How to be a good Optimizer in 5E

[Specter]

Consider the standard adventuring day, or at least something close to it in number of encounters.

Many guides I read usually go like "omg, this is the best ability ever, you have to neurotically dedicate it to one encounter and then go 5 fights without it!" And that doesn't sound fun or good after you've played long days.

Some of that happens with the Paladin love. Smites are cool and all, but you realize a level 10 paladin can smite 9 times a day, and that's only if he casts no spell at all during the day. Assuming four 5-round fights, that will be one smite less than every two turns.

And as another example, you have the Diviner. If you make a Diviner boss as an NPC, he will wreck your party with those two rolls, positive or negative. But the PC used those rolls to determine the first fight, and now he has no subclass features to use on the second fight. "You can make sure the enemy fails their save, it's the awesomest Wizard!" Yeah, but just 1 of the 30 enemies you'll face today, right?

Battlemaster vs. Champion argument? Irrelevant. Mathematically, Battlemaster will do more damage on a generic build, but that's beside the point: Champion's damage boost is on forever, regardless of opportunities and rests and fights. It's a different measuring system.

So, basically what I'm saying is one turn is not one fight, and one fight is not one day. Thank you for your time.

[Waazraath]

So, basically what I'm saying is one turn is not one fight, and one fight is not one day. Thank you for your time.

Well... this is true of course. Difficulty is: this is campaign and DM dependent. Even if a DM keeps to the 6-8 encounter adventuring day, it depends on the kind of encounters (how difficult, does it include combat encounters, how resource draining are they?) wether you're better off making a character that is good at doing burst/nova damage, or one that does consistent damage during the entire adventuring day. Same goes for building a short rest / long rest based character.

Regarding your title, I think you're a good optimizer if you take this kind of information into account when building your character, and maybe even more important, what the rest of the party consist of. Though it may be that "every party setup can work" in 5e, you sure as hell can aim for synergies, covering niches, or go for "all stealth" kind of concepts, all together. It also depends on your own resource management skills; if you don't have a lot of those, you're better off with a consisten damage build, even though it is generally seen as "weaker" then burst type of characters. The "know yourself" stuff.

As for the paladin: I think one of the reasons that it is deemed so good, is that it has great burst damage with the smites (especially when combining a smite spell with a divine smite class ability), and people tend to remember the impressive 1 shots. But next to that, it's a decent healer, and has great passive abilities in its aura's. And a fighing style and proficiency with heavy armor and all weapons. Even a badly managed paladin who spends all his spell slots early on mooks, is nice to have round for the +4 something save bonus and being able to take some hits and deal some ok melee damage.

[Lombra]

That's true but burst features can be powerful: the diviner in our party saved the day many times thanks to that portent die, ad in critical situations the paladin can easily reduce the number of hostiles in few rounds. The sorcerer uses his sorcery points mostly to quicken and generate slots so he's a constant stream of damage. One shouldn't buid a character around few-times/day abilities, bot one shouldn't overlook them either.
It's all a matter of using them at the right time.

[Coffee_Dragon]

I think a discussion on nova optimization cannot be completely divorced from a discussion on rest conventions (player agency vs. DM balancing tool).

[EvilAnagram]

Coffee Dragon is right. If you're group has three combat encounters a day, nova builds look awesome. If the table follows the standard model, it's much less appealing.

[Alberic Strein]

So, I am terrible at DnD in general and 5e in particular so my opinion may very well be worthless, but I think that optimizers rate nova abilities and classes so high compared to consistent damage because one can do the other, and the other can't.

Again, I played a grand total of 2 fights in Storm king's thunder, and have thus very little practical experience, but I still felt strongly that sometimes you just really need to nova.

We were level 5 adventurers who stumbled upon 2 hill giants, 2 ogres and 2 bugbears. At the time I thought call lightning was a good idea, reliable decent damage on a number of enemies. That would eventually kill them. The issue being that our 2-man frontline was three hits away from collapsing. The amount of damage I was dealing was inadequate for the situation. This was a very dangerous encounter and I needed to dish out my damage quickly, to nova. However, being a tempest cleric, I didn't have any capacity to do that, while the sorcerer and the paladin could. Well, unfortunately sh*t happened and the encounter went south, but that really exemplified, to me, that finishing enemies quickly before they could really get their damage going was a precious ability.

On the other hand, having per long rest abilities mean that your staying power is weaker. And of course during long adventuring days, you may fi d yourself strapped for resources, or quite the opposite, finishing your day with a couple of per long rest abilities not used and having really struggled on that last encounter.

What I mean to say is that if you don't have nova abilities, then you nust plain can't nova and sometimes it's needed. But if you have per-day reaources, you can still pace yourself and manage yourself so you're not running on empty after two encounters.

This may be why optimizers favor bursting abilities so much.

[WickerNipple]

This may be why optimizers favor bursting abilities so much.

You pretty much have it right. Characters should aim to trivialize a certain # of fights per day. This could be done with novas, but there are other options.

This makes the rest of the day easier in comparison because of less resources used for those fights - for example: you probably didn't have to waste healing resources/etc for such encouters.

[jaappleton]

Oh, its always fun to theory craft, and do the math for what can utterly wreck things. But typically, that takes many of your resources for the day, and leaves you depleted for anything else.

I consider myself a bit of an optimizer. Its honestly a double edged sword for me. I've build Warlocks to be kickass and wreck things.... But the limited spell slots left me depleted, and I didn't have fun with it.

The most 'powerful' feeling character I ever had was a simple Half Orc Totem Barbarian with the GWM feat. That was it. Nothing out of the ordinary, just a simple build. Constant advantage with Reckless Attack ensure I could do the +10 damage very consistently, and I could Rage enough to where my Resistance and humongous HP were simply awesome to have.

To me, an 'optimized' character isn't the one that can Nova to the point where it can utterly wreck something it shouldn't be able to. Because... Frankly, it often requires such ideal conditions that it happens so rarely that it's not actually effective.

I'd rather have the character that's consistently 'pretty damn good' over the one that's 'under the right conditions, I'm SPECTACULAR!', y'know?

I find that its difficult to build a character specifically for 'We should have X amount of encounters because-' simply because the nature of the game itself is unpredictable. Who knows what you'll face? Aim to be consistently effective. If you have a trick or two up your sleeve, some synergy with the abilities of your allies, all the better.

[Rhedyn]

Sorcerers with good spell and metamagic selection wreck face...

By abusing and breaking the system.

[Snails]

To emphasize a point already made, when you are facing 2-3 enemies who can do real damage, very quickly taking down just one will cover a multitude of sins and conserve resources like hit points and hit dice. There is something to be said for everyone in the party having a bit of nova -- at the very least you have the option to crank things up if the dice turn against you early in the fight.

Nova theorycrafting works best when you imagine you weill have control over how much combat happens per day. The DMs in the gaming group I play in do not let the party be comfortably in control of such things much of the time, so extreme nova strategies were unattractive.

Simpler optimized PCs like a Half Orc Totem Barbarian with the GWM feat make for reliable contributors, that give room for other PCs to make the most of their abilities/resources, even if they lack a true nova.

[Specter]

Yes, obviously burst and nova abilities are powerful and shouldn't be overlooked. But precisely because the game is unpredictable, you need to take into account that you can go many fights without it. So you can be very powerful, but not in every fight, and you need to take that into account when you make your character AND when you use the ability.

[jaappleton]

Yes, obviously burst and nova abilities are powerful and shouldn't be overlooked. But precisely because the game is unpredictable, you need to take into account that you can go many fights without it. So you can be very powerful, but not in every fight, and you need to take that into account when you make your character AND when you use the ability.

I have a prime example of this.

I was a Half Elf Fiend Warlock. Lv4.

We went up against... something. I think it was a Medusa.

Having read so many optimization handbooks, I saw "If I Hex it and then do Scorching Ray, that's 9d6 damage! YEAH!"

(At the time, my table didn't know you couldn't cast two spells in the same turn. We know that now.)

So I did it. Hex and SR.

I missed with two rays. :smalleek:

And all I had was Eldritch Blast after that. I also got hit and lost Hex the next round. So it was just EB after that. Nothing else.

I felt weak. Useless. Now only did I blow my resources, but I freakin' MISSED.

That's when I went back to my Half-Orc Barbarian. It was fun to think of doing 9d6 damage to a single target at a low level like that, delusions of grandeur about one-shotting such a tough enemy and looking impressive, only to turn out to be a moron that missed and was left twiddling my thumbs as I got my ass kicked.

[Waazraath]

What I mean to say is that if you don't have nova abilities, then you nust plain can't nova and sometimes it's needed. But if you have per-day reaources, you can still pace yourself and manage yourself so you're not running on empty after two encounters.

