Exactly. It doesn't make sense for random flotsam no-name nothing monsters to get Recharge abilities.
It doesn't make sense for them to CRIT, either.
Flotsam no-name nothing monsters getting to deal more damage than the boss they're padding out with one in twenty completely random attacks sucks. Many players don't even bother rolling damage for flotsam - they use the flat damage listed on the block, and they have a very good reason for doing so. It's a valid way to play that forcing everything to constantly crit all the time runs completely counter to.
Flotsam needs to be in fights - single solo boss fights against one big critter in a bowl arena are the most boring possible D&D combats. But flotsam is still flotsam. It's not meant to take the boss's place, it's meant to keep the pressure on the players and force them to make decisions. And if there's no larger threat worthy of a Recharge ability - even just a generic one like Brutal Blow - because you're running a random nuisance encounter off the RETs for your adventure? Those things don't need to crit either. Those fights exist solely to sap the party's resources and remind them to stop being stupid in hostile territory. They're not meant to seriously threaten PCs, and they should only do so if the PCs are so wildly idiotic that the DM is using the encounter as a wakeup call and a "HEY STUPID" alarm.
The idea is that monsters which merit Recharge powers get them. If a stat block doesn't merit a Recharge? It doesn't merit being able to crit, either. One single CR 1/16 goblin shouldn't be able to TPK an entire party with one god damned "only 5%!" roll, and that's a hill I will die on.
No? The purpose of a unique/recharge ability is to make the monster memorable. The kinds of monsters that don't get those abilities are by definition not as memorable. But they are there to pose a legitimate threat to the players and add a layer of complexity and variability to the fight. Critical hits help accomplish that goal with that without any additional burden to the monster designers or the DM. If the monsters are "flotsam" a critical's still not going to be as dangerous as the boss's abilities either.
If you're going to argue that those monsters exist purely to drain the party's resources and that there's no point in having random variance or uncertainty you might as well save everyone some time and skip the fight. "You encounter two skeletons. You make short work of them but lose 10 HP each in the process."
So what do you mean by the 5%, be explicit and clear, because I can't see anything else you can mean by saying it's just 5% then.
For any attack (ignoring advantage, Brutal Critical for simplicity) the average damage is d*h + 0.05d + b (d = damage dice, h = chance to hit, b = fixed numerical bonuses.) The 0.05d is the term that crits contribute. If you're a wizard casting 2d20 (avg = 11) Fire Bolts and you hit 70% of the time your average damage is 0.7*11 + 0.05*11 = 8.25. Take away crits and it becomes 7.7.
Yes, that extra 5% of the damage roll is actually relative increase of 7% when you take misses into account, but it's not going to be much more than that in practice. Enemy ACs generally cap out at 20, the average AC is 14-15. Players already start at around +5 attack bonus. You're generally not going to do much worse than 50% hit chance most fights. If advantage is a factor you can expect at least 75% hit rate. And yes, advantage doubles your crit rates but that's still overshadowed by the massive increase in hit chance.
The only objective way to look at a situation is to look at the averages, unless you're specifically discussing a situation where the enemy's 1 hit away from death. D&D is a game of randomness. No matter how "balanced" an encounter is, if every single person rolls a crit every single round, it's going to be over quick. But the chances of that happening are astronomically small.
So back on page 2 when I said, "Also your Maths is bad if you were working from it that way, since you forgot to account for misses."
Anyways, the decrease in misses can not over shadow the crit chance increase because there simply isn't the room to do that. If we were to go to your worst case of 50% chance to hit on a normal attack roll, going to a 75.1% chance to hit on advantage. You are going from a 45% chance to normal attack to a 65.35% chance to normal attack. That is an increase of normal attacks of around *1.42 (or 42% more often) compared to an increase in crits of around *1.95 (or 95% more often). So the % of damage coming from crits inevitably would only increase in this scenario.
Then why do monsters have flat damage written on their sheet? Why do they have flat HP values?
Yes, obviously flotsam monsters pose a threat to the players. If they didn't, they wouldn't be doing their job. But someone who says "the basic bandits deserve to crit but their thug boss shouldn't be able to unleash a Limit Break move!" has their priorities badly skewed.
So back on page 2 when I said, "Also your Maths is bad if you were working from it that way, since you forgot to account for misses."
Again, I didn't forget to account for misses. It's a lot simpler to say there's an absolute difference of 5% than a relative difference of 5-200% depending on how unnrealistic you want the scenario to be.
So the % of damage coming from crits inevitably would only increase in this scenario.
That's a useless metric. Crits take up a larger portion of the total the worse you are at hitting. E.g. If you only hit on 20s, crits double your damage, but your average damage is still terrible. You want to optimize total damage, not fraction-of-damage-from-crits.
In absolute terms going from no advantage to advantage at 50% hit chance means going from (0.50 + 0.05)d to (0.75 + 0.0975)d. Increasing the part that makes up ~90% of your damage by 40-50% is a much larger contribution than nearly doubling the 5% to 9.75%.
Then why do monsters have flat damage written on their sheet? Why do they have flat HP values?
This is actually a great question with a non-obvious answer. It's because rolling their HP doesn't meaningfully affect the bell curve of how long they live since everything that can reduce their HP is already random. Rolling for 5 monsters would be a lot of work for very little payoff.
If you removed attack rolls and damage rolls and crits and players always dealt their average damage, you'd need to randomize the monster HP to make their lifespan a bell curve again.
Yes, obviously flotsam monsters pose a threat to the players. If they didn't, they wouldn't be doing their job. But someone who says "the basic bandits deserve to crit but their thug boss shouldn't be able to unleash a Limit Break move!" has their priorities badly skewed.
Yes, but that's not the argument I (or anyone else here I think?) is making. I'm pro-boss-monsters-having-unique-powers. I've said multiple times now crits don't interfere with that in any way; that's already how Legendary Monsters work in 5e.
If anyone can point out any advantage to the new rules that holds up to scrutiny I'd happily eat those words.
The point is that you can't hold anything to scrutiny with only a tiny part of the whole.
But let's break this up with what we do have.
* DM lucky rolls arent exciting for many DMs. I would have caused tpks with them, and had to fudge rolls. Tpks end games, and thus fun. Some may like it, but others don't. I like the larger control as a DM.
* Too soon to tell on rogues, pallys, eldritch blasters and battle masters.
* Apparently, no crits on spells had been a common misunderstanding of the rules for many. If it proves, via playtest, to be popular, it will have an effect on Save or (bad stuff) spells versus Spell Attack rolls and overall spell design. There's already a large bias, given how even Saving Throw cantrips can avoid cover from being in melee with party mates.
