UA Damage Math?

[ZRN]

I was wondering whether anyone has done a quick look into the damage math with the rules from the new playtest. The changes to feats and TWF are pretty significant (especially the changes to SS/GWM) and I'd be interested to see how the math plays out for various combos. (I'll post some back-of-the-envelope observations below this but I know some people in this forum are a bit more... intense about these kinds of analyses, and I don't want to duplicate effort.)

[ZRN]

First off: I'm assuming here that the barbarian and fighter classes go unchanged beyond the impact of changes from the last two UA packets, which is obviously not going to be the case, but lets us examine a bit more.

Sword + Board vs. TWF vs. Greatsword vs. Polearm

First, let's examine base damage for some common combat styles. We'll assume that everyone starts with 18 in their primary stat and takes the best damage-improving feat at 4th.

L1 Baseline:
Longsword/shield (S+B): 4.5 (1d8) + 4 (dex/str) = 8.5
Dual shortswords (TWF): 3.5 (1.6) + 4 (dex/str) + 3.5 (1d6) = 11
Greatsword: 7 (2d6) + 4 (str) = 11
Polearm: 5.5 (1d10) + 4 (str) = 9.5

So with no feats or weapon styles, TWF and greatweapon styles are exactly tied for best average damage. Polearm is a bit lower but gets reach, and sword+board is the worst (but still in the same ballpark) but has better AC. This is all unchanged from current 5e except that the TWF doesn't take a bonus action, and nobody gets a (combat) feat before 4th level because they changed variant humans.

L1/2 Baseline + Fighting Style
S+B: 8.5 + 2 (Dueling) = 10.5
TWF: 11 + 4 (TWF) = 15
GS: 11 + 1.333 (GWF) = 12.333
PA: 9.5 + .8 (GWF) = 10.3

We're just adding in the fighting styles here. These numbers are unchanged from current 5e as well, but it's worth noting/remembering how much GWF sucks.

L4 Weapon Feat
S+B: 10.5
TWF: 15 + 1 (1d6 to 1d8 due to Dual Wielding) = 16
GS: 12.333 + 2 (GWM) = 14.333
PA: 10.3 + 2.5 (1d4 PAM extra attack) + .5 (GWF on that 1d4) + 4 (str) = 17.3

Here's where things get harder to calculate. S+B doesn't have a feat that directly improves its damage - the Shield Master feat is cool now, but proning the enemy doesn't improve your damage at level 4 (since you only get one attack). Dual Wielding is terrible and only gives you +1 damage on average. The new GWM is fine and scales with PB. (I'm not including the cleave portion of GWM, but that is pretty valuable too.) PAM is same as it ever was, but it's worth noting that that means it does still take your BA whereas TWF doesn't.

At this point PAM is in the lead, but let's add Extra Attack.

L5 Extra Attack
S+B: 10.5 + 4.5 (d8) + 4 (dex/str) + 2 (Dueling) = 21
TWF: 16 + 4.5 (d8) + 4 (dex/str) = 24.5
GS: 14.333 + 1 (+1 PB) + 12.333 = 27.666
PA: 17.3 + 10.3 = 27.6

Now things swing back closer to alignment: TWF is a bit behind greatweapon styles in damage, but it has other benefits: you can be dex-based rather than strength-based, you get more attacks (not only giving you an extra d6 with Hunter's Mark but also increasing the chance of once-per-turn effects like Sneak Attack, Sentinel, etc.), and so on.

L6/8 Second Feat/ASI
S+B: 21 + 2 (+1 to Str for each attack) = 23
TWF: 24.5 + 3 (+1 to Str/Dex for each attack) = 27.5
GS: 27.666 + 2 (+1 to Str for each attack) = 29.666
PA: 27.6 + 3 (PB from GWM) + 3 (+1 to Str for each attack)= 33.6

At this point, everyone has either two half-feats or a full ASI to get their main stat to +5. The noteable thing here is that polearm users get TWO worthwhile damage feats, so they can get GWM+PAM to have comfortably the highest base damage, as long as they don't mind using their bonus attack for it. Personally, I'm comfortable with this disparity, because you're investing a lot of feats AND your whole action economy. Realistically, nobody should be taking the current Dual Wielder feat, so S+B and TWF get basically their baseline damage here with no feat investment, leaving room for stuff like Shield Master and the new, good Heavy Weapon Master. And just as a reminder, here's what a level 6/8 fighter would look like with the old GWM and GWM+PAM, using the -5/+10 and making up for it by getting advantage and/or a bonus to hit from somewhere:

GS: 29.666 - 3 + 20 = 46.666
PA: 33.6 - 3 + 30 = 60.6

[ZRN]

Last one I forgot:

L11 Fighter (extra attack 2):
S+B: 23 + 11.5 = 34.5
TWF: 27.5 + 9.5 = 37
GS: 29.666 + 13.333 = 43
PA: 33.6 + 11.3 = 44.9

(Edited to correct TWF damage)

At this point, TWF is starting to lag notably behind other options (except S+B) for a straight fighter with no magical weapons and no spells like Hunter's Mark or Curse. This would be an easy fix in the Warrior UA packet - just add a second offhand attack into the level 11 Fighter extra attack.


