Divine Smite is not the problem; DMs are...

[Oramac]

More specifically, DMs allowing their paladin players to take too many long rests.

So this spawned from the OneD&D UA thread talking about Smite vs Sneak Attack, and if Smite should or should not be a once-per-turn feature. I'm not going to start that debate here, since it's already in full swing.

I was curious, however, where the break-even was between Smite and Sneak Attack. So I made a quick and dirty spreadsheet to compare the two (https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1hXd0r1U2MGtS3gTeRKn_qnBSbVgOeIrgPVGEFaqG4CQ/edit#gid=0). Now, for the record, I'm not great with Excel and there are a couple issues with the sheet (I'll get to those below). But there are some definite observations we can glean from this.



For less than 8 rounds of combat (2.66 encounters) the paladin is better. At 8-9 rounds (3 encounters) they are essentially even. At anything more than 9 rounds, the rogue pulls ahead.
At the 18-24 round mark (6-8 encounters) assumed by the published Adventuring Day rules, rogues out-damage paladins by a, frankly, shocking amount.
When allowed to Long Rest more than designed, paladins are, indeed, extremely powerful.





All attacks hit the target
The paladin uses Divine Smite on every available attack
The rogue gets sneak attack on every available attack





This is done in a vacuum, which is to say that actual play is unlikely to be this cut-and-dried
When the paladin's number of attacks is less than the number of spell slots, the math breaks down and the pally gets credit for smites that shouldn't be there. This is my fault. I'm just not good enough with Excel to account for this.
The sheet does not take Fighting Styles into account, so the paladin's numbers might be a shade on the low side. But not enough to dramatically change the Observations.
It's entirely possible that I just completely screwed up, and this whole thing is garbage. I don't think I did, but feel free to double check.

[PhoenixPhyre]

More specifically, DMs allowing their paladin players to take too many long rests.

So this spawned from the OneD&D UA thread talking about Smite vs Sneak Attack, and if Smite should or should not be a once-per-turn feature. I'm not going to start that debate here, since it's already in full swing.

I was curious, however, where the break-even was between Smite and Sneak Attack. So I made a quick and dirty spreadsheet to compare the two (https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1hXd0r1U2MGtS3gTeRKn_qnBSbVgOeIrgPVGEFaqG4CQ/edit#gid=0). Now, for the record, I'm not great with Excel and there are a couple issues with the sheet (I'll get to those below). But there are some definite observations we can glean from this.



For less than 8 rounds of combat (2.66 encounters) the paladin is better. At 8-9 rounds (3 encounters) they are essentially even. At anything more than 9 rounds, the rogue pulls ahead.
At the 18-24 round mark (6-8 encounters) assumed by the published Adventuring Day rules, rogues out-damage paladins by a, frankly, shocking amount.
When allowed to Long Rest more than designed, paladins are, indeed, extremely powerful.





All attacks hit the target
The paladin uses Divine Smite on every available attack
The rogue gets sneak attack on every available attack





This is done in a vacuum, which is to say that actual play is unlikely to be this cut-and-dried
When the paladin's number of attacks is less than the number of spell slots, the math breaks down and the pally gets credit for smites that shouldn't be there. This is my fault. I'm just not good enough with Excel to account for this.
The sheet does not take Fighting Styles into account, so the paladin's numbers might be a shade on the low side. But not enough to dramatically change the Observations.



I've seen similar results with different calculation methods as well, even including accuracy. Exact numbers are, of course, not the same, but overall the pattern is similar.

[Atranen]

Like so much else, this is downstream of 5e being designed with one type of game in mind (dungeon crawler) but played as another (narrative, cinematic superheroes).

[KorvinStarmast]

While I appreciate the effort you went to, the Five Minute Adventure Day problem is not confined to the paladin class. :smallcool:

[Oramac]

While I appreciate the effort you went to, the Five Minute Adventure Day problem is not confined to the paladin class. :smallcool:

True enough. If the DM allows pretty much any spellcaster other than warlocks to Long Rest too much, it overshadows all the non-spellcasters.

Perhaps the OneD&D PHB (and DMG/MM) need more prominent DM advice for extending the Adventuring Day.

[Chronos]

One major strength of the paladin, that's not accounted for in simple sums like this, is that the paladin can choose when to use their smites. In the easy fights, the paladin can just not use any smites at all, because they won't matter much then, and save them all up to go nova on the boss fight. The rogue doesn't have that option.

[Oramac]

One major strength of the paladin, that's not accounted for in simple sums like this, is that the paladin can choose when to use their smites. In the easy fights, the paladin can just not use any smites at all, because they won't matter much then, and save them all up to go nova on the boss fight. The rogue doesn't have that option.

True, but the rogue doesn't need that option since Sneak Attack does not use a resource. The rogue can use it in the mook fight and the boss fight without worrying about running out.

[RSP]

One major strength of the paladin, that's not accounted for in simple sums like this, is that the paladin can choose when to use their smites. In the easy fights, the paladin can just not use any smites at all, because they won't matter much then, and save them all up to go nova on the boss fight. The rogue doesn't have that option.

I’d go a step further and say Rogues generally don’t have an ability to self-generate SA.

Inquisitive is the only one that comes to mind that can consistently provide their own SA.

Granted, it’s not horribly difficult to get SA if other PCs are willing to assist, but it’s far from a given that every round a Rogue will have an ally able to help.

[KorvinStarmast]

Granted, it’s not horribly difficult to get SA if other PCs are willing to assist, but it’s far from a given that every round a Rogue will have an ally able to help. Depends on what optional rules one uses. Steady aim allows a rogue to self-generate SA with a ranged weapon.

[Psyren]

All attacks hit the target
The paladin uses Divine Smite on every available attack
The rogue gets sneak attack on every available attack



1) What's the damage per attack?
2) Does this include the paladin's Fighting Style?
3) The Paladin can two-hand their Longsword for added damage while maintaining the same or better defenses compared to the rogue, is that factored in?
4) The paladin can switch between Longsword and Rapier depending on the foe's defenses while the Rogue can't, is that factored in as well?

[Oramac]

1) What's the damage per attack?

Irrelevant. This is comparing damage over time. Not damage per round. And I know you'll likely argue this point. I don't care.


2) Does this include the paladin's Fighting Style?

Read the OP.


3) The Paladin can two-hand their Longsword for added damage while maintaining the same or better defenses compared to the rogue, is that factored in?
4) The paladin can switch between Longsword and Rapier depending on the foe's defenses while the Rogue can't, is that factored in as well?

Obviously not. As I said in the OP, I'm not that good with Excel. If you think you can do better, please do.

[Gignere]

Might not be problem with DMs just the nature of TTRGs and combat in general. Much harder to pace and keep interest in players over 4 hours if you throw 6 boring encounters and 2 interesting ones just to fit the 8 encounters per day count versus 3-4 interesting ones. I know I’d much rather play in 3-4 more interesting combats. D&DOne maybe just redesigning to recognize that fact.

[Psyren]

Irrelevant. This is comparing damage over time. Not damage per round.

Your formula is multiplying a damage amount by the number of rounds. That amount is what I was asking about.


Read the OP.

I quoted the OP.


Obviously not. As I said in the OP, I'm not that good with Excel. If you think you can do better, please do.

There's no need to get defensive. I was just curious whether you had considered those variables or not. I'll take that as a no.

[Oramac]

Might not be problem with DMs just the nature of TTRGs and combat in general....I know I’d much rather play in 3-4 more interesting combats.

True. I will point out that the underlying issue really isn't "number of encounters" so much as it is "number of rounds of combat". And, by extension, the (apparently false) assumption by the designers that most groups will hit that requisite number of rounds during any given Adventuring Day.

[Gignere]

True. I will point out that the underlying issue really isn't "number of encounters" so much as it is "number of rounds of combat". And, by extension, the (apparently false) assumption by the designers that most groups will hit that requisite number of rounds during any given Adventuring Day.

Even rounds doesn’t capture it, nova damage is so good because early nova can change the direction of a fight. Like you know double critting on a BBEG and max smiting the hell out of it and one or two rounding it. (This has happened in games I played in and it is insane)

Suddenly the whole fight turns and it’s all mop up, does it matter now that the rogue can sneak attack for the rest of the rounds?

Rogue damage is problematic because it’s too spiky and uncontrolled and a lot of time results in overkill damage. A paladin by far has much better control in his ability to kill enemies with just the right amount of damage. Enemies full health max smite, enemies kinda hurt smite on first hit see if it’s dead or close to dead, if yes don’t/no need to smite second hit.

If a player is good at applying the right amount of damage they can minimize their time to kill with minimal expenditure of resources. Whereas a rogue can’t do this at all. Enemies at full hps sneak attack , enemies at 1 hp sneak attack yeah 25 damage, uh this sucks.

[Oramac]

Your formula is multiplying a damage amount by the number of rounds. That amount is what I was asking about.

Ok? If you already knew what was in the formula, why ask? If there's a problem with the formula, please just say so.


I quoted the OP.

And, seemingly, did not read the "Problems" spoiler, else you would not have needed to ask this question.


There's no need to get defensive. I was just curious whether you had considered those variables or not. I'll take that as a no.

Forgive me. It just seems that many of your posts are argumentative for the sake of being argumentative.

In any case, this is well off topic. If you want, we can take it to PMs. Otherwise I'll skip these moving forward.

[Oramac]

Even rounds doesn’t capture it, nova damage is so good because early nova can change the direction of a fight. Like you know double critting on a BBEG and max smiting the hell out of it and one or two rounding it. (This has happened in games I played in and it is insane)

snip

That's fair. Controlled damage is nearly always better than passive damage. But this isn't a paladin problem. It's a "any class with resources" problem. You'd run into the same issue with a wizard, cleric, ranger, druid, or whatever if you allow them to rest more than they were designed.

Again, this goes back to the DM finding ways to remove party resources. It doesn't have to be combat. Social encounters, exploration, everything has the potential to do it. The real trick is making it happen without feeling like it's being forced.

[Dork_Forge]

I’d go a step further and say Rogues generally don’t have an ability to self-generate SA.

Inquisitive is the only one that comes to mind that can consistently provide their own SA.

Granted, it’s not horribly difficult to get SA if other PCs are willing to assist, but it’s far from a given that every round a Rogue will have an ally able to help.

Is that help with a big H? Do rogues normally struggle to get SA in your experience?

They tend to do quite well when I've seen/played them, with the most common enabler of SA being an ally within 5 ft.

But to address the self generating thing:

- the stereotypical thing is Hiding for advantage
- if in play, all Rogues can Steady Aim
- Swashbucklers get an additional condition
- Assassins have advantage against those that haven't gone yet.
- Arcane Tricksters have quite a few, familiars, Shadow Blade, later on Mage Hand

Those are the top of my head, I think there may be one or two more, like Soul Knifes invis in later levels.

[Gignere]

That's fair. Controlled damage is nearly always better than passive damage. But this isn't a paladin problem. It's a "any class with resources" problem. You'd run into the same issue with a wizard, cleric, ranger, druid, or whatever if you allow them to rest more than they were designed.

Again, this goes back to the DM finding ways to remove party resources. It doesn't have to be combat. Social encounters, exploration, everything has the potential to do it. The real trick is making it happen without feeling like it's being forced.

Just pointing out you can’t compare rounds x damage. So even very long work days that taxes all the PCs isn’t that good of a balance. Quite frankly they just need to buff the rogue. If your damage is uncontrolled then it should be stronger. However right now unless you stack 2 or more SA a round, or get a bladetrip, rogue’s damage is pretty awful when it comes to martials.

[Anymage]

As noted, this comes down to the balance between classes with primarily LR resources, classes with primarily SR resources, and primarily resourceless classes. Five minute adventuring day has been a thing for a long time now, and letting LR classes freely spend resources without having to worry about running out makes them appreciably stronger.

Given that this has been an ongoing issue over several editions, I have doubts that 5.5 will magically fix things. (And given how 4e went about trying to fix things, I don't think attempts to meaningfully change things would go over well.) The best we might do is have an expansion of the Gritty Realism sidebar that encourages DMs to redefine rests to a narratively appropriate scope. But at the end of the day people like using their cool powers, keeping track of expended powers across sessions is just asking people to forget (whether honestly or not depends on the player), and one big set piece combat per play session is going to be popular for all the reasons it's been popular so far.

[Rukelnikov]

Even rounds doesn’t capture it, nova damage is so good because early nova can change the direction of a fight. Like you know double critting on a BBEG and max smiting the hell out of it and one or two rounding it. (This has happened in games I played in and it is insane)

Suddenly the whole fight turns and it’s all mop up, does it matter now that the rogue can sneak attack for the rest of the rounds?

Rogue damage is problematic because it’s too spiky and uncontrolled and a lot of time results in overkill damage. A paladin by far has much better control in his ability to kill enemies with just the right amount of damage. Enemies full health max smite, enemies kinda hurt smite on first hit see if it’s dead or close to dead, if yes don’t/no need to smite second hit.

If a player is good at applying the right amount of damage they can minimize their time to kill with minimal expenditure of resources. Whereas a rogue can’t do this at all. Enemies at full hps sneak attack , enemies at 1 hp sneak attack yeah 25 damage, uh this sucks.

This is on point. Not every point of damage is worth the same, besides the obvious case of overkill where the damage dealt is less than the damage rolled there's other things to consider, is doing 20 points of damage to the last enemy in a combat that is CC'ed worth as much as dealing 20 points of damage to the main enemy threat before its first turn? I don't think it is, thus the idea that the Rogue "catches up" after N turns is based on the fallacy that every point of damage is worth the same.

[5eNeedsDarksun]

While I appreciate the effort you went to, the Five Minute Adventure Day problem is not confined to the paladin class. :smallcool:

Pretty much this.

This is highlighted by the fact that Divine Smite is a mediocre use of a spell slot in most cases; it's somewhat better against undead and fiends, and a good to great use of a slot with a crit. Under non-crit circumstances the Paladin's top spells will be better use of slots. Things like Bless, Dispel Magic, and the Find Steed Spells are almost always better, and there are many other good ones. From the subclass lists, things like Fear and Spirit Guardians are excellent.

The only time it's great to spam Divine Smite is when the alternative is not burning though all slots for a day, something that only happens to a half caster (even at high levels) with a short adventuring day.

[Rukelnikov]

Pretty much this.

This is highlighted by the fact that Divine Smite is a mediocre use of a spell slot in most cases; it's somewhat better against undead and fiends, and a good to great use of a slot with a crit. Under non-crit circumstances the Paladin's top spells will be better use of slots. Things like Bless, Dispel Magic, and the Find Steed Spells are almost always better, and there are many other good ones. From the subclass lists, things like Fear and Spirit Guardians are excellent.

The only time it's great to spam Divine Smite is when the alternative is not burning though all slots for a day, something that only happens to a half caster (even at high levels) with a short adventuring day.

I personally don't think its that bad a use for a slot factoring the action cost, imagine if Sorcerers could smite with spells, cast a fireball deal 8d6 damage, and you can optionally spend a spell slot to deal extra damage to one of the targets, would it see play? I bet it would.

A lot of times, a bit of damage right now is better than a lot of damage later on.

[Oramac]

Pretty much this.

This is highlighted by the fact that Divine Smite is a mediocre use of a spell slot in most cases; it's somewhat better against undead and fiends, and a good to great use of a slot with a crit. Under non-crit circumstances the Paladin's top spells will be better use of slots. Things like Bless, Dispel Magic, and the Find Steed Spells are almost always better, and there are many other good ones. From the subclass lists, things like Fear and Spirit Guardians are excellent.

That's kinda my point though. Those are all uses of resources. And yes, they are fantastic uses. But the fact remains that somehow, some way, the paladin must use those resources. Which means the perceived benefit* must be greater than that of pure damage from smite.

* It must be perceived, since the vast majority of players don't give a rip about the underlying math. Casting bless, fear, spirit guardians, or whatever must FEEL better than dealing damage. Often, it does not.


I personally don't think its that bad a use for a slot factoring the action cost, imagine if Sorcerers could smite with spells, cast a fireball deal 8d6 damage, and you can optionally spend a spell slot to deal extra damage to one of the targets, would it see play? I bet it would.

Ever seen a Sorcadin multiclass in play? I've played it. It's all that and more. Truly ludicrous. But that's getting into the conversation about multiclassing for full casters vs half casters.

[Theodoxus]

One very specific solution to this problem is to either convert all LR resources to SR or vice versa. It's a little disingenuous to put the blame on DMs when WotC created the problem originally with the LR/SR divide. If the party consists of a Paladin, Wizard, Cleric, and Arcane Trickster Rogue, everyone is on the same footing for resource management. If the party consists of a Fighter, Monk, and two Warlocks (Celestial and Fiend, say for healing and AOE damage), then again, everyone is on the same footing.

It's when you mix the two that it gets wonky, and that's 100% on WotC, both for the implementation and the glaring lack of official help to resolve it, or even offer guidance to DMs on how to deal with running a day's worth of encounters where half the group can nova per SR and the other can't.

I'm of two minds on which correction I like better; Probably converting SR to LR as it tends to smooth over long days as short rests are then used sparingly for HP recovery rather than on demand by the one party member who burned all their SR resources. However, from experience, the actual converting of LR to SR resources is easier to do than the reverse... so, easy setup with problematic 'nova' every combat, or harder setup with better functionality for the DM.

And this is definitely a DM centric issue. Players just want to blow things up... the quantity of which doesn't tend to fluctuate based on resource type.

[sithlordnergal]

I’d go a step further and say Rogues generally don’t have an ability to self-generate SA.

Inquisitive is the only one that comes to mind that can consistently provide their own SA.

Granted, it’s not horribly difficult to get SA if other PCs are willing to assist, but it’s far from a given that every round a Rogue will have an ally able to help.

Mmm, I'd actually say you're somewhat incorrect here. Rogues have ways of self-generating Sneak Attack. Off the top of my head, we have:

- Bonus Action Hide, which gives Advantage on your next attack if you succeed. By RAW, you only need to break line of sight, and then you can attempt to Hide.

- Inquisitive and Arcane Trickster have ways to grant themselves Advantage from Aid

- Assassin automatically has Advantage when attacking things that haven't had their turn yet

- Swashbuckler gets Sneak Attack if you're 1v1ing someone, or if any of the other ways apply

But honestly, even if you aren't any of those subclasses, have no way of hiding, and can't use Steady Aim, as long as any ally of yours is next to your target, you get Sneak Attack. Part of the Rogue's balance is that they get Sneak Attack once every turn if they hit.

[Psyren]

Forgive me. It just seems that many of your posts are argumentative for the sake of being argumentative.

No worries - if I disagree with your conclusion (as I do here), it's because I genuinely disagree, not to argue for the sake of arguing.


Quite frankly they just need to buff the rogue. If your damage is uncontrolled then it should be stronger.

I agree, and if they restore the rogue's off-turn SA then they've definitely done that - Rogues will have all the SA capability they had before, plus Pack Tactics at 13+. And even then I'd question how that stacks up to a PAMadin with GWM at those levels (even the new, weaker one.)

[Theodoxus]

I agree, and if they restore the rogue's off-turn SA then they've definitely done that - Rogues will have all the SA capability they had before, plus Pack Tactics at 13+. And even then I'd question how that stacks up to a PAMadin with GWM at those levels (even the new, weaker one.)

Curious about this as well, why do you want Paladins and Rogues to be executing the same relative DPR? Are you just as concerned about the Fighter/Paladin divide, or the Barbarian/Rogue divide or the Monk/Ranger divide?

While I personally think that Rogues DPR should be the highest, at least in melee, since they're glass cannon, with a 1 per turn damage reduction starting at 5th, it doesn't seem like many people agree with that take. But Paladins and Rogues bring very different capabilities to the table, both in and out of combat, and those relative strengths should likewise modify their damage contributions. IMO, of course.

(I feel the same way about each of the martial facing classes. Each has a niche in and out of combat that should modify the way their damage numbers are created and evaluated.)

[sithlordnergal]

I personally don't think its that bad a use for a slot factoring the action cost, imagine if Sorcerers could smite with spells, cast a fireball deal 8d6 damage, and you can optionally spend a spell slot to deal extra damage to one of the targets, would it see play? I bet it would.

A lot of times, a bit of damage right now is better than a lot of damage later on.

Lol, you described about half of a Soradin in play. Quicken Spell for a Fireball/Disintegrate/Whatever, then Extra Attack Divine Smite. However, they're held back by their Spell Slots and Sorcery Points. Because even with all that damage potential, they can burn through their resources insanely fast. At which point, they're stuck with Cantrips and a basic Extra Attack.

[Psyren]

Curious about this as well, why do you want Paladins and Rogues to be executing the same relative DPR? Are you just as concerned about the Fighter/Paladin divide, or the Barbarian/Rogue divide or the Monk/Ranger divide?

Not "same", just closer to one another. My expectation is that the weapons changes will end up benefiting Paladins more and they will stay ahead even with this nerf, at least in melee.

As for why, a tighter band in the base class design means the subclasses can differentiate builds more. If for example an Assassin is supposed to be the "burst rogue," but they can barely keep up with a Paladin whose subclass is focused on healing and defense because the base chassis of the latter so much stronger/burstier than that of the former, I don't think that will feel as good in play as it could.

[Gignere]

Curious about this as well, why do you want Paladins and Rogues to be executing the same relative DPR? Are you just as concerned about the Fighter/Paladin divide, or the Barbarian/Rogue divide or the Monk/Ranger divide?

While I personally think that Rogues DPR should be the highest, at least in melee, since they're glass cannon, with a 1 per turn damage reduction starting at 5th, it doesn't seem like many people agree with that take. But Paladins and Rogues bring very different capabilities to the table, both in and out of combat, and those relative strengths should likewise modify their damage contributions. IMO, of course.

(I feel the same way about each of the martial facing classes. Each has a niche in and out of combat that should modify the way their damage numbers are created and evaluated.)