Huh?
Okay, apparently I had a braindead moment. Dunno what I was thinking.
So back on page 2 when I said, "Also your Maths is bad if you were working from it that way, since you forgot to account for misses."
Again, I didn't forget to account for misses. It's a lot simpler to say there's an absolute difference of 5% than a relative difference of 5-200% depending on how unnrealistic you want the scenario to be.
So the % of damage coming from crits inevitably would only increase in this scenario.
That's a useless metric. Crits take up a larger portion of the total the worse you are at hitting. E.g. If you only hit on 20s, crits double your damage, but your average damage is still terrible. You want to optimize total damage, not fraction-of-damage-from-crits.
In absolute terms going from no advantage to advantage at 50% hit chance means going from (0.50 + 0.05)d to (0.75 + 0.0975)d. Increasing the part that makes up ~90% of your damage by 40-50% is a much larger contribution than nearly doubling the 5% to 9.75%.
You said the number changed to 7% when you take into account misses, which is still not 5%, which you kept on insisting on. Last time I checked 7% and 5% aren't the same. There is nothing absolute about the 5% because misses are a thing.
Advantage BOTH increases your total damage AND the fraction of damage you get from crits, it's not like it's a choice in this optimization, you get both. Ultimate tho you are right, total damage is the goal, it's just that in some ways this can be achieved by increasing the fraction of damage coming from crits without necessarily sacrificing much, or any, damage on normal hits.
If you go with a build that has a 19% chance to crit on a hit (advantage+crit on 19+) and make 2 or 3 attacks a round, that can be a significant chance to crit, at 2 attacks it's a 34.39% chance to get at least 1 critical. At 3 attacks, it's a 46.86% chance to get at least 1 critical. And when you go for a build like this, what negatives do you actually incur? Most of the choices to get there involve other bonuses that just overall increase a Paladin's overall total damage anyway.
* DM lucky rolls arent exciting for many DMs. I would have caused tpks with them, and had to fudge rolls. Tpks end games, and thus fun. Some may like it, but others don't. I like the larger control as a DM.
That's fair, but again, I don't believe crits are the main driver of this outside of level 1, and can be fixed better with a more targeted solution (e.g. start with more hit dice.)
If you're DM'ing a dragon with a 1-in-3 recharge breath attack and you happen to get two recharges back to back, that's a much bigger problem than one part of your multiattack critting - and also more likely. The odds of getting two 1-in-3 rolls is still 1-in-9.
If you're DM'ing a spellcaster and you cast an area spell on 3 party members and they all fail, that's going to be a problem. Assuming they had a ~50% chance to save individually, that's still a 12.5% probability event.
Sometimes the players themselves get too unlucky and simply roll the minimum on heals or double 1s when they attack.
There is no good solution to "the DM got too lucky" in general, but there are good solutions to "low level PCs are too fragile" that don't throw the baby out with the bathwater.
The character origins video disagrees. The devs flat out said they want recharge power to replace crits for DMs.
I mean, it's not like they can't be more than one thing, a crit and a memorial move all at once.
Ah, I hadn't seen that. But I'm fairly certain Crawford had commented that in past Sage Advice/Dragon Talk podcasts when talking about monster/encounter design. So you're right, it could be both.
You said the number changed to 7% when you take into account misses, which is still not 5%, which you kept on insisting on. Last time I checked 7% and 5% aren't the same.
Honestly my dude I'm getting tired of being strawmanned and arguing in circles with you.
Here's a question for anyone who's played a high-level spellcaster: would you give up crits on cantrips and Scorching Ray in exchange for having options for spells above second level that you can cast on targets without them using one of their twenty-seven daily uses of Legendary Resistance or their six +15 saving throw scores to no-sell?
I have a level 16 wizard active in an ongoing active game. She has access to Disintegrate, but has cast it exactly once because it's a trap. All the deadly control spells people freak out about bounce off of anything worth casting them on because everything in R5e has enough Legendary Resistances to make your whole Spellcasting class feature mostly worthless. Most of my big fights are spent concentrating on Wall of Force, Telekinesis, Draconic Transformation, or my other limited options for spells that don't say "Oh, did the enemy make their save? WHELP! That's a spell slot and a combat turn you'll never see again. Better hope that semi-corporeal wall blob doesn't finish swallowing the paladin before your next turn byeeeee!"
I'd like to occasionally maybe be able to cast a damaging or enemy-affecting spell above second level that has a chance to succeed, please. If that requires me to give up crits? Fair deal.
As a high level spellcaster player if you offered me to give up crits for some boon I'd pretty much always say yes. Crits don't help that much in the long run, I'd be a fool to turn the offer down.
As a DM I think Legendary Resistance is non-negotiable to prevent players from insta-winning boss fights with coordinated save-or-suck spells. At the same time I do see how much of a feel bad mechanic it is to be on the receiving end of. I haven't been able to DM for the longest time due to the pandemic but I've been thinking about having victory states at 0 HP that don't involve "the monster dies" so boss fights can still have a satisfying narrative conclusion. E.g. If you reduce the boss to 0 hit points, it loses any remaining uses of Legendary Resistance, and all further saving throws are made with disadvantage. That would let the players still make use of their best spells to end fights without ending them too quickly, while still leaving the door open for attrition (they forced so many saves that Legendary Resistance ran out.)
I mostly do bards, warlocks and monks; the class fantasies just appeal to me.
Warlocks mostly play similarly to half-casters. They might have access to higher level spells, but the short rest issue means I hoard spell slots for a dispel or counter or take True Sight. Meanwhile, fights fall back on Eldritch Blasts
Bards... Bards both suck against legendaries, and are awesome. Disadvantage on hypnotic pattern thanks to bardic instruments, +X to spell save DCs, and the bosses struggle to make the saves. With the right party you can burn through legendary saves and basically stunlock the boss. Alternatively, bards can focus on buffing the party. And that's pretty much it. No middle ground... But that's part of being a bard.
The save system definitely needs to be worked on. It's a mess. And more options beyond SoD stuff. But it remains to be seen if it's part of the crit stuff
As a high level spellcaster player if you offered me to give up crits for some boon I'd pretty much always say yes. Crits don't help that much in the long run, I'd be a fool to turn the offer down.
As a DM I think Legendary Resistance is non-negotiable to prevent players from insta-winning boss fights with coordinated save-or-suck spells. At the same time I do see how much of a feel bad mechanic it is to be on the receiving end of. I haven't been able to DM for the longest time due to the pandemic but I've been thinking about having victory states at 0 HP that don't involve "the monster dies" so boss fights can still have a satisfying narrative conclusion. E.g. If you reduce the boss to 0 hit points, it loses any remaining uses of Legendary Resistance, and all further saving throws are made with disadvantage. That would let the players still make use of their best spells to end fights without ending them too quickly, while still leaving the door open for attrition (they forced so many saves that Legendary Resistance ran out.)