Other damage factors I'm not doing a bunch of math on:

1. Hunter's mark and barbarian static rage damage bonus favor TWF/PAM by giving them an extra d6 for the added attack, but now you DO get that d6 on round 1 for TWF and still DON'T get it for PAM (since you need a BA to cast HM or rage). Interestingly, I think a ranger/barb can now stack HM+rage since HM doesn't take concentration for rangers.

2. Duelists can Prone on their first attack and then take the rest of their turn at advantage.

[Yakk]

TWF gets +3 damage from the feat at level 11. Starts being worth considering as you get more attacks.

---

GWF "reroll 1s and 2s" should be "If you roll an even value on a weapon damage die, it becomes max for the die".

2d6 is 7 before, and 9 after (+2.0)
1d12 is 6.5 before, and 9 after (+2.5)
1d10 is 5.5 before, and 7.5 after (+2.0)
1d8 is 4.5 before, and 6 after (+1.5)
1d6 is 3.5 before, and 4.5 after (+1.0)
1d4 is 2.5 before, and 3.0 after (+0.5)

This makes greataxe equal to greatsword in average damage, and the benefits (in damage per round) with polearm master is equal to greatsword (+2 damage per round) at level 1.

And it makes for more Daka (max rolls!).

[nickl_2000]

How about a Tier 1 and 2 Monk wielding two shortswords?

Level 1-4
2 attacks with shortsword and 1 unarmed strike
1d6+dex (6.5)
1d6 (3.5)
1d4+dex (5.5)

So if you hit, you are dealing out 15.5 damage per round without expending any resources. If you can take the TWF Fighting style (its available as a level 1 feat for martials and monks are a martial), you would be dealing 18.5 damage per round. If you need a little extra you can flurry at level 2 and be dealing 24 damage per round.

In tier 2 you get to add an extra attack and unarmed are now 1d6. So....
1d6+dex (7.5)
1d6 (3.5)
1d6+dex (7.5)
1d6+dex (7.5)

So 26 damage per round, or if you get the TWF style 30 damage per round. When you need a little more you can flurry to get to 37.5 damage per round with both. Again, with very few resources spent.


For the sake of being able to stay in combat lets take Long Death monk to get THP and you are an absolute juggernaut.

[Yakk]

How about a Tier 1 and 2 Monk wielding two shortswords?
I strongly suspect Martial Arts will get the Light Fighting modification (the extra attack is part of the attack action).

And Flurry of Blows becomes 1 extra attack as a bonus action, competing with Dash and Disengage.

Or, Flurry will be "spend a Ki and get an extra attack" and not use your bonus action at all.

This is a nice improvement for the monk.

If your baseline was "Attack, Flurry", doing a dash/disengage on the current monk costs 2 attacks. (No Ki, because baseline included spending Ki).

With "Light" style monk MA (or Flurry), doing a dash/disengage costs you 1 attack (or 1 Ki if Flurry is also "Light" upgraded) over baseline.

[Psyren]

New Shield Master is a small damage increase over the old one:

1) It's a half-feat now, so you can grab it at 4th without missing/delaying your 18/20 Str.

2) It doesn't use your bonus action now, so if you have any source of bonus action damage you can use it on the same turn that you prone the enemy. Even better, if you have a bonus action that gets an attack roll, it will gain the advantage from the free shield Shove. And then of course you're likely to get Extra Attack next level, which is also boosted since the shove occurs during your attack action instead of after it.

[ZRN]

TWF gets +3 damage from the feat at level 11. Starts being worth considering as you get more attacks.


You actually reminded me - I forgot to make the extra attacks d8 instead of d6 in the math above. Edited to fix. Thanks! (I still think the feat sucks though - you could take something like Charger and get more damage along with other benefits.)

[ZRN]

I strongly suspect Martial Arts will get the Light Fighting modification (the extra attack is part of the attack action).

And Flurry of Blows becomes 1 extra attack as a bonus action, competing with Dash and Disengage.

Or, Flurry will be "spend a Ki and get an extra attack" and not use your bonus action at all.

This is a nice improvement for the monk.

If your baseline was "Attack, Flurry", doing a dash/disengage on the current monk costs 2 attacks. (No Ki, because baseline included spending Ki).

