish meets this requirement alone). They can alter the world (teleport, plane shift, creation, [true]polymorph, shape change, etc...etc...). They can do as well or better at those things than other classes. That's really all there is to a tier 1 class.

no, the tier list is not relative power. each tier is clearly defined. if you don't fit those criteria, you don't belong in the tier, regardless of whether you're closer to that tier than anyone else or not.

wish does not do anything you want. it does sort of what you want, probably, but if you go beyond a certain point, you get screwed, and you can only use it once per day, and if you use it to do anything beyond a much more restrictive list than "anything", you run a serious risk of losing the ability to use it forever. furthermore, you can use it to solve precisely one problem per day. you don't get to be tier 1 on the basis of being able to solve one problem per day.

wizards can do a lot of impressive things. but they can't remotely do the kinds of things they would need to do in order to qualify for the 3.x tier list's definition of tier 1.

[NewDM]

What I don't get is why people seem to have an innate need to rate which class is the best, when all of them have moments that they are the best at.

It isn't about which is best, it is about relative power. So that some players don't feel like side kicks next to each other.

I personally have DMed in 3.x and had players complain because someone else was just flat out mechanically better than them.

In fact at one point the Wizard polymorphed their familiar into a creature that did things better than the fighter. The fighter player got extremely mad shortly after and quit.

[Giant2005]

If you want to compare the combat effectiveness of classes, put them through a gauntlet.
Make some encounters, have each class face two of them, short rest, face two more, short rest and then face two more.
You then determine effectiveness by comparing which classes have the most remaining hit points and functional abilities at the end of the gauntlet. It may be wise to give each class ability an equivalent hit point value, so at the end of the day you can combine the remaining hit points and the equivalent hit point values of all still functional abilities into a score.

[goto124]

I personally have DMed in 3.x and had players complain because someone else was just flat out mechanically better than them.

So we're testing if 5e has the same imbalance problems of 3.x?

[PoeticDwarf]

If you want to compare the combat effectiveness of classes, put them through a gauntlet.
Make some encounters, have each class face two of them, short rest, face two more, short rest and then face two more.
You then determine effectiveness by comparing which classes have the most remaining hit points and functional abilities at the end of the gauntlet. It may be wise to give each class ability an equivalent hit point value, so at the end of the day you can combine the remaining hit points and the equivalent hit point values of all still functional abilities into a score.

This. Except that I think because d12HD is part of the barbarian you shouldn't give sane amount of HP

[Regitnui]

It isn't about which is best, it is about relative power. So that some players don't feel like side kicks next to each other.


Here's the thing, that doesn't happen in 5e. Every story I hear of someone feeling sidelined is immediately countered by a story where the same class build dominated. A wizard, cleric or druid is no longer 100% always better than a fighter, barbarian or paladin. There are only two tiers now; suboptimal and optimized, and all classes fit into both. 5e isn't perfect, yeah, but the gap between its worst class (whichever you think that is) and the best class (see previous parentheses) is hardly enough to fill out a 3.5 tier, or even a 4e tier.

The unfairly-maligned beastmaster ranger can hold its own in a party with the mythical always-ready wizard everyone quotes to 'prove' that 'casters are best'. Double on the fact that unless the players make a specific effort to not work together, neither would sideline the other. The warrior, rogue, mage and priest archetypes are probably in the happiest marriage we've seen in D&D since Eberron came out.

But some people have to know that they're playing the best possible version of the best possible class so they can look down on anyone not choosing those. Heaven forbid you play non-variant human. Heaven forbid you play a beast master ranger. Why on earth would you not play a wizard when they clearly dominate the game to the extent of making everyone else irrelevant! *deep breath*

[Giant2005]

This. Except that I think because d12HD is part of the barbarian you shouldn't give sane amount of HP

By that last part I meant assign Rage an equivalent hit point value of 100, a level 9 spell slot an equivalent hit point value of 90, Action Surge an equivalent hit point value of 50, the Champion's expanded crit range an equivalent hit point value of 30 (just making up those numbers on the spot with no thought given to them at all), etc.

That way you can add the values of any remaining abilities to the hit point values in order to more accurately determine how ready tat character is for further combat. For example, if only hit points were being used as a measurement, then a Battlemaster that had used all of its superiority dice, action surges and Second Wind would seem to retain as much combat effectiveness as an Assassin that had the same hit points. In reality the Assassin would actually remain more combat effective due to it still having all of its abilities at its disposal. If we assign values to all of the abilities, then the more combat effective (yet same remaining number of hit points) Assassin would be better represented.

[Zalabim]

It isn't about which is best, it is about relative power. So that some players don't feel like side kicks next to each other.

I personally have DMed in 3.x and had players complain because someone else was just flat out mechanically better than them.

In fact at one point the Wizard polymorphed their familiar into a creature that did things better than the fighter. The fighter player got extremely mad shortly after and quit.

Ok, but Teleport doesn't make anyone a sidekick. Plane Shift doesn't make anyone a sidekick. Gate doesn't make anyone a sidekick. Simulacrum literally makes a sidekick. True Polymorph is all kinds of broken, but it's most broken when you have a group of similarly CR/Leveled individuals to permanently turn into powerful monsters while keeping your own abilities that enable them to get to the place in the world where they can do the most good. Dominate Monster makes someone into a sidekick until they pass a save. There's only a handful of spells that can break the game. Hardly enough for any class to qualify as tier 1.


By that last part I meant assign Rage an equivalent hit point value of 100, a level 9 spell slot an equivalent hit point value of 90, Action Surge an equivalent hit point value of 50, the Champion's expanded crit range an equivalent hit point value of 30 (just making up those numbers on the spot with no thought given to them at all), etc.

That way you can add the values of any remaining abilities to the hit point values in order to more accurately determine how ready tat character is for further combat. For example, if only hit points were being used as a measurement, then a Battlemaster that had used all of its superiority dice, action surges and Second Wind would seem to retain as much combat effectiveness as an Assassin that had the same hit points. In reality the Assassin would actually remain more combat effective due to it still having all of its abilities at its disposal. If we assign values to all of the abilities, then the more combat effective (yet same remaining number of hit points) Assassin would be better represented.

Alternatively, you can just run them through more encounters until they break. It's no more arbitrary than assigning a point value to every ability in the game.

[Waazraath]

On the question: "how would you compare classes to see who is most effective?", well... I don't know if it's really sensible to do so. Because what is effective is in a very large part depending on stuff that is outside the rules, mostly DM controlled, among others:
- the type of campaign (the ratio between combat, exploration and social encounters)
- the dominant type of terrain you fight in (which can empower or invalidate certain options, like mounted combat)
- the type of enemies that are dominant
- the party make up a character is in

And, not to forget, as an additional objection to the system you suggest: it isn't a 1 player vs monster game, it's a team vs monster game. A ranking that is based on 1 player vs monster ignores strong ablities, like the pally's aura's and the bardic inspiration stuff.

So, if you really want to, I'd do it like this: http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?314701-Person_Man-s-Niche-Ranking-System Don't know about the number of scoring categories that would be useful, my first thought is not too much (1-3, from good to bad, probably), because the power levels in 5e don't vary that much. This would need some discussion first on the categories ("what is considered 'good'?")

And on these categories, I'd do a (sort of) qualitative analysis, or: have a dialogue, discuss and argue with this community about experiences, in game situations, and then try to get to a consensus.

If you want to do something like this, using sub-classses seems the most logical way for me too.

[Shaofoo]

*sigh*

I really wish people would stop acting like vulnerability to anti-magic fields is a significant weakness.

yes, wizards perform poorly in an anti-magic field. but seeing as how those are exceptionally difficult to make, and in fact only come from other people who are just as heavily dependent on magic themselves, it doesn't come into play as a major weakness in regular play. if your only counter to something is to take it away entirely, you're just proving how powerful that thing is.

wizards have limitations in 5e. that was done quite well by the devs. but practically speaking, antimagic fields are not a noteworthy one. nobody is going to realistically blow millions of GP to spam antimagic fields all over the place.

It is if your shtick is magic. People seem to forget that wizards need to do magic to do all the amazing things. Besides wasn't there an entire setting where magic is dead was the main theme of it?

Also the biggest thing is spell slot use and concentration so you can not focus on antimagic fields and instead focus on having to waste a 3rd level slot to get a cat out.

[PoeticDwarf]

By that last part I meant assign Rage an equivalent hit point value of 100, a level 9 spell slot an equivalent hit point value of 90, Action Surge an equivalent hit point value of 50, the Champion's expanded crit range an equivalent hit point value of 30 (just making up those numbers on the spot with no thought given to them at all), etc.

That way you can add the values of any remaining abilities to the hit point values in order to more accurately determine how ready tat character is for further combat. For example, if only hit points were being used as a measurement, then a Battlemaster that had used all of its superiority dice, action surges and Second Wind would seem to retain as much combat effectiveness as an Assassin that had the same hit points. In reality the Assassin would actually remain more combat effective due to it still having all of its abilities at its disposal. If we assign values to all of the abilities, then the more combat effective (yet same remaining number of hit points) Assassin would be better represented.
Sounds logical. I did this (as seen in one of the first posts) before. But that was also for out of combat

[NewDM]

So we're testing if 5e has the same imbalance problems of 3.x?

We are testing for imbalance problems. We expect not to find them to the level of 3.x, but we expect to find enough imbalance to make some players feel marginalized.

For instance just in my experience at level 4 I played a blade singer wizard and I was able to out fight a fighter of the same level. At 5th level my damage will be pretty close to the fighters, but I'll be able to damage more individuals in a single round.

The fighter (champion/battle master) is supposed to be more survivable, but in reality a blade singer wizard has more tools to survive. The False Life spell lasts for an hour and just about doubles the hit points (temp hp) of a wizard of 1st-2nd level. At higher levels it can be cast between each combat if needed. Battle master fighters can choose a maneuver that reduces damage by 4.5/5.5/6.5 + dex which is less than or equal to (with a high dex) False Life.

My blade singer had no magic items and while blade singing had an AC of 18 or 23 with shield. Mirror Image gives a 'virtual' AC of +15/+13/+10. The battle master can add max +6.5 average to their AC.

Even though they gain dice back on a short rest, they get much fewer dice than casters get spell slots. Especially if the DM follows the '2 short rests per day' advice in the DMG. That would be 12 with +1 at the highest levels for each encounter they start without one. By the highest levels casters have 16 spell slots + some have a recovery mechanic. Wizards gain back 10 spell levels worth once a day. That means 4 first and 3 second level slots or some other combination.

Damage wise a fighter is throwing around 1d12+5+10 (21.5) crits of 2d12+5+10 (28) with GWM over 4 attacks at +6 to attack. If you throw PAM in there it turns to 1d10+5+10 (20.5) crits of 2d10+5+10 (26) with 4 attacks +6, and one bonus action attack at 1d4+5+10 (17.5) with crits of 2d4+5+10 (20) made at +6.

Against AC 20 (most common AC for CR 20 monsters) that means they hit 35% of the time and 5% of that is crits. They would therefore deal (((20.5 * 0.3) + (26 * 0.05))^4) + ((17.5 * 0.3) + (20 * 0.05)) = 36.05 + (1's and 2's reroll) = 36.05 + (0.83_)^4 + 3 = 42.37

The blade singer uses War Caster, Mobile, Flaming Sphere, and Booming Blade + above defensive buffs. It places the flaming sphere near an opponent, hit it with Booming Blade and walks off (without getting an opportunity attack) to find another target. At level 20 this means the blade singer wizard has a +11 to hit (max dex bonus using rapier). At level 20 they can use Flaming Sphere at level 5ish all day. Damage is 1d8(weapon)+5(dex)+3d8(BB)+5d6(FS ram)+5d6(FS idle) or 4d8(BB move) (59) with crits at 2d8+5+5d6+6d8+8d8 (95).

Against AC 20 they hit 60% of the time with 5% of that as crits. They deal ((59 * 0.55) + (95 * 0.05) = 37.2. It could be slightly more since FS is a save instead of an attack roll.

If you replace one attack with Meteor Swarm 40d6+5d6(FS ram) = 158 * 0.6 (hit chance) = 94.8/35 (rounds in day) = 2.708571428571429, not much of a gain. Might be better off with something else like foresight for advantage on attack for 8 hours (enough to finish a days adventuring). Foresight increases hit chance from 60% to 84% meaning a general increase in damage of 19% or 44.268 total.

That's pretty darn close. Some might say that the fighter would have slightly more, the problem is if you were to add superiority dice in, an average day has 35 or less rounds of combat. The fighter gets 12 dice per day that means + (6.5*12)/35= 2.228571428571429*0.35(hit chance)=0.78 extra DPR for the whole day from dice. Throw in action surge for 24 extra attacks per day = 7.45 * 24 = 178.8 / 35 (rounds in day) = 5.108571428571429 DPR

So the fighter is 48.25 including superiority dice/action surge and the blade singer wizard is 44.268 That's a difference of 3.982 damage. For someone that is supposed to be best at fighting having a caster come within 91.7% of their damage makes them a joke.

[Regitnui]

For someone that is supposed to be best at fighting having a caster come within 91.7% of their damage makes them a joke.

I just want to check if you have any idea how absolutely desperate that sounds. Just apply that sort of logic to choosing a movie; "why would you pick an action movie when the Saw franchise can come within 91.7% of their body count?" Or to a book; "why read a fantasy book when the historical dramas can come within 91.7% of their character development?"

You said it yourself: "we expect to find imbalances". You're not testing the system and finding imbalance. You're testing the system for imbalance. A presupposed conclusion poisons the entirety of any method used to test that system. It's the equivalent of assuming the existence of (say) antibiotics in a homeopathic mixture before looking for them, and then when finding no bacteria claiming success. Crunch all the numbers you want, but if you're looking to support a conclusion your evidence becomes biased.

Here's an idea. Crunch the numbers on every single subclass for damaging a single target at the same level (20, perhaps? Or 5,10,15,20). No feats, standard ability array assigned appropriately, and no magic weapons or passive spells applied to the character. That would be a fairer metric, as it would use only the direct damage options available to the class.

[Giant2005]

So the fighter is 48.25 including superiority dice/action surge and the blade singer wizard is 44.268 That's a difference of 3.982 damage. For someone that is supposed to be best at fighting having a caster come within 91.7% of their damage makes them a joke.

It makes them seem like a joke because you stacked the deck to make it seem that way, not because they legitimately are a joke.
You chose an AC value that very advantageous for the Wizard compared to the Fighter (or at least compared to a GWM using Fighter). Against such a high AC, simply adding the Mounted Combatant feat to the mix would near double the average DPR of the Fighter and obviously increase them to absolute non-joke status.
You also ignored magic weapons - another factor that being ignored results in a significant advantage to the Wizard.
You also failed to mention that in order to come close to emulating the capabilities of the Fighter, it uses all of its ASI/Feat selections and must be a Variant Human (2 Str/Dex increases, 2 Int increases, 2 feats), it also uses virtually all of its level 4,5,6, and 9th level spell slots. The Fighter is only using 4 or its 7 ASI/Feats (Polearm Master, GWM, 2 Str ASIs), or 3 if it is a Variant Human like the Wizard. It is using 5 (or 4 is a Variant Human) if it is using Mounted Combatant in order to double the average DPR of the Wizard.
Those spare feats combined with the secondary effects of the Maneuvers result in more utility (the Wizard's usual forte) than the Bladesinger that has blown such a significant amount of its spell slots on pure damage.
You also failed to consider not just the possibility, but the extreme likelihood of that Wizard losing concentration considering that with that setup, the best he can have a +2 Con modifier and no proficiency bonus and a single hit from a CR 20 character will cause enough damage to guarantee a loss of concentration, and with it over half of the Wizard's DPR.
Essentially, the Bladesinger has devoted everything in its efforts to not quite be on a comparable level to a Fighter's combat prowess, while also sacrificing just enough to ensure that the Fighter is better at both his forte as well as that of the Wizard.

[Zalabim]

There is so much wrong with this post. It's not even concentrated wrong. It's just spraying all over the place.


You've given strange attention to False Life.
You've vastly overestimated the value of Mirror Image.
You've omitted at least a third of the BM superiority dice.
You've overestimated enemy AC.
You've understated fighter's damage.
You've miscalculated GWF-style's average damage bonus.
You've ignored your own example's common defenses.
You've overspent the bladesinger's ASI.
You've overstated booming blade's crit damage.
You've given the bladesinger several free turns to set up 1 minute duration effects.
You've excluded the bladesinger's secondary damage bonus.
You've miscalculated meteor swarm's average damage and the relative benefit of casting it.
You've cut the value of superiority dice to a further ~1/3 of their minimum.
You've ignored that the bladesinger can't keep up all these effects for 7 combat encounters, since bladesinging is 2/rest.
And because you have the value of a fighter's attack wrong, you have the value of action surge wrong.


For fun, meteor swarm does an average of 36.77 damage to the average CR 20 monster in the MM.

[Shaofoo]

Class comparisons rarely if at all can help when discussing balance problems (or try to invent one where none exist even). Besides the fact that one can make any situation where things are stacked to whatever side you favor there is the fact that the game is not based on a PvP setting and has a bunch of other things that analysis just flat out ignore (like the rest mechanics, considering that the above analysis has the Bladesinger use up a ton of spells so again the metric of "one fight to rule them all" is blatant here).

[SharkForce]

It is if your shtick is magic. People seem to forget that wizards need to do magic to do all the amazing things. Besides wasn't there an entire setting where magic is dead was the main theme of it?

Also the biggest thing is spell slot use and concentration so you can not focus on antimagic fields and instead focus on having to waste a 3rd level slot to get a cat out.

to my knowledge, there is no D&D setting that features magic being dead. if there is, there wouldn't be wizards in that setting, rendering it a moot point.

and no, something that can almost never plausibly come up on a regular basis is not a major weakness. it would be like if someone wrote a spell that destroyed every object in a 200 foot radius, but only one caster in the entire setting new that spell. would it be a meaningful weakness of fighters that the spell exists? not really, the spell is incredibly improbable to ever become relevant, and even more improbable to become relevant on a regular basis.

[Shaofoo]

to my knowledge, there is no D&D setting that features magic being dead. if there is, there wouldn't be wizards in that setting, rendering it a moot point.

and no, something that can almost never plausibly come up on a regular basis is not a major weakness. it would be like if someone wrote a spell that destroyed every object in a 200 foot radius, but only one caster in the entire setting new that spell. would it be a meaningful weakness of fighters that the spell exists? not really, the spell is incredibly improbable to ever become relevant, and even more improbable to become relevant on a regular basis.

Like I said, the main point wasn't anti magic fields but rather spending spell slots and concentration, both which are very real limitations that happen to all wizards. If you wish to talk about wizard limitations please talk about having to expend spell slots and the real threat that anyone can dispel certain spells by hitting you hard enough.

Like I said, comparisons and analysis is pointless because the metric to compare classes is the same even though classes themselves are on a different metric from one another. The Wizard using all his slots in one encounter will seem like he is on top while ignoring that for the next battle he will not have those slots.

So okay, lets stop talking about antimagic fields and talk about spending slots and concentration.

[Malbrack]

Two things:

1. I'm worried less about level 20 than I am levels 5-12, since that level band is where most of us play. I'd rather see a combat comparison of classes at level 7 and again at 11.

2. Discussing solo play is pointless. This game is designed to be played as a group. Any challenge to evaluate combat effectiveness needs to be built for group play.

For the challenge, I would recommend creating a fairly well-balanced party of 4 level 7 adventurers: e.g., a Fighter, Cleric, Wizard, and Rogue. Next you create a level 7 character that has to replace one of those 4. For instance, you could create a Lore Bard that replaces the Cleric. Then with that new group, you play through a gauntlet of varied encounters. In fact, someone could even automate these playthroughs to run simulations in order to see which character can best bring up the average effectiveness of the group. Basically, you're testing whether your new character helps or hinders the default party setup. This challenge still wouldn't be perfect because it leaves the character building and play style to the whims of the person putting together the simulations; however, I think that's about as close as we can get to objectively determining combat effectiveness of different (sub)classes.

[2D8HP]

I personally have DMed in 3.x and had players complain because someone else was just flat out mechanically better than them..

So we're testing if 5e has the same imbalance problems of 3.x?
Well worth knowing, balance issues have been there at the start of D&D.
I can very much remember how in 70's early 80's it was hard to get anyone to play a "Magic User" (even when the Intelligence score roll was higher their Strength), simply because at low levels they had the least they could do (and the lowest hit points).
Most everyone played "Fighting-Men" to start, but those few who played for "the long game" found that "Magic Users" vastly overpowered other classes at high levels. Thematically and for "world building" it made sense, magicians should be rare, and "the great and powerful Wizard" should be more fearsome then the "mighty Warrior". But as a game? Having separate classes each doing their unique thing is more fun, and always hanging in the back while another PC does everything isn't.
While it ruins my "old school cred" I am in the tank for balance. So far in play (low levels so far) 5e seems to hit it right. I now lack the time and mental agility to get in the weeds of rules minutia myself, so I am grateful to you guys!

[Zman]

Well, you need to outline all base assumptions first as there is quite a bit to "effectiveness". You've got to rate and compare each facet of a class to others and create a whole picture throughout all levels. One class being better at Lvl 20 means nothing if for the other 19 levels they are behind as people spend vastly more time in levels 1-10 than they do 11-20, and spend more time in lvls 1-5 than even 6-10, etc. same goes for encounters or scenarios that can be solved, bypassed, or teivialized for some and others.

There is certainly more to it that just how effectively can you kill X in combat at level 20. What are you looking to do is rate classes according to effectively one criteria which will result in different effectiveness ratings if you use another criteria.

Basically I'm saying your current project and goals as written are at odds with each other and rather pointless and won't yield anything of value.

[NewDM]

It makes them seem like a joke because you stacked the deck to make it seem that way, not because they legitimately are a joke.
You chose an AC value that very advantageous for the Wizard compared to the Fighter (or at least compared to a GWM using Fighter). Against such a high AC, simply adding the Mounted Combatant feat to the mix would near double the average DPR of the Fighter and obviously increase them to absolute non-joke status.

I chose the most common AC of CR 20 creatures. We can do the same calculations for 2 creatures of CR 14-19. Which means an AC of 18-19. The key point though is that a lower AC actually doesn't favor anyone. The blade singers base damage is so close to the fighters that a 5-10% increase in both classes damage isn't going to change the numbers very much. We are talking maybe increasing the fighters lead by a few points.


You also ignored magic weapons - another factor that being ignored results in a significant advantage to the Wizard.

Magic weapons aren't assumed in the game. What's the average magic weapons at level 20? Varies by DM some won't give out a single +1 weapon, others will give out +3 weapons like candy. In the event of a +3 weapon, the caster then gets a +3 focus and the damage difference remains the same (or nearly the same).


You also failed to mention that in order to come close to emulating the capabilities of the Fighter, it uses all of its ASI/Feat selections and must be a Variant Human (2 Str/Dex increases, 2 Int increases, 2 feats), it also uses virtually all of its level 4,5,6, and 9th level spell slots. The Fighter is only using 4 or its 7 ASI/Feats (Polearm Master, GWM, 2 Str ASIs), or 3 if it is a Variant Human like the Wizard. It is using 5 (or 4 is a Variant Human) if it is using Mounted Combatant in order to double the average DPR of the Wizard.
Those spare feats combined with the secondary effects of the Maneuvers result in more utility (the Wizard's usual forte) than the Bladesinger that has blown such a significant amount of its spell slots on pure damage.

A fighter can only raise their strength to 20. They can only grab about 2 useful feats before becoming redundant because of the use of the bonus action by most feats. They can shore up other areas where they lack, but for getting their DPR up, they really have no more options. If you think there are more options, please mention them and I will take them into account. Adding ASIs to Constitution for instance does not increase the fighters damage output.

Blade singers can only be elves, for the purpose of comparison we are using optimized characters so High Elf. Starting scores(point buy 27):
STR 10
DEX 15+2(race) +1 (ASI 3) +2 (ASI 4)=20
CON 13
INT 15+2(race) +1 (ASI 3) +2 (ASI 5)=20
WIS 10
CHA 8

To cast Flaming Sphere all day (6-8 encounters) only takes 6-8 spell slots. I chose 5th level spell slots. In reality the damage would be higher because they can cast out of their 8th, two 7th, two 6th, and three 5th level slots for the day and still have all slots of 4th or lower left which they use to cast spell like mirror image, shield, and false life before (or after each encounter as needed). In reality I low balled it.

You'll have to be more specific when talking of feats and maneuvers. I already accounted for the fighter using maneuvers in the math. The wizard still has 13 spell slots to split between combat utility (shield, mirror image, and false life) and out of combat, plus they also get Arcane Recover for 10 spell levels worth of slots, and don't forget rituals for most utility spells.


You also failed to consider not just the possibility, but the extreme likelihood of that Wizard losing concentration considering that with that setup, the best he can have a +2 Con modifier and no proficiency bonus and a single hit from a CR 20 character will cause enough damage to guarantee a loss of concentration, and with it over half of the Wizard's DPR.
Essentially, the Bladesinger has devoted everything in its efforts to not quite be on a comparable level to a Fighter's combat prowess, while also sacrificing just enough to ensure that the Fighter is better at both his forte as well as that of the Wizard.

Wizards with the War Caster feat have advantage on concentration saves, this one has a +1 bonus to Constitution and Blade singers add their Int mod too while blade singing. In addition it takes 20 damage to make the DC go over 10. They have an 84% chance of succeeding on a DC 15 concentration saving throw which would be 30 damage. If they do fail, they just lose Flaming Sphere which they can start up again on the next round. They can also expend lower level slots to reduce damage as a reaction.

I also didn't include the last blade singer feature which is the ability to add their intelligence modifier to the damage of their weapon attacks which would probably push them over the fighters DPR.


I just want to check if you have any idea how absolutely desperate that sounds. Just apply that sort of logic to choosing a movie; "why would you pick an action movie when the Saw franchise can come within 91.7% of their body count?" Or to a book; "why read a fantasy book when the historical dramas can come within 91.7% of their character development?"

Desperate? lol. I'm just crunching numbers man. See above, that gap closes pretty fast since I forgot to add features. Like the Spell Mastery class feature (shield + mirror image at-will). The 20th level feature is Signature Spell (2 extra 3rd level spells cast once a day each).


You said it yourself: "we expect to find imbalances". You're not testing the system and finding imbalance. You're testing the system for imbalance. A presupposed conclusion poisons the entirety of any method used to test that system. It's the equivalent of assuming the existence of (say) antibiotics in a homeopathic mixture before looking for them, and then when finding no bacteria claiming success. Crunch all the numbers you want, but if you're looking to support a conclusion your evidence becomes biased.

I expect to find imbalanced because I've seen them in my personal experience and in the anecdotes of others. We expect to find them based on evidence. We also wouldn't be looking if we didn't expect to find them. There is a difference between having biases and letting biases into your work. Everyone has biases, that's unavoidable.


Here's an idea. Crunch the numbers on every single subclass for damaging a single target at the same level (20, perhaps? Or 5,10,15,20). No feats, standard ability array assigned appropriately, and no magic weapons or passive spells applied to the character. That would be a fairer metric, as it would use only the direct damage options available to the class.

Feats and ASI's are class features. Passive spells are class features. I'd only remove spells from a caster if I were to remove Extra Attack, Action Surge, and Maneuvers from the battle master.


There is so much wrong with this post. It's not even concentrated wrong. It's just spraying all over the place.

lol, if I didn't know better, I'd say that was an insult.



You've given strange attention to False Life.

Its a useful spell and the caster can choose it for spell mastery having it ready every combat (when the temp hp runs out they just recast it after battle), or even just using spell slots of levels 1 to 4. 1 hour duration for 24+1d4 (at 5th) temp hp is nice.


You've vastly overestimated the value of Mirror Image.

Mirror Image fools any creature without true seeing or true sight, or some other way to non-visually see an individual. With 3 images anything that would normally hit you has a 75% chance of missing. With 2 images anything that would normally hit you has a 65% chance of missing. With 1 image anything that would normally hit you has a 50% chance of missing. So first it has to hit the blade singers AC of 18/23 (Spell Mastery Shield). Then you roll on top of that to see if it misses. In actuality I'm underestimating it. A 50% miss chance is the equivalent of doubling your AC.