I agree that legendary resistance is a necessity.
I don't care for the fact that every single god damned enemy-affecting spell in R5e above second level is a pugmothering one-and-done saving throw.
Give me some spell attacks. Give me some area denial, stuff that persists and deals damage over time. Give me ongoing spells that let me try again every round. Give me ways to use my higher-level spell slots on things other than 'The Battlefield' to help my team. Wall of Force-ing stuff is all well and good, but occasionally I'd like to actually contribute to defeating my enemies too, ne?
You said the number changed to 7% when you take into account misses, which is still not 5%, which you kept on insisting on. Last time I checked 7% and 5% aren't the same.
Honestly my dude I'm getting tired of being strawmanned and arguing in circles with you.
It's not arguing in circles, it's you changing what you're claiming to not admit you were just straight up wrong about the 5%, you didn't even claim anything "absolute" early on, you claimed OVERALL.
No, they don't. I will die on this hill. There's no difference between the Fighter spreading out his crits over a bunch of attacks and the Rogue getting his crits on one big attack. It's a ~5% bump in overall damage either way, and any encounter that's broken by one of these crits would've ended next round, or maybe even later this round.
Read that, go back, you said OVERALL.
But then you changed that again
If 5% of the time you do double damage, that's the same as doing 5% more damage on average.
I then pointed out that this would only be true if a) it was actually double damage and b) you couldn't miss. But you can miss, so if you were going by criticals then you'd be closer to 8.3%. Since with an average chance of 60% chance to normal hit and 5% chance to critical, you get an easy ratio of 12:1. 1 is 8.3% of 12.
But you then went on to claim
The increase relative to no crits is 7.69% by my math (0.7/0.65), but the absolute increase is always 5% of your normal damage.
To which again, I showed using more common numbers, a critical hit from the paladin in the example I used, was 13.1% of the incoming damage, of which was a 5.9% increase. I get where your 7.69% comes from, it is 1/13, which is the correct number... for just the dice, alone tho. Still I'll admit my earlier 8.3% was slightly too high, oh well.
But then you had the audacity to claim
I'm not wrong, you're just not reading my posts carefully.
I've literally picked your posts to part, what part of that do you think I wasn't carefully reading them to make sure I wasn't making a mistake. So I asked you to clarify and you came back with this formula....
d*h + 0.05d + b (d = damage dice, h = chance to hit, b = fixed numerical bonuses.) The 0.05d
And used the example of
If you're a wizard casting 2d20 (avg = 11) Fire Bolts and you hit 70% of the time your average damage is 0.7*11 + 0.05*11 = 8.25. Take away crits and it becomes 7.7
I decided to be kind and not ripe this apart, but since you're gunna claim I strawmanned you, when in fact you just continuously moved goal posts, I don't feel that kind anymore.
A wizard casting 2d10 fire bolts ( assuming 2d20 was a typo) would indeed do 11 damage average a hit. and you're right here too 0.7*11 + 0.05*11 = 8.25.
Here's problem number 1, how much more damage is that actually? it's 7.14%. So this is what you refer to as "relative". But this number is MORE important than what you're referring to as absolute (as per problems 2 & 3).
Here's problem number 2, this only works if there is no static component to the damage, an evocation wizard would instead do firebolts of 2d10+INT, for the vast majority of weapon attacks there is a +MOD. I have figured out what you mean now by this formula that you meant that the increase of damage from the damage dice of a critical is 5% (it's really NOT clear that this is what you meant, only this formula shows it/clarifies it)
then problem number 3, this 5% on this formula is based on chance to critical, so this isn't an absolute 5%, if you have advantage on an attack, it's 9.75%, if you critical on a 19 it's 10%; or if you both critical on a 19 and have advantage it's a 19%! I actually already noted this several times, but it seems you either ignored it or don't comprehend it, your "absolute 5%" isn't absolute.
Here is problem number 4, I called out what you're actually using as your "absolute" 5% back on page 2
I can only imagine it comes from critical hits being a 5% chance on a normal D20 roll but even that is flawed, some classes might perform actions or spells that give you advantage which would increase that up to a 9.75% to critical during those situations.
I don't mind sharing opinions or having debates with people, Heck I don't mind admitting and apologizing for when I am wrong, but when you do what you do, and claim somebody is straw manning you and using circular logic when it was in fact you shifting goal posts and being generally dishonest, that is low.
Resistance, weren't you in the camp with everyone else insisting that everything be able to crit for 15x normal damage? I'll admit, I'm not even sure what all the janky math is driving at anymore. What's the actual argument being made here?
Resistance, weren't you in the camp with everyone else insisting that everything be able to crit for 15x normal damage? I'll admit, I'm not even sure what all the janky math is driving at anymore. What's the actual argument being made here?
I am not in the camp for everything to be able to do 15x normal damage, no.
Basically I said that big critical from classes like Paladin and Rogue is the main cause for the changes in critical hits since they do too much damage. InquisitiveCoder said this was wrong because there is no difference in a fighter and rogue doing a critical hit, they are both 5% overall damage increase. I then challenged this 5% assertion, saying the issue is that InquisitiveCoder is looking at this by DPR while my point is that it's a very strong spike of damage in 1 go. Obviously Rogue doesn't do the greatest damage but when they do crit, they crit hard, more so early on.
InquisitiveCoder insists the issue is Divine Smite being too powerful in general, I say it's the ability to Divine Smite on a critical that is the real issue, Divine Smite on a normal attack actually isn't so far out there, heck until level 9, a battlemaster fighter basically out-does a paladin on damage because the spell slots do not last long enough and don't refresh on a short rest.
anyways... to not drag on and on, it all spirals from here. until we end out at this argument over how much damage critical hits actually do, and a disagreement over the viability of crit fishing as a Paladin, to which I am saying crit fishing as a Paladin is extremely viable in 5E. Divine Smite needed a nerf in regards to critical hits for sure, tho I do think the playtest went too far in basically removing it entirely.
Honestly as far as martials go, I think Paladin is neither in a need of a buff or nerf, it's around the right spot and the rest of the martials need buffing up to it. While Paladin can spike the highest single target damage from levels... 9~15, even Paladin is under powered compared to most casters.
Resistance, weren't you in the camp with everyone else insisting that everything be able to crit for 15x normal damage? I'll admit, I'm not even sure what all the janky math is driving at anymore. What's the actual argument being made here?
