Balance vs 3.5 [Archive] - Giant in the Playground Forums

H_H_F_F

2022-07-24, 07:23 AM

Disclaimer: this is my opinion as someone who's still just a beginner in actually playing and DMing 5E, but I know the rules very well and I certainly know 3.5 very well. Still, take everything I say with a grain of salt.

To me, balance does not seem better or worse, it's... different. In my opinion, It's better for low-op parties, about the same for mid-op parties, and worse for high-op parties.

That's because in general, optimization ceilings dropped and floors rose, and for martials especially - casters are still far more similar to their 3.5 equivalents than martials are.

We'll look at a fighter and a sorcerer.

In 3.5 an inexperienced player might want to make a "tough, self sufficient guy who can withstand anything and is really lethal with a longsword", and therefore take touhhness, self sufficient, endurance and weapon focus (longsword), absolutely trashing their character in the process.

Here, trap options for martials are gone, but casters still have them. A low op fighter will never be completely dead weight like they are in 3.5, but a low-op sorcerer might still think that flame blade and jump sound awesome, as do gust and control flame, and be utterly useless.

On the other hand "optimizing" and "minmaxing" a martial in 5e consists mostly of having your priorities straight with ability-score and taking pretty obviiously useful feats, getting around double the average DPR of the first-time player fighter, and that's if we're being generous. Compare and contrast to how far you can push martials in 3.5 when you know what you're doing. Ten low op fighters of level 20 will have far less impact than one ubercharger.

Casters cannot be pushed to 3.5 lengths, but a caster playing tactically and picking the right spells can still eliminate "appropriate" encounters in one round in mid levels, and break the world in higher ones.

TL;DR: martial-caster difference still exists, but everyone got their ceilings and floors closer together, martials much moreso than casters. That means casual groups will fell more balanced, and optimized groups less so.

They aren't weak: a party of 4 optimized archers can drop the Tarrasque before the monster gets a chance to act, by raw damage alone

Small not: That's also because the Tarrasque sucks even worse in 5E than in 3.5, and 5E describes it as being CR 30, which makes it even more egregious.

OldTrees1

2022-07-24, 08:59 AM

A couple small changes:
1) Full Attack is now an Action and has no iterative penalty.
2) Encounters were made easier and damage is an efficient strategy
3) Ability checks don't really improve as you level and have a lot of RNG. Expect the fighter to pass some arcana check the wizard fails.
4) Lots of scary spells were nerfed or not added. Concentration was added to more spells. You can only have 1 concentration spell active and it can be disrupted by damage.
5) Tier 1-2Low level (1-10) characters have better out of combat features.
Edit: Changed the language for better clarity. See H_H_F_F's post for further elaboration

H_H_F_F

2022-07-24, 09:32 AM

Concentration was added to more spells. You can only have 1 concentration spell active and it can be disrupted by damage.
5) Tier 1-2 characters have better out of combat features.
Just two small reminders/clarifications, since the op is coming from 3.5:

Concentration as it existed in 3.5 is gone. There are a couple of spells that require your action every turn to be maintained, but those are special cases, divorced from the core rule of concentration. 5E's concentration is a completely different mechanic, and works as OldTrees1 details.

"Tiers" in 5E references groupings of levels, not classes. "Tier 1" isn't wizards, clerics and druids, it's just playing between levels 1-5.

Waazraath

2022-07-24, 02:27 PM

So, I've started running 5E due to my sister's boyfriend getting the Starter Set for Christmas, and I'm a little confused.

See, every discussion I see suggests that they've improved balance between classes compared to 3.5e (the last edition I had significant experience with), but everything looks so similar (if thankfully streamlined in many cases) that I'm having trouble seeing the difference.

I don't want to be making major mistakes by misjudging the differences in power levels as the players get more experienced -my expectation from older editions, for example, is that you have to give the Fighter special attention because he's so much weaker than the casters, but I'm seeing lots of people saying that's no longer true. We're running the adventure from the starter set for now, but if I start designing my own stuff as is customary, this is something I need to know.

To start with: it depends on your campaign. In a straight out dungeon crawl, balance is nigh perfect between the classes (to be honest, balance between subclasses has become a bigger problem over the years, with a subclass like the Champion staying behind while the already more powerful Battle Master got power ups, and new released subclasses like Rune Knight were also higher on the power curve).

If you play a game with lots of (or mostly) out of combat encounters, classes without 'buttons' to push in social or exploration encounters can feel a bit left behind (though stuff like rogues or BM fighters with skill enhancing manevuers are by all means still viable).

In my experience, but I'm on thin ice here and possibly will get some flak for saying this, the folks arguing caster superiority is still a thing like it was in 3.5, are running the game with very specific assumptions that are sometimes not RAW, or something which I consider flawed world building. To give some examples: I've seen people argue that the player gets to choose the summons of the 'conjure' line spells (they don't, confirmed by sage advice), argue that a spell that targets a single square actuallly can target 5 squares due to rotating it on the battle mat, argue that casters get more money between adventures "cause they can use their spells to do so", consider invisibility a button one can push to solve a stealth encounter (while it only gives advantage) or charm a button one can push to solve a social encounter (instead of something that has immediate repercussions when one starts casting, or afterwards when the encounter is resolved and somebody realized he's been mind-played). An at the same time, there are people who seem to get every wizard spell on the lists they want (instead of only a few per level and the rest needs to be found), and can have any items they want (even the really obscure ones). And I've seen a lot of folks playing 5 minute adventuring days, which strongly favors long rest depending classes. Thus I also have the impression some of it is favoritism, about groups liking to play casters and thus giving the casters all the toys and refusing to pace the game in the way intended (and then complaining about balance). *shrug* Make of it what you will, and see for yourself.

Back to the OP: I wrote a longer threat on how one of my own group experiences balance in D&D 5e, you can find it here: https://forums.giantitp.com/showthread.php?637157-Experiences-from-late-tier-2-early-tier-3

It's a bout mid to late game, and if balance still holds there (it does!), it's fine imo since over 90% of the games end there, or won't get that high in the first place. I have played only a few games above these levels, but unless conciously breaking the game (infinite simulacrum nonsense) I feal balance still holds there - can't be too sure though.

Telok

2022-07-24, 02:59 PM

See, every discussion I see suggests that they've improved balance between classes compared to 3.5e (the last edition I had significant experience with), but everything looks so similar (if thankfully streamlined in many cases) that I'm having trouble seeing the difference.

I don't want to be making major mistakes by misjudging the differences in power levels as the players get more experienced -my expectation from older editions

Its a new & different game called D&D again. The differences between this one and the previous versions are, in my opinion, thus:

If the solution is hit point damage then everything is "balanced". If ability check DCs stay 90% in the 10-15 range everything is "balanced". If you have 4-6 short easy combats per day with a short rests every 2-3 fights everything is "balanced".

Once you go past DC 15 checks & non-"kill it with melee damage" solutiins you're back to casters using spells to do stuff while the others hope that lifting heavy stuff or rolling high on a d20 lets them be useful. If you don't stick with the "assumed" encounter pacing you either go back to 5 minute adventuring days or 4e style slogs where everone just pushes auto-attack until meat bag monsters run out of big piles of hit points.

What won't change, no matter your encounter pacing, is as monster cr increases their ability save DCs increase and pc saves generally don't increase. Not having a paladin boosting saves will likely hose any 10 int, +0, melee characters every time they face DC 17 int saves from illithids & similar stuff. You also need to decide how to handle gold & magic items. By original default there's pretty much nothing to spend money on but tons of common healing potions (and even that's debatable) once people have bought plate armor and elephants, and if you didn't drop enough magic weapons the melee get pretty screwed over on occasion.

KorvinStarmast

2022-07-24, 03:12 PM

PhoenixPhyre

2022-07-24, 03:59 PM

For the OP:
My suggestion to you is to forget whatever you know about 3rd edition and embrace this new one, and learn it on its own merits (and demerits).

In my own experience, it wasn't until I did that and let go of my previous edition assumptions that I began to enjoy it.

Very much agree. One of the most deceptive things is that lots of things look (or are named) the same, but they're very much different under the hood. Especially the assumptions about how they'd be used. One big example is Ability (not Skill) checks. 3e expected you to roll for just about everything (adding Take 10 and Take 20 to alleviate this on the player side), and assumed that "not trained" meant incompetent. It also put Skills first. You roll a Knowledge: Arcana check. 5e assumes that the DM will only call for checks when
a) both failure and success are fictionally plausible AND interesting. That latter bit is important. And no, in many cases, spending 1 minute vs 1 action or losing 1d6 HP is not interesting. Except when it is.
b) the chance of success sits somewhere around 50% (+10%, - 45%). Note the asymmetry here--the assumption is that something that will succeed 60+% of the time isn't usually worth rolling for. Just give it to them. On the flip side, if something has only a 5% chance of success (basically "on a lucky break"), let them try. But if something cannot be done or doesn't make sense to fail, don't roll.

In addition, there is an autosuccess by taking more time option--10x as long if the thing can be done at all.

And 5e Ability Checks are ability first, and very few are gated. Everyone's assumed to be at least marginally competent (unless they have a major ability score penalty) at just about every adventuring task. Completely ignorant barbarians and helplessly-weak wizards just aren't appropriate 5e characters (by default, as always, you're free to adjust whatever you wish). As are "the world's foremost expert at X who should never fail at X". DCs range between 10 and 20 with exceptional cases at 5, 25, or (even more rarely) 30. And no normal DC above 30. Because, for the most part, having proficiency is supposed to be a flat bonus, not a gate. Someone with a +5 DEX and someone with a +2 DEX and +3 proficiency in Dexterity (Stealth) checks are identical, as far as the system is concerned about Dexterity (Stealth) checks. If you don't have proficiency, you still (by default) get to attempt the check. And it's perfectly normal (and expected) to call for checks where any of
1) no source of proficiency (skill, tool, weapon, armor, language, or other) applies[1]. A straight Intelligence check is fairly normal.
2) one and only one source of proficiency applies (you can't, by default substitute Performance proficiency for Stealth proficiency if you're trying to ambush someone)
3) multiple sources may apply, and the player can choose which one to apply: An Intelligence (Nature OR Arcana OR Religion) check to know something about a particular monster, for instance)

And it's expected that players can request to use something other than stated:
DM: Ok, I'll need an Intelligence (History) check for that.
Player: Can I use Religion because it's <explanation>
DM: <if it's reasonable and not just obvious munchkinry, allow it, or so recommends the DMG>.

5e generally requires a lot more hands-on, in-play adjudication. And that's by design. Don't shy away from it, don't try to shuffle that onto the rules. Just make a decision and keep playing. If it was the wrong decision, discuss and revisit after the session (for cases like that going forward).

[1] unless you have a class feature such as the Bard's Jack of All Trades that says otherwise

5eNeedsDarksun

2022-07-24, 04:31 PM

MrStabby

2022-07-24, 08:00 PM

It has now been a LONG time since playing 3.5 so there may be some elements of forgetting here.

I think that the level at which casters can become problematic is higher, and the game has put in some rules to manage the worst excesses of spells in 3rd edition. Concentration, magic resistance and legendary saves all act as a bit of a cap. The fewer spells slots available also narrows the field a little.

Indeed, at low levels when casters are more capped in spells known/prepared and spell slots there is a serious advantage to a lot of martial classes.

As others say there is a MASSIVE difference between optimised and unoptimised characters (though that was true in 3rd edition). A caster chosing all the best spells is likely to be pretty good but the power level drops off in a big way with just a few suboptimal choices.

My takeaway is never compare classes but instead compare characters. Its easy to have two warlocks and one dominate fights and the other be a bit-part-player in the campaign. Its possible to have a fighter demolish encounters and another fighter to just be a bit of a sideline. Optimal feats, stat allocations, spells, weapon choices and party composition can make huge differences in character strength. This all makes it hard to give real general purpose advace on what you are likely to face in terms of character strength.

As a DM you have a lot of tools to balance things as well:

Spacing, lighting, enemy composition, busyness of schedule, enemy magic items, enemy spells used, tactics and so one can grealy favour some characters over others - broadly you have a lot of tools to keep things even.

5eNeedsDarksun

2022-07-24, 08:41 PM

I think the other thing that doesn't get talked about much on threads is how much in game decision making by players impacts success or failure. Knowing which lever to pull and when can turn a very difficult encounter into a very easy one. Player skill and experience informs how to manage resources and when to use stealth, a divination spell or ability, a buff spell, etc. Poor decisions can turn the most optimized character into an ineffective one.

kazaryu

2022-07-24, 09:13 PM

Gnoman

2022-07-24, 10:38 PM

The concentration thing is something I didn't notice, but even the cantrips seem to be not far behind the fighter in damage from a skim.

PhoenixPhyre

2022-07-24, 10:49 PM

The concentration thing is something I didn't notice, but even the cantrips seem to be not far behind the fighter in damage from a skim.

Unless you're a warlock with Eldritch Blast and Agonizing Blast, your average cantrip-spam comes in at about half of a Rogue Equivalent Damage[1] (RED) unit, which is a relatively generous lower threshold for acceptable damage (for the damage focused types). Most martials, including SnB Champion fighters (the weakest of the straight martials for damage) come in a bit above (anywhere in the range of 1.1 to 1.5 RED). And EB/AB spam only clocks in at 0.9 RED.

So no, cantrips aren't anywhere near a martial who has optimized even in the slightest. For comparison, a greatsword-wielding, no feat champion deals 1.23 RED and a glaive-wielding PAM/GWM champion fighter (near the top of the simple DPR focused martials, but not even close to the top of all martials) is at ~1.91 RED.

All numbers post-accuracy.

[1] the damage dealt by a shortbow-wielding rogue who always gets Sneak Attack but never has advantage.[2]
[2] including advantage 100% of the time deals 1.43 RED.

kazaryu

2022-07-24, 10:58 PM

The concentration thing is something I didn't notice, but even the cantrips seem to be not far behind the fighter in damage from a skim.

cantrips don't come close to basic attack damage until level 11 unless you're one of the few subclasses that gets boosts to cantrip damage.

sure you can get the same (ish) damge dice. (1d10/1d12) but you don't get the modifier. which can almost double the attacks damage once you get your first ASI. 1d12=6.5 damge 1d12+str=9.5-11.5 depending on str.

and if you instead go sword and board, with the dueling fighting style you have hte same scaling.

at level 5 cantrips go up to 2d10/2d12...but then fighters (all martials except rogues, actually) get extra attack. so now its 2d12=13 vs 2d12+2xstr=21-23 depending on str.

fighters specifically never get caught up by cantrip scaling except at level 17-19, and even then they're not actually caught up, they just don't pull further ahead. at levle 11 fighter gets a 3rd attack, at the same time that cantrips get their 3rd die. so 3d12=18.5 vs 3d12+3xstr=33.5. then at 17 cantrips go up again so 4d12=26 vs 33.5. whereas fighters don't get their 4th attack until lvl 20. (4d12+4xstr=46).

and thats just their total at-will damage and ignores basically all the other features they get. most fighter subclasses get additional ways to augment their attacks. and all fighters can either directly or indirectly improve their damage via their fighting style choice. and lastly, and significantly, fighters get a feature at level 2 called action surge. that allows them to (once per short rest) take an additional action during their turn. which allows for some devastating novas. essentially, a fighter can get 2 turns worth of damage in a single turn.

with that said...you do mention the starter set, if thats what you're going on then its possible you're only seeing the champion fighter. which is by far the least impactful subclass. However, the starter set, it seems, only goes up to level 5? if thats true, then its at those levels that the caster/martial divide is smallest anyway. cantrips or only slightly worse than attacks. but spell slot spells tend to only be slightly better to (and are also heavily limited).

Psyren

2022-07-25, 12:40 PM

Gnoman

2022-07-25, 07:41 PM

with that said...you do mention the starter set, if thats what you're going on then its possible you're only seeing the champion fighter. which is by far the least impactful subclass. However, the starter set, it seems, only goes up to level 5? if thats true, then its at those levels that the caster/martial divide is smallest anyway. cantrips or only slightly worse than attacks. but spell slot spells tend to only be slightly better to (and are also heavily limited).

That's true - I haven't gotten to the store to pick up the full rulebook yet, and we've only gotten one session in under the current rules. Which was a bit rough because the included adventure seems kind of mean to newbies.

Zuras

2022-07-25, 10:11 PM

One thing to note about class balance in 5e is how heavily it is predicated on standard array or point buy stats. Classes that rely heavily on multiple attributes can end up significantly stronger if you roll for stats and someone gets lucky.

Paladins in particular get out of hand quickly that way, as either good rolls or access to stat boosting items can allow high STR, CHA and CON simultaneously and not being forced to choose between stats and feats.

In actual play, I haven’t seen any major imbalances other than that they still keep Simulacrum on the spell list. Most of the classes and subclasses are pretty good, except for the trap ones that people rightly complain about (looking at you, Purple Dragon Knight).

I’ve DMed several optimizer friendly 5e campaigns (half the players DMed other tables other nights and played their optimized murderhoboes to relax) and every class and party role had options strong enough to hold its own.

The only problems I’ve personally had with class balance at my tables are 1) if two players want to play the same party role, the player with system mastery needs to throttle it back to give player B a chance to shine and 2) a heavy armor melee fighter in an otherwise stealthy & ranged party will end up feeling bad a lot—either they don’t have much to do, they're stuck fighting alone in melee while everyone sensible holds back, or they’re constantly ruining the party’s ambushes with their terrible stealth rolls.

furby076

2022-07-25, 10:32 PM

Balance is easily taken care of with a thoughtful dm and players. When i was in pathfinder (3.5) in eberron, it was a power campaign that would make most of the DMs here faint...and my DM gave us difficult/deadly encounters ONLY using core PHB, MM material (DM Powerplay: Give your NPCs 1 level of barb and you just upped their power level a LOT...potions also).

The thing that 5e took away is the sheer amount of extra material. This far into 3.5 and there were many dozens of official material and a lot of things to keep track of. Plain old core fighter...4 attacks a round not a problem. Then add prestigate classes, weapons of speed, two weapon fighting and additional feats...and now how would you like to have 16 attacks per round. Yea...16 attacks.

So, it's a lot to manage for a new player....IF said new player went into 3.5 with every book sitting on a table waiting for them. DONT DO THAT. If you are new, start with phb. Get comfy with it, then slowly introduce new material.

3.5 = more to manage... IF you want more to manage

Monster Manuel

2022-07-26, 11:55 AM

One key element of 5e balance that I haven't seen mentioned here, yet, is the idea of Bounded Accuracy.

This is one of the KEY differences between 3.x and 5e. The idea is that the bonuses you get over time are relatively minimal, but the targets you need to hit remain lower as well...in 3.5, even your weak BAB or save bonus is going to go up to +10 by level 20. In 5e, your Proficiency Bonus maxes out at a+6, and that only applies to the attacks and saves in which you have Proficiency. If you;re not proficient in Dex saves, and you have a 14 Dex, your save will sit at a +2 for your entire career. A dude in plate mail and shield, with an AC of 20 is super hard to hit at level 1. You're still going to miss them some of the time at level 20.

Maybe you've managed a +13 to attack, but that means more when you're fighting something with an AC that maxes out at 25 (in 5e terms, really high). That poor schmuck with a +2 dex save at level 20 isn't in as bad a place when you consider they might only be rolling against a save DC of 16. In 3e, you get huge bonuses, but all of the target numbers go up so high that you need them. In 3.x, you may have a +37 to hit, but you're fighting something with an AC of 52, you're still only hitting on a 15 or better, unless you stack some situational modifiers on your roll.

The idea is that game content stays relevant for longer. A band of 5 goblins ambushing the party with shortbows is still going to lose against a level 7 party, but it's not a meaningless encounter. In 3.x, the same bunch of goblins may as well not even exist.

Chaos Jackal

2022-07-26, 12:55 PM

Waazraath

2022-07-26, 01:43 PM

Let me draw a parallel to the ever-popular 3.5 tiers.

If you wanted to make something similar for 5e, you'd get three tiers, four at most. Tier 1 and tier 6 are no longer a thing (nothing has 10.000 nukes and nothing is completely and laughably trash) and arguably tier 5 isn't either.

So the ceiling is lower and the floor is higher, but yes, obvious discrepancies still exist. Tier 2 in 3.5 is still a nuke-possessing tier, is quite ahead of tier 3 and easily makes tier 4 cry, and this is the case here too. Get a decently played cleric, druid or wizard and they'll make the best barbarian look pointless. Stick a weak subclass to your rogue or fighter and you might end up with little to do in many cases. Pull the maximum from a full caster and you will end up dominating most games.

The edge cases and deviations have been shaved off, but ultimately there are still clear differences in power.

All 5e classes are in 'tier 3' according to JaronK's tier system for 3.5. The entire system is here, for the folks who don't know it and are interested: http://minmaxforum.com/index.php?topic=658.0

In 5e, every class is good in a few things, and hardly ever useless in a situation not involving ones speciality. There are not only not 10000 nukes, 5e doens't have any nukes (bar maybe wish/simulacrum but one meagre level 17 combo is imo not enough to justify 'tier 2' under set definition).

kazaryu

2022-07-26, 01:43 PM

So the ceiling is lower and the floor is higher, but yes, obvious discrepancies still exist. Tier 2 in 3.5 is still a nuke-possessing tier, is quite ahead of tier 3 and easily makes tier 4 cry, and this is the case here too. Get a decently played cleric, druid or wizard and they'll make the best barbarian look pointless. Stick a weak subclass to your rogue or fighter and you might end up with little to do in many cases. Pull the maximum from a full caster and you will end up dominating most games.
also keep in mind that the above is only true in games where
1. mechanics trump narrative: that is to say, build decisions are made based on mechanics, rather than roleplay.
and
2. games where optimizations is largely unnecessary. get in a game with several encounters per day, with a danger curve that is likely to result in death if mistakes are made, and you'll wish you had those fighters/barbarians there for their good consistent damage and extra meat.
OR
games that are played at the highest levels, and the DM allows casters to pull off cheesy BS.

in other words, its really only true in games where power level shouldn't really matter anyway.

Grod_The_Giant

2022-07-26, 02:39 PM

So, I've started running 5E due to my sister's boyfriend getting the Starter Set for Christmas, and I'm a little confused.

See, every discussion I see suggests that they've improved balance between classes compared to 3.5e (the last edition I had significant experience with), but everything looks so similar (if thankfully streamlined in many cases) that I'm having trouble seeing the difference.

I don't want to be making major mistakes by misjudging the differences in power levels as the players get more experienced -my expectation from older editions, for example, is that you have to give the Fighter special attention because he's so much weaker than the casters, but I'm seeing lots of people saying that's no longer true. We're running the adventure from the starter set for now, but if I start designing my own stuff as is customary, this is something I need to know.
5e is probably about as balanced as D&D can get without slaughtering a bunch of sacred cows. Character optimization can put you a bit ahead of the rest of the group, but... well... one of the biggest damage-boosting optimization lets you take a -5 penalty to attack for +10 damage, which you'll recognize as a more limited version of 3.5e's Power Attack that doesn't have any of the usual follow-ups. You can make a character who's marginally more or less effective than their party mates, but they'll still playing the same game. It's the sort of spread you always get in 3.5e, even when everything's tuned correctly; it's probably on par with, say, a Warblade who chooses their maneuvers randomly and one who makes careful choices.

But 5e is also still D&D, so Linear Fighters/Quadratic Fighters is still a thing. The power of individual spells has been rolled back tremendously, and a martial character can comfortably co-exist with a caster on the battlefield, but the Fighter is still making basic melee attacks and skill checks at level 20, while the Wizard is blowing apart out-of-combat challenges with things like Contact Other Plane, Conjure Elemental, and Passwall (to name a few of my favorite infuriate-the-GM spells from my most recent character's spellbook). You don't even get to say "at least they're BIG skill checks," because bonuses are so small that a level 1 commoner has a real shot at outwrestling the level 20 Fighter. Whether or not that eventually becomes a problem depends entirely on your group and your GMing skills.

The big traps I'd look out for as a 3.5e vintage DM are:

Resting. 5e's classes were built around the assumption that you're having around six encounters and two short rests per day; if you depart from that structure (as real games inevitably do) you can run into frustration with short-rest-oriented classes like the Monk, Fighter, Rogue, and Warlock. They tend not to nova well--a normal caster can dump all of their high level spell slots into one encounter if they really need to, but a Warlock is stuck with the same two spell slots they might have used during a longer adventuring day.
Numbers are loooooow, especially when it comes to skills. A Rogue or Bard can top out at +17 by 20th level; everyone else is limited to +11. You'll need to set DCs way lower than your gut tells you--think a 3.5e ability check. It also means that the d20 roll is usually the main thing determining outcome, which means that skills tend to be pretty swingy, which means that you probably want to replace as many checks with "yes, and" as you can.

EDIT: Also, if you're used to 3.5e, ignore everything you're hearing about caster supremacy. A 5e Wizard going all-out is on par with a 3.5e Wizard making an effort to pick good-but-not-cheesy options.

Chaos Jackal

2022-07-26, 02:48 PM

2. games where optimizations is largely unnecessary. get in a game with several encounters per day, with a danger curve that is likely to result in death if mistakes are made, and you'll wish you had those fighters/barbarians there for their good consistent damage and extra meat.

Those are exactly the games where optimization shines the most and where casters can showcase how much more useful and versatile they are.

Willie the Duck

2022-07-26, 03:05 PM

There are multiple differences between the two editions, but I'd probably say the three biggest differences are:

1) Unlike 3.5, 5e martials can move their speed and get all their attacks without any build investment or restrictions.
2) Unlike 3.5, 5e spellcasters can't layer on piles of buffs and control effects due to the concentration mechanic.
3) Unlike 3.5, 5e skill use (and even the effects of several well-known spells) are much less prescribed/require a greater degree of DM adjudication than previously.

The general effect of these three changes is that the gap between martials and spellcasters has shrunk, though it still exists.

Also worth mentioning:
4) unlike 3.5, it is (depending on optional ruleset) somewhere between a significant investment and near impossible to flesh out whatever your caster isn't covering with their spells/day using scrolls or self-made wands. Making and buying magic items is entirely up to the DM (well, not that everything isn't DM gated, but this set of rules gives the DM much more cover vs. complaints, I guess is how I'd put it). Thus, even though you don't have to specifically dole out two knocks and one levitate when you prepare spells (as you did in any of the Vancian editions), you will still likely find your caster with fewer situations for which they have a spell-solution.

PhoenixPhyre

2022-07-26, 03:06 PM

Also worth mentioning:
4) unlike 3.5, it is (depending on optional ruleset) somewhere between a significant investment and near impossible to flesh out whatever your caster isn't covering with their spells/day using scrolls or self-made wands. Making and buying magic items is entirely up to the DM (well, not that everything isn't DM gated, but this set of rules gives the DM much more cover vs. complaints, I guess is how I'd put it). Thus, even though you don't have to specifically dole out two knocks and one levitate when you prepare spells (as you did in any of the Vancian editions), you will still likely find your caster with fewer situations for which they have a spell-solution.

And many spells have changed significantly, even if the names haven't.

windgate

2022-07-26, 03:20 PM

5e is probably about as balanced as D&D can get without slaughtering a bunch of sacred cows.

I'll agree with that sentiment. 4th Edition was possibly even more balanced but there were certainly large piles of beef created in the process.

Generally speaking, As long as the player is not intentionally hurting their character with ability score distribution each of the classes are going to be balanced enough in comparison with each other. Spell casters do eventually pull ahead in the later levels but most campaigns don't reach the final character levels anyways.