Rogues should be kings of DPR but no edition since forever have rogues ever came close to that. They have no magic, skills got equalized, and still they are barely middling in damage and squarely in the lower end of martial damage.

Some of the more recent subclasses do go that direction like the soul knife and phantom rogue. However OD&D is a giant step back to rogue being squarely at the bottom of the martial DPR right alongside the monk.

[RSP]

Mmm, I'd actually say you're somewhat incorrect here. Rogues have ways of self-generating Sneak Attack. Off the top of my head, we have:

- Bonus Action Hide, which gives Advantage on your next attack if you succeed. By RAW, you only need to break line of sight, and then you can attempt to Hide.

- Inquisitive and Arcane Trickster have ways to grant themselves Advantage from Aid

- Assassin automatically has Advantage when attacking things that haven't had their turn yet

- Swashbuckler gets Sneak Attack if you're 1v1ing someone, or if any of the other ways apply

But honestly, even if you aren't any of those subclasses, have no way of hiding, and can't use Steady Aim, as long as any ally of yours is next to your target, you get Sneak Attack. Part of the Rogue's balance is that they get Sneak Attack once every turn if they hit.

Swashbuckler doesn’t control that positioning though. I’m not sure what you mean by getting SA from Aid for AT or Inq.


Is that help with a big H? Do rogues normally struggle to get SA in your experience?

They tend to do quite well when I've seen/played them, with the most common enabler of SA being an ally within 5 ft.

But to address the self generating thing:

- the stereotypical thing is Hiding for advantage
- if in play, all Rogues can Steady Aim
- Swashbucklers get an additional condition
- Assassins have advantage against those that haven't gone yet.
- Arcane Tricksters have quite a few, familiars, Shadow Blade, later on Mage Hand

Those are the top of my head, I think there may be one or two more, like Soul Knifes invis in later levels.

In my experience, I haven’t actually seen a ranged Rogue, so that’ll be a main factor in what I’ve experienced. In theory I’d guess Hide works, but battlefield positioning tends to be an issue with staying behind cover at all times (I have seen other ranged characters).

And, yeah, other players can help, which is the vast majority of SA’s I’ve seen: but, at least the combats I’ve done, that’s usually something that has to be worked for, and most rounds isn’t convenient.

(For the record, I’ve seen multi classed Rogues - Barb, Warlock, BS, Fighter - a few just dipped for Expertise or CA, a melee Inquisitive, a melee Thief.)

[Rukelnikov]

Swashbuckler doesn’t control that positioning though. I’m not sure what you mean by getting SA from Aid for AT or Inq.

Aid is what the help action used to be called in previous editions, he likely means that.

[animorte]

You've all got it wrong. I've played a Gestalt Vengeance Paladin/Swashbuckler Rogue at various levels (different one-shots) as a duelist and never had this problem. :smallcool:

Anyway, the whole point of playing a Rogue is to be reliable. You have a consistent source of solid damage and plenty of skills to stay relevant. I don't think it's supposed to set the bar for martial DPR. It's a balanced class.

As far as Divine Smite itself is concerned, I don't really see much of a problem with it. If somebody wants to blow all their spell slots to nova, have at it. I guess you won't have spell slots for anything else.

Maybe the concern here is about DMs that only run one pillar of the game and thus: 1) there's no reason for the Paladin to save spell slots. 2) the Rogue doesn't get to utilize their skills and expertise.

[5eNeedsDarksun]

I personally don't think its that bad a use for a slot factoring the action cost, imagine if Sorcerers could smite with spells, cast a fireball deal 8d6 damage, and you can optionally spend a spell slot to deal extra damage to one of the targets, would it see play? I bet it would.

A lot of times, a bit of damage right now is better than a lot of damage later on.

First, I said it was mediocre, not bad, and it only reaches mediocre mostly for the reason you give: action cost; you're just pasting the damage onto something you're already doing.
However, taking your example in the context of the OP, if you could deal DS damage to one target on another spell, the base amount is usually only good if you don't have to use those slots for something else. Is 4d8 damage worth not casting another fireball later in the day? The answer is almost always going to be no, unless the day is short enough that the slot will be wasted. Take the most basic concentration spell a Paly is going to use, Bless; +2.5 to attacks and saves for you and 2 other party members is way better than 3d8 (13.5 hp) of damage.

There was a thread on here a while ago where someone calculated the damage of the Death Cleric's 'Touch of Death' feature, and it was significantly more than if a same leveled Paly used all their slots on DS; I tried playing one and yeah, it's good, and you don't have to use your spell slots. I've also just finished playing a Paly 2/ Swords Bard X, and the increased spell slots of a full caster mean I was using DS somewhat regularly by tier 3. But on a single class Paly at a table with a full adventuring day those slots are going to be in heavy competition even into late game.

[Leon]

Its a both sides problem ~ one for allowing many rests and the other not managing its resources well and expecting/demanding more frequent rests to recoup

[Dork_Forge]

In my experience, I haven’t actually seen a ranged Rogue, so that’ll be a main factor in what I’ve experienced. In theory I’d guess Hide works, but battlefield positioning tends to be an issue with staying behind cover at all times (I have seen other ranged characters).

And, yeah, other players can help, which is the vast majority of SA’s I’ve seen: but, at least the combats I’ve done, that’s usually something that has to be worked for, and most rounds isn’t convenient.

(For the record, I’ve seen multi classed Rogues - Barb, Warlock, BS, Fighter - a few just dipped for Expertise or CA, a melee Inquisitive, a melee Thief.)

Classes that just dip 1-2 levels of Rogue are not going to be as consistent with it without the Rogue subclass, a common design feature of them is to give more ways to achieve SA. I've been DMing a Barbarian with a deep Rogue dip (currently 9 Barbarian/6 Rogue I believe) and he's been able to consistently get off his SA between allies, Swashbuckler, and Reckless.

Hide+Attack is mostly for ranged Rogues that can pop out, sometimes stuff like Minor Illusion or the Halfling being able to hide behind an ally helps this tactic out.

Sorry but the way you keep using the word help is a bit unclear, so the way you mostly see SA is by allies using the Help action, or from just being within 5 ft.? Do you normally have encounters with a lot of spread out enemies? I just struggle to think of a game set up where Rogues would have a hard time getting SA off 90%+ of the time.

[False God]

Hol up.

How can you "long rest too much"?

A long rest is 8 hours of downtime, with at least 6 being actual sleeping (unless you're an elf, but ya know, elves). It can only be taken once every 24 hours.

You can't go into a dungeon, blow all your resources, sit down for 8 hours, then spend 15 minutes blowing your resources again, then take another long rest. You're still within the 24-hour window that started at the beginning of your initial long rest.

[Anymage]

Hol up.

How can you "long rest too much"?

A long rest is 8 hours of downtime, with at least 6 being actual sleeping (unless you're an elf, but ya know, elves). It can only be taken once every 24 hours.

You can't go into a dungeon, blow all your resources, sit down for 8 hours, then spend 15 minutes blowing your resources again, then take another long rest. You're still within the 24-hour window that started at the beginning of your initial long rest.

You can always walk away and go home to rest. Or if the place isn't actively hazardous you can just set up camp somewhere quiet. It's a lot of downtime for your characters, but the players don't really care when they can handwave it away.

And to answer your next question, there are ways that the DM can work around that through liberal use of tight timers and dungeons where the whole place is actively hostile and leaving will result in either a loss of progress or clear failure. In addition to nerfing short rest classes (if the whole place is dangerous you're unlikely to have a free hour to do nothing in), that does remove the option to use plots based on pretty much anything else.

[sithlordnergal]

Swashbuckler doesn’t control that positioning though. I’m not sure what you mean by getting SA from Aid for AT or Inq.


Ehh, I've never found very difficult for a Swashbuckler to either get a foe alone, gain advantage, or have an ally next to their target. Same with all Rogues really. And I like to run challenging combat where positioning matters, the battlefield changes, and if you stand in one spot you will die.

As for Aid, I did mean the Help action. X3 I come from 3.5, and I still call it Aid.




In my experience, I haven’t actually seen a ranged Rogue, so that’ll be a main factor in what I’ve experienced. In theory I’d guess Hide works, but battlefield positioning tends to be an issue with staying behind cover at all times (I have seen other ranged characters).

And, yeah, other players can help, which is the vast majority of SA’s I’ve seen: but, at least the combats I’ve done, that’s usually something that has to be worked for, and most rounds isn’t convenient.

(For the record, I’ve seen multi classed Rogues - Barb, Warlock, BS, Fighter - a few just dipped for Expertise or CA, a melee Inquisitive, a melee Thief.)

...If you're the DM, you might wanna examine what's causing the Rogue to lose their Sneak Attack so often. If you're a player, you might wanna talk to your DM. The Rogue is balanced in such a way that the game expects you to get Sneak Attack every round, with the times you don't get it being the exception. And that's not conjecture, thats coming from Mike Mearls himself.

[RSP]

Aid is what the help action used to be called in previous editions, he likely means that.

But isn’t that just more “can’t do it by themselves”? Am I missing something where they can Help themselves?

[Tanarii]

While I appreciate the effort you went to, the Five Minute Adventure Day problem is not confined to the paladin class. :smallcool:Indeed.



Given that this has been an ongoing issue over several editions, I have doubts that 5.5 will magically fix things. (And given how 4e went about trying to fix things, I don't think attempts to meaningfully change things would go over well.) The best we might do is have an expansion of the Gritty Realism sidebar that encourages DMs to redefine rests to a narratively appropriate scope. But at the end of the day people like using their cool powers, keeping track of expended powers across sessions is just asking people to forget (whether honestly or not depends on the player), and one big set piece combat per play session is going to be popular for all the reasons it's been popular so far.
It's just so weird to me. The only time I've seen a 5MWD with D&D was either the obligatory once a day encounter during overland travel or when someone was trying to use it to run an unintended genre. Instead of "heroic adventurers enter an adventuring site to save the world, kill their enemies, and/or strip it of all loot" something more like Political Intrigue or Mystery. Or possibly even the Telling a Story DM, although in my experience they often love combats.

Also 5e is lightning fast combat. It's not 4e where the expected four combats a session take four hours, and let's be honest they were almost always combats in 4e. The 3 Deadly to 6 Medium 5e encounters needed for a full adventuring day take about 90 minutes total to run if they were all combats.

Any in-genre game is going to easily hit those amounts in an in-game day. The bigger problem is avoiding massively overextending the number of combats before a Long Rest is possible!

Anyway, One Combat a Session usually doesn't mean an adventuring day is spread over many sessions. It usually means one session is an adventuring day and there's only one combat in it. So they are either using their cool powers on non-combat stuff, or dropping all their powers in the one combat. So ... agreed that for those folks, if they also don't want to track resources across sessions, Gritty Realism isn't a solution.

[RSP]

Sorry but the way you keep using the word help is a bit unclear, so the way you mostly see SA is by allies using the Help action, or from just being within 5 ft.? Do you normally have encounters with a lot of spread out enemies? I just struggle to think of a game set up where Rogues would have a hard time getting SA off 90%+ of the time.

Apologies: I’m referring to allies positioning themselves within 5’, not the Help Action.

The only straight Rogues I’ve seen played each preferred melee (going ranged only when no enemies were close enough).

I would definitely say the encounters tend to spread out enemies (though most encounters are from the WotC premade campaigns). And this definitely was the issue. On a battlefield with obstacles and whatnot, with multiple enemies, getting a 2-on1 usually has to be intentional: it’s doable a lot of times, but also would require spending actions moving or taking OAs a lot of the time: and that just doesn’t equal out.

Again, just my experience, but I don’t see SA being available every round, as is required for the OP’s comparison (and outside of the Inquisitive, getting it is very dependent on others).

Not saying there aren’t ways to build a Rogue that can get it reliable (ranged or otherwise), just that if it’s only certain builds/play styles that get SA as often as needed for the comparison, then there’s a bunch of builds/play styles that don’t meet that criteria.

[False God]

You can always walk away and go home to rest. Or if the place isn't actively hazardous you can just set up camp somewhere quiet. It's a lot of downtime for your characters, but the players don't really care when they can handwave it away.

And to answer your next question, there are ways that the DM can work around that through liberal use of tight timers and dungeons where the whole place is actively hostile and leaving will result in either a loss of progress or clear failure. In addition to nerfing short rest classes (if the whole place is dangerous you're unlikely to have a free hour to do nothing in), that does remove the option to use plots based on pretty much anything else.

I mean, okay, if you've got a dungeon that never changes in response to player activity then theres the problem right there.

But if the DM isn't interested in making a "living" dungeon, then worrying about X or Y being a problem is a fools game.

[Frogreaver]

A few thoughts.

1. There's a fallacy I keep seeing pop up - that player's know more than they actually do about the encounter/adventuring day and thus can better time abilities than they are actually capable of.

1b. That players never waste divine smites on enemies that would have died to them without Divine Smite.

1c. That players never have slots left for divine smite at the end of the adventuring day.

1d. That players never will save a divine smite when in hindsight they would have been better off using it.

Etc.

2. There is usually no actual 'catch up' involved. Paladins don't just dump all their slots into divine smite on the first enemy they see (well not most of them). Smites are more likely to paced a bit or saved for highly impactful situations - many of which will be latter in the adventuring day. Meaning the Paladin's that play this way may actually need divine smite to 'catch up' to the rogue.

3. That all the Paladin's slots get used on divine smite. Some of those slots could be used for out of combat healing, etc. Meaning in actual play the Rogue probably has far less 'catching up' to do than is proposed here.

4. Damage Now is greater than Damage Later is an imperfect heuristic. It tells you that if all else is equal doing the same amount of damage now may kill some enemies faster and cause you to take less attacks. The issue is that typically Damage Later continues to increase the more rounds you fight. So at some point Damage Later becomes higher and since enemies fight at full capability till downed then if Damage Now doesn't hit that threshold before Damage Later overtakes then Damage later can be better. In short, as a heuristic just isn't all that useful - but it's an excellent reminder that lower damage over an entire encounter could have been 'better' if it was higher earlier in the encounter.

5. Rogues can easily fight at range and have amazing mobility. This is an important consideration for damage output.

6. I do think the style of exercise produced is useful. In general, if an at will ability eventually overtake a resource using ability in damage after a reasonable number of combat rounds then it's safe to say the abilities are balanced enough. One could tweak things a little by adjusting that 'break even point', but it's probably not necessary.

[KorvinStarmast]

Anyway, One Combat a Session usually doesn't mean an adventuring day is spread over many sessions. It usually means one session is an adventuring day and there's only one combat in it. So they are either using their cool powers on non-combat stuff, or dropping all their powers in the one combat. So ... agreed that for those folks, if they also don't want to track resources across sessions, Gritty Realism isn't a solution. Maybe in your experience, but we've had many sessions that ended when RL intruded, and we picked up the battle where we left off during the next session.
Sorta like a Cliff Hanger.
Caveat: easier to do in on line play, to be sure.
I have had adventure days last for three and four sessions with some frequency thanks to how long the battles can last with hard and deadly encounters.

Our battle with an adult red dragon (and a few allies) a few weeks ago took 10 or 11 rounds. (Me a player in that one)

[Gignere]

Maybe in your experience, but we've had many sessions that ended when RL intruded, and we picked up the battle where we left of during the next session. Caveat: easier to do in on line play, to be sure. I have had adventure days last for three and four sessions with some frequency.

Yes one of the best things about online play everything is recorded in the session so easy to stop in the middle of combat when people run out of time or real life intrudes.

If I ever resume in person gaming I’m going to use online VTTs anyway in person just because it is so much superior in tracking every roll than just scribbling stuff into a note pad.

[Pex]

Some DMs just can't stand it when a PC does more than "I attack for 1d8 + 3 damage." Spellcaster, warrior, expert, doesn't matter. They hate "powerful" PCs. Maybe they don't like big numbers. Maybe players doing cool things threaten their sense of authority. Nothing will satisfy these DMs, so it's not worth trying.

Obligatory: This does not mean there can never exist a Thing that's too powerful for a PC to do or have. A damage number can be too high. A cool thing can make the game not work. Discuss it. As a personal matter even if I support a Thing I will listen more to the person who disagrees and says a Thing shouldn't exist or be nerfed after Honest True considering the matter than the person who flat out dismisses it and derides "power creep", "munchkin", "power gaming", and similar terms.

[Rukelnikov]

Maybe in your experience, but we've had many sessions that ended when RL intruded, and we picked up the battle where we left off during the next session.
Sorta like a Cliff Hanger.
Caveat: easier to do in on line play, to be sure.
I have had adventure days last for three and four sessions with some frequency thanks to how long the battles can last with hard and deadly encounters.

Our battle with an adult red dragon (and a few allies) a few weeks ago took 10 or 11 rounds. (Me a player in that one)

Personally, I usually find one ~10 round fight much more interesting than three 3 round fights.

[Tanarii]

The issue isn't Big Numbers. It's when a class is (supposedly) balanced to do Big Numbers some of the time and Small Numbers some of the time, and another class is (supposedly) balanced to do Medium Numbers all of the time ... and then the game is used in an unexpected way that lets the first class do Big Numbers all of the time.

I say "problem", but really it just means if the game is used that way, only Big Numbers all of the time classes need apply. If everyone is happy with just using those classes (or accepting smaller numbers) the "problem" goes away.

[sithlordnergal]

But isn’t that just more “can’t do it by themselves”? Am I missing something where they can Help themselves?

Arcane Tricksters are able to provide the Help Action for themselves with two methods. The first is via a Familiar, since they can take Find Familiar at level 3. The second is level 11, where they can use Mage Hand to give themselves advantage against a creature as a bonus action until the end of the current turn.

Inquisitive Rogues can't really apply the Help action, but their ability lets the gain sneak attack anyway. We already know about Swashbucklers, though I do need to correct myself. I had said if they 1v1 a creature. I was mistaken. They obviously get the normal procs of advantage or having an ally within 5 feet of their target, but they also get sneak attack if there are no other creatures are within 5 feet of themselves, outside of their target. So unless they're surrounded, they always get sneak attack.


EDIT:



Anyway, One Combat a Session usually doesn't mean an adventuring day is spread over many sessions. It usually means one session is an adventuring day and there's only one combat in it. So they are either using their cool powers on non-combat stuff, or dropping all their powers in the one combat. So ... agreed that for those folks, if they also don't want to track resources across sessions, Gritty Realism isn't a solution.

I'm surprised by this. I don't think I've ever had one session equal one adventuring day, and I don't use Gritty Realism rules. Like...if I make a dungeon I expect it to take multiple sessions.I even made a super tiny mini-dungeon, with only 12 rooms in it, most of which only have one puzzle and/or trap, and almost no combat encounters. In fact, the party found out how to skip combat encounters in the dungeon. Its going to take my party 2 sessions to get through cause they only reached room 6 after about 3 to 4 hours of playing. I once took a party through Hidden Shrine. It took them close to 6 or 7 sessions to get through it all. And these were 4 hours sessions.

[Rukelnikov]

Some DMs just can't stand it when a PC does more than "I attack for 1d8 + 3 damage." Spellcaster, warrior, expert, doesn't matter. They hate "powerful" PCs. Maybe they don't like big numbers. Maybe players doing cool things threaten their sense of authority. Nothing will satisfy these DMs, so it's not worth trying.

Obligatory: This does not mean there can never exist a Thing that's too powerful for a PC to do or have. A damage number can be too high. A cool thing can make the game not work. Discuss it. As a personal matter even if I support a Thing I will listen more to the person who disagrees and says a Thing shouldn't exist or be nerfed after Honest True considering the matter than the person who flat out dismisses it and derides "power creep", "munchkin", "power gaming", and similar terms.

TBH, compared to most other systems DnD is extremely restrictive in what it allows PCs to do.

In Tenra Bansho Zero, PCs can bring to the scene any character they have a connection to by paying XP, or appear in any scene by paying XP, and stuff like that.

In WoD Werewolves had a Gift called Storyteller, which literally turns you into the DM for a scene (Storyteller is how the DM is called in WoD)

[TaiLiu]

Like so much else, this is downstream of 5e being designed with one type of game in mind (dungeon crawler) but played as another (narrative, cinematic superheroes).
For sure. D&D is a game of attrition and resource management, but I don't think it's advertised that way. Probably because the number of people interested in that kind of stuff is dwarfed by the number of people who aren't. Saving up and being careful is generally less exciting than doing cool tricks with your abilities.

[PhoenixPhyre]

After doing some numerics, I'm seeing some interesting results.

TL;DR I agree with the OP that it's mostly about the length of the adventuring day and how valuable spike damage is. I'm also getting similar numbers as to the break-even point (same ballpark).

1) as expected, short adventuring days (measured in rounds) dramatically change the strength of an "all smites, all the time" paladin (ie burning all slots on smites). At 5 rounds/day they're quite substantially high depending on the details. At even 9 rounds/day they're much lower, down with most of the other classes simulated in any detail so far. At infinite rounds/day or if you turn off smites (they're basically the same thing because the smite damage is amortized across all rounds), they're down with the basic rogue (shortbow, no advantage but always sneak attack) or even below.

2) (probably a numerical artifact from not calculating things right) I'm seeing that the benefit from GWM or PAM at level 4 isn't nearly as much as I expected until very high levels. Even at 5 rounds/day, you just don't have enough slots to make use of those extra attacks with smites and you pay for it in reduced modifiers. But as I said, I'm likely doing something wrong there as signaled by some odd patterns in the data.

3) The Once Per Turn limitation just isn't that bad amortized over the adventuring day. It kills spike damage dead but doesn't really affect total damage much except at high levels unless you're in the "very short day" regime where it's a significant nerf at mid+ levels. At 9 rnds/day it only diverges notably at about level 15 (when you've reliably got enough slots to smite every round); at 5 rounds/day it diverges at level 7-ish and diverges sharply.

4) "highest first" smiting makes a much bigger difference (as expected) in the once-per-turn regime.