This may be why optimizers favor bursting abilities so much.

I think it's more complex, because of two reasons.

1) burst characters can of course choose not to use their burst ability, and so normal, consistent damage... but the whole point is that such a character is doing less consistent damage than a character that is build to do conisistent damage. A paladin that doesn't smite, will do less damage than a champion fighter, barbarian and probably even rogue (depening on the situation).

2) most consistent damage dealing types also have (limited) burst options. Think about the barbarians rage, fighters action surge, EK and AT limited spells. So when the need is really high, they can do a little bursting on their own.

So instead of having characters that can nova and do consistent damage, next to characters that can only do consistent damage (as I interpred your post, but correct me if I'm mistaken), there's a gradual scale of characters that can do a lot of nova and limited consistent damage, up to characters with good consistent damage and little nova capacity.

[joaber]

Agree, most guides don't count the entire day, same thing ignoring hit chance, reaction, advantage/desadvantage chance, utility stuff, party help or party dependence, non combat...

Most because each table is a different table. So, to be a good optimizer, you need to do for yourself thinking in your table.

Ps: for a single class, standard 2x short rest day, battlemaster is way better than champion, even if tjey resource aren't at will.

[Asmotherion]

Consider the standard adventuring day, or at least something close to it in number of encounters.

Many guides I read usually go like "omg, this is the best ability ever, you have to neurotically dedicate it to one encounter and then go 5 fights without it!" And that doesn't sound fun or good after you've played long days.

Some of that happens with the Paladin love. Smites are cool and all, but you realize a level 10 paladin can smite 9 times a day, and that's only if he casts no spell at all during the day. Assuming four 5-round fights, that will be one smite less than every two turns.

And as another example, you have the Diviner. If you make a Diviner boss as an NPC, he will wreck your party with those two rolls, positive or negative. But the PC used those rolls to determine the first fight, and now he has no subclass features to use on the second fight. "You can make sure the enemy fails their save, it's the awesomest Wizard!" Yeah, but just 1 of the 30 enemies you'll face today, right?

Battlemaster vs. Champion argument? Irrelevant. Mathematically, Battlemaster will do more damage on a generic build, but that's beside the point: Champion's damage boost is on forever, regardless of opportunities and rests and fights. It's a different measuring system.

So, basically what I'm saying is one turn is not one fight, and one fight is not one day. Thank you for your time.

What you're saying, and I completelly on the same page with you, is that basically, At-Will and sustainable abilities are more worth focusing on your optimised build.

Wile I take the same aproach, there are people that like to have their "Nova Damage" at a maximum, to potentially one-hit-KO a Boss fight, and be happy to be average the rest of the day. I used to be an extremist in my point of view as well, calling the Nova Builds "Situationally usefull but otherwise mediocre" as they tend to save up their Nova Ability 'till the Boss Fight, and not waste it on regular/random encounters, thus having a mediocre performance. That said, I now see that they can use their Nova output to change the tides of an otherwise lost fight, and can be fun to have around.

Overall, wile I am the kind of optimiser that focuses on At-Will damage before everything else, I also now respect that Nova-rounders are very fine, just not for me.

As a Sorlock I have my perfect At-Will ranged damage option (Eldritch Blast+Hex), Many good options for Sustanable damage (Quicken Spell, Fireball, etc), and a single Nova Round that I may or may not use, most usually spending my 9th level spell slot on a Wish/Gate rather than Meteor Swarm.

[Sigreid]

This is why it's good for a party to have some kind of a split between high end meat and potatoes combat types like the fighter and the rogue and meh meat and potatoes combat types that have a "panic button" mode.

You can optimize your character all you want, but an optimized group is better. And if everyone is panic button nova guy, you may be screwed.

[PeteNutButter]

You can optimize your character all you want, but an optimized group is better. And if everyone is panic button nova guy, you may be screwed.

This is true, but it cuts both ways. A party without an "Oh Sh*t" button is short on options for the real tough encounters. The nova builds played properly scale on demand. I cringe and bite my tongue every time I see PCs in my party blowing smites in fights that were well under control...

But what are we really talking about here? It seems like must of this discussion is directly targeting paladins, as the obvious nova class. It's ignoring that casters are essentially nova by design. They get very few slots of their highest level spells throughout their career.

Everything has resources to spend, except Champion and some rogue archetypes. It's part of the game. A good player doesn't blow them all in one fight/round, unless they absolutely needed to, in which case, they just saved the day.
For a standard non-optimized build the 5% increased crit chance is such a minimal increase in damage that is is not at all worth it. A 5% chance to do another 1d8 damage for 1-handers is a .225 DPR increase, .35 DPR increase for a 2-hander. Now it depends on your damage output per hit, chance to hit, and target AC, but that is roughly a 3% increase in DPR that is very spiky and nonlinear, regularly resulting in overkill. Funnily enough, it could be more useful when combined with...*cough* ... things that use resources.
And the math gets more complex when you factor in that monsters usually die in chunks, such as taking roughly 3 hits to kill etc. Each factor you consider makes champion worse and worse. The bottom line is a paladin that isn't smiting is pretty damn similar to a barbarian that isn't raging, or a BM fighter that isn't using moves.

[Sigreid]

This is true, but it cuts both ways. A party without an "Oh Sh*t" button is short on options for the real tough encounters. The nova builds played properly scale on demand. I cringe and bite my tongue every time I see PCs in my party blowing smites in fights that were well under control...



Absolutely. I was trying to convey that you want both.

[Snails]

So I did it. Hex and SR.

I missed with two rays. :smalleek:

And all I had was Eldritch Blast after that. I also got hit and lost Hex the next round. So it was just EB after that. Nothing else.

I felt weak. Useless. Now only did I blow my resources, but I freakin' MISSED.

Yup. With the flat math, you can very easily miss or the enemy can succeed with their save, etc. Even getting Advantage does inoculate you from bad luck. Even Lucky feat does necessarily help you.

In, say, 3e, it was very plausible to stack up a nova that would work 90% of the time. It is far less easy in 5e.

[Specter]

But what are we really talking about here? It seems like must of this discussion is directly targeting paladins, as the obvious nova class. It's ignoring that casters are essentially nova by design. They get very few slots of their highest level spells throughout their career.

Everything has resources to spend, except Champion and some rogue archetypes. It's part of the game. A good player doesn't blow them all in one fight/round, unless they absolutely needed to, in which case, they just saved the day.
For a standard non-optimized build the 5% increased crit chance is such a minimal increase in damage that is is not at all worth it. A 5% chance to do another 1d8 damage for 1-handers is a .225 DPR increase, .35 DPR increase for a 2-hander. Now it depends on your damage output per hit, chance to hit, and target AC, but that is roughly a 3% increase in DPR that is very spiky and nonlinear, regularly resulting in overkill. Funnily enough, it could be more useful when combined with...*cough* ... things that use resources.
And the math gets more complex when you factor in that monsters usually die in chunks, such as taking roughly 3 hits to kill etc. Each factor you consider makes champion worse and worse. The bottom line is a paladin that isn't smiting is pretty damn similar to a barbarian that isn't raging, or a BM fighter that isn't using moves.

Not really. A barbarian's rage will last through a whole fight if they're not stupid, and BM maneuvers will recharge on a short rest (and eventually they get an extra die for every fight they start on zero, which is a crap ability but needs to be mentioned anyway).

Paladin smites are long rest AND compete with actual spells. Everytime you cast Shield of Faith or Bless or even a smite spell, that's one less smite for you. Spread that through many encounters, and not only is your paladin a neurotic player by now, but not as effective as everybody thinks they would be in a single fight.

Casters have many more slots to begin with, and many of them have at least some short rest recovery feature. You know when people say Moon Druids are 100000 times better than Land Druids? They're not taking the adventuring day into account either.

And that's the essence of optimizing, knowing your weaknesses. Anybody reading an ability that's expendable and working their character around that need to know that they eill be half-useless on a long day.

[Socratov]

To be honest, the principles of optimisation haven't changed in the slightest since 3.5.

Optimisation is not doing one trick exceptionally well, it's doing a lot of things in a passable fashion, doing some of that stuff actually quite decent, doing a bit rather well and one thing exceptionally well.

You optimise because you want to be useful (well, or you want to try something funny). You optimise around the concept of competence. Indeed in 3.5 it was hard to optimise some classes into competence for all the things and for other classes it was rather easy (compare barbarian and wizard, or rogue and cleric).

The same principle still holds in 5e, it's just become easier to be competent in stuff. Comparatively it's also become harder to be competent in all the stuff. Wizard 20 is no longer the stand in for 'able to do everything' (even if they still go a long way).