You've omitted at least a third of the BM superiority dice.

I did fail to include the increase in number of superiority dice which means 6 more dice per day. This would increase the fighters DPR by around 3 points per day.


You've overestimated enemy AC.

I used the most common AC for a CR 20. If we use 2 lower level creatures then the AC will be 18-19 meaning only a 5%-10% increase in DPR for BOTH characters, less than a point or two. Any lower CR on enemies and they both lose out of excess damage and make them 'tie' because they are both dealing the maximum damage possible.


You've understated fighter's damage.

I've understated both their damages, see below.


You've miscalculated GWF-style's average damage bonus.

GWF average damage bonus is (6.5+6.5+3+4+5+6+7+8+9+10+11+12)/12 for the weapon. The difference between 6.5 and 7.33_ is 0.83_. I calculated it completely right. I might even have went over since I used that value for the 1d10 weapon, which should instead be 0.8. If anything I did this in favor of the Fighter.


You've ignored your own example's common defenses.

Defenses are in favor of the blade singer simply because they can raise their defenses all day (spell mastery shield + mirror image or false life at-will) without affecting their damage output, while the fighter has to expend superiority dice which lower their overall DPR (but not by much, 3 points at best).


You've overspent the bladesinger's ASI.

Nope, see above.


You've overstated booming blade's crit damage.

Nope. If you crit all damage dice are rolled a second time, including damage that happens later. You can't crit with Flaming Sphere and I didn't double the dice in the crit damage for it.


You've given the bladesinger several free turns to set up 1 minute duration effects.

False Life lasts 1 hour and due to Spell Mastery (or plentiful spell slots) they will have it up all day. Flaming sphere only takes a round to cast and they still get ramming damage. So if you want to lower the casters damage to accommodate you'd take the Booming Blade damage off 1 attack per encounter -(1d8+5+3d8+4d8)*6= (246*0.84)/35(rounds in a day) = 5.904. It would lower the DPR by 5.904. But wait lets add in the Int mod that we failed to add earlier to the weapon attack damage: 35-6(round BB is used per day)29 * 5 = 145 * 0.84(hit chance)/35(rounds per day)=3.48.

The gap increases by a few points at best. Remember this is without the caster using their 8th , 7th, and 6th level slots of Flaming Sphere.


You've excluded the bladesinger's secondary damage bonus.

Yes, thank you. I've corrected for that above.


You've miscalculated meteor swarm's average damage and the relative benefit of casting it.

40d6 average 140. Nope I did it right. I divided it by the number of rounds in a day to add it to the DPR which means Damage Per Round which averages all the damage for each round in a day.


You've cut the value of superiority dice to a further ~1/3 of their minimum.

superiority dice add only a point to DPR everyday. Because of the limited number and the low damage boost. They are vastly overrated. 6.5 * 18 = 117 / 35 = +3.342857142857143 DPR not counting miss chance.


You've ignored that the bladesinger can't keep up all these effects for 7 combat encounters, since bladesinging is 2/rest.

I'm assuming the player doesn't use the blade singing unless an encounter looks like it needs it. For instance anything with a CR below 5 can probably be weakened by a fireball followed by a sleep spell to end the encounter with no effort.


And because you have the value of a fighter's attack wrong, you have the value of action surge wrong.

Care to point out where I'm wrong? If not, then I'll assume I'm right. The fighter doesn't get superiority dice on every round of every combat. In fact they can spend all their superiority dice between rests in 2 rounds if they aren't careful. In fact I miscalculated in the fighters favor by including GWF's reroll 1's and 2's for a 1d12 weapon instead of a 1d10 weapon.


For fun, meteor swarm does an average of 36.77 damage to the average CR 20 monster in the MM.

20d6 fire and 20d6 bludgeoning = 40d6. Average roll of a d6 is 3.5, 40 * 3.5 = 140. If we are talking damage immunities, then the fighter is affected as well.


Class comparisons rarely if at all can help when discussing balance problems (or try to invent one where none exist even). Besides the fact that one can make any situation where things are stacked to whatever side you favor there is the fact that the game is not based on a PvP setting and has a bunch of other things that analysis just flat out ignore (like the rest mechanics, considering that the above analysis has the Bladesinger use up a ton of spells so again the metric of "one fight to rule them all" is blatant here).

lol, I'm investigating this because I've seen imbalances in my own games and read people complaining about it online all the time. Nothing is invented.

I'm going for a situation where all characters are optimized.

The bladesinger only uses six to eight 1st-3rd spell slots and that's only if they take damage in combat. In my experience their super high AC makes them extremely unlikely to be hit by anything but a saving throw attack. They use six to eight 5th, 6th, and 7th level slots, which is equivalent to the fighter using all their superiority dice in a day. They are still left with many spell slots and Arcane Recovery and ritual spells. Everything else is free due to Spell Mastery.


Like I said, the main point wasn't anti magic fields but rather spending spell slots and concentration, both which are very real limitations that happen to all wizards. If you wish to talk about wizard limitations please talk about having to expend spell slots and the real threat that anyone can dispel certain spells by hitting you hard enough.

In my example above the caster has many spell slots left, Arcane Recovery, Rituals, and virtually can't have their concentration interrupted.


Like I said, comparisons and analysis is pointless because the metric to compare classes is the same even though classes themselves are on a different metric from one another. The Wizard using all his slots in one encounter will seem like he is on top while ignoring that for the next battle he will not have those slots.

So okay, lets stop talking about antimagic fields and talk about spending slots and concentration.

I'd say effectiveness in combat (the only solid rules based system in 5e) can be measured and is measured by the same metric.


Well worth knowing, balance issues have been there at the start of D&D.
I can very much remember how in 70's early 80's it was hard to get anyone to play a "Magic User" (even when the Intelligence score roll was higher their Strength), simply because at low levels they had the least they could do (and the lowest hit points).
Most everyone played "Fighting-Men" to start, but those few who played for "the long game" found that "Magic Users" vastly overpowered other classes at high levels. Thematically and for "world building" it made sense, magicians should be rare, and "the great and powerful Wizard" should be more fearsome then the "mighty Warrior". But as a game? Having separate classes each doing their unique thing is more fun, and always hanging in the back while another PC does everything isn't.
While it ruins my "old school cred" I am in the tank for balance. So far in play (low levels so far) 5e seems to hit it right. I now lack the time and mental agility to get in the weeds of rules minutia myself, so I am grateful to you guys!

I know. I used to play a Mage in 2e. I'd hide behind the fighters for the first few levels, but after that, they'd be carrying my gear bags and making me tea.

[JNAProductions]

Blade singers can only be elves, for the purpose of comparison we are using optimized characters so High Elf. Starting scores(point buy 27):
STR 10
DEX 15+2(race) +1 (ASI 3) +2 (ASI 4)=20
CON 13
INT 15+2(race) +1 (ASI 3) +2 (ASI 5)=20
WIS 10
CHA 8

Minor mistake there-High Elves only get +1 to Int. Not +2.

[NewDM]

Minor mistake there-High Elves only get +1 to Int. Not +2.

Thank you for pointing that out. Doesn't matter though as their attacks key off dexterity so as long as dexterity is 20 the DPR will remain the same. At best its +5% save chance for flaming sphere which I didn't calculate. The average dex save bonus is +6.66_ against a DC 18 = 50% save chance, meaning even with a +4 mod instead of a +5 they get more damage.

[Giant2005]

I chose the most common AC of CR 20 creatures. We can do the same calculations for 2 creatures of CR 14-19. Which means an AC of 18-19.

That CR range has ACs that range from 16-20


The key point though is that a lower AC actually doesn't favor anyone.
Sure it does. If the fighter is reducing his attack roll via GWM, then the higher chance to hit will increase his DPR by a far higher margin than the Bladesinger.


What's the average magic weapons at level 20?
It depends on how high magic the setting is. According to the DMG (page 3), even the settings with the lowest magic proliferation assumes that a level 20 character will have at bare minimum two uncommon magic items.

[NewDM]

That CR range has ACs that range from 16-20

Sure it does. If the fighter is reducing his attack roll via GWM, then the higher chance to hit will increase his DPR by a far higher margin than the Bladesinger.

It increases both their damages by 5% per AC point. Which means at best the fighter gets a few extra points across the board over the wizard.


It depends on how high magic the setting is. According to the DMG (page 3), even the settings with the lowest magic proliferation assumes that a level 20 character will have at bare minimum two uncommon magic items.

Uncommon magic items: +1 weapon/+1 focus, +1 armor. yeah not gonna make that much difference.

[bid]

Mirror Image fools any creature without true seeing or true sight, or some other way to non-visually see an individual. With 3 images anything that would normally hit you has a 75% chance of missing. With 2 images anything that would normally hit you has a 65% chance of missing. With 1 image anything that would normally hit you has a 50% chance of missing. So first it has to hit the blade singers AC of 18/23 (Spell Mastery Shield). Then you roll on top of that to see if it misses. In actuality I'm underestimating it. A 50% miss chance is the equivalent of doubling your AC.
Doubling your AC won't halve your miss chance. Call it +5 AC if your opponent had +12 hit.

Moreover your images are AC15 and will be destroyed way more easily than you imply. You don't need to hit AC23 to get them.

I expect a triple image will save you from 1-2 hits, which would do 15 damage. Call it 15 extra hp.

[Giant2005]

It increases both their damages by 5% per AC point. Which means at best the fighter gets a few extra points across the board over the wizard.
If the Fighter increases his hit rate from 35% to 40%, that is a 14.3% increase in his DPR.
If the Wizard increases his hit rate from 60% to 65%, that is only a 8.3% increase in his DPR.
An increase in accuracy is a much higher increase in DPR for whomever has the lowest accuracy.


Uncommon magic items: +1 weapon/+1 focus, +1 armor. yeah not gonna make that much difference.
Uncommon is the absolute minimum. If they were one step up, that would make the Flame Tongue available, and bonuses to damage weigh far more in the favor of those with more attacks.
Even with the +1 weapon, that weighs much more in favor of the Fighter not just because of him benefiting from the extra accuracy a lot more, or because a significant portion of the Wizard's damage isn't effected (Flaming Sphere), but because a +1 weapon increases both attack and damage rolls whereas a +1 Wand of the War Mage only increases attack rolls.

[Ruslan]

Obviously, measuring only damage is pointless.I almost agree. Measuring damage is meaningful for one question only - the classes who have little-to-none to contribute except dealing damage, are supposed to come ahead.

So if the Fighter and Barbarian come up ahead of the Wizard and Bard in the DPR comparison, that's fine, it's not a bug but a feature. It doesn't teach us much, except that classes work more or less as advertised. If the Wizard and Bard, on the other hand, would come ahead, then the system might be broken.

[Shaofoo]

In my example above the caster has many spell slots left, Arcane Recovery, Rituals, and virtually can't have their concentration interrupted.


How much is many, you use up a lot of high level slots which not even Arcane Recovery can replace. Plus rituals are basically useless in a fighting scenario plus your notion of not having their concentration interrupted is questionable at best if you lack Resilience or Warcaster. Being unavoidable is moot when you are crit or are hit with something that does not target AC.



I'd say effectiveness in combat (the only solid rules based system in 5e) can be measured and is measured by the same metric.


Still doesn't invalidate my point that you are using slots regardless how many are left, even using a single expendable slot already places it in a different level.

[NewDM]

Doubling your AC won't halve your miss chance. Call it +5 AC if your opponent had +12 hit.

Moreover your images are AC15 and will be destroyed way more easily than you imply. You don't need to hit AC23 to get them.

I expect a triple image will save you from 1-2 hits, which would do 15 damage. Call it 15 extra hp.

Mirror Image
"Each time a creature targets you with an attack during the spell's duration, roll a d20 to determine whether the attack instead targets one of your duplicates. If you have three duplicates, you must roll a 6 or higher to change the attack's target to a duplicate. With
two duplicates, you must roll an 8 or higher. With one duplicate, you must roll an 11 or higher.
A duplicate's AC equals 10 + your Dexterity modifier."

I'd rather call it a defense buff. Because if they miss the duplicate it continues functioning.

I was also calculating the AC on the Blade Singer wrong. Its 12+dex mod + Int mod = 21 while in blade song and 17 when out. With at-will shield that raises it to 22/26. Mirror Image is almost not necessary at that point. Remember they have advantage on saves and attackers have disadvantage on attacks due to foresight.


How much is many, you use up a lot of high level slots which not even Arcane Recovery can replace. Plus rituals are basically useless in a fighting scenario plus your notion of not having their concentration interrupted is questionable at best if you lack Resilience or Warcaster. Being unavoidable is moot when you are crit or are hit with something that does not target AC.

Max of 8 total spell slots (one 8th, two 7th, two 6th, three 5th) for flaming sphere. False Life is 8 slots from 1st-3rd in whatever combination they want. One 9th level slot for Foresight that lasts for pretty much all of the adventuring day. Everything else is free from Spell Mastery. 1st-3rd they get back from Arcane Recovery. So they end up with enough spell slots to do this plus have utility spells or situational spells left over.

Every optimized caster is assumed to take War Caster at 4th (or as early as possible).


Still doesn't invalidate my point that you are using slots regardless how many are left, even using a single expendable slot already places it in a different level.

Not when it has tons of slots left by the end of the day. If you strip off spell slots you gotta strip of anything from the fighter and barbarian that aren't at-will and that means half the class goes bye-bye.

[JNAProductions]

Try comparing them a bit earlier. Very rare is the table that sees Spell Mastery actually in play.

[bid]

Mirror Image
"Each time [... ] A duplicate's AC equals 10 + your Dexterity modifier."
I'm sorry but how does that answer my concern?

I am saying as soon as you hit AC15 you will destroy a mirror image unless you got lucky and are targeting the bladesinger. You seem to imply you need to hit AC18 (or whatever the bladesinger has) to cancel an image.

[Mellack]

I agree with JNA. Why the fixation on level 20? Most games don't even get to that level. Better to look at level 7, or maybe 11 at the most.

I also want to say that DPR is just a small part of being "effective." There are many roles: tank, crowd control, a scout/explorer, social, etc. Each of these should be important in a campaign. To ignore them is to ignore a large portion of the adventure.

[SharkForce]

Like I said, the main point wasn't anti magic fields but rather spending spell slots and concentration, both which are very real limitations that happen to all wizards. If you wish to talk about wizard limitations please talk about having to expend spell slots and the real threat that anyone can dispel certain spells by hitting you hard enough.

Like I said, comparisons and analysis is pointless because the metric to compare classes is the same even though classes themselves are on a different metric from one another. The Wizard using all his slots in one encounter will seem like he is on top while ignoring that for the next battle he will not have those slots.

So okay, lets stop talking about antimagic fields and talk about spending slots and concentration.

and my point is that anti-magic field is rare enough that it shouldn't ever even be brought up as if it were a meaningful source of balance. practically speaking, anti-magic field is not a part of class balance. it should never have been mentioned in the first place, because the only way it's going to ever see substantial use is a deliberately adversarial DM trying to punish spellcasters for being spellcasters, with the rare exception of enemies who rely just as much on magic as the theoretical target of the anti-magic field.

[Shaofoo]

Max of 8 total spell slots (one 8th, two 7th, two 6th, three 5th) for flaming sphere. False Life is 8 slots from 1st-3rd in whatever combination they want. One 9th level slot for Foresight that lasts for pretty much all of the adventuring day. Everything else is free from Spell Mastery. 1st-3rd they get back from Arcane Recovery. So they end up with enough spell slots to do this plus have utility spells or situational spells left over.

THis is so vague that I can't tell what is your goal. Except for a single 1st and 2nd level spell everything else is on a long rest recovery, the point is that you can't form a solid metric between classes that recover in a different rate. You can run out of slots eventually.



Not when it has tons of slots left by the end of the day. If you strip off spell slots you gotta strip of anything from the fighter and barbarian that aren't at-will and that means half the class goes bye-bye.

Tons is ambiguous, also since you are only using level 20 as a metric then Rage becomes at will so that is a point towards him. And again you are trying to mix in long rest with short rests, nothing a fighter has is on a long rest except for Indomitable which does zero for DPR metric which is the only thing you care about.

So no half of the class does not go byebye. I can make short rests the only thing that happens and that will help the fighter and not the wizard. You want to have all classes be measured the same way ala 4e when they aren't comparable. Any singular situation is pointless when you can game the situation to give you the results that you want.

[comk59]

You know, I was actually interested in this build that competes with martials for DPR. Until I saw:




Max of 8 total spell slots (one 8th, two 7th, two 6th, three 5th) for flaming sphere. False Life is 8 slots from 1st-3rd in whatever combination they want. One 9th level slot for Foresight that lasts for pretty much all of the adventuring day. Everything else is free from Spell Mastery. 1st-3rd they get back from Arcane Recovery. So they end up with enough spell slots to do this plus have utility spells or situational spells left over.




Well, damn dude. 16 slots, plus a 9th level for Foresight? That is a lot of effort to be as good as fighter.

[Giant2005]

Well, damn dude. 16 slots, plus a 9th level for Foresight? That is a lot of effort to be not quite as good as fighter.

Fixed that for you!

[Regitnui]

I expect to find imbalanced because I've seen them in my personal experience and in the anecdotes of others. We expect to find them based on evidence. We also wouldn't be looking if we didn't expect to find them. There is a difference between having biases and letting biases into your work. Everyone has biases, that's unavoidable.

Feats and ASI's are class features. Passive spells are class features. I'd only remove spells from a caster if I were to remove Extra Attack, Action Surge, and Maneuvers from the battle master.


Ugh... Look, I'm offering a fair way to compare. Feats are optional and can be replaced by ASIs. Passive spells can be applied to either character, so applying it to one skews the result. I'm not saying remove spells, but assume that the wizard is dedicating their spells to causing damage as opposed to passively buffing themselves to try and outcompete the fighter. Crunch those numbers. Who does more single-target damage?

[Zalabim]

I chose the most common AC of CR 20 creatures. We can do the same calculations for 2 creatures of CR 14-19.
What are the CR 20 creatures anyway? Demilich (in lair), Pit Fiend, Ancient Dragon (white or brass). Anything else?


Its a useful spell and the caster can choose it for spell mastery having it ready every combat (when the temp hp runs out they just recast it after battle), or even just using spell slots of levels 1 to 4. 1 hour duration for 24+1d4 (at 5th) temp hp is nice.

It's cure wounds. If you take it as your mastery spell, it's less than the difference between a d6 and a d10 hit die. If you spend spell slots on it, it's not quite as good as a self-only cure wounds.


Mirror Image fools any creature without true seeing or true sight, or some other way to non-visually see an individual. With 3 images anything that would normally hit you has a 75% chance of missing. With 2 images anything that would normally hit you has a 65% chance of missing. With 1 image anything that would normally hit you has a 50% chance of missing. So first it has to hit the blade singers AC of 18/23 (Spell Mastery Shield). Then you roll on top of that to see if it misses. In actuality I'm underestimating it. A 50% miss chance is the equivalent of doubling your AC.

It lasts a minute, so it has to be cast immediately before or during combat. It can be hit by attacks that wouldn't hit you, so it's less effective as your bonuses to AC accrue. For example, with +14 to hit, a creature hits your AC 26 on a 12, but it hits your mirror image on a 2. There's normally a 45% chance it hits you, with mirror image it's now 11.25%/15.75%/22.5%, so that's virtually 6.75/5.85/4.5 AC. There's a 71.25% chance your first image is destroyed on the first attack (75% chance it's attacked, 95% chance it's destroyed), but only a 33.75% chance it's targeted by an attack that would have hit you (75% chance it's attacked, 45% you would be hit.), so there's only a 47.3% chance that mirror image prevents you from getting hit. For three images, it prevents three hits 10.5% of the time, prevents 0 hits 14.6% of the time, and prevents an average of 1.4 attacks. If the attack has disadvantage as well, Mirror Image is almost pointless. Lastly, against CR 20 enemies, it looks like it is entirely useless. They all have the senses to bypass it.


I did fail to include the increase in number of superiority dice which means 6 more dice per day. This would increase the fighters DPR by around 3 points per day.

It's possible to have 7 dice per rest, and if the BM uses all their dice in the first fight, they get one more for the next fight. I wouldn't recommend either of these for a rounded character, but it's worth mentioning for maximum DEEPS.


I used the most common AC for a CR 20. If we use 2 lower level creatures then the AC will be 18-19 meaning only a 5%-10% increase in DPR for BOTH characters, less than a point or two. Any lower CR on enemies and they both lose out of excess damage and make them 'tie' because they are both dealing the maximum damage possible.

AC is already addressed, but the fighter's damage is more divisible, so they also lose less damage when there's many small enemies. The Bladesinger has to use a different strategy to optimize for that.


I've understated both their damages, see below.

GWF average damage bonus is (6.5+6.5+3+4+5+6+7+8+9+10+11+12)/12 for the weapon. The difference between 6.5 and 7.33_ is 0.83_. I calculated it completely right. I might even have went over since I used that value for the 1d10 weapon, which should instead be 0.8. If anything I did this in favor of the Fighter.

Great Weapon Fighters don't use Greataxes. Your notation is sloppy, but it looked like you added the GWF-style damage bonus as a flat value at the end. For clarification, the Halberd attack does 7.77 avg damage, and the bonus attack does 6.45 avg damage for a baseline of 37.77 per round, skewed upwards a bit due to GWM's bonus attack on crits. That's also assuming the fighter never gets a reaction attack from PAM, Sentinel, Riposte, or an OA, ever.


Defenses are in favor of the blade singer simply because they can raise their defenses all day (spell mastery shield + mirror image or false life at-will) without affecting their damage output, while the fighter has to expend superiority dice which lower their overall DPR (but not by much, 3 points at best).

Not the PC defenses. The CR 20's defenses. Every CR 20 monster flies. Half of them are immune to fire. Three of them have legendary resistance. Nearly every enemy can move faster than a flaming sphere.


Nope, see above.

Yes, as covered by JNA. You could start with 8, 16, 14, 16, 12, 8 and end with 8, 20, 14, 18, 12, 8 with Warcaster and Mobile.


Nope. If you crit all damage dice are rolled a second time, including damage that happens later. You can't crit with Flaming Sphere and I didn't double the dice in the crit damage for it.

Without question, the damage taken for moving after being hit by Booming Blade is not increased by a critical hit. That damage is a subsequent condition, not part of the attack's damage dice. It falls under the same answer as bonus damage that's dependent on a saving throw.


False Life lasts 1 hour and due to Spell Mastery (or plentiful spell slots) they will have it up all day. Flaming sphere only takes a round to cast and they still get ramming damage. So if you want to lower the casters damage to accommodate you'd take the Booming Blade damage off 1 attack per encounter -(1d8+5+3d8+4d8)*6= (246*0.84)/35(rounds in a day) = 5.904. It would lower the DPR by 5.904. But wait lets add in the Int mod that we failed to add earlier to the weapon attack damage: 35-6(round BB is used per day)29 * 5 = 145 * 0.84(hit chance)/35(rounds per day)=3.48.

The gap increases by a few points at best. Remember this is without the caster using their 8th , 7th, and 6th level slots of Flaming Sphere.

You were also talking about using Mirror Image and Bladesong each encounter. Isn't 35 rounds of combat from an average of 7 combats? So that should be 6.888. You don't have 20 Int, so that part should be 2.784. This is also assuming that the average CR 20 monster isn't immune to Flaming Sphere. You'd get a lot more mileage out of Bigby's Hand, but that leaves little expectation of triggering Booming Blade's secondary damage. No, I don't really know whether Bigby's Hand benefits from your Foresight, but I think it does. You really should recalculate the whole bladesinger thing.


Yes, thank you. I've corrected for that above.

No problem.


40d6 average 140. Nope I did it right. I divided it by the number of rounds in a day to add it to the DPR which means Damage Per Round which averages all the damage for each round in a day.

You didn't subtract the damage lost for spending that round casting meteor swarm and if they fail the save 60% of the time, they take an average 80% of the damage, since it's save for half.


superiority dice add only a point to DPR everyday. Because of the limited number and the low damage boost. They are vastly overrated. 6.5 * 18 = 117 / 35 = +3.342857142857143 DPR not counting miss chance.

Superiority Dice don't have a miss chance. If you spend them for extra damage, it's after you hit. If you spend them for anything else, it's because it's worth, on average, more than spending them on extra damage. So the minimum value of one die is 6.825 to account for random crit chance. To be more precise, when the chance to hit is 35%, then 1 in 7 chances to use a SD will be a critical hit so it should be valued at 7.428, as the minimum.


I'm assuming the player doesn't use the blade singing unless an encounter looks like it needs it. For instance anything with a CR below 5 can probably be weakened by a fireball followed by a sleep spell to end the encounter with no effort.

The player has to decide whether to use bladesinging before casting flaming sphere, for this example, or else lose its damage for that turn.


Care to point out where I'm wrong? If not, then I'll assume I'm right. The fighter doesn't get superiority dice on every round of every combat. In fact they can spend all their superiority dice between rests in 2 rounds if they aren't careful. In fact I miscalculated in the fighters favor by including GWF's reroll 1's and 2's for a 1d12 weapon instead of a 1d10 weapon.

You already knew you calculated the damage of an attack wrong, so why posture here?


20d6 fire and 20d6 bludgeoning = 40d6. Average roll of a d6 is 3.5, 40 * 3.5 = 140. If we are talking damage immunities, then the fighter is affected as well.

With 18 Int, Pit Fiend takes an average of 42.0875 (it's immune to fire), Demilich takes an average of 0 (but may use up one legendary resistance), Ancient White Dragon takes an average of 70 (but may use up one legendary resistance), and Ancient Brass Dragon takes an average of 35 (or 54.25 if it won't use legendary resistance to prevent 35 damage, also immune to fire). Average damage among the four of them is 36.771875, though obviously you'd probably not use meteor swarm on a brass dragon, demilch, or pit fiend. The demilich is the only one of these that requires a magic weapon, where it actually still takes half damage.

[NewDM]

THis is so vague that I can't tell what is your goal. Except for a single 1st and 2nd level spell everything else is on a long rest recovery, the point is that you can't form a solid metric between classes that recover in a different rate. You can run out of slots eventually.

You can if the DM sticks to the rules in the DMG. 6-8 encounters per day. At which point the build I posted above doesn't use all of its slots. It uses 6-8 slots of 8th level down. Then it uses False Life as necessary up to 8 slots.


Tons is ambiguous, also since you are only using level 20 as a metric then Rage becomes at will so that is a point towards him. And again you are trying to mix in long rest with short rests, nothing a fighter has is on a long rest except for Indomitable which does zero for DPR metric which is the only thing you care about.

You don't automatically throw out the idea that they can be compared until you actually examine them. For instance the build I posted has plenty of spell slots to go all day for the DMs rules for number of encounters. That means the 'daily' resource is actually comparable to an at-will or even short rest mechanic.


So no half of the class does not go byebye. I can make short rests the only thing that happens and that will help the fighter and not the wizard. You want to have all classes be measured the same way ala 4e when they aren't comparable. Any singular situation is pointless when you can game the situation to give you the results that you want.

I'm using the number of short rests and encounters per day the DMG says to use. If we can't measure by that metric, then there is something wrong with the game itself.


Fixed that for you!

In reality I'm giving a lower number because I'm calculating the flaming sphere damage at 5th level for all slots instead of 1x8th, 2x7th, 2x6th, 3x5th. We are talking about a loss of 5d6 damage per round total between the spells.

[Giant2005]

In reality I'm giving a lower number because I'm calculating the flaming sphere damage at 5th level for all slots instead of 1x8th, 2x7th, 2x6th, 3x5th. We are talking about a loss of 5d6 damage per round total between the spells.

You aren't accounting for the lower damage of the 4th, 3rd, 2nd and 1st level slots either though which is significant due to having to replace the Flaming Sphere with a lower level version whenever you lose concentration (which will be happening often against this CR 20 foe you are using as a standard).
You also aren't accounting for the DPR loss that goes with the poor action economy involved in the set up resulting from all of those spells and abilities required to sustain the setup.