5) I really need to improve how I feed in things like fight duration so I don't have to recompile each time...

6) At ~9 rnds/day the "full smite" paladin is similar to the TWF (no advantage but 100% sneak attack) rogue. Throw in occasional advantage and the rogue is neck and neck or better. Very different scaling curves, overall similar averages.

Big caveats:
1) I'm not 100% sure my numbers are right.
2) I'm only looking at amortized damage (ie per full day). Not spike damage.
3) I didn't try to hold smites for crits--that would require more direct, round-by-round simulation which my tool doesn't do.
4) This is an infinite-HP training dummy, so "wasted" smites aren't a thing.
5) I'm sure there are loads of other variables I haven't considered

[RSP]

Arcane Tricksters are able to provide the Help Action for themselves with two methods. The first is via a Familiar, since they can take Find Familiar at level 3. The second is level 11, where they can use Mage Hand to give themselves advantage against a creature as a bonus action until the end of the current turn.

Gotcha (though it’s level 13).

Same thing though: AT’s can do it with a familiar or at level 13 with a round of prep.

Inquisitive can do it at 3 with success on their (relatively easy) BA skill check.

Ranged can Hide when terrain/ situation makes that doable.

Everything else though is at least ally-dependent. I e not seen that equal “Rogues get SA every turn.”

Maybe I’m in the minority in how games go for Rogues, but SA is not assumed every round (outside of the Inquisitive who can get it outside of rolling very poorly vs a NPC rolling well).

[noob]

Gotcha (though it’s level 13).

Same thing though: AT’s can do it with a familiar or at level 13 with a round of prep.

Inquisitive can do it at 3 with success on their (relatively easy) BA skill check.

Ranged can Hide when terrain/ situation makes that doable.

Everything else though is at least ally-dependent. I e not seen that equal “Rogues get SA every turn.”

Maybe I’m in the minority in how games go for Rogues, but SA is not assumed every round (outside of the Inquisitive who can get it outside of rolling very poorly vs a NPC rolling well).

There is also race picks that helps such as the old kobold with pack tactics (gets you advantage very often if you have melee allies).

[Keravath]

Depends on what optional rules one uses. Steady aim allows a rogue to self-generate SA with a ranged weapon.

Just a clarification but Steady Aim (despite the name) works fine for melee attacks as well.

"As a bonus action, you give yourself advantage on your next attack roll on the current turn. You can use this bonus action only if you haven’t moved during this turn, and after you use the bonus action, your speed is 0 until the end of the current turn."

It actually works for spells, melee or ranged attacks - anything with an attack roll. The only limitation is that the rogue is spending any time they would have used to move searching for that weak spot in the target's defenses to improve their chance to hit.

[RSP]

There is also race picks that helps such as the old kobold with pack tactics (gets you advantage very often if you have melee allies).

Sure, but that’s redundant as far as SA as you already get SA for the ally being within 5’. Plus, it’s the same issue of requiring your allies positioning and not something the Rogue controls.

So long as the Paladin has slots available, they control when they Smite: Rogues can’t guarantee the same.

[Ionathus]

A few thoughts.

1. There's a fallacy I keep seeing pop up - that player's know more than they actually do about the encounter/adventuring day and thus can better time abilities than they are actually capable of.

1b. That players never waste divine smites on enemies that would have died to them without Divine Smite.

1c. That players never have slots left for divine smite at the end of the adventuring day.

1d. That players never will save a divine smite when in hindsight they would have been better off using it.

Etc.

I want to echo almost all of this post.

I know anecdotal evidence is not the same as cold hard data, but it holds sway when we're talking about the personal at-table play experience in a story-based game. And all the anecdotal evidence I've ever gathered, as both a non-paladin player and a DM, is that paladins work just fine. It doesn't even really matter how long you make the adventuring day. Frogreaver's first point and subpoints above are especially relevant here. Adding a couple points of my own:

Across 5 years of weekly games, I can count on one hand the number of times my table's spellcasting PCs have gone below 25% of their spellslots remaining. There's an inborn fear of "running out" that acts as a natural limiter.
Paladins' smites are restricted to melee, which reduces their nova potential. My paladin player is routinely is out of reach of his next target.
As Frogreaver mentioned, the PCs don't always know how long their adventuring day is gonna be. If 2-3 encounters is the natural long rest point for the day, but they were budgeting for 6, they have naturally paced themselves. The trick is just in conditioning your PCs to accept that a 6+ encounter day is *always possible* if not always likely. There is also a level of buy-in asked of the players here, that they not try to "guess" how long the DM is gonna throw challenges at them (having characters try to reason out the adventure's remaining time in-character is fine though).
It's ultimately not that much extra damage. The rogue is behind at first but still comparable, without burning limited resources. By the time paladins have the slots to really burn through HP, the wizard is tossing around spells that can trivialize every encounter.
The paladin's "advantage" evaporates if you stray even a few steps off "1-3 big monsters in an empty room" fight design. Smite does jack all for chases, hostage scenarios, hordes of minions, terrain hazards, etc.
Channeling the raw power of your god to destroy a being of darkness is COOL and it's the paladin's whole schtick. People play D&D to have cool moments. Let the paladin have their moment in the limelight. And then move on to the next PC's cool moment. I have never seen a player actually get sad about the paladin being "cooler" than them.



Some DMs just can't stand it when a PC does more than "I attack for 1d8 + 3 damage." Spellcaster, warrior, expert, doesn't matter. They hate "powerful" PCs. Maybe they don't like big numbers. Maybe players doing cool things threaten their sense of authority. Nothing will satisfy these DMs, so it's not worth trying.

Obligatory: This does not mean there can never exist a Thing that's too powerful for a PC to do or have. A damage number can be too high. A cool thing can make the game not work. Discuss it. As a personal matter even if I support a Thing I will listen more to the person who disagrees and says a Thing shouldn't exist or be nerfed after Honest True considering the matter than the person who flat out dismisses it and derides "power creep", "munchkin", "power gaming", and similar terms.

I don't see the problem as quite so malignant as you do, but I agree about the base assumption DMs make. They see the extra damage and go "oh no, that's gonna break my game, they'll kill my boss way too soon, that's gonna upset the other players, this is way too powerful, I gotta fix this" without waiting to see how it plays out in an actual encounter.

And ultimately, that's my biggest issue with nerfing smite: I hear it mostly from new DMs who have never run a game for a paladin, but r/dndnext or the ENWorld forums told them that divine smite is OP and they panic and start making changes without seeing it in practice. I have no problem with any homebrew that improves your individual table's experience, and maybe nerfing smite works for some tables. But I have a massive bee in my bonnet about online sources that go from "offering an alternative" to "this will break your game, never let the paladin do this one weird trick!!!"

[da newt]

Ranged rogues are great for generating SA opportunities for themselves, but even non-inquisitive / swashbucklers / familiar handlers melee rogues ought to be able to generate SA opportunities for themselves 4 out of 5 rounds - it's what CA is all about. BA dash to get to the right target, BA disengage to move into better positions w/ no opp att concern, BA steady aim for not only SA but 2x chance of crit and roughly +4 to hit equivalent, or ready an attack for when your buddy does get into melee with you, etc. If you can't find a good way to get near a party member or advantage, you aren't trying very hard.

As for are DS a good use of your spell slots, the fact that there is no save and they always hit makes them a great use of a spell slot. Sure, if you are comparing them to an AOE like fireball then they can fall behind the power curve, but for a paladin what good multi target spells do they have?

And, IME as a DM, DS and SA are pretty easy to account for in adventures - give the BBEG a few more HP so he lasts a bit or add a few more badguys so the nova damage PCs can feel great about taking out more baddies. The harder bit to account for is some unexpected spell that bypasses or trivializes an encounter all together - I'm still surprised every so often, but worst case scenario the PC's feel really clever and like they've won. It's not that hard to turn that into a win for the table ...

[Oramac]

After doing some numerics, I'm seeing some interesting results.

snip

Thanks for confirming. My goal here was to look at damage over time (the entire adventuring day). Not damage per round, as some have brought up.


Big caveats:
3) I didn't try to hold smites for crits--that would require more direct, round-by-round simulation which my tool doesn't do.
4) This is an infinite-HP training dummy, so "wasted" smites aren't a thing.
5) I'm sure there are loads of other variables I haven't considered

No crits for smites matters less, assuming you also didn't add crits for SA. Same applies to "wasted" damage. No waste on smite evens out with no waste on SA.

Certainly there's probably hundreds of variables we're not considering. But the general trend is pretty concrete. Rogues are better across a long time period; paladins are better across a short time period.

[PhoenixPhyre]

Thanks for confirming. My goal here was to look at damage over time (the entire adventuring day). Not damage per round, as some have brought up.

No crits for smites matters less, assuming you also didn't add crits for SA. Same applies to "wasted" damage. No waste on smite evens out with no waste on SA.

Certainly there's probably hundreds of variables we're not considering. But the general trend is pretty concrete. Rogues are better across a long time period; paladins are better across a short time period.

I included crit smites (and crit SA)--the simulation does a reasonable job of including both statistically. But what I didn't do is crit fish with smites (aka not smiting unless it was a crit). Effectively I calculated the "average additional damage per attack" and the "average additional damage per crit" and included them in the expressions for the accuracy-and-crit-adjusted total damage.

[Psyren]

3) The Once Per Turn limitation just isn't that bad amortized over the adventuring day. It kills spike damage dead but doesn't really affect total damage much except at high levels unless you're in the "very short day" regime where it's a significant nerf at mid+ levels. At 9 rnds/day it only diverges notably at about level 15 (when you've reliably got enough slots to smite every round); at 5 rounds/day it diverges at level 7-ish and diverges sharply.

This more or less aligns with what I was expecting to see.


Rogues should be kings of DPR but no edition since forever have rogues ever came close to that. They have no magic, skills got equalized, and still they are barely middling in damage and squarely in the lower end of martial damage.

Some of the more recent subclasses do go that direction like the soul knife and phantom rogue. However OD&D is a giant step back to rogue being squarely at the bottom of the martial DPR right alongside the monk.

I think certain subclasses of rogue should be at the upper end of damage output, similar to how Gloomstalker rangers should be outdamaging Horizon Walkers. But D&D rogues aren't like, say, rogues in WoW or Diablo where damage is their primary contribution to a group, D&D has two other pillars where rogues excel as well.

[Theodoxus]

Nearly every rogue I've played, or seen played in games I've run, has been ranged. Staying back with the casters, out of danger seems extremely rogue-like. Shooting into melee is 99% without the -2 partial cover penalty, because nearly everyone forgets about it. (I think it's because 5E tried really hard to remove fiddly numbers, so when they are codified, people just forget to include them. Partial cover really should impose a -d4, and half cover a -d6 (or d8) to the roll, not an integer - it'd be easier to remember.

@PhoenixPhyre, I wonder if there's a dude or team of analytics at WotC who are generating those kinds of numbers. One would hope. One would also love to see said data.

ETA:
Thanks for confirming. My goal here was to look at damage over time (the entire adventuring day). Not damage per round, as some have brought up.

DPD is probably the more noble goal, though again, I think you'd need to include healing, trap detection/elimination, etc. as part of the calculus. With that additional information, it would be quite easy to differentiate a 'pure combat build' like a berserker barbarian vs. a highly offensive minded swashbuckler rogue that is also the groups trap neutralizer. How much damage did the rogue save the healbot from having to deal with because of a successful trap removal? Some dungeons, it could be quite high. Cross-country travel, not so much.

Same could be said for resource (gold) expenditure when there's a ranger gathering food on a trip vs buying rations. Yeah, the exploration pillar in D&D is quite weak, but there are bright points of light scattered throughout that can be also part of a class contribution.

[Oramac]

Across 5 years of weekly games, I can count on one hand the number of times my table's spellcasting PCs have gone below 25% of their spellslots remaining. There's an inborn fear of "running out" that acts as a natural limiter.
Paladins' smites are restricted to melee, which reduces their nova potential. My paladin player is routinely is out of reach of his next target.
As Frogreaver mentioned, the PCs don't always know how long their adventuring day is gonna be. If 2-3 encounters is the natural long rest point for the day, but they were budgeting for 6, they have naturally paced themselves. The trick is just in conditioning your PCs to accept that a 6+ encounter day is *always possible* if not always likely. There is also a level of buy-in asked of the players here, that they not try to "guess" how long the DM is gonna throw challenges at them (having characters try to reason out the adventure's remaining time in-character is fine though).
It's ultimately not that much extra damage. The rogue is behind at first but still comparable, without burning limited resources. By the time paladins have the slots to really burn through HP, the wizard is tossing around spells that can trivialize every encounter.
The paladin's "advantage" evaporates if you stray even a few steps off "1-3 big monsters in an empty room" fight design. Smite does jack all for chases, hostage scenarios, hordes of minions, terrain hazards, etc.
Channeling the raw power of your god to destroy a being of darkness is COOL and it's the paladin's whole schtick. People play D&D to have cool moments. Let the paladin have their moment in the limelight. And then move on to the next PC's cool moment. I have never seen a player actually get sad about the paladin being "cooler" than them.


Yup. This. Basically, the paladin is fine as-is. The once-per-turn nerf to Smite is not needed. That's basically where I was going with all this.


@PhoenixPhyre, I wonder if there's a dude or team of analytics at WotC who are generating those kinds of numbers. One would hope. One would also love to see said data.

Jeez, I sure hope WOTC has this. I'm sure it's all under NDA, but damned if I wouldn't love to see that data!

[RSP]

Nearly every rogue I've played, or seen played in games I've run, has been ranged. Staying back with the casters, out of danger seems extremely rogue-like. Shooting into melee is 99% without the -2 partial cover penalty, because nearly everyone forgets about it.

Humorously enough, my groups always include partial and half cover. Maybe that’s part of why Rogues tend to go melee in my groups? (Honestly, I think it’s just that they wanted to play their characters a certain way.)

As for Cunning Action, I’ve found melee Rogues do well to try to conserve their BA for the second chance at SA, via off hand attacks. It certainly can be used to get in position, but it still has limitations in what it can do.

Now I’m curious how much BA off hand attacks aids Rogues in ensuring a SA once per round over ranged Rogues…

[Mindflayer_Inc]

It’s easier to fix Divine Smite than to change a bunch of DM’s habits or change the entire system to work around Paladins and their resting.

So, Divine Smite is the problem that should be fixed.

[Rukelnikov]

It’s easier to fix Divine Smite than to change a bunch of DM’s habits or change the entire system to work around Paladins and their resting.

So, Divine Smite is the problem that should be fixed.

Honestly, the only thing about DS that I think maybe needs to be changed is spending spell slots to fuel it, since that makes it incredibly good for other gishes. I'd say giving the Pally smite dice could fix that.

[Ionathus]

It’s easier to fix Divine Smite than to change a bunch of DM’s habits or change the entire system to work around Paladins and their resting.

So, Divine Smite is the problem that should be fixed.

Which problems are you thinking of? I submit that Paladins are just fine as-is, even if you only have 1-3 fights per day.

[Sception]

I support a 1/turn limit on divine smite, even if I oppose the other playtest restrictions on it, particularly the ''no spellcasting that turn" business.

It's not about total average damage over an adventuring day and it's not about how often or not players get to long rest. There's typically only 1 climactic encounter in an adventuring day, whether it's preceded by 3 attrition combats or 13 or 0. If the paladin can cram 6 smites into 2 rounds with a decent chance of critting on top and drop the boss monster of the climactic encounter before it even gets started, then that's the most mechanically interesting encounter ended before the party really get to interact with it and the most perilous narrative situation of the session ended in an anti-climax. DMs can design around this to a degree with red herring boss monsters, and devs can design paladin subclasses that encourage using spell slots to actually cast spells or burning resources on attrition fights as with the conquest paladin, but I've still seen it cause problems in play. I don't think the total damage is an issue, but I'd still like to see a once per turn restriction forcing paladins to spread that damage out a bit.

re other casters causing the same sort of problem with their spells, most good damage spells tend to be aoe multitarget spells better suited to attrition fights, while boss encounters have extra defenses built in to limit getting anti-climactically shut down by individual spell use, including immunities, strong saves, spell resistance, and legendary resistance. There are still cases where it happens, particularly with spells that tend to bypass that stuff, for example force cage. And yeah, I'd like to see some of those addressed, too.

[PhoenixPhyre]

Which problems are you thinking of? I submit that Paladins are just fine as-is, even if you only have 1-3 fights per day.

The big thing that makes paladins appear to be OMG BBQ WTF is the combination of 1 fight against a single big enemy. That's the case where spike damage is at its absolute best and any way you can burn resources faster to convert them into damage is justified. So you stack multiple Divine Smites per turn + either a bonus action attack for MORE SMITES or a bonus action Smite Spell to stack that on top of the regular smites.

Watching a paladin One Turn Kill a major enemy (I've had it happen round 1, turn 1, 100% to 0% on an enemy 10 CRs above the paladin's level due to some lucky crits) is...disconcerting...for a lot of DMs. The solution is to vary your encounters. If every day and every fight is a single big solo, paladins look amazing and OP. They're not nearly as apparently powerful against things that like to stay at range or groups of smaller enemies or multiple encounters per day.


Honestly, the only thing about DS that I think maybe needs to be changed is spending spell slots to fuel it, since that makes it incredibly good for other gishes. I'd say giving the Pally smite dice could fix that.

I'm 100% on board with this. Or Smite Points (effectively spell points but that play more like Pact Magic when multiclassing and stay separate). Something so a Paladin 6/Sorcerer 14 is not both a more effective smiter AND a more effective caster (with 9th level slots even, despite only having 7th level sorc spells to put in them) than a paladin 20.

[Rukelnikov]

The big thing that makes paladins appear to be OMG BBQ WTF is the combination of 1 fight against a single big enemy. That's the case where spike damage is at its absolute best and any way you can burn resources faster to convert them into damage is justified. So you stack multiple Divine Smites per turn + either a bonus action attack for MORE SMITES or a bonus action Smite Spell to stack that on top of the regular smites.

Watching a paladin One Turn Kill a major enemy (I've had it happen round 1, turn 1, 100% to 0% on an enemy 10 CRs above the paladin's level due to some lucky crits) is...disconcerting...for a lot of DMs. The solution is to vary your encounters. If every day and every fight is a single big solo, paladins look amazing and OP. They're not nearly as apparently powerful against things that like to stay at range or groups of smaller enemies or multiple encounters per day.

That makes sense, but paladins are usually in a party, so, if the encounter is not a BBEG, the Paladin can just chill and rely on its resource free damage, or maybe throw a Bless, and let the rest of the party manage those encounters, saving is power for when a big threat shows up.

Tangential anecdote, during the final battle of the first long campaign I DMed, it was 3e, the party managed to get a surprise round on the enemy party, and the Paladin killed the enemy Cleric (the BBEG and mastermind of what was happening) with a successful threat to kill (20/20/Hit) on the surprise round.


I'm 100% on board with this. Or Smite Points (effectively spell points but that play more like Pact Magic when multiclassing and stay separate). Something so a Paladin 6/Sorcerer 14 is not both a more effective smiter AND a more effective caster (with 9th level slots even, despite only having 7th level sorc spells to put in them) than a paladin 20.

Yeah

[5eNeedsDarksun]

Honestly, the only thing about DS that I think maybe needs to be changed is spending spell slots to fuel it, since that makes it incredibly good for other gishes. I'd say giving the Pally smite dice could fix that.

Yes, Paly makes good gishes, but does DS interacting with spell slots make them 'incredibly good', or I'll reframe as 'significantly better than single class or overpowered'? My answer to that question would be not in my experience. Single class Paladins are good, and some of their best features come on mid to late game, particularly the Auras. Single class Bards and Sorcerers are also really good, and obviously spells continue to grow in power as they level. Multi-classes of these are very good, but sacrifices are going to be made on both ends when you do it. The only exception to the 'significantly better...' rule for me is the one level Hexblade dip, but that has almost everything to do with making the Paly SADer and very little to do with a couple of low level smites/ day.

[Theodoxus]

One thing that hasn't been discussed (or I missed it) is overkill. Smite is great on the BBEG (as noted just above), but when you're facing a dozen mooks who have somewhere between 10 and 20 HP each, a smite becomes overkill. Hiding behind the fog of war is the DMs ace in the hole - if the players have no idea how many HP a specific opponent has, a player can easily waste a smite on something that looks tougher than it really is - and when you one shot it with 10 HP to spare, you stop smiting. And then, some subsequent round later, you crit one, dealing roughly the same amount of damage as the one you smote, and it doesn't drop? Delicious.

I love throwing 10 or so low HP (usually in the d8+2 range) mooks at my players, backed with a couple heavies that look identical, just beefed up. If they attack the beefed up ones first, they might run, thinking this warparty is too tough for them. If they hit a softy instead, they might try to mop them all up quickly (fireball or shatter, depending on how spread out they are) and then they realize there's a small group of toughs in the middle.

ETA:
Yes, Paly makes good gishes, but does DS interacting with spell slots make them 'incredibly good', or I'll reframe as 'significantly better than single class or overpowered'? My answer to that question would be not in my experience. Single class Paladins are good, and some of their best features come on mid to late game, particularly the Auras. Single class Bards and Sorcerers are also really good, and obviously spells continue to grow in power as they level. Multi-classes of these are very good, but sacrifices are going to be made on both ends when you do it. The only exception to the 'significantly better...' rule for me is the one level Hexblade dip, but that has almost everything to do with making the Paly SADer and very little to do with a couple of low level smites/ day.

I've never gone higher than 7th on a Paladin, though I had a 9/11 swashbuckler/conquest build planned out once. And while 7th is pretty close to end game in campaigns I run, it still leaves a few levels to grab something like sorcerer for added smite and eventual metamagic shenanigans before most campaigns end in the 11-13 level range.