Your biggest challenge as a 5e DM is ensuring everyone has something to do outside of combat. If the only thing the fighter can do is kill things, they are going to get bored exploring a room and talking to NPC's. Try to reward Strength and Dexterity skill checks as often as you can to keep them engaged. Your spell casters will have flashy things to do outside of combat, pure martials might need some DM provided options.

Selion

2022-07-26, 03:30 PM

So, I've started running 5E due to my sister's boyfriend getting the Starter Set for Christmas, and I'm a little confused.

See, every discussion I see suggests that they've improved balance between classes compared to 3.5e (the last edition I had significant experience with), but everything looks so similar (if thankfully streamlined in many cases) that I'm having trouble seeing the difference.

I don't want to be making major mistakes by misjudging the differences in power levels as the players get more experienced -my expectation from older editions, for example, is that you have to give the Fighter special attention because he's so much weaker than the casters, but I'm seeing lots of people saying that's no longer true. We're running the adventure from the starter set for now, but if I start designing my own stuff as is customary, this is something I need to know.

5e main differences in power for spell-casters in respect to 3.5e

- less slots, high level casters have a single 7th level, 8th level, 9th level (even the second 6th level slot comes very late). There are not way to my knowledge to increase slot x day over that limits
- a single concentration spell per time
- spells are simpler, which means they cover less loopholes in their description, in some cases this brings to a few overpowered spells (indestructible dome shaped force of wall)
- monsters have legendary saves (!)

So, i think that, excluding exploits like infinite simulacrum and some weird spells/abilities interations (infinite health 20 level moon druid), actually the ceiling for 5e spell-casters is lower in respect to 3.5e. At the same time, the floor for 'some' martial classes is higher.
A wizard cannot anymore end a fight with a save or *** spell abusing an extremely high DC, because monster just will pass their legendary save, at the same time a wizard burning high levels slots on a hard fight will be unprepared the rest of the day, because there are less slots.
The concentration mechanics forces wizard to select a single main spell every battle, they have not the ability to layer various effects the way they could before.
What is basically the same between editions is the extraordinary utility spellcasters have outside combat, they cheat adventures from a narrative perspective, but honestly in a high fantasy setting i cannot think of a way overcoming this gap. Either we have a setting without mind reading/clairvoyance/teleportation or we have these powerful tools in the hand of a few persons in a group.
At the same time we cannot prevent people to play conan/gatsu giving everyone superpowers, the result is that we got martial classes which become physical powerhouses, while spell casters become nearly omnipotent.
like it happened before, i'm pretty sure that a balanced party (front liner/explorer/utility/healer) is overall stronger than a full wizard party, so, i don't think that if the game is played in fairness this is such a big issue.
To be honest the few times i've reached high levels in d&d pathfinder, the absolute encounter smasher has always been the machine gun ranged fighter/ranger

(edit: minor grammar fixes)

Kane0

2022-07-26, 03:48 PM

- Proficiency bonus is used for skill/ability checks, attacks and saving throws instead of BAB, save progressions and skill points. It's all based off Stat + Proficiency, and the numbers are lower and scale slower. HP and abilities/options are the primary differentiation between low and high levels.
- Due to reduced scaling of basic numbers (skills, attacks, damage, AC) it is expected that low CR creatures remain a threat to higher level parties in significant numbers. This is intended.

- You have a saving throw type for each attribute.
- You can't have a stat higher than 20 by normal means, nor a stat higher than 30 by any means.
- Movement is not an action, and actions can happen between movement. Bonus actions are like swifts, reactions are like immediates. No action can be traded for another type. You can also make one interaction (grab a weapon, open a door, etc) per turn for free.
- Attacking does not impede your ability to move (ie ‘Full Attack’) and you can in fact move between attacks if you have multiple.
- Attacks are classified oddly but they mostly boil down to a combination of [melee or ranged] and [weapon or spell]
- You cannot delay your turn, only ready an action.
- By default only one thing provokes an AoO: Moving out of a creatures reach.
- Learn the advantage / disadvantage mechanic, it replaces 90% of fiddly +1s and -2s.
- Dying works differently. You only die outright when you take damage equal to your max HP in one hit after reaching 0. When reduced to 0 you make saving throws, three successes stabilizes you and 3 failures you die. Taking damage while making death saves counts as one failure.
- Damage resistance, reduction and vulnerability is simplified. It's half damage, doesn't exist (as such) and double damage respectively.

- There are two kinds of rest: short and long. There are expected to be two short rests for every long on average, which is important to in balancing short rest classes (monk, warlock) against long rest classes (paladin, sorcerer).
- Everybody can heal via hit die, which are spent during short rests.

- Concentration is a thing casters should learn well. Most buff, debuff and control spells need concentration, and you can only concentrate on one thing at a time. You have a chance to lose concentration each time you take damage.
- There are relatively few permanent or near-permanent bonuses/buffs
- All casting is 'spontaneous', as in you don’t put individual spells into slots, you just have a collection of spells available to you and spell slots to fuel them with. Your spells will either be prepared or known based on class.
- High casting stat doesn’t give you additional spell slots, but does affect your spell attack bonus and spell DC (which is the same across all spell levels).
- Spells scale by spell slot rather than by caster level, which makes multiclassing considerably more friendly for casters
- Cantrips are notable now, offering viable damage output based on PC level not caster level
- There is a rule that restricts how many levelled spells you can cast on your turn, but it’s… complicated.

- Levels 1-3 are supposed to go by very quickly, and 4-5 fairly quickly. The majority of PC time is angled to be spent in the level 6-11 range.
- Encounter design and challenge rating is also different. A CR 6 enemy is an easy (little resource expenditure & low chance of falling) challenge for a level 6 party of 4, not an easy challenge for a single level 6 character. You are expected to deal with half a dozen or so medium encounters during an adventuring day, not one or two hard ones.
- Don't use any optional rules to start with. This includes multiclassing and feats.
- The core math of the game does not expect you to get magic items by default. You can play through levels 1 to 20 without seeing a magic item at all, anything you get/give is a bonus.

Golden Rule: Thou shalt not assume to know that which shares a name
Sneak attack works differently. Protection from Evil works differently. Critical hits work differently. Do not skim over things that look familiar because they are almost all different in subtle ways that become very apparent in play.

Don't worry about balance. Its only really noticeable once you get familiar and press into optimisation

strangebloke

2022-07-26, 08:15 PM

In general balance improvements come down to

concentration limits buff stacking and makes it easier to lose spell slots
smaller spell lists with more limitations on most of the old big offenders (scrying and teleport for example are far less reliable. Simulacrum is still ridiculous but harder to get online. Etc.)
lots of spells are simply higher level than they were before.
pretty much every monster above a certain level has protection against your most debilitating saves-or-sucks, for one reason or another.

For noncasters, the big buff is being able to move freely in between or during any action, and just having more class features in general. Even something like a barbarian, probably the weakest class in the game currently, has a few things they're pretty good at.

Now, none of the above means that the game is 'balanced.' In fact, bounded accuracy ends up making summoning/minionmancy really, really strong. Just having a big pack of zombies or wolves is probably the most busted thing you can do in this edition, and as you would expect casters are really good at this.

Of course. Almost everyone's a caster too. I think if you add up all the archetypes its something like 4/5 of all archetypes that have some level of casting or casting-replacement feature. And tons of races and feats give some level of spellcasting as well. So if you end up unable to cast, that's almost always a conscious decision on your part.

kazaryu

2022-07-26, 08:46 PM

Those are exactly the games where optimization shines the most and where casters can showcase how much more useful and versatile they are.

yes...those are the games where optimization shines the most...because you need to optimize in order to survive them...

and optimizing a party is going to include some martials. because wizards are going to fall over if someone farts on them. and they don't have enough reactions to defend themselves from a variety of attack angles. Nor do they have the spell slots to be spending a multiple spells per turn, all day. they want to get into a position where they can, for some fights, drop a single concentration spell and then spend the rest of the fight on cantrips. maybe tossing out a shield or a magic missile if it becomes necessary. in those types of high optimization games, most of the damage is going to come from the martials. and even if you somehow survive all that, you're very likely to hit a wall when you run into enemies with powerful anti magic, like raksashas.

to put it another way: its a fairly common optimization principle that spending a spell slot on instantaneous damage, tends to be an inefficient use of that spell slot...if you make a party of wizards in a high optimization game...thats exactly how you're going to have to deal damage. and once you run out of spell slots....

if you manage to make it to levels 11+ then you might stand a chance, but...oh boy before that you're in for such a headache of a game.

edit: i should actually add an addendum: the exception to this is summons. a single cast of one of the mass summon spells is straight up broken...or the mass casting of single summons is also strong. but thats a single outlier, and the big reason you want those is for the same reason you want martials. efficient damage output, extra HP, and limiting access to the squishier casters.

LudicSavant

2022-07-26, 10:12 PM

yes...those are the games where optimization shines the most...because you need to optimize in order to survive them...

Yes.

and optimizing a party is going to include some martials.

As a player experienced with games with 8+ Deadly encounters a day and DMs with a Tucker's Kobolds / Old School Meat Grinder mindset, I'd say that martials are very much optional.

because wizards are going to fall over if someone farts on them. So first of all, 'non-martials' doesn't just mean Wizards. It also includes things like Clerics, Druids, Warlocks, and Bards.

Even if it did, the idea that "Wizards are squishy" is very much a stereotype, not something that's actually universally (or even usually) true of optimized Wizards (which includes a wide range of characters that play very differently from each other. It would be a mistake to point at 'Wizards as if they all conformed to the same playstyle). An easy hard counterexample is armored, limitless-regenerating-ward Abjurers, who are so durable they can straight up go 'get behind me Barbarian, you're too fragile!"

Nor do they have the spell slots to be spending a multiple spells per turn, all day. they want to get into a position where they can, for some fights, drop a single concentration spell and then spend the rest of the fight on cantrips.

With the exception of very early levels, casters in general have considerably more resources than just enough for one spell per combat in an 8-combat day unless those resources are mismanaged (which will not be the case in a ‘high optimization game.’)

And if you're in a game with an entire party of casters, you've got an awful lot of spells for the party to burn.

in those types of high optimization games, most of the damage is going to come from the martials.
This will often not be the case if someone's playing a gish, minionmancer, hazard combo, hexvoker, or other caster built to be good at damage.

and even if you somehow survive all that, you're very likely to hit a wall when you run into enemies with powerful anti magic, like raksashas.

Rakshasas aren't 'a wall.' There are numerous ways for a caster party to deal with them. Heck you could just have the thing you summoned in the encounter half an hour ago kick them in the teeth.

Don’t underestimate just how many counters there are to most anti-spell defenses.

to put it another way: its a fairly common optimization principle that spending a spell slot on instantaneous damage, tends to be an inefficient use of that spell slot...if you make a party of wizards in a high optimization game...thats exactly how you're going to have to deal damage.

Except... no it isn't? There are all kinds of options. Casters who want to do damage are using things like Crown of Stars, contingent Armor of Agathys, Thrall-boosted Danse Macabre, pinballing people through Walls of Fire with no save several times per round, walling people in with a concentration-free Faithful Hound, and so, so much more.

You say 'high optimization game' but your examples don't seem to reflect that.

Chaos Jackal

2022-07-27, 02:20 AM

yes...those are the games where optimization shines the most...because you need to optimize in order to survive them...
Obviously. But you didn't say that. You said "games where optimizations [sic] is largely unnecessary".

and optimizing a party is going to include some martials. because wizards are going to fall over if someone farts on them.
I didn't say wizards, I said casters. Which includes heavily armored clerics, Moon druids and gish subclasses like Hexblade and Swords bard. Not that wizards in general will "fall over if someone farts on them". Diviners, Chronurgists, Abjurers, Bladesingers... many wizards are tougher than any martial can ever hope to be.

And again, there's other casters. Hit die makes way less of a difference than you'd think when your primary means of tanking damage is to avoid taking it at all and stuff like armor is a feat or race away. And don't say "niche/fringe cases"; we're supposed to be optimizing, so yes, there will be races with armor proficiency, flight and feats in the mix. It's expected.

Party optimization, you say? I'm not gonna search for and quote Eldariel's multiple examples of full caster parties, but suffice to say that, since there are subclasses made for any situation, you can make a full caster party that is just as tough at the baseline as your regular fighter/rogue/cleric/wizard while having many times more slots and power. And while multiple martials are additive, each one just adding their damage and HP to the mix, multiple casters are exponentially stronger. Restrictions of concentration, spells known/prepared and needing multiple turns to set up combos? Gone. The infamous forcecage+area damage over time comes online four levels earlier and can happen in a single turn without requiring a simulacrum. You can throw buffs on that Bladesinger or Moon druid until they're immortal. You can afford someone knowing/preparing mostly utility and out of combat spells.

A full caster party is the definition of optimizing a party.

and they don't have enough reactions to defend themselves from a variety of attack angles. Nor do they have the spell slots to be spending a multiple spells per turn, all day. they want to get into a position where they can, for some fights, drop a single concentration spell and then spend the rest of the fight on cantrips. maybe tossing out a shield or a magic missile if it becomes necessary. in those types of high optimization games, most of the damage is going to come from the martials. and even if you somehow survive all that, you're very likely to hit a wall when you run into enemies with powerful anti magic, like raksashas.
There's multiple casters, which means multiple reactions and ways to protect not just yourself but your allies too. Or just, you know, be proactive and remove key targets from play. Again, multiple casters. Worst case scenario, they'll punch through with multiple saves until the enemy folds, but there are also a lot more elegant ways to go about it.

And no, in this type of high optimization games, damage won't come from the martials, because martials aren't there. Damage will come from summons, who will also take enemy damage. Damage will come from gishes, who have way more potent defenses than eating the damage and hoping they'll last the day because of their HP pool. Damage will come from a cleric's spirit guardians or a druid's spike growth combined with forced movement effects, damage and control in one package. Damage will come from something like a nuclear wizard, specifically made to, alongside everything else, also pack a way to bring jaw-dropping numbers to the table should the need arise.

For "anti-magic" enemies, again, see above. Summon something. Use your army of the dead. Buff the Bladesinger and watch them be nigh invulnerable as they hack about. Employ positioning and kiting tactics that you just can't employ as effectively with martials' limited mobility. Throw down tiny huts and rope tricks mid-combat and watch as the enemy is left with literally nothing to do. And so on and so forth. And before you say anything about high level, these are tricks available since at least lv5.

to put it another way: its a fairly common optimization principle that spending a spell slot on instantaneous damage, tends to be an inefficient use of that spell slot...if you make a party of wizards in a high optimization game...thats exactly how you're going to have to deal damage. and once you run out of spell slots....
No, read above.

if you manage to make it to levels 11+ then you might stand a chance, but...oh boy before that you're in for such a headache of a game.
Again, read above. And the lower the levels, the less likely you'll run into enemies that can resist even your basic tricks. A lv2 wizard has four slots, if you factor in Arcane Recovery. Four wizards have 16. You want to tell me that you'd rather have 15-20 HP and 17-18 AC rather than another four slots of sleep and shield at lv2? Because you've gravely miscalculated if that's the case.

edit: i should actually add an addendum: the exception to this is summons. a single cast of one of the mass summon spells is straight up broken...or the mass casting of single summons is also strong. but thats a single outlier, and the big reason you want those is for the same reason you want martials. efficient damage output, extra HP, and limiting access to the squishier casters.
Read above about how summons are far from the only way and reason casters are both tough and ideal for party optimization.

This feels likely to turn, expectedly, into another casters vs martials thread and I really have better things to do than argue once more about how casters are better in 2022. The game's been out for eight years, the proof and arguments are out there. I'm out of here before it gets too cramped.

Grod_The_Giant

2022-07-27, 07:11 AM

Bladesingers... many wizards are tougher than any martial can ever hope to be.
I played an optimized Bladesinger from 7 to 17. She was easily the sturdiest character in a party--Paladin very much included.

Ignimortis

2022-07-27, 12:32 PM

Wizards are less durable than Fighters by 4HP at first level and then 2 HP per level. That's it. The Tough feat already makes them as durable. If your Wizard starts off with 16 DEX and Mage Armor, they already have the same AC as a starting Fighter without a shield. If they are a dwarf and have a shield, they're more durable. The gap is incredibly small and can be partially or fully transcended starting at level 1.

Barbarian can stay ahead for a while, Rangers are the same as Fighters, Paladins get better saves eventually, but not better HP/AC.

kazaryu

2022-07-27, 12:58 PM

Obviously. But you didn't say that. You said "games where optimizations [sic] is largely unnecessary".and then followed it up with a description of a game where optimization is necessary, with a reasonable segue. unless you were saying that 'games where optimization shines' is in games where optimization is unnecessary? in which case i misininterpreted what you said.

I didn't say wizards, I said casters. Which includes heavily armored clerics, Moon druids and gish subclasses like Hexblade and Swords bard.

As a player experienced with games with 8+ Deadly encounters a day and DMs with a Tucker's Kobolds / Old School Meat Grinder mindset, I'd say that martials are very much optional.

So first of all, 'non-martials' doesn't just mean Wizards. It also includes things like Clerics, Druids, Warlocks, and Bards.

with that out of the way. i'd like to first start by conceeding the point...basically entirely. my very first reply was in response to the notion that 'you always want no martials in high optimization' or at least, thats what seems to have been implied, and has been doubled down on below. However, i got carried away and instead began defending the notion that 'you always need some martials' instead of 'martials are perfectly viable in a high lethality/optimization game'. This was, as you have both pointed out, dumb. It is very much true that its possible to build a caster to fill the role of Meat in a party.

So, if you'll give me a moment to dig my foot out of my mouth, there are a few specific points that i'd like to respond to, since i DO still disagree with the notion that a caster is *always* the better option for that role. I will note, that i am specifically ignoring minionmancy. or specifically im ignoring mass minionmancy (like mass summon spells, or undead hordes) and im doing so because in practice they're so likely to get either hard or soft banned. many, many tables are unlikely to want to consistently spend initiative time going through all 24 of your giant eagles turns. even with ways to speed it up. But i do acknowledge that such spells are super strong in 5e, and if you actually run with them, then martials are 100% obsolete.

Not that wizards in general will "fall over if someone farts on them". Diviners, Chronurgists, Abjurers, Bladesingers...diviners get 2 (eventually 3) portent dice per day as their only subclass specific defensive option...they're not anywhere near being in the same tier as a martial in terms of 'toughness'. chronurgist is better. 5 rerolls and (eventually) 1-2 auto success/failures per day..but again, those are still super limited resources. not on par. bladesingers are decent, they have exceptional AC, and eventually, at level 10, they can trade spell slots for damge reduction. so yes, as long as their slots last they have some potential. but pre level 10? all they have is a bonus to AC, any non attack based damage is still a major threat to them. Abjurerer is the only one you listed that has defenses comparable to a full martial. their ward gives them, essentially, a d10 hit dice (technically a bit higher at low levels due to the intmod). However:

many wizards are tougher than any martial can ever hope to be. this is only true if you really stretch the definition of 'tough'. With a TON of investment (as in, race AND feats) the abjurerer can have almost as much HP as a barbarian of the same constitution. but that barbarian is also gonna tend to take half damage from weapon attacks, and if they really wanna lean into tankiness, all damage except psychic. They're also proficient in constitution saves and have advantage on dex saves, meaning they're going to tend to take less damage from those sources compared to the wizard. and on top of that, could also go the same feat/race combo as the abjurer, and have them beat on HP too. Its not an exaggeration to say that a well built caster can be tanky enough to fill the meat role. it might not be an exaggeration that a specific build of a caster is able to absorb more damage over the course of a day (likely via THP or HP boosting spells). But in order to do so a TON of their resources (this includes: character build resources, spell slots, and action economy) is going to be spent on pure defense. Whereas a martial can just spend some character build resources and..boom. super tough.

And again, there's other casters. Hit die makes way less of a difference than you'd think when your primary means of tanking damage is to avoid taking it at all and stuff like armor is a feat or race away first of all, don't tell me what i think. in a high lethality game/optmization game, you're not avoiding all the damage. i mean i suppose we could go back and forth about what constitutes such a game. but if its a game where a 16-17 (pre-shield)AC is enough that you're not reliably taking damage...idk, doesn't sound like a terribly lethal game to me. at some point you're going to take some damage, and hit die size is a significant contributor to how much damage you can take.

to put it another way..if you're able to avoid all damage, the game is...not lethal. by like...definition. even things like wall of force at higher levels aren't gonna stop creatures from teleporting on top of you, or using abilities that bypass it.

And while multiple martials are additive, each one just adding their damage and HP to the mix, multiple casters are exponentially stronger. multiple casters...are also additive. casters, individually, scale exponentially. but putting them together just...linearly increases those exponential resources. its the difference between. (yx^2) and (x^(2y))

Restrictions of concentration, spells known/prepared and needing multiple turns to set up combos? Gone. The infamous forcecage+area damage over time comes online four levels earlier and can happen in a single turn without requiring a simulacrum. You can throw buffs on that Bladesinger or Moon druid until they're immortal. You can afford someone knowing/preparing mostly utility and out of combat spells. while i get that you're trying to prove that martials aren't neccesary (because, as mentioned, i ****ed up my own argument). none of this actually backs up your thought that martials are bad. in fact...it does the opposite. you know whats better than a bladesigner with multiple buff spells stacked on top? a martial...since they do all the things you're looking for that 'immortal' bladesinger to do..but better. But, again, i get the point, if you put the right spells on the caster, they temporarily become a pseudo martial.

For "anti-magic" enemies, again, see above. Summon something. Use your army of the dead. Buff the Bladesinger and watch them be nigh invulnerable as they hack about. Employ positioning and kiting tactics that you just can't employ as effectively due to martials' limited mobility. Throw down tiny huts and rope tricks mid-combat and watch as the enemy is left with literally nothing to do. And so on and so forth. And before you say anything about high level, these are tricks available since at least lv5. so...in your mind, a high lethality/optimization game means that enemies are immobile, and stupid? and what kind of mobility are you using as a caster that martials can't match? its arguments like this that make it seem like you're not really talking about a game where optimization is a necessary. because like...i can think of several ways to deal with a party that tried to make an impenetrable shield by dropping a tiny hut/rope trick mid combat. like...SUPER easily. not all of them work in every scenario, but like...they're generalized enough that its hardly the trump card you think it is. one option is...just back off and wait for you to come out of your shell...or cast dispel magic, readied actions...

Again, read above. And the lower the levels, the less likely you'll run into enemies that can resist even your basic tricks. A lv2 wizard has four slots, if you factor in Arcane Recovery. Four wizards have 16. You want to tell me that you'd rather have 15-20 HP and 17-18 AC rather than another four slots of sleep and shield at lv2? Because you've gravely miscalculated if that's the case. i'd rather that someone in the party has some meat, could be me, could be someone else. (again, you're correct that it doesn't have to be a martial. However, it can, viably, be a martial, )i yes,. its not just about specific level ranges. eventually you're going to level up.

An easy hard counterexample is armored, limitless-regenerating-ward Abjurers, who are so durable they can straight up go 'get behind me Barbarian, you're too fragile!" as pointed out above...this is a gross exaggeration. even when you consider short rests and the like. abjurerer gets their ward back, but barbarians get more HP out of HD. and with their resistances it balances out pretty well in the long run.

With the exception of very early levels, casters in general have considerably more resources than just enough for one spell per combat in an 8-combat day unless those resources are mismanaged (which will not be the case in a ‘high optimization game.’) as pointed out at the top, for the most part i've conceeded your point, but i would like to correct something here, since you seem to have misunderstood the point i was making (or maybe i just made it poorly :shrug:). my point was that overall you're going to want to stretch your spell slots out, and save your best ones for emergencies/really bad fights. meaning that at some point, you're not hitting at your weight class. and you need to make up for that somehow. one of the ways to do that is to have some form of consistent damage dealer (like a martial) obviously DoT spells can also work, if you're using a party of full casters. stack enough spirit guardians on top of each other and you do, indeed, end up with a good enough damage output.

But yeah..the point was meant to be that as a caster in a high optimization game, you're not dropping your big spells every fight. and you're not spending multiple spell slots every round (which are 2 of the biggest times that casters REALLY outshine martials)

Don’t underestimate just how many counters there are to most anti-spell defenses.
a lot of the options you might think of, i wouldn't call counters. i'd equate them more to the 'well...at least i have X'. in an antimagic fight, as a party of full casters, you're still going to generally be on your back feet. you might win, but it'd sure as hell help to have options that weren't magic reliant. doesn't have to be a martial...but it wouldn't be a bad idea for it to be one.

i didn't reply to omuch to Ludic just because most of what you said was in response to my (attempts)to back up a faulty claim, which i already conceeded.

JNAProductions

2022-07-27, 01:52 PM

Waazraath

2022-07-27, 02:03 PM

How do you get shield from dwarf?

Mountain dwarves grant medium armor, but not shields.

And how do you get a 16 dex AND the same con as a fighter (also 16) AND a maximized Int (first priority of a wizard)? And why does the wizard gets to upgrade his defenses with racial features, and the fighter not? And why, if we are comparing defenses, don't we assume a fighter with defense fighting style and a shield? And why do we assume that mage armor is always on?

I know why, cause it's always the same in these threads, but at the same time it doesn't stop to amaze.

Ignimortis

2022-07-27, 02:08 PM

How do you get shield from dwarf?

Mountain dwarves grant medium armor, but not shields.
Am misremembering things, then. But the general point still stands - the supposed durability "gap" between most non-Barb martials and the presumably frailest casters, Wizards, is very small, and can be crossed with very little effort. Other casters are even closer, aside from maybe sorcerers (whose only claim to fame is CON saves proficiency).

And how do you get a 16 dex AND the same con as a fighter (also 16) AND a maximized Int (first priority of a wizard)? And why does the wizard gets to upgrade his defenses with racial features, and the fighter not? And why, if we are comparing defenses, don't we assume a fighter with defense fighting style and a shield? And why do we assume that mage armor is always on?

I know why, cause it's always the same in these threads, but at the same time it doesn't stop to amaze.
16 CON Fighter? Maybe if you're doing either a DEX build or a 10 DEX build, with +0 across the board in other stats. The common standard is 14, as far as my experience goes, so you can either actually have +2 DEX (for versatility and range beyond 20 ft) or WIS (worst kind of save and Perception).

Racial defense bonuses for Fighters, such as? Aside from Yuan-ti, which are ridiculously good on any type of character, especially post-Tasha's, at least.

Fighter with Defense+shield is a specific build. Wizard with Mage Armor and 14+ DEX is a lot less specific, so far as to practically be the baseline. Wizard with Mage Armor, Tough and 16+ DEX is a lot more specific, but at that point, you've matched the average Fighter number-wise while still being a perfectly competent Wizard, and are behind the shield Fighter until you pick your Arcane Tradition, which might put you on the same level again (19 AC with Bladesong is pretty much guaranteed for such a build).

Mage Armor is always on because it has a casting time of 1 action and a duration of 8 hours. It's the kind of spell that is never off unless you specifically contrive a situation for all spells to be off - and usually that means that your average Fighter has an AC of 10+DEX due to not sleeping in heavy armor.

Selion

2022-07-27, 02:49 PM

Yes.

As a player experienced with games with 8+ Deadly encounters a day and DMs with a Tucker's Kobolds / Old School Meat Grinder mindset, I'd say that martials are very much optional.

So first of all, 'non-martials' doesn't just mean Wizards. It also includes things like Clerics, Druids, Warlocks, and Bards.