Having said all of that, your numbers are probably close to where they would end up if everything was being taken into account anyway. I just don't really see the point in any of it - if a Wizard is going to devote literally everything he has to DPR in order to come close to a DPR class, other than the player's poor choices, what is the problem?
Once the Wizard has done that he no longer holds any of the advantages that Wizards usually lay claim to (versatility, utility and such), instead he is just the equivalent of a comparatively poor DPR class. Why be a Wizard that has no resources left to do anything but come close to meeting the DPR or a DPR class, when you can just play an actual DPR class and not only do so effortlessly, but be a DPR class that has more utility than what the faulty Wizard has allowed himself.

[Regitnui]

Once the Wizard has done that he no longer holds any of the advantages that Wizards usually lay claim to (versatility, utility and such), instead he is just the equivalent of a comparatively poor DPR class. Why be a Wizard that has no resources left to do anything but come close to meeting the DPR or a DPR class, when you can just play an actual DPR class and not only do so effortlessly, but be a DPR class that has more utility than what the faulty Wizard has allowed himself.

So ultimately, the argument that wizards can make fighters redundant is answered with the question of "why would they want to?"

[Giant2005]

So ultimately, the argument that wizards can make fighters redundant is answered with the question of "why would they want to?"

You could say that if you boil it down to its simplest terms, but that doesn't really represent the truth of it.
The Wizard isn't making the Fighter redundant - the Wizard is just throwing everything he has into taking the Fighter's role while not performing that role with the same level of competency as the Fighter. If anyone is considered redundant in that situation, it is the Wizard.
Basically the Wizard that devotes all of his resources to trying to take the Fighter's job, loses his own job in the process. At that point the Wizard isn't even really a Wizard anymore as he has sacrificed all of the abilities that Wizards excel at. At that point, you are comparing a True Fighter against a Lesser Fighter. If you have character-driven reasons for wanting to play a Lesser Fighter, then great - go ahead and enjoy yourself. If mechanical superiority is what you care about, then there isn't a reason to acknowledge the Lesser Fighter.

[Gtdead]

I'm of the opinion that a build must be able to hold it's own no matter the circumstances. However, the difference between a good and a bad wizard is knowing how to use his spells. If he buffs himself to become competent in melee instead of turning the fighter into a deity of war and mayhem then he isn't a good wizard.

It's good to be able to match a generic fighter in combat if he is forced to fight solo though. Any math that can support this is welcome news.

[Giant2005]

The Cleric makes a better showing off taking the Fighter's role than the Wizard does.
Its Booming Blade does more damage than the Wizard's due to their level 8 and 14 melee damage boosts.
Spirit Guardians does basically the same thing as Flaming Sphere except it inflicts more damage, has a rider effect, and has a much more reliable AOE component.
And the Cleric can add extra damage to the mix via use of their bonus action (Which unlike Flaming Sphere, isn't required by Spirit Guardians). Spiritual Weapon is the obvious way of converting your bonus action to damage but the Cleric could also potentially take 7 levels of EK for the bonus action attack, or some Sorc levels for a second Booming Blade each round.

[Shaofoo]

You can if the DM sticks to the rules in the DMG. 6-8 encounters per day. At which point the build I posted above doesn't use all of its slots. It uses 6-8 slots of 8th level down. Then it uses False Life as necessary up to 8 slots.



You don't automatically throw out the idea that they can be compared until you actually examine them. For instance the build I posted has plenty of spell slots to go all day for the DMs rules for number of encounters. That means the 'daily' resource is actually comparable to an at-will or even short rest mechanic.



I'm using the number of short rests and encounters per day the DMG says to use. If we can't measure by that metric, then there is something wrong with the game itself.


That means 3 slots a fight at best and Concentration is out the window because you are using Flaming Sphere as your bread and butter. You seem to play fast with how you are going to actually expend the slots. since I am assuming that Mirror Image will be your 2nd level infinite spell. You might say to follow the number of short rests but you seem to think that all spell slots are equivalent in your book.

Saying I cast 3 spells a battle is wrong, especially when one of them is Concentration which means that it can be defeated even with your amazing defenses (at will Fireball from a Pit Fiend defeats AC and Mirror image, not that he needs to because he has Truesight).

[KorvinStarmast]

So how would you compare classes to see which is the most effective class? Depends upon who his/her teammates are. For example, if an assassin rogue and a tank barbarian fight together, assassin always gets sneak attack because his barb is always in the thick of it tanking away.

I am also curious as to what the obsession is (not just your question) with competition between classes. The game is built on the following model: teamwork.

[Rhaegar]

If you did manage to create a most effective class list, and everyone in the party took the most effective class, you'd likely end up with one of the least effective parties. A balanced party is far more important.

1v1 comparisons tell you very little about a characters effectiveness. Who was more effective in a fight, the Barbarian who killed three ghouls in a row on his turn, or the cleric who dispelled the paralyze on the Barbarian, allowing him to actually act on his turn. It's all about teamwork.

[Shaofoo]

Depends upon who his/her teammates are. For example, if an assassin rogue and a tank barbarian fight together, assassin always gets sneak attack because his barb is always in the thick of it tanking away.

I am also curious as to what the obsession is (not just your question) with competition between classes. The game is built on the following model: teamwork.

Because that is how it always was, people always love to pit classes against one another even if the game itself isn't balanced around such a concept and is in fact balanced around the exact opposite of competition: cooperation.

[Doug Lampert]

The tier list is relative power. It doesn't matter if they can't pull off the same shenanigans as in 3.x. The only thing that matters is they can pretty much do anything in the game (wish meets this requirement alone). They can alter the world (teleport, plane shift, creation, [true]polymorph, shape change, etc...etc...). They can do as well or better at those things than other classes. That's really all there is to a tier 1 class.

IMAO: For a tier list to be meaningful it has to be the case that a party is better off replacing a character of one type with a character that duplicates another type already present in the party.

3.x balance wasn't broken because wizards were "more powerful" than fighters. It was broken because Wizard/Cleric/Cleric/Druid was a vastly stronger party than Wizard/Cleric/Rogue/Fighter; and because the fighter player would sometimes notice that he was the load rather than the hero.

Given a 5th edition PARTY of Wizard/Cleric/Fighter/Rogue/Paladin; are you clearly better off replacing any one of those classes with a duplicate of any other class listed? Is there some other class so strong that a party with two of them and three other guys would be clearly better than this build?

Who cares about one on one comparisons? The game is played by parties.

[R.Shackleford]

Because that is how it always was, people always love to pit classes against one another even if the game itself isn't balanced around such a concept and is in fact balanced around the exact opposite of competition: cooperation.

Which is where the problem comes in.

When there is a class or classes that don't contribute meaningfully to the team, it means that the class is holding back the group or the DM has to go out of their way to make sure that character can contribute instead of just focusing on the plot/story.

Yes the Fighter does a lot of damage but in a party, everyone can do enough damage to contribute meaningfully and suceed when *do damage = win*. Outside of that the Fighter brings nothing another class can't do better with the same amount of optimization or with less.

[KorvinStarmast]

Yes the Fighter does a lot of damage but in a party, everyone can do enough damage to contribute meaningfully and suceed when *do damage = win*. Outside of that the Fighter brings nothing another class can't do better with the same amount of optimization or with less. That's a narrow view, and for that matter misses the point of team play. I'll suggest to you that the problem isn't the games, it's toxic players who are selfish and self centered.



The warrior, rogue, mage and priest archetypes are probably in the happiest marriage we've seen in D&D since Eberron came out.

But some people have to know that they're playing the best possible version of the best possible class so they can look down on anyone not choosing those. Heaven forbid you play non-variant human. Heaven forbid you play a beast master ranger. Why on earth would you not play a wizard when they clearly dominate the game to the extent of making everyone else irrelevant! *deep breath*

For the OP:

To more directly answer your question, as we've seen discussed in a few other threads on tiers and 5e, the way to compare is at the level breaks, in bands.

Compare at 3
Compare at 5
Compare at 7 or 11
compare at 14.

You have 12 classes, each with multiple archetypes. 40+ combinations, plus a few from SCAG and the EE supplements.

*Comparing at level 4 will get some weird results since the first ASI is also where a feat might get chosen. That variable alone changes how the classes contribute to the fight.

[Giant2005]

Given a 5th edition PARTY of Wizard/Cleric/Fighter/Rogue/Paladin; are you clearly better off replacing any one of those classes with a duplicate of any other class listed? Is there some other class so strong that a party with two of them and three other guys would be clearly better than this build?

I agree with your point but you did make me wonder, and I think a well coordinated party of all high level Bards could be a sight to behold. With the right magical secrets choices they could cover all of the necessary roles and all of those Inspirations/Cutting Words flying around would be plenty scary for their enemies.

Of course, Bards (all spellcasters really) need a lot of babysitting through the low levels when they don't have enough resources to hold their own, so a group of all Bards isn't actually likely to ever become a group of all high level Bards because they would be much too dead during the lower levels.

[KorvinStarmast]

Of course, Bards (all spellcasters really) need a lot of babysitting through the low levels when they don't have enough resources to hold their own, so a group of all Bards isn't actually likely to ever become a group of all high level Bards because they would be much too dead during the lower levels.Rather like spell casters in "the auld days" as noted by 2D8HP.

Back then, Charm Person could keep a meat shield charmed for a few weeks: that was one way to stay alive. Charm one or two NPC fighters to be your walking tanks. Once you got a few levels under your belt, you could survive more encounters. The downside was that you still had to feed and equip them so they'd stay alive, which cut into the gold you had to advance your spell book, etc).

The charmee, once the initial failed save got them charmed, had to make an int save every so often to see if the charm remained in effect.
6 or less: monthly check.
7-9: check every three weeks.
10-11: check every fortnight.
12-15: check once a week.
16-17: check every other day.
18 and above: check daily.

The current Charm Person has nowhere near that power. (It is a first level spell ... ) Thus teamwork is more important to keep casters alive.

I just had an idea for your all bard team: two in front, two in back, and at least one of the two in back casts cutting words so that the "tanks" are being attacked at disadvantage. Sort of a +5 to AC indirectly?

[mgshamster]

IMAO: For a tier list to be meaningful it has to be the case that a party is better off replacing a character of one type with a character that duplicates another type already present in the party.

3.x balance wasn't broken because wizards were "more powerful" than fighters. It was broken because Wizard/Cleric/Cleric/Druid was a vastly stronger party than Wizard/Cleric/Rogue/Fighter; and because the fighter player would sometimes notice that he was the load rather than the hero.

I once ran Rise of the Runelords with nothing but wizards. Level 1 was a little sketchy, but after that they did just fine - to the point where encounters got trivial.

I wonder how well they'd do in 5e with a conversion.

[R.Shackleford]

That's a narrow view, and for that matter misses the point of team play. I'll suggest to you that the problem isn't the games, it's toxic players who are selfish and self centered.

Toxic players has nothing to do with it. That's a pretty crappy thing to call people when it isn't the people that's the problem but the base system.

The system for casters and partial casters is close to perfect, for martials it is absolutely bad.

As a DM when I have to hold a character's hand by going out of my way to make sure they can contribute... That's the game screwing up.

Yeah the Fighter can damage but so can everyone else. Should everyone else play their characters a specific way as to not do damage? Why should the barbarian/sorcerer be punished playing a barbarian/sorcerer? Should the bladesinger wizard be punished for being a bladesinger? What about the Knowledge Cleric?

Shane on them for playing their characters with mild optimization? The Fighter (battle master) is optimized too (using feats), why do others get shamed and called toxic just because the Fighter (Battle Master) class can't keep up?

I've been in that player's shoes and I've been in the DM's shoes and can tell you that the class itself is a problem. Its fine if you want to have fun with it by having the DM hold your hand but it's kinda embarrasing how many times the Fighter has to get permission to be a *character* while other classes are given class choices to be their character.

[KorvinStarmast]

Toxic players has nothing to do with it. That's a pretty crappy thing to call people when it isn't the people that's the problem but the base system.
I'm sorry if the truth is ugly. The tables where we've had the most fun is where we approached it as a team. The tables where I've seen the least fun / most dysfunction (a few of which I left) is precisely due to selfishness on the part of selected players. "It's all about me" is a core problem.
This experience covers OD&D, 1e, and 2e. Didn't play 3.x long enough to notice (both RL time constraints and a system that just didn't feel right) and I've had zero problem in 5e ... thanks to the group I play with. It would appear to me that 3.x only amplified that issue, but again not enough experience to say with any confidence. Given the nature of RPG's and RPGers, my nominal twenty bucks is betting on the over.

What you are telling me is that from your experience, it did make it worse.

Shane on them for playing their characters with mild optimization?
No. Optimizing is not inherently bad.

The Fighter (battle master) is optimized too (using feats).
Good for him.

Why do others get shamed and called toxic just because the Fighter (Battle Master) class can't keep up?
It's the attitude of "keep up!" that is toxic, and it sounds like the problem infests the whole table.

To restate the point differently:

This isn't a computer game.
It isn't all about numbers.
It's a people thing.

[Shaofoo]

Which is where the problem comes in.

When there is a class or classes that don't contribute meaningfully to the team, it means that the class is holding back the group or the DM has to go out of their way to make sure that character can contribute instead of just focusing on the plot/story.

Yes the Fighter does a lot of damage but in a party, everyone can do enough damage to contribute meaningfully and suceed when *do damage = win*. Outside of that the Fighter brings nothing another class can't do better with the same amount of optimization or with less.

Except you are giving conflicting issues. "Not optimized" is not the same as "not contributing meaningfully". You say that a Fighter doesn't bring anything that another class can do better which means that the Fighter DOES have some use outside of fights. He might not be the best but if he is good enough then what is the problem? Maybe he might not fit your preferences but that doesn't mean that he can't contribute at all.

I don't think the DM has to do anything more than just make the game, if the wizard tries to one up everyone by casting spells then let him have his five minutes of fame before lack of spell slots come to bite him in the arse.

People play characters not stats. I am sure people don't mind playing someone who isn't fully optimized if it means having to play a concept that they actually like to play as. I don't think the wizard can somehow consistently steal the Fighter's thunder and he is expending his limited resources on having a DPR contest with the Fighter while he has nothing else for the rest of the day.

If you wish to make the most optimized character then good for you, I personally would not play a Moon Druid because I don't like the Wild Shape mechanic even if you can prove to me that the Druid is virtually indestructible because I don't think slogging through 19 levels of a character I don't like is worth being able to be the most optimized I can be, even if I was given a Moon Druid 20 I still would not play as one, I'd rather be a Nature Cleric instead.

[KorvinStarmast]

If you wish to make the most optimized character then good for you, I personally would not play a Moon Druid because I don't like the Wild Shape mechanic even if you can prove to me that the Druid is virtually indestructible because I don't think slogging through 19 levels of a character I don't like is worth being able to be the most optimized I can be, even if I was given a Moon Druid 20 I still would not play as one, I'd rather be a Nature Cleric instead. I would love to have a game last to level 20, because it would be kind of neat to revel in Moon Druid cheese once we got there. Our last one got to 7 and our DM had to drop out. RL and work and kids will do that. (Sure did it to me for a decade-ish). current one is hit and miss.

[Giant2005]

I think people are putting much too much stock in what a character can do.
I have played many memorable characters and played alongside many more memorable characters, yet I don't recall what any of them could do mechanically.
The game is about 15% combat, 5% non combat-related yet mechanically dependent encounters, and 80% completely mechanically independent.
That 80% is what makes a character great and whatever mechanics that character's class brings to the table is entirely meaningless for it. Even if some classes excel more during the 15% of combat and others excel more during the remaining 5%, both are overshadowed by the players that excel during the 80.

[NewDM]

You aren't accounting for the lower damage of the 4th, 3rd, 2nd and 1st level slots either though which is significant due to having to replace the Flaming Sphere with a lower level version whenever you lose concentration (which will be happening often against this CR 20 foe you are using as a standard).
You also aren't accounting for the DPR loss that goes with the poor action economy involved in the set up resulting from all of those spells and abilities required to sustain the setup.

The blade singer gets advantage (war caster) on concentration saves and while blade singing they add their Con + Int mods. You aren't going to interrupt a blade singer unless you just about straight up kill them. Remember you make a concentration check for each attack that hits you, not total damage in a round.

I've also already been over this: False Life lasts an hour and they cast it whenever it wears off or after every combat, if needed. Its permanently on them. Shield takes no slots and is a reaction when attacked. At worst they lose out on Booming Blade for the first round of combat which I accounted for somewhere (might be the other thread).


Having said all of that, your numbers are probably close to where they would end up if everything was being taken into account anyway. I just don't really see the point in any of it - if a Wizard is going to devote literally everything he has to DPR in order to come close to a DPR class, other than the player's poor choices, what is the problem?
Once the Wizard has done that he no longer holds any of the advantages that Wizards usually lay claim to (versatility, utility and such), instead he is just the equivalent of a comparatively poor DPR class. Why be a Wizard that has no resources left to do anything but come close to meeting the DPR or a DPR class, when you can just play an actual DPR class and not only do so effortlessly, but be a DPR class that has more utility than what the faulty Wizard has allowed himself.

The Wizard has plenty of spell slots left due to Arcane Recovery to cast spells like spider climb, jump, fly, enhance ability, etc...etc... to bypass out of combat situations.

The player isn't making 'poor choices' they are choosing to play a sword and sorcery style character (gish I think is the term). Its a play style choice.


You could say that if you boil it down to its simplest terms, but that doesn't really represent the truth of it.
The Wizard isn't making the Fighter redundant - the Wizard is just throwing everything he has into taking the Fighter's role while not performing that role with the same level of competency as the Fighter. If anyone is considered redundant in that situation, it is the Wizard.
Basically the Wizard that devotes all of his resources to trying to take the Fighter's job, loses his own job in the process. At that point the Wizard isn't even really a Wizard anymore as he has sacrificed all of the abilities that Wizards excel at. At that point, you are comparing a True Fighter against a Lesser Fighter. If you have character-driven reasons for wanting to play a Lesser Fighter, then great - go ahead and enjoy yourself. If mechanical superiority is what you care about, then there isn't a reason to acknowledge the Lesser Fighter.

Due to the hit point values of enemies the Wizard is effectively doing the Fighters job. They are replacing the Fighter at what the fighter was supposedly built for. The wizard shouldn't be able to get close to what the Fighter can do at what the it is supposed to be best at.

The Wizard hasn't sacrificed their abilities. They can still cast fireball when needed or any utility spell under 6th level. They deal nearly the same damage (probably the same if I were to do the math for the 1x8th, 2x7th, 2x6th, and 3x5th FS).

The point of comparing classes is to take what they are supposed to be good at and see if they are replaceable. The Fighter is replaceable by a blade singer Wizard, a Cleric, and Barbarian. Can you replace a Wizard with a Fighter? Nope.


I'm of the opinion that a build must be able to hold it's own no matter the circumstances. However, the difference between a good and a bad wizard is knowing how to use his spells. If he buffs himself to become competent in melee instead of turning the fighter into a deity of war and mayhem then he isn't a good wizard.

It's good to be able to match a generic fighter in combat if he is forced to fight solo though. Any math that can support this is welcome news.

That's personal opinion. Its a play style choice, just like not playing a heal bot cleric. You aren't 'good' or 'bad' for playing a certain way.


That means 3 slots a fight at best and Concentration is out the window because you are using Flaming Sphere as your bread and butter. You seem to play fast with how you are going to actually expend the slots. since I am assuming that Mirror Image will be your 2nd level infinite spell. You might say to follow the number of short rests but you seem to think that all spell slots are equivalent in your book.

Saying I cast 3 spells a battle is wrong, especially when one of them is Concentration which means that it can be defeated even with your amazing defenses (at will Fireball from a Pit Fiend defeats AC and Mirror image, not that he needs to because he has Truesight).

3 slots a fight is nothing at level 20. The spells that use slots would be Flaming Sphere, and False Life. That's only 2 slots per encounter. False Life would only be needed if they didn't have any remaining temp hp from the last encounter (or 1 hour elapses). It wouldn't be cast every encounter. (at least in my experience: 6th level blade singer in one game right now).

If need be you could drop the flaming sphere for something more effective. Mirror Image is unaffected by fireball or any AoE. Fighting a pit fiend that is immune to fire or resistant against it would mean changing tactics. They'd probably drop flaming sphere and use a spell like dominate monster or some other spell for defense like protection from energy. The wizards main advantage is they can adapt to situations. A Fighter in the same situation would just fail to do half their damage unless they are lucky enough to have a magic weapon.

The short of it is that multiple classes can do what the fighter does, but the fighter can't do what they do. Some of these classes can keep up with the fighter without losing their effectiveness in other areas.

The fighter is only good at combat. Other classes are good at combat and also good at socialization and exploration.

If you were to compare them then a comparison of the three pillars (combat, social, and exploration) would be best. There are many classes that can keep up with the fighter in combat, the Fighter fails at socialization and is trumped by most other classes (except barbarian) in exploration.

Most classes have something they can do in socialization: Bard has skills and high charisma and charm spells, Cleric has moderate charisma and spells that grant advantage, Druid is the same as Cleric, Paladin is high charisma and skills, Rogue auto-succeeds at skills, Sorcerer high charisma and charm spells, Wizard charm spells.

Most classes have things to do in exploration: Barbarian athletics skills, Bard skills and spells, Cleric skills and spells, Druid same as Cleric + wild shape, Fighter athletics skills, Paladin strength skills and spells, Ranger outdoor class features, Rogue auto-succeeds at skills, Sorcerer spells, Wizard spells.

Most classes keep up in combat.

The difference is both barbarian and Fighter live in the combat pillar and only tangentially touch on the exploration pillar. They can literally be replaced by a well built Cleric and can't replace any other class. By that definition they are tier 4 or worse.

[danhass]

I find that the single class options are quite balanced.

[Mellack]

What is this endless fascination with level 20?

[Mellack]

Why do you say fighter is only good at combat? They get the most ASIs, so they can have multiple high stats or take other feats such as actor, linguist, ritual caster, etc. Your example bladesinger spent all his to try to get close to a fighter's DPR. The fighter still has some left to increase his utility if he desires.

[mephnick]

What is this endless fascination with level 20?

It's more fun to theorycraft fully levelled characters I guess? Of course none of it is relevant to the actual game you sit down to play with friends..

It's fine for posters to admit they just like creatively crunching numbers and arguing over minutia, but to actually try and convince the average player that these conversations hold useful information is a little bit much.

[Waazraath]

The difference is both barbarian and Fighter live in the combat pillar and only tangentially touch on the exploration pillar. They can literally be replaced by a well built Cleric and can't replace any other class. By that definition they are tier 4 or worse.

Are you refering to JaronK's tier system? Because if you do, you just give here your own interpretation to a tier system that was designed for another edition. Even using this system (which is unlogical), you are wrong given the definitions given there. Definitions below quoted from http://www.minmaxboards.com/index.php?topic=658

Tier 3: Capable of doing one thing quite well, while still being useful when that one thing is inappropriate, or capable of doing all things, but not as well as classes that specialize in that area. Occasionally has a mechanical ability that can solve an encounter, but this is relatively rare and easy to deal with. Can be game breaking only with specific intent to do so. Challenging such a character takes some thought from the DM, but isn't too difficult. Will outshine any Tier 5s in the party much of the time.

Tier 4: Capable of doing one thing quite well, but often useless when encounters require other areas of expertise, or capable of doing many things to a reasonable degree of competence without truly shining. Rarely has any abilities that can outright handle an encounter unless that encounter plays directly to the class's main strength. DMs may sometimes need to work to make sure Tier 4s can contribute to an encounter, as their abilities may sometimes leave them useless. Won't outshine anyone except Tier 6s except in specific circumstances that play to their strengths. Cannot compete effectively with Tier 1s that are played well.

Tier 5: Capable of doing only one thing, and not necessarily all that well, or so unfocused that they have trouble mastering anything, and in many types of encounters the character cannot contribute. In some cases, can do one thing very well, but that one thing is very often not needed. Has trouble shining in any encounter unless the encounter matches their strengths. DMs may have to work to avoid the player feeling that their character is worthless unless the entire party is Tier 4 and below. Characters in this tier will often feel like one trick ponies if they do well, or just feel like they have no tricks at all if they build the class poorly.

So, no, fighter and barbarian are by no means tier 4 or 5, according to these definitions. No class does only one thing and not that well (t5). They (bbn and fighter) do one, very important, thing really good: combat. And they can do other stuff as well. Square tier 3, in these definitions, just like every other class in fifth edition. Therefore, the futility of this excersise.

And as for the three pillers of the game: we already concluded a barbarian and a fighter more then contribute to the combat piller. Social interaction is for the largest part the role playing, you don't need any special abilities for it; but nevertheless, all of them have, in the form of skills, excess feats (the fighter), spells (EK), "know your enemy" (BM, rather unique ability), intimidating presence (berserker), etc. As for exploration, it's also skills, and class abilities (totem bbn - spirit seaker, EK - familiar, etc.). Yes, they can contribute to these pillers, fully. Maybe not as much as other classes do, but that's no problem cause they shine in combat.

That classes can be replaced by another class, even if it was true, which I think the entire discussion so far shows it isn't, means "By that definition they are tier 4 or worse" really is just an opinion, and not based on any consensus on any tier system or rating.

And again, as I said in an earlier post: the system of comparison as suggested in this thread will lead to naught.

[Doug Lampert]

I agree with your point but you did make me wonder, and I think a well coordinated party of all high level Bards could be a sight to behold. With the right magical secrets choices they could cover all of the necessary roles and all of those Inspirations/Cutting Words flying around would be plenty scary for their enemies.

Of course, Bards (all spellcasters really) need a lot of babysitting through the low levels when they don't have enough resources to hold their own, so a group of all Bards isn't actually likely to ever become a group of all high level Bards because they would be much too dead during the lower levels.

All one class being stronger than a "balanced" party is the really terrible balance case. It's just that 3.x fairly trivially had this with the Wizard, or Cleric, or Druid as the single class.

I sincerely hope 5th ed isn't that broken. My attempt to build a stronger party than Fighter/Cleric/Wizard/Rogue/Paladin in fifth edition with a repeated class would use the bard as the repeated class, and start by replacing the Rogue with a Bard (the rogue's one really big thing is expertise, one other class gets it and is also a full caster). Then I just have to decide which second class to replace with a second bard.

Anyone got an opinion on Fighter/Bard/Bard/Bard/Paladin in terms of strength vs. Fighter/Cleric/Wizard/Rogue/Paladin?

[SharkForce]

All one class being stronger than a "balanced" party is the really terrible balance case. It's just that 3.x fairly trivially had this with the Wizard, or Cleric, or Druid as the single class.

I sincerely hope 5th ed isn't that broken. My attempt to build a stronger party than Fighter/Cleric/Wizard/Rogue/Paladin in fifth edition with a repeated class would use the bard as the repeated class, and start by replacing the Rogue with a Bard (the rogue's one really big thing is expertise, one other class gets it and is also a full caster). Then I just have to decide which second class to replace with a second bard.

Anyone got an opinion on Fighter/Bard/Bard/Bard/Paladin in terms of strength vs. Fighter/Cleric/Wizard/Rogue/Paladin?

personally, i'd ditch the fighter for a second paladin any day, thanks to the silly silly ruling that paladin auras stack with each other. and i'd much rather have a multiclass fighter/rogue than single-classed fighter. i could also see replacing the fighter with certain kinds of clerics, or a valor bard. possibly also a monk, though that would take some fairly high rolls, whereas the others i'd be fine with point buy.

extra bards i think could work somewhat ok, though i don't know that i'd go beyond 2 for an "ideal" party. and i'd replace the melee DPR with bards sooner than i'd replace the casters.

[Giant2005]

personally, i'd ditch the fighter for a second paladin any day, thanks to the silly silly ruling that paladin auras stack with each other.