Regarding Hexblade specifically, yeah that's a very powerful combination, but I don't think the 2,4,6+ "free" SR recharging smites per day should be discounted. Especially since they auto scale, so a 7/3 Palock is getting a lot of bang out of those three levels, really trading a feat for a ton of extra damage.

[Oramac]

Yes, Paly makes good gishes, but does DS interacting with spell slots make them 'incredibly good', or I'll reframe as 'significantly better than single class or overpowered'?

snip

Having played a high level Sorcadin, the answer is unequivocally yes. The pally/sorc multiclass is undoubtedly better at smiting than a pure paladin.

I would also support "smite points", for lack of a better term. Doing so would effectively negate the multiclass shenanigans (however fun they truly are!).

[Willie the Duck]

I mean, okay, if you've got a dungeon that never changes in response to player activity then theres the problem right there.
But if the DM isn't interested in making a "living" dungeon, then worrying about X or Y being a problem is a fools game.
I think you are doing exactly what the devs did -- assume that a large part of gaming (enough to balance between classes and rest-cycle options) was going to be in dungeons (or scenarios that behave similarly). This problem pops up predominantly when gameplay deviates from that setup.


Just a clarification but Steady Aim (despite the name) works fine for melee attacks as well.
"As a bonus action, you give yourself advantage on your next attack roll on the current turn. You can use this bonus action only if you haven’t moved during this turn, and after you use the bonus action, your speed is 0 until the end of the current turn."
It actually works for spells, melee or ranged attacks - anything with an attack roll. The only limitation is that the rogue is spending any time they would have used to move searching for that weak spot in the target's defenses to improve their chance to hit.
You're certainly not wrong. I had a rapier&shield-based battlemaster-scout who used it extensively. I believe the issue is that many melee rogues do not stay still during combat, ducking in and out of reach (often using the bonus action steady aim would require) so they are behind the higher-AC/HP fighters and barbarians when the counterattack occurs.


While I appreciate the effort you went to, the Five Minute Adventure Day problem is not confined to the paladin class. :smallcool:

True enough. If the DM allows pretty much any spellcaster other than warlocks to Long Rest too much, it overshadows all the non-spellcasters.
Perhaps the OneD&D PHB (and DMG/MM) need more prominent DM advice for extending the Adventuring Day.

Given that this has been an ongoing issue over several editions, I have doubts that 5.5 will magically fix things. (And given how 4e went about trying to fix things, I don't think attempts to meaningfully change things would go over well.) The best we might do is have an expansion of the Gritty Realism sidebar that encourages DMs to redefine rests to a narratively appropriate scope. But at the end of the day people like using their cool powers, keeping track of expended powers across sessions is just asking people to forget (whether honestly or not depends on the player), and one big set piece combat per play session is going to be popular for all the reasons it's been popular so far.

You can always walk away and go home to rest. Or if the place isn't actively hazardous you can just set up camp somewhere quiet. It's a lot of downtime for your characters, but the players don't really care when they can handwave it away.
And to answer your next question, there are ways that the DM can work around that through liberal use of tight timers and dungeons where the whole place is actively hostile and leaving will result in either a loss of progress or clear failure. In addition to nerfing short rest classes (if the whole place is dangerous you're unlikely to have a free hour to do nothing in), that does remove the option to use plots based on pretty much anything else.
Overall, the problem has kinda-sorta existed all the way back to when everyone did not magically pick up on the 'if you leave the dungeon, we end for the evening, and in the intervening week my other play groups might sweep through and get all the good loot'-style of play that EGG assumed everyone would want to do. Classes with X/recharge cycle high-effect abilities (and then lessor power the rest of the time) have existed alongside classes without (or fewer) and more powerful at-wills, and balancing the two requires an assumption that going and recharging those abilities is limited or challenging. Some editions had minor disincentives not to go out and rest whenever you got low on expendable resources -- AD&D and AD&D2E had 10 minutes/spell level to re-learn spells*, and all versions had time spent recuperating in the wilderness mean wilderness (not level-gated) random encounter rolls** (IIRC B/X might have had the worst wilderness encounters compared to PC ability)-- but all of them were delays, meaning there needs to be consequences to waiting. Doom clocks work sometimes, but if you are exploring the long abandoned tomb over the hill, it doesn't make sense that the evil ritual to end the world was happening just now (and your resting makes the difference). Dungeon inhabitants reacting to your initial incursion (coming out to get you, setting traps, getting reinforcements, or leaving with the treasure) works sometimes, but can strain verisimilitude easily***. For the most part, D&D has always leaned heavily on the DM to explain (or not) why the party shouldn't come to each situation with a full loadout of abilities. I think it's just gotten more noticeable since healing got easier (meaning that other expendable resource isn't part of the rest calculation), they've otherwise attempted (attempted) to make the classes balanced at a given level, and there being two rest-types to kinda shine a big spotlight on the issue.
*something of a paper tiger, in my mind. At level 8, when the books suggest your dungeon-crawling days should winding down, this just broke 4 hours to re-study everything. It's hard to get the study time to be the largest component of the recuperation time.
**however, either the net average recovery per day (including average encounter chance x encounter likely damage) is positive (meaning you will get back to full eventually), or it is negative -- in which case you have no business going into the dungeon in the first place, as you need all your resources to get back home.
*** Where are these reinforcements coming from (and would we have had to fight them anyways)? What kind of traps is an ooze going to set? Would an owlbear or zombie group retreat (and take the treasure in their area)? If the goblin tribe had somewhere else to go, why were they in this dank and dangerous hole in the ground? How did monsters A know we attacked monsters B on the other side of the dungeon (do all these creatures work together? hold daily briefings?)?

Overall, I agree that they are unlikely to completely fix it (even 4e didn't, there was variation on which part of the AEDU each class was best at). Nor honestly do I think they need to. What they need to do is build a better DMG focused on helping people become better DMs (especially new DMs). They also need to put front and center that yes you need to make some choices about your campaign based on what kind of gaming experience you wish to cultivate. Maybe not include a default rest rules and make people choose (would that even work?). Maybe just make 'A Game of Your Own' the start of the DMG instead of 'A World of Your Own.' AD&D 2e certainly didn't balance, well, much of anything in any particular way, but it did a pretty good job of communicating that there were lots of dials and lever to mess with and that you kind of had to to cultivate a specific feel to your game.

[Pex]

I once took a party through Hidden Shrine. It took them close to 6 or 7 sessions to get through it all. And these were 4 hours sessions.

Running that now. Same thing. They need a committee to make decisions. It's been 5 sessions and they only just now reached the staircase to go to the second level, but they haven't searched all of the 1st level. I don't know if they will go back to search. The traps intimidated them. They didn't attack the vampire spawn in the beginning, not even bothering to take the treasure. They don't search for secret doors. They don't search for loot, but they'll spend 10 minutes discussing turn left or right or which door to open.

[Gignere]

One thing that hasn't been discussed (or I missed it) is overkill. Smite is great on the BBEG (as noted just above), but when you're facing a dozen mooks who have somewhere between 10 and 20 HP each, a smite becomes overkill. Hiding behind the fog of war is the DMs ace in the hole - if the players have no idea how many HP a specific opponent has, a player can easily waste a smite on something that looks tougher than it really is - and when you one shot it with 10 HP to spare, you stop smiting. And then, some subsequent round later, you crit one, dealing roughly the same amount of damage as the one you smote, and it doesn't drop? Delicious.

I love throwing 10 or so low HP (usually in the d8+2 range) mooks at my players, backed with a couple heavies that look identical, just beefed up. If they attack the beefed up ones first, they might run, thinking this warparty is too tough for them. If they hit a softy instead, they might try to mop them all up quickly (fireball or shatter, depending on how spread out they are) and then they realize there's a small group of toughs in the middle.[/FONT]

This hurts the rogue number just as much as the paladin’s if not more at least after one or two the Paladin can quickly realize all he needs is attack the rogue is just going to keep inflating his numbers by doing wasted damage. Which is one of the weakness of OPs comparison. If the rogue keeps killing 1 hp enemies with sneak attack damage he’s not catching up to the Paladin other than numbers showing up on the dice.

[PhoenixPhyre]

That makes sense, but paladins are usually in a party, so, if the encounter is not a BBEG, the Paladin can just chill and rely on its resource free damage, or maybe throw a Bless, and let the rest of the party manage those encounters, saving is power for when a big threat shows up.

Tangential anecdote, during the final battle of the first long campaign I DMed, it was 3e, the party managed to get a surprise round on the enemy party, and the Paladin killed the enemy Cleric (the BBEG and mastermind of what was happening) with a successful threat to kill (20/20/Hit) on the surprise round.


I think the idea that
1) all BBEGs are solos
2) only BBEGs are threatening
is a little off.

My most challenging encounters, the ones where if the paladin doesn't smite he's doing just barely better than cantrip damage, have always included minions. And rarely have been BBEGs. And my BBEGs have usually involved minions, to boot.

BBEG =/= solo. And solo =/= BBEG. And it's solos (and solos in days where there aren't any other resource-intensive battles) that make paladins look irregularly high-powered.

Don't get me wrong. Spike damage isn't bad. In fact, it's often quite good when there's something on the battlefield that needs to die NOW. I don't want to kill all spike damage. In fact, I wish rogues (the kings of "non-spike damage") had ways to burn resources for damage better. But in an environment where it's all solos in one-encounter-days all the time...nothing can come close to the burn rate of a paladin going all out. And that's both ok (in most cases) and awesome.

Count me in the "no nerf needed here" (at least to base paladins) camp. In fact, I personally think they're one of the touchpoints for what good class design looks like in 5e. They know what they want to do and be and every bit of their mechanics works together to bring that vision to the table. They tightly cohere internally and are only loosely coupled externally (not needing specific races, feats, spells, items, or multiclassing to work properly, but doing better with careful selection of such things). It's only multiclassing that causes issues, and that's multiclassing's fault, not the paladin itself.

[RSP]

Not sure if there’s motivation for comparison, but how does the Bladelock Smites compare?

The SR recharge of slots may be an interesting difference between the LR Pally Smites and resourceless Rogue SAs

[stoutstien]

Not sure if there’s motivation for comparison, but how does the Bladelock Smites compare?

The SR recharge of slots may be an interesting difference between the LR Pally Smites and resourceless Rogue SAs

Only thing really wrong with that is its name.

[Theodoxus]

This hurts the rogue number just as much as the paladin’s if not more at least after one or two the Paladin can quickly realize all he needs is attack the rogue is just going to keep inflating his numbers by doing wasted damage. Which is one of the weakness of OPs comparison. If the rogue keeps killing 1 hp enemies with sneak attack damage he’s not catching up to the Paladin other than numbers showing up on the dice.

Numbers, sure, but effect, not as much, since sneak attack doesn't use resources. A rogue can one shot baddies all day, every day. Heck, even if the enemies had 15 HP, a level 3 Rogue will still one shot them on a sneak some/most? (not a maths guy) of the time, where a 3rd level Paladin using a great weapon would still need to blow a smite more often than not to do the same. Not saying One Punch Man is the playstyle for either class, but rogue would definitely be the way I'd go outside of the weird Cleave rule in the DMG if that is what I wanted to concentrate on.

[Rukelnikov]

I think the idea that
1) all BBEGs are solos
2) only BBEGs are threatening
is a little off.

My most challenging encounters, the ones where if the paladin doesn't smite he's doing just barely better than cantrip damage, have always included minions. And rarely have been BBEGs. And my BBEGs have usually involved minions, to boot.

BBEG =/= solo. And solo =/= BBEG. And it's solos (and solos in days where there aren't any other resource-intensive battles) that make paladins look irregularly high-powered.

Yeah, encounters with many minions are usually the most threatening ones.


Don't get me wrong. Spike damage isn't bad. In fact, it's often quite good when there's something on the battlefield that needs to die NOW. I don't want to kill all spike damage. In fact, I wish rogues (the kings of "non-spike damage") had ways to burn resources for damage better. But in an environment where it's all solos in one-encounter-days all the time...nothing can come close to the burn rate of a paladin going all out. And that's both ok (in most cases) and awesome.

Count me in the "no nerf needed here" (at least to base paladins) camp. In fact, I personally think they're one of the touchpoints for what good class design looks like in 5e. They know what they want to do and be and every bit of their mechanics works together to bring that vision to the table. They tightly cohere internally and are only loosely coupled externally (not needing specific races, feats, spells, items, or multiclassing to work properly, but doing better with careful selection of such things). It's only multiclassing that causes issues, and that's multiclassing's fault, not the paladin itself.

The Paladin itself is not at fault, but multiclassing is above any single class, so the classes have to be designed to fit with the multiclassing rules.

[Oramac]

BBEG =/= solo. And solo =/= BBEG. And it's solos (and solos in days where there aren't any other resource-intensive battles) that make paladins look irregularly high-powered.

Indeed. I've run solo bosses, and I've run group bosses. So long as one plans properly, both are threatening regardless of the party composition. My current group will be fighting a 10 monster boss battle within the next session or two (1 dracolich, 3 necromancer wizards, 6 skeleton mooks) and I fully anticipate that they will win, but that one of them may die.

OTOH, I ran a modified GOO Stone Giant in the last campaign as a solo boss that was one of the most loved fights in the entire campaign.

I suppose my point is: DM prep and planning matter more than a particular character's (potential) spike damage.


Don't get me wrong. Spike damage isn't bad. In fact, it's often quite good when there's something on the battlefield that needs to die NOW. I don't want to kill all spike damage. In fact, I wish rogues (the kings of "non-spike damage") had ways to burn resources for damage better. But in an environment where it's all solos in one-encounter-days all the time...nothing can come close to the burn rate of a paladin going all out. And that's both ok (in most cases) and awesome.

Count me in the "no nerf needed here" (at least to base paladins) camp. In fact, I personally think they're one of the touchpoints for what good class design looks like in 5e. They know what they want to do and be and every bit of their mechanics works together to bring that vision to the table. They tightly cohere internally and are only loosely coupled externally (not needing specific races, feats, spells, items, or multiclassing to work properly, but doing better with careful selection of such things). It's only multiclassing that causes issues, and that's multiclassing's fault, not the paladin itself.

100% agree. Well said.

[Oramac]

The Paladin itself is not at fault, but multiclassing is above any single class, so the classes have to be designed to fit with the multiclassing rules.

Respectfully, I disagree.

The multiclassing rules should be designed to fit the classes. Not the other way around.

[5eNeedsDarksun]

Having played a high level Sorcadin, the answer is unequivocally yes. The pally/sorc multiclass is undoubtedly better at smiting than a pure paladin.

I would also support "smite points", for lack of a better term. Doing so would effectively negate the multiclass shenanigans (however fun they truly are!).

'Better at smiting' does not make a better character; it makes you better at single target melee nova damage. And sure, I'll agree that a high level Paly 6 or 7/ Sorc X is better at Diving Smiting than a full Paly (I'm assuming this is what you mean by Sorcadin, as Paly 2/ Sorc X doesn't have extra attack, so is definitely not better at smiting). But look at what you're giving up. This is a very long build to be better at one aspect. Single class Paly has 3rd level spells at 9 and 4th level spells (including Summon Greater Steed) at 13. Single class Paly also gets Aura of Courage and Improved Divine Smite; Aura of Courage has saved my party's collective bacon on a few occasions, and Improved DS gives you additional damage on every hit. Sorcadin is finally catching up on 4th level spells at 13th (or 14th if you go Paly 7).

And you haven't made any claims about Sorcadins being better than full Sorcerers for good reason; they're not. Giving up 6 or 7 levels on a full caster does not make a better character.

Sure high level Sorcadin makes a good character. It's particularly good in the kind of combat/ adventuring day described by the OP: 1 or 2 big encounters with 1 or 2 big enemies that can be reached in melee fairly easily. Of course if those 1 or 2 enemies have fear auras or fly (say for example Dragons) you might be thinking the single class Paly with the Aura of Courage and/ or the Flying Greater Steed would have been a better choice.

I've never seen anything at my table having played numerous campaigns to the end of tier 3 with Palys and Paly multi-classes that tells me the multi-class trade off to get more Divine Smites is somehow game breaking to the extent that some sort of nerf or rule change is required. This thread, like many others on this site, is about a perceived problem based on a short adventuring day. Further, it's based on a specific type of encounter at mid-high level that allows the character to follow a specific pattern: cast one big concentration spell, then close to melee. Outside of these narrow set of circumstances, this multi-class is a good option, but not a better character.

[PhoenixPhyre]

Respectfully, I disagree.

The multiclassing rules should be designed to fit the classes. Not the other way around.

Especially as a variant rule.

It's the same sort of thing with supposedly PVE-centric MMOs where they'd "fix" PVP balance by mucking with PVE abilities. Those who don't PVP (or multiclass) pay the price for problems caused by PVP (multiclassing).

Fix where the problem lies. Multiclassing causes the problem, so fix multiclassing.

[Rukelnikov]

Respectfully, I disagree.

The multiclassing rules should be designed to fit the classes. Not the other way around.


Especially as a variant rule.

It's the same sort of thing with supposedly PVE-centric MMOs where they'd "fix" PVP balance by mucking with PVE abilities. Those who don't PVP (or multiclass) pay the price for problems caused by PVP (multiclassing).

Fix where the problem lies. Multiclassing causes the problem, so fix multiclassing.

As long as the MCing rules are the same for all classes, then by definition MCing is above individual classes.

Whether that should be the case or not is debatable, but when you consider that the 2 most successful DnD editions ever have been the ones that had level by level MCing, I think that hints at a good chunk of the playerbase liking this style of character building.

[stoutstien]

As long as the MCing rules are the same for all classes, then by definition MCing is above individual classes.

Whether that should be the case or not is debatable, but when you consider that the 2 most successful DnD editions ever have been the ones that had level by level MCing, I think that hints at a good chunk of the playerbase liking this style of character building.

That's not how that works. It's bear rock logic

[Theodoxus]

As long as the MCing rules are the same for all classes, then by definition MCing is above individual classes.

Whether that should be the case or not is debatable, but when you consider that the 2 most successful DnD editions ever have been the ones that had level by level MCing, I think that hints at a good chunk of the playerbase liking this style of character building.

MCing shouldn't be additive. It should provide breadth of ability, not stacking the same ability to god-like ability, and that's what DS does when put on a sorc/warlock/bard chassis. Same problem with EB and sorc metamagic shenanigans.

We know the solution to the problem, the question really is, how much of an issue is it really; how much does it ruin someone's day when faced with it. Is it really worth either adjusting base class abilities, or the multiclassing rules themselves to fix?

And of course, the biggest question, is this really an issue at the table level, or just perception on the whiteboard?

[Psyren]

Respectfully, I disagree.

The multiclassing rules should be designed to fit the classes. Not the other way around.


Especially as a variant rule.

It's the same sort of thing with supposedly PVE-centric MMOs where they'd "fix" PVP balance by mucking with PVE abilities. Those who don't PVP (or multiclass) pay the price for problems caused by PVP (multiclassing).

Fix where the problem lies. Multiclassing causes the problem, so fix multiclassing.

It's both; you can't just approach it from one direction or the other in a vacuum. You need to design multiclassing around the classes, AND design the classes around multiclassing. That includes, having decided on level-by-level multiclassing, making it the best it can be.

The PvP/PvE analogy is good too, because one of the design goals there is to encourage people in one mode to try the other. That requires some degree of parity/continuity between the two. You can't have radical systemic departures between modes.

[Rukelnikov]

MCing shouldn't be additive. It should provide breadth of ability, not stacking the same ability to god-like ability, and that's what DS does when put on a sorc/warlock/bard chassis. Same problem with EB and sorc metamagic shenanigans.

I agree.


We know the solution to the problem, the question really is, how much of an issue is it really; how much does it ruin someone's day when faced with it. Is it really worth either adjusting base class abilities, or the multiclassing rules themselves to fix?

Do we? Do you mean keeping the slots separated for each class? I'm not sure which solution you are thinking of.


And of course, the biggest question, is this really an issue at the table level, or just perception on the whiteboard?

Well, OP characters have been problematic at some points in my group, but never in 5e.

[PhoenixPhyre]

It's both; you can't just approach it from one direction or the other in a vacuum. You need to design multiclassing around the classes, AND design the classes around multiclassing. That includes, having decided on level-by-level multiclassing, making it the best it can be.

The PvP/PvE analogy is good too, because one of the design goals there is to encourage people in one mode to try the other. That requires some degree of parity/continuity between the two. You can't have radical systemic departures between modes.

The only way anyone's ever solved teh PvP/PvE issue is by separating them entirely. As in, you may have the same abilities but the mechanical implementations are completely different and scale differently.

Changing the classes to accommodate multiclassing usually hurts everyone who doesn't multiclass (because it usually includes shoving all the interesting things back several levels) and makes a total lie out of the idea that it's variant or optional. You could solve the whole thing by just having each class say what you get when you multiclass into/out of it. Put that directly in the class's control rather than trying for some janky "global" solution.

But really, the trick is to just not put so much into the global, cross-class-scaling resource pools. Aka spell slots. If smites didn't use spell slots, there'd be no issue here.

Really, I agree with others that multiclassing should always reduce your depth and increase your breadth. A multiclass X/Y should never be as good as a straight class (X + Y) of either class at anything that class is good at. But should be able to do things that the one or the other straight class can't do. Currently, you have paladin multiclasses who are better at smiting AND casting than a straight-class paladin. That's a problem. And fixing it by doing something janky to the paladin just hurts those who want to go straight-class paladin.

Level by level multiclassing is inherently a source of problems.

[Rukelnikov]

Really, I agree with others that multiclassing should always reduce your depth and increase your breadth. A multiclass X/Y should never be as good as a straight class (X + Y) of either class at anything that class is good at. But should be able to do things that the one or the other straight class can't do. Currently, you have paladin multiclasses who are better at smiting AND casting than a straight-class paladin. That's a problem. And fixing it by doing something janky to the paladin just hurts those who want to go straight-class paladin.

Level by level multiclassing is inherently a source of problems.