[Pex]

You do not need the internet's permission to play your character. You do not need to achieve the most damage per round as possible. You do not need to achieve the best AC as possible. You do not need to be proficient in Perception. You do not need to have high initiative. You do not need to have a high Dexterity. You do not need Great Weapon Master. You do not need Polearm Master. It's fine to have any of this, but you are not playing the game wrong if you don't. You are not losing out on something. You are not an inferior player.

[Waazraath]

Paladin smites are long rest AND compete with actual spells. Everytime you cast Shield of Faith or Bless or even a smite spell, that's one less smite for you. Spread that through many encounters, and not only is your paladin a neurotic player by now, but not as effective as everybody thinks they would be in a single fight.

Casters have many more slots to begin with, and many of them have at least some short rest recovery feature. You know when people say Moon Druids are 100000 times better than Land Druids? They're not taking the adventuring day into account either.


I don't know if I follow you here. The moon druids main feature compared with land druid is a combat wild shape; and wild shape recharges on a short rest. I don't have a very strong opinion on wether land or moon is 'stronger', but espcially taking the entire 6-8 encounter adventuring day into account, moon seems more durable to me.

As for the paladin: imo it's just good, even taking this into account. Yes, you have to manage your resources. But you have plenty of them. Some combats, you don't need any (good ac, decent damage and the fighting style are enough); some combats, you only need one spell (like divine shield to be the living wall that blocks a corridor); some combats, you can use your channel divinity; and sometimes you have to go all in and spend spells/smites like crazy, when fighting the boss monster or a group of creatures with pack tactics kinda abilities. At least in my experience, you don't run empty easily. And even if you run empty, the chassis is still quite strong, and you're buffing your party with aura's. And don't forget the horsy! When you're mounted, it can't attack, but in situations where the paladin isn't mounted (got knocked down, at night when the camp is ambushed, etc.), you have a decent extra fighter.

Maybe the DPR calculations that make it "uber" are exagerated, but on the other hand these don't take other strong points of the pally into account (healing, CD, horse, aura's).


@Pex: you're right of course, but the title isn't "how to be a good player" but "how to be a good optimzer". If one cares for optimizing, doing some of the stuff you mention isn't a bad idea.

[Coffee_Dragon]

You do not need the internet's permission to play your character. You do not need to achieve the most damage per round as possible. You do not need to achieve the best AC as possible. You do not need to be proficient in Perception. You do not need to have high initiative. You do not need to have a high Dexterity. You do not need Great Weapon Master. You do not need Polearm Master. It's fine to have any of this, but you are not playing the game wrong if you don't. You are not losing out on something. You are not an inferior player.

Would it be possible to squeeze in: "You do not need an 18 at first level. The system is not being oppressive. Your DM is not being tyrannical."

[Rhedyn]

There are a lot of people here that assume high damage is optimization.

It's not.

The paladin is strong because it adds cha to saves and ally saves and the various oaths add even more buffs (magic resistance for one), it's wears heavy armor, has spells, and then it has access to damage when he needs it.

But do you know trivializes all that? The party wizard making a simulacrum for free as an action with wish, of the paladin.

[Gtdead]

My optimization rules:

Fine tune for encounters and run simulations. Unless you can keep up with the CR curve, your build is not optimized, it's just an one trick pony. Most planned optimized characters will fail this test because people get dazzled by the numbers and forget the limitations (like sustainability of the damage, circumstances, lvl requirement etc).

Know your "win condition" in every encounter. Is it better to kill the big mook first, or the caster. Are you stronger in a stealth run or by entering through the front door. Does your character perform better against swarms or bosses. How much better. Are you versatile enough to assume a different role or the party needs to accommodate your playstyle. DnD is essentially a game of decisions. Knowing this information allows you to be better at that and t he better you are, the more you can control the pacing of the game.

A build that relies on maintaining offensive buffs to work is a weak one. 99% of the time, a martial class can use an offensive buff better than a caster or a hybrid. Don't waste your concentration to make a weak class rival a strong class in damage output unless you have no other option.

Last but not least, defense is king. If you've ever did party optimizations in a DnD inspired game on the pc, you know that to heart. NWN2 became piss easy with a party of one melee+casters with shields and combat expertise, boasting 35-40 AC. The melee is buffed to hell and destroys everything, casters never die, ready to replenish buffs that go out, or cast a dispel. Basically the game beats itself that way. The logic is not that different when you play actual DnD, it's just that defenses is a more broad category than just AC.

[Captain Morgan]

I think you need to be pretty ridiculous to think smites are the only thing a Paladin has going for it. Until level 9, fighting style gives you comparable damage to a raging barbarian (albeit not counting Reckless Attack advantage, but if the Barbarian took Wolf totem the whole party gets said advantage) and superior damage when the BarBar isn't raging. The paladin can also put out Bless in fights where Raging would be appropriate and make most of the party better.

A Champion fighter only blows the Paladin away for damage when it action surges, which is of course a finite resource. Or when it crits, but it can't control when that happens, so it's likely to be overkill where a Paladin can smite for superior damage to a crit WHEN IT ACTUALLY MATTERS.

And that's just damage. Paladin also brings heals, face skills, potential crowd control depending on Oath spells, defensive buffs for all allies, and other nifty features. Can you make a case the Barbarian or Fighter are better for pure damage? Sure, but giving and receiving hits is pretty much all they do. The paladin doesn't lag too far behind AND provides other stuff. The fact that they can also unleash massive damage during pivotal moments makes them shine both for Theory crafting and for memorable moments in actual play.

The battlemaster, meanwhile, isn't the go to choice for damage. It's the go to choice for martial control.

[Potato_Priest]

Battlemaster vs. Champion argument? Irrelevant. Mathematically, Battlemaster will do more damage on a generic build, but that's beside the point: Champion's damage boost is on forever, regardless of opportunities and rests and fights. It's a different measuring system.


It's not irrelevant, though, and it can be measured. With a standard or even slightly longer adventuring day, the battlemaster comes out well ahead, and if your players cherry pick their encounters well (engaging in fights and then retreating to a place where it wouldn't make in-game sense for them to be attacked again) which most smart parties will, the battlemaster is even better. Furthermore, by being able to actively choose when to use their abilities, the battlemaster can exert greater tactical control in a battle, and go all-in against a boss should they need to. Unless you're fighting 10 battles a day, the battlemaster is superior in almost all respects to the champion.



Casters have many more slots to begin with, and many of them have at least some short rest recovery feature. You know when people say Moon Druids are 100000 times better than Land Druids? They're not taking the adventuring day into account either.


Yep, yep. 80 hp per short rest at level 2. I'd definitely say that in a long adventuring day those moon druids come out well behind the land druid who can get a small amount of spellpower back once per day and still require a short rest to do it.

[Provo]

Even in a long adventuring day, nova builds can be very powerful. You just have to be conservative and know when to use your resources... just like almost every other build out there.

Taking out a goblin with a smite is probably a bad idea. Being able to take out a caster before he gets a turn (Or affecting some other critical moment) will definitely bring a lot to a group.

[Pex]

Would it be possible to squeeze in: "You do not need an 18 at first level. The system is not being oppressive. Your DM is not being tyrannical."

:smallwink:

Of course.

But the game allows an 18 at first level via dice rolling. It's Point Buy that doesn't. I don't need an 18 at first level. I only object to the absolute forbiddance of it.

[Socratov]

:smallwink:

Of course.

But the game allows an 18 at first level via dice rolling. It's Point Buy that doesn't. I don't need an 18 at first level. I only object to the absolute forbiddance of it.

While I do support your thesis of not having to be absolutely optimised, if you bring a character that can effectively not do anything you are relegated to cannon fodder duty.

I require at least some level of competence or at least some usefulness of my partymates. Gotta pull your weight on some level...

[Coffee_Dragon]

I require at least some level of competence or at least some usefulness of my partymates. Gotta pull your weight on some level...

Do you mean on an OOC level? Or do you expect the PCs would also do the in-game equivalent of comparing DPRs and chastising each other for not measuring up? Seems like that level of party chumminess would rule out level discrepancies, for one thing.

Edittoadd: From what I've read around here, you'll pretty much have to actively try to make a strikingly incompetent character in 5E to pull it off.

[Gtdead]

Edittoadd: From what I've read around here, you'll pretty much have to actively try to make a strikingly incompetent character in 5E to pull it off.

While it's pretty hard to do it wrong, you can still make dumb decisions like rolling a monk as last spot in a party without caster support or a melee rogue in a party without good frontline.

Most classes can't actually deal well with the CR curve. You'd think that a totem Barbarian is an awesome combat character, but when you run his numbers against the curve he is pretty **** while builds like Bladesingers, Paladins and Sorcerors can hold their own way better across all levels.