I don't know if the meat grinder mindset is the best way to approach this discussion, I mean, if we are scratching the ceiling of optimization in order to obtain survivability in an extremely deadly context, they will shine characters with specific builds (likely over-busted) to fit every role and still be able to fill holes.
In most situations a fighter is pretty good as a front liner, with their specific build they could cover a secondary role, depending on character choices, but that's all.
The classic 4-pc party with fighter, wizard cleric and rogue can cover basically every role, without so many overlaps.
In an extremely high optimization game, though, the same result may be obtained with a bladesinger, hexblade, moon druid and twilight cleric, it's a hell of a party, in which every character can cover multiple roles, including front liner, but we just cherry-picked specific subclasses to obtain this alchemy.
Without this cherry picking, i think a party composed of evoker, old one warlock, star circle druid and light domain cleric is lacking in some areas and overflooding in utility in respect to a more balanced party composed of core subclasses like champion fighter/evoker wizard/light domain cleric/ scout rogue (i intentionally picked average optimized sub classes in both scenarios)

Edit:

Am misremembering things, then. But the general point still stands - the supposed durability "gap" between most non-Barb martials and the presumably frailest casters, Wizards, is very small, and can be crossed with very little effort. Other casters are even closer, aside from maybe sorcerers (whose only claim to fame is CON saves proficiency).

16 CON Fighter? Maybe if you're doing either a DEX build or a 10 DEX build, with +0 across the board in other stats. The common standard is 14, as far as my experience goes, so you can either actually have +2 DEX (for versatility and range beyond 20 ft) or WIS (worst kind of save and Perception).

Racial defense bonuses for Fighters, such as? Aside from Yuan-ti, which are ridiculously good on any type of character, especially post-Tasha's, at least.

Fighter with Defense+shield is a specific build. Wizard with Mage Armor and 14+ DEX is a lot less specific, so far as to practically be the baseline. Wizard with Mage Armor, Tough and 16+ DEX is a lot more specific, but at that point, you've matched the average Fighter number-wise while still being a perfectly competent Wizard, and are behind the shield Fighter until you pick your Arcane Tradition, which might put you on the same level again (19 AC with Bladesong is pretty much guaranteed for such a build).

Mage Armor is always on because it has a casting time of 1 action and a duration of 8 hours. It's the kind of spell that is never off unless you specifically contrive a situation for all spells to be off - and usually that means that your average Fighter has an AC of 10+DEX due to not sleeping in heavy armor.

The opportunity cost of a fighter in full plate (18/19 AC) without any attribute or feat or subclass investment and a wizard utilizing 1/2 1st level slots every day and investing in dexterity/constitution (and still being behind) is not the same.
Even the tough Feat has is a lower investment for a fighter in respect to a wizard, because a fighter has bonus feats, so i think it's not fair comparing a wizard with spells and attributes investment with a fighter without any investment. Fighters are naturally tanky, and may become tankier with builds. Wizards are naturally squishy, they can become decent in survivability with specific builds

Grod_The_Giant

2022-07-27, 04:16 PM

AND a maximized Int (first priority of a wizard)?
Not if you're building a gish, necessarily. It means trading out some versatility (blasting and debuffing) for a bulkier melee presence, but that still leaves you with dozens and dozens of fun and powerful spell options. A warrior-mage who uses their slots on things like Hex, Mirror Image, and Greater Invisibility doesn't give a **** about their casting stat.

strangebloke

2022-07-27, 06:44 PM

So like. Heavy Weapon fighter vs. Wizard at level 5.

Fighter has 16 CON we'll say and uses splint with defense style for 18 AC. 47 HP + 41.5 HD healing + 31.5 SW healing assuming two short rests. That's 120 total HP throughout a day.
Wizard has 14 CON and 16 DEX which gives 16 AC with mage armor. 30 HP + 26.5 HD healing. That's 56.5 total HP throughout a day.
Fighter with no resources deals [2d6+4]*2=22 damage! Ouch!
Wizard with no resources deals 2d10=11 damage.

Now at first glance this looks very conclusive. The wizard is way behind in HP and deals half as much damage! But then you remember the wizard has spells. Yeah, spells. Those things. As one example of a spell, the wizard can cast summon fey twice. This spell conjures 30 hp with each casting, so two castings completely equalizes the HP gap. Or they could cast animate dead twice for 8 skeletons with a combined HP pool of 104! Or they could cast summon lesser demons for 8 dretches with each casting for 288 hp! Now. Sure. Maybe that isn't realistic. But casting absorb elements or shield to get rid of 10+ damage is absolutely in the cards, and if you're able to do so 3 times, you've bridged the gap by half.

For damage, a wizard could cast fireball which deals a whopping 21 damage to all creatures in a 20 foot radius. If there are three enemies in that radius, that's a combined average of 62 damage, and it can do that three times a day! Wow! Remember, we didn't consider accuracy for the Fighter's sustained damage. In three turns the wizard has dealt 186 damage. Assuming the fighter has a 70% hit rate, we can actually calculate the 'break even' point where the fighter catches up in total damage output. Lets say the fighter blows all three of their action surges, to be fair. How long do you think it takes? 18 rounds. In a five encounter day where each combat takes 4 rounds, the total DPR will be very very close for the fireballer and the basic GWF fighter. Both damage dealers have their advantages and disadvantages, but suffice to say that overall its a wash.

So an idiot wizard who just casts Fireball, Shield, and Absorb Elements (and no second level spells!) is only slightly behind an idiot GWFighter at 5th level if the only goal is tanking and spanking.

Yeah, things don't get better from here.

1st level spells look cheaper and cheaper as the game goes on. 3rd level spells look cheaper and cheaper as the game goes on. A 9th level wizard can cast fireball eight times. Meanwhile, second wind scales poorly and fighter damage almost completely stagnates after level 11. You reach a point where the shorter days favor the fighter, because until you get to crazy high numbers of encounters the wizard just practically isn't running out of spell slots.

....And this is purely looking at tanking and spanking. Meanwhile the wizard is giving everyone mounts, giving advantage with familiar, identifying all the magic items, scouting with familiar, using detect magic to sus out secret rooms, etc. etc.

Sure, I know this analysis is ignoring that fighter has a few really good subclasses (wizard does too) and I know that fighters can get a lot of good feats, but the overall pattern is here. Wizards are not that far behind fighters purely in tanking and spanking, and can do a lot more than that without sacrificing anything.

kazaryu

2022-07-27, 06:51 PM

Am misremembering things, then. But the general point still stands - the supposed durability "gap" between most non-Barb martials and the presumably frailest casters, Wizards, is very small, and can be crossed with very little effort. Other casters are even closer, aside from maybe sorcerers (whose only claim to fame is CON saves proficiency). ironic that you're talking about toghness...and dismiss the sorcerer. the full caster class with the ability to have permanent mage armor, and (effectively) a d8 scaling HP while only investing their subclass. throw in toughness and hill dwarf, and their at a s14 scaling HP. not quite as high as an abjurer of the same build...but still...a weird option to dismiss.

16 CON Fighter? Maybe if you're doing either a DEX build or a 10 DEX build, with +0 across the board in other stats. The common standard is 14, as far as my experience goes, so you can either actually have +2 DEX (for versatility and range beyond 20 ft) or WIS (worst kind of save and Perception).

Racial defense bonuses for Fighters, such as? Aside from Yuan-ti, which are ridiculously good on any type of character, especially post-Tasha's, at least.

Fighter with Defense+shield is a specific build. Wizard with Mage Armor and 14+ DEX is a lot less specific, so far as to practically be the baseline. Wizard with Mage Armor, Tough and 16+ DEX is a lot more specific, but at that point, you've matched the average Fighter number-wise while still being a perfectly competent Wizard, and are behind the shield Fighter until you pick your Arcane Tradition, which might put you on the same level again (19 AC with Bladesong is pretty much guaranteed for such a build).

Mage Armor is always on because it has a casting time of 1 action and a duration of 8 hours. It's the kind of spell that is never off unless you specifically contrive a situation for all spells to be off - and usually that means that your average Fighter has an AC of 10+DEX due to not sleeping in heavy armor. so you've proven that with a ton of investment a wizard can have as much bulk as just...a baseline fighter....what exactly are you trying to prove? serious question. if you're stance, overall, is that you don't neccesarily need martials. then i agree, you can absolutely build a caster to fill the same role that martials typically fill.

OTOH, if you're trying to prove that this makes martials unnecesary...well, then i think you've done a not so great job of it.

MrStabby

2022-07-27, 06:52 PM

So like. Heavy Weapon fighter vs. Wizard at level 5.

Fighter has 16 CON we'll say and uses splint with defense style for 18 AC. 47 HP + 41.5 HD healing + 31.5 SW healing assuming two short rests. That's 120 total HP throughout a day.
Wizard has 14 CON and 16 DEX which gives 16 AC with mage armor. 30 HP + 26.5 HD healing. That's 56.5 total HP throughout a day.
Fighter with no resources deals [2d6+4]*2=22 damage! Ouch!
Wizard with no resources deals 2d10=11 damage.

Now at first glance this looks very conclusive. The wizard is way behind in HP and deals half as much damage! But then you remember the wizard has spells. Yeah, spells. Those things. As one example of a spell, the wizard can cast summon fey twice. This spell conjures 30 hp with each casting, so two castings completely equalizes the HP gap. Or they could cast animate dead twice for 8 skeletons with a combined HP pool of 104! Or they could cast summon lesser demons for 8 dretches with each casting for 288 hp! Now. Sure. Maybe that isn't realistic. But casting absorb elements or shield to get rid of 10+ damage is absolutely in the cards, and if you're able to do so 3 times, you've bridged the gap by half.

For damage, a wizard could cast fireball which deals a whopping 21 damage to all creatures in a 20 foot radius. If there are three enemies in that radius, that's a combined average of 62 damage, and it can do that three times a day! Wow! Remember, we didn't consider accuracy for the Fighter's sustained damage. In three turns the wizard has dealt 186 damage. Assuming the fighter has a 70% hit rate, we can actually calculate the 'break even' point where the fighter catches up in total damage output. Lets say the fighter blows all three of their action surges, to be fair. How long do you think it takes? 18 rounds. In a five encounter day where each combat takes 4 rounds, the total DPR will be very very close for the fireballer and the basic GWF fighter. Both damage dealers have their advantages and disadvantages, but suffice to say that overall its a wash.

So an idiot wizard who just casts Fireball, Shield, and Absorb Elements (and no second level spells!) is only slightly behind an idiot GWFighter at 5th level if the only goal is tanking and spanking.

.

Hang on... are you suggesting that the caster uses their level 3 spells for both conjure fey twice per day and fireball three times a day? At level 5?

strangebloke

2022-07-27, 07:01 PM

Hang on... are you suggesting that the caster uses their level 3 spells for both conjure fey twice per day and fireball three times a day? At level 5?

No. This was my actual point:

So an idiot wizard who just casts Fireball, Shield, and Absorb Elements (and no second level spells!) is only slightly behind an idiot GWFighter at 5th level if the only goal is tanking and spanking.

You can shift more towards 'defense' by spending those 3rd level spell slots on summoning/conjuring instead, and your damage doesn't actually suffer that much because lol summon fey does good damage. But fireball is easier for this sort of analysis so I went with that.

Wizards, even very dumb ones, are not far behind martials when it comes to tanking and spanking even at relatively low levels.

kazaryu

2022-07-27, 07:15 PM

So an idiot wizard who just casts Fireball, Shield, and Absorb Elements (and no second level spells!) is only slightly behind an idiot GWFighter at 5th level if the only goal is tanking and spanking. for the types of games being discussed...that idiot wizard would run out of spell slots and become nigh useless real fast. Now, i agree with some of what you said, in particular about the summons. summon spells are, and have always been broken. But they're also incredibly frustrating to use at a lot of tables. as a result, i tend to ignore them. sure, in a white room scenario, casters gonna dominate nearly everything with summons. But i'd wager that at most actual tables, such things are going to either not be allowed, or allowed only sparingly. noone wants to sit through that many turns.

So aside from summons, can you think of a legit way a wizard can do what a martial does, in such a way that it completely removes the desire to play a martial? i've already admitted that a caster can fill much the same role as a martial. But can you provide an optimized lvl 5 caster build, that does what a martial does so well, that a lvl 5 optimized martial is no longer viable?

I mean this earnestly when i say: unless you're not actually trying to support that at all. If all you mean to prove is that a wizard (or other caster) can do the job that a martial does, as well as a martial. thats fine. Im just looking for someone to actually provide a good argument for why an optimized party *shouldn't* contain martials...i've really not seen any yet, at least, not for low levels.

strangebloke

2022-07-27, 08:04 PM

for the types of games being discussed...that idiot wizard would run out of spell slots and become nigh useless real fast. Now, i agree with some of what you said, in particular about the summons. summon spells are, and have always been broken. But they're also incredibly frustrating to use at a lot of tables. as a result, i tend to ignore them. sure, in a white room scenario, casters gonna dominate nearly everything with summons. But i'd wager that at most actual tables, such things are going to either not be allowed, or allowed only sparingly. noone wants to sit through that many turns.

So fighters are better because ALL SUMMON spells get banned? Saying that something is so good that it needs to be banned/nerfed seems to me to be acknowledging that its an extremely powerful class.

And while spells like conjure animals are outliers, they're otherwise really not. How much damage does spirit guardians deal over the course of the encounter? Spiritual Weapon?

So aside from summons, can you think of a legit way a wizard can do what a martial does, in such a way that it completely removes the desire to play a martial? i've already admitted that a caster can fill much the same role as a martial. But can you provide an optimized lvl 5 caster build, that does what a martial does so well, that a lvl 5 optimized martial is no longer viable?

I mean this earnestly when i say: unless you're not actually trying to support that at all. If all you mean to prove is that a wizard (or other caster) can do the job that a martial does, as well as a martial. thats fine. Im just looking for someone to actually provide a good argument for why an optimized party *shouldn't* contain martials...i've really not seen any yet, at least, not for low levels.

...unless all summon spells are banned, of course. If they're not, then the point's already been made! So casters can fill the martial role completely and we both agree about this, you just don't like that and say it should be banned (and thus not counted for this discussion??)

But sure. To humor you, here's my optimized builds that almost completely overshadow most martials at almost all levels:
A hexblade
A moon druid
A twilight/peace cleric

Gnoman

2022-07-27, 09:00 PM

Back on topic, I've been reading the full PHB now and I think part of my problem was that the intro set rules are horribly organized.

kazaryu

2022-07-27, 09:11 PM

So fighters are better because ALL SUMMON spells get banned? Saying that something is so good that it needs to be banned/nerfed seems to me to be acknowledging that its an extremely powerful class.

And while spells like conjure animals are outliers, they're otherwise really not. How much damage does spirit guardians deal over the course of the encounter? Spiritual Weapon? noooonoono, i've already made the mistake of trying to prove that martials are neccesary. My point is that they are viable, even in high optimization games.

...unless all summon spells are banned, of course. If they're not, then the point's already been made! So casters can fill the martial role completely and we both agree about this, you just don't like that and say it should be banned (and thus not counted for this discussion??) my point about summons is twofold.
1. the spells are, as you put it, outliers. they're ridiculously broken, just based on the action economy. to say nothing of the control they can give you over the battlefield, and some of the more clever things you can do with them (i.e. summon pixie+polymorph).
and
2. of all the general class of spells, they're the most likely to be banned/nerfed at a table. so yeah, if summons are on the table, obviously martials are obsolete, summon spells are broken. But in practice you're as likely to find a table that lets you use them, because, in addition to being broken, they're also really really obnoxious to use.

so, while in theory summons make caster's too good that martials are no longer viable, situations where summons are either nerfed or banned are common enough that, imo, the discussion is far better served by removing the outlier. it makes no sense to make a general statement like 'caster's are always better' if its based on a feature that is commonly excluded from the game.

A hexblade sorry, you're going to have to explain this one...remember, the point is to show how a hexblade is so good, that it makes martials nonviable. like EB is solid damage, and obviously a blade pact warlock can get pseudo extra attack. but as far as i can see that really only puts them on par with martials. not way ahead. and at level 5? right when martial hit their first powerspike? they certainly do have some benefits over martials. i.e. the ability to swap from doing a 2d6 melee weapon to a 1d10 ranged weapon without needing to boost 2 ability scores or take a feat. But the various martial classes all have benefits that warlocks lack.

A moon druid LMAO. no...just...no. at higher levels they're pretty decent. but animal forms don't come near being able to match the turn-by-turn versatility that martials can have. yeah moon druids get a lot of HP, but there's way more to being a martial than that. battlemaster maneuvers, grappling, straight up battlefield control (for example sentinal/pam). This isn't to say that moon druids can't be used to fill that role. but they're not SO good at it that its always better to play one than to pick a martial.

A twilight/peace cleric right....because martials can't use the benefits that twilight/peace clerics give? again, im not arguing that you have to have a martial. im arguing that martials are still viable. and they use the buffs provided by clerics really well. they even (situationally) use some of the peace cleric benefits better than a caster would.

Kane0

2022-07-27, 09:56 PM

Back on topic, I've been reading the full PHB now and I think part of my problem was that the intro set rules are horribly organized.

That's basically a D&D tradition isn't it?

Telok

2022-07-27, 09:57 PM

Back on topic, I've been reading the full PHB now and I think part of my problem was that the intro set rules are horribly organized.

Oh you'll get used to that. Its been a complaint since 5e hit the ground.

Ignimortis

2022-07-28, 12:09 AM

ironic that you're talking about toghness...and dismiss the sorcerer. the full caster class with the ability to have permanent mage armor, and (effectively) a d8 scaling HP while only investing their subclass. throw in toughness and hill dwarf, and their at a s14 scaling HP. not quite as high as an abjurer of the same build...but still...a weird option to dismiss.

so you've proven that with a ton of investment a wizard can have as much bulk as just...a baseline fighter....what exactly are you trying to prove? serious question. if you're stance, overall, is that you don't neccesarily need martials. then i agree, you can absolutely build a caster to fill the same role that martials typically fill.

OTOH, if you're trying to prove that this makes martials unnecesary...well, then i think you've done a not so great job of it.
My point was that even without any noticeable investment (i.e. 16 DEX and Mage Armor, which is pretty much nothing), the gap is very small and keeps getting smaller as levels go on. If you actually try and pick something like Abjurer or Bladesinger, it vanishes, and further on the Wizard will overtake the Fighter for durability. Bladesinger 8 with no magic items routinely gets 21 AC and 26 in a pinch.

Tough is a very direct way to demonstrate the actual difference between their HP - half of a mediocre feat is all that Fighter actually gets HP-wise compared to Wizard. Now, Barbarian...

Draconic Resilience is a decent point (and I forgot that it does grant +1 HP per level), but it rather pales in comparison to Abjurer/Bladesinger or Twilight Cleric. Power creep et al. Stone UA was a bit better at this, but it never got released for some reason.

The opportunity cost of a fighter in full plate (18/19 AC) without any attribute or feat or subclass investment and a wizard utilizing 1/2 1st level slots every day and investing in dexterity/constitution (and still being behind) is not the same.
Even the tough Feat has is a lower investment for a fighter in respect to a wizard, because a fighter has bonus feats, so i think it's not fair comparing a wizard with spells and attributes investment with a fighter without any investment. Fighters are naturally tanky, and may become tankier with builds. Wizards are naturally squishy, they can become decent in survivability with specific builds
Investment into DEX/CON is expected. I don't see Wizards (nor anyone who isn't into heavy armor) with less than 14/14, unless the player wants something very specific (and probably not raw numbers-oriented) out of the character. You don't have to take Tough - your subclass alone can provide more value and survivability than Tough+Fighter subclass ever will.

Fighters are not actually naturally tanky. Barbarians are, and they're easy to make even more tanky (Bear Totem, done). Paladins are situationally tanky (self-healing, great saves, don't noticeably lose out on offense if using SnB). Even Monks can be noticeably more durable than Fighters (though it takes either effort or a particular magic item, but their saves skyrocket at 14 and certain subclasses get great defensive features). Fighters by default are, at best, not very squishy, and you can make them semi-tanky if you use a shield/defense fighting style/subclasses that improve defenses. And if you don't, and go with the default 2H/heavy armor build, you are, quite frankly, less durable than most other classes played intelligently, and it gets worse with levels.

KirbyDerby

2022-07-28, 01:10 AM

Not replying to anything in particular since this has been brought up so many times, but it's actually fairly easy for casters to achieve better AC than martials. A one level dip into a class like artificer, cleric, or hexblade grants instant medium armor + shield proficiency (keeping the same number of slots and only slightly delaying your new spells known), and light armor casters can pick up moderately armored instead. They also have access to the Shield spell and can more effectively use the Dodge action when concentrating on a spell. Martials, on the other hand, can't use a shield without sacrificing their damage significantly, and many don't have access to spells like Shield or Absorb Elements. They also need to take the two weapon feats (SS + XBE or GWM + PM) to deal good damage, so they can't invest as many feats into survivability (not that there are many good ones that they can use in the first place).

tiornys

2022-07-28, 01:18 AM

KirbyDerby

2022-07-28, 01:36 AM

Paladins and/or Rangers are just as good with being buffed as a non-spellcaster, and also they cast a decent amount of spells. Martial subclasses of full caster classes are almost as good, and also they cast spells at full power. Fighters, Barbarians, Rogues, and Monks just don't get enough in return for not casting spells, and each one you have in your party is a sacrifice of numerous spell casts per day.

Funnily enough, most of these martial options for casting classes are dumped in favor of focusing on spellcasting, because it's just THAT strong. Optimized paladin builds barely use any of their martial features and hardfocus Charisma for their spellcasting and Aura of Protection, and rely mainly on Eldritch Blast for damage. The best full caster builds don't use any of the martial subclasses (or if they do, they ignore their martial features) and just cast spells or use Eldritch Blast. The main exception is Ranger, but they still rely a lot on their spellcasting to stay relevant.

Selion

2022-07-28, 12:42 PM

noooonoono, i've already made the mistake of trying to prove that martials are neccesary. My point is that they are viable, even in high optimization games.

my point about summons is twofold.
1. the spells are, as you put it, outliers. they're ridiculously broken, just based on the action economy. to say nothing of the control they can give you over the battlefield, and some of the more clever things you can do with them (i.e. summon pixie+polymorph).
and
2. of all the general class of spells, they're the most likely to be banned/nerfed at a table. so yeah, if summons are on the table, obviously martials are obsolete, summon spells are broken. But in practice you're as likely to find a table that lets you use them, because, in addition to being broken, they're also really really obnoxious to use.

so, while in theory summons make caster's too good that martials are no longer viable, situations where summons are either nerfed or banned are common enough that, imo, the discussion is far better served by removing the outlier. it makes no sense to make a general statement like 'caster's are always better' if its based on a feature that is commonly excluded from the game.

sorry, you're going to have to explain this one...remember, the point is to show how a hexblade is so good, that it makes martials nonviable. like EB is solid damage, and obviously a blade pact warlock can get pseudo extra attack. but as far as i can see that really only puts them on par with martials. not way ahead. and at level 5? right when martial hit their first powerspike? they certainly do have some benefits over martials. i.e. the ability to swap from doing a 2d6 melee weapon to a 1d10 ranged weapon without needing to boost 2 ability scores or take a feat. But the various martial classes all have benefits that warlocks lack.
LMAO. no...just...no. at higher levels they're pretty decent. but animal forms don't come near being able to match the turn-by-turn versatility that martials can have. yeah moon druids get a lot of HP, but there's way more to being a martial than that. battlemaster maneuvers, grappling, straight up battlefield control (for example sentinal/pam). This isn't to say that moon druids can't be used to fill that role. but they're not SO good at it that its always better to play one than to pick a martial.
right....because martials can't use the benefits that twilight/peace clerics give? again, im not arguing that you have to have a martial. im arguing that martials are still viable. and they use the buffs provided by clerics really well. they even (situationally) use some of the peace cleric benefits better than a caster would.

TBH i can agree with you, i responded to the statement that in a high optimized meat grinder game martials are pretty much optional.
I proposed a team that may work without martials, but, as i said, it's needed to build the entire team in a proper way to make it work without a dedicated front liner.
If you ever have played a MOBA (when it comes to optimizing teams by roles i think it's a good example), you can play a team without a full tank only if their role is split among at least a couple of off-tanks, meaning characters that are tanks as secondary role.
The same way, the 4 subclasses above could fill the front liner role, but neither of them are specialists. Neither of them could be the tanky character able to absorb damage and at the same time cannot be ignored because of the sheer amount of consistent damage it can deliver.
It's necessary to split the front liner in 4 secondary front liners to produce the same result, and i think this could be overall very effective in a deadly environment, because in this 4 men team everyone is a full caster.
Does it prove that martials are useless or not viable? Hell no! It just proves that spells give a ton of utility (!) and that you can build specific teams to work without martials, BTW it's not as easy as it sounds, you need a fine tuning between subclasses, because a bunch of random wizards/clerics/druids would simply die in most situations, and i don't think it's fair comparing the standard fighter to the all-star-subclasses-team.

Edit:

Funnily enough, most of these martial options for casting classes are dumped in favor of focusing on spellcasting, because it's just THAT strong. Optimized paladin builds barely use any of their martial features and hardfocus Charisma for their spellcasting and Aura of Protection, and rely mainly on Eldritch Blast for damage. The best full caster builds don't use any of the martial subclasses (or if they do, they ignore their martial features) and just cast spells or use Eldritch Blast. The main exception is Ranger, but they still rely a lot on their spellcasting to stay relevant.

Of course, abusing
- dip in a front headed class, which is likely a design error at first level
- taking the worst written feat in the game to prevent disadvantage in close combat for elditch blast, for a feat thought to be used for crossbow in a totally different way
Then you have your eldritch pala machine gun, which is not that stonger than a straightforward ranged blattlemaster.
Does it proves that spells are too good or that hexblade multiclass and crossbow expert are unbalanced stuff?

Your argument is plausible only for extremely optimized tables, in which the sheer amount of spells and material in the game is in favor of spellcasters. Basic mechanics IMHO are good, balancing parties over parties and not single characters. An average wizard sounds stronger than a average fighter, but a figher and a wizard are stronger than two wizards, unless you're minmaxing options.

LudicSavant

2022-07-28, 01:07 PM

TBH i can agree with you, i responded to the statement that in a high optimized meat grinder game martials are pretty much optional.
I proposed a team that may work without martials, but, as i said, it's needed to build the entire team in a proper way to make it work without a dedicated front liner.
If you ever have played a MOBA (when it comes to optimizing teams by roles i think it's a good example), you can play a team without a full tank only if their role is split among at least a couple of off-tanks, meaning characters that are tanks as secondary role.

There is nothing at all stopping you from making a caster a dedicated frontliner.

AdAstra

2022-07-28, 01:12 PM

Are martial characters viable at high op? Depends on how you define viability and your threshold for optimization. This (from TTB (https://tabletopbuilds.com/flagship-build-series-introduction/)) is the core argument against non-spellcasters at the highest level of optimization: "Spellcasting is by far the strongest feature in the game, and as such all the top builds can cast spells. We’ll have some more dedicated martial builds in the future, but for the best-of-the-best, we have to leave about half of the classes in 5E behind as a primary class. The strength and diverse coverage the Spellcasting provides is, at least in 5E, impossible to match."

Paladins and/or Rangers are just as good with being buffed as a non-spellcaster, and also they cast a decent amount of spells. Martial subclasses of full caster classes are almost as good, and also they cast spells at full power. Fighters, Barbarians, Rogues, and Monks just don't get enough in return for not casting spells, and each one you have in your party is a sacrifice of numerous spell casts per day.

