Monstrous Compendium Vol. 1: Spelljammer Creatures
Frozen Sick
D&D Beyond Basic Rules
Basic Rules (2014)
Sign in to view your library & saved favorites.
Sign in- Marketplace
Monstrous Compendium Vol. 1: Spelljammer CreaturesFrozen SickD&D Beyond Basic RulesBasic Rules (2014)Sign in to view your library & saved favorites.
Sign in
Those other 4 Subs could be Alchemist, Battle Smith, Artillerist and Armorer.
Just saying
If you look at what I said in the second paragraph beyond this, I highlight just how problematic this actually is, fighters have near nothing to contribute outside of combat. There is a Fundamental problem for example with Monk, who are mediocre at fighting, they might have some wisdom but are going to be more dex & con based and while having no charisma either. And how does it promote teamwork when every social encounter, every animal interaction, you need to sit back and just let the Charisma or Wisdom characters take care of it? Most of it can be done away by decent DMing, but that is reliant on the DM and different DMs are more capable than others for fixing a base issue with in how social encounters and other such encounters actually work. Fundamentally most systems outside of combat actually don't help to promote team work, and the only reason parties don't split up is encase they find a random encounters, which can effect some parties so badly they don't split up in towns for downtime.
Having time to shine is one thing, but that isn't really helped by the 5E mechanics, unless the character is generally Charisma or Wisdom based, and it's not even like there aren't some easy fixes to some of these. Performance should have been dexterity based, even if it involves music, playing music involves far more dexterity than charisma, intimidation should have been strength based but again is oddly charisma based. A barbarian can't intimidate a group of aggressive goblins to run away or give up, yet a bard can, it's really all over the place.
Another way it can be fixed is that if say a fighter is trying to convince a noble to give them access to a prisoner in the dungeon below the keep, a charisma character can give use the help action to not only grant access but also lends the fighter their higher skill for the skill check, that would be actual team work, instead that -1 to Charisma is never going to convince a noble but the Paladin with +4 in charisma and +3 proficiency bonus to persuasion might, more so if they additionally cast guidance for an extra 1d4.
Skill challenges in 4th edition were a valiant attempt at solving this though as actually played it tended towards "find an excuse to use my highest skill".
I've wondered if skills should have two stats at default that feed them, one physical, one mental. Have a general concept that str/chr, con/wis, dex/int match up with maybe a few exceptions here and there. It might not make a ton of sense in all cases but part if that is in how you write what a stat represents. They are already broad concepts because in reality someone with fast hands can have crap balance, so expanding the idea beyond where they are isn't absurd.
Regarding skill use, what I would love to see is skills separated from ability scores.
The most well known is likely the Athletics/Acrobatics issue. I have had so many new players get these confused, and with good reason. A single Athletics skill should be enough, and the stat you use depends on what you are trying to do. From jumping across a chasm (strength), crossing a narrow beam (dexterity), swim a very long distance (constitution), and even find good handholds to help your friends climb up a cliff (intelligence).
And as R3sistance pointed out, there are issues with many other skills as well. Bending a steel bar while looking menacing could easily be a Strength (Intimidation) check, while the classic "This is a nice dungeon you got here, it would be a shame it something were to happen to it." would be Charisma.
A potential argument against this is that players would try to always use their best ability. However, given the goal of getting all characters more involved in different situations, this is a benefit. In addition, nothing will always be applicable to every situation.
Even the it would be a shame if something happened to your shop I can still see as strength for intimidate, as whether it believable or not is in some way based on what you are capable of. Bigger people intimidate many of those around them by merely existing.
The reason I am not a fan of the any stat can do it method is it is too reliant on a good DM. Hard code it but give exception room for a DM, but make the hard coded have built in 2 stat options.
Not directly related but I want them to go back to the 3 save system with 2 a option of one of two stats there as well. The more saves you can target the better spell casters are.
I really disagree with the strength (Intimidation). I think intimidating someone while bending a steel bar is all about the looking menacing part, which is charisma and I think there are many huge buffoons that don't intimidate anyone and would have a hard time if they tried. Brian Baumgartner (Kevin from office space) or Al Roker in his early days were both big guys, but I don't see them intimidating anyone.