1.) I am not in the camp for everything to be able to do 15x normal damage, no.
2.) Basically I said that big critical from classes like Paladin and Rogue is the main cause for the changes in critical hits since they do too much damage. InquisitiveCoder said this was wrong because there is no difference in a fighter and rogue doing a critical hit, they are both 5% overall damage increase. I then challenged this 5% assertion, saying the issue is that InquisitiveCoder is looking at this by DPR while my point is that it's a very strong spike of damage in 1 go. Obviously Rogue doesn't do the greatest damage but when they do crit, they crit hard, more so early on.
3.) InquisitiveCoder insists the issue is Divine Smite being too powerful in general, I say it's the ability to Divine Smite on a critical that is the real issue, Divine Smite on a normal attack actually isn't so far out there, heck until level 9, a battlemaster fighter basically out-does a paladin on damage because the spell slots do not last long enough and don't refresh on a short rest.
4.) anyways... to not drag on and on, it all spirals from here. until we end out at this argument over how much damage critical hits actually do, and a disagreement over the viability of crit fishing as a Paladin, to which I am saying crit fishing as a Paladin is extremely viable in 5E. Divine Smite needed a nerf in regards to critical hits for sure, tho I do think the playtest went too far in basically removing it entirely.
1.) That's a f@#$in' change. Everybody's so freaking desperate to allow every basic-ass Tier 1 nobody nuisance-encounter badger to deal triple-digit damage on a nat 20, it makes me wonder what the hell people have even been playing for nine years.
2.) A three-page math off isn't really the answer. Yes, there's variability on crits, but Coder's point isn't that variability doesn't exist. His point is that he thinks crits don't matter enough to muck with. I disagree, especially since mucking with crits is apparently now a prerequisite to getting better monster design, but the exact math has never really mattered.
3.) Divine Smite is too powerful. IC's correct - the ability to vomit up resources and turn them into damage at a rate beyond anything else in the game means Divine Smite is the best burst damage ability in R5e. A spellcaster can sling one leveled spell per turn, and in most cases that's it. If they're good they get a cantrip too, and if they're excellent and usually more than a little lucky, they might get a reaction. A paladin gets the full benefit of an Attack action as well as the ability to gain the effect of an entire damaging spellcast on every single attack they get; a level 5+ Polearm Master dingdong can Smite four times a turn, mostly reliably, gaining the benefit of making four attacks as well as casting four separate damaging spells. Nothing else in the game can remotely keep up, and while the paladin will run out of ammo in a screaming hurry if it keeps doing that? It doesn't have to smite on every blow. it can be conservative if the situation warrants, but no other class can decide "Nope, this is an emergency" and cast four spells a turn to try and get on top of the emergency.
4.) Dingdongs reserving their ammo for crits is one of the few ways in which the "5%" thing breaks, yes. Dingdongs can unfairly amplify crits and decide to expend extra resources retroactively, which no other class save Fattlemaster gets to do. And hey, guess what - Fattlemaster is almost universally held to be head and shoulders better than any other fighter subclass, in no small part because their maneuver dice work like Smites and get to be used retroactively. If the dingdong's Divine Smite read "as a bonus action, you can imbue your blade with holy might, expending a spell slot to deal extra radiant damage on your next successful melee attack", then it'd adhere to the same 5% breakdown. Or, better yet, if Divine Smite was a maneuver exclusive to paladins that they could use from their maneuver pool because all martials get access to the Superiority system and many of their signature moves are rolled into it, then things would be better. Which would be on the table as a super awesome cool thing we could maybe hope for, if people don't freaking throw away the new crit rules so that Maneuvers don't needlessly 15x their damage every time anyone at the table rolls a 20.
1.) That's a f@#$in' change. Everybody's so freaking desperate to allow every basic-ass Tier 1 nobody nuisance-encounter badger to deal triple-digit damage on a nat 20, it makes me wonder what the hell people have even been playing for nine years.
2.) A three-page math off isn't really the answer. Yes, there's variability on crits, but Coder's point isn't that variability doesn't exist. His point is that he thinks crits don't matter enough to muck with. I disagree, especially since mucking with crits is apparently now a prerequisite to getting better monster design, but the exact math has never really mattered.
3.) Divine Smite is too powerful. IC's correct - the ability to vomit up resources and turn them into damage at a rate beyond anything else in the game means Divine Smite is the best burst damage ability in R5e. A spellcaster can sling one leveled spell per turn, and in most cases that's it. If they're good they get a cantrip too, and if they're excellent and usually more than a little lucky, they might get a reaction. A paladin gets the full benefit of an Attack action as well as the ability to gain the effect of an entire damaging spellcast on every single attack they get; a level 5+ Polearm Master dingdong can Smite four times a turn, mostly reliably, gaining the benefit of making four attacks as well as casting four separate damaging spells. Nothing else in the game can remotely keep up, and while the paladin will run out of ammo in a screaming hurry if it keeps doing that? It doesn't have to smite on every blow. it can be conservative if the situation warrants, but no other class can decide "Nope, this is an emergency" and cast four spells a turn to try and get on top of the emergency.
4.) Dingdongs reserving their ammo for crits is one of the few ways in which the "5%" thing breaks, yes. Dingdongs can unfairly amplify crits and decide to expend extra resources retroactively, which no other class save Fattlemaster gets to do. And hey, guess what - Fattlemaster is almost universally held to be head and shoulders better than any other fighter subclass, in no small part because their maneuver dice work like Smites and get to be used retroactively. If the dingdong's Divine Smite read "as a bonus action, you can imbue your blade with holy might, expending a spell slot to deal extra radiant damage on your next successful melee attack", then it'd adhere to the same 5% breakdown. Or, better yet, if Divine Smite was a maneuver exclusive to paladins that they could use from their maneuver pool because all martials get access to the Superiority system and many of their signature moves are rolled into it, then things would be better. Which would be on the table as a super awesome cool thing we could maybe hope for, if people don't freaking throw away the new crit rules so that Maneuvers don't needlessly 15x their damage every time anyone at the table rolls a 20.
Since you bring these up, I'll state my exact positions.
1) Yes, I think crits got too wild with too many damage die. My opinion on where it should have gone is not as far as play test tho. I believe it should have been reduced to 1 die per damage source and that the extra die for weapons should automatically be max (so a D8 long sword just gets a +8, a D10 halberd a +10, etc). Rogue could then get a feat around 9~12 where they get crits on 19 and an extra weapon damage die on a critcal, not enough to buff rogue entirely, it needs more than that, just part of what I'd suggest for power being taken away from sneak attack by the crit nerf.