Okay, that's not an argument, that's just the writer stating their opinion on spellcasting. I agree with that opinion, but if you were to use it as an argument it would be completely circular, and luckily the writer doesn't seem to treat it as such (and could probably offer an actual argument if required, it's just clearly outside the purview of the article). "Spellcasters are the best because spellcasting is the best" is only relevant at all if one can justify why spellcasting is the best. Only the last sentence has any relevance to the reasoning behind the statement, that spellcasting is usually stronger than equivalent non-spellcasting options, the ability for spells to do things that are simply not doable by most if not all non-spellcasters, and the wide variety of spells suiting most situations. With the caveats of requiring limited resources and having the right spells ready at the right time. But even that's just a summation.

With regards to the original topic, you should be fine if your players aren't particularly rabid optimizers. Spellcasters are very strong, but overall everyone should feel able to contribute. There are occasional broken options and weird exploits you may want to ban or adjust (but I'd recommend actually getting experience with things first), and you can probably get some good opinions on those here, but overall those things are comparatively minor (either in the sense of power level, or in the sense of being an obvious problem/exploit), and it's far harder to create a character that's just bad at their job. For all the talk about how you can be better off just going with all casters, you're also not hamstringing the party by not doing so. And going without spellcasters at all isn't exceedingly painful, either.

tiornys

2022-07-28, 02:12 PM

"Core argument" = summary of the central idea or ideas that support a position. Namely: spellcasting provides more utility and power than anything else in the game, therefore every high op character should have spellcasting. It's not a fully supported argument, just the core tenets.

I fully agree that martials can be strong contributors at most tables, because most tables play at middling optimization levels at best. However, the question I was responding to was whether a (pure) martial could be "perfectly viable" in a high lethality/optimization game. And I believe the answer to that question is "no".

KirbyDerby

2022-07-28, 02:32 PM

If you ever have played a MOBA (when it comes to optimizing teams by roles i think it's a good example), you can play a team without a full tank only if their role is split among at least a couple of off-tanks, meaning characters that are tanks as secondary role.
The same way, the 4 subclasses above could fill the front liner role, but neither of them are specialists. Neither of them could be the tanky character able to absorb damage and at the same time cannot be ignored because of the sheer amount of consistent damage it can deliver.
It's necessary to split the front liner in 4 secondary front liners to produce the same result, and i think this could be overall very effective in a deadly environment, because in this 4 men team everyone is a full caster.

5e doesn't work that way. There is no such thing as a "tank" in this game. The only thing stopping an enemy from running straight past the "frontliner" to attack the "backline" is a single opportunity attack, which stops being relevant after T1. All the other tanking options are too weak, especially at higher levels, and have a high opportunity cost (either taking a weaker subclass or taking a feat, the latter of which martials are starved for early on). It's most effective to have a party that plays at range as much as possible, even in lower optimization games, and only engage in melee once you can't avoid it any longer.

Of course, abusing
- dip in a front headed class, which is likely a design error at first level
- taking the worst written feat in the game to prevent disadvantage in close combat for elditch blast, for a feat thought to be used for crossbow in a totally different way
Then you have your eldritch pala machine gun, which is not that stonger than a straightforward ranged blattlemaster.
Does it proves that spells are too good or that hexblade multiclass and crossbow expert are unbalanced stuff?

Hexblade is only an overpowered dip in the sense that it gives you medium armor + shield proficiency, which has been readily available since day 1 (cleric dips, moderately armored). If a "dip in a front headed class" is a design error, then nearly every single class in the game is a design error, since most of them are front-headed. Now, I do agree that getting so much from a 1-2 level dip is probably not good for the game, but there are so many design errors in 5e that calling out one of them as "unbalanced" is like complaining about a single grain of sand on the beach.
Crossbow expert is only unbalanced in the sense that it is the single best way for a martial to justify their existence, otherwise they don't deal enough damage to make up for their lack of spellcasting. A martial without the two weapon feats can't deal much more damage than a warlock, who can play at range AND gets fullcasting.

Your argument is plausible only for extremely optimized tables, in which the sheer amount of spells and material in the game is in favor of spellcasters. Basic mechanics IMHO are good, balancing parties over parties and not single characters. An average wizard sounds stronger than a average fighter, but a figher and a wizard are stronger than two wizards, unless you're minmaxing options.

I do partially agree with this actually, party roles do exist in 5e (although they are different from what most people think they are). However, the fighter could probably be replaced by a ranger or warlock and be just as effective, if not more.

PhoenixPhyre

2022-07-28, 03:05 PM

I'd say the big thing is being able to pick up heavy armor proficiency and/or shield proficiency by a simple dip. Normally, you can't. Dip into Fighter, and you get medium armor and no shield. But a cleric domain? That's gravy.

Personally, I think the whole idea of a "full-casting gish" is an abominationmistake. If you can cast 9th level spells and are level 20, your maximum martial capability should be comparable to a fighter of level ~6. At most. Full stop. No way around it. Why level 6? Because a fighter who takes EK only gets the spell slots of roughly a wizard of that level. And symmetry is important.

But to do this, you'd have to refactor things. No more weapon cantrips. Bladesinger should either get armor or AC from bladesong. Not both. I'd prefer the latter--you get ac like a light-armored, high-dex person, but only while bladesinging. And without the weapon cantrips, the whole "attack and cast a cantrip" thing is weaker. Or should be replaced with "you get Extra Attack". Hex warrior needs to instead let you cast mage armor at will. Or at least not give shield proficiency. Shield (the spell) shouldn't stack with armor or shields at all. And multiclassing needs an entire second pass[1]. And some other changes.

All in all, you shouldn't be able to have more effective health (including resistances, etc, but not armor effects) than a raging barbarian of comparable level. Or higher AC-based defenses than a Fighter of comparable level who is built for defense. Or more martial damage output that a fighter of comparable level who is built for offense. And any spell, feature, etc that allows that should just go away.

Would that cause howls of outrage? Sure. But "I can do everything you can do, better, plus a bunch of things you can't do" isn't sustainable or sane. And that's what we've got at higher optimization.

[1] controversially--be ripped out at the roots and replaced with something more like 2e Multiclassing or 4e/PF2e Dedication feats. I'd rather have classes that are front-loaded, so pure-class people get their game on quickly and fix multiclassing. Not shove all the good stuff back (but only in classes that are great as dips!) so that multiclassing, this variant feature that's always been wonky, can continue.

strangebloke

2022-07-28, 03:10 PM

so, while in theory summons make caster's too good that martials are no longer viable, situations where summons are either nerfed or banned are common enough that, imo, the discussion is far better served by removing the outlier. it makes no sense to make a general statement like 'caster's are always better' if its based on a feature that is commonly excluded from the game.[/spoiler]
I have never seen a table where all summon spells were banned. Nerfs to the best ones like conjure animals and simulacrum? Sure, but even that's not ubiquitous.

I think its better to talk about the system as it exists, rather than the system that might exist at a specific table after a DM has made alterations to the system. I let martials get power attack features for free, but I'm not stating that as a point in their favor. And again, summons are broken, but basic things like spirit guardians are too.
[QUOTE=kazaryu;25532851]sorry, you're going to have to explain this one...remember, the point is to show how a hexblade is so good, that it makes martials nonviable. like EB is solid damage, and obviously a blade pact warlock can get pseudo extra attack. but as far as i can see that really only puts them on par with martials. not way ahead. and at level 5? right when martial hit their first powerspike? they certainly do have some benefits over martials. i.e. the ability to swap from doing a 2d6 melee weapon to a 1d10 ranged weapon without needing to boost 2 ability scores or take a feat. But the various martial classes all have benefits that warlocks lack.
Which features? The hexblade has comparable or better AC, comparable HP, comparable DPR (better, in many cases) and also has third level spells.

Sure there's always going to be a specific build that can do one thing better. A battlemaster can boost initiative with Ambush, for example. A barbarian might have marginally higher DPR at some levels. But these aren't enough to justify the massive amounts of utility you give up by not having counterspell or shadow blade or spirit shroud.

LMAO. no...just...no. at higher levels they're pretty decent. but animal forms don't come near being able to match the turn-by-turn versatility that martials can have. yeah moon druids get a lot of HP, but there's way more to being a martial than that. battlemaster maneuvers, grappling, straight up battlefield control (for example sentinal/pam). This isn't to say that moon druids can't be used to fill that role. but they're not SO good at it that its always better to play one than to pick a martial.
Right grappling... like the giant constrictor snake and alligator can do as well as any martial. Or maneuvers like trip attack which literally just replicate the pounce ability the moon druid has on a billion of its forms, but most notably the Deinonychus which can proc trip effects three times a turn for free.

right....because martials can't use the benefits that twilight/peace clerics give? again, im not arguing that you have to have a martial. im arguing that martials are still viable. and they use the buffs provided by clerics really well. they even (situationally) use some of the peace cleric benefits better than a caster would.

This isn't even an argument. Free access to THP lessens the important of having high HP/AC, which means that one of the few advantages martials have is diminished. A bard or a cleric benefits from a twilight cleric's aura much more than a fighter does.

And I'm not sure what you mean by 'viable?' Are you saying you can play a martial and not feel like a total chump?? Sure, I'd agree with that. But in general the most optimal builds for teams are all casters. Trying to justify a rogue over a bard, or a fighter over a warlock, is very hard if you're trying to be optimal.

KorvinStarmast

2022-07-28, 03:40 PM

Shield (the spell) shouldn't stack with armor or shields at all. Except on an Eldritch Knight. Make that the Specific over General case.

Zirconia

2022-07-28, 03:49 PM

I tried setting up a God style control wizard in our first D&D 5e game, which went levels 1-8, and in some fights there would definitely have been party deaths without her controls. There were other fights, though, especially against Fiends with magic resistance, where I could have missed the whole fight and it would have made almost no difference, the martials were the stars of the fight and my damage was resisted and virtually no controls worked. Overall, I felt that the spellcasters and the martials each had different fights and points in fights where they were crucial to the win, so I would call that balanced.

We actually had 2 parties we tag teamed, same players, one my God wizard, a paladin, a rogue, and a cleric. At least 50% of that party damage output came from the rogue, the paladin just never seemed to have enough spell slots to smite very often at least in the level range we played. The other party was a Gloomstalker ranger (me), different paladin, Moon druid, and wizard, same level range, and there about 50% of the party damage came from my ranger. The druid never encountered anything tougher than a Brown bear to turn into (he felt any kind of shape change or polymorph into something he hadn't seen was cheating), and a bear kind of loses its impact above about 4th level. The wizard leaned mostly on fireball and cantrips, he never really understood most of the other wizard spells. At one point he was going to be overwhelmed by lava after making risky leaps from wall to wall to avoid it, and I looked at his sheet (we play virtually), and said "You know, you DO have the Fly spell memorized. . ." :)

I saw similar results in our most recent game which started at 10th level and has gone to 13th, having a mix of martials and casters works well.

I will note that I have avoided taking and using summons spells and illusions in these games, because most of the people I was playing with took a while doing their turns, and I didn't want to slow down combat even further than it was already. Summons require managing a lot of additional combat options, and illusions require negotiation with the DM each time they are used. Both leave people playing less complex characters twiddling their thumbs. Summons would have been way too complex for any of the other players to manage, as would tricky gish type builds, I have never even convinced any of the other three players to multiclass.

In addition, the DM is pretty comfortable with "bad guys tend to go after whoever is closest", and wants everyone to feel useful, so having a front line meat shield works fairly well. If he wants to harass the back liners, he'll throw in bad guys with range, teleporters, etc. He uses a lot of obscure or custom critters.

My TLDR for 5th edition versus 3.5, it is natively better balanced, and much more streamlined to play at mid and higher levels because you don't have tons of modifiers and attack types (ranged touch attack anyone?) to deal with, nor a lot of stacking controls and buffs, while retaining the classic "feel" of the D&D system, which 4.0 did not do very well.

LudicSavant

2022-07-28, 04:09 PM

Hawk7915

2022-07-28, 04:49 PM

No system is ever perfectly balanced. But my favorite comparison is...

In 5E the difference between the "Best Class" and "The Worst Class" (which I won't list, but broadly speaking you will find full casters closer to the top of that list than martials still) is like the difference between a top-end 2022 Ferrari and a beat up, old, but still very functional and well-maintained Volkswagon Bug. One is definitely going to be smoother, flashier, faster, and capable of pulling off a few tricks that the other can't. If the goal is to, say, win a drag race than the Ferrari takes it, every time. But if you're just cruising around, taking a road trip, or trying to get across town (or, if you're just playing a standard adventure and not some PvP scenario or ridiculously high-lethality grind fest) at the end of the day both can work just fine. Most folks will find the Ferrari more fun, but not everyone, and those that want to use the Beetle are still going to be able to participate in the road trip.

In 3.5 the difference between the "Best Class" and "The Worst Class" was like the difference between a bicycle and the U.S.S Enterprise, in that once the Enterprise was off the ground they were just playing a fundamentally different game.

What lead to this difference? It's been mentioned, but:

A More Forgiving World for Martials:

Stuff like Weapon Finesse, Bull Rush, and Grapple are now just stuff everyone can do instead of a feat tax. While there's some stuff that's definitely better with Feat investments, in general moving away from Feat Chains and into interesting subclasses and stronger class features was a boon to martials more than casters.
Extra attack is just an extra attack; no iterative attack penalties.
Players can move and "full attack" without the need to worry about positioning or setting up a charge, making it much easier for warriors to leverage their full power every turn.
Ranged weapons now apply ability score damage by base; no more composite weapons or fiddly magical effects needed.
Most stuff that was conditional in 3.5 is way more broad and unconditional now. Classic example is Sneak Attack - no enemy is "immune to precision damage" in 5E, and it's a baked in assumption that a Rogue might not get to sneak attack who they want every turn, but they should be able to sneak attack someone every turn. Another example - Paladins can smite anyone who offends or threatens them. Their smite is a bit meatier versus fiends and undead, but they can smite a random wolf or thug without the need for some obscure prestige class from an old SPLAT book. Or for 3.5's favorite whipping boy - Monks now may need Ki to truly "Flurry", but they're double-attacking at no penalty at level 1 and all their stuff runs off Dexterity now. They're still MAD, and arguably the worst class in 5E, but are much more functional and capable of contributing to a party than they used to be.

and then meanwhile...
A more Limited World for Casters

Concentration is the big change. In 3.5, casters had a concentration skill and largely used it to cast defensively or concentrate through, like, a storm. In 5E Concentration means "only one active effect at a time", and that means it is much harder for a single caster to go full "Zilla" and stack themselves with an impossible wall of buffs or create their own blender by stacking debuffs and terrain-altering effects. And not only is it one spell at a time; any damage has a chance to make them lose the spell! In 3.5 a caster could drop, say, Cloudkill and walk away; here the rest of the enemy archer line might be able to disrupt it with enough shots as even a very talented caster is going to roll a 1 or 2 on their Concentration checks eventually.
More broadly I think a lot of spells are just sort of nerfed. The removal of stuff like "ability damage", "ranged touch attacks", etc. took a lot of tools out of a caster's arsenal. No more Shivering Touch/Ray of Enfeeblement spam at level 1. That's compounded by a slower release cadence. That's not to say there's not the same SPLATbook power creep (hello Silvery Barbs!) but casters aren't getting a hundred new toys to a fighter's ten every year like they did in 3.5.

Casters got a few benefits too so it isn't all bad - casting in melee no longer provokes an AoO by base, for instance, and Spell Resistance is now framed as "enemy saves at advantage" and not "you roll to see if your spell even works before a saving throw is called for". They also moved away from strict Vancian casting, giving casters a lot more flexibility and adaptability. But that Concentration change looks subtle at first read and fundamentally changes how casters behave in actual play.

kazaryu

2022-07-28, 05:26 PM

I think its better to talk about the system as it exists, rather than the system that might exist at a specific table after a DM has made alterations to the system. I let martials get power attack features for free, but I'm not stating that as a point in their favor. And again, summons are broken, but basic things like spirit guardians are too. talking about the system as it exists only matters if thats how its commonly played. in a fully theoretical environment you can include all the features you want..but when trying to give someone else advice? why would you? and I specifically mentioned both nerfs and bans. its a feature that is commonly not used as vanilla..so discussing it as though it is always something used is pointless. at best it should be an addendum 'now, if you use X spells as they were written then...'

Which features? The hexblade has comparable or better AC, comparable HP, comparable DPR (better, in many cases) and also has third level spells.

Sure there's always going to be a specific build that can do one thing better. A battlemaster can boost initiative with Ambush, for example. A barbarian might have marginally higher DPR at some levels. But these aren't enough to justify the massive amounts of utility you give up by not having counterspell or shadow blade or spirit shroud.
comaprable AC, yes.
WAY worse HP. yeah, yeah i know, its 'only a D8 vs a d10' no. its a d8 PER HIT DICE, and hexblades don't get an extra 1d10+5 hp back per short rest on top of that. they don't have the damge resistance that a barbarian has. they don't have the pool of 25 HP extra HP that paladins get per day. so yeah...their max hp is comparable. The amount of damage they can absorb over the course of a day? basic fighter has hexblade beat by 6hp from levels, 5 more HP from hit dice and ~21 HP from second wind (assuming you take 1 SR, which you need in order to use hit dice). so 32 extra HP at lvl 5 (that is, 32 more HP than a hexblade gets, counting all of their self healing factors). where their max HP is what? 44-49 ish. thats almost 50% more.
comaprable DPR? sure, as long as your concentration holds i suppose. assuming we're comparing damage focused builds you're looking at
2d6+1d8 vs...well, whatever martial you wanna compart it to. a GWF barbarian blows this damage out of the water. 2d6+5+10...and thats at-will and not really reliant on anything besides being able to attack consistently, and even if they looose their rage, its still only loses 2 damage. hexblade can sort of approach this with hexblades curse, but thats 1 target per short rest. thats the definition of a tradeoff. and sure, warlocks have 3rd level spells...but you just spent one of them trying to keep up with the martial in damage. barbarian is also WAY bulkier than the warlock in this scenario.

looking at fighter, the damage is more comparable. things like battle master can only use so many maneuver dice although they will have slight edges here and there depending on what fighting style they selected. granted...the fighter also has the option of getting 2 round of attacks off at a moments notice, meaning the warlock, even if it is dealing more damage, is playing catch up.

and as far as features: well lets see, the runeknight has a couple of fun options, including control options. you already mentioned the battle master...but only its ambush. it has so many other features that can be useful, particularly for this bait-and-switch an ally thas in trouble. goading attack, as a form of taunt. maneuvering attack if your party wants some extra mobility built in. they can even give out a pretty hefty amount of THP if they really wanna do that.

so..yeah, that sounds like a tradeoff. sure the hexblade *can* fill that role. but, at least at this level, its not obvious that its even better at it...but less so much better that you shouldn't play a martial

Right grappling... like the giant constrictor snake and alligator can do as well as any martial. Or maneuvers like trip attack which literally just replicate the pounce ability the moon druid has on a billion of its forms, but most notably the Deinonychus which can proc trip effects three times a turn for free. so i've already covered some of the martial maneuvers that aren't trip attack...pretty telling that you'd try to single that out. tbh, i've tried to look but i can't actually find a good source for the deinonychus. only a couple of sus ones that aren't identical. however, what they do both agree on is that the deinonychus has a terribly attack modifier compared to an optimized level 5 fighter. and its save DC is low as ****. so...no, not comparable. giant constrictor snake has a decent grapple, and a good enough to-hit chance...but is also CR 2 and therefore not eligible for a lvl 5 wildshape. also also, they trade out the ability to deal good damage for that grapple. remember my last message? at-will versatility. sure you can wildshape into a ton of different forms...but then your abilites are constrained by that form. a martial isn't. the crocodile is such a bad example i don't even feel like i should need to explain it.

This isn't even an argument. Free access to THP lessens the important of having high HP/AC, which means that one of the few advantages martials have is diminished. A bard or a cleric benefits from a twilight cleric's aura much more than a fighter does. not really, in an ideal situation, everyone is trying to share the damage fairly evenly. Or if its not the first fight of teh day, focus the damage to the people that have more ability to heal from it..as in, bias it toward the people that have more HD remaining. so as to maximize party HP. a martial has just as much a share in that as anyone. and depending on the martial, they may even be actively encouraging enemies to attack them. (thing AG barbarian, or goading attack battlemaster). it all depends on party comp.

And I'm not sure what you mean by 'viable?' Are you saying you can play a martial and not feel like a total chump?? well, i'd phrase it as 'adding a significant contribution to the team' but...yes, essentially. more specifically, that martials are actually more viable in a game that requires optimization than they are in casual play, with a group of optimized characters...like. if the campaign isn't meant to be super brutal, but someone decided to show up with some highly optimized build. a martial is far more likely to feel overshadowed, because in those types of games a single spell *can* legitimately win the fight. as opposed to high lethality/optimization games where everyone actually does need to contribute.

Selion

2022-07-28, 08:47 PM

KirbyDerby

2022-07-28, 09:10 PM

In particular we had a though fight based on attrition (waves of enemies approaching us in an open field) I just didn't have enough bullets for everything

This is actually a great encounter for spellcasters to shine with their AOE concentration spells. Something like Plant Growth or Sleet Storm would delay many of the enemies for a long time, enough to pick them off one by one.

Hael

2022-07-29, 06:44 PM

comaprable DPR? sure, as long as your concentration holds i suppose. assuming we're comparing damage focused builds you're looking at
2d6+1d8 vs...well, whatever martial you wanna compart it to. a GWF barbarian blows this damage out of the water.

Hexblade damage builds are very nasty with at will damage and you are underestimating them significantly. And thats just with standard gish fair (hex/spirit shroud/darkness/SoM) and not using summons. Roughly speaking they are approximately equivalent damage wise to what say a zealot barbarian is doing in tier1/2, then they hit tier3/4 and they will separate significantly.

The standard damage build for a hexblade is something like a drow or shadar kai EA/GWM build with darkness/ds or SOM and a greatsword + invocations for +1 hit/dmg. At lvl 8 theyre doing about 38.4 dpr or 49.4 with curse up. A Zealot barbarian meanwhile is about the same thing.. With the same greatsword and ASI + GWM/GWF they do about 40 dpr while raging (38 when not). It turns out EA adds a lot of damage for builds with easy advantage.

True barbarians have resistances and about 16 more hitpoints, but Hexblades are moderatedly tanky with advantage from SoM or darkness. Their effective AC is significantly higher than a Barbarian reckless striking, they can disengage at will and are obscured to a lot of spells and effects.

LudicSavant

2022-07-29, 07:25 PM

Or just forget weapons and have a party of 4 Warlocks that all have Repelling Blast (and other EB riders besides) and can just plant down one or more hazards (like Cloud of Daggers or Wall of Fire) and then casually woodchipper Legendary foes with no save.

You can give them all Devil's Sight too, and just have one cast Darkness for the whole lot of 'em (might even have that 1 Darkness last multiple encounters). It's quite synergistic and efficient.

So they're all rocking not only armor+shield, but Disadvantage to be hit and vision blockers, too. And fighting from range. While applying buckets of knockback, control, and more. Often so much that an enemy simply cannot close.

And as if that wasn't already more than enough, something like a giftlock (https://forums.giantitp.com/showsinglepost.php?p=25029862&postcount=1095) can just straight face-tank more damage than a Bear-barian and still have buckets of resources to spare. And they could spend those spare resources on even more durability and damage, like say Armor of Agathys or whatever you want.

kazaryu

2022-07-29, 07:32 PM

Hexblade damage builds are very nasty with at will damage and you are underestimating them significantly. And thats just with standard gish fair (hex/spirit shroud/darkness/SoM) and not using summons. Roughly speaking they are approximately equivalent damage wise to what say a zealot barbarian is doing in tier1/2, then they hit tier3/4 and they will separate significantly.

The standard damage build for a hexblade is something like a drow or shadar kai EA/GWM build with darkness/ds or SOM and a greatsword + invocations for +1 hit/dmg. At lvl 8 theyre doing about 38.4 dpr or 49.4 with curse up. A Zealot barbarian meanwhile is about the same thing.. With the same greatsword and ASI + GWM/GWF they do about 40 dpr while raging (38 when not). It turns out EA adds a lot of damage for builds with easy advantage.

True barbarians have resistances and about 16 more hitpoints, but Hexblades are moderatedly tanky with advantage from SoM or darkness. Their effective AC is significantly higher than a Barbarian reckless striking, they can disengage at will and are obscured to a lot of spells and effects.

the analysis you jumped in the middle of was specifically for lvl 5, meaning no SOM. also SOM isn't 'at-will damage'. and i wouldn't call darkness/DS 'common' outside of theoretical optimization. since it becomes a tax on the rest of the party to bring something along to deal with the darkness. granted, you are correct that i forgot to give the +1 to damage from improved pact weapon. and yes, barbarian damge basically stops scaling at level 5. i mean, they get 6 extra potentialy damage per round over the next 15 levels from rage, and zelots do get an extra 7 ish damge. plus some tiny amounts of damage from brutal critical. but that wasn't the point. the person i was replying to tried to make it sound like a level 5 hexblade was basically as tanky as an optimized martial, but also did more damage. Which is what i was replying to.

Hael

2022-07-29, 07:47 PM

the analysis you jumped in the middle of was specifically for lvl 5, meaning no SOM. also SOM isn't 'at-will damage'. and i wouldn't call darkness/DS 'common' outside of theoretical optimization. since it becomes a tax on the rest of the party to bring something along to deal with the darkness. granted, you are correct that i forgot to give the +1 to damage from improved pact weapon. and yes, barbarian damge basically stops scaling at level 5. i mean, they get 6 extra potentialy damage per round over the next 15 levels from rage, and zelots do get an extra 7 ish damge. plus some tiny amounts of damage from brutal critical. but that wasn't the point. the person i was replying to tried to make it sound like a level 5 hexblade was basically as tanky as an optimized martial, but also did more damage. Which is what i was replying to.

The lvl 5 analysis isn't significantly different. Darkness/DS, despite rumors to the contrary is perfectly fine for almost any party provided people have some idea what they are doing. I used it for dozens of hours without much of a problem.

Barbarians are excellent tier1 tanks. But things start to diverge for them rather rapidly as you allude to, with only a few exceptions (zealots for instance). Its just very difficult to optimize them in a way that can keep up with all the caster stuff that can be done and that gets worse and worse as the game goes on. Just consider all the scenarios where casters can cast something absolutely trivial, like fly and be immune to all damage.

Even outside theoretical whiteroom stuff, its simple things like that which just show up time and time again, and I can't really put a number to it.

kazaryu

2022-07-29, 09:43 PM

The lvl 5 analysis isn't significantly different. sure it is. i literally put the numbers up there. even with advantage you're still not out-damaging the barbarian. and you're spending a spell slot/concentration. my point isn't to argue that the barbarian is better. its to point out that hexblades aren't 'so much better that its detrimental to play a martial.

Barbarians are excellent tier1 tanks. But things start to diverge for them rather rapidly as you allude to, with only a few exceptions (zealots for instance). Its just very difficult to optimize them in a way that can keep up with all the caster stuff that can be done and that gets worse and worse as the game goes on.