They don't.
From the DMG Errata:

Combining Game Effects (p. 252). This is a new subsection
at the end of the “Combat” section: “Different game features can
affect a target at the same time. But when two or more game fea -
tures have the same name, only the effects of one of them—the
most potent one—apply while the durations of the effects overlap.
For example, if a target is ignited by a fire elemental’s Fire Form
trait, the ongoing fire damage doesn’t increase if the burning tar -
get is subjected to that trait again. Game features include spells,
class features, feats, racial traits, monster abilities, and magic
items. See the related rule in the ‘Combining Magical Effects’
section of chapter 10 in the Player’s Handbook.”

[SharkForce]

They don't.
From the DMG Errata:

Combining Game Effects (p. 252). This is a new subsection
at the end of the “Combat” section: “Different game features can
affect a target at the same time. But when two or more game fea -
tures have the same name, only the effects of one of them—the
most potent one—apply while the durations of the effects overlap.
For example, if a target is ignited by a fire elemental’s Fire Form
trait, the ongoing fire damage doesn’t increase if the burning tar -
get is subjected to that trait again. Game features include spells,
class features, feats, racial traits, monster abilities, and magic
items. See the related rule in the ‘Combining Magical Effects’
section of chapter 10 in the Player’s Handbook.”

good to know, that does make for much less silliness. still would probably seriously consider it. more healing, fairly similar damage, fairly similar toughness, and multiple auras does mean you can spread out a bit more if needed... i'm inclined to say i'd still rather have a second paladin.

[Vogonjeltz]

The blade singer gets advantage (war caster) on concentration saves and while blade singing they add their Con + Int mods. You aren't going to interrupt a blade singer unless you just about straight up kill them. Remember you make a concentration check for each attack that hits you, not total damage in a round.

I've also already been over this: False Life lasts an hour and they cast it whenever it wears off or after every combat, if needed. Its permanently on them. Shield takes no slots and is a reaction when attacked. At worst they lose out on Booming Blade for the first round of combat which I accounted for somewhere (might be the other thread).



The Wizard has plenty of spell slots left due to Arcane Recovery to cast spells like spider climb, jump, fly, enhance ability, etc...etc... to bypass out of combat situations.

The player isn't making 'poor choices' they are choosing to play a sword and sorcery style character (gish I think is the term). Its a play style choice.



Due to the hit point values of enemies the Wizard is effectively doing the Fighters job. They are replacing the Fighter at what the fighter was supposedly built for. The wizard shouldn't be able to get close to what the Fighter can do at what the it is supposed to be best at.

The Wizard hasn't sacrificed their abilities. They can still cast fireball when needed or any utility spell under 6th level. They deal nearly the same damage (probably the same if I were to do the math for the 1x8th, 2x7th, 2x6th, and 3x5th FS).

The point of comparing classes is to take what they are supposed to be good at and see if they are replaceable. The Fighter is replaceable by a blade singer Wizard, a Cleric, and Barbarian. Can you replace a Wizard with a Fighter? Nope.



That's personal opinion. Its a play style choice, just like not playing a heal bot cleric. You aren't 'good' or 'bad' for playing a certain way.



3 slots a fight is nothing at level 20. The spells that use slots would be Flaming Sphere, and False Life. That's only 2 slots per encounter. False Life would only be needed if they didn't have any remaining temp hp from the last encounter (or 1 hour elapses). It wouldn't be cast every encounter. (at least in my experience: 6th level blade singer in one game right now).

If need be you could drop the flaming sphere for something more effective. Mirror Image is unaffected by fireball or any AoE. Fighting a pit fiend that is immune to fire or resistant against it would mean changing tactics. They'd probably drop flaming sphere and use a spell like dominate monster or some other spell for defense like protection from energy. The wizards main advantage is they can adapt to situations. A Fighter in the same situation would just fail to do half their damage unless they are lucky enough to have a magic weapon.

The short of it is that multiple classes can do what the fighter does, but the fighter can't do what they do. Some of these classes can keep up with the fighter without losing their effectiveness in other areas.

The fighter is only good at combat. Other classes are good at combat and also good at socialization and exploration.

If you were to compare them then a comparison of the three pillars (combat, social, and exploration) would be best. There are many classes that can keep up with the fighter in combat, the Fighter fails at socialization and is trumped by most other classes (except barbarian) in exploration.

Most classes have something they can do in socialization: Bard has skills and high charisma and charm spells, Cleric has moderate charisma and spells that grant advantage, Druid is the same as Cleric, Paladin is high charisma and skills, Rogue auto-succeeds at skills, Sorcerer high charisma and charm spells, Wizard charm spells.

Most classes have things to do in exploration: Barbarian athletics skills, Bard skills and spells, Cleric skills and spells, Druid same as Cleric + wild shape, Fighter athletics skills, Paladin strength skills and spells, Ranger outdoor class features, Rogue auto-succeeds at skills, Sorcerer spells, Wizard spells.

Most classes keep up in combat.

The difference is both barbarian and Fighter live in the combat pillar and only tangentially touch on the exploration pillar. They can literally be replaced by a well built Cleric and can't replace any other class. By that definition they are tier 4 or worse.

Clerics are incapable of coming anywhere near the Fighter in combat effectiveness. Bladesingers can't be built for strength, making them next to useless when it comes to athletics contests, which are crucial to success in melee combat.

The social pillar is entirely dependent on background and role play, actual class choice has almost no bearing at all on it.

[R.Shackleford]

snip.

Who said they weren't playing as a team and having fun?

We aren't talking about fun, we are talking about being effective and keeping up and not slowing down the team.

Just because people point out and see obvious flaws in a system doesn't mean you should automatically start calling them toxic.

Guess what, not wanting to hold the team back IS being a team player and trying to make the game more fun.

Besides the Fighter wouldn't exactly call his boyfriend toxic just because the cleric class is more suited for the game than the Fighter.

You make it sound like the problem is because of the player, no, the problem is a class issue. The class is constantly falling behind and in need of help, not the player.

It's kinda funny that no matter who plays the martial (or when all do) the exact same problems arise.

So you can act all superior if you want, but calling people toxic for not wanting to hold a game/friends back is anything but.

[NewDM]

Clerics are incapable of coming anywhere near the Fighter in combat effectiveness. Bladesingers can't be built for strength, making them next to useless when it comes to athletics contests, which are crucial to success in melee combat.

The social pillar is entirely dependent on background and role play, actual class choice has almost no bearing at all on it.

They can get proficiency in athletics through background, and then use a low level spell like enhance ability for advantage on any skill check which lasts for an hour meaning they likely use it more than once on a single casting short of a combat interrupting.

Sure if you want to chuck the rules out the window for the social pillar go ahead, but that's house ruling. There are specific skills that are used in conjunction with role playing to resolve social encounters, namely persuasion, deception, insight, and intimidate.

[JNAProductions]

They can get proficiency in athletics through background, and then use a low level spell like enhance ability for advantage on any skill check which lasts for an hour meaning they likely use it more than once on a single casting short of a combat interrupting.

Sure if you want to chuck the rules out the window for the social pillar go ahead, but that's house ruling. There are specific skills that are used in conjunction with role playing to resolve social encounters, namely persuasion, deception, insight, and intimidate.

So now they're concentrating on Enhance Ability. Which is, of course, not on the Wizard spell list.

[KorvinStarmast]

Who said they weren't playing as a team and having fun?

We aren't talking about fun, we are talking about being effective and keeping up and not slowing down the team.
I guess you missed my point about attitude. what you seem to be missing is that it takes a basic problem with attitude to look at it like that.

While I might complain that you are talking about 3.5, and this is a thread about 5e so lets not mix apples and oranges -- that kind of attitude can arrive at any table in any year.

Just because people point out and see obvious flaws in a system doesn't mean you should automatically start calling them toxic. It doesn't matter if the system is flawed.
It Really Doesn't.

For goodness sake, the old versions of the game had loopholes galore, cheese a plenty, and the old quadratic mage linear fighter.

With the right attitude, it doesn't matter. With a crap attitude, it suddenly does.

[NewDM]

So now they're concentrating on Enhance Ability. Which is, of course, not on the Wizard spell list.

You are correct, then it would be enlarge or another utility spell. Either way doesn't matter the casters have it covered.


I guess you missed my point about attitude. what you seem to be missing is that it takes a basic problem with attitude to look at it like that.

While I might complain that you are talking about 3.5, and this is a thread about 5e so lets not mix apples and oranges -- that kind of attitude can arrive at any table in any year.
It doesn't matter if the system is flawed.
It Really Doesn't.

For goodness sake, the old versions of the game had loopholes galore, cheese a plenty, and the old quadratic mage linear fighter.

With the right attitude, it doesn't matter. With a crap attitude, it suddenly does.

The attitude you describe is a positive only attitude that overlooks anything wrong. With that kind of person you could role play checkers. While I can choose to overlook problems with a game. I also choose to critique it and send the info to the developers or otherwise give feedback through forums such as this to help other players.

In game I either house rule nonsense away or am forced to favor certain players over others to make it work. That's not my preferred play style. I prefer a style where the DM is neutral arbiter of rules and the rest of the time they focus on designing a believable world and deciding how NPCs act and react to the players actions. If I have to actively take part in designing the game through house rules or constant rulings on things that aren't covered by the rules, I want a royalty check.

That aside, this thread is about how to compare classes effectively. Several people have suggested using the Class Options (sub-classes) and focusing on the three pillars.

[Vogonjeltz]

They can get proficiency in athletics through background, and then use a low level spell like enhance ability for advantage on any skill check which lasts for an hour meaning they likely use it more than once on a single casting short of a combat interrupting.

Sure if you want to chuck the rules out the window for the social pillar go ahead, but that's house ruling. There are specific skills that are used in conjunction with role playing to resolve social encounters, namely persuasion, deception, insight, and intimidate.

Blowing long rest resources to not get as good isn't nearly as good as basic ability. And Yes as I said, background and role play. Classes generally don't come into it.

[Temperjoke]

I guess you missed my point about attitude. what you seem to be missing is that it takes a basic problem with attitude to look at it like that.

While I might complain that you are talking about 3.5, and this is a thread about 5e so lets not mix apples and oranges -- that kind of attitude can arrive at any table in any year.
It doesn't matter if the system is flawed.
It Really Doesn't.

For goodness sake, the old versions of the game had loopholes galore, cheese a plenty, and the old quadratic mage linear fighter.

With the right attitude, it doesn't matter. With a crap attitude, it suddenly does.

You're missing the point of the thread now. They believe that 5e classes are bad and they're trying to justify why they feel they are bad. Anything that doesn't sync with this viewpoint is a pointless argument with them.

[Regitnui]

NewDM, why would anyone play the build you're suggesting to "remove" fighters? I mean, a high dpr melee class is already there and effective from level one; the fighter you claim is 'obsolete' at level 20. And yes, a bladesinger can buff themselves up to almost but not quite the equal of the fighter. So what? Why not buff the fighter with all of those spells and double their effectiveness?

This is a theory-crafted, eternally-fresh wizard build for level 20. It is, frankly, pointless. You don't start at level 20. You start at level 1. Sure, the wizard can devote their entire levelling and character build to equal the fighter by level 20. Or, and this is a revolutionary solution, you could just play a fighter from level one and always be good at single-targrt DPR. Your build is the equivalent of taking a hatchback and rebuilding it to be an SUV. Why not just buy the SUV?

Mild rant follows. Spoilered since I'm on a warning and don't want to overstep my welcome.

There's a DC 35 problem in this forum*, and that is optimizers porting over from 3.5 who find that 5e has made them pretty much redundant. In 3.5, a certain level of optimization was necessary to be effective in an unbalanced system. Now, a complete newbie can play a bog-standard character and still be as or more effective than a munchkin minmaxer, and that seems to confuse the 3.5 optimizer to no end. "Surely," they cry from the comfort of their PHB-crowded shelves and desks full of calculations, "there must be an imbalance in the system. Surely they haven't fixed the caster-dominance that led to my expertise being needed. Martials can't surely be able to keep up with the casters, since D&D practically invented the Linear Fighters, Quadratic Wizards trope. I shall go down to the 5e fans and help them to see that we are still necessary, that the system's imbalances are still there and they must bkw once more to my superior command of maths and mechanics."

They then stroll down to the forums, readying their keyboard fingers, and find the unthinkable; "People here are having fun with single-class, unoptimized parties?" The 3.5 optimizers stare in disbelief. The 5e optimizers approach the system to tune basically OK classes to their maximum, sharing their builds and asking for approval. There's debate. A fighter class guide has an equal amount of quality options to a wizard class guide. Then the light fades, as the new-to-D&D person asks the question what 5e is like. As the friendly players and DMs reply "Just like 3.5," the optimizer sighs happily, and begins crunching numbers to prove caster superiority, missing the end of the sentence, "But much better balanced."

*Now I've not been elsewhere, so I'm just going to limit the "it must be just like 3.5, warts and all" problem to this forum.

Every class is good. Some are illogical, some have weird mechanics, but none make any other redundant, and none irretrievably overshadow any other. A fighter does damage, a wizard does utility, a rogue does sneak attacks, the cleric heals, the ranger flanks, and the bard stands back and sings. Welcome to the version of 3.5 we all wanted, now fixed, and one of the oldest ttRPGs on the planet, now streamlined.

[BayardSPSR]

There's a DC 35 problem in this forum*, and that is optimizers porting over from 3.5 who find that 5e has made them pretty much redundant. In 3.5, a certain level of optimization was necessary to be effective in an unbalanced system. Now, a complete newbie can play a bog-standard character and still be as or more effective than a munchkin minmaxer, and that seems to confuse the 3.5 optimizer to no end. "Surely," they cry from the comfort of their PHB-crowded shelves and desks full of calculations, "there must be an imbalance in the system. Surely they haven't fixed the caster-dominance that led to my expertise being needed. Martials can't surely be able to keep up with the casters, since D&D practically invented the Linear Fighters, Quadratic Wizards trope. I shall go down to the 5e fans and help them to see that we are still necessary, that the system's imbalances are still there and they must bow once more to my superior command of maths and mechanics."

They then stroll down to the forums, readying their keyboard fingers, and find the unthinkable; "People here are having fun with single-class, unoptimized parties?" The 3.5 optimizers stare in disbelief. The 5e optimizers approach the system to tune basically OK classes to their maximum, sharing their builds and asking for approval. There's debate. A fighter class guide has an equal amount of quality options to a wizard class guide. Then the light fades, as the new-to-D&D person asks the question what 5e is like. As the friendly players and DMs reply "Just like 3.5," the optimizer sighs happily, and begins crunching numbers to prove caster superiority, missing the end of the sentence, "But much better balanced."

*Now I've not been elsewhere, so I'm just going to limit the "it must be just like 3.5, warts and all" problem to this forum.

That sounds like a hell of a cultural problem.

I'm not a 3.5 person, and I don't have practical experience of 5e, but everyone I know in person who has played it likes it. I also haven't posted in this thread until now.

That said, being aware that 5e is far better balanced than 3.5's Angel Summoner and BMX Bandit, and setting 3.5 aside, I'm curious about what utility discrepancies do exist in 5e (knowing that they're probably not large utility discrepancies).

Personally it's not important to me whether or not a Wizard can be a knockoff Fighter at 20; I care more about being able to recognize whether a group I'm joining is highly optimized or not. For instance, at this point, it seems like I would be contributing a great deal by adding, let's say, a Fighter to a hypothetical party of three Wizards.

I recognize that may not be where this thread's at right now, but I think it's on-topic.

[Waazraath]

NewDM, why would anyone play the build you're suggesting to "remove" fighters? I mean, a high dpr melee class is already there and effective from level one; the fighter you claim is 'obsolete' at level 20. And yes, a bladesinger can buff themselves up to almost but not quite the equal of the fighter. So what? Why not buff the fighter with all of those spells and double their effectiveness?

This is a theory-crafted, eternally-fresh wizard build for level 20. It is, frankly, pointless. You don't start at level 20. You start at level 1. Sure, the wizard can devote their entire levelling and character build to equal the fighter by level 20. Or, and this is a revolutionary solution, you could just play a fighter from level one and always be good at single-targrt DPR. Your build is the equivalent of taking a hatchback and rebuilding it to be an SUV. Why not just buy the SUV?

Mild rant follows. Spoilered since I'm on a warning and don't want to overstep my welcome.

There's a DC 35 problem in this forum*, and that is optimizers porting over from 3.5 who find that 5e has made them pretty much redundant. In 3.5, a certain level of optimization was necessary to be effective in an unbalanced system. Now, a complete newbie can play a bog-standard character and still be as or more effective than a munchkin minmaxer, and that seems to confuse the 3.5 optimizer to no end. "Surely," they cry from the comfort of their PHB-crowded shelves and desks full of calculations, "there must be an imbalance in the system. Surely they haven't fixed the caster-dominance that led to my expertise being needed. Martials can't surely be able to keep up with the casters, since D&D practically invented the Linear Fighters, Quadratic Wizards trope. I shall go down to the 5e fans and help them to see that we are still necessary, that the system's imbalances are still there and they must bkw once more to my superior command of maths and mechanics."

They then stroll down to the forums, readying their keyboard fingers, and find the unthinkable; "People here are having fun with single-class, unoptimized parties?" The 3.5 optimizers stare in disbelief. The 5e optimizers approach the system to tune basically OK classes to their maximum, sharing their builds and asking for approval. There's debate. A fighter class guide has an equal amount of quality options to a wizard class guide. Then the light fades, as the new-to-D&D person asks the question what 5e is like. As the friendly players and DMs reply "Just like 3.5," the optimizer sighs happily, and begins crunching numbers to prove caster superiority, missing the end of the sentence, "But much better balanced."

*Now I've not been elsewhere, so I'm just going to limit the "it must be just like 3.5, warts and all" problem to this forum.

Every class is good. Some are illogical, some have weird mechanics, but none make any other redundant, and none irretrievably overshadow any other. A fighter does damage, a wizard does utility, a rogue does sneak attacks, the cleric heals, the ranger flanks, and the bard stands back and sings. Welcome to the version of 3.5 we all wanted, now fixed, and one of the oldest ttRPGs on the planet, now streamlined.

Very well said, with extra +1's for the part I bolded.

As for your spoiler / mild rant: seems plausible, though it's always a bit tricky to look into other peoples mind and assume what they are thinking.

But even if you are correct, I think there is at least one other aspect that is relevant: it are quite often the same people who 1) proclaim "wizards are uber" 2) complain about class imbalance (because "wizards are uber") and 3) give the most outrages interpretations to spells and combinations of spells. This isn't something new, it already was like this in 3.x. Even though 3.x was broken, it was hardly as broken as some people made it, by twisting the words of spells.

And I'm seeing the same mechanic again. I don't know if it was in this thread or in one like it, where somebody claimed that creation could be used to create nigh infinite amounts of goodberries, or maybe even other magical stuff. Yes, if we interpreted spells in the most outrages ways, then they are really good. And then the wizard is o so uber. And there is imbalance.

But instead of complaining about this edition, we can also, you know, not interpred spells in the most outrages ways possible, and have 'em just do what they say they do, and then there is no problem. what annoyed me the most is when people in these discussions defend their spell abuse as 'being creative' - that happened a lot in 3.x discussions. Munchkinnery and limburgian cheese were defended as a virtue, and people who made common sense remarks about "it doesnt say it can do this, this is interpretation / real world physics / etc." were disqualified as 'not creative'.

[Regitnui]

As for your spoiler / mild rant: seems plausible, though it's always a bit tricky to look into other peoples mind and assume what they are thinking.


It's intended to be an exaggerated example, and I went more for the 'tradition' than any particular person. If I could draw, it'd be a caricature like the newspapers use for politics. I hope I didn't have to put it all in blue, because I can't format text colour from my tablet.

The fact that 5e is really 'tierless' by the standards of 3.5 does seem to be a sticking point for a lot of people. The beast master ranger gets a lot of fire, but it's still able to contribute alongside any other non-UA subclass you care to name. The only real objections people can field is that the mechanics are unrealistic, but surely that can be laid at the feet of every class, including the casters; you're fine when someone generates fire from their fingertips that winks out after the spell is over, but an animal that sits in place waiting for commands is immersion-breaking for you?

[Waazraath]

Regitnui: again, well spoken.

[Gtdead]

Really don't understand you Newdm, We both know that any basic melee outperforms every basic caster by using only very basic resources. You make a thread about comparison and you try to promote the wizard>fighter mentality while you clearly know that a buffed martial is an encounter ender while a buffed caster is just viable.

This isn't about playstyle choice, its about working as a team. When I play a martial I don't expect the chaotic neutral gish to buff me all the time, but I expect the player to know that I will get more mileage out of his haste and make a conscious decision to buff himself. If for some reason I don't expect that the player is capable of thinking that way, I will do some crazy multiclass just to get the tools I need. The same way I don't expect the cleric to spam heals on me, but if I am a support wizard under attack I expect a sanctuary so I will avoid using all my slots for shield. Cause if I want to I can teleport away and let them die. I decide not to and I expect the party not to leave me hanging. While dnd is about roleplay, if you want to tackle the more difficult challenges you need to have some grasp of the math.

If there is some validity to your claim, it's that in a solo session, the gish will outperform the fighter any time of the day. Which I'm in full agreement with.

[Firechanter]

How to compare classes:

Play.

--

Any white-room comparison can only give you a very vague idea of a class's usefulness and abilities. Like with those "optimized" Borboriawns with Str through the roof and whatnot and a theoretical DPR through the roof, that in reality can be shut down by a level 2 spell because their saves suck.

Oh well, and of course you need to be aware of a class's role, abilities and limitations. It's funny that this thread mentioned Bladesingers, as we're currently having a similar argument in our group, where one (experienced, btw) player is unhappy with his character's output.
A Bladesinger is not a Striker. He has some melee capabilities and very good defenses, but can't expect to perform on par with any of the _real_ martial classes in the melee department. He is still primarily a Wizard. And Wizards may be Blasters, Support, Control, Utility -- pretty much anything, except Striker.

[Zalabim]

They can get proficiency in athletics through background, and then use a low level spell like enhance ability for advantage on any skill check which lasts for an hour meaning they likely use it more than once on a single casting short of a combat interrupting.

Sure if you want to chuck the rules out the window for the social pillar go ahead, but that's house ruling. There are specific skills that are used in conjunction with role playing to resolve social encounters, namely persuasion, deception, insight, and intimidate.

The Bladesinger needs Dexterity, Intelligence, and Constitution. It's essentially rubbish with Athletics, Insight, Persuasion, Deception, and Intimidate. They don't get enhance ability, but even if they did, their spells are better off supporting someone actually good with the skill than making themselves a little less bad at them. Often there's no need for Enhance Ability because it's a task someone can Help with. There is a case for using enchantment spells to bypass social encounters, but that ends in worse social results unless you can also erase the target's memory, as well as everyone else in the room. That takes being an enchanter, or a lot of modify memory. Wizards aren't skilled in the social pillar, in the traditional sense.

[KorvinStarmast]

If I have to actively take part in designing the game through house rules or constant rulings on things that aren't covered by the rules, I want a royalty check. You aren't designing anything, you are fulfilling the role of DM as designed.

That aside, this thread is about how to compare classes effectively. Several people have suggested using the Class Options (sub-classes) and focusing on the three pillars. Indeed, and one of the suggestions previously made is to compare the classes in bands (within those three tiers, sure why not?) where it makes sense. (3/5/7/11/14 etc). There are certain key thresholds where relative power/or benefit may change due to a capstone arriving earlier for one class than another. (Those things marked blue and light blue and gold in various guides).

[Temperjoke]

I think the problem is that 5e is designed to be more hands-off and light on the rules compared to past editions, and people who were heavy in 3.5 aren't used to that. They want to be able to pull a reference book for every situation and turn to a specific page for an answer, instead of thinking about it and deciding on it themselves. In 5e, everything depends on the situation just as much as the class itself, so there's no definite answer that's right or wrong, which means that they have to think for themselves instead of referencing a handy list.

[PoeticDwarf]

How to compare classes:

Play.

--

Any white-room comparison can only give you a very vague idea of a class's usefulness and abilities. Like with those "optimized" Borboriawns with Str through the roof and whatnot and a theoretical DPR through the roof, that in reality can be shut down by a level 2 spell because their saves suck.

Oh well, and of course you need to be aware of a class's role, abilities and limitations. It's funny that this thread mentioned Bladesingers, as we're currently having a similar argument in our group, where one (experienced, btw) player is unhappy with his character's output.
A Bladesinger is not a Striker. He has some melee capabilities and very good defenses, but can't expect to perform on par with any of the _real_ martial classes in the melee department. He is still primarily a Wizard. And Wizards may be Blasters, Support, Control, Utility -- pretty much anything, except Striker.

Casters aren't OP, and till level 11 not really stronger but a wizard or bard would be on the striker level a barbarian is, or a rogue, or a monk, or a ranger. Paladins and fighters are the real strikers but anyone with extra attack can keep up with the other 4 martials. Even without buffs the wizard is better than the monk in dpr, with buffs the wizard is easily over a barbarian. Monk and rogue can't optimize with good weapons and barbarians and rangers don't get much damage boost. Extra attack and something as hunter's mark, hunter's options and rage damage.

[SharkForce]

uhhh... barbarian DPR is through the roof. like, top of the charts, better than fighters, last i checked.

no, the wizard is not matching the barbarian's DPR.

[Giant2005]

If I have to actively take part in designing the game through house rules or constant rulings on things that aren't covered by the rules, I want a royalty check.

WotC have actually implemented a system where your houserules can pay dividends. It is call the DMsGuild.
Post your houserules on there and if people are like-minded enough to see their worth, then they will give you money.
That is what I did with my Ranger houserules and people supported them enough to offer enough royalties to boost it to the top sellers list.

[Regitnui]

I want a royalty check.

Is that one of the optional stats from the DMG? Or a subset of Charisma?

[NewDM]

You're missing the point of the thread now. They believe that 5e classes are bad and they're trying to justify why they feel they are bad. Anything that doesn't sync with this viewpoint is a pointless argument with them.

Nope, and kindly take that attitude somewhere else. That's actually insulting. What really happened was were were talking about HOW to rank classes against each other for effectiveness when someone posted a build and said "better than all other classes", then I posted a build to get within 97% of it without doing the math to show its actually better. I also noted how other builds can do as much if not more from other classes. In doing so I mentioned the 3.x ranking system (which if you read it is valid in any system or edition because its 'relative').


Very well said, with extra +1's for the part I bolded.

As for your spoiler / mild rant: seems plausible, though it's always a bit tricky to look into other peoples mind and assume what they are thinking.

See above. No, just no.


But even if you are correct, I think there is at least one other aspect that is relevant: it are quite often the same people who 1) proclaim "wizards are uber" 2) complain about class imbalance (because "wizards are uber") and 3) give the most outrages interpretations to spells and combinations of spells. This isn't something new, it already was like this in 3.x. Even though 3.x was broken, it was hardly as broken as some people made it, by twisting the words of spells.

If the claims line up with the facts, then its true. Most people due to 3.x's brokenness rule 5e spells in the least beneficial way to the caster, but in the case of creation, there is literally nothing RAW that says you can't make magical items or good berries. Its a matter of having a DM look at the spell and flat out house rule and say no out of caution.


And I'm seeing the same mechanic again. I don't know if it was in this thread or in one like it, where somebody claimed that creation could be used to create nigh infinite amounts of goodberries, or maybe even other magical stuff. Yes, if we interpreted spells in the most outrages ways, then they are really good. And then the wizard is o so uber. And there is imbalance.

That was me. RAW it works. DMs may house rule that you can't make magical items (good berries), but RAW there is nothing that says you can't as long as you've seen them. Would most DMs allow a player to do this? Probably not, but it is RAW. Many posters just don't believe that 5e could be unbalanced in this manner. The truth is if you take away DM house rules 5e is all kinds of broken. From infinite simulacra chains to creation making magic items.


But instead of complaining about this edition, we can also, you know, not interpred spells in the most outrages ways possible, and have 'em just do what they say they do, and then there is no problem. what annoyed me the most is when people in these discussions defend their spell abuse as 'being creative' - that happened a lot in 3.x discussions. Munchkinnery and limburgian cheese were defended as a virtue, and people who made common sense remarks about "it doesnt say it can do this, this is interpretation / real world physics / etc." were disqualified as 'not creative'.