Also some classes have huge peaks but really punishing plateaus. At lvl 2, moon druid is a god. At lvl 5 he is crap. He becomes good again at lvl 18. A super optimized moon druid will always be **** between levels 5 and 17.

[Specter]

I don't know if I follow you here. The moon druids main feature compared with land druid is a combat wild shape; and wild shape recharges on a short rest. I don't have a very strong opinion on wether land or moon is 'stronger', but espcially taking the entire 6-8 encounter adventuring day into account, moon seems more durable to me.

As for the paladin: imo it's just good, even taking this into account. Yes, you have to manage your resources. But you have plenty of them. Some combats, you don't need any (good ac, decent damage and the fighting style are enough); some combats, you only need one spell (like divine shield to be the living wall that blocks a corridor); some combats, you can use your channel divinity; and sometimes you have to go all in and spend spells/smites like crazy, when fighting the boss monster or a group of creatures with pack tactics kinda abilities. At least in my experience, you don't run empty easily. And even if you run empty, the chassis is still quite strong, and you're buffing your party with aura's. And don't forget the horsy! When you're mounted, it can't attack, but in situations where the paladin isn't mounted (got knocked down, at night when the camp is ambushed, etc.), you have a decent extra fighter.

Maybe the DPR calculations that make it "uber" are exagerated, but on the other hand these don't take other strong points of the pally into account (healing, CD, horse, aura's).

@Pex: you're right of course, but the title isn't "how to be a good player" but "how to be a good optimzer". If one cares for optimizing, doing some of the stuff you mention isn't a bad idea.

Yep, all Druids are fine, don't misunderstand. But as a Land Druid you get the most out of your spelks every day. That (and Arcane Recovery) seem lame features,but when you go through a long day you will be so glad you have them, as I was.

And yep, Paladins are good, definitely. If I were to pick one class that has too many good features, it's them.


I think you need to be pretty ridiculous to think smites are the only thing a Paladin has going for it. Until level 9, fighting style gives you comparable damage to a raging barbarian (albeit not counting Reckless Attack advantage, but if the Barbarian took Wolf totem the whole party gets said advantage) and superior damage when the BarBar isn't raging. The paladin can also put out Bless in fights where Raging would be appropriate and make most of the party better.

A Champion fighter only blows the Paladin away for damage when it action surges, which is of course a finite resource. Or when it crits, but it can't control when that happens, so it's likely to be overkill where a Paladin can smite for superior damage to a crit WHEN IT ACTUALLY MATTERS.

And that's just damage. Paladin also brings heals, face skills, potential crowd control depending on Oath spells, defensive buffs for all allies, and other nifty features. Can you make a case the Barbarian or Fighter are better for pure damage? Sure, but giving and receiving hits is pretty much all they do. The paladin doesn't lag too far behind AND provides other stuff. The fact that they can also unleash massive damage during pivotal moments makes them shine both for Theory crafting and for memorable moments in actual play.

The battlemaster, meanwhile, isn't the go to choice for damage. It's the go to choice for martial control.

Well, then I'm lucky I just used one extremely overrated ability to discuss a recurring discussion problem in these boards, instead of actually thinking all paladin has going on are smites, right? Phew.

Just remember, all those good spells you mentioned will be actually competing with the amazing smitedom, so every Bless is one less superattack during the day. I'm not saying which is better, just stating what seems to be away from the minds of many.


It's not irrelevant, though, and it can be measured. With a standard or even slightly longer adventuring day, the battlemaster comes out well ahead, and if your players cherry pick their encounters well (engaging in fights and then retreating to a place where it wouldn't make in-game sense for them to be attacked again) which most smart parties will, the battlemaster is even better. Furthermore, by being able to actively choose when to use their abilities, the battlemaster can exert greater tactical control in a battle, and go all-in against a boss should they need to. Unless you're fighting 10 battles a day, the battlemaster is superior in almost all respects to the champion.

Yep, yep. 80 hp per short rest at level 2. I'd definitely say that in a long adventuring day those moon druids come out well behind the land druid who can get a small amount of spellpower back once per day and still require a short rest to do it.

- Battlemaster's abilities are very superior to Champion at level 3, but after that it's just diminishing returns. Two more sup. dice and a +2 boost to their damage after 15 levels? Meanwhile Champion has two fighting styles (which seems lame, until you compare the numbers on that +1AC), 18-20 crits and free health regeneration. And all of this with no choice involved. Even if the BM can outdamage Champ, it can't outsurvive it, long day or not.

- You know the Land guys also get their Wild Shape back after a short rest, right?

[Potato_Priest]

You know the Land guys also get their Wild Shape back after a short rest, right?

True, but due both to action economy and hp issues, it's not nearly as powerful for them.



- Battlemaster's abilities are very superior to Champion at level 3, but after that it's just diminishing returns. Two more sup. dice and a +2 boost to their damage after 15 levels? Meanwhile Champion has two fighting styles (which seems lame, until you compare the numbers on that +1AC), 18-20 crits and free health regeneration. And all of this with no choice involved. Even if the BM can outdamage Champ, it can't outsurvive it, long day or not.


That's if you go to level 18, at which point,yes, the champion is definitely a valid contender. However, for the most frequent levels of gameplay, somewhere around 3-10 (at least for me this is true), the battlemaster outdamages the champion with no significant difference in survivability (unless the battlemaster uses that maneuver where they can move and add the superiority dice to their AC). In any case, my original response was primarily intended to demonstrate that you can do the math, and you can measure the two subclasses against one another. You seem to have come around to doing it yourself.

Edit: Let's do a little thinking here. Suppose you just won on my game show called "So you want to do Some Hypothetical Explanatory Statistics". I offer you two choices of reward. The first is a million dollars right now. The second is two dollars every day for the rest of your life, adjusted so that inflation is meaningless. Can you mathematically compare the two options in terms of value? Yes. Is the first option better for almost every reasonable lifespan? Yes. This is the difference between the battlemaster and the champion, at least until the champions get some of their higher level features.

[Socratov]

Do you mean on an OOC level? Or do you expect the PCs would also do the in-game equivalent of comparing DPRs and chastising each other for not measuring up? Seems like that level of party chumminess would rule out level discrepancies, for one thing.
Neither. If you are to take the role of ranged striker, I at least expect you to be good at shooting bow/arrow, crossbow/not or spells at decent range. If you play a frontline barbarian I expect you to at least have a positive con modifier and a way to be interesting enough to be attacked by enemies...

Edittoadd: From what I've read around here, you'll pretty much have to actively try to make a strikingly incompetent character in 5E to pull it off.
And some people do on the basis that it adds to the rp of their character.

[skaddix]

Why do people make the long day argument?

Unless your DM is a **** or the rest of your party is also optimized for a Long Day?
That is not a regular occurrence enough to justify picking a Champion.

[Waazraath]

Why do people make the long day argument?

Unless your DM is a **** or the rest of your party is also optimized for a Long Day?
That is not a regular occurrence enough to justify picking a Champion.

I don't think I quite follow you; what has a DM being a **** to do with how long an adventuring day takes?

[Snails]

Why do people make the long day argument?

Unless your DM is a **** or the rest of your party is also optimized for a Long Day?
That is not a regular occurrence enough to justify picking a Champion.

According to whom?

Many oldtime gaming groups were used to long days, and understood that there were significant incentives to push a little further that must be balanced by the risk that you might have one (or two) more encounter(s) than you desired.

3e discussed what an average day would probably be, which seemed shorter than what we oldtimers were used to, but the very idea of average admits that some days may be shorter and some days may be longer.

[NNescio]

The same principle still holds in 5e, it's just become easier to be competent in stuff. Comparatively it's also become harder to be competent in all the stuff. Wizard 20 is no longer the stand in for 'able to do everything' (even if they still go a long way).

Wizard 20 (and Bard 20 with the right Magical Secrets) is sort of a bad example, since they get Wish and True Polymorph. Even without Wish-chaining Simulacrums (or True Polymorphing arbitrary magical items/spell components), the Wizard can still create a veritable menagerie of CR 9 monsters to let him "do everything" (Wish is sort of critical here for painless Planar Binding in Wish-Hallowed areas), given enough prep time.

The Wizard's spell list is also chock-full with long duration no-concentration spells (it's his shtick, especially compared to the concentration-reliant Cleric and Druid). Even at lower levels this lets him effectively 'bank' spell slots for future use like creating a permanent Major Image (more can be stored in a Bag of Holding, Portable Hole, Demiplane, etc.), Animating undead (Clerics can also get into this game, but most deities will find issue with that), having a Contingency up, using Mirage Arcane to change terrain/buildings for 10 days, using Sympathy/Antipathy to create an army-routing/lemming-inducing object of doom (again, for 10 days), and having a personal Demiplane to stuff with Glyph of Warding/more permanent Major images/minions/water/lava.