I do agree on some others (like athletics), but it is hard for me to see using another skill on intimidate or most of the charisma skills for that matter.
The “charisma problem” is both a player problem and a DM problem ( that I am guilty of as well). Players hold back allowing the highest charisma character to make rolls and the DM allows it. Think about a real version of the same types of encounter. In the real world in a short “meet and greet” that exact thing is what would occur with little real discussion and some platitudes from both sides. Later at a larger event the high charisma might well have a chance to talk to the king more in private but all team members would be interacting with courtiers and able to make their varied attempts to promote the party’s agenda making their own charisma checks. The problem is we ( as DMs) typically do only the first and not the second. Often we do the same type of thing with nature/camping checks and other checks to speed up the game and “keep the story flowing” the problem is compounded by the fact that we don’t always have the most charismatic/ nature experienced/etc player doing the one and done so it’s more difficult. It is further compounded by the fact that we as a DM may not be that good with the skills or background knowledge to make decisions about how to run things.
Wisea$$ DM and Player since 1979.
Even the mental stats seem to compete with each other for certain skill sets.
Perception is the most infamous one because it tends to intrude into things you could use Investigation for, which (in many cases) makes Investigation a weaker skill, Perception (already considered one of the strongest skills in the game) an even stronger skill, and by extension Intelligence weaker as an ability score and Wisdom stronger.
Also Medicine should be a combination of Intelligence and Wisdom, since you need both medical know-how (knowledge of illnesses, anatomy, physiology, medicinal herbs, etc) and experience to be a medical specialist. Also if you want to use the skill to diagnose a disease or poison, that can be Wisdom given your intuition based on years of experience, but it also can be straight Intelligence because you know exactly what symptoms to look for.
And then there's Religion, and how that is worse with divine casters than it is with Wizards who choose to gain proficiency in the skill, because it's an Intelligence-based skill.
Thank you for laying out the numbers as you see them, although you understandably have not provided much information on how you got them.
However, I think you might have sold the PAM+GWM build short. The best builds I have seen would include at least a two level dip in Barbarian for constant advantage and a little extra damage on each hit while raging as well as Great Weapon Fighting (which you may have already factored in) and the Champion's extended crit range. Assuming a split like Fighter 6/Barbarian 2, that would have a significant effect on your numbers 8th level and above. Depending on whether you have already factored it in or not, Action Surge might also improve the numbers, but of course that would be affected by how often it can be used.
Also, while I may be guilty of moving the goalposts, if you are counting a reaction attack for the Rogue build, it would seem reasonable to count one for the PAM+GWM build as well.
I basically agree with you here, the are tons of optimizer channels and the DPRs for level 8/10/15 fighter would be considered really low, the level 5 maybe not as a lot of them may have a dip that puts off the 2nd attack until level 6 or 7. And they are not using rogue sneak attacks to get there, its usually PAM/GWM or SS/xbowxpert and that is for sustained damage builds. A lot of optimizer builds get around 100DPR end game. And just from experience a straight barbarian GWM without even PAM is doing more than those 5 and 8 numbers(though that generally means they have a 20 str by 8.)
Heck in optimizer land the only time I saw someone suggest hasting a rogue was a good idea was with a off the wall phantom build at level 9+ where they went elf for elven accuracy and used steady aim to get advantage every round while keeping movement with a ritual cast phantom steed. And that was because of a combination of the improved sneak attack from phantom, and the close to 95% accuracy from triple advantage. If it made rogues that amazing in DPR compared to other optimized builds I'd think haste would be a solid option,
But at the same time I'm not sure super optimized builds are not the best metric to judge balance on.
I like it’s there but a lot of those things don’t really happen during the action economy phase of the game, influence maybe does a bit more (I want to shout out to get the bad guys to surrender), but the way it is worded needs a lot of work, study, I can’t see when that would be a relevant “action” it tends to happen during the exploration aspects of the game. This then makes keen mind less impactful.