Or we can interpret spells in any way that RAW allows and see how broken the system is. You can house rule all you want, but that doesn't help the discussion about 5e in general because we can't know what each DM is going to house rule and many DMs will house rule things differently.


Really don't understand you Newdm, We both know that any basic melee outperforms every basic caster by using only very basic resources. You make a thread about comparison and you try to promote the wizard>fighter mentality while you clearly know that a buffed martial is an encounter ender while a buffed caster is just viable.

No, you just believe its true, while I'm actually looking at the facts and doing comparisons. Please don't assume you know what I know or believe.


This isn't about playstyle choice, its about working as a team. When I play a martial I don't expect the chaotic neutral gish to buff me all the time, but I expect the player to know that I will get more mileage out of his haste and make a conscious decision to buff himself. If for some reason I don't expect that the player is capable of thinking that way, I will do some crazy multiclass just to get the tools I need. The same way I don't expect the cleric to spam heals on me, but if I am a support wizard under attack I expect a sanctuary so I will avoid using all my slots for shield. Cause if I want to I can teleport away and let them die. I decide not to and I expect the party not to leave me hanging. While dnd is about roleplay, if you want to tackle the more difficult challenges you need to have some grasp of the math.

Except you won't actually get more out of it unless you are a crit fisher with permanent advantage (and in that case I did cast the spell on the level 5 Champion Fighter so they could get 4 attacks with hand axes).


If there is some validity to your claim, it's that in a solo session, the gish will outperform the fighter any time of the day. Which I'm in full agreement with.

If no one uses spells on the melee classes they are basically sup-bar. With spells anyone jumps to the top of the list.


You aren't designing anything, you are fulfilling the role of DM as designed.
Indeed, and one of the suggestions previously made is to compare the classes in bands (within those three tiers, sure why not?) where it makes sense. (3/5/7/11/14 etc). There are certain key thresholds where relative power/or benefit may change due to a capstone arriving earlier for one class than another. (Those things marked blue and light blue and gold in various guides).

When I have to declare something that is completely RAW to not happen in my game, I'm doing the designers job. If I'm ruling on something the rules don't cover, then I'm doing the DMs job. There is a difference.

For instance if I have to tell the Wizard they can't make good berries with the Creation spell, then I'm doing the developers job. If I declare you can't hear a dragon at 600 feet, then I'm doing the job of a DM.


I think the problem is that 5e is designed to be more hands-off and light on the rules compared to past editions, and people who were heavy in 3.5 aren't used to that. They want to be able to pull a reference book for every situation and turn to a specific page for an answer, instead of thinking about it and deciding on it themselves. In 5e, everything depends on the situation just as much as the class itself, so there's no definite answer that's right or wrong, which means that they have to think for themselves instead of referencing a handy list.

This is a play style choice. I personally prefer more rules or at least more comprehensive rules to cover more situations like 4e's improvised damage tables and the "If you try something it takes only 1 roll" rules. Those are pretty comprehensive.

In reality this last quote doesn't really matter because playing the game RAW you end up with some really over powered stuff like the simulacra chains or armies of undead (10 skeletons or zombies are enough to make any DM cringe)

[Regitnui]

You didn't answer my questions, NewDM. What is the actual point of your build? Why hamstring your effectiveness as a caster to compete against a different archetype? How can you say straight-faced that a suboptimal build for a wizard makes a fighter redundant?

And a thought; you claim that "you're just doing the numbers" as if that lends your argument some authority. My last question is "How many mistakes did you make in those calculations that were pointed out immediately after? Three or four? Don't you think that ruins your argument, when the core you're basing it around was mistaken?

[Gtdead]

No, you just believe its true, while I'm actually looking at the facts and doing comparisons. Please don't assume you know what I know or believe.

Not my intend, I just assume that you can put 1+1 together and see that a class that can put out 250 dpr can take better advantage of a +hit buff than a class that can put out 100. Also steady dpr isn't the only factor. In fact it's the least relevant. Encounter ending abilities are those that matter, not who has the biggest average stick.

Maths from the mobile are fun, wait for it ;p




Except you won't actually get more out of it unless you are a crit fisher with permanent advantage (and in that case I did cast the spell on the level 5 Champion Fighter so they could get 4 attacks with hand axes).


I don't understand this. Being a perma advantage fighter is an extremely easy thing to achieve in this game. It's not something that requires careful planning or some obscure tactic. Add haste if it's large for some extra damage, add enlarge if it's huge. That's all there is to it. Then shove and do some GWM powered attacks. You just outperformed any melee dpr focused caster in the game.

Lvl 12 fighter, +9 to hit, +4 with GWM, against 18 AC
35% hit
58% advantage
70% Bless advantage

Attacks

6.3+15=21.3, x3= 64~
3+15=18

Just attacking
(64+18)*0.35=29 DPR
Shoving then attacking
(42.6+18)*0.58=35 dpr
Shoving with bless
(42.6+18)*0,7=42.4 dpr
Shoving with haste and bless
(64+18)*0,7=57.4 dpr
Trip attack with haste and bless
108*0.7=75.74

For enlarge instead of haste subtract 21.3 and add 1d4x3=7.5
We can't use trip attack against huge enemies so he deals
Shoving with bless and enlarge
(42.6+18+7.5)*0.7=47.7

I don't even calculate criticals here because screw champion.
Throw an action surge with some precision strikes and a lvl 12 fighter reliably kills every monster in the mm up to cr 10~, and higher cr casters (like a lich) in one turn.

Sure he won't be able to shove gargantuan creatures, but that's what lvl 9 spells (particularly foresight) are for.

How would a bladesinger compare to this? Poorly I suppose. Probably something along the lines of
Haste+Bless+6th slot flaming sphere (haste is too much in this situation but whatever, lets say that he can get one)
9.5*2+9+21=28+21=49*0.7=34.4 (no bb proc) + 10~ =45 with proc + 3 accounting for the dex saves 48
Fighter just needs a bless to reach that damage.

Without bless, it's 52.5*0.6= 34~
Without flaming sphere it's 24.5
Without haste it's 31.5*0.6= 18.9

So with haste, bless and flaming strike, a bs goes from 18.5 dpr to 48
A fighter with just haste and bless from 35 to 57.4 to 75 with trip attack.

Even at lvl 17 where bladesinger is at it's absolute strongest, he will have a hard time outperforming a fighter with just bless and haste. He just doesn't do enough damage to put foresight to good use. He may match him, he may even surpass him in the non maneuver/action surge rounds. But he will still waste his spells on himself when the fighter can put them to a far better use.




If no one uses spells on the melee classes they are basically sup-bar. With spells anyone jumps to the top of the list.
Disagree. Not anyone is capable of jumping to the top of the list no matter how many buffs they get.

PS. I'm using 70% hit chance for dex save spells as well. Assuming that we target the most difficult monsters, 70% is fair. Also don't forget that a bladesinger (restricted to elves) with warcaster and mobile is going to have a hard time getting that int to 20.

[djreynolds]

In a thread I tried a long time ago called W.A.R. or warrior above replacement, I was trying to grade classes on how they improved the basic 4 man party of a champion, life cleric, thief, and evocation wizard.

Such as instead of a champion, you selected a paladin or barbarian, did this improve the party.

And though these subtypes are gone and 5E allows you to basically become anything you want to. It is best to view the game through team work.

Meaning from level 1 and on, it is all about team work. A wizard can get cleaned out a 1st level very quickly without other party members.

Because we can sit here all day and say moon druid, how many people ever get to 20th level. And some classes inherently multiclass very easily with others and many if not most players will look to multiclass to acquire class features such as armor or weapons.

So try to view the classes on how well they fit your party.

[NewDM]

You didn't answer my questions, NewDM. What is the actual point of your build? Why hamstring your effectiveness as a caster to compete against a different archetype? How can you say straight-faced that a suboptimal build for a wizard makes a fighter redundant?

The point of my build is to show that a wizard can replace a fighter and then some. You keep saying 'sub-optimal' its 'optimal' for a melee single target attacker. It can do the fighters job for them.

When the choice is do lots of damage and some athletics checks, or do 97% of lots of damage and be able to overcome just about any obstacle in the game. Its not really a choice unless you just flat out like fighters.


And a thought; you claim that "you're just doing the numbers" as if that lends your argument some authority. My last question is "How many mistakes did you make in those calculations that were pointed out immediately after? Three or four? Don't you think that ruins your argument, when the core you're basing it around was mistaken?

Numbers were corrected and this is known as attacking the arguer and not the argument. Try to keep your critiques to the information provided, otherwise I might have to start pointing out grammar mistakes on your part and invalidate your sentences.

That aside, my estimates were actually lower than when corrected.


Not my intent, I just assume that you can put 1+1 together and see that a class that can put out 250 dpr can take better advantage of a +hit buff than a class that can put out 100. Also steady dpr isn't the only factor. In fact it's the least relevant. Encounter ending abilities are those that matter, not who has the biggest average stick.

Except you haven't demonstrated a class that can put out 250 DPR (damage per round all day). What some have posted are classes that can nova above 200 using questionable mechanics. What I've demonstrated is a single target melee caster that can keep up with the best build of straight up fighter.


Maths from the mobile are fun, wait for it ;p



I don't understand this. Being a perma advantage fighter is an extremely easy thing to achieve in this game. It's not something that requires careful planning or some obscure tactic. Add haste if it's large for some extra damage, add enlarge if it's huge. That's all there is to it. Then shove and do some GWM powered attacks. You just outperformed any melee dpr focused caster in the game.

Lvl 12 fighter, +9 to hit, +4 with GWM, against 18 AC
35% hit
58% advantage
70% Bless advantage

Attacks

6.3+15=21.3, x3= 64~
3+15=18

Just attacking
(64+18)*0.35=29 DPR
Shoving then attacking
(42.6+18)*0.58=35 dpr
Shoving with bless
(42.6+18)*0,7=42.4 dpr
Shoving with haste and bless
(64+18)*0,7=57.4 dpr
Trip attack with haste and bless
108*0.7=75.74

For enlarge instead of haste subtract 21.3 and add 1d4x3=7.5
We can't use trip attack against huge enemies so he deals
Shoving with bless and enlarge
(42.6+18+7.5)*0.7=47.7

I don't even calculate criticals here because screw champion.
Throw an action surge with some precision strikes and a lvl 12 fighter reliably kills every monster in the mm up to cr 10~, and higher cr casters (like a lich) in one turn.

Sure he won't be able to shove gargantuan creatures, but that's what lvl 9 spells (particularly foresight) are for.

How would a bladesinger compare to this? Poorly I suppose. Probably something along the lines of
Haste+Bless+6th slot flaming sphere (haste is too much in this situation but whatever, lets say that he can get one)
9.5*2+9+21=28+21=49*0.7=34.4 (no bb proc) + 10~ =45 with proc + 3 accounting for the dex saves 48
Fighter just needs a bless to reach that damage.

Without bless, it's 52.5*0.6= 34~
Without flaming sphere it's 24.5
Without haste it's 31.5*0.6= 18.9

So with haste, bless and flaming strike, a bs goes from 18.5 dpr to 48
A fighter with just haste and bless from 35 to 57.4 to 75 with trip attack.

Even at lvl 17 where bladesinger is at it's absolute strongest, he will have a hard time outperforming a fighter with just bless and haste. He just doesn't do enough damage to put foresight to good use. He may match him, he may even surpass him in the non maneuver/action surge rounds. But he will still waste his spells on himself when the fighter can put them to a far better use.



Disagree. Not anyone is capable of jumping to the top of the list no matter how many buffs they get.

PS. I'm using 70% hit chance for dex save spells as well. Assuming that we target the most difficult monsters, 70% is fair. Also don't forget that a bladesinger (restricted to elves) with warcaster and mobile is going to have a hard time getting that int to 20.

My above build was doing in excess of 70 damage which is higher than the build you posted (64) without using bless or haste or any buffs at all. You get one of the spells that adds damage to weapon attacks and that blade singers spells go through the roof.

[NewDM]

In a thread I tried a long time ago called W.A.R. or warrior above replacement, I was trying to grade classes on how they improved the basic 4 man party of a champion, life cleric, thief, and evocation wizard.

Such as instead of a champion, you selected a paladin or barbarian, did this improve the party.

And though these subtypes are gone and 5E allows you to basically become anything you want to. It is best to view the game through team work.

Meaning from level 1 and on, it is all about team work. A wizard can get cleaned out a 1st level very quickly without other party members.

Because we can sit here all day and say moon druid, how many people ever get to 20th level. And some classes inherently multiclass very easily with others and many if not most players will look to multiclass to acquire class features such as armor or weapons.

So try to view the classes on how well they fit your party.

The Optimum test would be to swap out party members of each sub-class optimized by the best. Then compare things like how many hit points were left (%), how many resources were used (%). We'd have to do these tests around 4k times each for each sub-class to get meaningful data. Too bad we don't have thousands of play testers to actually test this on. We'd probably find that casters with AoE dominated.

[Giant2005]

One thing worth mentioning is Flaming Sphere's greatest flaw - often it does more harm than good.
If you are using it, you can at most have yourself and two other friendlies attacking a medium sized target before Flaming Sphere starts hurting allies, and that is assuming that the characters are all mobile enough, and the players coordinated enough to achieve optimal positioning.
That isn't something that is easily relied upon. In fact, more often than not, even a single ally in addition to yourself is enough to force you either into not using the spell, or causing some quite serious friendly fire.
It is a really poor tactic to use if have of your DPR is hurting both your target as well as two of your allies (although that issue is avoiding by the superior Cleric version).

[djreynolds]

The Optimum test would be to swap out party members of each sub-class optimized by the best. Then compare things like how many hit points were left (%), how many resources were used (%). We'd have to do these tests around 4k times each for each sub-class to get meaningful data. Too bad we don't have thousands of play testers to actually test this on. We'd probably find that casters with AoE dominated.

My thread, was similar to how they do baseball statistics. Sabermetrics, moneyball.

And it would be vast.

I also had a thread about defeating a totem barbarian with straight up martials, my strength based rapier wielding champion ended up beating him most often, though he lost more than he won. That survivor class feature coupled with the dodge action and when possible with defensive duelist and attacking. And the strength based rogue also did well with a rapier and defensive duelist, which I found better than uncanny dodge at higher levels.

[Gtdead]

Except you haven't demonstrated a class that can put out 250 DPR (damage per round all day). What some have posted are classes that can nova above 200 using questionable mechanics. What I've demonstrated is a single target melee caster that can keep up with the best build of straight up fighter.


My above build was doing in excess of 70 damage which is higher than the build you posted (64) without using bless or haste or any buffs at all. You get one of the spells that adds damage to weapon attacks and that blade singers spells go through the roof.

It's not 64, it's PAM, 3 attacks of 1d10(rerolls)+15 and one of 1d4(rerolls)+15, which is 21.3*3+18=63.9+18=81.9. 103.2 at lvl 20, and 124.5 with AoO.
As for 250 dpr, I meant nova with action surge which is an encounter ending ability if set up right, but never mind, I will make it happen.

Add haste (wizard/EK): 124.5+21.3=145.8
Bard grabbing elemental weapon and casting it at lvl 7: 145.8+ (7*3d4)= 145.8+52.5 = 198.3 (bonus points since it lasts for an hour)
Add enlarge (wizard/EK) 198.3.5+7*2.5=215.8
Add crits and you got it. Too bored to do it.
The best part is that you can do this for a LONG time.

Can I have my bless and foresight now or the bladesinger gish still wants to solo the game?
Fun fact: Doing that, a wizard's haste will amount to one attack of 21.3+3d4+1d4 = 31.3 dpr, which is just 0.2 dpr less than a lvl 9 slot flaming sphere at the cost of a lvl 3 spell
And now I rest my case.

tl;dr,

Got a fighter? Buff the **** out of him. It's the best use for your spells.

[Regitnui]

The point of my build is to show that a wizard can replace a fighter and then some. You keep saying 'sub-optimal' its 'optimal' for a melee single target attacker. It can do the fighters job for them.

When the choice is do lots of damage and some athletics checks, or do 97% of lots of damage and be able to overcome just about any obstacle in the game. Its not really a choice unless you just flat out like fighters.


Seriously, why in the infinite layers of the abyss are you taking a wizard and trying to make a fighter?! Are you really so religiously devoted to the "Martial Suck" narrative that you're willing to take a class that has a completely different specialization and use all of its abilities to hit the baseline of a class that can do that much better?

Did you know that Wizards of the Coast is one of the biggest tabletop gaming companies in the Western Hemisphere? So you, some random bloke on an internet forum, are telling us that an entire company full of professional game designers, developers and playtesters aren't as good as you at designing what a martial class should be (and here's the kicker) in their own game?

A suboptimally-built wizard is not any sort of reason to remove the fighter from the game. If you want to play a wizard that is essentially a fighter, go ahead. The rest of the world will go on using the class that is actually designed to be a fighter.

I'm done here.

[Shaofoo]

Seriously, why in the infinite layers of the abyss are you taking a wizard and trying to make a fighter?! Are you really so religiously devoted to the "Martial Suck" narrative that you're willing to take a class that has a completely different specialization and use all of its abilities to hit the baseline of a class that can do that much better?


I am sure some of the problems aren't actually problems but rather repeating memes without much thought. Wizard superiority was a thing before so it must be a thing now, right? Even if you have to somehow sacrifice your entire being just to reach the baseline of a class the meme must be propagated.

Especially considering that this entire scenario was one level 20 DPR fest so obviously one instance where the wizard was as good as a fighter means that fighters are obsolete. Especially when you can't solve problems anymore because you used those slots to be a fighter knock off.

[Zman]

I can't believe this thread is still going. NewDM seems to have a tenuously hypocritical relationship with Raw as pointed out in other threads and yet he doesn't stop. This thread just pointed out how a Wizard can poorly emulate at Fighter at lvl20. Now, let's see the Wizard supplant the Fighter or Barbarian at levels 1-4. I doubt he'll even acknowledge the post and definitely won't acknowledge his theories don't hold up at other levels.

I'm seriously getting fed up with his trolling of so many threads and his RAW hypocrasies. It's tiresome...

[Waazraath]

Nope, and kindly take that attitude somewhere else. That's actually insulting. What really happened was were were talking about HOW to rank classes against each other for effectiveness when someone posted a build and said "better than all other classes", then I posted a build to get within 97% of it without doing the math to show its actually better. I also noted how other builds can do as much if not more from other classes. In doing so I mentioned the 3.x ranking system (which if you read it is valid in any system or edition because its 'relative').

This wasn't a reaction to me, but I think I made a suggestion on the HOW (in a way that could work) already in post #25, and argued why discussing a ranking in the way that is suggested here is a very bad idea. 5 pages of discussion has confirmed my point. You don't take into account (but this has been repeatedly adressed, also by others), that:
- lvl 20 is a very bad point to compare, since it's hardly played
- this is a team game and not a solo game
- a lot of stuff is depending on DM's decisions for which there is no average: type of campain, dominant enemies / terrain type / encounter type (social/combat/exploration)
- etc.

Again, you state here that the 3.x rating system is relative. Hardly. I already adressed this, in post #83 (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showsinglepost.php?p=20652024&postcount=83 ) - to which you didn't reply. The 3.x system doen't rank classes against each other, but against the game, enemies, challenges. And where the bottem is defined as (crudely summarized) 'can't contribute', the middle als 'good in one thing, ok in others, or 'generally ok-ish in everything', and where the top is 'good in everything, without effort'. All classes in 5e are at least good in one thing, and ok in several others. If you look at the hoops you have to jump trough, to turn a wizard into a mediocre melee fighter, using all rescources, how can you seriously speak of 'top' in relation to 3.x tier system?

For the rest, this thread devolved in a wizard (build) vs fighter thread, which proves or adds nothing to the question on what class is effective in an actual game. And, if you care to read all the posts carefully, you'll notice that you have very different experiences in the game then a vast majority of other players. Makes you think?


See above. No, just no. Don't understand what you reply to here; my "+1 comment" was to Regitnui, while your comment on somebody's attitude is made to another poster.



If the claims line up with the facts, then its true. Most people due to 3.x's brokenness rule 5e spells in the least beneficial way to the caster, but in the case of creation, there is literally nothing RAW that says you can't make magical items or good berries. Its a matter of having a DM look at the spell and flat out house rule and say no out of caution.

That was me. RAW it works. DMs may house rule that you can't make magical items (good berries), but RAW there is nothing that says you can't as long as you've seen them. Would most DMs allow a player to do this? Probably not, but it is RAW. Many posters just don't believe that 5e could be unbalanced in this manner. The truth is if you take away DM house rules 5e is all kinds of broken. From infinite simulacra chains to creation making magic items.

Or we can interpret spells in any way that RAW allows and see how broken the system is. You can house rule all you want, but that doesn't help the discussion about 5e in general because we can't know what each DM is going to house rule and many DMs will house rule things differently.

No, I'm far from convinced. This has nothing to do with "house rules". The rules in the book say what you can do. Creation says nothing about creating magical items, or magical berries. In another thread magic items are already discussed, and quoted from the rules as DM only territory. But also the berries: creation doesn't say you can create magical stuff, so you can't. Saying you can because the rules don't say I can't is rules lawyering, in the bad sense of the words. Or, as a wise man (Caelic) said in 3.x when he created The Ten Commandments of Practical Optimization:


1. Not everything needs to be stated explicitly in the rules; some things just are.
A human doesn't have a hundred and fifty-seven arms, even though the rules don't explicitly say that he doesn't. A character doesn't continue running around after he dies, even though the rules don't explicitly list any negative effects for death. If the designers spelled out every single thing explicitly...even the glaringly obvious...the core rulebooks would be larger than the Encyclopedia Brittannica, and would likely cost as much as a Ferrari.

2. "The rules don't say I can't!" is not practical optimization.
The second commandment is like unto the first. There are many things that the rules don't explicitly say you can't do. The rules don't explicitly say you can't do the "I'm a Little Teapot" dance and instantly heal back to full starting hit points as a result. The rules don't explicitly say your first level character can't have a titanium-reinforced skeleton and cybernetic weaponry. This is because the rules are structured in such a way as to tell you what you can do--not what you can't. An underlying assumption is that, apart from common-sense actions which anyone can perform, the system will tell you if a given character has a given ability. (the other 8 are worth reading as well: http://www.minmaxboards.com/index.php?PHPSESSID=0f57tq44729njvukk4curl7ot7&topic=4136.msg56582#msg56582 )

[Regitnui]

We've got a contravention of rule 4;


4. Common sense is not a bad thing.
The rules were designed to be read with common sense. Yes, common sense will vary from person to person, but there has to be some basic level at which we agree on core assumptions, or the game is meaningless. If we have one interpretation of the rules where two levels of a prestige class give you infinite caster level, and another interpretation where two levels of that same prestige class give you two caster levels, then common sense tells us that the latter interpretation is the correct one. If a character reaches negative ten hit points and dies, common sense tells us that he doesn't spring back to his feet and continue fighting unimpeded.

Rerigging a wizard to make a fighter is no sense at all.

[Zalabim]

I'll just throw this here. Creation makes an object. You have to have seen the material and the form of the object. You have to have a piece of the material the object is made out of. If the material component is valuable or consumed, it has to be provided. The duration of the spell is based on the hardest to create material used in the object, up to Mithral or Adamantine lasting one minute as the shortest. Creation is an illusion. Materials created by Creation cannot be used as the components for spells. The size of the object that can be created scales with spell level.

Creation does not make multiple objects, because it says it makes an object. Creation does not make magic items or magical materials because it does not say it can create magic items or magical materials. It can make an object out of nonliving vegetable matter, stone, crystals including gems, and metals including precious metals or fantastic metals like adamantine or mithral, because that is what it says it can do.

[LVOD]

Obviously 'most effective class' is pretty vague. Each class has their strengths and weaknesses and roles to fill. D&D is designed around parties and not individual characters.

But in an attempt to logic an answer, i would say magic users are inherently more versatile, and thus 'effective' in a greater number of scenarios. So i guess for my vote the most effective class would be the most versatile of the magic users... Probably sorcerer (since I'd vote that metamagic opens up more options than the wizard's more specialized options) or druids (since wild shape has a really wide range of versatility, and they get it on top of spellcasting). An argument could also be made for bards....

In fact, bards. Yeah, thats the answer. They can compete with weapons, full spellcasting, and tons of skills. Bards get it all.

[Ewhit]

The sorcere who can make you roll disadvantage on that important roll is the best

[NewDM]

Seriously, why in the infinite layers of the abyss are you taking a wizard and trying to make a fighter?! Are you really so religiously devoted to the "Martial Suck" narrative that you're willing to take a class that has a completely different specialization and use all of its abilities to hit the baseline of a class that can do that much better?

Lol, because I like tanky melee casters, known to some as Gish's. I play dark souls and I enjoy the sword and sorcery build. I also don't use all of its abilities. I use about half of its abilities to match the most optimized fighter out there. I also like playing against type and making interesting back stories.


Did you know that Wizards of the Coast is one of the biggest tabletop gaming companies in the Western Hemisphere? So you, some random bloke on an internet forum, are telling us that an entire company full of professional game designers, developers and playtesters aren't as good as you at designing what a martial class should be (and here's the kicker) in their own game?

Lol, did you know they have had 8 employees that actually worked on the game for most of 5e's existence? WotC is one thing, D&D division is a whole other ball of wax. Some perspective is in order. On the WotC forums on the release of each new product for 4E, the CharOp board broke nearly every supplement they put out using RAW to the point that 4E had the most errata in any edition to date to fix balance problems. They refuse to do this with 5E. Somewhere there is an announcement where they say this. If something is broke in 5E they are not going to fix it.

One person that isn't overworked that loves to crunch numbers and is a little creative can see things that set in their ways play testers won't see. The roll of the dice comes in too. For instance WotC (Mearls) thought a 1 minute duration with only a single saving throw for ghoul paralyzation was fine, until during their live streamed online game the entire party wiped.


A suboptimally-built wizard is not any sort of reason to remove the fighter from the game. If you want to play a wizard that is essentially a fighter, go ahead. The rest of the world will go on using the class that is actually designed to be a fighter.

I'm done here.

lol no one said remove the fighter. I also enjoy playing the wizard that way. The fighter simply gets ranked below the wizard because not only can the wizard do what the fighter does, they can do about half of their own thing on top of it. I'd love for WotC to design a better fighter that could keep up with the wizard. Unfortunately there would be an outcry from the fan base about how the fighter is doing unrealistic things.

I mean if I were to design the fighter to keep up with the wizard, I'd give it a few features:

Legendary Saves
At 7th level you gain the ability to automatically succeed at 1 saving throw of your choice. At levels 14 and 20 you gain another use of this feature. You regain 1 use of this feature on a short rest and all uses on a long rest. You've learned to overcome what normal people can't endure and your experience with various effects have shown you how to use your adrenaline to overcome them.

Legendary Resistance
At 10th level you take half damage from an effect that grants a saving throw on a failed save. On a successful save you take no damage. You are about as tough as they come, you shrug off what would kill a normal person.

Adrenaline Run
At 6th level you can give up an attack when you use the Attack action to move your speed. Your practice on the battlefield has taught you to be quick on your feet.

Battlefield Awareness
At 13th level your battlefield awareness has risen to the point that you have an almost supernatural sense of what is going on. When an enemy moves while within your melee reach, you may use your reaction to make an opportunity attack against them. If you hit they lose the rest of their movement on this turn. In addition you can move away from an enemy without provoking an attack of opportunity for a cost of 10 feet of movement.

Battlefield Superiority
At 15th level you gain the ability to add double your proficiency bonus to any skill check as part of grappling, or shoving a creature or any other combat related skill checks. In addition you can use your bonus action to perform: Disengage, Dodge, and Help actions.

Its not hard to come up with better stuff than WotC did for the fighter.


I am sure some of the problems aren't actually problems but rather repeating memes without much thought. Wizard superiority was a thing before so it must be a thing now, right? Even if you have to somehow sacrifice your entire being just to reach the baseline of a class the meme must be propagated.

Especially considering that this entire scenario was one level 20 DPR fest so obviously one instance where the wizard was as good as a fighter means that fighters are obsolete. Especially when you can't solve problems anymore because you used those slots to be a fighter knock off.