True, the above tricks require set-up, but the Wizard is usually the guy who decides the party's pace anyway, since he's usually the one with the flight/transport/teleportation/plane-shifting spells.

Illusionists get access to even more dirty tricks, like on-the-fly adjustable (at the cost of an action and no spell slot) Major Images and Mirage Arcane (bare in mind that Mirage Arcanes are actually solid and can support weight per Crawford). This turns the Illusionist into the ultimate BFC 'Wall' Wizard, as he can do all the BFC needs for the party all-day without even touching his spell slots (after the set-up right before the adventure). He also doesn't need concentration to do all this, so he can stay permanently Invisible if he wants to (via Spell Mastery for at-will Invis), dropping concentration when necessary if he wants to pull out bigger spells (like summons, or force walls to block ethereal enemies).

Illusory Reality also lets the Illusionist turn his Images solid, giving him even more walling potential (and past L 17, the Illusionist practically has infinite Major Images once he gets a single day of downtime, via True Polymorph/Shapechange to Ki-rin).

Lower level Illusionists can also pull off similar tricks with Creation, which can be adjusted into 5ft cubes of wood as necessary with Malleable Illusions.

The Wizard is highly susceptible to at-will dispellers (beware demons and yugoloths) , but even then he has some tricks against those, like Animate Dead minions or True Polymorph Helmed Horrors (L17 Illusionists can also choose to drown their enemies with permanent Major Images by changing into the Ki-rin), or just by being careful to stay out of Dispel Magic's 120ft range. Antimagic Fields are more of a damper, but Animate Dead minions still function in them (per Crawford) and debatably Helmed Horrors keyed to having immunity to AMF (definitely not RAI).

Bard 20 can emulate the more powerful tricks above (Wish and TPm), even if he doesn't have access to the lower-level spells. He can choose to have lower level blast spells via Magical Secrets if he wishes to (or poach Aura of Vitality/Swift Quiver/Conjure Animals). The Bard is also skill monkey supreme.

Warlock 20 has very good at-will damage (and strong at-will BFC via Repelling Blast), and he also gets access to Demiplane and True Polymorph, letting him join the Wizard and Bard in minionmancy if he wants to. Without Wish he cannot Planar Bind Celestials/Fiends/Fey/Elementals (and he doesn't get Wish-Hallow to do it safely), limiting his choice of minions to certain constructs (the kinds that follow the orders of their creators, like Golems and Helmed Horrors), but he can still do a lot of things.

--

With all that said though, casters are indeed toned down a lot in 5e, especially at the mid-levels, due to significantly-reduced numbers of spell slots and crippling concentration requirements. Some of the higher-level arcane spells (7th and above, and some 6ths) have been buffed up compared to past editions though, which sort of break the balance again at higher levels.

Seriously, spells like Simulacrum, Mirage Arcane, Sympathy/Antipathy, True Polymorph, Shapechange and Wish are way above the power curve. They are also even more powerful compared to their 3.5e/Pathfinder's counterparts (arguable in the case of Shapechange, but 5e Shapechange still lets you access Innate Spellcasting while 3.5e's Shapechange explicitly doesn't let you use SLAs).

(3rds to 5ths summoning spells can also send game balance into whack, like Animate Dead, Animate Objects, Conjure Minor Elementals, Conjure Animals and Conjure Woodland Beings. Polymorph too, especially when Twinned. In general, yes, minionmancy and polymorphs give casters a lot of options and power.)

[Zene]

Wish is sort of critical here for painless Planar Binding in Wish-Hallowed areas

Could you explain this a bit? I'm not clear on what Hallow is needed for.

[NNescio]

Could you explain this a bit? I'm not clear on what Hallow is needed for.

It's basically a permanent Magic Circle (but more powerful as it flat out prevents outsiders from entering the area; they don't even get a Cha save) with an added rider effect. Picking Silence as the rider also blocks teleports/planeshifts and Dispels (since they require verbal components).

(Depending on how the "can't enter the area" clause is interpreted [whether the outsider can still move if it's True Polymorphed inside the Hallowed area], you might need two adjacent Hallowed areas, one for the outsider and one for you [yours is not Silenced].)

[Socratov]

Wizard 20 (and Bard 20 with the right Magical Secrets) is sort of a bad example, since they get Wish and True Polymorph. Even without Wish-chaining Simulacrums (or True Polymorphing arbitrary magical items/spell components), the Wizard can still create a veritable menagerie of CR 9 monsters to let him "do everything" (Wish is sort of critical here for painless Planar Binding in Wish-Hallowed areas), given enough prep time.

The Wizard's spell list is also chock-full with long duration no-concentration spells (it's his shtick, especially compared to the concentration-reliant Cleric and Druid). Even at lower levels this lets him effectively 'bank' spell slots for future use like creating a permanent Major Image (more can be stored in a Bag of Holding, Portable Hole, Demiplane, etc.), Animating undead (Clerics can also get into this game, but most deities will find issue with that), having a Contingency up, using Mirage Arcane to change terrain/buildings for 10 days, using Sympathy/Antipathy to create an army-routing/lemming-inducing object of doom (again, for 10 days), and having a personal Demiplane to stuff with Glyph of Warding/more permanent Major images/minions/water/lava.

True, the above tricks require set-up, but the Wizard is usually the guy who decides the party's pace anyway, since he's usually the one with the flight/transport/teleportation/plane-shifting spells.

Illusionists get access to even more dirty tricks, like on-the-fly adjustable (at the cost of an action and no spell slot) Major Images and Mirage Arcane (bare in mind that Mirage Arcanes are actually solid and can support weight per Crawford). This turns the Illusionist into the ultimate BFC 'Wall' Wizard, as he can do all the BFC needs for the party all-day without even touching his spell slots (after the set-up right before the adventure). He also doesn't need concentration to do all this, so he can stay permanently Invisible if he wants to (via Spell Mastery for at-will Invis), dropping concentration when necessary if he wants to pull out bigger spells (like summons, or force walls to block ethereal enemies).

Illusory Reality also lets the Illusionist turn his Images solid, giving him even more walling potential (and past L 17, the Illusionist practically has infinite Major Images once he gets a single day of downtime, via True Polymorph/Shapechange to Ki-rin).

Lower level Illusionists can also pull off similar tricks with Creation, which can be adjusted into 5ft cubes of wood as necessary with Malleable Illusions.

The Wizard is highly susceptible to at-will dispellers (beware demons and yugoloths) , but even then he has some tricks against those, like Animate Dead minions or True Polymorph Helmed Horrors (L17 Illusionists can also choose to drown their enemies with permanent Major Images by changing into the Ki-rin), or just by being careful to stay out of Dispel Magic's 120ft range. Antimagic Fields are more of a damper, but Animate Dead minions still function in them (per Crawford) and debatably Helmed Horrors keyed to having immunity to AMF (definitely not RAI).

Bard 20 can emulate the more powerful tricks above (Wish and TPm), even if he doesn't have access to the lower-level spells. He can choose to have lower level blast spells via Magical Secrets if he wishes to (or poach Aura of Vitality/Swift Quiver/Conjure Animals). The Bard is also skill monkey supreme.

Warlock 20 has very good at-will damage (and strong at-will BFC via Repelling Blast), and he also gets access to Demiplane and True Polymorph, letting him join the Wizard and Bard in minionmancy if he wants to. Without Wish he cannot Planar Bind Celestials/Fiends/Fey/Elementals (and he doesn't get Wish-Hallow to do it safely), limiting his choice of minions to certain constructs (the kinds that follow the orders of their creators, like Golems and Helmed Horrors), but he can still do a lot of things.

--

With all that said though, casters are indeed toned down a lot in 5e, especially at the mid-levels, due to significantly-reduced numbers of spell slots and crippling concentration requirements. Some of the higher-level arcane spells (7th and above, and some 6ths) have been buffed up compared to past editions though, which sort of break the balance again at higher levels.

Seriously, spells like Simulacrum, Mirage Arcane, Sympathy/Antipathy, True Polymorph, Shapechange and Wish are way above the power curve. They are also even more powerful compared to their 3.5e/Pathfinder's counterparts (arguable in the case of Shapechange, but 5e Shapechange still lets you access Innate Spellcasting while 3.5e's Shapechange explicitly doesn't let you use SLAs).

(3rds to 5ths summoning spells can also send game balance into whack, like Animate Dead, Animate Objects, Conjure Minor Elementals, Conjure Animals and Conjure Woodland Beings. Polymorph too, especially when Twinned. In general, yes, minionmancy and polymorphs give casters a lot of options and power.)