Search again, usually happens after the fight has occurred.
Optimizer land is very often filled with hidden assumptions that make their build look better than they really are. E.g. one if the most common is assuming an unrealistically low AC opponent. For instance One D&D's GWM is on par with current GWM if one doesn't have Adv and comparing to level scaled monster ACs.
But as for the posted numbers : they are all subclass-less for simplicity, they do not use Variant Human nor Racial Feats, nor account for critical hits, but they do include Action Surge and Fighting Styles. Almost no one plays with hyper optimized builds thus they are a poor measure of power in play, these represent the most obvious optimization that an experienced player is likely to take. I'd also point out that this argument is misleading as to the discussion of One D&D because the changes to GWM that are in parallel with the changes to rogue. The changes to GWM obliterate those supposedly 100 DPR PAM-GWM builds, hence even greater reason to block the 2 sneak atracks per round.
100% they do, many obscene builds you can find in forums on youtube often have hidden issues or ignore problems with viability past a single given thing. Often focusing on the highest possible DPR that could maybe be achieved if you can line up literally every little thing correctly. Saw one the other day of the new ranger using Hunter's Mark AND Hex, which is horrible given that you need a bonus action to move both of those to new targets, so it's only really viable in group vs 1 target fights lasting 3+ rounds.
The other angle on this is that the tendency towards punitive/boring failure pushes players towards letting the person with the best odds make the roll. If the DM makes failure interesting, a way to introduce twists or insert excitement rather than shutting the players down, then it becomes much easier for players to have their characters do things they aren't the best at. I've played games (in other systems) where a failed roll drew grins and chuckles from around the table, including from the person who rolled it, because we all knew it was going to be fun (for us, if not for the character). D&D doesn't really support that, though. It doesn't prevent it, necessarily, but it doesn't do anything to help it.
Sure but you aren't even using advantage which builds like GWM are built upon. The reason people are willing to take the -5 is because they can consistently create advantage on those builds with something as simple as a 2 level dip in barbarian to more obnoxious darkness builds. Heck the fighting style blind fighting with a fog cloud spell works as well.
I have literally never seen numbers that bad in any GWM build with or without PAM, either at the table or in optimizer builds. Some of their more obscene builds may rely on crazy assumptions but a lot of their more normal builds match in play experience.
And funnily enough pulling off two sneak attacks every round is probably harder to pull off in play than many if nor most of the more weird builds relying on hidden assumptions.
This IMO is the main issue, the DMG doesn't provide enough guidance to help DMs encourage PCs to use their different skills and expertise to complement each other. Whereas IMO the mechanics absolutely do support it. That the example of the party attending a party to pitch their idea to the king, there are many different skills that different characters could use to help with this:
History/Intelligence - recalling the names, ranks, appropriate etiquette and forms of address.
Insight/Wisdom - identifying those members of the court that have the king's ear or who are able to influence others around them, recognizing who seems the most sympathetic to the party's arguments.
Persuasion/Charisma - making the party's case.
Martial characters can always engage in games or sports to impress others - e.g. arm wrestling the king's bodyguard, or performing an archery stunt.
The "Influence" mechanics in One D&D are are step in the right direction, but I'd love to see more advice for non-combat encounters in the new DMG.
Here's an 'optimizer' build for rogue that gets WAY more than 100 DPR end game.