With "Light" style monk MA (or Flurry), doing a dash/disengage costs you 1 attack (or 1 Ki if Flurry is also "Light" upgraded) over baseline.


Agreed. I expect monk unarmed attacks to work like light weapons, so you get three attacks with no BA, but I really don't know what they'll do with Flurry of Blows.

[nickl_2000]

I strongly suspect Martial Arts will get the Light Fighting modification (the extra attack is part of the attack action).

And Flurry of Blows becomes 1 extra attack as a bonus action, competing with Dash and Disengage.

Or, Flurry will be "spend a Ki and get an extra attack" and not use your bonus action at all.

This is a nice improvement for the monk.

If your baseline was "Attack, Flurry", doing a dash/disengage on the current monk costs 2 attacks. (No Ki, because baseline included spending Ki).

With "Light" style monk MA (or Flurry), doing a dash/disengage costs you 1 attack (or 1 Ki if Flurry is also "Light" upgraded) over baseline.


Agreed. I expect monk unarmed attacks to work like light weapons, so you get three attacks with no BA, but I really don't know what they'll do with Flurry of Blows.

It would sure make sense based on the TWF options, but it also makes a Monk able to make 3 attacks at level 1, which is kinda crazy.

[Yakk]

It would sure make sense based on the TWF options, but it also makes a Monk able to make 3 attacks at level 1, which is kinda crazy.
They just need to make it mutually exclusive with Light.

Martial Arts:
When using a monk weapon, you can replace the damage die of the weapon with your monk damage die and you can treat them as if they are light finesse weapons.

In addition, your unarmed strikes are considered monk weapons that you are always wielding.

If you use your unarmed strike's Light property to make an extra attack, you add your attribute bonus to their damage.

...

or something like that.

[Psyren]

I expect Martial Arts to work like TWF but not to stack with it. Meaning that they get the extra attack on an attack action at level 1 as though they're using two light weapons, but they can do so with unarmed strikes or light weapons. In other words, there'll be no reason for monks to dual-wield when they can instead two-hand a quarterstaff or go unarmed and get the same number of attacks at level 1 as a dual-wielding rogue or ranger.

I then expect Flurry to give a single bonus action attack at levels 2-10, then a second one at levels 11-17. In other words, Monk will be the only class to potentially match a Fighter in attacks per round.

[ZRN]

I expect Martial Arts to work like TWF but not to stack with it. Meaning that they get the extra attack on an attack action at level 1 as though they're using two light weapons, but they can do so with unarmed strikes or light weapons. In other words, there'll be no reason for monks to dual-wield when they can instead two-hand a quarterstaff or go unarmed and get the same number of attacks at level 1 as a dual-wielding rogue or ranger.

I then expect Flurry to give a single bonus action attack at levels 2-10, then a second one at levels 11-17. In other words, Monk will be the only class to potentially match a Fighter in attacks per round.

Monks are weird because if they go the route of making an extra unarmed attack not cost a BA, then (unlike rogues, but like fighters and barbarians after round 1) they have no resource-free use of their BA.

Maybe warrior-group classes will all get access to something like the 4e mark mechanics as a bonus action?

[stoutstien]

I love how they made twf stronger when it arguably was already too strong and still managed to make the feat only worth it if you are a fighter who ran out of other stuff to take.

[nickl_2000]

I love how they made twf stronger when it arguably was already too strong and still managed to make the feat only worth it if you are a fighter who ran out of other stuff to take.

TWF is to strong? How so? I'm sincerely honest how you see it as to powerful.

[stoutstien]

TWF is to strong? How so? I'm sincerely honest how you see it as to powerful.

In T1 it's the best option/ fighting style for damage. The only way to beat it is to introduce feats like PaM and even then it take adding in duelist on top of it to win. Then it falls off to the point where it's only saving Grace is the fact you don't need the FS or feat to get a high return. you have either lots of riders(smite/ improved smite) or a lot riding on a single attack (sneak attack). Which has always been it's little ironic joke. The best classes for twf don't get style.

The only change with One is the movement of the twf attack off the bonus action. Makes it easier for some classes who have a way to stack on Damage via a bonus action (barbarians depending on changes and rangers) but it didn't really address the issue with it scaling backwards.

[Person_Man]

I am assuming that Barbarian, Fighter, and Monk will all get a few more additional class features at high levels, as the Rogue did, which will impact DPR.

But in general, nerfing the weapon feats nerfs the classes that depend on Extra Attack.

[ZRN]

I am assuming that Barbarian, Fighter, and Monk will all get a few more additional class features at high levels, as the Rogue did, which will impact DPR.

But in general, nerfing the weapon feats nerfs the classes that depend on Extra Attack.

It only nerfs the optimized builds of those classes - I'll be interested to see how the more optimization-focused players feel about class and encounter balance once we're testing especially the warrior classes.