(spoilered for length)

Well, I did not say it was impossible, just that picking 20 automatically qualifies you to be able to do everything. Especially since Wish has been slightly nerfed, the polymorph line of spells is not quite what it used to be. Sure you can get there, but since the step to 5e there is a very distinct lack of tier 5's, tier 6's and tier 1's. I'd say that the classes (and subclasses) are more or less spread out around tiers 2 to 4 of the old system and party roles are a bit more segregated these days. Druids affect their environment more then any other caster, buffing and/or enabling others is really the cleric's thing now. The biggest toolbox belongs to wizard and sorcerer's are actually quite flexible, despite their incredibly restricted spell list. Only bards seem to have grown exponentially over time and have become the ultimate tricksters and able to tread on other classes their schtick.

That said, I think that for consistent damage the martials really do have it this time. Sure the casters can drop some really terrifying spells, but for consistent damage the martials are actually able to keep up. That doe snot mean they are as useful though, casters still have the upper hand when it comes to applicability to a given situation. But that's more a problem with how spells work then with the classes themselves.

[Cybren]

While it's pretty hard to do it wrong, you can still make dumb decisions like rolling a monk as last spot in a party without caster support or a melee rogue in a party without good frontline.

Most classes can't actually deal well with the CR curve. You'd think that a totem Barbarian is an awesome combat character, but when you run his numbers against the curve he is pretty **** while builds like Bladesingers, Paladins and Sorcerors can hold their own way better across all levels.

Also some classes have huge peaks but really punishing plateaus. At lvl 2, moon druid is a god. At lvl 5 he is crap. He becomes good again at lvl 18. A super optimized moon druid will always be **** between levels 5 and 17.

I think the dumb decision is saying things like "this party needs caster support" or "this party needs a good frontline" and then strong arming someone into playing a character they don't want to play

[Socratov]

I think the dumb decision is saying things like "this party needs caster support" or "this party needs a good frontline" and then strong arming someone into playing a character they don't want to play

in a homebrew world I agree, but with hardcovers and AL games you want someone able to take a hit. You want someone to have the skills and/or knowledges. It's not a hard rule, but it's assumed to be in the party... Even if I agree that strongarming someone into playing something is bad. Especially considering that in 5e there are many ways to skin all kinds of cats...

[Cybren]

in a homebrew world I agree, but with hardcovers and AL games you want someone able to take a hit. You want someone to have the skills and/or knowledges. It's not a hard rule, but it's assumed to be in the party... Even if I agree that strongarming someone into playing something is bad. Especially considering that in 5e there are many ways to skin all kinds of cats...

I don't think any published adventure except maybe the recent ones directly calling back to oldschool stuff, could be so difficult that you couldn't trivially overcome it with any mono-class composition

[Coffee_Dragon]

Neither. If you are to take the role of ranged striker, I at least expect you to be good at shooting bow/arrow, crossbow/not or spells at decent range. If you play a frontline barbarian I expect you to at least have a positive con modifier and a way to be interesting enough to be attacked by enemies...

Well, then it is the former, isn't it? If someone makes a character with less than ideal performance for their level and expected combat (and/or utility) role, you consider them to have failed a part of the social contract.

[Socratov]

I don't think any published adventure except maybe the recent ones directly calling back to oldschool stuff, could be so difficult that you couldn't trivially overcome it with any mono-class composition

I know at least 1 that trivialises stuff through the application of spellslots. So that's half of the classes at a disadvantage, and that's from a budding DM (just ran my first session last weekend playing through In Volo's Wake).

True, it's not impossible, but having someone beefy certainly helps in straight up fights and those that make an encounter easier by using the Spartan Tactic. And it's certainly nice to have someone along to know everything (a good int score with all the knowledges). And then someone to scout, sneak and seek out traps and such. It's not mandatory, but it makes the modules so much easier and less dependant on tactics. That said, some classes are great for specialising. I can see a party of druids, clerics, bards and in some cases wizards to function as a single class party. I'm not too sure about rogues, but I recon they can work. fighters, rangers, monks, paladins, barbarians and sorcerers are, in my humble opinion a bit too specialised. I have no idea where to place the warlock.

[Ruslan]

Some of that happens with the Paladin love. Smites are cool and all, but you realize a level 10 paladin can smite 9 times a day, and that's only if he casts no spell at all during the day. Assuming four 5-round fights, that will be one smite less than every two turns.
You just well full Paladin. You never go full Paladin. You go either Paladin 6/Sorcerer 4, who can Smite 11 times, or Paladin 2/Sorcerer 8, who can Smite 13 times per day AND keep one 5th level slot in reserve just in case the big guns are needed. Or, dip Warlock to give you short-rest-renewable Smite slots. But you never go full Paladin. But, in the unlikely event you did go full Paladin, just be a little patient and wait till level 11 - when you get a +1d8 mini-Smite on each attack for free. That's not bad.


And as another example, you have the Diviner. If you make a Diviner boss as an NPC, he will wreck your party with those two rolls, positive or negative. But the PC used those rolls to determine the first fight, and now he has no subclass features to use on the second fight. "You can make sure the enemy fails their save, it's the awesomest Wizard!" Yeah, but just 1 of the 30 enemies you'll face today, right?
That's why it's a team game. You don't need to bring the Diviner Portent Nuke against Random Bugbear #14. Usually, you'll know which fight is the boss fight, and what requires the Diviner Portent Nuke.


Battlemaster vs. Champion argument? Irrelevant. Mathematically, Battlemaster will do more damage on a generic build, but that's beside the point: Champion's damage boost is on forever, regardless of opportunities and rests and fights. It's a different measuring system.

A 3rd level Champion has an additional crit (usually +2d6 damage) every 20 rounds. That's an average of 0.35 damage per round.
A 3rd level Battlemaster has an additional +4d8 damage (18) per short rest, plus riders. 18/0.35 = 51.4. The Champion can only be better than the Battlemaster if you fight 52 or more rounds of combat per short rest. Since this rarely never happens (it would represent about 10 fights per short rest, who does that?), the Battlemaster is clearly better in this regard.

[skaddix]

You never go fully Paladin unless you open at or close to 20.

[Waazraath]

You never go fully Paladin unless you open at or close to 20.

Dunno. Up to 6 is great. Ancients is great up to 7. At that point, an ASI is very nice for a character, especially for a pally that wants both max cha and max attack stat. At that point, you really want level 3 spells, because the paladin 3 spells are great. And after that, you are really close to the improved divine smite, at 11, which you want, after which you want the ASI. At least, I want.

Tbh, I haven't gotten to that point yet with my pally, but I can very well imagine that continuing and getting higher level spells (and, depending on order, some other juicy abilities) is more attractive than more spellslots and lower level spells known (even though those might include great spells like shield).

Pally 2 / something X is something really different imo, good build but not a paladin in my book.

[Specter]

You just well full Paladin. You never go full Paladin. You go either Paladin 6/Sorcerer 4, who can Smite 11 times, or Paladin 2/Sorcerer 8, who can Smite 13 times per day AND keep one 5th level slot in reserve just in case the big guns are needed. Or, dip Warlock to give you short-rest-renewable Smite slots. But you never go full Paladin. But, in the unlikely event you did go full Paladin, just be a little patient and wait till level 11 - when you get a +1d8 mini-Smite on each attack for free. That's not bad.

That's why it's a team game. You don't need to bring the Diviner Portent Nuke against Random Bugbear #14. Usually, you'll know which fight is the boss fight, and what requires the Diviner Portent Nuke.

A 3rd level Champion has an additional crit (usually +2d6 damage) every 20 rounds. That's an average of 0.35 damage per round.
A 3rd level Battlemaster has an additional +4d8 damage (18) per short rest, plus riders. 18/0.35 = 51.4. The Champion can only be better than the Battlemaster if you fight 52 or more rounds of combat per short rest. Since this rarely never happens (it would represent about 10 fights per short rest, who does that?), the Battlemaster is clearly better in this regard.

- If you're thinking only about long-rest resources, sure, go for a caster multiclass. But just Aura of Courage and Improved Divine Smite (that are always on) are enough to disagree with your premise.

- When you have 8hp and that bigbear is about to slay you, there's no gambling at all, you give him that 2. Same when your friend needs to guarantee a hit in that mid-dungeon fight to finish it. Ration it out too much and you might not see the boss's face, that's the whole point of this thread.

- At level 3 they do more damage, sure. But later on Champs will get more permanent abilities, and the BM will just improve his dice a bit. If you're out of dice, you're out of dice, and sometimes there will be a fight after that. It happens.