2) I agree I probably went way way too far on the Maths. I can't be bothered to argue about what IC intended, in truth only IC themself knows exactly what they intend. I feel they miscommunicated it poorly but that also is hypocritical of me to say that because I am also quiet poor at communicating things and have issues with grammar
3) Polearm master is a busted overpowered feat, like sharpshooter (and both of these synergize with another certain other feats far too well). I do not believe divine smite on normal damage is broken using a 1 handed weapon for two attacks around, yes two-weapon fighting also exists, I'm aware, maybe 3 is a bit overkill. At level 5 wizards and sorcerers get spells that do 8d6 damage, which can not miss, only be reduced by half on a save, they get to do that at range and it's AoE. Sorcerer's can use a resource to cast it as a bonus action and then cast a cantrip for 2d10 damage, which can critical as well, tho can also miss; sorcerer can do this twice at this level. Paladin's strength in damage is burst on a single target, but that is about it, until level 11, without smites, they'd basically be just weaker versions of fighter. Most of what Paladin does outside of making weapon attacks is basically resource based and those resources burn quickly.
4) Paladin already has spells that work like this already, altho their damage types and extra effects differ. The problem is they are all outclassed by Divine Smite for several reasons, they are mostly d6s, they all work off of next attack, which means you can miss both attacks but then past this they are concentration which means they don't stack with stronger spells like bless but also you can lose them completely if you get hit. Also their damage doesn't scale to spell level, with the exception of branding smite, which has the power of making invisible things... visible.
But the biggest part is the concentration, bless is a better concentration spell in the Paladin Arsenal, Elemental Weapon lasts like a full hour and adds +1 to attack on top of 1d4 to every attack, or crusader's mantle to add 1d4 to literally every weapon attack of every ally within 30 foot. and by 5th level, the top level of casting for Paladin you get Holy Weapon, which is a bonus action spell that outclasses all the smite spells easily, heck it even outclasses Divine Smite if you can keep it up a while and the potent ability to just random blind creatures that remain blinded until they eventually make a saving throw (cas ending concentration no longer matters)...
If the Smite spells got a buff, then removing divine smite might make sense. Moving them to D8s and scaling each to spell level as a minimum.
A fifth-level Fireball averages 28 damage, multiplied by however many targets it hits and presuming none of them save. Presuming the same roughly 65% "success" rate as a generic attack (which is NOT true, saves are far more likely to fail than attacks, but close enough for comparison), that's 18.2 damage per target. It cost the wizard a third-level spell slot, and the wizard can do nothing else of any consequence on that turn. Let's assume the wizard is relatively intelligent and saves a Fireball for at least three targets, so we'll call that 54.6 damage. Not too shabby.
Now. A fifth-level Dingdong using TWF with paired shortswords and going all out gets three attacks. Each primary attack is 1d6+3, average of 6.5 So 13 from those two. The offhand attack is an average of 1d6 (also +3 if the dingdong is using TWFS, but that's a bad fighting style so ignoring it for now), up to 16.5. The fifth-level dingdong can then dump two second-level and one first-level spell slots into those attacks for a total of 7d8 radiant damage, or 31.5 average damage. We're up to 48. Apply the same 65% penalty to that whole mess as the Fireball, and we get 31.2 damage down from the 48 total average damage delivered. That's a smidge over 57% of the damage of a wizard nailing three enemies with the most overtuned third-level damage spell in the game, and unlike the wizard, the dingdong has three separate chances to crit and add another ~8 to 11 average damage to the mix (accounting for the 65% penalty for accuracy). The dingdong needs only one of those to start rivaling the damage of a wizard blasting an entire group of baddies with a fireball, and it also gets to retroactively not burn spell slots on a miss. If the paladin gets to make a reaction attack that round, it gets to add another 1d6+3+2d8 to it, averaging another ten damage.
A paladin using Divine Smite can keep up more-or-less evenly with the damage of a wizard using a deliberately overtuned spell in that spell's best situation (striking many multiple targets simultaneously), and it does so with a chance for outlandish SuperMegaUltraCrits while wearing heavy armor with a d10 hit die and a slew of incredibly powerful class features. And unlike the wizard, the paladin doesn't need enemies to be dumb and cluster up to get Fireball'd. It can go Ginsu Mode on whatever happens to be convenient, and all the memes about paladins being bad at long range or having no control options are just that. A Strength-based paladin can chuck throwing weapons as well as a STR fighter or barbarian can and they can shove or knock prone as easily as any other Strong Guy character. On top of that, Command is a very potent controlling optioon, Compelled Duel ain't nothing and both Thunderous and Wrathful Smites have all the same potency of control effects as plenty of other first or second-level spells. Plus, higher-level dingdongs get Banishment, which is about as Controlling a control spell as one can really ask for.
Dingdongs do not need the help. They never have. They're head and shoulders the most powerful overall class in D&D, with full-progression casters only pretending to compare because high-level spells are bonkers. Up to a certain point, the dingdong doesn't care. Cast Greater Arcana all you like, dingdong will just walk up and cut you into brisquette while you're busy waggling your fingers all funky.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Please do not contact or message me.
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Exactly. It doesn't make sense for random flotsam no-name nothing monsters to get Recharge abilities.
It doesn't make sense for them to CRIT, either.
Flotsam no-name nothing monsters getting to deal more damage than the boss they're padding out with one in twenty completely random attacks sucks. Many players don't even bother rolling damage for flotsam - they use the flat damage listed on the block, and they have a very good reason for doing so. It's a valid way to play that forcing everything to constantly crit all the time runs completely counter to.
Flotsam needs to be in fights - single solo boss fights against one big critter in a bowl arena are the most boring possible D&D combats. But flotsam is still flotsam. It's not meant to take the boss's place, it's meant to keep the pressure on the players and force them to make decisions. And if there's no larger threat worthy of a Recharge ability - even just a generic one like Brutal Blow - because you're running a random nuisance encounter off the RETs for your adventure? Those things don't need to crit either. Those fights exist solely to sap the party's resources and remind them to stop being stupid in hostile territory. They're not meant to seriously threaten PCs, and they should only do so if the PCs are so wildly idiotic that the DM is using the encounter as a wakeup call and a "HEY STUPID" alarm.
The idea is that monsters which merit Recharge powers get them. If a stat block doesn't merit a Recharge? It doesn't merit being able to crit, either. One single CR 1/16 goblin shouldn't be able to TPK an entire party with one god damned "only 5%!" roll, and that's a hill I will die on.
Please do not contact or message me.