[Yakk]

TWF is to strong? How so? I'm sincerely honest how you see it as to powerful.

At level 1, TWF is 2[W] (2d6) + stat*2. It is the strongest damage -- with +3 stat this is 13.
GWF is [W] (with boost) + stat, or 2d6+a bit + stat*1. With +3 stat this is like 11ish.
S&B is [W] +2 + stat, or 1d8 + 2+stat - with +3 stat this is 9.5.

The only disadvantage TWF has is it consumed the bonus action. They removed this.

Meanwhile, at higher levels, TWF falls off on a fighter as it doesn't scale with extra attack, and stat bonus damage grows slower than "more attacks" does.

[Dark.Revenant]

Resourceless damage (using a full-DPR build) with the new Rogue:
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1fBEmgwq4KXY4YCsLkYuac8tRrWOcwhSmO9_l0HnOtRk/edit?usp=sharing

A few assumptions:
1. Charger only works on the first attack, not the second attack, and does not work with ranged weapons.
2. Charger can feasibly be triggered on 5 out of 6 turns, owing to the Rogue's ability to Disengage as a bonus action.
3. Savage Attacker damage is abstracted somewhat for simplicity; final DPR numbers might be off by about +/- 0.25.
4. No limited resources are used (e.g. Lucky).
5. As a baseline, Disadvantage is imposed on 1 out of 6 turns due to incidentals like Invisible enemies. Incidental Advantage is not imposed. The rationale is to provide a semi-realistic balance for the purposes of damage estimation, without considering too many things that are outside of our control.
6. A Hiding attempt is meaningfully made on 1 out of 3 turns.
7. An ally is nearby the target on 5 out of 6 turns.
8. No opportunity attacks. They're not that strong anymore, anyway.
9. No magic items.
10. No content from 5E.
11. Since the Rogue does single-target damage, target AC follows the standard curve for Deadly 1-monster encounters, scaling from AC 13 at level 1 to AC 19 at level 12. Hit chance, using this curve, is somewhere between 55% and 65% at each and every level of play.

The tl;dr:

Level, Melee DPR, Ranged DPR
1: 9.92, 7.58
2: 9.92, 7.58
3: 11.68, 8.89
4: 14.75, 9.55
5: 17.33, 11.56
6: 17.62, 11.83
7: 19.02, 12.85
8: 20.74, 14.42
9: 24.38, 17.48
10: 24.07, 16.42
11: 26.56, 18.40
12: 25.23, 22.17
13: 34.47, 30.69
14: 34.47, 30.69
15: 37.49, 33.71
16: 37.49, 37.13
17: 41.46, 41.10
18: 41.46, 41.10
19: 44.51, 44.15
20: 44.51, 44.15

This is a remarkably close approximation of the standard DPR curve (Deadly 1-monster encounter for a group of 4):
Level 1: 6.5 DPR vs AC 13 / Save -1
Level 2: 9 DPR vs AC 13 / Save -1
Level 3: 10.25 DPR vs AC 14 / Save 0
Level 4: 11.5 DPR vs AC 15 / Save +1
Level 5: 15.25 DPR vs AC 16 / Save +2
Level 6: 16.5 DPR vs AC 16 / Save +2
Level 7: 17.75 DPR vs AC 17 / Save +3
Level 8: 20.25 DPR vs AC 17 / Save +3
Level 9: 20.25 DPR vs AC 17 / Save +3
Level 10: 21.5 DPR vs AC 18 / Save +4
Level 11: 24 DPR vs AC 18 / Save +4
Level 12: 26.5 DPR vs AC 19 / Save +5
Level 13: 27.75 DPR vs AC 19 / Save +5
Level 14: 29 DPR vs AC 19 / Save +5
Level 15: 31.5 DPR vs AC 19 / Save +5
Level 16: 31.5 DPR vs AC 19 / Save +5
Level 17: 35.25 DPR vs AC 19 / Save +5
Level 18: 35.25 DPR vs AC 19 / Save +5
Level 19: 39 DPR vs AC 19 / Save +5
Level 20: 42.75 DPR vs AC 19 / Save +5

[Dork_Forge]

It's worth noting that TWF is now significantly more powerful in certain builds now the bonus action is free:

- Rangers with Hunter's Mark

- Paladins with Divine Favor and later, Improved Divine Smite

- Barbarians w/ Rage damage

Rogues are also now basically an Extra Attack class from level 1, since they would never want to use a large swath of the weapons anyway.

Rogues, Barbarians, and Paladins can now all have the TWF from 1st level, as they're 1st level feats they can be taken with the new background rules, this is a substantial bump and means the Paladin can double dip styles from 2nd level.