[Ruslan]

- If you're thinking only about long-rest resources, sure, go for a caster multiclass. But just Aura of Courage and Improved Divine Smite (that are always on) are enough to disagree with your premise.And yet your example was at level 10, so no Improved Divine Smite.


- When you have 8hp and that bigbear is about to slay you, there's no gambling at all, you give him that 2.
That was my point exactly. You use it when it matters. Also, it's unlikely you will constantly face the threat of being slain by random bugbear #14. A threat of being slain on the spot is just not a thing that happens in every encounter - if it does, you're probably not fighting much more than 1-2 encounters per day...


- At level 3 they do more damage, sure. But later on Champs will get more permanent abilities, and the BM will just improve his dice a bit. If you're out of dice, you're out of dice, and sometimes there will be a fight after that. It happens.
Even when the Champion would up his critical range to 18-20, and have 4 attacks, it still comes up short compared to the Battlemaster.

2 combats per short rest
5 rounds per combat
4 attacks per round
= 40 attacks per short rest
4 of those attacks, on average, are changed from regular hits into crits, therefore +4x2d6 damage = +8d6 damage = +28 damage per Short Rest

The Battlemaster, on the other hand, gets 6d12 Superiority dice per short rest, which is +39 damage plus riders.

Battlemaster (as much as he truly does lose steam on high levels) is better than the Champion on any level, unless your group fights a truly inordinate amount of encounters.

[GoodbyeSoberDay]

It's a shame the DM has to contrive a way for a day to include 6-8 fights in a single day for the game to be balanced. Not every adventuring day is a dungeon crawl, and not every dungeon crawl can sensibly include wandering monster mechanics (or even 6-8 distinct groups of enemies for that matter). Another issue: Shouldn't PCs be striving for ways to avoid these fights? It seems reasonable IC, and that's partly what those non-combat-pillar abilities are all about. I hope that doesn't mean the DM is forced to neuter those non-combat-pillar abilities just to enforce the idea that every adventuring day must be Stalingrad.

But honestly, even with 6-8 fights, I'd still rather force the most important enemy to fail the save, or kill the scariest baddie a round or two early, than do a bit better in the lower-stakes battles of attrition leading up to that point.

[Rhedyn]

And yet your example was at level 10, so no Improved Divine Smite.

That was my point exactly. You use it when it matters. Also, it's unlikely you will constantly face the threat of being slain by random bugbear #14. A threat of being slain on the spot is just not a thing that happens in every encounter - if it does, you're probably not fighting much more than 1-2 encounters per day...

Even when the Champion would up his critical range to 18-20, and have 4 attacks, it still comes up short compared to the Battlemaster.

2 combats per short rest
5 rounds per combat
4 attacks per round
= 40 attacks per short rest
4 of those attacks, on average, are changed from regular hits into crits, therefore +4x2d6 damage = +8d6 damage = +28 damage per Short Rest

The Battlemaster, on the other hand, gets 6d12 Superiority dice per short rest, which is +39 damage plus riders.

Battlemaster (as much as he truly does lose steam on high levels) is better than the Champion on any level, unless your group fights a truly inordinate amount of encounters.
You forget that with Great Weapon Master, crits trigger the bonus action extra attack.
So that's +76 total damage.

Battlemaster's can trip easier with allows for better use of the GWM -5/+10 feature because you get advantage on prone foes.

[Ruslan]

You forget that with Great Weapon Master, crits trigger the bonus action extra attack.
So that's +76 total damage.

Battlemaster's can trip easier with allows for better use of the GWM -5/+10 feature because you get advantage on prone foes.

You're right, if we put GWM into the mix, Champions get more Bonus Action attacks, but OTOH, Battlemasters can make much better use of GWM's -5/+10 than Champions due to Precision Strike and tripping. So it looks like a wash - adding GWM into the mix doesn't particularly favor either side.

[Specter]

And yet your example was at level 10, so no Improved Divine Smite.

That was my point exactly. You use it when it matters. Also, it's unlikely you will constantly face the threat of being slain by random bugbear #14. A threat of being slain on the spot is just not a thing that happens in every encounter - if it does, you're probably not fighting much more than 1-2 encounters per day...

Even when the Champion would up his critical range to 18-20, and have 4 attacks, it still comes up short compared to the Battlemaster.

2 combats per short rest
5 rounds per combat
4 attacks per round
= 40 attacks per short rest
4 of those attacks, on average, are changed from regular hits into crits, therefore +4x2d6 damage = +8d6 damage = +28 damage per Short Rest

The Battlemaster, on the other hand, gets 6d12 Superiority dice per short rest, which is +39 damage plus riders.

Battlemaster (as much as he truly does lose steam on high levels) is better than the Champion on any level, unless your group fights a truly inordinate amount of encounters.

- My example was at level 10, but you said 'you never go full pally', not 'you never take more pally levels before level 10'.
- Ok, 'slain' was a bad word. But as a Wizard with low HP and low AC, the threat of sudden 0hp is very much present.
- Let's consider damage first, and the rest later. This raw damage would benefit Battlemaster if we just consider a block of wood with 10000hp, but it doesn't reflect the reality of the game. A champion benefits from advantage more than Battlemaster, because they have a 19% chance of critting with it (or a whopping 27.75% after level 15). A Champion gets to use his class ability on every extra attack he gets, like twf, xbow expert and Haste. And of course, Action Surge. I believe these two factors help even things out between those subclasses.

And even if they don't, Champ still has +1AC on the BM, and later on he can heal up to half his HP on his own. So that should be added to any resistance math as well.

[joaber]

You forget that with Great Weapon Master, crits trigger the bonus action extra attack.
So that's +76 total damage.

Battlemaster's can trip easier with allows for better use of the GWM -5/+10 feature because you get advantage on prone foes.

trip is a waste, except in first attack of action surge, but you can have many other ways to get advantage with your party at high level.

Ripose means extra attack
precision strike turn a miss into a hit.

[Rhedyn]

trip is a waste, except in first attack of action surge, but you can have many other ways to get advantage with your party at high level.

Ripose means extra attack
precision strike turn a miss into a hit.

In such a group, the Champion would win out. Unless the battlemaster has polearm master

[PeteNutButter]

- Let's consider damage first, and the rest later. This raw damage would benefit Battlemaster if we just consider a block of wood with 10000hp, but it doesn't reflect the reality of the game. A champion benefits from advantage more than Battlemaster, because they have a 19% chance of critting with it (or a whopping 27.75% after level 15). A Champion gets to use his class ability on every extra attack he gets, like twf, xbow expert and Haste. And of course, Action Surge. I believe these two factors help even things out between those subclasses.

And even if they don't, Champ still has +1AC on the BM, and later on he can heal up to half his HP on his own. So that should be added to any resistance math as well.

The 10000 hp block of wood argument is actually an argument against champion, because while the champion in some circumstances might do more damage than a BM in the long run it is all at the mercy of RNG. Crits don't just happen when you need them. BMs can use precision attack when they need to hit, or use a riposte when they want an extra attack. It's the time value of money damage that will always make the BM better. It's when you need it, not when you hope you get it.

[CaptainSarathai]

Another thing that optimizers seem to forget about building playable characters, is leveling them up.
If you're playing from Lvl1, building a Sorcadin becomes a very painful experience. I'm building a very specialized Fighter/Warlock, and have a similar feeling - the build doesn't hit the sweetspot until lvl8+. Fortunately for me, though, I was able to work out how I'd break up my levels and what choices I'd make so that the character could grow organically from 1-8+.

[rooneg]

Another thing that optimizers seem to forget about building playable characters, is leveling them up.
If you're playing from Lvl1, building a Sorcadin becomes a very painful experience. I'm building a very specialized Fighter/Warlock, and have a similar feeling - the build doesn't hit the sweetspot until lvl8+. Fortunately for me, though, I was able to work out how I'd break up my levels and what choices I'd make so that the character could grow organically from 1-8+.

I agree, this is a key thing to keep in mind that a lot of theorycrafted builds ignore. It's not about the end point, it's about the path from where you'll start playing the character to where the campaign will end up, and how much fun you'll have across the entire path from start to finish.

[Rhedyn]

Yeah. Idk how Barbars get polearm master and GWM at a relevant level without rolled (inflated) stats.

But the most optimized thing you can do is play a moon druid well and that works right out of the gate.

[rooneg]

Yeah. Idk how Barbars get polearm master and GWM at a relevant level without rolled (inflated) stats.

But the most optimized thing you can do is play a moon druid well and that works right out of the gate.

Eh, moon druids are stupidly strong at level 2 and come back down to earth at level 5 or so. I thought they were busted when I'd only played with one in the party during T1 games, but now that I've seen them in T2 games I don't think they're a problem.