No? The purpose of a unique/recharge ability is to make the monster memorable. The kinds of monsters that don't get those abilities are by definition not as memorable. But they are there to pose a legitimate threat to the players and add a layer of complexity and variability to the fight. Critical hits help accomplish that goal with that without any additional burden to the monster designers or the DM. If the monsters are "flotsam" a critical's still not going to be as dangerous as the boss's abilities either.
If you're going to argue that those monsters exist purely to drain the party's resources and that there's no point in having random variance or uncertainty you might as well save everyone some time and skip the fight. "You encounter two skeletons. You make short work of them but lose 10 HP each in the process."
The Forum Infestation (TM)
So back on page 2 when I said, "Also your Maths is bad if you were working from it that way, since you forgot to account for misses."
Anyways, the decrease in misses can not over shadow the crit chance increase because there simply isn't the room to do that. If we were to go to your worst case of 50% chance to hit on a normal attack roll, going to a 75.1% chance to hit on advantage. You are going from a 45% chance to normal attack to a 65.35% chance to normal attack. That is an increase of normal attacks of around *1.42 (or 42% more often) compared to an increase in crits of around *1.95 (or 95% more often). So the % of damage coming from crits inevitably would only increase in this scenario.
Then why do monsters have flat damage written on their sheet? Why do they have flat HP values?
Yes, obviously flotsam monsters pose a threat to the players. If they didn't, they wouldn't be doing their job. But someone who says "the basic bandits deserve to crit but their thug boss shouldn't be able to unleash a Limit Break move!" has their priorities badly skewed.
Please do not contact or message me.
Again, I didn't forget to account for misses. It's a lot simpler to say there's an absolute difference of 5% than a relative difference of 5-200% depending on how unnrealistic you want the scenario to be.
That's a useless metric. Crits take up a larger portion of the total the worse you are at hitting. E.g. If you only hit on 20s, crits double your damage, but your average damage is still terrible. You want to optimize total damage, not fraction-of-damage-from-crits.
In absolute terms going from no advantage to advantage at 50% hit chance means going from (0.50 + 0.05)d to (0.75 + 0.0975)d. Increasing the part that makes up ~90% of your damage by 40-50% is a much larger contribution than nearly doubling the 5% to 9.75%.
This is actually a great question with a non-obvious answer. It's because rolling their HP doesn't meaningfully affect the bell curve of how long they live since everything that can reduce their HP is already random. Rolling for 5 monsters would be a lot of work for very little payoff.
If you removed attack rolls and damage rolls and crits and players always dealt their average damage, you'd need to randomize the monster HP to make their lifespan a bell curve again.
Yes, but that's not the argument I (or anyone else here I think?) is making. I'm pro-boss-monsters-having-unique-powers. I've said multiple times now crits don't interfere with that in any way; that's already how Legendary Monsters work in 5e.
The Forum Infestation (TM)
Okay, apparently I had a braindead moment. Dunno what I was thinking.
The character origins video disagrees. The devs flat out said they want recharge power to replace crits for DMs.
I mean, it's not like they can't be more than one thing, a crit and a memorial move all at once.
You said the number changed to 7% when you take into account misses, which is still not 5%, which you kept on insisting on. Last time I checked 7% and 5% aren't the same. There is nothing absolute about the 5% because misses are a thing.
Advantage BOTH increases your total damage AND the fraction of damage you get from crits, it's not like it's a choice in this optimization, you get both. Ultimate tho you are right, total damage is the goal, it's just that in some ways this can be achieved by increasing the fraction of damage coming from crits without necessarily sacrificing much, or any, damage on normal hits.
If you go with a build that has a 19% chance to crit on a hit (advantage+crit on 19+) and make 2 or 3 attacks a round, that can be a significant chance to crit, at 2 attacks it's a 34.39% chance to get at least 1 critical. At 3 attacks, it's a 46.86% chance to get at least 1 critical. And when you go for a build like this, what negatives do you actually incur? Most of the choices to get there involve other bonuses that just overall increase a Paladin's overall total damage anyway.
Ah, I hadn't seen that. But I'm fairly certain Crawford had commented that in past Sage Advice/Dragon Talk podcasts when talking about monster/encounter design. So you're right, it could be both.
Honestly my dude I'm getting tired of being strawmanned and arguing in circles with you.
The Forum Infestation (TM)
Here's a question for anyone who's played a high-level spellcaster: would you give up crits on cantrips and Scorching Ray in exchange for having options for spells above second level that you can cast on targets without them using one of their twenty-seven daily uses of Legendary Resistance or their six +15 saving throw scores to no-sell?
I have a level 16 wizard active in an ongoing active game. She has access to Disintegrate, but has cast it exactly once because it's a trap. All the deadly control spells people freak out about bounce off of anything worth casting them on because everything in R5e has enough Legendary Resistances to make your whole Spellcasting class feature mostly worthless. Most of my big fights are spent concentrating on Wall of Force, Telekinesis, Draconic Transformation, or my other limited options for spells that don't say "Oh, did the enemy make their save? WHELP! That's a spell slot and a combat turn you'll never see again. Better hope that semi-corporeal wall blob doesn't finish swallowing the paladin before your next turn byeeeee!"
I'd like to occasionally maybe be able to cast a damaging or enemy-affecting spell above second level that has a chance to succeed, please. If that requires me to give up crits? Fair deal.
Please do not contact or message me.
As a high level spellcaster player if you offered me to give up crits for some boon I'd pretty much always say yes. Crits don't help that much in the long run, I'd be a fool to turn the offer down.
As a DM I think Legendary Resistance is non-negotiable to prevent players from insta-winning boss fights with coordinated save-or-suck spells. At the same time I do see how much of a feel bad mechanic it is to be on the receiving end of. I haven't been able to DM for the longest time due to the pandemic but I've been thinking about having victory states at 0 HP that don't involve "the monster dies" so boss fights can still have a satisfying narrative conclusion. E.g. If you reduce the boss to 0 hit points, it loses any remaining uses of Legendary Resistance, and all further saving throws are made with disadvantage. That would let the players still make use of their best spells to end fights without ending them too quickly, while still leaving the door open for attrition (they forced so many saves that Legendary Resistance ran out.)
The Forum Infestation (TM)
I mostly do bards, warlocks and monks; the class fantasies just appeal to me.
Warlocks mostly play similarly to half-casters. They might have access to higher level spells, but the short rest issue means I hoard spell slots for a dispel or counter or take True Sight. Meanwhile, fights fall back on Eldritch Blasts
Bards... Bards both suck against legendaries, and are awesome. Disadvantage on hypnotic pattern thanks to bardic instruments, +X to spell save DCs, and the bosses struggle to make the saves. With the right party you can burn through legendary saves and basically stunlock the boss. Alternatively, bards can focus on buffing the party. And that's pretty much it. No middle ground... But that's part of being a bard.