[ZRN]

Rogues, Barbarians, and Paladins can now all have the TWF from 1st level, as they're 1st level feats they can be taken with the new background rules, this is a substantial bump and means the Paladin can double dip styles from 2nd level.

Rogues and Paladins don't qualify as the fighting style feats have "Warrior group" as a prerequisite.

[Psyren]

While it's true Rogues won't get Dex to damage on the offhand attack, TWF is more useful as a second chance to land SA anyway even without the fighting style, since they don't get Extra Attack. And unlike 5e rogues, they get two chances + Cunning Action now which is really nice.

[Dork_Forge]

Rogues and Paladins don't qualify as the fighting style feats have "Warrior group" as a prerequisite.

So the only meaningful impact we have from the groups so far is to keep martials away from styles they could get with a feat in 5E anyway. With one of them even getting Fighting Styles natively... This is just utter nonsense.

[Psyren]

The chance that Paladins will also get Fighting Style access is pretty high I'd say.

(Personally I wouldn't mind Rogues getting access as well)

[ZRN]

The chance that Paladins will also get Fighting Style access is pretty high I'd say.
I'm sure they will, the same way rangers do - as a class feature, not as a level 1 feat.

[nickl_2000]

I'm sure they will, the same way rangers do - as a class feature, not as a level 1 feat.

I would doubt they get TWF though. Much more likely the get the great weapon, defense, and sword and board one.

[Person_Man]

I strongly suspect Martial Arts will get the Light Fighting modification (the extra attack is part of the attack action).

And Flurry of Blows becomes 1 extra attack as a bonus action, competing with Dash and Disengage.

Or, Flurry will be "spend a Ki and get an extra attack" and not use your bonus action at all.

This is a nice improvement for the monk.

If your baseline was "Attack, Flurry", doing a dash/disengage on the current monk costs 2 attacks. (No Ki, because baseline included spending Ki).

With "Light" style monk MA (or Flurry), doing a dash/disengage costs you 1 attack (or 1 Ki if Flurry is also "Light" upgraded) over baseline.

Agreed. I hope they go for the the simplest solution, which is that Monks get Martial Arts at level 1, and Martial Arts makes your unarmed strikes Light and Finesse weapons with scaling damage dice, as long as you are unarmed and/ only wielding other weapons from a limited list and not using a shield or armor. Then at level 2, you get Ki, as currently written in 5E.

This would make the rules much easier to understand, consistent, etc. It would also make Monk/Rogue a legitimate RAW multiclass option, and not something that requires a DM hand wave to use effectively.

[Damon_Tor]

I'm holding off trying to work out the damage for the ranger until we see the new text for hunter's mark. I'm convinced they're going to make the extra damage once per turn.

For high level DPR op, the Thri-Kreen is now pretty high tier: it can use BOTH twf and polearm mastery.

But of course we all know backwards compatibility isn't really a thing and we can just forget about any 5e content that isn't officially updated.

[Yakk]

Agreed. I hope they go for the the simplest solution, which is that Monks get Martial Arts at level 1, and Martial Arts makes your unarmed strikes Light and Finesse weapons with scaling damage dice, as long as you are unarmed and/ only wielding other weapons from a limited list and not using a shield or armor. Then at level 2, you get Ki, as currently written in 5E.
Except Flurry is 1 attack, not 2.

Because in 5e, Flurry replaced MA with 2 attacks (so was +1).

This would make the rules much easier to understand, consistent, etc. It would also make Monk/Rogue a legitimate RAW multiclass option, and not something that requires a DM hand wave to use effectively.
The quarterstaff-and-kick style is lost unless Monk weapons remain, and the Quarterstaff becomes light+finesse.

[animorte]

I’m actually interested to see if RED is still applicable. At this point I don’t really see why it wouldn’t be.

[Dark.Revenant]

I’m actually interested to see if RED is still applicable. At this point I don’t really see why it wouldn’t be.

It is more applicable in OneD&D than in 5E; see my analysis on page 1. Rogue damage lines up pretty well with the expected damage curve. In 5E you could build rogues that significantly exceed the baseline, but that’s not the case in this playtest.

[Psyren]

It is more applicable in OneD&D than in 5E; see my analysis on page 1. Rogue damage lines up pretty well with the expected damage curve. In 5E you could build rogues that significantly exceed the baseline, but that’s not the case in this playtest.

I wouldn't mind if they really were lowering the curve for everyone, but the new Ranger blows it away. New TWF + New XBE + New HM which can now be combined with concentration spells like Ensnaring Strike or Conjure Animals or Swift Quiver... and all that's just with Hunter, we haven't even seen the new BM yet. Nor have we considered compatible non-core spells like Zephyr Strike.