Just consider all the scenarios where casters can cast something absolutely trivial, like fly and be immune to all damage.

both of these individual points go back to my overall point (as opposed to just the specific point i was making in the post you originally quoted). I absolutely agree that an optimized caster can easily overshadow a martial, in low optimization games. because yeah...if you're consistently in fights where being able to fly makes you immune to damage, then you're not in a campaign that demands optimization. and as a result there is less need for the things that martials provide. This isn't a phenomenon that is exclusive to martials. support type character, in particular ones that really lean into support, like life clerics, are also severely underrated because the specific niche they fill is largely unnecessary in low optimization games.

However, as the games get more lethal and stretches resources more, those roles become much more useful. they don't have to be filled by martials, or life clerics necessarily. But the fact that the roles themselves become more useful (even if only in aggregate. like using a twighlight/peace cleric combo to increase overall party tankiness) the classes designed to fill those roles also become more viable.

like...an analogy i thought of today would be something like...if you're spending 20% of your resources simulating having the extra bulk/consistent DPS that a martial can provide. then its perfectly viable to instead permanently trade that 20% in order to just...have a martial. not necessary. but certainly viable. And sure, its possible that eventually you'll have an adventuring day where you don't need to spend those resources on simulating a martial...but its equally possible that you'll get tossed an encounter that is heavy in anti-magic...where having a character that doesn't rely on magic at all would be quite handy.

JNAProductions

2022-07-29, 09:45 PM

I've never liked the "anti-magic" argument. How often does it come up in actual play?

kazaryu

2022-07-29, 10:02 PM

I've never liked the "anti-magic" argument. How often does it come up in actual play? i mean...it depends on the type of game, and how intelligent your enemies are. if you're a party of casters and you have a recurring villain that is intelligent. then it makes sense that at some point they're going to start incorporationg anti-magic into their plans, because its the most direct counter to mages. but that wasn't my point.

my point was that its as rare as having a day, in a high optimization game, where you need the resources that you would normally spend on simulating a martial, for something else.

like, yeah, in theory all those resources you normally spend on filling the 'tank' role are flexible...but you're as likely to encounter an actual need to flex them, as you are to encounter heavy antimagic. where having martial would be a straight boon. so its a wash.

my point was not its a bad idea, or its risky to make a full caster party because 'muh-antimagic'.

LudicSavant

2022-07-31, 09:53 AM

kazaryu

2022-07-31, 10:52 AM

@kazaryu
Regarding the "Level 5 Barbarian have way more HP than Hexblade" thing, I feel obliged to note that a Hexblade will be generating ~9 hp/sr from Hexblade's Curse, and quite possibly a lot more depending on their choice of invocations and/or spells.

That Hexblade's Curse alone is worth 27 hp over 2 short rests. And again, spells and invocations can be worth much more than that.

By comparison, the Barbarian's larger HD will afford them 12 extra HP, and up to 10 extra healing from short rests, for a total of just 22 (if they use all 5 HD in a single day. Note that you can only recharge 2 HD per long rest!)

The Hexblade will also not be making themselves extra vulnerable with Reckless Attack, (in fact, they'll often be doing the opposite and boosting the difficulty to hit them).

The Barbarian basically has to try to make up the difference with Rage. And while Rage is nice, it is a fairly narrow and inflexible defense at level 5. Elemental damage is more common than ever in 2022. Saves and control are not only a significant threat to Barbarians, but in many circumstances they can also interrupt rage. Rage has to wait until you spend a bonus action to get it up, so you'll be vulnerable to losing initiative and/or Surprise. It can only be used 3x a day, so either you're in an adventuring day so short that casters can go full pedal to the metal with their resources, or you're spending a good chunk of the day rageless.

So while Rage is nice, it should not be overestimated in the face of the kinds of defensive tools a Hexblade can bring to the table, whether it's Gift of the Ever-Living Ones, Eldritch Blast invocations that knockback and slow, Darkness synergy team comps, Armor of Agathys + damage reduction combos, counterspell, and more.

___

If you're playing in high lethality games of the sort you were talking about earlier, it's not really a safe assumption that you'll automatically be super-tanky with Reckless GWM just because you're a Barbarian. Even something like a CR5 Enchanter Wizard (from MPMM) has a pretty good chance of one-shotting a basic level 5 Reckless GWMer, and I wouldn't call that a high lethality encounter. you do bring up a good point, in particular about HBC. that is not something i'd considered. But my overall point was not to prove that a barbarian is straight up better at doing the martial thing. its to point out the hexblade isn't that much better. you're right that reckless attack increases the barbarian vulnerability...but it also massively increases their damage output. whether its worth it to use is always gonna come down to the situation. but even without reckless attack a GWM barb compares favorably, at that level, to a hexblade in terms of damage. while also being significantly tankier when they're not reckless attacking. sure, elemental damage exists, but its a rare combat where its the only damage going around (and i mean...if we're using a specific warlock subclass, why not a specific barb subclass, the totem barb). you're also correct that the barbarian only gets 3 rages per day. but chosen carefully, a barbarian can easily rack up enough damage reduction across those 3 rages to more than make up for the slight healing edge that HBC might give the hexblade. you are also correct, that if you're out adventuring day to day, that you can really only count on being able to spend half your HD per day. i did intend to bring that up at some point...must have gotten lost in the shuffle. but HD are generally the smaller part of the toughness benefit that martials have. generaly speaking martials have additional class/subclass featuers that add a good chunk of extra HP, at least for the martials that are meant to be fairly tough. Rage and second wind being the good examples.

talking about control: i mean...clerics and druids are the only class that inherently has an appreciable bonus to control compared to a barb. wizards/warlocks are a bit better, but there's not a great reason to assume a wizard/warlock has a higher wisdom than a barb, meaning the only built in difference is proficiency. which, at this level is +3. thats a difference, to be sure. but not one thats so large that it makes warlocks/wizards effectively immune to CC. and there's no reason that a barbarian can't go V.human/tashas's custom lineage to get res(wis) by this point. that is, if it is such a big deal. meanwhile, sure a barb has a chance to get their turn wasted by temporary control, causing them to loose rage...but a caster (particularly a warlock in this case) has a decent chance to fail a con save and loose whatever spell they were concentrating on. again, its not clear that the risks for the barbarian are worse than those for the caster.

meanwhile, if we're gonna bring saves into this, barbarians are better than most casters at both dex saves (super common damage save) and con saves (arguably, essentially its the same argument as wis save proficiency).

and lastly, yes...barbarians need to wait until combat to rage..but the same is true of many defensive spells, especially ones that a hexblade will have.

getting into non-sequitors: how are you gonna compare a hexblade backed up by a team comp to just a single barbarian, as though barbarians can't benefit from having a team backing them up?

LudicSavant

2022-07-31, 12:19 PM

you do bring up a good point, in particular about HBC. that is not something i'd considered.

https://forums.giantitp.com/images/sand/icons/icon_thumbsup.png

you are also correct, that if you're out adventuring day to day, that you can really only count on being able to spend half your HD per day. i did intend to bring that up at some point...must have gotten lost in the shuffle. but HD are generally the smaller part of the toughness benefit that martials have.

Yes. HD are generally the smaller part of toughness that everything has.

That was sort of the point I was getting at.

generaly speaking martials have additional class/subclass featuers that add a good chunk of extra HP, at least for the martials that are meant to be fairly tough. Rage and second wind being the good examples. Yes. Casters too.

reckless attack (snip) whether its worth it to use is always gonna come down to the situation.

Yep. It should be used opportunistically.

but even without reckless attack a GWM barb compares favorably, at that level, to a hexblade in terms of damage. while also being significantly tankier when they're not reckless attacking.

As shown above, at L5 they don't really have more health or AC than an Invocationless, Spell-less Hexblade unless they rage.

And if they rage... well, you should be comparing to the value of spells and invocations and all of that.

i mean...if we're using a specific warlock subclass, why not a specific barb subclass, the totem barb)

as though barbarians can't benefit from having a team backing them up?

Pick whatever Barb you like! Teamwork potential too!

meanwhile, if we're gonna bring saves into this, barbarians are better than most casters at both dex saves (super common damage save) and con saves (arguably, essentially its the same argument as wis save proficiency).

Just as HP isn't just about your HD size, save defense isn't just about your base save bonus.

Spellcasting offers a flexible defensive resource. Those Beholder Zombies? Can't even target their eye rays through Darkness. That crucial enemy spell? Counterspell can cancel the whole thing. Going to the fortress of the Mind Flayers? Throw on an Intellect Fortress. And so forth.

Likewise, there are things like the Zealot's save rerolls at level 6; it just wouldn't apply to any commentary about level 5.

and lastly, yes...barbarians need to wait until combat to rage..but the same is true of many defensive spells, especially ones that a hexblade will have.

Hexblades have options. Armor of Agathys which lasts an hour, Darkness which lasts 10 minutes, spammable, permanent, or reaction-triggered invocations, or Shield or Counterspell which are also Reactions.

They can even do silly stuff like can just grab the Fey-Touched feat to bump their odd Cha, combo it with Gift of Alacrity, and grant party members ~+5 to initiative for most or all of the adventuring day as a '1 hour ritual' (a way of synergizing with Fey-Touched that is pretty much unique to Warlocks). And all of the defensive and offensive value that carries with it.

That's just a couple examples. There are more.

KirbyDerby

2022-07-31, 02:15 PM

talking about control: i mean...clerics and druids are the only class that inherently has an appreciable bonus to control compared to a barb. wizards/warlocks are a bit better, but there's not a great reason to assume a wizard/warlock has a higher wisdom than a barb, meaning the only built in difference is proficiency. which, at this level is +3. thats a difference, to be sure. but not one thats so large that it makes warlocks/wizards effectively immune to CC. and there's no reason that a barbarian can't go V.human/tashas's custom lineage to get res(wis) by this point. that is, if it is such a big deal. meanwhile, sure a barb has a chance to get their turn wasted by temporary control, causing them to loose rage...but a caster (particularly a warlock in this case) has a decent chance to fail a con save and loose whatever spell they were concentrating on. again, its not clear that the risks for the barbarian are worse than those for the caster.

Barbarians, like all 5e martials, are extremely feat-hungry early on. In order to do respectable damage, they need to take both Polearm Master and Great Weapon Master to keep up. As such, they can't afford to get Resilient as early as casters can. They're also weaker to effects like Frightened, as it keeps them out of melee, while casters don't care as much. Also, a lot of enemies have their CC only affect creatures within a limited range, which casters can avoid by walking away from the enemy and using control spells. Barbarians, of course, have to be in melee to deal good damage, so they don't have this luxury.

kazaryu

2022-07-31, 05:06 PM

Barbarians, like all 5e martials, are extremely feat-hungry early on. In order to do respectable damage, they need to take both Polearm Master and Great Weapon Master to keep up. lmao. no, they might need both to keep up in the later levels (even thats debateable). but they don't need both to keep up at the early stages, unless the casters are free to dump literally all of their spell slots every fight *and* are able to precast many of them.

As such, they can't afford to get Resilient as early as casters can. if res (wis) was a big enough deal early, then you'd be saying the opposite. you'd be arguing they can't afford to take something like GWM as early because they need to shore up their defenses.

They're also weaker to effects like Frightened, as it keeps them out of melee, while casters don't care as much. and casters are weaker to effects like blindness. whats your point? and while its easy to assume that such effects are uncommon if you're just arbitrarily picking monsters but...we're not. we're assuming a high lethality game. why wouldn't enemies employ tactics that either straight
up blind their opponents, or pseudo blind them (i.e. invisibility/cover).

Also, a lot of enemies have their CC only affect creatures within a limited range, which casters can avoid by walking away from the enemy and using control spells. Barbarians, of course, have to be in melee to deal good damage, so they don't have this luxury. this is partially true, but hardly a trump. sure, a caster can try to walk away and put some battlefield control between them and their opponent....but unless the entire party is walking away, all that does is split your party. it *can* be a good tactic, it won't always. and if your entire party IS walking away, then that gives your opponents license to fall back and regroup. wait out your attempt at control. a level 5 party doesn't have options like wall of force that would allow them to trap their enemies in a specific spot. and by the time they do...you can expect at least some of the enemies to have means to bypass it.

I think this may be where the big disconnect is coming from. you guys are assuming that spells are going to be more reliable than i am. not just for damage (people have mentioned spells like shadowblade/spirit shroud. which are concentration. they could get dropped by any damage at that level, even with both warcaster and resiliant (con). but also assuming that your control options are going to 100% let you lock down a battlefield. idk, maybe the problem is we've not really established what a 'high letahlity/optimization' game would look like.

strangebloke

2022-07-31, 05:13 PM

You're a rogue. You're good at skill checks. You are mobile. That's it. You can fight at range or in melee, but most of the time your damage is terrible. It's better than cantrip output but not much. You get some decent defensive features, but really your resilience isn't much better than a bard or warlock.

You're a barbarian. You're good at hitting things in melee, but not really any better than a paladin. You are pretty hard to kill, but have notable weaknesses (no mental save bonuses, elemental damage.) You aren't very mobile, you can't fight at range, you don't have any bonuses to skill use, you have no out of combat abilities (or close to it.)

You're a druid, you are super resilient with decent AC and massive HP pool in the form of wildshape. You have a spell that lasts an hour and deals more damage per round its active than most characters can. You have bonuses to skill use (guidance, enhance ability). You can get access to flying forms that don't use concentration. You can heal pretty effectively. You have ranged and melee options as a default.

When the dragon strafes the mountain and breathes fire, the Barbarian has danger sense and decent HP but basically no hope of hitting the dragon without magic items or help. The rogue might be able to dodge damage completely with evasion, but to hit the dragon and deal damage they'll have to stand still and even then their damage will be solidly meh. The druid has absorb elements, healing, the ability to turn into something with extra HP if needed, the ability to knock the dragon out of the sky with a single spell, the ability to shoot the dragon with cantrips.

When the party is swarmed by hobgoblins, the barbarian can rage, kill 1-2 hobgoblins a turn, and get hit A LOT with rage barely keeping up. The rogue can run run run and hope he can pick off maybe one a turn with a shortbow. The druid just casts spike growth and stops the enemy advance on an entire flank cold, or summons a horde of animals to tank and spank for the party.

When the party needs to infiltrate, the rogue has a +11 modifier to stealth. The Barbarian has no bonuses to stealth other than a mediocre DEX mod. The druid gives the whole party +10 to stealth.

Generally speaking, casters get to be good at a lot of things, martials get to be good at (at most) two.

LudicSavant

2022-07-31, 05:35 PM

and casters are weaker to effects like blindness.

Uhm, not really? Barbarians are attack-reliant and attacks are penalized by blindness. Only some spells are penalized by a lack of vision, so you can just, you know, cast a different one.

Such is the value of having a versatile gameplan rather than a narrow one.

Funnily enough, checking on the Wizard I'm currently playing in our Saturday game (who's now level 19, in a campaign that started way back at level 3), she only has 3 spells prepared right now that depend on seeing a target creature: Magic Missile, Disintegrate, and Counterspell. And I don't use Disintegrate on creatures, I only prepare it in case of pesky force walls.

PhoenixPhyre

2022-07-31, 05:45 PM

You're a rogue. You're good at skill checks. You are mobile. That's it. You can fight at range or in melee, but most of the time your damage is terrible. It's better than cantrip output but not much.

Just going to say that this is firmly not true. Even a non-optimized rogue who rarely gets advantage is roughly double non-EB/AB cantrip damage, including Potent Spellcasting. A ranged rogue with constant advantage is roughly 5 time, and is comparable to a PAM/GWM champion fighter (~2.3 RED). EB+AB spam is basically identical to the non-optimized rogue. EB+AB with 100% uptime on hex is only 1.37 RED, while a proper TWF rogue (who never has advantage) is 1.57 RED.

Rogue damage is consistently way better than cantrip damage. And as a note--a cleric who has 100% uptime on spiritual weapon + cantrips (including Potent Spellcasting) is still worse than a no-advantage TWF rogue by about 0.2 RED.

kazaryu

2022-07-31, 05:54 PM

You're a barbarian. You're good at hitting things in melee, but not really any better than a paladin. You are pretty hard to kill, but have notable weaknesses (no mental save bonuses, elemental damage.) elemental damage isn't a weakness...its a lack of an extra strength. they don't take BONUS damage from elemental sources. in fact danger sense/con saving throw proficiency means that generally they're going to take less damage. and thats assuming they're not a totem barbarian. sure, some casters will have absorb elements. but you can't Sheild, absorb elements AND silvery barbs in the same turn.

You aren't very mobile, you can't fight at range, you don't have any bonuses to skill use, you have no out of combat abilities (or close to it.) i'll take the barbarian which gets a 40 foot speed, and has various options to let it BA dash over the caster that has to waste a turn casting misty step. or wait, are you instead assuming that a casters mobility is the fly spell...which then means they can't cast a different concentration spell? where do you get this idea that casters have some crazy mobility that doesn't come at a cost? and no out of combat abilities? so..you're one of those people that thinks ability checks are for chumps? how ridiculous. yeah, caster can get some of the same ability checks...that doesn't mean a martial can't. you talk about things like guidance and enhance ability...those are always best given to the person with the best bonus. doesn't have to be the martial...but it could be.

You're a druid, you are super resilient with decent AC and massive HP pool in the form of wildshape. You have a spell that lasts an hour and deals more damage per round its active than most characters can. You have bonuses to skill use (guidance, enhance ability). You can get access to flying forms that don't use concentration. You can heal pretty effectively. You have ranged and melee options as a default. you're a druid, you have a decent AC pool and are basically a non-threat compared to an optimized martial if you decide to wildshape. you might get some amount of utility, but until level 10 you trade damge for that limited utility, and if the fight changes in such a way that that utility looses value, you have to spend more resources reclaiming it. you can fly but...well...you're now in animal form so you can't cast. and none of the flying forms you have access to are gonna do anything against a flying opponent. you *can* heal, but not in animal form. and if you're playing the healer...why are you being compared to the barbarian?

When the dragon strafes the mountain and breathes fire, the Barbarian has danger sense and decent HP but basically no hope of hitting the dragon without magic items or help. The rogue might be able to dodge damage completely with evasion, but to hit the dragon and deal damage they'll have to stand still and even then their damage will be solidly meh. The druid has absorb elements, healing, the ability to turn into something with extra HP if needed, the ability to knock the dragon out of the sky with a single spell, the ability to shoot the dragon with cantrips. LMAO, you're really trying to use a dragon fight...outside...as an example? why would you choose to stay and fight that? you can 'knock the dragon out of the sky with a single spell'. cool..now the barbarian can attack it. also...why are you so focused on the barbarian/rogue comparison? cherry picking perhaps? 'this class is bad in this 1 situation. and that other class isn't designed for combat. so HAH, clearly martials suck'? is that really the tact you're going with?

if you were to have a rogue in a high optimization party, its because you were expecting a lot of skill challenges. and no, nothing matches rogues fro pure skill efficiency. an eloquence bard will be better at social checks until level 11. and then again at level 15 (if they can afford to cast glibness). but they get fewer expertise, fewer ASI's (worse overall ability scores) and don't come anywhere close to being able to match reliable talent outside of those 2 cases. you are correct that rogues aren't great at combat..they're not supposed to be. and i never argued they were. there's no reason to bring them up when talking about optimized combat except, possibly as a 1 level dip to get a couple of skill expertise'. or a 2 level dip for their mobility.

When the party is swarmed by hobgoblins, the barbarian can rage, kill 1-2 hobgoblins a turn, and get hit A LOT with rage barely keeping up The druid just casts spike growth and stops the enemy advance on an entire flank cold.-/quote] until the hobgoblins ask their you...you are aware that these 2 things aren't mutually exclusive...right? like, you can cast spike growth to hold a flank (and in fact, yeah no ****, of course you want someone to throw down a control spell. thats just smart play) while still have a martial in there to keep dealing persistent, resource less damage. you talk about the barbarian barely keeping up...but if they've raged, and taken their HP in damage from weapons...then they've reduced overall damage the party has taken by their HP total due to resistance. and then are able to heal that damage up on a SR. someone was gonna take that damage....oh wait, never mind, you're one of those people that thinks that if you put up a temporary impenetrable wall, your enemies are obligated to stand just opposite it and let you kill them...
im really not sure what you think you're proving. like...yes, casters have spells...why are we pretending that martials are incapable of working alongside them? the control role doesn't invalidate the tank role...they're complementary. and while, no, you don't need a single character to fill the tank role (in fact, in general you want to spread damage out). However, having a solid beafy boi that can stand there and take the hits isn't a bad idea. Going back to the earlier analogy: if you're spending 20% of your casting resources filling the tank role, then its functionally the same to sacrifice those 20 casting resources and just...bring along a martial. neither is strictly necessary. both are viable.

When the party needs to infiltrate, the rogue has a +11 modifier to stealth. The Barbarian has no bonuses to stealth other than a mediocre DEX mod. The druid gives the whole party +10 to stealth. so what you mean is the rogue has a +21 to stealth, and the barbarian has a +15 to stealth...because they can take proficiency in it?

Generally speaking, casters get to be good at a lot of things, martials get to be good at (at most) two.yup...and it literally doesnt matter. because in a high lethality game, you still need the things martials are good at...you can simulate it with a caster...but you don't need to. either way you're losing casting resources filling that role.

side note: really weird that you'd mention paladins...as though they're not martials.

Uhm, not really? Barbarians are attack-reliant and attacks are penalized by blindness. Only some spells are penalized by a lack of vision, so you can just, you know, cast a different one.

Such is the value of having a versatile gameplan rather than a narrow one. yup penalized, but not entirely prevented. obviously casters have spells that aren't sight reliant...but being blind still actively limits their options. (no counterspell/silvery barbs) whereas a barbarian can just cancel the disadvantage from blind by reckless attacking. its free, because enemies are already going to be attacking at advantage anyway. And martials can have a versatile game plan. not as versatile as casters of course, noones arguing otherwise. but martials do have options other than just 'attack' in combat.

Hael

2022-07-31, 06:49 PM

sure it is. i literally put the numbers up there. even with advantage you're still not out-damaging the barbarian. and you're spending a spell slot/concentration. my point isn't to argue that the barbarian is better. its to point out that hexblades aren't 'so much better that its detrimental to play a martial.
.

Just for clarity, at lvl 5 a darkness/ds GWM hexblade (no EA yet) does 31 dpr, 39 with curse, the GWF/GWM Zealot does 36 (no rage) or 37.5 (with rage). So ever so slightly better for the zealot (one of the universally accepted torch bearers of what a monoclass martial can do), but trending downward as the lvls go on.
I would consider the above hexblade sort of the traditional, i'm making my warlock a martial way of doing things.

Now I will show you what happens when we optimize away from the martial trap and really optimize for damage. At lvl 5 doing Ludics scenario with a hexblade blastlock. A cloud of daggers trap is going to do 12d4 a turn b/c we can push/pull the target into the obstacle on most turns. A normal EB blastlock does about 13 dpr a turn, but it shoots up to 41 per turn with the trap. With curse up, he/she is doing 47. I personally consider this sort of damage potential for a caster to begin to be the sort of thing that starts to be problematic for game balance, and we aren't even getting into the real grater builds, like what a dao lock can do. Yes resource use, but I mean its short rest resource use, and can be sustained assuming 2 fights/sr (and amusingly enough, often suboptimal to use in the first place compared to real game changers, like hypnotic pattern or summons).

All this to say I am not necessarily disagreeing with you. Hexblades and Zealots strike me as kinda/sorta balanced at 5. But things didn't start the same way, and they don't end that way either, and we haven't even gotten into the really problematic content (like what caster multiclassing can achieve).

KirbyDerby

2022-07-31, 06:54 PM

lmao. no, they might need both to keep up in the later levels (even thats debateable). but they don't need both to keep up at the early stages, unless the casters are free to dump literally all of their spell slots every fight *and* are able to precast many of them.
if res (wis) was a big enough deal early, then you'd be saying the opposite. you'd be arguing they can't afford to take something like GWM as early because they need to shore up their defenses.

I also think we haven't established what a 'high lethality/optimization' game looks like. Any game where the martials are not expected to take both SS + XBE or PM + GWM is NOT a high optimization game. It's barely even a medium optimization game. Without taking either group of two feats, martials are not dealing enough damage to justify their existence. In 5e, the primary role of martials is to deal lots of single-target damage while spending as few resources as possible (and before you say it, there is no real "tanking" role, as enemies can very easily run past the frontliner to attack the casters). Even if a martial can outdamage a warlock, they need to outdamage them enough to justify not being a fullcaster. While it is true that a martial doesn't need Resilient (Wis) as much as casters need Resilient (Con), the fact that they'll be taking it later than casters means their save protection will be worse.

this is partially true, but hardly a trump. sure, a caster can try to walk away and put some battlefield control between them and their opponent....but unless the entire party is walking away, all that does is split your party. it *can* be a good tactic, it won't always. and if your entire party IS walking away, then that gives your opponents license to fall back and regroup. wait out your attempt at control. a level 5 party doesn't have options like wall of force that would allow them to trap their enemies in a specific spot. and by the time they do...you can expect at least some of the enemies to have means to bypass it.

I think this may be where the big disconnect is coming from. you guys are assuming that spells are going to be more reliable than i am. not just for damage (people have mentioned spells like shadowblade/spirit shroud. which are concentration. they could get dropped by any damage at that level, even with both warcaster and resiliant (con). but also assuming that your control options are going to 100% let you lock down a battlefield. idk, maybe the problem is we've not really established what a 'high letahlity/optimization' game would look like.

In 5e, roughly half of all monsters have no ranged options at all, and of those that do, many of them are more dangerous in melee. As such, melee in 5e is extremely dangerous, and should be avoided at all costs in a "high difficulty" campaign. There are many advantages to playing an all-ranged party, as they will be able to avoid being hit by enemies as much as possible.

There are plenty of good control spells even at lower levels, such as Web, Spike Growth, Sleet Storm, Plant Growth, Hypnotic Pattern, and Spirit Guardians. Even if the control spells don't lock down all the enemies, they'll delay many of them by at least a round or two, which is a massive boon for the party, as combat usually lasts around 4 rounds. And if the enemies decide to "wait out" the control spell and retreat, then that's a win for the party. The enemies will likely take a few turns trying to escape, which the party can use to pick them off at range.

Also, side note to everyone else: Shadow Blade and Spirit Shroud are garbage spells. Please don't use them. You have far better options to spend your slots and concentration on.

LudicSavant

2022-07-31, 07:16 PM

Now I will show you what happens when we optimize away from the martial trap and really optimize for damage. At lvl 5 doing Ludics scenario with a hexblade blastlock. A cloud of daggers trap is going to do 12d4 a turn b/c we can push/pull the target into the obstacle on most turns. A normal EB blastlock does about 13 dpr a turn, but it shoots up to 41 per turn with the trap. With curse up, he/she is doing 47. I personally consider this sort of damage potential for a caster to begin to be the sort of thing that starts to be problematic for game balance, and we aren't even getting into the real grater builds, like what a dao lock can do. Yes resource use, but I mean its short rest resource use, and can be sustained assuming 2 fights/sr (and amusingly enough, often suboptimal to use in the first place compared to real game changers, like hypnotic pattern or summons).

Mhm.

What makes it really mean is that (in addition to the stuff you already mentioned) it combos hard with party members, becoming way more than the sum of its parts.

That Cloud of Daggers that's boosting the value of your knockbacks also boosts the value of every other party member's knockbacks. And every single time it procs on a target can re-trigger HBC!

Likewise, any party member putting down a hazard of their own (like say a Cleric walking around with Spirit Guardians, or even just someone dropping a Create Bonfire) further boosts the value of your knockbacks (and everyone else's, too).