The save system definitely needs to be worked on. It's a mess. And more options beyond SoD stuff. But it remains to be seen if it's part of the crit stuff
I agree that legendary resistance is a necessity.
I don't care for the fact that every single god damned enemy-affecting spell in R5e above second level is a pugmothering one-and-done saving throw.
Give me some spell attacks. Give me some area denial, stuff that persists and deals damage over time. Give me ongoing spells that let me try again every round. Give me ways to use my higher-level spell slots on things other than 'The Battlefield' to help my team. Wall of Force-ing stuff is all well and good, but occasionally I'd like to actually contribute to defeating my enemies too, ne?
Please do not contact or message me.
It's not arguing in circles, it's you changing what you're claiming to not admit you were just straight up wrong about the 5%, you didn't even claim anything "absolute" early on, you claimed OVERALL.
Read that, go back, you said OVERALL.
But then you changed that again
I then pointed out that this would only be true if a) it was actually double damage and b) you couldn't miss. But you can miss, so if you were going by criticals then you'd be closer to 8.3%. Since with an average chance of 60% chance to normal hit and 5% chance to critical, you get an easy ratio of 12:1. 1 is 8.3% of 12.
But you then went on to claim
To which again, I showed using more common numbers, a critical hit from the paladin in the example I used, was 13.1% of the incoming damage, of which was a 5.9% increase. I get where your 7.69% comes from, it is 1/13, which is the correct number... for just the dice, alone tho. Still I'll admit my earlier 8.3% was slightly too high, oh well.
But then you had the audacity to claim
I've literally picked your posts to part, what part of that do you think I wasn't carefully reading them to make sure I wasn't making a mistake. So I asked you to clarify and you came back with this formula....
And used the example of
I decided to be kind and not ripe this apart, but since you're gunna claim I strawmanned you, when in fact you just continuously moved goal posts, I don't feel that kind anymore.
A wizard casting 2d10 fire bolts ( assuming 2d20 was a typo) would indeed do 11 damage average a hit. and you're right here too 0.7*11 + 0.05*11 = 8.25.
Here's problem number 1, how much more damage is that actually? it's 7.14%. So this is what you refer to as "relative". But this number is MORE important than what you're referring to as absolute (as per problems 2 & 3).
Here's problem number 2, this only works if there is no static component to the damage, an evocation wizard would instead do firebolts of 2d10+INT, for the vast majority of weapon attacks there is a +MOD. I have figured out what you mean now by this formula that you meant that the increase of damage from the damage dice of a critical is 5% (it's really NOT clear that this is what you meant, only this formula shows it/clarifies it)
then problem number 3, this 5% on this formula is based on chance to critical, so this isn't an absolute 5%, if you have advantage on an attack, it's 9.75%, if you critical on a 19 it's 10%; or if you both critical on a 19 and have advantage it's a 19%! I actually already noted this several times, but it seems you either ignored it or don't comprehend it, your "absolute 5%" isn't absolute.
Here is problem number 4, I called out what you're actually using as your "absolute" 5% back on page 2
I don't mind sharing opinions or having debates with people, Heck I don't mind admitting and apologizing for when I am wrong, but when you do what you do, and claim somebody is straw manning you and using circular logic when it was in fact you shifting goal posts and being generally dishonest, that is low.
K.
The Forum Infestation (TM)
Resistance, weren't you in the camp with everyone else insisting that everything be able to crit for 15x normal damage? I'll admit, I'm not even sure what all the janky math is driving at anymore. What's the actual argument being made here?
Please do not contact or message me.
I am not in the camp for everything to be able to do 15x normal damage, no.
Basically I said that big critical from classes like Paladin and Rogue is the main cause for the changes in critical hits since they do too much damage. InquisitiveCoder said this was wrong because there is no difference in a fighter and rogue doing a critical hit, they are both 5% overall damage increase. I then challenged this 5% assertion, saying the issue is that InquisitiveCoder is looking at this by DPR while my point is that it's a very strong spike of damage in 1 go. Obviously Rogue doesn't do the greatest damage but when they do crit, they crit hard, more so early on.
InquisitiveCoder insists the issue is Divine Smite being too powerful in general, I say it's the ability to Divine Smite on a critical that is the real issue, Divine Smite on a normal attack actually isn't so far out there, heck until level 9, a battlemaster fighter basically out-does a paladin on damage because the spell slots do not last long enough and don't refresh on a short rest.
anyways... to not drag on and on, it all spirals from here. until we end out at this argument over how much damage critical hits actually do, and a disagreement over the viability of crit fishing as a Paladin, to which I am saying crit fishing as a Paladin is extremely viable in 5E. Divine Smite needed a nerf in regards to critical hits for sure, tho I do think the playtest went too far in basically removing it entirely.
Honestly as far as martials go, I think Paladin is neither in a need of a buff or nerf, it's around the right spot and the rest of the martials need buffing up to it. While Paladin can spike the highest single target damage from levels... 9~15, even Paladin is under powered compared to most casters.
1.) That's a f@#$in' change. Everybody's so freaking desperate to allow every basic-ass Tier 1 nobody nuisance-encounter badger to deal triple-digit damage on a nat 20, it makes me wonder what the hell people have even been playing for nine years.
2.) A three-page math off isn't really the answer. Yes, there's variability on crits, but Coder's point isn't that variability doesn't exist. His point is that he thinks crits don't matter enough to muck with. I disagree, especially since mucking with crits is apparently now a prerequisite to getting better monster design, but the exact math has never really mattered.
3.) Divine Smite is too powerful. IC's correct - the ability to vomit up resources and turn them into damage at a rate beyond anything else in the game means Divine Smite is the best burst damage ability in R5e. A spellcaster can sling one leveled spell per turn, and in most cases that's it. If they're good they get a cantrip too, and if they're excellent and usually more than a little lucky, they might get a reaction. A paladin gets the full benefit of an Attack action as well as the ability to gain the effect of an entire damaging spellcast on every single attack they get; a level 5+ Polearm Master dingdong can Smite four times a turn, mostly reliably, gaining the benefit of making four attacks as well as casting four separate damaging spells. Nothing else in the game can remotely keep up, and while the paladin will run out of ammo in a screaming hurry if it keeps doing that? It doesn't have to smite on every blow. it can be conservative if the situation warrants, but no other class can decide "Nope, this is an emergency" and cast four spells a turn to try and get on top of the emergency.