[Hael]

I wouldn't mind if they really were lowering the curve for everyone, but the new Ranger blows it away. New TWF + New XBE + New HM which can now be combined with concentration spells like Ensnaring Strike or Conjure Animals or Swift Quiver... and all that's just with Hunter, we haven't even seen the new BM yet. Nor have we considered compatible non-core spells like Zephyr Strike.

I suspect they are recalibrating damage across the board. It wouldnt surprise me if spells got nerfed as well.

To be fair, this needed to happen. The amount of damage a well built character could do was pretty obscene. Even very limited optimization trivialized a great deal of content in what was already an easy game.

[ZRN]

I wouldn't mind if they really were lowering the curve for everyone, but the new Ranger blows it away. New TWF + New XBE + New HM which can now be combined with concentration spells like Ensnaring Strike or Conjure Animals or Swift Quiver... and all that's just with Hunter, we haven't even seen the new BM yet. Nor have we considered compatible non-core spells like Zephyr Strike.

Swift Quiver will probably need rewording to avoid giving you 5 attacks a round with hand crossbows, huh.

[Dark.Revenant]

Swift Quiver at 20th level only adds around 19 DPR with a hand crossbow, as written, with Hunter’s Mark active. That’s the best-case scenario: pre-cast. If you don’t pre-cast it, it competes with Hunter’s Mark and even then, it doesn’t add anything on the turn you cast it. Even being generous and assuming combat lasts five rounds, that kicks it down to 11.5 DPR.

By comparison, a 5th level Elemental Weapon, which manages at least 8.5 DPR in the same situation, or 11 when pre-cast (which is much easier due to duration).

Let’s not even get into Conjure Animals, which I assume will be rewritten.

[Psyren]

Swift Quiver at 20th level only adds around 19 DPR with a hand crossbow, as written, with Hunter’s Mark active. That’s the best-case scenario: pre-cast. If you don’t pre-cast it, it competes with Hunter’s Mark and even then, it doesn’t add anything on the turn you cast it. Even being generous and assuming combat lasts five rounds, that kicks it down to 11.5 DPR.

By comparison, a 5th level Elemental Weapon, which manages at least 8.5 DPR in the same situation, or 11 when pre-cast (which is much easier due to duration).

Let’s not even get into Conjure Animals, which I assume will be rewritten.

I actually forgot Elemental Weapon was on the Primal list now, good catch. That'll be a great option for the new Ranger, especially at mid-levels before SQ comes online.

My overall point still stands though, i.e. HM no longer needing concentration means combinations like this are possible.

[Dork_Forge]

I actually forgot Elemental Weapon was on the Primal list now, good catch. That'll be a great option for the new Ranger, especially at mid-levels before SQ comes online.

My overall point still stands though, i.e. HM no longer needing concentration means combinations like this are possible.

HM Lightning Arrow is interesting, they could have reached a happy medium with not needing the bonus action though. Tasha's Favored Foe had promise, the execution was just mostly useless jank.

[Witty Username]

HM Lightning Arrow is interesting, they could have reached a happy medium with not needing the bonus action though. Tasha's Favored Foe had promise, the execution was just mostly useless jank.

Maybe I am misreading lightning arrow, but it comes off as really bad for a 3rd level spell.

4d8 damage for action, bonus action and concentration feels like alot in for not alot out.

[stoutstien]

I wouldn't mind if they really were lowering the curve for everyone, but the new Ranger blows it away. New TWF + New XBE + New HM which can now be combined with concentration spells like Ensnaring Strike or Conjure Animals or Swift Quiver... and all that's just with Hunter, we haven't even seen the new BM yet. Nor have we considered compatible non-core spells like Zephyr Strike.
So far the damage Gap isn't all that big. The changes put ranger in a weird sustained Nova category.. it's probably a good design change in that the ability to stack a ton of damage on a single action was the biggest contribute of problem to 5e.

Heck it might be intentional that the rangers are going to be the highest damaging class. Warriors could focus on mitigation instead of damage. Who knows until we see them all.

[stoutstien]

Maybe I am misreading lightning arrow, but it comes off as really bad for a 3rd level spell.

4d8 damage for action, bonus action and concentration feels like alot in for not alot out.
It works like a smite spell

The 4d8(half on miss) replaces your normal weapon damage and is tied to your attack action. Wish it still added your modifier though.

The AoE portion isn't bad either. Best used on larger targets that have more space around them. Wish it hit the primary target as well.

Overall it's a niche spell but not awful.