It can turn into a very resource-efficient woodchipper that can reduce Deadly++ foes to a slurry with no save.

And that's not even the extent of what you can do; you can stack more tricks on top of that simultaneously (for example, the FT+GoA warlock trick I mentioned earlier will make this considerably deadlier than it already is).

And it's just yet another thing sitting around in the utility belt.

strangebloke

2022-07-31, 10:46 PM

Just going to say that this is firmly not true. Even a non-optimized rogue who rarely gets advantage is roughly double non-EB/AB cantrip damage, including Potent Spellcasting. A ranged rogue with constant advantage is roughly 5 time, and is comparable to a PAM/GWM champion fighter (~2.3 RED). EB+AB spam is basically identical to the non-optimized rogue. EB+AB with 100% uptime on hex is only 1.37 RED, while a proper TWF rogue (who never has advantage) is 1.57 RED.

Rogue damage is consistently way better than cantrip damage. And as a note--a cleric who has 100% uptime on spiritual weapon + cantrips (including Potent Spellcasting) is still worse than a no-advantage TWF rogue by about 0.2 RED.
I.... don't know what you're using to arrive at these numbers, but "double" and "five times" and such seem incorrect. I can't replicate your numbers.

assuming 70% hit rate a cleric with potent spellcasting at level 8, can cast Toll The Dead and deal (2d12+5)*.7=12.6 damage or (2d8+5)*7=9.8. A rogue of the same level without advantage or TWF deals (1d8+4d6+4)=15.75. This isn't a multiple of two. In fact, at level 5 its not even a multiple of two wrt to a basic firebolt. A champion at level 5 with PAM and no ASI does do comparable damage to a rogue using Steady Aim, but GWM makes that consideration completely contingent on level and enemy AC, and either way this doesn't equate to "5 times" cantrip damage.

Rogue damage also is a one-and-done, which makes them particularly weak to large numbers of enemies (compared say to a hunter ranger that can attack massive numbers of times a turn) and inconsistent, and also makes them scale poorly with most weapons (though decently with certain abilities like piercer)

At the end of the day, rogue damage is just very mediocre. It's better than a cantrip by an amount that's not very large in absolute terms. It's comparable to a monk and better than a warlock who casts zero spells, but a normal rogue isn't accomplishing more than a warlock in almost any combat.

elemental damage isn't a weakness...its a lack of an extra strength. they don't take BONUS damage from elemental sources. in fact danger sense/con saving throw proficiency means that generally they're going to take less damage. and thats assuming they're not a totem barbarian. sure, some casters will have absorb elements. but you can't Sheild, absorb elements AND silvery barbs in the same turn.
Sure, its a lack of strength. But the barbarian class as a whole needs rage to pull a LOT of weight. If you're attacking recklessly to boost damage, you're going to get hit a lot, and if much of that damage is not resisted, your supposed "tankiness" is going to disappear in a real hurry.

A GWM barbarian, a rogue, a monk, and a forge cleric with shield encounters a pack of starspawn manglers. Who is the last one standing?

i'll take the barbarian which gets a 40 foot speed, and has various options to let it BA dash over the caster that has to waste a turn casting misty step. or wait, are you instead assuming that a casters mobility is the fly spell...which then means they can't cast a different concentration spell? where do you get this idea that casters have some crazy mobility that doesn't come at a cost? and no out of combat abilities? so..you're one of those people that thinks ability checks are for chumps? how ridiculous. yeah, caster can get some of the same ability checks...that doesn't mean a martial can't. you talk about things like guidance and enhance ability...those are always best given to the person with the best bonus. doesn't have to be the martial...but it could be.
BA dash? Like. Eagle totem? Barbarians only have 40 foot movement if they drop their AC to unarmored, which means they have like 15 AC max? Druids can get 40 foot movement speed without concentration via longstrider, a first level spell that lasts an hour?

But more to the point, casters don't need mobility as much because they don't need to get into melee. If the cleric can't get to the orc, the cleric just hangs back and casts sacred flame. Heck, maybe they do this and retreat so the orc can't get to them.

you're a druid, you have a decent AC pool and are basically a non-threat compared to an optimized martial if you decide to wildshape. you might get some amount of utility, but until level 10 you trade damge for that limited utility, and if the fight changes in such a way that that utility looses value, you have to spend more resources reclaiming it. you can fly but...well...you're now in animal form so you can't cast. and none of the flying forms you have access to are gonna do anything against a flying opponent. you *can* heal, but not in animal form. and if you're playing the healer...why are you being compared to the barbarian?
A druid in wildshape with a concentration spell cast is far more dangerous than the barbarian.

And yes, barbarians can't heal people. that's the point. Druids are better at more things. They can deal more damage AND tank more

LMAO, you're really trying to use a dragon fight...outside...as an example? why would you choose to stay and fight that? you can 'knock the dragon out of the sky with a single spell'. cool..now the barbarian can attack it. also...why are you so focused on the barbarian/rogue comparison? cherry picking perhaps? 'this class is bad in this 1 situation. and that other class isn't designed for combat. so HAH, clearly martials suck'? is that really the tact you're going with?
I think a dragon attacking you before you get into its lair is a pretty common thing to have happen.

I also think the druid can fight back.

I don't think the barbarian can, unless the druid gets the barbarian in a position to do so, and even then the druid would probably rather have another druid around as opposed to a barbarian to whack the

if you were to have a rogue in a high optimization party, its because you were expecting a lot of skill challenges. and no, nothing matches rogues fro pure skill efficiency. an eloquence bard will be better at social checks until level 11. and then again at level 15 (if they can afford to cast glibness). but they get fewer expertise, fewer ASI's (worse overall ability scores) and don't come anywhere close to being able to match reliable talent outside of those 2 cases. you are correct that rogues aren't great at combat..they're not supposed to be. and i never argued they were. there's no reason to bring them up when talking about optimized combat except, possibly as a 1 level dip to get a couple of skill expertise'. or a 2 level dip for their mobility.
How often does a druid run out of second level spells in T2? Just asking. Because I've never seen it happen and I run 8-10 encounter days. The 'cost' of casting PWT is completely irrelevant and so are rogues. Bards cover all skills well enough, and can boost people with BI to do better than a rogue with expertise could.

you...you are aware that these 2 things aren't mutually exclusive...right? like, you can cast spike growth to hold a flank (and in fact, yeah no ****, of course you want someone to throw down a control spell. thats just smart play) while still have a martial in there to keep dealing persistent, resource less damage. you talk about the barbarian barely keeping up...but if they've raged, and taken their HP in damage from weapons...then they've reduced overall damage the party has taken by their HP total due to resistance. and then are able to heal that damage up on a SR. someone was gonna take that damage....oh wait, never mind, you're one of those people that thinks that if you put up a temporary impenetrable wall, your enemies are obligated to stand just opposite it and let you kill them...
Resourceless? Barbarians? They're not resourceless, they're using rage! And also healing, since they're going to be eating a lot of damage.

The martial is standing in for a hexblade or a bard or whatever, who could just blast all the hobgoblins with fear and end the encounter way sooner, meaning the party takes less damage, meaning that the party spends fewer resources in total. Healing the barbarian up with 2 casts of prayer of healing 3rd level cure wounds because he got wrecked fighting hobgoblins "without using resources" is not optimal play.

im really not sure what you think you're proving. like...yes, casters have spells...why are we pretending that martials are incapable of working alongside them? the control role doesn't invalidate the tank role...they're complementary. and while, no, you don't need a single character to fill the tank role (in fact, in general you want to spread damage out). However, having a solid beafy boi that can stand there and take the hits isn't a bad idea. Going back to the earlier analogy: if you're spending 20% of your casting resources filling the tank role, then its functionally the same to sacrifice those 20 casting resources and just...bring along a martial. neither is strictly necessary. both are viable.
tank role isn't a thing unless you have specific features that prevent people from taking damage, like the ancestral guardian. These features are rare. Few martials are tanks, quite a few casters are.

so what you mean is the rogue has a +21 to stealth, and the barbarian has a +15 to stealth...because they can take proficiency in it?
Lets think of two parties here.
Bard and a hexblade and a druid: PWT gets cast, the druid and the bard have +15 (more than enough) and the hexblade has disadvantage so the bard gives him a d10 BI die and also enhance ability, so everyone ends up with a +15 which is more than enough.

Rogue and a hexblade and a druid: PWT gets cast, the druid has +15, rogue has +21. Hexblade has disadvantage so he has effectively only a +5. He rolls a 4 while the rogue gets 29. Party is seen, combat happens.

Rogues are mechanically selfish and unhelpful.

yup...and it literally doesnt matter. because in a high lethality game, you still need the things martials are good at...you can simulate it with a caster...but you don't need to. either way you're losing casting resources filling that role.
Yes, but you have fewer casting resources to spend in the first place, and running out of casting resources is rare except for certain classes like paladin and sorcerer.

side note: really weird that you'd mention paladins...as though they're not martials.
They're also casters and its a huge part of why they're better than all the other martials.

yup penalized, but not entirely prevented. obviously casters have spells that aren't sight reliant...but being blind still actively limits their options. (no counterspell/silvery barbs) whereas a barbarian can just cancel the disadvantage from blind by reckless attacking. its free, because enemies are already going to be attacking at advantage anyway. And martials can have a versatile game plan. not as versatile as casters of course, noones arguing otherwise. but martials do have options other than just 'attack' in combat.
Barbarians can only attack, and blindness makes them way worse at it, whereas casters have loads of options that work at 100% efficiency. You can still fireball 30 goblins while blind. The Barbarian can't do that when he can see.

kazaryu

2022-07-31, 11:11 PM

didn't feel like formating all the quotes lol, so just going fresh.

about Pam/GWM. obviously an optimized damgae build is likely to have both. Although sentinal/pam is also a solid combo that...does actually prevent people from just running past you. not all the time, but it definitely helps to thin the numbers. (techncialyl you don't need PaM for that, but what PaM can do, is allow you to stop a person out of melee range of anyone, therefore forcing them to use a ranged option (if they have one). which...if they were trying to push past you, likely means its a weaker option. But i wasn't saying that they shouldn't get PaM, i was saying that its not hyper neccesary that they get it, to the point that they can't afford to wait until level 8, if they REALLY feel that the wis save proficiency is that important.

speaking of wiss sve proficiency, at low levels its a +3 at best. thats decent, but by no means game changing. res (con) is more important for casters because the base DC its being compared against is lower. where many wisdom saves are gonna be dc14+ most concentration checks are gonna be dc10. so no, casters (with the exception of druids and clerics) don't have that much better wis saves than martials. not at low levels. and by the time the difference gets super game changing, the martial has the opportunity to invest in resiliant.

going back to the tanking role, there absolutely is one. it just doesn't function quite the same as in video games, there is no 'threat' mechanic. But there are plenty of ways to encourage enemies to target you specifically, and martials generally are better at absorbing, and bouncing back from damage than casters. there are a few caster builds that are on par in terms of pure numbers. moon druid and abjurer wizard being the most obvious examples. but, moon druids in particular, at least pre-lvl 10, aren't the same threat that martials are once they shapeshift. at best they have a concentration spell up, and..thats pretty much it. most animal shapes might have certain specialties, but those will frequently just barely align with martial standard fair. and it makes sense...we're talking about beasts that whose CR is 1/3 party level...there's no reason they should be on par with martials.

side note: people keep talking about barbarians...and zealot barbarians specifically. is there a reason for that? i never narrowed things down to them, but somehow people keep trying to throw them in my face. i've mentioned fighters repeatedly...and i think i briefly mentioned paladins?

about the defintieion of high lethality/optimization. yeah...melee is dangerous. but in that type of game it should also be nigh unavoidable, at least a lot of the time. IDK, im not imagining a DM that runs that type of game to be using the MM's as written...or trying to use every monster in the manual. like the PC"s they're likely to be using the 'optimal' monsters, or making adjustments to buff the monsters to the point of being optimal. part of that is going to include mobility for non mobile monsters. And i think thats where the big disconnect is. when i talk about high lethality/optimization, im kinda assuming that you're gonna get hit. like...thats the entire point. you can mitigate the damage, you can reduce the frequency of it...but most encounters you're not going to be able to avoid damage altogether. Thats part of the reason i focus so much on things like HP. because party HP matters, and martials bring ALOT of HP to the party. not just in their max. but over the course of a day. I agree with you Ludic, that to some extent spells should be considered. But a lot of defensive spells are so indirect that its all but impossible to give them a numerical value. like....how do we come up with an average for how much damage shield saves you? how do we account for the fact that you can't shield and absorb elements in the same turn (in spite of likely, frequently receiving both elemental and attack based damage in teh same turn. Thats the first part of why I don't try to...the second part is...well, it doesn't matter. yes, casters can spend resources to be more tanky...to match what martials do. possibly even exceed it under the right circumstance. but those are all resources that are not being spend doing other things. like pulling off the tricks you all keep talking about. so if those resources are going to be spent on it. it HAS to be viable to bring in a character that has most of those resources built in. plus some extra things that casters can't actually do, at least not as easily.

anyway, lastly, the cheesegrater. so...first off you're talking about a team build that relies on decently specific specific positioning, and compliant enemies. and you're acting as though martials are incapable of aiding in them. on of the big defenses to that type of a pingpong BS is to just...move. true, its not a guaranteed counter. but proper positioning can still make that a big problem...unless your speed is 0 because someone grappled you...doesn't have to be a martial...but it could be..there's erally no reason it shouldn't be. but yeah, martial grabs you, now in order to reposition you have to be able to teleport. meanwhile the martial can move them in an out of the damage area just like the warlocks can.

KirbyDerby

2022-08-01, 12:52 AM

about Pam/GWM. obviously an optimized damgae build is likely to have both. Although sentinal/pam is also a solid combo that...does actually prevent people from just running past you. not all the time, but it definitely helps to thin the numbers. (techncialyl you don't need PaM for that, but what PaM can do, is allow you to stop a person out of melee range of anyone, therefore forcing them to use a ranged option (if they have one). which...if they were trying to push past you, likely means its a weaker option. But i wasn't saying that they shouldn't get PaM, i was saying that its not hyper neccesary that they get it, to the point that they can't afford to wait until level 8, if they REALLY feel that the wis save proficiency is that important.

PAM IS hyper-necessary. The bonus action attack feats are at their best in Tier 1, where they represent roughly a 100% increase in your DPR, as the martials have not yet obtained extra attack. They'll still want to take the -5/+10 feat at level 4 as well, since increasing their DPR is just that important.

going back to the tanking role, there absolutely is one. it just doesn't function quite the same as in video games, there is no 'threat' mechanic. But there are plenty of ways to encourage enemies to target you specifically, and martials generally are better at absorbing, and bouncing back from damage than casters. there are a few caster builds that are on par in terms of pure numbers. moon druid and abjurer wizard being the most obvious examples. but, moon druids in particular, at least pre-lvl 10, aren't the same threat that martials are once they shapeshift. at best they have a concentration spell up, and..thats pretty much it. most animal shapes might have certain specialties, but those will frequently just barely align with martial standard fair. and it makes sense...we're talking about beasts that whose CR is 1/3 party level...there's no reason they should be on par with martials.

(This is also a response to your second to last paragraph, I just don't want to quote it all)

Casters are actually a lot better at taking attacks than martials. In optimized games, medium armor + shield proficiency is not difficult to come by for casters, giving them 19 AC. Martials on the other hand need to be using either a reach polearm or a hand crossbow to deal good damage, and such can only afford 17 AC. Martials do have larger hit dice, but casters have access to shield and absorb elements, and can make better use of the Dodge action while concentrating on a spell. Casters do have to worry about losing their concentration, but there's very little that martials can do to prevent the enemies from smacking the casters once they're in melee range, especially without spending resources. The main way that martials can mitigate damage is by killing off key targets ASAP, which is a valuable niche, but casters have their own ways to mitigate damage, such as control spells. Of course there will often be some enemies that manage to slip through, but the number that will have to be dealt with immediately is going to be vastly reduced, no matter the mobility of the enemies.

Once the party is engaged with enemies in melee, the martial's job hasn't really changed. Their role is still to pump out as much damage as possible. As such, ranged martial builds are superior, as XBE + SS deals around the same damage as PAM + GWM while working equally effectively at both range and melee. Casters, on the other hand, have many tools for dealing with enemies in melee. Most of these involve spending spell slots (with the notable exception of Eldritch Blast + Repelling Blast), but they won't have to spend as many resources as many of the enemies have been held back temporarily by the control spells.

While martials may be able to do better than casters without spending resources, they still have their own resources to spend (hit points, battlemaster maneuvers, rages, spell slots on half casters). In addition, every martial has an inherent resource cost: the cost of all the spell slots that they weren't able to spend due to not being a full caster. Now, martials can absolutely justify their presence on a party, but they have to work very hard for it, and start to fall off once you get into tier 3 and later (and arguably even before then). The power of spellcasting is so strong that, at the highest optimization level, no noncaster martial is viable.

I do agree with you on the moon druid part though, I think a lot of people overestimate the power of gishes (meaning fullcasters that take the Attack action, not fullcasters with armor). Spellcasters are better off focusing on their spells, and not trying to imitate martials.

side note: people keep talking about barbarians...and zealot barbarians specifically. is there a reason for that? i never narrowed things down to them, but somehow people keep trying to throw them in my face. i've mentioned fighters repeatedly...and i think i briefly mentioned paladins?

Probably because barbarians are the only martial that realistically be in melee, as they do tons of damage via Reckless Attack + Rage in conjunction with PAM + GWM. All the others don't have enough good features to justify doing so. However, Barbs have their own set of problems, namely that they rely heavily on rages to function, have a very limited number of uses, and can't do much without raging.

anyway, lastly, the cheesegrater. so...first off you're talking about a team build that relies on decently specific specific positioning, and compliant enemies. and you're acting as though martials are incapable of aiding in them. on of the big defenses to that type of a pingpong BS is to just...move. true, its not a guaranteed counter. but proper positioning can still make that a big problem...unless your speed is 0 because someone grappled you...doesn't have to be a martial...but it could be..there's erally no reason it shouldn't be. but yeah, martial grabs you, now in order to reposition you have to be able to teleport. meanwhile the martial can move them in an out of the damage area just like the warlocks can.

Grappling an enemy puts your character right next to the enemy, which is exactly where most enemies want to be. It's far better to use ranged forced movement effects, of which there are many.

LudicSavant

2022-08-01, 08:34 AM

and you're acting as though martials are incapable of aiding in them.

That is not what we're telling you.

Support abilities have value, and are important to a practical evaluation of a character's usefulness. For example if I was talking about a Simic Ancestral Guardian I'd be talking about their grappling and Protectors. If I was talking about a Battle Master with Commander's Strike, I would be talking about them boosting a Rogue or something.

In the case of things like hazards and the control rider Invocations of Eldritch Blast, such abilities are a force multiplier for a wide variety of potential allies, including martials. That's the point -- these are not merely solo damage abilities but also support abilities (which cause yet more damage to occur).

Just as surely as Guiding Bolt boosts a Rogue's Attack, so too does something like a Repelling Lance of Lethargy boost a Cleric's Spirit Guardians, or a Druid's Spike Growth, or a Wizard's Create Bonfire, and so on and so forth. It also does other things too, like helping to defend allies by keeping foes out of their preferred range / positions. Or making enemies more vulnerable by knocking them right out of cover.

It's an important factor to discussing the usefulness of Eldritch Blast and Invocations. Things don't begin and end at EB+AB. Far from it.

AdAstra

2022-08-03, 02:53 AM

I.... don't know what you're using to arrive at these numbers, but "double" and "five times" and such seem incorrect. I can't replicate your numbers.

assuming 70% hit rate a cleric with potent spellcasting at level 8, can cast Toll The Dead and deal (2d12+5)*.7=12.6 damage or (2d8+5)*7=9.8. A rogue of the same level without advantage or TWF deals (1d8+4d6+4)=15.75. This isn't a multiple of two. In fact, at level 5 its not even a multiple of two wrt to a basic firebolt. A champion at level 5 with PAM and no ASI does do comparable damage to a rogue using Steady Aim, but GWM makes that consideration completely contingent on level and enemy AC, and either way this doesn't equate to "5 times" cantrip damage.

Rogue damage also is a one-and-done, which makes them particularly weak to large numbers of enemies (compared say to a hunter ranger that can attack massive numbers of times a turn) and inconsistent, and also makes them scale poorly with most weapons (though decently with certain abilities like piercer)

At the end of the day, rogue damage is just very mediocre. It's better than a cantrip by an amount that's not very large in absolute terms. It's comparable to a monk and better than a warlock who casts zero spells, but a normal rogue isn't accomplishing more than a warlock in almost any combat.

Sure, its a lack of strength. But the barbarian class as a whole needs rage to pull a LOT of weight. If you're attacking recklessly to boost damage, you're going to get hit a lot, and if much of that damage is not resisted, your supposed "tankiness" is going to disappear in a real hurry.

A GWM barbarian, a rogue, a monk, and a forge cleric with shield encounters a pack of starspawn manglers. Who is the last one standing?

BA dash? Like. Eagle totem? Barbarians only have 40 foot movement if they drop their AC to unarmored, which means they have like 15 AC max? Druids can get 40 foot movement speed without concentration via longstrider, a first level spell that lasts an hour?

But more to the point, casters don't need mobility as much because they don't need to get into melee. If the cleric can't get to the orc, the cleric just hangs back and casts sacred flame. Heck, maybe they do this and retreat so the orc can't get to them.

A druid in wildshape with a concentration spell cast is far more dangerous than the barbarian.

And yes, barbarians can't heal people. that's the point. Druids are better at more things. They can deal more damage AND tank more

I think a dragon attacking you before you get into its lair is a pretty common thing to have happen.

I also think the druid can fight back.

I don't think the barbarian can, unless the druid gets the barbarian in a position to do so, and even then the druid would probably rather have another druid around as opposed to a barbarian to whack the

How often does a druid run out of second level spells in T2? Just asking. Because I've never seen it happen and I run 8-10 encounter days. The 'cost' of casting PWT is completely irrelevant and so are rogues. Bards cover all skills well enough, and can boost people with BI to do better than a rogue with expertise could.

Resourceless? Barbarians? They're not resourceless, they're using rage! And also healing, since they're going to be eating a lot of damage.

The martial is standing in for a hexblade or a bard or whatever, who could just blast all the hobgoblins with fear and end the encounter way sooner, meaning the party takes less damage, meaning that the party spends fewer resources in total. Healing the barbarian up with 2 casts of prayer of healing 3rd level cure wounds because he got wrecked fighting hobgoblins "without using resources" is not optimal play.

tank role isn't a thing unless you have specific features that prevent people from taking damage, like the ancestral guardian. These features are rare. Few martials are tanks, quite a few casters are.

Lets think of two parties here.
Bard and a hexblade and a druid: PWT gets cast, the druid and the bard have +15 (more than enough) and the hexblade has disadvantage so the bard gives him a d10 BI die and also enhance ability, so everyone ends up with a +15 which is more than enough.

Rogue and a hexblade and a druid: PWT gets cast, the druid has +15, rogue has +21. Hexblade has disadvantage so he has effectively only a +5. He rolls a 4 while the rogue gets 29. Party is seen, combat happens.

Rogues are mechanically selfish and unhelpful.

Yes, but you have fewer casting resources to spend in the first place, and running out of casting resources is rare except for certain classes like paladin and sorcerer.

They're also casters and its a huge part of why they're better than all the other martials.

Barbarians can only attack, and blindness makes them way worse at it, whereas casters have loads of options that work at 100% efficiency. You can still fireball 30 goblins while blind. The Barbarian can't do that when he can see.

The math could be wrong, but I think PhoenixPhyre may be averaging comparative damage over all levels. Something like say, a Cleric with Potent Spellcasting will have a a few bumps in damage (in this case levels 5, 8, 11, and 17), but a Rogue is getting increases every other level. So levels like 8 in your example are the "high points" of cantrip damage progression, spikes compared to the troughs that will exist at other levels, where Rogues gain a bigger advantage. For example, at level 9, Rogue average damage without advantage jumps to 1d8+5d6+5, or 19.575 damage with a 70% hit rate (including crits), which is in fact double a Sacred Flame/Undamaged Toll The Dead Cleric (I don't really know why you gave the Rogue a +4 Dex but gave the Cleric a +5 Wis, but it doesn't change much). I would suspect that the damage comparison looks much more favorably on Rogues at levels 1-4, 7, 9, 10, 13-16, and 19-20 (2/3rds of the level range) than it does at Cleric breakpoints. Like say, a level 4 Rogue is doing a whopping 1d8+2d6+4 damage to a Cleric's 1d12/1d8. That's like 2.5 times the damage, and this is at levels where Wisdom bonuses are pretty well scaled to AC.

Like, I'd want those margins to be better and for spells in general to be weaker, but the thing I very much like about that RED system (which I don't think I've specifically complimented yet), is that it's a very smooth progression that highlights spikes in damage output that are often used for these comparisons, despite those spikes not well representing the totality of levels.

Kane0

2022-08-03, 03:02 AM

Back on topic, I've been reading the full PHB now and I think part of my problem was that the intro set rules are horribly organized.

So did you have fun?

PhoenixPhyre

2022-08-03, 09:44 AM

The math could be wrong, but I think PhoenixPhyre may be averaging comparative damage over all levels. Something like say, a Cleric with Potent Spellcasting will have a a few bumps in damage (in this case levels 5, 8, 11, and 17), but a Rogue is getting increases every other level. So levels like 8 in your example are the "high points" of cantrip damage progression, spikes compared to the troughs that will exist at other levels, where Rogues gain a bigger advantage. For example, at level 9, Rogue average damage without advantage jumps to 1d8+5d6+5, or 19.575 damage with a 70% hit rate (including crits), which is in fact double a Sacred Flame/Undamaged Toll The Dead Cleric (I don't really know why you gave the Rogue a +4 Dex but gave the Cleric a +5 Wis, but it doesn't change much). I would suspect that the damage comparison looks much more favorably on Rogues at levels 1-4, 7, 9, 10, 13-16, and 19-20 (2/3rds of the level range) than it does at Cleric breakpoints. Like say, a level 4 Rogue is doing a whopping 1d8+2d6+4 damage to a Cleric's 1d12/1d8. That's like 2.5 times the damage, and this is at levels where Wisdom bonuses are pretty well scaled to AC.

Like, I'd want those margins to be better and for spells in general to be weaker, but the thing I very much like about that RED system (which I don't think I've specifically complimented yet), is that it's a very smooth progression that highlights spikes in damage output that are often used for these comparisons, despite those spikes not well representing the totality of levels.

Correct. Here's the output for four cases, calculated against boss AC (CR = level + 3, using DMG AC values and actual averaged DEX save modifiers, since the DMG doesn't have those per CR). All have the same modifier progression (+3 at level 1, +4 at level 4, +5 at level 8+):
* TWF rogue
* Shortbow rogue with constant advantage (steady aim or the like)
* EB/AB spam
* Cleric with Potent Spellcasting spamming sacred flame

https://admiralbenbo.org/images/cantrips-vs-rogue.png

As I noted, constant advantage is, on average, about 5x sacred flame (2.1 vs 0.41 is close enough to 5x). And TWF is 3.4x sacred flame.