I thought being insulting or trolling was against the board rules?

Only half the spell slots were used. When I get time I'll throw together a google spreadsheet that calculates DPR and put in all 20 levels of Fighter and Wizard.


I can't believe this thread is still going. NewDM seems to have a tenuously hypocritical relationship with Raw as pointed out in other threads and yet he doesn't stop. This thread just pointed out how a Wizard can poorly emulate at Fighter at lvl20. Now, let's see the Wizard supplant the Fighter or Barbarian at levels 1-4. I doubt he'll even acknowledge the post and definitely won't acknowledge his theories don't hold up at other levels.

I'm seriously getting fed up with his trolling of so many threads and his RAW hypocrasies. It's tiresome...

Lol, no. What you and others have is a DM lock down mentality that defies RAW. I mean that's fine at your table, but other DMs don't play that way. When I post, I assume all tables, not just yours.

The Wizard doesn't 'poorly' emulate anything. They are within 97% as survivable (or more) and they still have half their spell slots for anything else that comes along. They can also change from this to another build by simply preparing different spells.


This wasn't a reaction to me, but I think I made a suggestion on the HOW (in a way that could work) already in post #25, and argued why discussing a ranking in the way that is suggested here is a very bad idea. 5 pages of discussion has confirmed my point. You don't take into account (but this has been repeatedly adressed, also by others), that:
- lvl 20 is a very bad point to compare, since it's hardly played
- this is a team game and not a solo game
- a lot of stuff is depending on DM's decisions for which there is no average: type of campain, dominant enemies / terrain type / encounter type (social/combat/exploration)
- etc.

Again, you state here that the 3.x rating system is relative. Hardly. I already adressed this, in post #83 (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showsinglepost.php?p=20652024&postcount=83 ) - to which you didn't reply. The 3.x system doen't rank classes against each other, but against the game, enemies, challenges. And where the bottem is defined as (crudely summarized) 'can't contribute', the middle als 'good in one thing, ok in others, or 'generally ok-ish in everything', and where the top is 'good in everything, without effort'. All classes in 5e are at least good in one thing, and ok in several others. If you look at the hoops you have to jump trough, to turn a wizard into a mediocre melee fighter, using all rescources, how can you seriously speak of 'top' in relation to 3.x tier system?

For the rest, this thread devolved in a wizard (build) vs fighter thread, which proves or adds nothing to the question on what class is effective in an actual game. And, if you care to read all the posts carefully, you'll notice that you have very different experiences in the game then a vast majority of other players. Makes you think?

Don't understand what you reply to here; my "+1 comment" was to Regitnui, while your comment on somebody's attitude is made to another poster.



No, I'm far from convinced. This has nothing to do with "house rules". The rules in the book say what you can do. Creation says nothing about creating magical items, or magical berries. In another thread magic items are already discussed, and quoted from the rules as DM only territory. But also the berries: creation doesn't say you can create magical stuff, so you can't. Saying you can because the rules don't say I can't is rules lawyering, in the bad sense of the words. Or, as a wise man (Caelic) said in 3.x when he created The Ten Commandments of Practical Optimization:

(the other 8 are worth reading as well: http://www.minmaxboards.com/index.php?PHPSESSID=0f57tq44729njvukk4curl7ot7&topic=4136.msg56582#msg56582 )

If the rules in the book don't preclude it, then some DMs will allow it. I'm arguing from the view of all DMs rather than the DMs that are paranoid and lock down anything that might potentially be game breaking. The only good point someone made was that it creates 1 item. Which is a RAW reading so making 1 good berry isn't worth it since it only lasts 24 hours, but a wand of cure wounds would be worth it. Unless you get Jeremy Crawfords opinion on it, RAW is that you can make magic items.


We've got a contravention of rule 4;



Rerigging a wizard to make a fighter is no sense at all.

lol, rule 4 doesn't mean anything because it doesn't follow that all DMs will follow that rule. Some DMs will allow these things because they simply won't know how broken they are.

Rerigging a wizard to be effective in melee combat as part of a gish build (for thematic elements) does though.

[Regitnui]

People who use lol in a serious setting automatically have all their integrity removed.

So you like playing a tanky Gish? Isn't that what the Arcane Knight fighter subclass is for?

[Firechanter]

@NewDM:

I also enjoy playing the wizard that way. The fighter simply gets ranked below the wizard because not only can the wizard do what the fighter does, they can do about half of their own thing on top of it.

You can keep telling yourself that, but that doesn't make it any more true.
As many people, among others Regitnui, have pointed out very clearly in this thread, you need to build and play a Wizard a very certain way just to reach the _baseline_ of what a Fighter (or any Martial) can do out of the box without using any class features. The same buffs you use on yourself to become halfway acceptable as a melee combatant would do so much more good if you put them on the Fighter you are trying to outclass.

A PHB Wizard has shoddy AC and needs to spend resources just to get to mundane Fighter levels one round at a time. A Bladesinger has a higher AC than typical Martials, granted. So he doesn't get mushed to pulp in melee. And he also gets 2 Attacks. But he gets nothing to boost those attacks, is limited to single-handed weapons, doesn't get Fighting Styles, doesn't get Action Surge, or anything else that helps a Fighter kick ass.

Of course Wizards can do a lot of things that a Fighter can never do. Nobody argues against that. But the one thing that the Wizard _cannot_ do is exactly what the Fighter does.

[Shaofoo]

I thought being insulting or trolling was against the board rules?

Only half the spell slots were used. When I get time I'll throw together a google spreadsheet that calculates DPR and put in all 20 levels of Fighter and Wizard.




I am sorry but explaining your flaws is trolling or insulting now? I think you might be getting a bit touchy there.

You basically said you had to tie in all slots just so you can keep up with the Fighter throughout a full adventuring day, unless you want to explain that now you only need half the slots (So like 11 slots) to be able to go the distance (6-8 encounters) and never mind that you only account for DPR not actually simulate an encounter where enemies have varied stats.

And you still don't address the biggest flaw at all. You still treat level 20 as the end all be all.

I sincerly don't know what you are trying to prove anymore, you are blatantly ignoring the biggest flaws and now falsely accusing others of trolling?

[Zman]

Lol, no. What you and others have is a DM lock down mentality that defies RAW. I mean that's fine at your table, but other DMs don't play that way. When I post, I assume all tables, not just yours.

The Wizard doesn't 'poorly' emulate anything. They are within 97% as survivable (or more) and they still have half their spell slots for anything else that comes along. They can also change from this to another build by simply preparing different spells.

Firstly, you have a failed understanding of RAW and choose to ignore vast swaths of it. In the other thread you said someone can attack someone with a longbow at 600' though sight blocking dense foliage at no penalty because the Advantage for not being seen blocked the disadvantage for being seen. Yet, you ignore the hugely important parts of RAW which tells us why this is a situation that shouldn't happen, most importantly how we are told such attacks automatically miss. RAW tells us what to do and that situation shouldn't happen, yet you ignore it.

Now, back to the matter at hand, please show me how the Wizard matches the Fighter or Barbarian in Damage output and Survivability. This time I pick the level, how about level 2? Level 4? Level 6? Each of which is a much larger part of the game than level 20. Show me how your Bladesinger can match a Fighter or Barbarian throughout an adventuring day. Oh, and don't hand wave action economy either, it takes time to get those spells cast. I'll be waiting for a long time, because you can't. Not that you'll admit you're wrong... You'll just respond to something else and keep your level 20 farce with handwaived details going.

The truth is a Wizard can often reach baseline fighter levels, but cannot do so he output most of the 20 levels, doing so requires have resource investment, and often is vastly less efficient than buffing a Martial with the same spell slot.

[Coffee_Dragon]

People who use lol in a serious setting automatically have all their integrity removed.

So do people who write "X much?" or begin a sentence with "I mean," more than once a day. I mean, if we're going down that road, I mean.

[Shaofoo]

So do people who write "X much?" or begin a sentence with "I mean," more than once a day. I mean, if we're going down that road, I mean.

Well I would assume laughing out loud at the beginning of every single sentence would get grating. Would you trust the guy that suddenly began to laugh hysterically for no reason (or because he thinks you are an idiot)?

At the very least X much and I mean are fully formed out words, say what you want at least it doesn't imply the writer is doing an action that isn't conductive to actual discussion.

[Regitnui]

So do people who write "X much?" or begin a sentence with "I mean," more than once a day. I mean, if we're going down that road, I mean.

Lol is also 'laugh out loud'. I don't know about you, but I don't picture just a snigger when someone says 'lol'. I see at least an audible and unmistakable laugh. I mean and other speech pauses are acceptable in limited quantities. Once per long rest.

[NewDM]

People who use lol in a serious setting automatically have all their integrity removed.

So you like playing a tanky Gish? Isn't that what the Arcane Knight fighter subclass is for?

The first part is an insult directed at me.

The second part is that the EK Fighter sub-class is 1/3 caster and its features don't work with BB and GFB. 4 attacks are worthless when you only use a cantrip to attack. You are limited to a very small list of spells and get less spell slots. I can basically do the same thing as an EK with a Blade Singer or with a Mountain Dwarf in half-plate, but have full spells and spell slots. If I really want to, I can take 2 levels in Fighters to gain most of their best features.


@NewDM:

You can keep telling yourself that, but that doesn't make it any more true.
As many people, among others Regitnui, have pointed out very clearly in this thread, you need to build and play a Wizard a very certain way just to reach the _baseline_ of what a Fighter (or any Martial) can do out of the box without using any class features. The same buffs you use on yourself to become halfway acceptable as a melee combatant would do so much more good if you put them on the Fighter you are trying to outclass.

A PHB Wizard has shoddy AC and needs to spend resources just to get to mundane Fighter levels one round at a time. A Bladesinger has a higher AC than typical Martials, granted. So he doesn't get mushed to pulp in melee. And he also gets 2 Attacks. But he gets nothing to boost those attacks, is limited to single-handed weapons, doesn't get Fighting Styles, doesn't get Action Surge, or anything else that helps a Fighter kick ass.

Of course Wizards can do a lot of things that a Fighter can never do. Nobody argues against that. But the one thing that the Wizard _cannot_ do is exactly what the Fighter does.

Nope. I was comparing an optimized fighter to an optimized wizard. The wizard came in at around 97% of the Fighter (and I was using the damage for FS ram at 5th level instead of calculating for 1x8th, 2x7th, 2x6th, 3x5th). People started discussing shenanigans like having everyone in the party buff the fighter, but not buff the Blade Singer, or giving them a +3 magic item and not giving it to the Blade Singer. They didn't prove anything and they certainly didn't post any valid numbers.

A blade singer has nearly the same AC as a fighter. +5 dex mod + Studded Leather is AC 17. The highest a fighter can achieve is AC 18 with full plate (they don't use a shield or their DPR goes down). Then we throw the 2 encounter out of 6-8 per day when the blade singer can increase their AC to 21. Then they can use shield to increase it to 26. At best the fighter can use superiority dice to increase theirs to what 24.5 on average about 18 rounds out of the day?

I know you people love the fighter and want it to be the best at fighting, but it just isn't.


I am sorry but explaining your flaws is trolling or insulting now? I think you might be getting a bit touchy there.

Yes, its known as a personal attack and is against the forum rules.


You basically said you had to tie in all slots just so you can keep up with the Fighter throughout a full adventuring day, unless you want to explain that now you only need half the slots (So like 11 slots) to be able to go the distance (6-8 encounters) and never mind that you only account for DPR not actually simulate an encounter where enemies have varied stats.

And you still don't address the biggest flaw at all. You still treat level 20 as the end all be all.

I sincerely don't know what you are trying to prove anymore, you are blatantly ignoring the biggest flaws and now falsely accusing others of trolling?

Nope. I said no such thing. They use at most 16 slots all day, but with Arcane recovery they regain 10 spell levels of those slots back. That would be 4x1st and 3x2nd or some other combination.

At some point when I don't have to defend my position to 7 people who post constantly and personally attack my posts rather than my data, I'm going to make a google spreadsheet that calculates the DPR at all levels between the two classes. I fully expect the Fighter to pull ahead at some levels and the Blade Singer to pull ahead at some levels. However my first priority is to not get dog piled by random posters that didn't bother to read the thread.


Firstly, you have a failed understanding of RAW and choose to ignore vast swaths of it. In the other thread you said someone can attack someone with a longbow at 600' though sight blocking dense foliage at no penalty because the Advantage for not being seen blocked the disadvantage for being seen. Yet, you ignore the hugely important parts of RAW which tells us why this is a situation that shouldn't happen, most importantly how we are told such attacks automatically miss. RAW tells us what to do and that situation shouldn't happen, yet you ignore it.

Sorry no. I've understood RAW as much as the next poster. Did I account for everything? No, but neither did the person that posted the Fighter build. Everyone is human. Point out the mistakes and move on. Don't personally attack them and expect to win the discussion. Its just not going to happen.

As to the other thread, what I said was RAW. If the dragon cannot see them, it is blind which grants attackers advantage canceling out disadvantage. The rest was DM interpretation and house ruling. Dense foliage is not a physical block to attacking. It is a visual block to seeing an enemy. The sound question is up to a DM (or Jeremy Crawford). It could go either way.


Now, back to the matter at hand, please show me how the Wizard matches the Fighter or Barbarian in Damage output and Survivability. This time I pick the level, how about level 2? Level 4? Level 6? Each of which is a much larger part of the game than level 20. Show me how your Bladesinger can match a Fighter or Barbarian throughout an adventuring day. Oh, and don't hand wave action economy either, it takes time to get those spells cast. I'll be waiting for a long time, because you can't. Not that you'll admit you're wrong... You'll just respond to something else and keep your level 20 farce with handwaived details going.

I'll put it in my google spreadsheet once I get done defending myself from personal attacks. Just a quick heads up: False Life is a level 1 spell that lasts for 1 hour without concentration that almost doubles a casters hit points at 1st level, shield raises AC by +5 as a reaction.

I've already explained most of that, but wait for the google spreadsheet.

Please stop telling me what I'm going to do. I'm pretty sure that's against the rules.


The truth is a Wizard can often reach baseline fighter levels, but cannot do so he output most of the 20 levels, doing so requires have resource investment, and often is vastly less efficient than buffing a Martial with the same spell slot.

Actually they can because they have enough spell slots to cast Flaming Sphere all day, even at low levels. The only levels they don't have it up during every combat is at levels 1-5, and at that point they don't actually need it up every combat because the combats consist of around 5 goblins each taken out by a single hit by anyone.


So do people who write "X much?" or begin a sentence with "I mean," more than once a day. I mean, if we're going down that road, I mean.

Please don't personally attack anyone. I hear its against the forum rules.


Well I would assume laughing out loud at the beginning of every single sentence would get grating. Would you trust the guy that suddenly began to laugh hysterically for no reason (or because he thinks you are an idiot)?

At the very least X much and I mean are fully formed out words, say what you want at least it doesn't imply the writer is doing an action that isn't conductive to actual discussion.

Actually, its a slightly amused laugh as I see logical fallacies and personal attacks being thrown around, or someone just failed to read the thread and their post was already addressed.


Lol is also 'laugh out loud'. I don't know about you, but I don't picture just a snigger when someone says 'lol'. I see at least an audible and unmistakable laugh. I mean and other speech pauses are acceptable in limited quantities. Once per long rest.

Its an amused laugh.

I'd report most of the posters for personal attacks and veiled insults, but I'm sure several of them have moderator accounts and wouldn't do any good.

Now lets get this thread back on track:

How would you compare classes to see who is most effective?

So far we have the following suggestions:
Run parties through various encounter scenarios including combat, socialization, and exploration and then see how they did, were they successful? How many resources did they use? Can they do it for 8 encounters per day? Do this 4k times each to account for the dice and then compare different party makeups.

Another suggestion was to break down each class into an optimized sub-class build and then compare the math on combat, social, and exploration encounters.

[JNAProductions]

Minor nitpick-AC 19. Defensive Fighting Style.

Also, at level 2, you're talking about a Wizard using False Life and Shield. They're now down to a single spell slot remaining. (And that's after a single casting of Shield.)

[Shaofoo]

Yes, its known as a personal attack and is against the forum rules.



Saying you are wrong is a personal attack now?



At some point when I don't have to defend my position to 7 people who post constantly and personally attack my posts rather than my data, I'm going to make a google spreadsheet that calculates the DPR at all levels between the two classes. I fully expect the Fighter to pull ahead at some levels and the Blade Singer to pull ahead at some levels. However my first priority is to not get dog piled by random posters that didn't bother to read the thread.



You didn't seem to read the thread either.

A lot of people are saying that DPR calculation is pointless, it isn't the end all be all of classes. Heck DPR is pointless even for battle analysis because there are so many variables that it would be impossible to take them all to make a concrete statement. Saying that you are going to make a DPR sheet basically proves nothing at all.

If all you want is a mental exercise then go ahead but I don't think that it would be conductive to see which class is the most effective... actually wouldn't the Fighter technically be more effective than the Wizard because basically the Wizard has to spend spell slots to get to the damage the Fighter can do for free? In an endurance run the Fighter wins hands down.

[BayardSPSR]

A lot of people are saying that DPR calculation is pointless, it isn't the end all be all of classes. Heck DPR is pointless even for battle analysis because there are so many variables that it would be impossible to take them all to make a concrete statement. Saying that you are going to make a DPR sheet basically proves nothing at all.

If all you want is a mental exercise then go ahead but I don't think that it would be conductive to see which class is the most effective... actually wouldn't the Fighter technically be more effective than the Wizard because basically the Wizard has to spend spell slots to get to the damage the Fighter can do for free? In an endurance run the Fighter wins hands down.

I think the issue is more than the Wizard can use the spell slots to do the same thing as a Fighter almost as well, but can also use the spell slots to do a whole range of other things, while the Fighter's stuck being a bit better at one of the many things a Wizard can do. At least, that's the way I've seen character tiers described. I'm not sure how much this is the case, though.

[Shaofoo]

I think the issue is more than the Wizard can use the spell slots to do the same thing as a Fighter almost as well, but can also use the spell slots to do a whole range of other things, while the Fighter's stuck being a bit better at one of the many things a Wizard can do. At least, that's the way I've seen character tiers described. I'm not sure how much this is the case, though.

For the purpose of this discussion the only thing that is being tested is DPR and for some reason melee DPR.

Sure he can do the spell slots to do whatever he wants but it is moot because the moment he has to use the slots to try to be as good as the Fighter he doesn't have those slots to be as good at anything else. Depending on the burn you have used up your slots to basically be a Fighter and that is all you can do.

Sure a Wizard can do much more than a Fighter but the Fighter isn't stuck with only Fighting, he still has access to skills and his background as well.

I have never seen a Fighter be jealous of a Wizard because he is doing something that he can't. I think people who choose Fighters accept that. If you want spells and a Fighter there is the Eldritch Knight or the myraid of other options that lets you be a gish. I've had players say that they don't want to use magic but those same players don't lament that they can't find a way to do magic stuff without magic.

[BayardSPSR]

For the purpose of this discussion the only thing that is being tested is DPR and for some reason melee DPR.

...

Sure a Wizard can do much more than a Fighter but the Fighter isn't stuck with only Fighting, he still has access to skills and his background as well.

Is the latter what we should be comparing, then? Everything that isn't melee DPR, that is.

I haven't personally witnessed power disparities affecting any RPG - but that doesn't mean it can't happen.

[mgshamster]

For the purpose of this discussion the only thing that is being tested is DPR and for some reason melee DPR.

I think we should change the measurement to spell DPR - that way we can say for certain that martial classes suck.

[Doug Lampert]

I think the issue is more than the Wizard can use the spell slots to do the same thing as a Fighter almost as well, but can also use the spell slots to do a whole range of other things, while the Fighter's stuck being a bit better at one of the many things a Wizard can do. At least, that's the way I've seen character tiers described. I'm not sure how much this is the case, though.

The way I think of it is that it's a VERY sub-par thing for a wizard to use his spell slots and distribute his ability scores so as to emulate a fighter.

This is pretty well universally agreed.

So RealWizard >> FauxFighterWizard.

We can probably agree that FauxFighterWizard is a stupidly weak build.

But if FauxFighterWizard is ACTUALLY a match for ActualFighter, or at least really close to being a match, and we all agree that FauxFighterWizard is a stupidly weak build compared to RealWizard, then it follows that ActualFighter is also a stupidly weak build compared to RealWizard. Which is bad.

Now, in the context of a party, I question if FauxFighterWizard is actually approximately equal to ActualFighter. Fighter + Wizard vs. Wizard + Wizard is a far more relevant comparison than either in isolation, and then we get to problems with the 5th ed rest mechanisms.

[BayardSPSR]

The way I think of it is that it's a VERY sub-par thing for a wizard to use his spell slots and distribute his ability scores so as to emulate a fighter.

This is pretty well universally agreed.

So RealWizard >> FauxFighterWizard.

We can probably agree that FauxFighterWizard is a stupidly weak build.

But if FauxFighterWizard is ACTUALLY a match for ActualFighter, or at least really close to being a match, and we all agree that FauxFighterWizard is a stupidly weak build compared to RealWizard, then it follows that ActualFighter is also a stupidly weak build compared to RealWizard. Which is bad.

Now, in the context of a party, I question if FauxFighterWizard is actually approximately equal to ActualFighter. Fighter + Wizard vs. Wizard + Wizard is a far more relevant comparison than either in isolation, and then we get to problems with the 5th ed rest mechanisms.

This is what I'm curious about.

[Doug Lampert]

This is what I'm curious about.

I think it depends on the rest mechanism/frequency. Do you actually average 7 or so significant encounters per long rest? Is there actually a real threat that when the PCs say, "I'm done for the day" and cast rope trick or teleport home that they'll find that they're not actually done but have one more nasty encounter waiting?

Cause a wizard who doesn't need to worry about running out of spells is plainly better than a fighter.

(At level 20, as NewDM has pointed out, even 8 encounters won't run the caster out of good spells, but who cares all that much about level 20 outside of theory-craft? Level 20 also has Moon Druid and True Polymorph and even Wish/Simulacrum cheese, It's obvious the designers didn't give a bleep what happened past about level 16 or so. Which explains a lot about the wretched balance on capstones for example.)

[Shaofoo]

The way I think of it is that it's a VERY sub-par thing for a wizard to use his spell slots and distribute his ability scores so as to emulate a fighter.

This is pretty well universally agreed.

So RealWizard >> FauxFighterWizard.

We can probably agree that FauxFighterWizard is a stupidly weak build.

But if FauxFighterWizard is ACTUALLY a match for ActualFighter, or at least really close to being a match, and we all agree that FauxFighterWizard is a stupidly weak build compared to RealWizard, then it follows that ActualFighter is also a stupidly weak build compared to RealWizard. Which is bad.

Now, in the context of a party, I question if FauxFighterWizard is actually approximately equal to ActualFighter. Fighter + Wizard vs. Wizard + Wizard is a far more relevant comparison than either in isolation, and then we get to problems with the 5th ed rest mechanisms.

FauxFighterWizard is worse than the ActualFighter because FFW needs to spend spell slots to actually do the things AF can do just by existing. FFW can never be equial to AF because of that use of resources.

Because of this you can't tell if RealWizard > ActualFighter or even that RW < AF. In some instances it might be true and in other instances it might not be (bring able to go the distance for starters). RW can do more things than AF but that doesn't make it automatically better than the Fighter.

I don't think even a two man party would be an accurate description either. There are so many variables to consider that making any sort of statement I see as futile.

Quite frankly people play characters and not classes and block of stats. I've had guys reject wanting to play magic users and be happy with the more simplistic choices and do participate in other activities that are not combat. If you only wish to play magic users because you do not want to lose the choices available that is fine and dandy but that doesn't make another class worse.

[Doug Lampert]

FauxFighterWizard is worse than the ActualFighter because FFW needs to spend spell slots to actually do the things AF can do just by existing. FFW can never be equial to AF because of that use of resources,

The fighter has no spell slots, unless EK, at which point he has fewer left after the wizard has spent slots than the wizard has left. That the wizard needs to use his class resources to match a fighter's class resources doesn't prove that a wizard is worse than a fighter.

That you have no better argument than this nonsense seems to me to indicate that you in fact have no argument.

[Shaofoo]

The fighter has no spell slots, unless EK, at which point he has fewer left after the wizard has spent slots than the wizard has left. That the wizard needs to use his class resources to match a fighter's class resources doesn't prove that a wizard is worse than a fighter.

That you have no better argument than this nonsense seems to me to indicate that you in fact have no argument.

I am not sure what that was all about.

In fact you kinda were proving my point actually.

You can't tell if Class A is better than Class B based on a single parameter and forcing Class B into Class A is no way to measure anything, that was my argument.

Really could you please tone down the condescension, it really doesn't help discussion. I was kinda hoping we could have one.

[Mongobear]

So how would you compare classes to see which is the most effective class?

My ideas (some adapted from other threads) would include breaking each class down into a list of subclasses so you would compare:

*snip*

The test would be which single class can take out the most enemies the fastest.

Your idea is flawed by making a HUGE assumption about D&D.

Not everything that happens in a game is Combat. You are completely ignoring at least 50% of the game, by not looking at how each class fares in Social and Exploration Encounters, as well as other scenarios which don't require "Hit it with an axe until it stops moving!" as the only solution. Also, certain classes can functionally end a Combat Encounter without actually dealing a single point of damage to their enemies, do they get a 0% since they didn't kill them?

[Vogonjeltz]

The point of my build is to show that a wizard can replace a fighter and then some. You keep saying 'sub-optimal' its 'optimal' for a melee single target attacker. It can do the fighters job for them.

When the choice is do lots of damage and some athletics checks, or do 97% of lots of damage and be able to overcome just about any obstacle in the game. Its not really a choice unless you just flat out like fighters.

I don't see how being fractionally as effective as dealing damage, but at the cost of most of the expendable resources the character has comes anywhere close to being a replacement.

If anything, you showed the Bladesinger is across the board inferior despite burning all their abilities to get there. It may be fun, and flavorful, but it's totally inferior and not capable of replacing a real melee class.

[Waazraath]

If the rules in the book don't preclude it, then some DMs will allow it. I'm arguing from the view of all DMs rather than the DMs that are paranoid and lock down anything that might potentially be game breaking. The only good point someone made was that it creates 1 item. Which is a RAW reading so making 1 good berry isn't worth it since it only lasts 24 hours, but a wand of cure wounds would be worth it. Unless you get Jeremy Crawfords opinion on it, RAW is that you can make magic items.


Ah! But here we might find some common ground. Cause yes, I agree, if the rules in the books don't preclude it, some DM's might allow it. BUT: you take it one step further, and say it is RAW. And then another step, and say this (is one of the things which) breaks the game. And then another step, and you use it in a discussion to prove the superiority of the wizard. And here we disagree. Cause something is not RAW, literally 'rules as written', if it's not written. The rules say what you can do. If a spell doesn't explicitly say it can emulate another spell, or create magic items, it can't. So it's not RAW, it doesn't break the game, and it proves nothing (except that there will be people playing the game who don't understand how the rules work).

But if we take 3 steps back: please, let wotc know that the curret text can lead to misunderstandings. I'm with you. You can open a thread, "would it be better to be explicit about creation", 15 people would say "yeah, of course", and you could link it to the devs, tweet it, whatever. (and no, I'm not 'telling you what to do', before we get that, it's just a suggestion).


What I do notice about your reply to me, is that you ignore the other 80% of what I said. Everything about why the suggested ranking mechanism doesn't work, why you misrepresent the 3.x tier system, etc.





Nope. I was comparing an optimized fighter to an optimized wizard. The wizard came in at around 97% of the Fighter (and I was using the damage for FS ram at 5th level instead of calculating for 1x8th, 2x7th, 2x6th, 3x5th). People started discussing shenanigans like having everyone in the party buff the fighter, but not buff the Blade Singer, or giving them a +3 magic item and not giving it to the Blade Singer. They didn't prove anything and they certainly didn't post any valid numbers.