[ZRN]

OK, since I brought this upon myself by making a math thread, let's look at a level 20 thief vs. level 20 ranger with self-buffs vs level 20 fighter (all melee TWF):

Rogue: 1d6+5 (main hand) + 1d6 (offhand) + 10d6 (sneak attack) = 12d6 + 5 = 47

Ranger: 1d6+5 (main hand) + 1d6+5 (offhand) + 1d6+5 (Extra Attack) + 3d10 (Foe Slayer HM) + 4d4+4 (L5 Elemental Weapon) = 3d6 + 3d10 + 4d4 + 19 = 56

(EDIT: I was adding the elemental weapon to the offhand attack as well before, which doesn't make sense.)

Fighter w/Dual Wielding (because he's got like 50 feats at this point): (1d8+5) x 4 (main hand) + 1d6+5 (offhand) = 5d6 + 25 = 53.5

Other factors: rogue is more likely to have advantage with Subtle Strikes and can auto-hit with Stroke of Luck; ranger gets an extra 1d8 (4.5) per round against wounded enemies; ranger has +2 attack over the others on his main hand attacks from Elemental Weapon; ranger has to use his BA first round to activate HM (and has to have Elemental Weapon running beforehand) but otherwise all still have their bonus actions free. Fighter can use Action Surge to double his damage (including offhand damage) a couple times per rest. Access to magic weapons would let fighter pull ahead. I have no idea if upcasting Elemental Weapon is an effective way to boost DPS, but it lasts an hour, which is nice.

ETA: I made a mistake in the ranger damage which is corrected and noted above.

[Psyren]

So far the damage Gap isn't all that big. The changes put ranger in a weird sustained Nova category.. it's probably a good design change in that the ability to stack a ton of damage on a single action was the biggest contribute of problem to 5e.

Heck it might be intentional that the rangers are going to be the highest damaging class. Warriors could focus on mitigation instead of damage. Who knows until we see them all.

The intent at least is that Warriors will "deal and endure many wounds."


OK, since I brought this upon myself by making a math thread, let's look at a level 20 thief vs. level 20 ranger with self-buffs vs level 20 fighter (all melee TWF):

Rogue: 1d6+5 (main hand) + 1d6 (offhand) + 10d6 (sneak attack) = 12d6 + 5 = 47

Ranger: 1d6+5 (main hand) + 1d6+5 (offhand) + 1d6+5 (Extra Attack) + 3d10 (Foe Slayer HM) + 6d4+6 (L5 Elemental Weapon) = 3d6 + 3d10 + 6d4 + 21 = 63

Fighter w/Dual Wielding (because he's got like 50 feats at this point): (1d8+5) x 4 (main hand) + 1d6+5 (offhand) = 5d6 + 25 = 53.5

Other factors: rogue is more likely to have advantage with Subtle Strikes and can auto-hit with Stroke of Luck; ranger gets an extra 1d8 (4.5) per round against wounded enemies; ranger has to use his BA first round to activate HM (and has to have Elemental Weapon running beforehand) but otherwise all still have their bonus actions free. Fighter can use Action Surge to double his damage (including offhand damage) a couple times per rest. Access to magic weapons would let fighter pull ahead. I have no idea if upcasting Elemental Weapon is an effective way to boost DPS, but it lasts an hour, which is nice.

The difference from Subtle Strikes is offset by the +5 attack from Archery Style + Elemental Weapon I'd say.

[ZRN]

The difference from Subtle Strikes is offset by the +5 attack from Archery Style + Elemental Weapon I'd say.

This is melee so no archery bonus, and Elemental Weapon is +2. But yeah, still +2 higher than rogues.

[Psyren]

This is melee so no archery bonus, and Elemental Weapon is +2. But yeah, still +2 higher than rogues.

Apologies, missed that EW can't go above +2 on a ranger.

Rangers can grab Crossbow Expert to dual-wield with archery style, especially with the new stow/equip on attack rules. So that's still +4 more to hit on the Ranger 20.

[ZRN]

I caught an error in my math above - it looks like with the spells I selected here you only get about 14 DPR from a level 5 spell, which seems crappy. Here's the most silly-optimized version I can think of offhand, dual crossbows with Crossbow Master, HM+Swift Quiver:

1d6+5 (main hand) + 1d6+5 (extra attack) + 1d6+5 (offhand) + 2d6+10 (swift quiver BA) + 5d10 (HM) = 5d6 + 5d10 + 25 = 70

Pretty good! You're using your BA but you're getting double the DPR boost (28 instead of 14). At this point, of course, you're burning your best resources for the one fight to get a quite nice sustained DPR, but the fighter can still jump in and nova-strike way harder a couple rounds per short rest. If you're out of spell slots, or in a null-magic zone or whatever, the damage here (or for TWF) drops to 3d6+15=25.5, which is just way worse than anyone else.

[Dork_Forge]

Maybe I am misreading lightning arrow, but it comes off as really bad for a 3rd level spell.

4d8 damage for action, bonus action and concentration feels like alot in for not alot out.