Reduce? No, it should stall your growth but never reduce.

[stoutstien]

Reduce? No, it should stall your growth but never reduce.

Classes don't have a flat growth rate so you cant have it both ways. If multiclassing doesn't have a reduction in depth in exchange with the gain of extra flexibility then classes don't actually exist anymore.

[Rukelnikov]

Classes don't have a flat growth rate so you cant have it both ways. If multiclassing doesn't have a reduction in depth in exchange with the gain of extra flexibility then classes don't actually exist anymore.

If multiclassing exists classes don't exist anymore, we agree in that.

[False God]

Classes don't have a flat growth rate so you cant have it both ways. If multiclassing doesn't have a reduction in depth in exchange with the gain of extra flexibility then classes don't actually exist anymore.

Wait, are you actually suggesting negative growth for multiclassing? Like, If I'm a Fighter 1 and I want to take Rogue 1, then I should lose something Fighter-related?

[stoutstien]

Wait, are you actually suggesting negative growth for multiclassing? Like, If I'm a Fighter 1 and I want to take Rogue 1, then I should lose something Fighter-related?

Well sort of. You aren't a fighter anymore so why would you get the same features?
If you multiclass then you can't also get X or Y from either class later on. You can't look at level by level as 2 of this and 3 of that because "levels" don't have constant valves in a single class progression nor do they have equal value with other classes.

Take the reduction in features from the multiclassing table and expand it to the whole class.

[PhoenixPhyre]

Reduce? No, it should stall your growth but never reduce.

Reduce relative to taking another level in your original class. Not relative to where you were before you took that next level.

If you have X levels in class A and gain a level (your X + 1'st) and decide to take a level of B (which has Y >= 0 levels), you should
a) be just as good an A as you were at the previous level
b) but worse as an A than someone with X+1 levels in A and Y in B.

But for any total level (X+Y), a multiclassed character should be weaker than a straight class'ed A OR B at things A or B (respectively) are good at.

[Rukelnikov]

Reduce relative to taking another level in your original class. Not relative to where you were before you took that next level.

If you have X levels in class A and gain a level (your X + 1'st) and decide to take a level of B (which has Y >= 0 levels), you should
a) be just as good an A as you were at the previous level
b) but worse as an A than someone with X+1 levels in A and Y in B.

But for any total level (X+Y), a multiclassed character should be weaker than a straight class'ed A OR B at things A or B (respectively) are good at.

I agree, you don't lose more than the opportunity cost by branching out, you don't become actually weaker than you used to be.

[PhoenixPhyre]

I agree, you don't lose more than the opportunity cost by branching out, you don't become actually weaker than you used to be.

Basically. Except opportunity cost needs to be real. And a hard "no synergy" line needs to be drawn. That is, you should never be able to combo Class X abilities and Class Y abilities within the same class to outpace a single classed character of your same total level.

This means axing things like the hexblade's CHA SAD-ness (at least when multiclassed). And either everything drawing on shared spell slots or sharing spell slots. And making sure you can't pick up (or at least can't profit from) armor and weapon proficiencies (the former being the issue) as easily.

My belief is that each class should define how it acts "in multiclassing mode" (so to speak). That is, once you engage multiclassing for a character, you have to go back and decide what your primary class is. That class progresses normally. All "secondary" classes only get rigidly prescribed things, effectively an alternate progression. With explicitly defined "how does this stack" rules.

[Rukelnikov]

Basically. Except opportunity cost needs to be real. And a hard "no synergy" line needs to be drawn. That is, you should never be able to combo Class X abilities and Class Y abilities within the same class to outpace a single classed character of your same total level.

I disagree on the synergy line, the way I see it, if Class A is good at X & Y and Class B is good at X & Z, if you multiclassed you should still be around as good at X as a single classed member of either class, and shouldn't be as good at Y and Z as either.


This means axing things like the hexblade's CHA SAD-ness (at least when multiclassed). And either everything drawing on shared spell slots or sharing spell slots. And making sure you can't pick up (or at least can't profit from) armor and weapon proficiencies (the former being the issue) as easily.

My belief is that each class should define how it acts "in multiclassing mode" (so to speak). That is, once you engage multiclassing for a character, you have to go back and decide what your primary class is. That class progresses normally. All "secondary" classes only get rigidly prescribed things, effectively an alternate progression. With explicitly defined "how does this stack" rules.

I'm strictly against "this works this way if you are single classed and that way if you are multiclass" its such unelegant design that even if it worked better I wouldn't want it.

[PhoenixPhyre]

I disagree on the synergy line, the way I see it, if Class A is good at X & Y and Class B is good at X & Z, if you multiclassed you should still be around as good at X as a single classed member of either class, and shouldn't be as good at Y and Z as either.


Opportunity cost should matter. You should always have to trade off depth for breadth. And it should be overall negative sum. Otherwise multiclassing becomes the default expectation.



I'm strictly against "this works this way if you are single classed and that way if you are multiclass" its such unelegant design that even if it worked better I wouldn't want it.

The other option is to ditch level-by-level multiclassing entirely. Because you can't have a workable multiclass system without that kind of separation and without harming those who want to stay single-classed, as we've seen.

[stoutstien]

I disagree on the synergy line, the way I see it, if Class A is good at X & Y and Class B is good at X & Z, if you multiclassed you should still be around as good at X as a single classed member of either class, and shouldn't be as good at Y and Z as either.



I'm strictly against "this works this way if you are single classed and that way if you are multiclass" its such unelegant design that even if it worked better I wouldn't want it.

So you don't want level by level. You want feature point buy.

[sithlordnergal]

Eh, personally I've always been fine with how 5e and 3.5 multiclassing works. Yes, combos do exist, but those combos can actually make the game more interesting. Especially if you're like me and prefer the build aspect over the character aspect of making PCs. I'll happily spend hours plotting out a build from start to finish, looking for whatever I can to perfect it via feats, multiclassing, spells, ect. Its a lot of fun to see what you can do. Level by level multiclassing is something that allows me to tweak a build to absolute perfection.

On the flip side, I usually give pretty basic character stuff. I give enough backstory to connect to the world and give the DM something to latch onto. I rarely, if ever, bother with their personality. That generally comes through game play, and I find it to be the most boring part of character creation.


That said, if people do feel that multiclassed characters overshadow single classed characters, I would offer a suggestion: Make the higher levels of those single classes better and more enticing.

Look, I know a lot of people love the Cleric. But lets be honest, their high level abilities suck. They get a 1% boost to the chance of having a single use, Long Rest ability to work and some ribbon features until level 16 and 20. And even then, your level 16 ability really depends on your subclass. There is no incentive to remain a high level Cleric, and a Cleric Multiclass can end up being better.

Meanwhile Druids, Bards, and Zealot Barbarians have some really good incentives to remain single classed. Druids get decent abilities at high levels, and if you know you're going to level 20 then Archdruid is insanely strong. Bards have Magical Secrets as their insentive, and Zealot Barbarians are incentivised to stay till level 15 for Rage Beyond Death and Persistent Rage.

[Rukelnikov]

Opportunity cost should matter. You should always have to trade off depth for breadth. And it should be overall negative sum. Otherwise multiclassing becomes the default expectation.

Both Rogue's and Ranger's have great stealth, a MCed Rogue/Ranger shouldn't be any less Stealthy than a single classed one.


The other option is to ditch level-by-level multiclassing entirely. Because you can't have a workable multiclass system without that kind of separation and without harming those who want to stay single-classed, as we've seen.

Not necesarily, we could keep harming those that want to stay single classed :smallbiggrin:

But in all honesty, I don't see why that needs to be the case, if every level was roughly about as good as the last, you could have lbl and not hurt single class characters, the problem is that levels end up having diminishing returns for most noncaster classes.


So you don't want level by level. You want feature point buy.

Exactly, you get 1 point per level which you can spend in a class. And BTW I've openly said many times that if DnD was point buy I'd be very happy, don't see it happening any time soon though.


That said, if people do feel that multiclassed characters overshadow single classed characters, I would offer a suggestion: Make the higher levels of those single classes better and more enticing.

Yup

[PhoenixPhyre]

Exactly, you get 1 point per level which you can spend in a class.

Except that class levels don't have constant value, they have context-dependent value. So costing them all the same shatters everything at a root level.

It's the same problem with feats (although feats have a lower scope). Something like PAM has the same "cost" (one ASI/feat slot) as something like Actor. But radically different value. And the value is different depending on who is looking.

A full point-buy system would require having varying weights. And sometimes non-linear weights--taking a next "level" of X might cost 1 point if you don't have any points in it or might cost N points if you already have some points in it. Point-buy systems also require heavy DM involvement at every step of character creation, as they have to go through and prune the tree and remove bad combinations (where "bad" is a function of the game they're trying to create). All in all, point-buy works...but has to be built that way from the ground up. And generally has other consequences.

On the flip side, a real class-based system does have radically reduced "build freedom". It says "ok, you've started in this class, now you have to continue" and bundles features together. That's absolutely a consequence. But in return, you can actually produce an out-of-the-box working game where all the options are balanced within reason and each one is guaranteed to produce a thematically coherent, game-genre-and-style-fitting character (unless the player takes intentional action otherwise). Those are things that point-buy doesn't do.

Class based also does vertical progression generally better because of the constraints. While in principle you can turn a low-power GURPS character into a high-power one over time, the core of the system fights you doing so. On the flip side, point-buy does do horizontal and cherry-picked progression better. But often falls into broken states (in either direction) due to interactions.

Point buy is also tons more work to master. Because at every point you need to know the entire state of all the possible options and all their interactions.

But most importantly, you can't mix the two effectively. Not without fracturing both systems. Because fundamentally they're different models.



That said, if people do feel that multiclassed characters overshadow single classed characters, I would offer a suggestion: Make the higher levels of those single classes better and more enticing.

At the cost of having to rebalance the entire game. And hurting those, like me, who want everyone to be scale more like the cleric and less like the wizard. Progression should be really fast during T1, slower but still measurable during T2, leveling off and broadening in T3, and more or less flat in T4. More of a logarithmic curve rather than a linear one or especially a power-law (quadratic, etc) one.

Personally, I think that of the primary casters, the cleric and sorcerer as presented in the PHB are the proper model.

[Rukelnikov]

Except that class levels don't have constant value, they have context-dependent value. So costing them all the same shatters everything at a root level.

It's the same problem with feats (although feats have a lower scope). Something like PAM has the same "cost" (one ASI/feat slot) as something like Actor. But radically different value. And the value is different depending on who is looking.

Sure PAM isn't worth the same for a Frontliner Zealot than for a Face Bard, same with Actor, why is that a problem?


On the flip side, a real class-based system does have radically reduced "build freedom". It says "ok, you've started in this class, now you have to continue" and bundles features together. That's absolutely a consequence. But in return, you can actually produce an out-of-the-box working game where all the options are balanced within reason and each one is guaranteed to produce a thematically coherent, game-genre-and-style-fitting character (unless the player takes intentional action otherwise). Those are things that point-buy doesn't do.

Only as long as you don't give more customization options, because by your writing Feats would still generate this "problem".


Class based also does vertical progression generally better because of the constraints. While in principle you can turn a low-power GURPS character into a high-power one over time, the core of the system fights you doing so. On the flip side, point-buy does do horizontal and cherry-picked progression better. But often falls into broken states (in either direction) due to interactions.

I'd argue PB does vertical AND horizontal better, my main gripe with DnD is how fast characters grow, and the other option is characters staying static for too long, IMO PB does both things better.


But most importantly, you can't mix the two effectively. Not without fracturing both systems. Because fundamentally they're different models.

I don't think that's the case, 3e's UA Generic Classes is a mix of both and worked pretty well.


At the cost of having to rebalance the entire game. And hurting those, like me, who want everyone to be scale more like the cleric and less like the wizard. Progression should be really fast during T1, slower but still measurable during T2, leveling off and broadening in T3, and more or less flat in T4. More of a logarithmic curve rather than a linear one or especially a power-law (quadratic, etc) one.

I'd be ok with fast T1, and then linear growth, which would make the percentage growth be closer to a logarithmic curve.


Personally, I think that of the primary casters, the cleric and sorcerer as presented in the PHB are the proper model.

I think it doesn't get any better than the Warlock in 5e, at least till lvl 10, they improve their max power spells at the same pace as other casters but are limited in the uses they have so they can't exploit lvl 1 spells as the others, and get a cool new toy at every or almost every level.

My problem with Clerics, Sorcerers, and all full casters except for the Warlock is that they grow in power too fast.

I think full casters should get spell levels slower, or do something like 3e's Epic Magic or 5e Warlock spells, you get access to more powerful magics, but getting more uses takes a looong time.

[Theodoxus]

Do we? Do you mean keeping the slots separated for each class? I'm not sure which solution you are thinking of.

Sorry, I meant taking the problematic options and making them abilities that level with class level instead of spells. So, DS dice and EB being a baseline Warlock ability that doesn't scale like cantrips, but more like Invocations.

One possible solution to the Paladin/full caster mc is to state in the multiclassing section that any caster combination uses the worse of the two spell slot progression.

So, a 3rd level Sorcerer that has full progression that then multiclasses into Paladin at 4th level has the progression of a 4th level Paladin. They don't lose their 2nd level Sorcerer spells, but they do lose the spell slots.

Likewise, a 3rd level Paladin that has 1/2 progression that then multiclasses into Sorcerer at 4th level also has the progression of a 4th level Paladin.

[Rukelnikov]

Sorry, I meant taking the problematic options and making them abilities that level with class level instead of spells. So, DS dice and EB being a baseline Warlock ability that doesn't scale like cantrips, but more like Invocations.

I'd be fine with that.


One possible solution to the Paladin/full caster mc is to state in the multiclassing section that any caster combination uses the worse of the two spell slot progression.

So, a 3rd level Sorcerer that has full progression that then multiclasses into Paladin at 4th level has the progression of a 4th level Paladin. They don't lose their 2nd level Sorcerer spells, but they do lose the spell slots.

Likewise, a 3rd level Paladin that has 1/2 progression that then multiclasses into Sorcerer at 4th level also has the progression of a 4th level Paladin.

This runs into "I used to be able cast fireball, but then I took a level of Paladin", which is something I don't like, mainly because I don't see how that makes sense.

[Theodoxus]

Hmm... I mean, I get the sentiment. I also think that taking a Paladin oath should mean something more than "oh, I have all these spell slots, hey look ma, I'm like a 10th level Paladin at 5th!"

Its like taking a mini page from the 1E Dual Class book. You don't lose ALL your abilities when you dual class from Sorcerer to Paladin until you get to Sorc+1, but you do lose some of your oomph until your Paladin level grants you back the spell slots.

I didn't run a comparison on how much of a difference it would be at each multiclass decision point, and I'm running out to dinner so can't do it now - but I will, if no one else does. I suspect it isn't really THAT major of a thing unless you're MCing into Paladin at like 9th+ level.

[Psyren]

The only way anyone's ever solved teh PvP/PvE issue is by separating them entirely. As in, you may have the same abilities but the mechanical implementations are completely different and scale differently.

"Separating," yes. "Entirely," no. Unless you have completely different abilities and gear for PvE and PvP, you haven't separated anything entirely.



Changing the classes to accommodate multiclassing usually hurts everyone who doesn't multiclass (because it usually includes shoving all the interesting things back several levels) and makes a total lie out of the idea that it's variant or optional. You could solve the whole thing by just having each class say what you get when you multiclass into/out of it. Put that directly in the class's control rather than trying for some janky "global" solution.

But really, the trick is to just not put so much into the global, cross-class-scaling resource pools. Aka spell slots. If smites didn't use spell slots, there'd be no issue here.

There are plenty of optimal straight-class builds to go along with the multiclass ones. This is the healthiest multiclassing in D&D has ever been, again putting 4e aside which was just a completely different game. Moreover, you don't have to multiclass paladins for smite to crush sneak attack. Nerfing it to 1/turn actually did help with that.


Currently, you have paladin multiclasses who are better at smiting AND casting than a straight-class paladin. That's a problem. And fixing it by doing something janky to the paladin just hurts those who want to go straight-class paladin.

This I DO agree with you on. But I don't think fixing it requires "doing something janky to the paladin." I think it's possible to buff straight-class paladin smites in a way that won't also buff multiclass ones.


Level by level multiclassing is inherently a source of problems.

I don't disagree with this either, but I think you're too quick to overlook the benefits of level-by-level multiclassing too. There's a reason it's endured as well as it has.

[Witty Username]

It actually works for spells, melee or ranged attacks - anything with an attack roll. The only limitation is that the rogue is spending any time they would have used to move searching for that weak spot in the target's defenses to improve their chance to hit.

Also, it reduces your speed, but doesn't prevent movement. So a rogue can use steady aim while mounted. If that is your jam.

[Witty Username]

At the cost of having to rebalance the entire game. And hurting those, like me, who want everyone to be scale more like the cleric and less like the wizard.

I am not sure I get the distinction, cleric has quadratic scaling like every other caster, as far as I can tell.

What your describing sounds closer to barbarian than cleric?

[DracoKnight]

Perhaps the OneD&D PHB (and DMG/MM) need more prominent DM advice for extending the Adventuring Day.

Or, maybe… just let go of the Adventuring Day as a balancing concept.

Pathfinder 2e’s encounter design works whether you have 1 encounter in a day or 12. They designed the system to be balanced per encounter, rather than per day. I think that’s much more useful as a design goal, especially having seen now for almost 10 years how 5e actually gets played.

[stoutstien]

Or, maybe… just let go of the Adventuring Day as a balancing concept.

Pathfinder 2e’s encounter design works whether you have 1 encounter in a day or 12. They designed the system to be balanced per encounter, rather than per day. I think that’s much more useful as a design goal, especially having seen now for almost 10 years how 5e actually gets played.

Pf2e went down the micro balance rabbit hole.

[False God]

Or, maybe… just let go of the Adventuring Day as a balancing concept.

Pathfinder 2e’s encounter design works whether you have 1 encounter in a day or 12. They designed the system to be balanced per encounter, rather than per day. I think that’s much more useful as a design goal, especially having seen now for almost 10 years how 5e actually gets played.

This was 4E's approach, it also provided XP rates for social and exploration encounters, as well as provided numerous social and exploration-related powers.

It was WONDERFUL.

[DracoKnight]

Pf2e went down the micro balance rabbit hole.

And as a GM it runs so smoothly.


This was 4E's approach, it also provided XP rates for social and exploration encounters, as well as provided numerous social and exploration-related powers.

It was WONDERFUL.

It IS wonderful in PF2. It also helps that every level is attained after 1,000 XP. The XP yielded by an encounter is based on the characters’ level compared to the monsters’ level. It… f— i wanted to cry cuz it just *works* compared to the CR system.

[Rukelnikov]

It IS wonderful in PF2. It also helps that every level is attained after 1,000 XP. The XP yielded by an encounter is based on the characters’ level compared to the monsters’ level. It… f— i wanted to cry cuz it just *works* compared to the CR system.

That's how the original CR system worked, you had to compare the level of the party to the CR of the encounter, glad to have left that behind tbh

[DracoKnight]

That's how the original CR system worked, you had to compare the level of the party to the CR of the encounter, glad to have left that behind tbh

Well, the current version doesn’t work.

The way PF2 does it is super easy. I can build a challenging encounter in 5 minutes and know how much of a threat it’ll pose my party.

But this isn’t the PF forum. I’m not here to sing the praises of PF2 over 5e. I like both. I’m just saying that the Adventuring Day as a concept is holding 5e design back and should be done away with.

[Rukelnikov]

Well, the current version doesn’t work.

The way PF2 does it is super easy. I can build a challenging encounter in 5 minutes and know how much of a threat it’ll pose my party.

But this isn’t the PF forum. I’m not here to sing the praises of PF2 over 5e. I like both. I’m just saying that the Adventuring Day as a concept is holding 5e design back and should be done away with.

I agree, the adventuring day is not representative of how my group plays, and I get the impression its not representative of how the majority plays, it should be done away with, and let encounters have more lasting impact, however seeing the changes made to the long rest in 5.5 I doubt they have any plans of doing away with it.

[DracoKnight]

I agree, the adventuring day is not representative of how my group plays, and I get the impression its not representative of how the majority plays, it should be done away with, and let encounters have more lasting impact, however seeing the changes made to the long rest in 5.5 I doubt they have any plans of doing away with it.

It’s certainly never been how *I’ve* run either. I wish that the designers would go back to the drawing board for it, but I fear you’re right.

[stoutstien]

And as a GM it runs so smoothly.



It IS wonderful in PF2. It also helps that every level is attained after 1,000 XP. The XP yielded by an encounter is based on the characters’ level compared to the monsters’ level. It… f— i wanted to cry cuz it just *works* compared to the CR system.

Eh it runs smoothly because it's hollow. The options are surface level so of course it's easy to predict. It's 4e with a load of false depth.

[Rukelnikov]

Eh it runs smoothly because it's hollow. The options are surface level so of course it's easy to predict. It's 4e with a load of false depth.

I haven't played PF2, but tbh, the bolded part is the reason, I read the manual, and it seemed to be 4e.

[Tanarii]

Well, the current version doesn’t work.

The way PF2 does it is super easy. I can build a challenging encounter in 5 minutes and know how much of a threat it’ll pose my party.

But this isn’t the PF forum. I’m not here to sing the praises of PF2 over 5e. I like both. I’m just saying that the Adventuring Day as a concept is holding 5e design back and should be done away with.Iv e been reading PF2e but haven't gotten that far yet.

But if that's the case I'm very disappointed. Because I can't see how martials are balanced with casters at all. I've been assuming while reading classes that they're balanced across casters having limited resources across an adventuring day, but if that's not the case then it looks like PF2e vaunted balance goes right out the window.