A blade singer has nearly the same AC as a fighter. +5 dex mod + Studded Leather is AC 17. The highest a fighter can achieve is AC 18 with full plate (they don't use a shield or their DPR goes down). Then we throw the 2 encounter out of 6-8 per day when the blade singer can increase their AC to 21. Then they can use shield to increase it to 26. At best the fighter can use superiority dice to increase theirs to what 24.5 on average about 18 rounds out of the day?

...


Nope. I said no such thing. They use at most 16 slots all day, but with Arcane recovery they regain 10 spell levels of those slots back. That would be 4x1st and 3x2nd or some other combination.


I find your math very unconvincing. There are flaws in it, continiously. Somebody already mentioned defensive fighting style, so the "max AC 18" is incorrect. But also: you are all to easy with your assumptions. You assume spells are active, while often you need time to cast them. You assume combat goes fast enough that you only a few castings of 'shield' and no additional castings of false life and mirror image. All nice and well, but if you're surprised, a blade singer needs 1 round to cast mirror image, and it maybe also needs a shield already that round. False life won't be on, want to cast it? That's another round. Hello, 'waste off space!' Have a surprise round, and then loose initiative? A blade singer with jack hp, no defensive bufffs on, and a not that impressive AC will be lying on the round often, bleeding and unconscious.

Also, false life is nice, but it doesn't 'double' a wizards hp at level 1 or 2, as you've said somewhere. It gives on average 6,5 hp. Great. A wizard with con 14 has 8 hp on lvl 1, 14 on lvl 2. Not quite double at lvl 1, and rapidly declining after that. And guess what: in play, you might cast false life, and it will run out before an encounter. Wasted spell. You will get hit, and where the fighter or barbarian will be able to get healed or take a short rest, back to higher HP then the wizard gets with false life, the wizard can't be healed: temp hp, so are gone. Only option is to waste another spell slot (in combat: another turn).

Etc., etc. This is theorycraft. In real play, this build falls apart in no time.


At some point when I don't have to defend my position to 7 people who post constantly and personally attack my posts rather than my data, I'm going to make a google spreadsheet that calculates the DPR at all levels between the two classes. I fully expect the Fighter to pull ahead at some levels and the Blade Singer to pull ahead at some levels. However my first priority is to not get dog piled by random posters that didn't bother to read the thread.

Come on, this is just lame. Don't play the victim. You take a very strong stance on a subject; posting huge walls of text, and make mistakes in your calculations. Of course you get a response, and a vast majority of people is disagreeing with you. Again, you might try to consider the 'why', both of why people are disagreeing, as why some take a rather hard tone of voice. (hint: it could have something to do with, you know, you not being right, and the way you react to people?)



As to the other thread, what I said was RAW. If the dragon cannot see them, it is blind which grants attackers advantage canceling out disadvantage. The rest was DM interpretation and house ruling. Dense foliage is not a physical block to attacking. It is a visual block to seeing an enemy. The sound question is up to a DM (or Jeremy Crawford). It could go either way.

At your table mabye. In 20+ years of D&D I've never seen a table where this kind of 'rules interpretations' would be tolerated.



I'll put it in my google spreadsheet once I get done defending myself from personal attacks. Just a quick heads up: False Life is a level 1 spell that lasts for 1 hour without concentration that almost doubles a casters hit points at 1st level, shield raises AC by +5 as a reaction.

Yes, and the false life can't be taken for granted. And if a wizard is in heavy melee 4 rounds, it might need to blow 4 shields. Do whatever you want with the spread sheet, but if you make one without taking these kind of things in account, you'll get a lot more criticism, I expect.



Actually they can because they have enough spell slots to cast Flaming Sphere all day, even at low levels. The only levels they don't have it up during every combat is at levels 1-5, and at that point they don't actually need it up every combat because the combats consist of around 5 goblins each taken out by a single hit by anyone.

Simply false. Take the MM and have a good look at the monsters you are supposed to encounter at lvl 1-5. Making stuff up doesn't make your argument more convincing. As for the flaming sphere: you do take into account in your calculations that the first round, you need your action to cast flaming sphere (bonus action for blade singing)? And only in the second round, you can attack + flaming sphere? Unless of course, you need to cast a mirror image first, and only then can cast a flaming sphere, and only then can use flaming sphere + attack. Care to consider what a fighter does, in those rounds the wizard is buffing?




Now lets get this thread back on track:

How would you compare classes to see who is most effective?

So far we have the following suggestions:
Run parties through various encounter scenarios including combat, socialization, and exploration and then see how they did, were they successful? How many resources did they use? Can they do it for 8 encounters per day? Do this 4k times each to account for the dice and then compare different party makeups.

Another suggestion was to break down each class into an optimized sub-class build and then compare the math on combat, social, and exploration encounters.

Somehow, I have the feeling my suggestions are ignored, and there is a little sarcasm here. Oh well.

[Firechanter]

@NewDM: care to give me a link to your analysis? It's probably buried somewhere in the middle of the thread.

For the moment I'll just say, we need to compare goodberries to goodberries. If you're blasting Meteor Swarm, you aren't Fightering, you're Wizarding. And you're spending your single most expensive resource for the day.
If we want to examine if a Wizard can replace a Fighter, we need to look at how well it can do what a Fighter does.

Disclaimer: I find those level 20 comparisons rather pointless, since probably 95% of games never get that far, and even the ones that do will not be _at_ level 20 for 95% of the time. A more useful comparison would be, for instance, level 12.

[BayardSPSR]

If we want to examine if a Wizard can replace a Fighter, we need to look at how well it can do what a Fighter does.

Are we examining how well a Wizard can solve the problems a Fighter can solve, or are we examining how well a Wizard can solve problems the way a Fighter can solve problems? There's a difference between "being more effective than something" and "being more effective at being something," and I feel like we (collectively, including myself) haven't paid enough attention to that distinction.

[NewDM]

Saying you are wrong is a personal attack now?

The way you and others have said it, yes. You should say the information is wrong, and post the correct information without condescension or arrogance. .If someone already pointed out that it was wrong, don't dog pile. What I do is I mark posts I want to reply to using the little '"' in the bottom right of the post. Then if I find someone has already addressed that issue, I go back up and uncheck it. Keeps the dog piling to a minimum.


You didn't seem to read the thread either.

No I read it, but people are still arguing about whether the Blade Singer can match the Fighter when this thread is supposed to be about discussion how to compare classes.


A lot of people are saying that DPR calculation is pointless, it isn't the end all be all of classes. Heck DPR is pointless even for battle analysis because there are so many variables that it would be impossible to take them all to make a concrete statement. Saying that you are going to make a DPR sheet basically proves nothing at all.

I agree. We should compare all 3 pillars.


If all you want is a mental exercise then go ahead but I don't think that it would be conductive to see which class is the most effective... actually wouldn't the Fighter technically be more effective than the Wizard because basically the Wizard has to spend spell slots to get to the damage the Fighter can do for free? In an endurance run the Fighter wins hands down.

In a normal game by the rules in the DMG there is no endurance runs. There are 6-8 encounters in a day or around 35 rounds. Some posters say the 6-8 encounters conflicts with the XP budget tables and would say 5 encounters of 5 rounds meaning 25 rounds per day.

We don't care about DMs that heavily house rule their games, they provide their own balance. We are talking about a new DM that's never played before picking up the DMG for the first time and using all standard rules. I'm exaggerating, but you get the point. We are wanting to compare classes effectively using the rules in the books. Using as little deviation as possible to get a 'general' idea of effectiveness between classes.

[Shaofoo]

The way you and others have said it, yes. You should say the information is wrong, and post the correct information without condescension or arrogance. .If someone already pointed out that it was wrong, don't dog pile. What I do is I mark posts I want to reply to using the little '"' in the bottom right of the post. Then if I find someone has already addressed that issue, I go back up and uncheck it. Keeps the dog piling to a minimum.


I did say the correct information. I did say what you were doing wrong and how to correct it or rather how your entire premise is incorrect because measuring classes based on apparent performance is not conductive to how it actually deals with which class is most effective. My thoughts were my own, I didn't dog pile and I added my own unique thoughts, you can tell because I was responding to you directly instead of just agreeing with someone else, that is dog piling.



No I read it, but people are still arguing about whether the Blade Singer can match the Fighter when this thread is supposed to be about discussion how to compare classes.

Didn't help that you went all in trying to defend your simulation either. You were on just as much as anyone else. I'm willing to drop it since it doesn't help anyone.



In a normal game by the rules in the DMG there is no endurance runs. There are 6-8 encounters in a day or around 35 rounds. Some posters say the 6-8 encounters conflicts with the XP budget tables and would say 5 encounters of 5 rounds meaning 25 rounds per day.

We don't care about DMs that heavily house rule their games, they provide their own balance. We are talking about a new DM that's never played before picking up the DMG for the first time and using all standard rules. I'm exaggerating, but you get the point. We are wanting to compare classes effectively using the rules in the books. Using as little deviation as possible to get a 'general' idea of effectiveness between classes.

If you are using this metric might I suggest we start at level 1 and probably stick with the first 5 levels in all future simulations. If the DM is truly new then he should start at level 1 and not worry about the later levels until he actually gets there.

[Mongobear]

I agree. We should compare all 3 pillars.


This is what I had hoped this thread would turn into since it started several days/weeks ago, The dog-piling got out of hand and I stayed away from it.

We need to figure out 'balanced' encounters that effectively simulate encounters from all 3 pillars, then run a fully optimized build from every Class/Archetype combination through them, grading the effectiveness/methodology used.

Example: If the objective is to break into a vault, loot a locked chest to find a Golden MacGuffin, and get out unnoticed, a Barbarian bashing his way through the doors tearing the vault doors off the hinges and dragging the entire chest out the building certainly succeeded, but not in a means suitable to the "don't get caught/noticed" requirement.



In a normal game by the rules in the DMG there is no endurance runs. There are 6-8 encounters in a day or around 35 rounds. Some posters say the 6-8 encounters conflicts with the XP budget tables and would say 5 encounters of 5 rounds meaning 25 rounds per day.


I personally use the 5 encounters/25 rounds measure myself, since it better fits the XP guesstimate on the tables. For a "Combat Pillar" exercise, I think it should be the following:

1) AoE Fight
2) Brute Fight

--Short Rest--

3) Brute Fight
4) AoE Fight

--Short Rest--

5) "Boss Fight"

The AoE Fights would be against 5+ weaker enemies which total the suggested XP value of an encounter.

The Brute Fights would be against a pair of Elite creatures which together add up to the XP value, maybe slightly above/below because of math.

The Boss Fight would be against a single Deadly encounter, preferable a big single creature, like a Dragon or Giant, that is able to really push the character to the limit.


I am not sure how to actually simulate these fights outside of assuming they are against "target dummies" which simply measure how long it takes each Class/Archetype to finish them off. Higher grades awarded to those that manage to finish them off faster, as well as not consume any measureable resources.


EDIT: Also, we should run this simulation at different levels for more in-depth data.

I suggest"

Level 3 - All Classes have relevant archetypes as well as class features which start to bring them into their roles.

Level 7 - Most classes gain Extra Attack, 1-2 ASIs/Feats and increased Spell Slots or Archetype features to make combat easier

Level 11 - More ASI/Feats, more Archetype features.

Level 18 -Almost all class Archetypes gain the final ability here so it is a decent benchmark.

Level 20 - Everyone is pretty much a Demigod, and has their classes Capstone. Barbarians are superhuman, Fighters attack 4 times, etc

Thoughts?

[BayardSPSR]

Thoughts?

We should also be clear about what we're looking for - which, in my view, should be gross disparities in power or flexibility between classchetypes in each field that we're examining. Possibly, disparities extreme enough that we should be able to identify them without needing to do empirical testing.

For instance, if a hypothetical classchetype has multiple spells/abilities, any one of which can decisively end a fight in a round (at a given level), while another can end fights, but only has one way of participating in those fights for any given build, and a third can't effectively contribute to combat at all, that's the kind of disparity I think we should be looking for.

[Mongobear]

We should also be clear about what we're looking for - which, in my view, should be gross disparities in power or flexibility between classchetypes in each field that we're examining. Possibly, disparities extreme enough that we should be able to identify them without needing to do empirical testing.

For the sake of my own assumptions not getting the better of myself, could you give an example of this sort of situation?

I assume a gross disparity would be a caster with Fireball able to end AoE fights in 1-2 turns, as opposed to a Fighter/Rogue needing to attack them one at a time?

[BayardSPSR]

For the sake of my own assumptions not getting the better of myself, could you give an example of this sort of situation?

I assume a gross disparity would be a caster with Fireball able to end AoE fights in 1-2 turns, as opposed to a Fighter/Rogue needing to attack them one at a time?

Yeah, like that - if that's how effective it is. The example in my mind was Sleep, which I've seen brought up as disproportionately powerful for its level in previous threads. I'm not familiar enough with 5e to know how it compares with other optimized classes at the level it becomes available.

I don't know if these are actually examples in practice; if there aren't any examples in practice, that would be great.

[Mongobear]

I just thought of a way to vary these encounters, to make the Combat data even more accurate--vary the difficulty of the AoE and Brute encounters.



I personally use the 5 encounters/25 rounds measure myself, since it better fits the XP guesstimate on the tables. For a "Combat Pillar" exercise, I think it should be the following:

1) AoE Fight
2) Brute Fight

--Short Rest--


The first AoE fight would use an XP value for a Normal encounter of the level

The first Brute encounter would be a Hard XP Threshold.



3) Brute Fight
4) AoE Fight

--Short Rest--


The second AoE fight would use an XP value for a Hard encounter of the level

The second Brute encounter would be a Normal XP Threshold.



5) "Boss Fight"


This would be a Deadly encounter, following the previously stated stipulations. It could also be a mix n match encounter with a Big single target creature joined with weaker "AoE" minions, so that you would need to have multiple damage methods involved.

[NewDM]

I just thought of a way to vary these encounters, to make the Combat data even more accurate--vary the difficulty of the AoE and Brute encounters.



The first AoE fight would use an XP value for a Normal encounter of the level

The first Brute encounter would be a Hard XP Threshold.



The second AoE fight would use an XP value for a Hard encounter of the level

The second Brute encounter would be a Normal XP Threshold.



This would be a Deadly encounter, following the previously stated stipulations. It could also be a mix n match encounter with a Big single target creature joined with weaker "AoE" minions, so that you would need to have multiple damage methods involved.

In general you don't want to use a deadly encounter because its expected to drop at least one character and risk a TPK. Its more like don't go over this XP threshold because it will be deadly.

[Temperjoke]

Really, the only fair way to decide which subclass is the best is to have an Olympics-style competition, with a variety of events, and whichever subclass has the most medals at the end is the winner. All normal humans, no feats, standard array with basic stat optimization, and no magic items of any sort. Not only will the events be a variety of type, it will be repeated with competitors set at different levels (so once with everyone at level 1, then 2, then 3, and so on), in order to get a full and fair trial. Also the contests should be a combination of combat, skills, and social interactions (such as wooing a barmaid or guard, or convincing skeptics).

[Regitnui]

In general you don't want to use a deadly encounter because its expected to drop at least one character and risk a TPK. Its more like don't go over this XP threshold because it will be deadly.

Which makes it good for this exercise, testing the classes at all difficulties.

Are we checking the classes individually, or in their presumed role in the encounters?

[NewDM]

Which makes it good for this exercise, testing the classes at all difficulties.

Are we checking the classes individually, or in their presumed role in the encounters?

Presumed role. So assuming a 4 member party, we can put a goal of at least 1/4 of the encounters. If its a boss encounter then 1/4 of the hp of the boss. That takes care of combat. Now we need a list of all obstacles in the game and break them into social and exploration categories.

The real question is how do we decide which spells casters know and have prepared?

[Mongobear]

Which makes it good for this exercise, testing the classes at all difficulties.

Are we checking the classes individually, or in their presumed role in the encounters?

I assume in their presumed role for the Combat scenario, but its mostly a "Beat the clock" exercise. All we are measuring is how fast a single class can defeat each encounter when fully optimized.

One caveat, if you are designing your own build, don't skip out on Con since this is against "target dummies" build each Class-Archetype like you were going to take into in to a serious game at an Adventurer's League session.

Also, I assume we should keep the Race choice standardized, so I assume Variant Human will be the most universally balanced?

[Mongobear]

Presumed role. So assuming a 4 member party, we can put a goal of at least 1/4 of the encounters. If its a boss encounter then 1/4 of the hp of the boss. That takes care of combat. Now we need a list of all obstacles in the game and break them into social and exploration categories.

The real question is how do we decide which spells casters know and have prepared?

Well, there is two ways around this, we either design a standardized unit for each separate Combat Encounter and build the spell-casters with meta-knowledge, that ay if we use a group of Demons they could pack Banishment and not have spells they are immune/Resistant to

-Or-

We build the encounters using creatures that don't have any sort of unique resistance/immunities so that someone who chose Lightning Bolt instead of Fireball isn't useless. Like say a unit of 12 Orcs (Aoe), a Pair of Ogres(Brute), and a Hill Giant (Boss). Obviously standardized to equal XP rewards, just an example.

[NewDM]

I assume in their presumed role for the Combat scenario, but its mostly a "Beat the clock" exercise. All we are measuring is how fast a single class can defeat each encounter when fully optimized.

One caveat, if you are designing your own build, don't skip out on Con since this is against "target dummies" build each Class-Archetype like you were going to take into in to a serious game at an Adventurer's League session.

Also, I assume we should keep the Race choice standardized, so I assume Variant Human will be the most universally balanced?

Nope, the most optimized character sticking to a single class and sub-class. For some that will be a variant human, others it might be half-orc, for yet others it might be a High Elf. It'll depend on the sub-class mostly.

[Mongobear]

Nope, the most optimized character sticking to a single class and sub-class. For some that will be a variant human, others it might be half-orc, for yet others it might be a High Elf. It'll depend on the sub-class mostly.

I suppose that is doable, but then it might cause even more debate requiring us to figure out which race/class/archetype combination is actually the most fully optimized down to the 1/100th point of DPR. Standardizing the Race to Variant Human would at least remove this one variable, since, for example, Half-Orc is so much better as a Champion Fighter, but nowhere near as good for a Class/Archetype that isn't critical based.


EDIT: Alternatively, we could just use a generic Race choice where we get a +2/+1 stat increase and nothing else, that way it is at least universally balanced for every build, and doesn't give a Feat/Skill Proficiency to a build that doesn't need it.

[NewDM]

Well, there is two ways around this, we either design a standardized unit for each separate Combat Encounter and build the spell-casters with meta-knowledge, that ay if we use a group of Demons they could pack Banishment and not have spells they are immune/Resistant to

-Or-

We build the encounters using creatures that don't have any sort of unique resistance/immunities so that someone who chose Lightning Bolt instead of Fireball isn't useless. Like say a unit of 12 Orcs (Aoe), a Pair of Ogres(Brute), and a Hill Giant (Boss). Obviously standardized to equal XP rewards, just an example.

What is the ratio of monsters with resistances and immunities? Also what kind of spell selection does the casters have? They could potentially just use a spell that is more effective because, you know 'choices'.

[Mongobear]

What is the ratio of monsters with resistances and immunities? Also what kind of spell selection does the casters have? They could potentially just use a spell that is more effective because, you know 'choices'.

These are all variables that just gum up the gears of this exercise, and could potentially cause an infinite amount of debate over what the encounters need to be or include.

Imo, the best option for a "Combat Test" is against generic target dummy versions of basic monsters, that don't have anything special going for them. That way, no choice can truly be declared 'bad'. Obviously there is going to be some debate of whether Fireball vs Lightning Bolt is better, or X 7th level spell vs Y 7th level spell, but there shouldn't be too much variance in the overall results.

This is an Olympic trial, basic runs through simple events to measure individual skill, not a World's Strongest Man event where each participant has to throw a grand piano filled with molten lead into a 3rd story window. ((Although, that could be one of our 'Exploration Trials' if we wanted an Impossible DC for an Athletics contest.))

[Firechanter]

Really, the only fair way to decide which subclass is the best is to have an Olympics-style competition, with a variety of events, and whichever subclass has the most medals at the end is the winner. All normal humans, no feats, standard array with basic stat optimization, and no magic items of any sort.

I object to the bolded part. This will skew your results to the point of uselessness. Not every group may be Monty Haul, but nobody plays entirely without MIs.
The difference is crucial. Martials benefit more from MIs than primary casters do. Conversely, many monsters have resistance or even immunity against nonmagical weapons. Also, the existence of magic shields makes the Dueling style a lot stronger than it appears on paper.

My suggestion:
A choice of basic MIs by level. Maybe nothing that requires attunement. Or at least certain constraints that preclude "item builds".

[Mongobear]

I object to the bolded part. This will skew your results to the point of uselessness. Not every group may be Monty Haul, but nobody plays entirely without MIs.
The difference is crucial. Martials benefit more from MIs than primary casters do. Conversely, many monsters have resistance or even immunity against nonmagical weapons. Also, the existence of magic shields makes the Dueling style a lot stronger than it appears on paper.

My suggestion:
A choice of basic MIs by level. Maybe nothing that requires attunement. Or at least certain constraints that preclude "item builds".


I'd say one magic item of an appropriate rarity based on the level of the characters currently being tested. Excluding Legendary items, because Legendary.

Whether that's something as simple as a +1/+2/+3 Weapon for a martial class, or something else entirely dependant on the class/archetype is something I don't have the full grasp of system knowledge to say one way or the other.

Example - A Vicious Weapon is probably better for a lower level Champion Fighter than a +1 Weapon, but at higher levels, 11+, any archetype using GWM or with high Nova potential is probably better off with the small boost to attack rolls from a basic +1/2/3 Weapon.

[Zalabim]

I object to the bolded part. This will skew your results to the point of uselessness. Not every group may be Monty Haul, but nobody plays entirely without MIs.
The difference is crucial. Martials benefit more from MIs than primary casters do. Conversely, many monsters have resistance or even immunity against nonmagical weapons. Also, the existence of magic shields makes the Dueling style a lot stronger than it appears on paper.

My suggestion:
A choice of basic MIs by level. Maybe nothing that requires attunement. Or at least certain constraints that preclude "item builds".

You can have a silvered weapon and a torch. The torch is a simple melee weapon that does 1+str fire damage on a hit. Also, the generic wizard party NPC has access to Magic Weapon. Further, the testing enemies probably won't have resistance/immunity to B,P,S from nonmagical attacks. Should cover that without having to come up with magic weapon rules for fighters, rogues, barbarians, and rangers.

[Firechanter]

You can have a silvered weapon and a torch. The torch is a simple melee weapon that does 1+str fire damage on a hit. Also, the generic wizard party NPC has access to Magic Weapon. Further, the testing enemies probably won't have resistance/immunity to B,P,S from nonmagical attacks. Should cover that without having to come up with magic weapon rules for fighters, rogues, barbarians, and rangers.

If we want to find a way to see which classes are how (or most) effective, then our testing parameters need to reflect the realities of actual play. Otherwise, any result we get from these tests will be unusable or misleading. Typical campaigns do not revolve around hitting test dummies. A very large proportion of monsters beyond CR3 will have either nonmagical resistance, or magic resistance (advantage on saving throws vs spells), or both.
BTW, only relatively few of the monsters with physical resistance can be hurt by silver weapons.

I don't know how you play at your table. You seem to imply that you never get any magic weapons, but hire NPC Wizards to follow you around and cast the spell when needed. I can only say that's absolutely not how I, or anyone I know, have _ever_ played.

I suggest some kind of very simple baseline item progression, such as
Level 5: +1 Magic Weapon
Level 10: +2 Magic Weapon
Level 15: +3 Magic Weapon
and similarly for defensive items. Exact level breakpoints might vary.

[NewDM]

If we want to find a way to see which classes are how (or most) effective, then our testing parameters need to reflect the realities of actual play. Otherwise, any result we get from these tests will be unusable or misleading. Typical campaigns do not revolve around hitting test dummies. A very large proportion of monsters beyond CR3 will have either nonmagical resistance, or magic resistance (advantage on saving throws vs spells), or both.
BTW, only relatively few of the monsters with physical resistance can be hurt by silver weapons.

I don't know how you play at your table. You seem to imply that you never get any magic weapons, but hire NPC Wizards to follow you around and cast the spell when needed. I can only say that's absolutely not how I, or anyone I know, have _ever_ played.

I suggest some kind of very simple baseline item progression, such as
Level 5: +1 Magic Weapon
Level 10: +2 Magic Weapon
Level 15: +3 Magic Weapon
and similarly for defensive items. Exact level breakpoints might vary.

DMG page 83 has a table for magic items.

[Firechanter]

DMG page 83 has a table for magic items.

If that's what I think it is (page 38, actually), then this table is in no way representative of the items typically generated if the DM follos the recommended treasure hoard tables and frequencies.

Some nice guy over at ENworld has gone through the trouble of calculating drop probabilities over the level tiers:
http://www.enworld.org/forum/showthread.php?395770-Analysis-of-quot-Typical-quot-Magic-Item-Distribution

But regardless -- the important bit is that, by either guideline, PCs should have a magic weapon from relatively early on.

[Zalabim]

If we want to find a way to see which classes are how (or most) effective, then our testing parameters need to reflect the realities of actual play. Otherwise, any result we get from these tests will be unusable or misleading. Typical campaigns do not revolve around hitting test dummies. A very large proportion of monsters beyond CR3 will have either nonmagical resistance, or magic resistance (advantage on saving throws vs spells), or both.
BTW, only relatively few of the monsters with physical resistance can be hurt by silver weapons.

I don't know how you play at your table. You seem to imply that you never get any magic weapons, but hire NPC Wizards to follow you around and cast the spell when needed. I can only say that's absolutely not how I, or anyone I know, have _ever_ played.

I suggest some kind of very simple baseline item progression, such as
Level 5: +1 Magic Weapon
Level 10: +2 Magic Weapon
Level 15: +3 Magic Weapon
and similarly for defensive items. Exact level breakpoints might vary.

The game isn't usually played as a solo PC either, are we also going to assume that or are we going to treat them like they're in a party? I don't think it's useful to say the fighter is balanced with a flametongue, the paladin balanced with a holy avenger, and the rogue balanced with a luckblade, for example. If magic items are random/arbitrary and optional, then we should see the game balance without any specific magic items and we can just note if one class benefits more from them than another.


If that's what I think it is (page 38, actually), then this table is in no way representative of the items typically generated if the DM follos the recommended treasure hoard tables and frequencies.

Some nice guy over at ENworld has gone through the trouble of calculating drop probabilities over the level tiers:
http://www.enworld.org/forum/showthread.php?395770-Analysis-of-quot-Typical-quot-Magic-Item-Distribution

But regardless -- the important bit is that, by either guideline, PCs should have a magic weapon from relatively early on.

It actually maps pretty closely to the average drops from the random tables, though I don't recall off-hand which magic level it was, and saying that each PC will have an uncommon permanent magic item around level 5 is not the same as a fighter having a magic weapon at level 5. There are creatures that are not resistant at all CRs, and the DMG section on assigning CR to a monster says that having resistance or immunity to P, B, and S from non-magical attacks has no impact on a monster's effective HP starting at CR 17. Even that doesn't mean that the party fighter has to have a magic weapon by level 17, just that resistance shouldn't make a noticeable difference to the party anymore.

Magic items are up to the DM. Monster statistics are up to the DM. You will never need a magic weapon and not have one unless the DM made it that way.

My suggestion is to leave magic items out of the testing as that severely complicates the build phase, and it is impossible to determine a standard quantity and type.

[Temperjoke]

The idea of not allowing magical items is that the ability to give their weapon a magical property could conceivably be an advantage of one class versus another. I mean, we're trying to determine which is the best after all. It's also a way to control the number of variables that could skew the results.

[Mongobear]

I think the tests should just assume "Martial classes have a generic magic weapon" with no benefits other than overcoming Damage Resistances/Immunities for this test.

Again, we are running a fully optimized build of each class/archetype through basic Olympic Trials, not testing who is more capable of doing some impossible and overly elaborate stunt just because they have spell slots, or a free magic weapon because of class features.

[Temperjoke]

I think the tests should just assume "Martial classes have a generic magic weapon" with no benefits other than overcoming Damage Resistances/Immunities for this test.