There's a lot to it:

- As Stoustein pointed out, it functions like a Smite spell, it's still utilizing your Attack action. So you get the attack modified by Lightning Arrow and your normal second attack

- You're still making a ranged attack, you're just subbing the weapons attack die and type for 4d8 lightning. This means that you still benefit from your Dex modifier, Sharpshooter, and any other range weapon bumps you got going on. The intent of still using your modifiers has been confirmed by JC, although that is also my natural reading of the spell.

- The attack does damage even if you miss

- You're just looking at the single target damage, it also does 2d8 save for half AOE too.

So, if you've got a big bad you've already set up HM on (concentrationless as per the UA), then a Lightning Arrow turn could look like this (assuming two hits, using a longbow with SS):

5d8+2d6+30 = 59.5 single target damage. Then there's the avg 9 (SfH) done on the AOE.

[Witty Username]

Hm,
I figured the secondary effect didn't apply to the target, mostly because other spells tend to use explicitly inclusive language in such cases.
6d8 to main target is about right for what I would want, so I will probably rule it that way if it comes up.
Also, the dex bonus to damage I feel is unclear if intended, sounds reasonable though.

If I math right that would put it about 1d8 more than a divine smite using the same slot with both those rulings?
I could see that being fair, I feel like somewhat above smite is the right damage point for it.
If I seem to be selling the AoE damage short, that is probably a table experience thing talking, I have found 2d8 to be an insignificant amount of damage in isolation.
It is not bad as a rider, but that kind of effect isn't something that will have much effect on the combat even when it comes up, at least combats my table does at that level.

[ZRN]

I made a spreadsheet that takes into account accuracy, which captures a little more helpful information (such as how good the Archery fighting style is). Here is a comparison of various builds at level 20:


Target AC 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 22 24 26 28 30
TWF Rogue 46.9 46.7 46.5 46.1 45.6 45.0 44.2 41.8 38.1 32.7 25.0 14.3
Dual Crossbow Rogue 51.8 51.6 51.3 50.8 50.2 49.4 48.4 45.6 41.3 35.3 26.8 15.3
TWF Ranger 59.1 56.3 53.5 50.7 47.8 45.0 42.1 36.3 30.4 24.4 18.1 11.7
No Spell Ranger 27.4 26.2 24.9 23.6 22.2 20.9 19.5 16.7 13.7 10.6 7.3 3.8
Dual Crossbow Ranger 74.5 71.0 67.5 64.0 60.5 57.0 53.5 46.5 39.4 32.2 24.7 17.0
TWF Fighter 41.9 39.5 37.2 34.9 32.6 30.2 27.9 23.3 18.6 14.0 9.3 4.7
Greatsword Fighter 54.0 51.3 48.7 46.0 43.3 40.6 37.8 32.3 26.6 20.6 14.2 7.4
Greatsword Fighter (Adv) 58.8 58.1 57.2 56.0 54.5 52.8 50.8 46.0 40.0 32.9 24.2 13.6
Heavy Crossbow Fighter 48.0 45.9 43.8 41.7 39.6 37.5 35.4 31.0 26.6 22.0 17.2 11.9
Heavy Crossbow Fighter (Adv) 48.0 47.9 47.6 47.1 46.3 45.4 44.2 41.3 37.5 32.8 27.1 20.1
Rog15/Rgr5 68.5 66.7 64.9 63.0 61.0 59.0 56.8 52.0 46.4 39.9 32.2 23.1

[Dork_Forge]

Hm,
I figured the secondary effect didn't apply to the target, mostly because other spells tend to use explicitly inclusive language in such cases.
6d8 to main target is about right for what I would want, so I will probably rule it that way if it comes up.
Also, the dex bonus to damage I feel is unclear if intended, sounds reasonable though.

If I math right that would put it about 1d8 more than a divine smite using the same slot with both those rulings?
I could see that being fair, I feel like somewhat above smite is the right damage point for it.
If I seem to be selling the AoE damage short, that is probably a table experience thing talking, I have found 2d8 to be an insignificant amount of damage in isolation.
It is not bad as a rider, but that kind of effect isn't something that will have much effect on the combat even when it comes up, at least combats my table does at that level.

I wouldn't rule that the main target takes the 2d8 rider damage, I was just pointing out that you weren't taking that into account. For what it's worth re: modifiers JC's tweet seems to show RAI, but in terms of how I read it is the spell replaces the weapon's damage. The damage in the weapons table isn't 'd8+mod', it's just d8 with the mod being applied as part of the attacking rules.

[Kane0]

Is this helpful to anyone?


https://i.imgur.com/dyQu00o.png

Edit: 5.1 Great Weapon column also carries a chance of bonus action attacks via crits or kills which would change the numbers