[PhoenixPhyre]

My personal style is to ignore the adventuring day, the CR/encounter building guidelines and just let the encounters flow according to the needs of the story. CR and the adventuring day guidelines are not actually system-expected balancing criteria. The devs have confirmed that they didn't build around those numbers; those were post-hoc measurements of what their test parties could normally do, with some padding. They're there as helps for new DMs who aren't confident and don't want to TPK their parties. That's all. CR serves as a first-run filter to cut down the "normal opponents" list from huge down to smaller. The important things are
a) not laser focusing on inter-person balance. As long as everyone has a chance to shine at something, "balanced" combats aren't necessary at all. Exactly what this means is table dependent.
b) variety. Some sessions/"days" (periods between resets) have lots of encounters, some have few. Some encounters have hordes of little stuff, others have one big things, and yet others have a boss and minions.
c) a cooperative attitude at the table. Rarely does comparing PCs to PCs actually benefit anyone.

But, you know, that's just my opinion.

I don't like PF2e's style because it pigeonholes you really strongly. If goblins were a valid enemy at level 1, they're not by level 3 or 4, even in large groups. Which really plays merry hob with having thematic campaigns and coherent worldbuilding. By the time you hit level 20 you're basically ignoring anything smaller than an adult dragon. Which means progression involves murdering your way through rarer and rarer species. Which means either those are way more common than makes sense for most worlds (how do the small folk survive?) or there aren't many adventurers (so that there's still those rare monsters left). But, you know, that's just my opinion.

[stoutstien]

Iv e been reading PF2e but haven't gotten that far yet.

But if that's the case I'm very disappointed. Because I can't see how martials are balanced with casters at all. I've been assuming while reading classes that they're balanced across casters having limited resources across an adventuring day, but if that's not the case then it looks like PF2e vaunted balance goes right out the window.

It's the opposite actually. Once you dig in it's basically "balanced" to the hilt with little room for changes or variants. Assuming the PC followed the prescribed feat tree(s) for the giving action flow chart they picked.

The game is hardwired across the board so you can't look at Individual components.

[DracoKnight]

I haven't played PF2, but tbh, the bolded part is the reason, I read the manual, and it seemed to be 4e.

If you haven’t played it, I do recommend you try it. Give the Beginner’s Box a go. Part of it does read like 4e… but like… parts of 5e do too. The Warlock is built like a 4e class. You have your At Wills (cantrips, usually EB), your Encounter Powers (Pact Magic) and your Daily Powers (the Invocations that give you castings of specific spells 1/day, and your Mystic Arcanum). 4e was not a bad system. It was maybe a poor system for capturing “D&D.” But it’s a good system on its own.

I don’t think it’s virtuous to ignore the stronger design ideas in a system that ran combat well, because the overall package was poorly received. Artists, writers, and designers should take inspiration wherever they can find a good idea. Honestly, 5e would probably be a stronger system if there was a little more 4e in it.

And I say that as someone who loves both. 5e was my first TTRPG. I’ve only played a few sessions of 4e but it was a blast. And I’ve only been playing PF2 for a couple months, it’s genuinely some of the most fun I’ve had at the table. Idk. Maybe it’s not to everyone’s taste, but i think it’s worth giving it a shot to know for sure. Maybe you’ll like it, maybe you won’t.

[Rukelnikov]

If you haven’t played it, I do recommend you try it. Give the Beginner’s Box a go. Part of it does read like 4e… but like… parts of 5e do too. The Warlock is built like a 4e class. You have your At Wills (cantrips, usually EB), your Encounter Powers (Pact Magic) and your Daily Powers (the Invocations that give you castings of specific spells 1/day, and your Mystic Arcanum). 4e was not a bad system. It was maybe a poor system for capturing “D&D.” But it’s a good system on its own.

I don’t think it’s virtuous to ignore the stronger design ideas in a system that ran combat well, because the overall package was poorly received. Artists, writers, and designers should take inspiration wherever they can find a good idea. Honestly, 5e would probably be a stronger system if there was a little more 4e in it.

And I say that as someone who loves both. 5e was my first TTRPG. I’ve only played a few sessions of 4e but it was a blast. And I’ve only been playing PF2 for a couple months, it’s genuinely some of the most fun I’ve had at the table. Idk. Maybe it’s not to everyone’s taste, but i think it’s worth giving it a shot to know for sure. Maybe you’ll like it, maybe you won’t.

I'm glad its good for your group, but I don't think mine will give it a try, we played about 3 or 4 sessions of 4e back in the day and never touched it again, plus we're not playing much lately so I'd rather go for something that seems more interesting.

I'd like to play a CRPG with that system though.

[Amechra]

Now I’m curious how much BA off hand attacks aids Rogues in ensuring a SA once per round over ranged Rogues…

I saw this while I was at work, and I got to thinking about it. Let's go over two versions of this question:


The ranged Rogue is using a shortbow, while the melee Rogue is using a pair of short swords. Giving the ranged guy Crossbow Expert and a hand crossbow would make the answer to this question trivial.
In version 1, the Rogue has the ability to spend their bonus action to reliably give themselves Advantage on an attack — either we're a pre-Tasha's Rogue in an area with plenty of cover to Hide behind, or we're a post-Tasha's Rogue who can just Steady Aim to their heart's content.
In version 2, the Rogue can't reliably use their bonus action to give Advantage — let's say that the ranged rogue had to BA disengage in order to 23 skidoo their way away from someone scary.
In both versions, the melee Rogue doesn't have a source of advantage to their attack rolls — for simplicity, they're attacking someone in melee with an ally. This is really just a simplifying assumption, since I don't want to spend all afternoon working out the different permutations. :smallwink:
I'm going to ignore crits, because that sounds like a bunch of work and I don't want to open Excel at the moment. :smalltongue:


Version 1:
If both rogues have X sneak attack dice, the same Dexterity modifier D, and the (non-advantage) chance that the Rogue hits their target is H (a number between 0.05 and 0.95), we have a pair of formulas for expected damage.


Ranged Rogue: H*(2-H)*((X+1)*3.5+D)
Melee Rogue: H*(7+D) + H*(2-H)*(X*3.5)


You might notice that there's a H*(2-H) in both formulas — that's because, in both cases, we're interested in the probability of hitting at least once with two attacks. Canceling stuff out and simplifying, we're left with the following inequality:


The Melee Rogue has the advantage when H*(3.5+D) > D.


This works out to a slight advantage for the melee Rogue if your to-hit is already pretty good, which makes sense — advantage helps you less and less as you become more accurate, so the higher base damage starts to dominate.

Version 2:
This time around, the equations are a little less balanced:


Ranged Rogue: H*((X+1)*3.5+D)
Melee Rogue: H*(7+D) + H*(2-H)*(X*3.5)


Canceling and simplifying, we get...


The Melee Rogue gets H*(3.5 + (1-H)*(X*3.5)) bonus expected damage.


That works out to the extra base damage from the off-hand attack, plus ~0.2 to ~0.9 extra expected damage per sneak attack die (depending on accuracy). Not too shabby!

...

I hope this answered your question!

[sithlordnergal]

At the cost of having to rebalance the entire game. And hurting those, like me, who want everyone to be scale more like the cleric and less like the wizard. Progression should be really fast during T1, slower but still measurable during T2, leveling off and broadening in T3, and more or less flat in T4. More of a logarithmic curve rather than a linear one or especially a power-law (quadratic, etc) one.

Personally, I think that of the primary casters, the cleric and sorcerer as presented in the PHB are the proper model.

I don't think you would need to rebalance the entire game. If you look at multiclass builds, they generally come in two varieties:

The first is just a dip. Which that can't really be fixed without removing multiclassing entirely. Even if you put restrictions, such as only being able to use the weakest armor/weapon proficiencies of your two classes to prevent wizards in full plate, you'd still builds that dip into other classes for an edge. Dips are always gonna happen, no matter what. Only way to get rid of them is to get rid of multiclassing, which is something I'm against.

The second are proper multiclasses, things like the Soradin, or the Fighter/Rogue. Usually those multiclasses have to reach at least level 10 before they start to outperform strait classes, and generally you play a straight, single class for the majority of the game. They can grow stronger than straight classes in T3 and T4, and from experience I can confirm that Soradin is insanely strong in T3. As such, you'd only need to look at T3 and T4, which several classes need a rework at that point anyway.

As for how strong a class is...I feel like the fundamental power curve we each want is fundamentally opposed. Maybe its cause I started in 3.5, but when I look at a high level class, I prefer the 3.5 power scale. Hence why I feel like all classes should scale more like the Wizard and Druid, where you do become exponentially stronger, and not like the Cleric where the kind of flatline in terms of power.

[PhoenixPhyre]

I don't think you would need to rebalance the entire game. If you look at multiclass builds, they generally come in two varieties:

The first is just a dip. Which that can't really be fixed without removing multiclassing entirely. Even if you put restrictions, such as only being able to use the weakest armor/weapon proficiencies of your two classes to prevent wizards in full plate, you'd still builds that dip into other classes for an edge. Dips are always gonna happen, no matter what. Only way to get rid of them is to get rid of multiclassing, which is something I'm against.

The second are proper multiclasses, things like the Soradin, or the Fighter/Rogue. Usually those multiclasses have to reach at least level 10 before they start to outperform strait classes, and generally you play a straight, single class for the majority of the game. They can grow stronger than straight classes in T3 and T4, and from experience I can confirm that Soradin is insanely strong in T3. As such, you'd only need to look at T3 and T4, which several classes need a rework at that point anyway.

As for how strong a class is...I feel like the fundamental power curve we each want is fundamentally opposed. Maybe its cause I started in 3.5, but when I look at a high level class, I prefer the 3.5 power scale. Hence why I feel like all classes should scale more like the Wizard and Druid, where you do become exponentially stronger, and not like the Cleric where the kind of flatline in terms of power.

Dips fall into one of two categories--not worth worrying about (most of them) and broken because there's a stupid feature (generally a binary switch like "use X stat for Y ability" or "gain proficiency in X"). The second class includes wizards in armor, SAD-paladins via hexblade, etc. The first case doesn't need solving; the second can be solved by a few simple restrictions.

As for power curves...yeah. We disagree. My problem with exponential scaling is that worlds simply fall apart. No coherent world can withstand that kind of scaling. It's the superhero/shonen anime problem on steroids. Not only that, the system itself really doesn't handle it gracefully at all. You end up having to contort your scenario, encounter, and monster designs tremendously to accommodate, which dramatically increases the chances of things going sideways and also increases the DM load. It also demands obvious magic, since "bounded" concepts can't (by definition) keep up with exponentially-scaling "unbounded" concepts. And "does magic" is an unbounded concept.

[sithlordnergal]

Dips fall into one of two categories--not worth worrying about (most of them) and broken because there's a stupid feature (generally a binary switch like "use X stat for Y ability" or "gain proficiency in X"). The second class includes wizards in armor, SAD-paladins via hexblade, etc. The first case doesn't need solving; the second can be solved by a few simple restrictions.

True, not all dips are the same. Though I don't think you'd be able to fix the broken ones via restrictions alone, cause all that would do is move the goal posts. Optimizers such as myself are gonna optimize, and we're gonna find the broken combos even with restrictions. Its just what we like to do, and it makes for some fun thought exercises.




As for power curves...yeah. We disagree. My problem with exponential scaling is that worlds simply fall apart. No coherent world can withstand that kind of scaling. It's the superhero/shonen anime problem on steroids. Not only that, the system itself really doesn't handle it gracefully at all. You end up having to contort your scenario, encounter, and monster designs tremendously to accommodate, which dramatically increases the chances of things going sideways and also increases the DM load. It also demands obvious magic, since "bounded" concepts can't (by definition) keep up with exponentially-scaling "unbounded" concepts. And "does magic" is an unbounded concept.

Yeah, where as I don't see why a world would fall apart from that level of power. I also find that the system works fine when dealing with that level of power. I've never had to contort scenarios, encounters, or monster designs to deal with high power, and my encounters always work fine. Though I do admit that it does take more effort to build an encounter for a high power party than a low power one. I can't just toss down 6 Goblins and call it a day.

As for obvious magic...yes and no? I tend to restrict my NPCs to only being able to do things the players can do. It helps the world remain consistent. Plus it shows players they could eventually start experimenting with their own high power stuff. It also means that if an NPC can do it, a PC will be able to do it when they get strong enough.

It also lets me hand out feats to NPCs without players getting annoyed cause they know if they can do it, so can the NPC.

[PhoenixPhyre]

True, not all dips are the same. Though I don't think you'd be able to fix the broken ones via restrictions alone, cause all that would do is move the goal posts. Optimizers such as myself are gonna optimize, and we're gonna find the broken combos even with restrictions. Its just what we like to do, and it makes for some fun thought exercises.


I'm measuring vs an absolute standard, not a relative one. So dips that stay in the "normal" range aren't a problem. And the ones that don't are actually few and far between.



Yeah, where as I don't see why a world would fall apart from that level of power. I also find that the system works fine when dealing with that level of power. I've never had to contort scenarios, encounters, or monster designs to deal with high power, and my encounters always work fine. Though I do admit that it does take more effort to build an encounter for a high power party than a low power one. I can't just toss down 6 Goblins and call it a day.

As for obvious magic...yes and no? I tend to restrict my NPCs to only being able to do things the players can do. It helps the world remain consistent. Plus it shows players they could eventually start experimenting with their own high power stuff. It also means that if an NPC can do it, a PC will be able to do it when they get strong enough.

It also lets me hand out feats to NPCs without players getting annoyed cause they know if they can do it, so can the NPC.

High level T1 play in 3.5 is "has to face things with CRs in the 30+ range to be challenged". That kind of power from a worldbuilding stand point should be super rare. Like...unique. Yet to challenge them, you need 6+ of them in a day...Plus, if there are these super-high-power creatures around...why hasn't the world already fallen apart? Oh, because there are other super-powered individuals...so why are there smaller problems? You end up writing yourself into holes that require you to just flat ignore the existence of things and hand all the NPCs the idiot ball most of the time.

Plus you need to custom build all those monsters, since no stock monsters are even remotely threats. And that dramatically increases the load. And raises the big questions about reifying classes and levels and all the things involved in that (how do monsters know about their available options?). And to answer those, you basically have to assume that the world runs by isekai logic, where everyone knows the rules and has a UI showing all their abilities, levels, and choices at each time they level up. Which, frankly, makes for incoherent worlds. Fun in a throw-away, but not something that "might could be real", which is what I want.

Worlds require a certain amount of stability to function. The power of an exponential-scaling class doesn't allow that, fictionally. So you have to suspend any kind of world logic and run by superhero logic, where the destroyed cities from casual fights get fixed up in a couple days (by the next episode).

[Rukelnikov]

Yeah, where as I don't see why a world would fall apart from that level of power. I also find that the system works fine when dealing with that level of power. I've never had to contort scenarios, encounters, or monster designs to deal with high power, and my encounters always work fine. Though I do admit that it does take more effort to build an encounter for a high power party than a low power one. I can't just toss down 6 Goblins and call it a day.

The problem is not making encounters, the DM can always make encounters challenging whether PCs are lvl 1 or 30, the thing is settings break. As PP explained a couple posts ago, the ammount of high level cretures that need to inhabit such a world, makes it hard to believe that the low level creatures (like human commoners) could exist somewhat normally.

[Witty Username]

The problem is not making encounters, the DM can always make encounters challenging whether PCs are lvl 1 or 30, the thing is settings break. As PP explained a couple posts ago, the ammount of high level cretures that need to inhabit such a world, makes it hard to believe that the low level creatures (like human commoners) could exist somewhat normally.

Isnt this mostly a solvable problem via planer travel, most high level adventurers I am aware of involve a trek through hell or the abyss (drawing of my memory of previous editions, as I thing 5e only has one module that goes beyond about 10th level).

D&Ds worlds tend to be siloed with a living world, divine realms and nighmare dimensions, which allows for adventurers to involve lots of monsters without breaking the world stuff. And stuff like Elder Evils from 3.5 has flavors of world ending events to use as high level adventurers.
--
In any event, giving martials featurs past level 10 to make multiclassing an actual choice isn't going to change the CR needs of encounters appreciably.
And caster's are often weaker because of multiclassing rather than stronger, outside of bad for gameplay interations related to sorcerer combos.

[Theodoxus]

Isnt this mostly a solvable problem via planer travel, most high level adventurers I am aware of involve a trek through hell or the abyss (drawing of my memory of previous editions, as I thing 5e only has one module that goes beyond about 10th level).

D&Ds worlds tend to be siloed with a living world, divine realms and nighmare dimensions, which allows for adventurers to involve lots of monsters without breaking the world stuff. And stuff like Elder Evils from 3.5 has flavors of world ending events to use as high level adventurers.
--
In any event, giving martials featurs past level 10 to make multiclassing an actual choice isn't going to change the CR needs of encounters appreciably.
And caster's are often weaker because of multiclassing rather than stronger, outside of bad for gameplay interations related to sorcerer combos.

It can be. Though for me, the easier solution was to limit character growth to 12th level and 6th+ level spells to be ritually cast only.

Then again, I took a lot of inspiration from Dark Sun. I like my BBEG to be using week long rituals behind the scenes that took years to set up. Reality altering spells like Wish aren't some dumb monkey paw DM shenanigans; when it takes a day to cast, and you manage to get it off, it's going to work. Quick and dirty Wishes, like from djinn or rings, sure, muck that up.

I like my kaiju to be rare, and if they show up, it's a literal world event, not one of 6 in a day. My world's kingdoms are very stable, so when one decides to go to war, there's a very good reason for it, and their neighbors will work hard on diplomacy to stop it from escalating. High* level PCs are instrumental in either helping or hurting with that. My players run the gamut of murderhobos to diplomats, so getting them all on the same page is one of the things I enjoy - regardless of where the party ultimately lands on.

I try to keep the verisimilitude of the world in mind when generating plot points for a campaign. In my current campaign, the players are actively working to move the world from a stable and one might say, sterile, 2nd Age to a more robust 3rd Age. The gods are running down on divine power, and one of two will come out as the sole guardian of the 3rd Age. The players choices will be the primary deciders of who comes out on top. It's 'Two Wolves' on a planetary and cosmological scale. And it really wouldn't work if level 20 capabilities and 9th level spells were common place.

[Amechra]

My world's kingdoms are very stable, so when one decides to go to war, there's a very good reason for it

[...]

verisimilitude

These two words in conjunction feel... off.

Your kingdoms should be going to war all the time, because that's what you get when the guys who're running everything are partially "graded" on how good they are at war (assuming that your kingdoms are the standard "run by military aristocrats" affairs). And if that isn't the case, there should at least be some border skirmishes and squabbling that gives you an answer to the question of "where do player characters with the Soldier background come from?".

[Tanarii]

These two words in conjunction feel... off.

Your kingdoms should be going to war all the time, because that's what you get when the guys who're running everything are partially "graded" on how good they are at war (assuming that your kingdoms are the standard "run by military aristocrats" affairs). And if that isn't the case, there should at least be some border skirmishes and squabbling that gives you an answer to the question of "where do player characters with the Soldier background come from?".
Lol yeah nation-states going to war somewhere should be the norm. The only exception is when there is a Pax enforced by a huge empire, and even then it just feels peaceful to the core area's inhabitants, while wars still happen at and over the border area, usually with the empire crushing the opposition and incorporating it until it overreaches, then the opposite. This should hold regardless of time frame and genre of the setting.

Even Dark Sun can be seen as a case of mutually assured destruction stand-off, with small proxy conflicts happening periodically, at the start of the campaign. And then of course if the DM follows the meta-plot it all goes to hell.

[PhoenixPhyre]

Isnt this mostly a solvable problem via planer travel, most high level adventurers I am aware of involve a trek through hell or the abyss (drawing of my memory of previous editions, as I thing 5e only has one module that goes beyond about 10th level).

D&Ds worlds tend to be siloed with a living world, divine realms and nighmare dimensions, which allows for adventurers to involve lots of monsters without breaking the world stuff. And stuff like Elder Evils from 3.5 has flavors of world ending events to use as high level adventurers.

To me, that whole "at high levels you go out into the planes" thing smacks of a video game world with leveled zones. It means you can't have campaigns that go the full range with a consistent environment, you must go somewhere where you're back to being the little fry again. Which tells me that you're not fixing the problem, you're just avoiding it by doing a reset. And even then, there are only so many arch devils out there.

It also means you can't have planar adventures early on, which means those areas get wasted.

I much prefer a model where you can slip into another plane and adventure there for a while even at low levels. Find a fairie ring or a random portal and walk through it and not get squished by super OP monsters. Or where you can go the entire time in a single "zone" (which might reach most of a continent). You can still face things of import, things that threaten the world, but those should be the exceptions, the end goal, not every-day fodder. If you have to chow down on 6 demon princes in a day to feel threatened at all, the world starts getting really really shaky.

----------

As to verisimilitude and wars and things--fantasy worlds are not the real world. There's no reason why fantasy kingdoms (and other forms of government) need to follow the western european model (usually distorted anyway). Especially with people with substantial (even if not godlike) power floating around. For example, my setting has a region (the primary play area) that's mostly at peace internally despite being made of nations with very disparate attitudes. Why? In part because the flames that do get started get stomped out by passing adventurers (ie campaigns), and then the existing, "retired" adventurers (who have built up significant political influence despite not being able to take on the world singlehandedly or anything) have made it very clear that they'll dust off their gear and get personally involved if people start anything major. They don't interfere generally, but when you've got several groups of high-power (relative to the common groups) people and they have friends in high places (both governmentally and, you know, flights of friendly dragons who don't want their peace disrupted), the high level stuff tends to stay fairly stable. Doesn't stop there from being reasons to adventure or societal change, but does mean that things mostly muddle along.

For some reason, my parties have been really unanimous on "no war, war is bad" throughout the years. And since their characters stay behind[1] when the campaigns end, that shapes the world. In a setting where even a mid T2 adventurer is among the upper crust in combat power and has started to accumulate renown and influence, that is natural. But they can't rule because they're still vulnerable to the common knife in the dark or the pitchforks and torches of the mob. That whole thing breaks down in a world where higher level people can basically ignore anyone below them and only have to worry about the ones above them.