The effect of advantage is huge, especially for rogues who lose lots of damage when they miss. Clerics (or warlocks) are spikier, but fall short overall. EB/AB spam hits 1.0 RED at a very few levels, but rarely much above it. And no, even going to toll the dead doesn't change much--the key killer for save-based cantrips is accuracy. The average accuracy for dex saves is 57.25%, with no chance to crit. For regular single attacks, it's 62.5%. And for the constant advantage it's 84.4%. And DEX-saves are the worst saves of the 3 majors, averaging +3 over the whole gamut of CRs, compared to +5 for WIS and +6 for CON. INT is better if you can target it, averaging...+2. Yay. So having +2 damage compared to -5% accuracy is a wash. Especially when you've only got one blast per round.

strangebloke

2022-08-03, 10:57 AM

snip

I basically ignore T3/T4 as they're irrelevant to the vast majority of games, and that'd what informed my initial claim. Admitteldy I should have clarified this, though by the same token I would argue throwing out acronyms like RED and not showing your math makes it hard for people to understand what you mean.

KorvinStarmast

2022-08-03, 11:12 AM

Rogue Equivalent Damage: he has a thread on that, if details are needed.

PhoenixPhyre

2022-08-03, 11:18 AM

I basically ignore T3/T4 as they're irrelevant to the vast majority of games, and that'd what informed my initial claim. Admitteldy I should have clarified this, though by the same token I would argue throwing out acronyms like RED and not showing your math makes it hard for people to understand what you mean.

Clerics, in particular, are at their worst in T1 and T2. Ignoring T3/T4 makes things worse, not better. Their peak levels are ~13-ish. Entirely due to accuracy issues.

T1 sacred flame spam: 0.28 RED.
T2 sacred flame spam: 0.41 RED.

And just putting out the raw dice means that you're missing accuracy, which is the major factor here. Specifically, save-based cantrips suck unless you know you can hit a weak point. In T1/T2, there are about 4 levels at which you have an equal chance to hit with sacred flame compared to an attack and none at which you have a better chance. Level 9 is the big one (70% for both), because CR 12 (numbers generated for CR = level + 3) has really really weak dex saves and AC and you just got a proficiency bump.

strangebloke

2022-08-03, 11:48 AM

Rogue Equivalent Damage: he has a thread on that, if details are needed.
I did become aware of that eventually! But even once I found it, the OP of that thread doesn't answer how the math is being done.

Clerics, in particular, are at their worst in T1 and T2. Ignoring T3/T4 makes things worse, not better. Their peak levels are ~13-ish. Entirely due to accuracy issues.

Again, I only have questions. Your RED thread OP says you're ignoring accuracy... What's the population you're using to get your accuracy numbers? The fact that you're saying cleric peaks at level 13, a level where there are no bonuses to cantrips, makes me think you're just looking at a level X character vs. a CR X monster, is that correct? It also seems like you're only looking at sacred flame, which against really changes things. TTD is almost strictly better and clerics can pick both and choose saves judiciously to boost the failure chance.

None of these are issues with your math as such, to be clear, its just unclear to me what you're actually claiming. I'll cede the point that in relative terms rogue sneak attack DPR is better than canttrips, though I'd still argue that the difference in absolute terms is pretty small.

EDIT: you significantly changed your post in editing, and I'm only more confused. As such I'm bowing out as I don't have time for this.

PhoenixPhyre

2022-08-03, 12:03 PM

I did become aware of that eventually! But even once I found it, the OP of that thread doesn't answer how the math is being done.

Again, I only have questions. Your RED thread OP says you're ignoring accuracy... What's the population you're using to get your accuracy numbers? The fact that you're saying cleric peaks at level 13, a level where there are no bonuses to cantrips, makes me think you're just looking at a level X character vs. a CR X monster, is that correct? It also seems like you're only looking at sacred flame, which against really changes things. TTD is almost strictly better and clerics can pick both and choose saves judiciously to boost the failure chance.

None of these are issues with your math as such, to be clear, its just unclear to me what you're actually claiming. I'll cede the point that in relative terms rogue sneak attack DPR is better than canttrips, though I'd still argue that the difference in absolute terms is pretty small.

EDIT: you significantly changed your post in editing, and I'm only more confused. As such I'm bowing out as I don't have time for this.

Switching to TTD does not actually make anything any better. It makes it overall the same or worse. Why? Wis saves are generally better than Dex saves.

RED has evolved since the original thread, specifically--

RED is defined as
* shortbow rogue (1d6 base, one attack)
* no advantage, but always sneak attack
* vs selectable enemy. Specifically, the options are
** 90% hit, 5% crit. 100% hit-rate on saves. This disables advantage. (Note: this was the OP of that post).
** "Boss" AC -- DMG table values for CR = level + 3. Averaged saves for monsters with CR = level + 3 (drawn from my data bank of all monsters from MM, VGtM, MtoF). This is the default.
** "Equal" AC -- DMG table values for CR = level. Averaged saves for monsters with CR = level.
** "Half" AC -- DMG table values for CR = level / 2. Averaged saves for monsters with CR = level / 2.

Disregarding accuracy (assuming a 100% hit rate for sacred flame) bumps things up to 0.51 RED on average, with peak around 11. Going to TTD and assuming you always have the d12 hit (a bad assumption, by the by), bumps it up by < 0.2 RED (0.2 at level 1, less for every level after that) because it's a flat +2 damage. So best case, spamming cleric cantrips suck. At best 0.5 of an unoptimized, no tactics rogue. And compared with things as simple as TWF or including the effects of accuracy on both sides makes it worse.

The entire calculator is in my signature (just added it). The code itself is open source at https://github.com/bentomhall/red-calculator. The README there defines the terms. And pull requests accepted.

The next update of the calculator will have text with the definitions. And the numbers are always available with the baseline rogue present.

Zuras

2022-08-03, 02:49 PM

Clerics, in particular, are at their worst in T1 and T2. Ignoring T3/T4 makes things worse, not better. Their peak levels are ~13-ish. Entirely due to accuracy issues.

T1 sacred flame spam: 0.28 RED.
T2 sacred flame spam: 0.41 RED.

And just putting out the raw dice means that you're missing accuracy, which is the major factor here. Specifically, save-based cantrips suck unless you know you can hit a weak point. In T1/T2, there are about 4 levels at which you have an equal chance to hit with sacred flame compared to an attack and none at which you have a better chance. Level 9 is the big one (70% for both), because CR 12 (numbers generated for CR = level + 3) has really really weak dex saves and AC and you just got a proficiency bump.

Sacred Flame is ludicrously bad in practice through most of Tier 1. Since it targets Dex, it’s awful against goblins, Kobolds, and about 2/3 of the other common low level foes. Adding Toll the Dead to the cleric list was a massive help.

LudicSavant

2022-08-03, 04:41 PM

I would warn against hasty overgeneralizations.

Clerics, in particular, are at their worst in T1 and T2. Ignoring T3/T4 makes things worse, not better. Their peak levels are ~13-ish. Entirely due to accuracy issues.
You say that "Clerics, in particular" have a specific output. But "Clerics" is not very particular. "Clerics" is a broad category of characters that can be built and played many different ways, and this has a significant effect on their output.

Looking at the single class Clerics I've posted on this forum, the Regenerator has regular access to Advantage and Blessed Booming Blade. The Arcana Frontliner likewise has Potent GFB/BB, plus the ability to Thorn Whip people into hazards or off of the ground (after which they fall prone and generate Advantage for the party), plus Warcaster OAs. The Astral Psychopomp can sometimes twin their Toll the Deads and Chill Touches. Some of them change their attack routine as they level. All of them will alter which cantrip they're using to suit their current matchup and situation.

Those are all concrete, real play examples of 'single class Clerics doing cantrip damage.'

As such, I recommend presenting your data as what your specific Cleric build does, instead of as what all Clerics do.

The average accuracy for dex saves is 57.25%, with no chance to crit

Switching to TTD does not actually make anything any better. It makes it overall the same or worse. Why? Wis saves are generally better than Dex saves.

The average accuracy for your specific Cleric build, using Sacred Flame is 57.25% against the average Dex save of all monsters in your dataset, subject to your stated assumptions.

However, practical optimizers will be familiar with the notion that if you're going to be comparing a versatile character to a non-versatile one, the versatile character has the advantage of being able to choose what defense they're targeting.

What this means is that in real play, a competent caster is not going to be targeting 'the average Dex save of all monsters in your dataset.' They're not even going to be targeting 'the average Dex save of all monsters in the campaign they're playing.' They're going to be targeting the weakest link they can identify (with some margin of error for not necessarily knowing which defense that is; though I anecdotally find that the more skilled players I know are extremely good at guessing, either immediately, or after a couple characters have acted).

Here's a small-scale example of the trouble with just taking an average of all saves.

For example, say I take a dataset of all monsters of CR 14 in the Monster Manual. That's only 5 creatures, and they have a Dex save of:
+2
+2
+6 and Legendary Resistance
+7 and Legendary Resistance
+7 and Magic Resistance

Now if you were taking the average of that dataset, a Dex-targeting cantrips would be terrible. But in the actual game, the Cleric is only going to be using their Dex-save-targeting-cantrip against the 40% of the dataset that have a +2 to their save.

They're not gonna look at an Ice Devil and say "ah, a fiend, a category of monsters well known for Magic Resistance. And it looks pretty sleek. Ah I know, I'll spam a Dex-save-negates ability at it." Nah. They're gonna swap to something else -- my Life Cleric or Arcana Cleric would have swapped to BB and my Death Cleric would have swapped to Chill Touch. Or they would have used actual spell slots.

Since it targets Dex, it’s awful against goblins, Kobolds, and about 2/3 of the other common low level foes. Adding Toll the Dead to the cleric list was a massive help.

Yep, this is a great example of the practical value of being able to switch the defenses you can target.

PhoenixPhyre

2022-08-03, 04:58 PM

I would warn against hasty overgeneralizations.

You say that "Clerics, in particular" have a specific output. But "Clerics" is not very particular. "Clerics" is a broad category of characters that can be built and played many different ways, and this has a significant effect on their output.

Looking at the single class Clerics I've posted on this forum, the Regenerator has regular access to Advantage and Blessed Booming Blade. The Arcana Frontliner likewise has Potent GFB/BB, plus the ability to Thorn Whip people into hazards or off of the ground (after which they fall prone and generate Advantage for the party), plus Warcaster OAs. The Astral Psychopomp can sometimes twin their Toll the Deads and Chill Touches. Some of them change their attack routine as they level. All of them will alter which cantrip they're using to suit their current matchup and situation.

Those are all concrete, real play examples of 'single class Clerics doing cantrip damage.'

As such, I recommend presenting your data as what your specific Cleric build does, instead of as what all Clerics do.

The average accuracy for your specific Cleric build, using Sacred Flame is 57.25% against the average Dex save of all monsters in your dataset, subject to your stated assumptions.

However, practical optimizers will be familiar with the notion that if you're going to be comparing a versatile character to a non-versatile one, the versatile character has the advantage of being able to choose what defense they're targeting.

What this means is that in real play, a competent caster is not going to be targeting 'the average Dex save of all monsters in your dataset.' They're not even going to be targeting 'the average Dex save of all monsters in the campaign they're playing.' They're going to be targeting the weakest link they can identify (with some margin of error for not necessarily knowing which defense that is; though I anecdotally find that the more skilled players I know are extremely good at guessing, either immediately, or after a couple characters have acted).

Here's a small-scale example of the trouble with just taking an average of all saves.

For example, say I take a dataset of all monsters of CR 14 in the Monster Manual. That's only 5 creatures, and they have a Dex save of:
+2
+2
+6 and Legendary Resistance
+7 and Legendary Resistance
+7 and Magic Resistance

Now if you were taking the average of that dataset, a Dex-targeting cantrips would be terrible. But in the actual game, the Cleric is only going to be using their Dex-save-targeting-cantrip against the 40% of the dataset that have a +2 to their save.

They're not gonna look at an Ice Devil and say "ah, a fiend, a category of monsters well known for Magic Resistance. And it looks pretty sleek. Ah I know, I'll spam a Dex-save-negates ability at it." Nah. They're gonna swap to something else -- my Life Cleric or Arcana Cleric would have swapped to BB and my Death Cleric would have swapped to Chill Touch. Or they would have used actual spell slots.

Sure, if you change the scenario to target a particular, highly-optimized build, in a particular circumstance, spending resources, you can get other results. But what I was responding to was that rogues globally didn't compare favorably to cantrips globally. I pointed out that that doesn't hold for a lot of fairly normal builds. And no, I wouldn't expect a build that has
a) bless running + a source of advantage (usually burning another resource from someone)
b) a non-cleric spell (which means either a single subclass that isn't actually accepted at many/most tables, because it requires one particular setting book or a feat)
c) who knows what his target's weak saves are (which is basically metagaming or only the most skilled people, who are a tiny fraction of the player base)
d) and has enough cantrips with different ones to target different saves/AC.
to be representative of "most clerics" or especially "most cantrips". Especially when the discussion is for people just picking up the game. Not the kind of obsessive build-optimizers that inhabit these forums.

And advantage + bless plus BB isn't that great unless you can guarantee that the target move and trigger the damage. Because advantage already eats up most of the available benefit from improved accuracy. And you're burning multiple resources and concentration to do that.

The builds I present as data points are, I would argue, way closer to both the design intent AND the average player than the hyper-optimized things that forumites try to use as baselines. Note that I wasn't comparing clerics, generally (which would include spell slots) to rogues, I was comparing cantrip spam to rogues.

The numbers for a non-specially-built cantrip spam are fairly similar across classes (except EB/AB). I used clerics in particular because I had the numbers on hand. I've done similar stuff for wizards (including evokers) and the numbers aren't all that much better. Sure, they change the details. But the factor-of-two+ difference between a rogue who actually is trying to do damage and the cantrips is fairly consistent. A 10% difference I could chalk up to build differences. But "I can do ok damage, if I'm buffed and spending resources" is a different thing. Heck, a warlock with AB/EB AND 100% hex uptime is similar (within 10%) of a standard TWF rogue. A standard cleric with 100% uptime on spiritual weapon and then sacred flame is still below 1 RED.

So no, I reject the idea that my numbers are wrong because I'm not comparing against highly-optimized, min-maxed builds who are spending resources. Not when considering rogues who try to do damage vs cantrips, generally.

Rukelnikov

2022-08-03, 05:11 PM

So no, I reject the idea that my numbers are wrong because I'm not comparing against highly-optimized, min-maxed builds who are spending resources. Not when considering rogues who try to do damage vs cantrips, generally.

The main problem with RED is that its evidently different from what most people see in play, I've yet to see a rogue regularly outperform an Eldritch spammer in combat, yet apparently that's what your table says. (though tbf all Eldritch spammers I've seen were Sorlocks with Quickened metamagic)

tiornys

2022-08-03, 05:39 PM

The main problem with RED is that its evidently different from what most people see in play, I've yet to see a rogue regularly outperform an Eldritch spammer in combat, yet apparently that's what your table says. (though tbf all Eldritch spammers I've seen were Sorlocks with Quickened metamagic)
There may be some interesting selection bias going on here. I wouldn't be surprised if there were significant correlation between players with higher tactical skills and/or system mastery and players selecting builds with Eldritch Blast vs. Rogues (especially straight class Rogues). In other words, the fact that someone is playing a Rogue may be a subtle indicator that they're less likely to build and play their character to its full combat potential.

LudicSavant

2022-08-03, 05:43 PM

a) bless running

Sure, if you change the scenario to target a particular, highly-optimized build, in a particular circumstance, spending resources

So no, I reject the idea that my numbers are wrong because I'm not comparing against highly-optimized, min-maxed builds who are spending resources. Not when considering rogues who try to do damage vs cantrips, generally.

And you're burning multiple resources and concentration to do that.

advantage + bless plus BB

:smallconfused:

You... you do know Bless and Blessed Strikes are not the same thing... right?

Blessed Strikes does not take a resource, nor does it take Concentration.

As for 'a particular build, in a particular circumstance,' you don't seem to be realizing or acknowledging that that's precisely what you're doing, which is why I cautioned against overgeneralization.

So no, I reject the idea that my numbers are wrong because I'm not comparing against highly-optimized, min-maxed builds who are spending resources. Not when considering rogues who try to do damage vs cantrips, generally.

What I gave you were all examples of "cantrips, generally," my guy.

Also, I am kind of shocked at the amount of anti-optimization vitriol in this post. If you want to measure the potential of a class, optimization is exactly what you should be looking at.

For the record, I consider the examples I used to just be 'effective and fun' levels of optimization. Stuff I'd use at a real table. If we were talking about what I can do if I take the gloves off and going full pedal to the metal theoretical optimization, the examples I just gave are nothing by comparison.

ProsecutorGodot

2022-08-03, 05:44 PM

a particular, highly-optimized build, in a particular circumstance, spending resources

Not the kind of obsessive build-optimizers that inhabit these forums.

The builds I present as data points are, I would argue, way closer to both the design intent AND the average player than the hyper-optimized things that forumites try to use as baselines.

So no, I reject the idea that my numbers are wrong because I'm not comparing against highly-optimized, min-maxed builds who are spending resources. Not when considering rogues who try to do damage vs cantrips, generally.

I think you have a very negative view of "optimization" and you've created a data system to reinforce your own negativity. To me, it seems like you're limiting your data set to characters you would expect to see at your own table when it's been very clear to me at least that your table is very very custom.

This, in itself, is not a bad thing. It does rub me the wrong way though that you're passing this RED system off as authoritative but insisting that particular values are unimportant, unlikely to be allowed (at your table, though you claim to speak for others) or have too high of an opportunity cost to be realistic, in your opinion.

strangebloke

2022-08-03, 06:10 PM

So no, I reject the idea that my numbers are wrong because I'm not comparing against highly-optimized, min-maxed builds who are spending resources. Not when considering rogues who try to do damage vs cantrips, generally.
I'm not saying your numbers are wrong! I'm just saying that you've got a lot of assumptions baked into them (which is unavoidable!) but you're not stating what those assumptions are up front, which makes it hard for people like me to check your work or engage with what you're saying. If you said something like "You're exagerrating, if you look at how cantrips like sacred flame or fire bolt perform over the course of levels 1-20 against typical enemies, sneak attack is way better than cantrip." I wouldn't have an issue. Its when you make claims that are both very specific (5 times the damage!) and general (rogues when compared with all cantrips) that it becomes really hard to agree.

People throw out lots of claims on the internet about DPR, so my initial attitude is always skepticism. So the truth is, I don't know whether your numbers are right or wrong, because I don't know what they mean in the first place.

Like. You're right, arguably. Rogues do come out ahead of cantrips by a good bit, perhaps I was exaggerating. But its hard to engage with this complex system you're using to come up with these numbers.

PhoenixPhyre

2022-08-03, 06:28 PM

@LudicSavant --

Ok, I misread that. But when you say "blessed" without context...that sounds like "the bless spell is in effect". Not "BB using blessed strikes". Which, as a note, is negligibly different than Potent Spellcasting, other than working on weapon attacks and cantrips. My numbers did include Potent Spellcasting.

I think you have a very negative view of "optimization" and you've created a data system to reinforce your own negativity. To me, it seems like you're limiting your data set to characters you would expect to see at your own table when it's been very clear to me at least that your table is very very custom.

This, in itself, is not a bad thing. It does rub me the wrong way though that you're passing this RED system off as authoritative but insisting that particular values are unimportant, unlikely to be allowed (at your table, though you claim to speak for others) or have too high of an opportunity cost to be realistic, in your opinion.

I'm not limiting my data set other than "things I've implemented yet". I've focused on implementing simple scenarios because those are easiest and least subject to assumptions. These are scenarios (not builds, because they imply lots of assumptions about how things are used) that I wouldn't expect to see at my tables--I would expect to see clerics, for instance, actually use their spells and not just spam cantrips. And would expect rogues to do more than just stand and shoot. Etc. So no. The scenarios (presets) chosen are chosen because they represent easy boundary values to test the effect of assumptions.

And not trying to pass it off as authoritative at all. Just as a set of data points for scenarios that (seem to) fit the system's assumptions. Not the heavily power-crept "optimized" builds. But if very simple scenarios falsify the claim, as they do here when considering cantrips in general vs DPR-focused rogues and when a regular cantrip (even buffed by class features) is half of a completely non-optimal build....

And I'm mostly using it as an exploration of the effects of various assumptions. It's a way I can reference a whole bunch of scenarios at the same time level by level, and compare them to a value that I'm fairly (but not 100%) sure (at this point) represents the implicit (or explicit, I don't know) developer touch-point for initial balance (back when the PHB was written, not including power creep since then).

As a note, I'm most of the way through implementing the following scenario for reference.
1. Cleric, using BB + Blessed Strikes
2. With constant advantage.
3. With a 50% proc rate on the extra damage
4. Assuming (and I'm not sure on this one) that the extra proc damage is not doubled on a crit, since it's not part of the attack itself (just like poison damage isn't).
5. And assuming that the cleric prioritizes WIS over STR (or DEX, that part doesn't matter) and so has physical attack modifier (not including proficiency) of +2 until level 12, then +3 and +4 as they get ASIs. I will also run the numbers assuming the reverse (pumping physical attack mod first).

Preliminary result is that with those assumptions, the average damage is 1.16 RED. Which, yes, is substantially above standard sacred flame spam. But that's assuming 100% advantage. Without advantage at all (another easy result to calculate), you're at 0.75 RED. So advantage is providing most of the effect by itself.

Exploring the space of possibilities--changing assumption #3 to 0% proc reduces it to 0.57 RED (without advantage). On the flip side of that, 100% proc rate on BB increases it to 0.93 RED (without advantage). So the variability is huge depending on how frequently that procs.

Also as an exploration, reverting to "prioritize BB attack stat" (aka start with +3 attack stat, increase at 4 & 8), without advantage and 50% proc rate makes the output 0.9 RED. At the cost of weakening anything else you do that depends on Wisdom.

I'm not saying your numbers are wrong! I'm just saying that you've got a lot of assumptions baked into them (which is unavoidable!) but you're not stating what those assumptions are up front, which makes it hard for people like me to check your work or engage with what you're saying. If you said something like "You're exagerrating, if you look at how cantrips like sacred flame or fire bolt perform over the course of levels 1-20 against typical enemies, sneak attack is way better than cantrip." I wouldn't have an issue. Its when you make claims that are both very specific (5 times the damage!) and general (rogues when compared with all cantrips) that it becomes really hard to agree.

People throw out lots of claims on the internet about DPR, so my initial attitude is always skepticism. So the truth is, I don't know whether your numbers are right or wrong, because I don't know what they mean in the first place.

Like. You're right, arguably. Rogues do come out ahead of cantrips by a good bit, perhaps I was exaggerating. But its hard to engage with this complex system you're using to come up with these numbers.

The "5 times the damage" was qualified with reference to specific scenarios. And RED, itself, doesn't actually factor into that, because it divides out (A/RED/B/RED == A/B). So the numbers are literally just "how much damage does sacred flame (or any other d8 cantrip with a minor boost around level 9) do when compared to a <set of possible rogue scenarios>, with targets held constant".

And I also presented the numbers (under the same assumptions which are explicit in the definition) for EB/AB spam (another touch point for cantrips), EB alone (another touchpoint for cantrips). There's no expectation that any other non-focused/specialized build would have much difference at all.

It seems that anyone who disagrees with "casters yay! rogues boo!" has to show all their work everywhere and constantly restate things...while the side arguing for caster supremacy never has to define anything. The number of assumptions made in these discussions dwarf any assumption I made about RED, and are much more debatable. Things like
1) I always have resources to burn
2) The target consistently procs BB
3) I have access to BB on a cleric
4) I have access to advantage, but the rogue doesn't[1]
5) I can always pick a cantrip that targets my opponents weak save or AC
6) Casters always have the right spell prepared and never lose concentration[2]
7) etc.

[1] because if you allow the rogue constant advantage, a simple "rogue with a shortbow" jumps up to 2.1 RED, blowing any claims about cantrips out of the water entirely.
[2] because if you're assuming, as has been done in the past, that hex will be up 100% of the time, you're assuming you never lose concentration.

Psyren

2022-08-03, 06:41 PM

Thunderous Mojo

2022-08-03, 06:59 PM

Sure, if you change the scenario to target a particular, highly-optimized build, in a particular circumstance, spending resources, you can get other results.

Highly Optimized?

As people have pointed out, people were imagining a cleric with Sacred Flame and Toll the Dead.

Heavens, I must be getting the vapors from all the jet fuel…a cleric having two offensive cantrips burns like an optimization rocket, I might pass out.

The builds I present as data points are, I would argue, way closer to both the design intent AND the average player than the hyper-optimized things that forumites try to use as baselines….

Your opinion about your presumptions being “way closer to the design intent” seems entirely unfounded. What evidence do you have to support your feelings, in this regard?

So no, I reject the idea that my numbers are wrong because I'm not comparing against highly-optimized, min-maxed builds who are spending resources. Not when considering rogues who try to do damage vs cantrips, generally.

A Cleric with Sacred Flame and Toll the Dead is optimization at a level enabled by access to XGE.

More importantly, though, I’m not seeing how your measurement unit improves my understanding of the game, or improves my game.

It seems like a big arbitrary hassle, to me, frankly.

I have been a member of the Playground for the last two years, and in that time Phoenix Phyre has been vehemently anti-Baseline measurement.

Indeed, P.P. was not shy in exclaiming that position deep into many paged threads.

Now, after having a realization, (possibly while having Mashed Potatoes on the way to Damascus), are we now going to have random insertions of this RED scale into threads, instead?

Hael

2022-08-03, 07:13 PM

[2] because if you're assuming, as has been done in the past, that hex will be up 100% of the time, you're assuming you never lose concentration.

Assuming hex up is a really pretty safe assumption… Many times safer than some other assumptions (like the tacit notion that martial melee rogues can get in range for attacking).

Its a 1hr duration, that is being used on a spell with a good amount of range (90 iirc). The 2 lvl warlock dip provides 2 recharging slots every SR. Its a BA, so likely wont interfere with too much action economy even if it does drop. The secondary component often taken with the dip provides a strong CC push. Further the caster nature tends to favor builds that will have access and want to spend ASis on feats like warcaster/res con and the like, as well as providinf more slots.

PhoenixPhyre

2022-08-03, 07:50 PM

Without rehashing the whole "Is RED better than WED better than FED etc." debate, I'd suggest PP put not just the RED calculator but the original thread (https://forums.giantitp.com/showthread.php?647325-Seeing-RED-an-odd-coincidence) in his sig so some of the underlying assumptions behind the benchmark are more readily apparent.

I'm planning to actually do two things--
1. Push a new build to the calculator that includes the following description

RED stands for Rogue Equivalent Damage. Specifically, the baseline (defined to be 1.0 RED) is a shortbow-using rogue who never has advantage and always gets sneak attack. Their modifiers are +3 at 1st level, +4 at 4th level, and +5 at 8th level. AC numbers are drawn (for now) from the DMG tables; DEX save bonuses are drawn from an analysis of all monsters from the MM, VGtM, and MToF, as there aren't any stock numbers for that. All other calculations use similar modifiers (in their relevant primary attack stat) except where noted.

Because I don't want to tie everything back to a post that's going to fall off the accessible window. And won't be kept updated as assumptions change.

2. Post a new thread specifically about the (more formalized, better calculated) RED comparison value and calculator, including asking for feedback about those assumptions and things (including scenarios) people would like to see implemented.

----

Do note that the underlying definition of the RED unit is just that--a definition. No assumptions there, just "here's what I mean". All the presets other than that make assumptions, as do all calculations. But the actual unit is what it is by definition, not assumption.