4.) Dingdongs reserving their ammo for crits is one of the few ways in which the "5%" thing breaks, yes. Dingdongs can unfairly amplify crits and decide to expend extra resources retroactively, which no other class save Fattlemaster gets to do. And hey, guess what - Fattlemaster is almost universally held to be head and shoulders better than any other fighter subclass, in no small part because their maneuver dice work like Smites and get to be used retroactively. If the dingdong's Divine Smite read "as a bonus action, you can imbue your blade with holy might, expending a spell slot to deal extra radiant damage on your next successful melee attack", then it'd adhere to the same 5% breakdown. Or, better yet, if Divine Smite was a maneuver exclusive to paladins that they could use from their maneuver pool because all martials get access to the Superiority system and many of their signature moves are rolled into it, then things would be better. Which would be on the table as a super awesome cool thing we could maybe hope for, if people don't freaking throw away the new crit rules so that Maneuvers don't needlessly 15x their damage every time anyone at the table rolls a 20.
Please do not contact or message me.
Since you bring these up, I'll state my exact positions.
1) Yes, I think crits got too wild with too many damage die. My opinion on where it should have gone is not as far as play test tho. I believe it should have been reduced to 1 die per damage source and that the extra die for weapons should automatically be max (so a D8 long sword just gets a +8, a D10 halberd a +10, etc). Rogue could then get a feat around 9~12 where they get crits on 19 and an extra weapon damage die on a critcal, not enough to buff rogue entirely, it needs more than that, just part of what I'd suggest for power being taken away from sneak attack by the crit nerf.
2) I agree I probably went way way too far on the Maths. I can't be bothered to argue about what IC intended, in truth only IC themself knows exactly what they intend. I feel they miscommunicated it poorly but that also is hypocritical of me to say that because I am also quiet poor at communicating things and have issues with grammar
3) Polearm master is a busted overpowered feat, like sharpshooter (and both of these synergize with another certain other feats far too well). I do not believe divine smite on normal damage is broken using a 1 handed weapon for two attacks around, yes two-weapon fighting also exists, I'm aware, maybe 3 is a bit overkill. At level 5 wizards and sorcerers get spells that do 8d6 damage, which can not miss, only be reduced by half on a save, they get to do that at range and it's AoE. Sorcerer's can use a resource to cast it as a bonus action and then cast a cantrip for 2d10 damage, which can critical as well, tho can also miss; sorcerer can do this twice at this level. Paladin's strength in damage is burst on a single target, but that is about it, until level 11, without smites, they'd basically be just weaker versions of fighter. Most of what Paladin does outside of making weapon attacks is basically resource based and those resources burn quickly.
4) Paladin already has spells that work like this already, altho their damage types and extra effects differ. The problem is they are all outclassed by Divine Smite for several reasons, they are mostly d6s, they all work off of next attack, which means you can miss both attacks but then past this they are concentration which means they don't stack with stronger spells like bless but also you can lose them completely if you get hit. Also their damage doesn't scale to spell level, with the exception of branding smite, which has the power of making invisible things... visible.
But the biggest part is the concentration, bless is a better concentration spell in the Paladin Arsenal, Elemental Weapon lasts like a full hour and adds +1 to attack on top of 1d4 to every attack, or crusader's mantle to add 1d4 to literally every weapon attack of every ally within 30 foot. and by 5th level, the top level of casting for Paladin you get Holy Weapon, which is a bonus action spell that outclasses all the smite spells easily, heck it even outclasses Divine Smite if you can keep it up a while and the potent ability to just random blind creatures that remain blinded until they eventually make a saving throw (cas ending concentration no longer matters)...
If the Smite spells got a buff, then removing divine smite might make sense. Moving them to D8s and scaling each to spell level as a minimum.
Let's do just a little bit of quick math here.
A fifth-level Fireball averages 28 damage, multiplied by however many targets it hits and presuming none of them save. Presuming the same roughly 65% "success" rate as a generic attack (which is NOT true, saves are far more likely to fail than attacks, but close enough for comparison), that's 18.2 damage per target. It cost the wizard a third-level spell slot, and the wizard can do nothing else of any consequence on that turn. Let's assume the wizard is relatively intelligent and saves a Fireball for at least three targets, so we'll call that 54.6 damage. Not too shabby.
Now. A fifth-level Dingdong using TWF with paired shortswords and going all out gets three attacks. Each primary attack is 1d6+3, average of 6.5 So 13 from those two. The offhand attack is an average of 1d6 (also +3 if the dingdong is using TWFS, but that's a bad fighting style so ignoring it for now), up to 16.5. The fifth-level dingdong can then dump two second-level and one first-level spell slots into those attacks for a total of 7d8 radiant damage, or 31.5 average damage. We're up to 48. Apply the same 65% penalty to that whole mess as the Fireball, and we get 31.2 damage down from the 48 total average damage delivered. That's a smidge over 57% of the damage of a wizard nailing three enemies with the most overtuned third-level damage spell in the game, and unlike the wizard, the dingdong has three separate chances to crit and add another ~8 to 11 average damage to the mix (accounting for the 65% penalty for accuracy). The dingdong needs only one of those to start rivaling the damage of a wizard blasting an entire group of baddies with a fireball, and it also gets to retroactively not burn spell slots on a miss. If the paladin gets to make a reaction attack that round, it gets to add another 1d6+3+2d8 to it, averaging another ten damage.
A paladin using Divine Smite can keep up more-or-less evenly with the damage of a wizard using a deliberately overtuned spell in that spell's best situation (striking many multiple targets simultaneously), and it does so with a chance for outlandish SuperMegaUltraCrits while wearing heavy armor with a d10 hit die and a slew of incredibly powerful class features. And unlike the wizard, the paladin doesn't need enemies to be dumb and cluster up to get Fireball'd. It can go Ginsu Mode on whatever happens to be convenient, and all the memes about paladins being bad at long range or having no control options are just that. A Strength-based paladin can chuck throwing weapons as well as a STR fighter or barbarian can and they can shove or knock prone as easily as any other Strong Guy character. On top of that, Command is a very potent controlling optioon, Compelled Duel ain't nothing and both Thunderous and Wrathful Smites have all the same potency of control effects as plenty of other first or second-level spells. Plus, higher-level dingdongs get Banishment, which is about as Controlling a control spell as one can really ask for.
Dingdongs do not need the help. They never have. They're head and shoulders the most powerful overall class in D&D, with full-progression casters only pretending to compare because high-level spells are bonkers. Up to a certain point, the dingdong doesn't care. Cast Greater Arcana all you like, dingdong will just walk up and cut you into brisquette while you're busy waggling your fingers all funky.
Please do not contact or message me.