Personally, I like bounded accuracy as a concept. And wish they'd gone more into it and not allowed magic (especially) to avoid it.

[1] setting conceit is that conveniently they hit their (formerly indeterminate) power plateau when they retire from active adventuring, so if the campaign ended at level 8, you're level 8 forever. You may gain political power or other influence, but you won't ever cast a 5th level spell.

[Tanarii]

To me, that whole "at high levels you go out into the planes" thing smacks of a video game world with leveled zones. It means you can't have campaigns that go the full range with a consistent environment, you must go somewhere where you're back to being the little fry again. Which tells me that you're not fixing the problem, you're just avoiding it by doing a reset. And even then, there are only so many arch devils out there.
It's the way D&D has handled high level adventuring since inception. The expect flow was dungeon -> wilderness -> domains -> planar. BECMI even eventually codified this within the single set of rules without needing to break out little known/used additional mass warfare rules for the domain stage (Chainmail / Battle System).

It started to change to effectively special zones with Against the Giants and Decent into the Depths and other similar modules, and high level special dungeon delving modules e.g. Barrier Peaks. And then came Dragonlance, taking your high level party along on a story ride to save the world.

5e even calls it out in the Tiers of play.

I've said it before, but if they cut the PHB down to levels 1-10, and then released an Epic level handbook for 11-20, hopefully including with domain/mass warfare and high level adventuring in the planes rules, they could set expectations more clearly on that front.


As to verisimilitude and wars and things--fantasy worlds are not the real world. There's no reason why fantasy kingdoms (and other forms of government) need to follow the western european model (usually distorted anyway). Warfare spans all human history and the globe, even during a large empire Pax situation, including in the modern world. Unless you're running some special post-scarcity sci-fi trope, and even then in media (e.g. Star Trek) it happens between the Pax and neighboring Other.

[sithlordnergal]

The problem is not making encounters, the DM can always make encounters challenging whether PCs are lvl 1 or 30, the thing is settings break. As PP explained a couple posts ago, the ammount of high level cretures that need to inhabit such a world, makes it hard to believe that the low level creatures (like human commoners) could exist somewhat normally.

I would disagree that settings break. For example, I'm currently in a game and we're at level 17. We haven't actually done any planar traveling until level 17, and even then its only because we need to obtain a special spell component. Most of our adventures have been on the material plane. For example, at around level 15 to 16, we helped to end a civil war by killing the opposing faction's generals and leader. The leader happened to be a very powerful dragon, and the generals were basically powerful ex-adventurers. We cut off the heads of the rebellion, and the other troops were able to handle the rest. And its not like the weaker encounters went anywhere. Hell, to help bolster our numbers, our group specifically searched for, found, and slaughtered a small tribe of orcs. The Cleric then spent every single spell slot they had to make them into zombies and skeletons, and set them loose on a small fort we were targeting.


I'm not sure how having a lot extremely dangerous creatures in a world would automatically prevent weaker ones from existing.

EDIT: This is especially true if you end up having 5 guards per 100 people in a town/city. Due to how bounded accuracy is in 5e, enough low CR creatures can kill a high CR creature, unless that creature is immune to non-magical weapons. Sure, a dragon can easily handle a village of 150 to 200 people, but once they reach a town of 1000, that's 200 guards. Reach a city with 10,000 people? 2,000 guards, likely with the money to have Longbows or Heavy Crossbows. And with defensive structures too.

Also,the main reason adventurers are hired is because its easier to send 4 specialized killers than 300 guards to kill that big bad monster nearby.

[Hellpyre]

Hell, to help bolster our numbers, our group specifically searched for, found, and slaughtered a small tribe of orcs. The Cleric then spent every single spell slot they had to make them into zombies and skeletons, and set them loose on a small fort we were targeting.

That seems like the textbook example of the sort of thing that breaks settings down when adventurers are assumed to be of a more-or-less achieveable power scale. One creature is able to raise a large number of magically animated soldiers, more or less on any given day - why do normal armies exist in this world? How commonly does a village (orc *or* human) get razed to the ground and reanimated because it is easier than finding willing conscripts?

One of the other big ones is death-negating magic. Maybe revivify can pass muster, but if you can cast raise dead with money being the only barrier, how is assassination or assault a threat to anyone with a treasury? Why bother killing a general or a king if they can be back on their feet the next day, slightly tired from being wrenched back from the void but otherwise fine? War becomes basically entirely a way to drain currency reserves, since magic enables the fighting forces to remain cohesive and replenish the ranks indefinitely and immediately.


EDIT:

This is especially true if you end up having 5 guards per 100 people in a town/city. Due to how bounded accuracy is in 5e, enough low CR creatures can kill a high CR creature, unless that creature is immune to non-magical weapons. Sure, a dragon can easily handle a village of 150 to 200 people, but once they reach a town of 1000, that's 200 guards. Reach a city with 10,000 people? 2,000 guards, likely with the money to have Longbows or Heavy Crossbows. And with defensive structures too.

Putting aside that you slipped from 5% to 1-in-5, which is something of a large math error, but I assume was accidental: This ignores how difficult it is to bring that many people to bear on a given location at once, and how few of them need to be seriously harmed for morale to break (something like 10-15% losses in a large group can spark a retreat, and by 30% or so a rout is almost certain if an avenue for escape exists). Whereas a CR15+ monster concentrates immense power into a single location adequately, and a world with many of them leads to groups of aforementioned monsters basically being capable of decimating large populations of lesser mortals with impunity.

[sithlordnergal]

That seems like the textbook example of the sort of thing that breaks settings down when adventurers are assumed to be of a more-or-less achieveable power scale. One creature is able to raise a large number of magically animated soldiers, more or less on any given day - why do normal armies exist in this world? How commonly does a village (orc *or* human) get razed to the ground and reanimated because it is easier than finding willing conscripts?

One of the other big ones is death-negating magic. Maybe revivify can pass muster, but if you can cast raise dead with money being the only barrier, how is assassination or assault a threat to anyone with a treasury? Why bother killing a general or a king if they can be back on their feet the next day, slightly tired from being wrenched back from the void but otherwise fine? War becomes basically entirely a way to drain currency reserves, since magic enables the fighting forces to remain cohesive and replenish the ranks indefinitely and immediately.


Not sure why you would say its a textbook example. Yes, there are extremely powerful people, but you make it sound like people adventuring and being high level is the norm. Fact of the matter, there aren't and they aren't. The number of regular people far outweigh the number of adventurers. And I dunno about you, but "Necromancer that's slaughtering villages/tribes of innocent people" seems like a pretty normal adventure for a lower level party to deal with. As for why do normal armies exist in such a world? A few reasons, but it mostly comes down to numbers, and the fact that such powerful beings really can't be everywhere, all at once.

Even the most powerful of parties wouldn't be able to be everywhere, all the time. They would need to delegate that to others. And if another country decides to attack you...well...looking it up, even a small army by medieval has somewhere between 10,000 to 20,000 men. With some larger ones having upwards of 50,000. Meanwhile, looking it up a single Roman Legion around 4,800 to 5,000 men, and there were 60 Legions when Augustus came into power. So that number seems about right. I can't think of many creatures that can survive 5,000 enemies. Even if they're not fighting all of those enemies at once, unless that creature has a way to easily escape, they'll be fighting non-stop skirmishes. So yeah, even in a high power world, numbers end up mattering a lot.


As for death-negating magic, I feel like money prevents most commoners from using it. I would be shocked if lords and kings don't have some way to be brought back after death. In fact, I'd question your world building if every single ruler didn't have some method of being returned to life. That said, there are ways around the more common spells you'd find being used, and I'd expect an assassin to make use of that. So I suspect beheading the bodies of victims, or making the victims undead would be a common occurrence, since those counter Raise Dead and Resurrection. Reincarnate does bypass both, though it brings up some interesting issues since you don't have a high chance of coming back as the same race. That would make for an interesting political landscape though. Whenever the ruler dies, the usurper claims to be the reincarnated version of the old ruler.



EDIT:
Putting aside that you slipped from 5% to 1-in-5, which is something of a large math error, but I assume was accidental: This ignores how difficult it is to bring that many people to bear on a given location at once, and how few of them need to be seriously harmed for morale to break (something like 10-15% losses in a large group can spark a retreat, and by 30% or so a rout is almost certain if an avenue for escape exists). Whereas a CR15+ monster concentrates immense power into a single location adequately, and a world with many of them leads to groups of aforementioned monsters basically being capable of decimating large populations of lesser mortals with impunity.

You're absolutely correct, I messed up with the numbers there. XD Should have remained 5%, not sure where I got the 200. A village of 1,000 people should only have 50 guards...which is still a decent number. Looking at the DMG, a town has between 1,001 to 6,000 people, which gives us between 50 to 300 guards. So the numbers do get significantly smaller, but not so much smaller that a level 20 party can easily handle them. As for morale, I would expect that morale values would likely be higher than 10-15% in a fantasy world. Otherwise a single ancient dragon's breath attack should cause a retreat to start happening almost immediately. You generally don't see that happen in a lot of fantasy stories...or games.

[Witty Username]

Personally, I like bounded accuracy as a concept. And wish they'd gone more into it and not allowed magic (especially) to avoid it.


I like bounded accuracy fine, I am not sure I agree that that T2 should be the end of progression though.
5e already allows low level threats to maintain relevance, classes getting new features beyond 5th level that are actually relevant to the game doesn’t have to change that.

I personally think a tier model of strong start into lighter progression, that repeats each tier is my preference.

Cleric is a good example of this as 1st, 3rd 6th and 9th level spellcasting each represent dramatic power spikes which, being at 1st, 5th, 11th and 17th level, set the tone of the tier for the class, with lighter progression in between to smooth the line.

Its a better model than say barbarian, which sorta flames out at 5th and doesn't get much of anything significant until 20th.

[Hellpyre]

Not sure why you would say its a textbook example. Yes, there are extremely powerful people, but you make it sound like people adventuring and being high level is the norm. Fact of the matter, there aren't and they aren't. The number of regular people far outweigh the number of adventurers. And I dunno about you, but "Necromancer that's slaughtering villages/tribes of innocent people" seems like a pretty normal adventure for a lower level party to deal with.


I suppose the key here then is: when an adventurer slaughters a village of innocents for cannon fodder, do you generally expect them to them be attacks by groups of other hired adventurers as you would if an NPC had done so?

There's also the question of how many people you need for something like that to make an impact, but what it fundamentally comes down to is this: where magic implements massive force multipliers in the forms of singular exceptional creatures or people, the world can remain coherent, because those things are abberations. When the party, at a higher level, inevitably must deal with appropriately challenging encounters on a basis which is frequent and regular - where were those things before? It's very hard to run up the treadmill and keep the world consistent, if those high-level threats exist before and after the PCs arrive, without a narratively-unpleasant risk of sudden, unavoidable deaths.



Even if they're not fighting all of those enemies at once, unless that creature has a way to easily escape, they'll be fighting non-stop skirmishes. So yeah, even in a high power world, numbers end up mattering a lot.
...
As for morale, I would expect that morale values would likely be higher than 10-15% in a fantasy world. Otherwise a single ancient dragon's breath attack should cause a retreat to start happening almost immediately. You generally don't see that happen in a lot of fantasy stories...or games.
You clearly consume different fiction than I do :P

I don't want to dismiss the weight of numbers, as they can be more than enough (especially with bounded accuracy baked in) to overpower significant foes. My disbelief is more strained by the idea that those numbers can be directed constructively without morale breaking. If (to continue the example) an ancient dragon can wipe out a small battalion with a moment's exertion, the problem isn't in getting enough people to kill the thing. It's in getting enough people willing to walk into the meat grinder to buy the time for it to work. It's not an impossible ask (look at the Normandy Beach landings, for example), but it takes a level of seasoned professional I don't generally assume a town guard or city watch to reach.



As for death-negating magic, I feel like money prevents most commoners from using it. I would be shocked if lords and kings don't have some way to be brought back after death. In fact, I'd question your world building if every single ruler didn't have some method of being returned to life.
I feel like we are talking past each other a little here. What I meant to imply was that removing the inherent permanence of non-age-related death should
A: Have absolutely massive implications for the organization of power structures when Spontaneous Existence Failure is no longer an issue that need be considered.
and
B: That a number of valuable narrative tropes get tossed out the window, throwing the baby out with the bathwater so to speak.

I brought up that example specifically because a mention was made of killing the generals of the opposing army as a significant contribution to the war effort. But if death is cheap (relatively speaking), why would that have mattered?

(Full disclosure: I tend to run campaigns under a "Death-reversal is the exclusive domain of deities" basis precisely because I feel such effects cheapen the dramatic impact of death as a consequence of failure, whether for the party or NPCs)

I also realise that this is probably starting to drift from the initial topic, as much as I am enjoying it. I'd be happy to move this to a new thread if the verisimilitude discussion is generating too much noise.

[Dork_Forge]

One of the other big ones is death-negating magic. Maybe revivify can pass muster, but if you can cast raise dead with money being the only barrier, how is assassination or assault a threat to anyone with a treasury? Why bother killing a general or a king if they can be back on their feet the next day, slightly tired from being wrenched back from the void but otherwise fine? War becomes basically entirely a way to drain currency reserves, since magic enables the fighting forces to remain cohesive and replenish the ranks indefinitely and immediately.

The Vlad Taltos books address this well imo, its a world where Rez is possible, and in a more generous time frame than Revivify, but there is still an urgent time limit to get the corpse to a mage capable of it.

In this world assassinations can be mundane, or can involve the use of a soul destroying weapon. It's also possible to make the body so damaged they can't be rez'd.

Mundane assassination serves as a punishment, it's still traumatic and potentially painful, but most importantly it sends a message. We can get to you, we can kill you, and next time we might not leave you in a rezable state.

[Witty Username]

Death in D&D isn't as fungable as people make it out to be, while I liked previous editions chances for failure, level loss and reduced constitution, is still got stuff.

Take for example the assination of a modern major general. Even if the are in raise dead range, that is still impared abilities for days and probably still a hit to morale. And that is assuming 2 things, the priest isn't dead and the body was recovered successfully. Limb loss, disfigurement, etc. won't be repaired. A trained assassin might even have the tools on hand to burn bodies. And none of this applies to the allied clergy, the church getting stormed by assassins could doom an entire war effort.

All the concerns of death exist, the priorities are just shifted.

[Oramac]

All the concerns of death exist, the priorities are just shifted.

This.

Also, with magic and magical creatures in play, there are more variables to consider. Died by red dragon fire? Body might be too burned to bring back. Died in a Gelatinous Cube? Can't restore a dissolved body. Yes, higher level (and significantly more expensive) spells exist to get around this, but the people who can cast them are also much more rare, and as Witty Username said, far more likely to be targets themselves.

Then there's the question of whether or not the deceased even wants to come back. If the assassin cut off all the target's limbs, would the target even want to be brought back? Or if they're horribly disfigured?

Death is still a very real threat. Just not in the way it is for us in the Real World.

[Theodoxus]

"Some things are worse than death" is an axiom for a reason :smallwink:

[PhoenixPhyre]

Death in D&D isn't as fungable as people make it out to be, while I liked previous editions chances for failure, level loss and reduced constitution, is still got stuff.

Take for example the assination of a modern major general. Even if the are in raise dead range, that is still impared abilities for days and probably still a hit to morale. And that is assuming 2 things, the priest isn't dead and the body was recovered successfully. Limb loss, disfigurement, etc. won't be repaired. A trained assassin might even have the tools on hand to burn bodies. And none of this applies to the allied clergy, the church getting stormed by assassins could doom an entire war effort.

All the concerns of death exist, the priorities are just shifted.

And frankly, clerics of 9th+ level who happen to be willing to act as rez-bots (and their gods are willing for them to do so) are not exactly growing on trees in most settings.

A decent chunk of the gods in FR, for instance, are evil and would rather not resurrect their enemies. Or are good and don't want to resurrect evil folks. And the spirits are unlikely to want to come back when resurrected by someone of an antagonistic standing. So finding the right combination isn't going to be easy.

And in the case of political figures/nobles, there's always the "heirs want to inherit, so why do they really want the old guy back" problem.

Sure, someone at the very high end of society might be able to do it. Sometimes. At substantial cost (both financial and favors called in).

Adventurers are exceptional in a lot of ways. Things common to adventurers are not necessarily common in society generally.

[OvisCaedo]

More than just DMs, how many of WotC's own adventure modules actually regularly match the "adventuring day" expectation? I've played through two where the bulk of the campaign was single or few encounter days pretty directly by design. I don't know what the others might be like.

[5eNeedsDarksun]

More than just DMs, how many of WotC's own adventure modules actually regularly match the "adventuring day" expectation? I've played through two where the bulk of the campaign was single or few encounter days pretty directly by design. I don't know what the others might be like.

Most of what I've played/ DMed you can definitely have an adventuring day that looks like what's expected most of the time once you're at a destination. While travelling, I'd agree support is pretty limited. Out of the Abyss has some good encounter tables and smaller mini-dungeons to support multiple encounters while moving, but I can't say the same for a lot of the others.

The newer adventures I've mostly avoided; from the reviews I've read it sounds like you can get through a few social encounters without spending resources fairly regularly. If/ when there is combat it's pretty much a nova show, so I'm not interested.

[sithlordnergal]

More than just DMs, how many of WotC's own adventure modules actually regularly match the "adventuring day" expectation? I've played through two where the bulk of the campaign was single or few encounter days pretty directly by design. I don't know what the others might be like.

It kind of depends on the adventure, and if its a Hardcover or a One Shot Module. If its a short, one shot module, then they do a pretty good job, even when they involve a lot of traveling. If its a hardcover, it really depends on what the party is doing. For example, I ran Tomb of Annihilation. I found it was pretty easy to fit your standard adventuring day into most places, except when the party was traveling. And even then, it was less because ToA didn't give anything for random encounters, and more that I didn't want to run 8 encounters when all the party was doing was trying to get from Point A to Point B on the map. I'd usually just find out if the party had gotten lost somehow, and have them keep track of food. If combat did happen, it was only a single encounter.

[Rukelnikov]

As I've said multiple times, the "inconsequential combat encounters" is fixed by nerfing the long rest. In 2e if you had a random encounter and lost a third of the total party HP, if the party had someone who could cast healing spells they may not have enough to fully heal the party, especially so at low levels, so the following day the party wouldn't be in tip top shape and that encounter mattered and avoiding it would have been relevant.

5e rest mechanics are the reason individual encounters are either TPK or irrelevant.

[Witty Username]

And frankly, clerics of 9th+ level who happen to be willing to act as rez-bots (and their gods are willing for them to do so) are not exactly growing on trees in most settings.


If I recall correctly Eberron is a good example of that, where there is canonically one cleric of 17th level in the setting, and they are a big deal for the church of the Silver flame being a whole chosen one once every few generations deal. And that is a high magic setting for D&Ds purposes.


As I've said multiple times, the "inconsequential combat encounters" is fixed by nerfing the long rest. In 2e if you had a random encounter and lost a third of the total party HP, if the party had someone who could cast healing spells they may not have enough to fully heal the party, especially so at low levels, so the following day the party wouldn't be in tip top shape and that encounter mattered and avoiding it would have been relevant.

5e rest mechanics are the reason individual encounters are either TPK or irrelevant.
Not to mention that 3.5 and prior, long term to permanent consequences where much more likely.

Like take shadows, in 5e, you are one long rest away from strength score normal. In 3.5 that would be multiple days of reduced strength.

Or wights, back it the day not having a cleric with turn undead would mean being knocked back levels and either having powerful magic on your side, or having to work your experience back up.

Pair bounded accuracy, with slow healing (a relatively small concession) and even a level 20 party will treat gobins with consideration.

[Rukelnikov]

If I recall correctly Eberron is a good example of that, where there is canonically one cleric of 17th level in the setting, and they are a big deal for the church of the Silver flame being a whole chosen one once every few generations deal. And that is a high magic setting for D&Ds purposes.

Not really, Eberron is not high magic compared to Forgotten Realms, which is kinda the official setting for 5e.

The stuff the elves did during the Crown Wars, the Netherese empire, and some stuff of Mulholland, seems extremely more powerful than what I know about Eberron's magic (though I do not know much)


Not to mention that 3.5 and prior, long term to permanent consequences where much more likely.

Like take shadows, in 5e, you are one long rest away from strength score normal. In 3.5 that would be multiple days of reduced strength.

Or wights, back it the day not having a cleric with turn undead would mean being knocked back levels and either having powerful magic on your side, or having to work your experience back up.

Pair bounded accuracy, with slow healing (a relatively small concession) and even a level 20 party will treat gobins with consideration.

Yeah, while spells were much more abundant in 3e than 2e, you still had those Ability Damage and Ability Drain, and similar which meant PCs were not usually at full power after every long rest, if they had been fighting every day for many days. But 5.5 doesn't seem to care about that, given the change to long rest mechanics, if the trend continues in 6e a long rest will bring you back from the dead (which I think would actually be BETTER for the game than just being fully healed)

[PhoenixPhyre]

Not really, Eberron is not high magic compared to Forgotten Realms, which is kinda the official setting for 5e.

The stuff the elves did during the Crown Wars, the Netherese empire, and some stuff of Mulholland, seems extremely more powerful than what I know about Eberron's magic (though I do not know much)


One thing to note about FR is that it's less high magic now than it was in the past. And that's been true for all editions--the "high magic time" was always in the past. The Crown Wars? Long past. Netherese empire? Fell because their magic no longer worked. Mulholland I'm not sure about, but similarly.