Also note that the code for this is fully open source (MIT) and pull requests are welcomed. Because I make no assumptions about these being exact or comprehensive. It's just a data set to play around with. I don't even assume that these are authoritative, merely suggestive of certain scenarios that I deem plausible. Mostly ones near the outside of the plausible window--no hex vs 100% hex, for example. Because one of the main points is to explore how these assumptions change the scenarios.

Additionally, the calculator itself doesn't depend on the definition of RED except for output--you can switch it to raw DPR mode and it will tell you exactly what it thinks that preset is doing at each level. I find that much less useful because the range is huge and monotonically increasing--my brain likes numbers around 1. Those also make for easy comparisons with easy math--doing 2.0 / 0.4 is much easier than 42/8.4 (a closer approximation). And it automatically adjusts for accuracy, allowing comparisons between different accuracy settings more straightforwardly, where the raw numbers stay similar but only in ratio.

Do I claim that it's the be-all and end-all? No. It's just a convenient (to me) data set.

Edit: oh, and I went back and did the TTD numbers, assuming that you always get the d12 (an implausible, but possible scenario), with values for wis saves drawn from the same source as dex saves. It is better than sacred flame. By...a quite small amount.

Worst case (for TTD) was against monsters of CR = level + 3, where it scored 0.47 RED vs SF's 0.41 RED.
Best case (for TTD) was against monsters of CR = level / 2, where it scored 0.57 RED vs SF's 0.41 RED.
CR = level was, as expected, somewhere in between.

As I fully expected. If you could magically cherry-pick your targets so you only ever faced the weakest (in the given stat) save for a given CR, it might be different. But players don't pick what comes against them, and wis saves and dex saves are actually decently correlated. Not identical, but a creature with higher dex saves tends to have higher wis saves, and by about the same amount (relative to the average). Because most of the difference comes from proficiency, and many monsters have proficiency in both or neither, not one or the other.

Psyren

2022-08-03, 08:15 PM

Assuming hex up is a really pretty safe assumption… Many times safer than some other assumptions (like the tacit notion that martial melee rogues can get in range for attacking).

And will qualify for SA 100% of the time too. But I made my opinions known previously. Nothing wrong with having additional benchmarks anyhow.

LudicSavant

2022-08-03, 08:16 PM

So, I've started running 5E due to my sister's boyfriend getting the Starter Set for Christmas, and I'm a little confused.

See, every discussion I see suggests that they've improved balance between classes compared to 3.5e (the last edition I had significant experience with), but everything looks so similar (if thankfully streamlined in many cases) that I'm having trouble seeing the difference.

I don't want to be making major mistakes by misjudging the differences in power levels as the players get more experienced -my expectation from older editions, for example, is that you have to give the Fighter special attention because he's so much weaker than the casters, but I'm seeing lots of people saying that's no longer true. We're running the adventure from the starter set for now, but if I start designing my own stuff as is customary, this is something I need to know.

Ultimately I'd say the balance gap isn't as big as it was in 3.5e. Every class can be optimized to be relevant against 6+ Deadly encounters a day, which is far in excess of the difficulty of official modules. I'd say casters still have a higher optimization ceiling, but you shouldn't have to worry as much about balance.

A few unusually potent things to be wary of:
- Chronurgist Wizards
- Shepherd Druids
- Twilight/Peace Clerics
- minionmancy (Conjure Animals / etc)
- 'Coffeelocking'
- Some spells that, while not game-breaking, are pretty much just bland power creep for characters who really don't need it (Gift of Alacrity, Silvery Barbs)

There are a few Pun-Pun-like outliers (the most obvious/famous of which probably being Wish-Simulacrum loops) but that's about as likely to be played in a real game as Pun-Pun was.

____

As for what the difference is from 3.5e... well there are a lot! It's difficult to sum them all up.

*One of the big ones is the Concentration system, which limits how much you can stack spells.
*Casters get fewer spell slots per day than they used to. Especially high level spell slots.
*They also don't 'auto-scale' spell damage with character levels like they used to (except cantrips).
*Martials can move and full attack just like, all the time.
*Also they have some nice features (like the Paladin's aura, or the Fighter's Action Surge).
*@Kane0 has a great rule of thumb for new players learning 5e:

Golden Rule: Thou shalt not assume to know that which shares a name
Sneak attack works differently. Protection from Evil works differently. Critical hits work differently. Do not skim over things that look familiar because they are almost all different in subtle ways that become very apparent in play.

Willie the Duck

2022-08-04, 10:02 AM

Ultimately I'd say the balance gap isn't as big as it was in 3.5e. Every class can be optimized to be relevant against 6+ Deadly encounters a day, which is far in excess of the difficulty of official modules. I'd say casters still have a higher optimization ceiling, but you shouldn't have to worry as much about balance.
I think that's a good synopsis. With 3.5e, everyone might just pick their traditional fighter, cleric (or druid), rogue, and wizard and stumble blindly into a fighter who feels left behind, a cleric/druid who finds themselves (/their minions) being the melee centerpieces, and the wizard having more answers to problems than everyone else (plus an outsized effect on battlefields). In 5e, that can happen (especially at high levels, especially if there is not workday-policing), but the most egregious issues don't happen unless you start poking around looking for them (exceptions below).

A few unusually potent things to be wary of:
- Chronurgist Wizards
- Shepherd Druids
- Twilight/Peace Clerics
- minionmancy (Conjure Animals / etc)
- 'Coffeelocking'
- Some spells that, while not game-breaking, are pretty much just bland power creep for characters who really don't need it (Gift of Alacrity, Silvery Barbs)
There are a few Pun-Pun-like outliers (the most obvious/famous of which probably being Wish-Simulacrum loops) but that's about as likely to be played in a real game as Pun-Pun was.
There are some clear simply-best choices. Some rather-obvious-in-hindsight exploits (coffeelocking). Some outlier spells -- I would also add the Forcewall and Cage, and also Leodmund's Hut, the first two because there are sufficiently many enemies (including some otherwise powerful ones) that have no response and the Hut because it has some really obvious abuse, and while there are plenty enough counters, a lot of them are triggers you really don't want to have to pull (or pull constantly). Along with minionmancy (including simulacrum), I'd also say all the ones that turn someone into a monster manual entry -- the specifics of how HP are handled between forms and stuff just give them oversized value.

PhoenixPhyre

2022-08-04, 10:23 AM

There are some clear simply-best choices. Some rather-obvious-in-hindsight exploits (coffeelocking). Some outlier spells -- I would also add the Forcewall and Cage, and also Leodmund's Hut, the first two because there are sufficiently many enemies (including some otherwise powerful ones) that have no response and the Hut because it has some really obvious abuse, and while there are plenty enough counters, a lot of them are triggers you really don't want to have to pull (or pull constantly). Along with minionmancy (including simulacrum), I'd also say all the ones that turn someone into a monster manual entry -- the specifics of how HP are handled between forms and stuff just give them oversized value.

I agree with most/all of this. Especially that last sentence. Although I'd pin it more to the fact that they decided (for some unknown reason) to say "max CR = target level (or CR)". When that doesn't fit any of the rest of how they calculate CR for things with levels (for example, the legacy archmage is CR 12 but has the spellcasting of an 18th level wizard and most, but not all, of the stats of one). Or even how the moon druid (the native shapechanger) works--they only get CR = level / 3!. Instead, I'd say that polymorph, true polymorph, and shapechange should choose one of
* Act like moon druid wildshape (max CR = level / 3).
* Depend on the spell slot used (polymorph might be CR = slot level, with true polymorph/shapechange getting more fancy)
* have a fixed palette of results, either literally picking from the MM to make a fixed set of choices or akin to the Summon X line[1].

[1] which is way better than the Conjure X line for balance purposes.

KorvinStarmast

2022-08-04, 11:23 AM

Sacred Flame is ludicrously bad in practice through most of Tier 1. Since it targets Dex, it’s awful against goblins, Kobolds, and about 2/3 of the other common low level foes. Adding Toll the Dead to the cleric list was a massive help. So grateful they did that.

I think you have a very negative view of "optimization" and you've created a data system to reinforce your own negativity. I don't think that's what was behind the RED thread. It was exploring how numbers behaved and finding a basis of comparison somewhat by accident (or that's how I read it).

Assuming hex up is a really pretty safe assumption. Really? You never lose concentration? You never us another slot? You don't get a third slot until level 11. Granted, you get your two back on a short rest (or at higher levels, your three) but hex isn't the only useful spell that a warlock has. And as soon as someone says "two level warlock dip" I don't usually go any further since that assumes a particular style of play and use of MC.

For Phoenix:
Depend on the spell slot used (polymorph might be CR = slot level, with true polymorph/shapechange getting more fancy)
If you are certain that Polymorph needs a balance tweak, what approach probably works, particularly the spell slot level.

LudicSavant

2022-08-04, 11:56 AM

Really? You never lose concentration? You never us another slot? You don't get a third slot until level 11. Granted, you get your two back on a short rest (or at higher levels, your three) but hex isn't the only useful spell that a warlock has. And as soon as someone says "two level warlock dip" I don't usually go any further since that assumes a particular style of play and use of MC.

I don't think he was saying he never loses Concentration, just comparing the likelihood of a Warlock having some ball or other in the air at any given time, to the likelihood of a melee Rogue lining up Sneak Attack all of the time.

And there are indeed quite a lot of things that can prevent a melee Rogue from getting their sneak attacks.

Psyren

2022-08-04, 12:03 PM

I don't think he was saying he never loses Concentration, just comparing the likelihood of a Warlock having some ball or other in the air at any given time, to the likelihood of a melee Rogue lining up Sneak Attack all of the time.

And there are indeed quite a lot of things that can prevent a melee Rogue from getting their sneak attacks.

Indeed, or even a ranged one.

Every DPR baseline needs to make some kind of assumptions, and that's okay. It's when one is being pushed as inherently more virtuous than the others that eyebrows get raised.

LudicSavant

2022-08-04, 12:43 PM

Indeed, or even a ranged one.

Every DPR baseline needs to make some kind of assumptions, and that's okay. It's when one is being pushed as inherently more virtuous than the others that eyebrows get raised.

Definitely. Pretty much any cause of Disadvantage (among other things) is trouble for many a Rogue.

AdAstra

2022-08-05, 02:35 PM

Definitely. Pretty much any cause of Disadvantage (among other things) is trouble for many a Rogue.

ehhhh, it's not ideal, but with Steady Aim, a rogue's got easy means to negate Disadvantage, so if other melee characters are in the party they're not in a bad place even in a featureless plane. In a game where terrain exists, Hiding is very valuable for both giving Advantage and for avoiding many of the situations where Sneak Attack is difficult. Hell, even if an enemy's in your face and the Fighter is across the room punching a vampire, you can use Steady Aim, shoot the vampire, and still get Sneak Attack, no problem.

And with Rogues being so balanced around Sneak Attack and Cunning Action being such a key feature, denying the ability to Hide in the presence of obscurement (Within limits, of course. Having enemies catch on if you hide behind the same rock the whole combat is fair game) feels equivalent to arbitrarily forcing Concentration saves for "surprising" things or throwing impossible moral quandries at a 3.5 Paladin. It's just deliberately trying to screw over a class feature meant to be powerful on a class that is hardly breaking power scales over its knee.

strangebloke

2022-08-05, 02:43 PM

Steady aim is pretty risky for a rogue, at least imx. Removes one of the main advantages of ranged fighting, being able to choose where you end your turn.

Unless you cheese things with a mount ofc :smalltongue:

LudicSavant

2022-08-05, 02:50 PM

ehhhh, it's not ideal, but with Steady Aim, a rogue's got easy means to negate Disadvantage

Yes, but that alone is not sufficient to qualify for Sneak Attack.

AdAstra

2022-08-05, 03:06 PM

I am fairly certain that I mentioned both the non-idealness of it and the need for another character in melee, so I think it's fair to say that I am in fact aware of things that I explicitly acknowledged.

If the party's staying out of melee, Hide (or Steady Aim in an emergency) is very likely to be an option. If part of the party has been engaged in melee, then there are likely people who aren't the Rogue who won't be shying away from it.

In order for a Rogue to not be able to get Sneak Attack on someone within short range (EDIT: also requires line of sight, which I guess should be obvious) of their available ranged weapons (so, 80 feet assuming a rogue choosing the basic option of a light Crossbow), all of the following must be true at once:
-The Rogue has disadvantage from something.
-No enemy within range has a hostile creature other than the Rogue within 5 feet of them
-The Rogue is not a Swashbuckler with an isolated enemy in melee or an Inquisitive that pulled off Insightful Fighting (note that assuming you have existing disadvantage, this would require you to use IF on a previous turn to also use Steady Aim).

Otherwise, Steady Aim ensures that Sneak Attack is at least possible, if risky/not against the ideal target, in all other circumstances. While these circumstance do exist, I think you're severely overstating how common it is that a Rogue is straight up unable to Sneak Attack. If an enemy is able to straight up avoid engagement with anyone and stay out of effective range of attacks, that's a concern for way more character concepts than just Rogues.

LudicSavant

2022-08-05, 03:12 PM

if other melee characters are in the party they're not in a bad place

If those melee characters are not in place at the correct point in time, or if reducing your speed to 0 would impede your ability to line up a shot (or cause other consequences), then many a Rogue will fail to qualify for Sneak Attack.

Take the aforementioned Summer Eladrin bounding through the forest. You might be in a party with that PAM/GWM Barbarian but that Barbarian cannot be relied on to A) beat your initiative and B) actually get into melee and C) stay there. Likewise, the Rogue themselves is not guaranteed to be able to line up a shot at all without movement.

In order for a Rogue to not be able to get Sneak Attack on someone within short range of their available ranged weapons (so, 80 feet assuming a rogue choosing the basic option of a light Crossbow), all of the following must be true at once:
-The Rogue has disadvantage from something.
-No enemy within range has a hostile creature other than the Rogue within 5 feet of them
-The Rogue is not a Swashbuckler with an isolated enemy in melee or an Inquisitive that pulled off Insightful Fighting (note that assuming you have existing disadvantage, this would require you to use IF on a previous turn to also use Steady Aim).

I'm afraid I must disagree.
- Being a Swashbuckler is irrelevant to firing at 80 feet.
- Barring subclass abilities, you need both Advantage and an ally within 5 feet in order to overcome Disadvantage.

So no, not all of those things have to be true at once.

AdAstra

2022-08-05, 03:41 PM

The point being made is that Rogues are vulnerable to counterplay. If you're not arguing against that, I'm not sure what your point is.

If those melee characters are not in place at the correct point in time, or if reducing your speed to 0 would impede your ability to line up a shot, then many a Rogue will fail to qualify for Sneak Attack.

Take the aforementioned Summer Eladrin bounding through the forest. You might be in a party with that PAM/GWM Barbarian but that Barbarian cannot be relied on to A) beat your initiative and B) actually get into melee and C) stay there. Likewise, the Rogue themselves is not guaranteed to be able to line up a shot at all without movement.

My opinion is that you're overstating how devastating this counterplay is to Rogues specifically, and how prevalent it actually is unless a DM is specifically gunning for the Rogue or doing things that would be annoying for basically any party. Staying out of range of most spells with say, a fast mount, also really screws over most melee characters and casters without similar mounts. Even Dimension Door isn't ideal since the really fast mounts can pick up a hell of a lot of distance in the turn they get before you can cast another leveled spell, and regardless takes up turns and resources. Conjure Animals can get you some really fast flying mounts of your own, but not the fastest, and it's not available to most classes. Phantom Steed is quite fast, but can't fly and disappears if it takes any damage.

To use your Summer Eladrin example, a Rogue in that circumstance just needs some of the plentiful available cover within line of sight and 80 foot range of the Eladrin and within 30 feet of the Rogue to Hide in, then, if they succeed against an Eladrin's thoroughly unimpressive Passive Perception, attack with advantage. Double or triple dashing can help make up distance in turns where that's not possible. A Rogue that picked up Longbow proficiency or Sharpshooter somewhere would have an even longer reach to work with. Running them down with a mount is also an option, and one that most casters or melee characters would want in the same situation.

I'm afraid I must disagree.
- Being a Swashbuckler is irrelevant to firing at 80 feet.
- Barring subclass abilities, you need both Advantage and an ally within 5 feet in order to overcome Disadvantage.

So no, not all of those things have to be true at once.

Note how that bullet point is about the Rogue needing to not be a Swashbuckler with an isolated enemy within 5 feet. As in "Rogue is a Swashbuckler with an isolated enemy within 5 feet" must be false. Because if the Rogue is a Swashbuckler with an isolated enemy within 5 feet, even if the other two bullets are true, the Rogue can still use Steady Aim and get Sneak Attack on that enemy, because they're cancelling out the Disadvantage and have Rakish Audacity.

Also note that "someone within short range" is not like, every specific person, it's referring to having someone available to sneak attack assuming someone's in range at all.

LudicSavant

2022-08-05, 04:13 PM

My opinion is that you're overstating how devastating this counterplay is to Rogues specifically, and how prevalent it actually is

Mate, the post you replied to just said "Disadvantage is trouble for many a Rogue."

I said it's an obstacle that exists, and you're acting like I said it ends the class's whole career. :smalltongue:

You never even asked, nor received, my opinion on its severity or prevalence.

AdAstra

2022-08-05, 04:42 PM

Mate, the post you replied to just said "Disadvantage is trouble for many a Rogue."

I said it's an obstacle that exists, and you're acting like I said it ends the class's whole career. :smalltongue:
Which was in reference to your previous post that a lot of things can shut down Sneak Attacks for melee rogues. Which is the thing I was demonstrating is not actually that easy to do, so long as you don't pigeonhole yourself into one playstyle you're under no mechanical obligation to. After all, have to take into account flexibility in options. And especially in relation to the original topic, a 5e Rogue is in paradise compared to a 3.5, where in addition to imposing tons of constraints on playstyle, Sneak Attack didn't work at all on tons of common enemy types. Much easier to adapt to combat circumstances than having to adjust your build depending on what shows up.

LudicSavant

2022-08-05, 06:17 PM

Which was in reference to your previous post that a lot of things can shut down Sneak Attacks for melee rogues.

Yep, which said: That there exist quite a few things which can interfere with the ability of melee Rogues to get Sneak Attacks all of the time.

As an example of just such a thing...

In order for a Rogue to not be able to get Sneak Attack on someone within short range of their available ranged weapons (so, 80 feet assuming a rogue choosing the basic option of a light Crossbow), all of the following must be true at once:
-The Rogue has disadvantage from something.
-No enemy within range has a hostile creature other than the Rogue within 5 feet of them
-The Rogue is not a Swashbuckler with an isolated enemy in melee or an Inquisitive that pulled off Insightful Fighting (note that assuming you have existing disadvantage, this would require you to use IF on a previous turn to also use Steady Aim).

Otherwise, Steady Aim ensures that Sneak Attack is at least possible, if risky/not against the ideal target, in all other circumstances.

Steady Aim does not ensure this. For example, there could be no mount, and a wall blocking LOS. You could just walk around it, but then you couldn't use Steady Aim.

To use your Summer Eladrin example, a Rogue in that circumstance just needs some of the plentiful available cover within line of sight and 80 foot range of the Eladrin and within 30 feet of the Rogue to Hide in, then, if they succeed against an Eladrin's thoroughly unimpressive Passive Perception, attack with advantage. Double or triple dashing can help make up distance in turns where that's not possible. A Rogue that picked up Longbow proficiency or Sharpshooter somewhere would have an even longer reach to work with. Running them down with a mount is also an option, and one that most casters or melee characters would want in the same situation.

That is not enough if the Summer Eladrin is imposing Disadvantage on you.

You need Advantage (to cancel out Disadvantage) and an ally in five feet.

That's because of this rule:

If circumstances cause a roll to have both advantage and disadvantage, you are considered to have neither of them

You don't need advantage on the attack roll if another enemy of the target is within 5 feet of it, that enemy isn't incapacitated, and you don't have disadvantage on the attack roll.

strangebloke

2022-08-05, 06:37 PM

generally, rogues can be assumed to have sneak attack, but this often requires behaviors from them that are inadvisable. For example, steady aim is a source of advantage, but giving up all your movement and your bonus action is a lot to ask when you're a d8 class with 15-16 AC or so. Alternately you might go first, and ready an attack for when one of your party members gets in range. So there is an external cost to getting sneak attack.

But beyond this, its also a strategy that's prone to disruption. A cleric who gets blinded can still cast spirit guardians (with friendly fire) but a rogue who gets blinded can't really do anything.

It's just one of those things that doesn't get factored into DPR because its hard to quantify, other than it will probably happen eventually.

AdAstra

2022-08-05, 11:01 PM

Yep, which said: That there exist quite a few things which can interfere with the ability of melee Rogues to get Sneak Attacks all of the time.

As an example of just such a thing...

Steady Aim does not ensure this. For example, there could be no mount, and a wall blocking LOS. You could just walk around it, but then you couldn't use Steady Aim.

That is not enough if the Summer Eladrin is imposing Disadvantage on you.

You need Advantage (to cancel out Disadvantage) and an ally in five feet.

That's because of this rule:

Yes, and the point is that Rogues get choices about what they want to do every turn, too. Including, say, not being in melee, and shooting, even if that's not their typical tactic. If one can assume that a Cleric should have both Sacred Flame and Toll The Dead, it should only be natural to assume that a Rogue, which is proficient with ranged and melee weapons, can use different weapons. The idea of a "Melee Rogue" would be like saying a "Fireball Wizard". You could have a character that exclusively uses that option, but that's entirely a choice on the part of the player and not a limitation or incentive of the class. Especially since a Rogue faces no meaningful opportunity cost at all from packing a wide variety of weapons, while spells, flexible as they are, do require you forgo certain selections on a given day and don't just let you change everything from moment to moment (vastly offset of course by the amount and variety of things that spells can do compared to weapons). Even grabbing feats that only work with a particular way of fighting, the other ones don't get worse and don't really "fall behind" to the point where they're outright ineffective.

If there's a wall blocking LOS, you can presumably Hide behind it. Pop out, shoot (or Ready to shoot, that works too). Again, Rogues do get to make choices as to what they do on a given turn. I guess there's the possibility that you're immobilized and the enemy has LOS blocking terrain, and your GM doesn't let you Hide in that scenario, but that's a difficult situation for basically any martial.

Sure, the Eladrin could impose Disadvantage. It has no features that actually facilitate this, though, so it mostly has dropping prone (which would nullify its mobility advantage), staying out of 80 foot range, and Hiding itself, as well as taking advantage of terrain, lighting, and obscurement like anyone else. And if it can stay out of short range of the Rogue, it can probably stay out of melee, and out of range of most spells. It's not a scenario that uniquely hurts Rogues. Hiding in obscurement and moving 50-80 feet in a random direction is going to be a significant challenge even for casters to deal with easily (artificially boosted movement through mounts or teleportation is a lot less helpful when the enemy's location is unknown). Notably, a Rogue is at least good at playing Cat and Mouse in the underbrush such that the Eladrin is equally unable to meaningfully harm the Rogue, which is more than many builds can say in the same circumstances.

LudicSavant

2022-08-06, 09:11 AM

Sure, the Eladrin could impose Disadvantage. It has no features that actually facilitate this

:smallconfused: This is simply not true.

Fearsome Presence passively inflicts Frightened (and therefore Disadvantage) on anyone who begins their turn within 60 feet of a Summer Eladrin and fails a Wisdom saving throw.

If you are afflicted with Disadvantage, you need Advantage and a lined up shot and an ally within 5 feet. Nothing more, but also nothing less.

So, the case remains the same:

Take the aforementioned Summer Eladrin bounding through the forest. You might be in a party with that PAM/GWM Barbarian but that Barbarian cannot be relied on to A) beat your initiative and B) actually get into melee and C) stay there. Likewise, the Rogue themselves is not guaranteed to be able to line up a shot at all without movement.

so it mostly has dropping prone (which would nullify its mobility advantage)

It actually can still move over 50 feet on a turn following prone. In addition to having Fearsome Presence.

If there's a wall blocking LOS, you can presumably Hide behind it. Pop out, shoot

Which is subject to any of the counters to getting Advantage from Hiding, as well as requiring you to be able to get around the wall without the use of your bonus action.

This means SA may be countered even if all three of your bullet points are true at once. Something you claimed was impossible.

all of the following must be true at once

Yes, and the point is that Rogues get choices about what they want to do every turn, too. Including, say, not being in melee, and shooting, even if that's not their typical tactic. If one can assume that a Cleric should have both Sacred Flame and Toll The Dead, it should only be natural to assume that a Rogue, which is proficient with ranged and melee weapons, can use different weapons.

Your choice of weapon is not the problem here. There are numerous things which can prevent a Rogue (whether melee or ranged) from getting 100% SA output.

AdAstra

2022-08-06, 06:37 PM

:smallconfused: This is simply not true.

Fearsome Presence passively inflicts Frightened (and therefore Disadvantage) on anyone who begins their turn within 60 feet of a Summer Eladrin and fails a Wisdom saving throw.

If you are afflicted with Disadvantage, you need Advantage and a lined up shot and an ally within 5 feet. Nothing more, but also nothing less.

So, the case remains the same:

It actually can still move over 50 feet on a turn following prone. In addition to having Fearsome Presence.

Which is subject to any of the counters to getting Advantage from Hiding, as well as requiring you to be able to get around the wall without the use of your bonus action.

This means SA may be countered even if all three of your bullet points are true at once. Something you claimed was impossible.

Your choice of weapon is not the problem here. There are numerous things which can prevent a Rogue (whether melee or ranged) from getting 100% SA output.

Right, forgot about that, my apologies. At the same time, this would be pretty devastating to many melee or short-ranged characters in general, so it's hard to call this specifically hurting the Rogue more than other options (for example, even a Phantom Steed or the majority of conjured mounts are quite susceptible to fear effects). An Eladrin messing around with range and line of sight can frustrate casters a hell of a lot, too, as most tools casters have to deal with those situations take up spell slots and, importantly, actions (long range teleports, movement speed increases, summoned mounts, etc). As mentioned, a Rogue can generally evade such a foe until they can make their save against the fear effect, which given an Eladrin's Perception modifier is a good bet and what you would want to do in that situation.

Probably more fair to amend my statement to "within range and line of sight", yes. If you put a goblin inside a 30-foot thick steel box or completely behind a castle wall, the Rogue probably wouldn't be able to sneak attack it, just do things to put itself in a better position for next turn. But then again, a Paladin is likely to run into similar issues, though alleviated by easier access to mounts. Again, though, I think you're really overstating how often it is that DMs play games like that, and understating how effective these tactics are against most characters, not just Rogues. It's very common for characters to have to spend their turns not attacking, or not attacking to anywhere near their full strength (ethereal creatures playing tricks with walls, for example, or any number of effects that prevent actions entirely), and I would say in those situations, Rogues can do a hell of a lot to improve their situation for the next turn. Having to do something on your turn other than offense is just, a thing that happens. And I would say for Rogues that while it can happen more often than with casters, a typical party (where melee characters can and do exist) isn't actually going to run into many situations like that. In a lot of campaigns, you're going to see a lot more Magic Resistance and other such abilities that mostly restrict casters to cantrips, weapon attacks, and attack roll (or auto-hit) spells that trend towards okay damage output at best for most classes.

Like, yeah yeah caster supremacy I-Get-To-Ignore-Every-Common-Condition (Poor Watery Sphere), it's been gone over. I'd like casters nerfed six feet under and for more fantastical things to be done in more grounded ways, but it's just weird to see people treat it as if martials just flail about uselessly when put at any kind of disadvantage rather than being able to play tactically.