Again, we are running a fully optimized build of each class/archetype through basic Olympic Trials, not testing who is more capable of doing some impossible and overly elaborate stunt just because they have spell slots, or a free magic weapon because of class features.

But then that negates a potential advantage that one class might have over another, which ruins the data from running that particular trial. Sure that means that some classes will be handicapped for that particular test, but the entire olympics overall wouldn't be judged based on that one single test.

[Mongobear]

But then that negates a potential advantage that one class might have over another, which ruins the data from running that particular trial. Sure that means that some classes will be handicapped for that particular test, but the entire olympics overall wouldn't be judged based on that one single test.

We would need to run multiple variations of Encounter Trials then, one against generic monsters with no resistance/immunities (bunch of Orcs), one with non-magical B/P/S resistance (Demons), and one with total Immunity to non-magical attacks (Ghosts? Lycanthropes?).

Maybe I made an assumption earlier that by assuming "A fully optimized build for each class/archetype combination" that this included Magical Weapons for the classes that can only function optimally with them.

Yes, having a freeby magic item de-values Pact of the Blade, Eldritch Knight, and Ki-Empowered Strikes, but I think its fair for the optimal testing grounds to allow any class 100% reliant on martial combat to be optimized to have a "counts as magical" weapon. Not even an actual +1, just magical enough to bypass Resistances/Immunities.

[Giant2005]

The idea of not allowing magical items is that the ability to give their weapon a magical property could conceivably be an advantage of one class versus another. I mean, we're trying to determine which is the best after all.

That is the point. Some classes have the advantage of benefiting from magic items more than others. Denying them one of their advantages weighs the entire thing against them.

[Temperjoke]

That is the point. Some classes have the advantage of benefiting from magic items more than others. Denying them one of their advantages weighs the entire thing against them.

Not the "entire thing" it weighs one potential test against them. On the other hand, a Fighter or Barbarian would have complete advantage on tests in an anti-magic field. That's the idea behind using a cumulative score from a variety of different tests, since classes are better at one thing than others are, or in certain scenarios, you throw them into a big enough variety and quantity of tests that such benefits don't have a real impact on scores.

EDIT: I don't think people are grasping things here.

Originally I proposed this idea in hopes that people would get the scale necessary to actually determine whether one subclass is better than another, and then realize how frickin' futile these sort of discussions are. There are thousands upon thousands of different scenarios when you take into account all the possible variations necessary to determine which is better. I should have known that people would still narrowly look at things and wouldn't see the big picture.

[Firechanter]

That is the point. Some classes have the advantage of benefiting from magic items more than others. Denying them one of their advantages weighs the entire thing against them.

Thank you; that's one of the aspects I was thinking of. For example, people look at what a Fighter or Ranger Archer can do in the ranged department, and what any Cha-based character can do with just 2 levels of Warlock, and ask why anyone would ever want to play a dedicated Archer when a Warlock dip apparently does it better.
Well, here's one reason: your Archer can get a +1, +2, +3 or even an Oathbow over the levels, all of which boost your effectiveness. The Cantrip blaster gets nothing of the sort.

Similarly, all those threads about the alleged superiority of Polearm Master or Crossbow Expert also NEVER take magic items into account. When in actual play, magic swords or bows are much more frequent than polearms or squirrel-killers. And all those _special_ weapons from Flame Tongue to Holy Avenger only exist in sword-form, whereas if you're specialized in polearms a Glaive +X is the best you can ever hope for.

[jas61292]

Thank you; that's one of the aspects I was thinking of. For example, people look at what a Fighter or Ranger Archer can do in the ranged department, and what any Cha-based character can do with just 2 levels of Warlock, and ask why anyone would ever want to play a dedicated Archer when a Warlock dip apparently does it better.
Well, here's one reason: your Archer can get a +1, +2, +3 or even an Oathbow over the levels, all of which boost your effectiveness. The Cantrip blaster gets nothing of the sort.

Similarly, all those threads about the alleged superiority of Polearm Master or Crossbow Expert also NEVER take magic items into account. When in actual play, magic swords or bows are much more frequent than polearms or squirrel-killers. And all those _special_ weapons from Flame Tongue to Holy Avenger only exist in sword-form, whereas if you're specialized in polearms a Glaive +X is the best you can ever hope for.

To be fair, the DMG presents sample magic items. It never even vaguely implies that these are a standard set of magic items, and very much implies that DMs should feel free to create more. While I don't know how adventurer's league works, in any given home game, there is no reason to assume that any given magic sword is any more likely to show up than an equally powerful magic glaive or pike.

[bid]

Nope, the most optimized character sticking to a single class and sub-class. For some that will be a variant human, others it might be half-orc, for yet others it might be a High Elf. It'll depend on the sub-class mostly.
Just assume 16 16 14 10 10 10 and no racial feature. Otherwise you aren't testing classes per se.

It's much easier to consider racials and magic items as variation on the baseline. How hard to you have to push away from baseline to become average?

[djreynolds]

Its really tough to compare classes individually. Your SAD classes initially will have it easier, but because of the ability cap, they come back down to earth around 12th level. But with point buy, those SAD classes should have some feats.

There was a whole thread on the power of sharpshooter and GWM. +10 every time is huge in damage. A paladin may not select feats or uses bless a lot to augment his lower strength. A druid has 2 shapes a day for awhile, easy to waste. A barbarian can get swarmed early on. I've seen a lot crits land both ways because of reckless attack, it is reckless.

A caster can really shore-up the defenses of other party members.

[Regitnui]

A caster can really shore-up the defenses of other party members.

Which is why the comparing classes individually isn't really a productive or helpful analysis of the game.

[NewDM]

We can take the frequency of various immunities and resistances expressed as a percentage and reduce damage by that percentage (in the case of immunities) and reduce the damage by half (in the case of resistances). This will actually give us a pretty good number.

For instance if our DPR was 50 for a class and monsters that would be a moderate and hard equal 12% have resistance to non-magical weapon damage, and 15% have immunity to slashing damage. Say the class uses a slashing weapon. So we would do 100%-12%-15%=73% normal damage, 12% half damage, and 15% no damage. Same equations for hits and crits most optimizers use.

The results would be:

50*0.73=36.5
50*0.12=6
50*0.15=0
Total=42.5

[Zman]

We can take the frequency of various immunities and resistances expressed as a percentage and reduce damage by that percentage (in the case of immunities) and reduce the damage by half (in the case of resistances). This will actually give us a pretty good number.

For instance if our DPR was 50 for a class and monsters that would be a moderate and hard equal 12% have resistance to non-magical weapon damage, and 15% have immunity to slashing damage. Say the class uses a slashing weapon. So we would do 100%-12%-15%=73% normal damage, 12% half damage, and 15% no damage. Same equations for hits and crits most optimizers use.

The results would be:

50*0.73=36.5
50*0.12=6
50*0.15=0
Total=42.5


No you can't, this is another pointless analysis. It is a matter where situational variables far outweigh their aggregate effect. Sure, you can approximate it, but the result is of little use use.

You keep trying to quantify the entire game and keep missing how futile and misguided your attempts actually are. You make erroneous assumptions in literally every post you make and your conclusions are utterly worthless outside of a wasted mental exercise.



And..... I'm still waiting on your analysis that shows how a Wizard is as effective at Fightering as a Fighter or Barbarian at levels 1-4. The one you said would be coming. Considering those 20% of character levels represents a likely 40% of played levels and utterly disprove a common premise of yours... Guess I can't blame you for not wanting to address things that prove you wrong. Intellectual dishonesty at its finest...

[bid]

We can take the frequency of various immunities and resistances expressed as a percentage and reduce damage by that percentage (in the case of immunities) and reduce the damage by half (in the case of resistances). This will actually give us a pretty good number.
Most characters would switch to a secondary weapon to cancel the resistance/immunity. You should consider something closer to:
- main type damage * .85 + off type damage * .15

Or consider resistance as a reduction from baseline since it can be canceled.

[Mongobear]

Weren't we supposed to test each class with an "Optimized Build" ? If an optimized build for a Martial Class requires them to have a weapon that counts as magical, then I don't see an issue with allowing them to be considered to have a magical weapon for the Combat Trials.

Yes, it sort of steps on the toes of 3 class/archetypes plus anyone with Magic Weapon, Elemental Weapon, or other similar spells, but it is still an "Optimized" build for the class.

If nothing else, run two sets of Combat Trials, one where each class may choose a single non-Legendary Magic Item appropriate for their level, and the other where they run with no Magic Items and just basic gear from the PHB.

Easy solution.

[Doug Lampert]

The idea of not allowing magical items is that the ability to give their weapon a magical property could conceivably be an advantage of one class versus another. I mean, we're trying to determine which is the best after all. It's also a way to control the number of variables that could skew the results.

Single character tests mean nothing. The whole magic item debate is an example of why.

Four or five characters in a group, at least one can have magic weapon as a spell without too much trouble if they're at a level where magic weapons are "expected" and the DM is either not using magic items or is using random drops and simply hasn't rolled a weapon. No magic mart is part of 5th edition, they give random tables for magic items, this means that "stuck with what comes up on a random table" is an EXPECTED play-style, maybe not the only play-style, but it's perfectly allowable and is supposed to work.

And it's certainly a playstyle I've played in and run at various times.

But the weakness introduced (maybe not having a magic weapon) is one you are EXPECTED to be able to deal with via your archetype and build choices and the help of your party. The sort of game that uses random treasure drops is also one that expects characters to build to what happens in game and to find a way to cover their weaknesses rather than just wait for the DM to hand them an item to solve the problem of the week or to "help the fighter out".

Not giving someone a magic weapon overstates the problem. In a game where it's probable that no weapon drops, it's also expected that someone will deal with the problem.

Just giving them a weapon that "counts as magic" for free ignores the problem.

A real group instead deals with the problem, and that costs resources they could have used for something else.

If you allow a magic weapon because "it's needed" then allow the weapon, but ding the user as "magic item dependent", because that's a real weakness. DPR isn't the be all and end all of anything important. If you need someone (either the GM or a caster with magic weapon) to hold your hand to function, that may not have any effect on DPR, but it does make your class weaker. Note the weakness as a weakness, and move on.

[krugaan]

No you can't, this is another pointless analysis. It is a matter where situational variables far outweigh their aggregate effect. Sure, you can approximate it, but the result is of little use use.

You keep trying to quantify the entire game and keep missing how futile and misguided your attempts actually are. You make erroneous assumptions in literally every post you make and your conclusions are utterly worthless outside of a wasted mental exercise.



And..... I'm still waiting on your analysis that shows how a Wizard is as effective at Fightering as a Fighter or Barbarian at levels 1-4. The one you said would be coming. Considering those 20% of character levels represents a likely 40% of played levels and utterly disprove a common premise of yours... Guess I can't blame you for not wanting to address things that prove you wrong. Intellectual dishonesty at its finest...

Easy there, pilgrim...

[NewDM]

Weren't we supposed to test each class with an "Optimized Build" ? If an optimized build for a Martial Class requires them to have a weapon that counts as magical, then I don't see an issue with allowing them to be considered to have a magical weapon for the Combat Trials.

Yes, it sort of steps on the toes of 3 class/archetypes plus anyone with Magic Weapon, Elemental Weapon, or other similar spells, but it is still an "Optimized" build for the class.

If nothing else, run two sets of Combat Trials, one where each class may choose a single non-Legendary Magic Item appropriate for their level, and the other where they run with no Magic Items and just basic gear from the PHB.

Easy solution.

The main problem is that the spell caster can also get a magic focus and have the same advantage (or even more in the case of saving throw damage).


Easy there, pilgrim...

I've recently become employed. I'm also still learning google sheets and how to reference their different cells and all of the math functions. I really need a database to do this not a sheet. To help, people could explain the optimum build for Barbarian and their DPR at any levels. Then I could just fill out the sheet instead of trying to make it calculate the DPR itself.

[NewDM]

Ok, for those that asked for it, I have the Battle Master Fighter sheet done. I swapped from Google sheets to Libreoffice Calc because its way easier to do formulas in (you just use the proper math symbol like +/-/* instead of a function call).

Here is a screenshot for those that want to critique:

http://i.imgur.com/BUOyelf.png

You may have to download the image to view it at full size.

[JNAProductions]

You done goofed. You have the second ASI at level 7, not 6.

Will look it over for further mistakes in a moment.

Wait-why is the damage die a d10? Is it for Polearm master?

[NewDM]

You done goofed. You have the second ASI at level 7, not 6.

Will look it over for further mistakes in a moment.

Wait-why is the damage die a d10? Is it for Polearm master?

Yes, thanks. I fixed it in my copy. I think that's the max damage they can get is PAM right?

[JNAProductions]

Yes, thanks. I fixed it in my copy. I think that's the max damage they can get is PAM right?

It depends. If you manage to drop an enemy or get a crit, you get a bonus attack at full damage, making a Greatsword with GWM the best. It works really well against mobs of mooks. But it ain't so hot against single targets, since you're relying on crits.

Oh, and I don't see archetypes other than Battlemaster anywhere on there. You should probably do DPR for them.

Also, remember-DPR ain't the end-all be-all of the game. T1s in 3E were not the best damage dealers, they were the most versatile. (Though I do understand DPR is the easiest thing to mathematically quantify. So keep doing it, I guess?)

[Waazraath]

For me the question is still: what do you think you are going to answer by doing all this? Because while a dpr comparison on most effective dpr builds can be interesting, it definitely does not answer which class is most effective. If we are going to discuss the draconic heritage sorcerer, which one are we doing to take? The one with quickened direct damage spells, or the one with twin haste? The effectivity of the latter one depends on the party (s)he is in... this analysis isn't going to answer the question "which class is most effective", as the title suggest.

[NewDM]

For me the question is still: what do you think you are going to answer by doing all this? Because while a dpr comparison on most effective dpr builds can be interesting, it definitely does not answer which class is most effective. If we are going to discuss the draconic heritage sorcerer, which one are we doing to take? The one with quickened direct damage spells, or the one with twin haste? The effectivity of the latter one depends on the party (s)he is in... this analysis isn't going to answer the question "which class is most effective", as the title suggest.

We are going to do a comprehensive analysis of all possible angles. I'm simply putting forth a quick Battle Master Fighter vs. Blade Singer spreadsheet like I said I would and was asked for.

[Waazraath]

We are going to do a comprehensive analysis of all possible angles.

Ah, ok, I understood there would be an analysis on 1 build of each sub class, 'all possible angles' sounds good. I'll curiously follow the post.

[NewDM]

Ah, ok, I understood there would be an analysis on 1 build of each sub class, 'all possible angles' sounds good. I'll curiously follow the post.

Suggestions on what the most optimized builds are for each Class Option would be helpful.

[greenstone]

Define "effective".

Also, how are you going to measure force-multiplier talents, for example Bardic Inspiration?

[NewDM]

Define "effective".

Also, how are you going to measure force-multiplier talents, for example Bardic Inspiration?

Bardic inspiration is a bonus to the attack roll of a character, but bards only get up to 5 uses (3 at 1st level). So you would take the average dice roll at any given level (say d12 at 15th level) and multiply that by number of daily uses (+5 charisma mod) and divide by number of average rounds in a day (25-35 if you follow the encounter creation guidelines, I assume 35 to favor non-caster classes). So a level 15 bard would grant an average bonus equal to +0.9285714285714286. That's almost 1 whole point at max level for Bardic Inspiration. Then we multiply that times 5% (each point on the d20 is 5%) and we get 4.642855% of the damage that another character deals. We'll say for convenience the Battle Master Fighter at 28.33 * 0.04643855 = 1.3153208215. That means the bard gains an increase to their DPR of 1.3153208215 on average from Bardic Inspiration if they were to use every use on attack rolls for other characters.

[Zalabim]

Bardic inspiration refreshes on a short rest after level 5, so they'll get more uses than that at high levels. If you're using it on attack rolls, it's only used when it might make a difference, so rather than counting it as 1d12*5% of a DPR, it should be counted as whatever % of an attack it might allow to hit. As an example, if you have +6 to hit and roll a 2, your result is an 8. If you're trying to hit AC 20, then there's a 1/12 chance for the inspiration die to work out for you. If the attack does 23.33 average damage, that makes the single die worth 1.94 damage. You probably want to hold it for a roll that's closer to the target number for best effect.

For a valor bard, the die can also be spent on a damage roll, so it'd flat out be worth 1d12 damage, or 2d12 if you can save it for a good critical hit. Maybe someone in the party likes to cast Hold Monster.

For the lore bard, the die can instead be used to reduce damage directly, or reduce the to hit roll, as a reaction. It's not contributing directly to DPR, but sometimes giving the party a little more breathing room lets them get in and deal more damage.

[Zman]

Bardic inspiration is a bonus to the attack roll of a character, but bards only get up to 5 uses (3 at 1st level). So you would take the average dice roll at any given level (say d12 at 15th level) and multiply that by number of daily uses (+5 charisma mod) and divide by number of average rounds in a day (25-35 if you follow the encounter creation guidelines, I assume 35 to favor non-caster classes). So a level 15 bard would grant an average bonus equal to +0.9285714285714286. That's almost 1 whole point at max level for Bardic Inspiration. Then we multiply that times 5% (each point on the d20 is 5%) and we get 4.642855% of the damage that another character deals. We'll say for convenience the Battle Master Fighter at 28.33 * 0.04643855 = 1.3153208215. That means the bard gains an increase to their DPR of 1.3153208215 on average from Bardic Inspiration if they were to use every use on attack rolls for other characters.

Very much wrong. Firstly, after level 5 it refreshes on a Short Rest. Also, your math though somewhat logical is horribly flawed. Bardic Inspiration is best used when saved for a situation where it makes a difference. In my experience good players use Bardic Inspiration with ~75%+ success rate, meaning it is on average worth the entire damage roll of the character, when it's the Rogue's sneak attack its huge. Alternatively for a valor bard it is worth the entire damage roll or the entire damage from the emy's attack.


Great to see a damage spreadsheet. Can you please do Wizard as promised and show me how the Wizard equals durability and Damage of a Fighter or Barbarian at low levels. I'm also curious to see how they manage to do so at most levels considering finite spell slots. You've mentioned elsewhere you look at all 20 levels, so since we're not just dealing with level 20 theory builds, of which you've never even played, I also expect that if you are talkin about a level 20 build it has to work at all levels especially lower levels as levels 1-10 are played about 4x as much as levels 11-20. And levels 1-5 are played probably twice as much as levels 6-10 making levels 1-5 likely 8-16x as played and consequently important as levels 16-20.

[Waazraath]

Suggestions on what the most optimized builds are for each Class Option would be helpful.

Don't push it ;) I'm still one of the folks who doesn't think this way of ranking isn't going to work, because the relevant factors are too various to be modeled in an adequate way. Besides, I don't have a bunch of lvl 20 builds lying around for which I dared to claim they are optimal in damage.

I just wanted to say that 'looking at all the possible angles' looked more promising then 1 optimal build for each subclass (if 1 would exist), and compare DPR and draw conclusions from that (which was the direction this thread was going in, at least it seemed that way to me).

[NewDM]

Bardic inspiration refreshes on a short rest after level 5, so they'll get more uses than that at high levels. If you're using it on attack rolls, it's only used when it might make a difference, so rather than counting it as 1d12*5% of a DPR, it should be counted as whatever % of an attack it might allow to hit. As an example, if you have +6 to hit and roll a 2, your result is an 8. If you're trying to hit AC 20, then there's a 1/12 chance for the inspiration die to work out for you. If the attack does 23.33 average damage, that makes the single die worth 1.94 damage. You probably want to hold it for a roll that's closer to the target number for best effect.

For a valor bard, the die can also be spent on a damage roll, so it'd flat out be worth 1d12 damage, or 2d12 if you can save it for a good critical hit. Maybe someone in the party likes to cast Hold Monster.

For the lore bard, the die can instead be used to reduce damage directly, or reduce the to hit roll, as a reaction. It's not contributing directly to DPR, but sometimes giving the party a little more breathing room lets them get in and deal more damage.


Very much wrong. Firstly, after level 5 it refreshes on a Short Rest. Also, your math though somewhat logical is horribly flawed. Bardic Inspiration is best used when saved for a situation where it makes a difference. In my experience good players use Bardic Inspiration with ~75%+ success rate, meaning it is on average worth the entire damage roll of the character, when it's the Rogue's sneak attack its huge. Alternatively for a valor bard it is worth the entire damage roll or the entire damage from the emy's attack.


Great to see a damage spreadsheet. Can you please do Wizard as promised and show me how the Wizard equals durability and Damage of a Fighter or Barbarian at low levels. I'm also curious to see how they manage to do so at most levels considering finite spell slots. You've mentioned elsewhere you look at all 20 levels, so since we're not just dealing with level 20 theory builds, of which you've never even played, I also expect that if you are talkin about a level 20 build it has to work at all levels especially lower levels as levels 1-10 are played about 4x as much as levels 11-20. And levels 1-5 are played probably twice as much as levels 6-10 making levels 1-5 likely 8-16x as played and consequently important as levels 16-20.

I'm working on the Wizard sheet. Its going to be a lot more complex because its going to have more attacks. Its going to have a flaming sphere (or other concentrations spell) for many spell levels: 1x8th, 2x7th, 2x6th, 3x5th, plus Booming Blade.

I accept that I did not model the level 5 feature. How would you model using it in the optimal situation though? It would be a flat 3.5/4.5/5.5/6.5 increase to attack in those instances right? which would increase accuracy by the amount listed. Lets throw some numbers out there.

So if it is only used when it would make a miss into a hit that would mean 3 dice at 1st, 4 dice at 4th, and 5 dice at 8th. At 5th it recovers on a short rest. The game assumes at least 2 short rests per day so that means:
1st-3rd: 3 dice d6
4th: 4 dice d6
5th-7th: 12 dice d8
8th-9th: 15 dice d8
10th-14th: 15 dice d10
15th-20th: 15 dice d12.

We would multiply the damage by the number of dice and then divide by 35 rounds.

That would increase damage assuming they grant it to our already calculated fighter:
1st: (11.94 * 3) / 35 = 1.023428571428571
2nd-3rd: (10.41 * 3) / 35 = 0.8922857142857143
4th: (13.44 * 4) / 35 = 1.536
5th:(18.72 * 12) / 35 = 6.418285714285714
6th:(23.73 * 12) / 35 = 8.136
7th:(22.2 * 12) / 35 = 7.611428571428571
8th:(22.2 * 15) / 35 = 9.514285714285714
9th-10th:(19.14 * 15) / 35 = 8.202857142857143
11th:(28.33 * 15) / 35 = 12.14142857142857
12th:(26.235 * 15) / 35 = 11.24357142857143
13th-17th:(28.33 * 15) / 35 = 12.14142857142857
18th:(26.235 * 15) / 35 = 11.24357142857143
19th:(28.33 * 15) / 35 = 12.14142857142857
20th:(33.33 * 15) / 35 = 14.28428571428571

Wow. After 5th level the bards increase in DPR is really high. Has anyone thought that maybe the Bard might achieve the highest DPR in the game?

We add this damage to the Bards DPR for the simple reason the bard is causing the increase in damage when the inspiration dice is being used. Without the bard there, that damage doesn't exist. Its the same with bless going to the cleric.

[Zalabim]

Once again, the damage factor is the damage of one attack, not the average damage per round. It's very party and situation dependent. The accuracy factor is whatever the player determines is worth using the die for. If that's 75%, then that means the player thinks the roll missed by 3 or less, or 4 or less, depending on level. Alternately, Valor Bards get the ability to allow inspiration dice to be added directly to damage, so that's the die as damage, or doubled for a critical hit.

For a GWM fighter with a greatsword, 75% of 23.333 is 17.5.
For a champion fighter, a critical hit with 1d8-1d12 extra damage is 9-13.
For a rogue, 75% of 23.5-44.5 (depends on weapon and level) is 17.625-33.375.
For a barbarian, raging, with 24 Str, GWM, and a greataxe, 75% of 27.5 is 20.625.
For a cleric with divine strike, 75% of 18.5 is 13.875
For a monk, 75% of 10.5 is 7.875.
For just adding damage, 1d8-1d12 is 4.5-6.5.

And each of these will have a different die roll that they reach these numbers on.

[NewDM]

Once again, the damage factor is the damage of one attack, not the average damage per round. It's very party and situation dependent. The accuracy factor is whatever the player determines is worth using the die for. If that's 75%, then that means the player thinks the roll missed by 3 or less, or 4 or less, depending on level. Alternately, Valor Bards get the ability to allow inspiration dice to be added directly to damage, so that's the die as damage, or doubled for a critical hit.

For a GWM fighter with a greatsword, 75% of 23.333 is 17.5.
For a champion fighter, a critical hit with 1d8-1d12 extra damage is 9-13.
For a rogue, 75% of 23.5-44.5 (depends on weapon and level) is 17.625-33.375.
For a barbarian, raging, with 24 Str, GWM, and a greataxe, 75% of 27.5 is 20.625.
For a cleric with divine strike, 75% of 18.5 is 13.875
For a monk, 75% of 10.5 is 7.875.
For just adding damage, 1d8-1d12 is 4.5-6.5.

And each of these will have a different die roll that they reach these numbers on.

Yes. I'm assuming they hit every time they use it, but I spread the damage out across 35 rounds in a day to get the DPR for the character.

I multiply the damage from the main attack (not the 2nd PAM bonus attack) by the number of dice. Then I divide that number by 35 rounds in a day. Unless you have enough attacks to hit every round of every day there is just not a significant increase in DPR. Again, I'm assuming each dice turns a miss into a hit and then spreading that damage out across the day.

Also the damage increase goes to the Bard because if the Bard wasn't there then there wouldn't be an increase and the Bard is using the resources.

[Zalabim]

Yes. I'm assuming they hit every time they use it, but I spread the damage out across 35 rounds in a day to get the DPR for the character.

I multiply the damage from the main attack (not the 2nd PAM bonus attack) by the number of dice.


That would increase damage assuming they grant it to our already calculated fighter:
1st: (11.94 * 3) / 35 = 1.023428571428571
2nd-3rd: (10.41 * 3) / 35 = 0.8922857142857143
4th: (13.44 * 4) / 35 = 1.536
5th:(18.72 * 12) / 35 = 6.418285714285714
6th:(23.73 * 12) / 35 = 8.136
7th:(22.2 * 12) / 35 = 7.611428571428571
8th:(22.2 * 15) / 35 = 9.514285714285714
9th-10th:(19.14 * 15) / 35 = 8.202857142857143
11th:(28.33 * 15) / 35 = 12.14142857142857
12th:(26.235 * 15) / 35 = 11.24357142857143
13th-17th:(28.33 * 15) / 35 = 12.14142857142857
18th:(26.235 * 15) / 35 = 11.24357142857143
19th:(28.33 * 15) / 35 = 12.14142857142857
20th:(33.33 * 15) / 35 = 14.28428571428571

You obviously multiplied the average damage per round by the number of dice, not the average damage of a hit by the number of dice. I hope you mean you're fixing that. Your spreadsheet picture also shows you counting only 2/3 of the daily Superiority Dice, and counting Superiority Dice at level 1 and 2 when they don't have them yet. Assuming perfect accuracy on turning a miss into a hit for Inspiration Dice is going to inflate their value.

[NewDM]

You obviously multiplied the average damage per round by the number of dice, not the average damage of a hit by the number of dice. I hope you mean you're fixing that. Your spreadsheet picture also shows you counting only 2/3 of the daily Superiority Dice, and counting Superiority Dice at level 1 and 2 when they don't have them yet. Assuming perfect accuracy on turning a miss into a hit for Inspiration Dice is going to inflate their value.

Nope. What I did is multiplied the damage of a successful hit by the number of available dice then divided by the number of rounds in a day, the above was for Bardic inspiration, but superiority dice work the same if they use Precise Strike. You are correct. It should be much lower. It is correct in the sheet though for Precise Strike, its a pain to make a screenshot of the Libreoffice Calc. So I'll make another one when I'm done with the Blade Singer Wizard.

I took off the superiority dice for levels 1 and 2 and I have updated the spread sheet. Previously I was using the superiority dice for extra damage instead of turning a miss into a hit.