And another thing to note is that even in FR, clerics who can resurrect people are basically only found in the largest of cities. They're not non-existent, but they're rare. And often they're going to have other uses for their high-level slots. Which generally means paying well above component cost. On the "donate large chunks of your estate to the church" scale. And that's even ignoring the mismatch problem--NPCs don't have the freedom PCs do. There's no reason that a cleric of Bane, even if they have raise dead prepared (which they very well might not), would stoop to using it on a random noble. Unless, of course, they were getting something major out of it. Even the "good" gods and their clergy are going to be selective in the application of such major magics.

From a worldbuilding perspective, resurrection goes against the natural order most of the time. So while it may be justified (from a cosmological/in-universe perspective) in cases of early violent death (especially when caused by factions antagonistic toward the caster), it's not a cure-all/silver bullet.

[Rukelnikov]

One thing to note about FR is that it's less high magic now than it was in the past. And that's been true for all editions--the "high magic time" was always in the past. The Crown Wars? Long past. Netherese empire? Fell because their magic no longer worked. Mulholland I'm not sure about, but similarly.

That's true, I don't really know the lore of FR post spellplague, until then at least setting warping magics weren't unusual, like Khelben's sacrifice. And even if they do not happen often anymore, aren't there still around 2 dozen named epic casters and a dozen or more mythals lying around?


And another thing to note is that even in FR, clerics who can resurrect people are basically only found in the largest of cities. They're not non-existent, but they're rare. And often they're going to have other uses for their high-level slots. Which generally means paying well above component cost. On the "donate large chunks of your estate to the church" scale. And that's even ignoring the mismatch problem--NPCs don't have the freedom PCs do. There's no reason that a cleric of Bane, even if they have raise dead prepared (which they very well might not), would stoop to using it on a random noble. Unless, of course, they were getting something major out of it. Even the "good" gods and their clergy are going to be selective in the application of such major magics.

Well, we run our game's differently, I don't give PCs special powers just for being PCs, if they can go to a temple and pay someone to cast cure wounds, identify or raise dead, then anyone with the coin can do the same. And sure, a given cleric may refuse or ask for something else instead of coin which a merchant may not be able to do, and instead has to hire a party of adventurers to do for him, but that being always the case, or even the majority of the times, stretches my disbelief a lot.


From a worldbuilding perspective, resurrection goes against the natural order most of the time. So while it may be justified (from a cosmological/in-universe perspective) in cases of early violent death (especially when caused by factions antagonistic toward the caster), it's not a cure-all/silver bullet.

The line of Raise Dead spells (True rez in particular with its capacity to bring back people that died centuries ago) are the greatest challenge to a lot of stories, "the king has been assassinated" can still be done because the assassins knew some method to keep the person from being rezzed, but still there are lots of tragedies that just become "oh worry not, i'll bring your friends back, its only 1500 gp, don't even mention it"

In the realms, while Kelemvor was kinda against it IIRC, he did not (or could not) stop it, the Modron Inevitables are actually the only ones I can recall that lore wise acted to prevent the abuse of such spells.

[PhoenixPhyre]

That's true, I don't really know the lore of FR post spellplague, until then at least setting warping magics weren't unusual, like Khelben's sacrifice. And even if they do not happen often anymore, aren't there still around 2 dozen named epic casters and a dozen or more mythals lying around?


"Epic" doesn't exist any more. Not really. So it's kinda odd.



Well, we run our game's differently, I don't give PCs special powers just for being PCs, if they can go to a temple and pay someone to cast cure wounds, identify or raise dead, then anyone with the coin can do the same. And sure, a given cleric may refuse or ask for something else instead of coin which a merchant may not be able to do, and instead has to hire a party of adventurers to do for him, but that being always the case, or even the majority of the times, stretches my disbelief a lot.


The point was that you're not likely to be able to walk into a temple as anyone and get an NPC to cast it for you. The DMG is fairly clear that spell-casting services above 1st or 2nd levels are generally not available and where they are generally are not paid in cash.

Clerics are going to be selective in who they serve--that's the nature of serving gods with opinions. Most of them are not commercially oriented.



The line of Raise Dead spells (True rez in particular with its capacity to bring back people that died centuries ago) are the greatest challenge to a lot of stories, "the king has been assassinated" can still be done because the assassins knew some method to keep the person from being rezzed, but still there are lots of tragedies that just become "oh worry not, i'll bring your friends back, its only 1500 gp, don't even mention it"

In the realms, while Kelemvor was kinda against it IIRC, he did not (or could not) stop it, the Modron Inevitables are actually the only ones I can recall that lore wise acted to prevent the abuse of such spells.

NPC clerics get their spells from their god. So yes, they absolutely can stop it. They just don't grant those spells to anyone. Or only do so selectively. That's the consequence of having active gods.

And there are lots of ways to die (especially intentional/violent deaths) that leave the body pretty mangled, so that the lower level spells don't do very much good. Needing True Resurrection, with its much higher cost and casting requirements or even Resurrection boosts the rarity pretty heavily.

And the soul still has to be willing to return, which is a constraint that totally depends on the DM/situation. I'd bet a lot of people, especially the faithful, are gonna go "hey, I'm in a better place and no pain/suffering. You know what? Screw going back."

Does it alter things? Sure. Is it a world-killer? Nah. Not in my mind.

[Theodoxus]

And there are lots of ways to die (especially intentional/violent deaths) that leave the body pretty mangled, so that the lower level spells don't do very much good. Needing True Resurrection, with its much higher cost and casting requirements or even Resurrection boosts the rarity pretty heavily.

Yes, except. In D&D, we don't have 'mangled' or really any other type of permanent damage. Sure, there are vorpal weapons, but even then, there really aren't codified game mechanics for getting an arm lopped off. Death happens 100% of the time when you run out of both HPs and Death Saves and DS are only heroic level abstractions.

A DM can certainly color up a death any way they like, but game mechanics-wise, someone at full HP, 1 HP or 0 HP looks the same.

[Rukelnikov]

"Epic" doesn't exist any more. Not really. So it's kinda odd.

Yeah, IDK if there are official character sheets for any of the chosen or characters of that calibre. But since they are NPCs, they could just be CR25+ creatures and have powers unavailable to PCs, being effectively "epic".


The point was that you're not likely to be able to walk into a temple as anyone and get an NPC to cast it for you. The DMG is fairly clear that spell-casting services above 1st or 2nd levels are generally not available and where they are generally are not paid in cash.

Clerics are going to be selective in who they serve--that's the nature of serving gods with opinions. Most of them are not commercially oriented.

I know the paragraph you are citing, that's why I said cure wounds, identify, or raise dead, and why I said a given cleric might ask for something else instead of coin and that said merchant needs to hire a group of adventurers instead of paying directly. Might is the keyworkd here, "might" implies a lower likelyhood than "may" which doesn't mean always or usually.


NPC clerics get their spells from their god. So yes, they absolutely can stop it. They just don't grant those spells to anyone. Or only do so selectively. That's the consequence of having active gods.

Maybe he could, but outside of one series of adventures (I know its not Bastion of Broken Souls, but for some reason I can only remember that name), I don't remember a widespread failing of resurrection spells suggested anywhere in the books, if the souls are willing to return.


And there are lots of ways to die (especially intentional/violent deaths) that leave the body pretty mangled, so that the lower level spells don't do very much good. Needing True Resurrection, with its much higher cost and casting requirements or even Resurrection boosts the rarity pretty heavily.

This I agree with, bumping the need from a 5th spell to a 7th level spell stretches disbelief far less (which is why my group bumped Raise Dead to 7th lvl)


And the soul still has to be willing to return, which is a constraint that totally depends on the DM/situation. I'd bet a lot of people, especially the faithful, are gonna go "hey, I'm in a better place and no pain/suffering. You know what? Screw going back."

This I also agree, I've had one character refuse to be ressurrected because he was fine in heaven and had already done his time, he could now enjoy his afterlife.

But, when every time someone relevant dies they don't wanna come back, or the priests don't wanna bring them back, or there's a shortage of diamonds, or w/e, but every time a T3+ PC dies the party can bring them back within 2 sessions, disbelief has effectively been broken.


Does it alter things? Sure. Is it a world-killer? Nah. Not in my mind.

It's not a world killer but is a "some kinds of stories" killer, especially if there's someone capable of casting said spell in the party.

[Tanarii]

As I've said multiple times, the "inconsequential combat encounters" is fixed by nerfing the long rest. In 2e if you had a random encounter and lost a third of the total party HP, if the party had someone who could cast healing spells they may not have enough to fully heal the party, especially so at low levels, so the following day the party wouldn't be in tip top shape and that encounter mattered and avoiding it would have been relevant.

5e rest mechanics are the reason individual encounters are either TPK or irrelevant.
This is because one of the primary design parameters for modern D&D is support for official play, or episodic single sessions. The expected number of encounters based on the expected time to resolve them, and the endurance of a party fully topped off at the beginning of the session, are designed to carry you roughly to the end of a single 3-4 hour session. And since you won't necessarily have the same group of characters or take your character to the same table the next session, they need to refresh fully at the end of hat.

3e wasn't designed this way and it caused issues.

4e was strictly designed this way, but unfortunately the amount of time it takes to run an encounter meant 4x1 hour encounters with nothing in between. Unless that in between was an encounter, as a skill challenge.

5e has also been designed this way, and it works well. In a 3 hour session, a party can handle combat of 6 medium to 3 deadly encounters in about 90 minutes, and still have half the session for exploration and easy non-combat puzzles, tricks, traps, what have you. Not in order of course, intermixed. Or they can squeeze in (and usually have the resources for) even more combat, especially if you have a 4 hour session.

[sithlordnergal]

Yes, except. In D&D, we don't have 'mangled' or really any other type of permanent damage. Sure, there are vorpal weapons, but even then, there really aren't codified game mechanics for getting an arm lopped off. Death happens 100% of the time when you run out of both HPs and Death Saves and DS are only heroic level abstractions.

A DM can certainly color up a death any way they like, but game mechanics-wise, someone at full HP, 1 HP or 0 HP looks the same.

True, we don't have permanent damage as a normal thing for living creatures. But we absolutely have rules for destroying objects, and a body is considered an object for most rule purposes, from what I've seen. Nothing stops an assassin from cutting off a limb or a head. If the assassin has time, they can go full blown horror movie gore.

[Rukelnikov]

This is because one of the primary design parameters for modern D&D is support for official play, or episodic single sessions. The expected number of encounters based on the expected time to resolve them, and the endurance of a party fully topped off at the beginning of the session, are designed to carry you roughly to the end of a single 3-4 hour session. And since you won't necessarily have the same group of characters or take your character to the same table the next session, they need to refresh fully at the end of hat.

3e wasn't designed this way and it caused issues.

4e was strictly designed this way, but unfortunately the amount of time it takes to run an encounter meant 4x1 hour encounters with nothing in between. Unless that in between was an encounter, as a skill challenge.

5e has also been designed this way, and it works well. In a 3 hour session, a party can handle combat of 6 medium to 3 deadly encounters in about 90 minutes, and still have half the session for exploration and easy non-combat puzzles, tricks, traps, what have you. Not in order of course, intermixed. Or they can squeeze in (and usually have the resources for) even more combat, especially if you have a 4 hour session.

I never thought about that, yeah that sounds like a reasonable motive for having such rest mechanics. Thing is though, I don't think DnD should be designed with AL as a priority. And yeah, I understand that their business model heavily involves selling adventures, and AL players are likely the main consumers of such products*. But on the other hand, I'm under the impression most of the playerbase is groups that play regularly together. Its a tricky situation.

[Tanarii]

I never thought about that, yeah that sounds like a reasonable motive for having such rest mechanics. Thing is though, I don't think DnD should be designed with AL as a priority. And yeah, I understand that their business model heavily involves selling adventures, and AL players are likely the main consumers of such products*. But on the other hand, I'm under the impression most of the playerbase is groups that play regularly together. It's a tricky situation.Not just AL, but non-AL single sessions at conventions too. And I don't disagree. Although as someone that ran an open table campaign at three different FLGS, I massively benefitted from the underlying structure. :smallamused:

The thing is, personally I'm of the opinion that there aren't many tables or players that want to track resources across sessions. Even home ones. "Rest at end of session" is very common goal for the few 'home' groups I've played with since the entire concept of a game mechanical Rest activity was introduced in 4e. And even before then, in all editions AD&D/BECMI through 3e, when playing with such groups was something I did far more often, ending a session in a safe spot where you could recover hit points through natural healing and rememorize spells was almost always the goal. Even when running a multisession adventure module it'd be a search for safe spots to "rest" at end of session, even if it wasn't called that game mechanically.

[5eNeedsDarksun]

As I've said multiple times, the "inconsequential combat encounters" is fixed by nerfing the long rest. In 2e if you had a random encounter and lost a third of the total party HP, if the party had someone who could cast healing spells they may not have enough to fully heal the party, especially so at low levels, so the following day the party wouldn't be in tip top shape and that encounter mattered and avoiding it would have been relevant.

5e rest mechanics are the reason individual encounters are either TPK or irrelevant.

I'd agree with the video game healing being an issue. Our group awards 10% hp on a SR (max 2/day) and 25% on a LR, so even minor injuries can matter in the long run. Obviously hp is only one of a number of resources players have, so this isn't a silver bullet, but it helps make less deadly encounters matter somewhat.

[Hellpyre]

The thing is, personally I'm of the opinion that there aren't many tables or players that want to track resources across sessions. Even home ones. "Rest at end of session" is very common goal for the few 'home' groups I've played with since the entire concept of a game mechanical Rest activity was introduced in 4e. And even before then, in all editions AD&D/BECMI through 3e, when playing with such groups was something I did far more often, ending a session in a safe spot where you could recover hit points through natural healing and rememorize spells was almost always the goal. Even when running a multisession adventure module it'd be a search for safe spots to "rest" at end of session, even if it wasn't called that game mechanically.

I don't disagree, even where my experience differs. Most of my long-running groups have been such that we tracked resources between sessions, but that was more a matter of session length being variable (health issues, kids needing attention, etc.) and thus harder to plan around. So generally once we get a good way into a session we try to hunt for a good stopping point for the narrative. And, wouldn't you know it, when we can get a rest period in for the party, that's always been an ideal stopping point - both because it simplifies resource tracking and because a fresh day gives players time to slip back into character before acting on the plot.

(The other big stopping point is immediately prior to combat, which is similarly useful as it limits needing to track which resources are providing active benefits most of the time)

[Amechra]

Thinking about this for a bit...

It would've been really nice if 5e had given DMs tools to adjust classes to fit the pace of their games.

You run a "one big fight between long rests" game? Ramp up all the short rest classes to match.
You're doing Gritty Realism? Scale up the long rest classes to keep up.

[Theodoxus]

Thinking about this for a bit...

It would've been really nice if 5e had given DMs tools to adjust classes to fit the pace of their games.

You run a "one big fight between long rests" game? Ramp up all the short rest classes to match.
You're doing Gritty Realism? Scale up the long rest classes to keep up.

Yeah, I've said it before, I'll say it again, those 'knobs' to adjust games that were promised in the DMG when the PHB came out, suck. But hey, there are probably a thousand threads of homebrew on various ways to make them work... just nothing official.

[5eNeedsDarksun]

Thinking about this for a bit...

It would've been really nice if 5e had given DMs tools to adjust classes to fit the pace of their games.

You run a "one big fight between long rests" game? Ramp up all the short rest classes to match.
You're doing Gritty Realism? Scale up the long rest classes to keep up.

I'd agree on adjusting to fit the pace, but not so sure about ramping up classes. I'd think something like a Warlock with 2 leveled spells (and a few more at higher level) would be the target for one big fight, so I'd be tempted to nerf most spellcasting classes to get them down to match. Casting cantrips at least some of the time should still be a thing, and the couple of times I've played in nova style games by the end of Tier 2 casters are casting leveled spells almost every round.

[PhoenixPhyre]

I'd agree on adjusting to fit the pace, but not so sure about ramping up classes. I'd think something like a Warlock with 2 leveled spells (and a few more at higher level) would be the target for one big fight, so I'd be tempted to nerf most spellcasting classes to get them down to match. Casting cantrips at least some of the time should still be a thing, and the couple of times I've played in nova style games by the end of Tier 2 casters are casting leveled spells almost every round.

In nova-style games, your "one combat" usually doesn't go much past 5-6 rounds (ok, maybe 10 max) total. A normal full caster has enough slots to cast a leveled spell literally every round by level 6 even in a 10-round encounter. In a 5-round encounter day they can burn two leveled spells every round (action + reaction) by level 6.

Spell slots are not a constraint and cannot be a constraint for full casters (non-warlock) in a 1-encounter day unless they're routinely burning more than one slot per round AND that one encounter is really really abnormally long. Even 5-6 rounds is fairly long IMX; most novas are functionally over by round 2 or 3. Even if they're not over-over, they're well into the cleanup phase.

[KorvinStarmast]

The problem is not making encounters, the DM can always make encounters challenging whether PCs are lvl 1 or 30, the thing is settings break. As PP explained a couple posts ago, the ammount of high level cretures that need to inhabit such a world, makes it hard to believe that the low level creatures (like human commoners) could exist somewhat normally. Or you can use the Shadowfell, Fey Wild, the Void, various planes, and various levels of Hell or the Abyss. Or Spelljammer ... :smallyuk:

It's the way D&D has handled high level adventuring since inception. The rest of your post is pure gold, well said.
Yes, except. In D&D, we don't have 'mangled' or really any other type of permanent damage. . There is an optional rule for that in the DMG.

[PhoenixPhyre]

There is an optional rule for that in the DMG.

Personally, I like the idea that while there aren't mechanical effects for PCs without the optional rule (because that's kinda annoying), NPCs take normal damage/mutilations/etc. It's an explicit, game-level mercy to PCs, explained IC by really really really absurd luck. If it's not just handwaved.

I apply them whenever an NPC goes to 0 HP, with results depending on the killing blow.

So an NPC gets smashed to death by a giant's club? Their whole body is crushed. Took a maul hit? Some vital body part is crushed. Stabby-stabby? Stab wounds to vital areas. Etc. This applies even if they're healed from 0 HP, as those two bandits you took out in Campaign 1 found out[1].

As a pure setting-level thing, if you fall to 0 HP, take a lingering injury such as a broken bone, and then get healed magically without setting the bone first via a Medicine check (if as a PC), the bone knits wrong and is permanent. Sure, you can go up to full HP...but you'll still have a limp/unusable limb/etc. At least without Regenerate or similar magic.

[1] Although you may not have been there for that session yet--on the way to Honedaxe your party member took down a bandit by shooting him in the back as he ran. Someone elected to heal him (for interrogation) and he ended up being carried to Honedaxe as a paraplegic. He ended up marrying a villager there. Similarly all the people whose kneecaps were...violated...by Tsun.

[Pex]

As I've said multiple times, the "inconsequential combat encounters" is fixed by nerfing the long rest. In 2e if you had a random encounter and lost a third of the total party HP, if the party had someone who could cast healing spells they may not have enough to fully heal the party, especially so at low levels, so the following day the party wouldn't be in tip top shape and that encounter mattered and avoiding it would have been relevant.

5e rest mechanics are the reason individual encounters are either TPK or irrelevant.

Not true by reason of having played the game since 2014.

More compelling evidence:

DMs only having one combat encounter per long rest so that PCs can use everything result in one combat encounter per long rest where the PCs have to use everything.

Players slow to learn resource management wanting to use their strongest stuff as soon and as often as possible having nothing for later in the day and wanting to long rest after every fight or every other fight. This leads to the DM having one combat encounter per long rest or get in the habit of one combat encounter, short rest, second combat encounter, long rest.

DMs wanting to have more than two combat encounters per long rest not understanding that some of those encounters should be easy PCs shouldn't have to use their stuff or barely any. The barbarian doesn't rage and is fine. Spellcasters are only using cantrips with maybe one spell used as a buff/debuff/opening shot. The paladin doesn't bother smiting. The fighter doesn't action surge. When all fights are tough the PCs have to use their stuff thus aren't conserving resources. This eventually leads to two combats per day with a short rest in between or one combat per long rest.

The CR system isn't accurate. DMs not understanding the true power of the party, strong or weak, to use appropriate monsters despite what their CR say.

[Rukelnikov]

Thinking about this for a bit...

It would've been really nice if 5e had given DMs tools to adjust classes to fit the pace of their games.

You run a "one big fight between long rests" game? Ramp up all the short rest classes to match.
You're doing Gritty Realism? Scale up the long rest classes to keep up.

I'd have loved for 5e to have an equivalent of 3e's Unearthed Arcana supplement, which was aimed mainly at DMs, and gave lots of hacks for the game. 5e has some variant rules and ideas discussed in the DMG and elsewhere, but a full book dedicated to them could have been awesome.


Yeah, I've said it before, I'll say it again, those 'knobs' to adjust games that were promised in the DMG when the PHB came out, suck. But hey, there are probably a thousand threads of homebrew on various ways to make them work... just nothing official.

True


Not true by reason of having played the game since 2014.

More compelling evidence:

DMs only having one combat encounter per long rest so that PCs can use everything result in one combat encounter per long rest where the PCs have to use everything.

Players slow to learn resource management wanting to use their strongest stuff as soon and as often as possible having nothing for later in the day and wanting to long rest after every fight or every other fight. This leads to the DM having one combat encounter per long rest or get in the habit of one combat encounter, short rest, second combat encounter, long rest.

DMs wanting to have more than two combat encounters per long rest not understanding that some of those encounters should be easy PCs shouldn't have to use their stuff or barely any. The barbarian doesn't rage and is fine. Spellcasters are only using cantrips with maybe one spell used as a buff/debuff/opening shot. The paladin doesn't bother smiting. The fighter doesn't action surge. When all fights are tough the PCs have to use their stuff thus aren't conserving resources. This eventually leads to two combats per day with a short rest in between or one combat per long rest.

The CR system isn't accurate. DMs not understanding the true power of the party, strong or weak, to use appropriate monsters despite what their CR say.

I somewhat agree with most of what you posted, but I don't understand how is that related to 5e rest mechanics making everything that happened yesterday irrelevant today.