[Specter]

Another thing that optimizers seem to forget about building playable characters, is leveling them up.
If you're playing from Lvl1, building a Sorcadin becomes a very painful experience. I'm building a very specialized Fighter/Warlock, and have a similar feeling - the build doesn't hit the sweetspot until lvl8+. Fortunately for me, though, I was able to work out how I'd break up my levels and what choices I'd make so that the character could grow organically from 1-8+.

That definitely deserves a thread of its own.

[Ruslan]

- My example was at level 10, but you said 'you never go full pally', not 'you never take more pally levels before level 10'.
I was parodying the "never go full retard" speech from Tropic Thunder. Don't read it too literally.

[jaappleton]

That definitely deserves a thread of its own.

100000% agreed.

Yes, certain things synergies incredibly well at certain points. But first, you have to live long enough to get there. And secondly, you're often quite subpar until it finally clicks together.

[Rhedyn]

Eh, moon druids are stupidly strong at level 2 and come back down to earth at level 5 or so. I thought they were busted when I'd only played with one in the party during T1 games, but now that I've seen them in T2 games I don't think they're a problem.
You are mistaking the one ability for the class. Many moons druids fall into the trap and just being a beast when they are actually full casters with none of the normal vulnerabilities of being a caster.

[Asmotherion]

Another thing that optimizers seem to forget about building playable characters, is leveling them up.
If you're playing from Lvl1, building a Sorcadin becomes a very painful experience. I'm building a very specialized Fighter/Warlock, and have a similar feeling - the build doesn't hit the sweetspot until lvl8+. Fortunately for me, though, I was able to work out how I'd break up my levels and what choices I'd make so that the character could grow organically from 1-8+.

This is why I have my own, personal optimisation "phylosophy".

This phylosophy has 4 parts:

1) Even if I start at a higher level (my group usually starts at 3rd level), I could have enjoyed my character from the very first level. This is why, for example, in order to get Con Saves on my Caster, I prefear to Dip Sorcerer than Fighter, eventhough Fighter gets better defences. I want my Caster to be a Caster his whole life, not turn into one latter on.

2) Most important of all: The basic Chassis for the build should be ready at the lowest level possible. By level 3, you should already have a basic idea of what your build should look like. In my case, as I always play an Eldritch Blaster (it's more of a theme for my character, than an optimisation standpoint really), he can Hex and apply Agonising and Repelling Blast by level 3. Anything he gains afterwards, I view it as a bonus to this Basic Chasis, rather than actually building my character around it. From that point on, my character's Theme is ready, and anything I may level up as is character development. I am not assuming how my character will be at that level, rather than how he is, and what will benefit him the most on his next level.

3) I build my character as 20 ceparate character sheets... ok, that's not always conveniant, but I at the very least build my character at levels 3, 5, 7, 11, 15, 17 and 20. This way, I have a better overview of my character, I know what he can or can't do at each level. I then ask the following question to myself: "At level X, what will be more usefull for this character? Ability 1 from class Y or Ability 2 from class Z?" I do that, level by level, choosing my level progression based on that concept. This way, to fit my character in game, if I know I am getting a rogue level the next time I level up, I know I'll be playing my character more stealthyly and maybe develop an interest in theft jobs, or assasination contracts. If I'm getting a Fighter level, I'll develop an interest in weaponry and martial techniques, probably train with the Party's Fighter or Barbarian a bit before leveling up and so on. This way, the multiclassing wears on smoothly on my character, instead of say, one day being a spellcaster with no idea of how to use a martial weapon, wile the very next day I magically am as proficient as a pro in wielding Longswords and Hand Crossbows.

4) I consult with my DM about what level the campain will attain. If I've planed my character for level 20 (especially true with a Caster, were I wouldn't want to miss Wish), but the Campain ends at 15, I may have had planed my character diferently, should I have known that. In case the Campain continues afterwards (a DM cannot always be sure a campain will survive long enough or, on the other hand, the campain may allow for more in-depth play, so the DM might improvise a Continuation), I ask my DM for retraining certain levels, reminding him I had my character planed for a specific level. My DM usually agrees with this. The best way to optimise is always consulting with your DM.

Overall, I see my character as what he is at level 3. Even a Sorcerer 1/Warlock 2/Barbarian 17, is more of a Warlock than a Barbarian in my eyes, as he was a Warlock by level 3, wile he developed martial prowess and endurance latter on in his life.

[dejarnjc]

You are mistaking the one ability for the class. Many moons druids fall into the trap and just being a beast when they are actually full casters with none of the normal vulnerabilities of being a caster.

I dunno, I think he's got it's right. Past level 5, wildshape is mostly good for just being a HP sponge. I rock a high level druid in a long running campaign so I have some personal experience with this. Moon druids get their next power boost at level 10 which is good up until about level 11 when all the other classes get big boosts as well. At higher levels, I view wildshape as more a "get out of jail free" card as even when things start getting dicey, I can always turn into an Air Elemental and GTFO or turn into an Earth Elemental and take a few shots for the team while they rally. Useful? Hell yes. More useful than an additional 6th level spell slot each day and an expanded list of spells prepared? Debatable. I'd say they are roughly equal personally.

[Pex]

Yeah. Idk how Barbars get polearm master and GWM at a relevant level without rolled (inflated) stats.


With Point Buy use Variant Human. 16 ST 14 DX 16 CO and Polearm Master at level 1. ST 18 at level 4. Great Weapon Master level 8. Increase ST and CO at later levels. IN, WI, and CH are garbage, but that's Point Buy. Some players really don't mind or care about having two 8's or even three.

[Socratov]

With Point Buy use Variant Human. 16 ST 14 DX 16 CO and Polearm Master at level 1. ST 18 at level 4. Great Weapon Master level 8. Increase ST and CO at later levels. IN, WI, and CH are garbage, but that's Point Buy. Some players really don't mind or care about having two 8's or even three.

Gotta be bad at something.

You see, it's not fun being superman. Being an overglorified mary-sue who always succeeds and never fails. Never misses.

That eliminates the challenge, the drama, does not facilitate good storytelling. However, that does not mean that being weak makes for good storytelling. If you are to be a hero or someone making his living from doing stuff so dangerous that ordinary people won't touch it with a 10' pole, you had better be competent in something. Else you are basically trying to string along Deus-Ex machinas to stay alive and adventuring.

the sweet spot is in the middle:

very god at one thing, somewhat competent at others, not so great at yet another bunch of stuff and really bad at one thing. This invites niches for people to fill (and create teamwork and synergy) and when forced to do something you suck at tension and drama. While being dependable at others. And if you fail what you are really good at, well, that's just comedy knocking on the door.

[Waazraath]

I agree, this is a key thing to keep in mind that a lot of theorycrafted builds ignore. It's not about the end point, it's about the path from where you'll start playing the character to where the campaign will end up, and how much fun you'll have across the entire path from start to finish.

Very, very true. I always build for a character that is fun / good (enough) at all levels. If he lags behind at 1 or 2 levels, before picking up again, fair enough, but if you need to wait 15 gaming sessions before you get a nice new trick, it isn't worth it imo.

[Rhedyn]

I dunno, I think he's got it's right. Past level 5, wildshape is mostly good for just being a HP sponge. I rock a high level druid in a long running campaign so I have some personal experience with this. Moon druids get their next power boost at level 10 which is good up until about level 11 when all the other classes get big boosts as well. At higher levels, I view wildshape as more a "get out of jail free" card as even when things start getting dicey, I can always turn into an Air Elemental and GTFO or turn into an Earth Elemental and take a few shots for the team while they rally. Useful? Hell yes. More useful than an additional 6th level spell slot each day and an expanded list of spells prepared? Debatable. I'd say they are roughly equal personally.

HP sponge is a powerful tool in 5e if you set up the situation to use it. But the main draw of being a druid is the full casting, the wildshape just lets you ignore low spell slots at low levels and the uppity melee monster from taking you out. Which basically means you have little to no weaknesses as a moon druid in exchange for a slot and some useful optional spells.

[CaptainSarathai]

That definitely deserves a thread of its own.


100000% agreed.

Yes, certain things synergies incredibly well at certain points. But first, you have to live long enough to get there. And secondly, you're often quite subpar until it finally clicks together.

What, the build itself, or the idea of low-level "online" multiclassing?
I've thought about doing a sort of "BladeLock guide" at different points. I just can't work out formatting, since there are a few Multiclass options that lead to very different choices down the line.

[Specter]

What, the build itself, or the idea of low-level "online" multiclassing?
I've thought about doing a sort of "BladeLock guide" at different points. I just can't work out formatting, since there are a few Multiclass options that lead to very different choices down the line.

The fact that a good multiclass at high levels may not be a good one in lower tiers.