Level 20 build: Arcane Trickster, assuming our DM allows Shadowblade + Booming Blade as Crawford says he would, and that thanks to our Disengage BB bonus damage triggers every round. We also have Adv either from a familiar or from dimlight/darkness with our Shadowblade, and we're facing an AC 10 enemy. We have one level of Genie warlock or hexblade, and we're an elf. We have the following feats/ASIs: +2 Dex, Elven Accuracy, Fighting Initiate (Dueling), Sentinel, Mage Slayer, Lucky
Sneak Attack Dice: 20d6
Shadowblade: 3d8+5 + 2
BB Damage: 3d8+4d8
Genie Damage: +6
Chance to hit: 0.9998 without considering Lucky, so effectively 1, and 14 % chance to crit
Critical hit DMG (Main Attack) = 20d6+3d8+3d8 = 97
Critical hit DMG (reaction attack) = 20d6+3d8 = 83.5
We have 3 ways to get an attack as a reaction by ourselves - mage casts a spell, enemy attacks someone other than us, AoO - (so let's assume 50% chance of getting a reaction):
Main Action Attack = 3d8+5+2+6+20d6+3d8+4d8 (BB secondary) = 123.58+18 (BB secondary)= 141.58
Reaction attack = 102.19
Total DPR = 192.675
Now show me your optimizers PAM+GWM build that easily outshines this.
Sneak attack is 10d6, crawford allows it but the rule was clearly put in place just to stop that. And if you are going to cheese the arcane trickster at least use mirror image with sentinel as the other images would trigger the reaction attack.
And while you are being passive aggressive you can use that energy to google optimizers on youtube.
Illegal.
Fundamentally not how BB works, but you're allowed to assume a target that always moves, provided you're explicit about this assumption. The "standard" assumption that the person you're replying to would have assumed is that your target remains stationary unless forced to move.
AC 10 is not standard. You can assume anything you like, but the CR guidelines suggest AC 19, so that's the standard assumption for a level 20's target.
Illegal. Your Arcane Trickster 19/Warlock 1 has 10d6 Sneak Attack dice. Also worrying, because a Genielock and a Hexlock won't deal the same amount of damage.
I'm going to assume you assigned Elven Accuracy to Dex.
You can't add these directly, as only one of these can crit, but we'll deal with that later.
Ok, so we're assuming Genie. That's fine.
0.999875, actually, which would round to 0.9999 (the odds are so high because you assumed a bizarrely low AC). The chance to crit is 14.2625%, while I'm at it.
This doesn't make any sense, so I'll just do correct math later all in one go.
You said you were allowing reaction BB, but I'm glad to see you aren't, as it's illegal.
This is fine but non-standard. It does mean that we have no basis for giving you superior builds as you have not fully explained your math on how many OAs we should be able to assume we get.
Correct math is:
Crittable damage, action attack: 10d6 (sneak) + 3d8 (shadow blade) + 3d8 (booming blade) = 62
Non-crittable damage, action attack: 5 (dexterity) + 2 (dueling) + 6 (genie) = 13
Crittable damage, reaction attack: 10d6 (sneak) + 3d8 (shadow blade) = 48.5
Non-crittable damage, reaction attack: 5 (dexterity) + 2 (dueling) = 7
Total: 0.999875*(62+13+(48.5+7)/2)+0.14625*(62+48.5/2) = 115.0 (rounding to the nearest tenth of a damage point) = 115.04 (rounding to the nearest hundredth)
Beating 115 is absolutely trivial, but I'll need to know how to assume an OA coefficient in general in order to math out a competing build for you. The golden standard (which assumes no OAs) is Battle Master 11/Assassin 3/Ranger 3 with remaining levels depending on exact preferences and/or the nature of the white room in question, and the optimal race choices for it are generally considered to be half-elf or bugbear (in this case I would expect bugbear to win out, as you've chosen such a low target AC). If you're willing to assume darkness in melee as you seem to, this can be upgraded - the "standard" assumption is SS+CBE+Hand Crossbow, but if you're willing to shove the targets into melee in darkness, the same build can do PAM+GWM+Glaive for excellent effect.
I can do radically better with a level 17 Genie Warlock and prep time, but that's pretty unfair to practical analysis.
To demonstrate how trivial beating 115 is, a Human Battle Master (no multiclassing, just level 20) deals 199.78 damage to AC 10 with a hand crossbow on turn 1. Feats/ASIs are simply Dexterity 20, Sharpshooter, Crossbow Expert, and no fighting style upgrade, so damage would go up pretty substantially with PAM/GWM/Glaive (and GWF, but I'd need to math out both the PHB GWF and the SAC GWF in order to cover both possible DM decisions).