Hate to share from the site we definitely don’t think about anymore, but I think this is too interesting to miss. If true, it’s a big insight into the design of the game. All credit to that OP of course.
Summary is that WotC’s balancing decisions seem to make sense if they balance the classes like they balance monsters, using max damage output over a three-round fight. Basically they overvalue that, especially for certain nova classes (the OP suggests those classes are Fighter/Wizard/Sorcerer) and undervalue utility.
TLDR. WoTC seems to value Single Target Guaranteed DPR in a Nova over 3 rounds, and balances the game around that not too dissimilar to how they calculate the power of CR. And that seems to reflect every design decision and choice they have made when viewed this way, and what they gauge class power around. The core resource management of the game is about novaing now or later, and how can classes recover their novas.
Based on the way they’ve reigned in nova damage with 1D&D but have left utility spells basically untouched, I think the theory has merit.
You could have actually shared this instead of just posting a link with a clickbait.
For real. It’s a nsfw post, too. So I can’t see it without having the app, which obviously there’s a lot of people that don’t wanna do that.
Sorry, totally forgot about the NSFW thing. I suppose I could just copy-paste the whole post onto here, but I didn’t want to look like I was just stealing the Reddit OP’s post either. I know there’s been discussion about the ethics of just grabbing posts from Reddit.
No worries. I see your concern. In a lot of communities, it’s normal to summarize what you’re linking to, and emphasize what specifically you think is interesting for discussion. That way your not stealing content and you’re jump starting the conversation you want to happen. I wish I could give an example here, but I don’t have reddit downloaded so I have no idea what the link is about lol
The CR calculation in the DMG specifies that you totalize damage over 3 rounds and then average it. You are suppose to use the largest damage dealer for and any recharge ability in this. So this makes sense for player abilities.
From my play experience this is a valid assumption. I rarely have monsters live more than 3 rounds unless we’re specifically doing a large combat with multiple waves of enemies
It’s a valid assumption as far as combat goes, more or less, sure. But of course the game is about much more than just killing enemies. 5E Druid and Cleric are ridiculously good classes, but they look “fine” because they’re not the top damage dealers, so WotC thinks they need to be compensated.
I think even if the OP isn’t quite right in their guess here, it’s still pretty apparent that WotC doesn’t try very hard to balance the utility power between classes. Compare, like, Bard vs Monk or something.
The deficiency is in the monster building rules in the DMG. They haven’t been updated in almost ten years and it shows. For example, like you say, Druids and Clerics are ridiculously good classes, but they look “fine” because they’re not top damage dealers.
Those rules haven’t been updated for us since 2014. Meanwhile, WotC devs say that they’ve been regularly updating the tools they use to create new monsters and now, for example, take crowd control effects into account by translating the value of a CC into “effective damage” under the theory that “1 damage out” is roughly the equivalent to “1 damage in”.
…we didn’t get any of those improvements over the last 10 years. We’re still using rules set down in 2014 to make monsters.
For sure. Utility, out of combat and exploration aren’t numerical determined or balanced. It’s all combat comparisons
Which is an insane way to balance the game, right? And I could understand in 2014, but it seems like they’re sticking with it in 2023. They nerfed stuff like GWM/SS but I don’t think any utility spells really got touched.
This is exactly what they do, and what they did also for 5e.
The thing people are not understanding regarding utility is that players are better to argue about it with spells than they are about normal things. The second problem is the vision people can have about the game: for some people, a class has to have special things it can do in every area of the game. I call this a video game mindset. The actual mindset of the game is that a class simply defines abilities and it’s up to players to leverage their abilities.
The fantasy is different between these considerations : many people want martials to be anime characters. The game original fantasy is more about how a Odysseus will fight a sorceress or a giant with his wits and martial prowess. The game suppose that a martial will go on a quest to get a mighty artifact or seek the help of an archmage to do what he can’t. Players argue that a wizard pc can simply do these things by itself, without asking the dm, but it’s wrong. It’s just a culture that players built on Internet to weaponize the rules to do what they want. And in this game, the more special rules you have, the more you can leverage them against the dm.
I digress a bit. In short there is a divergent view about the rules, the dm role, the fantasy, and the kind of rpg people want to play. Utility can’t really be balanced anyway.
I’m not sure I concur here.
Perfect balance is impossible, but that doesn’t mean they shouldn’t try to make classes feel at least roughly equal with no obvious winners and losers. What’s the benefit of having a class that people agree on is bad? For a long time that was Ranger, and it was clear that they didn’t want Rangers to be bad because they tried to fix the Ranger in UA like four times before Tasha’s finally did a solid job with it. And most of the Ranger fixes aren’t straight combat buffs either, so they definitely do care about out of combat ability to some extent.
It’s not “anime” to give martials more power or more things to do. You say it’s wrong that a caster can do stuff without asking the DM that a martial has to rely on DM fiat for… but how so? That sounds completely accurate to me.
People usually forgo their own creativity and the mundane ways to do things. If you want to open a door, the lock spell can open it, but a portable ram also, or some tools to weaken it, and if you have a proficiency with the tools, even better.
Usually it’s technology that’s more or less easy to get depending on its low or high tech nature and the place you are in. Explosives, or grenades and poisons of all sorts. Mundane work will do almost all the things magic can do. You can built a fort for the night with enough manpower. You usually don’t need to fly when you have ropes and nails. That sort of stuff. Traps can also be very elaborate. You can also hire people for some jobs.
But for some people, their class should have a unique thing it can do, and what they do should be written on their character sheet. This is what I call a video game mindset. To me this is a video game or board game mindset. It’s a fine way to play, but 5e is not the best for that. 3e and 4e for example were closer from this mindset as far as I know.
I think you’re misrepresenting the position a bit. No amount of creativity can make up the gap in utility power between high-level — or even mid-level — spells and the abilities that martials get. It’s not a video game mindset to ask for more things to do that are clearly defined, like casters already have.
