this post was submitted on 04 Jul 2023
12 points (83.3% liked)

D&D Next - 5e Discussion

412 readers
1 users here now

A place to discuss the latest version of Dungeons & Dragons, the fifth edition, known during the playtest as D&D Next.

Join our discord! https://discord.gg/dndnext

-- Rules --

  1. Be Civil. Unacceptable behavior includes name calling, taunting, baiting, flaming, etc. Please respect the opinions of people who play differently than you do.
  2. Use Clear, Concise Titles.
  3. Limit Self-Promotional Links. External links to blogs, kickstarters, storefronts, YouTube channels, etc, must be related to DnD and posted no more than once every 14 days. Affiliate links are never allowed.

This is a new community and the rules are in flux. Please bear with us (and give your feedback!) as we navigate building this new community. Thank you!

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 

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 are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] jake_eric 1 points 1 year ago

That's fair. I didn't have much to add to it, otherwise I'd try to say a little more to start off the discussion. I totally should have put at least the title down though, that's my bad. I'll edit in a bit more information.